tip off

Rainbow flags rule out love match with Margaret Court

Margaret Court may well have been the finest female tennis player ever. The second woman in history to win all four Grand Slam singles titles in the same year. An unequalled match-winning percentage of 91.74 (1177/106). No one can take that away from her. So revered is she in the world of sport they named a temple of tennis after her, the Margaret Court Arena at Melbourne Park.

I think we can fairly say she’s entitled to that. But it does grate on me, the way I imagine black people get cross at places named after Nigger Brown.

Born a Catholic, she was obviously not made to believe what she was told, or follow the orders of a bunch of men, so nowadays she not only owns her own church, but an entire denomination — Victory Life Centre Incorporated of Perth.

An evangelical foundation, preaching that every word of the Bible is inerrant truth, her church nonetheless has no problem ignoring those words that do not suit her. Such as: “Let the women keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but let them subject themselves, just as the Law also says. And if they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.” (NASB, 1 Cor. 14:34-35)

No such submission for our Margaret. But she is red-hot on all those verses that condemn homos-xuality.

In 1994 she called homos-xuality an abomination. In 2002, Court said it was a sin of the flesh, a choice, and that with God’s help people could be cured. Perhaps, as a natural southpaw who switched to a right-handed grip, she thinks people can change their s-xual orientation as easily.

She claims that homos-xuality destroys families. And last month she pushed herself into the gay marriage debate, stating: “Politically correct education has masterfully escorted homos-xuality out from behind closed doors, into the community openly and now is aggressively demanding marriage rights that are not theirs to take.”

Well, enough is enough. Tired of her trading on her faded tennis glory, and alarmed at the potential harm she could be causing, particularly to impressionable young people, something had to be done.

The result is Rainbow Flags Over Margaret Court Arena, which began with a couple of tennis tragics in the US. One of them, Katie Johnson, an avid tennis player and fan from Atlanta, Georgia, started a Facebook page. It simply asks people to take rainbow flags with them to the tennis, or wear something rainbow. It seems to have struck a chord.

New York Times tennis writer Ben Rothenberg, in town to report on the tournament, spoke about the issue on GLBTIQ radio station Joy 94.9 late Tuesday night. Katie noticed that I work at Joy, too, and asked me via Twitter if I could help. The rest just created itself. Rainbow Flags Over Margaret Court Arena isn’t a movement, it’s just an idea that started online and is still growing.

I jumped in and suggested that Tennis Australia could distance themselves from Court’s bigotry by flying a rainbow flag over her arena. I thought it would be kinder to Court than having TA issue a public denunciation.

People have asked why we must you use the Australian Open as a political platform. I’ll tell you.

Australians are in thrall to sporting heroes. When I was interviewed about the issue on 2GB, Court was referred to as a “sacred” Australian sporting icon. Referring to her sporting status — nothing to do with her religiosity.

Court uses that sporting halo to sell her anti-gay messages. But they’re not true. And in some instances, they can be deadly.

Let’s take the claim that she — or rather, “God” — can cure homos-xuality. All reputable reliable scientific evidence shows this is wrong. Scores of ex-gays who once proclaimed themselves cured have since come out as gay and admitted they were deceiving themselves, along with the rest of us.

Even ex-gay promoting pastors in the US now admit the best anyone can manage is a suppression of homos-xual desire, achieved by constantly policing one’s own thoughts and behaviour. Psychiatric evidence shows this is a sure and certain route, not to liberation and happiness, but to depression, and, all too often, suicide.

Should we remain silent, when by speaking out we can save lives? Should we allow this dangerous nonsense to go unchallenged because the person speaking them was once superlatively good at whacking a tennis ball around an arena?

Clearly not. Let Court have the credit for her achievements, but she cannot be allowed to hide behind them, when the rate of GLBTI teen suicide is many times that of their straight counterparts.

And why? Because they believe the rubbish peddled by this “sporting hero”, this “sacred icon”. Because their parents believe it, and throw them out of the family home. Because their peers believe it, and bully them relentlessly.

Margaret Court is an enabler of misery.

High-profile lesbian Dr Kerryn Phelps has called for Court’s name to be erased from the arena that currently commemorates her. I think that would be vindictive and unkind. I think it would be enough if Tennis Australia were to hoist the rainbow flag, the symbol of the diverse GLBTI community, over the arena that bears her name whenever she is a present, as a reminder to her and to all the world that Australia does not condone bigotry, no matter how august the personage expressing it.

Tennis Australia has issued a pretty robust statement, lauding her sporting achievements, but distancing itself from her homophobia:

… her personal views are her own, and are definitely not shared by Tennis Australia. Like the WTA, we believe that everyone should be treated equally and fairly. We concur wholeheartedly with the WTA who stated that ‘all human beings, regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation or otherwise, should be treated equally’.

This is a fundamental right and principle, including within the world of sport.  Anyone advocating otherwise is advocating against fundamental and essential rights.

TA does not support any view that contravenes these basic human rights.”

As we stand on the brink of finally having our loves recognised, values embraced and celebrated exactly as our heteros-xual counterparts have been able to do for centuries, with the hoped-for passage of the Marriage Equality Bill later this year, we must not allow the glories of the past to excuse the prejudices of the present.

So please, if you support Australian values such as equality, fairness and mateship, whether you’re straight, gay or anything else, take along a little rainbow flag and wave it for the cameras. You never know whose heart you may lighten.

*Doug Pollard is a gay broadcaster and journalist working in Melbourne. He produces and presents a program of GLBTIQ news and current affairs, The Rainbow Report, on Joy 94.9 every Tuesday at 7pm. He speaks, however, entirely for himself.

59
  • 1
    abarker
    Posted Friday, 13 January 2012 at 1:38 pm | Permalink

    …preaching that every word of the Bible is inerrant truth, her church nonetheless has no problem ignoring those words that do not suit her.”

    So she’s a normal Christian then.

  • 2
    SusieQ
    Posted Friday, 13 January 2012 at 2:10 pm | Permalink

    Tennis Oz are to be congratulated on their statement, as you are Doug, for explaining this issue so well.

  • 3
    Scott
    Posted Friday, 13 January 2012 at 3:06 pm | Permalink

    Do you honestly think that homosexual kids are committing suicide and being bullied because of what an aging ex-tennis player has to say? If it was Sam Stoser, Benji Marshall, Michael Clark, Chris Judd or Lebron James saying these comments, I could understand the alarm. But it is Margaret Court, a woman of 69 who most people under the age of 30 would have problems picking out in a line up of grandmothers.
    Margaret was bought up in a different time. Her views are no longer the prevailing ones, but that doesn’t mean she is not entitled to them. So she does not agree with homosexuality. Well guess what; this is a view held by a large majority of people in the world over the age of 65. Thankfully, the crusties are on the way out as far as power goes. Generation X doesn’t put the same value on sexual orientation as previous generations, the Y’s even less so.
    All the protest is doing is drawing attention to the comments (so you could argue it is helping advocate her views), but hey, what ever is good for a few more column inches in the newspapers (or crikey blogs), right?

  • 4
    zut alors
    Posted Friday, 13 January 2012 at 3:08 pm | Permalink

    The paradox is that many Christians aren’t so Christian.

  • 5
    Mark from Melbourne
    Posted Friday, 13 January 2012 at 3:14 pm | Permalink

    Proof once again that being good at one thing doesn’t make you any more likely to be wise or right than the next person. The best way to deal with ratbag views is to give them no oxygen - unfortunately there are a whole lot of people who seem to be doing just the opposite..

    Well done TA for a considered statement.

  • 6
    Flower
    Posted Friday, 13 January 2012 at 4:42 pm | Permalink

    I would suggest that “righteousness” to these asset rich Pentecostal leaders means right standing with God = the “broad” church of the Liberal Party whose fervent religious bullies never flinch from an opportunity to send evolution backwards.

    The Court women are known for seeking “benign” spiritual enlightenment in their gullibility since former Premier of WA, Richard Court and his wife Jo sought enlightenment from the Japanese AUM cult. The West Australian ran an article in 1994 titled: “How the Courts Commit Mahikari,” thus:

    “Court’s office confirmed Mrs Court is a member (of Sukyo Mahikari). Here one must only assume that the Courts, too, have fallen victims to the shadowy demented figures cowardly hiding behind the glossy facade presented by Mahikari.”

    Perhaps we should ask Margaret Court to comment on the revelations provided by Professor of religious studies at the U of North Carolina (and former Pentecostal Christian) Bart Ehrman, who wrote that half of the New Testament is a forgery. “The Bible not only contains untruths of accidental mistakes. It also contains what almost anyone today would call lies.”

    Tsk tsk Margaret Court. What say you? And do you have any peer-reviewed literature to substantiate your claim that marriage is between a man and woman, many who practise anal sex?

  • 7
    david
    Posted Friday, 13 January 2012 at 5:12 pm | Permalink

    There is nothing normal about Ms Court…

  • 8
    Crystal
    Posted Friday, 13 January 2012 at 6:02 pm | Permalink

    Yeah!

    I go to the Australian Open every year. Where can I gat a nice little rainbow flag? Has to be better than that dumb kangaroo with the boxing gloves.

  • 9
    Dogs breakfast
    Posted Friday, 13 January 2012 at 9:38 pm | Permalink

    I wonder what Dawn Fraser thinks about homosexuality and gay marriage.

    I’m surprised I haven’t read anything from her about it. She is the world leader in trading off some spurious sporting achievements to promote herself across any and every field of endeavour.

    Sorry, the story isn’t about her is it.

  • 10
    AdamNeira
    Posted Saturday, 14 January 2012 at 3:42 am | Permalink

    Homosexuality is a result of traumatic conditioning in early childhood, i.e. Three and a half to eight y.o., most often repressed, and poor later life choices. There is no “gay gene”. Any community, city or nation that legalizes same sex marriage is cutting its own spiritual throat. Ancient Rome, Athens and Gomorrah were full of chic, urbane, intelligent, cultured people who thought they knew more than the Creator.

  • 11
    Doug Pollard
    Posted Saturday, 14 January 2012 at 6:43 am | Permalink

    ADAMNEIRA
    Point one: there is no ‘Creator’ - man invented God, not the other way around.
    Point two: homosexuality just IS, a mix of genetic predisposition, the fetal environment in the womb, and position in the family. The research you are relying on has been shown to have been faked.
    Point three: you haven’t studied classical history at all, have you?
    CRYSTAL
    Point four: if you’re in Melbourne and want to buy some rainbow merchandise, the GLBTIQ community is holding its annual Midsumma Carnival on Sunday at Birrarung Marr (the riverside park behind Federation Square) in Melbourne. Come and say hi - I’ll be on the Joy 94.9 stall.

  • 12
    Flower
    Posted Saturday, 14 January 2012 at 10:37 am | Permalink

    Com’n Sister Ada - spin us anotheree! And where’s ya tambourine today Sister?

  • 13
    Posted Saturday, 14 January 2012 at 10:53 am | Permalink

    I don’t understand why some people have such a visceral aversion to homosexuality; perhaps they fear it in themselves.

  • 14
    david
    Posted Saturday, 14 January 2012 at 12:43 pm | Permalink

    Hocus pocus Ada…I have heard some nonsense in my years about homosexuality but your loopy post is like something out of a screwballs handbook, do you peddle sh-t for a living?

  • 15
    Patriot
    Posted Saturday, 14 January 2012 at 5:13 pm | Permalink

    …all human beings, regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation or otherwise, should be treated equally. This is a fundamental right and principle, including within the world of sport.”

    Yup, that’s why they have separate competitions for men and women, and the women play less sets than the men. I see some fool above thinks that’s a considered statement. That speaks volumes about the intellectual rigour of you far-left loonies

  • 16
    david
    Posted Saturday, 14 January 2012 at 6:00 pm | Permalink

    patriot, hey lame brain, the operative words are “should be treated equally. ” We know they are not that is the point you F — - W-t. Come back when the light is on.

  • 17
    Patriot
    Posted Saturday, 14 January 2012 at 6:16 pm | Permalink

    The WTA, who made that statement decrying gender inequality, are responsible for maintaining and enforcing that inequality. Do you not have a problem with hypocrisy, or are you just too stupid to recognise it?

  • 18
    drsmithy
    Posted Saturday, 14 January 2012 at 8:26 pm | Permalink

    I don’t understand why some people have such a visceral aversion to homosexuality; perhaps they fear it in themselves.

    Generally, either they can’t get past the ick factor, or they’ve been brainwashed since birth into believing it’s a sin.

  • 19
    Flower
    Posted Saturday, 14 January 2012 at 10:01 pm | Permalink

    Yep – and if I had a hammer, I’d use it on Peter, Paul, and Margaret.

  • 20
    Subterranean Homesick Alien
    Posted Sunday, 15 January 2012 at 6:52 pm | Permalink

    OK, “Patriot”. You need equality explained to you. just like all those who label themselves “right wing” or “patriots”, and extend labels to everyone around them. Men play men in men’s competitions. Women play women in women’s competitions. Then there’s mixed doubles. OK? As far as how many sets are played by women, or men, I think that’s a matter to be decided by those involved in the sports. If the players are happy with it, fine.If not, that’s another issue.

    As far as inequality goes, there is alot more involved in that- for example, being allowed to play the sport, fair representation, and preventing the sort of bizarre messages Margaret Court is putting out regarding homosexuals. She has a history of vilifying this community quite openly.

    Are you suggesting that the only form of equality is to treat women as physiological equivalents of men? Do you not recognise other forms of inequality? Or are you just too stupid?

  • 21
    Arty
    Posted Sunday, 15 January 2012 at 8:13 pm | Permalink

    Men play best of five sets in Grand Slams, Davis Cup and Olympic Games. Elsewhere mens’ competition are often best of three sets.

  • 22
    Patriot
    Posted Sunday, 15 January 2012 at 8:50 pm | Permalink

    If they deny men the right to play in the WTA tour then they don’t observe equal treatment regardless of gender. It’s just that simple. On the contrary, they openly practise gender discrimination. I have no doubt that a lot of male tennis players would love a chance to compete for the prize money on offer, but are currently excluded purely on the basis of their gender.

    If they believe gender inequality is fine “if the players are happy with it”, as you do, then they can’t credibly issue such a sweeping, unequivocal condemnation of gender inequality. A more accurate statement of their position might be “all genders are equal, but some genders are more equal than others”.

  • 23
    phyllis stein
    Posted Sunday, 15 January 2012 at 8:57 pm | Permalink

    I wonder what Dawn Fraser thinks about homosexuality and gay marriage.”
    Dogs Breakfast I could hazard a guess, but it might end in a lawyers picnic. No clues in her readily available autobiography. Apparently she knew Dorothy, but wasn’t a friend. Despite having little to say on gay and lesbian issues, other than to deny she is one, Our Dawn has other claims to fame. Lost a fortune selling beer in Balmain. Caught up somewhat by snoozing through a few NSW Paliamentary sessions. Made a bit more promoting a fairly dodgy equity release scheme. Perhaps not the best spokesperson to be seeking comment from.

  • 24
    Posted Sunday, 15 January 2012 at 9:05 pm | Permalink

    Equity is not equality, a common misunderstanding. Equity is treating people in common according to the characteristics they have in common, and differently according to the relevant differences between them. Thus, it is not equitable to have all children competing in the same competition; it is equitable for children to compete in different age groups.

    Discrimination in itself is not objectionable, but discrimination on grounds which are irrelevant in the circumstances.

  • 25
    Patriot
    Posted Sunday, 15 January 2012 at 9:37 pm | Permalink

    Did you actually read the WTA statement”? It demanded people be “treated equally”, “regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation or otherwise”. By your definitions that would be to say they oppose equity and affirmative action based on race, gender or sexual orientation.

