Gender Theory Is Queer With 58 Varieties And Counting

When I play football (the European variety, that is), my favourite way to score a goal is to stand directly in front of the goals about twenty meters out, take my harpoon and fire it into a blimp, ride the blimp to China, set up my tent on the beach and write out copies of famous quotes while digging in the sand with my toes.

What I wrote just then was not only stupid but a direct and intentional insult to anyone who knows even the rudiments rise of football.

In the same way, gender theory takes something that every human being ever – the most decorated to the most stupid – has understood perfectly well and shreds it into meaningless.

And if you don’t agree with gender theory, then you are responsible for the incredibly high rate of suicide among the community of people who define themselves by ridiculous and fabricated definitions.

Like with all Leftist creations perversions, gender theory demands that the majority of normal people submit to not only the minority but such an insignificantly small and confused minority that it breaks new ground, even for Leftists.

And like with all Leftist endeavours, this select group of people who constitute the transgender community serve as no more than worthless stepping-stones on the way to defeating their ideological enemies, namely God and anyone who stands with him.

Clearly, God always wins but he frequently lets people endure the consequences of their stupid choices and the contemporary West is no different – and boy are we beginning to endure but I think we ain’t seen nothing yet.

It might seem harsh, even unloving, to say that abandoning the God-given, intrinsically defined boundaries of biological sex is “stupid” and the only response I can offer is: no, it’s not.

While the Left prattle on about how they are the most caring, understanding, tolerant bunch around by highlighting various duped groups like the allegory mix of the LGBTIQ community, I’m going to point to the greater majority of people who don’t make up some special interest group and say that I care about them.

My 97% beats the Leftist selective and frankly intolerant 3%.

Of course, I’m really just messing around here because I actually care about the LGBTIQ community more than Leftists, who are using them to win the culture and gain political power. I want them to know Jesus, the only person who can help any human being.

Personally, leading confused people into greater confusion comes squarely under the definition of contempt and hatred but hey, that can be deconstructed too I’m sure.

Like the parent who cares enough about their child to say “no” and not give into every dangerous and foolish demand, I agree with God and say “no” to the demand to deconstruct and redefine essential realities and institutions including biological sex, sexuality, and marriage.

I say that “no” specifically because no matter how much you want to be a boy, if you aren’t one to begin with then it’s not in anyone’s interests to pretend that you are.

Note that I never said I had the power to stop Leftists from giving this cultural trainwreck their all and doing serious damage to society (I can’t stop Iran or North Korea from their evil machinations either) but I am saying that I won’t bow the knee. I won’t bow it to the individual, for whom I care, nor to the agenda-driven groups and organisations that really just represent the worldviews competing for dominance in the West.

If what I’m writing here isn’t resonating with you, perhaps reading the below article from the Australian will bring back mental clarity:

What’s the deal with kids these days? With 58 gender categories to choose from, sexual and gender identity are part of the Zeitgeist.

Ask Josh Han, the queer officer with Sydney University’s Student Representative Council. “It’s about deconstructing ­societal views of what it means to be a man or a woman,” he says. “If you only have two genders, there are limited interactions. But if you have a diversity of gender identities you don’t have these closed categories. It means you can have way more than 58 gender categories.”

Among those 58 ­options, f irst listed on Facebook, are bigender, gender questioning, gender variant, pangender, intersex and 26 versions of trans, transgender and trans­sexual. Plain old male and ­female didn’t make the list.

But don’t think for a moment that Han is part of a fringe movement. At campuses across the country students are campaigning for gender-neutral bathrooms and official records to state chosen, not birth, names.

Kyol Blakeney, the president of Sydney University’s SRC, says these are important issues. “A lot of people who transition have a chosen name that is different to their legal name. If they go to class and their legal name is called out it can be horrifying for them.”

Ditto on the prosaic business of going to the bathroom. “For a queer person or a trans person to use a male bathroom can be a ­humiliating or dangerous exper­ience because of physical and verbal assault,” says Blakeney.

Signs of gender fluidity are everywhere. Former Kardashian clan patriarch Bruce Jenner transitioned into Caitlyn on the cover of Vanity Fair this month. A Gucci advertising campaign on The Australian’s website features gender-unspecific models. And, as revealed in today’s The Weekend Australian Magazine, children as young as six are telling their parents they no longer identify with their assigned birth gender.

Sarah Maddison, a gender studies expert from the University of Melbourne, argues it’s not a trend. “We’ve seen over the past 40 or 50 years an absolute transformation in how we think about gender and sexuality,” she says.

“Is it that more people are coming out and identifying with ­diverse gender identities because it’s of the moment? I suspect the more likely scenario is that these young people have always been lurking in the shadows.”

Toby Miller, the Sir Walter Murdoch Professor of Cultural Policy Studies at Murdoch University, says one only needs to look to Andy Warhol’s Factory and David Bowie’s Diamond Dogs days to see the current fashion for gender complexity is nothing new.

And there are indigenous cultures in Asia and the Americas “that have several different ways of categorising genders and in-­betweens”.

There is no doubt, however, that social media and reality TV are driving the trend. “Reality TV has been intrinsic to normalising some of these ideas,” Miller says.

And the ubiquitousness of ­social media means anyone who feels different can easily find a tribe to identify with on Facebook. But is it narcissism or hyper-indiv­iduality? Not at all, says Blythe S Worthy, the women’s officer with Sydney University’s SRC. “That is almost saying it’s attention-seeking. That is not the case; it’s an identity issue.”

Karen Brooks, an honorary senior research fellow with the Centre for Critical and Cultural Studies at the University of Queensland, is not so convinced.

“It’s a way of making ourselves more interesting,’’ she says. “Like tattoos and body piercings, the search for individuality is almost the new conformity.”

And you thought my football story didn’t make sense?!


We Are All Intolerant And It Can Be A Great Thing So Let’s Be Honest About It

Everybody is intolerant.

That’s one of the beautiful things about freedom – you don’t have to tolerate everything. In fact, necessitating tolerant is a sure sign that freedom is absent.

This is where the West is headed it seems – the façade of perfect tolerance.

And to get there, all it requires is being intolerant of everyone and everything that doesn’t fit the vision of this socially harmonious utopia. Yes, the irony obvious to some of us is that this is no different to any society that has ever existed – tolerant of what they want and intolerant of what they don’t.

Back when language meant what it meant, this was known as “intolerance” but now that doublespeak and language revisionism applies here, there, and everywhere, this intolerance is now called “tolerance” and it comes with a scenic view from the utopian moral high ground.

For those familiar with the dangerous and heretic “name it and claim it” false doctrine touted by people exploiting Christianity for personal gain, this is the postmodernist equivalent: “I think I am tolerant, therefore I am.”

Looking at biblical Christianity, our religion is an exclusive one which means it is an intolerant one. Jesus made exclusive, intolerant claims perhaps best summed up in this:

“Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him.”” ‭John‬ ‭14:6-7‬ ‭ESV‬‬

Claimed equality with God is the same as saying listen to me because I am in charge and don’t listen to anyone who contradicts what I say.

So if you claim to follow Jesus and affirm that he is indeed the son of God, you can’t be a follower of Mohammed who himself made exclusive claims about Islam. Nor can the Christian practise cannibalism, theft, homosexuality, or adultery and maintain the claim that they are following Jesus. Neither can the church accept these practises from and within our community.

The following article Toleration Is Postmodern-Speak For Bigotry by Richard Samuelson outlines the catastrophic contradictions and double standards behind the contemporary misuse of the concept of tolerance:

Religious liberty is not an indulgence a superior gives to his inferiors, toleration for practices and beliefs he regards as repugnant, as one tolerates one’s in-laws.

Is “toleration” becoming a new word for “bigotry”? During oral argument in the recent gay-marriage litigation, Justice Alito asked the solicitor general if the precedent of the Bob Jones University case would apply to institutions that reject the new definition of marriage. In that case, the Supreme Court had said our government may discriminate against certain religious institutions, if they practice invidious discrimination—in the case of Bob Jones University, they prohibited interracial dating, and, therefore, lost their tax exemption. The logic might very well follow from Justice Kennedy’s opinion, as the solicitor general conceded it might when the question came up.

If our government pursues this logic, which follows naturally from Justice Kennedy’s claim in his gay-rights decisions that only invidious animus can explain one’s rejection of gay marriage, it could be used to require all priests, ministers, rabbis, imams, etc. to preform same-sex weddings, or lose their legal ability to officiate at weddings. (Sure, the argument would go, clerics are free to believe whatever they want, but the right to sign a marriage license is a right government confers, and, as such, the government ought to deny that right to those who would discriminate in its application).

A similar logic would apply to all orthodox Jewish institutions. The law would force an orthodox Hebrew day school (and most Jewish day schools are orthodox), for example, either to employ men and women who not only engage in practices orthodox Jews regard as sinful (that category includes just about everyone—few of us are saints), but also those who publicly reject Jewish teaching about what is sinful, not to mention teachings about the nature of man, of woman, and of marriage. The same would apply to Christian and Muslim institutions.

Some may believe (hope?) these teachings will change. But that is probably a false hope. Down this road lies a postmodern tragedy—orthodox Jews forced out of America, all in the name of toleration and diversity of course.

The Old Presumptions of Liberty

These problems might seem to be entirely new. No one, or almost no one, had ever thought that the term “marriage” might be fitting for a homosexual relationship until yesterday, historically speaking. I recently picked up Milton Himmelfarb’s collection, “The Jews of Modernity.” In one essay from 1971, he quotes the great Rabbinic commentator, Rashi: “They do not write a marriage contract between males: for though the pagans are assumed to practice homosexuality, and in fact, do practice it, they are not so far gone in derision of the commandment against it as actually to write a marriage contract.”

It is also worth remembering that until the 1964 Civil Rights Act, American law had far more respect for the liberty of association.

That marriage was for men and women used to be regarded as common sense on the subject, even in cultures in which homosexuality was not frowned upon. By contrast, the prohibition on interracial marriage was an aberration in history. Bans on out-group marriage have not been uncommon in history. Christianity, with its universalism, has probably been more responsible than anything else for attacking that practice. That distinction is important. When choosing between a definition of marriage that has survived the test of time and a novel, new-fangled one, it may be incorrect, but, despite Justice Kennedy’s claim, it is not unreasonable to conclude that the new definition will not last.

It is also worth remembering that until the 1964 Civil Rights Act, American law had far more respect for the liberty of association among private individuals, charities, churches, businesses, and other members of civil society than it does now. The presumption was not that the government, in allowing ministers to sign legal marriage contracts, or in allowing all citizens to incorporate a business, creates a right, and therefore, may put any restrictions it chooses upon it. On the contrary, the presumption was that the government was merely helping private citizens, either as individuals, or in groups (often groups classed as “corporations”), to enjoy their liberty, and citizens were, therefore, given a wide birth in their decisions about how to act either as individuals or collectively in civil society.

Even so, the problem of balancing the rights of conscience with the obligations of citizenship is as old as the republic. That balance is difficult to achieve and maintain in a regime dedicated to the rights of men. Increased regulation of civil society makes the issue more complicated, but the fundamentals do not change.

How Protected Classes Threaten Freedom

With that in mind, we could do worse, and perhaps could not do better than to consider how President Washington thought about the problems of civic obligation and religious liberty. As we do that, we should remember that the First Amendment states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The creation of ‘protected classes’ in American law is becoming a threat to our right freely to exercise our religions.

After the Second World War, the Supreme Court decided that the Fourteenth Amendment expands those taboos to all governments in the United States, not merely federal legislature. That being the case, we need to consider the first two prohibitions: no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The former limits government’s entanglement in religion, or perhaps merely the government’s ability to favor any single religion; the latter limits government’s ability to limit our right to live in accord with our consciences. Viewed from this perspective, the creation of “protected classes” in American law is becoming a threat to our right freely to exercise our religions.

President Washington’s most famous comment on religious liberty is found in his Letter to the Hebrew Congregation at Newport. In the letter’s best known passage he declared:

It is now no more that toleration is spoken of as if it were the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights, for, happily, the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.

Religious liberty is not an indulgence a superior gives to his inferiors, “tolerating” practices and beliefs that he regards as repugnant, as one tolerates one’s in-laws. Neither ministers nor other citizens need to be given a license from the government to practice their religions. On the contrary, the United States “which gives bigotry no sanction” allows congregants of all religions “the exercise of their natural rights.” The Declaration of Independence notes that “among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” implying that there are other inalienable rights which government exists to secure.

The rights of conscience would be high on the list, as would the liberty of association. As the right to “pursue happiness” entails a right to live as one’s conscience dictates, (one can hardly be said to be happy if one is forced to act in bad faith), but individually and with one’s neighbors, one could argue that the rights are linked by an inescapable logic.

People Can’t Be Happy if They Can’t Exercise Belief

The free exercise of religion, however, presents some complications. The rights of conscience are self-evidently inadequate if one is prevented from acting upon one’s beliefs. Can Americans be free to pursue happiness if the government makes it impossible to work peacefully at one’s business, to conduct that business according to one’s conscientious beliefs, to raise one’s children according to those same beliefs, etc.?

The rights of conscience are self-evidently inadequate if one is prevented from acting upon one’s beliefs.

To take a particular case, religious liberty would be inadequate were Jews free to believe that sons must be circumcised on the eighth day after they are born, but, at the same time, American law prohibited circumcision. A recently proposed initiative to ban circumcision in San Francisco was struck from the ballot. But such initiatives have a habit of returning. It is wise to be bearish on the future sometimes. Efforts to ban circumcision and the kosher slaughter of meat are having some success in Europe.

Sure, the logic goes, Jews have their beliefs, but it is wrong to mutilate the body of an infant who cannot consent. Similarly, the argument goes, animal-rights laws are broadly and equally applicable. There is no reason to give special exemption from the law to anyone. After all, the law applies equally to all citizens. The American Left usually follows “enlightened” European opinion in such matters.

It is emphatically the job of government to make laws for the common good. Moreover, lawfulness is a basic attribute of good citizens. As Washington noted, “they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.”

Is Civil Disobedience the Answer?

What are we to do when conscientious beliefs and the demands of law conflict? Henry David Thoreau gave one answer to this problem: refuse to obey the law. But Thoreau radically denigrated government. In the second paragraph of “Civil Disobedience,” he proclaimed:

This government never of itself furthered any enterprise, but by the alacrity with which it got out of its way. It does not keep the country free. It does not settle the West. It does not educate. The character inherent in the American people has done all that has been accomplished; and it would have done somewhat more, if the government had not sometimes got in its way.

Civil disobedience is based upon an extreme denial of the good that government might do. Thoreau found the Mexican War so repugnant that he refused to obey the law and went to jail, as civil disobedience dictates. (He was, however, bailed out after one night in jail.) But can a society function when each citizen holds that he may stand in judgment of each law on a regular basis? Antinomianism does not provide much of a political foundation. On the other hand, given the Left’s affection for Thoreau, can his radical libertarianism be reconciled with the modern administrative state? Perhaps it is that combination that is the true source of today’s troubles.

Can a society function when each citizen holds that he may stand in judgment of each law on a regular basis?

What happens when conscience opposes not a particular war, but war in general? The United States has experience with exactly that case. We call Quakers “conscientious objectors” for a reason. In good conscience, they refuse to fight in the army. During our Revolutionary War, General Washington found this frustrating. It did not make sense to him that a group of people who wished to enjoy their liberty would refuse to fight to preserve that liberty when it was under threat. (Quakers may have seen the matter differently, of course). In his “Autobiography,” Benjamin Franklin has similar reflections on the Quakers’ refusal to fight.

Shortly after he became president, Washington penned a brief Letter to the Annual Meeting of Quakers. Washington began by noting that government exists, according to American principles, to allow men to live conscientiously: “Government being, among other purposes, instituted to protect the persons and consciences of men from oppression, it certainly is the duty of rulers, not only to abstain from it themselves, but, according to their stations, to prevent it in others.”

His letter ended by pointing to the tension that can exist between the obligations of citizens and the obligations of conscience: “I assure you very explicitly, that in my opinion the conscientious scruples of all men should be treated with great delicacy and tenderness; and it is my wish and desire, that the laws may always be as extensively accommodated to them, as a due regard to the protection and essential interests of the nation may justify and permit.” In other words, Washington held it is the duty of government, if at all possible, to make space for Americans to live according to their consciences, even for those who refused to pick up a gun when the British were invading.

I’ll Fight for Your Right to Not Fight

In the middle of the letter, Washington noted that Quakers, as a rule, made exemplary citizens. They were law-abiding, worked hard, educated their children well, provided food and shelter for themselves and their families, and gave charity to the poor. Yet Washington found them wanting in one key regard: “Your principles and conduct are well known to me; and it is doing the people called Quakers no more than justice to say, that (except their declining to share with others the burden of the common defense) there is no denomination among us, who are more exemplary and useful citizens. “ On that “except their declining to share with others the burden of common defense” hangs a great deal.

The principles of 1776, Washington held, suggest that America must seek an accommodation with conscientious objectors.

To refuse to fight for one’s rights, and, at the same time to be determined to enjoy them was, as far as Washington could tell, to be a free rider. Even so, Washington knew he had no right to insist that Quakers join the military, for such a demand would violate the very principles for which he had risked his life. In other words, the principles of 1776, Washington held, suggest that America must presume the good faith of conscientious objectors to our laws and, the rights of conscience being of paramount importance, must seek an accommodation with them for minister and laity alike.

Regarding the Quakers, America’s founders faced three options. They could simply demand that all citizens help defend the republic, and hold that the Quakers could believe whatever they wished, but the government could force them not to act in accord with those beliefs. (The result would have been a de facto expulsion of Quakers.) The second option would be to allow the Quakers not to fight, but only after paying a special penalty or tax. The first option was unacceptable, for it was unreasonable to create such an abject separation between belief and action. The second was, in some ways, worse than the first, for it would create a second class of citizens, requiring Quakers to purchase their liberty. That left the third option—allowing Quakers to refuse to fight.

However problematic Washington held the Quakers’ pacifism to be, he also recognized that he had to respect it.

To reject the Quakers’ beliefs, or to impose on Quakers special burdens as the cost of their liberty, would be a return to the older definition of “toleration,” according to which we hold our noses and tolerate people and practices we find repugnant. Instead, Washington welcomed a robust diversity of belief and practice, respecting in the Quakers a belief he, personally, thought was illogical and inconsistent with liberty.

However problematic Washington held the Quakers’ pacifism to be, he also recognized that he had to respect it, as much as humanly possible, for the principles of 1776 demanded he do so. In other words, Washington recognized that this was a political problem. Although it involved key questions of principle, or, perhaps, because it involved principles on both sides, its resolution necessarily entailed some political negotiation.

Why Toleration Is Intolerant

As the scope of American law has grown, the areas of conflict between the rights of conscience and the demands of law have increased considerably. (To cite one instance, absent the demand that employers provide health coverage, the Little Sisters of the Poor would be free to purchase or not purchase whatever policy they decide is fitting.) Meanwhile, the percentage of Americans, particularly in our elite and governing classes, who hold that religions (perhaps only non-Progressive religions) are a barbarous relic of a bygone age has increased considerably. Hence they refuse to recognize the rights of conscience.

What is called a ‘culture war’ might be better understood as the problems that come with the creation of a postmodern religious establishment.

Seen from this angle, we can recognize that what is called a “culture war” might be better understood as the problems that come with the creation of a postmodern religious establishment—an establishment that takes on most of the roles of the old establishments, yet defines its beliefs, conveniently, as “not religion.” The result is that it feels free to impinge on the rights of conscience in the name of “toleration” and “diversity.” Meanwhile, since national government has taken up the police power (the authority to regulate health, safety, and morals), a power that even Alexander Hamilton denied belonged to the federal government, it exacerbates the conflict.

With that in mind, we Americans of the twenty-first century would be wise to recall Washington’s example. If Washington understood that it was essential to respect the rights of conscience, even when America was fighting for its survival, then surely we can do better in finding ways of respecting the religious beliefs and practices of cake bakers, photographers, florists, nuns, and of Americans in general in their diurnal affairs. Such are the demands of religious diversity.

The alternative is to weaken America’s status as a land of liberty. If we continue down the road we are going, I fear that America will be the latest instance of the ancient tragic pattern, but with a twist—for in twenty-first-century America, this bigotry claims the mantle of “toleration” and “diversity.” Even so, we should recognize it for what it is.

Christians really need to understand these issues because we are the ones becoming the victims of them.

If we refuse to fight now, while it is still relatively easy, will we have the conviction to stand when the pressure is firmly applied?

““Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. “Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.” ‭‭Matthew‬ ‭5:10-12‬ ‭ESV‬‬

Redefining Marriage Into Meaninglessness

Postmodernism is about rendering the objective subjective. What once was obvious and clear truth in all of history suddenly becomes personal choice and preference.

If you think that sounds dangerous, it’s good to know that people out there are still thinking rather than merely emoting their way through life, redefining anything they don’t like into something they do.

The article Same-Sex ‘Marriage’: Evolution or Deconstruction of Marriage and the Family? offers some very important information about this dangerous philosophy at work in our culture, especially undergirding the homosexual lobby and its push to usher in moral lawlessness. Please note that the original article offers equally important hyperlinks that do not appear below – access the original by clicking above.

The Most Rev. Anthony Fisher, O.P., Archbishop of the Catholic Archdiocese of Sydney, delivered the Order of Malta Defence of the Faith Lecture on Wednesday, 22 July 2015, at St. Mary’s Cathedral Hall, Sydney. This is an edited version of that lecture.

The campaign to redefine marriage has recently gained such momentum – with now three and soon four bills before the Commonwealth Parliament – that many think it is inevitable. This can leave those with misgivings feeling that they are already losers in a done deal.

Some think it is the inexorable progress of liberty and equality – which leaves the doubters on “the wrong side of history.”

In this context supporters of classical marriage are presumed to have no real arguments to offer. So here I want to offer some reasons – not decrees from on high or from the past, not expressions of hatred or prejudice – but reasons I hope anyone can understand. I also hope these reasons prove persuasive and helpful in proclaiming and witnessing to true marriage among families, friends and colleagues.

Regardless, I hope this will help explain why Australian law has always held, and many people still hold, that marriage is for people of opposite sex.
I will examine five common slogans in this debate – that it is all about justice, that sexual differences do not matter, that it is all about love, that it is all about the numbers and that it does not affect me. Along the way, I will be offering some reasons for preserving the classical understanding of marriage rather than redefining it to include same-sex “marriage” (SSM).

1. “It is all about justice”
Recently, Sydney Morning Herald journalist Michael Kozoi wrote that all opposition to SSM stems from hatred, pure and simple. But if that were true, then all the recent high-profile converts to SSM were previously homophobes or liars – including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Penny Wong and others. If they were not in fact bigots when they previously thought and said marriage was for a man and woman, then it should not be presumed that those who now hold that view are bigots either.

In reality, of course, we all know and love someone with same-sex attraction. We recognize that people of the same sex can love each other, sometimes deeply; that they express this in ways that seem similar to the ways married men and women express their love; and that some people want to commit to this in a public ceremony. They are usually good-willed people, who feel they are missing out on something precious. Because we want the best for them, we feel the tug of the view that everything that makes opposite-sex couples happy should be open to them too. We want no more of the discriminatory or violent treatment that such people often suffered in the past and sometimes still suffer.

After all, God made every person unique and irreplaceable, as His beloved images in this world, and if God loves people with same-sex attraction, so must the Church. The Catechism of the Catholic Church and the recent bishops’ pastoral letter, Don’t Mess with Marriage, teach that every human being, regardless of race, religion, age, sex or sexual orientation, deserves our reverence; that all forms of unjust discrimination must be opposed; that everyone is entitled to justice and compassion; and that the challenges of healthy and chaste friendships are for every human being, whatever their attractions. If Christians have not always talked that way or walked their talk, we should repent and do better in future.

But when it comes to what the law is or should be, not all differential treatment is necessarily unjust. Women’s hospitals are closed to men; programmes for Indigenous Australians are targeted to them; primary schools enrol only children. These different treatments are not discriminatory because the differences upon which they are based are reasonable ones. Women, children and Aborigines merit particular assistance. So if our marriage laws recognize and support man-and-woman relationships for good reasons, the preservation of those laws will not necessarily be unjust to other kinds of relationship. Under any marriage law, some relationships will not be recognized as “marriage” – siblings, mere cohabiters, “throuples” and so on – but unless we know what marriage is, we cannot judge whether this restriction treats all citizens justly. To put it another way: we all support marriage equality – treating all real marriages equally – the question is: What is a real marriage?

2. “Sexual differences do not matter”

Until recently the answer to the question What is marriage? was obvious: every serious culture, religion, philosophy and legal system in the world understood marriage as “the union of a man and a woman, to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.” So it is that a man and a woman undertake not merely to live together but “to have and to hold” as “husband and wife” – that is, to do what husbands and wives do, including engaging in acts of love-making that are potentially life-making.

But if marriage is a natural institution that pre-exists Church and state, why should governments get involved at all? For one reason only: because the “marital acts” that bring children into the world also seal and express the “marital unions” that provide for the long-term nurture of those children. Marriage binds those whose love-making was life-making both to each other as husband and wife and to those children as mother and father. The benefits to children of having the contributions of both a Mum and a Dad, committed to each other and to them over the long haul, are well-established in human experience and social science research (for instance, here, here and here). In that sense, marriage is the best Department of Population, Health, Education, Welfare and Crime Prevention we have ever come up with! Other friendships may do other good things and be worthy of support; but only marriage unites a man and a woman and directs their complementary sexual-reproductive natures to the having and rearing of children. And that is why, uniquely of all human relationships, states have an interest in their success.

The Catholic Church, following the clear teaching of the Old Testament, of Christ Jesus and of the Apostle Paul, has always taught that marriage is that unique institution whereby “a man leaves mother and father and cleaves to his wife so that the two become one flesh” (Genesis 2:24; Mark 10:1-16; Ephesians 5:21-32) and so may “be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 1:27-28). Recent popes have explored the rich significance of our sexual differentiation as male and female and of marriage as a comprehensive bodily, emotional and spiritual union – one that brings and holds together people and values that otherwise have a tendency to fall apart: men and women, sex and love, love-making and life-making, babies and parents. St. John Paul II, for instance, elaborated a contemporary “theology of the body” in which the long tradition about sex being for marriage and marriage being for man and wife was shown to be rich in argument and profound in implications.

In his recent, much-praised encyclical on caring for the environment, Laudato Si’, Pope Francis also suggests we must accept ourselves in our bodily being, our masculinity and femininity, accept the Creator’s gifts specific to our own sex and to the opposite sex, encounter someone different and find mutual enrichment in bringing those gifts together in marriage. The difference and complementarity of man and woman is the anthropological reality “at the foundation of marriage and the family.” Marriage should not, this Pope suggests, be the subject of endless manipulation according to passing ideological fads.

Of course, this ancient wisdom that marriage is inherently opposite-sex is not peculiar to Catholics: Christians share it with Jews and Muslims; the three great Abrahamic religions share it with the other world religions of the ancient world and since; the world religions share it with more local ones, for example, Australian Aboriginal and Pacific Islander religions; and religious traditions share it with most secular philosophies, legal systems and cultures. Though customs around marriage vary between cultures and over time, there is remarkable consistency about these four dimensions of marriage:

  • that it unites people of opposite (but complementary) sex;
  • that this union is intended to be faithful (“to the exclusion of all others”);
  • that this union is potentially fruitful (“to have and to hold” each other as “man and wife” do and so open to children); and
  • that this union is final (“till death do us part”).

In almost every case, a fifth dimension has been that this union is regarded as sacred.

3. “It is all about love”

Over the last few decades, there have been some very real advances in appreciation of romance and intimacy in marriage, in respect for the dignity of women and children, in the sharing of lives and responsibilities between spouses and in the theology and pastoral care of marriages. Yet, even as our understanding of relationships has been enriched in these ways, modernity has found itself in a mess about marriage.

In just a few decades, we have moved from a situation where almost everyone in the West got married and stayed married to one where most people of marriageable age are not married: they live singly or in a series of more temporary relationships. Eventually one of these relationships may settle into being a sort of de facto marriage. At some point, perhaps when a couple are thinking of having children, they may decide to solemnize it. But after years of try-before-you-buy and habitual non-commitment, many find they cannot sustain actual marriages once entered. Some try again – and fail again. Many eschew child-bearing altogether; some want children but in limited numbers, later in life, after achieving other goals. Many children now grow up without ever experiencing the love and care of a mother and father committed to each other and to them over the long haul; that makes them in turn less likely to aspire to and achieve stable marriage themselves. We all know and love people who have suffered from family breakdown; every serious social scientist and thoughtful economist understands the costs of this. Theories abound about the whys and wherefores of all this, but the what is undeniable: never before in history have we been so unsuccessful at marrying.

If we are not as good at entertaining and sustaining marriages as we were in the past, it is surely significantly because we are at least ambivalent about the defining dimensions of marriage as faithful, fruitful and final. So too the notion of marriage as a sacred act has been abandoned by many. And now another dimension, the sexual complementarity of marriage – the very thing which points beyond the union itself towards family life – is also being questioned. All that may be left at the end of this half-century-long unpicking of marriage will be an emotional-sexual bond that places the wishes of adults for long-lived intimacy above all else.

Some will say: no problem. Marriage in their eyes is merely a very flexible label for an institution with no intrinsic meaning; like Humpty Dumpty, they think a word like “marriage” means precisely whatever they want it to mean. Five of the nine judges in the recent United States Supreme Court case said as much: marriage is constantly evolving and merely a matter of self-identification and social convention.

Reflecting such a “marriage is what you make it” approach, there have been many experiments in recent years. In 2004 the French President approved Christelle Demichel’s “wedding” to her deceased boyfriend, a policeman killed two years earlier by a drunk driver. About ten posthumous marriages are now registered each year in France. In the same year a former soldier, Erika La Tour, fell in love with the Eiffel Tower and, after a “wedding” ceremony, took Eiffel as her surname. The French experiments continue: in 2013 the mayor of Saint-Jean-de-Fos conducted the “wedding” of a woman to a mediaeval bridge – the menacingly-named Pont du Diable in Ceret. But before leaping to conclusions about the French, take note that the “bride” – Jodi Rose – was an Australian!

Meanwhile, across the Atlantic, in 2009 Amy Wolfe Weber announced that she was to “marry” a rollercoaster ride. In 2012 a Seattle woman, Baylonia Aivaz, was “wed” to a building set for demolition; she called it a “gay marriage” because she believed the building had a feminine personality. The following year Florida woman, Linda Ducharme, took a more masculine ferris wheel for her husband; the Catholic priest who performed the ceremony has since left the priesthood. This year Yasimin Eleby of Houston, having failed to find a husband by age 40, decided to “marry” herself in a ceremony conducted by three ministers of religion.

Lest you be tempted to think “only in America,” I could point to cases of people purporting to marry themselves in Britain, China, Holland and Australia; or trying to wed dead people, buildings, vehicles and other inanimate objects, virtual ones or non-human creatures. In 2010, for instance, a young Toowoomba man, Joseph Guiso, took part in an emotional wedding ceremony with his labrador in the presence of family and friends. In 2010 the Daily Telegraph reported that a Korean man had married his pillow.

It goes without saying that some of these people should be seeing a doctor rather than a wedding celebrant, and that there is much more to a marriage than a wedding ceremony. Clearly, lines can be drawn between marrying persons and marrying objects. But the hyper-emotionalised approach to marriage finds some of these developments hard to resist. In the United States, for instance, there is now a campaign for legalized polyamory. The National Geographic channel recently ran a sympathetic series on polygamy in America, Cambridge University Press in the United States published a book In Defense of Plural Marriage and only this week the New York Times ran a sympathetic op-ed piece entitled, “Is Polygamy Next?”

The “throuple” is fashionable at present: three people purporting to marry each other at once. In 2013 a lesbian threesome made international headlines: two had already married each other under the Massachusetts SSM law but now a third joined their union, solemnized by a minister of religion and regularised by a complex civil arrangement; with the help of artificial insemination their baby will have three mothers but no known father. Earlier this year a Thai “gay” threesome made similar headlines after being married by a Buddhist priest: “Love is love, after all,” they said. Most recently, a bi-sexual severally-married Los Angeles throuple made headlines as they told of their bedroom antics and resulting children.

My point in raising these aberrations in contemporary conjugality is not to equate them with SSM – not at all. It is, rather, to point out that what most SSM advocates and most SSM opponents have in common is a view that these are not marriages. “All you need is love” really isn’t enough. And if we agree on that, then we agree that we need some concept of what marriage is, what its ends, limits and scope are.

4. “It is all about the numbers”

The intensification of the campaign to redefine marriage to include SSMs has been due to a number of factors, including:
populist factors – opinion polls suggesting between 60% and 72% of Australians favour change;

  • party political factors – the wedge politics within the major political parties has been as important as that between them;
  • commercial factors – the decision by major corporates to throw big bucks at the campaign, as happened in Ireland;
  • cultural factors – “Anglos” and a few Latin nations seem especially interested in SSM; and
  • international factors – in particular, developments in Ireland and the United States.

It has been argued by SSM advocates that “conservative Catholic” Ireland’s overwhelming vote in favour of SSM proves the tide of history has decisively turned and everyone should now get on board. But hold on … First, it is hard to recall when progressives last asserted that we should follow Ireland’s legislative lead: would they also favour its rather restrictive abortion and divorce regimes? Would we normally follow the polling result of a country whose total population is smaller than Sydney’s? Secondly, how “conservative” and “Catholic” Ireland really is today is a complex matter, as that country has experienced rapid secularization following entry into the European Union and the clergy abuse crisis; the factors favouring social change in Ireland may make the “if it can happen in Ireland, it will happen everywhere” line dubious. Thirdly, just how overwhelming was support for this measure in Ireland? While it’s true that 62% of those who voted, voted in favour, what is rarely mentioned is that only 60% of voters turned out for the poll: whatever those low polling numbers indicate, barely more than a third – only 36% – of eligible voters actually voted for legalising SSM in that country. Fourthly, if even 100% of voters thought that only Catholics can marry or that Irish people can marry their whiskey bottles that surely wouldn’t settle the matter: we would still have to ask What is marriage?

The United States Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which found a right to SSM hidden in the U.S. Constitution’s due process and equal protection clauses, is also said to be a pointer for us. Again I wonder … First, because instead of citizens or MPs making this law, an unelected elite of nine judges did so; that is not the way Australians, at least, like to decide such important matters. Indeed, the most recent polls suggest more Americans now oppose the court’s decision than support it and that support for SSM has declined as a result of the Supreme Court’s flouting of democracy. As Chief Justice Roberts put it in his dissenting opinion:
“This Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be … Today, however, the Court takes the extraordinary step of ordering every State to license and recognize same-sex marriage … The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent … As a result, the Court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the States and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthaginians and the Aztecs. Just who do we think we are?”

What is more, only the barest majority – five out of the nine judges – favoured overturning the definition of marriage in most American states. Of course, the Supreme Court majority might be more enlightened than the citizens and legislators of those states, but it has not always been so: that same court long defended slavery, minimal worker protection and racial segregation, and still supports the death penalty, negligible gun control and abortion on demand, even when a majority of citizens have inclined to a more enlightened view. The legal arguments in the majority judgment are in fact so weak that it embarrasses some SSM advocates.

We might also ask why the few countries favouring SSM, rather than the vast majority of nations not tilting in that direction, get all the airtime. Senator Eric Abetz recently observed that the Austrian legislature’s overwhelming vote against SSM (110 MPs to 26) went more or less unreported in Australia, while prominence was given to the “YES” vote on Pitcairn Island – a country with a population of 48! Far from being some sort of outlier, Australia’s current marriage law reflects international law and the laws of the overwhelming majority of nations (172 of the United Nations’ 193 members).

5. “It does not affect me”

Some people would say: this does not really affect me. Governments can decide who is married civilly and Churches who is married religiously. Just as secular marriage does not endanger religious marriage, so SSM will not undermine opposite-sex marriage. It is really no big deal, so why don’t believers just zip it?

Well, first, because Catholics and other Christians are not members of a cult, living in some closed-bracketed community quarantined from the rest of corrupt humanity. Our ability to live marriage well is itself much affected by whether there is a healthy marriage culture around us. As marriage has been unpicked in various ways over the past few decades, Catholics and other believers have not been immune to the effects.

What is more, our vocation is to be in and for the world, like leaven helping it rise up to God. As the Second Vatican Council famously said, “The joys and hopes, griefs and anxieties of the people of this age are joys, hopes, griefs and anxieties of the followers of Christ.” Because such things as marriage matter so much to ordinary people, they must matter to the Church. At a time when so many people are so confused about marriage, when many are afraid or uninspired to marry at all, or find sustaining a marriage difficult, or grow up without ever knowing a stable marriage-based family, this would be the worst time for Christians to silent about marriage. With humility and compassion, never hatred or holier-than-thou-ness, we must propose true marriage not just for our sake but for everyone’s.

For all the “no big deal” talk, marriage is in fact “a big deal” – something very precious and worth preserving. When men and women get together in this particular way, even people with not much faith, they almost always surround it with ceremony because they know something-bigger-than-ordinary-life is going on here and want Someone-bigger-than-ordinary-people to bless it. They understand that there is a mystery at stake that is deeper and hopefully more enduring than passing emotions and fading passions. By a strange natural and supernatural mathematics, the one plus one that makes two in an ordinary couple makes one in a married couple: for individually men and women are sexually and reproductively incomplete; only by uniting “as one flesh” do they become complete in this respect. That one-flesh union consummates their promises and brings children into the world.

Of course, some marriages are infertile; most marital acts are so. Everyone has always known this too, but the point was that for every marriage that does bring a child into the world, that child has a Mum and a Dad. So one plus one equals two for a courting couple, but by vows and one-flesh union then makes one; then as a result of that one-flesh “marital” union uniquely suited for life-making, their one plus one may makes three and maybe four and more …

Thirdly, I have argued that knowing what real marriage is, we will understand why it is not arbitrary or discriminatory to regulate and support it in various ways. What is unjust and untruthful is to say in our laws that there is nothing distinctive about male and female, husband and wife, father and mother, or nothing important about bringing the two halves of humanity together in marriage. It is unjust to children to say having a Mum and a Dad should not matter. It is discriminatory towards those already married or who would like in future truly to marry to redefine marriage in a way that reduces it to emotions and sex.

Advocates of SSM claim that those who favour opposite-sex marriage will be unaffected by this change and that any legislation will include religious “exemptions.” Yet that already frames religious liberty as toleration by an enlightened majority of an eccentric minority. What is more, some Greens MPs have opposed any such provisions for religious bodies or openly admitted that any exemptions will be temporary, just to get SSM laws across the line. Everywhere SSM has been legalised people have been vilified, denied business or employment, even prosecuted for not cooperating in SSMs. Ministers of religion may be protected, but that is a tiny proportion of believers. Christian colleges and wedding venues have been obliged to accommodate same-sex couples. Catholic adoption agencies have been forced to place children with same-sex couples or close. Christian employers have been required to extend spousal benefits to “same-sex spouses.” Health professionals have been punished for denying artificial insemination (AI) or IVF to “same-sex spouses.” Teachers have been required to teach and parents forced to put their children in classes that promote SSM and homosexual activity. Further examples of harassment and discrimination in the name of this latest political correctness abound. Several of the judges in the recent United States Supreme Court case admitted religious liberty was seriously at risk.

Lest we imagine that the Australian SSM movement would be uniquely tolerant of those with a different view, consider the case of the Deputy Chief Psychiatrist of Victoria who in 2012 was forced to resign his position on that state’s Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. His crime: he had told a Senate Inquiry that children do better on average with a Mum and Dad rather than being in a single or same-sex parent family. 

People hosting or speaking at an Australian Christian Lobby conference on marriage last year were subjected to such intimidation and vilification – including being labelled as Ku Klux Klan and neo-Nazis – that some speakers stayed away. Recently the SSM lobby in Tasmania has threatened the Catholic Archbishop with an anti-discrimination suit merely for distributing the bishops’ pastoral letter on the subject. Without doubt the legalisation of SSM would seriously threaten religious liberty in this country.

Fifthly, I think we should resist encroachments by government into the private sphere. We do not want politicians or bureaucrats telling us who we should love or how or for how long or who we should have sex with. The only friendship governments and bureaucrats properly get involved in is opposite-sex marriage because it is the nursery of the next generation and so dramatically affects the community’s future.

Finally, most advocates of SSM say they simply want what others have got – stripped of unnecessary elements such as sexual-reproductive complementarity and orientation to children, and then re-mythologized as romance aspiring to longevity, celebrated with public ceremonial and given legal recognition. But I have here argued that to admit SSM would not be to broaden the group of those to whom marriage is open, but rather to change altogether what it is we call marriage; that this is not the further evolution of marriage but its further hollowing out – not liberation of that institution from the confines of religion and prejudice so much as deconstruction of that institution. Ironically, in trying to widen the pool of those who have access to it civilly, we actually deny everyone a chance at the real thing.

Conclusion: Be not afraid

The push to redefine marriage in Australia is not the fait accompli some think it is and those who resist it are not all bigots without reasons to offer as some suggest. Too much of the supposed “debate” over the issue so far in Australia has been slogans, emotional spin and almost unprecedented public bullying of opponents. The real debate has hardly begun and we should resist being railroaded into this social change too quickly. That said, I must confess some admiration of the highly motivated and well organised minority who have so effectively used the media, corporations and law to press this change on the general public. I only wish that the “silent majority” of Australians, who enjoy the benefits of real marriage, would stand up for that institution with a similar passion and effectiveness.

Some think the way to sure up all friendships is to treat them as marriages. Perhaps this is because modernity has forgotten how to love. That sounds odd in a culture saturated with love songs and talk of “making love.” Yet the most common “How to?” and “What is?” questions asked of the Google search engines are “How to love?” and “What is love?” Modernity struggles with any kind of love that goes beyond feelings and intimacy: the cross-shaped, self-giving, Easter Day sort of loving rather than the heart-shaped, self-pleasing, Valentine’s Day sort of loving. I believe that the SSM debate highlights the crucial importance of recovering healthy non-marital friendships – self-giving, other-directed, generous and chaste.

We must learn again the arts of loving. These habits of heart that are no monopoly of the married, but the truly married are models for the rest of us of persevering in loving despite radical differences, of commitment and self-sacrifice for the sake not just of personal or even mutual goals but of yet-to-be-met children and a yet-unknown future society.

When Homosexuality Met Feminism

I can understand why people just give and support the homosexual lobby and their demands.

They are playing the long game and and its wearisome. The Marxists refer to it as “the long march through the institutions of power” and it’s really beginning to pay off and homosexuality is legally deemed the equivalent of marriage and feelings about “gender” become the same thing as biological sex.

The long march through the education system has led to radical social change instituted through government and the legal system.

Now, the Judeo-Christian foundations of our nations are being increasingly substituted with moral relativism and we are at the point where there are enough people in academia to back any claim, no matter how ridiculous or contradictory.

Organisations like Australia’s tax-payer funded news and media organisation, The ABC, are filled with individuals and groups who wholeheartedly agree with this radical Marxist doctrine of social upheaval.

At every opportunity, they post stories and commentary that gives a voice to minority groups like the LGBT community as though they were in fact a significant majority of the population.

They are so blatantly onesided and bold in their distortion of truth than reading their ongoing propaganda can be draining and intimidating, especially when presented through disturbingly biased and manipulative formats such as their “Fact Check” articles.

Their most recent claim is that after a rigorously honest look at the facts, there can be no doubt that homosexual parents are equally as effective as parents in comparison with the biological mother and father of a child.

They tell us these are the facts so this must be the last word on the matter, right?

Should we even bother to try and rebut this anymore? Certainly we should and I will continue to but not here. Many others do a splendid job of that elsewhere.

This stems to the fight between worldviews so it’s better to go straight to the root.

Simply, humanism’s antichrist foundation hates the creator but like the creation and it consequently crosses itself in paradox as it tries to keep its cake and eat it too.

Humanism’s worship of science as the only means to know anything crashes headlong into its postmodern deconstruction of known reality into a buffet of relativity, producing an affirmation and celebration of homosexuality over and against the biological impotence of homosexuality.

And that’s just where the rabbit hole begins…

Consider humanism’s massive contradiction of homosexual marriage and parenting in light of feminism.

The claim that two men can parent a child as well as the biological mother and father leaves a dent in the central tenant of the feminist ideology, which claims women are not only equal to men but must necessarily participate in every level of society to achieve equality.

Apparently that does not extend to marriage and child-rearing where women aren’t actually required at all because, as the religiously humanist ABC attests, two men can do the same job.

So which is it? 

If you are willing to deny the sacred bond between mother and child and say that dad and his male partner offer exactly the same thing, then the logical implication is that men could do the same job in something so trivial as a company or in government and so women aren’t needed there after all…especially after all that complaining about women’s rights and equality.

It all becomes very confusing when you add in “gender”, which means that if you feel like a woman and “identify” as one, then you are one even if you have a penis and testicles.

Would feminists be happy with a company full of people who identify as “women” who all happen to have penises? Or if the government was full of these same penis-equipped “women”?

Feminism seems to rely pretty heavily on a fixed conception of women being women, even though it deconstructs the role of women. Gender, on the other hand, goes super-postmodern and deconstructs the idea of “women” into a feeling and a choice. 

Even if we stick to simple, clearly defined identities based on the archaic idea of different yet compatible biological sexes, can a mother ever teach a son how to be a man and fulfil the desire of a son to have relationship with his father? Can a father do this for his daughter?

If a woman identifies as a man and is in a lesbian relationship, can she teach her son how to love and respect women and how to stand against the natural tendency of men towards either passivity, aggression, and often both?

Is it fair to say that there are actually concrete differences between men and women and that men can’t identify with some things women experience and vice versa?

Or do I, as a man, have the right to talk to women about their periods, their pregnancies, their emotions, their longings, and their weaknesses as though I am a woman because I identify as a woman?

Back to the topic of marriage and raising children, what if there were people out there who refused to identify dangerous lifestyles as dangerous? What if instead, they identified the proven standard of history – a husband and wife for life – as just one inconsequential option among many choices and combinations? 

What if, because of this crazy deconstruction of society through relativism, the vast majority became subject to the insignificant minority, even against the best interests of society as a whole?

And what if, no matter how you identify things, you will one day be accountable for what actually is, not what you feel or want or wish?

This post didn’t end up where I thought it would – just writing about this stuff seems to do that so imagine, if you can, where a society that practises all this will end?

Transgender: Yet Another Avenue To Sexualize and Exploit Children

Children always become the victims of society’s sin. Whether it’s caught in the crossfire of divorce, murdered in the womb, or groomed for sexual exploitation, humanity has a way of drawing the most vulnerable into our web of wickedness.

One of the latest trends in the ever-evolving sexualisation of children through the media is the fixation on “transgender children”. It’s the same game, just in the advanced stages and it ends the same way: adults using children for their sinful ends.

These children are now the “proof” that we all needed regarding the philosophical concept of transgender: namely, if you feel it, then it is true.

Consider these two important articles about this madness as they articulate just what kind of damage is heading the way of our children:

Media’s New Mania: Transfixed by Transgender

By Katie Yoder | September 3, 2013 | 2:45 PM EDT

Back to school is an exciting time of year – new classmates, new subjects, new books, new gender and a new court-invented right to use the boys or girls room, depending on how you currently “identify.”

Welcome to the brave new world of “the next civil-rights struggle.” From a California law decreeing that any student has the right to use any gender-specific restroom and play on any gender-specific sports team he or she (or she or he) wants, biology be d**ned, to LGBT activists counseling network honchos on more sensitive TV portrayals, transgender is all the rage among liberals and media types.

The campaign to normalize gender confusion relies on emotional appeal. The media present “adorable” “transgender” 6-year-olds or teen couples who transitioned genders together. Or, for a child still unsure of his or her gender, lefty sites like Huffington Post and Slate enthusiastically recommend transgender children’s cartoons and transgender kid camps where little boys dress as “princesses.” It’s all part of the effort to “loosen the reins of gender expression,” as NPR put it.

At the adult level, CNN’s Anderson Cooper spoke with a transgender ex-SEAL “Warrior Princess” who advocated for transgender soldiers, while The Washington Post promoted “new hope” for transgender public bathroom use. The New York Times and the AP have decided to call convicted traitor Bradley Manning “Chelsea” (with all the matching pronouns) simply because he declared he wants to be a woman named Chelsea. 

And no effort to force the public to celebrate “alternative” sexualities would be complete without ABC, CBS, and NBC giving viewers stories of transgendered “normal” people leading “normal” lives – except for the “unique challenge” of transitioning into the opposite sex.

Downsides? Consequences? Differing opinions? Don’t be silly. The accounts of rallies defending marriage between one man and one woman are censored. The stories of entertainment media redefining the family don’t break into the mainstream.

As the same-sex marriage debate proved, the media ruthlessly shut down dissent when they find a pet cause.

The Focus on Children

It was that latched onto 6-year-old Coy Mathis – a boy pretending to be a girl who won a Colorado case to use the girls’ school bathroom – and declared it “the next civil-rights struggle.” The article even divulged why it was easy to take up Coy’s banner: “Part of the reason Coy’s story has so transfixed America – part of the reason she got an interview with Katie Couric – is that she is adorable.” Meaning that androgyny is easier to pull off in grade school. 

The International Business Times and The New York Times, presumably also taken with Coy’s lack of 5 o-clock shadow, accused Mathis’ school of “discrimination.” Buzzfeed hailed the “victory.” Several other organizations picked up the report, from The Huffington Post to CNN. ABC, CBS, and NBC acknowledged Mathis – but only online.

In a similar case, liberal Washington Post columnist Petula Dvorak has been hyping 6-year-old Tyler (once a Kathryn). Dvorak insisted Tyler was like any other little boy, claiming, “His home looks like a house with a son. Karate gear, soccer balls, cars, trucks and pirate swords abound. At school, he’s a boy. Plain and simple.” The New York Daily News tacked on, “he’s never been happier.”

Even the new royal baby failed escape the escalating trend as The Independent Journal Review noted (sarcastically) twelve tweeters who challenged his gender: “How imperialist of the royal parents to declare their child a ‘boy’ just because he has male genitalia?!” Unfortunately, the Tweeters weren’t being sarcastic.

Of course, if the future King senses he may be a princess (or queen), has helpfully pointed out transgender kid camps (and, for their elders, transgender centers) as a resource for “parents who don’t have a gender-confirming 3-year-old who wants to wear high heels and prefers to go down the pink aisle in K-Mart and not that nasty dark boys’ aisle.” While at camp, kids can take a break from bending their own genders to catch a transgender children’s cartoon where a boy transforms into a girl with superpowers in order to save the world.

Parents who are reluctant to let pre-pubescent children make decisions that will impact the rest of their lives can turn to HuffPost Live for a “Gender Myth Busting” session and the reassurance that “it’s only to children’s benefit to break down gender stereotypes.” Then it’s easy to parlay their “Princess Boys” into transgendered children’s books and fawning “Today” show interviews.

But it wasn’t just confused kids who got the “isn’t-that-adorable” treatment. The media could be counted on to ooh and ahh over transgender relationships, no matter how weird the story. Louis Davies and Jamie Eagle who made headlines for refusing to marry until the completion of their gender change surgeries. 

Arin Andrews and Katie Hill proposed an alternative model: a teen transgender couple sharing their transition together. wasn’t the only site to find them the “cutest couple ever.” The two of them were meant to be, according to “The Huffington Post,” and, “might seem like your typical young couple, but their love story is unlike many others.” The New York Daily News acknowledged the “teen lovebirds,” whilst The Daily Mail dubbed them “sex-change sweethearts.”

Networks Push Positivity

As they are wont to do, when ABC, NBC, and CBS news shows covered transgender from January to August they fell over themselves trying to sell its normality.

ABC squeezed out a report of 11-year-old Jazz, who confronted “a unique challenge,” during “Good Morning America” on Jan. 18, 2013. Barbara Walters reported on the boy-turned-girl and defined the condition, explaining, “being transgender is not a phase,” and even the parents knew “since she was very young.” Walters noted Jazz’s normal routine, from playing on a girls’ soccer team to using the girls’ bathroom. And of course there were Walters’ usual fluff questions: “What part of being transgender hurts you the most?”

From NBC came the second story. The “Today Show,” on May 3 reported on Jennifer Finney Boylan, a dad-turned-mom who composed a “poignant” memoir to commemorate his conversion to a woman. NBC’s Willie Geist noted how the “dramatic transition” transformed into a “unique journey.” He sympathized with Jennifer over the “fascinating story,” and assumed, “You obviously agonized over this. This was not easy for you but in the end you made the decision that you had to do this for who you were even if it risked your family.”

CBS joined the gang August 13 during the “Evening News with Scott Pelley” when California passed a bill requiring public schools (K-12th grade) to allow youth to select sports teams and bathrooms based on their chosen gender identity. News correspondent John Blackstone interviewed 18-year-old Logan Henderson, a she-turned-he, and sympathized, “It wasn’t easy” with Henderson’s bathroom situation but concluded, “You’re making the best of it.” To his credit, Blackstone also spoke with Brad Dacus, founder of the conservative Pacific Justice Institute for the rare media alternative opinion on concerns from wrestling teams to shower rooms.

The Media Absurd

You can tell a group has broken into the modern American mainstream – no matter how small its numbers or arcane its interests – when it becomes a grievance group or a market segment or both. Transgender has clearly achieved the first, all the more so since CBS execs huddled with GLAAD activists to discuss more positive portray transgenders. (The Netflix series “Orange is the New Black” includes a former fireman in doing time in a women’s prison). They achieved the second with a Time Magazine article on transgender product marketing.  

And then there’s Miss Universe 2013. The pageant altered the rules to allow the transgender contestants because, as Deadline put it, “Let’s face it: this could make ratings soar.” Miss USA’s first transgender contestant sent shockwaves through the media this year by “braving” the swimsuit round, while transgender competitors surfaced on “America’s Next Top Model” as well.

But The Struggle continues. To the chagrin of the Huffington Post, even President Obama failed to include transgender pre-teen rights during the special interest shout-out fest that was his second inaugural speech. CNN’s Anderson Cooper spoke with a transgender ex-SEAL “Warrior Princess” who stated that “there’s a lot of [transgender people] right now” in the military who should be allowed to live as they want. CNN Money went in a tizzy over the challenges for the unemployed transgendered. In June, the Washington Post and the AP uncovered the tyranny of the government’s insistence on rigid male-female categories, publishing a story on “‘outdated’ ID cards that tell the truth about the real gender, not the ‘transgender.’”

But there are some causes for encouragement, and they’re mostly in the public toilet. Back in 2008, The Washington Post hyped “new hope” for transgender men using the ladies’ bathroom, when a Maryland court blocked a ballot initiative and denying transgendered persons the right to choose which bathroom to use. More recently, a lefty blogger conference boasted gender-neutral restrooms and called for the transgender to be allowed to “pee in peace.”

Not to worry; the federal government is on the case. The Obama administration pressured a California school district to allow a transgender girl to access boys’ restrooms – and even sleeping quarters. There was also the $1.35 million grant to examine transgender U.S. military service.

The states and municipalities have been busy as well. New York claimed it’s first openly transgender politician running for city council. A new D.C. transgender law allows birth certificates to reflect an individual’s gender identity. Schools aren’t quite as happy with the transgender spread as they confront upcoming lawsuits and threats concerning bathroom rights in states such as Maine and Florida.

And California is leading the way. Lawmakers approved and California Governor Jerry Brown signed what named “historic” ( and “groundbreaking bill” (Huffington Post) forcing schools to acknowledge chosen genders. Leading up to the “breakthrough,” transgender high school junior Ashton Lee made the news for sending nearly 6,000 petition signatures to Governor Brown in support of the bill, in an effort “to bring equality and protection to transgender students,” according to the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD).

The law isn’t without critics. Dr. Michael Youssef, Ph.D. and founder of Leading the Way,suggested the mandates are child “brainwashing” in an email to CMI, writing, “This is an important issue that belongs in the home. And taking it away from the parents and placing it into the hands of the government is a giant leap into the abyss of child abuse.

“We need to pray for a spirit of repentance,” he explained, “to fall upon the lobbyists who are resorting to a new low by pushing their agenda on five-year-olds. For children who often don’t know who they are until their late teens, to give them a choice of whom to shower with is beyond the pale of human decency.”

Language Abuse

As with any liberal leftward social push, the first casualty is the English language. Accordingly,

the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorderschanged in May the definition of transgender to “gender dysphoria” and removed “gender identity disorder” from the mental health issues list. 

In August, when convicted traitor Bradley Manning announced he was now “Chelsea” and decreed that “starting today you refer to me by my new name and use the feminine pronoun,” The New York Times and the AP readily complied. Before he’d taken a hormone even bought a wig, the man behind the largest ever leak of classified U.S. military intelligence got two respected news organizations to abandon reality. In an email, an AP editor said the agency “will henceforth use Pvt. Chelsea E. Manning … in accordance with her wishes to live as a woman.”

At least that’s an understandable reaction when presented with an individual who insists he is a she. It gets weird when you start inventing language.

With a silliness that used to be confined to liberal arts graduate seminars, NPR recently noted the necessity to “loosen the reins of gender expression” and recommended “zee, zim, zer” instead of the outdated terminology “him” and “her. ”

But made-up language is all the rage on the gay left. Outlets like The Advocate labeled children and adults who identified with their actual biology as cisgender – or “non-trans.” As Basic Rights Oregon (BRO), explained, “Referring to cisgender people as ‘non trans’ implies that cisgender people are the default and that being trans is abnormal.” The BRO, formed as an organization “to sustain and strengthen Oregon’s LGBT rights movement.” But the language is creeping in from the fringe, gaining use at The Huffington Post and even TIME.

The Sylvia Rivera Law Project, a non-profit aiding trans communities, also suggested the term “gender galaxy” in “Trans 101,” highlighting, “One way to picture gender is as a gender galaxy – a space with an infinite number of gender points that can move and that are not hierarchically ordered.”

Brave New World

The normalization of transgender is probably a done-deal. The left has declared it a civil rights issue and the media – news and entertainment – have their marching orders. Fresh from their victory on same-sex marriage, they’ll employ the same tactics.

Trans characters will be turning up in your favorite sit-coms, and ribbons will appear on awards shows. Look forward to a parade of “Princess Boys,” Chelsea Mannings and Miss/Mr Universes, all with a poignant story and all scrambling to sort out their restroom accommodations.  


The Today Show’s article about a transgender child came up on my Facebook newsfeed once again.

This is the third time I have seen an article from The Today Show featuring children whom, they say, have realized they were born the wrong sex.

These children are 10 years and under. They have yet to hit puberty. Their minds, personalities and bodies are still maturing, and, therefore, we would not consider them adults.

Yet, these children have become the poster children for a sexually hungry and motivated media. They are Exhibit A for a liberal, sexual agenda.

The unnaturalness of same-sex marriage or transgender practices has become naturalized, and if they can prove that people are just born that way, starting with young children, then they believe they have their argument made.

What has resulted, I think, is an overt sexualization of children.

In an important but disturbing article, Katie Yoder makes the case that the media is transfixed on transgender children and its movement.

But the media is not just using children who express a desire to be the opposite sex or love the same sex for its agenda. (This is the first problem.) Those few elite personalities behind the media are trying to influence and change the way our children believe, think about and view sexuality as evidenced in the kinds of shows targeted to our children.

Just take a look at the shows playing on ABC Family, whose tagline is “A new kind of family.” Becoming Us is about an “ordinary” (note the use of this word) Midwestern boy named Ben whose father, after his parents’ divorce, is now transitioning into a woman. Or, how about Baby Daddy, which is about another main character named Ben, whose ex-girlfriend left their baby on his doorstep and who is now raising this child with two other single male adults. Then there’s The Fosters, which is about two lesbian women raising six children. They are described as a “close-knit, loving family.” I could list other popular shows aimed at our children, like “Glee,” that are hyper-sexualized and seem to blush at nothing.

In addition, the media is obsessed with Bruce-turned-Caitlyn Jenner since this popular, all-American athlete makes the perfect model and spokesperson for the transgender movement. (He also was recently awarded the Arthur Ashe Courage Award from ESPN).

I fully expect to see cartoons, video games, children books and movies reflecting these changing views of family and marriages. Already last week I saw a new Tylenol commercial that is trying to redefine conventional family by including scenes of both lesbian and gay couples with children using the hashtag, #HowWeDoFamily.

So where does this leave me as a parent, who believes traditional marriage is best for society and children and who doesn’t share the same views and sympathies as those shared in media?

I don’t have five suggested steps or three answers that will solve our problems. I’m simply sounding the alarm. For some, an alarmist is a bad thing. But for me, alarms have always saved my life – whether it was when my apartment burned down or when a tornado passed by our home. I am grateful for alarms.

I want to provide information and pose questions. As a former journalist, the best starting place is becoming knowledgeable. Knowledge truly is power.

I want to become vigilant and aware of how a minority is trying to change the views of the majority. I want to speak up where necessary and say “No” where needed, even if it isn’t a popular thing to do. Instead of watching Disney and Pixar movies on ABC Family (which has a ridiculous amount of commercials anyway), I can rent those movies. We lived for six months in England without a TV; it is possible (and wonderful!).

Most importantly I do not want to give the media any voice where it concerns my family, particularly my son.

I remember watching the show Friends in college, while my roommate’s favorite show was Will and Grace. We laughed and made excuses for the promiscuous hetero- and homo-sexual lifestyles. They won us over with comedy. It was just so funny. However, these shows, over time, can act like guitar strings on fingers, making us calloused.

But I see more clearly now that while these shows did not change my view of sexuality, over time it has played a part in changing our society’s views. Like a stream that over many years changes the appearance of mountains, the media over time has helped to change and bend hearts and minds to its will.

I don’t want to be ignorant. I want to be vigilant and prayerful. I pray that as my husband and I teach God’s view of sexuality, according to Scripture, to our son, that the Word of God and our feeble attempt will be a louder voice than that of the media.

Like King Solomon, I, too, will say to my son, “Do not forget my teaching, but keep my commands in your heart, for they will prolong your life many years and bring you peace and prosperity.” (Prov. 3:1-2)
Concerning the media and those who wish to pervert sexuality, I will tell him, “For the lips of the adulterous woman drip honey, and her speech is smoother than oil; but in the end she is bitter as gall, sharp as a double-edged sword. Her feet go down to death; her steps lead straight to the grave. She gives no thought to the way of life; her paths wander aimlessly, but she does not know it.” (Prov. 5:3-6)

I’ve heard seasoned Christians admit that documentaries on transgender children have changed their minds about the topic, documentaries that do all of the above of course. We are in days when even the elect are seemingly deceived.

I recently heard someone make the case that Christians too often lament the end of the modernist era with a fixated negativity on postmodernism and that this need not be the case. It’s trends like this that make me think “don’t be so hasty.”

Postmodernist deconstruction may have only just began to hit its stride so let’s not jump to any conclusions we might regret. After all, nobody thought there could be a repeat of the Great War and look how that turned out.

When a society cannot comprehend the plain and obvious sex of its members, or better yet invents new ones that have never existed before, trouble is brewing. As usual, children will suffer for it.

“And he said to his disciples, “Temptations to sin are sure to come, but woe to the one through whom they come! It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were cast into the sea than that he should cause one of these little ones to sin.” ‭‭Luke‬ ‭17:1-2‬ ‭ESV‬‬

“Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!” ‭‭Isaiah‬ ‭5:20‬ ‭ESV‬‬

Kevin DeYoung’s Questions For Christian Proponents Of Homosexuality Are Sadly Necessary

The Western church is in the furnace and we are beginning to see some serious dross burning.

Jesus was very clear that we are either with him or against him and no amount of postmodernising the Bible will make homosexuality, or any sexual sin for that matter, acceptable before God,who invented, defined and owns the patent on marriage, sex and sexuality.

And yet entire Christian denominations are seemingly collapsing under the social pressure of the agenda to rewrite sexual morality an abolish the family unit that God himself authored and established.

Hard questions need to be asked including why the Church is emoting its decisions based upon the prevailing postmodernist revision of truth rather than thinking carefully about and trusting the words of truth spoken plainly by God and recorded in the biblical scriptures?

Kevin DeYoung’s recent article is the beginning of a list of hard questions that every Christian ought to know the correct and biblically sound answers to:

For evangelicals who lament last Friday’s Supreme Court decision, it’s been a hard few days. We aren’t asking for emotional pity, nor do I suspect many people are eager to give us any. Our pain is not sacred. Making legal and theological decisions based on what makes people feel better is part of what got us into this mess in the first place. Nevertheless, it still hurts.

There are many reasons for our lamentation, from fear that religious liberties will be taken away to worries about social ostracism and cultural marginalization. But of all the things that grieve us, perhaps what’s been most difficult is seeing some of our friends, some of our family members, and some of the folks we’ve sat next to in church giving their hearty “Amen” to a practice we still think is a sin and a decision we think is bad for our country. It’s one thing for the whole nation to throw a party we can’t in good conscience attend. It’s quite another to look around for friendly faces to remind us we’re not alone and then find that they are out there jamming on the dance floor. We thought the rainbow was God’s sign (Gen. 9:8-17).

If you consider yourself a Bible-believing Christian, a follower of Jesus whose chief aim is to glorify God and enjoy him forever, there are important questions I hope you will consider before picking up your flag and cheering on the sexual revolution. These questions aren’t meant to be snarky or merely rhetorical. They are sincere, if pointed, questions that I hope will cause my brothers and sisters with the new rainbow themed avatars to slow down and think about the flag you’re flying.

1. How long have you believed that gay marriage is something to be celebrated?

2. What Bible verses led you to change your mind?

3. How would you make a positive case from Scripture that sexual activity between two persons of the same sex is a blessing to be celebrated?

4. What verses would you use to show that a marriage between two persons of the same sex can adequately depict Christ and the church?

5. Do you think Jesus would have been okay with homosexual behavior between consenting adults in a committed relationship?

6. If so, why did he reassert the Genesis definition of marriage as being one man and one woman?

7. When Jesus spoke against porneia what sins do you think he was forbidding?

8. If some homosexual behavior is acceptable, how do you understand the sinful “exchange” Paul highlights in Romans 1?

9. Do you believe that passages like 1 Corinthians 6:9 and Revelation 21:8 teach that sexual immorality can keep you out of heaven?

10. What sexual sins do you think they were referring to?

11. As you think about the long history of the church and the near universal disapproval of same-sex sexual activity, what do you think you understand about the Bible that Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, and Luther failed to grasp?

12. What arguments would you use to explain to Christians in Africa, Asia, and South America that their understanding of homosexuality is biblically incorrect and your new understanding of homosexuality is not culturally conditioned?

13. Do you think Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were motivated by personal animus and bigotry when they, for almost all of their lives, defined marriage as a covenant relationship between one man and one woman?

14. Do you think children do best with a mother and a father?

15. If not, what research would you point to in support of that conclusion?

16. If yes, does the church or the state have any role to play in promoting or privileging the arrangement that puts children with a mom and a dad?

17. Does the end and purpose of marriage point to something more than an adult’s emotional and sexual fulfillment?

18. How would you define marriage?

19. Do you think close family members should be allowed to get married?

20. Should marriage be limited to only two people?

21. On what basis, if any, would you prevent consenting adults of any relation and of any number from getting married?

22. Should there be an age requirement in this country for obtaining a marriage license?

23. Does equality entail that anyone wanting to be married should be able to have any meaningful relationship defined as marriage?

24. If not, why not?

25. Should your brothers and sisters in Christ who disagree with homosexual practice be allowed to exercise their religious beliefs without fear of punishment, retribution, or coercion?

26. Will you speak up for your fellow Christians when their jobs, their accreditation, their reputation, and their freedoms are threatened because of this issue?

27. Will you speak out against shaming and bullying of all kinds, whether against gays and lesbians or against Evangelicals and Catholics?

28. Since the evangelical church has often failed to take unbiblical divorces and other sexual sins seriously, what steps will you take to ensure that gay marriages are healthy and accord with Scriptural principles?

29. Should gay couples in open relationships be subject to church discipline?

30. Is it a sin for LGBT persons to engage in sexual activity outside of marriage?

31. What will open and affirming churches do to speak prophetically against divorce, fornication, pornography, and adultery wherever they are found?

32. If “love wins,” how would you define love?

33. What verses would you use to establish that definition?

34. How should obedience to God’s commands shape our understanding of love?

35. Do you believe it is possible to love someone and disagree with important decisions they make?

36. If supporting gay marriage is a change for you, has anything else changed in your understanding of faith?

37. As an evangelical, how has your support for gay marriage helped you become more passionate about traditional evangelical distinctives like a focus on being born again, the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ on the cross, the total trustworthiness of the Bible, and the urgent need to evangelize the lost?

38. What open and affirming churches would you point to where people are being converted to orthodox Christianity, sinners are being warned of judgment and called to repentance, and missionaries are being sent out to plant churches among unreached peoples?

39. Do you hope to be more committed to the church, more committed to Christ, and more committed to the Scriptures in the years ahead?

40. When Paul at the end of Romans 1 rebukes “those who practice such things” and those who “give approval to those who practice them,” what sins do you think he has in mind?

Food for thought, I hope. At the very least, something to chew on before swallowing everything the world and Facebook put on our plate.

So being a Christian will now begin to cost us some of what it has cost many throughout history.

And Jesus is worth infinitely more than being socially included.

Time to let people know we actually believe that by standing in God’s truth with love.