The Evil Liar Muehlenberg conflates homosexuality with paedophilia. Again.

Yes, he's at it again. This time in an article called "Time for Equal Love with Children", Muehlenberg deceitfully muddies the waters and pretends that homosexuality and paedophilia are some sort of moral equivalence.

Those who want to see normalised sexual relations with children have been very vocal of late. Of course they have long been making these demands, and they have had a long relationship with the homosexual rights movement as I have documented in my book.

Oh, well if it says so in Bill's best-selling book then it must be true!

He goes on:

But worse yet, there are now many “experts” who are arguing that paedophilia is an innate predisposition and orientation, just like is claimed about homosexuality.

How stupid the phrase "it is claimed about homosexuality".  What Bill's trying to say here is that people choose to be gay and choose to be sexually attracted to children. Anyone with a functioning brain can see how idiotic both contentions are. It presupposes, against all the available evidence, that everyone is born straight and then some, purely to piss of Xtians, "choose" to be gay. And whilst there can be no doubt that people don't "choose" to be sexually attracted to children, it doesn't mean they have to act on those attractions, since children have a right to be protected from adult sexual contact. This is very far removed from two consenting adults of the same sex engaging in consensual sexual relations, despite Billy's best attempts to say otherwise.

We find here the same line used for homosexuals: this is an orientation from which no change is possible. And just as groups like the American Psychiatric Association (APA) were hounded by the militants to change their stance on homosexuality, so too the paedophile activists are trying to do the same thing.

Bill goes on with his stupid line about "choice" and "changing sexualities". As if one could say to a paedophile: "Look, please stop fancying kids, it's not very sociable. Fancy people your own age instead," for the paedophile to say, "Oh, I wish I'd thought of that sooner. OK then." That is how stupid Muehlenberg's 'argument' is. And just like he doesn't understand how scientific knowledge increases over time, he refuses to understand how the same is true for the social sciences. How ludicrous and dishonest to suggest that the APA (and come to it - all pshchiatric bodies in the developed world) no longer classify homosexuality as a mental disorder because they were "hounded by militants". It must have been a bitter blow to bigots like Muehlenberg when psychiatric associations looked at the evidence and declassified homosexuality as a mental illness. "It must be the pesky gays pulling the wool over their eyes," is the best explanation the deluded Muehlenberg can come up with. It can't possibly be that there's simply no foundation for his bigotry.  I'd classify religious belief in educated people as a mental disorder but I wouldn't try to deny them the right to believe what they like, so long as it doesn't stop me living my life in my own way. If only Xtians were half as tolerant as gay people.

That's what Muehlenberg's argument basically boils down to. He's furious that gay people are now legally allowed to get on with living their lives as they see fit, and increasingly with the option to marry. This to him is proof, in his twisted, self-pitying mind, that he is being "persecuted". This is the equivalent of gay people saying, "look at all these idiot faithheads attending church - I don't agree with their convictions, yet still they're allowed to hold them - therefore I am personally being persecuted." Thankfully, most gay people are a lot more sensible than twisted religious bigots like Muehlenberg and are happy to live and let live. If only Muehlenberg and others like him would extend the same courtesy.

So the obvious concern here is this: if paedophilia is just another sexual orientation, must we now accept, embrace and promote it like we now must do with homosexuality?

Where do you even start with such idiocy?

But thanks to the homosexual activists, we now are having a very hard time saying no to any of this. 

As usual in Bill's weird head, everything is the fault of those pesky gays. It's raining. It must be those militant homos at it again.

And in case anyone argues that Muehlenberg doesn't directly say that homosexuality and paedophilia are the same thing or morally equivalent, check out this comment that he allows a free pass:

Why are people surprised? This is the natural end of the homosexual movement. The history of homosexuality is that there is a preference of homosexuals more towards younger males than there is of heterosexuals. This is why they started slowly in introducing homosexuality to try and show it is “normal” and then go where they really wanted, and that is sexual anarchy, which is what we have right now, just that they want more anarchy. 

Bigot Ian Nairn clearly equates and conflates homosexuality and paedophilia - the end result Muehlenberg was hoping to achieve with his vile article.

