Just One More Thing . . .

Tim Bayly passed on this joke over at his place:

Two aged orthodox Episcopal priests knelt side-by-side in the trendy new diocesan cathedral, waiting for their bishop’s Easter service to begin. It commenced with a lonely, eerie wisp of Tibetan bells wafting through the rafters. Then a chorus of plucked hand-harps took up the icy harmonies, and with a rattling slap of feet from the Puppets of Doom (these Episcopals were conceding nothing to the Romans) the procession down the central aisle began.

After the bell ringers and harpists came a dancing troop of near naked young men in red speedos, streamers flying from their wrists. Then something new—six women in purple robes shouldering a litter which bore a larger-than-life-sized Buddha. The bishop brought up the rear, her tresses plaited with white and red ribbons hanging from the edges of her mitre, her brocaded cassock matching the thurible in her hand.

One aged priest turned to the other and said, “Just one more thing, and I’m outta here!”

Speaking of which, another friend of this blog passed on this particular news item, wherein we learn that Philadelphia is going to start requiring three bathrooms in their buildings, one for men, one for women, and one for undecided.

I have to confess that part of my desire to write about this story is caused by my desire to, in all innocence, refer repeatedly to Mayor Nutter, and maybe to slip in a Nutter Mayor reference or two, and then to claim dyslexia when called on it, and then to profess myself mortally offended by the hatefulness of the objections. Dyslexics of the world, untie!

But after a season of incessant prayer, I manfully resisted the temptation, and would simply ask you to notice how the same thing is going on in both of the jokes I have mentioned. The terminally ridiculous is solemnly maintained, and it has gotten to the point where even opponents of such things fail to grasp the laugh riot aspects of it. But this can only be maintained for a time.

Homosexual marriage is a fad, right up there with pet rocks. Actually, it is a fad that appears with more solidity than pet rocks because any number of our cowardly and/or dim bulb legislators — the two characteristics not being mutually exclusive — have conspired to make this fad look more permanent by means of legal embodiment, and special restrooms. And then there we will be, when the fad has passed, with our special bathrooms for our pet rocks. “Are you sure you don’t have to go?” “Not really.”

In his work on eugenics — another fad promoted by all the smart people in leadership, that is to say, by all the “corrupt and evasive muddlers” in charge of our affairs — Chesterton once said this. He said that government has become ungovernable — “it cannot leave off governing. Law has become lawless; it cannot see where laws should stop. The chief feature of our time is the meekness of the mob and the madness of the government.”

And thus it is that one Mr. Nutter has determined that city buildings in Philadelphia should have a special rest room for a man who feels more like a woman than a man, but who feels awkward — somehow — going into the ladies room. The urgency of standing up to the tyranny of our society’s despotic and binary expectations can only be made more urgent by really having to go.

Before turning to the superstructure of our arguments in answering all this foolishness, we really need to make sure that the whole thing is being erected on the foundation of the horse laugh.

Because we don’t see how transient and risible and evanescent this whole thing is, we are apt to take the labored definitions of our adversaries too seriously. This is actually a charitable impulse on our part, and there are times when it can do some good. But not always. This is why, for example, many who share my opposition to homosexual marriage seem unable to grasp my simple point about how the inclusion of bisexuals in the affair — which the laws of everlasting justice demand! — requires a legalized minimum of three persons in a marriage. Why, in the LGBT line-up, are the Bs the only ones whose marital rights are being trampled on?

Note that it does not require a mandatory three, but rather a permissible three. Just as a polygamist at heart might voluntarily opt to limit himself to one spouse (for various reasons of his own), there is absolutely no reason in the logic of our relativistic and floundering marriage laws to require him to limit himself to one.

Keep in mind also that this logic is obvious enough to those who have been pushing for homo marriage. They are foolish, not stupid. They have only denied it for practical political reasons — so as to not give us a legit slippery slope argument. Once they have gotten the biblical definition of marriage out onto the slippery slope, then they will grant the argument, and indeed will start pushing for it.

Right now, as they press for same sex marriage in your state, they will look you straight in the eye and say that nobody is arguing for multiple marriage partners. Period. They will say that if you have a doctor, you can keep your doctor . . . no, wait, this is an active news cycle and I am having trouble keeping all the lies straight. Back on message. Once they have the law in place, they will grant your reductio — on age of consent, on polygamy, and on the bisexual thing.

So a bisexual is not someone who has to have every sexual act be a threesome. But if he wants it to, who is the state of Washington to tell him no? If he wants to be married to everybody in that particular bed, what principle gives us the authority to deny him? What in the logic of our current legislative process requires us to define marriage in terms of two people, no more, no less? Traditional values? Right — like they care about that.

A bisexual man who marries another man is doing so for life. That’s what the vows say, right? If he chose to marry a woman, he is doing that for life, right? What right does the state have — on the principles our solons are currently using to beclown themselves — to tell this bisexual that the other sexual impulse he has toward the kind of person he is not marrying must either be expressed through cheating, or not at all? Why can’t he express his full sexual identity through marriage? If he wants? Why not? Give me a reason, and no fair quoting Leviticus — for that would be hateful.

Share on Facebook15Tweet about this on Twitter8Share on Google+0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

20 comments on “Just One More Thing . . .

  1. You ask for a reason Doug, but you yourself have said that “sin doesn’t make sense.”

  2. “Dyslexics of the world, untie!”
    SUPER ROFL!!!!!!!
    And the Chesterton quote… superb.

  3. Doug, some people apparently are seriously pushing for polygamy.
     
    http://zionica.com/2013/10/30/polyamory-next-step-legalizing-sex-marriages/

  4. Pet rocks came and went, but sin has been around since Adam, and sexual sin, or at least sub-par-ness (if you want to say God sorta tolerated polygamy), since at least Lamech.   Yeah, it’s sin; yeah, it can have its ridiculous aspects; yeah, different forms are more popular different times and places (we “evangelicals” fornicate and divorce, but we thank God we’re not AT ALL like those Sodom Franciscoites over there)…but some form of the lust problem will always be with us, even us monogamous “chastitutes.”

  5. I think the real difference between the sexual sin of the past and the kind we see today is that in the past there seemed to be a retreat from getting near any sort of relational standard that was based in Judaism or Christianity. Those who wanted to practice any sort of sexual relationship outside the commands of God didn’t seem to want to have the blessing of God as well. Now it seems like they want both, and i’m not just talking about homosexuality. We want our divorces blessed, and our premarital sex blessed. Today, toleration is not enough, they also want you to approve. 

  6. Mr. Lohr,
    I think that repentance is key:
    ” For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit…For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
    You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.”
    “And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified…”
    “…the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness…
    “But the fruit of the Spirit is…goodness, faithfulness…self-control…If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.”
     
     
     
     
     

  7. Mr. Bowman,
    “..they also want you to approve.” I do not think that is an “also”; I think that is primary. That approval is foundational for what they crave, really what all men crave. But approval only has One Source: “And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.”

  8. I agree RFB. I think the tolerance act is often the version we(sinners) often sell first. 

  9. And as you slide down your slippery slope, ladies and gentlemen, you will see on your right this fine article:
    http://www.charismanews.com/us/41571-pedophilia-officially-classified-as-sexual-orientation-by-american-psychology-association

    Brace for impact.

  10. Pardon the previous comment. Turns out the report was unsubstantiated and mistaken. My apologies.
     

  11. They have only denied it for practical political reasons — so as to not give us a legit slippery slope argument.
     

    This is true enough, but aren’t we missing something here?  Gay Marriagists aren’t stupid, but then neither are opponents, yet the rout has been solidly in one direction.  So I see two possibilities.  One is that the opponents all just up and believed the lefties on this, which I find highly unlikely.  The other is that they decided they don’t care any more about 3 people getting married than they do about two men/women.  So, what now?

  12. “they decided they don’t care any more about 3 people getting married than they do about two men/women”.  Well, yeah. It’s kinda like that.  I’m not sure the former, on the heels of the latter, really makes things any worse.  Of course the selfish part of me wants it all to hold off until I’m gone, since I figure it’s going to be unpleasant  to be around when the bottom falls out.  

  13. It’s the advertisement of the rings in the previous post (The Emperor has No Clothes.  Turns out He’s a girl) that gets me.  How will anyone know I’m married to a woman (a good one at that) and not a dude?  Although I don’t have a verse to back me one conclusion I can come to is from working in the same building as two quiet, honorable Combat Veterans of the Vietnam War.  When I am around them I am careful about my language and I show up early for meetings and I never call them by their first name and a host of other behaviors because they are combat veterans and I am living in their country.  It’s my country too, but they live with honor and I live with shame.  Try as I might I will never be a combat veteran – they are different – and there is only one way to really understand that difference.
     
    Two men, or women, or three, or those with the bisexual marriage dichotomy from this post will never be married.  Chesterton said (in Manalive) “Marriage is a Dual to the death that no man of honor should decline.”   So, I will not change my ring or ring finger (I know the Orthodox already have the lead on this) as a reaction to someone who is not married.  I will act honorably with the knowledge that if someone wants to really understand the joy of marriage there is only way to do it.  I am  not smart enough to understand the logical errors of this debate (except the most logical one which has to do with meiosis) but it does not matter – I live in WashingtonState and what I believe is a minority and my voice is not heard no matter how loud I might yell.  So maybe the answer is to try a quieter method.
     
     
    But I hope you don’t because I like this blog.

  14. Thanks RFB, I fully agree.  “Repent” is one of the nutshells into which the Gospel can be put.  And the current extremes may become rare and hidden as the millennium grows.  But lust will always be at least a minor nuisance until Judgment Day (Doug had something not too long ago? about how to deal with it), and some of the post sounded as if it were overstating what we expect before Jesus comes back.

  15. “requires a legalized minimum of three persons in a marriage.” // The minimum is 4, not 3. Or rather the maximum must be more than 2 and at least 4.

  16. Your desire to limit marriage to 3 or 4 people is SO misogynistic. What about the guys who love men who have bodily forms traditionally described as male as well as love men who have bodily forms traditionally described as female as well as women with bodily forms traditionally described as male as well as women with bodily forms traditionally described as female.  And we haven’t even mentioned those who like women with bodily forms traditionally described as male and who wish they were men…
     
     

  17. So how long do you think it will be before they start saying that all marriages must include at least one person of a given sexual preference?

    Y’know, in the interest of tolerance and non-exclusion. ^_^

  18. What about the 9 year old girl (we’ll call her Polly) who has a crush on two ten year old boys but herself is trapped in the body of a 58 year old man?  Who will speak for him…er, I mean her?  Not only are we guilty of discrimination against this poor man…I mean little girl, who is in love with two people (maybe more in the future, who can know the ways of the heart?), but currently our culture is so full of ageism that someone like this has no chance at finding love. 

  19. but herself is trapped in the body of a 58 year old man

    well done, Dan Glover. I literally laughed out loud for a good 20 seconds.

  20. “Standing up to,”- funny, whether you intended or not.    

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>