Learning that LGBT is not libertarian

What would you get if you crossed a three-year old screaming in the supermarket because they want a lolly, Stalin on a bad day and the rainbow?

The answer to that is simple: the LGBT movement’s demand for homosexual marriage.

It’s an emotional demand advanced by bullies. That also means it’s devoid of logic.

The case for homosexual marriage is no different than that pushed by those who promote polygamy, polyamory, incest and consensual sexual relations between adults and minors.

All these causes rest on one premise: that the government should recognise the ‘love’ in these relationships because the government recognises the love in a heterosexual marriage. And then it’s packaged up in glossy brochure filled with nice words like ‘dignity’, ‘respect’ and ‘compassion’ and emailed out by GetUp to every anarchist across Australia.

Of course, the homosexual marriage argument is fanciful. The government doesn’t recognise ‘love’ in any relationship. The word ‘love’ does not appear even once in the Marriage Act 1961. And I’ve checked all 106 pages.

But the words ‘child’ or ‘children’ are liberally scattered through that document. Kids are mentioned 76 times. In fact, without children, the government would never even have bothered to spend its time debating marriage in the first place.

And children are the central reason why incest and paedophilia illegal. Both actions can result in babies, but it’s not the best way of bringing them into the world, no matter how much ‘love’ might be involved.

Procreation is also the reason why homosexuals and lesbians don’t get a look in at marriage. If you want to pass the Year Three Sex Education NAPLAN test you have to understand the basics. And the basics show that 100% of the time homosexual and lesbian shenanigans can’t create life.

There is simply no logical way of getting around this truth.

That’s why the rainbow brigades don’t use logic. They can’t. Their cause is weird and illogical. It is emotional. And it’s power is derived from nothing more than the old adage that ‘might is right’.

That’s why ‘homophobia’ is an actual real ‘thing’. Many oppose homosexuality but few are prepared to do so publicly due to fear of a backlash and the rainbow repercussions. Our society has learnt to be scared of the LGBT lobby, despite the ‘weirdness’ of the ideas it pushes.

Essentially, proponents of marriage equality are totalitarian.

And we all know that when totalitarian campaigners talk about ‘equality’ it means someone is about to be marched off to the gulag for thought crimes.

The latest example is the curious case of Senator-elect David Leyonhjelm.

Leyonhjelm won a Senate seat for the Liberal Democratic Party at the 2013 Federal Election and will be sworn into parliament in a few weeks’ time.

For those unaware, the Liberal Democrats are a libertarian bunch. They support homosexual marriage and they also support those who would refuse to get involved, such as church pastors. It seems like everyone is winner.

Except, of course, no one wins. Least of all Senator-elect Leyonhjelm himself.

He’s in hot water because he’s been interviewing applicants who have put their hands up to become his media advisor.

And he’s been asking them if they are gay.

That, in itself, is strange. The Liberal Democrats are allegedly dead against government interference in the private lives of the nation’s citizens. Presumably, this means that they are philosophically opposed to laws that require government departments to keep tabs on the sexual preferences of public servants. For instance, the UK has laws that do just that, as I have recently highlighted.

But here we have a libertarian politician asking applicants about their sexuality during an interview for a taxpayer-funded job. That would seem to fit much more in the ‘totalitarian’ mould than the ‘libertarian’ mould, but we all know that they are often identical.

Now Leyonhjelm’s excuse for doing this is that he wanted to hire a gay media advisor.

That’s also weird.

Normally, I would have thought politicians wanted media advisors who could do a good job.

But considering how much everyone seems to hate politicians, maybe I’m wrong. Given the poor standing of politicians, I suppose it is entirely possible that they are hiring their media advisors almost entirely on the basis of their sexual preferences. This would help explain the continually poor PR.

And this is where it gets really bizarre.

Leyonhjelm has been taken to task by the LGBT community, even though he is pro-homosexual marriage and wants to hire a homosexual media dude.

That all sounds very progressive and something that even Senator Hanson-Young would approve of.

But the difference between Leyonhjelm and Australia’s worst politician ever is that Senator Hanson-Young would have no hesitation in passing laws that all media dudes must be gay under penalty of stoning with pink, glitter-encrusted rocks blessed with Oxford Street dust captured within 24 hours of the first full moon after the Mardi Gras.

Leyonhjelm is simply not that progressively libertarian/totalitarian.

We know this because he opened his Twitter account yesterday and this was the very first thing he tweeted:

I think what he meant to say was that just because one supports homosexual rights, it does not necessarily follow that they support homosexuality itself.

And the reaction is proof that the LGBT lobby do not consider this to be acceptable at all.

For them acceptance means complete and utter societal approval of homosexuality. The vitriolic twitter response Leyonhjelm received shows one thing very clearly. It does not matter how much you are for homosexuality because if you give the slightest indication that you do not embrace it entirely you will be cast out into the exterior darkness and condemned as a bigot.

Just look at these responses below:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I hope this wakens Leyonhjelm to the danger. He will probably be required to vote on homosexual marriage when he reaches the Senate. And he should realise that homosexual marriage is not an end. It is just a beginning.

Once we have homosexual marriage, schools will be required to teach that homosexuality is acceptable.

And once schools are required to teach that homosexuality is acceptable it means compulsory sex-education classes delving into sodomy.

And once these classes are compulsory, parents will have no right to say no.

Nor will Christian schools have any right to say no to homosexual activists working as teachers in those institutions.

And the Christian pastors that the Liberal Democrats think will be able to say no will also lose their rights. In fact, within a matter of days of the UK legalising homosexual marriage, gay activists had already taken the Church of England to court.

The LGBT Brigade will not stop until every facet of society flies the Rainbow Flag.

Senator-elect David Leyonhjelm claims that he is libertarian. I hope that he does cherish freedom. And when he is asked to vote on homosexual marriage, I hope that he puts freedom first and totalitarianism last.

Author: Bernard Gaynor

Bernard Gaynor is a married father of eight children. He has a background in military intelligence, Arabic language and culture and is an outspoken advocate of conservative and family values.

Share This Post On

5 Comments

  1. Western Civilization is definitely in a moral, and apparently irrevocable tailspin, at this time. There may be no waking up until what was once the Western World is Muslim. The Muslims are bearing children while the [nominally “Christian”] West is aborting them.

    Post a Reply
  2. The LGBT crowd and those who cater to them that demand that you accept gay relationships as Marriages, are like the three year old who makes a mud pie in the back yard and then demanding that you eat it because they made you an apple pie. No matter what you would like it to be, it is still just a mud pie and if you decide to go along and truly eat it you are going to wish that you had not, but it will be too late then. The same goes with accepting gay relationships as true marriages.
    It would appear that the whole of society is in a tailspin headed for a terrible crash. I feel confident that all will not parish and that God will pick up the survivors (those who followed proper crash procedures) dust them off and they will be given another chance to try once more. Just like He has done so many times before.

    Post a Reply
  3. My head hurts. Do these idiots really not know that tolerance and approval are 2 different concepts all together? Tolerance by its very nature is not approval, it is simply the willingness to “live and let live”.

    Post a Reply
  4. There is no such thing as marriage between two people of the same sex and any law that says there is is just a legal fiction and society making a lie legal is what is wrong with gay ‘marriage’. And not is it just a legal fiction of no consequence but as in the UK and US states which have created the ‘marriage’ lie they have also made it illegal to not go along with the lie. What people hated most about totalitarian society in Eastern Europe was the big lie which government told and forced everyone to live by. Those societies collapsed.

    Post a Reply
  5. Do you think that gay’s and lesbians should be allowed defacto relationships, or any kind of legal protection in their relationships, if marriage is not on the cards for them?

    I think that there has not been enough discussion on the “impact” of gay’s and lesbians entering into the marital contract. Claiming that marriage is defined as xyz, means that marriage SHOULD be xyz is a weak argument. There are plenty of things we’ve continued to change in our society that have been beneficial. There has to be a reason as to why Gay marriage is wrong, other than “currently marriage = abc”.

    Also, your argument that gay marriage will pave the way for other forms of relationships, isn’t quite correct. I would say however, that labelling homosexuality as “normal” because it’s not a choice. IS going to be used to support other ideas such as pedophilia. Not that that will become legal, but that those with this disorder, will be considered normal and their behaviour not a result of a form of mental illness(or just plain evil). It is the way in which Gay’s have argued for acceptance that will lead to problems with other sexual “orientations”.

    I still support gay’s and lesbians personally, because I have yet been given a reason as to why it is wrong, other than an idea that it is unnatural(which can be quite easily debated) or that “god” say’s it’s wrong.

    Virtually all the other “types” of sexual behaviour is far more easy to debate, than the gay debate. I think that’s why you are losing that debate. I’d really like to hear the reason as to why it is actually harmful?

    Post a Reply

Submit a Comment

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Pin It on Pinterest

Shares