Squaring the Culture




"...and I will make justice the plumb line, and righteousness the level;
then hail will sweep away the refuge of lies,
and the waters will overflow the secret place."
Isaiah 28:17

05/17/2009 (8:18 pm)

No, Mr. President

My response to President Obama’s presence at Notre Dame University today is to post this denunciation of the President’s disingenuous abortion rhetoric by Dr. John Piper, currently Pastor for Preaching and Vision at Bethlehem Baptist Church, Minneapolis, MN. I agree with every word.

The defense of abortion is the topic on which the second most intellectually dishonest arguments get posited regularly. (Only the defense of homosexuality is less honest. Shocka: both are about protecting the right to engage in sex without civilized restraint. Who’da thunk?) The arguments supporting legal abortion are, on the whole, so completely specious as to earn the condemnation of history, not to mention the condemnation of God. We’ve killed more human beings than the Nazis ever did, and call ourselves enlightened and “free” for having done it. Christe eleison.

« « Why Do Christians Worship God? Part IV | Main | What Is A Human Being? A Key to the Abortion Debate » »

19 Comments »

May 18, 2009 @ 7:52 am #

“Only the defense of homosexuality is less honest. Shocka: both are about protecting the right to engage in sex without civilized restraint. Who’da thunk?”

Actually, as we’ve discussed before, encouraging monogamy among homosexuals by normalizing civil unions, whatever they are called, is the actual OPPOSITE of your description here. Whatever your thoughts about the source of homosexual behavior, society can only stand to benefit, I think.

May 18, 2009 @ 8:35 am #

And after we’ve normalized homosexual unions, then what will we normalize? This is all about destroying the idea of sinful behavior. The counterculture was concerned with only one thing, doing whatever they wanted without having to feel guilty. How’s that working out? Real guilt comes from knowing that you’ve transgressed in some respect. Just because you tell yourself that what you’re doing isn’t wrong doesn’t mean that is isn’t, you’re just pretending not to notice that it’s wrong.

Homosexuality, no matter how you feel about its practitioners, is a perversion of normal sexual behavior. Mainstreaming perversions, no matter how innocuous they may seem, is deliberately tearing up the fabric of society. Look at the damage from the worship at the altar of promiscuous sex. Abortion, STDs, dysfunctional relational abilities, loss of identity and security, all have sprung from the idea that sex could be uncoupled from its traditional context within a monogamous family setting.

Add in the fact that the main purpose of government is to safeguard the population, and that the supposed hallmark of compassion is to protect those unable to protect themselves, allowing unfettered abortion is a holocaust we have committed upon ourselves. We have embraced a culture of death, where hedonism is celebrated and self-restraint mocked, where those most innocent are sacrificed on the altar of Moloch to appease our own base desires.

May 18, 2009 @ 8:36 am #

The only thing that I disagree with in the Pastor’s words is his weeping upon the inauguration of Barack Obama. Ostensibly, he was weeping because of the “historic” nature of his election (read: making note that his pigmentation is different than his predecessors) and not because of his stance upon the issues. Any cursory examination of BHO’s standing on the issue of abortion should have raised a red flag, an in depth examination the air raid sirens – this man’s position is nothing short of monstrous. We have run afoul of what Dr. King called upon us to do:

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

Opposing, repeatedly, legislation that would offer care and comfort to infants that are born alive when it was the intent of the mother to have the infant aborted is indicative of a man’s character, or lack thereof.

That being said, I found the Pastor’s words powerful. I find it troubling that as BHO accepts an honorary degree from what we thought was a Catholic university, couched by words from its President that had my head spinning, we hear greater outrage from this Baptist as well as that well known Baptist in Wasilla.

We live in interesting times…

May 18, 2009 @ 2:29 pm #

Hey Chris,

I don’t expect to be able to have any kind of constructive argument about encouraging monogamy among homosexuals, but I would like to point out that you are arguing with yourself.

You point out that many of society’s ills are due to our “worship at the altar of promiscuous sex”, and try to use this to argue against discouraging promiscuous sex among homosexuals. How odd!

With the “givens” that 1. The majority of people who identify themselves as homosexual have never felt anything different (just get to know some, you will see); 2. Homosexuals have always been, and will be around for the foreseeable future,

then all I can conclude from your desire to promote their promiscuity is that you hope they will just get it over with and die of AIDS.

This may not be a conscious desire on your part, but it is the natural conclusion.

May 18, 2009 @ 3:45 pm #

Darkhorse,

How exactly is marriage a discouragement against promiscuous sex? Wouldn’t we need to be marrying people off around age 13 for that to be true? Not to mention revoking the “no fault” divorce laws.

Also: the majority of heterosexual people have never felt anything different and will be around for the foreseeable future; . . . so are you saying they must all be married in order to avoid promiscuity and STDs? Where do single people enter into your thinking?

May 18, 2009 @ 3:59 pm #

I don’t know where you got the idea that I was promoting promiscuous homosexual sex, except that it was in your own mind. I do know several homosexuals, in fact, and am not in the least afraid of them, nor do I hate them. They are people with their own sins, as I have my own sins, and that is between them and God. I have my own perversions, which I do not want to have normalized, as that would make me even more prone to indulge in them.

Your idea that I wish homosexuals to die of AIDS is bizarre and frankly says more about you than it does about me.

May 18, 2009 @ 4:06 pm #

Hi Dullhammer, good to hear from you,

You are a man, I assume you understand the tendency toward promiscuity that being a man brings. I was not representing marriage as a fail-safe preventative against promiscuity…far from it. However, when a culture promotes monogamy as Western Culture has, and frowns on promiscuity, it has a very good effect on this tendency of men — they act less promiscuous.

Since all this particular society has done for life-long homosexuals thus far is ignore them and hope they go away, then it should not be a surprise at all that promiscuity reigns among homosexual men.

This is quite simple a far unhealthier situation than if monogamy was encouraged.

May 18, 2009 @ 4:10 pm #

Chris:

“I don’t know where you got the idea that I was promoting promiscuous homosexual sex, except that it was in your own mind.”

If you would like to outlaw promoting monogamy among homosexuals in the only way they would like monogamy recognized, then, based on how I described what it means to be a man to dullhammer above, you are by default promoting promiscuity.

As I said, this is the result of your line of argument whether you consciously believe it or not. And promiscuity among the gay community is far deadlier to both them and society as a whole than monogamy.

May 18, 2009 @ 8:17 pm #

darkhorse,

This thing of representing support for gay marriage as “encouraging monogamy” needs to stop, as it’s really disingenuous. Even if it were the case, as I know you believe (without a shred of evidence), that changing the centuries-old definition of “marriage” will in some way encourage monogamy among homosexuals, I think you know perfectly well what sort of response you would get if you mounted a public campaign insisting that homosexuals “pick a single partner for life.” You’re not going to do that. Nobody is going to do that. Nobody is suggesting that anybody do that. Nobody has done that. There has been a general move among the gay community to tone down the wildest promiscuity in reaction to the AIDS crisis, but that happened long before the gay marriage movement kicked up, and has nothing to do with it. So please, Jim, stop pretending that the “gay marriage” topic is somehow about encouraging monogamy. It isn’t, and it never was.

Gay “marriage” has been legalized in many places, for quite a while now, long enough to produce results. I doubt that you can produce a single shred of documentary evidence suggesting that changing marriage law has made any change at all in the promiscuity of homosexuals. In fact, the evidence here in Massachusetts suggests that gays could hardly care less about marrying. After an initial burst of licenses when the state Supreme Court jammed gay marriage down the state’s throats in violation of their Constitutional duty (2004), the annual number of applications for marriage licenses by gays doesn’t even reach 4 figures. That’s out of 150,000 gays, if gays are the same proportion of the population here as they are in the general population — and I’m betting they’re a higher proportion here. So marriage is hardly making a dent in gay promiscuity here — and I’ll bet you that the guys who are marrying here were already living together anyhow, and were already not as promiscuous as the norm. I’d be shocked if gay marriage has had even a small impact on promiscuity.

In fact, I’ll wager it has a NEGATIVE impact. Here’s why: promiscuity is the result of abnormal psychology. To escape it, one should seek psychological counseling or enter a 12-step program for sexual addictions. Legalizing gay marriage has the general societal effect of making homosexuality appear normal (this, rather than “encouraging monogamy,” is the real reason for the gay marriage movement). Thus, legalizing gay marriage will have the effect of reducing the motivation among gays to seek counseling — because normal people don’t need counseling — and as a consequence, fewer gays will attempt to address their promiscuity.

May 18, 2009 @ 8:24 pm #

Darkhorse

Funny how “promiscuity reigns among homosexual men” but not among the women. How is it that the women got the message on not being promiscuous, but the men didn’t? Did our Western culture only pick on the men?

And you didn’t say anything about how single people enter into your thinking. I’m curious about that too. What is a lifelong single person’s expectation regarding promiscuity? How does marriage help him or her? Is it okay then to be promiscuous?

May 18, 2009 @ 8:35 pm #

Back on the subject of abortion: It seems to me the tide is very much turning on this subject. In the conversations I’ve listened to over the years there are fewer and fewer corners for a pro-abortionist to respectably hide. This doesn’t mean the power has shifted. Not at all. And if Obama appoints more than one pro-abortionist to the Supreme Court it will no doubt be a LONG time before the power is able to reflect what is moral. But not only are opinions changing, but the thinking and method of persuasion has also been changing– for the better.

May 18, 2009 @ 9:37 pm #

Phil: “Even if it were the case, as I know you believe (without a shred of evidence), that changing the centuries-old definition of “marriage” will in some way encourage monogamy among homosexuals…”

I really don’t give a crap about changing the definition of anything, but thanks for putting words in my mouth. I am looking solidly at reality:

1. Homosexual people, most of whom felt absolutely nothing different than attraction to people of their own sex their entire lives, have always been around.

2. Given this FACT, society has two choices:

a. ignore them, marginalize them, make them feel sinful for these feelings.

b. encourage them to normalize themselves – practice monogamous lifestyles.

You FAR underestimate the power of society over the long term to mold the behavior of individuals. Note: the past few years is NOT the long term.

You said: “Here’s why: promiscuity is the result of abnormal psychology. To escape it, one should seek psychological counseling or enter a 12-step program for sexual addictions.”

I suppose that is why polygamy is so darn popular in so many areas of the world…because men are just so wired to be monogamous. Your sense of humor shows through again!

May 18, 2009 @ 9:41 pm #

Dullhammer said:

“Funny how “promiscuity reigns among homosexual men” but not among the women. How is it that the women got the message on not being promiscuous, but the men didn’t? Did our Western culture only pick on the men?”

I shouldn’t have to point you back too far to remember the difference between the wiring of men and women. I made no statement that Western Culture made them this way; only that it has done a pretty good job of taming the male wiring until fairly recently.

You:

“And you didn’t say anything about how single people enter into your thinking. I’m curious about that too. What is a lifelong single person’s expectation regarding promiscuity? How does marriage help him or her? Is it okay then to be promiscuous?”

Hmm…was it Paul who said, “They should go ahead and marry…for it is better to marry than to burn with lust.”

If a single person is able to dedicate themselves in celibacy as Paul did, so be it. If not, he gave the answer.

May 19, 2009 @ 5:54 am #

I fail to see how ignoring someone, that is, paying little attention to what they do and who they do it with, is conflated with marginalizing them. I ignore a great many people on a daily basis, homosexuals and heterosexuals alike.

Your attempts to force a false dichotomy on me are poorly thought out, and not at all convincing. I have no desire to outlaw homosexual behavior, much less homosexuals. They are free to live their lives as they see fit. They are not free, however, to redefine long-standing institutions just to make themselves feel better, and neither are you.

May 19, 2009 @ 7:06 am #

Darkhorse,

Western Culture should not get the credit for ‘taming the male wiring’ over and above the fact that those men married women who posses the balance to the male wiring. How is it you think a marriage certificate is somehow going to bring faithfulness to the already existing male homosexual relationships that are already unfaithful? And what else do you suppose goes wrong when males lie with males as with a woman?

Yes indeed, Paul said he wished everyone could be single as he is. He essentially said the single life (in Christ) is superior to that of the married life– in certain circumstances at least. But he did concede that not everyone could accept such a lifestyle and so marriage should be their alternate choice.

I’m surprised there isn’t a clamor among gays and straights alike protesting and passing legislation in order to change the definition of ‘celibate’ to include “those who regularly engage in sexual intercourse”. Because otherwise they just can’t be fulfilled.

Just as Paul said.

May 19, 2009 @ 7:52 am #

How did this thread turn into a debate over gay marriage?

Jim, you’ve got some of your facts wrong, and a guy who knows the research as well as you do has no excuse for that.

You write:

“Homosexual people, most of whom felt absolutely nothing different than attraction to people of their own sex their entire lives, …”

Laumann’s extremely detailed research on homosexuality in America shreds this notion. The percentage of male homosexuals who have never engaged in sexual relations with a female comes in at a whopping THREE PERCENT. In fact, Laumann’s conclusion was that there basically is no such thing as what we’re calling “homosexuality;” he determined that what we’re calling that is actually a wildly diverse collection of sexually aberrant behaviors with varying degrees of gender flexibility. (And no, homosexuality is not caused by genes; the notion that it is, is a widely circulated urban myth.)

Let me also provide some information from my unique perspective as a sex addict — again, with some help from statistics that I believe you already know, since this discussion is about promiscuity. They feel a great deal more than just “attraction to people of their own sex;” they feel an incredibly powerful urge to engage in sexual intercourse frequently, a lot stronger than what you feel, so strong it feels like they’re going to die if they don’t get some (I suspect many men might recall some moments in their college days that felt this way.) The compulsion to engage in wildly promiscuous sex is a symptom of the condition, which explains why homosexual behavior diverges so dramatically from heterosexual behavior. (And to correct a notion of dullhammer’s, the average female homosexual is not as promiscuous as the average male, but is still at least twice as promiscuous as the average straight female.)

Anybody who thinks “gay” means “just like straight, only interested in the same sex” has fallen victim to a very carefully orchestrated propaganda campaign. Homosexuality is a complex of strong emotions, and involves a great deal more than just wanting the same sex.

You also posit one branch of your just so incredibly false dichotomy as:

make them feel sinful for these feelings

First of all, it’s not society at large that makes gays feel abnormal. They feel it all on their own, very strongly. Again, this is one of the symptoms of the condition. This is one reason why changing all of society to make them feel better about themselves is such a bad idea — it simply won’t work. And I can only imagine what they’re going to insist we do NEXT to make them feel whole and welcome, after they have gay marriage but still feel unwelcome. Whatever it will be, it won’t work any better than marriage will work, since the feeling they’re trying to quell comes from within themselves, and not from the rest of us.

But secondly, Jim, I want to know how it is possible to change behavior without understanding that it’s destructive behavior. I understand the impulse to remove shame from the equation when dealing with psychological disorders, as shame usually complicates dealing with them; but even when removing shame, you have to maintain the awareness that the behavior is destructive, or it will never change. So shaking a moral finger at gays may not be helpful, but the alternative MUST NOT EVER become simply pretending they’re perfectly normal. This would be like enabling an alcoholic.

And pay close attention: I said shame is unhelpful when dealing with DISORDERS. Shame is very, very helpful when dealing with normal people tempted to engage in wrong behaviors. It’s what keeps most of us out of trouble. Some things we do, we ought to feel ashamed. So removing shame from the culture at large is not such a good idea, either; it’s something we should apply to our interpersonal behaviors when dealing with broken people, but leave alone when dealing with the wider culture.

I think perhaps here, as with your notion of Phariseeism, you confuse proper personal charity with wider social practices; they’re not necessarily the same.

Finally, you’ve really munged promiscuity. This:

I suppose that is why polygamy is so darn popular in so many areas of the world…because men are just so wired to be monogamous. Your sense of humor shows through again!

…is pretty far off the mark, Jim. You seem to think that the promiscuity of gay men is just the normal polygamous urge of straight men, turned loose. It’s not. Normal gay behavior is compulsive. Male polygamy feeds it, but there’s an emotional component that drives it harder than normal.

May 19, 2009 @ 8:08 am #

I should add this:

Phil: “Even if it were the case, as I know you believe (without a shred of evidence), that changing the centuries-old definition of “marriage” will in some way encourage monogamy among homosexuals…”

I really don’t give a crap about changing the definition of anything,

The movement to “legalize” gay marriage is actually, in fact, a movement to change the legal definition of marriage. The problem with the current law is not that gay marriage is illegal, it’s that it does not exist. Gays are freely permitted to marry; it’s just, “marriage” by definition requires a partner of opposite sex. So the movement aims at changing the definition of marriage.

I’m sorry if that felt like I was putting words in your mouth, but to call this move “legalizing gay marriage” is grotesquely inaccurate, and inaccurate in a manner that aids its proponents — which is why they portray it so inaccurately. And by the way, this is an instance of the sort of dishonesty that I’ve noticed on the left in American politics that folks on the right are less prone to engage in.

May 19, 2009 @ 5:39 pm #

I have to agree with turfmann when he takes issue with John Piper for “weeping with joy” at the inauguration. I saw a lot of bloggers in the christian blogosphere make comments like that, they would say stuff like “i don’t agree with the president but i’m glad we have a black president because it will cause a lot of healing for people” and i have to say that I was quite disgusted by statements like that, at them in general and furthermore that they would come from the christian bloggers with such frequency. I am not sure what conclusions one would draw from that, but tell me if anyone else noticed and was equally unhappy with them?

May 19, 2009 @ 7:01 pm #

Anna:
I am right there with you and turfmann. I too found this sentiment strange and a little frustrating. I think it was/is some sort way to demonstrate that “Hey, I don’t hate the guy, I think he’s kinda neat, but…” Some sort of way to “play nice.” Fake charity maybe? Maybe that’s why it’s so sickening – it feels so fake. I would guess most of the people who say this could really care less whether the president is black, white, purple, ochre, whatever…

I’m not glad we have a black president because I was never glad that we didn’t. Pigmentation just doesn’t occur to me like other people seem to think it should. Really, I am tired of race being crammed in my face and down my throat at every opportunity by anybody.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>