Friday, August 6, 2010

Mad Rant: Prop 8 Hypocrisy in the Great Republic

As you may or may not know a judge in California recently ruled that proposition 8 which bans gay "marriage" is unconstitutional. I'm sure the fact that the judge is openly homosexual had nothing to do with it. This whole episode is one California has gone through before. First, gay activists sued the state because they were not allowed to marry. The liberal court found in their favor and said gay "marriage" had to be allowed. The people of California were outraged and passed a law to ban it. The gays went back to court, once again the liberal court said the law was unconstitutional and struck it down. So, in the last presidential election, Californians voted to pass proposition 8 to ban gay "marriage" directly. Now, the court has again ruled in favor of the gay agenda. The issue will now go on to a higher court, which will surely rule in favor of the gay activists (being liberal dominated) and then it will go to the U.S. Supreme Court which effectively means Anthony Kennedy will decide if there will be gay "marriage" in America or not.

Behold the face of republican hypocrisy. This is backed largely by the liberal Democratic Party which, in numerous areas, has been trying even harder as of late to make America less of a republic and more of a democracy. Of course, democracy being favored above all does not seem to apply when the majority decides against the agenda of one of the most loyal voting blocs for the Democrats. When that happens "democracy" suddenly gets thrown out the window and the people have to eat, indeed must choke down, whatever dish the ruling elite wishes to serve them. Popular opinion be damned. What is almost funny about this is the fact that their propaganda machine failed them. Voter returns show that the group which put prop 8 over the mark was the Black community, which votes overwhelmingly Democrat in every election. Their support was taken for granted. Blacks turned out in bigger numbers than ever to vote for Obama and other Democrats but in California they also voted to pass prop 8 and ban gay "marriage". Liberals were stunned and so were quickly forced to toss democracy overboard in this area and depend on the courts to force their wishes on an unwilling public.

What people get up to in their own homes is their business and not mine or the government's. Being a big supporter of private property rights I say anyone should be able to will anything they own to anyone they like and should be able to give "next of kin" status to anyone they like be it family, friend, neighbor or "long time companion". However, I will not tolerate and I will certainly never accept any group re-writing the definition of words and long sacred traditional institutions so they can force acceptance (not tolerance) of their abnormality on everyone else. And I use that word purposely because I have seen, like most people, a number of "gay pride" parades on TV and I would call the behavior on display at such events perverse and degenerate if it was being done by heterosexual and even married heterosexual people. If they want tolerance they are not going about it anywhere near the right way. They have tolerance but they are trying to gain acceptance now and when the public tolerates but will not accept they go to the courts to force the public to accept it regardless of their wishes.

This is, of course, nothing new nor is it unique to America. We saw it when Ireland voted against the new EU constitution and we have seen it on-going in Australia after the people voted to retain their constitutional monarchy. The liberal, revolutionary elites always claim to be "for" the people, for empowering the people, for giving the people a "voice" in government yet that always only seems to apply when they can lie, mislead or indoctrinate the public into doing exactly what they want. It also displays a fundamental flaw in the bedrock republican principle of "popular sovereignty". What is to be done when the will of the people is found to be in opposition to what the courts say is the meaning of the document meant to hold sacrosanct the will of the people? Think about that for a while if you want to give yourself a headache. And this, my friends, is a picture of business as usual in the "Great Republic" which is based on democracy, popular sovereignty and the sanctity of the "will of the people". When the people do not do what they are "supposed" to do it will eventually come down to one old man in a black robe named Anthony Kennedy who will decide the issue. Not the people.

And yet they call me ... The Mad Monarchist.


  1. Of course the "Will of the people" has to be cutnered gaisnt the "Protection of the minority" in "A Democracy".

    Thats the excuse anyway. If the Federal Courts rulw that Californai cannot amend its own Cosntitution to read that marriageis between one man and one woman, neither can nay other State, so Same Sex Marriage will exist in all 50 Syates by Judicial Decree. All the while peopel will bemoan and critisie and attack boththe COurts and the Politicians, but Suggest an Alternative, sya Monarhcy, and htey will swiflty Change back to support of the system.

    The hwol thing is a joke anyway as the trick in a Dmeocrayc is to control the people, and htat is easy in todays world. Even if they protest this descision, by the time the next Celebrity enters Rehab and a Governor in soem STtae has a Sex Scandal it will be forgotten.

    A Policy of Bread and Circuses will keep the Republic for now, till invariabley it all implodes.

  2. i believe you are taking a courageous stand and i congratulate you for it.

    you are proving that America is still a land of free man.

  3. It is worth pointing out that, traditionally speaking, this isn't a "monarchist issue" by any stretch of the historical imagination. An obsession with the public and legislative enforcement of "virtue" is something we might associate with the worst excesses of new Republics, namely the French Revolution, and I cite Lynn Hunt's excellent "Eroticism and the Body Politic: The Family Romance of the French Revolution."

    At no point in California is the Judeo-Christian marriage act being threatened with criminalisation as a quid-pro-quo for the legalisation of same-sex marriage. Shifting attitudes towards marriage have also been accepted by monarchies throughout the age, such as the move towards moral orthodoxy and the sacralisation of marriage as a Christian sacrament by the 12th century European Church in the West. It is also, perhaps, worth noting that as America is a democracy - whatever one might think of that - it is also theoretically possible for it to swing to the Right and bow to ultra- (or imagined) traditionalism when it has a populist foothold - as it did with the introduction of Prop 8 in the first place, or in the case of Prohibition.

    Whilst I don't agree that the issue of Prop 8 or same-sex marriage is a monarchist one, I am obviously aware that it is a religious one for many.

  4. Who ever said it was a "monarchist" issue? If you read this blog for any length of time you will note postings on a number of issues not strictly and only "monarchist" and that I consider monarchy and religion linked. This was a post about the opposite of monarchism -republicanism and the blatant hypocrisy of republics and their devotion to "democracy". And if you think any sort of "imagined traditionalism" as you call it is part of life in California you are fooling yourself. It is one of the most ultra-liberal states in the Union, long dominated by Democrats and liberal Republicans. If you believe marriage has been frequently redefined, fine and dandy but the judgment of homosexual activity is as old as the religion itself and even older going back to the Old Testament. Popular opinion on that may have changed recently but Holy Writ never will. And just as monarchs like Henry VIII or Charles II never changed rules about divorce and marriage even though it would have worked greatly in their favor nor did any homosexual monarchs ever attempt to change the law and the established morals of their countries simply to satisfy their own urges. And, as I pointed out, the gays are doing themselves no favors by their actions. Trends have been favoring them lately anyway but they will only create more opposition to their desires by resorting to the courts to force acceptance of their "lifestyle" on people who object to it.

  5. But this is a trend I have noticed in a Republic. It only preaches that
    it is a democracy and that the will of the Majority shall prevail, when
    the Truth is, Majority Rule is seldom really permitted. People in
    Republics attempt to Dominate others, and split into factions, either in
    the form of Political Parties or special interest groups, and go about
    trying to reshape society according to their particular platform. The end
    goal is to force everyone into society to accept, fund, and operate under
    the premise of their specific beliefs as to what should be done. The
    mentality is the mentality that made me a Monarchist in the First place,
    and that is, the mentality of me being able to use the Power of Populism
    to get my way. The mentality that teaches us that, if I so much as have a
    whim, it is a right, and to deny me my whim is to deny me my rights. The
    mentality that places man at the centre of all things and personal, often
    selfish desires as the centre of all of our focus. Homosexuality is no
    different than anything else in this regard. Homosexual Lobby Groups
    exist and have built for themselves a Powerful network which connects
    them to those who have enough money to shape advertising and media, to
    help shape Public opinion, and have managed to win political contacts
    which gives them the ability to extort Government to bend to their will,
    in order to force their agenda into being. because the Agenda is driven
    by Passion and selfishness, even from those who aren't themselves
    Homosexual but simply believe in it being accepted, this really is a
    battle for empowerment confused as a battle for rights, with one's desires
    being seen as one's rights.

    A republic fosters this belief, and causes a sort of Society of Perpetual
    Revolution, where one changes the Government to suit one's interests by
    force quite often. As the main goal is to get the desired right with no
    consideration for others' feelings, much less tradition, Social order, and
    Rational law, and as there is no sense of Duty except to one's own
    personal and private beliefs, people become all too willing to force
    others into compliance by any means necessary. If the Voters voted
    wrong, then they will go to the Legislators to overturn them, if the
    Legislators won't or can't. They will use the Courts.

    Of course Republicans also seem to have no real sense of History and as a
    result no Patience. This is about Immediate Gratification, so everything
    is kept "In the Moment". Emails are sent to you about the need to act now,
    urgency always stressed, underlined are words to help you feel the need
    is pressing. No one is really looking at the long term, they look only at
    the short term.

    Power Politics is typical in this event, and Conservatives who are
    outraged at this Judicial Activism will do exactly the same thing to get
    their own ends pushed through as thy have the same poor mentality as all
    others. When power rests on We, the People, then there is a tendency to
    see me, and my small group as the people and those who oppose us as alien
    others who need to be crushed, rather than Fellow Citizens, and a
    constant sense of divide and turmoil is the natural result. This is why we
    need an independent, and universally accepted, Sovereign who is not, nor
    has he ever been, elected, and whose power is understood to be his own,
    not of, for, and by the People.

  6. Exactly so. It illustrates what is the ugly truth about modern, liberal society -the elephant in the room so to speak- which is that "the people" have rarely, if ever, actually held power. They shout about it, demand it, agitate for it etc but as this issue shows, when it comes down to it the people have no say even in matters of the most fundamental importance. And the ironic thing is that it's California -they could go on with their massive culture war and propaganda campaign and the people would swallow it willingly. Ten times as many for gay "marriage" now than just a relatively few years ago and most seem resigned to the fact that it *will* happen in any event but they've worked themselves into such a frenzy that they must demand it now -the wishes of the majority be damned. It is the way virtually everything seems to be settled these days in our democratic republic -in a courtroom by an unelected judge with a lifetime appointment.

  7. MPR, it takes no courage (or shouldn't anyway) and it's not the first time I have addressed this issue here. I do find it odd that some of the more traditional, Christian etc blogs that address other moral issues will not go anywhere near this one. Even among fairly conservative traditional people there seems to be a fear of being labeled a "bad guy" if they speak their mind on the gay "marriage" issue or any related topic. As you know, I'm quite used to being called names and I do get a chuckle when someone (this happened the last time this subject came up here) expresses shock that I would be so "intolerant"! I cannot help but laugh looking at my blog and wonder how on earth anyone would expect me to think otherwise.

  8. Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven. - Matthew 19:12

    That's it. It's that simple. Some people can't marry because they were born so (i.e. homosexuals).

    I'm with you that labelling someone as partner is something that is entirely up to an individual (leave government out of it, and live and let live). In fact, I actually asked a campaigner for gay marriage if we basically agreed when I said "It's not marriage, but you get the same legal rights and entitlements". Basically, all marriages would be civil unions, but not all civil unions would be marriages (i.e. the athiests and gays wouldn't marry - that would return to being purely religious). He said no. It's all about discrimination, apparently.

    Unfortunately, that discrimination would appear to flow only one way - a straight pride parade would be laughed at and looked upon as bigoted and homophobic (when it would be nothing of the sort).

    And coming to the actual point - the disregard for the people's vote - there is much that can be said. How many bribes did the EU have to promise in order to get the "correct" result in Ireland? How many courts must this go through? And how, I must ask, can a court declare that a constitution, which can (and ought to be) amendable cannot be amended by popular vote (I presume that to be the only way to achieve it)?

    It is fundamentally idiotic and retarded to declare that an amendment to a constitution must be disqualified because it violates laws. Constitutions do not work that way. They work by defining who has the power to make laws over what, and if it seeks to define something as something, then it is for the courts to enforce that, not strike it down and ignore it.

    Considering how your federal Constitution appears to be constantly torn to shreds though, I can't exactly say I'm surprised.

  9. The gays cry that civil unions do not extend to them having the same rights as marriage. If so I would not be absolutely opposed to them having all of those rights they say are lacking -save for when it comes to children. I still would not "like" it but I am adamant, as I said, that everyone should have absolute right over all that is their own. But that is not finally what this is about, it is about forcing people to accept what a majority find unacceptable even though they might be willing to tolerate it.

    This will have to go to an appeals court and then the Supreme Court. It is a (state) constitutional amendment that is being challenged. The U.S. Supreme Court will ultimately have to decide if it violates the U.S. Constitution which has precedent over all state laws. Which means the final verdict will reach across the entire Union and not just California. It is all very staged.

    This whole issue first got rolling right here in Texas. There had long been a law on the books banning sodomy -which of course could not be enforced but had been passed simply as a way to express moral disaproval. Then a fake violent crime was called in to summon the police to a certain apartment. The police charged in to find two gays 'going at it' proud as you please. As planned they had to be arrested for being caught violating the anti-sodomy law. That is what they wanted so they could appeal the decision to a higher (more liberal) court. It went to the Supreme Court which declared the law unconstitutional and so the next step has been to sue for the right to "marry". Texas, in the next election, passed a constitutional amendment (by a huge majority) to ban gay "marriage" and, moreover, to add a stipulation that such an amendment could not be amended in the future (the first time of which I am aware of that being done). Of course, because of the nature of federal supremacy over states' rights if Prop 8 is found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court the Texas amendment will be nullified as well.

    This has been a contentious issue for some time; that is the issue of judges making policy or what is known as "legislating from the bench". It has long been favored by liberals and opposed by conservatives as it is a way to get liberal policies made law against the wishes of what is still a right-center country. All of which only reaffirms my belief that written constitutions can be fine things but they will never be the 'be all and end all' for me.

  10. On a related note, I find the whole Rights argument silly.

    Mr. Wells quoted Scripture about some not being able to Marry, and referred to Homosexuals as an example. But is it really so that Homosexuals can’t Marry? Do they really lack the same rights as others have I our Society? Not really, for they have the same rights, and the same ability, to wed as anyone else. Any Homosexual man can marry any eligible woman who is over the legal age of consent, just as any Lesbian may marry any Eligible Man. They have exactly the same power to marry as anyone else, so this is not really about granting them a right they have been denied, its about creating a new right, the right to marry the same sex. This new Right would never be able to be limited to Homosexuals because as a Class they don’t really exist, and situatiosn as such we found on “Boston legal” when Denny Crane and Alan Shore descided to get married so that the Terminally ill Denny could leave Alan his worldly possessions without Alan having to pay a massive inheritance Tax would crop up. Neither man was actually Homosexual, but were still able to have a “Gay Marriage”. They didn’t even fake it, and wer eboth notorious womanisers.

    The show may have been fictional but it did Highlight the grim reality of the situation beyidn what I think the Auhtors of the show, Liberals mainly, had in mind, that Homosexual Marriage is not about granting the right to marry to people who don’t have it, its about creating something new to add to the Institution of Marriage.

    Then again, one can argue that Homosexuals still should be classified separately as Heterosexuals, because golly, they were born with an attraction to the same sex. So even though they can legally marry someone of the opposite sex, they are innately attracted to members of the same sex, and this is an unchangeable part of who they are, thus the Marriages aren’t Legitimate. But even this argument fails. Even taking on face Value the claim that Homosexuals are Born Homosexual and that their Sexual Orientation can never be changed, Marriage is a Legal Relationship, not really base don Feelings.

    While it is best to be in Love with who you marry, it is by no means required, and people Marry for all sorts of reasons that have nothing to do with Love. Look at the Fictional Boston Legal example again, and consider how many Arranged Marriages have existed throughout the Centuries, or how many women have Married for money, or to help an Immigrant become a Citesen, or just because they didn’t want ot be Alone. No, Marriage cannot be said to be limited only to Romance, and all fo the above situations, and any host of others you can find, are all just as Valid as Romance, and the Marriage just as Valid Legally.

    Indeed, Homosexuals themselves HAVE Married Opposite Sex Partners. Famously an American Politician, Robert Bauman, a Representative from Maryland, was married and had Four Children, but was discovered to be Homosexual, and having a string of one night Stands, or encounters with Male Prostitutes. He lead this Double life effectively for years until he was Caught in 1980. Some men years and years later reveal they are attracted to other men but never wavered and remain with their wives.

    The idea that Homosexuals can’t Marry is simply nonsensical in light of the above, but still believed ardently.

    Really it’s a question of rather they should be allowed to marry each other, not if they are allowed to marry at all. And with Indulgence, I’ll cover why I don’t think that argument is sound in a moment.

  11. Homosexuals use to refer to their predilections as “Sexual preference”. Nowadays its referred to as Sexual Orientation. The reason is because, some time in the 1990’s it was decided that Homosexuality was not a Choice but an innate, unchangeable attribute to a persons Identity. This was not based on some new Scientific discovery, but much like the original decision in 1973 to remove Homosexuality from the American Psychological Associations list of Mental Illnesses, a move reposted elsewhere later on, it was based on Political Ideals and Philosophical Musings abut the causes of Homosexuality.

    In the past, many homosexuals recognised that past life events helped shape them into who and what they are, or, even if they didn’t know exactly why they were attracted to other men or women, never seemed to think it innate. But people are credulous and will reshape their memories to present beliefs. I know this firsthand because when a woman cheated on me once she immediately rewrote history right in front of me, even changing he story from time to time, to make herself innocent.

    Those behind the whole Stonewall Movement which began in 1970, and was named after the 1969 Stonewall Riots, wanted to link Homosexual struggles in society with the recent and revered Civil Rights Movement. They wanted to borrow from that the great ness and Mythos, the story of an Oppressed Minority not given their rights, being cruelly treated by a Majority who had no valid reason to oppress them. The Civil Rights movement lead to a global trend in thinking which created this Narrative, and we saw it influence how we understood everything else.

    So it was decided that Homosexuals would be the new Black and Homosexuals would struggle for Freedom, Toleration, and Respect in the same way Blacks had. They wanted society to accept them and give them their rights! Being against Homosexuality was just like being a Racist. This argument is still used, in fact. It was a move designed to make them seem at once Heroes and Victims, and which took full advantage of the pre-existing Doctrines created by the Civil Rights movement, which they insisted this paralleled, but suffered because, unlike Race, Homosexuality was all about how one behaved, and thought, and felt. It wasn’t like Race at all really. How do you equate someone being Black, a self evident, obvious feature, and being gay, a feature that can go completely noticed in a crowd unless the Homosexual is flamboyant? I mean, its obviously not the same, but you hear the argument anyway, as if it’s a matter of course and self evidently true that being gay is equivalent to being Black.

    Never mind that Black men can be gay, or black women, its somehow the same sort of thing. Never mind that Homosexuality is wholly defined by a mental and physical behaviour, it’s the same as ones physical, outward appearance. Somehow they are exactly the same.

    Of course, no one challenges that people are Born Black, and its never been a Moral Issue. Even the most ardent of racists never claimed that being Black was a choice, or that being Black was immoral. They may see Blacks as subhuman Animals at worst, or if Human a different sort of Human that should stick to its own kind, but never do they claim that being Black is Immoral. But Homosexuality is a Moral Issue, and it is on largely Moral Grounds that it is opposed.

  12. So, to forge the link in the Chain to make the Struggle for Gay Rights the same as the Civil Rights movements struggle, they came up with the idea that people are born gay, and can’t really help it. No evidence had ever existed that this is true, it was simply a Politically Correct way to make the Homosexual the same as the Black Man. Its something a lot in the Black Community actually find disgusting. Its still used however, and later, armed with the newfound “Truth” that Homosexuality was an inborn trait, it immediately began to spread, especially in the Gay Community, that people are Born Gay and thus they are a Minority group just like Blacks and there Sexual Preference shouldn’t be Challenged. It was at this time the term “Sexual Preference” was dropped, because it highlighted the thought that Homosexuality was a choice.

    Orientation took its place for it was much more Vague and fit the new Dogma that Homosexuality was an inborn Trait.

    Being run mainly by Liberals Academia took this idea and ran with it, and numerous studies came about to prove this link, most never seeing the light of Day because they were fruitless, and several others released prematurely and heralded in the News as proof that Homosexuality was Innate. It was a desired beliefs. And trendy.

    The Gay Gene was once discovered, XQ28, and toted for a few years until finally it was discovered that the Gay Gene actually regulated red blood cells and had nothing to do with Sexuality at all. Even the Liberal BBC admitted this, but not to as much fanfare as the original story got, and to this day some still believe Twin Studies continued to find fewer and fewer correlations between Identical Twins, discovering that less than half shared “Sexual Orientation”.

    Still, the Phrase “Sexual Orientation” Endures to this day as does the idea that Homosexuality is innate and unchangeable. Without this Doctrine, the whole Gay Rights movement collapses. It is presently built on the premise that being Gay is innate, just like Race. If its not, then it falls back to being a Moral Issue, and ever since the “Born that way” trend got started, and given the huge amount of time linking Homosexuality with Race in order to tie it to the Civil Rights Movement, most people, if they ever started believing it to be an Acquired behaviour rather than an innate property, would simply abandon the movement. Moral Objections may not be agreed with, but are much harder to claim as Bigoted, and if Homosexuality is not fixed and immutable, then the whole of the Ideology collapses.

    Which is why they have to treat it as if Homosexuals are a Persecuted Minority who are denied there rights and why they must contend they were born Gay.

    Currently I know of one study that showed Homosexual behaviour in Rams was actually converted to Heterosexuality, but the scientists were forced to apologise after sufficient outrage and the story died. It threatened Gay Rights you see. Only the “Correct” Conclusions will be allowed, and yet they will praise Science for its Quest for Truth most dispassionate. Much like Climate Change.

    Its all a big con game, anyway, and no honest evaluation will be permitted. Its either accept Homosexuality or be a Racist.

  13. The state should just get out of marriage entirely. There should be Marriage, which is a religious union, and not recognized by the state, and civil unions, which would be the legally recognized union of two people, with all the rights and responsibilites thereof. If people want their marriage recognized, they can enter into a civil union at the same time they get married.

  14. Where I live religious marriages are recognized by the state, but, as stated, virtually none of these complaints would arise if everyone had absolute rights over their private property. I'm all for people being able to dispose of their property and name next of kin and pass on in inheritence in any way they wish. If they want to be gay and and treat the other as their husband or wife -fine. I wouldn't approve of it but they do not need my approval and basic tolerance would apply. But, again, this is about forcing acceptance, not tolerance. That will not cease to be a problem no matter what the courts say. For traditional, religious people (be they Christian, Jew, Muslim etc) such a "lifestyle" will never be considered acceptable and no amount of argument or legal dictates will be able to change that. The Bible also says something about the time when men will "call evil good and good evil". Seems upon us.

