frgavin on May 2nd, 2013



Bill Muehlenberg’s commentary on issues of the day…

Ya just gotta laugh at these militant social engineers – or cry. Their position on things like homosexual marriage is so pathetically weak and incoherent, that they would be laughed out of court ordinarily, and no credible media outlet would run with their baloney.

But that is just our problem – the mainstream media is not credible at all any longer, and simply is in bed with the activists, and serve as the lapdogs for them, doing their every bidding. So the militants do not need their own PR machine – they already have the MSM at their beck and call.

Thus any foolish and ridiculous piece of social engineering propaganda will get a free run in the MSM today. No matter how imbecilic or sophomoric the piece, it will proudly feature in the opinion pages of our lamestream media. We had yet another terrific example of this in the Melbourne Gayge yesterday.

Hard core homosexual campaigner Rodney Croome had one of the most hilarious pieces that I have read in a long time. Sadly he was not trying to be funny. He spends an entire piece telling us not to believe the people. He does not want a referendum on homosexual marriage, and presents all sorts of absurd reasons for this. But it is all one big smokescreen: he fears it because he knows it is not wanted by the public.

So he resorts to all sorts of mumbo jumbo, eg: “Overseas referenda on marriage equality have been exploited by cashed-up, anti-gay groups to conduct fear and hate campaigns against gay people.” Yep, we are just rolling in the dough, and we offer “fear and hate” as we simply present the truth about the homosexual agenda.

Oh, and here is a little inconvenient truth which Rodney and the Age will never allow to go public: it seems for years our activist buddy was campaigning like mad – but against homosexual marriage. Yep, you heard me right. He even differs with himself on this!

Over the years he has been all over the place on this issue. For example, he has admitted that “I was also once a sceptic about marriage reform, believing it to be a distraction from more important issues, at best unnecessary and at worst dangerous”.

He even acknowledges that his colleagues strongly differ on the issue: “Australia’s LGBT human rights advocates are more bitterly divided than, in my experience, has ever been the case before”. Yet in this article we have Mr Croome pretending that everyone wants same-sex marriage! Many of his own colleagues do not see eye to eye with him at all on this.

So why his change of heart? It is not because he really wants marriage – hardly any homosexuals do. What they want is the social approval and acceptance. It is the normalisation of their lifestyle that is really being sought here. Let me quote Mr Croome again:

“This isn’t about sex, it’s about symbolism. Despite, or perhaps because of, an increase in de facto relationships and divorce, many Australians value marriage highly. For better or worse, it bestows on a relationship society’s ultimate seal of approval. This is why social conservatives deeply loathe marriage equality and why, as the inheritors of centuries of stigma, many same-sex couples yearn for it.”

That is what Mr Croome and so many others want: social approval. That is why there is such a concentrated effort to redefine marriage by the homosexual lobby. But the truth is, ordinary Australians don’t want this. That is why Croome does not want a referendum on this – he knows he will lose big time.

I don’t mind a referendum. Let the people decide, not the militant minority groups. What are you so afraid of Rodney? Many groups are supporting this. As reported in one article, a properly worded question on this is needed:

“Christian groups, led by the Reverend Fred Nile, are calling for a referendum on gay marriage, saying Australians will reject any change to the status quo. But Mr Nile insisted a referendum question must be a ‘black-and-white choice’ on whether to allow ‘homosexuals to get married’ rather than a generic commitment to support ‘marriage equality’.

”‘I’m in favour of marriage equality – between a husband and a wife,’ he said. I think people should decide the issue. But the question has to be clear. A question like “are you in favour of marriage equality?” will confuse some people. The question has to be black and white: Do you agree that homosexuals should be legally married? I think the majority of people would vote no if the question was clear’.”

And as columnist Gerard Henderson rightly stated, “The media in Australia is obsessed with same-sex marriage. It is far from clear, however, that this is a priority for many Australians living in the suburbs and regional centres – far away from the inner city where journalists tend to be domiciled.”

He concludes, “Same-sex marriage advocates see themselves railing against the old-fashioned views of some Christians, including many Catholics. This overlooks the fact that there is considerable opposition to same-sex marriage in the Muslim and Hindu communities as well as among socially conservative non-believers.

“When the Marriage Amendment Bill was debated in the House of Representatives last year, it was opposed by three prominent Labor MPs from Western Sydney – Chris Bowen (an atheist), Tony Burke (a Catholic) and Ed Husic (a Muslim).

“In the current issue of The Spectator, John Laughland documents the growing opposition to same-sex marriage in France, particularly in provincial areas. If significant social change is to be imposed on Australians at relatively short notice, it would make sense to test community attitudes. After all, in 1977 a plebiscite was conducted on what should be Australia’s national song. Many Australians regard the concept of traditional marriage as important as the words of the national anthem.”

Yep. So let the people decide on this. It is far too important an issue to be run roughshod over by the cowards in the militant homosexual lobby.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.