Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A 'Culture' of Inverted Sexuality
CERC ^ | Patrick Fagan

Posted on 05/20/2002 5:43:35 PM PDT by JMJ333

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-109 next last

1 posted on 05/20/2002 5:43:35 PM PDT by JMJ333
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: JMJ333
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.

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

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.

2 posted on 05/20/2002 6:16:43 PM PDT by RLK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JMJ333
Thanks for tellus "Why" in simple terms.
3 posted on 05/20/2002 6:17:38 PM PDT by NetValue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RLK
But simplistic and over-extended arguments such as the above are my worst enemy.

Then prove the author wrong. His arguments are neither simplistic nor over extended but 100% dead right on. This culture, even so called "conservatives" and "Christians" here on this "conservative" forum, are now so blind and so far removed from a proper understanding of Natural Law that they cannot grasp that the thesis in this article is the single greatest crisis facing mankind, period.

"The fruit of abortion is nuclear war."
--Mother Teresa

*****

*****

THE CONNECTION BETWEEN
CONTRACEPTION AND ABORTION

by Professor Janet E. Smith, PhD

Janet E. Smith is an associate professor of philosophy at the University of Dallas, Texas. She has edited Why Humane Vitae Was Right: A Reader and authored Humanae Vitae: A Generation Later, and numerous articles on abortion, contraception, virtue, and Plato. This article was edited and reprinted with permission.

    Many in the pro-life movement are reluctant to make a connection between contraception and abortion. They insist that these are two very different acts - that there is all the difference in the world between contraception, which prevents a life from coming to be, and abortion, which takes a life that has already begun.

    With some contraceptives, there is not only a link with abortion, there is an identity. Some contraceptives are abortifacients; they work by causing early term abortions. The IUD seems to prevent a fertilized egg - a new little human being - from implanting in the uterine wall. The pill does not always stop ovulation, but sometimes prevents implantation of the growing embryo. And of course, the new RU 486 pill works altogether by aborting a new fetus, a new baby. Although some in the pro-life movement occasionally speak out against the contraceptives that are abortifacients, most generally steer clear of the issue of contraception.

Contraception creates alleged “need” for abortion

    This seems to me to be a mistake. I think that we will not make good progress in creating a society where all new life can be safe, where we truly display a respect for life, where abortion is a terrible memory rather than a terrible reality, until we see that there are many significant links between contraception and abortion, and that we bravely speak this truth. We need to realize that a society in which contraceptives are widely used is going to have a very difficult time keeping free of abortions since the lifestyles and attitudes that contraception fosters, create an alleged “need” for abortion.

    Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the US Supreme Court decision that confirmed Roe v. Wade [U.S. decision to permit abortions] stated “in some critical respects, abortion is of the same character as the decision to use contraception…  for two decades of economic and social developments, people have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society, in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail”.

    The Supreme Court decision has made completely unnecessary, any efforts to “expose” what is really behind the attachment of the modern age to abortion. As the Supreme Court candidly states, we need abortion so that we can continue our contraceptive lifestyles. It is not because contraceptives are ineffective that a million and a half women a year seek abortions as back-ups to failed contraceptives. The “intimate relationships” facilitated by contraceptives are what make abortions “necessary”. “Intimate” here is a euphemism and a misleading one at that. Here the word “intimate” means “sexual”; it does not mean “loving and close”. Abortion is most often the result of sexual relationships in which there is no room for a baby, the natural consequence of sexual intercourse.

    To support the argument that more responsible use of contraceptives would reduce the number of abortions, some note that most abortions are performed for “contraceptive purposes”. That is, few abortions are had because a woman has been a victim of rape or incest or because a pregnancy would endanger her life, or because she expects to have a handicapped or deformed newborn. Rather, most abortions are had because men and women who do not want a baby are having sexual intercourse and facing pregnancies they did not plan for and do not want. Because their contraceptive failed, or because they failed to use a contraceptive, they then resort to abortion as a back up. Many believe that if we could convince men and women to use contraceptives responsibly, we would reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, and thus the number of abortions. Thirty years ago this position might have had some plausibility, but not now. We have lived for about thirty years with a culture permeated with contraceptive use and abortion; no longer can we think that greater access to contraception will reduce the number of abortions. Rather, wherever contraception is more readily available, the number of unwanted pregnancies and the number of abortions increase greatly.

Sexual revolution not possible without contraception

    The connection between contraception and abortion is primarily this: contraception facilitates the kind of relationships and even the kind of attitudes and moral characters that are likely to lead to abortion. The contraceptive mentality treats sexual relationship as a burden. The sexual revolution has no fondness - no room for - the connection between sexual intercourse and babies. The sexual revolution simply was not possibly until fairly reliable contraceptives were available.

    Far from being a check to the sexual revolution, contraception is the fuel that facilitated the beginning of the sexual revolution and enables it to continue to rage. In the past, many men and women refrained from illicit sexual unions simply because they were not prepared for the responsibilities of parenthood. But once a fairly reliable contraceptive appeared on the scene, this barrier to sex outside the confines of marriage fell. The connection between sex and love also fell quickly; ever since contraception became widely used, there has been much talk of, acceptance of, and practice of casual sex and recreational sex. The deep meaning that is inherent in sexual intercourse has been lost sight of; the willingness to engage in sexual intercourse with another is no longer a result of a deep commitment to another. It no longer bespeaks a willingness to have a child with another and to have all the consequent entanglements with another that babies bring. Contraception helps reduce one’s sexual partner to just a sexual object since it renders sexual intercourse to be without any real commitments.

“Carelessness” is international

    Much of this data suggests that there is something deep in our natures that finds the severing of sexual intercourse from love and commitment and babies to be unsatisfactory. As we have seen, women are careless in their use of contraceptives for a variety of reasons, but one reason for their careless use of contraceptives is precisely their desire to engage in meaningful sexual activity rather than in meaningless sexual activity. They want their sexual acts to be more meaningful than a handshake or a meal shared. They are profoundly uncomfortable with using contraceptives for what they do to their bodies and for what they do to their relationships. Often, they desire to have a more committed relationship with the male with whom they are involved; they get pregnant to test this love and commitment. But since the relationship has not been made permanent, since no vows have been taken, they are profoundly ambivalent about any pregnancy that might occur.

Sexual Promiscuity Increases

    By the late sixties and early seventies, the view of the human person as an animal, whose passions should govern, became firmly entrenched in the attitudes of those who were promoting the sexual revolution. One of the greatest agents and promoters of the sexual revolution has been Planned Parenthood. In the sixties and seventies, many of the spokesmen and women for Planned Parenthood unashamedly advocated sex outside of marriage and even promoted promiscuity. Young people were told to abandon the repressive morals of their parents and to engage in free love. They were told that active sexual lives with a number of partners would be psychologically healthy, perfectly normal, and perfectly moral. Now, largely because of the spread of AIDS and the devastation of teenage pregnancy, even Planned Parenthood puts a value on abstinence. Yet they have no confidence that young people can and will abstain from sexual intercourse, so they advocate “safe” sex, “responsible” sex, whereby they mean sexual intercourse wherein a contraceptive is used. Sex educators assume that young people will be engaging in sexual activity outside of marriage.

    Young people do not need sex education of the Planned Parenthood type; they need to learn that sexual intercourse can be engaged in responsibly and safely only within marriage. Rather than filling young people’s heads with false notions about freedom, and filling their wallets with condoms, we need to help them see the true meaning of human sexuality. We need to help them learn self-control and self-mastery so that they are not enslaved to their sexual passions. They need to learn that sexual intercourse belongs within marriage, and that with the commitment to marriage comes true freedom; the freedom to give of one’s self completely to another, the freedom to meet one’s responsibilities to one’s children.
There are two cornerstones on which education for sexual responsibility should be built - cornerstones that are both corroded by contraceptive sex. One cornerstone is that sexual intercourse is meant to be the expression of a deep love for another individual, a deep love that leads one to want to give of oneself totally to another. Most individuals hope one day to be in a faithful marriage, to be in a marital relationship with someone one loves deeply and by whom one is loved deeply. One of the major components of that deep love is a promise of faithfulness, that one will give oneself sexually only to one’s spouse.

Contraception severs connection between sex and babies

    The other cornerstone for a sex education program should be the refrain that ‘if you are not ready for babies, you are not ready for sexual intercourse, and you are not ready for babies until you are married’. Most people want to be good parents; they want to provide for their children and give them good upbringings. Contraception attempts to sever the connection between sexual intercourse and babies; it makes us feel responsible about our sexuality while enabling us to be irresponsible. Individuals born out of wedlock have a much harder start in life; have a much harder time gaining the discipline and strength they need to be responsible adults. Single mothers have very hard lives as they struggle to meet the needs of their children and their own emotional needs as well. Those who abort their babies are often left with devastating psychological scars. The price of out of wedlock pregnancy is high.

    Indeed, even within marriage, contraception is destructive; it reduces the meaning of the sexual act; again it takes out the great commitment that is written into the sexual act, the commitment that is inherent in the openness to have children with one’s beloved.
Those who are unmarried do face a disaster, and abortion seems like a necessity since no permanent commitment has been made between the sexual partners. Those who are married have often planned a life that is not receptive to children and are tempted to abort to sustain the child-free life they have designed. I am not, of course, saying that all those who contracept are likely to abort; I am saying that many more of those who contracept do abort than those who practice natural family planning.

    Contraception takes the baby-making element out of sexual intercourse. It makes pregnancy seem like an accident of sexual intercourse rather than the natural consequence that responsible individuals ought to be prepared for. Abortion, then, becomes thinkable as the solution to an unwanted pregnancy. Contraception enables those who are not prepared to care for babies to engage in sexual intercourse; when they become pregnant, they resent the unborn child for intruding itself upon their lives, and they turn to the solution of abortion. It should be no surprise that countries that are permeated by contraceptive sex, fight harder for access to abortion than they do to ensure that all babies can survive both in the womb and out. It is foolish for pro-lifers to think that they can avoid the issues of contraception and sexual irresponsibility and be successful in the fight against abortion. For, as the Supreme Court of the US has stated, abortion is “necessary” for those whose intimate relationships are based upon contraceptive sex.

References:

For verification of the claims here made about Planned Parenthood, see George Grant, Grand Illusions: the Legacy of Planned Parenthood (Brentwood, TN: Wolgemuth and Hyatt Publishers, Inc., 1988), and Robert Marshall and Charles Donovan, Blessed are the Barren (San Francisco, CA; Ignatius Press, 1991).

Portions of this article are printed as portions of chapters in “Abortion and Moral Character”, in Catholicism and Abortion, ed. By Stephen J. Heaney to be published by the Pope John XXIII Medical-Moral Research Centre and “Abortion and Moral Character”, in Doing and Being: Introductory Reading in Moral Philosophy, ed by Jordan Graf Haber, to be published by Macmillan.

Permission given for reprinting portions from ‘The Connection between contraception and Abortion’, by Dr. Janet E. smith, published by Homiletic & Pastoral Review, April 1993, distributed by One More Soul.

"The Connection between Contraception and Abortion" by Janet E. Smith is available from One More Soul.

4 posted on 05/20/2002 6:26:47 PM PDT by Polycarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
Thanks. ;)
5 posted on 05/20/2002 6:36:31 PM PDT by JMJ333
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: NetValue
You're welcome!
6 posted on 05/20/2002 6:38:30 PM PDT by JMJ333
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: RLK
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.

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

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.

So what exactly is simplistic and over-extended about the above conclusion. The case was made very clearly and logically in the original article. It goes through, in great detail, the evolution of contraceptive permissiveness into today's homosexual advocacy movement. Did you even read the article before posting such a groundless critique?

7 posted on 05/20/2002 7:02:03 PM PDT by Ronaldus Magnus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JMJ333
Bump for later read
8 posted on 05/20/2002 7:02:27 PM PDT by EdReform
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JMJ333
A thoughtful bump.

I am not sure I agree with everything the author stipulates, but he makes a very good case. I want to read and think more before commenting further.

9 posted on 05/20/2002 7:08:13 PM PDT by Ronin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: the giant apricots; eodguy; f.christian
le ping! =)
10 posted on 05/20/2002 7:09:20 PM PDT by JMJ333
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Ronin
Absolutely! Thanks for giving it your consideration. I look forward to hearing your comments.
11 posted on 05/20/2002 7:11:48 PM PDT by JMJ333
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

Comment #12 Removed by Moderator

To: JMJ333
Thanks for the ping. I will read the post and respond thereafter.
13 posted on 05/20/2002 7:28:02 PM PDT by EODGUY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: JMJ333
Let's take the argument in the other direction
With modern science it is pretty easy to predict when a woman is fertile
Then that is the ONLY time a husband should have sex with his wife
14 posted on 05/20/2002 7:51:49 PM PDT by uncbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: uncbob
Then that is the ONLY time a husband should have sex with his wife

Nowhere does the article suggest that, but rather it focuses on where contraception has taken us in terms of breaking up the family and disintgrating society. It also takes the focus off "self" which is how families stay intact to begin with.

15 posted on 05/20/2002 7:56:44 PM PDT by JMJ333
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: JMJ333
Bump for later.
16 posted on 05/20/2002 8:47:25 PM PDT by oprahstheantichrist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: oprahstheantichrist; edreform; eodguy
Okee dokee. Looking forward to your comments. =)
17 posted on 05/20/2002 8:53:00 PM PDT by JMJ333
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp; JMJ333
Let's explore some strictly secular arguments against abortion:

Gay advocates of "domestic partnerships" are in effect saying to other homosexuals, that it is only acceptable to be "gay" as long as other homosexuals conform to their hypocritical standard of monogamy. The general public discussion about marriage, homosexuality and "domestic partners," does not address the central issue - - monogamy is a sectarian establishment of religion in the law and violates the First Amendment’s prohibition "regarding an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Various homosexual pressure groups that claim to support "equality" never address bisexuality and the idea that a bisexual is not allowed to benefit from relationships with persons of both sexes. Nor are they, the Left Wing Media, and Left Wing Educational Establishment willing to discuss polygyny or polyandry, which are, or have been traditions for Muslims, Mormons, Hebrews, Hindus, Buddhists and Africans, as well as other Pagan cultures. The two sides currently represented in the same-sex marriage debate both want special rights for monogamists. However, the proponents of heterosexual only marriages are willing to concede that a homosexual has just as much a right to marry a person of the opposite sex as any heterosexual does. [Incidentally, the desire to have children is a heterosexual desire.]

Nowhere in the religious texts of the above mentioned cultures is there a prohibition of polygamy and I challenge any scholar of theology, literature or history to refute it with proof from the Judeo-Christian Bible, Holy Qur’an, Mahabharata, Rig Veda, or Dhammapada. The ignorance of these historical and cultural facts is evidence of the failed public education system and the fig leaf covering the personal bias of certain staff members in the Left Wing Press and Left Wing Educational Establishment concerning facts, reporting them and/or teaching them.

To allow an institution of homosexual marriage in a monogamous form requires some sort of moralistic meandering to justify it and prohibit any form of polygamy. Upon what basis, if we are to assume it is discrimminatory to not allow homosexuals to "marry," can there be a prohibition of the varying forms of polygamy? Especially, since the First Amendment is specific in forbidding an establishment of religion in the law and is supposed to protect the people's right to assemble peaceably? The entire issue of "same-sex" marriage hinges upon the assumption that monogamy is the only form of marriage. I contend that it is based upon human biological reproduction and is outside of the government's authority to regulate in regard to the First Amendment...

To bolster some of my assertions:

-

"What gay ideologues, inflated like pink balloons with poststructuralist hot air, can't admit, of course, is that heterosexuality is nature's norm, enforced by powerful hormonal cues at puberty. In the past decade, one shoddy book after another, rapturously applauded by p.c. reviewers, has exaggerated the incidence of homosexuality in the animal world and, without due regard for reproductive adaptations caused by environmental changes, toxins or population pressure, reductively interpreted bonding or hierarchical behavior as gay in the human sense."

About the writer: Camille Paglia is professor of humanities and media studies at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia.

-

The issue: Polyandry, polygyny, open societal promiscuity versus societal sanctioning of monogamy for heterosexuals and homosexuals by establishing religion in the law with a creationist/moralist patent.

The issue of polygamy is an Achille's heel for both popular sides of the same-sex marriage issue. The religious cannot find a prohibition of it in their sacred texts. The advocates have to resort to a litany of moralistic meandering based upon the creationist philosophy they claim to oppose to justify it. Both want special rights for preferred groups and are not interested in the individual freedoms of free association. They both want an establishment of religion in the law no matter how much they will deny that.

Unless you like conforming to the religionist dictates, I suggest you and others re-examine the B.S. the guardians of political correctness on the Religious Left have been feeding you.

The First Amendment is very unambiguous. The creationist cultural patent of monogamy is an establishment of religion in the law. The idea that some people get a preferred status based upon their personal relationships goes against the idea of individual rights and the idea of equal protection before the law. What of the people's right peaceably to assemble? It does not take an advanced legal education to comprehend the very clear language of the First Amendment. I say the federal and state governments have no Constitutional authority to be in the marriage business at all, except where each individual has a biological responsibility for any offspring they produce. With "reproductive rights," there must be reproductive responsibilities.

In addition, prohibition of polygyny, polyandry and various forms of polygamy (which includes bisexuals) is not consistent with Roe v. Wade - - society has no right to intervene in private reproductive choices. The recent case of a polygynist being prosecuted in Utah is a great example. Do the women associated with the man who fathered those children have a "right to choose" who they want to mate and produce offspring with? Does the man have a right to choose concerning the production of his progeny? Roe v. Wade says societal intervention in private reproductive choices is a violation of individual liberties. What implication does this also have concerning welfare and public funding of abortions? The issue of polygamy tears down a lot of the sacred cows...

BEFORE YOU REACT TO WHAT I AM SAYING, THINK ABOUT WHY I SAY THIS...

The so-called empowerment of women and rights of women have been appropriated by a few to mean rights of the few and no longer means an individual woman’s right to equal treatment. Some would emphasize the "inalienable right" of women to decide whether or not to bear a child. This has the effect of defining women as reproductive units rather than as human beings. Real women’s rights would emphasize greater opportunities for education and employment instead of emphasizing a cult of fertility which leads to economic dependency on men and the rest of society, including homosexual men and women who do not reproduce.

The inaccuracies concerning the political economy of sex as portrayed by pro-"choice" advocates deserve a thorough review: Reproductive "choice" is made when two heterosexual people decide to engage in adult relations, not after the fact. The desire to have children is a heterosexual desire. Provided it is a consenting relationship, no woman is forced to become pregnant. Modern science and capitalism (see: Ayn Rand’s Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal and Camille Paglia’s Sexual Personae) have provided methods to give women pre-emptive power over the forces of nature. No woman has control over her body; only nature does. It is modern Western Civilization that gives women power over nature, not Roe v. Wade. [Incidentally, Roe v. Wade, if strictly interpreted, would prohibit public funding for abortion since public funding for abortion is a form of societal intervention in reproduction - - the very thing prohibited by Roe v. Wade.] One may reply Roe v. Wade is part of a larger good called "women’s rights," but this is really a disguise, consigning other women (those who don’t reproduce or those who oppose abortion) to second class citizenship.

This topic is applicable to homosexuality, both the male and female variety, as well as to sexual crimes. The choice to engage in any type of sexual activity is an individual’s, provided of course, he or she is not victim of a sexual assault. It is absurd to claim the rapist has no control over his actions and it is equally ridiculous to say a homosexual does not have a choice not to involve him or herself with another. The same is true for heterosexual females - - being a woman is not an excuse for making poor choices. The idea that "the choice to have an abortion should be left up to a woman" does not take into account the lack of a choice to pay for such services rendered: The general public is forced to pay massive subsidies for other people sex lives. Emotive claims that the decision to have an abortion is a private one is refuted by the demands of those same people who want public funding for their private choices and/or mistakes.

An adult male or female can be sent to the penitentiary for engaging in carnal pleasures with a minor. One female schoolteacher had become the focus of national attention because she produced a child with her juvenile student. She went to prison while pregnant the second time from the very same child student. Courts allowing a minor female to have an abortion without parental consent or notification can destroy evidence of a felony (such as molestation, rape or incest). Those courts and judges therein have become complicit in the destruction of evidence and are possible accessories in the commission of a felony.

Another source of amazement is the concept of those who hold candlelight vigils for heinous murderers about to be executed, a large number of whom think it is acceptable to murder an unborn child without the benefit of a trial. Is the "right to life" of one responsible for much murder and mayhem more important than that of a truly innocent unborn child? Perhaps we should call capital punishment "post-natal abortion" and identify abortion as a "pre-natal death sentence" or "pre-natal summary execution." Your "reproductive freedom" is my economic and environmental tyranny.

18 posted on 05/20/2002 9:13:25 PM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood
Your comments are always welcomed and I thank you for your pro-life stance.

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.

19 posted on 05/20/2002 10:06:35 PM PDT by JMJ333
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood
Catholicism teaches that sacramental marriage is a lifestyle into which a husband and wife invite God to be a constitutive dimension. The wedding is a celebration which establishes this three-way bond.

And here is a link you may find interesting about Christian marriage:

Sacrament of Marriage

20 posted on 05/20/2002 10:14:54 PM PDT by JMJ333
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: RLK
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.

21 posted on 05/21/2002 1:27:48 AM PDT by lavaroise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: lavaroise
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.

22 posted on 05/21/2002 2:01:40 AM PDT by RLK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: lavaroise
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.
23 posted on 05/21/2002 2:11:42 AM PDT by RLK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: RLK
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.

24 posted on 05/21/2002 2:41:57 AM PDT by Yeti
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Yeti
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.

25 posted on 05/21/2002 2:51:45 AM PDT by RLK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
Bump for later find

Regards

alfa6 ;>}

26 posted on 05/21/2002 3:03:09 AM PDT by alfa6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: RLK
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.

27 posted on 05/21/2002 3:35:47 AM PDT by lavaroise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: RLK
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.

28 posted on 05/21/2002 5:22:31 AM PDT by Jim Noble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RLK
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.

29 posted on 05/21/2002 5:40:00 AM PDT by JMJ333
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: JMJ333
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...

30 posted on 05/21/2002 6:13:22 AM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: JMJ333
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...
31 posted on 05/21/2002 6:22:24 AM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: RLK
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

32 posted on 05/21/2002 6:32:29 AM PDT by antidisestablishment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: antidisestablishment
ping to myself for later reading
33 posted on 05/21/2002 6:35:02 AM PDT by Puddleglum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood
Thanks for the explanation. =)

I appreciate your contribution.

34 posted on 05/21/2002 7:06:37 AM PDT by JMJ333
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: RLK
Bingo.

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

35 posted on 05/21/2002 7:33:23 AM PDT by Cobra Scott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
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.
36 posted on 05/21/2002 7:38:04 AM PDT by Cobra Scott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Cobra Scott
True, but not accepted in this society and in what was the standard in Christiandom. The outline is accurate.
37 posted on 05/21/2002 7:43:25 AM PDT by JMJ333
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood
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?
38 posted on 05/21/2002 7:51:48 AM PDT by Cobra Scott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood
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?
39 posted on 05/21/2002 7:51:56 AM PDT by Cobra Scott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: JMJ333
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.

40 posted on 05/21/2002 8:00:47 AM PDT by Cobra Scott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Cobra Scott
Pedantry has vocal protectors in the ACLU and MBLA.

Careful there. FR has it's fair share of pedants, IMHO.

41 posted on 05/21/2002 8:04:14 AM PDT by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Cobra Scott
>>Why can I not have multiple wives if "Joe and Hank" can pretend to be some kind of cohesive family unit?<<

Not much experience with women, eh?

42 posted on 05/21/2002 10:01:11 AM PDT by Jim Noble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: JMJ333
For later reading.
43 posted on 05/21/2002 10:11:25 AM PDT by colorado tanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble
I'm all for competition :D
44 posted on 05/21/2002 10:18:19 AM PDT by Cobra Scott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Cobra Scott
>>I'm all for competition<<

LOL

Payback's a motherf*****, though.

45 posted on 05/21/2002 10:51:33 AM PDT by Jim Noble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble
Seriously, though, it is amazing how many people I have encountered who support homosexual relationships, but frown on polygamy, mixed marriages, extreme differences in ages of spouses, you name it. I have to wonder, what is wrong with that picture?
46 posted on 05/21/2002 11:14:03 AM PDT by Cobra Scott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: RLK
It strikes me that the notion that sex is moral only if used for reproduction accomplishes the same thing that libertinism does: it tends to devalue and perhaps, consider ultimately as sinful, the bonding and increased intimacy that sex elicits. In both cases sex and love are disconnected, and love becomes a problem.
47 posted on 05/21/2002 1:35:25 PM PDT by Mortimer Snavely
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Cobra Scott
The issue I present is a secular Achilles' heel for the advocates of homosexual monogamy. Religious folks need to make more argument based upon these secular positions so they cannot be labeled as religious fanatics...
48 posted on 05/21/2002 4:14:34 PM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Mortimer Snavely
It strikes me that the notion that sex is moral only if used for reproduction accomplishes the same thing that libertinism does: it tends to devalue and perhaps, consider ultimately as sinful, the bonding and increased intimacy that sex elicits. In both cases sex and love are disconnected, and love becomes a problem.

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

Now, we are getting toward one of my areas of concern and ane of the areas that produces alienation from conservative/religious types. Sex emphasized primarily as a reproductive process imposes a stern sterile and somewhat drab utilitarian air about the area that is off-putting to the argument. In this sense, as you have pointed out, the separation between sex and a type of bonding and intimacy becomes common to an axis within conservatism/religion and emotionally sterile libertarianism/liberalism. As has been pointed out to me elsewhere, many people on the political cultural right have problems relating to closeness and intimacy --as do many on the political cultural left. This has tainted, I think with some justification, the image of the political/cultural right. It's a killer when talking about responsible sexuality.

49 posted on 05/21/2002 5:07:18 PM PDT by RLK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: JMJ333;Dr. Brian Kopp;argee;khepera
Thanks for the "ping"!

I agree, sexuality and procreation should be linked; de-linking them is one of the sources of cultural degeneration that America has kneeled before over the last 3-4 decades of this worst of eras.

Question: how to reverse the trend? I'd say decentralize everything.

50 posted on 05/21/2002 9:37:43 PM PDT by The Giant Apricots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-109 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson