Whenever and wherever gay rights gain further ground, Muehlenberg resorts to a smear campaign and fear tactics.
His favourite smear campaign against LGBT people is that they're all pro-paedophilia or actively paedophiles themselves. He repeats this egregious lie time and time again each time hard-won freedoms are afforded to the minority. I've previously documented such example here and here.
This time he reports the story of the sexual abuse of a young child fostered by a gay couple who have now been convicted and imprisoned.
Bill himself suggests in his article, which he delightfully calls "Don’t Mention the H and P Words Together" (why would anyone apart from a liar with a hate-fuelled agenda like you, Bill?) that:
just think if it was a Christian couple – heterosexual – who was caught doing this demonic abuse. The headlines would be massive.I'm not sure how he thinks he can justify that. Yet it's clear he's aggrieved that the media hasn't seized on the story as a way to propagate hatred towards LGBT people - the precise tactic he has adopted.
He goes on:
If it were a Christian crime, we would see that word used plenty of times even in a short article.Thus revealing his rank double standards or deliberate deceit. Because the child was abused by a gay couple, Muehlenberg is inferring that, by proxy, ALL gay people share a portion of the blame. But imagine if it were a Christian couple who had abused the child, there have after all been plenty of such cases; what would Bill's response be to someone who suggested to him that it were a "Christian crime"? He would quite rightly say that it was nothing to do with Christianity; but it doesn't serve his hate-fuelled antigay agenda to acknowledge the same must be true in this case. No, if one single gay couple is guilty of abuse, it must, in Bill's eyes, be symptomatic of gay people in general.
What a despicable double-standard, all to support his antigay propaganda.
He even admits his double standard later in the article:
Thankfully most homosexuals are not involved in such activities. But sadly enough are that we must continue to sound the alarm here.His subtext is clear. Some gay folk may be safe around kids, but enough of them want to rape kids that we should smear them all with the paedophile label.
Well, Bill, it's an established fact that over the last few centuries the vast majority of paedophilic abuse has come from the clergy of every religion, and from school teachers. Should we smear all clerics and teachers (who have positions of authority over children) with the paedophile label?
In the case of the Roman Catholic Church, who was aware of the depths of depravity of its child rape epidemic, moved abusive priests from parish to parish, silenced or excommunicated anyone who spoke out against its crimes and did its utmost to conceal them from the civil authorities and protect its offending priests, I would argue they have earned the right to be wholly distrusted when it comes to children. The whole institution through and through has discredited its claim to act in the interests of children of its parishioners.
However, it is a disgusting lie to suggest one gay couple abusing a child in any way reflects on LGBT people in general, and it's a shame there's no hell for Bill to go to for deliberately whipping up such hatred against a minority for such a vicious smear campaign.
As usual, the comments are well worth a look.
Julia Marks is worth quoting in more or less in full:
I think what is most notable about this phenomenon is that in the homosexualist community, this is very acceptable behavior. Yes, it does happen in the heterosexual community. But NO-ONE in that community ever tells himself that this behavior is anything except weird and abhorrent. In the homosexual community, however, this type of treatment of children is felt to be what is due them, what is owed them, what is a “natural” part of their lives. In fact, in writing up the “rites” for SSM, they make sure that the concept of monogamy is written out of their vows.My jaw is on the floor reading such fantasy. How many gay people does she know, or has spoken to? Or does she get this bigoted garbage from her pastor? As usual, Bill's quite happy to let pass such outright lies, completely unchallenged, since it serves his antigay agenda and, as it's the first comment, is proof his plot to whip up hatred against gay people amongst his brethren is starting to work.
Christine Watson says:
When the Catholic church pedophile and pederasty abuse was going on, liberal lunatics tried to blame heterosexual men for the abuse. They must think we are stupid!Yes, heterosexual men never abuse kids, Christine. Of course you're not stupid. Who could possibly think you're stupid, my love?
She goes on:
Since the “normalization” of homosexuality is gaining ground, the next step is to normalize sexual abuse of children.Oh yawn, the idiotic "slippery slope" argument. Actually, I hear the gays are after rights to marry uninhabited Greek Islands next. Yes, obviously now that gays can marry and are treated with respect and dignity by rational people then the next step will be normalising the rape of children. How inherently logical. It's why I so admire the religious mind.
Michael Cox agrees:
Yes. When I saw the news, I made the same connection. We’re opening the floodgate to many kinds of sexual evils; Rev Fred Nile predicted that in 10 years, pedofiles would be walking hand in hand with their prodige in New York.The same connection being, "they're gay! No wonder they're raping a child! All gays are up to it." And once again Fred Nile's prediction is as insane as the swivel-eyed Armageddon peddling clerics. I love Michael Cox's spellings of "paedophile" and "protégé" too - someone clearly in desperate need of an education.
So there you have it. DOMA and Prop8 out, gays marrying in France, California and soon the UK, so Bill, not to be outdone and accept that his life has been dedicated to nasty and hateful bigotry against gay people, whips up a frenzy of fear by extrapolating one case of two gay men abusing a child to everyone who is gay, without a single shred of evidence; and allowing comments that contain the most outrageous lies to be posted, again without a scrap of evidence to support them.
No evidence. Hmmm. I wonder why that is?