I thought in Bill's fantasy world liars went to hell? Or if you're deliberately lying for Jesus does it not count?

Shame on Bill Muehlenberg for spewing yet more hatred, ignorance and lies against the LGBT community.

Why Muehlenberg and the right-wing bullies are losing the equal marriage argument.

According to Muehlenberg, his objection to gay marriage is:

...two guys basing their relationship on sodomy do not a family make – nor a marriage.

According to gay people, they want to marry so that they have the same tax breaks, inheritance rights, hospital visitation rights etc as straight people.

Bill can't separate the act of gay sex from a gay relationship. Laughter, tears, compassion, shared experiences and memories, families, good times and bad times: as far as Muehlenberg is concerned none of this exists in gay relationships.

It's all just sex.

If he was right, he might actually have a point and gay marriage wouldn't even be considered by any government anywhere in the world.

But thankfully he's a hateful, deluded, bigoted old cunt who doesn't even try to understand the people he regularly degrades, lies about and fights to keep oppressed. So the majority of governments don't agree with his idiotic assessment and are happy for gay people to have their relationships recognised. 

Muehlenberg thinks it's "loving" to tell people they shouldn't exist

Poor old Bigoted Billy has been giving himself indigestion over at Culturewatch thanks to an article in the Age that fails to condemn homosexuals.

He says:

There was a piece in the Sunday Age which was so repulsive and reprehensible that I just closed the site after reading it and thought, ‘OK, no more’. I am just so sick of the propaganda and outright deception the Age is constantly involved in, especially on the issue of homosexuality.

Replusive and reprehensible, eh? The article that's sent flatulent Bill scurrying to void his bowels is here:

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/when-faith-and-sexuality-collide-20130413-2hskc.html

You can decide for yourself what is "repulsive" and "reprehensible" about pointing out the simple truth that gay people are not made welcome by the majority of Xtian religious leaders. Billy doesn't want to hear it, and the reason he wants to close his ears, have a temper tantrum and shit his pants is made clear shortly afterwards:

The most loving thing we can do for a homosexual is to tell him the truth: ‘you don’t have to be homosexual’. That is why Christ came, to set the prisoner free, not to allow him to wallow in his sin, degradation and misery. Christ is in the business of totally transforming lost and broken lives.

This Xtian idea of love is a little peculiar to me. It amounts to saying, "I'm not going to accept you for who you are. You have to change a facet of your character in order for me to accept you. If you tell me it's an immutable part of your character that you cannot change I'll insist that believing in my mumbo-jumbo will set you "free". When this doesn't work, and you tell me you're still gay, despite all my voodoo, I'll tell you it's your fault for not trying hard enough and reject you some more. It's loving of me to tell you: YOU SHOULD NOT EXIST."

Yeah, really loving and compassionate. It's just as well that gay people aren't so tasteless, obscene and bigoted when it comes to dealing with Xtian bullies like Muehlenberg. I can't name any gay people who tell Xtian thugs that they oughn't exist. If only the same respect and consideration was shown the other way. But it's all one-way traffic with the Jeebus brigade.

Bill's still banging the drum for the hucksterish, quack "reparative therapy", the obscene Xtian practice of "praying away the gay". He's not interested in hearing the simple truth that it's damaging and ineffective. Here's a posting I made that "went straight in the bin". (Clue: I didn't agree with Muehlenberg's lies.)

And note Bill's assessment of gay people as being "lost", "broken", "degraded" and "miserable". That description doesn't match any gay people I know, many of whom are well-educated, rich, with busy social lives and movers and shakers in the arts scene. And Bill thinks that they should be more like him? Because "Christ's love" has done wonders for his life, hasn't it?

Yes gays, give up your enjoyment of life and become a fat, angry, bigoted, dull, science-denying Xtian like Bill.

It's hard to understand why Bill's message isn't getting through. Perhaps he should hand out some of his snazzy jumpers to gays in the hope of converting them?

Muehlenberg's deranged rant against his own

Check out the comments under On Pope Francis for the best indication yet of ol' Bigoted Bill going completely off his rocker!

A commentor called Andrew Williams posts. I'll quote the relevant bits:

A nice write-up, giving good background information and context, and yet, when you get right down to the essentials of it, in a long-winded way you are essentially saying once again that the most important issues in Christianity are homosexuality and abortion. I am orthodox in my beliefs about them, I expect I believe pretty much identical to you, and they are important issues. But I am tired of the constant focus on these two issues, to the detriment of covering other issues.

What's interesting about this post is that Andrew Williams clearly agrees with Muehlenberg, he's a homophobe too, but he just doesn't see it as a major issue of his faith. He even commends Bill for a "nice write up". The last part of his comment is VERY revealing:

I have commented once before on your blog, giving a polite reasoned response to a post, and you refused to allow it to be posted. You say that “this site is meant to express my point of view” as if others should not get to post theirs, and yet you decry Labor’s War on Freedom of Speech. If a comment is polite, you should post it. Will you post this one, or like I saw on the last post I commented on, do you only approve comments that agree with your article, or that commend it?

Even Christians who happen not to hold extremist fascist views aren't allowed to post on Culturewatch!

Check out Bill's response though! Bearing in mind the poster hasn't said anything controversial, inflammatory, impolite...

That is not to your liking, evidently because of your leftism... And I have nearly 2500 articles here. Have you read them all Andrew? I write about all sorts of topics all the time.

And the fact that you are really not on the same page here, even though you pretend to be, is your imbecilic line used all the time by the homosexual revisionists: Jesus “never mentioned homosexuality once”. Spare me. Jesus of course never mentioned rape once, or sexual trafficking, or environmental degradation. Obviously then, according to your tortured “reasoning,” he did not give a rip about those matters either. But I fully deal with this lame furphy in my book.

Also, this my site and I will post what I like. I of course have thousands of comments here by my critics. And when I have a clear inkling that I have an annoying troll on my hands, I will certainly give him the flick every time.

And guess what: if you don’t like what I cover, no one is pointing a gun at your head, forcing here to stay here and get so bent out of shape. So feel free to go elsewhere and do your complaining.

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

Jesus H. Fucking Christ!

So Bill, who of course hates name-calling that "the other side" engages in, immediately denounces Andrew Williams as a leftist, an imbecile, a complainer and a troll incapable of reasoned thought. As usual, what a fucking hypocrite Muehlenberg reveals himself to be.

All for not licking Bill's fat hairy asshole.

It's hardly any wonder with an attitude and a temper like that that Muehlenberg fails to win friends and influence people, and the flies that his shit attract are as equally irate, pompous, self-righteous and judgemental as he is! 

UPDATE: As for Bill saying,  "I have nearly 2500 articles here. Have you read them all Andrew? I write about all sorts of topics all the time," - who the fuck is he trying to delude? He has 395 articles tagged with 'homosexuality', and um, a whopping 7 on Africa, and 24 on 'difficult bible passages'. Any idiot can see that his priority is to maintain a gay-hating website. He's even written a book, published only by Xtian publishers, which is a piece of anti-gay propaganda. He is obsessed with the gays to the exclusion of almost everything else. Why hasn't he written a book about Jesus or the gospels? He's far more interested in spreading poison and lies about a minority, that's why.

Bigoted Bill - Censorship and his anti-gay agenda

First of all, apologies for the wholesale lack of posts in recent weeks. That's nothing to do with Muehlenberg becoming more of a human being, but simply lack of time on my part. Thankfully, a few days in bed with a cold have given me ample scope to catch up and keep an eye on the vipers' nest known as Culturewatch.

A few quick posts to show the kind of "loving" comment Muehlenberg allows to be posted concerning gay people. The first follows Bill's article endorsing the new pope - and who would have thought that an elderly virginal reactionary bigot could have been found in Vatican TM? Bill knows the Papa Francis must be a decent sort because at least he hates the gays too (a surefire sign of good morals in Bill's warped mind). He gleefully posts the new pope's phrase ranting against equal marriage:

‘We are not talking about a mere bill, but rather a machination of the Father of Lies that seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God.’

Bill allows this comment through:

 

What an odd sense of humour this strange woman has for a start! But someone who laughts "all day long" at homophobic abuse is very welcome at Bill's table. Check out the comment that "awaited moderation" before, as Bigoted Bill would put it, "going straight in the bin":

 The crucial part of the quote is:

Do you ever engage in dialogue with gay people?

I have previously asked Muehlenberg how many gay people he knows, or how many gay friends he has. Ask him these questions, and you will be censored.

The reason is that there's no room for gay people to even exist in Muehlenberg's worldview. His agenda is to claim that they oughtn't exist and should have no rights. Simply ask him a polite and straightforward question about gay people and he will run a mile. The only gay people he admits to associating with are the so-called "ex-gays", gays who hate themselves so deeply, because of twisted religious pressure, they pretend they're straight and have been "cured" of their "affliction". If Bill, or people like him ever had political power, he would be rounding up the gays for "ex-gay" "therapy", and no doubt those who "failed" to live up to Bill's sick vision of humanity would end their lives in another Holocaust.  

Here's another polite comment that he refused to post. Could it be because it calls him up on his bullshit?:

Muehlenberg equates being gay to being a smoker

Poor old Bill Muehlenberg has his knickers in a twist again (When Vice Becomes Virtue), and just for a change it's those evil gays who are making him foam at the mouth. What's next on the unstoppable juggernaut of the homosexual agenda?

It seems that the enlightened city of Sydney now has a museum devoted to the glories of homosexuality.

Yes, as we all know, gay people are utterly irrelevant to the course of human history and culture. I can't think of any great artists, scientists, politicians or military leaders who were gay.... Surely this museum must be empty? Is that Muehlenberg's concern?

So our boys went overseas and shed their blood so we can openly promote and celebrate sodomy? That is why they suffered and died?

When I think of a museum for gay history and culture, I imagine features on Alan Turing, Harvey Milk, Alexander the Great, Richard the Lionheart, and many other gay people who have shaped human history. I think of the Stonewall riots, the history of the rainbow flag, and so on. Bill's tiny and tawdry imagination jumps to one thing and one thing only - anal sex. He's utterly unable to distinguish being gay from the act of anal intercourse. For him, the sum experience of being gay is anal sex, and that's it. What a narrow-minded, ignorant fool.

As for his comment about "our boys" going overseas to "shed their blood" - actually YES, Bill, the Allies did give or risk their lives to defend liberty and democracy, and to keep the western world a safe place. They certainly didn't give their lives so that theocrats like you could enforce your far-right ideology on everyone. That's what they were fighting against, you ignoramus. Plenty of gay people fought and died in the war too, you know. 

Muehlenberg further proves his lack of knowledge of history in this extraordinary rant:

So what will our ruling elites next dream of? Will all Australians have to salute the rainbow flag each morning, and pledge allegiance to the new religion of homosexualism? Will they have to swear to support this activist agenda to the max, or risk being deported from the country, or rounded up and herded into concentration camps for re-education?

Apart from wondering if Muehlenberg's been on the sauce again, the belly laugh at his utter absurdity turns to the nasty taste in the mouth he leaves with his quip about the concentration camp. You mean the sort of place tens of thousands of homosexuals were murdered by far-right bastards like you during WWII, Bill? How utterly insensitive he is, and what a sick-minded individual to make a comparison like that. To further ram the point home, he talks about the "gaystapo". Try making concentration camp jokes about Israelis, Bill. See where that gets you.

Despite his utter contempt for gay people, and his belief that this huge minority of the population should be entirely invisible in society (why else would he object to a museum?) Bill often remains bewildered as to why reasonable people call him out on his bigotry:

Those who still seek to uphold moral values are denigrated, mocked, vilified and treated as pariah.

Quite why "moral values" equates to wanting to extinguish all gay people from existence is and maintaining a hate-blog is a mystery to me. And yes, Bill is mocked for his idiotic beliefs, such as that evolution is a myth, genesis is historical fact - oh, and homosexuality is just a "habit" that a bit of "prayer" can "cure":

Just imagine if the city of Sydney, complete with full tax-payer funding, set up a museum to extol other lifestyles like this? What about a tobacco and smoking museum, celebrating this lifestyle?

I left a polite comment pointing out the fallaciousness of this comparison. Naturally, since I wasn't kissing Muehlenberg's fat arse and pointed out the error in his thinking, my comment was censored from public view. Smoking is a habit that may be hard to overcome, but it can be done with relative ease. However, humans (and most creatures) are sexual beings, and no amount of praying can relinquish perfectly natural and normal sexual urges. Only castration, biological aging or hormonal imbalance, or being born asexual result in no sexual feelings, and even then it's nothing to do with habit. It's utterly preposterous and downright insulting to suggest being gay is just the same as being a smoker.

Having already played most of his greatest hits, Muehlenberg ends with his familiar calling card of playing the victim:

These laws only apply to those criticising the homosexual activists. Christians and conservatives are the real target of these laws, while the other side can get away with murder here, and nobody utters a peep or gives a rip.

He mourns the fact that he can no longer actively discriminate against gay people on the basis of their sexuality, and is forced to content himself with spreading hatred towards them and lies about them instead. Big man.

Check out some of the comments Muehlenberg does allow to see the light of day:

Barb

3.2.13 / 3pm Supporters of homosexuals are the true Homophobics – they are man-pleasers and scared to stand up for truth & righteousness. They are responsible for leading people to an eternity in hell, where there is no exit door!!!

How nice. So Barb's god creates people so that he can burn them for eternity if they don't worship his son, who is also himself. What a lovely being. Naturally Barb, a grade A bigot, will be amongst the "saved". What a smug religionist, thinking the universe was created with her in mind.

Mrs Jane Byrne, whose not at all lesbian "darling" (female) friend has lent her a book called "Sense and Sexuality" (the mind boggles). 

“The rectum is an exit, not an entrance. Anal penetration is hazardous. Don’t do it!” Straight away I thought of Bill and how for so long he has been trying to expose the evil of “sodomy” – Simple as that! Call it same-sex marriage, call it whatever you like! But at the end of the day it is just plain evil! God bless you Bill for your amazing witness to all of us!! I can’t imagine what we would do without you! We would be so watered down to the point of complacency! May God love and bless you for courage and persistence in your work!!"

Well Jane Byrne!! Why the constant use of exclamation marks!!!? Are you really excited all the time?!! What about the straight couples who have anal sex?!!! What about the lesbian couples who don't?!!! What about the gay couples who don't because they prefer oral?!!! How nice of you to conclude that all gay people are "evil" because some of them have sex. Most gay men I know have perfectly functional rectums. What a pathetic individual you are. Perhaps you should get off the internet, since computing was made possible by a gay atheist.

But yes, where would we be without Muehlenberg spreading his intolerance, lies and bullshit?

A more tolerant and more truthful world, that's where.

It's a wonder Muehlenberg doesn't drown in his own bile.

I can't wait for his seizure over the UK passing gay marriage under a right-wing government! See, Bill, even right-wingers can overcome their bigotry. 

Muehlenberg's Position on Name-Calling

Selected quotes by Bill Muehlenberg from Culturewatch:

Always great to see how the secular left “argues”. Not a scrap of evidence, facts, data, reason, rational discussion, or informed debate; just heaps of mud-slinging, name-calling and ugly ad hominems. But thanks again for demonstrating to the whole world how your side has no intellectual leg to stand on, relying instead simply on nasty abuse, hate and intolerance.

The last thing the other side wants is truth – so they resort to name-calling and mud-slinging instead of actually dealing with the evidence.

Yes I know that is how your side “argues”: simply resort to name-calling and mud-slinging instead of engaging in evidence and fact.

This week, Bill has written an article "On Name Calling" in which he has this to say:

If a person regularly denounces God, berates him and vents his anger about God, then it is perfectly accurate and correct to refer to such a person as a God-hater. That is exactly what they are, and Paul knew all about such folks, and consistently called them what they were.

So many believers today think we have to live in some sort of sanitised cloud, never saying anything that might even remotely be considered to be offensive or harsh. But the Bible is full of harsh and offensive language.

So apparently name-calling isn't fine if you hold a different opinion to Bill. Name-calling is entirely justified if you're an Xtian extremist who thinks it's appropriate to label atheists "god-haters".

There's a word for that.

It starts with "Hyp" and ends with "ocrisy".

Muehlenberg is full of it.