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:
Is approval of gay lifestyle necessary to support gay rights? Is reckless promiscuity a right? Tolerance doesn’t require approval.
— David Leyonhjelm (@DavidLeyonhjelm) May 19, 2014
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:
@DavidLeyonhjelm you are beyond ignorant.
— Harry Cook (@HarryCook) May 19, 2014
@DavidLeyonhjelm what a way to preach hate. Scum.
— Nicholas Bostock (@NikBostok) May 19, 2014
@DavidLeyonhjelm unbecoming of an Australian Senator elect to troll on Twitter. Oh, wait, you actually believe that, don’t you.
— Dame Pattie of Oz (@tric000) May 19, 2014
— PowerandPassion (@PowerandPassion) May 19, 2014
— Bubbyboo (@Bubbbyboo) May 19, 2014
— sassy pastry (@sassypastry) May 19, 2014
@DavidLeyonhjelm Having sex with whoever, whenever is a right of people. Regardless of sexuality.
— Hayden Williams (@hayd_williams) May 19, 2014
— Kelloveslife (@kelloveslife) May 19, 2014
What the fuck mate @DavidLeyonhjelm
— PowerandPassion (@PowerandPassion) May 19, 2014
— Shane Bazzi (@shanebazzi) May 19, 2014
@DavidLeyonhjelm are you trying to say people should go fuck themselves instead? Perhaps you ought consider that advice for yourself.
— Mr. Benster (@mr_benster) May 19, 2014
“@DavidLeyonhjelm: Is approval of gay lifestyle necessary to support gay rights? YES YOU FUCKWIT
— Wolf (@Simon_Ulfarsson) May 19, 2014
— KALABOOSH (@KalaBoosh) May 19, 2014
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.