Destroying Gay Marriage Arguments

Whenever I read a load of rubbish I feel a strange sense of duty – no doubt grounded in an oversized ego – to speak some sense, as if it might be a balm, or a counterbalance to bring the internet to some equilibrium between sanity and insanity. About 10 years ago this wonderful defense of gay marriage was made, and ten years later, no matter how late, I’ve come to destroy it.

The Culture Wars can never be too dramatized.

This homosexual vindicator starts as any self-respecting modern essayist should; with indignation. Who decided the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman? Republicans? Straight people? Our country backs the definition, but where did they get it from? I would point out trifles such as biology, but it seems that for our man, a definition that’s always been there is just no good at all. Like that fights should be fair, or that murder is wrong. Who decided that, murder victims? Let’s be serious, the fact that a law has been written on our hearts for so long that we have no record of its origins does not lend credit to a small population of Very Cool People changing it.

“Marriage is not about procreation!” He then fired off, with all the authority of a brand new religion. Luckily for myself, I am friends with Socrates.

Socrates – What then is it about?

Defender of the Faith – Marriage is about love and commitment!

Socrates – Ah, so it is for very best friends, brothers and sisters.

DOF – No, silly Greek, it is for those in a sexual relationship who want that love and commitment.

Socrates – So there is neither love nor commitment in a sexual relationship without marriage? What changes when you marry?

DOF – It’s special –

Socrates – Why? Like you yourself say, it should not be the creation of any religion, it’s not special because of its age. Why then should the love and commitment of marriage be any different then that found in any sexual relationship?

Here I find that gay marriage proponents fall flat, because if marriage is a historically bigoted institution that has nothing to do with the raising of children, why on earth is it important? But there is a simple, practical test to decide whether marriage is about procreation. It follows reason that if it is the case, couples that are the least open to procreation will divorce the most, and vice versa. If marriage has nothing to do with kids, then married people who purposefully aren’t having children must be having great marriages? Right? Wrong. Couples that practice Natural Family Planning use no contraception and are thus open to children, and have the lowest divorce rates, 0.2%. Couples using artificial contraceptives, and thus reluctant to conceive children, have that embarrassing national divorce average of 50%, and gay couples, for whom it is purposefully impossible to conceive a child, have the highest rates of infidelity and divorce in the country. Marriage, it seems, is about procreation.  Would it be a stretch to say that the commitment so applauded by our essayist is a result of children?

Ah, but then couples with infertility should not marry, correct? This is a mistake of principle. A couple having difficulty conceiving a child and two men who cannot POSSIBLY conceive a child are not one in the same. The very diagnosis of infertility implies that the couple is trying to conceive, but the same cannot be said for homosexuals.

Following this devastating argument, our man moves on to show that gay couples are, in fact, great parents. This seems like an odd point to make, what with the hubbub of marriage NOT being about procreation. But nevertheless, he is playing all the cards he has. He starts by pointing out that murderers and child-molesters can have children, so why not gay folk? I don’t pretend to be an expert on debate, but I sincerely doubt the “but murderers and child-molesters are doing it, why can’t I?” would work with my mother. And why this man puts himself of that plane is beyond me. But he makes a similar mistake of principle. A criminal might act as an excellent father, might turn himself around, might reform, might keep that life separate from his child. Or he might not. The government wisely does not pretend to know. But a gay man, no matter how inspiring his reform efforts, cannot be a mother. And this the government can know. Parenthood can not be regulated by how good or bad you are, as these things change like the wind. That’s why the eugenics movement failed. Parenthood  can be decided on gender, however, as it is solid. And I’d be embarrassed if I didn’t know the psychological importance of being raised by a mother and a father. So there. This, of course, was followed up by the argument that all the homosexuals not having children will ease the burden of over-population. Would you make up your mind, Mr. Morally-Sound, Sir? Are you good fathers or childless earth-savers? And what over-population, by the way?

I’ll wrap it up with this gem: In a stunning rebuttal to all those claiming that homosexuality is unnatural, we hear that animals often have homosexual contact. Animals often rape and kill and eat their own offspring, sir.

My next post will be exactly why I am against gay marriage, a reason so sensible, few have heard it.

Posted in Marriage | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Confederate Flag Placed on MLK’s Assasination Site!

Colonel Tarleton was a British colonel in the American Revolutionary War, best known for the Buford Massacre, in which he ignored the American white flag of surrender and mercilessly slaughtered 113 men. Obviously, bygones are bygones, and we hold the British people in no greater  or lesser esteem for the fact. But let us say, for the sake of an argument, that a modern-day Brit bought the land outside of Lancaster, South Carolina, where the Massacre took place, and proceeded to erect a great Union Jack over the site. Should it stand? The Britainer himself may not be a murderer, and we know most certainly that the British are not evil people, but does his symbol represent treason? Hate-speech? Or simply bad taste?

America, via the Enola Gay, dropped an atom bomb on Hiroshima, Japan to end the Second World War, decimating the city and killing thousands upon thousands of innocent people. For the sake of sound discussion, let us say that an American man, many years later, purchased the land where the bomb first struck, and planted a massive American flag and full set of presidential busts on it. Should it stand? The American himself may be a decent man, but is the symbol not an insult enough to be censored? Does it not cross the line?

Martin Luther King was assassinated in what was the Lorraine Hotel in Memphis, Tennessee. Let us say, because we can, that a modern member of the Knight’s Party – previously known as the Ku Klux Klan – bought that land and painstakingly built beautiful marble fountain, complete with the Confederate flag. Should it stand? The Knight’s Party claims it’s message is now one of love, not hate, and the Confederate flag, for many people, is a symbol of historic pride, not oppression. Is it hate speech, or simply bad taste?


Muslim radicals, in the name of Allah and Islam, recently murdered thousands of innocent Americans by destroying the Twin Towers in New York City, using planes as weapons to decimate them. Let us say, for the sake of actual events, that a group of Muslims, but a few years later, sought to purchase the land next to this tragic site. They sought to build a mosque. A mosque funded by Saudi Arabian money. The Muslims themselves may be decent men, for we know most certainly that the followers of Islam are not all evil people. But should it stand? Is it not a symbol enough? Does it not cross the line of the freedom of religion to the point of disturbing the peace and committing treason? Is it hate? Or simply bad taste? In case I’ve lost any readers in analogy, I offer the following statement: The afore-mentioned is actually happening.

Let us not forget the importance of symbols. To build a mosque is a symbol of  victory. In the eyes of Muslims, it changes the very land from that of the infidels, to that of Allah, as it was in Constantinople, Cordova, the Holy Land, and modern Paris. Islam is no mere religion, as if it were but another Springtown Road First Baptist Holy Church of God of Jesus of the Holy Bible. It is sharia; a government, and the mosque is the very center of that government. Make no mistake then, about the meaning one government gives to another when it establishes its center upon their ruins.

 Also, let us not forget the importance of sacred places. National and State Parks, there regardless of whether the people want them, are kept safe from industrialists and developers, whether or not those developers simply wish to practice their American right of expanding their business within the free market. Churches and pizza places and any private property, there regardless of whether the people want them, are free to make visitors dress and act as quietly as they want, no matter if their customers merely wish to practice free speech by walking in naked. Does a place actually held sacred by the American people, a place spoken of in hushed voices across the nation, does such a place not have the power to tell a mosque no?

This is a thing too serious for me to speak of as blithely as I would like, and too unbelievable for me to speak of as seriously as I would like. I feel profoundly betrayed by our president for endorsing this mosque; could they not build but ten miles away? If it is so innocent, why is it there? It would take a complete fool of a Muslim to not understand the significance of location. I only hope that the common sense I love so much will prevail, and I leave with a somewhat disjointed idea of an idea; that in many fine counties, the vandalism of a cemetery is a crime both separate and graver than vandalism elsewhere.


Posted in History, Islam, Uncommon Nonsense | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

How To Be An Atheist

Etymologically speaking, A holiday is a holy day, which leads me to understand why the godless are so grumpy – they’ve never had one. But, then again, for a breed so bent on denying that religion has brought any good fruit into the world, they see no contradiction in eating it, so perhaps they go on holidays and call them vacations. Those wild, crazy, Winter Solstice Vacations. But when they leave do they say “goodbye”, etymologically rooted in the phrase “God be by you”? Surely that sends a shudder of hypocrisy down their spines, like when they write the date based on Christ in their earth-shaking blog posts; 2010. If they were real secularists, they’d have the stones to scrawl out “approx. 4,500,000,000 years” on the right hand corner of their high-school essays, and the teachers be damned if they can’t decipher the date. Well not damned literally, of course, but frowned upon by educated people, which as we all know, is much, much worse.

My point is Chesterton’s: Somehow one can never manage to be an atheist. They are shaped by the world, and the world is shaped by Christ. They are shaped by themselves, and there very selves are shaped by God. In this world where men become women and women become men, the hardest thing to become is secular. Even the word “secular” is religious, originally used to describe a priest outside of a specific religious order. The word “atheist” is no better. Anyone not asleep in 9th grade English class can tell you the meaning of the prefix “a” – without. And the without-god-ers do no more to disprove God than the without-arm-ers disprove the existence of arms.

The university system and liberal arts education were invented by the Catholic Church – that great monolith of indoctrination – so I assume no atheist attends higher education on principle, in the same way the religious are reluctant to attend the atheistic education system –  the Gulags. If they do go to college, my heart breaks with pity for them; how do they avoid the opiate of the masses? Not in the classes, for the history of science reveals too much about its illogical roots of being all “for the glory of God”, the history of music, language, farming, philosophy, writing, mathematics and just about everything reveals that we have monks to thank for just about everything. Even the Enlightenment. And as far as literature; after Nietzsche went insane and died, atheistic literature just hasn’t been all its cracked up to be.

They could try descending into vice, an activity readily available at college, but they’d have to alter their cursing to exclude the best curses, and during pre-marital sex they’d be obliged to cry out “oh-my-infinitely-repeating-universe-theory!” which, I am told, does not endear oneself to the opposite sex. And, knowing that morality is completely relative, they’d have to be comfortable inviting their grandmothers to their frat parties. We have religion to thank for so much; the separation of church and state, limited government, protection of the weak and the poor, charity, hope, the end of slavery, the scientific revolution, the very best art and music the world knows,  and God to thank for so much more, and atheism to thank for so little; besides oppressive communism, fascism, social darwinism, eugenics, and moral relativism. So how does one go about being an atheist? I’ve honestly no clue, as I’ve never seen it done whole-heartedly. Maybe atheism, like a cubicle job, is only something that can be done in apathy.

Posted in Atheism, The Truth About Man | Leave a comment

People Are Wonderful

With apologies to the various back-to-nature promoters of whose fervor knows no equal; we aren’t natural people. On the contrary, we’ve lived in a supernatural world with supernatural souls for so long that we’ve decided it natural, and thus boring, when nothing could be further from the truth. We are a book read twice, and the antidote to this monotonous re-read can only be a third read. Then we will see ourselves for the first time, in the shining light of dawn. Thus, as a remedy to the plethora of lackluster, materialistic interpretations of the ourselves, I offer for examination- the hiker. The hiker, in a fierce sort of passion, climbs great lumps of rock over long periods of time, not to get anywhere, but to get back where he started. This sort of action is so contrary to natural behavior, so scandalously shocking in and of itself, that I consider it every man’s duty to consider it, if only for the duration of this piece.

We’ve all heard of the nursery rhyme regarding a certain bear who, in the spirit of adventure, went over the mountain to “see what he could see”. Unlike most nursery rhymes, which contain as much truth as scripture, this is a barefaced lie.  Burn any written copies of it you own, and hang any who dare recite it. There is no bear that would climb a mountain for the view, and the view alone. I hold this as a truth and a dogma: Under the limits of human experience and the scope of human observance, a bear may climb, but no bear hikes. No animal hikes.

Man and man alone feels some inexplicable need to challenge himself to climb a rock, wasting energy, adding danger, risking life – a thing no animal does outside of necessity. Humans, it seems, are Darwin’s true Achilles’ heel. We seem to enjoy making the Survival of the Fittest more difficult for ourselves, when we aren’t ignoring it altogether.  This is not the result of intelligence, as materialists love to blame our morality on, for there are few things more idiotic and more enjoyable then climbing a mountain to get to the top.  It cannot be dismissed as the mere good feeling of exercise, as we have a clear preference for hiking over jumping in place for an hour. It is not inspired by the need to be a stronger person more able to reproduce, as our muscles tend to be a pleasant afterthought after the ordeal, and for the majority of us, any other form of exercise would be more convenient and less dangerous. We are either supernatural or inexplicably stupid. Choose one, but be forewarned, the latter makes it difficult to hold a strong position in a debate.

