Friday, June 28, 2013

Some Thoughts on the Recent US Supreme Court Ruling on So-Called Same Sex Marriage

I have several observations concerning the rulings in particular and so-called same-sex marriage:

First: The idea that it is marriage equality is just slick marketing: There are fundamental differences between males and females that interplay in sexual relationships: Homosexual relationships cannot duplicate these dynamics no matter how much they may want to. This means that same-sex marriage is a colossal fiction.

Second: The fiction of same-sex marriage can only be maintained by denying that there is any divine or natural basis for marriage. Marriage is re-defined as a construct of the state. In United States vs Windsor, pages 16-17, the majority decision asserts that the state defines marriage and has "full authority over marriage." This view, of course, ignores both the fact that for thousands of years of history marriages existed without state sanction and that much of that history it was religious institutions that provided the sanction for marriage.

Third: While I believe that a case can be made that the government has a vested interest in promoting traditional marriage, it is better to show that marriage is defined by God and embedded into the nature of the natural order. Marriage is God's domain, not the state.

Fourth: Because same-sex marriage promotes the idea that marriage is a state construct, that it is a statist monstrosity. If the state defines marriage and "definition of marriage is the foundation of the State’s broader authority to regulate the subject of domestic relations with respect to the'[p]rotection of offspring, property interests, and the enforcement of marital responsibilities' (United States vs Windsor, pages 16-17)," then the door is opened for the state to undermine parental rights and even displace the parents as the parental authority.

Fifth: the Supreme Court used inflammatory language in the decision. It argues DOMA "necesarily demeans" homosexuals (page 29). As such, it affirms the homofascist narrative that says there can be no reasoned disagreement with same-sex marriage. You either affirm it or you are a hater. Scalia, who was in the chambers when this case was debated, argued in his dissent that the majority decision decribed opponents of same-sex marriage as "enemies of human race(page 55)."

If languages demonizing opponents of same-sex marriage and opponents of homo-dascism is promoted by the highest court, then it is only a matter of time before official persecution, discrimination, and restrictions on free speech become government policy. This is already the case in Canada, Australia, and Europe; and the United Nation supports criminalization of all criticism of homosexuality.

Time to prepare to some hard and bizarre times ahead. It's going to be a doosey.

Tuesday, June 18, 2013

Crushing Academic Dissent

The perfect scheme to ensure academic uniformity and enthrone propaganda involves a scheme to quash dissent as "uncollegial" and replace them with people who are sexually and racially diverse but who march lockstep with the official party line, creating the illusion of "diversity."

How to Purge Faculties of Real DiversityThe "fourth criterion" for tenure should be "collegiality", according to a current stream of university thinking. (The first three are said to be "research, teaching and service.")

We are supposed to want "productive dissent," and the key word that must be interpreted, of course, is "productive." Who decides? A scientific critic of Darwin's theory in the biology department is, by definition, an unproductive dissenter. An advocate of free market economics in most universities does not add the stimulus of intellectual diversity, you see, but instead threatens "unproductive" dissent
Read the rest of the article here