Category Archives: Traditional Marriage and Family
Found at American Digest: http://americandigest.org/
In a country where freedom and decency prevail, if homosexuals want special cakes to celebrate their blasphemous parodies of marriages, they would not be in a position to demand the cakes be baked by Christians who are morally obliged not to comply. However, homosexual bullies Dave Mullins and Charlie Craig have enlisted the ACLU to force baker Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado to betray his religious faith in obeisance to their perverted lifestyle.
Mullins, 28, and Craig, 33, filed the discrimination complaint against Phillips after visiting his business in suburban Denver last summer. After a few minutes looking at pictures of different cakes, the couple said Phillips told them he wouldn’t make one for them when he found out it was to celebrate their wedding in Colorado after they got married in Massachusetts. Phillips has said making a wedding cake for gay couples would violate his Christian religious beliefs, according to the complaint.
Needless to say there are any number of bakeries in greater Denver that would bake their cake without objection. This isn’t about cake, but about crushing resistance to a depraved agenda.
Despite the state’s leftward shift and the unending barrage of media propaganda intended to convince the herd of the preposterous precept that sexual perversion is now “normal,” the people of Colorado are not on board with this.
In 2006, voters banned gay marriage. More notably, in 1992, voters approved a ban on municipal antidiscrimination laws to protect [i.e., grant privileged status to] gays, leading some [i.e., liberal ideologues] to brand Colorado a “hate state.”
Here’s what is at stake:
If Phillips loses the case and refuses to comply with the order, he would face fines of $500 per case and up to a year in jail, his attorney said.
“It would force him to choose between his conscience and a paycheck. I just think that’s an intolerable choice,” [his attorney Nicolle] Martin said.
No legitimate government would impose such a choice. But our government has degenerated into a tool for imposing a malignant ideology, so Phillips’s chances don’t look good.
For all the sanctimonious rhetoric about “tolerance,” none is shown toward those unwilling to sacrifice morality to political correctness. This case perfectly illustrates the coercive corruption at the core of the liberal agenda. It is not just wrong, but evil.
On tips from Wiggins, Muddypaw, and Freddy Kaludis.
ObamaCare Openly Gives Homosexuals Preference Over Straight Individuals…Isn’t Discrimination Unlawful?
With of course the worst care going to straight white men (because they’re the most evil).
Via Washington Secrets:
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius on Monday said that members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered community will be a special focus of Obamacare because “for too long…[they] were pushed to the side.”
To honor Lesbian, Gay, Bixexual and Transgender Pride Month in June, the administration is drawing attention to new benefits under Obamacare targeted to the LGBT, which Sebelius said have had their access to health care limited and who, she added, have higher rates of tobacco use and are at increased risk for mental health illness.
Among the benefits to the community under Obamacare are the end of a lifetime coverage limit, which is expected to help victim of HIV/AIDS who are often on an expensive regimen of drugs.
She added that the administration is stepping up their focus on and attention to the LGBT community by adding gender status to health surveys and questionnaires which are critical in determining services under Obamacare.
From Weasel Zippers: http://weaselzippers.us/
At last some honesty from a moonbat. We all know that the Left is not on the level with its sudden urgent concern that homosexuals have their sexual liaisons sanctified by the government as legitimate marriages. Lesbian journalist Masha Gessen, as quoted by Micah Clark, spells out what they are actually up to:
“It’s a no-brainer that [homosexuals] should have the right to marry [each other], but I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. … (F)ighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there — because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie.
“The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist. And I don’t like taking part in creating fictions about my life. That’s sort of not what I had in mind when I came out thirty years ago.
“I have three kids who have five parents, more or less, and I don’t see why they shouldn’t have five parents legally… I met my new partner, and she had just had a baby, and that baby’s biological father is my brother, and my daughter’s biological father is a man who lives in Russia, and my adopted son also considers him his father. So the five parents break down into two groups of three… And really, I would like to live in a legal system that is capable of reflecting that reality, and I don’t think that’s compatible with the institution of marriage.”
To “fundamentally transform,” as Obama put it regarding his plans for America, is to destroy.
On a tip from Wilberforce.
By George Neumayr on 4.3.13 @ 6:09AM
Churches will be pressured into blessing gay marriages.
The end point of liberalism is a coercive secular state in which the religious have no meaningful rights. American church leaders are kidding themselves if they think the gay-marriage juggernaut is going to stop at civil marriage. It won’t. It will quickly travel past court houses to churches, demanding that all religions bless gay marriages.
Denmark casts a shadow of this future, where the gay-marriage juggernaut has smashed through church doors. Last year the country’s parliament passed a law requiring all Lutheran churches to conduct gay marriage ceremonies. “I think it’s very important to give all members of the church the possibility to get married,” said Manu Sareen, Denmark’s minister for gender equality. Reluctant bishops have to supply ministers to satisfy the right whether they like it or not.
Iceland and Sweden have similar arrangements. Since many of the bishops are in the tank for gay marriage anyways and since these churches are “state” churches, this pressure generates little news. But it is instructive nonetheless. Where gay marriage exists, religious freedom gradually disappears, to the point where ministers have to choose between serving as secularism’s stooges or facing societal oblivion.
In America, this pressure will take the form of “discriminatory” churches losing government grants, permits, and participation in programs. It will be the death of religious freedom by a thousand little cuts here and there: canceled speeches of religious figures at state universities, lost HHS grants, the refusal of city governments to recognize churches that don’t permit gay marriages, “hate crime” legislation that extends to opposition to gay marriage, and so on. All of this will have the effect of pressuring churches into blessing gay marriages. A law forcing priests and ministers to preside at gay marriages won’t need to be passed; the invisible law of indirect governmental pressure will do the trick.
During last year’s campaign, Obama said that religions will remain free to determine their own “sacraments.” Shouldn’t that go without saying? The very fact that Obama made such a declaration should scare people. Whenever a pol says “I won’t do [fill in the blank],” it usually means that very activity is on his mind. While he can’t determine the sacraments for religions, Obama will try and marginalize those religions that don’t determine the sacraments in a manner he considers “nondiscriminatory.”
Obama’s “respect” for these religions is on par with his respect for the policies of the Boy Scouts. “I think that my attitude is that gays and lesbians should have access and opportunity the same way everybody else does in every institution and walk of life,” said Obama when calling on the Boy Scouts to accept gay scoutmasters. Notice Obama’s phrase: every institution and walk of life. Surely in time that will include churches.
But for now, Obama thinks the religious should feel grateful to him that he is not busting down church doors and forcibly injecting them with contraceptives or requiring them to preside at gay weddings. That in his mind is the sum total of religious freedom. And yet even that little space can be crowded in on through laws that allow government to reward secularized religions and shun traditional ones.
The goal of the gay-marriage juggernaut is to make Christians pariahs, as irrelevant to public life as racists. It doesn’t have to pass a Denmark-style law to force churches to conduct gay marriages; it can achieve the same end through punitive political correctness.
On ABC’s This Week, George Stephanopoulos thought it appropriate to ask Cardinal Timothy Dolan, albeit in a roundabout and implicit fashion, if Catholicism could accept gay marriage for people who feel “unwelcome” in the Church: “What do you say to a gay couple that loves God and the Church, but also love each other and want to raise a family in faith?” It would have been nice to see Dolan challenge the insidious premise of the question by saying something like: So, George, you are saying that unless the Church loves the sin it can’t love the sinner?
Instead, Dolan seemed to concede the media narrative about the Church as hateful — “We have to do better to see that our defense of marriage is not reduced to an attack on gay people. I admit, we haven’t been too good at that” — while gingerly trying to uphold the Church’s teaching on marriage. His attempt at appeasement didn’t work. Gay activists pounced on him anyways, generating headlines such as “Cardinal Dolan Demeans Gay Relationships As He Says Church Should Be More Welcoming to Gays.”
The gay-marriage juggernaut only speeds up at the sight of such gestures, seeing civil marriage as just one stop on a longer road to a secularist state in which religion in general and the Catholic Church in particular fall silent and compliant out of fear if not law.
Photo: UPI (Supporters of Illinois’ “Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act,” Jan. 2, 2013)
From The American Spectator: http://spectator.org/archives/2013/04/03/religious-freedoms-drip-by-dri
Gay marriage is not about men marrying men or women marrying women, it is about the
deconstruction of marriage between men and women. That is a thing that many men and women of one generation understand but have trouble conveying to another generation for whom marriage has already largely been deconstructed.
The statistics about the falling marriage rate tell the tale well enough. Marriage is a fading institution. Family is a flickering light in the evening of the West.
The deconstruction is destruction. Entire countries are fading away, their populations being replaced by emigrants from more traditional lands whose understanding of the male-female relationship is positively reactionary. These emigrants may lack technology or the virtues of civilization, and their idea of marriage resembles slavery more than any modern ideal, but it fulfills the minimum purpose of any group, tribe or country– it produces its next generation.
The deconstruction of marriage is not a mere matter of front page photos of men kissing. It began with the deconstruction of the family. Gay marriage is only one small stop on a tour that includes rising divorce rates, falling childbirth rates and the abandonment of responsibility by twenty and even thirty-somethings.
Each step on the tour takes apart the definition and structure of marriage until there is nothing left. Gay marriage is not inclusive, it is yet another attempt at eliminating marriage as a social institution by deconstructing it until it no longer exists.
There are two ways to destroy a thing. You can either run it at while swinging a hammer with both hands or you can attack its structure until it no longer means anything.
The left hasn’t gone all out by outlawing marriage, instead it has deconstructed it, taking apart each of its assumptions, from the economic to the cooperative to the emotional to the social, until it no longer means anything at all. Until there is no way to distinguish marriage from a temporary liaison between members of uncertain sexes for reasons that due to their vagueness cannot be held to have any solemn and meaningful purpose.
You can abolish democracy by banning the vote or you can do it by letting people vote as many times as they want, by letting small children and foreigners vote, until no one sees the point in counting the votes or taking the process seriously. The same goes for marriage or any other institution. You can destroy it by outlawing it or by eliminating its meaningfulness until it becomes so open that it is absurd.
Every aspect of marriage is deconstructed and then eliminated until it no longer means anything. And once marriage is no longer a lifetime commitment between a man and a woman, but a ceremony with no deeper meaning than most modern ceremonies, then the deconstruction and destruction will be complete.
The deconstruction of marriage eroded it as an enduring institution and then as an exclusive institution and finally as a meaningful institution. The trendy folk who claim to be holding off on getting married until gay marriage is enacted are not eager for marriage equality, they are using it as an excuse for an ongoing rejection of marriage.
Gay marriage was never the issue. It was always marriage.
In the world that the deconstructionists are striving to build, there will be marriage, but it will mean nothing. Like a greeting card holiday, it will be an event, but not an institution. An old ritual with no further meaning. An egotistical exercise in attention-seeking and self-celebration with no deeper purpose. It will be a display every bit as hollow as the churches and synagogues it takes place in.
The deconstruction of marriage is only a subset of the deconstruction of gender from a state of being to a state of mind. The decline of marriage was preceded by the deconstruction of gender roles and gay marriage is being succeeded by the destruction of gender as anything other than a voluntary identity, a costume that one puts on and takes off.
Destroying gender roles was a prerequisite to destroying gender. Each deconstruction leads naturally to the next deconstruction with no final destination except total deconstruction.
Gay marriage is not a stopping point, just as men in women’s clothing using the ladies room is not a stopping point. There is no stopping point at all.
The left’s deconstruction of social institutions is not a quest for equality, but for destruction. As long as the institutions that preceded it exist, it will go on deconstructing them until there is nothing left but a blank canvas, an unthinking anarchy, on which it can impose its perfect and ideal conception of how everyone should live.
Equality is merely a pretext for deconstruction. Change the parameters of a thing and it ceases to function. Redefine it and expand it and it no longer means anything at all. A rose by any other name might smell as sweet, but if you change ‘rose’ to mean anything that sticks out of the ground, then the entire notion of what is being discussed has gone and cannot be reclaimed without also reclaiming language.
The left’s social deconstruction program is a war of ideas and concepts. Claims of equality are used to expand institutions and ways of living until they are so broad as to encompass everything and nothing. And once a thing encompasses everything, once a rose represents everything rising out of the ground, then it also represents nothing at all.
Deconstruction is a war against definitions, borders and parameters. It is a war against defining things by criminalizing the limitation of definitions. With inclusivity as the mandate, exclusivity, in marriage, or any other realm, quickly meets with social disapproval and then becomes a hate crime. If the social good is achieved only through maximum inclusivity and infinite tolerance, then any form of exclusivity, from property to person to ideas, is a selfish act that refuses the collective impulse to make all things into a common property with no lasting meaning or value.
As Orwell understood in 1984, tyranny is essentially about definitions. It is hard to fight for freedom if you lack the word. It is hard to maintain a marriage if the idea no longer exists. Orwell’s Oceania made basic human ideas into contradictory things. The left’s deconstruction of social values does the same thing to such essential institutions as marriage; which becomes an important impermanent thing of no fixed nature or value.
The left’s greatest trick is making things mean the opposite of what they do. Stealing is sharing. Crime is justice. Property is theft. Each deconstruction is accompanied by an inversion so that a thing, once examined, comes to seem the opposite of what it is, and once that is done, it no longer has the old innate value, but a new enlightened one.
To deconstruct man, you deconstruct his beliefs and then his way of living. You deconstruct freedom until it means slavery. You deconstruct peace until it means war. You deconstruct property until it means theft. And you deconstruct marriage until it means a physical relationship between any group of people for any duration. And that is the opposite of what marriage is.
The deconstruction of marriage is part of the deconstruction of gender and family and those are part
of the long program of deconstructing man. Once each basic value has been rendered null and void, inverted and revealed to be random and meaningless, then man is likewise revealed to be a random and meaningless creature whose existence requires shaping by those who know better.
The final deconstruction eliminates nation, religion, family and even gender to reduce the soul of man to a blank slate waiting to be written on.
That is what is at stake here. This is not a struggle about the right of equality, but the right of definition. It is not about whether men can get married, but whether marriage will mean anything at all. It is about preserving the shapes and structures of basic social concepts that define our identities in order to preserve those very concepts, rather than accepting their deconstruction into nullification.
The question on the table is whether the institutions that give us meaning will be allowed to retain that meaning. And that question is a matter of survival. Societies cannot survive without definitions. Peoples do not go on existing through the act of occupying space. The deconstruction of identity is also the destruction of identity.
And that is what we are truly fighting against.
Starbucks No Longer Wants My Business – Because I Support Traditional Marriage. And They Won’t Get it.
From Mad Medic: http://maddmedic.wordpress.com/
Some years back a good friend shared with me seven Scripture texts that he and his wife prayed for their two daughters from the time they were infants. The girls are now grown. And it’s beautiful to see how God has (and still is) answering the faithful, specific prayers of faith-filled parents in the lives of these young, godly women.
I have frequently used these prayers when praying for my children too. And I commend them to you (see below).
But, of course, prayers are not magic spells. It’s not a matter of just saying the right things and our children will be blessed with success.
Some parents earnestly pray and their children become a gifted leaders or scholars or musicians or athletes…
Republicans Too Scared To Stand Up For The Traditional American Family – Bring Back a Horrendous Bill in Congress
IN ANOTHER decided triumph for anti-family feminism, the Republican-controlled House reauthorized the Violence Against Women Act today, expanding the draconian domestic violence bill to cover homosexuals and prosecution of non-native men on Indian reservations. This marks the third time since December that House Speaker John Boehner has moved a bill off the floor without majority support from his party.
VAWA expired last year and underwent serious and vocal opposition. But the “war against women” threats prevailed. Though the majority of House Republicans voted against the bill, eighty-eight members joined 199 Democrats to approve it.
The bill authorizes $660 million a year in funding for battered women’s shelters, domestic violence programs and victims’ advocates. Here is Phyllis Schlafly on the bill, first enacted in 1994:
In its 17 years of operation, [VAWA] has done little or no good for real victims of domestic violence, while its funds have been used to fill feminist coffers and to lobby for feminist objectives and laws. Although every spending bill should be subject to rigorous auditing procedures in order to curb waste and fraud, VAWA has somehow ducked accountability for the nearly a billion dollars a year it doles out to radical feminist organizations. (Continued)
From The Thinking Housewife: http://www.thinkinghousewife.com/wp/
Lost in the “homophobia” smoke is just how radically liberal masterminds are attempting to transform society to conform to their warped ideology. Not even the concept of motherhood is safe:
The Obama Justice Department is arguing in the United States Supreme Court that children do not need mothers.
The Justice Department’s argument on the superfluity of motherhood is presented in a brief the Obama administration filed in the case of Hollingsworth v. Perry, which challenges the constitutionality of Proposition 8, the California ballot initiative that amended California’s Constitution to say that marriage involves only one man and one woman.
The Justice Department presented its conclusions about parenthood in rebutting an argument made by proponents of Proposition 8 that the traditional two-parent family, led by both a mother and a father, was the ideal place, determined even by nature itself, to raise a child.
The Obama administration argues this is not true. It argues that children need neither a father nor a mother and that having two fathers or two mothers is just as good as having one of each.
This bizarre assertion is backed up by the moonbat social engineers of the American Psychological Association, who proclaim that perverts make better parents than normal people. The point is to advance homosexual adoption of innocent children.
So far in the history of the human race, no child has ever been born without a biological father and mother. Now, in the Supreme Court of the United States, the Executive Branch of the federal government is arguing that, regardless of the biological facts of parenthood, states have no legitimate and defensible interest in ensuring that children conceived by a mother and a father are in fact raised by mothers and fathers.
Only a few years ago, virtually anyone would have recognized that this represents institutionalized depravity. But deviancy is the norm in the upside-down twilight zone of fundamentally transformed Obamunist America. Those who aren’t sick had better get with the program.
In any case, Big Government is the only parent anyone really needs in a collectivist utopia.
On a tip from Stormfax.
Question For Conservatives: Why Are Your Children Still In Public School?
