views and thoughts on topics, especially ones pertaining to christianity – with an emphasis on how most christians either ignore or discriminate against unmarried christians – and how christians have turned marriage and parenting into IDOLS and how there is no true support for sexual purity, virginity, or celibacy among christians – this is a blog for me to vent; I seldom permit dissenting views. I don't debate dissenters ————-
Transgender SJW Liberal Person: Biological, Lesbian Women Should Want to Date People Who Have Penises
I am posting about this not so much because this is a Transgender person featured, or because he (she) is talking about how “women have penises too,” but to comment upon this attitude that people are wrong to be attracted to whomever they wish.
A college in rural West Virginia hosted a safe space training workshop that suggested faculty not use the terms “husband” or “wife,” and taught them about “heterosexual privilege” and the correct language to use when addressing LGBTQ individuals.
Public Marshall University in Huntington, West Virginia, recently conducted a (Link): “safe space training” for faculty, consisting of presentations, quizzes, and games advocating sensitivity in the classroom. In one of the quiz slides, the university encourages faculty to call “someone’s significant other” a “partner, spouse, significant other” or “mate.”
[post shows slides taken from University’s training course]
Other slides addressed pronouns and terms like “cisgender” and “pansexual.”
According to this article (next one below), most Democrats would be unwilling to date Republicans.
How stupid. You should be able to look past the person’s political views, unless they are obnoxious about them and insult you over yours or something like that.
(I’m a right winger but would feel perfectly fine dating a left wing guy, so long as he’s not a rude jackass towards me over our political differences.
And, by the way, as a right wing woman, I’d like to say, right wing men should NOT be sending insulting messages to left wing women on dating sites over their political views, as this site says some men are – that is so very rude).
If you’re single and actively dating, this year’s Valentine’s Day may have been your crummiest yet. And not for the usual reasons like lack of chemistry or the person being nothing like their profile promised — but because of whom they voted for, and what political positions they support.
Earlier this month, the dating service Coffee Meets Bagel surveyed 1,320 users and found that the majority of singles say politics are impacting their quest for love.
… There is a reason that liberal Christian movements like those championed by Jim Wallis, Rachel Held Evans, Shane Claiborne and others are so ineffective and unpersuasive in American culture.
Rather than seeking to glorify and build the Kingdom of God, they regularly appropriate the language of Scripture to advocate for earthly, largely political causes that never address the principal need of humanity: redemption from sin.
The Non-Stop Trump- Bashing by Liberal Sites Makes Formerly Semi- Useful Liberal Sites Totally Useless To Me Now
I am a right winger who never- the- less started following a lot of left wing news social media accounts, left wing opinion accounts, and left wing individual Twitter accounts over the last couple of years.
I used to find these left wing sites good sources of information for topics such as dating, singleness, marriage, divorce, spiritual abuse by churches, and so forth.
However, as the 2016 American Presidential campaign kicked into high gear in the fall of 2016, and now that Donald Trump is the 45th President of the United States, all the left wing sites I used to follow for stories about dating, divorce, wedding trends, feminism, sexism, the intersection of religion and politics, etc. and so on, have all turned into “Anti Trump All Day Every Day” channels. It is so annoying.
These left wing sites have become useless to me now.
If all these liberal sites are going to do for the next 4 (to 8) years is complain and whine about Trump non-stop and just nit pick at the guy
In a new study of President Obama’s legacy, the Pew Research Center found that religious affiliation and practice dropped off dramatically during his two terms in the White House.
“When it comes to the nation’s religious identity, the biggest trend during Obama’s presidency is the rise of those who claim no religion at all,” Pew notes in a report released this week titled “How America Changed During Barack Obama’s Presidency.”
When Barack Obama took office, those who identified as atheists or agnostics along with those who said their religion was “nothing in particular” totaled only 16 percent of the U.S. adult population. On leaving office 8 years later, the non-religious in America now make up nearly a quarter of the population.
On the contrary, the percentage of Americans who say they believe in God, consider religion to be very important in their lives, pray daily and attend religious services at least monthly have all dropped during the Obama years, Pew found.
American Christians, Liberals, Liberal Pet Groups, and Persecution
(This post has been edited and updated, especially towards the bottom, to add more commentary or links)
For about the past year, I have thinking about blogging about this topic but put it off until now.
I have seen liberal Christians, ex-Christians, left wing Non-Christians, and moderately conservative Christians complain or mock American Christians who claim that American Christians are being persecuted in the United States due to being Christian.
In the past, I’ve seen liberal Christian blogger RHE (Rachel Held Evans) comment on this subject on her blog, on her Twitter account, as well as the Liberal, quasi- Christian, Stephanie Drury bring this up on her (Link): “Stuff Christian Culture Likes” Facebook group from time to time.
I’ve also seen moderately conservative Christians I am acquainted with discuss this in Tweets or on their blogs.
To reiterate a point I’ve made before, I do sometimes agree with SCCL’s Drury on some issues, and I even periodically Tweet her links to news stories I think she may want to share on her Twitter account or on her SCCL Facebook group.
However, I totally part ways with Drury on some topics – like this one.
The view of liberal Christians, ex-Christians, liberal Non-Christians, and even some moderately conservative Christians, is that American Christians are not under persecution in the U.S.A. for being Christian, or for practicing Christian beliefs.
I am not sure if the liberal or moderate conservative disagreement on this issue pertains to semantics (the terminology involved), or if they are actually blind and oblivious to the harassment that Christians, especially conservative, or traditional valued, Christians, face in American culture.
It is my position that American Christians do in fact face harassment – especially from the left wing – in the United States for being Christian, for wanting to practice their faith and carry it out in public, and for defending it in public.
If you are a liberal who objects to the term “persecution,” how about, instead, the words or phrases, “harassment,” “bullying,” “picking on,” “hounding,” or other terms?
I do not see American Christians getting a free pass in the United States to hold certain views or to practice their beliefs.
The left (and I’d include severe anti-theist atheists here, on this point, regardless of their political standing) insist that Christians keep their Christian faith walled off, private, and separate from all other areas of their lives.
Some Liberals Call Gatlinburg Fire Punishment for Trump Support
Well this is a switch.
Usually, we find right wing Christians saying that every natural disaster in the United States is due to homosexuality or abandonment of support to Israel, but here we have liberals saying that the wildfires in TN are due to people voting for Trump.
Standard Christian View About Sex is Actually Creating Controversy: “Major Ministry Will Fire Employees Who Don’t Believe That Sex Is Only For Married Straight Couples”
(I have edited this post a few times to add additional thoughts – there is also a December 2016 update below in regards to the left wing BuzzFeed and ‘Stuff Christian Culture Likes’ witch hunt story about HGTV hosts Chip and Joanna Gaines)
Among some progressive Christians or progressive Christian groups, this news story was quite the controversy about a week ago when it was first published.
I read in another news source that IV (InterVarsity) says that their position on these issues has been misunderstood.
I have some more comments to make under the excerpts here:
A Christian organization that leads student religious groups on more than 600 college campuses will fire any of its 1,300 employees who say they do not agree with the organization’s theological interpretation on sex: that it is only appropriate within a heterosexual marriage.
That means that any InterVarsity Christian Fellowship employees who believe that churches should perform gay weddings, who endorse sex before marriage, who condone pornography or who hold any number of other beliefs might be included in what the evangelical organization calls “involuntary termination.”
Coming from a major evangelical institution, the policy revives debate about how churches should handle questions of sexuality and who can define themselves as evangelicals.
In an interview with The Washington Post on Friday, the ministry’s vice president Greg Jao said that since InterVarsity employees teach college students about biblical views, it is imperative that they share the same beliefs. Four or five people have been fired so far, and he expects more to follow in the next month.
Tolerance, Compassion, and Knowing People Personally
I keep running into politically left wing types or touchie-feelie Christians (some of whom may be somewhat conservative, which surprises me) on social media who assume the reason I must oppose certain things, such as–
-Mass Muslim immigration
-Allowing biological men into women’s bathrooms and fitting rooms under transgender laws
is due to some kind of personal animosity towards these groups of people.
The reason I object to, or am concerned about, things such as mass Muslim immigration or transgender bathroom bills has NOTHING to do with personal hatred on my part towards Muslims or transgender people.
I find this so frustrating that this is assumed about me from the start, and this assumption occurs constantly on Twitter and other blogs.
If you bother to get to know me, or read many of my blog posts on this blog, or stop and ask me my feelings about things (instead of JUST ASSUMING you know why I must hold thus- and- so an opinion on a given topic), you would discover I’m pretty laid back about things, more so than the people who yell at me online.
Editorialist at WaPo Argues That Single Christian Adults Can Have Sex So Long As They are Chaste About It – Also Speculates that Jesus Was “Probably” Celibate
Edit: I originally assumed when first writing this post that McCleneghan is a dude, but it appears that McCleneghan is a woman(?).
I’ve said this before on my blog, but I will say it again: if you want to fornicate (have sex outside of marriage), go right ahead, but stop trying to justify it by saying God, Jesus, or the Bible is fine with it.
I’m over 40, still a virgin, I did not have sex with my ex fiance while we were a couple. I have a libido.
I’m still celibate. By this stage in my life, I’m now okay with the idea of having sex prior to marriage if I am in a stable, committed relationship, but should that happen, I will freely admit that it is a sin as far as God or the Bible is concerned.
I’m not going to sit here and argue that my fornication (should it occur) is peachy keen with God because I’m being faithful to the one guy and only boinking the one guy.
…I’m compelled by the idea that Jesus was probably celibate, but that it would have been for a purpose, and that it might have been hard to bear sometimes.
…Jesus was fully in relationship with many. He had intimate friendships, and he was dedicated to his work. If his celibacy was hard, he was not overly anxious about it; he leaned into the other parts of his life.
Jesus was different and his path was likely puzzling to those around him, even as it puzzles us still today.
.. One of the most unfair things the Christian tradition has foisted on singles is the expectation that they would remain celibate — that is, refraining from sexual relationships.
Did Hell Freeze Over?: Liberal Rag Promotes Idea that Celibacy is Acceptable, and a Valid Life Choice / Re: 2016 Study Says Millennials Aren’t Having Much Sex
The following editorial comes from left wing site Salon, known for publishing pieces by left wing feminist Marcotte, who likes to insist everyone respect women’s sexual choices except for virginity and celibacy – she thinks it’s okay to mock those (see this link and this link for more on that).
Most of the time, liberals are loathe to admit that it’s okay for adults (or kids) to be virgins or celibates. They often portray the state of being abstinent as being sexually repressed or weird. They get all judgey-judgemental about it, but at the same time ask us not to “slut shame” the people, especially women, who boink around like dogs in heat.
So, I was quite surprised to see this liberal editorial defending the idea that it’s okay for people to be chaste, and that people need to stop pressuring everyone to have sex. This sort of editorial from a left wing site is very, very rare.
Everyone calm down and stop judging young adults for “missing out on a good time”
….While the study’s findings are of cultural interest about changing sexual practices, an unfortunate side effect is the concurrent media sex panic. To wit: a Washington Post headline asked if this means “(Link): the end of sex?” while (Link): The Cuttouted “Millennials Confirm That Sex Is No Longer Cool.”
WashPost Columnist: ‘Ghostbusters’ Haters Are ‘Virgin Losers’ – (via NewsBusters Site); Both the Right and Left Wing Get Some things Wrong About This
This story comes from NewsBusters, which is discussing a column written for Washington Post newspaper by columnist Kristen Page-Kirby about the new Ghostbusters movie.
The original Ghostbusters movie, released in the 1980s, contained four male leads. The reboot version of the movie, which was released July 15, 2016, contains four women leads instead.
Unfortunately, over a year or more ago, when news came out that there would be four women leads in the film, some of the sexist jerkwads who inhabit the internet started lambasting the movie all over You Tube, Twitter, and where ever else – not because the move was bad (it wasn’t even released yet), but because they were incensed that Hollywood was cramming some form of feminism down their throats.
Interestingly, I didn’t see as much backlash over the main character of the new Star Wars film, “Star Wars: The Force Awakens” being a woman – Rey.
At any rate, I will be discussing two or three different topics in this post that are related to this new film, or mentioned by the conservative essayist at the NewsBusters site.
This is another story where I am in the middle. I can’t say as though I’m completely on one side or another in regards to some aspects of this story, depending on what is under discussion.
I am currently a moderate right-winger (I used to be more to the right than I am currently. In the last few years, I’ve been reconsidering if some of my former political and Christian beliefs are wrong.)
I’ve been more open the last few years to hearing the criticisms and views of liberals and Non-Christians – which is not to say I agree with everything I see left wingers and Non-Christians espousing or arguing in favor of.
I sometimes think secular, liberal feminists have good points on some topics, but I normally disagree with them.
As far as the Ghostbusters film reboot is concerned, I do think some of the backlash against the movie does in fact stem from sexism. But then, I do think some people may honestly feel that the movie is genuinely bad due to having a poor story line, or what have you.
I have not seen the movie yet. I don’t go to movie theaters that much anymore.
I usually wait until movies air on cable television; I’m willing to bet that this Ghostbusters reboot will probably be shown on F/X channel, or SyFy, or some other cable network in the next two years, and I have cable television, so I don’t know if I want to invest my time and cash into driving down to a theater to see this, since it will eventually be on television.
I saw the original Ghostbusters in a movie theater when it was in theaters in the 1980s. I was a kid at the time.
The original was okay, it was quite enjoyable and plenty of fun, but it was no movie masterpiece, so to all the men online who were griping about the reboot featuring all women leads: get the hell over it already.
And yes, you were, or are, being sexist douche bags about it. I don’t buy for a moment that ALL male griping about the film is based on non-sexist reasons, like shoddy trailers, or supposed poor CG work.
The vast majority of the professional reviews (and I have read a ton of them) for the new Ghostbusters film have deemed it “okay.” -Not terrible. Not great. But just “meh.” It’s so-so, most reviews have said.
What I don’t appreciate is that the columnist for WaPo who was discussing male backlash about the movie is using virginity as an insult.
But more interesting is the question of whether criticism of economic libertarianism will be broadened to encompass the (Link): moral libertarianism that both underlies it and inspires the parallel drive toward the liberation of sexuality from moral judgment.
Understood in this wider sense, we’ve been living through an extended libertarian moment since the early 1960s.
Moral libertarianism presumes that no authority — political, legal, or religious — is competent to pronounce judgment on an individual’s decisions, provided that they don’t negatively effect other people. Thanks to this assumption, a grand edifice of inherited moral and legal strictures on sexuality have crumbled over the past half century, leaving individuals free to live and love as they wish, as long as everyone involved gives their consent.
Jezebel Site and xoJane Site: Pot Meet Kettle – On Supporting All Women’s Voices
I saw this paragraph or so in (Link): an article on Jezebel’s site (by S. Edwards; title: “xoJane Publishes Terrible Article By a Woman Who’s Glad Her Friend Died, Then Deletes Her Byline“):
It’s a well-known fact that outrageous confessionals—the kind that populate xoJane’s section, It Happened to Me — garner traffic. Outrage, disgust and anger are the stuff of going viral (a phrase that conjures up disease as much as anything else). Yet xoJane seems to consistently cross an unspoken line, confusing any woman’s opinion as one inherently worth publishing, no matter the opinion, or its costs.
Woman Realizes Having Open Relationship Bothers Her / Married Couple Confront Each Other About Their Other Sexual Partners via Cosmo Magazine
I do have some problems with how conservatives (including conservative Christians not just secular social conservatives) deal with the topic of sex (hey, about 65% of my blog posts are about that topic). However, your liberals can be problematic in this area as well.
Liberals like to believe sex has no consequences, not physical nor emotional.
However, at the same time, they scream on their blogs against abstinence-only public school sex education and yell that women should receive tax-payer funded birth control, abortion should be legally and widely available, and so on.
Liberals tend to downplay the possible physical ramifications of sex, especially for women, when speaking or writing for women (ie, sexually transmitted diseases and unplanned pregnancy), to teach women that being trampy is not shameful but is feminist and empowering. I find that liberals sometimes speak out of both sides of their mouth on this topic.
Secular feminists also like to tell women (especially the younger, naive ones) that they won’t have any emotional fall-out from having sex.
I’ve known women (in person) and read of too many testimonies by women online and in magazines to know that is not always so.
Plenty of people do have issues accepting that their partner has a sexual history or has cheated on them with another person.
Here is another example or two of this being the case (I have not watched the video on the page with the video.)
I will also link to a page I saw recently by a woman who said she was initially fine and accepting of her poly-whatever boyfriend but after so many months of dating the guy, knowing he was emotionally growing attached to the other women he was dating and having sex with disturbed her.
…Jack [the writer’s boyfriend] was polyamorous. And because I was in love with him, I wanted to go with the flow and make it work. I tried for three years to do things his way — I’d sometimes sleep with other people while he sometimes went on dates with potential new partners.
Woman Book Author – Andrea Tantaros – Suggests That Single Women Are Miserable And Can’t Get Husbands Because Feminism. My Critique of Her Article / Book
(This post has been edited to add several new comments and a link or two)
If you are new to my blog: I am right wing, I don’t agree with most secular feminism, but I do think secular feminism is correct on a point here or there.
This article I link you to farther below is about a book a woman wrote (I believe she is right wing), and it reads like one of those “blame feminism” type works. The book is by Andrea Tantaros, and its title is “Tied Up in Knots: How Getting What We Wanted Made Women Miserable.”
I have not read the book; I have only read the author’s article about the book, which you see linked to farther down the page. I take it that her article is a sort of preview about what one can expect to see in the book.
This article argues that most women got what they wanted (via feminism), and they are miserable as a result: they are not getting men. Women want marriage and are not getting married. The women want to have great careers, but they also want a manly- man who will marry them and sometimes take care of them; they want a partner to share life with.
Family Values Republican Politician Hastert in Trouble for Sexual Assault of Kids / On Liberals and Not Having Sexual Standards
This politician, Hastert, is now in his 70s and is in poor health. Some of his victims have stepped forward to say he sexually assaulted them when they were kids.
I’ve seen several articles say that he was a “family values” type of Republican.
Below is a report about it – probably by a left winger. I am right wing, but in the last few years, I’ve had some changing feelings about the Republican Party, conservative Christians, and how much they push this “family values” rhetoric.
This author does spend part of her report taking Bill Clinton to task for taking advantage of Lewinsky.
I will be placing more articles about this story below this first link and excerpt.
I’m not terribly fond of how so many right-wing “Family Values” spokespersons and figure heads later turn out to be hypocrites.
On the other hand, I’m not a supporter of the left wing – many of them not only participate in sexually immoral activity or champion sexual hedonism, but they have few to no sexual standards in the first place. And they don’t want any.
Maybe there is something positive to be said in having sexual standards in the first place, even if it means a person (or group of persons) who claim to believe in them occasionally violates them.
Virginity is a Sacred Choice, Not a Shameful Status by C. Martin / Giving Sex to a Man is Not A Guarantee for a Lasting Relationship – Contra Comic Chelsea Handler
The following blog post contains strong profanity in places and some frank sexual talk. —————————————–
Not that I object to this editorial per se, but it’s being carried by the same site (a pro-life site) that (Link): usually denigrates female virginity – because they put too high a premium on people pro-creating, and if a woman is remaining chaste, she is, in their opinion, in sin, or error or some sort, for not having sex and making babies, because supposedly, a woman’s only purpose in life is to make babies (even though the Bible no where teaches this concept).
But here is a guest editorial they are featuring where the author is defending a person’s right to sexually abstain, and it’ okay.
Our society is obsessed with talking about sex, regardless if you’re having it or not. Take for instance the recent March (Link): cover of People magazine, which featured the title, “Bachelor’s Sean & Catherine, Waiting for Our Wedding night.”
To make things a bit clearer, they added below the title, “No sex until ‘I do.’” The cover may intrigue those who scratch their heads, wondering in earnest why anyone would (gasp) wait to have sex.