CultureWatch

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

Obliterating Parents and Families

Feb 13, 2013

The homosexual activists keep insisting that they just want to be left alone to do their own thing. They merely want the state out of the bedroom, they claim. If that were all they wanted, most folks would agree. But that of course is not just what they want. They are on a mission to destroy marriage and family, and to even deconstruct the very nature of parenting.

Thus we have seen a full-scale war declared on mothers and fathers as part of their radical social engineering agenda. They are intent on remaking family, parenting and marriage into their own distorted image. And sadly they are succeeding on many fronts.

Aided and abetted by a radical judiciary, a compliant mainstream media, and so many of our ruling elites, they are very quickly demolishing the very concept of parenting and family. And that, as I document in my book, Strained Relations, is exactly what they have always wanted to do.

Consider a few more recent examples of this. In Florida a judge has declared that a child can have three parents. The story goes this way: “In what could become a landmark decision, a Florida judge has ruled that a 23-month-old girl can have three people listed on her birth certificate as her parents.

“Miami-Dade Circuit Court Judge Antonio Marin approved a settlement between a lesbian couple, Maria Italiano and Cher Filippazzo, who were legally ‘married’ in Connecticut, and Massimiliano Gerina, a homosexual who donated sperm for Italiano to become pregnant.”

It is exactly this sort of radical social engineering which is resulting in laws being changed all around the Western world to basically obliterate the very notion of mothers and fathers. What has just occurred in Scotland is another case in point:

“The words ‘mother’ and ‘father’ will be dropped from Scottish matrimonial law under First Minister Alex Salmond’s plans to redefine marriage. Official consultation documents which accompany the Scottish Government’s draft Bill spell out the changes to terminology. Where current matrimonial law refers to ‘mother’ and ‘father’, the Scottish Government plans for legislation to use the gender–neutral term ‘parent’.”

Not everyone there was thrilled with the idea. The former leader of the Scottish National Party, Gordon Wilson, said: “The politically correct elite are going mad. They are going far beyond what people envisage.” And Norman Wells of the Family Education Trust put it this way:

“The Scottish Government’s plan to introduce a new lexicon for family relationships shows just how far its proposals to redefine marriage extend. It is engaging in a linguistic revolution to accommodate the wishes of a tiny minority of same-sex couples who want their relationships to be recognised as a marriage. Under these proposals, marriage is not so much being extended to same-sex couples as being taken over by them.”

It is not just those who can be called members of the religious right who are appalled at all this. Consider the thoughts of UK columnist Brendan O’Neill. Last year he penned a piece entitled, “How the gay-marriage campaign has unleashed a bureaucratic assault on people’s identities”. In it he is not reserved in expressing his contempt for this PC madness:

“Anyone who thinks the introduction of gay marriage will give rise to a new era of liberty and choice should look at the Canadian experience. There, the passing of the 2005 Civil Marriage Act, which allows same-sex unions, unleashed a phenomenal amount of state meddling in families and relationships. Most notably, the state utterly overhauled the traditional language of the family, airbrushing from official documents terms such as ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ and even ‘mother’ and ‘father’. The Orwellian obliteration of such longstanding identities, which mean a great deal to many people, demonstrates that modern politicians are more than happy to ride roughshod over the majority in their desperate pursuit of some PC political points.”

He concludes: “Such tinkering with lingo, the replacement of words that have real depth and meaning for millions of people with bureaucratic terms that no normal person uses, reveals the social-engineering instinct that lies behind the gay-marriage campaign. Because this is not simply about elevating gay relationships, as we are so often told – more importantly, it is about demoting and devaluing traditional relationships, as built on marriage as it was once understood. Who in their right mind introduces their husband or wife as their ‘spouse’? What normal woman describes herself as ‘Parent 1’ to her children rather than ‘mother’? No one does. The emergence of such vapid terminology on the back of the gay-marriage bandwagon shows that traditional identities will be trounced in the name of allowing political elites to look cool by backing gay marriage.

“What message does it send to people who define themselves as husbands, wives, mothers or fathers when those ancient terms, so packed with moral purchase, are overnight replaced by bureaucratic BS? It doesn’t matter, it seems. Those people and their identities count for little in the face of David Cameron’s desire to look both caring and daring as he gives his blessing to gay marriage.”

And more recently he had a great piece describing just what this whole push for homosexual marriage and adoption rights is really all about. Homosexual marriage, he writes, “is depicted as a glorious moment in human history, on a par with blacks in America winning civil rights or women getting the vote. Has the world gone mad? I hope so, because otherwise I definitely have.

“Nothing in Britain’s gay marriage debate adds up. For example, we’re told the passing of the gay marriage bill is an historic victory for the brave gay activists who despite being mocked as perverts and poofs took part in London’s first gay pride parades in the 1970s. Yet this fantastically overlooks the fact that those marchers denounced marriage and the family as ‘patriarchal prisons’ that ‘enslave women, gays and children’.

“For all the harebrained attempts to doll up the passing of the marriage bill as the endpoint to 50 years of gay agitation, the truth is early gay radicals campaigned against marriage, not for it. Marriage is a ‘rotten, oppressive institution’, said the 1970 Gay Manifesto. Homosexuals are ‘in revolt against the nuclear family structure’, said the influential Gay is Good tract of 1972.”

His conclusion is quite telling: “Gay marriage is an entirely invented issue, magicked up by a morally bereft political class desperate to appear meaningful, purposeful. So now they congratulate themselves for having made history while ordinary Brits look on in bamboozlement, decidedly unconvinced that history has happened or that our aloof, principle-lite rulers are the new Rosa Parks.”

Yes our ruling elites deserve as much blame and censure as the homosexual militants. Both are allowing the West in general and parenting and family in particular to go down the gurgler. No social experiment has ever been this momentous and this fraught with danger.

Yet the activists don’t give a rip. Their real aim is about one thing only: destruction, obliteration, and annihilation. And they are doing a great job of all that.

www.lifesitenews.com/news/florida-judge-oks-3-parent-family-two-lesbians-and-a-homosexual
www.christian.org.uk/news/mother-and-father-to-be-scrapped-from-scottish-law/
blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/brendanoneill2/100146397/how-the-gay-marriage-camapign-has-unleashed-a-bureaucratic-assault-on-peoples-identities/
www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/gay-marriage-a-feelgood-fight-for-issues-lite-elite/story-e6frgd0x-1226574895008

[1173 words]

28 Responses to Obliterating Parents and Families

  • There is clearly an increasing mental derangement amongst many of our leaders. I have no hesitation in saying that such notions as parent 1 and parent 2 for mothers and fathers are signs of insanity. They are clearly not sane and are therefore insane.

    I can’t fathom how anyone with an IQ above 85 can look us straight in the face and expect us to agree that the great arguments for same-sex marriage are marriage equality, marriage for all, equal love, and a liberal sprinkling of cries of “homophobic”. They are either involved in a deliberate attempt to destroy societies or they are mentally awry.

    And that’s putting it mildly. The interesting thing is that many who are not Christians, including atheists, while they cannot discern spiritual things, can see the absurdity of all this nonsense.

    David Morrison

  • Some well made points here. Thanks Bill.
    Tom Layton

  • Thanks Tom

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • David Morrison what you say regarding non-Christians teaching Christians the truth might suggest that God is already calling out those who presently do not belong to him, whilst those who claim to be Christians are sadly deluded about their salvation. I believe that people are wicked before they go insane and that certainly describes Britain’s present government, who have declared war on the people of Britain.

    It may well be that we as a nation are too far down the Gadarene slope and that all we can do is stop individuals being dragged over the edge. Another analogy might be that of the Titanic, which was past saving. All those on life-rafts were able to do was to save souls, drowning in the sea, before they were sucked down with: something that the church should be doing but from it which seems supernaturally, disconnected and detached.

    David Skinner, UK

  • It is better when it comes from the horse’s mouth:

    www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00bqcs2

    Dr Eric Anderson of Winchester University is in a class all of his own.

    www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=tt6AGxc7LBM

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs4iancnT2w

    oxfordstudent.com/2011/05/21/lecturer-or-lecherer-at-lgbt-talk/

    It may well be in the foreseeable future that just as old driving licenses and passports have to be renewed so old marriage certificates will need to be renewed and a lot of elderly people, or those who are not progressive – or dare I say, homophobic- will have their marriages annulled because they refuse to conform to the new marriage regulations which are in the process of being rewritten by the pink, queer, Lesbian,bisexual transsexual and gaystapo. We aint seen nothing yet.

    David Skinner, UK

  • Isn’t it discriminatory to call people Parent 1 and Parent 2? I mean who decides which is which….and why is Parent 1 first before Parent 2…who says they are more important? Isn’t it discriminatory to say the number 1 should come before the number 2…Equality for all I say, even numbers!!! I mean who says that when we count we have to say 1,2,3 etc…Oh the stupidity of it all!!
    Quite frankly I am offended that as a mother, I would be relegated to this ridiculous description….maybe I can use Nicola Roxon’s anti-discrimination laws to sue for being ‘offended’ and ‘insulted’ and ‘having my feelings hurt’!

    Sandy Anderson

  • Do the people who legislate to allow a relationship based on same sex to be called a marriage ever think about what they are doing. Don’t they know that God has already ruled on this issue. They listen to the campaign of lies led by the father of lies and in an act of defiance overturn God’s law. The harm they have done to society lives on after they are gone. But there is a higher court before which they must appear. They might plead “the devil tempted me…” but that didn’t work for Eve.

    B T Walters

  • Indeed Sandy, the British government are discriminating by creating gay marriage and straight marriage. If a wife’s husband has an affair with a woman, she may legally divorce him, but if he has an affair with another man, she won’t be able to. Where is the equality here? In other words divorce can only occur when adultery takes place between a man and women, but if it is between a man and man or a woman and woman, tough.

    And I am afraid being offended by gays does not count either. Didn’t you know they are a protected species who are threatened with extinction? Come on Sandy, wakey wakey!!

    David Skinner, UK

  • We sure are close to the edge of the precipice! I have found David Kupelian’s book, ‘The Marketing of Evil’ an excellent expose of the strategies and tactics the Gay/MSM liaison have used, since the ’70’s, to shut down all opposition and reasoned debate, putting a homophobic label on anyone who expresses an opposing view. This book is not, however all ‘doom & gloom’. It offers hope, by informing people about what can be done to counter this deliberate deception.

    Ian Blackburne

  • Thanks Ian

    Yes it is a great book. I review it here:

    www.billmuehlenberg.com/2006/07/11/a-review-of-the-marketing-of-evil-by-david-kupelian/

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • Following on from Sandy and David Skinners’s posts re discrimination. In fact, what we are getting, at least here in the UK is REVERSE discrimination. I have sent some MPs the following on this point:

    Ministers perpetuate the absurd myth that the redefinition of marriage is somehow a re-balancing towards “equal” marriage. However, same-sex ‘marriage is decidedly unequal for the following six reasons:

    1. It would not necessarily, as for normal marriage, include any commitment to fidelity and a lifelong indissoluble union.

    2. SSM cannot of necessity include a legal or a biological provision of consummation. Such a “union” by definition would be barren and sterile

    3. SSM has no provision for separation or divorce on the grounds of adultery – as by law enjoined for heterosexual couples.
    (homosexuals are known to be the most promiscuous group above all others in western societies.)

    4. By definition SSM cannot fulfill one of the most important essentials of normal marriage (except by intervention of one or more third party), namely the ability to beget and raise children in families.

    5. SSM would be a genderless union – unknown in any society or culture past or present. Therefore not marriage in any sense, since all species reproduce through the biological union of male and female.

    6. Likely participants in SSM are known to be a very tiny minority of an existing minority of people in the UK. (less than 1%) By contrast normal and exclusively heterosexual union is the experience of countless millions of people. No equality there then.

    In summary:
    The government’s attempt to corrupt and degrade normal marriage can only be achieved by destroying its unique status and substituting a change of word and concept that is meaningless. In effect, a legal fiction. One cannot have TWO different sets of rules for those who are homosexual as opposed to heterosexual. By definition therefore if homosexual relationships are not equal to heterosexual relationships in the relevant sense, then homosexual ‘marriage’ is itself a form of unjust privilege. There is no compelling reason for the State to be involved in marriage at all, except to recognise a pre-existing reality, and real marriage has survived and prospered without the patronage of the State. Marriage is an intensely personal matter – a privately motivated, and independently organised, union of two heterosexual people. Political intrusion into this institution is unnecessary and arrogant.

    Graham Wood, UK

  • Graham, although I agree with you on every single point, I believe the last point needs clarification. Yes, marriage between a man and woman is an intensely private and personal thing, that reaches into the most sensitive and therefore vulnerable areas of the couples lives, but it is also social affair in that the marriage requires the support of immediate and extended family the community and the rest of the nation. In that sense their marriage is an objective reality, more like a post or position of responsibility and duty that has to be defended at all cost for the sake of children and the rest of society. So in that sense it is not just a private affair.

    David Skinner, UK

  • I must agree with David. The State has a duty to all its citizens, including future generations. Hence its interest in statistics of Marriages and Births.
    Since same-sex relationships are by definition sterile, births produced through these relationships introduce a large degree of dysfunctionality into the notion of family. Another reason for treating such ‘unions’ differently to marriage.
    Dunstan Hartley

  • We’re rushing like lemmings down the broad and easy path. God forgive the apathy, indifference and failures of insight which have brought us to this tragic situation. Yet we know that “With God, all things are possible”. With prayer, fasting and the courage to fight back in appropriate ways, we may still return to former standards of public decency.
    You are a wonderful example and encouragement to us Bill. May we all have the gumption to do whatever little bit we’re called to contribute.
    Anna Cook

  • Sandy makes a good point regarding the discrimination in “Parent 1 and Parent 2” and of course the concept of “same sex” itself.The UK Prime Minister has blindly tried to push through legislation for SSM without mandate, investigation into legal implications or genuine consultation with the nation, indeed without much thought at all except that “every one is equal”. This is fairly described as having contempt for ordinary people. The legal implication of Adultery not being applicable to same sex couples gives rise to the possibility of the abolition of adultery. How mad is that? What sort of marriage is that?

    Speculation has it that a European Union directive is insisting on this application of “equality” and the UK government is scurrying around trying to get it done surreptitiously by September this year, likewise with France.

    The same-sex war cry is: “Agree or die”. That is not very gay. It is reminiscent of the Nazi imperative “be Aryan or die”.

    It seems we are being corralled into a pen, to be controlled and herded as directed by those in power.
    The irony is that George Orwell warned us against a socialist dystopia such as we are heading towards ages ago in his satire Nineteen Eighty Four. It is even more ironic that a Conservative Prime Minister is forcing it through.

    Rachel Smith, UK

  • If your library gets the Sunday Tasmanian, look up August 5th 2012, p. 4. There you will see the Premier of Tasmania, the Hon. Lara Giddings M.H.A., cavorting with powerful homosexual men. Very foolish, because in the coming homosexual-dominated culture, the only possible use for women is to produce babies for the gay elite.

    Men who sow their seed in human excrement have no place for women in their lives.

    Michael Watts

  • I had to chuckle at the image your article raised in my mind of a mother trying to teach her child to address her as parent 1. May children at least continue to buck the PC trend for a long time to come.
    As for the earlier homosexual rebels, they were blessed in the sense that they knew they were rebels. Easier to find your way back into the light if in your rebellion you still know the distinction between light and darkness, up and down etc.

    Yes, in a heterosexual family where there is only 1 mother, at least she can be secure in her position without the need of jealousy because of a rival. How simple good and beautiful God has made things. To think we should try and improve on the model. Definitely insane.
    Many blessings
    Ursula Bennett

  • Maybe we shouldn’t be too upset if this gay marriage thing wins out after all. I don’t mean we should give up opposition to it, but if it does win, a couple of things will occur: (1) it will keep gays from commanding so many headlines, since it’s really just things that pertain to government and legalities that have the power to do that, and this tiny minority doesn’t have the right to keep doing that; and, (2) maybe people will realize over time that only a tiny percentage of gays are interested in getting married and a lot of those only want “open” marriage. Realizing this may bring more clarity to the intrinsically promiscuous nature of homosexual life and also bring more attention back to a larger concern — a cultural, not legal, concern — which is the increasingly anarchic nature of life among heterosexuals.

    John Hughes

  • Thanks John

    We already know that when homosexual marriage is legalised, as in the Netherlands or Massachusetts in the US, only a miniscule proportion of homosexuals avail themselves of it – and homosexual divorce is already becoming a boom industry.

    But we cannot be cavalier here, since their list of demands is endless. If we cave in on marriage, then the demands for homosexual adoption rights will also be inevitable. We dare not let our children suffer in this way.

    See this set of shocking stories for example:

    “Foster carers jailed over abuse” – news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/bradford/5109518.stm

    “Gay-rights activist Larry Brinkin was formally charged Wednesday with six felony counts related to the possession and distribution of child pornography.” – www.sfexaminer.com/local/crime/2012/09/brinkin-pleads-not-guilty-six-felony-count#ixzz2Kvf4XRpt

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • Dear Bill.

    I am getting stressed out here with the apathy of the church (here in Australia).

    Do I have your permission to quote the above text (your text), in full on my Facebook page? If I can’t quote all of the text, with acknowledgment that you are the author of course, can I quote some of the text?

    I will of course put a link back to your website.

    God bless you Bill for all that you are doing in standing up for family values and basic Biblical truths.

    Paul Copeland

  • Yes feel free Paul. But if you get heaps of flak for it, you will have to take them on yourself! I am already pretty busy here, without taking on other battles!

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • The subordinate clause in your last sentence is almost a biblical statement Michael whilst at the same time focusing attention on the vile reality. The other reality is that this behaviour is intrinsically evil and thus it is a very serious sin. But I might be wrong. In all my years of attending Mass I have never heard any priest or bishop so much as hint at either of these aspects – and sin is their business. But it would take a brave heart to preach on this topic these days.
    B T Walters

  • Bill
    Keep up the good work.

    Have you seen the stats for same-sex couples from the 2011 census? They make interesting reading.

    2011 Census QuickStats
    www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2011/quickstat/0

    Total population: 21, 507, 717
    Total families: 5,684,062

    Reflecting a Nation: Stories from the 2011 Census.
    ‘Same-sex Couple Families’
    www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/2071.0Main%20Features852012%E2%80%932013?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=2071.0&issue=2012%962013&num=&view=

    In 2011, 33,714 same-sex couples were counted in the Census. Consistent with the legal situation in Australia, the overwhelming majority of same-sex couples were described as de facto partners (96%), while there were 1,338 same-sex couples where one person was described as the husband or wife of the other.

    Same-sex couples account for a very small proportion of all couple families. They comprised 0.7% in 2011.

    Children under 25 living in same-sex families:
    Male same sex-couples: 658
    Female same sex-couples: 5462
    Total: 6120

    Some observations:
    On these figures 67428 Australians identify as belonging to a same-sex union. That is 0.31% of the total population. 0.7% of all couple families are same-sex. The vast majority of these do not include children. These low numbers are despite the fact that,

    ‘In recent years both the States and Territories and the Australian Government have legislated to put same-sex de facto couples on the same basis as opposite-sex de facto couples in many areas, recognising their relationships in matters such as superannuation, taxation, social security, inheritance and support for veterans. Some states have also passed Civil Partnership or similar laws which include an opportunity for same-sex couples to register a relationship; same-sex couples are now able to access the Family Court to settle matters when separating; and the Australian Government has agreed to provide necessary paperwork for Australian’s wishing to enter a same-sex marriage overseas.’ From Reflecting a Nation: Stories from the 2011 Census. ‘Same-sex Couple Families.’

    Those desiring a same-sex partnership, on present indications, represent a tiny proportion of Australians, and so it could be asked, what other minority group is able to command so much media attention, or if successful, such dramatic legislative reform?

    Steve Messer

  • Yes quite right Steve. Considering how very few there are, they sure have a lot of clout.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • The fact that these minorities have a lot of clout means that (often) they have cultivated friends in high places and are being assisted by other shadowy figures who have an immense amount of money and influence. Without these things they would be totally insignificant.

    There’s clearly something very evil at the bottom of it all, when a small minority can dictate the laws of the land, get folk kicked out of their jobs, overturn the majority view and attack God’s people., AND get government to issue gagging orders so that the minority is “protected”.

    Chris Dark

  • I believe it is an offence to make homosexual advances towards someone? If so our children should know about this so that whenever it happens it can be made public. Abusers hate publicity. They accuse one of having a fear of homosexuals or of being a latent homosexual, among other things. The accuser! One priest said ‘We have moved on from Leviticus; they weren’t as enlightened in those days as we are today’. The father of lies!
    B T Walters

  • There is a word now for this – Homoheresy. It’s like a computer virus, if you let it into your church or your society it will destroy it. Just look at the shenanigans in the Episcopalian church in the USA- so many historic church buildings emptied out and being sold.
    Nina Blondel

  • In reference to B.T. Walters’ first comment: In the past, because the fear of God was more abundant, it used to be enough to call sin sin and we knew it offended God and everyone knew that was dangerous. Now, with the fear of God diminished, things need to be spelt out a bit more graphic before people realize why things aren’t good for us. Yes, it is the focus on sin being bad for us now that sometimes help people to turn, which is a good thing if you want to live a long and healthy life in this world, but how does it lead us to eternal life?
    I have reflected more on discrimination and antidiscrimination being inverted discrimination as someone said. If we discriminate in order to choose the better over the not so good, then antidiscrimination does the opposite, it pushes the not so good or even the evil into the forefront of compulsory choice. I had never thought of that but it does fit the reality of what we see.
    Many blessings
    Ursula Bennett

Leave a Reply