One of the things that the pomos get right, at least as far as their own intentions are concerned, is the observation that intellectual frameworks are always rationalizations that are there to help set up the subsequent power play. As a universal explanation, I think that this reveals more about what they are up to than it reveals the essential nature of civic establishments — in other words, not everybody is a power monkey. But for them, the issue really is the drive for power.
And this is why the same sex marriage debate is going the way it is. This public square fiasco is no more a debate than any other form of pushing and shoving, and the lust on display is not that shown by men for men, but rather a lust by men to domineer other men. This is the libido dominandi. It is not a desire of men to penetrate men, but rather a desire of men to crush mankind.
The issue is not what homosexuals will or will not be allowed to do in private. The issue is what you and I will be allowed to say about that behavior in public. We are being confronted, yet again, with the idea of the inescapable concept. This is not whether, but which. It is not whether we will enforce a morality, but rather which morality we will enforce. It is not whether there will be a governing faith over the public square, but rather which faith will govern over the public square. And the secularists look at the Christians and say, one, two, three, not yours.
So the question then is this. Q. Which faith will allow homosexuals to do whatever they please, marry as they please, and be as public about it as they please, and which will also simultaneously jealously guard the right of others to object to that behavior, protest it, mock it, refuse to offer wedding services to it, preach against it, etc.? A. There isn’t one.
So our choice is between sexual libertinism and religious liberty. Depend upon it — you can’t have both.
This is why public tolerance of same sex relationships is necessarily a public intolerance of biblical faith, and vice versa. It is one or the other. Elijah did not tragically miss a golden opportunity for a YHWHist/Baalist interfaith dialog. Even if he had wanted one of those, which he didn’t, he couldn’t have had one. They don’t exist. They only seem to exist for those naive ones who are momentarily delighted when Joab and Amasa finally appear to have reconciled their differences (2 Sam. 20:9-10). “Isn’t that wonderf . . . ahhwwwno.”