Skip to comments.The Sexual Revolution in a Nutshell
Posted on 07/17/2019 9:45:43 PM PDT by ReformationFan
Just as its loudest opponents feared, granting same-sex couples access to marriage has further aligned the hoary institution with sexual choice, helping sever the link between sex and diapersat just the moment when abortion rights face their greatest test in a generation.
If you want to understand the sexual revolution in a nutshell, read Nathaniel Franks Washington Post column from a few days ago. He argues that the gay rights movement has been at the forefront of decoupling sex from procreation and of establishing sexual liberation as a driving norm. Frank writes:
(Excerpt) Read more at theaquilareport.com ...
It is because what takes place between two persons of the same sex is not only not procreative but not sex!
Two persons of the same sex cannot reproduce, the essential feature of genuine sexuality.
What they share is homoeroticism, not homosexuality; that is an ersatz word for something that does not exist.
IMO both you and the author are off the mark as you are making a semantic distinction not a practical one and the author is only looking at a sliver of history, which is very current, the last 60 years in the US.
Sexual activity between men and men, women and women, groups of either or both not having any reproductive end has been practised throughout history and one can assume for as long as humans were humans. Mixed gender entities on a biological basis existed ditto. I daresay every current sexual activity and perversion and extension and nuance has been known for an equally long time. And I am not even including animals here. The only practical changes have been in machinery and technology.
The key issue is how these non-reproductively aimed sex activities are practised in a social sense, who can or does practice, who is forbidden from practicing, who is compelled to practice or selected to practice. This is a lot more complex—and realistic—to look at than simply assuming that sex for reproduction is the template and anything else is an aberration. I do not think that allowable sex and forbidden sex were listed in the Bible (Old Testament) as a template but rather as a cultural map for religious practitioners.
Those who practice birth control are no different than homosexuals with regard to denying the possibility of children.
Griswald vs Conn 1965 opened up this can of worms.
How the Hebrews underpinned Western Civilization.
F*ck the sexual revolution!
We the People . . . to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity . . .
I’ve seen that article before. An eye opener.
Didn’t realize the Jews and Christians made men [more] civil. How, though, did they get men to behave? Perhaps misbehavior was rewarded by death.
Yes Prager is writing a longer version of what I wrote but focussing on the old historical part. However there are a lot of specifics that he does not go into and some about which there is a different consensus among Jewish scholars.
My main point (which many Jewish scholars ancient and modern agree on)is that the Torah is a divinely inspired guidance/operating manual. For humans to hash their behavior out in interpreting this guidance (and what to do if they mess up) is another and different aspect.
Thus IMO there has to be a numerical preponderance of Christians in the US in order for the country to work for any future length of time as it was intended by the designers of the Constitution.
I have just finished Prager’s commentaries on Genesis and Exodus. Exodus is now part of my grandsons’ homeschool curriculum. Genesis will follow in time.
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.