ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Tuesday, June 02, 2015

The end of National Review

I quit reading National Review when they canned John Derbyshire for the crime of telling the truth about race. Now that it has come out out of the marital closet, I expect considerably more people on the Right to follow suit. It is readily apparent that the difference between the liberal media and the so-called conservative media is about 20 years. And, like all homogamists, he openly lies about the way in which it utterly destroys the institution of marriage:
Finally, a word on the oft-heard claim that if we recognize same-sex marriages we’ll also have to marry siblings, and groups of a hundred and three, and adults to children, and humans to invertebrates, and so on.

Members of group relationships, whatever we may think of them, manifestly have not made the same kind of choice as have those in exclusive commitments, and so there is no equal-treatment basis for their inclusion in marriage. Remember, the equal-treatment argument we outlined above does not assert that marriage is about any kind of romantic love. It asserts that marriage is about a particular form of such love — faithfulness and exclusivity subsequent to a vow of permanent commitment — that is already partially included under traditional marriage laws. (Let us note in passing the ridiculousness of speaking of an “orientation to polygamy,” as traditionalists sometimes do, unless this means trivially that anyone might feel more than one attraction at a time, in which case we are presumably all so oriented.)

There is a sense in which the other types of relationships traditionalists scare us with, even if they were exclusive, would also not involve the same kind of choice as does a romantic commitment of two unrelated adults: They would fall short, for one or both parties, of being chosen in full freedom. In the case of family members, for example, an irrevocable and unchosen bond between the two already exists, and in that sense they cannot really give themselves to each other. That is why we see incest as a perversion of a preexisting relationship. As for a child, it does not possess a sufficiently developed mind and will with which to give consent to a sexual relationship. That is why we think such a relationship is exploitative. The specific ways in which these relationships fall short of full freedom — along with the unique intensity of sexual intimacy — in turn explain the primary harms that they intrinsically risk causing (for example, by undermining impartiality and stability within families, or by psychologically damaging children).

In any case, if you want to account for the special opprobrium we reserve for such things, you will have to offer some explanation of what is specifically wrong with them.
It's bitterly amusing to see how a nation-in-decline congratulates itself with every step it descends into Hell and the inevitable dustbin of history. But those who refuse to learn from history are usually destined to repeat its more unpleasant lessons. Or rather, their children and grandchildren are.

Labels: ,

144 Comments:

Blogger Dexter June 02, 2015 9:45 AM  

They have been a cruise line that also sells magazines for quite some time now. So, if you want to get on a cruise ship with a bunch of neocon assholes, I guess they still serve a purpose...

Blogger Jourdan June 02, 2015 9:47 AM  

National Review has been very illustative of the con that is Conservatism, Incoporated and its political wing, the Republican Party.

Both are the necessary Washington Generals to the ever-victorious Globetrotter left.

I find it very difficult to imagine people having a hard time understanding this. When one visits NRO's The Corner these days, what does one see?

Rich Lowry, editor, writes columns for the Washington Post.

Jay Nordlinger, writer, endless posts of the "Can You Believe These Liberals Folks?" variety.

Ramesh..whatever, an Indian.

Kathryn Lopez, Catholic groupie who is really unsure about the direction the band is going with the new lead singer.

Can anyone imagine these people leading the right?

Now, let's see who they've fired.

Derbyshire: race realist.

Coulter: like her or hate her, she is the ONLY conservative leader talking about the Latin-Americanization of the U.S. and saying openly it must be resisted. Hell, she does this on Univision.

Steyn: Not talked about a lot, but he's not around much any more is he?

Useless cover for the enemy, worse than the enemy.

Blogger Nate June 02, 2015 9:50 AM  

National Review?

Never heard of her.

Anonymous Mark Call June 02, 2015 9:57 AM  

It's also bitterly amusing (but not in the least surprising) to see how the lie of "traditional marriage" bears such nasty fruit.

Once such sycophants buy into the lie that it's only "exclusivity" that matters, rather than what YHVH says in Genuine Print, the slide is already underway.

Ultimately, that's the only way to deny polygyny as Scripturally-approved, while licensing what He calls "abomination" and declaring "it is Good."

Blogger kudzu bob June 02, 2015 10:00 AM  

I will take a genuine communist any day over a National Review-style "conservative." At least communists are worth killing.

Blogger Aeoli Pera June 02, 2015 10:01 AM  

>But those who refuse to learn from history are usually destined to repeat its more unpleasant lessons. Or rather, their children and grandchildren are.

My opinion on Baby Boomers and their relationships with their children and grandchildren:

"Ah, kids have it too easy these days. Back in my day, I worked 24-hour days to put myself through college, and that didn't include my internship! I took 20 credit hours because I wanted to graduate early without debt, see, unlike you youngsters."

But Dad, I thought you partied hard in college?

"Oh, I did! 24-7, let me tell you. Great time to have some fun and find a girl, and really expand your horizons. That's how you really get a job, is by networking. And do some traveling! But don't let any of it stop you from getting your eight hours a night, that's the ticket to success, right there."

Blogger Zaklog the Great June 02, 2015 10:01 AM  

There's also the simple fact that many homosexual "marriages" (far more than the real kind) are not "exclusive" anyway, which advocates of homosexual "marriage" will occasionally admit when it's convenient for them to do so. So a significant part of your new definition of marriage is missing right there.

Anonymous SumDood June 02, 2015 10:05 AM  

http://takimag.com/article/beta_male_suckiness_at_national_review_kathy_shaidle#axzz3bpt82J8t

No Derb, No Steyn...no point to NR.

This Steorts assclown might be a liberal mole sent to infiltrate NR.

Blogger Josh June 02, 2015 10:11 AM  

But Dad, I thought you partied hard in college?


You really need to add "old sport" in there somewhere.

Blogger Nikis-Knight June 02, 2015 10:12 AM  

Kevin Williamson is still good, but if you put together a magazine of ex NR writers, it would be far superior to their current line up. I believe Steve Sailer wrote for them at one point, to?
Especially irritating to see so called conservatives using traditionalist as a slur.

Anonymous Will Best June 02, 2015 10:14 AM  

Cousin marriages are more accepted worldwide than homosexual marriage, and yet the US largely bans the former. I expect them to come back in style in the next generation or two as the US becomes far more tribal.

also the simple fact that many homosexual "marriages" (far more than the real kind) are not "exclusive" anyway

Not many. Most. Somewhere north of 80% have what would be classified as an affair in a 7 year time frame. And don't even get me started on the data about how F'd up their "kids" are. Its ludicrous to think that they are the same.

Blogger D. Lane (#0067) June 02, 2015 10:14 AM  

The line in the sand stays in motion. It does not remain static on the basis of the well intentions of its movers at some point in the past.

There is a sense in which the other types of relationships traditionalists scare us with, even if they were exclusive, would also not involve the same kind of choice as does a romantic commitment of two unrelated adults: They would fall short, for one or both parties, of being chosen in full freedom.

This isn't the argument relentlessly employed to legitimize the LGBT movement and the redefinition of marriage; it's the appeal to conservatives who have a contract fetish. The position that has been argued over the past decade is that the practice of homosexuality is verifiably natural (i.e. demonstrated by "science") and, therefore, morally acceptable. Gay marriage is being used as a tool to fully legitimize this stance.

Suggesting that the contract nature of marriage will magically prevent the line from being moved any further misses the mark entirely. What changes the legal norms in the sexual market place is the ability of would-be line drawers to produce a sufficient number of studies that demonstrate no defined harm as a result of their actions. That's a task hindered only by time and the ability to find the right people to promote it.

Blogger Nate June 02, 2015 10:16 AM  

"Especially irritating to see so called conservatives using traditionalist as a slur."

Well... I'm not really a so-called conservative... or any sort of conservative... but I certainly use traditionalist as a slur. Because well... the vast majority of the traditions people who call themselves traditionalist are claiming to cherish have never actually existed.

Blogger njartist June 02, 2015 10:18 AM  

Neither my eyes nor my brain could focus once I was subconsciously aware the writer was dissembling: it is a strange phenomenon that I have had since I was a youngster.

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents June 02, 2015 10:19 AM  

Isn't Steorts the little weasel who was responsible for Steyn leaving NR, because Steyn wrote an old Frank Sinatra era joke in The Corner that was simply horridly insensitive? Seems to me a version of this pathetic little essay ran in the magazine a couple of years ago as well. William F. Buckley made a mistake in the way he doled out control of NR, clearly, I suspect Steorts is some sort of very close friend, or protege', etc. of Chris Buckley.

I wonder what the pageviews of The Corner are, and how they compare to magazine circulation?

Anonymous JI June 02, 2015 10:22 AM  

Vox, just wondering - have you noticed this same sort of thing going on in Italy? I'm thinking of America's steady move toward modern-style liberalism and the constant search for ways to justify the latest sinful fad.

Blogger Da_Truth_Hurts June 02, 2015 10:24 AM  

https://twitter.com/MontyDraxel/status/605736225501249536

Anonymous Mike M. (#315) June 02, 2015 10:30 AM  

Buckley never impressed me that much, and NR has always been far too New York City-centric. They never really grasped the idea that there was a vast continent-spanning nation outside of NYC.

NR didn't start out nearly as hot as they thought, and has gone downhill dramatically in the last decade.

Anonymous Stephen J. June 02, 2015 10:31 AM  

"faithfulness and exclusivity subsequent to a vow of permanent commitment"

And the permanent is the other missing part, although to be fair, that's been missing for a while now for all of us.

I don't blame the LGBT movement for no-fault divorce laws, those are squarely on us, but I do seriously think that if you legalized same-sex unions while repealing no-fault divorce, the number of same-sex couples who actually got married would go through the floor. Heck, the numbers are already through the floor -- in any area where it's been legalized the pattern is always the same: a surge as the built-up group of always-wanted-to-and-now-we-finally-can couples actually marry, then declining to a trickle that is nowhere near the proportional number of straight couples by population.

Anonymous Crude June 02, 2015 10:35 AM  

Members of group relationships, whatever we may think of them, manifestly have not made the same kind of choice as have those in exclusive commitments,

Except that 'open relationships' take place in 'LGBT relationships', even "marriages", at tremendously high rates.

Cowards, one and all.

Blogger Danby June 02, 2015 10:35 AM  

... a surge as the built-up group of always-wanted-to-and-now-we-finally-can stick a thumb in Daddy's eyecouples actually marry, then declining to a trickle ...

FIFY

Blogger Chiva June 02, 2015 10:36 AM  

As for a child, it does not possess a sufficiently developed mind and will with which to give consent to a sexual relationship.

Wait, that's not what some of the greatest minds in SFWA said!

Blogger Feather Blade June 02, 2015 10:37 AM  

It's cute that he thinks that people in the perversion lobby aren't already arguing for these things that he claims are impossible.

Blogger Joel #0164 June 02, 2015 10:40 AM  

"This is a party [Northern conservatism] which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt bath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth, and has no idea of being guilty of the folly of martyrdom. It always, when about to enter a protest, very blandly informs the wild beast whose path it essays to stop, that its “bark is worse than its bite,” and that it only means to save its manners by enacting its decent role of resistance. The only practical purpose which it now subserves in American politics is to give enough exercise to Radicalism to keep it “in wind,” and to prevent its becoming pursy and lazy from having nothing to whip."

- R.L. Dabney

Blogger Stilicho #0066 June 02, 2015 10:40 AM  

Via Instapundit: Liberal Jew cannot understand why America less friendly to Jews now that it has enacted socialist policies favoured by American Jews

The author's misunderstanding of America and the Constitution are profound and telling:

By the 1930s, Jews had re-imagined the nation. It’s the gift of the outsider—to see with new eyes... Unlike Germany or England, there is no host population in America, no single race that can be threatened.

False, and liberal Jews like Cohen have done their level best to not only threaten, but to destroy it.

America is a nation of nations, a nation of mutts.

Sure, just like the victim of a gang rape is a slut because she's had sex with so many men...


The Constitution was set up as a series of checks against any such majority forming.

No. The Constitution is a series of checks on government abuses of liberty. "Constitution"...you keep using that word...it does not mean whatever you want it to mean.

The liberty found here did not depend on Joseph’s charm or special relationship with what my father would call “the key guys.”

So you set about changing that. Thanks a bunch.

For perhaps the only time in history, you might actually want to be a Jew. Because of the close families and good husbands and yada yada. Saul Bellow, Phillip Roth, Mel Brooks. To those of us who came of age in these years, the future seemed like it would be more of the same, the present carried on forever.

We were wrong.


About a lot of things.

President Obama? I don’t blame him, but I do think his disgust with Benjamin Netanyahu, which seems almost physical, as if repelled by the stink of the man, has given certain practitioners the sense that it’s safe to come into the open.

It's not his fault...he can't help it...he's the victim here... Let's agree to ignore the fact that he's the embodiment of the multi-culti, kumbayah, open borders, moral relativism, socialism, and anti-Americanism espoused by Cohen and other liberal Jews in America since they arrived and set about transforming the country.

It’s painful for those of us who love Obama. We voted for him and voted for him again. At best, the Iran deal seems misguided. Meant to avoid conflict, it will, by putting Iranian proxies on the northern and southern borders of Israel, make war inevitable.

Cry me a river. You created your Kwisatz Haderach and now you aren't fond of what he is doing...seems like there might be a good story in there...

It always puzzled me when some fanatic kills a Jew in, say, Paris. I mean, what does this fanatic want? The destruction of the State of Israel? So, what does he do? Kill a Jew who, having chosen Paris over Tel Aviv, is living just where the fanatic wants him to live. But increasingly, no distinction is made between Israel and Exile. A Jew is a Jew is a Jew.

Yet you insist that the foreign fanatic has a "right" to be in Paris... or New York... or London, etc., ad naseum. You have sown the wind and complain that you reap the whirlwind. I believe there is a proverb about that in a certain religious book....

Blogger Jourdan June 02, 2015 10:47 AM  

@ Joel - That is a fantastic quote. What I would give for leaders of this quality today.

Anonymous AlteredFate June 02, 2015 10:49 AM  

The end of National Review? I doubt it as they are now openly attempting to steal HuffPo's readership. Although now that I've said that, NR may be using the Republican tactic of appealing to "Moar Womenz! " and "Moar Minorities!" by becoming HuffPo Lite. So yeah. Doomed to failure.

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 June 02, 2015 10:49 AM  

I wonder if William F. Buckley will come back as a zombie and devour the editor's brains.

Blogger Dexter June 02, 2015 10:50 AM  

Especially irritating to see so called conservatives using traditionalist as a slur.

Their other favorite slur, when talking immigration, is "restrictionist".

Buckley never impressed me that much

The purpose of NR, even in his day, was to keep "conservatism" within the bounds of acceptable thought and behavior as defined by despicable New York City RINOs.

Blogger David-093 June 02, 2015 10:53 AM  

@Stilicho

That article is infuriating. We, Americans, did not WANT the country changed. We liked it the way it was. But apparently Mr. Cohen here wants to fill out, to the fucking letter, every negative stereotype about Jews he can find. And he has the nerve to wonder why Americans are turning on them? It's not hard, you see: you make it obvious that you don't like the way the United States is, so you change it to something Americans don't like and then berate Americans who have the gall to question it.

Blogger Frank Brady June 02, 2015 11:01 AM  

I quite reading National Review in 1992 after it savagely and falsely attacked Joe Sobran and Pat Buchanan for "anti-Semitism". Although both writers were "paleo-conservatives" (and not libertarians), they were far closer to my nascent political beliefs than the pack of lying empire-building neocons who have destroyed the GOP as a credible political force and are destroying what little remains of the American nation.

For those interested in further tracking the the neo-con role in America's implosion, please take a look at http://gatetoliberty.blogspot.com/2013/02/who-killed-republican-party.html. My apologies for not knowing how to make that a hyper-link.

Blogger kudzu bob June 02, 2015 11:03 AM  

Peter Brimelow's revealing obituary of William Buckley explains a great deal about the downward trajectory of National Review.

Blogger Stilicho #0066 June 02, 2015 11:03 AM  

And he has the nerve to wonder why Americans are turning on them?

It goes beyond that. Cohen cannot be unaware of the fact that the antisemitism he specifically cites is being promulgated by Mohammedans that he supports importing more of. But, he bears no blame, you see... it's America's fault.

Blogger Joel #0164 June 02, 2015 11:11 AM  

I wonder if William F. Buckley will come back as a zombie and devour the editor's brains.

You really think Buckley wouldn't be cheering this on himself? Perhaps it would have been five or ten years too early for him, but he would have acquiesced all the same. This was, after all, a man who presided over five decades of decline into leftism at National Review while he was alive, including the infamous purging of Peter Brimelow and other conservative immigration reformers in the '90s.

Anonymous Musashi #0350 June 02, 2015 11:21 AM  

The national fetishization of all things homo and trans is merely the latest rest-stop on the highway to Judgement.

Blogger RobertT June 02, 2015 11:22 AM  

Along the same lines, based on the adoring looks he casts the President's way, I'm guessing McConnell has a man crush. Is this is the new conservative? They've absconded with the term conservative, reactionary sounds, well, reactionary, and libertarian has a free love, dope smoking reputation. We need a new term ...

Blogger Owen June 02, 2015 11:23 AM  

Three years. I give it three years before the windows are shuddered and the office furniture is on Craig's List.

Blogger Frank Brady June 02, 2015 11:34 AM  

I quit reading National Review in 1992 after it savagely and falsely attacked Joe Sobran and Pat Buchanan for "anti-Semitism". Although both writers were "paleoconservatives" (and not libertarians), they were far closer to my nascent political beliefs than the pack of lying empire-building neocons who have destroyed the GOP as a credible political force and are destroying what little remains of the American nation.

For those interested in further tracking the neo-con role in America's implosion, please take a look at http://www.gatetoliberty.blogspot.com/2013/02/who-killed-republican-party.html.

Sorry for the duplicate post. Typo fixed and (after I figured it out) hyper-link provided.

Anonymous zen0 June 02, 2015 11:34 AM  

And, like all homogamists, he openly lies about the way in which it utterly destroys the institution of marriage

Blast from the Past(2005) recently seen at iSteve on Unz :

Dalrymple: Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One's standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.

Anonymous DJF June 02, 2015 11:36 AM  

In 2003 the National Review Online posted an article praising Trotsky. So what they are doing now is no surprise.


http://www.nationalreview.com/article/207196/trotskycons-stephen-schwartz#!

Blogger Chris Mallory June 02, 2015 12:14 PM  

"The Constitution is a series of checks on government abuses of liberty."

Really, the Constitution was a result of a coup by the Federalists in order to destroy the much superior Articles of Confederation. We now have the government that the Federalists wanted.

OpenID rufusdog June 02, 2015 12:16 PM  

This is why I dropped any political affiliation; I am a Christian and will follow Christ, as best I can, period. Any secular group will always fall into this type of ruin outside of a Christian worldview.

The change has really limited my interest in politics, other than watching the spectacle and voting with a pragmatic mind set on issues that are important to me, 2nd amendment being first and foremost.

That bit above about “faithfulness and exclusive” is amusing. Gay marriage has nothing to do with exclusivity and faithfulness. Ha, that they even trotted that one out is amusing.

Anonymous Huckleberry (#87) -- est. 1977 June 02, 2015 12:21 PM  

I used to like reading Goldberg, but I don't know if he's become too tedious or if I've become too impertinent.
They are only good as a mouthpiece in opposition to the Democratic Party. Not to liberals, just the Democratic Party.

Blogger Desiderius June 02, 2015 12:24 PM  

"their children and grandchildren are"

This.

There are none so blind.

Anonymous Step Function June 02, 2015 12:30 PM  

Glenn Reynolds supports gay marriage, yet Instapundit has been one of your day trips for years. What's the difference?

Blogger Tom Kratman June 02, 2015 12:45 PM  

If memory serves, Derb wasn't commenting abut race, per se; he was commenting about race relations, though doing so in a seemingly very close cognate to the Not Too Terribly Reverend Jesse Jackson's observations about who he would rather be followed by on e DC street after dark. Jackson's comment was much more racist, amounting to, "black or white, you can expect an inner city black following you after dark to have criminal intent." Derb's advice to his kid, on the other hand, wasn't racist so much as realistic, amounting to, "[It doesn't matter if] people are different; they think they are different, based on appearances. You look different, so they will not accord you the same rights and safeguards they would to someone who looked the same. Worse, they may treat you as an enemy or prey." Check of proof: You could change colors of all parties, turn it around and it would still be mostly true, or as true for a Klansman as a Panther.

Me, I put NR on my unmagazine list when they refused to carry an ad for Caliphate. Oh, yes, they did.

Blogger David-093 June 02, 2015 12:48 PM  

Possibly OT:

I'm only a couple chapters into Ann Coulter's book "Adios America", but it's brutal. She's gone from sharp and hard-hitting to ruthless and unyielding, while all these other betas in the tradcon and neocon camps have gone even softer. I don't know how the rest of the book is yet, but so far it reminds me of that description somebody gave Vox of TIA: it's like those games where the player walks into a room with a shotgun and just shoots everything that moves.

She also does some excellent trolling (or black knighting) where she compares Israel's border and immigration policy with the United States and says, paraphrased, "Israel has a border fence, they keep out immigrants, they want to preserve their ethnic identity, why can't the United States?"

Her interview with Jorge Ramos was also spectacular. She's saying what the conservatives should be saying, yet they never do because they're feckless and weak.

Blogger Tom Kratman June 02, 2015 12:54 PM  

Step, I don't read that as support so much as observation that it's a lost cause, even while looking for the silver lining. I do think Glenn was a little disingenuous there in quasi denying that gay marriage will lead to polygamy, since there is no principled reason to outlaw polygamy once gay marriage is universally accepted. After all, if sexes are "mere" then two is just a number, less significant in every way than man and woman vice man and man. or woman and woman. Moreover, there's so much case law on right to reproduce it isn't funny; what better way for gay men and lesbians to reproduce than the Bob and Ted / Carol and Alice (sic) marriage? (That's one argument I expect to be used in defense of polygamy. Soon.)

Blogger VD June 02, 2015 12:58 PM  

Glenn Reynolds supports gay marriage, yet Instapundit has been one of your day trips for years. What's the difference?

Glenn is one guy and he is a libertarian. National Review purports to be the conservative media. Glenn is honest and consistent. National Review is not.

Blogger Stilicho #0066 June 02, 2015 12:59 PM  

That's one argument I expect to be used in defense of polygamy. Soon.

I expect you are right. As long as they are all "committed" to each other, naturally.

Anonymous Step Function June 02, 2015 1:04 PM  

Tom, maybe my first example wasn't the best. Consider this. Glenn has the integrity to be plain about his beliefs (as I see VD noted while I was writing this), he just doesn't tediously harp on the theme as so many others do.

Blogger Eric June 02, 2015 1:05 PM  

The unfair sacking of Derb did it for me too, although I continued to read Steyn until they chased him off and will still read Williamson when I get a chance. The unsurprising thing about the Derb affair was that none of those girly boys, as Coulter described them, had the balls to stand up for Derb at the time. Steyn at least had some supportive words even though he hardly even knows Derb (and vice versa).

Blogger Dexter June 02, 2015 1:09 PM  

The unsurprising thing about the Derb affair was that none of those girly boys, as Coulter described them, had the balls to stand up for Derb at the time.

Derb didn't really even stand up for Derb. He was happy to excuse them as "trying to have careers, trying to stay in business".

Blogger Dexter June 02, 2015 1:10 PM  

Somewhat apropos of Caliphate -- Deutschland kaput.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11644660/Germany-dominance-over-as-demographic-crunch-worsens.html

Anonymous MendoScot June 02, 2015 1:13 PM  

National Review?

Never heard of her.


I think she was a horse. Won the Grand National, or something.

OpenID tacticaltoolbox June 02, 2015 1:13 PM  

Polygyny shouldn't be mentioned in the same breath as homosexual behavior.

Marriage as an institution of God is then defined by Him. When we allowed the state to institute marriage (regulate, license, define) the definition of such is up to them. The OP article writer is defining this latest redefinition to include homosexuals as "not like" including polygyny or including invertebrates. This is incorrect. He and others are redefining marriage. He makes a lame argument for not including all these other definitions.

The same issue, in kind, came about when the church decided to make marriage a sacrament. The church then had to define marriage. It is again the same problem, man instituting, regulating, and defining marriage.

What God hath joined together...

Blogger darkdoc June 02, 2015 1:14 PM  

A societal descent into approved and practiced homosexuality is the red flag that society is reaching the very end of its life and its decay into death.

Read Romans 1:21-32. You see a description of the total decay of society in those passages, its descent into the depravity, corruption, crime, destruction and misery of living hell. Homosexuality is a clear red flag that you have reached the bottom, and all that is left, if continued, is a culture's death. Compare to the world (not just US) today.

Same-sex marriage has never been about love or relationships.

Vox is completely correct to make the claims he does.

Blogger Tom Kratman June 02, 2015 1:31 PM  

Stil:

Yes, "Of course."

Thing here is that, in a sane world, polygamy is not really a problem. It's self limited by the need to have the wherewithal to support a second (or third or fourth) family.

We, however, do not live in that world. We, and the Euros, live in a world where the pols running the state will hold you upside down and shake until the money stops falling out, then use that money to buy votes from, among others, women in unofficial and unsanctioned relationships with men, which men have a fair number of women just like that that they they live off of. It's probably more institutionalized among the Islamics in, say, France, but we have it here, too, in a slightly different flavor.

Anonymous Quartermaster June 02, 2015 1:35 PM  

darkdoc,

The passage starts in verse 18.

Blogger pyrrhus June 02, 2015 1:36 PM  

I wonder how long Kevin Williamson can last at NR?

Blogger Jourdan June 02, 2015 1:41 PM  

@David-093 -

You're right to be amazed at Coulter's take in Adios, America! While I think she is still primarily and entertainer, the facts that she hammers home in this book are undeniable and a career-killer to anyone not indepedently established.

The problem is with our historic focus on the Black problem, and with our media/political power focus in the East, most Americans remain unaware of the scope of the demographic changes and what it means.

To, to put it another way, no matter how troubled, Blacks do not represent an existential threat to the U.S. as it has historically existed; Latinos do.

Blogger Alex N June 02, 2015 1:42 PM  

That was boring. No argument made

Blogger Stilicho #0066 June 02, 2015 1:44 PM  

Tom,

For years I've been saying that we have de facto legal polygamy here. Hell the whole "gay marriage" push has nothing to do with marriage per se, rather it is intended to compel acceptance/normalization of homosexuality via government force and indoctrination and to obtain money/benefits for gay "spouses", again via government force.

Prior to this recent gay marriage push, nothing in our laws, and I mean nothing, was preventing 2 homosexuals from cohabiting and calling themselves "married'. Of course, that wouldn't prevent anyone from noticing that they deviated from the norm and it wouldn't allow them to force others to provide them with economic benefits. Drama queens all the way down.

Anonymous BGS June 02, 2015 2:01 PM  

Except that 'open relationships' take place in 'LGBT relationships', even "marriages", at tremendously high rates.

First off you should always write GLBT, it will trigger every lesbian that reads it, why pass up such an easy slap in the face? All the long term gay marriages I know of are either open, only one member thinks its not open, or they lack options to cheat.

little disingenuous there in quasi denying that gay marriage will lead to polygamy,

There have been lesbian activists caught on camera saying gay marriage is the path to polygamy.

Liberal Jew cannot understand why America less friendly to Jews now that it has enacted socialist policies favoured by American Jews

Most jewish thing about the article- COMMENTING CHARGES Daily rate: $2 Monthly rate: $18 Yearly rate: $180

Blogger Tiny Tim June 02, 2015 2:04 PM  

National Review was (and may still be) the flagship of the Neo-Con effete boy lover's club as best I can tell.

No surprise here.

Anonymous Spooner June 02, 2015 2:08 PM  

NR, meh, bleh, cancelled my subcription back in the 80's when I read the history of Robert Welch and the comically pompous asshole WFB. NR has a long history of knife in the back syndrome.
I'm moving to Maine in about 6 weeks, I do not want to miss the burning of the Episcopalian Priestess, seriously, I am not joking.
Looking at 7 wooded acres on a Maine lake to build a homestead.
Victoria or Bust !!!!

Blogger Tiny Tim June 02, 2015 2:09 PM  

Homosexuality is a slide into depravity and indicates the moral bankruptcy of the individual.

This is why so many homosexuals prey on the young and vulnerable.

Their soul is compromised... beware.

Now we have the environmentally induced gender confusion which is no fault of the child and is a crime against humanity.

Anonymous ??? June 02, 2015 2:11 PM  

There have been lesbian activists caught on camera saying gay marriage is the path to polygamy.

Why do they care? How do lesbians benefit from polygamy?

Blogger Tom Kratman June 02, 2015 2:13 PM  

"acceptance/normalization of homosexuality via government force"

Think here: The Military Chaplaincy. That's where the federal government is going to first order performance of a gay marriage ceremony over religious objections. Just as dentists were ordered to treat patients with AIDS, 30 or so years ago, chaplains are _going_ to be ordered to marry gays. I think that will happen within two years. The Catholics will be able to say "pound sand" because the Church is big enough, deep enough, and conservative enough to take care of them. (Though some liberal priest may go along with it.) Not so the Islamic chaplains, of which there are a few, or most of the protestants, especially those with families and from smaller denominations. Most of the prods will look at their kids, contemplate their principles, contemplate their kids going hungry,. and knuckle under.

Anonymous Ain June 02, 2015 2:25 PM  

njartist: Neither my eyes nor my brain could focus once I was subconsciously aware the writer was dissembling: it is a strange phenomenon that I have had since I was a youngster.

I have the same thing. It's as if my brain doesn't want to inhale garbage.

Anonymous Heh June 02, 2015 2:39 PM  

"Not so the Islamic chaplains"

All they have to worry about is being beheaded.

Anonymous BGS June 02, 2015 2:43 PM  

Why do they care? How do lesbians benefit from polygamy?

Some think they will have a tribe of wives all getting along, others probably just want to watch the world burn.

Blogger Jourdan June 02, 2015 2:49 PM  

@ Tom Kratman

I don't see how we lose in that scenario.

USG is further unmasked as a revolutionary force that no longer protects the God-given rights of Americans and thus, as Jefferson advised, should be altered or abolished in favor of one that does; and

The mohamendan "chaplains" go bye-bye.

That, sir, is a two-fer.

Anonymous RedJack #22 June 02, 2015 2:50 PM  

If it was just "their" children and grandchildren, I wouldn't care. But it is mine also.

But the long march is just really starting.

Blogger ChicagoRefugee June 02, 2015 3:01 PM  

I'll just leave this here for Stilicho and anyone else who wants to hear one of the Chosen explain "Why is Judaism dangerous?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19F0xgkJnaQ

(Sorry for my lack of HTML-fu.)

Blogger Stilicho #0066 June 02, 2015 3:25 PM  

@chicagorefugee, that does sum up the self image of the leftist, SJW Jewish activists we see in America. I did enjoy the Jewstafarian music though.

In the end, these types rely heavily on the normal, decent members of the Tribe to circle the wagons and protect them (who then wonder why they get tarred with the same brush).

Blogger JaimeInTexas June 02, 2015 3:25 PM  

wow. A quote of R.L. Dabney.

love this site.

Anonymous FP June 02, 2015 3:29 PM  

Heh.

http://www.fivefeetoffury.com/2015/05/26/standing-athwart-history-shouting-f-me-up-the-butt/

"Finally, a word on the oft-heard claim that if we recognize same-sex marriages we’ll also have to marry siblings, and groups of a hundred and three, and adults to children, and humans to invertebrates, and so on."

Someone tell Steorts and the rest at NR about the new "cotton ceiling" theory. I'm sure we'll get a few years of them whinging about how they're not transphobic and then rabidly defend transsexuals demanding people sleep with them or be labled bigots, because luv, twue luv.

Blogger ChicagoRefugee June 02, 2015 3:38 PM  

Yeah, I'm thinking the borderless atheistic (I think, or is he implying their gods aren't real, but our god is?) ideal that he's describing as "Judaism" might not be the faith followed by, say, Sultan Knish or the Hasidim.

I wonder if he supports #OpenBordersForIsrael? If not, why not?

OpenID simplytimothy June 02, 2015 3:47 PM  

NR Yesterday: "Standing athwart history yelling stop!"
NR Today:" Standing athwart history... "

doing what exactly?

Anonymous Lasher June 02, 2015 4:00 PM  

"It's bitterly amusing to see how a nation-in-decline congratulates itself with every step it descends into Hell and the inevitable dustbin of history."

Vox, you are incorrect that same sex marriage is an indication of a nation in decline and that it "utterly destroys marriage." What it does it utterly destroy the idea that a marital commitment can only be between a man and a women. The institution however goes on. Straights will still marry just as they have for centuries. Men will get on their knees. Families will celebrate. Religious ceremonies will continue bless and consecrate the unions, children will be born into and raised within the marriages, and families will be united.

This does not change. I urge you to reconsider your stand on this issue. Neither you nor your kin will be required to marry anyone of the same sex. You will not be required to a friend who chooses to marry someone of the same sex. You will not be required to attend a same sex marriage.

More importantly, your own marriage will continue, just as it has before.

Blogger D. Lane (#0067) June 02, 2015 4:06 PM  

Lasher - Excellent trolling.

Anonymous Lasher June 02, 2015 4:10 PM  

"Lasher - Excellent trolling"

Lane, I'm not sure what you mean, but I'm pretty sure you wanted to insult me or at least indicate your disagreement with me. But the fact is that everything I wrote is correct. Marriage between straights will continue just as it was before the first gay couple were ever married.

Most important, Vox's marriage will change in no way as a result of same sex marriage.

Blogger VD June 02, 2015 4:13 PM  

But the fact is that everything I wrote is correct. Marriage between straights will continue just as it was before the first gay couple were ever married.

No, it won't. So far, where "gay marriage" has been instituted, normal marriage rates have declined. It cheapens and devalues the public perception of marriage, because "gay marriage" is a parody of the institution.

Blogger VD June 02, 2015 4:15 PM  

Vox, you are incorrect that same sex marriage is an indication of a nation in decline and that it "utterly destroys marriage." What it does it utterly destroy the idea that a marital commitment can only be between a man and a women.

No, it is a reliable indicator. And you just admitted that it destroys the idea of what a marital commitment is. Specifically, it destroys the idea that marriage is sexual exclusivity.

Anonymous Lasher June 02, 2015 4:19 PM  

"No, it won't. So far, where "gay marriage" has been instituted, normal marriage rates have declined. It cheapens and devalues the public perception of marriage, because "gay marriage" is a parody of the institution."

Vox: Here are the stats on one of the states where same sex marriage has been in place the longest,...Massachusetts: http://equalitymatters.org/blog/201311190003

It shows that rates of marriage have not declined. It also shows that divorce rates have not excelarated. However, I think you are right that same sex marriage will devalue marriage....But only for some people. Not for all and not for a majority.

Finally, will you view your marriage differently? I don't think you will.

Blogger D. Lane (#0067) June 02, 2015 4:21 PM  

But the fact is that everything I wrote is correct. Marriage between straights will continue just as it was before the first gay couple were ever married.

Everything you wrote missed the point entirely.

What it does it utterly destroy the idea that a marital commitment can only be between a man and a women.

Redefining marriage and its role in both family and sexual morality. Ergo, the institution of marriage is destroyed.

Straights will still marry just as they have for centuries.

Someone argued otherwise?

Most important, Vox's marriage will change in no way as a result of same sex marriage.

I don't think Vox was expressing concern for his own marriage in the post. I could be wrong, of course. But I doubt it.

Anonymous Lasher June 02, 2015 4:25 PM  

"No, it is a reliable indicator. And you just admitted that it destroys the idea of what a marital commitment is. Specifically, it destroys the idea that marriage is sexual exclusivity."

No, I don't think you have evidence that it is a "reliable indicator" of a nation in decline. It is a reliable indicator that we are a nation in change. But we have been that for many decades, if not always.

And I did not make any statement about "commitment". I made a statement about who can make a formally recognized commitment. But to be clear, I'm saying that what changed is not the substance or form of the commitment, but rather who can make the commitment.

Finally, I've never seen any indication that the idea of sexual exclusivity in marriage is not a part of same sex marriage.

Anonymous Lasher June 02, 2015 4:29 PM  

"Redefining marriage and its role in both family and sexual morality. Ergo, the institution of marriage is destroyed."

Lane, same sex marriages are not necessarily different where families and sexual morality are concerned.

No, you are correct. Vox has not even mentioned his own marriage. I merely pointed out that different sex marriages will not change as a result of same sex marriages, nor will the future of different sex marriages be altered as a result of same sex marriage. I merely use the example of Vox's marriage to point how that despite the institution of same sex marriage, our own straight marriages are not impacted at all.

Blogger Danby June 02, 2015 4:31 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Danby June 02, 2015 4:31 PM  

@Lasher,
What about the world my children live in? What about their marriages?

goddamn faggots

Blogger Danby June 02, 2015 4:33 PM  

Finally, I've never seen any indication that the idea of sexual exclusivity in marriage is not a part of same sex marriage.

Lasher,
You're obviously gay, show me any gay man who has any choice in the matter who is sexually exclusive. I've never met one.

Blogger Danby June 02, 2015 4:39 PM  

Lane, same sex marriages are not necessarily different where families and sexual morality are concerned.

yes, yes they are.
"Necessarily" is a nice weasel word. "It doesn't have to be different, even though it always is. "
But because the relationship is one of mutual exploitation rather than complementarity, it is necessarily different from heterosexual relationships where sexual morality and family are concerned. And that affects everything about it.

It is a categorically different thing despite your bald assertions to the contrary. I do note that you do not argue, merely assert. What is gratuitously asserted may just as gratuitously denied.

Blogger Thordaddy June 02, 2015 4:49 PM  

"What is... Nature rejects a union of self-annihilators!"

"That is oh so correct, mr. thordaddy."

Blogger Harsh June 02, 2015 4:53 PM  

Finally, I've never seen any indication that the idea of sexual exclusivity in marriage is not a part of same sex marriage.

Lying and/or being willfully obtuse will only get you mocked around here.

Blogger Harsh June 02, 2015 4:55 PM  

What it does it utterly destroy the idea that a marital commitment can only be between a man and a women. The institution however goes on.

Bonus points if you can find the logical contradiction in these two sentences.

Anonymous BGS June 02, 2015 4:58 PM  

show me any gay man who has any choice in the matter who is sexually exclusive.

Back when AIDS was a death sentence there might have been a few.

Blogger D. Lane (#0067) June 02, 2015 5:04 PM  

Lane, same sex marriages are not necessarily different where families and sexual morality are concerned.

Bravo on the qualifier attempt. But the abundance of areas where it is "necessarily" different is the entire reason the laws and norms need to be changed to accommodate it.

Try again.

Blogger Corvinus June 02, 2015 5:08 PM  

Back when AIDS was a death sentence there might have been a few.

Still is. The reason AIDS had its heyday in the 1990s was because that's when gay Baby Boomers were going through their (non)reproductive years.

Anonymous Scintan June 02, 2015 5:33 PM  

"Finally, a word on the oft-heard claim that if we recognize same-sex marriages we’ll also have to marry siblings, and groups of a hundred and three, and adults to children, and humans to invertebrates, and so on."

You have to be a liar or an idiot, or both, in order to argue that homosexual marriage does not open the door for incestuous marriages and polygamous marriages. I'm not sure where Jason Lee Steorts falls on that list, but that's sure to change when he tries further defending his indefensible positions.

As for adult/child and adult/animal relationships, that's just a matter of tweaking the consent issue. Animals can neither consent nor refuse, so the mere change to a failure to refuse makes that an easy addition to the list of 'acceptable' marriages. Then, with under aged humans, it's a simple matter of lowering the age of consent.

OpenID rufusdog June 02, 2015 5:58 PM  

From a very proud sodomite.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/02/monogamish-relationships-_n_5255297.html

"never seen any indication" Ha, well done, either epic trolling or just blinding stupidity, either way bravo!

Anonymous Ostar June 02, 2015 6:01 PM  

Lasher

Vox: Here are the stats on one of the states where same sex marriage has been in place the longest,...Massachusetts: http://equalitymatters.org/blog/201311190003

If you want to actually use long-term data on the decline of straight marriages when gay-marriage is allowed, try Europe, and specifically the Netherlands (over 10 years). The decline is significantly noticeable, and gay-marriage advocates are reduced to arguing that the observable decline is not due to gay marriages but something else.

Anonymous Lasher June 02, 2015 6:03 PM  

"Bravo on the qualifier attempt. But the abundance of areas where it is "necessarily" different is the entire reason the laws and norms need to be changed to accommodate it.

Try again."

Lane, no need to try again. There is no difference between straight and gay marriages where families are concerned. Nor sexual morality. I merely put "necessarily" in there because it was implied (or perhaps explicit) there there is a difference.

Your assumptions aside on this issue, this is simply not an issue. Gays can and do adhere to sexual exclusivity in marriages. There is no denying this and I have to family members who are proof..a sister and a cousin.

Blogger D. Lane (#0067) June 02, 2015 6:05 PM  

You have to be a liar or an idiot, or both, in order to argue that homosexual marriage does not open the door for incestuous marriages and polygamous marriages.

For added rhetorical effect: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zp7dRpWIdBo

Krauss' point also falls well within the parameters of Lasher's commentary:

Vox: Here are the stats on one of the states where same sex marriage has been in place the longest,...Massachusetts: http://equalitymatters.org/blog/201311190003

It shows that rates of marriage have not declined. It also shows that divorce rates have not excelarated. However, I think you are right that same sex marriage will devalue marriage....But only for some people. Not for all and not for a majority.


Stated otherwise, there is no substantial material harm inflicted on society by homosexual marriage.

Change the definition of marriage and the nature of the institution and you fundamentally change the moral foundation of the culture. When that foundation is shifted from an objective paradigm to a subjective one, anything goes. This seems to be completely evade gay marriage supporters.

Anonymous Scintan June 02, 2015 6:05 PM  

There is no difference between straight and gay marriages where families are concerned.

That's obviously not true.

Blogger Joe Keenan June 02, 2015 6:05 PM  

Jourdan, I remember when NR ran Sobran and Buchanan out of town of a rail, I still don't understand why. However, it became apparent to me that Buckley was little more than a gutless Catholic. In time I came to see his purpose (and NR's) as creating good little state approved Catholics, I started noticing a move from viewing problems/issues from a historic/moral perspective (as advanced by the Austrian who wrote, Leftism Revisited) to a more economically doctrinaire "conservatism." I often ask "conservatives" what it is they want to conserve, they usually have no reasoned reply. Likewise, NR, what does it want to conserve; nothing I would call conservatism

Anonymous Lasher June 02, 2015 6:06 PM  

"If you want to actually use long-term data on the decline of straight marriages when gay-marriage is allowed, try Europe, and specifically the Netherlands (over 10 years). The decline is significantly noticeable, and gay-marriage advocates are reduced to arguing that the observable decline is not due to gay marriages but something else."

Since we are talking about the United States, I thought it a good Idea to use the United States as the example. And there is no indication that what Vox said will result has resulted.

Marriage rates have been in decline long before there was any gay marriage. And if they stay in decline, it will be for reasons that have nothing to do with gay marriage since gays marrying have no impact whatsoever on whether a couple of straight people want to get married.

Blogger D. Lane (#0067) June 02, 2015 6:12 PM  

There is no difference between straight and gay marriages where families are concerned.

From the Federalist:

Same-sex marriage and parenting withholds either a mother or father from a child while telling him or her that it doesn’t matter. That it’s all the same. But it’s not. A lot of us, a lot of your kids, are hurting. My father’s absence created a huge hole in me, and I ached every day for a dad. I loved my mom’s partner, but another mom could never have replaced the father I lost.

I grew up surrounded by women who said they didn’t need or want a man. Yet, as a little girl, I so desperately wanted a daddy. It is a strange and confusing thing to walk around with this deep-down unquenchable ache for a father, for a man, in a community that says that men are unnecessary. There were times I felt so angry with my dad for not being there for me, and then times I felt angry with myself for even wanting a father to begin with. There are parts of me that still grieve over that loss today.


If there is no difference, how is it possible that the child raised within a successful homosexual relationship laments the very nature of her family?

Blogger VD June 02, 2015 6:17 PM  

Lane, same sex marriages are not necessarily different where families and sexual morality are concerned.

They are OBSERVABLY different. Very few homosexuals practice sexual exclusivity. Their "marriages" are parodies of the real thing.

Blogger Danby June 02, 2015 6:18 PM  

More gratuitous assertions from Lasher;
There is no difference between straight and gay marriages where families are concerned. Nor sexual morality. (repeat)

Gays can and do adhere to sexual exclusivity in marriages. There is no denying this and I have to family members who are proof..a sister and a cousin.
Ah, finally, Lasher provides a single data point,his "sister and a cousin."
A lesbian sister and, let me guess, a lesbian cousin?
So you see where the breakdown is here?
Gay and lesbian people are completely different in every conceivable aspect of their social lives. Every single one.

So, you're an idiot who doesn't understand category errors, keeps repeating baseless assertions without bothering to back them up and are obviously gay.

Shut up Tad.

OpenID simplytimothy June 02, 2015 6:20 PM  

And if they stay in decline, it will be for reasons that have nothing to do with gay marriage since gays marrying have no impact whatsoever on whether a couple of straight people want to get married.

Let me expand on your take.

"Everything was going to hell before same-sex mirage and it will go to hell after same-sex mirage. Next will be pederasty and temple prostitutes, but hey! there is nothing to see here, nothing whatsoever underlying this change. Its perfectly normal and nothing to be worried about. We should embrace this free-fall,,er,,progress."

No thanks.



Anonymous DNW June 02, 2015 6:43 PM  

When did we became morally expected to take a public interest as citizens, (much less to affirm) someone else's "committed [romantic] relationships"?

The historical marriage contract was not a validation of the subjects' emotions in undertaking such a union. Rather, it was generally putting everyone, including the parties themselves, on public and legal notice as to the contractual responsibilities the parties undertook relative to the usual consequences and expectations of such a union - reproduction, child rearing, and sexual exclusivity.

However, as "society" becomes so degraded that "it" is expected to be unconditionally supportive and nonjudgmental, and the marriage contract may be abrogated "no fault" and at will, then, the whole notion of marriage as a respect-worthy contract becomes ludicrous anyway. Marriage then, devolves into a drama wherein two or more narcissist twits celebrate the specialness of themselves celebrating themselves - so long that is, as it holds some continued fascination for them.

Anonymous DNW June 02, 2015 6:48 PM  

So, Joe Frick and Sam Frack want to "marry"? What is it about such a "relationship" that even rises to the level of a public's interest in affirming, or littering, the legal system with such nonsense?

The fallout should they part? Let them deal with each other over the distribution of the silver plate and the cats, once they tire of their "relationship". Let the criminal courts then take the matter up only if necessary. Their arrangement is not anything anyone not-them, should [in the moral imperative sense] care about in the least. A contract to deliver twenty tons of oats at x price has more positive public significance than a gay marriage.

"Civil marriage was instituted, let us concede, to safeguard the interests of children ..."

That particular spin is of course is horsesh*t.

Marriage was meant to safeguard the interests of the parties to the contract and natural union, as regards the real identity of their offspring, and their expectation of sexual exclusivity; and to safeguard the interest of the rest of society - i.e., those who might have to come into contact with the particular married - in seeing that these rights duties which the married sought out, were peaceably fulfilled with the least bother to anyone else.

Of course, the attention and esteem seeking feminized creature that is the "progressive", is interested not so much in liberty of action per se, as in the "details of the lives of others" (Rorty), "inclusion", and how he imagines his details compare in terms of the delivery of appetite satisfactions and social esteem. As Marx admitted, regarding their view of "economic needs": those of their mentality don't really know what they want or need with any certainty or predictability, other than that they probably will want whatever it is that you have; if it looks like it might be turned to their advantage somehow.

For better or worse, richer or poorer, till death do us part. And enforced by public law.

As that is now gone, what could be left, other than a claim by a narcissist on the public for the support and affirmation it wrongly feels is its due?

In the old days at least, in order to be validated a marriage had to be consummated. The, peculiar form of "consummation" being one rather significant thing that distinguished the marital contract from a contract to provide other personal or household services.

Yet certainly it would be absurd as well as abhorrent to imagine that the same test could be applied to the so-called union of Mr. Frick and Mr. Frack.

Conceptually, their union resolves down to little more than public theater: a chorus, twittering in excitement over the fact that Frick and Frack have reported to the audience that they are experiencing rapturous feelings of some kind.

Feelings" is the operative, or even magic word. Since there is - absent a possible (but now legally outmoded) parody of a heterosexual conjugal union test - no objective way of determining just what a so called gay marriage is even supposed to effect. Other than to compel you the disinterested party, to make a social investment in the value of what is valueless.

Sometime ago, someone in response to what was certainly a very common thought, made a movie about two heterosexual slackers gaming the gay marriage option. The movie probably was poorly done, and seems to have disappeared down the memory hole. But the point is unavoidable. In a world where marital commitments are purely subjective, not confirm-able, and not legally enforceable in any serious sense, what's the objective difference between a gay marriage [remember no conjugal union test anymore] and a slackers' contract using the same language?

None of any public significance.

Blogger Harsh June 02, 2015 6:49 PM  

Lane, no need to try again. There is no difference between straight and gay marriages where families are concerned.

There are many differences and it doesn't take much effort to dig up the evidence.

Nor sexual morality.

Completely laughably false.

Your assumptions aside on this issue, this is simply not an issue. Gays can and do adhere to sexual exclusivity in marriages.

Again, completely untrue and it doesn't take much effort to find the evidence.

There is no denying this and I have to family members who are proof..a sister and a cousin.

Repeat "there is no denying" to your face turns blue but many will continue to deny it.

And your sister is married to your cousin? What?

Blogger Harsh June 02, 2015 6:52 PM  

Marriage rates have been in decline long before there was any gay marriage. And if they stay in decline, it will be for reasons that have nothing to do with gay marriage since gays marrying have no impact whatsoever on whether a couple of straight people want to get married.

This is laughably inept reasoning.

Blogger Danby June 02, 2015 6:53 PM  

I am so sick of people misconstruing the purpose of the marriage contract.

The civil purpose of marriage is to protect women from exploitation.
We've all seen how eager women are to be taken advantage of a handsome and dominant man. They will abandon their children, destroy their lives, betray any and every person they know, including themselves to get one. They will do these things if they just think that the right man, their personal Mr Goodbar, might be available in the near future. Or they are just running out of time to find him.

Some men, like roosh, will take advantage of this trait in women, extracting exactly what they want and discarding the woman when they tire or she no longer serves their purpose.

The results are devastating to children, to families, and to society, to say nothing of the women themselves.

Marriage is not primarily about the raising of children. By restricting women's choices in sexual partners, marriage protects us and them from their hormone-driven stupidity.

No-one wants to say it because it's derogatory. Indeed, I denounce myself for miso Jenny. But it's true.

Blogger rcocean June 02, 2015 7:02 PM  

Stopped reading National Review after Coulter was fired by the "girley-men" Goldberg and Lowrey This was the last straw after their smearing of Buchanan in 92 and their support for open borders in the last 1990s. Why they just don't merge with Commentary is beyond me. Is their any difference?

Blogger Joe Keenan June 02, 2015 7:26 PM  

rcocean, Perhaps the difference is Commentary in honest in its political leanings, while NR is not?

Blogger Doom June 02, 2015 7:49 PM  

The what? Oh, them. Hmm, just catching up with "conservative" bloggers, for the most part. It's where the astroturf money is. They aren't earning real money, much as with many leftist writers. Bulk billionaire buys and such.

As I ask with many, like Soros, Gingrich, Carter, and others when I hear their names... I keep thinking... aren't they dead already? Babies die and these fucks and orgs just won't cease.

Anonymous Mark Call June 02, 2015 8:05 PM  

RE: Idiocy about Licensed Contractual Sodomy being the "path to polygamy" [sic]

Has ANYBODY that makes that kind of 'argument' ever actually READ Scripture? Or understand Who defines 'marriage' -- and who does NOT?

(Unless, that is, you choose to "serve another master".)

YHVH, the Author of Scripture, repeatedly sanctions, and offers guidelines for a man to have more than one wife. (Each of which is a one-on-one Covenant.) The only 'path' in the Bible is to marriage, which is a form of the Covenant we were supposed to have with Him, but have repeatedly BLOWN. (Arguably, because we won't read what He Wrote, as so many entries above prove.)

A "man lying with a man as with a woman", however, is explicitly, unequivocally, undeniably not only FORBIDDEN, but referred to by the worst possible term: abomination .

When what the Creator calls abomination is confused with a path to anything He sanctions -- somebody is horribly deceived. And it "ain't Him!"

Anonymous BGS June 02, 2015 8:36 PM  

when I hear their names... I keep thinking... aren't they dead already? Babies die and these fucks and orgs just won't cease.

In nice hospitals you hear "he had a guardian angel" in ones with die verse city they say "the devil protects his own"

Blogger Gerry T. Neal June 02, 2015 8:51 PM  

The conservative response to the demand - not merely from homosexuals themselves who are a quite small fraction of the population but from the progressives - for same-sex marriage has been to argue against it on the basis of what it will open the door to. I think that this has been the wrong tactic. Same-sex marriage is not the opening of the door but the revelation that the door has been long open and we have travelled far beyond it. Traditional marriage is a union for life, between a man and a woman, formed by their pledging their troth in solemn and sacred vows. It is more about the taking on of duties and responsibilities than the bestowing of rights. It is not something to be entered into lightly or easily dissolved. The demand for same-sex marriage would never have arisen if we had continued to think of marriage in that way instead of reducing it to a partnership, similar to one entered into for business purposes, but which starts with a big party, comes with thrills in the way of rights and tax benefits, and which either partner can walk away from at any time. Our task ought to be not just the repeal of same-sex "marriage" but the recovery of the older view of marriage and the traditions and laws that supported it.

Blogger James Dixon June 02, 2015 8:59 PM  

> Shut up Tad.

Bingo.

Anonymous JRL June 02, 2015 9:54 PM  

Vox, you are incorrect that same sex marriage is an indication of a nation in decline and that it "utterly destroys marriage." What it does it utterly destroy the idea that a marital commitment can only be between a man and a women.

Exactly - and what it further destroys is the primacy in the popular imagination of a family with a married man and women at the core. "Partnerships" will continue, marriage will become less relevant. There will be more varieties of "partnerships".

Consider a woman who wrote a couple years ago in the NYT:

"And I have never understood the distinction of “primary” partner. Does that imply we have secondary and tertiary partners, too? Can my primary partner be my sister or child or best friend, or does it have to be someone I am having sex with? I have two friends who are sisters who have lived together for 15 years and raised a daughter. Are they not partners because they don’t have sex? And many married couples I know haven’t had sex for years. Are they any less partners?"

It is easy to imagine the rhetoric that will advance that agenda (creative writing by yours truly....cracks fingers....)

Circumstances change and feelings cannot be etched in stone. Sane, rational people understand this. As society advances, we need ways to allow a fuller expression of human emotion and allowing more varied and rich expressions of love. Allowing for the fluid nature of human experience to shape our daily lives is to more fully realize our potential to build caring, interconnected communities.

Hope I hit all the right feelz buttons!

Blogger Cataline Sergius June 02, 2015 10:10 PM  

They are OBSERVABLY different. Very few homosexuals practice sexual exclusivity. Their "marriages" are parodies of the real thing.

Most of the Gay couples I know are monogamous, except for the occasional threesome.

That was an actual quote.

Anonymous Rollo June 02, 2015 10:31 PM  

The only print magazine I subscribe to is Chronicles. They don't waiver, bend or break and have always maintained a traditionalist conservative stance with a few libertarians thrown in. Derbyshire had his first article published there in the last issue.

Anonymous Tom B June 02, 2015 10:33 PM  

THIS!?! FROM THE MAGAZINE THAT PUBLISHED STANLEY KURTZ'S ANALYSIS OF WHAT GAY MARRIAGE DID TO THE NETHERLANDS!?!

Sigh. That which is evil will be called good....

Anonymous Shutup, Tad June 02, 2015 11:28 PM  

@ Danby

Shut up Tad.

Nice work, Danby.

I was going to step in earlier, but I thought "Why am I the only one that recognizes this shit on first contact. It should be obvious by now."

I am not alone.

Shut up, Tad. You loser idiot moron homo dreck.

Blogger SciVo June 03, 2015 1:30 AM  

@BGS: "First off you should always write GLBT, it will trigger every lesbian that reads it, why pass up such an easy slap in the face?"

I like GBLT, since it looks like a sandwich with guacamole (or possibly gruyere).

OpenID docrampage June 03, 2015 1:46 AM  

NR isn't as good as it was in the Derbyshire days (I have to admit: I haven't been back there much since they let him go), but they always had their libertarian-leaners and their culture-compromisers, and they have always had disagreements among their own editors on practically every political issue there is. I don't see this one article as any big change in direction.

Also, the Republicans are not a homogeneous group; they are a political coalition just like the Democrats are. And yes, there are some unsavory members of the coalition: the business interests favoring illegal immigration and crony capitalism, the libertines masquerading as libertarians, the Utopians who think the United States military can bring paradise to earth. But the Republican party also harbors the only significant political forces opposing mass immigration, socialism, cultural destruction, and internationalism. When you condemn "The Republicans", you are hitting not just the ones who oppose your goals, but also a lot of people who are on your side.

And I'm speaking as someone who left the Republican party in disgust when they nominated George Bush II. You don't have to love them, but you should support them as the only thing standing between you and outright takeover by people who think of the SJBs as enlightened thinkers.

Blogger The Overgrown Hobbit June 03, 2015 3:54 AM  

You're confusing NRO with National Review on Dead Tree. You're also confusiong conservatives with SJWs. We conservative can discuss asinine, badly thought-out ideas amongst ourselves without screaming "Heresy! Unclean! Womnyn the torches and the Pitchforks!"

We can do that (conservativies) because of our ability to rip said asinen arguments a new one. I look forward to the many, many Fiskings that this argument will engender.

Or not. The "death of National Review" is not evident by this article, but by how the rest of the NR fold and conservative writers respond.

For what its worth, the argument against "gay marriage" is (or ought to be) 100% secular: "We're from The Left Gay Peoples and we're here to save you!"

:::Gay Peoples::: [looks at the state of black America and the Amerindian reservations] AAAAhhhhh! Run away! Run away!

@Jourdan: Jonah Goldberg. Jay Nordlinger. James Lilkeks. Mark Steyn. All on NRO on dead tree (and clearly I am a traitor to my sex, because I can't think of a single female besides Florence King that I want to read in NR) and all awesome. Still not sure why they ditched Coulter and the Derb, mind you. Inside baseball?

To the ilk: They're pointing their guns in the right direction, no? Do we really need to eat our own?

Blogger JaimeInTexas June 03, 2015 8:38 AM  

Florence King still writting for NRO?

Anonymous Anonymous June 03, 2015 8:46 AM  

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Blogger LP 999/Eliza June 03, 2015 9:02 AM  

I gave up on NR, WSJ, I'm done with neoconning and these absurd distratctions of homosexutlity.

By all means, bring gay marriage. I am marrying my dad, uncle, my um some dress shoes and a legion of men I like. We need the beny's (benefits not sure what on earth those are, homomarriage is more about the system knowing who a gay couple is for elimination not celebration) anyways WE WANT TO KEEP OUR MONEY IN THE FAMILY AND AMONG A LEGION OF RANDOM MEN FOR ANY REASon at all. its all about money!

Recently, Moscow's time was wasted with a failed GLTB thing, it was protested by Russians and got physical. Why?

Pres V Putin brought God back, he wants a Russian people led by Russian men for their women, their kids and they want a future not a bunch of dyscivic whiners that cannot bear children but just screw, run, agitate, whine, spread ILLNESS.

Pres. V Putin should ship everyone of the gays out of his country to a country like ours, postAmericana can marry them.

Afterall, America wants to fail and have lots of Aids with a failed healthcare policy that kills and rations.

I guess I contradicted myself, perhaps the gays can run the country like they do today, the precious purple hand shall reign not be targeted for elimination.

Blogger LP 999/Eliza June 03, 2015 9:04 AM  

Gay marriage is anti patriarchy and a non issue. It will never actually happen.

postamericana ships in the drugs, ships out the children and women for the whoring and molestation.

NR, you have blood on your hands, PERVERTS!

Blogger LP 999/Eliza June 03, 2015 9:14 AM  

Jamie in TexaS; Correct, we must not hurt our own.

OT: as this RAINN nonsense continues I strongly suggest a paypal account is set up to donate to Castalia House.

Enough with these SJWs, the man in the dress - celebrating this nonsense is sick, utterly sick. All distractions. All lies, All sin.

I want everyone to be happy, healthy, wealthy but happiness is not self destruction and marring one self. Happiness is not pervert land. I have always felt like a mini man in my womens body but all it ever was that my deceased brother remains with me in spirit, I'm 100% pain in the ass, emo woman. And at times like any normal woman (poor temper control) I want to pick up a few chairs and hurl them at enemies but I gave up on anger, Disturbed's therapy totally healed me of any anger mgmt matters whatsoever.

Blogger LP 999/Eliza June 03, 2015 9:21 AM  

So its a shame I cannot marry mom too. Well darn, I cannot marry the dead or will I?

Can NR elaborate on my wishing to marry parents, family, shoes, dresses, a legion of men and KEEPING ALL OUR MONEY FOR ourselves? Right, I'm not allowed to marry whom I want to keep our money.

See, all insanity, homo-mar (as in to harm oneself) isn't going to work but they want to be happy with all these pointless legal rights.

Here is how death works; we all die, its sometimes ugly. if the LGTB crowd love so much good luck with the hpi9stal horror show, funeral horror show. LGBT's really want all the drama of both families against them battling and hating them for still being gay, all this ends badly, stupid people.

Blogger LP 999/Eliza June 03, 2015 9:53 AM  

Contradiction; rationed healthcare, how much more money will the postamericana pple be thieved for to pay for all this nonsense. its all utterly distracting and pure theft. taxation and all this unhealthnocare is all theft. No one wants to pay one dime to these distractions and freaks.

Bailing out banks, importing overpriced junk sold expensive and taxing junk while the poor soul producing it is paid 2 cents an hour and works/live in a prison work labor camp, where the NR on this matter? NR worships their boomers, their banker theft while handing us non issues is nothing but a continued insult.

The NR will never survive, what utter fraudsters.

OpenID eidolon1109 June 03, 2015 6:36 PM  

I'm sure Lasher would argue that divorce rates after no-fault divorce rose for unrelated reasons.

I always wonder about people who argue things like "gay marriage won't hurt real marriage": if it observably does, can we reverse it? Are you actually willing to consider getting rid of it if you're wrong about it not having any impact on real marriages, or are you only using that as a cover and you don't actually care? I'm not sure anyone who argues this ever actually cares about whether it's true or not.

Blogger cavalier973 June 03, 2015 11:34 PM  

There are no differences between gay and straight marriages where families are concerned...except, of course that gay marriages can't actually produce children without, perhaps, the assistance of one or more parties outside the marriage. Same-sex couples can't even consummate the marriage by having sexual intercourse. The best they can do is havemutual masturbation sessions.

Blogger automatthew June 03, 2015 11:37 PM  

eidolon1109, Lasher is the banned syphilitic homosexual troll Tad. Ignore him.

Blogger automatthew June 03, 2015 11:39 PM  

"Florence King still writting for NRO?"

Is Florence King still breathing?

Blogger automatthew June 03, 2015 11:42 PM  

"Still not sure why they ditched Coulter and the Derb, mind you."

This is how we know you're a liar.

Blogger automatthew June 03, 2015 11:43 PM  

Shut up scoobius?

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts