home polity my creed contact info books links sitemap
related articles
print email save save as pdf
 

Lien of OZ
Abortion
Artificial Reproduction
Bible Study
Family issues
Fatherhood
Homosexuality
Islam
One World Government
Church Order
Deacons
Elders
Men 
Sunday School
Women
Worship
Scripture
Bible
Theology
Creation
  Eschatology
Evangelise
Fear
Free Will
God
Heresies
Law
Love
Predestination
Reformed
Sacraments
Scripture
Sin
Soteriology
Sovereignty
Truth
Creeds
Ancient
Reformed
Universalistic
Verses
Words
Festivals
December 25
Easter
Halloween
Personal
Sabbath
Government
Church & State
Democracy
Government
Living
Body Mods
Death
Commitment
Discipline
Fear
Family
Kingdom
Modesty
Ourtimes
Prayer
Righteous
Potpourri
Abortion
Dates
Democracy
Historical
Homosex
Letters
Passages
Quotes
Sermons
Tracts
Religions
Evolution
Islam
Israel
Pagan
Copyright
Emails
Home

The "GAY" Commentary on Same-sex Marriage.

by Lien of OZ

Homosexual activists have, it would seem, been remarkably successful in re-defining marriage and family. But what do they really want?

Having achieved civil unions, domestic partnerships and ultimately same-sex marriage, homosexual activists attempt to assure us they should not necessarily pose any threat to marriage or family stability. Yet the introduction of these alternative (counterfeit) unions cannot help but impose a perverse moral standard upon us all. Some of the leading homosexual commentators declare—

"Being queer," writes lesbian Paula Ettelbrick1 , "means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family, and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. ……… We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society’s view of reality.’’

"Steeped in a patriarchal system…..the institution of marriage has long been the focus of radical feminist revulsion."2

Ettelbrick 3 vacillates in her public comments on same-sex marriage as a means to other goals. For her, homosexual marriage, does not go far enough to transform society. She proposes that it will–‘not bring liberation but force assimilation and make us more invisible and undermine ‘lesbian and gay rights’ movement.’

It is an injustice to look at the statutory definition of marriage.’

Ettelbrick 1,4 continues–‘‘As a lesbian, I am fundamentally different from non-lesbian women. In arguing for the right to legal marriage, lesbians and gay men would be forced to claim that we are just like heterosexual couples, have the same goals and purposes, and vow to structure our lives similarly. We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society's views of reality."

Paula Ettelbrick 5 supports the ‘right’ of homosexuals to ‘marry’ but opposes marriage itself as oppressive.

Paula Ettelbrick now Executive Director of the International Gay & Lesbian Human rights Commission (IGLHRC) has aggressively affirmed an intended ‘confrontation with religion and challenge even Pope Paul’s call to arms against homosexual marriage would be successfully combated.’

Other feminist academics such as Ruth Colker in her book ‘Marriage’ agrees with Ettelbrick arguing for changing the Institution of Marriage and to eliminate all its actual and perceived benefits…’’People should marry for symbolic not economic benefits."

Nan Hunter 3 admits that legalizing gay / lesbian marriage– "should destabilise marriage’s gendered definition thus disrupting the link between gender and marriage thereby subverting its power differential."

Mary Dunlop 3 advocates that same-sex marriage is a means of escape from ‘gay bashing.’ She regards heterosexual marriage as ‘a ritual of the most repressive and repugnant kind; creating for women lives of virtual slavery. We must be aware of the oppressive history that weddings symbolise. Lesbian union exhibits a rejection of the patriarchy of the marriage institution."

and

Cathy Renna (Spokeswoman for the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) says ‘marriage is too religious.’

Further scathing comment, opposing Christian views, come from outspoken (pro-homosexual and pro-pedophile) author Judith Levine. 7

"Because American marriage is inextricable from Christianity, it admits participants as Noah let animals onto the ark. But it doesn't have to be that way. In 1972 the National Coalition of Gay Organizations demanded the ‘repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit; and the extension of legal benefits to all persons who cohabit regardless of sex or numbers.’ Would polygamy invite abuse of child brides, as feminists in Muslim countries and prosecutors in Mormon Utah charge? No. Group marriage could comprise any combination of genders."

