Latest / CrossPolitic Show / Politics Of Sex
Transcript
- These are young women who are willing to donate their eggs. So you basically go on all of these websites. There are all these sites and it's sort of like Tinder or whatever app you were dating on where you're just kind of swiping through people. And you know, there are different rates and all of these things. Look like a thing. I didn't really care that much about the pedigree in terms of did they go down Ivy League school or anything like that. And we thought that sort of looked like the type of girl that we might be with. So I didn't want you know a 6 foot 5 Swedish woman to say. Children who are breast fed do better. I have two freezers in my garage to industrial freezers full of breast milk. How do we get here? How do we get to the point that Jordan Peterson can actually keep a straight face? Right. So another complication but okay. They picked women out of catalogs. They split 18 eggs and simulated them separately in hired surges. What we've got cooking here is that we have one baby that is from my stuff. And one baby that is from David's stuff but they both will have the same biological mother. Two freezers full of breast milk to industrial freezers full of breast milk. Right. So it's done all the research on this. And piles of Republicans congratulate them. Is this really conservatism? So here's the plan. We want to trace for you how the West lost the meaning of sex. We want to trace it all the way from the contraceptive pivot through the courts, through the clinics, to the point where you get guys having a catalog of women that they can flip through to get freezers full of breast milk. And we'll end with the only answer that actually matters. And the only answer that actually works. In 2016, the Republican Party platform defined marriage as one man and one woman. That was in 2016. By the time you hit 2024, every reference disappeared. The new GOP platform no longer explicitly opposing same sex marriage, a shift from the party's traditional view. So remember, a burger fell happened in 2015. The Republican Party in 2016 maintained biblical marriage. And then by 2024, they took out any reference to biblical marriage. In fact, any reference between a man and a woman. This has been probably one of the most important things that happened in the Republican Party history. This platform is welcoming. It's inclusive. This is the most radical and revolutionary way to make the Republican Party competitive. No argument. Just silence. But the political silence isn't the most disturbing part. What's more alarming is what's happening inside conservative Christianity. If queers take into mean existing outside of like paradigms and structures that are given to us. In a culture that only gives us marriage and biological family as the kinship network that we're supposed to have, the church is very queer. Over the last decade, parts of the church have experimented with a new what we might call synthesis. I think the gift of being queer, being gay, of being a sexual minority is that we are a minority. In a particular burden. But also the particular gift of being culturally dislocated. It's also a gift that I think we can offer back to God that it may be sanctified by Him. An attempt to reconcile historic Christian doctrine with modern sexual identity politics. Revoice and other movements within conservative denominations argue that a person can profess an identity as same sex attracted while remaining a faithful Christian. Article 7 of the Nashville Statement, it hurts. Because Article 7 says that it is a sin to adopt a homosexual self-conception. And we don't do that for any other people group. Notice that, new language, new categories, new pastoral strategies, not repentance, management, not deliverance, identity, accommodation, and it's all framed as compassion. So the obvious question is, are Republicans going gay? A better won't be is conservative Christianity going gay. But even those questions don't go deep enough. By the time a church is debating whether a gay identity can be baptized, something far more fundamental has already collapsed. The real defeat happened decades earlier when the West Stop Calling Sin Sin and start calling it sickness. We go back to December 15th, 1973, when the American Psychological Association voted to remove homosexuality from their official list of psychiatric illnesses. Because psychologists voted in 1973 to normalize homosexuality, no? We lost because we let psychologists vote on it at all. The clergy weren't making the call. The therapists were. And once you hand moral questions to medical experts, you've already conceded the frame. Sin requires repentance. Pathology only requires treatment. So the real question isn't, when did America accept homosexuality? The real question is when did America forget what sex was for? To understand how we got here, we have to go back much further than Revoice, Further, than Obergofel. To the moment when the West decided that sex was no longer necessarily related to children. Long before America debated homosexuality, it redefined sex itself. And the redefination had a profit. The Marquit des Saad. He said it plainly two centuries ago. Man is nothing but genitals. Women exist to be used and nature has no meaning. Desire is sovereign. So when you reduce humanity to appetite, cruelty becomes virtue. And that vision didn't just stay in French philosophy, it came to America and it was disguised as freedom. Once we decided that sex should not be burdened by children, we severed sex from frivolousness. And once sex is no longer about creating life, it has no inherent reason to be heterosexual at all. To the extent that sex became recreational, pregnancy became failure. The whole point is that children became entirely optional. And so when you have a child that appeared without permission, we invented language to manage the problem, unintended, mistake, accident. Even the pro-life movement adopted the frame. We've already conceded that children are not welcome except for when they are enlisted. And that shift did not remain private. It created a public doctrine. Bodies are not meanings. They are materials and functions. You cannot say what a body is like what is a woman. Only what it does and what can be done with it. A woman is not a uniquely glorious creature. She merely happens to produce milk that Dave Rubin wants to store in his freezers. But I'm getting ahead of myself. You begin to see this child option logic show up early in American law. In 1927, the Supreme Court upheld four sterilizations in Buck v. Bell. The state could permanently prevent quote undesirable, unquote, citizens from reproducing. The opinion concluded with the now infamous line from Oliver Wendell Holmes. Three generations of imbosols are enough. That ruling wasn't about sex. But it revealed a new premise. The state may manage bodies and reproduction and service of a social plan. At the same time, parental authority began to be re-described as well. Not as something rooted in creation or natural law, but as a category of liberty administered by the state. In Pierce v. Society of Sisters, the court struck down Oregon's attempt to effectively eliminate private schools. But then it framed parental authority in terms of constitutional, quote, liberty rather than an explicit recognition of natural authority. Termites started eating early. And here the church must also be named. While the courts were messing with marriage and parental authority. In 1930, the church of England publicly opened the door to contraception within marriage, framing it as a matter of conscience. Over the following decades, much of Protestant Christianity adopted the language of responsible parenthood. Treating birth control as morally neutral and privately governed and completely ignoring the metaphysical consequences. The result was absolutely catastrophic. You have the church, learning to speak deliberately of sterile sex without confessing it as a rupture in the meaning of sex itself. So when the culture said sex is for pleasure first and for children second, the church often just answered with silence. Or explicit permission. By the time illegal revolution arrived, the moral groundwork had already been laid by the church. And the courts, they were watching. Law does not merely restrain evil. Law teaches. It catacizes a nation by announcing what a person is. It announces what sex is, what family is. Most people will not reason through all the metaphysics of that. They will follow the path of least resistance. So law is what builds the roads. So you have a Stel Griswal. She was running plant parenthoods in New Haven, Connecticut. She was arrested for providing contraceptives to married couples, which was illegal under state law. The case went to the Supreme Court and the court didn't just strike down the law, it invented a new right. In 1965, in Griswal, versus Connecticut, the court declared that married couples possess a constitutional right to contraception. Grounding it in a newly invented quote, right to privacy, discovered nowhere in the text of the Constitution. But in the now famous panumbras of the Bill of Rights. This did more than legalized contraception. It constitutionalized a principle. Marriage includes a right to sterile sex. You move seven years down the road. And you have the Supreme Court extending that logic beyond marriage. The distinction between marital sex and non-marital sex was absolutely a race. Access to contraception, recreational sex, became an individual entitlement. Sex was no longer a social institution ordered toward the family. It was an individual act ordered toward autonomy and self-determination. And crucially, the court had already had the landmark abortion case in their hands, Roe v. Wade. So once sex without children becomes a constitutional doctrine, pregnancy becomes a constitutional problem. Abortion is no longer aberration, it's a cleanup job. Reception sterilizes sex by technology while abortion sterilizes sex by violence. Different methods, but it's the same logic. And here's the point. Once sex is legally sterile, the difference between natural sex and unnatural sex becomes legally superfluous. From there everything follows. Sodomy rights, marriage redefinition, and finally parenthood. It's not gonna be a family with two fathers and no mothers. It's completely obliterated and redefined because of marriage as a relationship between sexual and nondescript adults, the law can't assign special significance to pro-creation. As you said, it's not that easy for a gay couple to have kids. So motherhood and fatherhood become interchangeable at that point. Biology becomes incidental. She is reading about skin to skin contact every day. And all of the breast milk stuff and everything. And I know he will have a huge percentage of the stuff that a mother would bring. And parents become mere custodians. And if there is no natural right as parents, who decides who the proper custodians are? When children are no longer naturally received, they have to be assigned by the state. The state gathers to itself the authority to define family. This is not legal interpretation. It's a theology. The court later made this explicit in the 1992 case, Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, declaring that, quote, at the heart of liberty, unquote, is the right to define one's own concept of existence, meaning, and reality. What? This is not law. This is metaphysics. And it cannot coexist with the natural family that God created. Once sex, hysteria, and autonomy, is supreme sin must be reclassified because sin requires repentance. And repentance requires pastors with a backbone and a church that's ready to disciple. Pathology does not. Pathology merely needs treatment. So rebellion against creation became an illness. Desire became diagnosis. And watch this. Repentance becomes harm. By the time the American Psychological Association voted in 1973, to remove homosexuality from its diagnostic manual, the categories were already polluted. That vote was not assigned to Vic Discovery. It was a certification of a decades-long capitulation. But here's what most people miss. Classifying Sodomy as a mental disorder was already a defeat. It should have been understood as a moral deviance, not as a pathology. The moment that we let psychiatrists frame the question, we had already lost the answer. The clergy weren't the ones that were making the call, the mental health community wise. The psychiatry had been asked a question. It was not competent to answer. And once desire, lust, becomes identity, it hurts. Any attempt to resist it becomes violence. And then consequences arrive. Dr. Jeffrey Satinover holds degrees from MIT, Harvard University, and the University of Texas. And his practice, psychoanalysis, and psychiatry for decades. In 1996, he wrote the book Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth. In the early 1980s, Dr. Satinover began noticing gaunt, pale, men, with angry purple welds previously rare symptoms suddenly show up in clusters, and San Francisco and New York, of all places. AIDS hit like a medieval plague. The condition was actually initially called grid, GRID, gay, related, immune disorder, because it overwhelmingly appeared among homosexual men. And every one knew why. But once identity is sacred, consequences must be renamed and so must everything else. So, GRID becomes AIDS. Behavior absolutely is disappeared from the conversation. And normalization replaces repentance. The medical reality here is really stark. Ainal intercourse causes profound physiological damage, micro tearing of rectal tissue, immediate bloodstream contamination, fecal exposure. Associated diseases include gonorrhea, chlamydia, syphilis, perps, hepatitis. Chronic incontinence, elevated risk of rectal cancers, immune system collapse, leading to opportunistic infections. Take a minute to notice these are not moral claims. These are biological facts, and these are biological facts that were known. Dr. Satinover says that most physicians assumed that the homosexual community would have to change their practices a bit, and that the result of their actions would cause them to rethink those actions. But they were dead wrong. One of the most prominent figures in the AIDS response was none other than Dr. Anthony Fauci, who rose to national prominence by working directly with activist groups during the AIDS epidemic, incorporating their demands into research funding, treatment protocols, and public messaging. Decades later, the same man would reappear, and once again, insists that dissent from medical authority was a threat to life itself. You're really attacking not only Dr. Anthony Fauci, you're attacking science. You have to be asleep not to see that. The pattern didn't change. Experts elevated beyond competence, dissent reframed his danger, coercion justified as compassion. It was the same logic, just a different disease. But the pattern did not change. Once desire is identity, resistance to that desire becomes harm. Once resistance is harm, well speech then is violence, of course, and once speech is violence, the state must intervene. This is why therapy can come to be called torture. So look at Colorado for a moment. A current case before the Supreme Court, child's versus Salazar, Kaylee, Child's, and evangelical Christian therapist in Colorado wants to practice talk therapy. Quote unquote. Speech. With minors who voluntarily seek help to align their thoughts and behavior with biological reality, the state has declared that conversation itself forbidden. Canada has lost its whole mind. It goes way further than that. Canada formally banned conversion therapy in 2022, creating four new criminal code offenses with prison terms up to five years. Under its criminal code amendments, conversion therapy, as it's called, is defined as any practice treatment or service designed to change a person's sexual orientation or gender identity, repress or reduce non-heterosexual attraction or repress a person's gender expression. That law criminalizes causing someone to undergo conversion therapy, profiting from conversion therapy, or even promoting or advertising conversion therapy. Defending anal intercourse that causes disease, cancer, infections, that's a human right. Trying to convince people to stop, that's torture and abuse. Where have we seen this backwards rhetoric before? That's right, I remember during COVID. Biden said they're killing people, I mean look. The only thing that we have is the moment we're on vaccines. Just like conversion therapy, doctors and scientists like Jay Bada Chariah and Dr. Ryan Cole and others who dared to say that there was another perspective on COVID, on masking, on vaccines, a different perspective that could save lives, they were threatened, they were canceled, they were persecuted. It's a torture to help a homosexual conform to their created sexual calling, but if you refuse an experimental vaccine, the government might need to make your life difficult. The signers of the Great Barrington Declaration were like, Kayleigh Chiles, the evangelical Christian therapist in Colorado being canceled, being persecuted. Experts elevated beyond their competence, descent, reframed as moral, danger, coercion justified as compassion, doctors who challenged orthodoxy, silence, citizens who refused compliance, shamed. Speech was policed and it wasn't about health, it was about authority. Who defines reality? Who must obey whom? The category error repeated itself perfectly. Make no mistake that all of this is converging on one main target, the family. God created man and woman and He joined them together and He blessed them. He commanded them to be fruitful and to multiply. And what was the gift that God gave Adam to fulfill that mission of multiplication? Well, He gave them a woman, a wife. God saw that it was not good for man to be alone and so He created a helper that was perfectly suited for Him. Bone of His bones, flesh of His flesh. In fact, that first poem that Adam uttered at the sight of his new bride is a Hebrew superlative. It's like holy of holies, song of songs, the best, the most, the highest. Adam is exclaiming something beautiful that this woman is like Him, but glorified. And if you're married, you know exactly what I'm talking about. This is where people come from. This is how societies endure. When sex is severed from fruitfulness, existence itself is attacked. And now we can finally go all the way back to the beginning when we were talking about Dave Rubin. This is where all of it converges at. Laboratory children, rented rooms, purchase eggs, frozen breast milk. These are not aberrations. They are inevitabilities. When parenthood becomes custody, children become assignable goods. And that is why Dave Rubin is not an outlier at all. He is the logical end of the whole system. The insult here reaches its full completion when you have Rubin boasting of two industrial freezers full of breast milk. As though storage divides can replace a mother's whole relational persons. Technology in this vision eliminates mothers. And when Rubin's partner speaks of skin to skin care, the claim becomes explicit. A child does not actually need a mother. Only an adult body will into substitute, something warm, you know. Even while supposedly opposing transgender ideology rhetorically, Rubin's project embodies the same denial of created meaning. Body signify nothing. Sex differences has no authority here. Human beings are like divisible parts that you could put together to make whatever you want to like Legos, as long as it's in service of self-realization. This is why law matters. When marriage is redefined to include same sex couples, marriage itself becomes a union of sexually non-descript adults. After that, male and female no longer matter anywhere. Remember Marquis Desaude? His vision is one. Man is nothing but genitals and women exist to be used. Nature has no meaning whatsoever. Desire is what is sovereign. Rush Duny warned that modern pornography and autonomy aim to shatter the values of Christian civilization. He was right. Hans Ers von Balthazar, who warned that, quote, it seems to have now fallen especially to Christians in our day, to serve as the guardians of being. That is the fight. It's not politics. It's not preference. The fight is for being itself. Reduce humanity to appetite and cruelty becomes virtue. This is not liberation from God. It's liberation from being. It's liberation from existence. It's suicidal. So a Republican's gay? Yeah. Pretty much. Sure. Because they went sterile first. Because covenant was replaced with consumption. Because fruitfulness was replaced with mere pleasure and recreation. You can say that all sexual immorality is gay in the sense that it rejects the purpose that God actually gave sex for. And the church didn't follow in this. It led in it. One of the central failures of the modern Christian church has been refusal to tell the truth about our shameful acts of sodomy. Far from actually loving one's neighbor by telling the truth, the church is cultivated in atmosphere that welcomes ephemeralcy and encourages perversion. What has the church glorified more than orgasmic worship experiences and feminized piety? We've trained generations that true Christian piety is soft, feelings oriented, interior-eyed, complete with low lights and mood music. No Psalms for sure. How can we be surprised when someone takes the lesson to his logical end? The church has failed to love her Lord and submit to his word. The Bible appears more to whisper when it comes to sexual sin. And so we have failed to love homosexuals by telling them the truth about their sin and calling them to the freedom of repentance. Here's the difference. On one side you have catalogues to look through for women. You have labs. You have a freezer, a contract. Children, manufactured in mothers or raised fatherhood, reduced to genetics. On the other side you have a gift. You have a union. A blessing. A command. Children are received in mothers they are honored highly. Their names are praised in the streets. And fathers who are present. Fruitfulness is here. The West, we lost the meaning of sex when we forgot what bodies are for. The church, it lost its witness when it stopped speaking the truth in love. But the truth remains and the door is still wide open. My faith isn't in therapy. My faith is in Christ because Christ is not medicalized sin. He forgives it. He kills it. He raises man to new life. The Son of God took on flesh. He was betrayed. He was condemned. He was humiliated. He was crucified. He was crushed and humiliated for pornography. For adultery. For sawdiving. For insects. For rape. He died for all those who were in the sins. He was hung up naked like a criminal so that those who have committed sexual crimes might go completely free. He who knew no sin became sin for us. That we might become the righteousness of God in him. And on the third day, Jesus rose from the dead so that anyone who calls on his name may be saved completely forgiven. Washed completely clean and have everlasting life. So repent and live and welcome to Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ.