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.

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

 

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

Fishy Price Tag

The Same Sex “marriage” plebiscite scares the activists because they are afraid they might lose and actually fear democracy as an institution. So it’s no surprise that they exaggerate the cost of voting in an attempt to pressure the Government to abandon the plebiscite.

From the Centre for Independent Studies:

Something fishy about PwC’s plebiscite price tag Peter Kurti 24 MARCH 2016 | IDEAS@THECENTRE

same sex marriage equality 1Former Prime Minister Tony Abbott promised to settle the marriage equality issue democratically by allowing voters to state their views in a national plebiscite later this year.

Malcolm Turnbull has committed to honour that promise — unless he is intimidated into silencing the Australian people, and scuppers the plebiscite plan altogether.

A new report from PricewaterhouseCoopers puts a price tag on each of the options for consulting the Australian people on the future of one of our society’s fundamental institutions.

Leaving it to the pollies is the cheapest option — $17 million according to PwC. And a stand-alone plebiscite with a compulsory vote on same-sex marriage is the most expensive at $525 million.

If it looks like fish and smells like fish, it probably is fish. And this report from PwC definitely has a fishy pong to it. Especially when you add in the estimated $20 million bill for mental health costs.

Scare tactics are being used by same-sex marriage advocates desperate to keep the issue well away from the voters. Suddenly a plebiscite is said to be a waste of time and money.

72% of Australians support marriage equality, according to Australian Marriage Equality’s website. But if that is true, why worry about letting Australians have their say?

It’s not to save money that the advocates want to shut down public debate about changing the meaning of marriage. It’s because they’re worried they might lose a plebiscite vote.

So rather than trust the integrity and decency of the Australian public, advocates would rather silence the people and leave it to the elites to stitch up a deal.

Democracy has a price well worth paying; in fact, it’s a price we must always be prepared to pay. Marriage equality advocates may well be on the side of the angels with justice on their side.

But unless they place their trust in the hands of the Australian voters and allow the people to decide on marriage equality, the advocates will never quite dispel the stench of a fishy fix-up.

Reflection on Mark 10:1-16

Scripture
He said to them, “Let the little children come to me; do not stop them; for it is to such as these that the kingdom of God belongs.”

Observation
Some Pharisees come to Jesus and ask if it is lawful for a man to divorce his wife. Jesus replies that the law of divorce was given because of the hardness of people’s hearts. God’s plan for marriage is that a man and a woman become one flesh. No man, then, can separate what God has joined together.

Jesus then lays down a hard line position that anyone who divorces and then remarries is committing adultery.

People bring their children to Jesus to be blessed. The disciples try to keep them away, but Jesus is indignant. He takes the children into his arms and blesses them.

Application
Jesus’ hard line on divorce hits us hard in an era of lax attitudes to marriage and sex. Can Jesus really be meaning what He says here?

The issue for Jesus is the state of our hearts. The Pharisees are asking how easy should it be to walk away from a marriage. But Jesus is saying that we need to work hard to save a marriage in which partners have become “one flesh.”

Likewise, Jesus inverts our attitudes towards children who can be seen by the church as a bit of a problem to be managed. Jesus tells us to embrace children as a sign of God’s kingdom. The “little ones”, the ones whom society deems to be of little worth , are precisely the people God welcomes.

Prayer
Holy Father please help me to walk in the grace and holiness of Jesus today. Amen.