For those who don’t read Rod Dreher’s comment threads, Carlo, Glaiverster, and Thursday are some of the excellent commenters. Rod Dreher, gay brown-noser dressed up as “crunchy con,” has banned me from TAC. You can read more about my banned comments in my Censored blog.

Here’s a recent example of several important insights from the above commenters on this thread: Jacobins Of The Sexual Revolution – By Rod Dreher • November 8, 2013, 5:32 PM

only some more relevant comments were copied here:

==============================
dominic1955 says:
November 8, 2013 at 7:48 pm

“What one side views as a grave evil the other side views as a fundamental human right,” he said. “And for tens of millions of Americans, conservative churches have made themselves the enemies of liberty.”

What “tens of millions of Americans” view as “liberty” is the kind of “liberty” dogs and swine enjoy. If these people think its essential to “liberty” to boink whoever, whenever and not have to face the consequences, then what a terribly sad and banal existence.

“There is no need to restrict the liberties of those who can be completely ignored – is anyone persecuting the Temperance League or the Anti-Saloon League these days?”

Here’s the other part of the problem-please tell me you were just being snarky…honestly. Do people really think these two things are of the same nature? Can you not see that the sexual issues will not go away the same way that a progressivist moralizing fad did?

Tell a lie enough and it becomes “truth” and all, but I wish people would at least know the lie in it.

=====================

Carlo says:
November 8, 2013 at 8:12 pm

The main difference was that at the end of the French revolution several tens of thousands of people had died, but most European nations still had the human and cultural resources to regenerate social life.

The sexual revolution for now has only killed lots of unborn babies, but has the potential to culturally destroy whole countries.

I am always amazed by the cultural tone deafness of US “liberals” who think that the sexual revolution was about freedom. I think it was about denying personhood and turning everything the human body into a commodity. In the US this is not as apparent as in Europe because of residual puritanism and religiosity. In the Italian newspapers these days the main story was about was about widespread prostitution among middle-class teen-age girls. In the US this may still be a few year away (among middle class people) but it is certainly coming. So is demographic collapse.

==============================
Jonathan says: November 8, 2013 at 9:42 pm

What “tens of millions of Americans” view as “liberty” is the kind of “liberty” dogs and swine enjoy. If these people think its essential to “liberty” to boink whoever, whenever and not have to face the consequences, then what a terribly sad and banal existence.

I have to say, I would rather be a swine than whatever you, Carlos, and Young are. Simply put, your views are so utterly vile to me, that they are alien. It’s not simply an issue of communication; this goes down to the most basic assumptions. Laycock is right. You and your kind are the enemy. Where social conservatives see a dark ages, I see the triumphs of a long struggle to cast off the restrictive and insane normative imposed by the various fruits of Abraham.

There is no reconciliation here, only token gestures to religious liberty that lead me to say that bakers shouldn’t have to bake a ssm wedding cake if they don’t want to. I think it makes them delusional and self righteous, but that doesn’t determine their rights to not serve a customer.

========================

Carlo says:
November 8, 2013 at 11:35 pm

Jonathan:

I am not sure what’s especially “vile” about my views. I simply recognize that the liberal myth of a “value neutral” polity is just that, a myth. Your last post shows that very well. At some point, when a society is torn asunder between groups of people who have diametrically opposed views of what it means to live a decent human life, what freedom is about, and what basic human respect requires, the whole abstract liberal scheme falls apart. You can have oppression of one side against the other, you can have a civil war, you can have a secession, or the whole system can fall apart into chaos. You certainly will not have a Jeffersonian (or Stuart Millian) democracy because you have no demos.

===========================

Carlo says:
November 8, 2013 at 11:47 pm

Geoff:

“Perhaps the best way to look at these things is through the prism of Hegelian dialectic, in which case, hopefully the same-sex marriage movement represents not the antithesis to the thesis of conservative Christian culture of the past, but a synthesis of it and the sexual revolution.”

Good luck with that. From my cynical European perspective the whole US SSM enthusiasm (assuming the numbers of SSM are really significant) is just a reflection of the fact that in spite of the sexual revolution, US culture has remained bourgeois and conventionally religious (in the therapeutic moralistic deistic sense) for a couple of generations longer than in Europe. In Europe the whole notion of life-long marriage is out of fashion, and SSM is just about making an empty ideological statement about “equality.”

========================

dominic1955 says:
November 9, 2013 at 12:51 am

“Simply put, your views are so utterly vile to me, that they are alien. It’s not simply an issue of communication; this goes down to the most basic assumptions.”

I would agree, its not merely an issue of communication. When someone has seemingly cut themselves off from all of classical western thought, its damn near impossible to communicate, but the communication issue is merely a symptom.

======================

Jonathan says:
November 9, 2013 at 12:59 am

I am not sure what’s especially “vile” about my views. I simply recognize that the liberal myth of a “value neutral” polity is just that, a myth.

The acidity in my response was somewhat reactionary to dominic. I do not consider myself “value neutral” at all. I assume three things: I exist, everyone else exists, and human happiness and wellbeing is better than human unhappiness and suffering. These are assumptions, because nothing about the universe says these are objective truths. The universe does not judge. I assume these things, because I do not adhere to the idea that “all is meaningless, therefore I should be a dick.”

Because I am concerned with human happiness and wellbeing, I become upset when I see human suffering caused by incorrect beliefs about how the universe is. To give you an example. Some time ago, Rod posted a reference to someone… I don’t remember. That blogger made a remark about how he had met people who confessed they struggled with same sex attraction, and how he (the blogger) treated them with love and helped them with their struggle.

My response to this wasn’t admiration, it was rage. Why rage? Simple. These homosexuals were distraught because they were attracted to the same sex, causing them stress and self hatred. They believed these things, because they had been taught same sex attraction/behavior was unnatural, violated natural law, was a sin against god, was not part of god’s plan etc…

I don’t think I can express how enraged that makes me. Those people suffer because they have been taught they live in a universe where same sex attraction/behavior is objectively wrong. Those people suffer because of iron age falsehoods perpetrated by men who know nothing or wax poetic about nonsensical trandencentral romanticism . Nothing about the universe says homosexual behavior is objectively good, but nothing about the universe says it is objectively wrong.

Social conservatism inspires my anger, because I consider it a source of suffering. I believe it adheres to a very inaccurate model of how the universe is, and because of this, it gives bad instructions for how people can live healthy and happy lives. And so it is with no small amount of schadenfreude, that I watch the gnashing of teeth of those who speak of our impending doom. If the collapse of Christianity and conservative social norms is our doom, then I embrace it. Vae victus, the orthodox have earned it.

[NFR: The Sexual Revolution has found its Robespierre. I hope no one like you ever gets near power. — RD]

===================

Glaivester says:
November 9, 2013 at 2:39 am

There is religious liberty as a shield — the government may not establish a religion and the government may not interfere with my quiet, personal exercise of religious beliefs.

Translation: You can believe what you want as long as it has no discernible impact on your public life, and above all as long as you don’t talk about it.

And then there’s religious liberty as a sword, where people assert the right not to comply with laws of general applicability on the basis of their religious beliefs.

Except “laws of general applicability” covers a whole lot of ground.

America has vast well-entrenched protections for religious liberty as a shield. It’s just not true to say that those liberties are under attack.

Depends on exactly how narrowly you construe what can be shielded.

What is under attack are the relatively new attempts by religious conservatives to wield the claim of religious liberty as a sword.

B.S. What has changed is that areas that once would be defined as a shield are now defined as a sword.

Anti-discrimination law is a perfect example. The principle used to be that businesses had complete control over firing and hiring decisions because they owned the business. Under the new anti-discrimination principle, businesses are not allowed to use certain criteria in making decisions. This would have been viewed as overbearing government 100 years ago; now it is considered as a practically unquestionable right.

In the gay rights issue, what has changed is not that conservative churches are trying to use religious liberty as an excuse to be more aggressive at imposing their views on people, rather, what has happened is that the government has re-defined aggression so that not hiring someone the government thinks you should hire is considered aggression. In other words, what used to be considered a shield of defense is now considered the sword of aggression.

It is deeply disingenuous to claim that it is the position of churches which has gotten more radical, when it is the government that has expanded its reach. You are changing the standards and then asking us why we are no longer behaving “inside the lines.”

But let’s all try to keep a little perspective here. No one’s coming to kick in the doors of your church and tell you how to pray.

In other words, we will allow you the religious liberty that seems appropriate to us, so it is greedy of you to want anything more.

=========================

Carlo says:
November 9, 2013 at 11:37 am

Jonathan:

” I do not consider myself “value neutral” at all. I assume three things: I exist, everyone else exists, and human happiness and wellbeing is better than human unhappiness and suffering.”

Sigh. The question was whether a society or a country can be value neutral in its laws, not you.

If your idea of “human happiness and well-being” is diametrically opposite to mine, and if you enforce laws that make my idea of “human happiness or well-being” more or less impossible to live in practice (or impossible to communicate to my children) I doubt the two (or two million) of us will form a happy society.

====================

Devinicus says:
November 9, 2013 at 12:08 pm

Thank you, Carlo, for your 11:37am posting. The liberaltarian nonsense which clogs Rod’s message boards is fundamentally premised on an impossibility: state neutrality.

=====================

Thursday says:
November 9, 2013 at 12:38 pm

Let’s be clear, traditionalists are not asking for equality for all religions.

Let’s be clear, liberals are not upholding some neutral position that does not privilege any group, but rather are imposing their own substantive view on everyone else and privileging their own favoured group(s).

It’s liberalism’s pretense of neutrality that stinks to high heaven. Say up front what you are doing: attempting to suppress a specific religious position.

======================

dominic1955 says:
November 9, 2013 at 10:24 pm

“Social conservatism inspires my anger, because I consider it a source of suffering. I believe it adheres to a very inaccurate model of how the universe is, and because of this, it gives bad instructions for how people can live healthy and happy lives. And so it is with no small amount of schadenfreude, that I watch the gnashing of teeth of those who speak of our impending doom. If the collapse of Christianity and conservative social norms is our doom, then I embrace it. Vae victus, the orthodox have earned it.

[NFR: The Sexual Revolution has found its Robespierre. I hope no one like you ever gets near power. — RD]”

No truer words have been spoken in this thread.

“Anger” because of “suffering”? What suffering is worthy of Monsieur Robespierre’s Most Righteous Anger? What constitutes suffering? Obviously not the aristocratic parasites who make (by existing?) all the gays “feel bad” about their sodomiacal practices. Oh no, no, no, no! That simply cannot be!

These new goosesteppers have their heads so far up the rear of righteousness (falsely so-called) its ridiculous. Up is down, down is up. Black is white, white is black. A the kicker is that it seems they haven’t the foggiest as to why this is. Delusion.

=====================

Glaivester says:
November 9, 2013 at 11:52 pm

Libby Anne says that people put sexual morality into two boxes. Conservatives’ boxes are: Sex God approves of (marital sex), and sex God disaproves of: (premarital sex, gay sex, pedophilia, bestiality). Progressives’ boxes are: Consensual sex (marital, premarital, gay) and non-consensual (pedophilia, bestiality) So when a conservative like Rick Santorum says that gay marriage will lead to man-on-dog sex, progressives say “Huh? Where on earth did that come from?”

Except that man-on-dog sex and man-on-child sex are only necessarily non-consensual formally. It’s not that animals and children cannot consent to sex, it’s that their consent does not count legally.

And why consent for sex should be relevant in the case of farm animals, whom we are allowed to exploit mercilessly for food, clothing, etc., has never been sufficiently explained.

For the liberal “consent” is defined in whatever way allows them to intellectually justify the few sexual taboos they are not yet willing to abandon.

Anyone who thinks that anti-bestiality laws are created primarily for the purpose of protecting the principle of consent is daffy. They are there for the same reasons they have always been there; atavistic, inchoate disgust, health concerns, the sense that what is happening violates the natural order: defining animals as unable to consent, and defining their consent or lack thereof as relevant, is simply how sexual liberals justify to themselves that they are making an exception to sexual liberalism.

=====================

Glaivester says:
November 10, 2013 at 12:16 am

Let’s be clear, liberals are not upholding some neutral position that does not privilege any group, but rather are imposing their own substantive view on everyone else and privileging their own favoured group(s).

Exactly. Liberals are not looking for religious freedom for everyone, or for religious equality. They are looking for the government to give secular humanism and its values a privileged place in the political sphere. They wish to define religious freedom in such a way that religion is required to pay obeisance to secular humanism. So their bellyaching about conservatives not wanting true equality in religious freedom rings a little hollow.

==================

Thursday says:
November 10, 2013 at 11:26 am

Liberals are not looking for religious freedom for everyone, or for religious equality.

Just to be clear: religious freedom for everyone/religious equality is simply not possible.

The charge that Christians are losing their privileged position is correct. It is the assertion that they are now just being treated like anyone else that is false. Christianity is being actively suppressed, however mild the current means.

There is no such thing as neutrality.

====================

M_Young says:
November 10, 2013 at 3:33 pm

“Progressives’ boxes are: Consensual sex (marital, premarital, gay) and non-consensual (pedophilia, bestiality) So when a conservative like Rick Santorum says that gay marriage will lead to man-on-dog sex, progressives say “Huh? Where on earth did that come from?””

Santorum said nothing of the kind. And who says animals can’t consent? All the evidence is that they can and do under certain circumstances. That you find interspecies relations to be icky is no reason that they should be made illegal.

====================

Jerry says:
November 12, 2013 at 9:43 am

When guys like Thursday say things like, “Just to be clear: religious freedom for everyone/religious equality is simply not possible,” I think they’re making it perfectly explicit that they have no interest in religious freedom — their true and only goal is cultural supremacy and the political power to restrict the religious liberty of social liberals and non-Christians.

Anyone who accepts Thursday’s proposition is not entitled to bleat about their loss of religious liberty. If you agree that religious freedom is impossible, then the First Amendment is impossible, a state without an establishment of religion is impossible, and all questions of the duty of the majority to respect the rights of minorities are ridiculous. If you believe that interfaith relations are always all-out war, then you can’t complain when your enemies don’t unilaterally disarm in order to give you an advantage your numbers can’t earn.

This zero-sum mentality is precisely why social conservatives lost their war to suppress same-sex marriage. The social conservatives’ one argument seems to be that their religious liberty depends on being able to restrict the liberty of others, and that they are oppressed if they are prevented from oppressing others. Is it any wonder that most Americans do not find this convincing?

If Christianity is utterly incapable of playing nice in a pluralist society where Christians do not have guaranteed political power, then I don’t see why non-Christians have any obligation to roll over and meekly accept the rule of Christian overlords.

[NFR: That’s perfectly silly. It’s perfectly obvious we cannot have total religious liberty for everybody. Fundamentalist Mormons and orthodox Muslims cannot have more than one wife in our culture. We could recognize a First Amendment right to polygamy, but what about other lines? What if there were a pagan cult that practiced ritual child sex? The fact is every society draws lines restricting freedom, including religious freedom. — RD]

=====================

Thursday says:
November 12, 2013 at 2:30 pm

Laws may coincide with religious belief, religious belief may inform the moral choices and motives of voters, but the instrumentalities of the state shall remain neutral on the validity of religious belief. Simple. Next problem.

You are artificially restricting religion to worship and belief. Not so simple.

======================

Thursday says:
November 12, 2013 at 2:38 pm

Jerry:

Anyone who accepts Thursday’s proposition is not entitled to bleat about their loss of religious liberty.

Right. By their lights, liberals have an obligation to suppress Christianity. The two are incompatible.

But then, of course, non-Christians likewise have no right to complain when Christians impose Christian morality on them.

they are oppressed if they are prevented from oppressing others.

Choices must be made.

If Christianity is utterly incapable of playing nice in a pluralist society where Christians do not have guaranteed political power

Pluralists are utterly incapable of playing nice in a pluralist society, so I don’t admit your complaint against Christians. Somebody’s substantive morality will be imposed. It’s just a question of whose.

=========================

Jerry says:
November 12, 2013 at 9:43 pm

[NFR: That’s perfectly silly. It’s perfectly obvious we cannot have total religious liberty for everybody. Fundamentalist Mormons and orthodox Muslims cannot have more than one wife in our culture. We could recognize a First Amendment right to polygamy, but what about other lines? What if there were a pagan cult that practiced ritual child sex? The fact is every society draws lines restricting freedom, including religious freedom. — RD]

Rod, if you accept that society sometimes must restrict freedom of religion for other social goods, haven’t you demolished your own arguments that same-sex marriage ought to be restricted in order to preserve religious liberty? If it’s permissible under the First Amendment to draw lines restricting religious freedom, then what is so terribly unjust about drawing the line at a place where the rights of gays take precedence over the rights of religious conservatives? If your religion compels you to oppose pluralist society, I don’t think you get to claim the protection of a pluralist value like religious liberty.

====================

me:
Obviously, how does Jerry, the stupid and dishonest liberal, end the discussion? By claiming that since Christianity opposes a pluralistic society, Christians don’t get to claim the protection of a pluralist value like religious liberty.

What he fails to acknowledge is that liberalism equally opposes a pluralistic society, therefore, by the same logic, he and his gay agenda pigs also don’t have a right to claim any liberal-type liberty either (like legislation regarding the normalization of homosexuality).

And this after Carlo and several others underscored this very point all through the thread!

LGBTs aren’t just inanely stupid – they are purposefully disingenuous about their unethical views and political doings in society.

================

Added (from another TAC thread):

Gromaticus says: November 21, 2013 at 3:30 pm

“a social institution like marriage should not be dismantled so cavalierly.”

Of course the problem is that a portion of the population sees a social institution being dismantled and the remainder see a new addition being constructed on the existing structure.

Governance, for lack of a better term, works when the opposing sides disagree about the method used to obtain societal good; not so much when the core of the debate is whether the goal is good for society in the first place.