GAY MARRIAGE – UK Prime Minister promotes decadence

by the Rev. Alan Clifford

I respect Alan Clifford, and I maintain his absolute right to state his theological position on homosexuality. However, I don’t agree with him about gay marriage. So long as no church or other religious institution or minister of religion is penalised for refusing to perform services, I see no objection to gay marriage. I am suspicious of the current proposals. Though I haven’t studied them in any detail, I suspect the proposals do enable civil or criminal persecution. indeed, I suspect that is part of their intention. Take this possibility away, though, and I don’t see why a man shouldn’t be at liberty to marry his own brother so long as they are both consenting adults. SIG


Dr Alan C. Clifford

Who would have dreamed that a British Conservative Prime Minister would promote ‘Gay’ marriage? Yet – boldly and unashamedly – David Cameron did it ‘for real’ on BBC News (7 December 2012). He has thus become the ‘official’ vocal expression of moral decadence in the United Kingdom. In the wake of public campaigning for a centuries-old, pan-cultural understanding of marriage, and recent high-profile paedophile scandals, it is vital to grasp why ‘gay marriage’ is conceptually absurd and morally evil.

Opposing the decadent agenda of aggressive liberals, orthodox Bible-believing Christians appeal to the authority of the Scriptures in the belief that there are ‘absolutes’. Indeed, the Bible continues to provide infallible guidance to be applied in today’s circumstances. The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments do not simply give us documentary examples of the values of a bygone age for merely historical interest.

Progressive revelation
However, Christians do believe in ‘progressive’ revelation. With the culmination of divine revelation in our Lord Jesus Christ, certain aspects of the Old Testament became redundant. For instance, Israel’s civil and ceremonial codes were not, in all their details – including the stoning of blasphemers and adulterers – to be carried over into the New Testament era. They were not to be binding on Gentile or Hebrew believers. Christ himself refused to allow the stoning of the adulterous woman (see Jn. 8: 1-11). In the New Testament, there are no precedents for blasphemers being stoned. In short, new rules replaced old ones in the atmosphere of international and anti-discriminatory grace.

Law and Grace
However, the principles of the moral law – the Ten Commandments – were not abrogated. In the realm of sexual ethics, homosexuality continues to be regarded as sinful and unacceptable along with adultery and fornication (see Rom. 1: 26-7; 1 Cor. 6: 9). Heterosexual marriage remains the normal relationship for valid sexual activity. However, in accordance with the gospel of God’s grace, sexual deviance disqualifies no one for Church membership provided it is accompanied by repentance and a change of life-style. Therefore all sin – including homosexuality – may be forgiven but no unrepentant sinner has any place in the fellowship of the Church of Christ. Within wider society, without prescribing civil penalties, the Church must act as salt and light, promoting by holy and loving example, the acceptance of Christian values.

What is sodomy?
The view that sodomy in the Old Testament was not homosexuality but failure to show hospitality has no justification. Certainly Ezekiel (16: 49-50) blames the ‘iniquitous’ affluent and selfish society of Sodom as the materialistic and indulgent setting for the ‘abominations’ described in Genesis 19: 5-8. Such were clearly sexual rather than social. Indeed, as was also the case with ancient Greece and Rome, these things often go together. Western affluence has also become the occasion for moral decline in general and the growth of sexual perversion in particular.

Sodomy and slavery
It is fallacious to set aside the New Testament prohibition of homosexuality on the grounds that Paul once acquiesced in now discredited slavery. When we realise that the spiritual and moral challenge of the Christian Faith did not involve a wholesale assault on the political and social culture of the Roman world, it is easy to see why Paul did not attack slavery as such. However, he did encourage slaves to seek their freedom (see 1 Cor. 7: 21). Such teaching, coupled with the Biblical law of loving one’s neighbour, contained the seed for the ultimate overthrow of slavery. However, there is no evidence to suggest that we may take a lenient and less rigorous view of the evil of homosexuality. It remains an abomination in the sight of God, besides being held in abhorrence by most human beings.

Gay gene?
It is simply not proven that homosexual orientation is determined at birth. No genetic explanation is forthcoming in this respect. However, there is much evidence that a soft and luxurious social environment promotes homosexual tendencies. Besides, if a ‘gay gene’ could be identified, the same might be claimed for adultery, murder and stealing. Such activities might conceivably be decriminalised on such grounds, to the utter ruin of civilised society as we have known it!

Body abuse
Loving sexual relationships are to be confined to heterosexual marriage. Fidelity within marriage is the ultimate antidote to AIDS and other STI. From a strictly physiological and anatomical standpoint, the human body is not constructed for anal intercourse. Such a common sense conclusion hardly requires a medical expert to validate it. Thus sodomy is nothing less than ‘body abuse’. It is rightly regarded as a moral perversion.

It remains true that homophobia should not be encouraged any more than any other phobia (properly speaking, ‘phobia’ – from Greek ‘phobos’ – means ‘fear’ rather than ‘hatred’). However, it is inconsistent to permit homosexuality and yet warn young people of its dangers. Medical, social and emotional consequences militate against the approval of homosexuality at any age.

Transforming Grace
From the standpoint of the Christian Gospel, it is true that the love of God is available to homosexuals. Yes, it is true that God calls everyone into His everlasting love but we must repent of our sins, trusting alone in Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour. Like adulterers and murderers, homosexuals must repent of their particular sin if they wish to be part of Christ’s Church and be saved. As there is no limit to the transforming power of God’s grace and Holy Spirit, so those with homosexual tendencies may be delivered from them. Such grace includes the power to repent. Such repentance is necessary. This is the judgement of God’s Word, the Bible. We must not reject those whom God accepts but neither must we change His rules according to some ‘pc‘ agenda. What the Lord Jesus said to the adulterous woman applies equally to penitent homosexuals: “Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more” (John 8: 11). The Bible must be taken as a whole without us changing or diluting parts we find hard to accept.

19 responses to “GAY MARRIAGE – UK Prime Minister promotes decadence

  1. I will leave aside theology – as this is a blog about political matters.

    I will even leave aside the common sense point that, at least on the face of things, there can be no such thing as “Gay Marriage” as one man can not be the wife of another man – that has what has led to the concepts of “husband” and “wife” being removed from the law of (for example) Washington State – thus showing the true agenda of Gay Marrigage (the destruction of the concept of marriage, as part of the leftist war against the cultural insitution of the family). Be all that as it may – perhaps there are counter arguments. For example, an alternative response to the homosexual complaint about the words “husband” and “wife” on the State documents in Washington State would have been simply to get rid of the concept of “civil marriage” entirely (after all it did not exist in law of England and Wales till 1836).

    What a libertarian must consider is the “anti discrimination” angle.

    It is simply not good enough to say “as long as Churches are not forced to take part” it is O.K. – as long as any individual or organisation is forced (forced) to “recognise” such union, it is not O.K.

    Private ceremonies are one thing – forced “recognition” is quite another thing. Yet Gay Marriage is about forced “recognition” – that is why American lawyers give so much money to the campaign (so they can have all the lovely “anti discrimination” money).

    And it will be the same in Britain – indeed it is, with doctrines dug up from the late Roman Empire (where the idea of private property was being systematically subverted) to justify telling someone who owns an inn that they are not allowed to turn away customers. And that, if they do, they must pay the people they have “discriminated against” money.

    “Public” now appears to mean “anything open to the public” – which negates private property in business.


    Where were the Christians when the freedom of other people was attacked?

    Perhaps these people were racist bigots.

    Perhaps they were foolish people who did not think a women could do a job as well as a man.

    But it was still their freedom that was being attacked – and Christians (for the most part) did not help them.

    They simply hid behind the J.S. Mill dodge (and it is a dodge) that regulations attacking commercial freedom are somehow a fundementally different sort of thing from regulations attacking such things as freedom of speech. They are not a fundementally different sort of thing – and if you do not resist such things as “anti discrimination” regulations soon such things as freedom of speech go as well (because the arguments against both are much the same).

    Presently the Roman Catholic Church (and various Protestant and Orthodox Churches) are engaged in a struggle against having elements of “Obamacare” inposed upon their universties and so on – things such as “free” contraception and (soon enough) “free” infanticide.

    But where were these Christians in 2010 when there was a desperate stuggle to prevent Obamacare being past at all?

    They were doing nothing – or they were actively supporting passing Obamacare.

    After all it was only the freedom of “the rich” and “corporations” that was being attacked.

    One would have thought that at least people in the Roman church would have remembered that the Church itself is a (indeed – the) classic example of a “corporation” in law (indeed most of the important concepts in corporate law are from canon law – just as much as they are from Law Merchant).

    But no – they did not remember.

    And it is a bit late now.

    A bit late on Gay Marriage as well.

    If (for example) an insurance company can not “discriminate” against people in a “Civil Union” then…….

  2. We need to get away from America.

    I was thinking this (as I have thought it more and more of late) while reading the (American) history of (American) Libertarianism. If, in the 20th century, the struggle against Communism was a proxy struggle against its heartland- the USSR- then in the 21st century the struggle against (what should we call it? I default to “Progressivism”) is the proxy struggle against the USA.

    The Gay Marriage, nonsense- debate, culture war, what have you- is occurring because it is occurring in the USA. The modern British- and EUropean, and international- “Left” is the American Left. It is the Left that evolved on American college campuses from the 1960s, distilled from various precursors- Marxism, Fabianism, Christian Socialism, the Social Gospel, and divers others- brought to a new and heady brew in- well, let us say- Berkeley.

    American global dominance leads to American political and cultural dominance. We fight their culture wars. Just as, because there was a race struggle in the USA, the fanboys this side of the Atlantic said, “we must have one too” and, lacking a discriminated population of brown people, imported one. And, just as the American Left sees its great foe as Conservative Christians, our own Fanboy Left shadow boxes with an imaginary Christian foe who simply do not exist here.

    I am sick of participating in a political discourse which is merely a shadow play of the American one, with American issues and American terminology and campaign slogans imported without even bothering to fix the spelling to proper Queen’s English. I am increasingly convinced that we Libertarians have the same problem, and we need to separate ourselves from American interpretations and narratives of Liberty, and find our own voice. Whether it’s American Leftism of the C4SS type- I mean really, Lysander Spooner and sodding Benjamin Tucker can go fuck themselves- or Rothbard’s Anarcho-Capitalism with its terrifying legalism that is so American (and unfit for anywhere but America, the land of the lawyer) that it shits apple pie.

    We are going to persecute vicars who dare to refuse to marry some thirtysomething slightly-camp professional couple parachuted in by Stonewall (named after an American incident, natch) because the American Left want to bludgeon their foes in the Bible Belt with this crap. If we think we’re having a “debate” about this, if we this is happening for any other reason, we are damned fools.

    Fuck the Yanks and their fucking ideological empire. I’m starting to feel like, I dunno, some ancient Judean clinging to the limestone crags with my mangey sheep, shouting, “I don’t want to fucking Hellenise, fuck off you toga-wearing cunts, leave us alone to be who we are, not copies of you!”.


    • Oh, Ian, don’t talk to me about the Horrors of the Great Satan. And I’ve already accepted that I’m against anything that might be used to persecute dissidents. I only say that, with these reservations, I can’t see what the fuss is about. If two men want to get married, and they can find a minister of religion willing to say the words, this should be registered by the State. Registry offices should also solemnise such unions. The argument that the registrars will be oppressed by forcing them to act against their religious principles doesn’t apply. After all, devout Catholics who become registrars are already compelled to solemnise heterosexual unions that their church calls legitimised fornication.

      Marriage is everything that the Rev. Clifford says it is. It’s also about convenience and pleasure and much else beside. Leaving the culture war aside, the issue should be about as divisive for us as the legalisation of sodomy.

  3. “Fuck the Yanks”–No.
    The American people are not the issue here-even the ones dumb enough to keep voting.
    The radical trash of Berk–lee would be nowhere but for their infiltraition of the Federal tyranny via the open anus of politics. As with everywhere else it is the thug-masters who count and in proportion to the number of costumed thugs they can put into the field.

    The correct action is for the Church to defy any laws forcing action against its conscience.Christians have been persecuted before and won. It might encourage people with some backbone to come forward and take action to counter leftist/statist propaganda.

  4. Sean- I think you underestimate the implications of the campaign for gay marriage.It won’t simply be everyone making their own choice.

    If gay marriage is allowed then future generations of heterosexual couples will lose the right to call themselves husband and wife.These appendages go the heart of marriage;it defines the relationship between them and is a public announcement of it.

    The gay marriage campaign want legal recognition of gay sexual relationships but, in order to do so it must entail the de-sexing and de-gendering of heterosexuality. Before we know it we will follow the practice in some Euro countries of banning Mother and Father from birth certificates;in order for gay people to be like us we have to stop being what we are. Everyone must walk because not everyone can run.This will happen whether or not gay marriage is allowed in church.

    What I can’t understand is why any gay person would want to have a religious ceremony given that most religions see the practice as an abomination. The only conclusion I come to is that of a Trojan Horse;’ we come to bring enlightenment, to improve your religion’,Knowing full well that only destruction will follow.

    On a brighter note, I think it doubtful that the government will really push the church thing. By this I mean the Church of England;who would dare challenge the R.C. lot, the Mosques and Synagogues which, given that the agenda is about someone’s perception of equality, they would certainly have to challenge or the whole enterprise falls down.

  5. “The gay marriage campaign want legal recognition of gay sexual relationships but, in order to do so it must entail the de-sexing and de-gendering of heterosexuality. Before we know it we will follow the practice in some Euro countries of banning Mother and Father from birth certificates;in order for gay people to be like us we have to stop being what we are. Everyone must walk because not everyone can run.This will happen whether or not gay marriage is allowed in church.”

    If that really is the case, I’m against it. As said, I’m in favour of legal equality, though not ot cultural deconstruction. But it doesn’t have to be that way.

  6. “I am in favour of giant horse statues. How nice of the Greeks to give us one”.

  7. Oh, very well – give us gay marriage, but not yet!

  8. Well using homosexuals (and women, and racial minorities) as cannon fodder in a culture war to undermine “capitalism” (i.e. civil society), was indeed an idea thought up in Frankfurt.

    But, Ian, it was not Frankfurt Kentucky.

    P.C. doctrine was not thought up in the United States, although it has flourished there, it was (and is) European.

    Indeed the idea is a lot older than Marxism.

  9. Paul, PC is not cultural marxism. It is a synthesis. You know your Hegel don’t you? :)

  10. P.C. was a doctrine invented (well not really invented, but adapted) by the Frankfurt School – and brought to the United States via the New York (Columbia) New School of Social Research.

    Of course (and this is your point) it found fertile soil to grow in (like the weed it is) – due to American Progressivism.

    And that was (yes you are correct) in origin religious.

    People who had lost conventional religious faith and needed a new one.

    Of course American Protestantism (at least in the North East) was always more concerned with conduct (how one lives in this world) than it was with theology.

    One does have to be Roman Catholic to know that religion without theology is an empty shell.

    An empty shell that cries out to be filled.

    And, of course, at first American Progressivism was deeply racist (“scientifically” racist) and “homophobic”.

    But these doctrines were dropped decades ago.

    Now it is the opposite – obsessed (truly obsessed) with racial equalty, and with homosexual rights.

    The fact that the Progressives could go from one extreme to the other (in both racial and sexual matters) whilst still being Progressives (indeed with hardly breaking a sweat) and often within a generation……

    This shows, yet again, that American culture (at least in the North East – and on the Western coast also) is not really about clear doctrines – principles.

    It is more an attitude.

    People in the South tend to be baffled by the attitude – and this is nothing to do with them being “racist”.

    It is because people in the South tend to think in terms of doctrines (principles) and people from the North East simply do not.

    “Pragamatism” (capital P) was, of course, the North Eastern philosophy long before Marxism was important.

    And long before that – people such as H. Mann (the creator of the compulsory education system in Mass) thought in such vague terms as to be baffleing.

    At least baffleing to a nasty dogmatic person like errr – me.

    I classfy him as a Prussianist – because he said was.

    But he was nothing like a Prussian Junker.

    He was a wolly headed nonentity.

    Even I would have a problem cutting the throat of such a man – because he was so n-i-c-e. if someone is trying to kill me (or others) that is one thing – but if someone sincerly wants to make me happy and (by no intention of his) his policies will lead to me being in a Death Camp, what am I to do?

    So sincerely well intentioned – in his muddle headed way.

    His policies lead (must lead) to total horror – but he is a nice chap.

    He would most likely offer to sharpen my knife for me and then hand it back – and look at me with big puppy dog eyes…..

    I do not know what to do with such people.

    I prefer Kevins.

    I understand them – as they are violent and motivated by hatred, like errr….

  11. Will Wolverhampton

    Marriage is everything that the Rev. Clifford says it is. It’s also about convenience and pleasure and much else beside. Leaving the culture war aside, the issue should be about as divisive for us as the legalisation of sodomy.

    But if Mr T. Blair, Mr B. Obama, and Ms. H. Clinton, among many authoritarian others, are all in favour of X, I would suggest that X is in fact designed to destroy Liberty, not advance it. I’m in favour of warm housing. This does not mean I am in favour of setting fire to houses. “Useful idiocy” is a concept libertarians might do well to think more about.

  12. There are some people I respect that back the “Gay Marriage” movement – for example the founder of Amazon (of whom I have been a, mostly, satisfied customer over the years) gave two million Dollars to the campaign in Washington State.

    However, Will Wolverhampton has a point – most of the people backing this campaign are radically anti (anti) liberty people. Their motives are, at best, suspect.

    By they way I was unjust to Prussian Junkers….

    The real problem is Prussian Philosphers – including the “Red Prussian”.

    As for the New Englanders (and the East and West coast “liberal” elite).

    Well Tom Wolfe tried to get to the heart of them – but I do not know whether even he managed it.

    For example, all the “great and good” going to Lillian Hellman funeral is an example of how baffleing they are.

    This was in 1984 – well after Hellman (a very apt name) had been exposed as a shameless liar (for example not only falsely pretending that Finland was “Fascist” in 1940, but claiming to have been there when she had not – lies on that stupid level), who had backed the Soviets in all their crimes. Yet there they all were (with tears in their eyes) the “liberal” elite.

    “How do you know that she was a Marxist” – well leaving millions of Dollars for foundations in the name of her Red husband Dashiell Hammett, in order to further “the doctrines of Karl Marx” might give most people a hint.

    But the “liberal” elite can not see it. Indeed there are even still BBC shows (and so on) which mention that some “paranoid” people accused Dashill Hammett (indeed both of this Hollywood power couple) of being a Marxist. Errr – that is what he-himself indicated (again and again and again).

    But it is impossible to reach the “liberal” elite.

    They just smile (in their nice way) and go on doing X, Y, Z.

    I prefer Southerners. And people from the rural West (where the summer burns to death anyone caught out in it – and the winter freezes a person to death within an hour or so).

    Yes they have darkness in their souls (and who is without sin?), but at least they do not blink at me with big puppy dog eyes….. as they serve the cause of totalitarianism,

    I think it was Mark Steyn (someone whose family roots are in Flanders knows that cultural conflcts need have nothing to do with “race” – his Flemish people and the French speakers are genatically identical, but have been in conflict for centuries) who said that the problem with even people in New Hampshire (historically the least statist State of the North East – the other States up there are vastly worse)) is that because everyone is nice (at least in public) – they do not really understand that some people in the world are not nice. Indeed that niceness is not the natural default position of things.

    And that if you give lots of power to an “expert” (say a judge or an academic) the results will not be nice – not nice at all.

    Whether one calls it “Progressivism”, “Marxism” or whateverism.

    I even believe that something like “Agenda 21” was explained to most New Englanders (or to the East or West Coast elite) they would say something like……

    “International cooperation Cool!” (they would say “cool” even if over 60), “let us all help each other – as long as well educated people are looking after things……”. And then go back to delivering their moral philosphy lectures at Harvard (or whatever).

    Whatever the IQ tests and the academic qualifications say…….

    Such people are dumb – dumb as a box of rocks.

    It is not even a clever plot.

    Because the academics (and other such) might start off being in charge of the internatnational totalitiarian state – but they would not stay in charge very long.

  13. briefly – 1) the institution of marriage is not about the participants, but about providing a stable home environment for children. hence ‘gay marriage’ is redundant on those terms. 2) homosexual marriage cannot by definition exist, since it cannot be consummated (‘consummation’ being a sexual coulping with the intention of producing offspring). 3) the whole thing is a political stunt. i oppose it on grounds 1) and 3).

  14. There is one feature that passes by in the night in all of this and that is the legal system and the divorce laws. If you join the marriage club you put your head in the lion’s mouth with every prospect of being emotional and financial lunch. Would civil unions have been a better solution if only to develop an alternative stream of divorce law? The barnacles of established law in the realm of matrimonial law often results in spectacularly unfair outcomes.

  15. On the question of different sorts of union in relation to divorce law. I believe that the State of Louisiana has experimented with their being different sorts of marriage in relation to divorce law.

    Of course there were different legal forms of marriage in Republican Rome, and Louisiana is part of the Roman tradition in law.

  16. Tom Burroughes

    I totally agree with Sean on this issue. Respect for consenting relations between adults should be a bedrock position for libertarians. The rest is mere detail and if churches want to provide ceremonies for said, fine, and if not, fine as well. So long as no church is compelled to honour such contracts, I don’t see an issue here.

    There are practical issues such as property rights and so forth that arise with binding unions, and as such, there ought to be a way for unions to be officially recognised in law if only to give a clear protection for couples making decisions such as about the transfer of said, the signing of wills and the like.

    I don’t really get as fired about the supposed “Great Satan” on this as IanB seems to be doing; the US is the haven of many dotty ideas but frankly, these are far outweighed by good ones. If you believe in the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as good Americans do, respect for consensual relations between adults seems to me to be obvious. In fact, one might as well point out that such ideas are the consequence of the Enlightenment, and hence, European thought.

  17. There is no law preventing private, voluntary, ceremonies now. And no law preventing one man calling another man his wife – if both men are happy with that. Private individuals and corporations (such as churches) can “recognise” such unions if they wish.

    I see no reason for the state to get involved in this matter. Indeed I believe the call is a, disguised, forced “recognision” scam. An extortion scheme by which lawyers will be able to sue Christians (for example the Christian manager of an insurance company) for failing to “recognise” these unions, thus “discriminating” against them.

    I would have more respect for these people if they, for example, went to an Islamic owned guesthouse and demanded the bridal suite (with threats of legal action if they did not get it), but I do not expect to see such courage any time soon.

  18. As for the United States ….

    Yes the whole “anti discrimination” scam is just as common in Europe as it is in the United States. So there is nothing particularly American about it.

    I believe that Singapore rejects this whole extortion racket.