Friday, 15 March 2013

Two ('gay') views on 'gay marriage'

Marriage has become one of the key debating points for gay rights campaigners in the 1990s. In his virtually unreadable book, Virtually Normal, Andrew Sullivan claims that opening up the institution of marriage to lesbian and gay couples would strike right to the heart of homophobia. For Sullivan, lesbian and gay marriage is not only a question of legal protection but also a way of sending a message to the world that lesbians and gay men are just the same as everyone else. The only problem is, we aren’t. Sullivans’ argument is based on the na├»ve assimilationist assumption that the only thing distinguishing us from heterosexuals is what we do in bed, and that our sexual orientation has no bearing on how we function as social or political beings. (Paul Burston, Queens’ Country [London: Abacus, 1999] 152)
Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted. Recommend:


  1. Sadly, Mr Sullivan continues some of this terrible reasoning as is evident in a debate he recently had with Doug Wilson here:


  2. You must have nothing better to do with your time, Richardson, other than bitch and moan and gun for the queers whenever you are able. You really are a vile little prig of a man...

  3. Anon (how typical of aggressive sodomites online by the way), if you knew anything about John's blog you would know that actually not much space is given over to it.


    I watched this with interest, and noted that Sullivan dominated the debate in terms of time given to him, and he spent much of that talking about himself and family.

    Strange that the debate seemed to cover any number of secondary issues related to the debate question, but hardly at all on the principle question as to what is marriage, how is it to be defined, and by whom?
    They covered "social stability", adultery, polygamy & etc, but it was only at the close of this one-sided debate that Douglas Wilson was given an opportunity to present something of a biblical view. However, to his credit, hs struck an important chord in giving a clear apologetic for biblical marriage, and made the important point that the "gay" agends in general and SSM in particular, is a deliberate attempt to deface gender distinctives of male/female and to destroy the image of God in both which reaches right back to the clarity of that in Genesis.
    I am surprised that Hitchens did not intervene more forcefully in order to bring them both back to defining first principles of gender, and of marriage itself.
    Also, very few apologists for a Christian view, posit their arguments on the one aspect which should define the debates, namely the moral questions arising - and particularly is SSM right or wrong? It really is as simple a question as that !
    Graham Wood