I was wrong

I generally supported – if half-heartedly – letting two gay dudes have some sort of legal relationship if they wanted one.

My ideological background is libertarian. My nature is to live and let live. If they wanted to pay higher tax rates and get sucked into a system that’s on the decline, why should I really care?

It appears that I should have cared because when fascism comes to America it will be in the guise of one dude buggering another one while you’re forced to let him watch your kids and he makes you take pictures of it.

I should have seen it coming. But who could have guessed this would happen so fast? Some slopes are slippery indeed.

Perhaps it’s obvious when you stop and think about the “right” that has been created. As best I can tell, it’s the right to: have a legal relationship with one other person (which either of you can break off at any time), as long as both of you are above a certain age, not too closely related to each other, and not actually in the same legal arrangement with another person (you can be diddling other people and having kids with them, just don’t marry them – that would cross the line, obviously). That’s a weird right.

Once rights get that weird, I guess it’s not too big jump to requiring people to do all sorts of shit.

This situation is topped off by the sudden realization that Russia doesn’t like gay people very much. Apparently a lot of people suddenly decided to care a lot about this at the same exact time while simultaneously all ignoring the treatment of gays in African and Middle Eastern countries. That sort of collective decision making is always rather suspicious.

32 Responses to I was wrong

  1. VXXC says:

    You do realize that full rights for homosexuals requires shall we say a relaxing of the pederastry laws, right? Meaning…15 is fine. As in practice it already is…in fact there’s a school for it…

    “More than two decades ago, concerned advocates (including Hetrick-Martin’s founders) and the New York City Department of Education imagined a public school where some of the city’s most at-risk youth — those who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and questioning (LGBTQ) — could learn without the threat of physical violence and emotional harm they faced in a traditional educational environment. That place is the Harvey Milk High School.”

    I mean gay men to be specific. Lesbians are different.

    It’s not that they’re misunderstood, this has been understood forever.

    A prohibition by Progressives a century ago simply allowed this to be forgotten.

    Of course the Boy Scouts are a prime target. That’s the Playboy Bunny Mansion for Gay Men.

  2. thrasymachus33308 says:

    Gays are vicious fascists, the worst of the worst. Gays will be the new commissars, enforcing political correctness much more harshly than the “large, self-assured black woman” in HR of Sailer’s imagining.

  3. reakcionar says:

    Power of the whole LGBT movement is truly incredible. Here on the Balkans, they advance in the last 10 years from the “please don’t beat us” position to openly wanting to get married, adopt kids, legislate all kinds of hate crime laws etc. You don’t even have to read between their lines anymore, since they have openly started talking about “abolishing capitalism through destruction of the family”. Having met a few NGO activists, hard core Cathedral clerics (or at least altar boys), I can say with quite certainty that money falls in torrents over these guys. Nobody expected the gay inquisition, but slowly it arose to power.

    The funniest thing about the whole gay rights movement is to see some 70 year old communist guy watching a gay parade on TV and whispering to himself: “those malformations weren’t around at my time!”. The old left, left of Marx and Engels, coal mines and high chimneys, has been completely replaced with sodomite tree hugging left. The old left is completely baffled – and the new left is waving red flags along with the gay rainbow ones, pretending that their antifascist grandfathers wouldn’t club them to death for taking it in the ass.


    15? Too optimistic. I found an interview with a certain dutch sexologist called Hekma, who was an indirect adviser to the team of “experts” who were making the Sex Education curriculum in public schools. He is, of course, against any kind of pedophilia, BUT – in his scientific work he found that 6 years old boys don’t really mind being fucked by older guys. Of course, Hekma is realistic, and states that it is unreasonable to ask for legalizing sex with 6 years old at the current state of affairs, and that we should be satisfied with lowering it to 12. And this isn’t just some horny dude who talks too much, this is a well heeled international professor, giving speeches to civil servants.

    About lesbians – they aren’t gay, but they are ferocious animals with clear political ambitions and a clear agenda in indoctrinating younger generation of girls. Raping small kids is much more horrible, but having an army of diesel-dyke feminists with their camps and workshops is no small deal.

    • Samson J. says:

      Here on the Balkans, they advance in the last 10 years

      That makes me want to cry. I thought Eastern Europeans were made of better and sterner stuff.

    • Scharlach says:

      I’m glad to hear you say that about the Old Left. When I look at or read the archives of the Old Left–the Left who really did just want to make things better for the proletariat–I can’t help thinking that they would be disgusted with the New Left. From demanding an end to child labor to demanding a queer’s right to have the state pay for his sex change!

      • reakcionar says:

        I might have been a little imprecise.

        Old Left structures existing in the politics and universities have adapted perfectly. Old commissars were not fools – they have a highly developed scent for the advancing ideologies. The same way they went through elimination of the fallen party members and accepting new ones, they go through elimination of old ideas and accepting new ones. There is nothing in the mind of those people that couldn’t easily replace “dictatorship of the proletariat” with “safe environment for the transgender”. Those who find it difficult to jump on the New Left wagon are left alone if they are simply silent about it.

        While intellectuals and politicians naturally adapt to the new religion, those old honest common folk ideologues are simply baffled. Let me give you an example: my fathers uncle, a passionate communist who was raised in that system and simply can’t imagine any other honest way of running a society besides communism, is completely lost in the new scheme. When he was young, they had parades, choirs, factories and romantic stories of brothers from Africa fighting for freedom. Now he turns on the TV and sees that UN’s ambassador is threatening sanctions because two dykes in Sarajevo couldn’t donate blood. He listens to Obama’s speeches and thinks that there’s a fine chap who will fix capitalism – and then tries to make peace with the fact that the same man is defending “malformations that weren’t around when I was young!” as completely normal. What is fascinating about him is that when he talks about the whole gay thing, he lowers his voice! An intelligent and a highly social person he is, he instinctively feels that the power structures have shifted in that way, and that it is wise not to shout it out loud. (Although in reality he is being a little too cautious – none of his neighbors or family think different – that small gesture of lowering his voice speaks in volumes)

  4. Porphy's Attorney says:

    I generally supported it, likewise, however with the constant caviate that everyone should be free likewise and thus not have to participate or recognize it if they choose not to.

    Which I knew would not be how things actually turned out: people would be forced. Just as they are being. The boot on the neck.

    IMO it was obvious all along that it would turn out this way (and I don’t support that, and never did).

    You are generally perceptive, I am surprised you were surprised this is how it unfolds. This is how these things have unfolded for at least 50 years (and the roots of the rationale used to enforce things this way go back to the usual New Deal Supreme Court Precedents that Moldbug pointed to as being our real constitution).

    P.S. this is recommended: http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2013/08/hitting-bottum.html

  5. David says:

    Homosexuality is bourgeois privilege.

  6. Anonymous says:

    the problem isn’t whether gays have “marriage” its whether they have the megaphone

  7. Handle says:

    Making sexuality equivalent to race makes sexual-morality equivalent to racism. Like racism, sexual morality is now de facto illegal.

    It was fine to crush freedom of association for race because ‘you’ve got no legitimate reason’ to discriminate.’ Religious imperative are now incontrovertibly in the same category as ‘no good reason’. And that’s exactly what Justice Kennedy wrote in Windsor. There is no such thing as reasonably accommodation to dictates of one’s conscious (except conscientious objection as in Watada’s case, naturally). There is only mandatory accommodation to the individual’s assertions of sexual identity.

    The larger point is that these ‘anti-discrimination’ laws (especially the more extreme State versions, such as in New Jersey) make everyone, no matter what you do to try to earn a living, a professional regulated and revokably-licensed by the state – who can be fired, fined, or imprisoned for not doing their job in exactly the way and with whom the state prescribes. But that’s the world in which we’ve lived for 50 years at least.

    ‘Injunction to Specific Performance of Personal Services’ even when a valid contract existed, is foreign to the common law tradition – but it’s especially strange when the injunction requires one to enter into the contract in the first place. All services are now ‘public accommodations’ for which no offers can be made except to manifest of audiences compiled by the State.

    Where are all the libertarian cries of oppression, by the way? If taxation is slavery, what is it when the State forces you to actually perform certain actions against your will or be denied an income? Except for Volokh and a few others, most have decided to not be too bothered about these things. And frankly even he’s not making a very strong case.

    It was one thing to say that one shouldn’t bother being a nurse or doctor unless you’re down with prescribing birth control or performing abortions. But what profession doesn’t touch ‘family’ in general? You can’t think about sexuality when you pick Boy Scout leaders. You can’t think about sexuality when you take photographs, or bake cakes, or cater events, or take reservation at your restaurant, or write wills or pre-nuptial agreements.

    “I’d prefer not to do business with you because what you are asking me to do offends my religious sensibilities” already seems like a quaint, obsolete expression from a bygone age.

    • Konkvistador says:

      “I’d prefer not to do business with you because what you are asking me to do offends my religious sensibilities” already seems like a quaint, obsolete expression from a bygone age.

      It however to our eyes describes what people are in fact doing all the time. An example of how far the religion pretending not to be a religion has come and an example of left vs. right asymmetry. Consider the phrases:

      “I’d prefer not to do business with you because what you are asking me to do offends my moral sensibilities”

      “I’d prefer not to do business with you because what you are asking me to do offends my sense of fairness”

      “I’d prefer not to do business with you because what you are asking me to do offends me.”

      “Moral sensibilities”, “sense of fairness” and “me” naturally being fully pwned when these are considered legitimate statements.

      An example in the wild: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil-A#Same-sex_marriage_controversy

      I think all public discussion of morality is pwned. The freaking Pope in Rome has to deal with the reality that when he speaks in terms used hundreds of years before progressivism, defined by his very church and in theory explained to each new generation of Catholics, they are nerveless understood by all in precisely the meaning Progressivism has come up with in the last X years.

      If his highly specialized language with a long independent tradition barely allows nonprogressive ideas to be expressed when talking about morality, what hope do you think proles like us have?

      This sort of language pwnage was very obvious with previous pope. Trads are basically pretend this is what is going on with current Pope, but I expect he already has difficulty *thinking* nonprogressive thughts as Jim has argued. http://blog.jim.com/culture/the-last-pope.html

      We can expect progressive sensibilities reaching beyond the letter of the law on private initiative facilitating ever more leftward action pushing companies competing on the market in the Cathedral’s direction to remain common.

    • Samson J. says:

      “I’d prefer not to do business with you because what you are asking me to do offends my religious sensibilities” already seems like a quaint, obsolete expression from a bygone age.

      Only if people stop saying it. I know you secular guys don’t believe it, but I think there’s a Christian minority who won’t stop saying this.

      By the way, since you mention it, it’s interesting to me, as a health professional, that there is *more* freedom for physicians to resist contraception and abortion and there is to oppose this homosexual juggernaut. Catholic physicians, for instance, don’t have to prescribe contraception or participate in abortion (at least here in Canada). But the homosexual fire seems to be all-consuming.

  8. “I’d prefer not to do business with you because what you are asking me to do offends my religious sensibilities” already seems like a quaint, obsolete expression from a bygone age.

    It’s a direct translation of “We don’t serve niggers”… only 50 years later.

    • Handle says:

      Exactly right and well said. Turning non-favoritism towards your particular preferences into the equivalent of ‘we don’t serve niggers’ is the most powerful leverage any group can achieve in today’s zeitgeist. Too bad the Richwine’s and Derbyshire’s of the world can’t board that train.

      • Could you explain the last sentence? The one about Richwine and Derbyshire.

      • Scharlach says:

        It’s exactly the same, Steves. There should have been nothing wrong with “we don’t serve niggers” in the first place. You give up that one, then OF COURSE it’s only a matter of decades before you have to bake wedding cakes for teh gays.

      • Handle says:

        Slate, right on cue, No, Private Discrimination Against Gays Does Not Count as “Religious Liberty”

        Yet it’s easy to sympathize with conservatives who argue that the photographer’s religious liberty and free speech rights were violated. Isn’t the basis of liberty the freedom to value one’s own beliefs over those endorsed by the state? And isn’t it quintessentially American for private businesses to choose their own customers?

        Actually, it’s not: Imagine if the photographer had refused to photograph an interracial wedding rather than a gay one. Her behavior would be so clearly reprehensible that it’s hard to imagine any American defending it. It wasn’t always that way. For centuries, racists cited the exact same argument, religious freedom, to discriminate against black people, since the Bible arguably condones slavery and thus can be read to cast racial minorities in an inferior light. Today that argument sounds like nonsense, and it was rendered legally void with the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The Christian argument for anti-gay discrimination will sound similarly ludicrous in just a few decades.

  9. asdf says:

    The problems in the gay community are obvious. Being gay isn’t just about what you stick your dick in, but its part and parcel with lots of other things. Drug use, rampant promiscuity to the point of being STD factories, narcissism and shallowness, subversion for subversions sake.

    Does anyone remember that the Nazi’s were all a bunch of deviant fags? Ernst Rohm had his giant gay orgies and wouldn’t promote anyone in the SA that wasn’t gay. The guy ends up getting shot by Hitler for being too extreme. The whole Nazi leadership, even when not gay, were a bunch of sexual deviants.

    As with all things its a bell curve and there are some good fags out there, but to ignore general state of the gay community is folly.

  10. Matthew says:

    Perverts subvert. That is what they do. This is only a suprise to moderns.

  11. Konkvistador says:

    On the object level I share your old opinion and have for some time, but I have opposed it on the meta level for a long time as well since I saw gay marriage liberal politicking was not actually about gay marriage but kicking kulaks.

    The comment that my blog post”Parable of the Unstoppable Mad Man” grew out of used my position on gay marriage as an example this sort of position

    “This is meant for the reader who is torn on supporting the unstoppable on a particular issue. There is more than one way to free an innocent and by helping you not only make matters directly worse, speeding [the unstoppable Mad Man’s] step, but you expend the goodwill of those who disagree with you on the particular issue but consistently oppose the menace. The best action now seems clear, don’t help it.”

    If you magically transport me to pre-civil war 19th century America, when the mot du jure was “Abolitionism” my lukewarm object level support or rather indifference for two dudes sharing legal recognition would be replaced by strong sympathy for freeing slaves, yet *still* the meta level argument against abolitionism would probably at the very least cause me to not lift a finger to its aid, perhaps it would even find me on “the wrong side of history”.

    I hate this Yankee nation and everything they do…

  12. Frost says:

    My views followed a similar trajectory. I’m still not entirely sure how the specific evils of the rise of gay pride culture will play out, but it appears to be an issue dear to the heart of the left. This is reason alone enough to oppose it. So far, the the fruits of the gay pride movement have been:

    1) A stick to beat neutral/right wing institutions such as The Boy Scouts into submission. Look forward to a future in which private school and Churches must pass the pro-gay litmus test in order to receive government approval and largesse.

    2) Celebratory parades and festivals through every major city, daring the normal to object, complete with an obligation for all local businesses to display some sort of rainbow-flag mark of acquiescence.

    3) Hilariously, yet another excuse to tempt Russia into World War Three. And you thought it was silly when John McCain wanted to go to war over Georgia and South Oss-whowhatnow.

    4) A powerful, nepotistic and firmly progressive network that is over-represented in the media.

    I’m pretty excited to see what the future holds for Queer Power Inc.

    Sailer is correct that Trans Rights will be the next next big thing. Mass conversions of young boys going ‘trans’ in order to shed their awful, awful privilege? Nahhh. Probably something even worse.

  13. It’s astounding what a bunch of sodomites will do to have the ‘right’ to sexually assault children. That is all.

  14. Samson J. says:

    I generally supported – if half-heartedly – letting two gay dudes have some sort of legal relationship if they wanted one.

    My ideological background is libertarian. My nature is to live and let live. If they wanted to pay higher tax rates and get sucked into a system that’s on the decline, why should I really care?

    Aw, big F, look, we know that as bright and likeable as you are, you just got sucked in by something the harm of which you honestly couldn’t see. We know that. It was frustrating, but the happy thing is that you’ve now realized what we were saying all along.

    • Foseti says:

      That’s not quite right. The area i live in – and many other areas in DC – is only habitable because they gays moved in and took them over. They’ve re-civilized huge areas of many American cities. They deserve a lot of credit for this. I’m happy to give them something in return.

      • Porphy's Attorney says:

        It’s just that this “something in return” turns out to be a co-starring role as part of the Progressive Rainbow Coalition deconstructing the civilization.

        Again, in the narrow sense I also supported it, but ever with the caveat of freedom of association for everyone. Including those who disagreed with Gay Marriage et al.

        But that was never – ever – going to be in the cards. There was absolutely nothing in the history of how these things have played out that would lend any empirical support to the belief that if this was given on “live and let live” grounds, the Progressive Rainbow Coalition really meant it this time.

        I really am surprised that you of all people didn’t predict this outcome. It was among the most predictable outcomes ever. And I say this as someone who, whatever my religious beliefs, I *would* much rather have the “live and let live, they do their thing, we do ours, and disagree respectfully but get to live our lives – fully, without coercive association, – as we chose” situation and so that if people enjoy gay neighborhoods, God bless them. But God also bless those who don’t want to take part, who shouldn’t have to suffer threat to their livelihoods if they don’t want to participate.

        That world is not the world we’re in, as you have had a clear-eyed recognition of on so very many other occasions. As I said, this outcome was predictably obvious. I mean, it’s not as if those most active, those in the inner circle of the Inner Party on this, ever – ever – hid their outline.

      • Samson J. says:

        They’ve re-civilized huge areas of many American cities. They deserve a lot of credit for this.

        *shrug* Okay. As someone who hates cities, and thinks there’s something wrong with people who like cities, I would never have thought this way.

        Anyway, here’s hoping if you’re finally seeing where this is going, others are too.

      • Scharlach says:

        I rate groups by whether or not I would want to live next to them. Gays are way, way up on the list, not as high as Mormons, but way above underclass blacks and recently arrived Amerinds. This was enough to keep me uncaring about the gay issue. And honestly, out of the handful of gays I know, not a single one is politically active. As with Civil Rights more generally, the gay rights juggernaut is enabled by a tiny minority of gay activists and a whole lot of straight whites who just want to use the issue to play holier-than-thou against other straight whites.

  15. Matt says:

    Gay marriage always meant that people had to “recognize” it. I don’t know how anyone ever expected differently. Someone who doesn’t believe in marriage doesn’t just get to pretend that all of our hetero marriages don’t exist. Antidiscrimination laws, whatever their merit, don’t stop existing just because we now have gay marriages.

    The real impetus behind gay marriage is the normalization of homosexuality. This has two angles. The first is the desire of homosexuals themselves to get in the spotlight. The second is the desire of normal people for homosexuals to stop being so freaky and weird. The latter is by far the greater of the two forces. Never underestimate the American belief in the power of hopes and dreams.

    But marriage really only has one purpose, the establishment of assumed paternity, something gays have zero interest in. Over time it has also become a shorthand method of managing shared property arrangements, which gays have some interest in. It’s the hetero abandonment of the first purpose that has made gay marriage possible. And to be fair, maybe in the age of dna testing marriage is just not needed anymore.

  16. […] blogger Foseti recently changed his stance on gay marriage, noting as his reason the purposes its legalization might […]

  17. Mark says:

    Don’t worry too much. Remember, sodomites also were part of Adolf Hitler’s original grand coalition of misfits. Eventually, they managed to disgust the other members so much, they were gotten rid of. The same will happen here. Just look at the slurs celebrities have been caught saying on camera recently. These guys are two-faced. They know the homos in Hollywood are largely pedophiles (look at this X-Men director), and it naturally disgusts them, but they submit to it to satisfy the Cathedral.
    When the Cathedral falls, the sodomites will return to their rightful place, so fearful of the consequences, they will not engage in perversion.

  18. […] blogger Foseti recently changed his stance on gay marriage, noting as his reason the purposes its legalization might […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: