Perhaps King Philip/Metacom = Osama bin Laden?

King Philip's War: 1675 - 1676

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

And speaking of witch trials -

All right. We had a terrorism suspect waterboarded 183 times in one month because his interrogators knew, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that two things were true: that he, and everybody else in Guantanamo, was a big-time terrorist. Every correspondence I ever had with even a moderate Republican referred to "the terrorists in Guantanamo" as if that had already been proven of them. No drivers, clerks, or people turned in for the money by bounty-hunters or personal enemies. Terrorists, every last one of them.

They also 'knew beyond the shadow of a doubt" that there are a connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda. Therefore they also knew their suspect must certainly know of this - all they had to do was get it out of him.

Fast-backward 400 years to the interrogators who knew, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that there were witches and that the suspects in custody were witches. They also knew, down to the last detail of the picnic supper at the coven meetings, what witches did and who was presiding. Therefore if they didn't confess, the truth could be gotten out of them by torture. Hence the overwhelming evidence of a vast conspiracy of female devil-worshipers seeking to do harm to everybody else and doing such things as kissing the devil's rear end - they confessed to it! Under torture! The very details the Inquisitorial Handbook so carefully outlined! See? Absolutely proven.

People - have four hundred years taught us nothing?

Well, let's remember what S&H's theory essentially states: Why do Generational cycles continue to repeat themselves? Because people only live so long and cultural memories only last so long as people continue to remember the lessons of them "appropriately".

While I agree that your label does match on behavior-wise, I think the Muslim-American interactions now is much like the Native American-Colonist interactions during the Glorious Revolution Crisis. So unfortunately torture is to be expected.

To an average Colonist's/American's mind: they are the "heathen" who stubbornly refuse to convert to our "better" way of thinking. They cling to "ancient" and "outdated principles" that are "barbaric" and "backwards". The few attempts we've done to "civilize" and "convert" them have yielded sour grapes. Even our most faithful Native American/Muslim ally Massasoit/Saudi Arabia refuses to convert completely to Christianity/Western Culture.

If this allegory holds true... I hate to think of the future of Muslims when butting up against the rest of Western Culture. Especially when we revisit the post-Civil War era again... *shudders*

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

That would make FDR a Right-winger. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me when you look at it mapped out.

Sir Winston Churchill, undeniably a right-winger (his social values were surprisingly close to those of Francisco Franco), set the tone for the anti-Nazi alliance outside of the Soviet Union. FDR, like Churchill, adopted conservative, and even reactionary, rhetoric against the novel indecencies of the Axis. By 1941 FDR was more a defender of tradition than a social innovator.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

No, no. I understand that. I'm curious as to why you think this will act as a natural law replacement for the new Prophets.

It's the emphasis on self-regulatory cybernetic systems. It's something Arkham and Justin were always bringing up.

The Emancipation of Massachusetts: The Revolution by Mr. Brooks Adams

Originally Posted by Mr. Brooks Adams

So perished the Puritan Commonwealth. The child of the Reformation, its
life sprang from the assertion of the freedom of the mind; but this great
and noble principle is fatal to the temporal power of a priesthood, and
during the supremacy of the clergy the government was doomed to be both
persecuting and repressive. Under no circumstance could the theocracy have
endured: it must have fallen by revolt from within if not by attack from
without. That Charles II. did in fact cause its overthrow gives him a
claim to our common gratitude, for he then struck a decisive blow for the
emancipation of Massachusetts; and thus his successor was enabled to open
before her that splendid career of democratic constitutional liberty which
was destined to become the basis of the jurisprudence of the American
Union.

So too will the child of the Progressive Awakening & the Social Gospel, Our Commercial Republic, see its Conform. The bureaucracy and the managerial ethos of Progress will end, the clerisy will attend to matters more closely aligned with their proper occupation. We have not a Stuart to provide the remedy; it will be a messy affair. The Emancipation of the Central Portion of the North American Continent depends upon the Restoration of its Sovereign.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

And speaking of witch trials -

All right. We had a terrorism suspect waterboarded 183 times in one month because his interrogators knew, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that two things were true: that he, and everybody else in Guantanamo, was a big-time terrorist. Every correspondence I ever had with even a moderate Republican referred to "the terrorists in Guantanamo" as if that had already been proven of them. No drivers, clerks, or people turned in for the money by bounty-hunters or personal enemies. Terrorists, every last one of them.

They also 'knew beyond the shadow of a doubt" that there are a connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda. Therefore they also knew their suspect must certainly know of this - all they had to do was get it out of him.

Fast-backward 400 years to the interrogators who knew, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that there were witches and that the suspects in custody were witches. They also knew, down to the last detail of the picnic supper at the coven meetings, what witches did and who was presiding. Therefore if they didn't confess, the truth could be gotten out of them by torture. Hence the overwhelming evidence of a vast conspiracy of female devil-worshipers seeking to do harm to everybody else and doing such things as kissing the devil's rear end - they confessed to it! Under torture! The very details the Inquisitorial Handbook so carefully outlined! See? Absolutely proven.

People - have four hundred years taught us nothing?

OK, now you are freaking me out!!!

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

That example makes no sense, on a variety of levels.

I understood the post perfectly fine. Then again I'm an evil left-wing statist.

Originally Posted by Odin

It's the emphasis on self-regulatory cybernetic systems. It's something Arkham and Justin were always bringing up.

:/

I don't wish to belabor the point, but that's still not what I was asking. Why would there be a shift on emphasis from natural law to complex systems analysis?

Originally Posted by Chas'88

Well, let's remember what S&H's theory essentially states: Why do Generational cycles continue to repeat themselves? Because people only live so long and cultural memories only last so long as people continue to remember the lessons of them "appropriately".

While I agree that your label does match on behavior-wise, I think the Muslim-American interactions now is much like the Native American-Colonist interactions during the Glorious Revolution Crisis. So unfortunately torture is to be expected.

To an average Colonist's/American's mind: they are the "heathen" who stubbornly refuse to convert to our "better" way of thinking. They cling to "ancient" and "outdated principles" that are "barbaric" and "backwards". The few attempts we've done to "civilize" and "convert" them have yielded sour grapes. Even our most faithful Native American/Muslim ally Massasoit/Saudi Arabia refuses to convert completely to Christianity/Western Culture.

If this allegory holds true... I hate to think of the future of Muslims when butting up against the rest of Western Culture. Especially when we revisit the post-Civil War era again... *shudders*

~Chas'88

One obvious question about this: there are over 1 billion Muslims (and rapidly growing) worldwide. Certainly there were nowhere near that many Native Americans back in the late 17th century...and they were almost entirely on the American continent while the bulk of Muslims are located in Asia, North & West Africa, and the Middle East. Is the comparison valid even though the U.S. isn't colonizing/repopulating these regions?

Originally Posted by Matt1989

:/

I don't wish to belabor the point, but that's still not what I was asking. Why would there be a shift on emphasis from natural law to complex systems analysis?

DOH, sorry! Arguments about "rights based on natural laws" are usually derived from the philosophical and scientific trends of the period. in 1750 it was Newtonian Physics, Today it's Systems Science.

I can easily see how the next prophets would reject regulatory measures. There are already too many laws as it is and if that trend is expanded, I can easily see people would rebel against overredundant regulations.

Originally Posted by Odin

DOH, sorry! Arguments about "rights based on natural laws" are usually derived from the philosophical and scientific trends of the period. in 1750 it was Newtonian Physics, Today it's Systems Science.

There we go

The reason I asked is because natural law, as a political principle, has existed in some form or another, pretty continuously in the West (and now other cultures), since at least Socrates, Plato, and (especially) Aristotle. Personally, I think the 'natural law/conventional law' distinction is a good one, and I don't see it fading away as the times change.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

I can easily see how the next prophets would reject regulatory measures. There are already too many laws as it is and if that trend is expanded, I can easily see people would rebel against overredundant regulations.

1. Redundancy is an anathema to INTP's.
2. Overly complex laws (Cf. the tax code ) are also anathemas.

JPT - I can't let your statement "There is no question that Iowa voters will reverse the recent ruling there at the first opportunity." pass without comment. I should first state my own view on "gay marriage." I think it is a long-standing mistake that the United States allows clergy to act as agents of the state when it comes to marriage and they should be stripped of this civil authority. Marriage is a religious service/sacrament and should be confined to that. I am agnostic as to whether various religions should sanction same-sex marriages; that's their business. The state, however, has an interest in civil union contracts, and should be the sole agent for ratifying them. Let us separate church from state and require those who want to enter into civil unions (now, perhaps mistakenly, called marriage) should find a Justice of the Peace or other government officer to ratify the contract and if they want to also get married then find clergy willing to perform the ceremony. In other words, we should do what Germany did with the May Laws in the 1870s. Get united at the courthouse, and later get married at a church/mosque/synagogue, etc., if so desired.

Now, to the situation in Iowa where I have lived for more than 50 years. Gay marriage is now constitutional in Iowa which means that the only way to change that is to change the constitution which is not an easy thing to do. Iowa is not a "progressive" state in the 1920s sense of the term. It does not have initiative, recall, or referendum (except for the referendum in charter cities on local issues only). There are only two ways to amend the constitution.

The first, and I expect a considerable effort by the "antis" on this one, is a constitutional convention. It is mandated by the Iowa constitution that the citizenry vote on whether to call a convention every ten years, and it will automatically be on the ballot for the 2010 election. It has never been approved and I have my doubts that it will this time, although time will tell. But assuming it does, then procedures for a convention will have to be established, delegates will have to be chosen, etc. which in all likelihood will take us into late 2011 or 2012, and "gay marriage" as an issue still will not go to a vote of the people. And there is no guarantee that the 'antis' will be strong enough to dominate such a proceeding.

The second way is the normal procedure. The proposed amendment has to pass the Iowa House and Senate in two consecutive sessions before it can go to a popular vote. The likelihood of this happening with the current House and Senate, as heavily dominated by the Democrats as the national legislature currently is, is slim, approaching none. Even if there were a sea change in Iowa politics next year, it would be 2012 or 2013 before there could be a popular vote on the issue. It is by no means clear to me that the "antis' could win on the issue. While Mike Huckabee may have been the favorite of Iowa Republican caucus goers in January 2008, Obama carried the state fairly easily in November. The anti-gay marriage vote would predominate in Western and North Central Iowa, but, like the Dakotas, this part of the state has become seriously depopulated in recent decades and could not conceivably outvote Des Moines, the Iowa City-Cedar Rapids Corridor, or Dubuque and Davenport. My own guess is that tempers would calm, especially when it becomes clear that the end of the world has not resulted, and such an amendment would face a very steep uphill climb. But I profoundly doubt that it will ever be put to a popular vote in the first place. As I said, it is a very difficult thing to do.

HTH

Pax,

Dave Krein '42

Originally Posted by Odin

I understood the post perfectly fine. Then again I'm an evil left-wing statist.

I understood his opinion, but the analogy is too flawed to support it.

Originally Posted by 1990

One obvious question about this: there are over 1 billion Muslims (and rapidly growing) worldwide. Certainly there were nowhere near that many Native Americans back in the late 17th century...and they were almost entirely on the American continent while the bulk of Muslims are located in Asia, North & West Africa, and the Middle East. Is the comparison valid even though the U.S. isn't colonizing/repopulating these regions?

Even though it isn't our "colony" I've been considering the role that Israel has been playing as a country heavily dependent on our support in the Middle East. For purpose of this analogy we could call Israel the West/U.N's colony, even though its an independent country. Also the way Israel is an idealistic religion state matches with the idealistic religion state of the Puritans.

And IIRC, our support of Israel is a large reason behind Muslim vengeance.

Of course it isn't exactly the same thing, but to paraphrase good ol' Mark Twain: "History never repeats itself, but it tends to rhyme".

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

The problem is that the debate on these issues is being driven by the hard left, with no room for compromise, and that means they are not even taking into consideration the legal impact on religious freedom. They just don't care. The discussion is not even being had. Unless that course is moderated, the seeds of the next 4T are already being sown. As of now, the people have stood against the onslaught in state after state. There is no question that Iowa voters will reverse the recent ruling there at the first opportunity.

But if it goes the way you think it will, it is almost inevitable that the next 2T will involve Christians, not out of rebellion but out of duty to their faith, being pushed into civil disobedience. The next Kent State will then be aimed at Christians. Of course, that starts to look a lot like the end times prophesied in the Bible, in which case maybe no one will get much of a chance to find out if these cyclical theories hold.

According to a book I've read titled The Next Christendom, the above conflict will be further complicated (and made far messier) by the introduction of racial overtones which aren't there yet. The projections are that by the next 2T (not to mention the next 4T!), the overwhelming majority of the remaining Whites will be agnostic/atheist, who will be facing a far larger Black and Brown population - which will be mostly traditionalist Christian, with some equally traditionalist Muslims thrown in. Thus, a confrontation which pits Secularist versus Christian by then will look a LOT like some of the footage coming out of the South during the Civil Rights struggles of a century earlier (Black and Brown Christians versus White Secularists.) It will look a lot more like Selma, Alabama in 1962 than like Kent State in 1970.

Originally Posted by TimWalker

According to the double rhythm concept, both Prophet generations belonged to more worldly Awakenings. One would expect that they would preside over greater civic achievement than, say, Boomers or Transcendentals.

But what kind of civic achievement? The Awakeners presided over revolution, the Missionaries over big constructions.

Perhaps we need a revolution every few centuries. Reforms occurred during other saeculae, but at what point does the basic instutional structure become obsolete?

Mega-Crisis = Moral Saeculum where Authority wins moral legitimacy.
Mega-Awakening = Moral Saeculum where Authority loses moral legitimacy

Mega-High = Doctrinal Saeculum where rules are made more precise
Mega-Unraveling = Doctrinal Saeculum where rules are made more simple

Thanks to everyone for your kind and encouraging responses.

To Odin:
I think your turning analogies for the saecula are sound (i.e. we are in Mega-Awakening right now). I'm not sure about your generational analogies though. Since Awakenings are marked by the transition of Artists into leadership roles, I would describe the current saeculum as having an Artist tinge. To me, this makes more sense. Artists are all about maintaining existing institutions and adding ad hoc revisions to essentially sound rules is very much their style. Thus I would associate the bottom of the chart with Artists. This puts Heroes as pro-authority, Nomads as pro-simplicity and Prophets as anti-authority.

Also, a Mega-Unraveling may sound harsh, but it's really just a time to clear out the clutter. The last Mega-Unraveling cleaned out absolute monarchy and considerable religious superstition and ushered in secular, representative government -- not exactly the end of the world.

To JPT:
My political compass overlay is correct based on how the folks at politicalcompass.org define their axes. Their use of the word "libertarian" is more in keeping with European fashion, which links it not to economics but social issues. Their "right wing" is people who like capitalism and that is a fetish of the upper right.

To Virgil Saari:
Never fear, "paleocon" attitudes will return. All ideologies must wander in the wildnerness before returning as something new and eccentric.

To Grey Badger:
The current chart is the "End of Last Awakening" chart. Since then, the alignment stayed the same (although it is changing now). The Unraveling would feature a swing from leading edge to trailing edge influence. So, as of 2005, the political system would be in the hands of the true right. Since then, we've been moving down and left into lower right territory. Soon, though, we'll head left through the true bottom (2012?), then the lower left (2015?) then up into the true left (2018?) and finally the upper left (2020s) before the alignment stabilizes and the High begins. Then influence would slide back toward the new trailing edge (i.e. toward the lower right).

Originally Posted by Odin

I understood the post perfectly fine. Then again I'm an evil left-wing statist.

I did too, actually. Sorry, but if you really have that big of a problem dispensing legally prescribed birth control pills or selling a package of Trojans, dispensing pills at a pharmacy may not be the right place for you to work. Same way that if you're hugely anti-alcohol, you probably should avoid being a bartender or liqour store worker, or if you're an athiest, you shouldn't work in the clergy.

Nobody agrees with everything they have to do at their job, either suck it up and put it aside, or if it bothers you THAT MUCH, find something else to do. If you really want to go start up a non-birth control dispensing pharmacy, that's fine. Nobody's going to stop you. Good luck, though, you're going to need it.

Also, speaking as a gay man, you can bet that we're going to fight for full gay marriage in each state and on a federal level. And we're probably not going to stop until we win, which I have a feeling we will by the end of the crisis. There's already a domino effect that's beginning to go into place, and as Millenial voters gain more prominence and Silent/Boomer voters begin to disappear off the scene, we'll probably begin to see repeals of many of the anti-gay laws and amendments currently on the books. If a church doesn't want to do gay marraiges, that's fine...but the courthouse should HAVE to and any church that wants to do so should be allowed and have those marriages stand under the law.

The next wave of prophets probably won't scream and fight against this, by that point, it will be roughly akin to screaming about interracial marriage. Doing so will be gauche at best, on par with being a KKK member today at worst.

Whatever screaming that IS done will probably be from gay and lesbian prophets telling us we sold out by aligning ourselves with heterosexual culture and their value set, and they'll probably attempt to bring back an extremely seperatist, communal, GLBT culture akin to that of the mid/late 70's, minus any kind of closet. Heavily gay neighborhoods are starting to fizzle, by the time the GLBT Homelanders begin to become adults, most cities will no longer have them. Most of the time gays will hang out and meet the same places straight couples do, with a small smattering of gay oriented businesses spread out across most cities and into suburbs.

The new gay Prophets will probably revitalize and create new GLBT neighborhoods, heavily isolated from the "meet, marry, have kids" culture that GLBT X'ers/Millenials are trying so hard to get and Homelanders will take for granted.

Straight evangelicals COULD backlash against them for that, but the backlash won't be strong enough to strip away civil rights...they'll actually probably be relieved that this group has no real interest in infiltrating their churches. They'll probably take more of a bashing from GLBT Millenials, who don't understand why their hard work in securing civil rights for them is so underappreciated, even attacked. Secretly, though, we know they're having a lot more fun than we ever did...they'll get to have all the hedonism that we never did, and have it very openly.

Originally Posted by blackmet

I did too, actually. Sorry, but if you really have that big of a problem dispensing legally prescribed birth control pills or selling a package of Trojans, dispensing pills at a pharmacy may not be the right place for you to work....

Your statement shows clearly that you have no concern for anyone but yourself. Your desires are all that matters, and you don't care who you have to destroy to get what you want.

Your analogy to race is false, and unsustainable.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) has stated "some people believe that sexual orientation is innate and fixed; however, sexual orientation develops across a person’s lifetime". In a joint statement with other major American medical organizations, the APA says that "different people realize at different points in their lives that they are heterosexual, gay, lesbian, or bisexual". A report from the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health states: "For some people, sexual orientation is continuous and fixed throughout their lives. For others, sexual orientation may be fluid and change over time". One study has suggested "considerable fluidity in bisexual, unlabeled, and lesbian women's attractions, behaviors, and identities".

...

The director of the APA's LGBT Concerns Office explained: "I don't think that anyone disagrees with the idea that people can change because we know that straight people become gays and lesbians...."

...


There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation.

We have a militant, vitriolic, uncompromising movement demanding the overthrow of marriage as it has existed throughout human history, based on claims that have no basis in fact.

As I said before, the real problem here from a political and legal standpoint is not the issue of whether homosexuality is right or wrong. In a free society, people should be able to hold either belief without being discriminated against for it, and consenting adults should be free to do what they want within the privacy of their own homes.

The problem is that the militant gay movement is determined to gain legal preference for their view on the issue, and then use the law to attack anyone who disagrees with them. If that means discriminating against people of faith, so be it.

In your mind, you may be perfectly willing to stomp all over the rights of people of faith to get what you want, and lump them in with racists, the KKK and so on. But religious freedom is a very different thing. You are not going to be able to drive faith out of society by social or legal pressure. You are going to have to kill people.

This movement will fail, even if it succeeds. The only question is how much damage will be done. Part of the reason is that everyone knows, regardless of the politically correct cultural discourse, and regardless of whether they have religious faith or not, that human sexual functioning exists for the purpose of propagating the species. Even from a purely Darwinian viewpoint, that is clear. It is also clear that human beings have found infinite ways of indulging in sexual activity, not just two or three (heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, etc.). People have sex with animals and inanimate objects. Some people are into S&M. Thanks to shows like Jerry Springer, we know that some people gain sexual gratification from dressing up in diapers. There are heterosexual transvestites. The list is infinite, and the idea that these are all inborn, unchangeable traits is absurd.

What it really comes down to is a question of expanding Civil Rights to include almost anything. We might as well (and may soon) establish obesity, alcoholism or drug addiction as special protected classes under the Constitution. By claiming Civil Rights for every conceivable interest group under the sun, the very concept is de-legitimized.

Ultimately, we have gotten into this situation because of "identity politics". Instead of seeing people as individuals, we see them as members of groups, pitted against each other in constant battle. It is one of the ultimate legacies of the Baby Boom generation. We have discarded fact, reason and truth in favor emotion, self-centeredness and entitlement. We are charging headlong into drastic actions, with no one asking the important questions about what the consequences will be. You can apply that from Iraq, to Global Warming, to Gay Marriage. It's all the same.

Forget about establishing consensus and coming to proper conclusions. We have, as a society, from top to bottom, adopted the mantra "Don't Confuse Me With the Facts!". We don't even attempt to find out what the facts and truth are before we form opinions. We just know what we want, and we're going to get it, and we don't care what we have to do to make it happen.

It can't end well.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Thanks to everyone for your kind and encouraging responses.

To Odin:
I think your turning analogies for the saecula are sound (i.e. we are in Mega-Awakening right now). I'm not sure about your generational analogies though. Since Awakenings are marked by the transition of Artists into leadership roles, I would describe the current saeculum as having an Artist tinge. To me, this makes more sense. Artists are all about maintaining existing institutions and adding ad hoc revisions to essentially sound rules is very much their style. Thus I would associate the bottom of the chart with Artists. This puts Heroes as pro-authority, Nomads as pro-simplicity and Prophets as anti-authority.

Also, a Mega-Unraveling may sound harsh, but it's really just a time to clear out the clutter. The last Mega-Unraveling cleaned out absolute monarchy and considerable religious superstition and ushered in secular, representative government -- not exactly the end of the world.

To JPT:
My political compass overlay is correct based on how the folks at politicalcompass.org define their axes. Their use of the word "libertarian" is more in keeping with European fashion, which links it not to economics but social issues. Their "right wing" is people who like capitalism and that is a fetish of the upper right.

To Virgil Saari:
Never fear, "paleocon" attitudes will return. All ideologies must wander in the wildnerness before returning as something new and eccentric.

To Grey Badger:
The current chart is the "End of Last Awakening" chart. Since then, the alignment stayed the same (although it is changing now). The Unraveling would feature a swing from leading edge to trailing edge influence. So, as of 2005, the political system would be in the hands of the true right. Since then, we've been moving down and left into lower right territory. Soon, though, we'll head left through the true bottom (2012?), then the lower left (2015?) then up into the true left (2018?) and finally the upper left (2020s) before the alignment stabilizes and the High begins. Then influence would slide back toward the new trailing edge (i.e. toward the lower right).

Isn't the End of the Last Awakening 25 years out of date? And the end of the last unraveling more timely?

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Your statement shows clearly that you have no concern for anyone but yourself. Your desires are all that matters, and you don't care who you have to destroy to get what you want.

Your analogy to race is false, and unsustainable.




We have a militant, vitriolic, uncompromising movement demanding the overthrow of marriage as it has existed throughout human history, based on claims that have no basis in fact.

As I said before, the real problem here from a political and legal standpoint is not the issue of whether homosexuality is right or wrong. In a free society, people should be able to hold either belief without being discriminated against for it, and consenting adults should be free to do what they want within the privacy of their own homes.

The problem is that the militant gay movement is determined to gain legal preference for their view on the issue, and then use the law to attack anyone who disagrees with them. If that means discriminating against people of faith, so be it.

In your mind, you may be perfectly willing to stomp all over the rights of people of faith to get what you want, and lump them in with racists, the KKK and so on. But religious freedom is a very different thing. You are not going to be able to drive faith out of society by social or legal pressure. You are going to have to kill people.

This movement will fail, even if it succeeds. The only question is how much damage will be done. Part of the reason is that everyone knows, regardless of the politically correct cultural discourse, and regardless of whether they have religious faith or not, that human sexual functioning exists for the purpose of propagating the species. Even from a purely Darwinian viewpoint, that is clear. It is also clear that human beings have found infinite ways of indulging in sexual activity, not just two or three (heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, etc.). People have sex with animals and inanimate objects. Some people are into S&M. Thanks to shows like Jerry Springer, we know that some people gain sexual gratification from dressing up in diapers. There are heterosexual transvestites. The list is infinite, and the idea that these are all inborn, unchangeable traits is absurd.

What it really comes down to is a question of expanding Civil Rights to include almost anything. We might as well (and may soon) establish obesity, alcoholism or drug addiction as special protected classes under the Constitution. By claiming Civil Rights for every conceivable interest group under the sun, the very concept is de-legitimized.

Ultimately, we have gotten into this situation because of "identity politics". Instead of seeing people as individuals, we see them as members of groups, pitted against each other in constant battle. It is one of the ultimate legacies of the Baby Boom generation. We have discarded fact, reason and truth in favor emotion, self-centeredness and entitlement. We are charging headlong into drastic actions, with no one asking the important questions about what the consequences will be. You can apply that from Iraq, to Global Warming, to Gay Marriage. It's all the same.

Forget about establishing consensus and coming to proper conclusions. We have, as a society, from top to bottom, adopted the mantra "Don't Confuse Me With the Facts!". We don't even attempt to find out what the facts and truth are before we form opinions. We just know what we want, and we're going to get it, and we don't care what we have to do to make it happen.

It can't end well.

One question I always have for those who say that marriage is for the propagation of children (true, but incomplete) is -

Would you think the marriage of a couple in their 70s is valid? or not? Since propagation of the species is clearly out of the question with them.

However - I do agree with the statement that churches should make their own marriage rules and marry people according to their beliefs, but if it comes to status before the law, that's for the courthouse, which should not discriminate. Because everyone should have the right to make a legal contract which gives them certain rights before the law. To do so and restrict this to the secular arm only in no way tramples on the rights of the churches, except their "right" to impose their belief on nonbelievers through the law.

Likewise, giving people the right to make this contract in no way harms your marriage or mine. To quote a noted deist, "it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my arm." If you want a law that actually did harm the permanence of marriage, try no-fault divorce.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

One question I always have for those who say that marriage is for the propagation of children (true, but incomplete) is -

Would you think the marriage of a couple in their 70s is valid? or not? Since propagation of the species is clearly out of the question with them.

However - I do agree with the statement that churches should make their own marriage rules and marry people according to their beliefs, but if it comes to status before the law, that's for the courthouse, which should not discriminate. Because everyone should have the right to make a legal contract which gives them certain rights before the law. To do so and restrict this to the secular arm only in no way tramples on the rights of the churches, except their "right" to impose their belief on nonbelievers through the law.

Likewise, giving people the right to make this contract in no way harms your marriage or mine. To quote a noted deist, "it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my arm." If you want a law that actually did harm the permanence of marriage, try no-fault divorce.

Personally I think if two people really want to be together then live and let live.

If they want the court to recognize them as married fine.

If the churches don't want to recognize them, then the government has no business in forcing them to do so.

What's the big deal?

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Isn't the End of the Last Awakening 25 years out of date? And the end of the last unraveling more timely?

Except that for the purpose of this "political archetypes" theory, only dominant turnings (Awakenings and Crises) shift the political orientation. The Culture Wars Unraveling only solidified what existed at the end of the Awakening -- and when you consider the influence that circa-1980 Reaganism has had until the last year or two, that makes perfect sense. Now, of course, the shift is beginning.