Category Archives: Homosexuality

Living as an evangelical Christian in a secular society

The Honourable

Scott Morrison

MP

clip_image001

Morrison in 2021

30th Prime Minister of Australia

Incumbent

By Spencer D Gear PhD

Taking a stand for biblical values on sexuality

Citipointe Christian College, Carindale, Brisbane, has taken a stand for biblical sexual values and that has meant telling the truth about homosexuality. The effect has been fury of the secular agenda piled by the pro-LGBTIQ+ community and media against this Christian College.

ABC News, Brisbane reported: ā€˜A parent and teacher at a Brisbane Christian college that is demanding parents sign a contract affirming students identify as their birth gender and that homosexuality is “sinful”, says she is looking for another school for her child to attendā€™ (ā€œBrisbane’s Citipointe Christian College defends demanding parents sign contract on student gender identity, homosexualityā€).[1]

The News item continued: ā€˜In an e-mail to parents . . , principal Pastor Brian Mulheran said the new clauses in the enrolment contract were included to “ensure that we retain our Christian ethos, which is the foundation of what has made the College what it is today”ā€™.[2]

The contract states “the college will only enrol the student on the basis of the gender that corresponds to their biological sex” to maintain consistent with the college’s “Christian Ethos Requirements”.

It goes on to state that the college “acknowledges the biological sex of a person as recognised at birth and requires practices consistent with that sex”.

Another clause states the college has the right to “exclude a student from the college” should they not adhere to the “doctrinal precepts including those as to biological sex”.

To keep their child enrolled at the school, parents must agree with a set of “religious beliefs” laid out in a “Declaration of Faith” attached to the contract.

Part of the declaration states that “any form of sexual immorality (including but not limited to; adultery, fornication, homosexual acts, bisexual acts, bestiality, incest, paedophilia, and pornography) is sinful and offensive to God and is destructive to human relationships and society”.[3]

Morrisonā€™s view when it becomes law

Now that homosexual marriage has been legalised in Australia, what is Morrisonā€™s view? Notice how he dodges the journalistā€™s questions:

Scott Morrison says he supports the law of the country but wouldnā€™t say if his personal opposition to same-sex marriage has changed since it was legalised. . . .

Mr Morrison abstained from voting for marriage equality when it passed the House of Representatives in 2018, and he voted ā€œnoā€ in the national survey.

When asked if he is still personally opposed to same-sex marriage, the prime minister replied: ā€œItā€™s law. And Iā€™m glad that the change has now been made and people can get on with their lives. Thatā€™s what Iā€™m happy about.ā€

When pressed on whether his opinions have changed, he told reporters in Perth: ā€œI always support the law of the countryā€ (SBS News 2019).[4]

So, he supports Australian law but didnā€™t own up to his personal beliefs about homosexuality in 2019. I wonder, as a Pentecostal Christian, whether he accepts the Bibleā€™s view on the topic. See Romans 1:25-27 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-11.

Godā€™s view is different from Morrisonā€™s. Those who practise homosexuality (male & female) will not inherit the kingdom of God. Whether ScoMo is a PM or an ordinary Christian, he should support the Bibleā€™s view.

Scriptures: Christians must obey government, but not at the expense of biblical teaching.

Iā€™ll examine two biblical passages relating to Christians and government. They are:

(1) Romans 13:1-5 (NIV):

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is Godā€™s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are Godā€™s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

Letā€™s apply this to what is happening at Citipointe Christian College where the College has been forced to remove its statement on homosexuality from entry requirements.

The Guardian Australia reported:

While Citipointe Christian College says it ā€œdeeply regretsā€ that the contracts made students feel discriminated against, the principal says the school has the right to maintain its ethos and the ā€œfreedom to continue to provide an education based on our shared beliefsā€.

Rom 13:1-5 is not addressing a local issue but the laws of the State and nation. God sets up authorities. He is in control of them ā€“ no matter how bad they are. I struggle to understand these verses in light of the Nazi governments, and those of Pol Pot, Idi Amin, etc. However, I have to accept that God allows these horrific regimes to punish the people.

These verses point to the danger of getting too close to government in dependence on school funding. Citipointe demonstrates how Big Brother could have influenced the changing of the values of a schoolā€™s ethos.

(2) Matthew 22:19-21 (NIV),

19 Show me the coin used for paying the tax.ā€ They brought him a denarius, 20 and he asked them, ā€œWhose image is this? And whose inscription?ā€

21 ā€œCaesarā€™s,ā€ they replied.

Then he said to them, ā€œSo give back to Caesar what is Caesarā€™s, and to God what is Godā€™s.ā€

The obvious application is to paying taxes but its impact may stretch further with Caesarā€™s requiring Christian institutions to change their values.

We must obey God rather than human authorities.

ā€˜But Peter and the apostles replied, ā€œWe must obey God rather than any human authorityā€ā€™ (Acts 5:29 NLT).

This sums up the Christians responsibility to government, especially when the values of Christians clash with those of regimes. I consider that is what we have with Citipointe Christian College and its values that clash with those of government.

In my view, Acts 5:29 is causing some potential clashes when private schools receive so much funding from federal and state governments. There is a temptation to toe the government line rather than being true to their Christian heritage.

Governments who want to trash or compromise biblical values.

See my articles:

clip_image003Tolerance, homosexuality and not inheriting the Kingdom of God

clip_image003[1] ā€˜Homosexual unions, homosexual marriage, mass media & politiciansā€™

clip_image003[2]Why should we oppose homosexual marriage?

The personal disappointment for me is that our Pentecostal Prime Minister is not standing beside the Citipointe Christian Collegeā€™s leadership in the promotion of sexual Christian ethics.

Notes


[1] Accessed 1st February 2022.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] SBS News (AAP) 2019. Gay marriage is the law: PM Morrison, 13 May. Available at: https://www.sbs.com.au/news/gay-marriage-is-the-law-pm-morrison (Accessed 5 February 2022).

Copyright Ā© 2022 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 05 February 2022

clip_image005clip_image005[1]clip_image005[2]clip_image005[3]clip_image005[4]clip_image005[5]

Scott Morrison, Christian colleges, & biblical Christianity

The Honourable

Scott Morrison MP

Prime Minister of Australia Scott Morrison.jpg

Morrison in 2021

30th Prime Minister of Australia

Incumbent

By Spencer D Gear PhD

This article first appeared in On Line Opinion, 14 February 2022.

I was shocked to read our Prime Ministerā€™s reported view that he does not support the Citipointe Christian Collegeā€™s promotion of the ethics of biblical Christianity. He did not say it in such straight-forward language but stated,

The federal government will seek to amend a contentious section of the Sex Discrimination Act alongside its Religious Discrimination Bill, in a move that follows lengthy discussions between the Prime Ministerā€™s office and key backbenchers over the past week (The Sydney Morning Herald, ā€œChurch schools will lose right to expel gay students as PM deals with moderate Liberals,ā€ (February 3, 2022)

Letā€™s make it clear: ā€œModerate liberalsā€ are not supporters of what the Scriptures state about homosexuality. The Coalition government wants ā€œto lock in the support of moderate Liberal MPs ahead of a potential vote on the bill in the next sitting fortnightā€ (ā€œChurch schools will lose the right . . .ā€

Wouldnā€™t it be amazing to read a mass media press release that states the Coalition wants to woo Bible-believing Christians in the community and support their views on sexual (including homosexual) ethics ā€“ straight from the Bible?

blue-corrosion-arrow-smallĀ  ā€œThe wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickednessā€ (Romans 1:18).

blue-corrosion-arrow-smallĀ  ā€œGod gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one anotherā€ (Rom 1:24)

blue-corrosion-arrow-smallĀ  ā€œGod gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their errorā€ (Rom 1:26-27).

blue-corrosion-arrow-small ā€œFurthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and maliceā€ (Rom 1:28-29).

