Let's assume for a few moments that you are a member of a gentleman's club. By gentleman's club this writer does not refer to such places as Spearmint Rhino or Boobs Galore where scantily clad women perform pole-dancing routines while men drink over-priced beer and howl like coyotes on the trail of a clutch of three legged rabbits.
Here, "gentleman's club" refers to the classic English club organized and joined by classic English gentlemen such as The Atheneaum or White's (or if one is in a lighter mood The Drone's Club).
Now assume that one, while playing billiards or whist or reading in the library, is "cut" by another member. Said member has said something negative regarding one's (or one's family's) honor. One has two courses of action.
One can either ignore the insult, and thus reap the rewards of showing one's self as a man not concerned about his reputation. Or one can challenge the bounder in one way or another (ranging from pistols at dawn to throwing biscuits into top hats).
What one does not do is start a slanging match that eventually results in one and the insulter sitting down and breaking bread and talking about how much one and the other like and respect one another. One has one's honor to defend or ignore. But one can not honorably sit down with the person who "cut" one (see the Oxford English Dictionary for the definition of "cut" used in this context) and be best mates. To do so is to show one's self as a lickspittle or sickeningly ambitious (both the same things, really).
Honor, in the old sense, in these days seems quaint among a certain segment of the population. But this segment is the same segment that hides the fact that their daughters are slatterns by paying for numerous abortions, allows their under-aged children to get tattoos from a "celebrity" tattooist, and has no problem spilling the most intimate details of one's personal life to a fat black woman or or bald fat white man on national television to get attention and perhaps make a shilling or two.
This past week (or perhaps the week before) Barack Obama and John McCain got together for lunch and afterwards praised one another to no end. Not more than a month ago both men were describing one another as agents of the demise of the Great Republic, idiots, fools and just dumb. But, no that the election is over and the Chosen One has been chosen, they are best buddies.
What changed? Nothing. Then way this sudden love-fest between two men who "cut" one another repeatedly? Who Knows? Perhaps it's a game for them.
This writer has noticed that politics seems to mean much more to the electorate than to the elected. To us it is serious business that effects the fate of the Great Republic. To them it's a job interview. And if they fail the interview they can pick up a higher paying job as a lobbyist.
There's something wrong with this.
Those in the know are aware that Nib Manor is in California and that during the last election the citizens of the Golden State voted to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman instead of a man and a man , a woman and a woman, or a freak and a cow.
The reaction among the homosexual crowd (this writer refuses to use the words "gay" and out of a sense of propriety the words "sodomite" or "invert")has been that of spoiled children denied their second bowl of ice cream at 11:00 P.M. There have been mass demonstrations outside Mormon churches (and oddly enough not outside Catholic churches despite the fact that the official Catholic position is against homosexual marriage, or black churches despite the fact that blacks voted overwhelmingly for heterosexual marriage) with a lot of heat and not much light. The word "hate" was bandied about freely and boycotts were called against businesses that had supported exclusively heterosexual marriage.
The homosexual community is outraged, but people who are wrong are often outraged. Outrage is not a logical, or even decent argument. This writer was outraged years ago when his parents would not give him a Vincent Black Shadow for his sixteenth birthday.
The people, through the initiative process (as questionable as that process may be), and if the vote had gone the other way the homosexual crowd would be crowing about the validity of the popular vote. Since they lost they are angry. There is really nothing new there. Every loser is angry that he lost. Just spend a few minutes at the tables at the Luxor and one can see that.
But here's the real story about the whole thing. Our homosexual friends, relatives and strangers are really angry because the passing of the the Yes vote on Proposition 8 reveals to them that homosexuals and homosexuality is not as popular among the populace of the state as they had assumed. In other words, and to make it short, most people in the state would prefer that homosexuals would just go away to someplace else like New York or Boston or Amsterdam.
The passage of Proposition 8 hurt their feelings and that's what gets them so angry.
And the reason that they've gone after the Mormons instead of the Catholics, the black churches, or even the Scientologists, is because the Mormons are seen, by the majority of the population as somewhat hickey (are they really Christians?); they are easy to beat up on because they are outside the mainstream. Their neglect of the Scientologists is due to, this writer thinks, the Hubbardists fondness for lawsuits. The Catholics and black churches, being accepted in society are considered part of American society and are, despite being minorities, are in the mainstream of society. And they might fight back.
Years ago this writer read the opinion of another writer that the homosexual lobby was working on a progressive plan. First the lobby would call for tolerance. Once the concept of tolerance was established the lobby would call for acceptance of homosexuality. And once the acceptance of homosexuality was established in a society was established then the lobby would call for mandatory homosexuality for a period of time for young people (perhaps a semester in high school). The passing of Proposition 8 has shown that the voters in the state are not willing to go beyond the first the first step.
