Love-Smove, and Other Nonsense

So who is not in favour of love? Such a pleasant word. And what about equality? That is another beautiful term. But of course for language to be of any use, words must have precise and well-agreed upon definitions. Otherwise real communication becomes impossible.

Apple pie words like love and equality must be teased out and carefully explained, or else they end up meaning anything and everything. In which case they end up meaning nothing. And that is exactly what has happened in the homosexuality debate. These two words especially are thrown out repeatedly, but they mean something far different than what you and I mean by them.

The radicals on the left love to twist and distort these terms. They know full well that social engineering is always preceded by verbal engineering. Change the language and you can change the culture. The rainbow activists have been especially good at this over the years.

And so too have their various supporters and enablers. The corporate world is really into this big time. The number of big businesses and corporations that have jumped on board the homosexual bandwagon seems to be never-ending. They are all chasing hard after the pink dollar.

This is rather odd for several reasons however. While homosexuals have much higher disposable income than most other folks, there just are not that many of them. And by siding with the rainbow militants, these corporations risk alienating the bulk of their mainstream customers.

Just today another prime example of all this appeared. Now Mastercard has gotten into the homosexual marriage debate. They have just posted this on their Facebook page: “At Mastercard equality is at our very core & we believe it to be a fundamental human right. We consider all love to be equal and we proudly support marriage equality.”

Oh good grief. More weasel words and more appalling propaganda. This is so bad that immediately upon seeing this I shot off a quick response under their post: “Oh do you really? So if three men are in love, they should marry? A father daughter loving relationship should be given legal rights to marry? A bisexual should be allowed to marry one person from each gender? Give me a break MC. Remind me never to do business with you radical social engineers.”

All this could be expanded on in great detail. Come to think of it, I already have! In books and articles I have documented countless cases of this very thing now happening, because other sexual radicals have been emboldened by the homosexual marriage campaign.

If two men can marry, then why not three or four or five? If marriage is simply about “love” – whatever that means – then polyamory (group love) is of course fully acceptable as well. And this is already being called for big time. So too are calls for “intergenerational love” (a euphemism for paedophilia).

As I have documented so often already, the slippery slope is alive and well, and people have been demanding the right to “marry” whoever or whatever they want. Thus we already have had cases of “throuples” (threesomes) marrying; incestuous “love” being promoted; love with pets, and even love with objects.

For heaps of examples of this and documentation on it, see chapter 3 of my 2014 book Dangerous Relations. And what I provide there is only a small sampling of the evidence. Once you redefine marriage out of existence, then anything goes.

There can be no limits once marriage is destroyed. Any combination becomes possible, and anyone who opposes such radical changes will cop the usual abuse: bigot, hater, you-name-it-phobe, etc. After all, love and equality are the only things that matter here – regardless of how completely flexible and vacuous the terms have become.

Let me get back to Mastercard and look at this in a bit more detail. In addition to being open to all forms of “love,” MC must also start putting its money where its mouth is when it comes to equality. Let’s see this played out in the real world of hard finance.

Since when have credit card companies, banks and financial institutions ever cared about equality? As far as I can tell, they never have! Just think about this for a moment. If a homeless person with zero credit rating who is also a drug addict and wanted by the police came to MC and applied for a credit card, what do you think his chances will be of getting one?

If a millionaire in a $2000 Italian suit waltzes into a MC office, parking his $250,000 Jaguar just outside for all to see, asking for a credit card, what do you think his chances will be? Duh. Of course MC discriminates every single day by NOT treating people equally.

It would go out of business today if it tried! Equality has absolutely nothing to do with MC or any other big business. Their bottom line is always about maximising their profit margin. They do not give a rip about equality. So they can spare us this baloney about equality being at their very core.

And let me take this just a bit further. Does MC really believe in equality? How does it treat its own customers? Does it treat those who promptly and regularly repay their borrowed money the same way it treats those who refuse to pay, are late in paying, or are serial recalcitrants when it comes to repaying?

Um, I don’t think so. If it really believed in equality it would charge everyone a late fee, whether they have paid back the money on time or not. Or, they would charge no one a late fee, and reward negligent and delinquent customers just as much as faithful and responsible customers.

After all, love is love, right MC? Love is all about equality right? So as your core values, why don’t you start treating all of your customers equally for a change? Why all this unjust and bigoted discrimination? Why keep treating people so very unequally?

Oh yeah, that’s right: they are a business and they want to make money – lots of money. Thus they must treat people unequally to get the maximum amount of profit. They are intellectual frauds in other words when they waffle on about core values like love and equality.

They don’t believe in it for a moment. It is time to call these businesses out. And it may be time for some of you to take your business elsewhere. Why give your hard-earned money to such radical social engineers? Find companies that more squarely line up with your own values and beliefs.

Oh, and by the way Mastercard: since you claim that “all love is priceless,” let me take you up on that. I would like to get a credit card from you with no limits on how much I can spend, and of course with no need to pay back anything. You can’t put a price on love now can you?

Update. Well that did not take long! They have already pulled my comment in the name of love and equality! Some are more equal than others it seems! See here for what remains of the debate:

[1203 words]

23 Replies to “Love-Smove, and Other Nonsense”

  1. I suppose LOVE and EQUALITY can be added to the pile with other bankrupt words such as: tolerance, acceptance, diversity…etc

    We humans are so easily duped, and satan could sit back and watch the human race destroy itself with glee. The thing is, is that he’s not sitting back…

    God help us!

  2. This is again the blatant attempt at, as you say, social engineering. MC. Shame on you.

  3. Well said Bill and here is more:
    There are bigamy and polygamy laws and Mr. Bill Shorten, Warren Entsch, Penny Wong and the LGBTIQ rainbow persons are well aware of them.

    Even so, they all refer to and promote EQUALITY – they hardly ever refer to same sex. Please note their banners and what they say.

    LGBTIQ stand for Lesbian, Homosexual, Bisexual, Transgender, Intersex and Queer persons.

    The question that we should ask is – that given the marriage, bigamy, polygamy laws and given the so called experts also remaining silent of the push for equality, and given that equality means that all should be treated equal and in the case of marriage between a man and a woman does not include a mother marrying her son and a father being able to marry his daughter or siblings not being able to marry each other and so too someone wanting to marry the dog, cat, sheep or cars, how then can equality be claimed for bisexuals, transgender, queer or intersex etc?

    In short, marriage is not and can never be about equality – it is about a child knowing their mother and father and be brought up in a family environment which includes the extended family of the mother and the father.

    Whilst on the surface the question is whether we should vote as to whether two persons of the same sex should marry, under the banner of equality, it does not take an expert to figure out that the real push is to change the meaning of marriage to allow all and anyone being able to marry any person; number of persons or to anything that the person transgender into as it is also against the law to question a person’s gender or preference thus certain laws are already in place to include said persons as any law that contradicts LGBTIQ would offend a myriad of laws including discrimination and hate speech

  4. I have found the comments by Xavier Symons two days ago very interesting.

    Basically his point is that the whole conceptual foundation for a YES vote is likely to be completely different to that for a NO vote. Even the meaning of words and phrases that are shared by both sides mean something completely different to each other.

    He quotes Alasdair MacIntyre “..we would still be faced with a monumental archaeological task of trying to understand the true genesis of our moral terminology. We would need, in the words of MacIntyre, to attempt to understand “the larger totalities of theory and practice” in which our concepts “enjoyed a role and function supplied by contexts of which they have now been deprived.”

    When we speak to YES voters we are often speaking to people that have not only lost a respect for scripture, but also a loss of the fear of God, who have a laugh at the idea that we are created, who regard the emotional now as the ultimate truth, and indeed NO voters as being motivated by “contexts” of which they have now been “deprived”.

    To them we NO voters are not real, we are not relevant, and we are silly to think that we are. Hence we get shouted at, we won’t understand rational thought anyway.

    It is a huge divide, and it takes a miracle of God to breach it.
    However that is our hope. THAT is our hope.

  5. And MC!
    How are you going to be “equal” in your response to those employees .. board members of yours who;
    1 Disagree with you about marriage equality.
    2. Disagree with you that such a corporation as MC should broadcast its opinion about MEq.
    3. Disagree with you that such a corporation as MC should even have an opinion about MEq.

  6. Oh Bill, get your facts straight before you go on your little rant. MasterCard doesn’t offer credit cards.

  7. Ha! Gotta love it when the other side lies through their teeth. Not only does “Joe” lie about who he is, and deliberately breaks my commenting rule about stating a full and proper name, but he actually dares to come here and lie about Mastercard! Another perfect example of how the other side “argues”!

    Oh, and see here for the wide range of credit cards that Mastercard has on offer:

  8. Can you recommend an alternative to Mastercard? I’d like to support non-ideological driven politically ‘correct’ social miscreants.

  9. Good question Caleb. The problem is, as I have pointed out so often now, that so many corporations and businesses are supporting this lousy cause, or other bad causes, that it is getting harder and harder to find those that do not push radical left agendas. Other folks here may know who is still good to deal with.

  10. Commenting on your very true words: “But of course for language to be of any use, words must have precise and well-agreed upon definitions. Otherwise real communication becomes impossible”, it is sad to have to report the following dictionary definitions of marriage from four top online dictionaries:

    The relationship between two people who are husband and wife, or a similar relationship between people of the same sex.

    The legally or formally recognized union of two people as partners in a personal relationship (historically and in some jurisdictions specifically a union between a man and a woman)

    The state of being united as spouses in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law

    The relationship between two people who are married

    Note the use of the phrase “two people”.
    Only Oxford gives a nod to marriage being a union of a man and a woman, but in parenthesis as a “historical” meaning. But SSM has already crept into Macmillan.

    May God help us.

  11. All love is priceless? And yet Ben McCormack is facing serious jail time because of love. Apparently some love is more equal than others. How does the Left think such discrimination is justified?

    And as regards Arnold Ali’s point about marriage definitions, The Free Dictionary includes the definition: A union between persons that is recognized by custom or religious tradition as a marriage. It is somewhat circular logic but suggests social recognition is the critical element not any concrete basis. Child marriages, polygamy, and anything else you can conceive constitute marriage so long as they are recognised.

    And another FYI article:

    The article details some of the impacts on gender, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and children after a mere 4 years of SSM in the UK. To privately disagree with SSM or safe schools type indoctrination is permissible, but to publicly espouse such things is to permanently and irrevocably blight your career and personal relationships.

  12. Oh Bill!
    Didn’t you get the satire?
    “Joe”,” Blog”, “MasterCard”, and “credit”, have no real meaning, except what you want them to mean. These may no longer have “precise and well-agreed upon definitions”.
    Just like “love”, “equality”, “truth” and “facts”, “man”, ” woman”, ” marriage” et al…..

    “Joe Blog” really said nothing… … … I,.. I don’t think so anyway.
    I’ll have to ask him..her and if I can find them, and have a discussion about what your blog is about.

    But then.. if “Joe” doesn’t know what his words mean, how can (he?), understand yours?
    Credit, where credit is due!
    Joe read the blog and thought (he?) understood it enough to comment

  13. Hi Bill. I’ve been reading your articles for some time but this is the first time I’ve commented. Certainly big business pushing the Yes vote is an issue. But far more pervasive is the plethora of small businesses also pushing the Yes vote. Where I live, there is an increasing number of signs on the rainbow background, appearing in shop windows and proclaiming “This small business is big enough to support marriage equality.” There’s an almost ovine quality to these little signs that keep popping up. Perhaps the No campaign could recommend a sign that says something along the lines of “This small business is independent enough to think for itself.”

  14. Seems there was no argument about the meaning of marriage 200 years ago, if the 1828 Websters is anything to go by:

    MAR’RIAGE, noun [Latin mas, maris.] The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity, and for securing the maintenance and education of children.

    God is all-wise.

  15. Should the yes militants be successful in their faux marriage campaign, perhaps what is left of those who genuinely respect and care for family values appeal to have a separate and new definition for ‘marriage equality’ for heterosexual couples only, what the current term should and has historically meant. Although, admittedly, this would be divisive………see the irony!

  16. There’s no ‘equality’ or ‘love’ within the LGBTISIS outfit if bi sexuals can’t marry a male AND a female. And they call us ‘bigots’ – unbelievable!!

    As Bill says – the homos and their advocates don’t know the meanings of words nor do they want to.

  17. Spot on Mike Marshall….if bi sexuals are allowed to marry than they by definition can and should marry 2 people, thereby making ssm extend to polygamy automatically. This just shows the total insanity of the push for Marriage Anarchy.

  18. Lots of flaming comments on MC’s FB site. Dum-Nuts. Unplugged a flood of derision.

  19. A CBA terminal actually printed a question on its screen whilst I was waiting for my withdrawal, asking ‘do I think all Australians are valued equally?
    Well I now first hand CBA don’t. Before I bought my home I had a large bank balance, and every month I’d get a call from a personal banker that would bend over backwards to help me. Nowadays nothing!
    Next to the terminal was a plaque acknowledging some Aboriginal tribe as the custodians of the land I was on. I now see why they rebranded themselves COMM bank.

  20. I believe the NRL is featuring a singer from the US singing about same sex love or something along those lines, at the Grand Final. What are they doing to the game I played and loved? Is this really necessary? So its come to this then and it’s time for me to bow out. I choose to show my solidarity with Christ by never watching or listening to a game of Rugby League again for the rest of my life. I don’t ask others to follow me because this deal is not between me and them it is between me and the man from Galilee. I stand by him because there will come a time when I will be asking him so stand by me.

  21. Equality and love call to mind those George Orwell classics, Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four:

    …Are the Seven Commandments the same as they used to be,

    For once Benjamin consented to break his rule, and he read out to her what
    was written on the wall. There was nothing there now except a single
    Commandment. It ran:


    Animal Farm

    The Ministry of Love was the really frightening one. There were no windows
    in it at all. Winston had never been inside the Ministry of Love, nor
    within half a kilometre of it. It was a place impossible to enter except
    on official business, and then only by penetrating through a maze of
    barbed-wire entanglements, steel doors, and hidden machine-gun nests. Even
    the streets leading up to its outer barriers were roamed by gorilla-faced
    guards in black uniforms, armed with jointed truncheons.

    Nineteen Eighty-Four

Leave a Reply

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