SPCS

SOCIETY FOR PROMOTION OF COMMUNITY STANDARDS INC.

Rodney Croome, “gay” blood donor ‘rights’ and “gay sex” HIV threat

by Leave a Comment

It is a well documented fact that the HIV virus is spread primarily via unsafe sex practices engaged in by MSM (men who have sex with men i.e active homosexual men). In July 2012 National Media Manager of the Australian Red Cross, Kathy Bowlen, stated:

“Sexually active gay men make the vast majority, about 90 per cent of people who contract HIV”.

A recent survey of New Zealand gay men undertaken in conjunction with the NZ AIDS Foundation revealed nearly two thirds of gay men are drug users, and the majority also cheat on their partners, frequently. The survey found that 35% of NZ gay men have sex with between 12 and a hundred different strangers every year.

Promiscuous homosexual men (see note 1) who engage in anal and oral sex with multiple partners are at real risk of contracting HIV/AIDS (see note 2) and passing it on to their sex partners. There is a risk that bisexual men who have engaged in anal sex with homosexual men and contracted HIV will pass it on to their female sex partners.

In Australia MSM are not allowed to donate blood at the risk of passing on blood-borne diseases, unless they declare that they have been celibate over the previous 12 months. Australian “gay” lobby groups are infuriated at the Red Cross, arguing there is discrimination regarding blood donations.

In New Zealand MSM are prevented from donating blood if they have engaged in anal or oral sex, with or without a condom, in the five year period prior to their application to be a donor. This is termed the five year “deferral policy”. The same prohibition applies if they have received payment for “gay” sex. This effective ban reflects the higher risk for those in the MSM group of contracting HIV, compared to those in other groups.

Kathy Bowlen confirmed that Red Cross’s testing of blood is not infallible and therefore MSM is a risk group.

“The problem [with MSM] is there is a window period in which someone has contracted the disease [HIV/AIDS] and this is not able to be picked up in testing.

“Gay women are able to donate which shows that the Red Cross is not discriminatory [against “gay” men].

“The entire focus with regard to blood donations and responsibility revolves around ruling out the risk.”

Bowlen’s comments effectively destroy the spurious accusation made by Rodney Croome, currently serving as the spokesperson for the Tasmanian Gay and Lesbian Rights Group and is National Convenor of Australian Marriage Equality, that sexually active homosexual men (MSM) are being discriminated against in being prevented from donating blood.

Croome insists that every homosexual male actively engaged in anal and oral sex (MSM) has a human right to donate blood to Blood Services Agencies. He claims:

” The best blood donation policy screens potential donors for the safety of their blood rather than their gender.”…

“We know know that HIV is spread by unsafe sex and not gay sex; therefore there needs to be a shift in focus when discussing blood donation”

However, he ignores the fact that the prohibition is not  based on gender, but rather it is based on known real risk. He ignores the fact that HIV testing is problematic due to the dormancy period of the virus, which means that even if a negative HIV test is given for a “gay”  blood donor, there remains a real risk he may unknowingly carry the virus. The real risk of HIV being present and going undetected, rules all MSM out as blood donors.

Rodney Croome wants to politicise the issue of blood donor policy for the purpose of his “gay” ‘rights’ agenda: including the drive to “normalise” the sexual practices of “gay” men. The ‘victim’ mentality engaged in by homosexual activists on this issue does not make any sense to health officials whose duty of care is the “public good” of the wider population. Croom claims that MSM are stigmatised by Red Cross due to their refusal to accept MSM blood and he asserts this is an typical example of institutional “homophobia”. This fallacious and defamatory accusation has been utterly repudiated by Red Cross and investigations carried out on the Blood Donor programme in Australia.

In the US and Canada no MSM can donate blood if they engaged in anal or oral sex since 1977 or engaged in sex for money or drugs. In much of Europe there is an effective total ban. In Korea and Japan no MSM individual can donate blood.

Public safety must at all times be put ahead of the politicisation of health issues by a “gay” ‘rights’ minority which is always accusing those they disagree with as “homphobes” and “homophobic bigots”.

Notes: 

1. A New Zealand survey of “gay” men revealed: Only 23% of the 1,200 men surveyed had managed to remain monogamous over the previous six months. Two thirds of the men reported multiple partners over that time. Many of them – more than a quarter – not only had multiple regular sex partners, they also had multiple casual sex partners as well. Nearly ten percent of those surveyed reported having between 20 and 50 sexual partners in the previous six months. A further 24% had between six and 20 partners in just six months. This was not a survey about how many times these men were having sex, it was a survey to find out how many different men they were having sex with.

A 2008 version of the same study notes that actual rates of “concurrent sexual partners” will be “higher than those reported here” because of methodology issues with the survey.

See: http://www.investigatemagazine.co.nz/Investigate/?p=3328

2. The AIDS (acquired immunodeficiency syndrome) infection is caused by the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). HIV is spread when blood, semen, or vaginal fluids from an infected person enter another person’s body, usually through sexual contact, from sharing needles when injecting drugs, or from mother to baby during birth. HIV is rarely spread by blood transfusions or organ transplants because of improved screening procedures.

References:

http://www.altmedia.net.au/donation-appeal-ignites-gay-blood-debate/56587

http://www.transfusion.com.au/sites/default/files/Blood%20Review%20Report.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_male_blood_donor_controversy

Finding true essence of marriage – Rex Ahdar, Law Professor, Otago University

by Leave a Comment

It is an empty argument to say that gay couples deserve equal legal recognition, Rex Ahdar says.

The catchcry of same-sex marriage proponents is “equality”: gay couples have a right to equal treatment and to deny them legal marriage is blatant discrimination.

Yet this claim deflects attention from the real issue: what is the true nature of marriage?

Two rival visions jostle for supremacy. The conjugal model says marriage is a lifelong union between a man and a woman. The partnership model says marriage is a contract between committed loving couples.

Conjugal marriage is a comprehensive union (mental and physical, emotional and sexual) of a man and a woman.

Marriage has a true essence, a fundamental core; it is a real phenomenon, not just a human invention or convention.

A crocodile is a crocodile, a tree is a tree, a river is a river. We did not invent crocodiles, we simply discovered them and named them. We can call a hippopotamus a crocodile if we want but that does not change its essential nature.

All it does is lead to confusion.

Marriage is a pre-political institution.

States recognise marriage; they do not invent it. States value the institution in which men and women commit indefinitely and exclusively to each other and to the children their sexual union commonly (but not invariably) produces.

Gay marriage proponents will argue that defines marriage so as to exclude gay couples, a neat trick that fools no- one.

Not so. Recall their key claim: gay couples deserve equal legal recognition.

That is an empty argument. To insist upon equality is to require that “like things be treated alike”.

So X and Y should be treated equally for X and Y are alike. But we need to know in what respects X is like Y and whether these characteristics are morally valid before we can be confident that they merit equal treatment.

We must have a standard for deciding which characteristics count and which don’t.

Is gay (partnership) marriage “like” conjugal marriage?

In some respects, yes: both may involve monogamous couples who have a deep commitment to each other.

Both can express this commitment in a sexual fashion and raise children (if any) in a caring way.

In other respects, however, the answer is no: lacking sexual complementarity, gay couples cannot achieve complete sexual bodily union.

And lacking reproductive capability they cannot be biological parents.

They can nurture children but they cannot provide the example that a father and a mother can, the intangible things that only a father and a mother can supply. They lack the inherent structure to rear well-rounded, psychologically secure children.

Who says these attributes – sexual complementarity, reproductive capacity – are “essential”?

Who says this is the standard?

We did. We decided that marriage involves the comprehensive sexual union of a man and a woman.

We decided that, ideally, children are best raised by their biological father and mother.

When I say “we”, I mean every culture, tribe and race since antiquity has recognised these as essential elements of this thing called marriage and accorded such unions special status.

Perhaps every society throughout the ages has got it wrong and we alone in the West have now stumbled upon the truth.

But I think not.

The wanton use of the slogan “equality” just skews the debate.

The tactic is to brazenly repeat that conjugal marriage and partnership marriage are equal – as if this were somehow self-evident – then require that those who deny this to show why “unequal” treatment is justified.

And who can be against “equality”?

Opponents must show why this enlightened proposal is wrong, rather than gay marriage proponents having to demonstrate why the partnership model deserves to replace the existing institution. And make no mistake.

To redefine marriage is to abolish it.

Partnership marriage does not keep the existing institution and simply allow more persons to join it. Instead it eviscerates it and substitutes a radical experimental concept.

Gay couples should not be permitted to marry because they lack the essential traits that constitute true (conjugal) marriage.

We may treat gay couples the same as heterosexual couples when it comes to property division, pensions, inheritance and so on, but not when it comes to marriage.

Here, the two are simply not alike.

In the end sit still, close your eyes and quietly ask yourself: can a man marry another man and a woman wed another woman?

What on earth have we come to?

Rex Ahdar is a law professor at Otago University.

Source: http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/8521106/Finding-true-essence-of-marriage

Finding true essence of marriage: Opinion – Rex Ahdar

Published The Dominion Post. 8 April 2013, p. A9

Fairfax NZ News

‘Same-sex Marriage Bill’ renders terms “husband” “wife” and “spouse” meaningless

by Leave a Comment

Media Release 24 March 2013:

The SPCS has petitioned the Attorney-General, Hon. Chris Finlayson, to fulfil his legal and moral obligations to report to Parliament forthwith under s. 7 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (BOR), on ALL aspects of Labour MP Louisa Wall’s legally flawed Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill that in any way breach BOR in terms of its amendments to the Marriage Act 1955. SPCS contends that the bill blatantly discriminates against persons based on their “married status” and “religious belief” and furthermore, because its concept of “same-sex marriage” (SSM) constitutes an oxymoron *, parliament must reject the bill. See: https://www.spcs.org.nz/2013/open-petition-to-attorney-general-to-strike-down-marriage-definition-of-marriage-amendment-bill/

The Government Administration Committee has significantly altered the bill since it was introduced to parliament, so that it now includes dozens of “Consequential Amendments” (under Schedule 2, Part 1) to 14 separate Acts of Parliament – involving the replacement the terms “husband” and “wife” with “spouse”; “husband and wife” with “spouses” or “married couple”; and “husband or wife” with “either spouses”. By amending the Marriage Act so that “marriage”, currently restricted to couples comprising a male and female, includes same-sex couples too, it seeks to radically redefine (in effect) the terms “spouse” and “married couple” to include SSM, thereby rendering the traditional terms “husband” and “wife” and “spouse” and “married couple” (based on opposite sexes), meaningless in law. For example, ss. 24(3) and 366(2) of the Crimes Act 1961 (1961 No 43) currently state:

24 Compulsion

(3) Where a woman who is married or in a civil union commits an offence, the fact that her husband or civil union partner was present at the commission of the offence does not of itself raise a presumption of compulsion.

366 Comment on failure to give evidence

  • (1)[Repealed]

(2)Where a person charged with an offence refrains from calling his wife or her husband, as the case may be, as a witness, no comment adverse to the person charged shall be made thereon.

The Bill (see Schedule 2), if passed, will replace “husband” with “spouse” in s. 24, so that the status of a married (heterosexual) woman’s true spouse is no longer referred to as a “husband” in law, but rather as a ‘spouse’ – a term redefined to include both individuals involved in any same-sex. The distinctive and unique meaning of the terms “husband”, “wife” and “spouses” (as involving opposite sexes in a traditional marriage union) is under direct attack and made meaningless.

If passed, the bill will replace “his wife or her husband” with “his or her husband or wife” in s. 366(2). This additional negation of the meaning of “husband” and “wife” renders the terms meaningless, because it would define in effect, each “married” same-sex member in SSM as either a “husband” or “wife” in law. This is an absurdity, and a fundamental attack on those persons who have become “husband” and “wife” under the Marriage Act 1955. This blatant manipulation and corruption of language by a redefiniton of the status of those married under the Principle Act, constitutes discrimination against those having married status under this Act. It constitutes a serious breach of their human rights under s. 19 of BOR (see s. 21 (1)(b)(ii) Human Rights Act 1993) to be free from discrimination. Additionally, it discriminates against all those who hold religious beliefs that “marriage” involves only a man (husband) and a woman (wife).

Society for Promotion of Community Standards Inc. (“SPCS”) (Contact spcs.org@gmail.com)

(*Oxymoron: A figure of speech in which incongruous or seemingly contradictory terms appear side by side)

Aussie judge rules: marriage is not discriminatory

by Leave a Comment

“We welcome last Thursday’s Federal Court ruling by Justice Jayne Jagot that banning same-sex marriage does not amount to discrimination,” FamilyVoice national research officer Ros Phillips said today [Monday, February 25, 2013]

Justice Jagot pointed out that in all cases the treatment of the person of the opposite sex is the same: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-22/same-sex-marriage-ban-challenge-tossed-by-australia-judge.html

Ros Phillips said the Federal Court ruling is common sense.  It effectively acknowledges that the gay activist slogan Marriage Equality is false and misleading.

“Equality involves treating the same things equally,” Mrs Phillips said.  “Treating different things differently is not discrimination.  Potentially fertile male-female unions and naturally sterile same-sex unions are not equivalent.  Treating them differently is recognising reality.”

Ros Phillips said marriage is about more than love – it is about conceiving, bearing and raising the next generation with both mum and dad role models.

http://www.fava.org.au/news/2013/aussie-judge-rules-marriage-is-not-discriminatory/

 

Father worries over son’s exposure to Rainbow Youth Inc. “alternative sexuality education package”

by Leave a Comment

Rainbow Youth Inc. – [a registered charity that received $105,931 in government grants/contracts in the last financial year] – has delivered an “alternative sexuality education … package” to 14 and 15-year old school students promoting “gay marriage”, that worries the father of a school boy (his son) who attended it. Two presenters identified themselves as lesbians and said that they were attracted to “transexual girls”. (Fairfax NZ News Story 8 July 2012 below).

A father is concerned his son attended alternative sexuality education classes at school that explored ideas like transsexuality without his knowledge or permission.

However the Rainbow Youth organisation’s education coordinator stands by the presentations, sayings its education package has been evaluated and is backed up by research.

Earlier this year Rainbow Youth presented two one-hour sessions to the 15-year-old’s class. Auckland-based Rainbow Youth provides “support, information, advocacy and education for queer young people” and has been delivering education workshops for more than 10 years.

One presentation was about gender and sexual identity and the other addressed issues such as homophobia and bullying.

The teenage boy said two of the presenters introduced themselves to the class as lesbians, one who was attracted to transsexual girls, while the third said he had been a woman attracted to women but became a man “with a vagina”.

The teenager said the first lesson was “OK” and the message was that there were multiple gender identities. But he felt the second lesson was “quite weird”. It looked at homophobia and how society treated people labelled as “other”.

The class heard two of the presenters’ coming-out stories, including how one had grappled with discrimination and deciding if they were male or female. “[The transsexual speaker] was saying things like, ‘it’s legal to have a physical relationship with your cousin but it’s illegal to have gay marriage’. And things like, if you’re really homophobic you usually turn out gay.

“I think they were trying to say that being gay is all good but to me and quite a few of the people in my class, it came across like they were saying ‘it’s great and you guys should follow on with it’.”

His father assumed, “rightly or wrongly”, that sex education would be more generic and mainstream not “the weird and wonderful of the world’s sexuality”.

“I don’t think that is the right thing to be exposing 14 and 15-year-old kids to.”

Rainbow Youth’s education coordinator Priscilla Penniket said the organisation went into schools by invitation, and demand for presentations were at capacity.

She estimated they were involved with 30 of Auckland’s almost 200 high schools. The idea behind the presentations wasn’t to challenge students she said, but to follow three teaching frameworks: critical thinking, self reflection and the coming-out narratives that personalised a theoretical idea.

Asked if students ever reacted badly she said, “Depending on the high school there’s varying levels of homophobia which can sometimes be really [emotionally] unsafe for the volunteers coming out who are telling their story.”

She denied volunteers were encouraging homosexuality, or saying homophobics were gay. Penniket said research had proven that when people were overly homophobic it was often because they were hiding something such as their sexual identity or the identity of someone they knew.

Source: Stuff.co.nz

Fairfax NZ News Story – ‘Rainbow’ class worries father. By Imogen Neal

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/7242226/Rainbow-class-worries-father

Note:

Rainbow Youth Inc. was registered as a charity (Reg. No. CC24284) with the Charities Commission on 13 May 2008. In an average week it has two employees working full-time and one part-time. A total of 110 hours of paid work is engaged in by its three employees on average, each week. Its total gross income for the financial year ended 31 March 2012 was $137,873 and it spent $138,012 on wages over this same period. Its deficit for 2010/11 was $137,873. (Source: www.charities.govt.nz)