A society that’s half-insane is doomed to itself, and those who escape it into the Truth are merely the most blessed of tyrants.

Over at http://blogs.christianpost.com/law-and-created-order/the-bishops-reverse-marriage-11289/ Mr. Dimsdale says, in so many words, that it is possible to dissolve righteousness-in-marriage for the sake of a mere fictional Ideal Marriage. There is no ideal marriage in the fallen world.

Of course, even in the fallen world, there are sometimes very good, very harmonious and blissful marriages. There are even very blissful days in some of the most contention-filled marriages.

But, what we need is to learn from those very good marriages and from those very good days. It is a mistake to look merely to an ideal of marriage as the arbiter of whether spouses should divorce.

The human heart can recognize a good ideal which the fallen human life nevertheless cannot attain. But, we do not give up on life just because our lives are marred by occasional or even near-constant struggle. Instead, we seek wisdom to make better of our mistakes, of our sins. To understand ourselves in such a true way that we understand how we can do better, both for our individual selves and for those fellow humans for whom we ought to do better.

Marriage is that most deeply and broadly personal instance of human society. In other words, marriage is its own society. But, the question is, what is the ideal such society, and does that ideal permit people to actively reject it as a means of preserving it?

If it is possible for humans to mutate into having same-sex sexual attractions, then I imagine it must be possible for humans to mutate into having cross-species sexual attractions (such as to apes, to horses, to birds, etc.).

Further, if it is possible for humans to mutate into having cross-species sexual attractions, then what about even the possibility that humans can mutate into such a limited-and-degraded sexual attraction as that to small children or even ‘exclusively’ to one’s own biological parent(s).

Some people say that mutual consent is the only arbiter of the rightness or wrongness of the sex act. But, if mutual consent is the only arbiter of the rightness or wrongness of the sex act, then it already seems abundantly clear to me that the possibility for humans to ‘mutate’ into getting petty divorces puts marriage on the chopping block:

In the case of a human who, after getting a same-sex marriage, happens genuinely to exchange even his or her same-sex sexual attraction for, say, a cross-species sexual attraction, it would seem by the logic of ‘reverse marriage’ that that human is perfectly right to depart from the same-sex ‘spouse’, and that ‘spouse’ is perfectly wrong to try to prevent that departure.

Question: What ever happened to preserving the integrity of marriage? Answer: It was preserved in theory only—in the fiction of its ideal-never-truly-sought. Anyone can so ‘preserve’ that ideal, even the most evil of people. Such ‘preservation’ requires no true insight and no true righteousness. Everyone has ideals. And, I would dare say that everyone, including the most violent criminals, has a certain set of ideals in common.