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

Why the Demand For Homosexual Marriage?

Mar 24, 2012

As I have carefully documented in my new book, Strained Relations, not only do most people not give a rip about homosexual marriage, but nor do most homosexuals. It was never even on the radar until just recently, but now it seems to be the most pressing item there is, at least according to the mainstream media.

It is not just the flavour of the month, but the campaign of the century it seems. Yet most homosexuals are quite uninterested in marriage, and when nations have legalised SSM, only a small minority of homosexuals have even bothered to avail themselves of it.

And most people do not have homosexual marriage high up on their must-do lists, let alone their bucket lists. It really is a non-issue for well over 99 per cent of the world’s population. Yet it seems to have become the most pressing issue of the day. Just why is this?

The answer is simple. Just take a handful of militant activists, and toss in a MSM which is overwhelmingly dominated by secular lefties, and presto: you have SSM rocketing to the number one social issue of the decade, if not all times. We of course expect the activists to push their harmful agendas.

But when the media becomes complicit in all this, then it has a lot to answer for. The media is meant to report the news. It is meant to cover the news. But far too often today the media invents the news. It creates the news. Where a story did not exist, the MSM will happily bring it into existence.

And all the hype about SSM is surely one of the biggest creations of the MSM. But don’t take my word for it. Consider the comments of someone who can hardly be described as a religious conservative, or a card-carrying member of the religious right.

I refer to British journalist and commentator Brendan O’Neil who has just recently penned two brilliant articles on SSM. Both are well worth reading in their entirety, but I will here offer large slabs from each. First is his March 6 article, “Gay marriage is now the issue through which the elite advertises its superiority over the redneck masses”.

He begins this way: “A question rarely asked about gay marriage is how it became such a massive flashpoint issue. In America and Britain, gay marriage has become one of the key issues of our time, with everyone from bishops to hacks feeling the need to tell the world where they stand on it. And yet the remarkable thing is that gay marriage has achieved this hot-potato status without the benefit of a mass movement demanding it, far less any public streetfighting or serious civil unrest by homosexuals determined to get hitched.

“For all the self-flattering comparisons made by gay activists between their demand for gay marriage and black Americans’ demand for civil rights in the 1950s and 60s, it is the differences between these two things that are most striking. Gay-marriage activists have not had to march for years on end, carry out mass boycotts, face water cannons, get attacked by dogs or run the risk of being thrown in jail for their campaign to achieve almost saintly status, winning the backing of leading politicians and commentators. The speed and ease with which gay marriage has gone from being a tiny minority concern to become the No 1 battle in the modern culture wars has been truly remarkable – and revealing.

“What it suggests is that gay marriage is more a tool of the elite than it is a demand of the demos. The thing motoring the gay-marriage campaign, its political engine, is not any longstanding desire among homosexuals to get married or an active, passionate demand from below for the right of men to marry men and women to marry women. No, its driving force, the reason it has been so speedily and heartily embraced by the political and media classes, is because it is so very useful as a litmus test of liberal, cosmopolitan values. Supporting gay marriage has become a kind of shorthand way of indicating one’s superiority over the hordes, particularly those of a religious or redneck persuasion.”

And he concludes as follows: “The bizarre emptying-out of political debate from the issue of gay marriage, and its transformation instead into a clear-cut moral matter that separates the good from the bad, shows what its backers really get out of it – a moral buzz, a rush of superiority as they declare, to anyone who will listen, that they are For Gay Marriage. In this sense, supporting gay marriage has become less a declaration of truly democratic instincts and more a kind of provocation. In declaring your support for gay marriage, you can provoke both fusty old religionists and the backward masses into expressions of disagreement or disgruntlement, and then bask in the glow of your own superior, better-informed outlook.

“This is the reason gay marriage has become so central to modern political debate in America and Britain, despite there being almost no societal drive or urge behind it – because it lends itself brilliantly to expressions of a very elitist sensibility. It allows the upper echelons of society both to distance themselves from the old and the thick and to advertise their own mental, cultural and moral superiority.”

Exactly right. And on March 22 he wrote “Why gay marriage is a very bad idea” He begins: “Gay marriage: what the hell is that all about? Anyone who asks himself the simple question of how gay marriage came to be a massive talking point in both America and Europe will surely conclude that it is the most surreal political issue of our age. There is no mass campaign for it; historically, gays haven’t been interested in getting married; and according to a recent opinion poll, while 45 per cent of Britons support gay marriage, 78 per cent think that making it legal should not be a parliamentary priority. And yet somehow, seemingly without logic or reason, gay marriage has become the issue of 2012 and is now more hotly debated in commentary circles than just about any other thing on Earth.

He continues, “One of the most striking things about gay marriage is the disparity between mass feeling for the issue (which is best described as weak to non-existent) and elite passion for it (which is intense). All sorts of elite institutions, from political parties to massive corporations, are lining up to back the gay-marriage ‘cause’, clearly having sensed that it is the issue through which their kind can now make a display of their sanctity. So not only are old-world, conservative media institutions such as The Times and right-wing parties like the Conservatives declaring their support for gay marriage, so is the CEO of Goldman Sachs, Lloyd Blankfein. He has become a spokesman for one of America’s largest gay-rights group, appearing in its adverts to say ‘I support marriage equality’.

“The intervention of Goldman Sachs makes no sense, other than as part of a process of strange and instinctive elite reformulation around this issue. Gay marriage has become the great cleanser of discredited or at-sea institutions, so that even a hated investment bank sees value in signing up for it. What we have here is effectively the formation of a new clique through a handpicked issue. At a time when traditional political dividing lines count for little, and when the old taken-for-granted morality has withered, there is an instinctive feel-around for something, anything, through which moral seriousness and cultural superiority can once again be asserted. And in recent years, gay marriage has become the prime platform for such elite preening….

“The transformation of gay marriage into a barometer of moral decency explains why the debate about it is so shot through with censoriousness and condemnation. That is another striking difference between the old genuinely democratic reformers and today’s gay-marriage supporters – where the proper reformers were in favour of openness and debate, the gay-marriage lobby seems far more keen to stifle dissent. As a writer for the Guardian put it, ‘There are some subjects that should be discussed in shades of grey, with acknowledgement of subtleties and cultural differences. Same-sex marriage is not one of those.”

And he concludes: “Now, perhaps you think the institution of marriage should be devalued, that it is stuffy and conservative and in need of an overhaul. Fine. Then argue for that, openly and honestly. But no one benefits from the charade of gay marriage. The fact is that marriage is not simply about co-habitation or partnership; it is not even simply about having an intense relationship. It has historically been about much more – about creating a unit, with its own rules, that is recognised by the state and society as a distinctive union often entered into for the purpose of raising a new generation.

“Yes, some couples enter into it for other reasons – for companionship, larks, a party or whatever – but we are not talking about individuals’ motives here; we are talking about the meaning of an institution. Collapsing together every human relationship, so that everything from gay love to a Christian couple who want to have five kids is homogenised under the term ‘marriage’, benefits no one. It doesn’t benefit gay couples, whose ‘marriage’ will have little historic depth or meaning, and it doesn’t benefit currently married couples, some of whom may feel a corrosion of their identity.”

Wow, that is a lot of insight and wisdom from someone who certainly cannot be dismissed as some religious nutter. His is one of the few voices of sanity in what has become a non-debate. There just is no proper discussion of this in the MSM. The lefties there have decided that there is only one side to this story, and no other viewpoints will be allowed.

It reminds me of a line uttered long ago by William F Buckley: “Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”

[1684 words]

21 Responses to Why the Demand For Homosexual Marriage?

  • Re-reading the early scriptures, the answer to the question in your title is obvious (to me anyhow), It is part of the cycle that is the throws of turning away from God and, the coming of God’s judgement.

    In my “humble” understanding, it starts with a relaxing of God’s commands, moves on to worshiping other gods besides the one true God (money, objects, entertainment stars/idols, lust, gluttony, envy, covetousness, immorality etc etc etc). The pattern I have noticed is it goes for 2-4 generations, all the while God sends messengers to warn the people to turn back towards God, people refuse, abuse and ostracize those sent to warn the world of their turning away from God’s judgement. Then when it all goes belly up, everyone cries about why God has let it happen to them.

    SSM is but one cog in the wheel that is the destruction of mankind. God gives as much time as he deems correct to save as many (usually very few, who are not stiff necked), then he judges and its usually real ugly for those on the receiving end of said judgement.

    Anyhow, that’s my answer to the question that is the title of your article. Good work as always Bill.

    Neil Waldron

  • Let us remind Australians of California and the brave public that demanded a vote (Proposition 8) rather than have it foisted on them by politicians under influence of fhe Hollywood elite and MSM.
    If there remains a push for homosexual marriage then put such a fundamental shift in values to Referendum!

    Stephen White

  • You Sad old fool. You haven’t even got your terminology right. MSM stands for “Men who have Sex with Men.” of course SSM is important to MSM. Duh!
    Graham Douglas-Meyer

  • Thanks Graham

    While I may be old, I am not sad nor a fool. But we realise this is the only way your side can argue. This is how you convince the world of how loving, tolerant and accepting you are – by all the mud and abuse you hurl.

    And you are wrong yet once again – MSM of course stands for mainstream media.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • Thank you for your essay. O’Neil is right. There is a degree of “superior” moral posturing on the part of heterosexuals who are pro-gay. It’s a social game rather than a closely reasoned ethical position resting on facts about homosexuality. The main rule is to keep the discussion safely in the abstract, about rights, equality etc and to avoid the gritty empirical facts about homosexuality. Some of these people become quite annoyed if you try to break the spell by bringing reality into the discussion. In a sense, the discussion is about them and their posturing liberality rather than homosexuality per se.

    I don’t think homosexuality will ever be fully accepted by the human race. By sheer weight of numbers and necessity heterosexuality has to be the norm and “normal” of course logically requires the concept of deviance. In modern societies, complex and populous, there will always be many who will cast doubt on the party line, exploiting the free flow of information. Political correctness and its fake morality can’t last. Reality bites back.

    John Snowden

  • One again we see how ‘gay’ people obfuscate the language to suit themselves (Graham Douglas-Meyer). And of course their tolerance of other peoples views is non-existent, yet we must tolerate their views. In a recent article from Germany it states that much of the success of the LGBT is because of their posturing as victims of violence, hate speech, social exclusion or discrimination.
    In fact the homosexual lobby are themselves the most virulently and intolerant group in society. Look what happened to those who organized Prop. 8 in Los Angeles or the young 14 year old who spoke against s-s-m and the many others who have suffered as a result of those activists. Next we will have ‘minor attracted men’ pushing for marriage. God help us.
    Madge Fahy

  • Wow, extremely logical, researched, and absolutely spot on.
    Makes far too much sense for 90% of the population.
    Russell Boden, UK

  • The same old enemy is all for anything which undermines good families and true, committed and faithful married relationships since these, of their very nature, are open to the creation and nurture of new life, hence new souls for eternal life with God.
    Since the minions of the enemy have a powerful influence over poor souls living in serious sin, we need to be praying every day for those who are so deceived. Our Dear Lord, who loves and died for all humanity did say “This kind only come out by prayer AND fasting”. That’s a challenge for us.
    Anna Cook

  • Hi Bill. That’s a brilliant analysis and quite sobering. What this journalist is saying is that this issue is basically the line in the sand. If believers will not shout clearly enough for a line in the sand, the line will be drawn for us. There can be no fence sitters because sooner or later, each of us will have to take our place either identified as a follower of Jesus, or a follower of the dark side. Sitting back with our fingers in our ears and our eyes closed will only end us up wherever we are put. It’s becoming not so different to the days of Ancient Rome where following Jesus was literally ‘taking up your cross’ or joining the rabble. Thank God the maddening grey zone is narrowing. We were lukewarm and didn’t even know it, and we all know what God does with the lukewarm.
    Dee Graf

  • Yes you are exactly right Dee.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • Bill – my husband and I went to the movies a couple of days ago and were interested in the large screen advertisement shown prior to the movie – it depicted great scenes of parks, shopping areas as well as eateries and finally showed a man putting on a wedding ring of someone out of frame – guess who it was? – another man. The ad was promoted by GETUP – it was quite a shock I can tell you – it must have cost a motza as it ran for quite a few minutes. Who is bankrolling these ads?

    Patti Smith

  • I have another Hero, Brendan O’Neil. One could think, Homosexual’s have done what Motor Cycle gangs couldn’t do. Create a sub-culture with Government approval. I say (GBIYC) Get Back In Your Closet. Even a (GBIYC) pride day.
    Daniel Kempton

  • I think the Queensland election result is commentary on what Australians think of gay marriage/civil partnerships. Politicians be warned – this is a poisoned chalice, a death-wish. In the Victorian election, Brumby was going to romp it in, then 2 weeks before the election, gay marriage was brought up in the media and whoosh! The liberals got in, to everyone’s surprise. The poor old Labor party just doesn’t get the message.
    Nina Blondell

  • Thanks for this article and esp the quotes from O’Neil.

    I find so many people simply don’t really ‘think’ or ‘care’ about this stuff other than throw away lines they hear from the media and borrow ‘willy nilly’. They haven’t bothered to seriously think through the consequences of seeing the legal meaning ‘marriage’ changed. Sadly, it’s their kids (and mine!) who will pay the price dearly as the basic fabric of our society continues to break apart.

    Come on Australia – THINK it through! Marriage as we know it is not something to just throw away and ‘move on from’… what are we really moving on TO? (just look at the other countries who have gone down this slippery path…)

    This decision is not about moving a local road that can be ‘put back’ a few years later if we got it wrong… proceed with great caution Australia…don’t sit back and just cop the militant minority and their media puppets propaganda. THINK about it! PLEASE.

    Kerryn Zwag

  • Bill, make sure your readers get to have their say on this survey via the House of Reps.

    Doug Smail

  • Have you seen on the Archbishop Cranmer blog how an ’eminent donor’ gave a ‘substantial’ donation of money to the Conservative Party with a report on same-sex marriage, which was fed into the policy unit. Your question is why the demand for same sex marriage? Answer: money talks.
    Nina Blondel

  • The line in the sand is around human sexuality equals hetero sexual marriage. We crossed that line decades ago and need to now push back to it. The homosexuals know it and we should know it.
    The law is the fence at the top of the cliff, only those determined on the wrong course will push past it.
    Many blessings
    Ursula Bennett

  • Quite right Ursula.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • Bill, I love your blog. It is such a relief to see the truth in a morass of lies and deceit.
    I think the point about the ‘superiority’ people feel in not identifying with the ‘fundamentalists’ is very apt. I think this would explain in part why some so-called ‘Christians’ have allowed themselves to be blindly and foolishly led along the SSM pathway, in defiance of the Word of God. “Wise in their own eyes…”
    Kathryn Farrell, Qld

  • Bill,
    Thanks for unpacking this – it’s been a mystery to me recently, wondering why on earth they even WANT to get married! There is no requirement for anyone to get married these days; many people never bother. Indeed, it seems to me even just in my circle of family and friends that most “liberals” can’t understand why anyone would want to get married!

    For me, getting married was an expression of my Christian faith and a lifelong commitment to my husband. To me, marriage has deep significance. Now, although many hetero marriages end in divorce and I am sure there are some same-sex couples who do take marriage very seriously, I believe that the SSM bleating is really mostly about the “right” and not so much about the “marriage”.

    Stephanie Miller

  • Many thanks Kath and Steph.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

Leave a Reply