sowing the wind
California is the ideal place to experiment with a fundamental redefinition of society's foremost building block, marriage. After all, there are only 38 million people in California, Californians are famously level-headed and rational, and Californians don't have any influence over the media. So, if it turns out a generation from now to have been a bad idea, no harm done!My concern, since 2001, is that more gay men would be interested in getting married (i.e., in a theatrical ceremony) than in being married (i.e., sexual monogamy). We're talking about some awfully flamboyant folks: Gay Pride parades could more honestly be renamed Gay Narcissism parades.
So that the long term danger from gay marriage would likely be to make more straight guys reluctant to go through the already punitive process of getting married. Being the groom in a wedding ceremony is a pretty uncomfortable thing already, but at least it's a guy thing, not a gay thing. As John Derbyshire quoted me in 2003:
On the other hand, there's a process of gay ghettoization that goes on when straight men recognize that some institution is disproportionately attractive to male homosexuals. Broadway, for example, has gone from a popular national institution to a largely gay ghetto in recent decades. It's hard to get a serious discussion going of this since nobody wants to be accused of being homophobic, but I see it everywhere. I don't think marriages will be popular enough among gays to start this process, but I worry that weddings will be. It wouldn't take much to get the average young man to turn even more against participating in an arduous process that seems alien and hostile to him already. If some of the most enthusiastic participants become gays, then his aversion will grow even more.The subheadline in the LA Times today reveals a campaign by gay leaders (and, no doubt, their allies in the media) to keep the ceremonies toned down until after the November California initiative vote:
"Flamboyant images from same-sex ceremonies, activists say, could be used by opponents to convince California votes that gays and lesbians shouldn't have the right to marry."
You'd think that gays would wake up and realize how good they have it in the West, and especially the US, but they seem hell-bent on pushing for more and more of their agenda: adoption, marriage, special treatment in hate-crime legislation. Some are more equal than others, I guess. Really, gays haven't succeeded even now in getting married, because there's no such thing as two men or women getting married. Marriage, in the West, is a covenant union between a man and a woman. I don't care what definitions there are in the rest of the world. We're not out to emulate them. We in the West were doing just fine with marriage the way it was, thankyouverymuch, as evidenced by the prosperity our institutions have created and the fact that third-worlders are voting with their feet to come here. We've had a definition for 2000 years and it has worked just fine.
No matter, the gays wanted to change it. Fine. There's no reason then why the Muslims shouldn't have their definition as well. There's no reason why you shouldn't now be able to marry a head of lettuce, for that matter. I think the gays are going to find that the 7th century savages immigrating here will get their way with their definition of marriage, and once they become more numerous, will start to create enormous problems for the gay agenda and for gay existence in general. There will be a certain irony to all of this. If you chip away at a dike long enough, you may drown yourself when the water rushes in. Enjoy it while it lasts, guys. Be sure to steer clear of UC Irvine on the honeymoon.
PRCalDude
27 Comments
Reader Comments (27)
Because it is not about marriage. These people could care less about being married in the classical sense. It is about minimalizing Judeo-Christian influence on our society. As long as our culture defines Marriage in Biblical context it will never be acceptable even when legalized in this new way.
If marriage does not stand for "something", then, ultimately, it stands for nothing.
If marriage stands for nothing, then, ultimately, it means nothing, and as a result, "anything goes".
An over-due apology to the Mormon polygamists is urgently required in our culture.
How did a moral blight become a civil right?
This new "civil right" group is also, from a descriptive demographical and statistical fact sheet, one of the highest income and wage-earners in our increasingly 2-tiered society.
Even on atheist, naturalist grounds alone, a secular conservative would not want the State to poke around at a 2,500 or so years long tradition and meddle in it. That is "not conservative at all." But yet activist judges are doing just that.
I think Steve's point was interesting. Once wedding ceremonies become viewed as things these gay queens are doing, there will be fewer men waiting to get married than there are now. Already, we've disincentivized marriage (from the man's perspective) to the point where men are waiting until they're 29 on average to get married. What will the mean marriage age be now? 40? How do you have a successful society where no one is getting married and having kids?
Right. If it's not broke, don't fix it. But if you believe God is sovereign over the rise and fall of kingdoms, then this will end in a delicious irony for those pushing this on us.
PR, what sites that are reformed theology related do you read that aren't gullible idiots on foreign policy, history and current events?
I keep having some in the reformed camp come to me about the Paultard thanks to his book and are drinking every bit of the kool aide. Then they say things like this:
I think Paul’s position is biblical..... Read Romans chapter 13. The bible limits the government’s spheres of influence even more so than the Constitution. For Christians, the State and our culture (in its current form) is much more of an enemy than an ally, it’s much more of an Egypt or a Babylon than the “city on a hill”. I think this is why many in Reformed circles are gravitating towards the Ron Paul school of thought. I am glad to see it. For too long we have mindlessly followed the Religious Right and been manipulated and lied to by the Neo-Cons.
oh, for context that is about "blowback" and 'non-interventionism' as much as anything being biblical.
blowback, being no different than what the Humanist tell us about Criminals. "Society makes them commit these crimes, its our fault" or they "have a Genetic inclination to commit crimes, i.e. Darwinism"...everything but the faults of the individual and sin itself.....this is the root assumption of 'blowback', that they'd never attack the US if not for our "foreign policy", blah, blah...excusing the Jihad Ideology.
sorry, this stuff infuriates me.
Kim Riddlebarger :
http:\\kimriddlebarger.squarespace.com
De Regno Christi
http:\\deregnochristi.org
De Regnis Doubous is good also, but needs to be taken with a certain grain of salt
http://deregnisduobus.blogspot.com/
There's a lot of sympathy for Paul's views in the Reformed camp: limited government, respecting the Constitution, ending socialism. The problem is RP's kool-aidesque views regarding Islam.
I'm actually all in favor of non-interventionism and securing the borders. If immigration continues unchecked, no way are me or any of my future children going to fight for this country when they enemy has been let in through immigration channels or amnesty.
well he's also dishonest about the founding fathers and the constitution on alot of things which is another matter. If interested, Robert Kagan's "Dangerous Nation" is a fascinating book, the first chapter is on the Puritans which was interesting. you can make a case the puritans were a form of "imperialist" in their worldview and what they aimed to do.
you'd have to be more than be Isolationist in FP under your scenario. You'd need to stop all immigration, round up Muslims here and deport or kill them. Then become completely self sufficient with all Resources we need to provide. i.e. compleltely change how the world works somehow. Probably would need to get rid of modern technology to do this. none of which is feasible.
the problem is orthodox islam, we can live with if we have to the liberal version. Need to rip some pages of their Koran out first.
Hi jp:
I have enjoyed reading your knowledgable posts about Ron Paul in the past. I have sent a lot of your html links to my friends in Indiana, where the Ron Paul Libertarian version is growing exponentially.
Ron Paul is big in the Rushdoony movement, Van Tillian crowd, and the Moscow, Idaho and Auburn Avenue circles.
Personally, I oppose the "spreading Western democracy" type of foreign policy that George W. advocates. I am not advocating a pull-out or anything like a time table in Iraq. It is just that I think, on an **intuitive level only** many Christians respond to Ron Paul (on a first, superficial reading of Ron Paul) and enjoy a lot of what he says. I gave Ron Paul a fair shake the first time I read about him. It is hard for me to get excited about the whole "we have to kill Jihadists on Iraqi soil first to prevent them from coming here later" when McCain and George W. want to provide the 8th amnesty since 1986 to many countless folks who live in Dearborn-istan and Detroit-istan who may be Jihadi sleeper cells, etc.
Plus, Ron Paul resonates with me because again, it is hard for me to get alarmed over at Iraq when our hospital is losing tens of millions to illegal immigration.
Thanks to your posts, I have since taken a more careful second look at Ron Paul and his Rothbard connection, and I find him very troubling.
Whoa. Let's leave Van Til out of this. RP is popular with the theonomy/FV crowd. It's interesting that jp mentioned the puritans, because the Westminster Confession, as it was written by the Puritans, conflated the two kingdoms in chapter XXV I believe. The Puritans had a sort of theonomic bent, to some degree. Most Reformed people have a Republitarian bent, so a lot of RP's ideas resonate.
Yeah, we need to stop all immigration and deport the non-citizen Muslims here. By interventionism, I mean "military interventionism" - the "invade the world, invite the world" strategy. I'm not in favor of it.
Add secular liberals to this of people not wanting the government poking around in their personal business.
Poking around in other people's business? Ah, that's okay..
Oh, wait...
In the interest of "equality" our society demands that all religious doctrines be equitable.
This is political correctness of the worst extreme, thanks to the rise in popularity of a number of Secular Humanist movements. In political circles we call these people Secular Progressives.
The agenda is the same. Minimalize religion with respect to secularism. Then replace religion with secularism.
Our Christian brothers and sisters who buy into this nonsense despite their doctrines are just as much to blame as anyone.
This is political correctness of the worst extreme
I think that is not an extreme so much as the logical end point of political correctness. How many newspaper articles are published where the statement "Its political correctness gone mad" appear?
PC is mad at root because it involves society en masse acquiesing in lies. PC is not challenged because it masquerades as a harmless collection of white lies but in logical and practical application it leads to injustice.
My straight-laced, KJV only, Bible-thumping-Baptist pastor friend thinks that the sole arbiter of marriage should be the churches. Gov't should have no say-so over marriage. You get married in the church and you get divorced in/at the church. The gov't stays out of it.
On another note gays can't get 'married'. Marriage has a distinct definition. One man and one woman and at least the implication of them having children, which in it's most basic sense is the only reason for marriage. They are not one man/one woman w/potential for children so they need a new word and need to pick one and it can't be marriage because that word is already taken. We could have a contest for the new word.
Whenever the subject of 'gay' comes up, I always think of that Scripture - "As it was in the days of Lot so shall it be before the coming of the Son of Man."
Yeah, that's pretty much my argument. You can't point to a duck and call it a chicken. Words mean things.
Yeah, you definitely want to be watchful for the Lord's return, no matter the circumstances, per Jesus several of Jesus warnings (Matt 24 and 25, Mark 13, Rev 3:1-6). It could come at any moment - keep watch.
ColtsFan, you got where he's popular right within some Christian circles. The above I posted was from someone that has gone from Theonomist to Two Kingdom, to I'm not sure now given the nutter stuff he's talking politically now thanks to Paul..
Ignorants....Paul is morally repugnant in so many ways. I think you are right, they are basically hearing what they want to hear and nothing else about him. there is definitely a cult of personality around him, as odd as it is.
David Bahnsen at his site, dlbthoughts.com
has taken to task Paul some, and now Bob Barr. Some of its pretty funny. I think most would like to Ignore Paul(which is the only reason he has got anywhere) so nobody takes him seriously and he never gets exposed in anyway, goes unchallenged, etc. I'm hoping some come around and start taking some of this stuff seriously and exposing him.
btw, I realized there was a bunch of Alex Jones type nuttiness at Chalcedon.edu and emailed them asking about it, DB fwd to Andy Sandlin and he responded with this:
This was a big issue in the break-up of the movement. David B. and I (for that matter, Greg) were not a a part of this backwater conspiratorial nonsense. When Rush told me in the summer of 2000, "I'm voting for Howard Phillips of Al Gore," I knew the end was in sight ....
With much respect,
chalcedon is a theonomist website. Bahnsen cast a long shadow over the theonomic movement, and for all his apologetic brilliance, the southern california presbytery of the OPC still suffers from it.
yeah, his son is very sensitive about the nutters in the movement to the point that he refuses to call himself a "theonomist' but rather he just beleives in "God's Law"
Chris Ortiz blogs over there, he's a complete nutter.
live in Orange County PR? DB is one of the big Repubs in the Orange County GOP from what he puts out on his site and emails. He's a VP I think at Morgan Stanley, made some good money.
dlbthoughts.com
his stuff on the "Good of Affluence" is good reading, he had the author give a speech in Orange County at one of his functions. He also hosted an Apologetics debate between Hitchens, Prager and D'Souza you can read a summary of there.