*Supremacy, Sodomy and Slavery

YT

I have deeply wished to avoid this.  It's too much.  I find myself driven to it.  Therefore:

Last week the Supreme Court created a new right, a new institution, a new Constitution and a new country.  Apparently we, we, were asleep.  It turns out that we are the unworthy servant, given a talent which we buried; while the other side is the more worthy, the good and faithful servant to its cause, and will receive its rich reward now, regardless of what is to come.  Rather than be bold and resolute and fearless and energetic in our cause, we retreated into civility and adherence to rules and decorum, while they were brazen, fierce and successful.

Years ago for some reason in my disparate readings in history I came upon the tale of some Sheikh or Pasha or Emir who had purchased a pretty blue-eyed slaveboy and wished as was the custom to enjoy some sodomy. A Western traveler inquired of the potentate how such an insertion might be achieved, against a determinedly resistant sphincter.  Steady pounding, was the reply -- no resolve is sufficient to resist constant pressure upon such a minor muscle, designed as it is to keep things in, not out.  Test it for yourself.

I now believe it is inevitable that, given generational time, the Left will always prevail.  Erosion is a law of nature.  Attrition is the greatest general.  Degeneration is the rule of civilizations.  Entropy is universal.

Last week issued the irrefutable affirmation of the Supreme Court's supremacy, and of course at first as is my way I felt nothing.  Profound stillness, as the Spirit upon the Deep.  But I slipped the hold I have on myself and allowed emotion and judgment in, and concluded that this was truly the end of America, the end of American exceptionalism.  We are now just another country.  This fact brought only a dull depression, nothing profound, which surprised me.  About a day later I realized that my timing was wrong.  We stopped being America over forty years ago, with Roe v Wade.

Life is far more important than the institution of marriage.  We allowed the Supreme Court to well and truly assert its supremacy with that power grab, that plunge into insanity, where life itself is defined as not meaningful, given a woman's right to privacy.  As if life were not, above any other consideration, public.  Ah well, no matter.  How much less, the meaning of marriage than the meaning of life.  And conservatives are polite and will never impose, the New Testament commandment to be bold notwithstanding.  As it is the scorpion's nature to sting, it is ours to be silent and comply.

As I say, there is too much to say.  How did this perversion creep into our system?  It was inserted, like a penis, by John Marshall with his invention of Judicial Review, whereby the Court upon a merest majority may nullify any law.  Which is a good idea, in principle, but it had the effect of making the smallest, least, most inconsequential branch of our Federal system into the most powerful.  This is undeniably a profound perversion -- a check without a balance.  What business had the court to say a law is unconstitutional?  The job was to adjudicate cases under the law, not over it.  If the court deemed a law unconstitutional, would not the proper recourse have been to refer the matter back to Congress?  Breathtaking in its audacity.

Allow me to state the obvious: the Supreme Court is supreme only over our Judicial system.  It is not supreme over the Constitution, nor the Legislative nor the Executive Branch.  The President is the supreme Executive, and the two houses of Congress are the supreme Legislators.  See how that works?  No one else ever seems to have noticed this before.  There are three Supremacies, the least of which is the Court.  Andrew Jackson was a disaster and wrong about almost everything.  He was right about the Court, in his putative statement, that the Court had made its decision, now let it enforce it.  No government official takes the oath of office to support and uphold the Constitution as the Supreme Court asserts it to be -- rather, it is one's own conscience and intellect that must dictate conduct.  This very easy fact is made somehow impossible to grasp.

Precedent and custom have made this essential to be nugatory.  What remedy?  A movement  on our part for a constitutional amendment?  -- to repudiate the specific of gay so-called marriage? -- or to forbid the Supreme Court from making law and inventing so-called rights?  A hopeless cause.  Can't unring a bell, in any case.  The gays have invented a new thing, destroyed an old one.  It hath made  me mad.  We shall have no more marriage.

But here's the thing.  We cannot have judges dictating the course of our civilization.  We can't have that.  True, some three-fourths of the states had gay marriage, prior to the impositional diktat of the Supremes, but that was largely because state judges had struck down state bans on gay marriage.  See how that worked?  Now it's national.  All from judges.  So much for the fantasy of democracy.  We were fools ever to use the word.

How then shall we rein in our overlords, this rampant hyper-minority, this quintumvirate, this gang of five?  Well, simply, by each of the two now-subservient Branches of government, Executive and Legislative, asserting a right of Review over the Courts.  See the symmetry of it?  So elegant.  Marshall invented the idea, and it was a good one.  Laws need to be checked for Constitutionality, and the Supreme Court is the correct body to provide that balance.  In the same way, the Court needs to be checked.  The President checks Congress via his power of veto.  Congress checks the Executive via its control of the budget (ahem, we must suppose it to be so). Where, where, where is the check on the Court?  Mere nomination and consent is an initial step, but some of us remember how stealth-candidate Soutor  came to the bench -- approved as a conservative and manifesting as a liberal.  Initial steps alone are insufficient.

Impeachment is a theory, but it addresses wrongdoing, not incompetence or insanity.  While a justice, John Rutledge tried several times in several rivers to drown himself -- he was "much deranged" and  subject to "mad frolicks".  Henry Baldwin was confined to an asylum in his third year with "incurable lunacy".  He remained a member of the Supreme Court for another eleven years.  Nathan Clifford was described by a fellow justice as "a babbling idiot" -- not an invective, but a diagnosis; he refused to resign and died on the court.  Ward Hunt refused to resign because he wanted the penison -- he was paralyzed and could not speak; Congress voted him a pension to get him gone.  Frank Murphy bought illegal drugs from his pusher twice daily.

Therefore, Congress must assert its power to nullify (a word fraught with history) odious decisions of the Court -- as, say, Dred Scott or Plessy v Ferguson.  There was no recourse, no remedy for such perversions, save Civil War and civil disobedience unto martyrdom.  There must be some more political answer, or we are a people not free but subservient. As indeed we are, but should not be.   Likewise, the President must assert his ethical and sworn duty to uphold the Constitution as he understands it.

There are several means of amending the Constitution, but the only one that's succeeded is where two-thirds of both the House and the Senate agree to send a proposal to the state legislatures, three-fourths of which agree to make it law.  A high standard.  John Marshall did not adhere to such rigor, and I suggest and propose that no one else need do so. We need not amend the Constitution to curb the abuse.

Congress shall assert its duty, as an element of its legislative mandate, upon a quorum vote of two-thirds (or three-fourths) of both Houses, to reverse a decision of the Supreme Court which Congress deems to be obnoxious ... to a reasonable interpretation of the historical understanding blah blah blah.

Likewise, the President, as the chief law-enforcement officer of the land, has the positive duty to enforce laws enacted by Congress, and no duty to enforce laws enacted by Judges -- which in any event is an impossibility.  Because of the deeply political nature of the office, the conduct of the President will be checked by popular opinion, party politics and imminent elections.
.
Will this happen?  Yes, because my blog is a National Power and I myself am a force to be reckoned with.


J

Dressup

I'm not very well adjusted. We'll take that as a given. I do though attempt to conduct myself appropriately, in public. I think I'm getting better at it. It goes in cycles. In any case, my viewpoint about a lot of things is likely to be unconventional. Take dykes, for example. Lesbos. You know, wannabedudes. I have mixed feelings.

I will admit that I have a problem with them, lesbians. More than with gays. There's a joke reason for this, which is actually true. Gays like me. Lesbians are palpably hostile to me. No lie. Well? I'd rather be liked than disliked. So the gays have that in their favor. Is this wrong of me? I want to be kind and generous and all liberal and stupid, the way intelligent and enlightened people must be.

There are all the social problems, from both of those, uh, species, in terms of tearing down universal civilized standards of normative human conduct. Gay "marriage" is an offense to intelligence and logic and God and semantics and the Constitution and the values of decency and common sense and honesty and so on. The conduct itself, at least from the male side, is extraordinarily unhygienic. And male sexuality, made exponential as it must be by a lack of female participation, is guaranteed on the whole to be as slutty as possible, limited not even by hormones, given the exciting new developments in pharmacology and electronics. So there's that. I don't want to run the permutations. From the female side, it's more a matter of balance and energy -- more philosophical. Men need women, and women need men.

Which brings me to the point. I've never heard of them, but Cynthia Nixon is marrying her girlfriend, Christine Marinoni. Nixon is one of the Sex and the City chicks. Well, she's 43, so maybe biddy would be a more appropriate term, to maintain the poultry imagery. Should I care about this? I don't. This is a crime committed by society, corporately, not by individuals. We do what we can get away with. If everyone agrees that we're allowed to, well there it is. Right and wrong doesn't matter, where society is concerned. Society doesn't deal with absolutes.

As for Nixon, I don't know which one she is, but here's a picture of her and her betrothed:


Who am I to intrude upon their happiness? I did not seek them out though. They pushed themselves forward. They have taken great pains to insure that their happiness is not private, but that I be made aware of it, and had better approve of it or be a bigot. Very well. I am a bigot. Not just biased in favor of my values rather than theirs, but disinclined, unwilling to be convinces of the rightness of their cause. Their happiness is wrong, by definition.

I don't care about that. I can't even arrange my own happiness. My thoughts here run to a more objective standard. Look at the dude on the left. That must be Marinoni. Notice something a little off, there? Something a little imbalanced? Fashion is always almost arbitrary. What is a tie, anyway? What is its function? A sort of scarf? A leash? A noose? Its only purpose is one of communication. It tells others what we want them to think about us. Marinoni wants us to think she's a dude.

But she has no penis.

Some dudes don't have a penis. Accidents happen. However we want to define what is biologically male, though, Marinoni does not qualify. So why is she dressed up that way? Is it satire? She's a very humorous fella? More like farce. She's not gender bending, she's bent herself. This is not me, laying on invective. This is her, playing a sexualized form of childish dressup game. I'll be the mommy and you be the daddy. But they mean it, these gays. That's what's pathetic. And society is colluding. That's criminal. Morally criminal. Society has the primary function of protecting itself. Marriage is its primary tool. Destroy its institutions and it dies.

Marinoni is not blessed with classically lovely features. We can do some instant cheap analysis and suppose that her adolescent reaction to not being pretty was to flee emotionally from those callow youths who rejected her, toward the more tender acceptance of her female teen friends. Or maybe her father molested her. Or some other easy, ugly explanation. No matter. Most of us have pain and rejection in our past. Her response to the relevant challenge seems to have been that she became a bull dyke. Why should I care? Because I've been made to know about it.

Be happy. And be polite. Be homosexual. Don't be gay. The difference? One is a private behaviour. The other is a social and public policy movement. Yes, it's about pretending. Pretending to be polite and normal, even when we're not. I'm not. I pretend, as best I can. Not about being a bull dyke, or not being one. But you know what I mean. You smile even when you don't feel like it. You shave when you don't want to. You bathe. You make an effort to make other people's lives easier. It's called manners, and manners are always a compromise, or almost always. We use them, if we were taught properly, as a habit. We need them when we don't feel like using them. That's when they're needed most. Because regardless of whether or not someone else matters, we act as if they do.

I would not be rude to Nixon and Marinoni. If they asked me, in such and such a fantasy scenario, how happy I was about their gay marriage, I would say, as politely as I could, that there's no such thing, but that I hope they can find happiness. They would be offended by my not joining in on their pretend childish tea party, but I'm not good at pretending, and I'm not going to lie, and I can't be silent, since they demanded as it were an answer. So the fantasy goes.

It's all a compromise. I can't impose, and I won't be imposed upon, beyond the limits of my conscience. Our culture is moving down the bridal path of gay marriage, and that is just another symptom of the inevitable degeneracy that destroys civilizations. What, you thought we'd last forever? We can't help but have emotions about it, one way or the other. Some stood by and approved of the Crucifixion. Some, otherwise. It is by disagreement that we discover who is right.

That's all. It's not about hate. It's about common sense.


J

Name Changes

"Thomas" Beatie is back in the news -- announced to Barbara Walters Thursday he was pregnant again. This was what I had to say about it in July, when he was busy having his first baby.

---------------

There's that pregnant man in the news. Sure, you must have heard. His name is Thomas Beatie, nee Tracy before he exchanged his natural hormonal profile or his unmutilated vagina for a sort of leathery chawbone bit of Halloween skin kind of like what all men have, even if it has to be manufactured out of ear cartilage and armpit tissue. See? A sex change is just as easy as that -- changing your name. Tracy transmogrified into Thomas, and the metamorphosis is complete, without even a need to change monograms. His and hers. And we can always prick out the extra threads. He he. Har har.

Years ago you see, long long ago and once upon a time, he, Thomas, underwent a "partial sex" "change oper" "ation". You'll have to pardon my uncertain use of the quotation marks. It all just confuses me, hidebound as I am to so many parts of my own hide. The thought of changing them, exchanging them, if even partially ... I'm thrown into a tizzy. Anyways, Thomas grew a beard ... same as me! And he married a woman -- I did that once! But, woman. Pardon the anachronism. "Women" -- an obsolete concept. What would happen if the woman changed her sex? I mean the wife woman, the beardless one. Oregon doesn't have same sex marriage yet, does it? Would it become a gay marriage? Or is it gay already? It's just too confusing for me. I'll need a Venn diagram.

Thomas opted to keep his uterus and ovaries. The news is unspecific, regarding his birth canal. But lots of men have cesareans. Or would if they needed them. And he was artificially inseminated. Someone else would have provided the semen, testicles not being requisite to pregnant manhood. After all, some men are born with out ... without testicles. Nature is highly ambiguous in this regard. Many lizards and fish can change their gender. Read a book.

But while Tom opted to keep his womb, he did get rid of those pesky bosoms.

Yeah, I'd do him.

ahem

You can't even see the scars, hardly. That helped him a lot, in becoming a man. For what is a man, really? And who after all are wee blah, blah blah? Yammer yammer! Oprah, yada ya dada. Surely Oprah cannot be in error? As Tom so eloquently states, he wishes we all could open ourselves up "to the gamut of human possibility." But why just human? Surely species is no more fixed a concept than gender? As long as there are skilled surgeons, the possibility of being opened to such gamuts is always an option. Gender, like all such issues and tissues related to the reproductive function, is nothing more than medical waste.

Change change change. The times they are a-changing. What are we to do? Ignore it? Embrace it? Shave our beards or change our names? How could people tell who we were? Because if society has taught us anything, it is that we are only labels, and that words are magic. Change the name, and reality follows. Nothing lies beneath the surface. There are no graves.

_____________

So there it is. Thomas the pregnant dude. Kept his old junk, if that's what chicks call it, but by virtue of testosterone injections, her -- yes, her -- clitoris took on a semblance of a very small penis, with which she has intercourse with her female paramour. One wonders how this is anything other than a lesbian couple, or a couple of lesbians. Children's dress-up games do not adults make, any more than mudpies are nutritious. But gender, apparently, is a matter of declaration.

I was coincidentally thinking just the other night about this person, with regard to race. If someone feels black, are they? If they darken their skin and adopt certain mannerisms, are they eligible for affirmative action? Did God make a mistake, and put them into the wrong body, and they know it's true because they've always felt black? Is the analogy false? If so, what, pray, is the difference?

Madness. But such are the times we live in. The gays are attacking the Mormons, but not the black churches, many of which teach the same man-woman doctrine regarding "gay" "marriage". Mormons are safe to attack, you see. Cowardice. Inconsistency.

But there's nothing to be done about it. It will take a plague. High cost for reformation, but that's what it takes. Ah well. No matter. There's nothing to be done about the tide. It comes in, it goes out, and all we can do is try to stay afloat.


J

Minyan

Come on, people. Jack H is growing dissatisfied. Insufficient attention is being payed, and that just reflects badly on y'all. The radiant glory of a dazzling sun has its objective beauty, but what benefit, if it shines in the infinite void, a mote in God's eye, sole object of creation, prior even to the angels, preeminent of created things, most worthy of unquestioning admiration? And since all this describes Jack H so wonderfully, it is inexplicable to every rational being, mundane or divine, why, in a Jack Heliocentric universe, any eyes at all should be diverted from his glory. It makes you look bad, is what it is. So if you can stop batting at balls of string and refrain from digging little holes so you can fill them in again long enough to direct your wayward minuscule attention span for a brief moment whither it belongs, Jack H will stoop to pat your flat little heads and instruct you as to what you should think, and why.

A while back I boiled it down to what I think is the essence. Marriage is about stability. Its soundness in a society is as that of the bricks in a building. They are, each, fundamental units, not of mere appearance, but of strength and durability itself. Soundness. The direct application was that this is the reason such a strange artifact as "gay marriage" is dangerous. It undermines the integrity of society in the same way that mafia-supplied bricks would undermine a building.

Of course this is just argumentation. I posit that marriage is the basic unit of society. No proof, just an axiom. But it's one of those things that can't be proven, only asserted. Because it is a core value, and they are axioms, not proofs. Take honesty: not everyone thinks it's best -- they might prefer expedience. Take faithfulness: same deal.

My evidence -- since there can be no proof -- must find its roots in that foundational document of Western Civilization, the Bible. Adam alone was not a society. An individual is not a society. Adam with God, and Adam with animals, is not a society. It takes, well, not a village, but certainly some interaction with a peer. Hence, Eve. Those two together might have formed their own society, but to fulfil that mandate, of fruitful multiplying, something else was needed, and it took shape in that pairing we would call marriage. You must surely remember it? -- about a man leaving his father and his mother and cleaving unto his wife, and their being one flesh? You know, marriage.

Now I know for a fact that a man can cleave to another man and sort of be one flesh. Brokeback Mountain was on cable last night, and I got an eyeful before I picked up on that fact. But mere cleaving doesn't meet the full requirement of the mandate. It's that fruitful and multiplying part. Childless couples do count, because there is at least the theoretical possibility of compliance. Recall the barren, Elizabeth, say, and Hannah, who became blessed. But sterility is the hard case, from which we do not form a general understanding. Society, as I have intimated, deals with generalities.

As for axioms, we can question anything. We're at a point in our civilization's decline where we're questioning marriage, and accepting a redefinition, so that it means any sexual pairing over time that consenting adults agree to and want to make public. And who's to argue with that? Which brings me to it.

Incest. Why not? Adult siblings ... adult child and parent. Why not? Your blood should be running cold right about now. What business is it of yours? Adult. Consenting. End of discussion.

Except for this concept of family. Why gay marriage, which utterly redefines and renders meaningless the very concept of marriage, and not incest, which undermines what family is? Why not? Why reject one taboo and retain the other? The gay horse is out of the barn. As for that other, the name not to be spoken again, it's about the violence such acts must do to what a family is. We know its harm from the pain and dysfunction it causes in the individuals. We understand, intuitively, that any adult who engages in such conduct must have been destroyed, somehow, as a child. Its appearance in an adult can only be a reappearance, risen up again from the sick soul of an abused child.

You see my point. We're not at a place, yet, where we can look at this horror. The absurdity of sodomy as an equal of actual sex is accepted -- although I expect mostly because the act itself hides behind euphemisms. What euphemism will this next abomination use? It must start as a sick joke, like the word gay, and then somehow be twisted into a movement of pride. You think not? I am certain that sexual child abuse is more common than congenital homosexuality, if there is such a thing at all. I think there isn't. I think every single case of compulsive homosexuality is the result of some form of abuse, subtle or gross. Where there should have been nurturing, there was indifference, or worse, or worse still. Maybe I'm wrong. But I'm not wrong about what a family should include, and what it should exclude.

Well, that's it then. I just wanted to draw out the parallel. It is hatespeech, but that's what I'm all about. It's just that I have another word for it. As gay is to real marriage, hatespeak is to truth.

I was going to end silly, the way I think I need to do sometimes. But the jump from sick would be too abrupt. I'll leave it at this: however large the town of Sodom was, it had not ten righteous men. Why not even ten? Ten is a minyan -- the number it takes to comprise a synagogue. Sodom didn't have a church. Another of those fundamental units of society.

Huh. That's good. See what happens when I don't end silly? The things I think of. I'm wonderful.


J

The Nose in the Hole

Forget politically incorrect -- it is absolute hatespeak to suggest that homosexuality is a form of dysfunction. Biologically it can hardly be anything else, given that it is characterized by an emotional inability to procreate sexually. Artificially, yes, and even merely, mechanically, engaging with the opposite sex -- as by dissociatively fantasizing during the act ... but emotionally, unable. As I say, the suggestion is hatespeak. But what if it's true?

The HIVirus is the only DNA fragment that has civil rights, such as privacy and the right to an attorney and free housing -- more rights certainly than, say, a human fetus. Similarly, homosexuality not too long ago was classified as a mental disorder; then it was lobbied down in '73 to a mere egodystonic sexual orientation disturbance ... then removed entirely from the catalog of madnesses, referenced only for the possible idiosyncratic distress that insufficiently loving yourself might cause. Sodomy now has an equal standing with heterosexual intercourse, and never mind that only one of these has an identifiable function for the taxonomic species of Homo sapiens sapiens. An anus and a vagina are made indistinguishable from each other, not just in the eyes of the law, but socially. Well, it's never been interesting to me to just list a bunch of woes. It hardly seems worthwhile to ask what's next? -- which perversion is next for mainstreaming?

You will have been misinformed, egregiously, on the matter. You will have been given to understand that people are born homo- or heterosexual, str8 or gay. You will have heard on the nightly tv news that the gay gene has been discovered. You didn't quite pick up on the details, because they weren't offered, but it's evidence, after all, isn't it? And only an obscurantist would argue with evidence. That would be crazy, dude, just crazy.

The passion, the emotional intensity and conviction have moved you away from your youthful position, that it was sick. Advocates and their enablers have parleyed their dismay at your ignorance into your good-natured acceptance of their sodomistic ways. Bully for them. But what if their emotionalism arises not from outraged honesty, but from the very same spiritual sickness that makes them lust after anuses, or the lesbian equivalent? What if gayness is just as sick as some serious thought on the matter suggests it is? I mean, come on -- anuses? You would credit someone who wasn't even properly potty trained?

It's not just the virus that has civil rights, now. It's fecal matter. Yuck.

Hatespeak, as I say. But the word doesn't mean hate -- it just has that phoneme in it. What the word means, actually, is speaking a conviction, often based on traditional religious values, that opposes liberal orthodoxy. A crucifix immersed in a jar of urine is not hatespeak, it's art. (What is it with these people and excretory substances?) Strewing condoms in churches isn't hatespeak. But reading a passage from Romans or from Leviticus is. It's not a double standard. It's just a way of defining words. Sometimes they make up a new word: hatespeak. Sometimes they change the meaning of an old one: marriage. There's no complaining about it. It's like complaining about judges. They do what they do, because they can. They can, because we let them.

Yes, I've been vague. I haven't cited evidence, just common sense. For those who might like more actual detail, I suggest "Reparative Therapy," by Joseph Nicolosi. Or R. Fitzgibbons' "The Psychology Behind Homosexual Tendencies," linked here. The upshot is that there are very many studies that bear out the dysfunctionality of sodomist behavior, gay or homosexual. For those afflicted with it who feel the distress, what can we feel but sympathy. For those who are proud, well, pride must be another one of those redefined words.

Fitzgibbons summarizes, speaking of his work with homosexual priests and seminarians: they have "a significant affective immaturity with excessive anger and jealousy toward males who are not homosexual, insecurity that leads them to avoid close friendships with such males and an inordinate need for attention."

Such generalizations may seem offensive. Aren't we all unique individuals? But the thing about psychology is that it is rather like physiology. Things run along general patterns. Sometimes however a heart is in reversed position. This is rare, but it follows a pattern of its own. Same with human behavior: infinite subtle variations; common gross structures.

"Most of these men had painful adolescent experiences of significant loneliness and sadness, felt insecure in their masculinity, and had a poor body image. Well-designed research studies have demonstrated a much higher prevalence of psychiatric illness in those who identify themselves as homosexual."

I was significantly lonely and sad. I had a magnificent body image and my masculinity was radioactive. So I must be bi. As for psychiatric illness, the gay lobby will cavil. You would too. It's like saying you're a freak. Even if you are. Honesty is such a difficult thing to be around.

"Seminarians with effeminacy, a clear sign of serious affective immaturity, usually failed in their childhood to identify sufficiently with their fathers and male peers. They can benefit from therapy to extinguish effeminate mannerisms and to strengthen their appreciation of their God-given masculinity so that they may become true spiritual fathers."

Simplistic? Yes, finding patterns makes things simple. This is a problem?

"A 2005 national study demonstrated that 28.8% of Americans will have an anxiety disorder in their lifetime, 24.8% an impulse-control disorder and 20.8% a mood disorder.

"The most common origins of these emotional weaknesses in men arise from a lack of closeness and affirmation in the father relationship and with male peers. These emotional conflicts result in weaknesses in male confidence, sadness, loneliness, anger and often a poor body image. In addition, those from divorced family backgrounds have major trust weaknesses."

See? Pain leads to dysfunction. Repeatedly destroy a spider's web and it eventually goes mad.

Objective measurements and predictors? Yes, as in the Boyhood Gender Conformity Scale, 90% accurate, the validation study of which identified five powerful indicators: playing with boys, preferring boys' games, imagining oneself as a sports figure, reading adventure and sports stories, and, conversely, being considered a 'sissy'. These five were a "potent and parsimonious discriminator among adult males for sexual orientation. It was similarly noted that the absence of masculine behaviors and traits appeared to be a more powerful predictor of later homosexual orientation than the traditionally feminine or cross-sexed traits and behaviors."

In 1930s Germany, a dysfunctional group took power and mainstreamed thuggishness and that host of excesses that led to the deathcamps. The gay advocates and their abortionist and free-needles and no-borders collaborationists? Who can say what their deathcamps will look like. Perhaps like a civilization depopulated by those who built it, overrun by aliens whose only virtue is their primal instinctive ability to distinguish between the alimentary and the reproductive canals.

We used to scoff at those who made slippery slope arguments. How logically invalid they were. We used to snort derisively at those Cassandras who peeped and chirped their dry-boned warnings. How amusing were the just-so tales of camels with their noses poking into tent holes -- we understood that camels cannot get into tents. We thought we understood that. But government officials are now uttering such absurdities as, "By the authority vested in me by the State of California, I now pronounce you Husband and Husband."

Not only is the camel in the tent, but it wants to have sex with us.


J

Two-Headed Snakes

I suppose a few thoughts on gay marriage are in order. Notice how I didn't say "gay" "marriage". Let's just deal with the issue, the facts, and leave morality and suchlike out of it. The big discussion on the radio as my clutch was going out tonight was that some gays really are born that way. Who would choose it, after all.

Man is that annoying. Of course it isn't a matter of choice. Hardly at all. We'll overlook the opportunistic homosexuality of prison populations. The voluntary kind. Two guys in a cell for a few years are gonna achieve some sort of intimacy. We'll avoid the obvious details. Such stressed populations are not normative, however, so no general conclusions should be drawn from them. It just goes to underline the mutable quality of sexuality itself. It is powerful enough in many instances to short-circuit mere socialization. We know this from little children and their sex games. They're not born that way -- it's just that there was an opportunity.

One of the radio hosts was attempting to support his or her argument, that people are born gay, and don't have a choice, by pointing out that fetishists don't have a choice. Alas, our poor host failed to see that s/he invalidated h/er/is own argument. No one is born lusting after rubber or fishnet stockings or leather or high heels or something truly horrifying. Something happens, later, on a non-genetic level, that twists the sexual energy into a new course. Hence, perversion. If with object fetishes, why not with homosexuality?

In my Pornography I go into this a bit. I won't rephrase it here. You think you are utterly heterosexual, and could never be interested in your own gender. Perhaps I like to think the same thing. But Freud, who was wrong about almost everything, had a sort of unappreciated joke, in which he said an infant was polymorphous perverse. Pleasure can be derived from anything. Enough said. It's not about pheromones or the shape of someone else's organs. It's about your skin's capacity for pleasure, combined with the purely physiological response of hormones. As has been said, a teenage boy is aroused when the wind blows. We would hope arousal becomes attached to age-appropriate opposite gender humans. But that abyss is not as easily traversed as it should be. Another test.

Upshot is, I no longer feel the need to uphold outdated notions of sociosexual conduct. Yes, it would be really nice if there were no gays, as is the case in Iran. How I long for the days when there were only homosexuals, without all the political assumptions and sociological pseudoscience of the gay agenda. But I long for Prohibition, too. And public flogging. We take the good with the bad. Women can vote, blacks aren't slaves, and along with these advances there have been degeneracies. Drugs mainstreamed. Terrorists and nonmilitary combatants given civilian trials. And gay marriage. It seems there is no good thing that comes without some accompanying evil.

Why gay marriage and not polygamy? Why 18 as the age of consent, and not 16, or 12? Why have an age of consent at all? Why have marriage at all? Indeed, honestly, why? It is so arbitrary. Why 18? Why a man and a woman only? Why no sexual contact with animals, or corpses, or children? Pick any such rule, and ask why. The odds are overwhelming that the answer will have very little of the objective in it. It will boil down to the fact that there has to be some limit, and this is where the limit is drawn. Islamists would have it that oral intercourse with infant girls is permissible. And intercourse with certain animals, provided the animal is then killed. Who's to say it's wrong? The Ayatollah Khomeini was a great man, after all.

We have the age of consent at 18 because highschool children still, as a group, exhibit a level of poor judgment that those who are even a single year older don't. It isn't wisdom, but the level of irresponsibility, while still grave, is leaps and bounds improved, with each additional year. We treat them as children because they act, still, like schoolchildren. The cutoff point is artificial, but that does not invalidate the need for clear boundaries. Judgment matters, in sexual behavior, as in driving, as in the use of firearms. Society is about averages and trends. It needs to define us by the group we belong to.

We have the institution of marriage because at the level of complexity that our civilization has attained, it has been demonstrated by countless failed experiments that communal living, polygamous households, and single-mother families tend powerfully toward the dysfunctional and chaotic. They can last for a generation or two. Mostly much less.

Polygamy is a formula that produces a throng of unwanted boys, who, experience shows, are simply abandoned. The lost boys. Yeah, it's great for all those old men who get all the women. It's just society that has to suffer generally, and castoff odd-socks boys in the specific. This is the reason that it is not actually a free country. No such thing. Law is the opposite of freedom. What we mean when we say freedom, is liberty. As for polygamy, in the past it has lasted because of high male mortality rates. Wars, mostly. In such cases, polygamy is an adaptive response. It's not meant to last forever. A generation should cover it.

Same with communal living. Sounds like such a groovy idea. It's just that they never, ever last. As for fatherlessness, that cannot be a controversy anymore -- save among the very far left, who are incapable of learning from reality in any case. When things are tried but do not last across the generations, that is a sign that they are inimical to human nature. Theory combats with reality, and loses, ungracefully.

Thus, gay marriage. How very nice and nonjudgmental and theoretical it would be of us to just go along with it. Why not? They just want to be happy, like you are. You would deny them that? Yes. Why? Polygamy leads to lost boys. Communal living leads to tyranny or anarchy and starvation. Fatherlessness leads to gangs, out-of-control welfare statism and a social worker system that thinks its business extends into homeschoolers. And gay marriage leads to no marriage.

Marriage is the fundamental element of our society. With its decline, we see the rise of that host of social ills that currently besets us -- I will not enumerate. When marriage pretends to be polygamous, it creates an alien clannishness inimical to our mores, revealed most clearly in a population of young males who must turn ultimately to prostitutes or to each other for sexual release. No marriage at all, for most young men. Most young men would chose a wife, over a gay lover or an occasional prostitute. Most single mothers would prefer a husband over a babydaddy -- it's just that many young men who can get sex whenever they want it see no need for commitment. See? It's about a greater social good. Yeah, really, my body is an absolute slut, and it would like it all, now, for free and with no consequences. My body doesn't care about you, or social order, or morality, or patriotism, or posterity. Bodies do not care about marriage.

Thus, gay marriage is simply marvelous, for the gays, adherents to a political cause and social philosophy. They get to pretend that they're really married, as a sort of extended dress-up game. I'll be the daddy and you be the mommy. We might even sometimes humor children in such a game. Not forever though. Because it isn't a marriage. Children can't marry. It's just one of those rules, those arbitrary rules we have. Animals can't marry. And so on.

Now we have a state, my state, entering into the fiction. Governmental sanction, and by extension societal sanction, now conspires to bring about a new thing under the sun. The game of pretend has been codified into law. By this, the very function and purpose of actual marriage becomes inoperative. Marriage isn't about love. It's not about commitment. It's not about feelings of happiness. It's not about sex. It's not about two or more people raising children.

Marriage always has been about social stability, based on several clear and mostly unarguable biological realities: sperm and egg; the instinctive imperative to pass on one's genes; the need to complete in an Edenic sense the manifest incompleteness of one's own body; the urge to bond; the psychological need to complete the archetypal roles that a full human lifecycle requires; the hope that we can redeem our own childhood by being a blessing to our own children. Most of these require a man and a woman. Some of these require reproduction, which requires one man and one woman.

We can always complicate matters. But nature has a way of paring away the supernumerary. Two-headed snakes are sometimes born. They do not breed. Snakes don't need an extra head. See? Gay marriage is a two-headed snake. Whether a curiosity or an abomination, it is an artifact of corruption.

Social stability. That's what marriage always has been about, and always will be, with the relevant but generally unspoken assumption of genetic and cultural survival through the generations. When such fundamental facts are ignored, chaos ensues. Communalism, polygamy, illegitimacy, and the toxic results we've considered. It's so unfortunate that marriage is, simply is between one man and one woman. For my part, I don't feel the need to give much thought to the manner of intercourse people engage in privately. But in the marketplace of ideas we deal with another sort of intercourse: social. "Social" boils down to "society," and society deals with the greater good, which requires survival into the future. It's almost biological.

So two old lesbians were the first to get hitched today. The lady rabbi pronounced them "spouses for life" before "god" and "society". Wrong, wrong and wrong.

But wrong is such an arbitrary concept.


J

Diktat

Gay marriage. Yep, here in the Golden State we have the progressive institution of gay marriage. Us and Mass. I'd thought Hawaii, but apparently not. They're too backwards. Our four-three Supreme Court has done what Supreme Courts do -- corrected the faulty opinions and erroneous religious convictions of the great unwashed, and is leading us by the nose-ring to right-thinking. Thanks for the high-minded moral guidance, California Supreme Court Justices. Now will you rewrite our Bible for us? It's so hateful.

Well, I won't belabor the matter. Not much. Like how marriage is an actual thing. Like, what the word definition means: making something definite. Limiting its meaning. Excluding things that don't qualify. That is a rather harsh reality, the fact that one thing cannot be another thing, just cuz it would be nice if it were so. As I say, though, I won't go on and on.

Nor will I rattle on about how this very thing has happened before. Abortion. By diktat, court diktat, the most profound socio-biological reality of all -- the meaning and fact of life -- was taken out of the bedroom, the household, the hospital, the halls of legislation -- and made the exclusive province of the court. They will inform us what life is, and we will obey. By fiat, the court mandated that life is the same as death. They are equal, a matter of neutral choice. A moral equivalence.

And now, gay marriage. Equal. To actual marriage. Shall we examine what the word marriage means? It is not a simple bond between people who love each other. We do not marry our children or our friends. Not a bond recognized by society or law. Business partnerships are not marriages. Not merely a biological pairing that produces offspring -- or there would be no illegitimacy ... if there still is such a thing. Not only the lifelong commitment of one human adult to another, which encompasses a sexual relationship. First, marriage is no longer for life; second, not all marriages are sexual. We can't bring children into the definition, since not all couples are fertile.

So here's what it is: marriage must be -- can only be between male and female. Humans. In what passes for Western Civilization, marriage would be between one man and one woman at a time. Polygamy is only slightly problematic. Biblical patriarchs, and Moslems, and pagans of various ilks include multiple spouses, but that is not Western Civilization, and in any case such marriages include both sexes, with the purpose of producing offspring. Mormons have renounced their formerly essential doctrine, and those fundamentalists of which we've been hearing in the news are classed as criminals.

Yet gay marriage, which includes no diagnostic element of what marriage must be, is not criminal. Go figure.

It has to do with equality. A good thing, isn't it. But an infant is not equal to an adult, in all the obvious ways. The love you feel for your family is not the feeling you have for strangers. That's because not all equalities are equal. Before we can even approach the issue, we must first place things in their proper category. We love our children equally -- they are in the category of our children. We expect equal treatment before the law -- it is fundamental to our system. We give up our seat for a woman but not for a man -- courtesy requires it. As for gay marriage, it has the same relationship to marriage that an anus has to a vagina.

Yes, that's harsh. I can't say, as is my wont, "Show me where I'm wrong." I can't, because such terms as marriage are defined by convention, and conventions change. To point to history, or religion, or biology, or common sense is simply insufficient in this matter. The judges will point to history, as of slavery, and say convention was wrong. They will point to biology, and say that it is not determinative. They will point to common sense, and say that marriage is a state of mind. They will point to an anus and say it is a vagina. They will point to themselves, and tell us that they have the power to do as they please, and have done so.

More and more I'm coming to the place that says, just be happy. I don't care if you're gay. I don't care if you love sodomy. I don't care if you were born that way or simply failed to make that necessary pubescent leap away from your own gender and toward the other. How is that my business? But social institutions are my business. Equal standing before the law is my business, as is the sanctity of the life of the unborn, and as is the definition of marriage.

Gay marriage. A new thing under the sun. Here's how we will always know that it's not actual marriage: it needs to be called gay marriage.

But I expect we'll lose. Decay is a function of time. The writing is on the wall. Mene mene tekel upharsin. Measured and found wanting.


J

Gay

I've had my little joke. I'm most likely not done with it. But there are some serious things to say.

Homosexuality, by which I mean specifically sodomy, is frowned upon by nature and by God. We cannot debate the God angle. It is what it is -- either thus because God says so, or false because there is no God, or no God who cares. Nature has its own imperatives. The lining of the colon is one cell thick, a thin easily torn tissue designed to hold solid waste out of the blood stream while allowing the absorption of fluids. The vaginal wall, contrariwise, is composed of thick and highly elastic muscle tissue. Nature does seem to have a preference. That the anus itself can stretch, or at least expand, to an accommodating degree is a necessary part of the excretory process, in order that fecal matter may pass in a well-regulated manner, and without undue leakage. But vigorous pumping or churning, as of an erect penis of any adult dimension, is clearly best accommodated by the birth canal rather than the alimentary.

This says nothing about genetics, or morality, or social mores or politics. It's just physiology. A penis can fit into any number of orifices, human or animal, biological or inanimate. Not everything that is possible, however, is conducive to health. That's all I'm saying.

Not all human conduct is governed by health concerns, or morality, or rationality or aesthetics. Desire, and compulsion, are too complex to be summed up in a simplistic formulation. You know this is true, because you feel desire and cannot explain it. She is beautiful is just another way of saying you are drawn to her. A tautology -- attraction is desire.

What would you do? If you were attracted only to your own gender, what would you do? I asked that of someone who is quite clear about his disfavor toward gays. What would you do, if you were aroused only by men? He did not answer. Maybe a joke got in the way. Well? What would you do? Act on it, whether or not you felt self-revulsion? Deny yourself the one sort of human contact that would satisfy your craving for something more than just the mere mechanism of an orgasm? Would you resign yourself with unflagging resolution to celibacy, or to impotence, or to a passionless marriage bed where arousal is the result only of secret fantasy? Some do so. The effort must be heroic.

An understanding heart must view such a soul with a combination of pity and admiration. Desire is not a moral consideration. Behavior is.

I've known, and worked with, and been friends with quite a number of gays. More than you. I don't care about their love lives, any more than I would care about yours. I just don't want to hear about the details. Even with my aloof social persona, I have been offered gay sex more times than I can remember. Scores, literally. This is back in the days when I still made eye-contact. Apparently I'm a type. It's sort of flattering. I'm not offended at all. Thankfully it's never been presumed that I would be the, uh, catcher. I think I'd be offended by that. But someone who just wants to feel wanted? We can at least be civil. I just can't get past the fact that it's an anus.

Some do get past that fact, and even to the point of justifying, of celebrating it. Pride. Hm. Must be using a definition with which I am unfamiliar. This of course is the difference between homosexual and gay. Gay is a philosophy, complete with social institutions and instruments. Homosexual is a behavior, devoid of ideological content. It is a useful distinction, that existed even before the term gay took on its present meaning. Those who embrace the various behaviors and feelings are gay. Those who fight them are not, even if they succumb. Young Chris Crocker is gay. Old Sen. Craig most likely is not.

Well then. Gay is no longer illegal in the United States. It wasn't long ago that it was. Is this a good thing? I see it as a measure of how little we have to care about other people's souls and private conduct. I don't care if someone has racist feelings. I care about their public actions, and a bit less about their public words. If I find out about their private beliefs, I may have to care about that, but most likely I won't have to do anything about it. It's the same with politics. I don't care if you disagree with me, or if I disagree with you. You might be right in your opinions, but I think I am. Maybe we'll have a serious and courteous discussion, but most likely not. That's okay. And it's the same with sex. Keep it to yourself and I do not care. Don't hurt kids, don't force adults, be reasonably hygienic, or at least scrub yourself down afterwards. I don't think of my position as amoral. I think of it as realistic. I've got enough going on inside my own head and heart, not to have opinions about your soul or your wisdom.

So when the student prince of Iran speaks at Columbia and says they have no gays over there, I'm sure he's correct. It's a beheadable offence. As for homosexuals, I'm sure they have more than enough. We can claim no, or very little high ground in this. A generation ago gays were lepers. In casual speech, among some people I know, they still are. And while it has always been relatively rare, murder for this reason has happened, and does. And gay bashing is a real phenomenon, if illegal. Iran uses law to enforce its theology. We use law to protect people against mob, vigilante, and individual violence.

Human nature is everywhere the same. The details of our temptations will differ, but the character and integrity with which we conduct ourselves determines who we are. If we could look past each other's eyes and deep into the soul, we would see a darkness more horrifying than words can express. We would also see sublime beauty. We cannot pretend one is real and the other a lie. We find rationality, and a capacity to continue on in this world, by treading the shadowline between the two, turning our backs on neither. We find meaning in the noise and darkness and music and light by opening our hearts, as much as we can but not too much, to gentleness and patience, and to honor as we understand it. There are no saints. There is only self control.


J

People Always

You people make me sick. Absolutely disgusting. Pigs. Any hint of human frailty or genuine sensitivity and you animals are all over it like maggots on meat. My son C, my wonderful son that I don't talk about so much posted a private video from him to me on YouTube, and you vile inhuman butchers get wind of it and invade our personal privacy and just attack attack attack. Ha ha. It’s so funny. Because feelings is funny so let’s pile on like the swine we are, right? Pigs? Right.

This.  Chris Crocker.  Leave Britney alone!

I don’t know why it’s so funny. I actually laughed. Outloud. No, doofus, he’s not my son. My son is a real blond -- not one of those two-tone jobs, like a ’56 DeSoto. Along with a few other salient differences.

This boy. He’s so young, to be ruined already. He's not very bright. And he's sorta creepy. Well, you can see it for yourself. But good lord. Someone really did a piece of work on his head.

Incongruity is the heart of humor. And this lad acts like a girl. What are we to make of it? Gender roles have a purpose. They are pretty much biologically determined. As a fetus develops, testosterone works in shaping the structure of the brain. Male brains are more compartmentalized than female brains. One theory of autism has it that too much testosterone accounts for the problem. Maybe. I test at the extreme end of the continuum, re female/male brain structure. In any case, regions of male brains light up more brightly but over a smaller area, compared to female. Men are spotlights, women are floodlights. I've gone over this before.

We might suppose that young Chris here didn't get his fair share of testosterone during a key phase of his in utero development. That would account for any non-standard brain structure for this young male human. But what about his behavior? Because gender roles are learned. The lefty feminists are right about that. Just as there is a natural faculty for language acquisition, yet language still has to be learned. Even birds have to be taught how to sing. So even a little boy with a more feminine brain can still act masculine. It's socialization as much as determinism.

But the boy talks about his grandmother, with whom he lives. And there's talk about his mother ... or at least her vagina. No man. No man. Well, yes, the molesters, but no real man in his life.

This is why fathers are important. And if not fathers, then decent men who notice and who understand, and who take the time to do what is right. Because not all gentleness is queer, and not all mildness is fag. A boy with a sensitive nature, even a feminine nature, doesn't have to dress up in drag and turn his anus into a sexual organ. That's learned behavior too. Young Chris never had a chance. Some person or persons unknown, or known, molded him into what he is. There is a millstone the size of, well, the size of Uranus awaiting them.

The gay cliche is, God made me this way and God doesn't make mistakes. The theology is non-standard, since it ignores the effects of the fall from grace. God didn't make any mistakes, but he made creatures who could err. In any case, God doesn't make volitional behavior. Even someone who is burdened with a desire for his own kind has outlets other than sodomy and its variants. And there's nothing biologically determined about high heels and feather boas. That's learned. I've gone over this before as well.

Well. Young Chris. He just signed a contact for his own TV show. He's done being funny. From now on it will all be about scripted spontaneity and fey camp. They'll try to recapture the raw angst and compelling authenticity of his passionate Britney vid. Can you bottle the wind? Can you freeze lightning in its path? Alas. As much as it was possible for a catamite to be innocent, it's lost now.

We laugh at the absurd. We're not wrong to do that. Such laughter acts as a mechanism of social control. Harmful if it lapses into ridicule, but salutary in discouraging foolishness. Young Chris, with his feckless emotion over nothing, was funny. But I have a father's heart, and there is some foolish part of me, some sensitive part that wishes I had been there for him, to balance out the malignant influence of the incompetent adults who shirked their duty to raise him up in the way he should go. Too late. Too late. The pixilation has taken hold of him, will o' the wisped away and what stray wayfarer is ever called back from fairyland?

So many lost boys. With so many men in the world, how is it possible? My guess is that they're not, most of them, really men. Just boys, grown older.

Funny, how it's not funny anymore.


J