Culture wars (from outside the box)
The editorial is by Andrew Sullivan, who is gay, backs gay marriage and once said that gay marriage would help heterosexuals accept the idea of open marriage. The fact that he smokes marijuana (claiming it is for HIV related problems) and opposes circumcision, even though evidence from Africa suggests that it protects Africans (and maybe Asians) from HIV, makes him sort of a one item mania type person.
Free promiscuous sex as the norm, and drugs while you are at it so we can be happy all the time.
and, given the new age stuff that I printed yesterday (which includes the new age nuns who backed Obama against the bishops and the feminists) and the fact that these new agers have connections with the UN, then I shudder at this point of the editorial writer on Obama mania in the press:
arack Obama's open declaration of his stance on gay rights was indeed well-calculated and the timing was chosen accurately. When the GOP race for nomination is virtually over, and the remaining would-be nominee cannot present any breathtaking slogan which would be eagerly built up by media, this was exactly the right time to strike. Now, the whole media space seems to be preoccupied with the issue, and topics like war preparations around Iran or the failing economy seem to be too trivial to mention. This definitely gives Barack Obama a clear advantage.
But what is even more important is the fact that this is not a purely tactical step with Obama's reelection as its ultimate end. The offensive has much broader and far-reaching objectives. Obama, as a new idol of the new pagan liberal religion, wants to make the process of establishing it as a prevalent doctrine (at least on the national, ideally on the global scale) irreversible.The halo over Barack Obama's head speaks for itself. Now, even if he is "crucified" on November 6 this year, this will only add momentum to the rainbow-colored religion. And Sullivan has all prerequisites to become one of the evangelists of the doctrine.
Related item: Benedict points out that gay marriage is not about two people who happen to be the same sex who want to commit to a relationship, but has deeper roots in denying biological sexuality and rejecting sexual roles in the family: which is why the child quickly becomes a commodity, to be aborted or chosen according to consumer like wishes.Caution: an excerpt. Nuances are long, so check out the original speech.
People dispute the idea that they have a nature, given by their bodily identity, that serves as a defining element of the human being. They deny their nature and decide that it is not something previously given to them, but that they make it for themselves. According to the biblical creation account, being created by God as male and female pertains to the essence of the human creature. This duality is an essential aspect of what being human is all about, as ordained by God....
The manipulation of nature, which we deplore today where our environment is concerned, now becomes man’s fundamental choice where he himself is concerned. From now on there is only the abstract human being, who chooses for himself what his nature is to be....
Man and woman in their created state as complementary versions of what it means to be human are disputed. But if there is no pre-ordained duality of man and woman in creation, then neither is the family any longer a reality established by creation. Likewise, the child has lost the place he had occupied hitherto and the dignity pertaining to him.
most "ordinary" people know this, but the intellectuals rarely have the courage to oppose it, either because they are too close to the problem (which is the problem of sexuality in life, and the family as a natural part of human sociality) and have been tutored in political correctness.
And the west's rebellion against nature is part too: A Buddhist sees desire as the problem, and would say renouncing the desire to be a different gender would be part of the way to nirvana; a Christian would say that the desire is a 'cross" to be carried and fought, along with other illicit desires, and if one falls, to repent and start over again to try to follow Christ.
Neither of these ideas are welcome in "modern" society where we are told continually the idea we should have it all.
But the third reason modern intellectuals are not opposing it is moral cowardism:
from DavidMills at First Things:
In his response to Ryan Anderson’s comments on marriage, David Blankenhorn explained:
I changed my view on gay marriage for two reasons. The first is fairness. And the second is to get out of the very box that Ryan Anderson wants to put me and everyone else in — the little box inside of which the culture war on gay marriage must precede and overwhelm and define everything else.
No thank you. And, no thank you. And I can report from personal experience that the air is much easier to breath, once you are outside that stifling little box.
yes. Stay quiet on the subject and you are part of the "in crowd". Dare to oppose it, and your emails and comment box is full of hate speech.
On the other hand, I hesitate to blog about it, so I am a coward too. Sigh.