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?
“gonadal yearnings”
Doug — it might be a smidge naive to think “their great cauldron of lust” is primarily sexual.
That’s only secondary & emblematic.
The main lust is for self-determination & control.
The New York Magazine piece you linked to is crazy. I have a strong stomach, but I couldn’t keep reading. Will new lows continue to be reached? How long, O Lord?
“who would build their utopian Lego castles without use of the male/ female couplings feature.”
Well, that little snippet is worth taking the time to read the article.
Eric, agreed. Libido dominandi.
There once was a man named Doug… and he was almost always right. He knew a lot. Had thought deeply and clearly about a lot. He has written much (and clearly at that as a prolific author). His opponents respected, dare I say feared him, few if any can match his literary whit… his sense of humor too, gloriously satirical yet somehow edifying all at the same time. Doug though never really learned the right way to be right and right way to be wrong. When push came to shove, Doug had done his spade work… but as the end… Read more »
Hi George — this (U.S.) state refers to self-evident propositions, not self-authenticating.
And, on its face, it rightly acknowledges and appeals to those as from God.
So, “why should the state appeal” to Godly standards? — the bit of fear and common sense that remains.
In the interest of exemplifying the kind of human authority that declares itself to be simply because it says so, I will now take authority upon myself to summarize George’s comments for everyone.
I like Doug Wilson
He’s pretty smart
I don’t like Doug Wilson
He’s pretty dumb
!!!!!!
Natural Law, Trinitarian Revelation, Font Sizes!!!!!
!!!!!
We really screwed up.
REPENT!
Be a quitter, because it’s the only righteous move.
George: I read through your comment and honestly didn’t understand it much, but I did my best. So I hope my response somehow answers your questions. Both church and state are obliged to obey God. There is a kind of separation of church and state that is appropriate. Church and state have separate functions but both are obliged to obey God. In the Bible, marriage is defined in such a way that both the church and state are involved. In the OT, adultery sometimes resulted in execution (civil magistrate) but in the NT there are injunctions to people within the… Read more »
Seth, It does help and I do agree. I think what you are saying is the way things really ought to be… but they are not… and I am not suggesting and kind of “quitting” (as J suggests)… I actually think Eric made a good point too. I think the exact opposite is in play here… Radner and Seitz should have and could have developed the idea further. The idea needs further pressing and development of consequences (including ideas of ecclesiastical divorces). For the church to preside over a married couple, it needs to recognize the union… and the union… Read more »
If I understand George correctly, the very fact that Doug is having to take a stand on bestiality, and more, the very fact that he has to take a stand on anything and that he writes so prolifically on such issues, is itself a sign that what he does amounts to meaningless attempts to address an issue that lies at the heart of the church’s failure to live as she ought.
Is that right?
Well, this is rapidly spiraling downward. It’s almost like someone pulled his finger out of the dike.
George: Ok, so you’re saying marriages should be recognized by churches. Yes I agree. And we should tell the civil magistrate to repent and submit to God’s Word. Granted. What’s your point?
I think I would say it differently… The fact that Doug has to compare sodomy with bestiality to press the point seems to indicate he’s given up some ground already. Is he incorrect in the content of what he is saying and what will eventually come to be? Probably not. I would guess he’s got a good handle on it. All he is doing now though is the James Dobson solution… commentary with no meaningful action. So my concern is more, given that “they” can define reality (anyway they damn well please) who are “we” (who they have already relegated,… Read more »
I like Seitz’s, Radner’s, Leithart’s, Jordan’s doing SOMEthing (albeit imperfect) more than I like the people who are taking aim at everybody(both/all sides), saying a lot, and doing nothing of significant substance.
We will might have to deal with wife number three. If the polygamists get what they want, then we will have to deal with the fallout of divorce.
“I think I would say it differently… The fact that Doug has to compare sodomy with bestiality to press the point seems to indicate he’s given up some ground already.” His only point is that people who accept sodomy must logically accept bestiality or morally acceptable, given the nature of their justification for sodomy “All he is doing now though is the James Dobson solution… commentary with no meaningful action. So my concern is more, given that “they” can define reality (anyway they damn well please) who are “we” (who they have already relegated, confined and limited *in their reality*)… Read more »
George – I seemed to have missed something. I thought this blog ran rather in the one kingdom direction, not the ER2K direction. If you don’t think the church should be influencing or challenging the world, then just say so.
(1) The Enforcer of sameness will not be the same as the enforcees. Egalitarianism is a power grab that makes its own chosen problem not better but worse on its own terms. The very ideal must be repented of. (2) My guess is the most popular sexual sins are heterosexual fornication or solitary fornication, followed by divorce/remarriage, followed by adultery, followed by homosexuality, followed by rape, followed by bestiality…The sexual righteousnesses are abstinence and monogamy (with possible toleration of polygamy if a polygamous family gets saved.) We need repentance from all the sins, not only the current cutting edge ones,… Read more »
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.
Good, very good.
Next up on the horizon: Christian definitions of money and contracts.
Whoa there Timothy,
Can I stew a little longer before we move on to another topic. Please forgive my slowness :-)
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). Maybe. Another possibility is that you just got trolled. I wonder how many clicks and ad revenue has already been produced by this article, which is basically just a freakshow exhibit. And you know what they say: any publicity is good publicity. Sometimes you guys are your own worst enemies. The issue is not the sin, but rather the societal response to the sin. OK, but to illustrate this point you present the opinion of one… Read more »
Someone help me understand why Doug’s proposal of an ecclesiastical covenant is needed in states allowing same sex definition, but not in others. The two issues are connected culturally, I realize. But the church can start getting involved pastorally or judicially in divorces among her members, regardless of what the state is doing to the definition of marriage, can’t it?
The secular state certainly does not and cannot define marriage. It receives “what marriage is” the same way the Church receives Scripture.
Matt, How do you illustrate a General point without citing specific examples?Not only that, this particular article is a study of 100 zoophiles.
Citing examples is fine, but to say something about “society’s” reaction you really need more than one person. The “100 zoophiles” don’t mean anything…of course zoophiles approve of zoophilia.
Speaking of Spouse C…. Why does IT have to be a HER? I think Doug is being a little too restrictive!!
I ask this in good humor. :)
Show of hands; how many have read the terms zoophile and zoophilia prior to today? Pretty close to zero is my bet.
One of the first steps the godless Left uses in any transformation is language and changing the very words we use to describe reality. But don’t worry, nobody(!) is talking about teaching this stuff to pre-schoolers.
1. Based on the argumentation used to support gay marriage, Doug predicts we will begin to see other less mainstream and acceptable forms of sexual expression make their way into the conversation. 2. His prediction comes true, with examples first appearing at the fringes, where they are unlikely to stay given the philosophical groundwork already laid by the gay marriage crowd. 3. Doug notes these examples, names them for what they are, and not-so-subtly implies an “I told you so” as he reflects on the root causes and the likely outcomes. 4. Doug is criticized for a) misplaced criticism, b)… Read more »
Matt,
I believe the example of “society’s reaction” is the existence of such an article in New York.
Wouldn’t the comments on the article be more indicative of that?
Well, we all know the reliability of the contents of internet comment sections. :)