Gay marriage reveals fundamental problem

Inspired by the previous blog entry, I decided to take a closer look at the gay marriage issue in particular.

foundationOne of the main problems I’m finding with this latest trendy social issue is the requirement for people of Abrahamic faiths to variously support sin indirectly through the system of taxation. This is similar to how a nation-state might view its indirect financing of terrorism: absolutely off limits.

A proponent might dismiss Abrahamic beliefs as generally irrational, seeing certain sin behaviours as merely a matter of taste rather than consequential, but then they are engaging in bigotry themselves.

Another proponent might suggest a tax break compromise, equivalent to that of a gay marriage household, for every person of an Abrahamic faith. Yet, this means people who do not wish to validate the homosexual family unit and who are not of such faith are excluded from the compromise.

So, the gay marriage proponents value the financial benefits of same sex households along with a new form of normative social validity that was once “irrationally” shunned. This is essentially an issue of equal fairness and protection regardless of the specified “harmless” behaviour or lifestyle.

In other words, proponents assert that a homosexual household is no more harmful to self or society (except for mere matters of taste – a freedom of expression right) than a heterosexual household. Thus, equal right for each is justly deserved.

Given our allegiance to liberal democratic foundational principles, gay marriage proponents cannot ultimately fail this battle. I believe opponents will need to put all of their efforts into reprogramming our founding principles themselves in order to win any prolonged battle of ideas in contemporary times.

The conservative problem is that they are engaging in traditionalist fighting on a battlefield designed for an exclusively liberal democratic war. This is part of what lends us the popular belief that today’s liberal and conservative political parties are basically the same, having only some decorative differences for distinction.

Such an observation is not necessarily true. In reality, the outcome of any battle between parties is going to deliver a liberal democratic compatible result in every single case. Probing the gay marriage issue helps reveal this obscured problem.

50 Comments

  1. Vigilance says:

    I’ve noticed a trend in conservatives, particularly younger conservatives, of adopting the principles of individual liberty in their most radical form. Best expressed by the slogan, “Your rights end where someone else’s begin.” Or – do whatever you want as long it does not directly harm others. I think this sentiment serves little more than to obscure the divide between Left and Right. Ultimately, this ought to be seen as nothing more than a desperate gambit by conservatives to shrug off the demonization projected upon them from the Left. Perhaps the beginning of the surrender?

    1. crow says:

      No matter what it looks like, it is true.
      Only leftists worship the appearance of things.

      1. Vigilance says:

        There are lies, damned lies, and then there are appearances.

    2. Lisa Colorado says:

      http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/12/the-freedom-to-marry-a-liberal-value-that-conservatives-should-shun/

      an article addressing younger conservatives’ adoption of the principles of individual liberty for marriage reform. Basically, it sounds great but what is actually going to happen is, removal of the terms ‘father’ and ‘mother’ and other natural language from the official documents.

      1. crow says:

        Well, children always have problems with authority figures, and since the whole works is now run by children, it follows.
        Parents are the first thing they’d want to outlaw.

  2. Ted Swanson says:

    Doug Vance is back!

  3. crow says:

    I’ve been discovering, lately, that communicating on any level with the brainwashed, is impossible. It simply can not happen.
    Their understanding of ‘logic’ refers to anything they themselves decide is logic, and anything that they decide is illogical is illogical.
    There is no baseline from which to operate.
    You may as well be from Pluto. And they from Betelgeuse.

    1. Vigilance says:

      I see a lot of this:

      “X is illogical”

      I rarely see much of this:

      “X is illogical because……”

    2. Ted Swanson says:

      crow, have you ever heard of Pluto’s “theory of forms?” I mean Plato’s theory of forms, excuse me…

      1. crow says:

        No, I haven’t.
        Can you interest me?
        If you can, I’ll take it from there.

        1. Plato’s theory of forms has been mentioned many times on this site, probably never fully explicated. He bases his idea on cause-effect logic, and states that we must know the original causes of things, which rarely are physical but rather are the results of the logical patterns of those things. This is why he sees history as cyclic; it’s not a question of what people in each time desire, but the type of government they choose, which in turn becomes a cause of the effects on their society. The interesting thing about Plato is that it refutes pure materialism as well as pure idealism, since he states there must be some logical antecedent or precursor to each thing, and that includes reality itself. For many, this is the cornerstone of religion and traditionalist thought.

          As a nihilist, I have a different take on Plato: he is simply saying that in reality, patterns determine results, not the material nature of things. For example, when a crow chases a ribbon on the wind, it is not the “crow-ness” of each molecule in that crow, but rather the organization (design/pattern) into which they are placed, that determines the behavior of the crow.

          1. Vigilance says:

            I find a striking similarity between theory of forms and the kabbalic Adam Kadmon. The primordial man. Obviously analogous to the noetic “form” of the human or, humanness. I don’t believe intelligent men are creators of anything. They are correlators.

      2. EvilBuzzard says:

        Pluto had it coming!

        1. I hear he lost weight and he’s no longer a planet. Michael Moore may be next — he has his own zip code in Michigan.

    3. 1349 says:

      Ideas & views that got into their heads irrationally must be shaken out irrationally –
      by other, stronger myths or, say, kicks to the face (less effective). =)

    4. gg says:

      For a message to have any chance to get through: it may require an intelligent creative highly motivated person to almost create an entirely new reality for an a specific brainwashed individual to “walk into” like a red carpet. And in this day and age this would require an almost complete obscuring of the origin of these efforts. These brainwashed people would require that 90 percent of the effort come from somebody else(the types of people who are born to solve real world complex problems) before they would even consider asking of themselves, that measly 10 percent.

  4. thordaddy says:

    To beat back “gay marriage” requires one to recognize that self-annihilators do not because they can not form real UNIONS.

    The idea of two self-annihilators forming a “marriage union” IS ABSURD ON ITS FACE.

    Thus, “gay marriage” is 100% radical liberationist social construction.

    The goal is to legitimate SELF-ANNIHILATION by cloaking itself in “marriage.”

    “gay marriage” is a “union” of self-annihilators.

    It is the radically transgressive concept that run completely counter to marriage as a pro-creative union, i.e., a bringing together of compliments to create something new to this world.

    “gay marriage” is a cobbling together of exactly the same thing destined to accelerate the decline of marriage as predominantly a pro-creative force.

    1. 1349 says:

      To beat back “gay marriage” requires one to recognize that self-annihilators do not because they can not form real UNIONS.

      Abstract sectarian terminology can’t beat gay marriage.

  5. ChevalierdeJohnstone says:

    “Conservatives” almost always attempt to engage in logical argument in a Left-controlled dialectical frame. This results in conservative sounding like poor leftists, like those who attempt to argue from the necessarily Leftists libertarian principles – as veneration of the individual above all else is the hallmark of Left-liberalism.

    The purpose of traditional conservatism is to guide the rule of society within an ordered moral framework. To be conservative it is not possible to be revolutionary: the conservative must rule. The revolutionary Leftists seeks to tear down moral order; the conservative must seek to maintain it, and to do so must be in a position to impose it.

    Conservatives must cease their ineffective arguments within the Leftists dialectical framework, in which the only possible answers are the Leftist and the less-Leftists. Instead conservatives must focus on seizing power – which means seizing control of the cultural and intellectual organs of social discourse.

    And yet we have “moral conservatives” such as Rick Santorum declaring that the intellectual elites will never be conservative and ought to be ignored. If this is the case conservatism is doomed and conservatives ought morally to pull a Ferdinand Bardamu, since pressing the fight when there is no hope of victory violates the just war principle (and politics is war by other means.) It is not possible to create moral order through populism, because moral order is an ideal, and people naturally copy the morals of those they idealize. Only a morally just elite can propagate moral virtue through society. This does not mean this elite must be non-meritoriously exclusive, but admission to the elite must be based in part on moral merit.

    It is possible for conservatives to recapture the organs of intellectual and cultural elite discourse – which after all were founded by conservatives seeking to impose and preserve moral order, as revolutionary Left-liberalism is capable only of tearing down and not of building up anything.

    And conservatives must do so, because this is the only way for conservatism to win.

    1. crow says:

      Well orated. Makes perfect sense.
      I am discovering that logical discussion is impossible with the left.
      So I abandon logic.
      Intuition will have to do.
      It always was my tool of choice.

      1. crow says:

        And, synchronously, this turned up during a forum conversation:

        Intuition is logic, its the unconscious logic. The penultimate truth that is not prone to human errors because it is not being filtered through our value system.”

        Compare this idea with the droning logic that logic is known for.
        It is immediate, occurring in nanoseconds.
        Intuitive logic may be the tool that unlocks the unreason of the left.

        1. Someone has been reading Kant. :)

    2. “Conservatives” almost always attempt to engage in logical argument in a Left-controlled dialectical frame.

      Insightful.

  6. Paul says:

    I agree wholeheartedly Doug. The debate has got to this stage precisely because the underlying principles of liberalism have gone unchallenged.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7addd1-SY8

    John McCain on the Ellen degenerate show.

    Ellen gives him the standard logically-consistent liberal argument for gay marriage – ‘we’re all the same’. McCain communicates that he respects the opinion, that it is communicated in ‘a very eloquent fashion’, but provides no counter-argument other than that ‘marriage has a unique status’. Quite simply, he made himself look like he has a ‘medieval’ religious hangup about homosexuality but otherwise accepted the liberal precepts that lead to it.

    Conservatives are afraid to state the truth. Some acts, some choices are more virtuous than others. If McCain said this he would have hurt Ellen’s feelings and the feelings of her audience. It’s time to start hurting feelings by telling the truth.

  7. 1349 says:

    Moscow, 2010.
    90 years old Rabinovich has finally decided to emigrate to Israel.
    A civic rights officer talks to him:
    Off.: So why are you leaving, Mr. Rabinovich?
    Rab.: You know, because of the society’s terrible attitude towards homosexualism.
    Off.: Oh, but… Please, explain…
    Rab.: You see, in Stalin’s times they shot for being homosexual; in Brezhnev’s times you would be jailed for being homosexual; in Yeltsin’s times nobody cared if you were homosexual; in Putin’s times it has become prestigious to be homosexual…
    Off.: You see, there’s no problem now! Are you sure you want to leave Russia?
    Rab.: I don’t want to wait until homosexualism becomes compulsory!

  8. Joe says:

    I am a gay man. I also consider myself to be largely “conservative” (a term I find difficult to define anymore), so I take issue with this. I’ll say what I think, and we’re all free to pick it apart, of course. My problem with gays not being able to marry is essentially this: marriage is not defined in the constitution. There is the argument that gay marriage, being unable to result in procreation, goes against natural law, which I don’t feel can be argued against if such an interpretation is to be accepted. There is the argument that it will corrupt or harm the marriage of heterosexual couples, which I find ridiculous to be frank. Arguing the “sanctity” falls quite flat when you realize that the majority of marriages are troubled/rocky, at the very least – loveless and abusive at worst. I will sound quite leftist (and maybe I am?) in saying this, but I think that for marriage to be offered to straight couples, while being withheld from homosexual couples -no matter the moral justifications one could posit as justification to deny them- is a fundamental denial of the right and dignity of being able to love who one chooses. To be treated with the same level of basic dignity as any other couple.
    -
    I doubt there are any other like me who read amerika (and if there are, I suspect they are few), but I think perspective on the “homosexual viewpoint” is something one should be exposed to, if only to further one’s opposition to it. I believe we should always know our enemy. If you view gays and civil unions/marriages as the enemy, you should at the very least have a solid understanding of their views, in order to make rational, objective decisions about where you stand, morally.
    -
    Even if you believe homosexuality to be nothing more than a poisonous, deviant sexual lifestyle – a choice, rather than a underlying biological disposition (deviant in itself, perhaps, but not something one can escape from. attraction cannot be helped. You can moderate your sexual behaviors, but in the end, your desire toward other men remains. It’s no different with bisexuals. They view men as equally attractive, or sometimes more attractive and desirable sexually, than women.)- you should realize that 50 years ago, homosexuality was a mental illness. A psychological defect, the result of a deviant mind, and faulty parenting (just as Autism was due to an unavailable mother). It landed you in the loony bin. You received electroshock therapy and continuous, unrelenting harassment and dehumanization in order to “cure” you of your sinful, sexually deviant thoughts and actions. Is it leftist of me to suggest that that is unacceptable in a truly American society? That we dictate that otherwise perfectly normal individuals, who happen to love and fuck differently than the majority of the population, be rounded up and thrown in padded cells until they “repent” and renounce their ways? Does that not violate constitutional, basic human rights?
    -
    I realize, of course, that this is no longer happening. I realize that with each younger generation, homosexuality and the eventual acceptance of gay marriage (and an eventuality it IS, whether we agree with it, or not), increases significantly. They become more tolerated. More accepted, less vilified. The belief that homophobia is a “medieval” pattern of thought (regardless of legitimacy) is becoming commonplace. More commonplace by the year, and I know for a fact that an active acceptance of one’s homosexual peers, even if you disagree with the morality of their lifestyle, has become very much the norm for kids as young as 12 in our schools. So many of us conservatives are (at the very least) 30 years of age. Many are 40, 50, 60 or even 80…whether or not most who self-identify as ‘conservative’ really are not withstanding, a significant portion of the right is on their way out – politically, as well as in health. Liberal mob rule (or, depending on one’s view, the gradual elimination of socially irrelevant hatred) will most certainly result in gay marriage being recognized within 5-10 years. Certainly.
    -
    The morality of homosexuality can be argued all we wish. That, I’m fine with. But to say that the country was founded, and the constitution written, stating that marriage was explicitly between a man and a woman is not only factually incorrect, but oppressive. Oppose the ethics of homosexuality. Oppose the lifestyle. Oppose the orientation itself. Say that it violates natural law, or even Biblical law. Go ahead. I encourage you to. It’s your freedom, your choice. But I argue, from the bottom of my heart, that those oppositions are not only misguided, but that they should remain moral oppositions. Social and legal barriers to gay marriage are incongruous with an American, democratic society.
    -
    -~-
    So there. I said it. Like I mentioned way up at the beginning, I encourage you to voice your opinions about what I’ve said, and I will be happy to read and understand your views on the matter. Demonize me if you must. But I’m always open to modifying an opinion when presented with logical, reasoned and genuine arguments showing a belief of mine to be in the wrong. Thanks for reading, Amerika.
    -J

    1. Let me see if I can add some clarity here:

      My problem with gays not being able to marry is essentially this:

      (1) marriage is not defined in the constitution.

      This seems like a procedural objection, but one way to look at this is that in a modern government, it’s impossible for us not to have government influence marriage. With income taxes comes the question of deductions, and if we don’t give tax breaks to married couples, we create an economic disincentive to marry. Thus government being outside of marriage is impossible; further, fully 4/5 of what our government does is not “in” the constitution but is an extension of its logic. If we took the constitution back to its literal roots, we’d be missing some stuff, and also, we’d have zero obligation for anyone to recognize gay marriage or even tolerate gays.

      (2) There is the argument that gay marriage, being unable to result in procreation, goes against natural law, which I don’t feel can be argued against if such an interpretation is to be accepted.

      I think natural law arguments are usually confused. More likely, marriage is a function of the heterosexual tendency to couple and have children and families, and this definition of family is not accessible to the homosexual person. We keep this definition sacred by not allowing mutant and dysfunctional examples of it to persist in public, which should include not only broken homes, divorces, etc. but also non-family-oriented marriages including gay marriage, bestiality, three-ways, etc.

      Polygamist have their own take on this I’m sure.

      (3) There is the argument that it will corrupt or harm the marriage of heterosexual couples, which I find ridiculous to be frank. Arguing the “sanctity” falls quite flat when you realize that the majority of marriages are troubled/rocky, at the very least – loveless and abusive at worst.

      Your counterargument is bad. The exception does not destroy the rule, but proves it, because without the rule, the significance of the exception would be non-existent.

      I also think we should figure out what marriage should be, and then exclude all other examples, if nothing else to avoid confusing the children.

      As a traditionalist, naturally I believe in a sacred role for all things in nature; for some things created by nature, like sociopaths, psychopaths and retarded people, I believe this sacred role is sacrifice to the gods.

      In that light, it seems to me the best role for homosexuals is Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT). That gets rid of the bullies (Don’t Ask) and gives homosexuals the ability to live their lives to the fullness of biological function without harassment. It also enables men to be friends without concerns about sexuality.

      Another way to view this: if nature/God wanted homosexuals to breed, she/he/it would not have made them homosexual. There is logic in everything.

      (4) I will sound quite leftist (and maybe I am?) in saying this, but I think that for marriage to be offered to straight couples, while being withheld from homosexual couples -no matter the moral justifications one could posit as justification to deny them- is a fundamental denial of the right and dignity of being able to love who one chooses. To be treated with the same level of basic dignity as any other couple.

      I think you’re comparing apples and oranges here. One has a biological role, the other does not.

      I find dignity lacking in pandering to any group, which is essentially what gay marriage is: a leftist talking point.

      I will oppose anyone who suggests we do anything with homosexuals but DADT. Let that which causes no problems live, but once it becomes leftist and joins protest movements, exile it whether it’s homosexual or not. :)

    2. 1349 says:

      your opinions about what I’ve said

      Lies and thought manipulation with some standard rhetoric of paid LGBT propagandists and some moderate chutzpah.

    3. crow says:

      If you want reasonable people to read anything about anything, it helps to make it short. Engage, then enlarge, as necessary.
      I may be wrong about this, and speak only for the inevitable result a dense forest of words, about a subject I do not wish to explore, has upon me.
      I did not, and will not, read it.
      And I suspect my non-action will have no noticeable affect upon my future.

    4. Mihai says:

      “Social and legal barriers to gay marriage are incongruous with an American, democratic society.”

      Exactly ! Which is why I despise democracy and “americanism”.

      Marriage is something that has its roots in the sacred, not in the constitutions of secular, democratic states. If by “marriage” you mean a social contract signed at your local townhall, that’s fine with me. But call it a social contract, because that is what it is, not “marriage”. (This goes also for heterosexuals whose idea of marriage begins and ends at that same contract).
      Also, don’t go expecting that everyone else should view your problem as “normal”.

      Of course, I don’t mean that homosexuality is the worse possible deviation. Sexual obsession, nymphomania, all sorts of other perversions are likewise errors, and when sexual addicts demonize homosexuals without taking a look at their own errors, they are hypocritical.

      What I have a problem with is when people exhibit their imbalances and errors as virtues.

      1. ferret says:

        when people exhibit their imbalances and errors as virtues.

        When we talk about deviations, we mean deviations from a norm. Apparently a social norm; the natural norm may differ.

        This social norm in case of sexuality is a 100% hetero, involving no even a dream about porno, BDSM, homo-, necro-, geronto-, paedo-, and so on, philia. This social norm is more like an ideal, and may change at any moment, as the society with its ideals are not static. Those who in power also may set these norms.

        The natural norm is described by statistics, giving us 10% of pure homo, 10% of pure hetero and bisexuals of different degrees in-between. And this statistics follows the ‘normal distribution’ – Gaussian, or bell curve, as it happens to most things in the nature.

        This means, we use the word “normal” in the sense of “required” or “imposed by the society”, in order to strive for the ideal that is higher than a somehow bisexual and slightly perverted average we really have.

        Now about the other, non-sexual, imbalances: if one has a too high IQ or/and too high morality, should we consider this as a deviation and try to bring it back to the normal 100 and a normal, not too high, degree of morality? Or the “balanced” one should be extremely intelligent and saint? That is, should the imbalances in sexuality and imbalances in everything else be regarded similarly or differently?

        1. 1349 says:

          The natural norm is described by statistics, giving us 10% of pure homo, 10% of pure hetero and bisexuals of different degrees in-between. And this statistics follows the ‘normal distribution’ – Gaussian, or bell curve, as it happens to most things in the nature.

          Lies and sleight of hand disguised as “science”. Bell curve??? – Laughable. From such reasearch – if the propagandists even bothered to conduct it – one can obtain virtually any formal result. Any result needed by the current predominant ideology. It’s just a matter of their own definitions of “hetero-”, “homo-”, “bisexuality”, and their own methods of “measuring” these “parameters”.
          But when the result is published, common people understand it quite unambiguously – just the way the propagandists want.

          (“Hetero-”, “homo-”, “bisexuality”: these words being loanwords increases the possibility to fill them with arbitrary sense and fool people. Just as “democracy”, for example. Is there an old, real English, or Sanskrit, or Russian, word for “homosexual”?)

          If you believe and even support such “science”, don’t complain if “science” eventually “proves” that all ferrets are ill from birth and, because of their illness, somehow dangerous to humanity, and the only cure is to put them in gas chambers; still, chance to be cured is 10% versus a 90% chance to die.

          1. ferret says:

            You are right. The accuracy of any research is questionable. And scientists these days are selling required results for money for sure. However, even intuitively we feel there should be a scale rather than just black and white.
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation#Kinsey_scale

            About words: there are a lot of words suffering with ambiguity, or even missing words. In Russian there was no word “Впечатление”, it was made from French “Impression” by translating its parts Im-press-ion. And it worked, and is used since then.

            Why not to use other synthesized words? And there always is a chance of misunderstanding and misusing any of “old, real English, or Sanskrit, or Russian, word”. We do it so frequently, that there is no much difference, was it “old, real” or a newly invented one; the result is the same – a confusion.

            About ferrets: it would be just one more flu. Chicken flu, swine flu, and, finally, ferret flu. Ferrets would be proud.

            About the gas chambers: thanks for reminding about one more efficient technique; the list of perversions would be incomplete without it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erotic_asphyxiation). Though any new entry in this list makes statistics worse. More perverts – less “normals”.

            1. 1349 says:

              Why not to use other synthesized words?

              If you could understand Belarusan, at least to some extent, you could try this article:
              http://bayaryn.blogspot.com/2011/03/blog-post_18.html

              1. ferret says:

                A good site. Thanks for the link, I will read more.
                The article is interesting, though I get only ~70% of the words (not bad for the first try of reading in Belarusian).
                I agree that “Такое разьвіцьцё ад складанага да простага правільней называць дэградацыяй”, but Bayarin himself has used this word “degradation” and many other foreign words without really harming the sense of the article.

                I don’t advocate for any simplification of the language; simply, if we already have a set of loanwords that we can agree upon their meaning, e.g. democracy – rule of mob, and do not have it in old English, since there was no such a notion back then, should we wait for linguists to invent a genuine English analog of it?

                1. 1349 says:

                  “but Bayarin himself has used this word “degradation” and many other foreign words”

                  He often tries to write in a “purified” language, but it is sometimes hard to understand. Moreover, the “purification” is still underway; among others things, it is based on the principles of Panini’s grammar of Sanskrit. However, Bayaryn must’ve already completed his translation of the Bhagavad-Gita into “purified” Belarusan.
                  He’s some kind of lingiuistic nationalist: he thinks (and bases this thought on the Veda) that god is in the language, and that a healthy nation must be able to “digest” any new word, any new meaning with the help of its own language.

                  As for the loanwords, i wanted to say that if there really is no English/Sanskrit/etc. word for something, it could mean that the thing in question is new and strange to the corresponding people.
                  Also, the use of loanwords as a weapon of manipulation is to some extent described in Sergey Kara-Murza’s works.

                  1. ferret says:

                    About purification: there was an attempt to purify Latin that ended up with only doctors know it. One should be careful doing it.

                    You are right, loanwords are indeed for something new. The problem is, they become popular without checking first whether they are strange or not. There is no working mechanism of rejecting wrong words: people use them without asking linguists. I think, it’s one of the faults of the educational system.

  9. Lisa Colorado says:

    Some people very dear to me are gay and can’t see any difference between themselves getting “married” and my own cultural tradition which is the real one back to the roots.

    I don’t argue because they refuse to see that it’s a different thing they’re talking about. They mean the “I love him/her so much I want to live together” kind of reason to link up.

    What I’m talking about, to put it in a negative light, has little tinges of slavery and ownership that I myself dislike. It’s difficult to defend traditional marriage!

    In gay marriage, if you are unhappy and you can’t work it out, you can leave–sorry kids, I’m just not happy. Not to mention many modern couples think the same way. In traditional marriage, when you’re not happy, that’s your married life. You stay and find a different way to go along. Being married transforms you into part of a married unit. I grew up in the seventies when that got rejected and made fun of, even though I find it beautiful and painful and tragic and victorious, a lifetime’s labor.

    So, I’ve thought about this subject a lot. First of all, I don’t think we can stop it. That’s just how it is. But the problem is, legions of gay people are going to find out that marriage is nothing if you can just leave. It’s a game. But they will never admit it when it happens because who wants to see their years thrown away pretending? Many people do, including traditionally married people. But the thing is, even if you were pretending or lying, in traditional marriage, you have to go on with that lie and find the truth in your marriage.

    The problem with gay marriage is this: You meet someone and they say they’re married. You will make assumptions about them and be punished for assuming the wrong thing. Either that or you will have to hem and haw until you find out if their spouse is same sex or opposite sex. What a minefield. I’d rather not talk to strangers.

    And then after that, it’s going to be, “are you married?” “Yes, I’m gay-married.” Or, “Yes, I’m traditionally married.” Just to be clear. Why not give it a different name so people know exactly what you’re talking about? What a kindness. But no–”I want my marriage to be seen the same way yours is, so we must not use a clearer term.”

    My solution is for future generations who don’t believe in gay marriage to call their relationship something new.

    Nobody who believes in the ancient root of tradition is going to be fooled by modern marriage.

    Also, the reason why I’m defensive about it is, sometimes my marriage is fragile, in name only, and tragic in a way. It forces me to own responsibility for my own happiness in life. It forces me to love another person when I’d like to get away, because loving the other person is the only answer to living in misery. It’s the only way to make this right without getting a divorce. Forcing myself to think loving thoughts and to act lovingly is a huge lesson to learn in life. “To be loved and give love in return” is the hardest thing in life to learn. It takes you a whole lifetime, maybe more.

    Why should you do this? Why should two people get united and do things that each wants the other to do, for the rest of their lives? There’s no good reason unless you want to be a part of unspoken history. This is the stuff I’m made of and what my variables added up to.

    1. In traditional marriage, when you’re not happy, that’s your married life. You stay and find a different way to go along. Being married transforms you into part of a married unit. I grew up in the seventies when that got rejected and made fun of, even though I find it beautiful and painful and tragic and victorious, a lifetime’s labor.

      I agree entirely.

      Traditional marriage is so much more intense than any other form of life, it should be promoted for that reason alone.

      It makes love more than a word.

      If the marriage doesn’t work out, you make it work out. In the process, we change ourselves, and even our sainted egos must bend, not to convenience but to the order of nature and the cosmos.

      Beautiful does not mean easy. It means hard-fought, hard-won and rare… otherwise it would be cheap and mundane, much like the crotch-grubbing relationships of the prole age:

      “I met this semi-interesting person, let’s have sex and then see if a relationship will come from this. Then if that relationship gets convenient, we get married! If it becomes inconvenient, we give up and go back to sniffing random groins. This is freedom!”

  10. thordaddy says:

    The lie of homosexuality is that it is a sexual attraction between same sex persons. The leap to forming a “union” is then seemingly self-evident. But homosexuality is not about attraction (this is but a by-product of individuals existing in a related world), it is a sexual aversion for the “other,” i.e., a male sexual aversion for the female and a female sexual aversion for the male. With this proper understanding of homosexuality, one can see why a homosexual union is a false conception. It is a “self-annihilating” conception. One can also intuit why “Liberalism” is so destructive of the family and the man/woman union. “Liberalism” is the homosexual “nature” dominating our society.

    1. Doug Vance says:

      The intent here was to circumvent moral valuations of yet another symptom to instead dig down to the cause. Time spent protesting any glaring symptom is time wasted attacking the cause of them all.

      Whether the gay lifestyle is commendable or deplorable is beyond the scope of our objective. I believe people who are traditional oriented have every right to cultivate their own type of society without interference or intrusion from any dogmatic progressivist paranoia.

      They in turn can go inhabit some other part of the world where they don’t have to witness the “fascists”, “racists”, “sickening whiteness”, or whatever Tourettes-afflicted, compulsive ad hominem the psychotic humanitarians have for us this week.

      1. crow says:

        Haw Haw :)
        Go git ‘em Douggie :)

      2. thordaddy says:

        The problem Doug is that “Liberalism” is both self-annihilating and ALL-INCLUSIVE.

        Which means that “Liberalism” DEMANDS TO INCLUDE ALL of us in its self-annihilation. It’s like a fatal attraction. If “Liberalism” can’t have us then no one will.

        The idea of escaping “Liberalism” is impossible.

        We can only lay it bare and then beat it back as it relentlessly attempts to FULLY integrate us.

  11. Lisa Colorado says:

    Truth doesn’t change and doesn’t get destroyed with time and physics. We are all trying to get to Truth, and so I appreciate what Joe has to say.

    “Arguing the “sanctity” falls quite flat when you realize that the majority of marriages are troubled/rocky, at the very least – loveless and abusive at worst.”

    This is ironic, then. Why lock yourself into that? Why do you want to take a vow and extinguish much of your individuality, for the rest of your life? I saw my mom and dad really not love each other that much, so I was prepared for that when I did it myself. To me this is the most interesting thing. Why not write up a contract and make legal arrangements instead? Just curious.

    1. Doug Vance says:

      “Arguing the “sanctity” falls quite flat when you realize that the majority of marriages are troubled/rocky, at the very least – loveless and abusive at worst.”

      Ruined home life is not eternal. It is an effect of the values of our time.

      1. Lisa Colorado says:

        Also, marriage is touted as being the way to a happy life but everyone can only bring themselves into it, so it really isn’t.

    2. Joe says:

      All I really meant to say was that if an individual desires so strongly to lock themselves into this empty relationship with a man rather than a woman, I can see no harm (beyond offending notions of “traditional/true marriages”) in allowing them to do so. I realize full well that marriage is little more than a miserable cage for most couples.

      I also realize that true love can be found and enjoyed whether one is married or not. Thankfully for gays, this will always hold true.

  12. 1349 says:

    US Code, Title 18 – Crimes and Criminal Procedure

    Chapter 50A – Genocide

    § 1091. Genocide

    (a) BASIC OFFENSE. — Whoever, whether in time of peace or in time of war and with the specific intent to destroy, in whole or in substantial part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group as such —
    (1) kills members of that group;
    (2) causes serious bodily injury to members
    of that group;


    (5) imposes measures intended to prevent
    births within the group;


    shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).

    (b) PUNISHMENT FOR BASIC OFFENSE. — The punishment for an offense under subsection (a) is—
    (1) in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(1), where death results, by death or imprisonment for life and a fine of not more than $1,000,000, or both; and
    (2) a fine of not more than $1,000,000 or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both, in any other case.

    =) Some minor changes, and…

    1. Lisa Colorado says:

      And what? Sorry I’m not quite following.

      1. 1349 says:

        And your local diversity zampolit will have to look for a normal job.

Leave a Reply

45 queries. 1.233 seconds