A friend of mine who works in the pro-life movement asked me to post this mysterious video:
Does anyone know what this is all about? I don’t want to wait until May 22nd to find out – I want to know now.
Can recreational sex turn a selfish, irresponsible man into a marriage-minded provider?
An article from the American Thinker answers the question that vexes many men. As you read this excerpt below, ask yourself if it is a man or a woman writing this.
First of all, liberal women seem to be having an awful lot of sex these days. They are losing their virginity early, and working their way through as many “alpha males” as possible, but all the while they insist that a stream of recreational-sex relationships is somehow a path to lifelong married love. Can you turn a man who wants nothing more than recreational sex into the perfect husband, simply by invoking the magical power of sex?
Liberal women think that you can:
On the one hand, liberal women believe wholeheartedly in the idiotic social construct they call, “sexual liberation.” They pride themselves on losing their virginity, as though that “accomplishment” had ever been above the challenge-scale of an alley cat in heat.
These liberal women I’ve known, having given away their female V-card over and over and over again, all the while scour their host of intimate “trial runs” searching for that mythical, Hollywood-construct, Mr. Right. This Mr. Right guy, for whom they are searching, is known to them up front as even more sexually-liberated than they, but this little factoid seems not to register in their liberated little heads as they frantically search for the equally mythical family home with the white picket fence, which somehow never gets hit by any of life’s roving tornadoes. One can almost hear them say in unison, “And they all lived happily ever after.”
I think it’s one of the deepest mysteries of the world why women think that a man who has lots and lots of recreational sex is somehow marriage material. When I think of men who are qualified for marriage, I think of men who have studied hard subjects, gotten marketable skills, worked and worked, saved and saved, and shown that they can be faithful in marriage by exhibiting self-control in the courtship. But liberal women think that all of this reasoning is junk, and you must just jump right into sex to see if the relationship will “work out” or to find out what you “like”. Recreational sex, they insist, is a superior way of finding a husband. Discussing who will do what in a marriage and what the marriage is for is apparently ineffective.
More:
Evidently, the liberal woman is capable of the most severe form of psychological denial known to humankind. Certain that one of the men with whom she has copulated without strings will suddenly morph into a faithfully monogamous creature the minute she can convince one of them to say “I do” in front of a few witnesses, the liberal woman marches blindly down the aisle towards near-certain, adulterous doom. Yet, no amount of honest reason can dissuade liberal women from this self-destructive, moral myopia.
What other term but “morally schizoid” could possibly describe this blatantly contradictory tendency among liberal women?
Having spent their youth casually throwing their own sexual morality to the winds of fairytale “liberation,” these liberal women still steadfastly cling to the faithfully monogamous ideal for that sometime-later moment when they actually do desire all the traditional things — the husband, the kids, the white picket fence — those pesky female-nature embedded longings, which coincidentally ensure the continuation of the human race.
But these liberal women somehow — in perfect schizoid manner — convince themselves that once married, they will be the gratuitous beneficiaries of the monogamous respect they still desire, but have never once demanded or deserved. Intuitively, women know that strict monogamy provides the only real security for themselves and their own offspring. Yet, they continue themselves to spurn the demands of monogamy until the very last minute, believing that fidelity springs forth naturally in miraculous profusion among all “married” humans. Such pure poppycock can only be explained as a mental disorder.
I think women need to ask themselves questions honestly and rationally:
- can recreational sex make an unemployed man get a job?
- can recreational sex make a violent man be courteous and respectful?
- can recreational sex make an atheist turn into a Christian?
- can recreational sex make a male slut stay faithful?
- can recreational sex make wastefulness turn into frugality?
- can recreational sex make laziness turn into diligence?
- can recreational sex make irresponsibility turn into commitment?
Marriages last because both partners have prepared themselves for self-sacrifice, rational discussions, problem solving and cooperation.
Previously, I provided the male perspective on liberal women’s poor decision-making about men and marriage. Read the article from the American Thinker (written by a woman), then read mine.
Related posts
- New study finds that cohabitation damages children
- New peer-reviewed paper highlights the benefits of pre-marital chastity/abstinence
- Does being a virgin before marriage affect marital stability?
- Which family configuration is best for raising children?
- Tactics and talking points for defending traditional marriage
- New study links father absence to increased bullying
- How important are biological fathers for healthy child development?
- What causes women to become single mothers, and how are children affected?
- New study shows that children of working mothers live unhealthier lives
- New Scientist article shows why fathers are necessary for children’s well-being
- New study finds that women choose mates based on appearance
- Should Christian men marry Democrats who claim to be Christians?
- Men should prefer women who allow moral judging and spiritual leading
- Where have all the good men gone, and why aren’t men marrying?
- Do men have a responsibility not to marry feminists?
- Why do some women tolerate jerks as boyfriends?
- The dangers of sentimentality in relationships
- Is Mark Driscoll afraid to hold a woman accountable for her own choices?
- How feminism made women unsuitable for marriage and parenting
- Why Christian men should be chaste
Fascism: Obama administration objects to conscience protections for military chaplains
Fascism is the system of government in which the government pushes it’s notions of purpose, meaning and morality onto the citizens. In a fascist government, values derived from religion, family and community are overridden by the state. Fascism is exclusively an outworking of the left. When government is big, secular and religious fascism are possible. In contrast, right wing conservatives always want government to be small, so that individuals, families, businesses and charities are left with the most freedom to decide.
So is the Obama administration left wing (fascist) or right wing (liberty)? Do they respect the right of individuals to decide what to do?
Consider this article from CNS News.
Excerpt:
The Obama administration “strongly objects” to provisions in a House defense authorization bill that would prohibit the use of military property for same-sex “marriage or marriage-like” ceremonies, and protect military chaplains from negative repercussions for refusing to act against their consciences, as, for example, in being ordered to perform a same-sex marriage ceremony.
In a policy statement released Wednesday, the White House Office of Management and Budget outlined numerous objections to aspects of the fiscal year 2013 National Defense Authorization Bill (H.R. 4310). The bill was reported out of the House Armed Services Committee last week and is set to be debated in the House, beginning Wednesday. (See related story)
Overall, it recommends that President Obama veto H.R. 4310 if its cumulative effects “impede the ability of the Administration to execute the new defense strategy and to properly direct scarce resources.”
The veto warning is not specifically linked to the two provisions dealing with marriage, but they are listed among parts of the bill which the administration finds objectionable.
The memo said the two provisions “adopt unnecessary and ill-advised policies that would inhibit the ability of same-sex couples to marry or enter a recognized relationship under State law.”
Section 536 of H.R. 4310 states in part that no member of the armed forces may “direct, order, or require a chaplain to perform any duty, rite, ritual, ceremony, service, or function that is contrary to the conscience, moral principles, or religious beliefs of the chaplain, or contrary to the moral principles and religious beliefs of the endorsing faith group of the chaplain.”
Further, no member of the armed forces may “discriminate or take any adverse personnel action against a chaplain, including denial of promotion, schooling, training, or assignment, on the basis of the refusal by the chaplain to comply with a direction, order, or requirement” that is prohibited by the previous clause.
The OMB complained that, “in its overbroad terms,” section 536 “is potentially harmful to good order and discipline.”
Section 537 of H.R. 4310 states that “[a] military installation or other property owned or rented by, or otherwise under the jurisdiction or control of, the Department of Defense may not be used to officiate, solemnize, or perform a marriage or marriage-like ceremony involving anything other than the union of one man with one woman.”
That provision, the OMB said in the memo, would make it obligatory for the department “to deny Service members, retirees, and their family members access to facilities for religious ceremonies on the basis of sexual orientation, a troublesome and potentially unconstitutional limitation on religious liberty.”
Obama in December 2010 signed into law legislation repealing a ban on homosexuals and lesbians serving openly in the military. Last week he publicly endorsed same-sex marriage for the first time.
The House Armed Services Committee passed H.R. 4310 on May 9 by a 56-5 bipartisan vote, the only nays coming from Democratic Reps. Chellie Pingree (Me.), John Garamendi (Calif.), Tim Ryan (Ohio), Hank Johnson (Ga.) and Jackie Speier (Calif.).
This is not the first time that Obama has shows disrespect for the religious liberty and freedom of conscious of individuals and private organizations. He thinks he knows better than you what to believe, and he thinks it’s a good idea to force his views and priorities onto you, your family, your employer, your church, and any charitable organizations you might be affiliated with. He’s a fascist, and his regime is fascist. That’s just the way it is.
I really recommend that all of my Christian readers check out the book “The Road to Serfdom” by F.A. Hayek. Hayek is a Nobel prize winning economist who argues that all our liberties – including our freedom of religion – are rooted in free market capitalism and small government. He argues that only when individuals are free to choose where they work, to keep what they earn, and to spend it on goods and services they really want, will their be real freedom. It’s important for Christians to choose an economic philosophy that guarantees the social conditions that allows them to thrive as Christians. Not just with respect to evangelism, but with respect to freedom of conscience, and freedom to promote their beliefs in public in the most effective, persuasive ways possible. We cannot allow ourselves to be silenced on our Kingdom plans just because we are lazy and want our neighbor to buy us health care and mail us Medicare checks. You do not give up your freedom to serve God in exchange for your neighbor’s money.
