We don’t need no stinkin’ marriage

by Kung Fu Zu   6/26/14

I agree that we should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it is a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. . . . Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we’re going to do with marriage when we get there, because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie. The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change, and again, I don’t think it should exist.

So says Maria Alexandrovna Gessen, commonly known as Masha Gessen, born in Russia, but a dual citizen of both Russia and the United States.  In 2012, she was appointed director of the Russian service of Radio Liberty, an institution similar to the old Radio Free Europe, which is financed by the U.S. government.  Thank you President Obama.

Conservatives owe Masha a vote of thanks as she is one of the few progressive barbarians who speak honestly about their desire to destroy marriage.  Most would rather continue lying about their intentions.

Only a progressive lunatic intellectual or Libertarian anarchist could favor the demise of marriage.  A rational person only has to use common sense to know that the breakdown of the family contributes to the breakdown of society. But if there are doubters who require “scientific” data to be convinced of this fact, I refer them to the fact that child abuse is higher in families where the biological father and mother do not live together and poverty is higher in “families” where the biological father and mother do not live together. There are numerous other social indicators which confirm children do better within a family consisting of the biological mother and father.

But of course, these are small matters when compared to an adult’s whims. Self expression and gratification are the be and end all of an ever growing number of people so, get used to it!
Have a blog post you want to share? Click here. • (1177 views)

This entry was posted in Blog Post. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to We don’t need no stinkin’ marriage

  1. Timothy Lane says:

    Not much to add here. There are undoubtedly some homosexuals who really do want to marry (certainly many have done so, though I doubt it’s a large percentage of them). But there are probably more who want the freedom to marry regardless of what it means (especially to society), for much the same reason that handicapped activists in New York City (or, as I sometimes call it, New Barackum) demanded that street porta-potties be handicapped accessible in principle — even though they were provide with city-paid rides wherever they wanted to go, and thus had no need of such facilities. Since they had a right to them, the city only installed a couple, to the cost of anyone who needed one and didn’t have it available. Militant identity group activists care only about assuaging their well-honed sense of grievance.

  2. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Marriage should be abolished because it is the institution by which males put females into bondage. This is also, by the way, why abortion is an unalienable right.

    Homosexual marriage is in service of the end of marriage because it cheapens the very idea of marriage. Most homosexuals want nothing to do with the institution. The one or two who do are not the exception who should make the rule. There are always one or two exceptions in anything.

    And for those who believe in the political, social, and metaphysical centrality of the state, marriage is an affront because families are the one primary social unit that is the direct competitor to the state as surrogate parent and spouse. (Adults don’t need a nanny, but who said that we are still adults?)

    Also, if by the grace of God you were born an ugly person, or one with less talent, or with a personality that easily shifts to being shiftless and a moocher, then hating any institution, law, or practice that defines normal as it has always been defined is to be assaulted and shat on.

    Or, as Mr. Kung said, “Only a progressive lunatic intellectual or Libertarian anarchist could favor the demise of marriage.” There is indeed a mental illness inherent to this to some degree.

    Surely, Brad, you might be thinking. There are plenty of good homosexual people who don’t believe this rubbish such as the end goal of wiping out marriage. And to that I would say, Now you understand what it means to be a Muslim “moderate,” for there are surely thousands of homosexual “moderates” who do not actively advocate the more rotgut beliefs of the leaders of the movement.

    And therein lies the lie of the so-called “moderate,” for the average homosexual does not view people such as Gessen as embarrassments. Rather, they understand that she is advancing their interests. As Mark Steyn notes about so-called Muslim “moderates,” they’re the ones who just can’t be bothered to strap on a bomb vest.

    The honest homosexual would tell you that marriage is an institution as old as time and one that aligns itself with the natural order of things, including the raising of children. An honest and informed homosexual would tell you that homosexual behavior is largely promiscuous, reckless, and unhealthy. They would tell you that one of the pillars of civilization and thus of civilized life is the taming and domestication of the sexual instinct. It is right and proper for society to have both legal and social limits on sexual conduct. A free-for-all, even under the naive idea of “liberty,” is highly destructive.

    But then the above conversation pertains to adults. And, by and large, the vibe running through the West is one driven by a juvenile outlook. We want what we want and the greatest injustice is not murder, stealing, or arson. It’s not being able to scratch whatever itch you have. We’ve regressed to the mindset of a five-year-old.

    That doesn’t mean that there aren’t some people born as queer as a three dollar bill. It’s not wrong to have a certain type of “tolerance” for such cases. But to glorify homosexuality is inevitably to assist those whose purpose is to destroy marriage.

    I wonder if Jonah Goldberg would be willing to reassess his rather lame rationale for his support of gay marriage. He did so earlier without the barest acknowledgment of the real agenda behind it. It’s somewhat painful to have to call him a useful idiot, but on this issue he is exactly that.


    Kudos to KFZ for digging out this – what should we call it? – a declaration against interest (the Left’s interest) by this Masha Gessen person. “Homosexual marriage is in service of the end of marriage because it cheapens the very idea of marriage” – this is the point, made here by Brad, that the useful idiot supporters of same-sex “marriage” never seem able to get. (The people behind SSM understand this only too well, since that’s their entire purpose in pushing SSM). If that doesn’t destroy marriage, the polygamy that quickly follows will finish it off. If it took legalizing bestiality to finish off marriage, the Left would support that too, but with SSM and polygamy legalized it’s hard to imagine there would be anything left of marriage to destroy.

    SSM has been legal in various European countries, for instance The Netherlands, for some time now. I’d like to get my hands on the statistics there for opposite-sex marriage (apologies for the qualifier, which Continental lunacy now requires) and perhaps any metrics relating to how well children are being raised outside of traditional families (or if they’re being raised at all). By now we should be seeing significant reductions in the marriage rates for young people, and perhaps the beginning of the disastrous results that will surely follow.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Yes, it would never occur to anyone among its supporters to check out the results. They can’t do that once they proclaim forced marriage redefinition a right.

  4. Pst4usa says:

    Excellent post and comments, folks.

  5. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    As regards the Left’s war on marriage, the Pope appears to get it.


    A bit late though.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Wow. Maybe the Pope really is Catholic. I was beginning to doubt that.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Well….first off, may I say that I thank you for posting that link and that I am not sorry to be skeptical of the pope’s words.

      Descriptive Catholicism is about as useless as descriptive conservatism which (aside from selling books) seems to be the only function of the conservative media. I would hope that the pope, instead of vaguely and broadly describing the problem, would have the ecumenical balls to point fingers and name names and then demand reform.

  6. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    The link is to a very interesting article about a Singapore court decision regarding homosexual adoption. The judge’s reasoning appears to be solid.


    Whatever one thinks about Singapore, they stick to the law and are not terribly worried about being PC.

  7. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    If more proof were needed regarding the retrograde nature of marriage and the need for society to expunge marriage and all its trappings from society, this is it.


    Once again white (I’m sure most of them must be) males climbing the mountain of success on the backs of helpless and innocent females. Or something like that.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Well, now we know why lefties detest marriage as an institution. They have a set of graphs to claim it inherently leads to inequality. It doesn’t matter if this is really true, of course, as long as they have some basis for claiming it. Much like tabloid newspapers such as the National Enquirer, at least according to Donald Westlake’s plausible novel on the subject, Trust Me on This.

    • Steve Lancaster says:

      They do not need proof any more. They just make shit up and publish it in the times, WaPO or Bloomberg. If any one of these three said the sun is rising in the east, my first inclination is to look west.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *