A 'Culture' of Inverted Sexuality

CERC ^ | Patrick Fagan

[lavaroise]

I am as critical of the sexual morality of the last nearl four decades as anyone on this planet. But simplistic and over-extended arguments such as the above are my worst enemy.

Wake up! This has long been argued and been accepted, that the sexual revolution/anarchy between heterorsexuals directly lead to the rise of homosexual anarchy. In other words, sexual preferences, much like in a KKK society whose skin preferences supposedly transcend man's jurisdiction, whether coming from heterorsexuals or homosexuals, is ultimately becoming as vicious, idealistic and ideological as Nazism.

[RLK]

Wake up! This has long been argued and been accepted, that the sexual revolution/anarchy between heterorsexuals directly lead to the rise of homosexual anarchy.

----------------------

The use of the word anarchy here is not one I would use. If you are saying the dishonesty and pathology used to underwrite the sexual revolution has been transferred to defense and selling of homosexuality, I quite agree. However, that has little to do with sex primarily as procreation.

[RLK]

What was done in the '60s was to erode standards of rationality and emotional honesty to make all activity, including the heterosexual revolution, argued as permissible. These same eroded standards subsequently were applied to homosexuality.

[Yeti]

the article said ---

All of these gradual "Slouchings towards Gomorrah" are the natural by-product of the severing of the sexual act from the prime end of that act, and from its fundamental natural function: the begetting of the child.

-- to which you relpied --

I am as critical of the sexual morality of the last nearl four decades as anyone on this planet. But simplistic and over-extended arguments such as the above are my worst enemy.

I consider myself far from prudish, and although I am very critical of the cultural changes over the last fourish decades, I am certainly not anywhere near as hostile toward the current zeitgeist as yourself(as expressed here and in your articles at LFCT).

Having said that, I am inclined to agree with the statement in the article. I think it is also safe to say that all eating disorders stem from the seperation of the act of eating from its fundamental purpose(nutrition).

Its not that I think that sex must be only for purposes of procreation based on any religious beliefs, nor do I suggest that as a viable lifestyle for myself or the vast majority of people in our time. Its just that it seems a simple statement of fact regarding the dynamics of the development of disorders based on what should be natural functions.

[RLK]

Its not that I think that sex must be only for purposes of procreation based on any religious beliefs.......

--------------------

That's the point. Whever someone hints at that with arguments about procreation, it's both irrelevant and alienating. It kills the anti-sexual revolution position. Typically, people advocates from this frame of reference are brought in as spokesmen and are exploited to promote ridicule of the position. If I never hear it again in my life it will be a blessing.

[alfa6]

Bump for later find

Regards

alfa6 ;>}

[lavaroise]

These same eroded standards subsequently were applied to homosexuality.

Say what? Someone fundamentaly basing their partner preference on sex a moral equivalent to those whose aim is to reproduce independent consciousness into their children, regardless of the fundamental preferences? Give me a break. Sexual preference has no jurisdiction in society, NONE! save for cults like the KKK or gay parties.

[Jim Noble]

I admire your work on the relationship between changes in sexual morality (behavior) and adavncing social psychopathology tremendously.

I do think there may be something in this verbose essay on contraception that is worth pursuing.

I think the emergence of a homosexual "identity" in our time, which has always been something of a mystery to me (why now and not before), may in fact be related to antecedent changes in heterosexual identity and behavior.

Hefner's Playboy "philosophy" promotes the notion that heterosexual men should look on their partners in the way that gay men do. Some have referred to this as the "homosexualization" of heterosexuality.

Maybe it's the other way around.

[JMJ333]

Whever someone hints at that with arguments about procreation, it's both irrelevant and alienating.

Please explain its irrelevance and just how exactly its alienating since it is the prime part of nature.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

I will disagree about the polygamy though. The New Testament gives us an example of the nuclear family in the make-up of Jesus, Mary, and Joseph. It is the standard and basis of Christianity, upon which society rests. There is also the example of Mary's parents, Anne and Joachim, which gives another subtle outline of Christian marriage.

There are likewise examples of polygyny in the Bible...

I think you misunderstood me.

1. It was my fundamental contention that "marriage" is based on human reproductive biology and outside of government's authority to regulate.

2. There is no outright prohibition concerning polygyny in the Bible at all (this is not found in the Old or New Testament anywhere). There is no prohibition in any religious text. The actual words of Jesus in the Gospel makes no mention of the issue for Jews or Christians. In fact, the Old Testament is explicit in it's permitting of polygyny.

3. If marriage is based on human reproductive biology, is outside of government authority to regulate, and is a religious institution - - then only the churches may regulate marriage. Some may not like this idea, however, the churches that venture outside of accepted tradition will ultimately fail, they will not have any congregation to support them.

Furthermore, abolishing non-profit status for religious institutions will keep the institutions alive that people actually actively support. There are too many organizations and false churches kept alive by the non-profit crutch.

I'm not saying I support something by discussing the issue, but it is imperative that a biological basis for marriage is established. This makes the issue of homosexual marriage null and void...

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

P.S. I take marriage out of the traditionally accepted context of modern Christian interpretation for a reason and argue on a strictly secular basis. This way the issue cannot be confused with sectarian dogma or false teaching by those who advocate homosexual monogamy based on some fraudulent ecclesiastical authority...

[antidisestablishment]

Is the truth so hard to bear?

We are fools for Christ, but you are so wise in Christ! We are weak, but you are strong! You are honored, we are dishonored! To this very hour we go hungry and thirsty, we are in rags, we are brutally treated, we are homeless.

1 Corinthians 4:9-11

[Puddleglum]

ping to myself for later reading

[JMJ333]

Thanks for the explanation. =)

I appreciate your contribution.

[Cobra Scott]

Bingo.

The timeline presented above is conveniently windowed to only a few generations, ignoring, for instance, the dawn of western civilization.

[Cobra Scott]

because homosexuality, beastiality, pedantry/pedophilia, abortion, contraception, all have been around for far longer than any organized religion, and have even been part of many.

[JMJ333]

True, but not accepted in this society and in what was the standard in Christiandom. The outline is accurate.

[Cobra Scott]

That is my sentiment exactly. Why can I not have multiple wives if "Joe and Hank" can pretend to be some kind of cohesive family unit?

[Cobra Scott]

That is my sentiment exactly. Why can I not have multiple wives if "Joe and Hank" can pretend to be some kind of cohesive family unit?

[Cobra Scott]

Sorry for the double bubble, not sure what happened.

I would argue that such things are all too accepted in our society. Infanticide has become institutionalized and relegated to the category of medical procedure. It does not change anything.

Pedantry has vocal protectors in the ACLU and MBLA. Their same methods of secrecy are models for domestic terrorists wanting to stay hidden.

Domestic terrorism, in fact, hides behind the green movement.