Defending Marriage Now Means Being ‘Hateful’

In the Brave New World of Political Correctness and activist lobby groups, it has now become extremely simple to silence all opposition. The radicals do not have to mount one argument, offer one shred of evidence, or make one reasonable assertion.

None of that is now needed. There is a far easier and much more effective means to ensure that only your point of view is heard, and all others are ignored or rejected. Now all the militant social engineers have to do is throw the H word around. Piece of cake really.

Anyone dare to disagree with you? No probs. Just say they are hate-filled. Works brilliantly. You can shut up any opponent, counter any argument, and brush aside any facts or evidence simply by accusing your opponent of being full of hate.

It is a terrific strategy really. It sure beats having to proffer a rational argument or present some solid evidence. You win every single debate without lifting a finger. Just apply a liberal usage of the H word, and presto, you are guaranteed a victory in all the encounters you are involved with.

The other side will still be encumbered with much more mundane things such as truth, reason, evidence, logic and facts. But hey, one quick application of the H word will leave your opponents speechless and rattled. Why didn’t activists think of this long ago?

And we see it in operation all the time. Simply seek to stand up for the institutions of marriage and family, and you are accused of being a hate-monger. Simply try to argue that marriage involves a man and a woman, and you will soon likely be charged with a hate-crime.

I of course get this thrown at me on a regular basis by my many opponents. It always beats an actual argument. But this has always been a cheap way out. Simply smear your adversary with a tag like this, and end of discussion. It is what is known as an ad hominem attack, a type of logical fallacy.

In a recent column Rebecca Hagelin spoke to this very issue, and she is worth quoting from:

“The new ‘haters,’ in this era of sexual license, are those who maintain that marriage has an intrinsic meaning – the union of man and woman – that simply cannot be extended to homosexual couplings. Crying ‘hate speech,’ the Southern Poverty Law Center denounced ‘anti-gay’ groups for spreading ‘falsehoods’ that say children do best when raised by a mom and a dad, as opposed to two dads or two moms. ‘Falsehoods’ that support traditional marriage are now ‘hate speech,’ thrown into the same filthy bucket as KKK and Neo-Nazi ideology.

“The view that marriage means one man and one woman and that children flourish when raised by a married mother and father is rooted not only in biblical teachings but also in common sense; it’s a truth proven by science as well as centuries of lived experience. But children know that ‘hate’ is a bad thing, and no one wants to be labeled a ‘hater.’ It’s not hard to imagine the pressure tactics that our children soon will face: keep silent or risk being slapped with the label – ‘hater’ – that will define them socially for years.

“The label of ‘Hater’ quickly shuts down reasonable discussion or open disagreement. And that’s the real point: to intimidate proponents of traditional morality into keeping silent. Put differently, it’s to lock traditional morality in the closet so social engineers can be free to redefine marriage as they wish.”

Also speaking of the SPLC claims, Maggie Gallagher of the National Organization for Marriage, said this was an “absurd distraction” and a “very sad” move for “a once-great civil rights organization. This is part of the unfolding process of attempting to redefine Christian teaching on sex and marriage as the moral, legal and cultural equivalent of racism. I do believe this is the goal of the architects of the gay marriage movement. And they’re making it very clear.”

Robert George also warned about this attempt to equate opposition to homosexual marriage with racism. He said that Jews and Christians would especially be adversely affected when anti-discrimination laws are used as “weapons against dissenters”.

He said the churches will find various legal disabilities imposed upon them: “It has already happened in Massachusetts, where Catholic Charities has been driven out of the field of providing adoption services.”

Quite so. This is all part of the campaign by the militant homosexualists to silence all opposition and contrary viewpoints. Instead of allowing open debate in an open society, they are working overtime to stifle debate and destroy genuine democracy.

In truth, they are a rather hateful bunch.

[787 words]

39 Replies to “Defending Marriage Now Means Being ‘Hateful’”

  1. It seems to me that buried in the heart of unregenerate man is a fountain of hate just waiting to be directed. What are tabloids and magazines and various media outlets filled with if it isn’t the command to unleash that hatred on some new object? The covers and headlines may as well read ‘Here’s someone new to hate’ or ‘Here’s something more to hate about that person we told you to hate.’

    Absolutely, the irony is that it is done with the claim that it is all done ‘against hatred’ or something like that. But I’m sure that Sarah Palin, Fred Nile, George W. Bush, Tony Abbott, Steve Fielding, the late Ronald Reagan and a host of others would all testify to the strange experience of white-hot rage from those who claim to be against it so. Oh well.

    I’m sorry, but I cant help but think of Get Smart:

    Maxwell Smart: Are you a psychologist, Dr. Stueben?
    Stueben: I’m the president of the psychologist society for mental health and adjustment through fulfillment.
    Maxwell Smart: What kind of an organization is that?
    Stueben: We’re a hate group.
    Maxwell Smart: A hate group?
    Stueben: Oh, in the sense that we cure hate and fear. We hate hate. Hate it.

    You too can laugh inwardly when someone next claims to be ‘against hate.’

    ..and from the same episode:

    Maxwell Smart: And so it must always end… for those who use the human brain for evil… instead of friendliness.

    Don’t mind me, I just donated blood so I may be lacking a little oxygen up north.

    Mark Rabich

  2. Bill,

    I never appreciated prior to 2006 how much Christians are really hated by some people. I’ve known that anti Christian articles have been in the papers for years and years, but they are now really getting nasty with their vituperation. I just naively went to church and tried to be best and loving person I could, though I fail so often. I try so hard not to hate them back.

    Carl Strehlow

  3. You know, I grew up with Uncle Remus, Little Black Sambo, Dick, Jane, Sally & Spot. I don’t hate Black People and I don’t hate Dads, Moms, Children & Pets. However, I do hate being told that HOMOSEXUALITY is normal. It is not normal. Children having 2 Dads or 2 Moms is not normal. How are 2 Men going to create life? How are 2 Women going to create life? They aren’t and they can’t. The fact that some people want me to believe that 2 Dads or 2 Moms will not harm children is ludicrous, that’s what I hate. So I guess I will someday be arrested for a hate crime.
    Donald L. Wheatley

  4. They hate us because they hated Him first.

    “Lord, help us not respond in kind
    To those who hate and turn from You;
    Instead, help us to love and pray
    That someday they’ll accept what’s true. —Sper”

    From RBC ministries Our Daily Bread 12/11/10

    Mark Zinanti

  5. This is what it all boils down to in a pure socialistic culture. Everyone is equal and deserving as anyone else. No one has an opinion and must just fall in line with the masses with the elite ruling. The elite does not have the restrictions as the masses, do not need to share their gains as they have their loopholes and writeoffs, or just do not pay their fair share to the socialistic culture that they “manage” or “oversee”. The elite “spin” their position, whether or not it is true and really don’t care if their “spins” are outright lies and just impose their will upon others. They care not about human rights as they know better as to what is good for us. It is no longer a position of tolerance or acceptence of another’s position, but their right to force all opposition to only their way. America was founded on christian principles and tolerance. It was displayed as the land of opportunity where one could strive to better themselves. Today, the current administration is doing its best to strangle capitalism, weaken our military position in the world, turn away from our allies, place our economy in dire straits in both unemployment and insurmountable debt, and refusing to protect our borders to the point of siding with other nations and sueing the states who are trying to stem the illegal immigration.
    Robert Williams, US

  6. Well Bill, you proved yourself to be a hater in the opening paragraph because your framing of the question dehumanizes people like me. We want nothing more than to live honest private lives. We aren’t a “political correctness activist lobby group” and we aren’t “radicals”. We have the same conservative values that you have. We live boring married lives. Whether you disapprove of our marriages or not is your problem. Our families, our neighbors, our faith communities and our employers are all ok with us and would never speak about us the way you open.

    You do realize that you’re guilty of everything you object to. What better way to shut down a discussion than to claim that you were just called a “bigot!”.


  7. Thanks Jonathan

    You comment is just so telling. It of course perfectly makes my case: for me to simply raise this issue, and dare to question the homosexual agenda, makes me guilty of hatred!!! Thank you for so very nicely providing proof of the very thing I have been talking about. (Are you sure you are not really on our side!!??)

    Your comment also tells us other interesting things:

    -you activists don’t know how to read, since I clearly state in my commenting rules that a full name is required. But you activists are always happy to hide behind anonymity.

    -you activists are happy to use deception and falsehood to push your agenda. “We aren’t a ‘political correctness activist lobby group’.” And what exactly is your own website, except a “political correctness activist lobby group”? Indeed, we find this on your site: “Equality Loudoun engages in advocacy on local and state issues in the interests of our community.” You are an advocacy group, a lobby group. So stop the lies already. And there are thousands of such activist lobby groups pushing this agenda. Your brazen falsehoods simply tell us a lot about how your side operates.

    -you activists are totally disingenuous. It is the homosexual activists who do not want just a quite private life, but are insisting that everyone conform to their twisted ideas. You are the ones who want to dismantle the social institution of marriage. You are the ones who are working overtime to radically dismantle the natural family. You are the ones urging governments to push your agenda. You are the one who want to use the strong arm of the law to force others who disagree with you to embrace your agenda. You are the ones who are overturning one social institution after another in your attempt to remake society in your own image.

    Sorry bud, but we are just not buying your activist baloney. But thanks again for so perfectly illustrating my very point. In future, maybe I should just let you make my case for me.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  8. Bill,

    that is the most horrible thing I have heard. I am sure almost all atheists will disagree with incest.

    Carl Strehlow

  9. Hi again Bill,

    I know that the Greens are athiest. Just there are plenty of people who don’t believe in God who I am sure they would be shocked for the pushing of incest. I see the Greens are worse then the average atheist. But when I read your site and listen to American talk radio and look at newspapers like the Washington Times, though not perfect, but is one of the better of the papers, all this makes me mad. I am thinking more and more that most of us have had our freedoms given to us on a silver platter. I am even can say for myself at least, may be even a gold platter.

    Carl Strehlow

  10. Thanks Bill

    Hi Mark you expressed my thoughts exactly.
    Bless you

    Anne Van Tilburg

  11. I am a campus preacher who deals with this issue every day. I think we should wear the label of hater with pride. Righteousness is a lot more than just being loving and nice. If a person is right with God he will hate evil.

    Ps 97:10 Ye that love the LORD, hate evil: he preserveth the souls of his saints; he delivereth them out of the hand of the wicked.

    Pr 8:13 The fear of the LORD is to hate evil: pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate.

    Am 5:15 Hate the evil, and love the good, and establish judgment in the gate: it may be that the LORD God of hosts will be gracious unto the remnant of Joseph.

    I wear my slanders as a badge of honor. I hate the evil that they do and will not shrink back from saying so.

    Bro Cope, US

  12. Thanks Bill for you article.
    I just read how Switzerland considers to repeal incest laws.

    This of course opens the door wide to pedophilia.

    I know a family where the father abused the daughter 30 years ago. It only became knowledge to the family 3 years ago when he tried to abuse his granddaughter.
    It has left the whole family devastated but also divided where one blames the other for either not knowing, or maybe you did know and did nothing about it.
    They are now completely isolated from one another, all because of one person, who is really and truly the cause of it all. I have got a name for such a person, but unfortunately cannot print it.
    The trauma this family has gone through is horrific.
    This is what is waiting for Switzerland if they go ahead with this absurd and immoral idea.

    Anne Van Tilburg

  13. Jonathan,

    It is truly delusional to claim ‘dehumanization’ exists in Bill’s opening paragraph. Explain to all of us how you are any less value as a human being due to Bill’s assessment of pro-homosexual activism?

    But I’ll let you in on a secret – it is homosexual behaviour itself that is dehumanizing because it rejects simple truths about the human body. Male goes with female and with every act of homosexual sex those involved peel away part of their own dignity and self-respect.

    You will actually never read something more endorsing of your intrinsic human value than the knowledge that God created you as a man and that this is one half of the sexual equation that can only be completed with a woman. There are currently almost 7 billion reasons in the world to support this idea.

    Mark Rabich

  14. Very predictable and not at all unexpected. If the modern day professing religious world justifies and supports adultery (legally “married” to one whose covenant spouse is alive), then in order to be consistent, they would be forced to concede the issue to all who are willingly slaves to immorality. We know that the impure in heart will be damned if they remain unclean, but this issue exposes the hypocrisy in the world of the professing ‘church’ and shows them guilty of the sin of partiality at the very least.
    Jim Barger II

  15. Bill

    Have you seen the paper by Robert George et al at the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy winter 2010 edition entitled What is Marriage?


    In the article, we argue that as a moral reality, marriage is the union of a man and a woman who make a permanent and exclusive commitment to each other of the type that is naturally fulfilled by bearing and rearing children together, and renewed by acts that constitute the behavioral part of the process of reproduction. We further argue that there are decisive principled as well as prudential reasons for the state to enshrine this understanding of marriage in its positive law, and to resist the call to recognize as marriages the sexual unions of same-sex partners.

    Besides making this positive argument for our position and raising several objections to the view that same-sex unions should be recognized, we address what we consider the strongest philosophical objections to our view of the nature of marriage, as well as more pragmatic concerns about the point or consequences of implementing it as a policy.

    Damien Spillane

  16. Thanks Damien

    Yes I have been aware of it, but I am looking for something more than the abstract. if anyone has the whole piece, let us know thanks.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  17. Why in God’s name (no pun intended) is the Church sitting around doing nothing about this? I am going to email this to my church. I just sent a letter to my local member yesterday with a copy of that article about Massachusetts and the social havoc it has wrought. You know something? What I cannot stand even more than this and I am not trying to be judgemental here, is the church goers who sit back and say things like “We must not offend and we must not judge” ad nauseum. We would do very well to recall one of Plato’s greatest quotes “The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men”! Sadly, it looks like he was right!
    Steve Davis

  18. Well My good sir,
    If you’re so against same sex marriage, I would imagine you probably shouldn’t marry someone of the same sex.
    As a cultural anthropologist, I find your views of what constitutes “family” to be rather interesting.

    The Western view of marriage is indeed a novel one because it claims to be “the correct” view- which it isn’t, it is only one type of marriage.
    Marriage was primarily a financial transaction and a way of distributing resources between clans of people.
    Humans organising themselves into a nuclear family with 1.3 children that you hold so dear, is a product of the last 200 or so years.

    I love reading your columns Mr Muehlenberg, please continue. In many ways they serve as an example of the fact that anyone who claims an extreme moral highground should be the immediate cause of suspicion.

    Deryn Jane Plathey

  19. Thanks Deryn

    Once again you cough up one foolish and irrational remark after another. It is clear that your mind is made up here, but for the sake of others reading this who may gain from some straight talk concerning your silliness, let me call your various bluffs (once again).

    Let me rephrase your first logical fallacy: ‘Well My good madam,
    If you’re so against destroying the environment, I would imagine you probably shouldn’t get involved in such activities.’

    And spare us your “As a cultural anthropologist” baloney. Up until recently the overwhelming consensus of anthropologists, historians and sociologists was that marriage was a historical and universal institution, with clearly recognisable characteristics and features. But today our university humanities departments are awash with PC revisionism, and so they now spout out the sort of nonsense which you are seeking to foist on us. Sorry, we are just not buying it.

    And we certainly are not buying your baloney about 1.3 kids and 200 years. Anyone with a modicum of historical sense will have their baloney meters going off big time here. Not only has no one said anything about 1.3 children (certainly not me), but the historical record is clear that a family, consisting of mother, father and children has always been the norm throughout human culture and history.

    There is so much documentation on all this that only ideologues with a narrow radical agenda can ignore it. I offer the briefest of outlines of some of this data here:

    But of course since it appears that you are not in the least bit interested in facts or evidence, but simply in pushing your trendy agenda, I won’t hold my breath, waiting for you to actually follow the evidence where it leads.

    And if having concern about the wellbeing of children, families, individuals and societies make me claiming “an extreme moral highground”, then that in fact tells us nothing about me but everything about yourself, and just what a radical and callous social engineer you actually are, and one completely reckless when it comes to social and historical truth.

    Let me finish with another slight paraphrase: ‘In many ways your comments serve as an example of the fact that anyone who claims an extreme moral highground should be the immediate cause of suspicion.’

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  20. Hi Bill, another great article…. however I’d also include the other H word; Homophobe. I’ve lost track of the amount of times I’ve been called a homophobe (and a hater) despite the fact that I am not at all afraid of homosexuals, nor do I hate them. I simply don’t approve of their choice of sexual orientation, which in itself brings about another point. So often they claim that it’s not a choice, as who would choose to be “hated”, but, then when you point out that if it’s not a choice then it must be a mental issue, (since they’re the one’s who said they wouldn’t have chosen it) you’re further howled down as a hater/homophobe. Consistency doesn’t seem to be very important in their approach to arguments.
    Glen Grady, Brisbane

  21. Deryn, sexual relationships are defined by the nature of the participants: human (male/female); animal (male/female) and objects (male/female) all of which can interact sexually; secondly they are defined by the number of participants (mono/binary/poly); and thirdly they are defined by the duration of the relationship (five minutes or a life time).
    Deryn, as you are obviously highly revered amongst your academic peers, please name for us those cultures where families come in all different shapes and sizes, or where for example lesbian families are the norm.
    Perhaps you would hold up the Sambia tribes of New Guinea, as does Peter Tatchell, as an exotic role model for the rest of the world. It is significant that after claiming that homosexuals are more sensitive, less macho and less misogynistic, he cites a tribe where women are feared. Maybe you would hold up polygamous cultures, like those of Islam, for emulation but here again women are treated as less than second class citizens.
    David Skinner, UK

  22. Jonathan, Bill does not dehumanise homosexuals. It is because sodomy, buggery, fisting, rimming, water sports, felching, scats, coprophilia, sado-masochism, whipping, giving the gift and bondage are dehumanising acts, reducing men and women to lumps of meat. It is because such acts lead to slavery, bondage and addictions that sooner or later lead to an early death that Bill and many of us fear that our children will also become amongst the walking dead.

    As for your statement, “We want nothing more than to live honest private lives. We aren’t a ‘political correctness activist lobby group’ and we aren’t ‘radicals,‘” that may be true for you and may have been true over fifty years ago, but the reason we are this conversation now is precisely because we live in very different times where there is a gay agenda driven by queer Marxist ideology, which threatens to tear the fabric of society to pieces.

    Peter Tatchell says…“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”.

    I have not yet heard a better description of gay ideology that that written here by Peter Tatchell:

    David Skinner, UK

  23. The Southern Poverty Law Center and others are perpetrating slander. I would like to hear arguments, or even better, one liners, that give the best quick response. We may need the practice. Here goes with my attempt.

    Why are you so hate filled against liars, thieves, rapists and murderers? I am only as hate filled against them as you are. I may hate one or more things which you don’t and vise versa, that’s all, but I do it in the same way we both hate thieves. Why are you trying to slander me? I love my enemies but I don’t encourage them in evil actions.

    Perhaps it’s time for the Family Research Council and other agencies to threaten the SPLC with civil action for slander. One thing I know, it’s certainly time to get on with preaching the gospel.

    Chris McNicol

  24. Is there such a thing as heterophobia? Well yes there is: there is hatred of heterosexual masturbation, heterosexual fornication, heterosexual adultery, heterosexual sodomy, heterosexual sadomasochism, heterosexual polyamory, heterosexual incest and paedophilia. The homosexuals having got the ball rolling, are ready to hand the hate campaign over to the “hets” who also see Christians as an obstacle to promiscuity. Maybe the silence from the growing proportion of the population with regard to homosexuality is because just beneath the surface it also wants absolute freedom.

    David Skinner, UK

  25. To Chris McNichol, The only way this is going to be defeated is if the church stands up and fights it. All Christians need to get active in writing to their local members, educating themselves by getting on the net and looking up sites like this one for instance. One very important thing for pew sitters to do is to pass anything that is relevant onto their church ministry team as ministers do not often have a lot of spare time to get literate about these types of issues. I often email links to this site and other info to my ministers as they need to get up to speed with what is going on around them outside their immediate sphere and this is where we as parishioners can help them. Once they are aware fo these things they can then start to plan a response.
    Steve Davis

  26. Deryn

    I would have thought there’s quite enough evidence around the world too suggest that boys without fathers are struggling.
    Daniel Kempton

  27. I’m a long time supporter of the SPLC and a longer time Christian. I’ve always found the SPLC to be credible. They are not an organization to be brushed off as ‘hateful’. It is surprising, and frankly distasteful to see a fellow Christian dismiss their work with a brush-off. I’ve read their report and whether you like it or not Mr. Muehlenberg the report did provide evidence of their assertions. You’re piece on the other hand is mere name calling. “They called me a hater…whaaaa!”

    Can you dispute the evidence in the SPLC report? If not, why don’t you behave like a Christian. Be humble. Be charitable. Don’t be a self-important blow hard.

    Margaret Gallagher

  28. Thanks Margaret

    But if you agree with the SPLC in putting pro-faith and pro-family groups like the American Family Association, the National Organization for Marriage, or the Family Research Council in the same league as the Ku Klux Klan and the Aryan Nation, and labelling them all as hate groups, then that simply tells us a whole lot about yourself and your supposed Christianity. Indeed, it tells us all you are not at all on the same page as any biblical Christian who supports God’s institutions of marriage and family.

    Sorry, but if I had to choose between a group like the AFA, or a group like the SPLC and yourself, I know who I will align with any day of the week.

    And by the way, am I supposed to hold you up as an example of how not to degenerate into name-calling?

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  29. The Bible says marriage should be between a man and a woman. I go by what is written in the Bible. Anyone who doesn’t will pay for it come Judgement Day. Me, Myself and I want to go to heaven so i abide by the Bible.
    Corene Meredith

Leave a Reply

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