Same-Sex Marriage: Who Says Nothing Will Change?

It is very common for homosexual activists to argue that granting special rights to homosexuals and legalising homosexual marriage will not impact on anyone in any way. They claim that faith-based communities have nothing to fear, and no one will be forced to embrace their lifestyle, and things will simply go on as normal.

Of course they are lying through their teeth, and they know it. They are being deliberately deceptive here. They know full well that everything will radically change. So they have to rely on subterfuge and deceit to seek to make their case. Both faith and family suffer tremendously when these radical social upheavals are inflicted upon the rest of the community.

Indeed, it is impossible to grant special rights to homosexuals without taking away rights from the rest of the community. And we have enough examples of this now to forever silence these activists and their misleading claims. Wherever homosexualists have been granted special status and extra rights, huge repercussions for the rest of the community have been experienced.

SSM 22Consider just one place where this is so clearly seen. In May 2004 Massachusetts became the first American state to legalise same-sex marriage. The harmful implications have been enormous. One concerned father, Brian Camenker, was so appalled by all this that he wrote up the very real results.

While his entire article deserves careful reading, I here offer large slabs of it. This is vitally important information which everyone needs to be aware of. Here is what this concerned Massachusetts father has to say about how the public schools have been impacted by all this:

Anyone who thinks that same-sex “marriage” is a benign eccentricity which won’t affect the average person should consider what it has done in Massachusetts. It’s become a hammer to force the acceptance and normalization of homosexuality on everyone. And this train is moving fast. What has happened so far is only the beginning.

On November 18, 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court announced its Goodridge opinion, ruling that it was unconstitutional not to allow same-sex “marriage.” Six months later, homosexual marriages began to be performed.

The homosexual “marriage” onslaught in public schools across the state started soon after the November 2003, court decision. At my own children’s high school there was a school-wide assembly to celebrate same-sex “marriage” in early December, 2003. It featured an array of speakers, including teachers at the school who announced that they would be “marrying” their same-sex partners and starting families either through adoption or artificial insemination. Literature on same-sex marriage – how it is now a normal part of society – was handed out to the students.

Within months it was brought into the middle schools. In September, 2004, an 8th-grade teacher in Brookline, MA, told National Public Radio that the marriage ruling had opened up the floodgates for teaching homosexuality. “In my mind, I know that, `OK, this is legal now.’ If somebody wants to challenge me, I’ll say, `Give me a break. It’s legal now,’” she told NPR. She added that she now discusses gay sex with her students as explicitly as she desires.  For example, she said she tells the kids that lesbians can have vaginal intercourse using sex toys.

By the following year it was in elementary school curricula. Kindergartners were given picture books telling them that same-sex couples are just another kind of family, like their own parents. In 2005, when David Parker of Lexington, MA – a parent of a kindergartner – strongly insisted on being notified when teachers were discussing homosexuality or transgenderism with his son, the school had him arrested and put in jail overnight.

Second graders at the same school were read a book, “King and King”, about two men who have a romance and marry each other, with a picture of them kissing. When parents Rob and Robin Wirthlin complained, they were told that the school had no obligation to notify them or allow them to opt-out their child.

In 2006 the Parkers and Wirthlins filed a federal Civil Rights lawsuit to force the schools to notify parents and allow them to opt-out their elementary-school children when homosexual-related subjects were taught.  The federal judges dismissed the case. The judges ruled that because same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts, the school actually had a duty to normalize homosexual relationships to children, and that schools have no obligation to notify parents or let them opt-out their children! Acceptance of homosexuality had become a matter of good citizenship!

Think about that: Because same-sex marriage is “legal”, a federal judge has ruled that the schools now have a duty to portray homosexual relationships as normal to children, despite what parents think or believe!

In 2006, in the elementary school where my daughter went to Kindergarten, the parents of a third-grader were forced to take their child out of school because a man undergoing a sex-change operation and cross-dressing was being brought into class to teach the children that there are now “different kinds of families.”  School officials told the mother that her complaints to the principal were considered “inappropriate behavior.”

Libraries have also radically changed.  School libraries across the state, from elementary school to high school, now have shelves of books to normalize homosexual behavior and the lifestyle in the minds of kids, some of them quite explicit and even pornographic. Parents complaints are ignored or met with hostility.

Over the past year, homosexual groups have been using taxpayer money to distribute a large, slick hardcover book celebrating homosexual marriage titled “Courting Equality” into every school library in the state.

It’s become commonplace in Massachusetts schools for teachers to prominently display photos of their same-sex “spouses” and occasionally bring them to school functions. Both high schools in my own town now have principals who are “married” to their same-sex partners, whom they bring to school and introduce to the students.

“Gay days” in schools are considered necessary to fight “intolerance” which may exist against same-sex relationships.  Hundreds of high schools and even middle schools across the state now hold “gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender appreciation days”. They “celebrate” homosexual marriage and move forward to other behaviors such as cross-dressing and transsexuality. In my own town, a school committee member recently announced that combating “homophobia” is now a top priority.

Once homosexuality has been normalized, all boundaries will come down. The schools are already moving on to normalizing transgenderism (including cross-dressing and sex changes). The state-funded Commission on Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Youth includes leaders who are transsexuals.

He also examines how business has been adversely affected by all this:

All insurance in Massachusetts must now recognize same-sex “married” couples in their coverage. This includes auto insurance, health insurance, life insurance, etc. Businesses must recognize same-sex “married” couples in all their benefits, activities, etc., regarding both employees and customers.

The wedding industry is required serve the homosexual community if requested. Wedding photographers, halls, caterers, etc., must do same-sex marriages or be arrested for discrimination.

Businesses are often “tested” for tolerance by homosexual activists. Groups of homosexual activists often go into restaurants or bars and publicly kiss and fondle each other to test whether the establishment demonstrates sufficient “equality” — now that homosexual marriage is “legal”.  In fact, more and more overt displays of homosexual affection are seen in public places across the state to reinforce “marriage equality”.

After examining a number of other key areas which have been impacted by this, he concludes with these words:

Homosexual “marriage” hangs over society like a hammer with the force of law. And it’s only just begun. It’s pretty clear that the homosexual movement’s obsession with marriage is not because large numbers of them actually want to marry each other. Research shows that homosexual relationships are fundamentally dysfunctional on many levels, and “marriage” as we know it isn’t something they can achieve, or even desire. (In fact, over the last three months, the Sunday Boston Globe’s marriage section hasn’t had any photos of homosexual marriages. In the beginning it was full of them.) This is about putting the legal stamp of approval on homosexuality and imposing it with force throughout the various social and political institutions of a society that would never accept it otherwise. To the rest of America: You’ve been forewarned.

And to the rest of the world: you’ve been forewarned.

[1385 words]

30 Replies to “Same-Sex Marriage: Who Says Nothing Will Change?”

  1. Another cancerous scourge that is blighting the USA – a liberal, progressive paradise the east coast is. Not. The west & the east coasts just want to be like the rest of the ‘developed’ world! I hope & pray that the ‘flyover’ states get their acts together quickly! Perhaps and I say it with no malice, the USA will lose it’s prominence & power quicker than Britain losts it’s empire – I hope not.
    Neil Innes, NT

  2. Thanks Neil

    Yes America and the West are in bad shape morally and spiritually speaking. Whether a righteous remnant can help turn things around remains to be seen. But we must keep praying and working.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  3. A teacher has told her students that coupling with a sex toy is sexual intercourse? Intercourse is the anatomically appropriate coupling of male and female sex organs. Every chimpanzee knows that, so why can’t she? Happily married wives and husbands know that intercourse is deeply bonding. Plastic is not known to have that function. It is an inanimate object, whatever its shape, commonly found discarded and blighting Nature.
    John Snowden

  4. If the homosexual activists are going to be so aggressive and offensive in public in their campaigns (by kissing in public to “normalize” their lifestyle), perhaps we need to be just as aggressive and openly preach repentance to them, every time they kiss in an inappropriate setting.
    Christians often feel reluctant to preach in public because they don’t want to offend, but if they’re taking the initiative in offense, there’s a little more justification on our parts, isn’t there?
    Or is that going a little far….

    David Hutchinson, South Korea

  5. David, the first homosexuals I saw kissing in public was in the back of a bus decades ago. The pair were lads about sixteen years of age. They cuddled then looked around defiantly at other passengers, as if saying “what are you going to do about it”? I was not persuaded by this spectacle that the homosexual revolution was a good thing. One would be sooner persuaded by a man claiming to be Napoleon that the French Revolution was virtuous.
    John Snowden

  6. Last year, my wife and I were in Vancouver and were picked up from our hotel to do a trip to Vancouver Island. At the next stop, an overtly homosexual ‘couple’ got on board and sat behind us.

    The bus driver, started talking about certain issues of the day and I made the comment the one of the biggest problems today are “rights” – at which point there was quite a bit of coughing and spluttering behind us.

    However, I then added: “The problem with ‘rights’ is that when one person starts talking about their rights, you can guarantee yours are being impinged.”

    At that point, there was silence behind us and some nodding from a few of the others in the bus!

    Roger Birch

  7. Exactly so Roger. The queers (let us stop calling them gay: the sads maybe) try to make out that their behaviour is just as value free or innocuous as that of so called “straight” people.
    And so we are asked how we would feel if we were denied marriage and the right to love, as though the sex act between a male and female was always per se value free and innocuous. But it isn’t. In our once civilised past we did stigmatise masturbation, fornication, adultery, incest and all the rest of it, between men and women. We want the right to resist promiscuity and perversity, which the queers seem determined to tear from us. ot surprisingly the queers, suddenly become moralistic and object to those who are trying to overtake them in smashing down all sexual barriers, such as those who advocate paedophilia and bestiality. And no doubt if and when the day comes when paedophilia and bestiality become socially acceptable, objection will be made to those who advocate putting the foot on the accelerator even more with sexual cannibalism and extreme sado-masochism. We apparently no longer have the right to self-control, self restraint, modesty, chastity and self-denial. We are forced to conform to the pattern of this world, just as Lot was tormented by the Sodomites.

    Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the depraved conduct of the lawless (for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard) 2 Peter 2:7&8

    Queers would not put limits on our behaviour; they would force us to hold hands with them over the edge.

    David Skinner, UK

  8. This is one of the best pieces I’ve read that argues the case against homosexual marriage. Allowing this gives this conduct a certain legitimacy and standing in society that it would be impossible to even hint at establishing traditional norms again. It would certainly be an open door to state enforced acceptance of homosexuality.
    Damien Spillane

  9. Clearly those at the very cutting edge of queer liberation do not subscribe to the notion of heteronormity. They do not want simply to be integrated as just another colour to the rainbow: they want the grey of queer entropy.

    Peter Tatchell is such a treasure chest of what queer ideology really says. If only people were bothered to read it.

    “…from the rejection of integrationism it follows that queer politics has an agenda beyond law reform and legal equality. Its aim is the transformation of society to ensure sexual liberation for everyone.”

    “,,,queer politics challenges the heterocentric view that exclusive heterosexuality is somehow natural and eternal, and that lesbian and gay sexuality is inevitably destined to remain a minority sexual orientation. It sees sexuality as being primarily a social construction, rather than a biological given.
    Who we are attracted to largely derives from a combination of social experience and ideology. In other words, everyone is born with the potential to be queer. Exclusive heterosexuality is mainly the result of a socially-encouraged repression of same-sex desire. In a society where there were no pressures or privileges associated with being straight, a lot more people would be queer or bisexual. Lesbian and gay attraction would cease to be a minority sexual orientation and become something that almost everyone would experience.
    As Kinsey discovered, even in our intensely homophobic culture, few people are 100 per cent hetero or homo. Most are a mixture of both. Even if we never or rarely have sex with both genders, there are elements of same-sex and opposite-sex attraction in nearly all of us. In an enlightened society which genuinely did not give a damn about who people fucked and loved, a majority of us would express both these attractions.
    Of course, there may be biological factors, such as genes and hormones, which also influence sexual orientation. However, the available psychological and anthropological evidence suggests that these biological influences are not as significant as social factors.”

    “Queer politics is an idea whose time has come.”

    David Skinner, UK

  10. David Cameron, the leader of the Conservative party, in 2006 said:

    “There’s something special about marriage. It’s not about religion. It’s not about morality. It’s about commitment. When you stand up there, in front of your friends and your family, in front of the world, whether it’s in a church or anywhere else, what you’re doing really means something. Pledging yourself to another means doing something brave and important. You are making a commitment. You are publicly saying: it’s not just about “me, me, me” anymore. It is about we: together, the two of us, through thick and thin. That really matters. And by the way, it means something whether you’re a man and a woman, a woman and a woman or a man and another man. That’s why we were right to support civil partnerships, and I’m proud of that..”

    That ladies and gentleman is the Prime Minister of Britain.

    David Skinner, UK

  11. Thanks Bill. I’m with Damien. This writer really does the most thorough job of putting forward exactly where we’re headed from one who has been there. Although we all know instinctively that legalizing homosexual marriage is deeply wrong and that it defiles the sacred, the fallout listed above sounds like an Orwellian hellhole. Public libraries and children’s bookstores are already displaying the kinds of books listed above. Society is going to need little encouragement to let all of the demons out of Pandora’s box once this last fragile barrier is broken down. Along with fighting this onslaught of evil, in my view, we should homeschool while we can and make sure our children are psychologically prepared for what may be ahead once they take our right to homeschool away from us like they have in Europe.
    Dee Graf

  12. The article written by the father from Massachusetts should be emailed to as many government ministers as possible. I plan to email it to mine here in Menai NSW.
    Stephen Davis

  13. The info you have provided is a good start and hopefully I (and many of us) can use this data is speaking to our local MPs and writing to newspapers. Can you reference this data? If not I will search for the references myself and send them back to you.


    Graeme Cumming

  14. Thanks Graeme

    No need to look for references – they are already there. Simply go to the article I link to at the bottom of my article. This will in turn take you to the other references mentioned.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  15. Wow they are actually brainwashing children and completely ignoring parents wishes. They appear to be promoting it more than simply trying to “normalize” it, if homosexuality is simply an alternative to heterosexuality, then why does it need to be enforced so much?
    Teach kids about Christianity and it’s called indoctrination, force young children into the normalization of homosexuality using propaganda similar to during the Nazi Germany period it’s called “marriage equality”.
    Anthony Lichoudaris

  16. I would wager that these same liars and perverters of the the truth howled loudest as the debates over whether creation could be taught in the classrooms a few years ago knowing full well that ideas have consequences and that children armed with God’s truth and healthy skepticism of humanist propaganda are the greatest threat to their agenda.

    Like the good Stalinists they are, they know that if you capture the minds of children early enough crushing dissent in future becomes a doddle.

    Phil Twiss

  17. What is happening in Massachusetts is absolutely frightening and unbelievable if it weren’t for the reality of it. The winds of moral decay and rejection of God and Nature in our society seem to be blowing so swiftly now – drawing us ever closer to God’s judgment.

    Seems our times have become the same (if not worse?) than the days of Sodom and Gomorrah, and I wonder how much longer we have left…

    I agree that we must send this information to our MPs, and continue to fight and pray (in unity) against the destruction of normal family values.

    Paula Mari Pike

  18. Thanks Paula

    Yes this sort of information needs to be distributed far and wide. The dissemination of truth (coupled with prayer) is a powerful weapon indeed.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  19. Mr Muehlenberg
    Is there scripture that bans marriage for the gays?
    Did Jesus have anything to say about this?
    Deryn Jane Plathey

  20. Thanks Deryn

    Yes the Bible does speak to this. In Genesis we read about how God declared human sexual activity to only be permissible within the one man, one woman institution of marriage. All other forms of sexuality are verboten. And Jesus quoted from this very text when he reaffirmed God’s intentions for sex and marriage.

    That Jesus said nothing per se about same-sex marriage is no argument for it of course. He also said nothing about environmental degradation, arson, or Internet porn. His silence on these issues hardly equals endorsement.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  21. Great article Bill – Many readers will not be aware that OUR Kindergartens are already promoting two mums and two dads.
    Further to Bill’s comment to Deryn…
    Jesus used the phrase “sexual immorality” (or the language equivalent) which all Jews knew and all Bible respecting theologians today will tell you means ALL sex outside marriage between a man and a woman.
    Add to that the biological FACT that neither two men, nor two women, can actually have natural sexual intercourse, this should tell us quite clearly that it is wrong and therefore normalising it in any way WILL be harmful to both the individuals involved and society as a whole.
    Peter Stokes

  22. Some thoughts for those who want to lobby their elected representatives:

    Elected representatives must act on behalf of the liberal, secular society that elects them. Gay couples do remain a social minority in Victoria – however support for gay marriage remains at large. This is predominantly because in our liberal, plural society marriage is seen as ‘right’. It cannot be argued that we treat homosexual couples as equals while not granting them all of their rights. Thus opportunity for marriage, which is viewed as a right for heterosexual couples must be equally applied to gay couples.

    Raising children however, is viewed differently – as a privilege. A privilege granted to a parenting model with a proven track record of thousands of years of success. The model of a male parent – a father and female parent – a mother. The debate about raising children is not about serving the interests of those raising the children – the parents, but rather about the needs of the children being raised by providing them a proven parenting model. Supporting a bill which allows for gay marriage is a different issue to supporting the adoption of children by gay couples – which should not be supported.

    Furthermore, the voice of elected leaders in a liberal society is one of many contributing voices to the formation of social infrastructure. Independent media, religious institutions, schools, families and active civil society organisations from the left and right all contribute to public discourse. Their voices must be heard and their views must also be represented by elected representatives.

    Finally public office must not be manipulated to push a social order that serves a religious agenda. Legislation on social issues is not to be used as a backup plan for religious institutions that fail to get their message across through the pulpit. This is a fundamental abuse of the principle of separation of church and state upon which our nation is founded.

    Nathan Clarke

  23. Thanks Nathan

    Sorry but you are quite wrong in arguing for SSM. However I am not about to rehash all the arguments here, since I have many dozens of articles already laying out my case on this site, along with an entire book.

    And your idea that religion can or should have no influence on politics and the rest of society is equally fallacious. But that too I have argued elsewhere here. See for example:

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  24. Nathan Clarke, I do not agree with your last paragraph. Both history and social science show that the vast majority of human beings have been religious in some way or other. It is inevitable that religions will influence the mores and laws of any society, even if there is a formal separation of religion and state. You should be thankful that in the West the major religion is still Christianity which these days is livably tolerant unlike Islam which has not progressed much (some Islamic countries only renounced slavery half a century ago, and even then only after being pressured by the Christian West).

    In our pluralistic society Christian groups are as entitled to exert influence as much as secular groups such the Secular Humanists who along with the radical Left are responsible for the current cultural pathologies that afflict the West.

    John Snowden

  25. I don’t know what is worse. Reading the article, or reading the comments.
    Many good points are brought up, but the only real reason anyone has something wrong with same-sex marriage is because of their religion or they are just hateful people.
    I assume many of you have never attempted to actually be friends with the people you have ridiculed and made fun of their whole lives. I personally have been good friends with a gay male, who has been a very wonderful friend. He is no different from any of you, except in the region of acceptance.
    Religion is one of the only reasons I have found for anyone to not accept a gay that is around them. Even then there are many of my friends whom have very deep beliefs in their faiths, but still believe in gay rights.
    On the other hand, hateful people (such as many of you) have just been raised that way or you have some pitiful grudge against a homosexual. As for the rest of you, well; you must just hate the world and everything in it.

    Susanna R. Prescott

  26. Thanks Susanna

    But I have to call your bluff here. I don’t even mention religion in the article, and I have written numerous articles and even an entire book making the case against same-sex marriage without even once referring to religion.

    And all you do in your comment is call people names and fling mud. Simply calling everyone who takes a different position to you “hateful” and so on contributes absolutely nothing to the discussion.

    And you never once in fact interact with all the evidence presented in the article.

    But this is quite typical of your side: erect straw men and red herrings, and resort to ad hominem attacks. It sure beats actually offering a solid argument and dealing with the evidence.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *