Do Conservatives Oppose Marriage Equality? Yes, and They Must!

[No Bull Savage]

Proponents of ‘gay marriage’ say that people–mostly on the Right–who
oppose it are against Marriage Equality. Many on the Right deny this
because ‘equality’ has become a sacred cow, which is rather hilarious
because no society on Earth is more competitive and hierarchical(in a
meritocratic way)than the United States. After all, liberals live to
succeed in business–be in Hollywood, law, medicine, and high-tech–and
making millions or even billions of dollars. Most people in Ivy
League schools are liberals–a good number of them Jews–, which means
that liberals want to send their kids to the cream-of-the-crop
academic institutions. And, liberals love sports where the best of the
best dominate and make millions of dollars while janitors and clean up
crew working at the stadium make a pittance. Liberals aren’t bothered
by the fact that most sports franchises are owned by billionaire Jews
who live in giant mansions and own several yachts. So, we are living
in a funny kind of society. On the one hand, our society is
competitive, and the smartest come out on top. And, the smartest/
richest people who own the culture industry hire and market the good
looking, the athletic, the witty, and the glamorous so that movie
stars make millions while countless schmucks flip hamburgers for their
Friday night at the movie.


But, despite the actual nature of our society, equality is our
national religion. Perhaps, ‘egalitarianism’ is the better term
because equality can mean anything. There’s the concept of equality
of opportunity and equality under the law as opposed to equality of
outcome or bio-equality of man. Equality of opportunity or protection
under the law doesn’t deny the fact that people are different and that
equal freedom will lead to different results. In contrast, equality
of outcome demands that all people, regardless of their differences,
should receive, more or less, the same rewards in life. And, bio-
equality of man assumes that all men(and even women) are made of the
same stuff and have the same talents(and the only reason for
differences among people is social or historical injustice).


In any case, one form of equality violates another form of equality.
Equality of opportunity means that smarter and more industrious will
rise above the dumb and lazy; it leads to socio-economic inequality.
But, equality of outcomes violates the equality of opportunity because
the freedom of smarter and more industrious people will have to be
curtailed so as to make things ‘fairer’ for the dumb and/or lazy.
But, equality is such a catchy and appealing idea that all sides use
the equality excuse. Conservatives say they are for equality in the
sense that all people should have equal freedom to be work and succeed
in life according to one’s talent and input; since rich people used
freedom equally open to all to succeed in life, why shouldn’t they
keep their riches? Leftists, in contrast, say they are for equality
in the sense that all people should be provided with happiness and
necessities of life; why should rich people have so much more than
poor people?


But, this is a complex and unpredictable issue because many poor
people want equality of freedom and not equality of outcome; they want
to rise up using their own freedom or want their kids to do so. And,
there are plenty of rich people who are for equality of outcome(at
least as a state policy if not in real terms); they wouldn’t really be
giving up their riches, power, and/or privilege since the rich and
well-educated and their children will be controlling the government
and institutions dedicated to making society more ‘fair and equal’.


Anyway, equality has become a secular religion. All sides try to
justify their views or position on the basis of equality–one kind or
another. So, it’s only natural that the people pushing the gay agenda
use the equality argument for ‘gay marriage’. They say gay couples
should have equal right to marriage as normal or heterosexual couples
do. And, if such is not provided for them, society is evil, wicked,
and oppressive.


Of course, equality is not synonymous with sameness. Sameness means
that two things are alike. Equality means bestowing equal value to two
things which may or may not be alike. For instance, an apple and a
rubber ball are not the same, but they can have equal value if both
cost $1. But, only a fool would say a rubber ball should be
categorized as a food item because its monetary value is equal to that
of an apple. They are of equal value but not the same thing.


