Friday, March 28, 2014

Tom Noerper, would you please be consistent?

Mr. Noerper has recently repeated the now very tired, old liberal line that Jesus said NOTHING about gays and, so, people who claim to be His followers should say nothing about gays as well. To be sure, it is very true that Christ said nothing about gays, but He unequivocally defined marriage (Mark 10:6-7, Matthew 19:4-5) as the union of a man and a woman, and, as Mr. Noerper surely knows, court decision after court decision has established beyond any reasonable debate that such a definition of marriage is utterly irrational, that the only motive to define marriage according to sexual difference is animus against gays and lesbians, is to exclude them from the institution of marriage and thereby to condemn them to lives of intolerable loneliness and despair.

Nevertheless, when Christ explicitly uses this heterosexual definition of marriage, Mr. Noerper thinks He is being silent about gays and Lesbians.

Yet, when His followers define marriage in the same way that Christ did, that marriage is the union of a man and a woman, Tom Noerper does not say that this constitutes silence about gays and lesbians. Rather, Tom Noerper agrees with the conclusions of our courts and would accordingly call this definition of marriage vile, hateful homophobic bigotry. He clearly considers such a definition to be the very opposite of silence about gays and lesbians.

But this is hardly consistent, is it? On the one hand, when Jesus defines marriage heterosexually, He is being silent about gays and lesbians, but when His followers do the EXACT SAME THING, they are saying that gays and lesbians are somehow less than human and are, therefore, giving voice to very hateful bigotry against them.

Mr. Noerper, which is it? Is defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman being silent about gays and lesbians? Or is it instead a most hostile and bigoted homophobic animus? You have to choose one or the other, Mr. Noerper; the principle of non-contradiction won't allow you to hold both.

Wednesday, March 26, 2014

Please, answer me this

How did the unicity of sexual complementarity and society's need to regulate it become a tenet of blind faith?!  What seemed obvious to even an atheist like Bertrand Russell, that marriage is the union of a man and a woman, is now something akin to the belief that the universe was created in six 24-hour days.

Put this on a t-shirt

I like heterosexism.  I owe my life to it after all.

Tuesday, March 25, 2014


If the raison d'être of Modern Liberalism is the safeguarding of Individual Autonomy, then how can the Modern State outlaw the most fundamental expression thereof, namely suicide, without contradicting its very premise?  I really want to know this.

Sorry, this is a dismal topic, I know, and hardly a fitting one for the Feast Day of the Annunciation, the Celebration of the New Creation, but I have cabin fever something fierce, and under extreme fits of cabin fever, all one can think of is individual autonomy and how much it royally sucks.

Individual Autonomy is simply a euphemism for the demonic Liberal Project of crushing and atomizing human solidarity.  And, of course, the logical consequence of this project is suicide.

More later.

Sunday, March 23, 2014

Wrong Name

Paradise Trees should be re-named.  Their true name should be "Post-Lapsarian Home-wreckers".

Thursday, March 20, 2014

I am unAmerican

I am a proud triskaidekaphobe.

Numerological Patriotism

I should have known this:  Triskaidekaphobia is profoundly unAmerican.  What the metaphysical import of this may be, I have not even begun to stumble upon anything resembling a clue.

Monday, March 17, 2014


Kirk Cameron is a gay activist tool, a Bible-Thumping android designed by gay engineers to make the masses think that basing marriage upon sexual complementarity is something only a Biblically programmed robots would do.

Sunday, March 16, 2014

C'est la vie!

If you perchance to read this, I would like you to know that you are undeniably beautiful.  A visage like yours makes the Trojan War seem to be Reason itself.  Ten years of bloody battles may even be too small a price to pay to behold your smile.  Yes, your beauty is indeed dangerously bewitching.


You're an airhead.

Saturday, March 15, 2014

How my cat won an argument today

My cat Fledermaus wanted in this morning.  I would not let her come in.  It was a gorgeously bright, balmy day, the type of day we Krauts honor with "herrlich".  And my cat, having been cooped up inside nearly all winter, needed to stay outside and shake off all that Cabin Fever.  Or so I thought.

When I opened the front door, Fledermaus made a mad dash only to be rebuffed by my right foot.  She didn't give me a pissed-off squint but implored me with her largest saucer eyes.  Yeah, I've seen that Schtick many times before.

"It's warm, little girl," I said, "It's bright and sunny.  A great day to frolic, climb trees, find Chipmunks and torture them."  Fledermaus just whimpered.

Spoiled brat, I muttered and then walked down the steps to get the mail.

That's when I saw the Red Fox.

A Red Fox is a rarity on my property.  I last saw one maybe a decade ago.  And that Red Fox was a sight to behold.  That Red Fox had a coat that shined a brilliant radiant vermillion.  That Red Fox made you understand the meaning of "foxy".  But this one I saw today was mangy.  It looked like a dwarf coyote someone had spray painted red.  And it had a mean and hungry look--appropriate for the Ides of March, I suppose.  This Red Fox just stood in the middle of my road, trying to stare me down.  I thought it might even say, "Hey, you talkin' to me?"  I was starting to get scared.  Usually foxes run at the first sight of a Homo sapiens--that's been my experience at least--but not this one.  He stood his ground like an emaciated George Zimmerman on all fours.

Well, yeah, so now I understood why Fledermaus wanted back in.  I ran back up the steps, opened the front door, and Fledermaus raced inside.

When I walked back down, the Fox had gone.  Thank God!

Friday, March 14, 2014

Losing My Religion

I have lost count how many times someone has told me that the ONLY reason why I oppose the legal recognition of same-sex "marriage" is that I am a self-hating, repressed homosexual in deep denial.  And every time such a claim is made, I go out of my way to see if it's true.  After all, people who advocate the legal recognition of same-sex "marriage" are Enlightened Progressives, and Enlightened Progressives are never wrong.  About anything.  At all.  So, when an Enlightened Progressive says that I must be a homosexual, then, well, I must at the very least take this very seriously.

I've always thought that I liked women.  Every time a pretty woman crosses my path, I smile, have thoughts that are pleasant, and if they chance to be too pleasant, I try my darnedest to practice custodia oculorum lest I go to hell.  I've never had such problems in the presence of handsome men.  Never.  And I go to the gym.  A lot.  But that could be simply because my denial and repression of my true homosexual identity is so very deep and thorough.  If so, then my oppressive heteronormative upbringing has really done a number on me.

But how the deuce do I square all this with the infallibility of the Enlightened Progressive?  I just assume that I am wrong.  That all my desires to see, touch, and grope beautiful women in extreme states of deshabille are simply deceptions of a homophobic super ego that the nuns at my Catholic School surgically inserted into my frontal lobe when I was sleeping in class.

To get to my true identity, I must circumvent my homophobic super ego and go directly to the source of my true, unchurched desires, my id.  But how do I do this?  How do I shut off my super ego, which  like Descartes' whispering demon deceives me into thinking I like pussy?  Easy.  I just watch really raw, hardcore gay porn.  If that doesn't unleash my homophile id, reveal my inner gay, and vindicate the Enlightened Progressive Magisterium, then nothing can.

But I regret to report that every time I watch raw, hardcore gay porn, I am incredibly bored.  Bored out of my skull.  So bored that I long to read a manual on how to mix concrete or John Rawls's Lectures on Public Reason.  There's no Mr. Stiffy in my pants.  Not even a Mr. Wanna-be Stiffy.  It just remains Mr. Sleepy.  Sowwy, but gay porn does nothing for me.

The Enlightened Progressive is, thus, not infallible.  My faith is shattered.

Tuesday, March 11, 2014

Just Curious

Does the state's prohibition of suicide imply that the state owns your ass?

Monday, March 10, 2014


According to the most recent poll on the matter, fifty-nine percent of those questioned favor the legal recognition of same-sex "marriage".  Great, but that's still not as high as the percentage (upwards of seventy percent) of the electorate who in 2004 believed that Saddam Hussein was complicit in the 9/11 Attacks.  So, the gay lobby and all its many minions in the mainstream media ready and willing to marginalize every one and any one who dares oppose them as a know-nothing, Bible-Thumping rube and bigot have yet to match the demagogic heights reached by Bush and Cheney who, even though they had a shamefully timid press, had nothing like the Rainbow Propaganda Energizer Bunny that has kept going and going and going nonstop for more than a decade.

Saturday, March 8, 2014

The Best Thing I've Read Today (or this morning, at least)

"To declare same-sex unions marriage and their technological ‘reproduction’ normative is essentially to reconceive the child not as a person but as an artifact. It is to deny that he is essentially the natural fruit of a love inscribed into his parents’ flesh; since love is now a mere emotion with no bearing on the meaning of the body, which has been relegated to the sub-personal realm of ‘mere biology.’ It is to deny that his being from his parents and having a lineage is deeply constitutive of his humanity or his personal identity; since the very notion of ‘lineage’ is confused by these new artificial combinations and since ‘mother’ and ‘father’ are merely names affixed to a social function which can be performed in creative new ways. And it is to deny that he is his own being with inviolable dignity who cannot be manipulated or controlled; since it was a process of manipulation and control that brought him into being in the first place. The technological dominance of procreation asserts, contrary to the child’s true nature and to his parents’ unquestionable love for him, that a child is essentially a product of human making, an assemblage of parts outside of parts that are the parts of no real whole, whose meaning and purpose, as with all artifacts, reside not in itself but in the designs of its maker."
                    --Michael Hanby

The Philosophical Doctrine of Compatibilism Explained for Dummies

You enjoy getting raped.

Friday, March 7, 2014

And just fuck this shit

Yes, our drug laws are still Neanderthal (sorry, that's an insult to the Neanderthal), but stigma attaches to alcoholism even though the consumption of alcohol is legal. And, besides, I am just fucking tired of being asked to muster some sympathy for some rich dude who could find no better use for his millions than to squander it on a suicidal addiction. So, Mr. Brand, you can just go fuck yourself.


When Tom Noerper called me "twisted" for opposing the legal recognition of ss'm', I should have asked him what kind of "twisted" did he mean? Am I supposed to be "twisted" in the way a pedophile is twisted? Or in the way a Nazi is twisted? Or just in the way Annie Ross's analyst told her she was twisted?

Re-defining cake

A somewhat better analogy would be this: A patron says to the waiter, "I would like to have that cake over there." The waiter turns to where he is pointing and is puzzled. "What cake?" asks the waiter. "That cake, there, over there," the patron says with increasing insistence and resolve. The waiter says, "I'm sorry, sir, but I don't see a cake." The patron now gets noticeably irate, "That cake right there in front of your eyes, dangit!" The waiter looks long and hard and finally says, "That's just butter." The patron has now risen from his seat and jumps up and down, yelling, "Butter is an ingredient of a cake, you idiot. Therefore, it's a cake. Say it's a cake. Say it's a cake. For the love of Rawls, say that it is a cake, damn you!"


Remember when atheists were cool? They wore black turtlenecks and berets and recited bad poetry to free jazz, bemoaning the absurdity of a godless existence and the inhumanity of industrial, mass-produced modernity, and then would get shitfaced, if they weren't already. Now atheists seem to be obsessed with demonstrating that their morality is far more righteous than that contained in a book which they were supposed to have demonstrated to be a silly compendium of childish fairy tales a thousand times over by now. How pathetic!

Hey, Officer, I don't want no trouble

I've lost many friendships because of this absurd ss'm' debate. But that should not bum me out. For, if I accept the premise of my opponents that a relationship that lacks formal legal recognition is illegal, then, well, friendships are illegal, and, therefore, if I want to be a good law-abiding citizen, I should lose all my friends.

Lady Lazarus

Pornography insofar as it is a depiction of the sex act without any concern for the rational human soul is a cleaving of the body from the soul and, thus, represents the metaphysical definition of death. Therefore, porn addiction is nothing more than necrophilia.

A friendly reminder

Gendered pronouns re-enforce the notion that sexual differences are basic and primary and are therefore an insidious Orwellian ploy to make us think that the regime of heteronormativity is normal and natural when it really is oppressive bigotry of the vilest and most twisted sort. Therefore, gendered pronouns must go. If you still use them even after reading this rigorously logical argument demonstrating why such pronouns are evil, well, then you are as much a bigot as any racist or anti-Semite.

Another Piss in the Wind

The rationale of the anti-miscegenation laws was to keep the races separate. If you say that these laws are like a state's refusal to recognize same-sex "marriage", then you would have to say, in keeping with the analogy, that the rationale of this refusal is to keep people who are of the same sex apart. And this is just utter nonsense.

What? States that do not recognize ss'm' forbid people of the same sex from sharing apartments? They have outlawed men's and women's restrooms and locker rooms? These states do not allow all boys' or all girls' schools? The anti-miscegenation parallel has utterly no basis in history or, more importantly, logic. Those who appeal to it simply want to mention White Supremacists and those who oppose the legal recognition of ss'm' in the same sentence so as to make people think that the latter are in the same category as evil racists. But this is not the case for the anti-miscegenation parallel is nothing more than an obvious category mistake. 

Nevertheless, this analogy has come to be widely accepted as common sense simply through force of repetition. The anti-miscegenation parallel, in other words, is a textbook example of Hitler's Große Lüge, The Big Lie.

A summary of my arguments against the legal recognition of ss'm'

Some may find it useful. Others will just roll their eyes. 

In order to accommodate same-sex couples within the institution of civil marriage, marriage must be re-defined to mean simply a union of two people. The way these unions choose to express intimacy suddenly must become a thing of public indifference just like one's choosing of religion. But this is just insane. Coitus is not like any other act of intimacy, be it frottage, cuddling, or an intense, soul-baring conversation about Proust. Coitus can and often does result in children of whom the state prefers not to be primary caretakers. 

It is for this reason that only heterosexual relations are subject to Paternity Laws. If the state has a compelling interest in discouraging irresponsible heterosexuality by means of Paternity Laws, then it clearly has an interest in encouraging responsible heterosexuality. But the re-definition of marriage would make that which sets heterosexual relations apart into simply one among many random acts of intimacy, and that's just nonsense. 

If equality demands that we treat heterosexual and same-sex relationships as fundamentally the same, then we must abrogate Paternity Laws forthwith: It violates the sacred dictates of equality that a gay man can enjoy a one-night-stand without fear of a Paternity Suit but a straight man cannot. Same-sex "marriage" requires the relativization of coitus, and that is a singularly stupid, insane, and absurd idea.


The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has just ruled that Biology's ban on same-sex couples' having children is a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.


While on Facebook, I shared a meme that proposed bakers bake really ugly cakes for same-sex "weddings".  A friend from my high school days saw this share and was outraged and made her outrage known.  She found the meme cruel and mean-spirited.  She then "defriended" me and blocked me.

I applaud her principled stance against one of the gravest injustices of our time. "They made ugly cakes for same-sex 'weddings', and I never had an ugly cake, so I didn't stand up. And then I was served a positively hideous crème brûlée, and by that time it was too late for any one to stand up (I could have dined and dashed, but that's way gauche)."

Tuesday, March 4, 2014

Carne vale!

An hour and forty-minutes left of carnivoran freedom, and I have discovered to my dismay that I have eaten every last morsel of meat that was in my refrigerator.  A much too early Carnival indeed.

My Mardi Gras was shitty

Against my better judgement I rejoined Zuckerberg's Panopticon because I did not know how else to contact certain people.  Anyway, I contacted them, made sure that they knew how to contact me outside of Facebook, got into yet another debate over ss'm', and wasted hours and hours that could have been better spent helping out at a Soup Kitchen.

I have once again left Facebook.  I hope for good this time.

Now if I can only escape Google's Panopticon.