CultureWatch

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

Homosexuals Against Homosexual Marriage

Aug 23, 2017

Yesterday I penned a piece quoting from a number of Australian homosexuals who have voiced their opposition to homosexual marriage. Why write such an article? It is pretty obvious: this is the sort of information the mainstream media and the pro-homosexual lobby does NOT want to get out into the public arena.

They want you to believe that not only every homosexual just can’t wait to have homosexual marriage legalised, but that everyone plus their dog wants it too. This is all part of the narrative of the activists: lie through your teeth loud enough and often enough, and eventually folks will start to believe you.

Since the other side plays fast and loose with the truth, I and others will proffer some facts and some truth here, even if it results in even more hate, derision and censorship. Just as plenty of debate about homosexual marriage has taken place among Australian homosexuals, so too elsewhere.

In North America for example, many homosexuals have expressed their disinterest in marriage. In fact, there are many homosexual organisations which are fiercely opposed to the concept of same-sex marriage. As one example, consider the US-based group, Against Equality. They are quite explicit in their aims:

“Against Equality is an online archive, publishing, and arts collective focused on critiquing mainstream gay and lesbian politics. As queer thinkers, writers and artists, we are committed to dislodging the centrality of equality rhetoric and challenging the demand for inclusion in the institution of marriage.”

Also, when Ontario legalised same-sex marriage in 2003, there was not exactly a huge rush of Canadian homosexual couples to the altar. Indeed, the New York Times was so intrigued with this fact that it did a major story on it. Here is one excerpt from that article:

When David Andrew, a forty-one-year-old federal government employee, heard that the highest Ontario court had extended marriage rights to same-sex couples … he broke into a sweat. “I was dreading the conversation,” he said, fearing that his partner would feel jilted when he told him that he did not believe in the institution. “Personally, I saw marriage as a dumbing down of gay relationships. My dread is that soon you will have a complacent bloc of gay and lesbian soccer moms.”

The article also cites Rinaldo Walcott, a sociologist at the University of Toronto, who shared his worries about getting on board the heterosexual marriage bandwagon: “I can already hear folks saying things like: `Why are bathhouses needed? Straights don’t have them’. Will queers now have to live with the heterosexual forms of guilt associated with something called cheating?”

Another telling comment comes from a Toronto homosexual magazine editor who said, “Ambiguity is a good word for the feeling among gays about marriage. I’d be for marriage if I thought gay people would challenge and change the institution and not buy into the traditional meaning of ‘till death do us part’ and monogamy forever. We should be Oscar Wildes and not like everyone else watching the play.”

In an editorial in an American homosexual magazine, Jim Rinnert says of SSM: “I’m against it”. He writes, in part:

Gay marriage strikes me as, first and foremost, just another way to show the straights that we’re the same as them, that we’re as “normal” as the heterosexuals with whom we share the planet and thereby are worthy of acceptance into their clubs. Well, without getting into a discourse on the social function of homosexuality in cultures ancient and modern, let me just assert that, guess what—we’re not the same. We’re different. Rather than try to paint heterosexual stripes on our pelts, let’s examine, explore and celebrate our different coloration.

Noted Irish political commentator and homosexual, Richard Waghorne, has also weighed into the debate, arguing that homosexuals should leave marriage alone. He said, “Actually, gay people should defend the traditional understanding of marriage as strongly as everyone else. Given that it is being undermined in the name of gay people, with consequences for future generations, it is all the more important that gay people who are opposed to gay marriage speak up.”

He especially made his case on the well-being of children, and how they deserve a mother and a father, something which same-sex marriage can obviously never provide them. Thus he says homosexual marriage “is not only unnecessary, but verges on selfishness”.

All these stories – and more – are found in my book Strained Relations with full documentation. Indeed, with over 700 footnotes, it is one of those books the other side has been doing its best to pretend does not exist. But there are plenty more examples of homosexuals telling us to say ‘no’ to homosexual marriage. Here are some others.

Doug Mainwaring is one homosexual leader who has demonstrated some hard-headed honesty. His article, “I’m Gay and I Oppose Same-Sex Marriage,” is well worth quoting from:

The notion of same-sex marriage is implausible, yet political correctness has made stating the obvious a risky business. Genderless marriage is not marriage at all. It is something else entirely. Opposition to same-sex marriage is characterized in the media, at best, as clinging to ‘old-fashioned’ religious beliefs and traditions, and at worst, as homophobia and hatred.
I’ve always been careful to avoid using religion or appeals to tradition as I’ve approached this topic. And with good reason: Neither religion nor tradition has played a significant role in forming my stance. But reason and experience certainly have….
There are perhaps a hundred different things, small and large, that are negotiated between parents and kids every week. Moms and dads interact differently with their children. To give kids two moms or two dads is to withhold from them someone whom they desperately need and deserve in order to be whole and happy. It is to permanently etch ‘deprivation’ on their hearts.

He continues,

Here’s a very sad fact of life that never gets portrayed on Glee or Modern Family: I find that men I know who have left their wives as they’ve come out of the closet often lead diminished, and in some cases nearly bankrupt, lives—socially, familially, emotionally, and intellectually.
They adjust their entire view of the world and their role within it in order to accommodate what has become the dominant aspect of their lives: their homosexuality. In doing so, they trade rich lives for one-dimensional lives. Yet this is what our post-modern world has taught us to do. I went along with it for a long while, but slowly turned back when I witnessed my life shrinking and not growing.

His conclusion needs to be shouted from the rooftops: “Marriage is not an elastic term. It is immutable. It offers the very best for children and society. We should not adulterate nor mutilate its definition, thereby denying its riches to current and future generations.”

Consider also two Irish homosexuals, Keith Mills and Paddy Manning. They have a very important 4-minute video on why they are against homosexual marriage. Please watch it and share it widely: www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6HD8KLQBvA&feature=youtu.be

They remind us about this fundamental truth: “Marriage is, at its heart, about children and providing those children with their biological parents. Recognising difference is not discrimination.” Yet I have folks attack me for even daring to promote this short clip. One even said, “This video is stupid, bigoted, hateful and hurtful.” Good grief!

Another fellow, a 30-year-old gay man, has penned a piece also opposing homosexual marriage. He begins:

I can’t seem to bring myself to celebrate the triumph of same-sex marriage. Deep down, I know that every American, gay or straight, has suffered a great loss because of this.
I’m not alone in thinking this. The big secret in the LGBT community is that there are a significant number of gays and lesbians who oppose same-sex marriage, and an even larger number who are ambivalent. You don’t hear us speak out because gay rights activists (most of whom are straight) have a history of viciously stamping out any trace of individualism within the gay community. I asked to publish this article under a pseudonym, not because I fear harassment from Christian conservatives, but because I know this article will make me a target of the Gaystapo.

He continues:

The wheels of my Pride Parade float came off the moment I realized that the argument in support of gay marriage is predicated on one audaciously bald-faced lie: the lie that same-sex relationships are inherently equal to heterosexual relationships. It only takes a moment of objective thought to realize that the union of two men or two women is a drastically different arrangement than the union of a man and a woman. It’s about time we realize this very basic truth and stop pretending that all relationships are created equal.
This inherent inequality is often overlooked by same-sex marriage advocates because they lack a fundamental understanding of what marriage actually is. It seems as though most people view marriage as little more than a love contract. Two people fall in love, agree to stick together (for a while, at least), then sign on the dotted line. If marriage is just a love contract, then surely same-sex couples should be allowed to participate in this institution. After all, two men or two women are capable of loving each other just as well as a man and a woman.
But this vapid understanding of marriage leaves many questions unanswered. If marriage is little more than a love contract, why do we need government to get involved? Why was government invited to regulate marriages but not other interpersonal relationships, like friendships? Why does every religion hold marriage to be a sacred and divine institution? Surely marriage must be more than just a love contract….
Marriage is often correctly viewed as an institution deeply rooted in religious tradition. But people sometimes forget that marriage is also based in science. When a heterosexual couple has sex, a biological reaction can occur that results in a new human life.
Government got into the marriage business to ensure that these new lives are created in a responsible manner. This capacity for creating new life is what makes marriage special. No matter how much we try, same-sex couples will never be able to create a new life. If you find that level of inequality offensive, take it up with Mother Nature. Redefining marriage to include same-sex couples relegates this once noble institution to nothing more than a lousy love contract. This harms all of society by turning marriage, the bedrock of society, into a meaningless anachronism.

He concludes:

At its core, the institution of marriage is all about creating and sustaining families. Over thousands of years of human civilization, the brightest minds have been unable to come up with a successful alternative. Yet in our hubris we assume we know better. Americans need to realize that same-sex relationships will never be equal to traditional marriages. You know what? I’m okay with that.

It is always refreshing and encouraging to find homosexuals who will show a bit of honesty here. They are willing to say what needs to be said, despite all the hatred and abuse that inevitably follows. And they know the fundamental truth about marriage: it is all about the children.

But for daring to share these basic truths, these homosexuals have been on the receiving end of plenty from the ‘love and tolerance’ brigade. As I asked in my companion piece to this one: If a homosexual opposes homosexual marriage, does that make him a hateful, bigoted homophobe?

www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/03/9432/
thefederalist.com/2015/04/28/im-gay-and-i-oppose-same-sex-marriage/

[1921 words]

28 Responses to Homosexuals Against Homosexual Marriage

  • Although you’ve wrote of some of them Bill, another lie that sometimes the media claims is that only religious people are against SSM. You’ve listed some Atheist/agnostic who’ve oppose SSM. I’ve met one on a forum and he claims he’s against SSM because he has a brother who’s gay and although he loves him, he wishes that there was a way for him to stop being Gay basically. I of course have shown him some articles of there being Ex-Gays out there and that some have changed.

  • I suspect in a few years time people are going to realize why nothing like 100% of homosexuals are in favor of redefining marriage but 100% of left wingers are.

    Meanwhile our beloved Prime Minister brings up the old chestnut “it doesn’t affect my marriage.” Clearly we should allow murders too because “it doesn’t affect my life” but of course both murder and redefining marriage have huge affects on society. All statements like that prove is that the person saying it is utterly and completely bereft of morals and understanding and doesn’t want to face up to facts.

  • Marriage is only for a woman with a man.

  • Well written Bill and have Shared.

  • Dear Bill,
    I was wondering if you could either write a piece or give your insights into the Union’s threat to boycott the ‘No’ vote, and how you envisage they would do it if at all (legally) possible. I have written a few lines on FB just to be ridiculed and called insane, which I probably am trying to write anything in favour of the ‘No’ vote on FB 🙂 I would also like your take on how we can be assured that our votes will be tallied by the ABS. I personally have little confidence in them given how they manipulated the ‘Religion’ section of the latest census. Thank you.
    Best regards, Pascal.

  • Dear Bill,
    Me again, sorry. On the subject of freedom of speech, the QLD Australian Conservative ‘private’ FB group was forced to shut down further to mingling from FB, making it hard to maintain. This group was visible only to QLD members of the party. So, even in private settings, we are not allowed to express our views anymore. Big Brother is watching.
    Best regards, Pascal.

  • Pascal- the plebiscite by the ABS is different to a vote managed by the Electoral Office. The ABS are statisticians, and you will no doubt be thrilled to hear that the results will not be a simply “X” voted “No” and “Y” voted “Yes”. Being statisticians, they will be obliged to apply statistical formulae to the results to ensure they are truly representative. Presumably none of us “degenerates” will have a clue how that works, but will have to accept the result.

  • Formulae! That sounds promising 🙂

  • Dear Pascal,

    I wouldn’t worry too much about Facebook as a forum in this debate. Facebook is most popular with those who are hostile to us.

    In a voluntary vote the important thing is to convince those who are sympathetic to the NO case to act on their beliefs. Our efforts should be concentrated on making sure our message gets through to and motivates the people who want to hear it. Too many people on Facebook do not want to hear the Truth of God’s Word.

    That is why I for instance reserve my strongest criticism for pastors like RICE’s Steve Chong who is having a preplanned missionary fundraising dinner in the middle of the postal plebiscite. The guest speaker is former Deputy Prime Ministers the Hon John Anderson, a leader of the NO campaign. You and I would think this is a great chance for the Hon Mr Anderson to remind the Christian audience to vote NO, but he has been silenced because the organisers don’t want to offend the Chef cooking the dinner, 2017 MasterChef contestant Bryan Zhu who is a practicing homosexual. This is another example of the homosexual lobby silencing Christians with the assistance of other Christians.

    Reserve your efforts and your passion for those who will vote NO if reached and motivated instead of debating the narrow minded people online. Yes, we need to reach them with Jesus but that can wait — right now we need NO votes more than anything else so go to those people who will give us their NO votes.

  • If SSM is all about love, then how is it loving to infect another man and cause illness and even death. Also, the Jesus that I know and worship would never say yes to this act.
    regards, Brian.

  • Here is a lesbian who will vote No too: www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2016/09/19/4541341.htm

  • If we were in America and a group threatened the US mail in this way, it would be a Federal offence and the Feds would be knocking on the door of the “mob”/union who made the threats.
    What do our lot do at a threat like this?

  • You know, it doesn’t matter that some homosexuals are against same sex marriage. That is their choice, and they are free to make it. The thing is, that others, who want to get married are not able to make that choice.
    If, as proposed above, marriage is only about having children, then why do older people and those who can’t have children want to get married?
    Marriage is more than children, and people who want to get married should not be denied the choice to do so.

  • Thanks Jill but let me call your bluff. Homosexuals are no different than anyone else in terms of who is allowed to get married. I cannot marry (I am already married). I cannot marry a three-year-old. I cannot marry a close blood relative. I cannot marry someone of the same sex. The exact same restrictions on marriage which apply to me also apply to the homosexual. We are all totally equal here. There is no discrimination at all. If you want to marry, you play by the rules – it is that simple.

    I answer your charge about infertile couples in detail here: billmuehlenberg.com/2017/08/13/homosexual-marriage-childless-heterosexual-couples/

    And no, people are not free nor should they be free to marry whoever they want. What if a group of people want to marry? What if a bisexual wants to marry a man he loves as well as a woman he loves? What if a man wants to marry his daughter? What if a person wants to marry an object? Every single one of these cases have already happened and are being relentlessly being demanded all over the West.

  • I’m Gay, for the past ten years Gays in Australia have had the same rights as de facto couples. Marriage is only a title which I don’t need . My parents were Hetrosexual and married in a Church! I lived with my partner for 26 years until his death from stroke without and not needing this title. I feel only a small percentage of gay couples will feel the need or expense of a marriage ceremony!

  • Thanks for that Stuart.

  • Honest man Stuart. Sorry for your loss.

  • People that are attracted to each other already have equal rights under our new laws and if they wish to seek a formal relationship then they could call it a civil union but definitely not a marriage.

    Brilliant article ❤️

    —–
    I have been searching for I a draft amendment of Marriage Act 1961 if the Yes wins and this the link (copy and paste) I found:

    www.attorneygeneral.gov.au/Mediareleases/Documents/Exposure-Draft-Marriage-Amendment.pdf

    Marriage Act 1961

    1 Subsection 5(1) (definition of marriage)

    Omit “a man and a woman”, substitute “2 people”.

    2 Paragraph 23B(2)(b)

    Omit “a brother and a sister”, substitute “2 siblings”.

    3 Subsection 45(2)

    After “or husband”, insert “, or spouse”. 4 Subsection 46(1)

  • Thanks for writing articles like these, Bill.

  • Well written Bill. What I can’t understand is why there is such a massive push for SSM when they can have a Civil Union? Why do we need to alter the Marriage law as such when they already are protected by the law? I see it as a very divisive, and violent push by leftist agenda makers out to create trouble and as you say, what’s to stop them from demanding other things like polygamy and child marriages?

  • It is unfortunate that there is so much bad feeling in the community related to this issue. It’s what happens when people with certain agendas (who may not necessarily be the ones who are actually directly affected) approach society in a confrontational way over a political issue, with demands; insults ranging from anything being ‘unintelligent’ or ‘uneducated’ or ‘backward’, to a range of other demeaning and derogatory appellations; threats – and, rarely, even violence – intolerant of even discussion concerning the issue if it’s going to be with anyone opposed to their views.

  • Gay politics has always been about a cultural pride and driving to be accepted for exactly what we are. Not what everyone else wishes we are. But suddenly, or not so suddenly, we seem to have become no longer proud of what we are and have taken to redefining ourselves as failed heterosexuals instead. We seem to have become ashamed of being homosexual.

    I don’t believe, back in the day, that marriage is what gay liberators had in mind for our future – another kind of closet, and yet here we are today, lowering the bar to exactly that. Why would anyone be campaigning to be a part of such a hoary, old-fashioned, heterosexual institution that thankfully has had nothing to do with us? This is not a progressive move on our part – it is regressive.

     One of the many blessings of being gay is that we aren’t automatically expected to confirm to heterosexuality’s often dubious customs and mores. But here we are now, begging for them. When did we get to be so  lame, and so needy and so ‘victimy’? 

    Why would anyone wittingly want their relationship sanctioned by the state, allowing the law to intervene in the most sacred union of one human to another?

    And if we really insist on having our relationships recognised, why haven’t we chosen a better version than marriage (yes, same but different – just like us), or created our own superior model, as befits us?

  • There is a fundamental fallacy in all this – the fallacy that the worth and value of a loving and committed gay relationship is diminished unless society stamps the word marriage on it. This is simply wrong and in many ways a repudiation of early gay activists who insisted being gay and different was something to be proud of.
    Marriage is essentially a heterosexual institution, always has been and for very important biological and social reasons. Not recognising gay relationships as marriages is about respecting the difference between gay and heterosexual relationships. It has nothing to do with equality at all, unless you want to tell me that a gay relationship isn’t as good as a heterosexual one unless it is called a marriage.

  • Serena and Greg, your input is valued. But please have the courage, if you have not yet done so, to speak up to your community. I know it is hard. I saw it yesterday when I was posting on GetUp! The Marxist elite cannot accept dissension and they will scorn you and bar you as they did with me.
    We are facing a uphill battle and are being bashed relentlessly with the same lame arguments. This is a war by attrition i.e.: the 1st to give up looses. I have been posting all day every day for the last week and every day I have to say the same thing over again. If I dare refer to an earlier post, I am accused of intolerance. Thank you. Pascal.

Leave a Reply