The Homosexualisation of Conservative Political Parties

Now, if you were part of a homosexual activist lobby group, and wanted to take over a conservative political party, and turn it into a pro-homosexual political party, how might you go about that? Hmm, let me see…. maybe getting all sorts of homosexuals into the party, with many of them becoming standing politicians for the party? Yep, that might work.

And see that happening all the time, both in Australia and overseas. For example the Republican Party in America has the Log Cabin Republicans, a pro-homosexual group seeking to influence the conservative party there. And in Australia we see this happening as well. Simply consider how pro-homosexual marriage Turnbull led a coup against pro-traditional marriage Abbott.

And we are finding more and more open homosexuals being promoted by the Liberal Party and winning seats. One of the more recent examples of this is the openly homosexual Trent Zimmerman who was elected to succeed Joe Hockey in the House of Representatives for the seat of North Sydney. And just yesterday another homosexual, Tim Wilson, won an important preselection battle. As reported in the Australian:

Retiring Human Rights Commissioner Tim Wilson has won a hotly-contested party battle to be selected as the Liberal candidate in the Victorian seat of Goldstein. Wilson edged out former aid worker Dr Denis Dragovic and Georgina Downer, the daughter of former federal MP Alexander Downer, to stand in the seat held by outgoing Trade Minister Andrew Robb. Liberal members cast their votes in the high-profile tussle at a party convention in Brighton, in the heart of the blue-ribbon electorate, on Saturday afternoon.

wilson, timSo Tim Wilson wins preselection for Goldstein, leading to more active homosexuals in the Liberal Party. Before I go any further I of course believe that there can be homosexuals who have some degree of conservative beliefs and dispositions.

The question is, just how conservative are they actually, and how many of the traditional conservative tenets can or will they support? Of course many in the Liberal Party are fond of speaking about it as a ‘broad church’ or a ‘broad tent,’ big enough for folks from all sorts of persuasions, opinions and lifestyles.

I am not a member of the Liberal Party, so perhaps I should let actual members debate the pros and cons of such an approach. Many conservatives such as myself however see this as a recipe for disaster. It just means the leading conservative party keeps creeping more and more leftwards, abandoning key principles along the way, including support for the traditional family unit.

Sure, Wilson used to work at the IPA, a libertarian – not conservative – think tank, and he has been somewhat good on standing up for freedom of speech issues, including opposing Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. But he supports things like homosexual marriage and has spoken in support of the Safe Schools Coalition.

As he said in an endorsement of the program: “Young LGBTI youth face unique challenges, but the objective of this program is not to promote special treatment or create a special climate for LGBTI youth in schools. Its objective is to ensure that schools provide a safe environment for all – including LGBTI youth. The principles behind the Safe Schools Coalition are uniting, not dividing.”

So he is a free-speech libertarian, not a social, moral and cultural conservative. Thus he is a mixed bag in other words. So the real issue is this: when push comes to shove, which will win out? His commitment to homosexuality and the like, or his commitment to free speech and the like? And believe me, as anyone who has been reading this site or my books well knows, the two are often set against each other.

The more special rights for homosexuals are granted, the less freedoms for ordinary citizens, such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of conscience. Daily we find the homosexual activists and their government supporters stripping away the freedoms of those who take a differing point of view, with folks losing their jobs, being fined, or even jailed.

Sorry, but all this bothers me big time. And I am not alone in my concerns. A few days ago Bernard Gaynor wrote a terrific piece on Wilson entitled “With ‘conservatives’ like Tim Wilson, who needs to worry about the Greens?” Let me quote parts of it here:

Tim Wilson has dangerous ideas. I say this even though Tim Wilson seems to have some idea about the damage that radical homosexual activism will wreak on freedom of thought and speech. The fact that Tim Wilson is homosexual himself and can still see this indicates that he possesses some modicum of logic and courage. It would be unjust not to give Wilson due credit for his efforts to protect free speech.
In particular, Wilson has been one of the few homosexuals to speak publicly against laws that led to the outrageous complaint lodged in Tasmania against the Archbishop of Hobart by a Greens candidate and transgender activist.
But Wilson’s ideas are still dangerous.
That’s because his ‘solutions’ to the problems presented by homosexual political activism are not solutions at all. Instead, they will only entrench the problems that he wishes to address. Worse, if Wilson’s ideas about marriage were to be enacted in legislation, as they may well be if he is endorsed as a Liberal Party candidate, then they would usher in Sharia law in Australia.
In June last year, Wilson wrote an article addressing the impact of homosexual marriage on freedom of religion and speech. He clearly identified that changes to laws would impact both, especially when they related to Christians. His solution is to legislate recognition of religious marriages as well. Every religious marriage. Including Islamic ones.

He continues:

Homosexual activists and the Islamic community both have a vested interest in seeing Australian society bend to the will of radical minorities. You can bet your bottom dollar that if our laws are changed to recognise homosexual marriage then there will also follow shortly thereafter a call for legal acceptance of Islamic marriage.
Many homosexual activists have been calling for recognition of multiple partners as well. That is simply the next phase in the ‘marriage’ ‘debate’. This fits in perfectly with Islamic doctrine on polygamy.
And both communities have common ground on ideas about the age of consent. Homosexual activists have called for it to be lowered. The Islamic community believes that the most perfect man to ever live married a six year old.
It really should come as no surprise that a community that has derisively coined the term ‘breeders’ to describe women would pave the way for legal recognition of Islamic marriage, divorce, custody and succession law, all of which treats women as second-class citizens.

Of course it should be noted that Gaynor is running for the newly formed Australian Liberty Alliance. Thus he concludes his piece this way:

Tim Wilson has dangerous ideas. But it’s far more dangerous that they are being embraced by the conservative side of the Liberal Party. And with ‘conservative’ friends like Tim Wilson, it should come as no surprise that the Liberal Party is now seeking to enter into preference deals with ‘enemies’ like the Greens. No wonder so many real conservatives have left the Liberal Party to join the Australian Liberty Alliance.

I have written about the ALA before, as well as the other smaller conservative parties. I will let readers decide what direction they will go in at the next election. But in my books, getting more and more homosexuals into a conservative political party – even if they may be good conservatives in at least some areas – may well be the death wish of such parties.

Time will tell who is right on this I guess.

[1295 words]

16 Replies to “The Homosexualisation of Conservative Political Parties”

  1. BTW, before irate Liberal Party folks dump on me, let me point out a contrast here which may further explain where I am coming from. There are conservatives who are homosexual who do not flaunt the lifestyle nor promote it, and they can be real conservatives whom I consider to be allies. I think especially of the late Adelaide journalist and conservative commentator, Christopher Pearson. He struggled with his same-sex attractions, and did not act them out. The former John Howard speechwriter also was well aware of the activist homosexual agenda and he opposed it. I recall one time many years ago when I was doing a radio debate with a bunch of homosexual activists, Pearson came to my aid, taking on his fellow homosexuals. He would not have favoured homosexual marriage, the Safe Schools Coalition, and so on which Wilson, the open and proud homosexual does. So there is a real difference here. Give me a Pearson any day over someone like Wilson.

  2. Infiltrate and destroy from within. That’s a tactic that’s been around for ages hasn’t it.

    In some ways this is like the story of the Trojan Horse with one difference. Here the Greeks (homosexuals) are not just hidden in the horse but riding on the outside as well.

  3. Hi Bill, as a matter of curiosity I would be interested to know just how many homosexuals we have in Federal Parliament; not because I wish to pry, but because I have a suspicion that homosexuals in Parliament are disproportionate to the community at large. Thus, where the concentration of homosexuals in the community is around 4%, it would appear, at face value, that the radio is much higher in parliament.

    If my suspicion is correct, is it any wonder we see more and more gay friendly policies and programs endorsed through the lower and upper houses.

  4. I’m an active member of the Liberal Party and I couldn’t agree more Bill. The reality is, there will only ever be two parties that will hold power and one party that has the potential to be a vehicle for good conservative values. The problem is, those with sound, moral principles and values – namely Christians are not turning up and are not getting involved leaving the left to make all the decisions on their behalf. People can win by just a few votes, so imagine the outcomes if more people got involved to influence who would be elected to pass/change laws on their behalf.

  5. The Liberal Party has ceased to be a party for conservatives. Quite frankly any conservative in the ranks needs to get out now and form a new party. Otherwise they being complicit to what is happening by those who are from the left of the party. The Party that Menzies started is no more.

  6. Here is a question we need to ask any politician in this country should we bow to the request for homosexual marriage. Given that “Same-sex couples represent about 1% of all couples in Australia.”(AIBS 4102.0 – Australian Social Trends, July 2013) and that we are being asked to change our laws marriage to satisfy that 1%, and that 2.2% of the population are followers of Islam which permits polygamy, what is to stop Muslims demanding,on the principles of equity,that our laws be changed to suit their beliefs?

  7. Ian,

    We don’t need a “new” party in NSW at least as we’ve had the Christian Democratic Party for 35 years. Yet Christians still vote #1 for the Liberals, Labor and even The Greens.

  8. This tactic if homosexual invasion has proved to be very effective in the re-birthing of the Catholic Church. Whether by accident or design the Catholic Church is now a different thing and it appears that the Second Vatican Council, again by accident or design, may have had some hand in that. If the Catholic Church bothers to teach morality at all, what they do teach bears little resemblance to the morality of the Bible; especially as it relates to the abomination. The Catholic Church has always advertised itself as the one true Church and that outside the Church there is no salvation. Does anyone seriously believe that? How many priests and bishops are faithful to the great commission? We are all bound by the law of chastity. At the least in the context of religious priesthood, that means not getting married. Can a person who has no wish, desire or intention of getting married honestly take that vow? Thus the validity of many ordinations raises its ugly head and the question needs to be addressed.

  9. Thanks Randy,

    Too True. A handful of votes can make all the difference. Thanks for your efforts with the Libs.

    We support CDP in NSW and have supported RUAP in the past in Victoria. CDP continue to try hard to get a federal senate seat and we pray they one day will achieve this.

    At the end of the day too many Christians are apathetic. The left is driving the agenda.

    Our local member in Sydney a Liberal won’t even advise us what his position on Gay Marriage is. If he supports Gay Marriage he will never get my vote again.


  10. Would you apply your comments to Catholics Ian Nairn? I would. And the new party you refer to needs to be a ‘new’ partnership with Jesus Christ whether in or outside the Church.

  11. I don’t know why your local member in Sydney won’t tell you his position on gay marriage Phil Browne. Do you have any idea? Perhaps it is a secret. Will he tell you his position on a new road to somewhere or better conditions for someone?

  12. It amazes me (actually it doesn’t) how a libertarian could support such an anti-liberal notion as gay marriage which represents such a massive state intrusion into our lives, daring to define our relationships not to mention infantilising GLBTI as well as denying freedom of conscience, free speech, freedom of religion, parent rights and lots smore. Wilson’s and very belated lame attempt at pointing out the illiberal campaign against the Catholic church in Tasmania for example, was couched in this ‘oh let the poor troglodytes have their say.’ He and his IPA buddies also don’t get that gay marriage and the gay agenda overall are opposed by all sorts of people, religious and not religious. Because it is not a religious issue, it is a people issue, goes to the very heart of what it means to be human and to live as humans. He and his IPA buddy parachuted into the senate (another lefty libertine not libertarian) even think they can protect freedoms by law – the very antithesis of what every conservative, liberal and true libertarian knows. Don’t think the state can grant you protection because it can always take it away.

    Even Albrechtsen’s defence (not that she’s a great champion of free speech in my view) was along the lines, who rude that you can get summons for supporting the law that until a few years ago was supported by both parties (sub text= politicians – most of whom are not married, failed marrieds, or not particularly faithful marrieds -get to define marriage. Er no, Janet.)

    Brendan O’Neill, an atheist/agnostic and radical Marxist is the only commentator I know who has been warning about this for years – pointing out the bully tactics from England to Canada, from Ireland to Timbuktoo. I am glad that Bernard Gaynor gets this threat too and is prepared to oppose it. I wish him and the ALA well.

    And thank you too Bill, for having the guts point out what we all know is happening to conservative/classical liberal parties. They are no better than the left these days. In which case, I happily kiss the lot of them good buy.

  13. I remember being told by a cousin that the Liberals are a Christian party. I just gave him a blank stare.

  14. I have already written to James Paterson (No.1 on the Victorian Coalition Senate ticket) to advise him that I cannot vote for him as he supports SSM. He described himself as an agnostic in an article. He did reply to my email thanking me for advising him of my decision.
    Maybe if more people put pen to paper of emailed these people they might get a shock to discover how many people actually oppose SSM.
    Thank you Bill. Easter Blessing and may the Risen Lord continue to hold you in the palm of His hand.

  15. Of course, Tim’s not the first Liberal politician who is homosexual…
    and inevitably, they become advocates and activists for the LGBTIQ cause…
    Tim’s already become an ‘advocate and activist’ through his work with the Human Rights Commission and the SOGII Inquiry (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity Intersex)…

    We have Trent Zimmerman, the President of the NSW Liberal Party, who was recently elected to replace Joe Hockey in the House of Representatives.
    He told homosexual paper, Star Observer, “But I’m conscious I’m the only gay MP… and inevitably it will be the case (that I will speak out on LGBTI issues) .”
    He supports same-sex ‘marriage’ and said, “I want to work with marriage equality organisations to make sure we get a yes outcome.”

    He also supports the Safe Schools Coalition –

    Then there is Liberal Jason Notley-Smith – the open homosexual in the NSW parliament. Any time a motion comes up regarding homosexuality, he’s the ‘Liberal representative’ in a cross-party group that puts it forward!

    There’s also Liberal Senator Dean Smith from WA – when he was elected, he didn’t support same-sex ‘marriage’… but he has CHANGED his view and now supports it… despite talking about his faith.
    He also advocated for a conscience vote for Coalition MPs…

    Years ago, in Victoria, there was Andrew Olexander – who told a homosexual paper he wasn’t really a ‘Liberal’ but he looked around and that was the only Party that didn’t have any homosexuals in it to push the cause…

    He got to make presentations to the Coalition Party Room, which swayed many MPs… Eventually he got caught up in scandal – including driving whilst drunk and driving into several cars… and he was disendorsed…

    But you get the picture… how long will a homosexual who is said to be a ‘conservative’ actually STAY a conservative?

Leave a Reply

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