Well, it has happened again. In spite of the fact that the overwhelming majority of citizens throughout the country disapprove of the legalization of homosexual marriage, those who know better have forced it upon us by judicial fiat. This time it was in Iowa, the veritable heart of America, where homosexuals were rescued from the oppression of unsanctioned marriages. Couple this with the Obama administration’s desire to declare homosexuals to be a superior and protected class of citizens through new and expanded hate crimes legislation, and you have the makings of a disaster the likes of which we have seen before. Yes, we have seen this before. You see, our homosexual friends are guilty of behaving like…Christians! I bet you weren’t expecting that, huh? Read on that you may understand that being “right” always comes with a price…

U.S. Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, says his state’s Supreme Court actually confessed to being guilty of “activism” in its opinion today paving the way for same-sex “marriage” in the state. Iowa’s high court said same-sex marriages “could begin” in as little as three weeks, joining Massachusetts and Connecticut as the three states formally recognizing homosexual duos. King was interviewed by Greg Corombos of Radio America/WND about the decision. “The opinion strikes me as very much an activist reach to overturn the will of the people of the state of Iowa,” King said. “This turns on its head the entire composition of human history and law.” He called it the “most activist opinion that I have every read.”

Citing the court’s boasts about how it had led in the fight against slavery and for women’s rights, and equating same-sex “marriage” with those issues, King called the statement “a self-assigned confession of activists. It’s the will of the people that’s supposed to lead the way,” he said. “The constitution is not supposed to change unless it’s changed by the people. The ruling should “infuriate” every Iowan, he said. “I don’t think Iowans have changed their opinions. If they did they would have changed the law.”

Once again we see a minority group using the courts to tyrannically impose its will on a population that would otherwise never accede to their demands. In fact a poll released at the same time of this ruling shows that more than 62 percent of Iowans oppose homosexual marriage, and fewer than 30 percent support it, though about half of those opposed would support civil unions. Unfortunately the court ruled that civil unions weren’t an acceptable alternative. Why? Because this is about being “right,” and these activist courts are convinced it is their job to make things “right.” Never mind that it is their job to interpret the law, not “fix” it. By linking homosexual marriage to the fight against slavery the court is claiming to be operating on some higher moral authority that seems to exist above the law. One could make the argument that this higher moral authority could come from God except for the fact that we know his feelings on homosexuality.

Nevertheless, in spite of all this, as always, the Obama administration stands poised to make things even worse:

President Obama and Vice President Biden will strengthen federal hate crimes legislation, expand hate crimes protection by passing the Matthew Shepard Act, and reinvigorate enforcement at the Department of Justice’s Criminal Section. - White House Website

Yes, the infamous Matthew Shepherd Act, whereby homosexuals are granted status as a “protected” class of citizen as though there was something that was innately special about being a homosexual. Worse still is the implication that protecting them is something of a priority over protecting the rest of us.

All hate crimes legislation is a direct threat to both our religious liberties and our right to free speech. In other countries where these kind of laws have been implemented, pastors and Christians have been arrested and fined for speaking what the Biblical scriptures teach about homosexuality. There is even a recently passed state law in Colorado that makes it a crime to hand out Christian literature that speaks against this lifestyle. It can happen here. It is happening here.

I cannot help but recognize the similarity between the radical agenda that is driving the push to legalize homosexual marriage, and a previous time of “manufactured” intolerance. As you will see, we have been here before. Journey back in time to sixteenth century France and the conflict between the Protestants (called Huguenots) and the dominant Roman Catholic Church. You will find that those driving the homosexual agenda have learned a lot from their Huguenot brothers about how to force themselves, and their agenda, on an unwilling   majority. However, they seem to be oblivious to the consequences of those actions. There is a price to be paid for being “right.”

The Protestant Reformation was fueled by the unprecedented access to Biblical scriptures that resulted from both the invention of the printing press and the translating of the Bible into the various languages of the European Christians. “Sola Scriptura” (by Scripture alone) was one of the mantras of the Reformation. This doctrine maintains that Scripture, as contained in the Bible, is the only authority for the Christian in matters of faith, life and conduct. According to this doctrine, the teachings and traditions of the church are to be completely subordinate to the Scriptures. Roman Catholicism, on the other hand, holds Scripture and Tradition to be of the same inspired Deposit of Faith. Men such as Martin Luther and John Calvin began espousing interpretations of the Bible that clashed with the traditional teachings of Roman Catholicism.

Because the societies of the time were built around monarchist governments that were dominated by Roman Catholics, the Huguenots did not enjoy many, if any, privileges to freely express their religious beliefs. In the eyes of the Roman Catholic Church the Huguenots were heretics and were regularly punished as such. As a result the Huguenots felt they were forced to pursue a course of violence in order to obtain the privilege to worship as they wished. This manifested itself through several “wars of religion” throughout the first half of the sixteenth century. These wars led to many concessions that earned both the right to worship in their own establishments and to freely be recognized for their beliefs without fear of reprisals for heresy. However, once the Huguenots had earned tolerance for their belief system, tolerance soon was not enough. Why? Because they knew they were “right.” As I’m sure our homosexual friends would agree, being “right” entitles you to more than just tolerance. So more was sought.

These were very religious people in a very religious time. They felt that the scriptures validated their belief system over the more “pagan” traditions of the Roman Catholicism, therefore they felt it was their Christian duty to impose their beliefs on the Catholics and force them to admit the error of their ways. And so it was that the Huguenots, always in the minority, attacked Roman Catholicism with both words and violence. The Huguenots took to the practice of Iconoclasm, the deliberate destruction of Catholic symbols, statues and churches. Does this remind you of any behavior you have been seeing out of the aggressive homosexual advocates? They too have been trespassing into church services to disrupt them with their agenda as well as pursuing vandalism against their property in the wake of their failure to win enough votes to legalize homosexual marriage in California. Quite blatant behavior for minorities wouldn’t you say?

The Catholics of the sixteenth century were, of course, enraged at this violation of their establishments and the defacing of their sacred symbols. Their traditions were being trampled upon even as the monarchy insisted they show “tolerance” and resist the temptation to strike back. However this was an untenable situation. The Huguenots were no longer content to seek tolerance for their belief system and the right to practice it. Their arrogance demanded that the Catholics acknowledge that they were “right.”

Positions hardened on both sides of the religious divide. Catholic militants began urging the king to outlaw any expression of Protestant faith. Many wanted the Huguenots to pay for the trouble they caused with their lives. Meanwhile, the Huguenots proudly justified their actions by claiming they had the right to resist “illegitimate authority.” Many of you will immediately recognize that as the primary justification for the later American Revolution. In both instances the king rightly recognized a threat to his authority. Unlike in the American Revolution however, the Huguenots were clearly a minority who was wearing out its welcome.

The monarchy, for its part, was still attempting to moderate the dispute. Though largely dominated by Catholics, it was official policy to show tolerance to the Huguenots in hopes of trying to maintain some influence with their leaders in the hope they could reign in the radicals. Contrary to how history has portrayed her, Catherine De Medici was very much in favor of granting Huguenots concessions in hopes of maintaining the social order. Unfortunately she would end up receiving much of the blame for the event that was about to unfold.

Tensions were raised to a fever pitch when the King Charles IX indicated he would consider sending military aid to a Huguenot army that was invading the Netherlands. In May of 1572 Dutch Protestants were in revolt against Catholic King Philip II of Spain. The majority of the French population naturally despised the idea of allying with heretics against a Catholic King. Worse still, was Charles’ plan to marry his sister to a Protestant Prince, Henry of Bourbon. In the age of monarchies marriages between to conflicting factions were often used to ease the tensions between warring parties. This could in many ways be seen as the equivalent of homosexuals today using the courts to circumvent the will of the people. For the Catholics of sixteenth century France, this mixed marriage would turn out to be that one straw of tolerance more than the camel’s back could bear. There would be no more.

The wedding was to be a very public affair. All the more enraging to those who valued their Catholic traditions. It drew huge numbers of Huguenots to Paris to celebrate what the Catholics viewed as legitimizing heresy. Like a modern day gay pride parade, the Huguenots would be intolerably arrogant and flagrantly flaunting themselves through the streets. Unlike a modern day gay pride parade however, almost no Huguenots left Paris alive.

August 25, 1572 was one of the bloodiest days in Western history. Perhaps the bloodiest one to not involve a military engagement. Forever known as the Saint Bartholomew’s Day Massacre, the death toll remains a matter of dispute. Many claim it was in the neighborhood of 30,000 but some claim as many as 100,000 were murdered. This was largely due to the fact that the killings went on for months. I will leave the details of the massacre to some other essay. An attempted assassination of Protestant Admiral Coligny is alleged to have sparked it. Rumors of a Huguenot army outside of Paris were prevalent at the time leading to a belief the King ordered a pre-emptive strike. Of course the Huguenots claim that the massacre was initiated on the Kings orders and many allege an ambush was planned all along.

What was unique about it was how enthusiastically the general population of France took to violence in a manner almost resembling a festival. As word spread of the massacre, the population considered itself to have permission, if not a duty, to rid themselves of the infestation of heresy. The Huguenots paid for their arrogance. Many of the victims were forced to recant their faith or recite Catholic prayers. Infants were “baptized” in the blood of their parents. Pregnant women had their babies cut from their wombs. Looting and Pillaging were common. In a word…anarchy.

Now before anyone gets the wrong idea let me state I would in no way argue the massacre in 1572 was justified, and though I am making a connection between the arrogance of the Huguenots and the arrogance of modern day homosexuals, I am not suggesting that such a response is in order today. American society allows a lot more options for people to express their displeasures than sixteenth century France. However I would contend that a minority that does not enjoy widespread popular acceptance ought not to try to bully a majority that  values its traditional way of life.

Homosexuals often try to link their “efforts” to the Civil Rights movement of the 1960’s. But unlike homosexuals, Martin Luther King Jr.’s movement always enjoyed the popular support of the majority of Americans. That is not now, nor has it ever been, true of the movement to legalize homosexual marriage. Remember the poll that showed only 30% of Iowans would support such a thing. Yet the homosexuals found a way around them. In 1572 The Catholics stood in support of “traditional” values and the Huguenots stood against an “illegitimate authority.” Both were convinced they were “right.” Now the citizens of Iowa can see their traditional values trampled on BY an “illegitimate authority.” Homosexuals enjoy all the rights and protections of every other American citizen. That homosexuals are some sort of persecuted minority is nothing more than a fabrication of their own making. They pursue the legalization of homosexual marriage out of an arrogant desire to make all of us acknowledge they are “right.” They pursue “hate crimes” legislation merely to put criticism of their lifestyle out of reach.

The problem with the advocates of homosexual marriage is that they demand the dissolution of the standard of marriage as being between one man and one woman, and replace it with…nothing! The absence of a standard definition for marriage will only lead to further insistence on toleration for the intolerable on down the line. What the homosexuals are advocating is anarchy. Anarchy always breeds violence. The movement for the legalization of homosexual marriage can’t claim any higher motivation than selfishness. They have manufactured an issue where there should be none, and have the audacity to claim their critics to be “haters” and “intolerant.” The arrogance of this minority, in demanding that the rest of us bow down and accept that they are “right,” is astounding. This cannot possibly end well for them.

It is becoming increasingly clear that a certain, extremely vocal, portion of the public defines freedom and equality entirely on how much “tolerance” they can extort from the general public for their lascivious desire to promote the unrestricted exhibition and exploitation of their’s, and other’s, loins in and out of the public sphere. It is the classic example of mistaking immorality for freedom, and in their belligerent ignorance they see modesty, piety and bigotry as essentially the same. Our failure to endorse their increasingly ludicrous demands for approval of their “lifestyles” often leads to a display of some of the most pathetic adolescent behavior imaginable. In fact such behavior was unimaginable just a generation ago. When it comes to boorish behavior, nobody, and I mean NOBODY tops the advocates for the homosexual agenda in this country.

When most of us were children we were given a simple test to determine our basic cognitive skills. It was a simple one that I am sure most of you remember. It almost qualified as a toy. You had several pegs of varying shapes and a board with holes in it that likewise consisted of the same varying shapes. You simply had to match the pegs to their appropriate holes. For most of us putting the square peg in the square hole was not a monumental accomplishment. There were, of course, many of our fellow children who could not accomplish this feat however, and they insisted on trying to mismatch the pegs and the holes. Although trying to put a square peg into a round hole was not something that should stigmatize a child for life, we reasonably expect that an attempt should be made to correct the child. Perhaps we would even dare to “teach” the child to recognize the shapes and to look carefully to match them. How many of you remember your teachers telling you it was equally correct to mismatch a square peg into a round hole as to match a round peg into a round hole? It didn’t happen, and for good reason. It would be foolish. Well, we’ve got there now. Not only are we being forced accept this kind of foolishness, we are told it is a noble cause to promote such nonsense. In fact if we don’t support it we are bigots.

The successful passage of the Proposition 8 amendment banning homosexual marriages in California has awakened the “enfant terrible” in a wide range of people who assure us that they are the “enlightened” ones that know what is best for all of us. Unable to accept that, yet again, one of the most liberal states in the country has failed to endorse square peg to round hole marriages, homosexuals have taken to the streets protesting and attacking people and businesses who supported the amendment and, in their most ill-mannered demonstrations, they have even trespassed into churches to deliver vulgar rants against those who fail to acknowledge the nobility of their demands. This proves once and for all that tolerance really is a one way street. And guess which way its going…(insert obvious AC/DC song here).

Apparently when it comes to the issue of homosexual marriage, the issue is already decided, at least according to the advocates of this preposterousness. The vote was just supposed to be a formality as, of course, there was always only ONE right answer. Six thousand years of human history be damned, these people have figured out that everyone who came before them was mistaken and there is absolutely nothing wrong with these mismatched unions. In fact, they tell us we are depriving them of their RIGHT to be married. Where did this “right” materialize from? Well, one argument stems from the Civil Rights movement of the 1950’s-60’s.

While attempting to equate their struggle with that of the African-American people may have seemed like a good idea, they have in fact offended the black community. One’s sexual identity isn’t so identifiable as one’s race. Black people, once enslaved and declared less than human, were still being deprived of basic human dignities such as access to education and other services as well as fair treatment in almost every area of society. It was not something they could have avoided or hidden, even if they had wished to. Homosexuals have never been enslaved or declared less than human, nor are they being being legally discriminated against for their particular sexual preferences. Even if such things were to occur, they have legal remedies available to them. The lack of those legal remedies were at the heart of the Civil Rights struggle all along. The African-American community is rightfully offended that homosexuals would dare equate the quest for same sex marriage with their struggle for Civil Rights. Is it any wonder that 7 out of 10 African-Americans voted against homosexual marriage? They have every right to be offended! It is no surprise that this backfired on on the supporters of homosexual marriage.

Opponents of Proposition 8 like to bring up the court case of  Loving v. Virginia. This was a 1967 decision finding that marriage was a basic human right and that there was no legitimate state interest in banning interracial marriage. Let us also remember this is still a square peg to square hole relationship, the colors do not alter the fact that all the working parts fit together naturally as they were intended by God or nature. Take your pick. Therefore the arguments for interracial marriages CANNOT be applied to homosexual marriages because you are still dealing with a man and a woman marriage. This is the basic relationship that results in traditionally accepted families that produce children. It is the tried and true foundation of every successful society. Certainly our society has an interest in the upbringing of children, as this process produces new citizens, and guides them to maturity. Therefore our society can, and has, decided that the traditional family is the proven successful model for raising a family. The foundation of that family being a marriage between a man and a woman. It is for that reason that we have chosen to honor these traditional marriages with special status.

In the aftermath of the successful win for Proposition 8, California Attorney General Jerry Brown said he would fight to uphold the initiative, even though he personally voted against it. This, of course, was before the adolescent tantrums of Proposition 8 opponents went into high gear in an attempt to extort their will, over that of California’s voters, through intimidation. We have all seen the pictures of protesters attacking churches, demonstrating outside the homes, and even attempting to destroy the businesses of those known to have supported Proposition 8. They seem to have taken particular interest in both Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church as well as the Mormon Church. Protest is a healthy thing for the democratic process, but this has long since crossed the line into violent intimidation. Trespassing onto the property, and into the services, of these churches is unacceptable behavior reminiscent of Nazi brown-shirts. The Nazi’s laid a fine blueprint for a minority group wishing to impose it’s will on others.

To be sure, the churches have handled these situations with remarkable grace and tolerance given the fact that these attacks represent a textbook example of intolerance on the part of homosexuals. In their eyes, there was only one right way to view this issue, and the voters of California failed to get it right. They therefore see it as their right to extract a certain amount of revenge against Christians for opposing them. As always, opponents of homosexual marriage are portrayed as bigots that are totally undeserving of respect. Their point of view is constantly and falsely being equated with racism. The media, as always, seems willingly pliable to promote wishes of the homosexual agenda.

The tantrums of the advocates for homosexual marriage may not be particularly effective against Christians and other adults, but they have apparently worked on the California Attorney General. After initially insisting he would enforce the will of the people, he has apparently had a change of heart:

“Proposition 8 must be invalidated because the amendment process cannot be used to extinguish fundamental constitutional rights without compelling justification. The courts have previously said the right of a person to marry is protected as one of those inalienable rights. The question at the center of the gay marriage cases is whether rights secured under the state Constitution’s safeguard of liberty as an ‘inalienable’ right may intentionally be withdrawn from a class of persons by an initiative amendment.”

“Although voters are allowed to amend other parts of the Constitution by majority vote, to use the ballot box to take away an “inalienable” right would establish a “tyranny of the majority,” which the Constitution was designed, in part, to prevent, he wrote. “For we are talking, necessarily, about rights of individuals or groups against the larger community, and against the majority, even an overwhelming majority, of the society as a whole.” - California Attorney General Jerry Brown

Of course, opponents of Proposition 8 are elated at the Attorney General’s chameleon-like ability to adapt to the environment of hostility that they have created, and have taken to calling the Attorney General “a leader of courage and conviction.” In truth he is neither courageous nor a man of conviction. He is a man betraying his duty to his office. It is the Attorney General’s job to uphold the law, not to advocate for its change. Now he is attempting to use his office and the courts, yet again, to make homosexual marriages legal.

Does a man have an “inalienable right” to marry another man? Of course not, for if he did it would have long since been customary for such unions to be accepted. There is no “right” to marry. It is licensed by the state. Rights are not, nor do they need to be licensed!  And here is the interesting fly in the ointment: homosexuals haven’t been banned from getting married. Any homosexual person can marry somebody of the opposite sex. They often do. What they are demanding are special rights to marry within the same sex. This is not in any way an acceptable definition of an “inalienable right.” If the Attorney General were truly worried about tyranny, he would recognize it as coming from a minority group forcibly imposing its unnatural perversions onto the rest of us. We are repeatedly told we have absolutely no right to reject this perverse behavior. It is us and our world-view that they are demanding be changed. This is the tyranny of political correctness. So who is the real tyrant here?

In 1973, The American Psychiatric Association (APA) removed homosexuality as a mental disorder from the APA’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-II). This decision was a significant victory for homosexual activists and they have continued to claim that the APA based their decision on new scientific discoveries that proved that homosexual behavior is normal and should be affirmed in our culture. This is a fine example of scientific and academic arrogance. For all of human history homosexual behavior has been considered “deviant” and abnormal but now these fine fellows have decided that not only is it normal, but that we must embrace and endorse this behavior based entirely on their “scholarly” recommendation? Give me a break. So everyone else throughout history, every culture, creed, religion and science was in error and these “enlightened” fellows have “discovered” the real truth? Sorry, but no sale.

If we were to accept that people are born homosexual and that they are powerless to resist their sexual urges we would set history BACKWARDS a thousand years. Yes, I said BACKWARDS. Endorsing this line of thought is not progressive at all. We like to think that we can be anything we want to be. We believe in neither “birthrights” or penalizing someone because of who or what condition they were born into. We judge people by what they are, not what they came from. Yet the homosexual agenda claims the homosexual is born that way and can be nothing else. They likewise perceive sexual preference as their all-encompassing identity and as such it essentially becomes a self-imposed penalty. That’s as intolerable as it is un-American. You are what you make of yourself. You are not born locked into a homosexual lifestyle. I reject that. If you cannot choose, you cannot be free. Be very careful what you claim you want. It is the helpless that are the first victims of an abuse of power, and how often have homosexuals been persecuted for just that perceived helplessness? If someone wishes to live as, and be, a homosexual, by all means let them. But let them do it as a free citizen making  a free choice. That choice is their right and neither I nor anyone else should dispute it. However if someone insists that they have no choice, and homosexuality was forced upon them by genetics or some other pseudo-scientific mythology, then they are just pathetic fools. I have no respect for that. Whining and making excuses deserves, and gets, nothing.

Which brings me around to the brouhaha following the president-elect’s invitation to Pastor Rick Warren to give the invocation at his inauguration ceremony. Homosexuals are in a rage over this in spite of the fact that President-Elect Obama has stated repeatedly that he does not support gay marriage. He holds exactly the same position on the issue that Rick Warren holds. John Cloud, an openly homosexual writer for Time Magazine even went as far as to call the future President a…you guessed it…bigot.

“Gays and lesbians are angry that Barack Obama has honored Warren, but they shouldn’t be surprised. Obama has proved himself repeatedly to be a very tolerant, very rational-sounding sort of bigot.” - John Cloud

What was Rick Warren’s great crime, other than obviously opposing homosexual marriage? He infuriated homosexual rights activists with a comment  made in a TV interview. He compared two homosexuals getting married to a brother marrying a sister or an adult marrying a child. Warren even went as far as to say “Certain body parts are meant to fit together.” Kinda makes you think about square pegs belonging in square holes doesn’t it? He rightfully pointed out that once you accept one of these taboo relationships as a “marriage” you are conceding that “alternative” definitions of marriage are acceptable. Once you make that concession you will be on that infamous slippery slope that will lead to further concessions for polygamy, polyandry, or even incest. After all, what logical argument can you hold against those practices that would not apply to homosexuality? It is advantageous for society to encourage the restraint of sexual activity and keep it within boundaries that prevent us from destroying one another. Failure to encourage such restraint will result in a society that tolerates everything. We have a name for such a society. It’s called the Animal Kingdom, a place where the strong are predators that consume the weak and no creature has any rights except those enforced by tooth and claw. The quality of a society is not determined by what it tolerates but by what it does NOT tolerate. Remember that!

Lets make one thing nice and sparkling clear for our homosexual friends. Rick Warren, and all of us who consider ourselves Christians do not have to spend any time writhing in thought over this issue. For us it is pretty simple:

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. Leviticus 18:22

If we truly are Christians, then we do not have the authority to tolerate, accept or condone homosexual behavior or homosexual marriage. We belong to the Kingdom of God. We have humbled ourself before him and accept his wisdom and his way. Our approval is NOT our property to give. Lashing out at Christians will not gain homosexuals favor with us. They should never expect us to endorse the homosexual lifestyle as an “equal” to the traditional family. It isn’t going to happen, not even by force!

It is one thing to tolerate the private choices made by free individuals. No one is out to suppress the behavior of consenting adults in the privacy of their own lives and no one should. Homosexuals argue that their “unions” are loving and committed relationships. Whoop de doo da day. I’m happy for them. This misses the point entirely. Marriage is a manifestation of not only the acceptance of the traditional family ideal, but also our desire to encourage it and create the conditions that will make it flourish. This is done for the betterment of the society as a whole, not because we are impressed with the fact that a couple loves each other. Society doesn’t care about that. Endorsing and encouraging homosexual marriages will benefit no one but homosexuals.

There are many reasons to oppose homosexual marriages. The square peg will never belong in the round hole. There is no new found wisdom or understanding about it. Homosexuals who insist on continuing to try to ram these “square peg to round hole” unions down our throats are acting out of pure SELFISHNESS, and nothing more. Championing homosexual marriage is not a noble pursuit and no-one needs flatter themselves into thinking they are more “enlightened” than the rest of us just because they are willing to tolerate or accept it.

Like it or not, the Bible does have the best warning for those who insist that homosexual marriage is just another choice of equal value to traditional marriage:

“Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight! Woe unto them that are mighty to drink wine, and men of strength to mingle strong drink: Which justify the wicked for reward, and take away the righteousness of the righteous from him!
Therefore as the fire devoureth the stubble, and the flame consumeth the chaff, so their root shall be as rottenness, and their blossom shall go up as dust: because they have cast away the law of the LORD of hosts, and despised the word of the Holy One of Israel.” - Isaiah 5:20-24

No my arrogant friends,  if you support the folly of homosexual marriage you are not wise, educated, enlightened or tolerant. You are just the latest in the long history of mankind to foolishly “call evil good and good evil.” We have seen your kind before, and you keep coming to the same result. No matter how hard you try, you cannot make putting a square peg in a round hole a “good” thing. There is no nobility in foolishness and there is no such thing as a noble fool…just a fool.