Why Do You Concede and Then Keep Fighting?

The angry buzzing of the bees over this whole gay marriage nonsense makes me shake my head in sadness.

You’re fighting the wrong fight, peoples.

What is the current definition of what marriage is, according to the conservative, Church-going elites?

It is Disney marriage with an arbitrary rule.  The core of marriage is that two people in love with each other ratify their emotional attachment with a big, expensive ceremony.

The core of marriage is ‘love’, love here being defined as hormonally inspired obsession.  Last year’s debate between conservatives and liberals was “is it okay to have sex before you ratify your love,” with the conservatives saying “no; sex is for marriage,” and the liberals saying “sure, it’s just a ceremony.”  The libs won the argument, and now kids who really mean it when they call themselves Christian are sleeping with their girlfriends and moving in before marriage.

The arbitrary rule is that conservatives think it’s bad for people to become obsessed with people of the same sex.*

The problem is the conservatives had already accepted that marriage was about ‘love’.  They didn’t lose the culture war.  They conceded, handed over all their weapons, and then continued fighting.

Now, the gov is strong-arming gay marriage on the population, and the conservatives are all ticked off, but that same concession, that same lack of weapons, still applies.

As long as marriage is about ‘love,’ gay marriage is just as legit as straight marriage.  In fact, as long as marriage is the ratification of ‘love’, there is no logical reason why an individual might not marry anyone or anything he can fall in love with, including people of the same sex, multiple people, children, animals, Pokémon cards and the Eiffel Tower (warning, that link is about someone marrying the Eiffel Tower, so if you can’t handle it, don’t follow).

What does the Bible say marriage is?

It says:

1) Man’s purpose is to multiply and conquer the earth (Genesis 1).

2) He needs a helper suitable to accomplish this purpose (Gen 2).

3) The two become a single organism (Gen 2), a relationship Jesus strongly implies remains effective even if they think they’ve dissolved it (Matthew 19).

4) In any case, it is not to be broken (Mat 19 again).

5) This unity is the same unity Christ has with the church (Eph 5, and part of why I believe the bread and wine are Christ’s body and blood: these things apparently work through repeated physical acts).

6) People contending with lusts should seek marriage, and people who are married should tend to each-others’ lusts, in order to avoid temptation (1 Corinthians 7).

So:  Biblical marriage is not the ratification of ‘love’, but a Voltron-esque fusing of a man and a woman into a single organism so that the man might pursue his given objective of conquering his corner of the world and producing children, and that this whole relationship is an echo of Christ and the church fusing into a single organism so that Christ might pursue his objective of conquering the world and producing children.

‘Love’ as we think of it in the modern world is only tangentially mentioned:  people who struggle with ‘love’ ought to seek marriage out so that they have a legitimate avenue in which to pursue their passions, just as people who struggle with a need to blow things up ought to seek out a job in a demolition company so that their destructive tendencies might have a constructive channel.  But ‘love’ is not the purpose of marriage.  The purpose of marriage is to fill the earth and subdue it.  First, to reproduce, and then, to achieve mastery over some corner of creation in the name (originally) of Adam and (now) of Christ.

Now, this definition excludes, by definition, gay marriage, which is non-reproductive, as well as marriage to pre-adolescents, to horses, and to French architecture.  The definition puts a soft limit on incest, as the closer you push the relationship between the two partners the less effective their reproduction will be.  It rules out marriages between Christians and non-Christians because the couple by definition would not be unified in their effort to subdue or achieve mastery.  It does not rule out polygamy, which I personally find distasteful; but I cannot find a single good argument that polygamy is wrong.

But look at your instinctive reaction to that definition!  Did you not cringe?  I did.  Did you not feel it impoverished for its lack of romance?  Did you not think it very misogynistic and oppressive?  Isn’t there some part of you — even if it’s a part that you’ve rejected — that is angry at me for saying what I’ve said?

That is why the fight against gay marriage is doomed.  Not because the Supreme Court has decided to play king, but because we as a nation have accepted and internalized a wrong definition of marriage.  Because according to that definition, there is no actual logical argument against gay marriage, and they only thing we can say in response to their main argument for, “But Bob and Henry are in loooove!” is “Eww.”

And they rightly view our rebuttal with contempt.

The place to start is not railing against the tyrants.  The place to start is by making babies and indoctrinating them with the doctrine of God and not Disney.  Gay marriage is a sign of cultural collapse — a sign, not a cause — and the medicine is not to oppose the symptom, but rather to convince as many people as possible to start planting good seeds for the next civilization’s culture.

This civilization, quite frankly, is done.

But that does not mean we are defeated, for we can see farther into the future than our enemies.  Even to eternity.

*Which it is, but that’s a symptom, not the disease.

Certificate of Consent

As a followup to my last post:  If the current definition of rape is so malleable as to allow for literally every ambulatory creature to be convicted of rape, how can we then sensibly differentiate?

The answer is fairly simple.  We must have a signed consent form.

Men’s Rights Activist Angry Harry forsees and fears this particular future.  But it really is an excellent answer.  Angry Harry’s objection is that it must be obtained and signed for every single sex act, and surely someone will forget in the passion of the moment.  And then a young lady who was enjoying her evening will flip on the news and discover that she’s technically been raped, and will boil herself and her lover in a slowly heating stew of legal indictment.

The solution to his objection is quite simple:  we need a permanent consent form.  A form that is signed by both parties, one or two witnesses, and a legal or social authority of appropriate standing.  Interested couples would be required to get this form signed and notarized before engaging in any sexual activity, and also be required to undergo formal legal procedures to have this consent withdrawn, should they so desire.  All sexual activity taking place without a consent form would then be clearly defined as illegal.

My solution is so elegant, so ingenious, that it’s a wonder nobody’s thought of it before.

marriage certificate

Silly moderns, always going on about how you can’t turn back the clock.  With Mr. Chesterton, I respond:

1. That’s a rather disingenuous metaphor.  Hand me a clock and watch me turn it back.

2. We must turn it back or die.  Whether the thing is possible or not is of exactly zero relevance.

All Married Christians are Rapists

Seriously.

The legal definition of rape, as I understand it, is sex without consent.

Of course, there is statutory rape.  If someone below the age of consent gives consent, that consent is nullified by the fact that he’s not old enough to know better.  How that boils down, according to what I larned in college, is that power imbalance nullifies consent.  The, say, twenty-something perp had power over the seventeen-year old, solely due to age, so that the teen was incapable of withholding consent.

Seems very orderly, very sensible.  And it allows us to apply the same metric to a young woman in college who gets stoned out of her mind at a frat party and wakes up naked in bed with a dude the next morning.  She could not meaningfully withhold consent, ergo he raped her.

‘Course, we then run into logic puzzles, like what if they were both utterly smashed?  Technically, doesn’t that mean they are both rapists?

Fortunately, modern society has no need for equality or logic.  Women are Holy, Men are Monsters.  Problem solved.

But consider:  the Bible states that married people are expressly forbidden to withhold sex from each other.  (The reason given is so that the withholdee is not tempted to sexual sin, which is why Focus on the Family radio shows spend a lot of time warning you not to tell wives devastated by their husbands’ porn use that they should try having sex more often.  It is true, after all, that sexual sin is the fault of the sexual sinner, and therefore this true fact is sufficient reason to ignore the Bible’s express command with regard to how to avoid the, er, issue.  Women are Holy, Men are Monsters.  Problem solved.)

So.  If you are Christian and married and you actually believe the Bible is God’s Word and should be held in higher esteem than, say, your own whims, you cannot withhold consent, and your spouse is raping you every time you hop into bed, no matter how much you enjoy yourself.

By law.

And if you both believe the Bible is authoritative, you are both rapists and subject to to the full punishment of the law.

You should look up what kinds of rights rapists have.  There aren’t any.  Your sentence is subject to change at any moment.  As in, a two-week sentence technically means “forever.”  You can be beaten into a coma by police or prison guards, and the authorities responsible will be reprimanded with a “that was bad of you (high five!)”  People can hunt you down and kill you and nobody will blink.

And every single Bible-believing Christian in this nation already technically bears this special criminal status.  Me.  My wife.  My pastor.  His wife.

Remember:  it is literally impossible to give consent, same as for a teen, and for the same reason.

The state hasn’t pressed its power here, obviously.  It exercises it in small and discreet dollops, generally avoiding situations that will end up in the public eye.  But technically, it holds the power to strip away the constitution from anyone over the age of, well, twelve or so.

I mean, as long as you don’t have documentary proof of every single act you’ve ever performed, a court can find you guilty of rape.  Even if your supposed victim claims he or she has never seen you before.  Just more evidence of how ‘under your sway’ he or she was.

And even suspected rapists have no rights in this country.  We’ve happily let the courts and the lawmakers strip away every possible hope of succor because rape is the most evil, horrible disgusting thing imaginable! (Which reveals what we truly worship.  If we worshiped God, the most evil, horrible, disgusting thing imaginable would be a toss-up between blasphemy and heresy — misusing God as much as humanly possible.  But our evil, horrible, disgusting thing is misusing sex, so clearly we worship sex.  Which means technically the Roman Catholics who drowned Anabaptists for rebaptising people are morally superior to us even if they were wrong about baptism because they thought heresy was a life or death matter!  I know.  It makes me shudder to think that the horrors in the wake of the reformation are the higher ground.  I, too, am the hell-begotten spawn of this Satanic era.)

Anyway, my main point is:  courtesy our worship of Eros rather than Jesus, the Rule of Law has not existed in this country since before I was born.  To those who wail in outrage at the depredations of Obama, I have a touch of scorn.  It’s not entirely your fault — someone was pulling wool over your eyes — but this country is long since dead, and the blood on your hands comes from your enthusiastic (if misguided) participation in its mutilation.

But take comfort, if they come to pack you away for rape, that your tormentors, too, are technically rapists, and if there is one woman who will give unequivocal consent to any man woman or child who merely flirts with her, it is Madame Guillotine.

More Politics

My Libertarian-leaning position was based on that position being the only one, thus-far, that had a logically consistent foundation.  Libertarianism holds property as the fundamental right, and the others (life, etcetera) as extrapolations of this principle.

Just in time for the elections, my pet Pastor delivered a couple of politically-related sermons.  In them, he made observations that I will sum up, to my own understanding, here:

  • The biblical role of government is to punish evil and promote good (not do good).
  • Those commandments of the 10 which are humanly enforceable are Don’t bow down to idols, Don’t murder, Don’t steal, Don’t bear false witness, Don’t commit adultery.

Since I am a believer, I am justified in taking the Bible as an axiom when devising a political philosophy.

So, supposing MagicLand appears in the clouds and a bunch of believers decides to go there and start a country.  If one were to devise a secular government, on the basis of “we are religious, but if our children are forced to choose between confession and exile, they will give lip service to God, and undermine the foundation of our country,” then we have to toss out the idolatry command.

Freedom of religion is something Americans take as granted whether we have it or not, so it seems shocking that we might consider not tossing out the idolatry command, but I think it would be easier to argue for keeping it than for throwing it.  But we will leave that argument as beyond the scope of this paper.  We are Christians, we know that no worldly government can ever be our ally, and so we are making a government that will do as little harm as possible for MagicLand.

So, using the commandments, we can extrapolate rights not to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, but rather to Life, Property, Justice, and Fidelity.  These are the rights our Creator assigned us.  These, no doubt, are the rights he will be avenging on our behalf at the end of time.  The right not to be murdered.  The right to one’s belongings.  The right to be rightly represented in court.  The right to one’s spouse keeping his/her marital vows.

This influenced my vote a bit.

On the constitutional amendment for Minnesota (will we define marriage as a man and a woman?), I was prepared to vote no, simply because I didn’t think marriage was the business of government.  Now I know that it is:  it is within the Government’s mandate to punish adulterers and promote fidelity.  So I cast my vote for the amendment as a throwaway vote cast on principle.

Throwaway because it ain’t gonna happen in this state.  Throwaway, also, because it’s too little, too late.  The Government already ceded this ground when Reagan signed no-fault divorce into law.  The primary threat to marriage in the U.S. isn’t homosexuality.  It is divorce.  But we’re not fighting divorce laws.  We’re not trying to repeal no-fault divorce.  We aren’t even shaming unrepentant adulterers who claim to be part of the church — when I went to my brother’s graduation from a Christian university, I watched in horrified fascination as an openly adulterous woman hobnobbed with everyone.

So… I have a foundation for a political philosophy going.  Maybe, from there, I can work out an end, and the means by which I should attempt to achieve it.  Or, in other words, maybe I can work out a rule by which I can cast my votes instead of doing what I did this year, and agonizing (should I vote for X because he’s the least evil electable, or Y because he’s the closest to what I actually believe?).

Politics

Yay.  Obama won.

I was predicting a Romney win, so that shows you what I know about politics and people.

The Star Tribune is replete with images of triumphant people over the defeat of the Voter ID amendment and the marriage amendment.  (Now I want a test case of a non-liberal thingumajig winning, to see whether the photos show the triumphant winners or the bummed losers).

Some thoughts:

1) My vote actually had pretty much no chance of doing everything.  Minnesota has the highest rate of voter fraud in the country (which makes voting on an amendment for voter ID kind of ironic.  Like letting the wolves vote for whether sheep get rights…)

2) My pet felon, who is unable to vote (because he’s a felon) mobilized and affected at least three votes that I know of.  Probably more.  Conclusion:  my pet felon’s non-existent vote carried more weight than my existing one.

Practical Extrapolation:  if you want your vote to matter, move to a swing state.  Otherwise, the best thing you can do is convince large numbers of other people to change from one position to another.

As soon as I figure out how to do that, I’m moving to Japan and turning it into a Christian nation as a great big “F-You” to Miyamoto Musashi.

Well…

Actually, my pet felon’s disproportionate influence suggests a real answer:  make lots of friends, then be an example.

I miss the days when logic and consideration of evidence were a significant portion of the standard decision-making process.

This is some bullshit

The title of this post is (c) the Sword of Fighting.

Some enthusiastic young folks were by just now to explain to me how evil an upcoming voter ID amendment would be.  I accepted their documents, thanked them, and, not being sufficiently informed, went online to check it out.  I Googled “minnesota voter restriction amendment text”, and right up top, two sites popped up, one for, one against.  No sites, from what I could see on Google, provided the text of the amendment itself, which was what I had wanted.  So I figured, let’s check out the sites and see what the arguments are from the mouths of the arguers.

The pro-ID law site actually had a copy of the amendment text.  The anti-Id law site did not.  The pro had a discussion of opposing arguments.  The anti did not.

The literature I received from the antis was branded by the ACLU, and contained no statements of fact (true or false), but merely vague accusations of “mean-spirited”ness.

I had heard, from those on the right, that the ACLU is evil incarnate, but having never had personal experience with them, I reserved judgement.  Judgement is now passed:  they have proven unwilling to bear to have light shone upon their arguments.  They have proven unwilling to engage in debate.  Their reputation as a pack of bullies and frauds is verified.

I haven’t fully considered the amendment yet, but I half-intend to vote Yes just to spite the gits.

Party of No

Some of my liberal friends are whining about how the evil Republicans blocked a bunch of legislation, and how they are therefore useless and need to go.  Specifically because the Tea Party elected them to do stuff.

They did:  they elected them to block legislation (and overturn it wherever possible).

The problem with criticizing the GOP for being the party of No is that more than half the nation has been saying “No” as loudly as they can.  If you want me to fire someone because he’s actually doing what I hired him to do, you are stupid.  Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

So much for that rhetoric.