4 Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage


This week I came across a comment under an item in The Spectator in which a young man declared that he had never read an argument against same-sex marriage.

I believe him. Although the media refers to a “same-sex marriage debate” no such debate has happened. Serious scholars and intellectuals that oppose same-sex marriage (and there are many) have hardly been given equal airtime compared to advocates. In fact, in my country, the state sponsored media usually find a token bigot to speak against same-sex marriage, typically a middle-aged redneck. In contrast, the same-sex marriage position is advanced by attractive, educated and erudite people.

It is the oldest trick in the book. At risk of committing a reductio ad Hitlerum, Streicher was a master at portraying all Jews as fat, sly, big nosed, sleazy and dirty. He understood that associations can be learned. The terminally uncritical people that comprise our society are exactly the sort of person most easily manipulated by such presentation.

The arguments for same-sex marriage are weak. They can be exploded with very little imagination or effort. The arguments  made on its behalf are mostly appeals to emotion, and to consensus. Since movie stars and rock singers have made this their cause célèbre, it naturally follows that anyone who is enlightened and sophisticated will also embrace the position. Sometimes their arguments go to tragic extremes. Same-sex marriage is frequently equated to the liberation of slaves or giving the franchise to women.

But, people sometimes ask, what arguments are there against same-sex marriage?

Arguments against something require more effort and energy than peppy slogans – “Love is love!”. They require people to listen for longer than the 15 second attention span that news companies assume of their audiences. Worse, arguing against same-sex marriage is a form of opposition to a popular revolution. Like all revolutions, same-sex marriage is driven by grievances, resentments, fears, and the thrill of “freedom” and removal of restraint. All revolutionaries have enjoyed this mixture of controlled anarchy. The untying of old restraints while paradoxically exerting power to forge new ones.

Nonetheless, here I present a number of arguments that I believe are serious responses to the arguments of same-sex marriage advocates. They are not enumerated according to strength or importance and there is more arguments I could have included.

#1. Same-sex marriage deviates from history

Throughout history there is no evidence anywhere that any human culture ever practised same-sex marriage as a valid institution. Conversely, the humanity of the whole world – in places both remote and populated; in deep jungles and tropical islands as well as urban centres – have all developed a concept of marriage reflecting natural law.

Some cultures have demonstrated little technological development, such as the Australian Aboriginal culture, but nonetheless developed complex kinship laws across a staggering range of tribes and languages. It is a remarkable cultural achievement for an oral society, and indicates the historic importance human experience has always attributed to pairing, children, and the orderly management of relationships.

Marriage has obviously differed in different places and times. Some societies have practised the taking of multiple wives by a man. In more rare circumstances, (and always under economic and environmental pressures), some societies have allowed polyandry, where multiple men are married to one woman. This is usually intended to prevent the breakup of a small parcel of land to the new families that would result from normative monogamous marriages. Other societies have permitted concubinage.

Obviously these are sub-optimal forms of marriage, but the one thing that marks them all, is that they follow the natural law: men marry women; women marry men

A culture must greatly despise history and the wisdom of their forebears to lightly brush such a brute fact aside. Humanity, in all of its varied cultural experiences over many millennia has found that marriage is a form of union that exists between men and women.

In all cultures, its principal object concerns the succeeding generation, and its secondary effect is to create harmony and stability within societies and between families. Indeed, even something as alien as polyandry exists primarily as a social remedy to stabilise a family’s future.

Some historians have gone to great lengths to try to challenge this reality. Their arguments end up being perverse. They refer to Nero, a moral exemplar to be sure, “marrying” a boy he castrated who was meant to take the place of a teenage girl he had killed. Alternatively, they reference the various satiric references to “marriage” between homosexual men in ancient Rome. Yet, these “marriages” never had the force of law, and activist historians seem strangely averse to discussing the attendant, virulent, and disgusting pederastic culture of both ancient Rome and ancient Greece.

Ancient Rome practised sexual anarchy and perversion on a scale that even same-sex advocates do not approach. The consequences were grotesque. The abuse and misuse of slaves, children, women, and even criminals was utterly deplorable. To use such a society as a justification, or even as a model, for what marriage ought to be is deranged.

When something has no historical warrant, this must raise important questions. Chief among them would be: why have societies never done this before?

#2. Same-sex marriage is sterile, destroys family and genetic trees, and turns children into products

In same-sex marriages the natural issue of children is an impossibility.

Two men, or two women, who are exclusive to their sexual partner, and who claim to have no orientation or desire for the opposite gender, are sterile. By definition. Their relationship cannot yield children. It is an infertile coupling.

The only way they can have children is with the help of a male donor (for lesbians) or the hire of a female womb and egg (by gay men). In both cases, the child becomes a transferable product who must be separated from a biological parent. This represents one of the cruellest consequences of same-sex marriage ideology. By design – not by natural accident or due to a physical disorder – but by design, a child is removed from one of their own parents.

They are then placed in a situation where they are told they have “two daddies” or “two mummies”. A child does not need to be very old before they realise this is an impossibility. Thus, one of their “daddies” or “mummies” will have a primacy the other does not, because one – and only one – actually contributed the genetic material that has been subsumed into the physical, spiritual, emotional, and psychological complex of the new human person. The children can see a biological similarity to themselves in only one parent. Never in the other.

When this happens in a heterosexual situation – whenever children are not raised by their biological parents – we regard it as tragic.

Single mothers who bear children to multiple fathers are regarded with contempt, even by a morally degraded society. It is understood even within the social sciences as a sub-optimal arrangement.  Adoption exists as a result of trauma and tragedy, for no child is given up for adoption unless one of these things has occurred. Blended families, with “steps” are always the result of divorce or the death of a previous partner, and therefore involve heartbreak for the children as well as parents. Even infertile partners who cannot conceive and seek surrogate wombs or laboratory assistance are regarded with pity and compassion. They are fortunately in the minority among heterosexual relationships.

Note that what is regarded as tragic, aberrant, sad, or dysfunctional in heterosexual unions, is the normative course for homosexual ones. Homosexual relationships can only “bear children” through the routes and avenues that are seen as lamentable in heterosexual relationships.

There will be long-term consequences for this because it causes the concept of the family tree to disintegrate, and makes kin relationships between people utterly arbitrary. For instance, how many grandparents does a child raised by gay men actually have? Does the child have four, or six? Do the parents of the surrogate mother count as true grandparents? What about the parents of the sperm donor? Is it possible for a situation to arise in a society where people who are directly genetically related to another person may not be identified or acknowledged as a relation? And what of uncles and aunts? Cousins and nieces? What about inheritance? What of the children whose biological grandparents of the biological parent they never saw, decease and leave a legacy?

The concept of family as a kinship network with intricate economic, genetic, and relational linkages ceases to exist. This has severe ramifications for children who may develop medical conditions that require knowledge of kinship. I expect to see, in the future, adults raised by same-sex couples seeking for genetic relations to provide compatible organ donors, or trying to find whether particular medical conditions run in the family. To do this they would be forced to rely on natural law after all, because the construction of a true family tree always reflects the biological realities of nature. Same-sex marriage pretends that biological realities are non-existent. It transposes an invented family tree.

For those who object that all of these problems could exist in “messy” heterosexual families, I would agree. Adopted children may find it just as hard to seek out a medical history. The children of a mother whose relationships are transitory may never know who their father or grandparents really are. The key difference, however, is that when these situations arise in heterosexual relationships, it is either unavoidable or the result of clearly identified moral and relationship irresponsibility. When it happens in same-sex partnerships, it is by design. It is on purpose.

#3. The philosophy that allows same-sex marriage must logically allow everything else

Slippery slope fallacy,” shout same-sex marriage activists dismissively, “next you will be telling us that same-sex marriage will lead to polygamy!

This is to misunderstand the slippery slope fallacy – and the fact that slippery slope arguments are not always fallacious; after all, if you are standing on the very edge of a real slippery slope and someone pushes you over, the resulting puree of human remains was definitely foreseeable in advance.

Moreover, this dismissive charge is to be ignorant of history. Twenty years ago we were told that civil partnerships between same-sex partners was the simple granting of property rights to a disenfranchised group: “After all, it’s not as though they are going to be getting married in churches!” At the time, there were indeed people who saw the logical and necessary translation of civil partnerships into marriage. They were derided for mounting slippery slope arguments. Yet their argument has proven precisely prescient, which means that this is not a fallacy.

I have tirelessly attempted to explain to same-sex marriage advocates that a slippery slope fallacy (as distinguished from argument) is an attempt to prove that something will inevitably follow something else without establishing strong causal links (X = Y = Z). For instance, as I read in the Guardian this morning, it was opined that electing Trump as President means the United States is now going to become worse than North Korea. This is a slippery slope fallacy. There is no warrant given at all to why one event must inevitably lead to another.

To return to the argument. The philosophy that drives same-sex marriage effectively dissolves marriage as a meaningful institution, at least, it does if the philosophy is consistently applied. I suspect, however, that it will be only arbitrarily applied for the time being.

If there is nothing special about the gender of people being married, then why is there something special about the number two? If gender must be eliminated from the definition of marriage to include homosexuals, why do homosexual desires get preference over polygamist desires? Or close-kin desires?

Surely this is both arbitrary and discriminatory. After all, if love is love, then Mormon fundamentalists and Muslims in loving, traditional, Islamic-approved plural marriages should be able to access the institution as well. Why should their love be less honoured and less validated than the love of homosexual people?

It’s a matter of rights. Polygamists have been discriminated against, persecuted, and even killed – as in Utah during the early years of the Mormon sect. Yet polygamy has a rich history, and is even entwined into the religion of 1.6 billion people. Don’t these people have rights too? Don’t they deserve marriage equality?

Here we see that the very same arguments for same-sex marriage apply equally to virtually any coupling, relational model, or sexual orientation imaginable. This is an indisputable philosophic fact, and represents the most powerful answer to same-sex marriage opponents. After debating this issue intensely for a long time, I have never received a single meaningful answer to this conundrum, although I have received some spectacularly angry and hostile responses that have verged on tantrums.

Same-sex marriage is entirely predicated on a concept of individual rights, and the unproven assumption that homosexual people are “born that way” and would be otherwise denied love and family. It is a matter of fairness, we are told. It is a matter of civil liberties. It is a matter of including a marginalised portion of the society.

But polygamists and every other off-the-beaten-path sexual group similarly claim to have orientations as well. It is natural for them, they say. These people claim that as they are in loving, voluntary relationships they cannot understand what threat it poses to society for them to be married as well. Indeed, there is a sizeable polygamist community where women enunciate the benefits of their relationship with every bit as much passion as that of homosexual activists.

If “love is love“, and there is no material or substantive difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals – if it is all a matter of rights, freedoms and individual liberties – then there is no foundation for stopping the marriage train at some arbitrarily decided point.

Think about it for a moment. Under the philosophic framework that advances same-sex marriage, what possible valid arguments exist against, say, polygamy, or step-sisters and step-brothers marrying? Why do the arguments of homosexual activists not apply to these situations at well? What possible valid argument under this framework can be given so as not to extend marriage to polygamists, for instance?

Ironically the only way to stop the envelope expanding is for same-sex marriage advocates to appeal to the arguments made by true marriage proponents, the very same arguments that they claim to have invalidated. Needless to say, if you a forced to contort in such intellectual gyrations, the basic irrationality of the position is clearly revealed.

#4. The unhappiness of children of same-sex partners

There is no equivalent to be found among children of heterosexual parents. In recent years, children of same-sex partners have actively opposed same-sex marriage. As the children of same-sex partners increasingly grow to adulthood, I suspect we shall see more of this.

These children – now grown up – have sought to participate in same-sex marriage debates (in opposition), and have written open letters. Articles have been published.

While often acknowledging that they were raised lovingly by same-sex partners, these children often feel an inexpressible sense of sorrow and emptiness. Maturity leads them to conclude that it was being deprived of one of their biological parents. They talk of longing for a mother who understood their trials as they grew up, or wishing for a father to lead them into manhood.

One of these children, a woman by the name of Heather Barwick, wrote the following for The Federalist. It is a typical example:

Growing up, and even into my 20s, I supported and advocated for gay marriage. It’s only with some time and distance from my childhood that I’m able to reflect on my experiences and recognize the long-term consequences that same-sex parenting had on me. And it’s only now, as I watch my children loving and being loved by their father each day, that I can see the beauty and wisdom in traditional marriage and parenting.

Same-sex marriage and parenting withholds either a mother or father from a child while telling him or her that it doesn’t matter. That it’s all the same. But it’s not. A lot of us, a lot of your kids, are hurting. My father’s absence created a huge hole in me, and I ached every day for a dad. I loved my mom’s partner, but another mom could never have replaced the father I lost.

I grew up surrounded by women who said they didn’t need or want a man. Yet, as a little girl, I so desperately wanted a daddy. It is a strange and confusing thing to walk around with this deep-down unquenchable ache for a father, for a man, in a community that says that men are unnecessary. There were times I felt so angry with my dad for not being there for me, and then times I felt angry with myself for even wanting a father to begin with. There are parts of me that still grieve over that loss today.

She goes on to explain that many grown-up children of same-sex marriages feel like they cannot be honest. Children of divorced parents, she says, have the freedom to express the unhappiness they felt with their situation but not children raised in same-sex marriages.

Some might argue that children of heterosexual marriages could say the same things if they were adopted or if there was a divorce and they were deprived in some way. I would respond that the objection itself is a false equivalence.

It’s a false equivalence for this reason:

Many of the people “going public” with their concerns were raised by same-sex partners in a loving, social, supportive and functional environments (functional in the sense of an absence of neglect, abuse, or poverty). Yet, as adults they have written open letters and articles like the one above.

But, how many times do you find the inverse? How often do children of functional, loving, supportive heterosexual marriages write articles and open letters in which they express a sense of loss or sadness as a result of being raised by two parents of opposite genders? You do not find children of happy heterosexual marriages actively opposed to heterosexual marriage. In fact, they are more likely to value marriage, not fight against it.

The best homosexual marriages raise children who often express sorrow at missing out on one of their biological parents. The best heterosexual marriages do not.

This suggests – all other things being equal – that children of homosexual partners are expressing concerns that need to be taken seriously. They feel deprived. Not deprived of love; or stability; or money; or peace; or support. Deprived of gender. In particular, deprived of the gender of one of their biological parents.

This suggests that the gender of parents is not irrelevant and not insignificant, at least not for many of the children of same-sex partners. In turn, this calls into question the bedrock of same-sex marriage philosophy which uses the Beatles’ Argument(TM), that all a child needs is love. Love, is all it needs. And if it gets love, then it does not really matter if they are raised by a village, or two dads, or two mums. If they are loved, nurtured and nourished then they will thrive and grow up to be happy adults.

Countless anecdotes from real children raised in same-sex marriages or partnerships renders this claim false. And we know that the plural of anecdotes is data.

Almost Persuaded: Almost, but Lost


The hymn Almost Persuaded has a distinguished history in evangelicalism. Its key refrain is derived from the Authorised Version’s (KJV) wording of Acts 26:28:

“Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.”

Before analysing the history of the hymn in more depth, we must recognise that the Authorised Version gives an inaccurate representation of what Agrippa says to St. Paul. Commentaries have long noted that the wording of the Authorised Version is misleading.

Charles J. Ellicott, Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol, wrote in his 1878 commentary:

At the cost of giving up a familiar and impressive text, it must be admitted that the Greek words cannot possibly bear the meaning which is thus put upon them. The words run literally, in, or with, a little thou persuadest me; and this may be completed by, “with little speech,” “with little labour,” or “little evidence.” So in Ephesians 3:3 we have precisely the same phrase rendered “in few words.”

Agrippa’s words, accordingly, are the expression, not of a half-belief, but of a cynical sneer. Thou art trying to make a Christian of me with very few words, on very slender grounds, would be the nearest paraphrase of his derisive answer to St. Paul’s appeal. 

The Scottish Baptist preacher and Greek scholar, Alexander Maclaren, wrote in his own commentary:

They are very familiar words, and they have been made the basis of a great many sermons upon being all but persuaded to accept of Christ as Saviour. But, edifying as such a use of them is, it can scarcely be sustained by their actual meaning. Most commentators are agreed that our Authorised Version does not represent either Agrippa’s words or his tone. He was not speaking in earnest. His words are sarcasm, not a half melting into conviction, and the Revised Version gives what may, on the whole, be accepted as being a truer representation of their intention when it reads, ‘With but little persuasion thou wouldst fain make me a Christian.’

Modern translations show the nuances of the statement better:

(NIV) Then Agrippa said to Paul, “Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?”

(NLT) Agrippa interrupted him. “Do you think you can persuade me to become a Christian so quickly?”

(ESV) And Agrippa said to Paul, “In a short time would you persuade me to be a Christian?”

(HCSB) Then Agrippa said to Paul, “Are you going to persuade me to become a Christian so easily?”

Whatever the inaccuracies of the AV’s translation, this hymn has had a powerful effect on many congregations. Sources indicate that when sung after a sermon, it had the capacity to reduce thousands of people to deathly silence, or else tears:

One of the most impressive occasions on which this hymn was sung was in the Agricultural Hall in London, in 1874, when Mr. Gladstone was present. At the close of his sermon Mr. Moody asked the congregation to bow their heads, while I sang “Almost Persuaded”. The stillness of death prevailed throughout the audience of over fifteen thousand, as souls were making their decisions for Christ.

“While engaged in evangelistic work in western Pennsylvania,” writes the Rev. A. J. Furman, “I saw the people deeply moved by singing. I had begun my preparation to preach in the evening, from the text, ‘Almost thou persuaded me to be a Christian,’ when it occurred to me that if Mrs. B-, an estimable Christian and a most excellent singer, would sing, ‘Almost Persuaded’ as a solo, great good might be done.

At once I left the room and called on the lady, who consented to sing as requested. When I had finished my sermon, she sang the song with wonderful pathos and power. It moved many to tears. Among them was the principal of the high school who could not resist the appeal through that song. He and several others found the Pearl of Great Price before the next day. After the close of the sermon, I spoke to Mrs. B about the effect of her singing, and she told me that she had been praying earnestly all that afternoon, that she might so sing as to win sinners for her Saviour that night, and her prayers were surely answered.”

A couple of observations. First, these sources describe a palpable tension among 19th century congregants. The gospel message they were hearing was clearly presented to them as being supremely serious and important. A decision to repent and believe in Christ was demanded and none of them walked away from the service with any illusions that a half-baked confession was going to suffice.

So powerfully was this impressed upon people, that a sad story serves to illustrate just how important the moment of decision was preached.

(Please note: the following story bears the imprint of “cautionary tales of dubious authenticity” that have tended to be common in Christian “preaching lore”. Obviously it is impossible to verify the particulars of this story since no names or specific details are mentioned other than a certain Reverend Young (who could be anybody!). The story, in my opinion, is probably inauthentic since it does not pass the credibility test.

But, the fact that these stories were in circulation at all, and no doubt proclaimed from the pulpit, tell us something about how people saw faith in Christ. It was desperately urgent! Time was of the essence! Delay was foolish and hazardous!)

Said a young man to the Rev. Mr. Young: “I intend to become a Christian some time, but not now. Don’t trouble yourself about me. I’ll tend to it in good time.”

A few weeks after, the man was injured in a saw-mill, and, as he lay dying, Mr. Young was called to him. He found him in despair, saying: “Leave me alone. At your meeting I was almost persuaded, but I would not yield, and now it is too late. Oh, get my wife, my sisters and my brothers to seek God, and do it now, but leave me alone, for I am lost.”

Within an hour he passed away, with these words on his lips, “I am lost, I am lost, just because I would not yield when I was almost persuaded”.

The essence of the story should not fail to make its impression upon us, even if it is not historically true. There is nothing more bitter, nothing more terrible than “to be lost”.

The hymn was written by Philip Paul Bliss. The inspiration was a severe warning he heard at the close of a sermon:

He who is almost persuaded is almost saved, and to be almost saved is to be entirely lost,” were the words with which the Rev. Mr. Brundage ended one of his sermons.

P. P. Bliss, who was in the audience, was much impressed with the thought, and immediately set about the composition of what proved to be one of his most popular songs.

Philip Bliss’s life was cut short five years after this hymn was composed. Both Bliss and his wife were involved in a train wreck. Philip Bliss survived the wreck, but turned back and braved the flames to rescue his wife. Subsequently, both were killed.

Although Philip Bliss died at the age of 38, his life bears the imprint of one who was busy using his talents while he could. He composed 132 hymns, about 38 hymn tunes, and published 6 volumes of hymns, roughly one for each of the years proceeding his death. If only Christians were as active in the world today.

According to one source, he was living the light of eternity, right up to the point of his death:

The night before that terrible railroad accident at Ashtabula… he said to his audience, “I may not pass this way again”. 

Then he sang a solo, I’m Going Home Tomorrow. This indeed proved prophetic of his own home going.

In the past, Christians were much more mindful of the fragility of life in a way that has increasingly become a struggle in our scientifically successful, entertainment saturated, our-best-life-now oriented society.

In the past, people learned to “number their days aright”, make certain their were “fully persuaded”, and took eternity very seriously. They applied their hearts unto wisdom.

Roman Catholics Online

Recently I was watching a Youtube video that showed the closing of an Anglican service. The Anglican Church in question is part of the Anglican Network in Canada (ANiC).

(For those who don’t know, the ANiC is part of the Anglican realignment that is occurring throughout the Western world. As heretical parent churches wither, their dioceses shrink, and their churches close, a fresh, orthodox, vibrant parallel church is supplanting it and will, by the force of brute mathematics, replace it.)

Wherever such videos exist, you will find a Roman Catholic hovering around. Not any kind of Roman Catholic, however, but a specific sort of hyper-sanctimonious troll whose comments show neither Christian charity nor even the most superficial social awareness.

Usually they will begin by firing a grandiose broadside along the lines of, “Invalid mass! False worship from a heretical church founded to feed a king’s libido!” Or, “This is a mass of demons! Turn to the true mass of Roman Catholicism away from the heresies of sex-crazed Luther’s Protestant “Deformation”.” I kid not. This is literally the sort of stuff they pump out.

Quietly responding to this, even in the most cautious, gentlemanly and kindly manner, will result in escalating hysterics. I tend to imagine them hammering feverishly on their keyboards, “like lab rats on methamphetamine” (to quote Frasier).

Then comes the next phase of wearisomely abrasive posts, as long as your arm. These consist of strips of prefabricated assertions, circular reasoning, or begging the question fallacies in which they assume that all other churches are fallen, heretical, and false. It never seems to occur to them to consider that Roman Catholicism might warrant these charges more than the targets of their rage.

In my experience, any “conversation” degenerates immediately as the Roman Catholic zealot fires zingers, abuse, names, and rank profanity. In fact, somewhere in my Youtube account is a conversation that was so peppered with four-letter words that I was forced to block the man (they almost always are men). As his harassment continued, he informed me that he actually was keeping the commandment of Christ to love. His abuse was love.

More profanity has been directed at me by Roman Catholics than by Muslims. In general, Muslims will be polite, even if they feel compelled to tell you that you will boil in hell for eternity. If you try to be diplomatic, they will be diplomatic in return, eager to call infidels to their faith in a demonstration of sincere, though erroneous, zeal.

One cannot help seeing a tragic parallel between Roman Catholic zealots and the New Testament Pharisees, a parallel that I have seldom seen enacted so predictably and with paint-by-numbers rote by Protestants, although I am certain that self-proclaimed Protestant bigots exist everywhere as well.

Online interactions like these prove something about the root stock from which various believers arise. For Roman Catholic defenders, the pride is palpable. In their minds they are not lowly vessels saved by grace alone, but rather they are the best kind of Christian that exists. They are infinitely superior to Protestants, and thus they obtain enjoyment and purpose from condemning Protestants of any stripe, rubbishing their simple faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Their chief glory must not lie in following the Lowly Nazarene, for if it did, surely they would seek to obey his imperative to love. Instead, they seem to derive more gratification from being submitted to the powerful and great Pope who leads a powerful and mighty church. Even in conversation, they seek to convert people to their church, not to the Lord Jesus Christ who is relegated to a comparatively minor role of being the casual agent, or the machinery beneath the hood. And so their behaviour demonstrates how the pope has supplanted the affections and obedience that properly belongs to Christ alone.

To “James”: I am sorry you deleted our conversation. I write with sadness this final comment, which I hope you will see.

Yes, I certainly agree with you about the errors of Islam. Unfortunately, I can be consistent in my position but it is very difficult (indeed, I would say impossible) for you to be theologically consistent in your accusation that Anglicans are guilty of heretical interactions with Muslims. This is because the church you defend has stated in its own Catechism (s. 841) that Roman Catholics and Muslims adore the same god.

This is not a mere statement of shared monotheism, as you suggest. It is much more. It is an affirmation that the respective deities of Islam and Roman Catholicism are the same – part of a common “faith of Abraham”, despite Muhammad proclaiming things that Abraham never believed and which are antithetical to both the Old and New Testaments.

We agree that the Christian God is triune. The Muslim deity is unitarian. Therefore this cannot be the “same god”, as Rome teaches. Moreover, this represents a clear break with Roman Catholicism’s historic position on Islam and other religious faiths. Nonetheless, since Pope John Paul II allowed himself to be photographed kissing a Koran, your church has accelerated its interfaith experimentation to an unprecedented degree.

It is sad that you were unaware of this. I provided you with links to the National Catholic Reporter showing Muslim art and symbols being displayed in a Roman Catholic Church in the United States. You had previously said that this never happens, could never happen, and has never happened anywhere in the Roman Catholic Church. It is with sincere sorrow that I point out to you the fact that your church has been greatly committed to interfaith experimentation. 

The Gates of Hell


Shoot us.
Take away our rights.
Imprison us.
Despoil us of our worldly goods.
Banish us.
Force us into the wilderness.
Humiliate us.
Drag us before tribunals.
Regard us with cold, dead alien eyes.

But you do so because we are more powerful than you.
You fear us, for that is why you hound us.
Minds unshackled, otherworldly power on our shoulders.
The cross of Christ, invincible, goes before us.

We threaten your delusion that there is no God.
We remind you of realities you want to pretend do not exist.
We speak of a moral purpose you hate and detest.

Our battering rams are always at your gates.
“And the gates of hell shall not prevail against us”.

Identity Politics, and the Strongholds of Satan


Even Richard Dawkins recognises the incoherence of identity politics, and rightly labels it as an “evil”. On the other hand, he does not recognise that he has no foundation for describing anything as evil or good without a moral basis in God.

Identity politics represents the death of a cohesive society. When there is a competition for ultimate victim status, there can be no harmony. The community merely becomes a battlefield for moral supremacy, power, and status between competing interests. Brendon O’Neill also makes the point that identity politics is fundamentally intolerant, as if we needed any reminding of that in 2017.

Identity politics represents the death of free speech and therefore free thought. It traps people in sad little bubbles out of which there is no escape.

The madness on university campuses across the world demonstrates the ultimate atomisation, and the incredible stupidity that identity politics inevitably produces. I would go so far as to suggest that it requires a stupid and passive mind to accept it in the first place, and the only outcome, is further stupidity. As our blessed Lord so rightly taught us, “Disregard them! They are blind guides. If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into the pit.” (Matthew 15:14).

Our social structure is now scotch-taped together by institutions that pre-date identity politics, and which ironically could never have emerged from contemporary political philosophy. That itself shows how far the decline has gone.

In a world where:
1. A person who does not want to bake a wedding cake gets their shop shut down [Link]

2. An Australian Human Rights Commission claims that all Roman Catholic bishops have a “case to answer” for their stance against same-sex marriage. [Link]

3. A university professor is charged for harassment for jokingly referring to female professor’s having a night out as a “girls night out” [Link]

4.  Teachers are advised to avoid terms like “girls” and “boys [Link]

5. Australian political parties fight against having a plebiscite vote on same-sex marriage, because allowing the people to vote would encourage debate, and too much debate, like too much democracy, could lead to hate crimes and suicide. [Link]

Could such a political and social philosophy as that which inevitably results in the above abuses of power and common sense have ever produced concepts like freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and parliamentary democracy? Most assuredly, not.

The fight against the mental strongholds that hold men captive is far from over. Indeed, it has hardly begun.