Friday, July 03, 2015

And They Don't Even Get 30 Pieces of Silver

(Sola's Note: Joseph and I have been friends for many years. He's a brilliant thinker. Posted with permission)

By Joseph Ravitts

Here I am, sixty-three years old at the time I write this, and I'm being reminded of high school. Teenagers will debase and embarrass themselves in frantic efforts to be more popular; to gain the approval of the football quarterback and the head cheerleader; to be cool. And mere trifles like their own parents, or genuine friends who aren't cool enough, are often thrown under the bus in the process. Nor does it stop when they go on to college. Nor does it stop in adult society and the workplace. Whatever trend, or faction, or well-hyped lie gains popularity, fools will dump everything of real value for the sake of believing that now they're "insiders" at last.                                                

We've all seen celebrities who only are celebrities because someone _told_ us to regard them as celebrities.  Right now, collective celebrity status has been conferred on a subculture of people who don't like a basic rule for human relationships which has worked for THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF THE HUMAN RACE. Accordingly, millions of professed Christians  are stampeding  to beg for the approval of this latest "head cheerleader;" and, revealing their true priorities in life, they have decided that if Jesus Himself wants any more attention from them, He is required to join them in slavishly agreeing that marriage must be redefined because the cool people want it redefined.   
                                                                                                                                                  
What I have just said is a generalization, and we can't afford to _stop_ with easy generalizations.  There are many different ways by which people _arrive_ at this feeling that same-sex "marriage" is the cool thing that must be accepted.  I will try here to place the possible underlying motives on a sort of  scale, from the least blameworthy to the most blameworthy. Of course, a person capitulating to the gay aristocracy may have two or more of the motives at the same time. The motives are my central interest here; the _effects_ of homosexuality have been discussed elsewhere to good purpose, which is why the hard left wants all dissent to be gagged and silenced. Keep in mind that I'm talking about _straight_ persons who decide to give a blank check to _other_ people's aggressiveness in homosexual behavior.

The least blameworthy motive is a desire to make amends for all the times when homosexual persons, like Harvey Milk, became victims of criminal violence. This, unlike most of the motives, reflects credit on the person who feels it. But gay radicals exploit it shamelessly, pretending that American homosexuals NOW are in every bit as much danger from gay-bashing crimes as they ever were. That's why they want us to go on believing that Mathew Shepard "was murdered by right-wing Christian homophobes just because he was different." This lie has been well refuted by now; not only were Shepard's killers not any kind of Christians, but one of them was a _bisexual_ man with whom the victim had formerly had sex.   

The next most decent motive is an emotional concern for "fairness." It's redundant to call this motive emotional, since they all are; but a purported ethical position on fairness is less _obviously_ emotional than the perfectly human feeling of horror over a violent death. So I say explicitly that  this one is emotion-based.  Since popular culture  has invested over four decades in convincing us that the only justice is _distributive_ justice, it has become easy to say, "Just give everyone the same thing." Once people are waving the word "equality" around frantically enough, they can prevent themselves from _thinking_ about whether the particular equality du jour can fit inside the _definition_ of the thing we're trying to be "equal" about. From the Bronze Age forward, everyone has always understood that marriage brought males and females together-- first of all to make babies and raise them, but affection was also known to arise. Now, however, gays only need to press the emotional button of other people's wish to see distributive justice, and the same button disconnects all awareness of the significance of the fact that gay relationships _don't_ create children. Fertility and barrenness  are declared to be equal, because we want to be "fair."     

The last motive I can think of with any positive moral element in it specifically points to children. Orphaned, abandoned or abused children are tragically numerous, and isn't _some_ sort of parenting for them better than none? Well, yes, a three-year-old is less likely to starve in a home with gay caregivers than she is in an alley; and she is less likely to be physically injured in the care of two lesbians or two gay males than in the clutches of a drunken sadist who loves beating defenseless children. But "better than  nothing" is not synonymous with "best." It is a self-evident fact that gay caregivers deprive a child of one sex of parent in a primary role. I have not seen or heard any gay person _answering_ this  objection, only _denying_ that it has any importance. We've just come through about forty years of being endlessly told that women _must_ be included in every area of human activity, but now suddenly it's okay to _exclude_ women from being full-time hands-on mothers in gay-male households. 

Speaking of children, another factor assisting the gay-marriage cause is the nationwide undermining of parental authority _over_ children. Television and movies have been telling us for decades that children are brilliant and parents are stupid, and this attitude has leaked into real life sufficiently that parents are under pressure to agree with practically everything their children do. I remember the first time I saw the TV talent show "The Voice;" there was a girl contestant who had done her best to look like a boy, and who openly and fiercely expressed utter scorn for the whole concept of femininity to which her _Christian_ parents had been accustomed. The parents were shown briefly, and they had capitulated to her perversion. Hard for them to do otherwise, with the game now rigged against them. 

Next.... there's laziness. Plenty of nominally Christian people want to take the path of least resistance. Even when no threat of death, grave bodily harm, arrest, or impoverishment is at issue, they don't want to have to bother _examining_ any complex questions. They want everything to be made simple, and what could be simpler than repeating the one-syllable word "love" without asking whether some approaches to love might be accompanied by unwise and unhelpful choices? But forced simplicity is the _enemy_ of understanding.

Closely related to laziness is fatalism. Some Christians carry the idea of predestination so far as to imagine that _whatever_ happens, loathsome though it may be, must have been positively _desired_ by God, not merely permitted. On that view, any attempt by us to change or influence _anything_ in the world around us equals "rebellion against God's will."                                                                                                                                                    

It keeps going downhill from here. Next we have plain pragmatic FEAR. Considering the indisputable fact that people today _don't_ get punished for saying that _traditional_ marriage is bad,  but _increasingly_ do get punished in some way if they dare to disagree with homosexual dogma, there is realistic cause to be afraid of what will happen if you swim against the current. Can you say "They fired the boss of Mozilla," boys and girls?    

Then there are professed Christians who never did have the boldness to take a public stand for the truth of Biblical faith, but who would have been able to get away with just not saying anything. What leads them to decide _not_ to be silent, but rather actively _join_ the campaign for anything-goes pansexualism? I said above that the desire to be thought of as hip and cool, the longing to be one of the enlightened humanists, was reached by many paths, hence this listing.  But some people START OUT FROM this desire for in-crowd status. It certainly is overwhelmingly powerful, and will cause the brain and the backbone to fall right out on the ground, where they lie forgotten right next to everything that may have been learned from Godly parents.

Which brings us to the _very_ worst of the motives which have come to my mind. More than any of the others, this motive will cause a person whose own sexual taste still is heterosexual to become _similar_ to the gays in an important way. Tragically occurring even among persons who have appeared to be Christian for many years, it is the desire FOR GOD NOT TO HAVE REAL AUTHORITY; the desire that we should be able to dictate to Him, instead of obeying Him. It is the desire to call the shots for the Almighty, telling Him, "We're more sophisticated than You, so if You want us even to bother with Your church anymore, You need to accept us rewriting Your Word." Those who confront God with this ultimatum think they are doing God a favor by consenting to worship their own customized version of Him, a version which exists only to give blank-check approval to whatever the revisionists want to do, say or have.    

Yet even these traitorous apostates, who have (in their own minds) cut God off at the knees, will flatter themselves for being ever so "spiritual."  And when an informed and Bible-believing person raises any challenge to the gay-marriage dogma, in a supreme irony, they accuse _that_ person of "not acting Christian."       

No comments: