MEDIA RELEASE: MEDIA WATCH CONFIRMS MEDIA BIAS – SO COME HEAR RYAN ANDERSON!

Ryan Anderson CanberraMEDIA BIAS ON SAME-SEX ‘MARRIAGE’ CONFIRMED BY MEDIA WATCH:
A call to be professional, not partisan.

“Last night’s Media Watch acknowledged the bias and censorship against our side of the marriage debate,” said Dr David van Gend, President of the Australian Marriage Forum.

Paul Barry asked,

"But aside from the ads being banned, are opponents of marriage equality getting an equal run in the media? Or at least a fair hearing. We don’t think they are… This is an important change that’s being proposed, and surely both sides of the debate have an equal right to be heard.”

“That is a very significant judgement – and we expect journalists and presenters to accept their guilty sentence and mend their errant ways,” Dr van Gend said.

“And tonight is the first chance the media have to practice the new fairness – which will be essential if we move to a national plebiscite, with its binding responsibility to give both sides of the marriage debate an equal hearing.

1. COME TO TONIGHT’S PUBLIC ADDRESS BY DR RYAN ANDERSON IN CANBERRA

The AMF is principal sponsor of the visit of the brilliant US defender of marriage, Dr Ryan Anderson. He has been the single most prominent and effective advocate in the US in recent years, acknowledged even by opponents for exceptional clarity of thought and a gracious manner. The events are being managed by the Australian Christian Lobby and co-sponsored by other pro-familiy and marriage groups. Tonight is Dr Anderson's first engagement and media are welcome to come and hear Ryan at the Parliamentary Theatre, Canberra, 7 to 9 pm. Details at http://www.eventbrite.com.au/e/the-cost-of-equality-canberra-tickets-17773308444

If you are Melbourne-based, come to Thursday night’s event, 6 to 8 pm at Cathedral Hall, 20 Brunswick St, Fitzroy. See https://www.eventbrite.com.au/e/the-cost-of-equality-melbourne-tickets-17561772735

2. CONSIDER THIS MESSAGE FOR TONIGHT FROM THE AMF PRESIDENT

“Here is another chance for the media to start to understand their fellow citizens who oppose same-sex ‘marriage’. This video message will be shown at the Ryan Anderson events in Canberra, Melbourne and Brisbane, and it deals precisely with the hostility and bias of the media – particularly in relation to the first AMF TV ad which was banned by SBS in March, leading to a big discussion of free speech and the grilling of the SBS boss by a Senate committee.

“The video message explains what we consider to be the heart of opposition to same-sex ‘marriage’ – that it makes it impossible for a child to have both a mother and a father. But take a listen, and dare to believe that your fellow citizens who oppose changing the present law are not the monsters of media fantasy but serious people with gentle child-centred reasons for their position”, Dr van Gend said.

Video at https://youtu.be/8_QWCp4qhdM

DvG ryan Adnerson video

Share Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow us Facebooktwitterrssyoutube

7 Responses

  1. David said:

    “But take a listen, and dare to believe that your fellow citizens who oppose changing the present law are not the monsters of media fantasy but serious people with gentle child-centred reasons for their position.”

    On the day of the US Supreme Court marriage decision, he referred to gay relations as “an indecent act” and said that the majority justices had “enshrined sodomy in the Constitution”.

    These statements have nothing to do with marriage and instead only demonstrate an overt and blatant hostility to LGBT people. They’re also why I am often doubtful that there is not homophobia behind opposing same-sex marriage. David wants people to change their perceptions of same-sex marriage opponents, but statements like that make it more difficult.

    • admin

      Nick, you make the basic error of not distinguishing between an act and a person – between, in Christian parlance, “loving the sinner but hating the sin”.

      So you are incorrect in discerning “overt and blatant hostility to LGBT people” what you should be discerning is stern opposition to acts like sodomy which (whetehr heterosexual or homosexual) are a gross abuse of the human body and therefore indecent acts.

      Consider this extract from the Boxing Day article of the AMF President in The Australian, which makes the distinction again – and ask yourself whether you are, along with Puplick and Croome, essentially raging against anybody who challenges the decency of homosexual acts:

      Among several inflammatory assertions about church teaching, Puplick claims “homosexual people are described as ‘intrinsically disordered’.” That is not so and the booklet does not say that. The official teaching in the Catholic Catechism reads: “Basing itself on sacred scripture … tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered”.

      Only the acts are considered disordered, while homosexual people are “created in the image of God and loved by Him” and “must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity”.

      What is intolerable, I think, to Puplick and Croome is that anyone would dare raise moral concerns. The campaign for homosexual marriage is only a means to the greater end of compelling social acquiescence in homosexual behaviour. This is achieved by silencing dissenters. Only when homosexual marriage is law will the power to intimidate objectors and indoctrinate schoolchildren be complete.

      http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/inquirer/conscience-demands-we-debate-moral-issues-unimpeded/news-story/10529a78b24d83b6f5baf74ad5f476fb

      • If you think that making this absurd distinction between acts and people – as if that somehow erases all the harm that your condemnations inflict on us for living true to ourselves without hurting anyone else – you are deluded.

        If you think that David was talking equally about homosexual and heterosexual sodomy in a comment about gay relationships and gay marriage, you are even more deluded.

        If you think that your incessant, fierce disapproval of gay people is a mere “challenge”, while my tempered comment from August 18 is “raging”, you’re further deluded still.

        And if you negatively allege that we find it shocking that you criticize homosexuality, while also being shocked that we criticize homophobia – thus not recognising that while you can disagree with homosexuality, I can disagree with your disagreement – then you’re so deluded I should stop being angry at you and start feeling sorry for you.

      • That was one possible response. The second is this: Can LGBTQ people ever forgive Christian evangelicals for their sins?

        Can we forgive you for defining us as “inherently disordered,” as “contrary to God’s will,” as “sinners,” as “perverts,” as “heretics,” as “Godless,” as “deceived” and “depraved,” as a “corrupting force on civilization and on the family,” as “contrary to the laws of nature,” and that our relationships “will tear down the very fabric of society”? Can we forgive you for your insulting and repugnant mantra “We love the sinner but hate the sin”? Can we forgive you in your efforts to deny me and members of my community the rights of self-definition and self-determination, and to deny us our integrity and our humanity by attempting to prevent us from maintaining our subjectivity, our agency, and our voice?

        Can we forgive you as you so arrogantly tell us why and how we have come to our same-sex attractions and our gender identities and expressions, and that it is a “choice” that we can change? Can we forgive you for your abusive “religious counseling” to remove us from the so-called “gay lifestyle”? Can we forgive you for your bogus and dangerous “reparative” or “conversion therapy“? Can we forgive you for the defrocking, excommunications, purging, and banishments? Can we forgive you for turning our loved ones against us, and for making us internalize your lies?

        Can we forgive you for using our bodies as stepping stones for your own ambitions and political (yes, political) advancement? Can we forgive you in your endeavors to deny me and members of my community the rights granted under the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution to equal protection under the law, and in particular the right to marry the person of our choice, to serve our country openly in the military, to equal protections in employment, housing, public accommodations, insurance, inheritance, and to pursue happiness as we see fit? Can we forgive you in your efforts to legislate us into second-class citizenship and codify your so-called “values” into law and attempt to deny us entry into the institutions of our choice? Can we forgive you in your efforts to prevent me and members of my community from gaining our rightful place in our society?

      • Or, we could go with the Golden Rule, the one which is supposed to, you know, come before all others (bar loving God). Would you want us to do this unto you?

        “”Hate the sin, love the sinner” is a crock”:

        It’s not Christians whom I hate; I love Christians and I want what’s best for them. It’s just that abomination, the filthy Christian lifestyle, and their disgusting beliefs that I hate. As a matter of fact, I love Christians so much that I want them to renounce and repent their faith to be saved, because if they don’t, if they continue to believe in their God and wallow in the filth of their lifestyle, they will surely be (and deserve to be) tortured for all eternity.

        I also don’t want Christians to be able to marry, adopt or have children, collect benefits for their partners, be teachers, boyscout leaders, or have any contact with children. In fact, I don’t think it’s healthy to have openly Christian people “out” in society at all. I think that it should be legal to fire Christians because of their faith, and any attempts to punish hate crimes against Christians are clearly just an attempt to push the filthy, Satanic Christian agenda.

        But, you know, I love you guys. It’s just your sins that I can’t stand.

      • One more. Anne Marie Waters explains it brilliantly:

        Nowadays, the Vatican states that it only asks that gay people live a life of chastity. It asks gay men and lesbians to defy their nature and to live without life’s greatest gift – it asks them to live without love. It tells them that the love they long for is wrong and sinful, and that they should spend their lives apologising for being who they are.

        The Vatican tells gay people that they should live lives of loneliness and isolation without the intimacy that loving sexual relationships bring. It urges them to fight their attractions; if they fall in love and act upon it, they are committing as great a sin as child abuse. It tells them that their very existence and their human need to commit to one another is as great a threat to humanity as global warming. This Christmas, the Pope told them that despite all the war, poverty, corruption, torture, rape, murder, and inequality in the world – it is they, homosexuals – who pose the great threat to human kind. How very compassionate.

  2. It’s June 15, 2016. 3 days ago, 49 people were murdered in Orlando for being LGBTI.

    David’s comments are the start of the philosophical line that Charlie Hebdo mentioned in its editorial about the Brussels bombings. He is Tariq Ramadan, the man who demands that we not criticize his beliefs lest we be “intolerant”.

    This massacre is the end of that line, the inevitable result of the climate produced by the ideologies that you and him have demanded not be criticized.

    Now do you see why I protest?

Leave a comment