Posted on 02/14/2014 4:07:38 PM PST by NYer
Surveying history for anything resembling same-sex marriage in any culture, clime, or era is a fruitless search. It has never been proposed, not even in ancient Greece, as some would like to argue. So why does this enigma of history seem like just the next progressive step in our own culture?
The answer, oddly enough, seems to be locked up in the birth control pill. Let me explain.
Healthy cultures and civilizations all have one thing in common. There is a deep understanding (even if not always acted upon or articulated) that my life has meaning because of the sacrifices I make for those who come after me, through loyalty to a clan, tribe or wider society. This simple "our lives for theirs" approach is what has animated history for centuries. Think of the building of Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris, which the early masons knew would never be finished in their lifetimes. "Our lives for theirs" is an easy barometer to see if a civilization is on the rise or on decline. When that order becomes inverted, like ancient Rome or late Renaissance Venice, where each man and woman lives just for himself, the civilization will decay and cease to exist.
The sexual revolution of the 1960s is a marked example of this inversion in the West with the arrival of the pill. Never in the history of the world had the fundamental link between human sexuality and reproduction been so decidedly unhinged, ushering in a new conception of sexuality. Sex became about many things: self-expression, self-gratification, exploration, desire, etc.…but not about its main reason for existence: to propagate the species. The general "our life for theirs" attitude lived out by parents for centuries suddenly became suspect as self-gratification came into vogue. "Why would anyone voluntarily put themselves through all that hard work to raise more than two children?" became the new model under which we live today.
While contraception of various sorts was nothing new, the wholesale use of it was. Without the "baby bonus," concepts of self-control, self-mastery, self-donation have not only became outdated, but an object of mockery. Denuding sex of its natural procreative character made sex simply about "me," not my spouse, my children, my family, or my community. Porn, "twerking," and the over-sexualization of young children are only the latest additions in the "sex is about me" trajectory.
Aristotle (384 -322 BC) was the first to argue for the link between what we find pleasurable and what is needed for a healthy polis, or more generally, society. An act was pleasurable to ensure that it would take place, but was not the most important reason for the action. Food tastes good so we will eat. The connection between sexual pleasure and procreation is why same-sex marriage has never been accepted in the history of the world before. It was always generally understood that such a "marriage" is not fruitful no matter what the feelings may be of those involved.
Generations of couples coupling without conceiving have led to the misperception that sexuality is, in fact, merely another contact sport, or whatever else you may want it to be, without a fixed meaning other than pleasure. Sex in the minds of most no longer has any natural link with making babies. And if the link dares to happen biologically when nature asserts herself, it is a failure, a mistake, an accident – not the natural course of things.
How, then, one asks, could Catholics be so cruel to want to deny same-sex marriage to those who just have a different idea about sex? Why limit ourselves to heterosexual activity within marriage? Can't pleasure and satisfaction be found elsewhere? Well, clearly they can, to a degree. But babies cannot. And the stable families necessary to raise healthy children, study after study has shown, cannot be reformulated into any shape of laissez-faire family. Statistics show that 95 percent of Catholics are using contraception to limit family size. Clearly there has been a dramatic failure to educate ourselves about what the Church teaches on love and sexuality in the pews, in classrooms, and in Catholic media. But at the heart of it, the Christian ethos, embodied in Christ's own sacrifice of himself for all of us, needs to be revived. Ultimately, are our actions life-giving or sterile? To this question, our answer should always be "our lives for theirs."
Statistics show that 95 percent of Catholics are using contraception to limit family size. Clearly there has been a dramatic failure to educate ourselves about what the Church teaches on love and sexuality in the pews, in classrooms, and in Catholic media. But at the heart of it, the Christian ethos, embodied in Christ's own sacrifice of himself for all of us, needs to be revived. Ultimately, are our actions life-giving or sterile? To this question, our answer should always be "our lives for theirs."
With all due respect, I think you’ve making my point. If both are heresies and Protestantism came first, then wouldn’t modernism necessarily then be the progeny of Protestentanism?
better call saul.
Only 99% of the time
Not if it didn't come OUT of Protestantism; no.
Such as the 55,000,000 who have been murdered via abortion? An excellent question.
To put the impact of 55,000,000 human beings that are no longer with us into a fiscal perspective, why does anyone think social security is not only bankrupt, but upside down?
Because there aren't 55,000,000 American children who've grown up, entered the workforce and paying taxes into the (unarguably) bankrupt system.
From another perspective, why is it we have arguably the most uncivil society in this nations history? Murder, rape, robbery, and all kinds of other activities rooted in the cheapening of LIFE?
55,000,000 murdered American Children at the hands of abortionists and the feminist agenda.
Anyone who chooses can slam me for the above, but once they get off their emotional high-horse and do the math on the impact of 55,000,000 murdered American children on the economy (if they were alive) would see I'm right.
No one in their right mind however, would argue the impacts of abortion and how it has "cheapened" life in this country. Those effects are all around us.
RM, if you could chime in on this it would be great:
pius: “Uh-huh. Apparently the moderator thought you did. And that’s all that matters.”
Vladimir: Actually no it doesn’t. Removal does not imply guilt. Anyone who has been here for a while will know that.
.
While I don’t disagree with your numbers or your view on life, I do disagree that they would all have entered the workforce and become taxpayers who would help bail out SS.
The removal of a post doesn’t mean guilt - however most posts on the Religion Forum are removed because they contain inappropriate content whether the poster’s own words or quoting someone else.
So, for the case in hand, were the posts removed for personal insults?
They were making it personal, I.e. the likely result would be a flame war. Do not pick at a scab though because that will also result in your posts being removed.
Not trying to do that. Just think it’s important for Vladimir to know why they were removed since he asserts he wasn’t making it personal. Thanks for being fair. I’m done in this thread. I promise.
If it did, but which would be meaningless since Protestantism is not meaningfully defined, nor do s heresies arising from a source necessarily impugn the source.
"Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them." (Acts 20:30)
And the fact is that heresies came before Protestantism, and modernism has been as concomitant with Catholicism as with Protestantism.
To make a meaningful comparison, you need to decide what essentially distinctively defines each side, and how it has reacted to aberrations, and what it overall fosters.
In so doing one will see that the more one holds Scripture as the literal word of God, rather than a church, then the less heretical they are in tersm of degrees. Of course, when the church holds itself as supreme, then no one can tell it that it is wrong, which itself is heresy.
And what Rome fosters is overall liberalism, while those who hold Scripture as supreme as the assured word of God are the most conservative Christian group in the US.
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.