"Homosexual Activist Admits True Purpose of Battle is to Destroy Marriage"

This isn’t really news (source interview is from 2012; article is from April 6), so I didn’t post it there. I’ve noticed this post making the viral rounds recently on conservative/religious blogs, websites, and social media:

“Homosexual Activist Admits True Purpose of Battle is to Destroy Marriage”:
illinoisfamily.org/homosexuality/homosexual-activist-admits-true-purpose-of-battle-is-to-destroy-marriage

The text of the quote:

As a person who sources everything and cares deeply about honesty in argument on both sides (I have seen way too many false/misleading quotes put out by both sides), I was suspicious because the article gives no attribution other than “on a radio interview”. So, I did some digging and I found it. None of the many hits I found in Google actually give the attribution to the source interview, so I thought I would provide it here in case anyone else is wondering.

It’s from an Australian radio show called Life Matters from June 11, 2012. Here’s the link to it. The quote in question begins around the 6:30 mark. The url is:

abc.net.au/radionational/programs/lifematters/why-get-married/4058506

The quoting in the article is accurate.

Of course, one person doesn’t speak for a movement. Then again, the entire crowd seemed to cheer and clap at “It’s a no brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist.”

Regardless, since this seems to be pretty viral right now and I’ve seen it quoted in other threads on CA, I wanted to let everyone know it is an accurate quote.

No doubt, then, you checked on Gessen. Her Wikipedia entry does include the following:

Gessen speaks of her own beliefs in many interviews, and does not speak for the entire LGBT Community.

She speaks for the gay marriage people no more than the person who murdered Tiller spoke for the pro-life people.

Agreed and I acknowledged that. I posted more for the sourcing, because it actually took quite a bit of work to find the interview. I was hoping to save others the work, since this quote is a topic of conversation now.

…^ and I, for one, am very glad that you did expose this.

And nothing in the article surprses me.

Im just so glad that with all of the media presure that had swamped us in Australian, our parliament, both the current prime minister ‘Julia Gillard’ and the leading opposition ‘Tony Abbott’ were and still are against same sex marriage.

However just yesterday/today New Zealand legalised same sex marriage, but atleast Australia hasn’t done it yet and it looks like they wont which is fantastic.

I fear that in a couple of years when our prime ministers have been and gone they may push for same sex marriage again in Australia, so I’ll watch closely to what happens in America and hopefully know of a preemptive approach to opposing same sex marriage.

There has and still is a large push with media for Australia’s PM and leading opposition to support gay marriage, but it appears that they are firmly against it which is fantastic, they are using New Zealand to try and change their minds but I think their efforts are futile.
theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/julia-gillard-not-swayed-by-nz-gay-marriage-vote/story-fn59niix-1226623243953

Thank you for reading
Josh

so, is it like the gay population is 1-2% that does not speak for the entire population yet gears actions as if to sway the entire population to thinking that

Homosexuals are born that way
Gay marriage is just another type of marriage
Gay rights are like rights for blacks

and then you have Gessen speaking within that 1-2% population that does not speak for everyone speaking within that group as a small voice that tends to be the engine that runs the train…is that what it is like?

What you are saying doesn’t make sense.

Too honest. Satan must have forgotten to send here the memo on deceit.

This is a fringe idea, I image very few want to destroy marriage.

“The abolition of the family.” It’s right in the Communist Manifesto for everyone to see.

That it comes to the West through Gramsci rather than Lenin should come as no surprise to anybody who makes a habit of reading books.

I thought Ms Gillard was a gay cuz people talk of her ‘partner’ and not her husband. Seems like this partner is a boyfriend.

If she, an atheist, an unmarried person, can oppose same sex marriage, it clearly sends out the signal that opposition to ssm has got nothing to do with religion per se.

I hope Australia stands her ground on this one.

Of course they are destroying marriage. But it is not just them. It is the whole contraceptive mentality, where procreation is divorced from sex. Once you think that sex is only for pleasure, what difference does is make if two men are mother and father or 6 men and 3 women are married? We even have science to nullify the covenant of marriage, where man and woman don’t have to become one flesh or sacrifice for each other,.

I really, really, don’t see any movement to destroy marriage.

I don’t see Adam and Steve at the company picnic or Joan and Liz at the supermarket trying to destroy Don and Denise’s marriage. What would be their motive? So Adam could run off with Don?

Any evidence of this? Ever? And what would they gain from such a thing?

Two men or two women are just not compatible sexually compared to a man and a woman the sexual anatomy of a man and a woman dictates this fact. Therefore trying to unite two men or two women under the same word as marriage is illogical.

Marriage is a union in which both partners give each other fully to the other which includes sexually, in which a homosexual union is incapable of compared to a heterosexual union, so for the law or anyone to Ignore the sexual nature of both unions when it comes to marriage is illogical.

When it comes to including homosexuality under the same word as marriage it’s an unjust and prejudicial treatment of marriage, trying to equate two things that are in no way equal in regards to marriage.

Homosexual marriage is discrimination towards heterosexual marriage, or vice versa, they cannot both be equated under marriage, they are fundamentally different.

The law should only include equality between homosexuals and heterosexuals, because in that case they are equal, however they should most certainly not include equality between homosexuality and heterosexuality (same sex marriage) as that would be unjust, because the two unions, given their sexual nature are fundamentally different, it would only force people to play along with a false equality.

So it’s not whether we want to legalise same sex marriage, it’s whether or not we want to pretend that same sex marriage exists, whether we want to pretend that homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality, because if they did legalise same sex marriage, they would be taking part in a state wide illusion, that would require others to play along.

It seems to me that people aren’t separating the homosexual from the acts of homosexuality, they are trying to equate homosexuals and heterosexuals which is good, but foolishly they are equating homosexuality and heterosexuality through same sex marriage which is just factually incorrect.

I think same sex marriage supporters are very skilled at convincing the public by lumping the homosexual and the acts of homosexuality together, therefore anyone who speaks against homosexuality is accused of speaking against homosexuals.

They will destroy marriage for everyone who takes onboard the lie of same sex marriage, however I will never take on board such a lie regardless of what the law say’s or what people’s perceptions are and therefore they can never destroy marriage for me, but it will cause a tremendous amount of harm to society, homosexuals and especially children.

Thank you for reading
Josh

Once marriage has become separated and divorced from permanency creating in institution about only “love” you don’t need gay marriage to destroy marriage as the destruction basically has already happened.

Heterosexuals don’t want to acknowledge that it is in fact they who destroyed marriage and they want to blame it on someone else.

Thanks for the reply; but I still don’t see how it answers my question, if it was intended to.

It’s not going to destroy marriage (Catholic marriage) for you, for me, or for other Catholics.

I agree what other people do isn’t a true marriage according to our faith, but I don’t see how that “destroys marriage” any more than living together before marriage or getting divorced and married again. That’s what other people do, who don’t follow our faith, and while we might not agree with it or endorse it, it’s not going to discourage Catholic marriage, force Catholic couples to break up, or make Catholic marriage any less meaningful for us.

And in 1973 when abortion was legalised no one thought “people” like Tiller and Gosnell would ever take it to the extreme its been taken to. I think the concern you are seeing for allowing gay marriage is if they start defining it as a civil right. How long do you think it will take a gay couple to challenge the churches who refuse to marry them in court and more than likely win? As a Catholic this has to give you some pause.Yes? I’m sure most gay people wouldn’t attempt that. But you have to realize that there are militant secular groups who would like nothing better than to rid themselves once and for all not just the Catholic church but organized religion as a whole. Those people are out there and to think they aren’t is naive. God Bless.

to you…

I agree, there are legitimate concerns for Catholics about SSA.

I can’t approve or endorse something that I believe is against God’s law according to the teachings of my church.

Also, there are going to be dilemmas here and there, as noted on other threads, for example, whether a Catholic should refuse to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.

Of course I wouldn’t want my church to be forced to perform SSMs. Not saying one person wouldn’t try a lawsuit like that but it’s my understanding that religious groups are generally exempted from state gay rights laws. Also I’d imagine they could refuse to marry couples who do not belong to that religious group (i.e., non-Catholics).

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.