Equal Opportunities Are Only For Some

As if we still needed proof that our various ‘Equal Opportunity Commissions’ and the like are anything but, we now have the story of an EOC member being forced to resign. And his heinous crime? He actually believes marriage is between a man and a woman, and he thinks that children should have a basic right to be raised by their biological parents.

Here is how the headlines go: “An equal opportunity commission board member who signed a submission against same-sex marriage has resigned.” Of course he has not so much quit as been forced out by the pink mafia. For daring to speak truth, the homosexual activists went ballistic, demanding his head. And that is now what they got, in a mere matter of hours.

As one news item reports: “A member of Victoria’s Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission board has resigned after stirring controversy by signing a petition opposing gay marriage. Professor Kuruvilla George is also Victoria’s deputy chief psychiatrist and one of a group of 150 doctors who wrote to a Senate inquiry on marriage equality.

“The doctors’ submission argued children with a mother and father were healthier than children with same-sex parents. The petition has drawn criticism from other doctors and families of same-sex couples and yesterday prompted Victoria’s chief psychiatrist to issue a statement defending Professor George.”

The Greens, the homosexual lobbies, and other militants all demanded his blood, and they have got what they wanted. As but one example, the former head of the AMA, lesbian activist Kerryn Phelps said the doctors should “hang their heads in shame” and that an immediate review of Prof George’s position on the board should be undertaken.

So now he is gone, barely 24 hours after the furore erupted. Yep, another scalp for the gaystapo and their intolerant colleagues in arms. This is yet another example of the pink mafia in action, with yet another good and honourable man forced out of his job.

There really is no doubt that this activist group is the most intolerant and anti-democratic group in the country. They have become experts in bullying, intimidation and persecution. And they will not stop until every last voice of opposition is forever silenced.

And just what are we to make of the EOC? What an utter joke. They need to explain to the entire world what became of Prof Kuruvilla’s equal opportunities. Why does it seem that only homosexual activists and their supporters get equal opportunities, but those who dare to differ do not?

The Human Rights Law Centre Executive Director Philip Lynch has been writing back to people who have rightly made a stink about this, basically saying his views were unacceptable, and he was a bad boy for saying these things. He wrote, if his “beliefs are incompatible with his duties and functions under the Equal Opportunity Act, including his statutory duty to eliminate discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation or lawful sexual activity, then there is a clear conflict of interest and it is appropriate the he resign his public office.”

So no equal opportunities for him then. He either toes the pro-homosexual line of the EOC or he gets the boot. And it was the jackboot of the homosexual fascists and their supporters in the EOC that he felt big time. So much for freedom of speech.

So much for equal opportunities. So much for living in a democracy. So much for freedom of conscience. The militant homosexual lobby and their cronies in the EOC have declared war on these basic human rights and fundamental freedoms. In their eyes, clearly some people are more equal than others.

And to prove how completely biased and pro-homosexual this Executive Director is, he is sending people a link to a site which is pushing the homosexual line, telling us children do not at all need a mother and a father. Talk about pushing agendas.

Talk about using his tax-payer funded position to promote his own radical agenda, and to silence anyone who dares to differ. And never mind the mountain of evidence which clearly states that children do need a biological mother and father. But forget the evidence; this is about pushing radical agendas, and foisting upon an unwilling populace their social engineering.

The tragic truth is, a war has been declared against us by the militants. They will not rest until every bit of opposition is totally silenced. We need to wake up real quick and become informed about these issues. That is why twenty years ago I started writing my book, because I saw this issue as one of the most important battles we will have to face.

How long before those concerned about freedom and real equal opportunity wake up to this? How long before the churches wake up to this? How many more people – mostly believers – will lose their jobs, be fined, or thrown in jail before we snap ourselves out of our slumber and start taking a stand?


[832 words]

80 Replies to “Equal Opportunities Are Only For Some”

  1. “Benjamin felt a nose nuzzling at his shoulder. He looked round. It was Clover. Her old eyes looked dimmer than ever. Without saying anything, she tugged gently at his mane and led him round to the end of the big barn, where the Seven Commandments were written. For a minute or two they stood gazing at the tatted wall with its white lettering.

    “My sight is failing,” she said finally. “Even when I was young I could not have read what was written there. But it appears to me that that wall looks different. Are the Seven Commandments the same as they used to be, Benjamin?”

    For once Benjamin consented to break his rule, and he read out to her what was written on the wall. There was nothing there now except a single Commandment. It ran:


    Animal Farm, George Orwell, 1945.

    Mark Rabich

  2. Wow. Brutal stuff. Sheer brutality. As you say:

    “They need to explain to the entire world what became of Prof Kuruvilla’s equal opportunities. Why does it seem that only homosexual activists and their supporters get equal opportunities, but those who dare to differ do not?”

    A litmus test for our capacity to hold an opinion in this society.

    Trevor Faggotter

  3. Where are the churches?
    What do they need to happen before they say enough is enough.
    Overnight they could choose to close all their social services as a protest to this nonsense.
    They should demand that they are allowed to have a voice in public debates and given their due respect.

    While churches and Christians busy themselves with ‘good works’ (which very often involve picking up the mess of society’s sins) their freedoms, their influence and their voice is curtailed, all behind their backs.

    For goodness sake, can some Christian organization, which is involved in social services, stand up for this man and the other doctors and take an action that will make some serious headlines?

    Annette Williams

  4. Unbelievable but totally believable!

    And of course the MSM will cheer at his resignation/forced sacking.

    George Kokonis

  5. In addition to my above post.
    How many Christian organizations experience firsthand the damaging effects of fatherlessness or motherlessness on children?

    Surely they can add some weight and perspective to this argument. Do these organizations think their workload is going to increase or decrease if SSM is legalised and children are purposely denied biological parents?

    Seriously, if you can’t be bothered to stand up for what marriage really, if your conviction is so shallow and you do not believe that children are worth standing up for, then please don’t come knocking on my door begging for funds.
    Annette Williams

  6. How can the professor be fired if Australian law says that Marriage is between a man and a woman ?
    He is actually the one abiding by the law!
    Gillian and Jerome Gonzalez

  7. You are right Bill! Totally agree with your thoughts & statements! We as a supposedly Christian nation are being totally discriminated against & the rights trying to be taken off kids which is each one needs to have a MUM & DAD! The fact is, God made Adam & Eve?! I know there are such things as eunuchs which are either man made or God made, but you don’t hear any of them insisting society be run the way they live?! We need God’s intervention now! I have heard someone say recently, that evil prevails when good men do nothing?! Come on people, stand up for what is right, Godly & good & stand up for our kids & future!!
    Joanna McInnes

  8. Hello Bill,

    I’m sorry to say that based on my limited experience some individual clergymen have given up on fighting against the moves towards same sex marriage. I know of one who has stated publicly that is inevitable and nothing can be done to stop it.

    Some clergymen also set a higher priority on their finances than on the lives of innocent children. One made it quite plain to me some years ago that he didn’t want pro-life material distributed at his church for fear of losing financial support from Labor Party supporters in his congregation.

    More recently another clergyman alerted his parishioners of the fact that the Greens wanted to eliminate government funding for non-government schools, and when I appraised him of the fact that the part of the Greens’ website was devoted to directing people away from pro-life pregnancy support services and to abortionists, his comment was, “Oh, that’s political!”

    What can one say? Esau selling his birthright for a pot of stew comes to mind.

    We need leadership of the sort that came from Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and Bishop Clemens von Galen, but we are not getting it.

    This makes your commentaries all the more important, please keep up the good work.
    Donald Battaglini

  9. We need to fight fire with fire. This is not a debate but a war. The director of the EOC needs to be gotten rid of. Sack Philip Lynch. He is unfit to hold the position of director. He is a danger to democracy and freedom. His behaviour is totally unacceptable. Remove him from his position–NOW.
    Tas Walker

  10. So Bill, where’s a really concise little leaflet stating all the facts about same sex marriage and the hazards of the high risk homosexual lifestyle that we can mass produce and air drop over every Australian city and town? The MSM isn’t going to give us any page space. This information needs to get out there because so many people know it’s wrong but are unable to articulate it, or at least not with militants screaming “homophobe” in their face. If everyone on your blog or fb page printed off a hundred or thousand and dropped them around their communities, it could make a real difference. We have to strike while the iron is hot or in a blink of an eye, SSM will be legal.
    Anna von Marburg

  11. It would seem Philip Lynch, the Executive Director of HRLC is aptly named. If he is wanting to suppress the truth when it is spoken by those who dare by directing people to a website stating children do not need their parents and pushing the homosexual agenda one might question Philip Lynch’s preferences.

    We need to pray for Victoria’s chief psychiatrist that he does not suffer the same fate as Professor George for coming to his aid by issuing a statement defending him.

    Richard Jardine

  12. Hello Bill, I’m Sian.
    I have been reading some articles on your website for a while now and I think you are spot on about these issues.
    But at the end of a lot of your articles you challenge people to stand up and have their opinions heard before it’s too late. Don’t get me wrong, I agree and we all should be standing up for God’s Law but I, and maybe others I’m not sure, don’t know where to start. What can I do to help?
    Sian Simmons

  13. What has happened to the common logic test? If the prof had said things that had no basis or support thru research or studies, then he would deserve to go. But the man was only speaking truth, truth that had mountains of facts, studies and research to back it up. Oh, but of course, this was an ‘inconvenient’ truth for some.

    Sad is the day that truth gets swept under the carpet to make way for the lies of sinful people.

    Fred Merlo

  14. Bill

    I hear a lot of people arguing that the majority of Aussies want same-sex marriage. Do you have any data on that?

    Damien Spillane

  15. Thanks Damien

    It is the same old story here about lies, damned lies, and statistics. It depends on who is asking the questions and how the questions are being asked. The results vary tremendously depending on these factors. Questions can be so framed that the results you are looking for will come about. So we can’t put much stock in most of these surveys and polls – they can be quite unreliable.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  16. FYI… The general public are starting to have their say:

    The Advertiser marriage polls from last Friday (11/5/12) had the following results: Voteline phone poll –
    “Should gay marriage be legalised?”
    YES 54 (9%) NO 549 (91%)

    Yea, speak up Australia!

    Trevor Faggotter

  17. I would also suggest complaining to the government. I reckon they should scrap the commission.
    Matt Vinay

  18. As Trevor said above The Advertiser had a poll last week about ‘gay’ marriage and the overwhelming majority were against it…Yet the minority in the media who are militant keep saying that the majority are Pro gay marriage!! They are simply lying! This poll had over 500 votes, and not many get that many responses…A similar poll a few weeks ago had a similar majority against gm….Of course they will most likely say the poll was rigged! But they wouldn’t say so if the results were the opposite!…

    Despite all this however, this does not come down to who is for or against it…Either God’s absolutes are true or people’s views are all that matters (which in the end means they don’t matter at all)…and i absolutely believe His absolutes are truth…If they want to say it’s up to peoples opinions then absolutely anything goes! …which sadly it is becoming more and more this way…
    Jeremy Woods

  19. Equal marriage rights for a minority of same sex couples seems to be given more importance by Western governments than the precarious state of the global economy. Judging by the vindictive bullying meted out to anyone who maintains that marriage is and always has been made for a man and a woman, one has to wonder how people in positions of power have become so dictatorial, refusing to even listen to alternative views. Same sex couples have a mechanism for a civil partnership which we are told confers the same legal rights as marriage. As I understand it, the only real legal distinction relates to relationship breakdown: married couples apply for a divorce and civil partners dissolve their partnership. Adultery is not recognised as a reason to dissolve a civil partnership as adultery is defined in legal terms as sexual intercourse between a man and a woman outside marriage. If children are involved, then their birthright is their biological mother and father.

    It seems that the power to tell others what to do is more important than listening to all sides of an argument. So no seekers after truth there! The lifestyle Left, anti capitalists, secularists, heterophobics, have joined forces to prove Nietche’s nihilist theory that “might is right” as they shout down all opposition and seek to kick out the old and bring in the new. The West tries to teach the world about democracy but look where we are headed – to totalitarianism of archetypal Orwellian proportions against a backdrop of massive debt, money printing, currency devaluing and with the threat of global hyperinflation. What shall it profit a man if he gain the whole world but lose his own soul?

    Rachel Smith

  20. Do you think it may also be worthwhile for us to write to as many Christian welfare agencies as possible, to ask them what public statements they have made on this issue in support of children and marriage?
    Also to let them know about the current situation with the VEOHRC and ask them what they intend to do?

    Until they make a public stand supporting children and marriage and people like Professor Kuruvilla George – I for one, intend to give my support elsewhere.
    Annette Williams

  21. Thank-you Bill for your great website, I have found your articles very useful in keeping up to date and finding out the truth on these issues. They have also been great in helping me articulate in a much more informed way what I believe when I have conversations with people.
    Just recently I was on a forum discussing the same sex marriage issue, it was mostly fairly civil, but I must say, it left me very concerned about some of those out there who will do and say anything to advance this cause of SSM. There are some very ruthless and intimidating individuals, and I understand even more how your description of ‘militant’ is very apt. They are like an army, except they are out of control and they will not listen or stop.
    Our church often prays against these changes to happen, and it highlighted for me that this is very urgent, we all need to pray a lot and whenever we can be vocal for our side.
    Sharon Gallagher

  22. Annette, I believe that church organisations are already required to “toe the line”. I am pretty sure anglicare for instance will foster out children to ss couples, if they believe the lie or if they just have to do so in order to be funded by the government, I don’t know. Often these organisations rely on government funds to continue their work.
    I guess only when Christian individuals and organisations start to believe their bible, where we are told that God is our provider and that we can do what He tells us to do even without government funds, will they be able to draw the line and stand on the gospel. Much scriptural teaching, bible study, heart searching and taking ones courage into ones hand will have to go on before that happens but I pray for that day and for the strength to do my part in that too. Public opinion is like putty in the hands of the social engineers, if they can’t actually manipulate it, they can manipulate the statistics and make every dissenter from their position believe that they are the only ones that still believe such old fashioned notions. Divide, isolate and conquer is still a successful tactic. We can certainly not rely on public opinion, but on facts that support the truth because they just do.
    Many blessings
    Ursula Bennett

  23. I have just sent a letter to the Editor of the Herald Sun pointing out the errors in Jeff Kennett’s article today. I have also included a list of the diseases associated with the homosexual act. Will it get printed! I think I have a better chance of winning the lottery (even though I don’t buy lottery tickets).
    Madge Fahy

  24. I just sent in a complaint and would encourage all readers to do likewise. We need to put some pressure on these officials and have them realize that there are many people who would agree with the Christian view of marriage and do not wish to have our freedoms eroded by the “politically correct brigade”.
    Gary Morgan

  25. Absolutely right Gary. Well done to all who have written in. Please do so if you have not yet done this. It is vital that we let these guys know that we are sick and tired of witnessing our very freedoms and democracy being stripped away from us.

    Prof Kuruvilla George is a modern day hero – one of the few Christians with the courage and the conviction to actually speak up, even though it may cost him everything. Will anyone else join him, or will we betray him and his sacrifice by our silence? Please share your concerns about the shameful way he was treated – and hounded out of his position by the militants – by writing a brief word to these guys: complaints@veohrc.vic.gov.au

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  26. To add to the comments on where the church stands, I have just returned from a holiday in Thailand where I was able to attend a service in Chaing Mai which, I’m told, is the centre for evangelism to the whole of SE Asia. The particular service I attended had about 200 people there, many of whom I was also informed were missionaries, and the preacher was someone visiting from Australia.

    Having opened with the comment that he’d managed to have his teeth fixed while in Thailand, a rather non-spiritual opening for someone from a supposed ‘spiritual’ church, this visiting preacher went on to say that “he’s not the sort to carry a placard against same-sex marriage, but was only interested in people’s ‘walk with God'”.

    Superficially, such a message is hard to criticise. The problem is, though, that it’s the sort of ‘feel good’ message that has become so prevalent in the church today. What, precisely, does our ‘walk with God’ entail? In the absence of any definition in the sermon, it could have been anything you wanted!

    Furthermore, we were then told that this preacher had now discovered, after many years, the true meaning of grace. Once again, superficially, a wonderful message and ‘supported’ by citing Romans 7 that we are now released from the Law. However, there was no mention of Romans 6 (especially verse 1: “Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means!”) nor the consequences of sin.

    It’s this sort of message based on a ‘cherry picking’ of Scripture and a failure to preach the whole Gospel that I believe is behind the current malaise in the church.

    The Bible tells us that murder is a sin but equally that grace can enable a repentant murderer to be forgiven. However, there can still be consequences – such as a lengthy prison sentence or even death. Likewise, the Bible states that homosexuality is a sin, but grace means that a repentant homosexual can be forgiven even though the consequences could still be AIDS.

    However, by NOT carrying a placard, what this particular preacher was implying was that he’s not prepared to take a biblical stand on what constitutes sin. Furthermore, it would appear he’s happy for the government to legitimise people living in on-going sin by not taking a stand on same-sex marriage – a message somewhat inconsistent with their ‘walk with God’, let alone the whole of Romans 6!

    btw, I have also written a complaint to the Victorian non-Equal Opportunistic Human Rights (where humans only refers to homosexuals) Commission.

    Roger Birch

  27. Damien Spillane
    All this talk about everyone wants it: I know my view is very limited but for example, in my working life which is 30 years I’ve been aware of 3 gay people and where I work now, there is 30 staff none of which are gay, all happily married. Of course they will say, how do I know they’re not gay?
    Daniel Kempton

  28. I might be a little naive here, but we have someone like the MP Craig Thomson dig his heels in, when it looks so blatantly obvious that his has done something wrong. And then we have someone like Prof Kuruvilla George resign, within a matter of hours, after his views are questioned. Why did the Professor resign? Surely it would send a stronger signal to hang in there and get support. Or wasn’t this possible?
    Trevor Grace

  29. Hey Bill
    a friend sent me a link to your website and I must say it appeared to be a very angry rant. If the Equal Opportunity Commission has as stated a “statutory duty to eliminate discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation or lawful sexual activity” then surely if one of the members has a distinct bias against homosexuality “there is a clear conflict of interest and it is appropriate the he resign his public office.”
    I wonder about the anger that is emanating from your comments?
    You say this site is “devoted to exploring the major cultural, social and political issues of the day. It offers reflection and commentary drawing upon the wealth of wisdom found in the Judeo-Christian tradition”. You aim to “offers reflective and incisive commentary on a wide range of issues, helping to sort through the maze of competing opinions, worldviews, ideologies and value systems. It will discuss critically and soberly…”
    It seems to me only one side is represented here and that is a very angry sounding side? Also I find only one opinion as to how that Judeo-Christian tradition is to be understood and interpreted?
    As a discussion of issues on this site it doesnt appear to lend itself to listening to different perspectives in order to see Christ in others.
    Veronica Bradley

  30. Sorry Veronica, but let me call your bluff. What anger? That people are greatly concerned about this gross injustice and the obvious double standards is fully understandable. Indeed, I would be greatly alarmed if there was not such a strong community outcry against this travesty of justice. It was clearly a major miscarriage of justice for this man to have been treated this way. But perhaps your concern for human rights does not extend to this man and others like him.

    And spare me this foolishness about his “distinct bias against homosexuality”. He was standing up for the interests of children, the institution of marriage, and the welfare of the nation, things you and your buddies obviously do not seem to care much about. If you want to side with the haters and the bullies here who will hound out of town anyone who dares to disagree with them, that is up to you.

    Nor are any of us all that impressed with your spurious defence of the blatant double standards and hypocrisy of the VEOHRC. If this group is genuinely interested in equal opportunities, then what about Prof George’s opportunities? Don’t his opportunities count? Just where was their defence of the esteemed Professor? Why did they not fully come to his aid in the interests of equal opportunity and human rights? We all know why they did not – they are there simply to represent the interests of the noisy minority lobby groups. This has nothing whatsoever to do with standing up for human rights, but simply pushing radical social agendas – something which these folks have long made clear that they are in fact on about.

    And I of course will discuss issues as I like – it is after all my own website. Just as you have felt free to voice your point of view here, so I am seeking to do that too. So why do you criticise me for doing the very same thing you are doing? And just why is it that when you share your thoughts, it is just enlightened commentary, but when we do, it is merely an “ugly rant”? Sorry but your biases seem to be showing up here big time.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  31. What happened here was atrocious. It is the latest in a long line of attacks on people who dare to point out concerns about homosexuality. A few years ago another individual (Warwick Marsh) was attacked by the militants and lost a public position because he dared to defend the traditional family.

    Not only do we have dissidents being intimidated and persecuted, but we have freedom of speech (yet again) being attacked. We read in the press about Professor George being “counselled … to be careful about his future public utterances” and that “doctors must be mindful of putting their opinions forward because they hold influential positions in society.” This is blatant censorship. If you accept the “orthodox”, sanctioned line that homosexuality is healthy and normal, you are free to speak. But if you object to this line, you must keep quiet or else.

    All Professor George did was sign a submission, along with 150 other doctors, to the Senate arguing that gay marriage is bad for our nation’s health.

    Good on those 150 doctors for putting in that submission. Doctors perhaps more than anyone else know of the health risks linked to homosexuality, eg. HIV, syphilis and other STDs, certain cancers, alcohol and substance abuse. At a sexual health seminar I attended a couple of years ago we were told to routinely test gay and bisexual males for HIV, gonorrhoea, syphilis and hepatitis A.

    So again, good on those doctors for speaking out. And bravo to Professor George for taking all this on the chin – let’s hope he continues to do some great work.

    Jereth Kok

  32. “… incompatible with his duties and functions under the Equal Opportunity Act, including his statutory duty to eliminate discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation or lawful sexual activity” Um doesn’t the EOA eliminate discrimination on the grounds of religious beliefs?
    Amanda Steele

  33. Hi Jereth.
    Thanks for your informative post.
    In case you aren’t aware, on their website, Doctors for the Family (doctors4family.com.au), other doctors are invited to add their name to their petition.
    Annette Williams

  34. Pre-eminent ssm advocate Jonathan Rauch last week: “Opponents are right when they say that, other things being equal, children do best when raised by their married biological parents.”


    Reply to Rauch here at First Things: http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2012/05/14/when-myths-are-truths/

    So Philip Lynch is not being agnostic, his mind is made up even in the face of the evidence. Will he recuse himself also?

    Martin Snigg

  35. Jereth rightly points out the elephant in the room – namely that most people innately know that the homosexual lifestyle is unhealthy, yet advocate for people who are in that lifestyle as if there was no problem. But as a regular blood donor, I am fully aware that anyone who is involved in male to male sex is screened and cannot donate. Why? Refer to this document and see for yourself:


    So, we have a form of behaviour that is fully documented to be a substantially higher risk to the transmission of HIV, is inherently infertile, subject to higher risks to the other diseases and issues Jereth listed, yet people want to reward it by claiming there is no problem?

    I have witnessed people on an online forum simultaneously endorsing homosexuality, yet not being in favour of someone in that lifestyle donating blood? Talk about cognitive dissonance! Either it’s good and healthy or it is not.

    Professor Kuruvilla George obviously is absolutely correct and should be considered a hero, not punished and considered for ‘re-education’! If truth cannot be considered the final defence that ends all debate, then we are finished as a society, because whoever is in power can make it up, including that the moon is made of green cheese.

    I guess the acid test is to confront people with the question whether or not they would accept blood from someone who is in the lifestyle. Based on their response you can at least determine whether or not you are speaking with someone rational and whether or not to spend any further time on that conversation.

    Mark Rabich

  36. Oh Bill indeed it is your website and you are obviously entitled to express your opinion any way you like. I was sent a link to your website by a friend and your site invited me to have my say. Thinking that you were open to the ideas of those who conflict with yours somewhat I stupidly did and am doing so again probably unwisely.
    Firstly let me address the anger issue. I was commenting on what I perceived and felt when I read the post nothing more. The comments seemed to me to incite more hatred and fear than compassion and love.
    Secondly I dont have any “buddies” and I dont “side” with haters and bullies of which you and your “buddies” also, it seems, do your fair share.
    My point was if a person is part of a committee who advocate for and endeavour to protect the rights of people including those who hold a differing sexual orientation than your own surely signing a petition against homosexual marriage declares you have a bias and in fact will not be objective on this issue on point of conscience?
    Can I also address the petitions I am frequently harrassed to sign when I attend church?
    I do not want to be harrassed to sign petitions just to be part of the christian community. My faith in Christ is not diminished by holding a different opinion than you and as a follower of Jesus I must also follow my understanding of his teachings and their application in my life which seem to differ slightly from what you perceive.
    I am genuinely concerned with the good news of Jesus Christ and as such I want to explore the scriptures in an unbiased way in order to allow God to come out of the box we like to contain him in and let him challenge and change me through his word.
    In the same way you call them a noisy minority lobby group, I perceive you to be the same. Pushing your own interpretation of Christ’s good news without regard for the filters with which you are blinded.
    Veronica Bradley

  37. Thanks again Veronica

    But how exactly does standing up for God’s institutions of marriage and family, and especially the well-being of children, amount to “incitement to hatred”. How does legitimate concern for gross injustice, and the persecution of a wonderful, godly man, amount to a lack of “compassion and love”? You must have some rather different understandings of these terms than we do.

    And what in the world does signing petitions have to do with anything here? Am I forcing you to sign petitions?

    Moreover, you explore Scripture in an unbiased way, while those who take a different view do not? That’s what I hear you saying here.

    I am again rather curious: why is it that you can say anything you like – attacking everyone here – and you expect us to readily receive it, yet when I say something, then all of a sudden I am guilty of “Pushing your own interpretation of Christ’s good news without regard for the filters with which you are blinded”.

    It sounds like you want us all to be just like you, free of any “filters” and “blindness”. Respectfully, I am just not sure we can raise ourselves up to your lofty heights.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  38. Hi Mark,

    Yes, the blood donation thing is very interesting. We ought to complain to VEOHRC that homosexual and bisexual men are being discriminated against by the Red Cross on grounds of their sexual orientation. This is a clear breach of the Equal Opportunity laws.

    On a related note, a useful thing about Bill’s book (Strained Relations) is its exposure of risky gay lifestyles. In chapter 2 we learn about high numbers of sexual partners, injecting drug use, and numerous unsafe sexual practices which, put together, explain the higher risk of STDs in the gay community. Bill provides a revealing testimony from a homosexual doctor (Frank Spinelli); here is part of it.

    Imagine for a moment that you’re a doctor — a gay doctor with a practice that predominantly treats gay men. Now guess how many text and phone calls you might receive during any given weekend involving questions that have to do with recreational drugs, penile discharge, or the risk of contracting HIV from unprotected sexual encounters. Now take that number and multiply it by 10 if that weekend should occur around Gay Pride, Folsom Street Fair, Gay Days at Disney, or any of the Atlantis cruises. Welcome to my world.

    My colleagues in Manhattan and Los Angeles give similar reports about their patients. We scratch our heads and wonder why the rates of syphilis are at an all-time high among men who have sex with men. And with all the media attention paid to HIV prevention and risk modification, the majority of new HIV cases in the United States are among gay men.

    Bill’s book does not make for pleasant bedtime reading, but everyone ought to avail themselves of it in this critical time as we move inexorably towards same sex marriage.

    (There you go, Bill, a free plug!)

    Jereth Kok

  39. Hi everyone, I second what Jereth has said about Bills book having read it myself, but the nation desperately needs this book and it should be read by all, especially when we have the attitudes of people like Phelps, who should know better, telling us that the homosexual lifestyle is quite safe and no different to a heterosexual one. Also see the following story of how the gaystapo seek to discredit the doctors involved with the letter.


    Fred Merlo

  40. Fred,

    That Crikey article is shambolic.

    “medicos completely out of step with the vast majority of their colleagues”

    In fact, the majority of doctors understand that the homosexual lifestyle (particularly the male homosexual lifestyle) is associated with, on average, poorer health (physical and mental) than the heterosexual lifestyle. The only difference is that the some doctors uncritically accept the simplistic narrative that the poorer health is due to victimisation.

    “a nasty claim completely unsupported by any credible research whatsoever.”

    Nonsense. The submission by Doctors for the Family provides their evidence in a footnote. It is a proven fact that children do better when raised by their biological parents.

    It is argued that evidence is lacking that children do worse when raised by same sex parents compared to when they are raised by opposite sex parents. But lack of evidence is not the same as evidence against. There is little evidence at the moment because not much study has been done, and the reason for that is because homosexual parenting is a very new phenomenon. There aren’t all that many children in the world who have been raised by gay parents and are over the age of 18. The experiment is only happening right now.

    “Any unprotected sexual behaviour comes with the risk of HIV and syphilis, not just homosexuality.”

    The risk of contracting HIV and syphilis in Australia is negligible in heterosexual sex, unless a sex worker is involved. We are not encouraged to screen heterosexuals for HIV or syphilis (unless they have been to a sex worker, or used IV drugs) – it is a waste of resources to run tests that are almost guaranteed to return a negative result. By contrast, we are advised to test all homosexual (and bisexual) men for these diseases. The current syphilis epidemic in Australia is almost entirely confined to the gay population. HIV is very rare in heterosexuals who don’t use drugs or prostitutes – even very promiscuous ones.

    Jereth Kok

  41. Here is what I sent to the Victorian Premier, the Editor of The Australian, and my facebook page.

    It is shameful that the Victorian Equal Opportunity Commission should seek to deny children Equal Opportunity for access to both a mother and a father. That is the position it has effectively taken by bowing to pressure and bullying Prof Kuruvilla George into resigning from the VEOC. His only “crime” was to state the truth: that research shows a child’s best interests are served by having both a mother and a father. Prof George should be reinstated, and the bullies who forced him out should be sacked.

    John Bennett

  42. Jereth, according to this even sex workers do not have a particularly high risk of AIDS, and it goes some way to explaining why anal sex is risky:

    “For infection to occur, keep in mind that HIV must either enter the bloodstream or gain access to deeper tissues. This makes it a relatively difficult bug to pass along. Consider, for example, the highly contagious viruses that cause conjunctivitis. They are easily transmitted on your finger, when you touch one eye and then the other. They can also live on inanimate surfaces, like towels or pillows, and infect you from there.

    In contrast, for HIV to infect… it must reach a group of cells in her immune system referred to as “target cells.” Only here can the virus make a home and reproduce. To reach target cells, the HIV must either bypass, or pass through, a barrier.

    …one of the functions of the vaginal lining is protection from infection. The pH is low, which inactivates HIV. Its mucus has anti-HIV proteins. Its lining is twenty to forty-five cells thick, increasing the distance to be traversed by the virus. Under the lining is a layer in which target cells are found; this area is rich in elastic fibers. Next is a layer of muscle, then more elastic fibers. This architecture allows for significant stretching of the vagina without tears or abrasions. Research has shown that HIV is unable to reach target cells in the human vagina under normal circumstances.

    The rectum has a different structure. As part of the gastrointestinal system, it has a lining whose primary function is absorption, bring in molecules of food and water. The pH is higher. Most important – the rectal lining – the barrier to be breached – is only one cell thick. Below that delicate lining are blood vessels and target cells. Elastic fibers are absent.

    Early in the epidemic, it was assumed that fragility of the rectal barrier accounted for the more common male-to-male transmission. But later in the 1980s came a discovery: infection could occur without disruption of the barrier. Specialized cells on the rectal surface were able to latch on to the virus, take it in, and deliver it to target cells.

    M cells are abundant in a healthy human rectum. Their function is to bring a sample of foreign, potentially dangerous particles for identification and response by the body’s defnse system. An M cell wants to attract microbes, so its surface is sticky, and it can fold over a virus or bacteria, engulf it, and bring it inside in a pocket. The pocket moves to the other end of the M cell, to immune cells that process the microbe and determine the appropriate response: ignore it or rally against it.

    Along comes HIV. It subverts the system, turning M cells into an express lane for invasion. The virus is packaged, transported, and handed over to immune cells that are one and the same as the target cells the virus must reach to cause disease. So M cells facilitate the virus’s job. They FedEx HIV directly to a lymphocyte – delivery takes ten minutes.

    There are no M cells in the vagina. This is not to say transmission of HIV cannot happen there – it can. But for infection to occur, there must be some weakening of the system – an infection, bleeding, an open sore, trauma, cancerous cells.

    For this and other reasons, some researchers argue convincingly that vaginal transmission is very rare. They are supported by studies of prostitutes, averaging two to three hundred contacts a year, usually unprotected, in which AIDS was only found in women who were also intravenous drug abusers.”

    Unprotected, Dr. Miriam Grossman, M.D., 2006 (pp 68-70)

    The author goes on to state that the risk of HIV transmission under normal heterosexual sex are less than the likelihood of being struck by lightning.

    I think the guys at Crikey are as clueless and “out of step” as it is possible to be. The popular perception of HIV being a virus that ‘anybody can get’ is utterly false. Exclude certain behaviour from your life and you are almost certain never to get it. And homosexuality by definition mandates one of those behaviours that puts people at greater risk. It would be an extremely reckless government that endorses this behaviour through ssm.

    Mark Rabich

  43. The EOC is funded by Australian tax funds, but takes its lead from the UN?
    As someone pointed out earlier, in Australia, the legal position is still that “marriage is between a man and a woman”, so Professor George was defending Australian law. I understand that sexual behaviour other than that within heterosexual marriage has been decriminalised. I am just wondering what tax payers can do to have the clause “discrimination on the ground of sexual preference” removed from the EOC charter. The conflict between Australian law and the UN charters we are signatories to has been around for a long time, but maybe it is time to take these things back.
    Veronica, if you are still listening:
    I pray that the Word of God will truly challenge you according to the opinion of the author, which in the end only counts. A lovely wise elderly Christian friend of mine told me this saying and I think it says a lot in a few words. “Tell me the commandments you keep and I will tell you which God you worship.”
    Many blessings
    Ursula Bennett

  44. Once again – a great article, and thank you! I also thank those who have commented on this article. You have contributed to my knowledge and armed me with valid and reasoned arguments with which to combat those who are pushing for SSM. I have also sent off my complaint to the VEOHRC.
    God bless you all.
    Joan Davidson

  45. A poem: No Sympathy For Homophobia

    When I have Selachophobia, they try to calm me down,
    And reassure me its quite normal to fear a shark’s around
    But shallow waters—so they say—will almost guarantee
    I really shouldn’t oughta think, a shark is after me

    When I’m overcome by Claustrophobia, and jammed tightly in
    Feeling like a dead Sardine, packed into a tin
    They help me find a nearby door and ease me out to air
    Where I can calm my troubled mind, and sit down quietly there

    When I’m just a little kid and standing near a grave
    Coimetophobia starts to kill my sense of being very brave
    Some people say: “Much longer yet, you’re sure to be around”
    But I can’t help but tremble ‘bout, being 6 feet underground

    When I have Caligynephobia, they try to help me see
    That beautiful women will hardly trouble a plain lookin’ bloke like me
    But try as I might I just can’t help, to think its not a joke
    That women, of class, will temptress me – an ageing, married bloke

    When I’m promised freedom like I have never had before
    Eleutherophobia makes me long for prison, a hatch, or a door
    So they just let me go inside, and find my gladness well
    It doesn’t matter then—they say—that we think your heaven’s hell

    But there’s one fear that I have got, that they won’t leave alone
    “Homophobia in any shape or form, will soon be totally gone!”
    I’ve had this fear for quite a while, that society will not be so much fun
    As kids are forced to totally agree: ‘its just fine, without a dad, or a mum!’

    My silly world of dad and mum, replaced by the new master-plan
    “You’ve got to agree 100 percent – every woman, child and man!”
    “That homosexuality is just the norm, like skin-colour, left-handed or race”
    You’ve got to agree—and very soon—or prison and courts you will face”

    Just hearing all this is making me afraid of the sourness I perceive
    And a brand new phobia is engulfing me Acerophobia – I believe
    Sourness of this one demand: “endorse the master-plan of pseudo-love”!
    “It is mandatory ALL must now believe—its ordained in heaven above”!

    But now I’ve gone and got another fear I’ve not had before
    Heresyphobia I seem to have caught, ‘cos I won’t agree, for sure!
    And I think a few of the thought-legislators have got Hereiophobia too
    Fear of challenge, of this harsh new “ortho“-doctrine, before it gets through!

    © 2012 Trevor Faggotter


  46. Thanks Mark for that useful information. Yes, it is an absolutely undeniable fact that HIV transmission through heterosexual sex is very low compared to the risk of transmission among homosexual men.

    The risk is higher where sex workers are involved, or where unprotected (heterosexual) sex occurs in an overseas country — and hence it is appropriate for doctors to screen heterosexuals for HIV who have put themselves at risk in these ways. Also as you will no doubt have noticed, the Red Cross will not allow a blood donation from someone who has been to a sex worker in the last 12 months.

    But yes, having heterosexual sex with a prostitute (while being immoral and not something to be encouraged!) does not carry the same risk of HIV as two men having sex.

    Jereth Kok

  47. Praise God for Professor Kuruvilla George is also Victoria’s deputy chief psychiatrist. He was discharging his duties as he rightly should. To “discriminate” is to discern between right and wrong!
    Shame on those who acted so brutally against the man!
    Barb Hoc

  48. Jereth, of course that crikey article is a disgraceful piece of journalism (if you can call it that). Their claims are all false and I do not say that as a result of reading Bill’s book, but from of my own research and studies carried out by other professionals and not just in America, also from Australia, in fact if you happened to read Andrew Bolts article in today’s Herald Sun, he takes to task our so-called experts who hounded the good Professor. Andrew himself points out that research and studies support the heterosexual marriage view as being the best for children.

    Fred Merlo

  49. Thanks Fred

    Yes Bolt’s article today was quite good, except his last paragraph, where he lost the plot big time – as he has done often before unfortunately. He has his feet in both camps and ends up greatly watering down his message.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  50. While reading Mark Rabich’s post (17/5 9.00am) I was reminded of a first aid course I did recently. In passing, while talking about infection control, they stated that the HIV virus had a very short lifespan outside the human body – only about 30 seconds, whereas hepatitis remains viable for several months. I do not know the accuracy of the claim but it would certainly point to HIV being a very targeted disease that is most likely to affect those partaking abnormal or unnatural behaviour.

    We have been warned. “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness,” Romans 1:18. The rest of the chapter talks of rejecting God and… because of this God gave them over to shameful lusts.v.26…Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received the due penalty for their perversion. v.27b.

    It should be no surprise to us that the truth is being suppressed.

    Richard Jardine

  51. To Roger Birch, you should name the Australia preacher who preached that drivel in Chiang Mai, it’s time compromised teachers and ministers (and denominations!) were shown up for the chicken’s they really are.
    Linda Trevenen

  52. “And never mind the mountain of evidence which clearly states that children do need a biological mother and father”-Is this evidence in your book Bill? If not where can I find a link to it (or a summary of the studies etc). I often see unsupported statements like this finding there way into Christian authored articles. Unsupported statements are of no use to someone like me however, who would like to contend the issue with peers. Thanks again.
    Steve Fearnley

  53. Thanks Steve

    Of course the 707 footnotes found in my book are not going to be offered in a brief essay. But yes my book has much of this data, so if you are looking for the info, then get the book. And the research on this is so overwhelming that we now have summaries of the summaries. The near half century worth of data, amounting to many thousands of international studies, is simply enormous. Some years ago I tried to do a brief summary of some of this data. See here for starters:


    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  54. To Linda Trevenen
    If I felt the particular preacher and/or denomination to whom I referred above was one of a small handful, then I’d see value in your suggestion. In the meantime, I’d prefer to attack the ideas rather than the person.

    Sadly, my experience is that this type of ‘drivel’, to use your word, is endemic not just in the church in general but also in the Bible Colleges that teach the preachers – certainly here in Australia. What is equally disconcerting is that there are programs on the Australian Christian Channel where you see massive churches filled with people lapping up these sorts of messages!

    To turn your suggestion around, I’d like to hear people naming, and honouring, those preachers (I’m not sure that would extend to a whole denomination) who are prepared to believe, and preach, ALL the Word from Genesis 1:1 through to the end of Revelation without the need for ‘reinterpretation’.

    Roger Birch

  55. I just fired off an email to this mob in Victoria as well, I feel pretty much the same way as Annette Williams above, you just never seem to hear a peep out of the churches about any of this at all, I emailed this off to my minister the other day and I get back a reply – “yes, pretty frightening stuff”, as an Anglican, I would have thought that our Archbishop would have had a lot to say about this, and correct me if I am wrong, but if he is saying anything, then where is he saying it? If I am missing something here then I am more than happy to be corrected! Perhaps there is an Anglican or two that reads this site that might be able to enlighten me?
    Steve Davis

  56. You and me both Bill – so far I have not seen any, let’s hope a few pop up here within the next day or so!

    Steve Davis

  57. Roger, concerning the “placard” carrying preacher…
    All we need to do is carry, verbally, the way we live etc, a placard that clearly states “Jesus Christ is Lord” and all these other issues fall into place.
    So, if Jesus is Lord and the Bible is His living word, then these issues becomes peripheral issues, not because they are not important, but because they are seen in the light of Him who is Lord and they surely can’t be much dispute then.
    I don’t mean that simplistically, the depth you can go to in debate etc is endless but it will always arrive at truth if these principles mentioned above are adhered to.
    Many blessings
    Ursula Bennett

  58. Ursula, I’m not sure I fully understand the thrust of your post and so if I’ve misinterpreted it in my comments below, I apologise. However, I believe you’re falling into the same trap as the “non-placard” preacher to whom I referred in my first post which was written in response to a question posed earlier, namely “Where are the churches?”

    I fully agree with your statement that “Jesus Christ is Lord” and that we should live our lives in a way that clearly proclaims this. However, far too many people give assent to this creed but without allowing Jesus to BE Lord of their lives. I maintain this is simply because they have either never been taught what it actually means, or don’t want Him to be and then lap up the sort of sermon to which I referred.

    I’m also not quite sure which “issues” you suggest are “peripheral”. I presume it’s not same-sex marriage, otherwise why would Bill even bother with this site? However, the fact that Christians respond to this site with dissenting views would give support to my previous comment since there is a dispute or, at the very best, a lack of concerted action over this issue.

    If, on the other hand, it’s biblical interpretation that you’re suggesting is “peripheral” or that the whole of the Bible is truth as per my second post, then the dispute over same sex marriage would suggest your view is somewhat optimistic and that other issues simply don’t fall into place. Experience has also taught me that the people who make such comments usually don’t themselves believe the whole of the Bible and are, therefore, harbouring what is tantamount to unbelief.

    In one of your posts above, you referred to Veronica’s earlier post. Hers is typical of the type of Christian response that personally concerns me. She wants to focus above all else on ‘compassion and love’ which, in itself, is admirable – but it is only part of the Gospel. She also wants to “explore the Scriptures in an unbiased way” – whatever that means – and then wants God to “challenge and change me through his word.” Why is it that such people are never challenged to change their worldly views to those contained in the Word rather than the other way round?

    My belief remains that until we get more preachers prepared to stand up for what is taught in the Bible and counter the views of those who want to merely echo the leftist, secular views, disputes will remain and the church will not be as effective as it should be.

    Roger Birch

  59. I probably didn’t explain what I meant very well, Roger, I absolutely agree with what you are saying and am sorry that my post has been a bit confusing. Some people perceive Christians as “negative” because we say no to sin in general and “ssm” in particular among others of course. When I suggested to wear the placard of “Jesus is Lord” I meant that by bringing the truth, Jesus and the way He wants us to live, the negativity of sin can become more obvious without being the main focus.

    I guess bringing the context of sin back to the origin and thereby creation, so people get an idea that God actually owns us twice, once through creation and the second time through redemption. Because we have lost the roots of our Christian culture we have to re-educate people about the origin of the world, of sin etc. before they can understand why sin is sin, who God is and how the cross of Christ makes the difference that it does. Martin Lloyd Jones does this very well in his book “The Gospel in Genesis”.
    Hope that helps.
    Many blessings
    Ursula Bennett

  60. These are the men and woman we need who are not afraid to step up to the plate with courage and conviction. Too many times “Christians” back away with complacency and cowardice when faced with issues on same-sex relationships.
    Marriage is between man and woman.
    Seemingly it’s OK for militant gay’s to bully those who stand for truth and righteousness.
    The truth is, man on man, woman on woman, it is what it is, an obscene practice.
    Louis Barlow

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *