Friday, November 30, 2012

Lucia Greens wouldn't recongise evil if they tripped over it

The Greens think that the Government's proposed legislation to limit councils to funding only core services is "evil".

Green MP Denise Roache told the House that it is evil for the Government to be revoking councils' legal responsibility to ensure the economic, social, cultural and environmental wellbeing of their ratepayers.

Sorry, no. How the government is organised in New Zealand, when it doesn't suit the Green's ideas of how it should be, is not evil. I wouldn't trust the Greens to identify real evil if they tripped over it. Especially evil dressed up as good, such as what is happening in Britain with regards to dehydrating even child patients to death:

Sick children are being discharged from NHS hospitals to die at home or in hospices on controversial ‘death pathways’.

Until now, end of life regime the Liverpool Care Pathway was thought to have involved only elderly and terminally-ill adults.

But the Mail can reveal the practice of withdrawing food and fluid by tube is being used on young patients as well as severely disabled newborn babies.

One doctor has admitted starving and dehydrating ten babies to death in the neonatal unit of one hospital alone.

Writing in a leading medical journal, the physician revealed the process can take an average of ten days during which a baby becomes ‘smaller and shrunken’.

Related links:
Local government legislation panned as 'evil' ~ Radio New Zealand
Now sick babies go on death pathway: Doctor's haunting testimony reveals how children are put on end-of-life plan ~ Daily Mail

Tuesday, November 27, 2012

Lucia Anglicans may be forced to vote again until they vote for women bishops

This is one of the real problems of mixing Church and State. In Britain, it looks like it's going to get messy.

Our rulers hold democracy in contempt. In Parliament yesterday, Sir Tony Baldry announced that the new Archbishop of Canterbury would be summoned to Westminster in the coming weeks and told that MPs will not wait for a new vote on women bishops. He will be instructed to organise another vote ahead of the agreed five-year timetable. The Church of England will be expected to choose women bishops this time, and they will vote again and again until they get it right.

As I read somewhere, it's kind of weird that women bishops are a big deal in a church that has at it's head, a woman, ie the Queen.

Related link: Parliament has no respect for democracy. The 'people who know best' are taking over our lives

Monday, November 26, 2012

Lucia Talking with Sean Plunket on same-sex marriage



Last Friday (23 November, 2012) I phoned up the Sean Plunket Morning Show on NewsTalkZB to add my bit on whether or not churches should get dispensation from having to marry two people of the same sex, if the same-sex marriage bill by Louisa Wall passes, that is.

Please excuse the first 10 seconds or so. I was told that I'd have to wait 5 minutes, so when they put me on within 30 seconds or so of waiting, I was not ready, to say the least. LOL, anyway, Sean Plunket was very good and jumped in and gave me a chance to recollect myself by introducing the subject.

Speaking is not really my thing, I prefer the time to think that is available in blogging.  However, I've been thinking I'm going to have to practice speaking on the radio, because there are so few Catholics that do it.  And the ones that do, fall into the camp of being pretty much heretics, which is not a good look, really.

I talked about the need for churches to get dispensation, though I didn't get to the crux of the matter, which is how do you make churches marry people they don't think are suitable and then what do you do when they don't comply, because there will be churches that will not comply (Catholics most, definitely will not marry two of the same-sex).  Is New Zealand ready for what will be in effect, the real beginning of the persecution of the Christian faith.

What I did say was that changing marriage to include two people of the same sex is redefining the word, marriage.  Just like calling black, white, or deciding that we want to start calling cats, dogs.

Sean then asked about divorced people not able to be married in the Catholic Church.  Here, I gave a bit of my own experience with regards to being married to a divorced man, who had to get an annulment from the Church before our marriage could be seen as valid.  I didn't get into too much detail here, so listening to the conversation again, I can see that Sean assumed that the annulment happened before we were married.  Except that it didn't.  I was a non-practicing Catholic who came back to the Church six years ago, and then in order to be in good standing with the Church and be able to receive the Sacraments, had to live as brother and sister with my husband until his previous marriage was considered to not really have happened (that's the annulment), and there was always the possibility that the Tribunal would find that his previous marriage was valid and we'd have to live as brother and sister permanently. It was incredibly stressful, and just coming to terms with all of that started around the time that I left the Sir Humphrey's blog, and was completed two years later.

I also talked about how the Church doesn't discriminate against gay people (men or women, even though I only gave the example of a man), that they can get married in the Catholic Church, just by following the same rules as every other man.  That is, to find a willing woman that can marry him, and therefore not be divorced or closely related to him (or underage, should have added that in!).  That finding a willing man does not make it marriage, that goes back into redefining words.  My 11 year old said of Sean, that he sounded a bit like a child, when he kept asking, but why?

I managed to finish with the fact that marriage existed before the State existed and even before the Church existed, though I did agree that the Church had a right to define what marriage was.

It's hard work talking on the radio, and even though Sean Plunket does annoy me with his liberal opinions, he is a good interviewer.  He did let me talk, even though he disagreed with me and I didn't feel attacked, like other talk show hosts have made me feel when I put forward an opinion that was radically different from theirs (thinking Danny Watson in particular here, when I phoned up about computer use for children).  Funny thing was, my brother expected me to phone in when he heard the subject, and so wasn't surprised when I came on the radio.  I certainly don't enjoy doing it, but I think will have to do more of it.

Sunday, November 25, 2012

Fletch Calling A Kiwi "Australian" In UK Illegal and Racist

Apparently, in the UK, calling a Kiwi “Australian” is considered a racial slur and punishable by fine, and a woman was convicted in court for doing just so.

According to Fairfax Australia

Hurling abuse wasn’t the problem for Petra Mills. But a court ruled that calling her New Zealand neighbour an Australian was racist and against the law.

Czech-born Mills, 31, has been found guilty of racially aggravated public disorder after a rant at her New Zealand-born neighbour in Macclesfield, south of Manchester.

Chelsea O’Reilly, who has dual British and New Zealand citizenship, said: “She called me a stupid fat Australian b****. Because of my accent there can be some confusion over my nationality. She knew I was from New Zealand.

“She was trying to be offensive. I was really insulted. She said she would kill my dog. Bizarrely she then blew raspberries at me like a child.”

The incident happened when O’Reilly was giving a statement to police about a domestic incident between Mills and Mills’ husband in early September, the Daily Mail reported.

Mills, who had called the police after running from her house, had stormed over to O’Reilly’s house and began screaming at her.

Two police constables told the court they had heard Mills use the word “Australian” during her drunken rant.

At Macclesfield magistrates’ court Mills agreed she had shouted but denied she was being racist.

“I did not use the word ‘Australian’. I used to live with an Australian person. She was very nice.”

But chairman of the bench Brian Donohue said: “You were in an emotional and inebriated state. The word ‘Australian’ was used. It was racially aggravated and the main reason it was used was in hostility.”

Mills denied the charge of racially aggravated public disorder but was found guilty and fined £110. She admitted assaulting a police constable by kicking him in the shin and knee and was fined £200 on that charge. She was also ordered to pay both victims £50 compensation, and £500 court costs.

Mills and her husband moved to Scotland after the incident.

I wonder if it's illegal the other way around?
Welcome to more of the Repressive Tolerance.

Thursday, November 22, 2012

Lucia The same-sex marriage debacle continues

So many bad arguments are being put forward to the select committee looking into Louisa Wall's same-sex marriage bill.

One of the first couples in New Zealand to have a civil union say that was a compromise and only being able to marry would give them equality.

I'm sorry to have to inform these two men that in order to gain full equality, in the way that they define it, is to have the ability to bear children. Interesting that they are not arguing that, as they are in France.
“As a lesbian couple, me and my partner can’t just wake up in the morning and say, we’re going to have a baby,” she said. “But without [Medically Assisted Procreation - MAP for short], procreation is near impossible. It would be terribly hypocritical for the Socialists to introduce an ‘equality’ bill without allowing us the same parenting rights as our heterosexual peers. Half-hearted equality is not equality.”

Even then, true equality is not there, as heterosexual couples will still be able to have babies without medical intervention. The only true equality will be when all procreation is medically assisted. If we want to follow the equality argument to it full conclusion, that is.

Then there was the sentimental argument from long time foe, Jordan Carter, who used to be a blogger, and seems now to be working himself towards becoming a Labour MP.

Submitter Jordan Carter asked MPs to consider how they'd feel if they were in the minority rather than homosexuals.

I'm in the minority here in New Zealand as a practicing Catholic and I feel sad for those who aren't Catholic. All those who aren't Catholic are missing out on so much by not having access to the Sacraments and to Our Lord Himself. However, I won't be agitating for a law to pass, making it mandatory for everyone to attend Mass, no matter how good it would be for them, and how much better it might make me feel (though I know it wouldn't be a true conversion, so I wouldn't end up feeling any better about it).

