So, yesterday and today I moved timothy.green.name to a different server. It’s now on the Dotser webserver: my boss offered me free hosting for my websites on the company’s server, and since I wasn’t happy with the existing provider it made sense to switch. I hope nothing on this site is so inflammatory that he asks me to move it again!

Before moving over, I went through and tidied up stuff. I started this blog by importing posts from three old blogs: Voice of Timothy, GreenTambourine, and PoliticalTambourine. The first of those was a lighthearted Blogger blog I created to supplement my h2g2 journal, largely because you can’t embed pictures or videos on a h2g2 journal. The other two were a place for me to vent and to think out loud when I was coming to terms with being gay. They were also written with a different Blogger theme which didn’t have titles on posts, which created problems when I imported those posts here: the posts appeared, but didn’t have a slug (permalink). I dealt with that by simply setting them all to private and deciding to sort it out later. Well, I sorted it out yesterday, going through all my old private posts, giving them titles (in many cases they already effectively had titles, in the form of some bold text at the top of the post, which I could pull out of the post body and turn into a real title), correcting some of the more noticeable spelling errors and fixing some of the formatting, and then resetting to public. It was a strange and slightly unreal experience, rereading those old posts. I was a different person then, cautiously feeling my way into a new sense of self, and yet much of the writing is somewhat bombastic in tone (and some of it isn’t: it’s a bit of a mixture). You can find all that stuff by looking for anything written by The boy with the green tambourine. (I rather liked that pseudonym; perhaps I should resurrect it.)

In other news, while I was moving the database from one server to the other, I took the opportunity to trim it a little. I got rid of all the metadata Akismet (the default WordPress spam filter) stores about each comment, and I deleted a lot of the spam comments. It was fairly easy to go through the database and find and delete every comment from “The Official Louis Vuitton Store”. Much quicker and easier than using the web interface. It’s amazing how many of the spam comments (Louis Vuitton and others) were trying to sell sports jerseys. (The other major spammer product was Dr Dre headphones.)

This is completely unrelated, but it’s in my head right now for some reason, so I’m including it. This is Tim Minchin’s song “Greed (Balsa Wood and Glue)”. It’s amazingly catchy.

And while I’m posting Tim Minchin songs, I may as well include a seasonal one, so here’s “White Wine in the Sun“.

Hate the Crime?

Here’s a brief quote from a post on a messageboard (now removed):

For those people who do hate crimes against homosexuals, shame on you!

And here’s my reply:

Of course. But it’s more subtle than that.

Beating a person up because he’s different is a shameful and despicable way to behave, I hope we can all agree. (I did see one poster here suggest that gay couples who dare to show any degree of affection in public are asking to be attacked, but he’s a nutcase I hope no one takes seriously. Anyway, I haven’t seen him around recently. He must have gone Elsewhere.)

But there’s another part to it. I grew up in a strongly religious household (my family are Witnesses). And I believed it myself. Being academically inclined, and reasonably intelligent, I enjoyed learning the intricacies of the abstruse theology of the religion. There are bits now I understand better than some of the elders in the congregation. (Would you like me to explain the concept of the prophetic year of 360 days?)

But through it all, from my very early teens (perhaps even before), I had to hide a large chunk of myself. I had to hide it from my friends, from my family, and also from myself. Adolescence is perhaps always confusing, but mine, spent refusing to think about what should have been the delightful discovery of my awakening sexuality, was probably more confused than most. Melikio once wrote that he lost a large part of his childhood. I can sympathise.

I remember my mother and my little sister once discussing a cute guy together. They wouldn’t usually do that, but this one was safe. They wouldn’t be seeing him again. He played the Genie of the Lamp in a proper traditional version of Aladdin in Kent. Gorgeous, he was. All I could safely say was that he seemed to be enjoying himself: he did have a big grin.

All I could safely say? All I could safely think! As if hiding it from others wasn’t enough, I hid myself from myself for far too long. Finally facing up to it was such a huge relief.

Your very words, spoken with the voice of authority, may condemn young people, perhaps your own children, to a broken and shattered life. The suicide rate among homosexual adolescents is by all accounts frighteningly high, though proper statistics are of course hard to come by. And it’s not hate crimes that causes that.

The doctrine that homosexuality itself is a sin is a pernicious evil. Do not allow it to be perpetrated. It causes too much misery.

For a believing teen, the thought of a lonely life ahead is burden enough, without that extra load. (Matthew 23:4.)

Originally published on GreenTambourine.

This Life

I love my parents, but I don’t trust them.


I know they love me, but I still can’t trust them.

I need to find myself an independent job, so I’m no longer working for my Dad. I need to move out of home. And then I’ll tell them.

And if I find that it’s okay, that I could have told them earlier, I’ll be sorry I didn’t, sorry I wasted so much time and mental pain.

But, where I am now, I can’t take that risk.

I haven’t even really told them I’m an atheist yet, though they do know I’m asking lots of questions and no longer trust the answers provided by the Watchtower Society.

It’s a mess.

Why do I want to tell them? Because I can never have a proper relationship with them until I do. I may not have a proper relationship afterward, either, but with a bit of work it should grow back. I hope.

Why do I want to tell them? Because until I tell them I can’t explain why I so despise the Watchtower Society. They taught me to hate myself. I can’t forgive that.

Why do I want to tell them? Because I want to tell everyone else, and I owe it to my parents to tell them first.

I do want to tell everyone. Not directly, perhaps, but I want to stop hiding who I am. Go to at least one Pride parade (depending what I see there, I may or may not go to more).

I have never seen an openly gay couple here. I’ve seen gay couples kissing once in Madrid (Atocha Railway Station, if you want to know) and once in Dublin (in St Stephen’s Green on a warm day). It matters to me to see that, and to see everyone else ignoring it. It’s no big deal. It should be no big deal. And yet it often is. Gay kids. Gay teens. Confused and lonely. They need to see that there’s a place for them in the big wide world. They need to see they can be happy. I almost feel it’s a duty for me to be publicly gay, and publicly happy.

One day. One day.

I wrote this for a messageboard, and then decided to put it also on the blog. The messageboard has since been redesigned, and all old posts have been removed. This was previously published on my GreenTambourine blog.

Choosing to be Gay

Does one choose to be gay? It’s a fascinating question, and many people feel that a great deal rides on the answer. If homosexuality is a choice, they argue, it is permissible to restrict the civil rights of homosexuals, and to encourage homosexual (or ‘pre-homosexual’) teenagers and younger children to ‘turn straight’. (Some of the methods used to achieve this end are quite nasty.) On the other hand, if homosexuality is ‘hard wired’, they should be nice to homosexuals.

James Dobson of Focus on the Family, in his book Bringing Up Boys, disagrees. He argues that the morality of homosexuality is not dependent on whether or not it’s a choice. Dobson is a charlatan, and Bringing Up Boys is a collection of pseudoscientific nonsense (the chapters on ‘pre-homosexuality’ are, anyway), but on this issue he’s right. Homosexuality does not harm. In certain circumstances, indeed, homosexual acts may even increase the sum total of human happiness. I can find no logical reason for labelling homosexuality as immoral; and this conclusion does not in any way depend on whether or not it’s a ‘choice’.

For the record, though, homosexuality is not a choice. Gayness, however, is.

Homosexuality is an orientation. You’re homosexual if you’re sexually attracted to persons of the same sex as yourself. Gayness is an attitude of mind. You’re gay if you can say so, even to yourself, without wincing.

I found myself homosexual, and chose to be gay. The alternative was to be self-loathing. Some people (Ted Haggard* and Larry Craig spring to mind) seem to have taken that option.

* “There’s a part of my life that is so repulsive and dark that I have been warring against it for all of my adult life.”

Originally published on GreenTambourine.

Wingsuit flying. Wow!

Have you heard of wingsuits? I hadn’t.

Click once on videos to play here, and double click to open in a new window (this gives you the option of viewing them full-screen).

Most of these videos are of base jumping, and one is of aeroplane jumps.

I discovered wingsuits from Shankyrich’s journal on h2g2. You’ll find there a link to yet another wingsuit video.

It’s fantastic stuff.

This post was originally published on Voice of Timothy.

Foster Parents

This is a fascinating story.

Religion News Blog: Foster child to be taken away because Christian couple refuse to teach him about homosexuality (United Kingdom)

I think this story is worth telling more than once. Let’s give that a go.

The State

To call a person discriminating is usually seen as a compliment. Do you have a discriminating taste? Discrimination on irrelevant grounds, though, is wrong. And the State sees it as a duty to promote equality by preventing these forms of discrimination. It is illegal for hotels and guesthouses to turn away clients who are, for example, of different races or of the same sex. Is that a good thing? Whatever way you look at it, the government is here overriding the freedoms of the hotel owner to promote the freedoms of others. Is that the government’s business?

I try to be as liberal as I can be, but here I’m with the government, and not just because I’m gay. I think these impositions are justified, on the basis of reducing improper discrimination. And if you don’t like it, you can sell up your B&B and go into a new business.

The Equality Act 2006 includes the Sexual Orientation Regulations, making discrimination on the grounds of sexuality illegal. It is indeed hard to think of a situation in which a person’s sexuality could be a legitimate ground for discrimination. (There are places where you can legitimately discriminate on the grounds of race. Film and theatre are the obvious examples.)

Read that again: Discrimination on the grounds of sexuality is illegal. In all fields. That’s a fairly broad brush.

Implimenting this legislation, Somerset County Council’s social services department drew up a contract for foster parents. After all, the children fostered may be gay or straight, and it would be wrong to place a child who grows up to be gay with a family who will reject him or her for that reason. And straight kids too will benefit from growing up in an open and accepting household. The contract requires foster parents to be open to a foster child’s sexuality, whatever it may turn out to be, and to be supportive. Also, foster parents must not suggest that homosexuality is wrong or that gay parterships are not ‘real’. I think. I haven’t seen the actual text of the contract. If anyone can find it, please put a link in the comments section on this blogpost.

One foster couple refused to sign this contract, feeling that it would go against their religious beliefs. They resigned as foster parents, and their eleven-year-old foster son, who’d been with them for two years, had to go elsewhere. The couple later changed their minds and signed the contract.

The Parents

Vincent and Pauline Matherick have been foster parents for many years, and have cared for almost twenty-eight children. They are very religious: both are ministers at the nonconformist South Chard Christian Church. No doubt their religious beliefs are expressed to the children they foster. And that’s not illegal (yet).

Over the years, they must have filled in many forms and signed many documents. It is, after all, the social services department of the County Council that organises fostering, and local government is well known for beurocracy. One day, though, they were presented with a document they felt unable to sign. This contract demanded that they teach their foster son about sexual equality.

They felt it was inappropriate to even talk about sexuality with eleven-year-olds. They were also worried that they would have to be “prepared to explain how gay people date” and to “take a teenager to gay association meetings”. This bothered them.

In fact, a little further research suggests that they would not be required to take their foster son to gay association meetings unless he himself expressed a desire to do so. And there is no indication that the young lad is gay, so the situation is unlikely to arise. Perhaps they were more concerned about the principle of the thing.

Rather than sign the contract, which was against their “central beliefs”, the Mathericks resigned as foster parents.

Later, after reassurances from the council, they did sign it. News sources are not very clear, but it’s likely their foster son is back with them.

The Child

What the young boy thought of all this is not anywhere recorded. I haven’t come across an interview with him, nor do I expect to find one. (According to BBC News, he cannot be named for legal reasons.) If anyone does know of one, please mention it in the comments section.

One could pull some good fiction out of these few facts. How legal would that be?

Further Reading

I got my initial information from the Religion News Blog, as linked in the top paragraph. But a little searching turned up a few more.

Care and Health have the same story as the RNB, but theirs has three interesting comments attached. Link: Christian Couple Forced To Quit Fostering After Homosexual Row. They also have a statement released by Somerset County Council.

The BBC have both sides of the story.

And Pink News reports on the couple’s decision to uphold the law. Foster couple agree to council diversity policy.

From the other side of the discussion, we have LifeSite. Their article claims incorrectly that the council have changed their position. They also name the foster child, which the BBC says is illegal. Presumably LifeSite is not hosted in the UK, and is not under these laws. I still think they should have preserved the child’s privacy as much as possible. Christian Couple no Longer Required to Promote Homosexuality in Fostering Children.

WorldWide Religious News also have a write up. Christian foster parents condemn ‘gay laws’.

This post was originally published on PolticalTambourine.

I was in Dublin today

I was in Dublin today, and popped into Eason, a large and famous bookshop on the corner of O’Connell Street and Abbey Street. I looked at a few books, including The Jesus Jokebook, by Des MacHale. It’s less irrevarant than it sounds, its compiler being a practising Catholic (and Professor of Mathematics). One I did buy, though, was Laura James’ Tigger on the Couch.

Then, inspired by a complaint I’d read recently about a bookshop which didn’t stock any Thomas Paine, I went to the customer services desk to ask what Paine they had. After I’d spelled his name for her twice, the lady found that they had Common Sense in the classics section downstairs. So I descended to the basement to search it out. It took a while, as the books were not all in alphabetical order. Most of them were, but Common Sense was with the other books in the Great Ideas series. I ended up buying it and two of its companions: Michel de Montaigne’s On Friendship and George Orwell’s Why I Write.

A little later, having read almost half of Why I Write over lunch, I wandered into another bookshop, Books Upstairs, opposite Trinity College, a much smaller place than Eason, with apparently only one member of staff on duty. A chap was asking him for a particular translator’s version of a Greek classic, which I now forget, and he was heading upstairs to see what was in stock when he saw me hovering. Again, I asked whether they had any Thomas Paine. “We should have The Rights of Man, shouldn’t we?” He said. “I’ll have a look.”

I hung around till he came back downstairs. “Sorry,” he said. “We always have The Rights of Man, but we’re out of stock at the moment.”

I think I’ll be going back to Books Upstairs. I had a glance there at Gunter Grass’ Peeling the Onion, extracts of which I’ve heard on Radio 4, but it was a bit pricy.

Oh, and in case you were wondering, Tigger is diagnosed with Attention Deficit/Hyperactive Disorder (AD/HD), Predominantly Hyperactive Impulsive Type.

This post was originally published on GreenTambourine.


A photo of a packet of nuts

So, we’ve all heard those silly tales of nut packets with the warning sign Warning: Contains nuts. Well, I blooming well hope so. That’s what I’m paying for, isn’t it? But you can understand. It’s EU regulations, and the law cannot allow exceptions. Imagine, if you will: All foods which contain nuts or nut traces must display a warning sign on the packaging. (Unless it is obvious that the food contains nuts.) How do you define obvious?

But it does get a bit silly when a packet of mixed nuts says Warning: May contain nuts. May? I suppose they’re just sticking the same sign on everything, regardless of how likely it is to contain nuts. May is a beautifully catch-all word, covering the full range of probability.

Now, though, we move on to the next level of absurdity. The packet photographed above warns us that it may contain nut traces.

Yes, I suppose that is a possibility.

This post was originally published on Voice of Timothy.


Have you heard of Matt Slick? He runs CARM, The Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry. He also has a radio show which is podcast on FeedBurner.

The man annoys me. He’s obviously well read and intelligent. He’s also fairly polite to his callers, who may come from many walks of life and who may express opinions he radically disagrees with. He’s an American conservative Protestant minister; I’m an Irish nominal-JW with atheist tendencies gay chap. We have a lot to disagree on. Yet I still enjoy listening to him. His take on different faith groups is interesting, and his engagement with atheists is respectful and productive. And then he starts on gay marriage. The change in him is extraordinary. He just stops making sense.

I subscribe to his podcast, so my computer downloads all his shows. But I don’t listen to them in order. I’ve so far listened to two where homosexual issues are mentioned in the title of the show: Matt Slick & Brian Fischer – Homosexual Agenda – Pre-recorded, broadcast on 15th March 2007, and, just now, Matt Slick and Atheist Bob Discussing Homosexuality, broadcast on 11th May 2007. The episode with Brian Fischer I listened to a while ago and I remember few of the details. I do recall that Brian agreed with Matt about the evils of homosexuality and that, bizarrely, they opened the show by complimenting each other on their dress sense.

Bob the atheist (I’m sure his surname was mentioned in one of the earlier shows) put up a fairly strong defense of gay marriage on the basis that it does no harm. He was hampered by Matt’s debating style which careens from one topic to another with no central cohesion and with a lot of unsupported remarks.


Let’s run through the broadcast debate, pointing out various gaps and errors contained therein.

We start with Bob asking Matt’s opinion of homosexuality in general and of gay marriage in particular. (I personally prefer the term same-sex marriage, but I’ll stick here with the phrase used on the radio debate.) Matt replies, unsurprisingly, that homosexuality is a sin. (We’ll skip over any distinctions between sexual identity and sexual activity. The waters are muddy enough already, believe me.) Marriage, he says, is defined in the Bible as occurring between one man and one woman.

At this point, my reply would have been “So what?” I really want to know why so many religious people feel the need to use the law to impose the restrictions of their religion on others. Maybe it just makes them feel better. But Matt seems to think that to allow homosexuals to marry is to confer upon them ‘special rights’, so perhaps he doesn’t see that he’s imposing restrictions on other people’s lives with no good reason.

Bob uses a different tack. The Bible, he says, allows for polygamy. So marriage is not defined as occurring only between one man and one woman. Clever. And true. And it’s worth noting that many of the most celebrated faithful men in the Bible had multiple wives and concubines: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, Solomon.

Matt is quick to reply. This was an allowance, he says, not the original divine plan. His ground is slightly shaky here. In Matthew 19:3-9, Jesus says that divorce is wrong, but was allowed by the Mosaic law as a temporary measure. Matt is saying that the same applies to polygamy, but he has little scriptural support. The only thing he can offer is that the New Testament says that church officials should have “one wife” (1 Timothy 3:2, 12; Titus 1:6) and that polygamous marriage is nowhere else referred to in this part of the Bible, as it was not the norm in the society of the time. He also points to the union of Adam & Eve as setting a pattern. Circumstantial, not conclusive.

Also, of course, if an exception was allowed then, why should one not be allowed now? And a gay marriage is arguably closer in kind to the union of Adam & Eve than is a polygamous marriage. (Bob didn’t raise these points, but he was thinking on his feet, unlike me, who have been mulling over this for most of the day now.)

Round one to Bob.


Matt contends that while different forms of marriage may have been permitted (polygamy, concubinage) to the patriarchs, these were (a) like divorce, permitted but not fully approved of and (b) still between man and woman. On a tangent, Bob replies that if it’s threats to marriage you’re interested in, surely you should be agitating to ban divorce. This is a tangent, but it’s an interesting one, as it reveals that yet again the motives of the religious right are not pure. Most strict Protestant branches allow divorce on very few grounds. They’re quite strict about it. And yet they’re happy for society at large to be less strict, to allow divorce on many grounds. We see again that the objection to homosexuality is not primarily religious in nature. Religion is merely providing a screen to mask bigotry. The Christian position is, as Bob points out, inconsistent.

Round two is inconclusive, as neither really responded to the other’s points. Actually, this is more of a tail-off to round one, and I have dealt with both of Matt’s points above. Polygamous marriage is a further deviation from Matt’s ‘ideal’ than gay marriage is.


Bob launches the next assault. He’s happily married in a heterosexual relationship. Politicians tell him that his marriage is ‘under attack’ by advocates for same-sex marriage. He fails to see this himself. He doesn’t see how the legalisation of gay marriage affects him. As such, he feels that it is little of his business. If that’s what the homosexual community wants, he says, let them have it. It’s not a problem.

Matt comes at this one sideways, by analogy. (I’m not accusing him of slyness. To come at a debating point sideways is perfectly respectable.) He asks should siblings be allowed to marry. It’s an interesting question, alright. Bob replied simply that he hadn’t thought of that one before, which is a respectable answer. It’s an answer which increased my respect for Bob: he acknowledges that he sometimes needs to stop and think about things.

I have had time to think about it, but I’m still not sure what I think. Allow me to do a stream-of-consciousness style thing here while I try to work out my opinion. First, the question needs to be rephrased: In a discussion of human rights, we should withhold a right only with good reason. So the question is, Why shouldn’t siblings be allowed to marry? If we can’t answer that, we allow them to marry by default. Are you with me so far?

The next point is that any revulsion we may feel at incest is irrelevant. We cannot (should not, anyway) legislate by our personal tastes. (If I ruled the world, mayonnaise would be banned.) I find the notion of close relatives having sex quite quite disgusting, but if I’m to be reasonable, I must ignore that.

So why should adult siblings be prevented from marrying? One reason only remains: such a heterosexual pairing would likely result in unhealthy offspring. What of that? Is preventing marriage the best solution to this? Surely the dissemination of information (about (a) contraception and (b) the likelihood of congenital defects) is the best way to prevent these illnesses? And what of homosexual sibling pairings? What reasonable objection is there to these marrying?

I cannot answer the question I posed myself, Why shouldn’t siblings be allowed to marry? By default, then, I must allow them to marry. This is how human rights work. However, I don’t rule the world.

Matt also mentions paedophiliacs here, but the subject is skipped over. I’ll skip over it too, for now, because they come back to it later in the discussion.

Let’s move on. Round three undecided.


Should a person be allowed to marry an animal?, asks Matt. I’m not sure what the word marriage would mean in this context. Would the animal then have hospital visitation rights? Could your cat make decisions for you when you’re on life support? Would your dog have power of attorney? Maybe humans should be allowed to enter into some form of legal relationship with certain animals, but to call this a marriage is to stretch the definition of the word beyond breaking point.

Matt’s point is that love is not, in itself, the deciding factor for whether a marriage is valid. Fair enough. No one said it was.

At this point, with issues and counter issues being raised on top of each other, it’s difficult to work out the exact logical structure of the debate. My division of it into rounds is of course largely arbitrary. Let’s say that Matt wins round four: love is not in itself enough for a marriage to be valid. We pass, in the middle of a sentence, into the next section.


Can you marry someone else’s wife if you love each other? (Legally, at time of writing, yes, but she must divorce her current husband first.) This is Matt continuing his last point. Bob takes him up on it thus: an act is wrong if it does harm. At this point, Bob also picks up on Matt’s earlier throwaway comment on paedophilia: does it do harm? Then it’s wrong.

Then they break off into a diversion about the source of ethics in an atheistic universe.

Of course, without guidance from a higher intelligence, humans even with the best of intentions will make mistakes. You can develop your ethics to the highest degree and still harm others. (It must be said, though, that some of the greatest damage to humanity has been done by those who claimed they were acting in perfect harmony with the will of God.) But what Matt dismisses as ‘situational ethics’ is real. And we can derive an excellent ethical system independent of God: A moral act is one which decreases the sum total of human suffering; an immoral act is one which increases the sum total of human suffering. If we add to this simple code a prohibition on lying, we have a perfectly adequate framework for assessing our actions in most situations.

Matt beats Bob down on the diversion (largely because Bob was anxious to get back on topic, I think) but Bob has won round five: an act is wrong only if it does harm. Homosexual marriage does not do harm.


“Tell me,” asks Matt, “Why should homosexuals be allowed to get married?” As I’ve noted above, this is the wrong question. In a discussion on rights, always ask why the right should be withheld, not why it should be granted. Matt, not Bob, has the work to do in this debate.

However, Bob decides that he will answer Matt’s question. There is a large mass of people asking for it, he says, and granting their wish will do no harm.

Matt derides the first part of this as argumentum ad populum: let’s do this because a lot of people want us to. Argumentum ad populum is of course largely invalid in a discussion of ethics or morality, but when you’re trying to apply ethics or morality to a democratic system, it does have a certain amount of weight. Essentially, Matt’s right. If gay marriage is a good thing, it’s still a good thing if only one couple in the world want it; if gay marriage is a bad thing, it’s still a bad thing if half the population want it. But legal systems have inertia, and it requires a certain mass of people with a strength of opinion to overcome that inertia. (A court decision can sometimes do the trick too. One of the functions of the courts is to protect minority opinions and groups from the tyranny of the majority.) Bob is merely remarking that critical mass has been reached on this issue, so it has become an important cause.

So we move onto doing no harm. Matt asks how Bob knows it doesn’t hurt anyone. Fair enough, Bob has declared that it doesn’t hurt anyone, and Matt’s asking him to back up his statement. The real burden of proof in the debate as a whole, though, is on Matt to show that it does hurt people. Remember, we grant human rights (such as the right to marriage) by default, unless there’s a good reason not to do so. Matt does not here suggest any harm that gay marriage might cause, he merely asks how Bob knows it does no harm. Bob’s response is merely that the research he’s done suggests that it doesn’t hurt anyone. I don’t know what research Bob may have done, but an excellent place to start would be Abigail Garner‘s book Families Like Mine.

In round six, a lot of questions went unanswered on both sides. I think Bob acquitted himself better than Matt, but we’ll call it a tie.


To what extent does the recognition of gay marriage put a burden on society? This is Matt’s next question. The changing laws will put some expense on the taxpayer, perhaps, but Matt does not focus on that.

He talks about some writing that he’s been doing on his website. He’s worried that he might be sued for saying that homosexuality is a sin, and has to spend time and expense consulting with lawyers and legal groups who might protect him. (Might I suggest the American Civil Liberties Union, who are strongly in favour of free speech and who have a good record of protecting all sorts of disgusting opinions they actually disagree with very strongly.) Free speech is of course protected in the United States of America. All sorts of silly lawsuits might be brought, but (a) this has nothing to do with the recognition of marriage, per se, and (b) it’s the fault, as Bob says, of a silly legal system which allows frivolous lawsuits to be brought. Watching the news from the sane side of the Atlantic, it sometimes seems that most Americans spend most of their time suing everyone for everything.

Anyway, I, for one, am not in favour of any form of censorship. If I don’t see Matt’s arguments, how can I refute them?

Who wins round seven? I’m not educated enough in US law to be certain, but I think that Matt’s talking nonsense. Free speech is well protected in the US. And Bob’s right in saying that, while this issue is related to that of gay marriage, it is somewhat off topic. I’m declaring this one a win for Bob.


Keeping to the same theme of how recognition of gay marriage puts a burden on society, Matt states that this is asking people to change their morality. It’s not: it’s asking them to change their unfair restrictive laws. To what extent does law inform morality? To what extent does morality inform law? In any case, they are not the same thing.

Bob’s response is cutting enough. People have had their morals overridden by law in the past, and we now largely regard these decisions as good. He mentions slavery. We could add women’s suffrage. It’s worth noting that (a) conservative religions disapproved of both these changes and (b) in the case of the slave trade, at least, the changing law actually did ‘harm’ slave owners, by removing their ‘property’, in a way that gay marriage will not harm anyone.

Matt ignores this (or, rather, sidesteps it), so Bob wins round eight. (Rounds eight and nine are really the same one, but I’m doing quite a lot of commentary on nine, so I split off the introduction into this short round eight. As I said, the divisions are arbitrary.)


The sidestep brings us to another interesting point. Matt declares that the example of the slaves is irrelevant, because black skin is inherent, whereas homosexuality is a behaviour. He’s missing the point, of course. For a start, the relationship between slavery and black skin, and the idea that black people were constituted to be slaves, is a recent anomaly in human history. It has ever been the vanquished who have been slaves. The English word derives from Slav, and the Slavs are certainly not black. In any case, in focusing on the differences between slaves and homosexuals, Matt is deliberately (?) missing the point of Bob’s analogy. It sometimes is right to ride roughshod over religious people’s misconceived ‘moral’ objections. If this was true in the case of slavery, Matt cannot say that asking people to change their morals is necessarily to put an unfair burden on them.

Also, the argument over whether homosexuality is a behaviour or an orientation, a choice or inborn, is totally besides the point. I actually agree on this with that awful charlatan Dr James Dobson. In his book Bringing Up Boys, he says that the question of whether homosexuality is inborn or a choice makes no difference to its morality. He’s right. Homosexuality does no harm, and is therefore morally neutral. Oppressing homosexuals is therefore morally wrong.

(For the record, though, homosexuality is inborn.)

Does this even count as a round? It’s Matt Slick on an incoherent rant. I won’t score it, but I’ll call it round nine, for ease of reference.


Bob asks at this point where the problem with homosexuality or gay marriage actually is. It’s a question which was barely touched on at the beginning of the debate, where Matt said that it was unbiblical. He repeats that now, and adds that the majority of society don’t want it.

He doesn’t stop there. He insists on giving a little summary of his previous rant, trying to say that the slavery analogy is irrelevant, that to compare the two is to make a category mistake. He’s wrong. If it was right to override the morality of the majority population then, it may be right to do so now. This is the beginning and the end of the argument from comparison with slavery.

They move back to the argument from the Bible. There’s a digression about whether the Bible condemns lesbianism.

We move into theology now. How do we decide which bits of the Bible to obey and which are out of date? Matt’s happy to eat shellfish and to wear clothing made from mixed fibres. This point is not pursued. They decide to take it up another day.

Again, this isn’t really a debating point, but we’ll call it round ten for reference.


We really are winding up the debate at this point. Matt talks about Theonomists, who I think are the same as Christianists, that is, people who want the law of the land to reflect their Christian beliefs. Matt says that he has a problem with that. Why he makes an exception for gay marriage he hasn’t properly explained.

It seems to boil down to, he doesn’t like it.

Actually, to be fair, he does have a bit more than that to say. He argues that the recognition of gay marriage would make it appear normal, and that therefore he will have to work harder to ‘protect’ his children from this attitude. True enough, I suppose, but to call this ‘harm’ is, to my mind, stretching a point a little.

At this point, there is a pause for an ad break.


What are the deleterious effects of the ‘promotion of homosexuality’ and promotion of gay marriage?

Matt talks about changes in the law which would erode free speech. If that actually is changing, and I doubt it, I agree with him. He reads out a law about hate crimes. A hate crime is one based on ‘the actual or perceived race, colour, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, ….’ He misinterprets what this is saying. It’s not talking about the perception of the gay person that you’re homophobic. It’s talking about the homophobe’s perception that the person he’s beating up is homosexual. There’s a reason for hate crime laws.

You have a right to raise your child as you see fit, says Matt. Um, up to a point, I suppose. Do you have the right to cripple your children’s brains by filling them with nonsense?

There’s a bit of confusion between the two speakers as to what Matt’s actually talking about here. Is he saying that he wants to protect his children from homosexual ‘recruitment’, or from the dangerous idea that homosexuality is acceptable? Both, he says. Bob agrees with him on the ‘recruitment’ angle. We all know that’s nonsense anyway. People who have tried and failed to change their sexuality (and in this society, most homosexuals have tried to ‘fit in’ and turn themselves straight) know that ‘recruitment’ efforts don’t work. And even if they did, why bother? What on earth would be the point?

Matt claims to be privy to some secret information about the ‘homosexual agenda’. He’s clearly talking absolute nonsense. It is at roughly this point that I lose all respect for the man. He cannot understand the difference between ‘recruitment’ and the campaign for equal rights. Why have it in schools? Hey, we grew up. We were children once. We went to school. We remember what it was like. We’d like it to be easier for today’s children. Some homosexuals wish they’d had a less persecuted childhood. I wish I’d had a less confused childhood. The children of gay parents too have reason to welcome this education of their classmates. Information is good.

I don’t know what information Matt has, but it’s likely he’s misinterpreting it. I seriously doubt that any form of ‘evangelism’ or ‘recruitment’ is happening anywhere. It’s ridiculous to claim it’s happening in schools.


Finally we get onto the natural/unnatural argument. Homosexuality, Matt says, is unnatural. What the word natural means in this context is anyone’s guess. Certainly, he’s not talking about the behaviour of animals.

Male and female genitalia fit together, he says. Okay. Have fun with them, if that’s what you like doing. So what?

Homosexuality does not contribute to the continuation of the species. That’s a good thing. Have you seen the news recently?

Evolution cannot explain homosexuality. Well, there are some interesting theories, though none have yet achieved scientific consensus. Is this a problem? How well can evolution explain an appreciation of the work of Salvador Dali? Well, let’s put all his pictures into cold storage until we’ve developed an explanation of why we like them! (Personally, I prefer M.C. Escher, anyway.)


Now’s the time for the slippery slope arguments. Slippery slope arguments are void anyway, so I won’t spend much time on them. I’ll just say that, as icky as necrophilia or bestiality are, it’s hard to determine who exactly is hurt by them. They are complex issues, which I really don’t intend to get into here. And that paedophilia does have victims, even when the children say they’re happy with it, because children are not capable of giving informed consent. Even if, as has happened at least once, an adult says that he was ‘abused’ as a child but enjoyed it at the time and feels it did him no harm (this man was interviewed by The Oldie), it’s still wrong. You don’t know, as you’re having sex with a child, that the child will grow up to feel it did him no harm. On the same basis that speeding is wrong even if you hit no one, paedophilia is wrong even if your ‘victims’ are happy. There are potential victims. In each case you are putting others at risk for your pleasure.


Now we move onto ‘special rights’. Matt says that homosexuals already have the right to marry opposite-sex partners. This is true, of course. (Why would they want to? Why would the opposite-sex partners want to?) He then goes on to say that they want a ‘special’ right to marry same-sex partners. Well, that wouldn’t be a special right at all. It would be your right too. We just wouldn’t expect you to avail of it. (Still, no harm in keeping your options open, eh?)

Matt says that special rights should not be granted to people on the basis of behaviour. I really don’t know what he’s talking about here. We shouldn’t have special rights for skateboarders, he says. Don’t we? What do you call skateboard ranks? What if a load of religious nutters were campaigning that skateboarding was immoral? “The Lord Jesus walked the Earth! He didn’t roll. And your grunge clothes are an abomination!” (Hey, I could pull a good skit out of this. I must try it some time.) What if a looney wanted a skateboard rank shut down because he wanted to tell his children that skating is immoral? Does that give you a right to restrict other’s freedoms? You can complain all you want about your taxes funding the building of skateboard ranks in the town park, but unless you can come up with a better argument than My imaginary friend doesn’t like it, we’re not going to listen to you.


Oh, and if Matt is serious when he says that he looks only to the Bible, and nowhere else, for moral guidance, he presumably has no moral problems with keeping a slave (Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 4:1; 1 Timothy 6:2), or, for that matter, with being a slave (Ephesians 6:5; Colossians 3:22; 1 Timothy 6:1, 2; Titus 2:9).


I’ve been rather less than polite here, in places, but I’m certain Matt can take it. As I said, I rather like the guy until he gets onto this topic. And I make no apologies for my strength of feeling on this issue.

Note Added 2008-10-03: The word I heard as theonomists must actually have been dominionists. The radio show is now old enough to have been deleted from the CARM servers, so I can safely blame Matt’s poor pronunciation.

Note: This post was originally published on PoliticalTambourine.

The 60s/70s Party at Luke and Colm’s

I hadn’t planned to go to the party. Not worth the effort of dressing up, I thought. It was Simon and Michelle who changed my mind. “You’d have such fun taking photos of everyone,” they said. They were right. They also said that Ruth would be wearing a blonde afro. That, I thought, would be worth seeing.

Since I made up my mind to go only moments before leaving the house, I was not elaborately dressed.

A chap (me) in a black shirt, red trousers which stop above the ankle, and a red tie standing in a doorway.

Odd for me to be the least weirdly dressed person at a gathering.

Two oddly dressed people on a sofa.

I told Colm he looked like Jack Sparrow. Is that a compliment?

A guy with glasses and very long hair.

And there were more:

Two lads.

A bunch of girls, including Ruth in her blonde afro.

Best dressed lady:

And, after many attempts,

I managed to get a photo of this lady.

A small crowd dancing

At one point, most of ’em went for a walk around the estate. I didn’t.

There really was a lot of wig-swapping going on.

They even got me with one.

And there are no prizes for guessing who came as Elvis.

His dancing, though, was unusually restrained.

Dancing Elvis

And I wasn’t the only one taking photos.

A Photo Shoot

Hey! Someone else wore shorts. That means I could’ve done. Bah!

But at least I stayed in bare feet. Most of the time, at least.

We shall title this picture, Sarah takes evasive action.

Well, we all had fun.

I left early, and walked home, still in bare feet.

This post was originally published on Voice of Timothy.