Something I’ve always found odd is how stories about homosexuals on sites that allow comments are instantly filled up with comments from gay militants. National Review has been sleepy for a while now, not generating tons of comments. Ramush Ponnuru is one of the least interesting posters there so his stuff gets cobwebs on it before anyone posts a comment. Today he posted this about some professional homosexual bitching about normals not wanting give up their religion to please homosexuals. Immediately it was flooded with deranged commenters making a nuisance of themselves.
I asked how these weirdos organize troll attacks. Who has the time? I was informed that there’s actually a blog that organizes them to bomb sites they don’t think are sufficiently deferential to their cause. It’s called JoeMyGod and it is about what you would expect from a site devoted to the crotch. It’s littered with pictures of naked men. It appears to to be the work of rabid lunatics. They have a link to Right Wing Watch, the journal of the aluminum foil hat crowd so the blog owner is a crackpot.
I’m going to assume the thrust of the site, so to speak, is the cause of homosexual marriage. That and the abolition of religion. Homosexual have had a long running feud with Christianity to the point of obsession. That’s why these nuts are running around harassing bakeries and caterers they think are Christians. Homosexual marriage, 0f course, is just a tantrum against tradition, they incorrectly associate with Christianity. The fact that marriage as a social custom integral to human settlement dates back thousands of year prior to Christianity is lost on these people.
I’ve written in the past that I think homosexual marriage to be a most harmless insanity. Basing public policy on rants against biology and serendipity is probably a bad idea with unknown downstream consequences. The most obvious argument against is it weakens normal marriage and thus undermines social cohesion. My argument against it is the grounds of general stupidity. Homosexual marriage is absurd and it is stupid to pretend otherwise. But, I can be convinced it is just harmlessly stupid.
What’s striking about the Pink Mafia is the inherent fascism in their cause. The image of homosexuals and Nazi cavorting together makes me laugh just typing it, but they say Hitler was probably a man who preferred the company of other men. He did have a thing for leather. Anyway, the underlying argument from homosexual activists is that you must get permission to use your private property and you must get permission from the state before deciding with whom to associate. Everything within the state, nothing outside the state.
I doubt the people reading and responding to JoeMyGod have the capacity to think that through. They are just angry and they want to strike out at society. People who join movements do so from self-loathing. The homosexuals harassing Christian bakers are seeking to exchange their hated self for the identity of the group. It’s why Islam seems to have an unlimited supply of suicide bombers. The self-loathing see obliteration as the ultimate goal of their membership in the cause. Mass movements have a lot of those people by definition.
The comments section of the post that started all of this is interest in that the hive mind is on full display. Each comment is another way of shaking the fist at those outside the hive. The naked hatred of Christians is pathological. The neologism “Christianist” must be an epithet in their cult, but maybe it has origins elsewhere. A quick Google search suggests it started with Andrew Sullivan, but I’m not interested enough to research it further. It’s just another reminder that you never put weirdos in charge and you’re best off keeping them out on the fringe where they can’t break anything important.
The important thing is to keep the gays away from the children. For this reason homosexuality should be illegal, but seldom enforced – only if someone is proselytizing near the schools. Outlawing homosexuality would assure that none would ever get to adopt, too.
Kids are susceptible to bad ideas, coercion by elders, easily bribed, and they are CUTER. Many end up attracted to people like their first crush, gays are all about thinking with their crotches, they likely started early with whoever they had access to.
Our forced “acceptance” of homosexuality has now resulted in constant propagandizing of school children, in the name of “anti-bullying”.
Notice the surge of transgendering? – be assured there’s a surge in homosexual acts amongst teens, it’s just easier to keep hidden. Kids are getting deeply traumatized for the sake of adults who want to rub societies nose in excrement.
I think I read that article too, Vince! It might have been in the old American Spectator. The hippy fad for “free” and “natural” life – hair uncut, bodies unwashed, babies without diapers doing what comes naturally in the open air – had reproduced an environment out of the medieval era.
is the homoverse where homotrimony exists?
“But, there may be downstream consequences we have not considered. There is a reason, after all, why it has never been done.”
Read an article some time ago, by a doctor who worked at a free clinic in San Francisco in the late 1960’s. Their patients tended to be young, hippie types, living in communes with all that that entailed back in the day. He said they were seeing rashes, STDs, and other diseases that they had only seen in old textbooks — stuff that disappeared with the advent of indoor plumbing. His point was, “listen to your mother” — she may not know explicitly why you need to “wash behind your ears”, etc., but there is probably a good reason all those mothers have been saying it for generations, even if the reason has been forgotten.
When did it become my business who someone has sex with? I’m with Tripletap – the closet is where they belong – I don’t need to know this stuff.
Marriage, so far as I know, was a Greek scheme to give every fellow a shot at regular pussy, and also that he might know his children were actually his own. Whatever it’s many drawbacks, and I’ve experienced most of them, it seems to have been a great factor in the advance of man.
However it was advertised to attract members, marriage was always been about assigning responsibilities. Benefits came from responsibilities. Homosexuals are skipping the one and gaining the other. Is it harmful? It’s meant to be harmful.
Never put weirdoes in charge?
Have you noticed the absolute manic desperation that SOME folks will go to for an election to fulfill an “onus” of “public office”?
For that matter, have you ever noticed which “tent” the weirdest ones end up poking their nose into, and finding open arms?
We all approach this subject from different perspectives, of course. But my take on marriage is it is a union of opposites; and heterosexual marriage is such a union. Men are, in many ways, not at like women.
I am sure greater minds than mine can dismiss my opposites notion easily, and such a dismissal may well have been done plenty of times in the past. However this is how I see it. Therefore, right or wrong, I see same-sex marriage as, er, not of opposites.
Sure one of them may pretend to be the female (or the male, of course) but they aren’t really. Therefore to me it doesn’t work as intended.
I also think that if they can freely cohabit, if they can form civil partnerships that have legal bindings to ensure the proper distribution of assists/wealth when the time comes, then the gays have everything they want. Why insist it has a different name?
Perhaps Z you are right: it is all quite harmless in the great scheme of things. Or perhaps it is damaging because the intent of some is not to merely be happy — a laudable aim for us all — but to make blazing, rousing show of something that doesn’t need to be put on Broadway.
Oh well, each to their own.
I tend to assume that all human societies have a fair amount of magical thinking sloshing about. In general, we like our reality watered down as much as possible. The question is about limits. Calling two guys sharing rent and a bed married strains credulity. No one really thinks of them as married. They don’t even think they are married, if you read the literature. Pretending is, I suspect, a modern way of being polite.
But, there may be downstream consequences we have not considered. There is a reason, after all, why it has never been done.
“People who join movements do so from self-loathing.”
This is an under appreciated truth and a key insight to how the world works.
I remember when we had closets for these types. It was better then.
I’m against homosexual marriage, only for the reason that it keeps the moonbats busy with that particular cause. Homo marriage doesn’t really bother me but if it were to be legalised, they wouldn’t just go away and be happy. Oh no, there will be something new on the agenda and no doubt it will be much worse.