|
Post by Babylon Enigma on Aug 17, 2010 23:13:23 GMT -5
How I Became a Menschby Henry Makow Ph.D. When I was 21 years old, and living in Israel, I received a letter from my mother. She had taken my savings and invested in a town house. "Now, you are a mensch," she said. I wondered what she meant. How did owning a house make me "a man?" I came of age at a time when youth was "looking for identity." I was searching for it in Israel. Later, I became a Canadian nationalist. In each case, I didn't find identity in "community." I had a strong patriarchal father, an excellent role model. He built a successful career, and supported a family. "Work is the backbone of a man," he would tell me. "It's the most important decision a man makes. A wife is the second." But for some reason, his example didn't register. Why not? For centuries, men defined themselves in terms of masculinity. Why was I so clueless? I was a feminist. ATTACK ON GENDER AND FAMILYI grew up in an era that bought the feminist lie that men and women are identical. In our culture, women are encouraged to be "equal" -- do everything men do, and vice versa. "Equal" became "identical." This retarded my personal development by 25 years. I doubt if I am alone. "Identical" made me look for for myself in a mate. I was literally attracted to lithe young women with cropped boyish haircuts: my own persona. I put a woman on a pedestal because she had my identity. She could give it back to me. Some women were immediately repelled. Others enjoyed the adulation for a while, but eventually lost respect. What I needed was someone quite different from me, my feminine complement. Eventually feminism will be recognized for what it is: a virulently anti-social, anti-women, lesbian ideology that achieved power by pretending to champion "women's rights." By taking power, feminism has been able to emasculate men and masculinize women. In other words, women have usurped the masculine identity, and in the process, both sexes have lost their own. Incredibly, the destruction of heterosexuality is the hidden agenda of feminists, who think gender difference is the source of all injustice. Most people don't realize that the feminist movement literally is Communist in origin.Most of the leading feminist thinkers, including Betty Friedan and Simone de Beauvoir, were Marxists, and many also were lesbians. Feminism is about power not choice. "No women should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children," said feminist founder Simone de Beauvoir. "Women should not have that choice, because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one" (Saturday Review, June 14, 1975). If feminism were really about choices, it would not indoctrinate women to enter the work force and become "independent." It would not demonize men and heterosexual love. It would not ostracize feminists who marry and start families. Lesbians have always been women who coveted the male role. It is based on Marxist notions of "equality" and class conflict that have no relevance to a mystical and biological reality such as love. The breakdown in the traditional family caused by feminism is the main reason for our social, personal and existential problems. People have always derived meaning and purpose from familial roles (e.g. daughter, wife, and mother) and from life-cycle rituals, (marriage, birth and death). Indeed, marriage and family are a God-given path to achieve love and personal fulfilment. We do not find wholeness by incorporating masculine and feminine in ourselves but by uniting with our opposite. Heterosexual love is the attraction of opposites. Indeed, as heterosexuals we define ourselves in terms of these differences. If we are male, we are not female, and vice-versa, like dark and light. Because I denied these differences, I didn't know who I was. I didn't understand women, and I didn't know how to approach them. RECLAIMING MASCULINITYI was almost 50-years-old before I solved the riddle. A book The Flight from Woman (1964) by Karl Stern, a Canadian psychiatrist, confirmed what my instincts were saying. My mother had been right all along. A man makes the house; the woman makes the home. According to Stern, masculinity is defined by "power" over the natural and social environment. Men provide the physical and cultural context for the domestic world. They are do'ers: adventurers and builders, protectors and providers. Femininity is defined by "love." Feminine psychology is founded on nurturing and loving husbands and children, and thereby being needed and loved. Women are the engines of love, acting much like the heart in the body. The family is the fundamental building block of society and foundry of the future.Women are its foundation. Men define themselves by deeds; women simply are love: beauty, grace, faith and goodness. Men tend to be rational and objective; women subjective, intuitive and emotional. Distinctions like these need not constrict us. They are a theme upon which to play our own variations. For example, my wife mows the lawn; I do all the shopping and cooking. But without the theme, there is confusion and chaos. The feminist gospel that traditional sex roles are "oppressive" is wrong. For many people, a flexible interpretation of traditional roles are essential for happiness and fulfilment. I extrapolated from Karl Stern's distinctions. If man is motivated by power and woman by love, heterosexual love must be an exchange of the two. A woman surrenders her power, in trust. This is how a woman expresses her love. By trusting. In this way, women actually empower men. If a man betrays this trust, he loses his power. In return for her power, a woman gets what she really wants: a man's power expressed as his intense, undivided love. He includes her in his sphere of self-interest: this is how two people become one. Her happiness is his happiness. He can't hurt her without hurting himself. RECLAIMING FEMININITYTeaching women to seek masculine power prevents them from getting what they really want. Women want to be possessed by a man's love. God's love of Creation is mirrored in a man's love of a woman. A man channels God's love to a woman by making her a wife and mother. Women want masculine power, but it must be in a man. A girlfriend once told me, "I want to be used." The same girlfriend also said that without a man, she feels "like a rudderless boat." Similarly, a man without a woman is a rudder without a boat. A man cannot love a woman who is competing with him for power. Relationships between so-called "equals" are like mergers, or roommates. Psychiatrist, Irene Claremont de Castillejo, calls them "brother-sister" marriages (Knowing Women: A Feminine Psychology, 1973). They cannot achieve the intimacy as when a woman surrenders her will to a man, and a man returns this trust with his wholehearted love. Some psychiatrists say a woman's sexual satisfaction is also linked to her ability to trust and surrender. Feminine women are creatures of God. In love, they sacrifice their "selves" for love, which in many religions is the key to transcendence. Helen Deutsch remarked on this"masochist-narcissist" syndrome (sacrifice for love) in her The Psychology of Women: A Psychoanalytic Interpretation (1944). The majority of women only achieve fulfilment as wives and mothers. In their hearts, they know it. Nor can women love men with whom they compete. Women are hypergamous which means they seek men of higher status than themselves. Even the most ardent heterosexual feminist only can love someone more powerful than she. The struggle for power is poisoning male-female relations. It is the death of love. Men cannot give up their defining characteristic (power) and expect to be men. Women cannot criticize and challenge men and expect to be loved. When I comprehended this, I felt liberated. I established a healthy relationship with a woman who is my female complement, and married her. CONCLUSIONThe universal complaint is that men don't know how to be men; women don't know how to be women. It helps to see heterosexual love as a mystical dance. The male leads; the female follows. You can't have a graceful dance without each partner playing his part. The dance is based on love. The male is always considering his mate's wishes because he loves her. In some cases, he will ask her to lead. As in a ballroom dance, who can say which role is more important? Both partners are of equal value. The dance requires both the leadership and dynamism of the male; and the beauty, love and grace of the female. In the dance of love, two people become one, and the fruit of this mystical union, is often a child. www.henrymakow.com/080801.html
|
|
|
Post by Babylon Enigma on Aug 17, 2010 23:14:51 GMT -5
Women Duped to Seek Power, Not Loveby Henry Makow Ph.D.While on a visit to Toronto, I saw a beautiful young East Indian woman helping her brother move into a university residence where I was staying. She spent eight hours hauling heavy boxes and furniture. "Doesn't your brother have any male friends who could help him?" I asked her. "Oh, I'm a great believer in equality," she replied cheerfully as she hoisted a book shelf. Equality! What a boon for women. In the bad old days, women wouldn't be allowed to do hard physical labor like this. This is a bright girl in a Pre-Med program yet she had been easily duped to deny her femininity. They told her femininity was "socially constructed" and she had to be "independent." Since when are biological instincts socially constructed? More likely "independence" is. Yet, here she is, stunting her natural development by postponing marriage and children for career. Under the guise of "rights" for women, feminism has been a vicious lesbian attack on femininity. Women were intended to carry children, not pianos. Equal does not mean identical. We all have an equal right to dignity and fulfillment but our paths are not the same. Men are fulfilled by supporting and leading a family. Women are fulfilled by devotion to husband and family and by experiencing their love. (Of course, women can have careers but they should be secondary to family.) The East Indian girl's charm and beauty would inspire many a man to nest. But with all the study and heavy lifting, her bloom will fade and she'll gain weight. By the time she graduates, she won't turn heads any longer. I see teenage girls driving motorized lawn mowers for the city. Don't tell me the masculinity this requires won't invade their character. MALE FRUSTRATIONI hear from men who say most women still have their feminine instincts but can't overcome societal and family pressure. Here is an anguished cry from Brian, a 29-year old Californian: "Ya can't... understand the damned frustration I feel about the degradation of the natural roles of man and woman today. Some days i'm made to feel like a caveman that refuses to evolve. "I've never had a problem getting attention from the opposite sex. I however have never found a real woman who would be one. My last was a 26-year-old Accounting Major. 2 years we were together. I knew she was feminist, but who the hell isn't out here. It wasn't, however, until I met her parents that I saw what I believed to be the root of it all. It was obvious who ran the house in her family, her mother. Her father was just a goofy big kid. In her home she was encouraged to go to school and be independent if verbally then by example. I could tell that there was no way in hell she could ever be appreciated [by her parents, friends] as just a mere homemaker to her family. "She however inside was a real woman. I treated her like a man should. I was in control. As I must be in any of my relationships. She loved me for it. I saw how she looked into my eyes, and when she was with me she knew who she wanted to be. I think it was finally pressure from her family and friends that led to the end of the relationship. ...I suppose what I'm saying is most of the women I meet do want what I'm trying to give them. They just don't know how to accept it either in them self or in front of the world." A lot of men can identify with Brian. They can save valuable time by checking out the family power structure in advance and passing over women who do not have good relationships with strong fathers. MUTANTS?Other women are so sexually confused, can they be called "women" any longer? They don't know how to love. I sat down with Greg, a tall, handsome, fit, smart, successful Toronto contractor and custom builder. He is 40 and a dream catch for the "oops I forgot to have children" set. He just ended a three-year relationship with a career woman in her late 30's due to issues of power and control. "She wanted to wear the pants and treat me like a servant," he said. "She was always calculating who did what for whom, and what was 'fair and equitable.'" Now you'd think a woman nearing the end of her fertility would snap up a man like Greg who wants to put down roots and have a family. You'd think she'd know how to make him happy. But this woman didn't. For example, she demanded he nurse her when she was sick but said he was "on his own" when he was ill. "As I became more successful, she actually felt threatened. She was losing control.," said Greg. She talked about having children but her actions belied her words. Instead of reading about child rearing, she brought books home about getting the corner office." Now she and her unmarried friends sit around bashing men and complaining about the lack of good men. "Half the people in my age group are single," Greg says. "It's really scary." Men have been feminized. Greg should not have engaged in a power struggle. He should have said at the outset, "You can have power or you can have love. You cannot have both. You can be my right arm or you can leave." A woman who really loves a man will accept these terms. (She wants love not power.)This is how marriage takes place. Of course, he will consult her. He wants her to be happy. We love the people who love us. CONCLUSIONIn heterosexual marriage, the male wins a woman's trust (i.e. love) through courtship. In return she gives him the power to love her by deferring to him. This exchange of power for love is how a man and a woman become one. It is the psychological key that allows us to grow. Sex is the symbol of this permanent and exclusive bond. As I have said, feminism is designed to destabilize society by coercing women to abandon the feminine role and usurp the male one instead, undermining heterosexuality and the family. Like all aggression, this perverse assault on gender difference is disguised as an act of "defense" (of woman and homosexual rights.) Rockefeller social engineers want women to have careers instead of family, and this is happening in millions of cases. The ultimate goal is a banker-run totalitarian "New World Order." What we think of as "money" is really central banker "credit." They want to consolidate their fraudulent monopoly, eventually controlling you with their "credit" card in your body. In order to sabotage marriage and family, women have been filled with mistrust for men and marriage. They been duped to seek sex and power instead of marriage and motherhood. What women really want is power expressed as male love. They will get it when they are finally able to trust a man, their husband. www.henrymakow.com/002138.html
|
|
|
Post by hellboy87 on Aug 18, 2010 4:33:10 GMT -5
how old are you,where are you from and are you married babylon enigma???
|
|
Atan
Amicus
Posts: 307
|
Post by Atan on Aug 18, 2010 5:49:35 GMT -5
That is a very good article! The first one. I haven't read the second post. However I found it strange for the author to discover that truth at age of ~50. I already know that truth for which the author speaks. I am 29. I know it because I already experienced the results of this so-called "equilibrium" between Man and Woman. I suffered from the effect - and I understood what is the reason behind that.
Men and Women are equal in the Cycle of Life. Both have however taken different roles - although different they are equally important. Nowadays we tend to forget that. Why? It makes us unhappy but still we are poisoned from our surrounding environment to chase that false "equilibrium".
|
|
|
Post by vanilo on Aug 20, 2010 10:34:15 GMT -5
I've often been called a disgrace to women by feminists because I don't support their screwed up ideas and views on feminity, sex, relationships, men and family. I went to some feminist meeting (not voluntarily!), and got totally harrassed when I stated my opposite views. People who don't even know me, or know how I live my life, started judging me, and talking about my lifestyle as if they know what I'm doing.
I totally agree that women are trying to become identical to men, and support the elimination of gender. I don't know if it's just me but I think there's nothing more offenssive to feminity, and being a woman, than to tell a woman she needs to be like a man (to get ahead in life). It's like women in this society believe they can only get ahead if they lean towards either extreme of the spectrum: being masculine or selling their feminity; their bodies/sex. It's quite sad, actually...
|
|
|
Post by Babylon Enigma on Aug 21, 2010 21:10:38 GMT -5
That is a very good article! The first one. I haven't read the second post. However I found it strange for the author to discover that truth at age of ~50. I already know that truth for which the author speaks. I am 29. I know it because I already experienced the results of this so-called "equilibrium" between Man and Woman. I suffered from the effect - and I understood what is the reason behind that. Men and Women are equal in the Cycle of Life. Both have however taken different roles - although different they are equally important. Nowadays we tend to forget that. Why? It makes us unhappy but still we are poisoned from our surrounding environment to chase that false "equilibrium". Atan maybe you're from a different planet, but in the west, students are taught repeatedly since 1st grade, that gender differences are artificial or social construct and oppressive. The author not only identifies that gender differences are natural but that society is being engineered toward an unnatural path. This is being done to destabilize society, weaken it by breaking up the family unit. Did you know that social studies books now even call the family unit an outdated structuring of society? Even some brainwashed members have said this, proudly reciting their indoctrination. Take a look at this, recently from the guardian... Male and female ability differences down to socialisation, not geneticsBehavioural differences between the sexes are not hard-wired at birth but are the result of society's expectations, say scientists It is the mainstay of countless magazine and newspaper features. Differences between male and female abilities – from map reading to multi-tasking and from parking to expressing emotion – can be traced to variations in the hard-wiring of their brains at birth, it is claimed. Men instinctively like the colour blue and are bad at coping with pain, we are told, while women cannot tell jokes but are innately superior at empathising with other people. Key evolutionary differences separate the intellects of men and women and it is all down to our ancient hunter-gatherer genes that program our brains. The belief has become widespread, particularly in the wake of the publication of international bestsellers such as John Gray's Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus that stress the innate differences between the minds of men and women. But now a growing number of scientists are challenging the pseudo-science of "neurosexism", as they call it, and are raising concerns about its implications. These researchers argue that by telling parents that boys have poor chances of acquiring good verbal skills and girls have little prospect of developing mathematical prowess, serious and unjustified obstacles are being placed in the paths of children's education. In fact, there are no major neurological differences between the sexes, says Cordelia Fine in her book Delusions of Gender, which will be published by Icon next month. There may be slight variations in the brains of women and men, added Fine, a researcher at Melbourne University, but the wiring is soft, not hard. "It is flexible, malleable and changeable," she said. In short, our intellects are not prisoners of our genders or our genes and those who claim otherwise are merely coating old-fashioned stereotypes with a veneer of scientific credibility. It is a case backed by Lise Eliot, an associate professor based at the Chicago Medical School. "All the mounting evidence indicates these ideas about hard-wired differences between male and female brains are wrong," she told the Observer. "Yes, there are basic behavioural differences between the sexes, but we should note that these differences increase with age because our children's intellectual biases are being exaggerated and intensified by our gendered culture. Children don't inherit intellectual differences. They learn them. They are a result of what we expect a boy or a girl to be." Thus boys develop improved spatial skills not because of an innate superiority but because they are expected and are encouraged to be strong at sport, which requires expertise at catching and throwing. Similarly, it is anticipated that girls will be more emotional and talkative, and so their verbal skills are emphasised by teachers and parents. The latter example, on the issue of verbal skills, is particularly revealing, neuroscientists argue. Girls do begin to speak earlier than boys, by about a month on average, a fact that is seized upon by supporters of the Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus school of intellectual differences. However, this gap is really a tiny difference compared to the vast range of linguistic abilities that differentiate people, Robert Plomin, a professor at the Institute of Psychiatry in London, pointed out. His studies have found that a mere 3% of the variation in young children's verbal development is due to their gender. "If you map the distribution of scores for verbal skills of boys and of girls you get two graphs that overlap so much you would need a very fine pencil indeed to show the difference between them. Yet people ignore this huge similarity between boys and girls and instead exaggerate wildly the tiny difference between them. It drives me wild," Plomin told the Observer. This point is backed by Eliot. "Yes, boys and girls, men and women, are different," she states in a recent paper in New Scientist. "But most of those differences are far smaller than the Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus stereotypes suggest. "Nor are the reasoning, speaking, computing, emphasising, navigating and other cognitive differences fixed in the genetic architecture of our brains. "All such skills are learned and neuro-plasticity – the modifications of neurons and their connections in response experience – trumps hard-wiring every time." The current popular stress on innate intellectual differences between the sexes is, in part, a response to psychologists' emphasis of the environment's importance in the development of skills and personality in the 1970s and early 1980s, said Eliot. This led to a reaction against nurture as the principal factor in the development of human characteristics and to an exaggeration of the influence of genes and inherited abilities. This view is also popular because it propagates the status quo, she added. "We are being told there is nothing we can do to improve our potential because it is innate. That is wrong. Boys can develop powerful linguistic skills and girls can acquire deep spatial skills." In short, women can read maps despite claims that they lack the spatial skills for such efforts, while men can learn to empathise and need not be isolated like Mel Gibson's Nick Marshall, the emotionally retarded male lead of the film What Women Want and a classic stereotype of the unfeeling male that is perpetuated by the supporters of the hard-wired school of intellectual differences. This point was also stressed by Fine. "Many of the studies that claim to highlight differences between the brains of males and females are spurious. They are based on tests carried out on only a small number of individuals and their results are often not repeated by other scientists. However, their results are published and are accepted by teachers and others as proof of basic differences between boys and girls. "All sorts of ridiculous conclusions about very important issues are then made. Already sexism disguised in neuroscientific finery is changing the way children are taught." So should we abandon our search for the "real" differences between the sexes and give up this "pernicious pinkification of little girls", as one scientist has put it? Yes, we should, Eliot insisted. "There is almost nothing we do with our brains that is hard-wired. Every skill, attribute and personality trait is moulded by experience." www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/15/girls-boys-think-same-wayPS Read the comments on the article, a good amount of people buy into this bull.
|
|
|
Post by Babylon Enigma on Aug 21, 2010 21:24:08 GMT -5
I've often been called a disgrace to women by feminists because I don't support their screwed up ideas and views on feminity, sex, relationships, men and family. I went to some feminist meeting (not voluntarily!), and got totally harrassed when I stated my opposite views. People who don't even know me, or know how I live my life, started judging me, and talking about my lifestyle as if they know what I'm doing. I totally agree that women are trying to become identical to men, and support the elimination of gender. I don't know if it's just me but I think there's nothing more offenssive to feminity, and being a woman, than to tell a woman she needs to be like a man (to get ahead in life). It's like women in this society believe they can only get ahead if they lean towards either extreme of the spectrum: being masculine or selling their feminity; their bodies/sex. It's quite sad, actually... Good for you Vanilo. However, I do not believe women are trying to become men, they are being brainwashed to, at the same time man are being feminized. It is a dual effort by the media and the educational system. Most people who sense something is wrong cannot see this because they cannot identify the enemy. Thus do not understand this attack on gender, and rationalize it by believing its the women who've gone berserk. There is an enemy, and he has a goal, what is happening is perfectly rational on their viewpoint.
|
|
|
Post by Babylon Enigma on Aug 21, 2010 21:53:04 GMT -5
Excellent wolf, would like an example of a people whose family unit was broken apart? The African American slaves. Did you know, how they were kept docile and easily ruled? First their traditional culture was teared apart, by simply breaking up the family unit. A new born child would be transferred to a new plantation so his natural mother and father could not nurture their child. How can any new generation learn of their culture without a family? Such knowledge, which what culture simply is, fell in ruin by destroying its pillars, the family unit. Each generation became more ignorant. What a parent learns through life is passed down to their children, thus knowledge is build and expanded. In the case of the black slaves, each generation became more ignorant, thus more docile and easily manipulated/controlled. I N ADDITION, the masters when communicating and giving orders with the slaves, did it only through women representatives. Thus black women, were the upper slaves in the community, causing more friction between the community. Now you know why every black sitcom, has a black mama character that behaves like the head of the family and everyone is afraid of.
Do you notice the similarities with what is happening in the western world? The break up of the family leads to cultural decay. Take away culture, and the people will lose their unity, which makes the people easily to manage/enslave.
|
|
Atan
Amicus
Posts: 307
|
Post by Atan on Aug 22, 2010 2:49:13 GMT -5
;D ;D Buddy - I am not from different planet. I am from the Balkans. If you are not familiar with the Balkans that is your problem. I am not taught such things. I was taught to not harm the women in no occasion. Always to help them since they are physically weaker and etc. That seems the opposite of what the Westeners are taught.
Turkey is a good example of what the Westies have lost - there the men treat the women with much of respect. I have never seen such a gentlemen behaviour as of Turkish men towards their women.
Simply stated - the guy from the article has to combat something that has been taught wrong to him. I did not have to do it. So I am one step ahead reaching the truth ;D . Simple as that.
And our lady here - Vanilo, is and example of such "enlightened" woman. She is different and she has been aimed at the "free and equal" women's meetings. But she managed good I think.
Once again buddy - don't mess up the planets. I see the things from my tower. You see yours from yours. But you are right - the article is for a westener after all and his experience. Not for a Balkaneer ;D. But you ask Balkanians (not Westeners) for an opinion - and you get one.
|
|
|
Post by hellboy87 on Aug 24, 2010 9:17:59 GMT -5
babylon enigma,so you're saying that the duty of every men and women is to get married and start a family?
|
|
|
Post by spartacus on Aug 24, 2010 21:49:14 GMT -5
Making Gender Irrelevant By allowing same-sex marriage, we are declaring that mothers and fathers are interchangeable.
by Dennis Prager:
The Left passionately supports the most remarkable and radical change in modern social history — the redefinition of marriage from male-female to include male-male and female-female.
Marriage is the building block of society; changing its nature will therefore change society. By allowing same-sex marriage, we are effectively saying that sex (now called “gender”) no longer matters for society’s most important institution; thus, it no longer matters in general. Men and women as distinct entities no longer have significance — which is exactly what the cultural Left and the gay-rights movement advocate, even though the vast majority of Americans who support same-sex marriage do not realize that this is what they are supporting. Most Americans who support same-sex marriage feel (and “feel” is the crucial verb here, as the change to same-sex marriage is much more felt than thought through) that gays should have the right to marry a member of their own sex. It is perceived as unfair to gays that they cannot do so. And that is true. It is unfair to gays.
But the price paid for eliminating this unfairness is enormous: It is the end of marriage as every society has known it. It is also the end of any significance to gender. Men and women are now declared interchangeable. That is why, as I noted in a recent column, the “T” has been added to “GLB” — that is, “Transgendered” has been added to “Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual.” “T” does not represent transsexuals — people who choose to change their sex. No one is arguing against such people. “Transgendered” refers to people who are members of one sex and who wish publicly to act as if they are members of the other sex, e.g., men wearing women’s clothing in public. The transgendered who publicly act out are living the cultural Left’s primary agenda: rendering gender insignificant. Your sex is what you feel it is; and if you feel both, you are both. Gender doesn’t matter.
That is why Judge Walker and his supporters dismiss the argument that, all things being equal, it is better for children to be raised by a married man and woman than by two men or two women. If Judge Walker or GLBT activists and their supporters admitted that children need a mother and father, they would be affirming that there is great significance to the differences between men and women.
They reject that. Instead, they and Judge Walker offer studies that purport to prove that it makes no difference whether or not a child has parents of both sexes. These academic studies are as unserious as all those studies of a generation ago that “proved” that boys do not prefer to play with trucks and soldiers but would be just as happy to play with dolls and tea sets, and that girls do not prefer dolls and tea sets but would be just as happy to play with trucks and soldiers.
These newer “studies” of same-sex parents are as valid as the earlier propaganda presented in the guise of scientific studies. Like the boy-girl studies, these were conducted by academics with agendas: to deny male-female differences and to promote same-sex marriage. That many Americans believe these studies — studies that are in any case based on a small number of same-sex couples raising a small number of children, during a short amount of time (a couple of decades), based on the researchers’ own notions of what a healthy and successful young person is — only proves how effectively colleges and graduate schools have succeeded in teaching a generation of Americans not to think critically but to accept “studies” in place of common sense.
Ask anyone who supports same-sex marriage this: Do you believe that a mother has something unique to give to a child that no father can give, and that a father has something unique to give a child that no mother can give?
One has to assume that most people — including supporters of same-sex marriage — would respond in the affirmative. How, then, can they support same-sex marriage? The Left’s trinity — compassion, fairness, and equality — is one reason. And “studies” and “facts” are another.
That is exactly how so many college graduates came to believe that boys would be happy with tea sets and girls would be happy with trucks — compassion, fairness, equality, and “studies.” That is also how many Americans, including a judge who overturned a state’s constitutional amendment, have come to believe that never having a mother or never having a father makes absolutely no difference to a child.
And if mothers and fathers are interchangeable, men as men and women as women lose their significance.
|
|
|
Post by hellboy87 on Aug 25, 2010 5:31:54 GMT -5
I thought you're for freedom?
|
|
|
Post by spartacus on Aug 25, 2010 7:52:37 GMT -5
Forcing the common people to accept this idea that men and women are exactly equal and that a child having a mom and dad isn't important is not what I consider a stable society.
|
|
|
Post by todhrimencuri on Aug 25, 2010 11:52:08 GMT -5
The majority of differences between men and women are in fact constructed (besides the biological physical sexual differences). Gender is by and large socially constructed, there is enough literature available for u close-minded morons, and Islamic-based Vanilo.
By and large it has been shown that children raised in homosexual households turn out no different than anyone else. In fact, the only difference is that usually these kids have to bear a lot of abuse by others around them... something that isnt exactly the fault of their parents but of the environment. The fact is there are plenty of children in this world being raised without a mother or a father (two of my best friends among them) and they have grown up fine, no different than anyone else. Its no different than being raised by your grandparents while daddy bangs the assistant and mommy pops pills.
These are nothing more than empty Christian bs rhetoric.
|
|
Dèsîŗĕ Yèarning
Senior Moderator
Simarik Turkish Pwincess
Know yourself...
Posts: 3,563
|
Post by Dèsîŗĕ Yèarning on Aug 25, 2010 13:08:17 GMT -5
Feminism is a concept that I respect, since without the extreme demands of feminists I doubt we would have reached the level of respect and gradual reach at equality that we have today.
In regards to the actual foundation of feminism, well it's not for me, I don't have to be equal with anyone, since I already AM as a human, but in this world every individual has their blessings and their failings, if you feel complexed enough to compare yourself to anyone, that is your downfall.
In Turkey a more paternal society in the west and maternal in the east when we talk about the family unit. Things are more complex and extreme compared to the west of Europe.
My opinion? Well I find it kind of suffocating that a "husband" tries to protect his "wife" here, I had to argue a lot with my husband before we married so he could see I CAN look after myself and be safe WITHOUT him. Therefore he doesn't need to try and protect me from all the badness outside. I don't NEED his money, nor his strength. I am a strong, healthy, competent female in every aspect of life. What I don't know, I can learn and do so with an open mind willingly. I have at times used to my femininity to gain a bonus here or there, other times I have been more "feminist" to demand what my rights are. The balance is upon the individual and not on the society as a whole, it is just easier to blame a whole society rather than blame single people.
I like that feminism exists.
Gay couples are nobodies business, if they can bring up their children in a balanced loving caring way, that is all that concerns me. I think abusive parents are more the downfall of society, not gay couples.
|
|
|
Post by Babylon Enigma on Aug 25, 2010 13:20:45 GMT -5
babylon enigma,so you're saying that the duty of every men and women is to get married and start a family? Hellboy, the author is Henry Makow, Ph.D. in English literature. He is also the inventor of the board game scruples. What you should have got from these articles is that we are being manipulated, but just as important, some good tips in forming a successful relationship. If you don't want to end up in divorce, or into a unhealthy Scandinavian prison-like marriage. Don't be so naive hellboy, there is a clear difference between tolerance and forcing immorality on the general population and to redefine itself. Anyone who has been in the west can see that it is degenerating. Whatever was of the west, has entered the trash bin of history. You should learn from their downfall (that we are witnessing), not mimic them.
|
|
|
Post by Babylon Enigma on Aug 25, 2010 13:26:22 GMT -5
;D ;D Buddy - I am not from different planet. I am from the Balkans. If you are not familiar with the Balkans that is your problem. I am not taught such things. I was taught to not harm the women in no occasion. Always to help them since they are physically weaker and etc. That seems the opposite of what the Westeners are taught. Turkey is a good example of what the Westies have lost - there the men treat the women with much of respect. I have never seen such a gentlemen behaviour as of Turkish men towards their women. Simply stated - the guy from the article has to combat something that has been taught wrong to him. I did not have to do it. So I am one step ahead reaching the truth ;D . Simple as that. And our lady here - Vanilo, is and example of such "enlightened" woman. She is different and she has been aimed at the "free and equal" women's meetings. But she managed good I think. Once again buddy - don't mess up the planets. I see the things from my tower. You see yours from yours. But you are right - the article is for a westener after all and his experience. Not for a Balkaneer ;D. But you ask Balkanians (not Westeners) for an opinion - and you get one. Still living in fantasy land? Did you read toskali post? You think your country is immune to the propaganda thats creeping everywhere? Look at the results, a purely brainwashed youth. If the west Germanic countries can be manipulated and destroyed from within, what chance do you think Balkanic countries have?
|
|
|
Post by Babylon Enigma on Aug 25, 2010 13:28:33 GMT -5
Feminism Spoiled Nature's Great ConBy Taylor Caldwell (1900-1985) (Abridged from Caldwell's prescient 1970 classic "Women's Lib: They're Spoiling Eve's Great Con Game." ) The left, alas, is now running yet another "Liberation Movement," this one championing females who believe that the male sex has somehow done the ladies wrong. The members of this Front say they want all the spoils the boys appear to be getting out of life. They're quite mad, of course. What these "girls" are about to do is ruin the biggest Con Game, and the most ancient, which one section of humanity has ever imposed on another, since Eve invented it. I'm just jealous, myself, having been deprived by circumstances from getting into that Big Con Game...alas, alas, alas. But I've stood on the sidelines and seethed with envy, and now I hope - I say with a grin over clenched teeth - that the Liberation "girls" will get exactly what they want. It's all they deserve. I am convinced that the feminists, judging from their photographs at least, and on some personal observation, are so unattractive mentally, physically, and in personality, that they are envious because they can't even qualify for the Big Con Game, and so don't want other women to wallow in it with sweet and secret smiles. As for myself, I am only wistful, and plenty happy that my two beautiful daughters are in on the Game and enjoying every minute of it, and wouldn't even dream of Female Liberation. I brought them up to appreciate their blessings -- and to shut their mouths around their husbands, for fear the boys would catch on and demand liberation for themselves, which is exactly the calamity these rampant females in the "Liberation Movement" are going to precipitate. God help the contented women who will be their victims! The Liberation Ladies would have just loved my Mama, who was very advanced and ultra-modern, perhaps even more than most women of today. Mama believed in rearing girls exactly as boys were reared, and no nonsense about the weaker sex and the softer yearnings in a girl's heart. Mama believed that what a boy could, and should, do, a girl could and should do, also; and if a girl had softer muscles and more tender feelings, well, that was tough. So, I was reared just as my brother was reared -- except that Little Brother was somewhat smarter than I was and ran his own Con Game against Mama, and succeeded to an enviable extent. I MISSED MY CHANCEWhile I worked and studied, my dream of being the Cherished Woman -- like Aunt Pollie -- grew stronger in me. But all the hard work I had had to do since I was a child, and the living I had had to earn since I was fifteen...gave me too much independence of manner, too much self-assurance, too much of an appearance of confidence. This definitely put off men who wanted a Queen for their houses, a soft and yielding gentle sweet creature like Aunt Pollie, a charming hostess pliant soothing and full of musical laughter and kind wit. For such a woman, men were ready to work their poor hearts out, considering themselves blessed. But a girl like myself, who knew hard labor, and knew how to earn a buck, and had a sharp and independent voice and manner, was not attractive to them. They did not want a "partner," and a fellow wage earner. They did not believe that "a woman can do anything a man can do." They were right, of course. So, I did not attract the manly men I secretly adored, the masculine, strong men, the cherishers of women, the protectors of women, the admirers of women, the men who believed it was their duty to provide for wives and children, the men who built nice houses for their women, who guarded them against the evil brutalities of living. I attracted the weak sisters among the men, who subconsciously recognized that here was a girl who would earn a living for them, take care of them, protect the, and be the man of the house, while they indulged their "sickly" physiques and their "ailments" and their delicate psyches. They clung to me, the creeps, begging for instant marriage -- while the men I yearned for married helpless little creatures who knew nothing of "business" except it provided them, via men, with the luxuries and comforts of life, and the protection. But, of course, they had not had my own dolorous life, and had not had the parents I had. At eighteen, I fell desperately in love with a true man, a man of strength and masculine vitality and courage. He was attracted to me, too. But then one night he said to me, "Janet, you aren't the gentle little woman my mother was. My father worshiped her, and no wonder. You are too strong, yourself, and too independent for me. There'd be conflict in the house. You wouldn't be satisfied just to be taken care of; you'd want to do something on your own, and be a 'partner' to me. It's just no use." I was struck dumb at this horrifying statement. I wasn't very articulate then. He gently picked up my hands and shook his head at the old callouses, and as gently put them down. I wanted to cry out to him, " But I want to be like your mother! I want you to take care of me and deliver me from my hateful daily job! I want you to cherish me! I want only to be your wife and have your children and keep your house! I don't want a career or anything else. I just want you." But I couldn't say it. I had no words. My rearing silenced me. And so I never saw him again. But I saw the creeps, all right! They hung on me like leeches. Charity prevents me from elaborating on the matter. After all, a girl has to marry someone, doesn't she, when her yearning for love and protection overcomes her. And, believe me, unless she is a dyke or a Liberated Commie, that yearning is natural and heart-breaking. TEACH YOUR DAUGHTERSI told my daughters: "Marry men who will not permit you to work after marriage. Marry strong men who will take care of you and cherish you, and not tell you their business, and will refuse your 'help.'" I had told them from the very beginning that unless a woman is powerfully (and by birth) motivated to the arts and the sciences and the professions, and is deeply gifted and cannot be denied, she should refrain from going out into the market places with mediocre abilities. Once she has earned a paycheck, I told my daughters, she is practically doomed -- unless she can persuade a man that that paycheck is only a stop-gap before marriage, and she is only too happily willing to throw it over. She must then keep to her resolution: Never again to earn money outside her house. Never again to be a "partner, shoulder to shoulder with her man." Never again to be independent. In short, she should play the Big Con Game with her husband as shrewd and intelligent women have done for centuries. I have accomplished the one success of my life: I have brought up daughters who have manly and cherishing husbands, who have never wanted to earn money outside their pleasant homes, who have concentrated on the sole and natural business of women: To be good wives and prudent mothers, soothers of the masculine brow, good cooks, pleasant companions, and truly feminine. I wish I'd had a mother just like me. I fear that men are beginning to suspect that we women conned them through the centuries. I fear they are asking themselves -- to women's terrible hurt -- why they should support an able-bodied woman who can earn a good living too, and why should they be responsible for providing a home for women. Why can't women be architects and bricklayers and plumbers and stone-masons and lawyers and doctors and business women too, and pile up a fat bank account to be inherited by husbands? Why should a man give his ex-wife alimony and child-support checks, when she is just as capable, if not more so, of rolling up her sleeves and getting on the 8:00 bus of a morning for an arduous day in the factory or the office? After all, men whisper among themselves -- I have heard -- that women in Russia are treated exactly as men, and are farm-laborers plowing and seeding and harvesting, and they manhandle big machines in factories, empty garbage and shovel snow, learn to be bricklayers and steel-workers as well as doctors and lawyers, serve in the armies, drive trucks, wear felt pants, dig sewers and lay pipes, clean chimneys and work in the forests, and do the heaviest of manual labor. MEN'S LIBERATIONMen, in short, are licking their lips and, for the first itme in history, are readying themselves to be exploiters in their turn -- to be the soft gentle creature in the house, the soother of exhaustion, the serene person who has nothing to worry about in his pleasant life. Mom's out there, plugging and "fulfilling" herself, and why should Pop worry? He's had it coming to him since Eve. Pick up any woman's magazine, particularly a certain one which was once run by men who promoted good articles and fiction , and which are read by as many men as women. Read there the articles by shrewd sly gentlemen who proclaim a woman "has as much 'right' to do any of the world's work as men, as much 'right' to a job or a career, as much 'right' to be head of the household." Those boys know what they're up to: The real enslavement of women. Tragically, such near-men and the Liberation Ladies can never crush the longing of a woman's heart to be cherished, to be protected, to be guarded, to be honored and deferred to, to be loved dearly and devotedly, to be a true helper, to be a complement, in her femininity, to the masculine nature; her longings to be the patroness of beauty and tranquility, to be the dear mother of respectful children, to be, as the Holy Bible says, "a good woman, whose price is far above rubies," the adorner of life, the civilizer, Godly, with beauty of spirit long after her youthful beauty has gone. It is a woman's nature to make a sanctuary of love and delight in her home. That is the true "career" for women. Alas, alas, that so many multitudes of women are now forced -- or choose -- to abandon that career, and to become imitation men in society. The true men won't marry them. The creeps will throng about them. They will reap the betterness I have had to reap -- though I never wanted a career, never wanted to be "stalwart." I just wanted to be a woman. THE PLAYBOYYou really can't change human nature, and the instincts of that nature, for good or evil. I know a prosperous young man in New York, in his early thirties, who has a "pad" in a penthouse, and is up-to-date on everything, including Ladies' Liberation. He highly approves of it. It is time, he told me, that women "stopped being parasites" and worked to the day they dropped dead or retired, as men do, and not expect a man "to support them." He is very enthusiastic, too, about women's "sexual liberation," and always manages to get a girl who, the dupe and dope, heartily agrees with him. "After all," says the young man, "women get as much fun out of it as men do, so why should a man feel obligated to marry them, or give them more than a drink and a dinner in exchange? I'm all for this new freedom for the girls." He belongs to the Key Club. You know the kind I mean. When I was in New York recently he invited me to meet his "newest girl" at the Club. The "girl" happened to be a member of an advertising agency, a smart, pretty cookie with swinging hair and bright cheeks and eyes, and good manners and an engaging way with her. Only her eyes were vulnerable, and soft and tender as she gazed at my young masculine friend. The lovelight shone in those eyes, deep and passionate and devoted. I thought those two hit it off wonderfully well, and I thought, too what a wonderful marriage they would make and what handsome and intelligent children they would have. After all, the girl came of a good family, had a master's degree in publications and advertising, and money of her own. And I could palianly see that marriage was fixed in her own ardent wishes and hopes. When she went to the "powder room" I said to my sophisticated, progressive, and with-it young pal: "Are you going to marry Sally soon?" He looked absolutely shocked! Suddenly the primitive man was there and not a "modern" man in a dinner jacket and black tie, in a Key Club with bunnies running around and the smell of winey cooking in the air. He was aghast. He said "Excuse me, but you can't be serious, can you? Sally's all right. But, after all, she is a modern girl -- she likes a romp as well as I do. No inhibition." He paused. Then he said, "Playmates for play-time. But only maidens for marriage!" And he laughed. When I still stared at him cynically, he got a little mad. "Let's face it," he said. "The liberated girls have made their own public bed, and they can lie in it, and we men love it. but if they think we are going to marry them, they're due for an awakening. No man wants a woman who's been out on the town with every Tom, Dick, and Harry. When we marry, we don't want a 'modern' woman." He laughed again. "Oh, we encourage the women to be 'liberated'! It's cheap for us, and we get all the free sex we want before we settle down with a decent girl." Sally came back, glowing at the boyfriend, her heart in her eyes. No one ever told Sally that she was being used, that her womanhood had been cheapened and degraded by her sister-women in the name of "liberation." Sure, Sally had her "identity," as they wickedly call it, and her "freedom," and she was being fulfilled all right, all right! She had her good job and her independence and her nice little apartment...and she was twenty-seven years old and she would soon be middle-aged, and all she could marry then (and even now) would be some "Liberal" creep eager to live on her salary and permit her to support him. The young man now opposite her, with his urbane manner and excellent income and ambitions, would never marry Sally. He would marry some sweet, untouched creature who would not "stand shoulder to shoulder with him in the battle for life," but who would make him a pleasant little wife of whose decency he would be proud, and who had never heard the phrase, "women's liberation." Well, I suppose, it serves Sally right and all her deluded and pathetic sisters who sprint off to work every morning and take care of themselves and are as "free as men." But deep in their deprived hearts they know how tragic they are. WHO WANTS EQUALITY WITH MEN?Girls, the men are catching on -- through your sister-women who have been "liberated -- that they have been victims for ages of the Big Con Game, and the first thing you know they will be demanding Civil Rights and Equality for themselves, too! It's up to you, in behalf of future generations, to lull them back and to again become superior. Who wants Equality with men? No woman in her right mind. Remember this: The strongest sign of the decay of a nation is the feminization of men and the masculinization of women. It is notable that in Communist nations women are exhorted, and compelled, to do what has traditionally been men's work. American women, some of them, feel triumphant that they have broken down the "barricades" between the work of the sexes. I hope they will still feel triumphant when some commissar forces a shovel or an axe into their soft hands and compels them to pound and cut forests and dig ditches. I hope they will be "happy" when a husband deserts them and they must support their children and themselves alone. (After all, if a woman must be "free" she shouldn't object to men being free too, should she?") I hope they will feel "fulfilled" when they are given no more courtesies due to their sex, and no kindnesses, but are kicked aside on the subways and buses by men, and jostled out of the way by men on busy sidewalks and in elevators. I hope that no man will extend mercy to them because of obvious pregnancies, but will rudely tell them that that is no excuse to shirt a day's heavy labor, and they should be like Russian women. I hope they will be proud when some court demands that they support "delicate" husbands for a lifetime, and pay alimony. I hope, when they look in their mirrors, that they will be pleased to see exhausted and embittered faces, and that they will be consoled by their paychecks. The decay and the ruin of a nation has always lain in the hands of its women. So does its life and strength, its reverence for beauty, its mercy and kindness. And, above all, its men. ------ Taylor Caldwell was born in England and emigrated with her parents when she was a child in 1907. She was an outspoken conservative and wrote for many publications until her death in 1985. The preceding article was reprinted from the 1970 issue of American Opinion. www.henrymakow.com/feminism_spoiled_natures_great.html
|
|
|
Post by Babylon Enigma on Aug 25, 2010 13:34:47 GMT -5
Is this Gay Behavior Sick?by Henry Makow Ph.D.Imagine that an organism is sick. Imagine that the sick cells convince the organism that they were healthy, and in fact, the healthy cells are sick. The gullible organism would just get sicker and sicker. This is the relationship between society and homosexuals today. Gays argue that same-sex behavior is no different than being left-handed. On the other hand, they say heterosexual behavior is not natural, but socially conditioned and "oppressive." Heterosexual society and family are taking heavy casualties. Our stupid, opportunistic and craven leaders have betrayed us. We don't even know we are at war. Let's decide whom, in fact, is sick. Let's look at gay behavior as defined by two gays, Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen Ph.D., authors of "After the Ball: How America will Conquer its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90's"(1989). In Chapter Six, they outline "ten categories of misbehavior," drawn from their own experiences, wide reading and thousands of hours of conversation with hundreds of other gays. Their contention is that the male gay lifestyle, (not gay sexuality mind you), "is the pits." They want gays to improve their image by addressing "what is wrong with a lot of gays." (276) What follows are some highlights. As you read this, ask yourself if there is another human community, including the Mafia that could make these generalizations about itself. Ask yourself if we haven't caught this disease, or at least the sniffles. * The authors say "a surprisingly high percentage" of pathological liars and con men are gay. This results from a natural habit of self-concealment, and leads to a stubborn self-deception about one's own gayness and its implication. * They say gays tend to reject all forms of morality and value judgments. Gay morality boils down to "I can do whatever I want and you can go to perdition. (If it feels good, I'll do it!)" If a gay feels like seducing a trusted friend's lover, he'll do it, justifying it as an act of "sexual freedom" and the friend be damned. * They say gays suffer from a "narcissistic" personality disorder and give this clinical description: "pathological self absorption, a need for constant attention and admiration, lack of empathy or concern for others, quickly bored, shallow, interested in fads, seductive, overemphasis on appearance, superficially charming, promiscuous, exploitative, preoccupied with remaining youthful, relationships alternate between over idealization and devaluation." * As an example of this narcissism, the authors say "a very sizable proportion of gay men" who have been diagnosed HIV positive continue to have unprotected sex. * They say the majority of gays are extremely promiscuous and self-indulgent. They must continuously up the ante to achieve arousal. This begins with alcohol and drugs and includes such "forbidden" aspects of sex as wallowing in filth (fetishism and coprophilia) and sadomasochism, which involves violence. * They say many gays indulge in sex in public bathrooms and think it is antigay harassment when it is stopped. Many think they have a right to importune straight males, including children. * Many gays are "single minded sexual predators" fixated on youth and physical beauty alone. When it comes to the old or ugly, gays are "the real queer bashers." Disillusioned themselves, they are cynical about love. * "Relationships between gay men don't usually last very long." They quickly tire of their partners and fall victim to temptation. The "cheating ratio of 'married' gay males, given enough time, approaches 100%." * Even friendships are based on the sexual test and hard to sustain. Unattractive gay men find it nearly impossible to find a friend, let alone a lover. * The authors say gays tend to deny reality in various ways: wishful thinking, paranoia, illogic, emotionalism and embracing crackpot ideas. Is there any doubt that this behavior is sick? Obviously this is not true of all homosexuals. I feel no malice toward gays. I feel the same way about people who have the flu. I want them to get better and I don't want it to spread. Unfortunately, even the authors of this book are deceiving themselves. They claim that it is the gay lifestyle and NOT gay sexuality that is "the pits." Who are they kidding? The two are inseparable. The authors of this book are public relations experts who believe that "our problem is fundamentally one of bad image with straights." The book details "a comprehensive public-relations campaign that should go a long way towards sanitizing our very unsanitary image:" "Desensitization": flooding straight America with advertising presenting gays in the "least offensive manner possible." "Jamming": Advertising that equates fear of gays with hatred of Jews, Blacks and women. "Conversion": Presenting images of gays that look like regular folks. "The image must be the icon of normality." They say "it makes no difference that the ads are lies" because "we are using them to...counter negative stereotypes that are every bit as much lies." This book was written in 1989 and obviously a campaign similar to this has taken effect. Read what the authors say about it: "By Conversion, we mean something far more profoundly threatening to the American Way of Life [than subversion] ...We mean conversion of the average American's emotions, mind, and will, through a planned psychological attack, in the form of propaganda fed to the nation via the media. We mean...to turn their hatred into warm regard whether they like it or not." (153) Thus gays want Americans to learn that something they naturally and justifiably regard as sick, is in fact healthy. Thus Americans will be defenseless to resist their overtures whether in parks, barracks, bathrooms or classrooms. It is a measure of the authors' cynicism and self-deception that THEY quote psychologist M. Scott Peck, who in "People of the Lie" characterizes people who suffer from extreme or "malignant" narcissism simply as "evil." Evil people, Peck says, have "an unshakable will to be right and will not consider the possibility that they are wrong...Their main weapon, interestingly enough is the lie with which they distort reality to look good to themselves, and to confuse others." (297) The publicity surrounding gay marriage doesn't reflect the reality. Gays don't want to marry. In Canada, gay marriage has been legal for more than a year yet only one in one thousand marriages are homosexual. Gays and lesbians make up about 40 out of 1000 population. Gay marriage is really designed to make heterosexuals see homosexual behavior as the new normal. They could have designated a separate but equal status for the homosexuals who want marriage. Gays can continue to fool themselves. But let us stop. Their behavior is sick. And it's contagious. www.henrymakow.com/201101.html
|
|
|
Post by Babylon Enigma on Aug 25, 2010 13:43:18 GMT -5
Few Gays Opt to Marryby Henry Makow Ph.D.Despite the example set by these Royal Canadian Mounted Police officers, less than one-in-20 gays took advantage of Canada's decision to legalize marriage in June 2005, according to a census a year later. Gays make up just 0.1% of all married couples, a proportion which is consistent with other countries that permit same-sex marriage. In other words, the definition of the most important heterosexual institution was changed to satisfy one couple in one thousand. This information is crucial to Americans where only Massachusetts permits same-sex marriage but as many as eleven other states are considering it. In terms of numbers, Statistics Canada calculated that about one percent of the Canadian population are gay or bisexual, well below the estimates we normally hear. (StasCan Daily "Community Health Survey" , June 15 2004, p. 9) This works out to 316,900 people. The 2006 census found 7465 married same-sex couples, fewer than 15,000 men and women. Roughly a quarter of Canadian gays (75,000) prefer "common law" relationships. There is no way to gauge their permanence or exclusivity. The vast majority of homosexuals don't want gay marriage. It is being foisted on them and on society by elite social engineers using the media, government and a few activists. The goal is to undermine heterosexual marriage by obscuring its true character. The purpose is to destroy the family and render society more vulnerable to world government dictatorship by the central bankers. GAYS DON'T WANT MARRIAGEThe majority of gays regard same-sex marriage as a diversion from more important issues. This view is expressed by Gareth Kirby in an editorial in Capital Xtra, an Ottawa gay newspaper, Oct. 18, 2007. "Remember the headlines...that claimed we were flocking to city hall and churches to get the deed done as courts legalized same-sex marriage in province after province? ...It was a lie. Very few among us are eager to embrace marriage rights... "Didn't we just spend a decade and by some estimates $2 million to wage wage this fight? Didn't we just put all our other major issues virtually on ice because some couples, a few lawyers, and a couple of out-of-touch lobby groups decided that same-sex marriage was the only thing that really mattered... "Marriage is a heterosexual institution designed by the church, endorse by the state, with the intention of controlling the sexuality of women and by extension, their husbands... "I don't expect the wedding rate will pick up. We have something better in our relationships, something that allows for a variety of friendships, fuck buddies, lovers, sisters and ex's. We don 't put all the pressures on one person... "We don't need the limitations of marriage. So we're taking a pass. But what waste of time and money, and a tragic diversion of focus, in that decade-long fight." As Kirby suggests, being gay is about not marrying and being monogamous. It is farcical and tragic that heterosexual society should be sacrificed on the altar of gay marriage. Marriage-minded gays should be given a separate status with equal benefits and responsibilities. THE MEDIA LOVES GAY MARRIAGEThe Canadian media has ignored the tepid gay response to marriage and tried instead to create the impression that traditional marriage is on the rocks. The fact the mass media is singing from an identical song sheet is further proof that it is directed by the central banking cartel. In an article in The Hill Times (Sept. 24, 2007) Tom Korski writes: [The media] "depicted gay Canadians enthusiastically embracing traditional roles at the exact moment the rest of society spirals into family dysfunction." 'Thank heavens for gay marriage,' wrote Globe and Mail columnist Margaret Went. 'Without it, the most ancient of our social institutions would be in even worse decline than it already is.' Other journalists advised readers "the nuclear family is fading away," (Edmonton Sun) and that "same sex couples are taking the reins" (CTV.ca), or mocked the myth of the perfect family," (Vancouver Sun) and lamented "there is no such thing as traditional family anymore." (Moose Jaw Times Herald) In one comically inelegant phrase CTV National's Lloyd Robertson told viewers, "If you're part of a so-called traditional family where the children are raised by a mother and father who are married, you seem to be in a declining breed." (End of Korski) Meanwhile the gay lobby behind the legalization of same-sex marriage is releasing statistics that exaggerate the number of gay marriages by about %65. This lobby is called "Egale" and it is funded by IBM and a number of other anonymous corporations, as well as by the federal government. CONCLUSIONToday, people who advance in the fields of government, education, media and big business generally belong to a colonial elite. They represent the London-based Masonic-Zionist central banking cartel which is colonizing us all in a 1984-style "world government." They are waging psychological war on society to undermine our ability to resist. The nuclear family is the basic building block of society. We derive our identity, meaning, values and security from it. Heterosexual marriage is the basis for raising the new generation to be productive responsible citizens. It is based on the exchange of female power for male love which awakens the man's protective and constructive instincts. It is an essential step in our personal development and fulfillment. The promotion of gay marriage has nothing to do with the welfare of homosexuals. As with feminism,it is designed to increase sex-role confusion, divorce, and depopulation. By conflating hetero and homosexual marriage, straights are being encouraged to emulate gays, who generally are not monogamous and do not have children. This is part of a wider attack on our gender identity (i.e. masculinity and femininity.) Did we need to legalize gay marriage to accommodate one couple in one thousand? No. The central bankers legalized it to destroy the nuclear family and change societal norms. By arresting our personal development, they are ensuring that humanity remains under their tutelage, a perpetual under-achiever. www.savethemales.ca/few_gays_opt_to_marry.html
|
|