  15. The idea that only Civil Unions should exist is daft. Marriage is not merley Religious, and I know for a fact that those who want to push Religion out of the State and to keep them Seperate are really afer enforcing a singukar Religion onto everyone else, albeit one the refuse to call a Religion. Lets face it, the Values people hold comes from the innat Philosophical Pirncipels they adhere to, and the basic Philosophy of our existance and its meaning is what a Religion is. It makes no diffeence if this Philosophy is Christianity, Buddhism, or Secular Humanism, it is still a perspective on our existance and ultimatley informs us on how we shoudl see things and interpret the wolrd aroudn us. You can'tseperate Religion from State, you can just force everyone to follow the same Religoon, by which I mean the Same basic tenets of a Philosophical worldview.

    The whole argument that everyone shoudl have Civil Unions and no one shoudl have legally recognised Marriages also makes no sence. Marriage has always existed, and alwsys been communally recognised. Same Sex Marriage has never existed, and srves no purpose other than makign a small ( less than 2%) minority of peopel feel better about themselves. Why disallow the basic unit of the Family and basic building block of all of society just for POolitically correct tosh?

  16. Zarove, you make some interesting points. Still, the Scripture takes all comers - some are born, and some are made to be unable to marry (for whatever reason).

    I was actually thinking about this, and it struck me - homosexuals want to take an institution of prestige (i.e. marriage) and get into it (otherwise that's discrimination). So this begs the question - why not create their own insitution that is purely for homosexuals? I mean, seriously, are they really prepared to concede that only heterosexuals can come up with good ideas?

    Oh how I wish I'd thought of that earlier.

    And Mad Monarchist, it's strange just how inverted everything has become. I always felt that the judiciary enforced constitutions, not remade them. Ultimately though, this could really backfire, when people say "The courts don't listen to us and respect our vote. I think we need to remind them who's boss." That kind of presumptuousness cost monarchies dearly in the past (there is a perception today that monarchs are selfish morons who never respect those beneath them and are otherwise unqualified to rule). The judiciary appears to be making the same mistake.

    It isn't so much legitimising the rule of the people as reminding that doing the right thing by everyone may involve doing things you don't particularly like (hence, the requirement of God's Grace in Christendom. Because of different beliefs elsewhere though, this is far from universal).

  17. Mr. Wells, have you ever heard of Atonal Music? Its a form of Music in which all notes are Equal and none are given Provenance. It was created in the early 20th Century if memory serves in order to further the Philosophical ideal of Total Equality.

    It also amongst the most lifeless and pointless of Music, because all are Equal no part of the Music can really stir you as much as something that is not Atonal.

    The same exists today. The reason Homosexuals want the "Right to marry" is because they want to equate Homosexuality with Heterosexuality. Equality to Modern Philosophy means there is no distinction between objects. This means that men and women are exactly the same. Blacks and whites are exactly the same. Homosexual and Heterosexual is exactly the same, too. In fact, the Modernist wants to push the Ideology of Equality to such an extent that many actually say that Gender Identity is largely the result of Culture and breeding,not Biology,and that there is no Fundamentals distinction between Genders and thus Homosexual and Heterosexual Relationships are just two people who happen to join into a conjugal relationship. This is daft of course, and ignores our Natures, or obvious Biological Features.

    Its also largely sidestepped to give Minority Races and Homosexuals special treatment in the name of Equality, but no one ever said Modernists were consistent and Rational, now did we?

    Homosexual Marriage is pursued for the same reason that other politically correct nonsense is followed, to create a Liberal, Secular Utopia in which all people are finally Equal. Its all rather like "Harrison Bergeron", a nice short story you can read online.

  18. Actually, I saw an article about a week ago about the Swedes - their Green party wants to force on children that the traditional roles of male and female are not actually natural and that everything else is preferable to being traditional.

    It's so stupid as to make you want to laugh. If only the stakes weren't so high.

  19. That proves my point nicely. Jesus said "The Truth will make you Free", but too often we try to create Truth, and thus serve delusion.


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...