Thursday, April 10, 2014

The best essay I've read on gay-marriage totalitarianism

The Rise of the Same-Sex Marriage Dissidents

The similarities with communist totalitarianism of the 20th century are real, as are the solutions. The insight of Vaclav Havel is fascinating, and so true.

14 comments:

  1. Everything liberals say about same-sex marriage is a calculated lie, covered in syrupy sweet nonsense about love. "We're for love, you're for hate," they say.

    The many people who have lost their livelihoods for opposing them might disagree.

    Joey

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How many have lost their livelihoods?

      It seems to me that on balance gay marriage must be good for business - many livelihoods supported by catering to all the extra weddings. Not to mention the lawyers' livelihoods supplemented by the extra divorces.

      Delete
  2. Commissar Boggs, Ministry of TruthApril 10, 2014 at 7:10 AM

    Excellent piece. It's been interesting to watch the marketing of cargo cult marriage in the political and economic landscapes. Hemingway is correct on the point she makes about the sexual dogma. In fact, it's even more fascinating in light of the fact that the same people who promulgate the current sexual dogma will unhesitatingly demand "evidence" for religious dogma.... and then blithely ignore mountains of quotidian empirical evidence refuting their sexual dogma. It's the will to power, you see.

    I ran across a sweet piece the other day worthy of noting in this context. As we now know from the gay Stanford students, GTLBites [git-LUB-ites] are a fragile bunch. Stewart's sign may apply to the remainder of the human race, but to disagree with GTLBites is to condemn them to nail-biting, anguish, depression, and anxiety, and even suicide in some cases. So this particular piece was sweet and poignant in the way that only the mewlings of newborn kittens and misunderstood GTLBites can be.

    CisGender:

    Cisgendered people are people who identify with the gender they were "assigned" at birth (implies an assigner, but I'll let that slide). Cisgender is, I suppose, the antonym for transgender. It's a minor jargon theft from chemistry to give the appearance of thoughtfulness.

    So why do we say ‘cisgender’ instead of ‘non-transgender’? Because, referring to cisgender people as ‘non trans’ implies that cisgender people are the default and that being trans is abnormal.

    You see, it's wrong to have a word for the nondefault position where people go through body mutilations and hormone therapy to simulate the appearance of the "default" without also having a word for the default. That could cause nail-biting, anguish, depression, and anxiety, and even suicide in some cases.

    But even more poignant was the comment from a person calling themselves "crushton":
    I am trying to research the origin of the term “CIS” used for being born female, meaning with a vagina... [emphasis added]

    Thank you, crushton, for clarifying that.

    You see where we have devolved to.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I can’t believe you would post that “We need more blacklists” and literally two days later praise an essay that compares the circumstances of Brendon Eich’s resignation to communist totalitarianism. The only way you could have made your hypocrisy more obvious would have been to combine them and call it “Black lists for me but not for thee”.

    -KW

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Commissar Boggs, Ministry of TruthApril 10, 2014 at 7:46 AM

      "Resignation"?

      :-D

      Delete
    2. All societies need blacklists. All societies have had blacklists. There are certain things that societies decide they will not suffer-- that is perhaps the definition of a "society".

      We Christians have not enforced good blacklists. So we get the bad ones used against us. Secular blacklists tend to totalitarianism, unlike Christian blacklists.

      Delete
    3. And society is deciding not to suffer anti-gay bigotry. The moral arc of history continues to bend toward justice.

      -KW

      Delete
    4. Playing the victimhood card, eh KW? That tired old routine has run its course. The fascist gaystapo are the ones victimizing people by (attempting to) ruin their livelihood. Much to the LGBT's chagrin, in each instance where they seek to punish dissent, it creates an unprecedented backlash. The overwhelming majority believes that marriage is a sacred unity of one man and one woman and no amount of sob stories or propaganda is going to change this.

      Delete
  4. Commissar Boggs, Ministry of TruthApril 10, 2014 at 8:09 AM

    Daily Truth™:

    Note to heavily-armed government agents attempting to subdue a family in Nevada.

    Your "First Amendment Area" sign is wrong. The areas in red on this map are the designated First Amendment areas in the United States.

    Please update.

    ReplyDelete
  5. It was a pretty good essay, if a bit too comfortable for my tastes. I prefer something with more meat on its bones in order to effectively counteract the aggression and venom coming from the pro-LGBT crowd. So I'll give it a shot.

    It's reasonable to assume that the people who cave in to the pro-LGBT crowd's demands are cowards. Whatever an individual's convictions or political views, they're rendered irrelevant if they're the end result of buckling under social-political pressure. Strength is derived from moral convictions, with the full knowledge that what you stand for is the truth, e.g. marriage is a union exclusively for one man and one woman. That's what's normal because that's what's right. When confronted with anyone who doesn't conform to their views (i.e. opposition), predictablym the progressives must resort to ridicule, ad hominem attacks, slander and labeling (and now corporate witch hunts), because they know that they cannot form a coherent, logical argument to justify their deviance from normality, except to whine about "equality," as if SS'M were some universal concept for centuries up until the mean bigots came along and changed everything. In addition, they've mastered the art of victimhood, as if their "freedoms" were threatened by others' non-conformity. The reality is, they enjoy all the same liberties as everyone else has, all the same Constitutional rights. What they are really after are special privileges, in order to enforce their views upon others using the power of the state. In other words, legalized suppression, particularly of Christians. Last time I checked, redefining marriage wasn't a civil liberty, but I digress. SS'M was put to popular referendum 31 times and 31 times it was shot down by the majority. In each instance of its legal passage, an unscrupulous activist judge overruled the will of the people. The LGBT crowd cannot deceive the majority and therefore resorts to all manner of dirty tactics in order to get their way.

    Much like the pigs on the farm in Orwell's Animal Farm, all animals are created equal but some are more equal than others.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I'm quite troubled that SCOTUS has recently ruled
    that private businesses are to be viewed as public accommodations that must serve all customers. So if the Westboro Baptist Church orders a cake from KW's bakery that proclaims their repellent meme GOD HATES FAGS, then KW better comply.

    And in USAToday, Kirsten Powers explains that Kickstarter's attempt to censor film about convicted abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell is another example of Liberals' mob rule. Here's the lede: "Last week brought a chilling reminder of how mercilessly some liberals will work to silence and marginalize people who hold views with which they disagree."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. “I'm quite troubled that SCOTUS has recently ruled that private businesses are to be viewed as public accommodations that must serve all customers.”

      Bull! The SCOTUS made no such ruling. New Mexico has a law called the New Mexico Human Rights Act that bans discrimination based on sexual orientation. The Supreme Court didn’t rule on the case, they simply let the lower courts ruling that the New Mexico law applies in this circumstance stand.

      “Kickstarter's attempt to censor film about convicted abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell”

      More bull. Kickstarter didn’t try to censor a film. The simply wanted the graphic description of Gosnell’s crimes removed from his solicitation for funds.

      Nothing you’ve said is true

      -KW

      Delete
    2. Don't know anything about that Kickstarter story but I do know that NM passed the anti-discrimination law, thus compelling private bakeries and photographers by law to either service the gaystapo bullies' events or be forced out of business. Essentially it is a workaround designed to trample NM resident's 1A rights of freedom of association and religious exemption.

      Delete
    3. KW, allowing a rape to proceed in circumstances WHERE YOU COULD STOP IT is pretty much the same thing as doing the rape yourself. Allow a pro-rape lower circuit court ruling to stand and you have cooperated in the evil.

      Delete