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.