Regarding SEX!!

Mark Steyn on the FAMILY

THE KINGDOM OF THE BONOBO

A few years ago, Kenneth Minogue of the London School of
Economics wrote that ours is the age of "the new Epicureans" in
which the "freedom to choose" trumps all."
A childless couple can choose to conceive. A female couple can
choose to conceive.
A male couple can choose to conceive. Barrie and Tony from
Chelmsford, England, had been trying for a child for ages but
nothing seemed to work. Then it occurred to them this might be
because they're both men. So they advertised for an egg donor on
the Internet and then found a Californian woman with a nine-month
opening in her womb. A court in the Golden State agreed to
register both men as the fathers of their children not so much on
the technical grounds that they had "co-mingled" their sperm
before FedExing it to their Fallopian timeshare and her turkey
baster, but out of a more basic sympathy that this is how Barrie
and Tony "self-identify" and it would be cruel to deny them. The
mother did not rate a credit on the birth certificate. Nor did
the turkey baster. This would seem to be in defiance of reality,
but what price biology when measured against self-esteem?43
A woman in Bend, Oregon, can choose to become a man, and then a
"pregnant man."

A man can choose to become a woman, get halfway there, and then
decide it's more fun to "live in the grey area,' like
"award-winning Canadian writer" Ivan E. Coyote, who prefers to be
addressed as he/she and self-identifies as a "very masculine
reading estrogen-based organism," and resents the way the hicks
at U.S. Customs and Border Protection don't have a check box for
that. In 2009 Mr./Ms. Coyote was detained by CBP along with an
American friend, "a tall, feminine woman with a heavy moustache."
Biologically, Barrie or Tony, but not both, is the sole father of
their child; the "pregnant man" is pregnant but not a man; the
he/she living in "the grey area" is in reality black or white -
at least according to what we used to call "the facts of life."
But issuers of passports, drivers' licenses, and birth
certificates increasingly defer to the principle of
"self-identification."

In terms of sexual identity, we're freer than almost any society
in human history, at least in terms of official validation of our
choice to "redefine" ourselves in defiance of biological and
physiological reality. But sexual liberty has provided the cover
for a sustained assault on individual liberty in every other
sphere-in speech rights, in property rights, we are less free
than our parents, and getting more constrained every day. Big
Government seems to understand that if you let your subjects shag
anything that moves and a lot that doesn't they'll mistake their
shackles for a complimentary session at the bondage dungeon. Give
me liberty or give me sex! Live free or bi-! In an age of
suffocating statism, sexual license is the only thing you don't
need a license for.

As for the sex, for niche identities and boutique demographics
like Mr./ Ms. Coyote and Oregon's pregnant man, things seem to be
working out swimmingly. But, among the masses, it's harder to
avoid the sheer mountain of human debris being piled up. The
story of the last forty years is the mainstreaming of rock-star
morality: instant gratification, do your own thing, whatever's
your bag. Jodie Foster and her turkey baster are rich enough to
weather any unintended consequences of their fling, but the
evidence suggests that, for the general populace, defining
celebrity down is more problematic. "Oops! I Did It Again" is
easy for Britney to say. Less so for Kaylee at the hair salon.
The new school soldiers on, arguing that chastity, fidelity,
monogamy, etc., are mere social constructs: we've been
indoctrinated into them by repressed cultural hierarchies. Sexual
promiscuity is part of our nature: you should be getting it on
with that hot chick at Number 27. And her husband. And get your
wife in to video it. Screwing whatever you want, whenever you
want in whatever combination you want is as natural as wearing a
mammoth pelt and sitting round the cave rubbing two sticks
together. Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jetha wrote a rather
laborious book on the subject, Sex atDawn: The Prehistoric
Origins of Modern Sexuality, that demonstrates by frequent
recourse to biology, anthropology, ethnography, and primatology
that the idea of lifelong heterosexual marriage is a crock
imposed on the world by party poopers." Your hunter-gatherer was
the king of the swingers, the jungle VIP.

At this point in the argument, it's customary to bring up
bonobos. No, not the bloke from U2. He loves Africa, too, but not
in that way. The bonobo is some kind of chimp that lives south of
the Congo River, and is apparently the closest extant relative to
humans. And, like us, he's a bi-guy who can't get enough casual
sex. So, if he's hip to it, why have we got so many hang-ups?
That's easy, say the anthropologists: agriculture. Man stopped
hunting and gathering and started farming. Bummer, man: families,
monogamy, way less action. How ya gonna keep 'em down on the farm
after they've seen Paris Hilton? Agriculture was not merely an
ecological "catastrophe" (as the author Jared Diamond sees it),
but also a sexual one . Sure, these pre-agricultural societies
may have had a lot of rape, incest, and female genital
mutilation, but at least they knew how to party.

Let us take this argument on its face - that moving from
primitive hunter-gatherer societies to agriculture not only
introduced to the world concepts of property, autonomy, civil
society, and markets but also deeply repressed our libido. In
other words, sexual propriety is a function of civilization. The
question then arises: Is it possible to restore man's unbounded
license without also de-civilizing us? And, if so, what else are
we losing with our inhibitions? In a state of nature, without a
legal code or even social norms, you're free to pursue all your
desires. Then again, so's the guy in the next tree. And, if he's
bigger and stronger and if what he happens to desire is you, you
may not enjoy it so much when it's you on the receiving end.
That's another consequence of the liberation from responsibility:
some of us lie around the well-appointed Big Government cage like
listless, lethargic pandas and polar bears; others are more like
those tigers that, after years of somnolence, wake up one morning
and devour their devoted keeper.

The wreckage is impressive. The Sexual Revolution was well-named:
it was a revolt not just against sexual norms but against the
institutions and values they supported; it was part of an assault
against any alternatives to government, civic or moral.
Utopianism, writes the philosopher Roger Scruton, is "not in the
business of perfecting the world" but only of demolishing it:
"The ideal is constructed in order to destroy the actual: Who
needs families, or marriage, or morality? Who needs nations,
especially nations with borders? We'll take a jackhammer to the
foundations of functioning society and proclaim paradise in the
ruins."

"Moderate" Republicans such as Arnold Schwarzenegger like to
boast that they're fiscal conservatives and social liberals. But
the social liberalism always ends up burying the fiscal
conservatism. As Congressman Mike Pence put it, "To those who say
we should simply focus on fiscal issues, I say you would not be
able to print enough money in a thousand years to pay for the
government you would need if the traditional family collapses."
But the collapse of the traditional family is already well
advanced-and as part of a conscious Big Government strategy. Big
Daddy sings a siren song: a kiss on the hand may be quite
continental, but statism is a girl's best friend. So it is in
government's interest to diminish those men old-fashioned enough
to marry women and thereby woo them away from the Big Stash of
Big Daddy Statist. Big Government's bias against marriage and
family isn't an unforeseen quirk of the tax code. It's in
logical, strategic support of its mission-to expand government
and diminish everything else. How's it going? Well, 40 percent of
American children are now born out of wedlock. A majority of
Hispanic babies are born to unmarried mothers. So are 70 percent
of black children. And so are 70 percent of the offspring of
non-Hispanic white women with a high school education and an
income under $20,000. Entire new categories of crime have arisen
in the wake of familial collapse, like the legions of daughters
abused by their mom's latest live-in boyfriend. Congressman
Pence's doomsday scenario is already here: millions and millions
of American children are raised in transient households and moral
vacuums that make not just social mobility but even elemental
character formation all but impossible. In an America of fewer
jobs, more poverty, more crime, more drugs, more disease, and
growing ethnocultural resentments, the shattering of the
indispensable social building block will have catastrophic
consequences.
..........

OH YOU BET IT WILL, HAVE CATASTROPHIC CONSEQUENCES!!!

AND THE MONEY BILL FOR THE BIG GOVERNMENT WILL SKY ROCKET
AS PEOPLE WANT TO DO THEIR OWN THING, WHEN AND HOW, AND TO WHOM,
REGARDING SEXUALITY.

THE BIBLE SAYS, TEACHES, THAT IS, THE ETERNAL GOD TEACHES, ANY
SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WITH THE OPPOSITE SEX ***IS SIN*** OUTSIDE OF
MARRIAGE! THE ALMIGHT SAYS THAT HOMOSEXUALITY AND LESBIANISM,
PRACTICING SUCH, IS A ***SIN***!!!

NOW IF THIS IS READ BY THE GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS I MAY BE ON THEIR
BOOKS AS A ***HATE*** TEACHER ..... WELL NO YOU GUYS, IT'S NOT
HATE I TEACH, IT IS CALLED "RELIGIOUS FREEDOM" IF YOU MIGHT
REMEMBER WE ARE SUPPOSED TO HAVE IN OUR WESTERN NATIONS.
THE ETERNAL GOD IN HIS BIBLE TELLS YOU WHAT ***SIN IS*** AND
SEXUAL RELATIONS OUTSIDE OF MARRIAGE IS SIN; AND SEXUAL RELATIONS
WITH SOMEONE OTHER THAN YOUR MATE IF MARRIED IS SIN; AND SEXUAL
RELATIONS WITH THE SAME SEX IS SIN; AND MARRIAGE WITH THE SAME
SEX IS SIN.

IT IS SIN I PREACH AND TEACH AND SAY AS GOD INSPIRED IT TO BE
WRITTEN IN THE NEW TESTAMENT: THERE WAS A TIME OF THIS IGNORANCE
THAT GOD WINKED AT THIS, BUT NOW COMMANDS EVERY PERSON EVERYWHERE
TO ***REPENT***!!! (ACTS 17:30)

...........