SPCS

SOCIETY FOR PROMOTION OF COMMUNITY STANDARDS INC.

Archbishop prays while topless “gay” activists shout curses and douse him with water

by Leave a Comment

BRUSSELS, April 23, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In an astonshing display of gentleness in the face of a vile attack, the head of the Catholic Church in Belgium, Archbishop Andre-Joseph Leonard, remained calmly seated with eyes closed in prayer Tuesday as four topless women attacked him with shouts and curses and doused him with water.

It’s not the first time the bishop has been attacked for standing up for the Church’s teachings on homosexuality and expressing his concern for those who live the homosexual lifestyle.

The incident took place at the ULB University in Brussels where the archbishop was participating in a debate on blasphemy laws.

The four women, representing the pro-abortion and homosexual group FEMEN, took to the stage where they disrobed to reveal black-painted slogans on their bare chests and backs, such as ‘my body my rules,’ and ‘anus dei is coming.’ They also held signs reading ‘stop homophobia’. The women doused the archbishop with water from bottles formed in the image of the Virgin Mary.

For Full story By John-Henry Westen and photos go to:

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archbishop-prays-while-topless-gay-activists-shout-curses-and-douse-him-wit

“Homophobia”, “Islamophobia” and the “incendiary comments” of the French Archbishop

by Leave a Comment

American neuroscientist and neo-atheist, Sam Harris, according to a report in The Times (25/04/13)  “has gone as far as to suggest that there can be no such thing as “Islamophobia” – a hatred akin to racism – any more than there can be Christophobia or Conservativophia. He sees the accusation as a way of silencing critics of religion. To him Islam is a dangerous force on the planet today and it is his job to say so.”

If it’s true that “Islamophobia” is nothing more than a meaningless epithet, then what about the epithet “homophobia“?

[For a detailed analysis of the term “homophobia” see https://www.spcs.org.nz/2007/the-term-homophobia-its-origins-and-meanings-and-its-uses-in-homosexual-agenda/]

Times contributor, David Aaronovitch, makes it very clear that he believes that “homophobia” is a real and meaningful term.  He criticises the Archbishop of Lyons (France) for likening homosexuality to incest and declaring that “[The French] Parliament has decided to change the meaning of the word “marriage”. Aaronvich calls such comments “incendiary talk aimed at preventing non-Catholics from enjoying equal rights” and has, in his view “helped to create an atmosphere of homophobic violence.”

“Homophobic” violence is presumably caused by “homophobia” – literally meaning “irrational fear (phobia) of homosexuals”. However, “gay-rights” activists are now admitting that the word “homophobia” does not mean this when they apply it to describe a person. They claim it is merely a neutral descriptive term to apply to all those persons who oppose the claimed “human rights” of homosexuals such as “rights” to get married and thereby share in all the benefits bestowed by the state on those heterosexuals who are married, and is not a term of abuse. This claim is disingenuous. Anyone who has tried to express their views opposing “gay marriage” or raise concerns over claimed “gay” adoption “rights”, are regularly howled down by homosexuals as being “homophobic”.

If Sam Harris is correct that there is no such thing as “Islamophobia”, and Aoronovich does not dispute this, then on what basis should we accept the claim that “homophobia” means anything at all. Aaronvich asserts that violence against homosexuals is fuelled by “homophobia” and then blames the honorable Archbishop for contributing to “homophobia” by his alleged “incendiary” comments.

The term “homophobia” is an oxymoron. Those opposed to same-sex ‘marriage’ – including the estimated 1.4 million French who marched against the bill in March, are clearly not fearful of homosexuals.

To suggest crimes committed against homosexuals can be blamed, even in part, on the Archbishop’s statements or to any arguments voiced by those objecting to same-sex ‘marriage’ legislation, is without any basis. If radical elements such as French neo-Nazi skinheads infiltrate a genuine family-friendly protest, to commit crimes, then mainstream participants from pro-traditional marriage groups cannot be  blamed for such crimes.

If Islam, as Harris asserts, is indeed “a dangerous force on the planet today” then one can understand why he states that “it is his job to say so”. He rejects the accusation that in doing so he is “Islamophobic”.

In New Zealand our rights to freedom of expression, involving the rights to expression of robust opinion, is preserved in section 19 of the Bill of Rights 1990. If a person expresses the view that ‘HIV/AIDS is a dangerous threat to mankind and is linked clearly to the promiscuous lifestyle of many homosexuals and the unhygienic use by drug-addicts of  needles’, homosexuals will accuse him of being a “homophobe”. If a person expresses their genuine belief, whether based on the Bible or Koran or not, that marriage is between a man and a woman; why do homosexuals label them “homophobic”.

Sam Harris’ words in relation to “Islamophobia” apply equally well to the use of “homophobia” by homosexuals.  The accusation is used by homosexuals as a weapon – a way of silencing critics of the case for homosexual ‘marriage’.

It is certainly queer reasoning that would attempt to prove that white is black and black is white; by the use of invective!

Source

The Times 25 April 2013

Leave off prof. Let the devout do their thing. By David Aaronovitch

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/davidaaronovitch/article3748011.ece

 

Take-up of unpopular “gay” ‘marriage’ by French “gays” likely to be below 5,000 p.a.

by Leave a Comment

The Economist reports that only a very tiny number of “gay” couples are likely to get ‘married’ in France (<5,000 per year) despite claims by jubilant advocates of “gay” ‘marriage’ that securing the “rights” to get ‘married’ will make a huge difference to their lives. The reality is that it is a highly unpopular institution among LGBTIAQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transexual/transgender, intersex, asexual, queer) communities, most of whom consider it largely irrelevant and meaningless. The estimated 1.4 million opponents of the bill to legalise same-sex ‘marriage’ who protested in Paris in March, are currently being urged to attend another march, on May 26th, to try to force the government to back down even though the law has passed. They know that advocating “marriage equality” and “gay” adoption, is primarily focused at “normalising” homosexual lifestyle with the result that children are discriminated against (children adopted by “gays” are denied the right to have both a father and a mother). 

“IT WAS a moment of jubilation for some, consternation for others. After 136 hours of riotous parliamentary debate and months of demonstrations by opponents and advocates, French deputies voted on April 23rd to legalise gay marriage and adoption. The measure should be on the statute books by June, making France the 14th country to approve it. But the critics have not given up and are appealing to the Constitutional Council to reject the law……

“In reality, few people are likely to take advantage of the new law. In Spain, which legalised gay marriage in 2005, same-sex marriages represent only 2% of the total. Applied to France, this would suggest fewer than 5,000 gay marriages a year. Under French law, marriage confers firmer rights, particularly over inheritance, than the civil pacts that have long been open to same-sex partners. The irony is that, for heterosexual couples, such pacts are now nearly twice as popular as the increasingly unfashionable institution of marriage.”

The Economist. April 27th 2013

http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21576692-frances-parliament-votes-legalise-gay-marriage-and-adoption-rainbow-warriors

“Queer agenda” post “gay” ‘marriage’: The queering of education policy and queerphobia

by Leave a Comment

The passing of  Louisa Wall’s so-called ‘same-sex marriage’ [SSM] bill “represents a symbolic and semantic change rather than a transformation of the material conditions of people’s lives” according to Anne Russell (Scoop 19/04/13). Furthermore, it is merely a “symbolic and semantic victory” for LGBTIAQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual, intersexual, asexual and queer) communities – also known collectively as “Queers”.

The term “same-sex marriage” [SSM] is of course an oxymoron:  a figure of speech in which incongruous or seemingly contradictory terms appear side by side. SSM is a meaningless term.

Repeatedly calling a chair a duck, does not make it duck. It may have a back curved like duck’s neck, but no duck has ever had four legs! No  chair quacks like a duck! Repeatedly calling and treating a SSM as defined in Louisa Wall’s bill – as “marriage” – is to engage in verbal deception.

Repeatedly referring to a stone one keeps tripping over as a “bleeding stone” does not give it a blood circulatory system! Repeatedly heralding SSM as “marriage” is dishonest and puerile. It degrades, demeans and destroys the true meaning of marriage which always involves the complementarity of both sexes.

The amendment to the Marriage Act 1955 offers same-sex couples seeking legal recognition nothing more than what is already available to them under the Civil Union Act – namely a civil union – which entails receipt of all the rights and privileges of marriage….

with two arguable exceptions. Both have been addressed in the bill that has been passed.

(1) Queer couples can now make a legal commitment to one another that can be ackn0wledged in law to constitute a “marriage”. This was not possible under the Civil Union Act 2004. However this is a semantic ploy given that civil unions have been widely treated by same-sex couples and the general population as equivalent in practice to heterosexual marriages. “Gays” or “Queers” assert that “equivalence” of relationships is not the same as “equality of relationship”. That is why they have coined the term “Marriage Equality” and vigorously opposed the unique and special character of traditional heterosexual marriage as defined in the Marriage Act 1955 – with the obvious exclusion of SSM.

(2) same-sex couples will be able to jointly (as a couple) adopt a child, as opposed to only one member being able to adopt.  However, a “gay” person was already able adopt a child prior to Louisa Wall’s bill being passed . If a lesbian was the birth mother of a child, her partner in law was defined as the second parent. The lesbian’s partner had the right to apply to the Courts for guardianship of the child if the child’s birth mother died or was ever declared mentally unfit to care for the child.

Despite acknowledging all the rights “gays” gain under a civil union, “gay” rights activists argue publicly that civil unions are “meaningless”. Such a tactic makes it clear that the LGBTIAQ communities want to see any vestige of traditional marriage eradicated from society and have replaced with a “gay” friendly vision of sexual relationships involving the normalisation of “gay sex”.

Anne Russell wrote:

“After all, this bill in itself is not a victory for all queers. The proposition that same-sex marriage will have knock-on benefits for lower-class queers is no more than queer trickle-down theory, an excuse to direct extensive activist forces primarily at middle-class issues…….”

“It will be interesting to see where the queer movement goes next. The marriage equality bill represents a symbolic and semantic change, rather than a transformation of the material conditions of people’s lives. Action like queering education policy across the board, allocating tax dollars to transgender healthcare, making bathrooms gender neutral, and enabling adoption rights requires redistribution of power and material resources. Moreover, issues like poverty and poor housing, that were arguably sidelined by the marriage equality debate, disproportionately affect the queer community and need queer attention.”

Here we gain insight into what the Queer agenda is – the tireless “gay onslaught” against the institution of traditional marriage and morality, the ceaseless striving to normalise “gay” sexual practices such as sodomy and the relentless pursuit of “special rights” for the LGBTIQ community.

The first objective of the Queer agenda identified by the openly lesbian Labour MP Louisa Wall is “queering education policy across the board”. In plain terms this includes:

(1) developing teaching strategies and resources to be delivered to our children and young persons that treat heterosexual sex within marriage as no different to sexual practices engaged in by same-sex couples, (2) teaching that traditional marriage is no different to SSM, (3) teaching that children raised a traditional marriage compared to a SSM benefit equally and (4) that children should not see gender differences as fixed in any sense but rather as completely fluid and part of a very broad rainbow-coloured spectrum.

LGBTIQ communities have proved masters at subverting the English language to favour and advance their “gay agenda”. Just witness the manner in which the meaning of the word “gay” has been so radically altered. Terms such as “homophobic” have been coined by “gays” as terms of abuse to be used against those who speak against the “gay” lifestyle etc.

The second item on the Queer Agenda is persuading government to allocate tax dollars to transgender healthcare

LGBTIAQ communities are already demanding special rights – the right they claim to tax-payer funded medical programmes to enable them to produce children – medically assisted procreation (in vitro fertilization and surrogacy services etc.) and undergo sex change operations.

The third objective of the Queer Agenda is to get so-called “hate speech” legislation through Parliament

Such legislation has been introduced into a number of countries and it serves the Queer agenda well in its “chilling effect” on any public criticism of “gay” sexual practices and/or lifestyle  choices.

Banning the term Homosexual and Homophobe

Some within LGBTIAQ are wanting even more changes to the English language in line with “Queer Theory”. The use of the term “homophobe” by “gays” to describe those who oppose the SSM may soon be replaced by the term “Queerphobe” as the word “HOMOsexual” is considered offensive as it is too narrow to encompass the wider GLBTIAQ community. “Homophobe”  and “homosexual” are considered offensive and discriminatory terms that undermines modern Queer theory and Queer political aspirations.

However, if the term “homophobe”, which is widely used as a term of abuse by “gays”, is to be eliminated, its replacement with “Queerphobe” seems a very queer alternative! The latter lacks the distinctive, chilling, derisory, degrading and derogatory linguistic “feel” of the word “homophobe” – one which the LGBTIAQ community seems to have developed a passionate love affair with. Losing such an effective verbal weapon like this one might leave the LGBTIAQ community very vulnerable and lead to its demise due to verbal abuse infertility.

References: 

The symbolic victory of same-sex marriage.
by Anne Russell 
April 19, 2013

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1304/S00144/the-symbolic-victory-of-same-sex-marriage.htm

Maurice Williamson MP: ‘Gay Icon’ must answer to a Higher Being

by Leave a Comment

Dominion Post Letter to Editor (24 April) accompanied by colour photo of ‘Gay Icon’ Maurice Williamson delivering pro-same-sex marriage [Marriage Amendment bill] speech on 17 April 2013. In 2004, he voted against civil unions at the Third Reading of the Civil Union Act, along with John Key and 22 other Nation Party MPs.

maurice williamson

National Pakuranga MP Maurice Williamson’s marriage-amendment bill speech would have been half funny were it not for the assumptions he made as facts. He promised that the Sun would rise tomorrow, we’d not suffer skin diseases or plagues of toads, and that the world would carry on. His knowledge of physics assures us eternal punishment will last 2.1 seconds. His major error is to ignore that he’s answerable to a higher authority. It’s an error shared by the bill’s supporters, including some churches and their leaders. Though he and this Government might act as if they govern the universe, the Bible is clear that they will be called to account for their lives. Pussyfooting around, with platitudes about loving relationships and Jesus’ acceptance of everyone, ignores that, faced with an adulterous woman, he said, “Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more” – the later instruction being the condition placed on the forgiveness. The Church must be aware that after 30 years of “normalising ” homosexuality, the future demand will be to marry same-sex people in church because it would be “discriminatory” not to do so. What then, sheep?

Peter Bradley, Aotea.

24 April 2013. The Dominion Post. P. A10.