Science Uprising Pulls back the Curtain on Pseudo-Scientific Posturing

In the 1980s, Madonna captured the image of one girl’s shallow, self-absorbed life with her pop song, “Material Girl”:

You know that we are living in a material world
And I am a material girl.

The era’s personal materialism of “I like stuff” or “Stuff is all that matters” was also captured in TV teen Alex Keaton of the sitcom Family Ties. Individuals may not be so enamored today of material things, but there’s another kind of collective materialism that holds undue sway in our culture. I’m talking about “materialism” as a philosophy.

Materialism as a philosophy is simply the idea that the material world is all there is. Put differently, materialism is the belief that matter and energy, interacting according to the laws of chemistry and physics, constitute the sum total of reality. Philosophical materialism, then, is a belief about the nature of reality.

Sometimes, we hear it stated overtly, such as when celebrity scientist Carl Sagan intoned, “The cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be.” Most often, though, it’s subtle. It is assumed but not stated. This is especially true in the realms of the natural sciences. Consider, for example, the children’s book You Are Stardust, which encourages young children to feel good about themselves because the atoms that make up their bodies were forged in the stars. Author Elin Kelsey doesn’t come right out and say, “There is no God” or “The universe is all that exists.” She has simply assumed that materialism is the truth about reality, and then written a whimsical children’s book from that philosophical perspective.

Today, philosophical materialism is almost universally conflated with science. You Are Stardust is categorized as a (what else?) science-based picture book for children. We can also discern this conflation behind statements like, “I don’t believe in God; I believe in science,” as if theistic belief and science are inherently incompatible. But they’re not incompatible, and despite what celebrity scientists like Neil deGrasse Tyson or Bill Nye the Science Guy might say, there’s nothing that says materialism and science necessarily go together.

So, the question thinking people should be asking is, Why should materialism enjoy such a privileged, unquestioned position in our culture? And the answer is, it shouldn’t.

Enter Science Uprising, a project of the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture. Science Uprising burst onto the scene this past summer with a series of short, edgy videos challenging this materialistic metanarrative on the ground it’s been squatting on for far too long: the natural sciences. The first episode sets things up by explaining what materialism is, demonstrating how its pretensions have become deeply embedded in our culture, and showing how it actually runs counter to many aspects of life we all believe to be true and value. Subsequent episodes look at neuroscience and the reality of the mind, DNA and the reality of coded information in the cell, evolutionary biology and the failure of the neo-Darwinian hypothesis, and more. The upshot of it all is that philosophical materialism fails to adequately explain reality as we know it and live it. Moreover, it fails when put to empirical tests.

How do such concepts as love, compassion, justice and the human soul fit into a narrative that says only matter and energy are real? They don’t. And this should be our first tipoff that maybe materialism isn’t the whole truth about reality. No one–not even materialists themselves–actually lives as if materialism is true.

You don’t have to be a working scientist to think for yourself about science. Research shows that a big reason young people are abandoning Christianity in droves is because they’ve been told it’s incompatible with science, when the truth is, it’s materialism that is incompatible with both Christianity and science. We are instructed in Scripture to “demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God” (2 Corinthians 10:5), and if ever there were a lofty pretension lifting itself up against theistic belief, then materialism should be crowned as king of the whoppers.

Thankfully, the consumeristic materialism of the 1980s has less appeal to youth today. The task for today is to pull back the curtain on this whopper of a lie about reality, an idol of the mind that is even more destructive to the soul. So, check out Science Uprising here, and let the demolishing begin.

A bold voice for pro-family values in Illinois!

Click HERE to learn about supporting IFI on a monthly basis.

The shooting of GOP House Whip Steve Scalise and several other Republicans during an early morning baseball practice this month is as unsurprising as it was dreadful. Some of our deepest expectations were realized in that moment, as the furious rhetoric being churned out by the Left finally expressed itself in the ultimate form of contempt: an attempt to assassinate political leaders.

It wasn’t hard to predict where our national discourse was taking us. For years in the halls of Congress and in the courts, we’ve been engaged in a civil war. There’s been a marked increase in the use of the term “civil war” by those who spend their days opining on culture. It’s all been there but the shooting, and now we can check that box.

Until that happened, we all hoped that what was left of the original American spirit—the rule of law, respect for human dignity, a sense of honor, and love of country—would hold back the baser instincts of human nature. But we could all feel the rope fraying.

Even a cursory look at the last few years reveals a surprising amount of unfiltered and increasingly hostile rhetoric coming from politicians, entertainers, professors, scientists, philosophers, and other public figures.

It started with words

• Words from Barack Obama: “they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them” and “I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face.”

• Words from Donald Trump: “Anybody who hits me, we’re gonna hit them ten times harder” and “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn’t lose any voters.”

• Words from Hillary Clinton: “You could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it.… Now, some of those folks — they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America” and “Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will. And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.”

• Words from DNC Chairman Tom Perez: “[Trump] doesn’t give a s— about health care;” U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY): “Has [Trump] kept his promises? No. F— no;” U.S. Representative Maxine Waters (D-CA): “[Trump is a] disgusting, poor excuse of a man;” and former Clinton running mate Tim Kaine (D-VA): “What we’ve got to do is fight in Congress, fight in the courts, fight in the streets, fight online, fight at the ballot box.”

• Words from Fresno State University lecturer Lars Maischak: “Justice = the execution of two Republicans for each deported immigrant;” “To save American democracy, Trump must hang. The sooner and the higher, the better”; and “#TheResistance Has anyone started soliciting money and design drafts for a monument honoring the Trump assassin, yet?”

• Words from Trinity College (CT) professor Johnny Eric Williams: “I’m fed the f— up with self-identified ‘white’s’ daily violence directed at immigrants, Muslims, and sexual and racially oppressed people. The time is now to confront these inhuman a–holes and end this now.”

• Words from Art Institute of Washington professor John Griffin: “[Republicans] should be lined up and shot. That’s not hyperbole; blood is on their hands.”

• Words from former Rutgers adjunct professor Kevin Allred: “Will the Second Amendment be as cool when I buy a gun and start shooting at random white people or no?”

• Words from former CNN personality Reza Aslan: “This piece of s— is not just an embarrassment to America and a stain on the presidency. He’s an embarrassment to humankind.”

• Words from pop diva Madonna: “Yes, I’m angry. Yes, I’m outraged. Yes, I have thought an awful lot about blowing up the White House;” actress Lea DeLaria: “[O]r pick up a baseball bat and take out every f—ing republican and independent I see. #f—trump, #f—theGOP, #f—straightwhiteamerica, “f—yourprivilege;” comedienne Sarah Silverstein: “Once the military is w us fascists get overthrown;” and actor Johnny Depp: “When was the last time an actor assassinated a president?”

While the words broke an unspoken decorum, they weren’t much without action. Mobs gathered and marched with signs that read, “Become ungovernable” and “This is war” and “The only good fascist is a dead one.” Violent protests shut down presentations deemed hate speech on college campuses: Dr. Charles Murray at Middlebury College, Ann Coulter and Milo Yiannopoulos at the University of California, Berkeley.

From there it was only a few steps to acting out murder fantasies in the form of “art”: comedienne Kathy Griffin decapitating Donald Trump; rapper Snoop Dogg shooting Donald Trump in a “music” video; and a Shakespeare play featuring the murder of “Julius” Trump.

And finally, someone put these sentiments into action, unleashing a hailstorm of bullets on unsuspecting Republican congressmen practicing for a charitable baseball game.

As much as I regret making the distinction, the animus is almost wholly on the Left of the political spectrum. It is the Left that has become hostile to historical, traditional American values. It is the Left that has mocked Christianity and rejected our Judeo-Christian heritage. It is the Left that has labeled the rest of America homophobic, Islamophobic, xenophobic, and misogynistic. It is the Left that accuses white people of having privilege that needs to be checked. It is the Left that has championed the principles of “tolerance,” “diversity,” and “inclusion” as the new American values. It is the Left that has embraced democratic socialism. It is the Left that has twisted American history and alters textbooks, traditions, and monuments.

John Adams once warned in a letter to the Massachusetts Militia:

Should the People of America, once become capable of that deep simulation towards one another and towards foreign nations, which assumes the Language of Justice and moderation while it is practicing Iniquity and Extravagance; and displays in the most captivating manner the charming Pictures of Candour frankness & sincerity while it is rioting in rapine and Insolence: this Country will be the most miserable Habitation in the World. Because We have no Government armed with Power capable of contending with human Passions unbridled by morality and Religion. Avarice, Ambition, Revenge or Galantry, would break the strongest Cords of our Constitution as a Whale goes through a Net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

In other words, our society was organized on the assumption that our “moral and religious people” would govern themselves under the auspices of godly conduct and that if they didn’t, our country would become a hellhole. Does anyone doubt the truth of his statement?

He wasn’t the first to recognize that laws can’t keep people from wickedness. “When people do not accept divine guidance, they run wild,” wrote the wise man, “but whoever obeys the law is joyful” (Proverbs 29:18).

James T. Hodgkinson didn’t pull the trigger in a vacuum. He did what many of our fellow citizens seem to be calling for. Now that the barrier has been broken, is it only a matter of time before others unbridled by morality and religion step through the breach?”

IFI depends on the support of concerned-citizens like you. Donate now

-and, please-

Let’s see, Planned Parenthood provides age-inappropriate, Leftist dogma packaged as sex “education” to children and kills incipient human life in the womb. Moreover, no Planned Parenthood performs mammograms, and very, very few offer prenatal care. And yet Planned Parenthood is an essential provider of women’s healthcare?

Curiouser and curiouser.

In 2013, Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood (PP), was paid $590,928. In regard to her 2013 income, U.S. News and World Report said “Richards makes about $100,000 more than the typical CEO for a nonprofit similar to the size of Planned Parenthood.” Here’s the kicker, in 2014 Richards was paid $957,952. PP vice president Dawn Laguens pocketed $599, 721 of blood money.

It’s time for the federal government to cease funding Planned Parenthood until such time as they  stop killing humans in the womb; stop providing contraception and abortifacients; and stop peddling a Leftist sexuality ideology to minors.

If Planned Parenthood wants to provide those products and services to minors and women of childbearing age, they should ask George Soros, Madonna, Miley Cyrus, and Ashley Judd to subsidize them.

Taxpayers should not be forced to do so.

*Caution: Content May Not Be Suitable for Younger Readers*

A blaring, front-page headline in the Chicago Tribune about the women’s march for death and deviant sexuality marred the Sunday morning of many Illinoisans—once again justifying the subterranean position the mainstream press occupies in the view of many Americans.

The Trib reported that an estimated 500,000 mostly women “staged an enormous, raucous rally…to send a potent message of defiance to…President Trump.”

I wonder how the Trib reported the 2013 March for Life in Washington that drew an estimated 650,000. And does anyone believe the coverage would have been less feverish and sycophantic if the numbers for the death and deviance march had been 400,000 or 200,000?

The statements made by protesters yesterday affirming a non-existent moral right of women to have their offspring killed is more abhorrent than any of the abhorrent things Trump has said.

Extolling the legal right to have incipient human life exterminated in the womb is incalculably abhorrent. What we can calculate, however, is how many human lives have been killed in wombs in the U.S. since 1973: 59, 738, 680.

The Trib cited the “show of star power absent from inauguration festivities,” so let’s take a glimpse at what inaugural attendees missed.

Plasticized sexagenarian sex symbol Madonna offered this inspirational stem-winder:

Welcome to the revolution of love, to the rebellion, to our refusal as women to accept this new age of tyranny where not just women are endangered but all marginalized people….It took us this darkness to wake us the f*** up….And to our detractors that insist that this March will never add up to anything, f*** you. F*** you….Yes, I’m angry. Yes, I am outraged. Yes, I have thought an awful lot of blowing up the White House, but I know that this won’t change anything….I choose love.  

Let’s not forget these patriotic words from women’s role model Madonna at a public event just a month before the election:

If you vote for Hillary Clinton, I will give you a b***job. OK? I’m really good. I’m not a douche, and I’m not a tool. I take my time, I have a lot of eye contact, and I do swallow.

Pregnant Natalie Portman made this extraordinarily ironic statement:

We need to take inspiration from nature, and remember that we hold the mystery of life, and the seed of every possibility within our bodies….We need to demand freedom from fear over our bodies and control over our own bodies…. [F]rom the bottom of both hearts beating inside my miraculous female body, I want to thank our new president. You just started the revolution.

Cognizant of the beating heart of another human within her womb—the mystery of life, the miraculous body of another whose seed too contains within it possibility—Portman seeks to protect women’s legal right to kill it.

Then the always melodramatic Ashley Judd recited the words of 19-year-old Nina Donovan. Here’s just a taste of her distasteful spoken words:

I am a nasty woman. I’m as nasty as a man who looks like he bathes in Cheetos dust. A man whose words are a distract to America. Electoral college-sanctioned, hate-speech contaminating this national anthem….Blacks are still in shackles and graves, just for being black. Slavery has been reinterpreted as the prison system in front of people who see melanin as animal skin….I didn’t know devils could be resurrected but I feel Hitler in these streets. A mustache traded for a toupee. Nazis renamed the Cabinet Electoral Conversion Therapy, the new gas chambers shaming the gay out of America….I am not as nasty as homophobia, sexual assault, transphobia, white supremacy, misogyny, ignorance, white privilege….Yeah, I’m a nasty woman—a loud, vulgar, proud woman.

…

And our p***ies ain’t for grabbing. Our p***ies are for our pleasure. They are for birthing new generations of filthy, vulgar, nasty, proud, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Sikh, you name it, for new generations of nasty women. So if you a nasty woman, or you love one who is, let me hear you say, hell yeah.

Someone needs to tell Ashley Judd that Bill Clinton did a whole lot worse than grabbing “p***ies,” and Hillary defended him while victimizing his victims.

Indulge me in a paraphrase of “nasty woman” Donovan’s words spoken by “nasty woman” Judd:

I’m a grieving woman. I’m grieving that “nasty women” speak in words that distract, delude, and degrade America and destroy American lives. Mainstream press-sanctioned, deplorable-speech and lies contaminating our national anthem….Blacks still in shackles and graves because their fathers abandoned them. Slavery has been reinterpreted as the welfare system by people who see melanin as victimskin….I didn’t know devils could be resurrected but I feel Hitler in our baby abattoirs. The final solution traded for “choice.” Mengele renamed “sex re-assigners,” castrating men out of manhood. I grieve for the victims of gender-obliterators, homofascists, and race-baiters whose lies deny that true identity is found in Christ alone—not in sexual deception or melanin.

I grieve for women who think empowerment is found in the illusions of Hollywood and delusions of actors. I grieve for women who learn about womanhood from “nasty women” like Madonna who made a living by objectifying herself. I grieve for women who are not birthing the life that grew within them and would have called them “mother.”

So, if you are one of these women or love one of these women—whether Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Sikh, you name it, know that there are thousands of other women and men who grieve and pray for you.

Amen.

Read more recent articles from Laurie:

New Trier High School Avoids Diversity Like the Plague

Highlights Magazine for Children Affirms Homoeroticism

Cub Scouts Reject Girl Who Wishes She Were a Boy

Join IFI at our Feb. 18th Worldview Conference

We are excited about our third annual Worldview Conference featuring world-renowned theologian Dr. Frank Turek on Sat., Feb. 18, 2017 in Barrington. Dr. Turek is s a dynamic speaker and the award-winning author of “I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist”

Join us for a wonderful opportunity to take enhance your biblical worldview and equip you to more effectively engage the culture:

Click HERE to learn more or to register!

Yesterday’s article on the Grammy’s generated a lot of impassioned responses, including a shocking email that can be read here. **Caution: This is the most depraved, blasphemous, and hateful email IFI has ever received (which is saying a lot), so you’ve been forewarned.

The reason for publishing it is to remind Christians of what evil lurks behind the façade and rhetoric of decency, compassion, love, equality, and tolerance created by politically savvy “progressives.” I’m not suggesting that all “progressives” think as the lost soul who emailed me thinks. I am suggesting that the hate that animates him is not dissimilar from the hate that animates Fred Phelps—a truth that the mainstream press rarely discusses.

IFI is not seeking to sensationalize the evil expressed in this email but rather to illuminate how truly evil the homosexuality-affirming movement is. Those who don’t visit homosexual websites and blogs don’t fully realize that the movement to normalize homosexuality is at its core anti-Christian and unloving.  

In the ubiquitous cultural efforts (including of even orthodox churches) to emphasize “relationship,” “dialogue,” and “conversation” (all, by the way, good things), it’s easy to forget the magnitude of the evil that inheres this movement. Just as it’s difficult to fully grasp the evil of the pro-abortion movement without at least occasionally seeing photos of aborted babies, one cannot fully grasp the homosexuality-affirming movement’s enormity (i.e., the degree and seriousness of its depravity) without occasionally hearing what they say in their own words. 

Of course, not all homosexuals or their ideological allies would say the things that were said to me in this email just as not all conservatives would say the things Fred Phelps says. But obscenity, profanity, blasphemy, sexual perversion, and hate are common in the homosexual community. 

Conservatives have a troubling willingness to insulate themselves from this reality. Just telling them that many on the Left say ugly, obscene, blasphemous things is insufficient to rouse them from their moral slumber. Unfortunately, often only a close encounter with this kind of corruption can overcome the apathy, lethargy, or fear that paralyzes them. 

But God is good, and IFI received far more positive responses than negative. I will close with this eloquent response from Dr. Daniel Boland who sent me this edifying (and amusing) message about marriage, which refutes those cultural critics who are absurdly arguing that Beyoncé and Jay-Z have made a valuable contribution to the reputation of marriage by making it look “fun”: 

Your article on Beyoncé and that Jay-Z person was excellent and much to the point; I hope they read it.

Not surprisingly, the few commentators I have read on this issue entirely miss the point, as did those who produced and applauded the tawdry, hollow spectacle.

I would also add (in my usually timid and tremulous manner) that the commentators who write of such matters as “marriage” so often define it as some sort of dreadful servitude by which people are enchained to an uphill wheel of drudgery and wretchedness. They see marriage as a condition redeemed only by the prospect of occasional periods of enthusiastic rutting unleashed by such events as Beyoncé and Mr. Beyoncé occasion: namely, those moments when women wear sexually absurd and revealing clothes, and men (most appropriately clad in a tux which, one is led to believe, is somehow suited to the stimulation and resurrection of affection and other related concerns) clutch at their women with exhibitionistic abandon.

Rarely do cultural critics—such as this one—have the common sense, the emotional maturity, the personal experience of, or the intellectual discernment to realize or ponder the fact that a stable and dignified marriage has little to do over the years with such sickly-fantasized sexual performances.

One customarily grants showbiz people a degree of leeway and the benefit of idiosyncratic renderings which imaginative artists must have. In this present instance, however (as in so many cases these days), the messages of modern “art” not only invade and distort social and political reality, they assault our deepest traditions, offend our intelligence and seek to re-define the boundaries of cherished moral and cultural reality. Art has become a socio-political weapon for the dismantling of our culture’s finest ideals. Our society is made worse by this reckless, invasive interweaving.

Anyone with a modicum of honesty realizes that a true and lasting marriage (as does life itself) rests not on sickly superficial, crotch-centered fixations but on the deeply demanding discovery and decades-long exercise of a multiplicity of virtues involving self-restraint and mutual sacrifice. The first and most essential of these costly virtues is personal humility which begins not with one’s wardrobe or the trappings of seduction but by recognizing and admitting one’s own weaknesses.

A marriage which is superficially defined by the deceptive, fleeting allure of sex is a marriage suited to moral midgets who habitually distort and eschew—rather than celebrate and elevate—reality. Thus, those stunted critics who celebrate Beyoncé and Her Mate for somehow ennobling the modern notion of “marriage-as-sexual-side-show” deserve no credit. Indeed, they reinforce the escalating shallowness of our culture and exhibit astonishing ignorance about the nature of marriage and, for that matter, the realities of human nature itself.

Click HERE to support Illinois Family Institute (IFI). Contributions to IFI are tax-deductible and support our educational efforts.

Click HERE to support Illinois Family Action (IFA). Contributions to IFA are not tax-deductible but give us the most flexibility in engaging critical legislative and political issues.

This past Sunday night’s Grammy awards was a tragic freak show that demonstrated the entertainment industry’s arrogance, ignorance of marriage, and disregard for children. It was a gawdy spitball hurled in the all-seeing eye of a holy God.

The spectacle was bookended by a soft-core porn performance by the not-single lady Beyoncé who twerked and jerked her half-revealed derriere in a series of “dance” moves that simulated sex and stimulated sexual appetite, while the crowd cheered in puerile excitement.

Beyoncé was later joined by her husband Jay-Z who seems to revel in the lustings of strangers for his wife. What kind of man gets pleasure from his wife’s flaunting of her sexuality and from the certain knowledge that men desire to do things to his wife because of her arousing dress and actions? Is it money that motivates his eager embrace of his wife’s immodesty, or pride that he has access to her body when all other leering men do not? If it’s money, how is he different from a pimp?

Beyoncé’s performance reinforced the cultural deceit that modesty and the notion that conjugal love is private are archaic puritanical irrelevancies. Beyoncé has abused her power as a beloved role model for young girls to teach them terrible lessons about sexuality and marriage. Her performance raises many questions:

• What motivates a young, married mother to flaunt her partially-exposed sexual anatomy to the world and simulate sex movements?
• Deep down is this what she truly wants to do?
• Deep down does she really want her husband to delight in the objectification and commodification of her body for the prurient pleasures of other men?
• Would Jay-Z and Beyoncé want their daughter to one day perform like her mother for the pleasures of men? What would they think about an 18-year-old Blue Ivy recreating her mother’s performance but in a seedy club for the eyes of less expensively attired and botoxed men and women? 
• Is Beyoncé comfortable with her father watching her performance?
• What kind of mixed message does this performance send to children? Parents and pediatricians tell children that parts of their bodies are “private parts” that only parents and doctors should look at or touch. We convey that message to them from the earliest prepubescent ages. So, what happens after sexual maturity? Do those “private parts” suddenly become public parts?  
• Is modesty in dress the same as prudery, or is it a virtue to be cultivated?

Beyoncé’s vulgar anti-woman, anti-marriage performance foreshadowed the climactic setpiece of the evening: Queen Latifah, long-rumored to be a lesbian, officiated at the “weddings” of 33 couples, many of whom were same-sex couples, while accompanied by the preachy, feckless song “Same Love” by Macklemore and the song “Open Your Heart” by the Dorian Gray-esque Madonna. It was a sorry, sick, non-serious ceremony that looked like something from the garish dystopian world of the Hunger Games, replete with a cheering sycophantic audience, faux-stained glass windows, a faux-choir, a homosexual faux-pastorette, and “Madonna” with her faux-face. It was a non-wedding festooned with all the indulgent gimcrackery of Satan’s most alluring playground: Hollywood.  

Here’s an excerpt from theologian and pastor Doug Wilson’s must-read blog post about the meretricious Grammy extravaganza—I mean “wedding”:

[T]hose Christians still besotted by our contemporary sintertainment standards are not going to reflect on how compromised they all are until next year, when the Grammys will have John the Baptist’s head brought out on a platter. And even then, there will be no little debate about it, because some of our more illustrious cultural thinkers will no doubt point out that John’s somewhat direct method of approaching Herod left something to be desired. It was not — let us be frank — an invitation to mutually constructive dialog. It ended badly, to be sure, and John did have such promising gifts and so it grieves us to say that, at least in part, he brought it upon himself.

A homosexual East Coast journalist called me last week, angry about my open letter to Notre Dame University president Father Jenkins. He is angry at just about everything orthodox Christians say about homosexuality, including the assertion that the legalization of same-sex “marriage” will destroy marriage. He believes that “progressives” are not destroying marriage but, rather, expanding it.

I explained that many “progressives” believe—as conservatives do—that marriage has a nature. We just disagree on the features that constitute that nature. Conservatives believe marriage is constituted by romantic/erotic feelings, “binariness” (i.e., marriage is composed of two people), and sexual complementarity. The Left believes that marriage is constituted by romantic/erotic feelings and “binariness.” The journalist agreed with this definition of marriage.

I suggested that if someone were to propose “expanding” the legal definition of marriage to include platonic friends in as large a group as these friends desire, “progressives” who believe that romantic/erotic feelings and binariness are essential constituent features of marriage would likely respond that this redefinition is not an expansion but the destruction of marriage. One cannot jettison inherent features from an institution without changing it so fundamentally that it is, in reality, destroyed.

Conservatives argue that sexual complementarity is as fundamental to marriage as romantic-erotic feelings and “binariness.” Jettisoning the essential constituent feature of sexual complementarity represents the destruction of marriage. Self-righteous Grammy “sintertainers” just hammered another nail in the cultural coffin of marriage.

Click HERE to support Illinois Family Institute (IFI). Contributions to IFI are tax-deductible and support our educational efforts.

Click HERE to support Illinois Family Action (IFA). Contributions to IFA are not tax-deductible but give us the most flexibility in engaging critical legislative and political issues.