If you'd like to republish any of my articles, you are welcome to do so. Please add a link to the original post on my blog.

Wednesday, 20 February 2013

O'Neill Got It Wrong: Gay Activists Want More than Liberation, not Less

LGBT Rainbow flag flying from a building in Brighton

Brendan O'Neill totally missed the point.

He compares the gay radicals of the past who did not want marriage because they saw it as a form of oppression to the LGBT movement of today who demand same-sex wedlock, and concludes that the latter have become bourgeois and integrated, renouncing the radical ideology of the beginning, when Stonewall was young and fighting for liberation from matrimony, not enslavement by it.

The point he misses is that the homosexual activists have become more radical, not less.

What they demand from society now is a total redefinition of marriage, something that goes to the core of this institution and pierces it through the heart. They want to shape society in their own image, not just more or less politely ask society to leave them alone.

What was a negative request, "Do not interfere with our personal lives", has become a much stronger, positive demand, "Change the meaning of marriage to fit our bill".

This can be seen especially clearly when you consider the LGBT movement's request for same-sex marriage in church, when it is obvious that the people who intend to take advantage of this "right" do not believe in the precepts of the Churches whom they would require to celebrate their wedding.

It is transparent that church gay marriage is a travesty of Christian marriage, as I have written elsewhere:
We must not forget that, for believers, marriage is a sacrament; and for non-believers, what's the point of wanting to marry in church other than mocking the Church?

There was a male gay couple interviewed on the [British] TV. One of the two, in late middle age, with all the seriousness in the world said: "I want to marry in a church because this is the way I was brought up". One should ask: were you also brought up to have a homosexual relationship? And, if you can accept to depart from your background and education in one aspect, what's wrong with doing the same for the other aspect as well?

If as a gay couple you got married in church, it would not mean anything, because the creed and doctrine behind the sacrament of marriage does not include unions of this kind. It would be an empty ritual, a gesture without significance behind it.

It would confuse form with substance, appearance with reality. It would be a travesty.

It would be like thinking that a man wearing a wig and fake breasts is a woman. He may look like a woman, but he is not; similarly, a church gay marriage may look like a Christian marriage, but it is not.

Homosexual wedding in church is an insult to the people who believe, it's like an enormous joke at the expenses of Christian clergy and faithful alike. Why does a homosexual really want to marry in church knowing that, given the Christian teachings on homosexuality, that "marriage" is meaningless, if not to give Christianity the finger?

Why should gay activists want to make a mockery of other people's genuine Christian beliefs? And why should the British government want to give in to this offensive request, as it has already done to all other gay requests without exception [bar abolishing the minimum age of consent]?


  1. The reality is they always were going to come to this juncture.
    They want acceptance and that means ultimately free access to the next generation through adoption.

  2. Yeah I agree, I don't think the gay marriage thing is equality, it's preeminence. I believe it's basically turning all marriages into civil partnerships. No longer will marriage be about sex (homosexual marriage has no grounds for divorce due to adultery, as it cannot be defined what sex is anymore). No longer about procreation of children. No longer will there be mother and father or husbands and wives (simply progenitor A and progenitor B). This is a massive change which will no doubt have huge effects on society. And if marriage is redefined and becomes only about any 2 people committing to eachother, what's to stop it from changing in the future? On what grounds should we not allow 2 brothers to marry for example? And why stop at 2 people, why not have group marriages (which apparently they've started in Brazil)?

    The future knock-on effects will be enormous too. Right now, if the bill passes, churches wont be forced to marry gay couples, that wont last long. I mean, why should the church be allowed to discriminate but not anyone else? It wont be long before it is illegal not to allow a homosexual couple to marry in church. And then persecution will creep in e.g. Churches charity status will be taken away from them... Teachers will be sacked for not teaching homosexual marriage. Do homosexuals really want marriage so much that they don't mind causing people to go against their moral conscience?

    Don't get me wrong, I love my gay friends and think they should be allowed equal rights, but that doesn't necessarily mean changing one of the most basic and fundamental institutions in our society. Will that really change homophobic attitudes? Is it really so wrong to have an exclusive type of union for a male and female?

    Surely the matter is so big that it needs to be fully debated first? But anyone who openly opposes gay marriage is looked upon as a religious bigot homophobe etc. if I even mention I'm pro-male-female marriage, the response is so ugly! I know gay people who also oppose gay marriage... are they homophobes? I've been hearing of politicians who have sent letters of support to those against gay marriage, but plead not to tell the public about them for fear of being sacked. Do we really want a society where we can't have free speech?

    1. i am gay and would have been perfectly fine with civil union status. You are right many gays, especially the militant political gays hate the church and it has always been part of the agenda to get gay marriage recognized federally and then go after the tax exempt status of any church that refuses to marry them or who teaches that homosexuality is a sin. I am gay celibate and catholic (in the process of converting) I have never heard an anti gay word during a homily, not once. I know the church's official teaching but I see far more hostility from gays toward the church than the other way around.

    2. I am glad that there are brave and honest homosexual people like you, Andrew, who tell the truth.

  3. Curious Cat Lady (nice name and, by the way, I'm like you, I like cats and Christ), you make very valid and good points.

    Yes, it's true that a trio married in Brazil and that, if the only precondition for marriage is love, there is nothing stopping the wedding of a man and his dog, or of two blood relatives (incest is also increasingly permitted by the legislation of some countries) or of an adult and a child. Indeed, there is every sign that paedophilia, whose supporters have always historically been close to the GLBT movement, will be the next taboo to be broken:

    As for freedom of speech, homosexualists are becoming more and more similar to Muslims in their intransigence, lack of tolerance and respect for other opinions, and imposition of blasphemy/censorship through fear or law.

    1. I don't know about men and dogs or siblings, but one can hardly be for gay marriage and against polygamy. Polygamy has a long history, it was practiced in the old testament and is practiced in Islam. How could any western government argue against polygamy and for gay marriage. This will no doubt be the first serious challenge and I don't see how the polygamist looses.

  4. What great information!