Monday, June 30, 2014

Divide Et Impera, 2014 Anno Domini

This might seem a mere trifle after the weighty "Declarations Of War" and "That Which Must Not Be Said" tirades. Trust me, it's not:

I've worked at Chase for the past 11 years. Yearly (sometimes skipping a year though) the bank will send out an Employee Survey to gauge how the employees feel about the bank and the management team they report up to. Every year that's all the questions ever related to: the bank in general and management. But this year there was a question that had many of us scratching our heads.

This is a company wide survey. All lines of business have the same survey. There was a question where it said to check the boxes that were applicable to you. You could select one, more than one, or none. Here it is:

Are you: 1) A person with disabilities; 2) A person with children with disabilities; 3) A person with a spouse/domestic partner with disabilities; 4) A member of the LGBT community.

I thought 4 was a little oddly placed, but oh well. It was the next option that pulled the needle off the record:

5) An ally of the LGBT community, but not personally identifying as LGBT.

What?! What kind of question was that? An "ally" of that community? What's the alternative if you don't select that option? You're not a ally of the LGBT community?

This survey wasn't anonymous. You had to enter your employee ID. With the way things are going and the fact that LGBT rights are being viewed as pretty much tantamount to the civil rights movement of the mid 50s to late 60s, not selecting that option is essentially saying "I'm not an ally of civil rights"; which is a vague way to say "I'm a bigot." The worry among many of us is that those who didn't select that poorly placed, irrelevant option will be placed on the "you can fire these people first" list.

Homosexual activists and associated deviants are among the most aggressive and vicious of all activist groups. (Perversion must do something unique to the brain chemistry.) A brief review of what such activists did following their defeat in California's Proposition 8 election, and their jihad against Mozilla cofounder Brendan Eich, should suffice to convince anyone.

So here we have one of the largest financial institutions in the world essentially demanding that its employees declare themselves "allies" of "the LGBT community." Does that "community" have a mailing address? What about a Board of Directors, or perhaps Trustees? Does it sell some product or promote some charity? Does it do anything but advocate for special "rights" for perverts and the mentally disordered?

He who wrote the above has accurately assessed the import thereof:

The worry among many of us is that those who didn't select that poorly placed, irrelevant option will be placed on the "you can fire these people first" list.

In our insane promotion of "Diversity Uber Alles," that's exactly the outcome the homosexual / deviant axis will agitate for.

I suppose my attitude should be clear enough from the above -- and I'm a "live and let live" sort. (Try my fiction and see.) You go your way and I'll go mine. Feel free to indulge in homosexual sodomy, polyamory, even surgical mutilation, as long as you accept the full costs and consequences of your lunacies upon your own head...and don't insist that I participate along with you, of course.

Political agitation for special "rights," including the "right" to receive State recognition of a nonexistent status, goes beyond my zone of toleration. The flap over same-sex marriage is exactly that sort.

Marriage, as a colleague of mine puts it, is not a political but a social institution. It developed long before politics or the State, out of Mankind's species-wide survival imperatives.

As I wrote quite recently:

The institution of marriage developed to protect us from our weaknesses. The marital promise of fidelity and constancy is intended to protect vulnerable women and minor children from abandonment and abuse, and men from faithless exploitation and obligations they never agreed to accept. If marriage should fail to serve those purposes, or if the price should rise unacceptably high, marriage will cease to exist, de facto if not de jure.

I contend that marriage is expiring as we watch.

When marriage was regarded as an institution mediated and enforced by one's community, as is proper, it worked very well. It was very difficult for a faithless spouse to hide his transgressions from his neighbors -- and equally difficult to escape the penalties for them. Granted that I speak here of a time when one lived essentially one's whole life within the community of one's birth, but the principle has not expired. To serve its proper purposes, marriage must include the promise of fidelity and constancy, it must be enforced by those who are best positioned to know the married couple, and it must be free of external meddling by irresponsible busybodies, including governments.

Conversely, there's no point to marriage if it's severed from its purposes, which renders the cries for "marriage equality" -- i.e., same-sex marriage -- ridiculous in the extreme....

Owing to the extraordinary hostility of various groups to marriage as it arose and was traditionally practiced, and the willingness of governments to stick their thumbs into the stew, marriage as an institution is near to extinction.

I stand by that assessment.

The insertion of the State into a social institution implies State enforcement of whatever standards it enshrines in law. Should the time come when the United States recognizes same-sex "marriages" as legally equivalent to the real thing, it will become legally hazardous to deny it. Establishments that cater solely to married couples will be required by law to serve homosexual couples on the same basis. Religious communities will be placed under pressure to drop their opposition to homosexual conduct. Secular institutions that have erected protections against homosexual meddling with children will come under attack. Indeed, the State itself will find that several of its norms will be challenged in a fashion it cannot refute.

Consider the use of "anti-discrimination laws" against commercial establishments and institutions. The unnamed Chase employee who wrote to Robert George about that survey has a perfectly valid fear today. Chase itself might soon find quotas for sexual orientation clamped upon its hiring and labor practices. What would that do to the aggregate competence of its labor force, and to practices found within the company itself?

Former United States Senator Rick Santorum observed, quite accurately, that once same-sex marriage has been elevated to a "right," there will be absolutely no coherent argument against any sexual-marital combination, including minor children, animals, and inanimate objects. The rationale, after all, for State-recognized same-sex marriage is "We want it." Nothing more. This has implications most persons simply haven't grasped.

Marriage of the traditional sort is the foundation of all stable societies. Healthy communities are built around married couples. They tolerate singletons, but such persons are always regarded as transitional members at best, foci for instability and disruption at worst. Even in these times of unprecedented mobility, traditional marriage, especially fertile marriage, establishes the couple as having rooted itself, and therefore as having a positive incentive to preserve and defend the community, its quality of life, and its customs.

The undermining of that foundation will leave us atomized: fearful of the law and one another. But to be "fearful of the law and one another" is the object in view, for some. Setting us against one another is the royal road to total power.

Watch for a version of that Chase survey at your place of employment -- and be ready to raise a row over it.

No comments: