Why "protecting marriage" is retarded

[lucius]

Just because I see a trend doesn't mean I agree it's completely bad...

The ultimate goal is to redefine the family so potentially it could include government minders/more government intervention, not a new idea, old as Plato's Republic.

"Destroy the family and you destroy society." V.I. Lenin

"The nuclear family must be destroyed, and people must find better ways of living together. ...Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process. ...Families have supported oppression by separating people into small, isolated units, unable to join together to fight for common interests." – Linda Gordon, Function of the Family, WOMEN: A Journal of Liberation, Fall, 1969

"In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them. -- Dr. Mary Jo Bane, feminist and assistant professor of education at Wellesley College and associate director of the school's Center for Research on Woman.

...What Huxley wrote, what Hitler used, what Sanger promoted, are not all bad things.

Too rich: gays, fascism and theosophy, starting to sound like the "Pink Swastika" (ISBN: 0964760932).

Utopian Dreams are always psychotic.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

The problem and irony here is that much of the so-called Libertarians defending gay marriage can't admit that they are arguing in favor of more government encroachment. The bottom line is that you are still seeking the governments approval in something that they should not be involved with in the first place. I'm with those that seek the abolishment of this association between marriage and government, are you? You can't move forward if you're working backwards.

Please dispose of your old Newspeak dictionary in the memory hole and make sure to pick the new edition with the updated word "marriage"

Seems to me that the true libertarian would not want to redefine marriage-seeing as it is a religious institution. He would want to keep the government from meddling with it so it can thrive by itself.

Marriage licensing is absolute statism.

 

[Josh_LA]

The ultimate goal is to redefine the family so potentially it could include government minders/more government intervention, not a new idea, old as Plato's Republic.

"Destroy the family and you destroy society." V.I. Lenin

"The nuclear family must be destroyed, and people must find better ways of living together. ...Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process. ...Families have supported oppression by separating people into small, isolated units, unable to join together to fight for common interests." – Linda Gordon, Function of the Family, WOMEN: A Journal of Liberation, Fall, 1969

"In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them. -- Dr. Mary Jo Bane, feminist and assistant professor of education at Wellesley College and associate director of the school's Center for Research on Woman.



Too rich: gays, fascism and theosophy, starting to sound like the "Pink Swastika" (ISBN: 0964760932).

Utopian Dreams are always psychotic.

The Pink Swastika is homophobic propaganda that's made to discredit Hitler and his Christian connections. And whatever the ultimate goal is, what matters more is what a person experiences on his personal level.

 

[Freedom 4 all]

I don't see gay marriage as a violation of freedom of religion as there's nothing illegal about being a homophobe. This is about their rights, not yours and a gay marriage law affects the religious community in no way. There are many very legitimate freedom of religion rights being lost left and right in America for Christians but this isn't one of them. Try taxpayer funded abortion or publicly funded gay schools and argue that you shouldn't have to pay for what you consider a sin. Now if churches were going to be reprimanded for not marrying gays, then I'd agree with you.

 

[lucius]

The Pink Swastika is homophobic propaganda that's made to discredit Hitler and his Christian connections...

Robert Jay Lifton, in his classic text on thought control in totalitarian China, discussed the "thought-terminating cliche" as a tactic to ensure conformity. He spoke of compressing "far-reaching and complex problems" into "brief, highly reductive, definitive-sounding phrases" that prevent real analysis. Homophobia has been reduced to just such a thought-terminating cliche.

By attributing any opposition to their views to homophobia, activists attempt to short-circuit engaging with the arguments. However, given that we do not live in a totalitarian regime, all it achieves is to undermine the effectiveness of the term where there is real anti-gay discrimination. It becomes merely a bullying tactic.

Original sources from up-thread:

Dennis Altman's 'The Homosexualization of America': How the cultural elite "reinvent human nature, reinvent themselves."..."promiscuity and 'impersonal sex' are determined more by social possibilities than by inherent differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals, or even between men and women."

'After the Ball: How America Will Conquer its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 1990's', by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen: the blueprint activists used to implement this campaign using media and vast money to radicalize America-by processes known as desensitization, jamming and conversion.

Robert Jay Lifton's 'Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism': the Chinese are the original masters of desensitization, jamming and conversion, Kirk/Madsen mirror it almost word-for-word.

'Homosexuality: A Freedom Too Far' by Charles W. Socarides, M.D.: interesting/logical Darwinian argument.

All hinges on this Rockefeller funded 'junk science' done by this freak pedophile named Kinsey:

Kinsey's Pedophiles: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2061305218446628970&hl=en

Josh, are you an activist, or just believe?


Source: Breda O'Brien

 

[sidster]

Almost 40% of children were born out of wedlock in 2005 compared to 8% in 1965.

so, what exactly is that saying? That ...

• they had better condoms in 1960s than now?
• people are more fertile now than they were in the 60s?
• less shotgun-marriages lately? (due to stricter gun control laws?)
• more homosexual sex in the 60s vs now?
• a bigoted statement about illegal immigrants now vs then?
• ...

 

[Josh_LA]

so, what exactly is that saying? That ...

• they had better condoms in 1960s than now?
• people are more fertile now than they were in the 60s?
• less shotgun-marriages lately? (due to stricter gun control laws?)
• more homosexual sex in the 60s vs now?
• a bigoted statement about illegal immigrants now vs then?
• ...

more blacks, Hispanics, white trash are taught that abortion is wrong but sex outside of marriage is forgiveable.

 

[Josh_LA]

Robert Jay Lifton, in his classic text on thought control in totalitarian China, discussed the "thought-terminating cliche" as a tactic to ensure conformity. He spoke of compressing "far-reaching and complex problems" into "brief, highly reductive, definitive-sounding phrases" that prevent real analysis. Homophobia has been reduced to just such a thought-terminating cliche.

Ok, I'm not against analysis, in fact, I'm all for it.

I'm not against homophobia, I just don't use it as an excuse to oppose gay marriage, protect traditional family and oppose Hitler's anti-Jewish policies.

If you truly have a problem with gays, fine, I don't care if you have careful analysis, scientific study or just your bigotry because it feels good. There's nothign wrong with hating gays, but why wrap the argument in so complex terms when it's simply a matter of semantics?

Why worry about conspiratorial goals to destroy society when destruction is done on so many other levels?

If we seriously have a problem with treating gays like people, let's treat them like animals and slaves, but don't pretend like they have rights while calling what they can get separate but equal.

I don't care what Rockefeller, NWO, Huxley or Hitler wants to do, I care what matters to ME, yes, I'm a selfish asshole and it's all about me. If I have rights, good, if others don't, f- them. I don't care about gays, but I don't care about defining marriage to make religious idiots happy either.

 

[Josh_LA]

All hinges on this Rockefeller funded 'junk science' done by this freak pedophile named Kinsey:

Ok, so it's wrong to say homophobia but it's ok to say Kinsey is a freak pedophile?

For the record, I have no problem with freaks, pedophiles, fags, or murderers, just as long as they don't harm me. If society or other people decide these people should be pushed into an oven and fried, so be it. I do have a problem with hypocrisy, dishonesty and using reason to justify very basic emotions.

If homosexuality is a freedom too far, LETS CRIMINALIZE IT, don't pretend it's not a crime but keep them in a velvet rope.

 

[Josh_LA]

By attributing any opposition to their views to homophobia, activists attempt to short-circuit engaging with the arguments. However, given that we do not live in a totalitarian regime, all it achieves is to undermine the effectiveness of the term where there is real anti-gay discrimination. It becomes merely a bullying tactic.

So tell me please, how is the intention of the Pink Swastika ANYTHING BUT telling us:

1. Hitler was evil
2. Hitler's buttboys were fags
3. Fags are evil, because Hitler used them
4. Don't blame racism, anti-Semitism, and totalitarianism on Christianity, Nazis were fags

Would the book have been written to glorify Hitler or vindicate gays? Of course not, it was taking advantage of a person's kneejerk reaction.

The book had obvious pre-assumed opposition to both gays and Hitler.

 

[lucius]

so, what exactly is that saying? That ...

• they had better condoms in 1960s than now?
• people are more fertile now than they were in the 60s?
• less shotgun-marriages lately? (due to stricter gun control laws?)
• more homosexual sex in the 60s vs now?
• a bigoted statement about illegal immigrants now vs then?
• ...

So, how about government subsidized it and we got more of it? Go to a local section-8 housing complex and observe:

• Marriage rates began to decline following the massive expansion of welfare programs in the 1960s and the advent of no-fault divorce in the 1970s. And as marriage rates declined, the rate of out-of-wedlock births exploded.
• Cohabiting couples have twice the breakup rate of married couples, greater fracturing upon society.

But ultimately this:

"Destroy the family and you destroy society." V.I. Lenin

The ultimate goal is to redefine the family so potentially it could include government minders/more government intervention, not a new idea, old as Plato's Republic.

 

[lucius]

So tell me please, how is the intention of the Pink Swastika ANYTHING BUT telling us:

1. Hitler was evil
2. Hitler's buttboys were fags
3. Fags are evil, because Hitler used them
4. Don't blame racism, anti-Semitism, and totalitarianism on Christianity, Nazis were fags

Would the book have been written to glorify Hitler or vindicate gays? Of course not, it was taking advantage of a person's kneejerk reaction.

The book had obvious pre-assumed opposition to both gays and Hitler.

Once again, little but attitude. Back it up. Is your source, '...because I say'?

 

[Josh_LA]

Once again, little but attitude. Back it up. Is your source, because I say?

Yeah, since you know better, let's hear you tell me.

My source is not because you say, it's because I believe and because I don't care what others say.

 

[Josh_LA]

But ultimately this:

"Destroy the family and you destroy society." V.I. Lenin

The ultimate goal is to redefine the family so potentially it could include government minders/more government intervention, not a new idea, old as Plato's Republic.

How is gay marriage going to destroy family when gays don't make families? (thus not making bad families)

Gays don't have children unless they adopt, in which case children are already in need, nobody gives a child to gays when they have a fully functional family.

Are you saying government should SUBSIDIZE family?

 

[lucius]

Ok, I'm not against analysis, in fact, I'm all for it.

I'm not against homophobia <snip>...

Little but attitude:

What is ridiculous is the tremendous amounts of tax-payer resources catering to this minority lifestyle. That in itself is indicative of underlying social engineering on a massive scale:

It's not about extending "equal rights" to .4% of the population, but about redefining 'norms' of society, ie. more social engineering.

 

[lucius]

Ok, so it's wrong to say homophobia but it's ok to say Kinsey is a freak pedophile?...

Kinsey was what he was, which included pedophilia. I personally don't share your tolerance for pedophilia. But his work, which I call junk science, was used as a cornerstone to justify major shifts in society.

Kinsey's Pedophiles: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2061305218446628970&hl=en

 

[Josh_LA]

Little but attitude:

What is ridiculous is the tremendous amounts of tax-payer resources catering to this minority lifestyle. That in itself is indicative of underlying social engineering on a massive scale.

I'm against tax payer resources catering to ANYBODY, but tell me some things we do for gays that they don't deserve (I'll probably agree, but point them out for me anyway).

 

[Josh_LA]

Kinsey was what he was, which included pedophilia. I personally don't share your tolerance for pedophilia. But his work, which I call junk science, was used as a cornerstone justify major sifts in society.

Kinsey's Pedophiles: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2061305218446628970&hl=en

So you're a bigot, fine.

Maybe you can tell us what and why society should be what it was (and not what Kinsey turned it to be), without using religious morals or socialistic consequences. (or if not, tell me the best you can)

 

[SeanEdwards]

So you're a bigot, fine.

Maybe you can tell us what and why society should be what it was (and not what Kinsey turned it to be), without using religious morals or socialistic consequences. (or if not, tell me the best you can)

Looking back through your commentary in this thread, I'd say you're the fucking bigot. Judgmental, stupid, and obnoxious, pretty much sums you up. Have a nice day.

 

[lucius]

So you're a bigot, fine.

Maybe you can tell us what and why society should be what it was (and not what Kinsey turned it to be), without using religious morals or socialistic consequences. (or if not, tell me the best you can)

Too rich Josh!

You are calling me a bigot, because I am not beholden to pedophilia? Maybe there is something to this quote:

Elizabeth Birch, executive director of the Human Rights Campaign, tells us: "[Homosexuals] hold sacred seeds. . . . [T]o be gay, lesbian, bisexual, or struggle around gender is literally a gift from God and we [homosexuals] have an enormous amount to teach this nation."

Nope, more social engineering/NWO Eugenics...