The most common response from conservatives who raise the troubling matter of where gay marriage will lead to, is that it will lead other wacko kinds of marriages to be sanctioned -- polygamy, bestiality, incest, pedophilia, whatever.
But here's the real deal (from a comment I left here):
The next radical social-political experiment won’t have to do with marriage — that’s falling for the con that the gay marriage issue is about marriage first, and secondarily about whom it’s letting into the institution.
Clueless conservatives, or rather befuddled reactionaries, respond with, “Well, if you’re going to let ridiculous group X get married, why not ridiculous group Y? And ridiculous group Z? Where will the desecration of marriage end?”
But the culture war is not about marriage — it’s about giving fags all sorts of privileges that they don’t deserve, ignoring and indeed obscuring and denying the fact that they are fundamentally abnormal rather than normal, which justifies discrimination against them (i.e. treating them differently under the law).
That’s what makes the idea of them being married and committed such a joke, or the idea that two giddy Peter Pan homos are just as maternal and nurturing toward children as a mature woman. Or that what makes them *them* is no less healthy and wholesome than what makes heteros *hetero* — just don’t ask about how many diseases are devouring their beleaguered half-corpses.
Therefore the next big crusade in the culture war will be about “what other ways can we propagandize homosexuality as ‘just like us’ and give them goodies accordingly?” Not “what other risible group should we allow to get married?”
Look at blacks in the Civil Rights era — it didn’t move to “what other group should we allow to enter our wholesome white schools?” They didn't send in the National Guard to forcibly integrate the Mexicans, Orientals, American Indians, etc. Rather, it moved to “what other privileges, set-asides, and quotas can we shower on the blacks?”
The culture war is based around sacralizing a victim group (blacks, fags), not desecrating a particular institution (a side effect, not a sustained target).
I suppose that depends on if you look at civil/gay rights as a minority group hell bent on taking something or if you view it as white heteros vs. white heteros.
ReplyDeleteThe black movement was at least significantly black. Gays are less than 3% of the population. So even within their own movement they are less than 10%. The blacks were at least pushing 30-35%.
I might also point out that the gay agenda is benefited by slippery slope. Because if you got 1 guy that just wants to stick his dick up another man's ass, and you got another guy that wants to castrate himself, and pretend he is a woman that likes other women. Your that's F'd up meter gets recalibrated. So in this sense Freak rights, are gay rights.
And this is also a page out of civil rights, because once people started hating the free stuff blacks were getting, the machine spun up to lump women in with people of color, and grow the parasitic base.
There was school integration for Hispanics. There just weren't as many of them and people didn't care as much. The big rise in the hispanic population came after segregation had fallen. And asians were practically treated as white even before then. American Indians are few in number, largely on reservations and have a political class fine with maintaining that status quo.
ReplyDeleteI'd also note that the common internet antisemite take seems to be the opposite: first Jews got into positions of influence, they pushed liberalism against anti-semitism, moved onto creating the NAACP and pushing the civil rights movement, and more recently have been using the same kind of arguments for immigration. I will agree with Razib that legalizing polygamy seems unlikely, not for any principled reason but just because they're still regarded as weirdos. Sailer's theory that african immigrants may lead to it being tolerated could have some results longer down the road.
ReplyDeleteThe interesting difference between black v. gay is that blacks were not the drivers of their movements: those were Jews/communists (I know, I know, mostly the same) who organized the blacks and taught them to pose in front of the cameras while they got their cousins in the media to set up shots that painted them as victims.
ReplyDeleteThurgood Marshall's later jurisprudence (or lack thereof) and absence of intellectual curiosity (instead of writing any opinions, he watched soap operas, leaving it to his clerks to write 99% of them) belies any notion that he was some kind of legal-crusading genius; instead, it exposes him as nothing more than a front man, while jewish lawyers did most of the heavy lifting for him during his days as the advocate of Brown v. Board.
Ditto for MLK jr, who was nothing more than a plagiarizing hyporitical whore-banging wanna-be preacher till the jews/commies cleaned him up for the cameras and made it seem like he "commanded" a movement they largely ran.
Ironically, street hustler Malcolm X probably was the closest thing to a real black civil rights leader of this time period, and he did little more than use the space cleared out for Marshall and King to enact his own hustle on the angrier black elements.
The black movement foundered once jews lost interest in working solely for more black benefits. Black cities burned, and black leaders of later years were, unsurprisingly, either batshit murderously insane (the Panthers, Shakur) or else common street hustlers with loud voices (Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, every mayor of Detroit).
The gay movement, however, is led by the the gays---the gay Jews, as Larry Sanders' old show so named the Hollywood powers-that-be. That is, the leaders of the gay movement aren't likely to grow uninterested in the movement for more privileges, as they personally benefit.
I would expect that, right now, there is in academia some percolating idea that gays, in fact, deserve more privileges than blacks. This is being tested there, since academia is the de facto think tank/farm team for the left. Whatever is being field tested there on these issues in 20 years will be "mainstream" thought.
I would bet it would involve some combination of finding black gays to front the movement for Queer Before Color, thus bringing it all full circle.
Well done, Agnostic!
ReplyDeleteHighly intelligent and original thinkers are not generic by any means and can be spotted at 50 paces...
"I might also point out that the gay agenda is benefited by slippery slope."
ReplyDeleteNot that slippery, though. It only encompasses deviant "sexual orientations" and "gender identities," which is closely related to your sexual orientation -- that guy who thinks he's a chick, seems like he would prefer men to women, reducing the tranny movement to a subset of the homo movement.
(And in fact most trannies are flaming fairies; only a minority are pervert / paraphiliac heterosexuals who get off on the idea of themselves as women.)
You could lump other weirdos within a broader conceptual group of "sexual deviants," yet the crusades of the past 20 years have had nothing to do with polygamy, pedophilia, incest, bestiality, etc. It's strictly about deviant sexual orientation.
The reason seems to be that the general public can't handle too many different new victim groups who need to be sacralized. They can only focus on one at a time, since each one is so out-there, and a crusade to present even one of them as "just like us" is disorienting enough.
During the '50s and '60s, it was blacks. For a few years in the '70s, it was women. Since the '90s, it's been homos.
I doubt those other sexual deviant groups will ever get their own crusade, since they offend liberal morality based on harm and fairness (and therefore the more encompassing conservative morality as well). Incest is the only one that isn't a flagrant offender against harm or fairness, but nobody would push for it. Homos are a few percent of the population, but incestuous must be several orders of magnitude rarer. And libs associate them with conservative rednecks anyways.
As the US becomes more tribal, first cousin marriages will become a movement issue. It is rather common throughout the world particularly in regions where trust is a major concern.
ReplyDeleteI am suspect of your turn around for that reason. The 60s wasn't set against the back drop of 100 million of people from dissimilar cultures living within the same region.
Polygamy seems to be the end result of feminism to be honest. I can see that gaining traction due to the nature of women. Something has to happen there. They are continually credentialing themselves out of the dating market. Pedophilia gets a pass in a few liberal circles so I could definitely see a lowering of the age of consent. It is how many if not most new sexual deviants are created. By allowing homosexuality we are indirectly approving of pedophilia, even if the common man can't wrap his head around that yet.
Bestiality is an interesting case because we have a bunch of libprogs trying to get animals people rights, but I suspect that Is more to do with some other form of mental illness than due to their desire to engage in sexual relations with them. Then again the Nordic countries don't seem to have a problem with it.
The corollary to all this is that the containment and rollback movement must focus on how abnormal and deviant gays / trannies are -- the whole gay syndrome of dysfunction, not just the obvious fact that they are hyper-promiscuous and lack a nurturing instinct, hence are unfit for marriage and parenting.
ReplyDeleteWorrying about how to contain further threats to marriage -- polygamy, pedophilia, etc. -- is misdirecting our energy. Those threats are non-existent.
The main threat is toward our conception of deviant sexual orientations / gender identities as abnormal, dysfunctional, warped, perverted, etc., and therefore justifying discrimination -- e.g. not allowing gays to adopt, anymore than allowing schizos to work in customer service, or pedos to teach children.
"The 60s wasn't set against the back drop of 100 million of people from dissimilar cultures living within the same region."
ReplyDeleteThis has come up a lot here. Yeah, it's hard to imagine duplicating the 60's with today's diversity. If I remember, Agnostic thinks that more homogenous regions might go through a neo 60's (or a neo 80's).
I don't really see how America is somehow immune to fascist movements that seek to expel aliens and subversives. I don't know if it will come in the form of secession. The continental US took on it's current shape for a reason. The majority of that territory has some value. I think it's particularly daft to think that the entire East or West coast will be wrested from the U.S. by either a non-American force or rebel Americans seeking to start a new country. That goes for the great lakes too.
It should also be noted that a big reason America is such a large country is that much of it's territory is too cold, too dry, or too mountainous to sustain a lot of inhabitants without outside help. So who's gonna fight very hard for it? Canada and Russia are large countries for the same reasons.
It's places with favorable terrain and climate(s) which are frequently contested. Sailer recently pointed out that the northern plains have proven to be a rare source of prosperity for blue collar whites since the climate is so intimidating.
I suspect that places with mild West coast winters and enough whites to sustain prosperity are going to attract the most transplants. The only solution is for prideful whites to roll up the welcome mat. But rootless/glib whites of the modern American West and spineless modern Brits aren't doing a damn thing to stop the invasion.
"The interesting difference between black v. gay is that blacks were not the drivers of their movements: those were Jews/communists (I know, I know, mostly the same) who organized the blacks"
ReplyDeleteIt would be interesting to study how groups/movements act taking into account ethnicity. There certainly are gentiles to be found in any "cause", but I have a hunch that the moment Jews get involved is when things get ugly. The Jews push out the strong/principled gentiles while manipulating the naive/malleable gentiles. See David Gelbaum bribing the Sierra Club so they would no longer talk about immigration.
If we had more courage and a less passive fight/flight response, we would've exposed the way that the Jews have consistently acted to destabilize America and thrown them out decades ago. Little did anyone know (least of all Jews) that Hitler's atrocities would make Jews the ethnic third rail of the West.
Of course, Jews have grown increasingly bold in light of their newfound security and power. They're really accumulating a nasty track record and I don't think it's a stretch to say that we may be only a few decades away from a new expulsion movement. Especially if the muslims aren't thrown out first.
American's lack of anti-semitism isn't too tough to explain. I think that being a very new country has a lot to do with it. The Middle East and Europe to a lesser degree have been dealing with Jews for thousands of years. Each nation/ethnicity has had generation after generation accumulating and passing down Jew horror stories.
But if you're family (including the extended family that is your co-ethnics who moved to America) has only been here for say, 4 generations, you might not have a well developed sense of how to distinguish friend from foe.
Like a predator focusing on the weakest prey, Jews flock to areas with wimpy/rootless people.
Jews are bullies. How do you deal with a bully? By pushing back. Every time they cheat, exploit, ridicule, and despoil gentiles they win. Especially if the gentile submissively accepts it or worse, debases himself by taking the blame and "admiring" the clever Jew. They are cons and bullies. They know what they're doing and when they get away with this stuff, it makes them that much more arrogant and greedy.
Sorry, OT, but over at Sailer's I'm in an argument about whether there would be a black middle class but for public sector.jobs. A regular named "Art Deco" claims that public sector jobs only account for about a fifth of overall black employment. Any opinion on this Agnostic?
ReplyDeleteConservatives seem kind of dimwitted on this issue. Having a strong disgust reflex makes them resort to cries of "withcraft" instead of analyzing it better and thinking of a better solution.
ReplyDeleteI haven't seen any conservative thinkers, for instance, come up with the "Peter Pan" theory of homosexuality, though you'd think that, how important the issue is to them, they would try to understand the psychology of it and the causes. apart from "plague of god"
ReplyDeleteMuch of the so-called "public opposition" to the gay power growth has really not been opposing it, but rather explaining it to those who oppose it as "inevitable."
ReplyDeleteThere are thousands of tracts throughout history condemning homosexual deviancy (which for most of human history was not seen as an identity but an unfortunate choice/action, much like prostitution or excessive drinking).
One major reason for the lack of anti-homo pushback in the old-school way---i.e. relying on such tracts---has been the gay infiltration of the catholic church. Almost every pope since the 1970s has commented on the gay "mafia" in the church; Pope Francis is only the latest.
Such post-Vatican II homo-infiltration has seen a tampering down on the rhetoric of the Catholic pulpit on homosexuality as well as the suppression of the Church in citing such tracts.
With such a neutered opposition ---neutered by insurgency---it is no wonder that agnostic is the only one positing theories about such deviancy.
Perhaps another reason for the lack of anti-semitism in most of this country is that the immigrant groups that settled in the current Jewish strongholds of America had no previous experience with large Jewish power in their old country.
ReplyDeleteIreland had precious few Jews in its history---famously, it was long claimed to be the only country in Europe that never had a pogram, because Jews never bothered to show up (as an ulta-religious farming country with little merchant wealth or trading on the distant reaches of Europe, this is unsurprising). Chinese and Japanese had no Jewish native populations.
Meanwhile, the midwest was settled by large swaths of Germans and Poles, who had long histories with the Jews, much of it negative.
A colleague of mine from Chicago who moved to New York commented on the boldness and arrogance of Jews in New York versus Chicago. He said he had never run into an asshole Jewish guy or aggressively in-your-face Jew till he moved to New York; in the midwest they were much more retiring and meek. Arrogant boldness brought about because their wasn't the ethnic memory of the groups in New York to stamp them down?
This is not true. The black movement has morphed into a broad "diversity" movement, and the gay movement keeps expanding, too, as new letters for new sexual neuroses are added to LGTBBQ or whatever it's called now.
ReplyDeleteHow does your homosexuality as infantilization theory account for men such as Jack Donovan or any of the more manlier fags? And what about the down low phenomenon amongst blacks and arabs, etc..? I've known a few fags who almost have an insatiable sexual appetite for men and women alike and who are extremely self-centered but they don't seem to conform to any of the other characteristics you've mentioned.
ReplyDeleteAlso, can you expand on why rap ( I think you've mentioned it before) is a fag genre?
"the gay movement keeps expanding, too, as new letters for new sexual neuroses are added to LGTBBQ"
ReplyDeleteThat is not an expansion away from the original group of deviants -- those who have deviant sexual orientations or gender identities. Lesbian and gay are the same thing, just different sex. Bisexual is closeted fags and truly bisexual women. Trannies are trannies. Queer is a meaningless catch-all term, not a new or distinct group.
No I for incestuous, B for bestiality, N for necrophilia, P for polygamist, or P for pedophilia. Indeed, pedophiles used to be part of the gay movement (not the lesbo movement), but were kicked out because it made the gays look bad.
There has been a narrowing, not an expansion, of who gets to be part of the sacred victim group, and who is therefore entitled to all the goodies society is about to start doling out.
Naturally, grasping strivers will want to exclude anyone who isn't already part of the movement -- it would dilute their visibility and amount of goodies.
The same is true for blacks -- Mexicans have never been part of the black movement, nor vice versa. They hate each other, and would ethnically cleanse each other if possible. Blacks can't organize, so it's Mexicans who have cleansed the blacks.
The reason for the narrowing, rather than expansion, is the same -- blacks don't want to dilute their visibility by being lumped into a huge "diversity" group, and they don't want to share government hand-outs with an alien race.
How loud are blacks in demanding immigration from Mexico? Or in portraying Mexicans as folks who are "just like us," only willing to do the jobs Americans won't do, including American blacks? Or promoting Mexicans to positions of wealth, power, or cultural influence? Or demanding forced busing of Mexicans into white and/or black schools back in the '70s?
ReplyDeleteThere is no such thing as a "people of color" alliance or movement. Whites and Jews try to lump them all in together, but they're on the side of the elite who are doling out goodies. They aren't the movement itself.
"Also, can you expand on why rap ( I think you've mentioned it before) is a fag genre?"
ReplyDeleteThere are fags overrepresented in pretty much every aspect of post 1992 culture. Still, genres which require the (live) playing of an instrument are going to be less gay friendly since gays generally don't play instruments (with the few who do usually playing the piano). The disco/R & B groups of the 70's had few gays and the rock (and by rock I mean a group with at least 2 guitar players and 1 drummer) groups of any era having few gays. The few gays in these genres usually sang (e.g. Freddy Mercury). Also, hetero instrument players usually don't want a fag in the group unless he's very talented and reliable.
Meanwhile, in genres with little to no musicianship requirements, like rap of all eras, post analog synthpop, and corporate pop/rock, there will be a lot of gays. Why? Because a gay vocalist (and/or gay producer) can rely on samples, faceless studio musicians, professional song writers, and big shot producer/mixers to create a musical backdrop for the homo front man.
Go figure that the1980's glam metal scene had no prominent gays and very few gay people at all. Dokken, Ratt, Motley Crue, WASP, Poison etc. were totally straight. The people who bashed these guys as "fags" evidently didn't notice the notorious amount of (female) groupies that these guys plowed through. Yeah, the Boomer culture of promiscuity is nothing to be proud of, but at least these sorts of stars were straight. Also, the glam image was in keeping with the stylish vibe of the 80's rather than being a sign of some kind of (really) perverted decay.
The peak period of artists writing their own music and playing instruments was the 70's, so there were relatively few gay artists at that time. In the 80's, people still wanted original/authentic material. But advances in the technology and popularity of synthesizers/keyboards early in the decade and digital samplers/mixers later on meant that it was much easier for an artist to perform without other musicians. So we got more gays in pop.
This sort of tech. also explains why blacks largely have given up playing instruments. Blacks are lazy and would rather dick around on computers.
"How does your homosexuality as infantilization theory account for men such as Jack Donovan or any of the more manlier fags? And what about the down low phenomenon amongst blacks and arabs, etc..?"
ReplyDeleteThe average gay is a lot more whiny, wimpy, and screwed up than the average straight. A handful of gays being into guns, cars, and football doesn't change that. And I mean a small handful of gays being like that. Most gays don't sincerely care about anything besides things which quickly offer some pleasure or benefit to them. They're nihilists and hedonists.They want to prance and sleep around at will with no one getting in their way. Thus the childish tantrums about how only a horrible Christian bigot would dare suggest that there's anything unnatural or unhealthy about being queer.
Even closeted GB Packers (ha!) star player Aaron Rodgers went to a Justin Beiber concert with his "personal assistant" in matching outfits. If you think I'm full of it, do a search for Aaron on this blog or any number of gossip websites which will show a lot of incriminating pictures and statements.
Why the down low thing? Two things have been linked to sleeping with dudes, at least on this blog:
-Misogyny (In culture where women are the objects of contempt and fear, horny guys are more likely to resort to dudes)
- A weak sense of disgust. Euros have a visceral distaste for the often gross aspects of the East like slimy and raw food up to and including bugs. Euros and Semites understand traditions like Halal meat; Asians don't have practically any taboos about food, other than outright cannibalism I suppose. Nothing about:
- Cherished pet animals(cats, dogs, horses etc.)
- Non-human primates
- Nasty bugs and seafood
- The humane killing of animals
- Proper cooking/processing
Islam forbids blood of any kind, cat, dog, monkey, carrion, and the improper killing of an animal. It also forbids cruelty to livestock.
Has any Asian culture produced a widely adopted set of food taboos dealing with the health and dignity of both people and animals?
Given how frigid Asian people are and their soulless/robotic attitude towards the grotesque, it's not surprising that Asia is by far the region with the most sex perversion. Including gay stuff of course. If you want to do virtually anything with anyone/anything, it can be had in the Orient.
The kind of autistic dorks who worship Asians while conveying contempt for maniac Muslims need to wake up. A society of taciturn and heartless perverts is not something any non Asian should wish for.
Agnostic, I think the really interesting thing about gay marriage is that it shatters expectations of gender. No can the man man-wife arrangement, with the man as breadwinner, and mother as nurturer be seen as superior to men nurturing and women working. Gay marriage comes in and says men are just as good nurturers, and women just as good providers as men. In my mind gay marriage is not just saying gays are as good parents as straights, but that men and women have interchangeable roles, and that gender is unimportant. In a way, I'm not really surprised that the tranny movement picked up steam after the victory of gay marriage. If men and women were interchangeable, and able to do the same things, then why couldn't a man be a woman easily enough if he just took hormones and put on a dress? I predict that the "2 people who love each other" model of marriage will not stay static.I highly doubt that queers will want the stifling model of heterosexual marriage, and might opt for a less monogamous marriage in the future.
ReplyDeleteContinuing from before about the the links between gender equality and marriage equality.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/quite-queerly/201409/hand-in-hand-marriage-equality-and-gender-equality
In a 2013 article (link is external)for The New Republic, Judge Posner linked the growing acceptance of same-sex marriage to the “wide acceptance of sex outside marriage.”
For example, some straight couples today find it socially acceptable to negotiate open marriages, a concept that was considered to be fairly taboo only a few years ago.
In addition to loosening us all up sexually, marriage equality explodes gender stereotypes in a broader sense. “Traditional” couples, for example, can easily fall into heteronormative patterns concerning employment and parenting – e.g., husbands should be bread-winners, wives should be child rearers -- but such couples can glean a more gender-neutral perspective on these relationship roles from their LGBT friends.
So, marriage equality isn't a unremarkable issue that WON'T usher in changes in how men and women live their lives, but will have a huge effect the traditional monogamous, faithful marriage.