The late Tom Stoddard 8,9, another staunch proponent for same-sex marriage regularly condemned the oppressive nature of traditional marriage. He fought for the same-sex equivalent for economic benefits and, as a political expression; ‘a means to end gay and lesbian discrimination and eliminate the sexist trappings of traditional marriage’.

Tom Stoddard further declared that– "Extending the right to marry to gay people -- that is, abolishing the traditional gender requirements of marriage -- can be one of the means, perhaps the principal one, through which the institution divests itself of the sexist trappings of the past."

And homosexual activist Michelangelo Signorile 10 adds –"A middle ground might be to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society's moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution."

"It is also a chance to wholly transform the definition of family in American culture. It is the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statutes, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into public schools, and, in short, usher in a sea change in how society views and treats us."

Signorile 11 continues–"Rather than being transformed by the institution of marriage, gay men — some of whom have raised the concept of the ‘open relationship’ to an art form — could simply transform the institution itself, making it more sexually open, even influencing their heterosexual counterparts.’’

When tolerance and diversity are to be accepted by all and discrimination avoided, (Christian) morality must take a back seat. For instance, the recent decision of the US supreme court (Lawrence V Texas) determined that consensual, sexual or private, morality, could no longer be proscribed by law.

Signorile 12 stresses that for ‘gay’ men the term 'monogamy' simply doesn't necessarily mean sexual exclusivity. ‘. . . The term 'open relationship' has for a great many gay men come to have one specific definition: A relationship in which the partners have sex on the outside often, put away their resentment and jealousy, and discuss their outside sex with each other, or share sex partners’.

Former homosexual, William Aaron,13 asks why is it that homosexuals involved in "committed" relationships do not practice monogamy:

He goes on to explain that – ‘in the gay life, fidelity is almost impossible. Since part of the compulsion of homosexuality seems to be a need on the part of the homophile to 'absorb' masculinity from his sexual partners, he must be constantly on the lookout for [new partners]. Consequently the most successful homophile 'marriages' are those where there is an arrangement between the two to have affairs on the side while maintaining the semblance of permanence in their living arrangement.’

Even while acknowledging this Geoffrey Kors-Executive Director of Equality California, continues to stress that ‘To divide families and prevent stable loving relationships from equal treatment under the law that ‘married couples’ take for granted is an insult to same-sex, bi-sex and bi-national couples (when separated between nations).’

Even Andrew Sullivan 14 , a conservative ‘gay’ advocate, in his book ‘Same-Sex Marriage–The Pro and Con’ confesses that any homosexual marriage must entail a greater understanding of the ‘need’ for "extramarital outlets" and "openness of the contract." For homosexuals very likely resist allowing their "varied and complicated lives" to be flattened into a "single, moralistic model."

In reviewing the book Daniel Harris another ‘gay activist’ declares that what he despises most about marriage is that it limits promiscuity. ‘We want marriage but on our terms’.

Sullivan argues 15 that homosexual (same) sex relationships are superior to husband and wife (heterosexual) marriage because of the homosexual’s capacity to understand the ‘need’ for ‘outside’ relationships. He thus, implies that adulterous ‘swinging’ or ‘polyluv’ 16 should similarly be accepted in the heterosexual lifestyle. A practice whereby ‘one feels glad’ that your ‘mate’ is with another.

Levels of promiscuity in the homosexual lifestyle is almost its trademark; as their own advocates acknowledge. Note for instance this comment of Rotello 17 , who is himself openly gay: "...the outlaw aspect of gay sexual culture, its transgressiveness, is seen by many men as one of its greatest attributes."

Gareth Kirby18, editor of the homosexual newspaper Xtra West, on Sept. 6, 2001 stated that ‘legal marriages’ are contrary to homosexual culture:

…In our (gay) culture, we haven't created the same hierarchy as has heterosexual culture. We know that love has many faces, and names, ages, places. … We know that a 30-year relationship is no better, than a nine-week, or nine-minute, fling – it's different, but not better. Both have value. We know that the instant intimacy involved in that perfect 20-minute …in Stanley Park can be a profoundly beautiful thing. We know a two-year relationship where people live apart is as beautiful, absolutely as beautiful, as a 30-year relationship where people live together. We know that the people involved in an open relationship can love each other as deeply as the people in a closed relationship …

And closer to home (in Australia) from local lesbian, Amy Lowell 19– "When it comes to same-sex marriages, John Howard has got us pretty well summed up. We’re not cut out for it. . . …….. 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 [Heterosexuals are] welcome to it.

These comments have remained unchanged for over 20 years since homosexual partners, (psychiatrist and psychologist) McWhirter and Matheson 20, first authored their book The Male Couple in which they affirmed that– most homosexual men understand sexual relations outside the relationship to be the norm, and view adopting monogamous sexual standards as an act of oppression. …….. All couples with a relationship lasting more than 5 years incorporate provision for outside sexual activity.

Reading these oft repeated comments by leading homosexual activists, writers and journalists, one can deduce that their desire for ‘couple’ recognition is not simply to gain benefits and privileges open to ‘married’ (heterosexual) couples but rather to radically transform our millennially long understanding of marriage and family.

Yet the "single, moralistic model" referred to by Sullivan (above) is precisely the point. – marriage as a commitment between a man and a woman does not—cannot—countenance extramarital outlets. For, while fidelity is not always honoured it still remains essential to the security of marriage; where faithfulness in marriage is right and adultery wrong and destructive. The argument that same-sex marriage would somehow tame the homosexual lifestyle is hardly convincing.

References.

  1. Paula Ettelbrick, "Since When Is Marriage a Path to Liberation?", in William Rubenstein, ed., Lesbians, Gay Men and the Law (New York: The New Press, 1993), pp. 401-405.

  2. OutSmart Magazine, May 2002, Houston’s G & L On Line Service.w
    ww.texastriangle.com/archive/1028/up4.htm

  3. National Journal of sexual Orientation Law V.1 Issue 1

  4. http://starbulletin.com/96/04/09/editorial/viewpoint.html

  5. Same-sex marriage debate U-M Law School Nov 14 2001

  6. www.worldnetdaily.org 8 Aug 2003

  7. Judith Levine, "Stop the Wedding!: Why Gay Marriage Isn’t Radical Enough," The Village Voice, July 23-29, 2003. Levine declines to mention that the 1972 Gay Rights Platform also called for abolishing age of consent laws. This is a curious omission since Levine herself has written in favour of lowering the age of consent to 12 for sex between children and adults in her book Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex (p. 88). See also
     http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0330/levine.php

  8. http://gaytoday.badpuppy.com/garchive/events/021897ev.htm 18 Feb.1997

  9. Tom Stoddard, quoted in Roberta Achtenberg, et al, "Approaching 2000: Meeting the Challenges to San Francisco's Families," The Final Report of the Mayor's Task Force on Family Policy, City and County of San Francisco, June 13, 1990, p.1.also. "Why Gay People Should Seek the Right to Marry." OUT/LOOK National Gay and Lesbian Quarterly, n.6. Fall 1989.

  10. Michelangelo Signorile, "Bridal Wave," OUT magazine, December/January 1994, p. 161.

  11. Michelangelo Signorile, "I Do, I Do, I Do, I Do, I Do," OUT magazine, May 1996, p. 30.

  12. Michelangelo Signorile, Life Outside (New York: HarperCollins, 1997), p. 213.

  13. William Aaron, Straight (New York: Bantam Books, 1972), p. 208, cited by Joseph Nicolosi in Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality, p. 125, quoted by Robert H. Knight in "How Domestic Partnerships and 'Gay Marriage' Threaten the Family," Insight (Washington: Family Research Council, June 1994), p. 9.

  14. Andrew Sullivan and Joseph Landau– Same-sex Marriage: Pro and Con. Also http://www.andrewsullivan.com/homosexuality.php?artnum=19890828

  15. Andrew Sullivan, Virtually Normal: An Argument About Homosexuality (New York: Vintage Books, 1995, 1996).

  16. "They Call it Polyluv," The New York Times Magazine, Feb. 16, 1997, Section 6, p. 15.

  17. Rotello, G. (1997): Sexual Ecology. AIDS and the Destiny of Gay Men. Dutton, Harmondsworth, Middlesex, UK.

  18. Gareth Kirby18, editor of the homosexual newspaper, ‘Legal marriages’ are contrary to homosexual culture: Xtra West, on Sept. 6, 2001

  19. Amy Lowell, "Do lesbians need marriage?, MCV, 4 June 2004, p. 6

  20. D. McWhirter, and A. Mattison. (1984) Male Couple: How Relationships Develop. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.