  • 26
    Patriot
    Posted Sunday, 15 January 2012 at 9:45 pm | Permalink

    If separate organising bodies and tours for different identity groups is a good idea why not take it further? In the interest of achieving the kind of “equality” or “equity” you loony-lefties aspire to, what do you all think of the idea of splitting the mens and womens competitions further - into a straight mens tour, a gay mens tour, a straight womens tour and a gay womens tour? I mean, they can’t seriously be expected to compete with everyone else with the burden of people going around saying they shouldn’t be allowed to get married, right? Think of the inequity!

  • 27
    Posted Sunday, 15 January 2012 at 9:57 pm | Permalink

    That is precisely the point. Sexual orientation is not a relevant characteristic for sport nor indeed for marriage. However, sexual orientation is relevant for health education.

  • 28
    david
    Posted Sunday, 15 January 2012 at 10:09 pm | Permalink

    Pat-riot why am I getting this very strong vibe you are homophobic?

  • 29
    Arty
    Posted Sunday, 15 January 2012 at 10:23 pm | Permalink

    And don’t forget to separate the tours according to age.

    And it isn’t fair/equitable to expect right-handed players to play against left-handed players.

  • 30
    Patriot
    Posted Sunday, 15 January 2012 at 10:37 pm | Permalink

    All with equal prize money of course. Or should it be equitable prize money, with less for players who’ve become wealthy?

  • 31
    drsmithy
    Posted Sunday, 15 January 2012 at 10:57 pm | Permalink

    The point of “equality” is to remove artificial and arbitrary barriers.

    That men have greater stamina, strength, etc than women is not an artificial barrier.

    That people are denied certain legal privileges because of the gender of the person they share their bedroom with, is.

  • 32
    Patriot
    Posted Sunday, 15 January 2012 at 10:57 pm | Permalink

    How many players should Australia be allowed to field in the 4th Test to make it equitable? Eight? Seven?

  • 33
    Posted Monday, 16 January 2012 at 6:41 am | Permalink

    Again, you are confusing equity with equality.

  • 34
    Hugh (Charlie) McColl
    Posted Monday, 16 January 2012 at 9:18 am | Permalink

    Gavin, I don’t think Patriot is confusing anything. A troll is a troll.

  • 35
    Patriot
    Posted Monday, 16 January 2012 at 10:09 am | Permalink

    Ok, look here, you moonbat mental midgets. You’re the ones who are confused. If the segregation of the tennis tour was genuinely about achieving equitable competition there would be one tour for men, and one tour for women and men who play like women. The segregation is purely based on gender, irrespective of ability. Inherent in the view that having women play against men is inequitable is the belief that women are inferior.

    Who gets to decide what is or is not a “relevant difference” that forms the basis for segregation? There are 16 European chicks in the top 20. Is being European a “relevant difference” that warrants different treatment? Why not? If you’re happy with different rules for different genders, why not different rules for different nationalities?

    Don’t get me wrong, I support gender segregation in tennis and in sport in general, but only because I see female sport as something altogether different to the mens sport: not a legitimate sporting contest of the best, but a spectacle where I can watch fit young chicks sweating and grunting and not wearing much.

    What I originally objected to, and still object to, is an organisation that profits from and maintains gender segregation in sport coming out and making statements demanding equal treatment of men and women. Not gender equity, not “a better deal for chicks”, but equal treatment. It’s clear that a lot of people demanding that don’t even understand what they’re asking for.

  • 36
    Hugh (Charlie) McColl
    Posted Monday, 16 January 2012 at 12:13 pm | Permalink

    Patriot, I understand exactly what you mean. I don’t have any problem with your logic (such as it is) and I am thrilled by your reference to “moonbat mental midgets” (same logic I guess). However, long before you got out of short pants most sports segregated along gender lines and helpfully, you support such differentiation.
    You want to play a different kind of sport here though, a semantic tussle whereby discrimination along gender lines cannot therefore logically be described as “equal” treatment. You are absolutely correct (by your logic) but you are wrong and you know why you are wrong. That’s why you are a troll.

  • 37
    phyllis stein
    Posted Monday, 16 January 2012 at 6:11 pm | Permalink

    Gays set for matches despite Court interference”

    Court out of bounds on return to gender politics”

    Margaret Court grandly slammed for anti gay stance”

    Sorry. Couldn’t help myself.

  • 38
    Flower
    Posted Monday, 16 January 2012 at 10:30 pm | Permalink

    PATROT - Please be advised that smelly red herrings and loads of old cobblers will no longer be entertained.

  • 39
    Scott
    Posted Tuesday, 17 January 2012 at 11:21 am | Permalink

    @Doug Pollard

    As of 2007, there had still been no positive identification of any gene linked to homosexuality (I’m quoting from a Nature 2007 article… “No predisposing gene for homosexual behaviour has been identified”). There are some theories though, which is why the claim of a genetic predisposition still remains (and IMO, get used for political purposes by the gay movement)
    If you look at it from a biological standpoint using Darwin’s natural selection methods, if a homosexual gene did exist, it would start to disappear naturally in the population due to the lower probability of homosexuals reproducing and passing on these genes to the next generation. However, scientists believe there are three ways a gene such as this might survive in the world (again these are theories, not proven)

    1. If both parents are carriers of the gene, offspring is likely to be homosexual, but if only one parent is a carrier, offspring may be heterosexual (but with homosexual gene) and the addition of this gene might give offspring a competitive advantage in breeding (i.e superior sperm/egg)
    2. While in men, a homosexual gene might result in a loss of fitness for breeding (the feminization effect), in females, it might actually increase the ability for females to breed due to an interest in male activities.
    3. Homosexuals more likely to help their relatives, thus increasing the probability that the gene will pass to next generation.

    But these are just theories. There might be an identification of a gene in the future but at the moment, the science just isn’t there in determining whether homosexuality is genetic.

  • 40
    drsmithy
    Posted Tuesday, 17 January 2012 at 12:27 pm | Permalink

    There are some theories though, which is why the claim of a genetic predisposition still remains (and IMO, get used for political purposes by the gay movement)

    Ah, yes, equality. Truly a nefarious and subversive “political purpose”.

    If you look at it from a biological standpoint using Darwin’s natural selection methods, if a homosexual gene did exist, it would start to disappear naturally in the population due to the lower probability of homosexuals reproducing and passing on these genes to the next generation.

    Not if it’s a non-hereditary, frequently recurring mutation. Like, say, Down Syndrome.

    There’s plenty of examples of homosexual (or simply non-strictly-heterosexual) behaviour in other animals. In the face of that evidence, it’s difficult to even begin the “nurture” argment, let alone sustain it.

    However, scientists believe there are three ways a gene such as this might survive in the world

    The gene doesn’t need to “survive” if it’s being created each time at conception.

    (again these are theories, not proven)

    Nothing in Science is ever “proven”. Please don’t try and pretend you know what you’re talking about when it comes to Science if you’re going to make gaffes like that.

    But these are just theories. There might be an identification of a gene in the future but at the moment, the science just isn’t there in determining whether homosexuality is genetic.

    Finally, whether or not it’s genetic is completely irrelevant to any argument about discriminating against people because of the gender of their sexual partners. Religious beliefs aren’t genetically determined, but we don’t discriminate against them (even when they drive people to discriminate against others).

  • 41
    Scott
    Posted Tuesday, 17 January 2012 at 1:57 pm | Permalink

    @DrSmithy

    Apologies to the semantic minded; I will rephrase:-

    There is no current evidence that supports the theory of a genetic link to homosexuality in humans. And that includes non-hereditary, frequently recurring mutations.”

    You are correct in your statement however that regardless of whether homosexuality is genetic or not, they should not be discriminated against.

  • 42
    drsmithy
    Posted Tuesday, 17 January 2012 at 11:18 pm | Permalink

    “There is no current evidence that supports the theory of a genetic link to homosexuality in humans. And that includes non-hereditary, frequently recurring mutations.”

    A brief Google search suggests there is much evidence suggesting a biological cause for homosexuality.

  • 43
    Patriot
    Posted Tuesday, 17 January 2012 at 11:55 pm | Permalink

    One gay gene wouldn’t be enough. You’d need distinct gay genes for men and women. Think about it. The mens gay gene would make them want to root men. That would be useless for making a chick gay, wouldn’t it?

  • 44
    Hugh (Charlie) McColl
    Posted Wednesday, 18 January 2012 at 8:54 am | Permalink

    Troll logic, Patriot. If heterosexuality doesn’t need ‘a gene’, perhaps homosexuality doesn’t need one either.

  • 45
    Patriot
    Posted Wednesday, 18 January 2012 at 11:02 am | Permalink

    To be clear, it was just a criticism of discussion of a single gay gene. I agree with you that homosexuality is not necessarily genetic, and is a choice in either case. Having said that, your argument there is utterly absurd and not even worthy of my time. I’ll instead let your fellow loony-lefties tell you what a bigoted monster you are for believing that people can choose to be gay or straight.

  • 46
    Flower
    Posted Wednesday, 18 January 2012 at 5:35 pm | Permalink

    Who in their right mind would “choose” to be homos-xual with the suffering this community has had to endure from bible bashers, governments, thugs and ignoramuses? And the ploy of homphobic god botherers is for the flock to go forth and procreate to fill the church pews, hence the begging bowls of these charlatans.

    Homos-xual behaviour has been observed in hundreds of animal species - everything from mammals to crabs and worms. Among some non-human species, homos-xual behaviour is rare, some have s-x with the same gender only a part of their life while other animals, such as the dwarf chimpanzee; homos-xuality is practised throughout their lives. However, I happen to be a heteros-xual female, not by choice but simply because that’s the way I am.

    However in today’s world of industrial pollution, there is plenty of literature on man-made endocrine disrupting chemicals, adding to the complexity, that impact on the embryos of wildlife which have been found to feminize male frogs etc., and cause homos-xual behaviour. The hypothesis is that these toxic substances may be affecting the embryos of humans as well - thanks a lot Monsanto, Dow, Syngenta et al!

    Further, researchers publishing in the Journal of the Royal Society found that “exposure to mercury pollution could be hitting some wild birds’ reproductive prospects hard by causing males to pair with other males. American white ibises (Eudocimus albus) from south Florida that consumed methylmercury (MeHg), the most toxic and easily absorbed form of mercury found in the environment, were more likely to engage in same-s-x pairings — a phenomenon unknown in wild populations of this species with no exposure to the pollutant.”

    Whatever the reasons for homos-xuality in humans (historically/current) I suggest that the meddling Margaret Court cease inciting the pro-bully, anti-gay lobby and cease indoctrinating impressionable children. Exploiting her prominent public position by commenting adversely on the gay community is just a mouthful of weasel words when she squawks nothing to the tabloids about the heteros-xual God Squad’s practice of engaging in fellatio/cunnilingus.

    Goodness gracious me, what does Sister Margaret’s imaginary friend have to say about this “abomination?”

  • 47
    Hugh (Charlie) McColl
    Posted Thursday, 19 January 2012 at 9:36 am | Permalink

    Patriot, explain yourself. First you write:
    ” I agree with you that homosexuality is not necessarily genetic, and is a choice in either case.”
    So you think homosexuality is a “choice”?
    Then you write:
    “….what a bigoted monster you are for believing that people can choose to be gay or straight.”
    Now you don’t think homosexuality is a choice?

  • 48
    Flower
    Posted Thursday, 19 January 2012 at 1:28 pm | Permalink

    Indeed Hugh - here we witness more jibber-jabber from the duplicitous Patriot.

  • 49
    Patriot
    Posted Thursday, 19 January 2012 at 8:42 pm | Permalink

    I do think it’s a choice. Good little loony-leftoids, who were to do the name calling, don’t. Easy enough for you?

  • 50
    Patriot
    Posted Thursday, 19 January 2012 at 8:49 pm | Permalink

    Good little loony-leftoids like Flower, for example, who doesn’t like the idea that someone could choose to be gay, but thinks it can be caused by exposure to endocrine disrupting toxic chemicals. Almost sounds like a disease or an illness when you put it that way.

Womens Agenda

loading...

Smart Company

loading...

StartupSmart

loading...

Property Observer

loading...