Say “No” to Same-Sex Pseudo-Marriage

The officially-mandated legitimization of same-sex pseudo marriage is absurd, contemptible and even evil. So naturally our ruling elite are enthusiastic about it, and the regular people are increasingly falling into line.

It therefore seems likely that homosexual pseudo-marriage will soon be enshrined into law throughout the United States. Our nation—at least most of our leadership class—is eager to defy God, nature and human tradition.

As traditionalists, we of the Orthosphere know that the legitimization of homosexuality—currently the most popular of the destructive leftist fads—is a great wrong. Let us therefore summarize the reasons why it is wrong so that those capable of acknowledging reality can at least have the satisfaction of a clear statement on this important topic.

We will not, of course, convince our opponents. And so we will not try, that is, we will not attempt to dot every “i” and cross every “t.”When someone is wrong about something as obvious as the superiority of heterosexuality to homosexuality he is not wrong because of inadequate reasoning. He is wrong either because he dares not defy the spirit of the age, or because his spirit rebels against God.

So we will simply make a series of true assertions, and not attempt to rebut every pseudo-objection raised by the other side.

.

The campaign to establish same-sex pseudo marriage (SSPM for short) is just the latest offensive on the legitimize-homosexuality front. (And this front is just one theater of the larger war against Western Civilization, but let us not get too general.) Therefore many arguments against SSPM are more general, opposing the legitimization of homosexuality.

[We do not use the word “gay” unless we are reporting the other side’s terminology.  Sinning is not gay, that is, lighthearted.]

.

What exactly is the so-called same-sex marriage for which they push?  It is the full and official legitimization of homosexuality. Observe that it is not currently illegal for two homosexuals to conduct what they call a marriage ceremony, or to live together and call themselves married, or to engage in homosexual acts, or to adopt and raise children. [In a properly-ordered society these things would all be either illegal or at least the objects of popular scorn and contempt. But ours is not a properly-ordered society.] Since all of these things are legal, the push for same-sex marriage is actually a push for the official legitimization of homosexuality.

And if homosexuality is to be legitimized, and especially in today’s politically-correct, liberal-dominated world, disagreement with the legitimization will become an even more serious offense. Since homosexuals already have the freedom to marry, even to “marry” someone of the same sex, and since the law gives homosexuals the same rights as everyone else (freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, trial by a jury of their peers, etc.), SSPM is not at all about equality or freedom. It is about forcing everyone, at metaphorical gunpoint, to act as if homosexuality is good.

.

So same-sex pseudo-marriage is all about legitimization. That is, it’s all about the morality of homosexuality.

But the morality of homosexuality depends on the purpose of sex. If the purpose of sex is whatever we say it is, then there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, except perhaps for the correlation between homosexuality and poor health or longevity. We may find poor health or longevity undesirable, but they are not immoral, if the purpose of sex is whatever we say it is.

Of course, if the purpose (we could say “meaning”) of sex is whatever we say, then back in the days when mankind said that sex was for a man and a woman only and homosexuality was a shameful practice best pushed to the margins of society, then sex was for man and woman only. If the meaning of sex is whatever we say, then in days of old it really was true that sex was for man and woman only. In that case, the homosexual activists had (and have) no valid complaint.

This is why apologists for homosexuality constantly try to reinterpret the past, trying to make homosexuality into something valid from the beginning.  But the historical record shows that homosexuality was universally regarded as shameful by the legitimate leaders of society. The few ancients who disagreed were outsiders, odd ducks. They did not speak for mankind. For the legitimate leaders of society, as for the common man in the street, man was obviously designed for close relations with woman, because this is how the race continues its existence, because man and woman are different in mutually complementary and enriching ways, because those who are raised in a happy and safe environment overwhelmingly prefer the opposite sex, and because tradition is to be respected unless there is strong evidence to the contrary.

.

And if sex means whatever we say it does, then it doesn’t mean anything. For man constantly changes his mind, constantly makes mistakes, and constantly sins. So if we are the supreme determiners of the meaning of sex, then the meaning of sex does not exist. Something that could be anything is not actually anything at all.

And if sex doesn’t mean anything, then neither does anything else. Why should sex be any different?  If sex means whatever we want it to mean, then reality is meaningless. And if reality is meaningless, then you are meaningless. Welcome to the postmodern world, pilgrim.

But man knows intuitively that reality is not meaningless. Even those who argue for same-sex pseudo-marriage know intuitively that reality is not meaningless; they just use the argument from meaninglessness as a sometimes-expedient tactic for bamboozling their opponents. But we are on to their game.

[This is why we oppose SSPM, and the rest of the leftist agenda. Not because we’re “haters,” but because we oppose the soul-destroying nihilism of the left’s way.]

So sex does not have a meaning that is just a matter of opinion. All people can sense by intuition the wrongness of homosexuality—even if some deny the intuition—but to turn this sense into knowledge we must look to biology, tradition and God

.

It is clear from the functioning of the organs that man and woman were made (even if you believe they were made by evolution) for one another. Man was not made for man, nor woman for woman. Of course, some are attracted to homosexual activity. But this is because of the concept of perversion, in which a person comes to see something bad as being good. And the existence of perversion does not prove that the bad really is good. It only shows that man can go wrong.

.

Some say “We had no choice but to be this way.” Even if they really were fated to come out that way, this would be no reason to legitimize homosexuality. Many other wrongdoers feel as if they had no choice, but we do not validate their wrongdoing if it is really wrong.

Some say “You are just like those who forbade miscegenation.” Not so. Some things are intrinsically wrong, while others have only practical difficulties. Homosexual desire is a fundamental disorder; the desire for an inter-racial mate is unusual, but not a disorder. After all, the opposite sex is still the opposite sex.

Some ask “What difference does it make to you or to society what I do in my bedroom?” We have already given the basic answer, but let us elaborate. Same-sex pseudo-marriage is about legitimization. It means forcing everyone to act as if homosexuality is good. All people know intuitively that there’s something wrong with homosexuality so the state-sponsored lie will have to be maintained by force. Aside from being a huge lie about one of the most important aspects of human life, the homosexualist position is to criminalize disagreement and to require constant, state-sponsored homosexual propaganda to ensure that the people comply. Furthermore, marriage (real marriage, that is) is the foundation of any society, for that is where men and women are formed, under the care of both a man and a woman. And when the authorities try to force us to act as if pseudo-marriage is just as good as the real thing, it only devalues the real thing. And if we must legitimize SSPM, then there is no reason not to legitimize other sexual perversions, as long as there is a group pushing for them. [What’s wrong with having a threesome or marrying an animal, you (rhetorically speaking) bigot?]

That’s just a sampling of what difference it makes to me and my society.

