A recent Ref 21 post by Prof. Carl Trueman compares the World Vision flip flop on homosexual "marriage" and the firing of the Mozilla CEO because he donated to California's Prop 8 in 2008 which supported traditional marriage. His conclusion is that the sword of economic boycott works both ways and Christians shouldn't complain, but realize that's how the cookie crumbles in the real world. (World Vision reminds us of Zondervan and their gender neutral NIV. Public outcry put the last on hold, but Z had its way in the end. Any guesses on how long WV holds the line?) Besides evangelical doesn't really mean evangelical when it comes to evangelical para church organizations or businesses. So now we know.
The Stacked Deck
There are a couple of objections. One, there is not a level playing field out there. The main stream moron media, the courts, the schools and the other elite powers that be, are all pushing for marital rights for sodomites and lesbians despite the fact that the LGBTQ@#%? whatever contingent in society is a marked minority. The Kinsey Report notwithstanding (Judith Riesmann among others, dismantled that fraud and egregious propaganda long ago), at most we are talking about 1 to 3 percent of the population. (Even 5 percent would be hopelessly optimistic in our opinion, but in la la land, one never knows what the progressives will dream up next.)
The Big Lie
Two, the campaign for "equal rights/protection" is a lie. While it purports to be another way of saying everyone is equal before the law, all it really is about is the French Jacobin notion of égalité, i.e. the egalitarian perversion of equal opportunity to mean "equal outcome" or "equal results". And since both male and female homosexual liaisons don't measure up to the historic definition of marriage, ergo we need to do some meddling, preferably by the coercive power of the state, so that everybody can get "married" and live happily ever after. See. Wasn't that easy, boys and girls?
After all, it is not just the pursuit of happiness that is constitutionally guaranteed, but the attainment of happiness. Which is to say government guarantees, if not supplies an education, a job, healthcare and a marriage. If not also children, if homosexuals are allowed to adopt. (I know. It's not loving to forbid homosexuals to love children. Therefore they must be allowed to adopt them.)
Fundamental Reality, Not Fundamentalism
But the big objection in our opinion, is number three. This does not have to be a religious or Christian issue per se. While it is true that marriage between Adam and Eve - not Adam and Steve - was first instituted by God in the Garden before the fall, so too the one in seven day of rest is equally a mandate of the moral/natural law. Which means evangelicals cannot really consistently violate one creation ordinance, even as they complain about the perversion of the other.
Still, it's called common sense. From time immemorial the union of a man and woman has produced children which the same couple by and large with yes, help from other family members and the community at large, raise to adulthood. Yes, there have been and are exceptions to the rule, but when by the same token have homosexual relationships ever been raised to the status of marriage, even granting that homosexuality has been around since time immemorial?
In other words, where for all practical purposes do these knuckleheads think children come from? The dry cleaners? And who raises them? After their three square meals a day at the local daycare cum
public government school and a trip to the Boys and Girls Club, we sit the young'uns down in front of the HiDef TV section at Walmart open 24 hours a day to be further edumacated/entertained before they drift off to sleep sucking their thumbs? When all is said and done, it still comes down to a man and a woman, regardless if the same sexers resort to artificial insemination, surrogacy or adoption to provide children for their categorically sterile unions. While it is true, not all marriages produce children, what is the exception for traditional marriage, is the rule for the sodomites and lesbians.
Luv, Luv, Luv
Further, the dessicated, if not degenerate definition of marriage now current, is all about "love", if not emotion. We readily grant that charity, which is what the hoary old King James Bible calls love, plays a distinct part in your average marriage, but really. To make it all boil down to affection or love, is to regress to an infantile narcissism. What's next? Will people in the future be able to marry their suitcases? Their toasters? How about their bicycles? And if not, why not?
The Other Big Lie (No, Not Obamacare)
Or better yet their offspring, siblings or parents? And if not the latter threesome, again why not? As Joe Sobran would have it, channeling a raucous Juvenal, at least the heterosexual versions of these pairings got the poop chute figured out. Not to mention, so much for that other Big Lie; that heterosexuals get to marry "anybody they want to"/whomever they love. All the while incest, polygamy and group marriages are verboten. Which fact is conveniently ignored by the homosexualists. Because it contradicts the approved
fairytale narrative about "discrimination".
The Building Blocks of Society
The family is the first school, church, business and state. If things go gunnybag in the family, everybody else in society is playing catch up to fix it. (In other words, we interrupt the regularly scheduled dreck to announce that the family has been around a lot longer than the humanitarian hunger and poverty fighting World Vision and it has done a better job to boot.) Which means the whole pogrom about marriage equality is really about anything but. In our day, all it actually does is further the growth of the totalitarian state, which seeks to be the dominant, if not only institution in society. Furthermore, only the civil magistrate has coercive power; the power to physically compel people to do something - as in fine, imprison or execute, which makes it that much more imperative to restrict its sphere of authority rather than letting it fill the void left by the departure of other institutions in society. In this case, the coercive power has been perverted in order to compel equal outcomes/results, if not the equal attainment of happiness, i.e. healthcare and marriage for everyone. Because they are all "equally protected" by law. Or so the
non sequitur argument goes.
Equal Time For Reality?
But more than that, in reality the whole "marriage equality" schtick really is nothing more than an assault on reality. One might as well argue for equal protection for square circles or that unicycles must be permitted to have two wheels. In other words, this is not about discrimination - even that of discernment - rather this is all about distortion of reality, if not history. What supercilious stupidities and audacious inanities will we be subjected to next? Will our stormtroopers for the brave new world order have something to say about gravity also? That it is not fair that what goes up, must come down? Or will we be told on the pains of a bankrupting lawsuit and threat of jail something a little more mundane? That pigs can fly and not just first class on SouthWest, but solo in the pilot's seat?
Sexual nirvana and same sex utopia awaits breathlessly. Boo reality. Hiss discrimination. Welcome stupidity and death. Along with, in the mean time, more big government to speed up the process. Sounds like fun. Only bigots, haters and
homophiles homophobes could object.
Perverts? Nah, that category is just a figment of your imagination.
Thursday, April 10, 2014