Marriage, Fake Conservatives, and Sham Leaders
So 77 MPs in New Zealand (versus 44 others) decide they will forever alter the fundamental nature of marriage in order to placate a few hundred activists who are making a stink. Go figure. On something this important a referendum should have been held and the people should have been allowed to speak.
And already we see the loopy left exploiting this big time. The Australian Greens have said they will introduce a bill into the Senate to recognise here any homosexual marriage which occurs in New Zealand. We expect this from the uber-radical Greens, but we don’t expect it from what is supposed to be a conservative party.
NSW Premier Barry O’Farrell has just come out in support of homosexual marriage. So, another Liberal Party leader bites the dust, sells his soul, and shows us his true colours. Of course we have known all along what a limp-wristed weakling he is.
As I wrote at the time, basically the very first thing he did when becoming NSW Premier in 2011 was to announce his full support of the annual Sodom and Gomorrah perversion event – the Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras. He proudly proclaimed the government (that is the taxpayer) would keep funding this sexual debauchery parade.
And get a load of the Orwellian Doublespeak he used to push his radicalism: “My view – a view that I’ve come to in recent years – is that as a Liberal who believes that commitment and family units are one of the best ways in which society is organised, I support the concept of same-sex marriage.”
Does one laugh or cry at such sheer moonbattery? No, the family always have been mum, dad and the kids. Sure, there may be childless families, or the extended family, or two sisters living together. But two guys basing their relationship on sodomy do not a family make – nor a marriage.
It is a pity deluded leaders such as Barry and the NZ 77 do not listen more closely to what other homosexuals are actually saying. Many have been quite forthright in proclaiming that marriage is just not on, and is in fact wrong. Why do these homosexuals never get a hearing in the lamestream media?
Of course we know the answer to that, so it is up to the alternative media to shed some light here. As I report in my book, Strained Relations, many homosexuals have admitted that they most certainly do not want marriage. Many have said if they do get marriage, it will be bent out of recognisable form when they get done with it.
But here I want to highlight just one homosexual leader who has showed a bit of honesty on this matter. I refer to Doug Mainwaring who recently wrote a piece entitled, “I’m Gay and I Oppose Same-Sex Marriage”. It is well worth quoting portions of it here:
“The notion of same-sex marriage is implausible, yet political correctness has made stating the obvious a risky business. Genderless marriage is not marriage at all. It is something else entirely. Opposition to same-sex marriage is characterized in the media, at best, as clinging to ‘old-fashioned’ religious beliefs and traditions, and at worst, as homophobia and hatred.
“I’ve always been careful to avoid using religion or appeals to tradition as I’ve approached this topic. And with good reason: Neither religion nor tradition has played a significant role in forming my stance. But reason and experience certainly have.”
As to experience he shares how he once was in a heterosexual marriage, but that ended. He says this about the impact on children in a homosexual household: “One day as I turned to climb the stairs I saw my sixteen-year-old son walk past his mom as she sat reading in the living room. As he did, he paused and stooped down to kiss her and give her a hug, and then continued on.
“With two dads in the house, this little moment of warmth and tenderness would never have occurred. My varsity-track-and-football-playing son and I can give each other a bear hug or a pat on the back, but the kiss thing is never going to happen. To be fully formed, children need to be free to generously receive from and express affection to parents of both genders. Genderless marriages deny this fullness.
“There are perhaps a hundred different things, small and large, that are negotiated between parents and kids every week. Moms and dads interact differently with their children. To give kids two moms or two dads is to withhold from them someone whom they desperately need and deserve in order to be whole and happy. It is to permanently etch ‘deprivation’ on their hearts.”
He continues, “Here’s a very sad fact of life that never gets portrayed on Glee or Modern Family: I find that men I know who have left their wives as they’ve come out of the closet often lead diminished, and in some cases nearly bankrupt, lives—socially, familially, emotionally, and intellectually.
“They adjust their entire view of the world and their role within it in order to accommodate what has become the dominant aspect of their lives: their homosexuality. In doing so, they trade rich lives for one-dimensional lives. Yet this is what our post-modern world has taught us to do. I went along with it for a long while, but slowly turned back when I witnessed my life shrinking and not growing.”
He finishes, “Two men or two women together is, in truth, nothing like a man and a woman creating a life and a family together. Same-sex relationships are certainly very legitimate, rewarding pursuits, leading to happiness for many, but they are wholly different in experience and nature.
“Gay and lesbian activists, and more importantly, the progressives urging them on, seek to redefine marriage in order to achieve an ideological agenda that ultimately seeks to undefine families as nothing more than one of an array of equally desirable ‘social units,’ and thus open the door to the increase of government’s role in our lives.
“And while same-sex marriage proponents suggest that the government should perhaps just stay out of their private lives, the fact is, now that children are being engineered for gay and lesbian couples, a process that involves multiple other adults who have potential legal custody claims on these children, the potential for government’s involvement in these same-sex marriage households is staggering.
“Solomon only had to split the baby in two. In the future, judges may have to decide how to split children into three, four, or five equal pieces. In Florida, a judge recently ordered that the birth certificate of a child must show a total of three parents—a lesbian couple and a gay man (the sperm-providing hairdresser of one of the lesbian moms). Expect much more of this to come.
“Statists see great value in slowly chipping away at the bedrock of American culture: faith and family life. The more that traditional families are weakened in our daily experience by our laws, the more that government is able to freely insert itself into our lives in an authoritarian way. And it will.
“Mark Regnerus, a sociologist at the University of Texas at Austin, recently said, ‘I think you can have social stability without many intact families, but it’s going to be really expensive and it’s going to look very “Huxley-Brave New World-ish.” So [the intact family is] not only the optimal scenario … but it’s the cheapest. How often in life do you get the best and the cheapest in the same package?’
“Marriage is not an elastic term. It is immutable. It offers the very best for children and society. We should not adulterate nor mutilate its definition, thereby denying its riches to current and future generations.”
And he ought to know.
22 Replies to “Marriage, Fake Conservatives, and Sham Leaders”
And this just in:
What a champ is Fred.
What a chump is Barry.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Can you say pansexual culture?
That’s exactly what will happen, because the next group that is pushing for affirmation are multiple partners relationships, ie 1 man 5 women, 1 woman, 3 men. It won’t stop there.
There will be bestoiality, incest, etc, about 30 other sexual perversions that will insist on equality. When that happen, criminals will insist on equality, they have rights over the victims. We will be called bigots, religious nuts. old fashioned, hateful, vile, etc.
The slippery slope is very alive people. Polygamists are insisting on their rights for marriage equality right now, as we speak people.
Based on this (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-04-19/coalition-could-consider-vote-on-gay-marriage/4639038?google_editors_picks=true):
Contact Tony Abbott and encourage him to hold the line: http://www.tonyabbott.com.au/ContactTony.aspx
Since Julia Gillard has so far withstood SSM, it probably doesn’t hurt to encourage her: http://www.pm.gov.au/contact-your-pm
To tell Barry O’Farrell and Colin Barnett off:
Meanwhile, elsewhere, lesbian activist Masha Gessen admits the purpose of ‘gay marriage’ is to destroy real marriage:
Maybe we can use her statement as ammo the next time you hear somebody arguing for ‘gay marriage’.
Many thanks for that Mark.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Let’s see if we can translate this:
Hey, Mr O’Farrell, how do like that? Is that logical, or just plain stupid?
You’re welcome Bill.
While we’re at it, if you care about France: http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/2013/04/14/nb-please-pray-for-france-now/
Wrote to both the PM and the Opposition Leader (funny how the abbreviation OL doesn’t mean anything )
Bravo Doug Mainwaring. What is wrong with the public that they can so easily discard well thought out and convincing arguments from intelligent people in favour of the catchy “in” thing and try to perpetuate the ‘new’ in favour of the tried and true?
You said you were writing a new book. I hope this gets included.
Oops. Can you spell ‘slippery slope’?
Bob Katter is one of the few conservative politicians to be trusted opposing ‘homosexual marriage’ because traditional marriage is written in his parties KAP constitution.
Tony Abbott’s LNP Coalition cannot be trusted to oppose ‘gay marriage’ after the election.
Hopefully, Katter and other real conservatives will hold balance of power in Senate after poll.
Please don’t start attacking the Liberal Party!!
You know they’re Australia’s only hope!!!
I never understood why people make the distinction between Marriage and civil union. They are basically the same thing, so if that gay man is really against gay marriage, then he should also be against civil unions, but he isn’t showing that he has bought the lie.
Conservative politics is clearly an Animal Farm where “all the “beasts” are conservative, but some are more conservative than others”! That form of liberalism which is informed by the philosophical traditions of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill is bound to ultimately atomise society and that microcosmic archetype of the State, marriage and the nuclear family – all in an all-consuming quest for individual autocracy and a mindless, obsessive addiction to personal pleasure. Christ, not Bacchic Dionysus will win this titanic cosmic struggle.
I am afraid that anger was my chief emotion yesterday when I read about Barry O’Farrell on the front page of the SMH and then read the editorial which firmly put the paper in the oficial pro-same-sex marriage camp. No surprise of course, but I think it is the first time the paper has actually stated its policy in that official way.
As Bill indicates, opposition to the idea comes not only from Christians, but from atheists, agnostics, homosexuals and others without “religious” commitments or beliefs, but the attack from the gay lobbyists is very frequently based on the assertion that the whole opposition is from Christians who are trying to force their bigoted views on to others. The democratic right of expressing opinions and trying to influence legislators is apparently denied to anyone who has strong beliefs, especially “religious” ones.
It’s quite sickening of course to see many openly and blatantly sinful people opposing the move while many so-called Christians are in favour.
I am so sorry that this irrational ‘legislation’ has been ‘approved’ by the NZ ‘parliament’. It is one more piece of legislative idiocy that has depressed me about my adopted country. Alas! My country of origin, Argentina, has also got a legislative assembly stuffed with people who are determined to ignore the wishes of the people. France and Spain and Uruguay have all gone down the same path.
I am certain that if all those countries had had a referendum on this matter, as in any *real* democracy ought to have occurred, because this is a profoundly constitutional matter, the notion of equating the homosexual sexual act with the heterosexual one would have been rejected outright.
I shall watch with interest what happens in Switzerland when their greenies and loony liberals attempt to foist the same idea. They probably won’t even attempt such a stupidity because they know that it would provoke an instant veto referendum that would demolish the idea!
Dominic Baron, NZ
“NSW Premier Barry O’Farrell has just come out in support of homosexual marriage.
“My view – a view that I’ve come to in recent years – is that as a Liberal who believes that commitment and family units are one of the best ways in which society is organised, I support the concept of same-sex marriage.”
Fake Conservative? – Barry O’Farrell just put his hand up.
Sham Leader? – Barry O’Farrell just put his hand up again.
“Please don’t start attacking the Liberal Party.” John, I hope your comment is directed to Barry O’Farrell, not Bill and other contributors to this site!
Please pray for conversion of Barry O’Farrell and all who would sell our nation and our souls for power and recognition.
On Friday the Adelaide Advertiser ran a typical story by Tory Shepherd – who often runs stories attacking anyone who believes in absolutes and any chance she can get will promote the gay agenda. On page 24 of this paper she says “there is not a single coherent arugment for opposing gay marriage except the meaningless bleat of ‘marriage is between a man and a woman or a desperate clinging to an ancient work of fiction that says homosexuals should be put to death”
…such loving tolerance by miss shepherd!
Interestingly they ran a poll on page page 23 saying ”should australia legalise marriage?” …
Well, the results were NOT published in saturday’s Advertiser! I think I know why….the last time they did the same poll which seems to be quite often (as the lamestream media is constantly bashing our minds with their agenda) the results showed at least 80% were against gay marriage and the Advertiser had one of it’s biggest ever vote responses of over 800 responses. (normally they don’t get more than about 200 for most issues). My guess is that they didn’t want to post a response that showed the vast majority of people in the community do not support the gay agenda and they didn’t want this to be exposed! Not only this but there were absolutely no responses to Tory Shepherd’s article from the day before! Normally on such a heated issue as this there would be some letters printed….
Expect those like Tory to keep pushing the gay agenda as much as possible though….they like to twist the media to misrepresent the community at large and their articles will keep trying to say that the majority do support the oxymoron of ”gay marriage”….
In any case, even if the majority did do so it is meaningless as either there are absolutes or there are not… I remember 30 years ago the idea of gay marriage would seem completely and utterly unthinkable…yet in the last few years the media especially has steered this agenda very aggressively. Whilst those who try to push for gay marriage say they are shocked at the likes of Corey Bernardi saying that this could lead to more extremes like bestiality(they have no basis to seeing they don’t believe in absolutes)…he is simply being logical ….if the progressive agenda keeps on like it is going the flood gates will open up even quicker in the next few years as all those other groups bleat loudly for their distortions of reality to be normalized.
Here’s my slogan: “Homosexual ‘marriage’? That’s so ‘gay’!”
And look at the absurdities that these idiots are laying in store for us all:
Dominic Baron, NZ
further to my comment above
Well, The Adelaide Advertiser did publish the results for the vote line from Friday : Do u think ‘gay’ marriage should be legalised? Not on saturday but Monday’s Advertiser.
And I was more than correct this time – Over 800 voted – once again a likely record for voting since it was introduced a few years ago…And 92 % were AGAINST ‘gay’ marriage!! Even more than the last time this poll was done!
It’s very unlikely they’ll allow any letters talking about this result however, and i’m sure the secular preachers like Tory Shepherd would say that all the ‘fundamentalists’ phoned their friends to get them to phone in too….But if the results were the other way you would’nt hear the end of it…There would be an article itself trying to say that the majority did support homosexual marriage and they would be raving about the results….
If they were truly ‘open minded’ they would at least mention how strong the results were against their poll, but like i said above, they are hell bent on promoting the gay agenda and will keep hammering their message relentlessly.
In the Sunday Mail the article by another journalist makes the shallow statement that we should be supporting gay marriage cos we’ll be left behind! …?…Huh? So we vote for things because of the idea that things should change?…How arbitary! They should allow anything then….and like Bill says the pedophilia and beastiality minorities will push for acceptance more than ever once the idea of ‘gay’ marriage is legislated.
Personally I will be voting for Rise Up Australia Party in this upcoming election since it’s leader has repeatedly stated that he will take a strong stand against both same-sex marriage as well as sharia law.
Mario Del Giudice
Doug Mainwaring apparently keeps these views in the three years since this article was published.