CultureWatch

Bill Muehlenberg's commentary on issues of the day...

More Slippery Slopes in Action

Feb 20, 2012

No sooner had I written a piece documenting the slippery slope involving same-sex marriage, than the usual deluge of hate mail began to pour in. Of course most of it can only go straight into the bin. All these guys seem able to do is shoot the messenger. They certainly cannot refute the evidence.

All my material is fully documented in my new book for those really interested in getting all the references. So my piece was built on fact, evidence and plenty of quotes. But that means nothing to the activists. They simply hate it when anyone dares to challenge them, and the hatred bursts forth as soon as they open their mouths, or hop on their keyboards. So much for love, tolerance and acceptance.

One of the most obvious and well-documented cases of the slippery slope in action here is the homosexual-polyamory connection. As I have documented time and time again, the “arguments” used to justify same-sex marriage are the exact same ones used to justify polyamory (group love and marriage).

Yesterday it was legalisation of de facto relationships. Today it is legalisation of same-sex relationships. Tomorrow it will be the legalisation of group love relationships. All three are based on the same premise: heterosexual marriage does not matter at all; all that matters is if “love” somehow exists.

If three people love each other, how dare anyone deny them their rights to marry? How can we be so intolerant and bigoted to discriminate against loving groups? As long as any combination of people has “love” then surely they have a right to official government recognition and benefits.

Of course the homosexual activists know full well that the polyamorists are simply taking their own case for SSM to its very logical conclusion. Sure, they will pour the vilest and most noxious abuse on anyone who dares to raise this issue, but they in fact know that this is exactly the case.

So much so that they recently had a big bun fight over allowing the polyamorists to join their big sleaze parade. Organiser of the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras did not want a float by the polyamorists. They had to come up with a cheap excuse to not allow them in, as they are now feeling the heat of public scrutiny.

So they claimed that the polyamorists have nothing to do with the homosexual community. But of course they do. They have everything to do with it. A group of people in “love” means more than two people. That means you will have at least two men or two women in the combination.

Thus this group love of course entails homosexual relations as well. Unless they are bringing in a third party – perhaps dingoes or something – they only have two genders to draw from as they celebrate their threesomes or foursomes or 76-somes.

As one homosexual site said, there were “worries from other groups such as Polyamory Australia, who, before an eventual back down from organisers, were initially only granted entry to participate as a ‘supporter’ group as they were not considered part of the queer community.”

Indeed, the event organisers are obviously getting jittery here, and have had to knock back other groups as well. The same article states: “Sydney Mardi Gras has rejected claims of ‘censorship’ by followers of the Raëlian movement after the Parade Committee objected to a proposed banner containing religious and spiritual symbols which the organisation said was ‘not respectful’ towards other community groups.

“The banner read ‘Homophobia is criminal bible bulls**t’ and featured several symbols of major Abrahamic faiths including a cross, the Star of David and a crescent, representing Christianity, Judaism and Islam respectively.”

But back to the polyamorists. After their initial banning, they made a stink and eventually were allowed to join in. Here in part is what a media release from Polyamory Australia states:

“Mardi Gras initially only allowed the poly group to participate as a ‘supporter’ entry, with a less prominent position and restrictions on displayed slogans. A Mardi Gras contact told one of the poly entry organisers that they were not an LGBTIQ group, and compared them to ‘a bowling club’. Other long-time parade participants received similar correspondence, including sex worker activist group Scarlet Alliance.

“Polyamorist social media erupted in a furore over the initial decision. For many polyamorists, it was particularly offensive because the parade’s slogan is ‘infinite love for all’, and the logo is a pair of hearts arranged to form an infinity symbol—polyamorous groups worldwide have used similar symbology for decades.

“Although the Sydney poly community is divided about whether polyamory is queer per se, most of last year’s poly float participants identify as LGBTIQ. Even poly heterosexuals believe they have issues in common with LGBTIQ people. As one Facebook comment put it: ‘when I had relatives threatening to punch me recently for my orientation, it wasn’t for being L, G, B, T, or I, it was for being poly’.”

Hey there you go folks: “infinite love for all”. Wow, that is so inclusive and so, well, loving, and so positive. Yes, why have any barriers whatsoever? Are you keen on your pet cat? Hey, no probs – go for it. Do you have an erotic attraction to your bookcases? I am sure we can find someone who will perform the ceremony for you.

Have you got the hots for your Nintendo? Well, go for it man! The sky’s the limit. Indeed, we have already had actual cases of all this. People have already married their pets. One woman has even married a wall. So this is not some future possibility – it is happening right now.

No wonder the event organisers were a bit squeamish about allowing these guys in. They are already having to deal with an image problem here, and this will just compound matters. But plenty of these folks nonetheless see no problem whatsoever about polyamory, and they see it as a quite logical extension of ‘queer theory’ and ‘queer politics’.

