Wintery Knight

…integrating Christian faith and knowledge in the public square

Ryan T. Anderson: the hidden agenda behind gay marriage activism

Ryan T. Anderson exposes the real agenda behind same-sex marriage advocacy in the New York Daily News.

Excerpt:

Same-sex marriage will never be widely accepted in America for a simple reason: It’s based on a lie. But don’t take my word on this; leading LGBT scholars and activists say as much.

Take Masha Gessen, acclaimed author and former Russian director of Radio Liberty. “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,” Gessen said last year.

Last month, I was part of a debate at the NYU School of Law at which Judith Stacey, a sociology professor at the university, declared: “Children certainly do not need both a mother and a father.”

Stacey went on to suggest that three parents might be better than two. In fact, while asserting she is in favor of same-sex marriage because of “equal justice,” Stacey admitted she isn’t a fan of marriage. “Why should there be marriage at all?” she asked.

I pointed out that marriage exists, and the government takes an interest in marriage because the sexual union of a man and woman produces children — and children need both a mom and a dad.

[...]In congressional testimony against the Defense of Marriage Act, she expressed hope that redefining marriage would give marriage “varied, creative and adaptive contours,” including “small group marriages.”

Stacey was among more than 300 scholars and advocates who signed a statement, “Beyond Marriage,” calling for legal recognition of sexual relationships involving more than two partners. During our NYU debate, she asserted that nothing gives the state an interest in monogamy.

The very day of the debate, Slate posted an article headlined “Legalize Polygamy!” The author, Jillian Keenan, argues: “Just like heterosexual marriage is no better or worse than homosexual marriage, marriage between two consenting adults is not inherently more or less ‘correct’ than marriage among three (or four, or six) consenting adults.”

She concludes: “Legalized polygamy in the United States is the constitutional, feminist and sex-positive choice.”

And this is why the marriage redefiners are doomed to fail: Redefinition has no logical stopping point. Its logic leads to the effective elimination of marriage as a legal institution. This will harm women, children and society as a whole.

If we redefine marriage to exclude the norm of men and women complementing each other in (ideally) a lifelong familial bond, Gessen admits, “The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change . . . I don’t think it should exist.”

Is the the viewpoint of all gay people? Not at all. Many gay people are conservative and don’t want to change the institution of marriage. But it is the view that animates the activists who are pushing to redefine marriage for everyone. And if the activists succeed, it will affect everyone. It will affect children who don’t even have a say in the debate today, just like no-fault divorce affected children when that became the law of the land.

Filed under: Polemics, , , , , , , , , , , ,

5 Responses

  1. Kunoichi says:

    What I find interesting is that the people I know fighting hardest for SSM are not people who are gay. These are people convinced that the only way to show they “accept” and “love” their gay friends and family members is to force society to redefine marriage. When I point out to them that there really is an anti-marriage gay agenda that they are playing into, they not only deny it, but resort to personal attacks against me for daring to suggest it.

    I think the personal attacks on me and others who question their position is the only way they can maintain the cognitive dissonance of their position.

  2. Johnycomelately says:

    Good post.

    France has changed the legal definition of mother and father to ‘parent’.

    Taking away the biological definition opens pandora’s box and will allow the state to attribute parentage to whomever it sees fit.

    Rest assured parentage will be attributable to ‘fitness’ rather than being biologically determined.

  3. Askme says:

    I agree with you that most gay couples are not seeking to undo the institution. But once you step away from the only objective criteria for the definition of marriage (one man + one woman= baby), there is not legal or logical reason for any restrictions at all.

    http://askthebigot.com/2013/04/30/the-future-of-no-longer-marriage/

  4. RKae says:

    Is it the view of all gay people? No. But politically moderate gays DO NOT contradict militant gays – EVER. For decades, gay literature has been filled with extreme content, and the politically moderate gays don’t complain. They shrug and say, “That’s not my scene.”

    In this escalating debate over gay marriage, has any gay person addressed a need for the gay community to clean up its act and meet the American middle class suburbanites in the middle? Nope. It’s just “We’re victims! Give us everything we want! And you’re hateful if you don’t accept us!”

    The militant gays are the ones who steer things, because the political moderates will always shrug and step out of the way.

    So when discussing the gay agenda, don’t make the mistake of listening to your gay friends. The militant agenda-makers are the actual voice.

    • Kunoichi says:

      To be fair, there *are* gays who speak up against the gay agenda (the one that supposedly doesn’t exist). Some are bloggers, others you’ll find the occaisional arictle from, but most are just regular folk who want to live regular lives, but are increasingly upset at the societal changes being made in their names.

      These are the truly brave ones, as the attacks against them from the gay community and their supporters are incredibly vicious. The level of hatred, anger, sometimes violence from the activists is astonishing. In at least two cases I know of, the people are having their lives systematically destroyed by activist groups, threatening their jobs and health.

      So much for “tolerance.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Click to see recent visitors

  Visitors Online Now

Page views since 1/30/09

  • 4,210,453 hits

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,962 other followers

Archives

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,962 other followers

%d bloggers like this: