CultureWatch

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

The Door Is Now Wide Open

Aug 22, 2013

Thanks to the homosexual militants, the door is now wide open to the promotion and eventual legalisation of just about every sexual perversion imaginable. The homosexual activists are not the only ones to blame here of course, but in their brazen and bizarre attempt to redefine marriage and family out of existence, they have set the wheels in motion for the complete destruction of the bedrock of civilised society.

The truth is, any and every conceivable lifestyle is now being championed. “We want our rights too. We demand marriage equality. We demand equal love.” Every sleazy sexuality group in town has come out of the closet, thanks to the homosexualists, and we really are near the ‘eve of destruction’ as Barry McGuire once sang about.

I have documented this dozens of times already, but let me look at just one group emboldened by the wrecking-ball tactics of the homosexual lobby. The polyamorists are now everywhere pushing their agenda, and it will be just a matter of time before they get full legal standing as well.

And it is not just far-out whacko nut jobs pushing all this. The BBC for example is quite happy to jump on the bandwagon here. Indeed, it just aired on Monday its doco, “Monogamy and the Rules of Love”. As a supplement, they had a large article on all this in their BBC Magazine.

The story begins, “Charlie is talking excitedly about a first date she went on the night before. Next to her on the sofa is her husband of six years, Tom. And on the other side of him is Sarah, who’s been in a relationship with Tom for the last five years. Sarah’s fiance, Chris, is in the kitchen making a cup of tea. The two women are also in a full-blown relationship, while the two men are just good friends. Together, they make a polyamorous family and share a house in Sheffield. ‘We’re planning to grow old together,’ says Charlie.”

Yep, it’s all so very normal. It is just one big happy household. On and on the story goes: “‘I feel safe and secure, with the ability to trust and grow, with Tom, Sarah and Chris,’ says Charlie. ‘It is from the base and security of the three of them that I face the world and the challenges the day brings.’ ‘The way I see it, it’s only a problem if I feel like one of my partners is spending more time with all their other partners than with me,’ says Sarah. ‘It just leads to people feeling hurt.’

“A shared Google calendar is the answer. ‘We mostly use it for keeping track of date nights,’ says Charlie. ‘The couple who is on a date gets first pick of what film goes on the TV and it helps keep track of who’s in what bedroom.’ Sarah chips in. ‘So, for example, I have a weekly date night with Charlie. It’s us snuggling up, us with the TV, us going to bed together and all that kind of business’.”

The article concludes, “Tom is cautiously optimistic that polyamory will become ‘average and everyday. Anyone who is expecting some massive social change overnight is terribly mistaken, but it will happen.’ In the meantime, the four of them are planning an unofficial ceremony to mark their commitment to each other. ‘Sometimes people just write the relationship off as a lazy way of getting more sex than you normally would. There are easier ways,’ says Tom wryly. They all agree managing a multi-partner relationship can be exhausting. ‘But we don’t have a choice. We’re in love with each other,’ they chime.”

Since I have not seen the doco in question, let me draw upon the commentary of another group: “Monogamy is out of fashion and polyamorous relationships, involving multiple partners, could become the norm, a controversial BBC investigation has said.

“BBC Radio 4 documentary, Monogamy and the Rules of Love, featured a number of interviews with people in polyamorous relationships, which are intimate relationships between three or more people at the same time. Presenter Jo Fidgen questioned whether there is still room for sexual fidelity in a ‘society where choice is everything’. She suggested that the ‘taboo’ surrounding intimate multi-partner relationships could disappear within the next ten years.”

It continues: “Miss Fidgen said: ‘We don’t see any contradiction in loving more than one friend. No-one asks us to only love one of our children. Why shouldn’t it be any different with romantic love?’ In June a group of polyamorists in Canada called for the same legal status as other relationships, following the group’s first national convention in Canada.

“Canada redefined marriage in 2005 and saw a major legal case involving polygamy in 2011. The Canadian Polyamory Advocacy Association intervened in the case and now says it wants to see polyamorous relationships treated on the same legal footing as others.

“In May polyamorous supporters in New Zealand started calling for legal recognition just weeks after same-sex marriage was legalised in the country. In March the politician who masterminded the gay marriage campaign in Holland said that ‘group marriage’ was now being discussed in the country.”

Still in the UK, the leftist Guardian also recently weighed into the topic with this opinion piece: “Non-monogamy is nothing new. Recent research suggests that alongside the stubborn population of adulterers, 15 to 28% of heterosexual couples and about 50% of bisexuals and gay men have some sort of ‘non-traditional’ arrangement.

“This week the BBC Radio 4 documentary Monogamy and the Rules of Love tapped into a growing curiosity about polyamory, the formal practice of having multiple romantic partners at one time. For many people, though, polyamory isn’t curious at all – it’s just another way of organising life, love and whose turn it is to make the tea.

“It may be hard for the conservative old guard to fathom, but for a long time lots of people have quietly been getting on with non-monogamous relationships. During the recent debates around the legalisation of gay marriage, Tory critics warned that the next, unthinkable step would be multiple marriage.

“I can’t be the only one who wondered if that’d be such a bad idea. Some of the sweetest couples I know, including many with healthy, happy children, are not couples at all, but triples or even quadruples – but the public conversation about open non-monogamy is still stuck on horrified confusion.”

And here we see the radicals’ first rule of thumb come to the fore: verbal engineering must always precede social engineering. Radically change the vocabulary and then you can much more easily radically change society. Works every time.

In this case, dump scary terms like “group sex” and “polygamy,” and try winners like this instead: “non-monogamy”. Yep, that is a good one. That will suck in a lot of gullible folks. Our columnist continues: “Personally, I started practising non-monogamy in my early 20s as a statement against the tyranny of the heterosexual couple form and the patriarchal nuclear family – but then again, I did a lot of silly things for similar reasons in my early 20s.

“If you’d asked 21-year-old me why precisely I was hanging half-naked out of a fourth-floor window on Holloway Road, I’d probably also have answered ‘as a statement against the tyranny of the heterosexual couple form’. Nowadays, from the wise and serious vantage point of my mid-20s, I practice non-monogamy because it works for me. It doesn’t work for everyone, and I might not choose it forever. I’ve been in various polyamorous relationships, some delightful, some less so.”

She finishes: “Polyamorists and monogamists alike fall prey to the delusion that their rules are the only proper way to organise relationships, and if we could all just stick those rules, no one would ever have to get their heart broken ever again. If only it were so simple. The truth is that there is no magic set of rules for love, sex and home economics that works for everyone – and that’s why it’s so important that there are other options out there. Radio 4 predicted that monogamy would lose its ‘moral monopoly’ within 10 years. Bring it on, I say.”

So where have we heard all this before? Oh yeah, a few short decades ago we had the same thing occurring with homosexuality: the personal opinion pieces, the “experts” weighing in, the personal interest stories, the attempt to normalise it all and make it seem routine and ordinary and obviously acceptable.

And it worked of course. Today homosexual marriage and the like is being pushed everywhere. Back then we warned about all this, but we were mocked, ridiculed and laughed out of court: “Stop fear-mongering. It will never happen. Marriage will never change.”

Well we have now seen the evisceration of marriage by the homosexual lobby, and so all the other groups are getting on the band wagon. But as before, our warnings are usually falling on deaf ears. But when it all happens just as we predicted, I guess our sole consolation will be to say, “We told you so”.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23726120
www.christian.org.uk/news/multiple-partner-relationships-could-become-norm-says-bbc/
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/20/polyamorous-shows-no-traditional-way-live

[1512 words]

24 Responses to The Door Is Now Wide Open

  • When you look at the societies where polygamy is legal, permitted, and prevalent, the results are telling: Central and Northern Africa, the Middle East, and parts of South East Asia. See the map here;

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_polygamy

    These are the countries and societies where the majority of refugees flee from because they are prominent places of social upheaval, war and persecution. They are frequently economically challenged and suffering political and military corruption. It makes sense that people often want to leave these places and it is pretty clear that this twisted notion of family is fundamentally responsible for much of what occurs in these places.

    Of course, when you mention these points to many people, Christian and atheist alike, they instead turn and criminalize western culture, capitalism, and the “Christian” colonial powers for the strife in these nations as though the predominant ideology in a society has nothing to do with its defining attributes and cohesiveness.

    All of the above can be said about Islam too, where polygamy is perfectly acceptable. Islam fits the same map.

    One guess as to what happens to a society when both are ushered in on the red carpet of “human rights”?

    Simon Fox

  • It beggars belief that when most people have to work hard at one relationship (one-to-one), there are people out there wanting to multiply the effort three or four-fold. Talk about complicated lives!

    The article says “for a long time lots of people have quietly been getting on with non-monogamous relationships.” I expect they have, but simply because they have, doesn’t make it right in God’s eyes. It’s like the 1960’s when sex outside marriage and living together raised their heads and demanded acceptance. Both of these “new ways of living” have provided nothing but trouble; and multiple marriages wouldn’t be any different…the complexities of the inevitable divorces and who-gets-which-children are too ghastly to contemplate.

    The Christian wants God’s perfect rule for society (rightly so) but mankind wants his own style, in defiance of all that the Almighty intended for us. How can the two possibly survive side by side on the same planet? They can’t….

    Chris Dark

  • The door got opened when no fault divorce was allowed. Everything else has flowed from that.

    Ian Nairn

  • Chris Dark’s opening comment is right on target. Thank you.

    Daryl Snowden

  • Wow, a pansexual culture on the horizon….pretty soon we will be called pansexophobics!!!! (Sarcasm: Why do we have prisons, courts, the lawyers, police, law schools and police academies? Let’s get rid of them all. We are well on the slippery slope now. Before you know it, we will be affirming crime, in the name of equality, called bigots for not, if we keep on going along the same path. It will be survival of the fittest.)

    Erik Ahlblad

  • I had to snigger: apart from the outrageousness of that setup, they think a date is watching TV?

    John Bennett

  • Just following Ian’s comment: in Australian law, marriage is viewed as a contractual arrangement (although we know it is a covenant). Now a contract can only be broken by mutual consent or by a party faulting on the contract, so: where does that leave the concept of no-fault divorce?

    John Bennett

  • Some of these people suprise me with their blatant un-self awareness. Where do they get any sense of right and wrong from, it’s not found in respecting others, as some liberals claim, then where is it found, with these people it simply isn’t. And they accuse us of being extremists when we say that this sort of thing grinds at the bedrock of society. It’s not progressive at all, its a relapse into a primal state of immediate gratification and feeding of lusts.
    Angus Simpson

  • I am referring primarily to the polygamists, as most of the language i used here would not accuratley describe most homosexuals anymore than heterosexuals.
    Angus Simpson

  • Seriously, once you’ve redefined marriage to be about nothing more than love then there is no logical reason to deny every other form of ‘loving’ reationship. Consent will be next; it’s an even more arbitrary concept than marriage and gender and the regressives have had a field day with them.

    What gets me is that there is a real & comprehensive social good that the state obtains by endorsing marriage. There is absolutely no state benefit to be obtained by endorsing any other form of ‘loving’ relationship so WTF do we think we’re doing?

    Graham Jose

  • I feel sick
    Dameon McManus

  • BTW
    I’m really looking forward to attending a church service in the future where the groom eagerly awaits his bride at the alter.
    The only thing is, the bride is an ape.
    Seriously

    Dameon McManus

  • “The truth is that there is no magic set of rules for love, sex and home economics that works for everyone…”

    And here is the “Did God really say?” line – buried in all the verbal diarrhea is the statement that there are no rules, and we therefore can (have to?) make them up as we go along.

    John Angelico

  • “we have no choice, we love each other”? I thought it was all about choice.
    And “no more broken hearts?” No, those with a broken heart will just stay quiet about it, thinking it is their fault for having one in the first place.
    Inventing our own rules on marriage? Oh yes, I prefer to drive on the right side of the road, oops, I died before I could tell someone I was just doing it as a statement of rebellion against the tyranny of traffic rules
    and not only that, but I killed others as well.
    Many blessings
    Ursula Bennett

  • Another great article Bill. Thanks for all that you do on the front lines of this complex and dispiriting conversation.

    Pandora’s little box is now open, and I think our nascent curiosity at first is fast becoming a full-fledged justification of any aberrant sexual desire we can think up. I would not be surprised to see a redefinition of the consenting age of those wanting to participate in sex. I am sure NAMBLA is chomping at the bit with all of homosexualist legislation.

    Lord have mercy.

    Kris Kennedy

  • The real tragic thing about all this is that, which I am sure we have all seen coming, child pornography and therefore child sexual abuse will be the next acceptable thing. Just recently the ABC published the results of a study done among university students which showed that 10% thought that owning child pornography was quite okay. Well, they don’t create that digitally, do they? And I detected no moral indignation on the part of those who reported it.
    Tell me the world has become a better place since “the shackles of religion” have been cast off. Well, maybe some shackles of false religion have gone, but the greatest casualty are truth, true religion and therefore all vulnerable people and that is at some stage of our life all of us.
    Many blessings
    Ursula Bennett

  • Angus, that is where you are wrong!
    What you said does describe homosexuals very accurately.
    They are blatantly unselfaware or they would realise that what they are doing is a perversion.
    Their sense of right and wrong is twisted or they would know that what they do isn’t respecting others.
    Homosexuals do accuse us of being extremists for not accepting what they do is ‘normal’.
    Homosexuality does grind at the bedrock of society; as this article points out it is the thin edge of the wedge and will only lead to the destruction of our society by ever greater perversions becoming accepted.
    And it is definitely not progressive at all but a relapse into a primal state of immediate gratification and feeding of lusts that has been around since the days of Sodom.
    David Horton

  • Just look at this seriously and as a big picture not in isolation, Here is open proof that satan truly exists and his angels are going to an fro throughout the earth. What’s his aim? The aim is to undo, destroy and blaspheme against God and everything that God has created, commanded and stands for.
    Seriously its coming and whilst I say we should stand against all his evil we must also as the bible says, put on the armour of God lest we to be tempted. For when we see the acceptance of all these weird evil notions we to could fail and say what’s the harm. It would be so easy to fail and the bible clearly says the very elect will be tempted. The gate is very narrow and many will fail.
    As an example consider abortion it would appear that the pro-life people are beginning to win the battle, yet if any of the above concerning group marriage or multiple sex associations as illustrated by Bill become the norm abortion by pill or the knife will be ever more prevalent.
    However Do not be deterred for in itself proof of Satan is Proof of God and must surely convince the unbelievers for who else does Satan try to vilify but God. Can evil be good? It is but a short term thing confined to the doings and lusts of this life on this earth not in Gods Kingdom. And surely those that fail will be cast into the fire unless by Gods grace they are reprieved.
    Dennis Newland

  • Is this why Islamics appear quiet about the whole SSM push, as they`ll get their Polygamy legislation in?

    Johannes Archer

  • With all this changing society and acceptance of perversion that is now pushed down our throats at every turn,TV, magazines, books, education etc, my greatest concern is our children engulfed in it, murkied by it, and trying to steer a Godly course through it. My heart bleeds for them. We have such a responsibility to show them and teach them a way of living that has a quality that is to be desired and our God that has their very best interests at heart. The Bible needs to be re-instated to a central place in Christian homes and churches. By this I mean read and taught.

    Lesley Kadwell

  • The other issue no one seems to discuss is Aids and Hiv, STDs. If this is strongly pushed, these diseases will for sure be on the rise, probably increase manifold, and place a huge financial burden on the nations’ medicare.

    Eric Ahlblad

  • Eric, but they have an answer for that already. They propose retroviral treatment for not only those who already have the virus but for those “in a high risk category” as a preventative. And what about vaccination against HIV? The money, yes, of course you are right there, even the supporters of the life-style can’t ignore that but it might be a wrecked nation, both families and the economy before they will be prepared to concede on that one.
    Many blessings
    Ursula Bennett

  • People are still dying from those viruses. It’s still only a proposal, a very costly one for that matter. For all we know, the medication will only ‘delay the death sentence’ at best.

    Erik Ahlblad

  • Yeah, how do we know in absolute certainty that this medication will cure everyone, sad that there are many sick person that suffer from this terrible disease. If treatment does work the way they say it does, then great.

    Erik Ahlblad

Leave a Reply