Sunday, August 07, 2016

Libertarians in favor of State Imposition of Sexual Orthodoxy.

I have been absolutely stunned by the Libertarian move into Leftist Totalitarianism.

One would think that "liberty" meant not interfering in people's lives unless (a) it was really important and (b) there was no other alternative.

But we have to add a third, stand-alone element: the State can interfere with people's lives in order to enforce the new orthodoxy of the Sexual Revolution.

//In the Hobby Lobby case, the Supreme Court assumed without deciding that the government has a compelling interest in providing free abortifacients (more astonishment from the Founders) but it found there were less restrictive means of accomplishing this goal than forcing religious business-owners to provide it. The Court expressed similar skepticism in the Little Sisters of the Poor case, directing the parties to work out an acceptable alternative.

Under RFRA, may a religious zealot “shoot somebody” because he says God told him to? Of course not. Enforcing criminal law is always a compelling government interest. In the 25 years of the federal RFRA’s existence, there has been no case – not one – of the type Johnson claims to fear.

Perhaps Johnson’s sympathy toward the LGBT agenda predisposes him to accept those activists’ propaganda at face value. But there’s no excuse for either intentional or lazy misrepresentation of the fundamental First Amendment issues arising from the LGBT cultural onslaught. Conservatives looking for an alternative to the major-party candidates should keep looking.//


This is perfectly consistent with Mary Eberstadt's argument in her new book that "protection of the sexual revolution" explains so much of modern culture.


18 comments:

Anonymous said...

To quote youyself in the link provided:
"Eberstadt's unifying thesis for this cultural shift is that the sexual revolution has created a new "faith" with its own dogmas and doctrines. Members of the new faith may not recognize themselves as having a faith, but their conduct - harsh, shrill, threatened, looking for heretics, excommunicating offenders, ritualized shaming - are recognizable as the actions of people who are defending a faith commitment rather than a public policy. I think that Eberstadt made her case in this regard. I had not looked at this issue in this way before, but it has an explanatory power for the insanely threatened and emotional reactions I've observed when I get into Facebook debates with secularists, who escalate to name-calling in zero time."

Reling on nothing but the same anecdotal world-view you inhabit, I would assert that the vast majority of individuals in this country view the defining feature of the "sexual revolution" you so abhor is that married women and unmarried women are able to have sex with a high degree of certainty that they won't become pregnant. The issue is that some employers wish to impose their religious values (we don't believe in birth control) derived from the middle ages on a modern secular activity, running a business that hires and takes as customers individuals that do not hold their religious views. I would also assert that most people do not view individual women's wish to have sex without becoming pregnant as anything like a "faith" in the way you or Eberstadt is implying. They don't want to get pregnant. That's all it is.

John Kasaian said...

Anonymous, you seem to be oblivious to the reality that sex doesn't exist to satisfy customers and employees, nor the secular worldview, nor even political demographics, but a means of Re-Creation.
Have you ever considered writing a film script for Woody Allen?

Anonymous said...

Yes, I see now, John. People have sex to have children, period. And we are going to make sure it stays that way. I mean, who would have sex for any other reason other than procreation?

Given you decided to be insulting, I should ask if you have you ever considered writing an episode script for Scooby Doo, because that's about how sophisticated your world-view sounds?

John Kasaian said...

You sound so pushed out of shape because... of what? That the world doesn't live to your expectations of some utopia where the female species exist solely for your grins and giggles?
I haven't begun to be insulting, nor will I. Your word view is a fiction exemplified by one of Freud's understudies who fell from favor with his master and went on to invent the sex box featured in the Woody Allen film Sleeper.
You would have gotten the reference, but perhaps you spent your formative year watching Scooby Doo.

John Kasaian said...

Anonymous, in case you're confused, I refer you to Wilhelm Reich and his Orgone box.

Anonymous said...

Actually, John, you appear to live in a world where men like you get to tell women what to do with their bodies. Is that "fun" for you? Long live John, the pontifex maximus of proper sex and reproduction practices.

You can keep Mr. Reich and your orgasmatron. I refer you to the principles enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. By the way, you use some big words and ideas. To bad none of them have anything to do with individual rights and liberties beyond your own.

John Kasaian said...

Poor Anonymous!
If you're having that much trouble getting dates, try treating girls with respect.
Then break out your notes from your US Government class in High School and attempt to learn something of it this time.
Or lock yourself in your Orgone box. You certainly have the right to do so.

Anonymous said...

John, I can't stop laughing. Your idea of respect between men and women appears to be men giving orders to women.

And to reiterate the idea from my original post, the vast majority of individuals in this country view the defining feature of the "sexual revolution" you so abhor is that married women and unmarried women are able to have sex if they so choose with a high degree of certainty that they won't become pregnant. I guess you don't like that idea.

John Kasaian said...

LOL! Are you sure it's not all about you wanting to have sex with married and unmarried women with a high degree of certainty they won't become pregnant?

Anonymous said...

John, just say it out loud: "I, John Kasaian, want to subjugate women." You'll feel much better and women who don't want to be subjugated will know to avoid you.

By the way, my wife and I have practiced birth control for most our marriage, and we both have enjoyed that aspect of married life very much. So in that regard, despite having a child 20 years ago (planned), we had sex quite often with a high degree of certainty by design of not becoming pregnant.

In summary, I'm glad you and your medieval views on men and women has had nothing to do with our marriage. Liberty for all.

John Kasaian said...

That explains a lot---so you're a poster boy for the sexual revolution? Accept then all the terrible things that the sexual revolution saddled on society. Exactly how long have you been a Hugh Hefner fanboy? Since you want to treat women as objects for your pleasure, I find your name calling laughable.
Get a life.

Anonymous said...

Just say it John, jut say it. You'll feel better. "I, John Kasaian, want to subjugate women." Really, you'll feel better.

And boy, did you hit the nail on the head. I remember seeing everyone at the local pharmacy getting birth control being forced to show their "Hugh Hefner Fanboy" Club cards or be turned away. That point certainly wins the argument. Good job.

John Kasaian said...

Yes. If you're going to idolize the sexual revolution it's all or nothing. Porn, Human trafficking. Decaying culture.
Defending that by accusing me of subjugating women for my opposition is so desperately contorted, it's laughable.
It this the society you want? If so, it's all yours.
Welcome to it.

Anonymous said...

So access to birth control is the root of all evil. I think I understand you personality a bit better now. What a bleak world you see.

So without access to birth control there'd be no porn and no human trafficking? You then reference "decaying culture" which I suspect is your real bugaboo. You just don't like the world as it is and seek to "return" it to some make-believe fantasy of what you think it once was. A world without sex except for procreation, a world without out to wedlock sex, and world without porn, a world of christian men telling (and enforcing) how everyone else lives. A world with the John Kasaian's in charge.

"Is this the society you want? If so, it's all yours."

And where, exactly, are you planning on going, John? What is your alternative? If its a world where John Kasaian gets to decide what the consequences of having sex are for everyone, indeed, its all yours.

John Kasaian said...

Poor anonymous!
You do feel so threatened, don't you? Poor puppy!
The sexual revolution didn't invent repression, it legalized it.
You claim to be in lockstep for the sexual revolution when in fact you're lockstep for the destruction of traditional families and the socially mandated acceptance of women as sexual objects.

I'm not the dictator of the world---so I'm not really sure how I'd make your miserable life any more miserable(and miserable it must be the way you spew your venom)

You obviously haven't fared well studying the US Constitution, Freudian Psychology, nor Western Civilization, so might I suggest
studying Art. Not the kind with staples in the centerfold, but real Art by real Renaissance masters. It may restore your humanity as well as give you an appreciation for beauty. That would be a good thing.

Anonymous said...

I think I'm seeing the light now, John. Birth control should be discouraged. Women, married or not, need to be controlled and should be "punished" for having sex that involves birth control, and if we were all as well-informed as you, we would all see this clearly. Perhaps we should return to confining pregnant women. Maybe a nice tasteful scarlet letter tattooed on their foreheads if they violate your views on sex and birth control.

Just say it, John Kasian, "I, John Kasaian, want to subjugate women."

John Kasaian said...

anonymous, unlike you, I subjugate no one.
You see yourself a standard bearer for women?
Why then, do you stereotype all women as sex toys?
And if they don't toe the line in the sand you've drawn, they are second class women----as you've accused Eberstadt?

Peter Bradley said...

There is a whole lot of projection going on in that comment, Anonymous.

I've met Mrs. John Kasaian.

She's not the type to be subjugated.

 
Who links to me?