OVERVIEW
A worldview is a set of beliefs about the reality and meaning of life, which acts as a framework for establishing right and wrong, impacting opinions on ethics, science, religion, ecology, philosophy, ideology, voting and governance. Marriage Reality equips the reader to see same-sex marriage from the standpoint of a conflict between “heterosexist” and “homosexist” worldviews, in which both the individual and the state must choose a side. The idea of a rational middle-of-the-road paradigm mixing important heterosexist tenets with key homosexist ideology is debunked. The dynamic between worldviews is seen as zero-sum, labeled the “morality wars.”
Heterosexism
Heterosexism is the perspective that humankind is made up of two purposefully designed sexes, psychologically and anatomically intended for opposite sex (male-female) pair bonding and procreative union. The time-honored institutions of marriage and family are based on this premise. The nuclear family - father, mother and biologically connected children - is seen as the ideal building block of society. Variant sexual relationships and families, while allowed in a “tolerant” society, are seen as deviations from the optimum norm. Advocates of heterosexism include: secularists, Darwinists and all traditional theists - Christians, Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus (and also Buddhists). Heterosexism has been the explicit worldview of Canadian governance until the mid 1960s. Key turning points in the North American creation of a homosexist cosmology (worldview) have happened on gay, lesbian, political, judicial and religious fronts.
Homosexism on the Gay Front
Homosexual liberation officially dates to the rebellion of patrons against a police raid at a Greenwich Village gay bar called the Stonewall, in June 1969. That same year in Canada a Liberal Government declared a new level of tolerance towards homosexuals by decriminalizing private sexual acts. The release of homosexual George Klippert, jailed for gross indecency, symbolized the state was now tolerant of sodomy. The new promise of sexual freedom, especially realized in cities like New York and San Francisco, fueled gay migration. By the mid 70s, 5,000 homosexual men were moving to the Golden Gate every year. Soon two in five adults in San Francisco were openly gay. The National Institute of Health determined that among core groups in these large cities, multipartnerism had grown from 10-20 partners in 1975 to 500 partners in 1980. The new tolerance of gay sexual freedom spawned a $100-million industry of bathhouses and sex clubs across Canada and the United States. AIDS followed causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of gay men and eventually millions of people worldwide.
Homosexism on the Lesbian Front
On the lesbian front, the heterosexist movement, launched by feminist Betty Friedan in the 1960s, was hijacked only two years after the Stonewall rebellion in a lesbian coup, which forced Friedan’s resignation as president of the National Organization for Women (NOW) and crowned in her place lesbian Kate Millett, author of Sexual Politics, a primer on the ideology of sex/class warfare. Instead of focusing, as Friedan intended, on developing a stronger more equitable understanding of the roles of husband and wife in marriage and of mother and father in the family, the radicalized women’s liberation movement declared lesbians the frontline troops in the feminist movement and lesbianism the “natural” sexual orientation of “liberated” women. Heterosexual women were viewed like the Borg on Star Trek. Only by tearing them away from their “patriarchal” oppressors – boy friends and husbands – could these women discover feminist truth. The heterosexual mainstays of society - marriage, procreation and family – became the targets of assault which continues to this day. The feminist movement, predominantly led by lesbians and pro-lesbian activists, totally misjudged the innate (“heterosexual”) female desire to join with a mate and mother children. The idea of the naturalness of lesbianism and the creation of a separate lesbian society did not catch on. The feminist movement’s goal of women’s “lib,” characterized by critics as the “masculinization” of the female gender, drastically downgraded the value of managing the home and caused a devastating conflict of interests and responsibilities between the woman’s private quest for motherhood and family and her public pursuit of careerism. The stalled feminist assault on “patriarchy” left the institutions of marriage and family in unprecedented disorder. Divorce jumped fourteen hundred percent between the 60s and 80s. By the 1990s, 15 million children in the United States were growing up without fathers, two thirds of these because of divorce, the remainder the product of out-of-wedlock births. In time, more single women age 30-39 were using artificial insemination to procreate; more couples were cohabitating, more children were latchkey kids (home alone), more teens were committing suicide, more young girls were getting pregnant, more were succumbing to sexually transmitted disease, and more women were having abortions.
Homosexism Defined
The Nation, recorded in May 1993 that homosexuals had invented a complete “cosmology” to grasp the homosexual liberation struggle and that this worldview would likely change America forever. This cosmology may be labeled “Homosexism” - the view that there is no “meant” relationship between anatomical sex (genitalia), sexuality and gender. The meanings attached to male and female are seen as social constructs, and as such, homosexists believe they can be “deconstructed.” This new cosmology is an umbrella ideology for most non-heterosexuals: gays, bisexuals, lesbians, transsexuals and self-labeled queers. Homosexists proclaim that one’s sexuality is a given, not a matter of choice, and therefore, the acting out of one’s sexual attractions is seen as a morally neutral decision. Gays and lesbians claim an innate orientation. Transsexuals and queers contend sexual orientation is fluid. Bisexuals declare alternating and simultaneous orientations. The worldview holds that there is no conflict of credibility, no ideological irrationalities, between the various assertions of these non-heterosexual orientations; in fact, homosexism allows for identity change within these categories and even heterosexuals in their forties may sway into the homosexual lifestyle.
Homosexism has its own lexicon in which traditional terms like “promiscuity” becomes “sexually active lifestyle,” “semen” turns into “bloodily fluids,” “fidelity” slips into “serial-monogamy” or “multipartnerism” (with consensual rules). An effective construct in homosexism is the notion of the “homophobe” – virtually any person who challenges homosexist ideology. The use of the term “homophobe” is a doubly effective propaganda tactic in the war of ideologies. This “name calling” tactic attempts to link a rational point-of-view (heterosexism) to a negative symbol (HOMOPHOBIA/RACISM), leading homosexuals to reject competing arguments on the conjecture that the person is racist. Some heterosexuals will follow suit, while others will resist entering into confrontations to avoid the emotionally offensive label. The extent of the use of this construct in shielding homosexism from close scrutiny and criticism is evident when homosexuals who criticize gay or lesbian lifestyles are characterized within their own communities as victims of “internalized” homophobia.
Homosexists deny responsibility for the AIDS pandemic, deny that the “Condom Code” has failed to stem the death rate amongst gay men, and hold government liable for finding the technological and pharmaceutical means to overcome natural ecological consequences of gay sexual practices. Since AIDS has been scientifically proven to result from promiscuous anal and oral sex, the essence of gay liberation culture, homosexual and heterosexual society has been faced with two political alternatives: (1) reinstate the anti-sodomy law; or (2) continue the political myth of the safe “Condom Code.” The feasibility of homosexism, as lived-out on a day-to-day basis, now depends on the devout application of harm reduction guidelines and an absolute devotion to the use of a condom or dental dam. The reality is that HIV infection rates continue as before with gay males having a fifty percent chance of infection by middle age.
Homosexism asserts there are no differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals, which are legitimate grounds for discrimination. The worldview does not recognize the inert nature of homosexual union as a differentiating limitation for rights to marriage and family. In asserting claims for access to marriage and procreative technologies, and the right to experiment with alternative family structures, the homosexists unabashedly ignore the reality that only three percent of homosexuals are interested in marriage, only 0.5 percent of Canadian couples are homosexual, and only three percent of gay couples and 15 percent of lesbian couples have children (most by previous heterosexual relations). Activists hide the truth that homosexism must ultimately require marriage access for bisexuals and group-sexuals (more partners than a sexual triad).
Homosexists purport no moral inferiority to the homosexual lifestyle and advocate public indoctrination of the tenets of homosexism, even though such gay-affirming programs encourage young men and women to experiment with their sexuality to “discover” their orientation – hetero, homo, bi, queer or transsexual. The reality of the child’s early and abundant access to same-sex partners first is not lost in this call for sexual experimentation. The fact “wavers,” kids who could go either way, may adopt the homosexual lifestyle is viewed with indifference. The homosexist worldview denies the scientific proof of successful reorientation and activists vilify ex-gays and ex-lesbians who witness to living happy heterosexual lives. Homosexist ideology asserts a moral difference between man-man sex and man-boy sex, although in the final analysis the differentiating factor is only whether both males have reached puberty. Pedophiles have claimed an innate orientation and assert scientific studies have shown not all man-boy sexual relationships are negative. When is a boy a man? Sexual liberationists have lobbied unsuccessfully for the lowering of the age of consent to 14. The American Psychological Association (APA) cutoff for pedophilia is 13. A study of 18 educational text books found that all promoted homosexuality as normal and acceptable and pedophilia as pathological and harmful; however, 95 percent of the texts incorrectly cited Ancient Greece (man-boy model) in support of homosexism. Sixteen of the other 21 cited societies were also transgenderal (man-boy). Last but not least, the homosexist worldview proclaims boundariless non-judgmental free sex, often called “positive sex” or “sex positive” ethos. Healthy sexual relationships are measured by “trust, respect, equality and absence of disease.” The fact these tenets morally permit multiple sexual encounters, between men who do not know each other and to whom they do not speak, in bathhouse cubicles, brooks no ideological reservation.
Homosexism on the Judicial Front
On the judicial front, Canadian homosexists were faced with the huge dilemma. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, expressing the democratic will of Parliament and ten Legislatures in 1982, said nothing about homosexuality, in spite of gay and lesbian lobby. The strategy for prevailing over the “homophobic will of the majority” became the persistent and incremental conversion of the provincial and federal judicial systems to the ideology of sexual orientations, i.e. homosexism. Choosing the judicial system as the key battle ground, human rights as the claimed grievance and sympathetic judiciary as allies became the means by which three percent of society was able to deconstruct heterosexism. In just two decades, the Supreme Court by a characteristically elitist, homosexist and undemocratic process of judicial rulings read-in and entrenched homosexual rights into the Charter. Lawyer, Iain T. Benson, writing for Centre Points describes this new judicial activism as a totalitarian “jurocracy.” F.L. Morton and Rainer Knopff in The Charter Revolution & Court Party describe the era following the Charter as a time of unprecedented levels of ideological advocacy. They labeled the era, “The Charter Revolution,” and identified the extraordinary alliance of activists - judges, interveners, lobby groups and politicians - as the “Court Party.” Secular humanists have been staunch allies in the same-sex marriage bid; perhaps as much for the silencing impact its enactment would bring on the public expression of religion. In 1999, MP Svend Robinson tabled a bill to remove all reference to God from the Constitution. Ironic in the context of the eventual passage of Bill C-38 in 2005, MP Robinson’s bill, drafted in response to humanist petitioners, was soundly defeated.
What the Supreme Court and Liberal Government has not told Canadians in the adoption of same-sex marriage is that marriage redefinition ends all pretense of the state founded upon a heterosexist worldview. Same-sex marriage is not just another act in a sequence of protective “tolerances” by the state; rather it is a declaration of complete state “indifference” to homosexuality. Same-sex marriage symbolizes the total deconstruction of the state’s heterosexist worldview and its full replacement with the ideology of homosexism. Marriage redefinition declares homosexual liberation activists, feminists, secular humanists (all homosexists) the victors in the morality wars. What Svend Robinson could not accomplish directly in Parliament has been accomplished through marriage redefinition – the full transfer of Canadian governance from a theist constitution to a secular humanist statute. According to B.C. Supreme Court Justice Ian H. Pitfield, homosexuals already have all the possible freedoms of expression and association, as well as mobility rights and rights of liberty, without marriage access. Their claim to same-sex marriage is motivated by the desire to be declared the “same” as heterosexuals in the state’s eyes. But to accomplish this, the state has declared indifference to the adaptation of gender, indifference to the adaptation of sexual orientations and indifference to the adaptation of marriage and family. The state has also declared indifference to the method of procreation and to the use of reproductive technologies in overcoming inert sexual unions. The state has declared indifference to the biological connection of a child to its parents. Nothing is now considered unique or ideal about heterosexuality. In this act the state has downgraded the value of motherhood and fatherhood to being no more important than two male “Dads” or two female “Moms.” Same-sex marriage says nuts to heterosexism, nuts to the voice of conservatism and nuts to traditional religion. Henceforth, the paradigm undergirding same-sex marriage governance will be the basis for judicial rulings on marriage, divorce, birth and death, genetic engineering, child custody, “right and wrong.” Some might rush to applaud a policy of indifference held by the state, arguing that government has no place legislating morality - the upshot of separation of church and state. But then who will? Not the religious. They, like any vocal heterosexists, will be silenced from public voice. The tragic paradox in adopting a homosexist worldview is that the state will not back away from morality, but rather will take on a major role in legislating homosexist values, particularly focusing on influencing the next generation.
Homosexism on the Political Front
On the political front, a decision of this impact and controversy is fraught with risk. The dilemma for the centrist Liberals has been the obvious lack of middle ground between conflicting worldviews; the completely homosexist New Democratic Party on the left (the lone NDP member voting against Bill C-38 was subsequently forced out of the Party) and the staunchly heterosexist Conservative Party on the right. The result has been a Liberal flip flop in position, and once aligned with the homosexist NDP, the strategy has been to pin responsibility for the final decision on the Supreme Court. The Liberal button – “It’s the Charter Stupid” is the disingenuous declaration of this Liberal strategy. The clip ignores the reality that a Liberal majority Government, in 1999, voted 216-55 in favor of protecting traditional marriage. At that time Justice Minister Anne McClellan said, “We on this side agree that the institution of marriage is a central and important institution in the lives of many Canadians. It plays an important part in all societies worldwide, second only to the fundamental importance of family to all of us…the definition of marriage is already clear in law…Let me state again for the record that the government has no intention of changing the definition of marriage or of legislating same-sex marriages. No jurisdiction worldwide defines a legal marriage as existing between same-sex partners.” In May 2004, before the American homosexual organization Equality Forum, Justice Minister Martin Cauchon admitted that only four individuals in Ottawa were instrumental in reversing Liberal same-sex marriage policy. Once Prime Minister Chrétien was on board, the rest was easy – he ruled over his Caucus and Cabinet like a dictator. The reality of Mr. Chrétien’s Supreme Court reference was the Court’s refusal to declare the traditional definition unconstitutional. The reality of the actual vote on Bill C-38, was that 35 Liberals said “No,” and the 39 members of the Liberal Cabinet were ordered by Prime Minister Martin to vote “Yes,” regardless of the will of their constituencies.
Homosexism on the Religious Front
On the religious front, only one “mainstream” religious denomination has declared itself homosexist – the United Church of Canada. During the debate the UCC campaigned for marriage redefinition, lobbying parliamentarians and hosting a prayer breakfast. Marriage Reality respects the United Church’s right to hold whatever religious views it wishes. However, half this website is devoted to debunking the denomination’s apostate so-called “Liberal Pro-Gay Christian theology.” The assumption held by Marriage Reality is that our Constitution does not guarantee freedom of counterfeit religion. The greatest threat to the Early Christian Church was from Gnosticism. Marriage Reality conducted a detailed comparison of Gnostic and United Church theologies and found them equally apostate in twelve areas: (1) denial of the Trinity; (2) denial of the Bible as the Word of God and the final authority on matters of faith; (3) denial of the divinity of Jesus Christ; (4) denial that Jesus Christ is the only way of redemption; (5) denial of original sin; (6) denial of judgment; (7) belief that all will be saved; (8) denial of the Law and replacement with liberal morality; (9) condoning premarital, extra-marital and homosexual sex; (10) no normative theology; (11) no limits on the free representation and theological speculation; and (12) condoning abortion. The United Church is seen as a pseudo-Christian cult.
Authentic Christian denominations are found wanting for their soft response to liberalism and for continuing to associate with the United Church even though the homosexist path it has chosen has been evident for some twenty-plus years. The so-called “evangelical reformers” within the UCC are confronted with the realities of their denomination and are asked, “What apostasy, if not same-sex marriage, would it take to motivate you to separate from the UCC?” Their witness during this time of public debate on marriage redefinition is seen as second rate. Their refusal to separate from their denomination after the departure of hundreds of thousands of fellow orthodox believers is spiritually troublesome. The wisdom of the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada partnering with an Ottawa United Church for an evangelical prayer launch during the decisive phase of the same-sex marriage issue is studied and found to be a major spiritual warfare blunder.
Conclusion and Recommendations
The overwhelming conclusion of the study is that same-sex marriage is the worst possible “successful” assault on the institutions of marriage and family and an equally horrific blow to the freedom of traditional religions. Canadians must choose between heterosexism and homosexism. Secularists and the religious are asked to vote in the next election for heterosexist candidates. Christians are confronted with the reality they must oppose homosexism. Canadian Christendom is asked to declare an augmented creed which adds:
(1) Human life begins at conception (fertilization) and is a gift of God. Human cloning is not a divine gift but is a reflection of man’s desire to become the Creator. All human life, regardless of age and functionality, has God-given intrinsic worth and an inherent right to life. Abortion is only tolerable in the last resort to save the mother’s life;
(2) God has designed humans to be male or female, anatomically matched for heterosexual pair bonding and procreative union. God intends sexual activity to be exclusively preserved for the marital partner and monogamously contained within the marriage covenant. Marriage is meant to be the life-long union of one man and one woman. God hates divorce;
(3) God intends marriage to be the societal foundation for bearing and rearing children. The Biblical family model consists of responsible heterosexual parents; biologically connected to their children;
(4) Homosexuals live in a false reality before God, falling short of God’s intended heterosexual design and purpose for humanity. God does not elect homosexuals to adopt the lifestyle they choose. God’s judgment lies in leaving homosexuals where they want to be and giving them over – heart, body, passions and mind - to this untrue reality; and
(5) Homosexuals and heterosexuals will not inherit the Kingdom of God unless they are born again of the Spirit. The witness of ex-gays, ex-lesbians and born again heterosexuals, to the saving grace of Jesus Christ, is continuing testimony to God’s sovereign authority and His loving plan for our redemption from the wages of contravening His Law.
