Is “gay marriage” a historical imperative?
by Don Hank
According to expert testimony before the House in 1963, the 26th of the “Current Communist Goals” was:
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”
My recent response to the court decision by a homosexual judge in California supposedly making any ban on “gay marriage” unconstitutional received a deluge of of responses, including some expressing gay rage at my refusal to accept the use of the word “marriage” appied to same-sex relationships. (Check out the comments section under the article “Same-sex marriage? There’s no such thing”).
Some suggested I was a Nazi, others a bigot, still others a hater. It was the same old Gramscian tactics that the Left has used for over 100 years, showing an almost complete lack of reflection and no palpable originality.
In the last comment, a poster, who calls himself a “Christian” and apparently wants to pass as a “conservative,” said:
“Of course, the rest of society has moved on [emphasis added], and we pretty much look at them [anyone opposing 'gay marriage'] with a mixture of pity and revulsion, but hey, it is their right.”
So the work of a single judge activist is proof that “society has moved on”?
In fact the people of California, arguably the most liberal state in the nation, voted for Proposition 8, which makes “gay marriage” illegal. So what is going on?
Let me try to explain.
This activist is portraying “gay” marriage as a historical imperative.
Hegel’s concept of the historical imperative found its first application in communism by the founders of that ideology. It is an example of the Left’s inversion of all things. If you are an ordinary person, you look at history objectively in logical chronological sequence, from past to present. Not the Leftist. He sees history’s starting point in the future utopia that he imagines. For him, all recorded history must meet one criterion: It must show unequivocally that all of history is marching toward a great egalitarian revolution, where all are equal. It is inevitable and the history books must be revised to reflect this “fact.” “Gay marriage” is an important stepping stone in the quest for this revolutionary “equality” or “social justice.”
But do utopians really ever bring about equality and social justice?
The Soviet Union, Cuba, China, North Korea, all reflect the opposite. There, the leaders pursued lifestyles of great opulence, living in palaces and feasting daily as the masses either starved or lived hand to mouth. In the Ukraine, under Stalin, for example, at least 10 million were killed, mostly by starvation. Still more were starved to death in China under Mao.
The closer any country comes to the dreamed-of “Utopia,” the further from equality it gets.
Of course, the above examples are restricted to the hardline communists, who, thanks to the unlimited power they enjoyed, had no need to use victim groups to get votes. But the same principle applies to soft Marxism of the kind that prevails in Europe and the US, where interest groups (like homosexuals) are seen as crucial to acquiring power. You need only look at Michelle Obama’s taxpayer-funded trip to Spain or Nancy Pelosi’s fabulously expensive taxpayer-funded airliner to see that the Western world is destined for an impoverishment of the middle class that may rival — or even exceed — that of hardline communist nations. You will get even poorer and the politically well-placed will get wealthy beyond measure. Our world financial and economic crises are a result of wealth distribution under “soft” Marxism. Yet our elites continue to borrow for ineffective Keynesian “stimulus” programs that transfer the wealth of the middle class to rich bankers, and will continue to do so as long as we close our eyes to the unconstitutionality of this plundering of our resources. (The elites confuse us by reminding that the “conservative” G.W. Bush also promoted such practices as lending to the insolvent and “stimulus” programs. Recruiting false conservatives into the Marxist game plays a key role in the subterfuge. “Conservative” Prime Minister David Cameron is playing this role in the UK, where he promised voters to hold a referendum on EU membership and then reneged on that promise. And in case you missed it, the “conservative”Ann Coulter has recently taken her place in the ranks of the cultural Marxist campaign, promoting “gay marriage,” thereby ensuring her place in a leftward-evolving GOP).
In other words, the “historical imperative” that the above-quoted homosexual activist alludes to, and his disdain for counter-revolutionary traditionalists like me (regarding conservatives with “pity and revulsion”), are a sign of a great inequality that is to come, one that is cynically expected to be a utopia.
Let me further clarify: The homosexual agenda we see proceeding apace before us is not, on the surface, the kind of economic Marxism we saw (or see) in Russia, China, North Korea, Cambodia, Cuba, etc. It is something more subtle and insidious but with the same intent – namely, Fabian Marxism, which is a stealth revolution that is intended to eventually usher in economic Marxism later on once power is consolidated in the hands of the Left. Now if this “historical imperative” – the inevitability of the Marxist revolution – were possible, then the question is: why did it not happen a long time ago?
The first known Utopian screed appeared almost 2,500 years ago. It was written by none less than Plato. The first Utopian experiment was in 4th Century Persia and it failed ignominiously for the same reason all such experiments fail: no one wanted to work.
There were utopian movements from the 13th Century on in the Dark Ages and on through the Renaissance and beyond. They played crucial roles in the great wars of the time. All of them failed.
The French Revolution touted égalité, among other things. It follows that today’s France is very accepting of same-sex “marriage.” Yet today, there is scarcely a more economically skewed society, with government employees receiving vastly more income and perks than workers in the private economy. And, of course, as in all “egalitarian” Utopias, there is a vanishing trend in work performed by this privileged class, while the less-fortunate private-economy workers earn less and less in terms of real wages, corrected for cost of living.
It is quite possible that eventually, the masses will be dumbed-down and propagandized to the point of no return, relinquishing the little freedom that remains, and learn to accept the unacceptable. A quick look at the sociocultural reality of Europe is a glimpse of our future, barring unforeseen circumstances.
But if past revolutions are a viable indicator, then the activists themselves will be the main recipients of the unintended consequences of their own actions.
Already, the first “gay” divorces have been examples of wealth redistribution, with the richer of the 2 being forced to relinquish a significant proportion of their income and property to the other.
It is to be expected that some of these “beneficiaries” of the homosexual revolution will eventually look back longingly at the days of traditional marriage and its defenders.
I for one will be looking at them not with revulsion, but with pity.
August 11th, 2010 at 6:44 pm
You are of course 100% correct. The arguments against such perverted behaviour are so devastating that only someone who has had his mind corrupted could regard this perversion as acceptable. There is of course always the Way of escape which is the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. But the proponents of this destruction who claim Christ as Saviour will be damned. Harsh? Perhaps. But not as harsh as remaining silent as these souls are deceived and prepared for an eternal darkness. God have mercy on us all because the time is very short.
August 11th, 2010 at 8:49 pm
Excellent post. Gay marriage has almost nothing to do with homosexual practices, and everything to do with government overreach and the impositionn of the fascist state over the
biblically established covenant of marriage.
You notice that there is no dissent among homosexuals themselves: they all have exactly the same opinion! Isn’t that convenient? The fascism among the gay community requires lockstep agreement or expulsion – there is no tolerance for disparity. When they are fully empowered, their intolerance will become genocidal, as they become completely corrupted.
Nothing but disaster as far as the eye can see. I guess that is the actual result of a push for utopia.
August 11th, 2010 at 10:49 pm
[...] Where is America headed? Published by Lee S. Gliddon, Jr. on Aug 11th, 2010 in Gay/Lesbian, Liberals, Marriage, Marxism, Obama, President, Progressive Democrats, Socialism with No Comments Communism advocates weakening opposition through Gay marriage! In other words, is it inevitable, as a good Marxist would say? http://laiglesforum.com/2010/08/11/is-gay-marriage-a-historical-imperative/ [...]
August 11th, 2010 at 11:04 pm
Don,
I strongly believe that you forgot that 100-99=1.
I translate: “Christian posing as a conservative” said this: “the rest of society has moved on [emphasis added].”
You said this: “So the work of a single judge activist is proof that “society has moved on”?”
Thus, you eliminated the most important part of the sentence: “the rest.”
The judge who has shown such a disgraceful disdain for people who voted for the Proposition 8 (52% or more?), is that “1″ (the rest) who left after subtraction.
-:) -:) -:) -:)
But seriously, first of all, neither Marx and Engels (even though some sources say they were in homo-relations with each other) nor Lenin wrote anything about Homosexualism and homosexuality, even less so about Homosexualism as a “historical imperative”.
It’s simply an invention of their adherents suffering IGS caused by sexual satiety.
But at the same time, they rightly see in Homosexualism a great tool for demolishing a capitalist society, starting from its fundamental cell: traditional, normal marriage, which, by the way, in no way is just a Christian institute. Normal marriage between man and woman is the world-wide accepted institute.
Even Oriental harems are kind of an “extension” of the man-woman “unions.”
Thus, all those hysterical shouts about “religious zealots-defenders of normal marriage” is a usual liberast crap.
Secondly, not only Homosexualism as an ideology (with corresponding practices), but also homosexuality as a presumable physiological feature (which, in fact, is a very rare case, not more often than hexadactyls) were considered by Commies in the USSR and many other countries of the so-called “Socialist camp” as a crime (before becoming considered as a sickness.)
Thus, to name just two the most prominent individuals, Naum Starkman, a brilliant pianist, who, by the way, was married and had kids, spent 8 years in prison based on seemingly trumped-up charges of homosexual relations; by the same charges, Sergei Parajanov, world-renown film director, spent in prison 4 years.
