You're listening to Megiddo Radio. Megiddo Radio is a radio ministry of Megiddo Media. For more, visit our website at MegiddoRadio.com. That's MegiddoRadio.com. Welcome everybody, this is Paul Flynn with MacGyver Radio for Monday, the 18th of July 2022. It is absolutely scorching today. It's 31 degrees apparently in London. I was just looking that up on my computer and a bit of a odd heat wave. I think it was high 20s in Northern Ireland where I live, which is quite unusual and Hopefully you're doing all well wherever you are in the world. Now on today's program we're going to continue on from the last program. Apologies it took so long to come out because it's basically just we continue on from trying to finish off the remainder of the critique on Dave Rubin's interview with Jordan Peterson, which took place a few weeks ago, and from about 21 minutes and 30 seconds into it. But this will be focusing more upon marriage and just really emphasizing we can't talk about the way the right wing or conservative side is talking about marriage at the moment, which is basically like, well, I believe in, this is the spiel, right? Well, I believe in traditional marriage, but I also believe that that people can do whatever they like. What's the effect? In society, et cetera, and so on, which is basically a broadening of the definition of marriage and redefinition of marriage. Not even the left is saying that men and women can't get married. It's a right wing cop out. to avoid the central issue because if you redefine the marriage you also redefine the family and then you enter into the issues that Dave Rubin has entered into. The whole surrogacy thing, him and his so-called Husband, they're not married with each other. It's not marriage at all, under no definition. It's never existed over the last 6,000 years. It's never been defined as marriage. That's not what the Bible says. So you redefine marriage, redefine the family. And it's not good enough to just say, well, believe in traditional marriage, but this is also okay too. That is a widening of the definition of marriage and really a redefinition of marriage. And we've got to stop giving into the whole, well, are you against love and all this kind of stuff, when it is not love to go against God. It's not love to go against the natural law, which is God's law as revealed in creation. It is not loving to give into your lust and to promote the rebellion against God. So God is the very definition of what love is. And to go against God is the very definition of what hatred is. And this is what we find in the LGBT movement. So first of all, before I head back to the Dave Rubin interview with Jordan Peterson. Going to play this clip, this is an old clip now and just to kind of show you what I'm talking about. I stumbled upon this clip a few days ago. It was Rand Paul being basically interviewed years ago. I don't know what the whole context of the entire interview was, but Rand Paul was on CNN being, you know, they were trying to get you with gotcha questions and things like that. this is back in 2015, and asking about gay marriage, so-called gay marriage. And this is what Rand Paul said back then. Again, this is not a recent clip, this is from 2015. In New Hampshire, you said, I will fight for your right to be left alone. I realize that you believe gay marriage is a state issue, but why do you believe, just as a core principle, as a libertarian, that people should be left alone, but not when it comes to their right to marry somebody they love? I do believe people ought to be left alone. I don't care. The question is so loaded. The right to marry someone they love. The right to marry someone they love. If you... Someone. Anyone? What about laws against children? Of course, there are laws against marrying children because that's sick and all that kind of thing, but also... To marry, it has to be a man and a woman in order to be marriage. By the way, nobody is denying anyone any of that. For a man to marry a woman is truly... By the way, if somebody's already married, that stops them from marrying other people, because they're already in a marriage with somebody else. So you can't just say, well, you can just marry whoever you want. No, you can't, because is it actually marriage? And is it going to, I don't know, break up another marriage or whatever the case may be? Who you are, what you do at home, or who your friends are, what, you know, where you hang out, what kind of music you listen to. What you do in your home is your own business. That's always been who I am. I am a leave me alone kind of guy. But not when it comes to marriage? Well, no. I mean, states will end up making the decisions on these things. I think that there's a religious connotation to marriage. I believe in the traditional religious connotation to this. But I also believe people... Now, that might sound great for many people in conservative politics. Oh, I believe in traditional marriage. Now, again, okay, the only addition that would be said that the liberals I would not say here is, well, the whole religious side of it, okay? Well, God defines what marriage is. Marriage was brought in before the fall of Adam. We'll look at that text in a second from Genesis chapter two. But apart from that, who is denying? a man marrying woman. Not even the left is doing that. But hear what else he says. Treated fairly under the law. I see no reason why, if the marriage contract conveys certain things, that if you want to marry another woman, you can do that and have a contract. But the thing is, is the religious connotation of marriage that has been going on for thousands of years, I still want to preserve that. You probably could have both. You could have both traditional marriage, which I believe in, and then you could also have the neutrality of the law that allows people to have contracts with another. Now, that might sound great to some people, but it's not. It's really the libertarian in this case, the libertarian or whatever you want to call it, redefinition of marriage. And for Satan, The accuser, the prince of the power of the air, he doesn't really mind in which way you distort marriage. So yeah, you have traditional marriage, but then you have also this. Well, you've widened it out. You're saying, well, the law should basically see these other abominations as marriages when they're not marriages. I don't see any reason why. Well, you should. It's not marriage. Let's remind ourselves, before we get back into the Dave Rubin interview, Genesis chapter 2 verse is 15 onwards, which begins with man's responsibility in the Garden of Eden and then talks about how it's not good for man to be alone. Verse 15 of Genesis chapter 2, then the Lord took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden and to tend and keep it. And the Lord commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die. And the Lord said, It is not good that man should be alone. will make him a helper comparable to him out of the ground. And the Lord formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name. So Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. And for Adam, there was not found a helper comparable to him. Verse 21, and the Lord caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept, and took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. Then the rib which the Lord had taken from the man, he made into a woman, and he brought her to the man. And Adam said, and this is again in response to verse 18 when it says, it's not good that man should be alone. Looks at all the animals, none of them are comparable to him. And then verse 23 again, and Adam said, this is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh. She shall be called woman because she was taken out of man. So that is what marriage is all about. Someone comparable to, not somebody identical to him, but to help meet somebody suitable to walk alongside them. Men and women are different. This is what creation shows us. Every single species, animal type and all that, they all have, you know, you see two genders all around you, dogs, cats. birds, etc. Therefore the man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife, and they shall be one flesh. And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and they were not ashamed. Now that is marriage. Widening the definition of marriage is currently what the left is doing and currently what the right is also capitulating to. It just really, what's happening is when the left is really annoyed with it, they're really trying to score political points or whatever. Essentially, a lot of social issues, many of them don't disagree at all with each other. It's just the right half the time is trying to sound like it's being sympathetic toward Christian values. I'm not saying that Rand Paul, and I'm just taking one example of somebody that I just, that comment that I heard before, I'm not saying that he's intentionally going out to do anything or whatever, I just think that he hasn't really thought it through that this, what he's doing also is a redefinition of marriage. And I believe he's a professing Christian. I don't know him. I've never sat down with him. I don't know how deep his Christian convictions are. I don't know. But this is not a good sign. And we should not think that, therefore, I'm a faithful Christian. I'm not going to fall into any error on these things. We've got to realize, What marriage is, what marriage is not, and not cave to the pressure that would be put on us, no doubt, when it comes to, well, say, your at work. And you'll get people who will put you under pressure i'm not saying that you have to pick every flight with every person who claims to be in a gay marriage or whatever else by the way there's not that many of them really think statistically but i digress. Not that many of them are interested to be to be frank but. But they want to go further. A lot of the LGBT activists, they want to destroy marriage and they don't think it should exist at all. It's really changing from within. And so anything that God has made, any ordinances from the beginning, Satan wants to destroy. He wants to redefine and destroy. And by redefining it, you destroy it. It becomes something different. You can have a union of any kind based upon the whims of society. So we have got to be wary of this because when you think of the influence, now I'm picking somebody from the United States, but this can be the case in any country. When you pick an organization as influential, and largely good, I'm not against the Daily Wire. I like the Daily Wire, I've listened to a lot of their podcasts and stuff like that. I dip in and out of Ben Shapiro's program. No, I don't like it sometimes. Will every now and again be that curse word in there? I don't like that. Show me a better place to get information and I'll listen to stuff over here in the UK and I don't agree with all of the podcasts I listen to. Every now and again I listen to about four or five podcasts, and I think it's good to have a range of things. And there'll be times when I have to turn it off because it's inappropriate to discussion. Unfortunately, that's the direction things are going. But just have a rough idea where things are going on. There's things in UK like UnHerd, which tends to have a lot of things, a lot of different opinions. And you get to hear from different people who are kind of silenced between 2020 and 2022. A lot of them are scientists with good reputations, but I digress. You know, look up Jay Bhattacharya if you're curious about that. And there's that and there's Spike podcast. I can't listen to all their stuff because unfortunately, sometimes there is a lot of cursing in there and not all of it. I don't like sometimes I turn it off. The. It's harder and harder to get information, and I think we have too much information, we know too much about what's going on in the world. We have to know, though, where we need to stand, and we need to stand on marriage. We need to stand on the family. It is, if society, a society that redefines marriage and the family will crumble from within, and it's why you even see ungodly nations, some of them realize this, like, for example, Vladimir Putin is a horrible tyrant, et cetera and so on, it was always the guy It was always like this, like he murdered people on foreign soil. This has been known for years. I think just people are dawning on people recently how bad he is. I think people have a soft spot for him for whatever reason, many due to conspiracy theories online. But with somebody like Putin, he's against the LGBT stuff, and he realizes the importance of the family. Now, that might make conservatives kind of go, oh, well, you know, he's much better than our leaders. Well, seriously, I mean. I don't know what to say to people at that point, but hopefully the invasion of Ukraine has probably woken people up to the reality of Putin and not just Putin, but all the other people in the Russian government and other people like that. But that's just an example. Some ungodly nations, they will recognize the importance of family. I think a lot of Russian women get married young. You know, marriages, they're not anti-family like we are in the West. Again, it doesn't say that they're good. just says, look how far we have fallen. And a lot of civilizations have seen the importance of this, and they see that aspect of the natural law that they've been suppressing, that is one of the bedrocks of society, and they act appropriately. Not in a completely godly way, cherry-picking the law of God isn't what we're supposed to do. supposed to bow the knee to the law god in its totality. But that is the way it's kind of gone through our society. Okay, so on to Dave Rubins being interviewed by Jordan Peterson. And let's play again. This is on Daily Wire and such and so on, which is a conservative media outlet in the United States. I believe that one year of breastfeeding is equivalent to, I think breastfed kids have a five point IQ advantage. And one point IQ is worth one year of education. I have two freezers in my garage, two industrial freezers full of breast milk. David has done all the research on this. Right. So another complication, but OK. And so now this is going to drop in the middle of this interview. If this is the first program you're listening to, I apologize. You probably need to go back to listen to the last program, whatever last episode was when I was looking at which is called basically Dave Rubin is not married. And it's a very artificial thing. that we're trying to do in our Western society with all our money and all our resources and we think we can recreate the family and all the good things that have mixed in with our loss. It ends in disaster. It may look good on paper, but it ends in disaster. Don't have data. We don't really have data on motherless children raised by fathers from infancy, right? Because it's pretty rare. I don't know if there's literature pertaining to that at all. We do have a literature on mother headed families without fathers and the data there are crystal clear. It's not good to be fatherless. Now that doesn't mean that there aren't some women who are struggling mightily as single mothers who don't do an outstanding job, but what it absolutely... Look, a lot of these studies were done recently in recent times and all this kind of stuff. We know throughout history that the people who do best are with a mother and a father. There's lots of data on fatherless homes and that can be a disaster, but children need a mother as well. But that is because of the way that God has ordained it. And if we reject the created order, what do we expect? Look, all of us have been created in the image of God. And unless we listen to God, it's not going to end well, regardless of what studies you may be able to quote from. And 100% means that on average, that's suboptimal and badly suboptimal. And so it seems to me that the minimal stable requirement for ensuring the psychological health and financial viability of a child is something like a nuclear family structure. Minimally, right? So you need a mother and a father, or at least you need two people, one who plays a maternal role and one who plays a paternal role, or that they split those. Two seems to be better than one. Now, how much of that's linked to sex, we also don't know. It seems that... Oh, come on, Jordan. But it's fascinating that we are... He's a guy who overcomplicates everything. We do know. Will there be the odd exception to that with different personality types? Yes, but generally speaking, the more maternal role is because that woman is made that way and will gravitate towards a more maternal instinct. With a father, it is more of a fatherly instinct because men and women are different from each other. And to say that you can replicate that to men, to women, is just fanciful nonsense. You may want to believe that because your friend is involved in this, but it doesn't make it true. Look, and again, I like Jordan Peterson a lot. I think he's probably In a lot of aspects, I haven't read his books or anything, so I'm kind of going a lot of his, a lot of his philosophy is very good. But you have to make sure that you see theology as the queen of the sciences. You have to make sure that you're testing everything by the word of God. He will get things wrong, like any of us will get things wrong. He'll get more things wrong because he's not a believer, he's not a Christian. And in some areas he's heavily blind. But there are certain things that he gets that have been revealed. We believe in general revelation. And he's struggling with that because he's thinking about this stuff all the time. And there's times when people will kind of go, wow, he sounds like a Christian almost. Yeah, because he's wrestling with the reality that is around him. And really what he's doing in his practice, it just seems to be, he seems to be, his whole thing is about having people as happy as possible. But men don't know what is good for them. God knows what is good for them. God knows what is good for you, by the way. And we need to listen to our creator. We need to listen to the one who's created us and sustains us and gives us life. That's who we need to listen to as revealed in the word of God. The feminine role is more accepting slash nurturing. You see that with the proclivity of women to be more agreeable temperamentally, that kicks in at puberty. And so I think that you have to be accepting and nurturing, especially in your attitude towards infants before they're mobile. So say before six months, before nine months, an infant does no wrong. It's 100% acceptance. The problem with that is that That's not true as the child develops because it has to switch to more of an encouraging role. It's like out of your dependency into the world and the paternal spirit encourages that development. Now mothers can do that too. But roughly speaking, women tend to do the nurturing thing more and men do the encouraging thing more. There's aspects of what he's saying is true and it can be helpful in certain instances, but it has to be. handmade and subservient to theology, as in what has been revealed in God's Word. You know, there's been lots of things said throughout the centuries. that have been used to understand various aspects because they've been revealed in general revelation and there's times, you know, when Paul quoted in Acts 17 from that pagan poet and said, in him we move and have our being. He's quoting from a pagan poet who saw God and, you know, that the heavens declared the glory of God. He also saw that that is revealed in creation, his invisible attributes, and so that they were without excuse. And that's the approach Paul goes to these Athenian pagans in Acts 17. So what I'm saying is, it doesn't mean that everything Jordan Peterson is saying is wrong. Actually, what he's saying here is right, but it's just these applications all over the place and he's almost like going to this. I don't know. This is a complete disaster because this supposed union between Dave Rubin and his he's. I don't know the guy's name, actually, but. his supposed husband, they're not married to each other, it's a disaster. It's going against, the great things Jordan Peterson's been saying for the last two or three minutes, I'm not saying that everything he's saying is right, but a lot of it is, that when you go, he's learned those from General Revelation, from studying the sciences and stuff, and some of it's right, some of it's wrong, and all that kind of thing. But when he comes to Dave Rubin, he's got a relationship that is, and a family that has been contrary to the natural law, contrary to what has been revealed in nature. And so with one hand, he's learning all these things from general revelation, the book of nature. And with the other hand, he's saying, well, maybe this family, maybe this relationship that is an odds completely and utterly with what has been revealing creation in my work. It won't. And I can see that Jordan cares. I see he cares for his friend, but At the end of the day, it's a simple issue. At the end of the day, Jordan, just like Dave Rubin, both of them have to bow their knee to Christ. They both have to turn away from thinking the human reason is the judge of all things, and then placing theology underneath it. What they really need to do is see that God is the judge of all things. While we have a brain with an ability to think, but it will often be wrong. Now the question is, how do you mediate? How do you manage to fulfill both those roles in the absence of a heterosexual arrangement? Right. So now, naturally, we understand that there are men who are more nurturing and women who aren't as nurturing and all of those things. Now, you know David pretty well, and we've been out to dinner with Tammy many times. And you know him. He is incredibly warm and nurturing and loving and deeply cares about all those things and i'm telling you he is reading about skin to skin contact every day and all of the breast milk stuff and everything and i know he will have a huge percentage of the stuff that a mother would bring but i also know it's not all of it. Okay he's read about you can read all you like about different roles but if you are not that role then how can you do it? The other thing, too, is that you guys have to do that consciously. Yes. Right? With research in hand and to build up that proclivity that would be there more automatically, arguably, with a mother and all the psychological and hormonal transformations she undergoes and that transition into breast milk production and all of that, which is a fundamental transformation in a woman's biology and her psyche. Now, you and David have ample resources at hand financially and intellectually that enable you to traverse this pathway as well as anyone is likely to do it, but it is very interesting and salutary to hear you also talk about the complications. So, on the feminine side, let's say, you think you have the nurturance angle well covered. You talked to me a little bit about having women around in your infant and child's life as well. Yeah, so David's mom is going to be living with us for a few months at the start, as well as his sister, who's taken care of young babies already. But now I understand that they're not the biological mother, but they will be there. We're going to have night nurses also for a few months to help the babies get on a normal sleep schedule. But these are all the pieces that we're trying to put together. But can we just back up for one second? Because I think before we go too deep into just the parental part of this, there was another thing that came up when we sort of roughly sketched out this conversation over dinner that I think is important, which is that if you weren't to allow gay people to either get married and enter relationships that will last the test of time, Or have children to really last the generations then what are we reducing these people to and i think that's a huge part of this for me that i think had the world not shifted to be a little bit kinder had i not maybe been on tour with you and come to some of these. The world you see again the world to shift to be kinder you see all the data that they're getting is from. Where are they getting that from? What are they studying that created natural order and things like that? And so then when they're coming to, well, what's kinder? Well, we're going to go with something that is completely contrary to what all of nature shows. That there's male and female come together and have children. And that from the beginning, This is the family. This is the family unit. And we're going to go against that. To be kind or is it to allow that? To allow what? And again, you say, well, where does it go? Because what else is contrary to nature? Well, if you look at the Bible in parts of Leviticus, bestiality is also unnatural. Well, is it more kinder if we allow that as well? Well, we say, why not? What is being shown if we're going to study old material and all this kind of thing? Every single bit of information that you can get from, and I'm not saying you should do this research, by the way, I really urge you not to, but from the homosexual community and from people who are in those relationships are the most ill-equipped disastrous environments for children. Again, I don't know what Dave Rubin's house is like or anything, I don't know. But going from all the available information we have, primarily biblical, you see the carnage of Sodom and Gomorrah. You see what is happening to the people who've been given over to that in Romans 1. And you also see the carnage from within that community, if you want to call it a community, I know it's not a community per se, but from that group of people involved in that lifestyle, where monogamy is a minority view, and even monogamy isn't really a thing. We're going to, in order to be kinder, We're gonna pretend that all this information out there exists. Judith Reisman did a lot of this research years ago. She went into, she dug a lot of research out of the Advocate magazine, which is kind of a homosexual magazine, kind of upper class, which would probably have a more favorable statistical showing towards people in those environments, because a lot of these would be professionals and things like that. We're gonna ignore all that information, pretend it doesn't exist. All that has been revealed, but we're gonna start again from scratch and we don't know. We do know. We do know. The problem is what happens all the time? The data says one thing, I have a friend who has a different view and I so want my friend, whatever his views are, to be okay. and it's kinder. To bring two children into this quote-unquote family, there's nothing kind about it. And you cannot get anyone more kind, more loving than God. But His loving kindness, His chesed, His steadfast love, as it's translated sometimes, His loyal love, or His covenant love, is to those in Jesus Christ, forgiven, washed, clothed in the righteousness of Christ. His kindness is shown to them, but His wrath is upon those who reject His will, His will revealed in creation. the conscience of man, because he can create an image of God, and also his revealed will in the word of God. Or found someone in the world that I wanted to put their needs above my own That I could have been left to a life that would have been sort of purely narcissistic or self-destructive or anything You know, I used to live I don't see how that in some sense. I don't see how that can be There can be any alternative to that if there isn't another pathway forward. Yes. And so that's the, to me, that's like the unknown road that I'm going down right now, that I want. I'm choosing to go down that unknown road. See, again, the best thing you can say, there's no data that helps them. It just doesn't exist anywhere. But we're going to go down this route where we're going to say, well, we don't know. We don't know. And I've thought about this more and more since I did the last program. We do know. It actually didn't don't I was doing the last program was a nearly nearly two weeks ago whenever it was we do know even from a data point of view people have done this research and Looked into the Kinsey reports and stuff like that. No, it's very hard for someone To go into every realm of research loads of research I don't know about and not aware of and such and so on so it is with anybody involved in any form of academia But it's not like, number one, we can't find any thing to show, well, this is a good idea. And I'm talking about from creation, from all the examples we're going with, and then even clearer again, the word of God. which is to be our guide, which is a light that shines in a dark place, which we look to. And it says, in any of the references to it, unbelievably negative, not only unbelievably negative, it talks about what is natural. One form of relationship, man and woman together for life. Anything else, well, we see that not only was a destructive society, it was also vile. More importantly than anything else, it was vile before the face of God. It can be better than that. right? I don't, I, as I said, I don't have, I have two, we have two or three couples that are, uh, gay parents that are doing some version of this, but we don't have that model. But then when, you know, we lived in West Hollywood, West Hollywood is the gayest place on earth, you know, rainbow crosswalks and the whole thing. And to me, I would see these guys that were, you know, 65, 70 years old, that all they had basically was that they worked out, they spray tanned and got hair plugs, they had their little dogs, and they partied on the weekends and probably chased the same sexual escapades that they were chasing 40 years ago. And it's not a life. And it's not a full life. And I actually, it's like, I feel I have almost like a visceral feeling when I talk about it, because I know that that could have been me. So when I see these people, yeah, I get it, right? Have you ever seen, we all know money, right? And there's some counterfeit money out there that's really, really bad. That's really, really bad. And it's, it's a poor imitation of what the real thing is, but then there's some really good counterfeits. Maybe the, the fool, a lot of people, it fools most people, but it's still a counterfeit. And what Dave Rubin and his partner are really trying to do is a really carefully constructed counterfeit of a family unit. And what's concerning is this is on, see, on the left, they're more totalitarian. On the right, they're more just, hey, do whatever you like. But that really brings upon the destruction of society. Freedom is not this kind of licentious freedom, do without will should be the whole of the law. That's become the right hand side of the aisle. And what will happen when in every corner, you're a Christian, you believe the Bible, you believe what God has revealed, about himself, about what the natural order is. And in that, you are cornered. Can you even get work? Everything God has revealed is under attack. Decades ago it was things like the Sabbath day, the Lord's day, Sunday, trading hours. Now it's very rare that anywhere in the Western world shuts its doors on a Sunday. Now it's getting... it even brings on the wrath of society in this fallen evil age to say that there are two genders and you cannot change your biological sex, you cannot change your gender. and that there are two of them, male and female, as God created them. Now, in today's society, just to believe that means you will be marginalized. And this massive pressure, even on the right, Whether it be over here in the UK, probably a lot more so in the UK probably, who knows, and in the United States to accept all this. That either at this point are against gay marriage, but in general there don't seem to be that many voices publicly about that anymore. So here's a rough question. So do you think... Both the flamboyance, now I want to get into this in some detail, but the flamboyance that's been historically associated with the male heterosexual community, and the promiscuity, do you think, to what degree do you think that both of those are a consequence of not having a more integrated and conservative path. Well, I can speak to the promiscuity part of it. It is very, very simple because when you, when you rebel against God, like this side of it is really, it's a fruit of rejection of the knowledge of God. It's a fruit of the rejection of the knowledge of God. It's what Paul writes about in Romans chapter one. And in Romans chapter one, it says this, Romans 1. I think we'll start around verse 18. They did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish heart were darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible men, and birds, and four-footed animals, and creeping things. Therefore God gave them up to uncleanness. in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchange the truth of God for the lie in worship and serve the creature rather than the creator who is blessed forever. Amen. So it's a fruit of the rejection of God as revealed in creation and a hardening of the heart And this is a fruit that comes out of it. Potentially open in front of people. I think it's a huge amount that probably will never be fully explained. If people don't have an ability, look, what was the gay rights movement for in the 70s in New York City and Stonewall and all of those things? It was, these people just wanted, well, they wanted to be able to get married. That was part of it. But it was also that they wanted to be able to go to a bar that wasn't underground, that wasn't hidden. That wasn't, you know, this seedy thing, but that's what they had to do because they were getting raided by the police and this was going on obviously in other countries and it was going on for decades before that. But they wanted... It's just laughable that this is, well, yeah, it is seedy and they were on the ground because, you know, there's a degree of darkness into any evil deeds and there's a degree of shame that should be in society. But what do you see now? Now that it's all out in the open, none of it's illegal anymore. Well, that vileness is now on display before all, and it is, no one even blushes at it anymore. It's actually gotten worse since it's been legalized, since any degree of shame has been seen in society, disappeared from society. A sense of normalcy. If you don't leave people some little seeds of normalcy, then they will do all sorts of things. So the flamboyant part, there's two parts you're asking about. This is a really, really horrendous argument. Basically, unless you allow the homosexual or the person engaging in this lifestyle to feed this unnatural lust, well, and basically baptize it under the name of being normal in some way, shape, or form, you're going to drive them into worse areas. Again, it's like saying if you give people what they want, they're going to be happy. Is that true? Normalcy, they have rejected normalcy. Which, which, what are the sins do we capitulate to in society? And whose rules, whose law, whose, whose design are we to submit to? People involved in a abominable relationship who say, we don't know what's going to come out of this redefinition of the marriage. Well, apparently this has been going on for a while, hasn't it? Homosexual couples and things like that have been adopting in various parts. How come you don't know at this point? There's nothing good to support it, is there? Nothing good. And on top of that, even if they could say that it depends on your measuring what is good and what is righteous and all that kind of thing as well, that's another thing as well. But we're just gonna ignore all that's gone on until this point. You know, you wonder too with Jordan Peterson, how much of this has been influenced by the fact that he has become friends with so-and-so, and how much of that has influenced his views. But then again, when the Bible is not your authority, when the scriptures, the holy scriptures, when God is not your authority, well... Flamboyant part. I'm just not built that way. I'm not. Sometimes I used to, you know, I used to, when I was first sort of coming out or coming to grips with myself, I actually liked guys that were kind of flamboyant because I, in my, to me it was like, oh, they're so who they are. Like, they had just let go of every sort of normal cliche or something like that. They're so who they are. Right, so you're showing that kind of existential courage. Yeah, and yet they always really like, generally gays, they like straight acting. That's a real thing with gays. They like straight acting. So guys always liked me because I didn't seem gay, whatever that meant. And I thought it sort of meant that I was broken in a weird way because it made me feel like a sort of like double freak in an odd sense. Right, right. Because I was struggling. Too queer for the straight community and too straight for the queer community. Well said, man. And so I was sort of grappling with that. So there's the flamboyant part, and then you're asking about the sex side of it. It's like if you don't leave people with some ability to say, oh, you can be in a lasting relationship. This is why marriage equality was so important. Now, this is a sidebar, but I would never force a church or a mosque or a synagogue to perform a wedding that was against its beliefs. But from a secular perspective, to whatever respect we remain secular in this country. If you don't give people the same opportunity to be in a relationship and then learn all of the things that you talked about before, how you go through that churning with your partner and hopefully make each other better and sometimes make each other worse and all that stuff, what will you leave them with? You will leave them with their carnal desires. So by letting them have their carnal desires, they won't be left with their carnal desires? Are you serious? Okay, um, okay. I'm just gonna go back over this just so, just trying not to misrepresent him here. This is why marriage equality was so important. Now, this is a sidebar, but I would never force a church or a mosque or a synagogue to perform a... Look. You know like a lot of these people will say well we won't force a church or synagogue to whatever. But the problem is you have then in society two definitions of marriage and then marriage becomes what is actually marriage becomes meaningless. What about equality for the polygamists? What about equality for the people into bestiality? And name whatever other perversion you can name that is contrary to the natural order. Regardless of whether you would say, well, we'll have our views and all that, society has to agree on what marriage is. to say that marriage is this plus other things, you know, what it actually is, plus other things, then you've redefined marriage. And what's to stop marriage being redefined again and again and again? Because the direction of man and giving in to his desires is not order, it is chaos. And there's certain things societies absolutely must fundamentally agree on. One of them is marriage. Another one is the family. Because if the family is destroyed, what's left from a societal point of view? What happens to the children of the next generation? So when you turn your back on God and His wisdom, You're left with chaos and confusion. Nothing else but that. Okay, if we're going to be secular, well, why even have marriage at all? Well, the only reason we have marriage is basically because God has ordained it. And really rulers are to be ministers of God. It says in Romans 13, let every soul be subject to the governing authorities for there is no authority except from God and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore, whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God. And those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. So Jesus said in Matthew 28, all authority in heaven and earth has been given to me. You have redefined marriage in society. That will bring chaos, not only for marriage, Because, again, by redefining something, you really destroy it. You really destroy it for that society wherever it is. And you also, when you redefine marriage, you redefine the family. with your partner and hopefully make each other better and sometimes make each other worse and all that stuff. What will you leave them with? You will leave them with their carnal desires. And I definitely could have gone down that road with a defiant rebelliousness, right? Who knows what happens if you're not allowed, so to speak, to be who you are, then it strikes me as highly probable that an excessive amount of rebelliousness is going to start to look attractive, right? And maybe to be- To allow you to be who you are, but we've already established, right? Jordan Peterson would say, well, you can't change your gender. You know, he's the one side and the trans rights is, I believe I'm this way and all that. But creation has, you are a man. Your natural inclination and desires is to be attracted towards somebody of the opposite sex. That's, and to do anything else but that, in terms of marriage or any other thing, it's to go against who you are, as you have been created. Distinguishable from courage. I would say it's got to be the case that the hope so to speak of the more enlightened Conservative types who were willing to open the door to gay marriage was that by bringing those relationships inside the more enlightened The more enlightened in what way Well, they could say that you're a Neanderthal with your views towards the trans movement, couldn't they? And the more enlightened are just gonna allow men to play women's sports, because that's the way they feel and that's the way they are. The same arguments that have been used here for the redefinition of marriage, you're just expressing who you are, and if you hold back who somebody is, they're gonna go worse. Who knows where they could end up. It's the same type of argument used in the trans movement. It's just not being applied in the same way to both. Traditional fold that things would normalize. Yeah, and that there would be a promotion of something like stable mature Responsible long-term monogamy. Well, I think maybe I'm trying to prove that yeah I'm not I'm not trying to prove it like I'm setting out to prove it, but I suppose de facto because of my life I'm trying to prove that I mean in a weird way, although I'm probably the unlikeliest of conservatives in that sense It's like, what life am I trying to live? I'm trying to live a life that is somewhat conservative in nature, in that sense, meaning that I believe that family is important and probably the most important thing after the individual. That's how societies are built. I fundamentally believe that. So it's weird. It's like my worldview, because otherwise, what are you saying to people? So, okay, okay, you're gay. So you can either just endlessly have sex or endlessly disregard every norm known to man. and just have nothing other than wake up and just live life how you want. What other way is there to integrate into society? The Christian message is repent and believe the gospel. Repent, which means turn away from your sin and believe the gospel. Just like anybody involved in any other sin. Whether you're a drunkard, what do you do? Just allow them to be drunk all the time or else they're going to do worse? We call them to repent and believe the gospel. That's the solution. The thing is, for that to integrate into society, you redefine the society. And by redefining the society, who gets tossed out of the society? The Christian. The Christian who believes God's word. The Christian who believes in the natural order of things, as revealed in God's word, the created order of things. It did take the decision that it took, which was to open the doors, let's say. Now, we talked about that, I want to get into that too, because the We have this notion that's rife in our culture. Let's say that's insisted upon that all families are equally are equal and I Understand the emphasis on that from the let's call it the tolerance perspective But I think that it's badly flawed in one manner and I think this will be the hardest thing probably for us to discuss is that You can't flatten out distinctions without a tremendous loss. And I don't think it's possible to dispense with the ideal of heterosexual monogamy. Now, as the ideal, so if we think, well, this isn't an ideal, this is what it is. It's like you're saying, well, the ideal circle is actually got no corners. Well, if it has corners, it's not a circle. It's not just to say, well, here is what the ideal circle looks like. It's all around, all around. But you can get other types of circles. Some circles have three angles on them. No, that's a triangle, OK? And what it is is something else. So you can't just say, well, here is there. And none of us reach the perfect. The ideal standard. Look, the ideal standard is Christ. The way the ideal standard is the way in marriage is the way Christ loves his bride. The church. Because that's what love looks like. It's not what the world says is love. It's not lust that goes against God's law. That's not love. That's the complete opposite of love. That's it's just rebellion and slavery to sin. And you have convinced yourself that this is the way that is loving. Let's continue. ideal individual who's responsible and mature and far-seeing and honest, an honest trader, a good player, an honorable person, an honorable decent person. And then there's the minimal requirement for a family that's ideal and that's something approximating heterosexual, long-term heterosexual monogamy. And maybe you have two decent people united together and then there's a firm platform for children. Now the problem with that as an ideal is that We all fall short of the ideal. And so right. Half 40 percent. But this is kind of this is a bizarro argument, right? You know, it's like, well, the ideal is for like just OK, male and female is is the quote unquote ideal, according to Jordan Peterson argument here. But he said, well, we can't reach up to the ideal. So let's just say I'm going to marry my furniture. I'm going to marry my chair because he just can't reach the ideal. And at least the furniture will listen to me. No, it's not marriage anymore. It's not. It's a redefinition. And again, it's frustrating because he was against the redefinition of words. you know, male and female, you know, building blocks of our language and all this kind of thing. Well, marriage is being redefined here. people are going to get divorced. And of the people who don't get divorced, a good percentage of them are in pretty damn miserable marriages. Now that doesn't condemn marriage, but it does show how difficult attaining that ideal is. And then there's going to be people who lose their partners and raise children alone. And they're going to be people who raise children alone by happenstance or, or choice. And they, it doesn't seem reasonable to, what would you say? Um, put them outside the bounds of civilized society. Let's say that by the same. You might have a bad marriage. You might have a marriage that's not going so well and might have problems within and a lot of sin, but you know, like, but if a man is married to a woman and they've agreed before God that that is them for life, that is still a marriage. It has to read the conditions and requirements of being a marriage. what Dave Rubin and this other man had, it's not marriage. It's a sexually deviant form of lifestyle. And you're trying to bless that relationship with a term that has nothing to do with what they're doing. And to try and take something that has been revealed before the fall of man. and using it to basically put God's blessing on something that is abominable for Him. That's what's at stake here. Yes, we all fall short of the glory of God. None of our marriages are perfect. The perfect marriage in Scripture is between Christ and His bride. The love that Christ has for His bride. But it doesn't give us Use the same argument with the trans movement. Again, because this is how Jordan Peterson got famous. Because he refused to use, rightfully so by the way, the language, compelled language and compelled speech and all that kind of stuff. But you say, well the ideal male is, you know, list off a couple of attributes. How many of us, how many of us men are ideal men? None of us. Well, then we just change our gender. It doesn't really matter. We're not going to reach up to that standard anyway. We can just do the best we can. Really? Or the ideal woman. Who's the ideal woman out there? Okay. So that's not a good argument. It's a terrible argument for many different reasons. token it doesn't seem reasonable to dispense with the ideal. So maybe we need something like, well we know what the ideal is, it's a divine ideal in some sense in that none of us can live up to it, but then there has to be a space around that ideal where Individual differences and flaws and peculiarities and idiosyncrasies of people aren't Treated so harshly that that becomes counterproductive in and of itself. It's damning with faint praise, but I don't see no, that's it That's it That's it. That's the meat of this more than anything else. Of course there's an ideal. Of course there is an ideal. There has to be an ideal. Well, there's nothing to aim at if there's not an ideal. Because if the ideal isn't two people male and female in a heterosexual relationship, then what is it? Is it four people? Is it eight people? Is it one person? Like instantly you go from that. I dare say you'll even get trans people who will trans people. I know there's no such thing really. It's it's either a psychological issue or it's a lot of it today is people look for attention. And a lot of it's a cry for attention, I think, from the vast majority of them today. But can you, like, I think a lot of them would agree that the ideal would be that, oh, I felt like the body I was born into or whatever. Uh-huh. Well, I'm going to aim for being who I am, but, uh-huh. I kind of get it, and it's a really bad argument. Really, really, really bad argument. One man, one woman for life is not the ideal. That is marriage. The ideal marriage, the standard by which we're all to follow is Christ's love for the church. Narrow ideal to an intense multiplicity, and we've certainly seen the problems that are associated with that. And so you can't just blow out the confines of the ideal without destabilizing, well maybe you destabilize society at the level of the family and that seems to me to be a really bad idea. This is what's happening because there's no line. They wanted to move, well I wanted to move up to where my lusts are and then there's people beyond them saying well I wanted to move where my lusts are and so on and so forth. And which sexually deviant minority are we going to cave to next in all this kind of thing when none of it, beyond as it is biblically revealed, is marriage? It's only as it has been revealed by God that is marriage and nothing else. Well, it's a really bad idea and I think we're seeing some of the repercussions of that right now, right? I mean... Well, it's a really bad idea, but if you include my predilection to whatever I like, well, that's a great idea. Well, that's people being kinder. You can't have your cake and eat it. You cannot have your cake and eat it in this thing. Because, yeah, there's a lot of the political right will happily include parts of that, and they don't wanna go any further. Whoa, whoa, whoa, there's too much shit. But you change it, you destroy it. seen the excesses of what the woke or the progressives or whatever that is that are now destabilizing everything. This is why I've said this. I've gotten into trouble for saying it a few times, but I'm sympathetic to conservatives who go, boy, you know, we let gay marriage happen and look what's happened since. Now we're into all this gender stuff and they're literally teaching gender theory to five-year-olds who know nothing about gender or sex or anything else. But the issue really is, okay, so if we have the ideal, Really what we're talking about here is, what do we do with these marginal cases? The marginal cases meaning, okay, so now they're... The old postmodern questions. Right, so what do we really do with that? So now, okay, so there are going to be gay couples who want to approximate to that ideal. So what... Again, once you destroy... not the ideal, the very definition of it, then what you get is something that is complete distortion, a complete abomination before the eyes of God and something that is not at all marriage and the family gets redefined and everything falls apart, of course. Because The only thing that came out of this interview really was when Dave Rubin took little parts of the natural law and applied it to his life and said, well, I'm going to be a bit more conformed to these issues and all these kind of things. But at the core, he's rejecting it. The core is rejecting it. And regardless of what it comes from the left or the right, Satan wants to redefine the marriage and he also wants to redefine the family because anything that reminds him of God he wishes to destroy. So I'm your Paul Flynn, talk to you again soon.