Google+ Followers

Wednesday, 18 June 2014

Bill's ever closer to that stroke...

If there's one thing guaranteed to get dear old Bill Muehlenberg's blood boiling and the pressure in his arteries reaching critical it's exposure to people who don't think all gays are evil and must be abolished.

Hot from an exchange with a tolerant Christian, Bill took to his blog to vent in How Not To Think (and Do Christianity). He rails:
I have come to realise it is far easier to document cases of brainless idiocy than it is to teach good thinking and reasoning skills. 
It turns out the source of "brainless idiocy" is someone who has the temerity to say to Bill that homosexuality really isn't a big deal and worth getting upset about. After a brief exchange, Bill realised he had failed to make this human being see the light and dedicate his whole purpose to the fear and loathing and smearing of gay people. Says poor old Bill,
At this point I realised that I was dealing with trolls, or believers so ignorant and sucked into the world, that I was just wasting my time. 
Because anyone who dares to disagree with Bill, about anything, is a "brainless idiot" or a "troll". Sheesh, the arrogance of this guy.

In the comments, David Agnes inadvertently hits the hornets' nest:
The truth is, Bill, I think most people, especially those under the age of 30, see homosexuality as a non-issue. 
He's right. That is true. Poll after poll show that homophobic attitudes are far more prevalent in the 60+ generations in Western countries, and, whilst still problematic, comparatively negligible in under 30s. It's a simple statement of fact!

It is, however, a fact Muehlenberg has no wish to hear, less still to face.

You'll notice that Muehlenberg never, ever speaks courteously to anyone who i) disagrees with him or ii) presents an awkward truth. He starts his reply parroting like a petulant schoolboy:
The truth is, David, God is always right and the crowd is usually always wrong.
This is a very revealing comment. Since Bill thinks he's the big expert on "god" and what "god" wants, what he really means is that he is always right and everyone else wrong (unless they agree with him).

Bill's unpleasantness (would it kill him to be courteous?) doesn't end there. He goes on to make a bizarre analogy to slavery (WTF?) and then says:
If you want to actually learn a bit about homosexuality, instead of parroting the world’s lousy counsel, you might start doing some careful reading here. My book could be a starting place. 
So here we have the crux of the matter: nobody is entitled to an opinion on homosexuality until they have read Bill's book, and until they agree with his every word!

It must really, really pain someone of Bill's astounding arrogance that his "book" has been almost entirely ignored. It's his life's work, his magnum opus, and the response has been a massive shrug of the shoulders, tumbleweeds, and crickets chirping. It must have been a terrible blow to his massive ego. Still, the next work of homophobic propaganda will be a bestseller, eh, Bill?

A peculiar creature, and a regular poster on CultureWatch, then weighs in, a certain Joel van der Horst:
If the average Australian ever knew any gay men (which I do having once identified as gay) they’d realise how shallow, petulant, bigoted, unhealthy, and vacuous they are. Will and Grace is a deliberately false representation of the average gay person, the fact is the prime cause of the high suicide rate amongst young gay and lesbian people in Australia are how they are treated by other gay men and women.
What utter rubbish. The high suicide rate amongst gay teens is almost entirely down to rejection and bigotry from parents who place their own idiotic superstitions above the health and happiness of their children. Still, don't let facts get in the way, Joel. This guy thinks all gay people without exception are evil, and apparently he "used to be" gay. I bet he's the "ex-gay" that Muehlenberg regularly touts as "proof" that sexuality (or rather, only ever homosexuality) is a "choice".

Here's a picture of our Joel:

Now I'm not going to be cruel, but he looks not a million miles from being a mini-Bill Muehlenberg. It's not too big a leap of the imagination to understand why he doesn't get much cock and finds life easier lying to himself whilst surrounded by the happy-clappy brigade who are more than happy to back up his delusions. "Look, this guy said three hail marys and he's no longer gay. Praise Jesus! Hallelujah!" Seriously - how deluded would you have to be?

Anyway, I'm getting off track. Joel goes on:
I really care for my gay friends, and it saddens me how much emotional, mental, and physical turmoil they suffer as a result of choosing to practice such unhealthy behaviour.
Riiiiight. Gay friends. Joel, if you had any friends (gay or otherwise), they'd tell you that sexuality isn't a choice. You can keep deluding yourself if you wish, but all you're doing is lashing out at those who don't share your self-delusion that sexuality can be "chosen". Be honest, you don't have any friends outside of the pensioners and freaks you go to church with, do you?
As for the statement about “winning the argument” Bill already has… the fact that he cops abuse just for presenting the facts demonstrates that Christophobic, militant gay activists and other secular bigots have no intellectual case to present in favour of their position.
Sure, Joel. Anyone who is happy to share society with gay people and grant them equal rights and opportunities is clearly driven by "Christophobia". Keep massaging your bruised ego. Nice that Bill has "won" the argument. That would clearly explain why governments in the western world are increasingly extending equality legislation in favour of their LGBT citizens. We can all hope that Bill keeps on "winning" at this speed.

Agnes then attempts a response, pointing out to Joel that if his figure of 2% for the gay population is true, then if people know more than 50 other folk, they're likely to know a gay person. The sheer temerity of Agnes not following up with offers to publically self-flagellate and admit the righteousness of Muehlenberg is enough to push dear old Bill ever closer to his inevitable cardiac arrest. Agnes also asks pertinent questions:
Do you want to see homosexuality decriminalised? Do you acknowledge that there have and always will be gay people in society? 
Does he mean "recriminalised"? It would be interesting to hear Bill answer those questions. But by now Bill is just throwing all of his toys out of the pram.
I question whether I can take your remarks too seriously. But if you are asking more than just rhetorical questions here, I repeat my advice: get my book (or one like it) and read it carefully. When you have done that, come back here if you want more discussion. But the fact that you now seem so utterly clueless as to both your own faith and the militant homosexual agenda shows us that you need to start properly educating yourself – and soon.
That's Agnes told. Muehlenberg's quite the charmer, isn't he?

What's interesting is that Muehlenberg doesn't answer his (not remotely rhetorical) questions. In fact, whenever he's put on the spot about what exactly his gay-hate "ministry" aims to achieve, he evades. Does he want to see homosexuality criminalised? Would he support the stoning to death of gay people? He states that he doesn't think gay people are entitled to any rights or legal protection, but does that extend to the right to life? And what is his purpose in keeping his gay-hate blog, or is it just to vent his strange obsession and psychosis with other people's private lives?

Joel then reappears and confirms what we all know: homophobia is a direct result of ignorance.
The gay community like all minority communities congregate in certain locales within inner-city suburb, in Melbourne predominantly in Prahran, Brunswick and East St Kilda… unless a person lives, or works within the municipalities of these townships one is unlikely to know personally any gay people.
What absolute twaddle. Gay people are born and bred all over every country, even if they may later in life move to a city (like a lot of other people). But Joel is inadvertently admitting that homophobia is fear of the unknown.
Questioning the legitimacy of the less than 2% figure for Australians who identify as gay and Lesbian does you no favours David. 
Um, I've re-read Agnes' comments, and he doesn't question this, but as Joel and Bill demonstrate, Christians never let the facts get in the way of a good two-minutes' hate.
The fact that you don’t this demonstrates to all of Bill’s readers not only your ignorance, but your secular bigotry.
Not sure that sentence even makes sense, Joel; but Bill is happy for Joel to call Agnes a "bigot" after two very tame comments. Remarkable. Yet Bill insists that it's only the "other side" who go in for "ad hominems" and "mud-slinging". Bill is quite happy for commentators who don't entirely agree with him to be called a "bigot".

What a nest of hypocrites.

Joel then says,
I don’t know that I was characterising gay people negatively, I was challenging your opinion that meeting a gay person would change an individuals ideas about the gay people…it won’t.
Let's remind ourselves of how he talks about all gay people:
If the average Australian ever knew any gay men (which I do having once identified as gay) they’d realise how shallow, petulant, bigoted, unhealthy, and vacuous they are.
Really, Joel? Not characterising them negatively? You fucking liar.

But Joel has a question:
what do you think you are going to achieve by throwing your gay lobby sloganeering, fact-free misinformation around Bill’s website??  
In other words, how dare someone come along and question the infallible Bill Muehlenberg?

The sanctimonious Vic Trudeau weighs in:
When you’re hard pressed on every side, isn’t it wonderful the way others are there to take up the fight? Good on ya, Joel!
Only Joel's not there to hear the praise. He's too busy rimming Bill Muehlenberg. What remarkable teamwork. Somebody comes along with awkward questions. They evade them all and call the questioner a bigot and an idiot, and then slap themselves on the back for a job well done in protecting their nasty delusions.

Can anyone think of a single pleasant or courteous Culturewatch regular?

It's little wonder Xtianity is rapidly becoming the preserve of freaks and weirdoes, and ordinary people are reaching out with compassion to their LGBT brothers and sisters. Xtians, your inherent nastiness is winning the culture "war" for us. Keep up the good work. And don't have a stroke...


  1. You lost me after the headline you gave this post. It's in poor taste to anyone who has had loved ones who have suffered a stroke. Is that something to be flippant about? Maybe hang out with some stroke victims and learn some tact and sensitivity.

    1. Good way to avoid actually responding to my critique of your St Bill, Ross, and trying to claim the moral high ground. I've seen your homophobic comments on CultureWatch and you're every bit as bigoted as its host. Muehlenberg is such an angry man I have no doubt his blood pressure must be through the roof, so I wouldn't be in the least surprised if he had a stroke. It's not a joke: it's true.

      Do you want to have another go and tell me where I'm mistaken in my criticism of your bigoted spokesman?

  2. Please tell me what I said that's bigoted and homophobic.

    1. Sure. Perhaps now you'd like to show where I'm mistaken about Bill in this post.

      These are some of your many comments agreeing with your buddy Bill's extreme homophobia. If you want the context, you'll have to look it up yourself.
      28.6.13 / 12pm
      I don’t like feeling angry on a Friday afternoon at the end of a working week, but I am after reading this.

      Ross McPhee

      Ross McPhee
      19.12.13 / 1pm
      I’ve had discussions with other Christians who support SSM about this. When I raised the slippery slope argument, I was told, from memory, that this was a “moot point” and that this could never happen. I became frustrated and impatient with this and gave up the discussion.

      Ross McPhee

      18.10.12 / 2pm
      This is appalling.

      Ross McPhee

      20.8.13 / 1pm
      If Fred Nile died suddenly, and I went into a gay owned florist and said that I wanted to send flowers to his funeral, would my order be accepted, or would I be told to go to another florist?

      Ross McPhee

      22.5.12 / 5pm
      Help us. We’re in a lot of trouble, aren’t we?
      Ross McPhee

    2. "If Fred Nile died suddenly, and I went into a gay owned florist and said that I wanted to send flowers to his funeral, would my order be accepted, or would I be told to go to another florist?"

      That seems a rather libellous comment to make. No decent florist regardless of their sexuality would insult a grieving person by not selling them flowers if their loved one had died regardless of any political view they may hold about that person or their positions.

      People do not hate Fred Nile the person they simply disagree with his political views. That is how democracy works we are allowed to disagree with view of our representatives without hating the person or making it personal.

      I would also suggest that any florist that didn't give you flowers to send to a funeral, which would be a major part of their trade, would be doing a massive disservice to themselves. The customer would almost certainly never shop their again and would tell others of the bad experience they had their and thus potentially costing them business.

    3. The slippery slope argument is weak at best and fallacious at it's worst. Your assuming that if same sex couples were permitted to marry it would inevitably lead to group marriage, pedophila or bestiality but let's explore these possibilities.

      First of all these other types of relationships are not as easily accommodated within existing marriage legislation as same sex couples. to permit same sex couples to marry two words in the marriage act need to be changed and a couple of sections repealed. The marriage contract remains the same it merely operates irrespective of gender.

      To allow polygamy it would be an entirely different form of marriage not easily accommodated within the framework. It's also worth noting in every country where polygamy is legal homosexuality is illegal and every country that has same sex marriage does not permit polygamous marriage. Polygamous marriages tend to be more about controlling women and in many countries give men a position of authority over their wives. In the west marriage and gay marriage assumes that couples voluntarily enter the union as equals for the most part.

      To suggest beastial marriages would ever be legal is unreasonable. Animals are not recognised as legal persons under the law and they have no capacity to sign a binding contract, nor can they sue or be sued, vote in elections, voluntarily served in the armed forces, obtain drivers licenses or stand for parliament. Hence there is no logical reason why they would be considered having capacity to enter a marriage contract. Same sex marriages legislation just changes the definition in s 4 of the marriage act to read two people rather than man and woman the requirement for fully informed consent and legal capacity remain the same.

      This is the same with children. Children under the age of 18 are taken under both the marriage act and at common law to lack the capacity to enter a contract and it is unlikely any court would say that a child under the age of 16 has capacity to marry.

  3. Remember I told you that I know a stroke victim. I showed him your blog the other day, and he was appalled. Maybe you'd like to attend a meeting of the stroke victim support group he's involved in?

    1. I've responded to saying BM is in danger of a stroke - which he is. How about you stop evading, taking the moral high ground and address the actual points of the posting?

  4. I found this comment to be in very poor taste.


    I am a stroke survivor.

    Stroke is not something I would wish onto anyone.

    Blood pressure is only one of a number of things that can lead to stroke.

    Before you accuse me of being bigoted, I am able to consider issues outside of the parameters of my faith.

    I have come to accept that no one in our community deserves to be vilified for being 'different'.

    Since becoming disabled, I have become very aware that prejudice is experienced by a variety of people groups in our community.

    The gay community has been vocal in decrying the discrimination it experiences, but they aren't the only ones who get discriminated against.
    Stroke is not just something that happens to older people. I have also met other young stroke survivors, including children.

    They have a lot more courage than someone spewing their diatribe from the safety of cyberspace.

    1. To say that BM is in danger of stroke is a statement of fact, and is not making light of stroke. Nobody should suffer discrimination. Sadly, the Religious Right are the worst offenders.

    2. In short, I wouldn't state that someone is in danger of having a stroke, just because I strongly disagree with what they might think or write.

      Could your comments be grounded in wishful thinking, rather than fact?

      I'd also add to this, I'd be just as offended if someone made similar comments about cancer.

    3. I didn't say Bill is in danger of stroke because I disagree with what he says; but because he is a perennially angry man, of a certain age (mid-60s?) and the long-term anger must have had an effect on his blood pressure, increasing the statistical likelihood of him experiencing stroke. I am not making light of stroke or wishing stroke upon Bill Muehlenberg: however I couldn't care less about the misfortunes of such a deeply evil man.

  5. Way to avoid the point Scottyboy is making. You truly are a grub.

    1. Way to resort to ad hominem attacks because you have no argument. Care to address the points I raised in the post? Care to explain your comment about lesbian couples kissing?

      *not holding breath*

    2. Actually I think the author did respond to the point that Scottboy was making. He argued that the thrust of the article was to suggest characteristics in Mr. Mulenberg's life could possibly put him at risk of a stroke. In all fairness the author was just sending up some of Mr. Mulenberg's statements in a humorous. Yes it may be that to some extent it may have been in poor taste though I think you are being rather gratuitous in your prosecution of his insensitivity to stroke victims most likely on the grounds that you are unhappy with the comments he has made about Mr. Mulenberg. I also know people friends and family who have suffered a stroke and I do not find the material in the article offensive. I think you may both be being a little oversensitive. The author has not made any derogatory point about stroke victims or people with a disability he was simply sending up some of Mr. Mulenberg's comments in a humorous way.

  6. Spare me your crocodile tears. I doubt you even care what happened to my brother. I think from his experience, I know a thing or two about discrimination. I'm not pontificating from some ivory tower, or digital tower in this case. The GLBTI movement is well organised, well financed, and assisted in its cause by a sympathetic media. It is very powerful compared to support groups helping people like him. It is conditioning our culture to think that any and all expressions of sexuality are healthy, natural, and to be affirmed. Anyone who disagrees with this view is now a bigot. For me to say that I'm offended by the site of two lesbians tongue kissing each other in public is enough to get me labelled a bigot. In even writing on your blog it's likely that one day my words here will be used against me. This isn't paranoia, it's reality. On the issue of gay marriage, just over 10 years ago one of its leading proponents didn't even agree with it. You might call it making ad hominem attacks, but it's my way of sticking up for my brother, just like I glare at people who stare at him. Also why do you write the noun "Christian" as "Xtian?"

    1. Please consider a few points. Firstly as a heterosexual you do offer a priviledged space. Nobody ever says there offended by heterosexuals kissing. If you offended by something that is legal such as kissing the im afraid you are being too sensitive and possibly provocative to say that when you simply should ignore it.

      Yes I sort of agree that making the comment about strokes may have been insensitive. But notice the author has not made unreasonable slurs or accusations against people with disability or tried to deny them civil rights.

      Furthermore LGBT rights have largely been the result of grassroots movements. Nobody has been conditioned to think anything. If anything we are conditioned to see heterosexuality as natural and healthy. Nobody ever makes blanket statements against heterosexuals.

      Nobody ever suggests heterosexuality or marriage is unhealthy yet prior to no fault divorce for some women marriage trapped them in unhappy and unhealthy relationships and sometimes domestic violence.

    2. Merely because the LGBT is better represented and organised than it was say 20 years ago does not mean that LGBT people do not experience stigmatisation and discrimination in some ways. There are still high suicide rates among young LGBT people who struggle with bullying that people like Mr. Mulenberg can perpetuate by the comments that they are making suggesting that LGBT people have some sort of agenda or movement, suggesting it's just a 'lifestyle,' and somehow inherently bad or that they have some duty to attempt to change their sexuality.

      Simply because you know what discrimination is like does not give you a license to perpetuate it against other groups and you cannot use your support for one person to justify holding prejudicial views against another. Why does two women offend you. They are not doing anything to hurt you or doing anything illegal or anything that does any damage in any way. There are plenty of heterosexual couples that tongue kiss in public but it's rare for anyone to say anything to them. Yes some public expression of affection can be uncomfortable sometimes but for the most part it's harmless behaviour that hurts nobody.

      I think you are offended by it because you hold strong religious convictions that are irreconcilable with it. Australia has freedom of religion you can think what you like but you don't have a right to stop people kissing simply because it doesn't agree with your faith anymore than a muslim who is offended by any christian practice you may engage in can stop you practicing your faith.

      And I should point out that disability issues did get a lot of traction under the Gillard Labor government with the introduction of the NDIS, which your mate Mr. Mulenberg has indirectly campaigned against with his support for the Abbott led coalition, which has not committed to funding the scheme.

  7. Where to even start. Is it the fact that it's a gay couple kissing that disgusts you? Or would any public display of affection distress you? You seem to think (a lot like your hero Muehlenberg) that homosexuality is some sort of global conspiracy, rather than seeing it for what it is: a naturally occurring and harmless sexual minority that appears in all human populations in all places and at all times. No doubt you would have been horrified by my dear lesbian friends' wedding last month. So many people passing by stopped to applaud the brides and wish them well. No doubt you would have gorped at them in the same way you claim some people look at your brother, feeling morally virtuous and not seeing the hypocrisy. Are you with Muehlenberg then, in thinking that gay people have no place in society and should be denied all rights and preferably bullied into, at best, keeping quiet and hiding their love? And you seriously, with a straight face, believe this doesn't make you a bigot??? All the hatred comes one way. Name me one gay organisation that campaigns to actively deny Xtians the right to marry. You can't. And yet every single Xtian lobby group (vastly better-funded than any gay organisation) campaigns to deny gay people rights, solely so that practitioners who choose to believe in a particular discredited superstition can feel more secure about their *personal* prejudices and beliefs. This is why you lot are losing. Western populations are learning of the contribution LGBT citizens make to societies, and hearts and minds are changing. Narrow Xtian bigotry is being exposed for what it is. It's nothing to do, as Muehlenberg pretends, with brainwashing or propaganda. Put simply, most people know and love gay individuals, and see through the mean-spirited hatred of the religious, dressed up as piety.