As we now have trans as a protected class it has shown the slippery slope in full free fall from the “gay rights” debate a decade ago. The problem is that laws based on fallacies will always be abused because their is no need to prove that any additions are legitimate. We have known for centuries men and women are not equal, we have known for centuries that racial aggregates depended on the culture dictating genetics. When we pretended that this didn’t matter we opened the door for non-biological protected classes. There has never been any evidence that being gay or trans is genetic, and there has been inconclusive evidence that gay and trans is biological at all aside from the biological impact occurring from grooming. In fact the best biological evidence we have is that external stimuli (aka other people) is what causes biological changes in the individual. Yet now we have more protected classes that are inherently non-biological than provably biological. These abuses are meant to subjugate not protect, they are meant to deny reality in place of accepting it.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (138)
sorted by:
It has never been shown to have a biological link, and there is actually plenty of evidence of a link to sexual abuse and trauma as a child. But even if it did have a biological link, it would make no difference. Many diseases and disorders have genetic origins and nobody would say this makes them good or that people should be proud of them or celebrate them. Just because something is genetic (I.e. you are born that way) doesn’t make it good, much less worth being proud of or celebrating publicly.
I’d say the fact that normalizing gay marriage has a huge negative impact on society is at this point nearly obvious. Does anyone really think the trans-agenda, gender spectrum “theory”, and burgeoning pro-pedophilia movements would be where they are today if gay marriage had been rejected?
You're mixing different problems.
Gay marriage, so long as it has been maintained, confers all the benefits of marriage to gay men, and makes them significantly better off than even heterosexual couples because two men working full time bring in an absolutely shitload of money and make them very upwardly mobile (the same is not true for Lesbians).
Gay marriage itself does effectively nothing to society, as it was always a choice for gay men to partner up anyway.
Your issue is with Leftism through the Queer Revolutionary Movement. Accepting or not accepting gay marriage does nothing to dissuade or incentivize Leftism. It's like saying that Socialism wouldn't have come to America if it didn't accept a minimum wage. One wedge policy does not stop Leftism.
Gay marriage and the “Queer Revolutionary Movement” are one and the same. You need to understand who the people are behind the scenes pulling the strings. Gay marriage was never about a genuine concern for peoples rights like the civil rights movement was — it was a masquerade, a skin suit that mimicked the civil rights movement with the goal of creating a wedge issue that could be politically exploited and to further the agenda of demoralization.
Many “useful idiots” bought the bleeding heart justification for gay marriage and many probably had good intentions, but they were just being used and the rational arguments behind gay marriage never held water. But societal conditioning did its job and an activist judiciary gave them a win by overriding the will of the people who democratically decided to reject gay marriage through the state legislatures, similar to Roe v. Wade on abortion.
Blocking gay marriage wouldn’t have stopped Leftism, but it would have stopped that particular avenue of attack (sexual identity politics) and put a huge obstacle in the path of their demoralization agenda, ala. Yuri Brezmenov. It would also have improved society, or rather, acted as a bulwark against further degeneracy instead of further accelerating it.
You wouldn't have stopped sexual identity politics, because that's not how Leftism works.
You don't deny an avenue of attack, merely delay it. The attacks are permanent and inevitable. Gay marriage, if anything, has denied a rallying point around Leftism to give itself legitimacy to a individuals and philosophically liberal population, that doesn't respect government regulation of family.
Honestly, look at Critical Race Theory. Integration didn't cause that, the Leftist Racialists opposed it. Integration had a nasty way of undermining their avenue of attack until they could re-normalize racial segregation as "anti-racism".
No they aren't, the former is a policy that the latter adopted. I do know who's pulling the strings and it was Leftists that were sexual deviants and saw a way in. They pulled the same stunt with 4th amendment protections, racial anti-discrimination, free speech, opposition to conscription. That doesn't mean that we should simply destroy those things because of who first proposed it.
I'm not going to upturn the interstate system just because Eisenhower go the idea from Hitler.
Yes, I know, so was the Civil Rights movement:
I'm Julia Brown. For 9 years I was a member of the Communist Party, serving as an undercover agent for the FBI. During that time, I learned that the Communist conspiracy had been planning and working for years to bring violent revolution to America. It was to be a Communist revolution, but the great majority of the American people would not be allowed to realize that until it had already happened. If all goes according to the Communist blueprint, Americans will believe that the chaos and violence has something to do with Civil Rights. Our enemies were quick to find our weakest point of their attack. They knew that racial differences could provide them with an excellent wedge to divide our people. Their strategy, simply, has been to keep hammering on that wedge. To drive it deeper into our social structure. To open all wounds that have since healed, and deliberately to create new ones wherever they can.
...
Now this doesn't mean that there isn't a legitimate need for the advancement of Civil Rights for many of our negro citizens. Of course there is a need there. Otherwise, Communist agitators, posing as Civil Rights leaders, could never hope to enlist massive support for their schemes. The aspirations for Negros for full equality were not created by Communists, but they are used by Communists in such a way that idealistic Americans of all races can be tricked into implementing the Communist blueprint for revolution.
Having been on the inside of the Communist Party, it's easy for me to recognize this revolutionary agitation in disguise. But, the average American finds it hard to believe that something as worthy and noble sounding as a Civil Rights movement could possibly be a Communist maneuver.
Keywords: "Of course there is a need there. Otherwise, Communist agitators, posing as Civil Rights leaders, could never hope to enlist massive support for their schemes
Civil Rights goes back to the Civil War, long before Russia became involved. The primary enemy of the civil rights movement were Democrat judges who upheld Jim Crow laws. The Republicans were the ones who passed the Civil Rights Act, negating the power of these judges.
Of course Communists exploited the movement just like they exploit everything else, but that doesn’t mean the Civil Rights movement was Communist in origin or motivation.
Physically impossible. The government has no method of regulating a church. They can just either recognize a marriage or not recognize it. The government can't stop your church from allowing you to marry a cow, it just won't let you claim the cow as a dependent.
Your confusing gays and Leftism. Leftism has always sought to destroy religion as a rival faith. That's what you're calling 'the militant gay lobby'. Homosexuals didn't need the approval of your religion to be homosexual, or even to believe that it wasn't a sin.