Homosexual activist admits ultimate goal is not to re-define marriage but to destroy marriage

Lesbian journalist Masha Gessen has admitted on US radio that homosexual activists are lying about their agenda to legalise same-sex marriage.  She says that gay activists don’t want to access the institution of marriage,  they want to so radically re-define it that eventually marriage is eliminated from society:

“It’s a no-brainer that (homosexual activists) should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. …(F)ighting 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, and that is a lie.

The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist. And I don’t like taking part in creating fictions about my life. That’s sort of not what I had in mind when I came out thirty years ago.

I have three kids who have five parents, more or less, and I don’t see why they shouldn’t have five parents legally… I met my new partner, and she had just had a baby, and that baby’s biological father is my brother, and my daughter’s biological father is a man who lives in Russia, and my adopted son also considers him his father. So the five parents break down into two groups of three… And really, I would like to live in a legal system that is capable of reflecting that reality, and I don’t think that’s compatible with the institution of marriage.”

Protect the Pope comment: When Christians in this country have argued that David Cameron’s plans for same-sex ‘marriage’ open the gates for polygamy and incest marriages the media and blogs have ridiculed these concerns as hysterical and groundless. Here we have a prominent homosexual activist admitting that she wants ‘marriage’ to be possible for five parents. Once the objective definition of marriage as the union of husband and wife rooted in the complementarity of  maleness and femaleness is rejected by society to be replaced solely by the subjective criteria of ‘love’, any perverted form of legal union becomes possible.



18 comments to Homosexual activist admits ultimate goal is not to re-define marriage but to destroy marriage

  • Lynda

    Marriage cannot be defined or re-defined by state institutions. Marriage just is. It is a natural phenomenon essential to human nature, families and society.

  • Haslam

    I think the reality is that there are two camps (if you pardon the pun) of homosexual activists.

    There are the old school radicals who are very definately against marriage per se. Their approach to sexual morality is very much anything goes. They are dangerous and much harm has been done by them.

    But I think that the recent demands of gay people to get married actually reflects the gay community growing up in their attitudes and wanting marriage for exactly the same reason that many non-religious straight people want mariage because they value the security that it provides.

    It is silly to think that there is a single “gay adgenda”. some want to change the world for the worse. Others want nothing more than security and domesticity.

  • ms Catholic state

    Don’t these people ever think about the effect of all this on children?! Oh I forgot….children come bottom of the heap in a God-hating, secular, selfish, adult-centered, society. Suffer the little children indeed. Total Evil at work.

  • Joseph Matthew

    So now we know what the real agenda is. Actually, many of us knew already. The homosexuals are not interested in marriage Mr Cameron. They are interested in recruitment and one way of doing so is by being made to grow up with homosexual parents. Another way is to teach homosexuality to young children, that is, individuals who have not developed sexual maturity.

  • Michael Jarmulowicz

    What business is it of the state to legislate about peoples’ ‘feelings’ and ‘love’? None. The only valid reason for the state legislating on marriage is for the good of the children. (not the good of couple). So the possibility of children is the underpinning reason why states across the centuries have laws supporting marriage.

    What are the most successful treatments for cancer – those that directly attack the fundamental building block – the cell. The family is the fundamental building block of society, so let us not be surprised that the devil will do his utmost to undermine the family – and marriage, the total self giving between one man and one women (reflecting the Trinity) is the foundational building block of the family and society.

    Let us not forget St Ignatius who said that the devil will cloak himself as an angel of light in order to lead people astray, so the arguments will often sound very plausible and sensible, and I have no doubt that many presenting such arguments do so with sincerity, but let us not be hoodwinked into accepting these at face value.

    • Haslam

      “The only valid reason for the state legislating on marriage is for the good of the children. (not the good of couple)”

      Why? surely the state should have the welfare of all its citizens at heart. Yes the state has a special obligation to its children, but if it can promote the welfare of people both gay and straight who do not have or who are unable to have or who do not want children then why is that a bad thing?

      As for your final sentance. St Ignatius may have been right that demonic arguments might sound plausible and sensible, but that doesn’t exclude the posibility that just occassionally sensible arguments sound sensible too.

      • ms Catholic state

        Because….heterosexual marriages are vital for the good of society and children. So-called homosexual marriages are irrelevant to the viability of society and children. In fact as well as being sinful….it is a lie to equate the two.

        All people benefit from heterosexual marriage….whatever their ‘orientation’.

  • James M

    I think the agenda to redefine marriage is quite simply diabolical.

  • Ian

    If you are going to discus ‘unnatural’ sexuality then why not begin with celibacy?

  • Ian

    Because some single individual in the USA makes a stupid comment all of a sudden this is a globel plan?

    Really people GET A GRIP!

  • Jon P

    i find it remarkable that the words of one person in one country can somehow be taken to represent an entire community. Surely that’s as outrageous as assuming that, for example, one of the countless representatives of a church proven to have taken part in child sex abuse was representative of every member of that church.

    And just to address this bizarre notion of recruitment by raising children (Joseph Matthew) – almost every lesbian, bisexual and gay man in the world was raised by heterosexual parents and yet still their innate sexuality came to the fore. Do you believe that being gay is so much stronger and more appealing a prospect than being straight that simply being around gay people will override innate heterosexuality?

  • BJC

    Interesting article here by Brendan O’Neill on ‘gay penguins’


  • Joseph Matthew

    Jon P, you make a valid point. The acceptance of homosexual behaviour by the Catholic Church has led to a cataclysmic crisis. In my view, the Church will not recover from this for many decades.
    It is also of note that Professor Walter Schumm has carried out a detailed analysis showing that the children of homosexual parents are far more likely to be homosexual themselves.

Leave a Reply




You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>