The Tactics and Abnormality of Sodomy


Homosexual as a word was coined in order to deflect attention from the word of the time that was used, which was “sodomite.” The advocates of sodomy realized that they needed to move from the verb “sodomy,” which drew attention to the act to a noun like “Homosexual,” and later, “gay” which moved ones attention from the act itself to the identity of the person.

So, the word “Homosexual” was latched upon to divert attention away from the dirtiness of the act. Eventually “homosexual” had to give way to “gay” for the same reason that the word “sodomite” gave way to the word “Homosexual.” Now even the word “gay” has become dirty and so other terms are being sought out.

Notice here the language. New worldviews can be spotted by the way the language is changed or manipulated.

I.) Note that there is five stages by which a culture can be forced to accept deviance

a.) Tolerance of deviance

Here what is pushed is the virtue of tolerance. We might not approve of something ourselves but we are “big enough” to allow deviants in our midst. The purpose of tolerance is almost always to serve as means by which to buy time until that which is being tolerated is strong enough to force the toleristas to the next stage.

One way that a deviant behavior is normalized is by talking about it ad-nauseum. The advocates of deviance bring it up without fail. In the case of sodomy, the love that once dare not speak its name now won’t shut the hell up.

This reminds of Pope’s poetry,

“Vice is a monster of so frightful mien
As to be hated needs but to be seen;
Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,
We first endure, then pity, then embrace.”

Alexander Pope

b.) Acceptance of deviance

In this stage the toleristas not only ask for toleration but also of acceptance. This is the demand to come out of the closet and be accepted in families, churches, employment, etc. This is the stage where the societal taboo of the behavior is removed so that the deviance is seen as odd but not repulsive.

A great means to accomplish this is the usage of the sentimental story. Sentimentalism is told in order to demonstrate how mean and cold hearted are those who can’t be sympathetic to those who want to normalize sodomy.

There is seldom appreciation for how the mainlining of behavior that is associated with disease, drastically reduced mortality rates, and Man boy love is hateful towards people.

c.) Celebration of deviance

“Gay” parades anyone?

Rainbow ribbon day

d.) forced embracing of deviance

Those who once asked to be tolerated in their perversity are now told that if they will not embrace the deviant as normal they will not be tolerated themselves. Those deviants once in the closet, have gone from tolerated to being those who are shoving those who object into the closet. Having gained the ascendancy they will not tolerate those who object to the destructive character of their behavior.

e.) Punishment for those who oppose deviance.

Economic opportunities are cut off from those who object. Finally, “Hate laws” are passed. The sodomites have come out of the closet and the Christians are the ones pushed into the closet.

II.) The Alternative to Marriage?

A.) The New Definition of Marriage

According to Lawyer Ted Olson, the Supreme Court has said Fourteen times that “marriage is a fundamental right that involves privacy, association, liberty and being with the person that you love and forming a part of our community and being treated equally with the rest of society.”

By SCOTUS’s own definition twin brothers could marry each other since twin brothers could love one another and desire privacy, association, liberty and being with the person thy love etc. Indeed, by SCOTUS’ definition Incest no longer exists as a prohibition to marriage. By SCOTUS’s own definition a Pedophile should be allowed to marry his child little boy lover since even in that situation “marriage would be a fundamental right that involves privacy, association, liberty and being with the person that you love and forming a part of our community and being treated equally with the rest of society.” Indeed, by SCOTUS’s own definition of Marriage Pedophilia no longer exists as a prohibition to marriage.

B.) The New Definition of Marriage — By What Standard?

We would also ask the SCOTUS, “By what standard or authority does SCOTUS dare restrict marriage to just one person that someone might love”? By what standard or authority does SCOTUS dare suggest that multiple marriage partners don’t likewise desire to be married in the context of privacy, association, liberty?” SCOTUS must answer the basis of authority by which they limit marriage the way that they do.

What we are seeing now is the replacing of the previous Transcendent Authority for the definition of marriage to the new standard of consensuality among two or more people who have secured the power of the State to support their perversity.

Unelected judges, all over the nation, by legalizing sodomite marriage, in essence, have changed the definition of marriage merely according to their fiat word. They are attempting to legislate reality from the Bench. This is social engineering at its best. Human beings are treated as malleable and can be changed in any way the God State desires to change them.

We really should not be too surprised at this. Any people who allowed their judges to redefine life (Roe vs. Wade) were eventually likewise going to seek to redefine all of reality including marriage.

Via this Judicial malfeasance, unelected Judges have sent “the public a message from the God-State” that natural and traditional families are no different or unique than any other human arrangement and that the family as defined from a Transcendent authority, are not to be preferred over and above disordered non-families. Further, this criminal malfeasance by Judicial diktat has pronounced that any consensual relationship between two or more people, regardless of gender, based on the way those people feel about one another, ought to be called “marriage.” The God State, acting in a supremely religious capacity, has declared war upon and against the legislative authority of nature and nature’s God.

Criminal Judges have pushed aside the complementarity of men and women in favor of whatever “feels” right. Marriages are no longer rooted in a transcendent Authority, biology and human nature, and if there is no transcendent Authority by which to objectively define and identify marriage then marriage is open to any immanent authority’s definition of marriage as long as that immanent authority has the power of the Tyrant State behind it to forcefully implement it’s new subjective fiat definition of marriage.

In short the State can no more redefine marriage, sex, and family, any more then it can turn the moon into Green cheese. All because the Civil realm calls disorder, sin, and perversity, “order,” “righteousness,” and “normalcy” that does not make it so.

C.) Marriage and Children

There was a time when it was understood that one of the prime purposes, if not the prime purpose of Marriage, was the fostering, bearing, and raising of children. Here is the language from one Church’s reading for Marriage,

“Marriage was established to extend the human race, to advance the kingdom of God, and to enrich the lives of those entering this state. To fulfill these purposes, a husband and wife must be lovingly devoted to each other, sharing responsibility for the nurture of the children the Lord may give them as his heritage and as parties to his covenant.”

The possibility of bringing children into the world and raising them is now longer unique to marriage. Because children have been divorced from their mom and dad, marriage is no longer about permanent relationships between a man and a woman for the sake of their children and each other. It is only about how spouses feel about each other.

Such an attitude reduces marriage to one of convenience.

Now, there is no doubt that the children of heterosexual marriage have longed suffered from the instability of impermanent marriages. The ironic thing here is that it is the same worldview that weakened heterosexual marriages is now the worldview that is offering sodomite coupling as being normal for children.

However, all statistics indicate that sodomite and lesbian marriages are famously unstable.

A study of homosexual men in the Netherlands published in the journal AIDS found that the “duration of steady partnerships” was 1.5 years.[1]

In his study of male homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, Pollak found that “few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners.”[2]

In Male and Female Homosexuality, Saghir and Robins found that the average male homosexual live-in relationship lasts between two and three years.[3]

As such, just as our social order, worked unto the destroying of children’s lives via the liberalization of Divorce laws in the 60’s-70’s so it is once again seeking to cause judicially innocent children to suffer its folly by creating sodomite families.

It should be noted here that the destruction of the family serves the interest of the God state. The God state is more secure the less competition it has. Strong family structure is a threat to the God state because it offers a different location for loyalty other than the God state. As such the God state has an interest in working to create weak family structures.

It would not be difficult to conclude given the trajectory of family law and tax law over the last 50 years that the goal of the law has been to destroy the traditional family. If one looks at the early history of Marxist Russia one can see parallels between the way they initially deconstructed family and the way we are currently deconstructing family.

State sanctioned Sodomite buggery (called “marriage”) is but another brick in that wall of destroying the notion of the Christian family. Sodomite marriage is not about creating more family. Sodomite marriage is about destroying the historic family.


Sodomy is an attack on

A.) The emotional and psychic integrated individual

Believe it or not the American Psychiatric association still labels Homosexuality as disordered. The LGBT individual is not right mentally. The very fact that they have the position on LGBT issues they have is proof that they are not well integrated in their character and personality.

B.) The Family

C.) The Nation

Most Importantly… GOD

We have not said much in this lecture about the centrality of God in all this. We have not done so because we don’t want people to think that somehow this is only an issue that religious people should be concerned about. However, at the end of the day this debate is all about what kind of God will we, as a people bow before? Will we bow before the Tyrant God state which is trying to create reality for us by its fiat legislation and Judicial decision or will we be a people who bow before the God of the Bible who spoke creation and reality into existence by His divine Word.

This debate is a debate between worldviews. Will Man be sovereign or will God be sovereign. Will man dictate reality by his fiat word or will God dictate reality by his fiat word. Will we bow to what God has done by deciding to give Eve to Adam for procreation or will we insist that we no better than God when we match people with the same reproductive organs in a complete redefinition of marriage.

1. Maria Xiridou, et al, “The Contribution of Steady and Casual Partnerships to the Incidence of HIV Infection among Homosexual Men in Amsterdam,” AIDS 17 (2003): 1031.

2. M. Pollak, “Male Homosexuality,” in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, ed. P. Aries and A. Bejin, translated by Anthony Forster (New York, NY: B. Blackwell, 1985): 40-61, cited by Joseph Nicolosi in Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality (Northvale, New Jersey: Jason Aronson Inc., 1991): 124, 125.

3. M. Saghir and E. Robins, Male and Female Homosexuality (Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1973): 225; L. A. Peplau and H. Amaro, “Understanding Lesbian Relationships,” in Homosexuality:Social, Psychological, and Biological Issues, ed. J. Weinrich and W. Paul (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1982).

Judicial Sodomy

“In the political and social discussions of the day, God’s law has ceased to be regarded as a factor that deserves to be reckoned with at all…[But] of one thing we can be sure—a nation that tramples thus upon the law of God…is headed for destruction.”

J. Gresham Machen (1881-1937)
Education, Christianity, and the State — pp. 140, 141
Edited by John Robbins, The Trinity Foundation, Jefferson, Maryland, 1987.

The ongoing imposition of the Sodomite agenda upon the American “nation” has been a top down political power grab that defies the whole concept of “we the people.” The laws that had prohibited same-sex marriage had all been enacted, in a way consistent with Republican forms of Government, either by statewide referenda, like Proposition 8 in California, or by or by Congress or elected state legislatures.

What we have witnessed on this issue is nothing but Judicial Tyranny and Gubernatorial and Congressional Cowardice. The US Congress could have passed DOMA with a Constitutional provision that their ruling was outside the purview of the Courts but chose to decline.

You see, Congress has the power to make exceptions to and regulations of the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. This court-limiting power is granted in the Exceptions Clause (Art. III, § 2). By exercising these powers in concert, Congress may effectively eliminate any judicial review of certain federal legislative or executive actions and of certain state actions, or alternatively transfer the judicial review responsibility to state courts by “knocking [federal courts]…out of the game.” This could have been done with the DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) legislation but was not.

The Gubernatorial cowardice is seen in Governor’s refusing to declare SCOTUS decisions as void and without standing in their States. This is the old State’s rights argument.

Inasmuch as neither the US Congress nor State Governors refuse to stand up to Federal Judicial Tyranny, in that much they are just as responsible for the Sodomization of America as is the Federal Courts.

Since sodomy is intimately connected with a faith system that is pagan, what is happening now is the Judicially forced implementation of the yoke of a pagan religion upon the American people. Americans, may, because of their Christian faith, find the support of all things sodomite against their Christian ethical code but they are, by the working of Judicial fiat, being forced to embrace a new pagan ethic. That America is being forced to embrace a new ethic and so a new religion can be seen by a flurry of cases that the courts have ruled upon,

1.) Courts forcing Printer to make and sell sodomite T-shirts

Judge Wants To Force A Printer To Make Pro-Gay T-Shirts

2.) Courts forcing Owner of Venue to rent their barn for Lesbian pseudo “wedding” ceremony.

3.) Courts forcing Bakers to make cakes to serve sodomite pseudo “wedding” ceremony.

Judge Orders Colorado Cake Maker To Serve Gay Couples

4.) Courts forcing photographers to serve at pseudo wedding.

NM Court Says Christian Photographers Must Compromise Beliefs

5.) Courts forcing florist to serve pseudo wedding.

This action constitutes tyrannical action against the American people inasmuch as such judicial tyranny is aimed at something much larger than mainstreaming sodomy. What this action is aimed at is imposing a belief system and a religion upon the American people by the State. The American people are being told that their Christian religion is only valid insofar as it does not violate the public square religion of the State.

In brief, the US Courts are sodomizing the American people.

USA Today Slams The Reformed Faith … A Slight Rebuttal

It is often difficult to determine when the Main Stream Media is malevolent, when it is incompetent, and when it is just clueless. More often then not it is all three at the same time. Recently the USA Today ran a column on the Bowe Bergdahl case, suggesting that Biblical Christianity (as opposed to Marxist Christianity) was the cause for the apparent strange behavior of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl.

Below I interact with some of the brilliance of the author of the column who apparently is,

1.) A Teacher of Religion
2.) The Director of the Religion program at Skidmore college.

Surely these are expert qualifications for getting everything wrong in an analysis on Orthodox Presbyterianism.

Begin Article,

“Can Bergdahl’s faith explain his actions?”

Mary Stange

Bret responds,

Already with the headline we are on shaky ground. After all, what else can explain Bergdahl’s actions except his faith? In other words, “Of course Bergdahl’s faith explains his actions.” All of our actions can only be understood in light of our faith. Even Mary Stange’s woeful analytical abilities are explained by her faith. There is nothing else that can explain our actions except our faith. You’d think a teacher of religion at the University level would realize that a person’s behavior is always driven by their faith commitments.

Mary plunges on,

Were it not for the political wrangling over whether he is a hero or a traitor, Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, who arrived in San Antonio early Friday, might well be held up as a classic example of the religious seeker: the deeply spiritual quester after truth, light and justice.


This would be true except Scripture teaches that there are none who seek after God. If Sgt. Bergdahl were seeking it is only because He was a Christian.

Mary continues,

Yet the news media have been curiously silent on the question of his religious background. Aside from vague references to his belonging to a Calvinist church, no one has taken a serious look at how that church might have played a role in his decision to join the Army, and subsequently to leave his unit behind.

Philip Proctor, the Bergdahls’ pastor at Sovereign Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Boise, told The Huffington Post that Bowe had “grown up in a conservative Christian home, and he was trying to figure out if this was his faith or his parents’ faith.”

Maybe. But in young Bergdahl’s case — unlike that of the more typical Catholic or Jewish or mainline Protestant adolescent — the devil had to have been in the details. His family’s faith, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, makes extraordinary demands on a sensitive young person’s conscience and conduct.

Bret responds,

We are left asking if Ms. Stange is telling us that her preferred religious beliefs are more simplistic than Biblical Presbyterianism so that there does not exist those devilish details that the typical Catholic or Jewish or mainline Protestant adolescent deals with.

And Ms. Stange asserts that the Calvinist faith makes extraordinary demands on a sensitive young person’s conscience and conduct but she offer absolutely no proof. Are we to conclude from this that the typical Catholic, or Jewish, or mainline Protestant only makes “ordinary demands” on their adolescents? And if that is what Ms. Stange is implying I’d like to know, “by what standard” Ms. Stange is determining what constitutes extraordinary vs. ordinary demands on the conscience and conduct of a sensitive young person. (And how does Ms. Stange know that Sgt. Bergdahl was sensitive?)

Mary Stange keeps it up,

A hyperconservative offshoot of the mainstream Presbyterian Church USA, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church sees the world in stark either/or terms. This is Calvinism on steroids. You are saved and bound for heaven. Or you are a sinner, treading a one-way path to the fiery pit of hell.

1.) Hyper-conservative by whose standards? I suspect, to hyper-liberals like Ms. Stange, anything more conservative than Ms. Stange’s religion classes is “hyper-conservative.”

2.) So, what Ms. Stange is saying is that we EITHER can see the world in “either/or terms OR we can see it not in either/or terms? That’s kind of a stark way of seeing things don’t you think?

3.) Ms. Stange laments the Orthodox Presbyterian Church being “Calvinism on steroids” since it teaches that one is either saved and bound for heaven, or is a sinner, treading a one-way path to the fiery pit of hell.

One is left wondering what other options exist? What exactly is behind Ms. Stange’s door number 3? Purgatory? Limbo? The Stay Puff Marshmallow heaven?

Ms. Stange continues with her blinding brilliance,

The church, founded in the 1930s, has obviously been a genuine source of support for families such as the Bergdahls, who might have little in the way of material or spiritual comforts in this life but can feel confident of reward in the life to come. It is all about the counterpoise of heaven and hell, and it appears that for Bergdahl, this cosmic tension laid the groundwork for his subsequent actions and attitudes.

The Orthodox Presbyterian Church compels followers to feel the inner spark of absolute certainty of one’s own God-given righteousness. It is a more than plausible explanation that, failing such certainty, Bergdahl embarked on a series of life transformations — Buddhism, Tarot, French Foreign Legion and all the rest, culminating in the transformation from gung-ho warrior to pacifistic deserter — that looks like chaotic mood swings without the religious explanation.

1.) So, according to Stange, Bergdahl completely abandons his Calvinist faith, but his Calvinist faith is the reason for his alleged improprieties.

2.) Is Ms. Stange implying that Calvinism is only for the down and outers and the lower class fauna in life? If so she might want to read about the life of Millionaire William Borden of Yale. Maybe she should pick up a biography on the life of Henry Martyn. Stange should also consider conservative Presbyterian Cyrus McCormick. Even the founder of the denomination that Stange takes exception too, J. Gresham Machen, was a man of means.

3.) Stange asserts that “it appears that for Bergdahl, this cosmic tension laid the groundwork for his subsequent actions and attitudes” and then gives no proof whatsoever for this “left dangling in the air” claim. Wouldn’t it have been easier for Stange just to write an article for the USA Today entitled, “Why I Don’t Like Calvinism?”

4.) Stanger next reveals her utter torpidity by combining a comment about feeling the inner spark that yields certainty of God given righteousness. In doing so she combines a Quaker concept (inner light) with a gnostic concept (divine spark) with Presbyterianism. This is so jumbled and confusing that anybody who knows anything but comparative religions is left with having a fine belly laugh at such confusion.

5.) Presbyterianism of the sort that Stange inveighs against finds the chasing of feelings of any sort to be an anathema. Has Stange ever met a Calvinist? We’re not called “Frozen Chosen” for no reason. We don’t do feelings.

6.) Presbyterians do think it is important to understand that we are imputed God given righteousness but the reality of that is not based on our feelings or our certainty but on God’s promises.

7.) Stange insists that her explanation is more than plausible that Bergdahl slipped his nut because he couldn’t find the certainty for which Stange asserts he was looking. This is the worst psychologizing with no facts that one could possibly imagine. This analysis of Stange ranks right up there with the proto Psychologists probing for personality traits by feeling the bumps on a person’s head. Stange is telling us, quite without knowing Bergdhal, or any other pertinent facts, that it is the fault of Calvinism that Bergdahl was unstable.

Is this a case of the transference of one unstable person upon another unstable person?

Stanger wraps up,

Religious motives might or might not justify whatever Bergdahl might or might not have done. But those same motives can go a long way toward helping to comprehend his actions. We as a society have too frequently failed to take religion seriously as a source of evil as well as good. And, as Bergdahl might himself observe, all too frequently there has, as a result, been hell to pay.

1.) Religious motives might or might not justify what Bergdahl might or might not have done?

Translated –“We don’t have any idea of any of the facts but all this we don’t know anything about is certainly the fault of that dastardly hyper-conservative Calvinism.”

2.) We just admitted that we don’t know for sure what he might have or have not done but whatever he did or did not do hyper conservative Calvinism is surely to blame.

3.) Given this analysis I’m going to pray tonight that Stange does us all the favor of never trying to take religion seriously again.

After reading this I’m convinced that given all the hard evidence that exists right now that if I had to choose either Stange or Bergdahl to babysit by 4 children under 10, I’d choose Bergdahl.

Rushdoony Exposes The Faults Of Movement Libertarianism

“I am a strong opponent of the free market idea because it is a utopian idea that presupposes a world without sin. It presupposes a world without borders. After all, if we are a free market and other countries are protectionist,… There is going to be a disadvantage.”

R. J. Rushdoony
Easy Chair talk

Here we have another proof that RJR was NOT a movement libertarian. I believe what RJR was doing by calling himself “Libertarian” at times was attempting to co-opt the movement in his direction by subtly redefining the word.

Another problem with movement Libertarianism is that it absolutizes property rights, extending those property rights as even being over the self. The problem is that property rights are not absolute but have to be relativized in relation to the true property owner — the God of the Bible. If we absolutize our individual property rights then we make ourselves to be gods, suggesting that there is not a higher ownership beyond ourselves. It is true that we have ownership privileges but only as stewards of God, most high.

When we absolutize property rights as our property rights, we get this kind of mindset as expressed by movement Libertarians,

“The proper groundwork for analysis of abortion is in every man’s absolute right of self-ownership. This implies immediately that every woman has the absolute right to her own body, that she has absolute dominion over her body and everything within it. This includes the fetus…Abortion should be looked upon, not as “murder” of a living person, but as the expulsion of an unwanted invader from the mother’s body. Any laws restricting or prohibiting abortion are therefore invasions of the rights of mothers.”

Murray Rothbard
“Ethics of Liberty”

“Regardless of his age, we must grant to every child the absolute right to runaway and to find new foster parents who will voluntarily adopt him, or to try to exist on his own. Parents may try to persuade the runaway child to return, but it is totally impermissible enslavement and an aggression upon his right of self-ownership for them to use force to compel him to return. The absolute right to run away is the child’s ultimate expression of his right of self-ownership, regardless of age.”

~~Murray Rothbard
“The Ethics of Liberty”

Rushdoony warned against this kind of Libertarianism,

“Modern libertarianism rests on a radical relativism: no law or standard exists apart from man himself. Some libertarian professors state in classes and in conversation that any position is valid as long as it does not claim to be the truth, and that therefore Biblical religion is the essence of evil to them. There must be, according to these libertarians, a total free market of ideas and practices.

If all men are angels, then a total free market of ideas and practices will produce only an angelic community. But if all men are sinners in need of Christ’s redemption, then a free market of ideas and practices will produce only a chaos of evil and anarchy. Both the libertarian and the Biblical positions rest on faith, the one on faith in the natural goodness of man, the other on God’s revelation concerning man’s sinful state and glorious potential in Christ. Clearly the so-called rational faith of such irrationalism as Hess and Rothbard represent has no support in the history of man nor in any formulation of reason. It is a faith, and a particularly blind faith in man, which they represent.”

R. J. Rushdoony
~~Institutes of Biblical Law — pp. 289-290