Therefore, appeal to Marxism as a justification of Homosexualism is baseless.
And the last for the moment: all those mumblings regarding “equality” are very boring slops.
People are not equal. Never were and never will be.
Before God, we are equal just in the same way as ants seem to us equal from the height of our stature. Before we bend down to discern them closer.
Equality can and should be before LAW.
Nobody hinders homosexuals from their way of getting sexual pleasure in privacy of their beds.
But since their copulations don’t enrich society with kids and don’t provide their (kids) reasonable masculine upbringing, there is no reason whatsoever for changing social pillars only to ease their ideological subversive activity.
As for the momentary advantage of legalizing their unions, it’s about MONEY. Therefore, not only they want to destroy our society, but even get paid for it.
And we the People should again demonstrate tolerance?
Will anyone ever demonstrate tolerance to us the People?
I’m sick of being tolerant all the time. It’s now their turn.
August 11th, 2010 at 11:17 pm
Peter,
What you say is true and it is why I have nothing but pity — or rather compassion — for these misguided people.
Skypilot,
Yes, for the most part, the “gay community” as they like to call themselves, is almost a perfect monolith, like the upper echelons of the Democratic Party. Yet some are openly atheistic, like some who have commented on prior articles here, while some pretend to be Christian, even as they besmirch and blaspheme the doctrines of Christ and the Apostles. This is nothing new. The heretics from the 13th century on did likewise. I imagine modern heretics think they have invented something new. It would be laughable if it were a laughing matter.
I did, however, know one homosexual — a guy I had hired who mowed my lawn — who agreed with me that “gay marriage” was nonsense.
Constantine,
You always contribute a fresh way of looking at things. I hope your words will be heeded because you have lived under communism and we should weight your words by a factor of at least 100 over anyone else’s when it comes to Leftism.
Yes, I agree that the USSR did not accept homosexuality, but it was for the reason I mentioned: they did not need the votes of the victim groups because they had all the power to begin with. (Note, however, that Lenin had a warm relationship with the homosexual-pedophile John Maynard Keynes, whose economic theory is being implemented by the Obama regime.)
I tried to show that the ultimate effect will be the same once the Left has consolidated power. The signs are plainly visible everywhere, with the economic decay reflecting the moral decay.
Ironically, as you say, the USSR maintained a rather stiff, prudish facade, despite the fact that many people were drinking themselves into oblivion, and divorcing at an alarming rate, and family breakdown and juvenile delinquency (hooliganism) were major problems.
August 11th, 2010 at 11:42 pm
And one thing more:
In my former country, the USSR, there was a joke:
“Do you know why dinosaurs became extinct?” – “Why?”
“Because He dinosaur had a surfeit of his spouse and decided to become a homo.”
Can anybody convince me that Homosexualism is not an ideology of Death, an orgastic death?
Then you have to convince me that homosexuality can procreate children….
August 12th, 2010 at 12:07 am
Don,
I didn’t want to say that the USSR didn’t accept communism. At least, the official ideology was communism: one step aside, and you are dead (well, imprisoned or…)
Actually, no one in the entire world can say which communism “incarnation” or “a living embodiment of an ideal” was correct.
To me, all are wrong. And ever will be. Because it is based on completely false premises. This is what our oligophrenic liberasts, sorry…intellectuals don’t understand.
As for communism and debauchery and lechery, immediately after the Civil war finished, Commies led by Alexandra Kollontai started a genuine witches’ sabbath, sorry, orgies. The theory of “a glass water”, attributed to Kollontai, has been practiced widely; the so-called “free love” flourished. You probably heard that, for instance, Mayakovsky openly lived with the wife of his friend Osya Brik (a photo of the unholy trinity is available at http://www.liveinternet.ru/users/2987208/post92629388/).
That sabbath lasted over 10 years until Stalin decided to start the Great Purge when people were afraid to even meet each other because of mass squealing.
August 12th, 2010 at 12:38 am
Constantine,
Thanks for the information on the early libertine commies. I need to read that.
I noticed in Otsy i Deti (Fathers and Sons) by Turgenev that there were people shacking up, such as the young protagonist’s father, and it was stylish to flout marital traditions. I understand that the revolutionary Turgenev himself lived in an open ménage à trois with a French couple in France — long before the revolution.
I think we might find the same kind of crackdown on all of this that occurred in Russia once the Left has consolidated its power. But who knows? The left celebrates libertinism and freedom from religion, esp of the Judeo-Christian type. Many of the early heretics, starting in the 3th Century, practiced free love and others were bigamists. They didn’t relinquish these practices spontaneously. They were eventually stopped by the church. There is now no such power in the church.
The new heretics are in the higher echelons of power throughout the West and in terms of their heavy-handed tactics, they behave eerily like the Catholic church in the Middle Ages.
Lefties like President Lula of Brazil (home to nude parades at Carnaval in Rio) are condonding homosexual marriage and persecuting Christians who dare to object. Many European countries are doing likewise. The parade in Germany that was the scene of a deadly stampede was an open orgy.
I don’t think the world has ever seen the likes of today’s widespread degeneracy, particularly in high places.
I wouldn’t venture a guess as to when this will stop or slow down. Soon I hope.
August 12th, 2010 at 3:11 am
It seems to me this “historical imperative” argument is of the same nature as, but worse than, the “manifest destiny” doctrine that liberals love to hold up for derision and revulsion. And it has its own _reductio ad absurdum_ refutation built into it. I hate to think what’s next down the pike if we just have to back out of the way of whatever society seems to be moving toward — polygamous marriages? having incest declared to be natural and healthy and also a relationship worthy of marriage? (After all, animals do it, and that was one argument for gay marriage. Likewise the argument that if two people love each other, why should anyone else interfere? The inbreeding problem can be solved by judicious use of abortion… ). Then there’s other things, such as using aborted babies for food, and why stop there? Swift’s _Modest Proposal_ might be regarded as prophetic in this new view (as PETA said, a rat is a pig is a boy). We’ve gone from boxing to Ultimate Fight Club… gladiators coming back, is that the historical imperative?
August 13th, 2010 at 12:54 am
[...] That is the way Don Hank began his August 11th article in Laigle’s Forum, “Is “Gay Marriage” a Historical Imperative?“ [...]
August 13th, 2010 at 3:45 pm
I keep trying to tell you, you missed the boat in trying to stop same-sex marriages from happening. They happen all the time, all over the place. Whether or not you like that, and whether or not you approve of the term “same-sex marriage,” you missed that boat.
As for my personal beliefs, I will indeed spare you a discussion of them, except to say that I treasure the Constitution that protects my right to have and express those beliefs (so long as I do not trample the rights of others). It is why I am so passionate about this issue. If I stand by and allow discrimination to be legislated into our law, it is only a matter of time before I find myself on the short end of the stick.
As for why your website is “important” to me, I was linked to it by some friends who thought it amusing (for the reasons I have already outlined).
Equality under law is the American way. If you seek something else, try the Taliban. I hear they accommodate all manner of discrimination.
Also, I never said that I was conservative (as your blog post mistakenly implies with quotes).
And one more comment for those who see marriage as a “biblical” sacrament. Marriage exists in all cultures, and has existed (in some form) probably for as long as humans have been living together in social groups. Hundreds of thousands of years. The bible has some to say about the topic of marriage, but the bible did not invent it, nor did Christians, nor did Jews.
If you want to cite Genesis as the invention of marriage, then be prepared for people who accept different holy books than you to cite their own mythologies.
In any event, as a religious institution, the state should, by all means, stay out of marriage entirely. That includes offering no state recognition of marriage nor benefits dependent on marriage.
Let churches decide who they will marry and what marriages they will recognize as valid. Let the state offer civil union contracts to any couple who wants to register with the state as contractually bound to each other.
Problem solved. Your church can keep their own definition of marriage for themselves (as can everyone else and all the other churches) AND we can get BIG GOVERNMENT out of one more aspect of our lives – we can get them out of our religious traditions.
I am all in favor of that, because it treats everyone equally under the law.
You’ll find I use that phrase often, because it is what I am truly after. Not some special rights only for gays. I am after equality under the law for all.
August 13th, 2010 at 4:08 pm
Title: The fisherman who became the catch
Author: Don Hank
Hammer shows that he doesn’t read my articles, so I will address those of you who do.
Here is what he writes:
“If you want to cite Genesis as the invention of marriage, then be prepared for people who accept different holy books than you to cite their own mythologies.” [Hammer calls himself a "Christian" but now seems to be saying his own religious canon is a book of mythology]
Those of you who read what I wrote, know I never mentioned Genesis. I mentioned natural languages. From that it follows that I believe in natural law, something first endorsed by a non-Christian, Cicero.
To be even clearer, I wrote the below-linked article about natural societies, which shows an important, and surprising, fact: the more a society follows natural law, the closer it resembles a biblically based society. Which is precisely why Hammer, who doesn’t read, thinks that anyone endorsing natural law is basing his/her endorsement on the Bible. Here is that article:
http://laiglesforum.com/2007/11/29/those-prudish-non-christians-and-their-family-values/
I fully acknowledge that God, the Creator of the universe, gave us all the ability to “read” the universe like a book and arrive at natural law with some natural wisdom (common sense), a faculty that homosexual activists and other leftists, unfortunately, do not enjoy, because they deny the Creator. Just as there is no incompatibility between Christianity and science, there is also none between Christianity and natural law, because natural law is based on basic scientific principles, whose Creator we acknowledge.
Further, Hammer seems to suggest that other religions of traditional societies following natural laws have a definition that differs from the one I set forth, namely, the union of persons of DIFFERENT sexes. Hammer’s implication is, of course, nonsense. No such traditional religion exists.
Hammer also says he is here at my blog just for the fun of it. Yet I have never seen a man more deadly serious in my life. His constant comments at this blog bear all the earmarks of an obsession.
If I were a “gay” activist like him and truly believed in “gay” “marriage” as a Hegelian historical imperative, I would be out dancing in the streets over the new ‘Law’ by fiat, sipping my chablis and ignoring what insignificant bloggers like me have to say. After all, he said that his kind feels a “revulsion” for us and that they “pity” us.” Oh, and in this latest communication, he compares me to the Taliban, adding “terrorist” to the list of epithets already bestowed upon me.
This being the case, what could be the origin of Hammer’s obsession with engaging such a repulsive person as me (a hater, bigot, nazi, and now terrorist), worthy of nothing but pity? Think about it.
He is like a fisherman whose hook has gotten snagged on a log. Yet instead of cutting the line, the fisherman tugs at it day and night hoping to dislodge it.
Of course, the hook just sets itself deeper and deeper and deeper.
The fisherman, in hopes of catching a fish, seems to have caught himself.
August 13th, 2010 at 6:14 pm
Don, you will note that I addressed the “biblical” portion of my post to those who were making that argument (i.e. skypilot). Not to you. Perhaps you could use some of that “natural language” skill on your reading comprehension.
If you truly had an appreciation for “natural law,” then you’d be square on the side of those who aren’t trying to subjugate folks with a particular sexual orientation.
While it absolutely does not matter what various religions say about marriage (in terms of how our law must handle it), even Christianity had its early ceremonies for binding two men together. Various faiths and cultures down thru history have recognized homosexuality and such pairings. What matters under our law is equality. Not what religion the majority of citizens belongs to.
What I don’t get, Don, is why you feel a need to hide your faith behind this “natural” smokescreen.
As for me, this struggle for equality is far from over – although this ruling will be a gigantic step in the right direction, particularly if the Supreme Court hears the case. So there is little time for celebrating. However, I do allow myself a bit of enjoyment – I love debate. And it serves another purpose, as well. If, by shining a light on the absurdities of the opposing view, I can impress upon someone watching that this struggle is, indeed, important and encourage them to look into these issues, well and good.
What it comes down to, shedding all the irrelevant obfuscation, is a matter of equality under law. You are right that I am serious about this. If it were me suffering under such oppression, I would want people to help, and I would want them to take the situation seriously. It can be hard to face bullies when you feel alone.
Lastly, I think you were mistaken. I wasn’t out here fishing. There’s a log that needs to be removed from the stream so that it can flow smoothly. We’ve got it dislodged now, and it is only a matter of time before things are cleaned up.
August 13th, 2010 at 6:23 pm
[...] Is “gay marriage” a historical imperative? [...]
August 15th, 2010 at 6:52 pm
Over the years I had quite a few discussions with gay-rights activists over the right to freedom of expression with respect to gay marriage.
In time I found what I think is the shortest and most efficient way to end such discussions.
The validity of any social experiment can be established by projecting what will happen if we all do what is being proposed as a special right; so with gay marriage.
Gay marriages are an evolutionary dead-end. If all of humanity were to engage in them, to the exclusion of bi-sexual procreation, then all of humanity would be dead and gone in about two generations.
Case closed.
September 27th, 2010 at 10:23 pm
[...] foregone conclusion, is still used by Marxists and their followers. I have shown how the idea of “gay marriage” is based in part on this idea and is seen by activists in the field as an inevitable outcome of [...]
December 21st, 2011 at 2:48 am
[...] http://laiglesforum.com/is-gay-marriage-a-historical-imperative/1626.htm [...]