As I've said previously, sentimentalists are not reasonable people, they are ruled by their feelings, and so see nothing wrong in trying to make an emotional argument rather than a logical one. It will get some people, making them feel guilty for making someone else feel different.

So many silly arguments, starting with Louisa Wall herself, so little time to comment.

4. At the outset, much of the opposition has been motivated by a basic premise that some people consider homosexuality is unacceptable or a sin. There have been attempts to revisit issues that have already been determined. In other words some opponents need to be honest and declare that what they truly seek is to repeal the Homosexual Law Reform Act 1986. This is evidenced by the number of vocal opponents who argue from a first principle position of homosexuality being a sin and homosexuals being sinners. It is also evidenced by their pragmatism in changing from a position of opposition to the Civil Union Act 2004 to one of expressing support for that Act in order to oppose this Bill. That position promotes the view that all homosexual New Zealanders are different and should be satisfied with the created institution of Civil Union.

Again, homosexuality is not a sin. Acting on homosexual desires is a sin, just as acting on heterosexual desires that aren't directed at your spouse is a sin. Lustful thoughts are a sin, viewing pornography is a sin, masturbating is a sin, using contraception is a sin. A person can be attracted to those of the same-sex, but never act on those attractions and therefore that person is not sinning. There might be people who are confused as merge the sinner and the sin into one, but that is not the stance of Christians who know their faith well. Louisa Wall is either talking about a small minority of people here, or those she has created in her head to attack. Also, homosexual New Zealanders (those that are attracted to persons of the same sex) are different, otherwise we wouldn't have words to describe them, and otherwise Jordan Carter above wouldn't be trying to get everyone to emotionally connect with him as to how it might feel to be in the minority.

Let's hope and pray that when this abysmal bill actually gets back to Parliament, that our MPs wake up from their feel good, let's change the world frame of mind, and actually think about what they might be doing for the whole of New Zealand, rather than a very vocal, but small lobby group.

Wednesday, November 21, 2012

Lucia The world will not end on December 21st this year

It might end tomorrow, however. :)

Related link : Pope calls on faithful to ignore doomsday warnings

Friday, November 16, 2012

Lucia Hysteria in Australia over what priests might hear in Confession

Some real hatred going on at Whale Oil's blog against priests. It's disturbing, makes me think that wholesale persecution is not that far off. It all started from this story on Confession:
Prime Minister Julia Gillard says using the seal of the Catholic confessional to cover up child abuse is a ‘‘sin of omission’’ because all adults have a duty of care towards children.

Ms Gillard says the terms of reference for the federal royal commission announced on Monday haven’t been set, and nor has the way evidence will be gathered and witnesses questioned.

‘‘That is going to be a matter for the royal commissioners we appoint,’’ she told reporters in Brisbane on Wednesday.

She said all parties including institutions and victims would be consulted carefully on the terms of reference.
Advertisement

When asked if the commission should examine the Catholic Church’s seal of the confessional, the prime minister agreed that it wasn’t good enough that some adults had been ‘‘averting their eyes’’ from the problem of child abuse.

‘‘Adults have got a duty of care towards children,’’ Ms Gillard said.‘‘It’s not good enough for people to engage in sin of omission and not act when a child is at risk.’’

Actually, maintaining the seal of the confessional supercedes all of that. Confession is where a person is forgiven of their sins so that they are able to enter eternal life (ie not go to Hell). The priest represents our Lord Jesus Christ, and has been given the power to forgive sins.

From John 20, just after Our Lord was ressurrected:

19 Now when it was late the same day, the first of the week, and the doors were shut, where the disciples were gathered together, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst and said to them: Peace be to you. 20 And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. The disciples therefore were glad, when they saw the Lord. 21 He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father has sent me, I also send you. 22 When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive the Holy Ghost. 23 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them: and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.

That was Jesus' entire mission, to set up a system whereby we can gain forgiveness and the friendship of God. That is why He poured out His blood on the Cross, for the forgiveness of sins, to save us. That's why the Church exists.  It's not enough to confess directly to Jesus in your own mind, you need to go to one of His representatives, but your confession is treated exactly as if you only confessed in your own mind, ie it's totally private unless you choose to tell someone. That's why the Church has strict rules and severe penalties for any priest who reveals the contents of a Confession. It's an automatic excommunication that can only be overturned by the Holy See.
Senior federal Liberal frontbencher Christopher Pyne has declared that priests should report child sex abuse crimes revealed in the confessional to police.

On Wednesday, Mr Pyne - who is a practising Catholic - said that as a member of Parliament, it would be wrong of him to advise citizens not to report crimes, particularly something as serious as child abuse.

''If a priest, or anyone else, is aware of the sexual abuse of children that is going on, I think there is an obligation on them to report it to the appropriate authorities,'' he told ABC Radio.

A clueless Catholic politician. He might as well have said, I am Catholic, but I know nothing about my own faith and here is my opinion. He needs to practice a lot harder.

The thing is, priests cannot reveal anything that has been said in Confession, even to save their own lives.  (see this story of a NZ Catholic priest who was killed by the Japanese in 1943).

On Tuesday, in the wake of Prime Minister Julia Gillard's announcement of a royal commission on child abuse, Cardinal George Pell said that the seal of confession was ''inviolable''.

Cardinal Pell said that if a priest knew what would be confessed prior to the confession, then they should refuse to hear it.

I think Cardinal Pell is feeling the pressure here. He really needs to stick to his guns on this one and say that priests cannot reveal the contents of a Confession and that's it. The best they can do in terms of making sure a serious offender doesn't take advantage of the seal, is to given Absolution conditional on the person handing themselves into police. If the person doesn't hand themselves in, then the confession does not forgive that person's sins.

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott said that everyone has to obey the law when it comes to reporting child sex abuse, including priests.

"There are various requirements on people if they become aware of sexual offences against children," he told reporters in Brisbane on Wednesday.

"Those legal requirements must be adhered to."

What is it with these clueless Catholic politicians? I always thought Tony Abbott was one of the better ones, but his comments (unless he said more and it wasn't reported) seem to show he has no idea about Confession, either.

From : The Seal of the Confessional

The sacramental seal is inviolable. Quoting Canon 983.1 of the Code of Canon Law, the Catechism states, "...It is a crime for a confessor in any way to betray a penitent by word or in any other manner or for any reason" (No. 2490). A priest, therefore, cannot break the seal to save his own life, to protect his good name, to refute a false accusation, to save the life of another, to aid the course of justice (like reporting a crime), or to avert a public calamity. He cannot be compelled by law to disclose a person's confession or be bound by any oath he takes, e.g. as a witness in a court trial. A priest cannot reveal the contents of a confession either directly, by repeating the substance of what has been said, or indirectly, by some sign, suggestion, or action. A Decree from the Holy Office (Nov. 18, 1682) mandated that confessors are forbidden, even where there would be no revelation direct or indirect, to make any use of the knowledge obtained in the confession that would "displease" the penitent or reveal his identity.

(Just as an aside, a great movie which deals with this very topic is Alfred Hitchcock's "I Confess," which deals with a priest who hears a murder confession and then is framed for the murder. As a priest, I was in agony during much of the movie.)



Related link : PM slams 'sin' of covering up abuse confessions

Thursday, November 15, 2012

Lucia Sex abuse inquiry in Australia


A policeman whistle blower thinks his career prospects are over, given what he's been telling the media on sex abuse in the Catholic Church in Australia, and now there is going to be a royal commission of inquiry. However, given the allegations in the media of Detective Chief Inspector Peter Fox, there is this feeling that the Catholic Church is being singled out.

SYDNEY — The Church should not be made the scapegoat in an Australian inquiry into child sex abuse, the country's most senior Catholic cleric said Tuesday as victims welcomed the paedophilia probe.

Cardinal Archbishop George Pell (source: 3 News)
Prime Minister Julia Gillard ended more than a decade of growing pressure by ordering a royal commission on Monday to investigate the responses of all religious organisations, schools and state care to allegations of abuse.

Sydney Archbishop George Pell said he welcomed the inquiry, which will also examine the responses of not-for-profit organisations and the police, as an opportunity to help victims, "clear the air" and "separate fact from fiction".

"We are not interested in denying the extent of misdoing in the Catholic Church," he told a press conference.

"We object to it being exaggerated, we object to being described as the only cab on the rank. I don't think we should be scapegoated."

The Church will be scapegoated, however. It's normal, it happened to Our Lord Jesus Christ, and it's something we need to get used to, it's something we have to live with. The good will be scapegoated for the sins of the evil.  Having listened to a lot of Fulton Sheen explaining the role of the priest as priest AND VICTIM, this scapegoating will be part of the offering to the Father for the sins of the priesthood and of the world. (See Jesus Christ: Priest and Victim by Msgr. Arthur B. Calkins). It's the price that needs to be paid in order that the heinous crime of sexual molestation of children be dealt with properly, otherwise the relentless sexual revolutionary march will continue, and it's a small price to pay in the scheme of things.

Our Lord Jesus Christ, Priest and Victim (picture found on the blog of Fr Stephen Smuts)

If it weren't for the desire to discredit the priesthood by pointing out the sins of some priests, many of which happened decades ago, then maybe we would be further down the track with regards to paedophile political parties, and government encouragement of the sexualisation of infants. There are still conferences being held on how to change perception of the population of paedophiles to "minor attracted persons", the new "orientation" that they feel needs to gain acceptance, and mainstream pornography that promotes the sexual abuse of children is being viewed by millions every day.

There's a lot going on in society that has been increasing child sexual abuse over the years and minimising it's impact on children.  The attack on the priesthood may turn that around in regards to the attitude of people towards sexual abuse of children, but there is a lot of work to be done.  So many are very attached to their pornography and fight tooth and nail to prevent any restrictions on it at all, and that's where we need to start if we are serious about protecting children, by stopping the fuel that feeds the fire.

Related link: Church 'should not be scapegoat' in Australian abuse probe ~ AFP

Wednesday, November 14, 2012

Lucia Solar Eclipse [UPDATE]

The sun feels a lot colder right now as I write this at 10:40 am.

Here in New Zealand, just north of Wellington, we are not experiencing a total eclipse as the lucky people in Cairns, Australia have. However, the moon covering most of the sun is causing quite a dimming of light that is significant and it feels physically colder.

I had a chat with my children last night about whether or not they could look at the eclipse without protection, and I told them they could, but only a glimpse and it would be better not to look. When I was growing up I was told not to look at eclipses at all, otherwise I'd go blind. However, telling children that they will go blind is more harmful that telling them to be cautious, according to the article from Mental that I quote below. There are no extra-ordinary rays that come out of the sun during an eclipse, but it is still the sun and looking at the sun for too long will damage your eyes, so treat it the same way.

Wouldn’t It Be Easier Just to Tell Your Kids They Will Go Blind?

NASA’s website tackled this question. Their short answer: that could ruin their lives.

“A student who heeds warnings from teachers and other authorities not to view the eclipse because of the danger to vision, and learns later that other students did see it safely, may feel cheated out of the experience. Having now learned that the authority figure was wrong on one occasion, how is this student going to react when other health-related advice about drugs, alcohol, AIDS, or smoking is given?”

I had a brief look around 10:35 am, and I can't tell that anything unusual is going on by looking at it. It's still the bright, dazzling sun, and very hard to look at as per normal, so hopefully small, curious children won't be able to stand there just gazing at it.

UPDATE:
Ok, so my eyeballs feel slightly burnt, like a light sunburn on the skin. Probably not good. And, talking to my husband, he said that he used to like staring at the sun as a child, and soon after he did quite a lot of it, he needed glasses.

Related links: Can You Really Go Blind Staring at a Solar Eclipse? ~ Mental Floss
Eclipse plunges North Qld into darkness ~ Sky News
Eclipse viewers turn out on waterfront ~ Stuff
Eye Safety During Solar Eclipses ~ NASA

Thursday, November 8, 2012

Lucia An irreverent look at the election in the US by PJ Media

Lucia How Obama won re-election, from the New York Times

I keep hearing on the radio that Romney didn't win in the US because the votes are in the middle, and he was too far to the right. Especially those talking heads yesterday would bring this nugget of wisdom up, a nugget that strikes some sort of chord here in NZ. Though, I think it's more a way of forcing politicians to stay left since we are really a leftist country by telling them what they should do to stay onside with the media.

Anyway, the New York Times has a chart showing how in this latest election, the United States has moved more right, just not enough. The graphic of moving dots is cool. If Romney had done what the leftists wanted him to do, I doubt he would have got as many votes, as the point of difference would have been far less.

Go and have look: How Obama Won Re-election ~ New York Times

Wednesday, November 7, 2012

Lucia Here's hoping Romney will win [UPDATE]

My measure of a politician is how they feel about new human life. Anyone who can turn a blind eye to defenceless babies being murdered in their mother's wombs (ie Obama, who also opposed looking after babies who survived their abortions) is not a person that can be trusted.

With the number of abortion clinics being closed down the US, here's hoping that America will choose a president who will advance the culture of life, rather than one pulling everyone down the slippery slope of death.

UPDATE: Damn ... Obama's re-election celebrated around world ~ AP

Tuesday, November 6, 2012

Lucia Visiting Anglican leader has a reality disconnect

Complete disconnect between those who champion same-same marriage and reality.

Gay marriage has strengthened Canadian society, a visiting Anglican leader says.

The Very Rev Dr Peter Elliott, Rector of Christ Church Anglican Cathedral in Vancouver, preached in St Paul's Cathedral in Dunedin yesterday.

His visit is part of the Anglican Consultative Council underway in Auckland.

Dr Elliott, who is gay, said that while he did not believe in commenting on a country's domestic politics, legalising gay marriage had increased respect and tolerance in Canada.

Riiiight.

From Same-Sex Marriage Ten Years On: Lessons from Canada (hattip Protect Marriage):

What has happened in Canada as a result of same-sex marriage is "restrictions on free speech rights, parental rights in education, and autonomy rights of religious institutions, along with a weakening of the marriage culture."

For example, with regards to free speech:

Much speech that was permitted before same-sex marriage now carries risks. Many of those who have persisted in voicing their dissent have been subjected to investigations by human rights commissions and (in some cases) proceedings before human rights tribunals. Those who are poor, poorly educated, and without institutional affiliation have been particularly easy targets—anti-discrimination laws are not always applied evenly. Some have been ordered to pay fines, make apologies, and undertake never to speak publicly on such matters again. Targets have included individuals writing letters to the editors of local newspapers, and ministers of small congregations of Christians. A Catholic bishop faced two complaints—both eventually withdrawn—prompted by comments he made in a pastoral letter about marriage.

Reviewing courts have begun to rein in the commissions and tribunals (particularly since some ill-advised proceedings against Mark Steyn and Maclean’s magazine in 2009), and restore a more capacious view of freedom of speech. And in response to the public outcry following the Steyn/Maclean’s affair, the Parliament of Canada recently revoked the Canadian Human Rights Commission’s statutory jurisdiction to pursue “hate speech.”

But the financial cost of fighting the human rights machine remains enormous—Maclean’s spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees, none of which is recoverable from the commissions, tribunals, or complainants. And these cases can take up to a decade to resolve. An ordinary person with few resources who has drawn the attention of a human rights commission has no hope of appealing to the courts for relief; such a person can only accept the admonition of the commission, pay a (comparatively) small fine, and then observe the directive to remain forever silent. As long as these tools remain at the disposal of the commissions—for whom the new orthodoxy gives no theoretical basis to tolerate dissent—to engage in public discussion about same-sex marriage is to court ruin.

Similar pressure can be—and is—brought to bear on dissenters by professional governing bodies (such as bar associations, teachers’ colleges, and the like) that have statutory power to discipline members for conduct unbecoming of the profession. Expressions of disagreement with the reasonableness of institutionalizing same-sex marriage are understood by these bodies to be acts of illegal discrimination, which are matters for professional censure.

Teachers are particularly at risk for disciplinary action, for even if they only make public statements criticizing same-sex marriage outside the classroom, they are still deemed to create a hostile environment for gay and lesbian students. Other workplaces and voluntary associations have adopted similar policies as a result of their having internalized this new orthodoxy that disagreement with same-sex marriage is illegal discrimination that must not be tolerated.

The Very Rev Dr Peter Elliott might like to maybe look at the other side of what he considers to have made Canada more respectful and tolerant. It's just that the opposing voices have been stomped on, and stomped on hard.

Related link: Marriage equality increase respect - Anglican leader ~ New Zealand Herald

Lucia Homofascism in action - is Sir Ian McKellen on the case yet?

Well, NZ Prime Minister, John Key, has caused quite a stir by saying that a red top a radio announcer was wearing was "gay".  An internationalout cry, hot on the heels of the unfortunate David Beckham comment. Even prominent same-sex attracted, Sir Ian McKellen, has called for John Key to be careful about what he says.
"Mr Key should watch his language," he said.

"I'm currently touring secondary schools in UK, attacking homophobia in the playground and discouraging kids from the careless use of 'gay' which might make their gay friends (and teachers) feel less about themselves.

"So even as he supports the proposal to introduce same-gender marriages in New Zealand, I do hope John Key listens to his critics and appreciates their concern. Careless talk damages lives," he said.

Sir Ian is very much against the word "gay" being used in negative way, as it may make others feel less about themselves. It's a pity he's not also going around trying to stamp out the word "bigot", which is bandied around with gay abandon and seems perfectly acceptable to some of those who might object to "gay". After all careless talk does damage lives, and calling someone a bigot just because they have a religious objection to same-sex marriage and same-sex activity doesn't mean you can just call them hurtful names.

Speaking of which, Stonewall, a group that promotes issues around same-sex attraction has handed out a "Bigot of the Year" award to a Scottish Catholic Cardinal for his opposition to same-sex marriage.

EDINBURGH, November 5, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Christian believers and others in Britain are expressing outrage after the country’s leading homosexualist lobby group declared the Cardinal Archbishop of Edinburgh, Keith O’Brien, “Bigot of the Year” for his opposition to “gay marriage”. While Stonewall and some others continue to defend the award category, even some of the group’s greatest supporters have criticized it, saying the designation damages their own cause.

Gerald Warner, a Catholic journalist and sometime policy advisor to the Scottish Conservative party, called the award a sign that the homosexualist movement is sinking further into “homofascism”. He told LifeSiteNews.com, “How would the politically correct media respond if the most prominent Catholic pressure group in Britain last night voted Ben Summerskill, of Stonewall, ‘Weirdo of the Year’? We all know the answer.

I think Sir Ian really needs to get onto Stonewall for their inappropriate award, which could be very hurtful to the Cardinal and might very well make him feel less about himself.  Once he's finished sorting John Key out, that is.

Related links : Anger as UK homosexualists declare Edinburgh cardinal “bigot of the year”
McKellen questions Key's 'gay' gaffe

Saturday, November 3, 2012

Lucia Socialism's unwholesome fruits


Both KiwiBlog and Whale Oil Beef Hooked have posts up today on the unpopularity of the newly elected socialist Government in France. Both only mention economic issues, but I need to point out that the French government is also implementing same-sex marriage in Spring 2013, and that they've manage to annoy both conservatives and homosexual persons in the process.

How the French Socialists have annoyed conservatives with same-sex marriage is self-explanatory, just use my gay marriage tag at the bottom of this post for a whole slew of articles on that topic if you need help, but you've got to wonder how on earth the homosexual persons would be put out by having marriage redefined so that they can pretend to be married as well. One French lady explains:

“As a lesbian couple, me and my partner can’t just wake up in the morning and say, we’re going to have a baby,” she said. “But without [Medically Assisted Procreation - MAP for short], procreation is near impossible. It would be terribly hypocritical for the Socialists to introduce an ‘equality’ bill without allowing us the same parenting rights as our heterosexual peers. Half-hearted equality is not equality.”

Some readers will know what I think about Medically Assisted Procreation. It's evil, no matter who does it - a same-sex couple or a heterosexual couple, it doesn't matter. It's wrong and should not be allowed. Children should come from the love of two people, not from test tubes.

Related link: France’s gay marriage bill: nobody’s happy ~ France 24

Friday, November 2, 2012

Lucia Brothels need to be made illegal again

Legality is often the modern test of morality. If it's legal, it should be fine.

Auckland's first high-rise brothel could be a magnet for crime and drugs yet that is no reason to ban it because prostitution is legal.

So says the official Auckland Council report from lead senior planner Jennifer Valentine, who backed the application and rejected moral and religious opposition, raising the ire of Monsignor David Tonks, pastoral assistant to the Catholic Bishop Pat Dunn, who opposes the brothel.

"I'm seriously disappointed," he said, noting how the area drew families and tourists and wondering what message people would get from the massive brothel with giant lit display sign.

"These places are often associated with importing women for the sex trade and it's a tragedy," he said.

But Jennifer Valentine told how because activities within the proposed 15-level tower were permitted, she could not consider "moral or religious objections, nor potential increases in illegal activities such as crime and drug use".

She also acknowledged that of the 221 submissions opposing the development, 208 were because it will be a brothel.

The reform of prostitution that was enacted a number of years back by the Labour Government headed by Helen Clark legalised prostitution (by private member's bill) because many felt prostitutes needed protection. Except, they would have been better off making it illegal to hire a prostitute as well, in other words get the clients, rather than creating this situation where by brothels are springing up here, there and everywhere and there seems there is little that can be done because it's legal. Well, it can be made illegal again.

A few months ago, Christchurch residents asked to have a buffer zone put in place between large brothels and residential areas because of the massive disruption that brothels create.

"It's like having the red-light district of Manchester St on your driveway."

One woman, who did not want to be named, said she had bought a unit as a "nice family home", but "all of a sudden ... I'm too scared to even take my rubbish bins outside because there are people sitting in cars obviously waiting to come in".

She had had people come to her door trying to find the "full-fledged" brothel.

"They think they're above the law. I would say it's not a small owner-operated brothel, otherwise they wouldn't have had to put more bedrooms in there,'' she said..

"We're coming to you as a last resort to try to protect us ... I don't feel safe."

Another woman said the brothel had caused parking issues in the area throughout the day and night, even though the street was meant to have a 30-minute parking limit.

"The [house] values are going to go down. These are homes that are for people, for families, not [for] having these people that are being threatening," she said.

I would say that some time in the near future, there will be calls for the banning of prostitution altogether. Currently, the story I quoted a snippet from above will most likely culminate in the banning of brothels completely from most of Christchurch. Brothel owners would do well to take note of the growing annoyance of affected people and think about where this might head in the future.

Related links: No reason to ban high-rise brothel - report ~ New Zealand Herald
Call for 'buffer' between brothels and homes
Big brothels could be banned from suburbs

Thursday, November 1, 2012

Fletch Mental Health and Same Sex Marriage Again

I just got around to seeing Lucia's post on mental health and same-sex marriage, including the response by Moira Clunie of the Mental Health Foundation. Well, Moira, I think that questions around the issue might perhaps be given some clarity when the issue is looked at in countries where same sex marriage has been legalized. One of these is Canada, which legalized same-sex marriage in 2005.

So, how have they been doing, as regards mental health? Not too well it seems. This is taken from gay magazine Xtra in 2009 -

Over the past 10 years [Government] have contracted with experts on gay, lesbian, bisexual health to produce studies ... issues affecting queer Canadians includes lower life expectancy than the average Canadian, suicide, higher rates of substance abuse, depression, inadequate access to care and HIV/AIDS... all kinds of health issues that are endemic to our community... higher rates of anal cancer in the gay male community, lesbians have higher rates of breast cancer ... more GLBT people in this country who die of suicide each year than die from AIDS, there are more who die early deaths from substance abuse than die of HIV/AIDS... now that we can get married everyone assumes that we don't have any issues ... A lot of the deaths that occur in our community are hidden ... Those of us who are working on the front lines see them and I'm tired of watching my community die"~ Julia Garro, Xtra Tuesday, February 17, 2009.
 So, substance abuse, depression, and suicide. Doesn't sound to me like legalizing same-sex marriage is having a positive effect on mental health there. And the stats seem to be worse in places like San Francisco, Holland, and Canada, where same-sex marriage has been legalized the longest.

Some more stats -

  • Life expectancy of gay/bisexual men in Canada is 20 years less than the average; that is 55 years.
  • GLB people commit suicide at rates from 2 to 13.9 times more often than average.
  • GLB people have smoking rates 1.3 to 3 times higher than average.
  • GLB people have rates of alcoholism 1.4 to 7 times higher than average.
  • GLB people have rates of illicit drug use 1.6 to 19 times higher than average.
  • GLB people show rates of depression 1.8 to 3 times higher than average.
  • Gay and bisexual men (MSM) comprise 76.1% of AIDS cases.
  • Gay and bisexual men (MSM) comprise 54% of new HIV infections each year.
  • If one uses Statistics Canada figure of 1.7% of GLB becoming infected, that is 26 times higher than average.
  • GLB people are at a higher risk for anal cancers.
For the exact quotes, please see pages 3 and 4 of the HRC complaint.
So, forgive us for being "bigoted" enough to question a lifestyle marked by higher rates of depression, suicide, drug and alcohol abuse and disease; and all this in a country where same-sex marriage has been legal for 4 years (at the time of writing). I'd rather not subject our children to this kind of lifestyle.

How's that for mental health?