Anti-Marriage: logical consequences

**Percy** · 23rd-December-2010

Bill Muehlenberg's Culture Watch

Quadrant Online - In Praise of Incest

In Praise of Incest

by Bill Muehlenberg
December 16, 2010

I know it can be grating to say, “I told you so”. But sometimes that is simply the case. For years now I have been telling you that once we go down the road of legalising same-sex marriage, then the floodgates will open, and any and all forms of sexuality will be fair game for legalisation and promotion.

For over a decade I have warned where all this is heading. Homosexual marriage is simply the thin edge of the wedge. Once this full-frontal assault on the institutions of marriage and family is allowed, then there is no logical reason to prevent other deviant types of sexuality from being recognised and legitimised.

Thus I have written often about those pushing for the legalisation of polyamory, or group love. The logic of group marriage is identical to the logic of homosexual marriage. And of course the same logic can be found in the push to legalise incest.

However, whenever I suggest these next steps in the slippery slope, the other side ridicules me and mocks me, claiming no one is arguing for polyamory or incest. That is why I have to keep writing articles like this. There are people all over the world pushing for these very things, and they are happy to ride on the success of the same-sex marriage movement.

Let’s consider another clear cut example of this. Here is how one news item reports the story of a push for incest:

The upper house of the Swiss parliament has drafted a law decriminalising sex between consenting family members which must now be considered by the government.

There have been only three cases of incest since 1984.

Switzerland, which recently held a referendum passing a draconian law that will boot out foreigners convicted of committing the smallest of crimes, insists that children within families will continue to be protected by laws governing abuse and paedophilia.

Daniel Vischer, a Green party MP, said he saw nothing wrong with two consenting adults having sex, even if they were related.

"Incest is a difficult moral question, but not one that is answered by penal law," he said.
Barbara Schmid Federer of The Christian People's Party of Switzerland said the proposal from the upper house was "completely repugnant."

"I for one could not countenance painting out such a law from the statute books."

The Protestant People's Party is also opposed to decriminalising the offence which at present carries a maximum three year jail term.

A spokesman for the party said: "Murder is also quite rare in Switzerland but no one suggests that we remove that as an offence from the statutes."

So now the Greens want incest legalised. Why are we just not surprised? Why should any of this come as a surprise? Those intent on destroying society will never stop with just same-sex marriage. They want the whole hog: complete sexual anarchy.

Indeed, there have been plenty of homosexual activists who have long argued for the removal of most, if not all, legal restrictions on sexuality. Way back in 1972 the National Coalition of Gay Organizations in the US demanded the “repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit; and the extension of legal benefits to all persons who cohabit regardless of sex or numbers.”

Also in this 1972 Gay Rights Platform was the call for the abolition of all age of sexual consent laws. These proposals were endorsed wide and far in the homosexual community. Indeed, lesbian activist Judith Levine argued for all this and more (even pedophilia) in her famous Village Voice article, “Stop the Wedding! Why Gay Marriage Isn’t Radical Enough”.

So if we are stupid enough to grant the homosexual activists their wishes to marry, then please do not express shock or outrage when all the other contenders for “marriage equality” come crawling out of the woodwork. Anything goes in such a world.

The truth is, all boundaries are smashed when we redefine marriage. There are even groups arguing for the right to marry one’s pet! Called petrosexuality, this new sexuality group insists that a person’s love for his or her pet, including sexual relations, should be made official. Thus one Dutch web site encourages people to marry their pets.

But hey, at least you can’t say I haven’t told you so.

Just to back-up this claim of an 'Intellectual' aquiecence to the idea of beastiality.......

Bill Muehlenberg's Culture Watch

http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/mue...t-don-t-eat-em

Bonk ‘em, don’t eat ‘em

by Bill Muehlenberg
June 16, 2010

It is hard watching the MSM without getting a bit agitated now and then. I refer to a rather disturbing event that took place on Monday on the ABC television program, Q&A. This is a typical ABC debate program wherein the ABC thinks it is fair to have one conservative take on a whole bunch of lefties.

This happens all the time with the ABC and other leftwing mainstream media outlets. I know this full well, since I have taken part in countless such “debates” over the years as the only token conservative voice. The moderator of course is usually not moderate, so you have everyone else effectively lined up against you.

The same with this Q&A. One lonely conservative voice, Liberal Senator Helen Coonan, was pitted against lefty heavyweights such as David Marr, Peter Singer, and Peter Garrett, along with a Monash psychiatrist. So here we have in usual fashion, a total of five against one. Nothing new there.

But the real concern was when Singer was asked about some of his really bizarre ideas. I have written up this vegetarian, pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia and pro-infanticide activist elsewhere. But he has also been known for his outrageous views on bestiality. I have already had many people express their shock at what Singer advocated last night, but I have had to tell them that he has been pushing this position for years. Indeed, he was happy to go public with this a decade ago. For example, he had an article in Nerve online magazine in 2001 entitled “Heavy Petting”.

In it he wondered why in the world we have taboos against bestiality. You can read this incredible article for yourself. In it he waxes eloquent about the virtues of bestiality, going into great details about the joys of sex with horses, dogs, orang-utans and donkeys.

He said there, as he did again last night, that as long as the animal is not hurt or exploited, what is wrong with it? Is that it? As long as the animal is happy, let’s go for it? And this guy is a world-renowned ethicist and philosopher. As a strident vegetarian, all that he is really doing here is telling us that it is OK to have sex with animals, as long as we don’t eat them afterwards.

So what he shared last night was nothing new. The amazing thing was that he was not booed off the show. This is incredible. A reputable prime-time debate program which allows some “intellectual” to tell us there is nothing wrong with bestiality. And most of the other panellists did not seem concerned at all.

True, Coonan and the psychiatrist expressed mild disapproval, but all that the host, Tony Jones, could do was laugh and make fun about it. Do we need any more proof of how degenerate the ABC and out elites have become, and how far down the tubes Western society has gone?

Next the ABC will have some egghead on telling us there is nothing wrong with necrophilia or paedophilia, and perhaps Tony Jones will snicker about it, and the other intellectualoids will try to make serious “commentary” about it. If you ask me, we should put Q&A out of its misery, and take these so-called intellects and give them all a good smack down.

**Zuberi** · 23rd-December-2010

Glad I saw read it. Now, I have another reason to take death over slavery when the system caves in.

**bowspearer** · 23rd-December-2010

This is something those who are so adamantly pushing for an anti-marriage and "reproductive rights" stance within the MRM should give serious thought to the next time they start pushing that agenda again. All it does is play into the hands of the power behind feminism- the financial global oligarchy.

**rohara** · 23rd-December-2010

Darn,

I was so looking forward to being with my roomates cat happily ever after but now I am going to have to break it to her that I won't be considered a good MRA if we continue our relationship. :-(

**Zuberi** · 24th-December-2010

Quote from bowspearer

This is something those who are so adamantly pushing for an anti-marriage and "reproductive rights" stance within the MRM should give serious thought to the next time they start pushing that agenda again. All it does is play into the hands of the power behind feminism- the financial global oligarchy.

Marriage or no marriage, you're still cornered.

**bowspearer** · 24th-December-2010

Rohara and Zuberi, you're not quite getting my point. The reality is that when faced with oppression, people have three responses- outright copitulation, enabling and outright opposition. The problem is that when you consider the fact that the global financial elites have hijacked feminism for the purposes of population reduction/genocide (abortion) and the destruction of the family (family, DV and divorce law), then all arguing for "reproductive rights" (as opposed to fair and just protection and recognition of fathers under the law) and being anti-marriage (as opposed to lobbying for the overtuning of misandrist laws like VAWA globally) does is play into the hands of our more unseen enemies and allow them to advance even further, the very agenda which victimised us as men to begin with.

**Chris Wedge** · 24th-December-2010

As usual, I fail to actually see connections between the MRA and things like abortion and same sex marriages. As ignoring or forging evidence is usually a feminist thing, can we see some actual good studies (from non-special interests) that may link the cases?

A lot of people like to hold onto the "last frameworks of a moral society" merely because they're brought up that way. Ignoring the evidence in favour of our gut feeling as a society has brought about institutional misandry in the first place.

Quote from bowspearer

The problem is that when you consider the fact that the global financial elites have hijacked feminism for the purposes of population reduction/genocide (abortion) and the destruction of the family (family, DV and divorce law), then all arguing for "reproductive rights" (as opposed to fair and just protection and recognition of fathers under the law) and being anti-marriage (as opposed to lobbying for the overturning of misandrist laws like VAWA globally)

Abortion being a genocide is a purely religious feeling, with no secular evidence to back it up. I would personally be more worried about the killing of adult animals with cognition and pain, sometimes emotion. (and I don't care much about that)
Such reproductive rights do not have to exist exclusively from rights for dads. They merely do right now.

Tying religion and the MRA together as such could only hurt our cause. (well, convince the individual the best way they'd be convinced, but the overarching message should be secular and fit most any belief pattern.)

Bestiality on the other hand does raise questions of the animal's consent, but lumping it with homosexuality is blatantly unfair, as is this probable overreaction to a statement.

Quote from Percy's article link

Also in this 1972 Gay Rights Platform was the call for the abolition of all age of sexual consent laws. These proposals were endorsed wide and far in the homosexual community. Indeed, lesbian activist Judith Levine argued for all this and more (even pedophilia) in her famous Village Voice article, “Stop the Wedding! Why Gay Marriage Isn’t Radical Enough”.

^bolded statement: proof?

That's a whole other can of worms, the age of consent. There are good and bad sides to them, and that's a debate I don't focus on, putting all my politicking energy into combating misandry. Such campaigns against the moral no-loss of gay marriage seem to be coming from religious backing. Just because one major victory for a perfectly normal group brings a bunch of weirdos out of the woodwork, doesn't mean you need to listen to them.

But... isn't the reason for criminal incest an increase in defective children? What about matchups of couples who are incredibly more likely to produce defective children, like them both being the carriers of a recessive gene?

(Half of this is my opinion, the other half devil's advocacy. Figure out which. :P)

**Percy** · 24th-December-2010

Abortion being a genocide is a purely religious feeling

hijacked feminism for the purposes of population reduction/genocide (abortion)

Lets keep our terms separated to reflect their different meanings. And keep to the meanings. Abortion and Genocide are not feelings.

**bowspearer** · 25th-December-2010

Quote from Chris Wedge

As usual, I fail to actually see connections between the MRA and things like abortion and same sex marriages. As ignoring or forging evidence is usually a feminist thing, can we see some actual good studies (from non-special interests) that may link the cases?

A lot of people like to hold onto the "last frameworks of a moral society" merely because they're brought up that way. Ignoring the evidence in favour of our gut feeling as a society has brought about institutional misandry in the first place.

Abortion being a genocide is a purely religious feeling, with no secular evidence to back it up. I would personally be more worried about the killing of adult animals with cognition and pain, sometimes emotion. (and I don't care much about that)
Such reproductive rights do not have to exist exclusively from rights for dads. They merely do right now.

Tying religion and the MRA together as such could only hurt our cause. (well, convince the individual the best way they'd be convinced, but the overarching message should be secular and fit most any belief pattern.)

Chris, you're either ill-informed when it comes to things like the formation of things like the World Wildlife Fund, or you're handing me one heck of a weak Devil's advocate.

The fact is that the green movement is entirely tied into the resurgence of a religious movement, namely Gaianism.

Under this movement, motions of advancing things like space science to allow for colonisation to cater for a growing human population and thus equivalent growth rate in human creative potential, are replaced with the notion of "sustainable population" - where people are viewed as a virus 'infesting "Mother Earth"' and must therefore be at the very least, curtained, to no more than 2 billion people.

This is all coming from the Global Financial Oligarchy. One of the WWF's founders, Prince Phillip, the Prince Consort of England, has made such radical statements as saying that he would love to be reincarnated as a deadly virus, while another of its founders, a member of the Belgian Royal Family and ex-Nazi, has gone on record as saying that while Hilter gave eugenics a bad name, that it really was the best way forward for mankind.

In addition, you have things like a recent billionaires conference where it was agreed to push for a global One Child Policy similar to China's.

As I've already pointed to in a lengthy post in another thread; abortion apologetics are completely steeped in the dehumanisation of the unborn child, so I won't go into it again here. However the very notion of "sustainable population" in and of itself amounts to genocidal intent against the entire human race.

Abortion is genocide, regardless of how much longer society continues to ram its head in the sand.

It's for that very reason that "reproductive rights" and legal protection for fathers should remain separate- otherwise we're no better than the average radical feminist.

Quote from Chris Wedge

Bestiality on the other hand does raise questions of the animal's consent, but lumping it with homosexuality is blatantly unfair, as is this probable overreaction to a statement.

You're actually the one overreacting here with that statement. Noone here is saying that being homosexual implies a predisposition towards beastiality- what's actually being said is the whole push for homosexual marriage after implimenting laws destroying the family, which are both then followed by a push for things like incest and beastiality, is nothing short of blatant goalpost shifting. The reality is that any action of propaganda which aims to destroy a social framework starts out with something blatant which might be considered acceptable, then once they have that aspect of things altered, they most the goal post just a little bit further forward, repeating the process until they have society right where they want it.

The reality is that between skills crisies, an imploding and parasitic financial system and a society where the notions of universal principles have been completely eroded within the general population; the world is on the verge of another Dark Age.

The question is whether people choose to recognise it before or after it's too late...

**Zuberi** · 25th-December-2010

Quote from bowspearer

Rohara and Zuberi, you're not quite getting my point. The reality is that when faced with oppression, people have three responses- outright copitulation, enabling and outright opposition. The problem is that when you consider the fact that the global financial elites have hijacked feminism for the purposes of population reduction/genocide (abortion) and the destruction of the family (family, DV and divorce law), then all arguing for "reproductive rights" (as opposed to fair and just protection and recognition of fathers under the law) and being anti-marriage (as opposed to lobbying for the overtuning of misandrist laws like VAWA globally) does is play into the hands of our more unseen enemies and allow them to advance even further, the very agenda which victimised us as men to begin with.

Since the evidence in this thread's article seems to have came out of nowhere, I'm not going to say that I believe all of it. The only way the so called unseen enemies can completely destroy marriage is if they had it outlawed completely.
Marriage isn't mandatory and choosing not get married has nothing to do with being against marriage.

**bowspearer** · 25th-December-2010

Zuberi, you're completely ignoring the psychological warfare component of things. What is going to be a more successfully implemented agenda: one which is tyrannically decreed, or one where the masses are convinced it's what they want to the point where they demand it themselves?

**Zuberi** · 25th-December-2010

Quote from bowspearer

Zuberi, you're completely ignoring the psychological warfare component of things. What is going to be a more successfully implemented agenda: one which is tyrannically decreed, or one where the masses are convinced it's what they want to the point where they demand it themselves?

The gangsters and prostitutes who are implementing these sick agendas don't fully understand human behavior and they can't convince everyone that marriage needs to be destroyed.
The unseen enemies know that they can't destroy marriage nor decrease the population fast enough so their stuck peddling fraud.

**bowspearer** · 25th-December-2010

And yet to date they've been highly effective at it. 100 million abortions and counting combined with a rapidly downwardly spiralling marriage success rate in conjunction with abd overtly sexualised and parentally absent child population suggests that they've actually been highly successful at perpetuating their lies. The issue facing the MRM currently is one of how it reacts to being victims of it. There are only two ways the MRM can react- either taking a stand against the gangsters who run the world's central banks as you so eloquently put it, or by making knee jerk decisions which actually play into the hands of that agenda and unwittingly advance it.

**Zuberi** · 25th-December-2010

Quote from bowspearer

And yet to date they've been highly effective at it. 100 million abortions and counting combined with a rapidly downwardly spiralling marriage success rate in conjunction with abd overtly sexualised and parentally absent child population suggests that they've actually been highly successful at perpetuating their lies. The issue facing the MRM currently is one of how it reacts to being victims of it. There are only two ways the MRM can react- either taking a stand against the gangsters who run the world's central banks as you so eloquently put it, or by making knee jerk decisions which actually play into the hands of that agenda and unwittingly advance it.

I already know where I stand.
Will take death over slavery or continue to let the money worshipers rob you blind? A large chunk of the female masses have already chosen to sell out their brethren and their humanity, will you?

**bowspearer** · 28th-December-2010

Do you really know where you stand though? Your whole argument amounts to someone outraged and insisting we go out and blindly fight rather than strategising and accusing someone of pointing out the need for strategy to fight back effectively, of choosing slavery over death. Seriously, take a step back and truly take stock of the puppet masters as opposed to just the puppets. Otherwise, you'll only condemn yourself to a different form of slavery.