Seville, 2011: A blushing bride at 85, Spain’s Duchess of Alba weds
967 words
Slovak translation here
I was surprised to learn that most moderate opponents of same-sex marriage have no problem with the idea of “domestic partnerships,” which give homosexual couples many of the legal benefits of marriage. Their thinking is: “If two homosexuals wish to share their lives and fortunes and take care of one another in sickness and old age, why shouldn’t they have the legal benefits that straight couples enjoy? Just don’t call it ‘marriage.'”
It seems a sensible compromise, unless, of course, one simply hates homosexuals and wants them to suffer.
Why not call it “marriage”? Because of a deep conviction that marriage is a more serious institution, because it provides the best framework for begetting and nurturing the next generation. Therefore, marriage should enjoy a higher dignity and status than mere domestic partnership.
Gay marriage advocates have a ready reply to this: straight people who cannot have children, or who choose not to have children, are allowed to marry. So marriage is not about reproduction.
There is no real reply to this argument. Yes, some anti-natal couples may change their minds and choose to have children. But that is not possible for sterile couples, who still can marry.
Gay marriage advocates also point out that sterile straight couples can still have families by adopting children or using surrogate parenting — and so can homosexual couples, which opens a whole new can of worms.
One can argue that homosexual couples are not optimal for the psychological development of children, which would be better served by parents of both sexes. But proponents of gay adoption could grant that argument and still retort that even suboptimal parents can give children better care than the staff of an orphanage — many of which, by the way, are staffed by people of only one sex, particulaly those run by religious orders, which are not exactly magnets for red-blooded heterosexuals either.
Homosexual marriage advocates demand marriage equality on the grounds that their couplings are not relevantly different from straight marriages, as long as sterile straights are allowed to marry for companionship, and to have families through adoption or surrogacy.
This argument cannot be dismissed as an example of modern one-size-fits-all egalitarianism run amok. For even Aristotle defined justice as treating equal cases equally — and if sterile straight couples can marry, then why not sterile homosexual couples? And if sterile straights can have families through adoption and surrogacy, then why not sterile gays? Why should homosexuals accept second-class status?
It strikes me that the only way to preserve marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution is to deal squarely with the issue of straight people who cannot or will not reproduce. In the past, when the causes of sterility were poorly understood, it was always possible to believe that a miracle baby would come along. Furthermore, shorter life spans and higher standards of taste and dignity prevented marriages between people who are simply too old to conceive. Finally, the facts that celibacy leaves a lot to be desired and that birth control was unreliable made it very unlikely that fertile couples would never produce children, even if they did not want them. Thus it made sense to think of marriage as simply the union of heterosexuals — the kind of people who, prima facie, can produce children — and just treat the instances where that did not happen as negligible. Marry ’em all, and let God sort it out.
But modern medicine has changed everything. Today, when effective birth control (including sterilization) is widely available and fertile couples can confidently avoid conception; when individuals can know for certain that they are irreversibly sterile; and when men and women routinely live long beyond when they can have children, one has to ask: Is gay marriage any more a mockery of the institution than two octogenerians pushing their walkers down the aisle to tie the knot? Is marriage between homosexuals any more a mockery than marriage between straights who cannot or will nor have children, even through adoption or surrogacy, either from medical misfortunes or simply out of selfishness, hedonism, and immaturity?
If the opponents of homosexual marriage are willing to accept a “second class” institution — domestic partnership — for infertile couplings, then why not extend that to straight couples who cannot and will not reproduce? Indeed, why not make “second class marriage” the default status for all married couples, granting first class status only upon the birth or adoption of the first child?
Of course we are talking about legal marriages here, marriages recognized by the state. People are — and would remain — free to celebrate religious or spiritual marriages of their own design and definition. But the state need not recognize all of them.
In such a system, the existence of homosexual marriage would be entirely contingent on whether it is deemed desirable to allow homosexual couples to adopt children, avail themselves of surrogacy, or raise the children of one partner’s previous marriage. None of these arrangements strike me as optimal conditions for raising children if heterosexual alternatives are available.
Exploring the idea of limiting marriage only to couples who have children, while reserving domestic partnership for the rest, has benefits far beyond reframing the debate about homosexual marriage, which is a minor issue compared to the demographic and cultural problems caused by the decline of heterosexual marriage and the heterosexual family.
Even if homosexual marriage were not an issue, the distinction between marriage and domestic partnership allows us to refocus and recenter the institution of marriage on the sole function by which it merits special social and legal status: the procreation and nurture of the next generation. Such an arrangement would uphold the heteronormativity and reproductive purpose of marriage while giving options to those who fall short.
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
37 comments
Good points. Something I have noticed lately with alot of young couples living together is that some of them tend to get married when there is a pregnancy or a child. They are not shotgun weddings either.
It’s like a light bulb has gone on. Time to become responsible. This is even with the government claiming common law marriages as equal to legal marriages economically. Maybe it is a white thing.
“Heteronormativity” requires more than merely defending state recognition and sanction of marriage as the sanctuary of children. That would never hold long anyway once the forces of depravity have come so far that they’re out of the closet making demands of society – in complete safety and with the approval of the elites. Marriage is the working out of metaphysical truth. That truth (as traditionalists see it, broadly) is in the incompleteness of either the masculine or the feminine principle instantiated by itself. We marry and then work together in order to become whole, i.e., to become fully human, for want of a simpler term. It is an effort to restore, in a minor way, the primordial condition. Society sanctions that effort for the dignity and fulfillment of both sexes. At bottom, the reasons for marriage as it was, are entirely metaphysical. All of those sodomite questions and challenges for which you think there are no good answers, are, if fact, easy to answer if you understand the principles involved; the principles that you are supposed to be defending.
So, no. The agenda of the forces of dissolution, i.e., anti-tradition, including the radical politicized sodomites, should be opposed in its entirety with no quarter given.
We’re talking about why the state might wish to recognize and grant legal status and privileges to some kinds of couplings and not others. People are perfectly free to make up whatever religious and metaphysical and magical rationales for their couplings. But the question of why organized society needs to get involved has to be a bit more down to earth than that.
That’s the same thing I’m talking about.
Make up – a religious rationale? One doesn’t ‘make up’ religious, metaphysical or even magical (I like that) rationales. Unless ‘we’ are deracinated, social atoms, those things come to the table with us – and decide for us, to some degree, what we think the role of the state ought to be.
It’s perfectly evident that the state is now totalitarian and in the service of pure evil. A strictly utilitarian debate, from the standpoint of instrumental reason, abstracting from any prior spiritual or cultural commitment (which I take you to want), offers the glittering possibility of what, exactly? Deciding what half-measures should be taken for the sake of ‘the children?’ As though we could influence this monster for the sake of the good?
I guess my idea of being down-to-earth is a bit different for yours.
My feeling is that putting a married, sterile heterosexual on the same standing as a married homosexual couple is an insult to the heterosexual. The incapacity of the heterosexual is not a necessary condition of their union with their lover, but it is for the homosexual. Sexual desire is very important in this area and it is not a good idea to equate heterosexual desire with homosexual desire; one is generally fecund, the other is always sterile. Marriage should promote fertile erotic desires, it should not become a matter for financial calculation.
But I don’t think that you are really dealing with my argument, just remaining with the prima facie position that allows marriage to be divorced from reproduction.
Marriage is about reproduction but not exclusively so. Whilst you make some good points you seem to infer that marriage is a sort of factory for producing units of babies. If we accept this premise then what you say is true. But there is more to it than that. Marriage confers social and religious legitimacy to certain forms of erotic love. Regardless of one’s own sexual orientation it is slightly misleading to imply that such social values are not a part of the argument. And the social preference for heterosexual couplings is obvious and natural. My point is not that marriage can or should be divorced from reproduction, but that the importance of reproduction should be seen from a broader perspective, not from the point of view of individuals. To posit an equivalence between a sterile heterosexual female and a homosexual male is false; the woman will still have certain biological functions intended for child rearing, the man will not. And because there is such a difference between men and women there can be no equivalence between same sex marriage and, well, “marriage”. When you reference Aristotle, “even Aristotle defined justice as treating equal cases equally”, it does not apply in this case because a male/female couple is not the same as a male/male couple (unless reproductive potential is the only criterion for comparison). There is a qualitative difference even if there is a quantitative equivalence. It’s only if wider social, cultural, religious, etc. contexts are ignored, and reproduction alone is taken into account, that the equivalence between the different sexualities applies.
I agree with Christopher. It seems as if Greg is pandering to the homosexuals. I view even a “sterile” heterosexual relationship as superior to any homosexual relationship.
First, I’ve long been an opponent of state-recognized marriages for homosexuals under that name — because men are not women and women are not men. The sexes are not interchangeable, and that’s why calling homosexual relationships “marriage” is “problematic.” Marriage is one thing, homosexual relationships are another. That’s my rationale.
What is yours? Where do your ideas come from? Whose religion, whose moral code, whose valuations of good and evil? When you say one relationship is inherently better than another, even when the important distinction (reproduction and children) is removed, then…why?
Unless you are coming from, say, a religious position (Leviticus? Jewish morality? Cherry-picked and questionably historical ideas about how pre-Christians dealt with the issue?) the basis for this evaluation seems like a knee-jerk reaction to something you don’t know much about. Without the reproductive distinction — which is important — all you have are individual relationships between two people, which can (in either case) range from relaxed and honest to poisonous and deceitful.
That would be my crucial point as well. Not only the “metaphysics of sex”, as for example described by Evola (who emphasizes they have nothing to do with procreation), speak for that, but also the traditions of all times and all peoples on this planet. While occasionally homosexual relationships had a certain function and acknowledgement in society (Ancient Greece f.e.) nobody ever in world history had the idea of calling them “marriage” or of getting males “married”. To the Spartans it would have seemed like a joke.
Likewise the idea of marriage was never entirely limited to ensure mere proceation. The basic mythological and religious texts that shaped our culture reflect that. Zeus fathers many children, but it is only Hera who is wife. Priamos has many fertile concubines, but there is only one Hekuba. Abraham has an infertile wife (until a miracle happens), but it is still her who is his legitimate wife, and not the slave with whom he fathers children. And so on. Marriage, even in its modern, secular and now rather jaded status, devoid of a sacred context, is also a symbol of the union of male and female principle, of the metaphysical aspect of “heteronormativity”, so to speak. This notion is deeply rooted in any culture, and a crucial part of ours. Homosexual relationships, if they claim to play a part in society (apart from a merely private sexuality) different forms and rites are needed, I agree with Jack Donovan on that. If that is not the case, I see no reason at all to grant homosexuals legal benefits.
Jack Donovan: My comment posted on July 4, 2013 at 12:01 pm more or less says what you are saying in the first paragraph of your comment. I am not a Christian and I don’t look for authority from any text. But I do wish to defend any residual element of the transcendent that may remain, however dimly, in Western countries. Most people only enter a church for a christening, a wedding or a funeral. These rituals are social necessities and whilst their importance has diminished greatly over the years, they remain necessities and I see no reason to undermine them further. I don’t think I said anything in terms of superiority, but if my comments sound like ‘straight supremacy’ then so be it. Marriage is about more than two individuals; it also brings together two families. Whilst the issue of reproduction is very important here, I dislike the idea of second-class marriages which would throw gay men and infertile straight women into the same lower status category. I’m all for promoting and celebrating maternity but this shouldn’t entail a degradation, effectively a public shaming, of those women who cannot have children. I don’t “hate homosexuals and wish to see them suffer” but I don’t accept that the extension of gay rights (or anyone else’s rights for that matter) can proceed if it undermines and contradicts the transcendent principle that underlies marriage.
To me, heterosexual relationships are superior to homosexual relationships because I believe they are more natural. More of what nature intended in other words. There is something inside of me that just doesn’t like homosexual relationships. Call it a “knee jerk” reaction. I don’t care. Maybe I lack the erudition to come up with a 1,500 word essay justifying why I think heterosexual realationships are superior to homosexual ones. So sue me. Sometimes in life, you have to rely on your gut feelings, and this is my gut feeling about this matter.
What is a sterile heterosexual relationship? No sex, no affection or sex with no affection, or affection with no sex? Lie back and do it for England or the white race? Act as if nothing is wrong?
One in which no children are produced. Everything else can be lovely.
I think that your commentary has missed several points. The Marxian element in America and throughout the West desires to establish the same old moth-eaten failure of communism here that it once enjoyed throughout much of the world (and still does in a few nightmarish spots). They view an essential prerequisite to this, the weakening and destabilization of society. ALL institutions and traditions and mores are therefore targeted for destruction in order to make society ripe for the big hoped-for revolution.
Marriage and the family are the basic building blocks of society. Destabilize and/or delegitimize them, and society is struck a body blow at its very core. Christianity is viewed as another major construct affording tradition and stability and is therefore also targeted. Racial mores in which the best elements of the gene pool are protected is still another major target. Et cetera, et cetera. And really all of these kind of go together and are usually under attack at the same time and – of course – by the usual suspects.
Homosexuals may or may not have the above agenda – in most cases they probably don’t. But there is an unspoken agenda probably aiming towards bringing about a state of sexual anarchy. Every expanding definition or perception of marriage is itself a weakening of the institution itself, and therefore also a weakening of the family and – again – of society. These moves towards the ‘anything goes’ and no-limits self-indulgence are all part and parcel of the great decline we are witnessing every day and in every sphere.
Now we can resist all this, or we can just stand back and let it all happen. If one lives in San Francisco, then one’s perception on these issues may lean towards a greater respect or tolerance towards the kinds of aforementioned agendas, or at least taking a far more serious view of their supposed merits.
For the rest of us, these kinds of things rank as absurdities. A healthy society would not only absolutely not tolerate this kind of madness, but would quarantine these types or otherwise take firm action to ensure that the gene pool was protected from biologically negative trends or growths like this.
Yes about this the Protocols is clear. And says that once absolute power is attained, a great volte face will be enacted back towards clean living. Oh the consternation of the foolish and usefully idiotic on that day! May it never come. Schadenfreude must have its limits after all, like all other psychic features and faculties.
But how they would gasp and then pretend that they never believed in “all that stuff”!
Enough. Would you throw away a World for a good Joke?
No, ok. But a good joke is nothing to sneer at.
I’m not sneering – you are the one who wants to sneer.
Only at them.
They are your brother and sisters.
You have no sense of humor at all, do you?
I was reading an article about some African king the other day and, if I understood correctly, marriage in their country is kidnapping the bride and if she gets pregnant and a child is born, then they’re married. Some woman escaped to England and was trying to apply to political refugee status because the king wanted to add her to his harem.
Tough questions, Greg! Your conclusions seem inescapable. Maybe a more explicitly tribal viewpoint can still make a difference.
In the tribal view marriage is not meant for procreation as such. People can easily procreate without it. Marriage is meant for LEGAL children: born in wedlock, with the full recognition of both the parents and the tribe of their parentage, and therefore of their place in the tribe and of their rights and duties. The family, and the children themselves, become recognized knots in the network of loyalties of the tribe. Bastards are out of luck, they will have to find other ways to establish themselves.
Now what about the situation of a couple before they have children? Even before that they are more than just two individuals. They have sworn loyalty to each other, and this bond has been recognized by the tribe, so they already form a knot in the network. And this will not change if their marriage remains childless. So why would this be any different from the knot formed by the loyalty of two men?
Maybe history can give us an indication. There has never been something like “gay marriage” in history, but many tribes have known and officially recognized the phenomenon of “blood brothers”. Normally, this was an oath of loyalty between warriors. The focus of this loyalty was not the home, but conquest, or at least the outside world.
That an oath of loyalty between a man and a woman, or between two men was seen differently may therefore have to do with the different functions of these loyalties within the tribe. The contrast becomes even more stRiki-Eiking if we assume that not the family unit, but the Männerbund is the basis of civilization. We might view blood brothers as a mini Männerbund.
Because men and women are different, their roles in the tribe will be different. Because their roles are different, their associations will be seen differently by the tribe.
So my opposition to “gay marriage” is founded upon the difference between man and woman. There is no need to consider their particular sexual organs and their possible interactions, as the tasteless phony right is so very wont to do. We just need to look at the different roles men and women have within the tribe.
“Gay marriage” is therefore just another symptom of a society unwilling to consider the difference between men and women, or any other fundamental biological difference, for that matter. “Gay marriage” is indeed about equality, just not in the sense of justice, but as a willfully ignorant axiom.
I’ve always wondered why two gay men would want the blessing of a religion which in its theology actively condemns them to hell. There’s no sympathetic way to view a gay couple who actually desire a christian marriage; the very act of demanding to be recognized by a church is arguably predicated upon spite toward the church (or the religion) itself.
That’s not hard to prove- it sounds awful to say it in public- but you don’t have to look for a very long time to find the supporters (mostly teenage atheists or old irreligious jews) of gay marriage positioning their arguments in such a way as to say “F–k You” to any given small town church, quite openly.
It’s difficult to watch these supporters talk amongst themselves and believe that their actions are predicated upon love. Then combine the actions of those people with what we know about social engineering http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2013/05/joe-bidens-faux-pas/ and cultural marxism, and yeah.. the gay marriage “debate” is just an attack on traditional values that seems to buoyed up largely by “superficial” atheists (i.e. the kind of atheists who spell ‘atheist’ with a capital A and define themselves by it) who view everything held by religion as a construct by the evil white male (not the “evil white” hebrew, sadly), and throw the baby out with the bath water when attacking religion. Being rather misled and not recognizing that christianity merely highlights long established merits in a societal behavior and personal conduct (which comes from the higher Greeks and Romans and fused with the Northern Celts afterwards, and most certainly did not come from the backward Judeans), and tries to reinforce at least some of them.
And then there’s a contradiction in what I’m saying, because I’m talking about gay marriage and the romans and greeks were fine with bisexuality for recreation… but look, the man and wife concept is not a construct, that’s what matters. It’s attacked as an artificial construct, and it’s demonstrably not. It’s something that rooted in humanity universally and it’s one that works. Furthermore I think for the purposes of raising children it should really be viewed as An Ideal that *should* be encouraged; we had the Hellenes talking about the displeasure expressed for those who married for property and not those who married optimally to produce healthy children, children being the best contribution they could ever make to society… and they were right.
This is not really a debate about marriage in churches, since not all marriages are in churches, but about marriage as a civil institution.
Yeah, I was saying that it should be encouraged as *an ideal* for parents, that’s to say that it shouldn’t be *dis*couraged by state or media.
But frankly I say leave the business itself up to churches, temples, mosques or whatever.. it’s supposed to still be their job to safeguard the moral health of their congregations after all. Let the priests and imams extol the virtues of marriage and explain how serious it’s supposed to be. At the same time I don’t think the state should be providing one-size-fits-all “civil partnerships” or providing financial perks to unmarried welfare mothers with a slew of helpless kids, or on the other end, providing financial perks to even the most respectable of couples.
Neutrality, in other words.
It’s hard to imagine a practical way to really do anything with the current system; there’s just too many different factors to untangle in it (and it’s such a bloody pet issue anyway) but… if we were to imagine drawing up the books in a freshly built society of sane people I’d argue that, as I was praising before about the Greeks, the Man and Wife concept should be treated as An Ideal way to conduct parenting and as an ideal way to present their home or business to the world.
Husband and wife sitting side by side in a sunny courtyard of an Old Roman homestead wearing laurel crowns meeting senators and merchants while maintaining an air of dignity whilst their kids observe and learn about conduct.
You know, that kind of thing… that’s An Ideal to strive for, laurel crowns or not.
That’s essentially what marriage was practically about the better territories of the old world, unlike the harem cultures of Africa or much of Asia, or the jealous possessiveness of the Judeans. I’m not saying the Romans and all Greeks acted that way all the time, but basically, they each had an aura of authority and mutual respect between Man and Wife, stemming from the esteem they held in each other due to the excellent performance of their own tasks and duties; the wife as the mother, and the husband as the father, both focusing their attention on the success and prosperity of their family in whatever form that may take in every individual case.
That was then the ideal situation that was admired, anyway, and that’s how it should be looked at; less of a Mystics enshrinement of a ceremony, or as societal institution as it came to be later, but rather as forming a strong clan within a city state- which would generally benefit the city state in terms of manpower and wealth.
Now if, fundamentally, that is the perfect model of a family then there’s no real reason that it can’t be accomplished by sober minded and intelligent men and women without going through with the act of marriage, and in turn, there’s no reason that being married within the context of christianity would hinder it.
So, again, I’d support neutrality on the whole question of “marriage as an institution”. But… in the current society we have to put up with, sure, I’ve supported marriage as much as I’ve supported the general pursuit of religion because of the moral good that it’s capable of providing people. It falls short though.
I mean, I mentioned earlier about throwing the baby out with the bath water, what I could have said better is that the concept of a successful family and prosperous homestead is under attack in our world, not just a christian family -even though the attack often comes under the guise of irreligion- but family in general for gentiles in the west. I think this is something much more important to look at that certainly benefits from being considered in a different light away from shadows cast by the general religion/marriage discourse in the public arena.
A pro-white government has many more reasons to promote marriage to heterosexuals and preserve traditional marriage than just the fact that heterosexuals reproduce and raise children best.
A brief list of those reasons: married heterosexuals are healthier psychologically and physically, marriage is one of the simplest ways to rise out of poverty requiring no government intervention, “married” is a convenient status that can be used to deal with all sorts of legal issues arising in daily life.
Given this, when it comes to the issue of gay marriage, the question then becomes, why wouldn’t government want to promote these positive benefits of marriage to homosexuals?
The answer is that whatever benefits homosexuals as a small minority acquire through marriage equality, much greater damage is inflicted on the public good by the chipping away at heteronormativity that legalized gay marriage inflicts. Most homosexual activists themselves will proudly explain that the gay marriage “debate” is a large wedge and a big battle in their ongoing war against heteronormativity, the traditional family, and traditional marriage. A pro-white government would put an end to this war by not allowing homosexual marriage to have the same status as trad marriage.
So from there, the question becomes, do we then take a generous position towards homosexuals, allowing them a special kind of status which would provide some of the legal benefits heteros get, while preserving trad marriage as the exclusive domain of heterosexuals? If so, then “domestic partnerships” seem like a reasonable way to go.
Or, do we want to take a bit less generous of an attitude towards homosexuals? if so, then there’s no reason to grant any sort of special legal status at all. Let homosexuals demonstrate the cases of discrimination they face and if necessary reform the laws as necessary. For example, I don’t see why rights to visit someone in the hospital requires a novel special legal status between two individuals.
This is all well put, but you are ignoring the argument of my last piece. Gay marriage can’t really challenge heteronormativity, regardless of what the opponents and proponents think. Gay marriage can’t really be destructive of the family, since the family has been destroyed without it, with its heteronormativity completely intact. I think that the opponents of gay marriage really do need to explain how gay marriage can make the present situation any worse. Moreover, if they actually thought squarely about how to fix the family, there is a long list of things they could be advocating, rather than just engaging in just another hand-wringing, reactionary, rear-guard action against homosexual marriage.
For the sake of brevity, I’ll just reply to one thing said above:
“The opponents of gay marriage really do need to explain how gay marriage can make the current situation any worse.”
The negative consequences of gay marriage on the rest of society aren’t easy to calculate, but I believe they’re there, and that they are quite costly indeed.
For one, we know that legalizing gay marriage in the current political context is about much, much more than changing some laws to accomodate homosexuals. It is the most recent battle waged by the PC Left in a long campaign to transform society. With government sanction, the PC Left will be even more vigorous and bold in characterizing anyone who still opposes gay marriage as bigoted, and persecuting them any way they can. Government may even becomoe a more active participant in this persecution. In this sense, gay marriage is a wedge they are using to force normal people to pick their side. This is obviously an effect that goes beyond just changing a few laws for a small minority.
The next cost is even more serious than how gay marriage is used to repress dissent, but it is more difficult to calculate.
The argument is essentially this: gay marriage is a pale, weak, camp, parody which devalues, cheapens, and lessens the seriousness of the real thing. I’ll be the first to admit that this is probably hard to verify and I’m not aware of any stats which prove it – so anyone who is skeptical of this view can easily reject it, but I think it has merit when you consider the nature of tradition. I think to many people it feels like yet another destruction of something that was once great and strong and full of meaning. When gay marriage is legalized, I think fewer people are going to be inclined to get married, and once married, I think they will be less likely to stay married. Marriage will mean even less than it already does.
I suppose if, along with fighting for the right of homosexuals to get married, the PC Left was also waging an equally vigorous campaign to breathe new life into the institution of traditional marriage, trying to help heterosexuals find their way back to the traditional family structure which is verifiably the most healthy and fulfilling form of life for white adults and children, then I might be a little persuaded that they had white people’s best interests at heart – but of course there is no such effort. They dance around the fire every time a new study shows an increase in illegitimacy and single parent “families.” Homosexual marriage is part of the Great Dismantling they are in the process of executing.
Last, I just want to respond quickly to the claim that “the family is already destroyed, so what further damage can be done to it?” This argument can actually be tested empirically, and it’s not quite true that the traditional family is entirely destroyed and thus can’t be further weakened. The stats say that about 30% of all families are trad families. It’s also true that the trad family is fast becoming the almost exclusive preserve of well-educated, well-off white people. If gay marriage will in fact add to the complex of pressures which are wiping out the trad family structure, then it’s white people who stand to lose the most. In this sense, if one really wanted to overstate the case, legalizing gay marriage is anti-white.
Would any married people like to comment here? Are you now more likely to divorce your spouse now that homosexuals are getting married? Is the club no longer exclusive enough for you?
Speaking as a married father, I don’t see legal homosexual unions as a threat to my marriage. I believe that symbolically they send the wrong message to my children and all children. The symbolic example that legalized homosexual unions sets for children is reason enough to oppose the practice. You can’t normalize that on a societal level and expect children with their highly impressionable minds not to perceive it as as normal on the same level as man/woman marriage.
What I am missing in this whole debate is the idea of POLARITY. Whether a man and a woman cannot have or don’t want to have children, they are at leat a union of two opposite POLARITIES, which is basic normality, no matter what sophisticated counter arguments are used. To say it in Taoist terms : A union of a man and a woman is YIN + YANG (an not YIN + YIN or YANG + YANG). This idea of the harmony of polarities is not a curious “cultural” thing but a basic principle in all nature, even in atoms. This argument also holds for adoption : for its normal development, a child needs to have one parent who is YIN and one who is YANG. Only an utter confused age tries to debate this basic fact.
Again, whatever metaphysical theories accompany your views of marriage are one thing. One is free to have any spiritual union and ritual one wants. We are talking about grounds for recognizing such couplings by the state, for giving them legal status.
“It seems a sensible compromise, unless, of course, one simply hates homosexuals and wants them to suffer.”
Courts have already found that domestic partnerships are not a reasonable compromise that should end the dispute, rather they are more evidence of irrationality and hostility, and a further reason why exclusively heterosexual monogamous marriage should be struck down, since after you give gays every benefit of the marriage but the name, what but irrational malice could suggest not giving them the name as well?
Damned if you do, damned if you don’t: whatever supporters of exclusively heterosexual monogamous marriage say or do, the deconstructionist queer lobby takes it as proof they are h8ers and thus they should be deprived of their social standing and political power.
The Supreme Court has now decreed that defenders of the traditional and (pre-queer) modern understandings of marriage have no arguments, but are motivated by a bare desire to injure and humiliate a politically unpopular target group. Being h8ers, they have no right to enact valid laws reflecting their views. This is a big lie, but it’s a lie that the hostile elite has now written into the United States Constitution.
(That will also matter in other countries that are influenced by America.)
It is not surprising that people who like the institution by which white people have been accustomed to reproduce themselves don’t like this legal / cultural attack.
Are agnostics, atheists, and say, high Episcopalians to be barred from the White Republic? In other words, not all of us are going to share the same Metaphysics. What Mr Johnson is trying to do is get us all on the same Meta-Political page. That – which includes great Pride in our Western Heritage – and our shared Genetic Lineage is a sufficient basis for the White Repubic or A White Republic. The Homosexual issue is a divisive one and we may have to agree to disagree. Perhaps a Canton system like Switzerland could be worked out: separate like fingers in day to day life, but like a fist when threatened.
Personally, my heart is with the Traditionalists, but my mind is influenced by Mr Johnson’s very tight logic. I’d be living in the Traditionalist Canton but trying to maintain friendship with the Liberal one. In any case, there would be a shared military or it wouldn’t work. And that wouldn’t work if there was contempt. Traditionalists, remember Pim Fortuyn who died for his people. How many of us who revere the Tradition will have that said about us?
This piece on marriage and the thoughtful replies to it, have been quite interesting.
Pim Fortuyn was mentioned in one of the replies, as a sort of argument in favor of ‘gay marriage’. I don’t buy it. He was murdered, if I remember correctly, not entirely because of his assumed pro-white views. ‘He died for his race’? Well, kinda sorta, or maybe, or maybe not. He had made some comments about Moslem men and boys not being great lays for homo men like himself. That apparently was his major reason for opposing immigration of Moslems into Europe, i.e. that they were not supportive of homo-ism. Not necessarily because they represent a pollution of the white gene pool, but because they are less tolerant of homos. Consider that at least. The very fact that an open homo like himself was not only promoting ‘that’ perversion, but also seeming to be defending the West so to speak, was a bit of an anomaly – as well as an embarrassment to our side, and certainly not all it has been cracked up to be. Others may see it differently.
Or look at this another way: will having open homosexuals who promote their perversion while also leaning towards one or another or our own planks or beliefs, help this cause of ours, or hurt it? My feeling is that it will dissuade a lot of good people from becoming involved. Over many years I have personally known a number of homos who have done a lot of good work in racialist ranks. BUT they did so wile hiding their homo-ism in the closet. On that basis they were tolerated and worked with. But once out of the closet, the potential is there for the doing of great damage, and I think they realized that. That has not substantially changed, as most white people today still dislike and distrust homos and feel nothing but personal disgust for what they do and want to do. ‘Gay marriage’ is recognized as just the latest outrageous absurdity which once pushed through via sophistry and legalisms etc., will merely pave the way for still more outrageous demands. It is a step by step process, one thing at a time.
Greg’s piece on gay marriage seems predicated to a rather strict adherence to the homo lobby’s set of arguments and counter-arguments in their usual attempt to control the dialogue. They do not want this discussed in terms of what is good or bad for our race, certainly, but only in terms of legality and in the obsessive pursuit of ‘equality’. Why can’t a woman marry her dog? Or a guy marries his parakeet? Or the marriage of children to each other, i.e. why put on an age constraint? As the whole institution becomes more laughable, it becomes ever more meaningless, and thus illegitimacy becomes the norm in the rare cases where white children are even procreated anymore, and society crumbles into anarchy.
It’s all about ‘love’, right? Actually no. It is still mainly about the orderly founding of a family and ‘civilizing’ males towards those responsibilities. The fact that some couples don’t have children, or adopt, or do the test tube thing or mix genes with a third parent, or whatever, are still exceptions to the institution’s timeless and continuing original purposes. The more we stray from those racially-positive purposes, the more our race heads towards oblivion.
Israel-Firsters, conservatives and neo-cons sometimes like to suggest that the Islamic world is backward, ignorant, barbaric, etc. But imagine the Islamic view of the United States. A nation where homos now marry each other, lesbians who look like crecutted sumo wrestlers having by far the highest domestic violence rates of any coupling, grown men prancing in pink g-strings down the streets in parades, women having their babies murdered to the tune of millions upon millions every year… Such is America!
But hey, I’m a tolerant guy. If blacks, browns, and yellows want to murder their own babies in the millions, and of the same gender marry each other, or divorce each other in an opt-in and opt-out easy fashion, I’m fine with all that. But for WHITE people, only the biologically-positive, eugenically-positive things-mores-practices are acceptable to me.
My main objection to homosexual “marriage” is that it normalizes anal sex which in my opinion is a disgusting practice and is only openly tolerated in societies in an advanced state of decay and degeneration.
You do know that heterosexuals also engage in anal sex, right? It has already been normalised.
You are going to have to think of a better argument than that.
So if ‘homosexuals’ only practice mutual masturbation and fellatio “gay marriage” has your blessing? What about the many hetero couples that practice anal sex? Discussing sexual techniques seems rather unhelpful when we are talking about legal forms and consequences of recognizing certain associations and loyalties between society members.
“Gay marriage advocates have a ready reply to this: straight people who cannot have children, or who choose not to have children, are allowed to marry. So marriage is not about reproduction.”
If there are two forms of marriage (whatever the labels) where both forms have all the same benefits: inheritance, next of kin etc but the pro-natal form has extra *costs* on top e.g. no no-fault divorce, criticality of adultery etc, then i think most people get what they want and the anti-natal culture warriors get stuffed as the pro-natal form is optional and there’s no reason to choose it except couples who plan to have children and want a more binding contract.
Another way to consider this issue:
In less than two generations, the blink of an eye, culturally speaking, homosexual marriage is now a national fact, largely due to legal decisions supported by a minority within the Culture.
Before the Stonewall Riot (1968), homosexuals were not even discussed, much less tolerated, much less supported, much less supported in marriage.
If you are looking for how quickly and profoundly a Culture can be changed, you would be hard pressed to find a better example.
I’d be willing to trade gay marriage for freedom of association. If same sex couples want to get married, that’s fine, just allow people to decide who they want in their communities and everyone will be happy.
The only people who will complain are the anti-Whites, and globalist types who demand that the world be force integrated. But I’m certain most people could agree.
America is big enough where you can have gay-havens like San Francisco while having more traditionalist areas in the Mid West or South.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Lost your password?Edit your comment