Category: gay marriage

Rights, Responsibilities, and Gay Marriage

Comment left at Counter-Currents.

There have been cases where deaf parents have refused to have their deaf children get treatment to restore hearing in order to preserve “deaf culture.” Now, no where in my post did I talk about government coercion. To conflate my positions on these issues with child transgenderism (which I view as mutilation and abuse) is pathetic. However, I morally object to that choice.
My views on these issues are the same on smoking. Rights and responsibilities flow in both directions. if someone chooses to smoke, if they want the right to smoke, then they must be completely responsible for the health consequences and they must ensure that their smoke does not bother non-smokers. Amazingly enough, non-smokers have the same right not to choke on fumes walking down a sidewalk behind a smoker as does the smoker have the right to “enjoy the cigarette.”
Those who enjoy their hearing disability, and refuse treatment, then have the responsibility to navigate through life with ZERO accommodation from society. Those who are deaf through no fault of their own should of course have reasonable accommodation. If we value hearing as normal and deafness as abnormal, withholding treatment from a child is abuse. On the other hand, transgenderism is abnormal, supporting such for a child is also abuse.
Those who believe they have the right to refuse vaccinations also have the responsibility to live out the consequences of their choice. Why should society accommodate them? Fine, let’s not shoot them in a White ethnostate. Instead, they should be shunned and quarantined, and they can live out their lives in small villages, far from civilization. Society has no obligation to accommodate them, to treat their illness, or to risk infection to those who have legitimate reasons for not being vaccinated (age, immune deficiency) or for that minority vaccinated who did not develop immunity.
Libertarian types are funny people. Like Coloreds, they rant about “rights” but never about responsibilities. The same with gays and gay marriage. One thing not mentioned in my essay is the health issue. A major reason for the spread of HIV in America was the spectacularly promiscuous lifestyles of (at least male) homosexuals. After which, they demanded their rights that a large portion of American biomedical research be dedicated to that disease. You see, on their end, all the rights to do as they please, and the burden to deal with the consequences lies with society. Or, like Big Business and their immigration – internalize the benefits and externalize the costs.
Getting back to gays – are gays in gay marriage going to be monogamous? Sure, I know married heterosexuals fool around (I read rates in France are very high for adultery), but there is a big difference between an expectation of monogamy (heterosexual) and the expectation of “let’s have this big campy wedding and thumb our noses at society and then continue to sleep around as before” (homosexual). What homosexuals need to explain is why they NEED marriage, instead of a “civil union” that would provide the same legal benefits. It’s because they DEMAND validation. Just like Bruce Jenner and his very public masquerade as a woman – all the abnormals, the freaks, those who are different, DEMAND that society accommodate and celebrate them. It’s borne out of a bizarre combination of insecurity, arrogance, and resentment. It’s not enough that people do X,Y, Z. All the rest of us not only have to accept it, but celebrate it.

But if they have the right to X,Y,Z, others should have the right to shun X,Y,Z.

On Gay Marriage

Some points in response to Counter-Currents.

Greg Johnson has posted two essays (one a re-post of an older piece) on gay marriage. I have one disagreement, followed by general agreement.

Why not call it “marriage”? Because of a deep conviction that marriage is a more serious institution, because it provides the best framework for begetting and nurturing the next generation. Therefore, marriage should enjoy a higher dignity and status than mere domestic partnership. Gay marriage advocates have a ready reply to this: straight people who cannot have children, or who choose not to have children, are allowed to marry. So marriage is not about reproduction. There is no real reply to this argument. Yes, some anti-natal couples may change their minds and choose to have children. But that is not possible for sterile couples, who still can marry. Gay marriage advocates also point out that sterile straight couples can still have families by adopting children or using surrogate parenting — and so can homosexual couples, which opens a whole new can of worms. 

I disagree. I will argue that a sterile heterosexual marriage is qualitatively different from a homosexual one.  I argue thus. Any population group has a vested interest in promoting heterosexual relations, since those lead to reproduction. Societal stability is enhanced when that reproduction takes place in a monogamous marriage.  Thus, heterosexual marriage should be promoted and celebrated in a society.  People who are intentionally childless should be frowned on, since they set a bad example and degrade the biological value of marriage; they promote the wrong image. But, if young enough, they can always change their mind, the potential for reproduction is there. What about the sterile?  While they cannot have children, by marrying they are participating in the societal norm of heterosexual marriage. They help reinforce and legitimize that norm through their own choice and commitment to be married. They enhance the social conformity in favor of heterosexual marriage. Further, if we want to encourage such marriage to the masses, we need to market it as having benefits other than reproduction (even if, as racialists, that is our real intent). We need to celebrate the various benefits both husband and wife derive from marriage (easier to do of course in more traditional times than today, but the argument still holds). A sterile heterosexual married couple, by their marriage, affirm to all who see them, their belief that this form of marriage has benefits, it is good, it is desirable, it is special, it is something that all (heterosexual) adults should aspire to.  By marrying, such people help promote the institution of heterosexual marriage and hence promote the reproduction of their race by contributing to the societal “common good” of stable man-woman pair bonds.  So-called gay marriage does not of this, it cheapens the institution of marriage, it further divorces it (no pun intended) from children and family. A childless (especially not by choice) heterosexual marriage still   supports a pro-natalist institution. At best, gay marriage is neutral to that, if not destructive.
The decline in heterosexual marriage has little to do with homosexuals, and more to do with overall degeneration, the Judaification of our culture, and feminism.  Johnson’s prescriptions for improving heterosexual marriage are for the most part sound.  I also agree that when considering homosexuality (a subject that in general I have little interest in), a “give and take” attitude can be constructive.  A degree of tolerance can be given to gays, in exchange for them to stop allying with the Left to wreck race and civilization, and an admission from their part that they are abnormal, analogous to a disability.  For example, I don’t hate people who are deaf, but if they attempt to declare deafness as normal, desirable, the same as hearing, if they also declare a “deaf culture” (and some do) and refuse treatments for themselves and (especially) their children (if deaf as well), then I do have a problem. The same goes for the blind, and also considers that accommodation can only go so far: we cannot have blind brain surgeons, taxi drivers, or airplane pilots, regardless of how “unfair” that is. Homosexuals need to accommodate the needs of the larger society in exchange for tolerance. They are abnormal regardless of how one wants to define that – either based on frequency or biological fitness.  But if they defend their family and ethnic genetic interests, that is all to the good. One can argue that homosexuals (and anyone who does not personally reproduce) have a relatively greater interest in their race’s genetic continuity (as well as that of their family), because that is all they have to work with to improve their inclusive fitness.  They also need to understand that many heterosexuals find the idea of homosexual relations repugnant and would – especially if they value genetic continuity – be greatly displeased if their children were homosexual and did not find some way to reproduce (as opposed to adopt). Of course, childlessness of heterosexual children  would have the same negative effect on their parents’ fitness, but without the aesthetic disgust toward homosexual acts.

Having said all of that, better a homosexual racist than a heterosexual liberal.  Better gay than a race mixer.  I’ll take Ernst Rohm as a comrade over John Derbyshire any day.