The Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, John Martin; 1852

PETER writes:

It’s fascinating to witness our gnostic elite’s attempt to dissolve our civilization conceptually. When you observe people yelling and screaming for “gay” marriage, it generates a whole range of reactions and reflection about the nature of this issue.

The gnostic aspect is our ruling class’s intellectual error in misconceiving our civilization as a cosmic fact, a necessary part of the universe that must and will continue to exist.  Eric Voegelin masterfully elaborated on this in his Walgreen-sponsored lectures in 1952.  He used the phrase ‘propaganda for moral insanity’ in describing the symptoms of gnostic intoxication, getting all of reality’s defaults precisely backwards all the time, with elites who are confused by their dream conception as it blurs the structure of reality as it truly is. In this case, the misappropriation of one thing and its application to something wholly different.  Marriage cannot mean the same experience between heterosexuals and homosexuals.  The most obvious and economic point for a brief discourse is no children.  Only heterosexual unions can naturally transmit life. Marriage is the representative symbol of that unalterable reality, so it’s a natural target for gnosticism.

Anyone who hasn’t taken the time to get a pulse on homosexual attitudes toward the rest of us should think carefully about what’s coming.  It will not be a celebration for long, but will rapidly mutate into a litigious revenge fest against us “breeders” who now according to the Supreme Court have been oppressing them for thousands of years – that resentment will be now acted out with impunity.  As Lawrence Auster succinctly articulated with regard to the Civil Rights Act, any conception of previous moral authority is not only abrogated to the aggrieved minority but the former majority is now morally discredited and it becomes a legitimizing factor for the perceived victims now in possession of  a sense of entitlement to retaliate against their court-defined persecutors.  No doubt their clarion call will be, ‘Remember Gomorrah!’

We are in grave danger.

— Comments —

Thomas F. Bertonneau writes:

I agree with Peter. I add this to his observations: The logic of the left’s intoxication over extremes will lead, beyond today’s Supreme Court decision, to the eventual outlawing by the state of all non-state marriages and retroactively the abrogation of marriage-contracts carried out under dissenting supervision, such as those sanctified by the Catholic Church in its ceremony.

The pulse of what Eric Voegelin called deculturation is accelerating. In France, precisely in opposition to a haughtily imposed regime of non-traditional marriage, something like a reculturation movement has tentatively organized itself. My profound intuition, however, is that despite appearances the United States of America is by far the most left-wing, ultra-gnostic nation in the world; and therefore, I despair of seeing any similar opposition come into being here.

 Laura writes:

Here’s another realistic prediction. As marriage goes from being a union defined by biological ties to purely a legal construct, parents will have to apply to adopt legally their children. John Millbank writes:

[Gay marriage] would end the public legal recognition of a social reality defined in terms of the natural link between sex and procreation. In direct consequence, the natural children of heterosexual couples would then be only legally their children if the state decided that they might be legally “adopted” by them.

      ….

Heterosexual exchange and reproduction has always been the very “grammar” of social relating as such. The abandonment of this grammar would thus imply a society no longer primarily constituted by extended kinship, but rather by state control and merely monetary exchange and reproduction.

With homosexual “marriage,” the family is no longer a check on the all-encompassing State because it no longer exists legally.

 Mr. Bertonneau adds:

We might also swiftly expect to see efforts to federalize adoption completely, with orphaned babies becoming another “resource” amenable to governmental “redistribution.”

Jay from Goshen writes:

Several weeks ago, I was going to write a prediction. It was, “I predict that DOMA will fall 5-4. The headlines will read, “Scalia issues blistering dissent.” Since I didn’t write you the email, you’ll just have to believe me. Anyway, what’s done is done and that’s not important. Marriage and parenthood are.

You write, “Here’s another realistic prediction. As marriage goes from being a union defined by biological ties to purely a legal construct, parents will have to apply to adopt legally their children.”

ABSOLUTELY, in fact, INEVITABLY.

A few months ago, in a fit of cagey political acumen, Jerry Brown vetoed a law in California that would have legalized a more than two parent family.

Not for a moment do I believe he did this for the good of children or to protect the sanctity of the family. He did it because the time wasn’t right. Soon the time will be right, and the law will pass. Everything that you and your commenters predict will happen, will happen, and there will be hell to pay.

Michael S. writes:

This is the scariest thing I have ever heard of.

 Laura writes:

All this cannot be blamed on homosexual “marriage.” Divorce redefined marriage first, transforming into a union intended primarily for the personal happiness of adults.

Jewel A. writes:

How coincidental that the first thought I had after the Supreme Court ruling on DOMA today was ‘revenge.’ Not a while back in the early 90s, Pat Robertson’s 700 did some solid news reporting on the persecution of Christians in San Francisco by the proud and loud sodomites against priests and preachers who dared preach against homosexuality. Some of the men built panic rooms in their homes because of all the break-ins by homosexuals who were trying to kill them.

We have now had almost 25 years or more of very successful indoctrination of the country into believing that homosexuals are the better people, the persecuted people who only want equality, justice and all that sophistry. Question the reality, the truth about their aims, and you are hit over the head with the -phobic cudgel.

When the true nature of how hideous homosexuals and the sexually disoriented are is finally known, will there be any man not too emasculated to stand up to them? Their real aim is to have children. To seduce, to rape, to cast them aside, or to kill. I have absolutely no doubt about this at all.

I guess we’ll find out soon enough.

America Delenda Est.

Daniel S. writes:

The Catholic writer John Zmirak had this to say:

Any progress toward same-sex marriage is very dangerous, given our culture’s deranged attachment to legal enforcement of “equality,” which invariably trumps freedom–of association, of contract, even of religion. I foresee states like California suing Catholic parishes that won’t marry two women, or three men and an android, and our fate will be in the hands of Caesar’s magistrates. Orthodox Christians and Jews will be legally the equivalent of white supremacists, people whose crank beliefs cannot prevail against the public consensus of what “equality” means. As Tocqueville warned, it is Americans’ besotted love of equality that might just destroy our country.

He is entirely right. While it is now generally socially unacceptable to public oppose the homosexual agenda, I believe the time is coming when such opposition will be criminalized in some form. We already know that the Federal government is eager for a war against the Church its failure to submit on these leftist social issues.

Shefali writes:

If you remember Robert Oscar Lopez’s controversial article on the subject of homosexual unions and their progeny, he had made one very apt statement. In a follow up on American Thinker, Lopez said that gay marriage, once legalized will lead to the ” what now ” moment – after so much energy, so much hatred and resentment projected on heterosexuals the “gays” will face a serious dilemma – how to move out of that negative space now that the deniers of bliss are no longer enemies.

My prediction – massive profits for the psychotherapy industry. So many decades of negativity, activist hatred and bile cannot evaporate with a single law. Watch out for the gay media now focusing on heterosexual attitudes within their own homes with a vengeance. Mandatory gay sex education for children. In schools and homes.

Laura writes:

But they won’t move out of that negative space because our history and the family itself will be a reminder of oppression.

 As Peter put it, this triumph becomes a “legitimizing factor” for various forms of legal retaliation.

Jay writes:

It’s true that eventually this crazy idea of the three-person marriage would have come to pass without “same sex marriage”; it is a function of divorce and illegitimacy. But with “SSM” it becomes inevitable. And quickly. We’ll be seeing this in all 50 states. It is simply inherent in the situation because there are two real parents and at least one fictitious one.

Laura writes:

Here’s the sort of scenario that could lead to this: two lesbians come to realize they want the father of one or all of the children in the household to join the marriage. It’s not fair to exclude him.

Jewel writes:

You said:

“Here’s the sort of scenario that could lead to this: two lesbians come to realize they want the father of one or all of the children in the household to join the marriage. It’s not fair to exclude him.”

I think an even worse scenario is possible: lesbians are haters. They are rage-filled harridans who absolutely despise what nature endowed them with, and they envy men to the point of loathing them. There is just no pleasing them. Tell me when you say a joyful lesbian. I can say, never. They may smile for the cameras, but there is a lot of domestic violence in their relationships.

I think what will happen is when the bitterness finally comes out of their closet, they will go AFTER the men whose seed made it possible for them to pretend to embrace motherhood. They won’t want him involved as much as they will want him on the hook forever for the children they bring into the world.

And this is why, ultimately homosexuality in all its forms is insanity. To buy into this lie is to turn truth on its head and there is no hope.

May God have mercy on us.

Jay writes:

There are many possible scenarios. All of them are probable because (to repeat) it is inherent in the situation.

Another possibility that is literally certain to occur. Child is born to homosexual couple (male or female). Homosexual couple breaks up. State compels third parent (bio parent) to assume responsibility. This is more likely to happen in the case of a female homosexual couple as they are more likely to “have” children and are poorer. In the case of a cashed up gay couple that breaks up, the custodial parent isn’t likely to go to the state.

This is no brainer stuff. More disgusting to contemplate is the following, which I admit sounds a bit science fiction-y, but it’s still possible.

Now that there is a right to marry, what about the inherent right to reproduce homosexually? We have genetically engineered gametes already. Think about the consequences. I don’t want to. But there are always consequences. When gays have the right to marry, they will demand the right to reproduce homosexually. It’s their right. Can’t deny them their rights, can we?

Perfesser Plum writes:

I can already see the beginnings of The Revenge. Gay ‘colleagues’ sit in meetings wearing a half-disguised smirk. They offer opinions on whatever subject with a new and improved dash of smug, daring a challenge.

I envision The Counter-Revenge.

At least in my line of university work, it is nothing to prevent hiring and promotion. You just take the high road.

“I’m afraid the candidate is simply not as qualified as at least 5 other candidates. His papers are on an important topic (discrimination against transgender athletes—that would be, what? 3?), but he has only 4 publications And his syllabi suggest that he does not offer the range of expertise that we need.” DONE

“Professor Dimples is certainly a good guy. Students seem to like him. But I just can’t get past those half dozen or so student evaluations that called him heterophobic, and said that his courses are one long sermon on the normality of homosexuality. Of course, I don’t dispute his claim, but we must not ignore our students’ perceptions. Moreover, he published only 4 papers in 5 years, and in less than stellar journals. I’m afraid that his case is just too weak to award tenure.” BYE BYE, Dimples.

This of course assumes that enough persons have what it takes to resist.

Please follow and like us: