Thursday, April 23, 2009

Do Conservatives Oppose 'Marriage Equality'? Yes, and They Must!

Proponents of ‘gay marriage’ say that people–mostly on the Right–who oppose it are against Marriage Equality. Many on the Right deny this because ‘equality’ has become a sacred cow, which is rather hilarious because no society on Earth is more competitive and hierarchical(in a meritocratic way)than the United States. After all, liberals live to succeed in business–be in Hollywood, law, medicine, and high-tech–and making millions or even billions of dollars. Most people in Ivy League schools are liberals–a good number of them Jews–, which means that liberals want to send their kids to the cream-of-the-crop academic institutions. And, liberals love sports where the best of the best dominate and make millions of dollars while janitors and clean up crew working at the stadium make a pittance. Liberals aren’t bothered by the fact that most sports franchises are owned by billionaire Jews who live in giant mansions and own several yachts. So, we are living in a funny kind of society. On the one hand, our society is competitive, and the smartest come out on top. And, the smartest/richest people who own the culture industry hire and market the good looking, the athletic, the witty, and the glamorous so that movie stars make millions while countless schmucks flip hamburgers for their Friday night at the movie.

But, despite the actual nature of our society, equality is our national religion. Perhaps, ‘egalitarianism’ is the better term because equality can mean anything. There’s the concept of equality of opportunity and equality under the law as opposed to equality of outcome or bio-equality of man. Equality of opportunity or protection under the law doesn’t deny the fact that people are different and that equal freedom will lead to different results. In contrast, equality of outcome demands that all people, regardless of their differences, should receive, more or less, the same rewards in life. And, bio-equality of man assumes that all men(and even women) are made of the same stuff and have the same talents(and the only reason for differences among people is social or historical injustice).

In any case, one form of equality violates another form of equality. Equality of opportunity means that smarter and more industrious will rise above the dumb and lazy; it leads to socio-economic inequality. But, equality of outcomes violates the equality of opportunity because the freedom of smarter and more industrious people will have to be curtailed so as to make things ‘fairer’ for the dumb and/or lazy.
But, equality is such a catchy and appealing idea that all sides use the equality excuse. Conservatives say they are for equality in the sense that all people should have equal freedom to be work and succeed in life according to one’s talent and input; since rich people used freedom equally open to all to succeed in life, why shouldn’t they keep their riches? Leftists, in contrast, say they are for equality in the sense that all people should be provided with happiness and necessities of life; why should rich people have so much more than poor people?

But, this is a complex and unpredictable issue because many poor people want equality of freedom and not equality of outcome; they want to rise up using their own freedom or want their kids to do so. And, there are plenty of rich people who are for equality of outcome(at least as a state policy if not in real terms); they wouldn’t really be giving up their riches, power, and/or privilege since the rich and well-educated and their children will be controlling the government and institutions dedicated to making society more ‘fair and equal’.

Anyway, equality has become a secular religion. All sides try to justify their views or position on the basis of equality–one kind or another. So, it’s only natural that the people pushing the gay agenda use the equality argument for ‘gay marriage’. They say gay couples should have equal right to marriage as normal or heterosexual couples do. And, if such is not provided for them, society is evil, wicked, and oppressive.

Of course, equality is not synonymous with sameness. Sameness means that two things are alike. Equality means bestowing equal value to two things which may or may not be alike. For instance, an apple and a rubber ball are not the same, but they can have equal value if both cost $1. But, only a fool would say a rubber ball should be categorized as a food item because its monetary value is equal to that of an apple. They are of equal value but not the same thing.

The problem of marriage equality is more serious because gay marriage is utterly valueless. A rubber ball is good for playing and an apple is good for eating. But, what is ‘gay marriage’ good for? Gays cannot have kids. I know of no child that was born of a man buggering another man or two women grinding their vaginas together. So, homosexuality is not the equal of heterosexuality. A ‘gay family’ is a culturally constructed fantasy as no life can be created by homosexual behavior. Gay people have to engage in heterosexual behavior themselves to create life or they have to adopt children produced by heterosexual unions. So, in a ‘gay family’, the child(though created through heterosexual union) is denied the healthy and normal attentions of a father and mother but instead led to believe that he’s the product of two men buggering one another or two women grinding their pussies together. In other words, ‘gay marriage’ is a pathetic lie. It is not same as real marriage; it is not even equal in value with real marriage. It is a monstrous perversion of the concept of marriage, either for the purpose of undermining the foundations of our civilization so as to bring forth social breakdown whereupon a wholly radical new order will be built (the agenda of the radical left) OR for the purpose of feeling oh-so-morally-hip-and-narcissistic among airheaded liberals who’ve been brainwashed by pop culture and radical professors into thinking it’s uncool and lame to oppose ‘gay marriage’.

Anyway, it’s time for conservatives to stop being afraid of the word ‘equality’. It’s about time conservatives said, "not only is ‘gay marriage’ not equal to real marriage but that the very concept of marriage equality is a stupid idea." Marriage has its own meaning, purpose, values, and design. It is what it is according to its needs, purpose, and meaning. It is a form of human relationship with its own set of rules. Indeed, if we are to expand on the definition of marriage, why not call every relation a form of marriage? Why not call the relationship between employer and employee a marriage? Why not call the relationship between a coach and his players a marriage? Why not call the relationship between a movie director and actor a marriage? After all, ‘marriage’ has been used metaphorically, as in ‘marriage made in hell’, ‘marriage of talents’, etc. Why not turn metaphors into literal meanings? Of course, this will not do because most human relationships simply do NOT qualify as marriage as marriage is defined. ‘Gay marriage’ may resemble marriage more than most kinds of human relationships do. After all, there is sexual attraction between the two partners, and the couple may want to commit to a relationship for life. That part has the trappings of real marriage. But, gay coupling makes no reproductive sense. Gays are sexually screwed up. Their bio-chemistry simply isn’t normal or functional. Their feelings and their physical attributes don’t complement one another. A gay guy with a penis acts like he has a pussy. A lesbian with a pussy acts like she has a dick. Though the vagina was designed by nature to be a hole for the penis in order to create life, two lesbians rub their vaginas together in a funny way. And, gay guys stick their penises into the anuses of other men and squirt sperm into a tunnel filled with shit. In the case of gay men, the sexual act isn’t just funny–as with lesbians–but downright sick and putrid. A guy fuc*ing another guy in the ass is gross.

We should not and cannot impose equality or equal value on things that aren’t the same and aren’t even of equal value. Indeed, contrary to what egalitarians may think, the very concept of equality assumes the existence and necessity for hierarchy. After all, if equality exists in the world, so must inequality–just as darkness and lightness only make sense in relation to the other. For there to be lightness, there has to darkness. We notice lightness as a contrast to darkness, and we notice darkness in contrast to lightness. If darkness was all we knew, we wouldn’t even notice it. If lightness was all we knew, we wouldn’t notice it either. We say some things are of equal value because we are aware of inequalities that exist all around us. We may argue that some inequalities are artificial, constructed, falsely premised, or unjust. But, we must also acknowledge that most inequalities are natural, normal, welcome, beneficial, and not the product of injustice. Some people are smarter than other people. Some animals are faster than other animals. Some animals are stronger than other animals. Some people are stronger than other people. These inequalities are facts and the products of nature. We become aware of equality only because inequality is an overwhelming fact of life and nature. Because so many things and creatures are unequal and different, we take notice when we see things that are equal in form or value. For example, we notice that a tiger is stronger than a cheetah–inequality. But, we may observe that a tiger is roughly of equal strength as the lion. And we may note that the cheetah is faster than a tiger or lion. And we may say that a car going 60 mph is roughly as fast as a cheetah–equal speed. So, we are aware of the concept of equality because it exists in contrast to inequality that we see all around us in nature and human society. We know that Einstein was immeasurably smarter than your average beauty contestant.

Taking notice of equality and forcing equality are two different things. It’s one thing to say it would be nice if all people were equally smart, but an agenda that tries to pretend that all people are of equal intelligence makes no sense. But, radical egalitarians are trying to redefine intelligence. They argue that the concept of intelligence is Eurocentric(funny when some of the smartest people measured by Eurocentric tests are Jews and Asians) and that there are many kinds of intelligence. So, the ability to dribble and dunk a basketball is a kind of intelligence too. So, the ability to be sociable and make friend is also an intelligence. Now, intelligence is involved in everything we do as all skills are partly learned and memorized. But, intelligence, as most people understand it, has to do with logic, memory, and rational thinking of a higher sort, not mere physical talent or likability. Someone who learns to hula hoop very well isn’t exactly a genius. Neither is a person who learns to eat 100 hotdogs in 30 minutes. Such individuals may indeed have used a degree of intelligence to improve their talents, but their feats have less to do with high intelligence than certain physical attributes and sheer will power(and obsessive stupidity).

Anyway, it’s become a very bad habit on the left to force equality on things that are not equal. Equality has become a religion, an ideology. Thus, it goes by the name of ‘egalitarianism’. It’s not simply about taking notice of things that are equal or trying to make social laws equally just for everyone. It’s about forcing equality on things and people that are not equal and can never be equal. It’s about pretending that a dumb person is really just as smart as an intelligent person by coming up with endless social or historical excuses for the dumb person’s failures or by redefining intelligence.

Or, it’s pretending that homosexuality is just as legitimate as heterosexuality. Sane people know that the basic fact of sexuality concerns its reproductive nature. The reason why people feel sexual pleasure is because evolution made sex pleasurable possible so as to encourage members of the species to mate in order to produce offsprings to carry on the DNA. If organisms didn’t feel ‘lust’ and seek pleasure through sex, they wouldn’t engage in sex and would die out as a species. So, the basic feature of sex is its reproductive function. Higher animals such as dogs, apes, and humans have come to appreciate or enjoy sexual pleasure without necessarily engaging in reproductive activity. Dogs will hump legs or furniture. You can see apes masturbating at the zoo. Humans are also known to masturbate and also to engage in sex for the express purpose of pleasure. To be sure, it could be argued that all creatures engage in sex for fun or pleasure rather than to procreate since only humans understand that sex-leads-to-pregnancy-and-new-life. So, when a lion humps a bunch of lionesses, he’s doing it out of sheer horniness, not because he thinks it’s going to lead to birth of lion cubs. Lions and even apes do not understand that sex leads to new life. They go into heat, feel horny, and want pleasure by f___ing. Humans are the ONLY organisms that understands that sex leads to new life, so humans are the ONLY organisms that has sex specifically for the purpose of creating offspring.

Since modern healthcare and abundance of food make it possible for most human offsprings to survive, there’s no need for humans to have lots of sex to have more kids. In primitive societies where only 2 offsprings survive out of 9 or 10, sex serves a truly primary function. In modern society, even if a couple has only two kids, both will live a long life thanks to abundance of food and modern medicine. So, sex is mainly for pleasure for modern humans, especially since they have contraceptive means to prevent pregnancy. For people who are mainly interested in the pleasures of sex and don’t want to have children, marriage isn’t all that important; there’s no great moral need for the partners to get married. They may choose to marry out of love, but whether they do or not has little bearing on rest of society. However, if a couple decides to have sex to create new life, marriage or some kind of strong mutual moral commitment is absolutely necessary because their kids will grow up to become members of society for good or for ill. Humans are not only born but raised and shaped into citizens. This responsibility of shaping babies/children into decent adults must fall on the very people who created the children in the first place. This is a moral necessity, and this is what marriage is all about.

Marriage is not merely a biological concept nor merely a moral concept. It is a bio-moral concept. Marriage can also be understood culturally and spiritually, but those concerns are specific to particular societies. What all societies have in common, however, is the bio-moral aspect of marriage: that is life is created through sex between man and woman and that the people who’ve decided to create that life must be responsible for it. Whether a society is Christian, Jewish, Islamic, or communist, that much can be agreed upon. But, the cultural and spiritual aspects of marriage differ culture to culture. Culture is the product of tradition and customs, so different cultures have different rules for marriage: age of consent, monogamy vs polygamy, rules on divorce, marriage by free choice or by arrangement, etc. And, different religions validate marriage differently; for Jews, rules of marriage concerns the Chosen People and their covenant with God. For Christians, marriage is something sanctified before God. For Asians, marriage is a way of passing down the spirit of ancestors to future generations. So, the cultural(traditional) or religious meaning of marriage is not universally the same around the world. But, the bio-moral element of marriage has been a constant in all peoples and all societies. It was and is understood that a mother must take care of her children and that the father must stick around to protect and provide for the family. Whether we’re talking of primitive, barbaric, or modern society, that much has been true. But, the Left and the gay agenda people are waging war against this concept of marriage.

Though communists came to accept marriage as a social necessity, many on the Left have always been wary and hostile toward marriage because the family has been regarded as an obstacle in the creation of the New Man. This is why the Left wants women to enter the workforce and hand their kids over to daycare centers where kids, from the cradle, will be indoctrinated in leftist ideology. The Left ideally wants kids to be raised by the Big Mother Big Father Nanny state(funded and run by the government) rather than by their own parents who might have ‘reactionary’ tendencies. And, though the Nazis were not as anti-family, they too wanted German parents to hand over their kids as early as possible to state indoctrination. Even so, communist nations came to understand that the state cannot produce life. Only couples can. Also, the state cannot breast-feed and take care of all kids 24/7, so the biological parents had to play a major role. So, the concept of marriage was preserved under communism.

Nevertheless, the Left would like to take control of children as much as possible. Since the Left sees the state as the real intellectual, moral, and cultural guardians of the children, the sanctity of marriage is seen as a mere hindrance. The modern Left doesn’t care if children are born out of wedlock and grow up in single-mother homes. The Left feels that as long as the state is big enough and well-funded enough, the kids can properly be raised by the vast state apparatus. And, even if things don’t work out as the Left promises and the breakdown of marriage leads to social decay(as conservatives warned), the Left doesn’t care because it sees the collapse of the modern capitalist order as an opportunity to bring forth a real radical revolution. Leftists act in utterly bad faith. They offer ideas and programs that are supposed to fix problems. But, if their proposals make problems worse and lead to social ruin, leftists love that too since they have apocalyptic visions of a wholly new society built upon radical ideas.

Anyway, to those who say we are opposed to marriage equality, you are right. We don’t believe that ‘gay marriage’ is equal to real marriage on biological, moral, cultural, or spiritual grounds. We believe that real marriage is the fundamental to the well-being of civilization whereas ‘gay marriage’ doesn’t add anything to society but only takes away. It takes away because if we equate something of real value with something of trivial or no value, the value becomes worthless.
It would be like saying counterfeit money is the same as real money. Even if the introduction of some counterfeit money will not destroy the entire financial system, but the very idea that counterfeit money has equal value as real money undermines the very foundations of the financial system. If counterfeit money has the same value as real money, there’s no reason for any agreement on money. Eventually, the entire financial system is corrupted and leads to collapse.

Just look what happened to the financial system in recent times because lending requirements went out the window. Many people on both the Right and Left said it would be no problem if we dispensed with hierarchical credit-ratings in order for more people to get loans; for several years, it seemed as though the new egalitarian lending policies would have no ill effect, but eventually it led to a massive economic collapse.
Something far graver will happen if we destroy the core meaning and value of marriage. We won’t see the full impact right away, but once a virus enters a system, it has a way of multiplying and corrupting the system from within. That’s how moral corruption spreads through stealth. Sometimes, the corrupt nature of a new idea or value is concealed by its moralistic language; proponents of ‘gay marriage’ say it’s for tolerance, love, understanding, and equality. Though cloaked or draped in moralistic overtones, the core essence of ‘gay marriage’ is moral rot; it equates the dysfunctional sexual behavior of gay people with the healthy, normal, and productive sexual behavior of straight people. (Another way to spread moral rot is to hitch it onto coolness. Why do kids start smoking and using other drugs? They are told by their peers–and by popular culture–that it’s hip and cool to do so, and so they become blind to the dangers of drugs; they want to be liked, popular, and ‘with it’ than lame, square, and ‘boring’. So, kids don’t realize how they’re endangering themselves. The Left is promoting the gay agenda through a combination of moralism and coolness. On the one hand, they are characterizing the gay agenda as a struggle for ‘equality’; but they are also promoting gayness and its allies as cool, hip, ‘with it’, and glamorous. Notice that so many TV shows parade and feature gayness as something funny, wonderful, and cool. Once people come to equate gayness with being cool and hip, they have a harder time opposing the gay agenda lest they come across as lame, square, and ‘boring’, not to mention evil, ‘homophobic’, and discriminatory.)
Similarly, the stupid and retarded idea of making easy loans available to irresponsible people, poor people, illegal aliens, and asshole speculators was cloaked in moralistic language about ‘equality’, ‘progress’, ‘fairness’, and the ‘ownership society’. Evil and moral corruption is most dangerous when they come with a smile and a handshake. Rat poison is more dangerous if made sweet. Communism was all the more dangerous because of its universal moral rhetoric. In the recent financial mess, Wall Street and Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac took worthless mortgages–stinky shit loans–and sealed them inside perfumed and fancy boxes with pictures of Martin Luther King on the sides. Though what were inside the boxes stank to high heaven, the moralistic packaging covered up the rotten odor. Eventually, of course, the rot inside the boxes got so bad that the all the boxes began to blow up.

Similarly, many good decent people have been sold on ‘gay marriage’ because this stinky rotten idea has been packaged in moral language that appeals to the goodwill of many people. If you honestly show people what homosexuality and ‘gay marriage’ are really about, they will reject it as a stupidity and pervesion; but the Left is never that honest or candid; no, they are deceitful, act in bad faith, and think just like Saul Alinsky, the author of Rules for Radicals. Instead, the Left sanitizes gayness and present gay people as saintly; next, it loads ‘gay marriage’ with all the ideals that we espouse–like tolerance, equality, and being cool. So, many people come to think that you must support gay marriage because opposing it means you’re a reactionary beast.

‘Gay marriage’ is counterfeit marriage. We should not allow gay marriage just to be ‘understanding’, ‘tolerant’, and ‘nice’. ‘After all, should we allow counterfeit money lest we offend the feelings of those with counterfeit money? It just won’t do. The values and feelings of normal people who uphold the laws and rules of civilization are infinitely more important that the insipid and overly sensitive feelings of homosexual activists who are trying to bully and force us to accept homosexuality as the equal of normal sexuality just so they can feel good about themselves.

Of course, leftists say it’s all about equality; that it’s not about gays being better than us but being just as good as us. I would counter that though gay people can be as good as straight people in most respects, gayness is not and can never be as good as real sexuality. Indeed, gay sexuality is either funny(among lesbians) or disgusting(among men). What else is two guys fuc*ing each other in the ass if not disgusting? A guy taking a sexual organ designed by nature for the vagina sticking it into the shi*hole of another guy? Is that not disgusting? But, the gay agenda would have us believe that two guys buggering each other is the biological, moral, cultural, and spiritual equivalent of real sexuality. And, if you disagree, you’re said to suffer from a mental malady called ‘homophobia’. The lunatics now run the asylum because Jews are smarter than us and took over the media and academia. Why would Jews do such a thing? That is a topic of discussion for another day.

Anyway, we must not be afraid of being opposed to perverted notions of equality. We are for equality of things of equal value, but we are opposed for coercive equality of things of unequal value. We proudly and adamantly say that real marriage is superior to ‘gay marriage’. We say it loud and clear. If our enemies say we are opposed to ‘marriage equality’, we say DAMN STRAIGHT, PAL! We are opposed to the idea that ‘gay marriage’ is as good as real marriage or that counterfeit money is as good as real money or that African black magic is as good as Western medicine or that Creationism is as good as evolutionary theory. I’m sure that many people who push for ‘gay marriage’, counterfeit money, black magic, or Creationism have good qualities; they may indeed be sincere in their agendas. But, truth cannot be sacrificed just so certain groups can feel good about themselves. Sorry, ‘gay marriage’ doesn’t belong in the pantheon of marriage. Creationism doesn’t belong in the science class. And, Monopoly game money is not the same thing as real money. But, gee, won’t a kid who wants to buy an ice cream cone with Monopoly money feel sad and cry if the ice cream vendor won’t take the fake money? Well, TOO BAD!! Let the kid learn about real money.

It’s because we keep losing sight of values that our society becomes more stupid and ludicrous. Because we cannot accept the fact that some students do better in school in others, we try to come up with ways to show that all students are equal despite the inevitable wide range of academic performances. This is why so many police and fire departments have gotten rid of testing–because whites tend to do better than blacks or Hispanics. This is why we can no longer even tell an American citizen from an illegal alien. Under radical egalitarianism, we must say all things and peoples are of equal value in order to be ‘nice’, ‘progressive’, and whatever.

This is why we are on the verge of thinking that ‘gay marriage’ has equal value as real marriage. Ironically, the people who are most adamantly pushing egalitarianism are the elite–mainly the black, Jewish, and wasp elite. Of course, they do so for different reasons. Though the black elite–intellectuals and thinkers–speak the language of ‘social justice’, they push egalitarianism for a very simple black nationalist reason. Since most blacks lose out academically and economically to other groups, blacks want government laws and programs favoring undeserving blacks in the name of ‘equality’. It’s really in the name of black power, but these clever blacks know how to use ‘progressive’ lingo to cover up what are essentially tribal interests.
Jews push egalitarianism because they are nervous about their success. On the one hand, Jewish moral authority is based on their victimhood and minority status; but, this facade is getting harder to maintain because Jews are the richest and most powerful group in America; as such, people might feel resentful, suspicious, and envious of Jews; in order to cover up or hide their great wealth and power, Jews openly call for egalitarianism to make us feel that they are for the little guy(though they themselves are the big guy); it’s like rich Hollywood making all those movies where poor are good guys and rich people are bad guys; though rich Hollywood makes these movies and takes all the profits, the stupid moviegoers think the rich Hollywood guys are on their side.
As for the Wasp elite, they support egalitarianism for three reasons. One is they’ve really been brainwashed by the Jewish intellectual elite. Second reason is they feel guilt for treatment of blacks in the past and want to make amends. Third reason is they are afraid of Jewish and black power and want to be let off the hook by saying all the politically correct things.

So, we are not necessarily for equality nor against equality. We are for equality of things of equal value, and we are for maintaining hierarchy for things that have different values. Otherwise, why not insist that iron and silver should be of equal value as gold and diamond? We don’t want to discriminate against people who own iron over those who own gold, do we? So, maybe there should be a law saying that a man taking a bar of iron to a jeweler should be paid the same amount as someone who brings a bar of gold. And, what’s with American Idol saying some people sing better? Isn’t it bigoted since American Idol favors blacks and some whites over most whites and Asians? Can’t have that, can we? Why not say all people have the same singing talent and that ‘bad singing’ is actually good singing except that we don’t know it yet because we are badsingophobes?

No comments:

Post a Comment