The problem of marriage equality is more serious because gay marriage
is utterly valueless. A rubber ball is good for playing and an apple
is good for eating. But, what is ‘gay marriage’ good for? Gays cannot
have kids. I know of no child that was born of a man buggering
another man or two women grinding their vaginas together. So,
homosexuality is not the equal of heterosexuality. A ‘gay family’ is a
culturally constructed fantasy as no life can be created by homosexual
behavior. Gay people have to engage in heterosexual behavior
themselves to create life or they have to adopt children produced by
heterosexual unions. So, in a ‘gay family’, the child(though created
through heterosexual union) is denied the healthy and normal
attentions of a father and mother but instead led to believe that he’s
the product of two men buggering one another or two women grinding
their pussies together. In other words, ‘gay marriage’ is a pathetic
lie. It is not same as real marriage; it is not even equal in value
with real marriage. It is a monstrous perversion of the concept of
marriage, either for the purpose of undermining the foundations of our
civilization so as to bring forth social breakdown whereupon a wholly
radical new order will be built (the agenda of the radical left) OR
for the purpose of feeling oh-so-morally-hip-and-narcissistic among
airheaded liberals who’ve been brainwashed by pop culture and radical
professors into thinking it’s uncool and lame to oppose ‘gay
marriage’.


Anyway, it’s time for conservatives to stop being afraid of the word
‘equality’. It’s about time conservatives said, “not only is ‘gay
marriage’ not equal to real marriage but that the very concept of
marriage equality is a stupid idea.” Marriage has its own meaning,
purpose, values, and design. It is what it is according to its needs,
purpose, and meaning. It is a form of human relationship with its own
set of rules. Indeed, if we are to expand on the definition of
marriage, why not call every relation a form of marriage? Why not
call the relationship between employer and employee a marriage? Why
not call the relationship between a coach and his players a marriage?
Why not call the relationship between a movie director and actor a
marriage? After all, ‘marriage’ has been used metaphorically, as in
‘marriage made in hell’, ‘marriage of talents’, etc. Why not turn
metaphors into literal meanings? Of course, this will not do because
most human relationships simply do NOT qualify as marriage as marriage
is defined. ‘Gay marriage’ may resemble marriage more than most kinds
of human relationships do. After all, there is sexual attraction
between the two partners, and the couple may want to commit to a
relationship for life. That part has the trappings of real marriage.
But, gay coupling makes no reproductive sense. Gays are sexually
screwed up. Their bio-chemistry simply isn’t normal or functional.
Their feelings and their physical attributes don’t complement one
another. A gay guy with a penis acts like he has a pussy. A lesbian
with a pussy acts like she has a dick. Though the vagina was designed
by nature to be a hole for the penis in order to create life, two
lesbians rub their vaginas together in a funny way. And, gay guys
stick their penises into the anuses of other men and squirt sperm into
a tunnel filled with shit. In the case of gay men, the sexual act
isn’t just funny–as with lesbians–but downright sick and putrid. A
guy buggering another guy in the ass is gross.


We should not and cannot impose equality or equal value on things that
aren’t the same and aren’t even of equal value. Indeed, contrary to
what egalitarians may think, the very concept of equality assumes the
existence and necessity for hierarchy. After all, if equality exists
in the world, so must inequality–just as darkness and lightness only
make sense in relation to the other. For there to be lightness, there
has to darkness. We notice lightness as a contrast to darkness, and we
notice darkness in contrast to lightness. If darkness was all we knew,
we wouldn’t even notice it. If lightness was all we knew, we wouldn’t
notice it either. We say some things are of equal value because we
are aware of inequalities that exist all around us. We may argue that
some inequalities are artificial, constructed, falsely premised, or
unjust. But, we must also acknowledge that most inequalities are
natural, normal, welcome, beneficial, and not the product of
injustice. Some people are smarter than other people. Some animals are
faster than other animals. Some animals are stronger than other
animals. Some people are stronger than other people. These
inequalities are facts and the products of nature. We become aware of
equality only because inequality is an overwhelming fact of life and
nature. Because so many things and creatures are unequal and
different, we take notice when we see things that are equal in form or
value. For example, we notice that a tiger is stronger than a cheetah–
inequality. But, we may observe that a tiger is roughly of equal
strength as the lion. And we may note that the cheetah is faster than
a tiger or lion. And we may say that a car going 60 mph is roughly as
fast as a cheetah–equal speed. So, we are aware of the concept of
equality because it exists in contrast to inequality that we see all
around us in nature and human society. We know that Einstein was
immeasurably smarter than your average beauty contestant.


Taking notice of equality and forcing equality are two different
things. It’s one thing to say it would be nice if all people were
equally smart, but an agenda that tries to pretend that all people are
of equal intelligence makes no sense. But, radical egalitarians are
trying to redefine intelligence. They argue that the concept of
intelligence is Eurocentric(funny when some of the smartest people
measured by Eurocentric tests are Jews and Asians) and that there are
many kinds of intelligence. So, the ability to dribble and dunk a
basketball is a kind of intelligence too. So, the ability to be
sociable and make friend is also an intelligence. Now, intelligence is
involved in everything we do as all skills are partly learned and
memorized. But, intelligence, as most people understand it, has to do
with logic, memory, and rational thinking of a higher sort, not mere
physical talent or likability. Someone who learns to hula hoop very
well isn’t exactly a genius. Neither is a person who learns to eat 100
hotdogs in 30 minutes. Such individuals may indeed have used a degree
of intelligence to improve their talents, but their feats have less to
do with high intelligence than certain physical attributes and sheer
will power(and obsessive stupidity).


Anyway, it’s become a very bad habit on the left to force equality on
things that are not equal. Equality has become a religion, an
ideology. Thus, it goes by the name of ‘egalitarianism’. It’s not
simply about taking notice of things that are equal or trying to make
social laws equally just for everyone. It’s about forcing equality on
things and people that are not equal and can never be equal. It’s
about pretending that a dumb person is really just as smart as an
intelligent person by coming up with endless social or historical
excuses for the dumb person’s failures or by redefining
intelligence.


Or, it’s pretending that homosexuality is just as legitimate as
heterosexuality. Sane people know that the basic fact of sexuality
concerns its reproductive nature. The reason why people feel sexual
pleasure is because evolution made sex pleasurable possible so as to
encourage members of the species to mate in order to produce
offsprings to carry on the DNA. If organisms didn’t feel ‘lust’ and
seek pleasure through sex, they wouldn’t engage in sex and would die
out as a species. So, the basic feature of sex is its reproductive
function. Higher animals such as dogs, apes, and humans have come to
appreciate or enjoy sexual pleasure without necessarily engaging in
reproductive activity. Dogs will hump legs or furniture. You can see
apes masturbating at the zoo. Humans are also known to masturbate and
also to engage in sex for the express purpose of pleasure. To be sure,
it could be argued that all creatures engage in sex for fun or
pleasure rather than to procreate since only humans understand that
sex-leads-to-pregnancy-and-new-life. So, when a lion humps a bunch of
lionesses, he’s doing it out of sheer horniness, not because he thinks
it’s going to lead to birth of lion cubs. Lions and even apes do not
understand that sex leads to new life. They go into heat, feel horny,
and want pleasure by f___ing. Humans are the ONLY organisms that
understands that sex leads to new life, so humans are the ONLY
organisms that has sex specifically for the purpose of creating
offspring.


Since modern healthcare and abundance of food make it possible for
most human offsprings to survive, there’s no need for humans to have
lots of sex to have more kids. In primitive societies where only 2
offsprings survive out of 9 or 10, sex serves a truly primary
function. In modern society, even if a couple has only two kids, both
will live a long life thanks to abundance of food and modern medicine.
So, sex is mainly for pleasure for modern humans, especially since
they have contraceptive means to prevent pregnancy. For people who
are mainly interested in the pleasures of sex and don’t want to have
children, marriage isn’t all that important; there’s no great moral
need for the partners to get married. They may choose to marry out of
love, but whether they do or not has little bearing on rest of
society. However, if a couple decides to have sex to create new life,
marriage or some kind of strong mutual moral commitment is absolutely
necessary because their kids will grow up to become members of society
for good or for ill. Humans are not only born but raised and shaped
into citizens. This responsibility of shaping babies/children into
decent adults must fall on the very people who created the children in
the first place. This is a moral necessity, and this is what marriage
is all about.


Marriage is not merely a biological concept nor merely a moral
concept. It is a bio-moral concept. Marriage can also be understood
culturally and spiritually, but those concerns are specific to
particular societies. What all societies have in common, however, is
the bio-moral aspect of marriage: that is life is created through sex
between man and woman and that the people who’ve decided to create
that life must be responsible for it. Whether a society is Christian,
Jewish, Islamic, or communist, that much can be agreed upon. But, the
cultural and spiritual aspects of marriage differ culture to culture.
Culture is the product of tradition and customs, so different cultures
have different rules for marriage: age of consent, monogamy vs
polygamy, rules on divorce, marriage by free choice or by arrangement,
etc. And, different religions validate marriage differently; for
Jews, rules of marriage concerns the Chosen People and their covenant
with God. For Christians, marriage is something sanctified before God.
For Asians, marriage is a way of passing down the spirit of ancestors
to future generations. So, the cultural(traditional) or religious
meaning of marriage is not universally the same around the world. But,
the bio-moral element of marriage has been a constant in all peoples
and all societies. It was and is understood that a mother must take
care of her children and that the father must stick around to protect
and provide for the family. Whether we’re talking of primitive,
barbaric, or modern society, that much has been true. But, the Left
and the gay agenda people are waging war against this concept of
marriage.


Though communists came to accept marriage as a social necessity, many
on the Left have always been wary and hostile toward marriage because
the family has been regarded as an obstacle in the creation of the New
Man. This is why the Left wants women to enter the workforce and hand
their kids over to daycare centers where kids, from the cradle, will
be indoctrinated in leftist ideology. The Left ideally wants kids to
be raised by the Big Mother Big Father Nanny state(funded and run by
the government) rather than by their own parents who might have
‘reactionary’ tendencies. And, though the Nazis were not as anti-
family, they too wanted German parents to hand over their kids as
early as possible to state indoctrination. Even so, communist nations
came to understand that the state cannot produce life. Only couples
can. Also, the state cannot breast-feed and take care of all kids
24/7, so the biological parents had to play a major role. So, the
concept of marriage was preserved under communism.


Nevertheless, the Left would like to take control of children as much
as possible. Since the Left sees the state as the real intellectual,
moral, and cultural guardians of the children, the sanctity of
marriage is seen as a mere hindrance. The modern Left doesn’t care if
children are born out of wedlock and grow up in single-mother homes.
The Left feels that as long as the state is big enough and well-funded
enough, the kids can properly be raised by the vast state apparatus.
And, even if things don’t work out as the Left promises and the
breakdown of marriage leads to social decay(as conservatives warned),
the Left doesn’t care because it sees the collapse of the modern
capitalist order as an opportunity to bring forth a real radical
revolution. Leftists act in utterly bad faith. They offer ideas and
programs that are supposed to fix problems. But, if their proposals
make problems worse and lead to social ruin, leftists love that too
since they have apocalyptic visions of a wholly new society built upon
radical ideas.


Anyway, to those who say we are opposed to marriage equality, you are
right. We don’t believe that ‘gay marriage’ is equal to real marriage
on biological, moral, cultural, or spiritual grounds. We believe that
real marriage is the fundamental to the well-being of civilization
whereas ‘gay marriage’ doesn’t add anything to society but only takes
away. It takes away because if we equate something of real value with
something of trivial or no value, the value becomes worthless.
It would be like saying counterfeit money is the same as real money.
Even if the introduction of some counterfeit money will not destroy
the entire financial system, but the very idea that counterfeit money
has equal value as real money undermines the very foundations of the
financial system. If counterfeit money has the same value as real
money, there’s no reason for any agreement on money. Eventually, the
entire financial system is corrupted and leads to collapse.


Just look what happened to the financial system in recent times
because lending requirements went out the window. Many people on both
the Right and Left said it would be no problem if we dispensed with
hierarchical credit-ratings in order for more people to get loans; for
several years, it seemed as though the new egalitarian lending
policies would have no ill effect, but eventually it led to a massive
economic collapse.
Something far graver will happen if we destroy the core meaning and
value of marriage. We won’t see the full impact right away, but once a
virus enters a system, it has a way of multiplying and corrupting the
system from within. That’s how moral corruption spreads through
stealth. Sometimes, the corrupt nature of a new idea or value is
concealed by its moralistic language; proponents of ‘gay marriage’ say
it’s for tolerance, love, understanding, and equality. Though cloaked
or draped in moralistic overtones, the core essence of ‘gay marriage’
is moral rot; it equates the dysfunctional sexual behavior of gay
people with the healthy, normal, and productive sexual behavior of
straight people. (Another way to spread moral rot is to hitch it onto
coolness. Why do kids start smoking and using other drugs? They are
told by their peers–and by popular culture–that it’s hip and cool to
do so, and so they become blind to the dangers of drugs; they want to
be liked, popular, and ‘with it’ than lame, square, and ‘boring’. So,
kids don’t realize how they’re endangering themselves. The Left is
promoting the gay agenda through a combination of moralism and
coolness. On the one hand, they are characterizing the gay agenda as a
struggle for ‘equality’; but they are also promoting gayness and its
allies as cool, hip, ‘with it’, and glamorous. Notice that so many TV
shows parade and feature gayness as something funny, wonderful, and
cool. Once people come to equate gayness with being cool and hip, they
have a harder time opposing the gay agenda lest they come across as
lame, square, and ‘boring’, not to mention evil, ‘homophobic’, and
discriminatory.)
Similarly, the stupid and retarded idea of making easy loans available
to irresponsible people, poor people, illegal aliens, and asshole
speculators was cloaked in moralistic language about ‘equality’,
‘progress’, ‘fairness’, and the ‘ownership society’. Evil and moral
corruption is most dangerous when they come with a smile and a
handshake. Rat poison is more dangerous if made sweet. Communism was
all the more dangerous because of its universal moral rhetoric. In
the recent financial mess, Wall Street and Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac took
worthless mortgages–stinky shit loans–and sealed them inside perfumed
and fancy boxes with pictures of Martin Luther King on the sides.
Though what were inside the boxes stank to high heaven, the
moralistic packaging covered up the rotten odor. Eventually, of
course, the rot inside the boxes got so bad that the all the boxes
began to blow up.


Similarly, many good decent people have been sold on ‘gay marriage’
because this stinky rotten idea has been packaged in moral language
that appeals to the goodwill of many people. If you honestly show
people what homosexuality and ‘gay marriage’ are really about, they
will reject it as a stupidity and pervesion; but the Left is never
that honest or candid; no, they are deceitful, act in bad faith, and
think just like Saul Alinsky, the author of Rules for Radicals.
Instead, the Left sanitizes gayness and present gay people as saintly;
next, it loads ‘gay marriage’ with all the ideals that we espouse–like
tolerance, equality, and being cool. So, many people come to think
that you must support gay marriage because opposing it means you’re a
reactionary beast.


‘Gay marriage’ is counterfeit marriage. We should not allow gay
marriage just to be ‘understanding’, ‘tolerant’, and ‘nice’. ‘After
all, should we allow counterfeit money lest we offend the feelings of
those with counterfeit money? It just won’t do. The values and
feelings of normal people who uphold the laws and rules of
civilization are infinitely more important that the insipid and overly
sensitive feelings of homosexual activists who are trying to bully and
force us to accept homosexuality as the equal of normal sexuality just
so they can feel good about themselves.


Of course, leftists say it’s all about equality; that it’s not about
gays being better than us but being just as good as us. I would
counter that though gay people can be as good as straight people in
most respects, gayness is not and can never be as good as real
sexuality. Indeed, gay sexuality is either funny(among lesbians) or
disgusting(among men). What else is two guys buggering each other in
the ass if not disgusting? A guy taking a sexual organ designed by
nature for the vagina sticking it into the anus of another guy? Is
that not disgusting? But, the gay agenda would have us believe that
two guys buggering each other is the biological, moral, cultural, and
spiritual equivalent of real sexuality. And, if you disagree, you’re
said to suffer from a mental malady called ‘homophobia’. The lunatics
now run the asylum because Jews are smarter than us and took over the
media and academia. Why would Jews do such a thing? That is a topic of
discussion for another day.


Anyway, we must not be afraid of being opposed to perverted notions of
equality. We are for equality of things of equal value, but we are
opposed for coercive equality of things of unequal value. We proudly
and adamantly say that real marriage is superior to ‘gay marriage’.
We say it loud and clear. If our enemies say we are opposed to
‘marriage equality’, we say DAMN STRAIGHT, PAL! We are opposed to the
idea that ‘gay marriage’ is as good as real marriage or that
counterfeit money is as good as real money or that African black magic
is as good as Western medicine or that Creationism is as good as
evolutionary theory. I’m sure that many people who push for ‘gay
marriage’, counterfeit money, black magic, or Creationism have good
qualities; they may indeed be sincere in their agendas. But, truth
cannot be sacrificed just so certain groups can feel good about
themselves. Sorry, ‘gay marriage’ doesn’t belong in the pantheon of
marriage. Creationism doesn’t belong in the science class. And,
Monopoly game money is not the same thing as real money. But, gee,
won’t a kid who wants to buy an ice cream cone with Monopoly money
feel sad and cry if the ice cream vendor won’t take the fake money?
Well, TOO BAD!! Let the kid learn about real money.


It’s because we keep losing sight of values that our society becomes
more stupid and ludicrous. Because we cannot accept the fact that
some students do better in school in others, we try to come up with
ways to show that all students are equal despite the inevitable wide
range of academic performances. This is why so many police and fire
departments have gotten rid of testing–because whites tend to do
better than blacks or Hispanics. This is why we can no longer even
tell an American citizen from an illegal alien. Under radical
egalitarianism, we must say all things and peoples are of equal value
in order to be ‘nice’, ‘progressive’, and whatever.


This is why we are on the verge of thinking that ‘gay marriage’ has
equal value as real marriage. Ironically, the people who are most
adamantly pushing egalitarianism are the elite–mainly the black,
Jewish, and wasp elite. Of course, they do so for different reasons.
Though the black elite–intellectuals and thinkers–speak the language
of ‘social justice’, they push egalitarianism for a very simple black
nationalist reason. Since most blacks lose out academically and
economically to other groups, blacks want government laws and programs
favoring undeserving blacks in the name of ‘equality’. It’s really in
the name of black power, but these clever blacks know how to use
‘progressive’ lingo to cover up what are essentially tribal
interests.
Jews push egalitarianism because they are nervous about their success.
On the one hand, Jewish moral authority is based on their victimhood
and minority status; but, this facade is getting harder to maintain
because Jews are the richest and most powerful group in America; as
such, people might feel resentful, suspicious, and envious of Jews; in
order to cover up or hide their great wealth and power, Jews openly
call for egalitarianism to make us feel that they are for the little
guy(though they themselves are the big guy); it’s like rich Hollywood
making all those movies where poor are good guys and rich people are
bad guys; though rich Hollywood makes these movies and takes all the
profits, the stupid moviegoers think the rich Hollywood guys are on
their side.
As for the Wasp elite, they support egalitarianism for three reasons.
One is they’ve really been brainwashed by the Jewish intellectual
elite. Second reason is they feel guilt for treatment of blacks in the
past and want to make amends. Third reason is they are afraid of
Jewish and black power and want to be let off the hook by saying all
the politically correct things.


So, we are not necessarily for equality nor against equality. We are
for equality of things of equal value, and we are for maintaining
hierarchy for things that have different values. Otherwise, why not
insist that iron and silver should be of equal value as gold and
diamond? We don’t want to discriminate against people who own iron
over those who own gold, do we? So, maybe there should be a law
saying that a man taking a bar of iron to a jeweler should be paid the
same amount as someone who brings a bar of gold. And, what’s with
American Idol saying some people sing better? Isn’t it bigoted since
American Idol favors blacks and some whites over most whites and
Asians? Can’t have that, can we? Why not say all people have the same
singing talent and that ‘bad singing’ is actually good singing except
that we don’t know it yet because we are badsingophobes?