Skip to main content

Oz Govt fires health ambassador for homophobia

It seems that writing a document using the research of the negative consequences of the gay lifestyle and insisting that the best place for a child to be raised is with a married mother and father is cause for dismissal by the Australian Government.
In a major embarrassment to Labor and Health Minister Nicola Roxon, two of the government's health ambassadors, Warwick Marsh and Barry Williams, contributed to the paper 21 Reasons Why Gender Matters, published by the Fatherhood Foundation two years ago.

Both men were asked to repudiate the contents of the document. When one refused to do so, he was sacked.

However, what disturbed me most was that the man was sacked because what was written was unfavourable to the "influential lesbian and gay community". It reads like kow-towing to a superior class.
Roxon said the government was working to reverse discriminatory laws for same-sex couples and said she hoped the influential gay and lesbian community, estimated to number around 400,000 people, would see the appointments as a simple mistake.
The sad thing is, the document's focus was the well-being of children, who do best in the natural family. Something the government ought to be far more interested in than pandering to a small, but influential group.
Co-author of the document Mary-Louise Fowler, Vice-President of the Australian Family Association, says the document's main focus was the wellbeing of children and she has criticised the Government for dismissing Mr Marsh so quickly.

She says the 21 Reasons study wanted "to emphasise the importance, and indeed the right, for children to be raised in the natural family setting by both their mother and father.

"Nicola Roxon's knee-jerk sacking of Warwick Marsh indicates an unwillingness on the part of the Federal Government to listen to the views of people who dissent from the politically correct norms of recent years.

"It is an obvious contradiction when those who pride themselves on being "inclusive", exclude the views of a well researched document. It is appalling when elected representatives engage in this practice."

Related Links: Govt ambassadors in gay hate controversy ~ The Age
Co-authors defend sacked ambassador over gay slur ~ ABC News
Australia government embroiled in homophobia row ~ Reuters

21 Reasons Why Gender Matters

Comments

  1. Redbaiter, I've seen that. The thing is, those sorts of comments are not allowed to be made. It's supposed to be hidden.

    All of this is just the beginning. I read the following article today that stated:

    With the passage of the Labour government’s Sexual Orientation Regulations, Catholics and others who adhere to traditional moral norms, are increasingly under threat. Fr. Timothy Finigan, a Catholic theology professor and founder of the Association of Priests for the Gospel of Life, told LifeSiteNews.com that with the “equality” doctrine asserting that homosexuality is the equivalent of race, any criticism of homosexual sex, such as calling it “sinful,” is by definition discriminatory against homosexuals. Fr. Finigan warned that the language of the gay lobby is being used by government to silence Christian teaching with regard to homosexual activity.

    It's going to get worse.

    In Spain a judge is on trial for trying to prevent the adoption of a child to the mother's lesbian lover, and a hospital is under investigation for releasing a pamphlet "on sexuality that recommends abstinence from sexual intercourse until marriage, mentions that abortion ends a human life, and calls sodomy a "behavioral disturbance" that spreads disease and causes depression".

    In Brazil, a book has been taken off the shelves because it contains "homophobic remarks". The author has been fined and censored.

    In Canada, a marriage commissioner is suing the government for fining him for refusing to perform a "same-sex marriage". He referred the couple to another person, but was fined anyway.

    And in England, it's ok for men to have sex on the footpath - complainants are told to take another route.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The problem was that they were appointed as ambassadors for 'men's health' and the document they put their names to also contains a long list of statements about homosexuality, suggesting it is unnatural, a "preventable and treatable" illness, representative of immaturity, and associated with psychiatric disorders and drug addiction. "Gender disorientation pathology", as the document calls homosexuality, "will lead to increased levels of drug abuse and partner violence." In particular, the document strongly associates homosexuality with sexual abuse. "Gender disorientation pathology encourages the sexual and psychological exploitation of children," it says.

    On and on it goes, page after page, "supported" by nonsensical and misinterpreted studies, ranting against gays and lesbians.

    They can hardly be ambassador's for men's health with views such as these and Roxon was right to dismiss them.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Ackers, I've got a link to the document in question. It doesn't look like a rant to me.

    A recent study has also shown that the homosexual lifestyle reduces lives by up to 24 years.

    In Denmark, the country with the longest history of gay marriage, for 1990-2002, married heterosexual men died at a median age of 74yrs., while the 561 partnered gays died at an average age of 51.

    In Norway, married heterosexual men died at an average age of 77 and the 31 gays at 52 yrs. In Denmark, married women died at an average age of 78 yrs. compared to 56 yrs. for the 91 lesbians. In Norway, women married to men died at an average age of 81. v. 56 for the 6 lesbians.

    "The consistency of reduced lifespan for those engaging in homosexuality is significant," said Dr. Cameron. "The same pattern of early death turned up whether we looked at obituaries in the U.S. or deaths in marriage. Given the greatly reduced lifespan for homosexuals, school children should be strongly and consistently warned about the dangers of homosexuality even more so than smoking. Those school districts which are introducing pro-gay curricula need to rethink their priorities."


    Source

    It seems that men's health and homosexuality is very much linked.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "They can hardly be ambassador's for men's health with views such as these and Roxon was right to dismiss them."

    Ackers, you do realize that sentence is a completely subjective judgment that could be argued against quite easily and strongly don't you? From the way you write, it would appear as if you believe it to be an unchallengeable fact. Weird.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "The thing is, those sorts of comments are not allowed to be made. It's supposed to be hidden."

    Yeah, got banned from PC for arguing that the Libertarians were merely a front group for homosexual activism and suggesting that if they wanted to make some progress, they should abandon that group and embrace the Christians, (who I feel are much more representative of the ideals of liberty than fascist homosexual activists)

    The idea was met with scorn and contempt underpinned by ignorance and misinformation. Woke me up to the fact that the Libs are really just another bunch of leftists who have never developed a right wing perspective and probably never will.

    The real issue though is that its a measure of how desperately contrived and dishonest the situation has become when those who profess to be the most liberal are actually on this matter the most authoritarian.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "The real issue though is that its a measure of how desperately contrived and dishonest the situation has become when those who profess to be the most liberal are actually on this matter the most authoritarian."

    Exactly.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "It's simply my opinion Redbaiter."

    Yes, that's what I said. My point was that in the manner you wrote it, you seemed to mistake it for a fact.

    BTW, its not "gay". Its "homosexual". Try using truth instead of propaganda. It helps alleviate the self loathing.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Call me whatever you like Redbaiter if it helps you work through your issues.

    If I self identify as gay then that's what it is.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Ackers, using the Lord's name in vain will get your comments deleted around these parts. Consider this a warning. Here's the deleted comment with the offending part removed. Next time it won't be posted back.

    It's simply my opinion Redbaiter. As for the stats regarding gay men's reduced life expectancy I'm obviously a marked man Lucyna. It's enough to drive me to unrepentant unbridled hedonistic sex! *****, I've already had my 1st life and am living on borrowed time!

    I suspect AID's may have something to do with these stats. Most of my friends are heading towards healthy old age. Funny thing about being relaxed and comfortable with your gayness. You tend to look after yourself as body image is pretty important, you haven't been run ragged by looking after the kids etc etc.

    It's when creeps like these try to tell young gay people that they have a problem and fill them with self loathing that the problems arise....high rates of alcoholism, drug addiction, low self esteem, suicide you name it.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Look, I don't give a damn about your sexuality. Can't you just keep it to yourself??

    ReplyDelete
  12. Sorry Lucyna. The worst aspect of the appointments was the fact that Julia Gillards partner was selected as one of the ambassadors. His only qualification that as a hairdresser men open up to him!

    A clear case of croneyism, nepotism, call it what you like but not a good look.

    ReplyDelete
  13. The sacred cow must be taken on. No one dares criticise any aspect of the gay lobby for fear of retaliation and it has to stop.

    The worst, though, is the liberal adherence to this becuase they are supposed to be committed to freedom of speech yet many are so captured by the sacred cow that they will sell out their liberalism and in doing so undercut freefom of speech and conscience and in the example you use truth and reason.

    We have to stop fearing being called homophobic for pointing out that some things the gay lobby do are wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Red: got banned from PC for arguing that the Libertarians were merely a front group for homosexual activism

    I don't think Libz are a front for that. However homosexuals are overly represented in their party membership, and they are very vocal. And these are people who enjoy being as offensive as possible, and pushing their sexuality in other's faces.

    PC's blog shows the Perils of The Echo Chamber and believing your own BS. His election results prove that. Nearly all comments are from various sycophants. Everyone else is tarred and feathered and run out of town.

    ReplyDelete
  15. The worst aspect of the appointments was the fact that Julia Gillards partner was selected as one of the ambassadors

    So it's alright to fire some-one for alleged cronyism and excuse it as "homophobia"?

    You make the point as if it somehow justifies the end result.

    The worst part of it is that this person got fired for a report written 2 years earlier that some people didn't like. If coming out as gay would not be a barrier for taking on this role, having been a researcher on gay lifestyles shouldn't be either.

    The LGBT community in America have many reports talking about (for example) violence within gay relationships being a serious issue etc.

    (As an aside: Some even blame "heterosexualism" for it.

    In addition, a unique element for lesbians is the homophobic environment that surrounds them. This enables the abusive partner to exert "heterosexist control" over the victim...)

    Such reports from them are not seen as homophobic, are they? Change the authorship, and it seems that way.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "I don't think Libz are a front for that."

    Maybe, maybe not, but IMHO they always seem much more interested in promoting tolerance of the type of behaviour portrayed in the (Free Republic) post I linked to above than in pursuing more traditional principles of liberty.

    ReplyDelete
  17. No one dares criticise any aspect of the gay lobby for fear of retaliation and it has to stop.


    Oh, how my heart bleeds! Tell you what - when Christianity's been criminalised and mentioning that you're a Christian could easily get you beaten to death, we'll take your complaints of persecution by the gay lobby seriously.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Very funny PM. It already has been criminalised in many countries, and Christians were the staple diet for many a Colosseum bred lion. All around the world we see ongoing persecution of Christians. In India recently, a nun gang raped and dragged through the streets, countless churches burned to the ground. In Africa, many priests killed in the last year alone. And don't be a Christian caught in San Francisco after dark...

    The "you show me your historical scars and I'll show you mine" is irrelevant.

    Are you commenting on the post? If so, what you are suggesting is an merely an excuse for firing this person. But what happened to freedom of belief, right to fair dismissal etc?

    Firing some-one from their job to appease the Politically Correct isn't the greatest moment in Australian politics.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I just don't think that what happened 2000 years ago or might still be happening in benighted shitholes like Iran and Saudi Arabia is particularly relevant to life in Australia, Zen.

    It's a fact that in a country not at all unlike Australia, ie this one, you have a reasonable chance of claiming "provocation" to murder if someone confronts you with their homosexuality. It's relevant in this part of the world in a way that persecution of Christians most definitely isn't.

    Re the content of the post, yes it was a very good excuse for sacking them. If we were to appoint "human rights ambassadors" who turned out to think that darkies are lower down the evolutionary scale, I'd expect the people who appointed them to be reviewing that appointment in short order. Same applies in this case, and good riddance.

    ReplyDelete
  20. So, you're 'gay' Ackers.
    I take it that means you're carefree, happy, laughing? Or is it a euphemism for sexually aberrant?
    If the latter, then 'homosexual' removes any confusion. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  21. "Same applies in this case, and good riddance."

    It doesn't moron. Homosexuality and race are two completely different issues.

    ReplyDelete
  22. They're "issues?" What's at issue with these "issues?"

    I'll help you out here, Red - I was using a rhetorical device known as "analogy." If you think it was a false analogy, feel free to explain why. I'm happy to defend it.

    ReplyDelete
  23. PM, Did you read the report they were supposed to recant? The way the media have portrayed the issue and the paper that was produced is a little different, I think. As I said, I've seen papers written by the LGBT community that would be no worse.

    My examples were of India, Africa and San Francisco. Maybe Australia isn't that far behind. We can include Indonesia, China, and Canada too.

    you have a reasonable chance of claiming "provocation" to murder if someone confronts you with their homosexuality. but incredibly unlikely that such a defence would work. You also have an incredible chance of being gang raped and then told it was because of the way she dressed...

    ..that defence didn't work either and the lads got 20 years. Australia is also the place of the Oz Mardi Gras and Oxford street. There is a "thriving" gay community, it's not the kind of country that you have to keep underground - well maybe Tasmania and Broken Hill..

    ReplyDelete
  24. Not even Tasmania and Broken Hill, Zen--our neighbours in Launceston were part of a thriving homosexual community and BH is now home to a large arts community with a lerge homosexual element. They seem to get along just fine with the locals in both places.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Note to self: check for typos in anything written before the fifth mug of coffee....

    ReplyDelete
  26. Thanks kg, I stand corrected (and I would follow the advice about spell checking, but I am incapable of remembering to check for typos before the fifth mug of coffee)

    ReplyDelete
  27. PM: I concede my point that the document is "no worse" than what comes out of the LGBT community. On reflection, that is incorrect as the thrust of the document makes generalisations on the suitability (or lack thereof) of same-sex couples providing a healthy family environment for children.

    The documents I refer to point out the same base material (higher degrees of violence, sexual abuse backgrounds, promiscuity, depression and health issues) but obviously shy away from the kinds of conclusions that the paper then makes.

    I suspect people would find a hard time refuting some of the studies that support their conclusions, and the conclusions are as unpalatable to the PC brigade as John Key suggesting that there is an underclass in NZ, in spite of Helen Clark's protestations.

    I don't see such generalisations out of line however. A paper correlating the likelihood of divorce from adults who experienced marriage breakup of their own parents would be an unpalatable generalization for some married couples, but one that would be valid to make, in spite of specific cases to the contrary.

    ReplyDelete
  28. "I was using a rhetorical device known as "analogy.""

    Sure you were, in a feeble and typically social liberal style attempt to excuse sexually aberrant behaviour, often the result of choice. Maybe for another example, you could apply the same analogy to the issue of sexual predators who continually offend because of their unnatural attraction to children. Or animals if you like. What race would this be analogous to?? The comparison is laughable.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Please be respectful. Foul language and personal attacks may get your comment deleted without warning. Contact us if your comment doesn't appear - the spam filter may have grabbed it.