There is always one thing you can count on with the secular humanist social activists: since things like absolute truth and universal morality tend not to rate very high in their worldview, they seem to have little problem with bending the truth when it serves their purposes. Indeed, it seems to be a hallmark of these folk to make things up as they go along – all in the interests of pushing their radical social engineering agenda.
Consider how one secular activist has managed to present an article for public consumption which is riddled with lies, distortions, half-truths, myths and nonstop ad hominem attacks. But the end obviously justifies the means, so anything can be said if it advances the “cause”.
The article in question – which appeared on crikey – deals with the just-held National Marriage Breakfast held at Parliament House, Canberra. It is written by a homosexual activist, so one should not expect mere trifles such as facts, truth and honesty to stand in the way of his telling of the story.
We are informed that this gathering is an attempt by the “religious right” to “stare down the ALP from their bully pulpit” on the issue of same-sex marriage. Sorry, not quite. It was actually a rally held to celebrate and affirm the oldest, most universal, and most important of human institutions.
So has that now become a crime? And when a bunch of homosexual activists come together to push their political agenda, is that also to be regarded as an attempt to “stare down the ALP from their bully pulpit”? For some reason I don’t think they would describe things in those terms. When pro-family folk meet, it is only ever nefarious; when radical activists meet, it is all fully justified sweetness and light, evidently.
Consider also this mouthful: “Every gay-bashing, homophobic hate group will be represented in one way or another. The event has even been nick-named the ‘Muehlenberg Rally’, in recognition of serial homophobe Bill Muehlenberg from Victorias Australian Family Association being a key advocate for the event. Bill is very fond of using ‘research’ from anti-gay groups in the USA to show that homosexuals are diseased, depraved, irresponsible and promiscuous.”
I could spend a week trying to dissect all the nonsense contained here. But let me point out just a few things for starters. While it is an honour to know how important I seem to be in all this, this guy has managed to get everything he has said completely wrong.
Given that I have had nothing to do with the organising of this event, it is quite odd to be singled out as the driving force behind it. It is even more odd to be seen as such a major force of something I was not even part of. I was not even in the same state at the time. I was not even in the same country. But I suppose for these conspiracy theorists, facts are of little consequence.
I suppose I could have been on Mars for the past three months, and still be blamed for everything these oh-so tolerant types disapprove of. And I am part of the AFA? That is news to me, as it would be to the AFA. And he does not like my research? That is especially odd.
Then again we are dealing with an odd bunch. Just why does he not like my research? Because it is American research? Even if it were all solely from the US, so what? Strange, but when they are trying to justify something like same-sex adoption, they are quite happy to use stacks of research from the US all the time. Somehow it is wrong for their opponents to do the very same thing. But by now we should be used to these glaring double standards.
Indeed, let’s just look at this “US” data on homosexual promiscuity. Just how are the following research organisations – to name but a few – in any way American? The National Centre in HIV Social Research (Macquarie University); the National Centre in HIV Epidemiology and Clinical Research (University of New South Wales); and the AIDS Council of New South Wales (ACON).
Do the homosexual activists discount their research? It is pretty hard to dismiss this research as being from ‘homophobic’ Americans. But since we are on the topic, let’s see what these research groups have to say. One of their studies found that 26 per cent of homosexual men had 21 to 100 partners in a lifetime; nearly 41 per cent had 101 to 1000 partners; and 17 per cent had over 1000 partners.
A study of Melbourne homosexuals reported that 24 per cent of respondents said they had sex with 11 to 50 partners in the last six months, and 6.5 per cent had sex with more than 50 partners. Another study looking at sexual relationships with men over four years found that 77.2 per cent were never celibate. Only 5.3 per cent of male homosexuals over four years never had casual partners.
One of the most recent, and largest, national studies (involving 20,000 Australians) found that 35.3 per cent of homosexuals had 10 to 49 same-sex partners in a lifetime, while 38.2 per cent had 50 or more sexual partners in a lifetime.
The academic studies are backed up by the popular gay press. A casual perusal of the homosexual press reveals a predilection for this kind of behaviour. Consider but one recent example. A Melbourne writer, speaking of a New Year’s Eve celebration, speaks of “the essential tragedy of the heterosexual condition”. He explains,
“Heterosexuals, it seems, simply do not know how to pick up total strangers in the street and have uncomplicated animal sex with them. The world would undoubtedly be a happier place if they did. Certainly the den of depravity where I found myself at 3am was a considerably happier place. I had already had uncomplicated animal sex with two attractive men – at least they looked pretty attractive in the dark – and was hot on the trail of number three. I did not expect to marry them, fall in love with them or even find out their names. All around me groans and grunts indicated that a thoroughly happy new year was being had by all.”
So my homosexual critics will have to come up with some new ludicrous charge to discount the truth. But they tend to not let the facts stand in the way of pushing their agenda. Indeed, the rest of the article continues in the same vein: unsubstantiated charges, bluffs, half-truths and outright falsehoods. Anything to push their social engineering along.
But hey, why not? It worked great for other social engineers, like the Nazis. And the Marxists were also quite fond of holding morality hostage to the good of the cause. One is reminded of Saul Alinsky’s 1971 classic, Rules for Radicals. In it he told the radicals how to achieve their aims, and truth telling was just not on the agenda.
He wrote, for example, “In a fight almost anything goes. It almost reaches the point where you stop to apologize if a chance blow lands above the belt.” Indeed, radical activists are only “concerned with how to win”. In fact, “in war the ends justify almost any means.”
So they regularly tell as many whoppers as they want, because it is for the good of the cause. This crikey article is a great example of this. Bluff and bluster your way through, and don’t let any facts or truth get in the way. But that is ever the way it is with these radical social deconstructionists.
One is reminded of the words of Joseph Goebbels, Adolph Hitler’s propaganda minister: “If you tell any lie long enough, often enough, and loud enough, people will come to believe it.” This crikey article is but one more prime example of such tactics. The good news is, however, that truth will ultimately always defeat a lie.