Rev. Angus Stewart
Letter 1
(published in the Belfast Telegraph on 9 November, 2015; the words in italics they omitted)
In our day of moral relativism, a large-scale redefinition of humanity is going on. Men and women are being redefined as higher animals, and some are pushing to have certain animals redefined as persons. Yet unborn babies have been redefined as non-persons in many countries to justify their murder.
Civil partnerships between homosexuals have been brought in and now many are pressing for a redefinition of marriage, as involving two men or two women.
Others want further permutations of marriage. Logically, if gender is irrelevant in marriage, why should the numbers involved matter? So why not polygamy, both polygyny and polyandry? If the natural barrier between two men marrying can be removed, how can one justify an arbitrary lower age limit for marriage or sexual intercourse?
Now the fashionable cause is transgenderism, so male and female, he and she, brother and sister, nephew and niece, uncle and aunt, father and mother, etc., are being redefined.
What about the “rights” of a bisexual man or woman to marry two people: someone of the same gender and someone of a different gender? Is “marriage equality” to be denied them? How about bisexual marriage for transgenders? What does adultery or incest mean in a world of gender and marital redefinition?
In keeping with their loss of objective moral standards and identity, through the redefinition of humans, personhood, marriage and gender, some people are becoming more tolerant and accepting of bestiality. After all, is not tolerance continually being proclaimed to us as the chief virtue? The refrain of the day is: Who are we to judge? Besides, what is wrong with bestiality, if we are basically animals too?
Meanwhile, the definition of “bigot” is being widened to include those who question or oppose the latest instances of redefinition, and the opprobrium heaped on those “intolerant” and “narrow-minded” people is increasing, as is the threat of legal proceedings for “hate speech,” words uttered or written that are contrary to liberal redefinitions.
Prior to and alongside these redefinitions of mankind, in terms of personhood, marriage and gender, is the redefinition of God. Love has been redefined as tolerance, then approval and now celebration of sin, especially sexual sin. This redefinition of love is foisted on God and He is portrayed as if He were an impotent god of only one redefined attribute. Yet the true God and His love are eternal, unchangeable, wise, holy and just.
Thus humanity is being redefined to further its lusts and the infinitely righteous God is being made in the image of sinful man.
Letter 2
(published in the Belfast Telegraph on 17 November, 2015; the words in italics they omitted)
Whereas on-line detractors of my letter (9 Nov.) vehemently denied that relatively recently in the West there has been a redefinition of humanity (as higher animals), persons (with unborn babies being non-persons), marriage (as including two men or two women), love (toleration, then approval and now celebration of sin, especially sexual sin) and “bigot” (one who challenges liberal redefinitions), Brian McClinton boasts of these things as “progress” (11 Nov.)!
What else constitutes “progress” and where is it headed next? Currently, the fashionable cause is transgenderism, so male and female, he and she, brother and sister, nephew and niece, uncle and aunt, father and mother, family, etc., are being redefined.
What about the “rights” of a bisexual man or woman to marry two people: someone of the same gender and someone of a different gender? Is “marriage equality” to be denied them? How about bisexual marriage for transgenders? What does adultery or incest mean in a world of gender and marital redefinition?
Moreover, what is wrong with bestiality, if we are defined as animals too? After all, is not “tolerance” continually being proclaimed to us as the chief virtue? The refrain of the day is: Who are we to judge?
Brian reckons that “in many respects ‘love’ has increased.” But the issue is not mathematical, about “more” love, but about its unlawful objects, which reveal the nature of such “love” as “inordinate” affections. Sexual “love” for someone else’s spouse or fetishes or someone of the same gender or minors or animals, etc., is sinful lust.
We are dealing here not with the moral progress, but with the degradation of mankind, which fits with Brian’s statement that “we were ‘humans’”—note the past tense!
Brian also proves my point regarding the parallel redefinitions of both God and man: “Surely a loving God would be pleased by these redefinitions [of humanity]?” This is the new politically correct god dreamt up by evolving animals who used to be humans to try to make themselves feel better about their redefined selves.
