The Evils of Sodomy
Evil is a real thing. And it has real results. History is filled with the wreckage of societies that gave themselves up to various evils.
Introduction
This post is written as part of a series of exchanges between myself and Addam. One of the issues that divide us (and there are many) is that I hold to the traditional view that Sodomy (see below for definition) is immoral and should be discouraged, and chastity (ditto) is to be praised and promoted. That any society that fails on these two points is fatally weakened.
Addam would like it if I gave ‘secular’ reasons for my thesis, but I’m afraid I am going to disappoint him. There are no secular reasons for anything. All reasons must begin with an underlying philosophy, a statement of what is good and what is evil. Only from that can other examples emerge.
Now, mind you, I don’t actually believe that there can be a functional philosophy that does not reject Sodomy. Functional meaning capable of forming a successful society that continues from generation to generation. And certainly evolutionary theory must reject Sodomy root and branch… if it is to be at all consistent.
But if anyone is looking for ‘secular reasons’ here, sorry, I can’t help you.
Sodomy
Let me be very, very clear. When I say ‘Sodomy’ in this post I am referring to any and all sexual activity between two males. Yes, I know that is not the standard definition used in the Wikipedia. As with the definition of ‘omni-benevolence’ I do not care. I am using a word to mean something, and not using it to mean whatever else. If someone wishes to supply a word that is more specific for male-on-male sexual activity, feel free.
Until then try not to be silly enough to pretend that I am talking, here, about any sexual activity between a man and a woman. I’m not. Nor am I talking about sexual activity between women. I’m not.
I am here specifically speaking of sexual activity, of whatever sort… from sexual hand holding, to kissing, to any other perversion… between men.
Contrast
And let me, again, be very clear on what I am contrasting it with. I am not singling it out from all other sexual activity. I am contrasting male-on-male sexual activity, of whatever sort, with ‘chastity’. And by this I mean (again with the definition): sexual abstinence of all types before the coming together in sexual union of a virgin man and virgin woman; whereupon they have lots of ‘unprotected’1 vaginal sex with each other, and no sex whatsoever with others.
Yes, I realise that there are hundreds or even thousands of other forms of sexual expression. Most of them can just get lumped in with the perversion that is Sodomy, some of them belong much closer to chastity, and some are sinful but not perverted. It is not my goal here to go into all of that. For the rest of this post I will be contrasting ‘Sodomy’ (as I defined it) and ‘chastity’ (as I defined it). I define them not in order to be idiosyncratic, but in order to communicate clearly in this post.
Blasphemy
The first and most obvious reason to reject Sodomy is that God has quite clearly rejected it Himself. It is, at its root, blasphemy.
God created male and female, and the human reproductive system, and Sodomy is a rather obvious rejection of that.
God uses marriage, the sexual union of a man and a woman, as a metaphor for himself with the church. The sexual perversion of two men is thus a repudiation and rejection of that.
God created and rejoices in reproduction; and the sexual perversion of Sodomy is a rejection of that.
Those reasons, alone, would be enough to reject Sodomy root and branch.
Death and Disease
Since the fall childbirth has been painful and dangerous. But childbirth produces a child. The perversion that is Sodomy (along with other sexual perversions) leads to disease, disability and death in great numbers.
Demographics
Our society is already suffering demographic death. This death is in direct responsibility of Sodomy and other sexual perversions. A society where their young people are getting married and having children is a society, outside of the most severe circumstances, that will reproduce itself. A modern society needs about 2.2 children per women to remain stable. On average. Not 2.2 for those women who choose to marry and have children… the average of all women.
Thus for every person who opts out of being a ‘breeder’, whether from Sodomy or some other perversion, that increases the responsibility on others. And it is well known that societies tend to move as a group; thus if some people stop having children, that puts social pressure on everyone else, which drives the numbers down, which puts pressure… etc. To the extent that almost all ‘Western Democracies’ and indeed most developed countries are falling off a demographic cliff.
Example
God designed the family to have a man and a woman. Their children would be boys and girls. These boys and girls would have, in their family, older boys and girls and men and women. Thus as they grew they would have role models, boys with men and girls with women.
There are lots of things in life which can disrupt this. They are all bad. Death, adultery, fornication, divorce, birth control… and Sodomy. These are all disruptions of God’s design. They all need to be recognised as bad, and rejected by society.2
Conclusion
In our earlier conversation I challenged Addam to point to a successful society (meaning one which has lasted and grown for generations) that accepted Sodomy. Indeed one that rejected chastity. He was unable to do so, for the obvious reason that there are, and can be, no such societies.
Instead he proposed some wishful thinking. He thinks it would be good to have a society where the blasphemy that is Sodomy, and the nonsense that is ‘gay marriage’ is accepted. Well, facts don’t care about his feelings. Not only are those things evil, but they don’t work. No society built upon that idea can stand. As we are seeing.
Thank you for reading Von’s Substack. I would love it if you commented! I love hearing from readers, especially critical comments. I would love to start more letter exchanges, so if there’s a subject you’re interested in, get writing and tag me!
Being ‘restacked’ and mentioned in ‘notes’ is very important for lesser-known stacks so… feel free! I’m semi-retired and write as a ministry (and for fun) so you don’t need to feel guilty you aren’t paying for anything, but if you enjoy my writing (even if you dramatically disagree with it), then restack, please! Or mention me in one of your own posts.
If I don’t write you back it is almost certain that I didn’t see it, so please feel free to comment and link to your post. Or if you just think I would be interested in your post!
If you get lost, check out my ‘Table of Contents’ which I try to keep up to date.
Thanks again, God Bless, Soli Deo gloria,
Von
What a blasphemous term!
It might seem a bit odd to speak of death as being ‘rejected by society’. But there are societies which have glorified suicide, for example. And all Godly societies will attempt to minimise and mourn death, and minimise its effects. By getting the widows married, for example.
My gratitude for writing this article.
There is indeed much with which I find myself in agreement with you, looking at the nonsensical separation between secular reasons and religious reasons. I too have made this observation, in my new article on this topic, wherein I outlined the approach and positions with a [at first] more neutral stance, I addressed precisely this issue in the perception of some people.
As I perceive your argument, "religion" stands as equivalent to "non-secular." Thus, my initial inquiry would be that: does there exist another form of non-secular, something that is not religion? If not, how would you propose to approach the definition of religion, as you use it?
For myself, particularly when I intertwine it with philosophy, religion appears as a form of metaphysics resp. ontology that encompasses a [living] entity associated with meaning or purpose. In the instance of Christianity, this entity serves as the very foundation of meaning and purpose.
Secondly, while I concur that what you have described is a subset of sodomy, I am puzzled as to why you do not extend the same judgment to the relations between two women. At first, I considered that the frequent usage of the term "man" in relevant biblical verses might be the reason. However, you have stated:
"God created male and female, and the human reproductive system, and sodomy is a rather obvious rejection of that," framing this within the context of blasphemy, which you named the root or core of sodomy. From this, it seems to follow that the same prohibition could be applied to women.
Finally, in regards to your statement:
"Thus for every person who opts out of being a ‘breeder,’ whether from sodomy or some other perversion, that increases the responsibility on others."
This appears to imply, though I do not presume so, that even those who renounce family life for the service of God, such as monks, nuns, or apostles, fall under "some other perversion." I would personally suggest to add that there exist virtuous reasons for abstinence, just so there can be no misunderstandings, for this sentence could be understood in multiple ways.
With respect and wishes of blessings,
Justus.
Didn’t Paul offer a ‘secular’ argument, referring the Romans not to Deuteronomy, but to truths about human nature? This is the Natural Law tradition. My friend Dr Richard Howe explains:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vcw0ptxOmxg&pp=ygUacmljaGFyZCBnIGhvd2UgaW50b2R1Y3Rpb24%3D