The birth
This paper has originated from my emotional
response to learning about ‘The same sex
marriage bill’ which has just been legislated in
Australia. I somehow managed to miss all the
preparatory talks about it. Naturally, I heard
about the phenomenon before but somehow never
put it in the context of reality, my reality;
while traveling in France and Spain (which at
that time had already endorsed same sex
“marriage”) I gave no thought to it. That is
exactly what is being said about same sex
“marriage” by the way, that it would change only
the reality of the sexual minorities and not of
the straight majority.
For reasons unknown to me, when I heard the
words “same sex marriage” in application to the
country where I live now, here and now, I
experienced a rather strange reaction. It was
the sense of violation of normality, not
subjective normality of comfortable enough
dwelling in certain satisfactory conditions but
of objective existential normality, combined
with a sense that I see it and they – do
not, that I know what is truth and they –
do not, the truth so self-evident that “to
explain it” is to degrade it and furthermore –
to degrade the listener because a normal person
must be able to recognize the truth by himself
(or herself).
I have experienced this emotion before. This
paper is essentially a reflection on two
opposites joined by the emotion caused by the
denial of the truth.
The grounds
Although my position re: the same sex “marriage”
must be clear by now, from my use of commas and
from what I have said above, I will expand it. I
understand marriage as a union of man and woman,
two opposite principles, male and female, Yin
and Yang (no, I do not endorse Feng Shui, those
words just nicely highlight that my position has
no basis in my faith – my opinion was exactly
the same when I was an atheist in the U.S.S.R.).
But what are my grounds?
Curiously, it is quite easy to explain something
that appeared recently, like the theory of
quantum mechanics, but almost impossible –
something that seems to be around for all the
visible history of humanity and that produced me
and my audience. Probably marriage is “man and
woman together” because it has been so for all
the history of humanity without any need to be
“defined”. Only an attempt to “re-define”
marriage makes it necessary to define it – this
points to the fact that the intuitive, inborn
knowledge of this phenomenon is lost, erased by
amnesia, at least in those who want definitions.
One may argue that the state had “defined”
marriage in the past. My response is that the
variations of definitions have dealt with form
and not with the essential biological reality:
marriage is the union of the opposites sealed by
sexual intercourse. There can be one men and
several woman (polygamy) or vice versa
(polyandry) but the essence here is untouched,
given “from the beginning”. Whether you believe
in God or not, it is always he and she and their
offspring, and at some point of history it was
called marriage and was recognized as the
“primary brick” or nucleus of the human society.
It would never be recognized as such if it was
not producing a new life. Homosexual unions at
some points of human history (in Sparta etc.)
were considered to be “nobler” than marriage but
never been recognized to be marriage as such,
precisely for this reason. Hence the primary
archetypes deeply engrained: he and she,
bridegroom and bride, husband and wife, “they
lived together happily and died the same day”,
“you will see the children of your children”
etc.
An archetypical marriage has the following
necessary features:
- mutual attraction [a desirable but not
necessary quality]
- union of the complementary opposites, male and
female [a necessary quality]
-
biological/natural grounds for procreation
rooted in the opposites [a necessary quality]
A same sex “marriage” has no union of the
opposites and no possibility of producing
offspring; it has mutual attraction only.
Infertile marriage, often used as an argument
pro- same sex “marriage”, is still the union of
the opposites which correspond to father and
mother figures. The babies brought up by the
same sex couples, another argument against “no
possibility of producing offspring”, are not the
natural outcome of the same sex
“marriage”; they are deprived of either the
father or the mother and of growing and
developing within the union of two opposites.
So we have two phenomena which correspond to
each other as + and -; each point is the exact
opposite of another and effectively cancels it:
non-necessary attraction versus necessary
attraction
union of the complementary opposites - & +
versus union of the same
+ & +/- & -
biological/natural ground for procreation versus
no biological/natural ground for procreation
Hence “redefinition of marriage” for the purpose
of fitting homosexual unions into its frame can
only be done via annihilation of the reality of
marriage,
something that I suppose the “primitive people”
sense. One cannot “redefine” marriage; any
“redefinition” will do away with marriage
entirely. Via calling the same sex “marriage”
marriage one simply highjacks the word,
strips it of its meaning and attaches it to
something else – “union” perhaps. To put it
simply, the tag “cat” being simultaneously put
both on a dog and a cat cannot last without
causing cognitive dissonance, in the healthy
mind of an observer. To deal with the
discomfort, either the wrong tag must be removed
or the wrong essence, via various mental
exercises, must be brought, in the mind of an
observer, to “resembling enough” the phenomenon
conveyed by the tag. The first method is “highly
offensive”; the second is “nice” but requires
constant maintenance of the denial of reality.
Hence the ultimate way of dealing with the
“non-matching ends” of the essential structures
of the phenomena is to make them relative – and
this is why my argument above has no meaning
whatsoever either to those who endorse absolute
values and norms or to those whom are proponents
of “life in hypertext”.
It is probably a consequence of my living in the
West for some years that I bothered to analyse
the norm – the norm thanks to which I am
typing these words while those in Parliament
legislate the anti-norm. I will try again to
restate my position: there is no reason for me
to doubt that marriage is a union of man and
woman and this is the ultimate norm, the norm
of norms. Same sex relationships do not fit
this norm hence they cannot be called
“marriage”. Hence “same sex marriage” does not
exist in reality. From here it follows –
entirely logically – that the notion of “same
sex marriage” violates my reason to an even
greater extent than Putin’s propaganda does
– and this is how I suddenly saw the former
reflected in the latter and vice versa,
“backwards, totalitarian, patriarchal Russia” in
the “rotten, perverse, deluded, hedonistic West”
and vice versa.
“To an even greater extent” because a fresh
bubble, the “same sex marriage”, being a lie,
lent some truth to Russian propaganda about the
“rotten, devoid of human feelings and hopelessly
stupid West”.
However I got carried away. Let us consider some
pictures.
Reflections
Christianity did not invent marriage, so as
Judaism or other faiths; marriage invented
itself (according to atheism) or it was ordained
by God (according to the Abrahamic religions).
The latter does not exclude evolution by the way
and the fact that humans, man and woman, had
come together without knowing about God’s order.
I can (as I did above) speak of marriage leaving
God aside. However, because I am a Christian it
is more natural for me to consider marriage [or
any other phenomenon] in the metaphysical
landscape i.e. in the context of eternity/God
and this is what I am going to do. The reader
should not be alarmed though: the argument still
will be transparent without assuming the
condition of faith in God.
Please note that it is fundamentally with the
truth and lie categories represented
by marriage of a man and woman and “same sex
marriage” respectively that I am dealing with in
this paper. I am also exploring preparatory
stages for a radical departure from the truth
of a fact, when the term “same sex union”
[that is the objective truth of a fact “two
persons being together irrespective of
biological norms and morals”] is swapped with
“same sex “marriage”.
However one looks at the story of the
relationship of Adam and Eve, its essence is
undistinguishable from the normal human
experience: man and woman engage in a sexual
relationship [get married] and start a family;
their offspring spread repeating the original
pattern indefinitely (biblical accounts of
incest, multiple wives etc. do not undermine in
any way the essence of the natural process i.e.
that a marriage is about a relationship of man
and woman with their offspring as a natural
outcome). Undeniably, this natural pattern is
the way the whole creation (or “matter”) had
evolved and continues evolving.
Noteworthy, when God decided to interfere with
this natural order, via Incarnation of Christ,
he did not violate the realm or the normal
relationships of humans and their free will but
affirmed them. Thus, firstly, He needed
to obtain the freely given “yes” from the Virgin
Mary to become the Mother of His Son. He did not
deceive her hiding the truth about Who and from
Whom she would bear Him. Neither did He leave
her to bring up His Son alone [one could easy
imagine the Mother of God being given a palace/
servants/”anything” to “compensate” her for her
aloneness – I leave the reader to ponder what
attitude such an action would convey], but
provided her with a human spouse instead, a
spouse who (according to the Eastern Orthodox
Tradition) already had his own children and was
old enough, fit enough to take care of her
without feeling deprived of a “real marital
life”. While some may say that the Virgin Mary
was deprived of some aspects of a human marriage
[to which the answer is that many people are
deprived of it, voluntarily as well, for the
variety of reasons including serving
others/ultimate fulfilment in God, and that
Virgin Mary was dedicated to God from her birth]
it was her free will to do so. The Gospel
story does not give any sense of her will being
supressed or her person being used in any way.
God was able to enter the human realm via
sacrificial love; God’s desire to sacrifice
Himself for humanity needed a similar intention
from a human being, the Virgin Mary – and this
self-forgetfulness or selflessness was
completely natural to her.
The bottom line: God, while conducting His
supernatural action, did not violate the normal
structures of human existence, attachments, in
any way however grand His purpose was. The
Virgin Mary was not “thrown away” after Jesus
was born or grew up or ascended to heaven – she
remains the Mother of the Son of God for all
eternity. Even being nailed to the Cross, the
Son of God cared about her as His Mother and, as
a normal son, gave her someone to care for her
on His behalf (again, as He put it, “a son”,
i.e. a person, not “material provision”,
“compensation for trouble” or whatever the word
“power” devoid of any trace of love may bring to
a mind), His beloved disciple apostle John –
and, correspondingly, gave to heartbroken John
something of Himself, her. This action of
Christ, of giving His Mother another son however
does not signify a change in His relationship
with her, even after He assumed His place on the
right of His Father, in heavenly glory. God does
not obliterate, cancel, or change normal human
attachments/relationships neither does He force
human being to conduct acts unnatural to the
normal human psyche.
I went into the details of those two accounts,
of Creation and Incarnation, to demonstrate the
obvious, that being taken as “stories” they
speak of normal human attachments of children to
parents, heavenly and earthly, biological and
step-parents both.
A few important preliminary points: Jesus Christ
knows His heavenly Father and His earthly [step]
father and His mother intimately; he, so to
speak, has the full story about his parents =
about Himself. The human and divine orders are
not in conflict here, being joined by the
selflessness of all involved, from God to
humans. The outpouring of this selflessness
[which reaches its pinnacle in the earthly life
of Christ and His death] is an integration of
all, children into families and families into
God and is the exact opposite of the spirit of
abandonment that was hovering over humanity
since its voluntarily separation from God. The
Gospel is sealed with the ultimate
counter-abandonment, the post-Resurrection
promise of Christ “I am with you until the end
of times” [bought by His voluntarily horrendous
self-abandonment, on the Cross].
Also noteworthy, the Gospel story would
immediately fall apart if God wanted to
incarnate for His own pleasure so to speak or if
St Joseph would treat Jesus not as his own son
but as a burden or if the Virgin wanted her Son
entirely for herself and so on. The Incarnation
of Christ would never happen without the reality
of selflessness, in the human heart and in God’s
heart.
What I am saying here is that the whole
Scripture can be initially grasped, by a normal
psyche, via simple the notion of a child
(humanity) being not abandoned but rescued by a
parent (God) who acts via earthly parents and
the selfless love of parents for their children,
that love which reflects God’s love. If one
removes that notion of selfless love, in God or
parents or both, one will inevitably end up,
sooner or later, with a psychologically (or
physically or both) abandoned child – the
process observed in pathological families. Below
is the representation of two such families in
which either the mother or the father are a
narcissist.
Now compare it with the extreme of the same sex
“families”, of two homosexual males and two
homosexual females who went for the option of
maximally “their own” children i.e. made via
artificial insemination/IVF/surrogacy. Please
note how same sex couples who adopt orphans
cannot fit this picture by virtue of their
selfless action.
The features typical of a narcissistic family
are present here to the exact degree.
Interestingly, it appears that the very
structure of the “same sex family” with “made”
children determines the narcissistic vector,
unlike in the normal family where the vector is
determined by a narcissist. Hence another
curious factor: what in a frame of a
narcissistic family appeared to be definitely
morally wrong (suppression of a spouse =
father/mother, treatment her or him as a “tool”
for obtaining baby etc.) in the frame of a same
sex “family” becomes somehow more acceptable or
“morally neutral”, probably because of the
fatherless/motherless quality inherent in the
structure.
We also see something new in the same sex
“family” constellations, namely a definite move
towards “spirit becoming flesh” i.e. from
“psychologically no father/mother while he/she
is present” to “literally no father/mother, in
all senses of those words”. And even further –
not only “no father/mother literally” but “no
father/mother can be, ever” “no
father/mother is needed, ever” hence the
notion moves, from a situation that has some
correspondence to normal marriage, when a
father, let’s say, left a pregnant mother, to a
situation which has no correspondence with a
normal marriage whatsoever, into the realm of
pure ideas, principles, and so on (on the pic.
interpreted in the language of metaphysics).
Another interesting feature: two same sex
“parents”, by the virtue of their usage of the
biological father/mother of the child and by
their same sex, are indistinguishable from a
narcissist (corresponding to them) from the
pic. above who treats her/his spouse as a sperm
donor or “a womb”. They, on the pic., appear to
be “a double narcissist”, a narcissist who does
not have any opposition whatsoever, even the
symbolic opposition conveyed by the different
gender of his/her suppressed spouse.
In the beginning of this chapter normal human
structures/attachments were considered in the
context of metaphysics = God. It was established
that, even in the case of dramatic supernatural
interaction of God (Incarnation), the normal
scheme of parents – children relationship always
remains preserved and even more than preserved –
it tends towards selfless love. It is fitting
then to consider now how the same sex “families”
who opt for unnatural = “supernatural” means of
making their “own” children fit that scheme.
The two phenomena, a normal family and the same
sex “family” appear to be in exact opposition to
each other, especially in their intentions
(selfless – selfish) and vectors (receiving a
given child – taking a child). I labelled the
same sex “family” as the “same sex union” for
the purpose of making the next step, in the
argument to whether the “same sex union” [a
truth] must be called “same sex marriage” [a
lie].
However, even if we had the tag “family”
attached to the pic. of “same sex union” above
it would not alter the sense of randomness
conveyed by the constellation of figures. The
desire of two women/two men to obtain a child
against a natural order of things, although they
are labelled as “family”, does not have the
weight of the rule or of a right. The word
“family”, although we all know what family is,
has far too flexible boundaries (consider “human
family, Christian family, extended family,
nuclear family etc.) to impose anything
concrete. The “logical” step towards obtaining
the necessary rule/right, i.e. adding to what we
have here the word “marriage”, will alter the
whole picture radically as we shall see.
There is no longer room now for the “accidental”
entry of the opposite sex, even if only in the
thoughts of the “made” child. It also gives to
the “married” same sex couple the right to have
children, by whatever means. Essentially, the
word “marriage” adds that what was lacking
before: the sense of completeness and “norm”.
Without this label, the “same sex unions”
defined as such do not yet deny the normal
“he – she”, “father – mother” dichotomy. It is
quite possible, for Nick to explain to his child
“look, I live with Bob because I love him, it is
not a common thing and it is not marriage. I was
married to your mum but then I understood I
cannot be with women. Yes, it is a drama but at
least you have me and your mother. I understand
your pain but remember – you do have father and
mother, as everyone.” It is irrelevant here how
exactly Nick got his child from the child’s
mother – what is important that the child is not
caught in the clash of the total abnormality of
the “marriage” of Nick and Bob against the
“non-marriage” of Nick with his child’s mother.
A child is a product of [whatever activity] of
Nick and child’s mother and it is far more
natural to call this activity a “failed
marriage” or at least a “sexual interaction”
than to call “marriage” a biologically fruitless
union of two men. But I forgot – there is no
option of calling this a “marriage” in our
example yet. Now let us compare the situation
when this option is in a place.
Nick: “You have two fathers; your two fathers
are married to each other. Yes, you have a
mother somewhere – but now it is not important.
Marriage is primary you know, nobody needs a
mother, you can think of one of us as your
mother if you wish... he does not look like
mother? – It is OK, biology is irrelevant.” It
sounds bad enough but it can be still worse.
“Yes, you have two fathers… I do not know who
your mother is, it was some woman we paid to
carry you in her tummy. It is irrelevant. Who of
us is your father? – Well, we extracted our
sperm and mixed it to be fair to ourselves
so we do not know. Then we injected it into some
random woman and here you are! No, you do not
need a mother, what for, you have us. You think
it is not normal? – But we are married, just
like those who are man and woman. We are equal.
That means you missed nothing.” Even if we
imagine a situation when a child meets his
surrogate mother he must accept that, for
whatever reason, she gave him up, in the
overwhelming majority of cases being paid to
give him up. There is here an undeniable
violation of the primary attachment of a child
to his mother (the violation of which is
responsible for the majority of personality
disorders including narcissistic personality
disorder), the cruelty towards a mother and a
child, and the degrading of all involved, the
child in particular because he is not a product
of anything natural but an unnatural, mechanical
action. The only people who were not apparently
degraded are the two “married” men, and it is
precisely the word “marriage” that makes them
morally non-culpable. As “married” they “have a
right” to have children. No one can deny a
married (or unmarried) couple the right to have
a child. In a normal situation, children
“happen” whether they are prohibited or not. In
an abnormal situation they are made, with the
sanction of the state.
The same argument is legitimate in the case of
two “married” women. The “same sex union” leaves
room for the father (even if only a notion) and
cannot yet completely turn him into “a sperm
donor”. The term “marriage”, by its virtue,
excludes all but the two “married” women
rendering the man in this situation as totally
irrelevant. Paradoxically, the synonym of
completion is attached here to something that is
intrinsically biologically incomplete.
The reader may notice that I speak of extreme
cases of artificially “making babies” and not
about adoption. I do this simply because IVF and
other technology which excludes the normal human
involvement in the creation of a baby (sexual
intercourse between a man and a woman; even
without any noble feeling, such intercourse at
least creates a human story that can be tragic
but at least it is a human story)
provides us with the opportunity to observe the
vector of the process, just like understanding
the narcissistic personality example is helpful
to understand the vector of self-centredness. I
also argue that obtaining the label of
“marriage” is not enough for these same sex
couples (generally speaking); just as true
marriage has its vector towards children so too
does the same sex “marriage”. This is why the
ultimate and inevitable end of the same sex
“marriage” is IVF, as the only method to obtain
the “ultimate seal of marriage”, ones “own”
children. And, just as many heterosexual
couples are not satisfied with adoption but go
for IVF and surrogacy, there is nothing that may
make me believe that the homosexual couples
would not do the same. In fact, they already do.
The reader may question why I am not saying
anything about heterosexual couples employing
IVF and surrogacy. While I consider IVF to be
unacceptable in any situation, in heterosexual
couples there is no “pushing out” of a father or
a mother figure even if the biological
father/mother is different from the one who
brings a child up. A biological father (as a
man) is integrated into the father (also a man)
hence the duality man – woman, father – mother
is preserved; a biological father cannot be
integrated into a mother (lesbian). That said, I
am opposed to IVF as such because a child has a
right to be conceived in a humane way, because
the creation and destruction of “surplus’
embryos is inhumane, to the embryos and to the
ones who survive at their price. There is too
much deathly selection, inhumanity and just
plain death about IVF; it is IVF that provides
the final justification for the existence of the
same sex “marriage”, with the couples’ “own”
children rendering the other biological parent
as an irrelevant nothing. The whole affair is
saturated with the horror of abandonment.
The bottom line though is that whatever the
method is, it is the label “marriage” applied to
something that it is not that brings
various human relationships and structures to an
irreconcilable state. It is, essentially, the
inability of a normal psyche to reconcile the
notions of what is not marriage i.e. “biological
marriage = coming together” of two opposite
sexes, male and female for the purpose of
producing a baby who must then be given to the
same sex “parents” who are in the real
“marriage”. It is easy to see that, the less
personal/less intimate is the contact between a
man and a woman for the purpose of producing a
child to be taken away, the less outrageous
appears the business of taking him away. What
was not too personal can be taken away with
“minimal personal losses” and also can be easier
to relabel as “our own”. Hence another vector of
the same sex “marriage”, towards necessary
depersonalisation and further denial of normal
human feelings, towards total inhumanity. IVF
satisfies this need the best; further
developments in science will satisfy it even
better I believe.
Narcissistic empathy
There is much argument nowadays about having
compassion for homosexuals in their desire to
marry and to have “their own” i.e. biological =
made children. The problem is that empathy here
somehow tends to identify only with a
narcissistic desire “I will”. It appears that
“an empath” resonates only with “I will”/“give
me what I want” remaining strangely numb to the
needs of the children and others involved, if
the fulfilment of that “want” were to take
place.
Thus the argument that a child needs both father
and mother is waved off on the pretext that
“there are families without a parent”. I will
not peruse the most obvious (and entirely
reasonable) counter-argument, that this
situation is never desirable so why start with
that which is undesirable, and point out a few
interesting aspects of the argument of “the
empath” instead.
Curiously, it appears that “the empath” sees
only the appearances, one parent in the normal
family = the two “mothers” or “fathers” of the
same sex family. While formally it can be stated
that - = - -/ + = + + - in fact
not = but even better, because we have
here 2x- and 2x+, the essence
behind the numbers (or appearances) is not the
same. The crucial difference is made by the
feelings and needs, of a single parent – for a
spouse and of a child – for another parent,
father or mother. Ultimately it is a normal need
in the opposite sex attachment, for normal union
(adult) or for normal psychological formation
(child). Even in the case of a single
heterosexual woman who bears a child and brings
him up by herself there is still a vector
towards a man, even in the case that she has
decided “never deal with men because they are
bastards”. Her gender and her being non-married
to the same sex = her normal intrinsic
incompleteness without the opposite gender underlined by the lack of the word “marriage”
preserves the normal scheme of human
development of her child. Hence even a situation
which lacks the loss of a spouse/parent via
death or divorce or abandonment (meaning much
suffering and more personal loss) cannot be used
for the justification of the thesis “my child
will be fine with two mothers/fathers”.
There is something else here. The argument that
“children do well with same sex parents”
implicitly denies the importance of the
father/mother just as the very structure of the
same sex “family” does so there is nothing
unexpected about it. What is a bit more
interesting is how the argument tends to go on
i.e. not out of hot emotions, of hurt or hatred
(as it happens during divorce etc.), but out of
no emotions, out of a cold “I do not
understand, why my child would be unhappy
without a father/mother?” Is it perhaps because
the speaker has never been emotionally attached
to that hypothetical father/mother (an opposite
sex spouse) so she/he transfers her
non-attachment onto a child? “I do not have”/I
do not feel so my child will not have/does not
need.” Needless to say, the inability to
comprehend the necessity of an attachment to the
father/mother points to the deficiency of such
attachment in the life of a speaker. Whatever it
is, the lack of empathy with the needs of the
child is quite stunning.
It is possible to pile up such statements but I
will not bother – what strikes me here is the
artificiality and dismissal of normal human
emotions and feelings, entitlement and absolute
self-certainty. What strikes me most of all
though is the absence of introspection i.e. that
a person is totally oblivious to the fact that
anyone who thinks about the good of a child
would never deliberately deny to him or her a
father or mother [or even better, the felt need
for such], together with the story of their
actual father and mother – and if they did they
would feel at least a bit uncomfortable about
it. “I am entitled to have a child (even if I
cannot, biologically) and I do not care if he or
she will be unhappy – I will make him or her
believe that he or she is happy.” That notion,
“making him believe “, rings too familiar to me
but I leave it to the reader to come up with his
own associations.
God in the mirror of the same sex “marriage”,
the same sex “marriage” in the mirror of God
Although the Holy Family was present in the last
two pics I said nothing “specific” or “out of
the normal human realm” about metaphysics/God as
such. It appears that it does not need to be
added. As I promised in the beginning, bringing
God into the picture changes nothing in the
essence of the argument of this paper because
God’s scheme of relating to humans and the
scheme of normal human relationships are in
perfect conformity; the ultimate way of this
relating, the Incarnated Christ is the epitome
of the fullness of human being whether one
“approves” His actions or not. Hence, in normal
relationships, God is already present even if He
is not acknowledged. Whether someone believes in
Him or not it is possible to explain to the
other the things about God, including His
self-revelation, on the example of normal human
relationship.
In the case that a person (being a narcissist)
does not understand what a normal relationship
is, he will not understand the real meaning of
the Incarnation, Atonement and so on even if he
possesses the academic knowledge of theology.
The whole New Testament with its sacrificial
love of God and humans for each other will be
lost on him. He, however, will be able to grasp
something of the Old Testament, identifying
himself with God the Father, the all-powerful
One. In the case of the new breed of people, the
propagators of same sex “marriage” and the
children “made” within it, they will not
understand anything at all because the notions
of the father and mother (and of the whole realm
of normal human relationships) is lost on them
(hence already existent attempts to make a
“genderless God” out of God the Father etc.). In
this respect, on the metaphysical road, they go
further than simple narcissists because they do
not identify with the gender which represents
power (God the Father or the Mother Goddess) but
identify with something quite sexless or both
sexes mixed, androgyny or even better – with
sex-blur.
Typing that definition brought to my mind the
soup of meaning from my paper ‘The
Conductor’ that was about the Russian state
creating a “soup of meaning” in the minds of its
citizens made with hypertext and endless
swapping and mutual cancellation of meaning,
like counter-positioning “death is love” “war is
peace” and so on. The sex-blur is something that
is entirely missing in this soup, two
well-defined genders are still standing
rock-solid in the stew, and I understood it only
now – probably because before I took them for
granted.
These two figures, man and woman, could never
before be considered as a ground for the moral
non-culpability of Russia but they can be now.
Via destroying the definition of normal human
marriage = family Australia (and the others in
the “perverted West”) lost it all. Without this
given basic reality and basic continuum [cosy
little houses, Queen Elizabeth, he – she – their
three children in a Ute in the Outback etc.] the
“freedoms” of the West may look far less
appealing to many and the opposite camp – far
more appealing. There could not be a better way
of devaluing the humanistic values of the West
which, while being supported by basic human
normality appeared definitely more compelling
than the same human normality but without
humanistic values, in the opposite camp.
Curiously, the only phenomenon which can stop
those who long for the basic normality of the
human family from turning to Russia is the One
depicted on the Russian banners, Christ, that
Christ the proponents of the “sexual-blur” hate
so much.
December 2017