Printed from https://www.writing.com/main/view_item/item_id/2100427-Marriage-Equality-a-fraught-plebiscite
Rated: 18+ · Essay · Family · #2100427
Homosexual 'marriage' is a product of institutional dissolution & governance decay
Homosexual Marriage: a plebiscite for late modern times

Christopher Nagle

(In Australia, as in the US, there is 'a debate' going on about whether homosexuals should have the right to marry and have/adopt children. In Australia, this has come to a head around a proposal for a plebiscite which is currently being debated in the Federal Parliament.

The proponents for 'marriage equality' oppose it as they see it as 'a divisive' tactic by 'conservative' (traditionalist) politicians looking for an opportunity to attack the homosexual lobby. The traditionalists are trying to use it as a platform to put their case in what up til now has been a very one sided and protracted marketing and lobbying campaign....)

“As an axiomatic, non negotiable and unshakable article of faith, I believe that whether it actually delivers on it or not, marriage is overwhelmingly a reproductive engagement between life creation partners whose primary business is mentoring and modelling that relationship to their offspring, by defining to them daily, over a reproductive cycle, what it means to be men and women, husbands and wives, and mothers and fathers, so that in their turn, those offspring can pass on those qualities to their own successors.”

“When I say ‘not so sexually straight’ I am making it clear that reproductive behavior and the male and female biological machinery that makes it possible, is front and center purposed for the reproduction of life, regardless of whether or not that is the immediate outcome. Everything else is a mistake and/or diversion that damages, distorts or diminishes the vitality of the real deal; the reproductive commons.”

“If I were a non straight bro, I would be heeding the already ominous signs of coming civilizational convulsion and adopting a defensive posture that would minimize the potential damage from adverse shifts.

I would not be assuming business-as-usual and the continuing libertarian humanist hegemony over our system of social administration. I would be focusing on entrenching the most sustainable gains that have been made over the last 70 years and looking to buttress them with conservative alliances that concentrate on respectful mutual non interference and benign tolerance from the dominant reproductive society, for a marginal off message minority.

Support from that quarter will be absolutely vital if things ‘go bad’, when communities divide, all the bets come off, the stakes become enormous and everyone starts to play for keeps.”

The reason that homosexual marriage and the arising right to adopt and parent children is going to be increasingly problematic over the next two to three decades, is because it will be seen as emblematic of the decaying and senescent state of ‘mature’ democratic societies, their indulgence market and social ideology and the eviscerating junk economy that underpins it.

Not only is the larger life web starting to crumble under the pressure of our economic activity, but so is the social and existential software capital that keeps human society and its members in a state of anchored, secure and stable governance, and gives it the capacity to effectively pass that on to the next generational cohort.

And if there be one factor to explain this, it is the disorder and chaos that is already enveloping us is a result of a loss of of understanding of what life means at all levels; i.e., a loss of the fundamental roots that hold us under the umbrella of the life force and make it and us work together in a coherent symbiosis.

For example, the economic system is fundamentally much less about producing goods and services for their own sake, so much as supporting by far the largest and most important social effort and capital investment we make as a species: Creating and nurturing the life that will replace us. And if the current arrangements for doing this were treated as an ‘industry’, it would be trading while insolvent, as a result of management incompetent, capital starved, rundown, untemplated and unregulated assembly processes, increasingly producing trashy, negligibly designed, poorly made and finished product that was as unreliable, breakdown prone and as hazardous to itself as to others.

The emergence and empowerment of fundamentalism is not just a religious phenomenon, but a counter-hegemonic back-to-basics way of thinking and commitment to repairing and rebuilding the ecological, social and existential commons, that systematic and protracted across the board privatization and deregulation have destroyed. Both the market and social libertarian wings of indulgence capitalism have been major players in this takedown of the commons and both sides have some unpleasant fairies wandering around at the bottom of their respective ideological ‘gardens’. Fundamentalists will go after both of them.

This is a long and demanding essay, not because I want to unduly tax my readers, but because what is being raised in the homosexual marriage question, is everything that is civilizationally perverse and unsustainable about latter day modern industrial societies, that will ultimately destroy these entities, but is already undermining and turning them into dysfunctional garbage.

And its fundamentalist replacement templates are already making the moves as they sense the vacuum in front of them, and the possibility of ultimate victory.

The overwhelming reason that the proponent lobby for ‘marriage equality’ doesn’t want a plebiscite is that it will have get into a serious confrontation about fundamental existential axioms and narratives that define our species, which are not small matters, nor easily summarized by the anodyne, trite and condemnatory campaign slogans and keywords we have come to know and love....

This lobby is not used to intellectual confrontation fought on equal terms, because what it has been doing for the last few decades is running a PR and marketing campaign which is defined not by the quality of its ideas and arguments in ‘debates’ it doesn’t control, or arbitrate, or audience dominate, but a campaign run along exactly same lines as for promoting bottled water, or the US National Rifle Association, The Zionist lobby or big Coal, Oil, Tobacco, Sugar and Pharma et al.

