CultureWatch

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

Shouting Down the Opposition

Apr 25, 2012

The good thing about a democracy is that all sides of hotly debated topics can get a hearing. Or at least that is how it is supposed to work.  But increasingly when one side tries to get a hearing, the other side will come around and seek to shut them down, or at least shout them down.

A great example of this occurred in Perth last night. A pro-family and pro-marriage rally was met by a very noisy minority group bent on causing the maximum amount of disruption. And the only reason the event was allowed to go ahead was because of a heavy security presence.

Not only were a number of police on hand to cordon off the very small but very loud crowd from the actual meeting, but security personnel were also there to make sure the meeting could proceed without disruption. So what could have been a very nasty situation indeed was averted by all those helpful security folks.

There have of course been countless other such meetings where the activists waltzed right in and disrupted, if not shut down altogether, similar sorts of events. So we were grateful that with the security, as well as a lot of prayer cover, our meeting was allowed to go ahead.

And this sort of intimidation, bullying and obstruction is certainly not new. The activists have been doing this for decades now. They have become experts at disrupting and interfering with the rights of others to share their point of view in the public arena. Consider just one overseas example.

Back in 1993 San Francisco pastor Chuck McIlhenny and his wife wrote a book called When the Wicked Seize a City. It recounts their horrific experiences of being targeted by the militant homosexual lobby. Their place was targeted constantly by the activists, and they somehow lived to tell about it.

They experienced bullying, intimidation and harassment of all sorts, including lawsuits, firebombings and other violent physical attacks. They experienced all this horror and intimidation simply because they firmly proclaimed biblical truth. For that they were declared to be public enemy number one.

I know something about all this, having been on the receiving end of homosexual demands for “love,” “acceptance” “diversity” and “tolerance”. I have lost count of all the hate mail I have received. The occasional death threats have also been part of this.

And all this comes from the group which screams the loudest about the need for tolerance and acceptance. All this was clearly on offer last night when we dared to hold a book launch of my new book on homosexuality at a Perth church. The greatest tennis player ever, Margaret Court, is now a pastor and is one of the few Christian leaders with enough courage to stand up against the homosexual jackboots.

She wrote a blurb for my book, and she and her church hosted my book launch. So that means the hate brigade were out in force, seeking to close down the meeting, intimidate everyone there, and stifle free speech. But again, thanks to divine aid, and police and security protection, we were able to hold our meeting.

Media complicity

The mainstream media was of course intolerant as well, refusing to offer balanced coverage. They did come out to video the protestors. Only a few dozen showed up, but the MSM focused on them and their loud shouting, and refused to have anything to do with what was happening inside the venue.

So if you check out and rely upon only the MSM today (see one example I link to below), you would not even know what occurred inside. All the focus was on the noisy militants. There will be plenty of shots on the television news tonight about the tolerance brigade seeking to drown out the meeting, but no coverage at all about what actually transpired inside.

And this is news coverage? This is professional journalism and news reporting? It is like covering a football match and only reporting on one team, with a complete blanket ban of coverage on the other team. But that is a poor analogy, since it implies two equal teams.

It was nothing of the sort of course last night. While the activists blatantly proclaimed that they would prove to the world that they could bring far more troops than the pro-family and pro-marriage folk, quite the opposite occurred. While they could only muster several dozen rent-a-crowd demonstrators, a solid 500 people crammed into the auditorium to hear the three speakers.

In addition to Margaret Court and myself, 94-year-old Rabbi Coleman may have been the star of the evening, with his impassioned defense of marriage and family. And Margaret spoke of how her church is helping those wishing to leave the high-risk homosexual lifestyle, as well as being involved in so many other charitable activities in the region.

I focused on the sad truth that all over the Western world our rights and freedoms are being taken away by the activists. Freedom of conscience, freedom of assembly, and freedom of speech are all being curtailed because of the militants and the active support they get from the judiciary, media and others.

Every day Christians and others who stand up for marriage and family are losing their jobs, being jailed, fined and persecuted. In my talk I offered a number of recent examples of this from Australia and overseas. And I reminded my audience that unless we stand up and be counted here, things will only get much worse.

Indeed, if we do not rally the troops on this, I envisage a time when books like mine will be banned and the Jewish and Christian leaders who take a stand will be imprisoned. If that is the case, as I joked last night, then remember to include a hacksaw blade in the cake you bring to us in prison.

So while the demos failed to get anywhere close to their predicted mass protest, the media acted quite predictably. Soon after all the TV cameras were packed up and gone, all the protestors packed up and left as well. I guess their throats were getting sore from all the screaming.

But we did try to help them out a bit. We played some nice Christian music for them with the external speakers at the church. We trust they were comforted by all that great gospel music. Admittedly these nice songs would have made them shout even louder to be heard, but we were happy to share this with them.

The battle continues

While this demo turned out to be another big failure, it will not deter the militants from coming to other events, seeking to shout them down or to shut them down. But consider just how bizarre all this is. What were they screaming about?

They actually think it is a form of hatred to affirm marriage and family. How nutty have we become as a culture, that we now have to hold meetings to state the obvious: that marriage is about a man and a woman, not two men, or three women, or a bunch of guys and a dog, or a football team?

To have to defend marriage and family is just so very odd. Never before in human history has this been necessary. One might as well hold a meeting to defend eating or to defend breathing. Why defend what is so utterly normal and natural?

Well, as I said last night, we live in unnatural times. We live in abnormal times. As Rabbi Coleman would well know, we live in an age which perfectly reflects what the prophet Isaiah said so long ago: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.”

Some introductory words from the McIlhennys’ book serve as a fitting conclusion here: “We’re afraid many in the Church have forgotten their Church history. The gospel message not only changes individuals but also changes whole societies, whole nations as well.

“The Christian is not simply to possess the knowledge of God in his heart and keep it to himself. He is also to put his faith into action: feeding the poor, working for prison reform, caring for unwed mothers, and, yes, helping AIDS patients through the dying as well as the living process for Jesus’ sake.

“This book is not simply the story of how the McIlhennys have been persecuted by militant homosexuals. It is not written to elicit pity for us. We’re writing this as a wake up call to a sleeping Church. Either the Church wakes up and gets involved in society at large, or we face incredible persecution at the hands of individuals and governments (city, state, and national) who hate the God of the Bible and want His people and message destroyed from the earth once and for all.

“How often has the world attempted to do that and miserably failed? Either the Church becomes militant in its opposition to sin, and aggressive for righteousness and healing, or we will see the collapse of our entire culture into a hedonistic nightmare – with deadly consequences for millions.”

Quite so. A good example of this battle could be seen last night. Fortunately the good guys won, and the militants failed big time. But there will be plenty more such skirmishes. The question is, will we be in these battles, or will we allow the other side to win by default?

The choice is wholly ours.

www.abc.net.au/news/2012-04-25/gay-rights-protesters-rally-outside-church/3971720

[1594 words]

34 Responses to Shouting Down the Opposition

  • By the way, I should have mentioned in the article that a primary mover and shaker in all this was the Australian Family Association. So well done and many thanks to the AFA for making this event happen. Thanks to Frank and his team for doing such a great job.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • Well good on you, Bill! As far as I understand, Christians in Australia still retain the democratic freedom to teach a biblical view of human sexuality.

    Certainly the attitude of the crowd who use Noah’s rainbow colours, seems to be that everyone be forced to adopt their bland view of relationships: sex without glory.

    So, again, good on ya mate!

    Trevor Faggotter

  • Yes good article Bill. I agree with Isaiah and I suspect so does Mary Wagner. She is in jail in Canada in relation to her pro-life activities. Has there been any word on her? We write to her regularly and pray for her and wonder how she is getting on. I suspect she would take comfort from reading this article. At least for her it is more than a possibility.
    B T Walters

  • Funny, I was there last night at VLC but don’t remember seeing ‘dozens’ of protesters. Just a very rude, vocal, intolerant minority of people. Walked past the media who never asked me or any of the hundreds who attended the meeting inside what we thought. But then we’re probably not newsworthy or ‘tolerant’ enough for their liking!
    Thanks Bill, for your measured and excellent presentation. Keep fighting the good fight and our prayer group will keep praying! I do despair of the apathy of much of the church today. So pleased to see Margaret Court brave enough to take a stand.
    And shame on whoever is the parent of the child in the photograph in the news article.
    One only has to read what has happened in Massachusetts regarding the kind of literature they are aiming at kindergarten age children to realise the agenda behind this movement.
    Sandy Anderson

  • The tolerance brigade have 2 demands –

    (1) that everyone have the right to free speech;
    (2) everyone who doesn’t agree with us “shut-up”;

    Heard that somewhere recently. Apt.

    Peter Jackel

  • I have to strongly disagree with one tiny point Bill, When you said “Never before in human history has this been necessary”, that is not actually correct. Almost every time God sent Prophets to the Israelites, it was because of the exact behaviour we see in today’s society, its just on a bigger scale today, plus with all the new ability to transmit info we see it everywhere, whereas the Bible simple was geographically isolated to Israel, although it did specifically mention that the same activities where happening in the countries bordering Israel.

    After all, “there is nothing new under the sun”, just Satan rehashing the same tired routine over and over, and the masses fall for it over and over having forgotten the outcomes of last time it was done. If people will not learn from history, they are doomed to repeat it.

    Neil Waldron

  • May I offer people a compilation of gaystapo peaceful protesters shouting – nay screaming – for the right to have what they want when they want it, including the right to turn morality and truth upside down, back to front and inside out?
    I am sure that folks can offer plenty more exhibits of how one can peacefully shout, scream, threaten and physically attack those with whom one disagrees – all done in love. Or am I being hateful?

    http://www.christian.org.uk/rel_liberties/cases/harry_hammond.htm
    http://www.christian.org.uk/news/homosexuals-try-to-crush-christian-bb/
    [WARNING OFFENSIVE LANGUAGE BUT WHICH SOON WE WILL BE COMPELLED TO LISTEN TO ] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sWaTGLmppg
    [WARNING OFFENSIVE LANGUAGE BUT WHICH SOON WE WILL NO LONGER BE ABLE TO SHUT OUR EARS TO ] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyj1qhj4WPY&feature=related
    http://www.christian.org.uk/news/video-swearing-kids-used-in-gay-marriage-hate-video/
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrRxFoBSPng

    David Skinner, UK

  • I read the MSM article before your piece and the bias was glaring. They spoke about 70 – 100 demonstrators as if that was a huge number and didn’t mention how many pro-marriage people were present. 5000 pro-life demonstrators don’t rate a mention but 100 or less SSM demonstrators do.
    Kylie Anderson

  • Well done, good and faithful servant! I just wish that we ALL could learn to video these events where there are so few protestors but a huge Christian crowd so that we can post it on YouTube and show the world what liars the mainstream media are. Yes, noise is always the preferred defense by their ilk as we see time and time again. There is no other defense. And in answer to your last question, Bill, I WILL BE in these battles with you. So proud of you, Margaret Court, and Rabbi Coleman.

    Anna von Marburg

  • As well as all the known ways that homosexual activists pervert our society, consider how they continue to hijack our language by changing the definition of words to suit their agenda.
    The words, tolerance, gay, bullying, bigotry, discrimination, hate speech, homophobia, and the list goes on. According to the ABC report on the above incident we can now add the word ‘peaceful’. According to this report, a peaceful demonstration is when gay activists ‘shout gay rights messages at people as they entered the building’.

    Thanks for keeping us informed on these matters Bill.

    Annette Williams

  • From the ABC web article:

    A gay rights spokesman, Sam Cavallaro, says about 70 peaceful protesters gathered outside and shouted gay rights messages at people as they entered the building.

    “There’s so much passion of the people here who are fighting for their rights,” he said.

    Bill would anyone be able to verify the spokes-man’s estimate of numbers?

    And note the language: “peaceful protesters” “shouted” “passionate fighters”

    Strong words…but nothing about your meeting inside, as you said.

    John Angelico

  • You’re a c**t and I hope you die a painful death. Also, I can guarantee you, you are well on your way to Hell, you ugly, hate-filled liar.
    Ryan Outram

  • Thanks Ryan

    Filthy and putrid comments such as yours normally go straight into the bin. They are as typical of your side as they are frequent: I get them all the time. But with a bit of editing I have allowed it on my site. That is because you so very perfectly demonstrate the very thing I have been talking about. You folks scream all day about diversity, tolerance and inclusiveness, but as the whole world can now so very clearly see, you don’t mean a word of it. Your side does not seem to have a clue as to what real diversity, tolerance and inclusiveness is all about.

    So thank you again for brilliantly making my case for me. Why take my word for these things when you guys come along and prove everything I have just been saying? Notch up another win for the tolerance brigade.

    Oh, and by the way, thanks for showing us how your side offers us such well-argued and evidence-based commentary.

    But as we said at last night’s meeting, we will keep praying for you and hope that you find real healing and wholeness if you are indeed looking for it.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • Actually, it is an article that completely gets things upside down and back to front.

    By and large, nobody (and certainly not the campaign for equal marriage rights) is trying to prevent Christians with your viewpoint from living and marrying any way you want.

    The real issue is that we are trying to stop you from imposing your ideas onto other people who don’t share your viewpoint.

    Everyone should have freedom to practice their religion so long as other people don’t get hurt. But nobody should impose their religious ideas onto other people.

    A large majority in Australia support equal marriage rights. That is not surprising since that would be the way to support democratic rights, equality and an end to discrimination.

    Your article makes out like you’re being persecuted when you’re not. You’re the ones doing the persecuting. And you should stop!

    Alex Bainbridge

  • Thanks Alex

    But let me call your bluff. As I said in the article, if I started defending eating or breathing, and you objected to me “imposing” my ideas on you, most people would think you got some major issues to deal with. Every human culture in history has celebrated marriage as between a man and a woman. Now you guys come along and tell us it is totally up in the air and anything goes. Sorry it does not work that way.

    I realise that your side loves to offer verbal engineering before you implement social engineering, but we are just not buying it. You can twist logic and language all you like, but it will do you no good. You can call a square a circle all you like, but it remains a square. And you can try to put a round peg in a square hole, but that will not work either. As Abraham Lincoln once put it, when told that calling a tail a leg would mean a dog has five legs: “No, a dog would still only have four legs; calling a tail a leg does not make it so.”

    We are imposing absolutely nothing on anyone. It is only your side which is imposing your warped understanding on us, and forcing us to call black, white, and round, square. The rules of marriage apply equally to every human being on the planet. Meet those rules and you can marry. So there is no unjust discrimination here whatsoever. Anyone can marry provided they are of the right age, marry someone of the opposite sex, and are not close blood relatives.

    If you do not like the rules of marriage, that is your problem. You might as well say you do not like the rules of childbirth, and demand the right, as a male, to have a baby. All you whining about discrimination and “imposing ideas on others” will simply fall on deaf ears, as it should.

    And what in the world does religion have to do with any of this? I have now written two books on SSM, without appealing to religion at all in my arguments. Sorry, but all your many logical fallacies are showing up here big time.

    And no, I will not stop defending marriage and family, and standing up for the wellbeing of children. As long as you revolutionaries want to destroy marriage and family, and destroy society with it, I will keep speaking out, even though you want me silenced.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • Annette and John Angelico. Exactly! How can you peacefully shout? It seems that the gay brain irritation resulting in the complete reversal of truth has infected the brains of the ABC.

    David Skinner, UK

  • Alex what you are demanding is not the equal right to participate with the rest of the human race in not only participating in God’s act of creation by producing new life in the form of the man/wife unit and children from that union, but also protecting and nurturing that new life. This is what God meant when he gave Adam two tasks: one to go forth and multiply and secondly to take care of creation.

    No sir. You want none of this. You do not want the chance to participate in this act of creation. I will tell you want and that is the right to create sterile and perverted sexual amalgamations, confederations and partnerships and what is more to smash all protective barriers to get what you want when you want it.

    What you want is the right to destroy all barriers protecting children and the unborn child. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. These freedoms need to be protected with barriers and it these that you want break down.

    What you want is gay tyranny.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ui1x88kScAs&feature=related

    David Skinner, UK

  • Well done Bill, thanks be to God for the success of the meeting. Never mind the MSM they never let the truth get in the way of telling a story from their angle. And unhappy people like Ryan need prayer, they have been blinded to the truth by the lies they have chosen to believe. As you pointed out, the argument against SSM has been made academically, even by secular people, they (homosexuals) have chosen to ignore that.

    Fred Merlo

  • Acts 19:28: When they heard this and were filled with rage, they began crying out, saying, “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!”……..a single outcry arose from them all as they shouted for about two hours, “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!
    Except that the Ephesians had someone who was reasonable
    …For indeed we are in danger of being accused of a riot in connection with today’s events, since there is no real cause for it, and in this connection we will be unable to account for this disorderly gathering.
    2000 years later and its gotten worse, reason it seems must of died out.
    Useful idiots are everywhere, whether back then or now, satan never seems to run out of them.

    Keep up the good fight Bill.

    Jeffrey Carl

  • So proud of you Bill. Out and proud – love it! I pray that the whole Church might just grow some testicles and do the same. Love in Jesus, good warrior.
    Ian Brearley

  • If Alex is still listening… As Bill said, we did not make up the rules of marriage, but we recognise their goodness and defend them to the end. What if my religion should demand that I give less change after a purchase is made than I ought? Would the buyer not have the right to complain? And on what grounds? Because he made up the rule of mathematics? No, because the rules of mathematics apply equally to everyone just like the rules of marriage do.
    The more I read Isaiah chapter 3, the more I am convinced that we live in the times described there. Firstly, leaders are taken away and children and women rule. but then, the one that hit me this morning was this “they declare their sin like Sodom, they hide it not”.
    I just met a personal friend of Graham Preston’s. He is facing jail for obstructing access to abortion clinics. Why are these noisy protestors from last night not in jail for abusing people going to a meeting? In fact, why did they not get physically removed if the continuation of the meeting was in question due to security concerns? The meeting had legitimacy, the protestors did not, but in these times we get these things easily confused.
    Many blessings,
    Ursula bennett

  • Well I expect we will probably get nothing but crickets from Alex after you pretty much argued along the lines of what I would’ve said, Bill.

    But let me expand on one thing that I am really sick of hearing now, and that is this misuse of the word ‘equal’.

    One of the things I pointed out to the House of Representative committee on same-sex ‘marriage’ was that the argument of ‘equality’ used by activists is actually false because it implies that there are individuals who are denied the chance to marry. But the truth is no-one is ‘denied’ marriage at all!

    The definition of marriage is one man and one woman and as Bill pointed out, everybody qualifies for one side of that equation the same as anybody else. To suggest that inequality exists is to confuse matters, and this is how:

    What is routinely done in this issue is that people confuse the rights of individuals (which are equal) with words to describe different kinds of relationships between people (which are, strangely enough, going to be different!).

    If you – for whatever reason – do not want this kind of relationship called marriage you are free to avoid it. But you cannot call something else marriage any more than you can stick a BMW badge on a Datsun 120Y and call that particular combination of parts a beautiful example of German engineering.

    Marriage is the word we use to describe the special relationship between a man and woman because society needs a special place for this particular combination because it is intrinsically tied to our future. No other relationship carries the same power of potential procreation.

    It is actually pretty simple and spectacularly uncontroversial.

    So, Alex has it backwards when he (she?) talks of having ideas imposed upon others. Marriage is simply the word used to describe one man and one woman. Society actually needs that definition to remain constant, since we are talking about the central social institution of civilisation, not just the market reputation of quality of a motor car company from Munich.

    BMW could go under tomorrow, and civilisation would survive, but this cannot be said for marriage. And yet, if somebody did start marketing counterfeits, you can be sure that most everybody would understand why BMW would chase them with full legal backing.

    So this is why we fight – to keep the ‘brand name’ ‘marriage’ from getting further trashed by people who obviously completely hate what it is meant to mean. The defence of marriage has nothing to do with singling out individuals, but what is best for society as a whole, based on an objective view of human sexuality, male and female. Nothing to do with bigotry, nothing to do with hatred, nothing to do with civil rights, and everything to do with the rational recognition of the facts of our biology, and an eye to the future.

    Introducing ssm would FORCE everybody in society to agree that a homosexual relationship can be called ‘marriage’ and have the rule of law to back it up. That will promote a major level of persecution of a very large part of society, Alex, in case you are wondering, because there are many who will never accept it. That is something Australia (and everywhere else in the world) can happily do without, thanks very much.

    btw, Alex, as with Bill, how much of what I have written above is a religious argument? And just when do you plan to go to a mosque as well and tell them your great social engineering ideas?

    Mark Rabich

  • Well said Mark, I back up what I said earlier about the argument against ssm being put forward even from the secular, see this article which says it very well with no reference to religious views at all.

    Fred Merlo

    http://articles.latimes.com/2008/sep/19/opinion/oe-blankenhorn19

  • If everyone subscribed to same sex marriage that would signal the end of humanity. Same sex couples can’t reproduce without stealing someone else’s biological baby. These are unemotional facts which can’t be altered by even the most rabid attack. Vast numbers of children are hurt, emotionally scarred and made anxious by the flimsiness of their parents’ union and we reap the whirlwind of their disaffectedness and their desire to make their world right and the world of others wrong. That is why people should adhere fiercely to their marriage vows to stay together for better or worse, richer or poorer, until death do them part – if humanly possible. Sometimes, sadly, it is not possible as it takes the will of both partners to navigate the minefield that marriage can be.

    Traditionalists are trying to defend marriage as defined in four different parts of the bible: Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh (e.g. Genesis 2). While marriage, as it is currently being defended by traditionalists from the onslaught of gay activists, is not solely for the purpose of rearing children, its foundation is faithfulness. A leading UK homosexual activist, Peter Tatchell, says in his mission statement Beyond Equality, Item 5: … .”The post equality agenda involves a fundamental renegotiation of sexual values and laws. It seeks an end to heterosexual hegemony and all erotic guilt and repression”. This does not square with marriage as it is, and represents an aggressive attack on marriage which needs to be defended. It would be helpful if more of the clergy would do their job and stand up for marriage as being between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all other. Various media-prominent homosexuals have stated that the civil partnership is sufficient for their needs and they do not necessarily want marriage based on the heterosexual model, refuting the accusation of being “happy to sit at the back of the bus” ( which is clearly an attempt to equate gay rights with the civil rights of black people). Indeed one comedian has observed that the only people who really want marriage is the gay fraternity, as it is all but rejected by heterosexuals.

    Does the use of the word “hegemony” meaning the domination or leadership of one nation,group etc over others, imply that the battle is more for equal power than equal rights, and hence the foul-mouthed, rabid personal attacks which replace reasoned argument?

    http://www.petertatchell.net/lgbt_rights/equality_not_enough/beyond_equality.htm

    Rachel Smith

  • You lot all ignore the fact that equal marriage now exists in loads of European countries and many US states. Think it’ll end there? No, more and more countries will follow suit, soon the UK.

    Have those countries descended into anarchy and apocalypse? Funnily enough, no.

    You can define marriage all you like and apply it to yourself, but most people these days don’t buy into your silly “Adam and Eve” mythology, just as we don’t buy the rest of your claptrap.

    Sorry, not interested. It’s up to the state to define marriage for it’s citizens, not for whinging godbots to think their way is the only way.

    Patsy Kensit

  • Thanks Patsy

    I am always amazed to see how much incorrect and blatantly false stuff you guys can cram into short comments. How many countries have legalised SSM Patsy? I will tell you in case you do not know: ten. How many nations are there Patsy. I will tell you in case you do not know: 200. Thus we are talking about a mere 5% of all nations.

    And if something is wrong, it does not matter how many nations or people do it. Right and wrong is not determined by mere numbers, or a 51% majority. If it were, the Nazis were quite right to do what they did, since they had clear majority support in Germany.

    And it is of course early days – radical social experiments do not bear their fruit overnight; it obviously takes time for the effects to move through a culture. But yes we are already starting to see real damage to marriage and family and child wellbeing in these countries. I document plenty of this in my book.

    And I am of course not defining marriage. I am simply stating what marriage has always been throughout human history. It is you guys who are seeking to redefine marriage out of exiatence.

    And what in the world does Adam and Eve have to do with anything? Why do you guys keep dragging religion into this debate?

    And no, wrong again: the state does not define marriage. The institution of marriage existed long before the institution of the state. States simply recognise what marriage always is and always has been.

    One grows weary of calling your bluff so often, but we realise that this is how you folks operate: keep repeating lies and falsehoods over and over and hope that people begin to believe them. Sorry, but it just ain’t gonna work.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • When people like Patsy asks rhetorically have the ten Western nations descended into anarchy since gay marriage was deemed equal to straight marriage, she will not know until the nations arrive at their destination, in the same way that passengers might have no sense of movement of a windowless train, on which they travelling until it suddenly comes to a rude halt. If at any stage they had been able to glance out of the window and notice the passing landscape, only then would they be able to gauge how close they were getting to the end of the line.
    Britain’s journey towards its inevitable end can be traced at least to the nineteen sixties. Since then every time a new piece of legislation was brought in, relaxing laws that protected the sanctity of life and family, there were people just like her who said that those objecting to the liberalization were scare mongering. Well, the truth is that everything they predicted happened. Maybe not immediately but it did in time

    David Skinner, UK

  • Rachel, I am guessing that one of the reasons why “marriage” isn’t exactly what they want after all is because they know they can’t live up to the expectations of “till death do us part” and that is nothing to do with innate rights or inequality, but simply with personal choices since “sexual freedom’, not faithfulness is the main aim of what they call equality of relationships.

    Bill, I am not sure if the Nazis had “majority support” in Germany, but the ruled with fear and threats, just like the homosexual lobby tries to do and as Islam does in the country where they have the power.
    Many blessings,
    Ursula Bennett

  • Thanks Ursula

    I was referring especially to the fact that the Nazis were the largest political party by 1932, but they did have mass popular appeal for most of their 12-year reign. It was only when the war started to bog down that Hitler started losing the support of the German people.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • Marriage existed for millennia before your silly religion, Bill, including same-sex marriage. Learn some history.

    You think the number will stay at 10? By the time you’re dead and completely forgotten the number will be close to 200.

    Your side is losing. You’ve lost the argument. No one’s buying it, just as no one’s buying your book.

    Patsy Kensit

  • Thanks Patsy

    There you go again, raising the religion issue! Why can’t you guys argue this topic on its own merits, without always resorting to religion? You guys seem fixated on religion.

    But since you raise the issue – thanks. You simply confirm the very thing I have been saying all along. Marriage preceded both religion and the state – so thanks for making my case for me. But same-sex marriage of course has never officially existed until 2001. But we know that your side believes that if a lie is told often enough, some gullible folks will begin to believe it.

    I already addressed the fact that right and wrong has nothing to do with mere numbers.

    My side is losing? We cram 500 people into a public meeting, and you guys can only drag up a few dozen of your rent-a-crowd buddies. I will let my readers decide just who exactly is losing here.

    And given that my book has only been out for some months now, and we are already rushing to do a third printing, another one of your lies has just gone up in smoke. BTW, how many books have you sold in the past few months?

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • With some of the comments coming up, it really needs to be said.

    A man has a penis and woman has a vagina.

    When you put the two together, you can get new life.

    Any other combination does not produce new life.

    Can anyone beat that for an argument?

    Not slander, but actually offer up substantial claims that reject and nullify the sole mode of operation of nature itself? No, they cannot.

    Nature itself testifies to the truth and so, as though we could separate creation from God, for the purposes of this argument we will; nature declares that male and female go together to produce life – no biblical reference required.

    While we can gain sexual pleasure or fulfillment from all sorts of perverted means and places, that does not make it natural, nor right, nor a human right, nor a legal obligation.

    I was there on Tuesday night Bill and it was good! Many thanks, keep up the good fight, and may our God bless you!

    Simon Fox

  • Alex Bainbridge you state:

    “The real issue is that we are trying to stop you from imposing your ideas onto other people who don’t share your viewpoint.”

    I would argue the real issue is, that you are intolerant of free speech and the right to express an opinion.

    Debbie Robinson

  • I have documented countless examples of the ‘tolerance brigade’ in action. Here is some more shocking footage of the gaystapo in action. Please watch, weep, and share it with all your contacts. This is what we are up against.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Za0ZvliA3AM

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

Leave a Reply