Throughout history, the PURPOSE of marriage has been the creation and nurturing of children. Isn’t that why ceremonies and “vetting” procedures of various kinds were created. Same sex couples cannot do this biologically (naturally). That is why “equality” is simply not relevant.
We cannot have same sex marriage without CHANGING the meaning of marriage.
Same sex”marriage” Is not marriage at all. It is something else. Of course it is an open invitation to pedifiles and commodification of children
Amen! God bless you for your courage and willingness to speak up when so many today remain quiet. Our children have a right to their mothers and fathers and the sooner we recognize that the sooner our society can start healing some of the wounds we have inflicted on them.
Do not be fooled by her talk of "children's rights" and "data." Jenn's ideology is a dangerous poison. Here is what it truly means:
She Advocates for State-Sanctioned Kidnapping: Her policy would legally empower the government to tear children away from loving, peaceful parents solely because those parents don't fit her narrow, religious template. She labels the initiation of force "protection," inverting the very meaning of the word.
She Values Dogma Over Human Lives: She does not care if a child is loved, safe, and thriving. She only cares about the biological structure of the household. She would rather a child be miserable with a "biological" parent than happy with adoptive ones. Her standard is not human well-being; it is conformity to a rule.
She is Powered by Fear, Not Love: Her crusade is a projection of her own deep-seated fears about a complex world. Unable to handle the responsibility of judging individuals, she seeks to force everyone into a simple, traditional box—at the point of a gun.
She is a Theocrat: She seeks to use the state's monopoly on force to enforce her specific religious beliefs on everyone. This is no different from any other system where dissent is crushed for "the greater good." It is the blueprint for tyranny.
Jenn is not a defender of children. She is a dogmatist advocating for child sacrifice to a phantom ideal. Her philosophy is a systematic attack on reason, rights, and human life itself. It is intellectual and moral fraud, and it must be rejected utterly by all who value reality, freedom, and the lives of actual children.
I doubt you understood the essence of my position, but thank you. I am against aggression and authority, and for a world of individual sovereignty. People should live without the permission of others. I am an anarcho-capitalist.
I never criticize like that. If I write something to any intellectual, good or evil, I'll write it thoroughly, demonstrating whether any important facts are excluded and whether the explanation is the simplest and most necessary given the available evidence. I'm not afraid to be wrong and say what I think. Perhaps you could expand on the parentheses?
I share the instinct to put children first; that’s a value worth defending. But the argument here leans on claims that don’t survive a look at history or data.
Anthropologists have documented human partnering in many forms; polygamous, matrilineal, extended-family, long before the modern West imagined “one man and one woman” as universal.
Decades of peer-reviewed studies (American Psychological Association, among others) show that children raised by same-sex parents do just as well on measures of health, educational attainment, and emotional stability as those raised by heterosexual couples.
Legal recognition of marriage equality does not erase “biological reality” or the value of motherhood and fatherhood; it simply ensures that children in families that already exist have the same legal protections as anyone else.
Protecting children means supporting every household that provides love, stability and care, regardless of the parents’ genders. If our goal is truly “Them Before Us,” the evidence suggests that inclusion, not exclusion, is the way to get there.
Well said. I would add that not only does surrogacy date back to ancient times, but even the sort of gestational surrogacy described above (where the surrogate has no genetic link with the fetus) was being done in the US in 1980s in support of infertile STRAIGHT couples, not gay couples, so I don't see how this can reasonably be blamed on the legalization of gay marriage.
Except gay marriage didn't do that: feminism did. Feminism introduced practical transgenderism into our society, a century ago. If we accept that strangers can raise a child in day care and in government school, nannies, etc., acting shocked that we think a stranger can gestate a child is just plain cult-like thought-blocking. The people who gestate the child are responsible for raising it, but we thought we could outsource the latter without eventually outsourcing the former.
Feminism is the problem, feminism is the cancer, and neither women nor children will be safe again until feminism is ripped out, root and branch. As a woman, I pray I live to see such a day, where feminism is as disgusting as Communism to the common mind. (And thanks to abortion, feminism has killed more than Communism could ever dream of.)
Incidentally, first- and second-wave feminisms were EXPLICITLY Soviet plots, so if you're a feminist, congratulations, you're a crypto-communist; there is NO CHRISTIAN FEMINISM, by ANY plain reading of Scripture, let alone for Catholics and Orthodox who also read the early Fathers of the Church or, for Catholics, any pre-Vatican II Pope who addressed the issue, just as Pius XII was very clear that one cannot be Christian and socialist.
So which church will be the first to openly label feminism as a heretical cancer akin to Arianism or Nestorianism?
I believe it’s possible to acquire children via IVF and surrogacy without being married or even partnered. How will the overturn of Obergefell change this? I am open to this standpoint, but another thing I think about is how marriage is a stabilizing institution for individuals and communities, this goes for gay couples as well. Maybe the focus needs to be on the commodification of children not the commitment of two people to each other
The recognition of the commitment of two people to one another was proposed to be recognised by "civil partnerships". But the activists said it was not enough, they demanded "marriage equality" but "same sex marriage" can never be equal to traditional marriage on either biological reality or natural law arguments. You can still call it marriage if you want but in law it needs to be recognised as equal to traditional marriage only in certain spheres, not in other spheres. For the sake of all children!
Yes I agree with you on this the commodification of children I believe is the issue. While IVF and surrogacy can be wonderful … it is a slippery slope. I also believe marriage is a stabilizing institution for everyone in the community
This is by far one of the most anti-intellectual, dishonest, and pathetic pieces of writing I’ve seen on this platform. Finding a few instances where “the gays” did something bad and then jumping to the conclusion that gay marriage has no place in society is the definition of illogical. By this same logic, should men be banned from the household because 90% of perpetrators are male? Maybe all female households are the answer to combating child abuse? Just stupid.
One of the most terrifying passages in the Bible is Matthew 24: 37-39:
37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
Why is this scary? Because the Bible tells us almost nothing about conditions in the days of Noah. Genesis says "something something giants, something something violence, boom! Flood!" But Jesus says nothing about giants or violence here; he speaks of people "eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage."
The Hebrew word Nephilim, translated as "giants" in the English Bible, has nothing to do with great height. It is closely related to the words for "mighty" and, chillingly, "abortion." Relatively recent (ie. over the past couple centuries) discoveries of ancient scriptural documents lend credence to this: the antediluvian period was a time when mighty men let their sexual desires run rampant, forsaking traditional marriage for hedonism, and introduced widespread practices of sterilization and abortion in order to not have to deal with any inconvenient children. What few children did manage to be born were either killed or turned into sex slaves, often by their own parents! It got to the point where God looked down upon the people and saw that they were on the verge of non-reproducing themselves into extinction. When he said "the end of all flesh is come before me" (Genesis 6: 13), it wasn't because *God* was going to wipe them out; they were doing it to themselves!
As the days of Noah were, so shall also the end of the world be. We have resurrected the abominations of the Nephilim in our own day, and our culture has reoriented itself from the notion of marriage-as-self-sacrifice to personal-fulfillment-as-the-highest-good. Everyone just wants life to be one big party, (eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage) rather than trying to live virtuously. Meanwhile, non-reproduction is on the rise; childbirth rates have been below replacement levels for many years now and continue to fall at an alarming pace.
Not sure what you mean by that. "Exposed" how, by whom?
What *is* sure is:
1) multiple Biblical figures, including Jude, Paul, and Jesus himself, liked to quote Enoch
2) Enoch was considered canon by a lot of early church members, and was included on canon lists for a long time before being taken off by people several generations removed from Christ and the Apostles
3) the people who *really* didn't like the Enoch writings were the scribes and Pharisees, because the things that are written therein make it pretty clear that the Gospel was not something contemporary that Jesus and his followers dreamed up, but was God's plan all along
Personally, I'll take that over the studies of modern academics any day.
They quoted him. That doesn’t mean his book is real. It’s not.
Google controls the flow of information on the Internets, so it’s impossible to get the truth on some issues. I have discussed this with other Christians many years ago.
Why don’t you focus on the Bible as it’s known? You may as well include the Koran.
These accounts can be found in various ancient manuscripts such as the three Books of Enoch, the Egyptian "Life of Adam and Eve," the Book of Jasher, and the Book of the Cave of the Treasures.
Sensationalist argument. One can easily find many more instances of heterosexual couples doing equally deplorable things to kids.
This argument is akin to saying that because occasionally some psycho shoots up a school, the other 300 million of us shouldn’t be allowed to own guns. Or that because some people horribly abuse dogs, it should be illegal to adopt dogs. Or that because proportionately more black people commit crimes, that black people are generally criminals.
This is some retarded bigotry. Assigning moral blame to gay marriage for what some gay couples do is like assigning moral blame to heterosexual marriage for what some heterosexual couples do. There is a huge history of child abuse by heterosexual married couples, it doesn’t mean that “heterosexual marriage” caused it. If the concern is the well being of children there can be policies implemented or changed that protect them regardless of whether the parents are gay or heterosexual. If some people abuse a system or an institution that other people benefit from and don’t abuse, it is wrong to punished those innocent people because of the sins of the guilty. I do understand though that the “global church” might not understand that moral logic given that the entire theological edifice of Christianity is based on the immoral mythology that humanity deserves to be tortured for the sins of other people, but the torturer “forgives” them because an innocent person is supposedly tortured on their behalf.
I think what Katie was saying was that Obergfel swept away in our country the last remnants of the jurisprudential principles that were resident in the western legal tradition. This is what has upended everything because the archetype for all family law— and understanding that the marital relationship was defined in terms of male and female — was overthrown by the court.
Some people may think that is good, but
as a lawyer of 45 years, I don’t think it’s bigotry to acknowledge the legal and society affects resident in that decision.
I think that sodomy needs to be criminalized. The reason why gay "marriage" is such a powerful meme is because society already views homosexuality as okay. That's the foundation for all the gay rights stuff - that there's nothing abnormal or immoral about sexual deviancy. If you say that homosexuality is an abomination, but you oppose its criminalization, you don't mean what you say. It's like saying that you oppose marijuana consumption, but also saying that it should be legalized. It makes no sense.
Why not stop straight marriage too if this is the reasoning? After all the Boy Scouts purged of all gays, is under a multi-billion dollar settlement case for all the Dads, Uncles, and heterosexual community members who abused tens of thousands of boys since the 80’s.
No I went straight to the logic of gay men abusing children. The vast majority of child abusers are nominally straight men.
In science it’s called a “natural experiment”. Take a population of children - the Boy Scouts - and remove all contact with “out” gay men, as they did when all out gay men were aggressively purged from leadership and membership in the 80’s.
What happened was 101,135 claims of abuse, with 83,807 unique claimants and upwards of $7 Billion in liability. Self-identified “heterosexual” fathers, uncles, deacons, policemen, firemen, business leaders, mayors, aldermen, priests, coaches, principals, teachers, doctors, soldiers, you name it.
Of course, what to do.
Step 1. Go bankrupt - pay only $2.5M of claims
Step 2. Invite preteen and teen girls to the club.
What could go wrong?
I speak from facts and figures, not sure where she speaks from.
If you’re going to address a problem go to the measurably biggest issue.
