new

Any rational and fact-based discussion about gender equality and the right roles for the sexes is impossible in our society.

It is impossible because we cannot even bring ourselves to recognize the reality of biological sex – hence the increasingly-widespread insanity of allowing male-to-female transsexuals participate in, and thereby dominate, women’s sports. In the face of such insanity, all our ancestral wisdom and modern science – not to mention my own scribblings – are quite useless: there’s no helping people who are too dishonest or cowardly to see what is in front of their own nose.

However, for the sake of our young white boys – who are already being scapegoated for the inevitable failures to achieve equality and who need to take up their place in society as proud and confident men – I will provide a brief account of sex differences and what gender relations might look like in a healthy society.

Biological sex differences beyond the mere reproductive apparatus, known as sexual dimorphism, is the norm in much the Animal Kingdom. This reflects the differing evolutionary strategies of males and females. Almost every difference imaginable is possible, according to that particular species’ differing evolutionary strategies for males and females. Typically, while females carry and (where applicable) nurture offspring by default, males are more competitive and have to prove themselves in some way to get the female’s approval; whether this means rams battering their horns against one another or birds preparing elegant nests or showing off their spectacular plumage. (On which see David Attenborough’s innumerable nature documentaries, which typically boil down to animals struggling to get food, not get eaten, and find a mate.)

Sexual dimorphism can be non-existent or extreme. In the case of the deep sea angler fish, the small male bites in the female and gradually fuses with her, until all that remains is a pair of gonads attached to the female’s body. So far, there is no angler fish “masculinist movement” arguing for the interchangeability and equal rights of male and female angler fish.

The differences between men and women are certainly not as severe as among male and female angler fish, but they are not negligible. To be brief: men are competitive and achieve their highest reproductive potential through conquest, while women are consensual and achieve their highest reproductive potential through nurturing. A successful man might have dozens or even hundreds of children, a biological impossibility even for the most successful woman. Men’s evolutionary strategy is high-risk, high-reward. Women’s is low-risk, low-reward.

A successful man would be engaged in collective struggles with other men to seize resources, to build, to discover, while a successful woman would secure resources from her man! And Nature has equipped women with all the psychological traits and emotional skills to do so. A man is attracted to a healthy, beautiful woman. A woman is attracted to a socially successful, prestigious man with money, one who is at once a provider and a bad-boy (she is very torn on this), so as to provide for her and protect her. Hence, the media have breathlessly reported that the economic decline of men is a tragedy . . . for women’s marriage prospects!

In the prehistoric tribe, a successful man would have spent much time physically exerting himself, hunting animals or warring against other men, as part of a coalition of men. Women would have spent much of their adult life incapacitated in the home, pregnant or caring for small children. The psychological traits appropriate for these two modes of life are of course vastly different.

If you ever engage in any kind of physically difficult group endeavor – say you move to a different home with all your furniture – you will typically find that men and women revert to their traditional roles. The men will be literally doing the heavy lifting and building the furniture, while the women will be cleaning, cooking, and providing moral support (the value of which should not be underestimated).

Women also seem to be natural enforcers of social values. While men have historically controlled the priesthoods and the media, it is women who nag their menfolk to live up to the society’s established social norms and be respectable. (No doubt part of the reason why homosexuals have become so prominent in the far-Right since the latter has become heretical.) It is said that Spartan women would murder their own sons if these ever fled battle, and that it was Byzantine women who murdered the soldiers who had been ordered to destroy Christian icons. Across Europe today you will find that old women are virtually the only ones left going to the villages churches.

As we have become comfortable, so our societies and culture have become feminized and infantilized. Today, it seems that women project their mothering instincts upon all the approved “victim groups” of the world: homosexuals, migrants, and minorities all are their symbolic substitute children. Any measures which do not treat these groups as “equals” with heterosexual child-rearing European families – even if salutary for the common good – are then considered mere vicious “bullying.” In the United States, White Democratic women have driven most of the shift towards the demand there be equal racial outcomes, even if discrimination is required.

In my view, following Aristotle and Darwin, human ethics must be founded upon human nature. Humans are social and potentially rational beings, who exist through the creation of successive generations, passing on hereditary characteristics. To the extent that men and women differ biologically, this may imply that, ethically, there should be different social roles for them, in order to foster maximal individual and collective human flourishing.

The most obvious of these is military service. Men being physically much more powerful than women, societies have always discriminated against men by requiring them to serve in the military, while women stayed safe at home. (Hollywood has not yet attempted to show how strong, independent black women were central to the success of the D-Day landings, but there is still time.) The social expectation that women stay at home to take care of children is exactly analogous to this. An optimally-organized species will have sexually specialized roles, to some extent, for the benefit of the species.

The Spartans, the Aztecs, and Mussolini were all in agreement: childbirth – probably the most intense experience a typical postmodern may live today – is to women what war is to men. And so, it probably is not a coincidence that male authority has wholly collapsed at the same as peace has triumphed in our lands.

Even a couple of generations ago, every day our grandfathers had to show daily heroism: working in the fields, in mines, on fishing boats, or in the military, come rain or snow. By this effort, they secured their families’ livelihood and their own paternal authority, not to mention their own native toughness.

[=Authors note and context: This is from a blog that calls itself "GAY TRUTH" and claims to be about "Very Good Gay News" - it is in fact an anti-gay propaganda site. It's author(s) are unknown=]

A teacher claiming to be a Christian says Christian school asked her to quit for supporting homosexual fake marriage and being unable to support the school doctrine of faith and employment.

Rachel Colvin claiming to be a Christian who worked for Ballarat Christian College was asked to resign over her public beliefs about gay marriage which is in reality - homosexual fake marriage.

Rachel Colvin in defiance to scripture is taking legal action against Ballarat Christian College, claiming she was forced to resign over her personal support for homosexual fake marriage while at the same time was unwilling to sign the school's code of conduct.

Rachel Colvin was an English teacher at Ballarat Christian College from 2008 until February 2019. Colvin said that in August last year the school informed her she would no longer be offered certain teaching and professional development opportunities, despite her offer to keep silent about her personal and immoral support for fake homosexual marriage. She said she was required to attend counseling sessions with the head of teaching and school chaplain.

Colvin has lodged a discrimination case with the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal under the state’s Equal Opportunity Act 2010. The tribunal is yet to list the case for a directions date or hearing. A homosexual group is providing support to Colvin in pursuing the case.

“I loved my job. I am an extremely hard worker and loyal to a fault, and to have it end the way it did was, at first, professionally humiliating,” Colvin said in a statement. She ultimately humiliated herself claiming to be a Christian who does not follow God's word, make God the creator of sin, chooses to re-interpret all the homosexual passages that clearly state homosexuality is a sin, and then seeks to confuse young people by stating homosexuality is good.

Rachel Colvin claiming to be a Christian demonstrates by her statements which clearly violate the word of God - that she is not a Christian:

“I see it as a God-given opportunity to stand up for what is right, to represent what God is really about: loving others. They were created as they are, in the image of God, and that they are fully loved by God and share equal dignity with all human beings,” she said.Rachel Colvin position on homosexuality is simply wrong

The Bible consistently tells us that homosexual activity is a sin (Genesis 19:1–13; Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; Romans 1:26–27; 1 Corinthians 6:9). Romans 1:26–27 teaches specifically that homosexuality is a result of denying and disobeying God. When people continue in sin and unbelief, God “gives them over” to even more wicked and depraved sin in order to show them the futility and hopelessness of life apart from God. 1 Corinthians 6:9 proclaims that homosexual “offenders” will not inherit the kingdom of God.

God does not create a person with homosexual desires. Rachel Colvin is wrong. The Bible tells us that people become homosexuals because of sin (Romans 1:24–27) and ultimately because of their own choice. A person may be born with a greater susceptibility to homosexuality, just as some people are born with a tendency to violence and other sins. That does not excuse the person’s choosing to sin by giving in to sinful desires. If a person is born with a greater susceptibility to anger/rage, does that make it right for him to give into those desires? Of course not! The same is true with homosexuality.

However, the Bible does not describe homosexuality as a “greater” sin than any other. All sin is offensive to God. Homosexuality is just one of the many things listed in 1 Corinthians 6:9–10 that will keep a person from the kingdom of God. According to the Bible, God’s forgiveness is just as available to a homosexual as it is to an adulterer, idol worshipper, murderer, thief, etc. God also promises the strength for victory over sin, including homosexuality, to all those who will believe in Jesus Christ for their salvation (1 Corinthians 6:11; 2 Corinthians 5:17; Philippians 4:13).

The school correctly updated its constitution last year following the disputed legalising of fake homosexual marriage in 2017.

“God designed the two genders, male and female, for the purpose of joy and procreation within the sole relationship of marriage. So a marriage can only be between a male and a female, and upon this foundation alone should children be conceived and families formed,” the clause says.
While the Bible strongly condemns homosexuality, it never instructs that homosexuals are to be hated. As Christians, we are to speak out against the perversion of homosexual activity not support it, promote or even claim God loves it.

The Bible is explicit in its condemnation of it, as well as God’s wrath towards those who practice such behavior. As Christians, we are called to clearly and lovingly call sin for what it is. Using the term homophobia to refer to anyone who opposes homosexuality is a distraction, not a valid argument or accurate representation.

A Christian should have only one fear regarding homosexuals, the fear that they will suffer eternally because of their decision to reject the only means of salvation—the Lord Jesus Christ who offers the only hope for escape from a degrading and destructive lifestyle.

Rachel Colvin may have grown up in an evangelical Christian family in the US and may have served as a missionary, but has obviously strayed from scripture and God regardless of the claim to be a believer.

She refused to support that statement of faith and should have voluntarily resigned rather than take her employer to Court. This clearly reflects the fact she is no longer a faithful follower of Christ based on her unbiblical statements.

Sex between two adult males was always considered abhorrent. For instance, St. Paul condemned men’s “indecent acts with other men” (Romans 1:27). He did not differentiate between pedophilia and adult homosexual acts; both were sinful sexual perversions in God’s eyes.

The biblical condemnation and rejection of homosexuality was not a novel idea introduced by St. Paul. Jude, the writer of the New Testament book that bears his name, told his readers that sexual immorality led God to destroy the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah (Jude 7). And it may be that Jesus also had this sin in mind when he referred to God annihilating these two ancient cities (Matthew 11:23).

Christians are said to be homophobic simply because they condemn homosexual behavior as sin. But the fact is that the term homophobic is merely a word used by homosexual activists and supporters in their attempts to deflect a genuine criticism of an immoral and unhealthy practice.

Without question, there are people and organizations who have developed irrational hate of homosexuals and who are prepared to use violent actions to inflict suffering upon homosexuals.

However, the problem is that the homosexual-rights activists have accused anyone who opposes homosexuality of harboring similar hatred. Therefore, Christians who rightly discern that homosexuality is an unnatural sin are equated with violent lunatics who hate for hatred’s sake.