Wednesday, 26 November 2014

Douglas Wilson's Letter From Moscow

The Old Gray Mare

Douglas Wilson
Blog and Mablog
November 25, 2014

The goal of the pansexualist movement is to remove all creational distinctives. They want to batter down every border, every barrier, so that when we are all done, every sentient being has been melted down into their great cauldron of lust. If you really think that when same sex mirage is a done deal, everyone will settle down into a recognizable normal, then you are a chump, a patsy. We are already at the stage when mainstream publications can run puff pieces on guys who like to have sex with horses.

The issue is not the fact that there are pervs who do this kind of thing. We have always had them, and the Bible prohibits it for a reason. The issue is how everybody else is being manipulated. The issue is not the sin, but rather the societal response to the sin. Get a load of the first lines.

“Bestiality, the act of having sex with an animal, tends to conjure images of a mucky, socially inadequate, desperate farmer sneaking into the barn after dark, or depraved groups of thrill-seekers forcing sex with drugged, abused, or otherwise mistreated animals . . . But the sexual identity that can be attached to bestiality, zoophilia, remains little understood. In 2002 the sex therapist Hani Miletski published Understanding Bestiality and Zoophilia, a book based on her study of almost 100 zoophiles — research that led her to conclude that many form deep, loving, and very nurturing relationships with their animal partners.”

Got that? Many of them have “deep, loving , and very nurturing relationships” and you are the one with very little understanding and certain prejudicial images you have conjured up. Hater.

By the way, I linked to that article so that you might understand that I am not making this stuff up. I am not recommending that you read the whole thing. I myself didn’t read the whole thing because, as you all know, I am just crammed full of prejudices and seething meanness.

These people are iconoclasts in high revolt against the central image of God in this world, an image that God Himself established (Gen. 1:27). Male and female, one of each, is the way God wants His image represented in this life, and it will be represented in that way until the the end of the world. To revolt against such creational distinctives, as in our current attempts, is to throw rocks at the moon, to hurl snowballs at the sun.

We are constantly told, and some of us are foolish enough to believe, that we opponents of same sex mirage are on the wrong side of history. Well, I would rather be on the wrong side of history, as they see it, than on the wrong side of stupidity, as God sees it. Because, as it turns out, the concepts of history and stupidity are intertwined, in ways not friendly to those who would build their utopian Lego castles without use of the male/ female couplings feature. All they are going to wind up with is a great jumble of plastic pieces.

Now this is the situation we are in, and this is the one thing the First Things Marriage Pledge had right. The pomosexuals want to remove all distinctions between what they are doing and what we are doing. They are levelers. Combine postmodern relativism with deep gonadal yearnings, and you get pomosexuality, and the right to hump the world soon shows up in the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

So wherever they want to eradicate distinctions, we should want to affirm and reinforce them, right? Right — but we shouldn’t do it in a way that cedes the bad guys much more authority in eradicating the next round of distinctions. The old gray mare, she ain’t what she used to be. We have to think of her in all of his.

As I have been saying, we need to do a lot of work on all of this. We need to fight for those jurisdictions where same sex mirage is still rejected. We need to research what sorts of protections we need to incorporate into our church documents to head off mandatory participation in such incoherencies. And we also need to have, in places where our people are given the Spouse A/Spouse B treatment by the clerk at the courthouse, an additional covenant, with the legal force of a prenup.

This covenant will declare that the marriage is occurring within the boundaries of natural and biblical law, and that both parties agree never to pursue civil divorce without first getting a formal, written determination on the legitimacy of the divorce from the church that solemnized their union. This would not prevent civil divorces (although I think it might help curtail them), but it would mean that churches would have to be present at the divorce, and not just at the wedding.

Instead of the Marriage Pledge, ministers would decline to do a wedding in any state that recognizes same sex mirage unless the couple agreed to the ecclesiastical covenant as well. This gives us the distinction we need, and it does not remove us from the battlefield.

But while we are on the subject, what about Spouse C? Why doesn’t anybody ever think of her?

No comments: