CultureWatch

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

Top Twenty Myths Pushed by the Homosexual Activists

Jun 13, 2015

The entire case for embracing the homosexual lifestyle is built on lies, falsehoods and deception. I have now written three books on this topic, and in them I deal with these myths in great detail. In some 600 pages with around 1400 footnotes I carefully document, assess, and refute the various lies and myths put out by the militant homosexual lobby.

I encourage you to get those volumes so that you have the full documentation on all this. You will find all three here for example: www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=muehlenberg

SSMHere I had planned to offer ten of these myths, but I stumbled upon another great article which covers similar territory and ten more myths, so I will also post the piece by Peter Sprigg as well following my ten myths. Even though there might be a bit of overlap here, these 20 points cover at least in outline form the main porkies put out by the activists.

Here then are my top ten myths:

Homosexuals are born that way. There is no reliable research indicating a genetic basis of homosexuality. At best, there continues to be a debate about what is more influential: nature or nurture. The bulk of homosexuals who have gone for counselling have admitted to early childhood factors, such as an absent or aloof or abusive parent, and so on. And many homosexuals have now fully left the lifestyle, giving lie to the claim that one cannot change.

10% of the population is homosexual. No reputable study has ever come up with these figures. Instead, the numbers always range from 1 to 3 percent. It was sexual deviant Alfred Kinsey and the homosexual activists who invented the 10 percent figure. It is not based on science but ideology and activism.

Homosexuals just want to be free to privately do their thing. Yes many do. And if this were fully true, there would be no need to write this article. But many activists are seeking to ram their agenda down the throats of everyone else. They insist on publicly flaunting, promoting and celebrating their lifestyle, and they are using the heavy hand of the law to quash all opposition.

Homosexual marriage will not affect anyone else. As I carefully document in great detail in my books, everyone is impacted by homosexual marriage. The negative results are getting worse by the day. All over the West those who dare to resist the homosexual agenda or simply affirm heterosexual marriage are losing their jobs, being fined, and even thrown into prison.

There is no slippery slope. We are already seeing the slippery slope in action. Now that homosexual marriage is being accepted, all sorts of other groups are demanding that their forms of sexuality be recognised, applauded and legalised. Thus we have active and vocal groups calling for the complete recognition of things like polyamory, incest, bestiality, paedophilia, objectamory, and so on. And most of these groups are using the identical arguments used by the homosexual lobby.

Marriage is only about love. Marriage is not just about love between people. Love can exist outside of a marriage: a brother can love a sister, a son can love a father, a girl can love a cat. But marriage is a special kind of love: a life-long commitment, publicly acknowledged, with the possibility of procreation. Heterosexual married love is special, as it entails the possibility of rearing and raising the next generation.

Heterosexual marriage is a recent invention. The secular left seeks to tell you that the traditional married family is a creation of America in the 1950s. This is pure nonsense. All cultures throughout human history have had a recognisable form of male-female marriage. And the institution of marriage existed even before the state acknowledged or regulated it.

Children raised in homosexual households do just fine. This is not the finding of the social sciences. Countless studies have now shown that children raised outside of the male-female marriage unit suffer greatly in every area, from poor educational performance, likelihood to move into drugs and crime, higher suicide rates, and so on. Family structure does matter, and those children raised in homosexual households are now coming out and telling their very sad stories.

Jesus never said anything about homosexuality. Jesus spoke often about the original purposes for human sexuality as found in the opening chapters of Genesis. He affirmed and repeated these norms, and lashed out at other forms. And arguing from silence is poor form anyway: he also said nothing about rape or arson. Does that mean he approved of those things?

Love is all that matters. The Bible has a much different understanding of love than many have today. Biblical love is certainly not about lust, nor is it about getting whatever you crave. Biblical love is about willing the highest good for the other person. And it involves keeping God’s commandments. Jesus and others made it clear that to love God is to keep his Word, not break it or ignore it.

And here is the list from Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council in America:

10 MYTHS ABOUT REDEFINING MARRIAGE

Advocates of redefining “marriage” to include same-sex couples use a number of arguments that can best be described as “myths.” The reality is often quite different. For example:

MYTH: A “one man and one woman” definition imposes a religious definition of marriage on civil society.
REALITY: The definition of marriage is rooted in nature itself. The sexual union of a man and a woman is what reproduces the human race. The durable commitment of that man and woman to one another is what provides children with a mother and father. This is important for people of any religion or of no religion.

MYTH: Children don’t actually need both a mother and a father.
REALITY: An overwhelming body of social science evidence demonstrates that children raised by their own mother and father, who are committed to one another in a lifelong marriage, are happier, healthier and more prosperous than children raised in any other household setting.

MYTH: Marriage can’t be about procreation, because infertile couples are allowed to marry.
REALITY: Laws are based on the rule, not the exception. While not all heterosexual couples do reproduce, it is indisputable that only heterosexual couples can do so naturally. No homosexual couples can do so. That fact provides a clear bright line for limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples.

MYTH: Legalizing homosexual “marriage” would have no effect on other marriages and families.
REALITY: “The law is a teacher,” and if we change the definition of marriage we will change what we teach about all marriages and families. For example:
-We would teach-wrongly-that procreation is no longer a uniquely important public interest.
-We would teach-wrongly-that children do not need a mother and a father.
-We would teach that adult desires, not the interests of society or the needs of children, should drive the definition of marriage.

MYTH: Defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman is “discrimination.”
REALITY: Every individual has the same access to marriage, but no one has been permitted to marry a child, a close blood relative, a person who is already married, or (through most of human history) a person of the same sex. Removing the last restriction would cast doubt on all the others.

MYTH: Homosexual relationships are the same as heterosexual ones.
REALITY: Research shows that homosexuals are less likely to enter into long-term partnerships, be sexually faithful, or have relationships last a lifetime. Legal recognition of same-sex unions in Scandinavia has led to a weakening of society’s commitment to marriage across the board.

MYTH: Homosexuals suffer serious harm because they’re denied the “protections” of marriage.
REALITY: Many of these “protections” are already available to same-sex couples through the use of private contractual arrangements, such as wills, durable power of attorney, health care proxies, and life insurance policies.

MYTH: Homosexuals are unable to care for their own children if they cannot “marry.”
REALITY: A biological parent has the same rights whether the individual is heterosexual or homosexual. States, if they choose to, can provide for homosexual couples to adopt children without changing the definition of marriage. However, recent research shows that children of homosexual parents suffer significant disadvantages. It is not in children’s interest for society to actively affirm a family structure that may harm them.

MYTH: Laws “banning same-sex marriage” are the same as the old laws that banned interracial marriage.
REALITY: It is actually the supporters of homosexual “marriage” who resemble the opponents of interracial marriage. Both groups sought to exploit the marriage laws in pursuit of a social goal irrelevant to marriage. Neither racial segregation (in the one case) nor the social affirmation of homosexual conduct (in the other) was or is related to the basic public purpose of marriage, which is promoting responsible procreation and the rearing of children in the optimal family setting.

MYTH: Legalizing homosexual “marriage” would not affect anyone’s religious liberty or conscience rights.
REALITY: All taxpayers, consumers and businesses would be forced to provide allowances for homosexual relationships, whether they want to or not. Schools would teach children that homosexual relationships are an option fully equivalent to heterosexual ones, even in opposition to parental teaching. Faith-based organizations and individuals would be forced to compromise their beliefs, or be punished or driven from the public square.

As the Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments on whether the U.S. Constitution includes a “right” to marry someone of the same sex, they – and the public – should be wary of falling for these myths.

m.christianpost.com/news/10-myths-about-redefining-marriage-135771/

[1595 words]

19 Responses to Top Twenty Myths Pushed by the Homosexual Activists

  • You say
    “The bulk of homosexuals who have gone for counselling have admitted to early childhood factors, such as an absent or aloof or abusive parent”
    Does that mean, if that diagnosis were true that same-sex parenting will lead to there being more homosexually orientated children in the future? Seeing as though one biological will necessarily be permanently absent. If so, is this part of their agenda, to produce more homosexual children?

  • “Homosexual marriage will not affect anyone else” – Yeah, right! While all the above myths are ridiculous, I particularly take issue with this one, as over the past two weeks my statement on the problems of same sex marriage has affected my direct circle of family and friends in a major way. Heated comments by the vocal few who are in favour of it being legalized; my own granddaughter (who declares herself an atheist) ridiculing anyone who agreed with my post on the topic, a couple of others who have ‘left Christianity behind’ fiercely debating the rightness of SSM… In the end, those in favour of it being legalized became so heated in their opinions that I was forced to remove the post. I felt like I’d been ambushed! Is this what we can look forward to as a regular thing?

  • An ABC online article reported that, “Hundreds of people joined Opposition Leader Bill Shorten and Senator Wong at a rally on the steps of the Victorian Parliament on Saturday to promote the cause of same-sex marriage.”

    I sent the following to Penny Wong:

    ***********
    “Hundreds, huh? In the photo it looked like maybe fifty at a stretch. In a city of over four million that’s pathetic support.

    “If you are so sure of popular support why not call for a plebiscite, Penny? ”

    ************

    I will inform you of any reply.

  • Ps. I love the graphic, Bill. To whom belongs the credit?

    It perfectly illustrates how same sex ‘marriage’ advocates agree with Humpty Dumpty: ‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

    So in the deranged views of marriage ‘equality’ proponents why shouldn’t a square mean a circle? Discrimination!

  • Mark, I just checked out that poll and at 10.40 pm tonight it’s still 67 per cent versus 33 percent against the proposition that gay ‘marriage’ is inevitable. Interesting.

    Only the taxpayer-funded GayBC and SBS, university Arts faculties, trendy clergy, celebrities, TV hosts, models, actors, sportsmen and military confused people who “come out” support this rubbish.

    That’s why the likes of professional homosexual activists such as Rodney Croome are desperate to avoid a plebiscite. They know they’d lose because Australians are basically conservative. They also know that recent (permanent) immigrants also tend to be conservative, especially Muslims.

  • Myths are not debunked by opinion. Not once do you cite non-biased studies or facts where you claim evidence.

    I am a heterosexual, married woman with four children. I can tell you unequivocally that I did not marry for the purpose of having children. I can also tell you that homosexual marriages will not hurt the marriage I am in.

    Harm to children, by the way, is done by humans with failings, regardless of who they marry. I was the offspring in a heterosexual marriage. I and my brother were sexually abused for years by my father. What a great family structure I had!

    Comparisons to pedophiles or bestiality as a slippery slope is ridiculous as consent does not exist in those examples.

    There is just so much logic flaw and self-righteousness throughout this article, I can’t even scratch the surface in rebutting it. I’m walking away now, shaking my head at the hypocrisy of how you choose to interpret Christ’s love.

  • Thanks Sadie. But one has to laugh at being accused of things which are in abundant display in your comment! Am I allowed to throw your very words back at you?

    “Not once do you cite non-biased studies or facts where you claim evidence.”
    “There is just so much logic flaw and self-righteousness throughout this article, I can’t even scratch the surface in rebutting it.”

    What was that about the kettle calling the pot black? You obviously have not even bothered to read my article carefully, but have just launched into a knee-jerk emotive reaction, which contributes absolutely zippo to the debate. Had you bothered to actually read it, you will see I mentioned that I have written a number of books on this with over 1500 footnotes, most of them from medical journals, scientific periodicals, the homosexual press, and so on. Anyone who has actually read my material knows just how fully documented and backed up by reputable evidence these books are. And out of curiosity, just how many well-documented books have you written on this topic?

    But let me call your bluff further and deal with your specific howlers. The fact that you do not want children no more changes the primary function of marriage than does buying a book without any intention of reading it. A book is still designed to be read, regardless if it actually is or not. And marriage is still primarily about the rearing and raising of the next generation, even though not all couples are able to or want to.

    And throwing out unsubstantiated and emotive claims does not an argument make. Simply saying homosexual marriage will not impact on real marriage while ignoring all the evidence helps no one. In my most recent book I offer numerous documented cases of how people are being negatively impacted by all this. But I realise that hiding one’s head in the sand and ignoring the evidence is a preferred way of proceeding for many.

    And while we are sorry for your sad situation, extrapolating your own experience onto the rest of the world is not exactly scientific or rational. Just because you were abused does not mean that every heterosexual marriage is evil. That is simply a non-sequitur. And as I carefully document in my books, levels of child abuse are actually much higher in non-traditional households – that is, outside of the heterosexual married family unit.

    And if you knew anything about the pro-paedophilia and pro-bestiality lobby groups, you would know that they are claiming these “lifestyle choices” are fully consensual. Sorry, but your ignorance of these matters is not very impressive.

    And it is interesting that you end up talking about Christ’s love. Christ over and over emphasised the importance of truth. Without truth there can be no love. And Jesus said repeatedly that if you love him, you will obey his commandments. Telling God he is wrong about human sexuality and claiming the Bible is mistaken on homosexuality has nothing to do with love, but everything to do with sinful rebellion and idolatry.

    Sorry, but you have regrettably allowed your unfortunate childhood experiences to determine how you now live and what you now believe. The truth of Scripture has been rejected as you run with your experiences and emotions. All we can do is pray for you in that case. Jesus provides real healing and wholeness if you seek it. But calling him a liar and rejecting his clear commands will not readily result in either I am afraid.

  • Survey gone from the Nine-MSN page as at 14:20 Sunday 14th.

  • Mark, it surely seems that where there is a lgbt person in the family those who still hold biblically correct views are often pushed into silence because they don’t want to “offend” anyone and lgbt people appear to be much easier offended than normal robust people who know how to call their own behaviour into question and after having confirmed they are on the right track pursue the right way with more vigour and conviction than before. I know of at least 2 incidences where a person didn’t want to sign a petition against ssm not because they weren’t against it but because they didn’t want their relative finding out that their name was on such a petition. The fear of man… is certainly a snare.
    I am actually also worried about this tpp, which Australia is thankfully hesitating to sign. According to a liberal critic in the US it favours big business and we know what big business favours in the area of ssm. It doesn’t look good. I wonder how many of our politicians are aware of all the pit falls of this so called “free trade agreement”.
    Many blessings
    Ursula Bennett

  • My concern about a vote for SSM is the question as to whether we will have in the media and “equal time” policy to hear both sides of the argument or will the laws on giving offence prevent the anti-SSM message form coming across. Somehow I can’t see the ABC giving airtime to such as yourself Bill, or Lyle Shelton et al. If there is not a policy of equal time, any plebiscite will be meaningless because the decision will be made on misinformation. Anyway, since when has the majority view determined what is right or wrong? Hitler was initially democratically elected.

  • Thank you Bill. when the arguments confuse me, now I have something I can go to, get my logic straightened out, and answer truthfully and fully.

  • The statistics for suicide and domestic violence are very high – a fact that has not been addressed nor considered.

  • Hi Bill
    Thanks for your continual unflinching stance and bold representation around issues of preserving marriage and opposing SSM.
    I’d like to be able to engage with people on social media a bit better and wondered if you had some advice around not being reactionary, and some simple pointers around how to respond to some of the common statements for SSM that people spout and regurgitate.
    I find that a lot of people have disengaged their brains around a lot of these cultural shifts and generally accept the MSM mantra’s that are equally as unthinking. I guess that’s the stuff of propaganda!
    One of the most common things I am noticing is the comments around “you shouldn’t force your religion on others”, or “their marriage isn’t going to affect your way of life”, or similarly “live, and let live”.
    Happy if you’ve already got something like this.
    Again, thanks, and God bless you, strengthen you and protect you.

  • Thanks David. My books of course cover all this in great detail, so you might try there. But plenty of articles have covered some of these matters as well, eg:

    billmuehlenberg.com/2015/03/06/five-really-dumb-christian-copouts/

    www.billmuehlenberg.com/2010/12/10/same-sex-marriage-who-says-nothing-will-change/

    Etc.

  • When push comes to shove, marriage equality is in actual fact marriage inequality. Marriage equality can only be equality if EVERYONE is allowed to marry regardless of who it is they are marrying.

    Demanding SSM as marriage equality is like saying we believe in equality as long as you are a homosexual. If you are not, then you don’t have the right to marry and as a result equality is denied you.

    Equality is only equality if I can marry who I like.

  • It should translate to Chinese!

  • Thanks Joy. You or someone else is welcome to do so!

Leave a Reply