Written on Wednesday, February 27, 2013 by David L. Goetsch
I am sure conservative Americans love their children and want the best for them. Since this is the case, I have a question for conservatives: Why are your children still in public school? You would not let your little children play in a busy street, jump off the roof of a ten-story building, or drive a car at the age of five. You would not do these things because doing so would put the lives of the children you love in peril. With this said, why then do the majority of conservative Americans turn their children over to public schools that put their children’s lives in peril by subjecting them to twelve years of leftwing indoctrination and mind control.
What is at risk may not be the physical well-being of your children—although with school shootings becoming more and more common their physical well-being is certainly a consideration—but their ability to think for themselves, develop the academic skills necessary for success in a global world, and internalize the values their parents are trying to teach them. If you think I exaggerate, consider the latest trend in public schools nationwide: replacing great works of fiction with non-fiction books that might include such inspiring works of literature as EPA manuals.
In 46 states, students in the public schools will soon be reading an EPA manual on levels of insulation required in buildings or a treatise on invasive plant species in California instead of literary classics such as To Kill a Mockingbird, The Scarlet Letter, and Silas Marner. The plan in these 46 states is to require that 70 percent of the books children read in the K-12 system be works of non-fiction. That in itself is not a major reason for alarm. After all, the best book ever written is non-fiction.
The problem is that not only are the public schools moving away from classic fiction to non-fiction, the states in question are providing teachers a list of “approved” non-fiction books from which they must select the ones they will teach. The list will be comprised not of great works of non-fiction, but of books that are supposed to help prepare students for the workplace. What a nonsensical claim. What this move will really do is create an easier pathway for introducing leftwing indoctrination into the classroom.
Preparing students for the workplace—the supposed purpose of the move away from classic literature—is certainly a worthy goal and one that needs more attention in schools and colleges. I spent 36 years as a professor of business preparing students for rewarding careers in the workplace. However, I never lost sight of the fact that we were preparing students first for life and second for the workplace. Part of the rationale for providing a well-rounded education is to ensure that not only can graduates secure rewarding, responsible positions in their chosen fields of endeavor, but they can also be good citizens who are able to deal with the eternal verities of life, propagate the values of a civilized society, and think for themselves rather than being led by the nose like sheep.
I suspect that the real rationale behind the move away from classic fiction to non-fiction can be found in the attitudes of liberals toward these two just-mentioned aspects of a well-rounded education: eternal truths and the values of a civilized society. First, liberals do not even subscribe to the concept of eternal truth. The holy grail of the left is moral relativism. Heaven forbid that students learn from the study of classic fiction that there are actually eternal truths, truths that have been with us for all time and are still with us. For liberals to allow children in the public schools to eat the forbidden fruit of the tree of knowledge is to allow them to learn that eternal truths not only exist, but must exist if we are to have a civilized society.
Speaking of a civilized society, to have one we, its members, must subscribe to a set of broad values that govern our behavior and how we interact with each other. Once again, the last thing liberals want school children to learn is the values that grow out of the Ten Commandments, the very values that have undergirded western society for all time. It is the steady erosion of these values that have made ours such a coarse and uncaring society, a society in which innocent unborn babies are murdered for the sake of convenience, homosexuality is openly endorsed, elderly people are warehoused like so much unwanted baggage, and corruption in business and government is rampant.
Public school officials who advocated for the move away from teaching classic literature attempted to disguise their nefarious motives by claiming that: 1) children do not enjoy reading classic fiction, and 2) reading fiction does not prepare students for jobs. As to whether children enjoy reading fictional literature or not, who cares? Children enjoy very little of what they must do and learn to become responsible adults who contribute something positive to society. As to whether reading classic literature prepares students for the workplace, that is not its purpose. However, students who dislike reading fiction but are required to do so anyway will learn one of the most valuable lessons that can be taught in preparing people for the workplace: People in the workplace often have to do things they do not enjoy and, hence, do not want to do. Work is not always fun—that’s why it is called “work” and people get paid to do it. If it was fun it would be called “play” and people would do it for free.
My final comment on this move away from teaching classic fiction—the latest in a long list of steps taken by liberals to control the minds of students and turn them into the radical leftwingers of tomorrow—is this: if you are a conservative and still have your children in public school, take them out. Find a private school, Christian school, or charter school for your children and if these options do not work, homeschool them. Whatever the reasons are for sending your children to public school, they are vastly outweighed by the damage that will be done to them after 12 years in such an environment. You would not loan the family car to someone who was determined to destroy it. Surely your children are more important than the family car.
It is by studying good literature that students learn the power of words and the critical lesson that words have meaning. Graduates who understand the power and proper use of words are more difficult to lead down the garden path of liberal orthodoxy with false but persuasive rhetoric. The study of classic literature helps students become critical thinkers, not something one will learn reading an insulation handbook from the EPA or a treatise on invasive plant species in California. Of course, the fact that critical thinking can be learned by studying classic literature is one of the reasons liberals who long ago took control of public education in America would rather have students read non-fiction works off of their approved booklist.
There’s a story told about a Paris chief of police who was called to a department store to stop a burglary in progress.
Upon his arrival, he reconnoitered the situation and ordered his men to surround the entrances of the building next door.
When questioned about his actions, he replied that he didn’t have enough men to cover the department store’s many entrances but he did have enough for the building next door.
Let’s see whether there are similarities between his strategy and today’s gun control strategy.
Last year, Chicago had 512 homicides; Detroit had 411; Philadelphia had 331; and Baltimore had 215.
Those cities are joined by other dangerous cities—such as St. Louis, Memphis, Tenn., Flint, Mich., and Camden, N.J. — and they also lead the nation in shootings, assaults, rapes and robberies.
Both the populations of those cities and their crime victims are predominantly black. Each year, more than 7,000 blacks are murdered.
Close to 100% of the time, the murderer is another black person.
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, between 1976 and 2011, there were 279,384 black murder victims.
Though blacks are 13% of the nation’s population, they account for more than 50% of homicide victims.
Nationally, the black homicide victimization rate is six times that of whites, and in some cities, it’s 22 times that of whites.
Coupled with being most of the nation’s homicide victims, blacks are also most of the victims of violent personal crimes, such as assault and robbery.
The magnitude of this tragedy can be seen in another light. According to a Tuskegee Normal and Industrial Institute study, between 1882 and 1968, 3,446 blacks were lynched at the hands of whites.
What percentage of murders, irrespective of race, are committed with what are being called assault weapons?
From Weasel Zippers:http://weaselzippers.us/
Found at Theo Spark
From Woodsterman: http://woodstermangotwood.blogspot.com/
When Neutered Men Speak to Boys
WHEELER MacPherson writes:
The small town at the base of our mountain counts among its charms a genuine country restaurant. Once a month or so, my wife and I treat ourselves to an early-morning outing at the breakfast buffet there. The fresh, family-prepared food offered there is worlds removed from the pallid microwaved sausage links and scrappy bacon ends and frozen biscuits and congealed gravy and out-of-season fruit one finds at a Shoney’s or a Denny’s. I am comfortable in saying that it’s obscene to think of the chain restaurants as worthy of comparison to such a good country kitchen.
This morning we made our trek down to the restaurant and found a booth and said our hellos to some of the Saturday morning regulars, including a little garden troll of a man who always orders a large plate of sliced tomatoes, which he eats buried in fresh sausage gravy and which he manages to keep from slopping onto the immaculate white snap-button shirt he always wears. We got our coffee and fetched our plates and loaded up with the food of the mountain South.
While we ate, we talked a little and people-watched a lot. This is our way. There were several young families in the restaurant with their small children, all of whom were well-behaved. There were also a number of grayhairs with their grandchildren or great-grandchildren in tow. The children were talkative and expressive and a wonder to watch. All those little blonde and red and brunette scalps atop all those little blue and green and hazel eyes.
As I watched, I became aware of something that’s been gnawing at me for some time now. The young fathers and the not-so-young granddaddies had a peculiar way of speaking to the male children. They squatted down to be on eye level with the lads, or they leaned way over to appear less tall. And when they spoke, the mens’ voices were…feminine. I don’t mean lisping or mincing or effeminate. I mean feminine. No matter how low the voice might have been naturally pitched, the men without exception raised the pitch of their voices and lowered the volume until they sounded like spinster Sunday School teachers, whispering in calming tones, asking questions and making observations.
“Do you see the birds outside, Chad?”
“Let Papaw tie your shoe.”
“Did you spit out your gum, Nolan?”
“What do you want to drink?”
“Show Miss Judy your tooth!”
Each of these sentences was uttered with an upward inflection into the high tenor range, as if singing a campfire song. The younger men were the worst offenders; their facial expressions were all wide eyes and open mouths. They reminded me of 19-year old female daycare workers. But most of the older men were also doing some diluted variation of these techniques. None of them seemed like whole men in the presence of these male children.
And so I began to search my memory, and I could not recall a single adult male in my boyhood speaking to me or my friends in such tones. I cannot recall any men routinely squatting down or leaning over to make themselves appear closer to my own height. I cannot remember any men putting a breathless wheezing whisper into their words. I cannot bring to mind a single incident in which a grown man opened his eyes and mouth as wide as possible and talked to me like some grinning, masculine Norma Desmond. What I do remember are the grown men who picked me up and lifted me to their naturally imposing height, instead of lowering themselves to mine. And such lifting was always accompanied by a feeling of safety and strength. I’m pretty sure (and confirmed by my wife’s memories) that I never talked to our boys or to my nephews in such a manner. And I know very well that I have never vocally nor vertically neutered myself when interacting with my grandchildren.
The men of today, both young and old, have been poisoned, it seems. Poisoned by the feminist doctrine that has been mixed into every social expression, event, and philosophy. Poisoned by the erasing of distinctions between the sexes. Poisoned by the need to be nonthreatening and never, ever overtly masculine. Poisoned by the need to be liked by their own children and grandchildren – liked like schoolyard chums, I mean.
The males of today have a horror of many things; the horror of not being a man does not seem to be listed in the catalog of fears.
When we left the restaurant, I felt that odd combination of bewilderment and determination that always accompanies epiphany. Now that I have named and described this behavior in my own mind, I will be keenly aware of it. And I will also be vigilant to see if any men alive today know how to talk properly to a boy. I want to know if men today realize that the lads under their gaze are future men, men who (God willing) will one day have their own lads to tend.
From The Thinking Housewife: http://www.thinkinghousewife.com/wp/2013/01/when-neutered-men-speak-to-boys/
Found at Moonbattery: http://moonbattery.com/
Liberals look at the Obama majority and see a coalition bound together by enlightened values — reason rather than superstition, tolerance rather than bigotry, equality rather than hierarchy. But it’s just as easy to see a coalition created by social disintegration and unified by economic fear.
Consider the Hispanic vote. Are Democrats winning Hispanics because they put forward a more welcoming face than Republicans do — one more in keeping with America’s tradition of assimilating migrants yearning to breathe free? Yes, up to a point. But they’re also winning recent immigrants because those immigrants often aren’t assimilating successfully — or worse, are assimilating downward, thanks to rising out-of-wedlock birthrates and high dropout rates. The Democratic edge among Hispanics depends heavily on these darker trends: the weaker that families and communities are, the more necessary government support inevitably seems.
Likewise with the growing number of unmarried Americans, especially unmarried women. Yes, social issues like abortion help explain why these voters lean Democratic. But the more important explanation is that single life is generally more insecure and chaotic than married life, and single life with children — which is now commonplace for women under 30 — is almost impossible to navigate without the support the welfare state provides.
Or consider the secular vote, which has been growing swiftly and tilts heavily toward Democrats. The liberal image of a non-churchgoing American is probably the “spiritual but not religious” seeker, or the bright young atheist reading Richard Dawkins. But the typical unchurched American is just as often an underemployed working-class man, whose secularism is less an intellectual choice than a symptom of his disconnection from community in general.
What unites all of these stories is the growing failure of America’s local associations — civic, familial, religious — to foster stability, encourage solidarity and make mobility possible.
This is a crisis that the Republican Party often badly misunderstands, casting Democratic-leaning voters as lazy moochers or spoiled children seeking “gifts” (as a certain former Republican presidential nominee would have it) rather than recognizing the reality of their economic struggles.
But if conservatives don’t acknowledge the crisis’s economic component, liberalism often seems indifferent to its deeper social roots. The progressive bias toward the capital-F Future, the old left-wing suspicion of faith and domesticity, the fact that Democrats have benefited politically from these trends — all of this makes it easy for liberals to just celebrate the emerging America, to minimize the costs of disrupted families and hollowed-out communities, and to treat the places where Americans have traditionally found solidarity outside the state (like the churches threatened by the Obama White House’s contraceptive mandate) as irritants or threats.
This is a great flaw in the liberal vision, because whatever role government plays in prosperity, transfer payments are not a sufficient foundation for middle-class success. It’s not a coincidence that the economic era that many liberals pine for — the great, egalitarian post-World War II boom — was an era that social conservatives remember fondly as well: a time of leaping church attendance, rising marriage rates and birthrates, and widespread civic renewal and engagement.
No such renewal seems to be on the horizon…
From American Power Blog: http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/
From Theo Spark
Just as two plus two equals five, repugnant, disease-spreading, but politically correct forms of sexual depravity are now normal. Therefore, thinking that normal sex is normal is abnormal:
The “Proud Schools” pilot program, implemented in 12 government schools in Sydney and the Hunter [Region], is designed to stamp out “homophobia, transphobia (fear of transsexuals) and heterosexism”. …
The program defines “heterosexism” as the practice of “positioning heterosexuality as the norm for human relationship,” according to the Proud Schools Consultation Report. …
The program should “focus on [reversing] the dominance of heterosexism rather than on homophobia,” according to the minutes from the Proud Schools steering committee on March 22, 2011.
Bureaucrats have devoted $250,000 looted from taxpayers to the pilot program.
The pilot drew on a similar program in Victoria, the “Safe Schools Coalition” to “support sexual diversity” in schools, which holds that gender and sexuality are not fixed but fluid concepts. In Victoria, each participating school is advised to erect a noticeboard specifically for gay, lesbian, transgender and “gender-questioning” young people. …
A Proud Schools consultation report also recommended that schools review existing [Personal Development, Health, and Physical Education] programs from Year 7 to “incorporate learning about same-sex attraction and sexual diversity”.
Any ideas on why government schools systematically attempt to brainwash children into embracing depraved and obviously unhealthy sexual practices? The defilement of innocence out of sheer love of evil is the best explanation I can come up with.
On a tip from Artfldgr.
France’s Socialist Government To Ban Words “Mother” And “Father” From All Official Documents Thanks To Gay Marriage Law…
A glimpse into our “progressive” future should we choose to go down it.
France is set to ban the words “mother” and “father” from all official documents under controversial plans to legalise gay marriage.
The move, which has outraged Catholics, means only the word “parents” would be used in identical marriage ceremonies for all heterosexual and same-sex couples.
The draft law states that “marriage is a union of two people, of different or the same gender”.
It says all references to “mothers and fathers” in the civil code – which enshrines French law – will be swapped for simply “parents”.
The law would also give equal adoption rights to homosexual and heterosexual couples.
Justice Minister Christiane Taubira told France’s Catholic newspaper La Croix: “Who is to say that a heterosexual couple will bring a child up better than a homosexual couple, that they will guarantee the best conditions for the child’s development?”
Note: Legalizing gay marriage and adoption was one of the first laws France’s socialist government passed after they were elected in May.
From Weasel Zippers: http://weaselzippers.us/
Some think that nothing could be more blasphemous, pernicious, and disgusting than homosexual “marriage.” But for social engineers among our liberal ruling class, it is only the thin edge of the wedge. Bigwig Hollywood director Nick Cassevetes takes a natural step by applying pro-gay marriage reasoning to incest:
The director of the popular romance “The Notebook” was out promoting a new film [Yellow] that features an incestuous relationship between a brother and sister.
“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?” Cassavetes said. …
“This whole movie is about judgment, and lack of it, and doing what you want,” he added.
Again we see that getting your culture from Hollywood is like getting your drinking water from a septic tank.
Just down the line: bestiality and of course, pedophilia. What comes after that, only a progressive could be sick enough to imagine. Refer to the works of the Marquis de Sade for clues.
On tips from wingmann, Sam, Wiggins, G. Fox, and Bob Roberts.
From Moonbattery: http://moonbattery.com/
To the PC Thought Prisoner, affirming the family is the same (by analogy) as opposing sodomy,
and sodomites are regarded not as the practitioners of a disordered sexual appetite but (by analogy) as a separate race or ethnic group who suffer unjust persecution, such as slavery or Jim Crow laws. Hence, reasoning entirely by analogy, if a seller of chicken sandwiches and waffle-cut potato fries affirms the family (which, to sane men, is a comment as boilerplate and boring as being in favor of Mom and Apple Pie and the Flag) to the PC Thought Prisoner, that man is (by analogy) a slaver and a segregationist. – On Neobarbarism | John C. Wright’s Journal
From American Digest: http://americandigest.org/
when Lyndon Johnson foisted the Great Society welfare regime upon us. No longer was illegitimacy scorned, it was rewarded.
In fact, marriage, and even cohabitation, was punished by the government. Ruinous lifestyles were monetarily rewarded. One might say “unintended consequences, and what a shame.” I say if those outcomes were a surprise to you, then you are a fucking retard. LBJ and his Democratic Congress drove a great sharp stake into the heart of traditional marriage in 1965. It is what it is, now. I would suggest we enjoy the diversity, but Section 8 rowhouse after rowhouse of multigenerational mutt-breeding with no father figures isn’t really diverse, is it? –Velociworld: In The Boudoir With The Man
From American Digest: http://americandigest.org/
One of the more blatant displays of progressive thuggery is playing itself out in Boston and Chicago. Boston Mayor Thomas Menino threatened to keep fast food franchise Chick-fil-A from opening any restaurants in that city because he doesn’t want any business operating there “that discriminates against a population.” In Chicago, Alderman Proco “Joe” Moreno announced that he will pursue the same course in his district for the same reason. “If you are discriminating against a segment of the community, I don’t want you in the 1st Ward,” Moreno told the Chicago Tribune. Such “tolerance” is based on an effort to deliberately mischaracterize as anti-homosexual what Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy said about traditional marriage. That mischaracterization has been aided and abetted by a media more than willing to amplify the distortion.