The ‘Yes’ campaign: insult and the colour purple

I wrote recently that the ‘Yes’ campaign logic is somewhat lacking.

First of all it started by responding to every argument against the redefinition of marriage with this:

purple

Yes. That’s it.

The ‘No’ campaign can point to the loss of liberty, religious freedom and the tyranny of laws that remove the ability of conservatives to engage in debate as just some of the problems associated with recognising that homosexual relationships are equivalent to marriages.

And then there’s ‘Safe Schools’ and the requirement for homosexual sex education as part of any education system in a nation that legalises same-sex marriage.

In response, the ‘Yes’ campaign gave us a colour. Purple.

It looks nice but, as a debate clincher, purple just doesn’t cut it. Not by itself. And not dressed up with a bunch of other colours either.

A colour is a colour. It’s not an answer.

And that’s why the ‘Yes’ campaign has another ace up its sleeve.

Abuse.

First we had Tim Minchin call us all c***s. And now we’ve got some other dude who has somehow managed to be even less funnier than Minchin respond to the first Coalition for Marriage advertisement with insult and ridicule.

Now, don’t get me wrong, insult and ridicule can be very effective. And when it is, it cuts to the core of the issue.

Unfortunately for Christian, his insult and ridicule failed to do this. But it did succeed in making him look stupid.

So I give it 10 out of 10…

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

15 Comments

  1. Can you please explain these purple squares in more detail?

    Post a Reply
  2. Less funny….. not less funnier.

    Post a Reply
  3. And just when you thought it couldn’t get any worse, my Auntie Sembight writes me from beautiful, adorable, scenic and happy Israel and tells me that the Israeli Supreme Court has just ruled (last week) that homosexual marriage is not a civil right in that wonderful bastion of freedom and democracy.

    https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/201709011056978922-israel-supreme-court-gay-marriage/

    How could something like this possibly happen in that wonderful paradise of human rights?

    Savour this Goyim – same sex marriage, safe skoolz, five year old non-cis binary genders, the military forced to put on lipstick and learn to march in high heels – all of this SUBVERSION is strictly for the goy nations.
    http://en.rightpedia.info/w/images/8/80/USS_Liberty_attack_Dees.jpg

    Post a Reply
  4. Free TV has pulled the beautiful Father’s Day ad made by the not for profit Dads4Kids (which has run a Father’s Day ad for the past fifteen years). Reason: too much political subject matter. Perhaps that should be too much politically incorrect subject matter.

    So what was it in the ad that was so offensive: Dad teaching his son to surf? Dad reading to his daughter? Dad teaching his daughter to ride a bike? I tend to think it was Mum AND Dad laughing with the new baby that was deemed too political and unacceptable.

    Even this pre-plebiscite debate is taking Australia to a bad place.

    http://www.news.com.au/finance/business/media/not-everything-is-about-samesex-marriage-fathers-day-ad-deemed-too-political-for-tv/news-story/08f5f7bea0357def1bea39858fe70dbd

    Imagine what it will be like if SSM ever gets done and dusted. Dads4Kids will get a lot more than just their politically incorrect Father’s Day ad pulled by Free TV. They will be prosecuted for a hate crime for depicting a happy family.

    Perfectly Acceptable and Politically Appropriate is The Google Doodle for Father’s Day showing big cactus and little cactus. Under the SSM regime, nothing is more acceptable for Father’s Day than Big same and Little same being happy happy.

    Post a Reply
  5. this is not for children at school, I reckon the world had lost its mind

    Post a Reply
  6. In this topsy turvy world YES really means NO – No to religious freedom, No to family, No to fathers, No to mothers, No to dissent, No to our heritage, No to humility, No to humanity, No to civility, No to freedom.

    Post a Reply
  7. Take off your wig and take a number Chris. Your marriage demands are on the whack-o spectrum (I’ll give you that) but they are not at the whack-o end of the spectrum that is, in fact, expanding as I write.

    The question is: should the Australian state legally recognise marriage arrangements demanded by people who find themselves unsuited to the traditional institution of a man and a woman? The short answer to this question is : NO.

    Take for example all the adult teens In Japan who live in Otaku culture and are lining up to marry cartoon dolls created to sell voice synthesizer programmes. Because Japan is basically whacked, numbers and economics (and a loud, out there political correctoid cadre) will compel Japan to recognize that an increasing number of marriages are between man and anime or woman and anime. Such a phenomena is going to require (and pay) a lot of dweebs to code this virtual reality. It is going to generate a lot of pixels. It is attracting amorous Otakus from all over the world to Japanese state of the art VR.

    What it will not do is reproduce the next generation of Japanese: love them, parent them, provide for them, make sacrifices for them, teach them how to be Japanese and grow them up. When the little Japanese kid hits the terrible teens and falls in love with an anime, the recognition of anime marriage in Japan will be of zero assistance to parents and educators who want to help him or her grow up and join the society. They will be punished by political correctoids who will demand that the teen be allowed to live in VR, date his or her anime, marry the anime etc.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrgCjeXrmD4
    The Men who want to marry Japanese Cartoon dolls

    Do you see where this full spectrum diversity marriage idea is going?

    Post a Reply
    • What on earth has some weirdo doll cult in Japan to do with two consenting human beings wanting to be married in Australia exactly? If that’s the best ”argument” you can come up with then you are truly wacko!

      Post a Reply
      • Thank you, Ben. *Shheesh!* I find these ‘arguments’ for the no so tiresome and contrived.

    • Didn’t bother to read last where you mentioned some obscure Japanese people wanting to marry dolls. This entire website is ridiculous. The question is should two consenting adults of the same sex, be able to be legally married. The answer is yes. No one is forcing anything upon you. Your religious freedoms are not being infringed upon, in fact all that’s happening is that you’re trying to quash the freedoms of other people. No one is forcing the Catholic Church, or any other to go against their beliefs. This will not affect you in any way. The arguments against gay marriage are based in fear, ignorance and prejudice. If that’s how you’re happy to define yourselves, go ahead. I doubt anything I say would change that, but just know that your not living your best life. Why don’t you do what Jesus would do, and spend your efforts in life trying to dismantle the wholly unchristian and unethical financial system we have in the western world? Capitalism is fundamentally at odds with everything Jesus taught, but you have no problem with that. Sort ya lives out please, and reflect on why this is such a big deal for you. xx

      Post a Reply
      • Alice, for your information, or lack thereof, the bill proposal states nothing about consenting adults in any way shape or form. It says ” two people”. Now that can be construed as two truly deviant people. I am Atheist so you cannot use that rot about not imposing on religious freedoms on me.
        Redefinition of marriage means REDEFINITION OF FAMILIES fullstop.
        Say goodbye to mum and dad and say hello to parent one and parent two.
        Say goodbye to son and daughter and hello to sibling one and sibling two and so on and so forth.
        Just for your information as well, The majority of priests who ended up being pedophiles were gay well before they were priests and therefore knowingly being gay and using the church as their way in to molest children. The same goes for pedophilic scout leaders, child support workers etc. They were practically all GAY FIRST and just facilitated their vile deviant cravings.
        Also, say hello to that bloke in the dress in the same toilet as your daughter or grand daughter. It doesn’t matter how much the activist lgbti thugs intimidate and continue with their death threats, sensible Aussies are realising just how dangerous redefining marriage is.
        Thanks for your comment though ALICE, you and the like just prove to me that i am correct in saying NO NO NO every time you open your mouths.

      • I am sorry Jesus would not support same sex marriage if you think otherwise you are sadly mistaken.

  8. If Chrissy comes from the camp of reason and logic, his vid is confirmation that he is either uber oblivious to Safe Schools and the greater impact of changing the definition of marriage, or is offering a self-discription at 1:17.

    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