No One Needs Multiple Partners

[P]eople “need” multiple partners like they need four houses or six automobiles. These are wants, not needs. And when seemingly reasonable people argue that in previous eras people didn’t live so long, such that the death of a spouse functioned as a way for humans to fulfill their “need for sexual variety” it pays to be skeptical. (Since when did golden anniversaries become something to pity rather than something to celebrate?).  No, the new turn away from monogamy was made possible not because we figured out that we are still animals but because we figured out how to effectively prevent pregnancies or end them prematurely, freeing us up to pursue the art of sexuality—the body as a tool of consumption rather than production.

Mark Regnerus, Cheap Sex: The Transformation of Men, Marriage, and Monogamy, pg.179

They Want Marriage Without Planning

[N]early all of the women—and a solid majority of the men—with whom we spoke in person want to marry.  But many of them do not know how to make it happen. Marriage as it has been conventionally understood—faithful, closed (to others), enduring, kids, the whole package deal—is a desired state into which very many young Americans hope someday to naturally and passively find themselves. They do not think of it as a pathway requiring their present-time discipline, discernment, sacrifice, self-control, and prudent judgment, together with ample amounts of the same from their peers. Young Americans are not practicing to be married, but rather hoping to someday wake up in it.

Mark Regnerus, Cheap Sex: The Transformation of Men, Marriage, and Monogamy, pg.174

Cheap Sex Makes Men Less Productive

[C]heap sex does not make men more productive. And it will not contribute to their marriageability in an era in which marriage rates are tumbling. Bumeister and Vohs [Sexual Economics] hold that “giving young men easy access to abundant sexual satisfaction deprives society of one of its ways to motivate them to contribute valuable achievements to the culture.”

Mark Regnerus, Cheap Sex: The Transformation of Men, Marriage, and Monogamy, pg.152-153

What Feminism Hath Wrought

Nowadays young men can skip the wearying detour of getting education and career prospects to qualify for sex. Nor does he have to get married and accept all those costs, including promising to share his lifetime earnings and forego other women forever. Female sex partners are available without all that. . . . Sex has become free and easy. This is today’s version of the opiate of the (male) masses. . . .  Climbing the corporate ladder for its own sake may still hold some appeal, but undoubtedly it was more compelling when it was vital for obtaining sex.

Kathleen Vohs, Sexual Economics, pg. 523. Cited by Mark Regnerus, Cheap Sex: The Transformation of Men, Marriage, and Monogamy, pg.149

The Lies and Destruction of Pornography

I cannot help but note the contrast between classic descriptions of marital sexuality and how sex is portrayed in modern pornography. The latter redirects sex away from any sense of it as involving relationships of permanence, exclusivity, or expectations of fertility. On the contrary, pornography typically treats gazers to a veritable fire-hose dousing of sex-act diversity, and presses its consumers away from thinking of sex as having anything to do with love, monogamy, or childbearing—all traits that most Americans long equated with marriage. So, add to the sharing of bodies temporarily and non exclusively a significant dose of alternative sexual activities—different positions, roles, genders, and varying numbers of participants—and that is basically where porn leads today: away from sex as having anything approaching a classic marital sense or structure.

Mark Regnerus, Cheap Sex: The Transformation of Men, Marriage, and Monogamy, pg.125-126

Sex Is the New Opium of the Masses

In a world increasingly bereft of transcendence, sexual expression is emerging as an intrinsic value. Sex is the new opium of the masses…, a temporary heart in a heartless world. Unfortunately, something so immanent as sex will not—and cannot—function in the manner in which religion can, has, and does. … Sex does not explain the world. It is not a master narrative. It has little to offer by way of convincing theodicy. But in a world increasingly missing transcendence, longing for sexual expression makes sense. It should not surprise us, however, that hose who (unconsciously) demand sex function like religion will come up short. Maybe that is why very liberal women are also twice as likely to report being depressed or currently in psychotherapy than very conservative women.

Mark Regnerus, Cheap Sex: The Transformation of Men, Marriage, and Monogamy, pg.79-80.

When Relationships Start With Sex

When relationships start with sex…the odds that women will flourish and enjoy a long-term relationship are dramatically lowered. It is not impossible, just rare.

Mark Regnerus, Cheap Sex: The Transformation of Men, Marriage, and Monogamy, pg.66-67

The Truth is That “Sexual Orientation” is NOT Congenital

If we all really believed that sexual orientation was congenital—or present at birth—then no one would every worry that social influences could have an effect on our sexual orientation. But I think that in reality, we all know that sexual desire is deeply subject to social, cultural, and historical forces.

Jane Ward, “No One Is Born Gay (or Straight): Here Are 5 Reasons Why,” cited by Mark Regnerus, Cheap Sex: The Transformation of Men, Marriage, and Monogamy, pg.55

When You Separate Sex From Reproduction and Kinship

The creation of plastic sexuality, severed from its age-old integration with reproduction, kinship and the generations, was the precondition of the sexual revolution of the past several decades.

Anthony Giddens, The Transformation of Intimacy. Cited by Mark Regnerus, Cheap Sex: The Transformation of Men, Marriage, and Monogamy, pg.54

The Reason for Rampant Sexual Immorality

But since pregnancy can be easily prevented now—a reality we take for granted today, but one that was unimaginable not so long ago—having sex and thinking about or committing to marry are two very different things today. Now we have a split mating market, one corner of which is for people primarily looking and hoping for sex with no strings attached (NSA) and the other corner of which are people interested in making the strongest of commitments (marriage), with a rather large territory in between comprised of significant relationships of varying commitment and duration. Marriage is still widely considered to be expensive, by which I mean that it is a big deal, not entered into lightly, and is costly in terms of fidelity, time, finances, and personal investment. Sex, meanwhile, has become comparatively cheap. Not that hard to get.

Mark Regnerus, Cheap Sex: The Transformation of Men, Marriage, and Monogamy, pg.35

Why Are So Many Men Such Losers?

There are 2.4 million more women in college than men. In 2015, 39 percent of 25- to 34-year-old women, but only 33 percent of men, had earned at least a bachelor’s degree. There are now more women than men in the paid labor force.  Documentation of the dismal state of men almost constitutes a genre of literature today. Where exactly are all these missing men? As recently as October 2016, the Bureau of Labor Statistics revealed that over 11 percent of men between the ages of 24 and 54—about seven million people—were neither employed nor seeking work. What are they doing, and why have they come to languish? How, if at all, does some men’s failure to thrive shape not only their own relationship behavior and sexual and marital decision-making but also those of their more successful male counterparts? There are, of course, a variety of reasons that have been floated to explain the plight of men, and the state of marriage and relationships. But few if any have wrestled with the possible sexual sources of these significant shifts. Basically, does cheap sex undermine men’s motivation to achieve? Perhaps.

[In the book, the author proves this is the case.]

Mark Regnerus, Cheap Sex: The Transformation of Men, Marriage, and Monogamy, pg.11-12

Contradictions Between Sexual Revolution and the #MeToo Movement

There is a deep tension between the premises of the sexual revolution and those of #MeToo. The sexual revolution promises greater availability and enjoyment of sexual pleasure without commitment or guilt. This promise can only be accomplished by the trivialization of the intrinsically personal meaning of sex. It is very difficult to see how we can simultaneously promote the trivialization of sex and treat sexual assault with the seriousness that it deserves. 

But a powerful personal drive like sexual desire cannot really be trivialized, and its personal meaning cannot be completely denied. If sex ceases to be about love, it will necessarily be about war. This is evident in the hook-up culture, which pushes the revolution’s core premise—sex without marital commitment, or “free love”—to its logical conclusion by elevating sex without any commitment at all. In the hook-up culture and its #MeToo reaction, we can see how sex without comprehensive commitment necessarily becomes predatory, thus paving the way for sexual assault.

Elizabeth Schlueter and Nathan Schlueter, What #MeToo and Hooking Up Teach Us About The Meaning of Sex

Sex Needs More Than Just Consent

Certain moral norms follow from the personal meaning of sex. In the first place, there is a need for consent. Sexual contact without consent is a direct assault against the whole person. It is deeply depersonalizing. But sexual assault is only the most extreme kind of sexual depersonalization. Every time a person is used for sexual gratification, he or she is depersonalized. This fact accounts for the true meaning of sexual modesty (and shame), not puritanical repression. It is our natural defense against the “objectifying” gaze, against being used for someone else’s gratification. 

But not just any kind of consent is adequate to the intrinsic and personal language of sex, and thus to the dignity of the person. Because sex is an embodied union of the whole person, consent to sex without total commitment to the whole person contradicts the meaning and language of the body. It makes an act that speaks love between persons into an act of use of persons.

Sex is thus very different from other human activities. In some contexts, the mutual “use” of persons is morally acceptable. In typical market transactions, for example, the parties “use” one another for their own benefit. When someone purchases bread from the baker, each person is unproblematically looking to his or her own advantage, and (unless the transaction involves force or fraud) neither person feels “used.”

Why is it that “feeling used” is a common experience in sexual intercourse, even when it is consented to? And what conditions for sexual intercourse would prevent that feeling? While “affirmative consent” may at least avoid rape, most people have a sense that consent should be broader, that sex should at least be “a part of a relationship.” But what kind of relationship is sufficient to prevent sex from being depersonalizing? A committed one? How committed? Experience leads us to the following conclusion: Nothing short of comprehensive personal consent—in other words, marriage—is adequate to the intrinsic language of sex or the vulnerability it necessarily entails. 

Elizabeth Schlueter and Nathan Schlueter, What #MeToo and Hooking Up Teach Us About The Meaning of Sex

The Uniqueness of Human Sexuality

… human sexuality is somehow bound up with the whole person in a unique way. It has a deeply personal meaning that we cannot simply construct for ourselves. If the meaning of sexuality is wholly conventional—if sex is merely a biological event—then the seriousness of sexual assault and ubiquity of sexual shame make no sense.

In fact, in human experience, the meaning of sexuality is closely connected with a particular desire, the desire for embodied union with another person. … This desire is not simply reducible to biology, although it is certainly inseparable from it. Each of our other organs can fulfill its complete organic function within our own bodies. The genitals alone, as reproductive organs, can be organically actualized only in sexual intercourse, when a man and a woman become a single, complete organism.

This reality suggests that sexual intercourse will always mean a wholly personal union, whatever the partners to that union may intend or think. In other words, sexuality has its own language, which human beings cannot completely change. They can only choose to live the truth of their bodies with integrity or to contradict and falsify that truth with their bodies, damaging their own integrity as well as that of their sexual partners. In sexual intercourse, the body uniquely says “I give my whole self to you, and I receive your whole self, which you are giving me.” 

Elizabeth Schlueter and Nathan Schlueter, What #MeToo and Hooking Up Teach Us About The Meaning of Sex

It’s Just the Emperor’s New Clothes Updated

We're living through a strange era, one in which logic and reason has been turned on its head, forcing us to view the world through the lens of the seriously deranged.  These insidious distortions of reality come in many forms, but, in this instance, I'd like to address the issue of biological sex.  A mere few decades ago, who would have imagined that one day we'd be told that there are more than two sexes?  With a plethora of scientific and commonsense evidence describing a male and female as the necessary ingredients for the continuation of the human species (and non-human species) on this planet, we are now instructed to learn that there have been many other sexes hiding in the shadows. … Unless we want to lose our grip on reality, we should always keep in mind that there's a natural order to the universe.  Yet it's tough to keep an orderly mind when one's cerebral cortex is constantly inundated with some frivolous science made up of whimsical proclamations from politically correct politicians and social theorists.

Bob Weir, Making sexual dysfunction appear normal

There IS an Objective Moral Standard

The moment you say that one set of moral ideas can be better than another, you are, in fact measuring them both by a standard, saying that one of them conforms to that standard more nearly than the other. But the standard that measures two things is something different from either. You are, in fact, comparing them both with some Real Morality, admitting that there is such a thing as real Right, independent of what people think, and that some people’s ideas get nearer to that real Right than others. Or put it this way. If your moral ideas can be truer, and those of the Nazis less true, there must be something—some Real Morality—for them to be true about.

C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, pg.25

Virginity IS a Treasure

You cannot laugh at virginity and then act surprised when men act like pigs.

Matt Walsh, when commenting on this article.

Logic and Truth

With Democrats and liberals, “logic is the enemy and truth is a menace.

Rod Serling

We Have an Oligarchy

If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court… the people will have ceased to be their own rulers.

Abraham Lincoln

When Liberals Rule

The Liberal “Word” Ideology

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”  

“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean of many different things.” 

“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all."

Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass

Think how the LEFT has redefined “gay,” “marriage,” “family,” “hate,” “bigot,” “fascism,” “male,” “female,” “gender,” et al. They are controlling the language.

Patriotism American Style

Patriotism in America means loving limited government. It is that simple. You love that America has a constitutionally limited government, or you do not love America.

Jesse Kelly

Keep Sex in the “Fireplace"

In the book of Proverbs, the author takes great strides to warn his son of the dangers of sexual promiscuity and adultery, which could destroy his character and ruin his life. For it is only in the safe pastures of marital fidelity that a man will find joy and satisfaction.  Sexual passion is good, as long as it is kept in its proper context. For once the fire gets out of the fireplace (its proper place), it does nothing but burn everything it touches.

Eric J. Bargerhuff, The Most Misused Verses in the Bible, pg.142

Keep Sex Exclusive

If there is one reason why sex becomes dull and a bore, it is that it is commonplace. It’s available anywhere, everywhere, to everybody who is looking for it.  Nothing is kept in reserve. No pleasures are saved for the wedding night, let alone for the bride and bridegroom exclusively.

Elisabeth Elliot, Passion & Purity, pg.147

Men, Think Before You Say to a Woman, “I Love You”

My father counseled his four sons never to say “I love you” to a woman until they were ready to follow immediately with “Will you marry me?” Nor should they think of saying “Will you marry me?” unless they had first said “I love you.” How much pain and confusion would be averted if men followed that rule.

Elisabeth Elliot, Passion & Purity, pg.94

Keep the Sanctity of Sex

I am convinced that the human heart hungers for constancy. In forfeiting the sanctity of sex by casual, nondiscriminatory “making out” and “sleeping around,” we forfeit something we cannot well do without. There is dullness, monotony, sheer boredom in all of life when virginity and purity are no longer protected and prized. By trying to grab fulfillment everywhere, we find it nowhere.

Elisabeth Elliot, Passion & Purity, pg.23

Women, You Hold the “Key”

Deep in a woman [is the knowledge] that she holds the key to the situation where a man’s passions are involved. He will be as much of a gentleman as she requires and, when the chips are down, probably no more, even if he has strict standards of his own. He will measure her reserve, always testing the limits, probing. This is not necessarily because he wants to go as far as possible. It is sometimes from a confused sense of obligation, or even chivalry, to meet her expectations.  

Elisabeth Elliot, Passion & Purity, pg.146

Toxic Masculinity?

We take a young man and kick his father out of his life, send him to school where he has mostly women teachers, barrage him with negative messages about masculinity, then turn him loose at college where we treat him like a guilty-until-proven-innocent rapist, and after all that, we blame "masculinity" when he goes off the rails despite the fact that he spent a lifetime bathed in femininity. Unsurprisingly, the more women try to change masculinity, the more negative and toxic it actually becomes.

John Hawkins, “The More Young Men Are Bathed in Femininity, the More 'Toxic Masculinity' You Will See”

Success and Failure

Success is not final, failure is not fatal.  It is the courage to continue that counts.

Winston Churchill

Be Careful to Discern Reality

Unreality is big business. It is manufactured and sold on a gigantic scale. It has intruded itself into every aspect of our lives. For example, by some estimates, public relations, i.e., the deliberate manufacturing of slanted information, accounts for up to 70 percent of what passes for news and information in our society. The end consequence is a society less and less able to face its true problems directly, honestly, and intelligently.

Ian I. Mitroff and Warren Bennis, The Unreality Industry, cited by G. Richard Fisher, “How Well I Remember,” The Quarterly Journal of Personal Freedom Outreach, Vol.38/No.3, pg.23.

Good Reasons to Remain a Virgin Until Marriage

There are many valid reasons that it may be a good thing to remain a virgin until later in life. Forgoing sex proves that one is disciplined enough to delay gratification for the sake of a greater good. It allows one to concentrate one’s efforts on one’s work and perhaps achieve greater professional success than one would if one were constantly scheming about how to bed one’s next partner, and it virtually guarantees that you’ll never catch an STD. If you’re a believing Christian, Jew, or Muslim, it gives you the security of knowing that you’re protected from committing any number of soul-damning sexual sins. If you’re an intellectually oriented atheist or agnostic, it frees you to live a life of the mind without becoming enslaved to the passions of the body. If you’re a human being with a living, beating heart, it saves you from the messiness, tedium, and soul-crushing heartbreak that so often accompanies romantic relationships.

Linking sex to lifelong, committed, married love—the very bond that much of the sexual revolution was intent on severing—can make sex truly wonderful.

Daniel Ross Goodman, “The War Against Abstinence: Blockers, American Pie, and the Last Great Sexual Taboo.”

Hold On to Truth

He that perverts truth shall soon be incapable of knowing the true from the false. If you persist in wearing glasses that distort, everything will be distorted to you.

Charles H. Spurgeon

Moral Relativism Led To Violent Society

What did post-modernists think would result from teaching children that they were random results of meaningless primordial sludge and that everyone else is as meaningless as they are? Why are we surprised with the violence of our society, which gives the strong power over the weak, when we have modeled that with the legalization of abortion? Or why did we assume that allowing children to watch Hollywood’s glamorized violence, murder and killings would have no effect? Or that videogames that reward players for killing people would somehow produce virtue? Does good fruit ever come from a bad plant?

Caroline C. Lewis, “Moral Relativism Led to Violent Society — How to Turn the Tide”

Learning to Live With Same-sex Marriage?

Of course, people have had to live with irregular sexual relationships since the dawn of time. But legalized same-sex marriage is different, and worse, than anything that has plagued societies before. For one thing, such relationships are about as far distant from real marriage as any relationship could be. Second, recognizing the sexual consortium of two men or two women as a marriage settles conclusively that marriage as such is sterile. (Indeed, that was the fundamental issue at stake in the whole fight over same-sex marriage.) Third, there are no fig leaves available to obscure or fudge the manifest immorality, and parody of marriage, presented by same-sex relationships. An opposite-sex couple in a bad marriage is not detectable as such at a glance. A merely cohabiting man and woman will not be wearing wedding rings and will not expect to be addressed as if they are spouses. And in decades and centuries past, those in irregular sexual relationships rarely demanded that their liaisons be treated as respectable and good, much less on a par with the procreative marriages of man and woman. 

The everyday challenge of Obergefell is whether those of us who hold the “decent and honorable religious” conviction that it is impossible for two persons of the same sex to marry will be accorded the legal and social space we need in order to live in accord with our convictions. The question at hand is whether we will instead be forced to contradict our convictions in word and deed, day in and day out.

Gerard V. Bradley, Learning to Live with Same-Sex Marriage?

Liberalism's Impact on Abhorrent Behavior

A lot has changed over the past 30 years. America has always had many firearms in circulation, laws against killing people, gun control, bullying and the like – these are not new phenomena. What is strange, however, is that people suffering from mental illness decide to mow down their classmates instead choosing to seek help or being flagged by their parents, classmates, or teachers. Two decades or so ago, people still faced similar problems – disappointment with their lives due to normal, coming-of-age pressures. But instead of overcoming said obstacles like adults, they resort to terrifying violence. It’s clear that something has changed in regard to how people seek help and how they overcome the realities of life. Liberalism is that change – pampering people in safe spaces instead of making them act like adults. . . . 

As a governing ideology, liberalism has mainstreamed all behavior no matter how bizarre it might be. This enables crazy conduct that has no limitations – an era best described as “anything goes.” The reality is that conduct must have well defined and established borders. We have become unmoored from community standards of decency and acceptable behavior. This, in part, stems from cultural and political liberalism – where nothing is too extreme and no conduct or lifestyle can be judged in terms of acceptable societal norms.

Unbridled liberalism waged and won a culture war. This has eroded societal norms in regard to behavior. Cultural rot and degradation, liberalism tells us, has some redeeming quality that should be embraced by all. Therefore, no consequences exist for unwanted behavior. We are now paying the price for not having won this warped culture change, one that is playing out in mass shootings. . . . 

If we seriously want to re-establish the time-tested means of societal control of human behavior – bedrock principles that keep bad behavior in check – we should start by getting rid of liberalism’s control of effective parenting, school discipline and the criminal justice system. We need to allow society to stand in judgement of and marginalize people who behave way outside the mainstream. Those people, as we have learned, have been welcome in the mainstream and have committed mass acts of violence.

Sheriff David Clarke (Ret.), Liberalism’s Impact on Abhorrent Behavior

Compassion is YOUR Job - Not the Government's

It’s amazing to me how many people think that voting to have the government give poor people money is compassion. Helping poor and suffering people yourself is compassion. Voting for our government to use guns to give money to help poor and suffering people is immoral self-righteous bullying laziness. People need to be fed, medicated, educated, clothed, and sheltered. If we’re compassionate, we’ll help them, but you get no moral credit for forcing other people to do what you think is right. There is great joy in helping people, but no joy in doing it at gunpoint.

Penn Jillette.

Remember the Past!!!

Liberals Are Like Muslims — Perpetually Offended

Liberals are perpetually offended by just about everything. Why? Because liberals have decided that being offended trumps logic, fact and every other argument that anyone can make. If it were up to liberals, we would not have free speech because too many people say things that contradict liberal ideas. So, they may not be able to put you in jail for believing that you can’t change genders or that it’s not smart to send gay men who may be sexually interested in teenagers out into the woods with them overnight as scout masters, but they can use a variety of different tactics to silence you. Outrage is one of those tactics because again, according to liberals, the second someone is outraged, the debate is over and they’ve won (Of course that only applies to liberals. If conservatives are offended by something, that doesn’t count.) 

Of course, liberals love to use whatever they’re outraged about today as an excuse for government action or to gin up their base, but at the most fundamental level, liberal outrage is all about shutting up everyone who doesn’t agree with liberals. That’s the ultimate form of censorship. When you’re so scared that you might offend a liberal that you censor yourself. When you don’t wear the prom dress you want to wear. When you don’t make the joke. You don’t say anything that might make a liberal angry because you don’t want to deal with formal charges or 5,000 outraged liberals on Twitter that feel justified in calling you the worst names you’ve ever heard of because their widdle feelings are hurt. You can give in to their bullying if you like, but down that road lies a new liberal vision of totalitarianism where the bad guys win not because they deserve to or because they have guns pointed at your head, but because people are too afraid to speak the truth. For your sake, for the sake of your kids and for the sake of your country, don’t let liberal outrage determine what you can and cannot say. 

John Hawkins, “Explaining Why Liberals Are So Desperate To Find Things to Be Offended About”

The Danger of the “#MeToo” Movement

The #MeToo movement has uncovered real abuses of power. But the solution to those abuses is not to replace valid measures of achievement with irrelevancies like gender and race. Ironically, the best solution to sexual predation is not more feminism, but less. By denying the differences between men and women, and by ridiculing the manly virtues of gentlemanliness and chivalry and the female virtues of modesty and prudence, feminism dissolved the civilizational restraints on the male libido. The boorish behavior that pervades society today would have been unthinkable in the past, when a traditional understanding of sexual propriety prevailed. Now, however, with the idea of “ladies and gentlemen” discredited and out of favor, boorishness is increasingly the rule.

Heather MacDonald, “The Negative Impact of the #MeToo Movement”

Mutations Can Not Originate New Creative Information

[M]utations can only cause changes in existing information. There can be no increase in information, and in general the results are injurious. New blueprints for new functions or new organs cannot arise; mutations cannot be the source of new (creative) information.

Werner Gitt, In The Beginning Was Information, pg.127.

A Material Origin of Life is Impossible

The basic flaw of all evolutionary views is the origin of the information in living beings. It has never been shown that a coding system and semantic information could originate by itself in a material medium, and the information theorems predict that this will never be possible. A purely material origin of life is thus precluded.

Werner Gitt, In The Beginning Was Information, pg.124

Evolutionism Should Be Abandoned Due to Impossibility

The final result of all my researches and discussions is that the theory of evolution should be discarded in its entirety, because it always leads to extreme contradictions and confusing consequences when tested against the empirical results of research on the formation of different kinds of living forms and related fields. This assertion would agitate many people. Moreover: my next conclusion is that, far from being a benign natural-philosophical school of thought, the theory of evolution is a severe obstacle for biological research. As many examples show, it actually prevents the drawing of logical conclusions from even one set of experimental material. Because everything must be bent to fit this speculative theory, an exact biology cannot develop.

Professor Dr. Heribert Nilsson, “Synthetische Artbildung,” cited by Werner Gitt, In The Beginning Was Information, pg.106

Scientists Should Be Honest

Since science does not have the faintest idea how life on earth originated,… it would only be honest to confess this to other scientists, to grantors, and to the public at large. Prominent scientists speaking ex cathedra, should refrain from polarising the minds of students and young productive scientists with statements that are based solely on beliefs.

Hubert P. Jockey, Journal of Theoretical Biology [Vol 91, 1981, p13], cited by Werner Gitt, In The Beginning Was Information, pg.101.

Forcing the Lie

Ordinary authoritarians are content to forbid people from speaking truths. Totalitarians insist on forcing people to speak untruths.

Robert P. George. Cited by Andrew T. Walker, The Merit Badge of Surrender: How the Boy Scouts of America are Succumbing to the Gender Revolution

If You Are Poor, It is YOUR Fault

No one can blame a person if he starts out in life poor, because how one starts out is not his fault. If he stays poor, he is to blame because it is his fault. Avoiding long-term poverty is not rocket science. First, graduate from high school. Second, get married before you have children, and stay married. Third, work at any kind of job, even one that starts out paying the minimum wage. And finally, avoid engaging in criminal behavior.

Walter Williams, “Dependency, Not Poverty”

Evolution Cannot Explain Origination of Information

Since the findings of James D. Watson (*1928) and Francis H.C. Crick (*1916), it was increasingly realized by contemporary researchers that the information residing in the cells is of crucial importance for the existence of life. Anybody who wants to make meaningful statements about the origin of life, would be forced to explain how the information originated. All evolutionary views are fundamentally unable to answer this crucial question.

Werner Gitt, In The Beginning Was Information, pg.99

No Mental Source, No Information

The information present in living beings must have had a mental source. … Any model for the origin of life (and of information) based solely on physical and/or chemical processes, is inherently false.

Werner Gitt, In The Beginning Was Information, pg.98, 99

Information Can Not Self-Develop

There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this.

Werner Gitt, In The Beginning Was Information, pg.79

Training in Moral Virtues is Necessary

If we are to help our young people to resist the forces enjoining them to abandon their moral convictions to carry out their “professional duty” or to avoid being “out of step” with their peers, we will need to create social structures and communities in which intellectual training and moral formation in the virtues can happen. We need a culture that respects all life and does not make some lives secondary; that inculcates sensible moral reasoning skills to enable people to recognize more readily specious arguments and rhetorical misdirection; that builds self-awareness to recognize when self-interest is masquerading as moral argument or taking refuge in specious post-facto rationalizations; that makes clear that “being a somebody” is not bound up with having, but with being; and that being is achieved by identifying oneself and acting in accord with certain moral norms and virtues.

And we must, at long last, reject the notion that we are fundamentally autonomous individuals—dispassionate, neutral thinking things that choose freely and choose best without influence from outside ourselves. This was always a foolish and dangerous illusion, and it is one we can no longer afford.

Randall Smith, “Conforming to Good or Evil: More Moral Lessons in the Shadow of the Holocaust”

Information NEEDS a Mental Source

When its progress along the chain of transmission events is traced backwards, every piece of information leads to a mental source, the mind of the sender.

Werner Gitt, In The Beginning Was Information, pg.70

Matter Cannot Generate Information

It should be emphasized that matter as such is unable to generate any code. All experiences indicate that a thinking being voluntarily exercising his own free will, cognition, and creativity, is required.

Werner Gitt, In The Beginning Was Information, pg. 65, note 13.

Information Needs Coders and De-Coders

When a message is composed, it involves the coding of its mental content, but the message itself is not concerned about whether the contents are important or unimportant, valuable, useful, or meaningless. Only the recipient can evaluate the message after decoding it.

Hans-Joachim Flechtner (cyberneticist), cited by Werner Gitt, In The Beginning Was Information, pg.47

The Government Is Taking Over

We are fast approaching the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force.

Ayn Rand

The Loss of Objective Truth

In our permissive, liberated culture, we have lost God’s unchanging truth, and in the process, we have lost God. When we lose God, we lose the very cornerstone of truth. When we no longer have a basis for determining right from wrong, good from evil, we will, in the words of Aleksander Solzhenitsyn, “decline to the status of animals.” Today our moral distinctions are dissolving into a sea of indulgence. Here is no longer any good or evil, no unchanging truth, no solid foundation upon which to build a life. It’s all shifting sand. Whatever pleases me has become truth.

Hope MacDonald, The Flip Side of Liberation: A Call to Traditional Values, pg.142

A Nation of Irresponsibility: “It’s not my fault!”

No longer are there any moral absolutes that govern our relationships with one another. We are no longer accountable to anyone, and certainly not to God. We have become a nation of irresponsible people. Drug addicts blame their condition on drug dealers; alcoholics say their problem is a disease; pornographers say they are just meeting the demands of the people; homosexuals say it is the fault of their genes; rapists say they got the urge from movies; and abortions happen because everyone does it. All of our problems are due to someone else or something else. If we can’t think of anyone else to blame, we can always say, “the devil made me do it.”

We have become a nation of blameless, guiltless people who have confused liberation with democracy so that we can no longer discern freedom from responsibility, or good from evil. Aleksander Solzhenitsyn stated it well when he said: “When Western society was established, it was based on the idea that each individual limited his own behavior. Everyone understood what he could do and what he could not do. The law itself did not restrain people. Since then, the only thing we have been developing is rights, rights, rights, at the expense of duty.”

Hope MacDonald, The Flip Side of Liberation: A Call to Traditional Values, pg.139

Homosexuality Destroys Culture

A study of rise and fall of ancient history shows that the extent of homosexual practice affects the general corruption of a society. Richard Lovelace says, “Homosexual expression endangers the formation of sexual identity in boys and girls, the integrity of the family, and therefore the stability of the whole society.” He goes on to say that a degenerative process is set in motion when a people, a society, and a nation endorses the practice of homosexuality.

Hope MacDonald, The Flip Side of Liberation: A Call to Traditional Values, pg.135-136

Homosexuality is Anti-God

At the time of the Fall (Gen. 3:6), all of creation fell. Nature and the human race fell. We became separated from God, and our fellowship with one another was marred. Even sexual relationships were affected by the Fall. Instead of man and woman becoming one, as ordained by God, we now have adultery, practicing homosexual and lesbian relationships, prostitution, incest, rape, and beastiality. All of these are distortions of the wholeness and oneness that God originally intended. They go against the purpose of God’s plan for marriage and family life. Homosexuality is a perversion of the law of nature and violates the law of God. It is a distortion of the beauty of God’s pattern for man and woman. …

God created humans as two distinct creations, male and female. From Genesis to Revelation, sexuality is always in this context. The practicing homosexual lifestyle is not an alternative lifestyle, it is a departure from God’s plan. God did not create man to use one another in this unnatural way. Thomas Aquinas called it the “sin against nature and an injury against our Creator.” God intended sexual intercourse to take place between man and woman. It is obvious that the male and female bodies were designed in this way. The Bible condemns every form of sexual expression outside of heterosexual marriage.

Hope MacDonald, The Flip Side of Liberation: A Call to Traditional Values, pg.134

The TRUTH About Sex and Honor

In our sexual revolution we have forgotten and ignored the truth that sex without love and commitment equals loneliness. It is often empty and degrading. In addition we have lost the innocence we had when we more clearly understood that sex was a beautiful gift from God and that he ordained our sexual instincts to be completed in marriage.  We have lost the sense of wonder and beauty found in our God-given ability to express our sexuality in the sanctity of marriage—as the means of constantly renewing our love for and devotion to one another. But perhaps most tragically, we have lost our honor. Remember the scene from Gone With the Wind when Scarlett was pleading with Ashley to leave his wife and baby and run away with her? At one point she cried, “Oh, Ashley! Don’t you see? There’s nothing to keep us here!” To which Ashley replied, “Nothing? . . . Nothing except our honor.”

What has become of our honor as persons and as a nation? Something inside us dies when we lose our honor, when we give in to the standards that go against everything we know within our hearts to be right. Our consciences have been deadened through our sexual revolution, and our moral values have been served into numbness. Our spiritual landmarks are missing and we no longer have any moorings to cling to. We are held captive in a dark prison of liberation.

Hope MacDonald, The Flip Side of Liberation: A Call to Traditional Values, pg.133

The Damages From Sexual Anarchy

Perhaps nothing has ruined the lives, careers, and reputations of people more than the recent sexual revolution. It has produced divorce, abortion, incest, pornography, and the active homosexual lifestyle—resulting in a catastrophic increase of children being born into single-parent families, and leaving a trail of hurting, broken relationships. The suffering and horror from the numerous sexual diseases must also be added. As a result of our sexual revolution over twelve million cases of sexually transmitted diseases occur each year. This amounts to 38,000 new cases a day. Many of these are incurable. Almost daily, our newspapers tell us about the deadly disease of AIDS. Leading health authorities call it the “worst health problem of the century.” The number of people dying daily from this disease is equivalent to the number of deaths of one jumbo 747 jet crashing every day. It is estimated that over three million people are infected with AIDS and do not know it. They can unknowingly transmit this disease to others for as long as ten years. Innocent partners are being infected. No one is safe!

Hope MacDonald, The Flip Side of Liberation: A Call to Traditional Values, pg.132

Sex Separated From Commitment

We have separated sex not only from love, but from attachment and commitment. The sexual liberation of the last 20 years [from 1986] has exposed the emptiness and unfulfilling nature of sex unattached to love. It is now easier for many young people to go to bed with each other than to form trusting or intimate relationships. It is easier for them to expose their bodies to a stranger than to expose their feelings; it has become less frightening.

Willard Gaylin, “Prime Time on the Couch,” TV Guide (October 4, 1986), pg.6

The Beginnings of Sexual Anarchy

Today the beautiful country of America is drowning in a sea of illicit sex. As a nation every form of sexuality is thrust upon us and our children through advertisements, television, movies, magazines, and books [and now also the Internet].  There was a time when the laws of nature, and the laws of God, were clearly known and understood in this country. We knew that a monogamous marital relationship was expected of us. We understood something of the moral and spiritual values of premarital chastity. Back in 1967, over 85 percent of all Americans still disapproved of premarital sex. Today [1990], less than 15 percent think it is wrong, and we are reaping the disastrous outcome of that statistic. Marriage and sex have become totally separated in the liberated sexual revolution of the ‘80s.

Hope MacDonald, The Flip Side of Liberation: A Call to Traditional Values, pg.131

Don’t Let Them Change YOU

A just man comes to Sodom hoping to save the city. He pickets. What else can he do? He goes from street to street, from marketplace to marketplace, shouting, “Men and women, repent. What you are doing is wrong. It will kill you; it will destroy you.” They laugh, but he goes on shouting, until one day a child stops him. “Poor stranger, don’t you see it’s useless?” “Yes,” the just man replies. “Then why do you go on?” the child asks. “In the beginning,” he says, “I was convinced that I would change them. Now I go on shouting because I don’t want them to change me.”

Elie Wiesel.  Cited by Hope MacDonald, The Flip Side of Liberation: A Call to Traditional Values, pg.117-118