I’ve certainly never heard of rapper Wacka Flocka, nor do I expect his mouth dispenses much wisdom, but in a first here at MS I am going to quote a rapper:
“You are who you are when God made you, not who you became after he did,” the rapper said. “That’s how I just feel. You rebuking God, man. God didn’t put them feelings in you, man, that’s the Devil playing tricks on your mind. That’s a test from God. If you can’t outbeat that one task and you believe that, then you’re going to believe everything else.”
Unwittingly Mr. Flocka is on to something substantial here. He is rebuking existentialism without even knowing what it is. This is a popular topic for me, but allow me to review.
There is a world which really exists outside of the confines of your little mind. It existed before you came into being, and it will continue to exist after you leave this world. However much control you may think you have over your life, and however much control you do have over your life, ultimately you exist as a part of a larger world outside of yourself, over which you exercise only partial control. Now you may think that you have exclusive jurisdiction over, at least, yourself, but you do not. Sure you can control some things about yourself, like what you eat or wear, when you go to bed, etc. But you came into this world in a time and manner completely out of your control, in a body that you had no ability to choose. Boy or girl, tall or short, brown eyes or blue, black or white, these were determined for you decisively. The fact that you were born a human being, and not a gopher was decided without your permission.
Existentialists believe that existence precedes essence. That is, as Sartre put it, a man is what he makes of himself. That this is absurd didn’t seem to dawn on the man, but the idea is central to the insanity of our age. Only if we believe this can we try to say that a man is a woman and a woman a man. And this is exactly what this degenerate rapper is pointing out. God made us a certain way. Our essence precedes our existence. It’s too bad that this man who covers himself with tattoos and uses a false name doesn’t follow this to its logical conclusion, but it does go to show that even a man who can barely form a sentence is well aware of reality and its nature.
And Mr. Flocka finishes with my own favorite point! If you believe something so patently false as the idea that you can be a member of the opposite sex (nota bene: opposite!), why then “you’re going to believe everything else.” Exactly.
Rejecting your predetermined gender is ultimately a rejection of God, because it was God who decided when, where, and how you would come into the world, with a little help from your parents of course. If you say He made a bad decision, then you are questioning the eternal architect of reality, and reality itself. And then, nothing is really real.
Look, this is a guy who has descended into full-blown insanity and in a sane, Christian culture he would be declared insane and institutionalized for his own protection. Instead he is universally enabled in his insanity, and is going to chop off his own penis and testicles among other mutilations to the cheers of his evil family, evil “friends”, and the entire evil post-American culture
We often hear the following: “gender is a spectrum, not a binary.” Like most solemn nonsense (thanks Papa Francesco!), this says both everything and nothing at the same time. It says nothing in that it is a false statement. Human beings are male or female. All human beings are male or female. All human beings in history have been male or female.
It says everything in that it states something obvious: each and every individual member of a class (e.g., male or female) lives out his membership in that class in a way unique to him. The way I live out my maleness is different from the way my brother lives out his, or my father, or any other male on the planet. I happen to detest sports, interest in which is considered an indispensable element of maleness in most of America. However, nobody, including myself, ever questioned whether I was male or not, and I have many other interests (technology, an appreciation for the opposite sex) which I hold in common with other men.
We can fault William of Ockham for the “gender as an infinite spectrum” problem. Ockham was the founder of nominalism, and if you don’t know who he was, I recommend you pick up a copy of Ideas Have Consequences by Richard Weaver and read it cover to cover. It helps to have a basic education in philosophy before you do this, but here is the gist: nominalism denies the real existence of universals. When we encounter a class of things, say, horses, we never directly encounter that class itself. We only encounter individual members of the class (this or that particular horse.) There is, however, an essence which exists in the objective order of reality, common to all horses. For lack of a better term, we could call it horse-ness. The nominalist denies that such a common essence exists in reality. Instead, he sees “horse” as a mere label of convenience (Latin: nomen) for grouping individuals, a label which has no actual presence in the objective order of things. This is an easy mistake to make since we cannot directly perceive “horse-ness”, but there are many things that are real that we cannot directly perceive.
Only a nominalist could look at individual expressions of gender and decide that such individuality excludes any real, common essence among the members of that gender. When the nominalist reaches this point, he doesn’t have far to go before he asserts that since there really is no essential nature to gender, we can be whatever gender we want. However, the nominalist, with really remarkable hubris, manages to deny a patent, obvious reality which is right in front of our noses: there are male people and female people.
It may be easier to understand his mistake if we look at the class called “human beings.” Each human individual is clearly living out their own unique expression of what it is to be human. Therefore, we can assume there really is no common essence amongst them. Rather, “humanity” is a convenient appellation we can apply to these individuals based on their shared characteristics. It is not a real essence, just a name.
But obviously there is a common humanity. There is something real that makes each of these individuals human. Just as there is something real that makes each of us male or female.
A final point. Defining gender as a “spectrum” requires that you actually know what a spectrum is. The Mexican woman who cleans our office probably doesn’t have any idea. The funny thing is, even though she hasn’t had the “education” to know about the color spectrum, she is perfectly aware of what color is. She can see yellow and red and blue just fine. She also knows what a man and a woman are. The militant left obviously has used the educational system for direct indoctrination, but they also use it to lay foundational concepts that can later be used to undermine clear perception of reality. This is why they want universal education, even for those who could get by in life just fine with only a basic understanding of reading/writing and arithmetic. They want to create people with enough of an education to be manipulated into thinking men are women and women are men. And who knows what else.
When one writes a blog that is read by two people daily, one has to wonder what the point is of repeating oneself in hopes that somebody will listen and take notice. Here we go again. The AP has released a story saying that the death of Joshua (“Leelah”) Alcorn, the “transgender” teen, was ruled a suicide. Well, duh. This isn’t really news, but the AP just wants to hammer on the “transgender” message again. I wrote about Mr. Alcorn in some of my earlier posts (here and here).
The AP story consistently refers to Mr. Alcorn by feminine pronouns (“she” and “her”) in their story. OK, let’s try this again.
Joshua Alcorn was a male. He was a male the day he was born, and a male the day he died. This is a fact. It is an indisputable fact. An objective fact. It is simple reality. By referring to Joshua using the female pronouns, the author is stating something which is not true. He knows what he is saying is not true. The technical term for this is a “lie.” When you know something to be true, and intentionally say the opposite, you are a liar. The author of the story is a liar.
Now in this day and age, a judge can declare a male to be a female. A surgeon can mutilate a male’s body and declare him to be a female. Neither of these actions can change the fact that the individual in question is a male, but in this case Mr. Alcorn had neither.
Let’s say I am convinced a am not a human, but a dog. I have a judge declare me, legally, to be a dog. Am I a dog? No. A judge cannot alter the fundamental reality of my very nature. I am a human. Let’s say I have a surgeon graft on a snout and floppy ears. Am I a dog? No, I’m still a human. You cannot change your essential nature. Mr. Alcorn could put as much makeup on as Tammy Fae, and still be a male.
Is this harsh? Isn’t this why trangenders are killing themselves? No, what’s killing them is the vast chorus of enablers, including the press, who encourage them to persist in the delusion that they are something which, as a matter of objective fact, they are not. They can never be truly satisfied because they can never be truly female (or male, as the case may be.) Never. And so we take someone who doesn’t quite play to the script written by their sex, and tell them that in fact, they aren’t that sex. So Johnny doesn’t like sports and is scared of getting in fights in the playground. In the past we would have known that there are plenty of boys like this who turn out totally normal. Today they are seized by the gay or transgender lobby and told they need to put on a dress and lipstick. Social media and the Internet, of course, fuel this. But Johnny will never be happy pretending to be a girl, because, Johnny is in fact NOT a girl. So Johnny offs himself and the whole pathetic episode is blamed on mean, bad “conservatives.”
It ought to be of much greater concern to the general public that the press is willing to blatantly lie and not expect any consequences. But people are led like bleating little sheep by whatever their idiot-box tells them, if they ever bother to follow the news. So, 2+2=5. Whatever! Let me get back to American Idol, dude.
As I’ve pointed out before, this is the very essence of totalitarianism. An elite class which is able to impose, at will, total falsehood on the populace without the slightest resistance. We believe whatever we are told to believe. Well, I have news for you. Joshua Alcorn was a male. He was not a female. And he died because he was led to believe a lie.
Young little Cindy was a normal girl in all respects, but she was very attached to her sweet beagle named Mr. Spots. She spent all her spare time playing with the dog, but never seemed to relate to people. She was so very shy. One day, when she was about four, she looked at her daddy and said, “Daddy, I’m a dog!”
“Now sweetie,” said her father, “I know you love Mr. Spots and like to play with him, but he’s a dog and you’re a person.”
“No daddy, I’m a doggie!”
This went on for quite some time, the father arguing against daughter, until it occurred to the father that he should stop fighting. After all, how different is a dog, really from a person? A dog has four limbs, and a nose and a mouth. A dog has a heart and lungs. He eats and sleeps. Maybe I can let little Miss Cindy be a dog after all.
Dad even went out and bought a dog outfit for Cindy. Cindy was happy as can be. She ran around on all fours in her dog costume, playing with Mr. Spots. She would make barking noises and even learned how to wag her fake tail quite convincingly. Many said Cindy would grow out of it, but she didn’t. All Cindy ever wanted was to be a dog, and she was happy being one.
Cindy went to school like other children, dressed in her dog costume. When her 1st grade teacher snapped “you’re not a dog, missy!” after Cindy growled at her, the teacher was hauled into the school counselor’s office and forced to undergo sensitivity training. “Cindy has a right to be whoever she wants to be,” said the counselor, “and if she wants to be referred to as a dog, we should encourage it.”
As Cindy got older, however, students started to make fun of her. They called her “mutt” and beat her up when the teachers weren’t looking. They posted Facebook photos of her with mocking captions. They harassed her in the restroom: “Why don’t you use a hydrant, mutt?” Cindy’s father was troubled. She was looking so dejected. Luckily, he had a trustworthy support group of other parents whose children thought they were animals. “Don’t discourage her!” they would say. “Just remind her, it gets better!” And that’s exactly what he did.
Until one day, when poor Cindy ran out in front of a car. At first they thought it was an accident, but a cell phone video clearly showed Cindy did it on purpose. “Those horrible bullies,” said the support group leader. “They drove her to it because they didn’t recognize that she was really, truly a dog. They don’t realize that she can be anything she wants to be.”
Cindy’s ashes were buried in her father’s yard, right next to Mr. Spots.
I think I have found another reason supporting my decision not to take comments here… One comment of two sentences can spawn multiple posts in response, and frankly I already have too many articles backed up. But here is one I just can’t let slip.
Yesterday I responded to a comment made by a “Miss” Clare F. When a commenter leaves a message, WordPress shows a link to his blog if he has one. Out of curiosity I paged over to Miss Clare’s page only to found out that Miss Clare is really a Mister. Of course! As I have pointed out in the past, most of my followers are homosexuals and genderqueers. I started this blog hoping for an audience of traditionalist Roman Catholics, and I ended up with cross-dressers. Mr. “Clare” has a picture of himself on his blog dressed and made up like a woman, which in his mind makes him a woman. This is existentialism: existence precedes essence. It is also a total fraud.
Let’s be clear. This man can dress like a woman; he can adorn himself like a woman; he can try to act like a woman; and he will never be a woman. His sex was determined before he was born. He has NO choice in the matter. Nor do I, or anybody else. He will never know what it feels like to do that quintessentially feminine thing–conceive and bear a child. Ever. Not only that, he will never truly know what it is like to feel as a woman feels. He will never experience the complex emotions of a woman. He can try to act like he does, but in the end it is just a cheap imitation. It is as fake as the beard on a shopping mall Santa.
I don’t say this to be harsh, negative, or hateful. Mr. “Clare” has some past which has produced enough trauma to make him want to dress up like a lady. It probably dates back to his parents. And don’t tell me that “Leelah” Alcorn had great solid parents and ended up nuts anyway. Mr. Alcorn’s parents were Protestant Fundamentalists, and that comes with a whole host of issues itself. Fundamentalists are just fine with contraception, for example, and any parents who contracept are already ruining their family life. I don’t know Mr. “Clare”‘s particular situation, but he probably has found a certain level of pride and comfort in the attention he draws as a cross-dresser, or in the delusion that he is female.
Well, he’s not, and somebody needs to point out to the emperor that he has no clothes. If Mr. “Clare” happens to come back to this blog, I can give him some advice. Give up this silly cross-dressing, turn to Our Lord on this cross, and beg him forgiveness for your sins. Ask Him to help you shoulder whatever burdens have been placed on you which make you want to act like this and reject Him. Trust in Him. Then, find a good priest from a traditionalist order. Tell him everything, and then (a) if you are not Catholic, do what you are told to enter the One True Church; or (b) if you are, then sacramentally confess to him. You won’t find happiness going around pretending to be something you can never be. But you can find it in recognizing your own nothingness and brokenness, and your own need for Christ’s redeeming love. It’s a beautiful thing.
UPDATE: I have since learned that Miss Clare F. is a female impersonator. I will not change my pronoun references in this article from “she” to “he”, but please bear in mind that they are incorrect. At this time this was written they were used with good faith that this was a woman.
I have a comments policy here at Mors Sanctorum, which is rather simple: I don’t take comments. And in the few months I have been writing this blog, a few people have sent in comments anyway, either because they didn’t read the policy or because they think I will read their comments. I don’t allow comments on new articles but sometimes people submit them on old articles in an attempt to get through to me. That’s fine, I have never looked at them as long as I’ve had a blog. You can read my comments policy if you want, but the basic reasons are (a) I don’t like to filter through the garbage and (b) I don’t want to subject myself to the sin of pride if I should read some complimentary comments. Anyhow, with about two people reading this blog a week, it’s not generally an issue.
Well, the other day I made the mistake of looking at the comments and saw a note from one Clare F., and Miss (I assume) F. says the following: your ontological argument for heterosexual marriage is a “silly error”. Why does she think it is silly? Here is her argument:
1. The “natural purpose” of sex is to “unite two people.”
2. Sex between two women can make two women of “one flesh” (!) just as it can a man and woman.
3. Therefore, sex between two women is within the “natural purpose” of the sexual function.
This is part one of her argument. Then she follows up with a separate question which I will produce verbatim: “If you think the natural purpose of sex is solely to procreate, why does such a low proportion of human sex acts result in pregnancy?”
Thank you Clare F., for giving me an opportunity to clear up your misunderstanding of my argument. Let’s take point two of her argument first. I don’t think there is any need for an anatomical lesson explaining how two women cannot become of “one flesh” in the way a man and woman can. I’m afraid that is totally obvious. You could at least try to make the argument that two men can become of “one flesh” but I think it’s obvious there as well that such an act requires the misappropriation of a body part for a use that is not suited to it.
The more important part of her misunderstanding pertains to ends. Clare is smart in that she used the word “ontological” and thus has some grasp of the principles. Let’s review.
The reproductive system of a human being has a purpose, or end. That purpose is to create more human beings. This is why in our biology class we learn about the “reproductive system.” It doesn’t matter if the system does not always end up producing more people. That’s not the point. Now I do believe God determines the purpose, but you can be an atheist an still understand this concept of an “end.”
Let’s look at the digestive system. The end, or purpose, of this system, is to nourish the body. Now I can use my digestive system for other things. For example, I can drink alcohol and intoxicate myself. Or, I can eat food that is of absolutely no nutritional value. That doesn’t change the fact that this system has a purpose, which is to nourish the body.
I can masturbate, use contraception, or sodomize someone and no child will be produced. A married couple can have sex beyond child-bearing age. This doesn’t change the end of the reproductive system. It exists to produce more human beings. In fact, from a biological perspective, it doesn’t even have a unitive purpose. A man can impregnate a woman by raping her and then go off and do it again. There is no unitive element to the act. Or, consider an animal which mates and then leaves the mother to care for the young. It has exercised its reproductive system and that’s it.
The Catholic Church, traditionally, does not define a unitive end to the sexual act itself but to marriage. The three purposes of marriage are: procreation, unity of the spouses, and relief of concupiscence. The sexual act is not unitive when used outside of marriage.
I have remarked in the past that I don’t know how to argue with someone who thinks the sky is plaid and not blue. When people can’t see the basic fact that the reproductive system exists, well, to reproduce, or that two woman cannot “become of one flesh,” then I’m not too optimistic about the future. But such are the times in which we live.
I try not to pay attention to news stories that devote sensationalistic attention to silly actions by some individuals that have no real news value or import to society. Which means I pay little attention to news at all. However, in light of my recent article on the metaphysical impossibility of “gay marriage,” I couldn’t help but be amused by this article on a woman who married…herself. It seems she couldn’t find a husband by age 40 and decided to throw a lavish party in which her mother “gave her away” to herself, and thus she rectified her situation by wedding her very own self.
It’s amusing because even the liberal, gay-marriage (so-called) promoters seem to recognize this is not possible, if you look at the articles about her and the comments. You see, two people (at least) are required to be married. You can’t marry yourself, because marriage, by definition, requires (at least) one other party.
Well, why not? Why can’t she marry herself? After all, we all know marriage is just a civil arrangement cooked up in the middle ages that we are free to re-define in any way we want, isn’t it? It’s really just about loving whom you want to love, and this woman loves herself. It’s all about the party, and she threw a big party. Why can’t she get a marriage certificate? Isn’t this unjust discrimination against people who can’t find spouses?
Of course, even the “gay” marriage promoters recognize this is impossible. They see an ontological reality to marriage beyond human convention. It has to have (at least) two people. It can’t exist otherwise. However, the second they recognize that, they recognize that marriage has an essence that transcends human control. At that point, you might as well concede that a man and a woman are needed, or else marriage is as nonsensical as it would be with a single party.
In a previous post, I asserted that the reason homosexuality (and the related transgender phenomenon) is such a concern to conservatives is because it rejects an objective and obvious fact: namely that humanity is divided into two sexes, and that the two sexes are compatible and necessary for reproduction. Sex being an unalterable and objective fact, denial of its very meaning denies reality itself. I also alluded to the danger of living in a society where such a large percentage of the populace denies reality so willingly.
Continuing with this theme, I would like to discuss so-called “gay marriage” and its relation to reality. Simply put, marriage between parties of the same sex is what philosophers would call a metaphysical impossibility. I will base my discussion of this concept on Edward Feser’s book Philosophy of the Mind, where Feser does an admirable job of defining the idea even though it is of only secondary importance to his chapter.
There are two kinds of impossibility: physical, and metaphysical. It is physically impossible for me to jump from the sidewalk onto the roof of the two-story house next to mine. However, we could conceive of a world where the circumstances might exist that would make such a feat possible. Perhaps human beings are stronger in that world, or the gravity is lower. The point is that there is nothing inherent in the concept of a human being that would prevent such an occurrence given the right set of circumstances. It is simply that those circumstances don’t exist here.
Now try to imagine a square circle. You can’t, in any conceivable world, imagine such a thing. Circularity and squareness are mutually exclusive ideas. You cannot have a square that is a circle. The second we have the features of a circle we know we cannot be dealing with a square. This is called metaphysical impossibility. There is something about the very essence of a square that does not allow it to be a circle. Ever. A thing is metaphysically impossible, quite simply, if we cannot conceive of it, ever, in any possible world.
Marriage is a real thing, with a real essence. It is not a legal fiction that can be changed at a whim. Because its primary end is the propagation of the human race, mutually compatible reproductive functions are required. They are not an option. They are of the essence of marriage. You cannot have a marriage with two men any more than you can have a square circle or a circular square. It is contradictory of the very essence of the thing. It is impossible to conceive of two men being married. This was totally obvious to human beings throughout most of history. You didn’t need to be a philosopher.
Now, imagine you have somebody who is convinced, utterly, that a square circle is possible. How do you even argue with such a person? You might as well not even try, because they are denying something so fundamental and obvious that they must be either insane or joking.
Objection: But wait, there are married gay couples all over the place. Obviously people can conceive of such a thing; therefore it is metaphysically possible.
This is NOT a square circle!
Response: This is much like drawing a cross between a circle and a square and calling it one or the other. In reality, such a figure is neither. You can call it “square,” but this doesn’t change the fact that there is a real thing called a “square,” and that, regardless of the name we apply to an object, having round sides violates the essence of that thing. You could “marry” your cat and your dog, but it would be obvious that such an arrangement is nonsensical and violates the very essence of marriage, regardless of what you call it.
Objection: Marriage is a human institution that can be defined however we want.
Response: You are a nominalist, or subscribe to a variation on the theme called existentialism. Marriage is certainly human in that it requires human parties. However, you are denying that there is any essence to marriage that transcends the name. We could pass a law that, from now on, in English, anything with four equal sides at right angles to each other is called a “circle.” This doesn’t change the essence of squareness one bit. It just changes the name of the thing. This is much like a judge ruling that Bob, who has male chromosomes and male body parts, is actually a woman. The judge can say whatever he wants; we can start using female pronouns; Bob is still a man.
Objection: Who cares even if there is an essential meaning to marriage, and what that is. We as a society can decide who marries whom, regardless.
Response: Perhaps the most substantial, and the most concerning objection. Society could pass a law that the above image is really a square, and force everybody to go along with it. However, even if I don’t deal with squares or circles in a way that it personally matters to me, the mere fact that the people, through the medium of the government, are willing to force the minority to believe (or act like they believe) an obvious falsehood is really totalitarianism.
Objection: Nobody has ever doubted that polygamous marriages were actually marriages.
Response: The essential nature of marriage, which is ordered to procreation, requires at least one male and one female party. Polygamy, usually one man with many wives, does not violate this essential nature of marriage. It violates other laws, but it still is ordered towards procreation.
Objection: Nobody doubts that couples past child-rearing age can marry.
Response: They can indeed. The essence of marriage is that it is ordered towards procreation, not that it is actually fertile. Even a Catholic would not challenge, under most circumstances, that a contracepting couple are validly married. A male and female who are beyond normal child bearing age, or who have some physical defect that would prevent conception, are still a male and a female. They still are the requisite parties needed for reproduction. Two men, or two women, are inherently infertile.
Objection: This is circular reasoning. You are saying that marriage is between men and women because marriage is between men and women.
Response: If it is a clear day, and I look up and tell you the sky is plaid, you would know I am stating a fact not in accord with reality. We are assuming that our shared medium of communication is compatible. If I were a foreigner and I thought the word “plaid” really means “blue,” then I am stating a fact so far as I know. But if we both understand words correctly, I am stating an obvious falsehood.
This objection assumes that “what marriage is”, not the word but its quiddity, its very thingness, is equal to the name “marriage”. Therefore, I am being circular by defining marriage as one thing and then using the definition I created as a basis for my argument.
The essence of marriage does not change, regardless of what we call it. Reality is reality. Two men cannot be married. I’m not being mean here, it’s like saying that a hot tea kettle is cold. It’s just not. Two women cannot be married. It is metaphysically impossible.
Occasionally I see a blog post or opinion piece claiming that religious conservatives opponents of homosexuality are probably homosexual themselves. In other words, they are closeted or repressed homosexuals who are lashing out at homosexuality due to their own self-hatred. This is a common debating tactic in our post-Freudian world: psychoanalyzing the arguer rather than analyzing the argument. Nevertheless, we first have to concede that those who make this argument do so because there is some truth in what they say. They do suffer from a common logical error in that they attempt to move from “some” (or even “few”) to “many” or “most”. We shall see, though, that there is a much better explanation for our opposition to homosexuality.
First, the truth in their argument. A number of prominent opponents of so-called gay-rights have been outed as homosexuals. Several examples from the Evangelical Protestant community come to mind, but I am sure there are some Catholics as well. It is not hard to draw the conclusion that they were propelled by a form of self-loathing, but there is another possibility the homo-lobby rarely considers. These men (and they are almost exclusively men), having witnessed their own self-destruction at the hands of this hideous vice, and lacking in self-control, might well be seeking to do some good, by eliminating it in the world around them. Imagine an alcoholic whose life is being progressively ruined by his habit, but has been unable to stop it. If this man led a fight to re-enact prohibition, why should we dismiss him as a hypocrite, when he knows far better than a teetotaler how devastating are the effects of alcohol?
Regardless, these closeted leaders of the movement to stop homosexuality’s spread can only logically be considered a tiny portion of the entire movement. If 100% of conservative Catholics and Protestants oppose homosexuality, can we really say that 100% of them are closeted gays? Or even 50%, when an extremely generous assessment would put the number of gays at 10% of the population? (Note: I am a firm opponent to the idea that there is a class of people who are permanently homosexual and thus I don’t believe this statistic is true or even that relevant. I am simply using it to prove a point, and will write a follow-up on this problem later.) Do they believe that in the year, say, 1204, when basically everybody thought homosexuality was evil, that everybody was a closeted homo?
Catholics have, unfortunately, been treated to years of nonsense from the hierarchy which has conceded far too many points to the homo-lobby. The bishops have laid down and accepted that there is a distinct class of people called “gays” who are permanently homosexual and deserving of special treatment in every respect just as long as they don’t get married.
Meanwhile, many conservative commentators, such as Ann Barnhardt, have pointed out in graphic detail how revolting the physical act of sodomy actually is. “Gays” like to avoid this topic, claiming it reduces their dignified and complex relationships to a physical act, but of course, the desire of the lover is to join himself to his beloved, and in this case there can be little question how two men would accomplish such a feat, and of how terribly they would misuse their bodies to do so. (I am less sure of how two women accomplish it, but a paramedic friend once described to me how he recovered a lesbian who had a most gruesome injury to her rectum, so whatever they do can’t be much better.) There is nothing wrong with pointing this out.
There is, however, a far more basic problem with homosexuality, often summed up with the bumper-sticker-type statement: God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. Put another way: There is a fundamental reality in the world around us, which we cannot change, and by pairing men with men, and women with women, the homo-lobby rejects this. It is identical to the problem of so-called transgenderism.
Male and female are fundamental concepts in the reality that exists independently of ourselves. Fundamental means that it is a building-block or foundation stone, upon which other truths are built. The distinction between man and woman is one of the earliest ones we learn, and one of the clearest. Gender is built into the language itself. In most languages, adjectives, articles, and (in Semitic languages) even verbs have to match the gender of the word to which they attach. When a woman becomes pregnant, the first question we ask is: Is it a boy or a girl?
If you went back in time and encountered a proverbial cave-man, he would have a perfectly clear concept of the difference between man and woman, just like he would know the difference between night and day, or hot and cold. He wouldn’t be able to tell you which chromosomes are needed for a man versus a women, or even what a chromosome is. Such “scientific” knowledge isn’t necessary to grasp the essence of a thing, and to know it. In fact, our cave-man understood gender far better than someone who spent the last seven years getting a doctoral degree in “gender studies.” Similarly, he knew exactly what night and day were even though he couldn’t grasp what a planet was or how the Earth revolves around the sun. We live in an age where we fallaciously believe that scientific knowledge of a thing is required to know it, when often scientific knowledge obscures true knowledge of its essence.
So, we come to the crux of the issue. Male and female, the two complementary sexes, are a part of the objective reality into which we are born. Whether we like it or not, there is an order that was defined before we came into being, and that will continue long after we pass from this world. It is a reality external to ourselves, and which has certain elements we cannot change. As much as we want to dispute this fact, we have no control over when we are born, nor really over when we die. Nor do we control whether we are male or female, or what male and female even mean. They are objective facts in the order which exists outside of us.
The complementarity of these sexes is obvious, since the reproductive function cannot be exercised without both halves of the equation. A man and a woman are needed to procreate. Two men cannot make a child, nor can two women. It is totally impossible. Seed and egg are required, and only opposite sexes can produce these two components. That such an obvious fact needs stating in this day and age shows how absurd this time really is.
This is why we care so much about homosexuality. It is a denial of the fundamental reality of the relationship of the sexes. When you deny such a basic reality, constructing your own false reality, you deny the very concept of objective reality. And since God is pure being, i.e., reality itself, you are denying God.
Even leaving out the theocentric view of this, we can see another problem. If we live in a society where a huge number of our populace can be deceived into believing a patently false reality, then what kind of society do we live in? If you can convince the majority of citizens that the sky is not blue, but plaid, and get them to nod their heads like sheep, denying obvious reality, then what else can you lead them to? Why would anyone want to live in such a society? When newspapers refer to men with female pronouns, and nobody complains, what does this say about the critical thinking ability of the populace? That they can be lead like unthinking little sheep.
Men and women go together. If you won’t admit this most basic fact, how can I trust you in anything?
Mors Sanctorum 