This fact becomes ever more apparent when we consider the greater fallacy of the bear; that he not only hiked, but hiked for the view. We feel a native disappointment for the bear when all he sees is “the other side of the mountain”, apparently forgetting that man climbs the mountain to see the same thing, and is not disappointed but fulfilled. Christians are still in the habit of wildly pointing to sunsets and crying, “Look! How can you say there is no God?” They miss the point. The sunset is not the magic, its the fact that we believe it to be magic that is magic. Not to push the point too far, but I imagine the honest atheist could resist the powerful charms of the sunset, but if he had any understanding of the Darwinism he lived by, he would fall at the feet of the wildly pointing Christian and declare that there is a God. The fact that we seek and appreciate beauty screams of something wonderfully wrong with us. What animal seeks a great lump of rock and finds it so admirable that it will sit and stare, and do nothing else? Dare I suggest that our surprised astonishment at these ordinary rocks and trees might mean we do not belong here? That this life is, to use an ill-fitting word, a life-long holiday?

When we do things there is no natural explanation for, like loving, believing in God, sacrificing our lives, caring for other species, painting, playing bluegrass around fires, writing books promoting atheism, and  other such “tremendous trifles”, we live like we are supposed to, whether we admit or otherwise. We live supernaturally. Acknowledging this forces us to to treat our brothers and sisters, not like tools, not like toys, but images of God. And the world grows that much more sensible besides.

Posted in The Truth About Man | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Having Sex To Win

Is this not an interesting enough topic: that the supposedly hate-filled, narrow-minded conservative would sooner give his life for his country than the liberal-minded, all-loving, tolerant humanitarian? Surely that says something about our stereotypes, at the very least. (Oh look, there goes the intolerant redneck! Look how backwards, look hateful, there he goes…taking a bullet for his fellow man. Ah.) But those liberal/conservative labels are getting old, anyhow.

Alas and alack, my topic today – though related – is infinitely less fascinating; that the proponents of population control seem to be the least likely to volunteer and die for the good of mankind. This is a thing to be lamented, not because their deaths would – in any great way – affect global populations, but because the death of all the proponents of population control would have a wonderfully lasting and positive effect on the population control movement. They would leave us like a bright and educated flash of concern, and humanity would be left to breathe easy, not having to justify their own existence to indignant, old women. But it is not to be; these fascinating people seem intent on the demise of everyone else’s potential family; heaven forbid they take part in easing the burden they invented in the seventies themselves.

The key then, for those opposed to population control, is to procreate like mad-men. Or very, very sane men, for that matter. Go have sex. For if the supporter’s of the Great Population Reduction Movement will not follow their own precepts and die, their self-sterilization will do the trick in a generation or two. They will have no darling, indoctrinated offspring to argue their case. Darwinism favors the morons who don’t like Darwin, it would appear. So to the culture that seems miserably bent on making sex an awful experience (Right gentlemen, we’ll have her drugged against children and excitement, throw some rubber between them, tell them the whole thing is a biological act, like vomiting, kill anything good that comes out of the affair, and voila, shout “freedom” like you’re William Wallace!) I repeat, go have some fantastic sex with your spouse. Make a kid that looks better than you.

After all, there aren’t going to be any converts to The Movement what with current demographic trends. One can only speculate where our impressionable brothers and sisters pick up the idea of curtailing the human race in the first place. A severe case of claustrophobia? A lack of a passport to travel to Europe and count the natives there?  A bitter grumpiness from the public animosity towards the eugenics movement? Or perhaps a faint disdain for the “colored” races, whom they have seemed the most eager to sterilize. Whatever the cause, it’s nothing reasonable. Recent population increase has not been caused by higher fertility rates – which have plummeted – but by greater life expectancy,which has sky-rocketed over the last 100 years. Thank you, modern medicine.

It only follows  then, that, if the population-controllers truly wish to achieve their goals, they’d find better luck, not in lowering fertility rates, but the life expectancy. Make the world more dangerous. End freeways suddenly, with large ramps. Dig tiger-traps in front of nursing homes. Set various opposing ethnic and cultural groups in apartment complexes with each other, Israelis and Pakistanis, Irish Catholics and Protestants, Northern homosexuals and Southern Baptists; then ban air-conditioning. Arm students, disarm the police, replace stairs with slides, breathing with smoking, church with gladiator matches, democracy with the feudal system, and then we may see some progress in population size, or – more accurately – a lack of progress. It seems much more efficient and exciting then living life without the ability to have a child.

Luckily for the majority of the planet, the wealthy bunch of population-controllers will have died out long before they have an idea as fresh and invigorating as mine.

Posted in Population | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Fantastic Failure of Feminism

Recently, and on more than one occasion, women paraded topless through city streets , so as to protest a hideously unequal treatment society deals out: that it is sometimes appropriate for a man to be shirtless, but never appropriate for women to follow suit. There is, of course, the glaring fact that a parade of topless women – however wonderfully Amazonian – is not the best method to make a publicly bare-breasted woman appear normal. When you want something widely accepted by the populace – like potatoes, haircuts and polo-shirts – you hardly make a parade out of it. Besides, there are very few parades of topless men, and even fewer that are considered normal by any stretch of the imagination. But while the event failed to impact the world’s unwritten dress-code, it does neatly sum up the whole problem of the feminist movement. That is to say: men took pictures. The leaders of the parades were besides themselves with this strange and offensive discovery; that men, against all odds and hopeful predictions, behave like men; cat-calling, oggling, and all the rest.

My point is this: Feminism is not a victorious bow of Woman Accomplished to the applause of the world, but a bow of defeat, by a minority of women, to the lusts of men. Woman has been historically better than man, transcending his primitive nature with her primitive grace, meeting his fantasies of lust with her realities of children, and checking – and checkmating – his passions with her own; control, commitment and humility utterly destroying man’s vague need for a drink and a battle – not to undercut man’s delicate ego by too much. On the other hand, the modern feminism effectively exalts men, women pressing their noses to the ground and saying: To your lusts we promote contraception and abortion, that your lusts might increase and our power over them decrease. To your pleasure we lower ourselves to the level of men, to be treated as such. And in the current case I speak of: We admit that our chests are no more attractive then your’s, and will thus no longer bother to cover them. You win.

And unfortunately, there are men who take full advantage of this surrender. Behind every “male feminist” there is the grin of a cad. Is it any suprise that the greatest supporters of abortion are not women, but men from 18 to 30 years of age? That contraception is almost entirely the burden of women? This modern feminism is failure, and it is the worst kind that win.

Posted in Feminism | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Insanity of Matrimony

Perhaps the most potent fuel thrown on our ever-increasing and nationally-embarrassing divorce rate is the over-thinking of marriage. We think of it as such a commitment that we forget it is only a commitment because it is an adventure, and there is nothing more difficult to walk away from than an adventure. We hold it to be such a sacrament -which it is- that we forget it was only made a sacrament because something as impractical and daring couldn’t be sustained otherwise. And I say impractical because it truly is, aside from those outdated aims no longer important in the modern world: civilizing men, making love, raising sound children and such trifles. It is biologically impractical for us to be built for monogamy, and physically, socially and just about “everythingally” impractical for two fallen human beings to pledge to love each other until they are killed-or kill each other.

That is why marriage is so awesome and beautiful: it can only be a mad act of passion, and because we have elevated it to such high heights of the sacramental, it is one of the few acts of passion with a wonderfully good chance of success. The liberals grumble about it being an antiquated, oppressive and inescapable institution, and while this cynicism does not always cross over to the Christian camp, the fear does. It is what leads to the careful evaluation, sorting and testing which make the thing as exciting as tap water or a demotion. The happy truth is that, yes, it is indeed an institution! Not antiquated, but so clearly correct and durable that it has survived long enough to be called such. The inevitable truth all forward-thinking progressives must face at some time or other is that the “old-fashioned” must have survived much greater attacks than progressivism to be awarded the status of “old-fashioned”.

The fact that marriage is indeed an ancient institution only further glorifies it. It is only in moments of insane passion that man creates sane institutions. We like to think of a child as wild and free, and in some senses this is true. But it is the same wild freedom of the child that would create the most rules the world has ever seen. It is the child that creates the sacred institution of don’t-step-on-the-cracksism, and we’d be hard pressed to find more oppressive dogma in all the churches of the world. Give a child a game with no limits and you’ll bore him; give him limits on where to step, what not to say; give him an oppressive institution and you’ll have a happy child. Only out of the madness of the French Revolution came something as institutionalized as the Republic.

So it is with marriage. Unless it comes from the insanity of love and the spirit of adventure for which it was meant, it will never become the solid and steadfast institution that will stand the test of time, children and mortgage. No amount of time will ever tell us what living a lifetime with someone will be like. It is something that, by its very nature, simply must be done.

Posted in Marriage, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment