Biphobia against bisexuals

Another sexual minority is coming out of the closet:  bisexuals–those with attractions both to the opposite sex and to their own–a group often condemned by gay activists, who deny there is such a thing.  And yet bisexuals reportedly constitute 40% of the LGBT community.  After the jump, an account of an effort to form “more bisexual-friendly churches.”

Honest question:  Wouldn’t it be legitimate to encourage bisexual individuals, especially those in the church, to enter into a heterosexual marriage, in which he or she would be faithful, suppressing all other sexual desires, as all other married couples are expected to do? [Read more...]

Gay marriage among the ancients

I’ve been hearing from gay marriage defenders that same-sex marriages are not an unprecedented cultural innovation but that they can be found in other cultures.  Even the Romans had them.  Well, it’s true that emperors Nero and Elagabalus had wedding ceremonies with their same-sex lovers, as did others, but, if you read the accounts in Tacitus, Suetonius, Martial, and Juvenal, you will see this sort of thing being condemned in the harshest terms as evidence of utter decadence and depravity.  And a wedding ceremony does not necessarily create a legal marriage–I’ve seen no evidence that these Roman unions were recognized for property rights,  inheritance, establishing a family, and other preoccupations of Roman family law.  Yes, the Romans were tolerant of homosexuality –as long as one’s partner was an adolescent  slave–but they hardly approved of gay marriage.  Read the sources for yourself, after the jump. [Read more...]

“Voting Republican will not save us now”

Rod Dreher takes a bleak look at the Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage.  It is now clear, he says, that we really do live in a post-Christian culture.  Now that homosexuality has been given the status of race, the government and the public really are going to go after those who don’t believe that homosexuality is moral.  The institution of marriage as a whole is going to be affected, since, if it can be redefined at will, it will no longer have any boundaries.  So Christians will have to live as exiles in their own country.  Dreher goes on to advocate “the Benedict option.”

What do you think about this?  Is Dreher over-stating the problems?  Are things really going to be that bad? [Read more...]

Post-gender Europe

Europe has gone further than the United States in embracing the new ideologies about sex, gender, and political-correctness.  And it’s going even further:  to unisex bathrooms, laws mandating women on corporate boards, and regulations about how men and women may be portrayed.  For example, it will not be legal for billboards in Germany to show women “smiling for no reason.”

What interests me are the attempts to impose–even to create–gender neutral language.  In languages such as German and Swedish in which every noun has a gender!  (In a German language class, teachers drill it into their students’ heads that the gender of a word has nothing to do with its sex!  So that the word for young woman is neuter. A spoon is masculine, a fork is feminine, a knife is neuter.)  So now the effort is to change the very grammar of these languages.  Sweden has added an “inclusive” personal pronoun to its dictionaries by fiat.  (Though linguists will explain that language doesn’t work that way.)

Details of this brave new world, which may well show up on this side of the pond before too long, after the jump. [Read more...]

Paying for sex makes it not adultery?

A Japanese court, ruling against a wronged wife, has ruled that if a husband pays for sex with a woman he is not married to, that is a business transaction and so cannot be considered adultery. [Read more...]

Evolution vs. liberalism

In the course of a discussion about an article by a feminist attacking transgendered folks like “Caitlyn” Jenner, saying that these men can never know what it is to be a woman, Andrew Klavan makes the point that evolution and feminism are incompatible.  Which made me realize that evolution is incompatible with lots of other ideas of the liberals who believe in it.

UPDATE:  I do not intend to confuse “what is” with “what should be” or to try to deduce from evolution any moral conclusions.  I do see the problem with that, but let me frame this differently.  If behaviors limit reproduction, aren’t those less likely to contribute to natural selection?  Wouldn’t there be natural selection against them?   Wouldn’t ideologies and policies that result in individuals not reproducing be an evolutionary deadend?  I am not asking whether this would be good or bad, and am quite willing to be instructed on the matter.

The original post was not so much about evolution but about liberalism, so perhaps we could ask this:  Isn’t it true that “traditional family values”–that is, beliefs and practices that result in more children being born and cared for–have an evolutionary advantage over “progressive values” such as those supporting feminism and non-reproductive sex?  Not as a moral position but as a “what is” description?

[Read more...]


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X