Redefining human sexuality and gender: Our relentless politically correct lemmings' march to the sea

So, it's no longer the Boy Scouts. But it's still the Girl Scouts. Girls can join the former, boys cannot join the latter.

It's just crazy. No, really, it is. And this is just one more mile marker on this politically correct lemmings march to the sea.

Our so-called "culture war" was fought for decades in the political realm, and in the classrooms and lecture halls. Now, increasingly, this struggle has moved into the arena of faith.

More mainstream, "liberal" denominations of After millennia of general agreement of such things, within a generation many mainstream, "liberal" Christian denominations have abandoned old, seemingly written-in-stone beliefs about the nature of humankind, love and what comprises the sanctity of marriage. These changes, they argue, reflect a more loving God, and a more selective, perhaps, reading of scripture.

A new PRRI poll shows that now the struggle appears to also be eroding, through attitudes of millennial members, the once-resolute commitment to "traditional marriage" and associated same-sex issues, within the ranks of the most conservative expressions of faith -- just 10 years after a coalition of such churches, along with Muslims, Hindus and others -- passed California's Prop 8.

While this shift is explosive in terms of religious timelines, perhaps the struggle is ancient. There always has been the dichotomy: Does humankind define the Divine and its intentions, or does a faithful humankind allow the God they claim to believe in to redefine and perfect them? A subset of that would seem to reflect the former -- that the foundations of scripture, doctrine and tradition are now an embarrassment to our more enlightened, evolved worldviews.

The trend seems to be that scripture is antiquated, its commands thus open to revision or dismissal in light of current, more "evolved" thought. In all this, where does love and fidelity come in? Can we, as believers, not love, respect and pray for those who do not share the tenets of our faith, and yet still hold fast, not compromising the heart of our faith given once, for all?

Can those who so rightly fight for civil rights for all humankind, regardless their ethnicity, gender, or personal, political and religious choices also respect -- even protect -- the rights of others who disagree on matters of faith and its practice to live out their convictions?

Once upon a time, such disagreements often would conclude without resolution, but with this statement, accredited to Evelyn Beatrice Hall: "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

Marital Sea Change: Same-sex, polygamous rulings death knell for dominance of 'traditional' secular marriages?

So, is the cultural and legal sea change toward same-sex marriage a portent for unraveling of traditional marriage as we have known it?

Of course it is. You must decide yourself, according to your own beliefs and conscience, whether that is a bad thing or some sort of societal leap forward.

I can hear the cries of "hater!" and "bigot!" now, but hear me out: my opening statement is rational and, to my mind, irrefutably logical.

In the past two weeks in the state of Utah, arguably the bastion of all things conservative and where voters overwhelmingly voted to limit marriage legally to one man and one woman, not less than TWO court decisions have turned the world on its head, marriage-wise.

Both came from the federal courts. First, a judge gutted Utah's long-time law banning polygamous marriages (a historical move that cleared the way for statehood more than a century ago, when the Mormon prophet gave up the doctrine of plural marriage).

Equal protection under the law, and the inability of the state to argue the harm to society, et al, were keys to that decision.

Ditto for another federal judge's decision late last week striking down the state's ban on same-sex marriage.

Monday morning, hundreds of gays and lesbians lined up at courthouses to get their licenses, where clerks were under orders to comply with the ruling.

Of course, the state of Utah is appealing both decisions. But the historical course is inevitable. Both decisions, sooner or later, will be upheld. 

This fight may not be over, but it is decided.  

The next battleground could, and likely will be whether, and to what extent, business owners and churches can exercise their faith-based resistance to the morphing definition of marriage.

Talking whether a bakery or caterer can legally bow out of a same-sex event, or whether a church can keep its tax-exempt status, or ability to perform "legal" marriages, if it does not conform to the politically correct tides.

Same-sex marriage/rights advocates argue that will never happen . . . just as they did that approving same-sex marriage rights would not have a slippery slope effect where polygamy would benefit from the same arguments.

What IS marriage, legally? It IS, regardless the apologists' who insist the LGBT Pandora's Box has not been toppled, a definition that is now wide open . . . if not in actuality now, inevitably later.

If same-sex marriage is legal, and if polygamy is legal, where are the restrictions for anyone, other than minors, engaging in this particular legal contract, etc.? 

 

Why not, then, a bisexual/polygamous marriage or any other variation of genders and numbers of partners? 

Any attempt to place limits on marriage, by any definition, will be mortally wounded by the same arguments that got us to this point.

Decades ago, I read a science fiction series where in marriages varied by gender, number and even the definition of what was "human."

One "family" consisted of a man who had cloned himself multiple times, at various ages, and married him-selves as well as other men and women and artificial intelligences.

Then, I thought: What an imagination!

Now? Not so much.

I don't have the answers to this whole thing. And I refuse to be the judge of others. Not my job.

But as an historian, and a believer, I have to observe that when spiritually informed morality is removed from the societal equation, as we seem to have done with our secular society, the very fabric of its institutions can become, certainly, unrecognizable, and perhaps unraveled . . . if not in present fact, then possibly in future reality.

Duck Dynasty: Belief, free speech and the tyrrany of political correctness

So, "Duck Dynasty" patriarch Phil Robertson expresses his faith, and his biblically based belief in "traditional" family structure and "normal" sexuality.

And, he gets suspended from the most popular TV show on the air.

He also has become the cause célèbre for a large, if increasingly reviled segment of American society under an unrelenting attack from the so-called "tolerant" among us.

Tolerant, that is, unless someone had the audacity to dispute the mantra now in vogue by the extreme Left. Tolerant, until someone suggests he or she views any behavior – let alone sexual behavior – a “sin.”

Everyone these days seems to want a smiling, laughing, never judgmental God, and anything – including His purported Word to the contrary – is swept under the metaphysical carpet, as it were.

The crudity of Robertson's discussion of sexual preference for vaginas over anuses makes one wince. It also goes the the heart of the argument that, for the first time in history, how someone decides to sate his or her sexual urges has become equated with racial, ethnic, political and religious minorities and how they were treated in the past.

It's the supposed new "civil rights" movement, we're told. But I wonder how someone's honestly held, indeed once universally held views that biological construction and purpose point to male-female unions rather than colonic, same-sex coitus as not only the norm, but the Design.

That is essentially what Robertson said, albeit in far more graphic, earthy terms.

I grew up during what I dare to call the real Civil Rights era, when African-Americans and those supporting them literally put their lives on the line to end institutionalized discrimination in education, business and at the ballot box.

Sorry, but I do find it difficult to extrapolate that to the call today to gag the free, albeit unpopular speech of anyone.

And yes, that also means the free expression of anyone -- gay, straight, liberal, conservative, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, agnostic, atheist -- to say what they think without the fist of political correctness slamming them into the ground.

Disagree today with a liberal about the failures of the Obama administration, or suggest that marriage was and always has been, heretofore, between males and females, and you are labeled a bigot, thrown into the same "hate" group as Nazis, the KKK and the Taliban.

Lost in the rush to PC judgment is the fact that folks like Robertson are not advocating any form of discrimination against gays, and in fact have made it clear they strive to treat everyone fairly. The issue, for them, is a moral one, based on their beliefs.

Other Christians have differing opinions on any number of issues, including homosexuality. But they are largely ignored in the rush to throw anyone with evangelical Christian roots into the same intellectual gulag.

I, for one, recognize two things: First, I cherish friends I have who happen to be gay; to me, if their lifestyle is “sinful,” then so are those of other friends who cheat on their spouses, their taxes or their commitment to provide a fair day's work for their wages. 

The more strident among us, believers and unbelievers, tend to forget that we are, all of us, sinners and can only be “saved” through grace.

And second, that being the case, I am content to love all my friends and leave judgment to God . . . and I suspect He is and will be far more compassionate that any of us can comprehend, or deserve.

But back to Robertson and "Duck Dynasty." A&E's reaction may have been knee-jerk, a decision driven by reaction to the outrage of some who seek to muzzle the new dissidents in our society. But it also is A&E's right to do so. Employees these days are let go for far less, even no reason, being more and more "at will" staff. 

 

There always is a price to pay for standing up for what you believe, and sometimes -- due to questionable judgment in how that is done -- the price can be high.

But given the strongly pro-Robertson reaction thus far -- petitions, statements of support by celebrities, etc. -- perhaps A&E should look more to its bottom line.