Are the culture wars really just about sex?

posted at 12:41 pm on July 30, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

In large part, the culture wars revolve around sex — sexual politics, sexual conventions, and the impact of sex on culture and cultural institutions. But is sex the actual prime issue in the culture wars? Damon Linker’s column at The Week argued that it is:

The culture war isn’t really about culture, and it never has been.

It’s about sex.

Leading social conservative Rod Dreher conceded as much last week — and I think he’s absolutely correct. Writing about what divides traditionalist religious believers from those who are more liberal or progressive, Dreher posed a pair of questions: “Take sex out of the picture, and what do you have? If we’re not talking about sex, what are we talking about?”

The answer is: nothing. We are talking — and fighting, and slinging mud, and spewing bile — about nothing but sex. And in particular, about two competing, largely incompatible visions of the proper place of sex in a good human life.

Damon spews no bile, but offers a very thoughtful essay in support of his argument that the culture war boils down to sex. In fact, Damon also argues that the “losing” side — the traditionalists — should be respected, since the implications of the sexual revolution are not yet fully known. He poses some of those issues in terms of tough questions that are still unanswered:

Do children do best with two parents of opposite genders? Or are two parents of the same gender just as good? Or better? How about one parent of either gender? What about three, four, five, or more people in a constantly evolving polyamorous arrangement?

Can the institution of marriage survive without the ideals of fidelity and monogamy? What kind of sexual temptations and experiences will technology present us with a year — or a decade, or a century — from now? Will people be able to think of reasons or conjure up the will to resist those temptations? Will they even try? Does it even matter?

After mulling Damon’s essay for a day or so, I wrote a response at The Week, which went up today, arguing that these questions show that the culture wars are not about sex, at least not as the prime concern. It’s about the impact that the sexual revolution has on culture and cultural institutions, especially the basic unit of civilization — the family. Speaking for the traditionalists, I argue that the devastation of the family over the last several decades makes that point, and Damon’s questions reflect the dangers:

Since the advent of The Pill, divorce has skyrocketed, as have out-of-wedlock births and the percentage of children raised in single-parent homes.

The traditionalists saw this coming. Pope Paul VI got roundly criticized for his encyclical Humanae Vitae, but it predicted 46 years ago this week most of the ills that have arisen from disconnecting sex from procreation and family life. The pontiff wrote:

Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards…

…a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection. [Humanae Vitae]

The issue in this warning isn’t the sex, but the degrading influence on the stability of the community that contraceptives create. …

To be sure, Pope Paul VI framed this in terms of Catholic teaching and faith. However, when he wrote that in “preserving intact the whole moral law of marriage, the Church is convinced that she is contributing to the creation of a truly human civilization,” the issue was not sex itself, but the health of human communities. The traditionalist view is that sex cannot be separated from its consequences for civilization, and that the effects of attempting to do so over the last several decades demonstrate the damage it does to try.

So yes, the culture “wars” relate in large part to sexual politics — but in the end, they are about culture and civilization, not just the sex itself.

Be sure to read them both in full, and let us know what you think in the comments.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Man, the welfare checks and talking points memos must’ve been in the mail – all the f*ckwitted liberal wombats are out in force today.

Midas on July 30, 2014 at 5:44 PM

Ha ha ha.

gwelf on July 30, 2014 at 5:59 PM

That’s a great point. PP just knew about a 12 year old being raped but they weren’t statutorily required to report it so they’re still blameless. You and PP can take the moral high ground now. PP was just providing health services for women. Hey, if that means performing abortions on 12 year olds who were raped brought in by their attackers then so be it. It’s for the children. It’s healthcare.

But I don’t want to be forced to buy some woman’s birth control and it’s War On Womynses!

gwelf on July 30, 2014 at 5:57 PM

Ever hear of the HIPPA privacy rules: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Insurance_Portability_and_Accountability_Act?

jim56 on July 30, 2014 at 6:01 PM

First, this whole conspiracy thing ignores the fact that the sexual revolution was the product of a number of influences – the invention of the pill, greater affluence, feminism, traditional birth control activists, rising education levels and the inevitable decline of the sheltered, conservative peer-pressure society yah existed before mass communications. A few yahoos trying to smash the state through free love were hardly the driving force.

Second, the idea that these folks were sitting around saying “let’s get poor people to have lots of sex and illegitimate children so that we can construct a vast welfare state” is ludicrous. That horse, by the way, had been out of the barn since Bismarck began creating the modern welfare state in Germany, to head off the Marxists.

urban elitist on July 30, 2014 at 6:05 PM

IdrilofGondolin on July 30, 2014 at 5:53 PM

Nicely put.

Illinidiva has major problems with what she thinks the Catholic Church teaches and believes, although most of what she thinks is incorrect.

She freely acknowledges she doesn’t attend Mass, doesn’t have faithful Catholics as friends and gets her “knowledge” from blogs and some dubious incidents she says happened to her in the past.

She’s very young and not well educated or well informed, but by golly! she must be incredibly happy even though she sounds miserable most of the time.

The ideas I see exhibited here about life in the 40s and 50s just illustrate how well the Left has done at rewriting our cultural history.

Dolce Far Niente on July 30, 2014 at 6:11 PM

Ever hear of the HIPPA privacy rules: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Insurance_Portability_and_Accountability_Act?

jim56 on July 30, 2014 at 6:01 PM

HIPPA doesn’t apply to criminal committing crimes.

But PP doesn’t even report crimes now that they are required to – so are you somehow claiming that they would have reported crimes even if they had your flawed understanding of HIPPA?

gwelf on July 30, 2014 at 6:28 PM

You’ll note the prior law was changed in 2004. I can’t find it now, but it didn’t say what you thought it should. What you posted is current (or recently changed) law.

And you’re confusing statutory rape with the duty to report abuse–

jim56 on July 30, 2014 at 5:47 PM

The materials I researched indicated that the change was to add the Romeo / Juliet provision which was addressed on my link / explanation.

As for this…

And you’re confusing statutory rape with the duty to report abuse–

If we’re talking about a pregnant 12 year old seeking medical attention, there’s no nit to pick, hair to split over statutory rape or abuse. The medical / social workers have a moral obligation to report the pregnant child to the authorities and THEY DETERMINE if it is subject to prosecution.

By the way, a pregnant 12 year old is, even in Ohio, statutory rape. The Romeo / Juliet change allows the partner, age 13-17 to be not charged as long as it wasn’t forced, coerced, or done from a position of superiority (teacher, guardian, etc). But again, that’s a legal decision, not one for a social worker or medical worker. They have one obligation -to report it.

Again, that you choose to pick a nit over a pregnant 12 year old, abused and raped by her step-father by trying to 1) argue that statutory rape and sexual abuse are substantially different, and 2) that the social and or medical workers don’t have an obligation to report to the authorities (so they can decide criminality which is their expertise) a pregnant 12 year old, you remain as reprehensible and morally, ethically, and intellectually bankrupt as those social and or medical workers.

Time to get out of that very deep hole you put yourself into. Just say sorry and move along.

Athos on July 30, 2014 at 6:29 PM

Ever hear of the HIPPA privacy rules: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Insurance_Portability_and_Accountability_Act?

jim56 on July 30, 2014 at 6:01 PM

You just can’t stop digging and admit you were so incredibly wrong, can you?

Athos on July 30, 2014 at 6:30 PM

Again, that you choose to pick a nit over a pregnant 12 year old, abused and raped by her step-father by trying to 1) argue that statutory rape and sexual abuse are substantially different, and 2) that the social and or medical workers don’t have an obligation to report to the authorities (so they can decide criminality which is their expertise) a pregnant 12 year old, you remain as reprehensible and morally, ethically, and intellectually bankrupt as those social and or medical workers.

Time to get out of that very deep hole you put yourself into. Just say sorry and move along.

Athos on July 30, 2014 at 6:29 PM

Well said and well done.

gwelf on July 30, 2014 at 6:38 PM

First, this whole conspiracy thing ignores the fact that the sexual revolution was the product of a number of influences – the invention of the pill, greater affluence, feminism, traditional birth control activists, rising education levels and the inevitable decline of the sheltered, conservative peer-pressure society yah existed before mass communications.

urban elitist on July 30, 2014 at 6:05 PM

.
“The inevitable decline of the sheltered, conservative peer-pressure society” was NOT “inevitable.”
.
Christians in the U.S. dropped the ball after WWII. They stopped being the salt-of-the-earth that they were and STILL ARE supposed to be.

We would not have ended up with Warren Court pronouncing public recognition of God, “unconstitutional” were it not for the Christians abdicating and defaulting on their duty to our country.

That’s what caused the TOTALLY AVOIDABLE “decline of the sheltered, conservative peer-pressure society.”

BTW … another word for “peer-pressure” is stigma.

All that’s needed is a reversal of the ban on “public recognition of God.”

Bring back the sense of stigma.

listens2glenn on July 30, 2014 at 6:41 PM

Ever hear of the HIPPA privacy rules: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Insurance_Portability_and_Accountability_Act?

jim56 on July 30, 2014 at 6:01 PM

No

It’s HIPAA, hippo.

Schadenfreude on July 30, 2014 at 6:43 PM

First, this whole conspiracy thing ignores the fact that the sexual revolution was the product of a number of influences – the invention of the pill, greater affluence, feminism, traditional birth control activists, rising education levels and the inevitable decline of the sheltered, conservative peer-pressure society yah existed before mass communications. A few yahoos trying to smash the state through free love were hardly the driving force.

Second, the idea that these folks were sitting around saying “let’s get poor people to have lots of sex and illegitimate children so that we can construct a vast welfare state” is ludicrous. That horse, by the way, had been out of the barn since Bismarck began creating the modern welfare state in Germany, to head off the Marxists.

urban elitist on July 30, 2014 at 6:05 PM

I already covered Bismarck up thread. As well as the other things you mention as being factors – birth control and industrial advances.

And the exact language you use wasn’t prevalent but the elites on the left explicitly disliked the family but the sentiment was there that you say wasn’t. Hey man, don’t trust anyone over 30!

Youth has always been rebellious but the sexual revolution turned it into a cultural movement and it has left devastated lives and communities in it’s wake. And we’re not saying some yahoos were trying to destroy the state – they were trying to destroy the family and any other traditional institution they could find. Feminism was and still is explicitly anti-family.

And some grand conspiracy isn’t required – the family is the natural enemy of the state so it’s only inevitable that they’d clash. The sexual revolution was a confluence of several factors that were anti-tradition and anti-family that accelerated this clash.

It’s also very telling that lefties still can’t admit that 60+ year old policies – still in place and stronger than ever – have done enormous harm to the American family. You praise the destruction of traditional cultural values (while also distorting them to make strawman arguments) then mostly ignore the consequences. If you want to quibble about what caused the implosion of the family fine but you seem schizophrenic on this issue – in one post claiming that family formation is doing just fine then in another post mentioning the explosion in illegitimate children in poor populations.

And enough with the straw-m

gwelf on July 30, 2014 at 6:47 PM

the inevitable decline of the sheltered, conservative peer-pressure society yah existed before mass communications.

urban elitist on July 30, 2014 at 6:05 PM

And now we’ve got the much better lefty peer-pressure society using mass communications to get people fired who don’t obey the party line.

Seriously, you want to complain about conservative peer pressure? Lefties are the worst offenders on this account.

gwelf on July 30, 2014 at 6:50 PM

The Church has effectively excluded women from the priesthood and other positions of authority. Women, including nuns, are at the bottom of the heap and our voices are regularly disregarded when it comes to the Church because of the Church’s hierarchical nature. The Church is run by elderly men, many of whom are gay, and all of whom have never been married. They have no understanding of woman or women’s concerns. Most of the modern theology on women was written by JPII, who was a misogynist and felt that a women’s main role was to be a brood mare and a wife. Even Pope Francis, who is more progressive on many issues, cannot talk about women without either sounding condescending or cracking misogynist jokes. Humane Vitae is probably the most extreme example of the Catholic Church’s anti-woman stance; it doesn’t allow the woman to use birth control and essentially tells her her only worth is as a brood mare. As a result, 90%+ of Catholic women decided to ignore the Church and use real birth control methods. Because Paul VI took such an extreme, 1950s stance and chose to send women back to the kitchen, the Church lost its ability to act as a reasonable alternative to the modern culture. The modern sexualized culture is much more appealing to most people (both men and women) than the extreme 1950s sexual mentality of the Catholic Church.

Illinidiva on July 30, 2014 at 5:29 PM

Were you replying to me, or did you mean to reply to someone else? If to me, then I think you missed the part where I said I wasn’t a fan of the Catholic Church. I take issue with many of its stances on issues including, but not limited to, not allowing priests to marry and birth control (although for moral reasons I am opposed to the use of abortive birth control). I don’t think women should be pastors (we Baptists don’t call them priests typically), but that is because I believe there to be sound Scriptural foundation for that, rather than having it told to me by higher-ups in my church (though that IS the official stance that my church has taken, and one of the reasons I go there). I have no idea what is in Humane Vitae, so your complaints about it do little for me. I’m sure I’d have some issues with it as well.

I don’t think Christianity practiced properly is as restrictive as you leftists would have others believe (I know Christianity as *I* understand it is not), but even if it is, the hyper-sexualized culture that we live in today is far more harmful to each person and our relationships with others. I think it is just part of a wholescale abandonment of public morality (rooted itself in the falling-away from godliness in society), and the public acceptance of homosexuality, transgender crap, rampant promiscuity, and other disgusting stuff is as much a result as it is a symptom of our culture slouching toward Gomorrah.

Othniel on July 30, 2014 at 6:58 PM

The concept of family is key to Law of Nations or the jus gentium. This is something that goes pretty far back in the Common Law, at least to the 14th century as recorded by Bracton:

What the jus gentium is.

[017] 33The jus gentium is the law which men of all nations use, which falls short of
[018] natural law since that is common to all animate things born on the earth in the
[019] sea or in the air. From it comes the union of man and woman, entered into by the
[020] mutual consent of both, which is called marriage. Mere physical union is [in the
[021] realm] of fact and cannot properly be called jus since it is corporeal and may be
[022] seen;34 all jura are incorporeal and cannot be seen. From that same law there
[023] also35 comes the procreation and rearing of children. The jus gentium is common
[024] to men alone, as religion observed toward God, the duty of submission to parents
[025] and country, or the right to repel violence and injuria. For it is by virtue of this
[026] law that whatever a man does in defence of his own person he is held to do lawfully;
[027] since nature makes us all in a sense akin to one another it follows that for one to
[028] attack another is forbidden.36

Natural Law grants us gender but it is through the putting aside of our Natural Negative Liberties so as to protect another to form a family that we get Law of Nations as a vital part of our human experience. The ‘culture wars’ cannot change Nature or Natural Law and it is that we abide by, and when we come together to create a family via procreation that the Nation is created.

The ‘culture wars’ have never been about sex, but to remove procreation from the meaningful reason for sex, and then to push adoption of non-procreative alternatives to dilute the meaning of family. Doing that is an attack on not just the family but the structure of Nations which we create to uphold our society as a whole. Without the strength and commitment to families for the means of stable procreation and to have continuity of culture, the ‘culture wars’ seek to nullify that stability and introduce chaos amongst men and women and then to bring down Nations as a result.

What you get with that is decadence and debauchery, the erosion of the defense of society and its institutions, and then the collapse of the society and its culture. What follows after that is this thing known as a ‘Dark Age’ and a steep decline in the material capacity of individuals to survive, and a helping of Iron Times as some seek to help themselves to the material goods of others. It doesn’t matter how smart you are, how well intentioned you are or if you think you are on the ‘right side’ of history: once you debase the meaning of family you then are putting in place a cultural form of societal suicide.

And sex has nothing to do with it as it is just a means to an end, not an end in and of itself.

ajacksonian on July 30, 2014 at 7:03 PM

the inevitable decline of the sheltered, conservative peer-pressure society yah existed before mass communications.

urban elitist on July 30, 2014 at 6:05 PM

I must be getting dumber by the day. I can debate ideas and I can debate results after ideas are put in motion.

Since the country is moving left and more progressive; and the sheltered conservative peer-pressure society is at best a fart in the wind nowadays…..why are things worse? Your answer is that the shrinking voice and influence of conservatives is the blame. So when the conservatives fully embrace progressive ideas, who will you blame when things get worse…as they will.

Look the progressives are winning….own it.

HonestLib on July 30, 2014 at 7:05 PM

Ever hear of the HIPPA privacy rules: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Insurance_Portability_and_Accountability_Act ?

jim56 on July 30, 2014 at 6:01 PM

You just can’t stop digging and admit you were so incredibly wrong, can you?

Athos on July 30, 2014 at 6:30 PM

No. Because I’m right (I believe). I did misspell HIPAA, though.

jim56 on July 30, 2014 at 7:12 PM

No. Because I’m right (I believe).

jim56 on July 30, 2014 at 7:12 PM

That IS your problem. You aren’t right. And believing doesn’t make it so.

Just say sorry and move along.

Athos on July 30, 2014 at 6:29 PM

Athos on July 30, 2014 at 7:33 PM

Why? Because I pointed out women aren’t emotionally satisfied by waiting hand and foot on their husbands and having twelve kids.

Illinidiva on July 30, 2014 at 3:25 PM

What? You’re weird. Now get me a Coke, and make it fizzy like I like it. And get them damn shoes off.

BobMbx on July 30, 2014 at 7:35 PM

Why? Because I pointed out women aren’t emotionally satisfied by waiting hand and foot on their husbands and having twelve kids.

Illinidiva on July 30, 2014 at 3:25 PM

You know there is middle ground between being a subservient wife with 12 kids and being living the Miley Cyrus lifestyle?

terryannonline on July 30, 2014 at 7:37 PM

No. Because I’m right (I believe). I did misspell HIPAA, though.

jim56 on July 30, 2014 at 7:12 PM

You BELIEVE? You honestly believe that there is not a legal and moral duty to report abuse of a 12 yr. old.? What kind of sick, amoral, perverted people surround you? Is this where you get this? If you “beleive” this, then you are not fit to be a parent, relative, or friend in a decent society.

katy the mean old lady on July 30, 2014 at 7:40 PM

jim56 on July 30, 2014 at 6:01 PM

There are provisions in HIPAA that allow for release of patient health information when it is pertinent to a criminal case of abuse (child abuse, sexual abuse, domestic abuse, elder abuse)

lineholder on July 30, 2014 at 7:41 PM

Yes, but you are trying to conceive. Quite different if you are trying to avoid pregnancy.

Illinidiva on July 30, 2014 at 5:15 PM

As I indicated, we used the ovulation cycle for both. We used the it to conceive, decades ago. And we’ve used it to avoid conception for several years now.

Self-control can work surprising wonders.

Axeman on July 30, 2014 at 7:58 PM

Self-control can work surprising wonders.

Axeman on July 30, 2014 at 7:58 PM

.
SELF CONTROL ? ! !
.
What kind of “right-wing” magic-hocus-pocus you tryin’ to whip up there, dude ?
.
“Self-control” … who ever heard of such a thing ?

listens2glenn on July 30, 2014 at 8:12 PM

Why? Because I pointed out women aren’t emotionally satisfied by waiting hand and foot on their husbands and having twelve kids.

Illinidiva on July 30, 2014 at 3:25 PM

What? You’re weird. Now get me a Coke, and make it fizzy like I like it. And get them damn shoes off.

BobMbx on July 30, 2014 at 7:35 PM

Hilarious!

tanked59 on July 30, 2014 at 8:15 PM

“Self-control” … who ever heard of such a thing ?

listens2glenn on July 30, 2014 at 8:12 PM

I think it was that thingy my parents and the nuns were always going on and on about.

katy the mean old lady on July 30, 2014 at 8:20 PM

Christianity is the Bible. That resolves the sex issue.

Those who do not accept the Bible at all, have no concept of Christianity

Of John the Baptist, the moralizer, Jesus said

11 Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. Matt 11

Those who wish to edit the Bible for the sake of sex, or anything else, have no fixed line in the sand to limit the editing

Sex is not the only thing being rationalized

Property rights are also being disposed of

The ten commandments demanded a man not even covet another man’s property

The laws of Moses had penalty for those who moved property lines

Jesus never preached confiscation. Like love, wealth had to be freely given

They are trying very hard to redefine Christianity. At some point, it is better to dump the Book and write your own. Stop the pretense

entagor on July 30, 2014 at 8:29 PM

You know there is middle ground between being a subservient wife with 12 kids and being living the Miley Cyrus lifestyle?

terryannonline on July 30, 2014 at 7:37 PM

Yes.. That is what I am trying to get at. Social conservatives haven’t articulated such an alternative and being Miley Cyrus is more fun than being a homeschool mom for most people. So of course people are going to emulate Miley Cyrus. I know that Ed is a devout Catholic, but to suggest that the Catholic Church is pro-woman is laughable. It is compared to the Taliban, but I don’t think that is anything to write home about.

Illinidiva on July 30, 2014 at 8:53 PM

Ready to respond to this, yet ?

listens2glenn on July 30, 2014 at 2:57 PM

Ready to respond to your fetish for violence? I wasn’t aware I needed to. You might want to seek out therapy but that’s nothing to do with me.

I think I scared him (her?) off … sorry ’bout that … : (

listens2glenn on July 30, 2014 at 3:10 PM

Yes I was so terrified I went off to work.

Tlaloc on July 30, 2014 at 9:05 PM

You know there is middle ground between being a subservient wife with 12 kids and being living the Miley Cyrus lifestyle?

terryannonline on July 30, 2014 at 7:37 PM

that’s ironic right there given the arguments by “traditionalists” that any woman not chained hand and foot to a man (her father or husband) is automatically going to go the Miley route.

Tlaloc on July 30, 2014 at 9:08 PM

“Self-control” … who ever heard of such a thing ?

listens2glenn on July 30, 2014 at 8:12 PM

Funny, christians seem to be entirely reliant on external punishments rather than internal (self) control.

You might want to think twice before making such an argument.

Tlaloc on July 30, 2014 at 9:10 PM

listens2glenn on July 30, 2014 at 8:12 PM

.
Funny, christians seem to be entirely reliant on external punishments rather than internal (self) control.

You might want to think twice before making such an argument.

Tlaloc on July 30, 2014 at 9:10 PM

.
Examples, or you’re full of (expletive).

listens2glenn on July 30, 2014 at 9:26 PM

that’s ironic right there given the arguments by “traditionalists” that any woman not chained hand and foot to a man (her father or husband) is automatically going to go the Miley route.

Tlaloc on July 30, 2014 at 9:08 PM

I think many in the social con crowd would argue we are getting more raunchy Miley Cyruses (which is absolutely true!) not that young women should be popping out babies. They aren’t concerned that young women aren’t having 6 babies……….it’s the risky behavior. Rich women like Miley Cyrus can afford the promiscuous lifestyle. Party all night comes with her rock star job description. Middle class young ladies can’t.

terryannonline on July 30, 2014 at 9:31 PM

You know there is middle ground between being a subservient wife with 12 kids and being living the Miley Cyrus lifestyle?

terryannonline on July 30, 2014 at 7:37 PM

.
that’s ironic right there given the arguments by “traditionalists” that any woman not chained hand and foot to a man (her father or husband) is automatically going to go the Miley route.

Tlaloc on July 30, 2014 at 9:08 PM

.
What are you, an (expletive) “time traveler” ?
.
If you’re hearing arguments from any Christian believers , that “any woman not chained hand and foot to a man (her father or husband) is automatically going to go the Miley route,” then you must predate Susan B Anthony.
.
You show me contemporary Christian men who are treating their women like that.

listens2glenn on July 30, 2014 at 9:35 PM

If you’re hearing arguments from any Christian believers , that “any woman not chained hand and foot to a man (her father or husband) is automatically going to go the Miley route,” then you must predate Susan B Anthony.
.
You show me contemporary Christian men who are treating their women like that.

listens2glenn on July 30, 2014 at 9:35 PM

I am involved in a singles ministry at my church all the guys tell the women “If you aren’t going to have my 12 babies, don’t even look at me.”……….lol!

terryannonline on July 30, 2014 at 9:43 PM

I am involved in a singles ministry at my church all the guys tell the women “If you aren’t going to have my 12 babies, don’t even look at me.”……….lol!

terryannonline on July 30, 2014 at 9:43 PM

I’m assuming that you aren’t Catholic and the guys assume that their girlfriends use appropriate birth control. I don’t date religious Catholic guys because they only see women as brood mares. I actually got lectures about my use of the Pill for medical purposes from Catholic boyfriends so I refuse to date practicing Catholics. Frankly, if you enjoy traditional Catholicism, you are either gay, a woman, or a man who enjoys the religion for other reasons (bossing around their wives).

Illinidiva on July 30, 2014 at 9:56 PM

I’m assuming that you aren’t Catholic and the guys assume that their girlfriends use appropriate birth control. I don’t date religious Catholic guys because they only see women as brood mares. I actually got lectures about my use of the Pill for medical purposes from Catholic boyfriends so I refuse to date practicing Catholics. Frankly, if you enjoy traditional Catholicism, you are either gay, a woman, or a man who enjoys the religion for other reasons (bossing around their wives).

Illinidiva on July 30, 2014 at 9:56 PM

Not Catholic. But I live in a very Catholic region (South Texas)…..we have people seeing the Virgin Mary in tortillas down here. I’ve never met a Catholic that follows the Catholic’s church edicts on birth control.

terryannonline on July 30, 2014 at 10:04 PM

Ready to respond to this, yet ?

listens2glenn on July 30, 2014 at 2:57 PM

.
Ready to respond to your fetish for violence? I wasn’t aware I needed to. You might want to seek out therapy but that’s nothing to do with me.

Tlaloc on July 30, 2014 at 9:05 PM

.
Here are three, from that thread, again :
.

cutting taxes on the wealthy and screwing the poor is not a jobs bill no matter what you title it.

Tlaloc on July 25, 2014 at 5:04 PM

.

I think “productive” means doing the job they were sent to do. Yes sometimes that means writing legislation since they’re..you know…legislators.

You seem to think “productive” means destroying everything we’ve built over the last ~250 years. The constitution was the start of the US, not the end. It was a pretty decent start, and kudos to the founding fathers on it. But it was far from perfect and by itself totally incapable of providing for the government of a modern nation. All those laws you hate? Those are the mortar of our nation. But you want to tear our house apart and replace it with a broken pile of bricks…because of a long outdated philosophical model you refuse to re-evaluate no matter what.

Thank god you guys are so incompetent or you could do real damage.

Tlaloc on July 25, 2014 at 5:08 PM

.

. . . . . Sure there are times when a courageous dissent from popular opinion can be useful and necessary, but the right’s temper tantrum is growing very old very quickly. If you guys can’t govern get the &^%$ out of office and let others who can do so.

Tlaloc on July 25, 2014 at 5:11 PM

.
I repeat . . . . . that kind of talk leaves no room for any other options in response, except surrender (on our part), or blood-shed.

I don’t believe you’re equal to the task of that second option.

Which leaves me to conclude that you’re one of those instigators, who like to incite two opposing sides into trying to kill each other, and then stand waaay back at a safe distance, and enjoy the show.

listens2glenn on July 30, 2014 at 10:13 PM

Yes.. That is what I am trying to get at. Social conservatives haven’t articulated such an alternative and being Miley Cyrus is more fun than being a homeschool mom for most people. So of course people are going to emulate Miley Cyrus. I know that Ed is a devout Catholic, but to suggest that the Catholic Church is pro-woman is laughable. It is compared to the Taliban, but I don’t think that is anything to write home about.

Illinidiva on July 30, 2014 at 8:53 PM

Please share with me the tenets of the Catholic Church which coincide and/or compare with those of the Taliban, and make sure you cite – verbatim w/link – the actual shared doctrine for both when you provide the comparison. I need some good reading material for my ‘morning constitutional’ (and I ain’t talking about a walk around the block)….

tanked59 on July 30, 2014 at 10:15 PM

You show me contemporary Christian men who are treating their women like that.

listens2glenn on July 30, 2014 at 9:35 PM

.
I am involved in a singles ministry at my church all the guys tell the women “If you aren’t going to have my 12 babies, don’t even look at me.”……….lol!

terryannonline on July 30, 2014 at 9:43 PM

.
If those kind of guys can find a willing girl to agree to marry on those terms, then fine. Consenting adults.
.
If they can’t find a girl to agree to that, then let ‘em stay bachelor.

BTW, do those kind off guys keep their wives on the equivalent of a dog leash ? … Or barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen ?

listens2glenn on July 30, 2014 at 10:25 PM

It’s about the impact that the sexual revolution has on culture and cultural institutions, especially the basic unit of civilization — the family.
…I argue that the devastation of the family over the last several decades makes that point

What about adult singles and how societal views about sex are impacting them, especially the ones who are Christian?

If thinking along Christian lines – there is too already much emphasis upon “family” by Christians and conservatives. See:
Do You Rate Your Family Too High (from a Christian magazine)

The Lord Jesus Christ taught that your brothers in sisters in Christ are to take precedence over your family unit, see,
Matthew 10:37
“Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

(See also Matthew 12:46-50)

There are many more adult singles in society these days than a few decades ago. Some people are single by deliberate choice, some by circumstance. The age when people first marry has risen from early or mid twenties to late twenties.

Christians need to present celibacy for adults as a valid lifestyle option (as the Bible does), rather than focusing only on things such as marriage of heterosexuals vs. the legalization of homosexual marriage, should tax payers fund birth control for women, and other matters.

Celibacy is never even brought up any more in the midst of these conversations – contrary to what even Christians, many of whom are also now attacking sexual purity teachings, virginity, and celibacy, are claiming.

A lot of Christians now are criticizing the ideas of celibacy and virginity, and saying that churches are too legalistic about sex and should be more lenient and forgiving. The opposite is actuallytrue.

A lot of seeker-friendly mega churches, evangelicals, many Neo Calvinist/Reformed, and Southern Baptists, are absolutely obsessed with sex. They never sermonize about virginity or celibacy or present either one as an option.

The Bible stands by singleness and being childless and childfree just as much as it does marriage and pro-creating. “Be fruitful” is not applicable to believers under the new covenant.

Under the new covenant, believers are to increase the kingdom of God by preaching the Gospel to the lost (to people who may be un-related to them), not by married believers having babies together.

If Christians (or people with traditional values) want to stem the tide of raunch culture, start supporting adult singleness and virginity and celibacy, rather than hyping how great marriage is.

Some Christians, in an attempt to bolster marriage, “bad mouth” singleness and stereotype adult singles (e.g., saying they are immature, sexually promiscuous, etc).

There is not a single Bible passage which instructs Christians to encourage marriage, or revere marriage, by criticizing or “slamming” adult singles or the state of singleness, so married Christians need to stop doing this (and yes, some of them do in fact do this, such as Southern Baptist leader Al Mohler on his blog and in radio interviews).

There are some single, adult Christians who want to get married but still find themselves single – and they are trying to sexually abstain in a culture – and church culture – that is sex obsessed.

If you want to help adult singles in their daily struggle and fight not to cave in and sleep around like everyone else, help them out.

Some singles can be lonely. Invite one over to watch a movie or to eat dinner once every so often. Ask them over for holidays, if they have no family. For the singles that want to be married and are up to it, try fixing them up with other eligible singles.

If Christians and churches do not take practical steps to help adult singles cope with being single day in and day out, they may fall into promiscuity like all their secular peers.

But the majority of the time, churches and married Christians ignore single adults in their midst, or are suspicious of them, so they keep them at arm’s length.

TigerPaw on July 30, 2014 at 10:25 PM

If those kind of guys can find a willing girl to agree to marry on those terms, then fine. Consenting adults.
.
If they can’t find a girl to agree to that, then let ‘em stay bachelor.

BTW, do those kind off guys keep their wives on the equivalent of a dog leash ? … Or barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen ?

listens2glenn on July 30, 2014 at 10:25 PM

I guess you didn’t get my sarcasm.

terryannonline on July 30, 2014 at 10:34 PM

@ Othniel

I don’t think women should be pastors (we Baptists don’t call them priests typically),

You can be a conservative Christian but believe that the Bible is fine with women preaching/ leading. See for instance,
http://www.cbeinternational.org

And THE 1 TIMOTHY 2:12 BOMB

Also be aware that many of the gender complementarian (aka “biblical womanhood”) views held by Southern Baptists, Reformed, and conservative evangelicals, marginalize women who are divorced, infertile, never-married, widowed, child free, etc.

The gender complementarian position is largely obsessed with married mothers. That position has next to no concern for women (or men, for that matter) who never marry, never have kids, or adults who find themselves single again because their spouse leaves them or divorces them.

TigerPaw on July 30, 2014 at 10:36 PM

listens2glenn on July 30, 2014 at 10:25 PM

.
I guess you didn’t get my sarcasm.

terryannonline on July 30, 2014 at 10:34 PM

.
Uh oh … ( * blush * ) … that’s the second time in two days.

I don’t like this trend…

listens2glenn on July 30, 2014 at 10:38 PM

I think it is just part of a wholescale abandonment of public morality (rooted itself in the falling-away from godliness in society), and the public acceptance of homosexuality, transgender crap, rampant promiscuity, and other disgusting stuff is as much a result as it is a symptom of our culture slouching toward Gomorrah.

Othniel on July 30, 2014 at 6:58 PM

I kind of addressed this already above, but – conservative Christians are just as bad as left wing secularists.

The evangelical (and Baptists, and other churches/ denominations) are just as obsessed with sex as secular culture. If you are a divorced, never married, or widowed adult over the age of 30, and you are celibate, you will not get any support.

Just about every other church sermon or social function is geared towards the 1950s sit com American family of Dad who works 9 to 5, the June Cleaver mom who dusts furniture all day, and who have two school aged children.

If you are a single working woman, a divorced guy, an infertile couple, a widower, many churches are lonely places. And instead of offering sermons lauding and celebrating virginity and celibacy, most preachers opt for sermons with titles such as “How to Have Great Sex With Your Spouse.”

You have preachers like Ed Young Jr who hosted a “Sexperiment” at his church a few years ago, where he put a bed on the roof of his church and climbed into it with his wife.

You have disgraced preacher Mark Driscoll who – in church services – tells married women that the Bible commands them to perform oral sex on their man.

The church today is obsessed with sex, sex, sex. There is not a word of praise about virginity or celibacy.

Further, a lot of Christians are criticizing sexual purity today because they say churches that uphold virginity or celibacy are hurting the feelings of men and women who have pre-marital sex, it creates a feeling of “shame” in them. So they want preachers and churches to stop emphasizing virginity.

The church at large in our nation no longer supports sexual purity, virginity, celibacy, but argue against these things -it started out being attacked by 20- and 30- somethings, but after a few years, older married Christian folks (such as Russell Moore of the SBC’s ERLC) started advocating that churches “water down” sexual purity teachings, since defending them is turning off young people.

Much of Christianity today is just as bad as secular culture regarding sexuality and sexual behavior. It’s not just the liberals and secular feminists who are bad about this, but the church as well.

TigerPaw on July 30, 2014 at 10:44 PM

TigerPaw on July 30, 2014 at 10:25 PM

can i share this with my church single group page on facebook? I won’t share your name.

terryannonline on July 30, 2014 at 10:45 PM

Are the culture wars really just about sex?

No, they’re about family. The fact is that families start with the husband and wife … who have sex, and therefore reproduce.

The goal of SSM is to break the link between marriage and family — by changing the definition of marriage. Unfortunately for them, marriage can’t really be changed by the whim of activists.

Of course, this was also the goal of the sexual revolution — to make sex no longer something meant for husband and wife, but available purely for recreation by people who have no intention of getting married, or may even already be married to other people.

The Biblical position is simple. “Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled.” Sex between husband and wife is normal, and a positive force. We see this clearly by the fact that sexual sins are classified in relation to marriage. Fornication is sex outside of marriage, while adultery is sex with someone married to someone else.

Of course, there have always been those who did not follow the rules. Adultery and fornication are as old as human history. But the sexual revolution was purely based on removing any shame from breaking those rules.

There Goes the Neighborhood on July 30, 2014 at 11:04 PM

I have not followed through the entire three pages of comments from readers, but skimming over some of the comments above about “women marrying and having twelve kids,” etc.

I’m pretty right wing and was a Christian from my youth until recently. I’m not sure what I believe any more about faith, Christianity, God, etc.

I used to think liberals were weird to describe Christians as being the “Taliban” until I started seeing some freaky things online myself.

I think most “middle of the road” Christians are nice, fine people.

However. Some Christians (or people who claim to be Christian) believe in some wacky stuff, such as Reconstructionism, Dominionism, and “quivering”.

These types of Christians want a theocracy. Some of them have said on their blogs, and in their conferences, that they want Old Testament penalities for transgressions put into place, such as, they think homosexuals and adulterers should be stoned to death.

Google the name “Doug Phillips,” or specifically the WND article about Doug Phillips, called “Christian giant sued for ‘using nanny as sex object”

Phillips was a leader in the Christian home schooling movement, and he had very strict, weird ideas about women, sex, marriage, etc.

Do a google for the name “Bill Gothard.”

Gothard was famous in Christian circles. He has a Christian empire where he published lots of books and things that Christians bought, read, and believed. He had very sexist, backwards ideas about women and marriage, too. (And he was involved in a sex related scandal recently.)

The “Quiverfull” types are deeply suspicious of the government, go beyond average gender complementarian positions of gender roles to espouse full-blown patriarchy.

They don’t believe women should use any form of birth control at all. They don’t think women should attend college. They don’t believe in dating, but that the father should choose a husband for the daughter. They don’t think a woman should ever move out of her dad’s house if she is single (even if she is still single at 30 years of age).

There are really and truly people in America who classify themselves as Christians who believe this wacko stuff. I think they are in the minority, but they do exist.

One lady who used to be into the Quivering lifestyle, and who was a Christian, became an atheist. She blogs about her experiences at a Patheos blog, (Love Joy Feminism). I don’t agree with all of her views, but I do agree with a few.

Even Christian guys who appear a little more “middle of the road” harbor some pretty sexist, weird, and insulting views about marriage, sex, and women, such as preacher Mark Driscoll, who is a Protestant pastor at a church in Seattle; please see
“Mark Driscoll in 2000: “We Live in a Completely P-ssified Nation”” for more.

TigerPaw on July 30, 2014 at 11:07 PM

There Goes the Neighborhood on July 30, 2014 at 11:04 PM

Being too concerned with the family unit is ironically part of the problem. Please scroll up to read my previous post, or here is the link to it, my post of July 30, 2014 at 10:25 PM

Marriage and family already gets loads and loads of attention and support from right wingers and Christians, they even have their own little para-church groups for support, such as “Focus on the Family”

In the mean time, you have 44% of adults in America who are single, which would include unmarried evangelicals, some of whom are trying to stay celibate (many of whom want to marry but are having problems getting a spouse).

However, preachers and churches are too busy churning out more “Ten Steps to Having a Great Marriage” sermons, or more “Three Steps to a Better Married Sex Life” books to help adult celibate singles.

Please also see my other post at “July 30, 2014 at 10:44 PM” because even conservative Christians / Christian people today are attacking sexual purity.

TigerPaw on July 30, 2014 at 11:12 PM

can i share this with my church single group page on facebook? I won’t share your name.

terryannonline on July 30, 2014 at 10:45 PM

Oh, my post about singleness? Sure. :)

By the way, I do support marriage and family. I don’t want anyone to misunderstand my posts.

I’m not against marriage or family, but I see that a lot of conservative Christians (particularly Protestant evangelicals, fundamentalists, Baptists, and some Reformed) have been turning a blind eye to any Christian person who does not fit the very narrow niche of “married by age 25 with three small children at home.”

That means anyone who has never married, is widowed, divorced, child free, childless (eg, via infertility), gets overlooked.

I’ve even read blog posts by 40-something, married Christian women who do have children, but their children are 18 or older, are off at college, and these women said they feel empty and useless at church now, because they just started to notice that 99% of church activities and sermons are about marriage and parenting of small children.

Some women wanted to marry and / or have children, but they believe that the proper, ethical, moral order to it is,
1. marriage 2. sex 3. baby.

If you never get to step 1, you cannot progress to step 2 and then 3.

But when posting about marriage issues, singles, and lower rates of birth today, etc, many right-wingers assume that women who don’t marry are secular, left wing, democrat-voting feminists who hate babies or men, or that they put their career first.

Those are painful, offensive assumptions to women who had wanted to marry and/or have kids, but who never met the right guy and thus never married.

This is a link to a page with an interview by author Melanie Notkin, who had wanted to marry and have a baby, but she never met the right guy. And she is not alone, there are other women in the same exact situation:
The Otherhood: Single women face ‘circumstantial infertility’

TigerPaw on July 30, 2014 at 11:21 PM

Yes, it is about marriage and family. The problem is, in short, that there is absolutely no evidence, none whatsoever, that having “traditional” views on gay marriage is correlated with better families. Black community is (attention, teh racism is coming!) quite anti-gay marriage, and they have more “family problems” than any other subset of our society. Divorce rate in Northeast is the lowest in the country, and this is where the gay marriage issue has been positively settled. I live in Massachusetts, and the divorce rate is 2.5 here. It is more than 5 in Tennessee, Alabama, Wyoming or Arkansas.

Sorry, Bible Belt, but you have nothing to offer us in terms of solutions to our family problems to the extent that they exist. Please get somewhere close to us on any meaningful metric, and then we will listen.

PBH on July 30, 2014 at 1:51 PM

First, any attempt to prove a point by comparing northeastern states to Bible Belt states has to be adjusted for the different racial compositions of the states. This matters because the rate of illegitimate children (lack of family) is so much higher in the black community. And that has nothing to do with Bible Belt social conventions, since the social convention is clearly not being followed in said community.

Second, the claim that “there is absolutely no evidence, none whatsoever, that having ‘traditional’ views on gay marriage is correlated with better families,” is false to the point of being a lie. You may want to dismiss the evidence, but there is probably nothing better established in the social sciences than the fact that children do better in homes with their biological father and mother, which is flatly impossible in make-believe “gay” families.

There Goes the Neighborhood on July 30, 2014 at 11:27 PM

F

irst, any attempt to prove a point by comparing northeastern states to Bible Belt states has to be adjusted for the different racial compositions of the states. This matters because the rate of illegitimate children (lack of family) is so much higher in the black community. And that has nothing to do with Bible Belt social conventions, since the social convention is clearly not being followed in said community.

……
There Goes the Neighborhood on July 30, 2014 at 11:27 PM

I don’t think you’re right. Roughly 75% of the illegitimate births in KY, TN, TX, OK and NM were to whites.

http://205.207.175.93/Vitalstats/TableViewer/tableView.aspx

jim56 on July 31, 2014 at 12:06 AM

There Goes the Neighborhood on July 30, 2014 at 11:04 PM

Being too concerned with the family unit is ironically part of the problem. Please scroll up to read my previous post, or here is the link to it, my post of July 30, 2014 at 10:25 PM

Marriage and family already gets loads and loads of attention and support from right wingers and Christians, they even have their own little para-church groups for support, such as “Focus on the Family”

In the mean time, you have 44% of adults in America who are single, which would include unmarried evangelicals, some of whom are trying to stay celibate (many of whom want to marry but are having problems getting a spouse).

However, preachers and churches are too busy churning out more “Ten Steps to Having a Great Marriage” sermons, or more “Three Steps to a Better Married Sex Life” books to help adult celibate singles.

Please also see my other post at “July 30, 2014 at 10:44 PM” because even conservative Christians / Christian people today are attacking sexual purity.

TigerPaw on July 30, 2014 at 11:12 PM

No, the focus on the family is not the problem, or even part of the problem.

It’s very true that Christians are not required to be married and start families. But those who give up starting a family are making a sacrifice, and they are not normative for Christians.

If you decide as a single person that you wold rather devote yourself to serving the Lord full time, without also having to concern yourself with keeping a wife happy, or a husband happy, or have to sacrifice time and money to provide for children, that is certainly up to you.

But you have chosen a different path, with all that entails. Including sometimes feeling left out.

But marriage is still the foundation of human society, your choices for a personal ministry notwithstanding.

There is a very big difference between a single man or a single woman deciding that he will dedicate himself to full-time service as an act of unselfishness, giving God the time and attention he would otherwise have had to give to a wife (or a husband).

But people also refuse to get married for pure self-centeredness, which is the direct opposite of staying unmarried to be more unselfish and more devoted to God. You have to be careful not to promote such a self-centered life instead of singleness as a ministry.

The difference between the two is subtle, because it’s in the heart. And not the heart of the teacher or promoter of singleness, but in the heart of the person choosing that lifestyle.

Regardless, if you would promote singleness to Christians, you are also promoting celibacy. There is no provision for sexual intercourse in Christianity among those who are unmarried.

So the point stands. The sexual revolution was not about promoting sex, but about removing all stigma from it, even (especially) among the unmarried. It was to decouple sex from marriage. The exact same as is being pushed now by the SSM activists.

There Goes the Neighborhood on July 31, 2014 at 12:57 AM

First, any attempt to prove a point by comparing northeastern states to Bible Belt states has to be adjusted for the different racial compositions of the states. This matters because the rate of illegitimate children (lack of family) is so much higher in the black community. And that has nothing to do with Bible Belt social conventions, since the social convention is clearly not being followed in said community.

……
There Goes the Neighborhood on July 30, 2014 at 11:27 PM

I don’t think you’re right. Roughly 75% of the illegitimate births in KY, TN, TX, OK and NM were to whites.

http://205.207.175.93/Vitalstats/TableViewer/tableView.aspx

jim56 on July 31, 2014 at 12:06 AM

Cherry picking statistics generally leads to the sort of error you make here. I spoke of the rate of illegitimate births in the black community. If the state is predominantly white, then the majority of illegitimate births may still be white, even though the rate among blacks is much higher.

Mississippi, on the other hand, is 36% black. Given the higher black population and the illegitimacy rate in that population being roughly 3 times higher than in the white population, you would expect Mississippi to be at the top of the illegitimacy rankings among states — and you would be right.

Two points before leaving this subject:

1) the illegitimacy rate among whites now is higher than it was among blacks in the 60s. Unfortunately, the rate among blacks has also increased since that time.
2) If you compare poverty rates among black and white populations, but strictly among those who in both populations who come from intact families and finish high school, the poverty rate difference nearly disappears.

Intact families are vitally important for all races. The destruction of the family also hurts members of all races.

There Goes the Neighborhood on July 31, 2014 at 1:10 AM

Are the culture wars really just about sex?


No, they’re about family.

There Goes the Neighborhood on July 30, 2014 at 11:04 PM

Actually, they are about Jesus, when all is said and done.

Sex and family are merely outward manifestations of a much deeper conflict in the Western soul.

Those of us who call ourselves Christian need to look a little deeper into our Theology and take it out of the realm of religion and put it where it belongs – in our interpretation of reality.

The reality of life is that no human soul wants to come to God and is, by nature, rebellious to His authority. The West’s rejection of “traditional morality” is simply the latest in man’s attempt to have his cake and eat it too.

And those who do not call themselves Christian are flying blind.

This will not end well.

Cleombrotus on July 31, 2014 at 2:39 AM

On another note. In my youth I was very picky when it came to women and their looks. Now in my twilight, if grannie has fogged a mirror in the last 24 hours, I pop a blue pill just in case she can be revived.

With that said, the picture on the post ain’t sexy to me. Don’t get me wrong, been known later in life to hit a wood pile hoping a snake was in it, but……yes dear I am on the internet……no dear I am not on the sex thread again…..sweet cheeks I am looking at NOAA and checking on the weather…..yes ruby lips I know you read my posts…..guys gots to go!

HonestLib on July 31, 2014 at 9:16 AM

No, they’re about family.

There Goes the Neighborhood on July 30, 2014 at 11:04 PM

.
Actually, they are about Jesus, when all is said and done.

Cleombrotus on July 31, 2014 at 2:39 AM

.
To the activist leaders who started the “culture war”, it’s about weakening, and dissolution of the U.S. … ultimate goal being “one world government”
.
To Satan, it’s about his war against God and Jesus Christ.

listens2glenn on July 31, 2014 at 9:28 AM

Please share with me the tenets of the Catholic Church which coincide and/or compare with those of the Taliban, and make sure you cite – verbatim w/link – the actual shared doctrine for both when you provide the comparison. I need some good reading material for my ‘morning constitutional’ (and I ain’t talking about a walk around the block)….

tanked59 on July 30, 2014 at 10:15 PM

I would say that the Church’s position on birth control is similar to that of fundamentalist Islam. Also, many traditionalist type Catholics hold positions against women wearing pants and against women working outside the home.

Illinidiva on July 31, 2014 at 11:51 AM

i guess biochemistry really is too complicated for you, because it happens to be precisely the case that the hormonal profiles can be “duplicated”. it has been well-characterised that, even in opposite-sex parental pairs, males who act more “woman-like” in their parenting behaviour (i.e., more nurturing, more cuddling, more physical closeness, &c.) are subject to a significant elevation of female hormones — in particular oestrogen — that apparently work to reinforce, in a “hormone mnemonic” fashion, the traditionally maternal parenting behaviours.

similarly, “the mother” of a male homosexual pair exhibit biochemical hormonal response behaviour profiles closer to new mothers than new fathers! it turns out that one can, in fact, “duplicate” not only hormonal expression profiles of the opposite sex, but also the opposite sex’s endocrinological response to the presence those hormones — at least in homosexual men. (data from lesbians has proved more nuanced.)

You must be a breast feeding male.

Nexialist on July 31, 2014 at 1:20 PM

Also, many traditionalist type Catholics hold positions against women wearing pants and against women working outside the home.

Illinidiva on July 31, 2014 at 11:51 AM

Back in the day Minnesota was pretty “traditionalist type Catholic” but pants-wearing by women was de rigueur in the winter. Maybe you live in a region where the traditions are not really associated with the denomination but with the culture.

2L8 on July 31, 2014 at 2:22 PM

Back in the day Minnesota was pretty “traditionalist type Catholic” but pants-wearing by women was de rigueur in the winter. Maybe you live in a region where the traditions are not really associated with the denomination but with the culture.

2L8 on July 31, 2014 at 2:22 PM

This is actually a new trend among the very conservative Catholic types. Some of the sites that traditionalist type Catholics have posted when I’ve confronted them on their views are downright creepy. One of them that got some mainstream mocking is called “Fix the Family.” Apparently, this isn’t a new thing. Padre Pio (who I think was a crazy person) considered a woman wearing pants to be sinful and apparently even refused to hear the Confessions of women wearing pants.

Illinidiva on July 31, 2014 at 2:35 PM

I would say that the Church’s position on birth control is similar to that of fundamentalist Islam.

Illinidiva on July 31, 2014 at 11:51 AM

Was there any value in that except guilt-by-association? Which is also none.

I’m sure that Islam and the Catholic Church agree that the sky is blue. Complete this exercise, if you disagree with the RCC, you can leave the Church; can you leave Islam?

Also, many traditionalist type Catholics hold positions against women wearing pants and against women working outside the home.

Oh!! They have a different opinion than you do!!

Axeman on July 31, 2014 at 2:55 PM

Apparently, this isn’t a new thing. Padre Pio (who I think was a crazy person) considered a woman wearing pants to be sinful and apparently even refused to hear the Confessions of women wearing pants.

Illinidiva on July 31, 2014 at 2:35 PM

Deuteronomy 22:5 is where this idea comes from I think. It is also a belief of some Protestants. Catholics hold church tradition to be on par with the Bible, so some interesting ideas can get traction.

For example, I was surprised to find that there is a belief among Catholics that Mary is a “co-redemptress.” While there is absolutely no biblical support for this idea (in my opinion) and it was never alluded to in my Catholic school education, apparently it’s a new idea that has a following. Go figure.

2L8 on July 31, 2014 at 3:36 PM

Was there any value in that except guilt-by-association? Which is also none.

I’m sure that Islam and the Catholic Church agree that the sky is blue. Complete this exercise, if you disagree with the RCC, you can leave the Church; can you leave Islam?

But isn’t it interesting that only conservative fundamentalist sects of any religion are against birth control?

Oh!! They have a different opinion than you do!!

Axeman on July 31, 2014 at 2:55 PM

How is demanding women wear dowdy Little House on the Prairie dresses in the name of modesty that much different from Islam requiring women to veil?

Illinidiva on July 31, 2014 at 3:46 PM

Could you please move this snatch off your popular favorites. Not everyone wants to see a woman displaying herself like this. It’s very offensive to less attractive, less ostentatious women. Plus, it’s deeply offensive to Dads who are trying to protect their daughters. Remember, you’re not competing with the Daily Caller.

Esaus Message on July 31, 2014 at 4:17 PM

Esaus Message on July 31, 2014 at 4:17 PM

.
WHO … is she ?

I don’t recognize her, and she doesn’t look so “alluring” in that head-only picture.

listens2glenn on July 31, 2014 at 4:25 PM

Oh!! They have a different opinion than you do!!

Axeman on July 31, 2014 at 2:55 PM

.
How is demanding women wear dowdy Little House on the Prairie dresses in the name of modesty that much different from Islam requiring women to veil?

Illinidiva on July 31, 2014 at 3:46 PM

.
Are you saying Amish women are in just as much “bondage” with their dress-code, as women in strict Islamic countries ?

I don’t believe the Amish ladies would agree with you, and I’m SURE the women from strict Islamic countries wouldn’t, but suit yourself.

listens2glenn on July 31, 2014 at 4:30 PM

Are the culture wars really just about sex?

Freud redux. Cultural Freudism.

Issues re sex arise from deeper cultural divisions. Except possibly for some young LIV’s, they’re not freestanding issues, but spring from conflicting world-views about society and the individual.

petefrt on July 31, 2014 at 4:58 PM

Are you saying Amish women are in just as much “bondage” with their dress-code, as women in strict Islamic countries ?

I don’t believe the Amish ladies would agree with you, and I’m SURE the women from strict Islamic countries wouldn’t, but suit yourself.

listens2glenn on July 31, 2014 at 4:30 PM

Requiring women to wear long skirts and dowdy dresses to keep men from sinning comes from the same line of thinking as requiring women to wear veils. It is only a difference in degree; it is still offensive to women. It wouldn’t shock me if conservative Christian types did advocate that women wear veils (which is mentioned in one of Paul’s letters) full time. The only reason why that hasn’t popped in their heads is because they somehow think their attitudes toward women are that much more pro-woman than Islam’s attitudes.

Illinidiva on July 31, 2014 at 5:15 PM

2L8 on July 31, 2014 at 3:36 PM

Interesting – having finally joined the Catholic church after over 35 years of sitting in the pews married(eventually)to a Catholic I have had the pleasure of getting the latest instruction on all things theological to Catholics – and while the topic came up – it was strongly stated that Mary isn’t that. So if people want to make up things, that is their problem.

I think a lot of people take a few stories and blow them up to encompass a whole lot more than what is. I’m in a more conservative diocese than average, with a Church growing strongly in an area with a very steady population. Some use BC, some use NFP. Most of the ladies wouldn’t take any crap off their husband for a minute, and most of the men want it that way. Yes, there is a traditional bent in the ceremonial notion that the man is the head of the household, and the wives support them as such, but it sure seems as if most are in a partnership where they are struggling to do their best in raising their family. The single are welcome and hold many positions of responsiblity in the parish. There is outreach groups to the all sorts of groups – single, students (HS and beyond), divorced, etc. I think many churches try to do the same thing. It teaches traditional Catholic morality but acknowledges our call to love all sinners – because we all are sinners. Some sin with sex, but others sin on other things. We are nothing special, but we are trying to live as we think Christ asks us to.

Illinidiva – your comments on Catholicism in general are really wrong – I would suggest if you really want to learn them, you could. But that is up to you. I was preparing to really drill you for your comments on what you said here:

I’m assuming that you aren’t Catholic and the guys assume that their girlfriends use appropriate birth control. I don’t date religious Catholic guys because they only see women as brood mares. I actually got lectures about my use of the Pill for medical purposes from Catholic boyfriends so I refuse to date practicing Catholics. Frankly, if you enjoy traditional Catholicism, you are either gay, a woman, or a man who enjoys the religion for other reasons (bossing around their wives).

Illinidiva on July 30, 2014 at 9:56 PM

It implies an attitude that I cannot comprehend, is wrong, and appears to be genuinely hurtful. After I began my journey to actually join the Catholic Church after all those years of attending, my Catholic wife – with post graduate credits, and a hard science undergrad – was diagnosed with an advanced stage of cancer and before I could complete my RCIA classes,passed away. It was that quick. She was my best friend, and a very conservative Catholic who had her own mind and could stand up to anyone. I could only “boss” her around so far as she was willing to be bossed. I wanted to join so we could take holy communion together – not so I could treat her like a rag doll.

I realize you post just to get a reaction – and so I have erred in responding more than likely. But you should consider your posts on some subjects much more thoughtfully.

Zomcon JEM on July 31, 2014 at 5:21 PM

Are you saying Amish women are in just as much “bondage” with their dress-code, as women in strict Islamic countries ?

I don’t believe the Amish ladies would agree with you, and I’m SURE the women from strict Islamic countries wouldn’t, but suit yourself.

listens2glenn on July 31, 2014 at 4:30 PM

.
Requiring women to wear long skirts and dowdy dresses to keep men from sinning comes from the same line of thinking as requiring women to wear veils. It is only a difference in degree; it is still offensive to women.

Illinidiva on July 31, 2014 at 5:15 PM

.
WHAT women ? … Sluts ? … Whores ? … “Air-heads” ? …
Women whose only selling point is their face and curves ?
.

It wouldn’t shock me if conservative Christian types did advocate that women wear veils (which is mentioned in one of Paul’s letters) full time. The only reason why that hasn’t popped in their heads is because they somehow think their attitudes toward women are that much more pro-woman than Islam’s attitudes.

Illinidiva on July 31, 2014 at 5:15 PM

.
I didn’t know that … I’m gonna hafta get my wife a couple of veils (should keep a spare, at all times).

listens2glenn on July 31, 2014 at 9:24 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3