I only agree with LGB. I can agree that the LGBTQ+ movement is a monstrous egalitarian phenomenon. However, nobody has the right to be aggressive, enforce morality, or prevent crimes. Force is evil and immoral; it can never be a source of positive good. Everyone should be free to act as they see fit, not as you suddenly decide for them.
P. S. My actual position are much more complex now. You can use a guide to my writings to find it out.
It's not that John, and people like him, "don't think" that; it's a blatant attempt to rewrite history. There's a good reason why it felt like transgenderism suddenly morphed overnight from the fringiest of fringe issues to the new Crucial Thing That Everyone Must Swear Allegiance To On Penalty Of Social Death, approximately five minutes after the Obergefell decision was handed down: because that's precisely what happened, and why it happened.
It was a deliberate strategy to keep opponents off-balance. Distract them from pushing back against gay marriage by giving them something even worse to focus on. As the saying goes, "better to fight them over there than over here." It worked so well for them half a century ago, when they set up abortion as the shield to the Sexual Revolution, so they went back to the well. They took the existing outrage machine they'd built over the years around the issue of homosexuality and slotted transgenderism into it, and just let 'er rip. Boom! Instant new shield issue while they hunker down and consolidate newly-conquered territory.
Now that it's backfiring so heavily, you see a lot of people trying to pretend that wasn't the plan all along. "Oh, I never liked that guy anyway," they say. Much like all the people whose responsibility it was to know stuff like this coming out of the woodwork in the last few months with paper-thin explanations for why they had no idea Joe Biden was senile — which was obvious to everyone at least as far back as 2019, if you recall — self-proclaimed "LGB" advocates are simply trying to duck responsibility for the mess they know full-well that *they* created.
Your argument is not merely wrong; it is a perfect case study in epistemological corruption. It is a toxic artifact of the Primacy of Consciousness, a desperate attempt to force the complex tapestry of reality to conform to a simplistic, tribal narrative. Every premise you assert is a stolen concept, every conclusion a violation of the Law of Identity, and your entire framework is a war against the sovereignty of the individual mind. I will dismantle it, not with your methods of faith and collective blame, but with the absolute, objective tools of reason and reality.
Your core claim—that the rise of transgender visibility is a deliberate "shield" strategy by a monolithic "them"—is not an analysis. It is a confession. A confession that you cannot, or will not, engage with reality on its own terms. Faced with a social phenomenon you dislike, you retreat into a fantasy where faceless collectives pull the strings of history. This is the epistemology of a child who believes the weather is controlled by a angry giant.
Let's apply the razor to your fantasy.
1. The Metaphysical Failure: You Deny the Primacy of Existence
Your argument begins by rejecting reality. The observable facts are these: individual human beings experience a perceptually verifiable state of psychological distress known as gender dysphoria. This is a medical and psychological fact. These individuals, exercising their sovereign right to their own lives and bodies, advocate for the medical care that alleviates their suffering. This advocacy, combined with the logical extension of the principle of individual rights, leads to increased cultural and legal recognition.
This is the causal chain rooted in existence: individual distress → individual action → cultural change.
You replace this reality with a consciousness-primary decree. You assert that the cause is not individuals acting on their own behalf, but a shadowy collective executing a "deliberate strategy." This is a profound inversion. You make consciousness (the alleged plan of "them") primary, and existence (the actual facts of individual lives) secondary. You commit the very sin you likely accuse your opponents of: you ignore observable reality in favor of a narrative.
2. The Epistemological Failure: You Trade Reason for Tribal Storytelling
A rational mind integrates facts into concepts via logic. Your method is to weave a just-so story using stolen concepts and invalid generalizations.
The Stolen Concept of "Them": You use the word "them" as if it refers to a real, conscious entity. This is a package-deal of catastrophic dishonesty. "LGBTQ+ activists" is not a monolith; it is a label for millions of individuals with different, often conflicting, ideas. You reduce this vast diversity of thought and motive to a single, strategizing hive-mind. This is collectivism in its purest form—the obliteration of the individual in favor of the tribal abstraction.
The Anti-Concept of "Shield Issue": This term is designed to evade the actual arguments being made. The case for gay marriage was derived from the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) and the right of consenting adults to contract. The case for the rights of transgender individuals is derived from the exact same objective ethical principle applied to a different factual context: the right of an individual to seek medical care for a verifiable condition and to live free from aggression. To call this a "shield" is to refuse to identify what it actually is: a consistent application of the principle of individual sovereignty. It is a vicious misidentification.
The Validation Method of Subjectivism: How do you "know" this strategy exists? Not through evidence, logic, or reduced perception. You "know" it because it feels right within your tribal narrative. It fits your us-vs-them view of the world. Your validation protocol is subjectivism—the belief that truth is determined by what serves your side in a cultural war. This is the antithesis of reason.
3. The Ethical Failure: You Advocate for Tribal War Over Individual Rights
Your implicit standard of value is not human life, flourishing, or justice. It is tribal victory. The "good" is what harms "them"; the "evil" is what helps "them." This is a subjectivist standard that justifies any aggression against the perceived enemy collective.
This is why you cannot see transgender individuals as what they are: sovereign persons. You see them only as pawns, as weapons, as tactical assets in your grand narrative. Your philosophy is a revolt against the concept of individual rights. You do not seek to protect rights; you seek to win a war. This makes you a mirror image of the "woke" collectivists you claim to oppose. Both of you treat individuals as avatars for group identity. Both of you subordinate the facts of reality to the demands of the collective narrative. The only difference is which tribe you serve.
4. The Psychological Failure: You Choose Dependence Over Sovereignty
At its root, your argument is an admission of intellectual cowardice. Understanding complex social change is hard. It requires wrestling with philosophy, ethics, law, and the messy reality of individual human lives. It is far easier to invent a villain. Your conspiracy theory is a cognitive crutch. It relieves you of the responsibility to think, to analyze, to engage with arguments you find disturbing. It is easier to believe a "them" is doing it all than to accept that the world is changed by the actions of individuals you disagree with.
You have surrendered your mind to the collective. You are not a sovereign individual judging reality for yourself; you are a soldier in a tribe, regurgitating the party line. You have chosen the comfort of belonging over the responsibility of thinking.
The Rational Alternative: Sovereignty, Reality, and Rights
I reject your tribal warfare. I stand on the Primacy of Existence. I deal with reality as it is.
I accept the fact that some individuals experience gender dysphoria.
I recognize their right, as sovereign individuals, to seek treatment for their distress, as long as they do not initiate force against others.
I recognize that the same Non-Aggression Principle that defends my right to my property and my life defends their right to their medical choices.
I judge the "woke" collectivist movement for what it is: a toxic, subjectivist ideology that must be criticized and rejected on principle. But I will never use my opposition to their collectivism as a justification to violate the rights of the individuals they claim to represent. I must disintegrate the package-deal.
My defense of an individual's right to transition is an application of the Primacy of Existence: I am recognizing the fact of their reality. Your opposition is an application of the Primacy of Consciousness: it is a demand that reality conform to your tribal narrative.
I defend the individual's sovereignty. You demand the individual's submission to your tribe.
Your argument is not just invalid. It is an attack on existence itself. It is the philosophy of a consciousness that cannot bear the responsibility of perceiving reality and so seeks to destroy it. I have reduced your ideas to their perceptual roots and found nothing but arbitrary assertions, stolen concepts, and a profound hatred for the sovereignty of the individual.
> I judge the "woke" collectivist movement for what it is: a toxic, subjectivist ideology that must be criticized and rejected on principle.
Then why are you accepting their ideas at face value? Your entire post is laced with woke nonsense; talk of "narratives," condemnation of opponents as "tribal," and heavy use of academic jargon like "epistemology" and "stolen concept" is Leftist through and through.
Your claims say one thing, but your vocabulary betrays you. You're clearly trying to sound like a conservative who rejects wokeness, and try to frame extreme-Left values in ways that ought to sound appealing to conservatives. But you have no idea how to pull it off, most likely because you've never engaged in a good-faith conversation with a conservative on these subjects.
If anything, your assumed ideological perspective comes across as libertarian, which has nothing to do with conservatism no matter how hard they pretend otherwise.
Your entire rebuttal is a monument to the Primacy of Consciousness. You believe words belong to tribes. You think reality is divided into “conservative” and “leftist” concepts. This is childish. Reality is not owned by your political sect. The concepts of “narrative,” “tribalism,” and “epistemology” are perceptual tools for analyzing human cognition. They are not “yours” or “theirs.” They are tools for identifying reality. Your attempt to claim them for one tribe is an attack on language itself—a demand that we all stop thinking and start signaling.
You dismissed my framework as “libertarian,” another meaningless tribal label. You dropped all context. My philosophy is an Objectivist-Anarchist synthesis derived from first axioms, not a branch of your petty political map. Your failure to recognize this is your failure, not mine. It proves you are not evaluating ideas; you are sorting them into pre-approved boxes. This is the epistemology of a clerk, not a thinker.
You accused me of operating in bad faith because I used precise language. This is projection. Bad faith is refusing to engage an argument and attacking its vocabulary instead. Bad faith is assigning a motive (“you’re trying to sound conservative”) because you cannot process the argument itself.
I do not care about your tribal boundaries. I care about reality. My standard is existence—facts, logic, and the sovereign individual. Your standard is allegiance to a vague collective you call “conservatism.”
You rated my argument “3/10.” Your rating system is arbitrary and worthless. The only valid rating is: does it correspond to reality? My argument is grounded in perceptual facts and logical derivation. Yours is grounded in tribal anxiety.
Grow up. Stop looking for heretics and start looking at reality. Until you learn to analyze arguments instead of classifying them, you have nothing to say to me.
The verdict of reason is final. Your reply is null.
Wow. You're *really* bad at this whole trolling game. Here's a bit of free advice:
* Saying "I'm not a libertarian; I'm an objectivist!" is like saying "I'm not a murderer, I'm a serial killer!" It does not disprove the actual accusation, and in fact only makes it look significantly worse.
* Categorization and pattern matching, which you decry as "tribal" and "dividing into concepts" is the fundamental principle of human cognition. It's literally the thing that makes us intelligent. Acting like you've advanced beyond basic principles that have served humanity well since the dawn of time is one of the hallmarks of Leftist thought; your usage of it betrays you and makes you look like an arrogant twit.
* Doubling down on troll points that you've already been called on does not show that you're sincere; it just shows you're out of your league.
1/10. You've proven incapable of doing better. Go away, troll.
My article, which explores the true relationship between sexuality, human beings, LGBTQ+, sexual minorities, and depravity through my own philosophical mistakes and learning, is complete. Only the bravest and most honest individuals can accurately and logically examine it because it is strange, uncommon, and very unorthodox. The last part highlights the big difference between the woke view and my own. I proudly consider myself amazing.
Throughout history, the PURPOSE of marriage has been the creation and nurturing of children. Isn’t that why ceremonies and “vetting” procedures of various kinds were created. Same sex couples cannot do this biologically (naturally). That is why “equality” is simply not relevant.
We cannot have same sex marriage without CHANGING the meaning of marriage.
Same sex”marriage” Is not marriage at all. It is something else. Of course it is an open invitation to pedifiles and commodification of children
We don’t know most of the history of marriage- it was pre history
Amen! God bless you for your courage and willingness to speak up when so many today remain quiet. Our children have a right to their mothers and fathers and the sooner we recognize that the sooner our society can start healing some of the wounds we have inflicted on them.
When did this right arise?
Why You Must Reject Jenn
Do not be fooled by her talk of "children's rights" and "data." Jenn's ideology is a dangerous poison. Here is what it truly means:
She Advocates for State-Sanctioned Kidnapping: Her policy would legally empower the government to tear children away from loving, peaceful parents solely because those parents don't fit her narrow, religious template. She labels the initiation of force "protection," inverting the very meaning of the word.
She Values Dogma Over Human Lives: She does not care if a child is loved, safe, and thriving. She only cares about the biological structure of the household. She would rather a child be miserable with a "biological" parent than happy with adoptive ones. Her standard is not human well-being; it is conformity to a rule.
She is Powered by Fear, Not Love: Her crusade is a projection of her own deep-seated fears about a complex world. Unable to handle the responsibility of judging individuals, she seeks to force everyone into a simple, traditional box—at the point of a gun.
She is a Theocrat: She seeks to use the state's monopoly on force to enforce her specific religious beliefs on everyone. This is no different from any other system where dissent is crushed for "the greater good." It is the blueprint for tyranny.
Jenn is not a defender of children. She is a dogmatist advocating for child sacrifice to a phantom ideal. Her philosophy is a systematic attack on reason, rights, and human life itself. It is intellectual and moral fraud, and it must be rejected utterly by all who value reality, freedom, and the lives of actual children.
Right On John
Thank you for your well worded response to a truly moronic argument against equal rights under the law.
I doubt you understood the essence of my position, but thank you. I am against aggression and authority, and for a world of individual sovereignty. People should live without the permission of others. I am an anarcho-capitalist.
You make no sense.
I never criticize like that. If I write something to any intellectual, good or evil, I'll write it thoroughly, demonstrating whether any important facts are excluded and whether the explanation is the simplest and most necessary given the available evidence. I'm not afraid to be wrong and say what I think. Perhaps you could expand on the parentheses?
I share the instinct to put children first; that’s a value worth defending. But the argument here leans on claims that don’t survive a look at history or data.
Anthropologists have documented human partnering in many forms; polygamous, matrilineal, extended-family, long before the modern West imagined “one man and one woman” as universal.
Decades of peer-reviewed studies (American Psychological Association, among others) show that children raised by same-sex parents do just as well on measures of health, educational attainment, and emotional stability as those raised by heterosexual couples.
Legal recognition of marriage equality does not erase “biological reality” or the value of motherhood and fatherhood; it simply ensures that children in families that already exist have the same legal protections as anyone else.
Protecting children means supporting every household that provides love, stability and care, regardless of the parents’ genders. If our goal is truly “Them Before Us,” the evidence suggests that inclusion, not exclusion, is the way to get there.
Well said. I would add that not only does surrogacy date back to ancient times, but even the sort of gestational surrogacy described above (where the surrogate has no genetic link with the fetus) was being done in the US in 1980s in support of infertile STRAIGHT couples, not gay couples, so I don't see how this can reasonably be blamed on the legalization of gay marriage.
This is an outstanding piece of writing.
Except gay marriage didn't do that: feminism did. Feminism introduced practical transgenderism into our society, a century ago. If we accept that strangers can raise a child in day care and in government school, nannies, etc., acting shocked that we think a stranger can gestate a child is just plain cult-like thought-blocking. The people who gestate the child are responsible for raising it, but we thought we could outsource the latter without eventually outsourcing the former.
Feminism is the problem, feminism is the cancer, and neither women nor children will be safe again until feminism is ripped out, root and branch. As a woman, I pray I live to see such a day, where feminism is as disgusting as Communism to the common mind. (And thanks to abortion, feminism has killed more than Communism could ever dream of.)
Incidentally, first- and second-wave feminisms were EXPLICITLY Soviet plots, so if you're a feminist, congratulations, you're a crypto-communist; there is NO CHRISTIAN FEMINISM, by ANY plain reading of Scripture, let alone for Catholics and Orthodox who also read the early Fathers of the Church or, for Catholics, any pre-Vatican II Pope who addressed the issue, just as Pius XII was very clear that one cannot be Christian and socialist.
So which church will be the first to openly label feminism as a heretical cancer akin to Arianism or Nestorianism?
You're not wrong, but ending gay marriage is lower hanging fruit. We'll get to feminism after.
Just plaster photos of pride parades and medical diagrams of what sodomy IS, ne? Then pictures of what an abortion IS for feminism.
If you want to make it a two-front war, by all means. I won't stop you.
I believe it’s possible to acquire children via IVF and surrogacy without being married or even partnered. How will the overturn of Obergefell change this? I am open to this standpoint, but another thing I think about is how marriage is a stabilizing institution for individuals and communities, this goes for gay couples as well. Maybe the focus needs to be on the commodification of children not the commitment of two people to each other
The recognition of the commitment of two people to one another was proposed to be recognised by "civil partnerships". But the activists said it was not enough, they demanded "marriage equality" but "same sex marriage" can never be equal to traditional marriage on either biological reality or natural law arguments. You can still call it marriage if you want but in law it needs to be recognised as equal to traditional marriage only in certain spheres, not in other spheres. For the sake of all children!
Yes I agree with you on this the commodification of children I believe is the issue. While IVF and surrogacy can be wonderful … it is a slippery slope. I also believe marriage is a stabilizing institution for everyone in the community
Might be a good idea to end male genital mutilation too (circumcision).
This is by far one of the most anti-intellectual, dishonest, and pathetic pieces of writing I’ve seen on this platform. Finding a few instances where “the gays” did something bad and then jumping to the conclusion that gay marriage has no place in society is the definition of illogical. By this same logic, should men be banned from the household because 90% of perpetrators are male? Maybe all female households are the answer to combating child abuse? Just stupid.
One of the most terrifying passages in the Bible is Matthew 24: 37-39:
37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
Why is this scary? Because the Bible tells us almost nothing about conditions in the days of Noah. Genesis says "something something giants, something something violence, boom! Flood!" But Jesus says nothing about giants or violence here; he speaks of people "eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage."
The Hebrew word Nephilim, translated as "giants" in the English Bible, has nothing to do with great height. It is closely related to the words for "mighty" and, chillingly, "abortion." Relatively recent (ie. over the past couple centuries) discoveries of ancient scriptural documents lend credence to this: the antediluvian period was a time when mighty men let their sexual desires run rampant, forsaking traditional marriage for hedonism, and introduced widespread practices of sterilization and abortion in order to not have to deal with any inconvenient children. What few children did manage to be born were either killed or turned into sex slaves, often by their own parents! It got to the point where God looked down upon the people and saw that they were on the verge of non-reproducing themselves into extinction. When he said "the end of all flesh is come before me" (Genesis 6: 13), it wasn't because *God* was going to wipe them out; they were doing it to themselves!
As the days of Noah were, so shall also the end of the world be. We have resurrected the abominations of the Nephilim in our own day, and our culture has reoriented itself from the notion of marriage-as-self-sacrifice to personal-fulfillment-as-the-highest-good. Everyone just wants life to be one big party, (eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage) rather than trying to live virtuously. Meanwhile, non-reproduction is on the rise; childbirth rates have been below replacement levels for many years now and continue to fall at an alarming pace.
Those with eyes to see, be on watch...
Enoch’s books are a fraud. Been exposed several times.
Not sure what you mean by that. "Exposed" how, by whom?
What *is* sure is:
1) multiple Biblical figures, including Jude, Paul, and Jesus himself, liked to quote Enoch
2) Enoch was considered canon by a lot of early church members, and was included on canon lists for a long time before being taken off by people several generations removed from Christ and the Apostles
3) the people who *really* didn't like the Enoch writings were the scribes and Pharisees, because the things that are written therein make it pretty clear that the Gospel was not something contemporary that Jesus and his followers dreamed up, but was God's plan all along
Personally, I'll take that over the studies of modern academics any day.
They quoted him. That doesn’t mean his book is real. It’s not.
Google controls the flow of information on the Internets, so it’s impossible to get the truth on some issues. I have discussed this with other Christians many years ago.
Why don’t you focus on the Bible as it’s known? You may as well include the Koran.
Interesting. Thank you for this.
But where did you get this information?
These accounts can be found in various ancient manuscripts such as the three Books of Enoch, the Egyptian "Life of Adam and Eve," the Book of Jasher, and the Book of the Cave of the Treasures.
Sensationalist argument. One can easily find many more instances of heterosexual couples doing equally deplorable things to kids.
This argument is akin to saying that because occasionally some psycho shoots up a school, the other 300 million of us shouldn’t be allowed to own guns. Or that because some people horribly abuse dogs, it should be illegal to adopt dogs. Or that because proportionately more black people commit crimes, that black people are generally criminals.
Stereotypes are dangerous things.
This is some retarded bigotry. Assigning moral blame to gay marriage for what some gay couples do is like assigning moral blame to heterosexual marriage for what some heterosexual couples do. There is a huge history of child abuse by heterosexual married couples, it doesn’t mean that “heterosexual marriage” caused it. If the concern is the well being of children there can be policies implemented or changed that protect them regardless of whether the parents are gay or heterosexual. If some people abuse a system or an institution that other people benefit from and don’t abuse, it is wrong to punished those innocent people because of the sins of the guilty. I do understand though that the “global church” might not understand that moral logic given that the entire theological edifice of Christianity is based on the immoral mythology that humanity deserves to be tortured for the sins of other people, but the torturer “forgives” them because an innocent person is supposedly tortured on their behalf.
I think what Katie was saying was that Obergfel swept away in our country the last remnants of the jurisprudential principles that were resident in the western legal tradition. This is what has upended everything because the archetype for all family law— and understanding that the marital relationship was defined in terms of male and female — was overthrown by the court.
Some people may think that is good, but
as a lawyer of 45 years, I don’t think it’s bigotry to acknowledge the legal and society affects resident in that decision.
I think that sodomy needs to be criminalized. The reason why gay "marriage" is such a powerful meme is because society already views homosexuality as okay. That's the foundation for all the gay rights stuff - that there's nothing abnormal or immoral about sexual deviancy. If you say that homosexuality is an abomination, but you oppose its criminalization, you don't mean what you say. It's like saying that you oppose marijuana consumption, but also saying that it should be legalized. It makes no sense.
Why not stop straight marriage too if this is the reasoning? After all the Boy Scouts purged of all gays, is under a multi-billion dollar settlement case for all the Dads, Uncles, and heterosexual community members who abused tens of thousands of boys since the 80’s.
Did you read any of the logical arguments she offered or did you just go straight to emotions and projection?
No I went straight to the logic of gay men abusing children. The vast majority of child abusers are nominally straight men.
In science it’s called a “natural experiment”. Take a population of children - the Boy Scouts - and remove all contact with “out” gay men, as they did when all out gay men were aggressively purged from leadership and membership in the 80’s.
What happened was 101,135 claims of abuse, with 83,807 unique claimants and upwards of $7 Billion in liability. Self-identified “heterosexual” fathers, uncles, deacons, policemen, firemen, business leaders, mayors, aldermen, priests, coaches, principals, teachers, doctors, soldiers, you name it.
Of course, what to do.
Step 1. Go bankrupt - pay only $2.5M of claims
Step 2. Invite preteen and teen girls to the club.
What could go wrong?
I speak from facts and figures, not sure where she speaks from.
If you’re going to address a problem go to the measurably biggest issue.
Trusting priests to protect children is like asking the fox to guard the henhouse.
Why are you bringing the Catholic Church into this? It’s not what she is talking about here.
I only agree with LGB. I can agree that the LGBTQ+ movement is a monstrous egalitarian phenomenon. However, nobody has the right to be aggressive, enforce morality, or prevent crimes. Force is evil and immoral; it can never be a source of positive good. Everyone should be free to act as they see fit, not as you suddenly decide for them.
P. S. My actual position are much more complex now. You can use a guide to my writings to find it out.
If you think the LGB didn't lead to the TAI+, your head is in the sand. Redefining marriage is a refusal to recognize male-female difference.
It's not that John, and people like him, "don't think" that; it's a blatant attempt to rewrite history. There's a good reason why it felt like transgenderism suddenly morphed overnight from the fringiest of fringe issues to the new Crucial Thing That Everyone Must Swear Allegiance To On Penalty Of Social Death, approximately five minutes after the Obergefell decision was handed down: because that's precisely what happened, and why it happened.
It was a deliberate strategy to keep opponents off-balance. Distract them from pushing back against gay marriage by giving them something even worse to focus on. As the saying goes, "better to fight them over there than over here." It worked so well for them half a century ago, when they set up abortion as the shield to the Sexual Revolution, so they went back to the well. They took the existing outrage machine they'd built over the years around the issue of homosexuality and slotted transgenderism into it, and just let 'er rip. Boom! Instant new shield issue while they hunker down and consolidate newly-conquered territory.
Now that it's backfiring so heavily, you see a lot of people trying to pretend that wasn't the plan all along. "Oh, I never liked that guy anyway," they say. Much like all the people whose responsibility it was to know stuff like this coming out of the woodwork in the last few months with paper-thin explanations for why they had no idea Joe Biden was senile — which was obvious to everyone at least as far back as 2019, if you recall — self-proclaimed "LGB" advocates are simply trying to duck responsibility for the mess they know full-well that *they* created.
Bob,
Your argument is not merely wrong; it is a perfect case study in epistemological corruption. It is a toxic artifact of the Primacy of Consciousness, a desperate attempt to force the complex tapestry of reality to conform to a simplistic, tribal narrative. Every premise you assert is a stolen concept, every conclusion a violation of the Law of Identity, and your entire framework is a war against the sovereignty of the individual mind. I will dismantle it, not with your methods of faith and collective blame, but with the absolute, objective tools of reason and reality.
Your core claim—that the rise of transgender visibility is a deliberate "shield" strategy by a monolithic "them"—is not an analysis. It is a confession. A confession that you cannot, or will not, engage with reality on its own terms. Faced with a social phenomenon you dislike, you retreat into a fantasy where faceless collectives pull the strings of history. This is the epistemology of a child who believes the weather is controlled by a angry giant.
Let's apply the razor to your fantasy.
1. The Metaphysical Failure: You Deny the Primacy of Existence
Your argument begins by rejecting reality. The observable facts are these: individual human beings experience a perceptually verifiable state of psychological distress known as gender dysphoria. This is a medical and psychological fact. These individuals, exercising their sovereign right to their own lives and bodies, advocate for the medical care that alleviates their suffering. This advocacy, combined with the logical extension of the principle of individual rights, leads to increased cultural and legal recognition.
This is the causal chain rooted in existence: individual distress → individual action → cultural change.
You replace this reality with a consciousness-primary decree. You assert that the cause is not individuals acting on their own behalf, but a shadowy collective executing a "deliberate strategy." This is a profound inversion. You make consciousness (the alleged plan of "them") primary, and existence (the actual facts of individual lives) secondary. You commit the very sin you likely accuse your opponents of: you ignore observable reality in favor of a narrative.
2. The Epistemological Failure: You Trade Reason for Tribal Storytelling
A rational mind integrates facts into concepts via logic. Your method is to weave a just-so story using stolen concepts and invalid generalizations.
The Stolen Concept of "Them": You use the word "them" as if it refers to a real, conscious entity. This is a package-deal of catastrophic dishonesty. "LGBTQ+ activists" is not a monolith; it is a label for millions of individuals with different, often conflicting, ideas. You reduce this vast diversity of thought and motive to a single, strategizing hive-mind. This is collectivism in its purest form—the obliteration of the individual in favor of the tribal abstraction.
The Anti-Concept of "Shield Issue": This term is designed to evade the actual arguments being made. The case for gay marriage was derived from the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) and the right of consenting adults to contract. The case for the rights of transgender individuals is derived from the exact same objective ethical principle applied to a different factual context: the right of an individual to seek medical care for a verifiable condition and to live free from aggression. To call this a "shield" is to refuse to identify what it actually is: a consistent application of the principle of individual sovereignty. It is a vicious misidentification.
The Validation Method of Subjectivism: How do you "know" this strategy exists? Not through evidence, logic, or reduced perception. You "know" it because it feels right within your tribal narrative. It fits your us-vs-them view of the world. Your validation protocol is subjectivism—the belief that truth is determined by what serves your side in a cultural war. This is the antithesis of reason.
3. The Ethical Failure: You Advocate for Tribal War Over Individual Rights
Your implicit standard of value is not human life, flourishing, or justice. It is tribal victory. The "good" is what harms "them"; the "evil" is what helps "them." This is a subjectivist standard that justifies any aggression against the perceived enemy collective.
This is why you cannot see transgender individuals as what they are: sovereign persons. You see them only as pawns, as weapons, as tactical assets in your grand narrative. Your philosophy is a revolt against the concept of individual rights. You do not seek to protect rights; you seek to win a war. This makes you a mirror image of the "woke" collectivists you claim to oppose. Both of you treat individuals as avatars for group identity. Both of you subordinate the facts of reality to the demands of the collective narrative. The only difference is which tribe you serve.
4. The Psychological Failure: You Choose Dependence Over Sovereignty
At its root, your argument is an admission of intellectual cowardice. Understanding complex social change is hard. It requires wrestling with philosophy, ethics, law, and the messy reality of individual human lives. It is far easier to invent a villain. Your conspiracy theory is a cognitive crutch. It relieves you of the responsibility to think, to analyze, to engage with arguments you find disturbing. It is easier to believe a "them" is doing it all than to accept that the world is changed by the actions of individuals you disagree with.
You have surrendered your mind to the collective. You are not a sovereign individual judging reality for yourself; you are a soldier in a tribe, regurgitating the party line. You have chosen the comfort of belonging over the responsibility of thinking.
The Rational Alternative: Sovereignty, Reality, and Rights
I reject your tribal warfare. I stand on the Primacy of Existence. I deal with reality as it is.
I accept the fact that some individuals experience gender dysphoria.
I recognize their right, as sovereign individuals, to seek treatment for their distress, as long as they do not initiate force against others.
I recognize that the same Non-Aggression Principle that defends my right to my property and my life defends their right to their medical choices.
I judge the "woke" collectivist movement for what it is: a toxic, subjectivist ideology that must be criticized and rejected on principle. But I will never use my opposition to their collectivism as a justification to violate the rights of the individuals they claim to represent. I must disintegrate the package-deal.
My defense of an individual's right to transition is an application of the Primacy of Existence: I am recognizing the fact of their reality. Your opposition is an application of the Primacy of Consciousness: it is a demand that reality conform to your tribal narrative.
I defend the individual's sovereignty. You demand the individual's submission to your tribe.
Your argument is not just invalid. It is an attack on existence itself. It is the philosophy of a consciousness that cannot bear the responsibility of perceiving reality and so seeks to destroy it. I have reduced your ideas to their perceptual roots and found nothing but arbitrary assertions, stolen concepts, and a profound hatred for the sovereignty of the individual.
> I judge the "woke" collectivist movement for what it is: a toxic, subjectivist ideology that must be criticized and rejected on principle.
Then why are you accepting their ideas at face value? Your entire post is laced with woke nonsense; talk of "narratives," condemnation of opponents as "tribal," and heavy use of academic jargon like "epistemology" and "stolen concept" is Leftist through and through.
Your claims say one thing, but your vocabulary betrays you. You're clearly trying to sound like a conservative who rejects wokeness, and try to frame extreme-Left values in ways that ought to sound appealing to conservatives. But you have no idea how to pull it off, most likely because you've never engaged in a good-faith conversation with a conservative on these subjects.
If anything, your assumed ideological perspective comes across as libertarian, which has nothing to do with conservatism no matter how hard they pretend otherwise.
3/10. Try harder next time, troll.
Your entire rebuttal is a monument to the Primacy of Consciousness. You believe words belong to tribes. You think reality is divided into “conservative” and “leftist” concepts. This is childish. Reality is not owned by your political sect. The concepts of “narrative,” “tribalism,” and “epistemology” are perceptual tools for analyzing human cognition. They are not “yours” or “theirs.” They are tools for identifying reality. Your attempt to claim them for one tribe is an attack on language itself—a demand that we all stop thinking and start signaling.
You dismissed my framework as “libertarian,” another meaningless tribal label. You dropped all context. My philosophy is an Objectivist-Anarchist synthesis derived from first axioms, not a branch of your petty political map. Your failure to recognize this is your failure, not mine. It proves you are not evaluating ideas; you are sorting them into pre-approved boxes. This is the epistemology of a clerk, not a thinker.
You accused me of operating in bad faith because I used precise language. This is projection. Bad faith is refusing to engage an argument and attacking its vocabulary instead. Bad faith is assigning a motive (“you’re trying to sound conservative”) because you cannot process the argument itself.
I do not care about your tribal boundaries. I care about reality. My standard is existence—facts, logic, and the sovereign individual. Your standard is allegiance to a vague collective you call “conservatism.”
You rated my argument “3/10.” Your rating system is arbitrary and worthless. The only valid rating is: does it correspond to reality? My argument is grounded in perceptual facts and logical derivation. Yours is grounded in tribal anxiety.
Grow up. Stop looking for heretics and start looking at reality. Until you learn to analyze arguments instead of classifying them, you have nothing to say to me.
The verdict of reason is final. Your reply is null.
Wow. You're *really* bad at this whole trolling game. Here's a bit of free advice:
* Saying "I'm not a libertarian; I'm an objectivist!" is like saying "I'm not a murderer, I'm a serial killer!" It does not disprove the actual accusation, and in fact only makes it look significantly worse.
* Categorization and pattern matching, which you decry as "tribal" and "dividing into concepts" is the fundamental principle of human cognition. It's literally the thing that makes us intelligent. Acting like you've advanced beyond basic principles that have served humanity well since the dawn of time is one of the hallmarks of Leftist thought; your usage of it betrays you and makes you look like an arrogant twit.
* Doubling down on troll points that you've already been called on does not show that you're sincere; it just shows you're out of your league.
1/10. You've proven incapable of doing better. Go away, troll.
My article, which explores the true relationship between sexuality, human beings, LGBTQ+, sexual minorities, and depravity through my own philosophical mistakes and learning, is complete. Only the bravest and most honest individuals can accurately and logically examine it because it is strange, uncommon, and very unorthodox. The last part highlights the big difference between the woke view and my own. I proudly consider myself amazing.
https://open.substack.com/pub/selfishjohn/p/my-philosophical-journey-from-dualism?r=4d5gb5&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false