Citipointe Christian College Aerial View(photo Citipointe Christian College campus)

Elsewhere in the New Testament, the Bible states that these acts of homosexuality have this consequence:

Donā€™t you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Donā€™t fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality, or are thieves, or greedy people, or drunkards, or are abusive, or cheat peopleā€”none of these will inherit the Kingdom of God. Some of you were once like that. But you were cleansed; you were made holy; you were made right with God by calling on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-11).

Instead of trying to save his political backside for the next election and satisfying the LGBTIQ+ people, he should be representing ALL people and telling the truth about where homosexuality will take people. Bible-believing Christians have been betrayed, in my opinion, and should see the political craftiness of Morrison and give up on him at the next election. Iā€™m not convinced an Anthony Albanese led government will present a better option but at least its ethics will be secular and not in the guise of Christianity ā€“ as with Morrison.

The truth about sexual and other sins

Where are the Bible-believing MPs who will speak Godā€™s truth on the eternal penalty of that sexual aberration? Will they speak up when voting on the Religious Discrimination Bill?

Morrison admitted, ā€œMy kids go to a Christian school here in Sydney, and I wouldnā€™t want my school doing that either,ā€ he told Brisbaneā€™s B105.3 radio (Church schools will lose right to expel gay students). He was addressing the Citipointe Christian College issue. So, is he saying he doesnā€™t want a Christian school to tell the truth of the homosexual lifestyle and its eternal ramification?

Citipointe Christian College should feel let down by a Christian Prime Minister who seems to be playing political games for the next election so he can save ā€œsoftā€ Liberal Party seats. He has lost my vote to one of the minor parties that supports and practises biblical standards.

In my view, Morrison has practised reverse discrimination by compromising biblical Christianity and its ethics on sexuality and sucking up to the LGBTIQ+ community to make it look like support for that view. It is a politically correct view that may cost him at the next election.

Copyright Ā© 2022 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 04 February 2022.

File:K33 parallel edge coloring.svg

File:K33 parallel edge coloring.svg

File:K33 parallel edge coloring.svgFile:K33 parallel edge coloring.svgFile:K33 parallel edge coloring.svg

Fitz Files Fail

 

Related image

[image of Margaret Court (nee Smith) courtesy Wikipedia] 

This article first appeared in On Line Opinion, 25 November 2019.

Fitz, your article against Margaret Court (The Sydney Morning Herald, 9 November 2019, Opinion piece) failed fundamental tests of fairness. These include: Your intensely unpleasant homophobic remarks.

When will you and your mass media colleagues ever get a handle on the meaning of ‘homophobic’?

The Lexico/Oxford Dictionary describes homophobic as, ‘having or showing a dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people’ (Lexico.com 2019. s.v. homophobic).

The Macquarie Dictionary relates homophobia to those who have a ‘fear of homosexuals, usually linked with hostility towards them’ (1997. s.v. homophobia).

Does Margaret Court fear or dislike homosexuals?

Fitz, why your hullabaloo about Margaret Court being homophobic? She rebutted your view in an interview with Vision Christian Radio (31 May 2017) when she stated: ‘I’ve got nothing against homosexual people as individuals. But my stand for my Christian beliefs is for marriage the Bible way’. 7News reported: ‘Margaret Court has said, I love them [homosexuals], I have them in the church‘.

Based on the dictionary definitions, Margaret Court is not homophobic. She presents God’s view of marriage between a man and a woman and not between two people of the same sex.

Jesus confirmed the Genesis teaching in Matthew 19:4-6. A man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife. It does not say he will be joined (sexually) with another male. Margaret Court is correct in affirming the biblical view of sexuality in marriage. She is not homophobic but a promoter of God’s view, heterosexuality.

Talks between Israel Folau and Rugby Australia on his compensation claim will resume on Wednesday.Another sportsā€™ star accused of homophobia is Israel Folau, pictured here with his wife, Maria (photo courtesy Lakes Mail).

See ABC News, Brisbane, Qld, Israel Folau to be sacked by Rugby Australia over homophobic comments, 11 April 2019.

Fake news by Fitz

Infographic How to spot fake news published by the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (courtesy Wikipedia)

Again you presented fake news about Court’s beliefs. Fake news is ‘false, often sensational, information disseminated under the guise of news reporting’ (Collins Dictionary 2019. s.v. fake news).

You presented sensational false news about Court’s views when she stated ‘I love them (homosexuals)’. You created a homophobic, irrational understanding with your allegations against this former champion tennis player.

What was Margaret Court’s motive in her stand against homosexual marriage?

The Statement of Faith of Victory Life Centre, Perth, states: ‘That Marriage, according to Scripture is between a man and a woman; that man and woman are joined to become one flesh. God created man in His own image, male and female instructing them to be fruitful and multiply’ (Genesis 1:27-28; 2:24).

Accusation of Court’s double-standards

Margaret, remember a couple years ago you were ‘citing the Bible’ to proclaim the ‘only legitimate love is that between a man and a woman’. In doing this you asserted ‘those with a different sexuality to you are not your equal’.

These are your hypocrisies: You want the Bible to be your standard for marriage but you don’t use the Bible for your standard on teaching for women in ministry. I know this straight from the Bible you quote.

Fitz flunks the test

Here’s the real crunch for you Margaret: ‘Seeing as the Bible seems to be the only reference point you recognise ā€¦ I feel I must cite St. Paul’s advice in 1 Timothy 2:12; Ephesians 5:22; and 1 Corinthians 11:3-10’.

Fitz, if you were a student in one of my (Spencer Gear’s) courses at Bible College and gave your expositions of these three passages as you have done here, you would fail the exam. You didn’t come up to the standard because you, an atheist,could not achieve ā€¦

  • Proper exegesis of the texts. You cherry picked verses, allegedly against female teachers, without exposition. FAIL !
  • Your citation of 1 Cor 11:3-10 includes both husband and wife who prophesy (vv 3-4). Prophecy cannot happen without words and you didn’t explain what headship means and how women can prophesy in the public gathering of the church. FAIL !
  • Eph 5:22-23, ‘For wives, this means submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For a husband is the head of his wife as Christ is the head of the church’. What on earth does that have to do with women in ministry? Again, it requires you to expound the meaning of headship. You didn’t. FAIL !
  • 1 Tim 2:12 has caused angst among Bible scholars for 2,000 years because of the unusual word for authority, authentein, used only this one time in the entire New Testament. It has the connotation ‘to domineer’ and in context probably reflects the role of women in promoting errors of the false teachers in Ephesus, where Timothy was located. You provided none of this information. FITZ FAILS !

Related imageElsewhere the Apostle Paul affirmed the ministry of teaching by men and women. See 1 Cor 14:26 and Colossians 3:16-17. There was none of this information in your article. Seems to me you deliberately set out to denigrate Margaret Court’s view of Scripture, her alleged hypocrisy in supporting heterosexual marriage while violating the Bible’s view of women as teachers.

Fitz forgot fundamentals

The Christian faith is built on every-member ministry. It was declared on the Day of Pentecost: ‘In the last days,’ God says, ‘I will pour out my Spirit upon all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy. Your young men will see visions, and your old men will dream dreams. In those days I will pour out my Spirit even on my servants-men and women alike-and they will prophesy (Acts 2:17-18).

The same Apostle Paul who wrote the words in 1 Corinthians, Ephesians and Timothy also wrote Galatians 3:28, ‘There is no longer Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male and female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus’.

He also wrote: ‘The human body has many parts, but the many parts make up one whole body. So it is with the body of Christ’ (1 Cor 12:12).

Jesus’ death and resurrection broke down the former barriers for women.

Your deconstructionist, reader-response interpretation

Would you want me to read your article the way you interpret Margaret Court’s statements? She stated she loves homosexuals and has them in her church. Your assessment is that Margaret is ‘a homophobic zealot’. Margaret stated clearly what she meant. Fitz twisted this in true deconstructionist, reader-response style.

Deconstruction can be slippery to define but it briefly means that Fitz writes about Mrs Court but she doesn’t mean what we think she means in promoting heterosexuality. You went searching for other meanings as a deconstructionist as ‘other meanings are always there’. That’s not the way I read The Sydney Morning Herald or Manning Clark’s, The History of Australia.

(image courtesy The Public Domain)

Reader-response is a postmodern, deconstructionist approach to reading literature where meaning does not reside in the text. ‘Words in a text evoke images in readers’ minds and readers bring their experiences to this encounter. Because individuals have different life experiences, it is almost certain that no two readers or reading sessions will form the exact same interpretation of a text’.

You deconstructed Margaret’s meaning and imposed your interpretation as a reader on what she wrote.

Let me try this approach with your article:

At Tennis Australia (TA) we have no religious views whatsoever, and welcome everyone. That’s what TA would like to say but we have a commitment to equality that excludes fundamentalist Christians, as your statements demonstrate. Intense feelings arise in TA members towards you, Margaret Court. You have brought disrepute on TA with your bigotry towards the LGBTI+ community.

Fitz, would you approve of my promoting that view, based on your article? Of course not, but that’s what you’ve done with putting words into Margaret Court’s mouth about the LGBTI+ community not being equal with the straights and the way she ‘trashed the gays’. This is Fitz deconstructing Mrs Court with his reader-response interpretation.

Wake up, Fitz. You don’t know the Scriptures you prepared to promote PC, fake, reader-response news to disparage Margaret Court’s statements. Based on how you have ruined the reputation by fake news of Margaret Court, I can’t read your articles with confidence that you tell the truth.

I call upon you to promote the accurate meaning of homophobic. The Cambridge Dictionary defines it as ‘involving a fear or dislike of gay people’ (2019. s.v. homophobic).

Margaret Court, based on her own statements, does not fear or dislike gay people. She loves them and has them in her church, Victory Life Centre, Perth ā€“ so is not homophobic.

Telling The Truth Clipart Image(image courtesy clker.com)

 

Copyright Ā© 2019 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 04 December 2019.

Journalist is out of biblical depth

 

By Spencer D Gear PhD

 

clip_image002

(photo Israel Folau courtesy The South African)

 

I came across this excellent secular article by Harry Richardson in The Pickering Post, ā€˜Israel Sparks a Holy Warā€™, 21 April 2019

I consider it to be an excellent well constructed defence of Folau from a secular source. In the article, he makes it obvious he is not supportive of supernatural Christianity.
I’d like to pick up on one of Richardson’s comments: Nowhere in the Bible does it say that equality is a virtue. Tolerance, inclusiveness and diversity donā€™t get a mention either‘.

How does this statement line up with biblical content?

  • If equality is not a virtue, how do we interpret Adam & Eve being made in the image of God (Gen 1:26-27) and after the Fall, human beings were still said to be in Godā€™s image (Genesis 9:6; 1 Corinthians 11:7) and likeness of God (James 3:9). Does that mean the Bible teaches equality by all of us being made in God’s image?

For an explanation of the meaning of human beings being made in Godā€™s image, see: ā€˜What does it mean that humanity is made in the image of God (imago dei)?ā€™ (Got Questions 2019)

  • What about the warning against prejudice/favouritism in James 2 (NLT)?
  • Equality as a virtue is taught in Rom 2:11, ‘For God does not show favoritism’. Human beings demonstrate inequality but God doesn’t.
  • As for tolerance, it is a Christian virtue. As a foundation for life and the nations, it is the belief that the truth will come out eventually. This is a Christian understanding of tolerance: ‘Always be humble and gentle. Be patient with each other, making allowance for each otherā€™s faults because of your love’ (Eph 4:2). In fact, the Christian advocates much more than tolerance. We are told to love our neighbours and our enemies (Mark 12:31; Luke 6:27-36);
  • Is inclusiveness a biblical virtue? Yes it is (see Gal 3:28 for believers). What about for unbelievers? See Mark 2:15-17 (NLT).
  • Diversity is promoted in the multiplicity of gifts of the Spirit (1 Cor 12; Eph 4:11-12; Rom 12:6-8).

I think Richardson should take a couple Bible courses such as ‘Introduction to the New Testament’ and ‘Survey of the Bible’. He doesn’t know his Bible well enough to make an informed comment like he has made.

 

Copyright Ā© 2019 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 14 July 2019.

clip_image003

Why politicians should not support ‘marriage equality’[1]

clip_image001

Former lesbian, Jeanette Howard (photo courtesy vimeo)

By Spencer D Gear

Australiaā€™s politicians are being asked to vote on same-sex marriage in parliament in a Marriage Equality Bill sponsored by the Labor Party.

The Labor Party Bill

According to the Brisbane Times, this is how Bill Shortenā€™s Bill will change the definition of marriage in Australia to allow for homosexual as well as heterosexual marriage unions:

The words “man and woman” and “husband and wife” will be replaced by “two people” in the Marriage ActĀ underĀ Bill Shorten’sĀ proposal to redefine marriage in Australia.

Under the changesĀ gay couples who have already married overseas would have their unions recognised under Australian law, with the repeal of sectionĀ 88EAĀ of the Actā€¦.

And, as flagged by Mr Shorten earlier this week,Ā ministers of religionĀ will not be required toĀ solemnise a marriage where the parties to the marriage are of the same sex.

The Labor leader’sĀ bill to legalise same-sexĀ marriage in Australia, which will be introduced to Federal Parliament on Monday, defines marriage asĀ Ā “the union of two people to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life”.

The current definition in the Marriage Act, which would be replaced, states it isĀ “the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life”.

TheĀ repeal of section 88EA and the redefinition of marriage as between two people would reverse former prime minister John Howard’s 2004 amendments to the Act.

TheĀ same-sex marriage bill, Marriage Amendment (Marriage Equality)Ā Bill 2015,Ā allows aĀ union betweenĀ two people regardless of their sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status (Massola 2015).

However, the Labor Party is joined by some in the Liberal Party government to support same-sex marriage: ā€˜Communications minister Malcolm Turnbull says he expects parliament will legalise same-sex marriage before the end of the yearā€¦. Mr Turnbull says rapidly changing community attitudes to same-sex marriage are likely to ensure the move will ultimately succeedā€™.[3]

Reasons for rejecting this Bill

A Channel 9 news report for 27 May 2015 stated:

Australians who support gay marriage are being urged to contact their local MP or Senator to voice their opinions, with marriage equality campaigners saying the country is now within ā€œstriking distanceā€ of legalising same-sex marriages.

Australian Marriage Equalityā€™s deputy director Ivan Hinton-Teoh today praised federal opposition leader Bill Shortenā€™s announcement Labor would move a bill in the House of Representatives on Monday to legalise gay marriage.

But heā€™s urged everyday Australians to keep the pressure up on politicians to ensure the bill passes.

ā€œItā€™s important our elected officials understand the strength of support (for gay marriage),ā€ Mr Hinton-Teoh told the TODAY Show.

ā€œThe most important thing people can do is share their stories, get in contact with their MPs and Senators.ā€

Mr Shorten yesterday gave formal notice of the bill, which will be seconded by his deputy Tanya Plibersek, stating he will present a bill ā€œfor an Act to amend the Marriage Act 1961 to establish marriage equalityā€.

ā€œOur current law excludes some individuals ā€“ and to me, that is unacceptable,ā€ Mr Shorten said.

ā€œI believe the time has well and truly come for the Parliament to debate marriage equality.ā€

While support for marriage equality seems strong among many parliamentarians, the Abbott government could simply use its numbers in the Lower House to send the bill to a committee.

Some recent polls have put Australiaā€™s support for gay marriage at an all-time high of 72 percent.[4]

We wouldnā€™t be caused to wonder which view Channel 9 is pushing. We get a similar emphasis from Australiaā€™s ABC News:

In a statement, Mr Shorten said the time had come for Parliament to debate marriage equality and that he found it unacceptable current laws excluded some individuals.

The bill will come before the House of Representatives on Monday.

“I know this private members bill will not have the universal support of my colleagues,” Mr Shorten said.

“It will challenge the deeply held personal beliefs of MPs and senators on both sides of politics.

“This is why Labor members have the freedom to vote their conscience, a freedom Tony Abbott is currently denying his party.”

Even with a conscience vote in the Labor Party, Mr Shorten does not have the numbers to pass his bill.

Rather he is using it to urge the Prime Minister to grant a conscience vote to his MPs, something the Coalition already appears to be edging towards.

In recent days, Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull described Australia as the “odd one out” on same-sex marriage among Commonwealth nations including the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Canada.

Renewed debate in Australia has been triggered by Ireland’s vote in favour of marriage equality in a referendum at the weekend.

“The world isn’t waiting for Tony Abbott and our Parliament shouldn’t have to,” Mr Shorten said.

“I know there are Coalition MPs who’d support marriage equality if Tony Abbott granted them a free vote.”

Liberal senator Arthur Sinodinos said the Coalition had been waiting to see how the Labor Party would move on the matter.

“I know some of my colleagues, like Warren Entsch and others, want to raise the issue and have talked about having game plans on this,” he said.

“So we’ll wait until next week, but certainly I would support a conscience vote on this.”[5]

AustralianChristianLobbyLogo2011a.jpg

(logo courtesy Wikipedia)

How does the Australian Christian Lobby respond to this proposed legislation? On 26 May 2015, it had this article on its website: ā€˜Shorten fails to consider the consequences of changing marriageā€™. Here it stated that,

Opposition Leader Bill Shortenā€™s same-sex marriage bill fails to consider the consequences of changing the definition of marriage in law, according the Australian Christian Lobby.

ā€œIt is disappointing that Australiaā€™s alternative prime minister is legislating a family structure which requires a child to miss out on their mum or dad.

ā€œMany Australians are watching with great concern as florists, photographers and cake makers in other countries are being legally punished simply because they prefer not to participate in a same-sex wedding.

ā€œI wonder if Mr Shorten has considered the consequences of changing the definition of marriage,ā€ Mr Shelton said.

ā€œWe urge parliamentarians to vote against the bill.ā€

In another article, ā€˜Why Australia should not rush to follow Irelandā€™ (ACL 26 May 2015), ACL stated:

So militant have they [homosexual marriage activists] become that we are beginning to see glimpses of what life might be like for dissenters in a post gay marriage future.

Senior Labor MP Jenny Macklin gave some insights in an interview with Chris Uhlmann on ABC1ā€™s Insiders recently.

Supporting Laborā€™s deputy leader Tanya Plibersekā€™s push to expel parliamentarians from the party who donā€™t toe the line on changing marriage,Ā  Macklin equated discrimination on the basis of ā€˜sexual preferenceā€™ with racial and gender discrimination.

Uhlmann had the presence of mind to pick her up on this and make the obvious follow-up point.

Uhlmann ā€“ ā€œYou are arguing that a person who disagrees with you on this is the same as a racist, that they are a bigot.ā€

Macklin ā€“ ā€œI am not calling anybody names.ā€

Uhlmann ā€“ ā€œBut that is the natural extension of what you are saying.ā€[6]

Of course Uhlmann is right. Whether she wants to admit it or not, what Macklin is saying is that millions of Australians who will never support redefining marriage are the moral equivalents of racists or misogynists. Nice.

With attitudes towards dissent like this, it is no wonder 28 per cent of traditional marriage supporters in Ireland told pollsters they were too afraid to express their views openly.

Email to politicians

Thumbtack note email by zeimusuThe following is what I wrote to my local federal MP and some Queensland Senators.[7]

1. Parliament does not determine the nature of marriage. Since the beginning of time that was determined by God: ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh’ (Genesis 2:24), affirmed by Jesus (Matthew 19:5), and confirmed by the apostle Paul (Ephesians 5:31). This Australian nation has its foundation in Christian principles. Please do not go down the route of populist parliamentary and community appeal.

2. It is only the union of a man-woman that has the potential to produce children naturally. Even for artificial insemination or IVF, there is need for the ‘seed’ of male AND female. Male-male or female-female will not do it. Surely this should scream at politicians, GAY MARRIAGE GOES AGAINST A FOUNDATION PILLAR OF AUSTRALIAN SOCIETY!

3. Are you prepared to throw caution to the wind and change the meaning of marriage in a very risky social and political experiment? Heather Barwick is the daughter of lesbians. In an article in the Courier-Mail (March 20, 2015, ‘Heather Barwick, the daughter of lesbians, against gay marriage….), she said: ‘Growing up, and even into my 20s, I supported and advocated for gay marriage. It’s only with some time and distance from my childhood that I’m able to reflect on my experiences and recognise the long-term consequences that same-sex parenting had on me. It’s only now, as I watch my children loving and being loved by their father each day, that I can see the beauty and wisdom in traditional marriage and parenting’.

4. Do you understand the positive impact of children being raised by a mother and father? It was reported by statistician, Graeme Archer, in The Telegraph (UK) that ‘the evidence that children raised in standard two-parent families fare, on average, better in life than their peers ā€“ and that boys in particular benefit from the presence of a father ā€“ is so strong that it takes a wilful perversion to ignore it’ (04 May 2012, ‘The village can help, but children raised by a mum and dad do best‘).

5. Part of that is because children need role models from both Mum and Dad to have a balanced development in life. The information led to Texas A&M University preparing the following material, based on research: ‘20 Reasons Why Your Child Needs You to Be an Active Father‘. A lesbian couple cannot provide this input. That’s the evidence! Do you understand the damage that will be done in legislating homosexual marriage?

6. The language of ‘marriage equality’ does not provide ‘parenting equality’ for children raised in homosexual marriages. The nature of the man-woman relationship in marriage is radically different from that of a same-sex couple. Therefore, to talk of ‘marriage equality’ is inappropriate labelling.

7. Of course two women can love each other and two men can love each other, but common sense leads to the conclusion that the nature of the loving, sexual relationship between a man and a woman is very different to that happening in same-sex relationships.

8. Do you understand how promiscuous same-sex relationships can be? Do you want children exposed to any number of different men or women in the house who are engaged in ‘bed sex’? ‘In one recent study of gay male couples, 41.3% had open sexual agreements with some conditions or restrictions, and 10% had open sexual agreements with no restrictions on sex with outside partners. One-fifth of participants (21.9%) reported breaking their agreement in the preceding 12 months, and 13.2% of the sample reported having unprotected anal intercourse in the preceding three months with an outside partner of unknown or discordant HIV-status’ (Lelands et al in Nicolosi 2009, ‘An open secret: The truth about gay male couples‘).

9. Does Australia want to be in agreement with Article 7 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child or not?Ā  Part 1 of this article states: ‘The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and, as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents’. The last portion of this statement is shot to bits in homosexual marriage.

10. This is such a fundamental issue for the health of Australia. Politicians need to know that how they vote on this legislation will determine how I vote in the next election – and I’ll be telling my friends of their voting record on this issue.

Please consider these matters in regard to the Bill for Marriage Equality, which would be better called the Bill for Marriage Distortion for couples and children.

What is Godā€™s view on marriage and homosexuality?

Purple Scripture ButtonSuch a question doesnā€™t seem to enter the minds of many Aussie politicians. However, my local MP has told me he will be supporting marriage to continue to be between a male and a female.

Godā€™s design from the beginning of time was for marriage of a man and a woman. See Genesis 2:24-25, ā€˜Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamedā€™ (ESV).

Jesus Christ affirmed this passage according to Matthew 19:4-6, ā€˜He answered, Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ā€œTherefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one fleshā€? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separateā€™ (ESV).

(3)Ā Ā  The apostle Paul also affirmed this emphasis in Ephesians 5:31, ā€˜Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one fleshā€™ (ESV).

(4) Then add this factor from the apostle Paul who wrote of ā€˜men who practice homosexualityā€™ as being among those who were among ā€˜such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our Godā€™ (1 Corinthians 6:9-11). In this list, homosexuals were placed among the sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, thieves, greedy, drunkards, revilers who were the ā€˜unrighteousā€™ who would not inherit Godā€™s kingdom. But Jesus changes all of these people ā€“ even homosexuals.

A redeemed and changed lesbian speaks

If you donā€™t believe me, read my interview with a redeemed lesbian, Jeanette Howard, ā€˜One womanā€™s journey out of lesbianism: An interview with Jeanette Howardā€™. I recommend her book, Out of Egypt: Leaving lesbianism behind.

clip_image003

(courtesy Kregel Publications)

For some further information see my articles:

clip_image005 Spencer Gearā€™s submission against homosexual marriage to the Australian House of Representatives

clip_image005[1] Loree Rudd (Kevin Ruddā€™s sister): Support for homosexual marriage caused a Labor Party member to quit the Party

clip_image005[2] Homosexual unions, homosexual marriage, mass media & politicians

clip_image005[3] Why should we oppose homosexual marriage?

clip_image005[4] Reasons to oppose homosexual marriage.

clip_image005[5] Is homosexual life expectancy lower than for heterosexuals?

clip_image005[6] Kevin Rudd MPā€™s changed position on same sex marriage is self-refuting

clip_image005[7] Queen Elizabeth II and Jesus silent on homosexuality

clip_image005[8] Religious marriage with a different twist: My response to Spencer Howson

clip_image005[9] Queensland government passed civil homosexual union Bill

Works consulted

Massola, James 2015. Bill Shorten releases details of Labor’s same-sex marriage bill, 29 May. Brisbane Times (online). Available at: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/bill-shorten-releases-details-of-labors-samesex-marriage-bill-20150529-ghcinb.htmlĀ (Accessed 30 May 2015).

Notes


[1] I sent the points, ā€˜Email to my politiciansā€™ (see below) to my local member of federal parliament and some Queensland Senators in Australia on 27 May 2015.

[2] Reference deleted when edited.

[3] Amanda Cavill, SBS News, 27 May 2015, ā€˜Communications minister Malcolm Turnbull says he expects parliament will legalise same-sex marriage before the end of the yearā€™. Available at: http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2015/05/26/hopes-grow-same-sex-marriage-reform (Accessed 28 May 2015).

[4] 9news.com.au, 27 May 2015, ā€˜Australia now within ā€œstriking distanceā€ of marriage equality say same-sex campaignersā€™, available at: http://www.9news.com.au/national/2015/05/26/02/09/greens-speed-up-marriage-equality-debate (Accessed 27 May 2015).

[5] ā€˜Bill Shorten to introduce private members bill to legalise same-sex marriageā€™, ABC News, 27 May 2015. Available at: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-26/shorten-to-introduce-bill-legalising-same-sex-marriage/6499124 (Accessed 27 May 2015).

[6] The footnote was: http://www.jennymacklin.net.au/transcript_insiders_3_may_2015.

[7] I sent the email on Wednesday, 27 May 2015.

 

Copyright Ā© 2015 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 21 June 2016.

Spencer Gear’s submission against homosexual marriage to the Australian House of Representatives

Submission: Inquiry into the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2012 and the Marriage Amendment Bill 2012

House of Representatives:

House Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs

Parliament House, Canberra ACT 2600

E-mail: The Secretary of the Committee, [email protected]

 

Prepared by:

Spencer Gear MA (couns. psych.)

Address, phone number & email withheld

13 March 2012

Submission was available formerly as submission no. 87 Mr Spencer GearĀ (PDF 344KB)

It is no longer available online.

Marriage cover photo

Courtesy Salt Shakers (Christian ministry)

Please note: My ā€˜Submission: Inquiry into the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2012 and the MarriageĀ  Amendment Bill 2012ā€™ to the Australian House of Representatives Legal and Constitutional Committee, Parliament House, Canberra ACT 2600, was previously located at, ā€˜Senate Committees, Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010, Submissions received by the Committeeā€™ but is no longer available online.

 

Copyright Ā© 2014 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 1 March 2017.

Is homosexual life expectancy lower than for heterosexuals?

Courtesy Wikipedia

By Spencer D Gear

I read an article online from news.com.au, ‘EXCLUSIVE: Libs in preference crisis in Lindsay over gay comment‘.[1] Here it stated:

THE Liberal Party has scrapped a preference deal with the Christian Democratic Party in the must-win seat of Lindsay after a candidate described gay men as having a “lower life span” than heterosexual males.

The decision to dump the CDP’s Andrew Green is a blow to the hopes of Liberal Party hopeful Fiona Scott, who had earlier struck a preference deal with Fred Nile’s religious party.

But after being alerted to Mr Green’s inflammatory remarks – made at a public forum last week – the NSW Liberal Party last night said it “will be amending” the CDP swap deal.

Mr Green, the 55-year-old CDP candidate for the western Sydney seat, shocked the public audience with his remarks, and was yesterday unable to cite his source.

The church pastor made his comments during a debate on gay marriage at a candidate’s forum in the western Sydney seat.

Why didn’t news.com.au do its own research to discover the data that is backing what Christian Democratic Party’s (CDP) candidate for the seat of Lindsay,Ā  Andrew Green, stated?

Research shows that life expectancy rates are lower for the homosexual men than for heterosexual men. That’s what research has confirmed. Here are some examples of the research:

1.Ā Ā Ā  ‘Modelling the Impact of HIV Disease on Mortality in Gay and Bisexual Men‘ (Robert S. Hall, et al, 1997. International Journal of Epidemiology, Vol 25, no 3, pp. 657-661). This study found that:

In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years will not reach their 65th birthday. Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban centre are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871.

2.Ā Ā Ā  There was this information in Psychological Reports, ‘Gay obituaries closely track officially reported deaths from AIDS‘ (2005 June; 96 (3 Pt 1):693-697). It’s abstract states:

The age distribution of AIDS deaths of males who have sex with males [MSM] was estimated from obituaries in the Washington Blade, a gay newspaper. Statistics from the 2003 HIV/AIDS Surveillance Supplemental Report are highly congruent with deaths of MSM due to AIDS from these obituaries. Death due to AIDS in old age was most frequent for heterosexuals and least frequent for MSM who were drug abusers. Obituaries in the Washington Blade are thus consistent with and may be representative of deaths due to AIDS among MSM. The latest CDC [Centers for Disease Control] report tends to strengthen the overall finding based upon obituaries: that the lifespan of MSM is shortened two to three decades by AIDS and, possibly, other causes (emphasis added).

3. There is an added factor – the increase in HIV diagnosis among men having sex with men. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the USA has this article online, ‘HIV Among Gay and Bisexual Men‘. It outlines some of the statistics on the increased HIV infection among homosexual and bisexual men. These are:

Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) represent approximately 2% of the US population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV. In 2010, MSM accounted for 63% of all new HIV infections, and MSM with a history of injection drug use (MSM-IDU) accounted for an additional 3% of new infections. That same year, young MSM (aged 13-24 years) accounted for 72% of new HIV infections among all persons aged 13 to 24, and 30% of new infections among all MSM. At the end of 2010, an estimated 489,121 (56%) persons living with an HIV diagnosis in the United States were MSM or MSM-IDU.

When will this news organisation get to the point of stating what the research is showing that life expectancy rates of homosexuals is less than for heterosexuals, statistics that support Andrew Green’s statement?

It’s too bad that Andrew Green didn’t have these statistics at his finger tips and quote them from a researched source. I hope this teaches him a lesson about being accurate and giving the source for his provocative statement. But they are there for any journalists to investigate, but this news source, for this article, didn’t give accurate information about the mortality rates in the homosexual community in this article. Why not?

It is abominable that the Liberals will dump his preferences and not take into account the researched truth of what Green stated.

Andrew Green hit the mark. But news.com.au did not acknowledge the accuracy of what Green stated.

(photo courtesy Wikipedia)

Notes:


[1] Steve Lewis, News Limited Network, 21 August 2013, available at: http://www.news.com.au/national-news/federal-election/exclusive-libs-in-preference-crisis-in-lindsay-over-gay-comments/story-fnho52ip-1226700883582 (Accessed 24 August 2013).

Copyright Ā© 2013 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 27 August 2019.

Kevin Rudd MP’s changed position on same-sex marriage is self-refuting[1]

Kevin Rudd DOS cropped.jpg

Kevin Rudd MP (Courtesy Wikipedia)

By Spencer D Gear

Kevin Rudd, Australian Prime Minister, is now in favour of homosexual marriage

Ribbon Homosexuality Button

I’ve been reading the article from Kevin Ruddā€™s homepage in which he indicates his change of mind regarding homosexual marriage, ‘Church and State are able to have different positions on same sex marriage‘ (20 May 2013). As expected, some of its content made it to today’s Courier-Mail, ‘Kevin Rudd declares his support for same sex marriage‘. My comments relate to the article on his homepage.

1. Ruddā€™s position refutes itself

His position is self-refuting, primarily because I expect that he wants me to engage in reading his article in its plain sense – literal interpretation – to understand what he exactly said and meant. But he disagrees with people who read the Bible literally. By the way, a literal reading of the text means that one takes into consideration all the figures of speech and symbols that are in that writing. It was Rudd who stated in his homepage article:

  • ‘If we were today to adhere to a literalist rendition of the Christian scriptures, the 21st century would be a deeply troubling place, and the list of legitimized social oppressions would be disturbingly long’.

Then he proceeded to give examples of slavery in the USA, polygamy, and capital punishment by stoning for adultery. He doesnā€™t seem to have an understanding of biblical hermeneutics and the difference between Old and New Covenants in the Bible. See the article, ‘What about the Bible and slavery?

See my articles:

2. My primary problems with Kevin Ruddā€™s conclusions

I see three core problems with Ruddā€™s changed approach to homosexuality:

1.Ā  The inconsistency in his method of interpretation. Can I presume that he wants me to read the article on his homepage literally so that I understand its content? Should I read the article literally that he have written for The Australian today, ‘A matter for the state, not church‘ (21 May 2013) so that I get the common, everyday meaning of what he wants to convey to me? When I pick up my local newspaper, an historical book, a geography book, a book on politics, or my Bible, should I interpret it literally, metaphorically or as a postmodern deconstructionist? The answer should be obvious. If I want to understand the plain meaning of the text, I read it literally and donā€™t impose any allegorical, metaphorical or postmodern deconstructionist meaning on it.

2.Ā  Kevin Rudd does not want us to take the same method of interpretation to the Bible. This is the hypocrisy of his position. It’s OK for Kevin Rudd to need a literal reading of his article on his homepage and in The Australian to understand his position, but it’s not OK to read the Bible literally.

3.Ā  He stated that he is a Christian but he doesnā€™t know his Bible very well. This especially relates to his statement, ‘I for one have never accepted the argument from some Christians that homosexuality is an abnormality. People do not choose to be gay’.

The apostle Paul disagrees with him profoundly in the inspired Scriptures. Which Bible has Kevin been reading? It is not the one that includes 1 Corinthians 6:9-11,

9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God (NIV).

The Scriptures put homosexual behaviour in the same category as other sinful actions: heterosexual immorality, idolatry, adultery, theft, greed, drunkenness, slander, and swindling. And have a guess what? All these homosexual behaviours can be changed. The Scriptures state clearly, ‘That is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of God‘. And that applies to homosexuals, male or female. Jesus changes all kinds of sinners.

Only this week (Iā€™m writing on 21 May 2013), I have been in email contact with a redeemed lesbian whom I have known for 21 years, who has been wonderfully changed by the living Jesus and has no desire for a homosexual relationship and that has been her situation for the last 25 years. I don’t fall for Ruddā€™s line that people do not choose to be gay. God’s Word is clear that homosexuality is a sinful behaviour and when a person comes to Christ as Lord and Saviour for salvation, Jesus changes these people, including male and female homosexuals, from the inside out.

Kevin, itā€™s too late to tell me that homosexuals ā€˜do not choose to be gayā€™. They choose to be gay in the same sinful way that people choose to be heterosexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, thieves, greedy, drunkards, slanderers and swindlers. Itā€™s a sinful choice. However, all human beings are born with a propensity to sin. See the article, ā€˜Total depravityā€™, meaning comprehensive depravity of all human beings from conception.
Rudd stated on his homepage, ‘We have seen a range of social reforms over the decades where traditional, literalist biblical teachings have been turned on their head ‘. That social reforms have been changed does not repudiate a literalist interpretation, whether that is of Ruddā€™s article in The Australian, on his homepage, or in the Courier-Mail. It exposes the ‘social reforms’ for what they may be – a violation of God’s will.

3. Why literal interpretation is necessary

omg.jpg

Rudd may accuse me of being a Bible literalist. This is what I am. I have been a committed evangelical Christian for the last 52 years and nowhere in the Bible can I read Ruddā€™s understanding of homosexuality. It is obvious that he is the one who is out of step with biblically accurate hermeneutics on the New Testamentā€™s statements on the origin of homosexuality.

Ruddā€™s charge against literal interpretation of the Bible cannot be sustained. A literal interpretation is needed to understand what he writes. Then if he writes poetry, an allegory, a metaphor, a literal interpretation incorporates those views. This is how A Berkeley Mickelsen, expressed it in Interpreting the Bible,

ā€œLiteralā€ ā€¦ means the customarily acknowledged meaning of an expression in its particular context. For example, when Christ declared that he was the door, the metaphorical meaning of ā€œdoorā€ in that context would be obvious. Although metaphorical, this obvious meaning is included in the literal meaning (Mickelsen 1963:33).

4. Conclusion

I ask Kevin Rudd to reconsider these serious matters that challenge his changed position on homosexuality. His is not a biblical position. In addition, there are some serious consequences of a homosexual lifestyle. See the physical and sociological in my article, ā€˜Reasons to oppose homosexual marriageā€™. Here is an example from this article to conclude:

In Africa, ā€˜On average it is estimated that HIV infection rates amongst MSM (men who have sex with men) are four to five times higher than the population overall, with highs in certain areasā€™. [2]

The levels of promiscuity in the homosexual community also elevate the rates of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs).[3]

References

Mickelsen, A B 1963. Interpreting the Bible. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Notes


[1] Much of the content of this post I sent in an email to Kevin Rudd on 21 May 2013. I have made some additions and changed from second to third person in speaking about Kevin Rudd.

[2] Africa.gm, July 25, 2008. Available at: AFRICA: Homophobia fuelling the spread of HIV (Accessed 21 May 2013).

[3] See this summary report, ā€˜The health risks of gay sexā€™, by John R. Diggs Jr. M.D.

 

Copyright Ā© 2013 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 29 October 2015.

Mass media correct and Christian wrong!

clip_image002

Photo: Gay rights protesters gathered outside the Victory Life Centre to make their views known. (ABC News: Claire Krohl)

Map: Perth 6000

By Spencer D Gear

How did the news media report on the ā€˜Rally to Preserve Marriageā€™ at the church which Margaret Court pastors in Perth, Victory Life Centre, on 24 April 2012?

This is what one of the speakers, Bill Muehlenberg, stated in his article, ā€˜Shouting Down the Oppositionā€™. He stated:

The mainstream media was of course intolerant as well, refusing to offer balanced coverage. They did come out to video the protestors. Only a few dozen showed up, but the MSM focused on them and their loud shouting, and refused to have anything to do with what was happening inside the venue.

So if you check out and rely upon only the MSM today (see one example I link to below), you would not even know what occurred inside. All the focus was on the noisy militants. There will be plenty of shots on the television news tonight about the tolerance brigade seeking to drown out the meeting, but no coverage at all about what actually transpired inside.

And this is news coverage? This is professional journalism and news reporting? It is like covering a football match and only reporting on one team, with a complete blanket ban of coverage on the other team. But that is a poor analogy, since it implies two equal teams.

At the base of Bill Muehlenbergā€™s article, he gave the link to the ABC News (Australia) report on the rally, ā€˜Gay rights protesters rally outside Courtā€™s churchā€™. I took the Christian, Bill Muehlenberg, at his word and found these news items online to examine their coverage:

The West Australian newspaper provided a slightly different story but with the same slant ā€“ only on the protesters who were demonstrating outside the meeting, ā€˜Gay marriage sides clash at rallyā€™, The West Australian, 25 April 2012.

clip_image004

Courtesy: The West Australian

This is the email reply I received from one of The West Australian editors:

I have consulted with the reporter who wrote the article. She informs me that the press were not invited into the church. She said she ā€œwas barred from entering the church by security staff, who would not let me past the barriers to speak to anyone, so it would have been rather difficult to report on the meeting inside. Also tried to get in contact with Margaret Court, but she did not return my calls.ā€

I hope this addresses your query.

I have copied below an article from ABC online, which covered the story in a similar way to our reporter.

It sure did clarify my understanding. It gave me another side to the story.

Bill Muehlenberg was complaining about the intolerant, imbalanced view in the mainstream media, giving a link to the ABC news item reporting on this event that only gave coverage of the protesters. According to this news editor from The West Australian, that is the only version that was possible. The journalist had no alternative but to tell about the 70 homosexual protesters outside Victory Life Centre because journalists were banned from entering the church and reporting on the Rally.

This causes me to conclude on this occasion that one Christian gave an uninformed, slanted version of the way things are reported in the mass media. However, I need to observe that any journalist could have interviewed a number of people entering the rally – and they didn’t. Bill Muehlenberg informed me via email that he walked past the mass media journalists and cameras without being interviewed. However, this assumes that reporters knew who Bill was and could identify him for interview.

By the way, this one editor from The West Australian was the only letter of response I received from all of the other media mentioned above. All of these received an email from me.

This is not my opinion about all mass media coverage, but an example of what happened on one occasion that was misreported by a Christian (Bill Muehlenberg).

Marriage cover photo

Courtesy Salt ShakersĀ (Christian ministry)

 

Copyright Ā© 2011 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 1 March 2017.

Flower22Flower22Flower22Flower22Flower22Flower22Flower22

Queensland government passed civil homosexual union Bill

Marriage cover photo

(image courtesy Salt Shakers)

By Spencer D Gear

Why did the Qld Labor government allow a private members’ bill that promoted a lifestyle that has these deleterious consequences?

  • Up to 50% higher cancer rate of the anus;
  • 47% increase in HIV diagnoses;
  • More behavioural problems among children up to 5 years old.
  • Multiple other health problems.

The Queensland State Parliament passed this Bill on 1st December 2011. See, “Queensland civil unions bill passes“. The vote was passed, 47-40.

Voting for Andrew Fraser’s gay civil unions’ Bill in Qld meant that it supported the statistics above ā€“ based on the research evidence. This is what I wrote to several Queensland State politicians in late 2011. Let’s look as some of the evidence:

1. The USA Center for Disease Control & Prevention’s Weekly Morbidity & Mortality Report was reported in CBS News, 26 June 2008, and it does not give favourable medical information to support Andrew Fraser’s promotion of the homosexual lifestyle that will come with the affirming of homosexual civil unions in Qld.

As far as health issues are concerned, this is some of the evidence. Part of the following report shows that men who have sex with men account for 46% of the increase in HIV diagnoses. Is this what you want to inflict on Queenslanders? Here is part of a CBS News report in the USA:

HIV diagnoses in the U.S. are on the rise among men who have sex with men, especially among males aged 13-24.
That news comes from the CDC, which tracked HIV/AIDS diagnoses reported by 33 states from 2001 to 2006.
During that time, those states had 214,379 HIV/AIDS diagnoses. Men who have sex with men account for almost half – 46 percent – of those diagnoses.[1]

2. A study in the Netherlands (2002) found that “HIV incidence is increasing among homosexual attendees of an STD clinic. It is imperative to trace recently infected individuals, because they are highly infectious, and can thus play a key role in the spread of HIV” (Dukers et al 2002:F19). In an examination of “trends in HIV notifications and in other measures of HIV incidence in homosexual men in developed countries”, it was found that “there were increases in HIV notifications in homosexual men in almost all developed countries, starting in the late 1990s and continuing to 2006” (Grulich & Kaldor 2008:113).[2]

There is further evidence to demonstrate the danger of Andrew Fraser’s legislation: The big increase in HIV diagnoses among men who have sex with men.

3. Medical researchers have known for many years that the homosexual lifestyle is accompanied by significant health risks. On example, from a biological point of view, is that the woman’s vagina was designed for sexual penetration. The anus and rectum were not. A 1982 study in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that the anal cancer rate for homosexuals was considerably higher than for heterosexuals; in some cases it was up to 50 times higher than the rate for heterosexuals.[3] Many other more recent studies have confirmed this trend.[4] The New England Journal of Medicine (1997) showed the ā€œstrong association between anal cancer and male homosexual contactā€.[5]

Why? The lining of the anus is very much thinner than the much thicker lining of the vagina. The anus tears readily and thus makes that region of the anatomy more vulnerable to viruses and bacteria when there is sexual penetration. The human body was not designed for anal penetration. But the politically correct speak of Andrew Fraser, with his promotion of homosexual unions, seems to be hiding these medical consequences for the sake of political correctness.

3. What about the impact on young children who don’t have a mother and father?Ā Ā  Mother and father are important for a childā€™s up-bringing. This Millennium Cohort Study: Centre for Longitudinal Studies in the UK found that

“children in stable, married families were said to have fewer externalising problems at age 5 than virtually all of those with different family histories. The most marked differences were seen for children born into cohabiting families where parents had separated, and to solo mothers who had not married the natural father. These children were three times more likely than those in stable, married families to exhibit behavioural problems, judging by mothersā€™ reports”.[6]

4. For further information on the significant medical consequences of the gay lifestyle, see: “On the unhealthy homosexual lifestyle”, available at: http://home60515.com/4.html (Accessed 7 November 2011).

It is politically correct philosophy to support homosexuality, in spite of its promotion of a lifestyle that is deleterious to the health of Queenslanders with his promotion of gay civil unions.

Notes:

[1] “Troubling trend in HIV/AIDS diagnoses”, CBS News, 28 June 2008. Available at: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/26/health/webmd/main4213629.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody (Accessed 7 November 2011).

[2] Grulich, Andrew E and Kaldor, John M.2008. “Trends in HIV incidence in homosexual men in developed countries”, Sexual Health (CSIRO Publishing), 2008, 5, pp. 113-118, available at: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.169.6206&rep=rep1&type=pdf (Accessed 7 November 2011).

[3] Council on Scientific Affairs, “Health care needs of gay men and lesbians in the United States,” Journal of the American Medical Association, May 1, 1996, p. 1355.

[4] See: M. Frisch, “On the etiology of anal squamous carcinoma,” Dan Med Bull, Aug. 2002, 49(3), pp. 194-209; M. Frisch and others, “Cancer in a population-based cohort of men and women in registered homosexual partnerships,” Am J Epidemiol, June 1, 2003, 157(11), pp. 966-72; D. Knight, “Health care screening for men who have sex with men,” Am Fam Physician, May 1, 2004, 69(9), pp. 2149-56; S. Goldstone, “Anal dysplasia in men who have sex with men,” AIDS Read, May-June 1999, 9(3), pp. 204-8 and 220; Reinhard Hopfl and others, “High prevalence of high risk human papillomavirus-capsid antibodies in human immunodeficiency virus-seropositive men: a serological study,” BMC Infect Dis, April 30, 2003, 3(1), p. 6; R.J. Biggar and M. Melbye, “Marital status in relation to Kaposi’s sarcoma, non-Hodgkins lymphoma, and anal cancer in the pre-AIDS era,” J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Hum Retrovirol, Feb. 1, 1996, 11(2), pp. 178-82; P.V. Chin-Hong and others, “Age-related prevalence of anal cancer precursors in homosexual men: the EXPLORE study,” J Natl Cancer Inst, June 15, 2005, 97(12), pp. 896-905; R. Dunleavey, “The role of viruses and sexual transmission in anal cancer,” Nurs Times, March 1-7, 2005, 101(9), pp. 38-41; P.V. Chin-Hong and others, “Age-Specific prevalence of anal human papillomavirus infection in HIV-negative sexually active men who have sex with men: the EXPLORE study,” J Infect Dis, Dec. 15, 2004, 190(12), pp. 2070-6; J.R. Daling and others, “Human papillomavirus, smoking, and sexual practices in the etiology of anal cancer,” Cancer, July 15, 2004, 101(2), pp. 270-80; and A. Kreuter and others, “Screening and therapy of anal intraepithelial neoplasia (AIN) and anal carcinoma in patients with HIV-infection,” Dtsch Med Wochenschr, Sept. 19, 2003, 128(38), pp. 1957-62 (cited in note 1, “On the unhealthy homosexual lifestyle”, available at: http://home60515.com/4.html [Accessed 7 November 2011]).

[5] Cited in, “On the unhealthy homosexual lifestyle”, ibid.

[6] Kiernan, Kathleen & Mensah, Fiona n.d. Centre for Longitudinal Studies, Institute of Education, University of London. Available at: http://www.cls.ioe.ac.uk/downloads/01_briefing_web%284%29.pdf (Accessed 7 November 2011). This research was conducted in the early 21st century, with the first survey of families and 19,000 children conducted in 2001-2002 (p. 1 of this report).

 

Copyright Ā© 2012 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 4 June 2016.

Flower22Flower22Flower22Flower22Flower22Flower22Flower22

Ā