Google+ Followers

Tuesday, 27 October 2009

Bill's Homophobic Agenda

One wonders almost where to begin with the deeply sinister aims of Bill Muehlenberg, as evidenced by article after article posted to his blog. Is it evidence of a neurotic and paranoid mind? Or is he just wildly and wholly intolerant of anybody who holds a different worldview? Or, could it be a combination of the two? I suspect the third option.

Take his latest assault against homosexuals: an article in which he reviews the book Out From Under: The Impact of Homosexual Parenting by Dawn Stefanowicz. Straight from the off he’s all in favour of this book because it purports to support what he already “knows” about the homosexual “lifestyle”. I’ll leave the rest of his summation of what this involves (he speaks as if he knows – I wonder why?) to your imagination, but mention a few adjectives he uses along the way: “excesses”, “sickening” and “unpleasant”.

Of course, this woman’s story, about growing up with her homosexual father who was addicted to sex and brought many men back to the house under the nose of her straight mother may well be true, and I have no good reason to doubt her. But from this, Bill decides:

…the truth must be told about the homosexual lifestyle, and Stefanowicz does it faithfully, warts and all….It makes for very sobering and sickening reading, but it is necessary reading, as the push for same-sex marriage and adoption rights continues unabated... This book should be read by everyone, but especially by those politically correct politicians who are so intent on pushing the homosexual agenda onto the rest of society. If they actually took the time to read this powerful and vital story, they just might have second thoughts about what it is they are promoting.

Talk about a logical fallacy! From one homosexual father (who, incidentally, didn’t bring Stefanowicz up with another man, or with many men; but with her straight mother – a fact Muehlenberg tacitly ignores - being as how it kind of scuppers his whole argument) who was clearly addicted to sex and had all kinds of issues, Muehlenberg decides, and offers no evidence (after all, he knows how wicked homosexuals are, it says so in the bible) that all homosexual men are exactly like the girl’s father, and anyone who disagrees with him is obfuscating the truth or is a woolly-minded liberal.

If Bill Muehlenberg offered the slightest sane perspective on his blog, I wouldn’t criticise him, I’d just let him rant away, smearing anyone and everyone who remotely disagrees with him to his little heart’s content. But to make such an illogical leap from the anecdotal evidence of one instance of a single homosexual male and to seek to tar all with the same brush is nothing short of insane. I recently read a book about a boy who ran away from home because his violent and alcoholic father beat him up every day and nearly killed him. Can I therefore conclude that all fathers are violent and alcoholic bullies and oughtn’t be allowed near children? Of course not. That particular father was a violent bully and ought not be allowed near his child. I can draw no other legitimate conclusion.

Muehlenberg goes on:

Then came all the physical diseases and sicknesses which are so closely attached to the homosexual lifestyle...

...even though it’s been shown that lesbians are at the lowest risk of catching STDs, and they’re, oh yeah, homosexual. Idiot. And you’ll be glad to know that Stefanowicz has a happy ending:

Her life is now empowered by her Christian faith

Yeah, she’s on Bill’s side. She feels the love of their made-up deity. So she must be right. Right? So, because Christianity is so good, and everything, presumably Muehlenberg will – for balance – be reviewing:

Altar Boy; A Story of Life After Abuse (Homosexual Child Abuse in the Catholic Church) by Andrew Madden


Slayer of the Soul: Child Sexual Abuse and the Catholic Church by Stephen J. Rossetti


A Tragic Grace: Catholic Church and Child Sexual Abuse (From the Interfaith Sexual Trauma Institute) by Stephen J. Rossetti


Time to Listen: Confronting Child Sexual Abuse by Catholic Clergy in Ireland by Helen Goode and Ciaran Boyle


Child Sexual Abuse in the Catholic Church by Louise I Gerdes


Catholics at a Crossroads; Coverup, Crisis, and Cure (Paedophilia & Child Abuse) by Eileen P. Flynn


Conspiracy of Faith - Fighting for Justice After Child Abuse by Graham Wilmer


A Gospel of Shame: Children, Sexual Abuse, and the Catholic Church by Frank Bruni and Elinor Burkett


Perversion of Power: Sexual Abuse in the Catholic Church by Mary Gail Frawley-O'Dea

I'll stop now, but I could go on (for quite some time). The answer is, of course he won’t, because those books don’t support his worldview that Christianity and Christians are all wonderful and the only decent human beings, and everyone else is plain evil. This is the message of his blog over and over again.

For a change, he did allow a dissenting voice to post a comment after this article. Aaron Wyllie posted to say:

It is shocking that you would use this as an example of homosexual parenting or that favourite catch-cry of yours ‘homosexual lifestyle’, if anything this book is about the need for people to accept their identity and reconcile themselves within their own environments. Homosexual parenting is: two people. of the same sex. in a relationship. caring for a child.
Surely you must have some dubiously funded American Family Institute paper up your sleeve which would better present the idea that children of same sex families are somehow worse off than those of ‘traditional families’. Have you perhaps wondered why Dawn’s father was abused as a youngster or why he failed to reconcile himself with his homosexuality? Repression perhaps?

You’ll notice that he issues Muehlenberg with the challenge to back up his statement that:

The social science research on the importance of this is overwhelming.

