Same-Sex Marriage Evolution: “That is what is at stake here … the right of definition”

Jim Treacher: If you espouse the same opinion on gay marriage as Barack Obama used to, before he “evolved,” you’re a bigot.

But he wasn’t.

In May of last year during the 2012 campaign cycle Joe Biden looked to have forced Obama’s hand on same-sex marriage. The White House was quick, once again, to clean up after old gaffetastic Joe and announce the once traditional marriage proponent Obama had completed some ethereal evolution from defining marriage in his presidential campaign in 2008 as being between one man and one woman to supporting gay marriage during a tough re-election campaign in 2012. Each of these democrat politicians have “evolved” their beliefs in “gay marriage” vs traditional marriage, and some calling for “gay marriage” today having voted for then Pres. Bill Clinton’s DOMA.

I have been saying for years the left hijacks words and morphs them into their own meaning that they then force us to accept. And if that weren’t bad enough, like some futuristic “Twilight Zone” fascist panel sitting in judgement over the collective, we have MSNBC for the last five years snatching at any and all words used against Obama in opposition to his agenda as “racist” and racist “dog-whistles”, while ignoring the racist, sexist, and even ‘homophobic’ terms and commentary of their own on-air liberal/leftist tools, which are far too many to list here. They have even been documented to have repeatedly edited audio and video to warp reality into invented opportunistic examples of bigoted offense where there is none. They go so far as to decide which words can or cannot be used at any given time, and by whom.

Perhaps one of the most comprehensive observance and conclusion of this 21st Century evolution happening before our eyes comes from Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog:

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. […]

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.

Read in full



3 thoughts on “Same-Sex Marriage Evolution: “That is what is at stake here … the right of definition”

  1. Gigi, the worst part is the anticipation that the shit is going to hit the fan for us all because of this administration policies.

Comments are closed.