|
|
Post by timothylane on Feb 21, 2020 15:24:11 GMT -8
There is an LDS offshoot that maintains the original support for polygamy. It's illegal, but apparently they don't usually bother about it, hence the proposal to decriminalize it. (Which, ultimately, will lead to full legalization, first there and eventually elsewhere. Remember, Islam allows up to 4 wives, so identity politics will come into play.)
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,261
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Feb 21, 2020 15:40:14 GMT -8
In this age of girl-power, are there really that many women who want to share a man with other women? Shouldn't it be women demanding to have several wimpy husbands in order to perhaps make one good one?
Or maybe women are behind polygamy for this very reason. Polyandry is the watchword.
|
|
|
|
Post by artraveler on Feb 21, 2020 18:19:14 GMT -8
Like I say...if you were on a desert island and there was no one else . . . oh, we really shouldn't go there. So, we have a guy who looks like a girl with a penis, and a girl who looks like a guy with a vagina. How can anyone be confused? Who do you invite to a monster truck rally? |
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,261
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Feb 21, 2020 22:19:19 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Feb 22, 2020 12:45:40 GMT -8
I think this is one of the great problems with libertarians.
A civil society and flourishing culture do not exist in a vacuum, nor do they cover all the earth. They do and must have physical, psychological/spiritual and legal boundaries to stay healthy and continue. As those boundaries fail or are breached, the threat to the society becomes more acute.
The way men treat women throughout history has been a good indication of how equitable and civilized a society is. Asian and Middle Eastern societies and cultures did not and do not, treat woman as well as Western societies do. (I don't propose to address the many specious counter-arguments that Islam was great for women when it started, etc.) In Western Civilization, marriage between one man and one woman has been a bulwark against the barbarians and ourselves.
The following analogy can be used for the many different laws and customs which leftist and libertarians have pushed to overturn and what is clearly the result of this.
I envision Western Civilization as a huge wealthy vibrant city on a vast plain. This city has taken centuries to build and accumulate its material wealth and wisdom/knowledge.
Surrounding the city are a series of walls which have been build, again over centuries, to protect the city and its inhabitants from the millions of barbarians roaming the plains. The outer wall is the strongest and most difficult to breach. After that are smaller less imposing walls which will almost necessarily fall if the outer wall is breached.
For our purposes, let us say that the outer-massive wall was "marriage between one man and one woman." Well, it has finally been breached after 1700-1800 years. The barbarians are flooding in without stop. The next wall they will be "polygamy" which wall is much smaller and less secure than the first wall, because nobody but a few in the West gave it much heed. The wall after the "polygamy" wall is breached will be the wall regarding marriage between "anything and anything else." This wall is very small (hardly a mole mound) and can be stepped over because the ancient builders were not insane enough to believe that a man or a woman could or would want to marry a dog or a cat or, for that matter, a tree.
The wall after that will, I believe, be somewhat stouter. It is the wall of "pedophilia." I believe there might be just enough true-hearted individuals left in the crumbling city to take a stand on this wall. But given the fact that the previous walls have been breached and there are now millions of barbarians within the barriers, those few heros will be eventually overcome .
Once that happens, the West will have retreated to within the city walls, which will be laid open to direct assault. There will siege machines, catapults and sappers working day and night to bring down the walls. In the meantime, all cultural nourishment will be cut off in order to starve the citizens. In the end, the walls will fail or a traitor will open the gates and the barbarians will rush is with a lust for blood and a hate of everything the city/civilization stood for. I hope I am not around when this happens.
Call this a domino theory if you will, but contrary to what the cynics and liars claimed regarding the domino theory in Vietnam, other countries did fall to communism after Vietnam was lost. And more would have fallen had the US given up earlier.
|
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Feb 22, 2020 13:26:22 GMT -8
Here are a couple of short pieces I wrote for ST which touch upon the subject.
We don’t need no stinkin’ marriage Thu, 26 Jun 2014 19:18:43, Kung Fu Zu,
by Kung Fu Zu 6/26/14
I agree that we should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it is a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. . . . Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we’re going to do with marriage when we get there, because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie. The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change, and again, I don’t think it should exist.
So says Maria Alexandrovna Gessen, commonly known as Masha Gessen, born in Russia, but a dual citizen of both Russia and the United States. In 2012, she was appointed director of the Russian service of Radio Liberty, an institution similar to the old Radio Free Europe, which is financed by the U.S. government. Thank you President Obama.
Conservatives owe Masha a vote of thanks as she is one of the few progressive barbarians who speak honestly about their desire to destroy marriage. Most would rather continue lying about their intentions.
Only a progressive lunatic intellectual or Libertarian anarchist could favor the demise of marriage. A rational person only has to use common sense to know that the breakdown of the family contributes to the breakdown of society. But if there are doubters who require “scientific” data to be convinced of this fact, I refer them to the fact that child abuse is higher in families where the biological father and mother do not live together and poverty is higher in “families” where the biological father and mother do not live together. There are numerous other social indicators which confirm children do better within a family consisting of the biological mother and father.
But of course, these are small matters when compared to an adult’s whims. Self expression and gratification are the be and end all of an ever growing number of people so, get used to it!
We don’t need no stinkin’ marriage Part II Sat, 28 Jun 2014 11:20:49, Kung Fu Zu,
by Kung Fu Zu 6/28/14
In case anyone believes the lunacy spouted by Masha Gessen regarding the destruction of marriage is something new, I think the following two paragraphs, taken from Wikipedia, will be enlightening:
Kollontai's views on the role of marriage and the family under Communism were arguably more influential on today's society than her advocacy of "free love." Kollontai believed that, like the state, the family unit would w ither away once the second stage of communism became a reality. She viewed marriage and traditional families as legacies of the oppressive, property-rights-based, egoist past. Under Communism, both men and women would work for, and be supported by, society, not their families. Similarly, their children would be wards of, and reared basically by society.
Kollontai admonished men and women to discard their nostalgia for traditional family life. "The worker-mother must learn not to differentiate between yours and mine; she must remember that there are only our children, the children of Russia’s communist workers." However, she also praised maternal attachment: "Communist society w ill take upon itself all the duties involved in the education of the child, but the joys of parenthood w ill not be taken away from those who are capable of appreciating them."
Alexandra Kollontia was a woman born into a wealthy family during the early 1870’s. Her father was a Cossack General. She was given an excellent education and consorted with the Russian “intelligentsia” of the time. (Never forget the word “intelligentsia” was first used by Russian intellectuals to describe themselves as opposed to the rest of society.) Alexandra joined the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party before it split into the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks. She decided to cast her lot with Lenin and the Bolsheviks. Once the Bolsheviks came to power, Kollontia set up a “Women’s Bureau” and later served as the Soviet ambassador to several countries.
Kollontai was an archetypical intellectual radical of her time and her desire to destroy the family was not a new idea even then. As Kollontai makes perfectly clear, the Left’s goal is for the State to be our parent. Procreation will simply become a political duty to the all powerful state. Children will belong to society not their parents. I find this idea particularly disturbing as we all know that if a child is everybody’s, it is effectively nobody’s.
It should be clear to anyone with a bit of common sense or an ounce of honesty that the destruction of our traditional society is the real goal behind such madness as same sex marriage. No doubt, there are some Candides aka Libertarians who have bought the specious “equality” argument and who have not considered the ramifications of homosexual marriage. But thinking people should be under no such illusions. The abomination of homosexual marriage has been nurtured and guided by progressive Vandals with a clear intent of killing our culture and making slaves of us all.
___________________________________________________
The left wishes to weaken and destroy all institutions which compete with the State, and there is no institution which is stronger than the family. For the leftist dream to come about the family must be gotten rid of in whatever way possible.
As regards walls go, in my previous piece I should have stated that the first and largest wall which was breached was the "no-fault divorce" wall. Once marriage was devalued in such a way, the barbarians were in the gate.
It is interesting that when I first lived in Singapore end 1979-1984 divorce was only possible after a man and wife had lived in completely different places for a minimum of 2 or 3 years. When I lived in Switzerland from 1977-mid 1979 it was illegal for unmarried couples to cohabitate in some cantons. The local police could and did (sometimes) check into such situations.
|
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Feb 22, 2020 13:44:11 GMT -8
Remember that the Communist Manifesto called for eliminating the family and holding women in common. They argued that bourgeois society was already largely behaving that way through infidelity (of course, it was written in Paris). I got a laugh when I read that back in the mid-60s. (We had a copy of Communist writings put out by someone who felt it was a good idea to know your enemy.)
|
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Feb 22, 2020 13:54:39 GMT -8
Never believe a communist. Lenin was the direct heir to Marx's and Engels' philosophy which was one of lying and deceit. A bigger group of liars would be hard to find.
While there was, no doubt, plenty of infidelity going on in the Paris of their time (there always is) I seriously doubt it was as widespread as M&E would have us believe. Of course, France was much more anti-religious than most of the rest of Europe during this period. Getting rid of religion had been one of the goals of the Jacobins and their ilk during the French Revolution.
|
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Feb 22, 2020 21:36:04 GMT -8
I just ran across this piece at WND which reinforces my premise about the breaching of cultural walls.
As the writer points out, we have no problem with homosexuals being conservatives, but will fight to the finish those who are trying to destroy our Western Civilization by tearing down all that it has been built upon.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,261
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Feb 24, 2020 13:16:09 GMT -8
Proving once and for all that there is a difference between boys and girls:
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,261
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Feb 25, 2020 18:41:02 GMT -8
Rush, in a fit of virtue-signaling, was praising Grenell up and down the other day. Maybe he’s right. Maybe he will root out the deep-state traitors.
That is, “the closet” had a useful function.
|
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Mar 3, 2020 12:23:32 GMT -8
Whatever one thinks about Vladimir, he hasn't fallen for the radical queer myth that marriage is between a man and a man or woman and a woman. Sane marriageI am sick of many so-called conservatives rolling over on this point. |
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,261
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Mar 3, 2020 12:57:58 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Mar 3, 2020 13:00:19 GMT -8
A constitutional change like that shouldn't be necessary. Our Founders certainly couldn't have imagined the idea that men would marry men. (The Greeks often had open homosexual relationships, but marriage was only between men and women.) The problem is that no one anticipated cultural lunacy back then. That took our "superior" modern times.
|
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Mar 3, 2020 13:06:14 GMT -8
Some of Crenshaw's ideas are probably good ones. But what if the answer is indeed, as retired vulcanologist Peter Langdon Ward has argued, ozone depletion and in fact was largely solved nearly 30 years ago?
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,261
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Mar 3, 2020 13:24:55 GMT -8
He accepts the junk science that carbon is a planetary doomsday gas. And if one accepts the fuzzy premise of "climate change," one has already shown oneself to be a useful idiot who can't think one's way out of a wet paper bag. There is no global climate crisis. Climates will always change. Accepting hysteria as a premise is never good, especially if it is one of the primary means of freedom's enemies to enslave us all to the state. And this idiot has done so. And this in no way makes up for any energy proposals he has that might be of the "even a blind chicken will find a grain" kind.
One commenter shows some sanity:
|
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Mar 3, 2020 13:41:11 GMT -8
This is a sign of how well the Big Lie of global warming aka climate change aka climate disruption has worked. Crenshaw -- no scientist -- has imbibed it from what R. EmmettTyrrell calls the Kultursmog the unproven climate alarmist theory as being unchallenged truth, so he wants to deal with it in a conservative way.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,261
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Mar 3, 2020 14:08:22 GMT -8
You deal with it in a conservative way by calling baloney on these frauds and climate cultists. You don't do it by accepting their premises. You certainly might say something like "So...if you believe carbon is so bad, let's build a lot of nuclear plants, please."
Instead, this guy clearly accepts the premise of the Left and then makes a bunch of baloney excuses for how his way is the "responsible" and "conservative" way to get out in front of this.
Don't get out in front, for Christ's sake. Get off the bandwagon altogether and throw some spikes in the road.
|
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Mar 3, 2020 14:15:14 GMT -8
Here is a piece on Freeman Dyson a brilliant physicist, who called out the Climate Liars. And he was a Dim
|
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Mar 3, 2020 14:18:23 GMT -8
These idiots would claim they have been successful in reducing crime by repealing all the laws.
|
|
