Posted on 07/29/2008 12:18:47 AM PDT by Gene Lalor
HOMOSEXUALITY IN AMERICA: PART 2 THE FIRST SEXUAL REVOLUTION
Published July 29th, 2008
People don’t usually associate Judeo-Christianity with sexual revolutions but Dennis Prager does in this original article: http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles2/PragerHomosexuality.shtml. It’s fairly, and needlessly, graphic but very relevant to this series on homosexuality in America.
Essentially, Prager, an ardent Jewish writer and commentator, contends that Judaism and Christianity served to tame the male libido, chanelling it into monogamous marriage and thereby making the rise of Western Civilization possible. The Freudian Id could no longer run amuck and its force was re-directed toward advancement and accomplishment via marital stability. As Prager writes, “This revolution consisted of forcing the sexual genie into the marital bottle. It ensured that sex no longer dominated society.” Voila! Progress!
Notwithstanding his own two divorces, Prager makes a valid point although if he himself had been more monogamous he would be more credible. (The same goes for the “teachings” of Rush Limbaugh, by the way, whose four divorces undercut his conservative philosophy.)
Prager’s other point is that, “The one continuous exception [to interchangeability of sexual partners] was Jewish civilization — and a thousand years later, Christian civilization....
(For the rest of this article, please see http://genelalor.com/)
(Excerpt) Read more at genelalor.com ...
Sexual Activity in Marriage is Fine.... But outside of Marriage and For just self sexual Entertainment is outside the Purpose of Natural Order.. to Pro create. sexual enjoyment is one of the Purposes of Marriage for going forth and Multiplying and to enjoy it only with your own spouse! Couple that with Natural Family Planning... no STD’s Less Breast Cancer from taking Oral Contraception and Abortions... Virgins Have 99.7 % succes rate without divorce... Reclaimed Virgins 97.1% have an Impressive stable Marriage as well. Being a Virgin at Marriage isn’t Bad! You are truely Free of any sexual Enslavement! it really is done for LOve!!
Rush’s limbaughs...Just because you have Conservative Fiscal Philosophy doesn’t make morally on Correct! You really have to Practice what you Preach! Adultery is not a Conservative Value!
doesn’t make morally on Correct!
Doesn’t make you Morally Correct..
Seems to me that the Greeks and the Romans had just a little bit to do with the Western Civilization we have today. Judeo-Christian morality is important also. But without the institutions created by those two civilizations, no telling where we would be...or what we would be.
Point taken but Prager was principally referring to the stability provided by Judeo-Christianity’s emphasis on marriage and its rejection of the interchageability of sexual partners. (Do read his entire article.)
Despite the great achievements of ancient Greece and Rome, achievements and thought from which we have indeed greatly benefitted, theirs were amoral, polytheistic societies which thrived on warfare and in which homosexual relationships were favored, especially among the elite.
Western society no longer glorifies war even if we do still engage in such conflicts and, until recently, placed a higher value on monogamous, male-female relationsips.
The disintegration of the latter does not bode well for our future societal equilibrium. If that instability continues, ten where and what will we be?
Sorry for the typos
If society ignores any of the 10 Commandments to a large degree, it will fall. America is falling.
You can't really paint Greek and Roman societies so broadly. I'm not as familiar with the Greeks, but the Western Roman Empire lasted about 1,000 years and went through a variety of stages.
The Romans were certainly not amoral- they had a strongly developed code of morality and ethics that emphasized stoicism, fidelity to one's family and country, courage in battle, moderation in all things etc. They also did not really have a concept of homosexual identity- true, men would have sex with other men in Roman society (as in any society), but there was no real concept of a homosexual identity- it was considered a vice, such as drunkenness and sloth. A Roman man was expected to marry and have children and uphold Roman civic virtue. Anyone outside of this path was not looked up to as an example by Roman society.
We tend to see the outrageous conduct of a handful of emperors and powerful people in Rome itself. But that is not a particularly accurate picture. It would be like judging America based on the shenanigans of Hollywood celebrities, rapacious Enron executives and the behavior of people at Mardi Gras in New Orleans.
I basicly disagree with the premise that homosexuality was practiced quite the same he states to make his case.
While I cannot say for certain that the Cannanites did this that or the other, I have read Tacitus and Suetonius and they pretty much condemned the emperors for their homosexual escapades. While I understand about the receiver and the giver, it was more than that. These books were written before the rise of Christianity in Rome.
Now, it is certain that such relationships did in fact exist.
But my sense is that the vast majority of people did not condone or accept them as legitimate relationships. IF they had, I would think you would have seen acceptance of marriage arrangements between males. No culture has ever done that, that I am aware of.
[Yes, I did read his entire article...I just quibble over the small stuff...his major point is well taken. But I think the basic assumption, that monogamous, male/female relationships didn’t have primacy is a bit too far out to be true. MOdern anthropology doesn’t bear it out either. In so called primitive tribes the natural dyad of man/woman is pretty universal.]
However, we are in agreement that the “deconstruction” of our Judeo-Christian traditions and social laws will be the ruination of this country and most of the rest of the world that those traditions have touched. Its being replaced by a moral vacuum which is being filled with no rules and the irresoponsibility that goes with that.
Amen! You seem a scholarly fellow. I’m very glad you’re on OUR side! (I hope you also checked out my website.)
Just be careful when you criticize Limbaugh! Some ditto-heads here have heads full of mush and think he’s the Second Coming!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.