Will I Be Fined If I Don’t Bake a Cake for Someone who wants to Marry Herself? Defining Deviancy Down for Control
People have lost their minds. It didn’t happen overnight. It’s taken some time to rid the universe of a Creator who endows us with certain inalienable rights and who is also the “Supreme Judge of the world,” as the Declaration of Independence puts it.
You can’t have one without the other. You can’t claim to have inherent rights without a creator if you are the long extension of a series of cosmic accidents that originated from a long-ago primordial soup of happenstance chemicals. Daniel C. Dennett’s claim that we have gone from “Bacteria to Bach” is one of the most unscientific and illogical claims ever to come from the non-mind of a scientist. You see, we don’t have minds. We are matter-only meat machines. There is no mind, just a random series of electrical charges popping off here and there amongst the gray matter of the brain.
As a result, Cole Porter was right: “Anything Goes.”
If we all got here by the survival of the fittest, some bacteria battling and defeating other bacteria in the “struggle for life,” as Charles Darwin put it, then there can’t be any moral outrage for the latest “murders” in Manchester, England. They can’t be called murders because the struggle for life and dominance is still going on. In Dennett’s world, at death, the victims and the perpetrators meet the same end. All they are is “dust in the wind.”
Trending: What ‘Spocking’ Tells Us About Our Money
Sexual politics is all the rage. There are no long just “male and female” (1:27). That was a God-thing, and the old God is out. There are new gods, and beware if you offend them by claiming that binary is the only “ary” there is. But in the world where there is no God, everything must be redefined. Where there were just two, now there are more than 50 and counting gender expressions. Take your pick. You are just as much a god as any of the other self-proclaimed gods.
Such a new way of looking at the world will have long-term consequences. maybe not this year or next year, but given enough time and logical consistency, there is no telling what could happen and with no overriding moral ethic to stop it.
We’ve moved from homosexuality to transgenderism to same-sex marriage and 20% of people who want to engage in sex with a transgender person.
It wasn’t that long ago that the Associated Press reported that the “state Senate [of New Jersey] unanimously approved a measure that would bar people from having sexual contact with animals.” That was two years ago. Oh, how times have changed.
Here’s the latest:
“Apparently, people are now marrying themselves. Well, more specifically, sad, bitter feminists with a millennial-like flare for narcissism are marrying themselves after sticking it to The Patriarchy by choosing to put their careers ahead of their personal lives.
“In the new, sad trend called ‘sologamy,’ women are committing themselves to themselves with their own wedding ceremony. These women, such as self-styled ‘sologamist’ Erika Anderson, throw on a white gown, invite their close friends and family and marry themselves in a legally nonbinding way.”
Sologamy (solo=one) is right up there with the woman who married a bridge, but not with the bridge’s consent.
That’s a real no-no among the no-godders. Maybe that’s how outlawing bestiality will be upheld since how do you prove that dogs and sheep consent? The argument breaks down because animals don’t usually consent in the wild.
Why isn’t this also true for human-animal sex? Actually, given the operating assumptions of evolution, we humans are also animals. The “Bloodhound Gang” got it right:
You and me baby ain’t nothin’ but mammals
So let’s do it like they do on the Discovery Channel.
It really doesn’t matter, since survival of the fittest and “nature, red in tooth and claw” are the operating mechanism for evolutionary advancement.
But in the end, will opponents of sologamy be fined if they don’t bake a cake for sologamists? These types of culture-killing infestations are what the materialists use to “define deviancy down” to create a new moral paradigm that can be manipulated and implemented to drive Christianity to the nether regions of irrelevance.
Emile Durkheim, a founder of sociology, posited that there is a limit to the amount of deviant behavior any community can “afford to recognize.” As behavior worsens, the community adjusts its standards so that conduct once thought reprehensible is no longer deemed so.
What was considered morally normal thirty years ago is now “portrayed as oppressive and shot through with pathologies. ‘As part of the vast social project of moral leveling.’ [Charles] Krauthammer wrote, ‘it is not enough for the deviant to be normalized. The normal must be found to be deviant.’ This situation is thoroughly perverse. Underclass values become increasingly acceptable to the middle class, especially their young, and middle-class values become increasingly contemptible to the cultural elites.’”