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 ————-
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.
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 (edit: see updated post about the hideous “Stuff Christian Culture Likes” Facebook group (link): here).
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.
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.
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.
A new study by a pair of Notre Dame economists received some media attention this week. It found that school districts that instituted condom distribution programs in the early 1990s saw significant increases in the teen-fertility rate [as well as an increase in sexually transmitted diseases].
Abstinence advocacy groups say a new (Link):study criticizing virginity pledges misses the point of abstinence education.
The study, “Broken Promises: Abstinence Pledging and Sexual and Reproductive Health,” published on the website of the Journal for Marriage and Family, reports that the vast majority of virginity pledgers break their promise to save sex for marriage.
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.
Some churches are refusing to hire people who admit on their job applications to having been sexually abused
If You Were Sexually Abused, You Cannot Work At These Churches
Not only is child sexual abuse addressed on some of these employment forms, but according to these articles (links farther below), some churches ask applicants about their views on fornication, or if they’ve ever been accused of homosexuality.
I find this pretty hypocritical. If you’ve followed this blog before, you know I was waiting until marriage to have sex – as a result, I am now over 40 years of age and still a virgin, because I never married.
What I have observed as I’ve gotten older is that while many Christians pay “lip service” to respecting adult virginity or celibacy, that in practice, they do not.
Sometimes, some Christians (conservatives, no less, but also most progressives) ridicule and mock virginity, and they ridicule or put down adult virgins for being virgins. (Please see the links under the “Related Posts” at the bottom of this post for examples.)
Not only is there little to no philosophical, theological, or intellectual support for adult virginity (and by extension, adult singleness past one’s mid 20s or so), but there is no concrete support – churches and Christians seldom have ministries to meet the needs of adult single celibates.
There are rarely sermons preached on a regular basis on adult single celibacy – compare that to the topic of marriage. Most churches offer a “ten steps to a stronger marriage” type sermon series once every few weeks but never sermonize about singleness.
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.
The Unsurprising Sexism of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz
I am right wing, but I have come to realize the last 2 or 3 years that yes, some right wingers harbor some sexist views towards women.
I used to regard left wing complaints about this to be fabricated or greatly exaggerated.
I do think in some ways, on some topics, liberals do unfairly peg right wingers with sexism, but in some other ways, depending on the particular situation or topic, I think there is merit to their charge.
There are small fragments of right wingers – like Quivering type families, or a Christian family the Duggars who believe in “Gothardism” – who do hold to some pretty outlandish, backwards views about women, but I do think that a lot of liberals go too far by ascribing labels such as “Christian Taliban” to all or most conservative Christians (yes, in years past, I’ve seen left wing Hollywood actors or commentators make such comments about all Christians, not just the small percentage).
Here is an interesting article about the sexism of Cruz and Trump – how they each denigrate the other’s wife.
I see that the treatment of women by both Cruz and Trump somewhat mirrors that of Christian gender complementarians – they treat women like sex objects, or as children, or as ‘lesser than’ men.
As physically unattractive as Trump is, I can guarantee you his wife, who, according to papers was once a supermodel, didn’t marry him for love. Maybe wealthy guys don’t care if they are loved for their wallets and not who they are.
It’s interesting and sad how an entire group of people – Republicans or conservative Christians – often present themselves as being “pro family,” but then their actions betray how sexist they are. Being disrespectful of women, who comprise some members of nuclear families, is not being pro- family values at all.
Christian gender complementarians play at the same game; they declare that women are of equal worth to men, but their actions betray this statement.
Christians often like to teach that marriage is necessary to make a person more godly and mature – here we have two married persons – Trump and Cruz – behaving quite immaturely and rudely on Twitter.
The use of wives as proxies in the struggle between the two leading Republican contenders [Trump and Cruz] shows how much American conservatism has changed.
….For the lasts several days, he and Ted Cruz have been in a Twitter-based Battle of the Wives, pitting Melania and Heidi against one another in contests of appearance and virtue.
….Ted Cruz was also always that guy: the one who would look away as his allies circulated a naked picture of the wife of his enemy, and then suggest that “real men don’t attack women.”
That guy who who stands silently by as his allies suggest that a man’s fitness for office can be measured in terms of the chastity of his wife—that her comparative purity, and his willingness to defend it, are tests of his manly authority. That guy who would suggest the only female Democratic presidential candidate in this race (Link): needs a spanking.
Both men’s supporters are using their wives as symbolic weapons, but they’re fighting toward different ends. Cruz’s allies are making a claim about propriety: That modesty and sexual demureness are virtues, especially in a woman who will represent the United States.
Viral Virgin Brelyn Bowman Talks Purity Backlash From Christians, New Book ‘No Ring, No Ting’ (Interview)
I agree that those Christians (or ex Christians) who are opposed to sexual purity (virginity) lifestyles or teachings have gone overboard with it – as have some secular liberals.
Women (or men) who, of their own freewill, choose to abstain sexually are mocked or ridiculed for abstaining. (I have links with examples to this under the “Related Posts” section at the end of this post).
I think it’s very hypocritical for people to champion all sexual behaviors or choices of women EXCEPT FOR staying a virgin until marriage. Celebrity women can yak all day long about their sexual conquests on Twitter or in interviews, and nobody raises a fuss – but the moment a woman makes public that she’s waiting until marriage (or a serious relationship) to have sex, she will be faced with a lot of ridicule and criticism. Even by so-called feminists, who claim to respect all sexual choices of women.
I have blogged about this woman previously (Link): here.
Brelyn Bowman says she wasn’t surprised that people in the secular world disapproved of her posting a gynecologist’s purity certificate on social media after her wedding day last year. But she was shocked by the backlash that came from Christians.
The 23-year-old wife of gospel singer Tim Bowman Jr. says she made the decision to honor God by abstaining from sex until her wedding day. Soon after she proudly announced to the world on Instagram that she had remained a virgin until her wedding day by showing the certificate she presented to her father, a number of Christians responded in anger.
Bowman told The Christian Post that she was mostly surprised that many of those who left negative comments about her decision to show her father the results of her gynocological exam that revealed she was still a virgin before her wedding day identified as Christians.
“That’s what I couldn’t understand. So it was kind of like, why do we, as Christians, bash one another instead of protect one another and spread the message of God to those who may not understand?” she questioned.
“It’s OK for a girl who gets pregnant out of wedlock to say ‘OK, I’m pregnant’ and we celebrate the baby. But it’s not OK to say ‘Hey, I’m a virgin.'” she asserted. “Maybe the certificate wasn’t right, but neither was her getting pregnant. We still celebrate the baby.”
Don’t Underestimate Single Women Voters by A. Smith
The impetus for Smith’s essay is the book “All the Single Ladies,” by Traister, which I have posted about in several posts already such as (Link): this oneor (Link): this one.
Much of what this author, Smith, says about single women in regards to the Republican Party -that Republicans need to start paying attention to and validating single women and their concerns- can also be said of conservative Christians.
Conservative Christians continue to either ignore single women or to attack them for being single, in spite of the fact that Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 7 that it is better for a person to remain single.
There is nothing wrong with a person wanting to get married, BUT, conservative Christians need to stop acting as though marriage is a cure for society, or is the norm or the default. By doing so, they marginalize singleness and single adults.
…Writer Rebecca Traister—author of the new book All the Single Ladies—explains that the rise of single women is “a radical upheaval, a national reckoning with massive social and political implications” as single women outnumber married women for the first time in American history. Marriage has shifted from an expectation in a woman’s early 20s to a life goal saved for someday (if ever).
Scary Single Ladies: Rebecca Traister Explains Why Single Women Frighten The Hell Out Of The GOP
Sometimes some of these reviews of Traister’s book, or interviews with her, bring up how so many Republicans often demonize or criticize single motherhood.
I happen to be a Republican myself, someone who was raised in a traditional Christian home.
One thing I don’t get is how so many other Republicans and Christians do in fact constantly bad-mouth single motherhood, but out of the other side of their mouths, they frequently complain that not enough women are having babies.
It ticks these types of Republicans and Christians off that baby-making rates have declined a bit in the last decade or whatever (see this link for example).
So, on the one hand, my fellow Republicans complain about women having babies (women who happen to be single), but then turn around and complain and gripe about women NOT having babies.
Christians and Republicans are somewhat inconsistent on this point. They might argue that women should marry first, and then make a baby with their spouse, but this is part of the problem: plenty of women WANT to marry, but there are no eligible males for them to marry (see this link or this link for more).
And, of course, there are married women who cannot have babies because they are infertile, or some may choose to forgo motherhood – and their choices should be respected, not condemned.
Another thing that bothers me about this conservative demonizing of single motherhood is that I suspect one view that undergirds it is that they believe that marriage or parenthood supposedly makes adults more mature, responsible or godly, which is simply (Link): not true (and see this link and this link).
(There are a lot of conservative Christians who have taught or said that people only become mature or responsible when they marry or have a kid.)
The Bible does not teach that marriage or parenthood are necessary to make a person more godly, loving, responsible, or mature.
And even every day common sense and observation bears that out: we’ve all known, or heard of, married parents who are immature, greedy, or immoral swine.
I am right wing and have been a Republican for years. However, I don’t always agree with Republicans on everything.
I do occasionally agree with some of the left wing’s criticism of right wingers, and concerning how dismally right wingers treat singles, I agree with them on that.
Author Rebecca Traister’s new book on single women looks at how this growing population is reshaping America
Author Rebecca Traister’s last book, “Big Girls Don’t Cry,” took a comprehensive look at how the 2008 elections changed everything for American women.
Now she’s back with a similarly pop music-themed title, “All the Single Ladies: Unmarried Women and the Rise of an Independent Nation,” an examination of the role single women have played in American culture, both in our history and in our current times.
(Link): Single women are a potent political force in a way that they never have been before, making up nearly a quarter of the electorate and leaning to the left of both men and their married counterparts.
This, along with a whole host of inchoate fears about what happens when women are left to their own devices without male supervision, has led to a rash of conservative pundits and politicians denouncing the ladies who aren’t married. I interviewed Traister about this moral panic over single women and what it means for the culture at large.
[Question to the book author]: In your book, you detail how obsessed the conservative media has become with single women, who clearly anger right-wing pundits. The most hilarious quote you pull is Rush Limbaugh whining, “What is it with all these young, single, white women?” What is it with these conservative pundits focusing on single women?
The fact that he said “white,” well, there are these versions of single womanhood that we are presented and the version that threatens most, is the white, privileged women.
Sandra Fluke testifying in front of Congress, women who are writing books, Murphy Brown, and Anita Hill, even though she’s not white, a lawyer appeared for Clarence Thomas.
There is a kind of woman who is economically powerful, professionally powerful who threatens a white male grip on power that has a long historic precedent in the country. Independent women living outside of marriage threaten all kinds of things about the way power is supposed to work.
What if reproduction is taken outside that version of male control? What if women are competing?
The Case Against ‘Saving’ Marriage – Married Nuclear Families Are the Gold Standard Against Which We Are All Judged. by N. Rodgers
Disclaimer: I am not always in complete agreement with every last view in every editorial or article I link to.
I am right wing with traditional values but agree with liberals that right wingers, Republicans, and Christians need to stop idealizing the Nuclear Family, in so far as it marginalizes, punishes, or discriminates against those who do not fit that demographic or lifestyke.
The following editorial is from a progressive (left wing) site. I agree with much of what this editorial says, though not all of it.
Married Nuclear Families Are the Gold Standard Against Which We Are All Judged.
Marriage rates have been declining for more than half a century and single women now outnumber married ones. There are few guides better at navigating this new landscape than Rebecca Traister.
In a recent New York Magazine (Link): article, adapted from her soon-to-be-released book All the Single Ladies, she offers an insightful, nuanced analysis of the plight and power of unmarried women “taking up space in a world that was not designed for them.”
Traister argues that the current democratic policy platform may be more liberal than it has been in a generation in response to the growth of unmarried women. It’s about time. Public policy has lagged almost criminally behind in meeting the needs of single women, and especially single mothers, for decades.
But while a policy platform that stands to benefit unmarried women and mothers is necessary, it is not sufficient. There is no substitute for identity politics. Part of why the U.S. still has such inadequate public policies is the fear of publicly supporting families that conservatives have already convinced us are unequivocally bad, subpar alternatives to the married nuclear variety, especially “single mother” homes.
Why “Family Values” Defined Conservative Christianity (and Why “Religious Liberty” has Replaced It) – by E C Miller
I am right wing, somewhat Christian, and believe that many Christians and secular conservatives have made the nuclear family and marriage into idols, which is wrong.
I am not opposed out-right to the traditional family, marriage, or to motherhood, and so forth, in and of themselves, but I am in disagreement at how so many right wingers and Christians elevate all those things to the point that they end up marginalizing anyone who does not fit the mould of “married with children.”
Anyone who is infertile, child free, divorced, never married, widowed, and what have you, is excluded or treated shabbily by the majority of “family values” obsessed right wingers and Christians, which again, in my view, is terribly wrong and unfair.
Here is an article explaining how and why the religious right elevated “the family” in their rhetoric:
From about 1970 until about 2000, American politics was largely driven by concern about the nuclear family. As established social hierarchies came under fire from the civil rights movement, the gay rights movement, second-wave feminism, and others, conservative advocacy groups and their political allies demanded a return to the idealized family of the past. “Family values” became the rallying cry of a countermovement bent on holding the traditional line.
Seth Dowland is Assistant Professor in the Department of Religion at Pacific Lutheran University. His book, Family Values and the Rise of the Christian Right, charts the influence of Christian “family values” advocacy across three decades and a variety of issues.
RD’s Eric C. Miller spoke with Dowland about the project, the politics, and the significance of family in the United States.
You introduce “family values” as the key term of the Christian Right in the late twentieth-century United States. Why was this term so influential for this group in this place and time?
Many of the political reforms enacted from the 1930s through the 1960s—particularly the expansion of the welfare state and the passage of civil rights legislation—attempted to expand equal rights to all people.
Political liberals celebrated these developments, while conservatives looked around the nation at the beginning of the 1970s and saw economic stagnation, riots, sexual revolution, a decline in patriotism, and an increase in crime and drug use. Ministers and political conservatives argued that America was in decline. They believed that decline happened because of the demise of the “traditional family.”
I do follow several left wing persons and news sites on my Twitter account.
I sometimes visit left wing sites that discuss politics, feminism, entertainment, and other subjects, so I am partially aware of some left wing causes, views, and so forth.
However, I don’t keep up with the minutia of it and all the nit picky details of all liberal pet causes. Therefore, I do not completely understand their rationale for some views, or all the jargon they use.
Nor do I think I care to learn it all in-depth, as I only have one life to live and would rather spend it doing things like watching repeats of Zombieland on cable and new episodes of Diners, Drive Ins, and Dives.
Apparently, the woman who started out that thread (named Claire) is a lesbian, if I am understanding things correctly.
“Not taking transwomen as sexual partners doesn’t mean lesbians don’t consider TW worthy of respect, safety, kindness, friendship, etc.”
Claire went on to Tweet this in the same thread:
“And it is pressure. This insidious idea that if a lesbian won’t consider sleeping with someone, she must be a bigot, is insidious & coercive”
If I am understanding this correctly, she is saying that some people who support transgenderism are demanding that lesbians should date men who underwent some kind of sex change surgery or what have you to appear to be women (I think these persons are called transwomen? As I said, I don’t care to keep up with all the rhetoric of liberal causes and their terminology.)
I cannot agree with a view that says you should date or marry people with whom you are not the least attracted or that you have moral qualms about.
I covered this topic on a previous post on my blog:
I have never felt very attracted to white guys with red hair. According to liberal logic, however, this somehow means I hate gingers, and they would lecture me and insist I date red headed men, even though I really do not want to.
Now you understand I’m not in favor of people who are overly picky in other regards. Like this guy:
I have re-listened to the podcast this evening and wanted to comment on some of what I heard.
In the program, there is a guy named Rodney who was once a conservative Christian, who drifted into liberal theology, and who now says he has a “deistic philosophy” and he says he is “agnostic about most religious questions.”
He says he has same sex attraction, and was put off to Christianity for (among other reasons):
How American conservative Christianity tends to over-identify with, or promote, the Republican Party (right wing American party), and that some preachers are too condemning of homosexual persons.
Rodney also says he does not accept the notion of an eternal Hell.
A few times, Rodney mentions that he has a deist- like view of God. He thinks all of us humans are rats, the earth is a big laboratory, and God is a scientist in a white lab coat observing us all but not intervening.
Rodney thinks if God is involved with human life, that God should do things like cause all members of ISIS (terrorist group) to drop dead of heart attacks. He does not believe that God helps people to pass school tests, find parking spaces, or cures diseases.
The show had a Christian author and guest on named Os, who replied to some of Rodney’s points.
_Some of my thoughts on the show and the topics Rodney raised._
1.) Politics and Liberal Vs Conservative Christianity
I am right wing politically and have been a Republican (GOP) my entire life.
I have very large misgivings about the GOP the last few years, though, so I’m not totally sure where I stand politically, though I do not ever see myself becoming a liberal or a Democrat.
I do agree with Rodney that too many conservative Christians conflate Christianity with the Republican party.
But then, a lot of liberal Christians or liberal Christian denominations entwine a lot of liberal beliefs and causes with the faith too, (such as support of abortion, the Democratic Party, liberalism, and homosexual marriage).
Salon Author Amanda Marcotte Thinks Media Shouldn’t Judge Women’s Sexuality But She Has Mocked Women Over Their Sexual Choices Before (To Remain Virgins)
My memory is a bit rusty here, but in a previous, older editorial on Salon, either Marcotte ridiculed women who choose to remain virgins until marriage, or, when she was mocking the concept of virgin- until- marriage, it escaped her notice that some women, of their own volition, choose to abstain until marriage.
Either way it went, Marcotte ended up ridiculing the choice of some women to stay virgins until marriage – and some women do in fact choose to remain virgins until marriage, like this lady, who was in the media about a month ago:
Here are a few excerpts from that page, about a woman terrorist who was blown up in Paris, France (I have some more comments below these excerpts):
by Amanda Marcotte
November 20, 2105
…But Boulahcen [woman terrorist] was female, and so the forces of sexual objectification are kicking in, creating a grotesque display.
…Both articles obsessively comb over every detail of Boulahcen’s pre-conversion life: Her partying, her drinking, the amount of sex they suspect she had, her clothes and even her “heavy makeup”, which both articles take pains to point out. It’s the same kind of thing you see these right wing rags doing day in and out, simultaneously inviting their audiences to leer at and sit in judgment of young women for their clothes, their sexual choices…
Hypocrisy: Secular Pundits Judge Christian Sexuality: Josh Duggar’s So-Called Vanilla Sexual Preferences Deemed Dull
Notice: The following post contains obscene language as excerpted from other sites. I may toss in one or two of my own expletives.
I usually critique Christian views and commentary about sex and related matters here on this blog. And I end up not having flattering things to say about quite a bunch of it.
However, every so often, I see an incredibly outlandish, stupid, inflammatory, or hypocritical editorial or report by secular left wing, liberal Christian, ex Christian, or atheistic sources that unfairly and inaccurately skewer Christians, Christianity, or certain Christian beliefs or practices, and I feel the need to discuss it. This is another one of those times.
Unless you have been living under a rock that last few months, you should already be familiar with Josh Duggar, raised in the infamous Christian patriarchal Duggar family of the reality television series “19 Kids And Counting.”
A story broke a few months ago that Josh molested some of his sisters and a babysitter when he was a teenager, and his parents did not get him proper treatment for it, and they and the sisters continue to diminish the gravity of that entire ordeal.
More recently, Josh Duggar, who is 27 years old and is married with about three or four small children, has been in the news for apparently having signed up for the Ashley Madison site, a site where married people can find willing partners to have extra marital flings. I blogged about that (Link): here.
A bit after that story broke, a porn actress and stripper claims that Josh paid her over $1,000 for a sexual encounter that she said was scary and a little violent. She also said, I think, that Duggar had been following her on social media for awhile and had sent her messages.
As far as Josh Duggar’s leaked Ashley Madison information is concerned, his sexual preferences in a woman partner were revealed by several web sites.
Here is that list of Duggar’s sexual preferences taken from the Ashley Madison leak, as they appear on a site called “Preen.” (More on Preen’s coverage in a moment. For now, here’s Duggar’s list):