Political correctness is a funny thing. It pretty much is the most effective way to achieve social engineering. Most humans have a strong desire to be loved and validated. Thus, peer pressure means it’s comforting to conform and support what the majority appear to be supporting.
After all, it takes little courage to do so and most humans yearn to be popular. Therefore, supporting something that appears popular can garner many to follow blindly without thinking too much.
So, with gay marriage, the ‘Yes’ campaign is politically correct. Supporting this should be a red flag to anyone who doesn’t like to be a part of social engineering or co-erced into supporting something because on the surface, it’s ‘trendy, cool, socially popular to support gay marriage’. After all, you are simply voting for ‘love, equality and equal rights’. All this is fine, dandy and heart-warming stuff.
If we buy this clever and covert marketing, then of course we’d vote ‘yes’ for gay marriage, as who wants to risk being unpopular?
But is this what this vote is really about?
What if the vote is really about much more than that, i.e. the ‘Yes’ campaign and Gay Lobby has been effectively hijacked by those with less than ideal agendas and many are being foolishly used to push a dangerous and dishonest agenda with long term consequences, which most will regret supporting.
I mean how many planning to vote yes would indeed vote yes if the real agendas were made public?
A ‘Yes’ vote would mean increased homosexual education being forced down the throats of young innocent children at school.
That includes role playing of pretending to be gay as actual class lessons and suggesting that it’s perfectly ok and normal for young boys to wear dresses.
It’s already happening in some schools and be prepared for it to happen with a much more concerted push after the marriage laws are pushed through on an unsuspecting public.
For Further Evidence Visit: AllKidsMatter.Com.Au
This is one of the real agendas behind this push. Can’t imagine why it’s not disclosed in the ‘Yes’ campaign literature.
Would people still vote yes if they considered that many children will be denied a loving dad or a loving mum because they’ll be raised in a gay family?
Yes, but gay parents will love them. That’s great, but the hypocrisy of many including our Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull pushing the ‘Yes’ vote is that it will deny so many children the right to be raised by both a mother and father (the cornerstone of the family unit), especially since Turnbull was raised in a loving family that way and would perhaps have not achieved such heights otherwise.
Perhaps people should hear from adults that were raised by loving gay parents. They are grateful for their gay parents loving them, but they admit they sorely missed a mother or father and suffer a void in their life yearning for that relationship they were denied.
However, it’s trendy, cool and popular to vote ‘yes’, so who cares about innocent children?
After all, the gay role playing at school might weed out their desire to care about having a mother or father and they can at a young vulnerable age be pushed into thinking it’s trendy and cool to be gay or experiment with it, even if they’re heterosexual.
Another factor is, loss of freedom of speech and discrimination against anyone that votes no or opposes such radical change that has been denied a proper debate and the real agendas behind it.
Do a simple test: Whether you intend voting yes or no, post on Facebook right now that you intend on voting ‘no’ and see how you are treated.
I assure you, not very nicely. You’ll be discriminated against; you’ll be told you’re homophobic and a bigot.
Now what’s crazy is, many gay people don’t support gay marriage and are voting no.
Tens of thousands of them. These gay people are being called homophobic and bigots as well- nice and charming of the ‘Yes’ movement. The discriminated become the discriminators.
So, if we don’t accept something being jammed down our throats, we are ‘homophobic and bigots’ apparently.
You see, most have no issue with gay people or equal rights. In fact, I am yet to meet a single person that doesn’t agree with equal rights.
But this isn’t about equal rights. Gay people can have legal protection and equality in the law without gay marriage. The laws simply need to be adjusted to ‘civil union’ for gay marriages that provide equal rights for gay couples so they are fully supported, recognised and not discriminated against but without upsetting those that believe that a marriage is between a ‘man and a woman’.
Plus, it is hardly unreasonable to state- “I think marriage is between a man and a woman and I think kids would be better off being raised by a loving dad and mum than a loving gay couple”.
I object to my kids at school being forced to role play being gay, pretending to be gay and my son being encouraged to wear dresses.
Miranda Devine from the Daily Telegraph articulately explains:
“Evidence abounds of the chilling effect of redefining marriage on individuals, businesses, religious educational, or medical institutions.
In New Zealand, Christian lobby group Family First NZ has been told it will be deregistered as a charity because it promotes “a point of view about family life that does not… have a public benefit (including) that the union of a man and a woman through marriage is the fundamental social unit”.
In London, a private Jewish school faces closure after failing three inspections by state education authorities for not teaching girls aged three to 11, about LGBT issues such as sexual orientation and gender reassignment.
In Canada, law graduates from a Christian university, Trinity Western, were banned from being licensed as lawyers because the university had a rule forbidding sexual activity unless between a husband and a wife.
This was deemed to be LGBT discrimination.
In Ireland, after gay marriage was passed by referendum in 2015, parliament wasted no time repealing laws providing exemptions allowing “religious, educational or medical institutions… to maintain the religious ethos of the institution” when it came into conflict with gay rights.
In the UK, social work student Felix Ngole was kicked out of his course at Sheffield University last year after writing on Facebook that marriage is between a man and a woman.
In the US, 72-year-old florist Barronelle Stutzman faces financial ruin after being sued by the Washington state attorney for unlawful discrimination because she refused to provide flowers for a same-sex ceremony.
Wherever same-sex marriage has been legalised, defenders of traditional marriage find themselves beyond the pale and at the mercy of the law.
Bill Shorten keeps telling us this debate is only about whether two people who love each other can get married. That’s a transparent con.
Australians don’t trust our politicians enough to give them a blank cheque”.
Our Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull also says other countries have adopted gay marriage laws and the sky hasn’t fallen in yet, so we should do so too. This argument could also be used the other way. The ‘no’ vote winning isn’t going to cause the sky to fall in. People are still free to be gay and be in gay relationships. They can still achieve legal and equal rights under law without marriage laws being changed.
So, should we do what others do because of the same ‘jam it down your throat campaigning’?
And the sky hasn’t fallen in? Is it not a bit premature to not consider the long-term effects of more children growing up without a mother or father?
Dear Prime Minister, do you regret being raised by a loving mum and dad and now wish you weren’t and that you prefer perhaps that you had two dads and no mother or vice versa?
Because a ‘Yes’ vote means you are trying to pressure Australians into supporting exactly that.
Yes, let’s have equal rights and support love, but we don’t need gay marriage laws for that. Let’s be honest with what the real agenda is by those who have hijacked the gay lobby and ‘Yes’ campaign and ask Australians how trendy and cool it is to now vote ‘yes’ if this is what it’s really about.
Surveys according to the Daily Telegraph show that a resounding majority would vote no if they were aware of the above issues being pushed with this change in law.
So, by all means vote yes, but please be ready to explain to your children when they come home from school why they have to role play being in a gay relationship or your son wants to wear a dress to school.
It’s not a simple ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ vote after all.
Most laws changed in Parliament always sneak through unwanted changes with the bill. Even without that it will allow those with agendas most don’t agree with to use it to further their push of homosexuality upon innocent school children. Moreover, because of political correctness you can’t object, as it may offend someone.
It’s a bit like not banning the burka. It means it’s now politically correct to support the suppression of women.
Those who have concerns and won’t be pressured or made feel guilty if they don’t vote ‘Yes’ need to come out of the closet and say we are voting ‘No’.
The apparent polls showing that a large majority are voting ‘Yes’ is a lie. It’s designed by the mainstream media to try and sway people to vote ‘Yes’ because apparently everyone else is.
Just like they told us most are voting for Hillary Clinton, which also turned out to be a lie.
Be careful of social engineering. We can have equal rights and not discriminate against gay people. We simply don’t need the other agendas attached to it.
And it’s clear we now need anti-discrimination laws to protect those that believe the cornerstone of the family unit is a loving mother and father.
It’s a sad day for humanity that we are being pressured to say ‘No’ to innocent children having the right to both a loving dad and a loving mum.
But that’s what political correctness brings. I suggest don’t swallow it so easily. You have a right to have concerns and a right to say no.
Below is a video by grown up children who had loving gay parents and their testimonies and on how they are demonised and discriminated against because they simply state they wanted a loving mother and father and were denied that even though their gay parents were loving.
And the idea all gay parents are loving is also an absurdity, as it’s simply propaganda pushed by a campaign hijacked by those you should not trust your children to.
So, let’s have an open and civil debate until the following concerns are adequately addressed. As, voting ‘Yes’ before anyone has even seen the planned bill, to change the laws is risky.
- The Government should never be given a ‘blank cheque’ to create whatever law without the voters see the detail. We should be wary of trusting Governments with such a ‘blank cheque’.
- Gay people should have equal rights and should not be discriminated against, just as heterosexuals shouldn’t be either. Gay couples could be and should be immediately given legal protection and equality in law by creating a ‘Civil Union’ law for them whilst still protecting ‘marriage’ as defined by being between a man and a woman. This can ensure both camps’ needs are met and end this mis-perception that opposing Gay Marriage is opposing equal rights, which it simply isn’t.
- Religious freedoms must be protected at all costs. Evidence overseas where marriage laws have been changed has shown that this hasn’t been and thus raises valid concerns. Simply foolishly stating or believing that changes in marriage law is nothing, but about marriage equality is naive and not supported by evidence. The ‘Yes’ campaign continues to say it’s about nothing more than supporting equality and love. This is simply a flawed argument, because if that’s what it was about- almost more than 90% of Australians would support it. It’s because it’s about much more than that and that equality and support of love can be achieved without marriage law changes.
- The behaviour of some from the ‘Yes’ campaign has been incredibly discriminative and represents bullying of anyone with the even most basic concerns over such fundamental law changes (see the comments on this article alone). This has turned many ‘yes’ voters into a ‘no’. The ‘Yes’ campaign needs to seek to understand the concerns of ‘No’ voters and address them or risk losing the chance they have to achieve their aims.
- The ‘safe schools program’, which has pushed homosexual education upon innocent children is a concern for many. The increased likelihood of these agendas being pushed further upon innocent children even more is very concerning, and the ‘Yes’ campaign has done nothing but deny it. It’s not good enough to deny this, as it’s already happening. Nor can it be denied that there is an element of those who have effectively hijacked the ‘gay lobby’ and don’t see this about equal rights, but an agenda to push their suspect agendas upon others using the gay marriage law changes to do so. Of course, many are entitled to be concerned by this and will vote ‘no’ until proper safeguards are put in place to cease this agenda and prevent it from becoming more prevalent.
- The treatment of ‘gays’ who don’t support gay marriage has also been appalling and comments that anyone that doesn’t vote ‘yes’ is a homophobe and bigot is not only blatantly false, but also in poor taste.
According to the Daily Telegraph, 7% of Australian Gay people are voting no. This is estimated at over 10,000. Even this article has stated on numerous occasions that equal rights should be supported and gays should not be discriminated against. That’s reasonable and hardly homophobic or being a bigot, but the ‘Yes’ campaign comes across as arrogant based on- if you don’t vote ‘Yes’, you’re effectively a moron.
However, if the ‘Yes’ campaign addresses the legitimate concerns of those raised by the ‘No’ campaign and support law changes that respect both sides of the argument, the progress can be made. To do that requires civil debate, such as this article is designed to generate.
There are good intentioned people on both sides of the argument, and the matter should be civilly debated, as that’s the cornerstone of a democratic society- just as the results of the survey should be supported.
However, the Government should address the concerns and pass laws that meet in the middle and is fair and respectful to the larger majority of Australians who may be on either side of the debate.