I am not suggesting that that will not eventually be the end here. Please understand, I am not advocating that. I feel the historic pattern would eventually trigger another aberration--the pendulum effect--and who knows what. Again, I do not want to see Homosexual activists put in stoning pits, burned at the stake, or meet any of the other historic ends that totally insane attacks on human reason have previously provoked.
But that this is, indeed, a form of madness--and I leave it to theologians as to the possibility of demonic possession, towards which I am a skeptic (although less and less so, in the face of what is all around us)--I have not the slightest doubt. It is not rational--it is seriously irrational and very disturbed--to actually believe that you can alter reality by simply changing the meaning of words. And yet that is precisely what is being attempted.
It isn't really a legal argument what marriage does not mean in this context. It is true, of course, that different peoples have differently defined what marriage does mean; but there has never been any doubt what it does not mean. Different cultures are willing to sanctify different forms of human mating; but human mating is still a concept that parallels that of other forms of sexual life (as opposed to asexual life, where there is no division of the species into two sexes). Marriage is the form we take to treat human procreational activity as something special; something we hope will be Blessed by God; something most religions believe was originally ordained by God.
It has always been the rule, at least in Western Societies, that if the marriage cannot actually be consummated--that is consummated by a sexual act, which is an act between a participant from each of the two parts of the species, for procreational functions--it is subject to annulment as something that never really was. I know that in kindness, in respect for privacy and sensitivity, we do not require proof of consummation; we permit those to marry, even where there might be doubts as to the ability to consummate because of age or infirmity. But those doubts do not equate to mocking the very concept of procreational mating, by allowing people to marry inanimate objects, or other species, where procreation is impossible; nor members of their own sex.
These distinctions are so fundamental to the concept of marriage that no one thought it necessary to address them before. But the present challenge, is nowise more rational than it would be to suggest that a 30 year old horse be eligible to stand for the United States Senate--a' la, the mad Emperor Caligula. Indeed, the horse candidate for the Senate idea, is actually more rational than the idea of Homosexual marriage. It is bizarre and stupid; while the idea of homosexual marriage, is not only bizarre and stupid, but a 180 degree denial of the very nature of the institution.
I have lately been making a little joke, that if men can marry men, and women marry women, the "happy" couples can reproduce by picking up rocks and registering them as births. Those children would be no more delusional than the "marital" state of the "parents."
I could go on with this. I have only touched the surface of how depraved this concept is. But I am arguing to the choir.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
No, I don't either, but I don't think there's any question that, mutatis mutandis, that they wouldn't do that to us. Their vindictiveness is extreme, and it is on the record. They may have justified to themselves and others the werewolfing that they gave Laura Schlessinger, Paul Cameron, and (I suspect, behind-the-scenes) Judith Reisman, upon some peg of situational necessity or just deserts (just in their own twisted lights), but sooner or later they will try to make their "Homoerotic Order" screed stick -- I suspect that when they go after the kids for real, is when it'll hit the fan, and they'll have to put the Baptists and Catholics away for good, or lose their culture war.
But that this is, indeed, a form of madness--and I leave it to theologians as to the possibility of demonic possession, towards which I am a skeptic (although less and less so, in the face of what is all around us)--I have not the slightest doubt.
John Paul II issued a rather interesting encyclical, whose arguments I read in digest, that modernism, and in particular its dry, sardonic, detached intellectual form, is an emanation of hell itself. He even mentioned a coupld of its epicenters, one of which IIRC was Lyon, France. He seemed to be describing the modern continental worldview.
It is not rational--it is seriously irrational and very disturbed--to actually believe that you can alter reality by simply changing the meaning of words. And yet that is precisely what is being attempted.
Kirk and Madsen, in their magazine articles that eventually became After the Ball, stated forthrightly that they proposed to follow the propagandistic methodology of Josef Goebbels. Considering that the Nazi SA's and Hitler himself were homosexual, it is worthwhile to reflect on what that augurs, about the type of treatment people who don't "go along to get along" are going to receive from these people, and what their idea of settling scores and governing outcomes looks like.