Tuesday, November 18, 2008

Straight Talk on Sex

The irrational and irreverent language of the No on 8 mob is a portent of future persecution of anyone of any tradition who attempts to defend morality in the public square.

In my lifetime we have gone from not even speaking about many sexual activities in public to displays of perversion I will not describe.

In the 1970s the gay activists wanted privacy rights and Governor Jerry Brown signed the bill that ended prosecution of consensual private activity between adults. Though I disagree with many choices some adults make, permitting private activity is better than inquisitional, time-wasting activity by law enforcement.

In the 1980s, gay/lesbian partners began to receive inheritance rights as well as benefits from private corporations. We also witnessed an explosion of "gay studies" in universities. Page Smith, historian and venerable founder of UCSC and no conservative, lamented the loss of serious academic and moral reflection with the creation of these nonsensical programs. His book, Killing the Spirit, is must reading for anyone interested in the decline of academics in the USA.

In the 1990s, civil unions and domestic partnerships became the rage. Anyone objecting was branded homophobic, intolerant and out of touch with reality. Gay and lesbian activity was mainstreamed in Hollywood and active recruiting of young people on secondary school campuses began in earnest.

As the 21st century dawned, the radicals set their sights on redefining marriage and Californians said a resounding "No!" to such a notion in 2000. Four radical judges decided to overturn the will of the people from the bench and Proposition 8 became a Constitutional necessity to protect the most important unit of social cohesion known to humankind.

The agenda of the radicals is the complete subversion of all traditional values. Anarchic, communistic, and nihilistic ideologies drive this movement. Any restriction on "freedom" is considered wrong. The irony is found in the intolerance of the radicals for any public dissent.

It is interesting that current protests are not happening outside Black or Hispanic Churches (70%+ for Prop 8), but only outside of conservative churches or Mormon stakes. Another fact should be noted: no orthodox synagogues or muslim mosques have been targeted. Only white-dominated conservative churches. Who are oppressed minorities now?

I do not see any of these protestors agitating for justice in Darfur, concerned about religious persecution around the world, working against genital mutilation in Africa or protesting the treatment of women in Muslim nations.

The fact of the matter is this: The Judeo-Christian and Enlightened foundations of the USA have created such freedom that these affluent, overfed folks have the time to think about gender and lifestyle and the liberty to create any value system they want!

In the 1970s and 1980s feminist and gay writers called gender a "social construct" and promoted freedom for men and women to pursue any behavior they desired. As genetic research increases, there is a frantic search for proof that sexual orientation is "wired" and therefore protected as a civil right. Note to radicals: YOU CANNOT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. If orientation is a social construct and fluid during a lifetime, it is a choice and not protected as a natural right. There is no "gay gene" - therefore, the only way to grow a movement is recruitment and the normalizing of homoerotic feelings and actions, especially among vulnerable children and young adults.

The activists rejoice when a previously heterosexual man or woman in "outed" - but they howl in angry protest every time a homosexual leaves they gay/lesbian lifestyle and goes straight. The howls turn to visceral screams and threats if they become a Christian and urge people to repent of sin!

So far this blog may appear to be another review of old arguments. There are, however, several insights that will put all of the above thoughts in a larger context and challenge not only the gay activists but the straight conservatives.

Traditional morality, whether, Jewish, Christian, Muslim or even agnostic/humanist, affirms that sexual intimacy is reserved for the bonds of heterosexual marriage. The fact that some many choose to violate this demanding norm does not invalidate the seriousness behind the commandments. The failure of heterosexual, religious marriages does not make gay marriage right. The divorce rate among straight couples is not an argument for alternatives - it is a call to repentance and reformation on the part of those professing traditional values.

Defenders of Traditional Marriage must unite their convictions with a new determination to end the tidal wave of broken families and immoral, extramarital sexual activity. Celibacy outside of marriage and fidelity within, all in a context of humility, love and respect is the only way forward.

To speak against homosexual activity is not to condemn anyone, but to call forth a higher faith and morality that is better for the person. Homoerotic behavior is a sin - but so is heterosexual arousal outside of marriage. These sexual sins are part of a long list of vices that include envy, greed, hatred and other attitudes and actions destructive of community life.

Without transcendent, timeless morality, there can be no real virtue and without virtue, personal responsibility declines. When this happens, self-regulation gives way to totalitarianism and the center of our republic cannot hold. History demonstrates that a loss of ethical cohesion opens the door for oppression thought impossible just a generation before.

To all conservatives I issue a challenge to humility, repentance and love that embraces all people as eternally valuable while simultaneously refusing to compromise moral standards. For the religious, there is forgiveness for the truly penitent. For the non-religious, there is the determination not to lose personal sovereignty to the nightmare of governmental plutocracy.

To the gay activists I offer an invitation to real dialogue and a challenge - can you live peaceable among those who disagree with you? You have all the civil rights of every other citizen. You even have the right to a religious rite to solemnify your commitment to your partner. But you do not have the right to overturn anthropological, biological, historical, and sociological evidence concerning marriage and the future of our species.

My fellow thinkers, we created this mess forty years ago when we watched no-fault divorce sweep our land. We created this mess as we idly watched Roe v. Wade subvert the fruit of sexual union. We created this anarchy as we indulged in attitudes and behaviors that undermined our own values. As we stand up to these protests, we need to stand on our knees, imploring God for mercy and blessing those who make themselves our enemies. We must also not be weary in well-doing or allow ourselves a moment of compromise. This battle is for the very soul of our land and the hope of freedom for humankind!

By the way, to any radicals reading - it still takes an egg and a sperm to make a human being. Doesn't that say something about Nature's design?

Wednesday, November 05, 2008

The Morning (Week) After

It appears that our next President will be Senator Barak Hussein Obama. I am not happy about this, but the people have spoken and on January 20 we will peacefully inaugurate a new President.

Senator McCain was his normal gracious self in conceding and I am heartened by the skill of a future candidate for the Presidency, Governor Sarah Palin.

The wonderful thing about our system is that we elect our officials for specific terms, not a lifetime. I am already starting to work toward the 2010 elections and I predict that a resurgence of sanity can occur if some of Obama's policies and responses to crises prove disappointing. It is NOT my wish that he or any leader fail, and I offer my prayers and good will that his moves toward the center are sincere. But Reagan's "trust and verify" applies to this most radical of candidates.

I am heartened by the victories for traditional marriage in spite of the palpably dishonest efforts of the California Attorney General and the ACLU national efforts.

How did this happen? Here are some insights on how our nation lurched to the left in this moment in time:

* The vacuum of leadership. In 1860, 1932, 1968, 1980 and 1992 the failure of the sitting President to lead well and communicate inspirationally swept the other party into the White House

* The economic crisis. I still believe some of our current situation was artificially manipulated; however, anxiety about family budgets propels change. The disturbing thing about this election is the willingness of so many to expect the government to bail them out of their own poor decisions. Even today we see the dictatorial powers of a Treasury Secretary beholden to financial and political interests.

* The stranglehold of the Left over most of the media. Even the Washington Post has reported the utter absence of objectivity. No one expects talk-show hosts to be unbiased; but CNN is no more than a shill for the Left and all sanity has departed from MSNBC and several other print and visual organs. By the way, watch out for the "Fairness Doctrine." It seem to only apply to radio. The fact that the Left cannot compete should not be a cause for a violation of the First Amendment. The most painful part of the next four years will be listening to the self-righteous inanities of Bill Moyers!

* The complete failure of the Republican Party to stay true to its basic principles and field candidates that inspire people. In California, the current party machinery is so broken that it needs complete reengineering.

* The effective campaign waged by Obama, including unprecedented amounts of cash (illegally) obtained from foreign sources, utter ruthlessness toward all opponents and a personal and political narrative that changes at a moment's notice. Obama is the first Information Age candidate and the combination of skillful manipulation and thirst for inspiration was compelling.

* The failure of religious communities to see that their dearest principles are violated by the Democratic Platform. I am stunned by the number of Evangelical Christians, Jews and Roman Catholics who voted for hope and change with no regard to Obama's radical positions of abortion, infanticide and forcible redistribution of resources.

* There is another, more subtle reason for the recent vote: The lack of a moral and spiritual "center" that anchors our public discourse. Just 50 years ago Democrats and Republicans argued vehemently offer certain policies. But they agreed on core issues: freedom, representative government, opportunity, patriotism and personal responsibility. For any sane change to occur, there must be an awakening from within, not a nanny-state imposed regime!

It is vital that values voters not despair - let's rest a few days and then hold the new Administration accountable from Day One!