Saturday, July 04, 2009

Conservative plans to strengthen the family

Cranmer believes the family to be the irreducible fundamental building block of a stable society, not merely another ‘lifestyle choice’.

Marriage is a union observed in all cultures, and seems to exist by nature. In the Bible it is portrayed as essential for societal functioning – throughout Scripture, family units, or ‘houses’ are seen as part of the basic building blocks of society. Marriage is an institution that provides stability for a clan and a nation, and is the model used to explain the mystery of Christ’s relationship to the church (Eph 5:25-32). The Church of England ‘affirms, according to our Lord’s teaching, that marriage is in its nature a union permanent and lifelong, for better or worse, till death do them part, of one man with one woman’.

It is heterosexual and monogamous.

Perhaps more than at any point in its history, the institution of marriage is being challenged on so many fronts that it is in danger of being perceived simply as part of an old world order. There are concerted attempts to redefine it through government legislation, and challenges to its foundations from movements like female liberation in an era of the declining influence of patriarchy. Many questions still have not been settled on the issues of divorce and remarriage, homosexual marriage, or cohabitation, and these beg further questions about the meaning and value of marriage itself.

After decades of diminution of the status of the family with the consequent increase in family breakdown, an inquiry led by Iain Duncan Smith has concluded that it is indeed the role of the state to support the institution.

The Family Law Review is a product of Mr Duncan Smith's Centre for Social Justice – which Cranmer believes merits its own government department when the Conservative Party wins power. To make Iain Duncan Smith the Secretary of State for Social Justice may not be consonant with Conservative philosophy, but, like so much is the disjunctive postmodern context, it somehow feels right.

It is certainly right that Iain Duncan Smith - one of the most genuine, hard-working, considerate and compassionate MPs in the House - should be on the Government front bench.

At the heart of the report are tax breaks for married couples and an end of the invidious benefits penalty by which couples are financially better off if they live apart. It presents empirical evidence that marriage is beneficial not only to couples, but also their children, their extended families and also to nation as a whole. Confronting the zeitgeist, the report highlights research suggesting that adults and children in married families are happier and healthier.

Well, of course they are.

It is not good for man to be alone.

But such evidence dare not be presented, for fear of excluding single parents, alienating ‘middle England’ or offending the gay lobby. On marriage and the family, Parliament and political parties have been so afraid of doing the wrong thing that they have ceased to do what is so plainly right.

But the emphasis in the report is not making separation and divorce more difficult, but on a new legal framework designed to promote stable relationships. It is positive and progressive. And so there will be ‘family relationship centres’ to offer advice and support. And Fathers for Justice will be relieved that they have, at last, been heard: they will be granted improved access rights to their children.

And all of this will cost billions – £3bn per annum for the transferrable married couples’ tax allowance alone.

But the report puts the cost of family breakdown at up to £24billion per annum – a colossal £820 for the average taxpayer. There are not only the direct costs of supporting single-parent families or placing children in care, but also indirect impacts on employment, education, health, crime, police and prisons. The moral case for supporting marriage over other less stable units of relationship is unequivocal.

The report concludes that ‘marriage is good for society’.

And the Conservative Party alone has recognised that it is therefore incumbent upon society to value it.

100 Comments:

Blogger Gnostic said...

Marriage is good for society but only so far as said marriage is good.

I've been happily married for over 26 years. My husband had a short and disastrous first mariage to a woman who spread herself about like manure. That bad experience, rather than make him gun shy, made him appreciate someone who remains faithful to him even now. He still phones me most lunchtimes to make piggy noises at me. :D

A bad marriage is hell on earth. My parents constant conflict taught me that. Peace reigned when they finally split. Only then did my father realise what he'd lost. Sadly, his second marriage was a disaster too and he died a bitter man. My mother learned a bitter lesson and never remarried.

IDS is talking ideals. This works in an ideal world but not in the real one. I support his views though. Marriage is an important part of social stability. It's the glue that holds conventional society together. Which explains why Socialists don't want that. Conventional is a dirty word. Nothing can be allowed to get in the way of social, politically correct "progress". They divide us and conquer.

I will never fall for that one!

4 July 2009 at 09:56  
Blogger Terry Hamblin said...

After 42 years of being married to the same woman, I appreviate the institution of marriage more and more. It depends on entering it with a firm ambition to make it work. There perhaps should be an entry bar to prevent people taking it flippantly, but once joining marriage should be showered with rewards.

4 July 2009 at 10:06  
Blogger Ben Stevenson said...

"It is heterosexual and monogamous."

"The report concludes that ‘marriage is good for society’.

And the Conservative Party alone has recognised that it is therefore incumbent upon society to value it"

I wish that were true. But surely David Cameron cannot be called an advocate of heterosexual marriage only.

David Cameron backs same-sex 'marriage'

"He said one of his "proudest" moments as Tory leader was telling the annual party conference in 2006 that they had a duty to support a "commitment to marriage" among men and women, between a "man and a man, and a woman and a woman"." -- The Telegraph

4 July 2009 at 10:39  
Anonymous Marriage Counselor said...

I liked the content of your blog and the points you have mentioned that there is nothing like perfect marriage, communication, compromise, and the most effective tip to save a marriage is to be committed. Good reminder about to be committed, to be able to communicate, be willing to compromise, and be always in love.

4 July 2009 at 10:49  
Blogger Nick Gulliford said...

Yes, I agree with what you say, Your Grace, but I would like to see divorce only by mutual consent. Those not agreeing would have to settle for a court imposed legal separation.

I agree also with David Cameron's "Social action represents the new politics we need" but it would be more credible if action is taken to implement the social policy announced 9 months ago by Maria Miller for signposting couples to marriage preparation by registrars. This could be done by Conservative controlled councils now.

4 July 2009 at 10:56  
Anonymous Anabaptist said...

Crannie, you say: 'Marriage is ... the model used to explain the mystery of Christ’s relationship to the church (Eph 5:25-32).'

I think you put things the wrong way round. It is not so much that marriage explains Christ's love for the church, but rather that Christ's love for the church provides the true model for marriage.

'Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave himself for her.'

Marriage, for Christians (or, for D Singh: people of God, disciples of Jesus, etc.), is to be modelled on the self-denying, self-giving love demonstrated by Jesus in his disposition towards his church.

This imperative cannot be held for those who are not Christians, whose marriages must necessarily be based on pragmatic considerations. Your ideal of the Christian nation leads you to conclude that the country should be governed by, to some extent, the imposition of Christian principles upon those who are not Christians. This has always been the C of E confusion, that the 'church' is territorial, comprising all within national borders, whereas you know, really (you say it often enough) that being a Christian requires personal faith.

Of course, if husbands really modelled their demeanour on that of Jesus, and wives likewise followed the Puline injunctions, and each submitted to the other, there would be no marital breakdowns, and none of the all-too-real horror stories of living in bad marriages.

4 July 2009 at 10:58  
Anonymous Orwellian Prophet said...

After decades of decline and consequential social decay there is certainly persuasive evidence that heterosexual monogamous marriage brings many benefits to couples, children, the extended family and the nation as a whole.

Will the report shape the policy of the Conservatives? Or will it be sacrificed on the altar of 'lifestyle choice' to safeguard maximum voting appeal?
David Cameron seems awfully keen to snuggle up to persons of alternative persuasion. Today's headline in the Sun is Gay Gordon versus Camp David!

4 July 2009 at 11:07  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Anabaptist,

His Grace means as he writes.

The inference from your assertion is that before Christ and before the Church there was no 'true model' for marriage, and that marriages in cultures without Christ and without the Church are not marriages.


It is not only within Christianity, and certainly not only within marriage, that one may discover kenesis.

4 July 2009 at 11:14  
Blogger ultramontane grumpy old catholic said...

It's people like Iain Duncan Smith and my own local MP Oliver Letwin who might make me vote Conservative at the next election, rather than 'Dave' cavorting in front of the Gays and apologising abjectly for clause 28 in the 1980's.

Now that Gord has sent his wife on a Gay march, I fear that in the run up to the next election there will be a p***ing contest between the two leaders to see who has the pinker policies.

4 July 2009 at 11:20  
Anonymous Male Lesbian said...

Harridan Harm-men will not approve.

4 July 2009 at 11:31  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is Dave marching with the queers today?

4 July 2009 at 12:14  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

And the innocent victims of this governments continual diminution of the status of the family are the children ... as anyone who works with children will readily contend.

Can I heartily recommend to your readers this report (especially those who are involved in work with little children - which includes parents). It's warnings are stark ... that if we do not act NOW and DRASTICALLY we will be reaping a social and economic whirlwind the likes of which we have not seen before.

4 July 2009 at 12:26  
Anonymous indigomyth said...

Rebel Saint said,
//can I heartily recommend to your readers this report//
http://www.theworkfoundation.com/assets/docs/publications/26_0-5%20how%20small%20children%20make%20a%20big%20difference.pdf

Thank you very much, Rebel Saint for posting this report. I was particularly interested by Page 12, and the index of child well-being in the EU.

Look at the top five countries:
Cyprus
Netherlands
Sweden
Denmark
Finland

These countries have the highest child well-being index in all the EU. Now, shall we compare that interesting bit of data, with another one:
Sweden: same-sex marriage - legal
Netherlands: same-sex civil-unions - legal
Finland: same-sex civil unions: legal
Denmark: same-sex civil unions: legal

So, of the top five countries for the happiest children, four recognise gay relationships. Does rather damage the view that homosexual marriage and CP's are causing the breakdown, doesn't it?

And, another interesting comparison:
Sweden: believe in God: 23%
Denmark: believe in God: 31%
Finland: believe in God: 41%
Netherlands:34%

So, let us clarify what the report YOU cited shows; that of the countries in the EU with the highest index of child well-being, four of the top five are liberal countries, that recognise same-sex relationships and are mostly agnostic or atheist. It would seem that the logical conclusion is that neither of these two factors is actually responsible for the alleged "broken society".

The only outlier is Cyprus. However, there are other examples of many other religious countries (like Poland) being far worse than the atheistic liberal countries.

What say you?

4 July 2009 at 13:48  
Anonymous Asmodeus said...

A modern marriage lasts on average something over 12 years, before it crumbles into divorce. A Georgian or Victorian marriage too averaged about 12 years, before Death mowed down one party or the other with his impartial hand.

If we seek to build society upon the rock of human nature as it is and not the shifting and treacherous sands of whatever we fondly wish it to be, we must, I fear, reckon with this inveterate serial monogamy of our miserable species.

It may indeed be that the family unit natural to Man is that of the mother-and-children, augmented from time to time with the adventitious addition of a succession of unrelated men.

4 July 2009 at 14:09  
Anonymous indigomyth said...

Asmodeus said,
//It may indeed be that the family unit natural to Man is that of the mother-and-children, augmented from time to time with the adventitious addition of a succession of unrelated men.//

And we may remember that it was customary, certainly in the upper classes, for a Nurse to mind children, and for young boys to be raised almost exclusively in the company of men, to train them in fighting and so forth. To be raised in the company of woman was considered to risk making them effeminate. The idea of one man and one woman raising a child would also be alien to those tribes that raise children communally. It seems not to harm their intellectual or emotional development.

Indeed, the institution of marriage, despite what Cranmer asserts, is not inherently monogamous. There are many many cultures that have, and still do, practise polygamy. Perhaps he means only Christian marriage is inherently monogamous; a far lesser claim.

4 July 2009 at 14:20  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

indigomyth, I'm glad you found the report interesting. I am grateful for your additional data too - which I shall take on trust as being accurate.

It doesn't surprise me as much as you might have thought it would. As Cranmer said in his post and in a subsequent comment, marriage is not simply a religious institution or an institution of the 'right wing', it is a social institution than seems to be common to pretty much all cultures & creeds across history. I do not believe that strong marriages & healthy families are the preserve of people with a particular religious or political persuasion. However I think strong family life is preserved in those places where it's value & importance to society is recognised & respected.

I do not have much knowledge at all of the countries you cite, however I would be interested to know more about the marriage & divorce rates, how the tax system is balanced towards families, what the rates of out-of-wedlock births are, what social security & housing provision there is for single/teenage mothers etc

What little I do know about the Netherlands is that - despite being lauded as a liberal utopia - it is actually a lot more 'conservative' in its attitude to family life. It has a lower proportion of lone-parent families, out-of-wedlock births, divorces and mothers in full-time employment. Only recently has it given ANY welfare to teenage mothers (and now it is only minimal compared to the UK), and stigma is still attached to teenage pregnancy.

I think what you will find is that children's well-being is highest in those countries where marriage & family life is the strongest - and that it is part of an intentional policy to make it so. However I'd be interested to see the data on it.

4 July 2009 at 14:47  
Blogger Derek T Northcote said...

If marriage is indeed a fundamental building block of a stable society, then why deny it to certain groups of people.

Surely that is destabilising.

4 July 2009 at 14:55  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

Derek, it begs the question, what do you consider the meaning & purpose of marriage to be?

Here is what I would concur with:

DEARLY beloved, we are gathered together here in the sight of God, and in the face of this congregation, to join together this Man and this Woman in holy Matrimony; which is an honourable estate, instituted of God in the time of man's innocency, signifying unto us the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and his Church; which holy estate Christ adorned and beautified with his presence, and first miracle that he wrought, in Cana of Galilee; and is commended of Saint Paul to be honourable among all men: and therefore is not by any to be enterprised, nor taken in hand, unadvisedly, lightly, or wantonly, to satisfy men's carnal lusts and appetites, like brute beasts that have no understanding; but reverently, discreetly, advisedly, soberly, and in the fear of God; duly considering the causes for which Matrimony was ordained.

First, It was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name.

Secondly, It was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication; that such persons as have not the gift of continency might marry, and keep themselves undefiled members of Christ's body.

Thirdly, It was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity. Into which holy estate these two persons present come now to be joined. Therefore if any man can shew any just cause, why they may not lawfully be joined together, let him now speak, or else hereafter for ever hold his peace.


There are a very small minority of our population for whom the first purpose of marriage is completely & biologically irrelevant! For those I would suggest we consider some other sort of official recognition.

Alternatively of course, we could simply redefine the word to mean whatever we want it to and therefore give it no meaning at all!

4 July 2009 at 15:11  
Anonymous genderbender said...

Indogmyth,
According to your statistics the world would be a better place if everyone were gay.
Children could be produced in test tubes, problem solved!

4 July 2009 at 15:13  
Anonymous indigomyth said...

Rebel Saint,

Thank you for your response.

// I would be interested to know more about the marriage & divorce rates, how the tax system is balanced towards families, what the rates of out-of-wedlock births are, what social security & housing provision there is for single/teenage mothers etc//

There is some data on the study you cite, starting on Page 41 "Lessons from the North". It has interesting suggestions, none of which seem to be ham-fisted way of doing things that the Conservatives are proposing.

I am afraid I cannot expend the time to find the data your request; I am sure it is available online should you wish to conduct your own research.

My point still stands; it is NOT homosexual marriages that are causing the decay of family life in this country, because if it was we should expect to see all the most homo-tolerant countries down at the bottom, which they are not. Therefore, I have trouble reconciling Cranmer's assertion that marriage has to be heterosexual, with the data that you present. It seems that homosexual marriage does not damage society for children.

I can agree that strong familial ties are important, but trying to stress that homosexual marriages damage those ties is directly contradicted by the evidence.

Cranmer ignores that fact that American Psychological Association and Child Welfare League of America, both say that same-sex raising is equal to opposite-sex raising.

http://www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk/client/downloads/RemovalOfTheNeedForAFather_20071221.pdf

If you wish to, you (and Cranmer) could look at
http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html
and compare the evidence cited by the former and latter.

Indeed, on Page 8 of the CSJ repost on the importance of fatherhood, they admit that
//Despite
claims that there is no psychological harm to children born of assisted reproduction,
there are in fact remarkably few serious studies of donor-conceived adolescents or
adults.//

So, on what evidence are they basing their assertions that being raised by two woman or two men is damaging? They have no evidence; the report is hollow.

4 July 2009 at 15:23  
Anonymous indigomyth said...

genderbender said,
Indogmyth,
//According to your statistics the world would be a better place if everyone were gay.
Children could be produced in test tubes, problem solved!//

Perhaps it would. People would not engage in opposite-sex for recreation or pleasure, but merely for the purpose of procreation. The numbers of unwanted and neglected children would be reduced drastically, as there would be no unwanted pregnancies and few abortions. Every child would be the result of a sensible and rational decision, and not the result of some drunken fumble, or failed contraception.

4 July 2009 at 15:27  
Anonymous indigomyth said...

Rebel Saint said,
//First, It was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name.//

Based on that assumption, atheists should not be permitted to marry, since they do not raise their children to fear God. Indeed, if this passage means the Christian God, than marriages of other religions should not be recognised, and mixed-faith marriages should be frowned upon.

4 July 2009 at 15:30  
Anonymous indigomyth said...

I was amused by this section on the APA website,
//The results of some studies suggest that lesbian mothers' and gay fathers' parenting skills may be superior to those of matched heterosexual couples. For instance, Flaks, Fischer, Masterpasqua, and Joseph (1995) reported that lesbian couples' parenting awareness skills were stronger than those of heterosexual couples. This was attributed to greater parenting awareness among lesbian nonbiological mothers than among heterosexual fathers.//

So, we have a professional, academic body, which is committed to scientific research, unlike the political tinpot CSJ body, saying that in some cases, homosexual parenting is better than heterosexual parenting. Really Cranmer, is the CSJ the best worldly authority you have on this issue?

4 July 2009 at 15:42  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

"The results of some studies suggest ... skills may be superior". Well I'm convinced!!

Actually, again I don't doubt it. That certain skills may be taught is probably true - and definitely needed for some. Basically, like a good nanny or nursery nurse.

However, is that what we reduce parenting to ... a skill set? What of those who may not be that 'skilled' but love their child dearly. Will a 'skilled' parent make the same sacrifices, and the same emotional investment.

Sadly, the reason many parents lack even basic skills is because of family breakdown. Where are the grandparents and other extended family members who used to model and then pass down wisdom from generation to generation and who had the biological investment to implement them with love and compassion. What we have now is 'wisdom' dispensed from on high by dispassionate 'experts'. God help us.

Would love to respond further but I have a critical 5pm deadline looming!

4 July 2009 at 16:13  
Anonymous indigomyth said...

Rebel Saint,

Thank you for your response. I hope you meet your deadline.
Regards,
Indigomyth

4 July 2009 at 16:18  
Anonymous martin sewell said...

Derek, I am of the opinion that the institution of marriage is so important to children that a society ought to privilege those within marriage. If some marry and have no children or vice versa so be it, but let us be clear, you cannot "privilege" everyone.

I know it is not egalitarian and a little rough in its application, but the overall outcome would be better and the argument closed if we keep it simple.

I do not mind a structure of some sort for those in a stable relationship to order their affairs conveniently, whether gay couples or mothers/daughters. I do not however want the institution of marriage dissloved by and ever expanding groups incrementally seeking "equality".

4 July 2009 at 16:28  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There are few simple and obvious facts that indigomathy overlooked
1.The majority of humanity is heterosexual.Homosexuality has and will always be a small minority group.

2.The nature of heterosexuality is innate.It has nothing to do with religion.Marriage between a man and woman is natural. Same sex unions can't be called marriage. Even the Romans regarded it as a perversion.Read Tacitus and Suetonius.

3.There are heterosexual atheists ,agnostics
and many homosexuals who don't support gay marriage and adoption.

4.Most homosexuals reject mainstream life.So homosexuals
who wish to marry and adopt children are a minority in their own minority group.

4 July 2009 at 17:02  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There are few simple and obvious facts that indigomathy overlooked
1.The majority of humanity is heterosexual.Homosexuality has and will always be a small minority group.

2.The nature of heterosexuality is innate.It has nothing to do with religion.Marriage between a man and woman is natural. Same sex unions can't be called marriage. Even the Romans regarded it as a perversion.Read Tacitus and Suetonius.

3.There are heterosexual atheists ,agnostics
and many homosexuals who don't support gay marriage and adoption.

4.Most homosexuals reject mainstream life.So homosexuals
who wish to marry and adopt children are a minority in their own minority group.

4 July 2009 at 17:04  
Anonymous indigomyth said...

Anonymous @ 17:04

Point 1. I concur.

Point 2: How is marriage between a man and woman "natural"? What value of "natural" are you using? I see little in nature, nor in the most primitive human societies to show that marriage is "natural", in the most common sense. Indeed, were it "natural" in the way breathing or blinking is, we should expect to see people eager to participate in it, regardless of the social implications. However, we see in the UK a dramatic increase in people satisfied to not participate in marriage; voluntarily without coercion. I find it hard to reconcile the idea that marriage is natural, with the observation that many are quite happy not to partake in it. If it were natural, the state would have no need to encourage, via financial and legal methods, to engage in it.

The Romans were far more uptight about matters of the body than the Greeks that proceeded them. Also, the Romans were not exactly keen on Christians, yet I do not here you citing them as a reason why Christianity should not be encouraged. Ditto for slavery and for the status of women.

Point 3. I agree their are. However, a recent survey showed the the nonreligious were far more likely to approve of gay marriage and adoption than the religious. I am sorry that I cannot find the study to link to. I would note that Stalin was an atheist, and he made homosexuality illegal, and North Korea, a communist regime, imprisons homosexuals in labour camps. I understand that disapproval of homosexuality extends beyond the religious sphere, but it is undeniably true that it is dominated by it. Also, many of those that disapprove, that are not religious, are arch-conservatives, and therefore take their position from a past more dominated by religious opposition.

I myself am not too fussed about lobbying for same-sex marriage. I consider same-sex unions to be a sufficient measure to protect the legal rights of gay couples. If marriage is regarded as primarily a reproductive and procreative institution, than same-sex couples should not participate in it. However, society is increasingly redefining marriage as being nothing more than a mutually loving relationship.

Whether some atheists and agnostics support gay adoption or not is really an irrelevant point. The reality is independent of opinion; the question is "does same-sex parenting hurt children?". According to most evidence, by the most qualified academic bodies, the answer to this question is a resounding "no".

Point 4. Qualify "mainstream life". I do not understand the term. Please provide your specifications for "mainstream" and your methodology for concluding that specification. If we are to belief statistics, it is mainstream to be divorced, since 1/2 of marriages end that way. It is also mainstream not to go to church regularly.

Should we aim for "mainstream"? Or should we aim for what is Right? Indeed, I do not see how this point is against gay adoption. It merely asserts that most gay couples do not wish to adopt. Surely the more important point is that some of them do, and they must be assessed for suitability. Dismissing them merely on the basis of what the rest of their demographic do seems rather a drastic measure.

4 July 2009 at 17:38  
Anonymous indigomyth said...

//The Romans were far more uptight about matters of the body than the Greeks that proceeded them.//

Should read
//The Romans were far more uptight about matters of the body than the Greeks that preceded them. //

4 July 2009 at 17:41  
Anonymous indigomyth said...

Anonymous said,
//The nature of heterosexuality is innate.//

I do not know of any scientific body that has concluded that heterosexuality is innate. It is a lie that heterosexuality is determined by genetics, a lie put out by the MSM as a conspiracy between the Knights Templar, the Marxists and Satan. Heterosexuality is a life-style choice, and should be condemned as wicked and sinful.

[This parody brought to you by Indigomyth]

4 July 2009 at 17:48  
Anonymous not a machine said...

your graces wisdom is always appreciated in these matters , Ian Duncan Smith is quite true to what he says , and given the regular abuse of Marriage and family unit by the so called modernisers , he has very much of an uphill task.

The athiests so love there divisons on this subject , i do not my self find it easy to support marriages that are destructive but whilst some see contentment with the lower demands of "living together" or the more erronious same sex civil partnerships as being of the same order as heterosexual marriage , this does not mean we should not contnue to hold it as a very valuable standard for people to attain and live to .

Ian Duncan Smith knows that marriage is somthing important for the couple, the family , for god and for society , he is not a man of "Bling" . he is however speaking to a world full of "Bling" and a market forces coporatist construct trying to be run by scoialists .

The church is being persecuted and so is its message our politicians are indenial , but enjoying the well funded lifestyle choices that they can afford .

perhaps his message can only muster a small audience for now , but i susepct in the years ahead he will find the better arguments to help those people and communities that cannot afford the liberal elite merry go round , of supermarket lifestyles , and may even find those who are asking questions about labours mind bending media corruption that has taken place .

when he does make his arguments let us hope he can translate gods intentions in a way that makes sense , people for now dont seem to understand why we should repair what is broken , as the church is asthmatic .

tax breaks will not heal the spiritual deficet that labour have forced upon us .

4 July 2009 at 19:34  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just another Conservative Party red herring to take us from the real fear in Christian Britain today- the rise of Islam and Arab finance in all aspects of our daily life.

Why don’t the CP come out and say something without putting a monetary value in the argument, or show the calculations so a judgement can be made by ourselves?

4 July 2009 at 22:29  
Anonymous Brian E. said...

All that will happen is that the report will be shelved. There are far too many people who want to destroy marriage and indeed have a vested interest in doing so. Add to these the militant atheists who seem to be gaining ground, and there is no hope that the Conservatives will make any change.

4 July 2009 at 22:50  
Blogger The Young Oligarch said...

Indigomyth says

"Also, the Romans were not exactly keen on Christians, yet I do not here you citing them as a reason why Christianity should not be encouraged. Ditto for slavery and for the status of women."

The reason Christianity spread throughout the West and eventually the world was that the Roman Empire embraced it as its official religion .

Slavery existed in almost every society until the Enlightenment , when we , alone , abolished it.

Women enjoyed a much higher status in the Roman world than the Greek one , far more than among our burka-wearing friends .

The point about Roman attitudes to homosexuality is well made .

Homosexual activists frequently make claims about the acceptance of homosexuality in the Classical period of our civilisation .

In the case of the Romans this is simply untrue . Normal Roman men regarded homosexuality with disgust as can be seen in almost all Latin writers on Roman society - Juvenal , Tacitus , Suetonius , even the occasional mention in Pliny .

Greek homosexuality was a mainstream activity , it seems , but was very much about grown men with young boys . The boys weren't supposed to enjoy it , apparently .

Don't hear Stonewall talking about that too much , though . Give it a few years of incessant propaganda and the cultural and moral surrender of our leaders - it could be on the agenda then .

4 July 2009 at 22:59  
Anonymous indigomyth said...

the young oligarch,

Yes, I did toy with adding the caveat "at first the Romans..." However, Christians were heavily persecuted early in Roman history.

//Greek homosexuality was a mainstream activity , it seems , but was very much about grown men with young boys . The boys weren't supposed to enjoy it , apparently .//

Quantify "young boys". Also, you say "normal Romen men"? How do you know they were normal? The fact that they called themselves so? Hardly a ringing endorsement. We must also remember the sexual promiscutiy and prominence in such cities as Pompei and Herculaneum, where there is ample evidence of liberal sexual attitudes.

Further, the portrayal of homosexual relationships in Greek literature (such as between Zeus and Ganymede) does not seem to suggest a "young boy". Indeed, the modern construction of childhood means that to say "boy" is misleading, perhaps ephebe would be a more appropriate term; less easily confused with modern ideas of "boyhood".

//Slavery existed in almost every society until the Enlightenment , when we , alone , abolished it.//

Yet Islamic states also abolished slavery. As did other non-Christian ones. It is also interesting to note that the Black triange slave trade, arguably the most prominent example of slavery, occured almost exclusively between Christian countries.

My point is made; that it is unwise to look back into the past for justification for the present.

4 July 2009 at 23:23  
Blogger The Young Oligarch said...

Thanks for the reply Indigomyth .

By saying "normal men" I was being judgemental in modern "liberal"/cultural Marxist terms . I meant to be .
My real point , however , is that all the writers were agreed that homosexuality is aberrant behaviour (Catullus being a possible exception).

By "liberal sexual values" in Pompeii and Herculaneum I take it you mean the license and depravity evident in so much of the art and sculpture . That this existed is beyond doubt . Such displays are evident in every major town in Britain , but are not evidence that (anything like) the majority are depraved and corrupted .

Also , these towns were two notorious sea-side haunts , not the everyday meeting places of the sturdy yeomanry . This , let us remember , was the land of Cato the Censor as well as of Nero - which was the more representative ?

Returning to Greek homosexuality , that the interest was on adolescent boys is beyond question . Try this link -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Greece

Your attempt to exclude epheboi from the term "young boys" is disturbing . It conjures up images of "It's alright officer , he's 13 years old" .

That Greek pederasty did not begin at the upper limits of the term epheboi , i.e. 16-18 , is , again , without doubt .
Even then , almost all Britons are disgusted by the idea of 35-40 year old men involved in homosexual relationships with 16-18 year old youths .

Finally , you state that Islamic and other non-Christian states abolished slavery . They did . We forced them to . We did it first - in the case of Islam by a century and a half . Although there are plenty of places in the Islamic world where you can find it to this day .

5 July 2009 at 00:17  
Anonymous not a machine said...

your grace will need his wits about him this week , we seem to have prodded the vitals of the athiest machine and it doesnt like it .

For the wisdom hidden to the foolish by there own ignorance

5 July 2009 at 00:37  
Anonymous indigomyth said...

The Young Oligarch said,
//Even then , almost all Britons are disgusted by the idea of 35-40 year old men involved in homosexual relationships with 16-18 year old youths .//

I do not know. I have seen no evidence either way, so do not presume to comment. What evidence have you seen? It would seem hypocritical for the majority to be disgusted by those type of relationships, yet less so (or not at all) by those of older men with young women (a la Peter Stringfellow). One recalls the countdown in the Sun until the Olsen twins turned 18 years old. So, perhaps even if your assertion is correct, it does not actually mean much; it merely is evidence of epic hypocrisy in the public consious.

//Finally , you state that Islamic and other non-Christian states abolished slavery . They did . We forced them to//

And, given the fact that it was from Christian nations in the 18th and 19th centuries that the slave trade developed, I do not think you should go shouting about the greatness of Christianity in this area. At most we can conclude that Christianity had a mixed impact on the slave trade. You can still find evidence of this in groups such as Christian Identity.

How did we force Japan to get rid of slavery?

Which non-Christian nations participated in anywhere near the same extent in the Black Triangle slave trade, as the Christian nations of Britain and the US? If you are going to take the credit for ending slavery, it seems dishonest not to claim at least partial reponsibility for its inception.

//By "liberal sexual values" in Pompeii and Herculaneum I take it you mean the license and depravity evident in so much of the art and sculpture . That this existed is beyond doubt . Such displays are evident in every major town in Britain , but are not evidence that (anything like) the majority are depraved and corrupted .//

Ahh, but there is a difference. In Pompei and Herculaneum, these sexual scenes are found in prominent places in private homes, as well as in public. Indeed, you would attempt to ascribe to a few individuals what seems to be a popular opinion in these two towns.

//Your attempt to exclude epheboi from the term "young boys" is disturbing . It conjures up images of "It's alright officer , he's 13 years old"//

The age of consent in Spain and Mexico is 12 years old. In those countries, the defense you suggest would be entirely legitimate (certainly with young girls). Indeed, the age of consent is another area of interest and conflict. It is largely an arbitary number.

//By saying "normal men" I was being judgemental in modern "liberal"/cultural Marxist terms . I meant to be . //

But that would mean that you are concluding that the Latin writers you cite are normal by virtue of the fact that they reflect the view that you adhere to.

//Also , these towns were two notorious sea-side haunts , not the everyday meeting places of the sturdy yeomanry .//

That seems rather like declaring that the liberal east and west coasts of the US are not really valid places for ascertaining the views of the US, because they are not representative. The problem with this view is that they are part of the US, therefore the attitudes within them must be considered. It would be equally (invalid) to say that the centre of the US does not represent US ideals, because they do not conform to coastal ideals. Trying to construct a representative view of what A or B was like is doomed to fail, as it ignores individual circumstances and customs. You would have to declare that Pompei and Herculaneum were not "really Roman" in order for your objection to be valid. I contend that such a position assumes a great deal about social constructions of political and social identity.

I followed the link; it has much interesting information. However, it also highlights adult homosexual relationships, particularly Alexander the Great and Hephaistion.

Regards,
Indigomyth

5 July 2009 at 00:59  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

On the tiresome issue of same-sex relationships and their 'equality' in the law. Surely we should also accept polygamy for the sake of our bisexual population. And what about incestuous relationships (amongst consenting adults of course)? And what about non-sexual relationships - why should non-sexual behaviour be unfairly discriminated against?

These are not rhetorical questions? Can some advocate of 'gay marriage' please tell me why these should relationships should not also be granted 'equality' under the law with monogamous, heterosexual marriage?

5 July 2009 at 01:09  
Anonymous indigomyth said...

Rebel Saint,

//Surely we should also accept polygamy for the sake of our bisexual population. And what about incestuous relationships (amongst consenting adults of course)? And what about non-sexual relationships - why should non-sexual behaviour be unfairly discriminated against?//

I see no problem with some form of legal recognition for these forms of relationship. Polygamy has a long history, as do incestuous relationships (sister-Queens of ancient Egypt). And non-sexual relatiships are already recognised. There is no legal requierment for opposite-sex participents in marriage to have intercourse, for that marriage to be legally valid and recognised. Indeed, it is perfectly legal for a eunuch male to marry an infertile female. So, nonsexual relationships are already recognised, and I have never heard of any modern church forbidden marriage between a man and woman on the basis of if they are going to have sex or not.

Indeed, I would be inclined to belief that polygamous relationships are the most "natural" construct in which to raise children. It certainly accords with observations of our closest primate relatives, primitive human social groups.

5 July 2009 at 01:20  
Blogger The Young Oligarch said...

Thank you Indigomyth for your detailed reply .

Peter Stringfellow is an object of universal derision - bad example . In my home town I know a man who has a girlfriend 20 years his junior . He encounters similar derision .

Slavery has been ubiquitous in human experience until the West , led by Britain , abolished it on Christian principles . The Atlantic slave trade which you cast up was based on the slaver networks in black Africa already set up by Islam .

As for Japan , perhaps this might have had something to do with it ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakumatsu

I believe I pointed out that Pompeii and Herculaneum were hardly typical towns . No doubt the art-work on Peter Stringfellow's living room walls is different from that on mine or yours . As I said earlier "This , let us remember , was the land of Cato the Censor as well as of Nero - which was the more representative ?"

You say "The age of consent in Spain and Mexico is 12 years old. In those countries, the defense you suggest would be entirely legitimate (certainly with young girls). Indeed, the age of consent is another area of interest and conflict. It is largely an arbitary number."
Try that one with the electorate .

"you are concluding that the Latin writers you cite are normal by virtue of the fact that they reflect the view that you adhere to ."
That all the Latin writers have the same views on the subject as I and that all Christian writers have had the same view in the intervening millennia adds a lot more weight to the argument than "you're just being judgemental and quoting those who support you" - which seems to be what you are implying .

Alexander the Great and Hephaistion were remarkable because the relationship was so unusual .

I'm interested in why you pick Ganymede as an example of equal homosexual love earlier on . Having been sold into slavery to a god by his family on account of his good looks hardly seems to be a shining example for "gay" rights .

Good discussion .

5 July 2009 at 01:41  
Anonymous indigomyth said...

The Young Oligarch said,
//Peter Stringfellow is an object of universal derision - bad example . In my home town I know a man who has a girlfriend 20 years his junior . He encounters similar derision .
//

My point was to ascertain whether you recognised that these kind of relationships occur, and have occured, for many years. I do not believe that people are "disgusted" by Peter Stringfellow, merely disapprove of his relationships.

I note that you do not cite the evidence you use to come to the conclusion that most people would be disgusted by these types of relationship. I distrust claims of popularity without evidence.

// Try that one with the electorate .//

Well, I judge things on whether they are right or wrong, not whether they are popular. It is of little concern to me as to if they are popular. Hitler was popular.

//Slavery has been ubiquitous in human experience until the West , led by Britain , abolished it on Christian principles . The Atlantic slave trade which you cast up was based on the slaver networks in black Africa already set up by Islam .//

Yes, but it was exploited and made most succesful by the participation of the Christian nations of the UK and the US. It was justified with Christian theology (as I said, it still is) and was enforced by the Christian majority. So, Christian principles may have abolished it (though humanistic values also played a part), but they also contributed to the formation of the Atlantic slave trade.

//That all the Latin writers have the same views on the subject as I and that all Christian writers have had the same view in the intervening millennia adds a lot more weight to the argument than "you're just being judgemental and quoting those who support you" - which seems to be what you are implying .//

This seems to raise problems for your other argument. Slavery, racism and anti-Semitism was also justified for thousands of years, in the majority of Christian and Classical writers. You are claiming justification for applying the label "normal" based upon precedence and historical prominence of a particular opinion. Based upon that logic, it must be seen as normal to be pro-slavery, anti-Semetic and anti-female emancipation. Yes, Christian writers may have eventually campaigned agaisnt slavery, eventually, however that is a relatively recent development. It was present in the Christian West, justfied by Christian principles and utilised by Christian people.

//Having been sold into slavery to a god by his family on account of his good looks hardly seems to be a shining example for "gay" rights .//

But then, slavery is normal, according to your reasoning.

My point was to show that Ganymede is not usually depicted as being a "Boy" in the modern sense. It is hardly fitting for a Christian to criticise ancient Greek myths; given that Abraham was prepared to sacrifice his son to God, it seems that maybe neither religions are good examples of parenting.

//I believe I pointed out that Pompeii and Herculaneum were hardly typical towns//
The point about the widespread erotic wall art was to show that it was a major part of life for large numbers of people in these towns. Were you the only one not to have erotic art on your wall, you would be the abnormal one.

I also said that one cannot conclude what is "representative" based upon a biased selection, which is what we have from the remaining sources from that time. You declare Pompei and Herculaneum as being atypical; yet you do not analyse in a similar way the textual evidence of Latin writers.

However, if you look at my original post on this issue, you will notice that I did concede that the Romans were more conservative in their sexual mores and body issues than the Greeks. This relates to my point that it is unwise to extract ones morality from historical precedent in history. If the Christians that aided the abolotion of slavery had adopted such a view, the prominence of slavery in history, then it would never have been made illegal.

5 July 2009 at 02:22  
Anonymous indigomyth said...

//Well, I judge things on whether they are right or wrong, not whether they are popular. It is of little concern to me as to if they are popular. Hitler was popular.//

So was Barack Obama.

5 July 2009 at 02:23  
Blogger The Young Oligarch said...

Verging on Sophistry now , Indigomyth .

Slavery was a universal phenomenon until Christianity decided it was a bad idea .
Your only argument seems to be that some of those who campaigned against it were secret atheists and that Christianity had earlier been implicated by co-operating with this universal institution .
To you , there is no Christian morality on the matter , ergo there is no Christian morality .

Wrong . But ingeniously tortuous .

"But then, slavery is normal, according to your reasoning ."

Same tortuous logic , same falsehood . Hope it's not deliberate . You must have more than an inkling that I don't think that at all .

"Slavery, racism and anti-Semitism was also justified for thousands of years, in the majority of Christian and Classical writers."

So have condemnation of murder , rape and most of the unpleasant things which you can think of . By your Sophistic logic they must also be wrong .

"My point was to show that Ganymede is not usually depicted as being a "Boy" in the modern sense."
Getting close to NAMBLA here ! Stop !

You're showing more than a little too much interest in some naughty brothel-frescos from Pompeii , as well ! A tad prurient and indeed , creepy when used alongside such phrases as "sexual mores and body issues ".

Perhaps if homosexualists concentrated more on Sappho and less on debased , Sybaritic sensuality , the argument would be about love and not sexual perversion .

5 July 2009 at 03:01  
Blogger Manfarang said...

The Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans to be launched in England!

5 July 2009 at 03:08  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

@indigomyth

1.Statistics have always been questionable and can be manoeuvred
to achieve the desired result.They can always be produced to defend either side of an argument.

2.Y oligarch mentioned derision in age difference in the heterosexual
example.Children from same sex couples (and in particular male same sex couples}will suffer derision and bullying from their peers.How many 'wanted' children will wish they hadn't been born.It seems heartless to put children through this. Like it or not the herd recoil from anything not mirroring themselves.I know heterosexuals who have chosen not to reproduce because of this prevalent aspect of the human condition.

3. It is implicit in the marriage contract that sexual intercourse takes place otherwise the contract is rendered null and void.

4.Rebel saint is right that asexual same sex and opposite relationships are not recognised and do they deserve the same existing rights of homosexuals?

5. Should a group household be able to adopt a child or even get married as an asexual/sexual group?Should marriage just be between 2 people?

6.Christian ethics permeate western society and atheists, and anti christians unconsciously adhere to these.

7.I don't know how to label myself
but I can see a point to Christian
ethics and am comfortable with it.

5 July 2009 at 03:16  
Anonymous Konrad said...

Call me middle of the road: I agree with the legality of SSM, but also - like David Cameron - believe that homosexuals, bisexuals, and trans people can be encompassed by a vision of society that places emphasis on preserving marital traditions, in the form of stability.

Nice post, Cramer - you should become a citizen of Canada, so you can lead the Conservative Party here.

5 July 2009 at 03:35  
Anonymous Adrian P said...

Pushing Homesexuality onto our children is simply another way for them to Cull the Herd and divide and Conqeur us.
80% of the Prison population are from Female headed single parent families.
Of course Westminster and the EU know this, they can't allow us to play happy families because they need their Police state powers.
Hence the Destruction of the family.
Arron russo and Feminism
http://osolomama.wordpress.com/2009/01/08/ann-coulter-says-thank-a-single-mother-if-youre-victim-of-crime/


Ann Coulter on Unmarried Mothers

5 July 2009 at 04:13  
Anonymous Adrian P said...

Everything Westminster does is WRONG for our society.

They are destroying us.

5 July 2009 at 04:16  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cameron and Brown are equally hostile to normal family life. Handing kiddies to cohabiting deviants for 'adoption' is anti-family and indeed anti-human.
Marriage is devalued if open to pracititoners of aberrant behaviour.
Duncan Smith seemed to be a good guy once, but until he breaks with Cameron, nothing that emanates from his direction can be welcomed.

5 July 2009 at 07:10  
Anonymous Konrad said...

Adrian P.: Perhaps if you're attempting to make a point, you shouldn't provide a link to a page that states the erroneousness of the statistics you're providing.

By the way, did you know who else grew up without a father? The majority of U.S. presidents in the country's first fifty years - at a time when separation rates were far lower, no less. Oh, and did 'ya know what else? "Marital discord" has a far greater connection to criminality than separatation. Statistics suck like that, don't they?

Anonymous: Glad to see you've appointed yourself judge and jury over what constitutes "aberrant" behavior. God, I bet you think Rome was destroyed by homesexuals, Catullus notwithstanding. Or that attacking SSM makes you intelligent because you assume it wasn't practiced in historic societies. Like shit.

5 July 2009 at 07:41  
Anonymous Rudyard K said...

Konrad it would be appreciated if you could observe a modicum of civility in His Grace's presence. Please temper your responses.

Aberrant behaviour is behaviour that differs significantly from the norm .The term doesn't only apply to sexuality e.g. Your behaviour on this site is aberrant because of your inappropriate mode of expression.

5 July 2009 at 08:12  
Anonymous indigomyth said...

Anonymous @ 03:16

Point 1. I concur. The prevalence of homosexuals in society is a matter of debate. No one is certain.

Point 2. Children suffer bullying from having mixed-race or parents of different races from them. Some will also be bullied due to the fact that their parents have strong religious convictions, as I believe does happen. In none of these cases is bullying at school seen as justifiable reason to prevent said couples from adopting. It seems rather like you wish to surrender to human ignorance and bigotry. Surely it is far better to change attitudes at schools, rather than preventing children going to good same-sex homes.

Point 3 and Point 4. Perhaps it is. But do couples have to prove that they are engaging in sexual intercourse to receive the benefits? Does a widowed wife have to demonstrate that her and her husband had sex in order to receive state pension and benefits. I do not believe so. So, in fact there is no barrier to an asexual opposite-sex couple being married and reaping the benefits the state gives; so they do have the same rights that homosexuals currently do.

Point 5. I do not know. I have not seen evidence either way, so cannot comment. I would only observe that polygamy works in many cultures and societies.

Point 6. Could you provide examples of explicitly Christian ethics that non-Christians adhere to. These should be ethics that are totally unique to Christianity, otherwise we may conclude that they are general ethics, which are followed by many ethical systems.

Point 7. Depends what you mean by "Christian ethics". Charles Martel was rabidly anti-Semetic.

P.S. Please give yourself a name, it is most off putting talking to Anonymous.

5 July 2009 at 08:20  
Anonymous len said...

The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof, because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance. (Isaiah 24:5)

Because they have transgressed the laws.
Transgression is the spirit of our age.Notice the slogans from recent advertising campaigns:Nothing is taboo...Break all the rules...To know no boundaries...Relax: no rules here... Peel off all inhibitions.Find your own road...We are all hedonists and want to do what feels good...That`s what makes us human..Living without boundaries...Just do it...
The idea is constant:You don`t have to respect Gods boundaries, because you make your own and live by them.

Because they have ...Changed the ordinance:
The Hebrew word for ordinance is Torah: which often means the Law of God and the word of God. Mankind is ripe for judgment because we have changed Gods word for something more acceptable for fallen man.


For all these reasons a curse has devoured the earth-
This is the interpretation of all disease, all insanity, all the things of waste, of disorder, of strife, of misery in human history and human experience.A polluted race pollutes the earth and chaos is the result.

5 July 2009 at 08:32  
Anonymous indigomyth said...

The Young Oligarch,

I do not believe they were secret atheists; they were motivated by a peculiar Christian ethic.

//To you , there is no Christian morality on the matter , ergo there is no Christian morality .//

I see Christian acting a particular way, I observe them justifying the things they do with Christianity, I see Christian institutions supporting these actions, I conclude that Christian morality had a part to play in action. It would seem that you are the one engaging in tortuous logic in order to absolve Christianity of any wrong doing in the slave trade.

//By your Sophistic logic they must also be wrong .//

Not torturous logic; a conclusion that must be come to, given your commitment to tradition, historical precedence and prominence. I do not think murder, rape and all those unpleasant things are acceptable, but I am not bound to because I do not look to the past to justify things in the present. You clearly do. You certainly do in the case of homosexuality.

If you have a logical response, use it. Indeed, if you do not believe slavery and anti-Semitism are normal parts of the ancient world, than you are using a drastically different definition of "normal". Normal is surely what is most common; slavery and anti-Semitism were most common; ergo, slavery and anti-Semitism were normal. It is not tortuous. It is simple.

//Getting close to NAMBLA here ! Stop !

You're showing more than a little too much interest in some naughty brothel-frescos from Pompeii , as well ! A tad prurient and indeed , creepy when used alongside such phrases as "sexual mores and body issues ".//

Not close to NAMBLA. NAMBLA justifies man-boy love not be denying that Ganymede was a boy, but saying that man-boy love is right and good. That is fundamentally different from what I am doing. I am arguing that Ganymede was not a "boy" in the modern sense, and was instead a young teenager. His figure and physique in representations certainly hint that he is not a very young boy. Do you understand the difference?

Why do you find the expression "sexual mores and body issues" creepy? It is merely an expression to describe the particular aspect of social conduct to do with sex and the body. The fact that you find them prurient and creepy does not make them so. I was under the impression we were having a mature debate about sexuality in the ancient world, and you are unable to do it without throwing in such distractions.

The point I am making, and have been continuing to make, is that you are basing your judgement on the writers you have, like Juvenal, as being "normal" on limited information. And, as I have also pointed out, the brothel-frescos you speak of are actually common in private, non-brothel, dwellings. You, I would submit, are showing far too LITTLE interest in the eroticism of Pompei and Herculaneum, and are merely dismissing them as the result of a few corrupted individuals. You have not provided evidence for this conclusion, whereas I have for mine. If you value the pursuit of history, you would do well to consider all the evidence, not merely that which agrees with you.

Your last paragraph is confusing. I do not consider sex and sensuality debased, therefore I see no reason not to talk of them. I also do not consider it sexual perversion; indeed I see no reason to label it perversion. a perversion of what, might I ask? It was most common in the ancient Greek world, therefore the sexual restraint and suppression you seem to advocate would be the perversion. I think you mean "perversion of sexuality and sensuality from the POV of Christian ethics". But then, perhaps it is Christian ethics that are perverted, not the luxury of sex and sensuality?

5 July 2009 at 08:49  
Anonymous indigomyth said...

Rudyard K said,
//Aberrant behaviour is behaviour that differs significantly from the norm .The term doesn't only apply to sexuality //

And I take it from "norm" you mean "most common" or "average"?

So, is left-handedness aberrant? It differs dramatically from the most common, it requires people to use different implements etc. Was Einstein aberrant? His intelligence was markedly beyond the norm. Is Christianity aberrant in some countries? The worship of a God divided into three is drastically different from Allah. Is Christianity an aberrant belief? Was hiding Jewish people during the Third Reich "aberrant behaviour"? It differed significantly from the actions of most of society.

Also, quantify "significantly". Have you a percentage scale, or intensity meter that you can use to judge when something steps from being merely abnormal, to being aberrant? Where is this meter kept? I should like very much to see it.

5 July 2009 at 08:56  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

@indigomyth
Interesting point about
surrendering to human ignorance and bigotry.

As I said before it's part of the human condition.. It's unrealistic to think that one day somehow that these attributes will disappear and we will all live together harmoniously.A type of harmony is achieved by grouping people with the same experiences together.eg

1.People who have very strong religious convictions mainly send their children to religious schools

2.Generally people choose a same race partner so that there children will not be discriminated against.

3.The above are survival decisions made to circumvent problems that will always be with us.

4.A new community is being created. Will there be enough children from same sex families to fund a special school for these children?I dont think the question of bullying should be considered lightly.It ruins too many lives.

5 July 2009 at 09:21  
Anonymous indigomyth said...

Anonymous @ 09:21

It is. Does not mean that we should merely settle for that, but strive for something better. It is what we have done for centuries.

Point 1. Agree. Though would note that those with v.v. strong religious convictions probably home school them.

Point 2. Do they!? I was unaware that people were that considerate. But, in anycase, it does not detract from the fact that we permit mixed-race couples to adopt and have children, despite the fact that they may be bullied.

Point 3. Perhaps. I cannot conclude that the problems will always necessarily be with us. Slavery is largely eradicated in the West. It used to be prevalent. Things do change.

Point 4. I do not think they should have special schools for the children of same-sex couples. Perhaps they should have separate those children that bully into separate schools. As I said, caving into the practices of bullies is no way to run society. We should not be satisfied with anti-social behaviour, either globally or locally.

5 July 2009 at 09:38  
Blogger The Young Oligarch said...

Indigomyth -

"I do not think murder, rape and all those unpleasant things are acceptable, but I am not bound to because I do not look to the past to justify things in the present. You clearly do. You certainly do in the case of homosexuality."

You are correct . I believe that our Western culture , augmented by Christianity has produced a great civilisation now under attack by cultural Marxists , aided by hedonists and the opportunistic interventions of other , more primitive cultures .

I believe that it is supremely arrogant , as well as fruitless and sterile to try to start each generations' culture and morality from first principles . Holy Scripture , the mos maiorum
and the collected literature and history of our various peoples provide a substantial precedent for our present conduct , far more substantial than the whims of an individual , or even a group of agitators .

"It is not tortuous. It is simple."

To impute anti-Semitism and support for slavery as basic principles of Christianity and our civilisation and try to dismiss both as you try to do , is , indeed , tortuous . Even more so is your attempt to dismiss all precedent and rely on your own feelings/whims in preference to any more important influence .

"Not close to NAMBLA. NAMBLA justifies man-boy love not be denying that Ganymede was a boy, but saying that man-boy love is right and good. That is fundamentally different from what I am doing. I am arguing that Ganymede was not a "boy" in the modern sense, and was instead a young teenager. His figure and physique in representations certainly hint that he is not a very young boy. Do you understand the difference?"

No . They seem like the same thing to me . You can bet your life that if you came near any of my pupils with intent like that , you'd be getting your collar felt , after I'd had a word with you !

Think what you're saying , man !

"Why do you find the expression "sexual mores and body issues" creepy? ....I was under the impression we were having a mature debate about sexuality in the ancient world, and you are unable to do it without throwing in such distractions."

We're back to the starting point with the juxtaposition of Cato the Censor and Nero . I prefer to concentrate on the moral code of one , you show more interest in the un-natural lusts of the other .

"The point I am making, and have been continuing to make, ......whereas I have for mine. If you value the pursuit of history, you would do well to consider all the evidence, not merely that which agrees with you."

I have studied Classical literature and history since my own childhood and I am now no longer a young man . For me to provide half a life-time's analysis of Latin literature and its views on manliness and moral conduct in this short space is impossible . Even to attempt would be fatuous . That is not to impute to myself great scholarship and learning , I have but little , but the topic is too vast and too subtle . Do you seriously think that I have just picked up a few books and scanned through them to find evidence to support a shallow opinion ? Or could it be that my opinion has been informed by long and arduous study ?

" I do not consider sex and sensuality debased, therefore I see no reason not to talk of them. I also do not consider it sexual perversion.....perhaps it is Christian ethics that are perverted, not the luxury of sex and sensuality? "

Sybaritic hedonism at its most brazen !
By introducing Sappho , the original Lesbian , I deliberately left open the door to discuss the spiritual , even noble possibilities that genuine homosexual attachment may have on those who it affects . I had hoped that there was more to this debate than the discussion of perversion , smut and "what-age-does-a-boy-have-to-be-so-I-can-get-away-with-it" .

It seems that I was wrong and that homosexuality , as promoted in this current age , has no finer feelings .

5 July 2009 at 09:43  
Anonymous sydneysider said...

The meter can be found in a dark and private place and can be viewed only by mutual consent.

5 July 2009 at 09:48  
Anonymous sydneysider said...

@not so young oligarch

BRAVO CICERO! an excellent speech!

No ...seriously though...best post on any of the sites so far. Well done! Very passionate and polished.Wish you'd been my Latin teacher.

5 July 2009 at 10:03  
Blogger The Young Oligarch said...

Thanks , sydneysider .

Normally I just grunt and point to make myself understood .

I blame the insomnia , induced by the unusual sunny weather hereabouts .
10 in the morning and I still haven't been to bed !

5 July 2009 at 10:09  
Anonymous indigomyth said...

The Young Oligarch,

You say that we should not start from first principles. But that is what the revolution about slavery did, it was a complete upheaval of the traditional economic structure, and was a radical departure from what had come before. I do not see the current climate of liberalising sexual attitudes to be any different.

The collected literature and history provided a significant precedent for racism, anti-Semitism and slavery. I am merely asserting that Western culture, augmented with liberalism and secularism, has produced a great civilisation. Why was it not arrogant for the small number of Christians to try and exclude slavery from society. It seems "supremely arrogant".

//To impute anti-Semitism and support for slavery as basic principles of Christianity and our civilisation and try to dismiss both as you try to do , is , indeed , tortuous . Even more so is your attempt to dismiss all precedent and rely on your own feelings/whims in preference to any more important influence .//

Well, they have been regarded as so by many observers. Charles Martel was a rabid anti-Semite. Do you deny that anti-Semitism has been significant in Western, Christian, culture? You are attempting to revise history to absolve Christianity of all responsibility. The fact that Christ himself did not overtly condemn slavery, and indeed exhorted slaves to obey their masters, would seem a fairly obvious relaxed attitude to slavery. Justify your conclusion that Christianity was not supportive of slavery. I have justified mine.

//No . They seem like the same thing to me //

They are not. I am saying Ganymede was not a boy, NAMBLA would argue that he was. You comprehend? I say Ganymede was a young man, as evidenced in classical art. Again, I have provided evidence, you have provided nothing but assertion and unsubstantiated opinion.

//I prefer to concentrate on the moral code of one , you show more interest in the un-natural lusts of the other .//
Ahh, once again, an unsubstantiated claim. How do you know that they are un-natural lusts? Provide your argumentation, your evidence.

//I have studied Classical literature and history since my own childhood and I am now no longer a young man . //

As have I. And I have not asked for a comprehensive list of reasons, merely one or two, which you have not provided.

//I had hoped that there was more to this debate than the discussion of perversion , smut and "what-age-does-a-boy-have-to-be-so-I-can-get-away-with-it" .

It seems that I was wrong and that homosexuality , as promoted in this current age , has no finer feelings .//

It does have finer feelings. I am not debating that point. I am debating the point about Ganymede.

5 July 2009 at 10:12  
Anonymous sydneysider said...

Give the guy a break indigo,he's been up all night partying!

5 July 2009 at 10:29  
Anonymous indigomyth said...

sydneysider said,
//Give the guy a break indigo,he's been up all night partying!//

Perhaps. But, if he wishes to graciously withdraw from the debate, then he is free to. It seems odd to expect me to stand down when he responds. Indeed, it would be a disservice to him to not address the points he raises, and respond to the full extent of my meagre ability. And, given the fact that you believe him to have made good points, it increases the importance of confronting the assertions he makes, and the assumptions he adopts. Perhaps you would prefer to take over his side in this debate?

5 July 2009 at 10:39  
Blogger The Young Oligarch said...

Indigomyth .

After your disturbing disclosure of your attitude to young boys , I am wary of answering your post , but will give it a try .

You have not and cannot provide evidence that Ganymede was anything of the sort - he is a character from the Iliad and various non-Homeric epics . He did not exist . Therefore any representation of him is imaginary . That you find these imaginative paintings of a young boy in some way sexually arousing , or evidence that he is "fair game" for older homosexuals , is profoundly shocking .

"As have I. And I have not asked for a comprehensive list of reasons, merely one or two, which you have not provided."

What is it you want again ?

Finally , what has Charles Martel got to do with the price of mince ? Are you just throwing in random historical figures ?

Stalin smoked ground up Georgian fags in his pipe . And he was anti-Semitic too .

Diogenes the Cynic used to sleep in a giant earthen-ware pot and he masturbated in public because he didn't see that anyone should oppress him with conventional moral standards .

George Washington had wooden false teeth and owned slaves . Co-incidence ?

Augustus the Strong of Saxony (and Poland) may have had as many as 382 illegitimate children . He couldn't control himself either .

5 July 2009 at 10:54  
Blogger The Young Oligarch said...

sydneysider -

"he's been up all night partying!"

If only !

Not even one beer ! Oh , the deprivation !

5 July 2009 at 11:06  
Anonymous indigomyth said...

The Young Oligarch,

Your disturbing attitude to homosexuality and Greek sexuality makes me wary of answering your post, but will give it a try.

I have a healthy attitude to young boys. I am not attracted to them. Attraction to teenagers is natural and prominent.

The representations of him are undoubtedly those of a young man
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Berlin_Painter_Ganymedes_Louvre_G175.jpg

These representations demonstrate that the Greeks thought of Ganymede as a physically mature young man. They imagine him as a muscular man, not a prepubescent boy. Provide your interpretation of Classical art of Ganymede which you think shows that he is a boy.

I would also remind you that Romeo and Juliet are meant to be in their early teens. About 14 years old I believe. Yet they are sexualised.

Charles Martel was a Christian who used Christianity to justify his anti-Semitism. Martel's Christianity was anti-Semitic. I was using him as a demonstration of Christians, motivated by Christianity, who were anti-Semitic. Your argument was that Christianity had nothing to do with slavery and anti-Semitism. I have provided evidence that it did, and does.

Stalin was a product of a Christian society, with Christian prejudices against Jews. He was an atheist, that adopted Christian anti-Semitism. Just as Hitler did, though he was a Christian.

//George Washington had wooden false teeth and owned slaves . Co-incidence ?//

Wooden teeth are not compulsive. They are not an ideology that compels action. Christianity is, therefore it can be legitimately held responsible for some of the slave trade, in a way that false teeth cannot. You comprehend?

//Augustus the Strong of Saxony (and Poland) may have had as many as 382 illegitimate children . He couldn't control himself either .//

I would have thought having many children was a feat of epic control and commitment! It is certainly not an easy thing to do. Indeed, you assume the necessity of control. He may have had the capacity to control himself, but not seen the need to. Self-control is predicated on the need to control ones self. If you remove that need, self-control becomes a nonsense concept. You may as well try and claim that Muslim polygamists do not have self-control, ignoring the fact that they do not have the need to limit themselves the way you perceive.

5 July 2009 at 11:14  
Blogger The Young Oligarch said...

Indigomyth said -

"Attraction to teenagers is natural and prominent."

"Prominent attraction"? You realise that , in this country , you'll get the gaol for that sort of thing ?

This is pure evil ! Paedophilia ?

We are now into the realms of the criminal law .

End of discussion .

(Apologies for the immoderate language , Your Grace .)

5 July 2009 at 11:24  
Anonymous indigomyth said...

The Young Oligarch said,
//"Prominent attraction"? You realise that , in this country , you'll get the gaol for that sort of thing ?//

So you will get arrested for sleeping with a 16 year old? A 17 year old? An 18 year old? A 19 year old? Teenagers all. My point stands as true and valid. Marriage among teenagers to older individuals is a theme in Christian literature (sic Romeo and Juliet).

16-19 year old intercourse is not paedophilia. Not legally, not logically, not emotionally, not physically. And, in Spain and Mexico, from 12y.o. is not paedophilia. You comprehend this?

And, I would imagine that if Cranmer sincerely believed I was advocating paedophilia, he would erase my posts. I can feel his presence observing this dialogue, and also observe that he has not erased my contributions. I therefore conclude that he either does not believe I am advocating paedophilia, or that he is permitting perceived promotion of paedophilia on his blog. Would his Grace be so kind as to descend from Heaven and arbitrate in this matter? Double as Archbish. Cranmer and King Solomon.

For someone who, on his own blog, decries the emotional nature of the debate surrounding the gay rights movement, you seem content to utilise emotion to distract from the issues in this case. Perhaps it is not deliberate attempt at divergence, but a mere lack of intellectual considerations of the things I am saying?

5 July 2009 at 11:34  
Anonymous indigomyth said...

Indeed, if Cranmer does believe that I am advocating paedophilia, I would urge him to erase my comments. To permit supportive discussion of paedophilia would be a gross moral failing.

I would hope that he would exercise his reserved right to delete comments, according to his disclaimer:

//Comments that are off-topic, gratuitously offensive, libelous, or otherwise irritating, may be summarily deleted.//

If Cranmer believes me to be arguing for the things that I am accused of, then I am guilty of being gratuitously offensive and at the very least, irritating. If he thinks me advocating paedophilia, a gross and disgusting abuse of children, then I will gladly leave his site, and never return, under the name "indigomyth", nor under any other.

5 July 2009 at 11:46  
Blogger The Young Oligarch said...

Indigomyth said

"Attraction to teenagers is natural and prominent. "

He has now modified this to

"So you will get arrested for sleeping with a 16 year old? A 17 year old? An 18 year old? A 19 year old? Teenagers all."

In common with many , I believe this to be morally wrong and would have been happy had our current corrupt and corrupting government not lowered the age of homosexual consent from 21 .

There was a clear implication in Indigomyth's comments that all teenagers , from 12 upwards were to be the object of the pederastic attentions of older men .

If I can't get emotional about the abuse of children , there's not really much else to get upset about .

On this basis I cannot continue this debate , which started as an enjoyable exchange of ideas , but deteriorated on this issue only .

I hope Your Grace will not see this as a cop-out or think that I have brought un-necessary discord to your excellent site .

5 July 2009 at 11:50  
Anonymous indigomyth said...

The Young Oligarch said,
//In common with many , I believe this to be morally wrong and would have been happy had our current corrupt and corrupting government not lowered the age of homosexual consent from 21 .//

Ahhh, so you do not care if young girls are targeted by older men? Seems rather sexist of you to be content with the Stringfellows of this world going around targeting young girls. Why do you consider it permissible that 16 year old girls can have sex with 40 year old men, but not 16 year old boys to have sex with 40 year old men. Seems inconsistent of you. You seem to be arguing that in only cases of 16 year old boys is it paedophilia, not in cases of girls. Justify this belief. Why the difference in age of consent? Do you not believe young girls deserve equal protection to young boys? Why the disparity between ages of consent?

And, as I have clearly stated, I distrust people claiming the popularity of a view without corroborating evidence. You seem to extrapolate what people in pubs say to you, to the common opinion of many. I would suggest that you learn the value of evidence, which your posts have suffered from a dearth of.

//There was a clear implication in Indigomyth's comments that all teenagers , from 12 upwards were to be the object of the pederastic attentions of older men .//

And there are clear implications in the Young Oligarchs comments that indicate that all girls, from 16 and up, are allowed to be object of attraction and sexual relations for older men. He has not defended the plight of young girls in any of his posts; indeed, his obsession with young boys verges on the neurotic and pathological. I do not believe abuse of children should be permitted, nor do I think that 12yo is an appropriate age of consent. I was merely highlighting the fact that these standards exist.

//If I can't get emotional about the abuse of children , there's not really much else to get upset about .//

I get emotional about the abuse of children as well. It is fortunate that we are not debating that. Or were not until you conflated Greek adoration of young men, with the abhorrent abuse of young boys. I have presented evidence that the Greeks did not think of Ganymede as a prepubescent boy, via the image I linked to, but rather a healthy, muscular , young man. You are allowing your irrational distaste for all things homosexual to cloud your judgement and reason. Indeed, I conclude that the only reason you oppose the equal age of consent is the fact that you do not like homosexuality at all, not for any concern about the welfare of young teenagers.

I have thrown myself on the mercy of Cranmer. I will await his judgement.

5 July 2009 at 12:08  
Anonymous indigomyth said...

The Young Oligarch said,
//You realise that , in this country , you'll get the gaol for that sort of thing ?//

//He has now modified this to //

It was not a modification, it was a clarification. I was responding to your assertion that people would end up in jail. I showed that you were wrong. I also showed how attraction to teenagers is natural and prominent, and demonstrated that with references to historical precedent. I do not believe attraction to 13 year olds is natural, however, 16-19 yo are teenagers, and is typically when sexual maturity occurs. And, if we judge Classical art, Ganymede is not a young boy, but rather a young man. You comprehend?

5 July 2009 at 12:13  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

His Grace has spoken in today's post.

5 July 2009 at 12:16  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The debate is interesting coming from a country that is obviously falling into decadence not seen since for many centuries. In a country were the adoption by the mental ill is approved and looked on as something normal. In a country were marriage is penalised by the tax authorities. In a country were bad manners, foul language and ignorance are assets to a front page social life. Were censorship by the leading distributors of news is commonplace and politicians are as corrupt as any dictatorship in the third world. His Grace has done service to the people by bring up this much needed refocusing on civilized values.

5 July 2009 at 12:17  
Blogger The Young Oligarch said...

I misunderstood your comments , Indigomyth .If so , please accept my apologies .
I was blinded by the ambiguity of your assertions .

You will find nowhere in my writing that I do not care for the welfare of young girls , neither will you find me eulogising the sexual exploitation of 16 year olds .

You are correct that I do not like homosexuality at all . I find it abhorrent . This does not , however , by any stretch of the imagination , preclude me from caring about the welfare of the young .

"And there are clear implications in the Young Oligarchs comments that indicate that all girls, from 16 and up, are allowed to be object of attraction and sexual relations for older men. He has not defended the plight of young girls in any of his posts; indeed, his obsession with young boys verges on the neurotic and pathological."

Well , I did mistake you for a paedophile , so I suppose a bit of abuse is acceptable . Just don't over-do it .

And all this over Ganymede ! And me sober , as well !

Here's another , better known representation of him , this time with Zeus .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Zeus-Gany-sculpt1.jpg

You'd seen that already , though .

5 July 2009 at 12:32  
Anonymous indigomyth said...

The Young Oligarch,

Apology accepted.

//You are correct that I do not like homosexuality at all . I find it abhorrent . This does not , however , by any stretch of the imagination , preclude me from caring about the welfare of the young .//

Why do you find it abhorrent? Is not abhorrent a rather strong word to use? What reason do you think it wrong? I confess I find your opinion of homosexuality to be abhorrent, and I do not like it at all.

You have not answered my questions about why you do not want an equal age of consent? Why you think it more acceptable for a 16 year old girl to have sex with a 40 year old man, than a 16 year old boy with a 40 year old man, or even another 16 year old boy.

The representation may be better known, but is it representative?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ZeusCourtingGanymede.jpg
another image of the two, clearly showing Ganymede as a young man.

5 July 2009 at 12:48  
Anonymous indigomyth said...

Another representation of Greek pederasty
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Metropolitan_kylix_-_Man_bargaining_for_sex.jpg

Again, the young "boy" is clearly a young man, as judged by his height and his physique.

5 July 2009 at 12:51  
Blogger The Young Oligarch said...

Indigomyth -

Now that we've eventually got it straight , that you don't fancy wee boys , we can carry on the civilised stuff .

What country are you from , by the way ? Not a vital question , but I think your non-native English led to some misunderstanding there .

The real point is not looking at Attic red figure vases versus archaic sculpture , it is that Ganymede wasn't real . The artist imagines him as he would like him to be .

Most artists imagined him as a very young boy -

http://www.vroma.org/images/mcmanus_images/paula_chabot/zeus_ganymede.jpg

I've got one in a book in front of me from the Boston Museum of Fine Art showing him as a young boy being chased by Zeus . He carries a child's hoop to emphasise his age , just like your example .

I find homosexuality abhorrent for cultural and religious reasons . No , it is not too strong a word .

Think what you like about my opinions , they are only opinions .

I believe there should be no age of consent for homosexuals and that the only valid sexual relationship is within marriage . If a young girl wishes to marry an older man , that should be decided on the advice of her parents , her minister and the congregation . Personally I would strongly discourage such a marriage .

5 July 2009 at 13:17  
Anonymous sydneysider said...

All quiet on the western front?
Good,Indigo and Oligarch must have crashed!

Oligarch's historical snippets were rivetting eg the masturbatory habits of Diogenes and the sex life of Augustus the strong of Saxony .Good dinner party pieces!

5 July 2009 at 13:22  
Blogger The Young Oligarch said...

Indigomyth -

Your figure is of a male prostitute . He's not a citizen and therefore doesn't count as any more than an object in the society depicted .

More accurate would be this -

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/dc/Love_gift_-_Calyx_krater_Aegisthos_painter_ca_460_BCE.jpg

or this -

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/Kiss_Briseis_Painter_Louvre_G278_full.jpg

5 July 2009 at 13:27  
Blogger The Young Oligarch said...

sydneysider -

Not quite yet . Getting tired though .

Time for bed , said Zebedee .

5 July 2009 at 13:28  
Anonymous indigomyth said...

The Young Oligarch,

See, I interpret the images you link to as still being a young man, not a boy, in the sense of a 10 or 12 year old. The height of the male in most of them seems to be similar to that of a 16 year old.

Even if he is only a prostitute, the fact that his wares are being bought, would seem to suggest attraction to sexually mature members of the same sex, not prepubescent boys.

//The real point is not looking at Attic red figure vases versus archaic sculpture , it is that Ganymede wasn't real . The artist imagines him as he would like him to be .//

Exactly! And it is by that representation that we can assess how ancient Greeks related the legends to what they desired. Images gives us data that cannot be obtained from most textual documents. Assessments of physical maturity are more easily gauged by images than script.

//What country are you from , by the way ? Not a vital question , but I think your non-native English led to some misunderstanding there .//

I am English, born and bred. Which element of my writing led you to conclude otherwise?

//I believe there should be no age of consent for homosexuals and that the only valid sexual relationship is within marriage . If a young girl wishes to marry an older man , that should be decided on the advice of her parents , her minister and the congregation . Personally I would strongly discourage such a marriage .//

Why should there be no age of consent between homosexuals? You support decriminalisation, yet you would not regulate that decriminalisation?

So, you do not think sex between a 16 year old and a 40 year old man should be made illegal? That it can be justified? What makes that different from a 16 year old boy having sex with a 40 year old man?

//I find homosexuality abhorrent for cultural and religious reasons . No , it is not too strong a word .//

But then, how do you differ from those that oppose mixed-race or mixed-race relationships, for cultural and religious reasons. Cultural and religious reasons are also used to justify the killing of apostates in Muslim countries. How do you justify your repulsion?

I do not mean to push this, but why do you think it is not too strong a word. By calling it abhorrent, you put it in the same category as the Holocaust, murder, rape, genocide etc. If you would not mind, I think I would benefit from a detailed explanation from you as to why you feel this way. It is a matter of great curiosity to me. Indeed, I am offering you an opportunity to present the logical, sensible case forward, something which you say is missing in the current debate.

5 July 2009 at 14:04  
Anonymous indigomyth said...

//I've got one in a book in front of me from the Boston Museum of Fine Art showing him as a young boy being chased by Zeus . He carries a child's hoop to emphasise his age , just like your example .//

Such an affectation may be nothing more than that. Rather like Britney Spears wearing a school uniform and sucking a lolly pop. Mere affectations of youth do not indicate youth. As I say, the height and physique of the male in your cited images is much more similar to a 17 or 18 year old, rather than a 10 or 12 year old.

Would you do deny that they do not seem to be young children, of, say, 9 or 10? They look much older than that!

5 July 2009 at 14:08  
Anonymous indigomyth said...

SP. "mixed-race or mixed-race" should read "mixed-race or mixed-faith"

5 July 2009 at 14:10  
Blogger The Young Oligarch said...

Indigomyth -

Why do you consistently leave the age-group 13-15 out of this ? Is it deliberately to create ambiguity ?
If the boy "looks" 16 to someone fixated on very young male beauty you can bet that he'll be younger .

Back to these vase painters . Could it be that some of the artists , notably the Berlin painter , preferred to depict young boys towards the upper age-range ( and therefore just about to become unattainable) while you prefer them as they are just about to become attainable ?

I have no need to justify my opinions other than on the grounds which I have already expressed . I certainly do not bear hatred in my heart for individual homosexuals , only for their sin . Indeed , I find it insulting to the individual and deeply troubling , for anyone to be identified , primarily , by their individual sins .

The only thing I know about Britney Spears is that her name is an anagram of "Presbyterians".

This caused myself and my co-religionaries some mild amusement at the time .

5 July 2009 at 22:17  
Blogger The Young Oligarch said...

Indigomyth -

//What country are you from , by the way ? Not a vital question , but I think your non-native English led to some misunderstanding there .//

"I am English, born and bred. Which element of my writing led you to conclude otherwise?"

Use of foreign phrases in translation -

"You comprehend?"

Vocabulary so inappropriate , it verges on the bizarre -

"Attraction to teenagers is natural and prominent."

Imperfect understanding of English tenses -

"I say Ganymede was a young man"

"Perhaps they should have separate those children that bully into separate schools"

I could go on , but when I was trained in basic ESL these were regarded as classic signs that the writer was not a native-speaker .

I was wrong , obviously .

5 July 2009 at 22:35  
Anonymous Adrian P said...

I'm beginning to think he Gay community hate Heterosexuals and the Heterosexual family unit and they and the Liberal establishment are now actively conspiring to have children stripped from Hetero Families and handed over to Gay Parents.

Just look at the anti family rubbish we have in the Media in terms of soaps, couples arguing, squabbling, divorces etc.

Put programmes like that infront of youngsters and teenagers whilst they are growing up, guess what will happen.


Look at what they teach our children in schools nowadays.

The EU has even legalised Paedophilia.

EU Legalises Paedophilia

I don't really care what these people get up to in their own privacy, but it seems they are forcing these beliefs and actions onto OUR children.

If they want children, they should produce their own, stop destroying our families and stealing our children.

6 July 2009 at 05:17  
Anonymous Adrian P said...

I'm beginning to think he Gay community hate Heterosexuals and the Heterosexual family unit and they and the Liberal establishment are now actively conspiring to have children stripped from Hetero Families and handed over to Gay Parents.

Just look at the anti family rubbish we have in the Media in terms of soaps, couples arguing, squabbling, divorces etc.

Put programmes like that infront of youngsters and teenagers whilst they are growing up, guess what will happen, they will grow up behaving just like they see people behaving in the soaps.

anyone who doubts that we absorb what we see and experience around us should consider what happens when you live in another country for a few years, let;s say, Australia, you come back with an Australian Accent.

Look at what they teach our children in schools nowadays, of course it affects them.

If I taught five year olds how to pick locks, or how to pickpocket guess what will happen.

The EU has even legalised Paedophilia.

EU Legalises Paedophilia
EU Legalises Paedophilia

I don't really care what these people get up to in their own privacy, or what they teach their own children, nothing to do with me but it seems they are forcing THEIR beliefs Values and actions onto OUR children.

If they want children, they should produce their own, stop destroying our families and stealing our children.

6 July 2009 at 05:27  
Anonymous indigomyth said...

The Young Oligarch,
//Why do you consistently leave the age-group 13-15 out of this ? Is it deliberately to create ambiguity ?
If the boy "looks" 16 to someone fixated on very young male beauty you can bet that he'll be younger .//

Well, physical maturity onsets prior to 16. If paedophilia is attraction to prepubescent, sexually immature children, then it cannot be the case that attraction to sexually mature 14 year olds it paedophilia. So, would you consider sleeping with someone of 16 years old to be paedophilia? What about 15 years old and 11months? What about 15years and 10 months? You see how the notion of a definite standard of the age of consent is based on nothing so much as a cultural illusion. Indeed, I am unaware if the Bible gives a age at which people may be married. Perhaps you can inform me?

//I have no need to justify my opinions other than on the grounds which I have already expressed . I certainly do not bear hatred in my heart for individual homosexuals , only for their sin . Indeed , I find it insulting to the individual and deeply troubling , for anyone to be identified , primarily , by their individual sins .//

I was asking you for perhaps a lively debate, as you seemed to desire on your blog. I misunderstood your intentions.

I would say that homosexual conduct and the homosexual person are artificial distinctions. The conduct is the manifestation of the personal feelings of the homosexual. They are the actualisation of those feelings. It is rather like saying that owning a Bible is a sin, but believing in God is not. In most cases, the one necessitates the other.

Indeed, if you define yourself as "Christian" then you are defining yourself according to your individual sin of being a Christian. For being a Christian is a sin in Islam. So, when one defines oneself in any terms, one is certain to be defining oneself by a sin, according to one belief system or another.

It would be a strange person indeed that would divide from their personal identity their feelings, emotions and opinions. And, as an extension ,the acts and actions necessitated by those inclinations and beliefs.

On a side note, I am most interested in Cranmers discussion of "Eros". Is this not a god that homosexuals and sexual liberals could claim to be worshipping when they advocate their position, and would it not then fall under the protection of religious liberty? A curious idea. Redefine homosexuality as the worship of Eros, and, under religious liberty laws, they would have to be granted the liberty to openly practice their faith. Of course, it would mean that the gay Christians would have to leave the Church, and start a new one, but hey ho.

Re. my language skills.

Thank you for high lighting my errors. I confess, when I get animated my typing slips. I also am a poor proof reader, so fail to spot errors. However, I do enjoy using non-standard English sentence constructions.

//Attraction to teenagers is natural and prominent.//

I stand by that, and have seen no evidence brought forward to contradict it. I could equally cite your opinions on homosexuality as evidence of bizarreness. Indeed, they would be more at home in a Muslim cleric, then in a Christian.

6 July 2009 at 07:35  
Anonymous len said...

However you pontificate and dress it up and try to re-define it, sin is still sin!
And if you sin you WILL reap the rewards.
God is not mocked. There is a Spiritual Law of sin and death ,if you break that Law it will kill you!.

Its rather like saying to an electric cable " I don`t believe in electricity, my intentions are good I`m just going to grab this cable and I don`t believe it will hurt me"!
The Electricity company puts warnings around high voltage cables, God has warned people in His Word.

6 July 2009 at 13:47  
Blogger The Young Oligarch said...

Indigomyth -

"Well, physical maturity onsets prior to 16. If paedophilia is attraction to prepubescent, sexually immature children, then it cannot be the case that attraction to sexually mature 14 year olds it paedophilia. So, would you consider sleeping with someone of 16 years old to be paedophilia? What about 15 years old and 11months? What about 15years and 10 months? You see how the notion of a definite standard of the age of consent is based on nothing so much as a cultural illusion. Indeed, I am unaware if the Bible gives a age at which people may be married. Perhaps you can inform me?"

THINK , Man ! Do you know what you are saying here ? You denied these sentiments earlier on and I apologised , thinking I had misunderstood . Do you want to modify what you've written here ?

6 July 2009 at 17:30  
Anonymous indigomyth said...

The Young Oligarch,

Okay, let me state it as clearly as possible. No normal or good person is attracted to sexually immature, prepubescent, children.

However, and as I continuously say, age does not correlate to either sexual or emotional maturity.

Answer me two simple question; Do you think Romeo and Juliet is an immoral story, because it features 14 year olds getting married, and having sex?

And,

How do you define paedophilia, logically?

You have so far struck me as a reasonable man (opinions on homosexuality aside). Let us have a discussion of logic and reason.

6 July 2009 at 18:23  
Anonymous indigomyth said...

Interestingly, I have consulted my OED, and it defines a paedophile as "a person who is sexually attracted to children."

However,The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child defines a child as "every human being below the age of 18 years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier."

In the UK, a minor is anyone under the age of 18.

So, technically, a 16 year old is a child (according to the UN) so, in the UK it is perfectly legal to have sex with a child.

I prefer to take the scientific approach to these things, and define a child as any prepubescent individual. Simple.

6 July 2009 at 18:34  
Blogger The Young Oligarch said...

Indigomyth -

Young girls are going through puberty at 10 these days . Young boys are getting their girlfriends pregnant at 12 .

As a teacher I know all too well that , though they may look mature on the outside , they are children inside , even at 16-17 .

If you were to act upon what you are suggesting you would be committing a criminal offence rightly and universally despised .

What you prefer does not matter .

Nor can you argue that to break this law is right because it is an unjust law . It is a very just law , designed to protect our children from predators .

Do not continue to think of young people in this obscene way or you are destined to become such a predator .

As I said , THINK !

6 July 2009 at 19:41  
Anonymous indigomyth said...

The Young Oligarch,

You did not answer my question regarding Romeo and Juliet, nor did you answer how you define paedophilia, logically.

Indeed, sexual maturity should not be the sole criteria. Emotional and intellectual considerations should also be made. Yet, the same problem arises; that these things occur at different times for different people.

I agree that it is necessary to protect the innocent from predators. But that does not mean that all that are innocent are under 16, and all that are not innocent are over 16. I think it is completely wrong for 12 year olds to have sex; because I believe that they are emotionally and mentally immature. However, that information is not available to us from paintings and pot decorations, so we must draw conclusions for the information we do have.

I am thinking. I am thinking along logical, empirical grounds.

How do you justify your revulsion against sex with 14 year old girls?

There is no prohibition against sex with 14 year old girls in the Bible. So it is not your religion.

Sexual relationships with young people are part of history (sic Romeo and Juliet). So it is not traditional.

You have yet to provide your logical reason. In none of my posts have I advocated the abuse of children. I have condemned paedophilia unreservedly.

But, my essential point is that the Ancient Greeks did not practice paedophilia, as is demonstrated by the sexual maturity evident in the images you have provided.

So, to ask another question; would you think that a 30 year old sleeping with a 16 or 17 year old would be a paedophile? And, if so, by what justification? You may cite the Bible.

6 July 2009 at 20:13  
Anonymous len said...

Indigomyth , If you need to have a definition of a sexual predator spelled out you have a serious problem with your moral standing. This is the problem with our society today, no absolutes, if it feels good do it.
Gratification of self (regardless of others) becomes the prime concern.
This attitude ( if it is yours) is entirely immoral.

6 July 2009 at 23:36  
Blogger Obnoxio The Clown said...

Men are doomed anyway. :o(

8 July 2009 at 09:31  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older