Warwick Marsh—Australian Hatemonger?


In the spirit of squashing free speech and truth in the aftermath of the proposition 8 battle, there comes this news from Australia: Men’s Health Ambassador, Warwick Marsh, lost his job this week after being labeled a “Hatemonger” for studying and reporting the detrimental effects of homosexuality.

From Lifesite News:

Australian Health Minister Fires Men’s Health Ambassador for Documenting Risks of Homosexuality

“Today someone who dares to speak the truth about homosexuality will lose his job. Tomorrow he will likely see prison, fines and other draconian penalties imposed.”

By Ellen M. Rice

SYDNEY, December 1, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Last week, Australian Health Minister Nicola Roxon appointed Warwick Marsh of the Fatherhood Foundation as one of six men’s health ambassadors who were charged with the task of building a federal men’s health policy, in part to address the epidemic of male suicide in Australia.  The Australian homosexualist group, Coalition for Equality, however, immediately demanded Marsh’s firing, and two days later, on November 27, he was gone.

Marsh drew fire from the Coalition for Equality largely because he was one of 34 co-authors of the Fatherhood Foundation’s document, “21 Reasons Why Gender Matters.” The Sydney Morning Herald reports that the pro-homosexual Coalition immediately urged Ms. Roxon to fire Mr. Marsh, and fellow men’s health ambassador Barry Williams, of the Lone Fathers Association, another co-author of the Gender Matters document.  Coalition for Equality Spokesman Rodney Croome said, “If the federal government is sincere about an inclusive and effective men’s health agenda it must remove these hatemongers immediately.”

Article continued here…

Hatemongers??  The idea that anyone who disagrees with gay rights advocates is a bigot or hatemonger has been taken in, hook, line and sinker by this government agency.

A men’s health agenda should not be blind to issues of homosexuality.  If homosexuality were truly a healthy alternative lifestyle, wouldn’t they welcome this study and others like it?  Wouldn’t they be eager to dispel ignorance once and for all and trumpet from the housetops?  What agenda are they truly pushing by ignoring the reports showing the dangers of a homosexual lifestyle?

This is something I think we will see more of as more attention is paid to the issue of lifestyle equality.  Not all lifestyles are created equal.  People, yes, choices, no.  This squashing of truth on one side of the argument shows the insecurity of those on the side of gay activism.  What are they afraid of that they have to demonize and censor all opposition to their agenda?

Any idea that has to cripple the opposing view by demonization does their movement a disservice.  The homosexual movement needs to admit that there are differing sides and let the public decide on the facts whether it’s a healthy lifestyle to embrace or not.

The fact that they’re so adamant about society only hearing one side of the story speaks volumes.

–Beetle Blogger



  1. rubyeliot said,

    December 2, 2008 at 3:16 pm

    thanks for this post. gay sex is extremely unhealthy. i’m not just talking about AIDS. in addition to the physical problems (ripping and tearing), its fairly common for gay men to contract diseases virtually unseen anywhere but in 3rd world countries where they have issues with sewage and fecal matter in public places.

    I don’t know why so many people want to gloss over these issues. The gay agenda only provides one story: if you are gay, it’s totally okay, don’t worry, it’s healthy to act on your impulses. don’t worry about AIDS, don’t worry about STDs. They aren’t a big deal–it’s so safe now.

  2. Cruisin' Diva said,

    December 2, 2008 at 8:15 pm

    I love this line, “Not all lifestyles are created equal. People, yes, choices, no.” So true, so true. In this case, homosexuals seem to be screaming for complete acceptance wrapped in the disguise of “equality.”

  3. December 2, 2008 at 8:27 pm

    A copy of the “offending” report can be found here:


    Absolutely agree that suppressing free speech and firing people because they don’t agree with their research smacks of the 3 year old that holds his ears and yells while you speak so that he doesn’t have to be told that it’s time for a nap.

  4. beetlebabee said,

    December 2, 2008 at 8:49 pm

    Troy, I couldn’t get your link to show because of the parenthesis, but I included it in the main body of the story if anyone wants to see it. It’s pretty good stuff. Thanks for looking that up.

  5. triptotheouthouse said,

    December 4, 2008 at 8:44 pm


    Are you a physician? Please, support your assertions with authoritative evidence; the American Family Council and other far right publications do not count.

  6. triptotheouthouse said,

    December 4, 2008 at 8:46 pm

    Aren’t mormons screaming for complete acceptance of their science fictional beliefs that god lives on some outer space planet and we are all aliens. And please don’t “seal” any of my relatives for your cult-ish plans.

  7. GrammyPammy said,

    December 4, 2008 at 9:03 pm


    You have some burning anger there, Love. Mormons don’t scream for anything. We have calmly and quietly gone about promoting healthy marriage and family life through proper political process.

    We most definitely don’t scream at anybody to accept our Church doctrine. We have missionaries who volunteer two years of their lives to serve people around the world and knock on doors and offer messages of hope and faith, not science fiction. If you would really like to know who Mormons are, you might try getting to know some before you accuse 13 million people of being a cult.

  8. Heather said,

    December 4, 2008 at 9:06 pm

    triptotheouthouse – where in this article does it discuss the Mormon relgion or their beliefs? this article has nothing to do with that. it discusses a researcher who was fired for publishing the results of data that he had collected.

    and to answer your question, Mormon’s are not “screaming for complete acceptance…”

  9. beetlebabee said,

    December 4, 2008 at 10:04 pm

    you have to admit, you got a little off base with this one trip.

  10. triptotheouthouse said,

    December 4, 2008 at 11:24 pm

    No burning anger at all; in fact, my point is that their is a wide variety of differences among people in the world, but so many of you choose not to accept the differences of others, but would have others accept your own differences, among those differences beliefs that a very large part of the population would find far from the norm, practices that many would find repulsive, and both not something that they would want taught to first graders in their schools.
    In reality, there’s not much difference between being homophobic than being anti-mormon.
    But in the end, when you people put so much money and effort into defeating Proposition 8 in California, you really just went against another minority, most of whom had little or no interest in your beliefs before that. However, because of your actions, many of us (myself included) are wanting to know who these people who could put so much into taking away another minority group”s rights are. Now, we’re reading, discovering, and, yes, finding out about your science fiction; for if you believe that you are aliens who have come from another planet and are going to another planet after death, and god lives in outer space on some planet, well “chica”, you definitely do belief in science fiction.

  11. beetlebabee said,

    December 4, 2008 at 11:57 pm

    Trip, by “accepting differences” do you mean acknowledging differences or agreeing with differences, because agreeing with differences is the same as having no difference at all.

    If you mean acknowledging differences, I think you and I both acknowledge we are different. What’s wrong with that?

    Are you saying we have to agree to be friends? or that only those who have no differences can be good neighbors to each other? That doesn’t seem very tolerant of you.

  12. GrammyPammy said,

    December 5, 2008 at 12:49 am

    Ha ha ha. I’d like to know where you’re reading about our religion because I’ve been a member of this Church all my long life and I have never, ever heard anyone teach that we “are aliens who have come from another planet and are going to another planet after death.” That’s rich. If you’d like to know about Church policy and doctrine, Honey, I suggest you try reading at lds.org. The claims you are making are glaringly reminiscent of outlandish accusations made at anti-Mormon sites such as The Huffington Post, The Advocate, and The Daily Kos. And the little Beetle lady is right, “accepting” is a very different word than “embracing” (or at least it used to be). We are never required to embrace a destructive lifestyle as normal (that could lead to some uncomfortable situations with pedophiles, polygamists, etc. in the future), but we are taught in our Church to love everyone, even (and especially) those struggling against same-sex attractions (…and alcoholism, pornography addiction, anger management issues, gossip, lying, cheating, theft, etc.).

    P.S. We are not that far from the norm. We are Christian and it has been estimated that there are approximately 2.1 billion Christians worldwide (about 1/3 of the earth’s population). Homosexuals on the other hand, make up 1%-3% of the world’s population (which puts them at 67 million – 201 million). Now I realize that doesn’t cover straight gay supporters, but my point was not to put down gays, rather to defend the LDS Church against accusations of “abnormality.”

  13. GrammyPammy said,

    December 5, 2008 at 1:37 am



    (We actually put a whole lot of money and effort into SUPPORTING Proposition 8, not defeating it.)

  14. rubyeliot said,

    December 5, 2008 at 2:54 am


    my brother is a doctor. he works on cases and hears about cases all the time that include gay men with diseases virtually unseen anywhere else but in 3rd world countries.

    AIDS magazine would be a good place for you to start on the anal cancer issue and other related issues. Gay man are ten times more likely than straight men to suffer from it.

    there are many many sources but here some to start:

    Anne Rompalo, “Sexually Transmitted Causes of Gastrointestinal Symptoms in Homosexual Men,” Medical Clinics of North America, 74(6): 1633-1645 (November 1990);

    “Anal Health for Men and Women,” LGBTHealthChannel, http://www.gayhealthchannel.com/analhealth/; “Safer Sex (MSM) for Men who Have Sex with Men,” LGBTHealthChannel, http://www.gayhealthchannel.com/stdmsm/.

    H. Naher, B. Lenhard, et al., “Detection of Epstein-Barr virus DNA in anal scrapings from HIV-positive homosexual men,” Archives of Dermatological Research, 287(6): 608- 611, Abstract (1995).

    James Goedert, et al., for the AIDS-Cancer Match Study Group, “Spectrum of AIDS-associated malignant disorders,” The Lancet, 351: 1833-1839, p. 1836 (June 20, 1998).

    But it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that if you are having anal sex (or doing other things with feces (which happens in gay relationships), you are going to get some strange diseases, it’s the most germy place of the body. (this also doesn’t include a description of the actual physical damage that occurs over time (its common to have fecal matter leakage problems).

    Do some research on rectal cancer. They is some interesting commentary about its causes. (aka sperm isn’t supposed to be in the bum area).

    These articles discuss how the incidence of HIV infection and other dangerous acts actually increases in steady gay relationships:

    Maria Xiridou, et al, “The Contribution of Steady and Casual Partnerships to the Incidence of HIV Infection among Homosexual Men in Amsterdam,” AIDS 17 (2003): 1031.

    Jon Garbo, “More Young Gay Men are Contracting HIV from Steady Partners,” GayHealth (July 25, 2001).

    The last two are sources (among many) from a family research council article. What does that mean exactly? The truth is that gay sex is unhealthy. There are lots of studies to back this up. Doctors know it. Just because Jack Black isn’t making a musical about the diseases doesn’t mean they don’t affect gay men in inordinately high numbers (except if you are comparing it to third world countries).

    It wouldn’t be good for the image of homosexuality if people knew exactly how unhealthy it is.

  15. rubyeliot said,

    December 5, 2008 at 2:56 am

    p.s. are you from CA? because it sounds like you don’t really know the issues with proposition 8.

  16. rubyeliot said,

    December 5, 2008 at 2:58 am

    another thing:

    any kind of promiscuous sex is going to result in high danger of STDs. This is another benefit of marriage: it can protect a couple from these risks (being monagamous).

    however, gay sex is always dangerous and high risk. marraige wouldn’t help. in fact the last two studies show that the risk is higher in “steady” relationships.

    this just shows that marriage is exclusive for a reason.

  17. triptotheouthouse said,

    December 5, 2008 at 9:30 pm

    Not so far from the norm, eh? christian, eh? so you believe in the holy trinity? not so far from the norm? I have a very personal friend (a woman) dealing in business at a very high level with a company in SLC, and the only words John Huntsman, Sr. would deign say to her was to “school” her on the benefits of polygamy. And when will there be a female prophet? Or is it only men who can speak to god and be told that since pepsi is a money-maker, now it’s ok to drink caffeinated drinks? And do you want to deny that you people are trying to get your hands on every obituary page that you can so that you can put them in your archives and baptize them after death? That’s not from The Advocate, chica. That’s from Catholic Journals and Jewish news sites and personal genealogy experience. Norm? When you can get those other 2 billion to wear your “protective britches” then we’ll talk about the norm.

  18. triptotheouthouse said,

    December 5, 2008 at 9:34 pm

    and b-babee,
    kicking people out of the church, that’s soooo tolerant isn’t it?

  19. bobby said,

    December 5, 2008 at 9:59 pm

    trip, i’m not sure where all the comments about mormons came from. how does this relate to the issue at hand? while you do an excellent job of making mormons sound like freaks, there is another side (or many different theological facets) to every comment you made. I’m sure. as one who knows how religious beliefs can be quickly twisted. and one who knows a couple mormons and has had a lot of interesting discussions with them about their relgious beliefs.

    I’ll just clear up one:
    Homosexuals are not kicked out of the mormon church just for being homosexual. I have a friend who is homosexual and still a member of the church. He is expected to live a chaste life just as any single member of the church. Even if he participated in homosexual sex, he would still be a member. As far as I know, from our conversations, the only way he could be “kicked out” is if he publicly denounces his beliefs or lives his life in a way that denounce his belief (ex: being in a gay relationship without remorse).

    but even he admits, it would be him leaving the church.

    again, you are using mormons to distract for your argument…what is your argument again?

  20. rubyeliot said,

    December 5, 2008 at 10:33 pm

    we’re talking about homosexuality and health. we’re having a discussion about whether or not is right to fire someone from their job because of believing homosexuality is unhealthy (doing research on this top etc). Is this wrong?

  21. triptotheouthouse said,

    December 6, 2008 at 12:50 am

    And WHY are you talking about homosexuality and health? Are you gay? Do you have gay sex? WHY are you so interested? WHY are you so absorbed by homosexuality and what anyone else besides you does sexually? WHY, WHY, WHY? Have you ever asked yourself that?
    Have you ever asked yourself why so many people are picking their noses when you look around at the stop light? That’s not so pleasant to me, but I’ve never decided to devote a website to it nor launch a political campaign against it.
    You wanted to know why I’m writing in these particular post comments. I’m writing here because this blog was one that kept popping up different times on the tag browser about gays. I was curious. Why would someone who is not gay devote a whole blog to gays?
    Before I began reading about the attack launched against gay people’s rights in California, I couldn’t have given two hoots about mormons, and if they would support my getting married to any person I might love, then I would probably support their being married to more than one person. Love is love.
    But I have been bashed physically and verbally, and, indirectly, mentally throughout the years–physically attacked just walking down the street, had bottles thrown at me from passing cars, had people whispering or not even whispering right behind my back–more times than I want to remember.
    And I still see the same thing done to young people.
    And all that is because people like you say gay people are less, that we don’t have the same rights, that we shouldn’t be able to have the same life experiences as everyone else–it all stems from people like the ones on this comment line, who after being brain-washed by some so-called moral element of society, rationalize their prejudices, and not only create websites to promote these ideas but also help to send millions of dollars to pay for television advertisements also promoting discrimination.
    As for me, I’m resigned that not a lot is going to change in my life, but I’m going to fight wherever I can against people who think it’s OK to verbally punch gay people whether it’s in the name of health or religious beliefs, because that all filters down. All that has an effect on someone’s well-being. And because of people like you, some kid in some high school will get trash-mouthed, or worse, tomorrow because your prejudices have an effect on society as a whole. And it’s high time you owned up to it.
    Whether a gay person has sex with another gay person or gets married to another gay person affects you not one iota, but your intolerance and bigotry passes down and outward, and I will say it again, tomorrow some kid out there will pay for what you do and what you say. Too bad you can’t go sit in that kid’s homeroom class tomorrow and hear what he has to hear or be the one knocked around in the locker room after gym class. And that kid’s never had any type of sex yet, but he’s paying for your right to say what you want to say.
    And if a government official in Australia is out there spewing out the same intolerance, hurray that he got fired. High time. Gay people in many states in the US can be fired just for being gay.
    So ask yourself before you go to bed tonight or first thing in the morning: “Why AM I so concerned about what gay people do in bed?” If you say it’s because “it’s in the bible”, you’d better ask yourself again. Because there are very, very few words devoted to anything that might be related to gay people, however you might interpret those words, and there are so many more words, passages, and books in the bible about so many other things. Proportionately, to the number of words, how are you doing on spending your time on things from the bible?
    And if you’re worried about the health affects of gay sex, and you’re not gay, I’d say–uh–just don’t have gay sex.
    So just why ARE you devoting so much time worrying about gay people and what they may or may not do in bed? Yeah, just ask yourself–and be really honest for once.

  22. rubyeliot said,

    December 6, 2008 at 2:57 am


    a. thanks for letting the mormon thing go. that was tangential from the very first word.

    You say you are happy he was fired. Are you saying that it is wrong for people to study the health consequences of a certain lifestyle? (so is it wrong to do studies on smokers? or alcoholics? or people who watch a lot of TV? or people who exercise everyday? or people who eat a healthy diet?)

    b. i can’t speak for beetle, but I personally don’t care what individual people do. I do care if a society promotes an unhealthy lifestyle. I care about people making uninformed decisions (supported by society)

    c. There are other ways to prevent teasing and harrassment in school than ignoring facts. Teaching kindness, respect, love. This would be the rational course. No one should be ever made to feel like crap. But no kid should ever be under the impression that deciding to act on SSA is a 100% healthy choice.

    d. I only brought up the diseases because of the subject of the post– which includes a story about a man fired for legitimate research.

    e. i think you would be more persuasive if you take a minute and calmly write your arguments (not just your feelings). Instead of engaging the issue, you begin by attacking me for caring about something that has huge society affects? Is AIDS not reason enough to care? Should I not care about outbreaks of weird strains of hepatitis? That is a public health issue.

    f. i’m not gay, but i do have gay friends. i like them. i care about them. but they know where i stand on this issue.

  23. danny said,

    December 6, 2008 at 3:03 am

    hold on trip…

    have you read the beetle-lady’s other posts?
    because you are proving this point:

    Award-winning writer and same-gender sex activist Randy Shilts describes the denial among men that have sex with men, about their unhealthy lifestyles causing AIDS to be epidemic among them when he writes, “…the desperation of denial: how when something is so horrible you don’t want to believe it, you want to out it out of your mind and insist it isn’t true, and how you hate the person who says it is.” (And the Band Played On, 1988, p. 182)


  24. beetlebabee said,

    December 6, 2008 at 3:28 am

    And WHY are you talking about homosexuality and health? WHY are you so interested? WHY are you so absorbed by homosexuality and what anyone else besides you does sexually? WHY, WHY, WHY? Have you ever asked yourself that?

    You know, I think about that all the time. I have thought to myself that the gay community was standing on far firmer ground when they advocated minding everyone’s own business. That is a libertarian mindset I can agree with.

    However, this issue was foisted on me and my family the moment it started entering the public school system, the moment the legal definitions were changed by an outrageous court decision only tangentially touching on long held law standards….the moment my religious freedoms and freedom of speech were threatened.

    You tell me, WHY do gay activists keep bringing this issue to the forefront of public debate? WHY is it necessary to not just include, but preclude? WHY the attacks on religion and moral values?

    I do not go parading around the streets tossing my sexuality about on the nighttime news. Same Sex Advocates do. WHY?

    Really, I think this particular part of your post has been the most relevant yet.

  25. triptotheouthouse said,

    December 8, 2008 at 11:52 pm

    I don’t know how old you are beetlebabee, but I can tell you, I have been gay all my life and am not a spring chicken or spring rooster, as really is the case. But if you take a look at the history of legislation against gay marriage, it wasn’t brought into the spotlight by gay activists at all, but by Republican legislators and the religious right. (And for any of you on here who want to talk about the gay agenda, there has been a long, ongoing anti-gay agenda in place, which is far more organized than any type of organization or “agenda” that gay people have even at the moment–I need only mention Focus on the Family and Concerned Women for America, and, yes, the Mormon Church, which has been actively working its anti-gay agenda from from its “patriarchal 12” (my term) down the ranks for more than 10 years.) But if you’ll look at the anti-same sex legislation in almost all of the states, it was “brought out to the forefront of public debate” and through the state legislatures, NOT because of any attempts by gay people to pass same-sex marriage laws or by any individuals to seek marriage licenses (as has been done more recently). No, it was put into play by Karl Rove and others, in an attempt to get the religious right’s support for Bush’s policies and his re-election in 2004–which, in fact, it did (In two specific states of which I am particularly familiar, Kansas and Texas, there was not one attempt by any gay person or group to change the marriage laws in anyway whatsoever, but the religious right Republicans forced a non-issue into an issue, and, in fact, made it a rallying cry against some supposed threat of gay activism, which was almost non-existent before then in those states. What activism you’re seeing now is a response to all that and what has happened in California.

    Even the sweetest dog will bite your leg if you kick it hard enough.

    No, gay people haven’t been that organized to really attempt to get legislation passed. Most of us are realistic about equal rights, and know that as in the past, generally, equal rights will come through the courts, first, based on the Constitution, then (as happened in the 60s) with the legislation to put laws into place.
    We also know, after having been forced to live so long in society’s closet because of discrimination and bigotry, that our mere existence and the desire to live an open life, just like everyone else’s, is a shock to some of you, (except, of course, those of you who love your hairdressers, and still think that’s the only profession gay people have) and now you have to realize that there are so many of us. But, for most of you, you just need to get over your “ick factor”:

    http://triptotheouthouse.wordpress.com/2008/08/13/dog-poop-religion-and-the-ick-factor/ (read more of my thoughts on this topic)

    because if it weren’t for your “ick factor”, you’d be done with all this. And one day, you will.
    If you really want to support families, you should support all kinds of families. The “Leave It To Beaver” family really never was the norm even when cars had tailwings on the back. As far as parading your sexuality around on the streets, do you hold your husband’s hand in public? Do you give him an
    endearing look at the grocery store? Ever give him peck at the airport? But you don’t even really get it, do you? The sexuality of heterosexuality is pervasive everywhere and you’re completely oblivious to it. You only notice same-sex affection since it jumps out at you because almost everything out there promotes only straight relationships: the hunky guy in the perfume commercial, Brittney Spears’ and Beyonce’s costumes, McCain’s relationship with his rich wife (but not that of his gay chief of staff’s relationship with his partner. If you think gay people are parading their sexuality, I think you are only focused on the specific term “sex”, and I think you must be going looking for it.
    I waited a long time to upgrade my cable so that I could get one lousy, gay-themed channel (out of the how many other channels–and,at least 25 or so of the total are religious channels), but the gay channel just keeps showing the same programs over and over again–not really a lot of sexuality being tossed around there. But just flip the channel, and there’s a guy and girl with their clothes off, going after it, and that’s the daytime soaps on NBC, not even the Playboy channel I’m talking about. So, beetlebabee, you really need to think, and look at the world as a whole before saying gay people are parading their sexuality, because your team’s parade goes on 24/7 in “living color”.
    One comment to rubyeliot: What are YOU doing to prevent teasing and harassment to these kids in schools? You say there are better ways. I’d say you have to promote the idea that gay kids are no different than straight kids; they just want to go to school in a non-threatening atmosphere and be able able to get an education and enjoy school life. What are YOU doing to help gay kids feel safe in their schools?
    As far as freedom of speech, beetlebabee, this blog proves nobody is hindering your freedom of speech. However, when it comes to freedom of religion, doesn’t that mean you have the freedom to worship in whatever way you want whatever type of god that you want and that you have the freedom not to worship if you don’t want? I’ve never seen anything that says freedom of religion means that the laws of this country will be the laws of any religion, let alone the religious beliefs of one particular kind of religion. And how would you like that one particular religion to be Islam and be kneeling down to Mecca five times a day, like in countries such as Iran and Saudi Arabia where secular law and religious laws are combined?
    Now take a look at it that way, and maybe you will understand what freedom of religion actually means–not only freedom of religion, but freedom FROM religion.
    I don’t think you really know any gay people, but if you got that Fred Phelps thing goin’ on in your thinking, it might be a little difficult. Rubye says she has gay friends, but if she were a true friend, she wouldn’t really be comin’ down so hard, sayin’,”and they know where I stand on this issue.” If they were really her friends, there wouldn’t even be an issue.

  26. beetlebabee said,

    December 9, 2008 at 1:52 am

    wow trip. that was a long way to say something. Seems like you’ve got a lot of anger there, however, I think the best line is the last, and it illustrates exactly what I’ve been saying. Tolerance doesn’t mean acceptance.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: