Top Twenty Myths Pushed by the Homosexual Activists

The entire case for embracing the homosexual lifestyle is built on lies, falsehoods and deception. I have now written three books on this topic, and in them I deal with these myths in great detail. In some 600 pages with around 1400 footnotes I carefully document, assess, and refute the various lies and myths put out by the militant homosexual lobby. I encourage you to get those volumes so that you have the full documentation on all this.

You will find all three here for example:

Strained Relations: The Challenge of Homosexuality

ISBN-10: 1495969436
ISBN-13: 978-1495969430

Dangerous Relations: The Threat of Homosexuality

ISBN-10: 1500516031
ISBN-13: 978-1500516031

WHY vs WHY Gay Marriage

ISBN-10: 098074184X
ISBN-13: 978-0980741841

Here I had planned to offer ten of these myths, but I stumbled upon another great article which covers similar territory and ten more myths, so I will also post the piece by Peter Sprigg as well following my ten myths. Even though there might be a bit of overlap here, these 20 points cover at least in outline form the main porkies put out by the activists.

Here then are my top ten myths:

Homosexuals are born that way. There is no reliable research indicating a genetic basis of homosexuality. At best, there continues to be a debate about what is more influential: nature or nurture. The bulk of homosexuals who have gone for counselling have admitted to early childhood factors, such as an absent or aloof or abusive parent, and so on. And many homosexuals have now fully left the lifestyle, giving lie to the claim that one cannot change.

10% of the population is homosexual. No reputable study has ever come up with these figures. Instead, the numbers always range from 1 to 3 percent. It was sexual deviant Alfred Kinsey and the homosexual activists who invented the 10 percent figure. It is not based on science but ideology and activism.

Homosexuals just want to be free to privately do their thing. Yes many do. And if this were fully true, there would be no need to write this article. But many activists are seeking to ram their agenda down the throats of everyone else. They insist on publicly flaunting, promoting and celebrating their lifestyle, and they are using the heavy hand of the law to quash all opposition.

Homosexual marriage will not affect anyone else. As I carefully document in great detail in my books, everyone is impacted by homosexual marriage. The negative results are getting worse by the day. All over the West those who dare to resist the homosexual agenda or simply affirm heterosexual marriage are losing their jobs, being fined, and even thrown into prison.

There is no slippery slope. We are already seeing the slippery slope in action. Now that homosexual marriage is being accepted, all sorts of other groups are demanding that their forms of sexuality be recognised, applauded and legalised. This we have active and vocal groups calling for the complete recognition of things like polyamory, incest, bestiality, paedophilia, objectamory, and so on. And most of these groups are using the identical arguments used by the homosexual lobby.

Marriage is only about love. Marriage is not just about love between people. Love can exist outside of a marriage: a brother can love a sister, a son can love a father, a girl can love a cat. But marriage is a special kind of love: a life-long commitment, publicly acknowledged, with the possibility of procreation. Heterosexual married love is special, as it entails the possibility of rearing and raising the next generation.

Heterosexual marriage is a recent invention. The secular left seeks to tell you that the traditional married family is a creation of America in the 1950s. This is pure nonsense. All cultures throughout human history have had a recognisable form of male-female marriage. And the institution of marriage existed even before the state acknowledged or regulated it.

Children raised in homosexual households do just fine. This is not the finding of the social sciences. Countless studies have now shown that children raised outside of the male-female marriage unit suffer greatly in every area, from poor educational performance, likelihood to move into drugs and crime, higher suicide rates, and so on. Family structure does matter, and those children raised in homosexual households are now coming out and telling their very sad stories.

Jesus never said anything about homosexuality. Jesus spoke often about the original purposes for human sexuality as found in the opening chapters of Genesis. He affirmed and repeated these norms, and lashed out at other forms. And arguing from silence is poor form anyway: he also said nothing about rape or arson. Does that mean he approved of those things?

Love is all that matters. The Bible has a much different understanding of love than many have today. Biblical love is certainly not about lust, nor is it about getting whatever you crave. Biblical love is about willing the highest good for the other person. And it involves keeping God’s commandments. Jesus and others made it clear that to love God is to keep his Word, not break it or ignore it.

And here is the list from Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council in America:

by Peter Sprigg , CP Guest Contributor March 16, 2015 Original Source: "10 Myths About Redefining Marriage" (Peter Sprigg is a senior fellow at the Family Research Council.)



Advocates of redefining “marriage” to include same-sex couples use a number of arguments that can best be described as “myths.” The reality is often quite different.
 For example:

MYTH: A “one man and one woman” definition imposes a religious definition of marriage on civil society.
REALITY: The definition of marriage is rooted in nature itself. The sexual union of a man and a woman is what reproduces the human race. The durable commitment of that man and woman to one another is what provides children with a mother and father. This is important for people of any religion or of no religion.

MYTH: Children don’t actually need both a mother and a father.
REALITY: An overwhelming body of social science evidence demonstrates that children raised by their own mother and father, who are committed to one another in a lifelong marriage, are happier, healthier and more prosperous than children raised in any other household setting.

MYTH: Marriage can’t be about procreation, because infertile couples are allowed to marry.
REALITY: Laws are based on the rule, not the exception. While not all heterosexual couples do reproduce, it is indisputable that only heterosexual couples can do so naturally. No homosexual couples can do so. That fact provides a clear bright line for limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples.

MYTH: Legalizing homosexual “marriage” would have no effect on other marriages and families.
REALITY: “The law is a teacher,” and if we change the definition of marriage we will change what we teach about all marriages and families. For example:
-We would teach-wrongly-that procreation is no longer a uniquely important public interest.
-We would teach-wrongly-that children do not need a mother and a father.
-We would teach that adult desires, not the interests of society or the needs of children, should drive the definition of marriage.

MYTH: Defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman is “discrimination.”
REALITY: Every individual has the same access to marriage, but no one has been permitted to marry a child, a close blood relative, a person who is already married, or (through most of human history) a person of the same sex. Removing the last restriction would cast doubt on all the others.

MYTH: Homosexual relationships are the same as heterosexual ones.
REALITY: Research shows that homosexuals are less likely to enter into long-term partnerships, be sexually faithful, or have relationships last a lifetime. Legal recognition of same-sex unions in Scandinavia has led to a weakening of society’s commitment to marriage across the board.

MYTH: Homosexuals suffer serious harm because they’re denied the “protections” of marriage.
REALITY: Many of these “protections” are already available to same-sex couples through the use of private contractual arrangements, such as wills, durable power of attorney, health care proxies, and life insurance policies.

MYTH: Homosexuals are unable to care for their own children if they cannot “marry.”
REALITY: A biological parent has the same rights whether the individual is heterosexual or homosexual. States, if they choose to, can provide for homosexual couples to adopt children without changing the definition of marriage. However, recent research shows that children of homosexual parents suffer significant disadvantages. It is not in children’s interest for society to actively affirm a family structure that may harm them.

MYTH: Laws “banning same-sex marriage” are the same as the old laws that banned interracial marriage.
REALITY: It is actually the supporters of homosexual “marriage” who resemble the opponents of interracial marriage. Both groups sought to exploit the marriage laws in pursuit of a social goal irrelevant to marriage. Neither racial segregation (in the one case) nor the social affirmation of homosexual conduct (in the other) was or is related to the basic public purpose of marriage, which is promoting responsible procreation and the rearing of children in the optimal family setting.

MYTH: Legalizing homosexual “marriage” would not affect anyone’s religious liberty or conscience rights.
REALITY: All taxpayers, consumers and businesses would be forced to provide allowances for homosexual relationships, whether they want to or not. Schools would teach children that homosexual relationships are an option fully equivalent to heterosexual ones, even in opposition to parental teaching. Faith-based organizations and individuals would be forced to compromise their beliefs, or be punished or driven from the public square.

  Source: “10 myths about redefining marriage”

As the Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments on whether the U.S. Constitution includes a “right” to marry someone of the same sex, they – and the public – should be wary of falling for these myths.

[1595 words]

Related: » Bill Muehlenberg’s CultureWatch

 » Leftist Debate: Only One Voice Allowed.

 » 5 Most Abused Christian Terms.

 » Top Twenty Myths Pushed by the Homosexual Activists.

Published: 13.6.15 | Bill Muehlenberg’s CultureWatch | Bill Muehlenberg's commentary on issues of the day… | Original Source: "Top Twenty Myths Pushed by the Homosexual Activists"

ACT TODAY: A message to MP’s or Senators “Marriage Definition” traditional definition of marriage

A message to MP’s or Senators “Marriage Definition”

ACT TODAY: Can we encourage you to print it off, (see PDF below) and call in at your Federal MP or Senator’s office and drop it in to them as soon as possible.  Just go unannounced to the office, and tell the receptionist that you would like to drop this document in for the MP to read.  Make sure you leave your name and address and a contact phone number and email address so he can respond. 

ACT TODAY: Write a Letter to Australian MP’s or Senators re: Proposed Marriage Definition vs. Traditional definition of marriage HOW TO WRITE

Download PDF: For MPs or Senators

Original Source: Open Email from Peter Abetz (Member of the Western Australian Legislative Assembly) 13 June 2015

ACT TODAY: Write a Letter to Australian MP’s or Senators re: Proposed Marriage Definition vs. Traditional definition of marriage


Christians should never be the “silent majority” Speak Up Today”

Letter Argument Ideas

Further Notes:

Future Action:

Coalition Members

Email Address: Contact List

Postal Address: Contact List

Labor Members

Email Address: Contact List

Postal Address: Contact List


Letter Argument Ideas

Rights of the Children

Same-Sex Marriage dismisses any possible impact on children where the State deliberately intervenes and forces children to be raised either without their mother or father.
There are different and complementary attributes that a mother and father bring when parenting children.

The United Nation on Rights of the Child states in article 9 “Children should not be separated from their parents unless it is for their own good. For example, if a parent is mistreating or neglecting a child. Children whose parents have separated have the right to stay in contact with both parents, unless this might harm the child.”

The convention also states that “Children also have the right to know their parents and, as far as possible, to be cared for by them.”

Tradition of Marriage always being between a man and woman

Marriage has always been the relationship between a man and a woman. Even in ancient Greece or Rome where homosexuality existed the term marriage was reserved for relationships between a man and a woman.

Marriage is unique as it recognises the important of marriage between a man and woman that provides opportunities for the raising of children.

Religious Freedom

Many people have argued that any bill to change the definition of marriage would include clauses to give religious exemptions. Jurisdictions such as the United States of America and Canada have shown that even with these clauses in place businesses, schools etc are forced to teach that same-sex marriage is the same as heterosexual marriage and that fines can apply for conscientious objections.

Do not Change Legislation for only a few

This debate is not about the right for homosexuals to have relationships with one another. It is about changing the definition of marriage to cater for only a small percentage of the population. We should not change something as significant as marriage for just a few.

No to a conscience vote for the coalition (this is the most important point when writing to coalition members – not relevant to Labor)

The Liberal Party has always held a position to support the family unit. Something as significant as the institution of marriage is something that a political party should have a position on and in the case of the Liberal Party, continue to support the traditional family unit.

I will be looking at how things progress in the future and hope that you support traditional marriage both individually, and that there is no conscience vote. If a motion comes to the party room, it is very important that you vote against the conscience vote! This is the way to uphold the party policy on marriage. This was the policy that the coalition took to the last election and it must be maintained.


Further Notes:

  • Lots of emails are good and phone calls are good. Please go ahead with them.  Hand written letters are the most powerful.  Please write several hand written letters and encourage friends to write as well.
  • A good idea is to invite a group of friends over and have everyone write three short letters each, thus multiplying your efforts.
  • It is critical that coalition MPs on the above list receive as many hand written letters as possible in the second week of June (8 to 12). These letters must urge them to oppose a conscience vote.
  • If you are a member of the relevant party it is a good idea to mention this on your letters.
  • If your local member is not on the above lists, it is a good idea to write to them as well.


Future Action:

This is but the start of action on this front. An organisaton is being created ensure that the definition of marriage remains as it is. In order to be up to date please register your interest at With questions contact Christian Ellis on 0416 012 503.

Than you for being involved on such an important issue!


Coalition Members Contact List
(2015 Australian Government)

 Email Address:  
Name Party State Electorate Contact Number email
Alexander, John Lib NSW Bennelong (02) 9869 4288
Brandis, George Lib QLD QLD (07) 3862 4044
Briggs, Jamie Lib SA Mayo (08) 8398 5566
Griggs, Natasha Lib NT Solomon (08) 8928 0180
Hawke, Alex Lib NSW Mitchell (02) 9899 7211
Hockey, Joe Lib NSW North Sydney (02) 9929 9822
Howarth, Luke Lib QLD Petrie (07) 3284 8008
Hunt, Greg Lib VIC Flinders (03) 5979 3188
Hutchinson, Eric Lib TAS Lyons (03) 6398 1115
Ley, Sussan Lib NSW Farrer (02) 6021 3264
Pasin, Tony Lib SA Barker (08) 8531 2466
Pitt, Keith Lib QLD Hinkler 0417 771 435
Porter, Christian Lib WA Pearce (08) 9294 3222
Price, Melissa Lib WA Durack (08) 9964 2195
Ruddock, Philip Lib NSW Berowra (02) 9980 1822
Scullion, Nigel Lib NT NT (08) 8948 3555
Smith, Tony Lib VIC Casey (03) 9727 0799
Stone, Sharman Lib VIC Murray (03) 5821 5371
Sudmalis, Ann Lib NSW Gilmore (02) 4423 1782
Taylor, Angus Lib NSW Hume (02) 4822 2277
Wicks, Lucy Lib NSW Robertson (02) 4322 2400
Hogan, Kevin Nat NSW Page (02) 6622 7253
McKenzie, Bridget Nat VIC VIC (03) 5441 4251



Coalition Members Contact List
(2015 Australian Government)

 Postal Address: 
Name Party State address 1 address 2 suburb State Postcode
Alexander, John Lib NSW Federal Member for Bennelong PO Box 872 Epping NSW 2121
Brandis, George Lib QLD Senator of QLD PO Box 143 Albion QLD 4010
Briggs, Jamie Lib SA Federal Member for Mayo PO Box 1601 Mount Barker SA 5251
Griggs, Natasha Lib NT Federal Member for Solomon PO Box 43300 Casuarina NT 811
Hawke, Alex Lib NSW Federal Member for Mitchell PO Box 1173 Castle Hill NSW 2154
Hockey, Joe Lib NSW Federal Member for North Sydney PO Box 1107 North Sydney NSW 2059
Howarth, Luke Lib QLD 40 Hornibrook Esplanade Clontarf Beach QLD 4019
Hunt, Greg Lib VIC Federal Member for Flinders PO Box 274 Hastings VIC 3915
Hutchinson, Eric Lib TAS Federal Member for Lyons PO Box 50 Perth TAS 7300
Ley, Sussan Lib NSW Federal Member for Farrer PO Box 672 Albury NSW 2640
Pasin, Tony Lib SA Shop 17, Murray Bridge Market Place South Terrace Murray Bridge SA 5253
Pitt, Keith Lib QLD Federal Member for Hinkler PO Box 535 Bundaberg West QLD 4670
Porter, Christian Lib WA Federal Member for Pearce PO Box 1005 Midland WA 6936
Price, Melissa Lib WA Federal Member for Durack 2B/209 Foreshore Drive Geraldton WA 6530
Ruddock, Philip Lib NSW Federal Member for Berowra PO Box 743 Pennant Hills NSW 1715
Scullion, Nigel Lib NT Senator of Northern Territory Unit 1, 229 McMillans Road Jingili NT 810
Smith, Tony Lib VIC Federal Member for Casey Suite 1, 1 East Ridge Drive Chirnside Park VIC 3116
Stone, Sharman Lib VIC Federal Member for Murray PO Box 884 Shepparton VIC 3632
Sudmalis, Ann Lib NSW Federal Member for Gilmore PO Box 1009 Nowra NSW 2541
Taylor, Angus Lib NSW Federal Member for Hume PO Box 700 Goulburn NSW 2580
Wicks, Lucy Lib NSW Federal Member for Robertson PO Box 577 Gosford NSW 2250
Hogan, Kevin Nat NSW Federal Member for Page 61-63 Molesworth Street Lismore NSW 2480
McKenzie, Bridget Nat VIC Senator of Victoria PO Box 2047, Delivery Centre Bendigo VIC 3554



Labor Members Contact List
(2015 Australian Government)

 Email Address:  
Name Party State Electorate Contact Number email
Rowland, Michelle Lab NSW Greenway (02) 9671 4780
Byrne, Anthony Lab VIC Holt (03) 9796 7533
Thomson, Kelvin Lab VIC Wills (03) 9350 5777



Labor Members Contact List
(2015 Australian Government)

 Postal Address: 
Name Party State Electorate address 1 address 2 suburb State Postcode
Rowland, Michelle Lab NSW Greenway Member for Greenway PO Box 686 Seven Hills NSW 1730
Byrne, Anthony Lab VIC Holt Shop HM 2B 8-10 Overland Drive Fountain Gate VIC 3805
Thomson, Kelvin Lab VIC Wills Federal Member for Wills 3 Munro Street Coburg VIC 3058
Original Source: Open Email from Peter Abetz (Member of the Western Australian Legislative Assembly) 13 June 2015

Poll asking: Is same sex marriage is inevitable | Make your NO vote count Today! “Closes Saturday 13 Jun”


Open Letter from Catch the Fire Ministries

Fri, 12 Jun 2015 14:26:38

Dear Family and friends,


Please urgently click on the link below, scroll down and vote NO, that you do not think the legalisation of same sex marriage is inevitable. We have until Saturday to show the media how bible believing Christians feel about this matter.

Please urgently click on the link below, scroll down and vote NO, that you do not think the legalisation of same sex marriage is inevitable. We have until Saturday to show the media how bible believing Christians feel about this matter.


Your vote really counts.

Thanks very much and may God bless you.

Love in Christ

Elizabeth Ryan

Catch the Fire Ministries

30 Star Crescent
Hallam 3803
Ph 9703 1620
Fax 8786 3062

Bill Shorten plan to redefine marriage: Beware the red herrings!

Open Letter:

From: Richard Chieng,  Friday, 29 May 2015 4:14 PM

Dear friends,

The Labour Party in cohort with the Greens and the Gay lobby groups are trying to tire us out by their deadly persistence to change the definition of marriage in our Constitution. We must not give up in protecting the sanctity of marriage as between a man and a woman. No children of this and future generations should be deprived of the nurture and role model of a father or a mother. My earlier email yesterday has highlighted the slippery slope to a chaotic and dysfunctional society if homosexual marriage is legalised as equal to heterosecual marriage.

The homosexual lobby is actively sending out red herrings, something like, “We will likely not win this round but close”, “We will probably succeed before the end of the year”, “Our support are gaining momentum but we are not quite there yet”. PLEASE DO NOT BE DECEIVED into inaction! So I urge you to write to the MPs quickly – a line or two will do if you are too busy.

I have painstakingly “copy and paste” the email addresses of all MPs onto a list and it’s attached here for you to write to them. Simply copy and paste the list onto the “bcc” of your email in one operation. Together I believe we will make a difference – a BIG DIFFERENCE!

Love God Bless,

P/S Similar urgent appeal below from ACL

Extract from Lyle Shelton, Australian Christian Lobby: “I’m writing to you with a sense of urgency because right now, your voice is needed to help preserve marriage for future generations.

On Tuesday Bill Shorten announced his plan to redefine marriage.

At this stage it looks like debate will begin in the House of Representatives on Monday.

I know that over the years there have been a lot of false starts in the marriage debate.

The other side have chopped and changed many times.

But Bill Shorten and his Shadow Cabinet have decided to push the button on redefining marriage and now we have to act.

I’m asking you to email your local member of parliament today to ask them to vote against this bill.

Marriage is too important for our politicians to try and redefine.

Please take action today.

Related Articles:
“Marriage equality in Australia” Open Letter: to incumbent Local Federal Member
Open Letter: Re strategy to force same-sex “marriage” by Lachlan Dunjey
Letter to Bill Shorten
Do you think Australia’s marriage laws should be changed to allow same-sex marriage?
Bill Shorten plan to redefine marriage: Beware the red herrings!
Email addresses of all Australian MP’s “Say No to Same Sex Marriage!”
Thirty-eight of Australia’s Religious Leaders Call on PM and Parliament to Uphold True Meaning of Marriage
Turning Point: Equal marriage and the Future of the Church

Email addresses of all Australian MP’s “Say No to Same Sex Marriage!”

Albanese; Anthony
Alexander; John
Andrews; Karen
Andrews; Kevin
Baldwin; Bob
Bandt; Adam
Billson; Bruce
Bird; Sharon
Bishop; Bronwyn
Bishop; Julie
Bowen; Chris
Briggs; Jamie
Broad; Andrew
Broadbent; Russell
Brodtmann; Gai
Brough; Mal
Buchholz; Scott
Burke; Anna
Burke; Tony
Butler; Mark
Butler; Terri
Byrne; Anthony
Chalmers; Jim
Champion; Nick
Chester, Darren
Chesters; Lisa
Christensen; George
Ciobo; Steven
Clare; Jason
Claydon; Sharon
Coleman; David
Collins; Julie
Conroy; Pat
Coulton; Mark
Danby; Michael
Dreyfus; Mark
Dutton; Peter
Elliot, Justine
Ellis; Kate
Entsch; Warren
Feeney; David
Ferguson; Laurie
Fitzgibbon; Joel
Fletcher; Paul
Frydenberg; Josh
Gambaro; Teresa
Giles; Andrew
Gillespie; David
Goodenough; Ian
Gray; Gary
Griffin; Alan
Griggs; Natasha
Hall; Jill
Hartsuyker; Luke
Hawke; Alex
Hayes; Chris
Henderson; Sarah
Hendy; Peter
Hockey; Joe
Hogan; Kevin
Howarth; Luke
Hunt; Greg
Husic; Ed
Hutchinson; Eric
Irons; Steve
Jensen; Dennis
Jones; Ewen
Jones; Stephen
Joyce; Barnaby
Katter; Bob
Keenan; Michael
Kelly; Craig
King; Catherine
Laming; Andrew
Landry; Michelle
Laundy; Craig
Leigh; Andrew
Ley; Sussan
MacFarlane; Ian
Macklin; Jennifer
MacTiernan; Alannah
Marino; Nola
Markus; Louise
Marles; Richard
Matheson; Russell
McCormack; Michael
McGowan; Cathy
McNamara; Karen
Mitchell; Rob
Morrison; Scott
Neumann; Shayne
Nikolic; Andrew
O’Connor; Brendan :Brendan.O’
O’Dowd; Ken :ken.o’
O’Dwyer; Kelly
O’Neil; Clare
Owens; Julie
Parke; Melissa
Pasin; Tony
Perrett; Graham
Pitt; Keith
Plibersek; Tanya
Porter; Christian
Prentice; Jane
Price; Melissa
Pyne; Christopher
Ramsey; Rowan
Randall; Don
Ripoll; Bernie
Rishworth; Amanda
Robb; Andrew
Robert; Stuart
Ruddock; Philip
Ryan; Joanne
Scott; Bruce
Scott; Fiona
Shorten; Bill
Simpkins; Luke
Smith; Tony
Snowdon; Warren
Southcott; Andrew
Stone; Sharman
Sudmalis; Ann
Sukkar; Michael
Swan; Wayne
Taylor; Angus
Tehan; Dan
Thistlethwaite; Matt
Thomson; Kelvin
Truss; Warren
Tudge; Alan
Turnbull; Malcolm
Vamvakinou; Maria
Vanmanen; Bert
Varvaris; Nickolas
Vasta; Ross
Whiteley; Brett
Wicks; Lucy
Wilkie; Andrew
Williams; Matt
Wilson; Rick
Wood; Jason
Wyatt; Ken
Wyatt; Roy
Zappia; Tony

Related Articles:
“Marriage equality in Australia” Open Letter: to incumbent Local Federal Member
Open Letter: Re strategy to force same-sex “marriage” by Lachlan Dunjey
Letter to Bill Shorten
Do you think Australia’s marriage laws should be changed to allow same-sex marriage?
Bill Shorten plan to redefine marriage: Beware the red herrings!
Email addresses of all Australian MP’s “Say No to Same Sex Marriage!”

Open Letter: Re strategy to force same-sex “marriage” by Lachlan Dunjey

Lachlan-Dunjey-thumb29 May 2015.

Open Letter: by Lachlan Dunjey 

Dear Christian,

Re strategy to force same-sex “marriage”.

The unseemly push for acceptance, “right now”, is fuelled (I consider) by realisation that arguments for traditional marriage are gaining ground, that the consequences to society are becoming more evident, and that delay will be costly in gaining this change.

Hence it is to be recognised as a tactical move to “get it done” and, as we realise, is part of the strategic battle by

the powers of this dark world and the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms (Ephesians 6 armour of God).

Hence it is a reason for passionate prayer

For though we live in the world,

we do not wage war as the world does.

The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world.

On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds.

We demolish arguments and every pretension

that sets itself up against the knowledge of God,

and we take captive every thought

to make it obedient to Christ (2 Cor 10:3-5).

Please remember this is a rebellion against God’s created order and if SSM is passed it will be the first time in this nation’s history that we will have enshrined in law such rebellion.

Ultimately it is a part of Satan’s strategy to destroy the church and persecute Christians. Persecution by the “thought police” is inevitable and if we dare to voice our beliefs we will – as has happened elsewhere – be compelled to attend diversity re-education classes and our children subjected to same-sex propaganda.

Lachlan Dunjey. 29 May 2015.

Related Articles:
“Marriage equality in Australia” Open Letter: to incumbent Local Federal Member
Open Letter: Re strategy to force same-sex “marriage” by Lachlan Dunjey
Letter to Bill Shorten
Do you think Australia’s marriage laws should be changed to allow same-sex marriage?
Bill Shorten plan to redefine marriage: Beware the red herrings!
Email addresses of all Australian MP’s “Say No to Same Sex Marriage!”
Thirty-eight of Australia’s Religious Leaders Call on PM and Parliament to Uphold True Meaning of Marriage
Turning Point: Equal marriage and the Future of the Church

The New Gods: a Global Warning

by Dr. John Yates


global warmA few weeks back I had a terribly disturbed sleep.

As I prayed into this I sensed that I was functioning as a spiritual barometer, in this case about issues of disorder in our society threatening our foundational perceptions of reality.

What had ruined my sleep was a series of articles I had read in The Weekend Australian1)July 30-31 Inquirer.  immediately before going to sleep. In the same section there were various articles advocating teachers in public schools must subscribe to a set of “shared national values”, several articles on climate change a number on same-sex marriage, one especially by former Queensland premier Peter Beattie, proclaiming that 62% of Australians now support gay wedlock, and a highly provocative piece on the Greens adulation of “the environment”.

As I walked past the local shop that morning the front page of The Sunday Times headlined a protest by students at an up market Perth private school against the prohibition of sex partners at the College ball.2)Link Equal Opportunity Commissioner Yvonne Henderson said the school could be breaching the Equal Opportunities Act by discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.

I believe that these seemingly diverse issues signal an attempt to redefine reality away from an expression of divine will to human will. This involves the humanising of everything, not around the humanity of Jesus, but around the common values of Western post-Christian society. In this grand humanist vision we are the judges of all things. I will begin with the example that most glaring illustrates my point, the campaign for same-sex marriage.

Redefining Reality

There is a significant difference between the issues of sex outside of marriage and gay marriage.
Both are sinful within the eyes of God, but only the latter proves to be an attack on the basic order of creation. The first place to begin is in the creation story
of Genesis 1. This highly systematic text is structured around a series of binary opposites3)The contrast between two mutually exclusive terms, such as on and off, up and down, left and right. In relation to one another there is no third possible term. whose complementarities define the order of reality.

The important distinctions within creation are day/night, water above/water below, seas/land, vegetation/animals, male /female. All of this is prefaced upon the one absolute distinction, that between Creator and creature: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. (Gen 1:1). The climactic statement towards the end of this chapter, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them” (Gen 1:27), places Man = male + female on the top of a cosmological pyramid.

The oppositional but complementary nature of heterosexual gender identity is written into the very framework of the order of the universe and the peak of the Creator’s genius.

Romans 1:18-32 is the classical text about the breakdown of order in pagan culture.

Here Paul appeals to Genesis in a 3 step argument:

1. God’s “eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made.”

2. Humanity abandons this revelation and substitutes “the glory of the immortal God

3.  As a divine judgement human beings are “handed over” to a host of personal and social evils, including “their women exchanged natural relations 

(3. cont) for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.” For Paul, same sex relationships (along with many other vices) flow from an idolatrous attempt to redefine the nature of God in the image of mortal man! 

This challenge is far more profound than most Christians realise.
In the postmodern world reality is what I decide, my personal preference is ultimate. The claim that same sex couple deserve equal/identical rights to marry as heterosexual people is a claim that there is no essential difference between homo and hetero sexuality.

This is a claim that God did not create his image as male + female, it is an attack on the very existence and nature of God as revealed in the Bible.4)At the most fundamental level it is a denial of the unity in diversity of the Trinity. See Yates, John C. “Towards a Theology of Homosexuality.” The Evangelical Quarterly. Vol. LXVII no. 1 [Jan. 1995]: 71-87. The spiritual warfare around this issue is very intense.

The latest GetUp!
Email, an organisation with a ¼ million subscribers, unhesitatingly proclaims, The overwhelming majority of Australians support full marriage equality and it is the right thing to do
.5) This is an appeal to a morally superior position. Commenting on the US based campaign to make Sesame Street’s Bert and Ernie a gay couple, a local columnist preaches, “Until the real world gets to a point where not even a second thought is given to a person’s orientation of Muppets, we have a long way to go”.6)The West Australian, August 16, 2011, p.23 Consistently thought through, sex outside marriage is an attack on the covenantal basis of relationships, same-sex marriage denies that there is a creation at all.

I was so deeply puzzled by the growing popularity of the same sex marriage cause that I asked my wife Donna, who is far more in touch with popular culture than I am, to explain what was going on. Her reply is essentially that in our day no-one wants to be seen to be judging anyone else. “Intolerance” is a pre-eminent social taboo. This leads into my second area of concern.

Global Care7)This article is not attempting to make any evaluations of the science of global warming etc.

Barnaby Joyce, a vocal but insightful political opponent says, “The Greens have given the term environment an omnipotent, all-encompassing quality. Whenever they utter the word it is a precursor that demands blind, unquestioning obedience.”8)The Weekend Australian, July 30-31 Inquirer, p.9

In other words, “environment” has been substituted for “God”.

In a society shorn of the acknowledgement of the Creator (Rom 1:21-23) the Greens form of holy religious devotion and consistent commitment explains their impact on so many young people; to the shame of the Church!Since human beings are created in the image of God, there can be no such a thing as a moral or spiritual vacuum.  Someone will stand up and pass public judgements on behalf of others, even if the word “judgement” is strenuously avoided.

This is how we should understand the ascendancy of the Greens in Australian politics; they are the self-appointed secular chaplains to the nation who see themselves as taking the moral high ground on the crucial issues of our time.  Since their prevailing world view allows no place for a new creation, the most important issue facing our planet must be global warming.

The Greens bring with them an ethos of being the priests of environmental care and speak in a fashion inspired by the beauty, fragility and majesty of nature that makes them sound like modern prophets. In articulating a vision much greater and grander than the narrow limits of our individual human experience this vision is greatly appealing.

The bumper sticker that proudly proclaims, “This vehicle is carbon neutral.” has connotations far deeper than immediately appears. It is an announcement that the owner is not responsible for whatever may transpire concerning the future temperature of the planet; it is in fact a form of evangelistic utterance, “No blame can be laid here!” This is a secular form of the gospel.


To consolidate my central point that evil spiritual forces are today seeking to create a vacuum where there is no transcendent Creator and Judge I would like to refer to the UK riots. A huge amount has been written recently about the causes of the violent rioting; but there is something at work here which transcends all social and moral analyses. This has become increasingly apparent through the cases of wealthy young people found committing such crimes. In interview, every culprit seemed to be aware that the mob atmosphere of the riots powerfully conveyed a sense that criminal deeds could be enacted without fear of punishment. This is a foundational spiritual stronghold.

To pass beyond the fear of punishment was the very temptation that Satan offered Eve and Adam in Eden; “You shall not die”.

To feel unpunishable conveys an exhilarating and intoxicating sense of invincibility beyond the normal realms of morality and mortality. It is a glimpse of moral immortality. Those involved in the UK riots, like the participants in the Nuremberg rallies, the Rwanda genocide, Islamic suicide bombings and so on, enter into a space which is experienced in their consciences as undying.

This is a space of ultimate self-assurance longed for by an increasing number of Australians, people are striving for a dimension of self-awareness where I am my own final authority, where no “God” can intrude upon my personal judgement of what is right and what is wrong.  In such a space the knowledge of good and evil are my own personal domain and righteousness is my own autonomous individual possession.9)The push for euthanasia must be understood this way.

When people enter this space all rival authorities – police, parents, community, God/gods are banished, I alone am left to be my judge and to enjoy my own righteous judgement free from all “higher” powers.

The rioters in England did not move out of a realm of judgement altogether, they simply passed judgement on anyone or anything in society that stood between them and the satisfaction of their immediate needs. Whatever feelings of anger, resentment or desire I possess are justified by the sole authority figure in my life, ME. Such demonised behaviour, and I am using “demonised” in the most literal sense, is the logical outcome of a post-Christian society.

Judgement is Joy

A great enemy of Christianity said, “They would have to sing better songs to make me believe in their Redeemer: his disciples would have to look more redeemed. Surely their Redeemers themselves did not come from freedom or the seventh heaven of freedom! ”. Nietzsche meant there was not enough joy in the Church to persuade him that Jesus was the Son of God. This assertion is extremely challenging, but another more prophetic utterance is even more confronting, “Judgement is joy because judgement destroys sin.” This is a very biblical statement very few Christians seem to understand.

The holy angels and the redeemed saints around the throne of God rejoice in the judgements of God upon all wicked powers, “v1 After this I heard what seemed to be the loud voice of a great multitude in heaven, crying out, “Hallelujah! Salvation and glory and power belong to our God, v2 for his judgments are true and just; for he has judged the great prostitute who corrupted the earth with her immorality, and has avenged on her the blood of his servants. v3 Once more they cried out, “Hallelujah! The smoke from her goes up forever and ever. v4 And the twenty-four elders and the four living creatures fell down and worshiped God who was seated on the throne, saying, “Amen. Hallelujah! v5 And from the throne came a voice saying, “Praise our God, all you his servants, you who fear him, small and great.(Rev 19:1-5 cf. Ps 96:10-13).  The goodness of God brings pleasure to his creatures where evil is abolished through judgement.

It was “for the joy that was set before him” that Jesus endured the Father’s judgement against sin on the cross (Heb 12:2). The apostles did not hesitate to minister the judgement of God as the way to abiding joy.

The sentence of death that fell on Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1-11) was essential to keeping the early church in a purity without which the divine pleasure could not remain. Paul explains to the Corinthian Church that God is dealing out sickness and death among them for their common good (1 Cor 11:27-32). Jesus warns the churches of Asia of impending destruction, illness and death unless they repent (Revelation 2:5-6, 16, 22-23; Revelation 3:3, 16).

If there is to be any lasting spiritual restoration in our land we must understand that the God of the New Testament is no “angry Father” but a Holy Father whose punishments (Heb 12:5-11) keep us in “joy that is inexpressible and filled with glory (1 Pet 1:8)

The fruit of God’s righteous judgement, which must fall first on the house of God (1 Pet 4:17), is indestructible joy. It is a share in the invincible joy of the resurrection which came to Jesus through the judgements of the cross. Made in the image of God human beings must pass judgement, but what is the judgement being expressed through the Australian Church today?

What are we Missing?

Some sections of the Church simply refuse to preach or speak of the judgements of God.
This is a deep denial of the gospel through which spiritual transformation can never flow. The more vocal elements of mainstream Christianity however have long suffered from another blight, moralism.

As a general rule the more conservative the moral values of believers the less manifest is their joy in the Lord.  We are ready to lobby, march and put our names to petitions, all legitimate activities, but have failed to convince the community that Jesus is someone who can be trusted as Judge. When “right and wrong” or “good and evil” are presented as principles or values the Church has let go of her Head (Col 2:19).

Righteousness and goodness are not principles or values but manifestations of the life of Jesus Christ who reveals that the interests of God and of humanity are one (1 Cor 1:30; 1 John 2:1). To the secular observer the contemporary cultural struggles over morality looks like a battle between the “old God” of Christianity versus the “new gods” of postmodern humanism, and the outcome appears obvious.

In the realm of spiritual strategy, the Church must step away from the discourse of morality to a manifestation of Jesus Christ as the one true God. The Roman world was not converted by the superior moral arguments of the Early Church but by a manner of life that revealed that the God of the Christians was the One who held “all things” together (Heb 1:3).

Similarly, the postmodern world that delights in denying all absolutes, except for the absolute right of one’s own choices, will never be transformed unless it sees the marriages, families, bodies, minds etc. of God’s people holding together in loving joy in ways they find impossible to attain. Such modes of relating are living manifestations of the gospel truth that the finality of God’s judgement in Christ is the only way to immortality.


Those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad.” (Euripides). On the surface, it would seem that this ancient Greek playwright was speaking of our own time, and that no sound argument of logic or morality can save a culture like ours so which has so intensely fallen under the judgement of God. Jesus however presents us with a completely different angle on crime and punishment.

Christ’s way reveals that God is not harsh, authoritarian or controlling – the very thing Western people wish to avoid. But neither is the Father indulgent and afraid to judge.

The God of Jesus reveals himself as a righteous Judge by taking our just desserts into himself on the cross, and he vindicates the goodness of his intentions for humanity by raising his Son from the dead into immortality. This is the true nature of the judgement of God, and until the Western Church receives such a revelation it will remain passive, inert and lacking in conviction in the spiritual realm.

For this domain of spiritual authority, moral activism, whether conservative or liberal, is no substitute. However our own consciences may have been shaped by forces old or new, they must be crucified with Christ so that through our lives we may present to a generation that has lost touch with their Creator the reality of his undying love.

Praise God that reality does have an order independent of our own selfish desires, this order is Jesus Christ.

References   [ + ]

1. July 30-31 Inquirer.
2. Link Equal Opportunity Commissioner Yvonne Henderson said the school could be breaching the Equal Opportunities Act by discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.
3. The contrast between two mutually exclusive terms, such as on and off, up and down, left and right. In relation to one another there is no third possible term.
4. At the most fundamental level it is a denial of the unity in diversity of the Trinity. See Yates, John C. “Towards a Theology of Homosexuality.” The Evangelical Quarterly. Vol. LXVII no. 1 [Jan. 1995]: 71-87.
6. The West Australian, August 16, 2011, p.23
7. This article is not attempting to make any evaluations of the science of global warming etc.
8. The Weekend Australian, July 30-31 Inquirer, p.9
9. The push for euthanasia must be understood this way.

Need (Also) To Be Political

Why we (also) need to be political to change our culture.

Yes, we need to change people’s hearts and minds by bringing them into the Kingdom of God.

Yes, we need to educate the public – but will they read, will they come, will they listen, will we even get published?

Yes, we need to educate MPs – but I have commented before on the apparent resistance to reason that so many MPs have.  As with those of Emily’s List many are of fixed view and it seems that these prefer to remain ignorant of the consequences to society despite hard evidence e.g. if we move down the euthanasia pathway.

So, a hopeless task?  Well maybe, but even if we can only change the minds of 1 or 2 that might be enough.  Foster a relationship with an MP. Adopt a Senator.

But if indeed it is hopeless to change the minds of existing MPs then we must throw them out – like we did in WA in the last state election.  The Christian vote through preferences was instrumental in the election of 5 new MPs favourable to a culture of life.  (But that means we will have to teach people how to vote…)

So, an immensely practical point!  Please remember when voting for a minor party candidate (that’s us – vote for us) to put that person or party

[1] on your voting slip and your major party of choice

[2].  Should your minor candidate not win your vote goes on at full value and becomes very significant in who then gets elected.  Major parties know this and will sometimes change policy or select candidates that represent similar values in order to gain these preferences.  And as you probably know I would have been in state parliament for the last four years if only 91 people voting for Liberal had put me first and Liberal second.  That was in God’s hands and I have no regrets but it is a good object lesson on the importance of understanding the preferential voting system.

Also see

» The Ethical Crisis in our Parliaments 12 February 2010 {Read}:

» Will you vote for good or evil? 28 May 2010 {Read}:

» Understanding the Times – like the Men of Issachar 26 June 2010 {Read}:

And please read and sign » (and pass on the link to your contacts)

» The Canberra Declaration {Read}:

An Open Letter to Victorians

Open letter to the people of God in Victoria. June 2010.

A state election is due in Victoria in November this year.

Will you vote for good or for evil?

Now I know some of you will be bristling already How dare you label our potential voting evil.  Who do you think you are putting our needed decisions into those categories.  Anyway, you must not mix politics with religion.

OK, you can stop reading at this point but I hope you will reason this through with me.  We need to look at which party or individual policies and standards are more honouring to God and which are outright opposed.  I am well aware this is a contentious subject.

This Victorian government has done some extraordinary things in recent years.

It passed the Victorian Charter of Rights1) – a charter or “bill of rights” based on the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.2)

But even though the latter speaks of the inherent dignity and rights of all human life, reinforced by the 1959 UN Declaration of the Rights of the Child3) that spells out the rights of the child before and after birth, the Victorian charter has included the end-note that none of it will apply to abortion.

This explicit exclusion from the protection of the charter of that stage of human life that should have our utmost protection – the child before birth – would be like excluding groups based on ethnicity or disability.

But wait, there’s more.

Two years ago Victoria passed the most liberal abortion laws4) in Australia permitting abortion through to 24 weeks for any reason without any approval except finding someone to do it and over 24 weeks it only requires the approval of two doctors for any reason that those doctors may approve.  No counselling is required, nor is there any “cooling-off” period.  There is no restriction as to method of abortion including the horrific partial birth abortion,5) nor are there any guidelines re abortion for foetal abnormality.

Abortions for minor correctable abnormalities such as cleft lip have crept in under the radar in Victoria and now have legal sanction.

There is now implicit state approval of eugenic selection – for even minor imperfections – in Victoria.

How did we get this far?

Because you, the people of Victoria either did not vote for good candidates or there weren’t enough of them to vote for – and if not, why not?

Did you not realise that Christians need to stand up in our society for that which is right?

Or was it because the issues were so muddied that you could not separate good from evil?

Or was it because you were tired of debate and you thought “I’m just going to vote for that which is significant to me”?

So are there candidates standing for Christian principles and values in this next election in November?

If not, is God calling you??

But wait, there’s more.

In that abortion legislation is the provision to force doctors – even when such is against their deeply held convictions and conscience – to participate in the process of referral for abortion when asked by a patient.

Now it is one thing to pass a law that permits evil but it is something more to pass a law that compels evil. 

Do you see that there are two levels of evil here?  One is to permit killing of the unborn child for no other reason than that the mother-to-be chooses not to be pregnant and for uncontrolled eugenic selection in our society – yes, state approval of this should shock us out of all complacency – but the other, more sinister and greater, evil is to compel medical participation in this process.  Medicine, justly, has the highest level of ethics in the world.  It must.  And yet, here we have a government that has – quite unnecessarily in fact because there is no restriction on a pregnant mother going straight to abortion providers that advertise widely – punitively forcing doctors to act against their conscience and participate in this process.


As Emily’s List6) website shamelessly proclaims, so that women will be “free from persecution… free from harassment” when they go to a doctor.

Now your reaction to this may be that it cannot be this bad.  I can assure you that it is.  It is the first time in the Western world since Hitler’s Germany that doctors have been forced by government legislation to participate in evil.  If we refuse then we are breaking the law.

Please let that sink in…

For the coming election candidates will be asked whether they will support a move to repeal this part of the Victorian abortion law.  Will you vote for those who say yes?But we mustn’t mix religion with politics you say?  Well, this isn’t just religion.  The Hippocratic Oath, from which the ethical base of medicine comes, is not Christian anyway and your action in voting is a clear choice between good and evil that affect the whole of society’s future.

You cannot escape your individual responsibility in the cultural direction that our society takes.  Can you not see where this takes us?  The votes against euthanasia recently in our parliaments have been very close.  Can you not see that one day in the future palliative care will be limited as it is in societies that have approved of euthanasia and as it is in Oregon where health benefits are restricted for cancer treatment but allowed for the cheaper physician-assisted suicide?  Can you not see that such medical participation may also be made compulsory particularly for the doctor who has been caring for the patient during their last illness?

Can you not see the consequences for medicine?

This is not just an issue for Victoria but an issue for each state and the nation.

Indeed it is a world issueand one of the most significant of our time. Christian institutions in Victoria are also under threat with the recently introduced changes in equal opportunity laws.

The Westminster Declaration 2010 reads7) (also see The Manhattan Declaration)8)

We will seek to ensure that religious liberty and freedom of conscience are unequivocally protected against interference by the state and other threats… We call upon all those in UK positions of leadership, responsibility and influence to pledge to respect, uphold and protect the right of Christians to hold these beliefs and to act according to Christian conscience.

These issues are extremely serious and the decisions we make now will affect the future of our nation.For the coming state election in Victoria candidates will be asked whether they will support a move to repeal this part – section 89) of the Victorian abortion law and voters will need to decide very clearly whether they regard this matter – the compelling of evil – something that they should support or vote against.

Each person has a clear choice.
Each person must make a decision for good or evil.
It will be very clear cut.

The warning is clear – if doctors can be compelled to participate in the process of abortion through to term for any reason then they can be compelled to participate in other processes against their conscience.

Now, a practical matter:

please remember when voting for a minor party candidate to put that person or party first on your voting slip and your major party of choice second.  Should your minor candidate not win your vote goes on at full value and becomes very significant in who then gets elected.  Major parties know this and will sometimes change policy or select candidates that represent similar values in order to gain these preferences.

In Western Australia the distribution of preferences from Christian parties resulted in the election of five new MPs with values supporting the intrinsic value of all human life and has changed the direction of government.So in this coming election you have the opportunity and responsibility to elect candidates with values that espouse good and not evil – and who will support the overthrow of section 8 of the abortion law reform legislation that compels evil in medicine.

There is no higher responsibility.

WWWPDF | Apart from this very specific choice the most helpful decision-making aid is the Christian Values Checklist. Use this for both state and federal elections.

WWWPDF | Also see previous lists and watch as we come up to election time for a new list.10)

WWWPDF | For the federal election watch Australia Votes with Kevin Rudd and Tony Abbott answering questions from church leaders.11)This is a web-feed on June 21 from Old Parliament House in Canberra. [Dr] Lachlan Dunjey.  May 2010.

WWWPDF | Convenor Medicine With Morality: defending human life; defending liberty of conscience12)

CLIPSPDFConscience Laws and HealthcareThe Coercion of Doctors Melbourne Conference July 2009

WWWPDFThe Ethical Crisis in our Parliaments13)

WWWPDF | Human rights protected by the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities

WWWPDF | Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Charter responsibilities explained

WWWPDF | Universal Declaration of Human Rights

WWWPDF | The UN General Assembly Declaration of the Rights of the Child November 20, 195914)Whereas the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth

WWWPDF | Abortion Law Reform Act 2008

WWWPDF | Partial Birth Abortion (warning: disturbing)

WWWPDF | Emily’s List editorial

WWWPDFThe Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience 2009

WWWPDFWestminster Declaration 2010

WWWPDF | Repeal Section 8

WWWPDF | Christian Values 2007 Checklist

WWWPDF | Christian Values 2010 Checklist

References   [ + ]

11. This is a web-feed on June 21 from Old Parliament House in Canberra. [Dr] Lachlan Dunjey.  May 2010.
14. Whereas the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth