Monday, April 27, 2015

Progress v. Progress

Some lunatics have signaled their willingness to throw Healthcare for the poor under the bus all for the sake of a sixth vote for the absurdity of same-sex "marriage".  A 5-4 split would be too acrimonious and thus insufficient for the respect that same-sex relationships apparently deserve.  A 6-3 split, although not ideal by any means, would be much more fitting, and if more poor people have to die because they can't afford adequate medical care, then so be it.  Because gays having a hissy fit over having won ONLY a bare majority would be far worse than the poor dying from poverty.

The Left can go fuck itself.

Sunday, April 26, 2015

Romans 7:19

I saw the film True Story yesterevening.

Why I thought it possible that a film about a New York Times Journalist and starring James Franco could be anything other than navel-gazing, self-indulgent crap is beyond me.

Thursday, April 23, 2015

I just have to get this out.

One the main slogans of the so-called "marriage equality" movement is "All love is equal", and it is just stupid.  Presumably what is meant by it is that all loving relationships are equal, therefore deserve equal treatment under the law, and therefore all loving relationships deserve access to a marriage license.

This is nonsense.  A father and daughter have a loving relationship.  Does that mean fathers should be allowed to marry their daughters?  After all, all love is equal.  Siblings love each other.  Should we grant siblings marriage licenses as well?  After all (all together now, and this time with pep!), ALL LOVE IS EQUAL.

Yeah, yeah, I know this is simply the old slippery slope to incest argument, which the "marriage equality" crowd thinks it has debunked repeatedly, arguing that whereas the state has good reason to prohibit incestuous marriages, it has none not to recognize same-sex "marriage".  

Whether or no this counter-argument effectively blocks this slippery slope, time will tell, but my only point now is that the slogan "all love is equal" does not mean "all love is equal except when there is good reason to say it is not."  

No, "all love is equal" has no such qualification and, therefore, it must include the love a parent has for his child and the love siblings have for each other, and the only way to deny that this slogan justifies incestuous marriages is to deny that parents love their children and siblings love each other, and that's just insulting.

Why I believe in miracles

Keith Richards is still alive.

The New Child Molestation

One of the claims made on behalf of "marriage equality" is that same-sex couples raise children just as well as opposite-sex couples.  This has been proved by rigorous scientific study after rigorous scientific study--if, that is, one considers convenience sampling to be rigorous science.  So, if  same-sex couples raise children just as well as opposite-sex couples do, it follows that the sex of a parent does not matter.  Fine.  Then we should stop using the words "mother" and "father" because those words imply that a parent's sex somehow matters, and such a proposition is nothing but unscientific bigotry.

Furthermore, if sex does not matter in regard to parenting, then in what regard does it matter?  It can matter only for one's private sexual preferences, n'est-ce pas?  Therefore, parents should not use gendered pronouns to refer to the children they raise.  For it is just sick for parents to treat children as objects of sexual desire.  The use of gendered pronouns, in fact, constitutes child molestation.  For, again, if sex matters only for one's own personal sexual desire, then it is simply wrong to use gendered pronouns with children, thereby labeling these innocents as objects of adult desire.

Gendered pronouns should be used only in private between consenting adults.


The real reason I oppose the legal recognition of same-sex "marriage"

I want to kill Jews.

Wednesday, April 22, 2015

Too busy rolling over in their graves, I guess.

"Neither John nor Charles Wesley were available for comment as we went to print."

Monday, April 20, 2015

Venus is very bright tonight

But that just means that the sky is clear and the Venetian Clouds are especially reflective of the Sun's Light.  It portends absolutely nothing for my love life.  Living in this scientific, disenchanted age can really suck at times, ya know?

Sunday, April 19, 2015

Chris O'Leary (The Pain Guy) is an intellectually dishonest man

Chris O'Leary, as regular readers of this weblog may know, accused me of being as bigoted as a racist or an anti-Semite because of my opposition to the legal recognition of the patent absurdity of same-sex "marriage".  I have repeatedly asked him to justify this serious charge, and every single time he has refused.  And yet he refuses to retract his accusation against me.  He could argue, I suppose, that a majority of people now think that opposition to the legal recognition of same-sex "marriage" is as evil as racism and anti-Semitism, but that would pre-suppose that the majority is always right, and I don't think he would want to go there.  Chris O'Leary is a radical Libertarian of the Austrian Variety and as such vehemently opposes any minimum wage even though polls show much more support for a minimum wage than for same-sex "marriage".

But Mr. O'Leary has not even made that argument.   No, he thinks his ipse dixit suffices.  Mr. O'Leary is an arrogant asshole.

And until he answers my challenge to substantiate his charge that I am as evil as a racist or an anti-Semite, Mr. O'Leary remains an intellectually dishonest man.

Wednesday, April 15, 2015

Don't be so deferential to the Worldly Inquisition

A friend of mine just this evening alerted me to this NPR piece, yet another attempt by today's Inquisition to enforce its notion of purity of doctrine.

My friend wrote:
"They have been pushing reports like this on NPR relentlessly every morning. If there is a chance to put in any kind of 'human interest' story, 90% of the time it's about the LGBT community members. This one in particular boggled my mind. The reporter is so biased, I don't think he could have asked his questions any more unfairly. What bothers me really is that the farmer in the story comes across like a nice person, who will rather concede than offend.


The most interesting part I think starts at about minute 6. If you have the time to listen, afterwards, could you please comment? What could have the farmer said?
What could any of us say to this?"

Yeah, we Christians have become just too "nice", mistaking Christ's Injunction to turn the other cheek   to mean accepting patent absurdities like same-sex "marriage" rather than defend the obvious.  Turning the other cheek means only that a Christian should not resort to violence to defend himself.  It does not mean that we should surrender our intellects to nonsense.  Neither does it mean that we should not call nonsense by its true name.  The farmer, true, stood his ground on marriage (sort of, anyway) but was too damn meek to put up anything resembling a firm and coherent defense of the sexual definition of marriage, and this, I repeat, is taking Christian Meekness much, much too far.  Soon, we'll be too meek to assert the certain truth of basic arithmetic.

This, I suggest, is what the farmer should have told David Greene:

Contrary to what some revisionist historians may say, marriage, through all of its myriad permutations, has always been premised upon sexual difference even before—centuries before—the existence of the Christian Church. In fact, marriage has been the only societal institution that reflects the public importance of sexual difference. The legal recognition of same-sex ‘marriage’ says that marriage has nothing to do with sexual difference and, therewith, that sexual difference really doesn’t matter. Well, if it does not matter that we are men and women, that the human species is both male and female, then, well, I reckon we might as well be amoebas. But I ain’t no amoeba, and I sure as hell don’t need the Bible or any Pope to tell me that. Same-sex “marriage” is an offense to reality. Good day, sir.


Tuesday, April 14, 2015

Fun Fact for Matt Sciuto

Charles Manson loved, just loved that book you think is simply a modern re-statement of Christ's command to love thy neighbor, How to Win Friends and Influence People by Dale Carnegie.

Saturday, April 11, 2015

Hey, Mark Zaegel,

if your mother is a whore, then you cannot know who your father is.

Basic Human Biology is Unconstitutional

Two women sue because Indiana won't put both their names and only their names on a birth certificate even though it is utterly impossible for two women to sire and give birth to child.  Why same-sex "marriage" is not completely and utterly absurd, I have no clue, but then again, I am just a stupid bigot who let's subliterate Bible-Thumpers do my thinking for me.   Because, after all, the notion that only a man and a woman can sire and give birth to a child is something only an extremist religious zealot would believe.


Thursday, April 9, 2015

Clarification

My post on April Fool's Day is not to be taken seriously.  Well, if A.K. wants to take it seriously and say, "yes", but I don't think that will happen.  Sigh.  So, fine, it was NOT a serious proposal.

In other news, I'm STILL pissed off at my fellow Catholics who wanted me to vote for Bush der Zweite, that subliterate war criminal.  I have NOTHING but contempt for that piece of shit.  Have I made myself clear, Brother Tom?  I hope so.  And, by the way, Brother Tom, when I told you of my skepticism regarding the Bush Administration's claim that Iraq was stockpiling enough weapons to bring on the apocalypse, your response was probably one of the ten stupidest things I've ever heard anyone say.  Your response was, "Why wouldn't you trust our government?"  Given the U.S. Government's track record over the last, say, century, such as lying about the Maine, the Lusitania, the Gulf of Tonkin, Guatemala, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Chile, and the list goes on and on and on and on--enough to fill a library, in fact, and my library is proof of this--, the obvious question is EXACTLY the reverse, "Why would you trust our government?"

I hope, Brother Tom, that in the twelve years since our unjust and criminal invasion of Iraq, you have lost your really stupid naïveté.

Put not your trust in Princes, Brother Tom.

Wednesday, April 1, 2015