GAY PERVERSION – HOW THE WEST WAS LOST


by The Rev Dr Alan Clifford

I don’t agree with Dr Clifford in his view that legalising gay marriage will bring on the Judgement of God. Indeed, I regard the New Testament prohibitions of homosexual activity in itself as ambiguous in the Greek original, and I regard the whole of the Old Testament as of no binding force on Christians. Oh, and I do wish Christian ministers would bring the same moral fervour to denouncing our various wars of aggression as they do to a spot of buggery. I publish this partly because it will give Ian B a stroke, and partly because I want to show support for Dr Clifford’s right to freedom of speech if the police decide he is guilty of hatecrime. SIG

SODOMITE SOCIETY INVITES
THE WRATH OF ALMIGHTY GOD

A solemn message from
Dr Alan C. Clifford
(Norwich Reformed Church)

In pursuing so-called ‘same-sex’ marriage, the UK, and now the USA, along with the decadent Western world in general, are only a short step from disaster…

If it becomes law, the wrath of Almighty God is unavoidable…

Since true marriage, family cohesion and the welfare of children are under attack as never before, our hitherto Christian-based civilization is on the path to extinction…

A greater threat than Islam is our own moral implosion…

We must repent or be ruined…

How does ‘gay’ sexual perversion become popular? The Prophet Ezekiel told us long ago when he explained why God punished the Jews with exile in Babylon in 597 BC. After centuries of growing religious and moral decline, they had become worse than the wicked Sodomites:

“As I live,” says the Lord GOD, “neither your sister Sodom nor her daughters have done as you and your daughters have done. Look, this was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: She and her daughter had pride, fulness of food, and abundance of idleness; neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty and committed abomination before me; therefore I took them away as I saw fit.” (Ezekiel 16: 48-50)

The great Genevan Protestant Reformer John Calvin (1509-64) commented:

While Moses explains the most filthy crime which reigned in Sodom (see Genesis 19), we must nevertheless remember what Ezekiel teaches, that the men of Sodom did not fall at once into such terrible wickedness; but that, in the beginning, luxury from the fulness of bread prevailed, and that afterwards, pride and cruelty followed. At length, when they were given up to [immorality], they were also driven headlong into brutal lusts. Therefore, if we dread this extreme of inordinate passion, let us cultivate temperance and frugality; and let us always fear, lest [an over-abundance] of food should impel us to luxury; lest our minds should be infected with pride on account of our wealth, and lest delicacies should tempt us to give the reins to our lusts.

So how can we restore the proper norms of correctly-defined marriage and valid sexuality? Only by heeding this practical wisdom and rejecting today’s ‘PC’ do-as-you-please pluralism. In short, we must return to ‘Bible basics’!

Ultimately, our only hope is the saving and sanctifying grace of God in Jesus Christ…

A brief sermon extract from a famous Welsh preacher sets out our only hope…

The truth he speaks is eternal…

TURN TO CHRIST OR BE TURNED INTO HELL

I come to you, a neighbour of yours, and a friend well known; for I have seen the deluge of the wrath of God coming upon the world, and I am here to warn you in time. A boy on the streets of Sodom ran wildly for his father’s house, saying, ‘The shower of fire is come, for a spark fell at my side, until my clothes nearly caught fire. Is there any way of escape?’

Though the warning came to Sodom, it was too late. But I have come here in behalf of my God to apprise you of it in time. I have seen the shower of brimstone, a live spark of it fell upon my guilty conscience, until I became almost all aflame. But I know to-day of a place of refuge, and there is time for you to flee there too.

O Lord my God, may this people flee to Thee! Let us flee to Calvary—‘And a man shall be as an hiding place from the wind, and a covert from the tempest; as rivers of water in a dry place, as the shadow of a great rock in a weary land’ [Isa. 32: 2].

John Jones, Talsarn (1796-1857)

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG – www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.2242 / Virus Database: 3204/5944 – Release Date: 06/26/13

About these ads

35 responses to “GAY PERVERSION – HOW THE WEST WAS LOST

  1. Calling this perversion gay is throwing away half the battle.

    • There is no battle. All male sex is not a perversion.

      • No, it really is a perversion of the highest order.

        • You first have to define what the word “perversion” means.

          • Ricardo Ben-Safed

            Hmmm…might need to define “The West” and what on earth does being “Lost” mean? I think ‘marriage’ is a good word that conveys a bunch of legal rights and that’s all basically ‘same sex marriage’ are entitled too also. Yes, the approx 10% of the same sex who are attracted to each other are attracted by the same biologic sexual nature that opposite sex couples use for their couplings. It’s a Libertarian principle that Liberty and Freedom are equally applied and part of the legal code regardless of what sex or gender you have to use.

  2. Here is the key text for rejecting the authority of the OT: Hebrews 8:13: In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

  3. Ricardo Ben-Safed

    Nonsense, Dr Gabb, the immorality cited in the O.T. is not changed by any reference to the N.T. The sin as stated was that in all the abundance, it was a crime to give hospitality to strangers. And this had nothing to do with male having sex with angelic beings (presumably male angels)! You ought to read a bit more of the biblical critical analysis or at least deeper.

    • The OT may be binding on Jews – to what extent I am not qualified to comment. However, its only relevance to Christians is for its prophecies of the Incarnation. We do not circumcise ourselves – or not outside America. Nor do we refrain from pork or the charging of interest.

  4. Alan Clifford’s quotation from Ezekiel has nothing to do with gay marriage nor with homosexuality. He quotes Calvin on the dangers of rich foods leading to lasciviousness, which reminded me of that fellow who walked up and down Oxford Street with the placard warning of the dangers of eating protein: “Less protein, less passion”.
    Clifford is yet another bibliolator, but with a bee in his bonnet about gays. In my experience, most of those who rant against gays have something to hide, like Cardinal O’Brien, and St. Paul himself, who strongly objected to marriage (1 Cor., 7). Contrary to Mr Clifford, marriage is not a Christian institution. It long predates Christianity.

  5. Chris Morriss

    As libertarians, surely we have a higher authority than some vindictive tribal semitic demiurge? I speak of the sadly neglected concept of ‘Natural Law’. If we use this as a basis then yes, both so-called ‘Gay’ marriage and all-male sex are indeed perversions.

    • Ricardo Ben-Safed

      Rubbish! All I’ve read seems to have nothing to do with Libertarian principles. I wish commentators would get back to discussing Libertarian philosophy and/or Libertarian practice.

      • Then look on the other threads, Ric. Since none of us is getting paid for this, you can hardly complain if we sometimes have a break.

        • Ricardo Ben-Safed

          Seems fair Sean! But perhaps you’ll permit me to quibble a bit more when I read your quote: “… let me recant my heresy and say instead that the only parts of the OT that are binding on Christians are those parts that are consistent with the Natural Law. I might be able to quote Aquinas on that.
          >>>>>Okay…permission granted to recant heresy! Though I am sure that Aquinas had no idea how fractured the christian movement would eventually become (same is true of Judaism, though not as many separatist movements existing). O.T. is fully of poetry, metaphors, moral and ethical statements. Aquinas on the other hand is much like Maimonides 613 Torah commandments…a distillation of what is permitted and forbidden.

  6. “Give me a stroke”? Heh, no. Takes a bit more than this. Claire Perry on the telly, or something ;)

    I’ve actually said several times that, despite being generally in favour of Marcusian polymorphous perversity[1] I am opposed to gay marriage; on the simple basis that the word “marriage” doesn’t mean this and never has. We see the absurdity of applying this unfit word in that our lawmasters are now struggling with all the words associated with it, like “husband” and “wife” (and no doubt aunt, uncle, nephew, niece etc). It’s an inherently two sex thing.

    That does not mean I am against civil recognition of any number of partnership relations, but that is not what Summerskill et al are after, and they are indeed actively hostile to anyone else getting partnerships. Examples might be friends in long term relationships, such as platonically sharing spinsters or bachelors. Or brothers and sisters. But teh gheys will have none of that, because they want the word “marriage”.

    And they want it purely because they want to cause dismay to their enemies, loosely defined as the Christian Right. And because they can claim that anyone disagreeing with them suffers from the imaginary mental disease called “homophobia”. And so on.

    I don’t believe in God, but even if I did, God would be irrelevant. Marriage is not exclusive to Christianity, nor the system of male-female bonding. It is common to every society, primitive or advanced on Earth. It predates religions, it predates every such society, and probably predates Homo sapiens sapiens. As a socially recognised institution, it is simply a formal social recognition of the human mating system, rooted in our biology.

    If human sexual biology were different, we would not have marriage. If we did not procreate sexually, if we did not pair bond, and if we did not have children requiring lengthy parental care, there would be no marriage. If we laid a thousand eggs and left their occupants to fend for themselves, we would not marry. We marry purely and entirely because we are a species which requires a male and a female to procreate, and a male and a female to adequately raise the resultant procreations. That is the sole reason.

    Men should be entirely free to bum each other, and women should be entirely free to munch the rug, and both should be entirely free to form permanent living arrangements. But none of these things are “marriage”, and never will be, whatever the State says.

    [1} I write this in the hope of giving Paul Marks a stroke.

  7. Regarding Sean’s comments above, to reject the authority of the Old Testament is heresy. Specifically, it is Marcionism, originating from the teachings of Marcion of Sinope around 144AD. Marcion taught that the God of the Old Testament was a different and lower entity from the God of the New Testament. In that he perceived the OT God as a demiurge there are similarities between his belief and Gnosticism, but Marcion, unlike the Gnostics, did not teach that there was a secret inner path of knowledge leading to gnosis. He laid great emphasis on the Apostle Paul.

    Marcion was excommunicated and in 208 Tertullian expounded the case against him in a treatise of five books, “Adversus Marcionem”. In this work, Tertullian claims that Marcion was the first to separate the Old and New Testaments. However, Marcion was wealthy and he used his money to establish a church propounding his beliefs that existed alongside the Catholic Church for around 300 years. Later, the Cathars similarly rejected the Old Testament.

    The subsequent influence of Marcion’s ideas is to be felt in those groups that have sought to propound the New Testament while being opposed to any link between Christ and the Jews. In particular, the “Positive Christianity” movement under Nazi Germany has much in common with Marcion. Today there are also groups in the United States that describe themselves as “New Testament Only Christians” as well as “Christian Deists”.

    • John, the Anglican – and I suppose the Catholic – Church accepts only the moral teachings of the OT, rejecting the ceremonial and civil institutions of the Jews. The problems with this approach are:

      1. It is very hard to distinguish between the various parts. To be sure, the authors of the Mosaic Books had no such distinction in their minds. 2. Many of the probably moral teachings in the OT are either repulsive or best fitted to an itinerant desert race. 3. The general tone of the NT is entirely different from that of the OT.

      However, let me recant my heresy and say instead that the only parts of the OT that are binding on Christians are those parts that are consistent with the Natural Law. I might be able to quote Aquinas on that.

      • 1. The unity that this suggests would point towards the interpretation subsequently placed upon the OT by the Church, in that it constitutes preparation for the New Covenant.
        2. The applicability of given teachings of the OT has always rested on the balance between literal statement and allegorical moral teaching. However, the principal reason why Christians do not reject the OT is because in many of Jesus’s statements He makes it absolutely clear that He accepts the authority of the OT and that His mission on earth is in continuity with the OT rather than in conflict with it, “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfil,” (Matt. 5:17); and in correcting false doctrine, “You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God,” (Matt. 22:29). Not only this, but Jesus makes it clear how the OT prophesies His coming, “Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures,” (Luke 24:27). So the immediate difficulty with those who would accept Jesus but reject the OT comes from Jesus’s own teachings and example.
        3. See (2) above.

        All that being said, it should not be thought that the only source for Christian attitudes towards homosexuality within the early Church was the OT. Within the New Testament, we have Jude 1:7 “In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.” and 1 Corinthians 6:9 “Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men.”

        The Church Fathers proselytized vigorously against homosexuality. There was no prevailing school of thought within the early Church that taught that homosexuality was acceptable. Nor did they hold that the nature of sin described at Sodom was merely that of a lack of hospitality. St Augustine writes, “[T]hose shameful acts against nature, such as were committed in Sodom, ought everywhere and always to be detested and punished. If all nations were to do such things, they would be held guilty of the same crime by the law of God, which has not made men so that they should use one another in this way” (Confessions 3:8:15 [A.D. 400]).” St Thomas Aquinas refers to homosexual activity as “the unnatural vice” (Summa, II-II, 154) but he goes on to condemn a great deal more within sexual practice than that.

        Dr Clifford doubtless has his own particular views on this subject, but it should not be thought by anyone that what he says is not within the mainstream of Christian opinion on the issue during the past two millennia.

        • I agree that Dr Clifford is entirely mainstream in his opinions. However, unless you believe that Church tradition is a coordinate source of authority – which, of course, you do – the NT statements on homosexuality are not entirely clear. The meaning of words like malakos and arsenokoites admit of several meanings.

          Perhaps one reason I am suspicious of the OT is that I don’t know a word of Hebrew.

        • Sean-

          The meaning of words like malakos and arsenokoites admit of several meanings. Perhaps one reason I am suspicious of the OT is that I don’t know a word of Hebrew.

          One would presume that if there were a God, He’d send a version in a modern language, or at least provide a dictionary, rather than leave people squabbling over the original version, written in languages long dead.

      • The particular problem is that the Ancient Jews don’t have any specific moral teachings, as such. It’s purely a legalist society. You don’t do X and not do Y because it’s morally right, you do X because the legal code tells you to, and don’t do Y because it says not to. Which is how, say, Islamic Sharia works, and the more Judaist versions of Christianity (my favourites, the Puritans for instance) do things. Thou shalt not eat bacon sandwiches and thou shalt not kill and thou shalt not draw pictures and thou shalt not take it up the bum are all on the same par. So it’s impossible to distinguish them in any rational manner.

    • Chris Morriss

      Nothing wrong with Marcionism. It is one of the more sensible varieties of Christianity.

  8. Paul Rowlandson says “…marriage is not a Christian institution. It long predates Christianity.”

    These two statements are not mutually exclusive. Marriage is both a Christian institution, and specifically one of the seven sacraments instituted by Christ, and one that long predates Christianity. Those who refer to this pre-Christian heritage of marriage tend not to point out that (1) in the ancient civilizations, and certainly among the Jews, the Greeks and the Romans, sexual morality both heterosexual and homosexual was the subject of elaborate protocols and prohibitions. It was not a free-for-all. (2) that marriage in the overwhelming majority, if not all, of such situations was conceived in exclusively heterosexual terms.

    There are examples of homosexual “marriage ceremonies” in ancient Rome, the most famous of which being the two involving the Emperor Nero. However, these events are moot given that the resultant “marriage” was legally void, since only heterosexual marriage between Roman citizens had the force of law, and also dubious in that Roman marriage was defined in exclusive terms of motherhood and procreation. Most reports of same-sex marriage in Rome are couched in terms either of criticism or satire. In 342AD this practice was specifically prohibited and any who had participated in it were ordered to be put to death.

    Claims that same-sex marriage was recognized by law in ancient Mesopotamia seem to me – like claims made for ancient China – to be driven more by present-day advocacy than by explicit historical evidence. It is beyond doubt that within those societies, homosexual partnerships were accepted to some extent within society, and that some received some element of official/religious blessing. This may equate to something resembling contemporary civil partnership, but it is not the same as equation to heterosexual marriage.

  9. May be worth mentioning at this point that there’s a not entirely unreasonable hypothesis that Marcion was the real author of the writings of “Paul”, the mysterious heretic Rabbi the Jews had never heard of (and who was somehow out of town at Passover, and missed the earthquake, rending of the temple curtain and zombie saints wandering around, etc).

    Anyway, back on topic, when Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism cleaved off the old temple religion, the Christians eventually rejected most of the OT as unsellable to the gentiles (lo!) and have been cherrypicking which bits to adhere to ever since. Bacon sandwiches and polyester/cotton undies are fine, but no arsepokery, that kind of thing. Also, sporadic outbreaks of jihadism over whether to ignore the graven images thing, and so on.

  10. Delete the first sentence in my last comment please as it does not make sense. I would do it myself but cannot.

  11. Julie near Chicago

    Ian B, I object to the hijacking of the word “marriage” just as you do — even though there used to be, in many states of the U.S., common-law marriage: No license nor religious ceremony necessary. In my state I think the law was that a man and woman must have lived together for 10 years for their marriage to be legally recognized in terms of things like divorce, custody, inheritance rights, and so forth. A common-law marriage was still a marriage (though looked down upon by some as being more “marriage” than marriage, if you see what I mean), even without benefit of clergy.

    So, for the same basic reason — which is that a rather important and emotionally positive word has been hijacked for use as a euphemism, in order to destigmatize homosexuality, making it sound jolly — let us also not refer to homosexuals as “gay” (unless speaking of the mien of one such as actually happy, cheerful, and carefree for the nonce), nor to the members of the category “human homosexuals” as “gays.”

    (And by the way, “straight” as applied to a human should by analogy refer not to the fact that he or she is heterosexual, but rather that he or she is honest as opposed to “crooked.”)

    Consequently, I agree with Mr. Baron that referring to homosexuals as “gay” is “throwing away half the battle” against homosexual marriage. I have no problem at all with civil unions, of course. I don’t see why we ever dropped common-law marriage, and I don’t see why it couldn’t be reinstated and applied homosexual couples in an intended committed-for-life partnership after the same number of years of displaying the intent and the commitment as proof of the nature of the partnership.

  12. Julie near Chicago

    Apologies–I messed up the html tag. :(

    Ian B, I object to the hijacking of the word “marriage” just as you do — even though there used to be, in many states of the U.S., common-law marriage: No license nor religious ceremony necessary. In my state I think the law was that a man and woman must have lived together for 10 years for their marriage to be legally recognized in terms of things like divorce, custody, inheritance rights, and so forth. A common-law marriage was still a marriage (though looked down upon by some as being more “marriage” than marriage, if you see what I mean), even without benefit of clergy.

    So, for the same basic reason — which is that a rather important and emotionally positive word has been hijacked for use as a euphemism, in order to destigmatize homosexuality, making it sound jolly — let us also not refer to homosexuals as “gay” (unless speaking of the mien of one such as actually happy, cheerful, and carefree for the nonce), nor to the members of the category “human homosexuals” as “gays.”

    (And by the way, “straight” as applied to a human should by analogy refer not to the fact that he or she is heterosexual, but rather that he or she is honest as opposed to “crooked.”)

    Consequently, I agree with Mr. Baron that referring to homosexuals as “gay” is “throwing away half the battle” against homosexual marriage. I have no problem at all with civil unions, of course. I don’t see why we ever dropped common-law marriage, and I don’t see why it couldn’t be reinstated and applied homosexual couples in an intended committed-for-life partnership after the same number of years of displaying the intent and the commitment as proof of the nature of the partnership.

  13. Julie-

    One thing we do need to remember (because it’s mostly forgotten) is that in England (and Europe in general), historically “common law” marriage was originally the only form. This is why it’s counterproductive when religious conservatives start banging on about marriage being a “christian institution”. It isn’t, and it never was.

    Historically, marriage was an entirely civil matter, and consisted entirely of a declaration of marriage by two persons. This is why you needed witnesses, who would affirm they had heard the declaration, to avoid, “Julie and I married each other, now Julie is saying we didn’t”. After Christianisation, there was a centuries-long struggle by the Church to get their hands on marriage. So you had this thing where you married outside the church, and then went inside for an additional “blessing” by God. Here’s Chaucer’s Wife Of Bath-

    Experience, though no authority
    Were in this world, were good enough for me,
    To speak of woe that is in all marriage;
    For, masters, since I was twelve years of age,
    Thanks be to God who is forever alive,
    Of husbands at church door have I had five;”

    “At Church door”. At the time of writing, it had been customary to marry just outside the church- “at the door”- since you were going in for a blessing afterwards.

    But the Church didn’t marry you. You married under the Common Law. You were not married by a priest. Nor married by a State bureaucrat. But by each other, under civil contract.

    The mess we have now is what comes from letting institutions take the law away from the people.

    This actually does bring up an interesting solution. The Church could simply acknowledge that it never used to be their job to marry people, and just go back to blessing marriages performed under civil law, in which case they could simply pick which ones they want to bless, and which they won’t bless. Since the blessing comes from God, not the priest, and God is beyond the mundane realm, it can be reasonably argued that the power to compel God’s blessing is beyond even the modern State to compel.

    • Ricardo Ben-Safed

      Julie wrote: “One thing we do need to remember (because it’s mostly forgotten) is that in England (and Europe in general), historically “common law” marriage was originally the only form. This is why it’s counterproductive when religious conservatives start banging on about marriage being a “christian institution”. It isn’t, and it never was.>>

      >>>Interesting but not quite up to it. It wasn’t until Henry VIII separation of the then Christian (Catholic) notaries from the Church…and making them (the Notaries) part of the secular state ( the state outside the Church of the Bishop of Rome). Throughout history it was the church orders, parishes that kept the records, of signings, contracts, land sales, wills, etc etc. Henry VIII brought both the Church of England to the public as well as “Notaries’. I agree that marriage was not a ‘christian institution”…it existed prior in Judaism, Islam, and in the Hindu religious systems.

  14. djwebb2010

    Ricardo, only 2% of men are homosexual.

    It is as you say a libertarian principle that freedom is available to all – and laws against homosexuality, such as were introduced in the late 19th century, are not consonant with libertarianism.

    However, it is another thing entirely to suggest that “freedom for all” means that libertarians should support the purported gay marriage. Marriage is a natural institution, based on the facts of life, that one man and one woman are needed for the reproduction of the species. Marriage is not discriminatory, other than in the sense that the biological realities of life discriminate against any attempt by two men to create life.

    Gay marriage is not marriage at all – the state should not be attempting to create artificial definitions of marriage as part of an egalitarian agenda. Whatever definitions are introduced in statute law, they do not change the biological reality that the family is based on the creation of life by a man and a woman. Declaring two men married is no more capable of being a real statement that the statement in English law that Australia, inhabited by the Aborigines, was ‘terra nullius’, land belonging to no-one. Gay marriage is therefore the creation of a legal fiction – not an extension of liberty.

    As for the Bible and homosexuality – despite the lighter tone of the Gospels, it stretches credulity to think that modern views of homosexuality can be insinuated into Jesus’ own teachings or those of St. Paul. Jesus made clear that he did support the moral messages of the Old Testament, although the ritualistic aspects had fulfilled their purpose. I don’t think anyone could conduct a historical investigation into 1st century Christianity and reach the conclusion that male homosexuality was approved of in the early church. So whatever the meanings of Greek words, it is overwhelmingly likely that the teachings of the Christian church on this matter over 2000 years are in line with what the church has always believed.

    How should we regard this today? Well, for one thing, in mediaeval England homosexuality was disapproved of, but the penalties handed down by the church were often of a token variety – it was seen as a misdemeanor, like getting drunk. I think in the modern day, whether we are religious or not, we can see homosexuality as a foible, a kind of idiosyncrasy in some men, one that doesn’t have to matter as long as the state does not “use” the issue to weaken family values in a way designed to promote state power (which is what this is all about).

    As for religion, well, Christianity is a culture – our buildings, music, liturgy, etc, are all part of our cultural heritage, and so we shouldn’t get overly insistent on the alleged “truth” of the message and the teachings of the church over a 2000 year period. By seeing it as mainly a cultural thing, we can go light on some aspects of the teachings, while not pretending they were never there in the first place! As a member of the Church of England, I don’t care what my vicar gets up to in private, but still see it is deplorable for the priest to denounce traditional Christian teachings from the pulpit. We had one such vicar who liked to preach in favour of the theory of evolution – but this, to me, is simply wrong, given that he is employed to preach the opposite point of view. As long as the priest is not actively preaching on the joys of anal sex, I would let him have whatever type of fun he liked in private.

    So you see, the cultural heritage of Christianity doesn’t have to spoil our enjoyment of that heritage in the present. You can think of it like the way the Islam of the Rubaiyyat seemed to accept alcohol and homosexuality – despite the fact that both are indisputably contrary to Mahometan teachings. The Christian world is more accepting of the idea that the religious teachings are part of our cultural heritage and don’t have to be regarded as immutable in the modern day – this relativises the whole thing, and, at least in the modern day, Mahometans seem resistent to such relativism – but relativising Christianity is one way of retaining it as part of our cultural identity. Of course, the thing is not to throw the baby out with the bath water – I am spitting blood over the female priests thing – as the difference between men and women is basic to human life, and is a biological given, much more fundamental than views on homosexuality.

  15. Julie near Chicago

    Ian B,

    That raises a question that’s been bothering me anyway. Namely, it’s simply not true that all societies have developed the one-man-one-woman version as the norm for marriage. Or so I gather, from the fact that polygamous have more than one wife per husband, at least if the poor schmuck can stand it. Now, is this institution — the guy and his multiple “wives” — acknowledged by either their society or ours to come within the accepted definition of “marriage”?

    And one slight correction to my statement above, for the sake of accuracy: The guy & gal had to have lived together for (say) ten years “as man and wife.” I suppose this to mean they were supposed to have given some sort of indication to others that they considered themselves married.

    If you want to come over here and persuade people to find your definition of “marriage” satisfactory, I have no problem with that myself — but I think you’ll have a bit of a hard row to hoe. *g*

    • Globally, the natural human marriage system is polygamy. In that regard, Western Europe is somewhat anomalous. But that’s not really central to this debate, as the key feature of marriage is a male and female formally joining for procreative purposes, because that is our biological system.

      The reason why Western Europe has been generally monogamous may come down simply to agriculture. Most of our land is ill-suited to pastoralism, and tilling heavy soils in a rainy convulted landscape is man’s work, thus leading to a model of the “couple in a farmhouse”. This in turn leads to a more individualist rather than tribal/clan society, as people have to trade for goods and services outside their small, non self-sufficient familiy units. This is partiuclarly good for women, who are thus free to socialise beyond the family, in stark contrast to the tribalism and closeting of the Levantine cultures such as Islam and the Jews.

      Which may be why we have a tendency towards individualism, universal rights and capiitalism, etc.

  16. Ricardo Ben-Safed

    Fortunately I studied Statistics and consequently am not convinced of your solitary figure used stating “only 2% of men are homosexual”. And it’s rather silly to claim that children cannot be raised by parents of either gender. They already are raised in quite good mental and physical health by these minorities; add to that the fact that millions of children are adopted and not raised by their biologic parents. The issue is equality of human and legal rights, not which sex or gender is better or only validated by the state governments or the religions they approve. Yes…the Judeo-Christian culture of the west is changing, that is how it continues to survive when Libertarian principles are promoted by convinced Libertarians.

    • I agree. The definition of homosexual is not anything like as clear as the definition of a circle, or even a Jew. A homosexual can be someone who only ever has all male sex, and finds the thought of sleeping with a women distasteful. It may also be someone who occasionally thinks it might be nice to have sex with another man, but never gets round to it. There is a wide spectrum of intermediary positions – which includes people whose tastes change back and forth over time. Finding a generally agreed definition is hard enough. Conducting any meaningful research on how many people come into any of these categories is impossible, given that people lie and it is impossible to find them out. All we can say is that the number of men in the most restrictive category above is probably not very great. Whether it’s 2% or 10% or some other figure cannot be known.

      • Well, I think the problem with definitions is down to our friends in the Proggie movement, who have adopted a (Platonic) essentialist paradigm, in which “homosexual” is something you are rather than something you do. A position they have now applied to gender, with even more baffling and amusing results.

  17. james jordan

    Marcionism aka LUTHERANISM and CALVINISM, are exactly why the West was lost. You say “faith alone” and you end up with perversion. Duh stupids.