Slouching Towards Savagery

Combining two earlier thoughts: The previous post "God, Husband and Father" opined that Patriarchy (and, with it, civilization)

...starts with the Woman, and it starts with raw biology. The beginning of the patriarchal order is when the woman binds herself to one man and one man only. She in effect decides to belong to that one man, most likely to the man to whom she gives her virginity.

Secondly, my early impression of Nicaragua (the "Repaso" post) contains this paragraph:

But if I expected to find the same innocent culture that I encountered in Guatemala in 1975, in that I have been disappointed. Along with money and technology, most Americans and Europeans have brought with them the corrupt morals and worldviews that threaten to completely undermine their own native cultures. And with few exceptions, Nicaraguans look up to their wealthier neighbors and want to be more like them. So the same kinds of trashy TV, political ideologies and immorality are flooding in, and folks here seem generally to be eager to emulate Americans and Europeans, even if in lemming fashion it ends with their own demise.

My sentiments have not changed much in the two years since I wrote the above. The culture of Central America (perhaps of the whole world) is slipping steadily into a dull savagery. And I think it has to do with the feminization of the culture and of women's independence.

The feminized culture isn't the Utopia promised by the feminists, especially for women. Since a 'liberated' society means sex without responsibility, its women are much more likely to attract womanizers and misogynistic woman abusers. Indeed, a feminist culture is a paradise for these irresponsible miscreants. Likewise ample accommodation is given for serial sex and the adulterous changing of partners, a sort of prostitution in slow motion. Likewise for sterile, childless or one-or-two-children households. What is increasingly not tolerated in the feminized world is the large and stable patriarchal family where an unattached man marries a virgin and where true motherhood is cherished.

Because of a lazy, feminist lack of strong fatherhood in the Church, and a resulting lack of strong fatherhood in society, any sanctions or taboos against unwed sexual activity are downplayed or completely ignored. (God forbid that we should marginalize or offend the whores or their bastards!) Socialist government programs insure that fatherless families are well tended to. As a result, young women have no fear or scruples about promiscuity, and tend to deliberately choose mates with no commitment. I guess liberated (savage) women find liberated (savage) men attractive.

When women choose savagery, there is little or nothing that men can do about it except play the same game. The typical gigolo / womanizer has several women, either in succession or at the same time, and perhaps dozens of biological offspring whom he need not support. The decent man who wants a stable relationship and who wants to be a real father is lucky to find one woman (usually one who was not his virgin) and will produce zero or one of his own offspring, while perhaps supporting one or more bastards from his wife's previous lover(s). So the gigolo's biological offspring, not the good man's, are well represented in each succeeding generation. In this game of demographic natural selection, women decide who will win, and right now the gigolo is winning big time. Civilization starts with the Woman; so does its demise.

As implied above, I have no idea whether this is a global phenomenon or an anomaly of Central American culture. I suspect the former. Nor do I have a solution to suggest. Perhaps the situation will be self-corrective. Since matriarchy / savagery is inherently unstable and backward, the whole damned house of cards may soon collapse. Globally, I suppose patriarchal Muslims will survive the collapse and effectively own the demographic future, with perhaps a few scattered pockets of traditional, large, patriarchal families keeping the Christian faith burning here and there.

God, Husband and Father

In the previous post, I offered my radical (root cause) analysis of the current moral crisis in the world. Now for an even more radical analysis, of a deeper root cause, a systemic ill at foundational levels...

Until recent times, the patriarchal structure of families and of society was not seriously questioned. And for good reason: from a Scriptural point of view, the most basic human authority is that established by God before the Fall of Man - the authority of Man over the rest of God's creation, and the real authority which God bestowed upon Adam over Eve, and, by extension, of all husbands over their wives. This domestic line of authority is, from a divine point of view, the source of all other human authority, the beginning of all human organization and governance.

    As an important aside, it must be pointed out that patriarchal authority does not automatically infer actual superiority. Jehovah's Witnesses (not the brightest bulbs in the pack) make the intellectual blunder of deciding that, since Jesus obeys the Father he must be inferior to the Father and therefore not divine. Feminists make the identical error in proclaiming that Patriarchy degrades women by making wives obey their husbands.
    Notice that in all four biblical passages¹ where wives are enjoined to be subject to their husbands, they are told to obey their own husbands. Which is to say, they have no business obeying other men. This debunks the feminist myth, does it not? For the feminist complaint to be credible, Patriarchy would have to demand that all women obey all men because of their innate inferiority to them.
    As it is, true Patriarchy is about a divinely established order, and has nothing to do with an organic superiority. In this context, the word 'superior' may denote an order of authority, but it does not necessarily mean a higher level of worth or goodness. Consider: The Catholic Faith teaches that in the Holy Family there was one sinner, one sinless human, and one sinless divine-human. Yet the sinful Joseph had patriarchal authority over Mary and the child Jesus, both of whom were really superior to him.

---

1.  Eph.5:22, Col.3:18, Tit.2:5, I Pet.3:1

Moreover, this patriarchal pattern is reflected in - nay, is the essence of - true monotheism, the relationship between Man and the Almighty. God as Father and God as divine Lover are two parts of one ancient theme. The pages of Scripture, both old and new testaments, are full of references to a nuptial relationship between God and his people. That most grevious sin of idolatry is always portrayed as the sin of adultery, analogous to the traitorous deceit of an espoused bride leaving her true husband and embracing false lovers.

As St. Augustine pointed out, the human soul is always feminine before God. But notice that for
Augustine's insight to make any sense, we must assume a patriarchal structure to our own human society. We must first understand that it is right and necessary for every young lady to save her virginity for one man, and then devote herself to that one man. And the man must then be willing to shoulder his responsibility as leader and provider and father. Only when we accept this as our norm can we see our proper posture before God our Father. There is a necessary link between the patriarchal roots of civilization and the patriarchal essence of true religion.

Interestingly, it starts with the Woman, and it starts with raw biology. The beginning of the patriarchal order is when the woman binds herself to one man and one man only. She in effect decides to belong to that one man, most likely to the man to whom she gives her virginity. If the man finds her devotion credible, he can for the first time know what the woman always knows via her biological role: he can know his own children. He can be a father in the true sense, and can shoulder the responsibility for both his devoted wife and for their children. From a biological point of view, the woman's devotion and submission is what enables the man to abandon the haphazard biological strategy of spreading his seed as widely and generously as possible, and to adopt instead the better approach, of caring for his own children and for their mother. It is the woman's feminine devotion that makes patriarchy - fatherhood - possible, and which is therefore the beginning and foundation of civilization as we know it.

Likewise, the soul that would be saved must abandon all false lovers and give herself wholly to her God. Like the devoted virgin giving herself to one man only, the Church and each of her members must be devoted wholly to God our Father and divine Lover. This means we must categorically reject the surrounding culture and its values. We can no longer pretend to be friends of this current culture nor of those holding worldly power (Jas.4:4). Having devoted ourselves to God alone, we must reject the adulterous advances of all others, especially the usurpations of feminists and egalitarians.

Consider how our present world scorns fatherhood. The feminist / egalitarian / homosexual campaign to redefine marriage and the family amounts to a rejection of the patriarchal institutions of marriage and family. Portraying abortion as solely a woman's 'right' deliberately ignores the rights of the baby and also denies the holistic patriarchal structure of the family and the responsibility of the father. The breadwinner status in the home is supplanted by government entitlements which foster dependency upon the bureaucracy and render genuine fatherhood practically superfluous. The net effect of the world's agenda is to foster a post-civilized savagery in which both men and women flit from mate to mate like bees flitting from flower to flower. Can someone tell me how a child of God can be on friendly terms with such? No, the Christian politician - or even the Christian who is a friend of politics - is a contradiction of terms, an oxymoronic impossibility. The Christian who cavorts with worldly powers is more prostitute than bride. Every soul that would be devoted to God must heed St. Peter's Pentecost call to "save yourselves from this wicked generation." (Acts 2:40)

Unless we reject the soft tyranny of feminism and return as a people to the disciplined virtues of patriarchy, we will lose all vestiges of fatherhood. Which is to say, we will be lost and uncivilized, no better than wild animals. And unless we return as a Church to a wholehearted devotion to God and a rejection of our surrounding culture, we will lose our connection to God our Father, and will be damned.

Fatherhood

And he will turn the hearts of fathers to their children and the hearts of children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the land with a curse.
  - Mal.4:6

Again this Father's Day, let me simply reassert: Fatherhood is one of the core elements in the triumvirate that provides the foundation for stable civilization. Marriage, Family, Fatherhood. Specifically, monogamous marriage, the nuclear family composed of father, mother and their offspring, and the structure ordained by God: mother as heart, father as head. Like it or not, it's a patriarchal arrangement by God's design. Other arrangements may sound more progressive, but this is the core. We abandon or neglect it at our own peril.

Cultivating patriarchy

At the risk of stating the obvious, I would like to fold two previous posts into a single simple thought:

If patriarchy is the cornerstone of civilization, and if civilization requires vigilant cultivation, then we ought to deliberately and patiently work to reassert a patriarchal structure for society. Feminism and egalitarianism are ideological failures.

I say this should be obvious and self-evident, but, unfortunately, many folks have not yet recognized this to be so.

Cultivation

A garden is an excellent metaphor for civilization. A garden is a thing of nature, and most of us gardeners are nature lovers. At the same time, a garden goes beyond nature; it is a harnessing of natural energy to dramatically enhance nature's fruitfulness and loveliness. In harmony with nature, the garden moves beyond mere nature.

In a similar way, let no one deny that man is a natural being, an animal with all the drives, instincts, and appetites thereof. But the basis of civilization is man moving beyond mere animal nature. In harmony with his animal nature and with his unique nature as a rational and spiritual being, civilized man seeks to harness his natural energy in a controlled and orderly manner.

Unfettered nature is not a garden. Unfettered nature is a random mixture of wild plants and animals. Left untended, a garden will easily revert to such a wild and unordered randomness, the weeds and vermin moving in and obliterating the order and fruitfulness. A garden takes hard work and constant vigilance; a weed patch requires no effort.

To be sure, there is beauty and life outside the garden fence, and the gardener might be tempted to wonder if his labor is worthwhile. Does it really make much difference? A casual observer might even accuse the gardener of being a control freak, of engaging in repression and manipulation. Indeed, from some plants' perspective, the gardener would be have to be regarded as a violent killer, spending much of his energy in uprooting or digging up the plants he doesn't like. So, it would seem that the more liberal and caring approach would be to cease such mean-spirited oppression, and instead allow full rein to the uninhibited forces of nature. Relax, let the forces of nature flow freely, and celebrate the increasing diversity and freedom that would result.

But time is the proof. In April, the garden looks rather barren compared to the wild meadow. By mid-July, the superior fruitfulness of the garden is apparent. And later still, when the bitter winds of January howl outside the door, the gardener's well-stocked larder and root cellar remove all doubts about the garden's worth.

My point is, of course, that our culture's moral demise, its 'Slouching Towards Gomorrah', is a very effortless movement, and may even appear quite attractive, but will prove fruitless and barren in the end.

Patriarchy - 2

Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and terrible day of the LORD comes. And he will turn the hearts of fathers to their children and the hearts of children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the land with a curse.
  - Malachi 4:5,6 [RSV]

This was the reading for morning prayer this past Sunday, the Solemnity of the birth of John the Baptist. The scriptural reference to fathers and their children caught my attention, coming just one week after Fathers' Day. One week, also, after my last post on Patriarchy, which I might synopsize as follows: The best indicator of whether or not a particular human society is civilized is to ask whether or not men know their children, and children know their father.

Uncritical adoption of egalitarian and feminist ideals is feminizing our culture, often preventing fathers from acting like fathers (like men), and then despising them for being irresponsible. The more radical feminists openly deride fatherhood as useless or obsolete. Thus we droop slowly into savagery.

Looks like it's high time for the promised Elijah to come and turn us from our collective stupor.

Patriarchy

Patriarchy, the word and the concept, has gotten bad press in the past few decades. And that's a shame, because patriarchy, a.k.a. fatherhood, is perhaps the key element of civilized society.

The mother-child bond is irrefutably primary, dictated by nature, by biology. In a completely natural (i.e. savage) society, the one stable relationship would be the one between mother and child. As social beings, humans would still congregate and form other, lesser relationships (when I hear "it takes a village to raise a child", I picture a circle of grass huts occupied by women and children, with the men off in the bush), but motherhood is primary.

Fatherhood is a bit more tenuous. It requires two steps that go beyond biology: 1) the bonding of the woman to one man, and 2) the acceptance of that bond by the man, the decision to shoulder responsibility. When the woman thus 'belongs' to the man, he can know that her children belong to him as well. Thus he will be motivated to care for the children whom he now knows as his own. Further, he will be motivated to care for his wife. And, thirdly, other men become his partners in this patriarchal arrangement, rather than sexual rivals. And all that makes civilization possible.

In simple terms, civilization consists of the domestication of men, the protection of women, and the nurturing of children in stable homes. And the early feminists were correct: this structure is patriarchal. Only by putting fathers in charge is it going to happen.

Put another way: Without fathers there would be no families (there would only be 'villages'). Without families, there would be no real civilization.

Homosexuality and same-sex marriage

We think that the sins we hug tight are ourselves, but we are wrong. They weigh us down, they deform us, they obstruct our sight.
  -Anthony Esolen

Having mentioned it in a few previous posts, this post is my endeavor to focus on the subject of homosexuality and same-sex marriage...

Tolerance

Tolerance is commonly invoked as an argument for legalizing or sanctioning same-sex marriage. Namely, that the mainstream majority heterosexual world must learn to accept people who are different, and not fear or hate homosexual individuals.

I have no problem with this sentiment as far as it goes. Certainly we should neither fear nor hate any other individual or group of people. But accepting people does not mean accepting all behavior without question. Tolerance, as i have argued in a previous post, does not necessarily entail the abandonment of behavioral standards.

Justice and equity

Another major premise is that allowing same-sex marriage is simply a matter of fairness and equity, that it is unjust to withold this basic human right from a group of people who just happen to have a different approach to sexuality.

The problem here is with an illogical view of marriage as a 'right', defined by human society. The unspoken assumption is that by altering the definition of marriage, we can change what it is. But true definitions don't work that way. Human rights, at least the important, inalienable ones, are natural rights, determined by nature. That's what makes them inalienable and universal. Likewise the real definition of marriage is not subject to arbitrary change. It is what it is. (See natural law argument below.)

If marriage could be redefined to include same-sex couples, then it could also be redefined to include triples or any number of individuals. (This idea is already being pursued.) It could also be redefined to include non-human partners - someone who wants to marry his dog (or goat?). Once you start claiming the ability to redefine such things, the sky's the limit. Lest you be tempted to dismiss this as reductio ad absurdum, remember that, not many years ago, same-sex marriage would have been considered an absurdity.

Science

Some assert that, since science has proven homosexuality to be biologically determined, it must be recognized as purely natural and on a par with heterosexual behavior.

Scientific theories come and they go. There have been some studies seeming to show a genetic basis for homosexuality, while others dispute that claim. The principle of natural selection demands that, for a 'gay gene' theory to hold up, a pleiotropic argument would have to be advanced as well. That is, there would have to be a corresponding genetic benefit to offset the obvious biological handicap of the homosexual trait. To date, there seems to be no hint of evidence for such a beneficial pleiotropy. (See this article for further articulation of this and other points.) Other theories currently being advanced point to either developmental causes or non-genetic organic (chemical or microbiotic) causes. While far from certain, this general tack seems to be more plausible than the fading 'gay gene' theory.

This is all interesting, but not terribly germane. The debate over what underlies homosexual tendencies can never address the nature of marriage, or its heterosexual essence. Neither can science ever really address the rightness or wrongness of human behavior. I suppose that moral theology and legal jurisprudence may both draw from the well of scientific knowledge, but science itself must be concerned only with empirical observation, and be silent on matters of judgment, else it ceases to be science and becomes ideology instead. (See my Epistemology post.)

Consider: There may well be organic or genetic factors that dispose some individuals to alcoholism. Would this make the consumption of alcohol into a human right? (Ask a highway cop that hypothetical question.) In the same way, the question of whether homosexual behavior is chosen or biologically determined is an interesting question, but it has no real bearing upon whether the behavior should be sanctioned.

Scripture

Due to man's inherent religious instinct, many have attempted to justify homosexual behavior on Scriptural grounds.

This invariably involves 'discovering' the sin of Sodom (Gen. 13:13, 19:4-11) to be inhospitality rather than homosexual rapaciousness. Further, stringent Mosaic laws (Lev. 18:22, 20:13, Deut. 23:17) against homosexual relations are facilely dismissed as outmoded and irrelevant. In the New Testament (Rom. 1:26,27, 1 Cor. 6:9, 1 Tim. 1:10), the Apostle Paul is condescendingly stereotyped as a homophobe, or as an unthinking product of the narrow culture of his day. (Of course, the moderns making this charge are not shaped by their own cultural biases!) And, most wonderfully, Jesus' lack of explicit mention of the subject is taken to mean that He endorses homosexuality.

This 'explaining away' of relevant texts is a classic example of Scriptural eisegesis, the reading into Scripture to attain a predetermined interpretation. Moreover, it betrays an attitude of hostility or at least condescension toward the Bible. Rather than docilely receiving Scriptural truth as a disciple should, such eisegesis involves a rather arrogant critiquing of Scripture, judging the Word of God instead of allowing oneself to be judged.

Rather than turn this blog post into a lengthy Bible study, i would invite anyone interested to search the Scriptures for yourself. If you avoid the heroic intellectual gymnastics described above, and stick to an honest exegesis, letting the Bible teach you, i think it will be obvious enough that every Bible passage that speaks of homosexual activity, in both Old and New Testaments, clearly treats it as sinful.

Love

Following from the above misunderstandings, many assert that Christian love demands the acceptance of same-sex relations as being normal and good.

But true love isn't characterized by a bland approval of everything. This would not be love, but complacency. Christian love flows from love of God, and from a desire to obey and honor God in all things. The Christian is commanded to love the sinner but hate the sin. To do less is actually a failure to love as Jesus commands us to. (Ref: the opening quote above.)

Jesus loves the sinner, and then calls the sinner to repentance and to holiness. That's what real Christian love looks like.

Defense against aggression

Homosexuals are often portrayed as a persecuted minority unjustly attacked and oppressed by the powerful majority. This may be the silliest argument of all.

With very few exceptions, the popular movement to resist same-sex marriage is just that - a resistance movement. The proactive aggression is clearly coming from the militant gay culture, seeking to overthrow centuries-old social and legal norms. The counter-movement seeks to protect the institution of marriage and the family from such undue and destructive aggression.

The arguments for tradition

Although the pro-family counter-movement is mainly a resistance and a reaction to militant homosexual advocacy, it also involves several of its own proactive and fundamental points:

Marriage as foundational

Briefly, this argument is for recognition of marriage as the very foundation of civilization. The sanctioning of heterosexual monogamous marriage advances the domestication of men, the protection of women, and the rearing of children in stable environments. It provides men with the means of knowing their children and thus the motivation to provide for them. It allows men to become co-workers with other men instead of rivals. In other words, marriage makes civilization possible. This is not to claim that civilization has perfectly achieved these benefits. It is to say that marriage is the means of achieving them. Other types of social arrangements cannot advance these same essential principles.

Therefore, to the extent that a society embraces and is founded upon marriage with all its rights and responsibilities, it will be civilized. To the extent that it eschews these principles, it will cease to be civilized. Do not imagine that man became civilized and then decided to 'invent' marriage. You could even say it was the other way around: Marriage 'invented' civilization.

From this simple point it can be seen that any redefinition of marriage would detract from these foundational principles. This would be, in effect, to move away from civilization and toward savagery.

Natural law

Closely associated with natural rights (life, liberty, etc.), natural law is law which is determined by nature, and so is valid even in the absence of statutory law or positive law.

So, natural law regarding marriage derives from the essential nature of marriage. In its very nature, marriage can only be the pairing of a man and a woman. The complementarity, mutual dependency, and potential fecundity of this arrangement are of the essence, and objectively so, not subject to arbitrary interpretation. (I also explored this thought further in a previous post.)

Common law

What nature is to natural law, history is to common law. The plain fact is that for centuries upon centuries human societies and their governments have recognized marriage as being between a man and a woman. The long-standing precedent is an important argument in its own right.

Some have disingenuously argued that, just as the long-standing institution of slavery was abolished, so should the common law precedent of monogamous heterosexual marriage be revisited. But for a long-standing law to be overthrown, it should first be proven to be flawed.

The American institution of slavery, only a couple of centuries old, was clearly flawed, and so its demise was just and right. Roe v. Wade, now 30+ years old, is also flawed. The common law institution of heterosexual marriage, millenia old, is not flawed. (In fact, as argued above, it can be seen as the foundation of civilization, and thus preceding all other legal precedents.)

Love and tolerance

As noted above (and here), the Christian concept of love goes way beyond mere passive acceptance, to the much more compassionate offer of repentance and forgiveness.

It is very honest and loving to agree with God that homosexuality is a problem, not a gift. Having homosexual tendencies and temptations is not in itself sinful. Exercising one's free will to engage in homosexual acts is sinful. But it doesn't end there; there is remedy in God's grace.

Repentance and forgiveness

There is first of all the remedy of forgiveness for sin. That is what Jesus died on the cross for, so that sinners could be forgiven. He didn't die so that we could excuse ourselves, or identify ourselves with our sin, but so that we could reject sin and be forgiven. This necessarily involves repentance - agreeing with God that our sins are evil, and that we should try to avoid doing them. The good news for all of us is that Jesus keeps on offering forgiveness for our repented sins, even when we fail again and again and again and again... I suspect that the vast majority of people repeat the same embedded and habitual sins over and over. That's not good, and one should always endeavor to gain mastery over such sin. But it's not beyond God's grace. Repeated sin, when confessed with contrition, is taken care of. Sin that is excused or rationalized is not. Jesus didn't die for our excuses, but for our sins.

Healing

There is sometimes a remedy for the underlying same-sex attraction as well. Jesus can and does heal individuals, replacing their interior brokenness with His wholeness. Miracles of grace still happen.

Holiness

For many, the homosexual feelings never go away. These individuals have a heavy cross to bear, one of chastity and self-control. In such cases, the decision to bear the cross is the only 'remedy'. This becomes their path to holiness, and their very powerful means of glorifying God, achieving their own sanctification, and making the world a better place. For one very moving example, see this story.

The call to holiness is, of course, given to all. The specific cross we each have to bear on our way is unique to each one.

From the Catechism

Here's what the Catholic Catechism has to say on the subject:

Chastity and homosexuality

2357. Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,[140] tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."[141] They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358. The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359. Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

Amen. Much more articulate than my blatherings.

Nominal definitions

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
  - from Romeo and Juliet

My last two posts, on Tolerance and Unconditional love may have a common theme, i.e., my complaint about the corruption of words and their meanings to suit a particular viewpoint.

Some folks may even seek to change the very definition of a word to fit their ideology. The underlying premise seems to be that words have only a subjective meaning, and, in one sense, this is correct. For example, the decision to call the seed of an oak tree an "acorn" is merely nominal and subjective. We could just as well call it a "plebsit", or use the utterance "acorn" to refer, say, to the seed of a pine tree instead. This is true as far as it goes. The illogic comes if we expect the acorn itself to actually become like a pine cone because we've changed the word or its nominal definition.

I am indebted to Robert J. Spitzer, S.J., Ph.D. and his book Healing the Culture for his methodical examination of the 4 classic levels of definition. (Thanks also to Erika P. for giving me the book.) The first level of definition is the nominal level, where we humans decide what to call something, what utterance to attach to it. The next 3 levels are what we discover about the thing - what it is, what it does, and its ultimate end or purpose. These 3 levels are objective, and inherent to the thing at hand. Thus, the acorn continues to be what it is, and continues to carry the same potential regardless of what utterance is attached to it. You would do well to read Spitzer's own more thorough discussion at this link.

Spitzer is concerned in his work primarily with moving on to a philosophy of happiness, freedom, and life issues. In particular, the objective definition of what constitutes a person is important, and i hope to devote more blog space to that theme some time. For now, i would like to suggest another current example of misappropriating a word's definition...

Marriage

For centuries, marriage has been defined as a union between a man and a woman, usually publicly acknowledged, and usually including sexual relations and the conception and raising of children. Certainly in Western Civilization this has been the case. Not only has the word been so defined, but the underlying substance has long been recognized as central to the cohesion of society. The arrangement of marriage facilitates the domestication of men, the protection of women, and the inclusion of men in the rearing of children. It thus forms the very foundation and cornerstone of civilization as we know it. These principles are inherently part of what makes marriage what it is. Even were we to change the nominal definition of marriage, the underlying reality would remain.

Why do i bring this up? Because i have recently been involved in a few conversations in which another party argues that marriage is something that government or society can define or redefine, or that it is a human right that ought to be extended to same-sex couples. The danger in this line of thinking, as i see it, is not that same-sex marriages would somehow denigrate or tarnish heterosexual marriages. Marriage simply is what it is regardless of any subjective legislative or judicial decree that may be handed down. The danger is, rather, that if we as a society begin to neglect the foundational value of marriage in its objective meaning, we may very well be dismantling our own civilization. This is much more than just a subjective wrangling over words.

The morality of homosexual relations is a topic in its own right, which i will not attempt to address right now. The point of this particular post is just to say that words mean things, that the term "same-sex marriage" is an oxymoron, and that it behooves us not to meddle with our civilization's very roots.

You may also want to check out this blog for some excellent discussion of this and related topics.