Just Merveilleux?

Life at № 42

My Sincere Apologies to the People of Australia for Inflicting Katy Faust Upon You

 

tellthem

It’s not every day that one gets blamed on national television for subjecting an entire country to veiled bigotry. Apparently the reason Mrs. Faust got on an aeroplane and flew to the other end of the world to continue promoting bigotry was that I outed her identity (not that she makes money off of it.) Otherwise, of course, she’d only be promoting bigotry from the privacy of her Seattle home, her husband’s church or the nearest Starbucks.

There are a few things the people of Australia should be asking themselves about her, the first of which is who paid her airfare? Despite Katy’s softly-softly approach where she pretends to be a sweet and slightly naive housewife, her business project has always been to use homophobia for profit. You have to keep in mind that people don’t buy a domain name called Askthebigot.com, engage an editor and write clickbait articles because they’ve got a bit of free time between dropping the children off at school and marinating chicken for lunch.

Faust is actually an astute businesswoman. According to the bio she gave epicquestmedia she studied Asian Studies and Political Science at St. Olaf College and received a Fulbright to study in Taiwan. That belies the notion that she would be capable of making such simplistic and illogical statements unless there’s something more to the story.

The fraud Mrs. Faust is promoting in Australia today is one where she conflates the issues of gay marriage and gay parenting in a rather absurd manner. Mrs. Faust herself was born to a lesbian mother long before the lgbt community considered marriage would ever become a legal possibility.

The vast majority of gay parents are in fact unmarried lesbians with children from previous heterosexual relationships, children just like Katy Faust herself . The link is to a Spanish study, but the figures seem to reflect those in other countries as well. Same-sex marriage legislation has been approved in various countries including Spain, Holland and Belgium, and there has been no significant rise in the number of lgbt families with children.

That means the existence of these families is entirely independent to their legal status as families. So Faust’s argument is dead in the water.

Where gay marriage is relevant to the children of members of the LGBT community is simply that they would afford those pre-existing families a number of rights and protections, including financial/legal protections in the case of separation and divorce. Access to the children, visitation, child-support and so forth.

hatepieSo if her propositions don’t actually protect children, the inexistence of gay marriage certainly didn’t affect her own childhood story– then we’re back to the money angle. Homophobia is big business in America.  In 2010 NOM raised US$9,197,742. In the first year of its creation NOM paid its leaders, Brian Brown and Maggie Gallagher, 14% of its budget. Now NOM pays Brown a salary of over $150,000 per year, and all he has to do is hate gay people and promote anti-gay propaganda. Fabulous job! Faust and her cohorts, Rivka Edelman, Robert Oscar Lopez, Janna Anderson and others want a piece of that ugly-hate-pie.

Little by little they’ve been raising their public profiles. Faust with her website, Lopez with amateur videos, Darnelle-Anderson with articlesand all of them together with a number of amicus briefs. They’ve realized filing briefs with various courts creates the false impression of legitimacy and seriousness. In fact the ink was still wet on Mrs. Faust’s brief and her pastor husband was already calling her an expert on the issue:

“My wife is an expert on this. I know what the Bible says, but from a logic / experience standpoint she is the expert. She has written an “amicus brief” for the upcoming Supreme Court Case on gay marriage next week.”

Let me just clarify that “An amicus curiae (literally, friend of the court; plural, amici curiae) is someone who is not a party to a case and offers information that bears on the case, but who has not been solicited by any of the parties to assist a court.”

If you dislike the colour purple you can submit an amicus brief in any case where the colour purple is the subject of the suit. Maybe purple stole your candy, maybe purple dumped you. You could even be colour-blind, it doesn’t matter. Your argument doesn’t have to have any merit whatsoever, you just need to have an opinion/experience related to the suit. If Faust is an expert on something, it’s in promoting and endorsing vile stereotypes that have long been dismissed by mainstream science and civilized society at large.

Hopefully Australia and its people will see through the scam. Hopefully you will join Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, the United States and Uruguay in saying no to bigotry and saying no to Faust and the anti-gay-for-pay crowd.

If you’re in Australia and so inclined, a re-blog is much appreciated to get this message out, and/or  write to ABC (Australia) to ask why they’re giving this woman a platform.

For More:

Katy Faust is part of an extremist religious cult.

Advertisements

136 comments on “My Sincere Apologies to the People of Australia for Inflicting Katy Faust Upon You

  1. docrocki
    August 13, 2015

    These organizations rely on donations from anonymous wealthy donors. The NOM website is constantly begging for cash donations. Because of their recent loss in the US, they are desperately trying to deliver “results” overseas before their benefactors realize what a waste of money this is. This not a conspiracy theory, there is big money documented to be changing hands in US tax filings. About a year ago, HRC posted a site looking at the “Export of Hate.” Notice Ms. Faust’s colleague Robert Oscar Lopez trying to join the millionaire haters club. What has happened over the last year since this was posted is that Robert Oscar Lopez has recruited a gang.

    http://www.hrc.org/campaigns/exporters-of-hate

    Liked by 3 people

    • Mr. Merveilleux
      August 13, 2015

      Absolutely. Before Australia they tried Spain and France- and Uganda with dire consequences still felt today.
      I hope journalists in Australia follow the money. It’s all connected: Faust, Lopez, Edelman, Darnelle-Anderson, NOM, Witherspoon, the disgraced Regnerus study some of them promoted. And it’s not just that, they’re writing and trying to sell anti-gay books, looking for paid public appearances etc.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Lee-Gwen Booth
        August 16, 2015

        Sadly, the Lateline interview was a remarkably soft-ball affair and no journalists in Australia seem particularly interested in “following the money”.

        Like

  2. tildeb
    August 13, 2015

    And here we’ve told that real conspiracy is organized by us disreputable secular atheists who are trying to legalize children mating with squirrels.

    I’m so confused which hate monger to believe. I think we need a wiki-bigot resource to get all these ducks in a row.

    Liked by 6 people

  3. violetwisp
    August 13, 2015

    I just saw the link to that interview on her About page (which comes up on my ‘Comments I’ve Made’ page) and was about to tell you. I mean, really, just can’t get my head round the stupidity of anyone picking up anything she has to say – outside of US Christian hate circles.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Mr. Merveilleux
      August 13, 2015

      There are snake-oil-salespeople everywhere. Fortunately Australia has high levels of education, so I’m confident many will see through what she’s doing.

      Liked by 1 person

      • violetwisp
        August 13, 2015

        Hmm, just watched the interview in full. Do you realise if she sways the nation, the full weight of responsibility lies on YOUR shoulders?

        Liked by 2 people

      • Mr. Merveilleux
        August 13, 2015

        I know. I also noticed how she smirked when she said that. Reminds me of psychopaths in crime films: “Tell me Clarice…”

        Like

  4. jerbearinsantafe
    August 13, 2015

    As if Australia didn’t already have enough bigots of their own. This woman represents hate mongering on a global scale! And religious conservatives are already prepping for their next war – a war on trans people and, most despicable, a war on trans kids and youth. They put up straw man arguments about mythical cross-dressing boys sexually assaulting girls. It doesn’t happen but they push the “what if” factor to a ridiciulius extreem. Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee was in the news about a quote he made. This from business insider:

    “Huckabee suggested that, in today’s climate of increased acceptance for transgender rights, men will lie about their gender identity in order to ogle women in bathrooms. In fact, Huckabee said he would have done exactly that as a teen.”

    “Now, I wish that someone told me that when I was in high school that I could have felt like a woman when it came time to take showers in PE,” Huckabee said. “I’m pretty sure that I would have found my feminine side and said, ‘Coach, I think I’d rather shower with the girls today.'”

    It says a lot about Hukabee but nothing about the scary reality for trans girls in boys restrooms. I am afraid these people will switch targets when they loose or, as in this post, switch countries. I have, quite frankly, had enough!

    Liked by 4 people

  5. makagutu
    August 13, 2015

    If I read this correctly, you have made her go to Australia on a bigotry mission? Man you are powerful. Can I be half as powerful?
    To hate at the level you describe, and make money from it, is to me despicable. It is sick

    Liked by 1 person

    • Mr. Merveilleux
      August 13, 2015

      It is sick indeed; and the people who give her a platform are also guilty because they allow her to promote her illogical, hateful and utterly ridiculous extremist religious ideology under the guise of protecting children.

      Liked by 3 people

  6. josh
    August 13, 2015

    Just saw this on Joe My God and was coming here to tell you about it… but of course you were ahead of me on that (I attribute that to time zones).

    I’m embarrassed that we are exporting hate to other countries, and not for the first time.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Mr. Merveilleux
      August 13, 2015

      Someone sent me the link to the interview. Isn’t it great that she gets to blame her spreading homophobia on a gay person? I made her do it, obviously.

      Liked by 1 person

      • docatheist
        August 14, 2015

        And I congratulate you for it. “Her spreading homophobia” translates to “her making an utter fool of herself worldwide”, and for that, I must commend you. Well done, sir!

        Like

  7. josh
    August 13, 2015

    Here’s something to think about: If gay marriage was a reality a few decades ago, it’s much less likely her mother would ever have felt compelled to enter a heterosexual relationship. Katy’s mother wouldn’t have been with her biological father and Katy would probably never have been conceived. Huh.

    Like

    • Mr. Merveilleux
      August 13, 2015

      All her drivel is illogical. I don’t understand why any respectable media outlet would give someone like her a platform.

      Liked by 1 person

  8. William Orr
    August 13, 2015

    I hope it is not lost on anyone that Faust–as in Marlow’s Doctor Faustus and Goethe’s Faust–sold his soul to the devil. If only all Christianist grifters had such revealing names!

    Liked by 1 person

    • Mr. Merveilleux
      August 13, 2015

      I have the impression her circle doesn’t allow much reading other than the books her husband pushes. Soon enough that will surely include the one she must be writing about being a victim of the gay agenda.

      Like

  9. Neil
    August 13, 2015

    The reason that respectable media is giving her a platform is because she is making very good comments and shows that opposing same-sex marriage is not being “bigoted”, “homophobic” and “discriminative”,,,,,to the contrary, it shows that the whole idea of gays being “married” is all about their own selfishness and imposing an unnatural lifestyle on others (including the children) causing hurt, confusion and damage in so many ways. You really look the fool by unleashing such a powerful and convincing lady!…..and for you to demean all the meadia outlets in Australia for picking up her story is just more name-calling on your part hand shows that you have a twisted view of “love and tolerance” – something that she picked up on in her interview. I can see that the more logical, secular, medical facts that come out in the same-sex marriage debate (including how same-sex marriage is abusing the rights of children), the more people will oppose the idea.

    Same-sex marriage is not about equality, but rather re-defining marriage into a simplistic, shallow concept of “whoever/whatever you want to have sex with is marriage”…..when real marriage is infinitely more deep and meaningful than that. I for one give thanks to Katy Faust for her calm, sincere, truthful and persuasive comments when the gay/lesbian agenda is to bully, intimidate, mislead and manipulate whoever/whatever they can to impose their agenda on others.

    Like

    • Mr. Merveilleux
      August 13, 2015

      You know that crucifix is supposed to go around your neck and not into your ear, right?
      You wanna know the truth about Katy Faust’s brand of bigotry? They’ve lost. They’ve lost in every developed country and they will eventually lose in Australia. Support for same sex marriage is up every year- and thanks to the age of technology people can now research the garbage she spews for themselves and see she’s an opportunistic hack selling religious snake-oil.

      Liked by 1 person

    • tildeb
      August 13, 2015

      Neil, you state as if true that “Same-sex marriage is not about equality, but rather re-defining marriage into a simplistic, shallow concept of “whoever/whatever you want to have sex with is marriage”…..when real marriage is infinitely more deep and meaningful than that.”

      If we put on hold your opinion that follows after the ‘rather’ you’ve gratuitiously included in this sentence, we are left with “Same-sex marriage is not about equality.” Presumably, you agree that equality in regards to ‘marriage’ must be about legal equality, which means we’re really talking about the same legal rights from which people then equally qualify for certain prescribed benefits and privileges. And so we are left wondering if your statement is in fact true.

      If we turn to the US Government Accountability Office, we find evidence that applies directly to your claim. The Government Accountability Office found “1,138 federal statutory provisions classified to the United States Code in which marital status is a factor in determining or receiving benefits, rights, and privileges.”

      So marriage for gays and lesbians really does have a direct impact on legal equality and all that accrues from this status.

      Your statement is false. You are factually wrong. Same-sex marriage really is about equality because it really does matter in qualifying for benefits and privileges available to heterosexual unions. That’s not equal, Neil.

      You need to correct this error in assumption you are making. If you cannot do this, then you reject reality’s factual arbitration of your opinion about the legal importance of equality in marriage. By definition, that rejection will make you a bigot. And that’s your choice. All you have to do is reject both reality and sacrifice any claims you may mistakenly hold about you possessing intellectual integrity and being concerned about what’s true.

      Only then can we switch gears and talk about your opinion after the ‘rather’… but at least by then we’ll know how important what’s true matters to you.

      Liked by 2 people

  10. Michael Barnett
    August 13, 2015

    Thanks for this article. You asked I share it in Australia. I am doing so. Can’t believe this fraud is getting air time here!

    Liked by 1 person

    • Mr. Merveilleux
      August 13, 2015

      THANK YOU!!! Jeremy Hooper (Goodasyou) has just tweeted about it, let’s get more people on the case. I’ve emailed Di Natale who’s going to be with her on ABC Q&A, but we need to really push to stop these people.
      Good night from the south of France 🙂 Tomorrow, first thing, guns blazing again!

      Liked by 1 person

  11. Neil
    August 15, 2015

    Looks like I have to clearly explain here why Marriage Equality is an impossibility:

    Heterosexual marriage has a male and female input (ie. 1+1=2 inputs) whereas a same-sex marriage misses out on the input of the opposite gender no matter how much they try to be equal – ie. male-male marriage (1+1=1) or female-female marrage (1+1=1) so neither adds up. Sorry to state the bleeding obvious, but some people can’t catch on to this relatively basis fact. Try joining two male connections together on a power lead or two female connections together and see if they works……nope…..so regardless of how much two people of the same gender try to be “equal” with two people of different genders, it is an impossibility – it is their genders that make them unequal and not anything that a heterosexual advocate says. Same-sex marriages cannot have the same gender inputs no matter how much they try to “love” or “tolerant” each other. All the denials in the world cannot change this basic, elementary fact of human biology/psychology..

    Oh, and if you can’t refute my point above with anything logical but rather adopt the usual bad-mouthing, name-calling or passing-the-buck, you will make the same mistake as Mr Merveilleux did with Katy Faust, and will give me a huge following – why will this happen?….because the people who read this blog can tell who is being reasonable or not and if I have made a valid point and all you do is rubbish me with emotive words of no substance, they will reject your side and join with me…..thats right – you give me a chance to be another “Katy Faust” (…..hey!….I can get to travel the world like she is). Mr Merveilleux’s foolish mistake could be repeated for me.

    Here in Australia, the gay lobby agenda is failing so much with their poor political tactics of name-calling, feigned support for their cause, bullying, intimidation and manipulation, that the so-called “70% majority” in support of same-sex marriage is actually less than 30%. How do I know this?…..the pollies here have checked the numbers and are able to “ask the people” to vote on the issue by holding either a referendum or plebiscite. The gay lobbyists are ferociously opposed to any referendum or plebiscite here on the issue because they publicaly admit that they will get defeated. I welcome a referendum or plebiscite because the Australian population simply doesn’t support same-sex marriage (sorry to state the bleeding obvious again). If you are in Australia and are reading this, you will know what I mean and all the responses here will prove my point – nothing here can refute the simple, rational logic that I have given.

    And now over to the same-sex marriage advocates to help boost my following – fire away with your responses…… 🙂

    Like

    • Mr. Merveilleux
      August 15, 2015

      How much money do you make out of selling religion & bigotry?

      Like

      • Neil
        August 15, 2015

        …..nothing (so far)…..but with your shallow, malicious, name-calling that don’t even relate to the subject of same-sex marriage, I am sure to get people donating to me….and to bait you for more attacks on me, try this: just because other countries have legalised same-sex marriage, it doesn’t mean that Australia has to follow the pied-piper. God bless ya, Mr Merveilleux.

        Like

      • Mr. Merveilleux
        August 15, 2015

        How much money do you hope to make by promoting religious extremism and bigotry?

        Like

      • docatheist
        August 16, 2015

        That is exactly the question I wondered! And, if not cash money, just what are the “secondary gains” for which Neil so obviously hungers? Could it merely be fame, without fortune? Time (and his bank account) will tell.

        Like

    • docatheist
      August 16, 2015

      Neil, I’m afraid your error is rather obvious: Legally equal does not equal identical.

      Math: If a=b and b=c, then a=c. That does not, by any means, suggest that a looks a bit like b or c, or that b looks anything like c, either.

      E.g.: 1/8=12.5%=(1/4)^2

      In no way must men and women BE equal in order to be treated as equals under the law. Q.E.D.

      Like

      • Mr. Merveilleux
        August 16, 2015

        LOL! 1/8=12.5%=(1/4)^2 ?
        Do you realize you’re speaking to someone who believes that everything that has happened in the past two thousand years is part of his god’s unusual plan designed so only his little sect goes to ‘heaven’?

        Like

      • docatheist
        August 16, 2015

        Perhaps I was speaking over his head. And so, then, perhaps his name should be spelled “Kneel”, rather than “Neil”, to fit both his theology and his mental capacity.

        Liked by 1 person

      • tildeb
        August 16, 2015

        Maybe I’m misunderstanding the notation but isn’t (1/4)^2= 1/16?

        Liked by 1 person

      • docatheist
        August 16, 2015

        No, you are correct! I should have used 1/2^3. Thank you very much for correcting me!

        Liked by 1 person

  12. Neil
    August 15, 2015

    …..by the way, I just got to share the stage with Katy Faust today at a meeting here in Adelaide, South Australia, so I am already on the path to fame in the same way that she is!…..thanks, Mr Merveilleux, for making the same same mistake twice. (why do you think I decided to send posts here on your blog?….I am hoping that you would take the bait and foolishly broadcast my so-called “Christian extremist” views…..haha….my website hitrate is increasing dramatically and I am expecting television stations to call me any moment now). Please respond in the same manner.

    Like

    • Mr. Merveilleux
      August 15, 2015

      And the same thing that happened in Spain, France, the UK and the US is going to happen in Australia. You get a little bump because of support from fellow extremists, then an incredible drop. Why do you think Faust has to promote her views on the other side of the world?
      Because in the US no one’s interested in her brand of bigotry. Where are you going to go once it happens to you? Indonesia?

      Like

  13. Neil
    August 15, 2015

    ….so you are a fortune-teller?….haha….good try – and so what has your reply here got to do with the merits of same-sex marriage?….oh, nothing…..it’s just you mouthing off some “it’s inevitable” propaganda. Sorry, but Australians don’t fall for these sort of political stunts – that is why the gay lobbyists here are losing the battle because their agenda is to bully, intimidate, mislead and manipulate whoever/whatever they can to impose their agenda on others.

    Like

    • Mr. Merveilleux
      August 16, 2015

      I’m not a fortune teller, I just looked at the numbers. 81% of Australians under 25 support gay marriage. Atheism is on the rise in all of the developed world. The more people are educated, the more they dismiss people like you and Faust and Lopez 😉

      Like

  14. Neil
    August 15, 2015

    ….no money….just fame and glory that I hope you will foolishly help give me……here, let me bait you more: the number of same-sex couples is only 0.4% (that’s, zero point four percent) of the total number of couples (marriage and defacto) in Australia and these same-sex couples get every right, priveledge and obligation as married couples in EVERY way under Australian law. The only difference is the name they call it, so why should 99.6% of Australian’s be expected to re-define a well-established institution of “marriage between a man and a women” into an institution of “marriage with anyone/anything that you want to have sex with” just for the sake of a name?….did you know that pedophiles and polygamists here in Australia are already lining up to be included in a legal definition of “marriage” and so, by your own judgment (not mine), anyone who opposes them are bigots, hate-mongers, extremists and social terrorists. Did you know that a writer in an Australian newspaper just a few weeks ago wrote an article saying how being a “single” person caused her to be side-lined at social outings and so she decided to “marry herself” – so now we have one-person marriages on offer. Please, Mr Merveilleux, don’t say that this is silly or ridiculous because surely you aren’t a person to discriminate against such a “loving and tolerant” marriages for pedophiles, polygamists and single people. (btw, bestiality should also be allowed in “marriage” according to your reasoning – and please, don’t discriminate against all those wonderful animal lovers who want to have sex with their pets).

    Like

    • violetwisp
      August 15, 2015

      Hi Neil, I’m sorry you’re so confused about marriage equality. I think for people who live sheltered lives it can difficult to grasp, and certainly the homophobic lobby are presenting all kind of ridiculous scenarios that are getting some people in an embarrassing tangle.

      Think of any two consenting adults in love who want to express the commitment they make to each other through the traditional ceremony of their culture – marriage. There are no animals or children involved. It’s a simple concept of adult humans sharing their lives together and having the same rights as all other adult humans.

      I hope that clears it up for you.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Mr. Merveilleux
        August 16, 2015

        Turns out Mrs. Violet is rather brilliant. That’s a good thing.

        Like

      • Mr. Merveilleux
        August 16, 2015

        He’s confused because he’s got a crucifix stuck in his ear.

        Like

      • Neil
        August 16, 2015

        hmmm….why are you limiting marriage to only two people?….and why aren’t you including animals or children in your new redefined “marriage”?….if you don’t, then by your own arguments, are you discriminating against them – where is “marriage equality” if you leave out any other sort of human “relationship” with anyone/anything?….I’m sure Mr Mr Merveilleux will be calling you a bigot, hate-monger and a phobic of some sort (along with all his other foul expressions) for your gross discrimination. You have to take everything in your marriage redefinition or nothing.

        And since when is traditional marriage simply “two consenting adults in love who want to express the commitment they make to each other”?….traditional marriage involves infinitely more than that which is why no equality can be possibly for same-sex people when they leave out the gender of the opposite sex – their gender makes them inequitable. Redefining marriage in the way that you state above makes the word “marriage” meaningless and irrelevant. In fact, the word would be so trashed, that it is pointless being married under the law – even many homosexual couples are not wanting to be “married” for this reason no matter what laws are passed. If same-sex marriage laws are passed in Australia, I expect that Christian churches will hold purely Biblical marriages “before God” that have nothing to do with state law (maybe call the ceremonies “maritatus”). Genesis 2:24 is frequently quoted as “God’s plan” for marriage to the exclusion of all other family /marriage types: “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” You might notice that the word ‘marriage’ is not used and so we Christian’s aren’t hung up on words, it’s the concepts that are important to us. Hence, I don’t mind if the word “marriage” is trashed by the same-sexers and we can use another word. The separation of church and state means that these Biblical ceremonies have nothing to do with the state and vise versa.

        Like

    • acflory
      August 15, 2015

      I believe the Liberal government Minister peddling this argument has already had to back-peddle at the speed of light. Perhaps you could rethink your argument, if not your position, as well. You have every right to disagree with the concept of gay marriage, but any argument that relies on shock tactics rather than logic and respectful debate rarely works.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Mr. Merveilleux
        August 16, 2015

        Shock tactics? You mean like Neil having to get a penis out of his mouth before he answers? Too late?

        Like

      • acflory
        August 16, 2015

        rofl – um yes, something like that. :p

        Like

      • docatheist
        August 16, 2015

        Mr. Merveilleux, it cannot possibly be his penis in his own mouth. He’s far too rigid and inflexible for that! Now, let me see… I wonder whose it could be… You don’t suppose Katy Faust could be hiding one, do you?

        Liked by 1 person

      • Neil
        August 16, 2015

        Are you referring to Corey Bernardi?…..if so, then he never “back-peddled”, he continues to say the same thing except that he resigned from being the Secretary to PM. Just because something is popular, doesn’t make it right and so Mr Bernardi continues to say the same things as he always have because he knows that he is right even if it is against the popular view. Have you heard what Malcolm Turnbull says about Corey Bernandi?….haha….I can assure you, Mr Bernardi hasn’t back-peddled – to the contrry, he is becoming more and more vocal.

        Like

      • acflory
        August 16, 2015

        Curious, I watched an interview with him post ‘that’ comment and it sure looked like a back-flip to me. As for questions of morality, they have always been decided by the populace, and this populace does not see anything evil in marriage equality. I’m afraid that bus is long gone. As an individual, however, you may believe anything you wish.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Neil
        August 16, 2015

        …..and only 5 people in the Coalition (at their joint party room meeting last week) said that they would vote for same-sex marriage – so it looks like Cory Benardi’s (and my) arguments aren’t shock tactics after all, but have legitimate substance. There will be no same-sex marriage laws now until at least after the next federal election.

        Like

      • acflory
        August 16, 2015

        lol – we all know the Nats agree with the PM so therefore finagling a /joint/ vote is like branch stacking – effective but leaves a bad taste in the mouth. Let’s not forget that our beloved PM is still no flavour of the month amongst either his own part or the voting public. Don’t count your chickens before they hatch.

        Like

    • Mr. Merveilleux
      August 16, 2015

      Is the bait you really want a penis to suck on? I’m just curious as that’s a recurrent factor amongst Christian extremists.

      Like

    • docatheist
      August 16, 2015

      Such statements of reputed “fact” deserve documentation. Can you prove these are real bits of news and not propaganda you made up to further that “fame and glory” you confess to seek?

      Like

      • Neil
        August 16, 2015

        The people that I am trying to convince are not the people who are posting comments on here (like yourself) and certainly not Mr. Merveilleux (after all, he is too busy dreaming up rude replies to make any comments that relate to same-sex marriage)…..the facts/logic/rational in my comments are more than obvious if a person reads what I say in an honest way and so it is the honest readers that I am trying to convince….people who simply name-call and write off my comments without a genuine critique of what I say, are playing into my hands…..for example, you are already rejecting my valid comments out-of-hand and most likely would certainly reject anything I say no matter how many facts I post. However, the reader of our messages here can easily tell who is telling the truth or not and will be convinced accordingly (I doubt that Mr. Merveilleux is convincing anyone with his messages)……in fact, all the criticisms of me are so far are baseless and so everything is going my way. For example, why have the same-sexers failed to admit the high level of depression and suicide (and medical dangers) that are caused by homosexuality – by ignoring these issues and warning people accordingly shows that you are hiding valid concerns simply to push your dangerous and unhealthy lifestyle on others…..the honest reader knows what I am talking about is waiting for an honest answer from any of you same-sexers – will you just name-call and side step the issue?…..or genuinely answer to help those poor people who have been duped into believing that they are homosexuals/lesbians, but have now got to live with the terrible consequences.

        Like

      • Mr. Merveilleux
        August 16, 2015

        Our message has convinced the majority of the population in the civilized world; Including over 81% of under 25’s in Australia. No matter how much bigotry you and Faust try to push, the public just isn’t having it anymore.

        Like

      • docatheist
        August 16, 2015

        I wonder whether it could be said that only 81% of the civilized world truly are civilized, while the remaining 19% remain neanderthalistic. Though neanderthals, as a species, died out, they did interbreed enough for some Europeans to continue parts of their genome…

        Like

      • tildeb
        August 16, 2015

        For example, why have the same-sexers failed to admit the high level of depression and suicide (and medical dangers) that are caused by homosexuality – by ignoring these issues and warning people accordingly shows that you are hiding valid concerns simply to push your dangerous and unhealthy lifestyle on others…..the honest reader knows what I am talking about is waiting for an honest answer from any of you same-sexers – will you just name-call and side step the issue?…

        I don’t know who these ‘same-sexers’ are but, if you’re speaking of those who support marriage as an important social institution as well as those who understand what legal equality means to those barred from obtaining it by sexual orientation legal discrimination, then I guess I am a ‘same-sexer’.

        As such, I have first hand knowledge of just how widespread depression and suicide are in the community of young LGBTs. The whole It Gets Better movement is aimed at exactly this so no one is trying to deny these rates; rather older gays and lesbians are trying to help these youth understand that survival is a process that can and does offer not just hope but the strong possibility for success and acceptance.

        I am also astounded at the tremendous courage and integrity each one of these young people have to summon and exercise every day to co-exist with the blatant discrimination supported and exercised daily by the kind of people (like you) who smugly and piously and ignorantly assume they are sick and broken and perverted and immoral people who have chosen to identify with these gender attractions. I dare anyone to walk in the shoes of each of the LGBT youth for a week and experience what it’s truly like to reveal just how incredibly naive if not intentionally ignorant the assumption is that the gender attraction is a chosen one.

        The fundamental problem trying to get through to people like you is your bias, that you assume with such certainty that homosexuality itself – the gender attraction and identity itself different from heterosexuality – CAUSES these problems. The truth is, Neil, it is your warm embrace and constant exercise of active discrimination and pernicious vilification that is the major CAUSE of the very problems you attribute to homosexuality. You and your assumptions, Neil, are the problem and you can’t be ‘fixed’ so to speak by anyone else other than you. And that’s not going to happen when you absolutely refuse to assume your beliefs are in fact incorrect. It is that refusal you exercise over and over again to be a decent and understanding and compassionate person so certain are you that your assumptions are ordained by your god as morally unimpeachable that evokes the kind of responses you call ‘name-calling’ and ‘side-stepping’ these issues. You want to fix what isn’t broken – other people’s gender identification and attraction – and continue your efforts to cause whatever you can to be a problem for people who have done nothing harmful to you. And that’s the honest answer you refuse to hear, refuse to validate, refuse to consider as equal to your own.

        Liked by 3 people

      • docatheist
        August 16, 2015

        My, but that was manipulative of you! You have decided that anyone asking for proof of your assertions is to be castigated, while those who believe you without question, without reasoned thought, without proof, are honest, just because they appear to take you as honest.

        By your logic, they should agree and believe when you tell them lies, because they are the honest ones.

        It says nothing, really, of your honesty, though it implies the lack, when you refuse to back your statements and, instead, redirect your argument to ad hominem attacks and manipulations. Were you, indeed, honest, you’d have no need for such.

        Like

      • Neil
        August 17, 2015

        The so-called “81% of young people who support gay marriage” is ONLY 81% of the young people that we involved in the poll and NOT 81% of every young person in Australia – polls only take a sample of 100-1,500 people and so it is easy to poll people of a certain persuasion to make up a high percentage…..so to take the 81% of poll people and project that percentage onto “every young person in Australia is a nonsense….btw, I can poll 1,500 young people from all the churches I know and guarentee that 100% would be against gay marriage – so using your logic, that now means that 100% of young people in Australia oppose gay marriage (thanks, I’m sure you will agree with me – not). And if I am being manipulative on here, then why am I explaining everything to you so that you know why I am posting messages on here?….hmmm….looks like I am being incredibly honest and open about my motives. Like I said in earlier messages, I am not trying to convince anyone posting here to change their views, just the honest reader of all of our messages – so far, no-one has refuted anything that I have said so it is going all my way.

        Like

      • Mr. Merveilleux
        August 17, 2015

        So you never learnt how statistics work?

        Like

  15. Pingback: Katy Faust in Australia, 2015 | Meeka's Mind

  16. acflory
    August 15, 2015

    Go you! I couldn’t find the reblog button so I copy-pasted the entire article on my blog – https://acflory.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=8230&action=edit&postpost=v2

    Fingers crossed your expose will find a few more homes here in Oz. 😀

    Liked by 1 person

  17. Pingback: My Sincere Apologies to the People of Australia for Inflicting Katy Faust Upon You | Scotties Toy Box

  18. Neil
    August 17, 2015

    ….when the American judges redefined marriage to include same-sex marriages, they same-sexers immediately called for more funding to fight the huge emotional and medical problems associated with homosexuality and homosexual lifestyles….but wait??!!??….if the so-called “discrimination” has been removed, then why are the homosexuals still having all these problems?….ANSWER: the problems are not caused by any so-called “discrimination” (which isn’t happening), but rather by the homosexual lifestyle. So guys posting here, stop passing-the-buck and using the cop-out “ohhh, it’s discrimination from religious heterosexuals that are causing the problems”. We don’t hear drug addicts calling non-addicts “discrimination”, and murderers calling non-murderers “discrimination” and thieves calling non-thieves “discrimination” (the examples are endless), and yet we hear the homosexuals calling non-homosexuals “discrimination”….face up to reality and deal with the homosexual lifestyle as the cause of the problems before many more innocent people being lured into homosexuality by the gay lobby group end up suffering the cost.

    Like

  19. Neil
    August 17, 2015

    ….are you also willing to recognize that the attraction between homosexuals/lesbians is not love but lust?….there is a difference you know. I haven’t seen or heard anyone in a homosexual/lesbian relationship that is actually in a “loving” relationship – every example is of a lustful relationship (using the word “love” as a euphemism)….or are you going to ignore this fact as well just to push you gay agenda and thereby inflict hurt on others who follow your agenda?….there is a massive difference between a “loving relationship” and a “lustful relationship” in the same way there is massive difference between heterosexual marriage and same-sex marriage (the genders make them diametrically opposite)?…..there can be no marriage equality nor can there be a homosexual/lesbian relationship that is “loving” – the same-sex genders make it an impossibility. If you disagree with me, or if you don’t think the interchange of love/lust definitions matter, then there is the root of the problem. Your perception of relationships is seriously flawed. Unless you face up to this fact, you will continue to push a dangerous and destructive lifestyle onto others who are innocently believing you and they (not you) will suffer the consequences.

    Do you know why the statistics show that there are more young people who claim to be homosexual/lesbian than there are old people?….oh, you say that it is because the same-sex lifestyle is becoming more acceptable, but NO – it is because many of them will die off before they get to an old age!….so please give a damn about the well-being of other people and explain how same-sex relationships are very damaging and destructive before more innocent people get fooled by you and get hurt.

    Like

    • docatheist
      August 17, 2015

      Kneel wrote: ” I haven’t seen or heard anyone in a homosexual/lesbian relationship that is actually in a “loving” relationship – every example is of a lustful relationship….”

      Clearly, Kneel, you’ve done an excellent job of keeping your eyes and ears closed,

      Liked by 2 people

      • Mr. Merveilleux
        August 17, 2015

        It’s hilarious to hear someone make the sort of ridiculous assertions he does. Especially after being in a relationship with my partner for almost 15 years. Everyone else out there who’s been with the same person for a long time knows exactly what I mean 😉
        Lust is on the list somewhere below “did you remember to lock the garden gates” and “this year I think we should only send e-holiday cards instead of paper ones.”

        Liked by 3 people

  20. Neil
    August 17, 2015

    …..We all can cause hurt to ourselves if we live a certain way that is damaging to us – for example, I can drive down a road fast and ignore a road sign that is warning me of a sharp corner ahead – what is my excuse?….”oh, those terrible road people putting up signs that are discriminating against me – they wouldn’t put that sign up there if I was driving a red car, but because my car is yellow, they just don’t accept me. It’s their religion that is causing them to discriminate against my yellow car and they are bigots, hate-mongerers and biased!”, so I get all angry or teary-eyed about the sign being there and drive around the corner at full speed only to lose control and hurt (kill?) myself. Now any honest reader will see my point here (I don’t expect the same-sexers will because they don’t want to) and my point is that regardless of how much I pass-the-buck and falsely cry out “discrimination”, my bad lifestyle caused me to get hurt/killed. This is not rocket-science – it is a simple, honest fact. And the road people who were actually trying to loving help me and prevent me from getting hurt/killed are dragged thru the mud with all my temper tantrums and false allegations of “discrimination”. So to the same-sexers who post here, do I now have to explain how this can be compared to the homosexual lifestyle?….or will remain willfully blind?

    “There is none so blind as those who don’t want to see”

    Like

    • Mr. Merveilleux
      August 17, 2015

      The problem, Neill, is your bigotry depends on this delusion. My partner’s gender is not a determinant factor in the quality of my character. It doesn’t affect my capability for kindness, honesty or generosity. It doesn’t affect my professional competence. My partner’s gender doesn’t affect how much I can and am willing to contribute of my time and resources to the betterment of my community.
      There is no single gay ‘lifestyle.’ The same way there is no single heterosexual lifestyle. To say otherwise is pure demagoguery.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Neil
        August 17, 2015

        ….then why is there a need for homosexuals to have a “coming out” of their homosexuality?….how many heterosexuals have a “coming out” of their heterosexuality?….(none)….in fact, the “coming out” issue got so ridiculous here in Australia that when a football player made a “coming out” of his homosexuality (with lots of fanfare), a sports commentator called Sam Newman made the innocent and genuine comment that if the homosexual lifestyle is normal like heterosexuals, then why have a “coming out?….Sam said that the footballer should just “do it” without any fanfare and poor Sam got slammed by the gay lobby group as being homophobic and a bigot. Of course, Sam wasn’t guilty of either of these things and he was just stating the bleeding obvious – he made an indicative statement. He eventually was bullied into apologizing for something that he supposedly said that was wrong….Most Australians would remember this incident because it dominated the news coverage here for a while. So all the name-calling and bullying is a farce and side-steps all the horrors that homosexuality causes people.

        Even here on this blog, you have made rude comments reflecting your lifestyle that has nothing to do with same-sex marriage or Katy Faust – you are just making rude comments for the sake of it as if somehow it’s going to upset me or something – this is another example of how degraded your lifestyle is and honest readers will easily tell this when they read your messages. So the gay lobby group like to throw out all these ideological statements about “being the same as heterosexuals”, or “being discriminated against” or name-calling everyone they don’t agree with, and yet all these things are irrelevant to what actually happens to homosexuals and their homosexual lifestyle. The rality simply doesn’t match up to the talk. The honest readers here will know what I am talking about even if you or the other same-sexers posting messages in here refuse to see my valid, factual, logical points. All the name-calling and bad-mouthing doesn’t make your comments true and, if you haven’t realised it yet, everything the same-sexers say are simply propaganda for their gay lobby agenda and not at all in the interests of homosexuals/lesbians…..you guys are pushing a selfish agenda that damages alot of innocent people who are fooled by your dribble and think they are homosexuals/lesbians and suffer the consequences.

        Sorry to state the bleeding obvious, once again.

        (btw, I have been invited to speak at ANOTHER meeting, so my exposure is increasing the more you ridicule me and bag me with all you cop-out arguments)

        Like

      • docatheist
        August 18, 2015

        Yep, there goes Kneel, trolling for dollies.

        Like

    • roughseasinthemed
      August 17, 2015

      Hi Neil

      By same-sexers are you referring to homosexuals and/or LGBT people? Or people who are heterosexual/cisgender and support same sex marriage? Because it’s unclear.

      While you may not have been reading Mr M’s blog for long, I have. And I can also tell you that a vast number of his readers (probably the majority) are not homosexual. We are just ordinary people who think that there is no reason to discriminate against homosexual people. Everyone deserves the same rights, and those of you who think otherwise, whether you, Katy Faust, or anyone else, should keep your bigoted obnoxious biased homophobic views to yourselves.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Neil
        August 18, 2015

        ….so homosexuals can publicly express their views, but heterosexuals can’t?….homosexuals have freedom of speech but heterosexuals don’t? Even here in this blog we see and difference between how homosexuals and homosexuals – this is the same through-out the media and society. Homosexuals act differently to heterosexuals and yet they want to be treated the same as heterosexuals.

        Like

  21. Neil
    August 18, 2015

    …..and where have you seen a Heterosexual Flag?….(there isn’t one)….and where is it flying?…..(nowhere)….there isn’t a comparison between homosexual lifestyles and heterosexual lifestyles no matter how much you pretend that there is. The Marion City Council here in Adelaide, South Australia, has caused huge division in the community and abused it’s council chambers by flying a rainbow flag for the gay lobby group – where are other community groups getting their flag flown at the council chambers?….why isn’t my church allowed to fly it’s flag at the council chambers?….see how the homosexuals act differently to everyone else and do things differently to everyone else – this is because the homosexual lifestyle is very different to the heterosexual lifestyle. In this blog, the same-sexers make rude comments about me and name-call me here, but do I do that to them?…(no)….see how the homosexual lifestyle is very different to the heterosexual lifestyle. The honest readers of this blog know what I am talking about.

    ….and what about Elton John adopting a child and then his partner calls himself “mother” on the child’s birth certificate?…..how many heterosexual men call themselves “mother” on their children’s birth certificate?…..(none)….and Elton John caused many Women’s Groups to complain how he and his partner were perverting the concept of “womanhood”, rightly so, by pretending that a man could be a “mother”!…..plus his innocent child is deprived of having a mother which is an abuse of the chilld’s rights (as Katy Faust says) and why did Elton John do this?….because he is impose his selfish homosexual lifestyle onto others (including his child) that causes hurt, confusion and contention in society. No matter how much you try to pretend that homosexual lifestyle is the same as heterosexual lifestyle, it isn’t – they are diametrically opposed. The honest readers here will know what I am talking about even if the same-sexers here refuse to see the bleeding obvious.

    …..and it you might like to pass the buck by calling me a bigoted obnoxious biased homophobic, it shows that you cannot address the issues face on, you hide behind name-calling and rudeness. There is nothing discriminative about what I am saying, but rather I am writing about genuine issues confronting homosexuals and I am writing about factual events that homosexuals do…..but the gay lobby group refuses to face up to these issues because they want to push their lifestyle onto others.

    …..what about all those young teenage boys and girls who, in the natural course of growing up, like to “hang out” with members of their own sex – they are not interested in the opposite sex at such an early age – and then the gay lobby group try to push their selfish twisted destructive agenda onto them by says to the boys: “oh, you are homosexuals” and to the girls: “oh, you are lesbians” when they aren’t…..the result for any boy or girl who believes all these lies then goes on to have massive emotion confusion in their life as they grabble with the confusion and mixed emotions of being heterosexual but they are told to believe that they are homosexual (to boost the gay lobby groups statistics of the homosexual lifestyle). Do any of you give a damn that you set the path of young people down a hurtful, destructive path of depression (and possibly suicide) simply because of your selfish perverted agenda thrust onto others?….no, I doubt it…..as long as you get what you want and you don’t give a damn about the cost or disruption you cause to others. The honest readers here know what I am talking about.

    Like

    • docatheist
      August 18, 2015

      Ah, but we have seen it, Kneel. It carries the letters KKK. Of course, bigots come in a variety, too, so there are other flags, like Nazi flags, Confederate flags, etc.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Neil
        August 27, 2015

        …..so are you happy that someone is killing “homophobic” people “for the cause”?….remember, actions have consequences, so pretending that opponents are “homophobic” when all they are doing is simply disagreeing with you (which we have a right to do) will trigger loony people to do terrible things…..please tell me that you are smart enough to join the dots. Or are you so determined to selfishly push for your cause that you don’t give a damn how much damage you cause other people. The strategy by same-sexers to lie about other people (such as being “homophobic”, “bigots”, “discrimination”, “social terrorists”, ect) just to get their way is disgraceful and inevitably causes innocent people to get hurt. I have already been severely damaged by a reporter in Adelaide who completely fabricated a story about me and I have only had one same-sexer disapprove of the injustice. I wasn’t expecting any of you to care because you have shown me that you will do whatever it takes and inflict as much damage as you need to in order to impose you lifestyle on others. This is why our society is going down the toilet when we willingly sin – are you willing to face the facts?….there are also plenty of innocent people believing the homosexual propaganda lies and and thinking that they are homosexuals/lesbians when they aren’t only to fall into depression (even suicide) as a result, plus all the sexually transmitted diseases that goes along with it. Please give a damn about all the hurt and suffering you cause people by spreading the homosexual lies and name-calling.

        Like

      • docatheist
        August 27, 2015

        Oh, like you? Did I hurt your widdle feewings?

        Liked by 1 person

  22. Neil
    August 18, 2015

    ….the “same-sexers” are the selfish people who push a destructive and hurtful lifestyle onto others by bullying, name-calling, manipulating, intimidating and being rude….but they are too dishonest (or in a few rare cases naive) to admit all the hurtful and destructive problems that homosexuality brings onto all who practice the lifestyle – that’s right, it is self-inflicted and nothing to do with what any person like me or Katy Faust say…..we are just messengers that state the bleeding obvious. So stop shooting the messenger and start addressing the message.

    In short: “same-sexers” are the gay lobby group.

    I help many, many homosexuals on the streets and around Adelaide because my church runs a street drop-in centre for everyone. I was a member of a far-left political party called The Australian Democrats (who have since dissolved) and their membership base was 30% homosexual/lesbians and I got along fine with everyone. I love homosexuals because God loves them and they are as much part of His creation as heterosexuals are. But I am honest enough to face issues head on and call things how they are – that is why I am against the gay lobby group. When a local newspaper article, written by a radical fundamentalist athiest called Petra Starke, attacked me for being “homophobic” and fabricated stories about me, I got arrested by the police on fake charges and locked up then dragged through the courts for 6 months. The police have since dropped the charges because I didn’t break any laws. Would you lot give a damn that I was treated so unjustly?….unlikely…. because you are too self-interested in your pathetic agenda that anything is permissible as long as you get your way – you probably praise up Petra Starke for her false accusations and subsequent police action against me. My shop windows got broken by retaliation homosexuals and the shop front got urinated on and graffitted all over many times (hmmmm….gays idea of spreading “love”?)…..half of my business has closed down as a result. The honest reader will judge for themselves what is right or wrong in all of this. This is what a person wrote to Petra Starke:

    “”The guy, the Pastor who runs the Sanctuary Shop, is a wonderful man. I make his breakfast several mornings a week at a local cafe near there. Never have I once in the past 3 years of knowing him, have i ever heard a judgemental comment come out of his mouth. Petra: if you actually got to know him instead of labelling him as a ‘bigot’ you would see he is an outstanding person who loves people, holds strong to His beliefs, and truly does his best to represent the teachings of Christ: which is to love everyone, whether it be the beggar, your neighbour or your enemy.
    Have you ever thought maybe the ‘love is a choice’ shirt has some truth? The Bible says to love despite our feelings, to show kindness and compassion to others even when they hurt us, just because there is a negative stereotype of all Christians that they ‘hate’ gay people does not give you the right to automatically judge this shop.
    I personally know several people whose lives have been changed by Neil because of the tireless hard work and perseverance to love them and show them that there is more to life: these people have been homeless and have had strong addictions that most normal people write off as hopeless cases. But Neil loves. Neil cares and Neil gives his life for these people.
    Petra, I dare you to actually walk into the shop and get to know him. Talk to the people he ministers to. Talk to those who have been on his surf trips and ski trips. Talk to him, and you’ll see that your own bitterness and preconceived judgement towards Christianity will be broken if you get to know a man like Neil.”

    Info about this is at:
    http://www.users.on.net/~mec/evangelical/advertiser/index.html

    There have been many other business targetted by malicious gay lobbyists and the hurt they cause to innocent people with all their deception and deceitfulness is why they need to be stopped in their tracks – they are spreading a homosexual cancer through-out many societies – including Australian society.

    Like

  23. Neil
    August 18, 2015

    …..and if you look at the dynamics of a homosexual relationship, it is inevitable that that one of the partners will take on a dominate role and the other a submissive role – this occurs in both men-men relationships and female-female relationships….why does this happen?…..I’m glad that you asked: because it is a fundamental dynamic that naturally occurs in ALL relationships. So in a heterosexual relationship, the relationships that work best are when the man takes on the loving dominate role and woman on the submissive role (as God designed it to be) and this will cause the relationship to flow along naturally and happily. Notice I said that the man-dominate role is LOVING…..that’s right, it does not give the man a right to boss, abuse or command the woman around. So when heterosexual relationships fall apart or go hay-wire (and I meet many such people in these situations as a pastor of a church) it is usually because they have mixed up the loving male-dominating, female-submissive roles in their relationship and many conflicts/confusion/depression occurs. Plus, a mix up of these roles causes damage to the children (if there are any in the relationship) because the children don’t get the correct role models in their lives. God designed relationships to be this way and He has alot of Bible teaching on how it can work perfectly if we both to read it all. If we do and follow as He says, our relationships work out wonderfully!

    So transfer this to a homosexual relationship: You get one of the men inevitably taking on the dominate role and the other man in the relationship (who doesn’t have the same dominate assertiveness) is caught in a flux of naturally wanting to be dominate, but can’t because he is expected to take on the submissive role (which is a woman’s role). Anxiety occurs in submissive male partner and frustration occurs in the dominate male partner who doesn’t see his partner “fitting in” to the relationship…..depression, frustration and possibly anger occurs (yes, I have met homosexual men who have been physically abused by their partners) because the dominate/submissive roles in the relationship don’t occur – only a battle of dominate/dominate roles goes on…..you can apply all this to the lesbian relationship when they both want a submissive role, but one is relegatted to the dominate role which is not natural for women – hence the same outcome occurs. These are actions cause by homosexuals/lesbians themselves and the resultant problems are self-inflicted – it is not caused by any make-believe discrimination, prejudice or marriage laws by heterosexuals. I know that there are men who have feministic characterisitcs/personalities and women who have masculine characteristics/personalities, but I am not talking about them – I am talking about the homosexual lifestyle and how homosexuals/lesbians conduct themselves in their lifestyles. The honest readers here will know what I am talking about.

    Like

    • docatheist
      August 18, 2015

      Seriously, Kneel? When have you ever looked at the dynamics of any relationship? The fact that you (so obviously) project onto others the relationship characteristics you, yourself, are guilty of, means you look only into the distorted mirror of denied self-reflection.

      Like

  24. Neil
    August 18, 2015

    ….btw, I am posting in this blog because Mr. Merveilleux and the other same-sexers here are making the same mistake as what he/they did with Katy Faust – I am getting a huge following by your rude treatment and you pushing their pathetic, destructive, dishonest agenda without addressing any of the legitimate, factual issues that I am raising.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Mr. Merveilleux
      August 18, 2015

      LOL. Don’t be ridiculous, Neill. In case you don’t know how these things work, I, the blog owner, know how many many people click to visit your website from here. The answer is THREE. Just 03. Three people, one of whom was me, visited your crazy Christian website. Not sure what Faust told you, but she doesn’t have a ‘huge’ following. Most of her commentators are people she knows in her personal life.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Neil
        August 18, 2015

        She was on ABC “Q&A Program” and did an amazing job sticking up for the rights of children and presented the flaws in the same-sex marriage agenda…..no homosexual or same-sexer cared about children’s rights on the program.

        Like

      • Mr. Merveilleux
        August 18, 2015

        Are you on drugs?

        Liked by 1 person

      • Neil
        August 18, 2015

        …..oh, regarding the hit-rate on my website – I am reproducing the posts here on my website and that is where the traffic is coming from (sorry to diminish your importance)…..I will let you know when a TV station has me on their show just so you know that my exposure is increasing. 🙂

        Like

      • Mr. Merveilleux
        August 18, 2015

        You just keep telling yourself that. If the traffic isn’t from here, that means your comments here are a waste of your time and ours.

        Like

      • Neil
        August 18, 2015

        Checkout the hitrate on my website:

        http://www.users.on.net/~mec/evangelical/welcome.html

        ….scroll down and click on “website popularity” link…..it’s more than doubled.

        Like

      • Mr. Merveilleux
        August 18, 2015

        LOL-sure it did. You’re only fooling yourself.

        Like

  25. docatheist
    August 18, 2015

    Really? Because you demonstrate such doublespeak that it appears you post here just because you’re a troll.

    Like

  26. Neil
    August 18, 2015

    ABC “Q&A Program” link is:

    http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s4273039.htm

    Like

  27. Neil
    August 18, 2015

    ….just posting facts so you know that I am telling the truth all the time.

    Like

    • Mr. Merveilleux
      August 18, 2015

      LOL- sure you are, Neill. Don’t forget to take your medication or the psych nurse will get mad!

      Like

    • docatheist
      August 19, 2015

      Even if you told the truth once, it would not, in any way, suggest that you tell the truth all the time.
      Oh, and regarding the bit you wrote, saying, “… just so you know that my exposure is increasing…”, do please stop exposing yourself here! Keep it in your pants, as absolutely none of us is interested in seeing it.

      Liked by 2 people

  28. Neil
    August 22, 2015

    ….so can anyone refute the issues I have raised?….or is it going to be just name-calling and mocking?….Australians aren’t so easily fooled as you think, so please come up with something valid to justify same-sex marriage….anyone?

    Like

    • tildeb
      August 22, 2015

      Equality rights. Seems pretty basic to me and highly discriminatory to deny.

      Liked by 2 people

  29. Neil
    August 22, 2015

    …..repost:

    Looks like I have to clearly explain here why Marriage Equality is an impossibility:

    Heterosexual marriage has a male and female input (ie. 1+1=2 inputs) whereas a same-sex marriage misses out on the input of the opposite gender no matter how much they try to be equal – their gender makes equality an impossibility – ie. male-male marriage (1+1=1) or female-female marriage (1+1=1) so neither adds up. Sorry to state the bleeding obvious, but some people can’t catch on to this relatively basis fact. Try joining two male connections together on a power lead or two female connections together and see if they works……nope…..so regardless of how much two people of the same gender try to be “equal” with two people of different genders, it is an impossibility – it is their genders that make them unequal and not anything that a heterosexual advocate says. Same-sex marriages cannot have the same gender inputs no matter how much they try to “love” or “tolerant” each other. All the denials in the world cannot change this basic, elementary fact of human biology/psychology. This is also why same-sex relationships who have children are abusing the rights of children to have a mother AND a father.

    Like

    • tildeb
      August 22, 2015

      Neil, you have confused ‘equal’ to mean the ‘same’ and so conclude that ‘different’ – which all people are to some extent – demands a recognition of and justification for ‘unequal’ treatment.

      <a href="http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/lesson-of-a-lifetime-72754306/?no-ist"Jane Elliot demonstrated why such treatment based on selected differences has pernicious effect when it comes to how individual autonomy is undermined by instituting rules based on selected differences. You did not learn this lesson and so you champion the same pernicious effect and think yourself pious for doing so. That may be true, but it demonstrates why your piousness is not a defense but a cover for perniciousness. That’s why it’s immoral… because of its effect that harms real people in real life and reduces their right to be equally autonomous.

      I’m going to try to break through to you why your position is an unjustified legal discrimination. Although I doubt you can understand, I’ll feel better for at least making the attempt.

      When we speak of equality regarding SSM, we are speaking of legal equality (not reproductive capability or any other differences you think matter). By advocating for continued legal discrimination, champions such as yourself need to demonstrate how reducing the legal autonomy of another citizen to marry is a benefit for all.. including those imposed upon with reduced legal autonomy.

      For example, legal discrimination is allowed when that condition is met, such as standard voting and drinking and driving ages that legally discriminates on the basis of age alone (as well as other uniform conditions). This reduction has been shown to be a benefit to young people – a legal discrimination that covers ALL young people equally and doesn’t discriminate against one subset. (Safety for all and a uniform legal exemption from responsibility are two of the most common arguments used. In legal briefs and legislation, we usually encounter the term ‘public good’ to mean this uniform standard.)

      This is not the case regarding legal discrimination against gays and lesbians; their reduced legal autonomy to marry does not provide the same benefit for all. In fact, no benefit has been shown for maintaining the discrimination whatsoever. They think they do, but they don’t. Why is this the case?

      Opponents of SSM marriage have a really hard time understanding why this condition of benefit is central to the merit of their case and has yet to be met. That’s why every court in every western liberal secular democracy that has its law founded on individual legal autonomy (the enlightenment value of individual legal autonomy that is a NECESSARY CONDITION for governance that draws its legitimacy from the consent of the governed) continues to strike down legal discrimination against SSM. You ‘champions’ have failed repeatedly and consistently and spectacularly to demonstrate how this serves the public good. That’s why you lose court case after court case. Your argument doesn’t work to justify a public good. That’s why your position is unjustified legal discrimination.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Neil
        August 24, 2015

        hmmm….let me ask if you can you pass a law to make someone “love you”?…..(answer: NO)….but hang on, in your world you might tick all the boxes for compatibility, decency, good looks, etc, etc and therefore it is perfectly rational for someone to love you and so making a law to reflect this is perfectly acceptable, but the person simply says “no I don’t love you because I don’t want to”, so what good is all your legal opinion then?…..it’s ditto…..oh, but you don’t stop there, you go to court and convince a judge that it is legal for you to be loved and the judge agrees with you and the judge subsequently orders the person to love you!….There that solved it, you will now be loved because the law has been enforced!….not,so…..the person simply says “I don’t love you because I don’t want to”….they don’t have to have a rational, logical, legal reason not to love you. If they think they don’t love you, then they don’t. When we apply our feelings to law-making, the laws aren’t always the most rational, equal or efficient because we aren’t robots!

        So lets apply this to same-sex marriage: A heterosexual marriage specifically has a male input and a female input (which no same-sex marriage can have because of their same genders) and so even if you decide that there is no legal reason to “discriminate” between them (based on your legal explanation above) – do you think that passing a same-sex marriage law will suddenly give the same-sex marriage people the ability to have a male input AND a female input into their marriages?….(answer: no)….of course not, the inequity of their relationship/marriage is in their genders being the same and not the law. Sorry to state the bleeding obvious!

        Here is another example which is far more serious: a child in a male-male marriage wants to have a mother because he/she feels like it….oh, you explain to the child all the calculated legal equality rational of the same-sex parents and that there is no legal basis for “discriminating against the parents”, but the child simply says to you: “but I feel like having a mum because I want one”…..see?….the child FEELS like having a mother (the vise versa applies for lesbian parents where the child feels like having a father). Your legal explanation means ditto to the feelings of the child. Even if you took the child to court and enforced your “public good” by getting a judge to order the child to stop wanting a mother, it is futile. No matter how much you tell the child “you think you want to have a mother, but actually don’t”, it won’t stop the child FEELING like having one and consequently he/she will suffer terribly because of your souless law.

        In the real world, what we think IS what we think (contrary to what you say) and we have “selected differences” because we FEEL like having selected differences….see?….the laws we make ARE human laws (not computerized laws) so it is a pathetic idea to hypothesize/ideologize/theorize/autonomize them!….the opposite-sex marriage laws that have existed for millenniums have always been viewed as “moral” by civilization after civilization and yet you ignore all this history by suddenly claiming it is “immoral”?….you take a historically “moral” view of marriage and redefine it as “immoral” and take what has been historically “immoral” homosexuality relationships and suddenly call them “moral”….are you right and all those people in the past have been wrong?

        Even if you ignore all what I have said this far, there is another point you fail to see about your “law discrimination”: The same-sex relationships that you claim are being legally discriminated against are not even talking about the same relationships as in our traditional marriage law….and I’m not talking about same-sex verses opposite-sex here, I’m talking about “lust” verses “love”. That’s right, you assume that any relationship is somehow always loving, but relationships can be very different and very bad based on whether it is “lust” or “love” that drives the relationship. Of course, I expect that you will redefine love and lust to make their meanings interchangeable or irrelevant (in the same way that you have swapped the meanings of the word “moral” and “immoral” and made them meaningless), and in doing so you will ignore all the dangers and damage that comes from lustful relationships. Your push for same-sex marriage is purely a selfishness and not because of “inequality”, “legal discrimination” or any other pathetic excuse. Don’t trash marriage like you are trashing the meanings of words and even trashing the beautiful rainbow colours that are a sign of God’s protection instead it is being used as a filthy symbol of “Gay Pride”.

        Like

  30. Neil
    August 22, 2015

    ….so far when I have explained to an honest person that same-sex relationships miss out the input of the opposite gender and therefore can never be equal with opposite sex relationships, people turn off the whole “marriage equality” phrase – it is a nice-sounding farce!

    ….what the same-sexers are forcing on us all is a re-definition of marriage and if it happens here in Australia, it would be worthless getting married under the law – it would have no meaning. Plus, it would be “discriminatory” to refuse pedophiles and, polygamists to marry. Even single people who want to “marry themselves” can’t be discriminated against if they do….btw, bestiality should also be allowed in “marriage” according to your reasoning – and please, don’t discriminate against all those animal lovers who want to have sex with their pets. The meaning of marriage would simply be “anyone/anything that you want to have sex with” – meaningless.

    Like

  31. Neil
    August 23, 2015

    ….well, well, well….the gay lobby group here in Australia are dumping the phrase “marriage equality” because it is losing public appeal – no surprise there seeing as there was never any “marriage equality” in same-sex marriage (for the reasons I have stated above). And so the spin doctors are just sticking with “same-sex marriage” and selling it as “it only affects the same-sex relationships and so opposite sex people don’t have to worry”….yeah right, they somehow think that same-sex people can disconnect themselves from the rest of society and isolate their “marriage” from everyone else?….no they can’t, because if a word is re-defined for some people, it is re-defined for ALL people…..so re-defining marriage to satisfy same-sex people will change the meaning of the word marriage for ALL relationships – marriage becomes a meaningless word and anyone using the word (like exisitng heterosexual marriages) therefore suffers…..I will be broadcasting his point to everyone I possibly can so that the phrase “same-sex marriage” goes down the toilet in the same way as “marriage equality” has!

    PS….not long and I will have a TV station calling me up…..I can feel it in my bones.

    🙂

    Like

    • tildeb
      August 23, 2015

      Neil tells us that “… re-defining marriage to satisfy same-sex people will change the meaning of the word marriage for ALL relationships – marriage becomes a meaningless word and anyone using the word (like exisitng heterosexual marriages) therefore suffers…”

      So.

      Here in Canada SSM has been going on for over ten years. Not a single case of harm has been demonstrated. in fact, the number of traditional marriages is actually on the rise and the people here had no trouble electing and then reelecting as Premier a SSM woman.

      Neil, your conjecture is ludicrous. Nothing has changed here in this regard except an improvement in legal equality. Your sky-is-falling glee is entirely misplaced and completely delusional if we look to real world examples where gay marriage has been ongoing.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Neil
        August 24, 2015

        I did a google search for “results of same-sex marriage in Canada” and the list of webpages shows how horrific it is for children under the new marriage….plus many other dangers. I can tell that you will say that “everything is ok” just to get what you want no matter what the dangers. And in case you haven’t read the messages above, already here in Australia, there have been damage, false police charges laid and a boycott against people by the gay lobby group (otherwise known as “same-sexers” and the homosexual hit squad) and this is even before there is any chance of same-sex marriage happening here in Australia. Unfortunately, like all the other made up phrases that the gay lobby group uses, the “everything is ok” phrase is just a fake cop-out to inflict hurt and damage onto others. The sky-is-falling for many people if you bother to look around instead of willfully blinding yourself with your selfish agenda. Australia does not want to follow the pied piper over the cliff.

        Like

      • tildeb
        August 24, 2015

        I tested your example and typed in “results of same-sex marriage in Canada”. You said I would find a …list of webpages (that) shows how horrific it is for children under the new marriage….plus many other dangers.

        Neil, Neil, Neil.

        I did find a Real Women page – they are an evangelical outfit here dedicated to promoting legal inequality based on their religious beliefs – but after that almost every page is quite positive so I don’t know where on earth you got this notion that SSM is horrific for children. Well, I do know, and so do you: from your religious beliefs and not reality.

        In fact, every major medical, psychological, psychiatric, and social policy organization made up of professionals in child welfare and public child development agencies not only don’t find what you say is the case but actually make specific statements that contrary beliefs like yours are not borne out by compiled data. In fact, many of these organizations go out of their way to explain that opinions like yours are an obvious discrimination with pernicious effects on children.

        In other words, Neil, these bodies are in agreement that your religious beliefs are a root cause of the very misery and harm you try to project on to SSM. You Neil. You.

        Liked by 1 person

    • docatheist
      August 27, 2015

      No, dear. Jellyfish don’t have bones, just slime.

      Like

      • Mr. Merveilleux
        August 27, 2015

        Darling, I hope you realize this Neil person is deranged! He’s at a point only a serious health professional could help.

        Like

      • docatheist
        August 27, 2015

        Yes. And when he wrote that TV stations were on the verge of calling him for interviews, that he could “feel it in [his] bones”, I just had to respond: Jellyfish have no bones.

        Sure he needs help, but he’s not mentally ill, per se. He’s psychopathic. He lacks a conscience, feels more free to lie than tell the truth, and has shown calculating ability to continue on as troll, here. His lengthy rants intend to suggest deep thought. The lengthy responses from others, well written and truly well thought out, are deliberately ignored. He repeats his charges, as though they were never responded to, because he knows it goads others.

        The sort of help he needs isn’t available. We currently have no treatment for psychopaths nor for sociopaths. Therefore, I decided to treat myself to a little fun. In truth, he is as harmful and unwelcome as the spineless jellyfish he must be, to do this all online rather than face to face with anyone in support of the LGBTQ community.

        I say, let’s have some fun with this!

        Liked by 1 person

  32. tildeb
    August 24, 2015

    And just for Neil, there’s this bit of news to help him sleep at night.

    Liked by 1 person

    • roughseasinthemed
      August 24, 2015

      I don’t have any issue with teaching children about different religions ie to say there are lots out there. Although my RE studies at school initially focused on the bible (and deemed the most boring and irrelevant lesson of the week), as we grew older, the lessons about other religions and beliefs were quite interesting.

      Like

      • tildeb
        August 24, 2015

        The religious instruction by Access Ministries has been removed from the curriculum (meaning it has been moved into lunch periods and before and after school). In its place will be curriculum instruction in world histories, cultures, faiths and ethics by real teachers using professional teaching standards rather than ‘special’ religious instruction by some pious git suckling from the public trough and shoving religious ‘education’ (read indoctrination) down the throats of trapped public school students.

        Too strident? I don’t think so. I think I’m being very kind.

        Once again, religion has metastasized from its Stage Four private belief and spread into public policy like education. That’s why it needs its sticky tendrils intentionally removed and each time it happens is a success that should be celebrated.

        I’m all for teaching Comparative Religion. Once students realize that vast swaths of people believe all kinds of god-soaked stuff that is in direct conflict not only with other belief in god-soaked stuff but fundamental knowledge of how reality operates, it can’t help but reveal at the very least why there is no religious consensus and why religious belief is incompatible with how we gain insight into the operation of reality… a reality all of us share. Inquiring into that lack of consensus reveals why god-soaked stuff is equivalent to and connected with other made-up stuff the students will encounter and this helps students develop critical thinking about these other faith-based claims just as common as religion and found throughout societies they will inhabit.

        Like

      • roughseasinthemed
        August 24, 2015

        So, the part I didn’t get was that children were being force fed religion by practitioners of said religion? No! Just. No. Have I got that wrong? That shouldn’t be happening at all.

        Like

      • tildeb
        August 24, 2015

        Correct. The force-feeding was called SRI – special religious instruction – and done by appointed agents of the Access Ministries. There was quite a kerfluffle when the rules changed so that students who once had to opt OUT of this school time instruction no longer had to do this, but students (read parents of students) who ‘demanded’ such religious instruction had to now do up the application to opt IN. This ruling has Access Ministries all in a tither knowing that their $20 million dollar yearly grant from the public for their ‘program’ is in serious jeopardy.

        Liked by 1 person

  33. Neil
    August 24, 2015

    hmmm….let me ask if you can you pass a law to make someone “love you”?…..(answer: NO)….but hang on, in your world you might tick all the boxes for compatibility, decency, good looks, etc, etc and therefore it is perfectly rational for someone to love you and so making a law to reflect this is perfectly acceptable, but the person simply says “no I don’t love you because I don’t want to”, so what good is all your legal opinion then?…..it’s ditto…..oh, but you don’t stop there, you go to court and convince a judge that it is legal for you to be loved and the judge agrees with you and the judge subsequently orders the person to love you!….There that solved it, you will now be loved because the law has been enforced!….not,so…..the person simply says “I don’t love you because I don’t want to”….they don’t have to have a rational, logical, legal reason not to love you. If they think they don’t love you, then they don’t. When we apply our feelings to law-making, the laws aren’t always the most rational, equal or efficient because we aren’t robots!

    So lets apply this to same-sex marriage: A heterosexual marriage specifically has a male input and a female input (which no same-sex marriage can have because of their same genders) and so even if you decide that there is no legal reason to “discriminate” between them (based on your legal explanation above) – do you think that passing a same-sex marriage law will suddenly give the same-sex marriage people the ability to have a male input AND a female input into their marriages?….(answer: no)….of course not, the inequity of their relationship/marriage is in their genders being the same and not the law. Sorry to state the bleeding obvious!

    Here is another example which is far more serious: a child in a male-male marriage wants to have a mother because he/she feels like it….oh, you explain to the child all the calculated legal equality rational of the same-sex parents and that there is no legal basis for “discriminating against the parents”, but the child simply says to you: “but I feel like having a mum because I want one”…..see?….the child FEELS like having a mother (the vise versa applies for lesbian parents where the child feels like having a father). Your legal explanation means ditto to the feelings of the child. Even if you took the child to court and enforced your “public good” by getting a judge to order the child to stop wanting a mother, it is futile. No matter how much you tell the child “you think you want to have a mother, but actually don’t”, it won’t stop the child FEELING like having one and consequently he/she will suffer terribly because of your souless law.

    In the real world, what we think IS what we think (contrary to what you say) and we have “selected differences” because we FEEL like having selected differences….see?….the laws we make ARE human laws (not computerized laws) so it is a pathetic idea to hypothesize/ideologize/theorize/autonomize them!….the opposite-sex marriage laws that have existed for millenniums have always been viewed as “moral” by civilization after civilization and yet you ignore all this history by suddenly claiming it is “immoral”?….you take a historically “moral” view of marriage and redefine it as “immoral” and take what has been historically “immoral” homosexuality relationships and suddenly call them “moral”….are you right and all those people in the past have been wrong?

    Even if you ignore all what I have said this far, there is another point you fail to see about your “law discrimination”: The same-sex relationships that you claim are being legally discriminated against are not even talking about the same relationships as in our traditional marriage law….and I’m not talking about same-sex verses opposite-sex here, I’m talking about “lust” verses “love”. That’s right, you assume that any relationship is somehow always loving, but relationships can be very different and very bad based on whether it is “lust” or “love” that drives the relationship. Of course, I expect that you will redefine love and lust to make their meanings interchangeable or irrelevant (in the same way that you have swapped the meanings of the word “moral” and “immoral” and made them meaningless), and in doing so you will ignore all the dangers and damage that comes from lustful relationships. Your push for same-sex marriage is purely a selfishness and not because of “inequality”, “legal discrimination” or any other pathetic excuse. Don’t trash marriage like you are trashing the meanings of words and even trashing the beautiful rainbow colours that are a sign of God’s protection instead it is being used as a filthy symbol of “Gay Pride”.

    Like

    • Mr. Merveilleux
      August 24, 2015

      Neill, the only trash here is the garbage religion you’re trying to force onto other people. Get over it. We live in countries where no one is obliged to follow your religion’s tenets.
      If you want to live in a theocracy try moving to Iran.

      Like

  34. Neil
    August 25, 2015

    That’s another cop-out excuse to side-step the issue (like name-calling, mocking and redefining words to suit your point of view) – truth is truth whether you believe it or not. Even if you don’t believe in the spiritual element of Christianity, there are practical instructions that are valid which an honest person would acknowledge…..but even using humanistic/atheist reasons to have same-sex marriage goes against the theory of evolution because there can be no evolution to a new species if no procreation occurs (homosexuals can’t have children). Sorry to state the bleeding obvious again. Everything about homosexuality goes against nature whether it is humanistic Christianity or religious. I don’t like following the pied piper and for the well being of other people, I am voicing (not forcing) my opposition to same-sex marriage. The honest reader can tell the difference or not and can also tell if my points are valid or not.

    Like

    • tildeb
      August 25, 2015

      Goes against the theory of evolution? What on earth are you talking about?

      Why do you continue – in spite of repeated explanations – to assume that ‘marriage’ is only about producing children? That assumption makes no rational sense. Same sex marriage just like heterosexual marriage has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with producing children.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Mr. Merveilleux
        August 25, 2015

        You have to keep in mind that people like Neil don’t have a good grasp on differentiating fact from fiction. That state of religiosity requires a commitment to only accepting the beliefs handed to the believer from their chosen authority figures.
        If you look closely, you’ll see Neil doesn’t even seem to understand the functioning of basic logical structure. In the end it’s impossible to have a discussion with someone like that. If they don’t even understand why their premises don’t sustain their conclusions, the debate can only devolve into absurdity.

        Like

      • Neil
        August 25, 2015

        ….children in marriage are the State’s sole legal interest in marriage….that’s right, the State’s sole legal interest in marriage is ONLY the “product” of marriage and NEVER the “choice” of marriage. In other words, the State can never legalize “who decides to marry who” or “why people marry” – that is up to the individual to decide….after all, do you really expect the State to legislate who/how we love each other?….no, because that is an individual choice. Like my example above shows, you cannot make a “law” that someone should love you just because it is rational/logical/equitable/legal….no, if a person doesn’t want to love you then they don’t have to without having any reasons and they certainly cannot be forced to love if they don’t feel like it no matter how much you take them to court and get a judge to order them to love you. The idea that the State can decide who loves who and who marries who is way outside the role of government. It is a personal issue who loves who and who wants to marry who. The State doesn’t even have any practical ability to enforce any such law that demands who you love or how you love. So your idea that same-sex marriage will make you lot “equal” with opposite sex marriages is a farce (neither your genders allow it nor the State can enforce it)…..such State marriage is meaningless.

        If you say that marriage has nothing to do with children then it automatically means that it also has nothing to do with the State as well. Outside the “product” of marriage, State marriage laws are meaningless…..all they achieve is a superficial “feel-good” factor for you same-sexers which will only last for one day because then there is the actual task of living in a married relationship which is based on a million other things than just a marriage ceremony. I counsel people for months and months before they get married so that they can be happy long after the marriage ceremony…..so the focus that you lot have on “same-sex marriage” misses the whole point of what it takes to have a happy marriage. In fact, the early Biblical marriages never had ceremonies and certainly the State never sanctioned them. So if any such same-sex marriage laws got passed here in Australia, then Christians would simply dump all State marriage ceremonies and conduct Church Biblical ceremonies that are purely religious “before God” and to hell with the State marriage – the latter would be so trashed that it would be a huge embarrassment to admit that any Christian was “legally” married. Because of the seperation of Church and State, there is no reason why a Christian would both with the State marriage. My only consolation is that I am already married now when the State laws are meaningful and so I can tell my children with some decency that my State marriage is legit. If/when same-sex marriage laws (along with the inevitable myriad of all other people/animal/objects relationships that would become part of the “marriage” law – either all are in or none are in), then out goes the State marriage into the filthy, stinky dustbin where it belongs!…..

        Like

      • tildeb
        August 25, 2015

        Neil, I have no idea what colour the sky is in your world or what dictionary you use but in the English speaking world the sky is blue and the definition of marriage is the legal recognition of a union between two people. Children have nothing to do with it, although the legal union shares responsibility for children raised by those unionized adults.

        The rest of your comment rambles on about love.. again, something that has no bearing on the legal equality of partners in such a union.

        And, look, if you want to draw your religious beliefs into this issue, then you need to recognize just how bizarre your notion is compared to biblical marriages seemingly acceptable to your divine Dear Leader… including the slaughter of those who may impede the incest and raping and pedophilia that your god seems to be so fond of approving.

        Like

    • inspiredbythedivine1
      August 25, 2015

      I’m an honest reader. Your points are not valid. Your tone in your comments is derogatory, name-calling in spirit, and intellectually insulting. You, sir, are a bigot. Be proud of that. Stand up for yourself, and fight for the idiocy for which you stand Bigots like you are a dime a dozen and soon, you will feel shame for your moronic stance about the advancement of human compassion. Nothing about you, or the tone of the name-calling comments you write, is legitimate. You’re a fading voice in a sea of nothingness, BTW, there is only one God, and He is Allah. Jesus is but a prophet, nothing more , in the sea of Truth. Learn reality or burn, you insufferable blasphemer. Learn or burn, and STOP your infidel lies!!!!! Allahu Akbar.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Neil
        August 25, 2015

        ……so how does your comments refute anything that I have said?….hmmm….in no way. Please refute my points to show if/how anything I have said is wrong.

        Like

  35. Neil
    August 25, 2015

    …..there are same-sexers here in Australia who actually believe that same-sex marriage is part of the “evolution of the human species” and so all heterosexuals should stop holding back human evolution by opposing same-sex marriage marriage!!….’tis true….that’s what they say and they fail to realise that their same-sexness will stop the human species from evolving past the next generation because they can’t procreate….hahaha

    Like

    • tildeb
      August 25, 2015

      There is widespread confusion about evolution. There is no scientific assumption that evolution is ‘good’ or ‘bad’; it simply is. Same sex marriage has nothing to do with evolution.

      Like

  36. Neil
    August 27, 2015

    ….except that evolution is only a “theory” and not a “law”….the reason that same-sex marriage has nothing to do with evolution is because evolution is a farce and never happened!….hahaha….I was just quoting some gay advocate who was also an evolutionist who thought he was smart enough to use evolution to support same-sex marriage – big FAIL!

    Like

  37. Neil
    August 27, 2015

    ….ok, let’s talk about definitions: “gay” means “happy, lively” but it was sabotaged by the homosexual lobby group and redefined to refer to their unnatural lifestyle; “rainbow” is the dissection of white light into a 7 colour spectrum (ROYGBIV) as a promise of God’s Protection after the Flood but has been sabotaged by the homosexual lobby group as a symbol of “Gay Pride” promoting sin, sin, sin; “immoral” homosexuality has been redefined as “moral” homosexuality (by mixing the definitions of moral/immoral and making them meaningless); “lust” homosexuality has been redefined as “love” homosexuality (by mixing the definitions of love/lust and making them meaningless); marriage defined by ALL civilizations since the beginning of time as “between a man and a woman” is being redefined as “between anyone/anything that you want to have sex with” (making marriage meaningless); anyone who “disagrees with you” has been redefined as “hate/discrimination/bigot speech”; etc, etc, etc….if you were worried about definitions, then you wouldn’t use euphemisms by change the meanings of words to make the dangerous, sinful homosexual lifestyle into a good sounding, fun lifestyle – the damage to innocent people who are being fooled by your tricky is huge and disgraceful.

    ….so the legal definition of marriage is what it has been in ALL civilizations for the past millenniums and not due to any “legal equality of partners” that has come out of no-where just to make homosexual acceptable – “marriage equity” is a spin-doctors phrase to justify a damaging lifestyle that actually cannot be achieved…..same-sex partners simply cannot be “equal” because their genders don’t allow it – same-sex partners have either a male-male input or a female-female input and they cannot provide an input of the opposite sex into their marriages. They will ALWAYS be unequal. The only reason that same-sex marriage is being made legal is because of sly, devious word-smithing and shouting down opponents with fake accusations of “hate-speech”, “bigotry”, “discrimination”, “offensiveness” and even “social terrorism”……it is not because “legal equality of partners”…..the obvious flow-on is that “partners” can be “polygamy/objects/animals/single people”.
    Your “legal equality of partners” makes marriage meaningless!

    Like

  38. Neil
    August 27, 2015

    To the honest readers here: if you want to copy any of my comments here to refute the continual bombardment of homosexual propaganda, you can do so – you have my permission (I also have a copy of this blog on my website for you to access my comments). The debate here in Australia is going to increase considerably as the Federal Election looms and so it is good to know the tricks, word-twisting and false accusations that the gay lobby group are doing – there is no legitimacy in legalizing same-sex marriage or having a homosexual relationship other then committing sin in sheer defiance of God’s teaching in the Bible (Romans 1:18-28)….God also predicts the inevitable outcome of the homosexual lifestyle (Romans 1:-29-32). This is NOT what we want to happen here in Australia even if other countries have been fooled and have followed the pied piper over the cliff. God bless ya all.

    Like

    • Mr. Merveilleux
      August 27, 2015

      Are you okay with a Muslim calling your wife an immoral whore because she doesn’t wear a headscarf? Just curious.

      Like

  39. carmen
    December 10, 2015

    Just read through this thread. I was actually visiting Australia (I’m Canadian) when Katy Faust was on Q & A; I watched the whole thing. I cannot imagine that Neil thought she did a good job. Neil, she made a COMPLETE fool of herself on national television, she couldn’t defend her position rationally and she was not well-recieved at all. In fact, even Tony Jones didn’t use her proper name at the end of the program – he referred to her as ‘Kathy’.
    I was there for three months, and I spoke to many people. You may be – well, you obviously are – smug in your convictions that there will never be marriage equality in Australia, but I can tell you that it’s not the prevalent attitude of most Australians. Your ‘side’ is losing, Neil. Get over yourself.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Neil Aitchison
      July 30, 2016

      ….so 6 months later, Australia still doesn’t have same sex marriage and with the Coalition government re-elected, there isn’t any chance of same sex marriage happening in the next 3 years because the plebesite will be rejected in the Senate and there is no way of a “conscience” vote in Parliament. Even the next election is showing that same sex marriage will be rejected through to 2021. The majority of Australians clearly don’t want same sex marriage. So to state the bleeding obvious, but same sex marriage isn’t inevitable, nor is homosexuality a natural, healthy lifestyle choice. The more that hedonism is pushed, the less people support it. So who should “get over yourself”?

      Like

      • tildeb
        July 30, 2016

        Neil, you make it sound as if there had been a plebiscite, that the government had been elected on a platform of fighting against same-sex marriage and received widespread voter approval. (“The majority of Australians clearly don’t want same sex marriage.”)

        Now, you know none of this is true, In fact, reality seems strongly ‘biased’ in favour of what is the case… much to your disappointment, I’m sure. So, if polling research is to be believed (here) then you are indisputably wrong to claim otherwise. And that suggests to me that you create your fiction for reasons other than respecting what’s true and, in this regard, belong squarely in the Katy faction of deluded liars and distortion-ists.

        The reason for no plebiscite is because the government is so weak and need to shore up support for other policy initiatives their own polling suggests does the job better.

        Mey. Politics.

        Antagonists to equality marriage law like you are fighting a losing a battle (which is why you have to lie and distort the truth) and will be on the wrong side of history for as long as it takes to bring equality marriage into law – this year, next year, or in 2021. The change is coming. Gird thy loins. Your time for privileged bigotry in law is almost over (well, it has a longer shelf life in Russia – take that as you may). Enjoy the few sunset years you have left.

        Liked by 2 people

  40. carmen
    December 10, 2015

    Oh, and here’s something else the readers of this thread might appreciate; it’s from a couple of years ago when New Zealand was debating the same issue –

    (the ‘big gay rainbow’ speech)

    Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Information

This entry was posted on August 13, 2015 by in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , .
%d bloggers like this: