March 20, 2012
Elton John and David Furnish
“I”m very anti-marriages, because I think that is for heterosexual couples,” asserted self-identified gay celebrity Christopher Biggins on another British television show. He comes from a more conservative position and so is also problematic for the mission media.
Even on the libertarian side, David Coburn of the UK Independence Party advances the position that same-sex marriage will harm free religious speech and divide us. The obvious problem:
But [Prime Minister] David Cameron seems to be saying that marriage is something else. If so, it is clearly in the domain of the church and other faiths”and it is none of government’s business to meddle with it.
Coburn, who identifies as gay, accuses the gay-marriage movement of stirring mainstream religious people with “an aggressive attack on people of faith, and an act of intolerance in itself.”
The mission media’s servants aren”t ready to hear all sides of the debate because they”ve chosen a side, not a principle. Principled journalists understand that many gays object to gay marriage because they feel it’s patronizing. Why play dress-up when there are civil unions and/or other legal protections? It looks like middle-class mirroring.
Many same-sex-marriage activists use a negative to sell their ideals. They seem to be saying, “OK, some heterosexuals have dirtied marriage, so we deserve to experiment on it some more.”
Mission media types are addicted to a made-for-television fundamentalism that allows them to ignore the history of fatherless boys clogging up prisons, motherless babies being denied natural breast milk and bonding time, high rates of gay domestic violence (AKA the broken rainbow), and the many ways in which redefining marriage is used as a license to censor religious folks.
Abandoning children’s rights for a grand experiment is about control. We need to strengthen existing marriages rather than trying to weaken the institution itself.
