1,547 words
First published June 28, 2013
Translations: Czech, French, Greek, Spanish
Both the promoters and opponents of homosexual marriage share a common false premise: that the legalization of homosexual marriage overthrows “heteronormativity,” i.e., the idea that heterosexuality is normal and other forms of sexuality are not. But the idea that changing marriage laws can change heteronormativity is simply false.
What do I mean when I say that homosexual behavior is abnormal? I don’t mean that it is unnatural, since its exists in nature. It is even found in many species besides man. I don’t mean that it is a sin, i.e., something that displeases God. The idea of sin pretty much paralyzes the ability to think rationally about morals.
For me, the issue of abnormality all boils down to homosexuality being a non-reproductive, recreational form of sex. And if everyone had non-reproductive, recreational sex all the time, the human race would perish. Heterosexual behavior is normal, because only heterosexual sex can perpetuate our species, provided conception is not blocked by birth control.
So the real issue is not even homosexual versus heterosexual, but reproductive versus non-reproductive sex. That’s all there is to it.
Homosexual behaviors and tastes are older than the human race, but the idea of homosexuality as an identity is a rather recent phenomenon. People with exclusively homosexual tastes are a tiny minority in any society, no matter how permissive and decadent. Thus it stands to reason that no society has ever ceased to exist because the tiny homosexual minority doesn’t reproduce. Societies decline demographically when the heterosexual majority doesn’t reproduce, primarily due to birth control. Thus if non-reproductive sex is a problem because it does not perpetuate the human race, the bulk of the blame falls on selfish, hedonistic straight people.
Proponents of marriage for homosexuals think that heteronormativity is simply a social construct, a convention that can be changed through legislation, education, and relentless media brainwashing. But heteronormativity is based in nature, not in convention. Sexual reproduction has existed before human beings formed languages and conventions. Indeed, sexual reproduction existed before mankind evolved. The birds and the bees do it too. So heteronormativity is not a social construct and cannot be changed by society. It can only be covered up, lied about, and ignored — at society’s peril.
It is easy to understand why homosexual marriage proponents believe they are overturning heteronormativity. It is harder to understand why the opponents of homosexual marriage agree with them on this point. Yet the opponents of heterosexual marriage claim that legally defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman is the key to preserving the institutions of marriage and family life.
This makes no sense for two reasons.
First, if heteronormativity is based in nature or divine commandment, not in law, then it cannot be changed by changing laws. (Human laws can, of course, strengthen natural laws by adding additional punishments and incentives to follow nature.)
Second, the institutions of marriage and family life have been pretty much destroyed already. But during the whole period that marriage and family life have been decaying, homosexuals have not been allowed to marry, and marriage has been defined as a union of a man and a woman. In other words, marriage and family life have declined with their heteronormativity entirely intact. Therefore, heterosexuals bear the primary blame for the decline of marriage and the family.
Since homosexuals are a tiny minority, and only a tiny minority of that minority wish to marry in any case, I think that homosexual marriage opponents owe us an explanation as to how, exactly, such a small group of people could mess up marriage any more than straight people already have.
If one really wanted to defend marriage and strengthen the family, one should do the following.
1. End no-fault divorce
2. Criminalize adultery
3. Criminalize alienation of affections
4. End child support for unwed mothers
5. Establish a legal presumption that unwed mothers are unfit mothers, so that giving up illegitimate children for adoption is the norm
6. End adoption by unmarried individuals
7. Institute positive incentives for high-quality individuals to marry and have families
8. Institute tax incentives for people to marry/disincentives to stay single
These policies would significantly strengthen the bonds of marriage and family life. And the burdens and benefits of these measures would fall on the heterosexual population, where they belong.
But none of our pro-family politicians and moral crusaders shows any interest in such measures. And that, to me, is the sign that the whole anti-homosexual marriage campaign is just another phony Right-wing con job: (1) scapegoating homosexuals for the mess that heterosexuals have made of marriage and the family, (2) and channeling the discontent, energy, idealism, and money of a certain segment of the Right (albeit a pretty hopeless segment, from my point of view) into just another dead end, a battle that, even it it were won, would do nothing to halt the demographic decline of our race.
I used to think that these mainstream Right-wingers were merely stupid and/or deluded. A lot of the rank and file are. But they are generally far better than their leadership. The ones on top are so consistently wrong-headed and ineffectual that it is hard to resist the conclusion that they are agents of the enemy, working to misdirect and dissipate Right-wing dissent lest it give rise to a genuine populism that would threaten the hegemony of our ruling coalition of Jews and raceless, rootless plutocrats. I think that the purpose of their campaigns may be to run out the clock until whites are a minority and there is no hope of change within the present system.
The only political issue that matters is whether the white race will continue to exist on this planet in 200 years. White Americans are increasingly aware of, and alarmed by, our demographic decline. But frank appeals to white racial interests are still taboo on the American Right. Instead, the mainstream Right at best offers us race-neutral proxies for racial interests (opposition to “illegal” immigration, libertarian individualism, etc.) and at worst promotes distractions (opposing gay marriage and flag burning, or promoting school prayer) or outright demographic suicide (opposing abortion). Thus I think that White Nationalism will never move forward until the mainstream Right is thoroughly defeated and discredited. I just hope that, by that time, it is not too late to save our race.
I have argued that homosexual marriage is an unimportant issue from the point of view of white demographics. The most important thing to do to increase white fertility and improve white parenting is to strengthen marriage and decrease non-reproductive sex among heterosexuals. I have also argued that the gay marriage issue is being promoted by the phony Right as a distraction from far more important issues. But I am not going to deal with the merits of demerits of homosexual marriage as a policy, because I need to devote more reading and thought to the matter. I do, however, want to end this piece by at least raising the possibility of a society that combines “heteronormativity” with tolerance.
The only real way to maintain high standards is to recognize that people will fall short of them in some ways. That means a certain amount of latitude and tolerance.
A society that cannot tolerate deviation from its norms will inevitably lower its standards to make it easier for more people to comply.
And the end of that process is complete nihilism, for if integrity to one’s values is the highest value, in the end, it will be one’s only value. For the easiest way to insure perfect integrity and to make hypocrisy impossible is to value nothing but being oneself at the present moment, i.e., to collapse any difference between the real and the ideal, to affirm that whatever happens to be real at any given moment is the ideal.
In short, the only way to always practice what one preaches is to preach nothing but what one practices. And that boils down to doing whatever one feels like from moment to moment, a kind of groundless self-affirmation which is pretty much the moral and cultural dead end toward which liberalism is leading.
Even if one maintains heteronormativity as the social ideal, it is still possible to like people who fall wide of the mark. Particularly in a White Nationalist society, where our fellow citizens are also our own extended family.
Why can’t we have a society in which parents of homosexual children say, “We’re sorry that you are not going to give us grandchildren. It is a misfortune. But we still love you as our flesh and blood, and we know you will still be a good son to us, a good brother to your siblings, and a good uncle to your nieces and nephews”?
Why can’t we have a society in which homosexuals accept that they fall short of the norm, rather than tearing down norms merely to feel good about themselves? Why can’t we have a society in which homosexuals are grateful to the heterosexuals who gave them life and glad that others are carrying on their families and their race as a whole?
I believe that there are already quite a few people who think this way. But their voices are not being heard.
37 comments
I’d take the time to write a detailed rejoinder to this repulsive homosexualist missive where I would easily refute all of your pseudo-rationalized, self-interested special pleading (that’s all this article is), but I know you have an agenda to push and don’t allow people who can trounce you in debate to comment. Homosexuals are narcissists so its not surprising.
Gee, what an icebreaker.
And thanks for giving me the chance to reply, Greg.
Is that a joke? Where’s the 12 paragraph response I posted? I took your posting of my first comment as an invitation to post the promised rejoinder which I provided. But you’re not going to post it?
I don’t think that is what was intended with this post frankly. There is no need for such an over-the-top response. Speaking of such responses, I’ve noticed many such coming from the actual gays themselves, to nearly everything. We don’t need to treat each other like that.
I think one important point that is not addressed by this article is the Marxist/leftist desire to control and re-define language. If, as Foucault asserted, “language is oppression,” then changing that language would seem an essential component of breaking “oppressive” values, cultures, races, etc. Consequently, gender, marriage, sexuality and race are all about “the feels” and not about biological realities. To me, this is the real threat of the SCOTUS decision – it moves things that much closer to a radical transformation and devaluation of Western values and norms.
“… some (probably the majority) of heterosexuals are biologically wired to be disgusted by homosexual behavior…”
I think that’s the main argument against homosexual “marriage”. In dry legal terms, you might say it could theoretically have equal status to non-procreative heterosexual marriages. But you don’t extend the term “marriage” to something that most ordinary people regard as unnatural.
Polls show that only 37 percent of people say they are against homosexual marriage, but no less than 28 percent do not even believe homosexual acts should be legal.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1651/gay-lesbian-rights.aspx
My response:
http://eginotes.blogspot.com/2015/06/on-gay-marriage.html
First of all, I would like to thank the author for a reasonable perspective piece about the “issue” du jour that paycheck conservatives are promoting. Some other sites on the dissident right just can’t grasp the culpability of feminism over “homosexualism” in the decline of family and sexual morals.
This is a critical point. Strident Jewish-backed feminism is by far the more relevant issue.
I don’t disagree with anything in this, but there is also the issue that some (probably the majority) of heterosexuals are biologically wired to be disgusted by homosexual behavior, and to therefore shun and/or mistreat openly homosexual people; consequently homosexuals develop resentment toward mainstream society, and given that homosexuals tend to have higher IQ’s on average, that translates into them becoming a hostile elite. It’s almost certainly the case that secret homosexual cabals like this are wreaking havoc in the Western elite centers of power. I don’t know what to do about this but I think it is a serious problem we need to consider.
Homosexual resentment has certainly been very evident in the gloating over the latest Supreme Court travesty.
It is interesting how in a country built on nationalism and traditionalist ideas (Estonia) as opposed to a country simply built on liberalism (United States) you can make a simple case against gay marriage that would be impossible in the latter.
“The family being fundamental for the preservation and growth of the nation, and as the basis for society, shall be protected by the state.” – Constitution of Estonia, Article 27
There you have it: the state grants married couples any benefits and protections (including the very recognition of marriage) solely because the couple is supposed to advance the survival of the nation. A gay couple could not do that.
Congratulations on having a family. But why send them to fight for a government that hates us?
Why take on any of the 99% of jobs that work to serve a society that hates us?
The military is a traditional sanctuary for the alienated rightist. Like the wilderness. Granted we see the viability of each decimated further with each passing year, as Mishima ultimately found, or the Savage before him, but they nevertheless remain among the best options for young men in search of masculinity.
The U.S. military is very bad. Mass murder, torture, theft, intimidation and many other horrible things are not out of the ordinary. One cannot compare it to a normal job. Just look at the many people who commit suicide. Those soldiers know they have been part of something so horrific. It is the main instrument that brings about hatred outside of the U.S. towards people who reside within the U.S.
Homosexuality is a mental disorder, a instinctual dysfunction of the animal organism. To characterize homosexuality, as equivocally as Greg Johnson does in this trite perhaps disingenuous attempt at rational discourse, as anything bordering on ‘natural’, whatever that might mean in his outlandish attempt at logical thinking , is an affront to reason and common sense. I hardly have any respect for impostors, much less for deluded would-be luminaries like the author of this ludicrous bit of outrageous BS. In my neck of the woods, we simply call a fag a fag and move on to the more pressing issues on the nationalist agenda. Two thumbs down, mates.
. . . and you’ll blooooooow my house down.
Your house of cards? No sweat.
This will be your last comment at Counter-Currents.
Perhaps it wasn’t a good idea to repost this one Greg. This issue is really not all that worthy of discussion anyway, despite it’s recent popularity in the news cycle. I don’t presume to tell you what to do of course, sorry if I’ve come off that way.
Its easy bashing homosexuals because most of us are heterosexual and have no attraction to the same sex. Not so easy is abstaining from promiscuity or “dirty pictures” on the internet. Because most of us are guilty of either promiscuity, porn, physical or mental unfaithfulness to our wives the silence is deafening and makes homo bashers look silly.
While I don’t approve of homosexuality I don’t particularly care and if any of them are in our camp I’ll have a beer (or sherry) with them any time. The media and additives in the food chain are affecting us in all sorts of ways and mass homosexuality, like mass immigration, is just one of many problems facing us today but there is no point in getting our knickers in twist about something that isn’t really going to affect the movement anyway.
What is going to affect us is the modern problem of quality or almost quality people not being able to afford marriage. Now if we could do something about that!
He’ll be popping out the kids when you lot are popping out the cheques so he can afford them!!!!!!
My main concern is not their right to marry per se but a Homonomalization of Society – and the inevitable effect it will have relative to children as far as schooling and adoption go. The Catholic Church in Massachusetts had to close its adoption agency or face prosecution for not letting Gay couples adopt. What now for America on this issue? And since Justice Kennedy made overt references to Black and Racism, people against Gay Marriage are now in danger of being treated as racists. It’s only logical and fits perfectly with the Gay Hatred of Traditional Culture a la Dan Savage and Co.
http://www.infowars.com/time-orthodox-christians-must-now-learn-to-live-as-exiles-in-our-own-country/
Time to take to fen and wood, learning to live off locusts, wild honey, roots and berries. Perhaps the Monastaries will again preserve Culture through a new Dark Gay Age.
I used to think that it was only women who got so triggered, but mention gays around uptight straights and they go hysterical. Why is that? Just who gets to declare what is a mental disorder or not? I think hysterical straight men have a problem. Not sure what it is though.
I also thought gays were creative, but their garish, lurid flag is making me question that. A rainbow is subtle and almost translucent.
I think the real problem is not the homosexual individuals but the LGBTIQ agenda and the cultural paradigm that the left shove down our throats.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J04bRx2MGi4 here’s an interesting video somewhat related to the topic. Hjernevask (Brainwash) – Gay/Straight
I’m against a public school education that would teach kids to choose being gay, bi, pansexual or panzersexual non-conforming gender fluid racoon. At least, in my country when the ‘equal marriage’ was legalized the sexual education on primary school is slowly being influenced by LGBTIQ ‘activities’ on school campus.
I’m thoroughly hetero with a wife of 31 years and three sons. The notion of homo sex is off-putting to me in the extreme but I would hope to say what you suggested were one of my sons a homosexual. My quibble is with judicial tyranny by a mere two lapsed Catholics and three Jews who imposed this decision from on high on 380,000,000 people.
Regardless of one’s emotions or beliefs about homosexuality, all citizens of the US should be appalled at how this issue has been handled by the courts:
1. Over a few years time, a few agitators begin misusing words that have had a clear cultural and legal meaning for centuries, – “marriage” “husband” “wife” “spouse” etc., etc.
2. The media promotes this misuse until it becomes commonplace and unchallenged in popular usage.
3. Laws written using this words are now challenged because the meaning of the words have been changed in a popular, if not legal, context.
4. Sympathetic judges allow these challenges (which should have been easily quashed) by misrepresenting existing laws as conforming to these newly popular meanings instead of their original ones.
5. Enough challenges are made until the discrepancies in the interpretation of the laws rises to the Supreme Court.
6. The Supreme Court agrees with the new definitions of the words, and instead of stRiki-Eiking down the existing laws as impermissibly discriminatory because of the changes wrought by the new definitions of the words, it rewrites and recasts the law – something it has no power to do. The reasoning offered for this abuse is sophomoric reasoning based on “dignity” and “love” rather than any legal principle.
7. Because “might makes right” and “the ends justify the means” the new laws written by the activist court are not challenged due to popular public opinion.
8. Separation of powers under the Constitution is blatantly ignored and the Supreme Court is accepted as a legislative body by the public.
This is a horrible result and the most dangerous of precedents. Now both the presidency and the judiciary are imposing laws on us, and the legislative body utterly acquiesces. The republic is over.
https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2015/06/28/comment-of-the-week-the-norm-equalization-case-against-gay-marriage/
This is a topic where it is difficult to get certain people to think rationally. The problem is not homosexuals as such, but rather Cultural Marxism, and its related forms, that is, the Sexual Revolution and Feminism.
Gay Liberation is a part of this Cultural Marxism problem; I would not dismiss it like Greg seems to do – yes, from a reproductive/white demographics point of view, heterosexual misbehavior is the primary problem, not homosexual misbehavior; but you can’t dismiss gays as irrelevant as they are an important part of the anti-white “KKKrazy Glue Coalition” (as Steve Sailer calls it) of the periphery against the center:
http://www.vdare.com/posts/sailer-the-kkkrazy-glue-that-holds-the-obama-coalition-together
***”We are constantly told that the GOP is doomed because it’s the party of straight white men. That may well be true, but few have asked: How can the diverse Democrats hold together? How can special interests as different as blacks and gays be kept in sync? The answer appears to be: The Obama coalition can stay together only by stoking resentment—and, indeed, hatred—of straight white men. This naked animus is rationalized by projecting the hate felt by the victorious Democrats onto the losers”***
So although gays aren’t relevant to the problem of white demographic decline, they ARE relevant to the problem of white cultural and political dispossession, due to their being herded together into a “gay identity” that acts like a racial minority in terms of having an aggrieved status hostile to the white majority.
Yes, the Sexual Revolution and no-fault divorce destroyed the family decades ago, with no help from homosexuals needed; but as a cultural and political weapon of Cultural Marxism, gay marriage is designed to put the final nails in the coffin of marriage and redefine marriage as a “personal right of self-expression” rather than as a means for birthing and raising the next generation of children.
Many of these pro-gay marriage advocates have already implicitly or explicitly admitted that this is their ultimate goal: not “gay marriage” but the destruction of the very concept of marriage altogether.
Yes, “heteronormativity” is Natural, but that does not mean that powerful cultural and political disincentives can’t be put in place to disrupt the family and marriage. Eventually Nature will reassert itself; but whites might be all but extinct by the time that happens. Certainly our civilization will have been lost beyond hope of repair if this process is allowed to continue on indefinitely.
Thus although “heteronormativity” is Natural, it does not follow that the Gay Marriage issue is not relevant to our current predicament. Nature cannot be denied indefinitely, but it can be perverted for a while, to great damage to ourselves, if we allow Cultural Marxism to triumph unopposed.
Greg’s list of steps needed to be taken to restore strong marriage to promote white birthrates is correct, but won’t happen so long as that KKKrazy Glue Coalition remains in power. That coalition includes gays, or rather gays who claim to speak on behalf of all gays – or LGBT or whatever the “correct” term is now.
Obviously the GOP are hopeless; they have no intention of actually fighting back, much less fighting dirty. Whether it be gay marriage, the Confederate flag, or any other issue that isn’t of concern to their Business Roundtable and Donor Class masters, the Republicans will give in, sooner or later. They only pretend to care about these cultural issues as long as they think they can continue to sucker voters with them.
And one of the reasons they won’t fight back is the reason most whites won’t fight back: we really don’t want (yet) to roll back the Sexual Revolution. We (too many of us at least) like the easy sex and the looser family obligations. Younger men may be aware of the massive unfairness of the modern divorce courts and thus will avoid marriage; but most older men seem to like no fault divorce or at least they don’t dislike it enough to do anything about it.
One can’t help notice how many conservatives, Christian religious figures and Republican politicians, have had multiple divorces. They certainly don’t act like they think there is a problem with the current situation that marriage and the family is in. Greg is correct on this point: this is a failure of heterosexuals, not homosexuals. This does not absolve homosexuals of their various misdeeds, but it is a reminder to look where the bulk of the problem lies and not just scapegoat homosexuals.
But no, instead we get the usual types here denouncing homosexuals, as though they are the primary problem; this is wasted energy. Greg is not advocating gay marriage; he is advocating a return to traditional marriage – which we have not had in half a century, and which the Supreme Court decision recognizing “gay marriage” does nothing to address (the Supreme Court’s recent decision cannot destroy something that was already destroyed half a century ago).
What Greg is suggesting is that we stop driving otherwise friendly homosexuals into the arms of the KKKrazy Glue Coalition. If a homosexual keeps his private life private and supports traditional white family and cultural norms, a “don’t ask don’t tell” policy is the wisest course. Had we followed this policy prior to the 1960’s, the Cultural Marxists would not have found a ready, willing, and available army of angry homosexuals to arm and turn loose against us.
In other words, choose your battles and don’t make more enemies than you have to. Go ahead and continue to hate “fags” if you must, but try expending your energies in more productive areas.
Mr Johnson’s essay has a lot of good points, but I’d like to make one counter-argument. The premise here, which seems to be shared by everyone in the room, is that sexual ‘orientation’ or ‘identity’ is fixed. You either are or you aren’t homosexual, bi, trans, whatever. But my in my experience, and I mean both myself, people of I’ve known, as well as from research, this is simply not the case most of the time. As Alfred Kinsey theorized, almost no-one is exclusively homosexual or heterosexual, although it is easy to convince oneself otherwise. That means that the experiences and society that one has growing up can make a difference for many people over whether they repress their more deviant desires (and we all have them), or embrace them and become hedonists whose identity revolves around the refusal to live up to heteronormative standards.
Surprisingly, the notion that sexual behavior is conditioned by society was widely understood in ancient society, but I suppose the influence of Christianity may have caused Westerners to ignore that fact. After all, if so many societies are known to have once practiced homosexuality/ pederasty on a wide scale, does that mean that the majority of Greek or Roman men were born as pedophiles? Obviously not. To me it’s rather obvious what the battle for gay ‘marriage’ is about, as I thought it was to everyone. It’s about legitimizing ‘homosexuality’ as a lifestyle and identity on equal terms with heteronormativity. And for a large number of ambisexual children and teens who have yet decide what kind of life they will live, that is I think a battle that matters. Personally it pains me to see some of our best and brightest choose a non-reproductive lifestyle because no one told them to just “be a man”, and do what a man is supposed to do.
It’s difficult to understand why some respondents get so hot under the collar about Greg Johnson’s very reasonable and heartfelt article. My main reservation though is that the enemies of marriage wish to destroy the institution further by undermining its heterosexual foundations. Regardless as to whether our Aryan race can survive without the institution of marriage, and regardless as to whether such draconian measures as Greg suggests might be necessary to restore it, marriage has provided an invaluable cultural landmark throughout our history. Anything that weakens that landmark deprives us of an essential part of our heritage.
I think I recall that Jim Kalb, the co-founder of Auster’s View from the Right, once predicted that, given the direction our culture is moving, humans would eventually be legally permitted to marry their pets.
The obvious responses to any proposal to legalize man-animal marriages would be that bestiality is wrong and that marriage is an institution for humans, not animals. But not so long ago few in the West disputed that marriage is a legal union between a man and a woman.
One feature of a declining civilization is that opponents of decline are forced to come up with arguments against the various symptoms of decline. It’s often hard to do, especially since the ideas that decline generates, such as the new moral principle of non-discrimination, have infested our public discourse.
Here’s a cheap, quasi-logical argument from a WN perspective that I nevertheless consider important: Jews and Jewish organizations are disproportionately in favor of homosexual marriage and have, over the last two decades, worked hard to ensure its success. They’re now boasting about their role.
If a Jewish organization in your community helpfully offers to pick up trash along the highway, you would be wise to suspect some ulterior motive, even though it may be difficult to figure out what the motive could be. In any cause in which Jews are visibly involved, you can safely assume that they believe the cause — whether it be asserting the legal right of homosexuals to marry or volunteering to pick up garbage along the road — is bad for us and good for them. Their ability to select causes that are bad for us is almost inerrant, as Strom once pointed out.
In this case it should be clear that Jewish organizations want to dethrone traditional marriage because it implies our right to define normality. That so many of us believe that marriage is a core institution of our civilization offers Jews an additional incentive to deny our right to define it.
— Irmin
I wish we, as a race, had the luxury to be upset with something like gay marriage, but we don’t. It is a waste of our focus, energy, and anger. After all, if we build an ethnostate we will have to come up with an entirely new set of laws for our new society. We can deal with the issue of gay marriage then. When we have the luxury of squabbling over trivial matters.
My personal take on the ruling is that anyone who has been paying attention should have known this was coming. Federal judges were overturning state bans one by one. If there is anything to be angry over in this it is the Federal judges overturning democratically elected laws. I don’t mean to sound conspiratorial, but if you give a mouse a cookie. Today it is gay marriage. Tomorrow it is draconian trade pacts, and so forth.
My view as a race realist is that this is good for our race! Before this the media was having an orgy demonizing young white men and white America’s history and heritage. Now the media has something new to focus on, and the progressives feel as if their winning, and aren’t worried about the evil racist young white men with guns for the time being. Furthermore the GOP’s inability to do anything about this will just further disillusion more white Americans with that party. Most will become politically apathetic, but perhaps some will join our cause.
Mr. Johnson hit the nail on the head though with his remarks about this all being smoke and mirrors to distract the masses. Abortion and gay marriage are essentially non-issues politicians can use to whip the conservative masses into a fever, and keep them from turning their attention to real issues. I was hoping Mr. Johnson had written something on this, because I knew he would focus on the big picture, the survival of our race. The fact is one gay man willing to organize, promote and cultivate pro-white attitudes and political movements is worth more than a conservative (read against gay marriage and abortion) white Christian family with nine children who teach them that all people, regardless of race, are brothers in Christ.
I believe that the problem with gay marriage has to do with hetermorphizing, ie, making Adam and Steve into Adam and Eve and thus two groom figurines atop a cake. I don’t believe this article supports that, but it does sort of take a view that homosexuals will always be with us and that we should tolerate them. If anything it’s a neutral view, which I could live with. I would however put a little more effort into opposing gay marriage itself because it’s part of a larger problem whites have with making unlike things the same via verbal fiat. In other words, whites who could have children just treat their pets like kids and refer to them as such, thus anthropomorphizing their animals’ dependency. They just call them kids, and they become kids. Whites also project their societal compentency onto nonwhite groups incapable of upholding them, like low class blacks. I guess whites get bored with the obvious and want, if you’ll excuse the potentially sacrilegious analogy, bread and wine to be body and blood. I think that the best thing to do is channel whites’ desire for projecting themselves onto unlike peoples into a belief more beneficial to the race than Adam and Steve. It’d satisfy the desire for the symbolic and also help the race.
I don’t mean to impy that this article supports Adam and Steve as a hetermorphized union. It clearly rejects them as such. After reading my comment over it appeared that’s what I meant at the end. I would also agree that straight marriage is in a bad state and really is a larger problem, especially since the birth rates are so low among whites and divorce so high among their parents.
The author unveils good points in underlining the true border: reproductive versus non reproductive sex. However, by developing this side point, he misses the major point : regardless of the appearances, heterosexual sex is NOT reproductive sex. And marriage does not ‘sanctify’ or honour the reproduction hidden behind the union. Among all mammals, sex is reproductive efficient ; it is why animals have specific periods for reproduction, which are enough to supply new generations. For humans, it’s not anymore true: sex is not efficient to guarantee reproduction ; it is necessary of course, but it works at no more than 14% efficiency according to specialists. So, sex between heterosexuals who do not “play against nature” by all kind of processes and tools, is already non reproductive in 86% of cases. This is what makes humans human: many things in their behaviour is shared by animals (legs, lungs, blood and even gloomy eyes sometimes…), many but not all. Sex is a “natural” function, but, in details it is also a specific human one. The union between a man and a woman overtakes the simple reproductive function, even though it looks like it. And this overtaking leads to a…mystery. What this union is?Marriage sanctifies or honours this mystery ; religious marriage maybe even more than civil marriage is the recognition of the veil put on this mystery. Homosexuals “rights” and fight for rights is the opposite: an unveiling of the mystery. It is why it won’t be accepted, not for religious reasons, nor reactionary traditionalism, but for deep anthropological roots which since million years maybe have put human being apart from its natural and animal origins.
Few decades of fight won’t beat million years. If it would, then humanity for the sake of pragmatism, would loose another of its priceless feelings.
If you have a Subscriber 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.