Marriage Equality: Let’s Go For the Whole Hog

Whenever a homosexual activist tries to convince you of something, you can almost be certain that the exact opposite is in fact the case. Truth-telling is not always their strong suit. They are happy to say anything in order to push their radical agendas.

For example, in their crusade to destroy marriage, they claim that no one is asking for anything too radical. ‘No, we won’t ask for polyamory and so on’ they claim. When you point out to them quotes from all sorts of activists who are pushing for this, they will switch tack, and claim that this is maybe the case overseas, but not here in Australia.

Sorry, but what do you get when a word starts with L, ends with E, and has an I in the middle? I have been documenting for years now the very radical changes being proposed, all in the name of marriage equality. And believe you me, many of these activists want to go the whole hog.

And it is not just folks from overseas calling for this. There are plenty of Australians doing the same. I have a nice collection of their writings, and it keeps growing. Some of these folks are not at all shy about what they are demanding.

Indeed, a number of activists are coming out of the closet on this big time. Consider another Australian writer who is quite happy to go all the whole way in dismantling marriage. Katrina Fox, who in 2008 co-edited a book called Trans People In Love, wrote a revealing piece for the ABC in 2011.

Entitled, “Marriage needs redefining,” she made it perfectly clear how all the boundaries surrounding marriage must be smashed. You can tell things will be going downhill fast when she begins her article this way: “A more inclusive option is to allow individuals to get married whatever their sex or gender, including those who identify as having no sex or gender or whose sex may be indeterminate.”

She informs us that monogamy is clearly just not on, and she even cites a 2010 book informing us that “monogamy may not be natural to humans”. She claims it is “unrealistic” for people to expect to remain in lifelong sexually faithful relationships.

She then goes on to approvingly speak of “non-monogamy” and “open relationships”. Says Fox, “Surely it makes more sense to expand the definition of marriage to include a range of relationship models including polyamory, instead of holding up monogamy as the gold – indeed only – standard.”

But wait, there’s more: “Marriage would also benefit from being expanded to include non-sexual, non-romantic relationships, like the existing Tasmanian relationship register which allows anyone who is in a ‘personal relationship involving emotional interdependence, domestic support or personal care’ to register that relationship.”

And it gets even more interesting. If it were not for the lack of consent, there really might be no limits at all: “I’m not suggesting we goes as far to sanction people marrying inanimate objects like the German woman who married the Berlin Wall and was utterly devastated when her ‘husband’ was destroyed in 1989. Nor am I advocating marrying animals since they cannot consent, but simply extending marriage to reflect the broad range of loving relationships between consenting adults.”

Gee, if we could just get those laptops and wombats to provide a bit of consent, just think how we could help further the cause of marriage equality. Indeed, why even be concerned about a mere detail like consent, since we are already progressing so nicely?

She is also quite ticked off at homosexual activists who claim they won’t force churches to perform same-sex marriages: “These tactics have horrified many gay, lesbian and queer people, including me. It’s hard to imagine any person of colour advocating for religions to have the right not to marry non-white people, so why some gay campaigners think so little of themselves and the broader queer community to sanction what is bigotry beggars belief.”

And just in case we have not got her drift, she also says, “In 2011 it’s time to redefine marriage to include a diverse range of relationships between one or more people of any sex or gender (including not specified or indeterminate). Those desperate to cling on to outmoded traditions would do well to heed the moniker used by motivational speakers: ‘Adapt or die’.”

Her concluding line is perhaps the most bizarre of all: “Opening up marriage to be more inclusive, progressive and representative of the realities of our relationships today is not a threat to the institution, but rather an opportunity to preserve it.”

What?! She has just spent the entire article demonstrating how she plans to massacre marriage, transforming it out of existence, and now she wants to tell us that this is somehow going to “preserve” marriage. Yeah right.

Let me simply follow in her footsteps, and give an analogy as to what she is proposing. Let’s do to the AFL what she wants to do to marriage. We all know that Australian Rules Football is a hidebound, archaic institution which really needs to get with the times.

It has been hampered by out-dated tradition and needless rules and regulations. It certainly does not reflect current realities of where we want to go with sport. So let us make a few obvious changes. First of all, it is silly – and quite discriminatory – to allow just two teams at a time to play the game.

Thus from now on I suggest any number of teams be allowed to enter into the action at the same time. Monoteams are just so passé, and polyteams are really the way to go. And how sexist and species-ist is it to exclude women and animals from the game. No more men-only AFL.

And having just one ball is so repressive and intolerant. From now on any number of balls can be used during the game. And it is the worst form of oppression to have just two sets of goal posts, so from henceforth anyone can set up goalposts anywhere they like.

Moreover, restricting the game to an oval is just so unfair and oppressive. The game should be allowed to be played wherever one chooses; in an office, the toilet, at church, or in the centre of Parliament House, Canberra.

And given that rules, umpires, and the like are evidence of rigid conformity, outmoded authoritarianism, and bourgeois morality, all games from now on will be played completely free of any rules, and all umpires will be forever banned from the game.

Isn’t this just so very liberating, progressive and modern? Why be slaves to old-fashioned laws and morals? Let’s go with the times and end all unjust discrimination and restrictions on rights. After all, the name of the game is equality, freedom and justice for all.

Oh, and by the way: ‘Opening up football to be more inclusive, progressive and representative of the realities of our sporting relationships today is not a threat to the institution, but rather an opportunity to preserve it.’

Adapt or die, AFL. Yeah, I guess that all makes perfect sense. So, foolish me, thinking that a bit of tinkering around the edges of marriage would be a big deal. I can thank Katrina Fox and her buddies for clearing this up for me.

www.abc.net.au/unleashed/44576.html

[1218 words]

19 Replies to “Marriage Equality: Let’s Go For the Whole Hog”

  1. When will we start believing the homosexual activists when they say they want to demolish marriage – just as the tsunami has demolished Japan? Both are equally destructive, but we may have to wait a bit longer before we see the final outcome of the homosexualist demolition job.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CUltureWatch

  2. Bill You are right

    Australia now has moral crises on many fronts – in the same way that Japan now has physical crises on many fronts.

    John Miller

  3. Many thanks Tony

    Yes I have been eagerly awaiting Michael Brown’s new book on this topic, and hope to soon get it and review it.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  4. Given that AFL is a pseudo religion, with a set of beliefs, laws, and precepts. If you want to join in you have to abide by its regulations.

    Belief in the One True God, also has, laws precepts and regulations. As marriage was instituted by God, one would have to argue that, by agreeing to marry (anything?), you would by default have to believe that God exists. If you don’t believe that there is a god, then you could argue that marriage does not exist either. And therefore why all the effort to get married.
    All they are doing is rebellious screaming “Look at us, Look at us, we have taken one of your institutions and turned it into a farce” in Gods face. What’s next?

    Jeffrey Carl

  5. Bill
    You are absolutely right. I can well rememember back in the 1980s and we worked together in the AFA the statement by a homsexual from Western Australia that they will not stop until they achieved equality with heterosexual couples. Well I suspected he was not telling the full story then which is as you put it Bill – this is about the destruction of the family and the ascendency of the homoseual lobby to a position of power. The work of the Greens supports that and the horror stories of the abdication of parental rights in the USA where homosexual couple have “marital rights” now insist on the instruction of these things to all children in schools regardless of parental objection.
    There will be no stopping the thrust for power and influence the homosexual lobby want in our country with the assistance of the Greens and other followers.
    We need all Christians to lift their voices in chorus against the amendment of our marriage laws.
    David Grace

  6. For people who say that what goes on between two consenting adults in the privacy of their own home they certainly do love shoving it in our faces.

    I think the biggest lie is that homosexuality is as much a part of who they are as dark skin is to dark skinned races. It lets them cry discrimination and turns thing from a choice of right and wrong to just the way they are and just as valid as any other sexual orientation.

    Kylie Anderson

  7. There seems to be a growing number of recently established, Australian Polyandry organisations.

    A quick Google search turns up :

    * ‘Polyamory Australia’ http://polyamory.org.au/
    – In case you missed their float in the recent Mardi Gras, you can find information here: http://polyamory.org.au/mardigras

    * Another organisation ‘Poly Oz’ informs us that, “In [a] group marriage, everyone in the group is married to everyone else in the group.”: http://polyoz.net.au/words-we-use

    * ‘PolyVic’ is another Polyandry organisation: http://www.polyvic.org.au

    How sad.

    John Miller

  8. I hope you don’t mind if I quote you on that if the discussion arises!
    Catherine Dodd

  9. Polyamorous relationships are defined by the number of participants (1 – infinity); of duration (5 minutes or infinity of years); of gender; of species and level of animation (inert or alive).

    The mind boggles how those who marry themselves consummate the marriage or what happens when they want to divorce.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/may/13/gayrights.features11
    http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/47297/for_better_or_for_worse.html?cat=72
    http://weeklyworldnews.com/headlines/24040/woman-marries-herself/
    http://artandperception.com/2006/12/wedded-to-art-jennifer-hoes-the-woman-who-married-herself.html
    http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/102003/
    http://www.oddee.com/item_97042.aspx

    Probably the first to object to such relationships would be the gays who are presently pressing for gay marriage.

    David Skinner, UK

  10. I know you’ve read heaps on this topic, but just in case I stumbled on some articles by Francis J. Beckwith on homosexuality. The way I see it if his arguments against same sex marriage are as good as his arguments against abortion, those for gay marriage are in deep trouble…

    http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2008/12/same-sex-marriage-and-the-fail

    http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/05/1324

    http://homepage.mac.com/francis.beckwith/response.pdf

    http://homepage.mac.com/francis.beckwith/neutrality.pdf

    Anthony Lichoudaris

  11. I have to say that I am embarrassed for you Bill and your cult followers.
    Being a gay married man and being CHRISTIAN, I know GOD made me this way.
    I feel that you all should be ashamed of yourselves, as what you are all saying is a Lie.
    We Gay Chirstian do not want the destruction of marriage or the Church. We just want the right to marry like everyone else.
    Michael Crompton

  12. Thanks Michael

    You need to stop deceiving yourself Michael. God of course did not make you that way, just as he did not make thieves, or drunks, or murderers, or liars, or adulterers. The entire Bible in general makes this perfectly clear, as does 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 in particular: “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.”

    No one can call themself a follower of a holy and pure God, and his righteous son Jesus while living in known unconfessed sin. Until they agree with God, turn from their sin in faith and repentance, and start obeying the commands of Christ, they are none of his. Just as those in Corinth were set free from their sinful lifestyles, and brought into God’s Kingdom, so we can be too, if we agree with him about our condition and the need to change. That is the good news of the gospel – being set free from sinful dead-end lifestyles, not being trapped in them.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  13. If an unmarried Christian girl and guy live together, this is viewed as wrong (in Christian circles). Recent history shows us that non-Christians however, don’t value marriage as highly as Christians – we see more and more people choosing to live together. Some continue that way for the rest of their lives without any desire at all for marriage.

    So, how is it that some homosexuals are now on the marriage bandwagon? They are already clearly breaking God’s laws on sexuality and marriage. Obviously it ain’t God’s moral standards they’re concerned about. So what is it? They keep telling us how happy and satisfied they are in their relationships.

    Sounds to me like same-sex marriage ‘rights’ are all about seeking public acceptance, rather than about marriage itself.

    Annette Nestor

  14. I was thinking about the comment our friend Michael has made above and other ‘homosexual Christians’ (if there is such a thing!) who actually believe God made them that way … Think about this – there are Christians who saved themselves for their wedding night, but I doubt you would find two homosexuals who ever did.

    Annette Nestor

Leave a Reply

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

%d bloggers like this: