Friday, May 31, 2013

Someone answer this, please!

I really, really want to know this. If, as advocates of gay "marriage" claim, it has been demonstrated beyond doubt or quibble that the only reason for opposition to gay "marriage" comes from a delusional belief in supernatural revelation, then why the deuce does the OFFICIALLY ATHEISTIC PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA define marriage as the union between a man and a woman?! I WANT TO KNOW THIS!

Thursday, May 30, 2013

Chutzpah

Homosexuals, it seems to me, want to have it both ways. On the one hand, they want the law to regard their relationships as normal as heterosexual relationships for the sake of various legal and financial benefits and then, on the other hand, they want the law to regard these relationships as defective in order to get certain insurance coverage.

A conundrum for the gay "marriage" activist

States that do not legally recognize gay "marriage" are said to prohibit or ban it. But gay "marriage" activists also say that marriage is entirely a thing of law. In other words, it cannot exist apart from legal fiat. Therefore, in states that have not acknowledged gay "marriage" by legal fiat, gay "marriage" simply does not exist, and it is just sheer nonsense to say that a non-entity is banned or prohibited. If the activist drops his conventionalist premise and says that gay "marriage" does indeed exist apart from legal fiat, then he must also concede that the states that do not give it legal recognition do not thereby ban or prohibit it because no same-sex couple anywhere has been fined or imprisoned for declaring their relationship a "marriage". But if he refuses to drop that premise, then when he speaks of states that ban gay "marriage", he is quite obviously contradicting himself and is therefore speaking nonsense.  

Dale Carnegie

In Dale Carnegie's world, if you are not pleasant, you are unfit for human society. Well, if you have cerebral palsy, you cannot help but be unpleasant. Dale Carnegie was a cripplehating piece of excrement, and anyone who defends him is as well.

Monday, May 27, 2013

Memorial Day

The American conception of freedom is not worth dying for.  Memorial Day is for suckers.

Saturday, May 25, 2013

Help!

I need a ride to mass either today or tomorrow.  Otherwise, I am gonna go to hell.

Friday, May 24, 2013

My favorite quote of all time

Lieber Herr Professor, 

zuletzt wäre ich sehr viel lieber Basler Professor als Gott; aber ich habe es nicht gewagt, meinen Privat-Egoismus so weit zu treiben, um seinetwegen die Schaffung der Welt zu unterlassen...

[Dear Professor, in the end I would very much rather be a Basel Professor than God, but I have not dared carry my Egoism so far as to neglect for its sake the creation of the world...]

Thursday, May 23, 2013

Poland

Actually, I was wrong when I wrote that I had no viewers from Poland.  According to the Orwellian Technology of Blogger.com, eleven views of this weblog came from Poland.  I wonder if the eyes of a certain J.N. was behind at least one of them.  If so, I have one thing to say.  I studied Kant because of you.  Niemand trotzt so ein unnötiges Leid wegen einer bloßen flüchtigen Schwärmerei, mein Schatz.

A thought

Methinks that David Welgus has a guilty conscience.  No doubt he will take my saying this as further proof that I am indeed an asshole.  Oh, well.

Tuesday, May 21, 2013

Umwertung aller Werte

If you ask George Takei (among others), you are not only a bigot for opposing gay "marriage", you are a veritable asshole as well. Fine, okay, I am an asshole, then. But it doesn't stop there. If you think that it is normal for a child to have one mother and one father, then you must think that it is the deviation from the norm for a child to have two fathers or two mothers, and since such thinking demeans gays and lesbians who raise children, such thinking makes you a bigot and an asshole. Therefore, you must, to avoid being a bigot and an asshole, acknowledge that sex does not matter a whit in parenting, that mothers and fathers are as fungible as slush funds, and that means that if you think it is simply batshit crazy to think that your mother's sex did not matter, that you would have had the same childhood experiences if she had been a man, then you are definitely a bigot and an asshole. Of course, "bigot" and "asshole" like "marriage" have been re-defined to mean something completely different from what they have traditionally signified. "Asshole" and "bigot" now refer to a person who is not a raving, rabid lunatic.

Saturday, May 18, 2013

The land of the nihilists.

Meaning requires definition and, therefore, limits.  Freedom is opposed to limits and thus to definitions and thus to meaning itself.  Freedom is therefore meaningless.

Who are you, dear Finn? Are you dorsal, pectoral, caudal, pelvic, or adipose? I hope you are not anal.

Blogger.com apparently can list my readers (or "viewers") by country.  Scary technology.  Orwell, call your office.

I have very few readers as it is, and most of those are from the United States or at least the Internet Providers are.  But some, very few (can be counted on Simpson Hands), are from other countries.  Like Germany.  I know who that is.  Well, I have an idea.  Eva, wie geht es Dir?  Nein, ich habe noch nicht von Mises gelesen.  Die Aufklärung, die ungezügelter Kapitalismus ist, bleibt mir immernoch unerreichbar.  Tut mir Leid.

Apparently, I have a reader in Finland.  Who the hell is reading me in Finland?  I want to know.

No readers from Poland.  Sigh.

Argumentum ad Reagan

Things have really gotten bad with this whole gay "marriage" stuff.  People not only think you a bigot for opposing same-sex "marriage".   What's even worse is that many will assume that you are a Republican!  Vae mihi!  In fact, a former friend of mine in an exchange over "marriage equality" mentioned Reagan's endorsement of the separation of Church and State, apparently thinking that an appeal to the Patron Saint of the G.O.P. would finally dissuade me from trying to impose my allegedly religious definition of marriage on everyone else.  He must have thought something like this, "You're against gay 'marriage', you must be a Republican.  Therefore, I'll appeal to one of your Republican pin-ups to make you see the error of your ways."

Geez.

First, of all, if the definition of marriage as a man and a woman can only be religious, then why, pray tell, is that how marriage is defined in the officially atheistic country of China?  I asked my former friend this.  No answer.  He's an idiot.  Anyway, this is not the point of this post.  I digress.

The main point is that even more than being called a bigot, I hate--with the explosive heat of a nuclear meltdown--being pegged as some kind of Reagan groupie, who can be expected to accept his thoughts an any matter as authoritative, as if Reagan were my Mohammed or my Pope.  I hated Reagan.  So much so, that Fr. Reale at my High School had to calm me down from an apoplectic fit the morning after the 1984 election.  I kept screaming as loudly as I could (and that's loud), "Blood will be shed!"  I wasn't calling for an assassination, mind.  I was referring to the continued shedding of blood by our Proxy War in Nicaragua.  Reagan was one thing and one thing only in my mind, a monstrous butcher of Latin American Peasants.  When I shrieked, "Blood will be shed!" I meant Reagan's warmongering, but I can understand how people could have interpreted my ravings in another manner.  Fine.

Either way, I established my point.  I hated Reagan.  I still hate Reagan.  I am glad the man is dead.

Oh, and I remember vehemently disagreeing with Reagan's stance on Church and State.  The Reagan Administrations vigorously went after the Churches that offered sanctuary to Latin American refugees of Reagan's wars.  Reagan was a sacrilegious monster.

Needless to say, the Appeal to Reagan won't work with me.  Is that clear?

Interesting oxymoron

I just ran across this in a description of book about Dada:  "Historical avant-garde."  What trumps here?  History or the avant-garde?  The avant-garde that was Dada is now dead, but history, whatever it may be, still advances.  So, is history itself the avant-garde, and Dada simply history?

Material for another cryptic haiku, I suppose.

Just a thought (and not an original one at that)

No concept of the good is possible without some notion of teleology.

Matthew and Marilla

So, gay "marriage" is needed so that children raised by gays enjoy legal protections. Okay, but that same argument could apply to Matthew and Marilla Cuthbert who raised Anne Shirley. So should siblings who raise orphans be allowed to enter into civil marriage? If you say yes, then you've just admitted that the slippery slope to incest is not feverishly paranoid alarmism after all, and if you say no, then you have conceded that marriage is unnecessary for adoption and, thereby, vitiated the argument that adopted children need the legal protections of marriage.

Friday, May 17, 2013

Newsflash

The Supreme Court has just ruled that odd numbers are now even.  Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the 5-4 Majority, stated that "the withholding of the title of even from one half of the race of numbers is rooted in an irrational Pythagorean and, hence, religious prejudice that not only violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment but the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth as well.  Some may ask with a somewhat understandable stupor how all numbers can be even, but equality is an integral party of the sweet mystery of liberty and life."

Odd numbers praised the ruling, saying it will now make division easier.

The ruling only applies to numbers hitherto branded as odd, although some court commentators have speculated that what the court said today could well the end the stigma that attaches to numbers still labeled as irrational.  Pi expressed cautious optimism.

Justice Antonin Scalia would have written yet another scathing dissent and did indeed start one, but while trying to think of sufficient synonyms for the word 'mad' had a brain aneurysm and died.  Funeral will be held Tuesday at the National Cathedral.

No word yet on whom Obama will pick as Scalia's replacement on the bench.

In related news, a grade school teacher in Iowa has been arrested for refusing to teach that 5 is a multiple of 2.   Bond has been set at $500,001.

Wednesday, May 15, 2013

Monday, May 13, 2013

Barren elderly couples


Okay, roll your eyes, people, for I shall once again try to defend marriage as the erotic union of one man and one woman.  Why?  Well, because I'm a vile, religious bigot who spends every waking moment scheming ways to make life miserable for those Satanic Sodomites AND plotting a theocratic coup of the United States Government which will not only criminalize gay "marriage" but the consumption of warm-blooded flesh on Fridays as well.  Well, er, no, that's not the reason.  The reason is that I do not want to do my exercises.  I am lazy.

Anyway, the most common defense for keeping marriage heterosexual is that heterosexual couples procreate and homosexual couples do not.  The state has an interest in encouraging responsible procreation, and if marriage was not about procreating responsibly, the state would not bother with marriage at all.  The obvious objection to this is, as everyone knows or should know by now, is that not all married couples procreate.  In fact, many couples who cannot procreate are nonetheless allowed a marriage license.  So, therefore, marriage cannot be about procreation if infertile, sterile, or obviously barren elderly heterosexual couples are eligible to receive a marriage license.

But actually the public purpose of marriage is not so much about procreation as it is about the only act that can lead to procreation, i.e coitus, sexual intercourse, something that no same-sex couple can perform. Because coitus can and very often does lead to something that literally gives the state more citizens, the state has an interest in at the very least encouraging people to do it responsibly, i.e. within the context of a committed and stable relationship.  

If marriage is not so much about procreation as it is about the act that leads to procreation, then it actually makes sense to give legal recognition to the marriages of elderly couples. For while women become infertile at age 50 or thereabouts, men have effective seeds even after their bones start creaking (just ask Strom Thurmond or Picasso). Marriage Laws that would deny marriage licenses to post-menopausal women but not to old men would just give old leches even more incentive than they have now to go after fertile women half their age. This may be good news to geezers who refuse to surrender to the ravages of age, but it is bad news for the children they may well sire. For these children will probably lose their fathers before they can even remember them. In sum, marriage is about the responsible use of sexual intercourse, and allowing barren elderly couples a marriage license does not vitiate this purpose at all but affirms it insofar as it acknowledges that it is best that old men, even if they still can impregnate, not become fathers of children they cannot raise to maturity.

This does not answer why young infertile or sterile couples are allowed a marriage license.  I shall tackle that question in a subsequent post.  

Also, I have not dealt with the question of heterosexual couples who marry but do not intend to have children.  That's an easy one.  They still can have sexual intercourse and may either change their mind or have what jaded people now call an "accident", and should that occur, it's better that the couple be married than not.  Marriage law is not concerned so much with intent as with actions, and actions frequently liberate themselves from our intentions, however firm we imagine them to be.

Sunday, May 12, 2013

Mothers Day is Bigotry

All you advocates of what has been misnamed as "marriage equality" who celebrate Mothers Day are not only hypocrites but unwitting bigots as well. For lurking behind all the pretty flowers, the delicious brunches, and the treacly sentiments of Mothers Day Cards is the heteronormative and, thus, profoundly bigoted notion that sexual difference in parenting matters, that mothers and fathers are not interchangeable. Otherwise, we would not have Mothers Day and Fathers Day. We would simply have Parents Day. But the celebration of sexual difference in parenting honors opposite-sex couples with children and thereby dishonors the children whose parents are of the same sex. Kids with two dads are shamefully left out on Mothers Day, and all the Heathers with Two Mommies cannot celebrate Fathers Day. And children of people who claim to be of a third or fourth sex may be completely out in the cold! This is an Unfairness that cries out to Rawls for vengeance! And you who advocate "marriage equality" and absolute equality among all the sexes and sexual orientations, if you observe Mothers Day with so much as a call to your Mom, then you are playing into the ghastly homophobic heteronormative assumptions of this unjust holiday and are thereby subscribing to the oppressive heterosexism that you profess you want to eradicate with "marriage equality". In sum, you are vile, unthinking and unconscionable hypocrites. Bigots!

Wednesday, May 8, 2013

Chris O'Leary


Chris O'Leary, one of my classmates from my Catholic High School is the only one so far to have publicly called me a bigot for opposing the legal recognition of same-sex "marriage".  Which I find hilarious.  Chris sends his son to a Catholic High School, which, as I was very quick to remind him, is institutionally obligated to teach his son not only that same-sex "marriage" is absurd but also that the homosexual orientation is intrinsically disordered and that all homosexual acts are gravely sinful, and that means doing them risks perpetual perdition. In other words, practicing and unrepentant homosexuals go stwaight to hell.  But that did not stop Chris from calling me a bigot.  He said that my bigotry regarding gay "marriage" was as evil as racism and anti-Semitism.  And it's really hard to take this seriously.  Can you imagine someone who sends his child to a school run by the KKK or the Nazis denouncing someone else as a racist or an anti-Semite?  Neither can I, and yet Chris sees no cognitive dissonance whatsoever between his denunciation of me as a homophobic bigot and sending his own son to a school run by the institution that has come to be equated with the source of all homophobic bigotry, the Catholic Church.

The conclusion is really simple:  Chris O'Leary is an idiot.

Or, perhaps, he doesn't think bigotry is that big of a deal.  After all, he doesn't seem to mind that his son may very well be indoctrinated in it.  And if he thinks homophobic bigotry is as evil as racism or anti-Semitism, then those by whatever lights he has must not be that evil, either.  And so if he doesn't mind risking the indoctrination of his son as a homophobic bigot, he probably wouldn't mind, either, if his son joined the KKK or the Nazi Party.

But the conclusion is the same in either case:  Chris O'Leary is an idiot.

I have already dealt at some length with the stupid charge that opponents of gay "marriage" are the New Racists.  The charge that we are also somehow like anti-Semites is equally ridiculous.  Anti-Semitism used to refer to the racialist idea that Jewish blood and genes contaminated the general culture and, therefore, needed to be either contained or eliminated.  If that's what Chris O'Leary meant by anti-Semitism, then one could easily argue that it is the advocacy of gay "marriage", and not opposition to it, that will lead to the elimination of the "gay gene" (if there is one, that is).

For the legal recognition of gay "marriage" will mean that there will be far fewer marriages of mixed orientation.  Yet, precisely those marriages, however unhappy they may have been, transmitted the "gay gene".    Fewer mixed-orientation marriages equal fewer chances to pass on homosexual traits equal quite possibly a genocidal decline in the homosexual population.

But wait, you say.  Gay couples still can transmit the "gay gene" via surrogacy or artificial insemination.  True, but since such reproductive technologies are still quite costly and hence unaffordable to the average couple, such reproduction strategies may not compensate for the steep decline in births by mixed orientation couples.

In short, if Chris O'Leary meant to say that I was like a racialist eugenicist, then the insult simply boomerangs on him.  I am for traditional marriage which carries the "gay gene" forward, I, therefore, am not advocating a policy that may well result in a precipitous decline of the gay population, but Chris O'Leary is.  So, tell me, who is the bigot now?

But, of course, the charge of anti-Semitism today no longer means racialist eliminationism.  It simply means that you are a critic of Israel.  If you think that those patently illegal Israeli Settlements on the West Bank are, well, patently illegal, then you're an anti-Semite.  If you think Israel is a tad bit paranoid for using Merkavas to defend herself against stone-throwing ten-year-olds, you're an anti-Semite.  If you think that Israel's refusal to let the Gazans import coriander is just a very petty power trip, you're Hitler or Himmler or Göring.  Et cetera.  In other words, the charge of anti-Semitism is simply an ad hominem used to silence dissent from the AIPAC Magisterium, but it doesn't work as well as it used to precisely because of this preposterous overuse.

And the charge of homophobic bigotry against defenders of traditional marriage is pretty much the same thing, a sleazy insult used to kill rational debate, and its overuse is as preposterous as is overusing the charge of anti-Semitism.  If you think marriage is between a man and a woman, you're a bigot.  If you think a child should ideally have a mother and a father, you're a bigot.  If you do not think mothers and fathers are fungible like slush funds, you're a bigot.  Et cetera.

So, I suppose when Chris O'Leary drew a parallel between opposition to gay "marriage" and anti-Semitism, he was right, but not in the way he thought he was right.  Chris O'Leary is an idiot.

Tuesday, May 7, 2013

My six favorite movie lines of all time

"You can't love a word, you can love a human being."

"Rommel, you magnificent bastard, I read your book!"

"She's real!"

"Of all the gin joints in all the towns of all the world, she walks into mine."

"Have an Oreo, Leo."

"Make it ten thousand; I'm just a poor corrupt official."

(Points for those who can guess which movies these lines are from--except the fourth and sixth, of course, for those are gimmies.)

Sunday, May 5, 2013

A note

Ich wünsche meiner einzigen Anhängerin einen fröhlichen drieundzwanzigsten Geburtstag!  (Now I have to go to confession--for lying)

Saturday, May 4, 2013

Irony of Ironies


I might as well post this.  One of my favorites bits off irony, especially since one idiot claimed that my opposition to gay "marriage" committed me to at least an indifference to a genocide of homosexuals.  Jesse Bering seems to have a somewhat better argument for the opposite claim, namely that gay "marriage" might lead to the eventual eradication of the homosexual population.  You advocates of gay "marriage", your homophobia is going to kill off the gay gene!  Why are you so bigoted against your homosexual brothers and sisters?  Stop the hate!