David Farrar gives examples of some anti same sex marriage correspondence to Parliamentarians so commenters can point and laugh at the crazies. Except the real craziness is occurring around what happens to those who oppose to same-sex marriage. If you don't agree with it, expect to be ostracised, or worse, fined, because of your views. One of the leading neurosurgeons in the world, is being ostracised for his views on traditional marriage, which now make him an unacceptable graduation speaker for the modern American university.
The comment that I made on KiwiBlog was,
When people say that we shouldn't worry, that homosexuality won't become compulsory, they're deflecting the argument from where it is actually going - compulsory acceptance, so ipso facto homosexuality becomes compulsory. We won't be allowed to act in any way that shows that we believe that marriage can only exist between a man and a woman, nor state these beliefs publicly as Dr. Carson is finding out. Nor will we be allowed to act in any way that shows that we believe that homosexual behaviour is morally wrong, either.
Even the silly argument on KiwiBlog around women apparently liking anal sex shows that homosexual sexual behaviour is being pressured onto women through pornography, which is really homoerotica (made by men for men). There is a lot of stuff that men learn from pornography that they then take into the bedroom with their girlfriends or wives that women just don't like, but put up with, because they think they have to, and some of that is homosexual in nature and women are being pressured to participate in unnatural acts because they have been normalised through the watching of porn.
Connected to all this is the fact that men who watch the most porn are the most likely to support same-sex marriage, yet pornography is a marriage destroyer and causes post-traumatic stress in their wives when they find out about their habit.
Other recent stories on how people are being affected by their views on same-marriage are these:
Related links: Dr. Ben Carson steps down as college speaker after furor over his defense of marriage ~ LifeSiteNews
Some anti same sex marriage correspondence ~ KiwiBlog
BALTIMORE, April 11, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Famed pediatric neurosurgeon Dr. Ben Carson announced Wednesday that he will not speak at graduation ceremonies for students at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and School of Education.
Dr. Carson, who rose from poverty to become one of the leading neurosurgeons in the world, was slated to give the commencement speech at Johns Hopkins, where he has practiced since 1977. But homosexual activists, angry about comments Carson made in favor of traditional marriage, mounted a campaign to force the university to disinvite him.
Carson, 61, discussed his views on same-sex “marriage” last week last month on Fox News, expressing his concern that a redefinition of marriage to include homosexual couples could be a slippery slope.
“Marriage is between a man and a woman,” Carson told Fox News host Sean Hannity. “It’s a well-established, fundamental pillar of society and no group — be they gays, be they NAMBLA, be they people who believe in bestiality, it doesn’t matter what they are — they don’t get to change the definition.”
He clarified his statement was not aimed “against gays; it’s against anybody who wants to come along and change the fundamental definitions of pillars of society. It has significant ramifications.”
Last week, medical school dean Paul Rothman released a statement calling Carson’s remarks “hurtful, offensive,” and “inconsistent with the culture of our institution.”
He agreed to meet with student supporters of same-sex “marriage,” who said Carson’s views made him an unacceptable graduation speaker
The comment that I made on KiwiBlog was,
So, even a leading neurosurgeon, if he doesn’t have the “right” opinions on same-sex marriage, will ostracised in this brave new world where black becomes white, dogs become cats and idiots think that women like anal sex.
When people say that we shouldn't worry, that homosexuality won't become compulsory, they're deflecting the argument from where it is actually going - compulsory acceptance, so ipso facto homosexuality becomes compulsory. We won't be allowed to act in any way that shows that we believe that marriage can only exist between a man and a woman, nor state these beliefs publicly as Dr. Carson is finding out. Nor will we be allowed to act in any way that shows that we believe that homosexual behaviour is morally wrong, either.
Even the silly argument on KiwiBlog around women apparently liking anal sex shows that homosexual sexual behaviour is being pressured onto women through pornography, which is really homoerotica (made by men for men). There is a lot of stuff that men learn from pornography that they then take into the bedroom with their girlfriends or wives that women just don't like, but put up with, because they think they have to, and some of that is homosexual in nature and women are being pressured to participate in unnatural acts because they have been normalised through the watching of porn.
Connected to all this is the fact that men who watch the most porn are the most likely to support same-sex marriage, yet pornography is a marriage destroyer and causes post-traumatic stress in their wives when they find out about their habit.
Other recent stories on how people are being affected by their views on same-marriage are these:
- A woman taken to court for refusing to do flowers for a male/male "wedding"
“Under the Consumer Protection Act, it is unlawful to discriminate against customers on the basis of sexual orientation,” Ferguson said. “If a business provides a product or service to opposite-sex couples for their weddings, then it must provide same-sex couples the same product or service.”
The state of Washington is seeking $2,000 in fines for every reported violation, as well as a permanent injunction requiring the shop to violate its conscience or stop selling flowers for wedding ceremonies. - A priest whose Catholic views on homosexuality, marriage and abortion have resulted in gay students trying to get him removed as chaplain for an American university
The students complain that Fr. Greg Shaffer has spoken out against gay “marriage” and abortion, and has counseled homosexual Catholic students to embrace celibacy. They said they were disturbed when Fr. Shaffer quoted the Book of Romans and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Related links: Dr. Ben Carson steps down as college speaker after furor over his defense of marriage ~ LifeSiteNews
Some anti same sex marriage correspondence ~ KiwiBlog
I'm especially disturbed that people take offence when a Catholic priest rejects the homosexual lifestyle and references Church sources for his position.
ReplyDeleteWell, I suppose I'll keep praying that we will see the light of Christ's assurance in our lives!
Without question it will become compulsary. Wait until it hits our schools; homosexuality will be forced on kids, and any dissent will be hate speech.
ReplyDeleteSame sex marriage will make acceptance of homosexuality compulsory.
ReplyDeleteGet a new play book.
This is the same tosh trotted out during the push to decriminalise homosexuality - the bigots then said it wouldn't become legal, it would become compulsory.
You are now, and will still be after the law change, heterosexual. As will I. The law cannot change who you are.
LRO,
ReplyDeleteYou missed my use of the word, "acceptance".
Acceptance is becoming compulsory, otherwise Dr Carson wouldn't have had to withdraw from speaking at graduation ceremonies, and otherwise an elderly woman wouldn't be facing thousands of dollars in fines, and otherwise a Catholic priest might not be looking at being kicked out as Chaplain from an American University.
My playbook is primed and ready, and with good reason.
Isn't "acceptance" of homosexuality already compulsory, given that we have a Bill of Rights Act that explicitly protects people from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation?
ReplyDeletePM, Lucia's point was more about redefining the word marriage, and then the requisite acceptance of homosexual "marriage".
ReplyDeleteBut to turn that around: Isn't "acceptance" of Catholicism already "compulsory", given that we have a BOR Act that explictly protects people from discrimination of the basis of religious beliefs?
Obviously not, given the content of the post. I can't believe you missed every word between the first and the last ones Milt :)
Postscript: NZ BOR ACT,
Section 13: Freedom of thought, conscience, and religion
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion, and belief, including the right to adopt and to hold opinions without interference.
Section 14: Freedom of expression
Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form.
Section 15: Manifestation of religion and belief
Every person has the right to manifest that person's religion or belief in worship, observance, practice, or teaching, either individually or in community with others, and either in public or in private.
But to turn that around: Isn't "acceptance" of Catholicism already "compulsory", given that we have a BOR Act that explictly protects people from discrimination of the basis of religious beliefs?
ReplyDeleteWell, yes, of course. And if some bigot were to refuse to supply flowers for a wedding because it was a Catholic wedding, I expect the affected Catholics could take them to court for it - in the foreign country these examples are taken from, that is. I've no idea whether such things happen here, but the all-foreign examples provided suggest they don't.
I've no idea whether such things happen here, but the all-foreign examples provided suggest they don't.
ReplyDeleteYet.
Lucia, I had forgotten about our conversation, but expect a reply today :)
...I expect the affected Catholics could take them to court for it
ReplyDeleteAnd there in one part of one sentence PM you've displayed a complete misunderstanding of Christianity. Check out 1 Corinthians 5:12,13. You have to understand that Christians are not to take people to court just because their 'rights' are not met. Of course you may find an example of a Christian who doesn't follow this, but all that means is the person isn't following Scripture's instruction on this matter; it doesn't make them right.
Likewise, no-one should take a Christian to court for their beliefs.
You cannot make acceptance compulsory, that is surely a nonsense. Once acceptance is not compulsory, then that reveals the divide in society which is of course what is the case all along; the rest of the time we are just pretending.
While you cannot make acceptance compulsory, it is also true that you cannot force another person to comply with your beliefs, nor prosecute/persecute them for it. Just because I believe that same-sex couples, who say they are married, are not married does not enable them to force me to agree with their belief or sanction me for that statement.
PM, you frame the argument a little by using the term "bigots". I view the action by the flower shop owner as a form of protest, where they are striking out against the concept, not necessarily the people, but it hasn't been taken that way of course.
ReplyDeleteShe may learn a more prudent approach is to supply the service at full retail, and use the proceeds to donate to a legal fund setup to help with persecution of Christians for their beliefs.
There is going to be an area of conflict over this, when there needn't be, and I fully expect a small percentage of gay activists to seek every opportunity to use every tax payer resource available to generate havoc. Those people will violate the liberal tenet of "live, and let live", and prove themselves hypocrites, another liberal crime.
We could consider this similar to women's gyms. They exist. They deny membership to men, and in spite of that "bigotry" and "discrimination", we all just accept that there is a place for women-only gyms in our society.
There are not activist males trying to join those places, mounting law suits and complaints to various Human Rights organisations, nor are there media outlets giving such groups front page support for their cause. There are no activists forcing them to close down because such places refuse to allow men to join and then further discriminate by forcing them to use men only changing rooms, further enforcing a man's lower class status and highlighting their exclusionary policies.
Live and let live? It appears these people are not actually liberals at all, but fascists in another guise.
The thing is, if your protest against a concept takes the form of refusing service to a particular couple, it's indistinguishable from bigotry.
ReplyDeleteIn the example I gave, if some people took it into their heads to protest against the RC church's various non-scriptural doctrines by refusing to serve Catholics, how would anyone unfamiliar with the intricacies of inter-denominational disputes be expected to distinguish it from ordinary old bigotry, and how would existing human rights legislation not apply to it?
We could consider this similar to women's gyms. They exist. They deny membership to men, and in spite of that "bigotry" and "discrimination", we all just accept that there is a place for women-only gyms in our society.
ReplyDeleteWe could, just as we could consider South African apartheid in the same way. The thing is, there's more to marriage, as there was to apartheid, than which facilities you get to use.
quote - "we could consider South African apartheid in the same way. "
ReplyDeleteSure, just as we could consider a smack is the same as beating a kid with a plank of wood. And that in a nutshell is the problem with many liberals - they think that one different thing is "indistinguishable" from another, as we saw in the smacking debate.
Sometimes, the prima facie view makes it look that way, so it's worth drilling down into the detail before deciding that a women's gym is apartheid in action (where is Nelson Mandela when you need him?)
So, the answer to your question is to do with context, time and place. In this particular situation this is more likely an expression of protest than just a simple act of bigotry against the individual. It will now be up to the courts to decide if they will see it that way. Probably not, which may send a clear message to people who wish to protest to choose another avenue of expression that doesn't personalise the protest in this way.
A sign up in her shop saying 10% of all wedding sets is donated to a particular cause would probably be sufficient way of giving customers the hint (and the power to take their dollar elsewhere). Maybe she could spice it up a little by offering a 10% discount on civil union flower sets?
There is nothing wrong with encouraging the acceptance homosexuality and bisexuality in society. It certainly won't hurt anyone. It should be seen as normal and equal to heterosexuality, because it is! A huge benefit to society is that same-sex couples can adopt babies to give them a loving home and family.
ReplyDelete