The Homosexual Marriage Debate: Censorship, Bullying and Hysteria
Written by Bill Muehlenberg
Let me open with a few home truths: -Those demanding the complete redefinition – and thus destruction – of marriage do NOT want a debate on the matter. -They want it rammed through without the agreement of the public. -They do not have facts and evidence on their side, which is why they despise debate. -They therefore do not seek to win the debate – they seek to shut down the debate. -If they must engage in debate, the best they can come up with is ad hominem attacks, mud-slinging, name-calling, hate and hysteria. All this is easily enough documented. As to the other side preventing genuine debate from taking place, and shutting down the ‘No’ voice on homosexual marriage, consider a few recent articles.
Written from a Catholic perspective, Les Jones looks at some ministries of varying denominations that exist to help mothers and fathers in the wake of an abortion.
One of the reasons people have for not speaking about abortions is the fear of offending women who have had an abortion.
If we stress that God, the Church and ourselves offer forgiveness and help to such women, we can reduce the chance of such offence.
[This is the second article on assisted suicide in the series by Peter McCullagh. Click here to read the previous article, Good Suicide Vs Bad Suicide:]
Q. What do the terms ‘climate change’ and ‘slippery slope’ (in relation to assisted suicide) have in common?
Α. Both are regularly dismissed as fictitious in ‘one liners’. In both instances, the terms predict adverse consequences. In both instances, those predictions are based on preceding events, and their value will be dependent on the accuracy of description and analysis of those events. Should the evidentiary value of relevant preceding event be poor, then the credibility of the predictions, be they concerned with climate or assisted suicide will be proportionally diminished. ‘One line’ dismissals, particularly in relation to assisted suicide, have invariably denied the existence of the preceding events on which predictions of a ‘slippery slope’ are based. Nevertheless, detailed examination of those events has invariably been absent.
Julie Robinson, wife of Queensland MP Mark Robinson, wrote this excellent social media post about the end goal of Marxism - the destruction of the family. Julie has kindly allowed me to reproduce her article here.
As For Me and My House.
What we're facing here is nothing new. Marxism has always taught that the nuclear family - father, mother and children must be eradicated. It is, according to Marx and Engels both a result of capitalism, and designed to perpetuate it. Wealth passed down through family lines only ensures class divisions continue. Patriarchy (and marriage) maintain oppression of women and children as they have less control over resources and are therefore less powerful. In a truly Marxist society, Family must go - or at least family as defined as father, mother and their children. To destroy family, one must first undermine or weaken that unique and powerful bond between husband and wife, and put a wedge between children and parents. State encouragement of sexual experimentation is designed to bring an end to monogamy - all in the name of freedom and equality.
What's in a Name? The Children by Choice Conference
Written by Kathy Clubb
What do abortionists talk about when they get together? Well, judging by the lengths some abortion providers go to - they don't want the public to know about it. But the 2017 Children by Choice conference was recently held in Brisbane, and we can get some idea of what goes on behind the scenes by looking at their conference schedule and speaker list. Children by Choice is a Queensland abortion business that is notorious for offering finance to disadvantaged mothers so that they won't miss out on the essential 'reproductive care' enjoyed by their wealthier counterparts. So, if you can't afford a baby and can't afford to have it killed, Children by Choice will loan you the money for an abortion. [It's not known if they also loan money to women who want to keep their babies. Presumably not.]
Marriage Amendment Bill Won't Protect Religious Freedom
Written by Neil Foster
The debate over same sex marriage in Australia has been re-ignited by news that some members of the federal governing Liberal/National Party (LNP) coalition are proposing, contrary to their party’s policy, to introduce legislation in Federal Parliament this coming week to redefine marriage to extend it to same sex couples. In particular, press reports today indicate that a new Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017 will be introduced, one feature of which is that it contains legislative protections for religious freedom, designed to encourage support of the legislation by believers. In my view the protections to be provided, if press reports about the proposal are accurate, are far too few and far too narrow, and the proposal cannot be seen as providing adequate protection for this fundamental human right.
If it looks like a duck and it quacks, then . . . On the same day that the Victorian Legislative Council Select Committee Inquiry into end of life choices report was released, the Prime Minister foreshadowed a new inquiry into suicide and its prevention. That evening, the ABC ‘Drive’ program ran the two news items consecutively. Whether this arrangement reflected an initiative of a program arranger or was completely fortuitous, is not known but the grouping of the two items failed to elicit any comment from the usually chirpy presenter ‘PK’. Nor were any text messages from listeners received by the ABC (or at least none were aired). Perhaps this was an early indication of a general failure to recognise that the term ‘assisted dying’ had a very well established currency overseas as a polite substitute for assisted suicide and/or euthanasia. It certainly represented an emphatic acknowledgement of the success of the Select Committee in quarantining the S word from polite conversation.
