RSS

Looking for the “gay lobby”

03 Apr

Andrew Sibley has faith in its existence. Writing on the UK Creation Science Movement site (presumably not an anti-gay lobby group) he says with amazing confidence:

Channel 4 presented a programme of poor quality by Rod Liddle, The New Fundamentalism, Dispatches, 8pm 6th March 2006, that was nothing more than a thinly veiled attack on evangelical Christianity and creationists by a self confessed liberal Christian…

God called men and women to respect each other and engage in life long committed relationships, but Liddle seemed to ridicule children for their stand preferring the negative social consequences that a liberal attitude to sexual activity brings. He failed for instance to acknowledge the link between condom use and promiscuity. Condoms are about 95 to 98% effective, meaning they have a 1 in 20 to 1 in 50, failure rate. If the rate of extra marital sexual activity increases by more than a factor of 20 to 50 through contraception use then the incidence of unprotected sex will increase with damaging consequences for people and society. The issue of whether a gay gene exists or not is also an important one because many people suffer from confusion or mental illness, as a result of popular culture and the gay lobby teaching children and young people that gay sentiment is genetic, and not cultural. There is no evidence that a gay gene exists, although Jesus did acknowledge that some are born as eunuchs, this as a result of the fall. But God did not create people to be gay and our genes do not determine the thoughts we choose to think. While we have sympathy for those suffering confusion over their identity, it is important to maintain a correct understanding of our make up. Gay sentiment has more to do with exposure to a cultural replicator and nurture, perhaps through negative experiences in childhood…

There is no arguing with people like that, as Bishop Spong says in this post on idealistlefty, but then Spong is a self-confessed liberal Christian so obviously has no idea…

I waste little time engaging in arguments about homosexuality. That enterprise is generally nothing more than an ill-informed emotional debate. My recommendation to you is that you say, “I simply do not agree with you and I see nothing further to be gained by future conversation on this subject.” If your friend is not willing to observe that boundary then your only choice is to move out of that friendship.

For the record, the fundamentalist Christian position assumes that sexual orientation is a choice. There is not a shred of evidence to support that…

The homosexual lobby doesn’t really exist, you know. Sure, there are all sorts of groups and individuals advocating this or that, but when you reify all those views into a “homosexual lobby” your paranoia is creating a conspiracy where none exists. All that using the phrase signifies is “I am a right-winger — though not necessarily, if probably — who is very uncomfortable about people who challenge the absolutes I happen to subscribe to, and think they are out to get me, or to destroy civilisation as we know it.”

Some get quite carried away on the theme. Some find themselves sharing their paranoia with strange bedfellows — perhaps not the best word choice really 😉 I mean, what do people people like certain Afghani mullahs and Andrew Sibley have in common? Does this mean they are all fully paid-up members of an anti-gay lobby? Brothers under the skin? I am sure neither would be flattered, but…

John Christopher Sunol is another believer in the “gay lobby” and its usual extensions. Despite the findings against him by the NSW Anti-Discrimination Board, he is of course entitled to be as cracked on the subject as he likes. So long as he is prepared to wear the consequences.

When Henry Collier logged on to the website of University of Wollongong gay student website Allsorts in October 2004 he was shocked. Alongside the usual information for queer students, the Albion Park Rail resident found a link to a series of anti-gay messages under the name John Christopher Sunol.

Over the following week Collier searched the internet and found homophobic postings bearing Sunol’s name on various public websites.

“I have spoken out sharply against the Gay Lobby and feminist lefttist (sic) social changes which are anti-God and out to destroy todays (sic) society,” part of one of the messages read.

Statements on a different website said “faggots are all wicked evil people” and “God will burn Sydney to the Ground because of the evilness of these fags”. Other postings attacked Mardi Gras…

It really is a wonder God did not complain of defamation: I mean, what a testy chap the Lord of Creation comes across as in these statements.

John Sunol told Sydney Star Observer he was “very upset” with the Tribunal’s ruling and was awaiting the outcome of his appeal. He said he was a Christian who did not agree with the gay lobby, but he denied hating homosexuals. “I don’t hate gays. There’s nothing to say I hate gays. I’ve never hated gays,” he said.

Of course not. They are “all wicked evil people” and I love them dearly; “God will burn Sydney to the Ground because of the evilness of these fags” because he loves them so much.

Really?

PS

Here’s a bit of right-wing honesty for you. Technorati shows that several right-wing American sites have linked these words America, as anyone will tell you, is a very backward country ruled by an sinister oligarchy of corporations and their Republican stooges to my recent post The Smirking Chimp: from The Poet. Funny, isn’t it, that the cited words are nowhere to be found in the post! Or on any post I have ever written. That is just abysmal standards on the part of those sites, probably indicative of how seriously they deserve to be taken. One wonders what the point was too, as 1) if people don’t click on the link they won’t know what I said or even who said it but 2) if they do click on the link the dishonesty immediately becomes apparent. Still, if one or two people come and read me as a result, why should I complain?

Advertisements
 

Tags:

15 responses to “Looking for the “gay lobby”

  1. Owner

    May 5, 2006 at 8:56 pm

    Haloscan 4 April 2006

    Read the letter in the coffee shop.

    The writer thinks he is being reasonable and “not racist” but trots out tired old stereotypes of “effeminate” Asian men, which certainly do not describe M or most of the people I have met through him. I really found the letter encapsulated the sterile classifications that make the gay scene often quite inhuman, when it is not just being plain boring. I have never understood its various tribalisms anyway. I just find all that more than a touch immature and exceedingly superficial.

    There was a time, past thank God, when not having a moustache would disable one from entering the Midnight Shift!

    Dear me! I had a subject-verb agreement problem above, but I have now fixed it — but not before Marcel had read this comment. I wonder if he spotted it?

     
  2. Ultra

    July 2, 2006 at 7:45 pm

    John Christopher Sunol is a really frightening little homophobe. He loves sending me emails telling me I am going to burn in hell. I really enjoy publishing them on my website for all to see.

    Here they are, in case anyone else wants a laugh – warning, they get boringly repeditive after a while:

    June’s Special Psycho
    http://missdissent.livejournal.com/4254.html

    The Return of a Homophobic Wanker
    http://missdissent.livejournal.com/4419.html

    Give us this day our daily dose of John Christopher Sunol
    http://missdissent.livejournal.com/4791.html

    John Christopher Sunol’s Words for the Day
    http://missdissent.livejournal.com/5498.html

    John Christopher Sunol is a Busy, Busy Fruitcake
    http://missdissent.livejournal.com/5819.html

    John Christopher Sunol vs The Minions of Satan, Round 666
    http://missdissent.livejournal.com/6388.html

    XXX
    Ultra
    The Hellfire Club
    http://www.hellfiresydney.com/blog/

     
  3. John Christopher sunol

    July 12, 2006 at 12:06 am

    This is all lies and I will never take responsibility for hating gays

    I am not homophobic, I do not hate gays and I will never give in

    i have Christ with me, you lot are not with Christ and in the end Christ will win, this.

    I refuse to accept responsiblity now or ever and I will just carry ona s i always do best.

    Yours

    John Christopher Sunol

     
  4. Anonymous

    June 8, 2007 at 2:49 pm

    This is the same John Sunol who recently claimed that Mardi Gras produces ‘snuff videos’ of kiddies being killed.

    It’s the same John Sunol who thinks Mardi Gras is run by ‘criminals and drug lords’.

    Yes, John Sunol is not homophobic and he doesn’t hate gays … just like that pig that just flew past my window.

     
  5. writeitoutplease

    July 10, 2007 at 11:21 pm

    Here’s what I don’t understand:

    If you call yourself a Christian, this indicates that you are a follower of Christ, hence the name, right?

    When did Christ ever say that he was against gays?

     
  6. Ben Maulis

    July 31, 2007 at 4:25 am

    Response the last comment by writeitoutplease:

    For the time being, the problem is not that Christ is against gays, but that gays are against Christ. The former problem will come about later, but let’s talk about the latter first.

    Jesus said, “He that is not with me is against me: and he that gathereth not with me scattereth.” Therefore if it can be demonstrated that all gays are not with Christ, then they must be against him.

    Jesus said, “Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.” He also said, “No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other.” Therefore, if a man is a servant of sin, Christ is not his master and in fact he hates and despises Christ.

    It is the unrepentant sinner, not God or the disciples of Christ, who have a vile hatred. “Light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil *hateth the light*, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.” (emphasis added) This is only one explanation why people are not willing to repent: because they love unrighteousness more than righteousness. In fact, they despise righteousness.

    Now this is what the Lord says concerning those evil, wicked, and abominable who hate him:

    “As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die?” Amen, amen, the Lord is not willing that any perish, but that all come to repentance. That’s right: “God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that through him the world might be saved.”

    “God commended his love toward us [believers] in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. The Lord’s salvation is not that wicked men can be eternally preserved as they are in their transgressions, but it is that men can be begotten again and made new creatures that know Jesus Christ and who glorify God by his power that works in them. This is eternal life. Christ died for us so that we would not have to remain in sin. “He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.”

    Christ was wounded for our transgressions, he bore our iniquities, the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and he who knew no sin was made sin for us that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. But the doctrine of Christ to which we are adjured to abide in requires repentance. There is no salvation without repentance. Jesus said he came not for the righteous but to call sinners to repentance and, “unless you repent, you will likewise perish.”

    Christ communed with those who had been in sexual sin, but never with those who were not in repentance (see Matthew 21:28-32) He never had communion with sinners that were not in repentance (except for Judas). He preached, repent, repent and repent (Matt. 3:2, 4:17, Mark 1:15). He commanded us to preach and his disciples went out and preached that men should repent (Mark 6:12), repent and be baptized (Acts 2:38), repent and be converted (Acts 3:19), commanding all men everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30), and that they should repent and turn to God (Acts 26:20).

    The Lord is patient and longsuffering, but he has assured all that he has appointed a day in the which he will judge the world in righteousness. Be sure that abomination will be rewarded by shame, everlasting contempt, punishment and destruction, weeping and gnashing of teeth, fire unquenchable, indignation, wrath, tribulation, anguish, eternal fire and the blackness of darkness forever.

     
  7. ninglun

    July 31, 2007 at 7:58 am

    Thanks, Ben.

    I commend readers go to this Australian Uniting Church site for a rather different perspective, and also my own GLBT support page.

     
  8. writeitoutplease

    August 1, 2007 at 12:25 am

    I’m still not clear on how homosexuality is still considered sin, or how a homosexual is “against Christ”. Is it because they’re not procreating (so if someone doesn’t procreate, they are useless???)? Is it because it’s perceived as disgusting? Why exactly would gays be against Christ?

    And furthermore, there is a sect of Christians who believe it is their religious duty to abstain from sex (and therefore procreation) their whole life. Are they against Christ as well?

     
  9. John Christopher Sunol

    August 17, 2007 at 9:45 am

    Christianity has been around for thousands of years. God’s teachings never changes and God is against all sexual immorality and sin. No matter what it is.

    The Only accepted sexual contact in the bible is ONE MAN, ONE WOMAN (OF THE OPPOSITE SEX) INSIDE THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE WITH NO OTHER PARTNERS IN A SEXUAL CONTEXT.

    This is the only acceptable context of the sex act within Christianity and all Christians or so called Christians who believe otherwise are in for a rude shock when the meet Christ one day in the near future.

     
  10. John Christopher Sunol

    August 17, 2007 at 9:48 am

    As a further message to this:

    I hate no one and the Tribunal that convicted me was a civil tribunal set up by those who wanted to use this for a policital reason. It was full of errors and a set up with those who took me telling lies through their teeth. I will not accept this outcome now or in the near future or distant future as the Tribunal got it all wrong. It was a political exercise not a real vilification as I did not write the vilifying statements as put by the tribunal.

    Read my web page as this explains the whole situation.

     
  11. ninglun

    August 17, 2007 at 2:48 pm

    Right…

    I have fixed John’s English without changing his sentiments. Of course he is right. Just ask him…

     
  12. Anonymous

    September 25, 2007 at 1:28 pm

    What an ignoramus John Sunol is.

    He claims that only one type of relationship is right. What twaddle.

    What a ******* he is.

     
  13. ninglun

    September 25, 2007 at 1:59 pm

    I whited out some of that not because I disagree with it but because I really don’t want the man himself using it as an excuse to revisit… 😉

     
  14. writeitoutplease

    September 27, 2007 at 10:01 am

    Thank you Mr. Sunol, for making Christianity look like the bigoting, hate-preaching demonization it’s already widely conceived to be. Thank you very much.

     
  15. ninglun

    November 12, 2007 at 11:45 am

    Since comment here is getting terribly repetitive and really not advancing the discussion at all, I am closing this post.

     
 
%d bloggers like this: