CultureWatch

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

Sure They Want Marriage – To Destroy It

Apr 23, 2013

If you believed only the lamestream media, you would think that just about the whole world has embraced homosexual marriage, except for a few backwater nations. The truth is, only around 12 out of around 240 nations have legalised it – so we are talking five per cent here. Not exactly a big majority.

Other claims pushed by the MSM are that all homosexuals want marriage, and that they want marriage as it now stands. Both are false. Most homosexuals are not interested in marriage, and many of the more honest ones have admitted that if they get their way, they fully intend to altogether gut the institutions of marriage and family.

The activists admit that they do not like the oppressive and restrictive nature of marriage – so they want in, only so that they might fully destroy it. But hey, don’t take my word for it. Plenty of homosexual activists have stated this clearly, so let me allow them to speak for themselves.

As I document in my book, Strained Relations, they have already stated their views on what sort of marriage they really have in mind. One Australian lesbian decries same-sex marriage because of how restrictive it will be for homosexuals: “Why, then, would I be opposed to extending marriage to same-sex couples? The reason is that I think that the normative impact of marriage will be such that it will ultimately diminish, not enhance, the choices available to lesbians and gay men concerning their relationships. I have written about this elsewhere, as have others, so I shall not repeat the argument in depth. But it is important, in my view, to keep in mind the negative impact of marriage when considering whether legal recognition is appropriate and worth fighting for….

“Briefly stated, in my view opening marriage to same-sex couples would have a number of problematic effects related to its normative impact. For some, it would operate as ‘the norm to which we must move’ – that is, there would be pressure on same-sex couples to marry, just as there is pressure on different-sex couples to marry. Not only would there be overt pressure, eventually (perhaps immediately), marriage would become the ‘natural’ way to express commitment. Same-sex couples would want to marry (regardless of pressure), simply because marriage would be the way to celebrate a relationship. The freedom lesbians and gay men currently have in defining their own relationships would be diminished.”

That last line says it all. While being rather circumspect in her language, it is quite clear what she is driving at: the monogamous long-term ideal of heterosexual marriage will simply be too limiting for most homosexuals who do not want such tight boundaries imposed upon their sexuality.

Another Australian homosexual activist also makes it clear how different same-sex marriage will be. As he said on an ABC television debate, “I am enormously proud of the fact that I am in a relationship that has been all the things you all want from relationships, with the exception of sexual fidelity which I think is crap for most people and doesn’t exist by and large.”

And a lesbian journalist, speaking at an Australian forum, said this: “It’s a no-brainer that (homosexual activists) should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. …(F)ighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there — because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie.

“The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist. And I don’t like taking part in creating fictions about my life. That’s sort of not what I had in mind when I came out thirty years ago.”

She continues, “I have three kids who have five parents, more or less, and I don’t see why they shouldn’t have five parents legally… I met my new partner, and she had just had a baby, and that baby’s biological father is my brother, and my daughter’s biological father is a man who lives in Russia, and my adopted son also considers him his father. So the five parents break down into two groups of three… And really, I would like to live in a legal system that is capable of reflecting that reality, and I don’t think that’s compatible with the institution of marriage.”

Now does that sound like marriage and family as you know it? Overseas we find exactly the same things being said. Another lesbian activist put it this way: “Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so. . . . Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family, and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. . . . As a lesbian, I am fundamentally different from non-lesbian women. . . . In arguing for the right to legal marriage, lesbians and gay men would be forced to claim that we are just like heterosexual couples, have the same goals and purposes, and vow to structure our lives similarly. . . . We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society’s views of reality.”

And one former homosexual explains why concepts such as “monogamy” must be redefined by homosexuals: “In the gay life, fidelity is almost impossible. Since part of the compulsion of homosexuality seems to be a need on the part of the homophile to ‘absorb’ masculinity from his sexual partners, he must be constantly on the lookout for [new partners]. Consequently the most successful homophile ‘marriages’ are those where there is an arrangement between the two to have affairs on the side while maintaining the semblance of permanence in their living arrangement.”

I could keep doing this all day – there are plenty more such quotes like that which could be presented. I of course fully document all this in my book. So we need to be quite clear what is at stake here: nothing less than the destruction of marriage and family.

The activists have been crystal clear in declaring to us their aims. So when are we going to start believing them?

orders.koorong.com.au/search/product/strained-relations-bill-muehlenberg/9780646560953.jhtml

[1063 words]

9 Responses to Sure They Want Marriage – To Destroy It

  • Dear Bill,
    Seems to me as if, the ultimate defence of “straight marriage” in public discourse as an institution worthy of legal privileges above those afforded other intimate partnerships will come from surprising quarters: The gay and lesbian ambivalence about the “coming out” of the institution of marriage into the GLBTIQ community is, to say the least, a strong reflection of that community’s historical commitment to thoroughgoing sexual uncoventionality and a generally polemic critique of the modern, “straight” nuclear family and it historical origins in the patriarchal social structures of bygone eras.

    Dean Richard Humphrey’s thesis that “Marriage is Discriminatory” is a recent, anti-same-sex-marriage contribution to the discussion which takes a surprising twist on a theme frequently sung loudly by advocates of same-sex marriage! Richard’s Friday Forum with this provocative title is found at: saintdavids.org.au/event/2012/03/marriage-is-discriminatory/ .

    John Wigg

  • If they did but know it those advocating the homosexual vision of society are unwittingly digging their own graves. Sexual anarchy will inevitably lead to social anarchy. This in its turn will lead to a demand for social order at the price of civilized freedoms. As an obvious source of social disorder and sexually transmitted diseases homosexuals will become public enemies and a clear target for totalitarian rulers to persecute. They may believe they are in charge now but they are fooling themselves as all narcissists do.

    Alan J Williams, UK

  • I liked this Rod Dreher article on the cosmology of same-sex marriage.
    www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/sex-after-christianity/

    Nina Blondel

  • “homophile”????
    I think I’m going to be sick
    Sorry to say Bill, we have lost the battle on this. NZ is the test case for the toppling of other nations. There’s not much that separates us from them is there? Look at the UK – same thing
    Im still feeling sick……… “absorb”, YUCK

    Dameon McManus

  • Thanks Dameon

    Yes it is a worry. But no, we have not lost yet. Even if every nation on earth goes down the tubes on this, it is still not over. What is right and true will always stand. But only around 12 out of around 240 nations have gone down this path so far – or 5%. So it is far from a landslide. We are to keep fighting, regardless of what happens around us.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • Yes, with most of the Christian community today, I am worried – but then I remember that the Bible has already told us of these things happenning, and that there will only be a remnant left. I know that whatever happens our God is still in control, and will not let us down.

    Joan Davidson

  • The bigger threat to our society is Islam, they will be in a position of power by 2030, and in ultimate rule by 2050, so whilst I am very opposed to same sex marriage, the truth is it will only be in effect a short while. Once Islam controls Australia, and Sharia is proclaimed, same sex marriage will no longer be an issue, and indeed we Christians will be forced to defend Gay people against the bigger problem of law under Islam. We may not like Gay lifestyles or philosophy, but we still love them as Gods creation.

    Kim Gritten

  • Thanks Kim

    Both are very real threats. Both are doing their best to destroy Christianity, democracy and freedom. Thus both have to be resisted.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • Bill, Dameon,
    The crowing by the queeromaniacs in NZ is getting very shrill. Take a look at this piece:
    www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1304/S00144/the-symbolic-victory-of-same-sex-marriage.htm
    I wonder when will ordinary folk rise up in revolt against these freaks!

    Dominic Baron, NZ

Leave a Reply