Consider what one homosexual activist has written about what it means to be ‘queer’: “There are a lot of things that it clearly does include. These are people who identify as polysexual, asexual, genderqueer, sex workers and practitioners of BDSM and polyamory – even if they are ‘heterosexual’. They are part of the queer community because they also reject the dominant heteronormative and patriarchal paradigms and seek community to build their own desired relationships.”

He continues: “So firstly, any assertion that the Polyamory group does not fall under the LGBTIQ acronym is false. Secondly, not all the people in the group are heterosexual and we should be celebrating our diversity as a LGBTIQ group and this includes non-monogamous relationship structures. Thirdly, this group has applied for a float to express their sexuality – it seems to me that they self-identify as being part of the LGBTIQ community.”

He concludes this way: “I am disappointed by this trend towards what has been dubbed ‘homoconservatism’ within our community. The attempts to reinforce and normalise monogamous same-sex relationships as being the only acceptable form of partnership is a growing trend. Perhaps it’s an unintended consequence of the prevalence of the marriage campaign. The formally disenfranchised gay white men wanting to get their share of ‘normality’ and privilege by oppressing others.

“If the tone of this article is harsh, it’s because I expect better treatment of others in our community. While Mardi Gras did back down and allow the polyamory float to enter the parade, their initial refusal to include polyamory as a LGBTIQ group is troubling. Given the recent dropping of ‘Gay and Lesbian’ from the name of the event, and the controversy surrounding that decision, I have serious doubts over the legitimacy of the parade as a political act. I also am concerned for the future of our community as a whole. Will the marriage campaign further divide our community and split it between the privileged few who have the rights to live life as they choose and those who don’t? It’s really time for some more active queer radicalisation against the tides of growing conservatism. We can do better.”

There you have it folks: straight out of the horse’s mouth. So stop shooting me already. I am only the messenger. If you don’t like what this guy is saying, attack him, not me. But as I fully document in my book, the connection between the homosexual lobby and the polyamory lobby is a strong, logical and an ongoing connection.

Plenty of other activists have admitted the same. So the home truth here is quite clear: a vote for same-sex marriage is a vote for group marriage. To support one is to support the other. There can be no denying that the slippery slope is clearly in action here.

gaynewsnetwork.com.au/news/news-2/4710-raelians-accuse-mardi-gras-of-censorship.html polyamory.org.au/media/2012-02-07-mardi-gras-polyamory-float-controversy-resolved
gaynewsnetwork.com.au/viewpoint/viewpoint/4660-tommy-berne-get-in-the-q.html

[1467 words]

37 Responses to More Slippery Slopes in Action

  • Now what we need is a bunch of polyamory activists to besiege the gay rights representatives with abuse and claims of polyphobia and anti-group love bigotry.
    Damien Spillane

  • Yes quite right Damien

    Those bigoted polyphobes need to learn about tolerance and acceptance, and stop being so discriminatory and denying polys their love.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • In other words, mere bigamy is too conservative for these people? I guess it’s not sinful enough to fit their agenda.
    Dominic Snowdon

  • Bill, has this ever happened to you; people cherry-picking excerpts from your blog postings to try to make you look bad?
    Ross McPhee

  • And when it all falls apart on them, are they going to sue the govt and Church groups for not protecting them from themselves and their destructive ideology?

    The same goes for abortion, will those who get conned into it sue the pro abortion groups, or will they just sue the govt and claim that because they made it legal its all their fault?

    Its like the people who sue the council for not putting up anti-drunk rails near roads, so they can stumble into them instead of in front of traffic and get hit by a bike/car/taxi/truck etc.

    Excellent find there btw Bill, it really puts the blame right where the blame lies, and that isn’t with you. I still think the idea of an uncensored page of these threats/derogatory comments would not go astray, I think they spew their vileness at you because they know you will not expose them to the harsh light of day, so again, I say, expose away, they need a good dose of embarrassment.
    Just a thought.
    Neil Waldron

  • Thanks Ross

    Yes happens all the time. That is how the other side operates. They have perfected the art of playing dirty – seems to suit their style.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • The LGBTIQ group are just priceless, they have even elevated themselves to high position and are looking down at those sick Polyamorists. To me the Christian attempts to humble himself before an almighty GOD. But this lot raise themselves up in a feeble attempt to feel normal. Like a bald man trying to have hair. He puts the wig on and feels important but he knows the truth.
    Daniel Kempton

  • Yes quite right Daniel.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • I’m partial to the argument that if you remove recognition of marriage from under the purview of government, you take the sting out of their campaigns because there are no coercive political forces to marshall against opponents. People would be free to call their relationships whatever they like and no-one else can be forced to acknowledge their relationships.

    One of the issues is that transfer payments from singles to married courtesy of government would be much more difficult to manage but I’m personally in favour of abolishing the vast majority of government handouts to families anyhow.

    Lee Herridge

  • Wow–too bad when the morality of the polyamorists offends the ordinary gay and lesbian lobby! Gary North makes the philosophical point in his book Liberating Planet Earth that those who deny God and His Law are unable to consistently live out their own beliefs. Thus, gays and lesbians object to the level of perversion in their slide into hell.
    Steve Swartz

  • Thanks Lee

    Yes that is the libertarian approach to this, but not the conservative one. Governments are not involved in other relationships and that is fine because there is no reason for them to be. But the reason why government is and should be involved in marriage is because at its very heart, marriage has to do with children. Governments should be interested in the wellbeing of children, and that is why governments have always recognised the importance of heterosexual marriage, and the tremendous benefits it brings to society. Thus societies – and governments – have therefore given special recognition and treatment to marriage.

    As to funding arrangements, that is another issue, which I have discussed in other articles (see the economics section for example).

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • Yes quite right Steve. But I suspect their fears have more to do with public perceptions and image issues than any real moral objections to the polys. Indeed, many homosexual activists for years have been pushing radical sexual anarchy, so the polys are just part of their push to destroy human sexuality as it was intended to be.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • ‘One woman has even married a wall.’ Just when I thought I heard it all. I guess to them if it feels good, do it! Like the song “Why Don’t We Do It In the Road’. Here I am, on the wrong side of my thirties, believe that marriage is between a man and a woman and further more that I should wait until I am married for such intimate relationships and it looks as though I am the odd one here. I like being an individual and stand out from the crowd.
    Carl Strehlow

  • Yes quite right Carl

    And there are photos of the beaming bride standing next to her beloved wall of the warehouse. I wrote that story up here:

    https://billmuehlenberg.com/2012/02/01/yet-more-scenes-from-the-passing-madness/

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • The idea of love being without boundaries or limits is a repeated theme in Adam Bandt, MHR’s First Reading Speech for the Green’s Marriage Equality Bill introduced into our Federal parliament on February 13th. Mr Bandt’s web page has the full text of the speech as well as other speeches given on the Same Sex Marriage issue by himself. The question is: “What does he mean by “love””? I strongly suspect his definition of that “many-splendoured thing” has more to do with Eros and Aphrodite than with biblical ag?p? and chesed. Divine love is unbounded in its reaching even the chief of sinners. However, that kind of love willingly serves within the bounds and limits of all that is true, noble, right, pure, etc [Philippians 4:8]. Seems the campaign for “equality of love” will move on to bisexuality after the “G & L” part of the alternative sexuality lobby has achieved total legitimacy at law – if their standard acronym GLBTI is shorthand for a social change agenda.
    John Wigg

  • Thanks for that info about Bandt John, and yes you are exactly right in the rest of your remarks.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • Hi Bill,

    It reminds me of the circumstances leading to the French Revolution. A man unschooled in the writings of Rousseau, and the machinations of his disciples would just have noticed a concerted campaign of escalating disrespect for the monarchy – a campaign which grew ever bolder and stronger as each probing of the limits was permitted. It was this culture that allowed the political revolution – and that in a monarchy. What chance do we have (humanly speaking) in a democracy?

    Mansel Rogerson

  • Hi Bill.
    On different note, I just come across this article which illustrates perfectly the moral depravity that many of today’s philosophies ultimately lead.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9078558/Campaigners-question-ethics-of-Britains-first-male-mother.html

    Regards
    Lionel Hart

  • Yes quite so Lionel, It is all rather a worry isn’t it?
    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • Britain’s first male mother was a woman who partially transgendered to a man (although retained her womb) and who was in a gay relationship with another man. Got pregnant and now the male partner has faded off the scene. The partially transgendered mother is now raising the child as a single man/woman. So much prevarication. Men seem to want to be women and vice versa – they are not content with what they are. An element of insanity indeed does come into play here as trans-sexuals can be issued with new birth certificates and subsequently think that they are a lot younger than they are i.e. I know some one who thinks he/she is only the age at which they transgendered and became a new person. Also a transgendered male will fly into a rage if it is suggested that he cannot be a she, as he/she does not menstruate. The person is in denial of reality. This self-centred behaviour pays scant regard to the child, who is the fruit of the womb, or the parents who gave birth to the trans-sexual. We are commanded to honour our father and our mother – that will surely bring us back to balance when we can take pride in who we are born as.

    Multiples of this sort of situation do not bear thinking about.

    Rachel Smith

  • Hi John,

    Here is a copy of the ‘Marriage Motion’ you mentioned.
    It is such a pathetic article I would love to see it dissected and exposed for its shallowness. I reckon even some primary age children could see that it is short on argument and full of propaganda and certainly not worth being given any serious consideration by any of our politicians.
    ‘Love has no limits’
    Love knows no boundaries….

    ..Well it should, and our laws should enforce limits an boundaries…. how adult/children relationships, group love etc etc?
    The rest of the document is just as bad.

    It certainly gives an insight into the shallowness and deceptiveness of the Greens though.

    http://www.adam-bandt.greensmps.org.au/taxonomy/term/663

    Annette Williams

  • Sorry – I cant keep up. The above link is the latest offering, this is the link to the original ‘Marriage Equality Motion’

    http://www.adam-bandt.greensmps.org.au/content/speech/marriage-equality-motion

    Annette Williams

  • It seams that as soon as we give even a small part of “Our will” over to God’s will, the flood gates are open for sin and death to pore in and they pore in, not like a trickle, but more like a flood. Praise God for the standard raised against the enemy.
    I heard yesterday about a woman contracting a serious disease from kissing her pet rat, let that mean what it may.
    Maybe it is time for us Christians to publicly repent for the sin of our nation of taking away the exclusive place of human sexuality in heterosexual marriage, where it was protected, for I am sure that many “well meaning Christians” were possibly involved in bringing those laws to pass back in the 70’s when the divorce laws were relaxed and adultery no longer existed as a legal term.
    Maybe if the “homosexual community” sees us blaming ourselves for the true cause of the slippery slope and not them, it wouldn’t be the first time that this kind of thing had a humbling, convicting and eye opening effect on those whom we seek to bring to Christ.
    Many blessings
    Ursula Bennett

  • Many thanks for the links Annette. I may yet write them up.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • I recommend Bill’s scholarly book on this topic.

    Get it before its banned.

    Damien Spillane

  • Bill this a clever piece of writing and its so funny (as in tragic). It just highlights the madness in promotion of all forms of sexuality. I mean really, its ridiculous, people need psychiatric care, but then again psychologists and psychiatrists are part of the problem and would just validate the whole damn mess. I thank the Lord I am not part of this depravity.
    Maree Wood

  • Thanks Damien

    Sadly it is altogether possible that my book – and others like it – will be banned. They can just call it “hate speech” and gather all copies and burn them in piles on the streets. Now where have we seen that sort of thing in the not too distant past?

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • It was great fun reading the comments from the last link you gave us in the blog. Basically it is a reply to John who said that now the Mardi Gras has to give a float to conservative Mormons and Muslims for their polygamy.

    “@John – sorry, but you are way out of line. There’s a huge difference between consensual, loving committed multi-partner relationships (Polyamory), and religious-indoctrinated polygamy. HUGE difference.”

    It is quite funny how they can be so bigoted against something that that should be part of their identity. Basically the Bible is correct when it says “there is nothing new under the sun”.

    Ian Nairn

  • Thank you Damien Spillane! You beat me to the draw over the creation of this new word: “Polyphobia”! ROFL!

    I wonder what I shall find when I Google it…

    Cheers,
    Dominic Baron, NZ

  • I trust that the marriage act as man and woman will stand in Australia. God have mercy on us!
    However hypothetically, if that were not to be the case, what could happen to the practice of the orthodox Christian faith in this country?
    Genesis tells us God created male and female – we KNOW that BECAUSE we believe God’s Word as authoritative and as revelation – that is where we stand. Wouldn’t the legalisation of homosexual marriage actually suffocate the ability of the Christian church to teach much of its doctrine from Genesis to Revelation under threat of prosecution? Isn’t this battle really about the extinction of the freedom of the orthodox Christian church? What do you see as the day to day implications?
    Anne-Marie Modra

  • Maree
    Until 1973 homosexuality was considered a mental aberration. The American Psychiatric Association decided to de-list it as a problem then, and we are now witnessing the catastrophic consequences of that decision.
    Dunstan Hartley

  • Thanks Dunstan

    And of course that decision only came about because of hardcore pressure and bullying from the militant homosexual lobby.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • http://www.article8.org/docs/general/platform.htm

    This document talks about what the Gay agenda would be in the US. Basically most of the agenda has been done except so far for the last two issues.
    7. Repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent.

    8. Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit; and the extension of legal benefits to all persons who cohabit regardless of sex or numbers.

    So it is officially part of the agenda from way back for such things to happen. Homosexuals have to admit that this was their plan all along.

    Ian Nairn

  • Yes quite right Ian

    I discuss all this in my new book as well. Thanks for highlighting it again.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • Thanks again Annette for the Bandt links. I wrote about him here:

    https://billmuehlenberg.com/2012/02/23/time-to-stamp-out-ugly-polyphobia/

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • Hi Bill,

    Just wanted to say thank you for your heroic crusade against the secularist indoctrination of the future children of Australia.

    God Bless you and your mission.

    Kristone Capistrano

  • Many thanks Kristone

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

Leave a Reply