Homosexual Marriage Myths

The current push for same-sex marriage is relentless, with the militant homosexual activists making up for a lack of numbers with loudness of voice. And they are being given a dream run by the mainstream media. Papers like the Melbourne Age are pushing this agenda basically on a daily basis.

It is very difficult to get an alternative view on this topic in the MSM. And when it is allowed, it is mercilessly shot down. As just one example, a few days ago a major Melbourne radio station “interviewed” me on the topic. It wasn’t really an interview, but a pro-same-sex marriage rant.

Indeed, even before I was allowed to speak, the radio host went on a three-minute diatribe, seeking to portray anyone who dared to question the homosexual agenda as being irrational, ignorant and homophobic. And when I finally had a chance to make my case, I was basically shouted down by the irate host.

He made the foolish claim for example that just as people of different races could not marry in the past, so too homosexuals today are being “discriminated against”. I calmly pointed out that this was simply mixing apples and oranges, and that the one has absolutely nothing to do with the other. This simply got the host even more upset.

Given that he would not allow me to finish making my case on this particular point, let me do so here. The truth is, this whole comparison is simply fallacious. There is no comparison between racist laws and defending heterosexual marriage.

Even black activists have rejected such a disingenuous analogy. For example, Jesse Jackson told a group of Harvard Law School students in 2004 that “gays were never called three-fifths human in the Constitution, and they did not require the Voting Rights Act to have the right to vote.”

Apartheid and laws banning inter-racial marriage were about keeping races apart. Marriage is about bringing the sexes together. Heterosexual marriage has been around for millennia. Talk of same-sex marriage has been around for a few short decades. Marriage was thus not created to discriminate against anyone, as apartheid was.

Laws banning interracial marriages were unjust, and overturning them did not mean a redefinition of marriage but an affirmation of it. Men and women should be allowed to marry regardless of skin colour, as this does nothing to alter the one man, one woman aspect of marriage. Same-sex marriage however is completely different, and it is a redefinition of marriage.

As Greg Koukl notes, “Same-sex marriage and interracial marriage have nothing in common. There is no difference between a black and a white human being because skin color is morally trivial. There is an enormous difference, however, between a man and a woman. Ethnicity has no bearing on marriage. Sex is fundamental to marriage.”

Francis Beckwith makes clear these distinctions. He is worth quoting at length. He argues that anti-miscegenation laws “were attempts to eradicate the legal status of real marriages by injecting a condition – sameness of race – that had no precedent in common law. For in the common law, a necessary condition for a legitimate marriage was male-female complementarity, a condition on which race has no bearing.

“It is clear then that the miscegenation/same-sex analogy does not work. For if the purpose of anti-miscegenation laws was racial purity, such a purpose only makes sense if people of different races have the ability by nature to marry each other. And given the fact that such marriages were a common law liberty, the anti-miscegenation laws presuppose this truth. But opponents of same-sex marriage ground their viewpoint in precisely the opposite belief: people of the same gender do not have the ability by nature to marry each other since gender complementarity is a necessary condition for marriage. Supporters of anti-miscegenation laws believed in their cause precisely because they understood that when male and female are joined in matrimony they may beget racially-mixed progeny, and these children, along with their parents, will participate in civil society and influence its cultural trajectory.

“In other words, the fact that a man and a woman from different races were biologically and metaphysically capable of marrying each other, building families, and living among the general population is precisely why the race purists wanted to forbid such unions by the force of law. And because this view of marriage and its gender-complementary nature was firmly in place and the only understanding found in common law, the Supreme Court in Loving knew that racial identity was not relevant to what marriage requires of its two opposite-gender members. By injecting race into the equation, anti-miscegenation supporters were very much like contemporary same-sex marriage proponents, for in both cases they introduced a criterion other than male-female complementarity in order to promote the goals of a utopian social movement: race purity or sexual egalitarianism.”

Racial segregation is wrong, and is an example of unjust discrimination. But the colour of one’s skin is far different than sexual behaviour. Societies have good reasons not to embrace any and all types of sexual activity. While skin colour is a benign and unalterable condition, this is not true of various sexual behaviours. No black person can cease being black, but plenty of homosexuals have ceased being homosexual.

The truth is, a society can get along without same-sex sexual relationships if need be. But no society can get along without heterosexual marriage and family. As two family researchers put it, “There is no research saying biracial parents are developmentally harmful to children. But there are thousands of definitive studies showing motherless and fatherless families limit every important measure of children’s physical, psychological, emotional and intellectual development.”

Had my excessively intolerant and bigoted radio interviewer allowed me a few minutes to speak, the above material is the sort of stuff I would have made use of to respond to his specious analogy. But of course the MSM is seldom interested in fair debates. It seems far more interested in pushing radical agendas.

That is why – in part – this website exists.

[1008 words]

29 Replies to “Homosexual Marriage Myths”

  1. Hello Bill,
    In fact there are some who do speak out against same-sex marriage in the MSM. In today’s Sydney Sunday Telegraph Miranda Devine and Piers Akerman did just that in their columns. Go to http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/sunday-telegraph then click on “opinions”. Miranda’s comments are under “Let us not forget the entire point of what marriage is for.” Piers is under “A same-sex union is not a marriage.”
    God bless,
    Paul de la Garde, Sydney

  2. Thanks Paul de la Garde

    Yes I saw those two pieces and they are very good indeed. But sadly they would be the exception to the rule. I dare say for every piece like these, there would be a half dozen pushing the opposite case. Sure, things are a bit more balanced in the Murdoch press, which the Daily Telegraph belongs to. But taken as a whole, the MSM is quite one-sided on this debate, as with most other contentious social debates, pushing the secular left line time and time again.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  3. Its funny when “the tolerant” won’t tolerate anyone they consider intolerant.

    Christ separated love and morality. He loved the immoral completely, while decrying their sin. Our world, and even some Christians, struggle to do the same.

    Blessings
    Adam Elovalis

  4. The counter point of view gets plenty of airing in the main stream media, it really does depend on your point of view. Even when someone points out a couple of articles in favour of your viewpoint you minimise it.

    I’ve been following this debate since Howard changed the marriage act, and there’s plenty of discussion from both points of views.

    It’s a divisive subject and you’re prone to outlandish statements. Yesterday in Melbourne there were quite a number of people standing at the rally outside the state library. From all walks of life. Of all type of sexual orientation.

    The support for same sex marriage is wider than a few ‘militant homosexual activist’. I encourage you to continue to push your own agenda, it’s a good demonstration of how out of touch you are with the real world.

    I don’t accept your world view – I don’t deny you the right to hold it and welcome your point of view. We are all citizens of Australia, we deserve to be treated equally before the law, and if you can demonstrate that my life with my male partner is some how causing harm to you, or to the life and well being of anyone else, then let’s see it.

    Me being married or otherwise has no impact on you, or society generally. If I was able to marry my partner, then that would have no impact on you or any other christian. It’s not for you to tell me the value of my relationship or to stand in the way of my love for another man.

    Gregory Storer

  5. Thanks Gregory

    But of course we fully expect a homosexual activist and candidate for the Secular Party of Australia to say such things, don’t we?

    And I have dealt with your “discrimination” myth plenty of times on this site, and will continue to do so.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  6. Christopher Pearson has a decent piece on gay marriage too. He made the interesting point that the Greens may be backing gay marriage as a means to stem population growth;

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/gay-marriage-demands-should-be-left-on-shelf/story-e6frg6zo-1225956787304

    Our daughter is barely a year old and my wife and i can already see differences in the way we each relate to our daughter. I seem to be able to take more of a distant, reasoned approach on things where my wife is much better at the nurturing and caring. It is the most natural method of parenting and works the best.

    Damien Spillane

  7. Hi Bill,

    The Nielsen poll in the Herald today shows that 57% of the population support gay marriage so suggesting that there is only a small vocal minority is not being intellectually honest.

    Why not just let the “sinners” worry about themselves and conduct your own life according to your beliefs. The gay issue obviously wasn’t on the top of Jesus’ agenda, otherwise He would have mentioned it at least a couple of times. I daresay if gay marriage was legalised tomorrow, your life or ability to practise your religion would not be affected in any way whatsoever.

    I am sure you would win more people over to Jesus if you didn’t pursue this particular issue so vigorously.

    Also, in response to Damien Spillane, the idea that the Greens support gay marriage as a way to stem population growth is bizzarre and doesn’t make any sense (nor does that Australian article present any kind of coherent argument for this claim).

    Kind Regards,

    James Beattie

  8. Thanks James

    Welcome back. But as usual, you throw out a number of somewhat ludicrous claims and bluffs that must be challenged.

    As to polls, most of these are in fact commissioned and written by homosexual activists, so why are we surprised at the results? But if you want to put your faith in polls, then we can always offer counter-polling. For example, a Galaxy poll found that a whopping 86 per cent of Australians believe that children should be raised by their biological parents; something of course impossible in same-sex households. And make no mistake, the push for same-sex marriage also entails the push for homosexual adoption rights.

    And I also have to call your bluff re your second paragraph. Marriage is a public social institution, so when it is undermined, it affects every one of us. And we can turn your claim around. Your side says get the state out of my bedroom. But in its push for special rights and marriage, it is asking for just that: dragging the state into everyone’s life.

    And you atheists have a bad habit of showing your ignorance when you seek to wade into biblical discussions. Jesus of course affirmed the biblical pattern for human sexuality as being between a man and a woman in marriage. He spoke to this often. The entire Bible repeatedly says the same.

    And whenever special rights are granted to homosexuals, that takes away rights from the rest of the community. I have documented this many dozens of times on this website. So we must call your bluff here as well.

    And just what are you telling me James? If I never mention homosexuality again (and recall that our side did not start this fight, but your side – so when are you going to call off your attack dogs?) you will then abandon your foolish atheism and embrace the Christian faith? Somehow I just don’t think so James. You have come to this site time and time again offering one lame excuse and objection after another. I somehow don’t think bowing to your demands of censorship will impact you or other atheists one iota.

    And of course all you want me to do is to water down Jesus so that he becomes acceptable to you, and comes to you on your own terms, not his. Sure, you and your atheist buddies would love a Jesus who simply rubber stamps your beliefs and lifestyles and never challenges you. Sorry, but we have been there and done that. Indeed, this sort of rebellion is the common theme of human history, as rebellious mankind seeks to usurp the place of God. I am afraid it does not work that way. We either come to God on his terms, or not at all. He is the centre of the universe, not you, so he gets to call the shots.

    All you are doing is seeking to silence me and others you happen to disagree with. And this from the side that goes on and on about tolerance, acceptance, openness and rational debate. I love it how your side keeps putting their feet in their mouths!

    But assuming that behind this facade of rhetoric and rather senseless questioning lies perhaps some real honest searching, we will continue to give you a run here James. But be afraid, be very afraid: I and others are praying for you! One day you might just find that your list of baseless objections really do not stand up to the living God who created you and desires to have a love relationship with you.

    Till next time James.

    (BTW, I saw your brother briefly last week.)

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  9. Simply put, the GLBTI strategy is to shut down debate on the gay marriage issue and keep the public’s thinking on the matter as shallow as possible by labelling any questioning of their lifestyle the act of an heretic. Not much tolerance there. More like totalitarianism.

    May the Lord bless you and keep you, Bill.

    Anthony McGregor

  10. By emotionally resorting to such patently unsound arguments your radio host signalled that his position was a house of cards. These people typically grasp at straws. No doubt like-minded listeners will be swayed by his antics but there are still plenty of reasonable citizens who will see through his tactics.

    Thank you for setting a good example by resolutely speaking up.

    John Snowden

  11. Homosexuals take pains to tell us that when they attack us, give death threats, disrupt our church services, break up university forums, threaten us with public humiliation, fines, loss of jobs, and soon the threat of prison, this is not because they demand the civil right to be treated as equally human, to be integrated into society, to be able to sit at the front of the bus, to be able to eat in the same restaurants, or share the same wash rooms. What they demand is the right and freedom to totally deconstruct sex, marriage, family, society, and creational ordinance in order to make reality conform to Marxist theory.

    When politicians talk of the contribution made by the gay community (whatever that may mean), what are we talking about? At least with coloured people we can point to their physical and athletic abilities, or the way that ethnic and cultural groups, black and white, contribute to society with different foods, traditions, clothes, music and customs. But what precisely distinguishes gay rugby, choirs, athletics, knitting, arts, shopping, police forces and walking clubs from the rest of us? Nothing. Out of 12000 athletes who took part in the Bejiing Olympic games, only two homosexuals and eight lesbians were identifiable. How? Presumably they had to tell us.

    What marks this so-called community, or tribe of gaytranselvanians from the rest of us is its high incidence of sexually transmitted diseases, high incidence of drug related emotional problems and suicide, its promiscuity and risky sexual behaviour, its lust of sexual violence, (within and without it’s so called community) its high incidence of paedophilia, its swaggering pride, its hatred of reason and the truth; and its idolatry of itself.

    On the question of gays demanding marriage, Ben Summerskill, the chief executive of the UK gay lobby, Stonewall, is recorded as saying, marriage is just an intellectual and academic name and that its only interest to gays is the practical benefits that it brings.

    Clearly semen combining with a female egg, to produce the marriage of female and male genes and chromosomes, which in turn develop into men and women who eventual develop into children, brothers, sisters, cousins, nephews, nieces, grand children and great grand children, is no mere intellectual or academic idea. What is an intellectual idea is to presuppose that the marriage of semen and excrement will develop into anything other than deadly bacteria.

    David Skinner, UK

  12. James Beattie, you claim that “the gay issue obviously wasn’t on the top of Jesus’ agenda, otherwise He would have mentioned it at least a couple of times.” Well sex was pretty well at the top his list for as the theologian John Nolland of Trinity College, Bristol, says, he spoke twice as much about it (26 references) as he did about the poor (thirteen references) and when Jesus wants to make the point that evil proceeds from the heart two of the six items on the list we find in Matthew (Mt 15:19) have to do with sexual behaviour.

    As for Jesus speaking directly against homosexuality he made references to Sodom and Gomorrah and as all Jews of that time knew, the sin of these towns was not inhospitality – as the theological revisionists maintain – but sexual lust, and homosexual perversion.

    In 2 Peter 2:6-10 Peter says: “if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the depraved conduct of the lawless (for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard) — if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials and to hold the unrighteous for punishment on the day of judgment. This is especially true of those who follow the corrupt desire of the flesh and despise authority.”

    The context of this chapter was Peter warning the church against false teachers and clergy who would lead the flock into heresy and sexual depravity – not failure to practise hospitality, for he says a few verses on, “But these people blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like unreasoning animals, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like animals they too will perish. They will be paid back with harm for the harm they have done. Their idea of pleasure is to carouse in broad daylight. They are blots and blemishes, revelling in their pleasures while they feast with you. With eyes full of adultery, they never stop sinning; they seduce the unstable; they are experts in greed—an accursed brood! These people are springs without water and mists driven by a storm. Blackest darkness is reserved for them. For they mouth empty, boastful words and, by appealing to the lustful desires of the flesh, they entice people who are just escaping from those who live in error. They promise them freedom, while they themselves are slaves of depravity—for “people are slaves to whatever has mastered them.” If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and are overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them. Of them the proverbs are true: “A dog returns to its vomit,” and, “A sow that is washed returns to her wallowing in the mud.”

    Nothing to do with inhospitality, James

    David Skinner, UK

  13. Great response Bill and David. I have never threatened a homosexual but I have been threatened for daring to question their “lifestyle”.
    Peter Coventry

  14. James, I don’t know about the Nielson poll, but the Courier-Mail poll is showing that 59% are against same-sex ‘marriage’, 29% are for it and 12% don’t care. Also, the Yahoo 7 poll is showing 61% against and 39% for.
    So much for polls!
    Dunstan Hartley

  15. May I be just a little bizarre and frivolous to our friend Gregory. And say that I definitely wouldn’t want to stand in the way of his relationship with another man. God what a thought..
    Next thing on their list will be the maternity allowance.
    You know it’s not what they do that disgusts me it’s the way they try to normalise it. And as for their agenda lets face it even if heterosexuals called marriage by another name, say “We are are gathered here today to join this man and this woman in holy union to love and honour each other and bring forth the new generation”. A bit over the top maybe but I’d lay money that the Vagiphobic Lobby (no matter how painful it would be for one of them) would somehow prove they could do it as well.
    However consider this as a ray of hope. If our God is going to consign extreme sinners to a sorry state then I doubt they will be procreating in a place designated solely for them. So it’s just possible that this may all be for a purpose.

    Dennis Newland

  16. And to think these are the people who wanted nothing more than to be accepted when they were emerging from the woodwork. Now they want to call the shots. This whole gay agenda has been a conspiracy from the beginning by getting their ilk in positions of authority and to work from top down. All I can say is God is watching. I am fearful of the future god has in store for these warped minds against gods laws.
    Pat Brams

  17. This mob claims the majority of the Australian population i.e 57% support gay marriage. Where they are getting this figure from is beyond me and they think we are naive enough to believe this bilge. I guess its a question of if they said it often enough people will believe it. What outrageous deception this mob is prepared to stoop to.
    Pat Brams

  18. Pat Brams, as the English philosopher Edmund Burke said, ‘The only thing necessary for the triumph [of evil] is for good men to do nothing.’

    David Skinner, UK

  19. If I decide that from now on all giraffes and elephants will be called elephants and pass laws to require that everyone else does the same, it might make the giraffes feel better but they’ll still be giraffes and I’ll be a fool.
    Anna Cook

  20. Same-sex ‘marriage’ is against the law of nature. Biology does matter.
    Judith Bond

  21. Gregory,
    Your relationship with your man does effect my life. When your (lab produced) children go to school with my children, I will have to explain the unusual situation of two men possessing a baby. You see, it won’t be your baby. There will be a third woman involved, and possibly a fourth to carry it. But my children belong to me and my husband. My children don’t have to spend their life being confused and mentally challenged because they know who they came from and who they are. Your children will be sorting through a web of people to work out their identity. But’s that’s OK because as long as you get what you want, that’s all that matters.
    Jane Petridge

  22. Gregory claims that

    “if you can demonstrate that my life with my male partner is some how causing harm to you, or to the life and well being of anyone else, then let’s see it. Me being married or otherwise has no impact on you, or society generally.”

    Easy, Gregory, answer these questions:

    – If same-sex ‘marriage’ was made legal, do you support the punishment of those who refuse to recognize your union as a marriage?

    – Is teaching children that homosexuality is normal and healthy OK?

    – What do you think of those incidents overseas where people have been threatened, jailed, fined or fired from their jobs for merely mildly dissenting from the PC narrative about homosexuality?

    – Why do you concern yourself with something that is presumably of no value to defacto couples? Are you saying that they are ‘second-class citizens’? Is marriage ‘just a piece of paper’ or something more?

    – Did you write this on your blog about your first marriage – “I admit however, that I chose to be heterosexual…”? So you agree that sexual behaviour can be chosen?

    – I’ve donated blood over 20 times. The Red Cross tells me that blood donations save lives. How many blood donations from men who have sex with men has the Blood Bank taken and explain their policy about this with reference to the health risks.

    There more, but I’ll leave it there. I think some of these issues may have “impact” on me and/or society, what do you think? So let’s see how honest you are and what level of truth a candidate of the Secular Party stands for. But I suspect the sound effects person can cue the crickets chirping.

    Mark Rabich

  23. BIll,
    A well-put and cogent argument. I also contend that the heterosexual marriage argument will never be won on equal rights grounds. I believe the argument needs to be forcefully put from “a respect for cultural traditions” perspective. In our pluralistic society, tolerance for different ideas, persons, cultures, races and religions is paramount – unlike majoritarianism whereby the majority’s sentiments rain at the expense of the minority.
    Even though the majority of people identify as “Christians” actual practicing Christians are clearly in the minority.
    Holy matrimony (marriage) is a sacred institution to the Christian Church and goes beyond the simple joining of man and woman to form the union which enables God’s blessing of children to the couple. It symbolises the relationship of Christ to His church.eg
    Eph 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
    Rev 21:9 “the wife of the Lamb”
    Marriage denotes intimacy where two become one flesh in the same way as through Holy Communion Christ and His Church become one.
    Christ is to the Church as Man is to Woman in marriage.
    The marriage of man to man is blasphemous and strikes at the very foundation of the Christian doctrine.
    In a pluralistic society this sort of disrespect for another’s institution must not be tolerated.
    We are constantly being told by law that we have to respect scared Aboriginal sites because of their sacred meanings and traditions. To the Christian, marriage is as important as a “sacred site”.
    In the Bible, the word for sodomy also referred to sex with animals as well as anal sex and represented the basest of human activity.
    Allowing homosexual marriage is effectively “sodomising” the Church.
    Christians must stop playing the timid lamb on this one and must, like Christ be the Lion of Judah. He was as a lamb for 1 day only, the rest of the time he was the Lion.
    Jesus got angry when the temple was desecrated – our “temple” is also being desecrated, so its time to get angry and assertive.
    Philip Impey

  24. Gregory claims that

    “if you can demonstrate that my life with my male partner is some how causing harm to you, or to the life and well being of anyone else, then let’s see it. Me being married or otherwise has no impact on you, or society generally.”

    Easy, Gregory, answer these questions:

    – If same-sex ‘marriage’ was made legal, do you support the punishment of those who refuse to recognize your union as a marriage?

    No. The marriage will be legal, so apart from some religious institutions what sort of people do you think would refuse to recognise it?

    – Is teaching children that homosexuality is normal and healthy OK?

    It is normal and healthy.

    – What do you think of those incidents overseas where people have been threatened, jailed, fined or fired from their jobs for merely mildly dissenting from the PC narrative about homosexuality?

    Regrettable.

    – Why do you concern yourself with something that is presumably of no value to defacto couples? Are you saying that they are ’second-class citizens’? Is marriage ‘just a piece of paper’ or something more?

    I’m not sure I understand your question. I think if people want to get married they should. If they don’t then they don’t have to.

    – Did you write this on your blog about your first marriage – “I admit however, that I chose to be heterosexual…”? So you agree that sexual behaviour can be chosen?

    Sure it can, behaviour can be chosen for some people.

    – I’ve donated blood over 20 times. The Red Cross tells me that blood donations save lives. How many blood donations from men who have sex with men has the Blood Bank taken and explain their policy about this with reference to the health risks.

    I don’t know what their policy is, but I think what you’re saying is that they won’t take blood from gay men because there is a risk of infection with HIV/AIDS – of course this is a sensible precaution, however, not all men or women are at risk of HIV/AIDS.

    There more, but I’ll leave it there. I think some of these issues may have “impact” on me and/or society, what do you think?

    Not really, so far you have not shown how any of this will have an impact on you or society.

    So let’s see how honest you are and what level of truth a candidate of the Secular Party stands for. But I suspect the sound effects person can cue the crickets chirping.

    I don’t understand the need for these sort of statements.

    Gregory Storer

  25. Gregory,

    Q1, Q3. I will never recognize a same-sex ‘marriage’ as marriage and I am not an institution. I have been threatened in my workplace for merely writing a very short letter to the Age supporting keeping marriage as it is. So please do not play games. What you are endorsing is totalitarianism where people are forced to celebrate unhealthy and infertile sexual practices, not to mention expressly disobey God.

    This says nothing about incidents like this:
    http://www.akegreen.org/
    http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=75547
    and the more recent local insanity:
    https://billmuehlenberg.com/2010/10/11/even-more-anti-christian-bigotry/

    All this is ironic because I know you have this idea that it’s the Christians who threaten freedom. You say ‘regrettable’, I say, you are dangerous because we know from the history of totalitarianism where these things start and where they lead to. It will be lockstep groupthink or re-education for the dissenters. Check out what a company in Canada was forced to do.

    http://www.christianweek.org/stories.php?id=146

    Note this: “The tribunal also ordered Christian Horizons to begin basic human rights training for all employees”, which is code for – we will force you to think that homosexuality is normal and healthy. Which brings me to…

    Q2. It is not normal and healthy. We are born male or female, and the sexual function of our bodies is only fulfilled in the partnering with someone of the opposite sex. It takes a very special level of self-deception to deny that. ‘Orientation’ is irrelevant.

    Teaching that homosexuality is normal to children is flat out despicable.
    Compare the rectum with the vagina in respect of potential HIV transmission:

    V: Elastic fibres present
    R: NO elastic fibres
    V: 25-40 cells thick wall
    R: 1 cell
    V: Ph low – inactivates the virus
    R: Ph higher
    V: No M cells
    R: M cells present. Their function? To ATTRACT foreign particles for transmission to the immune system – the very target of HIV.

    The rectum is SETUP to absorb. It is part of the digestive system, not the reproductive system.
    Again, I would submit this, Gregory – teaching children to expose themselves to behaviour that may kill or at least harm them in the future is evil.

    Q4. Funny. I think we may actually kind of agree in a way here. You wrote “I think if people want to get married they should. If they don’t then they don’t have to.” I don’t have a problem with that. I do have a problem with arbitrarily redefining marriage for the benefit of only the participants. My point is that either marriage has value to society or it doesn’t. What defactos effectively say is that it doesn’t and ‘gay rights’ extremists like you claim that it does – otherwise you wouldn’t be fighting so hard for it. That is a blatant double standard. Basically I just think all you activists care about is not marriage per sé, but stomping on institutions that may limit your behaviour, even to the point of when it is biologically irrational.

    Q5. Wow. That’s a surprising admission. Doesn’t that totally undermine much of your position? If homosexual behaviour can be a choice then there’s hardly going to be a strong case for changing an institution based on attributes we can’t change, wouldn’t you say?

    Q6. I don’t think you are trying very hard here. The facts aren’t to difficult to find on the risks of male to male sex and why the Blood Bank here – indeed across the world – flat out deny people who engage in such activity to donate. Your argument based on the flawed identity premise is irrelevant, because the questions the Blood Bank ask you deal with behaviour. What I’m simply pointing out to you is that it is relatively easy to point out that a medical authority regards such behaviour as a health risk. That isn’t even a moral statement, but it certainly does mean that a wider acceptance of homosexuality – not hard to imagine with gay ‘marriage’ – would have a clear impact on the overall health of society.

    http://www.fda.gov/biologicsbloodvaccines/bloodbloodproducts/questionsaboutblood/ucm108186.htm

    As for your conclusion, it’s clear what is going on in your mind now – self-deception. You glibly ignore facts about the biological makeup of humans, the history of homosexual activism, the risks of anal sex for the transmission of HIV and think that children should be taught all about it. And you claim it is the Christians who are dangerous! Even if we were wrong about the invisible, that is still an improvement on being wrong about the visible – including your own body, Gregory!

    The redefining of marriage will most certainly have a major impact on all of society, because many will be forced to endorse something they do not wish to, that is also clearly unhealthy. Your denial of the obvious is a reflection of your fundamental irrationality. At this point I have little expectation of convincing you, but at least those who read this and see the level of your thinking will hopefully not wish to join or support you in your obtuseness.

    Mark Rabich

  26. Well done Mark. I see you having a go in the Leader as well.
    Katherine Fishley

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

%d bloggers like this: