Thursday, November 13, 2008

Sexual Counter Culture



It has long been noted that there is a direct relationship between religiosity and fertility. With Islam being the fastest growing religion on earth, this faith is out birthing the western world exponentially thanks to the psychology of secular humanism and its hatred of life. Somalia’s birthrate is 6.91, Niger 6.83, Afghanistan 6.78, and Yemen 6.75. What these countries share in common is Islam. The best standing argument for permitting unchecked illegal immigration (Mexican) is the import of a higher cultural value for bringing forth life (3.6 children). This is due largely to their strict adherence to their Catholic faith, conservative principles, fear of God, and their renunciation of the infanticide which plagues our own people. If our nation fails to reacquire our reverence for bringing forth life and its divine value we will face further population poverty which will render our nation specifically, irrelevant as a benevolent superpower in the near future. God bless the married couples who bring forth many children and God bless those who choose to adopt. No achievement on earth is higher. And no office on earth is nobler than that of the mother and father.


The declining birth rate of the west is also largely due to the pervading culture of homosexuality. This “culture” (too high a term – culture derived from the Latin word cultura – meaning “to till soil”) has set forth an agenda which seeks to “emancipate” sexuality from monogamy and marriage. The homosexual engagement in fact has no roots in any providential soil and bears no fruit whatsoever. The entire relationship is based upon sexuality, pleasure, and self indulgence. There are no children to raise, no pains of child birth, no sacrifice to bring forth human life. When the Roman Empire was crumbling homosexuality was especially rampant. It is not by random or oppressive measures that the three major religions in the world condemn homosexuality. Religions developed over thousands of years conclude again and again that homosexuality is bad in both civic and spiritual realms. The only religion which supports and encourages homosexuality is Marxism (worst idea in human history killing over 100 million in the past century). Georg Lukacs, Marxist theorist and deputy of culture under Bela Kun’s regime instituted a radical sex education program in communist Hungarian schools. Children were instructed in free love, homosexuality, the irrelevance of religion and middle class values, and the pointlessness of marriage and monogamy (sounds like a familiar program relative to the United States school system in 2008)[1]. The goal of such an agenda is to destroy the traditional order through making obsolete the nuclear family, which in its essence, is the enemy of Marxism. Marxism, whether known by its human political vessels or not, is working most actively through the gay agenda to bring about its ends. Organized promiscuity, polygamy, and the pleasure principle are the common weapons of the movement.

Sexuality therefore is not for enjoyment within the arrangement of marriage but more for enjoyment as a purely recreational activity (little different from going bowling on a Friday night). Homosexuals on average have multiple times the partners of heterosexuals and have far greater chances for contracting AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases. Most people intuitively know with certainty that homosexuality is bad for his family, culture, village, and nation.

This “avant garde” approach to sexuality transmitted to the heterosexual scene as well hence the low birth rates. Gay and straight alike, once “man and wife” or “lovers” are now “partners." “Man and wife” is hetero-centric you see and therefore terminology fit only for the intolerant. “Partners” is “gender neural” and more casual in terms for sexual liaisons, thus far superior for the progressively minded. Although the homosexual lobby is most fervently pushing this “enlightened” revelation of sex through the media (which by and large is controlled by the purple hand) they are not solely to blame. We look to Freud and his sex obsession masked in psychology, Alfred Kinsey (sexual pervert poster boy for 60’s sex liberation), who studied and viewed child molestations for research and his cult following. We look to feminism, 60’s counterculture and the resulting sexual revolution (if it feels good do it mantra). These are all historical catalysts which have systematically divorced sex from marriage leading to our embarrassing fecundity to give birth to new life. It is true that MTV, the AIDS obsession, a sex-obsessed media, Internet pornography, and Sex and the City have further caused this separation.


It is also now true that “hooking up” is more common the “dating.” A 2001 survey conducted by Bowling Green State University in Ohio found that of the 55% of local 11th graders who engaged in intercourse, over 60% said they had sex with a “partner” who was no more than a friend. Therefore seeking a sexual outlet in the companionship of peers or “partners” is more common than within the romantic attachment or marriage. From my own experience true dating or the nearly extinct “court ships” are all but extinct or scoffed at where present.


It is considered that sex is for those who reach a certain "mature" age, to be enjoyed by those who are "responsible," "consenting," and "ready." Yet, sex apart from the marriage bed is only an abortive act, an alien act. It is never responsible or safe apart from a holy union. It is a defilement to the body and spiritually corrosive and degrading. In the abortive act, a baptized and consecrated body is carelessly manipulated apart from the performative statement of God himself that two shall become one and never be cut asunder. Pre-marital sex is adulterous in that one's future spouse is slavishly exploited by another.

There has never been a more confusing time for young people to deal with sex, life issues - birth and death, and marriage. Baby boomer parents and 'generation x' have missed the mark when it comes to defining and articulating a 'theology of the body' - how one ought to regard one's body. For the same generation to legalize abortion en mass has likewise ripped sex out of the marriage bed and placed it as a spectacle in the public sphere - little else that pleasurable colisions of flesh. When the human body is defined as a lump of cells from the womb it would seem that what is done with those cells is essentially of no importance - with no physiological, pychic, or spiritual consequences.


Because sex is considered a 'personal matter' few people have the courage to speak to one another honestly in a spirit of truth and love. Yet, marriage, family, sex, and its possible abuses are not at all 'private,' but in a true way 'public' - and corporately directed. The ecclesia witnesses the acts of the congegation. Sex, as a matter of course traditionally has brought forth life when two are brought together. There are visible signs of sex - physical and natural expressions of it. Love and children are products of that which takes place in marriage. The unmarried sexual encounter is abortive in promise and sacramentum, abortive of family and children, abortive of one's very body. It aborts the traditional order and responsibility to one another.

It is not an inconsequential matter that sex, marriage, and family were provided historically prior to the fall into sin. Therefore sex is a loveliest expression of that which is joined together in marriage, in which God himself made all provisions - joining, creating, and sustaining Adam and Eve. Marriage, sex, and family are God's concrete creational acts. They are not self-willed anthropocentric acts. They are God-breathed gifts, not given as thorns and thistles, but life multiplying blessings.

Sex, as an abortive, non-married act is not only defiling to those involved but provides a confession which rips God's creation wide. Sex is robbed of its sanctity and divorced from God's creation life-giving order. Gift is torn away from God's creational arrangement and made into a burden and cause of sorrow, heartache, disease.

[1] Michael Loewy, Georg Lukacs from Romanticism to Bolshevism (Patrick Caniller, Translator (London:NLB, 1979), p. 112.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.