... on gay marriage, sodomy, malthusianism and on Bible and marriage

video commented on:

MacNutz2 : King Crocoduck Satire 13 Reasons Gay Marriage is EVIL
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYD2ydq0PyE

Breaking it down ...

... commenting on the thirteen reasons or most of them, dividing number 3 and number 12 and combining into 5 - 6 headings:

I

The purpose of marriage is making babies.

Infertile people shouls be allowed to marry, a) because they don't know they are infertile until they have tried, which is usually done in marriage, b) because God might miraculously make them fertile again, c) because not having sex is a strain which some are called to - cf monks, nuns, priests - but someone might not be called to just because of infertility.

This does not apply if they willingly inflicted infertility on themselves, like by taking the operation which in recent Indian history could have landed them with a free radio. (According to Canon law they must reverse the operation before being allowed to get married if they did such an evil thing - or even before continuing to have sex in a marriage licitly and validly contracted before such an operation).

Old people need not be infertile, at least not old men, and God has done a few miracles for old women (Sarah, Hannah, St Anne and St Elisabeth). So, they should be allowed to marry.

Gay and lesbian people should also be allowed to marry.

This only applies if they do not inflict infertility on themselves, by taking certain operations, OR by gay man chosing gay man and lesbian woman chosing lesbian woman.

Any priest ought to agree a lesbian woman can marry a gay man, however.

Now I am off to listen to the rest of reason 1 and possibly the other twelve as well.

"Also, since the purpose of marriage is to make children, we don't allow unmarried couples to have children"

The classical solution is RATHER to encourage them to marry after making the child, if they did not do so before doing it. [ok, making it or doing that]

7, for once a funny point and fits here

Unfortunately off topic.

Gay marriage is not giving gay people equal rights with straight people, because they already had such, it is about giving sodomy equal rights with coitus, and I do not mean interruptus but the real one.

Refusing two gay men to marry each other is not equivalent of a nurse refusing to give medical care to a black person, because the hospital is prejudiced, it is the equivalent of telling a constipated patient he cannot have more rice or telling a patient with diarrhea he must do without the prunes.

A gay man wanting to marry should obviously do so - with a woman who knows the issue. Like Josh Weed did. But not with another man.

11 homosexuality is not natural ... reword:

sodomy is a sin against nature

"nature" in this context does not mean opposite of artifice, it means anything leding up to pregnancy or gotten going by a childbirth, thus any behaviour from a man and a woman cuddling to a mother and a child cuddling

"against nature" is anything that will disrupt any of this, like for instance using condoms or pets or someone of the same sex as oneself or whatever solitude offers, and if done deliberately (unlike say nocturnal pollution) is a sin.

12 being homosexual might not be a choice, at least to start with, but committing sodomy as opposed to a coitus that will make a baby is a choice, and so is the CHOICE of partner.

There are certainly genes that can make one androgynous. There is possibly prenatal development disruptions that predispose to same sex attraction, but there is no gene and no prenatal development that can be the cause - directly, without a choice getting between - of an act of sodomy, or of forming a "couple" intending for the future to commit such.

II

Reason 2: two sexed couples mostly tend to raise heterosexual children. Same sexed couples (if they have custody of children at least one of them is no parent of) do not quite eliminate that possibility, but probably by example set more often give rise to the disorder of same sex attraction.

III

Reason 3: I totally agree.

With the Bible. Were the "echoes" of the "no" meant to make some parodic effect? LOST on me.

Besides, the day that gay couples through child welfare services come going after children of heterosexual but "unfit" parents, the panicky and desperate version of "no" can become a very horrid reality. Or in some places already is, perhaps.

IV

Reason 4, sorry 3b: how about mentioning bed and breakfast owners and florists who have been ruled out of business by court for refusing to take orders concerning floral decorations or double rooms for gay couples?

6 fits in here.

"turning children into decent tolerant human beings" (as not against gay marriage etc, as if that were decent) reminds me how indecent, intolerant and inhuman public schools can be to Christian pupils (and yes, there have already been complaints about this, it is not a wild guess about the future).

12 b - gay teenagers commit suicide ... what about the Clintonite conspiracy of making it less easy to quit school before 16? I mean, for that matter, what about the cultural antipathy against homeschooling among parents of atheists and of gay teens who in some places would profit as greatly socially from homeschooling as in other places Christian pupils would (if allowed it)? Homeschooling could avoid lots of suicides and attempts.

V

Reason 4, deliberate misrepresentation of what the Bible says. It is RAPIST who is forced to marry victim, not other way round.

Ah, first part of four ... "if you pillage other nations ..."

Er, not quite. It WAS a question of specific other nations. Such as had encouraged sodomy and sacrificing male first born children to Moloch.

The ones were widows and virgins survived were probably those where God knew they had felt queezy about this, the ones were they were killed were probably those where God knew they had felt just fine about it.

Never ever was there anywhere a licence of pillaging all nations everywhere just for the fun of it. And those clauses don't apply after Christ told his Apostles to make DISCIPLES of ALL NATIONS.

That command did not include the Amalekites that had already been ended as a nation a thousand years before, but only all nations the Christian Church was to get in contact with since two thousand years ago. Minus about twenty.

And yes, the rule that forces rapists to marry rape victims who want compensation that way does stand in the New Testament as well. As does the rule that forces him to pay a full dowry if the victim does not want the marital type of compensation. Only change: Catholic Canon law allows the girl herself rather than her father to decide whom she marries. But probably Jewish fathers of raped daughters during OT were hardly eager to force daughters to take someone who had been bad in bed on top of raping her, if she did not want to herself.

And yes, the Catholic Church IS telling "remarried couples" that they cannot go to communion and are risking eternal hell fire. Thank you for mentioning this.

Agree that number 5 is a bit over the top. Sounds too much like Bergoglio.

VI

13 "the Nazi movement was formed in a gay bar" ... sounds like an argument from "guilt by association".

Wonder if the next ironic turns on this theme are not ALSO an argument from "guilt by association".

Wonder which association with Nazism is stronger ... the gay or anti-gay one.

As you mentioned, Roem was gay. That I did know. He was the leader of SA. I do not know what you know about SA, but to me that sounds like "die Strasse frei, die Sturmkolonnen stehen ..." ending in words like "und willst du nicht mein Bruder sein, so schlag ich dir den Schädel ein". I wonder if no gay movement since has been behaving in a manner similar to that morale ...

Gay behaviour (as opposed to mere androgynity or even same sex attraction) is often subjectively based on a rejection of "marriage is for making babies" (by the way, are you rejecting that?), and such a rejection is once in a while, so also in the Nazi case and in the gay movement case, based on a religious world view that is not Christian (or Jewish or Muslim in any Sunni classical sense even) but ... Manichaean or Gnostic. And yes, Nazis were into Manichaean and Gnostic mysticism. And yes, modern side tracks of gay movement (if not the movement itself) is into the Dan Brown mania for seeing Jesus (whom one does not in those circles attack) as some kind of Gnostic or Manichaean prophet, hence a rejection of Canonic Gospels or of Old Testament (oh, are you rejecting those, btw?), which the Nazis did too.

THEN we have a somewhat willing confusion between putting sodomisers and consentingly sodomised men into prison and putting them into KZ (KonZentrationslager or KonzentraZionslager even, though the correct abbreviation would have been KL from Konzentrations-Lager).

Before they became camps for systematically underfeeding and thus killing off certain groups, and before Mengele had access to them, indeed, you could get killed in them for opposition or refusal to work from as early as November 1, 1933, BUT the main idea about them was to remake the mentality of certain groups regarded as having bad attitudes. Communists, Jewish profiteers, Shirkers and Hoboes, Trade-Unionists, and of course Homosexuals (outside SA, obviously).

It was SO MUCH MORE PROGRESSIVE than putting them in prison. Sound familiar? Somehow I think it does, and from more recent quarters than the Nazi ones, but with other groups singled out as having bad attitudes (though hoboes might be getting targetted again ...).

THEN we have a history of not putting homosexuals or anyone else in KZ but of punishing sodomy.

As you mentioned SA, you made me think of Sparta. A state where the army positively encouraged gay couples to form - though separating that issue from the totally civilian marriage which remained a natural thing, at least in intention.

Both SA and Spartan army, in one case to Jews and Gipsies and in another case to Helots, were kind of thuggish. As the gay movement, for that matter, can be with Christians.

Unlike the real coitus, and before there was AIDS (or even after it, if you use condoms), unnatural sex - the kind of acts so aptly disqualified by Clinton's best word ever "that is not sex" - is very ideal for tying emotional bonds within a restricted group more of the network type than the family type. Real coitus produces children and tends to get their TWO parents involved with each other. Fake sex can be had with as many as one thinks fit ... individually or within a certain collective.

Such a network is obviously sinning against nature as far as sexual preference is concerned. And preventing the formation of such networks - freemasonries, Spartan Army or SA - may well have been one of the reasons why states thought it worthwhile to outlaw sodomy.

If you look at what birthrates and deathrates are doing to old age pensions in Sweden, Germany AND France (all three proposing solutions which are diverse, none of the three proposing to outlaw condoms as DeValera would have done before getting into such a fix) are all of them bankrupt in the old age pension systems that were up to 2000 and various years more part of the guaranteed benefits of the welfare state. This might suggest another reason for non-Nazi outlawings of sodomy.

If you suggest to replace birthrate by immigration rate, on the one hand this can become a kind of conquest in which the conquerors might not enjoy paying taxes to the old people among the conquered, on the other hand it supposes third world contries have a birth "surplus" - i e are not doing the same thing (though Malthusians try to make them do so) and too impoverished by some aspects of colonialism or post-colonialism to feed their own at home.

Any comments

below mine on the video will be likely enough to lead to debate which, if so, is likely enough to be reposted here.

The user actually ...

... suppressed the video. Wonder why ...? Did he not like my comments? Well, if so, they survived the video, at least in this version of it./HGL