Religious Freedom is Already Under Attack


Today, the result of the postal survey on whether to change the Australian Marriage Act to allow gay people to marry their same-sex partners was announced in the affirmative. Elected representatives in Canberra are now drafting legislation to make it the law.

The Prime Minister of Australia yesterday described a same-sex marriage bill proposed by Liberal senator James Paterson, which featured specific protections allowing commercial operators to refuse service for gay weddings on religious grounds, as being a bill which would “increase discrimination”.

During the debate, concerns over religious freedom were dismissed as “slippery slope” arguments by those advocating for the Yes vote. Now the exact same “slippery slope” is fast approaching, and Yes advocates are lining up to support restricting religious freedom.

An article by Michael Bachelard has been featured prominently in both the Sydney Morning Herald and the Age today entitled “Same-sex marriage debate: Religious freedom is, and should be, limited”.

Enough said.

The slippery slope is real.

Except there is a little more. Bachelard’s entire argument rests on citing extreme examples of violence practised in the name of religion as reasons why we need to force people to do something against their conscience:

“The Jesus People consider their sect to be a religion. With beliefs based on hippydom and Christian fundamentalism, they follow an ascetic way of life. They also, allegedly, violently abuse women and practise polygamy, as a way of getting closer to God.

“Another sect, or ‘new religious movement,’ the Children of God, sexually abused young children in the name of Jesus Christ. This was not ancillary to their religion; it was part of their observance.

“Then there is the sub-section of Muslim believers who mutilate girls’ genitalia.”

(It is actually quite more than a significant “sub-section”, but moving forward.)

Illegal behaviour of this kind is subject to criminal sanction by worldly authorities. We’re happy to say these practices are wrong, abhorrent, bizarre, even though they are expressions of sincere religious belief.”

If you don’t want to provide a commercial service for something which goes against your religion, you are like somebody who rapes children and mutilates their genitals.

The irony of this is that Yes campaigners deliberated conflated the “slippery slope” logical fallacy with arguments which merely pointed out the logical consequences of changing the law. Now that these logical consequences are very much upon us, a Yes campaigner is using a logical fallacy, an appeal to extremes, in order to argue in favour of forcing people to do something they do not want to do.

Exactly the logical consequences No campaigners warned against.

Photo by laverrue

  • entropy

    Another sect, homosexuality, has consistently demonstrated far higher rates of child sexual abuse than the general population.

    However, anyone who dares to raise this statistical fact is labelled a heretic and excommunicated from the left’s cult of diversity.

    • Caitlin1488
      • Earl Conner

        It’s not all fun and games like they make out on Modern Family.

        • SamSammy

          I wonder if the Yes vote would have gotten up today if not for that particular TV *programme*? Really makes you think…

          • I wish the trolls would visit more often, it’s heaps of fun.

    • Michael Giffin

      Got a source for that statistic? Because literally every set of Statistics I’ve ever seen measuring homosexual populations and their tendency towards crimes indicates the exact opposite. This is a lie that Christian terrorists have been passing around for 50 years. It wasn’t true then, it isn’t true now, and it probably never will be true.

      • MG: “literally every set of Statistics I’ve ever seen measuring homosexual populations and their tendency towards crimes indicates the exact opposite.”

        Source ? Please present these statistics ?

        • Michael Giffin
          • So, are you stating that Christians are evil ?

            I haven’t seen any Christian suicide bombers lately.

            Where do you stand regarding Muslims ? What about Jews ? What about Nazi Right wingers ? What about heterosexuals ?
            What about Donald Trump ?

            What about…… God ?

          • Michael Giffin

            Good and evil are arbitrary labels that stupid people put on things they like or dislike which they are unable to properly articulate the reasons for liking or disliking.

            By definition, all Christians and Muslims are terrorists. Even if they don’t intend to be, terrorism is defined as the use of intimidation, threats, or violence to spread fear particularly for political purposes. Both Christianity and Islam are entirely dependent upon fear and intimidation to maintain themselves. That makes Christians terrorists. Jews do not fit this category, because they do not attempt to convert others, force their beliefs on others, or intimidate others. The Jews have no concept of hell, that is something Christianity and Islam adopted from Zoroastrianism. So they literally have nothing with which to threaten other religions.

            Technically speaking all Nazis are right Wingers. The Nazi party is, and always has been, and extremely conservative political faction. That said, you cannot claim that all of them are terrorists. Because not all of them use threats and intimidation to push their ideology. I disagree strongly with their ideology because it has numerous flaws and fallacies inherent in it and is historically proven to have a net negative effect on the societies which adopt such policies and ideologies.

            Heterosexuals, to the extent that any heterosexual actually exists ( I’m of the opinion that there is no such thing as 100% straight or 100% gay and everybody exists somewhere on the spectrum between the two hypothetical extremes), are a diverse group and not much can be said of them on the whole. ( insert dirty joke about the word whole here, followed by Dirty counter joke about the word insert.)

            As for the whole God thing? It depends on what you mean by a god. As an agnostic atheist, by and large I do not believe any such thing exists because there has never been evidence presented which confirms its existence. If you were talking specifically about the abrahamic God, it has already been conclusively proven to not exist. I can’t rule out the existence of old gods of all descriptions throughout the entire universe. That would be attempting to prove a negative. There may possibly be something that fits the description of a god somewhere at some point in time somewhere in the universe. Until credible evidence is presented to confirm its existence, I decline to believe. And I consider the people who do believe without credible evidence, or do solely to tradition, and the people who build their lives around these unsupported assumptions to be fundamentally flawed.

          • Vicci Gates

            Sounds like you’re talking about safe schools program.

          • Deplorable!!!

            You have no idea what you are talking about.

          • Pfruit

            Hey mate. Michael made a statement and then backed it up with sources.

            How about you do the same?

          • I’m a nurse corps officer in the US Army. I don’t need words of concern about people dying, my actions speak volumes.

          • the_shard

            You don’t need words because you are in the army? Wait, what?! Your service does not excuse your ignorance, and your assertion that it does just proves that you are a wilful bigot. You don’t get to make baseless claims about a large section of the population as if it is fact then claim immunity from accountability when your statement is completely destroyed with logic and evidence. Dude, this is a very good opportunity for you to learn and grow as a human being, don’t waste it because you can’t admit that you were previously misinformed.

          • Pfruit

            You too? Whats your ASI? We ever run into each other at AMEDD conferences?

          • Arin

            Bit of a lost cause, you can’t use logic and sources to change someone’s mind when logic and reason didn’t get them there in the first place

          • Jordan Sugarman

            “I haven’t seen any Christian suicide bombers lately.”

            Technically, maybe not suicide bombers. But plenty of bombings and shootings have been carried out in the name of Christianity in very recent years. If you want a brief list, Google the names Timothy McVeigh, James Koop, Scott Roeder, Charles Barbee, Robert Berry, Jay Merelle, and Robert Lewis Dear. Those are just a small selection of the most violent attacks on US soil in the last 20 or so years. There are plenty of examples of lesser attacks taking place much more frequently, and when you look worldwide, things are a lot more grim. There are Christian sects in Africa that still burn people alive on the suspicion of witchcraft. A Catholic group in India drove a man out of the country with death threats after he attempted to show them that their miraculous weeping statue was really just due to some leaky plumbing.

            Are all Christians evil? Certainly not. But being a Christian doesn’t automatically make a person good, either. In my world view, how you act toward other people, particularly people that are different from you, is what determines if you are good or bad.

          • SamSammy

            LOL Not only does your “brief list” contain a substantial portion of the most infamous examples of Christian terrorists, it also includes Timothy McVeigh who wasn’t even motivated by Christian beliefs! For every person killed by Christian terrorists in modern times, I can find you at least 10 others who were killed by Muslim terrorists, or by socialists.

          • Jordan Sugarman

            I was responding directly to the claim that there are no Christian terrorists. Your points are completely irrelevant to my response, but thanks for sharing.

          • SamSammy

            You were responding to the correct claim that there are no Christian suicide bombers. You obviously couldn’t refute this claim, so you decided to draw a half-baked false equivalency between the relative handful of Christian terrorists (the worst of whom doesn’t even qualify as a Christian terrorist!) whose actions have no scriptural support and the far larger number of Muslim terrorists whose terrorist behaviour is explicitly justified and indeed encouraged by their scriptures.

      • entropy

        You sound defensive. Do you have to suppress urges to molest underage boys?

        I’m not religious, so find another straw man. And if you truly subscribe to the logical fallacy that ‘if something wasn’t true before, it will probably never be true’, there’s little hope for you. The gay marriage lobby called: it says you should stop embarrassing yourself.

        But I do love statistics. Feel free to link some not funded by gay groups or that doesn’t fraudulently mischaracterise gay offenders as another class. After all, ‘literally every set’ you have seen shows ‘the opposite’, so this is a simple request. It will be a relief to know that gays are actually better people than everybody else.

        Clearly, the disproportionate number of boys being molested by men must be victims of heterosexuals.

        • SamSammy

          I love how he thinks the SPLC is a reliable unbiased source. Leftists can be so cute!

          • Michael Giffin

            it is a well-known fact that reality does have a liberal bias, but in this case the article from the splc was included because it’s sites its sources. You can follow those links back to the original studies and see the information for yourself. That is something intellectually honest people and organizations do. Not that I expect a Christian to understand anything about honesty.

          • SamSammy

            Reality has a “liberal bias” does it? Care to provide sources for that claim (preferably ones that are at least marginally more credible than the SPLC this time)? I couldn’t be arsed to look up the original studies because 1) it is a given that the SPLC will either distort the findings of unbiased studies or refer to studies which are themselves biased, and 2) even if I were to thoroughly debunk the SPLC article and the studies, you would simply ignore whatever I said and carry on believing what you’ve been brainwashed to believe anyway (I speak from extensive experience in trying to sway leftists with facts and reason).

            My lack of confidence in your ability and willingness to face reality honestly is further reinforced by the fact that you have assumed that I am a Christian simply because I happen to agree with traditional Christian views on some issues.

          • Michael Giffin

            Sure. All of the available evidence indicates that global climate change is a reality. Conservatives ignore this evidence and declare that global climate change is a myth. I don’t know if you are old enough to remember, but back in the 80s and 90s conservatives loudly declared that computers were a dead-end industry and that the internet would never be useful for any commercial or personal purpose. I could spend hours lecturing on conservative Financial policies that are absolutely disasterous every time they are applied. To say nothing of conservative foreign policies. Does the Cold War ring a bell?

          • SamSammy

            Conservatives do not say that climate change is a myth, that is a Straw Man. What conservatives say is that human activity has insignificant or zero effect on the global climate. The evidence hardly supports the AGW hypothesis, and even if it did that wouldn’t constitute proof that reality has a liberal bias. The mere fact that you would say “reality has a liberal bias” rather than saying that liberals having a pro-reality bias speaks volumes about just how distorted your perception really is. However I have no doubt that you would be able to spout poorly-reasoned and poorly-researched leftist BS about financial policy for hours on end.

            Yes the Cold War does ring a bell: that’s the half-century standoff we won against a nuclear-armed Communist superpower without using or being hit with a single atomic weapon, right?

          • Deplorable!!!

            Kennedy and the USSR were not conservative. I have never heard of conservatives bagging out computers in the 80s and 90s. Your ‘arguments’ and ‘refutations’ are all classed as fiction.

          • Michael Giffin

            Economically, socially, militarily, and culturally the USSR were extremely conservative. Do you even know what the word conservative means in this context?

          • SamSammy

            Whatever the fuck you want it to mean at any given point in time, apparently. But alas, such is the Leftist mentality…

          • Deplorable!!!

            You really believe your own drivel. Whatever.

          • Arin

            You’re doing the Lord’s work here Michael, showing sources and being very reasonable with your arguments is a rarity in internet squabbles.

          • entropy

            I was expecting him to cite NAMBLA.

          • SamSammy


        • Michael Giffin

          do you think that only males can be child molesters? Seriously, the longer this conversation goes on the more I’m convinced you are a Poe.

          • entropy

            Do you always ask stupid questions misrepresenting another person’s position when they are destroying your argument?

            You embarrassing intellectual midget. What happened to ‘literally every’?

      • MG….honest question…do you bat for the other side ?
        You can tell us, it’s ok.

        • Michael Giffin

          Bisexual. I enjoy hotdogs and tacos equally.

          • Deplorable!!!

            You should be ashamed. Any argument you make is invalid because you are a deviant.

          • Michael Giffin

            Except that I am normal. I am the average. The vast majority of humans, if examined on the Kinsey scale, fall between 1 and 5. I am a three. 0 + 6 are the incredibly rare extremes. You largely identify as a zero, which makes you the weird one. Not that I believe you are actually a 0 on the Kinsey scale, since I believe that 0 and 6 are hypothetical and do not actually happen in the real world. but if you identify as a zero, that makes you the deviant. You are the weird one. You are the strange hate-filled pervert.

          • Deplorable!!!

            A fag named Michael went ballistic
            Trying to prove his worth with statistic
            He waxed and he waned
            ‘Bout the rainbow’s shit stain
            And proved himself most autistic.

          • Michael Giffin

            Not bad, but I’d replace “waxed and waned” with “loudly proclaimed”. The first is a little tricky to use correctly.

          • SamSammy

            I bet you like your pizza too…

      • Paul Ridgley

        The priests involved in molesting young boys are infact homosexuals or has that fact escaped you,

        • Michael Giffin

          Not according to most of the priests and heir supporters.

    • jaxative

      And yet, far and away, the vast majority of those who sexually abuse children, including the clergy who just can’t seem to stay off of the little boys, don’t identify as gay.

      Paedohpillia is not the same thing as homosexuality.

      • SamSammy

        Yeah, because there’s never been an instance of a homosexual who refused to admit their sexual orientation /s

      • Deplorable!!!

        Two sides of the same coin. Unless you are going to claim that a man molesting a boy is somehow not faggotry?

      • Show me a homo and I will show you a pedo.

      • entropy

        That must be why they’re different words. Thanks for the English lesson, Captain Obvious. How about responding to what I actually said.

        The vast majority of people aren’t gay. See how that works?

  • Willy Wonka

    Why don’t all these sodomites and their friends start a new colony on Mars where they can be free to fuck what ever they want! Heterosexuality and marriage was here before they invaded society. I’m beginning to feel that way now where I see the gay community as something far more insidious than ISIS. Maybe ISIS and Christians have more in common that we realise.

    • Caitlin1488

      I was just mischievously musing….maybe Islam is an ally of the Alt Right……
      The enemy of my enemy is my friend,etc…..

      Gays are the spearhead of a bigger poisonous push.

    • SamSammy

      Not quite. The Muzzies will use gay marriage as a political and legal stepping stone towards the legalisation of cousin, polygamous and child marriage.

      • It’s a giant Trojan Horse containing thousands of gays and trannies: scarier than the Mardi Gras parade.

    • belt fed 7.62mm

      I’ve been thinking the same. in general muslims would agree with our stance on homos and other conservative views. The only reason they appear to ally with the left is they get $$$ and the special victim privilege and in exchange the left gets a victim to further their narrative. ISIS want to kill everyone in the west because the media has (wrongly) represented the entire west as a bunch of overfed celebrity chasing, smashed avocado loving faggots who drink excessively and have no morals or regard for a God. The yes vote winning has confirmed this to a lot of them. The rest of them and the left will be pushing hard for polygamy, incest and dropping the legal age of consent. Expect to see London style terrorism too. We’re fucked.

      • The biggest NO vote numbers in Australia came from core Muslim areas in Western Sydney.
        I agree with your conclusion that Australia is fucked.
        Anally raped, in fact, by the Gay Lobby.

        • SamSammy

          And that’s the sad brilliance of it isn’t it: the Muzzies didn’t even have to vote Yes to advance their agenda, they could just sit back and let the stupid degenerate self-loathing Kuffir do all the work for them!

          • Exactly. The West is the architect of its own destruction.
            Muzzies just need to sit back and watch…..

    • Not sure about the sodomites going to Mars, but they are sure to head to Uranus.

    • Michael Giffin

      Well, since all Christians are terrorists, I’m sure you do have a lot in common. Not that is surprising. Christianity has always tried to destroy absolutely everything it touches. and now that Civilization is finally pushing back the damage Christianity has caused to the world and fixing its mistakes, people like you are upset. Well too bad. Civilization has persisted despite the best attempts of religion to destroy it. And if you want to enjoy the benefits of Freedom, technology, infrastructure, and Law and Order that come with being part of civilization then you are going to have to learn to live with it. If you don’t like the way civilizations going? Get the f*** out. All of you Mass murdering pedophile terrorists can Retreat to your dirt hovels in berserkastan and live like primitive Bronze Age goatf**kers if you want. The Civilized world only needs people like you to serve as examples of what not to be.

      • John Sheppard

        Nice try troll. Also, stop liking your own posts, it’s sad.

        • Michael Giffin

          That’s not me. A while back somebody coded a follow-bot that will automatically up vote any poster assigned to it. They liked what I had to say at one point, and just left the bot running. I have no control over it.

          • entropy

            Vote bots are against disqus terms of service.

            If you are benefiting from one, I advise you to report it before someone reports you.

      • Caitlin1488


      • Deplorable!!!

        Christian principles built our civilisation you sack of shit. It’s fuckheads like you who are destroying it with your gay trans pedo loving faggotry Marxist filth.

        • Michael Giffin

          Name one christian principle that is at all relevant to civilization. Freedom? The bible calls us all slaves. Equality? The bible espouses heirarchy. Democracy? Christianity is founded on tyranny. Morality? Christians have no morality. Christianity offers nothing to society or civilization and never has. The most it has ever done is take crexit for the acheivements of others and try to pervert them.

          All civilization exists despite religions constantly trying to tear away its foundations.

          And if you’re looking for pedophiles, look in the mirror. Christianity manufactures them.

          • SamSammy

            I can name a bunch of them: do unto others, turn the other cheek, render unto Caesar, let he without sin cast the first stone, love your enemies, what you do to the least of people you do to Jesus, the list goes on. It is no coincidence that the same Civilization which embraced these ideas also gave rise to cultural advancements like abolitionism, secularism, freedom of conscience, the Magna Carta, human rights, and even social justice. These sorts of developments don’t occur in a vacuum, nor do they occur in Islamic, Hindu, meso-American or even Communist societies. It is also no coincidence that the same Christian Civilization obtained both the power and the moral refinement to get other societies to abolish barbaric practices such as cannibalism, ritual self-immolation and human sacrifice.

          • Michael Giffin

            secularism, the Magna Carta, freedom of conscience, and abolition all arose in direct opposition to Christian values. Not because of. Do unto others predates Christianity by several centuries and has been a Cornerstone of moral philosophies since before the Jews were monotheistic. The rest of what you stated is not and never has been part of civilized society.

          • SamSammy

            Horseshit, I just cited examples of Christian teachings which were conducive to their development! Keep in mind that these developments occurred in a West which was far more heavily Christian than it is today – if they were truly antithetical to Christianity they would have never been able to catch on, just like they never caught on in the Muslim world despite the fact that it too also inherited much of the culture and wisdom of Classical Antiquity.

  • Concern4Future

    I think they’ve forgotten who is actually more likely to rape children.

    • Wide Awake

      They know, they just don’t want joe public to know!

    • Steve


      • Hollywood movie stars ?

      • Concern4Future

        Homosexual priests in particular.

    • Caitlin1488

      Scoutmasters ?

      • Concern4Future

        Wherever you find children you will find homosexual predators

  • Kevin Burke

    I’m of the view that, yep, you can get Married to who ever you want to …but I’m not of the view a baker, church or reception venue or anyone else that is not in agreement with that choice has to appease the same sex duo …just find one that will & move-on.

    • John Sheppard

      You and I both know that some will actively find a business that is against SSM, and demand they provide services for their “wedding”, just so they can make a big scene.

    • Arin

      Does your country not have a freedom of religion act or some sort of freedom of speech? If not you really need one, I’ve never heard of people getting sued in my country (Canada) for refusing to marry or bake for gay couples and I’m pretty sure the churches have every right to not marry gay couples here.

  • belt fed 7.62mm

    Mosques will be the only religious institutions granted freedom of religion. Churches will be thrown in court.

    • SamSammy

      The way things are going, the Mosque is going to BE the fucking court!

  • Max Beecher

    This push for SSM was really about the destruction of the family. The niallists and their useful idiots will be heartened by this win and look for the next concession. They will attribute the violence and thuggish intimidation of opponents we have seen as a contributing factor to their success. I expect them to become more and more violent eventually labeling anyone who votes to the right of the ALP as a Nazi who deserves to be punched. It is already like this in the USA now.

    This will be very good for us on the XYZ side of politics.

    • Karen Dwyer

      Nihilists (rather than niallists)?

  • Mattys Modern Life

    Video to be uploaded by tomorrow arvo, will email you as soon as it’s done.

    Will go in detail over Paterson’s proposed bill and point out what these attacks on religious freedom and free speech mean.

  • John Sheppard

    These discrimination laws will only apply one way. You can fire someone for believing in traditional marriage, however if it happened the other way around you would be history. There were also reports I read a while ago about business refusing to serve anyone who voted no, or at least put a sign up stating that they were not welcome. Unable to locate the link…

  • Arin

    Man it’s hilarious watching you Australians freak out about this, just like America did a few years ago. It’s like you think the family unit will just be destroyed or something and that people can just become gay all of a sudden or that lgbtq people are incapable of raising a child. I suggest you look at the rest of the world where people have been given proper rights to see that everything will be fine and hopefully that will ease your blind panic.

    • entropy

      It speaks volumes that your best argument for gay marriage is that it won’t destroy civilisation as we know it. That’s apparently how low you have to set the bar to convince everyone it’s a good idea.

      When you’re not making fake appeals to rights that don’t exist or flogging the biological sexuality myth, of course.

      • Arin

        Well I legitimately don’t see any downsides to gay marriage and that’s the level of panic I’m seeing from you Australians, and if you can actually point out a downside to it I would be interested. Since I live in a country that has had it legalized for some time now (Canada) I just find it funny. I’m curious how you claim it’s “rights that don’t exist” as in my opinion all of humanity should have equal rights regardless of religion or sexual orientation (between consenting adults of course). I am equally confused at you calling it the biological sexuality myth, I’m pretty sure it’s been proven that it’s the way people are born and even if it is a choice what does it matter who does who?

        • SamSammy

          Gays already had equal rights because Civil Unions and marriages are legally equivalent. At best this vote was an expensive argument over semantics, at worst it was an attempt to appropriate a core part of Christian culture as part of a larger endeavour to undermine the foundations of Western Civilization. Either way, it was an obnoxious power grab.

          • Arin

            I’ll grant you it was a very expensive way to go about it but my understanding of the reason for legal gay marriage in other countries is that the courts determined excluding same-sex couples from marriage violated the Charter of Rights and Freedom’s (Or the countries equivalent) right to equality and that the common-law (your civil unions) definition was discriminatory.
            I wouldn’t say Christianity has a hold on the term marriage, but that’s really just opinion on both of our sides so it’s a bit of a moot point. I laugh a bit of how you think it’s “part of a larger endeavor to undermine the foundations of Western Civilization”. How exactly is civilization going to be undermined? This is progress not regression.

          • SamSammy

            I don’t care that some courts determined that it violated human rights or was discriminatory, I only care about WHY they decided that. And between the sub-rational demagoguery about “hate” and “love” as well as the Stalinesque zeal with which they vilified and intimidated the No campaign, the Yes campaign did a piss poor job of articulating that “why”. Again, what substantive disadvantage do civil unions actually have compared to marriages?

            Marriage is fundamentally a religious institution, and modern Western society has inherited that institution from Christianity. The whole idea of marriage is to unite two people in the sight of God. Now if Gays don’t believe in God, or if they believe in a God who abhors homosexuality, then why would they want to have the “right” to be joined in the sight of such a God when they can already have legally equivalent civil unions? The only apparent reasons are to piss off God, piss off religious folk, or both.

            Marriage is one of the most culturally significant institutions of Western society; if you alter its definition beyond recognition then you effectively abolish it. A society which stands for everything stands for nothing, and will soon enough be usurped by a society which does stand for something. If you don’t believe me, then just wait for another pushy minority with a chip on its shoulder to use gay marriage as precedent to make polygamy, child’s marriage and cousin marriage legal. Because “love is love” dontcha know.

            Gay marriage is not progress except in the broadest sense of being a radical change in the way things are done. It does not improve the lot of gays, and it paves the way for the total de-moralisation and cultural collapse of Western society.

          • Robbie Jones

            Arin is a Canadian species of troll. A leftist, a collectivist, a social engineer, all polite terms for someone deliberately trying to alter the very nature of reality, be it by abolishing sex or class, culture or marriage, all in the pursuit of a supposedly equal utopian society.

            Everything they engineer falls apart pretty quickly because their war is against reality. This fight is their god, their religion. They will die worshipping it and they will keep ‘laughing’ (as Arin repeatedly makes a point of in every post) at any offer of reason rooted in either the Biblical worldview or natural law because they are in a war against both.

            That sums up Michael, Arin, and the other few, who increasingly appear to be the same person. It certainly explains all the up votes.

        • entropy

          I also believe people should have equal rights, so you can stop trying to mount that moral high horse. Gays have an equal right to marry someone of the opposite sex, the same as everyone else. Q.E.D. Goodbye rights argument. Even notwithstanding that gays have equal civil rights in civil unions.

          It’s 100% obvious that sexuality is not biological due to the low concordance of homosexuality in monozygotic twins. If you were ‘born this way’, then identical twins would both be gay, but that isn’t even true half of the time. It just goes to show the level of self-delusion in the gay community that you all uncritically parrot that particular propaganda. You even claim your ‘alternative facts’ are ‘proven’.

          ‘Not seeing a downside’ to something is the second-worst possible argument for doing something, after ‘seeing a downside’.

      • Peter Harris

        So is Milo just being fashionably gay? ( which has been the fashion since the dawn of time).

        Or perhaps, he’s just propitiating the biological “myth.”

        It’s funny how some myths seem to hang around for millennia.

        By the way, did you get your tickets to see Milo??

        • entropy

          “Gays have been told for 30 years that they were ‘born this way’. That’s a lie. ‘Born this way’ was invented by the gay lobby as a run-around of
          the religious right. The religious right was saying that homosexuality was a sinful lifestyle choice, and then the gay lobby invented the ‘gay gene’. They said “we’re born this way”… it really has no basis in science at all. The most we can say is that it is a mixture of nature and nurture and it may have some epigenetic component. Nobody really knows.” – Milo Yiannopoulos

          Guess where you could have found that.

          • Peter Harris

            Just because one gay man says that, doesn’t mean it’s true. Afterall, Milo is just a big shitstirrer.
            That’s his profession.

            You mentioned one of my favourite topics, which I have some understanding of, which is Epigenetics via Milo’s quote, but do you know much about the topic?

          • entropy

            What I know is that you tried to refute me with a source who agrees with me. So you’re the type of person who just speaks out their arsehole and engages pretentiously on topics they know nothing about.

            I don’t dance for low IQ trolls, so if you think you have a point to make, make it or stop wasting my time.

          • Peter Harris

            Talk about hypocrisy, what have you come up with in a way of
            scientific knowledge?

            One source on a complex issue, is not an argument.
            And so typical of you dribblers and bedwetters, when you can’t win a simple argument, you resort to Ad hominem and non-sequiturs.

            “I don’t dance for low IQ trolls”

            Oh really?
            Then why do you interact with all the other half-wits around here??

            Read my reply to your fellow half-wit, belt fed 7.62mm, because relates to you too.


          • entropy

            One source? Try every source of data available.

            “It’s 100% obvious that sexuality is not biological due to the low
            concordance of homosexuality in monozygotic twins. If you were ‘born
            this way’, then identical twins would both be gay, but that isn’t even
            true half of the time.”

            You’re the idiot who thinks one person’s opinion is a source. I just pointed out that your ‘source’ agrees with me.

            It’s not a ‘complex issue’ when the data is so clear. Willing to accept the science yet, denier?

            The world has had enough of the alt-left’s fake news and alternative facts.

          • Peter Harris

            “It’s not a ‘complex issue’ when the data is so clear.”

            Again, what’s your argument?
            What is your proof?
            You never heard of Epigenetics?

            “The world has had enough of the alt-left’s fake news and alternative facts.”

            Ha ha…
            There is no fake news and alternative facts on the far right?

          • entropy

            Look at it pretending to be illiterate to avoid admitting it’s wrong.

            Pretending it doesn’t even remember the argument, now.

            Typical alt-left coward. No wonder they never learn anything.

          • Peter Harris

            Oh, I remember the argument very well.
            Any more felicious nonsense from you?
            And what other non sequiturs have you got to avoid your low IQ?

          • entropy

            LMAO. Illiterate simpleton talks about low IQ, spells fallacious ‘felicious’.

            Which isn’t even a word, before it tries to use autocorrect as an excuse.

            It’s obviously as immune to embarrassment as it is to self awareness.

          • Peter Harris

            I thought you grunts had Urban Dictionary book-marked.


            “It’s obviously as immune to embarrassment as it is to self awareness.”

            And should I be LMAO at your piss-poor grammar?

            And by the way, what does a quasar, as in your avatar, have to do with entropy? What’s the relationship there?

          • entropy

            You’re actually denying that you meant to say ‘fallacious’ and instead linking a made-up word on urban dictionary that doesn’t even make contextual sense?


            All in a cunning plan to get out of admitting that you were wrong about something, despite your penchant for stupidity being clearly evident from this thread.

            You’re like the George Costanza of the internet.

          • Peter Harris

            Rather weak avoidance at the scientific question I put to you, don’t you think, regarding your inability to understand entropy?

            You are getting desperate at your attempts to win over a pissy little argument.

            You, along with your other bedwetting dribblers on the far right, are the Dunning-Krugers of the Internet.


          • entropy

            I’m under no intellectual obligation to answer the random questions that you throw up in every reply as increasingly desperate attempts to distract from the fact that you think sexuality is genetic and just hilariously cited a source that disagrees with you.

            Why is your profile picture of Uluru?

            You think Uluru is called Peter Harris?

          • Peter Harris

            “I’m under no intellectual obligation to answer the random questions…”

            No, but you ask random questions yourself, about genetics which you clearly have no understanding of… even less an understanding of epigenetics.
            And of course, you’re completely clueless when it comes to the second law of thermodynamics.

            Again, I mention a description of yourself, and your fellow bedwetters, and you just proved me correct.

            Perhaps you should rename this website…