I think you’ve stretched my point too far in order to fit your narrative, or at least to paint my arguments as being from someone who doesn’t want to engage in “dialogue with folks” who have serious concerns about sexual immorality.
That may have been poor wording–my point was simply that if you approach folks who have a “liberal” view on these issues assuming that they’re just interested in libertinism and “unrestrained” lust, you’re not going to communicate with them and you’re going in turn to confirm their stereotypes of the conservative Christian view, missing an opportunity to build some common ground.
Yes, broadly-speaking, liberal sexual morality is about “equality,” but the genesis of that idea was the sexual revolution
No, I think it’s the other way round. The genesis of the sexual revolution was the belief that the society of the 50s was oppressive and repressive in its “conventionality,” and this stemmed in part from a genuine moral outrage against such things as racial discrimination, immoral/amoral national policies connected with the Cold War, etc.
and the first order of business for liberals was and is to break down traditional notions of sex and marriage.
I know a lot of liberals. That’s simply a caricature. That’s not their “first order of business.” It’s a
result of their desire to reform sexual morality around norms of consent, equality, and mutuality rather than what they see as authoritarian and harmful traditions that maintain male-female hierarchy and unduly constrain natural, life-affirming impulses.
Please understand that I’m not “lumping all non-traditional morality” as part of the sexual revolution. I don’t lump pederasty advocacy, for example, as part of the sexual revolution.
But I believe it was, at least to some degree–in the original “sexual revolution.” It isn’t
now, because there has been a relatively conservative “backlash” against the sexual revolution, insofar as the original sexual revolution was an anarchic celebration of human desire without qualification.
Post-1970s (heterosexual) marriage became centered on the idea of emotional satisfaction; if you’re unhappy, just divorce and move on (as seen in the movie, No-Fault Divorce and the Perpetual Search for the Phantom Soul Mate). Thus, “traditionalists” have been left with little ground on which to stand when fighting against same sex marriage.
No disagreement with that last part, and my only caveat about the first part is that, again, there were genuine moral concerns behind these changes, centered on the way “traditional” marriage seemed to privilege stability and respectability over genuine affection (not just sexual desire) and mutual regard.
No dispute that the way liberal sexual morality has dealt with these issues has been vastly destructive. My overall point is that if we don’t recognize the genuine moral concerns behind liberal sexual morality, and simply lump it all together under the rubric of “the sexual revolution,” supposedly glorifying sexual indulgence without qualification–then we’re not speaking truthfully in the first place, and in the second place we are cutting off communication with a lot of our contemporaries and failing to convey the beauty and richness of orthodox Christian morality.
You cannot argue for equality until you demonstrate that both forms/ideas are equal
I think you misunderstand me. By “equality” I simply mean equality of the sexual partners.
I disagree with you here. St Augustine would say that
carnal concupiscence is a sin – not marital sex. In fact, he says
marital sex is a good thing because it is from God.
Yes, the physical act itself is good. But in a fallen state all sexual behavior
involves carnal concupiscence and thus is venially sinful, according to Augustine.
You’ll have to do more to convince me of that idea. What are the contemporary attitudes versus the traditional attitudes on the following issues: divorce/marriage, contraception, non-marital sex, and homosexuality?
I was specific: attitudes are stricter with regard to questions of equality and consent and mutual respect.
The obvious example would be the stigmatization of sexual relationships (including marriage) in which one partner is significantly older or more powerful than the other.
But even something like divorce has, in an odd way, a “strictness” attached to it. In modern liberal sexual morality it is regarded as something pretty close to sinful to remain in a marriage with someone you do not “love.” Divorce is treated as a moral duty in some cases.
Maybe it’s just as you said - traditionalists (conservatives) miss the narrative on liberal sexual boundaries because of all the rhetoric about “freedom” and “sexual liberation.” But why do you hold that against traditionalists? Perhaps liberals should tone down the sexual emancipation rhetoric if they are serious about engaging in dialogue sexual morality (or same sex marriage).
But they’re unlikely to do this because of their Pelagian assumptions, as I said above. Or perhaps, ironically, the better analogy is the apparently opposite one, with classical Protestant doctrines of faith/works. (Indeed, maybe there’s a connection, in spite of the resolute anti-Pelagianism of classical Protestantism.) Liberals can talk about freeing one’s sexuality because of the assumption that genuinely perverted forms of sexuality–those, in liberal eyes, that degrade or abuse or dominate another person–are just the result of some people being mentally ill and thus not really morally significant.