By producing evidence that same sex families are worse off. Given the condemnatory tone of Muehlenberg’s article, it’s a fair point. And given that "repression" is widely blamed as contributing greatly to the huge percentage of paedophilic clergymen; again, it's a fair point and one well worth rationally discussing. Shame Muehlenberg doesn't do "rational" or "discussion".

No, instead of engaging with a dissenter and trying to win them over with lucid argument, Muehlenberg responds to this reasoned request with:

Ah yes, fully expected from the homosexual activist camp: completely twist the story around to serve one’s own purposes.

Both on the attack straight away, and so hypocritical I’d laugh were it not so tragically serious.

He goes on to kindly explain Aaron’s motives for him (you know, with Aaron not having his own mind and everything):

Thanks for so nicely exemplifying the homosexualist M.O.: when we have a clear case of homosexual perversion and abuse, deny that it has anything whatsoever to do with homosexuality.

He’s good with irony, isn’t he? You can almost feel the anger as he rattles into the keys. How dare anyone disagree with him? All homosexuals think exactly the same. It’s all one big conspiracy to turn the world gay.

Thanks so much, I do believe I will adapt your strategy here. The next time some priest or pastor is found to have abused a child, I will just use your helpful line: ‘this is not religious abuse, it is the story of a man who was abused as a child’. Sorry but few people will buy these double standards, and will not be impressed by the way you seek to weasel your way out of this one...
So, as I suspected, it’s fine for clergymen to fuck boys, and to claim that endemic fucking of kids by clergyman is somehow their responsibility, or somehow casts Christianity in a bad light is a double standard. This is when the raping, torture and abuse of children in the Church’s care is the norm, not the exception, going back centuries. But that’s all fine, because it’s done under the cross of Jesus, and to say otherwise is to be a Christianophobic bigot. Or something. But one fucked up gay guy being a bad parent? Well, all homosexuals are equally to blame because they’re all like that. Obviously. Christ, how does Muehlenberg live with such a twisted, compartmentalised mind? It’s truly staggering.

The interesting point is that, in response to the challenge to produce evidence to back up his claim that same-sex parents disadvantage children, he remarks:

And yes, the social science research is overwhelming as to how children fare best when raised by their own mother and father, and do much less well, by every indicator, in any other household, including same-sex households. This data comes from all over the world, not just from the US. Even plenty of solid Australian research data exists on all this.

Yeah, it’s so omnipresent, this “data” that it’s too fucking obvious to quote a single source.

Just what is Muehlenberg’s end game? Extermination of all homosexuals and non-Christians? It’s frightening, it really is.

Until he learns to live and let live I will continue to rip apart his pathetic posts and reveal him to be the twisted, neurotic, vicious and deluded fool that he is.


  1. Ha I am loving this website..Billy Boy has been a personal favorite of mine for a while he rarely posts my comments and utterly refuses to post any follow questions, because of course HE RULES. It is a bit sad though because most of his supporters I think honestly believe that he blinds dissenters with his amazing intellect and we are scared from replying to his ad hominem personal nutter watchers are Donna Opie, Siti Karti (something similar) and of course Jenny Stokes who has her own wonderfully bizarre website over at, thats right they are an organisation. Anyway keep up the great work!

  2. Thanks very much for the comment, Aaron. Nice to have some positive vibrations. I've seen your name pop up a few times on Bill's site as a lone, rational voice; that's then attacked ad hominem fashion by Dear Bill and His acolytes. I receive much the same treatment, and have also been labelled "foolish", and even (and Bill, who hates name-calling, was only too happy to publish this from a loony friend of his) a Holocaust-denier (because I suggest there's no evidence for the resurrection of Jesus - a bit of a logical leap, but if they agree with Bill they can only have twisted, confused, and rather small minds). When I pointed out that everyone was attacking me rather than responding to the points I'd raised, I was duly banned!

    I will watch out for the particular nutters you cite. My personal favourite poster of Bill's is David Skinner, who witters on at tedious length (it's fine for those who agree with Dear Bill to flaunt His rules) about the "homosexualist agenda" and seems to spend all his time on the internet posting abuse on gay websites. Clearly as closeted as Bill Himself. Mark Rabich is also great fun, in a "is this guy for real?" alarming way.

    Anyway, I'll continue blogging about him to expose him for the hypocrite and fool he is. Currently working on a blog about Bill's censorship. The way he will only post a dissenter's comment if he's ready with an immediate ad hominem; and that it will remain forever "awaiting moderation" if the comment points out the logical flaws in his reasoning.

  3. Ok so you may have already seen it but classic classic muehlenberg moment, he actually allowed someone to post the following:

    You’re a stupid man Bill. So obsessed with your pet hates and theories that you can’t concede contrary facts even when they’re staring you in the face. You have raised intellectual dishonesty to an art form. Is it any wonder that your formal academic studies are going nowhere?

    God help you.
    Therese Kingsley

    Of course Bill has followed with:
    Now the whole world can clearly see the truth of this. Indeed, everyone can now plainly see just who is dealing with facts and evidence, and who is dealing in vicious name calling and personal attacks.
    And yes I daily ask for God’s help. Do you?

    Bill using the words facts and evidence, its almost like he is talking to himself.

  4. Thanks Aaron, that is spectacular! Like you say, classic Bill. Dripping with hubris and hypocrisy. His arguments are so empty it's painful to see.

    Therese is right. Objectively; he's stupid. Nasty and stupid.