Margaret Court and Diversity

3771878-3x2-940x627

Here is a letter to the editor which I sent to The Courier a couple of weeks ago while the media and the leftists activists were demanding Margaret Court’s head for daring to stand up for the existing law of the land that marriage is between a man and a woman. Due to other pressing issues at the time, they published it yesterday.

Tolerance and diversity are buzz words in our culture. Of course if you deviate from the politically entitled view tolerance comes to an end and diversity is discouraged.

Tennis great Margaret Court, now Senior Pastor at a big Perth church, stated that because of Qantas’ constant promotion of same sex marriage, she would not fly with them any longer unless there was no alternative means of transport. As a christian she believes in the Biblical view of marriage as between one man and one woman.

All the enlightened, “progressive” media and celebrities, led by Ten program “The Project”, piled on, calling her a homophobe and a bigot. Sam Stosur called for a boycott of Margaret Court Arena until the name was changed; on recent form she would probably only miss one match there anyway.

This is what passes for civil debate in this age. If you disagree with me, I will shut you down by just calling you names. We must not allow any rational debate that might upset the status quo.

By insulting a great tennis player who happens to be a significant christian leader in Perth, the knee-jerk attacks have also alienated tens of thousands of people who agree with the Christian view of marriage. A boycott might just be a blip on the bottom line of Qantas, but it might be enough to push Ten over the edge.

The supporters of diversity and tolerance would do well to actually look up the meaning of those words, and show real tolerance to those who really are diverse.

How to Win The Argument

face-pie

So a grumpy looking man plants a lemon meringue pie in Qantas CEO Alan Joyce’s face to make a statement. The media didn’t mention what it was about, and to be fair, it wasn’t immediately obvious.

 

Given the clips of the incident followed by Joyce returning and laughing it off with some jokes, and the angry disposition of his attacker who will you have more sympathy for?

 

It turns out that the assailant is a Christian. He chose lemon meringue because it was soft and wouldn’t hurt him- so compassionate.

 

He is also a member of the Nationals.

 

Later he produced a statement apologising but stating that he was protesting about the way that Joyce and a few other corporate types are abusing their position to bully corporations and individuals to accept same sex “marriage.”

 

Clearly not the way to go. For one thing he did not get the message across at all, except to a small number of news nerds. Maybe there was better coverage in WA where the event took place.

 

Also, unless you are promoting a “progressive” cause you will probably get bad press for this sort of antic. Much better to get a mob together and hold some signs up so people really know what you are protesting.

 

But for christians, called to imitate Christ, it is particularly a bad idea. We have to always walk in the ways of Christ. That means discussing respectfully rather than going the face pie route, being winsome and loving our enemies whether real or ideological.

 

So no pies in the face. Not even soft lemon meringue pies. Not even when you disagree with your pastor.

LGBT Agenda Exposed as a Fraud.

From Lifesitenews.com, a description of two scientific studies stating that LGBT people are not “born that way” and that nearly every aspect of sexual identity is fluid in both adults and children. This completely demolishes the argument of activists that their agenda is based on any notion of civil rights.

Featured Image
Claire Chretien / LifeSiteNews
REAL Women of Canada staff

OPINION

The LGBT fraud has been exposed, and they’re definitely not happy about it

November 15, 2016 (REAL Women) — Those who are setting our so-called “values”, such as the small but powerful group of academics, mainstream media, and homosexual activists, do so by attempting to impose strange myths and ideas that have no scientific basis.

These myths include the one that homosexuals are “born that way”, can’t change, and must be accepted for “who they are”. Further, those claiming they are a different gender than that with which they were born, i.e. the transgendered, who “feel” they belong to other than their gender at birth, must be accepted as such.

The public is supposed to put aside its intelligence and common sense, and respectfully bow collectively in obeisance to these “expert” opinions. These opinions, however, are complete and utter hogwash.

We know instinctively that they are not authentic, or worthy of our belief. However, the myth-makers attempt to force their nonsense on us by the heavy hand of the law, claiming that it’s “discrimination” to refuse to accept the myths as truth.  Jurisdictions which don’t obey their rulings are economically punished, parents are forbidden to protect their children from the monstrous “bathroom” laws that permit males to use girls’ showers, lockers and change rooms.  It’s all a fraud based on propaganda with no scientific legitimacy.

Bombshells Explode The Myths

However, two bombshells have exploded that have shattered these myths, and the opinion-makers haven’t yet controlled its fall-out.

The first bombshell was a landmark study published in The Journal –The New Atlantis, (August 23, 2016). The Journal is a well-known journal of science, technology and ethics based in Washington D.C.  This article analysed the scientific evidence of LGBT issues published to date in scientific journals.

The report was authored by two eminent scholars. Dr. Laurence Mayer, a professor of psychiatry and statistics and biostatistics at Arizona State University, stated in the preface to the study that he has testified in dozens of federal and state legal proceedings strongly supporting equality and opposing discrimination for the LGBT Community. However, Dr. Mayer stated he supports every sentence in this report without reservation since it is about science and medicine.  He also stated he was alarmed to learn during his review of over 500 scientific articles that the LGBT community bears a disproportionate rate of mental health problems compared to the population as a whole.

The other author is Dr. Paul McHugh, one of the leading psychiatrists in the world. He was psychiatrist-in-chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore from 1975 to 2001.  These scientists reviewed hundreds of peer reviewed studies on sexual orientation and gender identity from the biological, psychological and social sciences.  Their conclusions were as follows:

  • The belief that sexual orientation is an innate, biologically fixed human property – that people are “born that way” – is not supported by scientific evidence.
  • The belief that gender identity is an innate, fixed human property independent of biological sex – so that a person might be a ‘man trapped in a woman’s body’ or ‘a woman trapped in a man’s body’ – is not supported by scientific evidence.
  • Only a minority of children who express gender-atypical thoughts or behaviour will continue to do so into adolescence or adulthood. There is no evidence that all such children should be encouraged to become transgender, much less subjected to hormone treatments or surgery.
  • Non-heterosexual and transgender people have higher rates of mental health problems (anxiety, depression, suicide), as well as behavioral and social problems (substance abuse, intimate partner violence), than the general population. Discrimination alone does not account for the entire disparity.

The second bombshell was exploded by a top researcher for the American Psychological Association (APA), lesbian activist, Dr. Lisa Diamond, co-author-in-chief of ‘the APA Handbook’ of sexuality and psychology and one of the APA’s most respected members.  She admitted that sexual orientation was “fluid” and not unchangeable.  By doing so, Dr. Diamond confirmed that the myth that “homosexuals can’t change” is now a dead-end theory.  She summarized the relevant findings in a lecture at Cornell University stating that abundant research has now established that sexual orientation – including attraction, behaviour and self-identity – is fluid for both adolescents and adults for both genders.

Her announcement flies in the face of legislation in several US states and Ontario, Canada, which ban “reparative therapy”, which seeks to help patients experiencing same-sex attraction.

It also destroys the argument by homosexual activists that sexual orientation is the “civil rights movement of our times”.   This is poppycock.  Sexual desire is based on something other than genetics, including primarily, a person’s relationships, culture and other experiences, not genetics or prenatal hormones.

Read the full article here

Doug Mainwaring: The Fight Against Marriage

The heart of the Same Sex Marriage war is spiritual not political or legal.

 

A former gay activist now a christian reflects on this. From lifesitenews.com Doug Mainwaring writes:

If you think the gay ‘marriage’ fight is over, you don’t understand the nature of the war

September 27, 2016 (Public Discourse) — Up until now, I’ve used only secular arguments involving logic, reason, and experience to address the issue of same-sex marriage. That’s how I first came to think about the issue. But as I explained at Public Discourse last year, once I began thinking, reasoning, and examining my life, an extraordinary thing happened: I couldn’t stop. Reason led me to acknowledge natural law, which led me to begin rejecting some of my former ways of thinking and acting. Reason then led me to recognize God.

I am now a Christian, and even though I am same-sex attracted—or, more likely, because I am same-sex attracted—I marvel at the extraordinary significance of marriage in God’s eternal plan. Marriage is under siege because it stands at the heart of the Good News of the Gospel.

I am neither a philosopher nor a theologian, and I possess no advanced degree, but I try to be an informed observer and reasoning contributor as best I can. As a former apologist for the sexual revolution, and as a gay man who once promoted same-sex marriage, here’s what I’ve concluded.

No matter what you read or hear, the heart of the battle over the redefinition of marriage and genderlessness in culture is not found in our courts, legislatures, ballot boxes, or media. This is not a tug of war between political parties, between left and right, conservative and liberal. Likewise, this is not a battle of “gay versus straight.” And while focusing on religious liberty is an absolutely necessary pursuit, if it stands by itself, it too misses the mark.

Taken as a whole, this is a war of one kingdom against another. At its heart, this is a spiritual battle.

Accepting this as a spiritual battle has profound personal ramifications. We must each examine and deal with our own spiritual passivity and culpability in casually embracing the ways of the world. Each of us bears responsibility. This battle hinges on one thing: the creation of a vibrant marriage culture based on the participation of millions of individuals who value and commit themselves to the spiritual truth about marriage. These people must commit themselves not only to the structural, traditional aspects of marriage, but also to its vitally important spiritual component. The future rests on our shoulders—yours and mine.

Many now chide those of us who oppose the notion of same-sex marriage, telling us, “The battle over marriage has been decided. Move on.” And for the time being, as a political reality, this may be true. However, there is a much larger, far more important reality that must be acknowledged: spiritual reality. While the political battle may be over for a brief time, the spiritual battle is just beginning.

 

 

Read the rest here

Official: Gays Are Not “Born That Way”

After insisting for decades that homosexuality was a lifestyle choice, gay activists did a U-turn when they saw that they could use civil rights theory to demand recognition, an end to discrimination and even the right to “marriage equality.”

Psychologists have argued that sexuality id very plastic (i.e. determined by our choices) b

 

 

NEWS

APA researcher explodes myth: Gays aren’t ‘born that way’

WASHINGTON, D.C., September 22, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) — A top researcher with the American Psychological Association (APA) and lesbian activist has acknowledged that gays are not “born that way.”

Dr. Lisa Diamond, co-editor-in-chief of the APA Handbook of Sexuality and Psychology and one of the APA’s “most respected members,” says sexual orientation is “fluid” and not unchangeable.

As clinical psychologist Dr. Laura A. Haynes summarizes Diamond’s APA Handbook chapters, her book and YouTube lectures, “The battle to disprove ‘Born that way and can’t change’ is now over, and (Diamond) is telling LGBT activists to stop promoting the myth.”

Contrary to the typical argument that homosexuals are “born gay” as “who they are” and cannot change, the APA officially recognized sexual orientation change in 2011.

Diamond summarized relevant findings in a lecture at Cornell University (2013), stating that abundant research has now established that sexual orientation — including attraction, behavior, and self-identity — is fluid for both adolescents and adults and for both genders.

This flies in the face of recent laws promoted by gay activists and passed in several states banning “reparative therapy,” which seeks to help patients experiencing same-sex attraction to change.

The stated justification for anti-reparative therapy laws is that anyone who experiences same-sex attraction is not only gay and born gay, but his/her homosexuality is unchangeable and so “reparative therapy,” it is argued, is not only unfruitful but cruel.  The argument goes, “You can’t change who you are.”

Additionally, many gay activists call sexual orientation “the civil rights issue of our time,” and analogous to race. Diamond and the APA, however, refute this argument.

Fr. Johannes Jacobse, founder of The American Orthodox Institute, called Diamond’s “course correction” a “stunning reversal” of oft-repeated gay justification. “Sexuality desire is fluid, homosexual desire is not ‘hard-wired;’ that ‘born that way and can’t change’ is a myth; feelings don’t overrule volition (behavior is a choice, one does not need to act on every feeling — especially sexual feelings); the ‘born that way’ argument is political, not scientific; sexual orientation is subject to change among others.”

“The idea that what a person feels defines who he is — who God created him to be — is false,” Fr. Jacobse wrote. “If a person feels homosexual desire, it does not mean he is created homosexual.”

“If a person decides to engage in homosexual behavior, that decision is freely chosen, even if the desire is not,” Jacobse summarized. “If a person experiences homosexual desire and wishes to change into more normative heterosexuality, abundant evidence exists that such a change may indeed be possible.

Read the full article here

 

Christian and Lesbian?

One woman’s journey into faith and out of a sinful lifestyle


She Considered Herself a Christian & a Lesbian—Then She Was “Struck by Lightning” With a Stunning Realization

“I actually considered myself a Christian at that point, though I had no desire to read God’s Word, let alone conform my life to his will.”

emily

By Emily Thomas

The Girl in the Picture

Recently I came across the photo on the left and did a double take. The girl in that photo, with her hollow eyes and hopeless heart, no longer bears any resemblance to me. She was dead in her sin (Eph. 2:1). (To be clear, I amnotsaying everyone who looks like the girl on the left is dead in sin, or that everyone who looks like the girl on the right is not. Spiritual reality runs far deeper.)

I was always the type to push boundaries. Even as a child, I never really had a moderate pace. I tried everything once but most things at least twice for my own curiosity. Growing up in a small town, there wasn’t much to do, and I acted out often. In high school, I met my need for attention by constantly “going against the grain,” but in a way that maintained my popularity. I partied, slept around and by 15 I came out as a lesbian to some friends.

By the time I was a young adult, I fully embraced the LGBT label. I cut my hair short, wore boy clothes, and used men’s bathrooms and dressing rooms. I enjoyed the thrill of doing and being what was outside the norm—trying harder drugs, exploring even more taboo sexual acts and getting a couple of regrettable tattoos.

By 22, I had settled down a little. Shock value, though still something I enjoyed, was a lower priority. While still smoking weed and having sex with women, I maintained an outward appearance of morality. I considered myself a good person; I worked full-time, loved my friends and usually balanced my budget. Family relationships were improving, and I was finally attempting to lead a relatively respectable life.

Surprised by Attributes

In March 2014, a group of coworkers started a Bible study and invited me to join. Because my aunt was part of the group, I agreed to participate. I actually considered myself a Christian at that point, though I had no desire to read God’s Word, let alone conform my life to his will. I told myself that at the first mention of my “lifestyle” I’d quit the study, and I felt pretty confident that moment would come.

Thebook we studiedwas on the attributes of God. For the first time I was confronted by the justice, holiness and sovereignty of God. The more I read and understood, the bigger God became and the smaller I felt. I knew what the Bible said about homosexuality and other things, but I hadn’t cared before. I had little understanding of the God I was sinning against.

This study was slowly shifting my perspective. I would catch myself, just before falling asleep, questioning who I was and why I made these choices. I asked myself,Am I sure that gay behavior is as much of my identity as my gender or my race? But I’d wake up and laugh and say,Of course you can embrace your homosexuality—that’s who you are! It felt like I was almost convincing myself it was okay to continue on that way.

Two weeks later, a friend (also a lesbian) waited for me at my apartment after work to smoke marijuana and hang out as usual. After we smoked, I asked her, “What if they’re right?” She knew I was doing the study and understood immediately what I meant and said, “I don’t want to talk about it.” I pushed further. “We have to. If this is true, we need to talk now and not later.” She left soon after, so I picked up my book and read.

 
Read the rest of the article here

Piers Ackerman- Vote Labor in haste, regret at your leisure

Piers Akerman

 

SHOULD Labor leader Bill Shorten win office in 41 days, homosexual marriage will ­become a reality across Australia just 100 days later. 

This has nothing to do with fairness, equality, human rights or any other humbug the homosexual lobby and the Marxists lurking close behind their agenda may wish you to believe.

This is about Labor being pushed to the Left by the Greens, radically altering customary practice, dramatically changing the way children are reared by removing either a male or a female figure from the family unit, and setting the stage for a generation who will forever be robbed of a better shot at life.

For it is the demonstrably evident fact that children raised in stable heterosexual families will, on the best available statistics, be best equipped to deal with the world.

That, as unpalatable as it may seem to those homosexual couples (as sharing, caring and warm and loving as they may be) who have chosen to adopt or create children through IVF or surrogacy, is just how it is.

The consequences of adopting homosexual marriage are not benign. It is not just about having two little Ken dolls or two little Barbies in bridal wear on top of the wedding cake.

Those who would change the Marriage Act to redefine the traditional union of a man and a woman know they are merely stalking horses for massive societal change such as are already being experienced in the US, where, in a giant grab for exaggerated victimhood status, the homosexual and gender-confused lobby have now managed to have President Barack Obama force all state schools to permit children use whichever lavatory they feel fits their sexual orientation — not necessarily their biological and chromo-somal identity.

I doubt whether many young girls will feel pressing need to express their inner manliness by fronting the urinals or even entering the boys’ (should they still be labelled as such) loos, but I suspect there will be a rush of hormonally charged teenage boys anxious to entertain their inner sheila and barge into the lavatories and change rooms traditionally set aside for females.

The new anti-gender laws have already restricted freedom of speech, and they will here, too, as there has already been a ridiculous try-on in Tasmania mounted by transgender activist and Greens candidate Martine Delaney.

Delaney lodged a complaint against the Catholic Archbishop of Tasmania Julian Porteous over a church booklet which carried the unthreatening slogan “don’t mess with marriage” and made the case accepted universally for millennia that marriage should be a “heterosexual union between a man and a woman”. To change the law, it said, would endanger a child’s upbringing.

Earlier this month, Delaney withdrew the charge in the face of the Church’s obvious defence — that it was plainly false to assert there was nothing distinctive about a man and a woman, a father or a mother.

As much as Penny Wong and her partner may delight in calling themselves parents of the children who live with them, neither is a man, neither is a father and neither can provide the male presence under their roof that is the ideal in a true family.

Former Labor prime minister Paul Keating famously noted that “two blokes and a cocker spaniel” don’t make a family, and that was Labor’s view until a few years ago.

A more recent Labor PM, Julia Gillard, crossed the floor of the house and sat with then Opposition leader Tony Abb-ott, to vote down a Labor backbencher’s private member’s bill to amend the Marriage Act and permit homosexual couples to marry.

She wasn’t alone. Her treasurer, Wayne Swan, environment minister Tony Burke, trade minister Craig Emerson and former PM Kevin Rudd, joined her in voting down the motion 98-42.

Then the homosexual lobby arced up its campaign.

False statistics about the percentage of homosexuals in the community were flung about (internationally, the agreed number seems to be somewhat less than 2 per cent).

Claims that bullying of gender-muddled children forced some to at least contemplate suicide, if not carry through with their intention, were laid though no statistics bear this out and the statistic which seems most available would ­indicate that the primary focus of anxieties among those who do report bullying is to do with their body image or ethnicity.

This has not stopped those, like Victoria’s socialist Premier Daniel Andrews, or the members of the grotesquely misnamed Safe Schools Coalition, headquartered in the truly ­bizarre Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and ­Society unit at La Trobe University, from supporting the teaching of such skills as “penis tucking” and “breast binding” to prepubescent children.

Shorten, should he be elected, won’t just redefine marriage, he’ll destroy it.

As lesbian Russian author Masha Gessen told the Sydney Writers Festival four years ago “fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there”.

“Because we lie that the ­institution of marriage is not going to change. It’s going to change and it should change.”

Two months ago Labor senator Joe Bullock resigned as a matter of principle over Labor’s stance.

He said he couldn’t remain in a party which proposed to deny its members a conscience vote on the homosexual marriage question.

He made his decision after attending the Labor Party’s ­national conference and finding himself, to the best of his knowledge, the only one to vote against this proposition.

“How can I, in good conscience, recommend to people that they vote for a party which has determined to deny its parliamentarians a conscience vote on the homosexual marriage question? The simple ­answer is that I can’t,” he said.

Australians should ask themselves whether they want this radical change forced on their society when they vote on July 2.

 

Full article