CultureWatch

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

Australian Homosexuals Against Homosexual Marriage

Aug 22, 2017

If you dare to say you are opposed to homosexual marriage, you will be hated on, abused, despised, and called every name in the book. You will certainly be labelled a bigot, a homophobe, a hater, a dinosaur and then some. It goes with the territory. The other side does not argue – it just hurls abuse at those who disagree.

So what happens if you have a real, live, out and proud homosexual who says he is against homosexual marriage? Is he a homophobe too? Is he a hater as well? Is he a narrow-minded bigot? Is he a brainless Neanderthal who should be locked up for opposing progress?

I have spent decades now going through the writings of the homosexual activists, seeing what they have to say on a whole range of issues, including their views on marriage. Contrary to what the lamestream media would have you believe, there is a lot of diversity of opinion on marriage.

So, who actually wants same-sex marriage then? The truth is, there has been a vigorous debate amongst homosexuals over the question of homosexual marriage over the years. Some are in favour, some are opposed, and there are many options in between. As one example, some years ago now David McCarthy of the Victorian Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby puts it this way:

“Obviously while there is a lack of unanimity about gay marriage, our human rights must be the same as everyone else’s. If someone wants to get married or doesn’t want to get married, it’s their choice.”

One Australian homosexual lobby group actually split over this issue. Two committee members resigned from the New South Wales Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby, claiming it had not pushed hard enough for marriage rights. But the Lobby said that marriage reform was “not a priority”.

Consider a number of quotes on this issue (just a few of many possible). An Australian lesbian said this at the time about the Prime Minister Howard’s attempts to keep marriage as the union of a man and a woman for life:

When it comes to same-sex marriages, John Howard has got us pretty well summed up. We’re not cut out for it. . . . [Heterosexuals are] welcome to it. “For life”! It’d be like sitting through one of those interminable bloody Indian films but when you get to the end it starts all over again and you can’t leave. Let’s leave marriage and other drudgery to heterosexuals. They’ve had millenniums of practice. They’re good at child-rearing and taking out the rubbish. I never wanted to be like them, even when I was one of them. . . . Surely we can come up with something better: semi-marriage or quarter-marriage, which would narrow the field down to eight. Or a casual, part-time or temporary marriage. Or even a flexitime marriage.

And the same lesbian, when asked whether open relationships work, was quite candid in her response:

I don’t know, but I know closed ones don’t. How many good, loving lesbian relationships have floundered on the rock of sexual tedium? That’s what worries me about our demands for holy matrimony because we want to be “just like them”. If we go on demanding exclusive access to those we love, our relationships will end in anger and sadness – just like theirs.

One Australian homosexual activist put it in even stronger terms:

I think gay marriage is an absolute non-starter as an issue. We have spent the last 40 years trying to get the state out of our bedrooms. Why are we now demanding recognition from John Howard? The notion of these extraordinary, creative, avant-guard gay people rushing to cover themselves in grey cardigans and join their straight cousins in the suburbs with some bureaucratic document just sh*ts me.

Another Australian homosexual said much the same: “Whether we like it or not, marriage is, as John Howard memorably said, a bedrock cultural institution for heterosexuals; and most gay men seek different rules for their relationships.” And activist Dennis Altman even said that homosexual marriage was “a great deal of self-indulgent crap,” although he later tried to tone down his remarks.

Also, a letter writer to a homosexual newspaper, commenting on Altman’s remark, concured: “Stop being selfish, and centre your efforts on bettering this world for those that still need to get recognition, acceptance and the right to survive peacefully, before you try getting the ability to get legally married so you can get legally divorced a year later.”

In a more recent piece Altman continued to decry homosexual marriage. In the article, entitled “Same-sex marriage just a sop to convention,” he said that it was just too stifling. He stated that he is “uncomfortable with an approach that seemed to buy into the most conventional morality”.

He continued, “I mourn the loss of radical critique that was central to the early gay and lesbian movement”. He said that his resistance to marriage came from a “desire to stress the particularity of homosexuality”. Because of the move to same-sex marriage, he feared that we “may be approaching the end of the homosexual”.

Another Australian homosexual was quite clear about rejecting what he considered the straitjacket of heterosexual marriage: “[F]ull recognition for same-sex marriages will encourage all those shallow promiscuous gay men to settle down in Box hill with Mr Right and breed shitzus. Speaking as a shallow promiscuous gay man, I remain sceptical about this.”

He continued,

Straight men, it seems, are quite shameless in their perverted desires, and in their enthusiasm for illicit sex of all kinds. And this after 2,000 years of the civilising influence of Christian marriage! On the evidence so far, I think it will take more than the Ontario Supreme Court [and its support of same-sex marriage] to get the majority of gay men to get married and settle down.

And another Australian homosexual offered similar thoughts: “So we don’t have ‘gay marriage’. So what?” He went on to talk about all the progress homosexuals had already been making in terms of legal and social reforms. He then said, “I’m worried that people who continue to scream for the least attainable reform now, uses our community’s political capital up on a fruitless journey. So I call on the people in our community to stop talking about gay marriage.”

And a lesbian activist in Australia made it clear that she is opposed to same-sex marriage. She does so on the grounds that marriage is a religious issue, and church and state must remain separate. She says, “I am completely against demands for the Australian government to introduce an Act for Gay Marriage.”

She continued, “We’re approaching the battle for relationship equality from the wrong direction. . . . We should be fighting for Civil Union Partnerships. It should not be a solely gay issue. This is a battle for the true separation of religion and politics.”

And here is what a Melbourne law professor and activist said about this issue:

Ultimately, it is my view – though I acknowledge that it is not a view universally shared – that lesbian and gay rights activists in Australia should not be fighting for same-sex marriage. I hold this view not because of the legal and political obstacles to same-sex marriage (although they are significant and do raise the question of best allocation of political energy), but because I consider marriage a problematic institution and one which would have negative effects on the lesbian and gay communities in Australia; negative effects that would outweigh the positive effects of same-sex marriage.

Also, listen to what Australian lesbian Helen Razer had to say about same-sex marriage

Affirming gay marriage has become a progressive reflex and there is no scope for debate. Supporting same-sex marriage is compulsory, rather like an objection to genetically modified food or a preference for buying organic. One cannot say that marriage, particularly the “gay” kind, is silly without being pelted by (conventionally grown) refuse. At the risk of upsetting the workers of the world and the biodynamic markets at which they shop, I just can’t get excited about the “right” to an institution predicated on some pretty whacko old nonsense.

She continued,

Getting hitched, expensively and blithely, is not [a pressing civil equality issue]. This is not to suggest the creation of long-term intimacy is anything short of wonderful. My own partnership of 12 years is my life’s central feat. It has been sanctioned by the years, by difficulty and by love. It will never be sanctioned by compliance to the terms of a rickety institution.
But ‘gay’ itself has become a rickety institution. Wedded to the idea of weddings, military participation and cheering on ‘out’ footballers, the visible gay culture retains all the radicalism of a radish. Marriage equality is not a truly progressive struggle but an effort to privilege one kind of relationship, long-term and monogamous, above all others. I wonder how is this going to play out, particularly for the many gay couples who have spent years finessing a feasible polygamy. Gay and progressive communities are selling up and buying into a market long since ruined. We are trading in a history rich in difference at the altar of absolute conformity.

All of these quotes I have fully documented in my book Strained Relations. Plenty more could be mentioned here. Let me offer one last example. Bernard Gaynor recently wrote about one homosexual he knows who is quite happy to go public with why he is opposed to homosexual marriage. This is what he had to say:

The one-sided same sex marriage (SSM) debate has been raging for a while now and with the postal plebiscite on SSM now confirmed for September this year, I thought it was about time I had a good think about the situation and explain why myself and my partner of 15 years will be voting NO.
Firstly, SSM is an attack on the institution of marriage itself, the foundation of our civilisation and most importantly the bedrock of our family relationships. Changing the definition of marriage paves the way for other types of relationships to be recognised and I honestly don’t think many of my fellow Australians have fully thought through or realise the consequences and ramifications of changing the definition of marriage…
Most will vote yes out of fear of offending the many homosexual people they have as friends and family.
As a gay man, my partner and I have never personally experienced any type of discrimination or homophobic behaviour because of our sexuality or relationship with each other. Both of us have been accepted into each other’s families. After 15 years I now feel that my partner’s family is my family, and my family accepts my partner as part of our family.
Homosexual relationships have the freedom to be whatever those involved want them to be. Why is there such a need to constrain that to a religious ceremony that is more than likely going to end in divorce? SSM is a step backwards for the gay community in my honest opinion.
If anything needs to be changed or redefined, maybe it should be to recognise same sex unions rather than use the term marriage…?
Marriage itself is about children. Until gay people can give birth to their partner’s children it is a non-issue for me personally.
It’s time people stopped falling for catchy slogans and obscure hashtags and start thinking of the future they are helping to create for their children and their children’s children.
After 15 years with my partner, a piece of paper and pretty ceremony will not change our relationship at all. We will still remain just as committed to each other as we always have been. Our relationship has never been defined or never will be defined by a piece of paper and a religious ceremony.

Hmm, there sure seem to be a lot of bigoted, hateful homophobes out there. Oh wait….

bernardgaynor.com.au/gay-man-states-hell-vote-no/

[1990 words]

17 Responses to Australian Homosexuals Against Homosexual Marriage

  • The cynicism of your writers about the nature and virtue of marriage is no different to that being expressed by many defacto heterosexuals. It’s beauty as the ideal way to raise children has to be fought for. Love is not the mushy stuff sold to us by Hollywood.

  • Yes quite right Jennifer.

  • Most marriages were traditionally arranged — love had nothing to do with it. This was true in the Middle East, the cradle of our faith, the West and the East. Love was good but of only secondary importance, and if love developed it would develop after the wedding.

    As Chinese Christians living in Australia, we as parents place restrictions on who our children may marry. They may only marry Christian (because of 2 Cor 6:14) and Chinese (to maintain our tradition and culture). This of course may conflict with youthful concepts of love but we do not give our children complete freedom on who they marry. If Christians like us do not have complete freedom to marry whoever they want, why should homosexuals have that freedom? To marry is to accept the traditions that come with it.

  • The debate is definitely one sided. That’s why following it frustrates me so much.

  • People who identify as gay are singling themselves out different from the norm so it’s not logical for them to demand marriage equality. Same sex marriage is not the same as heterosexual marriage, it’s a kind of love that is more gay than that. Respect to the person who affirms that SSM is an attack on the institution of marriage, the foundation of our civilisation and the bedrock of our family relationships. Rather than just thinking of self it is important to consider children. Civil partnerships are already available – if required, upheld by the law and accepted in Western society.

  • Those who claim that the push for same-sex marriage involves a “Damascus Road conversion” for many gay and lesbian activists of maturer age fail to understand what actually happened to Saul of Tarsus on his way to Damascus. Saul went from a persecutor of Jesus of Nazareth to being persecuted for Jesus’ sake. In the process, he had to be helped across a “no man’s land” of fear and distrust by brave souls like Ananias and Barnabas.

    Saint Paul wrote the letter to the Romans against a background where all the “deeds of darkness” he lists in Romans 13:12f and 1:26-31 were avidly practised at the highest levels of Roman society. Those familiar with the works of ancient Roman authors, Tacitus and Suetonius will soon realise that Emperor Nero would have had very strong incentive to have the Apostle beheaded: Paul’s writings constituted a searing indictment of the lifestyle for which Nero was famous.

  • Important reading:- http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/education/sydneys-kambala-school-saves-purple-day-from-rainbow-hijacking/news-story/2b3fb3eb63a2ade1bc377f1bb8c815b0

    Please note the following comment from “Walker”:-

    “Yes. Don’t feel your sons and daughters are safe in a religious-based school. I know from direct experience that the “tolerance and diversity” approach of many Sydney Catholic high schools prevents a balanced discussion of the dangers of a homosexual lifestyle choice (increased transmissible diseases, suicide risk, drug use etc). Pro-gay teachers use this to openly push their agendas.”

    Are we losing this fight even within our schools?

  • I am a recent follower to your blog and I have to say that I am thoroughly enjoying the material! It is so refreshing to have objective and impartial viewpoints on contemporary and sensitive subjects. Political correctness, in my view, is ruining critical thought and creating a fatuous vacuum for debate.
    Concerning gay marriage and the upcoming plebiscite, I adhere to the Golden Rule of Christ’s example, love thy neighbour as thyself (Lev 19:18, Mat 5:46, Mat 19:19, Mat 22:39 and on and on it goes). Notwithstanding that the bible condemns all sin including homosexuality, not to mention adultery, murder, idolatry, covertness etc., but as Christians, we share Christ’s message knowing that it will [not may] offend, the key is for mature Christ followers to articulate this with compassion and pragmatism, something Bill does exceptionally well. As a Canberra resident, news that the Chief Minister wishes to use public funds to support a ‘Yes’ vote was absolutely appalling. What is his thinking supporting a one-sided viewpoint, this is madness! I would think that the gay community [or any party] would find this bias offensive. Apologies for the ABC link, I know how much you like their reporting?.
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-17/act-chief-minister-pushes-publicly-funded-same-sex-yes-campaign/8816478
    Reading your material has encouraged and strengthened me to speak out about such issues using fact and reason delivered with logical compassion, thank you, keep up the wonderful work and God bless.

  • This only confirms what I’ve suspected for some time: It’s those homosexuals with a political agenda who are making the most noise. Just as the old saying goes, “it’s the squeaky wheel that gets the oil”. And it’s the homosexual political activists that are most eager to have the law support their cause. Even if homosexual ‘marriage’ were to become enshrined in law, that would not make it acceptable in the sight of God. Nor would it ensure that homosexual partnerships were any more likely to be either longer or stronger.

  • Dear Rachel, to improve your arguments in the ssm debate, please be aware civil partnerships are not available in Western Australia, and if good Christians like Margaret Court and Andrew Hastie prevail, they never will be.

    Dear Ann, nor is divorce, though legal, acceptable in God’s eyes. If and when we win in the postal plebiscite we cannot rest on our laurels, we must use the momentum to repeal no fault divorce. Then all child rearing couples will know their commitment to marry will truly be for life.

    Marriage is God’s creation. All human attempts to change it to meet our selfish needs must be repealed.

  • Thanks Peter, enlightening point; I didn’t realise civil partnerships were not available in Western Australia. Marriage is indeed God’s creation and it seems to me the clamour for SSM equality, coupled with the derision of the faithful lifetime love and partnership of a man and woman are part of a last desperate attempt to drag in the new world order beloved of secular humanists and elite secret societies, as they march through the institutions overturning and destroying as they go. It seems the whole caboodle rests on a vehement rejection of God’s order and a determination to roll out the order of the Adversary. You can only serve one master. Under God’s order you can choose. Under the new world order any dissent is not to be tolerated. What a dystopia that would be!

  • You raise a good point, Bill. Worldwide the uptake rate of same sex marriage once the laws have been changed has been around 10-12%, and the percentage of those who identify as Same sex is 2%, which means only a handful of a handful of people in Australia will even benefit from same sex marriage. I’m liberal, by christian standards because If I thought this was just about two people getting married, i might consider voting Yes, but it’s never just about this with the activists. They will never be satisfied.

  • In parliament, Bill Shorten said Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull will be personally responsible for “every hurtful bit of filth” unleashed by public debate on the same-sex marriage postal survey.
    Matthew 19:3 Jesus said:- ” The proud religious law-keepers came to Jesus. They tried to trap Him by saying, “Does the Law say a man can divorce his wife for any reason?” 4 He said to them, “Have you not read that He Who made them in the first place made them man and woman? 5 It says, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will live with his wife. The two will become one.’ 6 So they are no longer two but one. Let no man divide what God has put together.”
    These verses are being used by pro-heterosexual marriage supporters to demonstrate Jesus’s teaching definitely advocates men and women marrying.
    I wonder, is this the sort of “filth” Bill Shorten is referring to?
    Could this be his “basket of deplorables” moment which is that comment which possibly turned the POTUS election in Trump’s favour.
    First lesson of politics- don’t insult your opponents.

  • Fantastic article Bill.

Leave a Reply