I'm straight and tired of gay pride

[Flannel Jesus]

I really like waffles, so thank you for that.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Pretty much... despite what the goyim and Christ blasphemers say and think, I don't hate Jews, honestly I feel sorry for them. They try so hard to fit into the 'popular' and 'cool kids' groups in public schools, but their exclusivity and neuroses prevent them from fully integrating into white groups. I don't think all Jews are bad, but a chunk of them definitely live up to the stereotypes, same as any other race/ethnic group.

None of this is what has traditionally disturbed people about Jews. In order to understand antisemitism, antisemitism must be understand as a coherent articulation of (potentially) sound ideas.

[Please note that as I have said a few times I grew up on the fringes of Reform Judaism in California. Most of my childhood friends were Jewish (culturally, not religiously), and I attended JCC summer camps and afterschool events. Even my first encounters with girlish pussy were between the legs of my young Jewish neighbors and I still have very fond memories of those early probings. However, I now reject Judaism absolutely; and along with it I reject Christianity except insofar as it is a container for sound philosophical ideas that came from Platonism and Aristotelianism.

So I find myself in an odd position of being capable of acute examination of *Judaic tenets* though having no good reason, and no particular animus one way or the other, to define an open, or traditional, platform of antisemitism. Like Judenhass traditionally understood. I know: it's odd.]

What is really the most disturbing trait about Jews, and one that is so alarming to Gentiles and Gentile culture, is the fact of Jewish will. Everyone knows that Jews have a tremendous cultural and historical memory. It is considered de rigueur in traditional Jewish culture to be aware of Jewish history. Given the extreme troubles that Jews have faced (in Europe) it is certainly a crucial necessity for average Jews, and definitely specialist Jews, to know Jewish history. Therefore, the issue of memory is central to understanding both Judaism and Jews. Few Gentiles have much or comparable cultural memory at all. They live in immediacy and mutability.

The second aspect of this is the notion of *Jewish Project*. If you study Judaism in any depth (it is likely that no one here has or ever will) you will understand that traditional Judaism defines itself as a *world-transforming* religious movement that operates in time and through time at God's behest. And what trait is most central to this *project*? It is Jewish will. It is unlike any other cultural will that you could locate and name. Give it a shot, you'll see.

When a Jew assimilates, he naturally steps outside of the defined *project*. Assimilation has always been frowned upon. To assimilate is to be a traitor (in respect to the Project). And therefore Jews define themselves as *a people apart*.

Now, you could be (for example) like our own Immanuel Can and define yourself as Judaism's little brother; and you could relate to, believe in, and ally yourself with the Jewish Project I mention. That is one option. (And IC is a bold Christian Zionist in the most central sense and defends Israel, now and today, as a classic Christian Zionist: i.e. fanatically and blindly).

But there is another option: to oppose the Jewish Project. To disbelieve it. Or to see it as something different from what it proposes it is.

Those today (I refer to the Dissident Right mostly) who define a Jewish-critical position are not necessarily antisemites in the sense of *hating Jews*. In fact they might well admire Jewish attainment and idealism. But they are definitely critical of and opposed to what they define as the Jewish Project -- especially as it pertains to the moulding of our present and the ultra-strong effect of Zionist ideology (which operates in numerous areas and not only in regard to the Israel project).

Trippy, eh? When things are clarified they then come out of the murk and make more sense. At least they can be better examined.

[FlashDangerpants]

Wait, why am I explaining anything to you, bird brain???

Because you have no impulse control. Which is why Jacobi's paternalist attempts to teach you how to do the nazi thing in safety won't work, and why you will always be so easy to taunt.

[Alexiev]

Starting from an intellectual point (in the sense of the Latin intellectus) -- my orientation is Platonic and Aristotelean and as I say I reject, overall, the so-called *Christian ethic* as such -- I am not moved by feelings of *charity*. Since I do not have any power at all, in the present dispensation, to influence how the larger social body relates to homosexuality, sexual deviation, perversion, pornography, and a practical social ethics whereby the notion of *sexual ethics* is a meaningless term, I am simply talking about what I think is both right and best in a somewhat abstract sense.

One need not be Christian to be moved by agape. The Christian revolution (and I'm not a Christian, either) was, in part, to make ethics positive instead of negative. It included a move away from "thou shalt nots" toward "love your neighbor as yourself" and "do unto others". Sexual ethics, of course, remains an important topic. As it should.

Yes, certainly. Beyond all doubt. Ethically, and also morally, the primary social unit, and the primary union that must be valued above all others is that of the productive male-female union. This is intuitively obvious. The family is the source of progeny. If one, and if a culture, loses track of this fundamental fact -- a truth if ever a truth has been defined -- it begins to lose the core motor that generates society. So if you take what I suggest here at face value, and subtract out of it any desire to *hate* or to condemn any other people, it is really the idea here that I emphasize.

What I am saying is that homosexual unions must be recognized, even or especially among homosexuals but certainly among the majority, as having less value and less importance than that of productive male-female unions that produce abundant familie

This is not a zero sum game. By refusing to "ban" gay parades, refusing to hold gay unions in contempt, and refusing to stigmatize gay sex we are not devaluing heterosexual marriage. If you want to honor the marriage sacrament (in a secular way), feel free to do so. But that does not entail disparaging relationships of which you disapprove (let alone banning their expression). And what about unproductive heterosexual marriages? Why would childless couples be honored any more than gay couples? Or what about responsible single parents, living apart, like me? I'll admit that when gay marriage was an issue, I had mixed feelings, thinking that it was unfair that married people reaped tax benefits, and spousal health insurance benefits denied to me and my son's mom. Why should I be paid $7k a year less than a married person doing the same job? My only objection to gay marriage was that my list of allies in this battle would grow thin. As a nation, I thought, we should promote child-rearing, not sexual unions. (Of course if we had a decent National Health System, this objection would be largely irrelevant.)

If my argument was essentially Christian or Catholic I would naturally place emphasis on the *sacrament* of marriage. In Catholicism (for example) marriage is a sacrament. It is an interesting idea when examined. The marriage union is given a sort of divine or sacred status. It needs to be validated and authoritated (and turned into an indissolvable bond) through ritualized ceremony. At this point I am far less interested in Catholic-Christian definitions and as I say much more interested in Platonic concepts. So, there is a logic, a reasoning, behind elevating a marriage union. You could use the term sacralizing but that has all sort of religious baggage associated with it, no? I prefer to strip from the religious baggage what I believe is the *core meaning*. And it resolves into a recognition that the male/female union, in this world, is the very core of society and civilization. Mess with it and you do so (in my opinion) at your peril.

It hardly matters to me that your son was born outside of a solemnized marriage. But it would interest me (philosophically and culturally) to understand the degree to which you took your union with your wife, and hers with you, seriously. One thing that a religious orientation does provide is a strong moral sense that a sacralized marriage must be preserved no matter what. Thus it calls out of people all that is associated with *sense of responsibility* and *seriousness*.

But I recognize (and have had) unions that were simply matters of convenience and were understood to be temporary.

The Philosophical-existential issue is how seriously do we take these unions? The view I am trying to articulate is that they should be taken far more seriously. (But you must understand that I married later than most and that all my ideas were undergoing transformation at that time. As I said I come from (extremely) progressive social circumstances but have taken an intellectual and philosophical stand against what I now term hyper-liberalism).

Here in the West, these sexual ideals are freighted with romantic ideals. Such romance may be as culturally constituted as religious ideals, but I happen to think it promotes love, adventure, and human happiness. Of course, it also promotes human sadness and misery, but (I'd suggest) that's still better than the dull, glazed eye, dullness of a less romantic life. Is marriage essential to love and romance? If the essence of romance is adventure and uncertainty, marriage (or at least marriage that cannot be dissolved) is the end of romance, although, of course, that does not mean it is the end of love.

I'm no expert on the gay community -- but by reputation lesbian women are homebodies, while gay men quest for multiple partners. Maybe by freighting gay sex with notions of love and romance we can change this (as we have changed it to some extent for straight men). Wouldn't that be a good thing, benefiting the stability of society and the health of gay men?

There are two aspects. One is that sexual ethics must be defined. You could look into Catholic and Christian family and sexual ethics to gain a sense of the philosophy standing behind it. It is, in my view, entirely coherent and very practical. But too you could (I mean one could) strip away the religiousness and focus on the Platonic and Aristotelean backgrounding of these definitions. That is what I choose in any case.

So once you have entered, philosophically, into the question of sexual ethics, you are going to have to set down value-sets and parameters to sexual expression. You are going to have to make some statements as to whether you regard it as ethically practicable to fuck your dog or to fuck your neighbors teenage daughter when you are involved in a committed relationship with your own wife. The fucking of your dog is one thing to consider but we tend not to be concerned about the psychological implications for that dog. But it is a different matter when it concerns that teenage daughter next door. One could use her as a really fun sexual partner without much concern for the question *What is this doing for her?* and is the activity good for her in any sense, either conventional or special. Sexuality is possibly the most powerful, and the most potentially untresstained, appetite that we deal with, wouldn't you say? Let us, for the sake of conversation, imagine a culture with no sexual ethics. What would that look like?

So the issue is not that I condemn homosexuals for their sexual appetites, and more that it is a bona fide and important topic to ask questions in relation to sexual ethics. And again, and for example, sexual ethics is certainly emphasized in traditional Catholicism. These are ethics that were developed over many centuries. But as I say, behind these religiously defined ethics is a sound philosophical base for the admonitions.

The second aspect is that even, or especially, in a traditional male-female union sexual ethics *must* be observed. That *must* is an idealistic imperative. Even St Paul said "better to marry than to burn". But how one burns, within the marriage, is obviously of some importance (even when divorced from specific Christian rules and regulations).

I don't make statements about what gays should do or not do. What I do say is that what they do should be repressed and suppressed by common, general culture, and that gays themselves should do this voluntarily and out of a sense of respect.


There is not a great deal that *troubles* me. I am an observer of cultural currents; where things are, where they are going. And primarily what interests me is causation: What has brought about the notable transvaluation of values in relation to sexuality? In that sense my orientation is actually Nietzschean.

Well, per the OP, some wag (I forget whom) wrote, "The love that dare not speak its name has become the love that won't shut up." So I get it, but I assume the humorist was just joking around. If your sensibilities suggest that people should, in general, keep their sex lives private, that's a reasonable position, based not on ethics, but decorum. However, when you use words like "banned", "repressed", and "suppressed" you go to far. Who are you to breach the time-honored value of freedom of expression? And your reasons are insufficient. You want to honor traditional marriage. How do gay pride parades disrespect marriage? Why suppress or ban public avowals of political or ethical positions of which you disapprove? When you do, you sound like the Stalinists of whom you disapprove.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Wait, why am I explaining anything to you, bird brain???

Because you have no impulse control. Which is why Jacobi's paternalist attempts to teach you how to do the nazi thing in safety won't work, and why you will always be so easy to taunt.

"How to do the Nazi thing" -- I like it! I can always count on you for genuine inanity.

I am completely sure that you have no clear idea what the National Socialist program actually was. And I am also sure that you have no clear idea how to look at, how to define, those protectionist, nationalist political forms, obviously deeply conservative, always reactive, and sometimes religiously-based, that arose in the Interwar Period in all European countries as a counter-response to Marxian Communism.

Because you know nothing about any of this, and care not to know, you can never have anything coherent to say even in regard to your 'Nazi' designation. Your use of that word is similar to what kids did when they called each other *fag*.

Your use of the term Nazi has no real meaning.

[Iwannaplato]

You are entitled to your opinion, but It is not a charitable one. Does valuing the
Does valuing the heterosexual union and the family necessarily involve devaluing homosexual families?

Yes, certainly. Beyond all doubt. Ethically, and also morally, the primary social unit, and the primary union that must be valued above all others is that of the productive male-female union. This is intuitively obvious. The family is the source of progeny. If one, and if a culture, loses track of this fundamental fact -- a truth if ever a truth has been defined -- it begins to lose the core motor that generates society.

It seems to me that there is a potential talking past each other here OR there will be some authority on what we value, telling us what we should/must value.

Alexiev asks if valuing the heterosexual union and family necessarily involves devaluing the homosexual families? You answer yes, and argue that morally, in general, universally, it seems, we must value (you have it in the passive, but I changed this part) the hetero child bearing unit over others. So, we should have your value. How does that happen?

And there's a few assumptions in there I think. Like we can just value what we value. Given that there are more heterosexuals their unions will be valued more. There are more people who will have this as central. They may not value it more in the sense that they try to get others to value it more than gay unions. But there's a kind of defacto greater value me tend to put without even having to label it on those things that we engage in and are responsible for and have tighter emotional bonds related to. Do hetero pairs need to walk around thinking formally that their relationship is more important than the gay couple's across the hallway?

Can't we value what we value?

Where the values lead to actions that inhibit us from valuing what we value, then we can look into it and decide here we try to get people to value what we value: such as we do around crimes.

But otherwise much we value what you value in the ranking of valuing that you have, or even a majority has?

Setting aside the whole we got more babies being born by a wide margin over in the 18th century. I think we're ok. Babies are coming.

Setting aside, should families with 1 kid be valued less that families with three kids?

[Flannel Jesus]

As if the best way to get more babies is to make gay peopl have more. We live in a world where a hell of a lot of STRAIGHT people are choosing not to have kids, even ones who can afford to. If your goal is more kids, knocking on gay peoples doors has got to be one of the LEAST efficient way to do that.


And if homosexuality is partly genetic, which it very well might be, well then... that's gonna have some ironic results, isn't it?

[Iwannaplato]

As if the best way to get more babies is to make gay peopl have more. We live in a world where a hell of a lot of STRAIGHT people are choosing not to have kids, even ones who can afford to. If your goal is more kids, knocking on gay peoples doors has got to be one of the LEAST efficient way to do that.


And if homosexuality is partly genetic, which it very well might be, well then... that's gonna have some ironic results, isn't it?

Are parents who have one child but could afford more being immoral?
If they decide not to have sex, when they could be trying to procreate, is this a (minor) moral infraction, when they prioritize canoing or reading Tolstoy? both activities that like homosexual sex tend not to produce children.

Should the 20 year old women who doesn't really want to marry anyone she is meeting, marry a what feels like a mediocre choice just to get her uterus rolling? Is she prioritiizing incorrectly?

Must she value procreation higher than other values. How do we decide how she should prioritize since we can't leave it to her?

[Flannel Jesus]

As if the best way to get more babies is to make gay peopl have more. We live in a world where a hell of a lot of STRAIGHT people are choosing not to have kids, even ones who can afford to. If your goal is more kids, knocking on gay peoples doors has got to be one of the LEAST efficient way to do that.


And if homosexuality is partly genetic, which it very well might be, well then... that's gonna have some ironic results, isn't it?

Are parents who have one child but could afford more being immoral?
If they decide not to have sex, when they could be trying to procreate, is this a (minor) moral infraction, when they prioritize canoing or reading Tolstoy? both activities that like homosexual sex tend not to produce children.

Should the 20 year old women who doesn't really want to marry anyone she is meeting, marry a what feels like a mediocre choice just to get her uterus rolling? Is she prioritiizing incorrectly?

Must she value procreation higher than other values. How do we decide how she should prioritize since we can't leave it to her?

Let's put all that to the side for a sec so we can make sure we make gay people do things they don't want to do. Priorities, mr Plato. There are people to oppress.

[FlashDangerpants]

Wait, why am I explaining anything to you, bird brain???

Because you have no impulse control. Which is why Jacobi's paternalist attempts to teach you how to do the nazi thing in safety won't work, and why you will always be so easy to taunt.

"How to do the Nazi thing" -- I like it! I can always count on you for genuine inanity.

I am completely sure that you have no clear idea what the National Socialist program actually was. And I am also sure that you have no clear idea how to look at, how to define, those protectionist, nationalist political forms, obviously deeply conservative, always reactive, and sometimes religiously-based, that arose in the Interwar Period in all European countries as a counter-response to Marxian Communism.

Because you know nothing about any of this, and care not to know, you can never have anything coherent to say even in regard to your 'Nazi' designation. Your use of that word is similar to what kids did when they called each other *fag*.

Your use of the term Nazi has no real meaning.

You seem to be trying to taunt me. I direct you to my previous post on that matter, which you have helpfully quoted above.

[Alexis Jacobi]

You seem to be trying to taunt me. I direct you to my previous post on that matter, which you have helpfully quoted above.

No, that is not the right word. Since I can make no recommendations to you that you would agree to, and making recommendations can be taken as an insult and something that provokes contempt, I can only express my view:

I am completely sure that you have no clear idea what the National Socialist program actually was. And I am also sure that you have no clear idea how to look at, how to define, those protectionist, nationalist political forms, obviously deeply conservative, always reactive, and sometimes religiously-based, movements that arose in the Interwar Period in all European countries as a counter-response to Marxian Communism.

What I try to get at is that you have no basis at all to discuss National Socialism, the NS project, nor fascistic movements in Europe generally, and certainly not specifically; nor would you be able to talk coherently about the connection between the reactive activism within European religious communities and social communities to put forward counter-programs to Marxian and Communist politicization which had been gaining such ground, and thus you are more or less completely in the dark about the entire topic.

Is that a taunt? Obviously no.

[FlashDangerpants]

Is that a taunt?

A series of belittling remarks intended to provoke an irritable response by attacking your subject's presumed insecurities? Clearly yes.

But no dice, I'm not really interested, sorry. You and your disobedient little carpet-pissing pet can go back to trying to move your Overton windows around until you fool yourselves you might get to undo Brown v. Board.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I’ll keep on doing what I always do if it is all the same to you.

[Iwannaplato]

As if the best way to get more babies is to make gay peopl have more. We live in a world where a hell of a lot of STRAIGHT people are choosing not to have kids, even ones who can afford to. If your goal is more kids, knocking on gay peoples doors has got to be one of the LEAST efficient way to do that.


And if homosexuality is partly genetic, which it very well might be, well then... that's gonna have some ironic results, isn't it?

Are parents who have one child but could afford more being immoral?
If they decide not to have sex, when they could be trying to procreate, is this a (minor) moral infraction, when they prioritize canoing or reading Tolstoy? both activities that like homosexual sex tend not to produce children.

Should the 20 year old women who doesn't really want to marry anyone she is meeting, marry a what feels like a mediocre choice just to get her uterus rolling? Is she prioritiizing incorrectly?

Must she value procreation higher than other values. How do we decide how she should prioritize since we can't leave it to her?

Let's put all that to the side for a sec so we can make sure we make gay people do things they don't want to do. Priorities, mr Plato. There are people to oppress.

We can't put them aside, as they also, as he asserted, need to value heterosexual relationships over their own. I mean, I'm not sure how you measure this, but I think a kind of official 'We're not as important' chant over breakfast in the morning would be best.

[Sculptor]

As if the best way to get more babies is to make gay peopl have more. We live in a world where a hell of a lot of STRAIGHT people are choosing not to have kids, even ones who can afford to. If your goal is more kids, knocking on gay peoples doors has got to be one of the LEAST efficient way to do that.


And if homosexuality is partly genetic, which it very well might be, well then... that's gonna have some ironic results, isn't it?

They make really good parents.