Some say, “You won’t let us do what makes us happy. You’re a bigot!”  To which we say, “If we are bigots, then so are you. So what’s your point?”  You oppose our position that homosexuality is sin, and we oppose your position that it is not. You don’t win by default just by crying “wolf!” If you want to do what makes you happy, in the company of others like you, in private, we have no major objections. But do not ask (or force) us to honor your proclivity, and do not outlaw morality. Homosexual acts are sin, and we oppose a system that says otherwise.

Some say “We should be free to do what we want.” We reply “Not if what you want is bad.” And on this rule you agree with us: If you are a typical liberal you want to restrict all sorts of freedoms: the freedom to own military-style rifles, the freedom to discriminate in choosing whom to hire, the freedom of parents to spank their children, etc. You don’t win the argument by default by invoking “freedom.”

Some say “The sexual outlaws will be brought back into civilized society by same-sex marriage.”  No they won’t. An outlaw is one who wants to be an outlaw. His desire will not be changed by having his proclivity declared to be good.

Some say “We must settle this question by looking at the research data, not by using your unfounded traditionalist assertions.”  To which we reply “You are either dishonest or deluded when you say this.”  If, as the other side says, the legitimization of homosexuality is a moral issue (and it is), then by definition it is not settled by empirical research data. Science only deals with what is, not what should be. Even the so-called scientific studies of the happiness and well-being of homosexuals or children adopted by homosexuals can only presuppose a definition of happiness. They cannot prove that their subjects are happy in the true sense of the word, for true happiness is primarily a moral state: the state of being able to do what is right and consequently to enjoy one’s life.

Some say “You heterosexuals have already wrecked marriage. Therefore you have no standing to criticize same-sex marriage.”  To which we reply that two wrongs still do not make a right. Besides, the heterosexual devaluation of marriage is the devaluation of something good, whereas same-sex pseudo marriage is not good. The important question is not whether heterosexuals marry well these days. It is whether the government should enforce respect for same-sex pseudo-marriage.

Speaking of the government, some say “The government should keep out of the marriage business, whether to support or to oppose same-sex marriage.” To which we reply that government’s God-given duty is to protect the people and to enforce justice. By banning same-sex pseudo-marriage the government would be doing its proper duty of opposing the wrongdoers who want to force us to honor their perversion of marriage. It would also be protecting the people, both adults and children, who would be harmed deeply by participating in same-sex pseudo-marriage.

.

And let us also point out that since God exists, He has the authority to determine the morality of homosexuality. The sinfulness of homosexuality is not an arbitrary rule. It follows from the proper function and relation of the sexes, and God, our Creator, has the right to determine our proper functioning. Since the present writing is just a summary of the arguments there is no need to quote and interpret all of the many verses of both the Old and New Testaments that clearly identify homosexual activity as sin. We will content ourselves by referring the reader to Romans 1:26—27, Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, and I Corinthians 6:9—10.

But let us also point out the good news. Start at I Corinthians 6:9 and read on. What do we see?

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.  Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

The sin of homosexuality, like all sin, can be forgiven, through repentance and faith in Jesus Christ. And the sinful habit of homosexuality, like all sinful habits, can be overcome through the sanctification that all Christians undergo. The proper response to homosexuality, or any other sin, is not falsely to declare that it is good. No, the cure for all sin is repentance toward God and faith in Jesus Christ.

82 thoughts on “Say “No” to Same-Sex Pseudo-Marriage

  1. We will not, of course, convince our opponents

    Well, you got that right.

    The few ancients who disagreed were outsiders, odd ducks. They did not speak for mankind. …man was obviously designed for close relations with woman, because this is how the race continues its existence…

    This is an interesting argument to me. I think everyone would agree with its premise, that man was “designed” for close relations with woman (whether that designer is god or natural selection). But who cares? Things are repurposed all the time, by humans and by evolution. Repurposing and “odd ducks” are aspects of the universe’s creative fringe.

    There is obviously a deep metaphysical disagreement between you and me, since you seem to think that purpose is something god-given, static, and unchanging; while I think it is something emergent and fluid. Unfortunately for you, my view is more consonant with both science and the liberal basis of the US Constitution.

    • This is an interesting argument to me. I think everyone would agree with its premise, that man was “designed” for close relations with woman (whether that designer is god or natural selection). But who cares? Things are repurposed all the time, by humans and by evolution. Repurposing and “odd ducks” are aspects of the universe’s creative fringe.

      If it’s an interesting argument, then engage with it. All you are saying here is that you reject natural law as a basis for morality. So what? In what way is your rejection relevant to the truth of natural law?

      • onecertain, like many pseudo-intellectuals today, is only comfortable with sophistical arguments. He is incapable of grounding his statements in anything but whim. He cannot understand the discipline of thought that is required to be be taken seriously. If he is challenged on his irrationality, he responds with the petulance and bravado, not reason.

      • @Bill — yes, maybe you can reduce the disagreement to a question of accepting or rejecting natural law. I doubt there is much point to arguing over such a fundamental disagreement, but feel free to start.

        @nilakantha108 — many of the arguments against SSM proffered here are based in scripture. This may be your idea of disciplined grounding of thought, but it isn’t mine. If you have a non ad hominem argument to make, please make it, otherwise…

      • @onecertain: I’ve made no ad hominems in this thread. I’ve only pointed out your inability to participate in rational discussion. Being nothing but petulance and bravado, your response pretty well makes my point. I chalk it up to invincible ignorance. Before the onset of apoplectic petulance, let me remind you that in logic, invincible ignorance “…is not so much a fallacious tactic in argument as it is a refusal to argue in the proper sense of the word, the method instead being to make assertions with no consideration of objections.” (Thanks Wikipedia)

    • There is obviously a deep metaphysical disagreement between you and me, since you seem to think that purpose is something god-given, static, and unchanging; while I think it is something emergent and fluid.

      If the purpose is fluid, by what means do we know its current state? If it is only known by opinion, then we are left with nihilism.

      …my view is more consonant with both science and the liberal basis of the US Constitution.

      As I said, science cannot answer this question, because it does not deal with morality. And the Constitution is not really liberal, it is just interpreted that way by today’s liberals.

      • If the purpose is fluid, by what means do we know its current state? If it is only known by opinion, then we are left with nihilism.

        I’ve heard this sort of thing a lot, but it bespeaks a really awful lack of imagination. I’m perfectly happy with both purpose and cognition being fluid, emergent, and uncertain, because that seems to be the way things actually are. That is not nihilism.

      • If purpose is “fluid,” then it does not exist. A “fluid” purpose is one that mankind makes up as he goes along, in which case it will change tomorrow, in which case there is no reason (other than avoiding the thought police) to take it seriously, in which case it is not real. And that really is nihilism.

      • If they are uncertain then we can not know them by definition. Why must your morality then become mandatory? Because your side is more powerful. Once we accept your terms we end up with a situation where we are all compelled to allow the powerful to define the meaning of our lives which inevitably serves the powerful. In our own case the powerful have been gradually destroying or taking over all forms of authority and loyalty they do not control; nationality and the nation-state, religion, the family, the local community based on shared history/culture, labor unions they didn’t control, universities and schools that didn’t depend on them for funding, science they do not fund,
        “political machines”, the old party system, “yellow journalism” and ethnic newspapers, financial systems not based on the absolute ability of the powerful to allocate capital by creating fiat debt money, the study of history and economics, etc. Its more or less mandatory for social respectability to think this is just terrific. This is pretty much the definition of totalitarianism.

  2. And if sex doesn’t mean anything, then neither does anything else.

    Strictly speaking the one does not necessarily have to lead to another. One could take the positions that other parts of reality have meaning, but just not this one.

    However, if something so important and obvious doesn’t have meaning then it does become hard to defend meaning in other areas.

    But the historical record shows that homosexuality was universally regarded as shameful by the legitimate leaders of society.

    Not sure this is actually true in general. Some Greek city-states encouraged adult homosexuality in their military. And pederasty was practiced elsewhere as an accepted part of ones initiation into adulthood among the upper classes. These practices certainly weren’t without controversy in their day though, and appear to have been often disapproved of by the population at large.

    All people can sense by intuition the wrongness of homosexuality

    This is a psychological claim and I’m not sure it’s actually true. Modernity has disordered our intuitions as much as, or probably more than, our reasoning.

    those who are raised in a happy and safe environment overwhelmingly prefer the opposite sex

    If you are implying that homosexuality is, even partly, caused by bad parenting/bad home environment, you’re wrong.

    I have often heard social conservatives and trads repeating these kinds of Freudian derived explanations. But there is nothing necessarily traditional in such explanations. Another sad example of conservatives adopting yesterday’s modernism.

    • Otherwise good article.

      When asked about our reasons for thinking homosexuality is wrong should be answered quickly with two considerations.

      1. Homosexual acts are ugly and therefore it is wicked to practice them or say they are beautiful or good.
      2. Things in the world, including our bodies and our sexes, have intrinsic meaning. It is wrong to act in ways that contravene those meanings.

      These won’t convince most people, but they are coherent and understandable. Then just leave it at that. You should not use utilitarian arguments at all and should be cautious about appeals to authority.

      There is a utilitarian case against homosexual activity, but it’s comparatively weak, especially since gay men have done a decent job of cleaning up their act since the excesses of the 70s and early 80s. Most gay men are not particularly promiscuous and many sex acts, such as oral sex and mutual masturbation have extremely low to non-existent disease transmission.

      Pure appeals to authority, whether the Bible or traditional church teaching, should carry some weight, but left on their own are still somewhat problematic. First of all, people, like the good lawyers they are, always seem to find ways around these kinds of arguments if they really want to, and, more substantively, without some outside support pure appeals to authority tend to come uncomfortably close to divine command theory.

      • You’re making an appeal to intuition, which is the correct basic approach. But we can also point to biology, tradition and Scripture to support the intuition.

      • Hey! I love divine command theory.

        Yes, here I was wondering where the problem was. Though over the years I have come to find Thursday’s question-begging rhetorical style somewhat endearing…

    • The key text is Plato’s Symposium, the famous dialogue about Love (Eros). The dialogue features three actively homosexual participants, Phaedrus, who gives the first speech “in praise of Love,” Pausanias, who gives the second, and Alcibiades, who while not one of the invited orators, gives a long, drunken monologue about his unsuccessful attempt to seduce Socrates. Both Phaedrus and Pausanias attempt, not only to validate homosexual and pederastic relations; they also denigrate heterosexual relations, calling them in so many pejorative words mere animal husbandry. In the structure of the Symposium, the earliest speeches are also, argumentatively speaking, the shoddiest. Pared down to the crude forensic minimum, neither Phaedrus nor Pausanias actually makes an argument; both simply assert that pederasty is better, nobler, and more aesthetically pleasing than male-female relations, which is what one would expect pederasts to assert. Pausanias even tries to claim that it is a privilege and an honor for the boy to submit to the older man. Two of the later speeches of the sequence, that of Aristophanes and that of Socrates, refute the claims of Phaedrus and Pausanias. As for Alcibiades, his philandering (in the rigorously proper sense of the term) belongs to his generally dissolute character, signified also by his inebriation. Socrates, who in distinction to the other attendees at Agathon’s dinner party is married with children, is the inarguable dialectical and ethical hero of the Symposium, as he is of the other Platonic dialogues in which he appears. Readers must therefore take his position (which he modestly attributes to his teacher, the formidable Diotima of Mantinea) as the position endorsed by Plato. Among other things, Socrates (or rather Diotima) especially vindicates the link between love, marriage, and procreation, calling procreation a form of “mortal immortality.”

      The assertion that there were other views than Plato’s — for example, that the Spartans encouraged “companion-soldiers” — falls under Plato’s own category of love-of-opinion for the sake of opinion, a type of epistemological relativism. For Plato, the position that counts is the best-argued one, that of Socrates.

      Interestingly, Plato is unconcerned about the “causes” of homosexuality (he lets Aristophanes plausibly say that sexual orientation is ontological); he is only interested in homosexuality as a sign of civic health — or rather of civic sickness. In the Symposium, Phaedrus, Pausanias, and Alcibiades represent the reigning elites of Athens just before the fateful project to found an Athenian empire and the subsequent descent into the disastrous war with Sparta. In Augustinian terms, Plato sees homosexuality as a type of libido dominandi, whose distortions will inevitably be reflected in foreign policy.

      When we move from Greece to Rome, the telling signs are that the laws forbade homosexuality and that the charge of homosexuality was one of the sharpest arrows in the rhetorical quill of the political propagandist. When Suetonius wants to make it clear that this or that emperor was a moral monster, he invariably mentions the same-sex liaisons. These facts point to a pervasive attitude. So, yes, there were homosexuals in ancient Rome, but the persistent attitude towards homosexuality, as attested by law and literary character-judgment, was indeed harshly negative.

    • If you are implying that homosexuality is, even partly, caused by bad parenting/bad home environment, you’re wrong.

      Since the causes of homosexuality are not known, you cannot make this assertion. But there is a correlation (not perfect) between family condition and homosexuality. Because it is, after all, a disorder, and environment can induce disorder in individuals.

      Modernity has disordered our intuitions as much as, or probably more than, our reasoning.

      But the faculty of intuition is still there, underneath the layers of lies. We must encourage people to get in touch with it.

      • But there is a correlation (not perfect) between family condition and homosexuality.

        I don’t actually think there is.

        Because it is, after all, a disorder, and environment can induce disorder in individuals.

        Exclusive homosexual desire is catastrophic for the reproductive fitness of the affected party. That requires more than disordered parenting. Especially when disordered parenting doesn’t seem to have much direct effect on children’s life outcomes, except in extreme cases. You’re grasping at straws.

        the faculty of intuition is still there

        How do you know this? You can’t get there through introspection.

      • You’re grasping at straws.

        I said that environment can induce disorder. That’s not a straw, it’s reality.

        How do you know this? You can’t get there through introspection.

        For one thing, the Apostle Paul, in Romans 1, asserts that man can know many basic truths without formally being instructed in them or otherwise arriving at them by a process of reasoning. Although he does not use the word “intuition” that’s our name for what he’s saying.

    • Homosexuality is in fact caused by bad parenting and bad home environments, especially if you count homosexual parents as “bad”. Before I link to the statistical data, would you disagree that having less acceptance of homosexuals would result in less people (example: teenagers) experimenting with homosexuality? Would you disagree that with fewer homosexual suggestions pervading society results in fewer people experimenting with homosexual behavior?

      Did the Greeks, or anyone else, promote *committed life-long monogamous* homosexual relationships as an intrinsic good worthy of official state sanction/subsidization? This is similar to the thinking that “many animals are homosexual,” which many are not– many animals exhibit *bi-sexual* behavior, amongst other inhuman sexual proclivities.

  3. Unfortunately for you, my view is more consonant with both science

    Lol.

    and the liberal basis of the US Constitution.

    If this is true, then so much the worse for the U.S. Constitution.

  4. “Unfortunately for you, my view is more consonant with both science ”

    Hahahaha! You’re making a fool of yourself, just go back to the DailyKos. Isn’t science the same reason why homosexuals can not have children? Basic biology 101 and yet you claim science is on your side.

    I’m just sitting here shaking my head.

  5. “Things are repurposed all the time, by humans and by evolution. Repurposing and “odd ducks” are aspects of the universe’s creative fringe.”

    Homosexuality, if we see it in evolutionary terms, is a dead-end. Homosexual behavior, in the context of nature and the cycles of mating and procreating, is an aberration, something wrong. Even in a non-religious sense it can not be defended. Unless you’re Onecertain of course, haha.

    • I wish homosexualists would just get on the same page as Onecertain. I’m used to hearing other arguments from them, and have never ever heard a homosexualist be so honest as to say that they are just being “evolutionarily creative.”

      • Earl, the reason why no other liberals make that silly argument is because most liberals [are trying to win the rhetorical battle. Onecertain has little hope of that here, so he might as well be honest].

        It’s plain and simple. Other liberals are too smart to say that homosexuality is evolutionary creativity because to anyone with even half the IQ of an orangutan knows that argument is easy to destroy because homosexuality is obviously a genetic dead end.

        [Svar: I’ve had to edit your comment to delete the personal insults to Onecertain. Beware the Comments Policy. Kristor]

  6. Too little too late. Marriage does not exist anymore. The failure of us traditionalists (and conservatives in general) to notice this and stand against this is the real problem. Gay pseudo-marriage is only a minor consequence. I know conservatives have draw the line at this minor issue but the horse has left the barn longtime ago.

    Marriage has always been the LIFELONG union of a man and a woman so they can invest in raising children that are good people, good Christians and good citizen. Marriage is voluntary but it is not voluntary to abandon marriage. It is a lifelong commitment. This says the Bible and this is the meaning of “till death do us part”.

    This does not exist anymore except in very closed communities: Amish, Ultra-orthodox Jews, etc. Even if you get married by the Christian Church, you can divorce every time you want without cause (“non-fault divorce”). This is not the marriage that God established. This is not “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder”. This is Legal Cohabitation (a temporary association you can dissolve at whim) and not what everybody has always understood as marriage.

    The failure of Christian people to denounce Legal Fornication and to clarify that this is not marriage is what sealed the coffin for marriage in our culture. On the contrary, churches have adopted Legal Fornication and promote it as if it was the real marriage the Bible speaks of. The churches are complicit in this destruction of marriage (not the main criminals – which are liberal people – but guilty to go along with them: accomplices).

    Now Legal Fornication wants to be extended to gay people and conservatives throw up their hands in horror telling that this is not real marriage that the Bible establishes and people have known for millennia.

    Cry me a river. This Biblical marriage does not exist anymore and churches are silent about that for decades. Spare me the indignation please.

    • “Marriage does not exist anymore.”

      One should not confuse the empirical situation with metaphysics. Marriage (the union of man and woman) would still be (that is, it would continue to exist as an item of the natural and supernatural orders) even if every last male and female on the planet renounced the opposite sex and embraced same-sex union under the usual sanctifying name. We here at The Orthosphere take our metaphysics seriously.

      The thing that has no metaphysical validity, that does not therefore exist, is “homosexual marriage,” notwithstanding its many volubly asserted instantiations.

      • I’m wondering why anybody would think that human sexual or marriage arrangements have anything to do with “metaphysical validity”. It makes about as much sense as firmly declaring that a car has 4 wheels and therefore the Dymaxion car “has no metaphysical validity”. You can call it a car, or not, but it’s purely a matter of how you choose to define the term.

      • Obviously, if we thought sexual complementarity is to marriage what having-four-wheels is to a car, our arguments would have no merit and we’d be idiots. Since we’re obviously not on average idiotic, that’s maybe a good sign that this isn’t our argument and you are, as usual, missing the point.

      • No, actually it makes alot of sense because marriage is an institution with both a meaning and a purpose, not a random, inanimate object like a car.

        [edited a/c compliance with our comments policy. Kristor]

      • …it’s purely a matter of how you choose to define the term.

        The issue is that we don’t get to define some terms. At no point in the history of man has marriage ever referred to same-sex couplings. To declare marriage to include such is to strip it of all its meaning.

        Then again, this might be the point of our enemies: to destroy all meaning. They have made great strides in this regard; after all, the once clear-cut categories of man and woman have now been blurred through misapplication of words like gender, sex, male, and female, as well as the imposition of new “gender neutral” norms, such as using they (etc.) instead of he (etc.), as in “everyone should do their [sic] best.” (Deconstructionist theory also had its role here.)

        In this midst of this confusion about man and woman, it is no wonder that the homosexualist tyrants are able to make such headway. Even so, all their posturing, and even their legal “successes,” do not change the fact that marriage is as we describe it here, not as our enemies would will it to be.

      • The great strength of nominalism is that you can’t pose a compelling argument to its adherents. How can you argue that any p is either true or false when the meanings of all terms, and indeed also the very rules of logic, are merely nominal? This gives nominalists a feeling of invincibility, which they misinterpret as access to Truth – or, rather, there being under the terms of their epistemology no such thing as Truth, to Enlightenment.

        I say this, not to suggest that I myself am superior to the nominalists in any essential way, for I used to be one of them myself. That I escaped from nominalism is virtuous accident.

      • @onecertain: When you are afflicted, perhaps incurably, with invincible ignorance, perhaps it might be best to sit back for a while and watch those who know what argument is have dialogue. Also, a serious course in classical logic might just be what you need to awaken you to your twofold ignorance. An old friend, a logic professor, uses the Socratic method quite effectively to treat intellectual vices such as yours. By the time I quit teaching, I was reduced to the use of liberal applications of holy water while intoning passages from the Organon. It didn’t work, but it was cathartic.

      • @nilakantha108 — If you are such an expert in classical logic, how about applying some rather than continuing the ad hominem?

        @Kristor — pulling out a label is not really a substitute for thinking. Marriage appears to be a product of human biology, which is not something baked into the fabric of the cosmos but a contingent product of evolution. It is subject to historical variation and modification, and we are in the process of doing just that. Call it “nominalist” if you want. The Pythagorean theorem might have an eternal, unchanging, platonic existence; marriage does not.

        Others — I see the point about evolutionary creativity went utterly past everyone. The point was not about any particular evolutionary fitness or otherwise of homosexuality, but that one of the main lessons of the evolution is that biological parts do not have fixed functions. Organs and behaviors that evolved for one purpose are later repurposed and modified for others. You can see this macroscopically (limbs now used for walking used to be for swimming) and microscopically (the genes of one metabolic pathways get copied and modified to do something new).

        If this means natural selection is nominalist…well, I’m OK with that.

      • @onecertain: First, learn what the ad hominem fallacy is, and you, insofar as you are rational, will see that I have not committed it.

        Evolutionary creativity, be real. Biological evolution is part of physicalist metaphysics that you may hold on faith, but once you accept it, a lot of really odd things seem to follow. Truth, beauty, goodness, even creativity go out the window. The eternal reality of which this temporal world is only the merest reflection is what allows there to be value: ethical, artistic, intellectual. The more perfectly our lives correspond to the eternal model, the closer we are to the Real. Sexual perversion, along with all other sin, separates us from the Real and plunges us into a life contaminated with unreality, infected with old age, suffering and death.

      • Oh, Onecertain, you do don’t even know what an ad hominem is. I don’r know whether to laugh or cry. I’m barely a kid and I know what it is but I don’t got out thinking that I’m soooo smart especially when surrounded by those that are intellectually superior.

      • Mr. Certain says that “evolutionary creativity” is a factor, not only in homosexuality, but in other situations as well.

        Where, exactly, does this creativity come from? Is it in adenine, cytosine, guanine, or thymine? Is it not there, but rather encoded by the bases? If so, which gene(s)?

        You can’t have teleology without a telos, and there is none in any Darwinian account. Darwinian evolution excludes teleology by definition.

        I suggest you read up on this. Lawrence Auster, God rest his soul, wrote about it extensively; there is a collection of links to his thoughts on the topic here. The first linked article, as well as this one (The Transparent Intellectual Fraud that is Darwinism) are good starting points.

      • Ad hominem means simply attacking the person rather than his (my) arguments. That’s clearly what nilakantha108 is doing. It’s not a “fallacy”, more of a childish tactic of avoidance.

      • Right, I should learn about evolutionary biology from an ignorant windbag rather than actual biologists. Auster simply doesn’t understand anything, and spins his ignorance out at great length. I don’t see any particular need to pay attention to him.

      • By this comment oncertain shows his ignorance.

        “Actual biologists” assume, but do not and cannot prove, that evolution, like everything else, is materialistic. Non-material causes are entirely outside their domain. And yet most of them seem to think that their scientific endeavor has validated atheistic evolution.

        Not only does one not need to be a biologist to understand this, but being a biologist is a positive hindrance to understanding this and related truths, because of the rigidly enforced bias in favor of materialism.

        Add to this the fact that strict materialism is self-contradictory, and therefore necessarily false. The official biology enterprise is wedded to a self-contradictory view of basic reality.

        As for his “ignorant windbag” comment, that’s strictly a case of the pot calling the tablecloth “black.”

      • On the one hand, Mr. Certain decries nilakantha108’s alleged ad hominem attacks. On the other, he calls the late Lawrence Auster “an ignorant windbag.”

        Please, Mr. Certain, either engage in ideas and discuss the issues like an adult, or go find some other corner of the Internet to deface.

      • @Kristor — pulling out a label is not really a substitute for thinking. Marriage appears to be a product of human biology, which is not something baked into the fabric of the cosmos but a contingent product of evolution. It is subject to historical variation and modification, and we are in the process of doing just that. Call it “nominalist” if you want. The Pythagorean theorem might have an eternal, unchanging, platonic existence; marriage does not.

        To say that “marriage” can mean anything we want it to is assuredly nominalist. This is not to avoid thinking, but just to be clear on the terms thereof, so that we can get on with it.
        Because it insists that there is no such thing as an inherent meaning in terms, nominalism is ex hypothesi absolutely prevented from achieving any clarity on such meanings. It therefore implicitly insists that its own arguments are meaningless, strictly speaking, and so devours itself.

        That a thing is a contingent product of natural processes does not entail that it has no definite meaning or form. On the contrary: if a thing is fully to exist in the first place, it cannot but possess a definite meaning and form, and thus a definite nature. From the factual instance of a nature in a thing follow an array of acts potential thereto, some proper to the expression of that nature, as perfecting it, and some, as defecting it, not.

        Acts improper to a nature may, indeed, result in the introduction to history of some other nature altogether, as when limbs adapted for use in walking are used instead for swimming (in seals, otters, whales, and so forth). But it must be recognized that such novel natures are in an important sense antithetical to the natures of the creatures that gave rise to them. There is nothing controversial in this. It amounts only to saying that one species is not at the same time also another: dolphins are not humans, seals are not dogs. Flippers are not proper to dogs, or legs to seals.

        Homosexuality is *obviously* improper to human nature, for it is lethal to the expression in reality thereof: if all humans were to practice homosexuality, the species would promptly disappear, and there would be no human nature anywhere in the world. Homosexuality is, then, not a perfection of human nature, but a defection. Advocating homosexuality is tantamount to advocating the eradication of humanity, in favor of something else.

    • As I said, two wrongs do not make a right. Same-sex pseudo-marriage is still to be opposed.

      Do not make the mistake of thinking that since the situation is so far gone, we are fools for raising our voices against the latest outrage. Even though we will probably not succeed in preventing the Masters of Society from implementing the full legalization of SSPM, we can still maintain our spirits and lay the groundwork for a future properly-ordered society by articulating our opposition.

      • @thomasbertonneau

        Homosexual marriage does not exist, granted. But Legal Fornication is not marriage, although everybody (including churches) call it marriage and churches promote it shamelessly. If you decide to give the name of “cats” to dogs, this does not change that they are dogs. This applies for both “homosexual marriage” (in reality, legal sodomy) and “today’s marriage” (legal fornication).

        If you are serious about metaphysics, you know that.

        @Alan Roebuck

        I never said that it was wrong to oppose gay pseudo-marriage. It’s a noble cause. I said that the silence of churches defending real marriage (as opposed to legal fornication) is astounding.

        It’s not too late for churches to defend real marriage (it’s never late to follow the Bible even if you don’t get results) but they won’t do it. This makes me doubt about their motives to condemn gay marriage. Sorry, the law of God is the law of God and sins are sins. You don’t cherrypick and accept some sins while attacking other sins. This is cafeteria Christianity.

    • @oncertain: Your attack on the person of the sorely missed Mr. Auster is a clear example of an ad hominem; now you know what one looks like. My critiques of your skills in argumentation simply boil down to, “you don’t know what you’re doing.” Stop embarrassing yourself. When I was an undergraduate, I took a voice class. The final involved a solo public performance of Danny Boy. I dearly wish someone had told me beforehand that I lacked the talent to perform in public. I’m simply trying to warn you off your present course of public irrationality and, perhaps, convince you to study philosophy.

      • Onecertain is pretty amusing. I don’t get why someone at his intellectual level is doing here. Either way, he can not defend both evolution and homosexuality but he’s doing that and with no sign of realizing the absurdity of that situation.

  7. You know what’s creepy? I am not a television user; but I caught a glimpse of repeats of a popular reality series from, I believe, 2010 or 2011 while in a waiting room. Only three short years ago, the show all but openly condemned homosexual unions through humor and innuendo…it was still used as a joke to convey that only a nut would support such a thing.

    Mind you, the show made sure there were platitudes in their about “loving gays” and having “no problem with gay people.”…I assume that a reality show that popular does not take risks or try to be “edgy” in what gets edited in the show. It seemed to be programed to play big in more American conservative/midwestern circles…and to go from openly mocking the idea of same sex unions on a broad, popular, television series to the present censures and understanding that opposition will be verboten (unless you particularly enjoy being ostracized,) in two or three years is very astonishing.

    I suppose I am not your audience or political ally in many regards; I have A LOT of problems with the Political Right in all its forms. I have not the revulsion of homosexuals that some on the political right express and I have always believed that the PAC system France set up in the late 90s’ was most just and most prudent way to handle this going forward. But even I am shocked at how impudent those who proceed dismiss God’s law. The arrogance of these who cry justice for every sensual proclivity disturbs me greatly.

    Can anyone think of any change that has been so whole-heartedly agreed upon (seemingly) in such a short period of time? The left has cheapened their own civil rights movements by equivocating every struggle; but how does it compare? In one example (black civil rights) we have a 100 year battle (and you could argue it was 200 years, and started at the time of America’s founding fathers) by the time of the late 20th century. Over generations, men and women struggled to achieve their political goal. Men went to jail for their beliefs; some were beaten, some were killed, some killed…many suffered greatly for them.

    Outside of the Stonewalls riots, what great sacrifices have homosexuals made? How many of them went to jail and truly fought for their political goals? Were those with same sex attractions really underrepresented in powerful positions? We can see from history that this has not been the case, and in the case of certain royals, they did little to hide in a closet…Was the American Republic especially oppressive? How did James Buchanan manage to get elected then?

    I have a hard time equating one movement with the other when the majority of their movement has not suffered like the other; when it seems like most of their struggle has been manufactured (like the Matthew Shephard hysteria which turned out to have nothing to do with his homosexuality) or an overreaction to name calling. Even their rallies and parades have been rather tame politically (even if gauche, desensitizing and in bad taste) compared to other political struggles throughout history…

    I apologize for this long post but I had to get this off my chest: why do I feel like a small group of people are pulling the wool over me and that “acceptance” or whatever you want to call it does not happen within a generation (or half a generation) and without vociferous struggle. What am I missing? The whole thing is creepy.

    • You’re right. The whole thing is very creepy, that is, perverted. Since most of America is either gung-ho for the perversion or at least can’t be bothered to oppose it, the best we can do for the time being is to articulate our resistance to the legitimization of homosexuality and make up our minds not to go along with the herd. Eventually, order will be restored, even if we don’t live to see it.

  8. Rev 17:1 And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters:
    Rev 17:2 With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication.
    Rev 17:3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.
    Rev 17:4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:
    Rev 17:5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
    Rev 17:6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.

    I think America has what’s coming to it in good time has there been any other country like this? Founded on legal entitlement to self will and petty subjectivity? One more obsessed with hustling a profit spreading perversion and the sickness of democracy and other garbage “Babylon” sums it up quite well this country really doesn’t represent anyone in its claim to represent all it represents none unless their anti-Christian of course.

  9. Mr. Roebuck stated;
    “What exactly is the so-called same-sex marriage for which they push? It is the full and official legitimization of homosexuality. Observe that it is not currently illegal for two homosexuals to conduct what they call a marriage ceremony, or to live together and call themselves married, or to engage in homosexual acts, or to adopt and raise children. [In a properly-ordered society these things would all be either illegal or at least the objects of popular scorn and contempt. But ours is not a properly-ordered society.] Since all of these things are legal, the push for same-sex marriage is actually a push for the official legitimization of homosexuality.”

    To which I can only exclaim: Yes! This is absolutely correct and it highlights the gross dishonesty of those who promote so-called “gay rights.” When spent quite some time pondering this debate several years ago I came to realize that all the “restrictions of freedom” the “gay rights” advocates continuously shrieked about did not exist. They can have as much homosexual relations as they wish with ZERO interferance from law enforcement. I then asked “What is marriage?” to which they replied “A union between two people who love each other” to which I could only say “cant you already do this?” I mean, we are not stopping them from having sexual relations and we havent been for quite some time now, and it is not like we can arrest people for making promises to one another.

    So I asked myself “What, then, are they demanding, if it is not the thing they are explicitly requesting. And I came to find that unrepentant homosexuals and their supporters are not concerned with the ability to “marry” or form some sort of union with vows, an action for which no US state would even attempt to prosecute, but rather they are demanding that everyone else publically approve and accept their private affairs.

    It is not “We want to get married!” it is “We want you to smile and say we’re married!”

  10. Oh, and as an aside, I really do think that the current public opinion of homosexuality cannot be easily severed from the current status of heterosexual relations. I don’t mean to say that we should not condemn homosexuality because heterosexual marriage is in such a state of decay, but rather that it seems (to me at least) that homosexual desires and actions spring from a much deeper source of decay than is commonly acknowledged, and that is the view of humanity and families as a whole.

    It is extremely difficult to tell someone to curb his/her sexual desires when you do not attempt to do the same. Likewise, if society was to eliminate the approval of sexual immorality in heterosexuals it would also, in one stroke, eliminate approval of homosexuality as well, as they wouldn’t have a leg to stand on.

    If you read the scriptures, it seems that homosexuality almost always comes after a decay in the morals of heterosexuals.

    So it seems to me that homosexuality is the end point of moral decay, and not the cause. Approval of homosexuality does not so much mean that heterosexual marriages will decay, but that it had already decayed to such a point as to permit homosexuality to emerge.

    To repeat, if you ban sex outside of marriage, you will also, I am not 100 percent certain but fairly confident, you will in effect ban homosexuality.

    • FHL,
      Your intuition that “homosexuality almost always comes after a decay in the morals of heterosexuals” fits in exactly with Romans chapter 1. In that chapter Paul says that there is a progression from 1)setting aside the Creator to 2) worshiping idols to 3) heterosexuals mis-behaving wildly to 4) rampant homosexuality. In the church I have attended for years there are several long-standing members who have been married, divorced, and re-married two, three, or even four times. My poor pastor has to dance all around the fact that these folks have blown it big time, and that according to the rigors of the early church they should not even be allowed to receive communion until, perhaps, they are granted the final sacrament on their death bed. But we all agree that homosexuality is dreadful, and it is, but as a congregation we have already forfeited our own moral authority because of what we have gladly put up with for years vis a vis heterosexual misbehavior.

    • Whoops! I made a big typo: instead of “I do mean to say that we should not condemn homosexuality” I should have said “I do NOT mean to say…”

  11. It is an interesting bit of synchronicity that this article appears today. This past Sunday, the Sunday of Divine Mercy, I attended a Mass at a local Jesuit college. After the priest carelessly disordered the liturgy, he then gave a homily about homosexuality and “caring for people on the margins.” He then announced that the Campus Ministries would be having a “sympathy Mass” for homosexual students later in April. Instead of saying we need to forgive them their sodomite sin, the priest made it clear that the real sin was intolerance because so many of the homosexual students are, in fact, “strong leaders being prevented from living out their full potential by being forced to conceal their sexual orientation.”

    The following day (yesterday), the idea came to me that if the Catholic Church can no longer condemn sodomy, it has nothing at all to say to the 97% of the rest of us who are heterosexuals on sexual sins. The Church, if indeed it eventually takes the position that this left-wing Father S.J. has on sodomy, can no longer speak with authority about marriage, fornication, the family, the proper raising of children, or any dimension of human life that may be corrupted and defiled by sexual sin. By normalizing homosexuality, modernity has effectively taken the idea of sexual sin out of human life altogether. This is the larger meaning of the homosexual movement and why it has become a larger concern than simply what “two adults do in the privacy of their bedroom.”

    “Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God.” (1 Corinthians 6; 9-10)

    Fornicators are distinguished from the sodomites here, though both are condemned. So, left-wing Father S.J. could hardly be fair to the fornicators, or the extortioners for that matter (the capitalists he probably really hates), if he tolerates homosexuals and denounces all the other sinners. It wouldn’t be fair to condemn a single man who has sex with women outside of marriage, if sodomy is tolerated.

    • By normalizing homosexuality, modernity has effectively taken the idea of sexual sin out of human life altogether.

      Bingo. The left has been trying to eradicate the idea of sexual sin (at least the correct definition of sexual sin), but their victory won’t be complete until everyone is forced to act as if homosexuality is good. Thus the need on the left for legitimizing SSPM.

  12. The left wins because when they lose an election or a court case, they plan their comeback. The right loses when they respond to a loss by convening a pity party to discuss the color of their funeral shrouds.

    The left wins when they believe their victory is inevitable. The right loses when they, too, believe the victory of the left is inevitable.

    How stands the battle on the un-defining of marriage? Thirty U.S. states have constitutional amendments defining marriage as a union of a man and a woman, including one amendment passed in 2012. Only nine liberal states hold a contrary legal view, most of them recently and by narrow margins. The GOP holds the House and is defending the DOMA. The liberals don’t have the sixty votes in the Senate necessary to overthrow the federal DOMA. The Supreme Court may rule one way or the other, but there is no reason to concede the case before the decision is even written, and a legal victory for the status quo would take the wind out of the sails of the left. The vast majority of the world lives in countries where marriage is seen both legally and culturally as between a man and a woman. Those who procreate have a long-term demographic advantage over those who do not. So why declare the battle is lost?

    • Just try harder and fight more viciously. That old Religious Right strategy has failed.

      People need to be more patient. Liberalism is failing, but failing slowly, and we shouldn’t expect either some great victory nor some immediate collapse. Liberals are just not having many kids, so the future is ours.

    • The left wins because when they lose an election or a court case, they plan their comeback. The right loses when they respond to a loss by convening a pity party to discuss the color of their funeral shrouds.

      The left wins when they believe their victory is inevitable. The right loses when they, too, believe the victory of the left is inevitable.

      The problem is deeper. The right is playing in a field whose rules favor the left. The right has been losing basic worldview battles throughout the XIX century and XX century and has internalized the leftist worldview. That is to say, the whole enchilada (liberty, equality, democracy, etc). According to this false worldview, the gay pseudo-marriage is only a natural consequence. The right has the intuition that this is not right, but it cannot prove it, because all his intellectual baggage belongs to the left. This is why the reasons given by the right against gay pseudo-marriage ring false and fail to convince.

      It’s like the right were a Islamic party, trying to prove that women don’t have to submit to men but accepting the Q’uran. This would go nowhere because other people can quote the Q’uran telling women must submit to men and all the rationalizations to say “the Q’uran says this, but it means the opposite of this” don’t hold water and are unable to convince a neutral observer.

      The basis of liberalism is “everyone is free unless he produces harm or displeasure to someone else in an overt manner” (an utilitarian perspective). This is accepted both by the right and the left as the basis of our society. If you accept this, you must accept two homosexuals having sex in a private room. You cannot forbid homosexuality.

      Another basis of liberalism is you can’t discriminate people for what they are. So gay pseudo-marriage ensues.

      This is why a monstrosity like gay pseudo-marriage is getting approved in many Western countries. It is a consequence of the basic worldview shared by the whole population, whether they belong to the left or to the right.

      If the right wants to win this debate, it is necessary that an alternative worldview must be defended. So instead of freedom, the right must emphasize duty (as almost every society that has existed in the world). Instead of equality, it must emphasize treating people differently according to what they are. Instead of democracy, it must emphasize authority. And so on and so forth. But the right lost these battles centuries ago and accepted the leftist worldview.

      What is the goal of the 2013’s right? Go back to 1950, which was the product of two centuries of liberalism. What was the goal of the 1950’s right? Go back to 1900 which was the product of more than a century of liberalism. The left keeps progressing and progressing towards a crazy utopia and the right follows the left’s steps. The right is only the rearguard of the left (except in some reactionary enclaves like this one). (The word “conservatives” was born during the XX century as the moderate wing of liberals so it has always been this way).

      • The problem is deeper. The right is playing in a field whose rules favor the left.

        Ding, ding, ding. It’s about framing. A better idea? Reject the frame, contain it, ignore it or challenge it.

        Ironically, this tactic/behavior (framing is a feminine tactic) is discussed in this manospherian blog —> http://ar10308.wordpress.com/2013/04/02/framed/

  13. “Just try harder and fight more viciously.”

    Harder yes. Viciously, no. It is the left that has fought in a vicious fashion, framing differences of opinion as bigotry and hatred.

    The new left no longer believes in the old liberalism, as in “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” The left is now the enemy of classical liberalism.

  14. An observation: The liberal participants in this thread consistently employ the same rhetorical evasion. They try to restrict the discussion of homosexuality to the topic of effects while simultaneously denying that homosexuality as an effect has any discernible cause. (“We don’t know what causes homosexuality.”) But what is the effect of this evasion? It is, precisely, to make homosexuality an un-discussable mystery, which being un-discussable is also outside any meaningful debate. The traditional participants in this thread, by refreshing contrast, are willing to discuss homosexuality as an effect and unlike the liberal participants they can point to plausible causes. But the traditionalists are more interested in homosexuality as a cause than they are in homosexuality as an effect. (A cause with significant effects, I mean, rather than an uncaused effect, concerning which nothing may be said.) This riles the liberals painfully because as soon as a thing comes under discussion as a cause rather than an effect, it falls liable to evaluation, in the full range from terms utilitarian to terms moral. Thus in order to make their (pseudo) argument, the liberals must ignore whole portions of reality.

    • As perhaps the only liberal participant, I have no idea what you are talking about. The causes of homosexuality haven’t come up, and they aren’t particularly relevant to the question of same-sex marriage.

  15. It looks like there isn’t much hope of productive dialog between me and you folks, which is a shame. So this may be my last comment in this thread, unless someone says something interesting.

    If you imagine that we are suitable stand-ins for the different political factions of society, this reflects that fact that both sides are convinced they are right and neither has arguments that convince the other. In that case, the actual policy has to be decided on the basis of strength (hopefully numerical strength rather than violence, as is the right way to do things in a democracy).

    Fortunately for me and unfortunately for you, my side seems to be gaining strength. Maybe you should keep working on that secession angle you were talking about awhile back.

    • It would seem unfortunate to me if my side’s gaining in strength meant that it would be more likely for me that I would persist in error. For me it is about truth, and the salvation of souls. Souls cannot be saved by human power, or by popularity. And so your argument to power is pathetically undesirable, at least to my ears.

      • @onecertain: I agree with you. One of your comments began this thread. The first few responses I found very pretty much finished you off and I am not sure that the rest your argument served your purposes productively at all.

        You have to realize that your idea of “fluidity” in the realm of human morality is, to say the least, asinine. If you are a liberal, as you declare, you should understand by now that “your side” is always making moral arguments that we are all supposed to agree are “common sense” in order to support its position. And many of these arguments have no reasonable foundation in empirical reality and many are not even based on any existing doctrine of constitutional or common law or sound philosophical doctrine..

        Your side merely asserts that its moral principles are non-fluid in order to get whatever it wants to get done. It relies on the media and academia then to seed the population with this non-fluid anti-logic and to attack its opponents. This is “productive” in the sense that one side wins and supposedly utopia is then ushered in. I’m pretty sure then that by “productive” you most likely mean that you somehow managed to de-moralize this little corner of dissent from this emergent utopia and the liberal elite who run the western world now.

        I agree you failed miserably in your task and have been unproductive.

    • Years ago I was a fan of the Los Angeles Dodgers. At the time, Darryl Strawberry was the most dangerous home run hitter they had. When he was at bat during an away game, the other teams’ fans would start an eerie sounding chant that went, “Daaaaaaaaaaarryl, Daaaaaaaaaarryl, Daaaaaaaaaarryl,” etc. If I had been under that sort of pressure I would have crumbled like a wet paper bag. But not Darryl Strawberry; on the contrary, he would actually rise to their taunts and become an even more dangerous hitter.

      So the fans adapted to him. Instead of their “Daaaaaaaaaaaaarryl” chant, they began to afflict him with absolute, stone silence. Imagine the sound (or lack thereof) of 50,000 people suddenly going absolutely silent when you came to bat. Well, it worked and Darryl Strawberry was terribly rattled by the void.

      How about we try responding to onecertain in exactly the same way. When he posts, he shall be met………with silence.

      But it only works if everyone cooperates.

      (Before anybody corrects me, I already know that Darryl Strawberry is primarily remembered as a New York Mets player).

      • Excellent idea, Finn. It is not possible for us to have a productive dialogue with someone on his level, so it is truly is best that we just ignore him since he is not of much use.

        His arguments are so full of fallacies that they are laughable. One can only imagine the “man” sitting at the computer.

  16. I have a question to all those who comment here, Do any of you guys ever comment at Chronicles? That site is amongst my favorite alongside this one and I comment there occasionally.

  17. Pingback: The Cause of Homosexuality | The Orthosphere

  18. Let’s be clear what we mean when we say that “homosexual marriage” does not exist.

    We are saying that self-annihilators can not create unions, period.

    Homosexuals are the most primitive liberals.

    The homosexual act is the original “liberal” act.

    “Liberalism is the homosexual “nature,” i.e., the self-annihilating “nature.”

    • If you think “self-annihilators” are a problem, shouldn’t that be the sort of problem that takes care of itself?

      • You would think. But because we are not mechanical in nature, the self-annihilators have learned how to perpetuate.

Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s