Activists Versus the People
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.
11 Replies to “Activists Versus the People”
In the early days of the Church it was reported that the Christians were turning the world upside down. In the present times – the end times – it seems to me that the world is once again being turned upside down: but this time by the other side. I’m glad I know the final outcome, but there is still a lot of opposition to the Way of Christ that we must face and oppose. Thank you Bill.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
I read that article – and I read the age editorial today – and I shook my head. Today’s editorial (I can’t find it online) seemed to say that the majority of Australians want same sex marriage (sorry “marriage equity”) but a handful of politicians have got in the way. Then they stated that we mustn’t have a referendum because people won’t vote for it – I’m still confused – how does that work??
The smearing and deliberate attack on Christians in the piece above is especially obvious. In California it was the homosexual lobby groups that were “cashed up” and it was the homosexual lobby groups that “conduct(ed) fear and hate campaigns”
time for a mass rally against this nonsense. we can all bring our copies of the age and set fire to them.
Thanks Andrew. Former bisexual Robert Oscar Lopez puts it this way:
Whatever becomes of same-sex marriage in the United States, the gay movement poses a much longer-term problem. Homosexuality is not a sexual orientation, but rather an ideology. The LGBT movement is not a community, but rather a political machine backed by big business. Until it can show that it is capable of increasing its reach and profile without abusing power, it has to be resisted, for it is the face of an ancient urge which must always be resisted: the lust for power and domination.Robert Oscar Lopez
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Sure Andrew, the reasoning is simple:
The vast majority of Australians are for it (It’s inevitable! Other countries have done it! We need equality! etc. etc.)
A majority of Australians won’t vote for it in a referendum.
Makes perfect sense!
…if you’re completely unhinged from logic.
Yep, lefty logic Mark
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
On the Monday edition of ”The Project” on ch 10 (which i rarely watch..just happened to see they were doing a story on ‘gay marriage’ as i flicked through channels) they tried the same agenda that this Rodney Croone was saying…I can’t remember but he may have even been on this show. I felt sick as i watched the pathetic preaching by Charlie Pickering and co…making it seem like a referendum is not needed and that ‘two thirds of australians are in favour of gay marriage’….Where did he get that number from? Never heard that before…all the polls are clearly against it.
And remember about a week or so ago i mentioned how an Adelaide Advertiser poll of over 800 votes had 92% clearly against homosexual marriage.
Is Gerard Henderson for or against same sex marriage? I don’t know if he’s declared his views or not. Do you, Bill?
I can see real arguments by people with whom I disagree – those who want socialism, or an Australian republic, for example – but I can’t see much in the way of real argument in the case put forward by same-sex marriage proponents. All I read is reference to marriage equality, equal love, marriage for all, being on the right side of history (whatever that is supposed to mean), and similar emotive and virtually meaningless slogans.
So I suppose that it’s no surprise when we are told that a big majority is for same-sex marriage but if we hold a referendum or plebiscite they will vote against it. I guess it makes sense to them.
Thanks Ross – he is barely a cultural conservative, so I would not depend on him to resist SSM.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Last night on The Observer Effect, Ellen Fanning interviewed Christine Forster, Tony Abbott’s lesbian sister. Sounds like she’s quoting Croome, especially with Fanning offering leading questions.
ELLEN FANNING: And what about that idea of a plebiscite that Rudd was raising, the idea that you might put it to a referendum, gay marriage yes or no?
CHRISTINE FORSTER: Look, I wouldn’t be in favour of that generally because I think it has the potential to be a very divisive issue in Australian society.
ELLEN FANNING: I notice some gay rights activists have come out over the last couple of days and said look, it could be actually worse than that, it could be actually more than divisive, it could expose people to hate and it could actually get really nasty, that’s one thing that’s said. Do you agree with that?
CHRISTINE FORSTER: Well it’s always a possibility, yeah.
ELLEN FANNING: And the other thing that’s said is should it fail, you know, the consequences of that would be what? What would you say that would be?
CHRISTINE FORSTER: Well, it would be a dead issue for a considerable amount of time, I mean as happened with the Republic question and, you know, the last thing somebody like me who wants to see this reform happen and who wants to see it as a change that is supported by, you know, a comfortable majority of the country and is accepted by all of the country it’s never going to be supported by all of the country but, you know, we want it to be accepted by, you know, the vast majority of people. You know, I want that reform. A plebiscite, if it was unsuccessful, would kill the issue, would kill the debate. It would go away and that’s not an outcome that I want. I want the debate to keep happening, to have those conversations to continue and because the more we talk about it the more, you know, people like us talk about it on telly, the more that people talk about ? families talk about it around their kitchen table, people, neighbours talk about it if it comes up, you know, all these kinds of changes happen with conversations, they start with conversation. One?on?one conversations between friends, family, you know, and then that, you know, that grows, builds some momentum and eventually, you know, people in Canberra start to listen.
As Lobby Groups often have the ears of the politicians I think that is all the more reason for the SSM issue to be settled in a referendum. Funny that it is the Gay Activists who don’t want it, ala Rodney Croome.
As Forster says, a referendum would kill the debate on SSM – for a while at least. The only reason to not support a Referendum would be if you knew its outcome would not fall in your favour.