Displaying items by tag: homosexual

The Victorian Parliament recently passed horrific legislation designed to solve a problem that does not exist and, in doing so, trod all over the rights of families, medical practitioners, those experiencing unwanted same sex attraction and the Church.

Just over a year ago, during Australia's debate about changing the millenia-old meaning of marriage, I wrote an article called, "55 Consequences of Redefining Marriage". Unlike most of my articles, which are read by only a few hundred people, this one has been read by over 12,000, with several thousand shares. This is evidence of just how concerned ordinary people are about homosexual unions being called 'marriage' and the massive repercussions that has for everyone. That article was a simple list of 55 examples of discriminatory laws, legal challenges, policies and persecutions taken from 13 countries where same-sex 'marriage' has been legalised. Now, twelve months on from that day when Australians learned that the majority of their conferes had voted to redefine marriage, it seems like a good time to revisit the topic. How many of those consequences have come to pass in this country? Were our fears unfounded?

The recent decision of the England and Wales Court of Appeal in Pemberton v Inwood [2018] EWCA Civ 564 (22 March 2018) upholds what was in effect disciplinary action taken against a Church of England clergyman, the Reverend Canon Jeremy Pemberton, on account of his entering into a same-sex marriage. The decision is a sensible one which upholds the religious freedom of the Anglican church to operate in accordance with its fundamental religious beliefs.

A student Christian group at the University of Iowa has been reinstated as a registered student organisation by a US Federal District Court Judge, after previously having its status revoked by University authorities. The student group, Business Leaders in Christ (“BLinC”), had been penalised because it would not agree to appoint to its leadership a same-sex attracted student, who said that they would not undertake to comply with the group’s commitment to Biblical sexual values. The University claimed that this was a breach of its Policy on Human Rights, forbidding discrimination on the basis of, among other things, sexual orientation. BLinC claimed, however, that the issue was not the student’s orientation, but their express refusal to modify their behaviour to accord with Biblical norms.

There have been a number of “wedding industry” religious freedom cases arising in the United States and the UK over the last few years. On 28 December 2017 the Oregon Court of Appeals, in Klein v. Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries (CA Or; Dec 28, 2017, — P.3d —-, 2017 WL 6613356; 289 Or App 507 (2017)) upheld a $135,000 fine levied on the Kleins, wedding cake makers, for declining to make a cake for the wedding of Rachel and Laurel Bowmen-Cryer. The case is another example of religious freedom (and, arguably, freedom of speech) being over-ridden in the name of “dignitary harm” to same-sex couples. It is a good example of the issues being presented to the current Ruddock Inquiry into Religious Freedom being conducted in Australia at the moment.

The current marriage wars are so very odd for so many reasons. Until just recently the ideological left was vigorously insisting that marriage is just a piece of paper; that marriage is an oppressive and outdated institution; and that marriage is artificial – a relatively recent social construct. Today however the left in general and the homosexual activists in particular are demanding the right to marriage, claiming it is the most important thing there is. So which is it? Is it just a waste of time or is it a necessity? Of course we know the answer to this already. Marriage has never really been wanted by most homosexuals, and it is only the symbolic effect – plus the power and control that goes with it – that they seek through the redefinition – and thus destruction – of marriage. But all that I have documented in great detail elsewhere. But let me look more closely at just one of the charges thrown around by the marriage attackers – at least up until recently. The claim that marriage and family are relatively recent inventions – often claimed to have originated in the US in the 1950s! – deserves a response.

 It's possibly the most fashionable word around these days, especially in Australia. Everyone wants it and no-one seems to have it. Every media outlet, organisation and business that wants to look hip is grooming its collective beard and committing to ensuring 'equality'. Even city councils are in on the act - and who'd ever thought for a moment that councils were not supposed to treat everyone equally? Surely councils are meant to collect the garbage of bigots and libertarians alike? The Greek philosopher Aristotle had something very interesting to say about all this. He said:

The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal.

This week, a young homosexual man was abused for opposing the redefinition of marriage in Australia. Angry Yes campaigners yelled insults and tried to drown out his speech at a rally held to promote that fact that 'It's Ok To Vote No.' This young guy took a very brave stance and should have been commended for swimming against the tide and breaking a stereotype that says all gay people want same-sex 'marriage.' Instead. for his trouble, he was met with ridicule and disrespect from those who claim they celebrate diversity. [click here to read more.] But this gay man is not alone in his desire to maintain the traditional definition of marriage. There are many other homosexuals who, for various reasons, are against same-sex 'marriage'. I don't agree with the reasoning of some of these commentators, but that isn't the point of this article. I simply want to illustrate the fact that there is a false narrative surrounding the Yes campaign - that the desire to redefine marriage is some kind of universally-held doctrine of the gay movement. So now follows a list of 10 prominent gays who don't want marriage equality.

It sometimes seems that the current marriage debate is more about words than about expressing heartfelt opinions and ideas. And it's often about who can shout their words louder than the other side. Unfortunately, many of those words are four-letter ones. And they have nothing to do with the one word at the centre of the controversy: love. For it's more about 'love' than about marriage, if you believe the mouthpieces for the Yes camp. Love wins, choose love, drown out the hate with love - all these make for good hashtags. But beyond the slogan is another reality entirely, and it's more about another four-letter word: hate.