Atheism is a freakish belief that afflicts people without normal social skills, who are unable to see the divine nature of the universe we all inhabit. But, it is a freakish belief which has a certain appearance of internal consistency, a certain childlike simplicity of explanation, that can be made put forward in a good light if you have your arguments prepared, and if you have your axioms defined.
Now, please note again, that none of these girls are nursing or giving birth. The clues that they are feminine (or, rather, hyper-feminine) are deliberately exaggerated by several factors. They are too young to wed (except in Alabama with parent’s consent); they are dressed in bright yet soft colors with flowers in their hair, in costumes that might as well be “cosplay” costumes. Note how they hold their hands and make their gestures, again, with exaggerated delicacy and youthfulness, clapping and smiling, singing, dimpling their cheeks with their fingers, bubbling with enthusiasm.
There is no trace of sober, solemn gravity in these girls. They are not standing on their virginal dignity and freezing the hearts of men with the cold purity of their unsmiling glances. They are not acting like warlords or crowned kings or Supreme Court Justices.
Now, at this point, a unisexualist might say, “But wait! None of these behaviors or gestures are natural and spontaneous! All are artificial! Therefore all are a cruel attempt to exploit, enslave, humiliate women! It proves all men are rapists who hate women!”
Unfortunately, the leap of logic between saying “this is artifice” and saying “this is an enemy attack prompted by hatred” is wider than the Grand Canyon.
Contemplate the exaggeration of infantile characteristics: this girls are absurdly girlish. The unisexualist, analyzing everything in terms of a remorseless Darwinian struggle to extermination, would assume the evil rapist-patriarch-oppressor wishes his victims small and weak so that he might more easily conquer and ravish them. The romantic, analyzing things in terms of reality, recognizes that healthy men have a natural desire to protect women and children whose lives he innately recognizes as more vulnerable and therefore more precious than his own. The romance of being a superman who rescues a Lois Lane that otherwise would not notice you is also not far from the core of masculine thought.
I understand rightwing atheists perfectly well, that is, people who disbelieve in God because they see no evidence for God. Leftwing atheist who disbelieve in God because they hate God, them I never understood, even back when I was an atheist. The rational men, theist or atheist, are natural allies against the irrational men, irrational atheists and irrational theists both.
Farewell. Monuments to violent racist communists is a sign of civilizational suicide we are well rid of. And, yes, my dears, hatred of Caucasians, despite what commies tell you, is indeed racism.
Newly elected Dem Nat’l Cmte Vice Chair David Hogg is using party resources to funnel donations into his own PAC—where he pays himself a six-figure salary. He could face arrest for money laundering.
My comment: One is left to wonder whether grifters naturally gravitate to the Leftists, or Leftism naturally gravitates toward grifting. Leftism is based on Marxism, which is a grift, and Marxism is based on Gnosticism, which is a grift, so the correlation goes all the way back to Simon the Magician trying to buy the Holy Spirit from St Peter for cash.
You see, your side, not my side, thinks of rednecks and conservatives and Christians as being obsessed with a psycho-pathological phobia and hatred of gays. Your side coined an silly term for the alleged phobia because it did not exist until you invented it: homophobia.
My question to you is this: do you believe that some, even most, hetero men have a visceral and instinctive desire to beat homosexuals to death?
If so, why is it bigotry if I report that your side believes this?
Well, I have had enough. In the last few years, Thor is a girl, Wolverine is a girl, Hawkeye is a girl, Vision is a girl, Hulk is a girl, Iron Man is a girl, The Question is a girl, M from James Bond is a girl and the Ancient One from Dr Strange is a girl.
These are not merely female sidekicks or variations, as when Batgirl or Supergirl dons a costume to help out an established male character. These are replacements for the male meant to erase the masculinity from the name brand. These are heroines meant to erase the hero, and shove him down the memory hole. They are to literature what politically correct Newspeak is to vocabulary: a false-to-facts symbol or emblem.
The replacement of male with female is meant to erase femininity. In point of fact, and no matter what anyone thinks or wishes, readers and viewers have a different emotional relationship to female characters as male. This does not mean, obviously, that females cannot be protagonists or cannot be leaders. It means mothers cannot be fathers and queens cannot be kings.
It means if you want a female Norse warrior goddess, go get Lady Sif or Valkyrie, and leave Thor alone. It means if you want female Time Lady from Gallifrey, go make a spin off show starring Romana or Susan or The Rani, and leave The Doctor alone.
Let me emphasize that these are not cases where, for example, Robin grows up into Nightwing and someone else puts on Robin’s outfit to replace him, or where Blue Beetle takes up the costume and legacy of the original Blue Beetle.
Neither is any one of these a case where Superman has a cousin or Commissioner Gordon has a daughter who is a female version of a previously established character. That kind of thing happens in comics all the time, and no one cares or minds. Those things are meant to honor the previous character, or provide an interesting variation on a theme.
This is different.
This is like Muslims dynamiting the giant statues of Buddha in Afghanistan. It is the destruction of the icons and symbols of infidels.
This is blotting out the old character. Anyone who is white, straight, heroic or male is being replaced by someone who is not.
The Fantastic Four is gone. Iceman is now gay, despite sixty years of his previous history. America Chavez is a gay Latino from another dimension, not from Mexico or South America, so she is not actually Latino. She comes from a dimension where the humanoid species has only one sex and reproduces by parthenogenesis, so, technically speaking, she is not gay either.
Ms Marvel turned into female Captain Marvel, who blotted out male Captain Marvel, who was a turncoat Kree. The new Ms Marvel, who has nothing to do with the Kree, is an Inhuman Muslim girl from Jersey whose book contains nothing other than SJW propaganda and pro-Jihad crapola. She also is grotesque, since her superpower allows her to swell up in size, strength, and make her fists larger than balloon.
Oh, and, yes, they did indeed, as predicted, resurrect Captain America back from the dead. And then they made him into a Nazi. Hail, Hydra!
Basically, all the books now draw all their female characters to be flat chested and narrow hipped and square jawed. The menfolk, meanwhile, instead of being muscled like Greek Gods, are portrayed either as nice hence weak, ineffective, and effete, or as masculine, hence barbaric, ignorant, silly and evil.
Plots, writing, drama, and storytelling has been flushed away down the water closet with very few exceptions.
{from 2014}
And you did not retract your statement, where you defined masturbation, which is the act of discharging semen not in the act of sexual reproduction to include discharging semen in the act of sexual reproduction. This is like saying black is white or night is day. It is inexcusable. Before leaping up to make additional false accusations and saying additional arrant logical fallacies, please acknowledge your defeat on this point before moving on to the next.
The next point will be just as disappointing to you, however: the act of sexual reproduction is the act of sexual reproduction, otherwise known as coitus, whether or not the act culminates in reproducing the young. So, after saying black is white, you say white is not white.
The reason why sex should and must be defined as the reproductive act is that anything else is illogical, insane, and, frankly, unhealthy. Humans have allowed new venereal diseases to spread in the modern generation which were unknown in the ancient world, since the pursuit of perverse sexual pleasure, involving the abuse of sexual organs by thrusting them into orifices where nature never intended them to do, is unhealthy, and spreads disease.
To me, sex is sex and perversion is perversion. That is because a thing is what it is. I am not ignoring what you call other applications: to the contrary what I am doing is correctly identifying them as sexual perversions, that is, namely, an unnatural abuse or misuse of the sexual organs by those to whom the natural pleasures of the natural uses thereof are insufficiently stimulating.
To me, the sex act is the sexual reproductive act. Masturbation is not the sex act, it is self gratification by an abuse of those organs.
You see the problem you are having is that facts and logic are on my side. All you have is a dark, turgid, hysterical emotion based on a frantic denial of reality and a love of wrongdoing. I am not from the generation where everyone is given a participation trophy. You speak in ignorance. Your thoughts are not in order. You misuse common philosophical terms. Your behavior is a simple and neurotic trick of merely accusing me of your own shortcomings, and when that accusation is proved false, merely making the next, and the next, without once actually thinking about what you are saying.
The fact of the matter is that SJWs cannot tell stories. We saw this same thing in the science fiction field among the Hugo nominees: the more SJW was in a story, the less drama. The reasons for this are complicated, but the basic problem is that SJWs have a worldview that is false to facts about nearly every aspect of human nature and human morality, and instead have a fake, flat, one-dimensional view which contains neither heroism nor personal responsibility.
You cannot have drama in a situation where no one is responsible for his own actions, and no one can change any outcomes.
If society or skin color is to blame for everything, and explains everything, individual action, that thing which makes drama dramatic, means nothing.
A victim who can never win, and merely whining, is not drama. An oppressor with no redeeming characteristics, who can never repent, likewise has no drama. And yet the SJW worldview allows for no other type of people: everyone is either an utterly helpless victim or an utterly irredeemable oppressor.
You cannot have any drama in a story where no one is responsible for his actions for the same reason you cannot have an exciting debate between two people who neither use reason nor have any ability to explain or defend their positions. Without reason, without an objective rational standard, the debate cannot be an attempt to find the truth by means of an adversarial exchange. There is no movement away from error toward truth.
Likewise, without personal responsibility, without morality, there is no drama. No one is fighting the evil impulses in himself, or the evil men menacing the peace, and no one is crusading to defend and uphold the good, if there is no such thing as good and evil. No moral standard means no drama.
SJWs are parasites who cannot create, only destroy. They are naturally attracted to longstanding characters, as in Star Trek or comic superheroes, who have years and years of franchise material behind them, because such characters automatically bring a weight of influence and gravity to them.
Inventing a new character does them no good, because it destroys nothing, and tweak no one’s nose. The SJW does not want to tell a story about a Viking warrior goddess. He want to blot out Thor. And Iron Man. And Wasp. And Captain America and Captain Marvel. And Spidey. And Hulk. And Iceman.
Sam Wilson, the Falcon, has replaced Steve Rogers as Captain America. This one is not as egregious as the others, and, if taken in isolation, might have seemed legitimate, not an attempt at blot out. But Sam Wilson now has the same problem any black student in an affirmative action college has, when people can no longer tell is his diploma was earned or merely granted.
This story also raises the possibility that the Village People song "In the Navy" - which, rather disgustingly, is also taken as a gay anthem; you know, all those sweaty men together on a ship, ho ho ho - is simply the patriotic song that the lyrics suggest it to be, without a hidden meaning. Maybe even about urging black men to join the Navy (or any other branch of the military) as a way of getting out of the ghetto and improving their lives.
The Woke Pig, now in retreat, has spread far and wide many interpretations of popular art that attempt to reduce the beauty and meaningfulness of many rock and soul songs - even those that evoke the divine - to their petty little Woke agenda. For example, Pete Townshend of The Who in the early 1980s released a number of solo songs, including "A Little Is Enough" and "The Sea Refuses No River", wherein the lyrics are to me pretty clearly the words of a sinner seeking redemption from the Lord. I've seen the Woke Pig declare both of those songs to be gay anthems as well. And the Hollies' "He Ain't Heavy, He's My Brother" - a religious rock song if ever there was - is in fact, I have been told, about the civil rights struggle (what a reduction in meaning; like trying to squeeze a Rembrandt into a thumbnail).
When the Woke Pig can't twist the meaning of a song, as with Norman Greenbaum's "Spirit in the Sky", they attempt to ridicule those who find meaning in it. An article on "Spirit in the Sky" in Rolling Stone some years back sneeringly talked of how Greenbaum, not himself a Christian, put one over on the unenlightened idiots by successfully exploiting their silly beliefs to get a hit record. (Actually, of course, it's the other way around: the Lord God put one over on Greenbaum by using him to throw a little God onto the pop charts; Greenbaum's intent mattering not at all.)
It's time to reclaim the popular arts. Forget everything you think you know about the meaning of song lyrics.
I was trying to tell my children what it was like to live in a society where no one, and I mean NO ONE, noticed, mentioned, or applauded or condemned a man based on his skin color. We did not notice it any more than we noticed hair color.
The only “racism” in those days was as mild and milquetoast as “dumb blonde” jokes, or the stereotype that redheads were hot-tempered.
We would gather with friends for a night’s entertainment, and, afterward, I could tell you everyone’s name and what they did, but if you asked me their race, I could not tell you. (I found out later that one of my friends had Korean ancestry, the other was a mulatto. None of this was obvious to my non-racebaiter eye)
No one harped on these things. No one in public expressed hatred for the White Man.
No one applauded a Black Man for being Black, as if being born was some sort of accomplishment.
No one pretended he was being oppressed. Black men did not act like sissies in public, or whine, or blame everyone else for his shortcomings.
My kids could not imagine it.
They could not imagine a world where men were only hated for doing something hateful, a world where no microaggressions nor dogwhistles were alleged to exist, and no one hated you for something you never did and could not change.
President Trump just confirmed that the United States has successfully negotiated a ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah.
Trump is not even in the White House.
Trump's eventual arrival is akin to the scene in Jurassic Park where Grant and Malcolm hearing the thump of a T-Rex in the distance, seeing ripples in a cup of water in the jeep that alarms them. Obviously, Trump's image appears larger in our enemies' vision than in reality---but not his fixed purpose.
However, no one passing a high-school civics class can be a Dem operative, and no one not a Dem operative can be a Operation Mockingbird asset in the Fake News, hence the Minitru Media portrayed this immunity ruling as if it were a dangerous novelty rendering the president above the law, allowing him to gun down passersby at will: the pundits and media anchormen proceeded to shriek, and gibber, and vomit pea-soup, and rotate their heads like owls on national television, gnawing and clawing and cutting their own flesh and calling on Baal in their unholy phrenzy. A disturbing number of plump blue-haired cat ladies believed this blither, or pretended too, and joined in the hysterical antics, frothing and falling and writhing underfoot like rabid howler monkeys.
The indictments also charged Trump for actions which, under the Constitution, any US Citizen has a right to do, such as assemble lawfully in a public place, and petition the government for the redress of grievances. This includes speaking at a rally to encourage the public to protest a stolen election, and to ask certification be delayed until after an investigation and audit.
In this case, on January 6th, the FBI agents and Antifas staged a riot during the peaceful rally asking for this investigation and audit into the insolently fraudulent theft of the 2020 election. Without provocation, police opened fire on the innocent crowd with rubber bullets and tear gas at one point, while other officers invited protestors into the Capitol building. One rally-goer, a female veteran, was shot from behind without warning, murdered in cold blood on national television.
Unable to invent a plausible reason to try President Trump, but confident his abuse of office would never be meaningfully punished, the bogus charges invented by Jack Smith included conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights.
The action for fraud is based on a phone call Trump made to a state governor, asking him to take steps to recover ballots that went suddenly missing from the count. This is not only unlawful, it is the duty of the Executive Branch to see to it that the laws of the United States are faithfully carried out, and this include election laws that penalize felonious destruction of untallied ballots.
Trump is guided by the simple principle of finding who is most motivated. Even folk who badmouthed him in times past can serve now as instruments of stern redress.
Trump is guided by the simple principle of poetic justice.
He is putting the accused on the bench, and the accuser in the prisoner’s box. Jack Ketch is standing by and sharpens his heavy ax.
Corrupt bureaucrats who tried to shut down, bankrupt and deport Elon Musk find him now as their paymaster, with authority to shut down, defund, and eliminate their departments. He is armed with a public mandate to humiliate them and savage them.
No one voted for these parasites of the public weal. None will weep to see them forced to find honest work.
Hollywood celebrities, once his friends, betrayed and backstabbed Trump false leaks and fake scandals now will face whomever is placed in charge of investigating the Diddy Freak Out tapes & Epstein Client Blackmail list.
Matt Gaetz, the victim of false investigations, now has the authority to investigate the investigators, and reveal their disgusting and unnatural crimes.
Woke generals who treasonously undermined Trump, and who unlawfully discharged loyal patriots like Pete Hegseth from the military must all stand at attention and salute Pete Hegseth now, and at the onset of their courts martial.
Department of Justice lawyers and apparatchiks who maliciously persecuted Trump, subjecting him and his family and his attorneys to endless legal harassments and Soviet show trials, will all face their own special counsel investigations, disbarment and maybe, if heaven is just, incarceration.
Tulsi Gabbard, libeled and accused of being a Russian asset by Hillary Clinton, as Director of National Intelligence may order the investigation of known links between the Clinton campaign and Moscow.
Kristi Noem is one of the few who took steps to secure her state, and aid Texas, in resisting the Great Replacement border debacle of the Senile Administration, who no one in the public knew who was secretly running the machinery of government.
From her post of Homeland Security chief, Noem can aid the unrepentant badass Tom Homan as he chews railroad spikes and spits out razor wire to drape the southern border.
The Environmental Caucus, whoever in hades they are, condemns the nomination of Lee Zeldin as EPA director. That is good enough for me.
We do not need further debate on political philosophy. Wokeness is not a political philosophy, nor is the Democrat party seeking any rational political goals.
Politics seeks to know how best to provide for defense against invasion, deterrence of crime, enforcement of oaths, establishment of justice, cultivation of civic virtue.
Monarchy is in disrepute, for Liberal theory holds all just powers of the State derive from the consent of the governed. Liberalism has two branches: Liberalism and Wokeism.
Classical liberalism holds that he best tactics for political order is to mistrust in the goodwill of the powerful, hence to limit the government by regular votes, separation of powers, checks and balances, and in all other things, to leave men at liberty to pursue godliness and goodness each man as he sees fit.
Classical liberalism is further subdivided into right and left.
Rightwing liberals, in America called republicans, mistrust the government’s oversight of the marketplace, and fear for the rich, who are easily outnumbered by envious mobs wishing to plunder them.
Leftwing liberals, in American called democrats, mistrust the marketplace, and fear for the poor, who are easily exploited and outmaneuvered by the rich and powerful.
Wokeism is not in the classical liberal tradition. It is in the esoteric theosophical tradition from which Marxism also springs. Wokeism is cultural Marxism.
Wokeism holds that the social order is produced by economic forces beyond human control, but that man suffers a painful evolution through violent stages of revolt and rebirth from feudalism to capitalism to socialism to Wokeism, envisioned as a utopia where human nature itself is changed to angelic, no man suffers greed or lack of charity, and the restrictions of cause and effect, the disutility of labor or the scarcity of resources no longer apply.
Since utopia is both perfect and inevitable, no credible reason for opposing it can or does exist: all opposition is “reaction” that is, unthinking bigoty, rooted in fear or selfish class interests.
Donald J Trump has been elevated to the purple by the prince-electors at Aachen, and coronated in Rome by the Pope, so that he is now Imperator of the Holy Roman Empire, and of the Empire of Man, Rex Quondam Rexque Futurum.
All Glory to God and to his anointed!
The Tribune Assembly of the Commoners in America, who retain a quaint custom of confirming the Electoral determination by local ballot, have also granted His Imperial Majesty the Mandate of the Commons.
Outlawing abortion and contraception is good. Getting rid of the minimum wage will allow low-skilled workers to find jobs. Better. Locking up rioters and looters, best of all.
JD Vance will be Executive-for-Life, and Elon the first Transhuman Immortal of the Noosphere. So far, so good.
Purple haired girls will no longer be allowed to twirk and grind in public, as shown in the first scene, and modest dress codes will be decreed by the National Census Office. No more tattoos nor face piercings. Sounds awesome.
Also, involuntary concubinage will ensure a reverse of the demographic decline, hence the return to the fertility levels needed to colonize Mars.
The warning from the future also shows the cities destroyed by Democrat mismanagement being slowly abandoned for the new and beautiful cities Trump will erect in the Western United State on what is now federal lands.
Not sure I see the downside here.
But technically, Darwinism is not science, because it rests on non-empirical assumptions about matter not open to empirical proof or disproof. You cannot hand me a telescope and show me the apeman giving birth to man, or man giving birth to superman. You cannot even breed peas and make them into something other than peas.
Three laws of Thermodynamics (note, LAWS, not theory). Evolution says order came from chaos, and order is ever increasing. Thermo says that order is ever decaying.
Butterfly collectors are pretty bad at math, so they don't care. (that is an old joke by the way.)
But there is no story to follow. Not even supervillains can express "homophobia" under the rules of political correctness, nor can a black man be a total badass, like Luke Cage the Power Man once was, nor can a handicapped guy been seen to suffer, as Matt Murdock the Daredevil once did, nor can a sexual pervert have any personality, as no incarnation of Batwoman ever did. No woman can be seen to suffer nor to fail at any task, nor fall short in any way, as all the prior generations of superheroines once did, and their older sisters, the Cliffhanger Queens such as Nyoka of the Jungle or the Daughter of Don Q reach triumph without shoot-outs, chases, escapes, fist fights, cat fights, cave-ins, wild ape attacks, torture, mayhem, or being trapped beneath a lowering ceiling of spikes.
Compare this to girl-type Captain Marvel, or girl-type Hawkeye or Batwoman the Lesbian, who overcomes whole space fleets of aliens without breaking a fingernail, and suffers neither doubt nor heartache, loses no friends, does not have any Uncle Ben killed through her negligence, has no Aunt May to care for, nor J Jonah Jameson to be her overbearing bossman. She is never low on money, never turned down for a date, never called bad names, never faces anyone able to hurt her. There is no story there.
Quick-- without looking it up -- we all know Batman's origin story, right? Fine. What do we know about Katie Kane the Batwoman, aside from her sexual orientation? Any parents killed by mobsters? Home planet of "batworld" blew up? Magic bat-ring ring from alien space-cop? Exiled from paradise because she fell in love with a handsome flyboy? Last survivor of of the bat-people of Mars? Learned the mystic arts from a bat-worshipping Tibetan? Bitten by a radioactive bat? Anything?
I confess I am not familiar with this character. I know nothing about her, aside from her status as a poster child for perverts. I know the origins for all the batgirls, however, the police commissioner's librarian daughter, the mute superninja raised by assassins, the daughter of the c-list supervillain Cluemaster. Can anyone name any storyline or story arch that was really memorable for Batwoman? Any stories.
Faith based discrimination is actually bigotry in the purest form, since it utterly rejects everything about the person, body, soul and mind. Faith is the man. There is nothing left over and nothing held back. On the other hand, disapproval of a sexual perversion is in fact the highest compliment to pay the person afflicted by the sin, since the sin is the enemy of the man.
Indeed, the promotional material for the film mentions that this originally had been meant to be a documentary, merely a filming retired and out-of-practice male basketballers against a current female pro team and seeing the results, but no women’s sports league would actually allow it. In reality, the female leagues only pretend to allow men to compete against women, just as the men only pretend to be women, so the few and outrageous times it happens — as with Riley Gaines was defeated by Lia Thomas nee William Thomas — are rare enough to make national news.
Sadly, the freakish cult beliefs of the Leftwing audience will anathematize any laughter or droll wisdom the film might otherwise impart to them. They have been ordered to hate it, sight unseen. Likewise, conservative audiences will tend to forgive the film’s flaws out of rightwing loyalty, except that conservatives also are loyal to scrupulous honesty, and so will be harsh on the poor film as a sacrifice to the honor of reviewer integrity. The matter is made unduly difficult and silly by the difficult and silly times in which we live. One cannot even tell a good-natured joke about the absurdity of men in drag competing against women athletes without provoking fake outrage and fake controversy.
The film is not controversial. Neither is it a work of comedic genius, equal to a Marx Brothers film. Nor is it merely a flat political satire like so many flat political satires we saw from the Left in the 1960s. It rises at times to sober insight, so is deeper than one might expect.
It is not great, but not bad, and well worth the time and effort of any fan of sanity to support, if for no other reason than to oppose the establishment chattergoons seeking to libel and malign it.
Especially effort will be made to kill the babies of Negroes in the womb, a race which all the Progressives hate and fear, so much so that they will not even call a black baby a “baby”, but instead call it a untermensch nigger fetus. The other thing they will do is attempt to promote artificial sterility via contraception, in order to demean the status of women and degrade the prudence and chivalry of men. Since the rhythm method is both more reliable than contraceptives, and produces neither breast cancer nor ground water contaminants as do hormonal contraceptives, it is decried and dismissed by the Progressives.
So the Christian writer who decides to put a good witch like Glinda or Hermione or Samantha Stevens or Willow Rosenberg in his story runs the risk that some impressionable schoolgirl out in the crumbling wilderness of the modern world will decide that the path to self-respect and self-actualization is to don a pointy hat and take up her wand, go to an abortion mill, and sacrifice a baby girl to Moloch. One never knows, O Christian writer, whether the last story that schoolgirl read before she read yours was THE GOLDEN COMPASS or INTERVIEW WITH A VAMPIRE or BLINDSIGHT, or some other work firmly in the camp and flying the black banners of the Culture of Death.
Now, when I was younger and more libertarian in thought, I thought Conservativism and Leftism were political postures. I thought politics included mutual compromise for mutual benefit.
Since 9/11, all that smoke has been blown out of my eyes. Leftism is not a political posture. It is a cross between a mental disease and a death-cult. The only way to prevent Churches from being sued under antidiscrimination laws, or to keep clerks issuing marriage licenses out of jail, is to prevent gay marriage. The only way to prevent gay marriage is to keep the anti-sodomy laws on the books.
The barbarian is either at your feet or at your throat. If the Left were civilized, they would be willing and able to live in peaceful mutual respect and mutual toleration with their neighbors. For psychological reasons that seem to me to be inescapable, the Left cannot be civilized. Because the deeds of men are evil, and so they love the darkness.
Please recall that Christianity is the only worldview that ever denied, undermined, and outlawed magic. For the superstitious to call the rational ‘superstitious’ is beyond irony.
Girls are allowed to cry and cower, because it is cute, and we gentlemen are supposed to protect them.
But women and naturally less suited for war and conflict than men. If the vote were restricted solely to men, perhaps the public debate over public laws would make fighting wars and fighting crime its primary, or even its only, order of business. Perhaps all these other things, housecleaning the environment, mothering the poor, schoolmarming the schools, would be done privately, not by the government.
Perhaps if women did not vote, they could see to the environment, the schools, and the poor through the institutions of the Church, which are better suited to charitable activity and feminine compassion than the hard and harsh swords and balances of townhall.
The Nanny State only exists in nations where all the Nannies were given a vote.
On a side note. My cousin's daughter was half paying attention to a cartoon on Nicolodeon. My Grandma was watching it too, but did not really gather what small feats and characteristics about the characters were displayed.
Two college girls were hanging out with each other on a quest. It came to be revealed, they were "dating" each other. And had to break up. The crush between the two girls.
It was propaganda for children to adopt the lifestyle as innocent. Just a mere blush. A certain love like charm, like boyfriend and girlfriend would have.
This is the benign appearing entry into a child's mind and heart. It's the slithering serpent in the Garden. "You shall not die!"
This is a introduction to children to think of romance, crushes. And children have a mind and are intelligent. They are not stupid. They know that this means the terms of endearment which a man and a woman often display. And children come often onto the seen. They understand.
Deviating this with two girls, then tells children that two girls can have those romantic relationships that evolve from a crush. Children are not stupid. Thus, the logic of the cartoon is not innocent, for which it leads to.
Thus, as the authors in the letter above. Surely know, their audience are not stupid. But treat them as Mrs. Sanger loved for her purposes. Referring to them as "feeble minded."
There is nothing romantic about two girls, or two boys loving each other. Nothing!
The love a boy builds an affection for a girl, is willing the good of the other. He defends her. He protects her. He is a Knight! He is a Prince! The opposites attract. The opposites are complimentary. Their completely creative. The girl and girl, or the boy and boy are not. It's dead.
The guy creates a Poem giving her the words that only a Goddess can hear. Goddesses cannot really stand hearing what they want to hear from each other. It's already known.
The boy, the subject of the Goddess, who not like any other as she has known and seen. Brings her delight. She see's a smaller willful subject, unlike her own. He is a strange and unusual creation.
That's the point of boy meets girl.
Girls can live Lesbos if they want. And, they will live for that for a awhile, until a boy awakens their wonder. And find a Prince who slays dragons, and rescues Princesses. She see's him as her complimentary. Not her equal.
My stepsister’s father was homosexual who abandoned her at the age of seven to go live with his homosexual lover, a worthless boy. Never once in my hearing did I hear any criticism of him for this decision. I saw not the least hint of disapproval or discrimination or revulsion. No one called him a pervert, even though he surely knew his sex drive was misaligned, and drove him where he did not want to go.
He committed suicide.
I am not a mind reader, and I do not know what is in his heart, but I suspect that his pursuit of a lifestyle all the lying-ass jerks on the Left kept telling him was a good and worthy lifestyle was what killed him.
Let me be clear: I say people like you kept telling him that it was society’s fault that he was unhappy, because everyone hated him. People like you kept telling him if he just tried a little harder to follower his sexually abnormal desires, the desires would become normal, and satisfy him with happiness.
People like you lied and lied and lied, and so people like you killed him.
And for what? So you could play a little game of moral superiority with yourself, and tell yourself that your inability to distinguish between male and female, right and wrong, healthy and sickness, life and death, was a sign of your broadmindedness.
You boast that you cannot see the difference. You cannot discriminate. You cannot make judgments. You cannot face facts. You cannot think.
Some boast. You should be ashamed.
The only person I have seen the Left comfortable condemning is Hitler, and at that, not for his tyranny, secret police, or his totalitarian (and totally incompetent) economic policies, but merely for his racism: and they only disapprove of Hitler so that they can call Republicans Hitlers. When real racism rears its ugly head, as when paynim terror-bombers call Jews the sons of apes and pigs, the Left will utter soothing words of moral equivocation, change the subject, and counter attack.
Do you object that I call it a myth? It is a myth. It is not science, it is not even scientific to believe in spontaneous creation of life from non life. Science is based on rational deduction from observations and predictions to confirm the deductions. Here, no observer saw or even has seen life emerge from non life. It cannot even be done deliberately, much less blindly by an natural process. If it were a natural process, we would see it going on around us at all times.
You may wonder why Leftist are so absurdly shameless in the naked evil of their demands, and so inane in their pretensions to be our moral and mental superiors. Their only claim to moral superiority is that they favor immorality and perversion wherever it appears. Their only claim to mental superiority is their inability to think critically, and their desire to destroy all institutions of higher learning, including the institution of academic freedom.
Asking why Leftists are shameless is like asking why water is wet. Leftism is not a political philosophy, nor any kind or philosophy, nor a disciplined system of thought, nor any kind of thought. Leftism is a set of verbal tricks and tactics which allow the speaker to excuse evil in the name of some undefined higher purpose, usually a phrase that is coined on the spot and has no meaning. Miss Korn coins “Academic Justice” to excuse mob tactics threatening a teacher for teaching.
In other words, the reason why Leftists are shameless is because Leftism is a mental disease, deliberately imposed on oneself, to quell the faculty of self reflection hence of shame. Shamelessness is Leftism; Leftism is shamelessness.
Note the dialog between Sam Wilson and Jane Foster, the fake Thor and the fake Captain America as they close in for combat with monstrous foes (see at about 9.35)
“Jane: Frost Giants. Small ones. Sam: They don’t look so small to me. Jane: They will once we are finished with them.Sam: I guess I can give the old threads some action this one last time. Jane (flourishing a honking, huge warhammer in her tiny, little, delicate, nurse’s hands): If this is truly the end of your time as the Captain, then let us make the most of this day. Jane (continuing): There will be the sweet taste of combat, then of mead, then, perhaps. of your lips. Sam: Kissing can wait. For now, let us stick to punching.”
Keep in mind, True Believers, that this is supposed to be the selfsame Jane Foster who was the love interest for Don Blake, the real Thor, back in the day.
And the writer has the woman proposing the hot smooching after getting roaring drunk on mead, while all the while exalting in the glories of smashing bones, splattering brains and blood and hearing the screams of the disemboweled and dying foemen, and seeing them driven before you, and hearing the lamentation of their women.
Yup. That is Jane Foster. Just the same person as this.
https://www.scifiwright.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/08.jpg
Note that back in the day, each sentence ended in an exclamation point. That is because everything was exciting! In the modern day, each sentence ends in a period. Nothing is exciting. Nothing matters.
The change between two entirely opposite personality types, from loving and caring nurse to brutal barbarian she-man is entirely organic and reasonable. Whatever.
Or, just maybe, on the other hand, these writers are sociopaths, with no native understanding of human emotions or interior human life, and so they cannot portray people except, perhaps, like the stiff and absurd caricatures seen on Soviet propaganda posters.
{from 2017}
Before YOUNG JUSTICE, my favorite show was LAST AIRBENDER. That show came back from the dead with LEGEND OF KORRA, But the writers there rewarded my love and loyalty with the ceremonial spit in the face of Christ with their LGBT antics.
A sly hint of it was intruded at the last minute in a way that simply made no sense given the plot so far, so that the PCniks could claim, among themselves, that AIRBENDER supported homosex, but so that anyone who criticized could be demonized and dismissed as someone who objected to two girls “holding hands.” See how that works?
Unfortunately the email by the writers saying that the innocent handclasp and soulful look in the eye between the butch, athletic tomboy girl and the feminine girl in lipstick was exactly their intent to show the erotic love between them. (Not that the PC-niks halt or slow their accusations merely because of facts.)
"So I wonder, other that the obvious purpose to deconstruct and destroy Superhero comics, if in the most clumsy manner the Woke are attempting to express their own immature drama and pining for romance into the wrong genre."
I have no insight to offer on this theory. I have strong doubts, because I am a cynic, but I do not know.
But I do have a rule of thumb to suggest: if one took a homo story from one of these comic books, and sex-swapped one character, so that gay Iceman was dating a girl instead of a boy (not Jean Grey, Kitty Pryde, Raven Darkholme, Lorna Dane, Judy Harmon, Zelda Kurtzberg, Laynia Petrovna, Annie Ghazikhanian, Opal Tanaka, or Marge Smith) but a new girl with all the same interests, virtues, traits and personality quirks as a girl as he had as a boy -- would the relationship nonetheless seem viable? Would the two seem to "go together"?
Likewise, if Tim Drake were dating Spoiler (Stephanie Brown) or Wonder Girl (Cassie Sandsmark) or Secret (Greta Hayes) or Ariana Dzerchenko or
Tamara Fox instead of a boy, and she had all the same interests, virtues, traits and personality quirks as a girl as he had as a boy -- would the relationship nonetheless seem viable?
The cynic in me suspects I am asking a trick question. If you read the comics in question, the cynic in me strongly suspects you may find to your surprise that the gay boys these orientation-swapped supers are dating have no personalities to speak of, no flaws, no frustrations, no dreams to achieve, because the portrayal of imperfection in a gay boy offends the gay privilege our society currently affords perverts, due to what might be called "gay fragility".
Again, the cynic in me strongly suspects one will find the so called romances are not romances at all, with no romantic tensions, none of the thrill, doubt, heartache and so on that accompanies finding a mate and the mother of one's progeny to carry on the family name.
Love and romance are not part of their mental environment. Power is. The power to change men into women and normal men into perverts is a godlike power. They cannot exercise this power in real life, but they can force others to change pronouns, and can defecate on long established and well loved fictional characters. They cannot be god, but they can pretend to be god.
Conservative Firing Line wrote:
One user, who asked to remain anonymous, said Tuesday he was given a 30-day ban for a graphic declaring that there are two gender— male and female
Note that the graphic [posted by the anonymous user] uses the word ‘sex’, which is a real word with a real meaning, whereas the allegedly conservative newswriter uses the Newspeak nonword ‘gender’ which means either a part of speech, or, in some anthropological circles, is a technical term for a sexual role in society, regardless of one’s biological sex. Here is another case of a conservative, unwittingly adopting the enemy’s vocabulary, aiding and abetting the enemy.
{from 2014}
This has nothing to do with my religion. I joined the Catholics because they are against homosexuality. I did not become against homosexuality because I joined the Catholics.
There is no need for you to apologize. I am not the one who decided to act unprofessionally, and assault the character of a fellow writer int the field. Mr Hines is. I am not the bigot. Mr Hines is. I believe a certain degree of courtesy and respect is due to comrades, and that other loyalties exist aside from political loyalties: Mr Hines does not.
He is a member of a cult of hate; I am a member of a religion of love. I love mankind, love virtue, love truth, and love beauty to the same degree and with the same intensity that the Hate Cult hates all these things. There is no compromise, no quarter and no peace between us.
PS: Logically, your friend cannot have a 'wife.' Women cannot have wives for the same reason the mother of an orphan cannot be alive. The word refers to someone who forms one half of a sexual dyad.
What your friend has is a desire for her friend to masturbate together with her, which creates sexual sensations without the sex act. The sex act requires mates of the opposite sex to perform. I have no doubt their love is as sincere as a pederast for his underage lover, a sadomasochist for his partner in chains, and so on. The sincerity of the love does not change the unnatural love to a natural one.
The fact that your language is so degraded and debased that you cannot even form a non-paradoxical sentence, that you cannot speak the truth, but instead choose to speak what you know or should know to be nonsense about the matter indicates an alarming lack of mental integrity on your part.
On a side note. My cousin's daughter was half paying attention to a cartoon on Nicolodeon. My Grandma was watching it too, but did not really gather what small feats and characteristics about the characters were displayed.
Two college girls were hanging out with each other on a quest. It came to be revealed, they were "dating" each other. And had to break up. The crush between the two girls.
It was propaganda for children to adopt the lifestyle as innocent. Just a mere blush. A certain love like charm, like boyfriend and girlfriend would have.
This is the benign appearing entry into a child's mind and heart. It's the slithering serpent in the Garden. "You shall not die!"
This is a introduction to children to think of romance, crushes. And children have a mind and are intelligent. They are not stupid. They know that this means the terms of endearment which a man and a woman often display. And children come often onto the seen. They understand.
Deviating this with two girls, then tells children that two girls can have those romantic relationships that evolve from a crush. Children are not stupid. Thus, the logic of the cartoon is not innocent, for which it leads to.
Thus, as the authors in the letter above. Surely know, their audience are not stupid. But treat them as Mrs. Sanger loved for her purposes. Referring to them as "feeble minded."
There is nothing romantic about two girls, or two boys loving each other. Nothing!
The love a boy builds an affection for a girl, is willing the good of the other. He defends her. He protects her. He is a Knight! He is a Prince! The opposites attract. The opposites are complimentary. Their completely creative. The girl and girl, or the boy and boy are not. It's dead.
The guy creates a Poem giving her the words that only a Goddess can hear. Goddesses cannot really stand hearing what they want to hear from each other. It's already known.
The boy, the subject of the Goddess, who not like any other as she has known and seen. Brings her delight. She see's a smaller willful subject, unlike her own. He is a strange and unusual creation.
That's the point of boy meets girl.
Girls can live Lesbos if they want. And, they will live for that for a awhile, until a boy awakens their wonder. And find a Prince who slays dragons, and rescues Princesses. She see's him as her complimentary. Not her equal.
{from 2017}
Kamala Khan is a Muslim highschool girl form Jersey city, and gained the ability to expand, stretch, and shrink her body in various ugly and ungainly ways, and make her fists into giant balloon-like stupid looking flesh blobs. She wears the dumpiest uniform imaginable, and acts like a cross between a spoiled idiot child, a sociopath, and a fascist. She took on the name Ms Marvel because the name Jihad Girl did not test as well in focus group.
She does not really fight crime, instead she fights white guys, who are the source of all the world’s evils, and she protects her friends like the Lesbian who is in love with a high school Muslim girl who wears a headscarf at all times. Because we all know how ultra-fundamentalist Middle Eastern religious women are encouraged to be sexually liberated and experimentally genderfluid by their families. The writing here is lazy, one dimensional, and stupid.
Please note that no one is afraid to offend Christians, not even Planned Infanticide Instead of Parenthood or the pro-homo-pederasty writing team of LEGEND OF KORRA (technically pederasty since the two partners in the homosexual union portrayed on the children’s show are teenaged girls).
I have heard people, or, rather, Morlocks who look a great deal like people, using the term African American to refer to Blacks from England and France and elsewhere in Europe.
I was in a time travel role playing game once, based on Roger Zelazny’s ROADMARKS. There was a mystical road through time the time travelers used, and branches and exits led to alternate histories. At one road stop hotel, the moderator of the game was describing to the players what some of the travelers from other timelines looked like, including Aztecs in Spanish armor and Eskimo astronauts and so on.
We saw a tall and stalwart Negro in a crew cut from a world where Prussia was inhabited by black men in the 1930s, and he was wearing a Nazi SS uniform. One of the players, a liberal, was surprised or perhaps scandalized, asked to hear the description once again, saying, “You mean an African American Nazi?”
The moderator raised one eyebrow and said, “No. He’s clearly from Germany.”
Likewise, I had a similar problem when I was writing a science fiction story set in a year far enough in the future that America was obliterated. The narrator described one person as looking ‘oriental’ and my too-left-leaning copy editor red penciled the word and snidely said, ‘Well, I’ve never heard the word oriental used to describe anything but a rug – suggest ‘Asian-American’.’
Whereupon I patiently explained that a man from a Japanese colony on Mars, in this story called Kasei, might possibly be called a Kaseijin (Marsman) but could not possibly be called an Asian-American.
Likewise, my friend, born in South Africa, stepping into the student union hall for African American students on her campus on a hot day, to sit in a chair, panting, and enjoy the air conditioning, when she was peremptorily commanded to leave by a black woman, because this was the African American Student Union. My friend was unable to restrain her outrage, and shouted in her delightful British accent, “You fools! I am the only African in this room!”
The moral of the story? Political Correctness is not only patronizing, it is parochial. It can only be used when talking by modern Americans to modern Americans about modern American things. There are no words in Political Correctness talk for Yellow or Black or Red men who come from other planets, other times, or other places.
For the record, Mr Bakunin, the words you are repeating are the answer to a specific question of what I thought the writers of LEGEND OF KORRA were thinking when they decided to use lesbians rather than male homosexuals as the couple of choice in a children’s cartoon to lure innocent and trusting kids into believing homosexuality is right and normal and ergo Christianity is wrong and abnormal.
But it seems as if you did not consider the possibility that this quote should be read in context. If you read the question to which this quote is an answer, a reader is asking me to speculate on the motivations and thought process of writers supporting your position.
Yes, your position.
You see, your side, not my side, thinks of rednecks and conservatives and Christians as being obsessed with a psycho-pathological phobia and hatred of gays. Your side coined an silly term for the alleged phobia because it did not exist until you invented it: homophobia.
My question to you is this: do you believe that some, even most, hetero men have a visceral and instinctive desire to beat homosexuals to death?
Why is it bigotry if I speculate that this belief in homophobia, fairly common among your side, was perhaps the reason behind the writers’ decision to use Korra and Asami as their couple of choice rather than, say, Aang and Sokka?
I do not hide the fact that a visceral abhorrence to homosexual acts (albeit never to the person tempted toward such acts) is a rightly ordered and indeed a laudable reaction. All emotions, visceral or otherwise, should be ordered as nature and reason command.
The Catholic Church in America, in the 1960s and 1970s, welcomed homosexuals into their ranks, and, enamored by then current psychological theories about the origins of the sin, thought that to comfort and hide the offender was the most charitable policy. Consequently, once the homosexual lobby made entry into the Church and rose in the ranks, over the next decades they diligently sought out and welcomed each other to join seminaries and holy vocations, covered up each others crimes and abominations, and so on. Hence there was a plethora of homosexual activity with young men, some of them underage under the authority of gays in the priesthood and other positions of authority.
The resulting scandal humiliated the Church and continued to be flung in the face of the priesthood and laity as a curse to this day. (It is ironic to note that the proportion of such scandals is far less than found among schoolteachers.) Why homosexual diddling with young and fair-faced boys is a horror and a scandal in the Church, but welcomed and cheered in society at large, and considered a constitutional right it is bigotry to oppose, I leave for someone more able to unwind the labyrinthine convulsions of modern non-binary logic than I to explain.
[Secondly, from your writing it seems that God was willing to reveal himself to you when you asked. Why is it that he doesn’t seem willing to reveal himself to others? I’ve asked, and received nothing. I know others have as well.]
All I can say is that any man not as stupid and stubborn as I does not need to see God in this life. Is my word not good enough? Either I am mad, or God exists. You believe the planet Pluto exists, I hope, even if you’ve never seen it. Why? Because you trust the men who say they’ve seen it. Why not trust me, now, here, in this? Or trust Saint Paul, who is more convincing, or trust the countless others — the Christian Scientists keep a century of records of miracles, and so does the medical committee at Lourdes — who have seen things just as I have.
Is the miracle of the sunrise not enough? Go look at the veins on a leaf, you will see more about the mind of God in action than I saw.
[From “The Birth of Nations”]
There are only three means of forming a government: by birth, by conquest, and by covenant.
Clans and tribes forming a kingdom by electing or acclaiming a chieftain or high king from their midst is an example of the first. Such groups spring from a common ancestor. The Normans ruling the Saxons in England after William the Conqueror, or the castes of India are an example of the second: the children of the conquerors rule over a lower class of the children of the vanquished.
In history, there are only two examples of government formed by covenant: the first is the USA. The other is ancient Israel.
[…]
As with American naturalization, among the Israelis, a stranger or sojourner could become a Jew, and enter the covenant, if he submitted to their laws and ceremonies.
[…]
The French Revolution and Russian Revolution established governments which are best described as satanic mockeries of the American Revolution; they have the form of Roman Republicanism as the American Republic does, even using the name, and take the rhetoric of being a democracy, of the people and by the people. But they are merely what the Greeks called Tyrannies, that is, governments based on the rule by the strong, not an established dynasty. These are not government, but are dysfunctions of government: such revolutionary governments are merely an anarchy of the governing junta, whose excesses are restrained by no law nor custom, and whose crimes never come to reckoning.
In the modern day, the cease fire no longer applies: Social Marxism or Social Justice or whatever name the philosophy of the rebellion of Lucifer is using these days to mask itself, as promoted by schools, and enforced by the Civil Rights Act, is the unofficial but quite clearly established church of the United States, and takes steps to remove all signs of fealty and faith to Christianity from the public square.
The scientific evidence, such as it is:
All human genes have been traced back to two ancestors, the first called “Mitochondrial Eve”, the second misnamed “Y-Chromosomal Adam”. The fact that there is one woman and one man who gave their genes to all is established by the evidence, the “scientists” then do backflips to say that there were actually several thousand individuals, even though they can show no evidence of that. They cannot claim more than that with the evidence they have, and even that is a stretch. Those several thousand fictional individuals are invented to allow them to claim that the Bible is false. Being not backed by evidence, they are, scientifically speaking, falsified.
The woman's genes are traced, using rather iffy methods (the dates may be way off), to an ancient time period, the mans genes to a less ancient time period. This causes the scientists to shriek “see, we told you that story of Adam and Eve was false, they lived at different times!” To this I reply NOAH. The Bible lists one time period when there was one woman who was the mother of all women, and two periods where one man was the father of all men, although in the case of Noah, the father of all surviving men. The second, later man's genes would overwright the first mans genes in the genetic record. The women in the ark were all from different mothers, the men, only from one father (plus the father himself present).
Thus the scientific evidence, which is different than “what scientists believe” (which is not science) validates the Bible as speaking literally.
And the only way one species can evolve into another is if it was planned by a planner, which is the whole problem with evolution. In the case of man, it was simply not planned, and did not happen, since what would God do with a half sentient creature, send it halfway to heaven or hell?
To get a new species, you could, as a planner, have one male and one female born with the same mutations, in the same area, and then have them mate with each other. The chance of that happening randomly is too small to even consider. It is a mute point with "human evolution", since it did not happen, animals and plants are another matter.
My theory is that Leftists never wake up not because they are stupid nor because they are evil but merely because the question of whether a “narrative” is true or false bores them and fills them with ennui.
Political Correctness means judging stories on how efficient they are as propaganda.
Truth never enters their mental system at any point.
Truth is merely irrelevant to them.
We keep arguing to them about whether global warming truly exists or truly does not exist, and they merely blink at us with owlish, stupid, dull looks on their brutal faces, uncomprehending, because to them it is like asking if saying please and thank you is ‘true’.
Saying please and thank you is not true or untrue. It is merely polite, an accepted formality.
Likewise, here, to them, expressing loyalty to the Global Warming faith is merely polite, a matter of accepted formality.
Asking a Leftist to react to a fact, and to recant a false theory once it is proved false is like asking a eunuch to get an erection. He cannot do it. He lacks the equipment to perform the act and lacks the mental and physical ability to desire to perform the act.
When, if ever, has anyone on the Left ever for any reason condemned or denounced or recanted a false theory once it was proved false?
I do not understand the question. A homosexual couple living chastely is not a homosexual couple, because then they are not performing homosexual acts. Homosexuals are not a race or subspecies of man. They are men who indulge in a certain vice, like alcoholics, or like men who have sex with their sisters.
An unmarried pair of unrelated roommate cannot adopt a child in any state in the union of which I am aware. Anyone can identify anyone else as having their power of attorney for health care decisions. I am not sure what financial benefits you mean: there is no point in giving the tax breaks given a married couple to a pair of unrelated roommates.
In any case, I was once firmly in the pro-gay camp, and in the pro-anything camp, provided two (or more) adults consented: they should be left alone to do their business and they would leave others alone. One of the things that drove me out of that camp was that when the Commonwealth of Massachusetts offered to institute Civil Unions, which would have all the legal benefits of marriage, the highest Court of Massachusetts told the legislature that anything less than calling the Civil Unions marriage would be illegal and unconstitutional. And the Leftwing activists back this position. I heard not a single dissenting voice from that side of the argument.
The implication was clear. The pervertarians want the perversion to be given the honors and applause the a healthy society awards to the sacrament of marriage, and the mere fact that a homosexual pair cannot, in any real sense, have sex, copulate, reproduce, form a family, form a sexual dyad, or be anything more than a kinky mockery or take-off of real marriage is brushed away by a mental act of thought-censorship worthy of Orwell.
Even to bring up the topic of the biological impossibility to homosexuals forming the heterosexual dyad needed for marriage is greeting with screams loud enough to block out any further rational thought. This boycott against Card is part of that mechanism of screaming.
The homosexuals I know personally do not give a Tinker’s Damn about marriage. Nearly everyone behind this movement is a heterosexual, usually happily married, but one who thinks it is wrong for perversion to be discriminated against. They want to encourage and applaud sexual perversion because and only because it is perverse. They think this serves justice and creates peace and wellbeing. They are not perverts themselves, but they are pervertarians.
The pervertarians do not simply want to be left alone, to live and let live. They want society to pretend that perversion is normal, even though their five senses tell them that it is not. So they must block out what their senses tell them with a legal bit of make-believe.
Anyone, like a caterer or a wedding cake decorator or a wedding photographer or a Catholic Church who does not want to play along with the mockery (and I mean that in both senses of the word) of marriage must be punished soundly, so that no one will dare bring to the awareness of the poor victims a sexual dysfunction that they are pretending something will make them happy which only leads to misery.
And so every Leftist believes, and tells each other they all believe, that there is no difference between chastity and perversion, no difference between male and female, no difference between sane sexual drive and neurotic sexual drives, no difference between health and addiction, no difference between sanity and insanity, no difference between right and wrong.
This is the core of nihilism, which is the belief that there are no ultimate truths, no objective truths. The belief is that by eliminating all differences between right and wrong, sane and insane, chaste and perverse, male and female, all conflict will cease and utopia will bloom.
Here is the problem in microcosm: Foz Meadows writing at the HuffPo gives us 3 straight white males who she claimed benefited from anti-homosexual laws and Jim Crow: Heinlein, Asimov, and Arthur C. Clarke. Meadows' "research" consisted of where there's smoke, there's fire. She simply bought into the narrative Golden Age equals privilege and racism - end of story.
The truth was different. Clarke was gay and also not American and so had nothing to do with Jim Crow. Asimov was Jewish and suffered discrimination by way of anti-Jewish quotas in his education. Even if we assume Heinlein benefited in some way from Jim Crow, it doesn't necessarily speak to his character since he was clearly ahead of the cultural racial curve in his work.
In short, it's nothing more than group racial and sexual defamation. That's how "anti-racists" become racists. You can't reach a mind like Meadows because it is as supremely arrogant as it is completely dysfunctional. Her mind doesn't work when it comes to the least abstract thought. She is convinced otherwise - end of story. The one common denominator I've observed with this group is that the gulf between their arrogance about their own intellect and their actual stupidity is the widest I've ever encountered.
