It is fascinating how much energy can be spent on an irrelevant issue. The top political question at the moment is that of homosexuality. Not the fact that the peoples who created the modern world are dying out, not the fact that developed countries have pretty much all piled up unpayable amounts of debt, not even the fact that today's western schoolchildren are hopelessly undereducated and completely unable to compete with their east Asian peers.
No. The real issue something that marginally affects 1.5% of population - the reverence of gay sex. Notice I mentioned reverence, because that is what it's all about. It's not about homosexuals being oppressed - they aren't. It's not about equal rights - they have those as well. It's not even about legal benefits. It's about society being forced to worship their sexual deviation.
One thing that may be confusing here is the definition of the word "rights", because it tends to mean two different things. The term is actually composed of two quite different subterms, which are negative and positive rights. Negative rights are what we generally used to think of as real rights, and positive rights is just a fraudulent term for benefits and social status. Note how in the usual cultural Marxist fashion, good things carry a bad connotation (negative rights), while bad things carry a positive connotation (positive rights).
Do gays have all negative rights imaginable? Why, yes they do. They can do whatever they want with their bodies, they can talk whatever they want to talk about, and they're put to the same standards as all the other people. Nothing wrong with that, is there?
Did they have positive rights, aka benefits up until a few days ago? No, they did not. And there is a perfect reason why they didn't have them. It's something quite obvious to anyone with any traces of a brain, just as it was obvious that the emperor was walking naked in the street or that a deer is not a horse, but it is also something which cannot be publicly said.
So what's the obvious thing I'm talking about?
Yeah. Two same plugs don't match. It's pretty much that simple. Why is this a factor, you may say? Well, again, it is quite obvious. Two different plugs fit together, and when they do fit together, they make new taxpayers. Although the current self-centered elite, brought up during the 1968 revolution which emphasized individuality and egocentrism, thinks the world starts and ends with them and them alone, any sane person will realize that a long lasting society requires people to breed.
To encourage people to breed, social pressure arises, and it pushes people into organizations that have historically proved to be the best at creating new and capable offspring. For some reason, those organizations, also called families, are something today's elite thinks must be destroyed at all costs. But I digress. A simple and quite obvious fact is that a gay family is incapable of producing offspring, and is therefore really in nobody's interest to give such a union any benefits or formal recognition whatsoever.
But ever since benefits and social rank became known as positive rights, and later on as simply rights, it has become increasingly difficult to separate them from true and (what should be) inalianable rights every individual should have. A right to marriage is really not a right, it is a matter of social status and benefits. So the whole discussion is hijacked in a way that while people think they're talking about rights, they're really talking about handouts and social status.
And that is precisely what gays want. Not the negative right to a penis party - they have that already, as well as they should. Not even minor benefits which married couples get in order to help them procreate, such as tax breaks etc. What they really want is high social status. Not just a position of acceptance, but a position of reverence. They want to be admired and liked. They want their marriage, which is a legal yet pointless contract, to be equal in status to one that actually makes sense and is useful for a society. And they're forcing others to comply.
No. The real issue something that marginally affects 1.5% of population - the reverence of gay sex. Notice I mentioned reverence, because that is what it's all about. It's not about homosexuals being oppressed - they aren't. It's not about equal rights - they have those as well. It's not even about legal benefits. It's about society being forced to worship their sexual deviation.
One thing that may be confusing here is the definition of the word "rights", because it tends to mean two different things. The term is actually composed of two quite different subterms, which are negative and positive rights. Negative rights are what we generally used to think of as real rights, and positive rights is just a fraudulent term for benefits and social status. Note how in the usual cultural Marxist fashion, good things carry a bad connotation (negative rights), while bad things carry a positive connotation (positive rights).
Do gays have all negative rights imaginable? Why, yes they do. They can do whatever they want with their bodies, they can talk whatever they want to talk about, and they're put to the same standards as all the other people. Nothing wrong with that, is there?
Did they have positive rights, aka benefits up until a few days ago? No, they did not. And there is a perfect reason why they didn't have them. It's something quite obvious to anyone with any traces of a brain, just as it was obvious that the emperor was walking naked in the street or that a deer is not a horse, but it is also something which cannot be publicly said.
So what's the obvious thing I'm talking about?
Progress
To encourage people to breed, social pressure arises, and it pushes people into organizations that have historically proved to be the best at creating new and capable offspring. For some reason, those organizations, also called families, are something today's elite thinks must be destroyed at all costs. But I digress. A simple and quite obvious fact is that a gay family is incapable of producing offspring, and is therefore really in nobody's interest to give such a union any benefits or formal recognition whatsoever.
But ever since benefits and social rank became known as positive rights, and later on as simply rights, it has become increasingly difficult to separate them from true and (what should be) inalianable rights every individual should have. A right to marriage is really not a right, it is a matter of social status and benefits. So the whole discussion is hijacked in a way that while people think they're talking about rights, they're really talking about handouts and social status.
And that is precisely what gays want. Not the negative right to a penis party - they have that already, as well as they should. Not even minor benefits which married couples get in order to help them procreate, such as tax breaks etc. What they really want is high social status. Not just a position of acceptance, but a position of reverence. They want to be admired and liked. They want their marriage, which is a legal yet pointless contract, to be equal in status to one that actually makes sense and is useful for a society. And they're forcing others to comply.
Legalizing homosexual marriage is not a victory for gays, but a victory for big government. The real beneficiaries of male-on-male matrimony are not the sodomites, but the functionaries in charge of distributing licenses and dispensing divorces. Another win for the bureaucrats.
ReplyDeleteThe bureaucrats are a side issue here imho. The real reason why all this is happening is to destabilize society and destroy traditional social norms on as many fronts as possible.
ReplyDelete