From California, With H8

[Gravis]

-puts on serious face-

Alright, this is a bit long article from the Men's Daily News site and it speaks of very pressing issues many people are quick to ignore.

Originally Posted by From California, With H8

In the wake of the passage of California’s Proposition 8, Gays and Lesbians are showing their true colors displaying great hate of heterosexuals and just about everything we do.

Saturday, November 15th marks a day of hateful community-organized demonstrations, and predictable violence as well. Already, we have seen an old lady with a Cross beaten, hateful slogans plastered all over Mormon Churches, police cars damaged, and queer advocates baiting people into physical altercations to make themselves look good.

Blacks know precisely why the queer marriage movement’s demands are fatally disingenous. “It’s not a civil rights issue, because as African-Americans we can’t change the color of our skin,” said pastor Edward Smith, who supported the ban on gay marriage. That is why 70% of California blacks voted for proposition 8.

The language of queer marriage movement is as shifty as the Arabic sands. They claim homosexuality is purely genetic, but elsewhere preen young people to “choose” being a homosexual. They want to inculcate kindergarteners by taking them on school field trips to witness lesbian marriages. They say they want “gay marriage”, but litigate strenously for laws that let any two human beings marry regardless of sexual orientation.

The queer marriage movement is indeed a hate movement targeting everything heterosexual. We are known as “breeders”. Marilyn French, an advisor to Al Gore’s presidential campaign, believes that “All men are rapists and that’s all they are.” Former Congresswoman Barbara Jordan insisted, “I believe that women have a capacity for understanding and compassion which man structurally does not have, does not have it because he cannot have it. He’s just incapable of it.” Gloria Steinem (who was sidelined by feminists for not being radical enough) believed that “The end of the institution of marriage is a necessary condition for the liberation of women.”

Why do feminist leaders, who for forty years have erupted rivers of hate for marriage and husbands, now desperately want the entire socioeconomic institution of marriage for themselves? Why are they so hateful in their protesting to encourage the California Supreme Court to block Proposition 8?

In the January, 1988 issue of the N.O.W. Times, radical feminist leader Sheila Cronan had a featured inset that speaks volumes: “The simple fact is that every woman must be willing to be identified as a lesbian to be fully feminist.” At the 1988 N.O.W convention in Houston, Cronin declared; “Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women’s movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage’.

Why would N.O.W. want all women to pretend they are lesbians, and fully devote themselves, for something only a few lesbians want? Why would N.O.W litigate vociferously for gay men, while continuing to do everything possible to destroy the social rights of heterosexual men?

“Heather has two mommies” explains it all. It is a feminist vision for taking over the economic institution of marriage and the social institution of family (men cannot be parents outside marriage, unless they go to great lengths to adopt). Billions in federal social entitlement seed money is already available to feminists to buy out the marriage market, beginning with $16-billion in TANF block grants to states every year. This is why 80% of same-sex marriages in Massachusetts involve women – whose sexual preference is unknown.

N.O.W. cares nothing about gay men — it is using them as political props to make their litigation appear “gender neutral” and avoid their initiative as being seen as deeply feminist. Gay men would receive little out of marriage. For them, marriage is largely an illusion masking a treatable and healable sexual disorder that is often disabling or fatal: gay men have 800% more sexual partners than heterosexual men. Like hetero men, gay men will be sucked dry for child support, but more stiffly be denied parental rights because they are gay.

It is astonishing that gay men imagine N.O.W. is really working for them. Heterosexual men thought the feminist equal rights movement (since the 1970’s) stood for equality, and strongly supported it, until they found out personally what it means via a bankrupting surprise divorce or impossible child support order.

Indeed, same sex marriage would result in severe societal stratification. It would place dual-female marriages-of-socioeconomic-convenience at the top of the socioeconopolitical diaspora, heterosexual marriages in the middle, and gay men at the very bottom.

In 1970, noted feminist author Shulamith Firestone issued a firebrand call predicting the demise of heterosexual marriage and the subsequent rise of the feminist same-sex marriage movement we see today:

“The nuclear family is the school of values in a sexist, sexually repressed society … The alternative to the nuclear family at the moment is the extended family or the tribe. The growth of tribe is part of the process of destroying particularized roles and fixed erotic identity. As people develop fluid androgynous identity, they will also develop the forms of community appropriate to it. We cannot really imagine what those forms will be.”

Now, I turn the tables on feminists, proving that what they want cannot be a Constitutional right:

“Heterosexual marriage is the only institution that fully erases all physical, economic, social, and culturally-imposed differences between women and men. It is the only institution that harnesses the entire human race to work hard together and raise children in prosocial manner. It is the only institution that naturally assures everyone equal rights of every description regardless of race, sex, or creed. Same-sex marriage is the polar antithesis of equality because it maximizes every tangible disparity that exists between women and men.”

George Washington was married without a state marriage license, as was virtually everyone back then. The Constitution was written intending for Churches to have exclusive control of marriage - protected as a fundamental right. It was not the purvue of the state in any way. In the mid 1800’s some states began requiring marriage licenses for interracial marriages as a way to track miscegenation and discourage the practice. In 1923, the federal government enacted the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act. By 1929, all states required marriage licenses.

Courts have dramatically seized incremental powers over marriage for states and trial lawyers to gratuitously manipulate, initially by giving the state sole control over divorce. With the passage of time, the notion of the separation between church and state has far exceeded its original dubious intent, and it being abused as a predatory devise. Feminists are now demanding courts seize control of marriage itself, at the complete disenfranchisement of Church.

Feminists have nearly fooled America into handing the institution of marriage over to them lock, stock, and barrel. The impact of this would be additionally as devastating to America as the feminist-inspired divorce and entitled-illegitimacy revolutions were.

Few thought that the divorce revolution would have a major impact on society or government. We now know that the impact has devastated state and federal budgets, created two generations of impoverished women and children, and a nation of disaffected men living on the fringes of society who cannot be responsible for their families because they are arbitrarily denied the fundamental right to be husbands and fathers. Many are brought up with no social proscript other than “getting by”, playing video games, virtual relationships, and “shacking up”.

Politicians have the audacity to call them “deadbeat dads”, while mainstream television portrays them as idiots and jerks. I cannot imagine how it is possible for most boys to become mature, healthy adults in this contemporary diaspora. Images are powerful. Discrimination against boys in public education, and the substituting of Ritalin for proper recreation and education, is widespread. Boys brought up rarely seeing positive futures for themselves, while drugged with speed in school, will likely become intergenerational reflections of this massively abusive upbringing, with downward pressures on future generations.

We must recognize now that, if permitted, same sex marriage will become commonplace within two generations, causing serious compound socioeconomic problems. No large country has survived for long absent a strong institution of heterosexual marriage. Rome and the former U.S.S.R. are two primary examples that went morally, and subsequently economically bankrupt.

We cannot afford to roll over when barraged with terroristic admonitions uttered by hateful feminists. We will stand our ground. We will not sit on out thumbs or back down. Let us talk about it directly and factually. Let feminists isolate themselves as the radicals they truly are. Let us show them the door, as they walk their own gangplank right into the Pacific ocean.

From California, With H8 | MND: Your Daily Dose of Counter-Theory



While this article doesn't really say anything new for those who have learned this much, it puts together the awe-struck surprise me and others have found when understanding what is happening throughout the world. This kind of hatred from the worse people calling themselves leaders for these movements has only worsened with each passing days as they continue to push their ideology while attacking anything that opposes it.

I post this article to see your reactions to it. I would like to discuss how such things make you feel, agree or disagree, and what you think should be done?

[OceanEyes28]

Haha... now let me make myself clear: I support equal rights for everyone, and I don't think getting revenge on those who have been in power (straight white males) for thousands of years is the answer. In fact, most of the straight white males I know are very kind and have never treated me with disrespect. However, I do see the humor in this, even if it's a little dark. Everyone else gets oppressed for generations, from being someone's property to someone's slave, and now... "They make guys look like doofuses on TV! I hate it!"

Anyway. The humor only goes so far and then it becomes personal. Yeah, there are some shitty ****ing people out there and it would be easy for me to convince myself that men are evil and I need to take revenge on them. But when I imagine my younger brother or my father, or any of the other men in my life that I love being called stupid rapist pigs incapable of compassion, understanding, and love... shit sucks. I don't want that. It's frustrating. What's also frustrating, though, is super defensive white dudes pointing the finger at gay people and accusing them of an agenda. Don't get me wrong, the hate against heterosexuals going on is pretty much bullshit and totally hypocritical. Why would you add more hate and violence to the equation? Certainly not to gain sympathy, I hope. It makes people like my mother and her partner look bad, when they have no agenda, they just want to love each other and be safe in the knowledge that if one of them ends up in the hospital, the other can be there.

I just don't see why we all have to be in each other's business. You can't force a church to preform a marriage ceremony, fine. I agree with that, it would infringe on their right to practice their own religion. But why stand in the way of two people putting more love into the world? There are gay people AND straight people who are big ol' sluts, yeah, but we're not talking about those people. We're talking about the ones who want to try and love someone for the rest of their lives. But no one pays attention to those people because the homosexuals more concerned with hate and revenge than love are making it really difficult to sympathize with a gay cause. Same with Christians more concerned with revenge than love.

Ugh. People always have to be fighting about something, it's the stupidest damn thing.

The quotes in your article are a bit dated - Firestone's been quiet lately.

Anyway, all those retard 'If you're not a lesbian, you're not a feminist' voices were basically ignored in the 70's and 80's by people like my mother (working as a programmer, paid a lot less than her peers and bullied for not doing favours/work for men of a lower rank (she worked for the Ministry of Defence) and constantly passed over for promotion), who were/are the majority of feminists - women out for equality and nothing more. My grandmother and my mother were both feminists so that I don't have to be. I could never imagine being paid less for my work than a man, or having anything about my career decided for me on the basis of my gender.

These days, feminists don't really need to exist as such - women still need to be aware of issues concerning womens' rights, but that's it. There are female presidents, prime ministers, lawyers, engineers and computer programmers all over the world now, with equal pay and rights. Equality is ours, apart from a few outstanding issues (like women in high-powered jobs going on maternity leave and returing to their jobs to find they've been demoted).

So, all in all, nobody rational ever really listened to Tahlulah Firestone and her cronies, because they obcured what feminism was about. They harped on about marriage like it was as bad as it was in 40's and before that: where the woman had no job/property/etc, and the rape within marriage laws weren't properly established. But by the time the Radical Feminist crew started harping on, marriage was a choice for women and would not hamper their freedoms or lives. Like it or lump it, marriages sometimes get violent or unhappy (can be caused by either side. Reported cases of domestic violence against men rose by something like 400% last year - it's good that men aren't scared to speak out about living with bunnyboilers anymore, should they end up there), and it would be unfair for people to have to stay - so what your article says about the 'divorce revolution' or whatever it was is faulted. Divorce is a necessary freedom. I admit that fathers need to be given better access to kids, and am a wholehearted supporter of Fathers For Justice in line with that.

So, then, to the article's fundamental flaw: same sex marriage will not be something created by radical feminists and used by them as a means of socioeconomic control because A) They are a distinct minority, as are their beliefs on same sex marriage (as proven by the democratic vote of California); and B) There simply are not enough gay people in the world for them to 'take over' the institution of marriage. Gay people are, and probably always will be, a minority.

I've always hated Firestone et al. They give women a bad name. But believe me, they are a minority. Like the Neo-Marxist-Feminists and the millions of other convoluted branches of feminism who managed to completely remove themselves from achieving the task at hand at the same time as making women look like harpies.

It's kind of funny how freaked out the writer is by feminists, though. He writes like they're coming over the hill brandishing wedding rings. And he's a bit fond of jargon for my tastes; one can only handle the word 'diaspora' so many times in an article.

[SOLDIER #819]

Citing extremists and insinuating that they are the majority is just a way to stir up trouble. Obviously there are many, many people who will be angry with the passing of this proposition, but if every gay person out there was on the streets bashing up cars and smashing heads I'm sure there'd be just a bit more of an outcry.

Many extremist Christian groups exist. Whenever one of these groups commits some horrible act the more moderate Christian majority will attempt to distance themselves from that group (and with good reason). They had nothing to do with it and they certainly don't want to be labeled wrongly. If Christians, whose beliefs are a reflection of their religious writings, can distance themselves from one another then I think it's only fair that people who have only sexual orientation in common can do the same.

It should be common sense, right?

[Walter Sobchak]

The good old "blame the oppressed" approach. I saw enough of it during the election. Blame the black guy for threatening our whiteness.

This is not an issue. Homosexual couples should have every right straight couples have. There is no debate, there are no multiple ways to look at it.

Citing any poor leadership in a movement does not help answer the question. It comes down to the cause, not the players in the game.