gay rights – Bruce Llama

Pick Your Own Truth Ignore the Facts!

Bruce — Wed, 11 Jun 2014 10:58:05 +0000

Hi!

It’s been awhile, I’ve been busy getting the knots out of my knickers, being hairy has it’s draw backs. I happen to glance up to see Billy talking about truth, I thought, this’ll be good…

Truth-Telling and Homosexuality

The title should be enough to make me stop and go and play some squash. Billy really doesn’t get the concept of truth. Still, let me pull some of his latest truth telling apart for you, after all, it’s good sport.

If ever there was a subject which is almost universally surrounded in falsehoods, deception and misinformation, it is the topic of homosexuality. So powerful is the homosexual juggernaut that very few media outlets are left which will dare to challenge anything it claims.

Actually, take out the word homosexuality and replace it with christianity and you’ve got something closer to the truth.

Not only is the lamestream media pretty much useless here, but the activists have done a great job of taking over the schools, the judiciary, the political sphere, and even the corporate arena. There is almost nothing that takes more courage today, and features more risks, than daring to publicly resist the radical homosexual agenda.

Oh for fuck sake, he sounds just like those Nazis who claimed the jews were taking over the judiciary, the political sphere and even big businesses. Yep, I went there.

Let me cite a few of these recent voices. And sometimes they come from rather unexpected quarters. One very interesting piece recently appeared by a homosexual historian. In it he argues that nobody is ‘born that way,’ and offers a lengthy case to make his point. David Benkof says in conclusion:

Of course, none of this means people don’t have sexual orientations today, it just means sexual orientations are specific to our culture, and thus not basic human nature. In tech-speak, that means being gay is in the software of some people’s lives, but it’s in nobody’s hardware.
The compelling evidence nobody’s born gay doesn’t necessarily have to shred the LGBT agenda. Legitimate reasons for more liberal attitudes and policies regarding gays and lesbians still exist, such as freedom of association, the right to privacy, and respect for other people’s experiences. But those who demand social or political change because gays are born that way just don’t know much about history.

Yes, interesting. David Benkof isn’t saying that gay people don’t exist or that we aren’t gay. He seems to be suggesting that claiming to be born gay isn’t right. Whether or not that’s true should surely be of limited use. He’s saying that our current construct in society of gay and or straight is unique to our society. You should also know that Benkof is a gay orthodox jew who is trying really hard to obey the bible and not have sex with men. He probably thinks that christians are stupid in thinking the messiah has been and gone, and just for the record, Uncle Billy thinks that Benkof is bound for hell as he hasn’t accepted jesus as his lord and saviour. Benkof’s whole article is well worth a read where you’ll find this line:

There weren’t straight people, either. Only our society believes people are oriented in just one direction, as gay history pioneer Jonathan Ned Katz, formerly of Yale, explained in his book The Invention of Heterosexuality.

You don’t see Billy quoting that bit of information, nor would he quote this line:

But scholars don’t think the ancient Greeks had a gay minority. Rather, that civilization thought homosexuality was something anyone could enjoy. In addition to a wife, elite men were expected to take a younger male as an apprentice-lover, with prescribed bedroom roles.

Benkof is not a brave voice or using a great deal of courage. If you took his thoughts to their natural conclusion Billy, sexuality wasn’t a problem in biblical times, therefore whatever the story about Sodom was about, it wasn’t a protest to bum sex.

And also quite revealing is the recent announcement by the Royal College of Psychiatrists that people are not actually born homosexual. Instead, “sexual orientation is determined by a combination of biological and postnatal environmental factors”. Indeed, they even went on to say, “[it] is not the case that sexual orientation is immutable or might not vary to some extent in a person’s life.”

Oh please, even more reason to let people be who they want to. You don’t have to keep your sexual orientation Billy – you too can get some cock into you.

And a lesbian academic has also come out recently saying some very non-PC things about all this. Sex researcher Dr. Lisa Diamond has looked carefully at some of the research on this, and takes a much more nuanced approach than many of the activists and most of the MSM. Her concluding words are these:

1. fluidity in identity, attraction and behavior is NOT specific to women but a general feature of human sexuality, one which is also confirmed by historical and cross-cultural literature;
2. the various sexual categories currently in use (LGBTQI, etc.) are useful heuristics (mental shortcuts, rules of thumb, educated guesses or stereotypes), but though “they have meaning in our culture, … we have to be careful in presuming that they represent natural phenomena” (38:55);
and 3. it is “tricky” to use these categories for advocating rights based on the concept of immutability “now that we know it is not true … As a community, the queers have to stop saying: ‘Please help us, we were born this way and we can’t change’ as an argument for legal standing.”

It’s interesting to note that Dr Diamonds study “Female bisexuality from adolescence to adulthood” suggests that there is “considerable fluidity in bisexual, unlabeled, and lesbian women’s attractions, behaviors, and identities”. So, yes, in one sense I can’t say I was born this way, but at the same time I can say to the likes of Billy – fuck off, if I want sex with men then that’s up to me.

Finally, major study has found what many of have already known: relationship issues are among the main cause of homosexual suicide. As one story begins:

While many assume that family rejection is the leading cause of depression among LBGTI individuals, a new study has found that in fact the problem appears to stem predominantly from the higher incidence of relationship problems among homosexuals. Dr. Delaney Skerrett led a team of researchers from the Australian Institute for Suicide Research and Prevention (AISRAP) in studying suicides in Queensland. He found that a leading cause of suicide among “lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex” (LGBTI) people is stress from their romantic partners.
“We tend to assume that the psychological distress LGBTI people are often going through is due to family rejection. But it seems that’s not so much the case. The conflict seems to be largely related to relationship problems, with partners,” Dr. Skerrett said. In fact, he said, “The numbers are telling us there’s a general acceptance at the family level,” something he said is “great” and “really heartening!”
Instead, the study, which was published on April 2 in Asia Pacific Psychiatry, found that “LGBT individuals experienced relationship problems more often” than heterosexuals, “with relationship conflict also being more frequent than in non?LGBT cases.” That confirms previous studies finding that homosexuals also face higher rates of intimate partner violence than heterosexuals.

It’s not at all clear that this is a major study, in fact, I doubt that it would be considered major. If you read the full paper in question you’ll see that there are a number of cautions in it, and this acknowledgement:

There are certain limitations to this study that need to be acknowledged. The information contained in the QSR is collected chiefly by police officers through interviews with next of kin (NOK) and the accuracy of this is likely to be affected by the grief experienced in the loss of a loved one to suicide. We were also unable to analyze all the social, cultural, and psychological factors that may have been associated with the suicides of the individuals studied, particularly as these may have been unknown to the NOK. What is more, the factors we have been able to identify cannot be claimed to have a causal relationship with the suicidal acts concerned because of the nature of this study, and caution should be exercised in interpreting the results.

Yes, we should be cautious about interpreting the results.

Dissent will be punished

So there we have four different voices taking a rather differing line to the orthodox homosexual mantra. But as I said, those who dare to speak out will often be harshly dealt with.

Nobody has been harshly dealt with because they’ve conducted research or even published their findings or essays. The people who should be harshly dealt with are the fuck-knuckles who cherry pick pieces of information to support their own cause with scant regard to reality.

Nowhere did anyone suggest that gay people should be made straight. The “major study” actually highlights the need for more resources to ensure the ongoing well-being of gay people.

Given the salience of conflict over sexuality in the life events of the LGBT individuals that died by suicide in the present study, self-acceptance and stigma reduction would seem to be important foci to target.

Another fact that Billy likes to overlook.

Consider just one more recent example of this. One expert who dared to warn about the dangerous nature of homosexual activity has lost his job as a result:

He’s a pioneer in the realm of clinical infectious diseases in the Caribbean. And now he’s under fire for testifying that homosexual intercourse is dangerous to those who practice it—and to public health in general. Professor Brendan Bain, a practicing Christian who serves to treat AIDS patients, was the director of the regional coordinating unit of the Caribbean HIV/AIDS Regional Training Network (CHART) at the University of the West Indies in Jamaica, until his anti-gay sex comments caught up with him.

Bain was fired in the wake of fallout related to his testimony on behalf of a group of churches working to keep Belize’s sodomy law in place in 2012. It took two years, but now he’s paying the price for his beliefs. Bain’s testimony was based on his research, which shows the relative risk of contracting HIV is significantly higher among men who have sex with other men (MSM) in Belize than in the general population. His research concludes the same truth in several other countries for which data is available, including countries that have repealed the law that criminalizes anal sex and countries where the law still applies.

Well, that’s one way to interpret it. The University says that it had no issue with Bain having the opinion that he did, but then goes on to say that he has lost the support of the community.

While the university recognizes the right of professor Bain to provide expert testimony in the manner he did, it has become increasingly evident that Professor Bain has lost the confidence and support of a significant sector of the community which the CHART program is expected to reach, including the loss of his leadership status in PANCAP, thereby undermining the ability of this program, to effectively deliver on its mandate. It is for this reason that the University of the West Indies has decided to terminate the contract of Professor Bain as Director of the Regional Coordinating Unit (RCU) of the Caribbean HIV/Training (CHART) Network.

So, yes, he was fired in the wake of the fallout – because he lost the support of those he was supposed to be helping. He was undermining the ability of the program to deliver! In other words, he’s the wrong man for the job.

Yep, speaking the truth can be very costly today, especially when you dare to speak truth about the homosexual lifestyle and agenda. But it is good to see a few brave voices being raised. We need much more of this of course. But it is a good start, and I will continue to publicise it.

Speaking the truth? You don’t want to speak the truth Billy. You only pay attention to the bits that support your position that your god said that gay people should be stoned to death. All of your ‘truth’ is based on that one fairy tale and you continue to pretend to care about others, when all you really care about is stopping progress in the name of your fucked up small-minded arrogant religion.

Non-re-producing poofs

Bruce — Tue, 04 Feb 2014 12:15:15 +0000

[SOURCE]

Homosexuals of course cannot reproduce – they can only recruit. And recruiting children into this dangerous lifestyle has long been part of their agenda. There are plenty of ways in which they target children, and they have made their aims quite clear here.

Oh please, being gay is not a barrier to reproducing. Why I myself had two little llamas by waving my people poker in the right direction. In fact many gay couples do reproduce, you do know how it works don’t you Billy? And what’s this about recruiting? It must be so terrific to live in such a fantasy world! Many Saturday mornings I’ve stood outside Woolworths handing out “Join the Gay Club” brochures. To date I’ve not recruited a single guy to the cause. The Head Pooh Jabber is going to take away my gay badge and I’ll have to go back to straight sex. Oh the shame!

Apparently we make our aims clear:

Way back in 1987 for example we had this now infamous declaration of war against our children made by the homosexual militants: “We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of feeble masculinity, of your shallow dreams and vulgar lies. We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups . . . Your sons shall become our minions and do our bidding. They will be recast in our image. They will come to crave and adore us.”

This 1987 ‘example’ is a bit of satire, read about it here, this doesn’t stop Billy and all his other fuckknuckle mates from quoting it as if it is the “Gay Agenda”. Even a cursory reading should show you that it’s not serious.

Well, I’m off to close a few churches, there should be a few free men there that I can recruit and sodimise. Head Pooh Jabber will be pleased.

Canberra’s Nutters Gather to Protest

Bruce — Mon, 21 Oct 2013 23:10:20 +0000

[SOURCE]

The government in the Australian Capital Territory is about to pass legislation making it legal for same-sex couples to get married in the ACT. It’s an interesting step for an Australian state to make, although the Federal Government may attempt to override the new laws through the courts.

Enter the ACL, those wacky christians issued a media release called “Statement by Abrahamic Faith Leaders of Canberra” – that’s a nice way of saying the Jews, Christians and the Muslims.

Below is a copy of a statement of faith by seven faith leaders here in Canberra that was released today ahead of the ACT Marriage Equality Bill that is expected to be debated tomorrow. Whilst not organised by the ACL, the ACL welcomes the statement by the group.

Goodness me, so the ACL wasn’t needed! Shunned by their own faithful!

Seventy percent of Australians identify with an Abrahamic religion – Christianity, Islam and Judaism.

Yes, 70% may identify, but that doesn’t mean that they all agree on everything.

As leaders of several of these faith traditions, we have gathered to share our concerns about the ACT Government’s proposed same sex marriage legislation.

These leaders do no represent the 70% by a long shot, trying to argue from authority that they simply don’t have.

We are concerned for the long-term risks of such a Bill for our society.

You are? What are they? Tell us what those long-term risks are? I bet you can’t.

While affirming the inherent dignity of all human beings,

Except if you’re anything other than heterosexual. You’d sooner sack anyone that isn’t just like you. You’d sooner say that the love I have for my love llama is somehow second rate. Some of you that have signed this media release think that gays should be stoned to death. So much for dignity.

our faith traditions also affirm the traditional concept of marriage between a man and a woman as being for the good of the individual, the family and society.

Yes, I agree. Marriage between a man and a woman is good for the individual, the family and society. So is marriage between two people of the same sex. Everyone should be able to get married. In your particular faith feel free to celebrate marriage in the way you want, and those that don’t believe as you can get married and celebrate in the way they like.

We invite the wider community to join with us in calling for the Bill to be subject to community consultation through the normal Legislative Assembly Committee process.

Oh yes, that’s it, it’s not enough that you think you represent 70% of the population you now want the other 30% to join in and see the world your way. Great way to show dignity to each human being. And while you’re at it why don’t you call into question the legitimacy of the passage of the bill in the duly elected parliament of the ACT. Find a way to delay it so you can start spreading more of your vile innuendo.

Imam Adama Konda, Canberra Islamic Centre

Islam – founded by a goat herder and child sex abuser.

Arnold Cummins, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints

Founded by a man who transcribed the holy book from brass tablets with magic glasses. Both which then disappeared.

Pastor Sean Stanton, Australian Christian Churches, Canberra

Believe that the bible is accurate.

Bishop Trevor Edwards, Anglican Diocese of Canberra and Goulburn

Marriage is so important that the church was established so the King of England could have a divorce to marry another women.

Pastor BJ Hayes, Canberra National Adventist Church

Will throw you out of their church if you are gay.

Monsignor John Woods, Catholic Archdiocese of Canberra and Goulburn

Thinks that bread can turn into their god so you can eat him.

Rabbi Shmuel Feldman, Rabbi for Canberra and Region.

Should apologies for inflicting this bunch of nutters on the rest of the world.

Apparently they couldn’t find anyone from the Satanist Society.

Gay Marriage is Harmless, Unless you’re a Homophobic Bigoted christian.

Bruce — Fri, 11 Oct 2013 09:43:34 +0000

[SOURCE]

The Australian “We hate the Gays” Christian Lobby has re-published a whole article on the question of whether same-sex marriage is harmless. They got the article from News Weekly. You can’t access the article on News Weekly unless you sign up for an account and they want money for that. News Weekly is run by the National Civic Council who among their aims have this:

Rigorous education which
- Values the acquisition of knowledge as well as the processes of learning and promotes intellectual excellence and disciplines (such as history and philosophy) abandoned by influential educational theorists; and
- Provides the base of knowledge necessary for every person to participate fully as a member of society.

They also have these rather silly statements:

The integrity of the individual, including full legal protection of the right to life for all human beings from fertilisation to natural death.

Judeo-Christian values which provide the cement to hold our society together in opposition to the prevailing view which rejects the concept of the common good and makes the difference between right and wrong, truth and falsehood, a matter of personal preference only rather than objective reality.

Divorce. Opposition to easy divorce laws.

The family. Support for policies which enhance intact families, rejection of lifestyles which undermine family values.

So it’s not hard to write them off as another bunch of christians fundamentalists.

Any way, on to the question of the day…

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE: IS IT HARMLESS?

Good questions, lets see what

by Patrick J. Byrne (re-published with the permission of the author)

has to say on the subject.

Same-sex marriage fundamentally changes not only the legal definition of marriage, but all the social, educational, economic, legal and religious institutions that service and support marriage, family and children.

Really? How do you figure that? I’m pretty sure that couples wanting to get married and who are of the opposite sex will still be able to do that. A fundamental change would mean that everyone would have to get married to something different, like a goat, or an alpaca. Marriage Equality simply allows same-sex couples the right to marry. You should really consider it a tweak. I look forward to your reasoning as to how this ‘fundamental’ redefinition changes social, educational, economic, legal and religious institutions that ‘service’ and support marriage as it is.

Schools: If marriage is redefined in law, it would be legal to teach same-sex marriage, gay, lesbian, bisexual and transsexual issues in schools. In fact, the courts may invoke anti-discrimination law to force these issues into schools.

I’m not at all sure what ‘legal to teach same-sex marriage’ is all about. Just explain to me what teaching about same-sex marriage actually means, and why it would be a bad thing. And believe it or not lots of places already have curriculums that include issues on sexuality and the sky is still in the sky. Your claim that the courts may invoke a way to force the issues into schools is a bit of a furphy really. I guess you really just mean into good christian schools. And so what if schools do teach it? Those schools no doubt have a gay population and their rights should surely be included and not excluded, after all your NCC actually wants rigorous education.

The Australian Education Union’s policy declares that “homosexuality, bisexuality, transgenderism and intersex need to be normalised” in education.

You do know that being GLBTI is normal, right? It’s not a surprise. Refer to the rigorous eduction statement above.

In 2006, the NSW Attorney-General’s Department produced a Learn to Include: Teachers Manual for primary schools. It provides a range of resources for teaching about same-sex parents in primary schools.

Oh, I wonder if that’s legal. I bet the AG knows a thing or two about the law. There’s a certainly reality to the manual. Whether you like it or not, same-sex couples have children and guess what, they send them to school. So rather than have the teacher freeze in shock when discovering that one of his students has two mums, a manual will show them the correct response. You could always use the christian manual when dealing with gay parents and ask the child brings them into the playground during playtime so that they can be stoned to death.

Children: Same-sex marriage will greatly affect future children, denying many their birth right to their true biological identity.

Already many people go out of their way to discover who the donors are. It’s utmost in the minds of many eager parents to actually keep track of the biological parents, and that’s just the straight people. Sure, some parents like to hide this sort of facts, but they’re pretty rare. I think most of us these days understand the need to know the history of our beginnings. As to the notion that some right is being denied, I’m not sure what right this is that you refer to or what it even means.

Not only will it result in more children being born of donor conception and surrogacy, but the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transsexual (GLBT) lobby is campaigning to have the birth certificates of children adopted by same-sex couples to be changed to record the same-sex couple in place of the biological parents.

It won’t result in more children being born. Gay people are already doing the children thing, they really are. They achieve it in many ways, its true that it will make it easier, but I don’t expect to see a sudden burst of millions of children being born into same-sex families let alone somehow being denied something.

There’s no issue with a birth certificate reflecting the names of the parents, it prevents all sorts of misunderstandings. There’s other ways to address the record keeping of the donors. And seriously, names on a birth certificate is a reason to stop gay people from getting married?

The Australian Human Rights Commission has recommended — in the interest of same-sex parents — that birth certificates should be open to recording any of the “birth mother, birth father, lesbian co-mother or gay co-father”

There you go, a way to record the relevant information on the birth certificate. Unless you really have no ability to change your thinking and think that somehow a birth certificate with more than a few lines of text on it is really too hard to handle what exactly is the issue here?

This stands in contrast to Article 7 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989), which says: “The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and, as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents.”

No it doesn’t contrast Article 7 at all, in fact it goes further to make sure that all the relevant information is recorded. It’s also interesting to note that the word ‘parents’ doesn’t exclude same-sex couples.

While the GLBT lobby wants to replace biological parents’ names on birth certificates with the names of same-sex partners (“psychological” parents), there have been three inquiries into the rights of donor-conceived children to know their “biological” origins. These inquires were by: the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs inquiry (2011), the Victorian Law Reform Commission (2012) and the NSW Legislative Assembly (2012). 9, 10, 11.

All three inquiries recommended that donor-conceived children should have a right to access their biological mother/father.

Yes, that’s right. It’s why we have inquiries. You seem to be of the mistaken belief that somehow same-sex couples willingly want to hide the biological details of their children’s parentage. I think you’re probably out of touch there. In fact, lots of couples I know go to extraordinary lengths to include the biological parents in the lives of their children. Sometimes the donor doesn’t want any involvement, sometimes they do.

Businesses will also be affected by same-sex marriage, particularly those associated with wedding services — photographers, caterers, function hire places — and bed-and-breakfast accommodation. Same-sex marriage law greatly increases the reach of anti-discrimination law.

In the U.S. state of New Mexico, where same-sex marriage is legal, the state’s supreme court last month found photographer Elaine Huguenin guilty under the New Mexico Human Rights Act of refusing to provide her services to a lesbian couple’s wedding.

Two weeks after legislators in the U.S. state of Oregon passed a same-sex marriage law, a local maker of old-fashioned wedding trolleys was forced to shut down his business after being hounded by the GLBT lobby for refusing to supply a lesbian wedding function, according to the Baltimore Sun (December 25, 2012).

The paper noted, “Wedding vendors elsewhere who refused to accommodate same-sex couples have faced discrimination lawsuits — and lost.”

In Europe, a draft piece of European Union law known as the Equal Treatment Directive will, if passed, drastically increase pressure on business, particularly in countries recognising same-sex marriage. It will force businesses to provide goods or services that contravene their consciences on threat of being hauled before the courts if they don’t.

So basically you’d be pleased if a business that thought black people should use the rear door to get into their shop is ok? You would be happy for a business that believes a child with a disability is the result of the sins of her parents and therefore shouldn’t be served in a café? It’s really easy, if businesses want to thrive they serve everyone. It’s actually what they already do. They don’t ask their customers if they’re divorced, a muslim, a jew, a christian or any other arbitrary system of discrimination, so why is it OK for a business to discriminate based on the sexuality of the customer? Short answer, it isn’t.

Churches will gain only temporary exemptions from involvement in same-sex marriages, at best.

Churches already have a raft of ways of only marrying the people they want. That won’t change. The real question is how will a church refuse to marry a couple of their loyal members who are gay? That will be interesting. In any case, marriage is a civil right, not a religious right. Maybe it’s time to take the act of marriage out of the churches.

The whole article is based on nothing at all. It doesn’t stand up to any sort of scrutiny. Doesn’t matter how many footnotes you can stick in, a bit of common sense shows your article to be nothing more than more christian clap-trap that is still driven by the fear that the whole world will turn gay if you even consider that people like me are normal.

So after all that, to answer your question, is it harmless? The answer is yes, you homophobic bigoted fuckwit.

The Militant HomoSexual Lobby are Coming to Get You

Bruce — Wed, 09 Oct 2013 11:08:55 +0000

[SOURCE]

One of our great Uncle Billy’s best strategies is to make things up and pretend it’s the truth.

blah blah blah…

It has been a brilliant strategy and it has worked very well – not just with Communism and Islam, but with other radical revolutionary groups as well. And one of the most active of such groups today is the militant homosexual lobby. They have long known that to conquer the straight West, they must take over from within all the key institutions of power and influence.

Just who is the militant homosexual lobby? How is it that they are so organised that they are out to conquer the straight west? How can I get to be a member? Let’s face it Billy, they exist in your mind only. There is no cohesive group that you can call the militant homosexual lobby. Most ‘lobby’ groups don’t even talk to each other let alone do any conquering together.

And they have certainly targeted the church big time. Indeed, this has been an openly stated goal of theirs for decades now. They know that if they can silence the churches, their job of bringing about the complete transformation of society in their radical image will be complete.

Oh please, no, let me re-word – oh for fuck sake. You mean that you read in some book a long time ago that the author said this and that this somehow becomes the stated goal of a make-believe lobby group.

So the activists are working overtime to conquer the Christian church with their theological revisionism and bogus “gospel”. They want to get believers to doubt their own Bibles and long-standing Christian beliefs on this issue, and fully capitulate to their agenda of iniquity.

Who? Which activists? Are you suggesting that this is their job and that they’re working overtime to get it done before christmas? Conquering is a pretty serious business you know. They must have thousands of workers. The church is so big, what with all those catholics and anglicans. I love the idea of an agenda of iniquity. I’m going to write one down!

I have documented this time and time again, including in my detailed book, Strained Relations. Well, here we have another prime example of this. It is as mind-boggling as it is in your face: a real case of satanic subversion in operation.

Watch out – book plug! Then he gives us a ‘prime’ example. This example shows that all activists want to dismantle the church! And therefore the activist is satan.

As one article states, “Fifty hand-picked Christians were part of a seminal conference last week planned by Matthew Vines, a 23-year-old gay Christian who believes Scripture allows for monogamous homosexual activity, in an effort to spread the idea in the American church over the next decade.

Oh blah blah blah. Some silly gay guy who wants to still believe in god is trying to convince 50 christians that he’s right. 50. Therefore, according to Billy the militant homosexual lobby is winning, just another few billion christians to go. This may take a while, best make a coffee and eat a biscuit.

Wow. Usually Satan does his work of deception and propaganda in a much more undercover fashion. Rarely do we get such a blatant and public disclosure of what the enemies of the church are seeking to do. So you don’t have to take my word for it any longer.

Your word? You mean your misguided interpretation of unconnected events to draw an impossible conclusion that aligns with your bigoted view of gay people.

Here once again the homosexual activists are telling us in their own words that they are targeting the churches, seeking to sabotage the very gospel of God and replace it with their own sodomite gospel. They are not even being coy about this any longer, but are now arrogantly telling the world their plans of destroying the Christian church.

See – that’s your misguided interpretation. Let me correct this for you Billy: “Here you have one gay man telling 50 hand-picked christians that being gay is ok.” You do know Billy that despite all you say, many many people in the world don’t believe in your god and those who may share the same fucked up religious virus as you probably don’t have the same strain.

More blah blah blah…So we should be expecting such attacks from the enemy. Satan will never cease in his efforts to thwart the gospel, mangle the truth, deceive God’s people, and destroy the faith. That is his primary task, and he certainly has here at least 50 useful idiots doing his very bidding.

Seriously Billy, to suggest that the ultimate evil (in your mind) is driving people to stand up for their rights and believe what they want, is by far the most disgusting and pig-headed arrogant attitude I’ve ever seen.

You by association are suggesting that 50 people and one gay man are doing grave evil based on nothing more than your own crackpot notion that a non-existent group of militant homosexuals are trying to overthrow the church.

Time for a nice hot cup of tea and a Bex Uncle Billy.

France is at War with the militants homosexualists!

Bruce — Fri, 28 Jun 2013 05:36:33 +0000

[SOURCE]

Oh goodness me! France has allowed teh gays to get teh marriage. You know what that means? Let’s ask Grandpa Uncle Billy:

If you want to know what the end of freedom looks like, simply look at France. With the ruling elites aligning themselves with the radical homosexualist agenda, they have declared war on their own citizens. Things are very dark right now in France, all because the militants have gotten in bed with the powers that be.

It sounds really really bad. Millions being thrown into prison, not a safe place to go at all! All those people being deprived of their freedom! There’s a war going on, the government is locking them all up!

“There is now a first victim to deplore. His name is Nicolas, a 23 year old student from Angers, who was arrested while peacefully protesting against the absurd re-definition of marriage and family by his country’s government. He has now been sentenced to one month of imprisonment for ‘rebellion’.”

“Rebellion.” Did you get that? All dictatorships of course hate any form of resistance and disagreement to the state. He continues, “This judgment apparently is intended as a clear message to all citizens that still dare to oppose the new gay-fascism: we are not going to listen to you, nor engage in any rational argument about the meaning of marriage and the family, but we will simply put you in jail. Dissident opinions will be silenced at all costs.

Wait on a minute… first victim? I can see why Grandpa Uncle see this is a dark period. Of all the protests a person is locked up! There’s so much to worry about. There must be millions more waiting…. so, let’s just test how this peaceful protester, Nicolas Bernard-Buss ended up doing two months for rebellion.

Firstly, the word rebellion and the offence translated from this website:

Is an act of rebellion the violent resistance to a person holding public authority or discharging a public service mission acting in the exercise of its functions, to law enforcement, the orders of the public authority, decisions or judicial warrants.

So, for his peaceful protest he was charged with violent resistance. He probably threw a few punches.

What else about our new peaceful protester against the militant gay lobby?

It seems this (translated from French):

The militant anti-gay marriage movement founder part of “watchers” was sentenced Wednesday, June 19 by the 16 th of Paris criminal court to four months in prison, two suspended for rebellion and provision of an imaginary identity, and a fine of 1,000 euros for denial of his DNA and fingerprints.

So the peaceful protester was violent, gave a false identity and refused to provide his DNA and fingerprints and he’s described as militant. A militant peaceful protest I guess Grandpa?

Billy Billy Billy.

Young Nicolas is now in prison for standing up for what is right. You may well be next.

Well no, he’s been locked up because he gave a false name, refused to provide his fingerprints and something about violence. Millions of cases are no doubt waiting to be tried and the French government are busy building new prisons to house all those charged with ‘peaceful’ rebellion and France with be a homosexual paradise.

But I guess the truth doesn’t work too well for you does it Billy.

Grossman asks the questions

Bruce — Fri, 28 Jun 2013 03:28:25 +0000

Miriam Grossman is an MD her little catch phrase is “100% MD, 0% PC.” Nice.

She’s a nutter.

I’ve written about her before. But pretty well she thinks it’s her job to take vulnerable, questioning young people and turn them into heterosexuals. She thinks it’s her job to deny that teenagers should have sex and that the only place to wave people pokers around is in the confines of a marriage.

In one of her latest posts she asks three questions of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), an organisation that is composed of 60,000 primary care paediatricians, paediatric medical subspecialists and paediatric surgical specialists dedicated to the health, safety and well-being of infants, children, adolescents and young adults.

Fair enough that our non-PC MD would want to ask some questions about sexuality and gender identity when dealing with young people. The AAP has just released an updated policy statement on the care for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and questioning youth. Read about it here.

Our good MD asks her questions:

You state that a teen who questions if he is male or female, or who wants his genitalia removed, is “normal, just different.”

Let’s stop you there. Here’s what they say under their recommendations in their policy document:

Pediatricians should be available to answer questions, to correct misinformation, and to provide the context that being LGBTQ is normal, just different.

When it comes to having your bits removed it’s not as easy as fronting up to the doctor and saying I want my junk cut off, in fact they say this:

Supportive counseling is paramount to assist the teenager with any dysphoria and to explore gender roles before altering the body. The therapy consists of potentially delaying puberty with gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogs, then use of hormonal therapy, and finally surgery.

And they footnote their recommendation with a reference to the World Professional Association for Transgender Health. So I guess you’re statement is right, normal, just different, but they need to correct misinformation. It’s the responsible thing to do.

That was just the opening sentence, now to the first question:

Given the physical differences between male and female are more substantial than between different races, if an African American teen is convinced she is really Caucasian, is she also “normal, just different?” Should her pediatrician affirm her belief, and support her wish for facial surgery and skin bleaching?

I think you’ll find that this isn’t a problem anywhere near the same as sexual identity. Nowhere do we find a family of white people saying to their children, “don’t you grow up black. We’ll disown you.” Nowhere do you hear, “well ok, if you want to marry a black she’ll need to have her face bleached. We’ll lend you the money.” And tell me Dr. MD with 0PC, how does a white woman come up with an idea that a teenage black teen wants to be white?

On to question two.

2. If my son thinks he’s a girl, you recommend I find a therapist who will respect and affirm his belief.

But if my son is attracted to boys, and his urges feel foreign and distressing, you advise me to find a therapist who will tell him “this is who you are, accept it.”

Honestly, does that make sense?

I couldn’t find the quote “this is who you are, accept it” anywhere in the documentation. Perhaps you’re just making a quote up? What I do find are words like this:

Homophobia and heterosexism may damage the emerging self-image of an LGBTQ adolescent. Homophobia perceived by LGBTQ youth may lead to self-destructive behaviors

I think it may be best to discover why his urges feel foreign and distressing.

And this:

Another critically important role of the pediatrician is to assist parents of sexual minority youth. Pediatricians should acknowledge the parents’ feelings but should provide information and support for the adolescent who has disclosed. Parents’ reactions and attitudes may adjust over time.

and:

Many adolescents struggle with their sexual attractions and identity formation, and some may be referred to as “questioning.”

and:

If a pediatrician does not feel competent to provide specialized care for sexual minority teenagers and their families, he or she has the responsibility to evaluate families and then refer for medically appropriate care.

So nowhere is there a suggestion that a young gay or questioning man should just accept it. In answer to your question, “honestly, does that make sense” the answer is no. Your question is wrong.

Perhaps our MD hasn’t enough time to read the 8 page policy document, page 1 is a cover page, pages 6, 7 and 8 are footnotes, so really, just read pages 2 through to 5. Only takes a couple of minutes and all your questions would be answered.

No Gays in our Retirement Village!

Bruce — Thu, 27 Jun 2013 07:23:42 +0000

[SOURCE]

You’ll be forgiven if you didn’t catch up with the news during the week that a new bill made its way through the Australian Parliament and is set to become law.

It’s the “Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status) Bill 2013”. It is quite historic as it covers gay, lesbian, transgender and intersex discrimination. That’s really very powerful.

