Gay Activists Need to Get Beyond Blackmail

Great piece by Gary Johns in The Australian exposing the emotional extortion by gay activist groups - you know the line: "Give us gay marriage, you conservative homophobes, or you are culpable for gay suicide".

Progressive media and lobby groups play the same despicable game.

On August 12, Sky News presenter Peter van Onselen suggested the Abbott Government has blood on its hands for deferring a vote on same-sex ‘marriage’. He asked Bruce Billson, Federal Minister for small business, “Can you first just explain to me why it is an acceptable thing, the number of young Australians who are homosexual that will commit suicide between now and when the government finally gets its act together to have a plebiscite on this issue?”

It is a disgrace for anyone, but especially a government funded mental health lobby group like BeyondBlue, to try to influence public policy with such arguments. Witness their shonky logic in the full page ad in The Australian on September 1. No, there is no evidence whatsoever that the Marriage Act has the slightest role in gay suicide, and to even hint at that is intellectually bankrupt. We don't even know basic facts like the rate of gay suicide in Australia, but that does not stop Mr Kennett making speculative, politically arm-twisting claims.

Meantime, there is a lot of evidence that the gay lifestyle itself - much higher drug and alcohol abuse, higher relationship stress, the burden of AIDS and other venereal diseases etc - does contribute to depression, and does NOT improve detectably in jurisdictions where gay marriage has been introduced.

Shame on the BeyondBlue Board - including gay-marriage advocates Jeff Kennett and Julia Gillard, as well as some doctors who should know better - for using public money to distort a public debate.

Depression in any young people is a serious and complex question - not an emotional piggy bank to be plundered for a progressive cause.

------- Here is the Gary Johns article ----------

"Beyond Blue’s discrimination figures don’t add up"

To my many gay friends and acquaintances, on the matter of the same-sex marriage plebiscite may I say: be very careful about the company you choose.

Beyond Blue, a predominantly Australian government-funded $50 million charity ostensibly raising awareness of depression, is running a national campaign in favour of same-sex marriage.

Beyond Blue claims that lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex people have ‘‘an increased risk of depression and anxiety … and suicidal thoughts, and take their own lives at a much higher rate than heterosexual people. This is not because of sexuality or gender identity. LGBTI people, just like any Australian, face the same risk factors for mental health and suicide. What is different is the violence, prejudice and discrimination they face … This adds an additional and unacceptable layer of risk.’’

They claim, through a chain of causation, that marriage is discriminatory and that it follows that such discrimination is a cause of depression, which in turn ­causes suicide in LGBTI people.

If so, the significant changes to Australian attitudes to LGBTI people and the removal of every conceivable form of official discrimination against LGBTI people in the past two or more decades should have resulted in a diminution of the suicide rate. ­Indeed, evidence would be essential if one were to argue that marriage, the last and arguably least important bastion of alleged discrimination, is to fall.

Unfortunately for Beyond Blue, there is no Australian data to test this proposition. However, in Denmark and Canada, where LGBTI marriage is accepted, the evidence is not encouraging.

Canada extended civil marriage to same-sex couples in 2005. The LGBTI population is a tiny minority, so progress may not show in population data. Even so, while suicide rates in Canada overall have declined slightly, they have risen in half the Canadian provinces. Not much evidence there of a positive result from removing discrimination in marriage.

Not much joy either in an investigation of suicide mortality in Denmark during the initial 12-year period following legalisation of same-sex registered “domestic partnerships”. While before and after figures are not reported, the suicide risk nevertheless remains “greatly elevated for men in same-sex partnerships” (RM Mathy, Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 2011).

More important for Beyond Blue activists is that there are no studies on the relationship between those who have died by suicide and sexuality in Australia.

A recent fascinating study in Queensland attempted to overcome that absence by ‘‘constructing’’ LGBT profiles from psychosocial information gathered of those whose suicide had been recorded on the Queensland Suicide Register (DM Skerrett, Asia-Pacific Psychiatry, 2014). Researchers identified 35 LGBT (no intersex cases) suicide cases among 5966 registered between 2000 and 2009. These represent 0.58 per cent of suicides on the register.

While it was not the purpose of the study to measure the prevalence of LGBT suicides, LGBT suicides were nevertheless less than for the population. The 2007 Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2010) for example, found that 1.9 per cent of men and women reported being homosexual or bisexual.

The Queensland study suggested no difference in the prevalence of psychiatric disorder among LGBT suicides but that it was likelier that depression was mentioned as a factor. However, the rates of diagnosis for depression were not significantly different.

The real insights were that fully two-thirds of LGBT individuals experienced relationship problems compared with one-third in comparison cases.

Relationship conflict was significantly more common in LGBT cases (31 per cent versus 10 per cent in comparison cases). Interpersonal conflict was more frequent among LGBT individuals (14 per cent) than in comparison cases (5 per cent), with the difference “approaching statistical significance”.

In addition, other factors such as fear of contracting HIV, social isolation and alienation, and conflict over sexuality were more common among LGBT cases.

The authors describe as “remarkable” the high incidence of interpersonal conflict in the lives of LGBT people who have died by suicide in the present study. The authors conceded that their study was “unable to measure perceived levels of societal stigma directly” but, in any event, that which was noted related mainly to the fear of contracting AIDS, which is overwhelmingly a disease of homosexual men.

The Beyond Blue line that the tragedy of some LGBTI people is all about discrimination and nothing to do with sexual identity is not supported by evidence.

An ­attempt to draw conclusions unsupported by evidence does no dignity to the national debate and is not remotely the work of a ­charity.

Gary Johns is the author of The Charity Ball.

Originally published in the Australian

Share Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow us Facebooktwitterrssyoutube

12 Responses

  1. You’re basically saying that we shouldn’t use this argument because it’s confronting. It is confronting, as it should be, to all of us. If we all dismissed legitimate arguments about harm as “emotional blackmail”, we’d never get anywhere.

    • No, because firstly it is false, and secondly shameless and lastly blackmail, which it must be rightly called out as.

  2. Nick did you read the article? In no way is it saying the suicide argument shouldn’t be used because it is confronting. It does legitimately point out the persistent and deceitful process well practiced by the Gay lobby movement of manufacturing arguments not supported by facts.

    • There are very many other mental health issues apart from suicide that same-sex marriage will improve for LGBT people. How would you like it if our side just dismissed your arguments about raising children as emotional blackmail? I still find them irrelevant, because marriage laws and parenting laws are separate, but I didn’t dismiss it out of hand.

  3. Nick hi; Nick the entire premise of the above article is to bring much needed focus, for the sake of gaining perspective and dare I say a semblance of truth, to an issue that is critical to the social wellbeing of our country. Mr Johns cites evidence that needs further exploration and exposure in the public domain so that the average person is better able to discern fact from fiction in the SSM debate. You state that there are very many other mental health issues apart from suicide that will improve with marriage equality. Nick there is simply no evidence to back such a claim. If Mr Johns has sourced reliable facts his article gives compelling testimony to the fact that there is no credible evidence to support the emotive claims made by SSM supporters that changing the definition of marriage will have any impact toward diminishing suicide rates in the gay community. Given that the gay community is a very small percentage of the general population and that gays wishing to marry is a minority proportion of this, claims that changing the meaning of marriage will enhance mental health in the gay community appeals to people’s emotions but is without substance. A growing proportion of the population is coming to realise that until recently the SSM drive has been dominated by emotive catch phrases and glib statements that play very loose with the truth. A good example of this was the much publicised and media promoted notion of homosexuality being caused by a ‘gay’ gene. The fact that there is no gay gene has not as far as I am aware received a moments redress by any who promoted this idea. Nick did you have a mother and father? Sit and draft your own charter for the rights of a child; think of yourself as a child, then any child, then every child. What would you include? Food? Water?Shelter?A name? A country? An education? What about a mother and father? If not a mother and father why not? Explain how any adult can justify denying any child the right to a mother and father when they themselves were gifted with theirs. Nick it would be a novelty to hear ‘your side’ dismiss any logical contribution from opponents of SSM as emotional blackmail; it would make a pleasant change from the ubiquitous and ridiculous labels of ‘homophobe’ and ‘bigot’.

    • There is evidence that marriage equality has health benefits for LGBT people. As one example:

      http://www.bbc.com/news/health-16203621

      As for a mother and a father: I think children should be raised by their biological parents wherever possible. It’s why I have reservations about surrogacy, for gay and straight couples (laws which will not be affected by marriage equality). I support same-sex adoption, though, because if a child is adopted by loving parents who look after them and make them happy, that’s fantastic, no matter their sexual orientation. That’s something I’ve heard many stories of. The negative ones tend to involve some other trauma, like a divorce. I also am not in favour of abolishing straight marriage and replacing it with something else to get around state surrogacy and ART laws.

      Homosexuality is not completely genetic, but there is a genetic component:

      http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2014/02/14/3293791/study-sexual-orientation-genetic-link/

      Just because it’s not completely genetic doesn’t mean it’s a choice.

      Incidentally, one more thing about mental health: I’m 18 years old, and bisexual, and from time to time, this debate makes me more edgy and anxious. I would love for it to stop.

      • JB

        Hi Nick. Thanks for your comments. I too, as a same sex attracted person, feel “edgy and anxious” from some of these comments. Something very uncomfortable and difficult about people misrepresenting you, your life and feelings.

  4. Nick hi. It is pleasing to note your willingness to engage in some thoughtful dialogue even to the point of sharing something of yourself in your comment. Unfortunately Nick the reference you provide as an example of evidence for marriage equality benefitting the health of LGBT people is typical of the type of ‘playing loose with the truth’ that I was referring to above.
    The article’s catch heading has effectively caught you….SSM=Improved health for gay men. (Lesbians not being included in the survey) Nick go back to your reference again and look at it objectively. The leading paragraph states, ‘Legalising ssm MAY create a healthier environment for gay men says US researchers. Nick the word ‘may’ is appropriately used as this article is based on one survey at one clinic and we are provided with absolutely no understanding of how ethically the survey was conducted and if it in fact even tested what the writer of the article concludes it tested. Note how authoritative it is made to appear by including the words…’says U.S. Researchers.’ How many were involved in this research, 2..3..4? After making a ‘may’ statement the article tells us a UK charity thinks there is a clear link between happiness and health. This hardly being an earth shattering revelation Nick, being applicable I would imagine to all animals, one must question what the musings of a UK charity have to do with the research at one clinic in a State of America. The next comment relating to social exclusion is true for anyone feeling socially excluded but it in no way legitimately has any relevance to legislation that redefines marriage especially in light of the fact that many gays have no interest in marriage. The article then references researcher’s source comments which hinge on the words ‘may’ and ‘could’, hardly noteworthy as evidence.
    Nick your comments are thoughtful and I read them as someone seeking and prepared to seek the best way forward in this time of great social change. I have not read of any expert prepared to quantify the complexity of noted causal influences that constitute our sexual orientation. Nick as a person who has worked with children and teenagers for more than three decades I wish you well in your personal journey and growth. I agree with your comment about choice but this said our society has become very ‘me’ focussed, one consequence of this has been a growing confusion regarding rights and responsibilities and people’s willingness to own who and what they are. The incredible range of views gay people express about current issues is true testament that we all have the ability and responsibility to make correct choices.

  5. Personally I would love to be married. My preference would be to a woman. However I am not emotionally ready to raise a family in my opinion, as I have had an unusual life path. I am hopeful that one day this will be a reality, however I would never go into this big a commitment without being sure, as I have in my past been diagnosed with a mental illness. Unfortunately, this means I’ve been celibate for the past few years. The relationships I have been in were unhealthy as both myself and/or my partners were not mature enough – both too young, and too immature, thinking we had time to muck around and drink and cheat and so on. I am writing because I think marriage IS discriminatory, and I believe that it should stay the way it is in the majority of the world, and has been for the majority of history (as far as I know). I would encourage people to take life seriously, to not presume that they have a right to everything they see on TV, and to care for our kids in the capacity they have – whether or not they have children or brothers, sisters, grandchildren or whatever. I hope this argument that because people feel they have a right to regular sex, their “own” children and a marriage regardless of its impact on others, is stopped in its tracks, and I agree that Jeff Kennett, despite the good he has done, is very very wrong in this instance. I understand that he is at the coalface and wants to help homosexual people with mental illness, but I do not think he has thought this through. Life is a gift, and its choices will impact your life regardless of what the law says about homosexuals and marriage. If you are concerned by suicide rates in young people then perhaps just consider them as people with issues – I would be surprised if changing the definition of marriage stopped a single person from suicide, because if you are in that headspace already, its a very long way to imagining yourself living, let alone living with someone else.

  6. About 99% heterosexual Australians don’t need the Marriage Act to change for ourselves. 76% Australians believe a child has the right to live with their biological parents. Marriage is a sexual union, otherwise we would call it friendship or a business partnership. Same-sex couples are demanding about 99% heterosexuals to give up their right to call legal marriage as a sexual union between a man and woman which reproduces biological children because they believe they can’t do this. The new legal marriage is a sexual union between any two people. This can only mean a anal and oral sexual union because same-sex couples are unable to have a heterosexual union with their spouse. If religious people only want a heterosexual union with their spouse they will have to call this a non-legal church marriage like my German forefathers experienced. The German King tried to control their minds and persuade them to get married in the state church but they refused. Children and teenagers will be encouraged to practice of homosexual behaviour (anal and oral sex) which both same-sex couples and heterosexual couples can perform, except religious people refuse to practice these sexual behaviours. Homosexual behaviour has never been blessed with children, but has been cursed with illnesses- anal pain; suicide/self-harm; diseases- STDs- Gonorrhoea has recently become drug-resistant, HIV/AIDS- death, pelvic inflammatory disease – infertility / ectopic pregnancies; anal cancer, throat/tongue cancers, cervical cancers.

    The government will need to make a King Solomon decision which showed profound wisdom. Will the legal marriage remain as a sexual union between a man and a woman which reproduces biological children and is supported by Human rights, religions, laws of nature, history and scientific research. Otherwise, marriage will change into a homosexual union which same-sex couples and heterosexual couples can practice, except religious people. This is based on LGBTIAQ ideology and has nothing to do with religious moral beliefs. Heterosexual couples will be encouraged to commit for a life-time of anal and oral sex, and exclude all others from these sexual behaviours. Then use “friends with benefits” and bring these children into their marriages. This means all children will have at least one biological parent absent and will be equal to same-sex families. The new marriage will allow open-marriages, affairs-adultery and pornography as these will be normalised in our society. Guys will believe they have the right to pressure their partners to practice anal and oral sexual behaviours because it has been normalised. Their partners will find it difficult to refuse despite the harmful health problems. Doctors and health-care workers have reported girls experiencing faecal incontinence from anal sex leading to infections and diseases; self-harm after refusing to give a “blow-job” (oral sex); green vaginal discharge after experiencing anal then vaginal sex causing an ectopic pregnancy. The Guardian reported 80% of 16-18 yr olds believed anal and oral sex was normal after a year of sex education which had normalised these behaviours. The Royal Commission into child sexual abuse has provided evidence that children can learn homosexual behaviours and when they become adults they will repeat these behaviours. As our society becomes more sexually immoral this will make it more difficult to control other natural instincts (sinful nature) of hatred, jealousy, envy, fits of rage and the like behaviours. The new marriage will be known as the “meaningless marital relationship” and will be the equivalent to the Hook-up-cultures – “friends with benefits.” The new marriage will be defined by homosexual behaviour and not heterosexual behaviour because same-sex couples can’t practice this behaviour. Religious people will have nothing to do with the new legal marriage because they don’t need a certificate, wedding or divorce from the practice of anal and oral sexual behaviours with a spouse. The government can’t make laws and regulations which will influence religious people to have respect and dignity so they practice anal and oral sexual behaviours with their spouse.

  7. Last night’s SBS World “News” contained a feature which paraded a 22 year old gay man who was apparently saved by his football club, Bentleigh. He stated that opposition fans, and home supporters had not been calling him names this year, but that they were before 2016. He went on to say that he had lost his job for coming out, as well as his family and friends. He is a Greek boy, and I will not hurt him and his family by printing his name, despite SBS News already having done so.

    This segued into Nicky Winmar promoting his own son as a pinup boy for the AFL’s upcoming gay pride round.

    There are a couple of issues here I feel that have to be shown up.

    1. The Greek boy no doubt has a normal Greek family, and seeing that he is only 22, and thinks his life has somehow been saved – by a footy club – I pray that he does not suffer, but I know from experience that airing dirty laundry via the media can absolutely rock families. Whatever sin he involved in, I am very dubious that he lost his job just because he is a homosexual. The ramifications of him telling his story in the news will be far reaching, and although he did not seem too keen to talk about his family, there is no doubting that by now they are suffering anger and betrayal on top of losing their son to a “community” which will have no more use for him all too soon. I fear for his world – what an utterly evil sin this is, stealing people’s minds and breaking their futures. It is a sinful act – yet no more or less than pride or envy, but the way people reject all that is good once they “identify” by a particular sin – they are imposing a prison on themselves.

    2. Nicky Winmar lifting up his shirt did not start a reconciliation, nor did it end racism in footy. The AFL are using him and his poor gay son, to promote their first ever gay match up, between Sydney and St Kilda, and they are lying to him that being gay is like being black – holding this father and son up as totemic items, used only as a weapon as the AFL prepare to further corrupt the minds of the thousands of children who idolize their game.

    3. The AFL do not have any gay players parading around flamboyantly identifying by their homosexuality. This is a minor obstacle to the homosexual push groups currently leaning on so many organisations: they know that they can get stuck into children here, a la safe schools. Make no mistake: this is not just another “cause” for the AFL. This is an invasion into a sport that is beloved in the south. Whoever is responsible for it will have to answer to the King of all Kings – make no mistake.

    To the AFL, and the LGBT intelligensia who are holding them hostage:
    If you think I am joking, ask yourself: have YOU ever taken life seriously? Do you actually know anyone who has commit suicide because they are messing with sex outside marriage, or died on the roads abusing the temple that is their body with drugs or alchohol? Life is VERY serious – we are here for a reason, and the only Way to finish the race is by submitting to Jesus Christ. Trust in the Lord with all your heart – this is one of the proverbs that contain truth and the way through. I pray for the family of this poor kid, confused by the world as it is, no doubt while going through puberty, and sacrificing his family, friends and job it seems, for what, a label? The absolute wickedness of it all is staggering, and the AFL has just lost any right to ask for a penny of my hard earned cash; and Jeff Kennett: I am ashamed of you – you had a powerful position in Victoria, and the legacy you are now leaving is a few buildings and many, many confused children. There is an absolute moral aurhority – and although the mob at Beyond Blue do some okay things, a bad element is throttling them from within. How can you guide the lost souls of the city if your own worldview iana corrupt mishmash of morals that are right in man’s eyes, regardless of what God says about it. Nicky Winmar – I am sorry your son is doing what he is doing. I have no doubt that your love for him is great, and even more sorry that our secular society has convinced you and him that he has some kind of genetic defect, and that a future and a hope, , a wife and kids for him and grandchildren for you – are taboo in the eyes of the homosexual code of conduct that indoctrinates you both. I pray that like Paul the scales will fall from your eyes, and that you will see that you are being used, and that options do exists for your son, in repentance and mercy. Its difficult to imagine AFL types humbling themselves before the Lord, but our God is bigger than the gay lobby, bigger than beyond blue’s bad politics, and way bigger than the AFL and all their money and influence. Finally I pray for the people who are lobbying for mixed up morals – they are doing the work of the Enemy sure, but Jesus loves every one of us, and even if you are walking the halls of Canberra with a bucket of money and a rainbow flag looking to skewer souls for the “cause”: Jesus died for YOU. You don’t have to be a slave to this organised attack on people you know nothing about. God is always with us, and always consistent – and in temptation, there is ALWAYS a way of escape when you are walking with God.

Leave a comment