Sultan Knish
The only question worth asking about gay marriage is whether anyone on
the left would care about this crusade if it didn't come with the
privilege of bulldozing another civilizational institution.
Gay marriage is not about men marrying men or women marrying women, it is about the
deconstruction of marriage between men and women. That is a thing that
many men and women of one generation understand but have trouble
conveying to another generation for whom marriage has already largely
been deconstructed.
The statistics about the falling marriage rate tell the tale well
enough. Marriage is a fading institution. Family is a flickering light
in the evening of the West.
The deconstruction is destruction. Entire countries are fading away,
their populations being replaced by emigrants from more traditional
lands whose understanding of the male-female relationship is positively
reactionary. These emigrants may lack technology or the virtues of
civilization, and their idea of marriage resembles slavery more than any
modern ideal, but it fulfills the minimum purpose of any group, tribe
or country-- it produces its next generation.
The deconstruction of marriage is not a mere matter of front page photos
of men kissing. It began with the deconstruction of the family. Gay
marriage is only one small stop on a tour that includes rising divorce
rates, falling childbirth rates and the abandonment of responsibility by
twenty and even thirty-somethings.
Each step on the tour takes apart the definition and structure of
marriage until there is nothing left. Gay marriage is not inclusive, it
is yet another attempt at eliminating marriage as a social institution
by deconstructing it until it no longer exists.
There are two ways to destroy a thing. You can either run it at while
swinging a hammer with both hands or you can attack its structure until
it no longer means anything.
The left hasn't gone all out by outlawing marriage, instead it has
deconstructed it, taking apart each of its assumptions, from the
economic to the cooperative to the emotional to the social, until it no
longer means anything at all. Until there is no way to distinguish
marriage from a temporary liaison between members of uncertain sexes for
reasons that due to their vagueness cannot be held to have any solemn
and meaningful purpose.
You can abolish democracy by banning the vote or you can do it by
letting people vote as many times as they want, by letting small
children and foreigners vote, until no one sees the point in counting
the votes or taking the process seriously. The same goes for marriage or
any other institution. You can destroy it by outlawing it or by
eliminating its meaningfulness until it becomes so open that it is
absurd.
Every aspect of marriage is deconstructed and then eliminated until it
no longer means anything. And once marriage is no longer a lifetime
commitment between a man and a woman, but a ceremony with no deeper
meaning than most modern ceremonies, then the deconstruction and
destruction will be complete.
The deconstruction of marriage eroded it as an enduring institution and
then as an exclusive institution and finally as a meaningful
institution. The trendy folk who claim to be holding off on getting
married until gay marriage is enacted are not eager for marriage
equality, they are using it as an excuse for an ongoing rejection of
marriage.
Gay marriage was never the issue. It was always marriage.
In the world that the deconstructionists are striving to build, there
will be marriage, but it will mean nothing. Like a greeting card
holiday, it will be an event, but not an institution. An old ritual with
no further meaning. An egotistical exercise in attention-seeking and
self-celebration with no deeper purpose. It will be a display every bit
as hollow as the churches and synagogues it takes place in.
The deconstruction of marriage is only a subset of the deconstruction of
gender from a state of being to a state of mind. The decline of
marriage was preceded by the deconstruction of gender roles and gay
marriage is being succeeded by the destruction of gender as anything
other than a voluntary identity, a costume that one puts on and takes
off.
Destroying gender roles was a prerequisite to destroying gender. Each
deconstruction leads naturally to the next deconstruction with no final
destination except total deconstruction.
Gay marriage is not a stopping point, just as men in women's clothing
using the ladies room is not a stopping point. There is no stopping
point at all.
The left's deconstruction of social institutions is not a quest for
equality, but for destruction. As long as the institutions that preceded
it exist, it will go on deconstructing them until there is nothing left
but a blank canvas, an unthinking anarchy, on which it can impose its
perfect and ideal conception of how everyone should live.
Equality is merely a pretext for deconstruction. Change the parameters
of a thing and it ceases to function. Redefine it and expand it and it
no longer means anything at all. A rose by any other name might smell as
sweet, but if you change 'rose' to mean anything that sticks out of the
ground, then the entire notion of what is being discussed has gone and
cannot be reclaimed without also reclaiming language.
The left's social deconstruction program is a war of ideas and concepts.
Claims of equality are used to expand institutions and ways of living
until they are so broad as to encompass everything and nothing. And once
a thing encompasses everything, once a rose represents everything
rising out of the ground, then it also represents nothing at all.
Deconstruction is a war against definitions, borders and parameters. It
is a war against defining things by criminalizing the limitation of
definitions. With inclusivity as the mandate, exclusivity, in marriage,
or any other realm, quickly meets with social disapproval and then
becomes a hate crime. If the social good is achieved only through
maximum inclusivity and infinite tolerance, then any form of
exclusivity, from property to person to ideas, is a selfish act that
refuses the collective impulse to make all things into a common property
with no lasting meaning or value.
As Orwell understood in 1984, tyranny is essentially about
definitions. It is hard to fight for freedom if you lack the word. It is
hard to maintain a marriage if the idea no longer exists. Orwell's
Oceania made basic human ideas into contradictory things. The left's
deconstruction of social values does the same thing to such essential
institutions as marriage; which becomes an important impermanent thing
of no fixed nature or value.
The left's greatest trick is making things mean the opposite of what
they do. Stealing is sharing. Crime is justice. Property is theft. Each
deconstruction is accompanied by an inversion so that a thing, once
examined, comes to seem the opposite of what it is, and once that is
done, it no longer has the old innate value, but a new enlightened one.
To deconstruct man, you deconstruct his beliefs and then his way of
living. You deconstruct freedom until it means slavery. You deconstruct
peace until it means war. You deconstruct property until it means theft.
And you deconstruct marriage until it means a physical relationship
between any group of people for any duration. And that is the opposite
of what marriage is.
The deconstruction of marriage is part of the deconstruction of gender and family and those are part
of the long program of deconstructing man. Once each basic value has
been rendered null and void, inverted and revealed to be random and
meaningless, then man is likewise revealed to be a random and
meaningless creature whose existence requires shaping by those who know
better.
The final deconstruction eliminates nation, religion, family and even
gender to reduce the soul of man to a blank slate waiting to be written
on.
That is what is at stake here. This is not a struggle about the right of
equality, but the right of definition. It is not about whether men can
get married, but whether marriage will mean anything at all. It is about
preserving the shapes and structures of basic social concepts that
define our identities in order to preserve those very concepts, rather
than accepting their deconstruction into nullification.
The question on the table is whether the institutions that give us
meaning will be allowed to retain that meaning. And that question is a
matter of survival. Societies cannot survive without definitions.
Peoples do not go on existing through the act of occupying space. The
deconstruction of identity is also the destruction of identity.
And that is what we are truly fighting against.
No comments:
Post a Comment