.
The argument often used against Same Sex Marriage is that it should not be called “marriage” but rather a “civil union” – call it ANYTHING you want, just don’t call it marriage!
But advocates for Same Sex Marriage simply refuse to rename it, despite such “civil unions” not really differing from marriage in anything but name.
Have you ever asked yourself “why”?
A quick perusing of the following quotes ought to give a hint to the answer:
“Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so. … Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family, and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. … As a lesbian, I am fundamentally different from non-lesbian women. …In arguing for the right to legal marriage, lesbians and gay men would be forced to claim that we are just like heterosexual couples, have the same goals and purposes, and vow to structure our lives similarly. … We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society's view of reality.” -- Paula Ettelbrick, “Since When Is Marriage a Path to Liberation?”, in William Rubenstein, ed., Lesbians, Gay Men and the Law (New York: The New Press, 1993), pp. 401-405.
"A middle ground might be to fight for same sex marriage and its benefits, and then, once granted, redefine the institution completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society's moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution." -- Michelangelo Signorile, "Bridal Wave," OUT Magazine, December/January 1994, p.161
"It [gay marriage] is also a chance to wholly transform the definition of family in American culture. It is the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statutes, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into public schools, and, in short, usher in a sea of change in how society views and treats us." -- Michelangelo Signorile, "I do, I do, I do, I do, I do," OUT Magazine, May 1996, p.30
"[E]nlarging the concept to embrace same-sex couples would necessarily transform it into something new....Extending the right to marry to gay people -- that is, abolishing the traditional gender requirements of marriage -- can be one of the means, perhaps the principal one, through which the institution divests itself of the sexist trappings of the past." -- Tom Stoddard, quoted in Roberta Achtenberg, et al, "Approaching 2000: Meeting the Challenges to San Francisco's Families," The Final Report of the Mayor's Task Force on Family Policy, City and County of San Francisco, June 13, 1990, p.1.
There is an element in the Gay Community that fully intends to
transform the current parameters of marriage and create something
completely new. This is classical Cultural Marxism and is the reason why Gay Rights Activists and feminists have joined each other at the urinal of eternal victimization, despite the
obvious contradiction of each group’s
fundamental premise – that being that feminists entire raison d'être is based upon “Gender is a Social Construct” and therefore women are discriminated against because the testicularly challenged are treated differently (while born fundamentally the same), whereas Gay Rights Activists argue that they are
born gay (refuting gender is a social construct) and therefore they are victimized because they are
born that way, and thus should not be discriminated against. The two arguments are mutually contradictory at the most fundamental level, and the two groups ought to be enemies… and yet, they obviously aren’t. The reason is that the radical wings of both factions have the same fundamental goal: they both wish to alter the family unit and society into something completely new. Roosevelt, meet Stalin, yo new fwiend and ally!
Something very important in order to
transform marriage then, is to make sure that the new models that come out are still
called marriage. It would be much harder to transform the meaning of marriage with “civil unions,” if civil unions were not also called marriage.
How will they transform marriage and society this way? Well, in Canada we legalized Gay Marriage back in 2005, and by 2006 (and using the justification of gay marriage now being normalized), Gay's shoved their agenda
into our schools and by 2007 a court in Ontario had already declared two married lesbians and one sperm donating father to all three be equal legal parents of the same child. Obviously, the dialectical path towards polygamy is set wide open by this ruling... does anyone else see how they are able to purposefully "transform" society in this way?
(***2013 Update: In March 2013, British Columbia's new Family Act went into effect. This law forces defacto marriage upon all common-law couples after two years. Further, the act allows for
five parent "families." A sperm donor, an egg donor, a surrogate, and two homosexuals who adopt the child, can all be equal parents of the same child.)
(***Another 2013 Update:
So the Slope Was Slippery After All)
That’s why Gay Rights Activists are so adamant about it being called marriage. If it were called “civil unions” the Marxist plan to alter society
dialectically falls flat on its face. Everything will
stall at the civil union level, and once society accepts the term “civil union” and identifies it with Gay People, it will become
monumentally difficult for them to further alter society with this plan,
or to be able to “rename” civil unions as marriage later on. Much of Marxist dialectical movement is based upon the general public’s
perception of an issue, rather than the reality of it. Either they get it right in the beginning, or there is not much point in carrying on.
Now, let’s examine for a moment the feminist goals for transforming marriage and the nuclear family. You’ll fast see it’s not just “Patriarchy” that they are against, but also they’re furious as hell at Mother Nature for giving them ovaries! Even
nature victimizes women, and this also must change!
"In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them" -- Dr. Mary Jo Bane, feminist and assistant professor of education at Welleslry College and associate director of the school's Center for Research on Woman
"No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one." -- Interview with Simone de Beauvoir, "Sex, Society, and the Female Dilemma," Saturday Review, June 14, 1975, p.18
"[M]ost mother-women give up whatever ghost of a unique and human self they may have when they 'marry' and raise children." --
Phyllis Chesler, Women and Madness, p.294
"...No woman should have to deny herself any opportunities because of her special responsibilities to her children. ... Families will be finally destroyed only when a revolutionary social and economic organization permits people's needs for love and security to be met in ways that do not impose divisions of labor, or any external roles, at all." -- Functions of the Family, Linda Gordon, WOMEN: A Journal of Liberation, Fall, 1969
"Being a housewife is an illegitimate profession... The choice to serve and be protected and plan towards being a family-maker is a choice that shouldn't be. The heart of radical feminism is to change that" -- Vivian Gornick, feminist author, University of Illinois, "The Daily Illini," April 25, 1981
"[W]omen, like men, should not have to bear children.... The destruction of the biological family, never envisioned by Freud, will allow the emergence of new women and men, different from any people who have previously existed." -- Alison Jaggar, Political Philosophies of Women's Liberation: Feminism and Philosophy, (Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams & Co. 1977)
"[I]f even 10 percent of American women remain full-time homemakers, this will reinforce traditional views of what women ought to do and encourage other women to become full-time homemakers at least while their children are young.... This means that no matter how any individual feminist might feel about child care and housework, the movement as a whole [has] reasons to discourage full-time homemaking." -- Jane J. Mansbridge, Why We Lost the ERA, p.100
"The care of children ..is infinitely better left to the best trained practitioners of both sexes who have chosen it as a vocation...[This] would further undermine family structure while contributing to the freedom of women." -- Kate Millet, Sexual Politics, 178-179
”It takes a village.” -- Hillary Clinton
Not only do feminists want to destroy patriarchy,
they also want to destroy motherhood, something very dear and precious to most females, and likely something they will not give up voluntarily.
There is a hierarchy to the way that “humanity” works. Many men are discovering certain elements of it through what is commonly known as “game,” but essentially, the “hierarchy of humanity” works like this:
Man --> Woman --> Children
And this is a
strong inclination within humans as well. Students of game will understand that women do not want to be sexual with men who they do not deem superior to them, and will reject all men they deem inferior. The woman
desires the hierarchy, and men fulfill women’s desire within it. Never ever forget, however, that
to rule is to serve. And this is what most men did with their hierarchal powers – see The Titanic. Men did not use their powers to
harm their “wards,” but rather used it to protect them, and often sacrificed directly towards this hierarchy to their own detriment. Parents (ie. mothers) do the same with their children – while parents have the enormous capability to bring harm or to exploit their children, 99% of parents do not do this… and it is
not because of the law that parents are altruistic towards children (The US Supreme Court even ruled that parents
naturally act in their children's best interests, both
in 1979 and
in 2000.) – in the same way, it is not because of law, or even social mores, that men treat women the way they do. They do it because it comes from somewhere deep within humanity.
It is very, very difficult to get men to turn on women. In the same way, it would be very difficult to get women to turn on children. The hierarchy just does not work that way. It is, however,
monumentally easier to get women to turn on men. When you “transvalue” the hierarchy (
place lower values higher up, and higher values lower down), working it against itself
backwards works like a charm!
You can convince women to turn on men
much easier than convincing men to turn on women. In the same manner,
you can get children to turn on parents much easier than you can get parents to turn on their children. It’s just the way the world works.
Man < -- (pushed away by) Women -- > Children
.
That works, as we all well know. Feminists have successfully destroyed marriage and the sexes are repelling from each-other because the hierarchy is messed up. If you give women economic and legal power over their men, women will abuse it until it just becomes downright dangerous for a man to engage in this tortuous practice known as
Marriage 2.0.
And, if you wanted to completely destroy parenthood, another stated goal of feminism? Why, just repeat the process that was done to destroy the bond between man and woman – namely, start giving the rights of the child more importance than the rights of the adults responsible for them.
Man < -- (pushed away by) Women < -- (pushed away by) Children
The same thing that happened to men and women regarding marriage
will happen to parents and children if
the powers that be are allowed to elevate the rights of the child to over-ride the rights of the parent.
How will you raise a child properly if sending them to their room becomes “psychological abuse,” or if with-holding their allowance is deemed “financial abuse” or if forcing them to eat their vegetables is considered some other sort of totalitarian abuse. (If I had a hammer, I’d smash vitamins!) Take note, Hillary Clinton fully believes that parents are not qualified to represent the best interests of
their own children, and therefore the state ought to create a rambling bureaucracy of civil servants and lawyers to represents children
independently of their parents.
This is the exact same system that divided men and women – pitting their interests against each other by dialectically manipulating the legal system. Men and women are in a
parasitic type of relationship wherein the man gives of his surplus resources to the woman. Parents and children are in exactly the same type of scenario, and as has happened with men and women, when you allow the parasite to lead the host, all you end up doing is destroying is the host. Parents and children will work the same.
And I promise you,
there does not have to be some grand conspiracy manipulating
every law and specific aspect of what will happen next. Simply screwing up the hierarchy will suffice. When children have more authority than the parents responsible for them you will have already stuck a stick in the spokes by default. Destruction is now not only likely, but in general society it will be virtually guaranteed – just like placing the authority of women over and above the authority of the man responsible for protecting and providing for her has only led to abuse, not solutions.
”The history of woman is the history of the worst form of tyranny the world has ever known; the tyranny of the weak over the strong. It is the only tyranny that lasts.” – Oscar Wilde
Children are even weaker than women! Placing the rights of the child over the rights of parents will lead to the same results – only worse! And, btw, since the destruction of marriage, who makes up the majority of parents nowadays? (Hint – They are among the testicularly challenged).
Now, often times ‘round here you will hear me refer to “The Dialectic,” and all of you know that this blog frequently refers to Marxism and
how feminism is married to it. One thing however, that does not get mentioned too often here or elsewhere is that Marxism and the Dialectic
does not work in a straight line. The general failure of us to realize this is why we keep getting our asses handed to us. We are playing checkers with people who are playing chess.
The way “it” works is like a zig-zag. The Marxist dialectic pushes radically to the left until a backlash builds up, and then the backlash is released
in order to consolidate the gains to the left.
"It would be the greatest mistake, certainly, to think that concessions mean peace. Nothing of the kind. Concessions are nothing but a new form of war." -- V.I. Lenin
So, the way it works is that radical leftism is introduced into society – much like how No-Fault-Divorce was introduced into our society. This was a
radical move that completely re-organized society’s most fundamental building block – and take note that there was
no massive public outcry demanding such a thing. Society didn’t even conceive of such a thing –
marriage was simply “marriage”, the way it had always been.
However, No Fault Divorce was implemented anyway and we all know the results. In the past decades we have witnessed a plethora of problems arising because of this radical change. However, this change has now taken place long ago and the vast majority of the population does not remember, nor can even conceive, of a society where divorce was not the norm. Take note that this was not the case when No-Fault-Divorce arrived on the scene, but after a couple of generations being exposed to it, it is now considered so normal that it is hardly even conceivable to us to try and rid society of it – rather, now we simply want to
alter it. (This is a classical brainwashing technique, btw - 1- "un-freeze" from current acceptance levels, 2 - Move the subject to a new level, 3 - "Re-Freeze" at the new level until the change has become normalized/accepted, 4 - Repeat the process until the proper amount of "movement" has taken place).
This is how it is done when you implement Marxism via gradualism – while Lenin did it fast and encouraged people to go along with him via threats of violence, gradualism does it by
slowing things down so that people
forget. If you
study a little closer, you will discover that we have, indeed, spent the past forty years implementing the
exact same types of social changes that Lenin did in his first four years of rule. The amount of time is the only difference. Lenin used violence within four years, and our system of Marxism is using forgetfulness/the generation gap over a longer period of time. The ultimate result is still the same, however.
So, back to the idea that “the backlash to the right consolidates the gains to the left.” What happens after a radical leftward change has occurred is of course a plethora of problems arising in society from said change. The people that are mostly affected by it are those that will push back against the radical leftism with, of course, a rightward/conservative political movement. What happens though is that the backlash movement is not one that attempts to dial back the
cause but rather attempts are made to
alter the results.
So, in the case of marriage in the modern day, the “backlash” is decidedly
not pushing for an end to No Fault Divorce, nor are they pushing for a restoration of Full Father Custody (the way marriage was originally intended, and existed up until the 1860’s). What they are pushing for is “shared parenting.” A
further aberration of the original concept of the family, and
something that has never existed in history. But, the “backlash to the right” will solidify in the minds of the population that implementing No-Fault-Divorce was proper, although it needed to be tweaked a little to make it more “equal” and fair. The concept that children need two fulltime parents will also be demolished. The need for State Funded Daycare will be increased as now there will be two parents disadvantaged rather than one… and, as always, both parties will now be running to the government to beg and plead for the
court to decide exactly the time, place, and even
how a parent may interact with his or her own child (or, more accurately,
the state's child).
Some freedom!
Wheras once parents would have run a pitchfork through any government personnel interfering with a citizen’s home-life, then covered him with oil and lit him on fire with torches in the town square, we now have both mothers and fathers running to the government
to beg and plead for crumbs and scraps from the same table that
the people once owned and both sides will think they are “winning” some precious equality, while being grateful to the government for providing them with something which was never the government’s in the first damn place.
This is the “
totalitarian trap.” You cause as much problems and confusion in a certain area as you possibly can, and out of the confusion you will cause despair amongst the people who will then run to you and demand you “fix it,” which of course you will – but in a way that suits your purposes, not of the masses of plebes who are only there for your satisfaction anyways.
Ah yes, consolidate the gains… until the people have internalized the change, which they will if you allow a measure of backlash to appease them, and allow some time for the changes to internalize, and then begin radical movements to the left again.
One thing though, once the backlash accepts the watered-down consolation prize,
they cannot easily push further because they have already been appeased! Once something like divorce has been “reorganized” to make it “more equal,” added on top of the fact that most of the population doesn’t even remember a time when divorce was
not rampant in society, to take it
further than the appeasement makes in nearly impossible.
Back to the beginning of this essay and the difference between “Civil Unions” and “Same Sex
Marriage,” you can see why the Gay Rights community was so adamant about retaining the word “marriage” rather than using “Civil Union.” Using the word civil union would greatly hamper Gay Activists in their attempts to
alter the meaning and structure of marriage – it had to retain the same name. If they would have gained under the name “civil union,” the effects upon “marriage” would have been negligible -
and also, their ability to re-push the issue into society’s limelight would have been greatly diminished, because the general population would have already come to believe that Gays had been appeased, and wouldn’t want to tolerate their bullshit all over again.
It's kind of a one shot deal.
What will Shared Parenting do to the radical changes in the structure of the family over the past decades? Will it roll back the changes or will it
continue to alter the structure of the family? Will it make divorce more or less acceptable in society? Will men be able to use it as a stepping stone to further their goals, or is it an assured permanent dead-end with minimal benefits?
How can feminists and
the powers that be pursue their stated goals of removing
motherhood from the experience of womanhood? They certainly won’t be able to use women to do it directly out of their own self interests… but could the coupling of children’s rights to the already diminished father’s rights be used to dialectically destroy whatever remains of parenthood, and pass all authority over to the state?
The only thing that supercedes the best interests of women in our society is the best interests of the child. I hope the shared parenting movement does not get made into useful idiots, promoting further destruction of the family while believing they are preserving it. I could easily see that women will be given "equal rights" in parenting as men, given that men have virtually no rights at all.
I understand why Gays insist on calling Same Sex Unions as Marriage - because they aren't nearly done with transforming it and they
know what they are doing. On the otherhand, with Shared Parenting, "defenders" of the family and fatherhood are cutting themselves off at the knees - not understanding what they are doing - as they are not willing to dialectically reframe the debate in a way that does not dead-end themselves into the Marxist web.
Previous Index Next
MGTOW
....................
..oooO...........
..(....)...........
….\..(............
…. \_/...........
………....Oooo..
………....(....)…
…………..)../....
..........(_/......
....................
.
.
