Marriage As State Sanction Of Affection + Consent = NAMBLA

Homosexual MarriageThe moral mathematics behind the current tsunami of cultural pressure for homosexual marriage is fairly clear and simple. Marriage has been redefined as the social (and state) sanctioned expression of mutual affection and consent. The great problem with the math in this redefinition is that its terms are subjective and not objective. The two terms in the equation are “affection” and “consent.” No one denies that adult homosexuals have affection for one another but family members have affection for each other, yet we do not allow family members to marry. A pet owner has affection for Fido. Adults have affection for children. None of these are (so far) socially sanctioned marital relationships. If, however, affection is one of two defining characteristics of a socially-sanctioned relationship, then what prevents those relationships (e.g., adult-child, human-animal, polyamory) from being socially sanctioned? If one asks proponents of gay marriage the answer is: consent.

Consent, of course, is a more difficult term to fix than the proponents of same-sex (homosexual) marriage want us to think. They assure us that consent could never be redefined to included children or pets. Here’s the great problem with those assurances. It already is being redefined. A quick search of “zoophilia” plus “consent” produces some very interesting results. Here’s a journal article from 2003 seeking to refute those who  “cite the supposed inability of a nonhuman animal to render genuine consent to zoophilic contacts as sufficient grounds to make zoophilia morally problematic without exception.” Please note the language “suppose inability.” Germany legalized bestiality in 1969. The move to ban it now is not grounded in nature but out of concern for animal cruelty (obviously they haven’t got the memo on the updated definition of consent).

At the moment, zoophilia is still regarded as a crime and even a psychiatric disorder in most places. The modern lab-coated priests of the soul (the first root of psychiatry is the Greek noun for soul), however, once regarded homosexuality as a psychiatric disorder. It did not change until that watershed year of “liberation” 1973.

In 1973, the weight of empirical data, coupled with changing social norms and the development of a politically active gay community in the United States, led the Board of Directors of the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). Some psychiatrists who fiercely opposed their action subsequently circulated a petition calling for a vote on the issue by the Association’s membership. That vote was held in 1974, and the Board’s decision was ratified.

In 1959 it was a disorder. It was so commonly held that homosexuality was a disorder that Martin Luther King could describe it as such in a popular publication without blushing or fear of contradiction. 14 years later it was not. Today, however, if one dared agree with the “settled science” of 1972, one might find himself before a professional board of review. Given that zoophilia is being openly advocated in professional, academic journals, which both reflect the leading edge of opinion and help shape that of followers, how long will it be before opponents of zoophilia are regarded as hopelessly retrograde? Without nature as a baseline, consent is quite susceptible of being deconstructed or manufactured at will. “Did you see that look in Fido’s eyes? Did you see the way he wags his tail?” This isn’t fantasy. Victoria Bekiempis calls the Florida ban on zoophilia (this time with a dolphin) a form of “political correctness.”

Pederasty is also being advocated in the same sorts of places. Even this abstract reflects the sort of ambiguity inherent in the relationship between the gay pride/gay rights movement and pederasty. Just scan Google Scholar (pederasty + consent) and one sees a recurring theme: if it was good enough for Plato and Oscar Wilde, it should be okay for us.  The relationship between NAMBLA (the North American Man Boy Love Association) is very interesting. J. Budziszewski says that NAMBLA has been marching in Gay Pride parades for years. Harry Hay, an open advocate of pederasty, marched in the San Francisco “Pride” parade. The relationship between “orthodox” homosexuals and NAMBLA is inecessarily ambiguous and illustrated by this video clip:

Notice how the NAMBLA representative argued for inclusion in the Gay Pride parade: “liberation.” He says that historically they’ve identified with the struggle for “gay rights.” Both have appealed for “liberation” from the constraints of nature that have long been recognized by society and codified into law. Notice too how desperate the parade organizers seem to distance themselves from NAMBLA. They know that “affection + consent” is being defined to include children and others.1 Notice how central the rhetoric of “liberation” from nature is to this argument for the inclusion of NAMBLA under the gay pride flag:

How might the inclusion of self-identified gay, lesbian, bisexual, or queer individuals or groups that transgress the “acceptable” limits of (traditional) gay and lesbian community be addressed? The question itself reveals the hegemony of the politics of exclusion, the assumption that community is based on the right to exclude people who are not like”us” or whom “we” do not like. In the gay and lesbian community, the question reflects a re-inscription of”normal” or “natural” sexuality, the boundaries of acceptable same-sex behavior. In Seattle, efforts by local members of NAMBLA ((North American Man/Boy Love Association) to participate in the 1996 gay pride march had some organizers threatening to turn the march into a parade, thus legally allowing organizers to exclude NAMBLA (Freedom Day Committee 1996). Many national and local gay rights organizations have excluded NAMBLA from participating in organizational events. Moral and therapeutic discourses prevail, with opponents characterizing member members as “sick” and NAMBLAs self-identified “boy-lovers” characterizing mainstream gays as uninformed and reactionary. The debate reveals the constant return to tropes of”normal” and “natural” “human” behavior that are deployed to exclude”undesirable” social actors. Yet community moral standards are arbitrary and often oppressively majoritarian.2

This argument is a shining example of the state of the question. Either we have social boundaries set by nature or we have NAMBLA and more. The very arguments made by the proponents of gay rights and gay marriage have been unleashed upon them by their even more radical successors and those who are trying to retrospectively create a new homosexual orthodoxy (consensual homosexual sex with adults is permissible but pederasty is not) find themselves without arguments.

NOTES

1. Did you catch the irony of the closing words of the clip? Perhaps there’s a connection between what happened to him and to his sexual choices and identity now?

2. Lisa C. Bower, David Theo Goldberg, Michael C. Musheno, editors, Between Law and Culture: Relocating Legal Studies (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2001).

    Post authored by:

  • R. Scott Clark
    Author Image

    R.Scott Clark is the President of the Heidelberg Reformation Association, the author and editor of, and contributor to several books and the author of many articles. He has taught church history and historical theology since 1997 at Westminster Seminary California. He has also taught at Wheaton College, Reformed Theological Seminary, and Concordia University. He has hosted the Heidelblog since 2007.

    More by R. Scott Clark ›

Subscribe to the Heidelblog today!


9 comments

  1. Of further interest from “Cultural Marxism”

    In 1923, the Frankfurt School-a Marxist think-tank-was founded in Weimar Germany. Among its founders were Georg Lukacs, Herbert Marcuse, and Theodor Adorno. The school was a multidisciplinary effort which included sociologists, sexologists, and psychologists.

    The primary goal of the Frankfurt School was to translate Marxism from economic terms into cultural terms. It would provide the ideas on which to base a new political theory of revolution based on culture, harnessing new oppressed groups for the faithless proletariat. Smashing religion, morals, It would also build a constituency among academics, who could build careers studying and writing about the new oppression.

    Toward this end, Marcuse-who favored polymorphous perversion-expanded the ranks of Gramsci’s new proletariat by including homosexuals, lesbians, and transsexuals. Into this was spliced Lukacs radical sex education and cultural terrorism tactics. Gramsci’s ‘long march’ was added to the mix, and then all of this was wedded to Freudian psychoanalysis and psychological conditioning techniques. The end product was Cultural Marxism, now known in the West as multiculturalism.

    Additional intellectual firepower was required: a theory to pathologize what was to be destroyed. In 1950, the Frankfurt School augmented Cultural Marxism with Theodor Adorno’s idea of the ‘authoritarian personality.’ This concept is premised on the notion that Christianity, capitalism, and the traditional family create a character prone to racism and fascism. Thus, anyone who upholds America’s traditional moral values and institutions is both racist and fascist. Children raised by traditional values parents, we are told to believe, will almost certainly become racists and fascists. By extension, if fascism and racism are endemic to America’s traditional culture, then everyone raised in the traditions of God, family, patriotism, gun ownership, or free markets is in need of psychological help.

    The pernicious influence of Adorno’s ‘authoritarian personality’ idea can be clearly seen in some of the research that gets public money.

    “In Aug., 2003, the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) announced the results of their $1.2 million tax-payer funded study. It stated, essentially, that traditionalists are mentally disturbed. Scholars from the Universities of Maryland, California at Berkeley, and Stanford had determined that social conservatives…suffer from ‘mental rigidity,’ ‘dogmatism,’ and ‘uncertainty avoidance,’ together with associated indicators for mental illness.” – EdWatch.org, ‘Social and Emotional Learning” Jan. 26, 2005)

    A corresponding and diabolically crafted idea is political correctness. The strong suggestion here is that in order for one not to be thought of as racist or fascist, then one must not only be nonjudgmental but must also embrace the ‘new’ moral absolutes: diversity, choice, sensitivity, sexual orientation, and tolerance. Political correctness is a Machiavellian psychological ‘command and control’ device. Its purpose is the imposition of uniformity in thought, speech, and behavior.

    http://www.newmediajournal.us/guest-commentary/cultural-marxism

  2. Though not well-known, the connection between “gay” liberation (sexual utopianism) and totalitarianism is well documented. For instance:

    1. In 1974, David Thorstadt, a prominent member of the gay rights movement, Trotskyist, and founder of NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Assoc.), co-authored with John Lauritson, a history of the early gay rights movement. The history, entitled The Early Homosexual Rights Movement: 1864-1935 links the modern post Stonewall Rebellion movement to its birth in Germany, in 1864. It also details the linkage to socialism.

    2. Leslie Feinberg, transgender lesbian activist, author, and managing editor of the communist Workers World Newspaper concurs: “The first great wave of struggle to demand sexual and gender emancipation had taken place from 1869 to 1935. It began in Germany. It was a dynamic, expanding movement that grew to be international.” (Rise of German Homosexual Emancipation Movement, http://www.workers.org)

    3. At a Berlin rally held in front of the Reichstag building in 1918, Magnus Hirschfield, socialist leader of the Homosexual Emancipation Movement, stressed why socialism was crucial to their success: “Socialism means: solidarity…further development of society into a unified body of people.” Recalling Marx, Engels and other communist revolutionaries, Hirschfield said that not only in Germany, “but elsewhere too, nationalism attempted to destroy internationalism and militarism attempted to destroy socialism.” (The War to End All Wars: Pride and Struggle a Century Ago, Leslie Feinberg, http://www.workers.org)

    4.Ernst Rohm—sadomasochistic homosexual, Hitler’s right-hand man, and icon for many gay activists today, was also a key player in the early gay movement. Progressive gay journalist, Johann Hari disclosed: “Rohm was the founding father of Nazism. He believed that gay people were superior to straights and saw homosexuality as a key principle of his proposed Brave New Fascist Order. As historian Louis Snyder explains, Rohm “projected a social order in which homosexuality would be regarded as a human behavior of high repute.” (www.JohannHari.com)

  3. Pastor Voddie Baucham, delivered a speech:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkL3lT95vOU

    “Is Gay The New Black?” In this speech he alludes to and quotes from a book that was written in 1989,

    “After the Ball: How America Will Conquer It’s Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90s.”

    In an outline compiled by Richard Cohen, M.A., the two authors outline a plan including the following observations,

    16. How to Halt, Derail and/or Reverse the Engine of Prejudice:
    1. Desensitization:
    2. Jamming:
    3. Conversion.

    I recommend listening to Voddie Baucham’s descriptions of the steps delineated above.

    • Sorry, the authors are:
      1. Marshall Kirk (researcher in neuropsychiatry, logician, poet) graduate of Harvard in 1980
      2. Hunter Madsen (expert in public persuasion tactics and social marketing, designed commercial advertising on Madison Ave., Ph.D. in Politics) graduate of Harvard in 1985

  4. Dr. Clark, there is only one word to describe NAMBLA: abomination. By the way, when you posted this last Saturday, the Huffington Post ran the following piece: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/s-bear-bergman/i-have-come-to-indoctrinate-your-children-lgtbq_b_6795152.html

    We are in a culture war…We seem to be closer in the US to seeing Bible-believing, Christians wind up in prison for the blood of the Lamb and the word of their testimony (Rev. 12:11, ESV). May we heed the words penned by the apostle John under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit: “Here is a call for the endurance of the saints, those who keep the commandments of God and their faith in Jesus” (Rev. 14:12, ESV).

  5. In his newest lecture, “Paganism in Today’s Culture,” Dr. Peter Jones, director of truthXchange and Adjunct professor of Westminster Seminary explains why social boundaries set by nature no longer exist for this generation:

    “The Millennial Generation is the first generation of the modern era to receive a fully-developed neo-pagan cosmology masquerading as the correct, progressive view of history and demanding to be inscribed in public policy.

    In 1982 Francis A. Schaeffer in his A Christian Manifesto warned the Church:

    “Christians…have seen things in bits and pieces… permissiveness, pornography, the public schools, the breakdown of the family, and finally abortion… instead of totals…They have not seen this as a totality–a shift in the world view — that is,…a funda-mental change in the overall way people think and view the world and whole life as a whole.” (Schaeffer)

    “This has become a cosmology of worldview or network of plausibility structures so radical it can take your breath away, as stated some years ago by the futurist thinker, Jeremy Rifkin, an adviser to the European Union since 2002 and head of the largest global economic development team in the world. In 1983 at a point in the maturation of the 60’s cultural revolution, he declared in A New Word– A New World:

    “We no longer feel ourselves to be guests in someone else’s home and therefore obliged to make our behavior conform with a set of preexisting cosmic rules. It is our creation now. We make the rules. We establish the parameters of reality. We create the world, and because we do, we no longer feel beholden to outside forces…..We no longer have to justify our behavior, for we are now the architects of the universe. We are responsible for nothing outside ourselves, for we are the kingdom.” (Rifkin)

    (Dr. Jones’ video here: https://truthxchange.com/media/2015/03/03/peter-jones-paganism-in-todays-culture/ )

    America’s founding Christian-based worldview and moral system of Judeo-Christian ethics, having been consistently excluded from government, school, and law has been supplanted with a Humanistic neo-pagan cosmogony and spiritually occult pantheist religion based on occult New Age Transhumanism, Evolution, Scientism and Relativism.

    The process of transformation has for many years been aided and abetted by weak, accommodating and apostate theologians such as the Hindu-pantheist evolutionary scientist Teilhard de Chardin. Teilhard encouraged Christians to submit to the process of evolution because the promise of this living force (evolution) is godhood through fusion with the substance of God:

    “Though frightened for a moment by evolution, the Christian now perceives that what it offers him is a magnificent means of feeling more at one with God. In (the old, traditional form of Christianity), the universal domination of Christ could…still be regarded as an extrinsic and superimposed power. In a spiritually converging world, this ‘Christic’ energy acquires an urgency and intensity of another order altogether.” (Genesis, Creation, and Early Man, Seraphim Rose, p. 590)

    Teilhard is almost without question the spiritual father of the rising tide of spiritually pagan and political globalism now taking the West and America by storm. He formulated the dominant conceptual framework for a planetary occult pagan and pantheist cosmology, religion and spiritually totalitarian social order. Describing himself as a mystic and an evolutionary scientist, Teilhard taught that the spiritual, religious and political unification of the earth was the next great evolutionary leap to come and that this fusion was as necessary for the survival of mankind as the fusion of polar opposites (i.e., good with evil, light with dark, male with female, man with god) and the transformation and integration of the Hindu god Shiva (The Destroyer) by Christ:

    “It is not enough to refuse or ridicule Shiva: for he exists. What is necessary, is to Christify him. Christ would not be complete if he did not integrate Shiva (as a component), whilst transforming him.” (Towards a New Mysticism: Teilhard de Chardin and Eastern Religions, Ursula King)

    For Teilhard, Christ is the soul of the divine World (or Gaia). In ” The Future of Man” he taught that the maturing (evolutionary unfolding) of a collective consciousness accompanied by numerical expansions are two aspects inseparably linked to the historical unfolding of the Incarnation. Without the process of biological evolution, which produced the human brain, there would be no sanctified souls, and similarly, without the evolution of collective thought, through which the plentitude of human consciousness can be attained on earth, there can be no consummated Christ. In Teilhards’ way of thinking, evolution is man and God becoming conscious of himself and Christ, in this scheme of things, is incarnate within the entire universe.

    In this “new,” yet ancient way of thinking, revamped and revised for our scientistic age, global cooling/warming/change are ominous excitations of the soul of the divine World and scientism the knowledge of what makes the divine World sick and angry, thus the hysteria of modern pagans in high places.

  6. Dr Clark, the dictionary definition of pederasty restricts it to mean the abuse of boys by males, Were you consciously restricting your arguments to this category, or were you intending to mean children in general by males or females? If the latter, what word should you really have used?
    Two people I know object to the word “paedophile” being used to mean one who abuses children, because it means someone who loves children and these perverts do nothing of the kind. And frankly, I agree with them, although occasionally I have used the word for purposes of comprehensibility. One of them, my brother considers that the definition of pederast should be extended to include abuse of both sexes, whereas I would use (and now use when the subject comes up) “paedophiliac” Would you do one of these things, or would you introduce “korasierast” as a new word (It’s a bit of a mouthful, isn’t it?) for the abuse of young girls?

Comments are closed.