I suspect that many of our regulars will need to pause when they see this, to wipe the vomit off their monitors. But I suggest the following:
1. It is not our business what consenting adults do in bed together;
2. It is mean-spirited to pass even non-coercive hostile judgement on what they do;
3. So long as no one who disagrees with the above is persecuted, there is nothing objectionable about gay marriage;
4. While the ideal is for children to be brought up in a stable union of both their biological parents, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with the sort of family shown in the picture – it looks better than many defective versions of the ideal;
5. Though no hotelier should be forced to offer accommodation to such families, it is praiseworthy if one does.
I should, therefore, regard the advertisement as one of the few good things about the modern world. For some reason, however, I don’t. Is this because I am secretly as intolerant of homosexuality as Stephen Green? Or is it because the advertisement has an agenda that goes beyond liberal tolerance? Or am I now inclined to see Enemy Class propaganda in everything I look at?
All I can say for sure is that both men look like lefties.
Comments welcome.
Discover more from The Libertarian Alliance
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I seeย nothing praiseworthy in hotels accepting homosexual families, Sean, for it seems neutral to me and it is likely to be the norm; but I do defend the right of Christian owners to reject them, but that will ย remain rare, I suppose.
I think it is quite impossible to be secretly intolerant, though one might hate in secret. However,ย if we do hate the homosexuals yetย behave as if we were indifferent then that is to be tolerant towards them.
As you know, we have many common friends who are homosexuals. I do not think I would like them more if they were not. It is just not an issue with me but I think others need to liberty to reject, and as all my homosexual friends are LAers they agree with me there.ย
Bearing in mind the legal and social persecutions that homosexuals faced until recently, I think it is praiseworthy when someone goes out of his way to make them welcome – far less praiseworthy than when the persecutions were still active, but praiseworthy still.
I still can’t say what I dislike about the advertisement. It may be that those now parading their acceptance of diversity were less accepting when it was not yet in fashion, and that they are probably very intolerant of intellectual diversity.
Sean, the Marriott fellas are, here, trying actively to curry favour with the PoliticalEnemyClass.
At one level, it’s a device to get the EnemyClass’s business, which I guess as a tactic is fair enough. If you don’t mind being close to the Devil then you can sup with a short spoon (my references to the Devil are nothing to do with how some people see gays – I agree entirely with your points of tolerance since one’s sexuality is nobody else’s fucking business (literally).) The PoliticalEnemyClass will feel comfortable about staying in hotels whose marketing advisers make ads like this one, and as we know, it stays in hotels a lot.
On another level, it’s an attempt to seem “modern”, which is a rather weak thing to want to be.
The campaign to sodomise the culture continues. ย TheDarkManย will always correct any meaningful error of fact.
________________________________
As someone who actively supported gay rights when it was still unfashionable and even reputationally dangerous, and had a lot of interaction with the gay scene for some years, my own sense of whatever looking at the image comes from two things-
1) Since the reversal of attitudes this is no longer outsiders campaigning for justice, but insiders imposing their dogma as thoroughly as the previous anti-gay one was imposed. As a libertarian that naturally raises my hackles. Whatever the hell hackles are.
2) I don’t think the word “marriage” is definitionally applicable to gay relationships. I think it entirely fine that gays should be partners if they desire, and that if marriage is legally recognised so should their partnerships. But the word “marriage” is not applicable. It thus annoys the heck out of me to have the language dictated by the Progressive State. To use a probably inadequate analogy, there is nothing wrong with either chairs or sofas, but a chair is not a sofa and I would object to being instructed by the State to recognise chairs as being sofas. They are different, even if they are both forms of seating.
3) I believe that the primary reason for the gay marriage campaign was nothing to do with rights at all, but primarily to discomfort the (American) opponents of the Progressive Left. I think this was profoundly cynical and despicable.
I am less hostile to the idea of gay marriage, but otherwise agree with this analysis.
There are a number of reasons to dislike this image Sean:
1-A heterosexual man shown in such close proximity to children without a women close at hand (cos’ there aren’t any female perverts don’t’cha know) would at once be denounced as a paedo–and leading the charge would be the same leftist scum who would endorse the ad as it stands.
2-It represents the triumph of said leftist scum. I don’t really care about teh gayers so long as they follow the non-aggression principle and get on with it without pestering those who don’t want to know. The scum of the left–who are only using gays as a club to attack those they hate–bring about such fury that some of it is likely to overflow against their clients. And that is not fair as the average homosexual probably just wants to get on with their life, not help rabid leftist scumbags outrage people and metaphorically spit in their faces
3-The ad has not been put forward to appeal to any group. Most gays are not in “family” type set-ups as shown. The advert has been constructed to offend. Consciously and deliberately to insult the values that most people in this country hold. And behind this chummy duo is the laughing, patronising, middle class, never-had-a-days-hardship-in-his/her-fucking-life-but-still-angry-with-middle-class mummy-and-daddy, Guardian reading, anti-racist, well-off ecofreak twat who is the average member of the enemy class.
I think Sean let his feelings run away with him when he said that these men look lefties. To me they look like the very sad people who buy products made by Apple, in the mistaken belief that this makes them ‘cool’.
That a large number of such people are homosexual is an interesting statistical quirk.
I’ve noticed that correlation also. Its significance would I’m sure pass a chi-squared test.
Marriage is a religious sacrament. Its abrogation by the state is to be condemned. The state has no business registering or being otherwise involved in matters of private contract.
There is no reason why civil partnership, whether heterosexual or homosexual, could not also be a matter of private contract. But once you go down that particular road, there are other relationships that are likely to be subject to contract that society at large will not accept, such as plural relationships, bestiality and incest. Homosexuality also belongs in that category of non-acceptance by some. So long as the formalization of these relationships is a matter of private contract, however, there is no reason why it needs to be anyone’s business other than the persons involved. There is also no reason why such private contracts cannot be recognized with equal rights in law to marriage.
All such private contract institutions need to be distinguished from the private contract of religious marriage, which is the union of a man and a woman within the context of a religious belief that provides the framework for the raising of children. The folly of the present legislation is that it so signally fails to do this. It forces the abandonment of definitions of adultery that are appropriate to heterosexuals but that cannot be applied to homosexuals because there is no consummation of their “marriages”. It forces the rewriting of centuries of law to remove the words “husband” and “wife”. In short, it rips out the Christian nature of our country and is wholesale vandalism of our culture. That this should be perpetuated by a government calling itself Conservative (in part) beggars belief, for the last thing it does is conserve. And it will not be long before it is forced upon our Established Church, most probably by the European Union, whether it likes it or not.
That, in the main, is why I do not like the picture above.
Marriage is not a particularly religious institution. It exists in very culture, regardless of faith or absence thereof. Julius Caesar was married, but was not a Christian. In England, it took many centuries of effort by the Christian Church to take over the previously entirely civil and private contract of marriage.
I find it repellent. Let me state at the outset that whatever domestic arrangements adults may make between themselves is no business of mine, let alone the government’s, and I have no problem with civil recognition of homosexual unions in order to give them the same rights as others. If a homosexual couple wish to live together under these arrangements I wish them every happiness.
But marriage is something quite different. Marriage is not about the participants – it is about children. The institution of marriage exists solely to provide a stable, loving home in which to raise children of the union. Nature has ordained that one parent of each sex is required to produce offspring. Homosexual couples, especially male couples, masquerading as parents I find abhorrent. Ok, so it’s unfair – go and sue God if that’s how you feel.
I followed a bus into town the other day. On the back of this bus was an advertisement for foster parents. Not just any foster parents though; they specifically wanted lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender foster parents. This is just the sick product of an aggressive homosexualising agenda which is prevalent in this country (UK). If you want to know why, just study the faces of the children in the Marriott advertisement and imagine their future once they start asking pertinent questions.
Sean,
are you sure there is nothing wrong about a childhood without either sexes of parents? If gender really were a social construct, as claimed by the left, that would go without saying. But obviously it isnยt. For me the function of such propagandistic ads is to promote perception of normality for what is simply dysfunctional (meaning counter-normative, with norms being without alternative for a smooth performance of a peaceful society of rational men).
As to the view of the children: As long as there a lots and lots of heterosexual couples desperate for children and ready for adoption of babies, there is no point in comparing the propaganda-ยfamilyย of the picture to some precarious childhood in drinking criminal settings or alike. For difficult to place kids with a behavioural disorder a homosexual social parenthood may well be superior to protectories ย but it is to be feared that many an official of state welfare authorities may demonstrate his progressiveness by preferring deviant models like the Marriott Love Travels.
As usual, the problem isnยt consenting adults but compelling authorities.
Im รbrigen: freistattstaat!
Dr. Peter J. Preusse
self-ownership.net
_____
My ass! The family in the picture is highly unlikely to exist in reality. If you want to know what real gays look like and how they spend their leisure time, visit our famous “Kaiserbrรผndl” in the center of Vienna:
http://www.kaiserbruendl.at/fotogalerie.htm
Yes of course. No photoshoot for an ad would fail to use proper models and/or actors who have been fully briefed by the art-director on how to convey the message to maximum advantage.
They certainly look silly
For once, I really don’t know what to say.
In short, I am equally uncomfortable with this – perhaps even more so than many. Likewise, I am not “anti-gay”, but I recognise this as an agenda and tend to see it for what it really is. That is what bothers me, not so much what people get up to in their bedrooms.
I do not believe in ‘gay marriage’ – and personally, I am not in favour of gays adopting children and pretending to be “mummy and daddy” or “daddy and daddy” or “mummy and mummy” or whatever else as though it is the most natural thing in the world. It isn’t.
Of course, this agenda and manipulative use of minorities, both racial, religious, sexual, has been going on a long time. For that is what I think is part of it – gays being used to serve a purpose of smashing up traditional family and societal norms.
I doubt that all the “liberals” really cared about their issues……I think that all they will have really cared about was pushing through the “equality agenda”, breaking down the natural order of things and winding up the conservative-right as much as possible in the process.
For those who have not seen it, they mind find the following video interesting from around the mid 1980s – ” 60 Minutes – The Loony Left” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4AxSG2iiI4
The audio is not great, but it is perhaps a little reminder of how we have generally arrived at this kind of situation.
Of particular relevance to this topic is the part covering gay propaganda issues at the 12 minute mark. Typical is the ‘rent-a-mob’ at the end too…. holding the “Socialist Worker” newspapers and banners….. no change there then.
These people have effectively been in charge of the direction of this country for 40 years or more – and yet they still claim they are fighting some tyrannical, stuffy, ‘conservative’ establishment and banging on about the needs for “progress” and “change”.
They are the establishment. They are the established order. They are the ones holding the ‘power’ over us all – or so it seems.
Well, they have the illusion of being omnipresent and powerful as they have all the tools of the state and the media generally on their side after the long march and all the rest of it…… but I bet they are really quite few in number and worry that times may change.
I cannot wait for the day when the tables are turned and a new age of ‘rebels’ come to overturn the directions of the current order of things and get things back on to a more relaxed and normative track.
How long will the youth continue to yap the same tired clichรฉs and thoughts that have prevailed for over 40 years? What happened to rebellion? They are only rebelling against their own former selves these days!
Well there is gay-concerned and there is gay-obsessed. Unfortunately, much of mainstream culture and politics is now falling under the second category.
The gay rights business has little to do with improving the lot of homosexuals. Its purpose is to confuse and demoralise people by turning their concept of sexual normality on its head and degrading the idea of marriage, the family, and indeed the very concept of there being two sexes. It has long since moved on from confining itself to homosexuality, and has taken up the cause of “transgender” people, and every other sexual deviant, freak and attention seeker. The number of possible “gender identities” is now listed at fifty-plus on Facebook.
1. Take a piece of advice from Confucius and we will save ourselves a world of emotional turmoil and social ruckus:
“Call things by their right names.”
There is nothing whatsoever inherently gay about the condition known as “homosexuality.”
Referring to “gay” couples or people rather than “homosexual” couples or people does nothing whatsoever to alter their homosexuality nor the normality of the condition. All the hijacking was ever intended to accomplish was to put an attractive dress on a condition that some people found distasteful or repugnant or even sinful.
Which leads us to Ian’s, and my, point
2. Here is what Ian said, with only slight editing:
“… [T]he word โgayโ is not applicable. It thus annoys the heck out of me to have the language dictated by intellectually dishonest persons. To use a probably inadequate analogy, there is nothing wrong with either chairs or sofas, but a chair is not a sofa and I would object to being instructed by the dishonest to recognise chairs as being sofas.”
The issue is the same insofar as language is concerned. Suppose you WERE under direction by the State to refer to all chairs as sofas. How would you go about explaining to the furniture maker that you wanted an affair called a “sofa” that is only large enough for one person?
. . .
Other than that, the ad to me is creepy. It feels like an attempt to “normalize” something distinctly non-normal. (Homosexuality is far from unheard-of, but it’s also far from “normal,” and the attempt to pass off the homosexual couple with the kiddies as a “normal” family is shoddy advertising.) But I’m not its target audience.
Anyway, I don’t object to homosexual persons because they’re homosexual, any more than I object to Negro persons because they’re Negro or to (say) Christian or atheist persons because they’re Christian, or atheist. But if in the name of an agenda such a person proposes to dominate me, including “dictating the language,” in Ian’s apt phrase, then I will dig in my heels and refuse to go along.
That isn’t actually the same thing as I said, Julie. There’s no problem with the word gay IMO, it has a distinct meaning “homosexual” and is just one of many homonyms in our language (indeed, “chair” as a thing to sit on and “chair” as the leader of a committee).
My point was taking a word and applying it to something different as if it is the same, which is effectively the exact opposite.
The principle is, in fact, EXACTLY the same, Ian. Again, substituting the term into your final sentence above:
Your point was, “… taking a word [‘gay’] and applying it something different [homosexuality] as if it is the same, [which it certainly is not].” In fact it’s a category error, gaiety and homosexuality being entirely different types of things.
The only thing that makes the claim of “homonyms” for the word “gay” properly used and the same noise, or letters, MISused superficially–VERY superficially–plausible is the fact that a whole lot of silly people let themselves be cowed into misusing the word back when that guy whose name I forget came up with the idea of spraying ersatz Chanel No. 5 all over the condition of homosexuality; so that now the misusage is common.
Not to be inelegant, but homosexuals have been called “queers,” “fairies,” and “fags” in street talk for a long time, but you don’t read the slang terms in serious discussions and I’ve never heard anybody try to claim homonymic status for any of them.
I don’t see why anyone who claims to be disgusted with attempts to force you to use language his way — as you say, to “dictate the language” — isn’t up in arms over the attempts to cow you into misuse! Diktat is diktat after all.
And I’m not attempting to dictate how anyone shall use language, by the way; but I AM trying to present a defense of proper usage, and also to express honest puzzlement as to how you can be against “marriage” as applied to certain partnerships between homosexuals but not against “gay” as a label for the category of “homosexual humans.” The insult to the language is precisely the same in both cases!
. . .
And if you want to talk “homonym,” I will further relieve myself on PC’s vandalism of English. The pronoun “he,” as the pronoun referring to a person of the male gender, is a HOMONYM of the pronoun “he” which is the pronoun of UNSPECIFIED gender. It is utterly improper and sounds at once silly, affected, and cowardly to use “she” to refer to a human individual, but no particular human individual. See any number of lawyers’ and philosophers’ papers and pronouncements that she” and “he” are interchangeable pronouns of unspecified gender, and that to use the correct word proves that one is not biased against women in some way. “Silly” doesn’t begin to describe it!
No, as I said it’s the opposite Julie. The word gay has 2 meanings 1) jolly 2) homosexual. Nobody confuses the two. The first meaning has become rather deprecated purely because of the innuendo that (2) implies, but then in America the same would occur with either fag or faggot for the same reason.
Fag: 1) a subservient public schoolboy 2) a cigarette 3) a homosexual. Due to predominantly American usage of “fag” for homosexual, I cant’ really use the first two homonyms without raising eyebrows. So likewise with widespread usage of “gay” for homosexual, the other homonym has fallen into disuse.
Nonetheless nobody is saying that gay as applied to homosexuals is a usage of the word to mean “jolly”, so it’s not the same at all as saying that two men is the same as a man and a woman in marriage.
The interesting point for me is a total misunderstanding of what marriage is. For a start it is not a religious or specifically Christian system; it is a basic pairing of human males and females which predates religions as we know them. It also has very little to do with sex. There can be chaste marriages, marriages between elderly (and infertile) people, and so on. It isn’t much to do with child rearing either at least as presented by many people. Most people tend to focus on sex and male provisioning as the reasons for marriage existing, but both arguments are weak. Sex I’ve already discussed. There is surprisingly little evidence that human females need male provisioning either, any more than chimpanzee females (who also have expensive, slow developing babies) do. Chimps don’t marry (i.e. pair bond). In many human societies, including for instance African polygamy (which is a good model, Africa being the human urheimat) males do little or no provisioning. The women feed themselves and their children by gathering and gardening.
Marriage actually reflects the different evolved physical statuses of males and females; females are weak, males are strong- unlike chimps who are roughly physically equal. Both sexes can tear your face off with their fingers. Human females are reliant on male physical protection and that is why they have always been bound into families as daughters or wives. Prior to modern institutional society, women simply do not have the physical means to protect themselves. They need to recruit males to do that. Hence, marriage. Why evolution made us this way, we can only speculate.
Which is why gays don’t need it and, indeed, arguably nobody does these days, which is what we were all saying in the liberal 1970s. Nowadays you don’t get your recruited males to go and duff up somebody with whom you are in conflict; we have police and courts and stuff like that (and would also without the State in anarcho-capitalism or other libertarian solutions). The feud system- from which in antiquity legal systems first developed- is now gone (at least, in Western society). So marriage’s basic reason no longer exists. You don’t need a man like me to be your protector and enforcer. You have rights instead.
So anyway, with no distinct gender roles in the relationship, it is a meaningless structure for gays. Neither of two gays needs the other as enforcer, while neither of two females can fulfill the role. There is nothing wrong with a partnership. But it isn’t a marriage. The whole point of marriage is that it is not the union of two things which are the same, but of two things which need it because they are different.
Ian, you don’t get it. “Gay” is NOW misused to mean “homosexual” because in the RECENT past it was dreamed up and pushed BECAUSE it specifically had NO meaning other than the attractive one implying a state of mind that happy, cheerful, pleasantly excited, and carefree. THAT meaning is the reason WHY the word was HIJACKED, PURPOSELY. It was taken over as camouflage, if you like. And because I will not be dictated to in that manner, and I will not enable the left and the proggies, nor anyone else, to make dishonest use of it, I absolutely refuse to use the word that way.
Everybody worships Mr. Blair (the old dead one with the E in front, not the live one starting with T). Well, did he not warn about newspeak? Does everybody to the right of Lenin not complain about PC use of language? And “He who controls the language controls the discourse.” Very true. But bloody few will do anything about it. I know one online person, nowadays hanging with the Moldbug “Dark Enlightenment” Males-รผber-alles crew, who has a weblog and posts complainingly about being “forced” to misuse “gay.” Well, nobody’s forcing him to do that. All he has to do is use the right word himself. Everyone will understand him fine. The word is MISused as a synonym for the h-word and it’s only MISuse engendered by the strategy of deceit that’s enabled the folks who are afraid to use the h-word word to camouflage it as homonymic with the properly-used “gay.”
Yet there are other words that you feel you can’t use in their proper meanings because some people also use them as street terms meaning “homosexual” and it will “raise eyebrows.”
Yet quite awhile back, when I mentioned to a younger friend and fellow lover of classical piano how much I’d enjoyed Horowitz’s last televised performance, and that he had seemed so delightfully gay as he received the final ovation, she looked absolutely shocked. Horowitz GAY???? She was devastated. I had to explain what the word really means. (It is said, FWIW, that the Maestro was actually bisexual. I wouldn’t know, and don’t see why it’s anybody’s business but his and Wanda’s anyway.)
The word in its proper meaning is going out of the language, and the language can ill afford it. It’s not like a street term or slang, “queer” or “fairy,” where nobody assumes you mean homosexual unless that’s indicated by the specific context.
Not to change the subject to the subject, but your anthropological thesis on marriage is interesting, although it doesn’t seem entirely persuasive to me. For one thing, rather than The State I’d prefer an actual human male as a “protector and enforcer,” preferably backed up by his and my competence with a nice lethal pistol, an Uzi, and a crossbow.
And I do believe that the two sexes serve each other well in the supposedly life-long partnership we understand as Marriage.
Women and men do have different strengths and weaknesses caused in part, so we think, by hormonal differences; with luck, the society they live in provides them with guidance on making the most of their strengths without preying on the weaknesses of the partner.
And there IS the issue of children…which is where this topic began.
Gay was in use as one of numerous euphemisms- gay, queer, fag, queen, poof/poove/poofter, jessie, etc etc. I can understand gays not bening particularly fond of the medicalised and clunky Kfafft-Ebbing neologism “homosexual” which in terms of ugliness of words competes with “libertarian”, so went for “gay” as preferable. I really don’t see that as problematic. Tory and whig both moved from being perjorative to normalised terms too. I cannot help but feel that many objections to the word gay are simply a dislike that there be a positive-sounding word for the preference, from people who’d rather be condemning “sodomites” etc
And, since the active hatred and persecution of gays/homosexuals/whatever was itself a deliberate first-wave progressive campaign, that’s reason enough for me to not want anything to do with it.
On the other matter-
Sure you would; thousands of generations of your female ancestors built that into your genes, which supports my thesis. By becoming weaker and requiring male protection, they reduced their own exposure to violence and lived longer, safer lives; thus their genes prospered and produced more physically weak daughters that needed male protection, and here you are. As am I ๐
But in mass civilisation, the personal violence/feud system is destructive and counter-productive, which is why we’ve been gradually phasing it out for thousands of years, particularly in the West. Under feud, you do not have what we understand as “justice” or “rights”; you have just strength. Your family’s males may be outnumbered and outgunned by the other clan, and then you’re in trouble; numbers can rise to thousands and tens of thousands in the feud struggle. At the small tribal level, personal vengeance works pretty well. At the mass society level, it’s disastrous. And as I said, there’s no rights, no justice, no innocence until proven guilty, no jury of peers, no liberty. Just the hope that your males are stronger than your opponent clan’s.
It doesn’t have to be the State doing justice. Anarcho-capitalists have written many millions of words on how it could be done by the private sector. But whatever, the system that benefitted women for hundreds of thousands of years and which was actively crafted by the evolution of the sexes, by shifting the burden of violence predominantly onto the male sex, is the basis of marriage, and only by understanding what real benefits that system provided to both sexes can we understand what marriage actually is, and then start to ponder what role, if any, it actually should play in the modern world.
Also, wandering further off topic admittedly, this analysis helps us explain the human mating system and sexuality itself. Human females are remarkable, sexually. Female chimps are so disinterested in the act that they often don’t even stop eating while being inseminated by multiple males. For human females OTOH, the sex act is an intensely emotional and important experience, which is why the act of involuntary insemination (rape) is such an important and distressing experience. Why?
Well firstly, female sexual enthusiasm arose as as means of (a) recruiting and (b) maintaining the interest of a protector male (as did beauty of course). A female who is always (at least potentially) “on heat” is of more interest to the male than one who is not. But more than that, evolution designed female sexuality as a means of physically testing males. Women are profoundly interested in the quality of the act, and rapidly lose interest in sex with disappointing males. The sex act enables a female to test the physical quality of a male, a generalised attribute we call “virility”. The woman who lies there afterwards thinking, “was that it?” will rapidly emotionally desire to move on and find somebody better; if you’re lying there aftewards basking in the glow of feeling entirely ravished, you’re confirming that the male you attracted is a good physical specimen, and what pleases you in the bedroom translates outside of it to a physically well specified male who will be good in a fight to protect you.
Which is why women are so choosy. It is (or was) literally a matter of life and death, for the woman and her (potential) offspring.
Which matters less in a world in which a five foot woman with a gun can kill a six foot man, but evolution knows nothing of that.
It’s no good Julie, you won’t convince bigots like Ian that the misuse of the once delightful word ‘gay’ has not been deliberately pushed by evil people with a most unpleasant agenda.
The homosexualisation of marriage, as Rob, infers, is an engine of dissolution created by those with a particular political, ideological or ethnic interest in that. It functions to debase the institution of marriage, and negate its vivifying gifts to European peoples.
Homosexualisation will render marriage merely a lifestyle choice, and no longer the high ideal it must appear to sexually normal couples, especially the young. Homosexualisation will do this because homosexuality and the homosexual act is viewed, for sound evolutionary reasons, with derision or contempt by sexually normal people.
Marriage is, of course, the optimum means we, as an ecology, possess to raise healthy, whole children. It is an expression of the trait of monogamous pairing, which has evolved among the great cold-climate, northern hemisphere races and which is expressed in the female demand for lifetime fidelity and care by the male. This, in turn, is a function of the high childcare strategy of the northern hemisphere races – which, finally, arises from the evolutionary strategy of encephalisation rather than sexualisation which is successful in food-scarce, cold-climate environments. Racial intelligence, in other words, requires monogamous pairing.
Marriage, therefore, is much more than a lifestyle choice or a contract. It is a genetic interest of our people and our race; and that is why it has to be recovered from the inevitable debasement homosexualisation will visit upon it.
Perhaps that’s why the GramscoFabiaNazis are using certain monority-groups, such as [gays – it takes less time to type, sorry] as sledgehammers: sledgehammers to be temporarily bribed with all sorts of statutory priveleges. This might be to crack up this specific adaptation to external selection-pressures such as the majority-hostile climates of the large and coldish Northern Hemisphere biomes.
The strategic objective of this Fabian plan is to destroy the liberal-capitalist means by which vast, vast numbers of humans can escape traditional grinding poverty, slavery, and short nasty life, permanently cementing the position of these “intellectuals” as the “Honestiores”.
Long, long term and long down the line, then, comes the problem of what to do with [gays] when our self-induced-Endarkenment arrives, shortly followed, within at most 1,000 years, by the Ice Age. The shortages then will not just be of energy or foodstuffs, but of people.
If I was a {politically privileged [gay] } living in that time with my spouse, I would be worried. Such conditions tend to produce angry starving mobs armed with all sorts of crude but unfriendly weaponry. Richard Blake’s stories hark on this sort of thing sometimes.
I don’t think European Man has a thousand years left. We are being colonsied and replaced at a huge rate of knots. We will be a despised rump minority on our own soil within two to three generations, and homosexuals will have served their marxian purpose.
I’m glad I took a little time to think about this. I find the poster extremely disquieting, more so than I would if i were to see this grouping in person.
In person, I may raise my eyebrows slightly and then get back to my own business. It’s the poster-y-ness that I don’t like.
In fact, as I discovered while I ruminated on this while smoking, it aroused the same feelings as that infamous Pajama Boy poster. Again, meeting such a fellow in real life wouldn’t bother me in the slightest but the poster disturbed me.
Why this should be I couldn’t say.
Perhaps you are not as free man, but a prisoner of the liberal Weltanschauung in its neo-Marxist end-times?
Clearly, the image shown is not ‘normal’…
..in the same way that having a ‘correct’ ethnic mix in every single advertisement and television programme is not the normal everyday experience for most of us.
That for me is what I find distasteful about the advertisement.
As a libertarian, I cannot object to the legalisation of gay marriage, whatever I personally think of homosexuality. If consenting adults draw up a contract and decide to call that marriage, we have no business utilising the weapons of state power to intervene. The state should not be holding a monopoly on the legal definition of marriage anyway.
I do, on the other hand, find the opposing arguments of social liberals and religious conservatives insipid and unconvincing, with the former pontificating about โequalโ rights, and the latter outraged about deviating from Biblical morality. Let us take an objective view of history here.
The institution of marriage predates both the state and religion, and has existed in some form in all cultures for millennia. The purpose of marriage is, in short, to subdue our animalistic impulses by restraining female hypergamy and the male impulse to โspread the seedโ. As women are the guardians of sex, lifelong, faithful marriage forced them to make do with the best of the group of men desiring her, which in turn gave beta males a chance at fatherhood (ethology proves itself to be informative here). The knock-on effects were that inheritance rights were formalised, fatherhood ascertained (as a general rule), and couple incentivised to remain together for life as a stable unit.
Central to the purpose of marriage, then, is reproduction. Where procreation is in principle impossible, marriage is an irrelevance. In the case of infertile and voluntary heterosexuals, and straight couples past the childbearing age, procreation is only incidentally impossible, because between a man and a woman, procreation is in principle always possible. Gays and lesbians are not merely incidentally incapable of reproducing; it is impossible for them to do so in principle. So I sympathise with the view that redefining marriage in law by excising the reproduction component from it essentially destroys the necessity for the institution at all.
The libertarian issue here is, however, that individuals ought to be free to negotiate the terms of their own contracts as they see fit, and the best solution here, both in terms of practicality and congruence with our ideology, is marriage privatisation, in order to cut the state โ and everyone else, particularly those who take moral objection to our form of marriage โ out of our affairs.
I would abolish civil marriage as we know it; instead, secular marriages would come into existence by nothing more than the signing of the marriage contract in front of a lawyer’s. Having a party or reception to celebrate this can be optional and of no legal effect, although I am sure the overwhelming majority would opt for this given our traditions. The lawyer could even perform the role of the contemporary registrar in reading out vows selected by the marrying parties, made official thereafter by the signing of the contract. The libertarian solution should be favourable to social conservatives, whose religious clergymen would have no obligation to perform or recognise the unions of homosexuals, divorcรฉs, and so on. Marriage would be governed by contract law.
Another cause for conservatives to embrace this suggestion, is that it would reintroduce fault in divorce, exactly as companies prematurely terminating contractual obligations to one another would be prevented from unjust enrichment. No-fault divorce, which exists only de facto in England and Wales, has done more to harm the institution of marriage than anything gay unions could dream of doing. It is responsible for the astronomical rise of divorce rates, and the attractiveness of divorce, particularly for women, as a financial investment, even if they are adulteresses or otherwise responsible for the breakdown of the marriage. Of course, if a particular couple wishes to allow for no-fault divorce in their contract, that is great, but the beauty of this is the freedom. If I were contracting a marriage under a libertarian system, I would ensure that I make provision for alimony to be paid on an at-fault basis, or not at all.
I don’t see why marriage can’t just be defined by individual communities and each can freely reject any different definition of marriage. The state should not own the definition of marriage, neither should religion for that matter however.
If an orthodox church says marriage is strictly between a man and a women then so be it. A liberal church may include same sex couples.
Perhaps an ultra progressive liberal community may decide marriage can be between 2 women, a men and a transsexual.
Erebus,
The point I laboured to make above is that marriage is owned by the people – by the ethnic group as a whole – whom it serves as a genetic (or biological) interest. It isn’t something that can be “defined” by self-elected “communities”. It is not a mere lifestyle choice for “individuals”. It is to do with raising healthy, whole children. It is to do with the future of the ethny.
Marriage is owned by those who do it. I don’t feel any more or less married now that men can marry each other.
[…] Libertarian Alliance […]