WARNING: This post contains some graphic clinical quotes from lifesitenews.com about the nature of homosexual behaviour.
If you are easily offended by the truth then I suggest you do not read any further and instead go and draw a rainbow-coloured heart. It’s what the homosexual activists do because even they do not wish to actually describe their behaviour publicly. It’s simply too shameful.
Back in simpler days, society used to understand simple things. Like the birds and the bees.
It’s not so simple today. We prefer to complicate matters with ‘nuance’. And so we don’t even understand the basics of sex or marriage or gender anymore.
It’s led to a fake debate about ‘marriage’ that is based on a lie.
The debate is obviously fake because only one side can speak without fear of legal action, public assault or even being able to fly from one city to another. And the side that can speak is so afraid of losing anyway that it’s also opposed a plebiscite on marriage, despite simultaneously boasting that society overwhelmingly supports ‘marriage equality’.
So there is no debate. Instead we have indoctrination. And it’s based on a lie.
The lie is called ‘marriage equality’ or ‘equal love’. It deceitfully claims that homosexuals and lesbians in Australia cannot get hitched.
That is simply not true. As exhibit one I give you Tony Abbott’s sister, Christine Forster.
She did walk down the aisle. She did say until death do us part. And she did get married.
She also claims to be lesbian. So a lesbian can get married and Christine Forster has four children and presumably a surname to show for it.
As exhibit number two I give you the Marriage Act. Nowhere in it will you find a clause that makes it illegal for a homosexual or a lesbian to tie the knot.
They can get married in accordance with the law just like any other Australian.
In fact, the only demographic group of people in Australia who face a blanket prohibition on marriage are minors.
They are the only people who face ‘marriage inequality’.
So if the homosexual marriage argument really is based on removing all marriage discrimination, it’s also an argument that logically leads you to removal of the age of consent. And we really don’t want to go there.
And this, unfortunately, brings us to the other lie of ‘equal love’. It’s a claim that the current marriage laws discriminate on the basis of love and that no love should be denied recognition.
It’s a strange claim considering the word love cannot be found anywhere in the Marriage Act.
And it’s also strange, considering where this argument logically leads as well. People involved in incestuous relationships claim they love. So do those involved in relationships with minors. And so do those involved with multiple partners.
The logic of equal love again leads to places where we don’t want to go.
So the catch-phrases ‘equal love’ and ‘marriage equality’ do not express any logical reason to change our laws on marriage. And the LGBTQIWHATEVER activists cannot outline one single argument to support their case that those who engage in same-sex behaviour should have their relationship recognised by the state.
In contrast, I can give you a very good reason why it is different for heterosexual relationships: they lead to new life and evidence overwhelmingly shows that children thrive when they are raised by their biological parents.
The future of the state rests on these relationships.
That’s why they deserve state recognition.
The truth is that the homosexual marriage movement is not about love or children. It is about enforcing a moral worldview that homosexual behaviour is legitimate; as legitimate as the life-forming power of heterosexual activity.
It is not.
And it is at this point that I quote from Lifesite News. Yesterday it published an article that graphically explains why:
“When a man and a woman make love, the miracles of conception and birth are possible. When two men attempt the same, the most glorious result possible is an anal discharge of semen mixed with fecal matter.”
Those words were written by Doug Mainwaring. And before you blast him as a bigot, know that he should know what he is talking about.
He goes on to say:
“I am same-sex-attracted, and I once walked away from both my marriage and the Church and lived as a gay man. “
Mainwaring’s words are biologically true. And they point out the truly disgusting nature of homosexual activity.
And that is why no one in the homosexual marriage movement actually wants to talk specifics about such behaviour. Instead, they have covered it up with rainbows.
That is quite disgusting too. It is a perversion of one nature’s most beautiful sights.
The homosexual marriage movement is nothing more than a desperate attempt for moral recognition. That is what it is all about.
Homosexuals cannot find moral peace within. This, rather than ‘heteronormativity’, explains the unhappiness, the suicides, the risk-taking behaviour and the drugs.
In contrast, if the government scrapped the Marriage Act, you would not find heterosexual couples falling into despair. They would simply continue their lives and they would continue to refer to themselves as married.
My wife and I, like any other married couple, know that we are married. The state did not make us married. We did that all by ourselves.
Homosexuals know they cannot do this. Hence the frantic campaign to find moral legitimacy in Canberra.
Good luck with that…