Anti-gay hatemail hitsMelbourne streets

www.samesame.com.au
  • 38
  • 1
  • 6564

Residents of Melbourne are disgusted that “nasty, discriminating hatemail” has arrived unsolicited into their mailboxes this week.

The ‘10 Reasons Why homosexual ‘marriage’ is harmful and should be opposed’ pamphlet is courtesy of Catholic group Australian TFP and their new campaign Defending Natural Marriage.

Included among the ‘reasons’ the leaflet details are a number of anti-gay slurs designed to vilify homosexuals as sinful and unnatural.

The fear-mongering ‘slippery slope’ argument has rarely been as nakedly employed as it is here. Quote: “If homosexual ‘marriage’ is universally accepted as the present step in sexual ‘freedom’, what logical arguments can be used to stop the next steps of incest, pedophilia, bestiality, and other forms of unnatural behavior?”

It is not known how many properties have received the leaflet this week.

“It’s just wrong that they do a letter drop,” says a concerned Melbourne resident who shared it on Facebook today, prompting several shocked reactions.

“I’m not gay, however my housemate is, and so are many friends of mine,” he tells Same Same. “I have no issue with the church being opposed to gay marriage, it’s a religious ceremony. But do go to these lengths, and to basically go into letterboxes saying how wrong it is to be ‘gay’ is just unfair.”

“Disgusting, discriminating junkmail,” comments about the pamphlet on his Facebook page summed up. “It’s thoughtless nonsense like this that divides society.”

The full text of the pamphlet is shown below.


1. It Is Not Marriage

Calling something marriage does not make it marriage. Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the unity and wellbeing of the spouses.

The promoters of same-sex “marriage” propose something entirely different. They propose the union between two men or two women. This denies the self-evident biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women which find their complementarily in marriage. It also denies the specific primary purpose of marriage: the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children.

Two entirely different things cannot be considered the same thing.

2. It Violates Natural Law

Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It is a relationship rooted in human nature and thus governed by natural law.

Natural law’s most elementary precept is that “good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided.” By his natural reason, man can perceive what is morally good or bad for him. Thus, he can know the end or purpose of each of his acts and how it is morally wrong to transform the means that help him accomplish an act into the act’s purpose.

Any situation which institutionalizes the circumvention of the purpose of the sexual act violates natural law and the objective norm of morality.

Being rooted in human nature, natural law is universal and immutable. It applies to the entire human race, equally. It commands and forbids consistently, everywhere and always. Saint Paul taught in the Epistle to the Romans that the natural law is inscribed on the heart of every man. (Rom. 2:14-15)

3. It Always Denies a Child Either a Father or a Mother

It is in the child’s best interests that he be raised under the influence of his natural father and mother. This rule is confirmed by the evident difficulties faced by the many children who are orphans or are raised by a single parent, a relative, or a foster parent.

The unfortunate situation of these children will be the norm for all children of a same-sex “marriage.” A child of a same-sex “marriage” will always be deprived of either his natural mother or father. He will necessarily be raised by one party who has no blood relationship with him. He will always be deprived of either a mother or a father role model.

Same-sex “marriage” ignores a child’s best interests.

4. It Validates and Promotes the Homosexual Lifestyle

In the name of the “family,” same-sex “marriage” serves to validate not only such unions but the whole homosexual lifestyle in all its bisexual and transgender variants.

Civil laws are structuring principles of man’s life in society. As such, they play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behavior. They externally shape the life of society, but also profoundly modify everyone’s perception and evaluation of forms of behavior.

Legal recognition of same-sex “marriage” would necessarily obscure certain basic moral values, devalue traditional marriage, and weaken public morality.

5. It Turns a Moral Wrong into a Civil Right

Homosexual activists argue that same-sex “marriage” is a civil rights issue similar to the struggle for racial equality in the 1960s.

This is false.

First of all, sexual behavior and race are essentially different realities. A man and a woman wanting to marry may be different in their characteristics: one may be black, the other white; one rich, the other poor; or one tall, the other short. None of these differences are insurmountable obstacles to marriage. The two individuals are still man and woman, and thus the requirements of nature are respected.

Same-sex “marriage” opposes nature. Two individuals of the same sex, regardless of their race, wealth, stature, erudition or fame, will never be able to marry because of an insurmountable biological impossibility.

Secondly, inherited and unchangeable racial traits cannot be compared with non-genetic and changeable behavior. There is simply no analogy between the interracial marriage of a man and a woman and the “marriage” between two individuals of the same sex.

6. It Does Not Create a Family but a Naturally Sterile Union

Traditional marriage is usually so fecund that those who would frustrate its end must do violence to nature to prevent the birth of children by using contraception. It naturally tends to create families.

On the contrary, same-sex “marriage” is intrinsically sterile. If the “spouses” want a child, they must circumvent nature by costly and artificial means or employ surrogates. The natural tendency of such a union is not to create families.
Therefore, we cannot call a same-sex union marriage and give it the benefits of true marriage.

7. It Defeats the State’s Purpose of Benefiting Marriage

One of the main reasons why the State bestows numerous benefits on marriage is that by its very nature and design, marriage provides the normal conditions for a stable, affectionate, and moral atmosphere that is beneficial to the upbringing of children—all fruit of the mutual affection of the parents. This aids in perpetuating the nation and strengthening society, an evident interest of the State.

Homosexual “marriage” does not provide such conditions. Its primary purpose, objectively speaking, is the personal gratification of two individuals whose union is sterile by nature. It is not entitled, therefore, to the protection the State extends to true marriage.

8. It Imposes Its Acceptance on All Society

By legalizing same-sex “marriage,” the State becomes its official and active promoter. The State calls on public officials to officiate at the new civil ceremony, orders public schools to teach its acceptability to children, and punishes any state employee who expresses disapproval.

In the private sphere, objecting parents will see their children exposed more than ever to this new “morality,” businesses offering wedding services will be forced to provide them for same-sex unions, and rental property owners will have to agree to accept same-sex couples as tenants.

In every situation where marriage affects society, the State will expect Christians and all people of good will to betray their consciences by condoning, through silence or act, an attack on the natural order and Christian morality.

9. It Is the Cutting Edge of the Sexual Revolution

In the 1960s, society was pressured to accept all kinds of immoral sexual relationships between men and women. Today we are seeing a new sexual revolution where society is being asked to accept sodomy and same-sex “marriage.”

If homosexual “marriage” is universally accepted as the present step in sexual “freedom,” what logical arguments can be used to stop the next steps of incest, pedophilia, bestiality, and other forms of unnatural behavior? Indeed, radical elements of certain “avant garde” subcultures are already advocating such aberrations.

The railroading of same-sex “marriage” on the American people makes increasingly clear what homosexual activist Paul Varnell wrote in the Chicago Free Press:

“The gay movement, whether we acknowledge it or not, is not a civil rights movement, not even a sexual liberation movement, but a moral revolution aimed at changing people’s view of homosexuality.”

10. It Offends God

This is the most important reason. Whenever one violates the natural moral order established by God, one sins and offends God. Same-sex “marriage” does just this. Accordingly, anyone who professes to love God must be opposed to it.

Marriage is not the creature of any State. Rather, it was established by God in Paradise for our first parents, Adam and Eve. As we read in the Book of Genesis: “God created man in His image; in the Divine image he created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them, saying: ‘Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it.’” (Gen. 1:28-29)

The same was taught by Our Savior Jesus Christ: “From the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother; and shall cleave to his wife.” (Mark 10:6-7).

Genesis also teaches how God punished Sodom and Gomorrah for the sin of homosexuality: “The Lord rained down sulphurous fire upon Sodom and Gomorrah. He overthrew those cities and the whole Plain, together with the inhabitants of the cities and the produce of the soil.” (Gen. 19:24-25)

Social

  • bella7464

Comments

www.samesame.com.au arrow left
27784
555Sean

555Sean said on the 11th May, 2012

Firstly, I'd like to say what a ridiculous notion this pamphlet espouses. It is against love and commitment and very 'unchristian' in its assertions. I would call it disgusting in summary. It speaks of disgust and hate and a moral affront to some religious beliefs from an extreme viewpoint. We should see it for what it is and ignore it; as most who will read it and see it will do. It is just stupid and does more harm to the author than anyone else. So good, bring it on. Messages like this will only strengthen the cause of marriage equality. This is the best endorsement of 'free speech' ever, it allows us to see what some people think and form an opinion to oppose them. That is the power of freedom to hold an opinion and tell others what you believe.

One of my mates partners posted the following video from YouTube today. A very confronting story of two gay men, Shane and Tom. You may have seen it. I also think this is on the other end of the extreme of this political debate regarding marriage which uses emotion to convince you and ignores legal fact.

This video made me cry, not unlike the movie, "Latter Days". A real life story with many constrasts. Have a look at the video and then read my comment to it. I'll post later what I personally think is the answer for us as a community and you can tell me where I am wrong in the next comment. :)

This story is a very real example of what gay men and women are up against morally today. Although, I think the way we go about righting wrong is ill considered within the 'marriage' debate and there is a better way. I will post again with my idea for resolution. Anyway, watch the video and then read my comment to it below. It is important to remove emotion from the legal implication because that is how law works.

Shane and Tom, "It could happen to you"(watch it, very sad indeed):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=pR9gyloyOjM

"That is truly a very heartbreaking story, Mark. So sad and very tragic. I feel a great deal of empathy for Shane. It is very hard when a loved one dies and the partners family want nothing to do with you and pretend you do not exist. Reminiscent of "Latter Days" (which I only watched recently for the first time - a beautiful movie).

It did happen to me. Not only me, but also my daughter who was not able to attend her own mum's funeral because of family wishes at the time.

Unfortunately, this is how the world works in regard to such situations and "Marriage Certificates", past, present or future make no difference at all. Anyone should be able to pay their last respects, so long as they are respectful to all.

The mistake, Tom and Shane, made in this instance was to not have drawn up a Will and protective legal contracts for their joint responsibilities, wishes and personal requests. Especially, considering they had a business and mortgage together. Legally, this is the only way couples, hetero, homo or otherwise, can protect their individual rights and wishes should the worst thing happen and one of them passes on.

Also, in California, it was legal for them to marry, as Ellen De Generes and Portia De Rossi did, in 2008. Had Shane and Tom committed at that time, I doubt it would have made any difference to the final outcome.

Blood relatives always have the final say over all arrangements in the eye's of the law, again, unless a Will is made where the express wishes of the individual are set out.

Even then, a Will can be contested legally and the relatives family is given priority even if they did not get along with the deceased or have had no contact for years. The old saying, you can choose your friends but you can't choose your relatives, is very true.

Obviously, being gay has an added dimension of emotional burden when the families do not want to accept their siblings relationship choice. It is very hard on gay people who want their families to accept them for who they are and respectfully love their partner as well. Many "straight" people have similar problems for different reasons. (You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.)

The point is, Legalising Marriage for same sex couples would not have changed the outcome of this story had it been officiated.
This can happen to everyone. And sometimes does.

I just can't get my head around the fact people (any people, regardless of sexual orientation) seem to think a piece of paper, a marriage certificate, can make some sort of cosmic change to the way two people feel about each other. Yes, I agree it is romantic but, apart from that, it is purely symbolic.

I would much prefer laws were sought to enshrine the rights of all partnerships between any couple to reflect their wishes and protect them. Marriage does not achieve this; legally marriages are made to be broken these days, any family court lawyer will attest to that."

BalOO

BalOO said on the 11th May, 2012

well answer this please then:


Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them:

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.

Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify?
Why can't I own Canadians?

I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree.
Can you settle this?

Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16.
Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

azulmelb

azulmelb said on the 11th May, 2012

well answer this please then:


Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them:

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.

Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify?
Why can't I own Canadians?

I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree.
Can you settle this?

Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16.
Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Everyone should keep a copy of this...! Better yet - memorize it

Klm25

Klm25 said on the 13th May, 2012

I wanted to post this response on you tube to the video but it was to long so I thought I'd share it here. I'm sorry if it's a repeat but I'm getting it off my chest that all. So here goes ......

Hi my name is Kelly Im 41 & a lesbian...I too have a similar story but my partner Andrea and myself actually did have wills in place. We both were sole executors & beneficiaries of each others wills. These were drawn up when I was 12 weeks pregnant with our son. We'd been together for 5 yrs so far. After 10 yrs of being together we broke up. I moved to the city with our son & she stayed in the country where we were living together. Andrea decided that she wanted to head off on holidays for two weeks to heal & help get over our break up. Whilst on route to her destination she was involved in a car accident. A major life threatening accident. Andreas family had always hated me because I, just like Shane, had made her gay/lesbian. Yeah right ok... Anyhow I was informed 3 weeks after her accident that she had in fact had an accident & was in another state, on life support and in a coma. I wondered why my messages & voice mails hadn't been answered.... Anyhow once stable enough to be airlifted to our home state a week later Andrea then spent another 4 months in a coma on life support. And I had no powers to do anything at all or make amy decisions for her. She was resuscitated at least 3 times even though we'd both discussed that it would be something that neither of us would want. So I had no say in the do not revive decisions. It drove me insane & was just awful. Our son Jackson was only 4 yrs old & after being bought out of the coma, Andrea spent the next two years 'living' in a rehab with her only movement ability being her eyes. She would look at me and would just cry every time I visited her. Id talk to her & wipe her tears away. And hell yes I visited, I didn't care what anyone said & neither would I have let them stop me. Luckily they didn't try that. I dont actually think the family even knew if I was visiting or not as it was only her mother that visited her. Her father & 3 siblings couldn't cope with it! *Anyway this is long story & i could write a book...one day whilst I was at home I received a call from their family solicitor to 'inform me that Andrea had passed away a few weeks prior'..... Wtf? I was shattered, no advice from the rehab, no funeral attendance, no goodbye, nothing! This family had hurt me again in the worse possible way. Andrea's lesbian friends 'our friends' didn't get to say goodbye either. The solicitor continued on with his convo as I was stunned & in shock, basically asking me if I was going to continue on as executor of her will or did I wish to 'relinquish all rights'??? I somehow muttered 'game on' & hung up. Omg I was angry now. Our boy was 6 yrs old now & how was I going to explain this to him?? What these animals had done to us was unforgivable. So I fought them in court over Andrea's very small estate for the next 2 years. And yes we won. I didn't care though it wasn't going to bring her back was it? but I felt some sort of "relief" for want of a better word, that I was able to seek this pitiful revenge on them for doing this to us. Such evil, evil ppl & my life journey & faith in human kind has been altered forever . I will never ever forgive or forget what they did to us. But the main moral of this story is that even though in australia there was a will in place , we never worded it properly for our situation which could have prevented Andrea of the agony of surviving this horrific tragedy for as long as she did. Even though I had not much power - her own words in her will could have changed this whole situation. Eg her funeral plans, resuscitation incase of this event & what exactly was it she wanted if incapacitated like this. I will never ever forget the most wonderful 10 years we had & with Shane & toms story it brought back a few thousand tears tonight for me. My heart goes out to u Shane, u will never ever get over this you will just learn to live & cope. Stand up, be strong & Keep spreading your story my boy, I wish I had done what u have *but Id been grieving for so long in so many ways that I was exhausted in every sense of the word. I needed to take care of my own health & that of our son too! He's now almost 15 & she'd be proud of the man he's becoming. Please tell ppl again to think of what could happen to u & get something in place to prevent other hateful families doing this to other innocent ppl. Love & hugs to you Shane. Warm regards K xxx*