Church ‘should apologise too’

Church ‘should apologise too’

The broader gay community is owed a public apology by both the church and the country, former High Court judge Michael Kirby says.
Debate on an apology heated up last week after a News Ltd story zeroed in on Kirby’s views published earlier this year in a collection of law essays, Future Justice.
“One day, there will be a big parliamentary apology in Australia to gay people for the oppression that was forced on them and the inequalities that were maintained in the law well beyond their use-by date,” Kirby writes in his essay Homosexuality and Love. “Just like the delayed 2008 apology to the Aboriginal people of our country.”
Kirby said the news article failed to include his calls for churches to also apologise for their part in perpetuating and reinforcing homophobia.
“When a Pope eventually [reverses the Catholic Church’s stance on homosexuality] that substantial position of nasty attitudes to gay people will disappear in the church overnight,” he wrote.
“And then, as with the earlier apology to Galileo, the apology for the Medieval Inquisition and the apology to abused children, we will see the Christian churches giving a wholehearted apology to gay people. I hope I live to see it.”
Kirby told Sydney Star Observer he disagreed with the argument that another public apology would diminish the national “Sorry” offered to Indigenous Australians because homophobia is “still a live force in Australia.”
“We should be ready to give them as often as they are justified,” he said.
“And that is certainly the case for sexual minorities in Australia, who for too long, and still in some respects, have been treated as second-class citizens.
“Experience in the courts and in modern mediation teaches that apologies and expressions of regret frequently have a beneficial effect on future relationships.”
Australian Marriage Equality spokesman Alex Greenwich said he supported the call for an apology if the Rudd Government promised to address current issues of inequality such as harmonious adoption and marriage laws.
“What we don’t want is rhetoric, what we do want is action,” he said.
“Justice Kirby is right to point out the wrongs that have been done to our community because of who we are and that’s something that should be rectified.”

You May Also Like

20 responses to “Church ‘should apologise too’”

  1. If Australia was a Christian nation this blog would certainly not exist. Australia does not have an official religion as per the constitution. Stokes might like to read it someday once he drags himself away from gay sites.

  2. I fully agree,
    It is high-time for a formal apology to gay men for passing laws against male-male sex back in 1788 (when we were subject to British “imperialistic” laws). The death penalty was abolished for gay sex in most states 110 years ago in 1900. Victoria being the last in 1912 – it was replaced with “life imprisonment”. In 1972 gay sex in SA was made legal – then in 1997 Tasmania was the last state to repeal male-male sex as a crime.

    In 1994 a federal law allowed gay sex in all external territories of Australia – including both Norfolk Island and the Coco and Keeling Islands.
    Gay men in jails who were convicted of the “crime of buggery, sodomy or gross indecency” were beaten to death and raped, because heterosexual males thought that “gay men loved it”, etc.

    Because of these laws gay men were subject to “mental experiments” and classed homosexuality among men as a “mental illness” until 1984 (the same year gay sex was made legal in NSW – but as we all know with an unequal age of consent of 18 – 16 for straights and lesbians). In 1 January 2004 that unequal age of consent was formally abolished and was finally made equal at 16 for everyone.
    Now remember lesbianism was NEVER a criminal offence under British colonial laws and that applies to all other Commonwealth countries – not just here.

    In 2010 some gay men, lesbians, transgender and intersex people are isolated, feel ashamed or embarrassed (especially in rural and country areas not all of us are in cities – I live in a rural area on the NSW Central Coast). Some gay men marry women so that “it being homosexuality will go away or disappear”. We as a society have yet to make LGBTI people safe and inclusive. People should not be scared of us; we pay taxes, do the laundry, clean up dishes and do everything straight people do [made my point].
    Even two heterosexual men (such as the military establishments, football locker rooms, boarding schools, etc) have the full legal right to have sex with each other or experiment as this is a process into manhood – and males do not be scared or embarrassment about this because this is healthy for knowledge and development!!!!

    When an apology does finally happen – what about gay men who currently have a criminal record?? That says “convicted of buggery, sodomy and/or gross indecency on another male on Tuesday 14 May 1968”. Should that record be “abolished” or “pardoned” by the Governor of that state????
    This raises another question –
    How many gay men were hanged during 1788 to 1900 (1912 in Victoria)?????
    How many gay men were sent to prison during 1900 to 1990 (1997 in Tasmania)?????
    I have tried to get a ‘freedom of information” on this issue for nearly 6 months now with no luck.

  3. Peter Stokes you do not know the Bible. Stop pretending to do so. You are a retired bus driver who migrated from England and started up your own cult. You do not have qualifications from any University in Theology. You come here with nothing more then the ravings of a lunatic. Go Google yourself!

    Your a gay hater who is gay. Nothing more, nothing less. Some bash people on the streets, others come to these websites to vilify us. Either way you need help for your homophobia. My partner is a Doctor and I can recommend a good Psychiatrist for you. I feel so sorry for your wife Jenny. Try to enjoy what little time you have left on this Earth, and do not die full of your hate and stupidity for a world you cannot change through your deliberate ignorance.

  4. Dear Peter,
    You perceive inaccuracies where you have missunderstandings instead.

    Firstly biology is a science, subject to the rules of science. With peer-reviewed studies such as this one reported here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/5550488/Homosexual-behaviour-widespread-in-animals-according-to-new-study.html if you wish to make a claim about something scientific one needs scientific evidence from scientificly credible and scrutinised studies. I suggest you may wish to present some of these studies to back your claim on this. Evidence which counters claims such as here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15750604/ of bisexual majorities in entire species! Like the Bonobo for example.

    And yes nature does not equal rights, thats your conflation not mine, one which also hurts your argument later as if rights came from nature then clothing, language and even religion are unnatural abberations!

    In fact rights came from the observation that nature was unjust, nature abides by no rights whatsoever! And it came also from the injustice of some people forcing their own choices over others.. the christian denominational wars and the tyranny of kings.

    You miss the basic idea of rights totally! Rights are all about choice! The freedom to do anything you choose so long as it does not interfere with the equal rights of others.

    That means i may not punch someone who wishes not to be punched, I may not stop them wearing a colour i dislike, but i may do with myself whatever i please so long as it does not interfere with others rights.

    To protect and respect others rights requires some compromise of coure, road rules for example where every moment i risk others lives if i do not abide by them. Only this interaction with the rights of others requires such compromise however. GLBTI people having their equal rights harms no-one, harms the rights of no-one and does not harm society.

    Every interaction between rights requires mutual consent. If i want to punch someone and they are happy with that we may go into a boxing ring of our own free will knowing the consequences.. we both give informed uncoerced consent.

    Sex with children and animals is wrong because they cannot give informed uncoerced consent. Anyone who is unable to give informed uncoerced consent we have responsibilities to but not rights over.

    And so too with religion where there is a world of difference between advertising your religion and imposing it and/or it’s tenants and strictures over others. The first is part of your right to freedom of expression but the latter is an abuse of others rights. Lets see how that fits your examples?

    Cutting off of hands? If you are a Muslim and steal you may cut off your own hand but not the hand of others, even other Muslims, unless they give genuinely free informed uncoerced consent which is very very unlikely.

    Sacrifice? Again you can sacrifice yourself to a god if you wish but not anyone else just like hand-chopping.

    See how that works? All religions must be treated as equals as all people have an equal right to follow the religion of their choice. That right however doesn’t override the rights of others. So the limit on religious rights is like the right to punch others stopped dead cold by the requirement to respect the rights of others!

    Like murdering witches like the bible says, we cant let people do that because witches have equal rights too.

    So you see Rights are about choices we may make for ourselves but cannot make for others. And as such my points were not self-serving and inconsitent but consistent and fair to all. Standing up to logical scrutiny. Hopefully i have explained this sufficiently for you to now understand. If not and you still do not understand what human rights are, where they come from and how they work and how they pertain to GLBTI people and religion I’m happy to explain further here or on my own blog or via email.

  5. OK Peter, so what you are saying is that homosexuals are wrong because we are in the minority, but people who believe gay people should have equal rights are wrong also, though they in the majority.

    So no matter whether you are in the minority or the majority, if you disagree with Peter, you are wrong.

    Sounds like the only people forcing their minority personal choices on the rest of society is you and your fundamentalist ilk, Peter- and its not just on gay rights either- its euthanasia and other things too.

    There are actually a number of Churches in Australia that want the right to marry gay couples- why are their rights to religious freedom less important than yours Peter?

  6. Dear Bayne
    Thanks for writing personally to tell me of your comments above – your right, I am not glued to the SSO blog and had not seen your reply.
    I will write personally as well as place this reply here because your response is so full of inaccuracies.

    Firstly, it is totally wrong to say that “homosexual sexual acts have been observed in almost every vertebrate species whose sexual behaviour has been studied in depth” – Rare instances of males attempting to mount other males are seen and then jumped on as evidence of homosexual ‘rightness’ – that is simply ridiculous self justification.

    Even if your statement were to be true, that does not make it ‘right or ‘natural’ for humans. Using your line – killing there own kind is observed in many ‘animal’ vertebrate species but we do not accept killing as normal or natural or say it is nice to kill other people.
    Homosexuals like to claim ‘it is not just about sex, but loving relationships’ but then you use the sexual habits of animals to justify ‘normality’ – rather a contradiction I would suggest.
    Even Mary above wants to avoid the sex and talk about loving relationships. By the way, Mary, anyone can care for anyone without a cirtificate to say they can. Love needs truth, Mary, and without truth it is not love.

    It is not a ‘human right’ to force people to accept what is unnatural as natural. Human rights should be held within ‘natural law’ not expanded out to include everyone’s personal choices. As stated before, Biology shows us clearly that homosexual and lesbian sex is not natural.

    I would also suggest that something is not made ‘right’ simply because a majority support it – If it were I suggest that we would still have the death penalty – Parking would be free everywhere and speeding fines would be non existent.

    Every society must have standards of behaviour based on what is best for the society, the whole community, not the individual. We must always ask the question what evidence do we have for or against a particular behaviour or lifestyle being ‘normalised. I suspect you would not agree to normalising bestiality simply because a few people want to engage in sex with animals. Yet is it not their ‘human right’ to do so if they wish under your interpretation of human rights’? Is that going to enhance society or create harm?
    Unfortunately, selfish leaders fail to ask that question and instead follow Political Correctness or govern by self interest, power and how they pander to people groups to get re-elected. That is neither good for society or them in the long term.

    Religious freedom
    To suggest that a person of one religion should not try to persuade people of other religions of the value of their own beliefs is to suggest that all beliefs are equal.
    To say that would be to say that it is OK for Muslims to chop hands of a thief or stone women for adultery or homosexuality as parts of Islam do. Some Voodoo and witchcraft activity has ‘sacrificed’ humans, often children as have some animist religions who threw their children into the sea to appease the ‘god’ of the ocean. I don’t think you would agree to that happening in Australia. So you would oppress other religious ‘rights’ because you did not agree with them. So much for your idea of religious freedom.
    While we are all able to tolerate some bad ideas, we all have boundaries to that tolerance based on our underlying value system. That system in Australia is supposed to be ‘Christian’, which is the reason this nation is so free compared to so many around the world where a blog like this would not exist.
    You see Bayne, you are being very selective in your arguments purely to justify your own personal position and none of those arguments hold up to logical scrutiny.

  7. Peter Stokes has made sister mary three three have a bloody good turn! It clearly and correctly states that two men and two woman can’t have sex?. What the f**** What if sex was a secondary issue , Do you also think that they should not be able to express love and emotion towards one another as well and be refused the right to care for one another, something I consider to be a natural human characteristic and natural to all gay men and lesbian women. Peter I think you need to take a closer look at what’s promoting hatred here because when I went to Sunday school it was all about love. Your view shocks me and is very backward. Shame on you.

  8. Peter Stokes is the reason why we need a “Sorry Day”. He even goes out of his way to vilify us on our own websites quoting a Bible he knows little about.

    Perhaps Peter should argue with the Arch Bishop Desmond Tutu who is a major supporter of Gay Marriage. Desmond Tutu was awarded the Nobel Peace Price. He knows about the nasty practice of Hate Peter Stokes likes to engage in on our websites.

  9. Peter.

    Regarding your use of the terms ‘normal’ ‘natural’ and ‘unjustifiable’.

    I raise to your attention that homosexual sexual acts have been observed in almost every vertebrate species whose sexual behaviour has been studied in depth and even seen amongst some invertebrate species! If it occurs in nature it is natural by very definition. If your understanding of nature and the real natural world are in conflict it is your understanding that is in error and not nature.

    And as for normal many of these species have bisexuality as near universal. Very much then normal amongst those species again by very definition.

    As for unjustifiable.. well the church has made claims much as you have using terms like normal and natural contrary to scientific evidence and so are in error. That alone is sufficient justification. That persecution and interferance with Human Rights have also occured that adds to and compounds the justification. Rather than unjustified we have an abundance of justification.

    Finally we come to Religious Rights. And believe me i am very much in favour of Religious Rights. But alas the Church needs to apologise for trampling on the Religious Rights of others!

    You see homosexuality is not opposed by all religions. To then push one religions rules over people belonging to other faiths is to trample on the religious freedom and religious rights of those people of other faiths.

    Apologies then are in order for church campaining against GLBTI equality including same-sex marriage to all such religions including but not limited to:

    * Hinduism
    * Some parts of Islam
    * Several branches of Bhuddism
    * The Native spiritualities of North America
    * The Native spiritualities of South America
    * The Native spiritualities of Polynesia
    * The Native spiritualities of Australia
    * Many European Pagan faiths
    * Several Christian Churches

    Because all those and more have had religious teachings supportive of either Transgender peoples rights, Intersex peoples rights, Same-Sex relationships, Same Sex Marriage or some combination of these.

    So every time any christian has stepped beyond the pervue of defending their own individual religious right to themselves not be gay or transgender or to marry gay transgender or intersex people and instead has oppossed the right of others to be GLBTI, for GLBTI to have every single right enjoyed by any other person and to marry gay people then they stepped from defending Religious Rights to in fact Abusing and Oppoosing Religious Liberty and Religious Rights!

    And it is that overstepping their own Religious Rights so as to TRAMPLE on the Religious Rights of others that is unjustifiable!

    Surely Peter you see that now? That Australians of every faith should have their Religious Rights? That one religion no matter which one it is should never trample upon other faiths.

  10. Peter Stokes your organisation the Salt Shakers promotes hated and homophobia under the disguise of religion, you should be ashamed as you give religion a bad name. Don’t be surpised if your members turn against you.

  11. Peter Stokes, your vile supernatural handbook for separatist, tribalism, genocide, misogyny, rape, murder and Sharia law has no moral authority here. You call this pulp fiction “Holy”? Get off your high horse.

    At this particular period in time, the Pope is too busy apologising for the hordes of Catholic kiddy fiddlers that were protected by the apathy, inaction and incompetence of his Church for so long. Abstinence makes the Church grow fondlers.

    Forget the threat of “normalising homosexuality” imagined by Peter Stokes. It doesn’t stand up to reason or fact. There plenty of REAL threats for mankind to grapple with. Including the totalitarian ideologies of those religionists hell-bent on imposing their “faith” on every man, woman and child on this planet using every trick in the book to achieve this end (from niceties and soothing words at one end of the spectrum to cutting off our heads and blowing us up at the other).

    Have a nice life Peter. Like everyone else, this most probably the only one you’ve got.

  12. Oh rubbish Peter Stokes. Your “research”? God loves us all and gays included! 101 Mardi Gras Reverends marched for us. Even many Baptist Ministers support us. Go see http://www.whywouldwe.org and you can start apologizing to us for your homophobia.

    Also Peter what about Buddhist? Where do they fit into your Evil little world view? They are just as bad as we are in your perverted view of the Bible. Your and your twenty or so cult members, less excluding in bred family. Do not pretend you know the Bible. I trust the many reverends and scholars who support us over a cult any day.

  13. Who would have thought 50ys ago the poorest of the poor the most disadvantaged in the orphanages and work houses of catholic Ireland would one day shake the shit out of the very chair of St Peter.Thank Christ God built his church on a rock.That same God is showing us that rocks can be shaken.Peter you are blind you need some spittle in your eyes, by Christ I would love to cure you

  14. Now Peter is out of the way…

    The Pope is an Ex Hitler Youth. His group killed thousands of us. The first SS meeting happened in a Catholic Church. The Catholic Church in Germany gave our names to the Hitler Youth- Known Sodomites! Over 15,000 of us were murdered. Many were sent to camps and only a few survived. I saw a documentary on some of the survivors who spoke about being raped with lumps of wood. All these years later they break down when talking about it. The pain is real. It is still present. It with them, and it is with us. We stand together with them in the fight for dignity and respect.

    The Pope has recently said we must fight homosexuality like climate change. He was also the Bishop when a known sex offending Priest was in his care. The Priest was moved to another Church where he offended again.

    I cannot imagine the pain of those survivors from the Germany camps who hear the Pope talking about fighting us all these years later. He has changed uniforms and not his attitude. Many good Catholics are outraged by this Pope.

    We will have a Sorry Day. Many Churches are now supportive of gay relationships. There was much outrage in community about the Popes Evil Comments. He was seen as a nutter and a disgrace.

    I welcome Justice Kirby and the contribution he is making to our community. I believe in my lifetime, we will have a Sorry Day.

  15. Ben, I research issues and Michael Kirby had an article printed in yesterday’s SMH. Hence I was searching for his original speech when Google told me the church was being called to apologise to homosexuals. Naturally I wanted to read the article.
    I can assure you I do not poor over the images, I read the articles that concern me as a Christian because of the misrepresentations of Christianity such as those by Michael Kirby in his attempt to justify the unjustifiable.
    Talking of justifying the unjustifiable, NO Scott, it is never ‘normal’ for grown men to abuse anyone. If you can find any hint of that on our web site let me know.
    They need to ask both God AND the person/family to forgive them.
    Our position re abuse is very clear – at the first indication of any abuse the police must be informed. Internal handling of such issue is totally inappropriate.
    On the other hand celibacy is ‘normal’ Scott most young people need to learn self control, but I oppose the enforced Roman Catholic position of celibacy for Priests. I am not a Roman Catholic
    We should not act like animals who roam around looking for sexual partners. Mature people build relationships and get married with a commitment for life.
    In fact, the ONLY 100% ‘safe sex’ is abstinence until marriage and fidelity/faithfulness within marriage – that ‘fact’ should be clear evidence to society that that is what is best for us.

  16. Anyone else get the feeling that Peter Stokes – of the right wing Christian lobby group Salt Shakers, for anyone who’s not familiar – seems to comment here pretty regularly?
    Hey Peter, doing a bit more than ‘research’ perhaps?
    I can just imagine you, poreing over all those SSO images, late at night, trying to work out just how two men “fit together”. Keep telling yourself, and your wife, that it’s just for research.

  17. Oh Peter, how sad it is that your faith can only lead you to hate, judge and denigrate others.
    Your support for the rape and abuse of hundreds upon hundreds of children, worldwide, at the hands of Catholic priests is deplorable.
    And all the while you don’t realise that you, and people like you, are leading to your own church’s demise. As society evolves, people continue to turn away from the church, not because of ‘the gays’ (as you would like to think) but because they can not identify with the hateful, biggotted attitude you like to espouse.

  18. It is not the church or the Pope that will have to apologise over their position on homosexuality, but one day the government will, when society realises the damage normalising that which is not normal has done to society.
    It is the Holy Bible, not a person, that clearly and correctly states that man and woman were made for sexual activity – not two women or two men. Common sense and biology tell us that ‘two the same’ don’t fit and can’t produce anything except selfish pleasure.
    While there is nothing wrong with heterosexual sexual pleasure for its own enjoyment, it is through that pleasure, in the act of procreation, that we see clearly that our bodies are designed for opposites to attract.
    We can only hope and pray that those pressuring society to accept that which is not natural, like Michael Kirby, will one day be the ones to apologise.