Friday, 8 February 2013

Sodomizing Family Values

Updated 3rd July 2013

On 5th February 2013, under the Leadership of the Conservative Prime minister David Cameron, the British parliament voted 400 to 175 to sodomize family values.

Just as Marxist-Feminism appeals to a woman's greed and conceit, to dupe her into playing the Trojan-Mare, that is seduced by self pity to stalk upon her very own family, and crash into it like a deranged Kamikaze Valkyrie, to liberate herself, as ‘sacred cow’, from the oppression and sacrificial alter of the house of patriarchy, to the rapture of a State controlled home, or 'victim to survivor', as they would label the pawn ticket to pay for the lawyers, the Social Service wonks, the ‘post-divorce hen-parties’, and ultimately, rent for the Psychiatrists couch, so did David Cameron's New Tory Party, appeal to the Gay infiltrated public sector lobby, by entering headlong into the war against the traditional family. They hid inside a giant wooden gerbil, then, invited by the Gay dominated mainstream media, they crept through the back-passage of the nation's living rooms, under the ramparts of decency, to launch their Gay berserkers upon the none voting, and disenfranchised public. And in the name of 'fairness', they branded the bleeding heart of humanity, using the fire and iron of its own hearth, with the free-to-view flat-screen TV logo: EQUALITY.

Throughout the world, the family is one of the most ubiquitous elements of any spontaneous culture, therefore it is safe to say that it has naturally evolved as part of the human condition. The heterosexual family thus represents a paradigm of stable society. This is why the family attracts the corrosive contempt from power seeking radicals, because they first need to subvert its inherent stability before they can supplant it with their homogenized State controlled 'utopia'.

The State may use Marxist style subversion, as instigated by the Frankfurt School and the Fabian Society, without it being necessarily a Marxist State, but sharing the same totalitarian ambitions to make redundant the democratic process. And what is sauce for the goose, will be sauce for the gander; as the Soviets deployed 'useful idiots' amongst the British population, as a fifth column, so too can our own Bureaucracy, and for the same ends.

The problem faced by a large Bureaucracy with ambitions for imperial feudal control, is that to progress further it has to destroy the checks and balances to its own power, which happens to be our quaint old democratic culture and traditions. In order to supplant the freedom of the voting public with the totalitarian authority of the Bureaucracy, it has to hobble the people's ability to scrutinize. It does this by instigating moral-relativism, which equivocates terms of moral incongruence, thus subverting the very language itself, to the extent that the people are forbidden to tell a hawk from a heron, arse from quim, or ultimately right from wrong. Equivocation will undermine the ability to judge by making things that are traditionally different, to seem equal. The ambivalence of equating heterosexual with homosexual in the right of Gay marriage, causes the natural cognitive dissonance between our sense of fairness and our innate revulsion to sodomy and other sexual perversions. In the ensuing rational flux of an ethically homogenized society, the people maybe inclined to moral panic, and yield their capacity for concerned judgement; thus allowing the State Bureaucracy a free hand to rule every aspect of their existence. There will be no need for democracy, and lamenting its demise will be deemed seditious, indeed, homophobic.

As Orwell puts it in “1984”:

“It had been on the tip of [Winston's] tongue to say ‘Except the proles,’ but he checked himself, not feeling fully certain that this remark was not in some way unorthodox. Syme, however, had divined what he was about to say.

‘The proles are not human beings,’ he said carelessly. ‘By 2050—earlier, probably—all real knowledge of Oldspeak will have disappeared. The whole literature of the past will have been destroyed. Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton, Byron—they’ll exist only in Newspeak versions, not merely changed into something different, but actually changed into something contradictory of what they used to be. Even the literature of the Party will change. Even the slogans will change. How could you have a slogan like “freedom is slavery” when the concept of freedom has been abolished? The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking—not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.’”

The State’s advocacy of perversion gives the Bureaucracy two extra weapons: the use of Sodomites as stalking horses, to surreptitiously deploy the State sponsored subversion; and the use of the concept 'homophobia', as a pejorative term, to act as shield and sword against their critics; making it a criminal act to raise criticism of the ‘new orthodoxies’. The judiciary conspire to be Gay friendly, and yet in the name of equality, where is the reciprocal law of 'heterophobia'? Indeed, now the Sodomites have the law on their side, maybe they will force their critics to wear a ‘rusty brown star’ in public, as shame for their failing of the Gay Gleichschaltung of New Britannia. It's all good to the target driven, and performance chasing, police force, who can up their arrest quotas whilst helping their new ‘Gay victims' onto their allegation enhancement programs. If you want to contrive the crime, ask a policeman.

They beg for the “right to love”, as would the dog beg for the right to lay in a manger. Their lack of marital status did not, and does not, stop them from sodomising each other; hence there is no logical reason for the passing of this bill. The attitude of “why not?”, so often cited, is not a supporting argument, but a tacit confession to the indifference of the imperative of the case, for the pragmatic reality is that no Gays will gain materially from this ‘equality’. Thus a motion passed by members of the parliament, that was neither prominent nor established within the manifesto that got some of them elected, but sneaked in as a vague suggestion on the eleventh hour, cannot be regarded as honest or democratic, and so, from this dubious agenda, we must conclude a nefarious agency is at work.

From Christopher Booker : 5:09PM BST 25 May 2013


It's time we knew the real gay marriage story

Gay marriage dominates the agenda for political, rather than ethical, reasons. Gay people want marriage, so why can't straight couples enter into civil partnerships?

In view of the devastation inflicted on the Tory party by the gay-marriage issue, it is remarkable how little interest has been shown in the story that lies behind David Cameron’s desperation to get a measure – that was not mentioned in his 2010 election manifesto – on to the statute book by no later than June this year.

As I recounted here on February 9, the drive to get same-sex marriage into law was masterminded from 2010 onwards by an alliance between Theresa May, the Conservative Home Secretary, Lynne Featherstone, the Lib Dem equalities minister, and gay pressure groups, led by one called Equal Love. They pushed the issue forward, not in Westminster, but through the Council of Europe, culminating in March last year with a day-long “secret conference” chaired by Miss Featherstone in Strasbourg. With the public excluded for the first time in the Council’s history, it was here that – with the active support of Sir Nicolas Bratza, the British president of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) – a deadline was set for their planned coup of June 2013. If, by this date, “several countries” had managed to put gay marriage into law, Sir Nicolas pledged that his court would then declare same-sex marriage to be a Europe-wide human right. Hence the recent rush for several countries to oblige, including France, where gay marriage has brought thousands of protesters out on to the streets. And hence last Tuesday’s unprecedented revolt in the House of Commons, when 133 Tories voted against their government.

They included Owen Paterson, the only Cabinet minister to vote for all the amendments moved by his parliamentary private secretary, David Burrowes, designed to give protection from intolerance to those opposed to same-sex marriage for reasons of conscience or principle.

An irony of all this was that among the amendments defeated by the Government was one proposing that heterosexuals should be given an equal right to homosexuals to enter into civil partnerships. Originally, in 2010, Theresa May had been all for this, as was Equal Love, which supported a case by eight gay and non-gay couples to be taken to the ECHR. But when the Government checked the financial implications of allowing non-gay couples to enjoy civil partnerships, finding that the resulting tax privileges could cost the Treasury up to £4 billion a year, it ruled that this was a step it couldn’t afford. When it comes to equality, it seems that money takes precedence – and that some people must be considered more equal than others.

The Sodomites, like the Feminists before them, are being openly invited to join the ranks of the State funded ‘victim network’; a collusion that both dupes the subversives, whilst contemporaneously using them as an excuse by the State to enact ever more socially invasive laws. David Cameron's party should be re-christened the ‘New Tory Party’, in recognition of its similarity to New Labour, and their radical cultural Marxism. Liberal Democrat, New Labour, and now New Tory, have betrayed our representative democracy, in exchange for a totalitarian ‘Client State’, that does not reside in any one party, but distributes itself strategically throughout the public sector, like an all consuming cancer. The many heads of the Client State Leviathan sniff out all that is good and loved, it follows the paths of society’s vital fluids, then corrupts them through its emissaries of fear and propaganda. Inventing, and then stalking behind, every contrived victim, themselves paid large and revocable bounties, as inducement to their indentured compliance. In the absence of distinguishable party politics, democracy becomes a TV whodunnit: nobbled by a mercenary media, voters become jurors, in which they enthusiastically pass judgment upon their own subjugation, in the ultimate audience participation of mass political suicide.

Such wholesale subversion requires the complete reappraisal and reversal of all that makes a nation State, from its past, present, and future. Indeed, the concept of ‘nation State’ itself, is being superseded, as we see the ‘Mother of all Parliaments’, on a leash held by the Politburo of the EUSSR, become the dog wagged by its own tail. For, inevitably, when you create a Client State out of an ever burgeoning public sector Bureaucracy, the centre of gravity of the political power must shift along the axis towards the administrative executives of that parliament; and it becomes the Bureaucracy itself that ‘votes’ for the laws which govern the people, and not their elected representatives. So by filling the management positions of the bureaucratic machine with Feminists and Sodomites, who have openly no vested interest in the heterosexual family or of our indigenous culture, then the traditions inherent in a naturally evolved heterosexual society, will gradually become sidelined, possibly even outlawed. And bearing in mind that evolution is a very strict protocol, in that it eliminates most of its mistakes in situ, it will thus leave behind only the most stubborn of survivors. Hence, for the new Bureaucracy to survive against the cussed regressions of nature, especially the reactionary convulsions from the raping of the Nation’s families, it too must be equally strict, indeed, totalitarian.

After the traditional family is completely deposed, voided of its cultural significance, what then of the people themselves? Are we and our natural indigenous culture, also to be crushed under the wheels of the State Juggernaut? Will our Democracy devolve into: “Government by the Bureaucracy, for the Bureaucracy”? And when democracy becomes redundant in one modern nation, will the globalization of customs, ultimately lead to the coalescence of all the national bureaucratic agencies, to form a single totalitarian ‘World State’?

Once upon a time, the German people were promised great things, in exchange for their Democracy. And for a while, it seemed they world get what they hoped for, if it were not for the extreme prejudice of a small democratic nation. Today, most Germans are publically embarrassed by their history; and if they don’t show any form of contrition for that period, others would be justified in admonishing them. But equally it would be as churlish to condemn all present Germans for the history of some of their countrymen. And it would be an outrage to pass laws specifically to curtail modern Germans based upon the acts of their ancestors. Yet it is not unreasonable to oppose behaviour that others see as instrumental to social disaster. We the people are generally sentient, and we expect others to be so. We should not tolerate inconsistency in ethics or morality, but these tendentious edicts derived from ‘social equality’, surely must apply only to equals, such as those who have vested interests in the preservation of their respective cultures. But radicals and agents of subversion, lack the credentials to engage in moral discourse, for they have nothing to lose, and so bring nothing to the negotiations. Now the Germans and the English, for example, differ in the scheme of identity politics, purely from their respective cultures; other than that, they are sociologically equals, for they each have a culture to maintain; thus they can negotiate ethically via their political differences. Whereas homosexuals and heterosexuals are sociologically different, therefore they do not share the same moral space; hence it would be inappropriate for either party to be forced into the same political space through the application of State law. That is, national difference is cultural, whereas sexual difference is biological; the former is to be addressed in politics and law, but the latter should be left to the natural individual, and the evolutionary emotions they were born with: “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”.

And what are these Gay persons that so need the rights to act as heterosexuals, but without their duties and family responsibilities? And why do the Sodomites demand 'equality' with the very social paradigms that so disgusted them in their ‘victimized past’, by virtue of what they saw as rank heterosexual family oriented traditionalism?

A hat-tip to Henry Makow for putting us straight regarding what is happening in Gay America:

Imagine that an organism is sick. Imagine that the sick cells convince the organism that they were healthy, and in fact, the healthy cells are sick. The gullible organism would just get sicker and sicker.

This is the relationship between society and homosexuals today. Gays argue that same-sex behavior is no different than being left-handed. On the other hand, they say heterosexual behavior is not natural, but socially conditioned and "oppressive." Heterosexual society and family are taking heavy casualties. Our stupid, opportunistic and craven leaders have betrayed us. We don't even know we are at war.

Let's decide whom, in fact, is sick. Let's look at gay behavior as defined by two gays, Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen Ph.D., authors of "After the Ball: How America will Conquer its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90's"(1989).

In Chapter Six, they outline "ten categories of misbehavior," drawn from their own experiences, wide reading and thousands of hours of conversation with hundreds of other gays. Their contention is that the male gay lifestyle, (not gay sexuality mind you), "is the pits." They want gays to improve their image by addressing "what is wrong with a lot of gays." (276)

What follows are some highlights. As you read this, ask yourself if there is another human community, including the Mafia that could make these generalizations about itself. Ask yourself if we haven't caught this disease, or at least the sniffles.

  • The authors say "a surprisingly high percentage" of pathological liars and con men are gay. This results from a natural habit of self-concealment, and leads to a stubborn self-deception about one's own gayness and its implication.

  • They say gays tend to reject all forms of morality and value judgments. Gay morality boils down to "I can do whatever I want and you can go to perdition. (If it feels good, I'll do it!)" If a gay feels like seducing a trusted friend's lover, he'll do it, justifying it as an act of "sexual freedom" and the friend be damned.

  • They say gays suffer from a "narcissistic" personality disorder and give this clinical description: "pathological self absorption, a need for constant attention and admiration, lack of empathy or concern for others, quickly bored, shallow, interested in fads, seductive, overemphasis on appearance, superficially charming, promiscuous, exploitative, preoccupied with remaining youthful, relationships alternate between over idealization and devaluation."

  • As an example of this narcissism, the authors say "a very sizable proportion of gay men" who have been diagnosed HIV positive continue to have unprotected sex.

  • They say the majority of gays are extremely promiscuous and self-indulgent. They must continuously up the ante to achieve arousal. This begins with alcohol and drugs and includes such "forbidden" aspects of sex as wallowing in filth (fetishism and coprophilia) and sadomasochism, which involves violence.

  • They say many gays indulge in sex in public bathrooms and think it is antigay harassment when it is stopped. Many think they have a right to importune straight males, including children.

  • Many gays are "single minded sexual predators" fixated on youth and physical beauty alone. When it comes to the old or ugly, gays are "the real queer bashers." Disillusioned themselves, they are cynical about love.

  • "Relationships between gay men don't usually last very long." They quickly tire of their partners and fall victim to temptation. The "cheating ratio of 'married' gay males, given enough time, approaches 100%."

  • Even friendships are based on the sexual test and hard to sustain. Unattractive gay men find it nearly impossible to find a friend, let alone a lover.

  • The authors say gays tend to deny reality in various ways: wishful thinking, paranoia, illogic, emotionalism and embracing crackpot ideas.

Is there any doubt that this behavior is sick? Obviously this is not true of all homosexuals. I feel no malice toward gays. I feel the same way about people who have the flu. I want them to get better and I don't want it to spread.

Unfortunately, even the authors of this book are deceiving themselves. They claim that it is the gay lifestyle and NOT gay sexuality that is "the pits." Who are they kidding? The two are inseparable.

The authors of this book are public relations experts who believe that "our problem is fundamentally one of bad image with straights."

The book details "a comprehensive public-relations campaign that should go a long way towards sanitizing our very unsanitary image:"

"Desensitization": flooding straight America with advertising presenting gays in the "least offensive manner possible."

"Jamming": Advertising that equates fear of gays with hatred of Jews, Blacks and women.

"Conversion": Presenting images of gays that look like regular folks. "The image must be the icon of normality."

They say "it makes no difference that the ads are lies" because "we are using them to...counter negative stereotypes that are every bit as much lies."

This book was written in 1989 and obviously a campaign similar to this has taken effect. Read what the authors say about it:

"By Conversion, we mean something far more profoundly threatening to the American Way of Life [than subversion]... We mean conversion of the average American's emotions, mind, and will, through a planned psychological attack, in the form of propaganda fed to the nation via the media. We mean... to turn their hatred into warm regard whether they like it or not." (153)

Thus gays want Americans to learn that something they naturally and justifiably regard as sick, is in fact healthy. Thus Americans will be defenseless to resist their overtures whether in parks, barracks, bathrooms or classrooms.

It is a measure of the authors' cynicism and self-deception that THEY quote psychologist M. Scott Peck, who in "People of the Lie" characterizes people who suffer from extreme or "malignant" narcissism simply as "evil."

Evil people, Peck says, have "an unshakable will to be right and will not consider the possibility that they are wrong...Their main weapon, interestingly enough is the lie with which they distort reality to look good to themselves, and to confuse others." (297)

The publicity surrounding gay marriage doesn't reflect the reality. Gays don't want to marry. In Canada, gay marriage has been legal for more than a year yet only one in one thousand marriages are homosexual. Gays and lesbians make up about 40 out of 1000 population.

Gay marriage is really designed to make heterosexuals see homosexual behavior as the new normal. They could have designated a separate but equal status for the homosexuals who want marriage.

Gays can continue to fool themselves. But let us stop. Their behavior is sick. And it's contagious.”

Meanwhile here in Blighty, consider for example how the perennial family favourite, Dr Who, has been sodomised in recent times to become a veritable Marxist-Feminist-GayFest of interplanetary Queendom, in the vast inter-galactic emptiness of Brokeback Universe.

And I cannot help but wonder whether the State’s use of Ritalin upon prepubescent and adolescent children, of which on estimate there are presently about a million boys being prescribed the cocaine like drug, in conjunction with Gay-friendly sex education, is some kind of bizarre dystopian 'pharma-eugenics programme’ to make more Sodomites, and thus reduce the population, along with its culture. Oops, did I just think that out loud? Maybe I'll be sent to the correction Gulags, where I'll be presented with circular and elliptical food bowls... choices, choices, and you don’t get to eat until you choose the politically correct one.

We must also be alert to the corruption of truth by the counterfeit of political correctness. For example, it is all but illegal to equate homosexuality with paedophilia; yet the scandal in the Catholic Church was brought about by the turning of a blind eye to the problem of homosexuals entering the same sex clerical orders as a refuge from the heterosexual society at large. According to Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the majority of the discovered instances of paedophilia were homosexual, Priests on boys, and Nuns on girls. This observation was, and is, condemned by the politically corrected press, who are part of the conspiracy to supplant the traditional word ‘pederasty’ with the modern invention of ‘paedophilia’.

Now imagine if Gays had State power to act in secrecy, and with the total authority of law… as do the Social Services. Indeed, I believe that the present brouhaha regarding the criminality of viewing images of pederasty, is a result of the powers that be, protecting their homosexual clientèle from appearing to all and sundry as the main perpetrators. The cover up is akin to Stalin airbrushing out the official photos of himself next to 'purged traitors', but with the added security of prohibiting the witnesses.

Back to Gay marriage; where there are legal rights, there are also legal licences, the tool which allows the State to control our lives via penalty of forfeit. Further, by diluting the cultural meaning of 'marriage', people are less likely to challenge its demise, such as allowing the secret family courts to thrive; and turning a blind eye to the piecemeal dismantling of families by the Social Services, which, as mentioned above, are overly populated with Feminist and Sodomite management teams, that have themselves next to no vested interest in the survival of the heterosexual family. By juxtaposing the rights of Gays, with the cultural principles of the traditional family, a pantomime is made of the social significance of marriage; thus allowing the virtues of family culture to be sodomised by 'giving the dog a bad name', so that you can hang it in a gay and carefree manner.

It's also lucrative for the agents of the Bureaucracy, especially the pro-Gay Social Services, who through targeted funding, are apt to promote fostering rights to Gay couples as a political and economic priority. This is tantamount to State sponsored baby snatching. What heterosexual family is safe from this Kafkaesque nightmare when faced with the full violence of the law, under the jurisdiction of the secret family courts, enabled by an ethically bankrupt parliament, presiding over a morally paralysed democracy.

Orwell “1984”: “One of these days, thought Winston with sudden deep conviction, Syme will be vaporized. He is too intelligent. He sees too clearly and speaks too plainly. The Party does not like such people. One day he will disappear. It is written in his face.”

Nancy Schaefer was killed in 2010 by her husband, who also killed himself, possibly because of family debts and the general stress of long term campaigning on very emotional issues relating to broken families. Though some believe she was 'vaporized' for saying this:

The commitment to marriage vows has become ever more dilute and diffuse, etiolated by the 'caring State' and its policies of inclusivity, to oppose the very discrimination which the natural symbiotic relationship between heterosexual man and woman is based upon. The more inclusive marriage becomes, the less distinguished its evolved biological function becomes, to the point where the union is mostly between un-husband and un-wife; with the focus on the future divorce, to finally consummate the ideally childless un-family.

The Bureaucracy has no human empathy, as it has no inherent means to generate natural life, for it has repealed the necessary evolutionary condition of symbiotic diversity inherent in heterosexuality, by its insistence of equality between the genders and pseudo-genders. Through the Social Services, it fosters the semblance of humanity, like the cuckoo dupes the host with its own perverted substitution; and whilst gaining complete control over the family, that it secretly holds in contempt, the Bureaucracy supplants life itself, so that it becomes the un-life of a sympathetic counterfeit.

To live is to both love and to hate. To do these things we have evolved to feel and know the real world, so that we may differentiate between the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ of living in it, without recourse to State sponsored indoctrination, whose orthodoxies aim to proscribe and prescribe our living thoughts, thus displacing our personal beliefs with that of the State’s.

Give the State the power to control our beliefs through the Gleichschaltung of political correctness, and you begin the inevitable dismantling of the Democracy. After all, would you expect the State Bureaucracy to contradict its own power? Once laws are passed to control the choices of 'correct thought’, then any Democracy will devolve towards a totalitarian State, since true democracy requires complete freedom of thought, including the right to have unorthodox beliefs. It is the purpose of democratic law to preserve us from the acts of imposition upon each other, not to dictate our living thoughts.

As our freedom of belief is a safeguard to democracy, so the meaning of words helps us distinguish right from wrong, and thus ensure the meaning of our beliefs. The aim of the equivocator is to undermine that ‘meaning’ through the confounding of certainty and distinction, in the hope of removing the associated passion of our beliefs; either because the State fears the human condition, especially its power of defensive hate, or because heterosexual love marks the emptiness of the androgynous Gay ‘life choice’. Removing our beliefs, removes our passion to oppose a totalitarian State. Gay marriage has little to do with empowering Sodomites, who are simply being implemented as ‘useful idiots’, its function is primarily to dismantle our Democracy.

In summary, ‘Gay marriage rights’ will subvert the virtues of a core family tradition, by conflating homosexuality with heterosexuality. The subversion works by making people believe their traditions and beliefs are morally equivalent to the things that disgust them, thus contributing to mass moral paralysis; hence facilitating the aims of the radical State Bureaucracy, to supplant, unopposed, an indigenous culture with its own synthetic utopia. The irony is that the subversion tactics used by radical outsiders, also serve to benefit the ruling incumbents, especially if the latter want to gain ever more totalitarian control; because the checks and balances that stop the self serving State Bureaucracy from totally ruling the Democracy it sprang from, are the traditions of personal liberty. So by allowing the radicals  to take liberties with our living evolved traditions and beliefs, we risk cutting loose the sheet anchor to our culture, that in turn safeguards our Democracy from drifting into the stagnant waters of State Fascism.



ScareCrow said...

One question I have asked many times.

Why is the government getting involved in marriage at all?

I thought that marriage was a religious ceremony - although - I have asked bible scholars - and they say there is no actual ceremony depicted in the bible.

There were rules - but no contracts, no ceremony etc...

Now, the churches are starting to realize that they never controlled marriage to begin with...

I wonder what will happen next...

JimmyGiro said...

Hiya ScareCrow,

Around the time of the Norman Empire, the church gained status through its allegiance with the State, and the State was aided by the administrative abilities and spiritual influence over the people. So a stabilizing symbiosis was established in the 'Feudal' system.

I imagine that the Church had to accommodate itself between State power, and 'local customs', such that it became the arbitrator of all life, both spiritual and mundane [the feudal system was pure fascism, but unfortunately for the Serfs, it was stable].

By the time of the Reformation [Henry VIII], local States [nationalism] competed with the direct control of spiritual and mundane matters, and all symbioses that develop internal competition, must collapse. The State won through, and the feudal system declined, leaving the Church with diminished state power. It therefore had to inveigle itself into the peoples culture, so as to survive as an organization.

After the State divorced itself from the 'checks and balances' of the Roman Church, it had to contend with the people directly, without the Church as 'spiritual and political' buffer. The people and Monarchy themselves competed, and the Age of Enlightenment saw the people win out in control over 'spiritual and mundane' matters.

Our modern 'democracies' are becoming similar to the old feudal system, in that the people are being directed by two systems in symbiosis. The new power structure is the 'Parliament' of the elected, conspiring with the legion of the Bureaucracy. Between them they compose the State authority and the control of cultural conformity. Hence the new 'church' is the Bureaucracy itself, and as soul arbiter over all human things, it will broach no competition with past administrative systems or cultures, thus headlong radical change is the order of the 'new orthodoxy'.

From the peoples point of view, we are being encouraged to leap from 'frying pan into the fire', when we are being asked to support these radical changes.

The only question we are being asked is whether we want our fascism served upon us by the cleric or the clerk?

J said...

Part 1

The issue of same-sex marriage is so contentious because of the failure of society to remember it's primitive anthropological origins.

I see that marriage is a three-way contract between two heterosexual people and a community, and that it serves two primary functions in all primitive societies and one in a modern society.

1. To manage violent sexual rivalry between males who will typically fight each other for exclusive access to sexual relations with females, and

2. To ensure that the burden of providing for children is not off-loaded onto another male or the rest of the tribe by abandonment of the mother.

3. (Modern only) To provide a binding relationship between parents for the purpose of raising healthy, productive members of society.

Sexual rivalry and child rearing problems result in violent conflict and survival stresses within tribes and these two reasons alone make marriage a useful and necessary social construction.

For the functions of marriage above to be effective, marriage must receive the authority and recognition of a community by way of a ceremony, and protection by way of the application of penalties for breaches of the marriage contract through adultery or abandonment. A woman demands that her provider has no other burdens than her own children.

The third reason is best explained by comparing socialised and privately owned assets. The concept of private ownership leaves no doubt as to who is responsible for the costs and benefits of proper maintenance of an asset. In the same way, natural parents are more likely to attend to the needs of their children if they are seen to be solely responsible for their children.

Since morality is a collection of principles that describe good and bad behaviour for the benefit of human groups, marriage is therefore a moral institution that lends stability and cohesion where there would otherwise be conflict and division. And just as religions did not invent morality, neither did they invent the institution of marriage. That, of course, didn't prevent scheming religious inventors hijacking marriage by insinuating God into the institutional reasoning and ceremonial rituals thereby adding superstitious gravitas to the institution and enhancing their political powers by overseeing it.

These days, the basic needs of people are well provided for in first world nations. Contraception and modern medicines allow for much more sexual liberty and safety. And the welfare state picks up much of the cost of raising children abandoned by derelict fathers. Although violent sexual rivalry and child support problems are not completely absent, their respective impact has diminished significantly such that marriage is often not seen as a compelling or appealing option for individuals.

Consumerism reminds us every hour of every day and night to be dissatisfied with what we already have and enjoy, in favour of what is new and for sale. The consumerist culture has expanded from the once simple acquisition of commodities and consumption of consumables and services to now include wholesale modelling of lifestyle. People purchase apartments, holiday homes, education, jobs, holidays, boob jobs, spiritual journeys and Russian children to fulfil lifestyle models that are inspired by fads and sub-cultures and developed and promoted by entertainment media that are perpetually looking for something new to sell to chameleonic demographics.

Marriage is now a consumable lifestyle experience that is purchased as a series of pre-marital and marital accessories - ie dating services, romantic comedies, engagement rings, bridal magazines, wedding dresses, wedding planners, wedding videos, wedding receptions, honeymoon suites, his-and-her towels, anniversary dinners, fertility treatments, paid-for adoption services, child-rearing junk, family pizzas, Father's Day shit, Mother's Day shit, Disney movies. And then you get divorced when you get bored or something better comes along.

So what has all this got to do with homosexual marriage?

J said...

Part 2

It's about the transformation of marriage from being a socially useful institution into a disposable consumer lifestyle experience. And in this transformation, people want to customise the marriage experience to suit their own personal preferences just like they do when they order an iMac or SUV. Hence skydiving, scuba-diving, Star Wars oriented and Las Vegas Elvis nuptials (and same-sex unions).

What is the problem with that?

The problem is one of consumer fantasy coming into conflict with social reality. If the quality of contemporary society is dependent on the quality of its people, then the quality of child-rearing is a significant factor in maintaining a prosperous, civilised society. And children need a cohesive family environment to attend to their needs, protect them from damaging influences and maximise their potential. Of course, some traditional families are so toxic, that children are better off in another arrangement. Not because the traditional family construction is inherentally faulty but because one or more people within the family are destructive. 

By eroding the perception of the institution of marriage as a social model that incubates the development of children, we also erode the system that is supposed to produce society's future adults and in doing so, we erode the quality of our society.

Same-sex marriage, by itself, will not do this. But same-sex marriage, as advocated by heterosexuals in sympathy with homosexual activists, is part of the modern cult of feel-good politics (political correctness) that rejects hard truths because they don't feel good.

And it contributes to the erosion of a once spontaneously forming social system that has existed independently for millenia, in every human community around the globe, through various states of industrial development and during frequent social upheavals.

JimmyGiro said...

Good point about the 'three-way contract', J.