The only question worth asking about gay marriage is whether anyone on the left would care about this crusade if it didn’t come with the privilege of bulldozing another civilizational institution.
Gay marriage is not about men marrying men or women marrying women, it is about the deconstruction of marriage between men and women. That is a thing that many men and women of one generation understand but have trouble conveying to another generation for whom marriage has already largely been deconstructed.
The statistics about the falling marriage rate tell the tale well enough. Marriage is a fading institution. Family is a flickering light in the evening of the West.
The deconstruction is destruction. Entire countries are fading away, their populations being replaced by emigrants from more traditional lands whose understanding of the male-female relationship is positively reactionary. These emigrants may lack technology or the virtues of civilization, and their idea of marriage resembles slavery more than any modern ideal, but it fulfills the minimum purpose of any group, tribe or country—it produces its next generation.
The deconstruction of marriage is not a mere matter of front page photos of men kissing. It began with the deconstruction of the family. Gay marriage is only one small stop on a tour that includes rising divorce rates, falling childbirth rates and the abandonment of responsibility by twenty and even thirty-somethings.
Each step on the tour takes apart the definition and structure of marriage until there is nothing left. Gay marriage is not inclusive, it is yet another attempt at eliminating marriage as a social institution by deconstructing it until it no longer exists.
There are two ways to destroy a thing. You can either run it at while swinging a hammer with both hands or you can attack its structure until it no longer means anything.
The left hasn’t gone all out by outlawing marriage, instead it has deconstructed it, taking apart each of its assumptions, from the economic to the cooperative to the emotional to the social, until it no longer means anything at all. Until there is no way to distinguish marriage from a temporary liaison between members of uncertain sexes for reasons that due to their vagueness cannot be held to have any solemn and meaningful purpose.
You can abolish democracy by banning the vote or you can do it by letting people vote as many times as they want, by letting small children and foreigners vote, until no one sees the point in counting the votes or taking the process seriously. The same goes for marriage or any other institution. You can destroy it by outlawing it or by eliminating its meaningfulness until it becomes so open that it is absurd.
Every aspect of marriage is deconstructed and then eliminated until it no longer means anything.
And once marriage is no longer a lifetime commitment between a man and a woman, but a ceremony with no deeper meaning than most modern ceremonies, then the deconstruction and destruction will be complete.
The deconstruction of marriage eroded it as an enduring institution and then as an exclusive institution and finally as a meaningful institution. The trendy folk who claim to be holding off on getting married until gay marriage is enacted are not eager for marriage equality, they are using it as an excuse for an ongoing rejection of marriage.
Gay marriage was never the issue. It was always marriage.
In the world that the deconstructionists are striving to build, there will be marriage, but it will mean nothing. Like a greeting card holiday, it will be an event, but not an institution. An old ritual with no further meaning. An egotistical exercise in attention-seeking and self-celebration with no deeper purpose. It will be a display every bit as hollow as the churches and synagogues it takes place in.
The deconstruction of marriage is only a subset of the deconstruction of gender from a state of being to a state of mind. The decline of marriage was preceded by the deconstruction of gender roles and gay marriage is being succeeded by the destruction of gender as anything other than a voluntary identity, a costume that one puts on and takes off.
--snip--
The left’s social deconstruction program is a war of ideas and concepts
The left’s social deconstruction program is a war of ideas and concepts. Claims of equality are used to expand institutions and ways of living until they are so broad as to encompass everything and nothing. And once a thing encompasses everything, once a rose represents everything rising out of the ground, then it also represents nothing at all.
Deconstruction is a war against definitions, borders and parameters. It is a war against defining things by criminalizing the limitation of definitions. With inclusivity as the mandate, exclusivity, in marriage, or any other realm, quickly meets with social disapproval and then becomes a hate crime. If the social good is achieved only through maximum inclusivity and infinite tolerance, then any form of exclusivity, from property to person to ideas, is a selfish act that refuses the collective impulse to make all things into a common property with no lasting meaning or value.
As Orwell understood in 1984, tyranny is essentially about definitions. It is hard to fight for freedom if you lack the word. It is hard to maintain a marriage if the idea no longer exists. Orwell’s Oceania made basic human ideas into contradictory things. The left’s deconstruction of social values does the same thing to such essential institutions as marriage; which becomes an important impermanent thing of no fixed nature or value.
The left’s greatest trick is making things mean the opposite of what they do. Stealing is sharing. Crime is justice. Property is theft. Each deconstruction is accompanied by an inversion so that a thing, once examined, comes to seem the opposite of what it is, and once that is done, it no longer has the old innate value, but a new enlightened one.
To deconstruct man, you deconstruct his beliefs and then his way of living. You deconstruct freedom until it means slavery
To deconstruct man, you deconstruct his beliefs and then his way of living. You deconstruct freedom until it means slavery. You deconstruct peace until it means war. You deconstruct property until it means theft. And you deconstruct marriage until it means a physical relationship between any group of people for any duration. And that is the opposite of what marriage is.
The deconstruction of marriage is part of the deconstruction of gender and family and those are part
of the long program of deconstructing man. Once each basic value has been rendered null and void, inverted and revealed to be random and meaningless, then man is likewise revealed to be a random and meaningless creature whose existence requires shaping by those who know better.
The final deconstruction eliminates nation, religion, family and even gender to reduce the soul of man to a blank slate waiting to be written on.
It is not about whether men can get married, but whether marriage will mean anything at all
That is what is at stake here. This is not a struggle about the right of equality, but the right of definition. It is not about whether men can get married, but whether marriage will mean anything at all. It is about preserving the shapes and structures of basic social concepts that define our identities in order to preserve those very concepts, rather than accepting their deconstruction into nullification.
The question on the table is whether the institutions that give us meaning will be allowed to retain that meaning. And that question is a matter of survival. Societies cannot survive without definitions. Peoples do not go on existing through the act of occupying space. The deconstruction of identity is also the destruction of identity.
Quote: FP123 wrote in post #1The Deconstruction of Marriage - Daniel Greenfield, Thursday, March 28, 2013 . . . Once each basic value has been rendered null and void, inverted and revealed to be random and meaningless, then man is likewise revealed to be a random and meaningless creature whose existence requires shaping by those who know better.
The final deconstruction eliminates nation, religion, family and even gender to reduce the soul of man to a blank slate waiting to be written on.
It is not about whether men can get married, but whether marriage will mean anything at all
That is what is at stake here. This is not a struggle about the right of equality, but the right of definition. It is not about whether men can get married, but whether marriage will mean anything at all. It is about preserving the shapes and structures of basic social concepts that define our identities in order to preserve those very concepts, rather than accepting their deconstruction into nullification.
The question on the table is whether the institutions that give us meaning will be allowed to retain that meaning. And that question is a matter of survival.
This is why Civil Unions do not satisfy those demanding gay marriage.
In NJ, civil unions which grant the same 'rights' as marriage was enacted in 2006,
ZitatOn October 25, 2006, the Supreme Court of New Jersey gave New Jersey lawmakers 180 days to rewrite the state's marriage laws, either including same-sex couples or creating a new system of civil unions for them. On December 14 the Legislature passed a bill establishing civil unions in New Jersey, which was signed into law by Governor Jon Corzine on December 21, 2006. The first civil unions took place on February 19, 2007.[56] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_union#New_Jersey
Note: this was an expansion of the 2004 'domestic partnership law. "In 2004, the state of New Jersey enacted a domestic partnership law, offering certain limited rights and benefits to same-sex and different-sex couples" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_union#New_Jersey
This has not satisfied homosexual activists who whether they realize it or not are playing the role of 'useful idiots' for global statists. In 2010 and 2012 there were attempt to force the application of the word marriage to homosexual civil unions.
Once this is done will only be a matter of time before gay activists demand that traditional churches and temples perform gay marriages or face penalty of law for a 'hate crimes'.
Quote: FP123 wrote in post #3As usual, Mr. "Knish" cuts right to the heart of the matter.
This guy ought to have his own radio show...on a major netwrok.
I've indulged myself in a bit of fantastic thought from time to time after reading one of his articles: Imagine if his essays were required reading in every High School & University throughout the country (along with teachers that could explain and expand on his thoughts). I could see a huge turnaround take place in this country within a couple of generations. But no, it is just a fantasy that I indulge in from time to time!
And once marriage is no longer a lifetime commitment between a man and a woman, but a ceremony with no deeper meaning than most modern ceremonies, then the deconstruction and destruction will be complete.
Sorry, but that bridge was crossed and burned in Anglo-American political tradition by Henry VIII.
There is nobody alive today that has ever experienced a British or American society where marriage legally meant "a lifetime commitment between a man and a woman". I have been in such a society. It was 1972 and a friend of mine and I were backpacking through Europe and were visiting his uncle in Spain. The marriage was bad, the uncle confessed to his nephew, but, in Franco era Spain, a marriage was indeed "a lifetime commitment between a man and a woman" as far as BOTH the Catholic Church and the Spanish Government were concerned. Divorce was not legal in Spain until 1981.
Meanwhile, back in the U.S., marriage was " a ceremony with no deeper meaning than most modern ceremonies" except for the "she will get at least half of your stuff" penalties. In the United States, there has always been a very stark difference between what the Government calls "marriage" and what religion calls "marriage". In my own case, regardless of what the State of Florida said, it did not matter if a Protestant minister had married me and the State of Florida recognized the marriage. Unless I married in the Catholic Church, the Catholic Church did not consider me married. Simple as that. As far as the Catholic Church was concerned, I had entered into a Civil Union recognized by the State of Florida but I was "living in sin" with a woman that I was not actually married to.
As Catholics will understand, the Catholic Church considers whatever the States of Florida, New York or California calls "marriage" as nothing more than "a ceremony with no deeper meaning than most modern ceremonies". The Catholic Chuch is correct. What the State calls "marriage" is nothing more than a Civil Union contractual arrangement that you can bail out of just as long as you are willing split up the community property and fight about alimony, child custody and child visitation rights. God has nothing to do with what the State of Florida, two divorce lawyers and a feuding couple call "marriage" at the divorce hearing.
So, you are married in the Catholic Church in Florida and you got divorced 10 years later. Three years after the divorce, you show up at the Catholic Church with your new love to get married again. Sorry. As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, you are still married to Wife#1. Waving the State of Florida divorce decree in Father Kelly's face will do you no good. What the State of Florida considers "marriage" means absolutely nothing to the Catholic Church and, as far as the Church is concerned, whatever the State of Florida decrees say mean nothing to God. The State of Florida is simply in the business of "Civil Unions" that deal with tax deductions, inheritance rights and alimony. That is not God's turf. That Caesar's turf.
With that political and religious reality of Anglo-American tradition, why is anybody assigning religious significance to what the State of Florida or the State of New York does or does not do in regards to these social contracts dealing with tax deductions, inheritance rights and alimony?
Call what the State does "Civil Union", even for heterosexual couples, because that is exactly what it is.
Once upon a time, in the U.S. Armed Forces, there were servicemen and servicewomen. Even as far back as my time, during the Reagan Administration, those terms were replaced by "servicemembers". If calling what the State of New York does "marriage" represents a religious problem, then change the word. What is so sacred, in the eyes of God, about State of New York divorce laws or IRS tax brackets?
Call the social contract entered into between the couple and the State exactly what it is: Civil Union.
Call the religious contract entered into between the couple and God and the repsective Church exactly what it is: Marriage.
Can the State force a Church to perform or recognize a Marriage? No. That is absolutely forbidden by the First Amendment.
Heterosexual Marriage = State of Alabama Civil Union + Religious ceremony at the Baptist/Catholic/Whatever Church
Gay Marriage = State of New York Civil Union + Religious ceremony at the United Church of Christ (Sorry, but the practicing Baptists, Catholics and Orthodox Jews will not recognize you as "married".)
Atheist Marriage = State of California Civil Union + Calling themselves whatever they want: Married, Unionized, Hitched, etc.
Shacking up = After you do it long enough, a common law union exists, whether you like it or not. He or she still gets half of your stuff when you split up. Divorce lawyers still get involved. During your mortal life you can choose to ignore God but it is almost impossible to ignore lawyers.
Can a State refuse to extend Civil Union rights to gay couples? Until SCOTUS rules otherwise, the Tenth Amendment states that States have such a right of refusal.
If divorced and remarried Southern Baptists do not give any religious significance to what the Pope defines as "marriage", why should they give any religious significance to what a New York politician decides in regards to gays?
Take the word "Marriage" out of the State vocabulary and replace it with the term "Civil Unions" for EVERYBODY. You then allow the Churches to argue about who is actually "married" and who is not.
Once everybody stops mixing up secular apples with religious oranges, we can stop assigning religious significance to what New York or California politicians do.
There is a generational difference between today's young adulkts and us old geezers that grew up in the so-called "liberated" 1960's and 1970's that shocked the 1930's and 1940's generations. Regardless of the 1960's Sexual Revolution, we still saw homosexuality as definititely not acceptable. Nowadays, with public school system and media shaping social norms, the younger generations simply do not care very much about homosexualitty.
Everybody on this Board who was a virgin on their wedding night, raise your hand. Anybody? To our grandparents, that would have been shocking but that was our generational reality. So it is with the younger generations and homosexuality. It's simply not a big deal to them anymore. As the older generations die off, the entire issue of gays will become as inconsequential to the younger voters as biracial couples.
The way to keep "marriage" from being defined, in the future, by the secular State is to be proactive and push to take the word "marriage" out of the vocabulary of the State just as the word "serviceman" was taken out of the vocabulary of the U.S. Armed Forces as far back as the Reagan Administration.
Once that is done, then "Marriage" will be whatever your Church says it is and the opinion of whoever disagrees will have as much significance as the Pope's opinion currently has to a Baptist.
ZitatCall what the State does "Civil Union", even for heterosexual couples, because that is exactly what it is.
Works for me. Spouses all around. But such a logical and easy solution is not acceptable because the agenda is the destruction of the family unit as we know it
ZitatCall what the State does "Civil Union", even for heterosexual couples, because that is exactly what it is.
Works for me. Spouses all around. But such a logical and easy solution is not acceptable because the agenda is the destruction of the family unit as we know it
In addition the agenda is to force churches to accept and perform 'gay' marriages or face charges of 'hate crimes'.
Quote: Polybius wrote in post #6 Everybody on this Board who was a virgin on their wedding night, raise your hand. Anybody? To our grandparents, that would have been shocking but that was our generational reality. So it is with the younger generations and homosexuality. It's simply not a big deal to them anymore. As the older generations die off, the entire issue of gays will become as inconsequential to the younger voters as biracial couples.
Ummmm.....raising my hand here. And I'm not that old, 54 to be exact. Some of us with morals and "old-fashioned" standards DO still exist. And I've been married to that same man for 35 years now, the only man I've ever 'been with'. I realize we're in a dying minority but as long as Christianity still exists, and the Gospel is still being preached, and the Lord has not yet returned, some of us will always exist even if its in smaller numbers.
America's hope is not the donkey or the elephant, but the Lamb.
ZitatCall what the State does "Civil Union", even for heterosexual couples, because that is exactly what it is.
Works for me. Spouses all around. But such a logical and easy solution is not acceptable because the agenda is the destruction of the family unit as we know it
In addition the agenda is to force churches to accept and perform 'gay' marriages or face charges of 'hate crimes'.
Bingo. Nailed it.
America's hope is not the donkey or the elephant, but the Lamb.
"Once each basic value has been rendered null and void, inverted and revealed to be random and meaningless, then man is likewise revealed to be a random and meaningless creature...."
The author has the sequence backwards.
Acceptance of the Theory Of Evolution took care of the "random and meaningless creature" part.
Then, the conclusion inevitably followed that values are incompatible with a world inhabited only by animals and ruled only by chance.
Quote: Polybius wrote in post #6 Everybody on this Board who was a virgin on their wedding night, raise your hand. Anybody? To our grandparents, that would have been shocking but that was our generational reality. So it is with the younger generations and homosexuality. It's simply not a big deal to them anymore. As the older generations die off, the entire issue of gays will become as inconsequential to the younger voters as biracial couples.
Ummmm.....raising my hand here. And I'm not that old, 54 to be exact. Some of us with morals and "old-fashioned" standards DO still exist. And I've been married to that same man for 35 years now, the only man I've ever 'been with'. I realize we're in a dying minority but as long as Christianity still exists, and the Gospel is still being preached, and the Lord has not yet returned, some of us will always exist even if its in smaller numbers.
That makes you younger than I am. As far as "old fashioned", I will lay claim to the award as my Cuban-American fiance in the 1970's was being treated by her mother (as were most other Cuban-American young women in my social circle at the time) just like Spanish young women of a certain social class had been treated for centuries back in Spain: Living at home until married. No dates unless chaperoned. It would have been easier to seduce Mother Teresa.
My point, however, is not the religious morality but the fact that morality and "marriage" should be defined by your Church and your God and not by the State of New York.
What the State of New York or the State of Florida deal with, in regards to so-called "marriage", is only a social contract dealing with tax laws, inheritance laws, community property division, alimony and child custody fights. The State of New York could not care less if you got married in March and decided to get divorced in June. The State of New York will only care what community property was acquired during that time and whether the marriage was long enough for anybody to owe anybody alimony.
That, by any defintion, is simply a social contract devoid of any "moral" implications.
Since that is what the State deals with, why allow the State to define what a religious "marriage" is? That simply gives the State of New York more moral power than it has any right to have.
By allowing the State of New York to define "marriage" and assigning moral implication to the term that the State of New York is using, you are rendering unto Caesar what should be be in God's turf: The definition of a religious "Marriage".
With changing demographics, the time will soon come when the younger voters (who have been carefully taught to accept homosexuality) vote to allow gay "marriage" in more and more States.
My point is that, just as "servicemember" replaced "serviceman" in the Armed Forces in the 1980's and "Ms." replaced "Miss" and "Mrs." in business communications, what the State does should cease to be called "marriage". Have it simply be called "Civil Union", .... For everybody.
Once you get your "Civil Union" at City Hall, you then go to the Baptist Church or Catholic Church or Orthodox Jewish Temple to actually get "Married".
The gays will go to the Anglican Church or the United Church of Christ to get "Married".
By doing that, you take the "defintion of marriage" out of the hands of politicians, Judges and younger voters and you take the State completely out of the picture.
Caesar should decide who gets what tax deductions, who inherits tax-free and who pays alimony in case you split up. Your Church and your God should decide what "Marriage" is.
Of course, the different Western Churches will disagree about what "Marriage" is and what "Marriage" is not. That's fine. There have been different Western Churches disagreeing about all sorts of things since Martin Luther nailed his Ninety-Five Theses on the door of All Saints' Church in Wittenberg. Howevere, the State should have no business being in the middle of such a disagreement.
If the word "Marriage" is allowed to remain being interchangebly used to describe both a religious marriage and the social contract that deals with secular issues such as tax law and alimony, then State & Federal Judges in black robes and politicians cutting backroom political deals will be deciding what "Marriage" is in America.
Bottom line: If you do not want the State to play around with the definition of the word "Marriage", then take the word "Marriage" out of the State's vocabulary.
Sat Mar 30, 2013 10:53 am (Last edited: Sat Mar 30, 2013 10:56 am)
RIGHT'S RIGHT 
Print view
reply
Ummmm.....raising my hand here. 
And I'm not that old, 54 to be exact. Some of us with morals and "old-fashioned" standards DO still exist. And I've been married to that same man for 35 years now, the only man I've ever 'been with'. I realize we're in a dying minority but as long as Christianity still exists, and the Gospel is still being preached, and the Lord has not yet returned, some of us will always exist even if its in smaller numbers.
gabrielaXander • Views: 271
