Australia: Response to Kristina Keneally on homosexual marriage plebiscite and Churches
 |
| Kristina Keneally. (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
When it comes to the same-sex marriage plebiscite the Christian churches are making a mistake of biblical proportions. Before the 2 July election many Christian churches urged their voters to support a plebiscite by voting for the Coalition.
There is no way of knowing if this statement is true. Many Christian voters may have chosen to vote for independents and not the Coalition because Turnbull was promoting homosexual marriage as compared to Abbott who was againt it. There is no evidence for this comment. But it is true many, abandoned Turnbull.
Sydney Catholic Archbishop Anthony Fisher didn’t tell his parishioners how to vote, but he did write that “we could all benefit from the kind of national conversation a plebiscite should occasion”. Fisher and I don’t agree on how marriage should be defined, but there was a time I largely agreed with him on that sentiment. But I’ve changed my mind.
Keneally is welcome to redefine anything she wants and to change her mind at will. But so what? Previously she spoke of Catholic clergy molesting kids and lost credibility to speak in the Irish referendum on homosexual marriage. But that has nothing to do with the validity of homosexual marriage. She then writes another emotional article over Turnbull breaking the nations heart over homosexual marriage. A nonsense piece pointing out Turnbulls faults.
Last week the Anglican Bishop of Wangaratta, John Parkes, said the plebiscite would be “divisive and cause unnecessary harm to members of the Australian community”. I reckon other Christian leaders ought to consider his contribution, and reconsider theirs.
Sydney Catholic Archbishop Anthony Fisher didn’t tell his parishioners how to vote, but he did write that “we could all benefit from the kind of national conversation a plebiscite should occasion”. Fisher and I don’t agree on how marriage should be defined, but there was a time I largely agreed with him on that sentiment. But I’ve changed my mind.
Keneally is welcome to redefine anything she wants and to change her mind at will. But so what? Previously she spoke of Catholic clergy molesting kids and lost credibility to speak in the Irish referendum on homosexual marriage. But that has nothing to do with the validity of homosexual marriage. She then writes another emotional article over Turnbull breaking the nations heart over homosexual marriage. A nonsense piece pointing out Turnbulls faults.
Last week the Anglican Bishop of Wangaratta, John Parkes, said the plebiscite would be “divisive and cause unnecessary harm to members of the Australian community”. I reckon other Christian leaders ought to consider his contribution, and reconsider theirs.
Keneally notes John Parke's comments who also says: “From a Christian perspective I would describe some of these values as love for one’s neighbour and the equal dignity of every person as a child of God.” Parkes fails to address the Apostle Paul statements on homosexuality and calling for repentance of sin in order that damnation would be removed. Parkes along with four others are failing to tell the biblical story of prohibition of sexual behaviour and its eternal repercussion. Are they false prophets? Are they apostate? Are they seeking to love with telling the truth of sin. Are they approving what God condemns?
We see Anglican Church in the UK is ready for a spilt. Where five homosexual priest now have honestly come out and declared they are married to other men. This follows a small USA influence but points to the destruction of the CofE and making accomodation to celebant gays as priests against the wishes of the African Anglicans and others. To quote these five homosexuals, on the issue of a homosexual issue would be incorrect as they do not represent the Anglican Church. They represent an new apostate church.
The fact that Rodney Croome supported Parkes comments speaks volumes about some liberal Anglicans.
First of all, church leaders ought to think about all the other complex issues parliamentarians could outsource to a populist vote.
Keneally now puppets Parkes comments. But the Coalition went to the people with this concept. Australians understand this. Marriage is a critical component of society for millenia. Australians are also watching other countries, now realizing the homosexuals agenda goes way beyond marriage. Australians also relaize they have not seen any legislation on homosexual marriage which protects those who object. The USA and UK are showing people who object to the homosexual agenda are suffering arrests, job sackings, investigations by department, retraining by the watching diversity videos, lawyers associations not accepting college graduates from non-gay friendly institution, gays talking people to court over ridiculous offences, fines, court hearing, adoption agencies closing and jail.
Meanwhile Labor State governments are implementing gay adoption policies, Safe School policies of which have little scientific support and evidence of harm and are pushing the homosexual agenda.
Decriminalising abortion? We don’t have a nationally consistent legal view on abortion in Australia. I’m sure the churches would be happy to hold a national plebiscite to resolve the differences between the states and territories.
Keneally then speaks of the very contentious issue of abortion. Historically, abortion was pushed by Labor governments and feminism ideology. In Queensland clinics were funded when Labor was in power. Abortion like Hilary Clinto is a political ideology by one party. Abortion was not on Labor's campaing ticket. They push through their agenda silently. Keneally is correct. Many Australians, if they witnessed an abortion, would reject the abortion industry immediately and Labor knows this very clearly because they have a progressive immoral agenda and do not seek approval from the population. This is a shameful aspect of politics.
And what about state funding for non-government schools? We live in fiscally constrained times. I’m pretty confident the 65% of Australian parents who choose public schools for their children would like very much to have a say on whether Catholic, Christian and other non-government schools should keep receiving scarce taxpayer dollars. How could the churches object?
Decriminalising abortion? We don’t have a nationally consistent legal view on abortion in Australia. I’m sure the churches would be happy to hold a national plebiscite to resolve the differences between the states and territories.
Keneally then speaks of the very contentious issue of abortion. Historically, abortion was pushed by Labor governments and feminism ideology. In Queensland clinics were funded when Labor was in power. Abortion like Hilary Clinto is a political ideology by one party. Abortion was not on Labor's campaing ticket. They push through their agenda silently. Keneally is correct. Many Australians, if they witnessed an abortion, would reject the abortion industry immediately and Labor knows this very clearly because they have a progressive immoral agenda and do not seek approval from the population. This is a shameful aspect of politics.
And what about state funding for non-government schools? We live in fiscally constrained times. I’m pretty confident the 65% of Australian parents who choose public schools for their children would like very much to have a say on whether Catholic, Christian and other non-government schools should keep receiving scarce taxpayer dollars. How could the churches object?
Churches would close down their schools. Simple.
Secondly, it seems that Coalition MPs and their allies in the Christian churches overlook the difficulty of conducting a national debate in Australia that draws out religious and moral convictions. We don’t do those debates very well in Australia. We never have. For example, the last time Australia relied on plebiscites to resolve a contentious matter – conscription – it inflamed sectarian animosity between Catholics and Protestants.
Secondly, it seems that Coalition MPs and their allies in the Christian churches overlook the difficulty of conducting a national debate in Australia that draws out religious and moral convictions. We don’t do those debates very well in Australia. We never have. For example, the last time Australia relied on plebiscites to resolve a contentious matter – conscription – it inflamed sectarian animosity between Catholics and Protestants.
Keneally's argument is essentially therefore, don't have a debate - just ram it through and everybody after the fact will be happy. The error is obvious when we see homosexual politicians ignoring their whole community but expressing their own bias regarding sexual morality. Second, conscription deserves debate by all Australians as it deals with potential death. It was also political with the other countries agenda interfering, not just church denominations.
Marriage equality advocates raise concerns that a plebiscite will prompt a debate that will be harmful to the health and mental wellbeing of LGBTI people, especially young people and children in LGBTI families. I’ve no doubt that this concern is warranted.
Marriage equality advocates raise concerns that a plebiscite will prompt a debate that will be harmful to the health and mental wellbeing of LGBTI people, especially young people and children in LGBTI families. I’ve no doubt that this concern is warranted.
Keneally, has no evidence for this comments at all. Labor and the Greens are repeating this constantly, yet it is some homosexual groups who are screaming swearing, closing down Hotels through threats of violence, calling everybody who disagrees bigots. Only one side is doing this!
But the LGBTI community is not the only one at risk as people will be asked to campaign, argue, and contest publicly with their neighbours, friends and work colleagues about the nature and definition of marriage.
At this point people will have their view and most likely keep silent because if they support traditional marriage they know they will be abused, mocked and sworn at. No Keneally, they will be very silent.
I’ve written previously about the suspicion that often attaches to people of faith engaging in political debate.
Sorry Keneally, your gender your education your personal views and your religious or lack of religious views all come to the table in any political debate. You declare yourself as not consulting scripture or your church to create a 37% view. Religious people should be represented in parliament. Religious people should stand as candidates. Your article gets to the point - fear of religious belief exercising influence over political discourse. You gave examples, where it did and didn't. Unfortunately, other beliefs systems exercising influence. The Greens beliefs are obvious, gay politicians beliefs are exercising influence as do women politicians. This is a bias argument.
But the LGBTI community is not the only one at risk as people will be asked to campaign, argue, and contest publicly with their neighbours, friends and work colleagues about the nature and definition of marriage.
At this point people will have their view and most likely keep silent because if they support traditional marriage they know they will be abused, mocked and sworn at. No Keneally, they will be very silent.
I’ve written previously about the suspicion that often attaches to people of faith engaging in political debate.
Sorry Keneally, your gender your education your personal views and your religious or lack of religious views all come to the table in any political debate. You declare yourself as not consulting scripture or your church to create a 37% view. Religious people should be represented in parliament. Religious people should stand as candidates. Your article gets to the point - fear of religious belief exercising influence over political discourse. You gave examples, where it did and didn't. Unfortunately, other beliefs systems exercising influence. The Greens beliefs are obvious, gay politicians beliefs are exercising influence as do women politicians. This is a bias argument.
I’ve no doubt that in a plebiscite on same-sex marriage, people who believe in God and are members of a church – no matter their views on marriage equality – will face anti-religious sentiment and insults. I do believe the risk to LGBTI people and families is greater, but a debate that gives a legitimate platform to bigotry of any kind is unwise, and particularly so when the debate is utterly unnecessary in our democratic system.
Complete and absolute rubbish. Gays in the UK, USA, Spain and France are pursuing any Christian objections to homosexuality with threats of courts and fines. The gay agenda is very aggressive and without mercy. The debate is necessary as it involves an institution that has served humanity for millenia. To change it shows the height of arrogance for a group of people who seek equality by using marriage when many Australians choose to live in defacto relationships and don't value or want marriage.
Lastly, many church leaders are motivated in the same-sex marriage debate by what they perceive as threats to religious freedom. They have a right to be concerned about this. Marriage equality advocates are also concerned.
Your link is wrong. Homosexual advocates in the US are not concerned at all. Fear is a tool they are using. Obama is using federal legislation to force states who do not want this new form of sexual immorality. These states have already expressed their opinions via elections, but are being threatened by Obama funding withdrawal. Companies are now doing the same thing. Christians have a right to be concerned because they now see that homosexuality goes way beyond same sex marriage - it now enters religious schools, the work place, and businesses.
The plebiscite legislation is completely silent on how religious freedom would be maintained should the laws defining marriage change. How are churches or marriage equality advocates, or any of us, able to determine what might follow in terms of religious freedoms and restrictions if a yes vote succeeds at the plebiscite?
The plebiscite legislation is completely silent on how religious freedom would be maintained should the laws defining marriage change. How are churches or marriage equality advocates, or any of us, able to determine what might follow in terms of religious freedoms and restrictions if a yes vote succeeds at the plebiscite?
Correct
The reality is Australian representative democracy functions very well when it comes to dealing with complex moral and legal matters. In New South Wales we approved same-sex adoption in the parliament. We dealt carefully with issues of religious freedom. We managed a civil, respectful and thorough debate. Labor and Liberal MPs exercised a free vote in the parliament. The outcome was accepted by the public. The matter is done. No one today is trying to overturn the law.
The reality is Australian representative democracy functions very well when it comes to dealing with complex moral and legal matters. In New South Wales we approved same-sex adoption in the parliament. We dealt carefully with issues of religious freedom. We managed a civil, respectful and thorough debate. Labor and Liberal MPs exercised a free vote in the parliament. The outcome was accepted by the public. The matter is done. No one today is trying to overturn the law.
Well that didn't happen in Queensland! People are fearful of calling out homosexual families who are adopting kids. The ABC interviewer promoted two gay men in Queensland caring for a child. She spoke highly of the success of this new family model. Later, she was told the child was being sexually abused even before her interview. Her ideology blinded her to a reality yet to be tested through research. But scientific research is now showing the damage to kids raised in homes with homosexual parents. Perhaps no one has objected yet, because these studies and stories are rubbished and denied by homosexual advocates.
For example, sociologist Mark Regnerus of the University of Texas at Austin overturned the conventional academic wisdom that such children suffer no disadvantages when compared to children raised by their married mother and father. He found numerous and significant differences between these groups--with the outcomes for children of homosexuals rated "suboptimal" (Regnerus' word) in almost every category. But this study was rubbished left, right and centre. Accusations were made. Calls were made to force Regnerus to quit. The abuse was immediate and brutal. Homosexual advocates do not want to hear any objections to their agenda. The public accept it because they too, don't want to be abused. Take the ACL for example and the level of abuse. No wonder nobody objects and remains silent to these new experimental family structures.
The same would be true of a parliamentary vote on marriage equality.
The churches cheer Abbott and Turnbull to a same-sex marriage plebiscite at their peril. The next time a prime minister wants to resolve a contentious issue by a popular vote, there will be no turning back for Australia’s religious leaders.
Rubbish
If they tried, they just might find their arguments have turned into pillars of salt.
If they tried, they just might find their arguments have turned into pillars of salt.
That doesn't make sense?
