Gay Marriage and Enlightenment Terror

Jurgen Habermas, who coined the expression 'post-secular society'. Legislation is about to be enacted on gay marriage in France, the United Kingdom and the United States. Many would say that this is an issue of little importance relative to the economic turmoil in Europe and on-going military conflict in the Middle East. Yet it is this simultaneous acceptance of gay marriage across the major western powers that illustrates a continued belligerence in Enlightenment thinking that shakes off criticism as though it did not exist.  Read More at Staff and Scrip.

Watching porn makes straight men more receptive to the idea of same-sex marriage, new study claims

Effect was particularly marked in less-well educated men, researchers say

• They believe porn may open men's minds to alternative sexual situations
• Research has shown 30 per cent of all internet traffic is porn

By DAMIEN GAYLE

PUBLISHED: 13:00 EST, 4 February 2013 | UPDATED: 13:27 EST, 4 February 2013

• Comments (111)
• Share

Same-sex marriage: Heterosexual men warm to the idea of gay marriage more if they watch pornography

Campaigners for same-sex marriage have always come up against particularly vociferous opposition from heterosexual men.

But a study from the U.S. has suggested a novel method of persuading them to soften their stance on the divisive issue: get them to watch dirty videos.

The new academic analysis suggests that the more that straight men watch pornography, the more they warm to the idea that two people of the same sex could be married.

Paul Wright, assistant professor of communications at Indiana University and author of the study, said the effect was particularly marked in men who were less-well educated.

He said the change in attitude could because of pornography opens their mind to accepting non-traditional sexual situations - like those involving participants of the same sex.

'Our study suggests that the more heterosexual men, especially less educated heterosexual men, watch pornography, the more supportive they become of same-sex marriage,' he told the

He went on: 'Pornography adopts an individualistic, non-judgemental stance on all kinds of non-traditional sexual behaviours and same-sex marriage attitudes are strongly linked to attitudes about same-sex sex.

'If people think individuals should be able to decide for themselves whether to have same-sex sex, they will also think that individuals should be able to decide for themselves whether to get married to a partner of the same-sex.'

Mind opening: The change in attitude could because of pornography opens the minds of men to accepting non-traditional sexual situations - like those involving participants of the same sex

The results of the study, published in the journal Communication Research, could be interpreted as suggesting that backers of same sex marriage should encourage men to watch more port

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2273376/Watching-porn-makes-straight-men-receptive-idea-sex-marriage-new-study-claims.html#ixzz2K5XE31rX 

Bad Science and Failed Freedom Protections in the HHS Mandate

by  Helen Alvaré

within Conscience Protection, Constitutional Law, Religion and the Public Square

February 5th, 2013

The latest proposed amendment to the HHS mandate still draws on empirically unsound data and violates religious freedom.

The controversy over the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) contraceptive mandate is bound to increase, thanks to its latest proposed fix announced last Friday. The rules proposed to be amended are those issued by HHS last year, requiring employers—including religious institutions and individuals and corporations that embrace religious principles—to provide, without co-pay, contraceptives, sterilization, and emergency contraceptives that can destroy a human embryo.

The original mandate came when HHS fully adopted the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine (IOM) report “Clinical Preventive Services for Women: Closing the Gaps.”  This report claimed that American women were suffering a crisis of “unintended pregnancy,” a crisis that could be resolved most effectively by requiring employers to provide women, free of charge, the “full range of Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling for women with reproductive capacity.” ¹

With last Friday’s rules, the government is claiming that after a year of amostly losing record of religious freedom lawsuits, it has struck the perfect balance between two urgent goals: getting contraception into the hands of as many American women and girls as possible, and protecting Americans’ religious freedom.

The truth of the matter is quite different.

There are myriad problems inherent in the new rules. They still fail to protect the legally guaranteed religious freedom of religious institutions, for-profit employers, insurers, non-religious non-profit organizations, and individuals. Religious liberty is protected not only by the First Amendment of our Constitution, but also by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

They fail to understand the full nature of the free exercise of religion—that religion, whether practiced individually or by a group, requires being able to integrate one’s actions with one’s religious beliefs, especially when these don’t attack but advance the common good—here, the health and well-being of women and girls.

They trample on parents’ constitutionally-protected right to direct the upbringing of their daughters. And they reveal, still, an irrational zeal for a narrow category of drugs and devices, thus evincing a narrow and harmful understanding of women’s freedom as coincident with sexual expression.

Moreover, while the government tries to make us think that the new rules are hospitable to religious freedom, we shouldn’t overlook its continued failure to admit the bankruptcy of the mandate’s grounding “medical” claim: that unintended pregnancy is a kind of health crisis properly resolved with free contraception and early abortions.

Read more at Public Discourse.

State Senator in Tennessee wants to slash universities' diversity spending

 

 58  14 Google +0 Reddit0

 76  0

  By Scott Greer, on Feb 01, 2013

A Tennessee state senator has proposed legislation that would drastically cut funding for diversity programs at public universities.

Sen. Summerville sees the programs as unnecessary and believes eliminating them will help reduce tuition costs.

The proposal, the Civil Rights Initiative of 2013, would save money by laying off “diversity officers,” removing affirmative action from the university admission process, and barring the state from tracking statistics based on race, ethnicity, and gender.

The bill’s author, Senator Jim Summerville (R-Dickson), told Campus Reform on Tuesday he believes these programs are no longer necessary.

“Now the door [to high education] is open to everybody,” Summerville stated.

“All you do is work hard, present the qualifications, and you can do anything in our country.”

Summerville cited the need to cut unnecessary programs in order to combat the rising cost of tuition at Tennessee’s public universities.

“Our college tuitions are going through the roof already and we’re paying someone [diversity officers] to do what is essentially unnecessary because everyone is welcome at our colleges and universities and everyone knows that,” he explained.

Read More at Campus Reform.

Public univ plans event to help female students achieve orgasm

 

 10.2K  3208 Google +144 Reddit329

 17.1K  2168

  By Oliver Darcy, on Jan 28, 2013

The University of Minnesota - Twin Cities (UMTC) is set to hold an event this spring designed to help its female undergraduate students achieve more and greater orgasms.

A promotional poster for the event says it is all about "sexuality and pleasure."

The university’s official online description of the event entitled, “The Female Orgasm,” describes it as open to both male and female students.

“Orgasm aficionados and beginners of all genders are welcome to come learn about everything from multiple orgasms to that mysterious G-spot,” reads thedescription posted on the school’s official events calendar.

“Whether you want to learn how to have your first orgasm, how to have better ones, or how to help you girlfriend, Kate and Marshall cover it all…” it adds.

“Are you coming?” it asks.

The description of the event, which is hosted by the university’s Office of Diversity and Equity's Women's Center, does not say whether there is an age requirement. While the average age of undergraduates at UMTC is 21, it is not uncommon for students to enroll at the age of 17.

Read More at Campus Reform.

The Future of Roe: Women, Health and Law in the Obama

Perspectives from the Legal Community - Helen Alvare, Professor of Law, George Mason University School of Law

Amici Curiae Brief of Robert P. George, Sherif Girgis, and Ryan T. Anderson in Support Of Hollingsworth and Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group Addressing The Merits and Supporting Reversal

Robert George 

Princeton University - Department of Politics

Sherif Girgis 

Princeton University Department of Philosophy

Ryan T. Anderson 

University of Notre Dame Department of Political Science
January 29, 2013

Abstract:      
At stake in these cases is not who is and is not eligible to marry but what marriage is. Today’s debates offer rival answers to that question, two substantive marriage definitions. This Court’s task is not to judge the desirability of the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”) and California Proposition 8’s definition, but only to decide whether citizens and legislators may embody in law the belief in marriage as a conjugal union, as they have historically done.

There are excellent reasons from philosophy and social science to think that marriage is a conjugal relationship—the type of union that only a man and woman can form—rather than just the sort of emotional union that any two (or more) adults can form. And recognizing marriage as such serves important public interests.

Indeed, the most important free community, on which all others depend, is the marriage-based family. But to thrive, it requires a supporting framework of understandings and expectations. A main purpose of marriage law in any society is to promote such a culture. Sound marriage policy therefore serves the common good (especially the institutions of civil society) and helps keep government limited.

Redefining civil marriage can cause corresponding social harms. It weakens the rational foundation (and hence social practice) of the stabilizing marital norms on which social order depends: norms such as permanence, exclusivity, monogamy. Conferring benefits on same-sex relationships itself does not do this, but redefining marriage in the public mind does. And undermining the norms of marriage will in turn damage the many cultural and political goods that draw the law into the marriage business. We list them in summary form here.

Real marital fulfillment. To form a true marriage, one must freely choose it, which requires at least a rough idea of what it actually is. Redefining marriage will harm people (especially future generations) by distorting their idea of what marriage is. It will teach that marriage is essentially about emotional fulfillment, without any inherent connections to bodily union or procreation and family life. As people internalize this view, their ability to realize genuine marital union will diminish.

Child and spousal well-being. Marriage tends to make spouses healthier, happier and wealthier. And it is marriage itself—conjugal marriage—that does this, especially through its distinctive norms of permanence, exclusivity and orientation to family life. As the state’s redefinition of marriage makes these norms harder to understand, cherish, justify and live by, spouses will benefit less from the advantages of stability.

Moreover, if marriage is redefined, no civil institution will reinforce the notion that men and women tend to bring different gifts to child-rearing. In all these ways, redefinition will lower the pressures and incentives for men and women to stay with their spouses and children, or for couples to marry before conceiving. This would harm children’s development as children do best when raised by their married biological mother and father. The welfare and correctional state will have to expand to fill the developmental vacuum.

Leading LGBT scholars and activists increasingly agree that redefining marriage would undermine its norms.

Religious liberty. If marriage understood as the union of man and woman comes to be seen as irrational (“bigotry”), freedom to express and live by this idea will be eroded. Individuals and institutions who espouse the conjugal view have been denied government licenses, or educational and professional opportunities, for living by (or even publicizing) their views. The consequences for observant Christians, Jews, Muslims and others are clear.

Moreover, none of these harms is caused by recognizing infertile (opposite-sex) marriages, which cohere with the conjugal view. And finally, enshrining this view of marriage in law is fully consistent with this Court’s ruling in Lawrence v. Texas.

Because there are good reasons for citizens and lawmakers to conclude that marriage is a union of man and woman—even before considering the harms that redefinition might bring—this Court should uphold DOMA and Proposition 8 as constitutional exercises of policy-making power by Congress and the citizens of California, respectively.

Download Amicus Brief at the Social Science Research Network.