jump to navigation

The manifest injustice of pseudo-sodomarriage June 2, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in catachesis, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, paganism, persecution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society, Spiritual Warfare, the enemy.

Reader and real time acquiantance JF turned me onto Robert Reilly’s fantastic book Making Gay Okay: How Rationalizing Homosexual Behavior is Changing Everything.  While Reilly is certainly a Catholic, since so many in our society discount religious arguments from the start, he based this book length refutation of the perversion and evil abuse that is pseudo-sodomarriage solely on arguments from reason, without mention of a single verse of Scripture or tenet of Doctrine.  Even though I thought I was pretty well steeped in all the arguments against this arrogation to redefine marriage, I have learned quite a few more from this book.  I highly recommend it.

To give a fer instance of where I’ve learned  much more regarding the evil of the attempted destruction of marriage as the foundational institution of society, here is an excerpt on the injustice of this redefinition from natural reason (pp. 47-9).  Reilly shows that the kind of irrational, unjust society that can pretend people of the same sex can be married, is the kind of society where will to power dominates and eventually will lead to a barbaric authoritarian regime:

An injustice of  similar magnitude is perpetuated by naming same-sex couplings “marriage.” Socrates and Plato said that a chaste loving relationship loving relationship between a man (erastes) and a male youth (eromenos) is morally superior to one in wih ch sexual touching takes place. Marriage for those who enggage in sodomy reverses this moral judgment, and laces sodomitical behavior on a higher moral plane than chastity.  This inversion of the classical moral order cannot take place without a corresponding inversion of the classical definition of justice. One will give to things what is their due no longer according to what they are.  In other words, justice will reside in one’s desires or will, rather than in the reality of what is.  For same-sex marriage to be just, justice has to be whatever we say it is. 

This is a very dangerous belief-that we get to make up what things are.  If Nature is denied, then justice will necessarily be reduced to what is willed, which, in turn, becomes right as the rule of the stronger…….This is what tyrants do.  What is arbitrary is by definition tyrannical. It is based upon pure will, unguided by reason. Those who wish to base their freedom upon the supposed purposelessness of things, which obtains in the absence of Nature, should face the consequences of this view. What seems unmitigated freedom is, in fact, the foundation of tyranny. 

Unfortunately, this solipsistic view of reality has reached high places, as we shall see with regard to various Supreme Court rulings. For now, we excerpt this sentence from the 1992 Casey vs. Planned Parenthood ruling, in which the court opined that “at the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” [This was the diabolical verbiage from Sandra Day O’Connor upon which this noxious decision hung.  From there, she argued that contraception is the backbone of American society, with abortion its indispensable backstop.  So, we pretend babies aren’t, and permit their murder in their millions. Diabolical, indeed] Well, actually not.  The universe is already here.  It has already been defined for us; otheriwse it would not be in existence. Our choice is not to make up the meaning of the universe but to discern its meaning and then either conformm ourselves to it or revolt against it.

The choice today is revolt. Igor Stravinsky wrote: “The old original sin was one of knowledge, the new original sin is one of non-acknowledgement.”  It is the refusal to acknowledge anything outside the operation of the human will-most especially the good toward which the soul is ordered.  The good is what must ultimately inform human justice. Therefore, moral relativism is inimical to justice, as it removes the epistemological ground for knowing the good….If what is good is relative to something other than itself, then it is not the good but the expression of some other interest that only claims to be the good. Claims of “good” then become transparent masks for self-interest.  This is the surest path back to barbarism and the brutal doctrine of “right is the rule of the stronger.”  The regression is not accidental.  Relativism inevitably concludes in nihilism, and the ultimate expression of nihilism is the supremacy of the will.

————-End Quote————

I believe I have touched on many of these points in the past, but never with such eloquence or so cohesively.  I have long believed that the direction of the sexular pagan culture, increasingly cut off from the Christian heritage that once informed it, is heading inexorably towards a nightmare of authoritarianism, barbarity, and the grossest immorality.  Already we see the “transgender rights” movement trying to destroy the notion of sex as in inborn characteristic.  Beyond that, polygamists, and, the ultimate demonic “prize,” child sex abuse, waits in the wings.  It won’t be 10 years before we’ll see at least the former legal, and strong arguments being made for the latter.  It will be literally hell on earth.

People wonder why we see the left behaving more and more openly in repressive, authoritarian manners. This is why.  The closer they get to their end goal of the complete and total destruction of even the few remaining shreds of moral decency, at least insofar as their precious if sterile gonads are concerned, the more openly authoritarian they behave. They do this not only because that is the nature of leftism always, but also because each incremental step towards evil requires greater and greater repression of those who object.  Reilly explains the motives behind this repression in detail – I hope to address those later, God willing.

As a final note, in 1997, the radical marxist lesbian barbara findlay (she spells her name without caps) declared: “‘the legal struggle for queer rights will one day be a showdown between freedom of religion versus sexual orientation.” But incredibly, few in the Church today, especially in positions of leadership, are capable of viewing the ongoing cultural warfare in these stark terms.  Most would rather these problems at least go away, if they are not four square on the wrong side.  But no matter how they try flee from the issue, they will be made to care.

The other side has known what it’s about all along . Do we?


1. Quovadis - June 3, 2015


Excellent post !!!

I too recently read Riley’s excellent book, and it contains boatloads of incredibly strong philosophical and sociological arguments, plus scads of objectively quantified and referenced health data (e.g. from the Centers for Disease Control) that strongly and compellingly support the traditional marriage cause.

Another great book (and more accessible for the average reader, albeit not as comprehensive) that I just finished is “One Man One Woman” by Dale O’Leary. She too (a female writer), similar to Robert Riley, presents an appreciable amount of compelling, objective, and referenced information, which clearly paints the gay agenda as intentionally misleading, utterly false, and horrifically damaging for the common good.

But, I think that there are two compelling arguments which can easily make our stand for traditional marriage very convincing:

1) What is the most fundamental purpose for the sexual powers that we have? Answer: for reproduction. And, if that is their most fundamental purpose, then wouldn’t it be considered a perversion of their use if they are used ONLY for pleasure? What if the lungs were only ever used to smoke weed? Wouldn’t that, in principle, be the same perverted use as abusing our reproductive organs via use only for pleasure?

2) What is the purpose of true Marriage? Is it not for the benefit of women, children, stable families, and a stable society? O’Riley pulls from definitive data to show that same-sex “marriage” does not and cannot achieve these things. If you read both of the above two books, they definitively discern and document objectively that sexual fidelity in a same-sex “marriage” relationship is the ANTITHESIS of what traditional marriage offers – i.e. sexual monogamy within so-called gay “marriage” is so exceedingly rare, and yet they want to “enlighten” the world by redefining and bringing real marriages down into the sewer on that front.

The only topic in my opinion that neither of the books by Riley and O’Leary address very well, if at all, is the issue of “discriminating” against same-sex couples for the “right” to marriage (but, logically speaking, how can one claim that “right”, if one has no real intention of being sexually faithful?). If any of your blog readers can comment and recommend a good book/article which decisively addresses that issue, please share your wisdom!

Pax et benedictiones tibi, per Christum Dominum nostrum,

Steve B

2. skeinster - June 3, 2015

I have nothing to add except to say that I love it when Mr. B. comments!

3. Margaret Costello - June 3, 2015

Well done. Great post. May pick up the book:+) God bless~

4. Margaret Costello - June 3, 2015

A quick answer to the above “discrimination” and “right” to marry issue. Discrimination is not a bad or good thing. It has been hijacked by an illiterate society. It is UNJUST discrimination that is wrong…justice determines the rightness or wrongness of how we discriminate. It reminds me of how they hijacked the concept of “judgement” for years. We discriminate ALL the time just like we judge all the time. It is a natural consequence of living in accordance with our nature i.e. to seek and will the good for us and others. In order to pursue that good, we must justly discriminate. Examples: 12 year olds are discriminated against for driving a car. Women or men are discriminated against when they attempt to attend a same sex college or organization. Most Americans are discriminated against walking into the White House whenever they want and hanging out with the President. Same goes with every human being who is has property…we discriminate against our neighbor’s just showing up in our bedroom’s whenever they want. The list is endless really. The etymology of discrimination is “making a distinction”.

Check out this ironic quote: “It especially annoys me when racists are accused of ‘discrimination.’ The ability to discriminate is a precious facility; by judging all members of one ‘race’ to be the same, the racist precisely shows himself incapable of discrimination. [Christopher Hitchens]”

“The ability to discriminate is a PRECIOUS facility.” Again, the term (like judgement, hate etc.) has been hijacked and per modernity given a fake, twisted, shallow surface meaning. Another word for discriminate? Discernment. It all comes back to the principle of non-contradiction and what the author above argues: nature. It is man’s ability to identify the lines of definition and meaning of nature based on justice, reason and reality. Discrimination is a reflection of the reality that we have specifically defined natures, purposes and definitions. Of course all of that goes against the delusional “I want to make reality up according to ME relativism” that is a result of Decartes and the so called “enlightenment” philosophs’ unhinging reality from thought. It also goes against the obsession with egalitarianism…another revolt against reality. We are not all equal, God gave us different gifts, challenges, burdens…parable of the talents anyone? The ONLY equalities we share is that we were made in God’s image…immortal souls…and are subject to His laws (Natural, Moral, Divine, and Eternal) other than that? Nada.

The “right” issue is easy. Nobody has the “right” to commit evil. The concept of “rights” implies that the behavior or right is in of itself a “right” thing to do/believe and reflects moral goodness. And for the record, there is no such thing as “the RIGHTS of man”…another demonic “enlightenment” fruit. The only person who has authentic rights is God. If we justly give Him His rights? All will be well. Granted we haven’t given God His rights for a long time…thus the collapse and chaos.

It started with the demonic French Revolution: “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity” when in reality:

Liberty=License and godlessness
Equality: doesn’t exist except for our sharing God’s image i.e. immortality and being subject to His laws
Fraternity: the emo, buddy-buddy system with evil incarnate.

No thanks.

Hope that helps:+) God bless~

Obsever - June 3, 2015

Well said!!

5. Why is a gomorrist woman serving as gatekeeper to exhibitors at Pope Francis’ US visit? | A Blog for Dallas Area Catholics - June 3, 2015

[…] on that.  According to a study performed by a PhD lost in this particular sin from the 90s (from Making Gay Okay, and his inclination towards sodomy would disincline him towards giving a negative impression of […]

6. ziggy stardust - June 4, 2015

Excellent post, but fyi; that quote you reference is from Anthony Kennedy (a catholic!), not O’Connor.

Another great book, more in the line of prosaic poetry, is Anthony Esolen’s “Defending Marriage”….crystalline, distilled, beauty!

Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: