Ships in the Night

Cycle of Terror, Graydon Parrish

Many of us are very concerned with our surrogate morality of politics.



From this base we mobilize against the enemies of our rights, gracing our elegant platitudes with the Constitution's old lace. Thus we are kept secure and fervent for awhile. We cannot be assailed in our perfection of doctrine. Is there anyone more doctrinal than one American trying to prove a legal point to another. 

It's not a question.

We often hear we should respect the office of the president even if we do not respect the man. This is perhaps not so clear or shocking as the greater fabric of propaganda that feeds the American desire of divine imperial right, of secular sanctity. Jupiter and Jefferson, Neptune and Ben Franklin.

Our Pantheon, like any which is untrue, is manipulable, subject to the requirements of the time. Our views and values shift, some towards decay, others toward growth and fertility. I am not suggesting that allowing our political system to change as development requires is inadvisable. But allowing our political construct, which is intrinsically changeable, to become the basis by which we measure the human good -- to allow popular consensus to override the necessity of moral considerations -- is deranged.

Since when has the populace en masse been a moral authority. It has become the surrogate morality.

Those who support gay rights may very well have a legal basis for doing so. But considering a woman may choose to sue a family if her child hurts himself of his own fault on said family's property, or considering the hypocrisy of asserting the "right to choose" whilst forcing religious institutions to forgo that right, who should place his faith in the republic?

It becomes more and more apparent that supporters of gay rights are not a minority. They are making slow headway toward the achievement of their ironic goal. This is the public thing. It is a part of the ideological doctrine, and it will be enforced.

So why debate the issue on the legal plane? Why discuss in the arena a question of fundamental import to the understanding of the human person and his dignity. The sanctuary in the stock exchange.

I don't believe that the majority of those concerned with the effects of homosexuality on the cultural -- and indeed the personal -- sphere give two little lumps of refuse about what is legally sanctioned in the United States of America, or any other state for that matter. The question has political implications, sure, but it is, at its root, a theological discussion requiring a holistic approach.

Hence the absurdity of claiming a political institution such as civil marriage as a sort of banner of moral rectitude. Civil marriage is ultimately an agreement between two human beings who do not necessarily understand the spiritual significance of human relations. Civil marriage is something surfeit, another part of that ideological framework that says freedom is doing what one likes. It even speaks to the machinery of capitalism, the form of the business agreement. Civil marriage is for one or both parties who are not yet capable of acknowledging the transformational significance of sacramental marriage.

Doubtless, there is meaning if the promises made are kept, but that meaning derives from the secular desire to give just as much as one must without sacrificing the farcical ideal of the autonomous self. Moreover, let us remember that the official acts with the authority vested by the state.

The state is a format. It is not an authority. It's the clothes we wear, and no one needs a talking hat (unless there are some magical, faerie qualities of which I am unaware).

In the end, if same-sex unions are permitted, nothing will have been proved. It will simply be fact. Arbitration du jour.

Deep ontological disturbance will remain beneath the animal accretions of the postmodern self who seeks to war in arrogance like a prancing bird of paradise in its alpha display. See me. Love me. That is my only cry though it is the burning song of hatred.

Finally, the postmodern homosexualist rests his argument upon the naught. If his rationale is "liberal" and "progressive", then it has foundations in youthful inexperience and discounted sophism. If it is based on the state, then it is simply unseasonal (if he is trying to prove the goodness of homosexual acts). Freedom is meaningless if used to refer to a political "right". "Goodness" is meaningless if dressed in the same trappings. We determine the state. It does not determine us.

The only determination that is meaningful will be a discussion on a theological basis: what is the meaning of man? And the "progressive" "liberal" must join if he is to be considered. Otherwise, his cries are irrelevant, his attempted discrediting of religion (from a position of postmodern secular doctrine) laughable. The cart does not lead the horse: politics must nod to the wisdom of religion. Things go badly when they do not.

This is not a question that the state can answer or was designed to answer. The impending legislation is asinine: posterior end first. Again, the state can rise, fall, remain with a limping mediocrity -- this has no bearing on the question of what is right, what is good, what is fitting. Parties on either side of this debate must not be afraid to abandon the town hall (if it becomes a center of propagandizing) for the churches and universities.

I would start with an in-depth consideration of John Paul II's positive explication of human sexuality, which is not based on a fervid desire to discount the validity of homosexuality, but a desire to understand man. Hence, you will not find the popular phraseology you seek. Bring your anti-ego.

He starts from the beginning. Head first.


See Susannah Black's Brave New Cold War

Thoughts Concerning Homosexuality

Boys (game boy) -- Kuzma Ptrov-Vodkin, 1911

Note: I have deleted the second and third parts of this post, as, while relevant to American society in general, they were not appropriate within the context of this blog, whose primary mission is to highlight the artistic forces at work in the Transfiguration of culture.

I am not appalled or disgusted by homosexuality with any particularly strong sentiment. There are many other faults that I find more disturbing, and these include sexual faults, sins, such as rape, molestation, sexual obsession.

Homosexuality, in fact, has a very logical place in our current society. It is the most intuitive sin for our times. It fits in the setting like an atheist mega-church.

Among all the other enticing and frustrating vices, to me it most closely resembles gluttony. We see that this Quail Pot Pie (for instance, you know) happens to have the most pleasurable appearance and rich fragrance we could ever imagine, and so we take two scrumptious bites ... and cannot resist devouring its entirety, after which we feel overfull, immobile, and regretful.

In my own experiences with homosexual attraction, I have found that quite the same case unfolds after a particularly indulgent mental fantasy. A close friendship may provide the perfect circumstance for imperfection, and when friendly affection becomes erotic attraction, one has not quite reached the boundary.

Yes, I believe that eros can exist between two males without sin. Eros can occur when a sort of mild mating of minds occurs, when two young men -- or perhaps women -- recognize in each other, as Anne (with an "e") would say, "kindred spirits". They come so close as to observe in each other that beauty that God hid deep in the heart, only waiting to flower before loving eyes.

Boys playing soldiers -- Francisco Goya, 1779

Yet this eros can lead too far if left unpruned ... just as it can in any relationship between man and woman. In either situation, eros may lead to a lust to have for one's own gratification. Conversely, it may lead, in either situation, to a greater love, a profounder care.

But whereas the fulfillment of love between males lies in the exchange of that saccharine fume for brotherly gaiety and the camaradarie of arms, a unique love unto itself, the fulfillment of love between man and woman bursts into a more complex passion of familial trinitarianism.

But this mystery is lost upon us. We are, after all, the most singularly selfish nation on the face of the planet.

The Austin Institute recently released a video about the "Economics of Sex." In a few fundamental ways, it hits the nail on the head. In other ways, it is deeply flawed.

The head-hitting of Austin's hammer lies in its estimation that American men can bide their time when it comes to marriage. They are in no hurry, having the upper hand in such a sparse arena. They may experiment, demand probationary periods of sexual trial. In such an arena, why would a man find interest in a woman at all (besides the merely carnal sense-probing)?

The women who wish to marry but concede to modern values when it comes to courtship are precisely the sort of sell-outs that no one likes (I am not defending the men ... just making a rhetorical point). They are the sort that are just following lower instincts in an unconscious sort of way -- somehow secure a mate, give birth, raise the next generation.

On the other hand are the Miltonic Eve-like loners, who want to assert their man-womanness because it was the latest and greatest forbidden fruit of the last century (getting old, no?). Do they have respect for the flabby gamers who somehow wear masculine genitalia? About as much as they have for the homemaker who stays up later, gets up earlier, and works harder than they do.

Nevertheless, the pant suit is more impressive than the gamer's thumb. Why would a busy, clean-cut businesswoman look twice at the mediocre-but-approximately-marriageable oaf?

The point is that the sexes are no longer interested in each other. They have had quite a quarrel that has faded to an icy indifference over the course of two fateful centuries, and it is harder and harder to go back. No, it is impossible. And no one can see the way forward.

Why would Mr. Matt Walsh point out the self-victimization of the gay rights agenda? Because it fits right in with homosexuality itself. Homosexuality is a manifestation of the inward turning of the genders, the upraising of the "we" of males or the "we" of females that will one day be a silent chorus of solitary "Is".

Man looks inward and praises his strength, his flaxen hair, his handsome angularity, his quick and sharp wit that translates into powerful and protective romance. What luscious libido! What godliness! What need has he for the women who have brushed him off for love of the capacities only he will ever retain? They can keep their shoulder pads and pixie cuts. And the girly girls that are left ... well, we'll be best friends, because we've both been hurt and will always be hurt if the world remains unchanged.

The camaraderie of failing men has become a flamboyant and resentful self-love. Of course it has. What else could it have become? How else to protect a wounded dignity?

There are, of course, many more reasons for the phenomena of homosexuality, but I have proffered some cultural causes that I find relevant. I look forward to your comments.