Western civilization = unreasoning beasts all.
From Rod Dreher’s blog:
Well, Commonweal, as many of you know, is the leading liberal Catholic magazine, and it has just published an essay by Notre Dame law professor Richard Garnett explaining how there really is an emerging threat to religious liberty from all this…
[Here is a excerpt from Garnett]:
The Law Of Merited Impossibility is an epistemological construct governing the paradoxical way overclass opinion makers frame the discourse about the clash between religious liberty and gay civil rights. It is best summed up by the phrase, “It’s a complete absurdity to believe that Christians will suffer a single thing from the expansion of gay rights, and boy, do they deserve what they’re going to get.”
Now, from Mark Surburg’s blog:
I recently came across this piece written by Anthony Esolen two years ago. He makes an interesting and very common sense argument against the sexual revolution. We are told that what happens in the bedroom between two consenting adults is private and doesn’t concern anyone else. Yet the very nature of sex is that it impacts the common good of society as a whole.
About trivialities, the law should have little to say. But our sexual behavior is far from trivial. In fact, the same people who, in one way, claim for it such triviality that it must fall beneath the notice of the law, in another way, exalt it as the lodestone of human life, such that any curtailment of sexual autonomy must strike to the very heart of our beings. We cannot have it both ways at once. Indeed, I can conceive of no other thing more deeply determinative of what a society will be like, or even whether it will be a genuine society at all, than our folkways regarding men and women, their courtship, their marriage, their duties to one another, and their raising of children. Sex—both the distinction between man and woman, and the act that unites man and woman in the embrace that is essentially oriented towards the future—is a foundational consideration for every people. When we ask, “Will a man be allowed to have more than one wife?” or “Will husbands and wives be allowed to divorce at will?” or “Will unmarried people be encouraged to behave as if they were married?”, we are asking, whether we understand it fully or not, “What kind of culture, if any, do we want to share?”
Esolen goes on to note the ways that the sexual revolution has harmed the common good of our society. We can pretend that sex is a only a private thing between two consenting adults. But the world around us that this has created says something very different.
To treat a same-sex couple differently would be hateful, a sin against fairness, a refusal to recognize, accept, and embrace publicly something that pleases them.
A tiny portion of the population has successfully overthrown an institution that has existed since the Creation of the world. How? In 1993, two same-sex couples in Hawaii simply wanted to be married, and we as a society have no publicly recognized basis for saying no. But more to the point, like the very neat categories of hetero- and homosexual, gay marriage “screams reassurance that whatever you are doing is OK.” Gay marriage screams acceptance to the vast majority of Americans who do not personally experience same-sex attraction, but who want public reassurance that whatever they want to do—whether to consume deviant pornography, or trade in their wives over irreconcilable differences, or live in deliberately childless marriages and accumulate toys—is OK. You are what you are because that’s how you were born. And any challenge or restraint on what you want to do, on what pleases you, cannot be tolerated. Fair is fair.
Conservative Christians have failed to stop the juggernaut of gay marriage because we have embraced the values of the sensate culture. American society is not ruled and normed by Scripture, and so any appeal to it (“I will make him an help meet for him”) in defense of “traditional marriage” appears as nothing more than special pleading, an appeal to what pleases us….
Also listen to Wheaton prof. Stanton L. Jones, summing up what we have – and haven’t – learned about homosexuality from social science: http://www.firstthings.com/article/2012/02/same-sex-science
And, now listen to 47:00-49:38. David Brooks, speaking at this year’s Aspen Ideas Festival, has some shocking information here that sums it up. Think this hedonism started in the 1960s? Guess again…
Image credit: http://www.quora.com/Marco-Witzmann