http://cumecclesia.blogspot.com/2008/11/down-right-evil-new-heresy-of.html
http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2008/05/01/on-relationship-recognition/
As you are probably already aware, the Sodomites’ League and their fellow-travellers have flown into another of their occasional bouts of hysteria, this time in relation to the appointment of two anti-sodomite activists (Messrs. Warwick Marsh and Barry Williams) as men’s health ambassadors by the Federal Government (though Mr. Williams later recanted the opinions that had offended the pansexual lobby). What exactly was the nature of their activism though? Picketing gay bars with ‘God Hates Fags’ signs? Fire-bombing the homes of high-profile sodomites? That’s what one might infer from the reaction among the pro-G.L.B.T. intelligentsia in politics and the media. But it appears that all they were guilty of was publishing the kind of material that as recently as twenty years would have passed without controversy. You know, things like ‘all else equal, a child is better off with a mum and a dad than ‘two mums’ or ‘two dads’’, and ‘a lifestyle founded on sodomy is probably not going to be all that healthy for you’. Follow the links to Mr. Schutz’s and Mr. Muelenberg’s respective blogs, provided at the top of this post, for more information. Mind you, the reaction from pro-sodomy activists has been even more shrill than the reaction of the politically-correct mainstream; in yesterday’s The Australian sodomite activist Mr. Brian Greig wrote
Earlier, a Mr. Robert Rollinson had a letter published in last Friday’s Sydney Morning Herod, saying that
One suspects, though, that what upsets the Sodomites’ League the most is not that this or that set of unflattering figures has been quoted, but simply the fact that homosexual behaviour has even been brought up for discussion. For the Sodomites’ League’s grand strategy in recent years has been to divert public discourse on homosexuality from a question of behaviour to a question of identity. Mr. Muehlenberg noted this insidious development in an excellent post of his earlier this year, in which he quoted the sodomite activist Mr. Dennis Altman as saying that
But should any pro-sodomite individuals happen across my post, please demonstrate for me the following:
(1) That same-sex attractions are not intrinsically disordered.
My disproof: human sexuality is ordered towards reproduction. Therefore same-sex attractions may reasonably be described as disordered.
(2) That sodomy is not an offence against reason.
My disproof: it tends to anal fissures and genital warts. Consult any G.L.B.T. health advisory body for more information.
(3) That is does not follow from the abandonment of the principle of one mother and one father for parents that the principle that the number of ‘co-parents’ should even be fixed at two should also be abandoned.
My disproof: if one mum and one dad are as good as ‘two mums’ or ‘two dads’ then this implies that each parent is a perfect substitute, not a perfect complement as in the natural family. Hence it is completely arbitrary and, as the G.L.B.T. intelligentsia might say, hetero-normative to fix the number of parents at two. After all, who are we to put limits on how ‘big’ anyone’s ‘love’ can be? And it takes a village to raise a child after all!
Reginaldvs Cantvar
Feast of St. Bibiana, Virgin and Martyr, 2008 A.D.
http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2008/05/01/on-relationship-recognition/
As you are probably already aware, the Sodomites’ League and their fellow-travellers have flown into another of their occasional bouts of hysteria, this time in relation to the appointment of two anti-sodomite activists (Messrs. Warwick Marsh and Barry Williams) as men’s health ambassadors by the Federal Government (though Mr. Williams later recanted the opinions that had offended the pansexual lobby). What exactly was the nature of their activism though? Picketing gay bars with ‘God Hates Fags’ signs? Fire-bombing the homes of high-profile sodomites? That’s what one might infer from the reaction among the pro-G.L.B.T. intelligentsia in politics and the media. But it appears that all they were guilty of was publishing the kind of material that as recently as twenty years would have passed without controversy. You know, things like ‘all else equal, a child is better off with a mum and a dad than ‘two mums’ or ‘two dads’’, and ‘a lifestyle founded on sodomy is probably not going to be all that healthy for you’. Follow the links to Mr. Schutz’s and Mr. Muelenberg’s respective blogs, provided at the top of this post, for more information. Mind you, the reaction from pro-sodomy activists has been even more shrill than the reaction of the politically-correct mainstream; in yesterday’s The Australian sodomite activist Mr. Brian Greig wrote
AS a gay man and campaigner for the rights of same-sex couples, I have no objection to Warwick Marsh holding the view that children are best raised by married heterosexual couples even though I may disagree.But information readily available from pro-sodomite health advisory bodies like ACON (the A.I.D.S. Council of New South Wales) shows that practising homosexuals are indeed more likely than heterosexuals to abuse drugs and suffer from Sexually Transmissible Infections (S.T.I.s); browse the ACON website (www.acon.org.au), download and read the ACON Annual Report 2006-07, or, for a more concise survey of the infection problems, read its 2007 Annual Surveillance Report (http://www.acon.org.au/health/index.cfm?cat_id=147). As you read it, make sure to compare the high-double-digit infection rates to the barely-single-digit rate of identification as homosexual found by the 2003 ‘Sex in Australia’ survey. And note that this disparity comes after some twenty years of the ‘safe sex’/harm minimisation agenda. Also, Mr. Greig fails to name his “reputable academics”, and the disgraceful cave-in of the American Psychiatric Association to the Sodomites’ League is well-known; I think Mr. Muehlenberg dealt with this a while ago.
However, contrary to his shrill indignation, Marsh was not dumped from Nicola Roxon’s Men’s Health Advisory Committee for this reason. Marsh’s condemnation of gay people and same-sex relationships goes way beyond mere conservative views and into the realm of vilification. Imagine, for example, if he had made the claim that Judaism was a mental disorder or that blacks were more inclined to abuse drugs, molest children, suffer diseases disproportionately or harm the development of children.
The so-called research paper Marsh uses to try to shield himself from criticism has been roundly condemned by qualified health professionals. The research and findings contained within it is rejected by the US and Australian psychological societies. Reputable academics have exposed this material as false, misleading, twisted and ideologically motivated. It is conveniently created by fundamentalist churches and anti-gay groups to support their bigotry.
Asking the Fatherhood Foundation to produce a report on same-sex relationships is like asking the Ku Klux Klan to do the same for interracial couples.
Brian Greig
Bayswater, WA
(http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/letters/index.php/theaustralian/comments/bigotry_and_vilification)
Earlier, a Mr. Robert Rollinson had a letter published in last Friday’s Sydney Morning Herod, saying that
As for the views of two of the other original appointees, can the Health Minister explain how such people were expected to inform HIV/AIDS policy? Or are we to assume they would simply have seen this area of health as governed by the wrath of God?But given the wildly disproportionate rate of infection among sodomites compared to non-sodomites (see, again, the ACON 2006-07 Annual Report or 2007 Annual Surveillance Report) one might have thought that Messrs. Marsh and Williams would have had quite a valuable contribution to make.
(http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/letters/mens-health-deserves-better-than-salon-talk/2008/11/27/1227491726053.html)
One suspects, though, that what upsets the Sodomites’ League the most is not that this or that set of unflattering figures has been quoted, but simply the fact that homosexual behaviour has even been brought up for discussion. For the Sodomites’ League’s grand strategy in recent years has been to divert public discourse on homosexuality from a question of behaviour to a question of identity. Mr. Muehlenberg noted this insidious development in an excellent post of his earlier this year, in which he quoted the sodomite activist Mr. Dennis Altman as saying that
The greatest single victory of the gay movement over the past decade has been to shift the debate from behavior to identity, thus forcing opponents into a position where they can be seen as attacking the civil rights of homosexual citizens rather than attacking specific and (as they see it) antisocial behavior.This is quite a brilliant little stratagem. No right-minded individual finds sodomy and other improvised expressions of pseudo-sexuality to be anything other than repulsive, a sickening parody of authentic conjugal relations, a flagrant insult to human dignity. As St. Gregory the Great said, the proof of love is in the works; hence sodomy is never a sign of love. Sexual intercourse can be right and honourable, since it tends to new life. Sodomy and other deviations tend only to death, of both the body (as ACON figures show) and of the soul. And a civil prohibition on sodomy is, in fact, completely un-discriminatory, since it would apply regardless of whether the sodomite were homosexual or heterosexual and whether the catamite were male or female. But in an age in which ‘diversity’ and ‘tolerance’ are accepted widely as ends in themselves, who would dare to deny a person his ‘rights’ (regardless of whether there’s a corresponding duty), his very ‘identity’ (regardless of whether it is even possible for this identity to express itself healthily)? Like public discourse on abortion, we see the focus shifted from the object to the subject, from the operation to the operative faculty, and a sort of veil drawn between the two; hence one is not pro-abortion but ‘pro-choice’, not pro-sodomy but ‘pro-gay rights’. To see society conceding to its members the confected ‘right’ to submit to their basest disordered passions is to see a society in the final stages of succumbing to the deliramentum of which Pope Gregory XVI warned so prophetically.
(http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2008/05/01/on-relationship-recognition)
But should any pro-sodomite individuals happen across my post, please demonstrate for me the following:
(1) That same-sex attractions are not intrinsically disordered.
My disproof: human sexuality is ordered towards reproduction. Therefore same-sex attractions may reasonably be described as disordered.
(2) That sodomy is not an offence against reason.
My disproof: it tends to anal fissures and genital warts. Consult any G.L.B.T. health advisory body for more information.
(3) That is does not follow from the abandonment of the principle of one mother and one father for parents that the principle that the number of ‘co-parents’ should even be fixed at two should also be abandoned.
My disproof: if one mum and one dad are as good as ‘two mums’ or ‘two dads’ then this implies that each parent is a perfect substitute, not a perfect complement as in the natural family. Hence it is completely arbitrary and, as the G.L.B.T. intelligentsia might say, hetero-normative to fix the number of parents at two. After all, who are we to put limits on how ‘big’ anyone’s ‘love’ can be? And it takes a village to raise a child after all!
Reginaldvs Cantvar
Feast of St. Bibiana, Virgin and Martyr, 2008 A.D.
1 comment:
Given the disastrous general social effects arising from the decriminalisation of sodomy (quite apart from the physical and spiritual effects on the individual participants), perhaps we need to return to the former custom of burning sodomites and catamites alive. The law is a paedogogue.
+ Thomas Wolsey,
Archieps. Eborac., etc.
Post a Comment