Monday, March 10, 2008

It's Not The Homosex, Stupid

by Eric Alcock, President, Vote Life, Canada!

Note to the reader:
Commentary on a disturbing trend


With all due respect to savvy Mark Steyn who quipped “It’s the Demography, Stupid,” I wish Steyn would have pushed back for us the curtain of Western society’s bedroom a little further in order to give us a glimpse of the smirking elephant in the closet. Heaven knows we desperately need a paradigm shift in our thinking about sexual “freedom” in the bedroom.

Is it my imagination or do you notice that a great many “conservative” culture warriors—individuals and organizations, Christians and otherwise—have taken to lobbing grenades at those promoting and engaging in homosex, making that the defining strategy, if not obsession, of their war? According to them, among the top threats to our civilization is the “homosexual” agenda.

So let me ask you. What would you think of drivers who ignored red lights but who regularly demonized speeding drivers as the real enemies on the road? Comical? Yes, but consider this. Heterosexuals who rail against homosex, which indeed is a particularly odious variation of sterile sex, are—with strikingly few exceptions—themselves egregiously addicted to their own pleasurable variety of sterile sex. Equally comical, of course, but only if you consider sterile sex per se to be in a league with dangerous behaviours such as running red lights.

But please don’t jump ship at this point. Hear me out. I know that our post modern society, parroting the relativism of its enlightened pulpiteers, considers this subject settled and entirely off limits. Any suggestion to re-open it is probably constituted an offense in itself—a possible relapse to a prudish repressive sexual ethic of Victorian times.

"But we believe in real marriage, the traditional kind, one man and one woman for life, and sex only in that context. That’s the correct standard because it’s God’s standard. A married man and woman can make their own decisions in good conscience about the kind of sex they engage in. It’s nobody else’s business."

Indeed, that’s the claim, but tragically these days it rarely goes beyond a claim. For too many conservatives, yes, and Christians also, who normally relish opportunities to expose politically correct speech, the lack of reasoned debate and evasions of the truth, a remarkable about-turn takes place when the truth concerning sexual disorders gets a little too close to home.

"Whoa there! Truth? Disorders? According to who?"
Can it be a shock to the reader that throughout two millennia of Western civilization—as well as nearly two millennia of Jewish thought which preceded it—the moral consensus on sterile sex could be summed up like this: All sexual activity, both heterosexual and otherwise, practiced with a view to circumvent procreation constitutes a perversion of God’s order and an abomination.

Here we could take our pick of sources, from the Early Fathers through to Martin Luther, John Calvin, or any other reputable preacher, bible scholar or theologian, right up to the early and mid 1900’s. All—without exception—considered these acts as “a most unnatural wickedness, and a grievous wrong.”

Thus we had the American and Canadian laws which prohibited the sale and distribution of devices that aided in such perversity and which were not rescinded until the 1960’s. Thus we record the witness of some of Western society’s most public figures, such as U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt, who matter-of-factly labeled the practice of birth control as “the capital sin” against civilization.

But are such ideas peculiarly Western, or even Christian? A surprising number of non-Western cultures throughout history fully squared with Christian teaching on this point. Mahatma Ghandi, a world famous reformer and Hindu, condemned sterile heterosex as a corrupter of morals, a destroyer of marriage and a further degradation of women.

But regardless, truth—the old-fashioned objective kind—is no respecter of cultures and the fallout in our society from a denial of this particular truth has been debilitating. Take note of the Anglicans, the first Christian denomination to break rank with the faith of their fathers on this major doctrine. They formalized the opening of a Pandora’s Box in 1930 by allowing certain exceptions for sterile heterosex and are now being rent asunder by the practice of sterile homosex in the bedrooms of their Bishops. Coincidence?

The extreme break with Christian tradition represented by this acculturated disorder raises serious questions about just how much hostility towards God we have harbored this past generation or two. Some say our rejection of God—played out in this sexual arena—has so cursed our Western society as to account for not only our sex-crazed degeneracy but also family and marriage deformities and breakups, the abortion holocaust, dangerously higher quotas of immigration due to falling birthrates, the growing threat of Islam, the secularization phenomenon with its evil twin Christianophobia and a mounting civilizational self-loathing.

This is a hard pill for many to swallow. But can we admit this much at least: Steyn got it perfectly right when he prophesied the death of Western society due to reproductive sterility. Not for a moment did he suggest that even ten thousand new conferences and/or books on Islam, the tyranny of homosex, the battle for marriage and the family, secular humanism or Christophobia would save us. No, very clearly he stated that it was the question of birthrate which we have refused to address. That alone will cause our society to implode. Steyn put his finger on the precise nature of the problem. Likewise the solution, if it was any closer, might jump up and bite us.

The yearning of many contemporary Christians for a cultural fix through revivalist and “biblical” calls to repentance must also take the birthrate—and sterile heterosex—into account. Though some will contest the point, it must be admitted that any conversion wrought through the preaching of a Whitefield, Finney, et al will not only demand our hearts get right with God but will necessarily reinstitute cultural prohibitions and taboos supporting the age old and exegetically superior biblical interpretation of the sin of Onanism.

The very thought makes many shudder and some to say,

"Surely, God, we can instead pay women to have babies, still hold on to our hard earned sexual “freedoms” and save our future. Otherwise, God, this is really going to hurt!"
The suggestion that our future hinges on the abandonment of sterile heterosex is utterly disconcerting. It’s too much to grasp—let alone admit—that old fashioned traditional Western wisdom on sexuality was spot on.

But no, it was much more than that. It truly was a civilizational bulwark.

Preachers and pundits would do well then to cease from their various crusades against homosex, Islam, etc. in order to refocus their energies and resources to formulate a new strategy which targets the real enemy. By attacking the ideology and behaviour which is directly fuelling our demographic demise, our odds of making gains in this war are markedly improved.

Another point must be raised. The defense of current phony and lethal sexual “liberties” may be worthy of the label progressive but hardly worthy of the label conservative, and certainly unworthy of the name Christian, at least historically. Such perversions of true liberty were legitimized by the victories of yesteryear’s liberals yet they currently enslave us because they are defended by today’s “conservatives.” Conservatives must seriously examine their own complicity in the sterile sex agenda—which has aided in the destruction of society and has rightly identified them as co-conspirators—and be encouraged to instead stand in defense of established Western wisdom.

Conservatives must decide what it is that they are fighting to conserve. Indeed, what else deserves conservation, other than the collective wisdom and institutions central to Western thought and civilization? Isn’t this precisely why conservatives fight unhesitatingly against abortion, attacks on marriage, disintegration of family, pornography, lowering of morals, etc? Yet why have we not been fighting the one mortal enemy which Western wisdom has explicitly warned—in loudest fashion this past 100 years—would spawn precisely such an epidemic of evils? Sterile heterosex is a beguiling demon of tremendous significance and must be opposed with all our energies and by all possible means.

Instead, we have been trying to beef up our society in order to withstand the intense battering spawned by our own endorsement of sexual license: Educate about the radical homosexual agenda. Expose the dangers and tyranny of secular humanism. Equip Canadians to confront the threat of Islam. Bolster the family and marriage and fight those who attack it.

It’s like trying to engineer more impact resistant cars rather than require drivers to stop at red lights. At this stage, it seems we have even forgotten the red light is there, or perhaps by now we have removed it entirely from the intersection. Is it any wonder the “culture war” is being lost?

So yes, it is the behaviour and specifically it’s sterile sex—of all brands. With great courage, it needs to be identified as such, properly condemned and duly proscribed.

Which again brings us back to Steyn’s famous line and his sober closing:

"It's the demography, stupid. And, if they can't muster the will to change course, then "What do you leave behind?" is the only question that matters."


Labels: , , ,

5 Comments:

At 10:43 PM, Blogger Noelle Marie said...

Of course! I don't know why I never thought of it before! I'm one of those who have theorized and read many books and articles on social issues.
Western societies are becoming nations of old people. I was driving down a street recently and saw approximately twenty children playing hockey in the street, riding bikes and skateboards. I was struck with a moment of nostalgia. My next thought was, "Where have all the children gone?"

 
At 8:44 AM, Blogger ELA said...

NM,
I'm glad I was able to add some insight on this subject. I hope that you can find a way to put that new perspective into play in order to oppose the current trends.

 
At 2:13 AM, Blogger Ted Hewlett said...

It is a shame that social conservatives putting forth their concepts of what needs to be remedied in our society sometimes make the mistake of denigrating the efforts of other social conservatives who are engaged in combatting other trends.

Whether or not we entirely agree with the comments in this article, it is certainly true that a lack of appreciation for the gift of children is responsible for deep societal problems. The author states, ". . . a great many 'conservative.' culture warriors—individuals and organizations, Christians and otherwise—have taken to lobbing grenades at those promoting and engaging in homosex, making that the defining strategy, if not obsession, of their war? According to them, among the top threats to our civilization is the 'homosexual' agenda." Perhaps you should consider that many of us, far from wanting to "lobby grenades" at homosexuals, were forced into combatting not homosexuals as such but the campaign of homosexual totalitarians. These homosexual activists, not content with being allowed to practice their own deviations from the norm of sexuality, have succeeded in getting the parliament of Canada to put its stamp of approval on it. and are working very hard to ensure that our children are accepting of these deviations, and that they equate homosexual unions with marriage.

Please visit http://www.BCPTL.org if you doubt that this fight is worth undertaking.

More and more we are seeing that the "culture of death" being promoted in our society is not limited to one particular evil. Surely we should recognize others trying to combat the culture of death, not put them down because they are not fighting the same battle we are in.

I would be interested in seeing the response of the author of "It's Not the Homosex, Stupid" to my comments: which are really a plea that we do not tear down the efforts of those with whom we share a kinship of concern.
--Ted Hewlett
socialconservatives.ca

 
At 3:36 PM, Blogger ELA said...

Ted,

I appreciate the fact that you took time to read the posting and to comment.

I think you may have misunderstood my message and it's possible you are unwittingly misrepresenting it. You reduce my entire thesis to "a lack of appreciation for the gift of children is responsible for deep societal problems."

I think my case is much more fundamental than that. It has to do with God's will for the sexual act, the rebellion against His will displayed in Western society, and our disregard for at least two thousand years of moral consensus on the matter.

These are some of the more important questions that I raised. My article was only incidentally aimed at those who seem overtaken with the "threat of homosexuality" when, in fact, we have been overtaken with a much more insidious and dangerous evil. In that light, I don't think it can be constituted a "put-down." It was written to engage contemporary culture warriors and I did try to reduce its polemical nature.

I recognize your good intentions and efforts to deal with some of the spin-offs of said insidious evil but I hope the article will help you to consider placing some much needed energy into warning Canadians of a more fundamental and covert threat.

As you might have noted, I have blogged a follow-up post to this one which I hope may help readers to see a little deeper into my concern.

Many blessings
Eric

 
At 1:08 PM, Blogger Noelle Marie said...

As French dramatist Arthur Adamov once said, "I am separated; from what I don't know. I only know that I am separated. Formerly it was called God. Now it no longer has a name"

 

Post a Comment

<< Home

/body>