30 June 2015

Rainbow Houses and Fashions

How weird the North American Presidential Residence looked on our TV, in all those silly colours. Time some sensible person sent an army to burn it down. Have we still got an army?

Call me a Daft Limey, or anything else you like: I can't see why there's all this celebrating in honour of Gay Marriage. Everybody knows that the up-to-date and cutting-edge idea in homosexual circles is that homosexuality is inherently promiscuous; therefore, we are told, all the stuff about gay monogamy and fidelity is an attempt by heterosexual imperialism to impose alien concepts and restrictions upon homosexuals. Furthermore, in utilitarian terms it is easy to justify monogamous heterosexual fidelity for as long as there are children to be nurtured, but such considerations are not so obviously inherent in homosexual couplings.

It's a fad. By the time the novelty has worn off, say, in about twenty years, the number of gay 'marriages' will have slumped to something like zero. Betcha. When the new fad has become state-affirmed (simultaneous) polygamy or incest, the picture of two blokes or two gals getting 'exclusively' 'married' 'for life' will seem as deliciously retro as that of a Victorian spinster in crinolines riding a penny-farthing bicycle over cobblestones in a London smog.


Our Lady of Good Success-pray for us. said...

I would guess it depends on the devil's end-game with this stunt. I do think the LGTB zealots are perfect 'useful idiots'. Just like the feminist abortion zealots some forty years ago. There are already a number of children being raised in motherless or fatherless households due to same-sex defacto status (not much research on this yet, but what has come through is not a pretty picture - these kids have problems as bad or worse than the single impoverished 'teenage' mum with serveral kids from multiple absent fathers). As a result of the permission to create a 'gay' family a number of Catholic adoption agencies were 'legitimately' persecuted out of existence because they would not place children within patently sinful circumstance. The 'destruction' of the lay-unit (the family), I would guess, is was is at stake. The three states of the Church, ruling over the 'government', ruling of the family, all under the Sovereign Good of Christ the King, has been ripped apart and reassembled. The 'church' at the bottom, the family to the other side and the government using as many useful idiots as it can seduce from beneath it to do satan's bidding.

Liam Ronan said...

The hysterical élan evidenced in the US following upon the decision to recognize gay unions puts me in mind of the reaction of those crowds who gather round and egg-on some poor soul who, having perched himself on a ledge, steps off into oblivion with huzzahs ringing in his ears.

The huzzahs fade away in time, the mess remains, and for the social media moralists its off to the next flash mob.

David Roemer said...

Reasons to Believe in Jesus

Reasons to believe Jesus is alive in a new life with God can be found in quotes from two prominent atheists and a biology textbook.

Thus the passion of man is the reverse of that of Christ, for man loses himself as man in order that God may be born. But the idea of God is contradictory and we lose ourselves in vain. Man is a useless passion. (Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness: A Phenomenological Essay on Ontology, New York: Washington Square Press, p. 784)

Among the traditional candidates for comprehensive understanding of the relation of mind to the physical world, I believe the weight of evidence favors some from of neutral monism over the traditional alternatives of materialism, idealism, and dualism. (Thomas Nagel, Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False, location 69 of 1831)

And certain properties of the human brain distinguish our species from all other animals. The human brain is, after all, the only known collection of matter that tries to understand itself. To most biologists, the brain and the mind are one and the same; understand how the brain is organized and how it works, and we’ll understand such mindful functions as abstract thought and feelings. Some philosophers are less comfortable with this mechanistic view of mind, finding Descartes’ concept of a mind-body duality more attractive. (Neil Campbell, Biology, 4th edition, p. 776 )

Sartre speaks of the "passion of man," not the passion of Christians. He is acknowledging that all religions east and west believe there is a transcendental reality and that perfect fulfillment comes from being united with this reality after we die. He then defines this passion with a reference to Christian doctrine which means he is acknowledging the historical reasons for believing in Jesus. He does not deny God exists. He is only saying the concept of God is contradictory. He then admits that since life ends in the grave, it has no meaning.

From the title of the book, you can see that Nagel understands that humans are embodied sprits and that the humans soul is spiritual. He says, however, that dualism and idealism are "traditional" alternatives to materialism. Dualism and idealism are just bright ideas from Descartes and Berkeley. The traditional alternative to materialism is monism. According to Thomas Aquinas unity is the transcendental property of being. Campbell does not even grasp the concept of monism. The only theories he grasps are dualism and materialism.

If all atheists were like Sartre, it would be an obstacle to faith. An important reason to believe in Jesus is that practically all atheists are like Nagel and Campbell, not like Sartre.

by David Roemer


David Roemer

OreamnosAmericanus said...

As I am sure you are aware, Rev Hunwicke, you limeys burnt it down once already. But, that was a long time ago.

I am an unusual reader of yours. I am a "gay" American man who, while I do not practice Catholicism, has a deep interest in the role of religion in the West. And not from some ten-minute-old POMO ideological perch. The complex realities of history and culture fascinate me. And I prefer to get a lot of my perspectives on contemporary Catholicism from actual Catholics, like your own erudite self, rather than from Vatican II types, who are quite undistinguishable from contemporary Episcopalians.

At any rate, I am also so retrograde as to find both the idea of genderless marriage and the recent concocted-from-whole-cloth "constitutional" decison of 5/9 of our Supreme Rulers quite unconvincing.

Speaking only about the male-male side of things, and to put it bluntly, marriage for gay men is putting them into straight drag. Nothing at all against marriage, quite the contrary, but you need a man and a woman for that. Two guys can and do form powerful bonds of attachment and love, but men, being men, have attitudes about sex that are not a good fit for marriage (if you exclude the French and the Italians versions, but even there children have been hugely important). Few gay dyads I know are clearly monogamous. And really, for a group that prides itself on its creativity, putting another coat of paint on a home built for a very different family...well, it's a failure of imagination. The real cookie is, of course, social status and power. (And the fact that it's a huge poke in the eye to traditional folks adds to the allure.)

But I must say, and I suspect you will agree, the "LGBT" herd really are scavengers, picking the corpse of an institution that, alas, was executed by its heterosexual practitioners many decades ago. Combine feminism and no-fault, etc. and very soon it's all just a trip to the dressmaker before the lawyers divvy up the house and the kids. Sad, all around.

Lynda said...

It's not a fad. It's the conferral of public recognition and the status of "public institution" and "public good" on an egregious public and depraved evil and purporting that it is "marriage", which is an objective and necessary public good that has always existed as a corollary of man's existence independent of formal governmental and legal systems. It is for the destruction of public morals and the natural institutions of marriage and family as well as of the two sexes, male and female, intrinsic to the person and the common good. It means the destruction of the necessary goods that society depends on. It is diabolic and all men and women must resist it for the common good and the salvation of their souls. There is little more evil, more cruel and terrible, than providing for and endorsing the false "parenthood" of a child by two persons engaging in sodomitical relations. Will we stand by and allow this monstrous evil, allow innocent defenceless children to be abused in this extreme way? Where are our moral and spiritual leaders? Silence is collusion, deadly to the soul. Blessed Michael, the Archangel, defend us in battle

Mr. C said...

In social and anthropological terms, your summation is among the most apt and cogent. I would very much benefit from any expository wisdom regarding the political ramifications we may be facing over here. Thank you.

philipjohnson said...

Father ,absolutely brilliant.I read your writings more and more!!You are a good Priest and an erudite articulate academic one too.God Bless.Keep Writing.Philip Johnson.

Jacobi said...

The interesting thing is how can a faction, any faction, constituting 1 1/2 % of the population at most, obtain such dominating power and influence over whole societies. Money yes, careful strategy, intrigue, co-operation across aspects of society, yes. But that still does not explain their extraordinary power and influence.

John Patrick said...

Even sillier than the "Rainbow House" is the rainbow-ization of Facebook profile pictures as everyone climbs on the bandwagon. Turns out is was a neat experiment by FB to conduct research on the speed of social networking or something like that.

I have a feeling that God would like to have His rainbow back as its original sign of a covenant, thank you.

'A Quaker Brewer' said...

Not possible to ride an 'ordinary' (popularly known as a 'penny farthing') in a crinoline, methinks. The cycling boom of the 1880s and 90s gave a big impetus to the women's rational dress movement, i.e. the wearing of bloomers. Sometimes change is for the better!

Belfry Bat said...

Conjecture: the American Revolution was the American Iteration of the "Glorious" Revolution --- the subsequent "Restoration" was rendered a tad trickier for logistical reasons. Consonant with this Conjecture, fashions in general become fashionable in America just as they are on the way out (or somewhat later) in the rest of the Civilized World, and the case you mention is simply another instance.