Saturday, November 1, 2014

Murderers of Love

In the movie Dan in Real Life, there's one scene when his young teenage daughter lashes out because Dan makes some boundaries for seeing her boyfriend. Sobbing hysterically, she yells at her dad, "YOU ARE A MURDERER OF LOVE!" It's so innocently passionate and funny. But we have some real murderers of love in our midst and that isn't funny at all.

Ten years ago in 2004, a woman named Midge Decter gave a great speech at Hillsdale College titled "Civil Unions: Compromise or Surrender?" In it she said that gays weren't really about marriage at all, and allowing civil unions wouldn't solve anything. (Notice how the civil union idea never even got off the ground. They went straight for marriage.) She said, "They do not want what the rest of us have---they want to bring the whole house down." She was right.  And it seems they are accomplishing just that.

Militant gays, in their rebellion against God, truth, reality, and goodness, are angry people and angry people can be destructive. Even one person can reek a great deal of destruction. But don't look for bombings and shootings. This crime against humanity is being committed in slow motion, in subtle and disguised ways. It's sinking into the pores of an entire generation, practically undetected. For instance, Apple's CEO came out recently as gay and of course the news media is making a great celebration of it. Why? Why do we all need to know this highly personal thing about this man? Isn't sex private? Aren't we getting sick of people telling us what they think about and do sexually? The truth is, the only reason people are publicly proclaiming and celebrating this perverse sexual identity is to force the acceptance of all things homosex on everybody. Otherwise they'd at least be quiet about what should be private, and shameful too. Truth be told, this isn't so much about flesh and blood individuals as it is about principalities and powers (Ephesians 6:12).

Today on talk radio one male caller said to the male host," I love you," adding hastily, "but not in a homosexual way."  Have you noticed that conservative people now often must refer to love and marriage by qualifying it with words such as "between a man and woman" or "traditional" or "natural?" Love as we know it, as it has been known through the millennia, is on the defensive, and when something so biologically basic and socially certain has to be defended in every arena and in every way in order to merely exist, it's taking its last breaths.

Apparently, the only kind of love that should be sexualized, the kind that consummates itself in sexual union between husband and wife and celebrates itself most fully in procreation, has been abducted, is being tortured beyond recognition, and will end up dead, and along with it will go every other kind of love.

When you redefine something, you change it into something else. When you redefine romantic love to make it possible between same sexes, you have destroyed what it is, what is means, what it does, and made it into something entirely different. Quite suddenly (relatively speaking in reference to the existence of humankind on the earth) marriage is not an institution to make a secure home for children, but a disposable institution to legitimize adult whims. Quite suddenly romantic love isn't something that leads to marriage and children, but is being considered in many forums as open to any coupling or grouping. Human nature proves those whims will have no bounds. As Dan in the movie knew, there's a time and place for that certain kind of love and if it isn't restrained within certain boundaries somebody gets hurt.

Midge Decter  concludes, " . . . I want us to stick up for ourselves and the way we live, be as mighty a force in the culture as we are entitled to be if nothing else by the virtue of our sheer numbers. I want us to resist all attacks on the way we live, whether from our kids, our grandkids, their momentary culture heroes, or from the overpaid, mindless, sheep-like followers of fashion in the press and academic community who make so much noise in the world around us every day. Let us be decent, civil and even loving to our homosexual fellow citizens; but draw the line on what they stand for and everything else that makes light of our existence." She's correct. It's our obligation to future generations to stand for our way of life, which means we must stand against creeping homosexualism and the like.

Alas, a lot has happened in the ten years since she said that. Standing against homosexuality is proving to be increasingly difficult, even punishable. The line Midge Decter spoke about has been blurred and is in the process of being erased. Because of sheep-like political correctness, fear, misinformation, intimidation, compromises,concessions, and examples being made of those who dare to resist, hardly anybody is putting up any defense at all anymore. Roger Scruton wrote,

"Homosexual acts should be discussed with an open mind, with a view to making a distinction between what is normal or abnormal, right or wrong, what fulfills our sexual nature and what frustrates it."

Such discussions, and those about the inordinate dangers and health risks of legitimized homosexuality to individuals and society are no longer welcomed, considered, or even allowed. Even churches are falling in line, instructing their members to welcome homosexual identity, homosexual behavior, and gay marriage into their midst, holding gay sensitivity meetings and conferences, and installing gay leaders, all of which necessarily cuts off any of the above important discussions. This very day at Notre Dame the Catholic Church is putting on a conference called "Gay in Christ." Gays and other homosexualists, calculating on their own advantage, are wiping out "the old certainties that once bound communities and societies together (Mark Dooley on Scruton)."

"Normalization of homosexuality imposes large social cost," said Scruton. It's an act of  destruction, of a kind of murder, and the essential distinction between types of love, sexual and nonsexual, is one of those losses. It seems we are losing our ability to discriminate, to judge, to discern between Plato's philia (friendship), agape (pure love, charity), and eros (romantic, sexual), between C. S. Lewis's distinct "four loves." We are living in a time when there are no boundaries for human feelings, when every current whim, even of inexperienced children, regarding gender identity, affection, or attraction can and will be grossly sexualized without restraint.

Truth be told, gay activists and the great majority of gays don't care a whit about marriage or anything that goes with it. Derek Washington of Get Equal Nevada, when relatively few same-sex couples took advantage of their new "right" to marriage recently, admitted that it was never about numbers. “I could care less about same-sex marriage legalization except that it’s a constitutional right,” he said. “That’s more what it was about than the actual people waiting to get married, to be honest. Marriage is just one step on our road to full equality. I firmly believe that.” And does this disordered behavior deserve the status of a right, of being equal to heterosexuality? No. Gay sex is fake sex, gay sex is lawless and dangerous, and most gays don't share their lives with their same-sex partners the way opposite sexes properly do, as whole persons.
As a rule, the only thing they share is same-sex fake sex. Most often it's not about any type of real love or lifetime plan, all of which should be unselfish at heart, but a narrow, hurtful, base, masturbatory, narcissistic, and perverse oversexualization of multiple same-sex people, for whatever reason. Those who publicly demand the "freedom" to "love" (read: freedom to lust after and sex around with) whomever they wish have, by default, actually committed cultural and social murder on every proper kind of love.   .