I was planning a whole opening paragraph outlining how arguments about same-sex marriage eventually dissolve into pro-SSM advocates sneering that those opposed to, or even question the wisdom of, the radical redefinition of marriage are arguing in bad faith if the subjects of polygamy or incest come up.
Ahem …
Writer-director Nick Cassavetes unveiled his new movie “Yellow” at the Toronto Film Festival this weekend and found himself defending the main character’s incestuous love affair with her own brother. […]
“I have no experience with incest,” he told TheWrap in an interview on Sunday. “We started thinking about that. We had heard a few stories where brothers and sisters were completely, absolutely in love with one another. You know what? This whole movie is about judgment, and lack of it, and doing what you want.
“Who gives a shit if people judge you?” he continued. “I’m not saying this is an absolute but in a way, if you’re not having kids – who gives a damn? Love who you want. Isn’t that what we say? Gay marriage – love who you want? If it’s your brother or sister it’s super-weird, but if you look at it, you’re not hurting anybody except every single person who freaks out because you’re in love with one another.”
In addition, we also have Gawker running an article calling pedophilia an orientation worthy of sympathy.
The whole of history of humans organizing in groups and moving into civilization is the story of humans overcoming their natures and baser instincts.
Now we witness a whole political ideology dedicated to tearing that down, to telling people to indulge their nature, to do whatever “feels good,” feel no shame and demonize anyone who should hold a different view.
Told you so.
Never thought I’d live to see the day when “Motherfucker” became a term of endearment.
That Gawker article is going to give me nightmares, so thanks for that.
You are just hatey H8ers! So what if the left wants to promote brother and sister sex? If they make each other happy, who is harmed?
Maybe Barack Obama can make a supportive statement on that. Along with apologizing again for the murders of the U.S. Ambassador and U.S. personnel in Libya.
History is revealing.
Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of the exact same, well, just read it for yourself noting vs’s 5-9. The parallels are eerily similar…
Minnesota has a marriage referendum coming up in November, and the signs urging people to vote against it are everywhere. The signs all say: “VOTE NO — Don’t limit the freedom to marry!” I’ve been getting into trouble with friends and neighbors and cow-orkers by pressing the issue: “Don’t limit the freedom to marry? So if I want to marry my dead grandma, or my daughter, or my wife and her two brothers, or my cats what love my lute improvisation, you’d support and defend me?”
They invariably flinch, accuse me of bad faith, and say “Of course not!” And so comes the obvious riposte, “So you *DO* support limits on the freedom to marry, and your t-shirt/button/yard sign is a lie. What makes your arbitrary limits on the freedom to marry so different from, say, the Catholic Church’s? Since you’re the one making the case for changing the definition of the word, maybe you could tell me exactly what ‘marriage’ is going to mean going forward?”
It’s an argument that their poor little brains have never considered, and are ill-equipped to consider, and will go to great lengths not to consider. And so I push their buttons until they no longer sit with me at lunch/on the bus/on the couch (yes, my lovely bride is among those who don’t want to hurt their headmeats thinking hard thoughts on this one). One day, I hope to meet one of these feel-good PC lambs who is willing to engage me in a real discussion of the issues.
And yes, it’s true that I’m down to 5 or 6 friends at this point. But they’re really good friends!
Say what you will about us Catholics, but I’m glad I don’t have to add any “Yes, but in that case…” to my moral viewpoint.
Also, they’ve already done much worse than this. I’d take a Haunted House over wandering into a film festival’s movies randomly.
I had all but despaired of coming up with an actual reason to oppose SSM years ago before I realized that it would destroy the underlying logic of limiting marriage to two people — thus opening the door to polygamy.
From there incest, necrophilia and bestiality are all just choices.
Before Lawrence v. Texas, screwing the pooch was a bad thing. Now, it’s a Constitutional right.
From there incest, necrophilia and bestiality are all just choices.
Orientations, McGehee. Do keep up.
For years, the prevailing progressive attitude was “marriage is just a piece of paper; we don’t need the state to sanction our relationship” and marriage rates went way down and divorce rates went up.
Now suddenly marriage is so important to progressives that denying marriage is a violation of civil rights, virtually a hate crime. Not that this style of inconsistency is anything new.
You are of course absolutely right, SW. However, OCBill already won the thread.
Also, if you want the government to stay out of your womb, don’t ask the government to buy you contraception. Right?
Personally, I think this is all a long game to get Polanski back in the country. Pure genius.
Squid, I have found that lefties love to whip out what they think is a rejoinder of “Jesus never condemned SSM!” Meaning, I’m speculating, that He never mentioned a specific prohibition against it. That is of course, not accurate, but not to split hairs and to whup them upside the haid, it’s fun to answer, “Okay. He also never condemned necrophila or cannibalism, either.”
Watching their mouths open and close like goldfish while they try to come up with a reply is delicious.
The reason they want marriage now, when before they didn’t want it, is that the marriage they want now is even more destructive than the non-marriage they wanted before. They won the first round, and births to women who aren’t married are as common, or more common in some cases, as births to women who are married. Advantage – progressives. Now, they can continue to debase marriage by making it mean something it doesn’t, furthering its destruction as an institution, and therefore the destruction of the concept of family overall. They are going to have their way in this as well.
I suspect that Sodom and Gomorrah got nuked not just because they were going all men-on-men but because they had exactly ZERO boundaries on their sexual activity, such that any kid born into that society was guaranteed to be raped, and the rape would be Considered Good And Normal.
At that point, it would be pure wickedness for God to permit them to bring any more children into the world. I hope everyone on this blog would nuke ’em, too.
Now, they can continue to debase marriage by making it mean something it doesn’t,
I’ve heard that the ultimate goal of The Adversary is to drive a wedge between the sexes, turning us against each other so that all kinds of good things never happen. After all, God declared that a man should leave his father and mother and cleave unto his wife, and they would become one flesh.
And if God prescribed it, The Adversary has to unravel it, as he’s done since the dawn of humanity.
So Rape is undocumented sexual intercourse now? Language needs to stop getting so fucking stupid and nebulous.
Contradictory and self-refuting. Total lack of judgement. But what are you going to do about kids silly in love with each other? That’s what happens when you rip up foundations in a serious manner.
So is he admitting that the movie is just porn after all?
If we know that pedophiles are not simply people who commit a small offence from time to time but rather are grappling with what is equivalent to a sexual orientation just like another individual may be grappling with heterosexuality or even homosexuality, and if we agree on the fact that true pedophiles have an exclusive preference for children, which is the same as having a sexual orientation, everyone knows that there is no such thing as real therapy. You cannot change this person’s sexual orientation.
From the Gawker article.
I love how because we’re trying to defend pedophilia as an “orientation” now, we’re throwing all of the things actually done to treat people who don’t want that “orientation” out the window. Because if we didn’t, we’d be implying that sexual orientations can in fact be shaped to better match societal standards–and, in fact, the the people over at NARTH are right and you can treat homosexuality. Just as you can alter a pedophile’s chemical make-up so they stop feeling like they have to have sex with children.
Seriously, folks. Trying to redefine something that changes our societal sexual norms about kids into a “victimless crime” is insane. Full stop.
I suspect that when people are given over to their perverted proclivities at rapidly-increasing rates and emboldened, it should be taken as a sign and that negative consequences are never far behind (no pun intended).
Damn, I missed an opportunity to rip on the Boswell thesis.
dicentra’s take on Sodom and Gamorrah is very similar to mine. It was their complete lack of control of their sexual appetites that did them in.
Now that’s funny.
If being judgmental is my sexual orientation, can I get angry at other people for judging me?
The final scene in the Soddom and Gomorrah story Lot’s daughters get him drunk and have sex with him.
I have long suspected something got seriously fucked up in the translation of that story.