The New Sexual World Order Is So Confusing

I find myself confused about how it is possible that high-heeled shoes, dresses, and lipstick are all tools of the patriarchy to oppress women and transform them into mere objects of male desire, yet it is considered necessary that men who transition to become women must wear high heels, dresses, and lipstick in order to “express themselves as women,” which would suggest that there is something innately feminine about these objects.

But that cannot be the case if they are tools of masculinist oppression, unless femininity itself were an invention of the patriarchy with no basis in reality, which would mean it would be impossible to have a biological necessity to transition to being a woman, since femininity is not biological in nature at all, but political. If a dress, then, is oppressive by nature, should it not be discouraged among transitioned females just as much as among born females? Such would seem to be the case unless born females and transitioned females are different, but I am then reminded they are not!

....I realize now that marriage is an institution invented to enslave women and keep them from actualizing their career potential. Yet if marriage is an evil to straight women, why is it a right for gay men? Or, for that matter, for lesbians, who are, from what I am told, actually women, too?

Coming out of the closet; marrying bacon.

How is this going to hurt people who believe that only people should get married?

You've read about the woman who's marrying a dog?  It's quite the thing in Europe.

Well, why not marry the thing you love?

My wife has suspected it for quite some time. My family has accepted it. I hope you do too. In fact, I demand it, so don’t criticize me or be intolerant. That would be ‘ham’aphobic. This doesn’t hurt ‘non-bacon’ marriages in any way, and I’ve been reading all kinds of scientific journals that tell me it won’t hurt my children (bacon bits) either since they will be in a home of love.

My doctor has been telling me for a while that this lifelong affair I’ve had with pork will hurt me, but what does he know. If I do get hospitalized because of it, at least now the doctor and hospital can release medical records to my bacon buddy, and give me visitation rights since we are a legitimate family now.

The definition of Marriage has evolved like society, and I am so glad that now my sizzling union is protected by the Constitution, and promoted by my president. I may even flirt some with my new bride’s sister – turkey-bacon. I’m going to go hog wild.

I’ll proudly wear the LGBT label too. Loving Great Bacon Tremendously. It is a civil right and will lower the humiliation of others who have been ham-hiding. I’m also looking for a church that will accept bacon every day, and not just once in a while at the Saturday men’s breakfast. Studies and stats have shown that accepting me and my bacon will likely doom that church, but that’s alright. The church should comply with this and any other cultural shift.

That’s it. Just wanted you to know. I’ll be doing the ceremony downtown on Fountain Square. Probably during the Flying Pig. I feel so liberated now. Who knows, someday I may also re-identify myself as scrambled eggs to be a better match for bacon. But that would be ridiculous.

The future of marriage is here.

Dutch woman will marry dog after her husband — a cat — dies

Widow Dominque Lesbirel of the Netherlands is getting married again, after losing her husband to kidney failure.

She's getting hitched to her dog. Her first husband, Doerack, was a cat.

"Putting Doerack to sleep was horrible, I've had him since he was three, but I feel lucky to have had 16 lovely years with him," she said, according to Britain's Daily Mirror.

She plans to wed Travis, but wants to wait a while to get over her grief at losing Doerack.

I'm fairly confident that the majority opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges could  see their way clear to inter-species marriage.  Why limit the love that endures even past death to people; isn't that bigoted?

“As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves.”

The Dutch led the way in gay marriage, they are now breaking new paths.


 

At the current rate of Muslim immigration to the west, gay marriage is just a temporary condition.

Mark Steyn makes an interesting point. In Europe there are areas when the rule of Sharia prevails and the rule of Western law does not. Who will win the dispute when Islam and Gay collide? Judges can impose gay marriage because Christians are not going to cut off anyone's head. Anthony Kennedy won't have to worry about Christians urging churchgoers to kill him.  Not so with Islam, where gays have a choice between being thrown off high buildings or having surgery to be transformed into the gender of their choice. Which leaves the interesting question: what's the surgical procedure for the other letters of the LBTGQ alphabet?  

Islam is a religion where disagreement does not result in an angry letter to the editor but with a fatwa demanding your death.

