Witnessing Social Suicide
It is not very often that we find ourselves witnessing – and even taking part in – a pivotal turning point in a civilisation. Only rarely in human history are people allowed to take part in, or at least observe, transformations and revolutions which are far-reaching and earth-shattering.
We in the West are now living through this very thing. We are witnessing it take place before our very eyes. We are in fact involved in one of the great cataclysmic events of our time. Never before in human history has parts of mankind declared war on something so fundamental and as pivotal as the institutions of marriage and family.
This is in so many ways simply unprecedented. Sure, the Communists sought to stamp out family when they took power in the Soviet Union early last century. But it was such a disastrous social experiment that they were soon forced to relent and restore the family unit.
But in the West today militant minority groups – every bit as dangerous and revolutionary as the Bolsheviks were – are doing all they can to obliterate marriage and family. And the even more incredible thing is that they are being aided and abetted by so many in high places.
And to round out this mind-boggling revolution, many of those who should be concerned about all this are simply sitting by, watching it all unfold, and are not saying a word. The worst culprits of all in this are so-called Christian leaders who have been completely deaf and dumb about this radical social upheaval.
So many have simply remained silent, pretending none of this was taking place. In the same way the majority of church leaders did nothing and said nothing as the Nazis were climbing the political ladder in Germany. They refused to speak out, and when they may have wanted to do so later, it was then of course far too late.
So the most amazing social upheaval of modern times is taking place, and most people who should be speaking out have chosen to do nothing and say nothing. If Western civilisation manages to survive, future historians will one day write about our strange times, and how so many people allowed this social tsunami to take place unopposed.
I am reminded of the words of Ronald Reagan in this regard: “History will record with the greatest astonishment that those who had the most to lose did the least to prevent its happening.” Quite so. We have seen that happen before with tragic results, and we are seeing it happen all over again today.
I raise all this because I have just returned from a Federal Government inquiry into homosexual marriage. The very fact that a government has to have an inquiry into this issue shows you just how far down the gurgler we have gone as a culture.
Imagine telling anyone on planet earth just a few short decades ago that we would soon be holding public hearings to see if we think marriage and family are worth continuing with. As I told the Senators and media who were there, this is bizarre in the extreme.
It is like announcing the need for a government inquiry into eating, or breathing. For heaven’s sake, we just do it, we don’t need to defend it! Breathing is a natural, normal part of life. So is eating. So too, throughout human history, has been marriage and family.
All cultures have had a recognisable form of marriage and family as fundamental social institutions. Governments did not create them nor define, them, they simply recognised these pre-existing institutions. Marriage and family are indeed as normal and natural as eating and breathing.
Yet I had Senators there this morning trying to tell me that there are no such norms, that homosexual marriage has existed before, that there are more than two genders, and so on! I assured them that despite their historical revisionism, the sociological and anthropological record is quite clear.
Throughout human history heterosexual marriage and family have been the norm. Sure, there have been plenty of minor variations of the theme, but the basic fundamental structure of heterosexual marriage has always existed. Yet here we are, trying to redefine it out of existence.
Fortunately there was one voice of reason on the committee, a Liberal Senator, and he rightly noted this basic understanding of marriage and family, even in the documents of our international treaty organisations. Even they did not have to spell out what marriage and family meant.
Everyone knew exactly what they were all about. But not any longer. Now we have to define and defend these historic and universal institutions. Now we have to offer reasons why we should not allow them to be destroyed by the activists.
And I made it quite clear to the committee that destruction would indeed be the case. Sure, it will not happen overnight; such radical social changes may take many decades before we see the full effects and the very real negative fallout from all this.
So when critics say we have legalised homosexual marriage overseas and the sky has not fallen in, they are being disingenuous. Just give it a bit of time. But I also told the committee members that we already do have early warnings about just how dangerous all this is.
Indeed, I tabled a document demonstrating how special rights for homosexuals and/or the legalisation of homosexual marriage changes everything. I listed dozens of recent newspaper headlines showing how people are being fined, fired from employment, or even jailed, for refusing to bow in obeisance to the radical homosexual agenda.
Simply to stand up for heterosexual marriage can get you into hot water today. As I explained to the committee, whenever governments legalise something, and create a “right” for something, they of necessity must ensure that corresponding obligations and duties are observed by the rest of the population.
One of the Senators spent some time quibbling over one of my examples, so I said, ‘fine, just delete that one if you will, for the sake of argument. But you still have to deal with the 42 other examples I provide.’ Of course she could not gainsay nor deny all these other examples.
The evidence is overwhelmingly clear: whenever these radical laws are passed, everything changes. Everyone is impacted. Freedoms will be taken away, and the coercive power of the state will be used to get a resistant population to comply fully with the new world order.
I also had a nifty trump card to make use of this morning: I had a wonderful fellow whose testimony I featured in the end of my new book, Strained Relations. This former homosexual is now happily married with children, and he gave a terrific and powerful testimony, not only of his own life, but about the many homosexuals he now counsels.
This really got the off-side Senators even more off-side. You see, to the activists and their supporters, this guy simply does not exist. He is an invisible person. There are not supposed to be any former homosexuals around. So we treat them like we used to treat blacks: completely out of sight and out of mind.
But there he was in the flesh, sitting right next to me, telling of his messed-up, disordered and unhealthy lifestyle, and how the move to homosexual marriage will simply compound all these problems and increase social dysfunction. Most of the Senators were certainly not too keen to hear what he was saying.
Indeed, the Greens Senator was especially incensed, constantly seeking to override us and interrupt us. When my friend said the obvious, that males and females are very different, especially anatomically speaking, this really flustered her.
Often the Chairwoman had to tell her to stop interrupting us! But she kept doing it. She insisted that there are no differences whatsoever, not even anatomical differences, and that we were being hateful and homophobic even to discuss such differences. She insisted that anatomy had absolutely nothing to do with this discussion.
I replied – well almost shouted, to be heard over her constant interruptions – that she would not even be here if it were not for these anatomical differences. Fortunately for her, her own parents knew full well that male and female anatomy is fundamentally different. It is a pity that this Senator cannot realise this. But her radical activist ideology means she must suppress biology, deny reality, and live on another planet. No wonder her former leader could recently speak of us as “Earthians”!
So it was an interesting and lively debate. When another group of pro-marriage speakers appeared after us, they received nothing of the hostility that we did. Why is it that I seem to bring out the hostility and heat in so many? I always thought I was a pretty nice guy!
Be that as it may, my main point remains. To have to go into a government meeting to defend the most basic, the most natural, the most fundamental, the most universal, and the most historic social institutions of all time – marriage and family – demonstrates that we are just about kaput as a civilisation.
We have sunk to such a low in the West that we now have to defend what has always been taken for granted. But as George Orwell once remarked, “We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men.”
Or as he also stated: “In a time of universal deceit – telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” Absolutely. We live in such moonbeam times that the person defending marriage and family is seen as the revolutionary, and the nutter, while the guy who wants to tear them down and destroy them is seen as normal and sensible.
Well did the prophet Isaiah say two and a half millennia ago: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.”
About this entry
You’re currently reading “Witnessing Social Suicide”, an entry on CultureWatch
- 4.5.12 / 4pm
- Related posts:
- Related searches: