Archive for category Vent

An Oxymoron

The advocates of gay marriage are bent on repealing the Law of Gravity. Obviously, they’re not stupid.  They realize that’s impossible, so this must be about something else.

I hate writing about this topic because it’s ridiculous, and because what these publicity hounds want is attention, but in the interest of defending Reality from Fantasy I’m compelled.  Obviously there is no such thing as a gay marriage any more than there can be a Catholic Muslim — it’s definitionally precluded, if words are to have any meaning.  Men don’t ‘marry’ men just like men don’t ‘marry’ animals.  They might have an immoral relationship with one, but that’s just inappropriate sexual behavior.  It’s also inappropriate for a married man to have an immoral relationship with another man’s wife, and so one might think that the advocates of gay marriage would champion that arrangement as well, declaring that adulterers should have permission to be married.  But they don’t, as far as I know.  Nor do they make any public statements in favor of including an animal in a relationship, at least not sexually.  The cynic in me says he know why.  Those positions are instant political losers which would poll under 0.1% in favor and permanently tar any advocate as a first-rank crank.

But if gay marriage, why not bestiality?  Why not adultery?  Why not polygamy?

The answer emerges fairly quickly when you get to know such folks.  It’s not that they want society to get off their backs about their particular choice of immoralities.  It not that Civil Union just won’t do, ’cause it’s not about filing joint tax returns and inheritances and medical proxies.

Such people swim in a different ocean than most of us.  They are descended culturally from a long lineage of Those Who Cast Off Restraint.  It’s not hard to find freethinkers all the way back through history who decided that morality shouldn’t exist.  I don’t mean who suppose we should have a right to be immoral, but that the very concept is misguided.  I mentioned earlier about words having meaning — it is another facet of this kind of person to very much want words not to have intrinsic meaning when it’s inconvenient to their preferences.

That’s basically what’s at the core of ‘gay marriage’.  Marriage is a word with an inconvenient meaning, pointing as it does to the self-evident fittingness of heterosexuality, with the concomitant intrinsic rebuke to their particular choice of immoralities, so the fastest route to neutralizing the threat is to redefine the rebuke out of existence.

It’s one of the larger signs of the cultural degeneracy of the past 50 years in America.  That such an argument is even entertained by educated minds is conclusive evidence of the presence in our culture of underlying premises unconnected to real life which are inculcated in the academy so consistently that they remain unchallenged even to the extent that jurists and politicians act against the Law of Gravity.

I got news for them.  That rocket’s got no fuel.  No clothes on that Emperor.  Everyone can stand around the launching pad for the next 100 years saying, “Whoosh!  Whoosh!,” and flinging their arms up but it’s not going to fly, because men don’t have a, well, and at that point one of the most notorious reasons for this whole debate having gotten this far emerges.  Polite people avoid using lewd language, so the vulgar descriptors which would expose this insanity at its root just don’t appear in print.

So it’s not about molesting Fido or inviting a neighbor or two into a permanent soiree.  It’s about whether “meaning” has any meaning, or whether it doesn’t.  For these people, it doesn’t.  They make it up as they go along.  If you doubt me, consider these guys, or these.

I have a personal theory as to why this is increasingly the case in the modern era.  All people everywhere in all earlier eras, as do those in the Third World today, had a kind of ongoing reality check in their lives because of having to work or starve, and frightening levels of infant and small child mortality, which kept people sorrowful and hence humble.  We are spared much of that in the West because of productivity and prosperity thousands of times higher than any other human culture has experienced in the history of the world.  It gives those who are inclined to mischief a huge opportunity to follow their depravities and blasphemies far longer, without the abrupt correction that occurs when the belly or the cradle is empty.

Name Someone of Homosexual Descent, Please

Here’s a curious piece from the archives (2006-07-15) which as cogently as I’ve ever done lays out the case for the absurdity of the underlying premise put forth by those who prefer perverse sex (and their fellow-traveler pseudoscientists) that perversity is genetic.  Like many diabolic attempts at reality-inversion, this one has just enough of a tenuous connection to the truth to cause the unwary to pause and consider the possibility of it being true, thus in some measure winning the battle in the Era of SoundBites.  The tenuous connection, of course, is that total depravity is indeed inherited — just not the way they think.

My comments on an article by Chuck Edwards on homosexuality posted at WorldviewWeekend.com

Well done article, Chuck.

A minor typo: “…no matter how much it may be distained, degraded…” – the word is, of course, disdained.

I particularly liked two or three points you made that don’t ordinarily get into the debate.

You did a superb job of dismissing tolerance as a justification for destroying society – both sides find the other’s position intolerable, so without the moral high ground, that’s a stalemate. The matter to be determined, then, is “Who has the high ground?”

Toward that end, I’ve always appealed, as you do here, to the argument from reality. Boys and girls pair off nicely, and no other combination works. It’s so obvious it’s almost silly.

As you point out, rights inhere in people, and one specific rebuttal to the pro-sin position that should frequently be made is it’s not a civil rights issue. You refer to this tangentially, and very effectively, with the reductio ad absurdum illustrated by incest, and your characterizing it as preference makes clear that when, for example, the comparison is attempted to the civil rights movement, it should be immediately countered that unlike being of, say, African descent, no one is of homosexual descent. Think about that – especially when the argument turns to some presumed hereditary basis for the preference.

Finally, in footnote [1] you conclude that hermaphrodicity is not fatal to your argument, which is true. But rather than simply state that, it may be helpful to point out that such abnormalities actually bolster your case in that it is apparant that they are a mistake – odd, dysfunctional, clearly wrong and in need of correction, not, as the queers might have it, a vindication of their premise that their choice is also reflected in nature.

For Once

For once I find myself in agreement with Barack Obama.  There is no need to release the bin Laden corpse photos.  I don’t know whether I would agree with the arguments that compelled him to this decision, but it was the right one.

The issue is simple.  As Fouad Adjami put in on Bill Bennett’s Morning in America today, for those who believe, no further proof is necessary.  For those who don’t, no further proof is sufficient.

So it comes down to the conspiracy theorists for whom no evidence is compelling, and there is therefore no point in providing it, and those who allow that at some level the federal apparatus isn’t completely dysfunctional and can provide us with reliable information attested to by numerous groups and dozens of unrelated individuals within it.

And in the Era of Photoshop, there’s honestly no point in “photographic” evidence any more.  The moon landing never took place.  The Twin Towers are still there.  Alien craft visit regularly.  It’s all a giant conspiracy, you see.

Which is very unfortunate and disheartening, because there is, in fact, a spirit which is actually engaged in a conspiracy against Christ’s Body, and to the extent that the wacko noise infects and poisons the public discourse the real attacks against our culture, society, families, churches and leaders are masked.

I’m Loosing It

Someone, somewhere, probably in the Third, at some point taught/published/used and confused the terms “lose” (for those of you taken captive by this madness, pronounced [looz]) and “loose” ([loos]).  It is emerging as the most common English orthography mistake of all time, eclipsing even the notoriously misunderstood “affect” and “effect”.

For those who aren’t sure, ‘lose’ means to have something go missing, be lost, or metaphorically, to be deprived of, as in ‘lose control’.  I lose my keys when I misplace them.

 ‘Loose’ means to untie, to let go free, metaphorically to be unrestrained as in ‘loose morals’.  A bolt that isn’t properly tightened is loose.

My answer to an article on War In Context

 

On 2010-08-22, I responded to an article at warincontext.org titled The new anti-Semitism to which I posted this comment:

Hmm.  So I take it you don’t consider the ground on which nearly 3,000 innocent people were crushed to irretreivable fragments by 10 Islamic jihadists hallowed.
Hmm.
What ground, one wonders, would you consider “hallowed,” if any?

And how surprising that the “tropes do not always line up.”  In fact, they never line up, as the writer concedes.  The whole thing is a straw man, because if we can’t defend Islam on factual grounds, we’ll just make something up.

But the most hilarious of all the bloviations masquerading as analysis is the delightful term “Islamophbic.[sic]”
I am fearful of Islam in the same way I’m fearful of kids popping bubblewrap.  Considering though the, uh, shall we say, less than encouraging record of Peaceful Behavior by Muslims as indicated for example in Barb’s post above, wouldn’t one suppose it prudent to have a certain attentiveness to the predisposition to violent behavior from avowedly religious motivation arising in that quarter?
Or should we just be as dumb as a brick regarding Islam, like George W. Bush, and happily proclaim it hijacked by a “tiny minority of extremists” and go celebrate diversity?  A tiny minority numbering at least 100,000,000 people worldwide, according to reliable polling.
The only islamophobia I’ve ever felt was when I was leaving the mosque after the Ramadan dinner (I was present by invitation), whereupon I realized that my host had fulfilled his Quranic responsibility to present the faith and invite me to join, and my rejection meant that I was now fair game for violent jihad.  Silly, I know, but then, ya know, there’s that pesky invite by Osama in 1998 that in his mind the US rejected and made us, oh well, guess we’ll have to teach the kuffar a thing or two about The Prophet, fair game for 9/11.
You know, that mundane, unremarkable place where all those broken-to-bits bodies are.

Barb’s post referred to in this piece is actually a repost of an article here.