Posted on 12/03/2014 11:54:48 AM PST by wagglebee
When abortion activists came out shrieking with rage at Canadian Member of Parliament Stephen Woodworth’s suggestion that a committee examine human life in the womb in 2013, he was somewhat surprised. When the Canadian government kowtowed to feminist hysteria to shut down MP Mark Warawa’s motion to condemn gender-selection abortion, Woodworth noticed a trend—and coined a new term. What we’re seeing is “abortionism,” he told me in an interview some time ago. “Abortionism” is essentially a philosophy that raises abortion to a sacred status, above all other democratic principles.
I agree with Mr. Woodworth, but I think the problem goes much deeper than abortion. Abortion’s now-sacred status is symptomatic of something far more sinister: the sweeping success of the Sexual Revolution. So-called “sexual rights” are now considered to be the most important “rights” our society has, and take precedence over all other rights, regardless of how fundamental they are.
Businesses that disagree with gay marriage are being forced to shut down. Churches in Denmark have been ordered to perform gay weddings. Our tax dollars are used to fund Pride Parades that are starting to look like public orgies.
Freedom of speech? This is now a quaint concept that does not apply, for example, to any sort of pro-life activism, especially and ironically on university campuses. Nothing has the ability to irritate me quite as much as the mewling first-year feminist fascists of the Womyn’s Studies Department scurrying to submit their campus editorial on the “limits of free speech” the second pro-lifers show up on campus to engage university students in a discussion on a serious topic. Pornography, nude demonstrations, and virtually any form of sex-related activism is welcome—unless you happen to be opposing something, in which case it is not. When I was in university, for example, our “Cemetery of the Innocents” display was trampled and destroyed by a student politician who then took to the campus paper to call us the Hitler Youth. On campus after campus across North America, so-called feminists respond to pro-life activism the same way: Shut down the debate.
The same applies to the right to educate your children as you see fit. Increasingly, the adherents of the Sexual Revolution are realizing that in order to get the upcoming generation of Christians to accept the New Sexual Order, they will have to force it them. Specifically, mandate new “sex education,” as the province of Ontario is currently doing, and force “Gay-Straight Alliance Clubs” into Catholic schools (even if they can’t find anyone to join). And now, it seems, they are attempting the same thing in Alberta). Christian schools and home-schoolers frustrate them, because they can no longer teach children about masturbation and anal sex in Grade Five. As Wendy Shalit highlights in her magnificent book A Return To Modesty, much of the public education system is now the systematic destruction of innocence. And if the powers that be have their way, soon you won’t be able to opt out.
Religious liberty, too, is being dispensed with at an alarming rate. After all, our culture has abandoned religious values, so once we’ve chiseled and hacked the last Ten Commandments sculpture off the last courthouse, we can put those quaint beliefs in the trash can alongside it. Businesses that disagree with gay marriage are being forced to shut down. Churches in Denmark have been ordered to perform gay weddings. Our tax dollars are used to fund Pride Parades that are starting to look like public orgies. The Sexual Revolutionaries are not, for the most part, about living and let live—only look at the Trinity Western University case. They are about compulsory acceptance.
Sexual rights, in other words, take precedence over all other rights. In the Netherlands they’re talking about hiring prostitutes for disabled people to ensure that their “right to sex” won’t be violated.
When woman-beater Jian Ghomeshi defended his love of sexual violence by announcing that “sexual preference is a human right,” he knew he’d have quite the audience—and just as in the case of gender-selection abortion, most people would instinctually nod and “not judge” anything related to sex—even at the expense of respect for women. Indeed, men are now to be allowed into female bathrooms, because the right of women to feel safe and secure in the bathroom does not trump the right of a man to decide that his penis is irrelevant to his gender. Like Ryan Wigley of the United Kingdom, for example, who literally decides which gender he will be in the morning depending on how he feels that day. He is, he explains to us with incredible seriousness, bi-gender.
But don’t laugh, or you’re transphobic.
There are signs that things could be improving slightly, that our culture may be getting fatigued by the constant hyper-sexualization of everything. Jian Ghomeshi’s “but the girls let me hit them” defence didn’t work, and he’s been criminally charged. Mainstream publications are taking an honest look at the negative impact of pornography almost weekly now. Public opinion on the abortion issue indicates that people don’t view it as the closed issue many of our politicians would like it to be. And most essentially, many Christians are starting to realize that if they don’t point out that the Emperor has no clothes, soon schools might be teaching children that since the Emperor has decided he is in fact wearing clothes, then physical reality is irrelevant.
Disturbing, but true.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
It’s long past time to make some of the liberal dorks eat some of the stuff that they’re full of.
We have the right to pursue happiness, but not the right to take an innocent life. Two different things.
There is a difference between moral and legal.
Actually, the correct understanding of the pursuit of Happiness is not license to do whatever thou wilt. According to our Founders, what is pursued is really virtue which leads to the end of man which is Happiness with God.
So, with this correct definition, the right to life and the right to pursue happiness are in the same boat.
There is no indication that individuals can’t pursue happiness as they see fit as ing as they don’t violate the rights of others. Different thing for different folks.
Perhaps the founders should have been prescient enough to seed that we would have heathens, atheists, and other non-Christian or Judeo religions in the country. Unfortunately. Either they were very restrictive or they really didn’t believe all the freedom jazz or we can literally believe what it says..
as long
How do I get free from auto-text.
Oh, please. They're always shrieking with rage.
They think “sexual rights” will bring them ultimate autonomy and freedom but in reality it brings them to total enslavement to their depravity.
I couldn't agree more.
"If nothing is self-evident, nothing can be proved. Similarly if nothing is obligatory for its own sake, nothing is obligatory at all."
-- C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man
People fail to grasp that ALL anguish and grief comes from sin. However, the moral relativists say that each person can define their own sin and that no person's morality is superior to another's.
Even many Christians do not realize that Satan's original, most effective and most dangerous weapon is moral relativism. The Serpent told Eve that not only would the fruit not kill her, but that it would open her eyes and she would become a god. This is no different from them moral relativist telling a person that there is no such thing as right and wrong and that sexual morality is restrictive.
God is the Author of both scientific law and moral law and He established consequences for violating either.
The law of gravity exists whether a person believes in it or not; the "gravity atheist" will be fine as long as he adheres to the law of gravity and he will face the consequences if he decides it's okay to jump off a tall building because gravity doesn't apply to him.
And the consequences of violating His moral law is just the same; sin often brings immediate personal pleasure, but the pain will come eventually (I've never heard of a former prostitute or pornographic actress saying that they don't regret it at all and they would do it the same if they had to do it all over again).
The real irony is that leftists are typically absolutely devoted to scientific law, but are adamant in their contention that moral law is archaic, cruel and unnecessary.
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.