A leading advertising agency behind the push for same-sex marriage has been accused of trying to shut down debate ahead of a postal plebiscite, after it called on its industry peers to refuse to work for companies campaigning against the cause. The brainchild of Royals creative partner Nick Cummins, the Say No To No campaign launched on Thursday and has already been backed by more than 500 employees from advertising agencies across the country as well as media companies, including Southern Cross Austereo and Buzzfeed. While Mr Cummins defended the boycott, describing it as no different to refusing to work for a tobacco company, it has been criticised as an attack on free speech and democracy. Former prime minister Tony Abbott said the initiative demonstrated that intolerance was at the heart of the same-sex marriage campaign. “Disagreement isn’t just wrong — it’s not allowed,” Mr Abbott told The Australian. “I would say to advertisers, don’t allow yourself to be coerced by political groupthink.” Legal academic Augusto Zimmermann said the boycott, while not illegal, was “a serious display of undemocratic behaviour”. “Although the federal government has committed itself to holding a plebiscite so that the people will be allowed to decide the matter, I wonder how this can be achieved when advocates of the traditional view are prevented from expressing their opinions by intolerant activists,” he said. Marriage Alliance spokeswoman Sophie York said the group’s campaign to keep existing marriage laws intact had previously been subjected to censorship bids, including media bans on past advertisements. “We have been saying for years that this vote would be a vote on freedom of speech and the ad industry just proved it,” she said. “The message our opponents are sending is simple and clear: if you disagree, you shouldn’t be heard.”

But, one might argue that businesses can do what they like. OK, but what about government bodies? Should they be allowed to take sides here and squash opposing points of view which they are not happy with? Well, one Melbourne council has decided it tell those concerned about homosexual marriage to just drop dead. Consider this shocking case of bigotry and bias:

A Council in Melbourne’s north will give free office space to same-sex marriage campaigners — while blacklisting opponents of marriage equality. Greens-dominated Darebin Council will also issue a warning to local churches not to campaign against same-sex marriage. It will allow ‘yes’ campaigners to use council facilities and services for free in the lead up to the postal plebiscite on same-sex marriage. But ‘no’ campaigners will be barred from using council facilities, according to an urgent motion to be voted on next week. The council will also write to local churches and religious groups to warn them of the “potentially harmful impacts of campaigning against marriage equality”. Councillor Susan Rennie said the council had a clear mandate to support and protect the LGBTI community. “The postal poll is a terrible idea, there’s no justification for it and it will make some people in our community feel unsafe and expose them to homophobia and discrimination,” she said.

Oh good grief. Toughen up little buttercups. Simply debating the merits of one of the most radical social experiments ever is just too much for these delicate little flowers? Having a different point of view on marriage is now defined as ‘homophobia’? Really? And shouldn’t these guys be representing all of their citizens and all of their tax-payers? This is an appalling abuse of power. These guys were elected to govern for the whole community, not just some tiny and very noisy minority group. But as I said, this is how the other side operates. They do not want debate. They want to squash all debate and shut down all opposing points of view. Um, is that not the way dictatorships operate? Isn’t that the way totalitarian societies run? Just stomp on every opponent. Just delete every contrary point of view. Just pretend there is only one side to the story. And while you are at it, rewrite the history books. This is where all this rainbow fascism is taking us. I am reminded of the words of George Orwell in his ominous novel, 1984. He said this about the total state:

Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book has been rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And that process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except the endless present in which the party is always right.

Yep, we are quickly moving in this direction. And I have encountered all this plenty of times myself. Simply try to reason with these folks and present your case, and you will get shouted down, abused, and treated like dirt. So much for open debate in a free society. As just one example of this, the other day I posted a short video clip of two homosexuals who made the ‘No’ case for homosexual marriage – this time relating to the 2015 vote in Ireland. These guys made a very calm, polite, rational and informed case for saying no. Yet for daring to post this all hell broke loose. I had one guy actually say this about the video: “This video is stupid, bigoted, hateful and hurtful.” Um, yeah right. Forget about the evidence. Forget about the data. Forget about the arguments. Just attack those saying it – even if they happen to be out and proud homosexuals! You gotta laugh: two homosexuals carefully and thoughtfully explain why they are opposed to homosexual marriage, and they are blasted as haters and bigots by the tolerance brigade! Oh my. And there were plenty of similar comments by the other side. One insisted that homosexual marriage had nothing whatsoever to do with children. Um earth calling activists: of course it does. As I replied to this person:

Marriage has always been about the regulation of human sexuality and the well-being of any children so conceived. That has been the case for as long as the social institution of marriage has existed. It has never been about just how people may feel about each other. Two sisters can care greatly for each other but they do not marry. And so what if non-married people have kids? What does that have to do with the discussion? The truth is, marriage is a pro-child institution. As I state in the above article – the one you seemed not to have bothered to read – children do best when raised by their own biological mother and father. That is something they are denied in a homosexual marriage. And let me call your bluff here: the great majority of those campaigning for homosexual marriage are also campaigning for the right to have children as well (via ART, surrogacy, etc). That is why we seek to defend marriage and not allow it to be redefined and thus destroyed by the activists.

Needless to say, that comment did not get treated any better by this person and the other angry ‘Yes’ case advocates. They simply resorted to even more name-calling and more ugly abuse. One of them even thought they sealed the deal by digging up a really nasty hate site which is devoted entirely to attacking me and telling lies about me. I realised by this point that there was zero sense in continuing to try to reason with these folks. They are beyond reason. They simply emote and they simply hate. That is the extent of how they make their case.