Archive for the 'Politics' Category

Queensland Senator bullying Queensland MPs

Thursday, January 14th, 2016

(image courtesy clker.com)

By Spencer D Gear PhD

How do you think a politician would push her views on abortion? I wrote to her on 5 November 2015 by email to expose what I understood she was doing. The title of my email was, ‘Quit your histrionics[1] and bullying’:

I read the article in the Brisbane Times (2 November 2015) about what you are doing to Queensland State MPs, ‘Greens Senator Larissa Waters wants Queensland MPs to show position on abortion‘.

Please quit this action of bullying Qld MPs. They are big boys and girls who are capable of thinking through the abortion issues themselves.

We already have provision for doctors to abort if there is physical or mental danger to the mother.

It is important that children be protected from conception. You obviously don’t give a hoot about that view. It’s important to safeguard children from murder while they are in the womb. There are life and death reasons for keeping the Qld abortion laws as they are.

It is time for you, a federal Qld senator, to remove yourself from wanting to influence State MPs like this and using the mass media to push your view. What you are doing is engaging in histrionic bullying of MPs with your public demands.[2]

How do you think her office would reply to this kind of personal email from me?

A. Red herring reply from a Senator’s office

I want to commend the Senator’s office for replying to my email because many of the Senators I contact do not get back to me at all. It’s as if my writing to them, for whom I have voted, is a waste of time. However, how did the person in the senator’s office reply? Here it is:

Thank you for contacting Senator Larissa Waters regarding abortion.

Senator Waters respects your concerns and acknowledges your perspective on this issue.

The Australian Greens have been, and continue to be, strong supporters of women’s right to access free, safe and legal termination services.  The Greens believe it’s unacceptable that so many Australian women still struggle to access this basic health service, which is why we will continue to work to improve women’s access to termination services.

Thank you again for contacting Senator Waters to express your views.

Regards,

[staff member’s name]

Office of Senator Larissa Waters [3]

Notice what she missed from my email of 5 November to Senator Waters? She omitted one of my primary emphases that I placed in the email title, ‘Quit your histrionics and bullying’. Not once in this reply did the staff member mention my accusation of bullying of Qld MPs – not once. She avoided it to push Senator Waters’ pro-abortion agenda.

(Herrings kippered by smoking and salting until they turn reddish-brown, i.e. a “red herring”. Prior to refrigeration kipper was known for being strongly pungent; courtesy Wikipedia)

By avoiding the topic I raised of histrionic bullying of MPs, Senator Waters’ office has practised a red herring logical fallacy. What is that? The Nizkor Project explains:

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to “win” an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of “reasoning” has the following form:

1. Topic A is under discussion.

2. Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).

3. Topic A is abandoned.

This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim (The Nizkor Project 2012. S v red herring).

Therefore, I responded to Catherine Garner via email:[4]

Your response is a red herring logical fallacy. You did not address the issue I raised of Senator Waters bullying Qld MPs about their views on abortion. Please quit it. Bullying in all its forms should not be promoted, let alone practised, by Senator Waters.

1. Politicians among least trusted

Your reply endorses fallacious reasoning. No wonder in 2011, reported by The Sydney Morning Herald, it was found that ‘this year’s Reader’s Digest survey on the most-trusted professions sandwiches politicians between car salesmen and telemarketers, in the bottom three out of a list of 45 vocations’. Politicians were 44 on the list of 45′ (The Sydney Morning Herald 2011). Sadly, journalists were competing with politicians near the bottom of that list at No. 40. In fact, sex workers are at #39, meaning that politicians are less trusted than prostitutes.[5]

How was Senator Waters tackling the views of Queensland MPs on abortion?

B. Politician bullying other politicians

clip_image002(photo of Senator Larissa Waters, courtesy Wikipedia)

 

This federal Greens’ senator for Queensland, Larissa Waters was bullying Qld MPs with some of these emphases, as reported by the Brisbane Times:[6]

1. She was asking Queensland State MPs to declare their position on decriminalising abortion. Why? It was a component of her campaign to expose what she considers is Qld’s ‘outdated law’ that she wants changed. To me, this seems like a predicted technique. She is pushing for a change in Qld State legislation. So what better way to do this than to unmask the politicians’ perspectives on abortion so that she could then attempt to debunk or parade their values for possible ridicule or exposure in their electorates?

However, she is a federal politician and should be leaving State politics to the state political sphere. This doesn’t prevent her from expressing her views. However, she did it in a very public sphere through this article in the Brisbane Times.[7]

2. This was associated with a report in the Brisbane Times that Qld women were travelling interstate to obtain abortions (Mitchell-Whitington 2015). This article claimed Qld women wanting abortions were breaking the law by going south for the procedure. ‘In 2014, Children by Choice referred 77 women interstate, with similar organisations making the same type of referrals so that figure is probably much higher’, claimed Professor Caroline de Costa of James Cook University School of the College of Medicine and Dentistry.[8] De Costa’s contention was that ‘extensive abortion “tourism” from all Australian states to Victoria and overseas (is occurring) in the face of barriers to access to abortion’.

So this Brisbane Times article garnered a pro-abortion response from a Professor of Medicine. Where was the balance? I did not find a right of response from Cherish Life, a right-to-life organisation.

3. This is how Waters is bullying Qld MPs. It was reported that ‘Larissa Waters has begun campaigning to decriminalise the procedure [of abortion] in the sunshine state, with plans to publish where Queensland’s MPs stand on the issue’ (Remeikis 2015). This kind of threat amounts to bullying by intimidation, in my view.

4. This article stated, ‘”The fact that abortion is still a crime in Queensland creates stigma and legal uncertainty for women and for doctors,” Ms Waters said in the letter to the state’s MPs’. So Waters is pushing the stigma and legal side to try to get MPs to declare their hand on abortion so that she will shame them (this is how I see it) about ‘the dearth of access to abortion in Queensland’ (Remeikis 2015).

5. The bullying by shaming continues: ‘Our outdated laws, are hurting Queensland women’. This is guilt by association. If Qld MPs support the current abortion laws they are endorsing old fashioned laws that are hurting women, according to Waters.

6. The guilt by association and bullying continued: ‘Ms Waters said polling shows four out of five voters supported decriminalising abortion, with the Australian Medical Association of Queensland calling the current law “a barrier to a doctor’s first duty – best patient care”’. Not one statistic was quoted by the Brisbane Times or Ms Waters to support this assertion of the percentage of Queenslanders who support abortion. However, elsewhere these are the polling statistics that were not 80% in favour of abortion:

ALMOST two-thirds of Queenslanders support the decriminalisation of abortion, according to an exclusive Galaxy opinion poll.

The poll of 800 voters, conducted exclusively for The Courier-Mail, found 64 per cent believed abortion should be legalised, while 31 per cent disagreed. Five per cent were uncommitted (Miles 2009, emphasis in original).

A year later it was reported:

Image result for clipart research public domain

(image courtesy clipartpal.com)

New independent polling by Galaxy Research reveals Queensland voters are evenly split on whether to “decriminalise abortion”, despite widespread media coverage of the recent Cairns court trial and contrary to recent claims by the pro-abortion lobby that there is 90 per cent support.

The poll, taken after the week-long trial, shows a cautious attitude towards abortion with 29 per cent saying they would not allow abortion “at any stage of pregnancy”. This makes a total of 74 per cent of Queenslanders who would not permit abortion beyond the first trimester, or not at all.

Even support for first-trimester abortions is qualified because half (49 per cent) of Queensland voters do not support abortion for non-medical reasons (that is, social or financial reasons). Of course, it is deemed common knowledge that the majority of the annual 14,000+ abortions in Queensland are carried out for non-medical reasons, something which may shock the general public if they knew.

Catapulting the cause for abortion law reform into media headlines was the trial of a young couple in Cairns during October 12-14. After only one hour of deliberation the jury found them not guilty of the two charges: procuring one’s own abortion and supplying a drug to procure an abortion (McCormack 2010, emphasis in original).

Commenting on this poll, the Australian Christian Lobby stated:

“Despite activist organisation GetUp! reportedly claiming that decriminalising abortion has 90% public support, this new poll shows that 74% of Queensland voters are opposed to abortion past the first trimester,” ACL Managing Director Jim Wallace said. “Another important finding is that almost everybody (94%) believes that a woman should receive free independent counseling to enable a fully informed decision. Three quarters of respondents (77%) believed that abortion can harm the mental and physical health of a woman.

“The poll also found that 29% of respondents did not support abortion at any stage of a pregnancy, and that nearly half of those surveyed (49%) said they did not support abortion for non-medical reasons. This is particularly noteworthy considering that the vast majority of abortions carried out in Australia today are not for medical reasons, but for purely for financial or social reasons.

“There is clearly no consensus that abortion laws should be changed except to introduce better safeguards for women such as independent counseling, cooling-off periods and parental consent for girls under 16,” Mr Wallace said (Australian Christian Lobby 2010).

A 2008 survey reported in The Medical Journal of Australia came to different conclusions. It was ‘an anonymous online survey of 1050 Australians aged 18 years or older (stratified by sex, age and location) using contextualised questions, conducted between 28  and 31 July 2008’ and reached the conclusion that there was,

a high level of support for access to early abortion; 87% of respondents indicated that abortion should be lawful in the first trimester (61% unconditionally and 26% depending on the circumstances). In most of the clinical and social circumstances described in our survey, a majority of respondents indicated that doctors should not face professional sanctions for performing abortion after 24 weeks’ gestation.

Conclusions: Our data show that a majority of Australians support laws which enable women to access abortion services after 24 weeks’ gestation, and that support varies depending on circumstances. Simple yes/no polls may give a misleading picture of public opinion (de Crespigny et al 2010).

However, this study did admit that ‘late abortion is especially controversial, although less than 2% of abortions occur at 20 weeks or later. Few data support the belief that Australians strongly oppose women’s access to late abortion, while surveys in the United Kingdom and United States do report opposition’ (de Crespigny et al 2010).

C. Abortion ‘tourism’ is pathetic publicity

passenger airplaneProfessor de Costa of James Cook School of Medicine used a wretched designation for the travelling to another city to have an abortion. She called it, ‘extensive abortion “tourism”… in the face of barriers to access to abortion’ (Mitchell-Whitington 2015). Sarah Colyer (2015) for the Australian Medical Association also used the language of ‘abortion tourism’ and cited Professor de Costa in her article, along with others. In a Media Release for the Australian Medical Association on 26 October 2015, Professor de Costa again repeated the offensive language of ‘tourism’ to obtain an abortion because of the divergence in legislation across Australia: ‘The result of these differences is continuing and extensive abortion “tourism” from all Australian states to

Victoria and overseas in the face of barriers to access to abortion’ (de Costa 2015).

1. ‘Medical tourism’ in action

I find it abominable that any medical doctor or professor could call the killing of an unborn child in abortion to be an example of tourism in action. Wouldn’t travelling interstate to murder somebody be a better description of what goes on?

How do you think others see this view of ‘tourism’? One comment to Colyer (2015) was: ‘The use of the word “tourism” in this article is in the same context as “medical tourism” – where people travel to have procedures or treatment that are not accessible to them locally – either due to availability or cost. The term does not intend to trivialise the treatment, but to describe the act of travelling’ (comment by Sue Ieraci). Another’s response was more provocative, ‘“Tourism’”??? Really???? I find this both an inflammatory and demeaning term to be used in the exploration of a significant health issue’ (Nicole L in Colyer 2015). How does a doctor of conscience with a different view to that of de Costa and others deal with abortion?

I work in Victoria and am always concerned about the welfare and rights of both mother and baby when a woman with an unwanted pregnancy presents. It happens to me very rarely now as I get older.

Unless the mother’s viability is in real danger and there therefore exists the mother’s right to act in self defence of her life, I will not be part of killing anyone. Therefore, I refuse to be involved in a referral for abortion to someone who is not of the same moral belief. i.e. I will break the law in Victoria where my right as a citizen to act according to my conscience has been legislated away as a result of the unfortunate alliance of left wing Victorian Labor politicians of the early 2000s. Emily’s List is a very powerful lobby group in the Labor Party who have engineered legislation which allows the legal killing of babies while in utero until birth. What barbarity! (Paul Jenkinson in Colyer 2015).

I’m with you, Nicole. To describe travelling to have a procedure to kill an unborn child as ‘tourism’ is not only demeaning and abominable but profane,[9] in my view. The abuse of a life given by God (the child in the womb) through killing is vulgar and wicked to redefine as tourism, even medical tourism. What is a nation coming to where a professor of medicine is prepared to publicly go on record as regarding murder of an unborn child as tourism?

This does get down to worldview and scientific issues regarding the commencement of human life.

D. Conclusion

This article commenced with a Qld example of a Qld federal Senator, Larissa Waters, who was pressuring (bullying was my language) Qld MPs for their views on abortion so that she could pressure them to decriminalise abortion in Qld.

What was her purpose? She wanted to prevent ‘medical tourism’ by which a pregnant woman would travel to another state or territory to have her abortion – the killing of her unborn child.

The Brisbane-based ‘Children by Choice’, states that the organisation ‘is proud to have the support of our three patrons – Senators Claire Moore, Sue Boyce and Larissa Waters’. So that nails Senator Waters’ colours to the mast. She’s a promoter of abortion and her bullying Qld MPs to obtain their views on abortion seems to be to pressure them into providing evidence that her pro-abortion side can use to manipulate Qld laws for pro-abortion change to decriminalise abortion.

I find the tactic abominable that she has used.

Works consulted

Australian Christian Lobby 2010. Qld polling challenges pro-abortionist claims (online), 29 October. Available at: http://www.acl.org.au/2010/10/qld-polling-challenges-pro-abortionist-claims/ (Accessed 10 November 2015).

Colyer, S 2015. Call to end “abortion tourism”. MJAInSight[10] (online), 26 October. Available at: https://www.mja.com.au/insight/2015/41/call-end-abortion-tourism (Accessed 11 November 2015).

de Costa, C 2015. Advances in fetal medicine outstrip abortion law reform. The Medical Journal of Australia: Media Release (online), 26 October. Available at: https://www.scimex.org/__data/assets/file/0007/57355/Abortion-Laws_MJA_Media-release.pdf (Accessed 11 November 2015)

de Crespigny, L J; Wilkinson, D J; Douglas, T; Textor, M & Savulescu, J 2010. Australian attitudes to early and late abortion. The Medical Journal of Australia (online), 193 (1), 9-12. Available at: https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2010/193/1/australian-attitudes-early-and-late-abortion (Accessed 10 November 2015).[11]

McCormack, L 2010. QUEENSLAND: 12 per cent swing in favour of protecting unborn. News Weekly, November 13. Available at: http://newsweekly.com.au/article.php?id=4491 (Accessed 10 November 2015).

Merriam-Webster Dictionary 2015. Available at: http://www.merriam-webster.com/ (Accessed 11 November 2015).

Miles, J 2009. Two thirds support abortion law change: poll. The Courier-Mail, September 15. Available at: http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/two-thirds-support-abortion-law-change-poll/story-e6freon6-1225773035076 (Accessed 10 November 2015).

Mitchell-Whitington, A 2015. Outdated Queensland abortion laws creating a ‘tourism’ of women travelling south. Brisbane Times (online), October 26. Available at: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/outdated-queensland-abortion-laws-creating-a-tourism-of-women-travelling-south-20151023-gkhbe6 (Accessed 11 November 2015).

Oxford Dictionaries 2015. Oxford University Press. Available at: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/ (Accessed 11 November 2015).

Remeikis, A 2015. Greens Senator Larissa Waters wants Queensland MPs to show position on abortion. Brisbane Times (online), November 2. Available at: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/greens-senator-larissa-waters-wants-queensland-mps-to-show-position-on-abortion-20151101-gko8sy.html (Accessed 10 November 2015).

The Nizkor Project 1991-2012. Fallacies (online). Available at: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ (Accessed 11 November 2015).

The Sydney Morning Herald 2011. Australia’s most trusted: sex workers trump pollies in public confidence stakes (online), June 22. Available at: http://www.smh.com.au/national/australias-most-trusted-sex-workers-trump-pollies-in-public-confidence-stakes-20110622-1ge82.html (Accessed 10 November 2015).

 

Notes


[1] ‘Histrionic’ means being ‘excessively theatrical or dramatic in character or style’ (Oxford dictionaries 2015. S v histrionic):

[2] I sent this to Senator Waters’ email address: Senator.Waters@aph.gov.au.

[3] The staff member sent this email on 10 November 2015 from email: Senator.Waters@aph.gov.au.

[4] I do not make my personal email available on this ‘Truth Challenge’ website.

[5] I did not include this last sentence in my email to Waters’ office.

[6] Remeikis (2015).

[7] Ibid.

[8] This professorship is confirmed in the MJA InSight (Colyer 2015).

[9] I am using ‘profane’ as meaning ‘to treat (something sacred) with abuse, irreverence, or contempt: desecrate; to debase by a wrong, unworthy, or vulgar use’ (Merriam-Webster 2015. S v profane).

[10] This is a Medical Journal of Australia publication.

[11] There was no pagination for this online edition.

 

Copyright © 2016 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 14 January 2016.

Labor Party wanted to censor Australian mass media

Monday, October 14th, 2013

Division of Petrie 2010.png

Division of Petrie (green), within Queensland (courtesy Wikipedia)

By Spencer D Gear

I read in The Australian newspaper online (3 March 2012), “Media fears for freedom as watchdog unleashed“, that

PRINT and online news will come under direct federal government oversight for the first time under proposals issued yesterday to create a statutory regulator with the power to prosecute media companies in the courts.

This historic change to media law would break with tradition by using government funds to replace an industry council that acts on complaints, in a move fiercely opposed by companies as a threat to the freedom of the press.

The proposals, issued yesterday by Communications Minister Stephen Conroy, also seek to widen the scope of federal oversight to cover print, online, radio and TV within a single regulator for the first time.

Bloggers and other online authors would also be captured by a regime applying to any news site that gets more than 15,000 hits a year, a benchmark labelled “seriously dopey” by one site operator….

Greens leader Bob Brown urged the government to establish its new media watchdog so it could enforce standards across print, online, radio and television platforms by the end of the year.

While Fairfax Media said it would comment on the report “in the coming days”, the company’s submission to the Finkelstein inquiry objected to compulsory membership of a media regulator in a statutory scheme.

News Limited chief executive Kim Williams welcomed the report as a substantial work but spoke strongly against the concept of a government regulator.

“The spectre of a government-funded overseer of a free press in an open and forward-looking democracy like ours cannot be justified,” Mr Williams said.

“If print and online media are to continue to be able to robustly question, challenge and keep governments in check, they must remain self-regulated entirely independent of government.”

Family listening to crystal radio in 1920s (courtesy Wikipedia)

Therefore, I wrote to my local Federal MP, Mrs Yvette D’Ath (Labor Party), Member for Petrie, on 5 March 2012 to protest this interference. I wrote out of deep concern over what her Federal Labor Government was planning on doing to censor Australia’s mass media, including the Internet.

That the federal government should even be considering this legislation shows how out of touch it is with the democratic principles on which Australia was founded.

We live in a robust democracy which, up to this point, has freedom of speech. This move by the federal government to censor Australia’s mass media cuts to the heart of our democracy.

This move by your government installs censorship of horrific proportions. I don’t always agree with what the mass media (including the Internet) promotes, but the way to deal with it is not through censorship. Guaranteed freedom of speech is the way forward.
This is draconian, antiquated, communist-style, proposed legislation that would be more at-home in Stalin’s Soviet Union and Mao’s China.

Is this a statement about where the Australian Labor government is heading?

Australian Labor Party logo.svg

Courtesy Wikipedia

As my local member of federal parliament, I urged Mrs D’Ath to kill this proposed legislation by crossing the floor and not voting for it. I asked her to advise me what she would be doing about supporting or rejecting this legislation. However, that would have been a waste of time asking as the Labor Party would vote in a block according to its policy. It would not have proposed this legislation if it were not harmonious with Labor Party policy.

Visualization of Internet routing paths

A visualization of routing paths through a portion of the Internet (Wikipedia).

 

Copyright © 2013 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 3 November 2015.

Loree Rudd: Support for homosexual marriage caused a Labor Party member to quit the Party

Saturday, January 7th, 2012

Loree Rudd (brisbanetimes.com)

By Spencer D Gear

Loree Rudd has a famous brother, Kevin Rudd, former Australian Prime Minister. But something has been troubling Loree, according to the mass media. The Labor Party’s 46th National Conference in Sydney, 2-4 December 2011[1], voted to support homosexual marriage and give MPs a conscience vote[2].

Loree Rudd objected so strongly to the support for homosexual marriage that she resigned from the Labor Party, Nambour, Qld., branch. This is reported in, ‘Kevin Rudd’s sister quits Labor over gay marriage policy’ (The Age, 13 December 2011).[3] According to The Age, these are the reasons given:

  • She cannot back a party that supports “homosexuals marrying”.
  • “It’s not something I believe in and it’s also the way it happened that I dislike”;
  • “I don’t believe gay marriage is good for the community”.
  • “Homosexuals should be loved and treated right and they should not be discriminated against”.
  • “But to make that huge leap from their rights to breaking a commandment of Moses”.
Bible bashing antagonists

It was this last comment in The Age that used support from “a commandment of Moses” that caused a battering in the online letters of response about Loree Rudd’s decision and association with Moses. This is a small sample of what was said about the “commandment of Moses” issue:

1. “Moses? Please? Being Christian and screaming Moses does not give you special rights to deny citizens of this country marriage equality”.

2.”She can’t say ‘I love and cherish gay people’ and then say ‘I uphold the laws of Moses’. Last time I checked, gay people and other ‘undesirables’ were ordered to be stoned to death under the ‘Law of Moses’. Unless I am mistaken, Ms Rudd is a Christian and ought at least to be aware that Jesus decreed the ‘Law of Moses’ to be secondary to his golden ‘love thy neighbour’ rule. Again, she is entitled to her convictions but her theology seems a little muddled to me”.

3. “The laws of Moses allowed for slavery and subjugation of Women as well. Ms Rudd support this as well?”

4. Marriage is a Christian/Religious institution and “hijacking” the sanctity of marriage for the purposes of justifying unnatural unions is ultimately an exercise in futility. Rant all you want about your rights etc etc but it doesn’t change the basic fact that gay relationships are abhorred by God”.

5. “Hey, it’s against her religious beliefs, you morons are pretty bigoted yourselves, you’re all ragging on the old girl for holding to her beliefs. I applaud her”.

6. “Ms Rudd, I respect your right to express your clueless, bigoted, moronic opinions….You lady are an imbecile”.

7. The only huge leap is to believe that Moses actually existed. I’m sorry Ms Rudd, that is utter nonsense. I’m sure you believe that you are a decent person but here is an example of where your religious beliefs have blinded you. Please, live & let live”.

What some other media reported

The Sunshine Coast Daily reported the following points on 13 December 2011 in the article, “Rudd’s sister quits Labor”:[4]

  • “I’m not representing any particular church or religious group. It is me giving my thoughts and taking a stand which is important for my integrity”.
  • “This is a huge issue in our society. Any government honest with its people would take this matter to a referendum after a couple of years of open debate”.
  • ‘She was also concerned with the way “Jesus is misrepresented”.
  • “The whole concept of equality comes from the Bible, from the sacred scriptures. All people are equal before God, but not all relationships,” she said.
  • ‘Miss Rudd said she had also sent Member for Nicklin Peter Wellington a letter expressing her views on same-sex civil unions, but she was “sad he felt harassed or intimidated by Christians”‘.

What were some of the online responses to this Sunshine Coast Daily article?

1.”Flabbergasted at the contradictions in her comments: All people are equal before God, but not all relationships – what?
Gay marriage won’t affect my life at all, but it would be a tragic loss for our society. – wouldn’t that affect your life pretty profoundly then?
If the benefit was that homosexual couples knew more joy, it would be worth the trade-off. But I don’t think they will experience more joy”.

2. “Loree Rudd has to be congratulated for her stand on this issue. Her previously favoured political party (Labor) has certainly lost it’s way since Gillard became leader and seems to be controlled by the Greens Bob Brown”.

3. “Marriage is what it is and cannot be changed. Marriage is between a man and a woman excluding all others for life. They are the rules of the game. They have been the rules for thousands of years. If you don’t like the rules go and play another game but don’t call it Marriage. Loree Rudd is a courageous woman of character and conviction who should be applauded by every fair minded Australian for pointing out the obvious”.

4. “I am male and my wife is female and we are “MARRIED”. If a male and a male or a female and a female want to unite in their relationship then that is their choice but they need to choose a name that that will not offend the male/female tradition of being married. My suggestion is “GAYRIED” as is easily accepted on Google”.

5. “Is she serious? Gay marriage was the deal breaker? Yet she’s happily been in a political party that, for years, has encouraged and financially supported the rapid decline and breakdown of decent family homes for children? A party that finances males and females to indiscriminately procreate, and a lot of times not care decently for the those children? A political party that rewards slothfulness, bad values and welfare dependant households? And she’s worried a few gay marriages is the breakdown of the family unit and family values. The mind boggles at the sheer ignorance”.

How do I respond to this berating of a person & her Christian views?

Congratulations Loree Rudd on your resignation from the Labor Party over its support of homosexual marriage.  You appealed to a “commandment of Moses” to support heterosexual marriage. Jesus Christ gave the same reason.

When Jesus was asked about divorce, he appealed to the same “commandment of Moses” to state that marriage was between a man and a woman. According to Mark 10:7-9 (NRSV), Jesus Christ stated, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate” (Genesis 2:24 NRSV).

We already have an historical example of what happened to cities that supported homosexuality. They were Sodom & Gomorrah. Genesis 13:13 states that “the men of Sodom were wicked, great sinners against the Lord” (ESV). What was the sin of Sodom & Gomorrah? Genesis 19:4-13 states:

But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house. 5 And they called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.” 6 Lot went out to the men at the entrance, shut the door after him, 7 and said, “I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. 8 Behold, I have two daughters who have not known any man. Let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please. Only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof.” 9 But they said, “Stand back!” And they said, “This fellow came to sojourn, and he has become the judge! Now we will deal worse with you than with them.” Then they pressed hard against the man Lot, and drew near to break the door down. 10 But the men reached out their hands and brought Lot into the house with them and shut the door. 11 And they struck with blindness the men who were at the entrance of the house, both small and great, so that they wore themselves out groping for the door.

12 Then the men said to Lot, “Have you anyone else here? Sons-in-law, sons, daughters, or anyone you have in the city, bring them out of the place. 13 For we are about to destroy this place, because the outcry against its people has become great before the LORD, and the LORD has sent us to destroy it” (ESV).

Yes, there was some homosexuality in this city, but the unrighteousness was broader than homosexuality, as we find in Gen. 18:20, 2 Peter 2:6, and Jude 7.

Genesis 18:20 states: ‘Then the LORD said, “Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great and their sin is very grave”‘ (ESV).

2 Peter 2:6 explains further: ‘If by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly’ (ESV).

Jude 7: ‘Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire’ (ESV).

It has been stated that “there are 27 references outside of Genesis where Sodom is mentioned. It is emblematic of gross immorality, deepest depravity, and ultimate judgment”.[5]

No person or nation will get away with indulging in sexual immorality of any kind and to giving free rein to gratifying unrestrained pleasure. Whether that sexual immorality be heterosexual or homosexual, it brings judgment on individuals and nations according to Scripture. However, most secular people don’t give a hoot about what God says. Nevertheless, for them, this is God’s assessment: “Just as each person is destined to die once and after that comes judgment” (Heb. 9:27, NLT).

One minute after they die, they’ll know the reality of what God has stated. What have been the words of dying people?

  • Sir Julian Huxley, the famous agnostic: ‘It is reported by his nurses that on his deathbed, as he looked up to heaven with a blank stare, he said, “So it is true”’.
  • Sir Francis Newport, head of the English Infidel Club, said to those gathered around his death bed, “Do not tell me there is no God for I know there is one, and that I am in his angry presence! You need not tell me there is no hell, for I already feel my soul slipping into its fires! Wretches, cease your idle talk about there being hope for me! I know that I am lost forever”.
  • Dwight L. Moody, Christian preacher, awakening from sleep shortly before he died said: “Earth recedes. Heaven opens before me. If this death, it is sweet! There is no valley here. God is calling me, and I must go.” “No, no, Father,” said Moody’s son, “You are dreaming.”
    “I am not dreaming,” replied Moody. “I have been within the gates. I have seen the children’s faces.”
    His last words were, “This is my triumph; this is my coronation day! It is glorious!”
  • David Hume, the atheist, cried: “I am in flames!” His desperation was a horrible scene.
  • Josef Stalin, communist tyrant and one of the most murderous dictators in history: ‘In a Newsweek interview with Svetlana Stalin, the daughter of Josef Stalin, she told of her father’s death: “My father died a difficult and terrible death. . God grants an easy death only to the just…. At what seemed the very last moment he suddenly opened his eyes and cast a glance over everyone in the room. It was a terrible glance, insane or perhaps angry…. His left hand was raised, as though he were pointing to something above and bringing down a curse on us all. The gesture was full of menace…. The next moment he was dead”‘.
  • Voltaire, the famous skeptic, died a terrible death. His nurse said: “For all the money in Europe I wouldn’t want to see another unbeliever die! All night long he cried for forgiveness.”
  • Sir Thomas Scott, once president of the English Lower House said: “Up until this time, I thought that there was no God neither Hell. Now I know and feel that there are both, and I am delivered to perdition by the righteous judgment of the Almighty.”
  • A Chinese Communist who delivered many Christians to their execution, came to a pastor and said: “I’ve seen many of you die. The Christians die differently. What is their secret?”

I am grateful to Loree Rudd for taking a stand for heterosexual marriage as being the norm since the beginning of time. She is right on track, but not with the politically correct crowd.

Notes:


[1] See: http://www.alp.org.au/australian-labor/national-conference-2011/(Accessed 14 December 2011).

[2] The Brisbane Times, 4 December 2011, ‘All’s fair in love, but now for the war in the House’, available at: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/alls-fair-in-love-but-now-for-the-war-in-the-house-20111203-1ocio.html (Accessed 14 December 2011).

[3] Available at: http://www.theage.com.au/queensland/kevin-rudds-sister-quits-labor-over-gay-marriage-policy-20111213-1os44.html (Accessed 14 December 2011).

[4] Available at: http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/story/2011/12/13/rudds-sister-quits-labor/ (Accessed 14 December 2011).

[5] Gregory Koukl, Stand to Reason, ‘What was the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah?’, available at: http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5702 (Accessed 14 December 2011).

[6] Available at: http://www.theage.com.au/queensland/kevin-rudds-sister-quits-labor-over-gay-marriage-policy-20111213-1os44.html (Accessed 14 December 2011).

 

Copyright (c) 2012 Spencer D. Gear.  This document last updated at Date: 9 October 2015.