W W W W  World Wide Web Witness Inc.  Home Page   Volume  What is New

CHAPTER NINE

Is this Mandatory Mystification ?

If ever the square root of minus one were to be found (a patent self-contradiction in definitional terms), then might be the time for an illusory world to supervene. If ever the impossible became normal, moral misconception might pass muster in some world. In this one, however, the delinquency from design, moral, marital, material being wrought by many (cf. Ch. 4 above, and Deity and Design ... Ch.   2...  ) does not do anything except manifest confusion at best.

Such is the case with 'marriage equality'. This might be fine, if it related to what is equal.  As quite simply, in current propaganda usage, it does not, we have something else. Here it is a misnomer, and a hideously misleading one at that. Why is this so ?  It is because as used, a propaganda tag, it is a nod to caprice but not a mark of truth. The gender aspects of marriage relate; but they also diverge. You may say that $1 and $1,000,000 are equal, meaning equally mathematical, but in the more obvious sense, if deemed equal in what they DESIGNATE, you would find your error when shopping. If you don't, then they would know the difference, that they were not equal. Indeed, you  might perhaps be regarded as rather off the beam, for making such an oversight. Is it not obvious that in the designated point, they are MOST unequal! In some ways these notes are equal: they deal with money, purchasing power by arithmetic and symbolic means; but they are not the same, say what you will.

Some things are equal in one way, but not in another. Your reputation and your bank balance could relate, both ruined by some event. But this does not make them equal: merely both equally disastrous. You need to know and say what you are talking about.

The genders of man and of woman are not the same, hence their names differ. These genders perform very different functions,  though geared for unison in procreation. In the overall possible productive effect, they may readily be allowed as equal in value, having contributed in comparable measure to the production and continuation of our human race. But it is a confusing piece of propaganda, to use this evaluative assessment as if that forged equality in operation or function, and as if to speak otherwise, even in terminology,  were assessable as offence.

That is both contrary to fact and tyrannically offensive. It is also a shameless inaccuracy and a sham liable to create confusion: there is no inter-changeability amid the two genders in marriage. Using a bodily function for a purpose dis-correlative with its natural fitting does not become righteous, far less a ground for denunciation of those who prefer its use in a way harmonious with its construction and correlative with its generational capacity. Indeed, it is also a way that acts as a delight in the same with celebration of the capacity to continue the race, and value in bringing the progenitors both together for their genetic offspring

Marital implications of such an error, to terrorise or 're-educate' those who prefer accuracy, are no better. It reminds one of Solzhenitsyn's First Circle, where the State insisted that you see something manifestly not so, as a condition of avoiding ruthless persecution. The worse the imposition intended, the more the penalty, and the more incredible the imposition on the subjects to the State, the more blatant the requirement, that they be humbled in spirit, numbed in mind and co-operate with a State of arrant tyranny, that wanted to capture even the truth. THAT I say, is what this bad-mouthing assault on the way of many generations proves reminiscent. It is not so  bad ? but it reminds one in its callow blatancy and turning of things upside down with invented morals, of just that.

 Because of the liability for fines for non-conformists, or loss of work, or making bias the condition of work, it could also have the result of impoverishing those whose religion is not of this innovatory kind, so humbling the Commonwealth to become a help-mate to confusion. It would moreover be one phase of granting a religious monopoly through a counter-factual pretence. It would be something contrary to constitution twice, its own and that of Australia. It would in its present dynamic, align for receiving  intimidatory action against those in religions which, on whatever grounds, consider otherwise concerning such read-outs! whether or not some who name them, themselves seek a State control which Christ in particular forbad (cf. Overflight in Christ Ch. 3, with Ch. 11 in this volume).

The work of some is not the work of all. Condemning all by selecting some is not even valid logic. Misusing the concept of equality, by making it offensive to use the concept where inequality is factual (in function), though not in value of complementary functions and those who have them, is a devious deceit for it is not equality but distortion which is being bred in this. Equality is having an insufferable abuse in being manipulated in this way.

There is no injustice in insisting on the differentiation in RECOGNITION, as distinct from value,  in what is different. There is however vast injustice in

1) insisting on the term equal as if it could here be used in this definitive way, or

2) acting as if to make reference to any male-female marital differentiation, a potential illegal or criminal act.

3) insisting that those in this context

a) who will not equate what is in fact highly diverse and has a high degree of specialisation, indeed complementarity, with all that requires,  along with persons

b) who decline to ignore physiological differentiation in marital relationships,

are moral renegades, social bad types or mountebanks.

Are those so daring to be truthful, to be deemed unjust, inequitable or guilty of insult! Is it insulting, in analogy, to insist that although both hands are certainly hands, they are in some mystic, legal or other sense to be called just the same! That is simply verbal  abuse of truth, and confusion, and in various ways simply wouldn't work. The geometry would be wrong, the positioning.

In this respect,  the elements of the current debate, in reality, at their own level and not in some mystic, oddly religious fashion, are incapable of defensible definition  in the required mode, for it is about making what is equal in some respects, equal in all, what is diverse in nature and function and form, to be treated as if it were not so. It is also about making one certain religious bent involving values and its own concepts of beginnings, to be imposed on the populace,  contrary to the Constitution of the land. It is the value perhaps that is intended, to be said to be equal; but evaluation of life is a religious matter, and the lust for change does not stop there. That is increasingly being insisted on so that prior values and approaches, coming to be more in vogue nationally, in this area, are discarded, discounted or made offensive.

More, it is to make hay with what in the religion of the Bible is deemed abominable in the Old Testament, and worthy of death in the then operative theocracy, and what in the New Testament, along with adultery, unrepented of, excludes from the kingdom of heaven (I Corinthians 4-5, I Timothy 1). It is not however in the New Testament, where there is no longer in view a theocracy, to be made a ground of formal and activistic persecution, such as is planned by many who desire to make a new monolith of pseudo-morals in what is biblically deemed perversity. The New Testament does not want violence, the use of force, such as many of the old moral persecutors seek to use, to be used for the kingdom of heaven, even to the point Christ had to rebuke Peter when he sought to use force to prevent the use of force by the Temple guard!

Christianity has no such indulgence as those often show, who would downgrade its whole character on no apparent ground, but the misuse of terms, and use force to suppress its morals.

But how is this loathing forwarded, which a swath of  anti-genderists have for those whom they currently harass, and would later legally persecute, if current moves are of any value in assessment ? On what ground is it to level its fire at those who find no goodness in the change from natural function in this way ?

Is it on the ground that this is the establishment of a religion as currently forbidden to the Commonwealth by its own Constitution, in what at least once was a country which felt intrusion here to be outré ? Scarcely! It is despite that ground that it is being pushed, as if to pulverise what remains.

Its gross, threatening breach of what has been both morally and physically presented and acted on as a norm in our past and that of many, is no ground in our democracy for changing or even ignoring or overthrowing that position on Commonwealth powers over religion now (Section 116^*1), let alone by some rash, brash parliamentary vote. It is time to back off.

National Constitution, at least here,  is not written by political convenience, either with the loudest shouting, threatening those who resist (without due methods for constitutional change in this field, being made operative), or with impending fines or libellous names, or worse in store, based on a new, to-be-established religious ferment.

Further, this new approach is discriminatory in the extreme, giving vastly unequal power and rule to parents over children not in upbringing till they understand, but in this BEFORE they may understand. Children are now to be denied the expression of those vastly beautiful characteristics which are often found in mothers and so often blessed in literature and history; or else, they are apt to be denied the wonder of fatherhood, which enables a connection with other features and foci, each case for boy or girl, deprived. Whether or not it is depraved, it is deprived and MOST UNEQUAL, oppressive, pre-selective and would the children in addition to having this not-according-to-nature choice forced upon their now limited upbringing, be required not to express the thought that the variety of the parents of some friends is found to be a wonderful thing, lest the children, immersed in political correctness with their suffering parents, should not worship at this sickening shrine, this masterpiece of inequality! WHY is the code word, equality,  the opposite of what it is that is pushed ? Is it to remove the vulnerable lopsidedness by accusing the non-novelty part of the population before the reverse ? At all events, the zealots cannot reverse the facts.

So the pressures and propagandas mount; but they do not hide the crash entry to subvert by force, in the area of freedom of thought (or must you 'hide' in this formerly free country) and speech, child exposure to both exhibits, professional selection and discretion ? Is the State to become the conscience ? the determinant ? Is this some gain, which the world as to TYPE finds worse then common, almost unbearable in so many other forms ?

Its dictatorial, derogatory, persecutory bent is already casting a shadow on a land once prized for its degree of freedom. What's in a name, a rose by any other name would smell as sweet! it is said;  and that is a sweet thought! But in this case the name by violation even of fact, is being made a weapon in the midst of its popular milieu. It is not desultory equality which is in view, but its destruction by tag talk, thrusts through fear and threats! The propaganda can be ingenious, but there is no apparent ingenuousness in the entire rabid-seeming rush! Why so fast to overturn the norms of thousands of years ? One is rather reminded of Lady  Macbeth taunting her  husband, with the question in effect: ARE YOU A MAN! It was precisely then that his claim to such a title sank to its lowest.

NOTE

*1

Section 116 of the Constitution says this.

The Commonwealth shall not make any law

a) for establishing any religion

b) for imposing any religious observance

c) for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion

d) for requiring any religious test as a qualification
for any office or public trust
under the Commonwealth.

Let us put this in parts.

The Commonwealth shall not make any law

a) for establishing any religion

b) for imposing any religious observance

c) for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion

d) for requiring any religious test as a qualification for any office or public trust
under the Commonwealth.

Each of these components is readily envisaged in the maligning literature of those seeking to intimidate by law, with their own values and their own concepts of origins and meaning, as an apparent target.

The new morals, values, attitudes to one's bodily being, to reproduction and its place in life, are being pushed with all the vehemence of militant religion, seeking to suppress all but its own with force, not truth. The observance of language, of speech, to conform to these novel concepts is certainly in view, so that parity, or to use the word, equality for the freedom of both sides, is out and loathed. The new will not tolerate equality of speech concerning the old. It has passion and religious fervour, but no basis in logic, or even in language use.

Certainly, if it is to involve (as already in some places it has done) a religious test (that you do not take exception to showing or implying acceptance of the position of those of this religious passion) for persons to be allowed to trade, or wish to provide services selectively to a chosen market, it is a qualification for making a living, and if evenly applied by the Government, it would relate equally to those in its employment, making this a condition.

The movement is so widespread, with many open-mouthed public speakers and movements in government circles threatening, that failure to meet compulsion in this dictatorial way is unlikely to be avoided, if the matter is given national assent. People of various kinds can have limits of various kinds to what they are willing to work with, and blatantly and pushily to require them to be involved in what they detest, like asking conservatives to take part (as part of the job) in Nazi rallies, or the latter to write pleasant reports on the former, is simply to ask to be a god, not an employer.

If they want to lose custom in this way or that, that is their affair. They believe, they suffer. If however contrary religionists want to bring law and penalty against them, that is the reverse of liberty, of discretion, of evaluation, of living in sincerity, and uses force where logic is better placed, and insult of some, to preserve the position of others, in a way so unequal as to make a mockery of the use of the term "equal" in the ill-conceived propaganda market. It also thus threatens to make mockery of the Constitution.

Now a democratic country may limit what it tolerates, including anything deemed with sound reason to be subversive of its METHODS of governing in principle, lest liberty be used to take over its work of many generations; but when we enter the field of religious embargoes on some who do not when harassed turn tail on the morals of millenia, we are entering the field of a country other than what is recognisable as Australia, of one which is becoming a travesty of what it was, appearing to enter  a world of dreams. If dreams discordant with physiological realities are permitted, well; but when they are required with passion-based penalties, the case is become near to terminal. In this case, it is not only insult but assault by law and impoverishment which is threatened, a fine way to encourage debate and for that matter, to fulfil the undertaking of the present Government regarding free speech and its value prior to the last election. But the issue goes far beyond this!

Nor does any alternate protection as yet appear among representatives significant number, who of course were NOT chosen to make such changes, to seek such alterations, to be legislators of sectionalism in religion. Some object, but no major party, though some modification appeals to some. Yet, as noted before, if Australians in a plebiscite want to stand by with their cheque books, ready to pay for the things in view with the results of such domineering, that is their democratic privilege; and if they use the methods of force and suppression, directed to extermination as of an influenza virus, then their change of character can show itself and take the cost of such violation.