By BRIAN CLOWES
(Editor’s Note: Brian Clowes has been director of research and training at Human Life International since 1995. For the complete Culture of Life series on homosexuality [with footnotes], e-mail him at bclowes@hli.org.)
+ + +
“Demand the institution [of marriage] and then wreck it. James Dobson was right about our evil intentions. We just plan to be quicker than he thought” — homosexual activist and pornographer Clinton Fein.
After every major cultural shift, I like to listen to people talk.
Recently, I heard my fellow churchgoers at St. John the Baptist Catholic Church discuss the June Supreme Court decision forcing homosexual “marriage” on our nation. A few said that they have given up the fight, that this is the bottom of the “slippery slope,” and that Satan has finally emptied his great big bag of filthy tricks.
I used to think that way, too.
As we have seen, the “trans” movements are pushing ahead on every front, from transgenderism to transablism to transhumanism. Moral boundaries are being smashed on an almost monthly basis now, with none of the trans leaders pausing to consider why the barriers were erected in the first place.
Leaders of the trans movements know that an utter disregard for the rights of others worked brilliantly for homosexuals, so they are treading the same path. But let us not be fooled; their ultimate objective is not to enhance the value of marriage or to strengthen it. Their final goal is to water the definition of marriage down to the point where it is meaningless.
Instead of “trans,” we are already seeing radicals discuss “post” — post-marriage, post-gender, and post-human.
People on both “sides” of the issues used to laugh at such pie-in-the-sky thinking.
But nobody is laughing now.
The Next Goals. Polygamists are already lining up to demand the legalization of their lifestyle, backed up by huge feminist and civil liberties groups. They are supported by the corrupt media, which praises and promotes polygamy, calling it the “Next Sexual Revolution.” Meanwhile, television does its part as shows like Big Love and Sister Wives help soften up public opposition to polygamy.
Polygamy has not only been practiced for millennia, it allows for natural procreation between husband(s) and wive(s), something that promoters of homosexual “marriage” cannot say. This means that the redefinition of marriage to include polygamy is actually much less radical than the decision to legalize homosexual “marriage,” which is nothing more than a sterile novelty.
As Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in his dissenting opinion to the Obergefell decision, “It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage.”
It is only a matter of time before the Supreme Court legalizes polygamy. All that is required is a short cooling off period while the country gets used to homosexual “marriage.”
The next step after polygamy is “polyamory” or “polyfidelity.” One description of a polyamoric relationship is: “Sean has a wife. He also has a girlfriend. His girlfriend has another boyfriend. That boyfriend is dating (having sex with) Sean’s wife.”
Polyamorists reject the “myth” of monogamy. Their groups might consist of several men and several women, bisexuals, or male or female homosexuals, and people can enter or leave this formless liaison any time they want. Many scholars support polyamory as “a social revolution that would replace traditional marriage and family law.”
Polyamorists use exactly the same slogans that the homophiles have made so popular. Australia’s Polyamory Action Lobby (PAL) Manifesto says: “Polyamory often isn’t a choice; if people love more than one person, they can’t help it.” The PAL’s mottos are quite familiar to us all by now: “Marriage for All” and “Love is Love.”
The PAL Manifesto goes on to complain: “We’re sick of being treated like the bottom of a slippery slope, the fat end of the wedge and the scary inevitable consequence of legalizing same-sex marriage. . . . A family should be about security, stability, and love, not about its structure.”
Groups like the Polyamory Society and Principle Voices have admitted that they see homosexual “marriage” as an essential stepping stone to their goals. After all, you can’t get to a radical ultimate goal in one huge jump; you must take one small step at a time to allow people to get accustomed to each step “forward.” This is what the strategy of incrementalism is all about.
Then there is incest. In the United States and Europe, several pairs of siblings have argued that they have the rights to be married — to each other — and to have children. Once again, the mainstream press has treated these people as victims and has taken their side. These incestuous brothers and sisters also acknowledge that homosexual “marriage” is making their job a lot easier.
Some feminists enthusiastically support the legalization of incest. For example, the late Shulasmith Firestone once claimed: “An end to the incest taboo, through the abolition of the family, could have profound effects. Sexuality would be released from its straitjacket to eroticize our whole culture, changing its very definition.”
Following incest is pedophilia, which, as we have seen, has been supported by the homosexual movement for decades. Academics are beginning to discuss pedophilia in all seriousness. A nationally recognized “sexologist” has predicted that the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) and its fellow molesters may soon be demanding special civil rights, just as “mainline” homosexuals are doing today; he said: “Pedophilia may be a sexual orientation rather than a sexual deviation. This raised the question as to whether pedophiles may have rights.”
Interestingly, pedophiles are also using all of the same arguments that homosexuals used to make their advances. These include “We were born this way,” “Pedophilia should not be classified as a mental disorder,” “Pedophilia has been tolerated and even accepted in many cultures throughout history,” and “This is all about equality, liberation, and love.”
Believe it or not, there is also a movement demanding that people be allowed to marry animals. Of course, they prefer the term “zoophile” instead of “bestiality,” a term that carries negative connotations. “Zoophile” Philip Buble claimed that he is married to his dog, and asserted:
“Zoophiles are born with a true love for animals and have a lifelong commitment to their care. Myself and my dog Lady live together as a married couple. In the eyes of God we are truly married….If Maine passes an anti-bestiality law it will be a disservice to zoo couples and would keep zoo couples from coming out of the closet and drive us deeper underground. This helps no one and would force me out of state.”
As you can see, “zoophiles” use exactly the same arguments that proponents of homosexual “marriage” use; they were born that way, they are being discriminated against, their opponents are “fanatics,” they are victims, and true equality in marriage will never be achieved until they can marry their pets.
The Ultimate Goal. So why is there such an energetic worldwide push for homosexual “marriage” and succeeding steps at this particular time?
A number of the movement’s leaders have revealed the true purpose of their activism. Paula Ettelbrick, the former legal director of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, wrote: “Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so. . . . Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family, and in the process transforming the very fabric of society.”
One homosexual group said:
“The long-term goal of the London Gay Liberation Front, which inevitably brings us into fundamental conflict with the institutionalized sexism of this society, is to rid society of the gender-role system which is at the root of our oppression. This can only be achieved by the abolition of the family as the unit in which children are brought up.”
So this is what it is all about. It is not about the rights of homosexuals to get “married”; it is about the eradication of marriage and the family themselves. Only then will the radical homosexuals feel free of the guilt that plagues them. And one of the two huge obstacles to the social revolution being pushed so hard by the Culture of Death (the other being the Church) will be permanently neutralized.
The Grand Plan. In summary, large, well-organized groups are aggressively pushing for the legalization and normalization of polygamy, polyamory, legalized incest and child sexual molestation, and even sex with various species of animals. Every single one of these groups has said that homosexual “marriage” is an important step towards achieving their goals.
Of course, the “mainstream” media are running interference for the “trans” activists with a concentrated program of denial and mockery. As Bill Maher writes in his book New Rules, “Gay marriage won’t lead to dog marriage. It is not a slippery slope to rampant inter-species coupling. When women got the right to vote, it didn’t lead to hamsters voting. No court has extended the equal protection clause to salmon.”
But the “slippery slope” is a stark reality, and anyone with socially aware eyes can see what is happening all around them. No amount of denial or mockery will alter that fact.
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress