W W W W World Wide Web Witness Inc. Home Page Volume What is New
BULLETIN TWENTY THREE
QUINTESSENCE OF FREEDOM and the
QUASHING OF THE CONSTITUTION
I agree with the tenor of the October 3 letter of Michael Roach in The Australian, on SSM.
Indeed, the changeable waters of public preference for a plebiscite or parliamentary vote on same gender 'marriage' (like same-car bicycles) is not really the important issue, because of the underlying realities.
It is not about having a fair go for those who have some different design for human life from the reproductive one inherent in mankind, and want what is not the complementary partnership physically in place. They already seem to have a fair go, being free not only to practise their preference within law, but to draw benefits.
It appears clear that the thrust of the new look fashion, literally for many based on nothing, never a good source, is for others who do not share their disposition, and preference, NOT to have a fair go. Rather, they seem in danger of being blighted for preferring the natural way, as hammered out in repeated instructions in billions of cells in any one human and living body, for manufacture in two gender mode.
Those who differ are to show more than toleration: it appears their very views and ways are to be surrounded with vilification. Thus the PM referred to his distaste for homophobia, as if that had anything to do with the current issue of outcomes and the sort of society to be desired in this area.
Does this mean that if one for example, does not believe that nature created itself before it was there to do it, but hold that One Capable did the work, and left the clearest indication of the way things were to be, and that HENCE gender definition is as given: this is hateful in some obscure fashion ? Or if you hold procreation is to be as defined in physical terms like a brake pedal internalised in a car, then you are being odious ? Is the PM here attributing some kind of HATRED to those who so believe ? The Labour leader has not at all seemed noticeably different! Is then the way of the human body, and of the Gospel of the Bible, gratuitously to be nationally despised (I Timothy 1, I Corinthians 6:9-11,I Corinthians 6:9-11) ? and that is not religious!
Does this mean that, to take the present case, this leader wants a new generation to grow up which will groomed to find same-gender coupling completely normal and sound ? so that dissidents from innovation, non-conformists with unmoved morals will be slandered in terms of such talk if they do not IDEATIONALLY and ETHICALLY agree, even branded haters, however slippery the verbiage!
That would be mere tyranny. I do not believe in tyranny, and it is in any case contrary to the Constitution of this rapidly changing land, to prescribe in terms of religion, as seen in Section 116. Highly religious are the issues of the state, status, origin, nature of man and his institution and destiny, into which these innovations and prescriptions rush. Whether the method re the marriage issue be plebiscite or political representatives to become a kind of priesthood to decide for the nation and choose such a thing, it is only the bad or the worse. NOTHING of this kind, to prescribe and command ethics at such levels of expression, has any place in a free society.