Boy’s Gay Marriage Appeal Gets Audience
By AARON EDWARDS
Kameron Slade, 10, was invited by the New York City Council speaker, Christine C. Quinn, second from right, to deliver his speech in support of same-sex marriage.
Second: You can make a tax deductible contribution via VDARE by clicking here. (Paypal and credit cards accepted, including recurring "subscription" donations.) UPDATE: Don't try this at the moment.
Third: send money via the Paypal-like Google Wallet to my Gmail address (that's isteveslrATgmail.com -- replace the AT with a @). (Non-tax deductible.)
Here's the Google Wallet FAQ. From it: "You will need to have (or sign up for) Google Wallet to send or receive money. If you have ever purchased anything on Google Play, then you most likely already have a Google Wallet. If you do not yet have a Google Wallet, don’t worry, the process is simple: go to wallet.google.com and follow the steps." You probably already have a Google ID and password, which Google Wallet uses, so signing up Wallet is pretty painless.
You can put money into your Google Wallet Balance from your bank account and send it with no service fee.
Or you can send money via credit card (Visa, MasterCard, AmEx, Discover) with the industry-standard 2.9% fee. (You don't need to put money into your Google Wallet Balance to do this.)
Google Wallet works from both a website and a smartphone app (Android and iPhone -- the Google Wallet app is currently available only in the U.S., but the Google Wallet website can be used in 160 countries).
Or, once you sign up with Google Wallet, you can simply send money via credit card, bank transfer, or Wallet Balance as an attachment from Google's free Gmail email service. Here's how to do it.
(Non-tax deductible.)
Fourth: if you have a Wells Fargo bank account, you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Wells Fargo SurePay. Just tell WF SurePay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). (Non-tax deductible.)
Fifth: if you have a Chase bank account (or, theoretically,other bank accounts), you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Chase QuickPay (FAQ). Just tell Chase QuickPay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address (steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). If Chase asks for the name on my account, it's Steven Sailer with an n at the end of Steven. (Non-tax deductible.)
Posts
85 comments:
"Harlem really needs same-sex marriage because all the involved parents are of the same sex. If your own mother is a crack addict, hopefully she'll marry another one who helps you with your homework. There is hardly any opposite-sex marriage in my community, so the argument marriage exists to provide the best environment to raise children. doesn't help here. I hope we get same-sex marriage soon, because one sex doesn't provide anyone worth marrying."
Christine C. Quinn is a lesbian:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/26/nyregion/on-weekends-christine-quinn-embraces-life-as-a-jersey-girl.html
Child soldiers.
GP.
Does this little boy even knows what are the actual "anatomical mechanics" of homosexual sex?
Well, they convinced me. Let's abolish a fundamental pillar of civilization because a black kid wants it.
At least we can pretend to our friends that we got lib creds helping a poor black child's dream come true that someone with a political agenda told him to wish for.
I don't read the NY Times regularly or go to their website all that often. I do see a lot of links to Times stories though. Do they have any non-gay content anymore? Did the owners sell the name to one of those alt-weeklys with all the weirdo personal adds in the back?
The obvious question is what the Hell does a 10 year old boy know the *real* reason for marriage, let alone 'same-sex marriages'?
- And that's not even considereing the indoctrination of the young and pliant in areas dominated by political dogma.
In so many ways, the New York Times is our own little Pravda.
Anyone taking bets till we see the same picture with a kid pleading for pedophiles?
Token black child for gay agenda.
If Steve's theory of the new "favored minority" is true, we should watch how this plays out:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/police-investigating-bias-attack-gay-couple-article-1.1121387
http://www.metroweekly.com/news/?ak=7594
In one of Heinlein's novellas a double agent helps bring down a dictatorship by working for the dictator's press corps and writing fulsome praise that is so over the top that it winds up alienating the readership. I see stuff like this emanating from the MSM multiple times a day. It's hard to believe that they are that stupid. Maybe some of them are surreptitiously working against their masters.
The boy in the picture looks a lot like a boy I ran into on the Staten Island Railway. He wasn't wearing a suit, but he was about the same age (I asked), and as we were waiting for the train he was engaged in a long conversation with an older white man, and it was bizarre, because he was basically ranting about gays, and the gay agenda, how disgusting they were, and how they wanted make converts, and so on. He was surprisingly articulate, and fairly knowledgeable, in that he seemed to be hitting most of the standard anti-gay talking points.
I was intrigued. The train was fairly empty, and I wanted to hear more, so although it's not something I would normally do I struck up a conversation with him after we got on board, and he continued in the same fashion (while I stayed carefully neutral). Finally I asked him how he knew so much about gays, and he said all the boys at his school did, that it was all they talked about. I said really?, and after thinking about it he said the three things the boys in his school talked about were: 1) girls; 2) weed; 3) how much they hated gays.
I'm not sure how much I should read into this. It was certainly a one-off! Staten Island is mostly white (although there are a fair number of blacks on the northern part of the island), as are most of the young people I see on the train, and any conversations I overhear are generally unintellectual, unsurprising, and uninteresting. It would be interesting to know more, to know how widespread this sort of thinking is in the schools, but I don't see any way to find out. I certainly don't expect to read about it in the Times!
Was reading an article about the bitching coming from some gay "leaders" that Sally Ride didn't reveal her orientation while she was alive. How'd you like to accomplish what she did only to have others with an ax to grind feel you didn't do enough with your life?
The article made mention that her sister is also gay. Her name, according to the article, is Bear Ride (given name "Karen.") That sounds Onion-ish.
It freaks me out a bit that I seem to have an uncanny ability to identify gay people, male or female. I recall when Ride was first introduced to the public. I said to my family, "I think she's lesbian."
They looked at me like I was crazy, one of them saying, "Just because she' not a beauty doesn't mean she's lesbian."
Actually, I believe Ride was a married woman at the time and the newspeople noted the fact that she was married to another astronaut, but my gaydar was evidently on target. I know my conclusion was not based simply on the fact she was in a field dominated by men. I would have thought the same had I seen her sitting in a McDonald's.
I start wondering if researchers on the topic of homosexuality have spent any time at all on facial measurements or even skin hue.
Moralization of decadence.
Tame blacks with gayness and ennoble gays with civil rights tropes.
"gay" is wrong word for these people.
Analites are what they are.
What's the point? Ny has it already.
"Well, they convinced me. Let's abolish a fundamental pillar of civilization because a black kid wants it."
They brainwash a kid to support it and then pretend they're listening to sweet wisdom from a child.
Christine C. Quinn is a lesbian
Well, at least they aren't suffering from malnutrition.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/theanchoress/2012/07/24/chick-fil-a-if-youre-not-sure-this-is-how-fascism-works/
Chick-fil-a attacked for not endorsing dick-fill-a(nus)
occassionally i engage people on other boards in debate, and i'm repeatedly told that i'm a bigoted moron for even suggesting there is such a thing as a homosexual agenda. i'm actually accused of not even having noticed or thought about the topic myself, but rather just picking up the idea that there is such a thing as a homosexual agenda from hateful conservative talking heads on fox. to these people (and perhaps this reflects the opinion of most americans), there is no such thing as a homosexual agenda and only a nutjob, a loon, or a hate filled bigot would even think such a thing exists.
but back in reality, not only is there a homosexual agenda, with homosexuals infiltrating america's educational system and brainwashing america's kids, but i'd be surprised if analysts and anchors on fox have even uttered the phrase "homosexual agenda" more than a few times in the last 10 years.
Kameron should be able to marry Keon dammit!! And KeOtis too!!
Dan in DC
When I first saw the picture I thought that was Laura Bush and a heavy G.W.
That kid is wise beyond his years. He knows he's not going to make the NFL or NBA, and that to avoid getting beat up by the usual suspects, he's going to have to attend NYC's version of Sidwell Friends. So he's networking. When he's 25 or so, he can write a book about how he duped the adults and always thought cocksucking was yucky.
“When I saw you on TV, I thought you were the most courageous and wonderful young man I’ve ever seen.” Councilman Jimmy Van Bramer, Democrat.
Whatever you think about gay marriage, how is it courageous mouthing an opinion that is 100% in sync with the political, cultural and media elite?
I would suggest that even those who find the idea of married gays an abomination should consider allowing it. Even if I'm all for responsibility and boring monagamy among breeders as well as sexual minorities, I'm really sick of hearing about it all the time. Wouldn't it be worth it to get this out of the relentless focus of the media? Then the few gays interested in marrying would do that and the vast majority of the rest would get back to their business as usual and the good dirty fun of promiscuous partying.
If we really hated gay people, we wouldn't let them marry... we would make them...
Awwwwwwww!
Kid needs a word with his pastor...
He's just following the example set by Barack, Jesse, Al, Andrew and Julian, who've all come out for this, despite the overwhelming --and refreshing-- opposition of the "community".
This backs up my theory that these guys aren't race men, but party men. They sell out their race to white perverts, because it's those, not blacks, who fund campaigns.
Am I the only one who finds it odd that a 10-year old is this concerned with something directly pertaining to sex?
If there was any greater evidence for the magical thinking and magical talismans Black people and particularly Black kids find in the hearts of most Upper Class White women, I don't know what it is.
Pretty much most White Women who are upper class and much of the middle class think like this. Status whoring like an episode of Real Housewives.
Here's some context. This was a meeting of the city council where they voted for a proposal by NYU to bulldoze large parts of the Village. As in Stalinist Russia the vote was decided beforehand and was a formality. Nevertheless, a large contingent opposed to the destruction of their neighborhood was present in the balcony. Quinn schedules a number of moments of silence and other feel good presentations including the little boys speech to help defuse the anger. She thinks she's a clever politician, but the maneuver was quite transparent; even the wacky liberal Greenwich Village residents saw right through it. At any rate after Quinn and her fellow pseudo-environmentalists approved of the rape of the neighborhood there were a number of hisses and boos. The great "liberal" Speaker then ordered the marshals to clear the chambers. BTW, the hypocrites at the New York Times also supported the NYU project - notice there was no mention of the imbroglio that followed.
http://www.badeagle.com/2012/07/26/viva-voula-%CE%B6%CE%AE%CF%84%CF%89-%CE%B2%CE%BF%CF%85%CE%BB%CE%B1-but-victors-dont-apologize/
Greek athlete can't go to UK for an 'insensitive' tweet about Africans.
But Israel, which recently violated international agreements and tossed out African refugees, get to go to UK, no problem.
Given what most grown blacks - Baptists and Pentecostals - think of Teh Gay (like the views of the boy on the train Anonymous at 7/26/12 8:29 AM described), of course the powers that be had to use a child to parrot their crap.
Lesbian "wives" and "mothers". Just what the black community needs: more fatherless children!
My nutty old spinster aunt, whom we suspected of being a les herself, had gaydar to an uncanny degree. Male or female, she would watch someone, in person, on film or TV and correctly assess whether or not they were gay.
We thought she was somewhat but not extremely accurate but now, fifteen years after her death, her batting record asymptotically approaches .1000. She identified Ride as a lesbian, which we thought was nonsense because she was married to another astronaut.
She identified several Hollywood people not officially out so far as gay or lesbian, and a couple of others who have since come out.
No one she identified as straight has so far came out, although an obscure, and aging, New Wave singer/indie actress ("more DD than MM, but a B cup at best") who is sometimes mentioned here she called as straight did admit to an isolated incident of mussypunching.
Everyone she identified as gay who has died who hadn't come out during their lifetimes has subsequently been generally accepted as gay or bisexual.
She identified one (shuttle era) male astronaut as Gay. Time will tell.
Jamaicans and African blacks probably won't change their minds anytime soon about gays but I'm not so sure that african-americans are going to hold out much longer. I don't know if you've noticed but many rappers including thuggish ones like 50cents are coming out in support of gay marriage and against "homophobia" in general.
Younger generation black americans are gonna get with the program like the rest of them.
The articulate black kid refered to above might have been an immigrant.
Those like most of us here who aren't too crazy about gays are dinosaurs and we've utterly lost the battle.
I have a Ream.
Christine C. Quinn is a lesbian
In the NY Times article photo, the guy to her left, Jimmy Van Bramer, and the guy on her right, Daniel Dromm, are both gay.
They are both city council members representing districts in the borough of......Queens! (How appropriate!)
Dromm is probably the kind of guy that Lenin had in mind when he allegedly said: "The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them."
Dromm publicly supported the construction of the "Ground Zero Mosque". Kind of ironic for a homosexual to support the "religion of peace", I suppose he thought he'd pick up some votes from Pakistanis and Bangladeshis in his district.
The boy in the picture looks a lot like a boy I ran into on the Staten Island Railway.
I'm always amused every so often in NYC when I encounter a black fundamentalist "Preacher" guy on the subways, with Bible in hand. They often start railing against gays, and the best part is seeing the faces of NYC white liberal types start to squirm!
Alonzo Portfolio - great name great comment.
No FWG, you're not the only one who finds it odd a 10 yr old is talking about gays. There are like 17 people left in the country that agree with you.
Dan in DC
"Greek athlete can't go to UK for an 'insensitive' tweet about Africans."
Word 'comedy' is derived from the Greek word KOMOS. What we have is a serious case of KOMOPHOBIA among the politically correct.
Here's another one that's Onionish:
"Why Aren't There Any Openly Gay Astronauts?"
http://news.yahoo.com/why-arent-openly-gay-astronauts-225129276.html
"Am I the only one who finds it odd that a 10-year old is this concerned with something directly pertaining to sex?"
Am I the only one who finds it odd that adults of seemingly normal intelligence would pay any attention whatsoever to the opinions of a 10-year-old?
Am I the only one who finds it odd that adults of seemingly normal intelligence would pay any attention whatsoever to the opinions of a 10-year-old?
LOL
Exactly!!
Let's ask the ignorant, naive, undiscerning and inexperienced what they think on weighty matters and have them influence public policy! Hell, let's lower the voting age to 7 years old.
Those like most of us here who aren't too crazy about gays are dinosaurs and we've utterly lost the battle.
If there are so many great arguments for accepting homosexuality, why do they always resort to the ad hominem?
"Am I the only one who finds it odd that adults of seemingly normal intelligence would pay any attention whatsoever to the opinions of a 10-year-old?"
Communists used to do this all the time. Brainwash some kid and have him give some speech.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Xz8O9RdOh8
Tito and Me.
Now, its Fruito and Me.
If gayness is so great, why does the gay lobby keep its true nature in the closet.
Gays come out of the closet but with their clothes on. They don't want us to think about what real gayness is without the clothes.
The future President of the United States.
Show some respect, puhleeeze!!
Anon
Come on, people. FACE IT: they are very good at what they do. There's a reason the right gets its ass kicked all over the places on everything but tax. Maybe the sooner that last pillar falls the better.
http://www.tnr.com/article/books-and-arts/magazine/104870/charles-darwin-evolution-art-kirsch
"Moralization of decadence"
I call 'inversion of values', Nietzche wrote about it and who are the responsible for this phenomenon...
http://blogs.artinfo.com/secrethistoryofart/2012/07/13/did-tito-kill-stalin/
http://www.suntimes.com/13988905-761/emanuel-goes-after-chick-fil-a-for-boss-anti-gay-views.html
This is an attack on the creed of chick fil A owners. Chick fil A has no right to ban gay customers but they have every right to their spiritual and moral convictions. Banning businesses on the basis of creed is unconstitutional. How about we ban businesses because their owners have Marxist convictions? Or Zionist convictions?
Besides, if liberals reaaly wanna be moral, how about ending the hogocaust? Pigs are smarter than dogs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_vqIGTKuQE&feature=related
Come on, people. FACE IT: they are very good at what they do. There's a reason the right gets its ass kicked all over the places on everything but tax. Maybe the sooner that last pillar falls the better.
They've got all the money. Leftism = the face of the MotU.
Chick-fil-a attacked for not endorsing dick-fill-a(nus)
Chick-fil-a is a southern- and Christian-owned business unless I miss my guess. I'm pretty sure about the latter, anyway. They're closed on Sundays and they say it's because they're Christian-owned IIRC. So they might be a tough nut for the homos to crack.
There are quite a few local franchises that shut down on Sunday.
If they're willing to leave 1/7th of their potential income on the table for their beliefs, they're probably not going to cave in to the organized sodomites. Just my guess, anyway.
occassionally i engage people on other boards in debate, and i'm repeatedly told that i'm a bigoted moron for even suggesting there is such a thing as a homosexual agenda. i'm actually accused of not even having noticed or thought about the topic myself, but rather just picking up the idea that there is such a thing as a homosexual agenda from hateful conservative talking heads on fox. to these people (and perhaps this reflects the opinion of most americans), there is no such thing as a homosexual agenda and only a nutjob, a loon, or a hate filled bigot would even think such a thing exists.
This is classic bigotry, and leftoids are the quintessential bigots. There is no room for opinions other than their own, and they know more about what you believe and what you've experienced than you do.
"Come on, people. FACE IT: they are very good at what they do."
Exactly.
I looked at that photo and thought, "This wouldn't happen--wouldn't because it couldn't--in a sane world." But we don't live in a sane world. They've very successfully torn down the rational world and replaced it with a world in which this can happen, a world in which this is the new norm.
And they're not done yet.
The expressions on the grown-ups' faces are particularly Onionish.
I've been weighing a new post-retirement career - full-time real-life troll: every year or so, I will conjure up a new "civil right", and front an obnoxious, lawsuit-threatening organization to "raise awareness" about the newly-imagined "right", and each succeeding group's campaign will be for a "cause" loonier, pervier, and more irrelevant to reality and the functioning of a sane society than the one before. I mean, look at those faces - is there anything those empty, smiling sacks won't run (or rather, crawl) to support and pander to, as soon as some pushy people slap a "progressive" label on it and start screeching about it?
Suggestions welcome. I honestly don't think that there's any level below which these people will not degrade themselves, so let your imagination run wild.
"Moralization of decadence"
"I call 'inversion of values', Nietzche wrote about it and who are the responsible for this phenomenon..."
No. Inversion of values refers to 'slave morality' which is genuine morality founded on the notion of equal justice for all.
Biblical morality is 'slave morality'. Democratic values that founded this nation are also part of 'slave morality', or 'inversion of values'(from that of 'master morality'). THAT is not the problem.
The problem is the Will to Power of the Jewish elite and the gay elite. They are striving not for equality but mastery over the rest of us. They are shaping domestic laws and foreign policy to suit their interests. Sure, Jews and gays use the terminology of 'slave morality' in talking of fairness, equality, and justice, but it's really about power and privilege for themselves. They wanna be masters over us.
And their morality isn't 'slave morality' or 'inversion of values'(from master morality to slave morality)but a cunning use of 'slave morality' concepts to serve what is, in fact, a form of anti-morality.
As Nietzsche meant it, 'inversion of values' wasn't about moralizing decadence but about empowering the weak and oppressed under the protection of common justice. Slave morality is true morality--regardless of how Nietzsche felt about it--since its idea of justice doesn't favor the powerful/privileged over the powerless. Since most of us are part of the common rabble, why shouldn't we favor slave morality over master morality? It's bad enough that we're batted around by the elites that run Wall Street, Pentagon, and the media. Do we want them to rule over us as masters? I don't understand this penchant for Master Morality BS among the so-called alternative right crowd. We are not gods and most of us are not superior folks.
Stuff like 'gay marriage' isn't about slave morality, but neo-master immorality under the guise of slave morality. It's very sneaky in pushing a form of privilege for a decadent group of people who, via their control of the media, would have us believe that they're helpless victims in need of our sympathy.. or else WE get blacklisted and fired. They sure are powerless to have that kind of power over us.
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2011/05/7956/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/18962349
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19017526
Yup, it's a cause d'privilege.
One of the articles linked by the NY Times to this story is about a Russian opera singer resigning from the Bayreuth festival because he has tattos that were deemed "anti-semitic".
Check it out:
Whiff of Scandal Lingers in Bayreuth
-Thripshaw
We are all aware how 10-year-old boys enjoy spending/losing their free time playing games, FBooking and reading comics.
Oh, I forgot, and composing elaborated dissertations.
After all, wasn't Kameron's essay originally titled In Defensionem Gayae Matrimonium?
Yeah, sure.
It's incredibly naive to believe that what is at stake here is the homosexual agenda and the goal is to lower the voting age to 7 years old as suggested by a commenter.
If the MSM can lend an overfriendly ear to a little boy advocating virile miscegenation, how long before the P component in the LGBTQPZ crowd pleads for the former to be legally allowed to taking a more active part in the latter.
When I was in my teens in the 70's, I read a couple of Ayn Rand's works.
Even to my young, unsophisticated mind, I felt that the characters and scenarios were outlandishly cartoonish, presumably to make Rand's points.
The past years, though, I'm struck by how many scenarios, characters and their dialogue/rhetoric in the story of our civilizational unraveling would fit right into an Ayn Rand cartoon.
FWIW, I'm not an Ayn Rand disciple/follower, just commenting on her literary style here.
Blacks not on board with gays? Me thinks they doth protesth too much. There are probably more gay blacks (per capita) than whites. You guys never lived in the south- 'sweet tea' is more than just a regional drink there...
"Ray said...
Well, they convinced me. Let's abolish a fundamental pillar of civilization because a black kid wants it.
At least we can pretend to our friends that we got lib creds helping a poor black child's dream come true that someone with a political agenda told him to wish for."
- Exactly. What does a nine or ten year old know about wise decisions for the country? He's obviously parroting someone else. This is actually pretty symbolic of liberal thinking in general- all heart- string emotional appeals with no rational thought or facts taken into account.
Maybe that's why this is so meaningful to them while we're all laughing about how foolish it is.
If nothing else it's a good political Rorschach test.
http://cofcc.org/2012/07/emanuel-was-fine-with-nation-of-islam-restaurant-wants-chick-fil-a-banned/
Looks like the Left is getting its ass kicked with the Chick Fil A thing. Have you seen video of the business they're getting?
The Onion article about Chick-fil-A
http://www.theonion.com/articles/chickfila-debuts-new-homophobic-sandwich,28888/?e
Rahm Emanuel's logic:
If you sat in Jeremiah Wright's hate-spewing church for 20 yrs(as Obama did), you deserve to be president.
If you served in the IDF(as Emanuel) and aided and abetted Israel's illegal occupation and oppression of Palestinians(condemned by the world), you deserve to be mayor of Chicago.
If you entered this country illegally and traffick in fake documents and take advantage of government programs, you are given sanctuary.
But if you're a good Christian and believe that marriage is a moral institution that blesses the coupling of man and woman to produce family and life, then you have no right to do business in Chicago.
Given that most Jews think and act like Emanuel, isn't it foolish for Christian Conservatives to support Zionism and send their kids to die in Wars for Israel? Jews like Emanuel take away your freedoms--as they've done to Palestinians--, but you want your kids to fight, kill, and die in Wars for Israel?
No wonder so many Jews hold Christian conservatives in contempt. Not the brightest people in the world. Jews hate Palin and Bachmann, but the two silly girls go all out for Israel. Ridiculous.
Sally Ride was a lesbian? Not in a million years would I have guessed...
"B Master said...
Wouldn't it be worth it to get this out of the relentless focus of the media? Then the few gays interested in marrying would do that and the vast majority of the rest would get back to their business as usual and the good dirty fun of promiscuous partying."
Yes, and then homosexuals could get on to the next part of their agenda: forcing churches to formally accept homosexuality, instituting group marriage, normalizing bondage, sado-masochism, and other sexual perversions, and lowering the age of consent so that chickenhawks can legally pursue adolescent boys. Yes, by all means - let's make it even easier for them to turn Peoria into Sodom.
"If we really hated gay people, we wouldn't let them marry... we would make them..."
That's good.
"Christine Quinn Wants Chick-fil-A Kicked Out of New York City"
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2012/07/christine-quinn-wants-chick-fil-kicked-out-new-york-city/55160/
"Today, Council Speaker Christine Quinn took it a step further and wrote a letter to NYU President John Sexton asking him to sever ties with the chain, effectively kicking them out of the city. The only Chick-fil-A in New York is located on the NYU campus. She also asked that, should he kick them out, the employees from the Chick-fil-A be given new jobs with whatever restaurant they get to replace it. She also started a petition demanding Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy apologize and change his position on gay marriage."
This is an attack on the creed of chick fil A owners. Chick fil A has no right to ban gay customers but they have every right to their spiritual and moral convictions.
Wrong. Chick-fil-A has the right to ban homosexual customers. The government not only fails to protect that right, it illegitimately abrogates it, but that doesn't change the facts of property rights.
How does one shame a progressive?
Find the answer and we might return to a sane world.
http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/fukuyama/2012/07/28/conservatives-and-the-state/
civilization is like dominoes. so hard to build, so easy to topple.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cCX8E18fY4&feature=relmfu
Wrong. Chick-fil-A has the right to ban homosexual customers. The government not only fails to protect that right, it illegitimately abrogates it, but that doesn't change the facts of property rights.
Will you be saying the same thing if (say) a homosexual* bookstore bans Christian customers? Will you be upholding its property rights?
* Or liberal, libertarian, pagan, atheist, Buddhist, etc?
I'm starting to believe that the gay "marriage" campgain (gay? Why not LGBT? gay is so not inclusive enough) is a result of sexual liberation + feminism + secularism + status whoring on steroids.
How? Why you ask?
No Ancient society which tolerated homosexual activity had widespread acceptance of gay "marriage".
Not Egyptians, not Greeks, not Romans, not Arabs, not this or that.
And what did they all have in common? They were all more or less patriarchal and religious.
Just listen to the arguments that gay "marriage" supporters have. And their tone. It's feminized and has a pinch of feminist hysteria. It's all about the oppressed, rights, equality and whatnot. Whether you call it the inversion of values or decadence, it is.
And we live in a totalitarian feminist age, with men ripped half of their total wealth upon divorce by unhaaaapy 'wives', no visitation rights to their own children, sexual harassment suits, false rape allegations, affirmative action and quotas for females, women outnumbering men at college by 60/40 (it's becoming 70/30), domestic violence suits, women in STEM/Military/Schools/Medicine/Media and etc.
We also live in an age where sex is just about having fun, short-term, the here and now, about pleasure, birth control, casual sex, egalitarian. This isn't an age of arranged marriages, creation of children and asking God to bless the marital union.
I mean really, really think about it... if there are no differences between men and women, if its all a social construct, then whats the difference between two men or two women and a man and a woman together? None. And thereby you're a nasty old bigot if you disagree.
In reality there ARE general (general is general and exceptions don't disprove the rule don't forget that) differences between two men vs. two women vs. one man and one woman. And let's not even get into age differences, number differences (e.g. polygamy) and other stuff.
You have to be an idiot to think that two dudes or two girls are exactly the same as a girl and a dude. It just isn't.
And you don't have to be a bigotted regressive dinosaur homophobe to figure that out.
The gay lobby has gained lot of power in the upper classes and it will probably stay that way because let's be honest: poor and middle-class gays just can't afford IVF and all that elite eugenist racist technology to repopulate themselves (LGBT is around 1-4% of the populance remember).
And as a result there are less gays in poor and middle-class communities.
So me a middle-class girl who never met a gay until wandering into a rich urban area and don't see gays on a day-to-day basis don't get this gay "marriage" quest. It's funny and odd to me. Like watching something alien.
Sexual liberation has forced gays outside of patriarchal marriages and dismantled patriarchal marriage and I think the gay "marriage" hysteria over the last 10 years is the fact that less of them are reproducing.
Like 2/3s of them can't afford IVF and having surrogates and if gayness is genetic (I think gayness is half nature half nurture to be honest) then that means that the gay population is shrinking.
Kind of like feminists and their hysteria beyond 30 in having babies, except they are less successful in having babies because they're women and women who miss their fertility time never get it back. About 50% or more of them who apply for IVF end up with failure nonetheless.
There's this psychotic sense of urgency and I can only connect the gay "marriage" explosion to the same thing that feminists fear: extinction.
They may deny it, rationalize that it isn't there, talk about how the world has too many people, blah bla bla when in reality they do fear having less of themselves around.
"Wrong. Chick-fil-A has the right to ban homosexual customers. The government not only fails to protect that right, it illegitimately abrogates it, but that doesn't change the facts of property rights.
Will you be saying the same thing if (say) a homosexual* bookstore bans Christian customers? Will you be upholding its property rights?
* Or liberal, libertarian, pagan, atheist, Buddhist, etc?"
-I for one would. Unlike our 'friends' on the left, principles are not things to be applied only when they suit you.
Of course, I would then watch as the owner's business goes under as 3/4ths of the population in the US identifies as Christian. But the choice should be up to him.
The photograph looks sinister to me. One wonders what kind of thoughts are going through the gentlemens' minds.
Will you be saying the same thing if (say) a homosexual* bookstore bans Christian customers? Will you be upholding its property rights?
What do you think? Do you ever hear "racists" arguing for the "legalization" of burglary or rape, i.e, the "right" to force themselves intoplaces they're not wanted?
I hope the kid isn't beaten up by his peers for being gay.
"Chick fil A has no right to ban gay customers but they have every right to their spiritual and moral convictions."
So they have every right to their convictions but they don't have the right to act as those convictions dictate. Got it.
Post a Comment