Tag Archives: redefinition
It seems everyone these days is interested in sex in some way. Whether we’re talking about heterosexual, homosexual, bi-sexual or transsexual; everyone is interested in sex in one way or another. Everyone except for…the asexual person.
Asexuality is defined as follows:
“the lack of sexual attraction to anyone, or low or absent interest in sexual activity. It may be considered the lack of a sexual orientation, or one of the variations thereof, alongside heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality. It may also be an umbrella term used to categorize a broader spectrum of various asexual sub-identities.”
Most of us will have a hard time comprehending a life where sex is of absolutely no interest. We can’t begin to understand what it would be like to live with no attraction to anyone. And in our highly sexualized culture the idea that someone is entirely unconcerned with sex is even harder to understand. But there may be value in understanding this sexual orientation sub-culture and what part, if any, they play in the ongoing discussions of gender, sexuality, and marriage.
Abigail Rine is a professor of English at George Fox University. Each year she hands out a reading assignment to her gender theory students designed to provoke them. She recently decided to assign the book “What Is Marriage” by noted Princeton professor Robert P. George, Ryan T. Anderson, and Sherif Girgis. The book is a simple explanation of the conjugal view of traditional marriage.
Rine reports that the book, which is a manual of sorts on the traditional view of marriage as it relates to procreation, was offensive to her evangelical students at her evangelical university. Let that sink in for a moment.
But Rine said something that needs to be admitted: the church helped create the effort to redefine marriage.
I don’t mean that the church altered biblical teaching or even advocated marriage redefinition. Certainly some churches have done this but the vast majority of churches today continue to adhere to traditional biblical teaching of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. What I mean is that how the church handled the issue of marriage and sexuality in past decades aided the rise of marriage redefinition efforts.
Let’s be clear (and honest) about one thing. The primary motivating factor for most of what happens in our society is sex.
You don’t have to agree with me; but good luck refuting that statement. Just consider how advertising would be different if sex wasn’t a factor. How would product marketing be different if sex wasn’t an issue? How would the music industry be different? How would fashion and movies be different?
If sex wasn’t an issue at all it’s very safe to say our society would be vastly different. But because sex is the primary motivating factor in much of what takes place sex is also the goal, or end result for much of what happens. This makes sex a very dangerous weapon in the hands of anyone seeking to recreate the social or political landscape in America.
A recent article at The Week discussed this issue and the implications of sex as the primary difference between traditionalist religious people from others. The question was asked, if sex is removed from the picture, “what are we talking about?” The answer was given:
Activists pushing for the legalization of same-sex “marriage” don’t want you to hear from former homosexuals. In their world there is no such thing. Anyone claiming to be a “former homosexual” is, in their opinion, either a liar suppressing their true identity, or they never were really a homosexual. I’m not sure how someone can claim to be a homosexual without ever really being one – it doesn’t seem like something you do as a recreational past time.
What they think of this rapidly growing class of people, they are afraid of them. No group has more power and ability to stop the homosexual agenda in its tracks than former homosexuals. So when someone like David Kyle Foster, himself a former homosexual, writes about the “unmitigated disaster for gay marriage,” it might be a good idea to listen.
For anyone not sure if Foster really was a homosexual his answer is succinct: “Does sleeping with over 1,000 men count?” His time as a homosexual spanned 10 years and he has now been a “former homosexual” for the past 34 years. Because of his experience living the homosexual lifestyle, Foster is uniquely qualified to discuss the dangers and disasters awaiting the society that chooses to life homosexuality atop a pedestal.
Here’s an important question we need to answer. Is there a Constitutional right to same-sex “marriage”?
If a Constitutional right exists then it should end all the debate. The Supreme Court should simply cite the Constitution and the entire issue will be settled. And yet, when they had the chance not even the Supreme Court was willing to say that such a right exists. That leaves me wondering whether such a right – as some activists claim – is reasonable.
One of the most important court decisions concerning the definition of marriage has been issued and you probably didn’t even know it. Not only did the media fail to cover the decision adequately, but the fact that it took place in Europe made it a little harder to hear about. But, let me share a brief recap to ensure you are up to speed with this monumental decision. Here’s a recap as reported by Alliance Defending Freedom:
I’ve been following the judicial activism in states with traditional marriage laws as federal judges, acting alone, usurp the will of the people and enact sweeping changes unilaterally. For previous comments on states that have had marriage redefined for them within the past year or so, scroll down to see an earlier post. (Or click here for my first post on the subject.)
The first post centered around 13 states – conservative states – where marriage was being threatened by judicial activism. Since that first post, much has changed. Two more states were added, Georgia and Wisconsin. Of the original 13 both Utah and Indiana have now had marriage redefined for them – along with Wisconsin.
All in all this means that 15 conservative states where marriage laws protected natural, one man one woman marriage by a vote of the people have now had those laws wiped out by a single judge. That fact should trouble ever freedom loving American that believes our Constitution stands as a barrier to such radical activism.
For news regarding the decision in Indiana you can click here. For news on what is happening in Wisconsin you can click here. For news on what is happening in Utah you can click here.
Let me make a statement I have been making for several years:
If the government redefines marriage for homosexuals ti was necessarily have to continue redefining marriage for any other group or be guilty of the same “discrimination” it now accuses traditional marriage supporters of.
Try as they may to deny it, every advocate of marriage redefinition knows intuitively that if the arguments currently winning the day to legalize same-sex “marriage” are successful, they will also be successful for polygamists, polyamorists, and even pedophiles and bestiality advocates.
Ask yourself when is the last time you heard a same-sex “marriage” advocate standing up for the rights of polygamists and polyamorists? If their goal is based on “love” and “equality” then surely they would desire the same love and equality for every other minority group hiding in the shadows, right?
But you won’t see these groups standing together or hosting town hall meetings on bus tours across the states. Why? Simply because if every day America knew that redefining marriage for one group meant doing so for every other group the wheels of the political machine churning in favor of homosexuals would come to a screeching halt.
What is striking about each of these cases is the similarities, or relative similarities in each state. If you look closely at the list you will notice these are all predominantly conservative states. Each of these states embraces more traditional values and beliefs regarding a wide range of issues, including marriage. Each of these states tends to elect conservative leaders for both federal and state office. While certain exceptions exist these states are similar in their values, beliefs, politics, and governance.
I predicted that West Virginia would soon be added to this list. There is currently a lawsuit in federal court challenging the legality of West Virginia’s DOMA law. West Virginia doesn’t even have a constitutional amendment defining marriage because our lawmakers would not allow such an amendment to be added to the ballot in 2010 when it was requested. So the only thing preventing marriage from being redefined in West Virginia is our DOMA law, which is currently being challenged by several homosexual couples from Kanawha and Putnam counties. It’s only a matter of time before a federal judge redefines marriage for all of West Virginia unless the people pressure our lawmakers to take action. (Although, don’t count on Gov. Tomblin to sign any laws protecting marriage even if he does profess to be “pro-traditional marriage.” We see how his “pro-life” conviction worked out.)
Doug Mainwaring, an openly gay man, married to a women, rejecting the homosexual lifestyle and same-sex “marriage,” has gained attention in recent years for his outspoken opposition to marriage redefinition.
Mainwaring is a well educated, successful, articulate, communicator of the fact that marriage is inherently the union of a man and woman and nothing, not laws, not judges, not certificates, can change that. He has, as you might have guessed, gained a number of detractors seeking to silence him from exposing the true motives behind the LGBT agenda.
Mainwaring recently wrote an article in the American Thinker responding to some of his detractors after they viciously attacked him for daring to say that marriage cannot be redefined. you can click the link to see what some of those “tolerant” people wrote and Mainwaring’s responses. I’ve posted part of his article below because he explains in find detail common sense reasons to reject marriage redefinition. The fact that he is gay and holds this position makes him dangerous to “the cause” of liberals and those seeking more than they care to admit.
“This whole disagreement stems not from gays being discriminated against by a society that wants to deny them rights. It stems from gays choosing to abandon certain rights. Gays reject the right to marriage. Most don’t want marriage. They want something different from marriage. They want a committed, sexual relationship with another man. And in practice, sometimes these are monogamous, but let’s face it: most evolve into open or semi-open relationships.
This pattern of ignoring the law and ruling (by federal judges) or refusing to defend state laws (by attorneys general) should be deeply troubling for anyone that believes in the Constitution. If such a pattern continues it is conceivable that our country will descend into a state of tyranny as those with the power increasingly rule without consent from the people. Our Founder’s sought to protect against this very thing and yet, as we are seeing, this form of government is upon us.