Tuesday, April 23, 2013

Maturation Program -- SoL Newsletter


In this issue:
What's Showing at Your School?
The Gay Marriage Fraud
Scouts to Allow Gay Youth?

Five Gay Marriage Myths by Robin Phillips
Apples, Oranges & Gay Marriage by Robin Phillips


"It is the duty of parents, poets, artists, and educators [and clergy], to train young people in making the proper emotional responses, for without trained emotions people do not have the motivation to behave morally." Doris T. Myers in Reading the Classics with C. S. Lewis


What's Showing at Your School?
--Stephen & Janice Graham

It's time for public schools' maturation programs. Because Planned Parenthood and the like have insidiously and widely hijacked these events, you may want to check out your child's school program to make sure it is in keeping with your family values. We have studied PP's presentation and found it grossly inappropriate, slanted, co-ed, and linked to material encouraging all sorts of sex for kids. Click here to see it and click here to read our assessment.

Be sure to preview your school's entire presentation and materials. Parents may opt their child out.

If your school's program conflicts with your ideals, we have a solution. "Growing Up is Natural and New" for girls and "Growing Up Basics" for Boys are each about 15 minutes long, prepared by us and the Family Action Council Team and Utah Education Coalition. Access it on our website (at the top of the center column), on Youtube ( boys or girls), or we can send you a complementary PowerPoint presentation disk (just send an email request with your name and address to sgraham@standardofliberty.org).

We were told that Utah's Governor Herbert endorsed Planned Parenthood's presentation but refused to consider or endorse ours or anything like it. As far as we know, he later rescinded his PP endorsement because of pressure from traditional values groups, but is allowing schools to continue using it. 

We tested our 15-minute presentation last year on a small group of fifth-grade girls in a home setting with their mothers. Even in this safe place, the girls showed some signs of natural modesty and embarrassment learning about sensitive issues concerning natural body functions such as menstruation. Can you imagine how they feel, and what damaging notions are put into their heads, in a public school setting when such things are inappropriately and falsely presented?

Our purpose in producing these materials is solely to assist schools and parents in teaching  children age-appropriate facts supported by proper attitudes and values. In the current culture that uses every opportunity to push destructive notions such as androgyny and unlimited sexuality on the rising generation, proper proactive teaching is sorely needed.  

Pass it on!

Click here to read this SoL Voice article on our website.

Help for parents who want to teach their families the truth about today's stampeding sexuality. Click here to learn about/order this and other books.

<chased cover small.jpg>

- - - - - - - - - -
SoL Quote:  "If we reflect on the dreadful consequences of sodomy to the state, and on the extent to which this abominable vice may be secretly carried on and spread; we cannot, on the principles of sound policy, consider the punishment as too severe. For if it once begins to prevail, not only will boys be easily corrupted by adults, but also by other boys, nor will it ever cease; more especially as it must thus soon lose all its shamefulness and infamy and become fashionable and the national taste; and then . . . national weakness, for which all remedies are ineffectual, most inevitably follow; not perhaps in the first generation, but certainly in the course of the third or fourth . . . To these evils may be added yet another, viz. that the constitutions of those men who submit to this degradation are, if not always, yet very often, totally destroyed, though in a different way from what is the result of whoredom. Whoever, therefore, wishes to ruin a nation, has only to get this vice introduced; for it is extremely difficult to extirpate it where it has once taken root because it can be propagated with much secrecy . . . and when we perceive that it has once got a footing in any country, however powerful and flourishing, we may venture as politicians to predict that the foundation of its future decline is laid and that after some hundred years it will no longer be the same . . . powerful country it is at the present."
--Sir John David Michaelis, 1814

- - - - - - - - - -

The Gay Marriage Fraud
Janice Graham

Gays say they want equal rights. They insist that marriage is a right. Well, even if marriage was a right, gays, like everyone else, already have it. But that isn't what they are really saying. What they are really saying is that they want the right to be recognized as married to someone of their same sex. This is not marriage. The chimerical notion of gay marriage is diametrically opposed to marriage, an entirely different animal. The gay marriage movement is not about demanding something equal to marriage; it's about manufacturing something different than marriage and pretending it's the same thing.     

Lawrence v. Texas, 2003, in essence caused the abandonment of one of civilized society's basic sexual boundaries. Because of the pushes and pressures of Godless contemporary culture, we now champion, model, even teach homosexual behaviors, maladaptive behaviors that inordinately spread deadly disease and are harmful to the human body. The consequences can only be destructive. Given the green light to sodomy, but still not anywhere near satisfied, the  gay movement proceeds to hijack the marriage institution, dishonestly equating the practice of sodomy and the like to holy matrimony.  

No matter how much they love each other, two men or two women cannot do marriage because they cannot do the thing that constitutes biological conjugal relations. In other words, they cannot do the thing that makes babies. Yes, they apparently do lots of things together that stimulate sexual feelings; pornography and masturbation, which are done all by oneself, do that too. Of course none of it constitutes mating. In fact, those dead-ended behaviors aren't good for anybody the way real marriage is. In fact, just as a corrupt tree cannot bring forth good fruit, because homosexuality is unnatural and harmful, absolutely nothing good can come of it in the long run. 

It is understood that marriage includes the sexual union between opposite sexes. In fact, it's long been understood that the only place for sex is marriage (and  we're talking about proper sexual relations). Yes, this rule has always been broken, and is being broken right and left nowadays, but that doesn't mean it isn't right and good. It's good for marriage, which means it's good for children and society as a whole. Even if rules are often broken, they are still essential to order and prosperity. Wise people know that human sexuality is a serious thing. If the sexual appetite is  misused, somebody gets hurt. Thus our society still regards many sexual vices as criminal, punishable by law. 

Many people caught up in this bizarre movement are damaged pawns who have developed misplaced sexual feelings. These confused people are being shamelessly exploited in a movement that is not really about sex but about upturning the order of a society based on God and His laws. Destroying limits on sexuality is just one of many vehicles that can accomplish this goal.

Eat, drink, and be merry. If it feels good do it. This life is all there is. Self-interest is all that matters. Any rule that conflicts with what we want is worthless and out-of-date. These are the clarion calls of this generation. As a result, many people don't seem to value what used to be prized above all, essential things like posterity, sanity, character, honesty, fidelity, sacrifice, rightness, and goodness. The funny thing is, every half-way decent person really does greatly value these things; when it gets personal they have to admit it. But they are usually so brainwashed in the emotional "cause" of the moment, they don't see that right principles must apply across the board or will be publicly abandoned eventually to the detriment of all. 

Gay marriage? A misnamed wholesale fraud that thumbs its nose at reality, health, truth, and humanity. Embracing it with all its lies will only add to the destruction of a once strong and striving civilization.   

And Bill O'Reilly says our side has "no good arguments?"

For more on this topic be sure to read these super articles by Robin Phillips following: "Five Gay Marriage Myths," and "Apples, Oranges & Gay Marriage."



Click here to read this SoL Voice article on our website.

- - - - - - - - - -
SoL Quote: 
"All healthy men, ancient and modern, know there is a certain fury in sex that we cannot afford to inflame, and that a certain mystery and awe must ever surround it if we are to remain sane."
--G.K Chesterton (1874-1936)

- - - - - - - - - -


Boy Scouts to Allow Gay Youth?

Email exchange between an SoL subscriber and a local scout leader

Here is the original email sent by our SoL subscriber to BSA and the local scout leader
On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 11:27 PM, Mxxx Gxxxxx <mxxx@bxxxxx.com> wrote:
to nationalsuppor., Mxxx.hxxx,

Dear BSA:

I'm writing to support your current membership policies, and to urge you not to cave to political pressure and change your policies. 

Boy Scouts is one of the most meaningful and important things in my life, and has been for the past 30 years.  I now have a son who is a Boy Scout.

Should BSA change this policy, I would have no choice but to resign as an Assistant Scout Master, and remove myself and my son from among your ranks. 

This is a slippery slope you're stepping on to.  In the community of those troubled with same-sex-attraction and gender identity, "Gay" represents a small subset their numbers.  Don't forget about Lesbian, Transgender, Transexual, Bisexual, Unisexual, Pansexual, Omnisexual, etc.  They'll all want consideration, and specific mention in your policies. 

I'm a member of an LDS Troop in Utah, and I take my role as Asst. Scoutmaster seriously (as I have with various roles in the BSA for the past 10 years).  I do not think that most members of my Church will have the guts to walk away from something that will only deteriorate my sons and my spirituality, water down his understanding of gender and the roles genders have in society, and confuse him about sex and sexuality at an age when he shouldn't be involved in sex or sexuality.   The BSA is no longer in the business of making responsible and good men.  You're in the business of "giving everyone an equal experience."

I'll be sad if you make this part of your official policy, but will respect your right as a private organization to do so.  You'll just have to do so with our me, or my son.   My eagle award is on my desk, ready to ship back to you. 

Ironically, looking for the appropriate contact to send this to, I found this on my home councils web page:

To report Youth Protection issues and abuse, please call 801-437-4220.

I had idea to call that number, and report the BSA for putting my son and the boys in my patrol at risk. 

Feel free to contact me directly if you would like.  I'd be glad to speak with you further about this.

Mxxxt Gxxxxxx
9xx-7xx-8xxx
mxxx@bxxxxxxx.com


The local scout leader responds
On Apr 21, 2013 12:50 AM, "Mxxxxxx Hxxx" <mxxx.hxxx@gmail.com> wrote:

    Evening Mxxx,

    After reading your message, I am writing to provide a brief response.

    Firstly, neither I nor those you addressed in our district will be attending the National Scout meeting in late May nor are we eligible to vote on a resolution that may recommend a change in BSA's membership policy.

    Secondly, our council already decided its position and is sending 17 designate individuals who will be voting as a block on any proposed membership policy change. These individuals will be among approximately 1,700 voting members across the U.S. who are authorized to vote.

    Thirdly, the media is presently reporting that BSA is proposing a policy change, yet without providing the complete text of a formal resolution that must be presented to each council and all charter partner organizations.

    Fourthly, each scouting partner organization will review any membership policy change as put forth in a formal resolution and decide how they will vote and how or whether they will support the final outcome of said vote. We should not pre-judge either the vote outcome nor what any charter partner organization will decide and recommend to members of said charter partner organization.

    Fifthly, as individuals, we make choices and live by these choices. This notwithstanding, I suggest waiting for the outcome then listen to the counsel and rationale each charter partner organization will provide, regarding its decision, to the scouting leaders in the units it sponsors before making and acting on any personal decision.

    Respectively,

    Mxxx


Our subscriber writes back to the scout leader
On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 9:59 AM, Mxxx Gxxxxx <mxxx@bxxxxxx.com> wrote:

    Thank you for your email.

    This is obviously an emotional issue, and I'm glad that our council is taking it seriously.

    I realize the decision has not yet been made, and I pray daily that the BSA body will vote to keep the policy as is. I'd love nothing more than to remain in scouts along with my son.

    I admit that my faith in the organization was shaken when the BSA decided to further investigate this issue just after reaffirming their long-standing position.  At that time, I got  the idea that it's only a matter of time before the policy is radically changed... either all at once, or bit by bit over a long time.   I still hope I'm wrong. Boy do I hope I'm wrong.

    I realize that it's likely that the charter organization will still be able to set their own policies... but that is little consolation.  If the attitude of the organization changes, so will their values, literature, awards, and goals.  That will no doubt seep into our own version of scouting over time.  At some point we'll be skipping sections of the handbook, and avoiding certain merit badges.   Believe me... those interested in promoting this gay agenda are not simply wishing to humbly be included so they can learn skills and enjoy the outdoors, or develops morals... they won't stop at a policy change.   They are here to transform the organization into one that validates and promotes their lifestyle and choices.   The BSA is already that kind of organization!  I can't see it working both ways without some devastating compromises.

    I'll take your suggestion and wait for the outcome... but I can't shake this pit in my stomach either.

    Mxxx Gxxxxx


The scout leader then writes back to the Sol subscriber
From: "Mxxx Hxxx" <mxxx.hxxx@gmail.com>
Date: Apr 21, 2013 10:25 AM
Subject: Re: Unable to remain a Scout or Scout Leader...
To: "Mxxx Gxxxxx" <mxxx@bxxxxxxx.com>

Morning Mxxx,

I, too, have mixed feelings about a potential membership policy change and its downstream implications on our youth, our values and the future of the organization.

This said, Scouts Canada changed its membership policy about 2005 not only to allow same-sex attraction members but to even allow girls to join Scouting units subject to the policies of the sponsoring partner. Nation wide membership dropped throughout Canada since this change, yet the LDS Church elected to continue partnering with Scouts Canada with a waiver that they will not be required to accept girls in Scouting units.

Given the LDS Church's recently announced web site reaching out to members who find themselves facing and dealing with same sex attraction and inviting these individuals to come and participate with the body of the church, I will wait for a decision and will carefully and prayerfully study the decision and supporting rationale for guidance.

Lastly, there are many members today who deal with this issue at a very deep and personal level, who participate actively, who live celibate lives, who have callings, and even have temple recommends. We love them and include them in our lives.

Thank you for sharing your concerns, which are noted and trust me when I say you are not alone. The council leadership is well aware of the full spectrum of thoughts, concerns and implications surrounding a potential membership policy change. I have participated in discussions with our council leadership at many levels and know they are not taking this matter lightly.

Just a few Sunday morning thoughts.  Let's enjoy a beautiful day.

Cheers,

Mxxx

This is the last thing the SoL subscriber sent him . . .
"because of his ridiculous 'We love them and include them' comment.'"


I should say that I make a distinction between those who are troubled with same-sex-attraction, and those who are "gay".  SSA is like any other temptation in my opinion.  It's something we have to work at overcoming, maybe throughout our whole lives.  Those with that attitude do not fall into any category that should be excluded from scouts or church activity.  You're right... these people should participate actively, have callings and recommends and be included.  They're no different that I am...  struggling everyday to repent and apply the atonement in their lives. 

However, there are those who profess to being "gay"- meaning they identify themselves by this sin which is, according to them, unchangeable, intentional (by God) and good and right.  This is where my problem lies.

Mxxx

Click here to read this on the SoL website.



- - - - - - - - - -
SoL Quote:
"It is a wicked, wicked world in which we live and in which our children must find their way. Challenges of pornography, gender confusion, immorality, child abuse, drug addiction, and all the rest are everywhere. There is no way to escape from their influence. Some are led by curiosity into temptation, then in experimentation, and some become trapped in addiction. They lose hope. The adversary harvests his crop and binds them down. Satan is the deceiver, the destroyer, but his is a temporary victory. The angels of the devil convince some that they are born to a life from which they cannot escape and are compelled to live in sin. The most wicked of lies is that they cannot change and repent and that they will not be forgiven. That cannot be true. They have forgotten the Atonement of Christ."
--Boyd K. Packer, May 2006
- - - - - - - - - -

Five Gay Marriage Myths
by Robin Phillips

As same-sex marriage was discussed in the public discourse of various English-speaking countries (first Canada, then Britain, and now America), it was almost universally taken for granted not simply that marriageought to refer to the union of persons, but that the essence of marriage always has been the union of persons. As a result, less and less people, even among the Christian community, understand marriage to be intrinsically and inviolably heterosexual.

Let's consider what it would mean if marriage has always been the union of two persons, with the gender of those persons being accidental in an Aristotelian sense. We are then claiming that the union of a man and woman has always been a variant of the union of persons, that biology and the possibility of reproduction were never at the core of what marriage is but additions to it, that consummation was never central to the completion of a marriage since only practical when the "union of persons" happened to be members of the opposite sex, that "man and wife" were never something that made a relationship a marriage but were always a species of the genus "union of persons."

The only problem with construing marriage in these terms is that this has never been how it was understood, even among cultures like ancient Rome which might have been most inclined to understand marriage as the union of persons. Those who take this view are thus pushed into the corner of having to acknowledge that throughout most of human history the laws, customs, culture and language built up around marriage was based on a misunderstanding of what marriage actually was, for until recently no one understood that marriage has actually always been the union of persons.

Fewer and fewer people, even among the Christian community, understand marriage to be intrinsically and inviolably heterosexual

Now let's be clear: the fact that marriage has never been understood as a union of persons does not itself prove the new concept to be faulty. However, at a minimum it does establish that it is a new concept, a novel definition that is discontinuous with the institution of marriage as it has been understood and practice for thousands of years. This is something the champions of gay marriage are reluctant to acknowledge, since their case for "equal access" depends on maintaining some degree of continuity with the norms of an existing institution. This pretence of continuity enables them to form their arguments in quantitative terms, as if they were merely expanding the pool of people who can get legally married, rather than qualitatively altering the very essence of what marriage is.

- See more at: http://instantanalysis.net/afa-blogs/2013/04/02/five-gay-marriage-myths#sthash.i2mf3Xrv.dpuf


Myth #1: Marriage is fundamentally a voluntary union of persons in a committed relationship

We tend to think of language as something posterior to thought. A thought comes into your mind and then you find the right words to express it. Anthropologists and neuroscientists are currently doing some fascinating work on the relationship between thought and speech and have discovered that things are a little more complicated. Speech does not merely proceed from our thoughts like a one-way street. Rather, researchers have been finding that there is also traffic flowing in the other direction: how we speak affects how we think about the world on a level that our conscious minds may never even be aware. As psychologist Lera Boroditsky put it in a Wall Street Journal articlesummarizing some of this research, "the structures in languages (without our knowledge or consent) shape the very thoughts we wish to express".

There are fascinating examples of this from all over the world, but the phenomenon is just as evident close to home. In the last forty years, we've seen how the way people speak about unborn children (i.e., calling them "foetuses" or "lumps of tissue" instead of babies) has had an unconscious effect on how so many people think about the ethics of abortion. Or again, how we think about homosexuality has been enormously influenced by pairing homosexuality with words that already had a positive semantic range, such as gay. In David Kupelian book The Marketing of Evil, he showed that these and many other language shifts did not just happen, but arose out of a deliberate strategy for changing the way Westerners perceive certain key issues.

By introducing changes in how we speak, the media often changes how we think.

The same thing is now occurring in the debate over same-sex marriage. Almost without anyone taking notice, our society has begun to talk about marriage as a voluntary union of persons in a committed relationship, rather than a union of a man and a woman. Never before has marriage been spoken about in this way and the implications are profound. Because of how the brain works, this shift in how we talk about marriage has been attendant to a shift in how we think about marriage. Unconsciously we begin wondering: if marriage is really the union of persons in a committed and loving relationship, why shouldn't gay people be allowed to participate in this institution?

As same-sex marriage was discussed in the public discourse of various English-speaking countries (first Canada, then Britain, and now America), it was almost universally taken for granted not simply that marriageought to refer to the union of persons, but that the essence of marriage always has been the union of persons. As a result, less and less people, even among the Christian community, understand marriage to be intrinsically and inviolably heterosexual.

Let's consider what it would mean if marriage has always been the union of two persons, with the gender of those persons being accidental in an Aristotelian sense. We are then claiming that the union of a man and woman has always been a variant of the union of persons, that biology and the possibility of reproduction were never at the core of what marriage is but additions to it, that consummation was never central to the completion of a marriage since only practical when the "union of persons" happened to be members of the opposite sex, that "man and wife" were never something that made a relationship a marriage but were always a species of the genus "union of persons."

The only problem with construing marriage in these terms is that this has never been how it was understood, even among cultures like ancient Rome which might have been most inclined to understand marriage as the union of persons. Those who take this view are thus pushed into the corner of having to acknowledge that throughout most of human history the laws, customs, culture and language built up around marriage was based on a misunderstanding of what marriage actually was, for until recently no one understood that marriage has actually always been the union of persons.

Fewer and fewer people, even among the Christian community, understand marriage to be intrinsically and inviolably heterosexual

Now let's be clear: the fact that marriage has never been understood as a union of persons does not itself prove the new concept to be faulty. However, at a minimum it does establish that it is a new concept, a novel definition that is discontinuous with the institution of marriage as it has been understood and practice for thousands of years. This is something the champions of gay marriage are reluctant to acknowledge, since their case for "equal access" depends on maintaining some degree of continuity with the norms of an existing institution. This pretence of continuity enables them to form their arguments in quantitative terms, as if they were merely expanding the pool of people who can get legally married, rather than qualitatively altering the very essence of what marriage is.

- See more at: http://instantanalysis.net/afa-blogs/2013/04/02/five-gay-marriage-myths#sthash.IKm5bzle.dpuf

Myth #1: Marriage is fundamentally a voluntary union of persons in a committed relationship

We tend to think of language as something posterior to thought. A thought comes into your mind and then you find the right words to express it. Anthropologists and neuroscientists are currently doing some fascinating work on the relationship between thought and speech and have discovered that things are a little more complicated. Speech does not merely proceed from our thoughts like a one-way street. Rather, researchers have been finding that there is also traffic flowing in the other direction: how we speak affects how we think about the world on a level that our conscious minds may never even be aware. As psychologist Lera Boroditsky put it in a Wall Street Journal articlesummarizing some of this research, "the structures in languages (without our knowledge or consent) shape the very thoughts we wish to express".

There are fascinating examples of this from all over the world, but the phenomenon is just as evident close to home. In the last forty years, we've seen how the way people speak about unborn children (i.e., calling them "foetuses" or "lumps of tissue" instead of babies) has had an unconscious effect on how so many people think about the ethics of abortion. Or again, how we think about homosexuality has been enormously influenced by pairing homosexuality with words that already had a positive semantic range, such as gay. In David Kupelian book The Marketing of Evil, he showed that these and many other language shifts did not just happen, but arose out of a deliberate strategy for changing the way Westerners perceive certain key issues.

By introducing changes in how we speak, the media often changes how we think.

The same thing is now occurring in the debate over same-sex marriage. Almost without anyone taking notice, our society has begun to talk about marriage as a voluntary union of persons in a committed relationship, rather than a union of a man and a woman. Never before has marriage been spoken about in this way and the implications are profound. Because of how the brain works, this shift in how we talk about marriage has been attendant to a shift in how we think about marriage. Unconsciously we begin wondering: if marriage is really the union of persons in a committed and loving relationship, why shouldn't gay people be allowed to participate in this institution?

As same-sex marriage was discussed in the public discourse of various English-speaking countries (first Canada, then Britain, and now America), it was almost universally taken for granted not simply that marriageought to refer to the union of persons, but that the essence of marriage always has been the union of persons. As a result, less and less people, even among the Christian community, understand marriage to be intrinsically and inviolably heterosexual.

Let's consider what it would mean if marriage has always been the union of two persons, with the gender of those persons being accidental in an Aristotelian sense. We are then claiming that the union of a man and woman has always been a variant of the union of persons, that biology and the possibility of reproduction were never at the core of what marriage is but additions to it, that consummation was never central to the completion of a marriage since only practical when the "union of persons" happened to be members of the opposite sex, that "man and wife" were never something that made a relationship a marriage but were always a species of the genus "union of persons."

The only problem with construing marriage in these terms is that this has never been how it was understood, even among cultures like ancient Rome which might have been most inclined to understand marriage as the union of persons. Those who take this view are thus pushed into the corner of having to acknowledge that throughout most of human history the laws, customs, culture and language built up around marriage was based on a misunderstanding of what marriage actually was, for until recently no one understood that marriage has actually always been the union of persons.

Fewer and fewer people, even among the Christian community, understand marriage to be intrinsically and inviolably heterosexual

Now let's be clear: the fact that marriage has never been understood as a union of persons does not itself prove the new concept to be faulty. However, at a minimum it does establish that it is a new concept, a novel definition that is discontinuous with the institution of marriage as it has been understood and practice for thousands of years. This is something the champions of gay marriage are reluctant to acknowledge, since their case for "equal access" depends on maintaining some degree of continuity with the norms of an existing institution. This pretence of continuity enables them to form their arguments in quantitative terms, as if they were merely expanding the pool of people who can get legally married, rather than qualitatively altering the very essence of what marriage is.

- See more at: http://instantanalysis.net/afa-blogs/2013/04/02/five-gay-marriage-myths#sthash.IKm5bzle.dpuf

Myth #1: Marriage is fundamentally a voluntary union of persons in a committed relationship

We tend to think of language as something posterior to thought. A thought comes into your mind and then you find the right words to express it. Anthropologists and neuroscientists are currently doing some fascinating work on the relationship between thought and speech and have discovered that things are a little more complicated. Speech does not merely proceed from our thoughts like a one-way street. Rather, researchers have been finding that there is also traffic flowing in the other direction: how we speak affects how we think about the world on a level that our conscious minds may never even be aware. As psychologist Lera Boroditsky put it in a Wall Street Journal articlesummarizing some of this research, "the structures in languages (without our knowledge or consent) shape the very thoughts we wish to express".

There are fascinating examples of this from all over the world, but the phenomenon is just as evident close to home. In the last forty years, we've seen how the way people speak about unborn children (i.e., calling them "foetuses" or "lumps of tissue" instead of babies) has had an unconscious effect on how so many people think about the ethics of abortion. Or again, how we think about homosexuality has been enormously influenced by pairing homosexuality with words that already had a positive semantic range, such as gay. In David Kupelian book The Marketing of Evil, he showed that these and many other language shifts did not just happen, but arose out of a deliberate strategy for changing the way Westerners perceive certain key issues.

By introducing changes in how we speak, the media often changes how we think.

The same thing is now occurring in the debate over same-sex marriage. Almost without anyone taking notice, our society has begun to talk about marriage as a voluntary union of persons in a committed relationship, rather than a union of a man and a woman. Never before has marriage been spoken about in this way and the implications are profound. Because of how the brain works, this shift in how we talk about marriage has been attendant to a shift in how we think about marriage. Unconsciously we begin wondering: if marriage is really the union of persons in a committed and loving relationship, why shouldn't gay people be allowed to participate in this institution?

As same-sex marriage was discussed in the public discourse of various English-speaking countries (first Canada, then Britain, and now America), it was almost universally taken for granted not simply that marriageought to refer to the union of persons, but that the essence of marriage always has been the union of persons. As a result, less and less people, even among the Christian community, understand marriage to be intrinsically and inviolably heterosexual.

Let's consider what it would mean if marriage has always been the union of two persons, with the gender of those persons being accidental in an Aristotelian sense. We are then claiming that the union of a man and woman has always been a variant of the union of persons, that biology and the possibility of reproduction were never at the core of what marriage is but additions to it, that consummation was never central to the completion of a marriage since only practical when the "union of persons" happened to be members of the opposite sex, that "man and wife" were never something that made a relationship a marriage but were always a species of the genus "union of persons."

The only problem with construing marriage in these terms is that this has never been how it was understood, even among cultures like ancient Rome which might have been most inclined to understand marriage as the union of persons. Those who take this view are thus pushed into the corner of having to acknowledge that throughout most of human history the laws, customs, culture and language built up around marriage was based on a misunderstanding of what marriage actually was, for until recently no one understood that marriage has actually always been the union of persons.

Fewer and fewer people, even among the Christian community, understand marriage to be intrinsically and inviolably heterosexual

Now let's be clear: the fact that marriage has never been understood as a union of persons does not itself prove the new concept to be faulty. However, at a minimum it does establish that it is a new concept, a novel definition that is discontinuous with the institution of marriage as it has been understood and practice for thousands of years. This is something the champions of gay marriage are reluctant to acknowledge, since their case for "equal access" depends on maintaining some degree of continuity with the norms of an existing institution. This pretence of continuity enables them to form their arguments in quantitative terms, as if they were merely expanding the pool of people who can get legally married, rather than qualitatively altering the very essence of what marriage is.

- See more at: http://instantanalysis.net/afa-blogs/2013/04/02/five-gay-marriage-myths#sthash.IKm5bzle.dpuf

- - - - - - - - - -
SoL Quote: 
"I believe this grab for children by the sexually confused adults of the Gay Elite represents the most serious problem facing our culture today."
-- Tammy Bruce, The Death of Right and Wrong, 2003
- - - - - - - - - -


Apples, Oranges & Gay Marriage
By Robin Phillips

Ever since Aristotle, the philosophical categories of accident and an essence have provided a helpful way of distinguishing between the properties of a thing that are absolutely necessary for that thing to be what it is (essential properties) and those properties which a thing may possess but that are not absolutely necessary for its existence (accidental properties). For example, the property of greenness is accidental to apples, since an apple could be red or yellow and still be an apple. But "fruitiness" is an essential property of an apple, since, if it were not a fruit, it would not be an apple.

Put another way, an accident is an attribute not definitely excluded by the essence of a thing. Being tall is thus an accidental property of a tree, since a short tree is still a tree, whereas being ligneous is an essential property, since a tree that was metallic could no longer properly be called a tree, at least not a real one.

These distinctions can be usefully applied to the debate surrounding so-called gay marriage. Those who claim that same-sex couples have a right to get married tend to assume (usually without argument) that the sex of the two people involved is an accidental rather than an essential property of marriage. If they are right, then two men or two women can make a marriage just as easily as a man and a woman can. Under this framework, gender is to marriage what color is to an apple: an accidental property, not something essential to the thing itself.

In contrast, the Christian tradition has always maintained, by pointing to Genesis 2:24 and similar passages, that the sexual complementarity of husband and wife is not accidental to marriage, but absolutely essential to it.

The Question of Banning

Earlier this year, the UK government issued a consultation to gather feedback from the British public on same-sex marriage. The paper issued in accordance with this consultation continually framed the debate in terms of "removing the ban on same-sex couples getting married." Here the government jumped ahead of itself, however, because to speak of a ban on same-sex marriage is already to assume that same-sex marriage is possible, i.e., that gender is accidental rather than essential to it; yet that is the very point at issue.

Consider a parallel case: because it is not possible for a person to marry an orange, we do not say there is (or should be) a ban on human-orange marriage, any more than we would say there is (or ought to be) a ban on the cultivation of citrus apples. The essence of what marriage is simply excludes it from being contracted between a man and an orange, just as the essence of what an apple is excludes it from being grown as a citrus fruit. In both cases, the thing itself is conceptually impossible, so it makes no sense to speak of banning it.

If we were, then, to conclude that sexual complementarity is an essential property of marriage, it would be impossible for two persons of the same sex to get married, and it would be just as meaningless to speak of banning same-sex marriage as it would be to speak of banning the cultivation of citrus apples. On the other hand, if we were to conclude that the sex of the two people involved is merely accidental to marriage, then, and only then, would we be able to speak meaningfully of either banning or permitting same-sex marriage.

So which is correct? Is gender an essential or an accidental property of marriage?

Gender Is Essential

There are a number of good reasons to think that gender complementarity is an essential property of marriage. Consider some of the concepts and conditions that marriage gives rise to: concepts such as consummation and adultery. The very existence of these concepts presupposes a notion of marriage in which the participants are members of the opposite sex. Such concepts either become confused or collapse into complete vacuity once we assert that the gender of the participants is accidental.

Thus, when gender differentiation stops being essential to the married state, consummation and adultery either cease to be meaningful or must be redefined to mean something quite different from what they currently do. This was impressed upon me when I encountered the following paragraph in the UK government's consultation document on introducing same-sex marriage to England and Wales:

    Specifically, non-consummation and adultery are currently concepts that are defined in case law and apply only to marriage law. . . . However, with the removal of the ban on same-sex couples having a civil marriage, these concepts will apply equally to same-sex and opposite-sex couples and case law may need to develop, over time, a definition as to what constitutes same-sex consummation and same-sex adultery.

Think about that for a minute. The English Parliament is proposing to allow same-sex couples to get "married" even though they acknowledge they have no idea what consummation and adultery would even mean under such conditions. Instead, they are content to rest in the knowledge that, some day, the courts will create new definitions for these terms. It remains to be seen whether the new definitions will play back to affect the meaning of consummation and adultery within heterosexual contexts. Given the press for equality, it would be hard to imagine that they wouldn't.

Click here to read the remainder of this Salvo article.


Click here to go to our website and read these and other articles.


Also, on the News Links section of our website homepage, we have some new entries you will want to read.


_____________________
<coms cover4.gif>                

Our great book Captain of My Soul may be ordered on http://tidalwavebooks.com/ now for 12.95, free shipping. It will be available soon on Amazon.com and BarnesAndNoble.com. Also find Chased by an Elephant, the Gospel Truth about Today's Stampeding Sexuality for LDS families, Wild Elephantthe Gospel Truth about Today's Stampeding Sexuality for all Christian families, and Me, Tarzan, You Jane for the youngest children written for all Christian families, also at Tidal Wave Books, BYU Bookstore, through Barnes and Noble and amazon.com.



 
We have new entries in our news links and quotes sections of our website you will find informative.

Click here to go to our SoL blog, read the posts and leave comments.

If you or anyone you know is troubled with unwanted homosexuality, our website offers help and hope for those who truly desire to overcome it. On our website just click the Get Informed button. You will find helpful resources there: articles, papers, books, websites, videos. Be sure to read "The Only Good Choice," found at the top of our Home Page.

Email: sgraham@standardofliberty.org. Website: http://www.standardofliberty.org/  Blog: http://standardoflibertyblog.blogspot.com/
 
Phone: 801.830.8418

No comments:

Post a Comment