Homosexual Marriage, “Safe Schools” and Much More: A Package Deal

The pro-homosexual marriage activists keep claiming our side is putting up a lot of red herrings and false diversions about legalising faux marriage. When we say that a vote for homosexual marriage means a vote for radical sex education, including the deplorable safe schools program and the whole transgender agenda, and much more, the other side claims there is no connection whatsoever.

But the simple truth is, the pro-homosexual sex ed programs and the like have always been part and parcel of the radical homosexual agenda, including the push for homosexual marriage. That has been crystal clear right from the beginning. One simply has to look at statements made by these radical left groups to see that this is indeed the case.

Yet so many in the media, in politics, and sadly even in so many of our churches are all insisting that homosexual marriage will be fine and nothing negative will follow on from this. They are quite clueless here. And sadly too many of these Christians seem to enjoy being armchair critics in all this.

For example, one Christian leader recently actually attacked the Coalition for Marriage ad. He claimed it had “contested facts,” and was just a “Slippery Slope argument.” He said “these guys [were] speculating about related topics,” and asked why “no strong arguments in favour of retaining the definition of marriage” were given.

To be honest it greatly bothers me when so many devout and faithful Christians are working their tails off to defend marriage and family, and the gospel as well, and are taking all the heat for it, yet we have some of these critics who seem to enjoy taking pot-shots at them.

Was the ad perfect? Of course not. If the Coalition had a zillion more dollars they could do many more ads with differing messages. But you can only do so much with a 30-second ad and with very limited funds. Until these critics put up their own time and money to produce better ads, I think they need to just ease up with their constant criticisms.

And he simply is wrong in what he said. I and many others have long made solid arguments for the case for marriage. For example I have written three books on this, nearly 800 articles on homosexuality, nearly 400 articles on marriage, and over 100 articles on the transgender issue. Yet he implies we have no arguments to make for our case?

And “speculating about related topics”? These matters are all most certainly related, and it is indeed a package deal, as I will document in a moment. When we get homosexual marriage we get everything else as well: more safe schools indoctrination, more gender bending, more of the heavy hand of the law, more persecution of Christians, less gospel freedoms, etc.

As mentioned, simply listen to what the other side has been saying all along. I could fill this page just with all their banners and posters making this clear connection. They all carefully and clearly link the push for homosexual marriage with all the other radical agenda items, including the Safe Schools nonsense.

The evidence on this is so overwhelming that it actually seems foolish for me to have to once again state and restate the obvious. So let me just provide a few examples (of many) here, in no particular order:

Late in 2015 the AU Marriage Equality site sent out this tweet: “Safe Schools, operating in Vic for years, now under attack suiting the last ditch anti-#MarriageEquality narrative”

In an early 2016 FB post they said this: “Sadly our youth are already being hurt by the looming plebiscite and Safe Schools review. We need to stop this now.”

Former Labor leader Mark Latham, who happens to favour homosexual marriage, has said this will ‘open a can of worms’:

I’m a supporter of same-sex marriage and would like to vote Yes in a plebiscite. But clearly Labor and Liberals have in mind a far broader definition of marriage….
Marriage equality is not just for gay couples. It involves a sweeping redefinition of marriage, extending to the other 247 gender/sexual categories. My advice to people would be: if you don’t understand the proposal, don’t vote for it. I won’t be.

Or look at one major player in all this, the Greens. In their LGBTIQ page they make the link crystal clear. The first item on their wish list is homosexual marriage, followed immediately by the Safe Schools program. They see both as essential and necessary.

More importantly, simply listen to what Roz Ward, the co-developer of the Safe Schools program, said about the two issues a few years back:

It is a total contradiction to say we want (the) Safe Schools Coalition but you can’t get married to the person that you love. (Teachers) have to work in this context where we have this state-sponsored homophobia in this discriminatory law and still fight against homophobia. The question of equal marriage is important in every single school that I go to, because I talk to teachers and they say to me: ‘How can we continue to fight against homophobia when the students will say to us that same-sex couples or transgender people cannot get married to the people they love? The law says it’s not equal and then we need to turn around as teachers and say: well it should be but it’s not’.

Um, if this homosexual activist and safe schools chief says the two stand or fall together, why are so many folks living in denial about this? But there is plenty more one can run with here. Consider this article on the need to go beyond marriage equality by Simon Copland, a member of the editorial board for Green Agenda. He admits this:

It is true that marriage has become an extremely important symbol and its passage would be seen by many as a significant milestone in indicating the willingness of the state to treat gay and lesbian people equally. Yet, unfortunately it is little more than a symbol. In Australia marriage equality actually has few practical impacts. State-based de-facto legislation gives same-sex couples practically all of the same rights as their married straight counterparts.

Of course they already have all the same rights as anyone else. Of course this is mere symbolism. I have been saying this for years now, as have many of the more honest homosexual activists. He even admits that legalising homosexual marriage is merely “symbolic gain”. He continues:

Campaigners have unfortunately been accused at times of pushing other issues under the bus in order to succeed on this one front. Short-term success is sometimes put ahead of long-term gain. This needs to change, with us in particular looking at marriage as part of a broader campaign for LGBTIQ rights — one that requires a strong progressive debate about sexuality and gender identification.
Marriage has become an extremely important issue for LGBTIQ people. Yet it is just one step on a very very very long road. We should be thinking a lot more about the other issues facing our community — issues that cannot be ignored any longer.

Years ago I carefully documented the many demands of the homosexual activists. They have plainly told us what they want. They have spelled out in detail their various lists of demands. They have made it clear about all the radical social transformation that must take place.

Homosexual marriage is just one of many major items on their wish lists. Read Strained Relations and Dangerous Relations for plenty of documentation and references on all this. Living with our head in the sand may seem comforting, but it is a dangerous place to be in.

When the other side clearly informs us about their aims and intentions, maybe we should start listening to them for a change, instead of living on another planet. The stakes are high, and we must take the opposition seriously. And we know full well from what they have said and written over the past 50 years, that homosexual marriage is just the tip of the iceberg.

[1355 words]

28 Replies to “Homosexual Marriage, “Safe Schools” and Much More: A Package Deal”

  1. Many thanks Bill ,

    Death threats against Courageous “No Vote” ladies.

    Dear friends,
    I just received this by email from CatchtheFire Ministries in Melbourne. So we are all well informed about the tactics used by some HARD LINE Activists pushing the YES vote. I urge you to read this carefully.

    7:34 PM.
    “Dear Family and Friends in Christ, Pastor Daniel Nalliah personally knows the three ladies who feature in the ‘Say No to Same Sex Marriage’ TV advertisement and has been in contact with some of their families. They have received abuse, death threats and fire-bombing threats. Please pray for these brave ladies and their families, for God’s protection and strength to keep standing.”

    This situation is becoming very disturbing when you are threatened simply because you don’t support SSM.

    May God bless you Bill and all readers and their families on CultureWatch,

  2. The pro-homosexual marriage are now mocking our very successful advertisement:-


    Are they serious? You never know with these people. Do the homosexual lobby want to make our children perform “Brokeback Mountain” as school play? It was bad enough when my daughter’s school — NSGHS — picked “Miss Saigon” as their stage play and told a Asian girl from a good family that she had to play a prostitute if she wanted the lead role. No schoolgirl should ever be put in that position.

  3. Dear Philip, I was told that what made our advertisement so powerful was that at least one lady is not religious and has no connection to any church.

    Even if Pastor Nalliah does know the non-believer lady I feel we should not be promoting church links to her. Our message is more powerful if she appears unconnected to the ACL or any church.


  4. SSM just symbolism? I do not buy it Bill. This push for SSM is driven by something much bigger then the ‘wants’ of the homosexuals. As is admitted they already have equality. They are just pawns in the hands of the Marxists who are using the LGBTQ movement as a means to take possession of the one thing that stands in the way of establishing Marxism in the West. The keys to Christian marriage. Once the homosexuals have that key the Marxist wheels will start rolling in earnest to destroy the institute of Christianity starting with the family. Its just another step towards Satan’s effort to take this world for himself. Thank God He has given His word that we Christians can find comfort in them. A time of persecution may lay ahead but the Glorious One will return and take us praise His Holy name. In the meantime we are called to light and salt to this darkening world. Father give Your people the boldness and strength to go on salting the world and shedding your light until the coming of Christ our Saviour.

  5. First up, this poll is NOT about marriage equality- if it was, the the MEA people would be arguing for all discrimination in marriage.
    Originally, marriage was not defined in the Act which is why Howard amended it to reflect Hyde vHyde common law decision where Lord Penzance said “I conceive that marriage, as understood in Christendom, may for this purpose be defined as the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others”.
    Currently, the Marriage Act (and its amendment Act) carries qualifiers as to who can get married (even amongst the heterosexual community)
    Those excluded from marrying are:
    1. either party is already married.
    2. the parties are in a prohibited relationship: direct descendants or siblings, including adopted (by law) relationships.
    3.The marriage of a person aged 16 or 17 to another aged over 18 is permitted in ‘unusual and exceptional circumstances’, which requires the consent of the younger person’s parents and authorisation by a court.
    4. Persons of the same sex.
    So, MEA wants to make marriage “equal” by removing qualification 4.
    Therefore if I wanted to marry all of my three sisters, one of which may be 15, I can’t. Thats not equality is it?
    If MEA was fair dinkum about equality, they’d morally want all qualifications removed – at the moment, all they want to do is expand the privilege to include same-sex couples, and hang the rest.
    So in principle, they agree that qualifications in the Marriage Act are necessary.
    Therefore, they aren’t after equality at all- so their name is logically inconsistent with their aim.

  6. Bill, what you say is true, even some people who support SSM have seen the push for the transgenderism on kids and they’ve said that’s going to far. There are also some gays I’ve seen online where some of them want to distance themselves from that group since its a different subject. I honestly like some don’t get why gays added the T to LGBT like that has nothing to do with anything sexuality and in some ways very contradicting to the whole Pride thing considering they’re telling Transgender people to be ashamed of who they’re born as.

  7. Indeed Bill,

    Another good article, and the ‘slippery slope’ accusation is getting old.

    Can we all think back to when homosexuality was legalized as a practise and consider what that decision has wrought on our society ever since?

    This is a message for the flaky Christians who think that no harm can come of this. It’s inconceivable to think that the activists will stop with gay marriage.

    They won’t stop until Christianity is illegal and extinct.

  8. It is ironic – I have been threatened and abused by homosexuals for taking a stance against safe schools and homosexuals marriage. The irony is they call me a part of female anatomy that they will not see.

  9. Another view of this that shows how hot and twisted the agenda for SSM is:

    If I am against alcohol use (not just abuse), I am not persecuted, I am not threatened, I can hold a function that states and upholds that claim, I am not threatened at work or in church or in my business. No one stands over me and demands that I change my mind and participate.
    And this is when there is a very high population percentage that legally use alcohol.

    Like wise; exactly the same story for tobacco use, for gambling, for prostitution, or for any vice that has legal recognition.

    Come SSM and all hell breaks loose before it is legal; what will happen if SSM is legalized?
    How can it not be demonic?

    John Howard is so right when he demands strong and legislated safe haven for objectors.

  10. Philip – For a SSM, what is the relevance of, “Exclusion 2. the parties are in a prohibited relationship: direct descendants or siblings, including adopted (by law) relationships.” ? Presumably this is in the current MF Marriage Act to minimise the increased risk of genetic disorders.

    For SSM exclusion 2 is irrelevant. Therefore is that exclusion to be removed from any SSM legislation?
    For MF marriages, is it to stay in?
    If so – That would not be ‘Marriage Equality’,

  11. Redefining marriage is a huge and powerful platform for making other changes. For a start it ticks all the boxes as far as the left wing of politics is concerned because it gives them a platform to exclude moral (conservative) people from positions of power and influence and business. It gives them a shoe in the door for the indoctrination of children and the removing parental rights and it helps condone their control of the government funded media. It gives them control over everything from what you do in your own house to educational institutions to the legal profession to what you see on TV. On top of this we have it being used oversea to promote things such as surrogacy because, as the UN says, marriage is part of the right for having and raising children and it is very obviously being used to force people to condone of homosexuality on the proven false claim that homosexuality is a trait people are born with – so it is forcing a false morality based on imagination. We also are seeing it used overseas to promote various family structures that any moral person would never condone but the biggest threat is how it is used to take away what always used to be called God given rights and giving legal authority over these things to the government. This is the inevitable result of not basing laws on facts such as biology and basing them on human imaginations. When fundamental laws start to be based on artificial ideas then there simply is no longer a sound basis for justice.

  12. There is a Qld State Public School in my small community.
    It supports a safe School Programme and gender neutrality to the point that the two school captains are both girls.
    Isn’t this discrimination?
    How does this affect the self-worth of the boys. They have no male role model to look up too.
    If this policy is adopted it will mean a further decline of the masculine role, which has also been attacked by the Feminist movement.
    I believe a Yes vote will cause chaos and confusion in our male female roles.

  13. Dear Bill,

    Thank you for the article.

    Of course there is a slippery slope! Aren’t the pro-death squad campaigning for euthanasia now as the pro-life campaigners said they would after abortion was legalised? Getting what they want emboldens these agents of Satan to demand more and more of their warped agenda.

  14. G’day Bill,

    You are far more gracious to ‘Christian leaders’ than I would be. You refrain from naming and shaming them. I would like to know so that if (God forbid) they were part of my denomination, I could, perhaps challenge them as a colleague.

    Perhaps you could explain why you (seem to) have this policy. I don’t know whether it is because you’re sick of abuse and legal challenges, and I wouldn’t blame you.

    My prayers for your ongoing courage, commitment, and protection from Satan’s attacks.

    Andrew Campbell

  15. Thanks Andrew. I admit to being in a hard place here. It is, as you suggest, a feeble attempt on my part to show a bit of grace. Sometimes I name and shame, and sometimes I don’t. It is an issue of whether in some cases it is worth seeking to build bridges instead of burning bridges. Discernment and wisdom is always needed here, and I could greatly appreciate your prayers on this. Sometimes I wonder if people saying really bad things like this are able to be brought around. If so, I will keep them in prayer and hope they will improve. If I think they are a goner, too far in apostasy and selling out on the gospel, then I am much more inclined to mention who they are. As I say, I need wisdom here, so please pray for me in all this thanks.

  16. @ John,
    My argument precisely- it boils down to a moral argument doesn’t it. If “equality” is the supreme ethic and it is being used to as an excuse to remove the same-sex prohibition qualifier, why stop there. Isn’t therefore the “equality” ethic also more important than the sibling prohibition. There are already moves abroad to remove similar prohibitions. A survey at debate.org shows that 80% say there’s nothing wrong with consensual invest (see here) http://www.debate.org/opinions/is-consensual-incest-wrong
    In case my point isn’t being understood here, I will vote NO and I don’t support marriage other than that as defined in the current act. I merely point out the homosexual marriage lobby aren’t really arguing ultimate “equality” at all, just parity with heterosexuals. I’m just playing devil’s advocate.

  17. My message to the Vote Yes Lobbyists:
    Sung to the tune of Love and Marriage ??????

    Same sex marriage same sex marriage
    It’s an institution we can’t manage!
    This I tell ya brother! You can’t have a mum without a father!
    Same sex…. Repeat…. It’s a problem with a heavy baggage!
    Ask my neighbour Martha, she keeps forgetting she’s an Arthur!
    Why, why, why this vicious outrage? I just don’t get it.
    My! My! My! Don’t vote yes, please mate! You will REGRET it!
    Same sex marriage same sex marriage
    In the past queer people seemed to manage, this I tell ya brother
    You can’t have a dad without a mother!
    Try, try, try to legalise it: It’s self delusion!
    Try,try,try to normalise it: it’s an illusion!
    Same sex marriage same sex marriage it’s an institution we can’t manage!
    Let me tell ya brother! Ya can’t have none, ya can’t have one!
    Ya can’t have a mum without a father!

  18. Here’s my contribution Penelope. A blues shuffle in G.

    Stolen Rainbow Blues

    Now I want to be happy but I can’t be gay
    Just thinkin’ ‘bout the things that we are throwing away. Oh yeah.
    C G
    These Politicians think that they have the right to choose
    D7 G
    How many people have the Stolen Rainbow Blues?

    Mama and Papa now means nothin’. No more!
    What do these dolts think that marriage is for.
    Some of these people well they just don’t have the clues
    How many people have the Stolen Rainbow Blues?

    Turn on the TV watchin’ Q&A
    That jerk around Jonesy pushes it every day. Oh yeah.
    There just no chance to get unbiased views.
    There’s nothing for it. Got the Stolen Rainbow blues.

    Now I want to be happy but I can’t be gay
    Just thinking ‘bout the things that we are throwing away. Oh yeah.
    Corrupt judges think they have the right to choose.
    How many people have the Stolen Rainbow …
    How many cultures have the Stolen Rainbow …
    I have to say I have the Stolen Rainbow Blues

  19. I would appreciate some wise feedback.

    I’m really struggling to know how to vote? (And by that I mean either voting no or not voting at all)

    I could never vote yes, but I’m struggling with knowing whether voting no is the right approach? I’m tempted to just tear up the survey once it arrives.

    My reasoning at the moment is this: While I am not blind to the damage that SSM will cause to society… I am far far more concerned by what is happening in our churches and the damage this is causing

    I think the church needs to get it’s act together biblically, before it attempts to tackle the issues in the world. Churches need to actually start practicing biblical church discipline. They actually need to start being the church. Because at the moment the difference between the church (apart from a few brave individuals) and the world appears to be that the world has more integrity because they arent claiming to follow Jesus.

    I can’t blame people for not taking christianity seriously given how hypocritical the church currently is. Hyperfocussed on the worlds sins while brushing off the churches sins or refusing to mention them out of fear of being seen as judgmental, divisive or “bashing” a particular denomination.

    I have heard too many times from christians that we need to deal with “such and such” a sin in the world and sign this petition or campaign for this cause etc. and then when I ask these same people about addressing sins in the church, in the same manner, the all too common immediate response is unfortable defensiveness, accusations of being “unloving” and a request to “not judge” and just leave it to the ‘Holy Sprit’ to deal with.

    How can we expect non christians to take our request to follow the biblical view of marriage seriously (or a biblical view of anything really) when they see christians not bothering to at all, and getting away with it?

    Leaving aside the many sins we currently have running rampant through our churches unchecked, We currently have active gay lobbies in most of the denominations. Some of the denominations may as well BE gay lobbies. We have Gay and Lesbian ministers and bishops and churches that take the approach that homosexuality is fine and should be encouraged and welcomed. Where are the united campaigns to stop this?

    Why are people like Rod Bower still allowed to be licensed ministers? And people like the Primate (with his horrifying stance on abortion) allowed to spiritually lead churches all over Australia? Where is the outrage over this? Yes we have a few brave individuals willing to speak out and say its wrong, but where is the collective christian effort (that is currently being employed in the fight to save marriage) to overturn it? Where are the rallies and petitions and campaigns to keep our church pure and holy by excercising church discipline where it is needed?

    At the moment if a activist for the yes campaign asked me if I thought the church was hypocritical for allowing the things that it does while voting to stop gay marriage, I cant deny that they are speaking the truth.

    So voting no feels wrong. I would feel much better if the church was actually addressing its own problems first.

  20. Thanks Sarah. Of course there are many Christians who speak out on all sin, be it in the church or outside of the church. Consider my 4000+ articles for example! I speak out all the time on sins within the church, the need for church discipline, how judgment must begin with the household of God, etc, etc. There would be many others who do this as well.

    It is a logical fallacy known as the false dilemma to say we maybe should not speak out on homosexual marriage because some are not speaking out on the obvious sins within the church. How about speaking out on both!? Why not have a consistent prophetic voice wherever it is needed? Why not focus on all sin wherever it is found? The prophets did this, speaking both to Israel and the pagan nations. We should too.

    So of course we speak to the many sins in the church, including the obvious and blatant apostasy of wolves like Bower. But we also stand up for righteousness, seek to be salt and light, and seek to resist the war on what God values so highly, including his institutions of marriage and family.

    Thus I am fighting on both fronts continuously. You should be doing that too! So keep sounding the alarm about the many ills within the church while you also do all you can to stand up for marriage. It is a package deal and Christians must be involved in all these areas, not just some. Thanks for your comment, and I hope my remarks might be of some help here. Bless you.

  21. Same-sex marriage has been legally recognised in the US state of Massachusetts since May 2004 as a result of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling that it was unconstitutional under the Massachusetts constitution to allow only opposite-sex couples to marry. In the thirteen years since that ruling a great many alarming ‘slippery slope’ changes have been mandated in Massachusetts, outlined by Brian Camenker from MassResistance.org in this 28-minute video … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZX55HUPFSU There is little doubt that we will be heading in the same direction in Australia if same-sex marriage is legalised here.

  22. FYI – Said Christian leader just apologized for being wrong about his comments about the No Ad.

  23. Thanks Daniel. However, the Said Christian leader still boggles my mind to be honest. We have known all about the nasty anti-Christian bigotry and bullying of the homosexual activists for decades now, and I have documented many hundreds of cases of this over the years in books and articles, as have so many others. Yet it was only in the past few days that he came to realise all this? Better late than never I guess, but it is this sort of cluelessness and lack of understanding of the very real war that we are in that really bothers me. This is why our side keeps losing.

  24. Maybe the SSM issue will be God’s way of waking up a lot of Christians. I think it was Matt Chandler who said in a sermon “when you lose the ability in your culture to call specific things SIN, you’re under persecution”. Really starting to ring true now!

  25. Yes quite right Daniel. I have long been saying that the battle over God’s institutions of marriage and family is a clear means by which we can distinguish between the wheat and the tares. It is part of God’s sifting process, to show those who are truly his, and those who belong to the world.

Leave a Reply

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