I probably won’t be signing the Nashville Statement, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t

In case you have not heard yet, there is a new statement from prominent Evangelical Christians that got released recently. It is called the Nashville Statement, and it is their attempt to combat certain aspects of the Sexual Revolution by upholding sexual morality from a Biblical perspective. It is not long, and you can read it here.

It is my own personal belief that contraception has been a foundation stone of the Sexual Revolution. Evangelicals as a group have not repudiated contraception, which means that they have accepted a foundational aspect of the Sexual Revolution within their ranks and on an institutional basis. Since the statement neglects contraception, I don’t want to endorse these Evangelical’s neglect of their implicit reliance on an important aspect of the Sexual Revolution. I don’t want to give the impression that this reliance is no big deal and not logically problematic to everything else they oppose about the Sexual Revolution.

The statement does say that marriage is procreative, but that seems ad hoc to me. Why is marriage procreative if contraception is OK? I will continue to say it: a right to pregnancy-free coitus among opposite-sex couples (aka “the contraceptive mentality”) created the “need” for abortion and same-sex marriage, and contributed to the “need” to de-gender our legal code.

The sex with of a “guarantee” of no children is seductive, obviously. This is one aspect of the Sexual Revolution that many otherwise orthodox Christians like. They have participated in redefining the Sixth Commandment, and this is a spiritual and logical obstacle to combating the other sinful and heretical aspects of the Sexual Revolution.

Having said all that, I might change my mind and sign it. We’ll see. I’ll have to work it out in my mind and that might take some time. If I think the benefit of showing support outweighs my reluctance to sign something that I think is logically problematic, I’ll sign it. If I do, I’ll update this post.


I wish I had a dad

According to my analytics, last week somebody found my blog by searching for the phrase, “I wish I had a dad.” I haven’t written on that exact topic, so I searched for that phrase to see where my blog appeared, and which post appeared, in the results. I couldn’t find it, but while scanning it became clear to me that a lot of others have written on that exact topic.

If by some chance you are here because you were searching for that phrase, and you wished you had a dad, let me offer this little bit of information and hopefully comfort to you.

1) You aren’t alone. A lot of people wish they had a dad.

2) It’s not your fault that you don’t have a dad.

3) Our culture believes that the definition of freedom includes having the State annul familial obligations whenever adults want. So part of the reason you don’t have a dad is because our culture was more concerned about your dad’s freedom (from you and your other parent) than your feelings about him, and your legitimate need for him.

4) If you don’t have a dad because you were donor conceived, then it’s also true that our culture is more concerned about your mom’s ability to choose how to reproduce than what those choices do to you, your long term prospects, and your feelings.

I say things as plainly as I can because I don’t want to be misunderstood. But I also hope for something else:

It doesn’t have to be that way for future generations. YOU can be part of the change. You can tell your story and speak out so that others don’t choose to do to their children what was done to you. If enough people speak out, then laws can be changed so that these injustices aren’t condoned by the State. The adults around you failed in their duties, but the State and the wider culture has a large part of the blame. When the State annuls people’s familial obligations without cause, it is acting unjustly and outside of its authority.

5) If you are grieving alone because you don’t have a dad, then you may be experiencing disenfranchised grief. This is grief that is not acknowledged or accepted by the wider culture. As a way to be part of a community who understands you, you might want to consider publishing your story online for others to read. It will help you see that you’re not alone, and there is a small movement afoot that calls attention to the injustice you are facing. If you want to tell your story, there are a couple of websites that want to hear what you have to say. They will publish your story, anonymously if you prefer:

  • Donor conceived people can do that here.
  • Others without dads can do that here (single mom by choice, kids harmed by divorce and/or parental alienation, kids in gay households, etc).

Finally, it is OK to put your mother and your father together in your heart and your mind. Your mom and your dad are each half of who you are. Speaking for myself, I fully acknowledge the legitimacy of that family triad, YOU, your mother and your father. Even if you don’t know what your dad looks like, that’s OK. He’s there in you, along with your mom. That is real because it is YOU. You don’t have to tell anybody that you’ve done this. But if you do tell somebody and they don’t agree, just remind that that this is your choice. Everybody else gets a choice, right? So do you. I think that part of the healing process includes letting ourselves acknowledge this, because it is truth.

holy family

Trump the eugenicist?

I doubt Trump is a eugenicist. If it turns out that he is, you can count on me to advocate against him on that point.

But here is what interests me about this HuffPost video: the low-ish view count. It’s been out since the end of September and has not even 350K views. They’re using Trump’s own quotes to compare him to Hitler who definitely was a eugenicist. Given Trump’s visibility, the time frame, and the subject, 350K views is sluggish.

Why the low number of views? Maybe people aren’t responding to it because it’s just wrong and people see through it. But here’s something else that occurred to me. The foundation for eugenics is pretty well established already in our country and most of the west. Many, but not all, of the parts to a eugenic machine are in place. In the “already completed” column, we have sperm donation, egg donation, surrogacy, abortion, commercialized human reproduction, egg freezing for future use. In the “to do” column: sold harder to the general public, the legal side has to be strengthened, and avenues for enforcing contraceptive use and abortion have to be established. That last “to do” item will be tough to do for the foreseeable future, I think. I voted against Prop 60 since I will never vote to enforce any form of contraception for any reason. On the other hand, commercial surrogacy may create the impetus for forced abortions. The conceptual foundation has been laid and the social and legal apparatus is being built on top of it.

People typically understand the term “eugenics” as a state-enforced ideology, but that’s not what I’m talking about really. What we have so far is a consumer version of eugenics. I have zero doubt that in many individual cases of people relying on third-party reproduction, they design babies to their personal specifications: blonde hair, athletic, high IQ, etc. So in practice, consumer-based eugenics is here, and we’re pretty much OK with it because of our skewed idea of “freedom,” because money talks, and because we aren’t supposed to judge. But as I argued elsewhere, there is a link between freedom and fertility. Controlled, mechanized fertility is creating a net decrease of freedom, not a net increase.

What I’m trying to say is, perhaps the video didn’t go viral because most viewers intuited that they agreed with those quotes, even if it turns out they were taken out of context.

Social progress, as if it was a straight line, is a myth. Instead we go around in a circle, or maybe it’s a spiral. Either way, there’s nothing new under the sun.

State-imposed chaos

In our country individuals want sexual liberty. In order to achieve this, they look to the state to dismantle institutions that impose their values and constraints on the individual (marriage, religion). The state stops recognizing sex differences and the bonds created by sexual activity (as well as gamete activity). This “frees” people from those bonds but also makes them more vulnerable to manipulation from macro forces. Those constraints and bonds pushed back against the power of the state by minimizing the effect of macro forces.

As sexual liberty increases, I see more and more state-imposed chaos. Here is a good example: very poor communities, where social order has broken down dramatically and sexual liberation is in full swing due to the state’s incentives and policies. The breakdown was imposed by the state and is maintained by it. Some people call the chaos “freedom.”

But that kind of freedom doesn’t look like freedom to me. It looks like being anti-authority rather than pro-freedom. Here is something from Psalm 2 to show what I mean (emphasis added):

Why do the nations conspire, and the peoples plot in vain?

The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord and his anointed, saying,

“Let us burst their bonds asunder, and cast their cords from us.” 

He who sits in the heavens laughs; the Lord has them in derision.

It is a quantifiable fact that sexual liberation has expanded the power and scope of the state, yet few people who claim to be liberty-lovers speak out against it. This is because they are positively for it. “Sexual liberation” and “limited government” are diametrically opposed.

Communism and the individual

Libertarianism is known for being concerned with the individual, but people are often surprised to learn that Marxism is as well. Until fairly recently I was under the impression that Marxists were only concerned about growing the power of the state, but after doing my own research I discovered that this is a gross mischaracterization of their intent. Here are a few quotes from Marxists.org to show what I mean:

Socialism means the freeing of the individual from the fetters which weigh upon him under the capitalistic system. (Source)

Quite contrary to commonly accepted ideas it was an intensely humane and tenderly sympathetic spirit that gave birth to Marxism. The widespread impression that there is something remote, cold, and inhuman about the persons and theories of Marx and Engels, and something crippling, regimenting and enslaving about the order of society they sought – that capitalism, with its play on the words individual, individualistic, laissez-faire, revealed a warmth and a human understanding which these others lacked – is wholly false and utterly belied by the Russian society based on Marxian principles. The precise opposite is indeed the truth. The activities of Marx and Engels sprang from a consuming compassion aroused by the trail of horror that marked the course of capitalism; it issued in a widespread amelioration of human suffering. (Source)

We need scarcely say that the notion that the maximum of Socialism corresponds to the minimum of individual liberty is as preposterous a travesty of any great principle as ever entered the perversest head of man. Socialism demands the greatest possible liberty (or licence if you will) of the individual, limited only by the condition of its not infringing on the principle of equality of liberty… one of the aims of Socialism is the minimisation of the positive and mechanical coercion by society of the individual in all departments at human life. (Source)

I’m not proof-texting. Here is a site search for the word “individual” at Marxists.org. There are about 17,000 results. Read a few examples for yourself to see what I mean.

Search for the word “individual” at Marxists.org


Uniform units vs. interlocking units

bottles green public domain
Uniform units are more “free” with respect to each other than interlocking units are, but are less able to withstand the effect of external forces. This factory line works because the bottles are all the same. Interlocking bottles would disrupt the system.

Sexual liberty has expanded the power and authority of state enormously. One recent example can be seen in the  Obergefell decision to enforce gay marriage laws on states that did not want those laws. I have not read the decision, but a quick search for the terms “gay” and “lesbian” showed that each term was used 28 and 25 times, respectively. This makes it clear how the category of “sexual orientation,” a false category without scientific support, has influenced the highest court of the United States in a dramatic and detrimental way.

puzzle pieces public domain
Interlocking units are less “free” with respect to each other, but are more able to withstand the effects of external forces. If you push one, you push them all. 

This false category is a recent addition to a political movement that has been dismantling marriage and homogenizing individuals in the eyes of the state–making them all the same. The Obergefell decision contributes to this homogenization process, since marriage laws now must be read in a “gender neutral” way.

Consider how completely uniform units, such as bottles in a factory, are more “free” than interlocking units, but they are also more easily manipulated. This is a metaphor for what is going on in our country with sexual liberation. People want their freedom from any obligation that was not explicitly chosen. But sexual activity bonds us to the people we have sex with, as well as makes new life. So the state steps in to free people from those bonds and obligations. To continue the metaphor, it legally chops off the parts that are interlocking by refusing to recognize that those parts exist.

True liberty includes liberty from one’s passions so that one can do what one is called to do, and perform one’s responsibilities, without internal constraints and conflicts. The founders of the United States understood that we cannot separate liberty and virtue.


“Sexual liberty should win”

sexual liberty is the best

Upholding sexual liberty is the most important goal of the die-hard social liberal. There are many examples of this.

1) Chai Feldblum, now commissioner of the EEOC, said this about the supremacy of sexual liberty in an interview with Maggie Gallagher in 2006:

…when religious liberty and sexual liberty conflict, [Feldblum] admits, “I’m having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.” … “Sexual liberty should win in most cases. There can be a conflict between religious liberty and sexual liberty, but in almost all cases the sexual liberty should win because that’s the only way that the dignity of gay people can be affirmed in any realistic manner.”

Notice how Feldblum uses the phrase “sexual liberty” instead of “LGBT liberty.” I doubt it was an oversight. “Sexual liberty” is a broader category than “LGBT liberty.” It includes male/female couples and was pioneered by them, so of course they will resonate with it. It is useful, although not accurate, for Feldblum to situate “the dignity of gay people” under “sexual liberty.” That sort of liberty has already been accepted by the wider culture and the government. This helps people to think of LGBT issues as just one more manifestation of that liberty, not as something unfamiliar or strange.

porn stats2) Another example is how the Obama administration tried to force Catholic nuns to provide contraceptive coverage as part of their compliance with the health insurance mandate (the nuns won that fight).

3) Another example is President Obama’s executive order allowing transgender students to use the bathroom of their choosing rather than the bathroom of their biological sex (a judge has blocked that order).

4) Another example is how crisis pregnancy centers in California are required to tell people that abortions are available elsewhere. In response, Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse coined the phrase, “pro choice puritans,” saying that “the Pro-Choice Puritans are haunted by the thought that some woman, somewhere, wants her baby.”

I can go on and on and on and on and on and on and on. Instead of doing that I’ll pose a question. Can you think of any examples where “sexual liberty” undermines people’s health, negates other people’s rights, or infringes on other kinds of liberty?


Science vs. social liberals

Just as there are social conservatives, there are social liberals. I define “social liberal” as anybody who is liberal when it comes to social issues. It the opposite of social conservative. Regarding life, family and sexual issues, whatever the social conservative believes, the social liberal believes the opposite. Party affiliation is not necessarily an indication of somebody’s stance on social issues. For example, I believe that most Democrats are social liberals, but I also know that some are not. There are growing numbers of Republicans embracing social liberalism but typically the Republican party is the home of social conservatives.

Here is a chart I made to show how social liberals are at odds with science. It is reductive for a reason. I want to make it clear how a certain demographic (the older generation) exercises “sexual liberty” at the expense of another demographic (their offspring). The negative impact on their offspring is ignored, downplayed, or denied by social liberals.

Issue Science says… Social liberals say…
Does human life begin at conception? Yes No
Is sexual orientation innate and fixed? No Yes
Is “gender identity” fixed at birth? Yes No
Do children fare better with their own married mother and father? Yes No
Do fertile couples have a right to pregnancy free coitus? No Yes
Is divorce harmful? Yes No
Is pornography harmful? Yes No
Is gay sexual activity harmful? Yes No
Are men and women different? Yes No

I’m sure I could add more things to this list.