Fighting homophobia or promoting homosexuality?

Jim Wallace's latest contribution to the marriage debate:

ACT Education Minister Andrew Barr was pictured last week opening an "anti-homophobia" art display at a Canberra school.

So far so good. Everyone is against homophobia, but there is a fine line between that and promoting the lifestyle, especially for parents of school-aged children.

Barr was pictured with a "work of art" in poster form that included the statement "Love is not dependent on gender, what's your agenda?"

I am sure that, with all our empathy for people who may consider themselves inevitably gay, few parents would want to see this statement presented as truth to their children.

For the overwhelming majority of us, romantic love depends on gender. Few parents will want their children to be told, as this poster implies, that friendship or mateship inevitably lead as they mature to love; that the logical conclusion of this illogical proposition is that a sexual relationship may follow naturally from friendship with schoolmates of the same sex.

Read more

Share Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow us Facebooktwitterrssyoutube

20 Responses

  1. John Wigg

    The words “gay”, “homophobia” and the phrase “coming out” are all examples of the politically correct Newspeak begotten by the GLBTI counter-culture. “Gay” was once a synonym for “bright, colourful, or happy”. “Homophobia” has psychiatric undertones, implying that disagreement with GLBTI sexuality is somehow an anxiety disorder constituting mental illness. “Coming out” was once the activity of young adults entering the formal social scene and becoming formally available for courtship, ballroom dancing and eventually marriage to a person of the opposite sex. “Same-sex marriage” is yet another Orwellian metamorphosis of language.

    As the Ministry of Truth in Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four demonstrates, there is no better way of abolishing an institution or word than redefining it to mean precisely the opposite of what it used to mean. It is the Ministry of Love that incarcerates and cruelly tortures the novel’s central character and his lover!

    The argument that marriage may be divided into secular and religious sub-types and that homosexual relationships ought to be recognised in law as secular civil marriages is grounded in a centuries-old fallacy, the division of human activity into spiritual (religious) and secular (physical) realms.

    This dichotomy is ultimately a false one: A true religion recognises that the earth and its inhabitants – in fact the entire universe is the rightful property of almighty God. No area of human experience or activity on this understanding can rightly be called “secular” or “God-free”. Thoroughgoing secularism must ultimately deny not only all gods, but it must also embrace an essential meaninglessness for all human activity – a meaninglessness founded on a materialist world-view which sees the universe and human semantics as products of a blind, pitiless indifference at the core of an unending evolutionary process. GLBTI rhetoric about “gender evolution” is to be understood as at least pseudo-Darwinian or at most neo-Darwinian in its origins.

    Limiting same-sex marriage to civil marriages will not satisfy those GLBTI people who embrace heretical versions of existing religions. They are certain to seek legal validation of their belief that their particular sexual orientation is part of “the way God made them”.

    Until the emergence in modern times of the nuclear family and its successor, the “disintegrated family”, marriage was seen as part of the wider matrix of relationships between and within extended families. In cultures where marriage is arranged, marriage is a matter for negotiation between the families of the prospective bride and groom. Same-sex marriage cannot take sufficient account of this aspect of marriage as part of a matrix of wider heterosexual kinship networks.

    The call for same-sex marriage is a major departure from the usual GLBTI polemic against marriage and family as oppressive, patriarchal vestiges of traditional, reactionary, pre-modern socio-political institutions. The idea of same-sex marriage is surely an attempt to include a counter-culture as a legitimate part of the culture it has hitherto rejected. A house thus divided against itself is doomed to fall.

    Time has come for a thorough deconstruction of the case for same-sex marriage. Otherwise “marriage” will soon become another word for social and sexual anarchy.

    I realise the above thoughts may well be little more than a partial “first draft” of thorough case against same-sex marriage. We must start somewhere, before the GLBTI counterculture crosses their finishing line and makes off with their coveted trophy – the end of the traditional family and related heterosexual social institutions.

    • winston

      Great summation!
      We need you & others to send similar emails to radio station talk shows to counterbalance the promotion of homosexuality & homosexual marriage.
      They rarely read out my emails while devoting long periods to defenders of S S M.
      The only defender of traditional marriage on radio, Wilshire, is on vacation.
      I need many callers & emailers to express these truths & to enter complaints to the radio station when you are censored.
      They will soon pass criminal vilification laws to arrest you for criticising the blatantly erroneous behaviour.
      Good luck, honest Christians.

    • Will Bruton

      Wow. Maybe there is hope for us after all. You’ve restored my faith in humanity.

  2. gary

    get a life

    • winston

      Is that the entire contents of your vocabulary? I suggest you stop watching “reality” shows before the few remaining cells in yor brain shrink away.
      Try researching these strange words: honesty, ethics, honour, fidelity, impartiality, fairness, deceitfulness. Of which one are you in favour.?

  3. Sebastian Khor

    If the same-sex-oriented people can invent their own words to describe their sexual orientation, why don’t they also invent a word to describe their sexual relationship instead of muddling the holy marriage between a man and a woman?

    • winston

      because that is precisely what they want. they want a society so confused that nobody will be able to discern right from wrong, It was started by the marxists, who altered their economic based revolution to a cultural revolution. They created victim groups to divide society & promoted “critical theory” which involves criticising everything about the most successful society in history.
      It has fallen in last 20 years.
      The public education system has to be taken back. With the current indoctrination 90% of young people come out with degenerate values totally opposite to their parents & grand parents, There is not much time left. You need to leave comments on web sites of the degenerate media, like channel 10, etc

      • TrubbleMaker

        Ca we use a flame thrower instead? *lol*

  4. Sailor Neptune

    Call the wahhhmbulance Johnny WIgg

  5. David

    I woud like to see the studies that Winston is citing in his comment ‘90% of young people come out (of the public school system) with degenerate values totally opposed to their parents & grand parents’

    This statement begs the following questions:

    1. If 90 percent of recently graduated students now have degenerate values, how is society still functioning and hasn’t descended into anarchy?

    2. Are their values ‘degenerate’ simply because they are opposed to their parents and grandparent’s views?

    3. What makes a view ‘right’ and another ‘wrong’, what is the benchmark for degeneration?

    4. Is channel 10 the ‘degenerate media’ because it’s core demographic is 16-35 year olds, the very people with the degenerate views? And how would the channel 10 shareholders react if the station suddenly changed it’s position an alienated its audience.

    Surely, all of the intelligent minds on here can realise that gay marriage is now an inevitability. Just like women’s rights, civil rights, gay rights, aboriginal rights, interracial marriage and other social causes, in 30 years our children are going to look back on the progression of this argument and wonder what all the fuss was about. To paraphrase Julia Gillard (although she used this in reference to the carbon tax) people opposed to gay marriage are just going to end up finding themselves on the ‘wrong side of history’.

    • winston

      A reasonable person cannot have an intelligent conversation with you because you cannot understant the difference between various skin tones used to unfairly discriminate & the blatant biologically incorrect use of genitalia in homosexual acts. It does NOT matter what corrupt politicians temporarily introduce as law. You remind me of the people who threatened to kill & eventually jailed Galileo for telling the TRUTH.

      You can gather in special groups & even chamge the law in Australia, but THE TRUTH REMAINS THE TRUTH. This truth has been evident to all cultures for over 50.000 years. You tell me how you are NOT indoctrinated equating your disposition to use you male member incorretcly as equal to women eventually wanting more access to professions & voting rights.
      If cannot see the diference, the only conclusion is that you are INDOCTRINATED.
      I am not trying to offend you, I just want you to see the truth.

      • David

        I would say 6-7000 years.

      • Rebecca

        ” the blatant biologically incorrect use of genitalia in homosexual acts.” Good one. Hey guess what? Heterosexuals do that too. And amazingly in greater numbers than homosexuals. Please enlighten us, what is “the correct way”?

  6. winston

    Take note of point 3. of writer david.
    It is a luminous example of the ideology of these people, as I sated before.
    To them there is NO right & wrong.
    To them, when the NAZIs ruled that it was fine to rob, kidnap & execute jews & gypsies for no
    good reason, you were “on the ‘wrong side of history’ “ if you opposed the atrocity.
    To them the current ruling ideology will be the truth solely because a majority of the rulers have decreed that it should be. Similar to “mob rule”
    This is not an innocuous, cute ideology.
    It is dangerous. It is the same ideology that exterminated over 100 million people in China & USSR.
    Don’t be afraid to fight it, before it is too late.
    At the moment an unproportinal number of “representatives” with this ideology have infiltrated the ruling party.
    This happened because too many of you “turned the other cheek”.
    Now we need a miracle to overcome the coming onslaught of the education victims over the next 20 years.

  7. winston

    All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent. – Thomas Jefferson
    Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its VICTIMS may be the most oppressive. – C.S. Lewis
    The worst form of tyranny the world has ever known is the tyranny of the weak over the strong. It is the only tyranny that lasts. – Oscar Wilde
    When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty. – Thomas Jefferson
    Dictatorship naturally arises out of democracy, and the most aggravated form of tyranny and slavery out of the most extreme liberty. – Plato
    One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. – Plato

  8. winston

    I just heard on radio 2gb a gleeful announcement that “Penny Wong and her lesbian partner” just had a baby.
    I emailed my disgust to radio2gb.
    I think this is disgraceful & child abuse!
    Is anyone else disgusted by this masculine phobia enough to make a similar disapproving statement?
    If this society tolerates this, it will tolerate anything!
    Prominent Australian ethicist Professor Margaret Somerville writes against the deliberate destruction of a child’s biological identity as the child of a real mother and a real father:
    “It is one matter for children not to know their genetic identity as a result of unintended circumstances. It is quite another matter to deliberately destroy children’s links to their biological parents, and especially for society to be complicit in this destruction.”

  9. Chris

    It appears science is always on the righteous but unfortunately science would find it truly difficult to determine right or wrong, moral or immoral acts, and democracy cannot do so either, therefore in time democracy will destroy the population but pro-democracy campaigners don’t understand this, until it is too late and the rest of us will suffer.

    God’s society is created by the creator for the joy and well being of all of us, unfortunately some people don’t want God to be the ruler and think they can rule over society, it does not work this way, look at history.

    Marriages only work because of God, that’s why civil partnerships were invented by man. The advancement of medical science is the only way that same-sex marriage have become possible, but that does not mean it is right. Medical science does not determine the sociological underpinnings of our society, we are still debating/studying the psychological effects of same-sex families, none of which have been proven to be 100% successful, as not every traditional family is 100% successful or happy, so why should 100% of every marriage and family be 100% successful?

    Just another government trying to think its way is right. People want respect? Try respecting faith.

  10. David

    It seems to me that a lot of the argument on this site (particularly Winston’s) is fighting against the realisation of homosexuality as a concept rather than anything to do with homosexual marriage.

    The fatal flaw in the anti gay marriage argument is ‘oh we’re ok with gays, we just don’t think they should get married.’ But the problem is that the bible and many other religious texts ARE NOT ok with gays.

    When individuals start diverting from religious texts to suit personal values that is when it starts to get murky. Homosexual acts are explicitly condemned in the bible and so why therefore are people happy to accept homosexual culture. AND IF they are willing to accept homosexual culture how come they are not willing to accept homosexual marriage.

    It seems like people are happy to be accepting, but not that accepting. Or conversely, happy to be opposed to gay’s getting married (which is ungodly) but not opposed to gays (also ungodly).

  11. Winston

    I think my “guesstimate” is probably right, I constructed it via extrapolation, using logic. (I don’t have time to research all subjects of human experience).
    Howerver, here is an article that supports my “guesstimate”:
    “With the emergence of Homo sapiens (sapiens), again in Africa, between 200,000 and 60,000 years ago, the social and technological skills of our ancestors began to develop ever more rapidly ……. With the development of larger, long-term settlements, social methods had to be devised to cope with issues of conflict and cooperation in communities whose resident population numbered in the hundreds rather than the tens. Thus the elaboration of kinship and MARRIAGE arrangements surely dates at least from this era.”
    NB: I do NOT accept the euphamism “gay” as a replacement for homosexual, nor homosexuality. It is merely a tecnique to deceive, such as “collateral damage”.
    Are there 2 Davids? For & against?

  12. Kazza M

    being gay is not a choice, but being a total prick to people who are gay is a choice so it’s not gay people who need to change, If we dont want bullying in our lives .. make them equal and make it legal!

Leave a comment