These campaigns are not about the virtue of arguments, so much as the power of pressurized persuasion invented by the propaganda departments of the autocracies of the twentieth century, and then perfected by the research intensive advertising, marketing and public relations industries that emerged in overwhelming force after WW2. These were able to colonize mass awareness in ways never before achievable by the relatively crude mechanisms of the totalitarian security state.

Small groups of organized, anonymous and/or institutional functionaries, professional mouthpieces and ‘grassroots’ ‘movements’ became part of the furniture of influence and publicity, who just kept ‘appearing’, as if spontaneously, throughout the architecture of public discourse, relentlessly trotting out the latter day propaganda equivalent of ‘the party line’, replete with the slogans, keywords and thirty second grabs you would expect. And in the process, democracies became the victims and then the creatures of consciousness peddlers.

The anthropogenic climate change denial and homosexual marriage campaigns are just the latest exemplars of the genre, carried out by the respective market and social wings of indulgence capitalism.

All the ‘changes’ that have occurred in the last 70 years are a result of the emerging agenda of consumer societies run by late corporate indulgence capitalism and its libertarian economic and social arms. They have together completely subsumed and colonized counter-system post-capitalist visions of the future with ones based around a consumerized and conflated version of civil and market entitlement. And in the process, liberal humanitarian ideology became a social/administrative regime institution, its acolytes its apparatchiks, its powers and duties analogous to the medieval church and its leader/mouthpieces, Orthodox ‘Libertarchs’.

The giveaway is the shift from historical analysis linked to a social movement committed to a replacement for capitalism, to an uncritical, welfarist and ‘churchy’ empathy for helpless and fragile ‘poor things’. This is linked to a freebie rights culture where the training, obligations, responsibilities, disciplined restraint, mature judgment and moral agency that underpins rights; i.e., the qualifications necessary to a acquire them, have been quietly dropped. And naturally, the homosexual lobby has worked this opportunity rich and vulnerable environment a treat. Why wouldn’t they?

Of course we don’t want a plebiscite, when small groups of loud and articulate activists can one by one, pick off parliamentary representatives who are not sufficiently on side with the ‘progressive’ view and the ‘overwhelming verdict of history’. And we keep repeating the slogan mantras of warm fuzzy ‘goodspeak’ and the unpleasant and discreditable mantras of very ‘nastyspeak’, for those who do not ‘cooperate’.

“Very nice, very effective and keeps building as we build the pressure, doesn’t it children?”
“Yes Miss.”

“And we don’t want those wriggling slithering right wing conservative reptiles to get the chance to come out of their dark and damp places to collect public money to run a campaign that does unto us what we have done unto them, do we children?”

“No Miss!”

“Nor do we want them to have the opportunity to ‘judge’ and ‘stereotype’ ‘vulnerable’ poor preciouses by attacking them with what they pretend is criticism of their agenda, but what we all know is really ‘ignorant’, ‘bigoted’, ‘prejudiced’ and ‘homophobic’ ‘hate speech’. Isn’t that right children!”

“Yes Miss!!”

“And we all know that the bottom line is that if (when) we get it done and dusted, the objectors will slither back under their rocks and everyone else will get used to it, just like we have with paying thousands of times the price of tap for bottled water, don’t we children?”

“Yes Miss!”

Actually they and I...we... aren’t going to ‘get used to it’, as if you can profoundly shift the existential rules in the context of democratic majorities that can be themselves shifted by not just events, but be manipulated by the very same techniques that changed their minds in the first place. History isn’t a mythical one way ‘progress’. Relatively little is ever permanently ‘settled’, especially if it is as much of a crib, fudge and bluff as homsosexual marriage equivalencing is.

Every lobby thinks its agenda is ‘just’, legitimate and represents a public good; even big tobacco...

It must be beginning to dawn on even the most ideologically obtuse that secular libertarian modernism is not traveling so well these days and that its legitimacy is coming into question.

Trump may be a bizarrely surreal clown, but then so was Adolf Hitler. Donald’s bombastic rampages really get traction when he gets down and dirty about east coast liberals and the UN sponsored conspiracy to create a fake climate crisis and world government. Adolph also loved global conspiracy theories...and his and Donald’s adoring audiences, who had/have been thoroughly beaten up by forces they didn’t/don’t really understand, were and are entranced by them too. They make sense of their sufferings and resentments at a world that seems to be turning upside down, is so unjust and not making any sense.

Both men were and are very bad auguries of a world starting to fall apart and more particularly, bypassing decrepit democratic institutions.

Westernism is in decline, as is the US, as are the Western great power political and social settlements that were created after the World Wars of the twentieth century. More, when you leave the regions of Western Europe and their New World migration destinations, our not so sexually straight friends are coming under resurgent and often draconian pressure; something not widely reported in western media.

What we like to refer to as ‘modernity’ is starting to look unsustainable at all sorts of levels. And when it ceases to be sustained, the world is going to be a very different place. When the era of disinhibited life-without-boundaries that has been the ideological hallmark of late Indulgence Capital and its consumer society gets wound back, and the reproductive social commons retrieves its dentures, the adventurism and hubris of our not-so-straight brothers and sisters may in retrospect, seem not-so-smart.

You know the old Greek adage, that you have to be careful what you ask of the Gods, in case they grant it. Women wanted equality and got comprehensively squibbed with lots of what they didn’t want and not much of what they did. And our not so straight brothers and sisters may very well find themselves at some point more exposed and vulnerable than a sunny Christmas arvo shag on Bondi beach, or worse, receive an unpleasant ‘cracker night special’ for the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras, with love from Daesh and/or some of the less tractable and more vehement sisters and bros from Western Sydney.

Just as it hasn’t taken more than a well organized, but quite small lobby campaign apparatus to institute ‘change’, by the same token, it won’t necessarily require a large counter organization to effect its own version of ‘change’.

Almost inevitably, parts of that organization are not going to have much respect for secular law. And it won’t necessarily be just Muslim outrage at perceived malfeasant secular libertarian governance, or lack of it, that drives that. While the demand for the introduction of Sharia Law can only prosper under the aegis of ‘marriage equality’, it won’t be just Muslims who recognize that parts of the secular law, and the constituencies that are driving them, have lost the plot.

If I were a non straight bro, I would be heeding the already ominous signs of coming civilizational convulsion and adopting a defensive posture that would minimize the potential damage from adverse shifts.

I would not be assuming business-as-usual and the continuing libertarian humanist hegemony over our system of social administration. I would be focusing on entrenching the most sustainable gains that have been made over the last 70 years and looking to buttress them with conservative alliances that concentrate on respectful mutual non interference and benign tolerance from the dominant reproductive society, for a marginal off message minority.

Support from that quarter will be absolutely vital if things ‘go bad’, when communities divide, all the bets come off, the stakes become enormous and everyone starts to play for keeps.

When the prospect of legalization of homosexuality first came to the fore, the slogan was, ‘What goes on between consenting adults in their bedrooms is no one else’s business’. And I say to my not so straight brothers and sisters, if they have any survival instincts still intact, be prudent and keep it that way as far as is reasonably possible, because the next 70 years are very likely to get rough, and there is absolutely no way of judging how badly the dice will fall. They may think they are only chancing their arms with homosexual ‘marriage’, but it maybe their heads will be what is demanded, if of all goes ill.

We do not need to know or be curious about the sexuality of the not so straight, whether it be homosexuality, transgenderism, cross dressing, foot fetishism, enemas and coprophagy, sado-masochism, nappy wearing, golden showering or combinations thereof. Sexuality can go anywhere, particularly in an indulgent era of weakened social/existential templates, social deregulation and liberty-without-borders, with all the internal controls ripped out. Much of it belongs in the in the valley of the shadow of marginalization. And the rest, like our homosexual brothers and sisters, are welcome amongst the rest of us as long they give the reproductive commons its privacy.

The reason for reducing the current porosity between the straight and not so straight sexual elements within society is to protect the integrity of the mainstream reproductive commons.

If they want to ‘come out’, by all means, but in the privacy of their own sexual ‘communities’. And if homosexuals want a partnership ceremony and need to invite friends and family from outside ‘the community’, they should be sufficiently circumspect about it that if there are children present, they will only know that John and James are ‘friends’ entering a partnership agreement. That isn’t ‘oppressive’. It is just respect.

What I call the ‘beast in the basement’ is where the somewhat limited software that controls all the high powered reproductive hormones and motivational juices reside. It doesn’t give a damn what anything is ‘supposed’ to be or do. If it escapes, it can overrun consequential reason in no time, can alight on any object or practice at all, and drown it in sex juice and fantasy that completely takes over the sexual imagination of the victim.

We have built a whole economy on letting the Beast in the Basement do whatever it likes. We have given it the keys to the city of the imagination. Its old cage is now on display in the Museum of Repression and Denial….

The Count de Sade’s notions of sexual libertarianism got brief traction with the most radical Jacobins during the French Revolution, but both before and after those heady days, he was universally regarded as an insane psychopath, who was condemned to spend long periods in asylums. Today, if he were alive, he would be running chains of hell fire clubs, leather fashion houses and sex shops, brothels and porn publishing businesses. He would be quite the respectable ‘wealth creating’ Hugh Hefner of the corporate scene and a ‘colourful’ and ‘controversial’ media personality.

It is a measure of just how corrupt the notion of ‘liberation’ has become that such a transformation from deviant psychopath to sex symbol is now possible. It is a warning to all pretenders to sexual exceptionalism and the blithe belief that the sexual paradigm has ‘changed’ forever. It hasn’t, anymore than it has for financial markets and the need for high integrity trustworthiness, and sustainable prudential practice.

When it comes to life’s little constants, like market cycles, beware of people who trumpet a ‘new order’ where the old rules no longer apply. Listening to them is an almost guaranteed way to lose money. And it isn’t any different in the ideological ‘market’.

The really basic rules of life do not ‘change’. Even bending them to accommodate something like female equality requires massive and protracted social investment in new institutional infrastructure, economic and social attitude adjustment, new behavioral templates and enforcement of bottom lines. Getting that one done is almost as big a project as the consumer ‘revolution’ itself, and disruptive of it, which is why feminist agenda was quietly marginalized in favor of high heels and dresses for twelve year olds, that reveal her G string whenever she bends down (and even sometimes when she doesn’t).

Even after implementing a substantial tranche of institutionalized male/female gender role shifting, the feminist project could still completely fail if it weren’t done right, because the underlying gender software is really primitive, females carry a ridiculously unequal 99% of the reproductive suite and males are bulked up with additional muscle mass and aggression hormones to ensure the best chances for success and survival in the now obsolete hunt for protein, in group conflict and competition for females.

I mean hasn’t it ever crossed anyone’s mind why so many women are still sexually attracted to ‘hormonally robust’ male dominants who any fool can see at a glance are clearly arrogant, vain and unconscionable egotists. And aren’t men just so almost universally attracted to over made up women who tit, bum and legs package themselves up as reproductive archetypes and theatrically pretend to be submissive, eyelash flapping and stilettoed arse waving vacant bimbo/concubines? Yes they are. And that is because we share our sexual software programming and the rather limited storage and analytical capacity of the ‘old brain’ in the base of our skulls, with crocodiles!

Old slow coach evolution can be a bit grudging in accommodating our latter day social and ideological ambitions. And the Mr and Ms Consequential-Reasonable, who reside in the frontal brain lobes, have limited means of control of the bottom feeder hormonal levers, especially at the moment.

The structurally stepped evolutionary and sometimes contradictory development of the brain was what old religionists called ‘original sin’. They were not that far off the mark, which is why even small gender change is big. And getting it wrong can be volatile, really easily undo our best intentions and cause immense damage if it does.

So, if I were say into Sado-Masochism, I would be really careful about it. I would not feel the need to ‘come out’ because it would be a private matter that was no one else’s business. My ‘identity’ wouldn’t ride on it, and if it did, that would make me a pretty shallow character, because, not being a subscriber to sexistentialist (I am my sexuality) baloney, there should be much more to me than just my sexuality.

More, there would be no necessity to indulge it if one wanted a stable marital relationship that was already difficult enough in its vanilla format, without imposing a risky extra layer of potential extremism, unstable power asymmetries and semi consensual sexual politics on top of that. And if my sex life suffered somewhat because my fantasies weren’t being realised, that would not be the end of the world. If my marriage only held up on the basis of how good the sex was, it wouldn’t be much of a marriage…..would it?

Of course it wouldn’t, because that is the propaganda messaging that the consumer society has been drowning us in for the last 70 years….whateveryouwant...indulge...because you ‘owe it’ to yourself...because it is all about me oh my oh ego I oh. Other people are just pawns in our fantasies. And if that causes a bit of angst and disruption, well ‘these things look after themselves’, don’t they?

The warning is to my homosexual brothers and sisters is that the whole environment of sexual politics has become so unstable and potentially explosive, that any sensible person would be extremely circumspect about how they entered it, in any capacity, particularly off message ones. And if some of our not so straight brothers and sisters want to legitimately enter the reproductive world, they can, unless they are obviously gender misassigned. It just means some currently very unfashionable sacrifices to do it.

Right now, that is not a popular option, when you can have it all; i.e., have your reproductive cake and eat your sexuality as well, until one terrible day when you or your successors can’t, because ideological greed, opportunism in the face of weakness and species identity theft get taken off the menu by people who are very not happy Jack...Jill.

“And we wouldn’t want Mummy and Daddy to ‘normalize’ their S & M ‘lifestyle’ and leather fashion sense in front of the kiddies, (like they do down at the G & L Sydney Mardi Gras) would we children; you know, the unavoidably noisy encounters down in the master bedroom, while one of them is getting ‘their just desserts, or see the occasional bruised backside on the way to the shower, or their fancy dress costumes before they go to the annual Hookers’ Ball’.

“No Miss!”

“And while we couldn’t ‘prove’ that that would cause the kiddies to regard sexual torture as ‘normal’, we wouldn’t think it was a fantastic gender modeling exercise, would we children?”

“Er….um….No Miss.”

As an axiomatic, non negotiable and unshakable article of faith, I believe that whether it actually delivers on it or not, marriage is overwhelmingly a reproductive engagement between life creation partners whose primary business is mentoring and modeling that relationship to their offspring, and defining to them daily, over a reproductive cycle, what it means to be men and women, husbands and wives, and mothers and fathers, so that in their turn, those offspring can pass on those qualities to their own successors.

When I talk about my ‘not so straight’ brothers and sisters. I am making it clear that reproductive behavior and the male and female biological machinery that makes it possible, is front and center purposed for the reproduction of life, regardless of whether or not that is the immediate outcome. Everything else is an off message mistake and/or diversion that variously damages, distorts or diminishes the vitality and integrity of the real deal; the reproductive commons; the life giving and raising business of inter-gendered creation partners.

Attempts by the homosexual ‘community’ to claim equal status within the reproductive commons is a completely bogus and unconscionable bluff that will at some point be repelled. That does not mean that they are not 'equals' as peers in the context of family, friends, associates, business partners, fellow citizens and human beings in the broadest generic sense. But if they want or need a homosexual 'lifestyle', they have dealt themselves out of the reproductive commons, and if they do not respect that, they do so at their own very substantial risk.

When people throw rice/confetti at a bride and groom as they leave their place of marriage, what they are doing is wishing them a fertile honeymoon and offspring. It isn’t about ‘sexuality’ or ‘lifestyle’, but about the reason society exists, which is to support the reproduction of the next generational cohort, just as every other animal species on the planet capable of looking after its young does.

In particular for us, with an 18-25 year generational cycle, that means providing a secure and stable institutional platform to reliably ensure, as far as possible, appropriate reproductive identity formation, general socialization and mentoring, education and minimum standards of delivered social product at the end of it; something we are not doing at all well right now.

That to me is a fundamental of life and bringing it into the world responsibly, People go to war and cancel social licences over much smaller matters than this. Matters of conflict over real estate and economic dominance are nothing compared to potential conflicts over the most volatile and potentially explosive area of ourselves, where the hormones are kept.

The closest we have come to conflict about existentially basic all or nothing stuff, were the religious wars of toleration in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. There were areas of central Europe that still hadn’t recovered a hundred years after the treaty of Westphalia, that finally settled things down in 1648. We are starting to get a bit of that with the rise of the phenomenon of the suicide bomber and the spectacular violence of Daesh, Al Qaida and their offshoots. But they are only the beginning….

We have seen our reproductive commons/nest all but destroyed in the last 70 years by an indulgence economy and its libertarian market and social ideological apparatus, that has removed the social templates and nobbled the regulatory capacity of social authority to function, in favor of marketing, sales, the masters of business administration and the Pied Pipers of Cool .

The prospectively successful attempt to homosexually ‘cuckoo’ it is emblematic of the extent of the damage. The fact that we have only half pulled down the patriarchy and not replaced it with proper marriage equality mold/patterning and some kind of training and regulatory system to make it work and deliver reliably on its bottom lines, has helped create the dysfunctional mess that has given opportunists their chance to colonize it with their own agenda.

The bluff, crib and fudge that has accompanied the campaign for marriage equivalencing is just an opportunistic territorial grab by people who sense the weakness and vulnerability in the social mainstream. But once one deconstructs the mechanisms of this power grab and its victim, it is easy to show the poverty and shallowness of the sloganeering that is making its success probable in the short term.

‘Marriage’ and ‘family’ has been so destabilized that they can no longer carry out their function of providing secure domestic arrangements over a generational cycle. Traditionalist notions of gender, partner and parent templating have been partly or wholly taken down, but not replaced, which has turned gender politics to seat of the pants laissez-faire and conflict laden semi chaos, with really spectacular and massively damaging divorce rates.

Girls expect a better status and a better deal and the boys, far too often, aren’t delivering. ‘Liberating’ women out of domestic drudgery into the industrial workforce has generally worked out as the drudgery of both the industrial workforce and domesticity.

Sexual ‘liberation’ for women has just pushed them into a male sexual paradigm of sex-on-demand, because if she doesn’t deliver the goods fast and enthusiastically enough, someone else will. Unlike the bad old days, she hardly ever gets the chance to find out who and what is trying to get into her pants, before she gets dragged into the emotional entanglements of sexual intimacy. And finally just to make women feel really good about themselves, female ‘dignitas, gravitas and auctoritas’ has been translated into a vacant slack jawed bimbo by the marketers and then projected back to them as the female stereotype.

The politics of immediate egoistic pleasure and gratification have come to trump the long term politics of reproductive partnering, socialisation and mentoring, every time, because that is what the consumer society is designed to do; to maximize the consumption of goods and service not only above all else, but at the expense of all else.

Family, which was once the biological joining through the splicing of descendant genes has become so unstable it has been turned into ad hoc cut and paste. Parenting has been substantially subsumed by ‘the voices’ of market forces. It has been rolled into depot management for shared consumption of goods and services.

There is actually very little left to steal or colonize, which is making the job of doing that just so much easier...and dangerous, when the worm eventually turns.

‘Equality’ is a vague and open ended bourgeois myth which obscures the fact that for most purposes, if you want to qualify to have standing as an equal in any community, you have to earn that status by meeting some standard. Our not so straight brothers and sisters don’t qualify because a priori, they cannot deliver the necessary gender templates that are required to be handed on to our children. They cannot/will not model the joining of life and what it means for children to be exposed to the daily compounding of the gender mentoring and the sexual politics of the people who gave them life. To pretend that it can be done is the lie of poseurs and imposters!

‘Caring’ for children can be done by anyone, or even sometimes other species. Parenting and the family root tendrils that extend beyond the creation partners is much deeper than that, because they go to the species existential core of our being; not just in the creation of life; not just gender modeling to the next generation, but more deeply still, the connection between generations and collateral families by family trait, propensities and looks, because they share genes, not just social connection.

More it isn’t just a matter of how homosexual parenting will bias the sexual attitudes of their children. It is about what they are not getting in terms of gender templating. A whole gender disappears out of the gender modelling that should happen in a properly functioning system of social reproduction, if we had one.

As with the larger environment, most of the costs of the destruction/break up of familial infrastructure are externalized out of the accounting system. Our species social reproduction is part of the larger life system and is suffering in exactly the same way, for we simply do not quantify the damage that broken biological families cause as they fail in their fundamental brief to provide secure constancy across a generational cycle and preserve its familial life roots. Lifestyle beats life every time. And we just aren’t prepared to divert resources from the junk economy to the life one, and in particular, to give it the support and institution building resources for marriage to become once again, a robust and well secured part of not merely our way of life, but life itself.

That unifying agency of genes is the life force at work. And it is no coincidence that the kind of damage that is being effected in our social infrastructure that creates life and builds lives, is paralleled by the damage being done by the economic system to the life giving ecological web.

The gender misassigned and the sexually bent can pretend that sexuality is the core of being and that lifestyle is more important than life, but that is just ideologically ‘sexistentialist’ tripe. They can pretend to be ‘normal’ only because normal is such a mess. Homosexual relations are inherently sterile, which is nature’s little hint that it isn’t the real deal. If you have to crib genetic material, or produce infants through third party carriers, or steal from genuine reproductive couples who for authentic health reasons cannot reproduce themselves, then it is all ideological bluster, bluff and theft!

Real marriage equality between men and women is the real business of the real deal involving the real parties. That is where the effort should be going. It is an enormous multi-generational project that will require substantial economic change and a shift of social effort back into social infrastructure out of morbidly overweight pseudo industries that produce junk and environmental damage rather than wealth; particularly as it pertains to the software wealth between our ears.

If our not so straight friends want partnership arrangements tailored for them in their own private sphere, no one will object to that as long as it remains private, they respectfully stay out of the reproductive commons and leave that to the people who have genuine business there.

Sure we all have a common ‘humanity’, but that does not mean that we do not have to reckon on, respect and manage our differences, some of which are serious ones. Failure to do that can end in warfare, whether we are talking nation states or sexual politics. ‘Territory’ can take any form or shape. There are not necessarily many degrees of separation between migrating into new territory and invasion. Homosexual ‘marriage’ is an invasion and it will be treated that way as soon as the forces promoting it lose their traction.

‘Equality’ is such a motherhood and apple pie cliché, but the punters fall for it every time because political discourse has so degenerated into mythology and propaganda, it does not occur to most people, even amongst the so called ‘educated’, that it could be otherwise.

If our not so straight friends want reciprocal respect, they are going to have to abandon the propaganda language of abuse; the nasty little keywords that are such effective put downs and negative stereotypes…..This is the real substance of so called ‘debate’.

‘Ignorant’ is nasty because it purports to suggest that people with a given ideological position can only hold it because not only do they not acknowledge the ‘overwhelming facts’, but are willfully unknowing of them; you know, the traditional dunce, sitting in the dunce’s naughty corner; objects of ridicule by those ‘who know’, who have properly learned the party line.

The basis for this accusation is that, in the case of our not so straight brothers and sisters, we straights cannot ‘judge’ their agendas because by definition, we will never ‘understand’. Only they can ‘know’ anything about them, because the rest of us have never experienced ‘being there’. We cannot apply normal critical perspective to their claims because their positions are ‘exceptionalist’, i.e., internally self validating and representing ‘a new and different paradigm’ that is beyond ordinary criticism’. Straights who pretend they can ‘judge’ are simply ignoring their own by definition ‘ignorance’.

This is known as special pleading and is beloved of adolescents, whitish ‘aboriginal’ activists and bankers just before the GFC (and since). It is an infantile blather calculated to bluff reasonable critical judgement out of its right to be there.

‘Prejudice’ is another prized stereotype putdown whereby we define ‘the good guys’ as having ‘reasonable beliefs’ based on ‘all the evidence’ and the bad guys as having ‘blind prejudices’, as if only the other guys, ‘the ignorant’, are weighed down by Holy Cows about which they cannot be rational.

Everybody has those. Market libertarians have difficulty with anthropogenic climate change because it contradicts their fundamental belief in the infallibility of markets. Similarly, it is impossible to have a rational discussion with social libertarians on their turf, where empathy rules reason, when it comes to talking about imperialism, racism/fascism, asylum seekers and of course, homosexuality. They too have Holy Cows that are so deeply held, faith and reason part company, with the same alacrity as they do when talking to religious fundamentalists about creationism. Same! Same!

The notion of ‘prejudice’ presupposes that only some people have ‘unfounded’ faith to inform their reason, whereas the reality is, everyone does. At the bottom of every argument are articles of faith that can neither be proved nor disproved. That is the nature of the beast. No one can run any sort of intellectual model without them. All argument is a reality modeling exercise that is a dance between data input and conceptualization of it within certain parameters, whose assumptions can only be quantified by creating other assumptions to quantify them with. The fundamental assumptional underpins of reason and thought modeling regress infinitely like onion rings.

Even in the field of basic science, the picture constantly changes as the intellectual and technical tools evolve and shift the relationship of observer and the observed. And when we get into social ‘science’, the forms of scientific method are there on the surface, but the basements are flooded with ideological assumptions and value judgements that makes much social ‘science’ an oxymoron, and its real status is pseudoscience, but only falling into that category when the underlying ideology becomes ‘unfashionable’.

You can ask and test the ‘scientific’ question as to whether homosexuals have similar ‘caring attributes’ to straights, but ignore the massive assumption that ‘parenting’ and ‘caring’ are the same thing. That one is no better than the ‘science’ put out by the coal lobby.

Eugenics was once regarded as ‘scientifically’ respectable. It was quite painstaking in its attempt to use scientific method, but its underlying ideological assumptions only started to became suspect with the very threatening rise of Fascism and some murderously unfortunate race policy that the ‘science’ was used to quantify and justify.

The reason that one ideological model gets up and another fails is almost always a result of how we more generally do business and the economic/social/ideological leverages that that business requires. Libertarian indulgence capitalism needs libertarian indulgence social ideology….until historical forces shift the goalposts, which there is a fair likelihood will occur in the not too distant future.

We live in an age where faith and reason are increasingly parting company because there are underlying tectonic shifts happening within the world order that established itself after the Second World War. As the existential uncertainty of such a period applies pressure on our beliefs and practices, faith unhinges from reason and becomes blind. Reason unhinges from faith, loses compass and anchorage, and becomes an opportunistic and shiftless excuse making rationalizer. And every one of the traditional players suffer from these diseases, as their world view and the world order that underpins it, come to pieces.

In the meantime, what is ‘prejudice’ and what is ‘reasonable judgement’ becomes ever more contested, and it just won’t be good enough to merely throw the word around at ‘the other guy’ whose view of the world and how it assembles itself differs from increasingly grungy, opaque and regressive libertarian ‘party lines’; market and social.

‘Bigoted’ is another little ideological gem, because like a blunderbuss, if one aims it in the vague general direction of the other guy, some of the ordinance is just bound to hit its target.

If I vehemently disagree with what I think is opportunistic attack on a vulnerable and damaged institution, that is ‘intolerance’. But why should anyone ‘tolerate’ or indulge baloney? If I think homosexual marriage is no more than effrontery by people who have no business in the reproductive commons, I am ‘discriminating’ against them rather than exercising ordinary critical judgement and intellectual discernment. If I say homosexual claims to marriage ‘equality’ are pure bluff, I am being ‘unfair’ and ‘unjust’ because they have self generated ‘rights’ that have graduated from ideological fantasy to wants, to needs and now….entitlement. Who says? The propaganda machinery does. And like the bottled water campaign, we now all know that only ageing losers do tap!

Remember when smoking seemed so glamorous, because film stars would light each other up during all the dramatic and intimate scenes, because ‘You gotta lot to like with a Marlboro’. Ditto for ‘marriage equality’, which like the Marlboro Man, he got more than he bargained for in the longer term, from the lung cancer the science said he would get if he smoked.

‘Homophobia’ is the crowning glory of the marriage ‘equality’ campaign. It sounds so ‘scientific’. It uses psychiatry friendly ancient Greek, that gives that extra little bit of ‘medical’ cachet. It reduces rational objection to a mental illness by magically turning it into a psychiatric compulsive/irrational fear disorder. How good is that?!!!

The Soviet KGB pulled that one on latterday anti-Soviet dissidents, when the regime started to run out of genuine ideological capital. Their objections to the regime weren’t ‘political’, but the result of a psychiatric disorder, that would justify disappearing them into asylums.

During the civil rights campaigns of the 1960s, the Southerner racists tried to characterize those who pushed those demands as ‘Niggerlovers’ (Negrophilia), as if it were irrationally compulsive emotional/sexual over-attachment that was driving them rather than a political motive or narrative. It is a dirty trick that both denies legitimate political intent and recruits the authority and form of medical science into the camp of ideological pseudo science, for politically discrediting opposition.

‘Hatespeech’ is exactly the same filthy tactic, characterizing political opposition not on the basis of a ‘phobia’ this time, but the presumed ‘hatred’ that follows from it, as if the only possible alternative to uncritical compassionate empathy is ‘hatred’; as if opponents are congenitally incapable of rationally nuancing the subject or building a genuine alternative discourse! It is the same as saying that if you aren’t a nigger hater, you must be a nigger lover.

None of the above are arguments. They are smears calculated to do maximum damage for minimal investment that can be administered by any low level ideologue, because it forces the other side to justify itself rather than the accuser having to do it. All the accuser has to do is keep repeating the accusation in the context of vague self justifying, but unexamined slogans and ideological received wisdom. It has been enormously effective tactic that was widely practiced in heresy courts in the early modern period.

When Jeff Kennett, the ex-premier of Victoria and the then CEO of the 'Beyond Blue' depression counselling service, had the temerity to suggest that marriage was only for men and women, he attracted a chorus of of authoritative health industry mouthpieces who accused him of contributing to ‘the depression’ of homosexuals by denying ‘their right’ to their most precious aspirations.

Kennett was forced into both silence and later recanting. Nobody questioned the conflation of ‘science’, ideology and moral judgement, or suggested that such accusations were ideology rich pseudo scientific tripe, in the same way as denying a two year old a sweetie, so that it foot stamps and screams at its mother with ‘frustration and distress’ in the supermarket, only then to attract comments about ‘child abuse’ and the ‘insensitive’ denial of the ‘poor thing’s’ ‘sacred right’ to a sweetie, right now!

Or even better, teachers can’t put red ink through children's errant work anymore because this is likely to cause them an emotional crisis. This kind of pseudo-scientific psychobabble by people suffering from ‘Existential Hypersensitivity Disorder’ (EHD) is a worry and is being willfully carried over into the ‘debates’ about the ‘vulnerable’ Sexually Misassigned and Off Message Community (SMOFCOM) preciouses who really can ‘love each other’ just as efficaciously without marriage, or for that matter in a partnership agreement that covers all the bases for non reproductive childless working relationships.

It might not be as big a sweetie as the marriage one, but then they don’t reproduce together. They have to crib or cart in the child leftovers from genuine reproductive relationships.

The whole now morbidly obese rights/entitlement based culture has pyramided itself up from a post Second World War consensus that after decades of state sponsored arbitrary mass murder, torture and imprisonment, citizens had a basic human right to life and the rule of law. Hardly anyone would argue with that, but it has been slowly conjoined to the notion that the customer is always right to the extent that even children, who have no notion of adult maturity, or training in the responsibilities and liabilities that come with and make sense of all rights, have ‘human rights’...as if!

Their parents and those in positions of loco parentis have an obligation to meet certain parenting/care standards as a sine qua non for their right to have, administer and keep children. That is it! The rest is ideological drivel, as if one can hand out rights like freebies at a sale! Nothing is for free. Everything costs, one way or another.

The real agenda is that what indulgence capitalism wants as its main social products are mass cohorts of vulnerable preciouses who are susceptible to any fantasy they have been sold, see it as a sacred right to have it yesterday and do not have to regard social authority of significant others whose judgement might impede their ambitions/rights to have anything they want, when they want it. In the process we have all been sold a crap version of libertarianism with the inner controls and disciplines torn out and replaced by a boundless sense of entitlement.

That is where the SMOMCOM (Sexually Misassigned and Off Message Community) is coming from. It is not a pretty sight and it won’t last five seconds once the unsustainable ceases to be sustained.

The SMOMCOM will get its way in the short term. But the warning is that it will never be a safe victory. As that comes to a head as circumstances change, as the post WW2 order starts to actually disaggregate and comes under increasing pressure, the politics are just bound to get very unpleasant.

In that event, it won’t be just marriage equality that comes back up for grabs. All the gains since the homosexual legalization struggles started in the 1950s will share the same fate. The very homophobia and hate speech that the homosexual lobby has used so successfully to beat the rest of us round the heads with, will genuinely come back at them with a vengeance, under the pressures of conflict and larger events. And because they have cried wolf so often, no one will believe that it has really come until the wave crashes into them

Once the politics of confrontation take over, it becomes much more difficult to nuance the variables and to make distinctions. The alliances that will be shaped will inevitably have strange bedfellows as criticism under pressure of conflict turns to much darker and cruder categories.

And the SMOMCOM will take the rap for adverse change because inevitably they will be seen to be emblematic of all that was corrupt and perverse in the old indulgence libertarian order. It will not be their fault, but they will become collateral damage from its fall, particularly as a result of their very aggressively successful agenda and high cultural profile.

Its enemies who really cannot tolerate homosexuality and whose enmity is truly visceral, will be able to say with some plausibility, “They were given an inch and they took a mile. Why would anyone trust or have mercy on them now? The psychological underworld is where they were before we were unjustly put there in their place. We are simply returning them to where they always belonged.”

When push comes to shove, having been cast as an ignorant and prejudiced homophobic bigot, which way am I going to jump? I am not sure anymore. I am no more immune to the politics of rage than anyone else.

As the world both territorially and ideologically Balkanizes, none of the options or agendas are going to be tidy ones, or even remotely ideal. And this very likely will be the world that some now alive will be dealing with sometime before they die. I pray that I do not live to see it, even though I know it is already assembling itself.

And that is the warning to the sexually misassigned and bent. Invade the reproductive commons, get ‘married’ and include the kiddies at your peril. You are living in a fool’s paradise and it will cost you very dearly in the end.
© Copyright 2016 Christopher Eastman-Nagle (kiffit at Writing.Com). All rights reserved.
Writing.Com, its affiliates and syndicates have been granted non-exclusive rights to display this work.
Printed from https://www.writing.com/main/view_item/item_id/2100427-Marriage-Equality-a-fraught-plebiscite