ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2014 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Wednesday, February 06, 2013

EU-imposed social change

This is what happens when a nation gives up its national sovereignty to authoritarians determined to destroy the social fabric:
David Cameron suffered a humiliating reverse last night when more than half his MPs rejected his 11th-hour appeals for support for same-sex marriage. On an extraordinary day in the Commons, 134 Tory MPs took advantage of a free vote to oppose the plans. Only 126 backed the legislation, with 35 abstaining.

But with the help of the majority of Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs Mr Cameron saw the measure passed easily, by a margin of 400 to 175. The first gay marriages are likely to be conducted within 12 months.
Cameron is nothing but a water-carrier for the European Union.  Like the Republicans in the Senate, his role as a "conservative" is to conserve the changes that are imposed by the progressives, in this case, the dictates of the unelected European Commission.  As with the other member states of the EU, the UK is no longer a democracy, not even a quasi-democracy, but a pseudo-democracy that is nominally governed from London but is actually ruled by Brussels.

The gay marriage debate has very little to do with literal homogamy, as the paltry number of "married" gays in the various states where it is legal tends to demonstrate.  It is symbolic, a legal demonstration of the fact that what was once Christendom is now post-Christian, and a rejection of traditional Western civilization.  It's not a step forward, but rather, a step back into ancient pagan darkness.  It is ironic that those who decry Islam as a return to the 7th century are actually complaining that the Muslims don't go far enough; "progressives" want to take the world back more than two millennia.

I invite those who claim this act will "strengthen marriage" to consider the empirical data.  Name a nation where legally legitimizing gay "marriage" was followed by a statistically significant increase in the marriage rate.

Labels: ,

106 Comments:

Anonymous Josh February 06, 2013 7:29 AM  

So the UK is, on this issue at least, actually following trends set in the US. UK liberals must be ashamed that they're not leading the vanguard on these issues.

Anonymous Move Zig February 06, 2013 7:45 AM  

What is Nigel Farage saying about all this, I wonder. Go UKIP!

Anonymous zen0 February 06, 2013 7:47 AM  

But its all about the luv and commitment of two people for one another!


The tax advantages of getting married in the UK

World War I was an excuse to have income tax, and income tax is an excuse for female suffrage and homosexual marriage. How convenient.



Anonymous stevev February 06, 2013 7:56 AM  

I am considered an Uncle Tom by the gay world. I am steadfastly against gay marriage. Yet I am gay. I've posted this little fact before.
Vox, I want to ask a question in all sincerity. Do you think it is this desire to have society leave me alone and let me figure out this mess of a life and lifestyle, that leads, in the aggregate, inevitability toward the virulent anti-liberty agenda that represents western gay solidarity?
I often state it thus: I don't want to be killed because I'm gay. I don't want to be denied a place to live because I'm gay, nor do I want to lose my job because I'm gay. But aside from those three things, I don't believe I have the right to force society to accept me wholesale.
Imagine the horror of my gay friends when they find out the degree to which I am not "one of them". In my circle, gays are unbelievably monolithic in culture, politics, philosopy, and it is destroying my soul to be among them.

Anonymous Shutup, Tad February 06, 2013 8:02 AM  

Its going to be a very busy day.

Anonymous VD February 06, 2013 8:02 AM  

Do you think it is this desire to have society leave me alone and let me figure out this mess of a life and lifestyle, that leads, in the aggregate, inevitability toward the virulent anti-liberty agenda that represents western gay solidarity?

No, not at all, although I suspect you misphrased your question. Gays are making the same mistake that women have made, in attempting to force and require respect rather than earning it. They are angry and their appetites for more control are unlimited because they will never, ever get what they are seeking this way. Their ideologies are category errors.

And that is why they will tear down civilization rather than accepting their legitimate roles in it.

Anonymous Josh February 06, 2013 8:03 AM  

stevev,

Have you read any of Justin Raimondo's writings on gay marriage?

Blogger Nate February 06, 2013 8:04 AM  

MOAR RABBIT UPDATE!!! MOAR RABBIT UPDATE!!!

Anonymous Josh February 06, 2013 8:06 AM  

What Nate said.

Anonymous zen0 February 06, 2013 8:08 AM  

In my circle, gays are unbelievably monolithic in culture, politics, philosopy, and it is destroying my soul to be among them.

stevev,
Maybe you can find some comfort in the words of Jane Rule, author and gay icon:

Rule and Sonthoff lived together until Sonthoff's death in 2000. Rule surprised some in the gay community by declaring herself against gay marriage, writing, "To be forced back into the heterosexual cage of coupledom is not a step forward but a step back into state-imposed definitions of relationship. With all that we have learned, we should be helping our heterosexual brothers and sisters out of their state-defined prisons, not volunteering to join them there."

Anonymous VD February 06, 2013 8:11 AM  

MOAR RABBIT UPDATE!!!

As stories appear in the mainstream media. Otherwise, I won't have anything to say in the immediate future, being so angry and intimidated by the dastardly cleverness of McRapey and the Rabbit People.

The fact that I have uncharacteristically gone quiet on the subject should not alarm anyone at all....

Anonymous Krul February 06, 2013 8:14 AM  

In my circle, gays are unbelievably monolithic in culture, politics, philosopy, and it is destroying my soul to be among them.


Destroying your soul? Dude, get some new friends; it's not worth it. Thus saith the Lord: "For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?"

Some people think Jesus was gay, if that makes you feel better.

Anonymous buzzcut February 06, 2013 8:15 AM  

(Ahem) . . . "Scalzi."

Give me a dollar.

Anonymous Michael Maier February 06, 2013 8:16 AM  

"I often state it thus: I don't want to be killed because I'm gay. I don't want to be denied a place to live because I'm gay, nor do I want to lose my job because I'm gay. But aside from those three things, I don't believe I have the right to force society to accept me "

If you want a law to protect your right to rent or buy a house and/or keep your job, you actually MUST believe you have the right to force society to accept you.

Blogger The Deuce February 06, 2013 8:21 AM  

When the dust has cleared, gay marriage will have played the same role in modern Western Civilization that it did in ancient Rome. That is to say, it will be seen by historians as a marker of our descent into decadence and tyranny, and the loss of sovereignty and liberty, that in turn heralded our collapse and replacement.

Blogger Nate February 06, 2013 8:22 AM  

"I often state it thus: I don't want to be killed because I'm gay. I don't want to be denied a place to live because I'm gay, nor do I want to lose my job because I'm gay. But aside from those three things, I don't believe I have the right to force society to accept me wholesale. "

Here's a thought. Don't rub your gayness in everyone's face. The fact is actions have consequences... and being gay is an action. Accept it.

Anonymous Krul February 06, 2013 8:26 AM  

Gays are making the same mistake that women have made, in attempting to force and require respect rather than earning it.

This is something that really tends to muddy the waters around social debates.

Advocates of gay rights (or women's rights or civil rights or whatever) say and generally believe that what they want is freedom. But what they really want isn't the freedom to be gay, female, black, whatever - they already possess that freedom. What they actually want is "Acceptance" by the rest of humanity, which is essentially tyrannical. You don't get to dictate whether other people accept you.

But couching the debate in terms of "freedom" severely confuses the issue, and makes it seem like those who are in favor of freedom of thought, expression, and association are the tyrannical ones.

Blogger Nate February 06, 2013 8:28 AM  

Here is another thought.

See that dick over there? Don't suck it. Its a big ol' world full of all kinds of things to do that don't involve sucking dicks. I mean its not that hard. Stop watching broadway plays and judy garland movies. Find something that occupies your time... and your hands.

I suggest you start riding motorcycles... or horses... or something that will generally keep you very very busy and keep your mind of things like... sucking a dick.

Look mate... anyone can tell by the way you are saying this that you can tell this is a destructive force in your life. So stop it. put it away. Everyone deals with temptation in one way or another. For some of us its chicks... for you... its... not. The same tactics and strategies apply. deal with it the temptation... don't let the temptation define your life.

Blogger Pepper February 06, 2013 8:32 AM  

I have a question about the necessity of Christianity for the continuation of western civilization. Is it? Couldn't the west continue as neo-pagans? Greece and Rome were both pagan civilizations that were not only long lived but also quite influential on our present society. Do we really need Christianity to survive?

Blogger Nate February 06, 2013 8:38 AM  

Pepper
The trouble is Rome and Greece didn't use christianity as the support structure of their cultures. We did. Something else could've been used... then christianity wouldn't be so vital.

Blogger Pepper February 06, 2013 8:40 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Anonymous Krul February 06, 2013 8:45 AM  

Pepper,

Don't forget Egypt, Persia, India, China, and Japan.

Do we really need Christianity to survive?

Let me paraphrase the question to begin my answer.

Does a civilization need Christianity to survive? No. However, it does need virtue. All of the pagan civilizations were held together and sustained over the centuries by rigid moral systems based on familial relationships.

Modern Western civilization is different from those that came before in that it is extremely individualist. This is the direct result of Christianity, which teaches that morality is a matter of the individual soul, not the social group. Guilt, rather than shame.

So do we need Christianity to survive as a modern individualist civilization? Yes. Do we need Christianity to survive at all? Yes, because there is no other sufficiently widespread moral system that could possibly maintain this civilization into the future. The only contender is Islam, which is essentially authoritarian and anti-individualist.

Anonymous paradox February 06, 2013 8:47 AM  

I think Tad just found his Fantasy Island.

Anonymous Krul February 06, 2013 8:48 AM  

The trouble is Rome and Greece didn't use christianity as the support structure of their cultures. We did. Something else could've been used... then christianity wouldn't be so vital.

Also, this. Removing Christianity from our civilization is like having the rug pulled from under your feet. The fact that other people can stand on other rugs won't keep you from falling down.

Blogger Nate February 06, 2013 8:48 AM  

Krul... well said.

Blogger The Deuce February 06, 2013 8:50 AM  

Couldn't the west continue as neo-pagans? Greece and Rome were both pagan civilizations that were not only long lived but also quite influential on our present society. Do we really need Christianity to survive?

Nope, because our society is falling into nihilism, and as such lacks that basic understanding of reality and human nature that even the ancient pagans had.

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 February 06, 2013 8:52 AM  

Keep in mind also that this Christianity-based civilization was greater than Rome or Greece in many ways. Yet in the end, we will probably have less to show for it. For as many societies tried to rebuild the Roman empire centuries after its fall, I fear that the societies to follow ours will look upon us much like we look upon the Third Reich.

Anonymous Josh February 06, 2013 9:06 AM  

I suggest you start riding motorcycles...

To clarify, non-Harleys.

Blogger Nate February 06, 2013 9:07 AM  

"To clarify, non-Harleys."

I said motorcycles.

Anonymous Anonymous February 06, 2013 9:11 AM  

"To clarify, non-Harleys."

I said motorcycles.


And for goodness sake NO LEATHER CHAPS!

McRider

Anonymous Josh February 06, 2013 9:12 AM  

Given his predilection for sucking a dick...the poor lad might honestly have thought a Harley was a motorcycle...

Blogger Nate February 06, 2013 9:15 AM  

"Given his predilection for sucking a dick...the poor lad might honestly have thought a Harley was a motorcycle..."

Steve's a bright lad all things considered. I mean the suggestion was made in the context of getting him away from homosexuality. Obviously the harley thing isn't going to help that. Its just deeper down the village people rabbit hole.

Anonymous Josh February 06, 2013 9:18 AM  

I can't find the source at the moment, but I remember seeing a new York gay activist being quoted in the village voice in the nineties on gay rights, and said something along the lines of, "people cannot begin to understand this issue without first understanding how important it is for me to have a cock on my ass and another in my mouth."

Anonymous zen0 February 06, 2013 9:20 AM  

swiftfoxmark2 said:
I fear that the societies to follow ours will look upon us much like we look upon the Third Reich.

Or more probably, like the ten tribes of Israel and later, the tribe of Judah who all worshiped God, but also had idolatrous altars established to other gods, just like Christendom. Enough so, that they earned destruction and exile.

Blogger Nate February 06, 2013 9:21 AM  

thank you Josh... for sharing that.

I don't think it necessarily helped though.

Anonymous Godfrey February 06, 2013 9:22 AM  

If you realy want to know what the elites are doing, do a internet search for "Jaffe memo".

Anonymous Testing123 February 06, 2013 9:24 AM  

@Pepper

Yes, I would suggest that Greece and Rome were just fore runners of what today is Western Civilization. It was the revolutionary way in which Christianity elevated the Individual to a place above the State but below God that brought Western Civilization to full flower. If Man is not a Child of God, Liberty cannot long endure.

Anonymous Vidad February 06, 2013 9:28 AM  

@Josh

I'm sure that quote was satirical. How anyone could take that seriously is beyond me.

It's time to donate to a charity.

Anonymous Josh February 06, 2013 9:28 AM  

Btw, that guardian journalist chap tweeting about this vote: " Yes, now just has to be ratified by "upper house" of unelected, overprivileged, largely white males"

So now not only do we have regular white male privilege, we also have the "overprivileged". Methinks this is a way for the straight white leftist males to start making inroads on the whole professional victim group thing.

"well, yes, I'm straight, I'm white, and I'm a male, but I am so very passionate about equality, and besides, I'm not one of those horrible overprivileged white males who are total neanderthals"

Anonymous scoobius dubious February 06, 2013 9:32 AM  

"To clarify, non-Harleys."

I said motorcycles."

Cue "1952 Vincent Black Lightning".

Best. Song. Ever.

Whether that's the best motorcycle ever, I am not qualified to say.

Anonymous scoobius dubious February 06, 2013 9:39 AM  

But to answer Pepper's question, "Do we really need Christianity to survive [as Western civilization]?"

Well here's a different question in the form of a thought experiment... Do we really need Richard Thompson songs for there to be a Richard Thompson? Does he even really need to play guitar? Couldn't we just get Emo Phillips to change his name by deed poll to Richard Thompson, and he wouldn't have to play any Richard Thompson music, he wouldn't even have to perform, he could just sit quietly in his room and be named Richard Thompson, and we'd still have a Richard Thompson, right?

And that would be all that matters, right?

Anonymous JartStar February 06, 2013 9:40 AM  

Yet in the end, we will probably have less to show for it.

I completely disagree. Christianity was the foundation of the medieval and it surpassed Rome and Greece in nearly every area from art, music, practical technology and philosophy, morals, engineering, theology, universities, and shaped the world for nearly 1000 years.

Anonymous ck February 06, 2013 9:40 AM  

Wow, this is the first effective invasion of British sovereignty since William the Conquerer in 1066. The EU has achieved what Hitler could not.

Anonymous Josh February 06, 2013 9:44 AM  

The church will prevail.

Christendom, however, has been dead since 1914 at the latest, although arguments could also be made for 1815, 1789, 1640, 1522, or 1453.

Anonymous Daniel February 06, 2013 9:45 AM  

Congratulations on your joint advertisement in Salon, by the way. Throne of Bones looks amazing flying of an exploding planet. I cannot believe you got Scalzi to ramp up his PR machine to sell your book and increase your readership.

This isn't just tearjerking cruelty art, this is a lesson in running the world.



Blogger Nate February 06, 2013 9:48 AM  

moar rabbit update???

LINK!!!!

Anonymous scoobius dubious February 06, 2013 9:50 AM  

"Do we really need Christianity to survive?"

Couldn't we just do all of Western civilization in India instead, where it would be a heckuva whole lot cheaper? We wouldn't need white people, or Western languages, or Christianity, or any of that stuff. We could just have a bazillion brown people speaking Hindi in Hindu temples and being Hindu, and as long as one of them quoted Aristotle every fifteen years or so, hey! Our work is done!

Let's just fill Denmark to the gills with Nigerians and Bangladeshis. So long as they learn to say "Good morning!" in Danish, what's the harm? After all, Professor Jewstein promised me it would be okay.

Anonymous rycamor February 06, 2013 9:50 AM  

It's right on Salon's home page, links to here.

Anonymous rycamor February 06, 2013 9:51 AM  

Ha! That really is a great ad for ATOB. Which book comes off looking more interesting?

Anonymous Krul February 06, 2013 9:58 AM  

Who did your cover art again, Vox?

Seeing the two covers side by side really underscores the quality of his work.

Anonymous The other skeptic February 06, 2013 9:59 AM  

Cameron dreams of being a bigwig in WorldGov.

Blogger Nate February 06, 2013 9:59 AM  

the salon writer sounds like he literally didn't understand a thing Vox said.

Anonymous The other skeptic February 06, 2013 10:03 AM  

That’s what science-fiction writer John Scalzi has done — and in the process, he’s raised more than $50,000 in pledges for Emily’s List and the Human Rights Campaign, specially chosen to earn the ire of a blogger Scalzi calls “my racist sexist homophobic dipshit.”

Every time Scalzi’s online nemesis — a former WorldNetDaily columnist who writes under the name Vox Day – used his name or called someone by a derogatory nickname, Scalzi set aside $5 for charity


Just how challenged do you need to be to fail to realize that "RHSD" is derogatory and that you are simply being hypocritical? Does it fall to the level of Downs Syndrome?

Does our Gamma Rabbit have Downs Syndrome?

Anonymous Daniel February 06, 2013 10:07 AM  

Which book comes off looking more interesting?

Well, duh, but who cares? The more important question is "Which author did the p.r. legwork to promote his annoyance's books, blogs and personality?"

Scalzi moved heaven, earth and Hollywood to sell the Vox Day's hobbies to the masses. That's damn impressive and it isn't done yet. I mean give that rabbit a Scalzi Snack. Poor things don't earn much in this life, but Scalzi earned that biscuit straight up.

Anonymous rycamor February 06, 2013 10:08 AM  

Back somewhat on topic: Christianity, Christendom and individualism. Yes, Christianity is the only thing that has made an individualistic culture even possible (providing a unifying force in spite of individualism). Question is, did Christianity then make the Enlightenment possible? It seems obvious that this is where individualism began turning sour. Amoral, agnostic or even atheistic individualism always seems to bring us full circle back to totalitarianism. Our present looming totalitarianism rides on the bizarre idea that the whole must make sacrifices to support ANY individual preference save that of the traditional Christian. A bizarre contortion of Newspeak that seems to be accepted a priori by at least 80% of the elite, even though only a minority of the general populace.

Anonymous Daniel February 06, 2013 10:08 AM  

Does our Gamma Rabbit have Downs Syndrome?

Don't insult the retarded, the other skeptic.

Anonymous Anonymous February 06, 2013 10:09 AM  

It is symbolic, a legal demonstration of the fact that what was once Christendom is now post-Christian, and a rejection of traditional Western civilization.--VD

"Christendom" never existed anywhere, if defined as a group of nations with geographical boundaries having residents that were disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ. The only situation remotely resembling such an arrangement was the occurance at Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost.

Shortly thereafter, the church was scattered by persecution and fled out to Judea, Samaria and the gentile lands. The early church did not evince political unity within (as Paul's epistles to the churches illustrate) and was not given political recognition for its first 300 years.

Constantine's political alliance with church bishops does not substitute for the Kingdom of God or reign of Jesus Christ.

This suggests that David Cameron is consciously rejecting the Judeo-Christian ethic, not the state/church construct of Christendom. Is not the English Queen still head of the Anglican church?!

Parliament keeps the forms of "Christianity" but rejects the Bible's authority. As such, we are only witnessing an apostate movement within a remnant of English society.

MALTHUS

Anonymous The other skeptic February 06, 2013 10:10 AM  

Don't insult the retarded, the other skeptic.

I was trying to create a splodey head moment for them, since they routinely abort Downs Syndrome babies ...

Anonymous Tad February 06, 2013 10:12 AM  

@Vox Day

It is symbolic, a legal demonstration of the fact that what was once Christendom is now post-Christian, and a rejection of traditional Western civilization. It's not a step forward, but rather, a step back into ancient pagan darkness.

You are close to getting this right, but not quite.

Recognizing gay marriage is in fact in part symbolic. It is symbolic recognition that the historic defamation, taunting, abuse, discrimination and cruelty issued at homosexuals has been overcome in an age enlightened by the shedding of Christianity's dark cloak over Western civilization.

Recognizing gay marriage also recognizes the patently obvious: that the kind of deep, spiritual and emotional bonds that hold two people together and form the foundation of family are not exclusive to simply men and women. Rather, that kind of bond and that kind of love exists between two women and among two men and that if a people are going to provide institutions for recognizing and fostering these bonds, such as with state-recognized marriage, then the only reasonable thing to do is recognize that this institution of marriage be open to man and woman, man and man and woman and woman.

It's a very good and moral move.

Anonymous Irish Bob February 06, 2013 10:14 AM  

In answer to your original question, Belgium apparently, according to this:

http://fullfact.org/factchecks/same_sex_gay_marriage_coalition_leaflet-28736

Anonymous Tad February 06, 2013 10:15 AM  

@Steve V

But aside from those three things, I don't believe I have the right to force society to accept me wholesale.

Not only do you not have the right to force society to do anything, you don't have the ability to force society to accept you. No one is required to admire or accept the righteousness of gay marriage, let alone your sexuality. And the new gay marriage law in England doesn't do this either. It merely recognizes a change in most people's views of the status of homosexuality.

Anonymous frustrated european February 06, 2013 10:24 AM  

'EU-imposed'? The EU sucks, apparently, but what does it have to do with this? Nowhere in the article is it mentioned that this was due to EU directives. It wasn't, rather the British 'Conservative' PM went for it despite, not because of, EU court ruling on the issue. There are more states in the USofA which have instituted gay 'marriage' than countries in the EU.

The proud Anglo-Saxon Mr.Beale seems oblivious to the fact that it is his proud Anglo-Saxon world that is today the main hotbed of cultural marxism, and is exporting rather than importing it from others. I suppose, after all, there were certain reasons why he himself left the US for ...EU-dominated Italy.
Granted, it's not the Anglos per se, rather the -shall we say- 'Belgians' in their societies that are the primary promoters of this filth, but they too aren't doing exactly a great job in opposing it (if they are trying at all that is).

Anonymous The other skeptic February 06, 2013 10:25 AM  

Recognizing gay marriage also recognizes the patently obvious: that the kind of deep, spiritual and emotional bonds that hold two people together and form the foundation of family are not exclusive to simply MEN and WOMEN. (Emphasis added.)

Uh oh, next up, Tad calls for legalizing marriage between men and boys and men and goats.

Anonymous JartStar February 06, 2013 10:26 AM  

Tad's argument works just as well when inserting siblings or polyamory.

Anonymous Tad February 06, 2013 10:37 AM  

@JartStar

Tad's argument works just as well when inserting siblings or polyamory.

Indeed it would....IF there were any kind of real movement to advance the rights of siblings to marry or to allow polygamy. But there isn't.

Blogger Pepper February 06, 2013 10:43 AM  

"'Christendom' never existed anywhere, if defined as a group of nations with geographical boundaries having residents that were disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ"

What of Hilaire Belloc's observation of Western Europe 500-1000 AD?

"The man of Aix was of one main sort with the man from Rouen or Orleans or Narbonne; for they all had in common the same worship, the same manner of thought, the same culture, letters, permanent buildings, and laws, the same basis of Roman expression for everything that counted-codes of justice, record, liturgy, and above all, the Mass".

It seems that VD's observations are in line with at least one renowned scholar...

Blogger Giraffe February 06, 2013 10:57 AM  

I invite those who claim this act will "strengthen marriage" to consider the empirical data. Name a nation where legally legitimizing gay "marriage" was followed by a statistically significant increase in the marriage rate.

I think a better metric for strong marriage would be a decrease in divorce rate. I'll bet legalizing gay marriage doesn't achieve that either.

Blogger Good Will February 06, 2013 11:09 AM  

VD: "The gay marriage debate has very little to do with literal homogamy, as the paltry number of "married" gays in the various states where it is legal tends to demonstrate. It is symbolic, a legal demonstration of the fact that what was once Christendom is now post-Christian, and a rejection of traditional Western civilization. It's not a step forward, but rather, a step back into ancient pagan darkness. It is ironic that those who decry Islam as a return to the 7th century are actually complaining that the Muslims don't go far enough; "progressives" want to take the world back more than two millennia.

This is where VD excels: placing current social trends in historical context and extrapolating where they will take us. Vox helps me see more clearly where I am by showing me where we've been and where we're going.

Blogger Good Will February 06, 2013 11:18 AM  

"Here is another thought.

See that dick over there? Don't suck it. Its a big ol' world full of all kinds of things to do that don't involve sucking dicks. I mean its not that hard. Stop watching broadway plays and judy garland movies. Find something that occupies your time... and your hands.

I suggest you start riding motorcycles... or horses... or something that will generally keep you very very busy and keep your mind of things like... sucking a dick.

Look mate... anyone can tell by the way you are saying this that you can tell this is a destructive force in your life. So stop it. put it away. Everyone deals with temptation in one way or another. For some of us its chicks... for you... its... not. The same tactics and strategies apply. deal with it the temptation... don't let the temptation define your life."


Nate, I've never heard it expressed that way, so...straightforwardly. Thank you. That was refreshing.

Blogger Good Will February 06, 2013 11:20 AM  

Krul: "Advocates of gay rights (or women's rights or civil rights or whatever) say and generally believe that what they want is freedom. But what they really want isn't the freedom to be gay, female, black, whatever - they already possess that freedom. What they actually want is "Acceptance" by the rest of humanity, which is essentially tyrannical. You don't get to dictate whether other people accept you.

But couching the debate in terms of "freedom" severely confuses the issue, and makes it seem like those who are in favor of freedom of thought, expression, and association are the tyrannical ones.
"

Astute. Thanks.

Blogger The Deuce February 06, 2013 11:22 AM  

Indeed it would....IF there were any kind of real movement to advance the rights of siblings to marry or to allow polygamy. But there isn't.

So you wish to continue the historic defamation, taunting, abuse, discrimination and cruelty issued at polygamists and the incestuous caused by Christianity's dark cloak over Western civilization, just because it's popular. You monster!

Anonymous JartStar February 06, 2013 11:24 AM  

Indeed it would....IF there were any kind of real movement to advance the rights of siblings to marry or to allow polygamy. But there isn't.

I'm a little disappointed in you Tad, you know a logical argument valid regardless if someone takes actions on the result. In this case your argument opens the door for any "two people" to get married, but perhaps no one will walk through the door.

History shows us otherwise as there have been long standing traditions in certain cultures to practice incest. I suspect that in the next 10-20 years all sorts of "marriages" will end up in the courts.

Blogger The Deuce February 06, 2013 11:26 AM  

I'm a little disappointed in you Tad, you know a logical argument valid regardless if someone takes actions on the result.

Actually, I think one of the defining traits of the rabbit people is that they don't know that, or at least they deliberately forget it.

Blogger Good Will February 06, 2013 11:26 AM  

Josh: "Christendom, however, has been dead since 1914 at the latest, although arguments could also be made for 1815, 1789, 1640, 1522, or 1453."

Ah, but it was reborn in 1830!

Anonymous Shutup, Tad February 06, 2013 11:30 AM  

A Tale of Two Homos:

Tad: (Internet troll seeking tax breaks and other State sponsored benefits)

Rather, that kind of bond and that kind of love exists between two women and among two men and that if a people are going to provide institutions for recognizing and fostering these bonds, such as with state-recognized marriage, then the only reasonable thing to do is recognize that this institution of marriage be open to man and woman, man and man and woman and woman.

Jane Rule: (noted author and seeker of personal liberty)

To be forced back into the heterosexual cage of coupledom is not a step forward but a step back into state-imposed definitions of relationship. With all that we have learned, we should be helping our heterosexual brothers and sisters out of their state-defined prisons, not volunteering to join them there.

Anonymous Tad February 06, 2013 11:30 AM  

@JartStar

History shows us otherwise as there have been long standing traditions in certain cultures to practice incest. I suspect that in the next 10-20 years all sorts of "marriages" will end up in the courts.

Whether something ends up in court is a fairly low bar by which to measure the demand for or discontent with something. Anyone can file a suit.

My point is that there is no movement to advance legal marriage between siblings, nor for polygamy. Societies and communities, over time, evaluate the importance and the impact of various proposals and changes to those societies and communities. In the case of homosexuality, it's pretty clear that the centuries of bigotry, discrimination and abuse are coming to a quick end as peoples realize this attitude was nothing but cruelty, immoral and unethical.

Anonymous Rawson P.T. Taliaferro February 06, 2013 11:31 AM  

During a time in which we live in a gale of Leftist lies we should take time to remember the fact that there is no such thing as gay marriage.

Marriage is the union of a man and a woman in the sight of God. Without God there is no marriage, and without a man and a woman there is no marriage.

Fashionable fads and government lies do not change that fact. If gays want to commit to each other (and typically several hundred other sexual partners) and live together, that's certainly none of my business. But they aren't married.

The lie of gay marriage is just another perverse, dishonest attempt by the Left to redefine reality and destroy civilization. It is just another attempt to normalize deviance; deviants being one of the prime constituencies of the Leftist traitors and tyrants.

Gay marriage doesn't exist.

Anonymous Tad February 06, 2013 11:41 AM  

@Rawson

Marriage is the union of a man and a woman in the sight of God. Without God there is no marriage, and without a man and a woman there is no marriage.

Not anymore.

The lie of gay marriage is just another perverse, dishonest attempt by the Left to redefine reality and destroy civilization. It is just another attempt to normalize deviance; deviants being one of the prime constituencies of the Leftist traitors and tyrants.

There's nothing tyrannical in gay marriage as nothing is being imposed on anyone when the people choose to recognize the rights of gay people to marry.

Anonymous DonReynolds February 06, 2013 11:42 AM  

My sometimes girlfriend has a grown gay daughter, now about 32 years old. There was some excitement several years ago when she got married to another young woman in Costa Rica, before moving to Alaska. Sadly, the relationship did not last but a couple of years, until one of the wimmin moved in with yet another lesbian. In less than a year, my girlfriend's daughter did the same thing, joining up with yet another lesbian. There was no divorce, even though significant property was involved, and there is no discussion of getting a divorce. Does this means that neither of the married lesbians can marry other women yet again without commiting bigamy? Who knows?

The gay marriage also means gay divorce. Yes, some of the relationships are stable but a good many are not. Do not think that children are never involved. Lesbians have children too when they split, either by adoption or by a friendly sperm donor. The same people who advocate gay marriage should be the first to insist that they follow the same laws as everyone else. When they split.....and they often do....they should be required to present a petition for divorce to the local family law court....just like everyone else.

Anonymous Lysander Spooner February 06, 2013 11:43 AM  

"No-Fault" marriage, aka: It's the Man's Fault, has essentially destroyed marriage in the USSA.

I say let the fags and dykes get married to the State, perhaps the divorce attorneys can feed off of their carcasses and eek out some sort of ill gotten gain. Fact of the matter many heterosexuals are giving marriage the old "Nancy Reagan", and just saying 'NO', and I happen to be one.

My advice on marriage for men:

1.Don't marry a woman.
2.Don't live with a woman (VAWA -boys)
3.Don't have children, unless you can secure custody.
4.When the privileged "Princess" shows her face, kick it to the curb.

Stay free, retain your sanity, and do not voluntarily submit to the slavery of modern marriage.

Anonymous Anonymous February 06, 2013 12:05 PM  

@Tad,

Now that the State has made a mockery of the institution of Marriage. I guess the next step is to force into submission the Churches who don’t comply.

Though you say, “there is no movement to advance legal marriage between siblings, nor for polygamy,” but the Slippery Slope seems to always find its way. I guess that will also be the “very good and moral move”.

But what I foresee in the near-term and since there is no gay test to prove you were “born that way”, an even bigger mockery of marriage will be made. Just think of all the 20-something heterosexual men lining up at the courthouse getting their piece of paper with their buddies saying they are married with all the benefits that come with it. What a celebration that will be and I bet the chicks will dig it.

Mr. Cassandra

Anonymous bw February 06, 2013 12:09 PM  

It's hard to tell if Homosexuals and Feminists hate Nature the most, or simply Themselves in Nature.
The unconscious dead end is very telling.

"or at least they deliberately forget it."

That is aka "Lying". They are the most unprincipled, biggest Liars on the planet. Resentment and Hatred can turn you into some unnatural things.

Anonymous DonReynolds February 06, 2013 12:14 PM  

Lysander Spooner....."My advice on marriage for men:

1.Don't marry a woman.
2.Don't live with a woman (VAWA -boys)
3.Don't have children, unless you can secure custody.
4.When the privileged "Princess" shows her face, kick it to the curb.

Stay free, retain your sanity, and do not voluntarily submit to the slavery of modern marriage."

He He. Sage advice but too late for most men. Of course, it comes as a complete surprise when Princess turns out to be no different from all the others in so many ways.

One of the young men announced at work that he was getting married soon. The older gentlemen offered to save him some time and grief. They told him to go out and find a complete stranger, who says she hates his guts, and give her most of your property and money, as well as half your pay till you retire. He was stunned. The older gentlemen explained....it was the same thing, you just miss out on the drama, and getting arrested by the police, and getting accused of having sex with your kids, and losing your job cause you sat in jail till your trial....cause you could not make bail, and having all your bank accounts frozen.

My own Princess divorced me a second time, eight years after the first divorce....a year and a half after she entered a common-law marriage with a drug felon biker from California. (I only married her once.) But you can do that in TEXAS. I have seen it myself.



Anonymous Tad February 06, 2013 12:33 PM  

@DonReynolds

The same people who advocate gay marriage should be the first to insist that they follow the same laws as everyone else. When they split.....and they often do....they should be required to present a petition for divorce to the local family law court....just like everyone else.

Agreed. Well put.

Anonymous Anonymous February 06, 2013 12:47 PM  

How will we survive without poorly translated myths of primitive desert nomads functioning as the base of our culture? I mean, first people are eating shellfish and women are speaking in churches, and now gay marriage? Next thing you know they will tell me I can't stone my wife to death because she wasn't a virgin when I married her, like it says in Deuteronomy.

Fine institutions, like the Catholic Church and the Boy Scouts have been persecuted for their strength in standing up against gays and gay marriage. Sure, both organizations enabled child rape for decades, but since they hate gays they really should feel comfortable in taking a moral high ground.

Nice point in how gay marriage doesn't significantly increase marriage rates. That's the exact reason I don't think African-American Mormon children should be entitled to go to public school. Banning black Mormons kids from school won't significantly decrease the number of kids in school. Solid logic if I have ever heard it.

Anonymous Gen. Kong February 06, 2013 1:07 PM  

I'm surprised VD didn't mention that this is also about the state church in the EUSSR. Churches receive state funding there and will now be required to perform the blasphemous ceremonies or lose state funding. Next step will be to outlaw any church which refuses to marry gays altogether. Mosques and (of course) synagogues will be exempt - as is usually the case with the left's pet projects. While the pope might not be officiating over a marriage between Cardinals Law and Mahoney any time soon (Vatican City is not yet a member of the EUSSR), such ceremonies will be coming to Westminster Abbey and Notre Dame in the near future.

As with so many items on the Marxist agenda, gay marriage isn't primarily about marrying gays, anymore than feminism is about making life better for women. It's about endlessly expanding state power over private institutions and individuals. The same modus operandi can been seen under way in Obamacare. Here in the USSA the church-state separation makes such a direct takeover a little more difficult. However once the Sodomites will finish off DOMA and all state constitutions and laws prohibiting the practice, they'll go after all churches and related organizations via the 501c (3) tax exemption - which was part of the reason for the whole 501c sections of the tax code to begin with. Note how the Boy Scouts - even after a Supreme Court victory - are now preparing to cave on the issue.

Anonymous Lysander Spooner February 06, 2013 1:23 PM  

@ Don Reynolds

" Sage advice but too late for most men "

Hind site is 20:20.

I also had my Princess, an American of European birth. Lucky for me I got custody of my twin sons, she got pretty much everything else. Yes, the false accusations(standard) flew at first, I was a violent felon, a druggie, a psycho, a bum, etc, etc. My sons still live with me, age 23, the whole house is a 'man cave', we just built a deck, they have real man skills, and are both planning on Medical School, I am a Physician,age 52, so I guess 'the apple does not fall far from the tree".

Might I suggest to all of the "ilk" check out AVFM.com, it is one of the best resources to understand and share with other men the culture of hate that exists toward men today in the USSA.

Blogger James Dixon February 06, 2013 1:34 PM  

> Recognizing gay marriage also recognizes the patently obvious: that the kind of deep, spiritual and emotional bonds that hold two people together and form the foundation of family are not exclusive to simply men and women.

Which would be well and good, except those bonds aren't all there is to a marriage.

> IF there were any kind of real movement to advance the rights...

Yep. Just as there's supposedly no movement to take guns from individuals. Like I said in another thread (though not to you), you've been warned hundreds of times. You never listen.

Of course, this is the same person who claims there's no "real" secession movement.

Anonymous stg58/Animal Mother February 06, 2013 1:41 PM  

If lesbians get married in states that allow gay marriage, then come home to their non gay marriage affirming state, they can't get divorced in their home state when they decide to amicably separate. The solution, of course, the only right thing to do, is to make gay marriage legal so the lesbians can then get divorced.

Makes Alice in Wonderland look like Differential Equations.

Anonymous Rawson P.T. Taliaferro February 06, 2013 1:57 PM  

@Tad. Saying that Gay Marriage exists doesn't change the fact that it simply doesn't exist. You and many others could say that unicorns exist, but they don't in fact. A mainstream belief in unicorns would be a mass delusion; something that there is quite a lot of these days. You could say God is dead and/or tuned in to the exciting new paradigm of diverse deviancy, but he's not. Government and Leftist lies are just that.

Officially sanctioned Gay Marriage advances tyranny because the lie is imposed on society as a whole by law. The law is immoral and a lie. The lie destroys civilization because it attacks Christianity and is used as a weapon by a malevolent ruling elite. Gays are a "protected" minority and are just another weapon used by those who wish to impose the entire pathology of Leftist tyranny.

Anonymous 11B February 06, 2013 2:33 PM  

My point is that there is no movement to advance legal marriage between siblings, nor for polygamy. Societies and communities, over time, evaluate the importance and the impact of various proposals and changes to those societies and communities. In the case of homosexuality, it's pretty clear that the centuries of bigotry, discrimination and abuse are coming to a quick end as peoples realize this attitude was nothing but cruelty, immoral and unethical.

Do you have any concern that the mass immigration of muslims into the West will reverse this?

Blogger Duke of Earl February 06, 2013 2:41 PM  

“The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected. Even when the revolutionist might himself repent of his revolution, the traditionalist is already defending it as part of his tradition. Thus we have two great types — the advanced person who rushes us into ruin, and the retrospective person who admires the ruins. He admires them especially by moonlight, not to say moonshine. Each new blunder of the progressive or prig becomes instantly a legend of immemorial antiquity for the snob. This is called the balance, or mutual check, in our Constitution.”

Chesterton

Anonymous Anonymous February 06, 2013 2:49 PM  

What of Hilaire Belloc's observation of Western Europe 500-1000 AD?--Pepper

Does a different liturgy and polity set one apart? Is the Byzantine Empire outside the pale of Christendom?

If Belloc's unity of society is the standard, how can there be legitimacy given to two camps? Perhaps Byzantium is Christendom and Rome is not. Ergo, Western Europe is excluded from consideration.

Christendom is a nebulous concept without a clear meaning. This diminishes its analytical value.

This is not to deny the existence of a "Kingdom of God," which seems to be a much more felicitous phrase. It is better defined (in Scripture) and offers much material for formulating a redemptive interpretation of history.

I remain skeptical of "Christendom's" semantic or heuristic significance.

MALTHUS

Anonymous Tad February 06, 2013 3:47 PM  

@11b

Do you have any concern that the mass immigration of muslims into the West will reverse this?

None. And particularly in the U.S. There is no mass immigration of MUslims into the U.S. and their is no Islamic influence of any significance in this country. IF the forces of good could overcome the influence of right wing christians, then there is no problem combating what is yet no influence from Muslims.

Anonymous 11B February 06, 2013 4:03 PM  

None. And particularly in the U.S. There is no mass immigration of MUslims into the U.S. and their is no Islamic influence of any significance in this country.

True, the USA does not have the presence of muslims that Europe has. Is this something you would wish to keep? In other words, should the USA be concerned about the quantity and quality of its immigrants to ensure our culture is not changed? Or do you feel that no amount of muslim immigration would affect us, and that we should not concern ourselves with it at all?

Anonymous scoobius dubious February 06, 2013 5:18 PM  

Good golly. The vast lava flows of nonsense, pleez-gimmes, poor reasoning and sheer falsehood which erupt almost hourly from Mount Tad are simply too enormous. There aren't enough hours in the day to sit around refuting Tad's flaming piles of steaming horseshit.

I've got other things to get on with. I'll simply issue a blanket statement: Tad. You're mistaken, or lying, or both. Or else you haven't thought anything through, except that you Want What You Want What You Want. Sit and rethink everything, if you're a serious person, which I tend to doubt. Like some interesting fellows once put it... Everything You Know Is Wrong.

Blogger James Dixon February 06, 2013 8:19 PM  

> Tad. You're mistaken, or lying, or both.

Yeah, that pretty much sums it up.

Anonymous The CronoLink February 06, 2013 8:29 PM  

Damn, I thought Tad was clueless, but he's downright dense.

Anonymous Anonymous February 06, 2013 8:33 PM  

Wait wait wait....

An act passed by a majority of parliament is a sign of EU imposed social change?

I can only guess that you either don't know what a majority is, were under the impression that only Tory MPs, or else inexplicably believe that the British parliament sits in Brussels.

Otherwise all of your cries about the end of democracy would sound a little dishonest.

Anonymous Anonymous February 06, 2013 8:35 PM  

*only Tory MPs get to vote.

Yes, yes. We all leave a few words out now and again.

Anonymous Toby Temple February 06, 2013 10:53 PM  

Damn, I thought Tad was clueless, but he's downright dense.

It's a gay thing.

Anonymous kh123 February 07, 2013 3:54 AM  

"IF the forces of good could overcome the influence of right wing christians, then there is no problem combating what is yet no influence from Muslims."

Beyond the simplistic caricature of "Rainbow Power vs The Evil Christian Cabal" made out of Duplo blocks, a further consideration:

-Besides the media elite, politicians, hipsters that've picked up a token AK to match their faux prison tats, or vibrant enclaves, very nearly all SWPLs and/or liberals are not armed in any way imaginable.

-A considerable number of Christians or Americans in general that have a lick of common sense outside of a mega church or McDonalds are armed in some manner.

-Most Muslims that take Mecca, Medina, and jihad seriously have access to networks where they can either obtain arms or finance arms shipments - and most importantly - have many fewer hesitations than most Westerners in using them against dhimmis and kufrs.

Anonymous kh123 February 07, 2013 4:34 AM  

Since someone else posted it, might as well put it up here, on the off-chance Tad may venture back and see an apparently incredible exception to what I stated above: Gay terrorist planned to shoot as many as he could at Family Research Council in DC.

OpenID herenvardo February 07, 2013 9:58 AM  

"Recognizing gay marriage also recognizes the patently obvious: that the kind of deep, spiritual and emotional bonds that hold two people together and form the foundation of family are not exclusive to simply men and women."

He simply doesn't get it. They are exclusive. And, if the love isn't interfered with, it blossoms into new additions to the family. And don't bother wailing about infertile couples, exceptions don't change the rule. Infertility in a real marriage is a bug (whether acknowledged as such or not). In a homosexual partnership, it's a feature.

Methinks the battle was lost when the Pill was invented. We wouldn't be having this debate if sex and reproduction were still thought of as the same thing.

Anonymous Tad February 07, 2013 10:59 AM  

@herenvardo

Infertility in a real marriage is a bug (whether acknowledged as such or not). In a homosexual partnership, it's a feature.

There is nothing about homosexual partnerships that imply infertility. A gay man is not infertile. A lesbian is not infertile. They are all quite capable of producing offspring and do.

Blogger James Dixon February 08, 2013 1:28 PM  

> They are all quite capable of producing offspring and do.

Just not with the person they "married".

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts