CultureWatch

Bill Muehlenberg's commentary on issues of the day...

The Homosexual Marriage Debate: Censorship, Bullying and Hysteria

Aug 19, 2017

Let me open with a few home truths:

-Those demanding the complete redefinition – and thus destruction – of marriage do NOT want a debate on the matter.
-They want it rammed through without the agreement of the public.
-They do not have facts and evidence on their side, which is why they despise debate.
-They therefore do not seek to win the debate – they seek to shut down the debate.
-If they must engage in debate, the best they can come up with is ad hominem attacks, mud-slinging, name-calling, hate and hysteria.

All this is easily enough documented. As to the other side preventing genuine debate from taking place, and shutting down the ‘No’ voice on homosexual marriage, consider a few recent articles. Last week the hyper-left Guardian informed us that it will quite happily censor our side of the story.

Its headline ran as follows: “We won’t be giving equal time to spurious arguments against marriage equality”. It then went on to insist that arguments about the well-being of children have absolutely nothing to do with the debate, and therefore they will not get a run. But see more on this below.

The piece also informs us that the militant push for homosexual marriage has nothing to do with the gay agenda. Um, what? So just what does it have to do with? The wombat agenda? The popcorn agenda? The power steering agenda? Duh.

One might as well argue that sharia law has nothing to do with the Islamic agenda. Or that cigarettes have nothing to do with the tobacco industry agenda. Related to this, the writer of the article says this has nothing to do with safe-schools programs and the like. Actually it has absolutely everything to do with such things as I have often documented.

But they prefer censorship. Now in any public debate, getting the word out is crucial. When so many of the main means of sharing one’s point of view are blocked however, that makes it very hard – and quite difficult. And that is what a whole lot of groups have been doing: seeking to censor the ‘No’ case. As one writeup puts it:

A leading advertising agency behind the push for same-sex marriage has been accused of trying to shut down debate ahead of a postal plebiscite, after it called on its industry peers to refuse to work for companies campaigning against the cause.
The brainchild of Royals creative partner Nick Cummins, the Say No To No campaign launched on Thursday and has already been backed by more than 500 employees from advertising agencies across the country as well as media companies, including Southern Cross Austereo and Buzzfeed. While Mr Cummins defended the boycott, describing it as no different to refusing to work for a tobacco company, it has been criticised as an attack on free speech and democracy.
Former prime minister Tony Abbott said the initiative demonstrated that intolerance was at the heart of the same-sex marriage campaign. “Disagreement isn’t just wrong — it’s not allowed,” Mr Abbott told The Australian.
“I would say to advertisers, don’t allow yourself to be coerced by political groupthink.”
Legal academic Augusto Zimmermann said the boycott, while not illegal, was “a serious display of undemocratic behaviour”.
“Although the federal government has committed itself to holding a plebiscite so that the people will be allowed to decide the matter, I wonder how this can be achieved when advocates of the traditional view are prevented from expressing their opinions by intolerant activists,” he said.
Marriage Alliance spokeswoman Sophie York said the group’s campaign to keep existing marriage laws intact had previously been subjected to censorship bids, including media bans on past advertisements. “We have been saying for years that this vote would be a vote on freedom of speech and the ad industry just proved it,” she said. “The message our opponents are sending is simple and clear: if you disagree, you shouldn’t be heard.”

But, one might argue that businesses can do what they like. OK, but what about government bodies? Should they be allowed to take sides here and squash opposing points of view which they are not happy with? Well, one Melbourne council has decided it tell those concerned about homosexual marriage to just drop dead. Consider this shocking case of bigotry and bias:

A Council in Melbourne’s north will give free office space to same-sex marriage campaigners — while blacklisting opponents of marriage equality. Greens-dominated Darebin Council will also issue a warning to local churches not to campaign against same-sex marriage.
It will allow ‘yes’ campaigners to use council facilities and services for free in the lead up to the postal plebiscite on same-sex marriage. But ‘no’ campaigners will be barred from using council facilities, according to an urgent motion to be voted on next week.
The council will also write to local churches and religious groups to warn them of the “potentially harmful impacts of campaigning against marriage equality”. Councillor Susan Rennie said the council had a clear mandate to support and protect the LGBTI community.
“The postal poll is a terrible idea, there’s no justification for it and it will make some people in our community feel unsafe and expose them to homophobia and discrimination,” she said.

Oh good grief. Toughen up little buttercups. Simply debating the merits of one of the most radical social experiments ever is just too much for these delicate little flowers? Having a different point of view on marriage is now defined as ‘homophobia’? Really?

And shouldn’t these guys be representing all of their citizens and all of their tax-payers? This is an appalling abuse of power. These guys were elected to govern for the whole community, not just some tiny and very noisy minority group.

But as I said, this is how the other side operates. They do not want debate. They want to squash all debate and shut down all opposing points of view. Um, is that not the way dictatorships operate? Isn’t that the way totalitarian societies run?

Just stomp on every opponent. Just delete every contrary point of view. Just pretend there is only one side to the story. And while you are at it, rewrite the history books. This is where all this rainbow fascism is taking us. I am reminded of the words of George Orwell in his ominous novel, 1984. He said this about the total state:

Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book has been rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And that process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except the endless present in which the party is always right.

Yep, we are quickly moving in this direction. And I have encountered all this plenty of times myself. Simply try to reason with these folks and present your case, and you will get shouted down, abused, and treated like dirt. So much for open debate in a free society.

As just one example of this, the other day I posted a short video clip of two homosexuals who made the ‘No’ case for homosexual marriage – this time relating to the 2015 vote in Ireland. These guys made a very calm, polite, rational and informed case for saying no.

Yet for daring to post this all hell broke loose. I had one guy actually say this about the video: “This video is stupid, bigoted, hateful and hurtful.” Um, yeah right. Forget about the evidence. Forget about the data. Forget about the arguments. Just attack those saying it – even if they happen to be out and proud homosexuals!

You gotta laugh: two homosexuals carefully and thoughtfully explain why they are opposed to homosexual marriage, and they are blasted as haters and bigots by the tolerance brigade! Oh my. And there were plenty of similar comments by the other side.

One insisted that homosexual marriage had nothing whatsoever to do with children. Um earth calling activists: of course it does. As I replied to this person:

Marriage has always been about the regulation of human sexuality and the well-being of any children so conceived. That has been the case for as long as the social institution of marriage has existed. It has never been about just how people may feel about each other. Two sisters can care greatly for each other but they do not marry. And so what if non-married people have kids? What does that have to do with the discussion? The truth is, marriage is a pro-child institution. As I state in the above article – the one you seemed not to have bothered to read – children do best when raised by their own biological mother and father. That is something they are denied in a homosexual marriage. And let me call your bluff here: the great majority of those campaigning for homosexual marriage are also campaigning for the right to have children as well (via ART, surrogacy, etc). That is why we seek to defend marriage and not allow it to be redefined and thus destroyed by the activists.

Needless to say, that comment did not get treated any better by this person and the other angry ‘Yes’ case advocates. They simply resorted to even more name-calling and more ugly abuse. One of them even thought they sealed the deal by digging up a really nasty hate site which is devoted entirely to attacking me and telling lies about me.

I realised by this point that there was zero sense in continuing to try to reason with these folks. They are beyond reason. They simply emote and they simply hate. That is the extent of how they make their case. BTW, you can see this terrific video clip here: www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6HD8KLQBvA&feature=youtu.be

I actually had one nice and polite gal share this video and she got attacked mercilessly by her ‘friends’. After just a few hours of the ferocious attack on her she started to talk about pulling down the post. She was just so shocked and hurt by the nasty and hate-filled reactions.

So get used to it folks: if you dare to offer your opinion in public on homosexual marriage, and dare to say you are opposed to it, you will get blasted big time. ‘Friend’ and foe alike will turn on you as if you were proclaiming your love of torturing kittens or something similar.

It gets really ugly out there, but we must continue to stand up and be counted. This issue is far too important to just allow the haters and bigots on the other side to seek to bully us into silence and into submission. So stand strong and speak out. Our children and grandchildren especially are counting on you here.

www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/aug/12/we-wont-be-giving-equal-time-to-spurious-arguments-against-marriage-equality
www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/ad-firm-accused-of-trying-to-shut-down-debate-with-say-no-to-no-campaign/news-story/cb155db8ad6b31851d2109cc9bfe9f33
www.heraldsun.com.au/leader/north/darebin-council-set-to-pass-motion-to-offer-resources-to-marriage-equality-campaign/news-story/b4976b48ec38f866461913b81017fa5f

[1797 words]

18 Responses to The Homosexual Marriage Debate: Censorship, Bullying and Hysteria

  • “The council will also write to local churches and religious groups to warn them of the ‘potentially harmful impacts of campaigning against marriage equality'”? So a government body is simply demonstrating what the No vote has been saying for ages – SSM and its advocates are a threat to religious liberty, the right to free speech etc. What else do you call people who issue threats towards groups simply because they might be opponents?

    Homomarxist Law, including things like SSM, is really no better than Sharia Law, in fact it may even be worse!

  • Tolerance is only given when we agree on what is popular and considered necessary at the time. Those of us who dare to say no are not accepted as rational people but some sort of two headed stupid thinking and hateful creatures, which are not. We are using reason to protect children. We are using our democratic right to say no. Biblical morals and beliefs that God set in His Word that one man marries one woman are seen as fairytales by those who scorn those against women wearing Burqas when this complete covering of a woman isn’t even in the Islamic Koran. So who is the more fairytale believer? God’s word clearly states His views and is ignored yet the Koran has no mention of a “right” of culture where women wear burqas. It beggars belief and common sense.

  • This is terrible, that it has become so institutional.

    The scripture that came to mind when reading this is Prov 26:3-6,
    3 “A whip for the horse, a bridle for the donkey, and a rod for the backs of fools!
    4 Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will be just like him.
    5 Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes.
    6 Sending a message by the hands of a fool is like cutting off one’s feet or drinking poison”.

    A nice pickle which ever way you choose.

    I think we have to answer the fool according to his folly, but attempt the best we can to avoid the unwise speech in both the language and tone.

    Still, we must seek ways and means that will get the message out.
    There probably are still publishing houses, adv. agencies, even news papers and magazines that may be willing to run with the NO campaign. If not then the boycott of our cause must become big news.

    We can still do our own thing. If 5000 people printed a 1000 leaflets and letter-boxed them that’s 5million. Its not as hard or costly as it may sound.
    My “Kangaroo” leaflet for letter-boxing may be picked up and published through CDP. Besides I will be printing more of my own to distribute.

    The proposed text of that leaflet is something like this;
    (Side 1) “HOW MANY LEGS DOES A KANGAROO HAVE IF YOU CALL THE TAIL A LEG?”
    (Side 2)
    “TWO!
    Calling the tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg, even if he’s standing on it.
    (Apologies to Abraham Lincoln and his dog.)

    Likewise, “Same Sex Marriage” (SSM)can never really be marriage.
    LETS GET REAL!
    It can never produce children
    It can never offer a mother and a father to a child.
    It can never be equal to marriage between a man and a woman.
    Only marriage between a man and a woman can properly build a family and nation.
    In addition;
    SSM will give endorsement to a high risk lifestyle associated with many health and social problems.
    Only a very small percent of “Gays” have taken up SSM once it became legal for them.
    Also, note that many LGBTI+ people are themselves against SSM.

    Vote “NO” to Same Sex Marriage in the Plebiscite Authorized by B Knowling Blaxland NSW”

  • Same sex marriage is DISGUSTING. Marriage is a man and a woman.

  • Arguing with the ‘yes’ mob is like trying to argue with Satan – a liar from the beginning according to Jesus. But is it ‘like’ trying to argue with Satan or is it arguing with Satan? Satan’s pretty smart. Perhaps the ‘no’ mob ought to enlist the help of Michael the Archangel, he has a good track record against Satan. If the ‘yes’ vote wins then Satan will have to seek additional premises to cater for the increased numbers. Of course if Satan does not exist then please disregard the above.

  • BUT GOD

    BUT GOD

    “Say No to a counsel of despair”

  • Thanks Bill,
    Just posted this video link on a gay marriage site. Just wonder how many micro seconds it will last. HO HO HO.
    Keep fighting mate. We have not lost this battle yet, despite MSM bias and unfairness to the NO case.

    God bless you and all gutsy Christians who are prepared to stand. Jesus Christ will honor us one day so NEVER NEVER give up.
    Keep praying for Tony Abbott. Received email yesterday from him stating his reasons for voting NO. Like him or hate him. He has backbone.
    Best regards Phil

  • You raise two very important points. Firstly, homosexuals are nothing like 100% behind the redefinition of marriage but left wing ideologues are very obviously 100% behind it. Secondly, the redefinition is instrumental in the removal of human rights such as those relating to parenthood, childhood, rights of free speech and religious freedom. We have seen this in Canada and other countries and even in Victoria where the Labor government there apparently thinks that the rights of loco parentis do not exist. In Scotland the “Named Person” scheme, where there is a nominated person who’s job it is to check on all families and inform the government of any “problems” was defeated in the courts but what should worry people is the reason given. There was no call to natural law or God given rights, as there would have been in the past, but just that the court felt it was too great an intrusion into privacy. So what happens after we have a generation of children raised under an indoctrinating education system that inevitably results in judges no longer having these “feelings”?

    You say, Bill, “The piece also informs us that the militant push for homosexual marriage has nothing to do with the gay agenda” but there is some truth in this. The promise of “equality” is a lie that should never have been made to homosexuals. Homosexual relationships are not sociologically, functionally, sexually nor morally (by what were all the standards in the past) equal so the promise of “equality” will never actually be able to be achieved but what it does do is give the left wing of politics and humanist atheists almost endless ammunition to attack those who do not agree with their agenda. To attack them in the courts, to put them out of business, to keep them out of government and out of the legal system. Homosexuals are really just pawns in a much bigger battle and many homosexuals and others have been able to see this.

  • In a culture where there is commonly believed there’s no absolute truth, we ought to expect reason to become the slave of human passions, as Sceptic, David Hume once described it. With no absolute truth in view, we may expect people to “go with their gut” and abandon the exercise of reason and the unflinching search for truth and justice.

    When people come to seem truth as stranger, more painful and dangerous than fiction, soon they will defend their preferred fantasies to the last drop of blood.

  • Thanks guys. And yet another case of a government ignoring – and treating like dirt – those who differ, and using tax dollars to push an activist minority agenda:

    www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/canberra-to-go-rainbow-as-act-government-backs-yes-samesex-marriage-campaign-20170817-gxy7oo.html

  • And now Senator Brandis is trying to stop us debating how fake marriage will destroy families and make “safe schools” compulsory.

    www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/same-sex-marriage-tony-abbott-wont-trick-me-george-brandis-says/news-story/b61a5fb2500c26822f861ffd7bf16862

    It’s a shame. The Australian Chinese Christian community was 100% supportive of his denunciation of Senator Hanson’s burqa stunt — we have long memories and (with the exception of Lin Shan Ju) we have not forgotten Hanson’s racist attack on Asians in her maiden speech on 1996 — but then he alienates us from the Liberal Party two days later.

  • There’s some interesting bits and pieces in this video if anyone’s interested. I think I stumbled over it when glancing at the Irish homosexuals opposed to SSM link someone posted earlier. Not the greatest speaker, but the information was new to me. The pace and direction of post-SSM legislation, and society’s growing rejection of all things God, is disturbing.

  • Well said Bill. So many want to jump on the popularity wagon to be seen to support our same sex brothers and sisters – but there is so much more to this decision. Consequences! Same sex couples will always get together, as they have done for a long time as is their CHOICE. Redefining marriage is a complex issue and I will not have a rabid intolerant minority shut down my right to express an opinion. No hate from me – just my right to speak my opinion without being bullied or shamed for it, as we should all be able to do.

  • Dear Bill,

    The natural human behavioural practice of “one flesh” marriage will continue as this has existed from the beginning of mankind and womankind, and this has existed with and without the protection of the state. The Australian Federal government can only regulate or deregulate a civil “registered marriage” practice, but it can’t change the true meaning of a “one flesh” marriage nor the harm of coveting-adultery-divorce. People need to understand the difference within a complimentary set such as a cup and saucer. The shape of the cup is completely different to the shape of a saucer and it is impossible to change the meaning of the words “cup” and “saucer.” Therefore, it is impossible to change the true meaning of the complimentary set of a man-woman married couple as they can naturally procreate, nurture and raise children which is different from all other relationships.

    The Australian Federal Parliament can deregulate the civil “registered marriage” practice like the taxi licences by including Uber, but it would be misleading and dishonest to claim this didn’t have significant harmful problems. The taxi licence use to be worth about $500 000 but today the banks consider these licences to be worthless and can’t be used as security against a house and this has lead to suicide and family breakdown as taxi licence owners have lost their homes. Therefore, the Australian government would be misleading and dishonest to claim deregulation of a civil “registered marriage” practice won’t harm the Australian way of life.

    Christians and conservative people need to understand the meaning of a civil “registered marriage” practice and the reason the government forced Christian ministers to register all genuine bonafide marriages (the marital act of consummation -sexual intercourse is a requirement of a genuine marriage in British law) in order to protect society from harm including coveting-adultery-divorce, family breakdown, domestic violence, corruption, dishonesty – “sham marriages” and even murder. The British marriage law continues to upholds the practice – adultery is grounds for a divorce. The LGBTIAQ party activist claim marriage is no longer an exclusive union between one man and one woman for life but one of the requirements for divorce/ separation is that the married couple are no longer having a sexual relationship. Therefore, the LGBTIAQ party activists are misleading and dishonesty to claim marriage is no longer a sexual union. The Family Court has been designed to deal with the breakdown of marriage/family which include the ongoing responsibility of the father and mother to work out how they will continue to nurture and raise their children. Therefore, the LGBTIAQ party activists are misleading and dishonest to claim marriage has nothing to do with the natural procreation, nurturing and raising of children.

    The Australian people are sick and tired of the Australian governments and government authorities making misleading and dishonest claims about deregulation such as electricity will mean lower prices because of more competition. How can the Australian people trust the government can deregulate the civil “registered marriage” practice without causing harm to the Australian way of life? Many Christians and conservative people don’t believe “marriage is between any 2 people” as the word “people” includes children, parents, siblings, students, teachers, nurses, patients/clients, housemates, friends, more than a couple. Also, they don’t believe the marital act is legal sodomy nor it is best to place children with unrelated adult/s and children nor natural human reproduction should be contaminated by scientific experimentation of human reproduction like the “Handmaid Tales.”

  • Hi Bill
    Thank you so much for your courageous and insightful words. I posted this on a FB page and had 25 positive responses in a few hours.
    It seems to me that there is an elephant in the room. The ssm advocates and their cronies perpetuate a load of lies. One of the biggest is the lie by omission of the medical side effects of MSM. Here are a few things that I have discovered:

    (Please let me know if you think I have any incorrect information Bill. Thanks)

    Medical complications of anal sex
    • Anti-virals do not do away with HIV/AIDS. It means that many are living with life-long chronic illness rather than acute illness.
    • HIV status is likely to significantly reduce life expectancy even with strong anti-virals. (by 15 – 20 years)
    • Side effects of anti-virals can be so severe that some are unable to use them.
    • Globally 40% of those with HIV are unaware they are infected. – www.avert.org/global-hiv-and-aids-statistics
    • Other complications of Homo and bi-sexual practises are anal and genital cancers, hepatitis, STDs(HPV and syphilis are common), physical injuries and parasitic infections, mental illnesses and suicide (shown to be unrelated to discrimination).
    • Some use anti-virals prophylactically (to prevent infection). This may increase the likelihood of infection if condoms are abandoned.
    • What is the likelihood of development of resistance to current anti-virals?
    • What is the outcome if sufficient drugs are not available?
    • There is significant financial cost to the taxpayer for drugs and treatment.
    • There is no mandatory requirement for an HIV person to disclose their status to a partner.
    • Anal sex will always lead to negative medical consequences. The anus is one cell thick, the vagina is 20 – 40 cells thick.
    See www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IeKSCHXs-0 Dr Miriam Grossman
    • New HIV cases are coming predominantly from young men ( 13 – 24), over half of whom do not know they are infected.
    • Dr Paul Church states that 2013 US statistics show more than double the rate of HIV infection from 1985 and deaths exceed the 1985 epidemic.

    Hiding these facts from the public and encouraging perverse practices among the young is pure evil. I hope the govt is saving their dollars for the inevitable law suits (“No one told me about Aids. My life is ruined.” statement by Q&A participant 2015)
    How is it loving to lead people into a lifestyle which is likely to lead to injury, chronic illness and death?

  • Very valuable. Why isn’t ACL touching these critical implications of SSM and their resultant health issues for our Nation
    Phil

  • I love this post so much.

    I love the replies so much.

    You’ve no idea how much of a breath of fresh air it is to read words from people who are not blind. Who know the facts. Who understand the concepts and consequences of things.

    I mean, I’ve seen this happening now for years. Well, ever since America did the thing in 2015, where Obama/their court illegally forced ssm on USA, to the determent of many people there. People lost their jobs, their livelihoods, their friends, their families…

    Yet, we are the haters. We defend ourselves in self defence, yet we are the attackers. We stand up, again and again, only to be attacked and hated on by more and more people each time. But I know I am someone who will NEVER give up. No matter how much they try to oppress us, to dictate our lives, to force us to live the way they want us to live.

    BE STRONG. BE WISE. And know there are other people out there who think the way you do! Know there is people out there who are not blind to the truth.

  • One of the greatest problems that people in general fail to understand is the spiritual implications of these decisions that will ultimately affect every Australian citizen. God is a gentleman and will not impose His will on people. He has given choice to all of us. If the majority ask Him to leave, He will leave this nation Godless. By allowing ‘us’ to choose this path, righteousness will disappear from Australia & evil will become the norm. Isaiah 5 “they will call that which is evil, good and that which is good, evil”. We who hold fast to the truth will unfortunately see the results of this decision. The destruction of nations is prophesied and I believe it started with the homosexual lobby and the pc nonsense. Praise God it’s time for all of us to draw near, hear His voice and speak up so the people may hear the truth, The Kingdom of God is at hand, choose life before death claims your soul. God bless all of you. Andy

Leave a Reply