Swimming against the tide is grueling - but tides ebb and flow. Kate McMillan doesn't think the civilizational clash between the dar al Islam and the dar al Gay is much of a showdown:

At the current rate of Muslim immigration to the west, gay marriage is just a temporary condition.

She's right on that. I don't want to wind up with a choice between the twin totalitarianisms of soulless state-regulated hyper-sexualized semi-tyranny and sharia - because, if that's what it comes down to, I know who'll win. But conservatives have spent the supposed "end of history" winning a zillion elections, and losing everything that matters. To most of the so-called millennials, conservatism is entirely invisible except as a Jon Stewart punchline - and that invisibility was largely our choice. Instead of launching another radio show or news aggregator or think-tank, never mind obsessing over whether Jeb or Jindal or Christie will play better in Iowa, we need to make like the Islamic mullahs and the sex mullahs and start competing for the space where people actually live.

Gay marriage and he Supremes

Things are moving so fast in Fantasy Land Liberal Culture that the upcoming Supreme Court blessing  of gay marriage is already past it's sell-by date already even before the judges declare their fidelity to crazy. The cutting edge of societal evolution is my right to marry my horse who is actually a trans-species differently-abled blue dragon ... as am I.

You Will Be Assimilated The same-sex marriage bait-and-switch

Some of the things you were told about gays and same sex marriage were not true, and the gay lobby is beginning to admit it.

• What proportion of the population is gay?
• Is there a gay gene?
• If the definition of marriage is open why not polygamy... or marrying your horse?
• Will religious objections stand?

Read the whole thing.

I'm waiting for the first marriage that includes an animal.

UPDATE: WORLD'S FIRST THREE-GAY MARRIAGE...

They never told us that once you take away the definition of marriage, anything goes.

Today in same sex marriage

Alabama high court orders halt to same-sex marriage licenses

Wed Mar 4, 2015 5:40am EST

• inShare3
• Share this
• Email
• Print

1 OF 2. A couple displaying their marriage license reacts after receiving flowers as they leave Jefferson County Courthouse in Birmingham, Alabama in this file photo taken February 9, 2015.

CREDIT: REUTERS/MARVIN GENTRY/FILES

(Reuters) - The Alabama Supreme Court ordered probate judges on Tuesday to stop issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in apparent defiance of the U.S. Supreme Court, underscoring the depth of opposition to gay matrimony in the socially conservative state.

The 7-1 ruling comes roughly three weeks after U.S. District Judge Callie Granade's decision overturning Alabama's ban on gay marriage went into effect after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to put it on hold.

"As it has done for approximately two centuries, Alabama law allows for 'marriage' between only one man and one woman," Tuesday's state supreme court ruling said. "Alabama probate judges have a ministerial duty not to issue any marriage license contrary to this law.

"Nothing in the United States Constitution alters or overrides this duty."

1ST OPENLY GAY EPISCOPAL BISHOP TO DIVORCE HUSBAND

That headline from the Associated Press uses a strange formulation.  In a homosexual marriage are the terms "wife" and "husband" really descriptive?  Are they used in ceremonies or by the couples themselves?

It's the second divorce for Gene Robinson. He had been married to a woman and had two children before they divorced.

It should come as no surprise that ...

He delivered the benediction at the opening 2009 inaugural event for President Barack Obama and, after retirement, became a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, a Democratic think tank with close ties to the White House.

The benefits of well educated baristas.

The Wall Street Journal has an article bemoaning the well educated barista economy. Of course they don’t put it quite that way in their article, the subhead if which is: A new study offers an unsettling explanation of why young adults have been hit so hard.

But in the spirit of those who hailed the benefits of losing your job. Not only can you get a chance to do your own thing, but according to Nancy Pelosi, those unemployment benefits you get create more jobs.  And if you lost your job becaue of ObamaCare, it's really not a loss, but an "escape." 

With that view in mind, I want to explain why college educated baristas are a net plus for the American people.

Let’s face it, modern college graduates have just left the greatest brainwashing system since the Communists invented the “re-education centers” to set their enemies right. Do you really want those budding neo-Marxists to get on the first rung of the ladder of success?

Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John Kerry – to say nothing about the lesser lights of the current regime – are the product of the counter-culture of the 1960s academy. Today it’s no longer the counter-culture but the firmly entrenched establishment – the Ruling Class - who will defenestrate you of you step out of line. “You say you believe marriage is between a man and woman? HOMOPHOBE! No job for you!” Use the wrong term-du-jour for someone with a different skin color … RAAAACIST! Mention that the President seems to spend an inordinate amount of time playing golf: RAAAACIST. Wonder why women need their birth control pills provided by the taxpayer? SEXIST!

You can be sure that the current crop of college graduates firmly believe these things. They have internalized them so that they no longer think about them. Or they have learned to mouth the correct phrases, kept their heads down to stay in college or keep a job. Do you really want these brainwashed robots doing anything but serving coffee until the conditioning wears off?

Hurray for Starbucks!

The coming Obama divorce

According to Kazuyuki Hamadam a member of Japan's parliament: 'It is an open secret that the pair are already negotiating their divorce, and that they are waiting for his term in office to be over, and then they'll separate.'  The National Inquirer, who broke the story of John Edwards affairs, agrees.

PRESIDENT LEAVES HAWAII, MICHELLE OBAMA STAYS ON AS 'BIRTHDAY PRESENT'

Trouble in paradise?

Yeah, that's it, leaving Michelle behind is a "birthday present."

Court agrees: if homosexuals can marry, so can polygamists.

Once you blow up a societal consensus it cannot be easily reconstructed to protect only those practices or beliefs you like while still banning those you think ought to be kept beyond the pale. That’s the upshot of a case decided late on Friday in a Federal District Court in Salt Lake City, Utah that essentially decriminalized polygamy. The case, Brown v. Buhman, which was brought by the stars of Sister Wives, a TLC cable channel reality show depicting the life of a man with four wives and 17 children, who challenged the Utah statute that not only prohibited marriage with more than one spouse but said it was illegal for a person to cohabit with someone who was not their legal spouse. Citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2003 Lawrence v. Texas ruling that struck down state laws that prohibited sodomy, Judge Clark Waddoups heeded the plaintiffs’ argument that said Utah’s law violated their right to privacy.

Of course some Liberal bigots like Stanley Kurtz, would deny polygamists their rights with this ridiculous argument:

Polygamy in all its forms is a recipe for social structures that inhibit and ultimately undermine social freedom and democracy. A hard-won lesson of Western history is that genuine democratic self-rule begins at the hearth of the monogamous family.

So denying people the right to marry who they wish, as many times as they wish is the new meaning of "freedom." The idea that people deciding to marry more than one person is a threat to democracy is ludicrous.

But cheerleaders for gay marriage may not like that yucky polygamy, but they may have to swallow their disgust, realizing that there is absolutely no rational argument against polygamy once you decide that gay marriage is a good thing.

All that is needed is a little candor on this issue on the part of critics of the dwindling band of opponents of gay marriage. The floodgates have been opened, and if that makes some of us uncomfortable, especially those who understandably view polygamy as synonymous with the exploitation of women, then we should be honest enough to acknowledge that it is merely part of the price that had to be paid to give gays the same right to marry afforded to other citizens.

Is the Republican Party the party of Conservatives?

At National Review Online, Jim Geraghty asks the question: Does the RNC Deserve the Blame for Cuccinelli’s Loss? One of the comments following the essay claims that "all Republicans are Conservatives."

 

Are they?  I strongly disagree.

The national candidates that the Republicans have fielded since Reagan have all claimed to be conservative, talked the talk, but did not walk the walk. They paid lip service to smaller government and lower deficits but did nothing to achieve those objectives while in office, or were rejected at the polls.

 

I remind you that Bush 1 opposed Reagan for the nomination the first time he ran.  And that when he was elected as Reagan’s heir disposed of his followers as quickly as possible and then raised taxes, giving the Democrats their main talking point to defeat him for re-election.  Need I remind you that Bush 2, who I supported because I supported the Iraq war, created a whole new entitlement and was a profligate spender who created TARP? Both Bushes bought into the “Republicans are mean” myth, one creating those “thousand points of light” and the other trying to sell “kindler, gentler?”

 

And how about McCain who pandered to every liberal institution and movement that that he could find: amnesty, global warming, Gitmo. He was the MSM’s picture of the perfect Republican. Of course they only supported him until he was nominated. The only conservative thing he ever did was bring Sarah Palin onto his ticket. The same Sarah Palin whose back still shows the scars of McCain’s handlers’ knives.  It's hard to say who tried to damage Palin more during the 2008 election, Team McCain or Team Obama.

 

George Romney was a truly nice man; moral, upright and no one’s idea of a conservative. When he was questioned about his conservative credentials he said that he was “severely conservative.”  When you have to say that, you are not. He was chosen by the Republican establishment precisely because no one would really identify him as a genuine conservative. Rather, he was the competent alternative to Obama. How did that work out?

Did these people lie? Not in the same way Obama lied when he said that you could keep your health care plan. But they say what they want you to hear. There is a cultural gap between the Republican establishment and the conservative base. The establishment is more comfortable with the reigning orthodoxy as expressed by Obama and less comfortable with the pieties of the Right. Most of them probably agree with Obama about the “bitter clingers.” Most of them don’t really believe that marriage should be defined as between one man and one woman; they have “evolved.” Most of them would rather open the borders so that this issue would go away. They have lived with deficit spending so long that it no longer really bothers them as a fact, simply as an issue to be used to win votes. They campaign as conservatives because that’s where their base is, but when they get back to Washington, they shed their conservative disguises like you would take off your jacket except when it’s time to throw a bone to the base.

 

It's very difficult to gain prominence while defying the dominant culture.  This is especially true on the political arena because you are opposed by those who dominate the avenues of communication.  If you say you support traditional marriage, the media tells everyone that you are homophobic.  If you oppose abortion for any reason you are waging a war on women.  If you oppose waste and corruption in welfare programs you are accused of wanting to starve the poor.  If you want to enforce the immigration laws you are accused of hating immigrants and minorities.  If you want to make education more affordable by reducing the cost you are accused of being anti-children.  And the ones making the accusations are not your political opponents, but the supposedly "impartial" media.  One of the interesting statistics coming out of the election in Virginia is that Ken Cuccinelli got the majority of married men and married women.  As one wag put it he got the moral vote.

 

The commenter is wrong about his assertion, but raises a very good question. Who is a real conservative and how can you tell? What is a real conservative? That’s a question worth debating.

After 20 years of marriage, couple find they're both gay.

Of course, they live in San Francisco.  And they're no longer living together.  21st Century relationships.

My life of hell in an Afghan harem

Why would a nice Jewish girl marry a Muslim Afghan? 

It is 1959. I am only 18 when my prince — a dark, older, handsome, westernized foreigner who had traveled abroad from his native home in Afghanistan — bedazzles me.

We meet at Bard College, where he is studying economics and politics and I am studying literature on scholarship.

Abdul-Kareem is the son of one of the founders of the modern banking system in Afghanistan. He wears designers sunglasses and bespoke suits and when he visits New York City, he stays at the Plaza.

He is also Muslim.

I am Jewish, raised in an Orthodox home in Borough Park, Brooklyn, the daughter of Polish immigrants. My dad worked door-to-door selling soda and seltzer.

But none of this matters. We don’t talk about religion. Instead, we stay up all night discussing film, opera and theater. We are bohemians.

We date for two years. Then, when I express my desire to travel, he asks me to marry him.

I don't think we're getting the whole story here, but it doesn't matter. She arrives in Kabul and finds what it's like to live in a compound with a mother-in-law who's ready to kill her if she doesn't obey.  And a husband who's transformed from a well dressed, "Westernized" bohemian to a Muslim in a Muslim society.  Let's just say that it's not what she expected. 

She finally escapes, sick and pregnant. And she not only survives but learns something about the romantic image that Liberalism weaves with its fantasy of multiculturalism.

I’ve never told this story in detail before, but felt that I must now. Because I hear some westerners preach the tortured cultural relativism that excuses the mistreatment of women in the name of Islam. Because I see the burqa on the streets of Paris and New York and feel that Afghanistan has followed me back to America.

I call myself a feminist — but not just any feminist. My kind of feminism was forged in the fires of Afghanistan. There I received an education — an expensive, almost deadly one — but a valuable one, too.

I understand firsthand how deep-seated the hatred of women is in that culture. I see how endemic indigenous barbarism and cruelty is and unlike many other intellectuals and feminists, I don’t try to romanticize or rationalize it.

I got out, and I will never return.

She also manages to translate the experiences she had at the hands of her first lover to her all men.  She was primed for it as a young girl and never really learned to outgrow it as a woman.  It should have been a teachable moment; instead she incorporated her treatment in Afghanistan into her skewed worldview.  Rather sad.

Modern Family

As the Supremes bless gay marriage and banish those who support traditional marriage into the outer darkness of un-hipdom, we began to wonder whether gay couples who wish to marry every have mother-in-law problems.

  

You know the kind I mean. Steve tells his mother he wants to marry George. Does his mother ever tell him that George is not good enough? That George is a slut who would not be welcome in her house? Does she ask how much George earns and wonder how her son is going to be supported? Does she ask how many kids they are planning to adopt … and raise? Will the two mothers fight over the reception, the wedding venue and the number of guests each family will be allowed to invite? Who pays for what in the modern nuptials?  

 

I will look forward to finding the answers to these and other fascinating questions as time unfolds.

The case for polygamy becomes legally compelling

I have argued many times that there is actually a better case for polygamy than for same sex marriage.  It has a longer and more diverse tradition and is supported and sanctioned by a number of religions.

Matt Lewis:

 

Discussing the Supreme Court’s decision on gay marriage recently, Sen. Rand Paul joked about bestiality. This was unwise. If Paul wanted to make the slippery slope argument, the case for polygamy is much more compelling — and realistic.

This is not some straw man argument. As BuzzFeed’s McKay Coppins pointed out, polygamists are, in fact, celebrating the court’s decision. And they have every reason to do so. After all, why shouldn’t marriage equality apply to them, too?

The arguments are essentially the same. For example, Sen. Al Franken recently issued a statement saying, “Our country is starting to understand that it’s not about what a family looks like: it’s about their love and commitment to one another.” Polygamists couldn’t agree more.

I mean, who are we to say that two or three or even four consenting adults — who want to make a lifelong commitment to love each other — shouldn’t be allowed to do so?

What’s magical about the number two?

There are practical reasons, too. It’s harder and harder these days to make ends meet. As a man, I can only imagine how much more efficient it would be to have one wife in the workforce and another wife at home with the kids. This would be much better for the children than shipping them off to some nursery school. And having three parents is a lot better than having just one … or none.

Millions Take Part As Traditional Marriage Movement Sweeps Through France

AMAZING

GAY DIVORCE COURT!

Gerard Vander Leun almost has me convinced. Gay Marriage: Just Do It! (And Welcome to It)

Speaking of storms, brace yourself and do not be fooled by the return of peace and quiet to these states. Once the initial tsunami of coast-to-coast gay marriage scours this fair land down to a series of moral nubs, a period of calm normality can only be enjoyed for, well, anywhere from 18 to 36 months before.... the Aftermath.

The Aftermath is when the millions of gay believers who have thrust themselves into the sylvan dream of wedded bliss.... wake up to find out that they are, Aieeeee!, married. And when they do, they will want what nearly every clear sighted heterosexual couple wants out of marriage these days.... a divorce.

And since gays lust after not tolerance but "approval," they are determined to inhabit every burnt-out fantasy of straight life. Hence, it will be a "traditional" divorce. Not a good new-fashioned no-fault divorce, but a brimming-with-blame, spite-spitted Prozac-popping divorce American style. Full of fights, slights, sullen silences, and a craving from the spouse for "my own space."

About half of the gay Americans getting in the long, long lines at divorce court will discover that the "craving from the spouse for 'my own space'" has a very special meaning. It usually means either your space, or a space you will pay for one way or another.

Because make no mistake about it. Whether it is a gay professionals' divorce, or a gay crackers' divorce, somebody's losing a beach house or a double-wide.

Children adopted by gay male couples will probably be treated in a kindly and caring manner during the divorce, but when it comes to the pets, get ready for the mother of all cat-fights over the puppy or the pussy.

As someone who has not been divorced, I can't say that I'm as anxious as he is to have his gay brothers and sisters enjoy the joys of divorce, but I can see the possibilities.

Read the whole thing.