>>the Sexual Revolution because it has hurt people.
"People" are nothing but an obstacle in the way of Transhumanist/Postgenderists achieving their inhumane goals.
http://www.google.com/search?q=Transhumanism+Postgenderism
Posted on 04/17/2015 1:44:35 PM PDT by Petrosius
I am a very committed, very public advocate of marriage as a gender-based institution. Many of my fellow proponents of man/woman marriage cite religious liberty as an argument against redefining marriage. While I have great respect for those who promote this view, I must respectfully disagree with their assessment.
The uproar over the Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act demonstrates that religious liberty arguments don’t work anymore. I take no pleasure in saying this. But religious liberty arguments are not compelling enough to induce our fellow citizens to sacrifice something they value, namely, sexual liberty.
I can think of three reasons for this.
An increasing number of our fellow citizens do not believe in any god. A substantial number describe themselves as spiritual but not religious.
The American religious situation at the time of the American Founding was quite different. James Madison spoke for most when he regarded religion as “the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it.” When so many people do not regard themselves as having any “duty to the Creator,” the social foundation that made religious liberty appealing or even intelligible, no longer exists.
So, Reason #1 why religious liberty arguments are not working: People who don’t believe in God, couldn’t give a rip whether we religious believers are inconvenienced in our religious practice.
Secondly, the controversies over religious liberty are not about transubstantiation or the Trinity or predestination. We are arguing about sex: abortion, contraception, homosexuality and similar topics.
Our fellow citizens have absorbed and are committed to a particular view about the meaning of human sexuality and its place in our lives. Millions of people have ordered their lives around these beliefs. They are not going to give up those views, in the absence of an attractive alternative.
Reason #2 why religious liberty arguments are not working: we are asking our fellow citizens to give up something they value, without offering anything they value in its place.
Finally, when we talk about religious liberty, we are putting the emphasis on ourselves. We don’t like the HHS mandate because it will harm our religious institutions. We don’t like gay marriage because it goes against our beliefs.
Reason #3 why religious liberty arguments aren’t working: we sound like we are whining about ourselves. No one finds whining appealing.
I honestly think further appeals to religious liberty are not helping our cause. These arguments are not helping the immediate particular cause, such as defending man/woman marriage. Nor are religious liberty arguments helping the general cause of the church itself. Appeals to religious liberty once made sense, but no longer.
We need a different strategy: argue against the Sexual Revolution because it has hurt people.
And I do mean the whole Sexual Revolution. We are tacitly giving a pass to the earlier phases of the Sexual Revolution, by saying so little about them. The only serious exception to this generalization is abortion: the Catholic Church, and more recently, other Christians, have put up a noble fight against the Big Abortion Machine. But other aspects of the Sexual Revolution? Divorce? Contraception? Taxpayer-funded Sexual Miseducation in the schools? Not so much.
It is as if we are saying, “We like the Sexual Revolution just fine: we just don’t like the Gay Parts.” That simply will not do. It is not fair to individuals who are same sex attracted. And, it is intellectually incoherent, since the acceptance of genderless marriage actually depends upon our acceptance of those earlier phases of the Sexual Revolution.
True enough, there is no constituency right now for winning elections on some of these issues. Too bad. That just means we have not made the substantive case on these issues often enough and persuasively enough. The pro-life movement has shown that it is possible to build a constituency for the Culture of Life.
The truth is that the Sexual Revolution has harmed millions of people: Children of divorce, whose families were broken up and who never really felt like part of a real family again. Reluctantly divorced people, who wanted to stay married but whose spouse pulled the plug. Heartbroken middle-aged professional women, who “had it all,” except for the children they are now too old to bear. Refugees from the hook-up culture, jaded, cynical, and old before their time. I could mention many other groups of people. They need our help connecting the dots between the lies of the Sexual Revolution and the misery they are experiencing.
I mean no disrespect to anyone. Many advocates of religious liberty have also spoken out against these evils. My point is that bringing up religious liberty no longer strengthens our case: it weakens our case.
Christianity has a viable, humane, intellectually coherent alternative to the Sexual Revolution. Sex makes babies. Children need their own parents. Men and women are different. These are facts: trying to build an entire society around their opposites is inhuman and impossible.
Our society desperately needs to hear this message. Demanding our First Amendment Rights is a distraction. If we religious believers won’t proclaim these truths, who will?
.
I don’t disagree with your assertion, but I was simply boiling it down to the effective fact WRT action in court.
That is the proximate locus of failure of the argument.
As to the general public, people are at least 2:1 opposed to the destruction of marriage, even in liberal states.
.
Yes. When you have unjust laws, it is a matter of time before the normalization of vice in the populace and worldview becomes evil and vulgar (like the Weimar Republic did, which created the Nazi movement and 90% of irrational Germans who simply loved Hitler).
The problem is:
1)—There is no education of children, just indoctrination into tribalism (Marxism)-—they are fed vice and stupidity 24/7. Words matter and when the press allows no debate of ideas (political correctness/Cultural Marxism) there is no Truth/God allowed in the public square and the minds of children in the culture.
Even the Catholic schools destroyed their curricula to promote ignorance and stupidity and no possibility of abstract, profound thinking. Everything is to distract them from God/Truth/Virtue (Excellence). Education prior to John Dewey gave the tools (Classical Education) which gave children the Reason and Logic so they could become critical thinkers-—now schools destroy Reason and Logic and Virtue intentionally. Truth/Facts create cognitive dissonance in the brainwashed adults—most people today.
2) The control of language and Words by the Leftists: He who controls the Words, will control the Worldview. (Wittgenstein) The Left controls the information/all curricula in schools and all MSM since early 1900s. When all you hear is lies and misinformation, there is no possibility of “thinking”.
(The Left put “homosexual” in front of the word marriage over 30 years ago and made something totally absurd and immoral and irrational, into something”Good” although it is in opposition to the “...Laws of Nature and nature’s God” (the Constitution and our Ethics system (Justice System)). Homosexual unions deny children their biological parent which is their Natural Right from God-—and there is no Natural Right to sodomy.
We need to gain the minds of our children and the public square again.....until then—the culture will rot any children exposed to their filth and lies and godless worldview where man is just a worthless animal to be herded and culled and killed—individual God-Given Rights are non-existant..
Ah, a surrender monkey treatise. How quaint.
?!?!?
“?!?!?”
I’m also confused.
?!?!?
Ya wanna go get a beer?
Amen.
This is called a "Christian nation", mostly because we have so many people who attend church every Sunday.
But if you count up the truly "Christian" among us, it's really a small number of people.
And yes, this is sad and pathetic.
Look at how many "good Catholics" support gay marriage and abortion.
Exhibit B: The Episcopal church which thinks that "environmental justice" is WAY more important than say, preaching the teachings of Christ.
Taking a long shower= the unpardonable sin.
Taking an unborn human life= "we've got to keep up with the times".
Now here's my life-long partner. We're getting married this week.
If you judge that as "immoral", you're a bad man who needs to be sent away.
Amen.
This is called a "Christian nation", mostly because we have so many people who attend church every Sunday.
But if you count up the truly "Christian" among us, it's really a small number of people.
And yes, this is sad and pathetic.
Look at how many "good Catholics" support gay marriage and abortion.
Exhibit B: The Episcopal church which thinks that "environmental justice" is WAY more important than say, preaching the teachings of Christ.
Taking a long shower= the unpardonable sin.
Taking an unborn human life= "we've got to keep up with the times".
Now here's my life-long partner. We're getting married this week.
If you judge that as "immoral", you're a hypocrite.
Sorry for double post!
Wrong post reply? I don’t know why my post would merit that response.
The confusion comes from not differentiating between marriage, a union based on pledged love and personal commitment before God, and thus a religious event - and civil union, a government status that enables shared administrative representation.
Separate the two and it all becomes clear. Marriage should not be reachable by the government because its love and religious qualities are outside the evaluative powers of government by definition.
Marriage should also not be termed alone, but in reference to the spiritual tradition, religion or church from which it is derived in each case. This is true anyway - religions don’t generally accept marriages outside of their own tradition.
Then, as a separate event, people should have to file a separate petition for civil union with the government that is - never - called “marriage.” And to prove it, marriage should not be a prerequisite for civil union. The government deals in contacts, so a civil union is a contract between two (or more) people and the government - but it is not a marriage.
The bottom line is that if you think the government solemnizes marriage, then you equate government with God - and that is the definition of communism.
Linking marriage only with its religious source is the solution to this dilemma. If your religion doesn’t perform gay marriage, then it should be irrelevant to you if some other religion does. And if government gets out of the marriage business and only administrates civil unions, then it has no way to have any effect on anyone’s marriage.
Problem solved.
“I don’t know why my post would merit that response.”
Exactly. I don’t know why either.
“I don’t know why my post would merit that response.”
I think I get it. My post was wrongly directed to you. Sorry. Ignore everything I posted previously.
:) Good, I was hoping that was what it was.
You are the most right.
I prefer the end argument...
.45 acp
Civil unions do not solve the problem. In a free society I should not be forced to recognize or give benefits to any non-marital union. Furthermore, I should be able to recognize and freely give benefits to marriage that are not open to others. Nor should the state recognize these unnatural unions and give them the sanction of society.
"People" are nothing but an obstacle in the way of Transhumanist/Postgenderists achieving their inhumane goals.
http://www.google.com/search?q=Transhumanism+Postgenderism
>>In a free society I should not be forced
>>to recognize or give benefits to any non-marital union.
“To compel a man to furnish funds [or bake cakes] for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.”
-—Thomas Jefferson
+1
The argument is a constitutionally protected right argument against a "whatever we feel like" human "right". The argument is correct, but the presentation is bass ackwards.
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.