The mantra repeatedly put forth by liberals filled with compassion to end so called discrimination against homosexuals desiring to be married is that it is simply “not fair” for caring individuals involved in long-term monogamous relationships to be denied spousal benefits, hospital visits, or any number of other benefits here-to-for having been reserved for heterosexual spouses. The other favorite term is that it violates basic “civil rights” to keep such puritanical discrimination in place. And after all, who can be against the advance of “civil rights” anyway?
Gay rights advocates usually parade out in news segments or other propaganda venues “Example A” who is in a “committed” and “long term” or “monogamous” relationship. However, evidence shows that the majority of homosexual relations are “short term hookups” according to Timothy J. Dailey, Ph.D., Senior Fellow, Center for Marriage and Family Studies at Family Research Council. Dailey sites a study by Maria Xiridou in the Netherlands, a gay-tolerant nation that has legalized homosexual marriage, found the average duration of homosexual relationships to be one and a half years. The same Dutch study found that “committed” homosexual couples have an average of eight different sexual partners per year. So much for the image of long-term or monogamous relationships. Never mind reality or inconsistencies; image over substance is a valued progressive strategy and it can be effective in shaping the views of the undiscerning.
Liberals very rarely launch a frontal attack when trying to effect change. It usually comes in the side door since most of us have the common sense to repel any direct acts that would destroy our societal values guided by our Judeo-Christian religious heritage that has produced this land of liberty. These progressives also try to conceal their agenda by rarely using the correct descriptive term. Recent examples come to mind to illustrate this liberal speak: The Affordable Care Act is anything but affordable; Planned Parenthood is in the business aborting babies, thus denying parenthood; and Pro-Choice means certain death to the unborn.
So, is the issue really “civil rights” and fairness, or is there another less obvious agenda? Recently gay marriage advocates have deviated from their obtuse pattern of concealing their agenda. They probably feel emboldened now that leaders like President Obama have had their epiphany on gay rights in exchange for campaign dollars. Listen to their own words: Slate.com writer, Jillian Keenan, in her editorial Legalize Polygamy said, “While the Supreme Court and the rest of us are all focused on the human right of marriage equality, let’s not forget that the fight doesn’t end with same-sex marriage. We need to legalize polygamy, too. Legalized polygamy in the United States is the constitutional, feminist, and sex-positive choice. More importantly, it would actually help protect, empower, and strengthen women, children, and families.”
One must put on a liberal thinking cap to process all of these highly discriminatory practices against polygamists that cause pain and suffering and inhibit personal growth. Satirically speaking, consider the tragedy of all the polygamist families that are forced to live under the radar and not be afforded healthcare benefits, spousal death benefits, or even hospital visitation rights for all of the spouses. How unfortunate that only one wife gets all that. What about the other wives? This societal rejection must make them feel sub-human and more like property rather than persons. Polygamist wives will be the next “human rights tragedy,” a byproduct of this Judeo-Christian discriminating society.
Who cares about monogamy anyway? Liberal academic elite, NYU Professor Judith Stacey, answers the essential question: What is marriage? Her answer is quite telling in the YouTube video, Why should there be marriage at all? Stacey concedes that we live in a world where marriage exists and so asks, “What should limit [marriage] to two, and why should it be monogamous?” She postulates that the value that is most important to be great parents is calmness and education. Male and female roles modes as mother and father have no relevance in her post marriage universe. Multiple adults in a polyamorous relationship might be even better even for raising children according to Stacey.
The Gay Rights Agenda Revealed: Destruction of the Institution of Marriage
The progressive agenda is fully revealed in Beyond Marriage, a widely supported 2006 “strategic vision” statement by leaders of the LGBT movement, academics, journalists and leaders of the religious left, sets the goal of establishing legally recognized polyamorous “families” founded on relationships which include “households in which there is more than one conjugal partner.”
Andrew Walden reports in Beyond Marriage, The Confession: Hawaii Gay marriage advocates let the polyamorous cat out of the bag. “And although the statement advocates moving “beyond” same-sex marriage, it also clearly endorses gay marriage itself. The argument on offer is that same-sex marriage is, and ought to be, only one part of a larger effort to redefine our idea of the family. So in contrast to the “conservative” argument, which holds that gay marriage will strengthen the unique appeal of marriage itself, the Beyond Same-Sex Marriage statement claims that gay marriage is a critical step in a larger evolution away from the preference for any specific family form. In other words, the sponsors of Beyond Same-Sex Marriage hope to dissolve marriage, not through formal abolition, but by gradually extending the hitherto unique notion of marriage to every conceivable family type.”
The Homosexual Agenda is now revealed. Gay activists don’t really want equality in marriage. Rather, gay activists want the dissolution of marriage, substituting any consensual relationship which in the end results in polygamy, and polyamory. Joe Dallas, a former homosexual and now minister and speaker on the subject says, “Homosexual couples are changing marriage more than marriage is changing them. A decade ago, renowned gay journalist Andrew Sullivan predicted that gay couples, once given the right to marry, would change the way heterosexual couples viewed the institution, especially as it regards monogamy. Citing ‘the need for extra-marital outlets’, he (Sullivan) suggested that the practice of non-monogamy, so common among gay male couples, could open up the minds of heterosexual couples to the freedom of an ‘open contract’ that would allow both husband and wife to enjoy multiple sexual partners.” Again we see that the real desire is to live with multiple sexual partners where homosexuality and bisexuality are the norm. Progressives might view this continuous orgy as acceptable but 5000 years of history indicates this is not in the best interests of healthy children and families which are key foundations to any civilized society. Anyone disagreeing with the side effects on children and families should do a stroll through the Castro district in San Francisco and look at the abundance of human carnage.
“This is a Worldview Struggle” Del Tackett, PhD., Focus on the Family’s award winning, The Truth Project DVD series. Tackett expounds on this battle for America’s soul in his seminal work, The Truth Project. The battle lines are drawn in this worldview struggle between the Judeo-Christian view of our Founding Fathers where government was in subjection to God and God’s Laws (also called Natural Law) and the humanistic view espoused by progressives that believes man and man's laws are superior to God. Natural Law presupposes there is an understanding of God’s Law written on each human heart and eternal. Applying Natural Law to the marriage union results in the innate precept that the design by God for marriage was to join a man and a woman. Progressives espousing a man-centered authority in all matters of life have no basis for law other than the overriding philosophy of “if it feels good do it.”
In the section on foundations of government Dr. Tackett explains that “The Purpose of civil authority is to 1. Punish Evil and 2. Condone Good.” Tackett emphasizes, “The Civil authority must know what the basis is for declaring what is good or what is evil.” This has momentous implications.
Tackett also unpacks the teaching in the Bible by the Apostle Paul regarding the purpose and function of government. Romans 13:3-4, “For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good.”
Every law is based on the ethical notion of what is right and what is wrong. If government disregards God’s Natural Law and becomes a law unto itself, then all manner of evil ALWAYS prevails. If government can declare whatever it wants to be called “good” or “right,” then the Holocaust can be justified, Pol Pot’s killing fields are a necessity to produce a desired utopia, Stalin’s and Mao’s purges must also be declared good by some if man reigns supremely over God.
Tackett quotes David Noebel from his book, Understanding the Times that “Social institutions are responsible for man’s evil actions.” Following that logic it is apparent that the ungodly liberal progressives are trying to take down cultural institutions such as marriage and family to attempt to rid this evil from their utopian worldview once and for all.
So who really will benefit from same sex marriage? If marriage is redefined to include homosexual couples, then any puritanical notion against polygamy or polyamory vanishes into thin air because limiting the numbers of husbands, wives, queers, or any other desired arrangement will be purely arbitrary. Muslims and Mormons may rejoice as their authoritative religious books endorse polygamy as God-ordained, regardless of the damaging effects on wives and children. Christians, standing on the Biblical definition of marriage as defined by God, limited to one man and one woman of will be further relegated to the sidelines of any societal moral input and will be classified as out of touch, insensitive, homophobic, and polyphobic (my word).
So when you hear the term “civil rights for Gay marriage” don’t be fooled by the approach. The bigger agenda at hand is the destruction of Judeo-Christian marriage as defined by God and that attack is coming in the back door, so to speak. If marriage is destroyed, that will inevitably plunge us further down the road toward total societal chaos and the inevitable destination of government tyranny that must occur to control the people who will not control themselves.
Ben Franklin knowing the dire straits the Founding Fathers were under trying to come up with a Constitution asked the question that all of us should be asking as we decide whether marriage is a worthwhile institution to keep alive. Franklin reminded the Framers that “And have we now forgotten that powerful friend (God)? Or do we imagine that we no longer need his assistance?”
The Old Testament Bible Prophet Hosea’s words ring now truer than ever. In 750 BC, Hosea attempted to warn Israel from acting unrighteously before God allowed them to be taken away in captivity. In Hosea 8:7 the Prophet says, “For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind.”
May God help us all if marriage is redefined in anyway other way than one man and one woman.Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.