Friday, 22 May 2015
In a Gallup survey, the mean estimate of the homosexual population was 23%. According to a second Gallup survey, the actual population that describes themselves that way was 3.8%.
To be clear: it's not being claimed that the media lies about the percentage of those who self-describe as homosexual, or have claimed that 23% would. The point is that the relentless, widespread diet of aggressive homosexual propaganda creates an impression, which results in the 23% figure. The over 6-fold increase from reality to false perception is measuring just how much false propaganda is in that diet.
My comment (added in the comments box)...
"Gay marriage" is a legal fiction. A man can no more actually marry a man, than he can marry his left foot, regardless of what the paperwork says. I note that Graeme Archer, who considers himself conservative, provides no argument at all based on the nature of human sexuality (male/female) and addresses zero questions about the complementarity of the sexes. He simply assumes what needs to be proved - that a man/man relationship is the same thing. But this argument essentially means that male-ness and female-ness either don't exist, or are entirely interchangeable (which amounts to the same as not existing).
Archer's assumption throughout his piece is simply that marriage is whatever a majority say it is. This argument is insane, and takes the idea of democracy to a ludicrous extreme. It provides no logical reason why marriage can't involve one man and four women, or a brother and sister, or a man and his grand-daughter, or a man and his horse. If marriage is just whatever a majority of the voters, or a majority of the MPs, say it is, then ultimately marriage is nothing. It's completely arbitrary - one definition today; but perhaps the voters tomorrow will decide that "marriage" is the moon, or my left foot. This approach ultimately reduces marriage to nothing except "some sort of relationship with some sort of tax benefits".
Hence, it is correct to say that the redefinition of marriage is not simply a question of "extending the benefits of marriage". It "extends" by eliminating. The concept of "marriage" pushed by proponents of "gay marriage" has little to do with historic conceptions of marriage. That's why widespread easy divorce and acceptance of adultery and promiscuity as socially normal were necessary stepping stones before we could reach this stage.
Marriage is not a trophy, or a prize for society to award to favoured groups. Marriage is the exclusive commitment of two sexually complementary beings - a man and a woman - to live together as husband and wife, in a relationship which can, if so blessed, be fruitful in producing and raising up children. Hence I urge the voters of Ireland to reject the legal fiction, the oxymoronic nothing, of "gay marriage".
Saturday, 9 May 2015
—Stephen D. Schwarz, The Moral Question of Abortion (Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1990), 143.
Wednesday, 6 May 2015
These past weeks have been a tense and challenging time following the warnings from the government and various western embassies. Living out here with young children has certainly focused my mind. We seem a long way from the peace and safety of the UK! My initial response to events was to organise the building of a safe room in our house, which is now ready.
My second response was not practical but theological; it involved a reconsideration of the value my Christian beliefs. A few weeks ago I lay awake one night, unable to sleep for worrying about our situation. In those early hours I was reminded that if we're not careful, fear can control our thinking and leave us in panic. And that night I experienced fear. I've seen the images of what happened at (some place) and also a year before at (another place) and my imagination was running wild. The thought of seeing my wife and children gunned down is not a pleasant one. Should we go home? Should I send them off the campus?
As I tossed in the dark that night, a change in the direction of my thoughts happened and I felt gently rebuked. That day I'd been reading a biography of the hymn writer Charles Wesley, "A Heart Set Free". It records how in 1735 Charles and his brother John were crossing the North Atlantic on their way to the colony of Georgia when a terrible storm blew up. Apparently John Wesley noted in his journal how people on the boat became gripped by fear, in many cases screaming in panic thinking that they would soon drown. Then he and Charles came across a different scene: a group of Moravian Christians from Germany calmly gathered together to sing hymns and pray. What struck the Wesley brothers was that these believers confessed the absence of the fear of death. Death had no power over them. It was at this point that John and Charles realised that whatever kind of Christianity they possessed, it wasn't the New Testament kind. They had no sense of the peace that those Moravians displayed. Later after the Wesley brothers were converted, they roamed the British Isles preaching the gospel, the fear of death gone. There was a lesson for me here.
The next thought that came to me in those early hours was how theoretical our Christian theology can be when life is calm, predictable and safe. How often back home have I proclaimed from the pulpit that "Jesus is Lord", that he has risen from the dead and has conquered death? Countless times I have sung Stuart Townend's words, "No guilt in life, no fear in death, this is the power of Christ in me". Wonderful, precious words, but the question I faced that night was would I believe them now, or would I allow myself to be overcome by fear? In those night hours, faith was slowly getting a grip on me and replacing the fear. Let's make no mistake about it, death is a tyrant and it holds all the sons and daughters of Adam in its power. We do almost anything to keep it at bay. And yet the heart of the message of Christianity is that what Paul called the last enemy really has been conquered. We are released from death's grip and power. And recognising that and believing it brings great freedom.