The first homosexual marriages taking place in England and Wales filled Dave with pride, or so he says.
I’m happy for him. Because, let’s face it, Dave doesn’t have many real reasons to be proud. Trendy nonentities seldom do.
That’s why they have to manufacture bogus reasons, and Dave is past master. In this instance he pretends to be proud because the introduction of homomarriage pays tribute to “the sort of country we are”.
He’s right about that. We’re the sort of country that puts all those Johnny-Tony-Dave-Eds in power and then lets them destroy reality for the sake of imposing their own virtual world.
One in which vice is virtue, stupidity is intelligence, perversion is morality, illiteracy is education, levelling is equality, catastrophic indebtedness is prosperity, pickled animals is art and a cross between an orgy and a Nuremberg rally is music.
In Dave’s virtual world anything goes because, in ‘the sort of country we are’, people tacitly agree to ignore semantics for the sake of semiotics.
Otherwise they’d do their sums and realise that words uttered by our ‘leaders’ simply don’t add up. Take Dave’s explanation of his pride, for example.
Homomarriage, he told PinkNews, Peter Tatchell’s hysterical, blatantly politicised baby, is in keeping with Britain’s “proud tradition of respect, tolerance and equal worth”.
But Britain has no such tradition. That is, she does in the sense of recognising the equal worth of every individual. But Britain never, or at least until the likes of Dave took over, recognised the equality of every act. If she had, she would have become extinct a long time ago.
This distinction goes back to the old notion of hating the sin but loving the sinner. And the notion itself goes back to the Judaeo-Christian morality on which Western civilisation is based.
That is actual reality, and all attempts to replace it with the virtual kind have failed. The real choice Britain faces isn’t between Judaeo-Christian and some other morality. It’s between Judaeo-Christian morality and none.
And no real morality will ever create a Walpurgisnacht in which “all things are permitted”, in Dostoyevsky’s prophetic words. Moreover, when morality sinks, it drags everything else down, including the ability to think straight.
If this ability were still extant, we’d know that homomarriage is wrong for any number of reasons:
Moral: According to the founding document of our civilisation, homosexuality is a sin. Not the worst one, but a sin nevertheless.
We are of course all sinners, and no society can be rigidly intolerant and still hope to survive. That’s why civilised Western societies have always been tolerant of homosexuals – provided, and this is a critical proviso, they didn’t actively try to pervert society’s moral values.
In England especially, slight campness was seen as an extension of lovable eccentricity, occupying a place somewhere between loud waistcoats and Gilbert & Sullivan.
That’s why few Englishmen objected to the legalisation of homosexuality in 1967. They had forgotten that every wedge has a thin end: 47 years after the Sex Offences Act we have homomarriage.
Moral laws are like any other: if widely flouted, they disappear, followed by a rejection of morality as such. In due course, contempt for some moral laws will mean the debauchment of them all.
This is precisely the countdown for which Dave has pushed the button.
Social: Decadent societies that remove all moral restraints don’t survive: to this historical law there are no exceptions. That’s why accepting homomarriage is society’s suicide pact.
In this instance, family is the core institution of Western society, and marriage is the cornerstone of family. Homomarriage isn’t the first blow delivered to this institution, but it’s the hardest.
A society where almost half of all children are raised by a single parent has already corrupted family. How much more corruption can this institution – and therefore society – withstand before it disappears altogether?
Legal: There are many legal objections to homomarriage, of which one goes straight to the core of our constitution: the monarchy.
The status of a man ‘married’ to a king would be, putting it mildly, dubious. Would he be called Queen? If not, would we eliminate the very concept of king and queen, as we’re already eliminating the concept of husband and wife? What about succession, in the absence of ‘biological’ children?
And of course exempting the royal family from this abomination would produce deafening shrieks of discrimination in every objectionable publication, led by the one to which the British Prime Minister has seen fit to grant an interview.
Political: Dave obviously thought that his subversive campaign for homomarriage would be a vote getter. Reality is quite different: his ill-advised sleight of hand may well cost the Tories the next election.
The ComRes survey shows that the new law has turned off twice as many people from the Tories as it has attracted. That’s one thing I find amazing about our rulers: they’re even incompetent in the spivocratic arts to which they’ve devoted their lives.
Dave has actually divulged to his cronies that, had he anticipated the political consequences, he wouldn’t have done it. A true man of principle then.
Religious: England has an established church, an inseparable part of our constitution. Its wishy-washy response to something no church can possibly condone while remaining Christian has already added to the exodus of communicants. The Church risks becoming an irrelevance, with serious constitutional consequences.
Aesthetic: Personally, and it’s only one man’s view, I find the huge front-page photographs of newlywed men French-kissing to be nauseating.
Actually, it’s not only one man’s view. A quarter of all Brits state they’d refuse to attend a homosexual wedding, and most of them come from the core Tory support.
Add to this all those millions who feel the same way but have swallowed the propaganda saying that such feelings aren’t socially acceptable, and I’m in good company.
Do you find such pictures appealing? Do you really? One wishes more Brits were honest about their true feelings.
However, all such reasons, arbitrarily picked out of hundreds, fall into the domain of the real world. Evidently this isn’t the world inhabited by our politicians, which presents a deadly danger to us all.