In Defence of Jkrtgydf

In defence of what?!! A perfectly good question. I still get the same reply when I write about things like “In defence of polyamory”. Most people say: “poly-what?” That is because polyamory is such a new and novel idea. Indeed, it is only recently that I created a new category heading for this topic on my website. And I already have over 30 articles under this subject heading.

These folks are all fairly new of course, since the push for polyamory is quite new as well. Sure, there have always been sexual fringe dwellers and various nutter sexual libertines around who have espoused polyamory, but they have been in the clear minority, and hardly rated on the radar – until recently.

So why is it that now polyamory (group love, and group marriage) is all the rage? Very simple: they have been emboldened and they have been empowered. Why and how? They are simply riding on the coat-tails of the homosexual activists. They have so very nicely laid the ground work for the polyamorists to follow suit.

The homosexual push for marriage rights – which means the complete gutting of that institution – has so very nicely paved the way for all the other sexual revolutionaries to come out of the closet and make their demands. After all, they are simply asking for the very same thing as the homosexuals are.

The “arguments” being made by the homosexual lobby are the exact ones which can be used to such good effect by the polyamorists. I have written elsewhere how these groups line up so perfectly, eg.:

Yet the homosexual activists keep spinning their web of deception that nothing will change with homosexual marriage, and anyone saying differently is just scare mongering. We had that yet again from one noted Australian truth-bender. For some reason the Australian newspaper allows him to come up with his mischievous articles.

Of course we have come to expect the activists to tell doozies for their cause. And this article is simply crawling with them. Consider his opening line: “In our society, marriage is understood to be the exclusive, monogamous union of two people for life.”

Umm, no Rodney. The truth is this: ‘In our society, marriage is understood to be the exclusive, monogamous union of a man and a woman for life.’ Always has been. It was never about “two people” – it has always been about one man and one woman. Big difference there.

He might as well have said: “In our society, vegetarianism is understood to be the exclusive eating of tasty foods.” Uh, no, it is the exclusive eating of non-meat foods of course. Definitions are important here, and the social engineers get away with things by changing the words and changing the meanings. Indeed, social engineering is always preceded by verbal engineering.

Consider some more dissimulation: “In none of the foreign countries that have allowed same-sex couples to marry has there been a slippery slide to multiple-partner marriage”. And again: “There is no organised push for multiple-partner marriage, including from those people who are in polyamorous relationships.”

There are two major problems with this. One, it happens to be blatantly false, as I have documented elsewhere, and two, it is the very same sort of argument the activists used when we warned about earlier attacks on marriage. Simply change a word or two:

“In none of the foreign countries that have allowed de factos to marry has there been a slippery slide to homosexual marriage”. And again: “There is no organised push for homosexual marriage, including from those people who are in homosexual relationships.”

This of course is exactly what the radicals said a few decades ago when pro-family forces warned about opening the door to cohabitation. They warned that homosexual marriage would be next, and of course were soundly howled down by the social engineers.

And we find the exact same thing happening now. The homosexual activists are assuring us that nothing will change, and things will stay just the same as they always have. If you believe that, I have some nifty fridges I would like you to sell to the Eskimos.

Every sexual deviant on the planet is now simply following the homosexual militants in demanding their “rights”. And they of course are using precisely the same “arguments”. The logic – if it can be called that – is identical to that of the homosexual activists.

But how about a few more howlers? “Same-sex marriage is a natural stopping point in the reform of marriage law because same-sex attracted people are excluded from marriage on the basis of a trait they are born with.” Sorry again bud. Even many of your mates have squashed that furphy. Consider just two quotes from fellow Australian homosexual activists:

“To be Haitian or a hemophiliac is determined at birth, but being gay is an identity that is socially determined and involves personal choice. Even if, as many want to argue, one has no choice in experiencing homosexual desire, there is a wide choice of possible ways of acting out these feelings, from celibacy and denial . . . to self-affirmation and the adoption of a gay identity.”

“I think the idea that sexuality is genetic is crap. There is absolutely no evidence for it at the moment, and I think it is unhealthy that people want to embrace this idea.”

But let’s just pretend his buddies never said those things. It makes his story easier to push when he just ignores truth and squashes countervailing facts. But there are plenty more of these quotes which could be produced here. Indeed, I feature tonnes of them in my new book, Strained Relations – all fully referenced of course.

His final line however is perhaps the most hilarious of the entire article. Get a load of this one: “Anyone who links same-sex marriage to multiple-partner relationships has failed to grasp what marriage means to ordinary Australians and why many of us, gay and straight, value it so much.”

Yeah right, you guys sure do value it all right. You value it enough to want to irrevocably destroy it. He might as well say that he so values the Labor Party that he is going to insist that they finally get real about genuine equality, and start admitting Liberal and National Party members.

Oh, and throw in some One Nation Party members as well. We do want to get rid of this unjust discrimination after all. And given how much he values the Labor Party, this is obviously the way to go. Thanks Rod, now why didn’t I think of this before?

So be prepared for the onslaught of Jkrtgydf. Never heard of it before? Don’t worry – you soon will.

[1120 words]

5 Replies to “In Defence of Jkrtgydf”

  1. And the so called column from the paper you got this from is proof positive that journalism 101 teaches: never let the truth get in the way of the story.

    Although this does make me wonder, have most on the left gone so far down the lieing path that they no longer have the ability to tell the truth from fiction/make it up as you go along?

    For those who worry about what to do about it, simple, stay on the message Jesus gave us, repeat it over and over, cause it is the only thing that hasn’t changed in centuries and is the only thing proven since the first day after the end of creation that works.

    Neil Waldron

  2. Hello Bill,
    The NSW government upper house has voted in favour of supporting same-sex marriage. (See link below.)
    I have sent a comment, so we will see if they actually print it this time.

    From: DailyTelegraph, May 31, 2012
    THE NSW upper house has voted in favour of a motion calling on the federal government to allow gay marriage.

    God bless,
    Paul de la Garde, Sydney

  3. Bill, I think of what you’ve written elsewhere about how some of these activists are prepared to lie and distort facts to advance their cause, as can be plainly seen here.

    Ross McPhee

  4. Exacty right, googly gloo whatever – says those who moved a motion for homosexual relationships.
    Did they really think of the long term effects of the future generations? Did they really think that children need a Mum and Dad? Did they really look into the research of what has happened over seas? Do they know that homosexual so called ‘marriages’ don’t last? Or were they selfish and self centered?
    Judith Bond

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *