Bill Muehlenberg: Marriage and History

There have been many despicable lies told by activists about the nature of marriage lately. One of these is that marriage takes many different forms in different societies. As Bill Muehlenberg points out, these are exceptions. The overwhelming natural form of marriage, in every society around the owrld and throughout history, is one man and one woman.

 

Marriage and History

Oct 7, 2017

The current marriage wars are so very odd for so many reasons. Until just recently the ideological left was vigorously insisting that marriage is just a piece of paper; that marriage is an oppressive and outdated institution; and that marriage is artificial – a relatively recent social construct.

Today however the left in general and the homosexual activists in particular are demanding the right to marriage, claiming it is the most important thing there is. So which is it? Is it just a waste of time or is it a necessity? Of course we know the answer to this already.

Marriage has never really been wanted by most homosexuals, and it is only the symbolic effect – plus the power and control that goes with it – that they seek through the redefinition – and thus destruction – of marriage. But all that I have documented in great detail elsewhere.

But let me look more closely at just one of the charges thrown around by the marriage attackers – at least up until recently. The claim that marriage and family are relatively recent inventions – often claimed to have originated in the US in the1950s! – deserves a response.

The simply answer is this: heterosexual marriage – the union of one man and one woman – is a historic and universal institution. The evidence for this is overwhelming. So all that I can do here is cite a number of experts who have done very thorough studies of such matters.

With so much material to choose from here, I have to be rather selective. But all the full quotes and references for this – and much more – are found in my book Dangerous Relations. Let me begin with family law expert Lynne Marie Kohn who stated, “Marriage was not invented, codified, or planned by human government. Rather, human government gave the stamp of approval to a design already manifested, honoured, maintained, and flourishing.”

 

Read the full article here

Advertisements

Gay Marriage Nothing To Do With Freedom of Speech

one-man-one-woman

Bill Muehlenberg: Affirm Traditional Marriage and You Can Lose Your Job for “Hate Speech”

Sep 19, 2017

Let me cut to the quick: if you dare to question the radical homosexual agenda, or if you dare to publicly defend what the institution of marriage has always been about, chances are very good that you can lose your job, be fined, or face other heavy-handed penalties for your views.

All over the West today free speech, religious freedom, and the democratic process itself are under direct attack. And overwhelmingly those stomping on our freedoms are the activists from the homosexual lobby and their many and various supporters.

The way things are going, I really need to write a book featuring all those who lost their jobs for daring to stand up for heterosexual marriage. Oh wait – I already did this. The first chapter of my 2014 book Dangerous Relations features not one, not two, but 165 cases of pink persecution.

They come from a 34-month period (January 2011 to October 2013) and feature just some of the cases of people losing their freedoms, being kicked out of a job, fined, or even jailed – all for the “crime” of insisting on the usual understanding of marriage, and refusing to bow down to the homosexual juggernaut.

And these were certainly not all of the cases that took place during this period. And of course not every case of this kind gets a wide public hearing, as the ones I reported on did. Thus I think it is safe to say that we now have many hundreds – if not thousands – of occurrences of this happening.

Not a day goes by when some poor soul who thought living in a free democratic society meant he could speak out on things that matter – including the historic understanding of marriage – has found himself on the receiving end of rainbow repression.

And in some places things are now this bad, but homosexual marriage has not even been legalised yet. Just imagine how much worse things will get if and when it is! Australia is one such nation, where the rainbow activists have been on a search and destroy mission, targeting anyone who dares to disagree with their radical agenda.

I have heaps of examples of this already documented on my site. Well, it is a new day, so we of course have plenty of new examples to include in this ever-expanding list of victims of the pink mafia. Let me offer just three more of them.

The first involves a small business owner in Canberra who has just fired one of her staff members. Was he caught stealing company goods? Did he seek to molest a customer? Did he trash the joint in a drunken rage? Nope, he did something far, far worse: he actually said he affirms heterosexual marriage.

Yes that is now such an horrific offence that you can lose your job over it. Try telling this guy nothing changes when we seek to redefine marriage. It has not even been legally changed here yet and we already have people losing their jobs! Wakey wakey folks!

The shop owner, Madlin Sims, wrote this on her FB page (I slightly edited one word):

Today I fired a staff member who made it public knowledge that they feel “it’s okay to vote no”.
Advertising your desire to vote no for SSM is, in my eyes, hate speech.
Voting no is homophobic. Advertising your homophobia is hate speech. As a business owner I can’t have somebody who publicly represents my business posting hate speech online.
1. Its bad for business
2. I don’t like sh*t morals
3. I don’t want homophobes working for me, especially in an environment with children.
It’s not okay to vote no. It’s not okay to be homophobic. This isn’t a matter of opinion or even religion. It’s a matter of the love & livelihood of real human beings. Freedom of speech is there for a reason and so are consequences.

Wow, did you get that? To support traditional marriage is “hate speech”! Affirming male-female marriage is “sh*t” morals! If you say marriage is about one man and one woman you are being “homophobic”! And the real howler is this: “It’s a matter of the love & livelihood of real human beings.”

Um yeah, try telling this real human being who just got fired what this love is all about, and how it impacts one’s livelihood! Usually the leftists are the first to scream about unfair dismissals and authoritarian bosses running roughshod over workers’ rights. Um, just where are all these lefties now? As Martyn Iles pointed out:

This woman has sacked a contractor for using an “it’s ok to vote no” frame on Facebook. She has a problem, though…
1) Discrimination Act 1991 (ACT) s13 — “It is unlawful for a principal to discriminate against a contract worker… (b) by not allowing the contract worker to work or continue to work”
2) Discrimination Act 1991 (ACT) s7(1)(o) — “political conviction” is a protected attribute.
It appears that what she has done is plain illegal.

My second case is not much better. One person actually rented a plane to sky write the words “Vote No”. For daring to do that all hell has broken out. They are now after his head, and he is now likely hiding in fear of his life! One news item puts it this way:

The electoral watchdog has received complaints about the “Vote No” skywriting over Sydney on the weekend not being properly authorised. A grassroots campaigner against same-sex marriage commissioned a pilot to write “Vote No””Vote No” in the sky four times on Sunday, a day after the anti same-sex marriage campaign launched nationally.
The skywriting, which was not organised by the key “no” case group Coalition for Marriage, attracted much discussion on social media, and the website from which it was crowdfunded was inundated with comments. The Australian Electoral Commission has received a number of complaints regarding the skywriting.

But get a load of all the love and tolerance he is now getting:

Social media users quickly began circulating the company’s contact information, abusing them for taking on the job. One message said the business owner is an “a***hole”. Another post said it was “probably the end of your business”.
One text message to the business owner read “you really are a sh** human. You’re definitely the biggest piece of sh** in Australia today. Probably tomorrow too. Hope you’re proud of yourself. Don’t be surprised by the hate coming for you. Titt for tatt, it’s only fair, right? You stupid, ignorant, remorseless, pathetic, old, LOSER”.

My final case involves a church that had the audacity to actually affirm two-thousand years of Christian social teaching on this issue:

A billboard outside a Brisbane church has sparked outrage ahead of the same-sex marriage vote. The Bellbowrie Community Church posted the sign: “God designed marriage between a man & a woman”. It was condemned on social media, and critics took to the church’s Facebook page to object.
“Hopefully there are churches in the area that cater to ALL Christians and not just the ones who fit in the narrow minded view of this “Church of God”. I’m sure Christ would be very disappointed in your view of Christianity,” one post said. Others started taking to the church’s review section and posting one-star reviews.
“A closed-minded group which overtly discriminates against members of our valued community and their (very reasonable) quest for marriage equality,” one woman wrote. Cartoons of same sex couples and sailors waving rainbow flags were posted in the comments under unrelated posts by the church.

So let me get this straight: now churches cannot even state publicly what the Christian view of marriage is without the haters and frenzied mobs coming out in force? I repeat: if things are this bad now, can you imagine how much worse things will get if faux marriage is legalised here?

And yet the other side keeps pushing the same old mantra that nothing changes when we change marriage. There will be no negative repercussions, they keep insisting. They are lying through their teeth and they know it. As just one of a kazillion examples, just yesterday lesbian activist and sister of Tony Abbott Christine Forster said the same thing.

She claimed on Sky News that homosexual marriage would have zero impact on free speech. She claimed that “there is nothing about changing same-sex marriage laws to allow same-sex couples to marry that will have any impact whatsoever on people’s ability to speak freely about their religion and their beliefs.”

Sure Christine, sure. Try telling that to the guy who just lost his job, or the skywriter facing the wrath of the militants, of the Queensland church subjected to so much hate and abuse. Try telling them their ability to express their beliefs – whether religious or not – will not be put at risk.

www.news.com.au/finance/work/at-work/its-not-okay-to-be-homophobic-canberra-contractor-sacked-for-vote-no-facebook-post/news-story/4ed027f47b5810e87036450054a8b6dd
au.news.yahoo.com/a/37132053/same-sex-marriage-no-case-skywriting-triggers-complaints/
www.couriermail.com.au/questnews/southwest/same-sex-marriage-supporters-critical-of-brisbane-church-billboard/news-story/240c1a37342c85ee0d50ecea0e6f2513?nk=6b87ac2934e63127b3027c05d2a15a8e-1505782321

Redefining Marriage Undermines All Freedom

one-man-one-woman

Marriage in the UK was redefined to allow marriage between any two people just 4 years ago. Conservative magazine The Spectator describes some of the repercussions of this decision in just a very short time period.

Four years ago, amid much uncertainty, 400 British members of parliament voted to redefine marriage in the United Kingdom.

Then prime minister David Cameron announced that, despite having made no mention of the issue in his party’s pre-election manifesto, it would be MP’s who decided the fate of marriage.

Now, it’s Australia’s turn to choose. There’s one key difference. Unlike in Britain, it will be the people who decide.

Everyone agrees, whether they admit it or not. This is a decision of enormous significance.

Therefore, it seems sensible to analyse the consequences of the potential change, within nations in which redefinition has previously been carried out.

In the United Kingdom, it has become abundantly clear that redefinition has affected many people, across many spheres. At first glance, these spheres appeared distinct from marriage redefinition. However, subsequent changes, have proved that they are entirely intertwined.

Gender: Current Conservative Prime Minister, Theresa May, has revealed proposals to abolish the need for any medical consultation before gender reassignment. Simply filling out an official form will be sufficient. A ‘Ministry of Equalities’ press release, explicitly announced, that the proposals were designed to: ‘build on the progress’ of same-sex marriage. Guardian journalist Roz Kaveney boasted that changing your gender is now: Almost as simple as changing your name by statutory declaration’.

Manifestations of the ‘British gender revolution’ are not difficult to find. Transport for London, have prohibited the use of the ‘heteronormative’ words, such as ladies and gentlemen. Meanwhile, universities across the nation are threatening to ‘mark down’ students, who continue to use the words ‘he’ and ‘she’. Instead, ‘gender neutral pronouns’ such as ‘ze’, must be uniformly applied.

Such gender-theory radicalism has delighted Stonewall, the UK’s largest LGBT lobby. Their Orwellian tagline: Acceptance without exception’, can be seen plastered on posters and adverts. Politicians, attempt to ‘out-radical’ one another, in the race to be an original champion, in the next emancipatory front of ‘Trans-rights’.

Freedom of religion: Much was made in the UK, about supposed exemptions, designed to ensure that believers would always be allowed to stay true to their convictions.

Four years later, the very same people who made ‘heartfelt promises’, now work tirelessly to undermine them.

Equalities minister Justine Greening, has insisted that churches must be made to: ‘Keep up with modern attitudes. Likewise, the Speaker of the House of Commons, a position supposedly defined by its political neutrality, had this to say: I feel we’ll only have proper equal marriage when you can bloody well get married in a church if you want to do so, without having to fight the church for the equality that should be your right’.

It became clear, during this year’s general election, just how militant the LGBT lobby have become, following marriage redefinition. The primary target was Tim Farron, leader of England’s third largest political party, the Liberal Democrats. High-profile journalists had heard that Farron was a practising Christian. In every single interview thereafter, they demanded to know. Did he personally believe homosexual sex to be a sin? He practically begged the commentariat, to allow him to keep his personal faith and legislative convictions separate. For decades, he pointed out, he had out vocally and legislatively supported the LGBT Lobby. Likewise, he had long backed same-sex marriage, voting for it enthusiastically. This simply was no longer enough.

Shortly after the election campaign, Farron resigned. He stated that it was now impossible, for a believing Christian to hold a prominent position in British politics.

In a heartbreaking development and in spite of Britain’s ‘foster crisis’, aspiring foster parents who identify as religious, face interrogation. Those who are deemed unlikely to ‘celebrate’ homosexuality, have had their dreams of parenthood scuppered. This month, Britain’s High Court, ruled that a Pentecostal couple were ineligible parents. While the court recognised their successful and loving record of adoption, they decreed that above all else: ‘The equality provisions concerning sexual orientation should take precedence. How has Great Britain become so twisted? Practicing Jews, Muslims, Christians and Sikhs, who want to stay true to their religious teachings, can no longer adopt children.

Read the rest of the article here– you may have to sign up for a free account, but it’s worth the hassle.

As an aside I note that WordPress have inserted a rainbow banner on their sites, at least for Australian users. All hail our Gay Overlords.

Jeremy Sammut: The ill-liberal equality campaign

From the Centre For Independent Studies

The ill-liberal equality campaign

Jeremy Sammut

same sex marriage 1 activistm protest activistsBill Shorten says it is a “distraction” for defenders of traditional marriage to claim that same-sex marriage will threaten religious freedom in Australia. According to the nominal leader of the ‘Yes’ campaign, the real question to be decided at the plebiscite is purely whether the right to marry should be extended to same-sex couples.

Australian believers of many faiths are rightly sceptical. LGTBQI activists and ‘marriage equality campaigners told the 2017 parliamentary enquiry that any religious exemptions from same-sex marriage for civil celebrants and wedding-related businesses would be humiliating and degrading. There is also concern about international precedents; such as in Sweden, where the Social Democrat Prime Minister said in June that Church of Sweden clergy should no longer be exempt from wedding same-sex couples.

Nevertheless, Shorten could transform the question of religious freedom into a genuine non-issue simply by promising that a comprehensive religious freedom plank will be included in the ALP platform. This would commit future Labor governments to retain in the Marriage Act not only protections for priests and ministers, but also for the proverbial Christian bakeries and other service providers holding religious and conscientious objections to same-sex marriage.

But Labor leader could ever promise to guarantee religious freedom without being lynched by the left for condoning prejudice and discrimination. Shorten’s ‘nothing to see here’ attitude towards religious freedom is a tactical ploy. It is designed to return the plebiscite debate to the preferred ‘Yes’ narrative of a progressive crusade to advance gay and lesbian rights, and overcome the alleged bigotry and homophobia of marriage traditionalists — without regard for the rights of anyone else.

Disregard for the values and perspectives of those who are opposed to same-sex marriage has long been a hallmark of LGTBQI activists. The lack of concern for how extending the rights of one group may restrict the rights of other groups not only epitomises the narcissism at root of all forms of contemporary identity politics. It also highlights the ill-liberal nature of activist-driven ‘marriage equality’ cause.

The scant interest in the rights of others is in stark contrast to the attitude displayed by marriage traditionalists. When the Howard government amended the Marriage Act in 2004 to confirm the legal definition of marriage as “the union of a man and a woman” — with bi-partisan support — it also introduced changes to superannuation laws that granted members of same-sex relationships the right to claim their partners’ super death benefits.

This opened the way to a slew of reforms that have subsequently expanded the legal rights and protection afforded to same-sex couples. This includes the legal recognition of same-sex unions now provided for under legislation in six states and territories. At the federal level in 2008 and 2009, wide-ranging reforms guaranteed equal entitlements and responsibilities for same-sex couples in relation to social security, veterans’ affairs, employment, taxation, superannuation, immigration, and workers compensation.

The legal equality extended to same-sex couples has reached the point that in the words of the Parliamentary Library,  there are “fewer and fewer rights and obligations attached to married couples which do not attach to de facto couples—a status currently encompassing same-sex couples in most legal context”.

The extension of equal legal rights for same-sex couples has generated little controversy and virtually no parliamentary or community opposition — even from those marriage traditionalists theologically opposed to homosexuality, and those atheists personally opposed to same-sex marriage. This is in keeping with the evolution of modern social attitudes and weakening of communal prejudices that began with the de-criminalisation of homosexuality, and shows that few people these days have any serious desire to use the law to punish homosexuals such as by denying same-sex relationships a legal standing that is ‘as good as marriage’.

Australians, including religious believers, have hereby demonstrated a willingness to live and let live alongside others, even if they disagree about personal and moral questions pertaining to sexuality. This is an example of the ‘fair go’ attitude that must prevail in truly civil and liberal democratic societies, where compromise is often required on issues involving conflicting interests and competing rights. Marriage traditionalists have protected the meaning of marriage in Australia; but they have not opposed protecting and extending the rights of same-sex couples. Marriage traditionalists have not denied legal status and substance to same-sex relationships other than the use of the term ‘marriage’ — and for valid reasons in defence of religious freedom.

Compare such practical tolerance with the intolerant attitude of ‘marriage equality’ advocates. The assertion that same-sex marriage is a ‘human right’ obliterates consideration of the legal and human rights of religious believers.  The best measure we have of the genuine threat same-sex marriage poses to religious freedom are the statements made by Liberal MP and former Human Rights Commissioner, Tim Wilson. He claims the only way to protect religious freedom is to ensure a Coalition government passes a same-sex marriage bill through parliament that will include (limited) religious exemptions for faith-based organisations (but not for Christian bakeries). This is because, Wilson argues, a Shorten Labor government is sure to pass a same-sex marriage bill sans any religious protections at all.

To say the least, this is very weak ‘liberal’ argument for voting Yes; it amounts to a transactional rationalisation for surrendering, on terms, to the anti-religious freedom ‘marriage equality’ cause, and offers, at best, only a vestigial defence of the core liberal principles at stake. Only in tin-pot republics, and under totalitarian regimes, do changes of government threaten human rights such as religious liberty. In a free country, the protection of fundamental rights and principles such as freedom of religion should not be beholden to the inevitable turn of the electoral cycle.

It is little wonder, therefore, that defenders of traditional marriage and religious freedom have been so determined to refer the question of same-sex marriage for decision directly by the Australian people at the plebiscite.

Jeremy Sammut is a Senior Research Fellow at The Centre for Independent Studies.

The Truth About Same Sex “Marriage”

The Spectator comes up with some unspoken truths about Same Sex “Marriage”

But it’s all about equality, right?

31 August 2017

7:28 AM

We are in the middle of a storm of misinformation as the plebiscite on same-sex marriage draws near. Who do we believe?

George Brandis, who tells us everything will be fine and that those who have religious objections have nothing to worry about? The Greens, who say that the majority of Aussies want to redefine marriage but don’t want us to vote in a plebiscite because they’re afraid that we the people will say something different to the social media Twitterati, or Bill Shorten, who claims that any disagreement with same-sex marriage would only unleash hate, vilification and bigotry?

Along with a huge proportion of the mainstream media, the leader of the opposition has been caught out in ‘stretching the truth’ with their inaccurate reporting of having personally witnessed homophobic posters that were supposed to have been plastered all over the streets of Melbourne recently. Network Ten, in particular, were exposed by the ABC’s Media Watch for, by their own admission, a “creative” presentation of the facts by intentionally doctoring images made to look like they were being prominently placed on bus stop shelters.

To be honest, I don’t believe any of them. However, there is one person I believe. And, interestingly, she comes from the Marriage Equality side: Marsha Gessen, a lesbian political activist.

Gessen really let the genie of deliberate public deception out of the bottle all the way back in 2012 when she told the Sydney Writer’s Festival:

Fighting 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.

We should have woken up to the alarm bell then but here we are, five years later, and the campaign for marriage ‘equality’ is lying more than ever in at least three different ways.

First, they want to redefine what marriage is. Everyone assumes that they just want to get married like the rest of us. But for many homosexual people, lifelong sexual fidelity is neither a reality nor an ideal. For instance, the psychiatrist and physicist Jeffrey Satinover writes: “One of the most carefully researched studies of the most stable homosexual pairs, The Male Couple, was researched and written by two people who are themselves a homosexual couple – a psychiatrist and a psychologist. Its investigators found that of the 156 couples studied, only seven had maintained sexual fidelity; of the hundred couples that had been together for more than five years, none had been able to maintain sexual fidelity.”

Why not be honest then and admit that what the LGBTIQ community mean by the term ‘marriage’ is not what everyone else does? Why mess with a proven and trusted social institution and turn it into something else? So, if you want to vote “yes” in the upcoming plebiscite then just know that you’re not voting for an exclusive sexual commitment of ‘love’ as most people assume, but something altogether different to what marriage historically means.

Second, they lie about what redefining marriage means for the rest of society. For example, approximately 12 months after the referendum on same-sex marriage in Ireland religious exemptions that had previously been promised were suddenly withdrawn.

In the U.S. state of Massachusetts gay marriage has been legal since 2004. Almost fifteen years on and the effects are being felt in every sphere of the community; schools, businesses, the legal system, politics, adoption agencies, hospitals and churches. Not a single area of society is left untouched. But just take the example of adoption agencies for instance. Not only are 50 per cent of all adoptions in Massachusetts now to gay couples, but if you disagree with the LGBTIQ juggernaut then you are ruled ineligible and, as such, Christian adoption agencies have been forced to close.

What this means practically is not just the abolition of free thought but a 50 per cent increase in same-sex behaviour amongst children, invasive medical procedures for people to reshape their genitals and the transgender affirmative action of boys being able to use girl’s bathrooms as well as to participate on their sporting teams. But it’s all still about ‘equality’, right?

Just this past week across the pond, the New Zealand-based family organisation, Family First NZ, was served a notice by the national Charities Registration Board that it intends to deregister the organisation. The board says Family First’s promotion of its views about marriage and the traditional family “cannot be determined to be for the public benefit in a way previously accepted as charitable”.

What’s more, contrary to what the Australian Medical Association recently claimed (based on a single study, from a single clinic, in a single city in the U.S. 14 years ago), that redefining marriage improves “overall health outcomes among LGBTIQ populations” the reality is that this is patently false. For example, in an ultra-tolerant country like Sweden, the rate of suicide among same-sex married men, which is three times greater than heterosexual married men, remains unchanged even after the redefinition of marriage.

Finally, the “yes” campaign is lying most egregiously about whom marriage really affects. The biggest lie of all is that children will be unaffected. On the one hand, according to the UN it’s a child’s right to know and be raised by their biological father and mother, so any talk of discrimination has to first of all address this. That’s because having a child is not like getting a puppy! It’s a life-long commitment that affects the well-being of not just you and your spouse, but the little ones being raised in your home. This is something that people like Katy Faust and Millie Fontana who have been raised in same-sex households know all too well.

Closely connected to this is the whole issue of surrogacy, or what Aldous Huxley envisioned in Brave New World as The Department of Hatchery and Conditioning. We’re not as scientifically advanced or impersonal as Huxley suggested, but he was right in one thing – reproduction is now being separated from relationship. And the “yes” campaign is once again lying about what those consequences will be. As Caroline Norma, herself a lesbian, wrote just last year, “Whether or not the campaign is ultimately about advancing the cause of easier access to surrogacy and expanded types of reproductive technologies is a question the equality movement leaves unanswered.”

Politicians such as Christopher Pyne and Penny Wong are assuring us that nothing at all will change if we redefine marriage: “The sun will still rise, and children will still eat more ice cream than is good for them.” But that’s just another ‘pork pie.’ Redefining marriage changes everything. The evidence from overseas unequivocally proves it.

What really stinks is that there are people on both sides of parliament who know it, but are lying to our faces.

Mark Powell is the Associate Pastor of Cornerstone Presbyterian Church, Strathfield. 

Another Brazen Lie By The Media About Same Sex “Marriage”

There used to be an expectation that the media were there to provide information. But in the post-truth era there is no such expectation as the media just keep on pushing their favourite causes.

Bill Muehlenberg writes:

Marriage Wars: Truth Tellers vs MSM Deception
Aug 28, 2017
This is a tale of two groups – those who value truth and facts as they defend the institution of marriage, and those who merrily push falsehoods, lies and deception as they promote their radical agenda to destroy marriage. And as is so often the case, it is a David vs Goliath struggle.

In this case we have one or two folks daring to discover the truth and speak the truth vs all the money and manpower of the mainstream media and the organised left. Just one man seeking truth can help topple the lies of many, and in this case I am proud to say I know well the individuals involved in this case of truth telling vs entrenched falsehoods.

And this is a story that keeps on giving – every day new revelations emerge about just how immoral, deceptive and careless with the truth the secular left and its media allies are. And all because one brave soul first decided not to buy the propaganda of the MSM, but do a little bit of digging for himself.

Read the full article, including the role of Ten in providing their extra fake news, here

Bill Muehlenberg: Homosexuals Against Homosexual Marriage

Bill Muehlenberg writes:

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/