The new law has a raft of exemptions, most notably and with no surprise, for religious bodies to discriminate against the gays. With one exception. Religious bodies who run aged-care facilities may not discriminate against the homosexuals.

This has the ACL spitting grey furballs against the bingo board in their aged-care facilities across the nation.

Oh, they don’t actually run any. That’s right, they only lobby for silly things.

“it removes religious exemptions for Commonwealth aged-care providers to preference a married couple over an unmarried couple or a heterosexual over a homosexual resident.

Some aged care facilities run by faith organisations treasure their ethos and want to be free to preserve this.”

Yes, that’s right, a couple who have lived together for 40 years and aren’t married should be locked out to keep your quaint ethos. No doubt that old couple of lesbians will go on a rampage making all the old girls quiver in places that long ago stopped quivering. Heaven forbid that the gay guys might actually manage to get some of the old husbands up again. And lordy me, how will we deal with the 80 year olds that have just shacked up together?

However, the ACL questions why this legislation was pursued when no examples of actual discrimination have actually been put forward. ACL understands it’s the practice of many faith-based aged-care providers to help and look after elderly people regardless of their sexuality

Excellent, there are no actual examples, so there is no problem in enshrining it in law. Even better that ‘many’ homes are already looking after the elderly gay people, I rather suspect though, that is those outside the ‘many’ that need to be inclusive.

It was nothing but a stalking horse to pursue this legislation and instead sets up a precedent for other religious exemptions to be challenged in the future.

Oh, that’s it, you’re worried that when the world doesn’t actually collapse from this huge infringement on your rights to be a bigot that the government might remove other exemptions!

If Commonwealth-funded faith-based aged care providers lose the right to positively select clients in accordance with the principles of their faith, will other faith-based organisations similarly lose their religious freedom? Will Christian schools, for example, continue to be able to hire staff who adhere to the values of the organisation?

What does positively select clients mean? This is a silly statement. Nobody is telling old folks home that they can’t continue to select religious people for their homes, they’re saying more to the point that you can’t exclude someone just because you don’t like their martial status or their sexual orientation or gender identity. And same thing for your religious schools, of course they can continue to hire nutters from the same faith. The day is coming when those institutions won’t be allowed to discriminate against anyone. Bring it on.

Mr ACL – your religious freedoms are not impinged by employing those who are different to your faith. Unless you’re suggesting that in fact that notion that you hate the sin and not the sinner is actually incorrect.

Mark Rabich on stupid evil agendas

Bruce — Sat, 22 Jun 2013 05:12:19 +0000

[SOURCE]

You probably can’t see the source, but I just had to share it with you.

Is this really a surprise? But supporters of SSM don’t want debate, they are ‘right’, after all. Being convinced of their own moral righteousness and intellectual superiority, they cannot be told that their thinking is backward and veiled in total darkness. The only tactic they have to play is to denigrate and bully those who oppose their stupid and evil agenda, and shut down debate. If only everyone in our parliament had the courage to stand up like Bernardi.

Bernardi’s contention is that gay marriage will lead to polygamy. Which seems a bit odd really as polygamy is really a straight mans want. One man, many women. I would have thought that it was marriage that leads to polygamy, the gays have nothing to do with it.

It any case, poor Rabbys outrage is so laughable. The poor luv. It must be horrible thinking that you are the one with the moral righteousness and intellectual superiority. It must be a special place for him to think that others are in total darkness and backward and then to talk about those stupid and evil people with their agenda’s that are trying to denigrate and bully him to shut the debate down.

It’s not the first time Mark Rabich has been laughed at by me. He has a fixation with the size of the walls of the vagina.

Grandpa Billy is On the Slippery Slide

Bruce — Fri, 10 May 2013 05:09:09 +0000

[SOURCE]

Grandpa Billy has got his white undies wedged firmly up his arse in his latest “I told you so!” blog. This time he thinks that there are plans afoot to legalise paedophilia. He can’t distinguish between a few rat bags and the rest of the world.

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 Strained Relations.

There are lots of vocal people out there – but who’s listening? Nobody really. Oh, and if you want to really know what’s going on, buy his book.

In fact, the homosexual activists have long called for the lowering of the age of consent – or abolishing it all together.

Which ones? Oh, we have to buy your book. In any case, that’s just bullshit. There is nobody calling for a lowering of the age of consent and certainly nobody is suggesting that it be abolished.

Sadly they are not alone in all this. Just recently a leading legal eagle in the UK called for the age to be dropped to 13, to stop the ‘persecution of old men’! Yes, that is what she actually said. As a newspaper report says:

“A senior human rights barrister has sparked a storm of outrage after calling for the age of consent to be lowered to 13 in order to prevent the ‘persecution of old men’. Barbara Hewson made the controversial suggestion in an article for the online magazine ‘Spiked’. In the column, Hewson, who is a barrister at Hardwicke in London, stated that the move was necessary in the wake of the Savile scandal. She refers to Operation Yewtree as the ‘Savile Inquisition’ and describes its inquiry as reminiscent of Soviet-era Russia. She goes on to suggest some of the offences investigated were ‘low level misdemeanours’.”

Well yes, she does call for the age of consent to be lowered to 13. I don’t think that means it’s going to happen. It’s best to read her full article to get an understanding for the reasons why, something I doubt Grandpa Billy has done. She is but a lone voice, there simply isn’t a groundswell of support for her idea and quickly the concept was dismissed.

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.

Here we go again, making a link between paedophilia and homosexuality. You know, it matters not to the average person whether or not paedophilia is innate. If it is innate it makes it no more acceptable. Billy is trying really hard to link the age of consent with homosexuals and paedophiles. In his mind the deviants are trying to get access to the kiddies and must be stopped!

A number of illustrations of this can be provided here. Take for example this ominous headline: “Some homosexual activist groups a ‘dream’ to pedophiles”. The piece begins as follows:

“Two psychologists testified before a parliamentary session on a bill related to sexual assault on children that pedophilia is a ‘sexual orientation’ just like homosexuality or heterosexuality. Lifesitenews reported on the testimony at a parliamentary session in Canada regarding a bill intended to increase mandatory minimum sentences on child sex offenders for particular crimes.

“Dr. Vernon Quinsey and Dr. Hubert Van Gijseghem were testifying on how offenders responded to treatment. Van Gijseghem, psychologist and retired professor of the University of Montreal, said, ‘Pedophiles are not simply people who commit a small offense from time to time but rather are grappling with what is equivalent to a sexual orientation just like another individual may be grappling with heterosexuality or even homosexuality.’ He went on to say, ‘True pedophiles have an exclusive preference for children, which is the same as having a sexual orientation. You cannot change this person’s sexual orientation. He may, however, remain abstinent’.”

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.

Of course, it’s about what he leaves out. Grandpa Billy is right, these trained and professional people recognise that paedophiles can’t simply change. Billy no doubt thinks that they can, probably by praying over them. I’d sooner take the word of people in the relevant scientific disciplines than a religious nutter in Melbourne’s outer east. The article goes on to say:

Dr. Quinsey, professor emeritus of psychology at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, agreed with Van Gijseghem. Quinsey said pedophiles’ sexual interests prefer children and “There is no evidence that this sort of preference can be changed through treatment or through anything else.”

Van Gijseghem and Quinsey’s views are not unique. Harvard Health Publications said in July 2010 that, “Pedophilia is a sexual orientation and unlikely to change. Treatment aims to enable someone to resist acting on his sexual urges.”

See – they are simply acknowledging the way things are, they are not calling for paedophiles to be allowed access to children. “Treatment aims to enable someone to resist ..sexual urges”

Another alarming piece entitled “Many researchers taking a different view of pedophilia” in the Los Angeles Times also notes how so many of our sexperts are arguing that paedophilia is an unchangeable condition. It begins with a “case study” of a man who claims his desires for children are intrinsic to who he is. It then says this:

“In the laboratory, researchers are coming to the same conclusion. Like many forms of sexual deviance, pedophilia once was thought to stem from psychological influences early in life. Now, many experts view it as a sexual orientation as immutable as heterosexuality or homosexuality. It is a deep-rooted predisposition — limited almost entirely to men — that becomes clear during puberty and does not change. The best estimates are that between 1% and 5% of men are pedophiles, meaning that they have a dominant attraction to prepubescent children.”

Once again we see this as a mere “sexual orientation” which we are meant to simply accept.

Once again Grandpa Billy leaves out the important part of the article.

Not all pedophiles molest children. Nor are all child molesters pedophiles. Studies show that about half of all molesters are not sexually attracted to their victims. They often have personality disorders or violent streaks, and their victims are typically family members.

By contrast, pedophiles tend to think of children as romantic partners and look beyond immediate relatives. They include chronic abusers familiar from the headlines — Catholic priests, coaches and generations of Boy Scout leaders.

This I would think is an important part of the discussion. Adults who molest children may not be sexually attracted to their victim. They often have personality disorders, much like some religious fundamentalist have a personality disorder.

And the real worry here is this: in numerous places laws are being enacted which makes it a criminal offence to “discriminate” against anyone based on their “sexual orientation”. 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?

And here is Grandpa Billy at the top of the slippery slide. Nobody anywhere, apart from the nutcases, is suggesting that the age of consent is lowered or that laws be passed to enable adults to have sex with children. So paedophilia may be innate, that simply means we change the way we deal with those so afflicted. It should be clear that therapy won’t change their orientation, and drugs will have a limited effect, so we must find alternatives to protect the adult and more importantly to reduce the risk to the children. Grandpa is right, we should not discriminate against a paedophile, so we shouldn’t deny them access to a house or a job, but if they commit a crime, that’s different. When you offend, the whole game changes. I don’t have an answer as to how that happens, but for those offenders, regardless of their orientation or reasons, they must be excluded from society. Lock them up.

But thanks to the homosexual activists, we now are having a very hard time saying no to any of this. Indeed, we know things will not stop there. Soon every conceivable “sexual orientation” imaginable will be argued for and publically championed – and eventually legalised. You see, there is still so much “sexual inequality and injustice” which needs to be dealt with.

Oh poor Grandpa Billy, because the gays are being treated in the right way we have to treat everyone else in the same way. Because we let the gays have sex with each other and don’t lock them up that means that we have to let people have sex with whoever and whatever they want. The subtext is that homosexuality should be again criminalised. Billy can’t distinguish between someone’s innate nature and then offending. Just because you want to do something doesn’t mean you can. Most of the world understands this.

Nobody is seriously suggesting that the age of consent be abolished, nobody is calling for rape to be legal, nobody is calling for sex with animals to be legal and nobody is calling for sex between adult christian fundamentals to be outlawed.

That last one would be a good idea. Stop them breeding.

gay rights – Bruce Llama

Pick Your Own Truth Ignore the Facts!

Related Posts

Non-re-producing poofs

Related Posts

Canberra’s Nutters Gather to Protest

Related Posts

Gay Marriage is Harmless, Unless you’re a Homophobic Bigoted christian.

Related Posts

The Militant HomoSexual Lobby are Coming to Get You

Related Posts

France is at War with the militants homosexualists!

Related Posts

Grossman asks the questions

Related Posts

No Gays in our Retirement Village!

Related Posts

Mark Rabich on stupid evil agendas

Related Posts

Grandpa Billy is On the Slippery Slide

Related Posts