by PAUL COLLITS – IN LIGHT of the events of the past week in Macquarie Street, one might ask if it’s acceptable for a heterosexual, religious or not, to believe that homosexual acts are morally or physically repugnant?
And, if so believing, to say as much? And to say so publicly? The answer that many would give now would be, you must be joking.
- It is damned convenient to simply cancel certain sins.
- Not that “sin” is even a category for most rainbow activists.
- Heteronormativity is now “wrong-think”. A thought crime. Just about the worst, it seems.
The march of the rainbow activists has been so successful that nowadays people in public life not only have to tolerate homosexuals, but also to affirm them – and their “lifestyle”.
What some term heteronormativity is strictly forbidden at the better dinner parties in Newtown and Fitzroy, and just about everywhere else.
SINNER
I am at a loss as to why the latter has to be the case. Christians have long been required to “love the sinner” and “hate the sin”.
Never, ever to judge others, but, equally, never to pretend that sin doesn’t exist, or that we get to pick and choose what are and what are not sins.
It is damned convenient to simply to cancel certain sins. Not that “sin” is even a category for most rainbow coalitionists.
All the feigned offence experienced when Christians call homosexual acts sins relate to a God they don’t believe in, a book the offended are never likely to read (the Bible) and a place (hell) they don’t think exists.
As is always the case in these situations, relevant questions get sidelined by the white noise of the mob on social media, a place where people of sense should never go.
Twitter is a cesspit, and definitely not the medium for resolving complex moral questions. But it is the way that most people communicate these days. So be it.
First, they came for George Pell. Then they came for Donald Trump. Then they came for Israel Folau. Now they are coming for Mark Latham, the perennial “bad boy” of NSW politics with the right enemies and simply brilliant and much needed policies. A man who has never been forgiven for joining One Nation.
By “they”, I mean the progressive, green, globalist, woke, COVID (PGGWC) class. They simply live for moments like this, where they can try and out-do one another in self-righteous indignation and sheer horror and disgust at the words or actions of someone they deem beyond the pale.
So, we have had “not fit to be in parliament”, thundered by The Sydney Morning Herald in an editorial.
The Herald has never seen a woke cause it didn’t like, nor an enemy of Mark Latham’s it didn’t embrace reflexively. (Err, perhaps John Howard circa 2004 might be an exception).
ABUSE
We have heard “disgusting” many times over. Ironically, it was the assumed recipient of Latham’s abuse, Alex Greenwich, who opened the batting the other week in the disgust-wars, when he erroneously implicated Latham when a bunch of irate Lebanese Christians took exception to imported queer activists invading their space.
Specifically, St Michael’s at Belfield, where Latham was speaking about parental rights. The queer activists may or may not have been on church property and acting blasphemously.
We have had “homophobic” (of course). We have had hateful. ALP minister and “out lesbian” Penny Sharpe said she felt “physically sick”. Poor dear.
We had Latham called a “toxic man”. Calls not to work with him. “Outrageous hate-filled bile”.
We had the Prime Minister even going to a dark, accusatory place where he suggested that Latham’s (deleted) words on Twitter might so upset some that they might self-harm. (Ironically, it is Alex Greenwich that we have to thank for allowing lethal self-harm to be legal in NSW.)
We have had the inference, from the massively clever member for Sydney, that Latham might even be suffering mental health problems.
It has been a veritable orgy of disgust! Another real question is whether those who found Latham’s comments “disgusting” were disgusted by the colourful – yes, vulgar – description of male homosexual sex, or by the mere fact of Latham having the views he does.
I suspect it is the latter. Heteronormativity is wrong-think. Thought crime. Just about the worst, as it happens.
Latham’s briefly stated impressions of homosexual sex happen to coincide with the long-held views of the world’s major religions and their orthodox followers.
The “homophobia” of Islam needs no further elaboration. Traditional Judaism prohibits male homosexual acts.
Anglicans swing both ways, so to speak, partly as a result of Lambeth conference resolutions not being binding on all parts of the Anglican communion.
The Baptists have re-affirmed traditional God-centric views of proper sexual relations, though, inevitably, some local churches have split from the traditional view.
MARRIAGE
Mormons are for male-female marriage only, though famously are flexible on numbers. Hinduism has its traditional views (opposed) and modern reinterpretations.
Clearly, the Catechism of the Catholic Church hasn’t yet employed sensitivity readers.
“Chastity and homosexuality: 2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity (Cf. Genesis 19:1-29; Romans 1:24-27; 1 Corinthians 6:10; 1 Timothy 1:10), tradition has always declared that ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered’. (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Persona humana, 8). They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.”
It continues: “2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
“2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them their inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
“Under no circumstances can they be approved.” 2357 is especially clear. Catholics are specifically called to oppose homosexual acts. It might be said that Mark Latham is being abused because he conforms to the official position of the Catholic Catechism. Admittedly, using fairly un-catechismy language.
CRISIS
Austin Ruse is an American writer at Crisis magazine, “orthodox and Catholic” as they self-describe. He makes Mark Latham look like a rampant heterophobe. He has caused many a stir in the USA, and his Wikipedia entry has the usual epithets.
Aptly, he has stated: “Nobody wants to talk about buggery. And why would they?”
In NSW, we have a variation on Ruse’s rule. No one wants Mark Latham to talk about buggery!
It’s now okay to argue the case for homosexual acts but not to critique them. There has been an aggressive campaign over many decades to mainstream homosexuality. There have been many victories and no defeats. They decidedly do not welcome pushback.
This resonates closely with what has been occurring in Australia, where heteronormativity is being eased out of the public square. It is great being able both to define “homophobia” then to use the term as a weapon against anyone who dares to differ. And we all thought they liked diversity!
Finally, from Ruse, on the Floridian pushback against the gay tide and, in particular, the grooming of children in schools: “God bless Ron DeSantis. He has smoked out the groomers. What we have learned from the ‘Don’t Say Gay’ Bill is that the gays want to say and say and say and say and say.
“The love that dares not speak its name simply cannot shut up. And what we have known all along is that they are eager to groom the little ones. The San Francisco Gay Men’s Chorus actually sang that they are coming for our children. And now they are having hissy fits that their grooming must stop, at least in Florida and at least among the littlest ones.
Yes, they do, indeed, want to say and say and say. Talk about having a voice. They must be hoarse from all the shouting since 1970.
APOLOGISE
I guess we will have to wait and see if Mark Latham is a fan of Ian Sinclair’s political dictum, “never apologise”.
These days, people in any form of public life simply have to say sorry for any number of offences they might have committed. Normally, these offences relate to something they said about a favoured “identity group”.
If you said something offensive about a slave owner, or a colonialist or a political opponent – like “Mark Latham is a disgusting human being” – you will probably get away with it.
Nice.
So, I don’t expect Latham to apologise. Nor do I expect the queer “comedian”, Reuben Kaye, to apologise for his recent, screamingly unfunny sexual joke about the Son of God.
Nor do I expect Alex Greenwich MP to apologise for stopping people experiencing unwanted same sex attraction to get help to overcome it, nor for driving legislation making infanticide-on-demand legal in NSW, nor making mercy killing a legal and reasonable choice. Nor for engaging in acts that Christians for two thousand years have believed to be repugnant and disordered, right from the time of the Apostles.
They say that Satan’s greatest trick was to convince the world that he didn’t exist.
The rainbow activists’ greatest trick, surely, was to get everyone in public life to use the word “homophobia” as if it were confetti.PC
As a former member of One Nation, way back right from the start, even traveling on a bus from Richmond with other members all the way up to Queensland to work the polling places for the first (State) election that One Nation ever contested, plus flying up to assist with the Ipswich by-election, as well as actively working in all the other elections in the Cook and Hughes electorates for many years, I can tell you that I was disgusted with Pauline Hanson’s attack on Mark Latham. She has lost the plot, and is a sad caricature of her former self. Good on you, Mark Latham. If anybody ever earned the respect of the silent (and cowed) majority, it is you!
Yes, I don’t like the way Pauline attacks her own members for breaches of behaviour. There is plenty to attack on the left, why target your own people? She should do it in private anyway, not in public. Anyway, did Mark Latham really say anything disgusting on Twitter. I can’t find it, nobody will tell me what he said. So I can only conclude he said nothing. If he said something awful where is the link? Am I just to take their word for it, and that it was disgusting? I’ll be the judge of what I find disgusting thankyou. What I find disgusting is the way the lefties never use logic but appeals to emotion.
‘
I have not read what Latham twittered but I take it that he was describing the behaviour of practicing homosexuals. If so, why are they disgusted? They should rejoice in the description of the act(s).
Instead, they seem to take offense. Why? Clearly, they are not ready for the truth to be told. Talk about hypocritical or maybe racist or whatever.
Before the rigged Gay (UNION ) Vote barely a word about these Poofs and Dykes ( their own terms ). That Rigged vote cost us $123 Million Tax Dollars and they still have the Mardi Gras and if the whole world was gay ??? Well here would be nobody at all ! The WEF,UN,WHO would have their dream world . They use the Rainbow Flag Because it appeals to children .
Time for Liberals past and present supporters and members to read the history of LINO left and plan to wreck the Liberal Party and create an alliance of political like minded leftists to form a government together with no real opposition to challenge them.
Interestingly the Unions have a similar if not almost identical objective agenda.
https://web.archive.org/web/20180804162425/http://stopturnbull.com/
Mark Latham is of course a target of the leftist globalists because he resigned from Union Labor after being their Leader in Opposition and has put the interests of Australians and our nation first and foremost, much to the dismay of the leftists.
Latham the best PM we never had .