Google+ Followers

Saturday, 11 May 2013

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.

11 comments:

  1. “That's what Muehlenberg's argument basically boils down to.”

    I’m not sure you grasped the argument at all. Basically, it is this: the argument to normalise homosexuality (and SSM) behaviour is precisely the same argument now being used to normalise “other” forms of sexuality. The hypocrisy of your position is evident here,

    “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.”

    How intolerant of you! What if they are “born” that way? Who are you to tell them to not act on their sexuality? Why is this ok for you, but for those who council homosexuals to “not act” on their inclinations are sued, prosecuted and abused? The irony is blindingly obvious. You’ve now stolen the argument from your opponents about homosexuality (don’t act on it), and re-applied to another group of people. You can’t have it both ways, unless you’re willing to be labelled a bigot, paedophobe hater for denying sexual rights to those that are “born” with such a sexual orientation.

    And spare us the whole “this is very far removed from two consenting adults of the same sex engaging in consensual sexual relations” argument. Says who? You? What if the ‘legal’ age is reduced to 8 (as per previous attempts)? What if a child consents? Does that then make it right?

    These are some tough questions you (and others) need to answer. Start showing some logical consistency here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bill, is that you. If so, you're a delusional fuckwit. If not, sorry, please go about your business.

      Delete
  2. How can you be so idiotic as to conflate the rape of children with two consenting adults having sex together? Are you so blinded by your religious intolerance that you can't see the difference, seriously?

    Who is trying to normalise paedophilia? Evidence?

    "How intolerant of you! What if they are “born” that way?"

    Can you not read? I said: "there can be no doubt that people don't "choose" to be sexually attracted to children". You don't think that that implies explicitly that they *are* born that way?

    "Who are you to tell them to not act on their sexuality? Why is this ok for you, but for those who council homosexuals to “not act” on their inclinations are sued, prosecuted and abused?"

    Why is this so difficult for you to grasp? It's not OK for adults to have sex with kids because it would be an abuse of their position of authority, and because children aren't emotionally or physically prepared for the adult action of sexual relations. Anyone who tells two consenting men that they shouldn't have sex together needs to MIND THEIR OWN FUCKING BUSINESS.

    "You can’t have it both ways". This is like me saying to you that you can't have it both ways, if you let straight people have sex you have to allow gay people to have sex. It ISN'T AN ARGUMENT.

    "And spare us the whole “this is very far removed from two consenting adults of the same sex engaging in consensual sexual relations” argument. Says who? You? What if the ‘legal’ age is reduced to 8 (as per previous attempts)?"

    Why should I spare you that when it's ENTIRELY RELEVANT? Who is trying to lower the age of consent to 8? The lowest age of consent is in Vatican City, where it is 12.

    "These are some tough questions you (and others) need to answer. Start showing some logical consistency here."

    Ha! Hilarious.

    Please show how gay sex is equivalent to paedophilia in any way, shape or form. I'll wait patiently.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Again, you missed the point.

    Why are these people, who you accuse of "rape" (even though it can be consensual), using your own argument?

    Why is the homosexual argument now being rehashed to normalise other sexual behaviour?

    Why? Because the argument itself was inherently flawed and weak. The slippery slope was always alive, despite your protests, and now it is here.

    So I repeat, stop being a bigot and hater. Love is love, right? Keep your nose outta other peoples business. This is 2013 and equality is the buzz word. Don't be such a religious drool and deny people their rights! Seriously man!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The short answer is the homosexual argument is not being rehashed to normalise "other" sexual behaviour. Other than NAMBLA (who have no political clout and are never taken seriously) nobody is arguing for the repeal of age of consent laws in either state criminal codes in relation to sexual offences or in Commonwealth marriage laws. This is because the argument does not fit trans-generational relationships - children are legally, emotionally and psychologically unable to give consent to sexual relationships, thus there is a clear rational basis for the criminalisation of any form of sex with a child below the age of consent (16 in most states). Furthermore there is clear evidence that sexual contact between adults and children is most likely to involve abuse and coercion and results in long term suffering for the child involved.

      By contrast the "homosexual argument" relates to adults of full age and capacity who have consented to the relationship. There is no coercion or abuse involved and therefore the two are not logically similar in any way shape or form. Hence there is no rational basis to interfere with their right to privacy and self determination - they are causing harm to nobody - The US supreme court said as much when it handed down it's decision in Lawrence v Texas finding sodomy laws to be unconstitutional under the 14th amendments substantive due process clause.

      The slippery slope does not exists for one simple reason - the things that people are suggesting the acceptance of LGBTs will lead do not have a logical basis to them - it's just fear mongering.

      I should also point out that countries that permit child marriages such as Saudi Arabia are also the least tolerant of LGBTs and the majority of child marriages in the world are heterosexual - usually an older man with a young girl. Given that, one could then make the argument that heterosexual marriage will lead to the abuse of young girls by older men. Those deviant married heterosexual (joke)

      Delete
  4. Perhaps you're not actually making a point?

    I'm not aware that there is a "homosexual argument" let alone that it is "inherently flawed and weak". What does that even mean?

    Some people are gay, and they're entitled to get on with their lives with or without the approval of religionists. What "slippery slope"?

    And way to not address any of the points I raised about gay relationships and sexual expression being in no way comparable to the rape of minors. If you actually have a point or an argument you're going to extraordinary lengths to hide it. Please make a point or I'll stop humouring you.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Can you not read? I said: "there can be no doubt that people don't "choose" to be sexually attracted to children". You don't think that that implies explicitly that they *are* born that way?"

    You missed my sarcasm I guess! But doesn't being "born" with a certain sexual orientation validify that behaviour? That is at least what the homosexual activists would have us believe. If you disagree, then I guess we agree on something. Being born gay doesn't validate gay behaviour. Would you agree?

    "I'm not aware that there is a "homosexual argument" let alone that it is "inherently flawed and weak"."

    Ok then, so when you say "Anyone who tells two consenting men that they shouldn't have sex together needs to MIND THEIR OWN FUCKING BUSINESS.", that is not an ad-nauseum argument we hear all the time.

    Or perhaps, "Some people are gay, and they're entitled to get on with their lives with or without the approval of religionists" isn't an argument either. An neither of those argumetns are at all flawed, right?

    Let's try this, "Anyone who tells two consenting people that they shouldn't have sex together needs to MIND THEIR OWN FUCKING BUSINESS." Here, with the switch of one word you make a very good argument (apparently) for pedophiles

    Or again, ""Some people are minor attracted persons, and they're entitled to get on with their lives with or without the approval of religionists". Yep, there it is again.

    As I've shown, it is precisely because of weak arguments like these above, that other sexually orientationed people can pick them up, change a word or two, and spout the same precise argument that has been so successful to change entire cultures.

    You are only dishonest to claim that there is no "gay argument". Have you been living in a bubble? Like it or not, the slippery slope has begun, and only a bigot can stop it. But you don't wanna be a bigot, do you?

    ReplyDelete
  6. "You missed my sarcasm I guess!"

    No I didn't. There wasn't any. You just failed to read my post and I called you out on it.

    " But doesn't being "born" with a certain sexual orientation validify that behaviour? That is at least what the homosexual activists would have us believe."

    Who are "homosexual activists"? Do you mean gay people? Why do gay people have to "validify" their behaviour to you or anyone else? How arrogant and intolerant of you.

    "If you disagree, then I guess we agree on something."

    What??

    "Being born gay doesn't validate gay behaviour. Would you agree?"

    Being gay requires no validation. It doesn't do anybody any harm and is no business of anybody apart from gay people. If you don't like it, don't kiss, date, or have sex with a boy. Simples.

    "Ok then, so when you say "Anyone who tells two consenting men that they shouldn't have sex together needs to MIND THEIR OWN FUCKING BUSINESS.", that is not an ad-nauseum argument we hear all the time."

    Again, what?? Just because you hear that said a lot doesn't invalidate it. In *what way* is that an invalid statement? You really haven't even grasped the basics of reasoned discourse, have you?

    "Or perhaps, "Some people are gay, and they're entitled to get on with their lives with or without the approval of religionists" isn't an argument either. An neither of those argumetns are at all flawed, right?"

    No, not flawed in the slightest. Perhaps you would like to *demonstrate* how it's flawed? (Doesn't hold breath.)

    "Here, with the switch of one word you make a very good argument (apparently) for pedophiles".

    Not a convincing one, for obvious reasons stated in my post (if you actually bothered to read it). So you think two statements with one word changed such as "The bible is clearly false" and "the bible is clearly true" have equal validity because only one word has been switched? No, thought not. Learn to engage your brain. Who is making arguments in favour of legalising paedophilia and what has it to do with gay people?

    "As I've shown, it is precisely because of weak arguments like these above, that other sexually orientationed people can pick them up, change a word or two, and spout the same precise argument that has been so successful to change entire cultures."

    You've shown nothing of the sort. You haven't demonstrated the flaw in anything I've said. Who is "changing entire cultures"? Homosexuality was around for many thousands of years before Xtianity was invented. Religionists don't own cultures. People are quite entitled to reject your silly beliefs. Thankfully, we don't say you oughtn't have a place in society or claim we can "cure" you or that you shouldn't exist - since the non-religious are vastly more tolerant than the brainwashed.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "You are only dishonest to claim that there is no "gay argument". Have you been living in a bubble? Like it or not, the slippery slope has begun, and only a bigot can stop it. But you don't wanna be a bigot, do you?"

    Only religionists think there is a "gay argument". Normal people are quite happy to accept the presence of gay people in their societies. That is why increasingly secular, educated and atheistic Western countries are shedding the silly superstitious beliefs and extending equality to gay people with initiatives like equal marriage. It happened in the UK yesterday and it will happen in all US states and Australia within two decades. If there ever was a "gay argument" - your side has well and truly lost it.

    I doubt you are a bigot. Far more likely you are a fanatical young person who is deeply conflicted about their own sexuality, desperate to please their religious peers with extreme views. I would guess in 15 years time you'll look back on your posts here and cringe. Save yourself years of heartache and just get yourself a boyfriend.

    If you want to post again, fine, but if you don't actually answer the questions posed to you or address the topics under discussion I won't entertain you again.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You state: " Normal people are quite happy to accept the presence of gay people in their societies."

      Thanks for admitting that gay people are not "normal" as you set out these two distinct categories. Most gay advocates stress the point that homosexual behaviour is "normal", and by your post you are dismantling that stance. Consistency fail!

      Delete
    2. Haha! Is that seriously the best you can do? How long have you been cooking that one up?

      I don't state that "normal" and "gay" are mutually exclusive at all. I was using "normal" to exclude religious people.

      At last you admit that you have an axe to grind against gay people. Let's have it then. Let's have the reason for your homophobia. And you're still avoiding all of the questions I put to you and resorting to petty responses instead. Hmmm. I wonder why that could be?

      Delete