Monday, May 05, 2014

Marriage Equality and World Destruction

Barely no time today, and so much to fill it with. Maybe you should just read the book, because there are important ideas on every page.

And when I say important, I only mean like "world saving" (or world-shattering, depending on where you stand). Dennis Prager is the only other person I know of -- although I'm sure there are others -- who realizes that the attack on marriage is an attack on the very foundation of our humanness and therefore of civilization itself.

But when you affirm this, you of course sound crazy. It reminds me of the left's thus far successful attempt to controversialize Benghazi.

That is, the first step in turning the world upside down is to make right side-up "controversial," as if there is some legitimate doubt about it.

It's amazing how rapidly the left has been able to accomplish this with regard to the redefinition of marriage. The Obama who assumed the presidency in 2009 would now be unqualified due to his then hateful support of traditional marriage. He would have to be mozilla'ed.

It's not just marriage and homosexuality. Consider all the other things the left has successfully controversialized: the military, school prayer, sexual identity, motherhood, fatherhood, bastardy, the english language, illegal voting, illegal immigration, free speech, the Constitution...

Just the fact that we have to argue over these things makes us a little crazy too, because it's crazy to argue with a crazy person. Normally I would have no interest in doing so, but in this case we have no choice, because these crazys want to control our lives.

The very idea that the left, of all things, suddenly cares about monogamy and sexual commitment is absurd on its face. On what basis? In other words, on what principle of leftism is marriage founded?

Whatever it is, it is not the same as ours, so we're necessarily talking about apples and oranges -- or rather, the compulsory belief, backed by state violence, that apples and oranges are identical.

To believe otherwise is a thoughtcrime. It is to place oneself outside the margins of civilized society, which is again ironic in the extreme, since monogamous marriage and civilization are two sides of the same coin, as compellingly demonstrated by Tucker.

Thus, anyone who cares about civilization should be on our side, but these fools and tools have no earthly idea what is at stake. For upon what principle do they found their deviant notion of marriage? As far as I can tell, it is either "equality" or "freedom," as in "marriage equality" or "the freedom to love who we want."

Now, to be sure, equality and freedom are genuine principles. However each refers to the other; not only do they oppose one another, but each has its own irreducible complement. The complement of freedom is responsibility, while the complement of equality is hierarchy.

Freedom can have absolutely no meaning in the absence of responsibility, while equality in the absence of hierarchy is just nihilism. (I might add that in these complementarities, responsibility is prior to freedom, just as hierarchy must be posterior to equality.)

And bringing about the monstrous equality of the left always requires great violence and coercion, while its version of freedom simply equates to irresponsibility. Or rather, there is no personal responsibility, only collective responsibility.

Thus, individuals are incentivized to be more personally irresponsible, which results in the need for a larger and more intrusive state to be responsible for all these irresponsible losers.

But beneath the left's misunderstanding freedom and equality is an even deeper principle: pleasure. To put it inversely, real marriage is not based upon pleasure. Rather, it is based upon reality, specifically, the reality of sexual polarity and the recognition that monogamous marriage channels this in prosocial ways, in the direction of civilization.

As Tucker emphasizes, there is nothing wholly "natural" about monogamy. Rather, although rooted in nature -- the nature of things -- it is an institution that transcends nature.

But homosexuality is rooted in the concrete pseudo-principle of selfish pleasure, which is then converted into the abstractions of freedom and equality. Conversely, marriage is rooted in the abstract cosmic principle of sexual polarity, which is concretized in the form of marriage.

But I'm out of time. To be contined....


katzxy said...

Controversialize link should be‘well-orchestrated-strategy-to-controversialize’-benghazi/

Christina M said...

As a good corrective to all the psychopathy, nihilism and destruction, I'm finally reading "The Timeless Way of Building" and "The Geometry of Love" since they go together with my cathedral-building task.

All I can say is "Wow! I will never be the same again."

julie said...

Thanks for the reminder, Christina - "The Geometry of Love" is on my upcoming reading list, just as soon as I can get to it.

But beneath the left's misunderstanding freedom and equality is an even deeper principle: pleasure. To put it inversely, real marriage is not based upon pleasure.

Yes, just so. Like with so many of the left's brilliant ideas, they want to have all the fruits of doing things the way one should, without having to do any of the necessary groundwork to obtain it. Except that's not enough; they must destroy the roots of everything functional and successful, because the very things that make possible all the good in our lives serve to remind them that they are wrong.

julie said...

As Vanderleun noted, who says there's no good news?

From the article, "I can't find anyone to deliver water or resurface the parking lot, because they're against abortion. I can't get someone to fix a leak in the roof," said Amy Hagstrom Miller, CEO of Whole Women's Health.

At least for now, and maybe only in Texas, it still goes both ways. Businesses can fire people for holding views they don't appreciate, and other businesses can still refuse service to places that engage in repellant acts.

Magister said...

homosexuality is rooted in the concrete pseudo-principle of selfish pleasure, which is then converted into the abstractions of freedom and equality

I know homosexual men and women who are evidence pro and con. There are men, typically in their 50s, who certainly seem to want and maintain monogamy. They're a tiny minority in militant "gay" culture, which is overwhelmingly libertine-atheist.

Homosexual women seem to prefer monogamy -- again, only the older ones. There's a psychological strain among them that links monogamy and hysterical sapphic/emotional possession. The married ones I know were all formerly married (to men).

Otherwise, it's the vapid glory hole and dildo crowd who seem doomed to abuse, unhappiness, and early graves.

There are days when I want to tell my teenage son about marriage: "son, just compare. Your mom and I have great unprotected sex whenever we want because we love each other, share everything, and promise to stick by each other forever. That kind of love made you, your brother, and your sister, and it made this home. I've been on the other side, which in my experience was exciting, but it was also anxious, temporary, selfish, and eventually painful and sad. What marriage lacks in novelty it makes up for in real freedom and the satisfaction that comes with building something beautiful that endures. In this, as in all things, I pray you choose the better path."

I'll probably never get the chance to say this to him, but I'll come close enough. A good friend of mine says to depersonalize it. The young men will get it, sure enough.

Brazentide said...

It's amazing how rapidly the left has been able to accomplish this with regard to the redefinition of marriage

It appears abrupt, but only because the architects of the sexual revolution convinced us that our house would fare much better if built in a termite-infested swamp.

With one of the main supports gone, many other walls will also collapse(seemingly overnight). Then the true scope of the damage will be realized.

mushroom said...

I don't think we realized how important the narrative was. The last man to articulate the American narrative on a national scale was Reagan. Now, any time you bring up Reagan's name, the PC response is "Deficit Spending!"

Because the left has -- largely through pop culture, gained control of the narrative, you can't define who you are and why you believe as you do without being called a racist, homophobe, misogynist, etc.

Beautiful, Magister. I hope you get it said.

julie said...

More good news. Though this shouldn't actually be news at all. A lot of leftist heads are exploding today; I wonder how many are eyeing those old puppets in the corner and thinking it's time to take to the streets?