Friday, August 28, 2015

Down that Road

One might have wondered why I am not blogging much these days. This will only be my second post in August. Busy, I guess. But writing (that is not financial remunerated) is inspiration-based and no one controls inspiration.

I want to talk about the road from spiritual to material values. One of the reviews for the Fall issue of the Catholic Review of Books concerns nuns. It's a book written from a worldly perspective, and while it's easy enough to discountenance it because of that, the kind of thinking that it presents is a kind that can easily affect more careful Catholics. The book was about nuns who were SJW (social justice warriors, an abbreviation I was recently taught).

Think about it for a second. Nuns being appraised by what they do to make the world a better place. Okay, so far so good, but let's see where this can go.

Obviously, the key word is 'better.' Does providing contraception and abortion for poor people make the world better? Of course not.

But what about providing healthy lunches for poor school kids?

What about forbidding unhealthy food at schools?

What about educating poor families about good nutrition?

What about making these courses mandatory?

Alright, we can split hairs about this kind of thing, but you can see where I am going here.

It's the old Feuerbach catch, for lack of a better word. BTW, Charles Taylor talks about this catch-22 in his A Secular Age. What I mean is the accusation that Christianity, because it is other-worldly, diverts people from making the world a better place. We can respond in one of two ways, each of which runs into problems: (a) no, it doesn't; it is oriented to making the world a better place, or (b) that's true, Christianity is about what's really important: going to heaven and therefore doesn't care about the world.

In this day and age option (a) tends to predominate in our discourse. We point to the Church's charitable works in Africa, etc., its role in ending slavery, opposing Nazism, Communism, expanding science, education, etc.

The consequences of this are fairly obvious, though sometimes not so obvious.

The way that liberal Protestantism has killed itself by slowly turning itself into a social justice organization that nobody cares about anymore, is a rather obvious example.

But Catholics who talk about Catholic teaching promoting healthy families, the best pedagogy, good economics policies can be effecting the same thing. Is it good because it is godly, or is it good because of how it improves social life, economic conditions, education? Of course, it is not a case of either/or in itself, but in the minds of actual people it can be.

The temptation to explain spiritual values materially is always there. It's good apologetics, but I would argue that it's not good spirituality for the more advanced. Maybe this is an effective test of one's spiritual state: how do you understand your faith - as good because of its material benefits (i.e. it makes the world a better place), or as good because it brings us to heaven, brings us closer to God, etc.?

A friend once gave a talk to a group of Catholic educators and told them that our educating should be directly at the service of the pro-life cause. Sounds about right? I strongly disagree with him.

This was Karl Marx's essential point in The German Ideology, where he excoriated philosophers who removed their thinking from the practical matter of wealth distribution. I am paraphrasing, but think I am right here.

This sort of thinking became attractive to us when Kant (and Locke) tried to justify religion "Within the Bounds of Reason Alone." And we do this whenever we say things like "prayer is good for your health, blood pressure," etc. Of course it is, but that's not why we do it. Good things are often healthy things, but health is not why we do them. They are healthy because they were given by the same God who made our bodies to be healthy in such a way.

You will notice that John Paul II never defined education in this way in Fides et Ratio, not B XVI in his numerous writings on the subject. They talked about wonder at the reality of the whole world, the meaning of the whole and of every part. They never said, subject your thinking to the material betterment of the world exclusively. And why did they not?

Because it's a self-defeating proposition: how do you make the world better when you haven't wondered about the word 'better,' because you haven't wondered about everything, because you haven't wondered about God, goodness, life itself? You have rushed to a certain definite end and have failed to truly understand anything. You want to do God's work but don't care about what God said about it in the book He wrote called "The World."

This is why Plato puts true philosophers first and why Aquinas and Bonaventure said theology was the highest science. Not economics and not politics.

The mass does not justify itself as somehow making the world a better place, nor does the priesthood, prayer, religious life, marital fidelity...

Obedience is obedience, and as a side-effect it is healthy for you, good for families, economies, world peace, etc. Confusion about this may be part of the confusing surrounding Laudato Si.

Happy Feast of St. Augustine, ya'll!

BTW, the difference St. Augustine made lay in enriching the inner lives of the Christians who read his works, not by introducing new agricultural techniques, making peace between Germanic tribes and the Romans, not by inventing penicillin. None of these are bad things, but they aren't why Christians should be Christians.

So many times a God-fearing young person will begin by getting into medicine because they want to love their neighbour in an effective manner, and before you know it, they are pushing contraception, abortion and euthanasia. Why? Because effectiveness began to trump everything. Quantity diminished quality. It happens all the time: good apostolates are turned into institutions of efficiency. Mother Theresa never let this happen to her order. More does not mean better; often is means worse. And this is what happens when we turn to material thinking. The state is far more efficient than the individual, than the Church, and so people think more and more about the government and its all-embracing prerogatives, not for bad reasons, but for misguided good reasons.

Sunday, August 2, 2015

My Crazy Women

Most of my friends live within 6 or 7 kms of me. Some of these are ladies. Wonderful, funderful ladies. Luckily for me, I like their husbands too, their wonderful, funderful husbands. I have long taught that men and women can't be friends. I still maintain that. Of course, they can't be friends in the same way women can be friends with women, men with men... Nevertheless, within the limits of healthiness, they can be friends, and it is really cool.

One thing cool about having a woman for a friend is how it helps with chastity. Yes, helps with it. It helps because as you get to know a woman you quickly come to realize that THEY ARE ALL MENTAL. All. And this is good, because if you are ever tempted to think that the grass is greener on the other side, you quickly learn that, no, the grass is just as crazy over there.

Okay, I'm not the best at metaphors, but, this is all very important to someone like me who never had a sister. I did not know that there were no women like this:

That's Natasha Rostov, the heroine of War and Peace, who was my late-teenage fantasy ideal woman - obviously Tolstoy's as well. Now, I don't wish to disparage Tolstoy's character-crafting ability, but Natasha, for all her faults, was far too innocent, sweet, romantic, idealistic and pure to be real... At least that was how I could see her then.

So, for a man who had no sisters, it was easy for me to believe that there was a Natasha out there for me. But there is a certain one-dimensionality involved in this. If Natasha were real, she would be just as nuts as my wonderful women friends - you know who you are! Natasha would have bad-breath sometimes. She would fart. Sometimes she would have a disgusting boogie hanging out of her nose. And even worse:

  • she would be insecure, 
  • she would be mad at you for suggesting that she was not as trim as she might be (you made no such suggestion), 
  • she would be mad at you for criticizing her parenting (you did not), 
  • she would be mad at you for disagreeing with her about Pope Francis, church music or whether men should ever wear baby harnesses or not (they should not), 
  • she would resent you for suggesting that her gluten allergy is all in her head (it is). 

But just as in marriage, a real relationship comes about only after accepting the other for all her pluses and minuses. I wish I had a sister. It is my biggest regret from my childhood. But, having two awesome brothers and two wonderful parents, this kind of sounds like a big douse of ingratitude. It is.

I like my girlfriends. And, for some reason I do not fully understand, they like me: since I am obnoxious and very insensitive in some ways, very non-PC. And yet, I am hilarious and caring. They take me for what I am. And... da da daaaaa.... I take them for what they are: messes. I am not going to become a woman for their sake, and I do not expect them to become men for my sake. One great thing about being married and having daughters is you realize that women are kind of cool for being the messes they are.

I am almost finished my first Graham Greene novel, The Heart of the Matter. It is okay. One of the things that the author seems to want to get across is that women are all the same: that is to say, how they are with you is because you are who you are. I will be able to say for sure if this is actually the author's message when I finish the book. But the point is, we meet others with what we are, and they are what they are and so our friendships are products of all of this.

I grew up with a bad case of romanticism. So far I have not met any other man like I was. If I ever do, I will share my thoughts with him about Natasha's boogers. My girlfriends are actually my friends because they know how annoying I am and yet still deign to talk to me. I know how hurtful I can be at times. And they are my friends because they know I won't change to accommodate them. There is only one woman I have a duty to please and that is more than enough of a job for...

One of the reason why I wrote this, is that I see guys who are so insecure these days that they become like girls for sake of their girlfriends and wives. That is not necessary. If you have to change yourself for your friends, they are not accepting you for who you are. Men should be gross and burly.

Sunday, July 19, 2015

It Does Affect Me?

I have written a lot recently about the false sense of community Catholics unconsciously adopt from the secular world, and it adopts from us too. First of all, there is no community in the Medieval or Greek sense of the word in North America, at least not one represented by the state. CBC attempts to prove there is one so they can be it, so does the Canadian Government, etc. But they are not and nothing unites us as a community. We simply share space and believe we must therefore be a community.

But I've talked about that. What I want to talk about today is kind of the flip-side of that: how I have an interest in other people's lives because I cannot get away from them. No, that doesn't make a community. It makes nothing more than a negative relationship. The question is, can I be a libertarian, really? I say I am one by default because I don't want people I do not respect to affect my life. One friend of mine always says, in effect, that it's all stupid because there is no Catholic state, therefore everything's a mess and there's no use to talk about any of this.

If I am going to adopt a libertarian position then I have to leave people alone too. Is that possible? Is it possible to let the public school system do its thing as long as they leave the Separate Board alone? They don't leave the Separate Board alone, so that's a mute point. But what if they actually did? I am starting to think that not even that is possible. What if the Separate Board decides that September 18th is 'Naked Day,' and all their kids walk to school naked and spend the day at school naked? Well, that affects me because I would see them go to school, so would my kids, and even if we didn't, what kind of country will that produce? If I want to be immune from their influence I would then have to leave the country, or at least Ontario. Of course, it's easy to see that 'gay marriage' affects much more than just the couple undertaking it - and that's the point. And while it might seem unfair for me to take a position on something that does not directly involve me: it does indeed affect me in many, many ways. But what the right degree? If I don't like bikinis, do I have a right to commit political mayhem to get them banned? Banned from everywhere, banned from libraries, banned from grocery stores...?

Now many half-wits operate from the maxim that because there is nothing inherently wrong with X then X is always good. Because Zulu women go topless, there is nothing inherently wrong with it, therefore it can happen anywhere regardless. That type of rationale explains the trajectory of the whole sexual revolution. Animals are not monogamous, therefore there is nothing inherently wrong with monogamy. Their reasoning stops short with cannibalism, although not, apparently, in the minds of Planned Parenthood. Homosexuality does not do any direct damage, therefore it is fine. How one can quantify direct damage to include smoking and not sodomy is beyond me, of course.

I am not a big fan of rules. I like to do things my way. I am not a herd animal. Trends offend me. That's me, and I've always been that way - hence my t-shirts at mass tirade. Sleeveless shirts at mass gravely offend me.

But how ought one go about recommending fair conduct?

1. By compromise: I won't wear shorts, if you don't go sleeveless?

2. By far-reaching regulations: no one has anything uncovered ever?

3. By no regulations: I wear whatever I want, you wear whatever you want?

Is barn-raising actually a political metaphor?
Obviously, all of these are doomed to fail eventually. Reaching a satisfactory state of affairs is never going to happen. The Amish (2) sort of present an image of having solved the problem with the second type of solution. The 'French Riviera' (3) solution seems to make people happy there.

How do we know who's solution is better? Is there more AIDS, more happiness, more X, Y and Z with the Amish or at the French Riviera? Does it even matter?

I think a really good example of (1) is Madonna House. I am always amazed how well their inter-sexed scenario seems to work. They have rules, but I would not say that they are especially far-reaching as to put them in the Amish category (although some might beg to differ). Of course, in the case of Madonna House, it's not the rules that make it; it's the community's commitment to prayer and to following the Gospel. The rules are secondary and yet logical extensions of the primary reason.

It's hard to get a real read on this. Gay people get such a great sales-pitch from the MSM and Hollywood. Yet is it the case that all non-Christian living leads to AIDS and catastrophe? It depends what you mean by catastrophe. Abortion is catastrophe and it is essential to maintaining the status quo. Divorce is too. Then again, war is catastrophic, and I think one would be hard-pressed to say that nations can exist without it.

Where did Plato go wrong when he set out to plan the ideal state in the Republic and the Laws? I think when he set out to plan the ideal state. Does not Paul tell us quite simply that laws cannot do this, only grace can? Although most students of Plato would agree that Plato's plan in the Republic was not quite as I have set it out here, yet I think that all his provisos aside that are attached to his particular kind of idealism, he still could not think of something much better in politics than a state run with the best laws. Can we think of something better than this? Well, the Church, the City of God... however much those two articulations actually coincide. There is yet one essential wisdom in the Church political view: there is no right formula to be found here on earth.

Now, with this is mind, what should we do about bikinis, gay marriage and schools? Always aim for the closest approximation of the Gospel no matter whether it's our place to do so or not? I call this 'pulling a St. Charles Borromeo.' He tried to regulate every aspect of civic life to reflect Gospel values. He brings us closer to the Amish, but is Catholic Amish qualitatively that much better than Amish Amish?

Is the answer that obvious and have I been so disarmed by secular propaganda by my belief that something closer to libertarianism is fairer given our multicultural context?

One thing is clear, of course: everything affects me. When a bore wants to rev his truck up on a quiet Barry's Bay summer's evening, I am affected. When someone wants to get a divorce and raise his kids in my neighborhood relatively unattended, that affects me. When he chooses to swear around his kids in the privacy of his own home, that affects me. When he tells his kids that homework is unimportant, that affects me...

The argument that 'to each his own' and that 'privacy in the bedroom blah blah blah' requires revisiting.

Wednesday, July 8, 2015

The Problem with Movies Today, or the Problem with Me

Went to see Jurassic World yesterday. It was okay. Not worth the $ billion it has already made. And then there will be the next Avengers movie that'll make a $ billion too. And it won't deserve it either. How much have super hero movies made cumulatively over the last five or ten years? Many billions, I am sure. Why? I am picking on these kinds of movies, though I could certainly pick others to talk about, like the teen distopians, for instance.
oh no you didn't!

Most movies are boring. Most are trying repetitions of plots and characters we have seen a hundred, or a thousand, times before.

Is there something Christian in this musing of mine, or is this simply a disquisition on fiction? Yes, something Christian too. There has to be something Christian, not because I happen to be Christian and I am the writer, but because the universe is Christian.

And yet, some movies I enjoy. And it's not only about my subjective preferences. I am inclined to think prima facie that better movies reveal something interesting or important about the human condition. Maybe that's not the only factor of importance, but it seems to me it's one of the big ones. I like certain zombie movies for this reason - how can human beings cope with impossibly horrific scenarios? What is courage, foolhardiness, selfishness?

And yet direct treatments of the human condition aren't the only movies I like / good movies. If you took the sci-fi elements out of Star Wars they wouldn't be as good, that's for sure. Excitement is, well, exciting. I, confessedly and rather uncustomary for me, enjoyed the latest Mad Max movie a few nights ago and the only thing I can come up with for why I liked it was the excitement factor.

Pagan wish-fulfillment does nothing for me. What do I mean by this? It's the reason I don't care for super hero movies and those futuristic utopian movies like Interstellar, Tomorrowland, Wall-E, etc. The Facebook guy said recently that one of his goals is to help people live forever. I guess he's never seen a vampire movie nor visited a nursing home. What Zuckerberg's statement reveals is paganism plain and simple: paganism yearns for what only Christ can give: meaning and life. In lieu of that, they say, let's try to imagine meaningfulness. Their version is simple, straight-forward paganism: the same view of immortality that the Babylonian, Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Celts, etc., came up with: more of the same as this life. And what will that forever look like for Zuckerberg and his ilk? You don't need to guess, you can see it in their movies: lots of thin, multi-racial, young people. Being around these vacuous idiots forever, I would call that hell, not heaven.

So what makes a good movie good? I have been enjoying the short stories of Alexander Pushkin - find out all about these at the Catholic Review of Books, online and in print. These stories aren't about amazing things. They are set in the early 19th century and are about people, usually young people of the upper class. Pushkin's characters don't have the recipe for eternal life nor are they able to defeat the dark forces from Alpha Centauri with their magic rings. They are clear and simply-drawn rather average people who manage to reveal something really interesting about the human condition.

Let me close by talking about some of the fatal flaws of movie plots today. I have no remedy for movie-making today other than to say don't do these things.

1) bigger, faster, eviller sinkhole. How do you justify a second Avengers? Well, the enemy has to be even more powerful this time. This was the essential justification for making another Jurassic Park movie: the new dinosaur was even more powerful than the t-rex. If you contrast this with, say, the original Star Trek movies, it was not that each sequel had a consecutively more dangerous enemy to overcome. They were all about very different things: one an alien space craft, another, super-human hybrids, another a guy who could manipulate human fears, etc. The new series seems to have doomed itself to the bigger, faster sinkhole.

2)  Revisiting stale old tropes and caricatures. I think this pretty much explains itself. Are the people who enjoy these movies really this shallow? Rom-coms are legendary for this, but let's not forget like every action movie ever. Jurassic Land was full of these things too: the kids whose parents are about to get divorced. The smart kid who knows everything about the subject at hand (in this case, dinosaurs) and has long, unkempt hair. The mis-matched leading lady and fella who end up falling in love. The 'evil' guy who ends up getting eaten.

That may be so, but just like your electric guitar won't work
without electricity, a movie plot won't work
without meaning/significance.
3) Not dealing with actual life but some special condition that doesn't relate to anything other than the special parameters of this story or dealing with something that no thoughtful person could ever honestly care about. The worst case of the latter would be Pineapple Express, where I am supposed to care about a type of weed that can make you "really, really baked." A lot of this has to do with the manner in which the 'special circumstance' actually exposes something about human nature and life itself that is worth thinking about. The Goonies would be a good example of this. Every contemporary ghost story would be a bad example of this. The remake of Poltergeist was a stunningly bad example of this, the Insidious movies... Arbitrary rules decide the plot.

Anyway, enough about movies. It's interesting, though, how the types of movies being made reveals something about us today, something that is very unfortunate: we are a shallow people. We are a shallow people who look to absurd circumstances to give our lives meaning. At no cost to us, but with absolutely zero return.

Tuesday, July 7, 2015

A Real Connection

Long peculating in my thought-sphere (aka my head), is the way secular people do charity. There's lots I can say about it, but I want to focus on one unfortunate aspect: the distance factor.

I was perturbed about a month or so ago by the pay-it-forward phenomenon when I was in the drive-through at Tim Horton's. "The people ahead of you paid for your order," the girl at the window informed me.

"Oh," I responded.

"Yea, it's been going on all day."

It took me a minute to realize that I was supposed to do the same for the people behind me. So my $3.00 order became like $3.80. "That's a weird kind of charity," I thought.

Now, I am not bothered by the fact that I had to pay a niceness tax of 80 cents. I am bothered that people think that this kind of thing makes the world a better place.
Poor. One of us.

When St. Francis and St. Martin of Tours gave their clothes to the poor beggars they did not give it to someone else to give to them. No, they did it themselves, dignifying those down-trodden human beings with actual human interaction. All this go-fund-me stuff is the same. Never having to make a connection and actually look someone in the face. I'm not against this stuff, I am simply saying that it's not enough and it can do you, the giver, more harm than it benefits you. Why? Because you might be convinced by these acts that you have fulfilled your duty to your neighbour. Paying your taxes can't do it; anonymous gifts that cost you nothing more than a handful of change (and no actual sacrifice of time) can't do it.

Cancer runs are great and all that. But their's way too much fanfare and self-congratulations to really fulfill your human obligation. And no time spent with those who suffer.

Let's look at another contrast between this secular ethic and the Christian. Let's look at the Clinton Foundation kind of charity and that performed by a great hero of mine, C. S. Lewis. 'Limousin liberals' are the worst instances of this phenomenon. Other than the fact that their 'generosity' is actually always demagoguery a la Julius Caesar's kind of generosity, the way these people go on and on about fairness and sharing and the poor and yet are themselves filthy rich is just disgusting.

C. S. Lewis was one of the best-selling authors ever. Books is one of the biggest industries in the world. Lewis could have lived an incredibly lavish lifestyle. He was right up there with Stephen King and J. K. Rowling. But he gave all of his author money away. Right away. Not when he died. As soon as he made it.  Nor did he give away a billion and keep 400 billion, like the great tycoon saints we are told to admire today, like Gates, etc. He made millions and kept hundreds. Literally. He lived exactly the same after he attained great fame as before.
C. S. Lewis' house.

Yes, I know, relative generosity is a complex thing. I would say that it has a lot to do, in the end, with the food you permit yourself to eat and the clothes you insist on wearing. St. Francis was convinced of that. So too was St. John Paul, from what I've been told. Some people have to live in New York, and to do that, you have to buy a condo for a few million dollars. I don't care about that stuff. I live in Barry's Bay, and I could buy a whole street for a few million dollars.

Pope Francis talks about smelling like the sheep. That's something we can all learn to do, not just priests. I would say that Jesus basically tells us to brag about the poor people we know personally. Doesn't he?
Stephen King's House

Don't talk to me about 'opening up the borders' when you don't even know any of the Mexicans who already live on your street.

In your car in the Tim Horton's drive-through is a very safe place to be. Everyone in the car with you just happens to be your kind of person. And thank God that the people whose double-double you just bought won't ever actually touch you or breath on you. And, by the way, if they are in the drive-through, chances are they are not poor, at least not poor enough to actually desperately need your $3.80.

Monday, June 29, 2015

Gay Makes me Feel Better about my Shitty Situation

I don't usually use language of this nature, but perhaps it is justified by the punch it conveys.

When you think of those who support homosexual "marriage" most of all, it's the young. And, of course, it's easy to disparage the views of the young. But it's not only the young that support it, but predominantly, it is. And I would say that you could probably inversely graph support for gay "marriage" against age and it would look like this:

Yes, I am into graphs these days.

The point of this post is to answer a part of the "why" that came to me today.

I think a lot of young people support gay "marriage" because it permits them to discount the bad marriage they came from at home. If 50% of kids are now from broken homes, there you have 50% of kids who are struggling to understand what to make of their "bad" family. What's wrong with us?they wonder, even if not always consciously. But if marriage is a flexible polymorphous thing, then it's no big deal what happened to my family.

If it sounds a little far-fetched then I don't think you are really aware of the fundamental role that family life has in the formation of one's sense of self.

The obsession with not wanting to appear judgmental (the chief sin in our Post-Modern world) is because we know that our lives cannot stand up to scrutiny. I call it the "American Beauty effect."

Now, I hate bashing conservatives, but they do tend to believe their lives can stand up to scrutiny, and that is why they are more inclined to adhere to objective morality. Both approaches are wrong. As Tolstoy said, I love the truth so much that I teach it even when I fail to live up to it, or something to that effect. I agree. Conservatives love rules, because they have managed to abide by them. Liberals hate rules and love compassion because they recognize their own incompetence. Can you imagine Bill Clinton not supporting gay marriage? Who the hell does he think he is given rules to others! And that's why he doesn't insist on any rules governing personal conduct.

Conservatives are proud and liberals are libidinous. Conservatives see themselves as alphas, liberals betas. Kids of divorced parents see themselves as betas and try to cast that in the best light possible. One way is to say that the rules don't matter and that they were created by bad people anyway. Sounds a lot like Karl Marx, doesn't it? It's the quintessence of left-wing psychology.
One might add: cheated on his wife.
Didn't believe in marriage. How convenient.

Gays are losers - that is how they see themselves. No one has to treat them that way; they already see themselves that way. They feel better once they cast the "rules" aside and they feel twice as good when they call it compassion and revolution and progress.

And yet, we recognize that the rules aren't what the conservatives make of them; they were given by God. They were given by God for our good and our happiness.

And since this is so, gay cannot make you feel better about your shitty situation, at least not indefinitely, and this is why there is so much suicide. Especially by the most desperate, the so-called trans-gendered. All the sympathy in the world will not bring an end to the trans-gendered suicide epidemic. In fact, saying the rules don't matter, makes it worse for them, because they adopt a losing strategy, rather than seek the help they really need. They were not made into the wrong sex; that was not their problem; abuse and other things are to blame.

If you get rid of God, all you have left is the word of man. If men think you are a loser, who will ever love you unconditionally, if there is no God? The homosexualists have a whole set of conditions: you must believe what they tell you about yourself otherwise they will treat you like a pariah.

God does not think you are a loser because you are too short, are not handsome, are big-boned, have a big nose, are too masculine for a woman, too feminine for a man. But if there is no God, no objective rules, then you condemn yourselves to the blind judgments of men.

It's not easy coming from a shitty family. Dad left, mom sleeps around, brother goes to strip clubs... And yet God's plan for marriage and family is a great blessing to the world. Saying life is only what you wish it to be is of no help to anyone. Just because you came from something shitty, doesn't mean you deserve to continue on in something shitty.

But God loves losers. I'm one of His favorites!

A face that God could love. Thank God!

Friday, June 26, 2015

The Normal Associated with Gay Marriage

"Stacey, your father and I don't want
you to see that boy again.
His neck is too short."
"But mom!"
Big news about gay "marriage" today, if you think that what Caesar thinks is important, if you still believe that your nation state is your community.

Of course, one of the things that comes into play in this issue is the word, 'normal.' Both sides claim that word for themselves.

But I say that word is not all it's cracked up to be, and I say that it's normal for people to be abnormal.

While it was totally unthinkable just twenty years ago (let alone 200 or 2000 or 200,000) that men having sexual relations with men would be put alongside fruitful heterosexual intercourse, some people act now as if it is obvious it should be so considered. These are people who either have no sense of history and/or biology or think that these two things should be weighed relative to other things like whim and feeling.

And then they pull out the demographic argument, stuff like X number or X percent of people can't be wrong, can they?

Yes, they can. In fact, being wrong is what we have always done best. It's what's normal to us:

- millions of Russians thought they should kill and rob rich people
- millions of Chinese thought the same
- thousands of Germans thought they should invade Poland and Czechoslovakia because they had a better claim to it than the Czech and Poles
- England went from building glorious cathedrals and going on pilgrimages to murdering priests in the wink of an eye
- France went from building glorious cathedrals and going on pilgrimages to murdering priests in the wink of an eye
- billions of people have believed in a God they had no experience of or ever seriously thought about
- millions of people stop believing in this God when they were told to
- millions of people buy products, which they believe are necessary to them
- millions of people believe they deserve and require more money than they will ever spend
- thousands of people believe they have had experience with alien life-forms
- thousands of people believe that the US has a worse human rights record than China
- people have always generally believed that human slavery is morally acceptable
- millions of people believe that abortion is morally acceptable
- millions of people believe that euthanasia is morally acceptable

In other words, the human race has a very poor record. This is just one more of the same. In this case, a short-lived absurdity, like hoop-skirts, powdered wigs and bell-bottoms; or worse, genocide, abortion and wars of aggression.

A man who has a disinclination towards fulfilling his biological imperative and inclination to intimacy with a man is something to be remarked upon. It doesn't require a doctrinal commitment to notice its peculiarity. That we call it good and normal is just us doing what we do best, living inside the cave and calling images on the wall real stuff. We are extraordinarily gullible as a species. We will believe in homosexuality until the powers-that-be tell us to stone them.

In other words, homosexual marriage has less of a place in human history than sacrificing guys on big stumps of wood does.