Chick-fil-A President Shows Why Traditional Marriage Losing Support

by W.F. Price on August 2, 2012

The fact that Dan Cathy, President of Chick-fil-A, opposes gay “marriage” really shouldn’t be a big deal. About half of the United States feels the same way, so what’s the major controversy? It appears that if you’re one of the “good people,” that is, you are more wealthy, famous and fortunate than others, you have to support progressive causes. Because it’s the morally right thing to do. Or something like that…

This has led to some shameless bigotry on the part of blue city mayors. They are indistinguishable from Bull Connor, who defied the Constitution to enforce his views. Menino, Emmanuel and others of that ilk are the real intolerant bullies of our time, and they’re playing the part very well by denying Constitutional freedoms on behalf of a tiny, but powerful lobby that exerts disproportionate influence in their cities.

As for gay marriage, it’s a contradiction in terms for many Americans. It never would have gained support if marriage itself hadn’t been hollowed out and cheapened, and gay marriage advocates themselves rarely hesitate to remind us of this. One of the most common arguments in favor of gay marriage is that real marriage is a miserable failure amongst heterosexuals, so why can’t homosexuals join in? After all, it’s a joke anyway…

But Dan Cathy has decided to hold the line on the gays. That’s where the gay marriage opponents screwed up. First, they winked at adultery, then they lionized single mothers by choice. Then, they demanded victimized men pay faithless wives for their transgressions. And here we have Mr. Cathy holding himself and his family up as an example, because “We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives.”

Well, Mr. Cathy, you are a member of a very privileged class. You inherited a thriving business from your father. You live in a mansion. You are rich beyond most Americans’ dreams. And yet you brag about the fact that you are in a traditional marriage. It isn’t much of an accomplishment, Dan, when your wife has such a plush life. Try keeping her when you can barely afford that new house or car she wants. Try keeping her when you answer to other men at work, and so does she. It isn’t so easy, and neither you nor your fellow Baptists make it any easier. Instead of going after the gays, why not the women who leave their husbands?

I’ll tell you why Cathy goes after the gays. It’s because they are an easier target in Christian circles. That’s why his endorsement of traditional marriage rings hollow. Homosexuals are barely 2% of the US population, and they marry at far lower rates than heteros. Yet Cathy would have us believe they are a threat to the integrity of marriage.

Pure bull.

I don’t believe in gay marriage, but frankly I don’t care what homosexuals want to call their partnership. It isn’t my business, and I don’t care. They can say they are married, just as Muslims can say Mohammed is the final prophet and spoke the word of God, and I’m free to hold my own opinion about it. It’s crazy that they want in on such a damaged institution, but I don’t think most of them intend to use it anyway, and that is the only reason I am hostile to the idea: it looks like more of an act of aggression against heterosexual norms than anything else.

However, I and other straight men ought to have a lot more issues with men like Cathy over their hypocrisy. How many Baptists get divorced? How often do their women file? It’s a national embarrassment, and here Cathy – a wealthy heir – rubs it in our faces and plays holier than thou.

Well Mr. Cathy, if you care about the sanctity of marriage, you’re wasting your time fighting the gays. Time to clean up your own backyard first.

{ 89 comments… read them below or add one }

zed August 2, 2012 at 14:38

Hear, Hear!!!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
zed August 2, 2012 at 14:41

And, BTW, someone ask that dumbass why he is so silent on the wholesale drugging of boys, which knocks them off their normal maturation track, creates the impression in their minds that they cannot function normally without drugs, probably leads to psychosis and other health problems in later life, and will likely keep them from being successful enough to support a woman in the “biblical” manner.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
mike petty August 2, 2012 at 14:45

Well, we at least can say the food taste’s good……

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
NWOslave August 2, 2012 at 14:53

That isn’t the point. The same forces that have destroyed marriage and the family are the same forces that promote gay marriage. You know as well as I do the people who rewarded single motherhood, promoted the welfare nanny state, took fathers away from their children, rewarded women for divorcing their husbands, encouraged the slut movement, are the same damned people.

How the hell do you clean up your backyard when everytime you sweep it out a bigger pile of crap is thrown over the fence? When a family can mean everything to everyone it means nothing at all. Let’s all just retreat a little more. One step sideways and one step back.

Ya know what? This is the first time I can remember being totally at odds with what you’ve written. I guess we should just man up and take one for the team.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
American August 2, 2012 at 15:04

Binxton summarized a high minded and diplomatic perspective that is worth repeating…
“A healthy, patriarchal society tolerates aberrations like homosexuality, while never officially approving of it.

The difference is that now, society is trying to normalize it, and repudiate what everyone has known throughout the ages to be wrong.

Homosexuality is inherently deviant and norm-less. Any society that tries to normalize homosexuality, overthrowing centuries and millennia of tradition and biology, is doomed in the long run.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Clydesdale August 2, 2012 at 15:58

Have to admit I’m having trouble following the argument here too. That’s not like you Welmer.

Whether Mr. Cathy’s wealth and privilege make marriage easier for him is immaterial. That may well be the case. But his message is no less true.

The opposition to “Gay Marriage” has nothing to do with what gays do in private and everything to do with mocking and cheapening the very concept of marriage itself. That is why I do object when they call their relationships “marriage” and use the word to describe it. It isn’t and never will be, and that’s why those who oppose it, for whatever reason, have my support.

Mr. Cathy is publicly and prominently fighting a good and just fight at no little risk to himself, and I am hard pressed to understand how he is somehow NOT on the side of those who, perhaps like you, are innocent victims of this country’s rejection of standards and eager acceptance of the gross and obscene.

Marriage is indeed becoming a sad joke, and many, not just gays, are responsible. But to dismiss those who try to do something about it is, to me anyway, shortsighted.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Laura Grace Robins August 2, 2012 at 17:26

“Well, Mr. Cathy, you are a member of a very privileged class. You inherited a thriving business from your father. You live in a mansion. “You are rich beyond most Americans’ dreams. And yet you brag about the fact that you are in a traditional marriage. It isn’t much of an accomplishment, Dan, when your wife has such a plush life. Try keeping her when you can barely afford that new house or car she wants. Try keeping her when you answer to other men at work, and so does she. It isn’t so easy, and neither you nor your fellow Baptists make it any easier. Instead of going after the gays, why not the women who leave their husbands?”

Excellent. I saw a headline recently that said 70% or so of women would not date a man if he didn’t have a job. What happens then when a woman is married and her husband is out of job? If she won’t date him jobless, she won’t stay married to him jobless either. This correlates nicely with the women initiated divorce number.

If he or anyone wants to take a stand for traditional marriage, he could espouse the views of biblical submission; but like you said, targeting gays is the much easier route.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
El Bastardo August 2, 2012 at 17:37

Hahahahaa

The Rolling Stone in me is singing-”I’ll never be, your beast of burden
My back is broad, but its hurting

All I want, is for you to stop screwing meeeee”

I love it Price. The unabashed, shameless in your face style. Not disagreeing with the premise, but cutting to the heart of the matter.

Like the men in my church, “boys, divorce is bad, it’s just bad, we need to pray.” Then on to the next “spiritual” subject. In this case, picking on effemintaee homosexuals for maaking less of a joke out of marriage then what Churches have done already. They wonder why all the men are confused? Yet there is no alternative message allowed in to “clear the air.”

I’d love to see Cathy tell his wife to shut it, submit to her husband, and let him be the lead of his household “like a good Christian according to Paul’s Doctrine.” Of course if she still feels bad, she can just grab his credit card and go buy a new pair of shoes. For the price of a used car.

Cathy, and all the rest like him who refuse to acknowledge the elephant in the room can plug all that in the same place as the “rainbow parade” they are ranting about. I’m sick of both of their banners about ever meaningless subject their media tells them to cry about. Progressives and Trad Cons, screwing us all from differnet points of view, spewing the same crap on us without a clue.

If you want to stop the young juvenile elephants from attackng the others, and your cherished beliefs, bring the adult bulls (straight fathers) back into the picture! If not, stop crying when you get a young punk by his tusks Mr. Pure Conservative.

No worries though, thats the source of all these problems. It is much easier shaming the effeminate youth raised gay by the heroic single mom; then getting the father back in his life to make a real man out of him. Lets try and use taxes to assuage the symptoms instead of addressing the real issue. Nice!

Great job Price.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
livingwell August 2, 2012 at 17:43

Yes indeed Mr. Price. Right on!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
gunner451 August 2, 2012 at 17:46

I would say that gay marriage is more of a red herring than anything and Christian leaders find it an easy out. As you said they really should be hitting hard on the root causes of the decline of the traditional family rather than complaining that gays want to get in and ruin marriage for everyone. But they don’t, they have consistently missed the mark especially with the new push to get guys to “man up and marry that slut sitting in the pew next to you” that seems all the rage now days.

The church has been on the leading edge of feminism for quite some time now going all the way back to the Quakers who first started with the heresy of allowing women to become priests. They basically birthed the womens suffrage movement and liberal churches (and many conservative churches) have been the source for a lot of the laws that men are suffering under right now.

So having encouraged the destruction of marriage, family and men it seems more than a little hypocritical for them to complain about a few gay getting the government certification for living together.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
tom47 August 2, 2012 at 17:47

At first I thought this article was a little off base, but now I see the point. If the traditional family value folks were real about defending marriage then it wouldn’t be the sperm trap money trap it is for most men today, it would still be a viable institution. But instead they blame men for not”manning up” and worship a Fair Maiden goddess that never existed in the first place and sure as hell doesn’t anymore. Notice that even the most ardent pro lifers never suggest prosecuting women for having abortions, only the doctors.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
anon August 2, 2012 at 17:50

While the line must be held at gay marriage, I personally don’t find gay marriage much of a threat to the all ready mocked institution. Nor do I find gay men personally threatening. If anything, I’m glad that they’re gay because that means less competition!

Yes, the real crux of the decades long marriage crisis is competition and specifically competition as it pertains to female nature. The hypergamy is out of control.

Look, the nature of women (and men) will never be changed. But they must be socially controlled. The love and marriage market must NOT be free market capitalism. You cannot have a winner take all mindset when it comes people’s primal needs of sex and companionship.

What libertarians don’t understand is that the free market in this realm is in fact the ANTITHESIS of civilization. It is jungle rules of lust and cold material calculation; and nothing more.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
TFH August 2, 2012 at 18:01

Is it safe to say that ‘Social Conservatives’ are just another goddess cult?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
John August 2, 2012 at 18:05

Did you even bother to read Cathy’s comments? Here they are:

http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=38271

The comment on marriage is only a tiny part of what he says, and he does mention divorce:

“We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Rocco August 2, 2012 at 18:12

@ Price

Nice article, a perspective I hadn’t considered, you are correct sir, the barn is open and the horse that is marriage has left long ago. Letting a few more in won’t change anything.

But how to get back the horses? Women aren’t horses. They are female humans and highly intelligent. A generation and maybe 2 have turned against marriage.

Men should go there own way.

@ Gunner

Is that what church says? Marry the nearest christian carusel rider?

That is why we say, don’t marry!

The church must hate us.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
jodark August 2, 2012 at 18:13

Well considering that it is Cultural Marxists and Progressives that destroyed traditional marriage and are now pushing for gay marriage, I’d say that standing against them on ANYTHING they want is the right thing to do.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
George August 2, 2012 at 18:13

What hypocrisy? Dan Cathy spoke out against divorce in the same statement.

NWOslave is correct: The same forces that have destroyed marriage and the family are the same forces that promote gay marriage.

You can disagree of Cathy, but your criticism makes no sense. He is firmly in favor of traditional marriage. He is not just picking on gays.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
crella August 2, 2012 at 18:34

I didn’t see anything in his comments that was anti-gay…the fact that he believes in family and marriage is evidently enough to brand him automatically ‘anti-gay’.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Anon Lurker August 2, 2012 at 18:35

This is very OT:
There is a very large and pervasive myth in the manosphere that “game” can help you get laid. This is a blatant lie spread around by scam artists, hoping to make money of ebooks and seminars.

The truth is women(especially young women) are driven by looks/physical attraction as much if not more than men. They are reluctant to admit this because they want to appear morally superior to their male counterparts.

“Attraction is 100% looks. A visual guide.
Once women look for a husband and are past their expiration date(25+) they start to look at money so they can marry a rich beta loser and fuck hot studs on the side behin his back while denying him sex”

Follow this link and read the entire image from the start. I didn’t make the fake male model profile and I didn’t even compile the image.
http://looksmatter.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/looks_matter_you_are_not_a_model_equals_you_are_invisible_to_women1.jpg

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed August 2, 2012 at 19:11

I would say that gay marriage is more of a red herring than anything and Christian leaders find it an easy out. As you said they really should be hitting hard on the root causes of the decline of the traditional family rather than complaining that gays want to get in and ruin marriage for everyone.

We wouldn’t even be talking about “gay marriage” if the entire concept of marriage had not already been ruined. If someone had brought up the idea of people of the same sex “marrying” each other back in say about 1970, everyone around them would have looked at them like they had totally lost their marbles – which would have been accurate at that time.

If someone would use a phrase like “trailer park mansions” or “trailer park estates” people would realize that the noun itself has connotations which negate the words being used to modify it.

You never hear of people talk about “saving New York City” because the city is thriving and their is nothing to save about it. You do, however, hear people talk about “saving Detroit”, which most people know is a hollow shell of what used to be a city.

If straight marriage were thriving, allowing gay people to call their strange living arrangements by that name would not be nearly so threatening.

I wonder how “Eat, Pray, Love” or all the various shades of divorce-
porn fit into Cathy’s view of biblical marriage.

If gays wanted to move their trailers into the empty abandoned lots in Detroit, it would not “save Detroit” by keeping them out, and keeping those lots empty, just in case some nice hetero couple wanted to buy them and start paying taxes on them.

Opposing gay marriage is a nice but empty gesture by people who don’t have the guts to face the real causes of the breakdown of marriage.

The simple fact that people can use the phrase “gay marriage” with a straight face is proof that whatever meaning that term once had has been lost.

I could cut my legs off and replace them with wooden ones and claim that I should be called “a table” and it would make just as much sense.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Whammer August 2, 2012 at 19:12

I told you that Berge’s arrest was illegal. This is just another way that prosecutors whether in Norway or the US harass men. It’s a way of damging someone and punishing them in advance without having to bother about a trial that you know you will lose. This was Norway so it was handled very quickly in 3 weeks but in the US the guy may have been in jail for a year before the charges were dismissed or a higher court could rule on it and his life would have already been ruined, and that’s assuming he didn’t get killed in the gulags called jails in the US or contract some fatal disease inside.

http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=no&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vg.no%2Fnyheter%2Finnenriks%2Fartikkel.php%3Fartid%3D10067455

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Paul Murray August 2, 2012 at 19:23

“It appears that if you’re one of the “good people,” that is, you are more wealthy, famous and fortunate than others, you have to support progressive causes.”

If what you do affects other people’s lives, then yes: other people become interested in what you do.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
W.F. Price August 2, 2012 at 19:28

I told you that Berge’s arrest was illegal. This is just another way that prosecutors whether in Norway or the US harass men. It’s a way of damging someone and punishing them in advance without having to bother about a trial that you know you will lose. This was Norway so it was handled very quickly in 3 weeks but in the US the guy may have been in jail for a year before the charges were dismissed or a higher court could rule on it and his life would have already been ruined, and that’s assuming he didn’t get killed in the gulags called jails in the US or contract some fatal disease inside.

-The Whammer

Well, yeah. I know better than to declare war on the cops here. You’d have to be kind of stupid not to realize it’s an enormous risk, whether your speech is illegal or not.

Actually, I’d say the biggest risk wouldn’t be having to wait in jail for a year or so, but rather the very likely scenario that you’d just be shot dead during apprehension. Of all the times I’ve had people aim guns at me, they were cops in all but one case (four out of five). And I never got arrested or charged with anything. It’s really easy to get killed by police here — you don’t even have to break the law.

Artie August 2, 2012 at 19:28

@George August 2, 2012 at 18:13

“What hypocrisy? Dan Cathy spoke out against divorce in the same statement.”

Unless the version of said statement I received was abridged, I didn’t see the word “divorce” anywhere in there. I did read the “first wives” bit, but found no mention of “first husbands” reciprocity on wives. That’s a very tradcon all-the-fault-on-the-men way of phrasing.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Binxton August 2, 2012 at 19:34

It’s crazy that they want in on such a damaged institution, but I don’t think most of them intend to use it anyway, and that is the only reason I am hostile to the idea: it looks like more of an act of aggression against heterosexual norms than anything else.

Homosexuality by definition IS an act of aggression against heterosexual norms.

A healthy society can only tolerate homosexuality, not accept it as normal.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
piercedhead August 2, 2012 at 19:51

“Well Mr. Cathy, if you care about the sanctity of marriage, you’re wasting your time fighting the gays. Time to clean up your own backyard first.”

Pure truth.

Marriage ceased to be worth anything way back when men were stripped of automatic custody of children. Until then, it was a social construct designed to harness men’s energy for the benefit of all.

Once men’s participation in society began to be taken for granted, their enslavement to it was inevitable. Marriage was a deal, not a duty.

Any man defending marriage from homos just hasn’t taken the time to think about what he is defending.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Whammer August 2, 2012 at 20:00

And I thought that Seattle was such a nice peaceful place.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
American August 2, 2012 at 20:01

The manufactured statistics that American law enforcement are crafting that serve to empower gender-raunch by inflaming the masses against the hetero-male, are not only perverse, but an activity that american law enforcement is not qualified to engage in.
These perverted and manufactured statistics are a stain on American law enforcement.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
W.F. Price August 2, 2012 at 20:04

And I thought that Seattle was such a nice peaceful place.

-The Whammer

Relatively speaking, it is; the cops have a pretty tight monopoly on violence.

zed August 2, 2012 at 20:08

Last weekend I went to a reunion of sorts with people I had gone to HS with back in the 60s. If “traditional marriage” is between one man and one woman, then these people really believed in “traditional marriage.” Out of the 6 people there who I was closest to in HS, 3 men and 3 women, they had a total of 15 “traditional marriages” between them, along with the accompanying 15 “traditional divorces.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Brian August 2, 2012 at 20:20

I don’t understand why government has any business at all in marriage. Why are marriage licenses required to make marriage “legal.” Why does the state grant married people tax benefits and how is this fair? Personally, I don’t care who/what someone wants to marry. A pair of homosexuals can tell me they’re married, but that doesn’t mean I have to agree with their ideas or values on marriage.

As a further comment on marriage/family, I also don’t believe there should be any family, marriage, or divorce laws whatsoever. Only family should be involved in family affairs and government should only be involved in the same way it should be involved for everyone: to protect fundamental rights of life, liberty, and property.

P.S. Bill, how has site traffic been since new moderation and the comment section change?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Rob August 2, 2012 at 20:28

Marriage ceased to be worth anything way back when men were stripped of automatic custody of children. Until then, it was a social construct designed to harness men’s energy for the benefit of all.

Once men’s participation in society began to be taken for granted, their enslavement to it was inevitable. Marriage was a deal, not a duty.

Any man defending marriage from homos just hasn’t taken the time to think about what he is defending. — piercedhead

The thing is, anyone thinking, should also be able to look forward a few steps dialectically.

If all forms of “marriage” are acceptable… then why isn’t presumed father-custody also a valid form of marriage and family?

Here in Canuckistan, there is evidence that gay-marriages are being short-listed for adoption and foster care, because, you know, they are oppressed by nature by not being able to produce children of their own.

So… we have “equal” families for single moms, moms about to divorce dads, lesbians and gays… does anyone see a gender left out of the picture here?

Let them write it into law, and then men should come in and demand their “equality” in having an equally recognized family – that with father custody outlined at the very beginning.

The real key to the whole thing, and to the MRM mallaise, IS father custody. Let them have thirty kinds of “families” so long as father-custody marriage is also part of the package. And then let the ponies that win the race lead society – and whose ponies do you think that will be?

It appears, in today’s climate, that the only type of “family” that is not acceptable is the one where the father is undeniably attached to the custody of his children. All other types of families are “equal” but father-custody marriage is as alien as Martians. Sad, since this was the norm for millenia up until 150 years ago.

If only the MRM could start to think dialectically rather than focusing on one issue at a time. Time to put away the checker chips and pull out the chess pieces.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
W.F. Price August 2, 2012 at 22:16

P.S. Bill, how has site traffic been since new moderation and the comment section change?

-Brian

It’s been fine except for the damn server problems with the host. I guess they’ve been overhauling the database servers. Total PITA for me.

TFH August 2, 2012 at 22:41

Of all the times I’ve had people aim guns at me, they were cops in all but one case (four out of five).

You have had people aim guns at you five times?

That seems to be an unusually high number outside of military combat or someone who is a police officer themselves.

How many of those times were the product of feminist law?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Geography Bee Finalist himself August 2, 2012 at 22:41

Too bad we can’t have a situation here in the United States like in West and Central Africa regarding divorced women. In Mali and probably elsewhere in that region, people want absolutely nothing to do with even a divorcée’s EXTENDED family members, such as her nieces, nephews, remaining in-laws, etc..

This applies even when the divorcée is not there in West or Central Africa to provide the circumstances surrounding the divorce (remember that West and Central Africans are unsympathetic to a woman’s refusal to stay with a man for POORER as well as for richer). No man with half a brain will blame someone with a distended stomach and severe malnutrition for being unsympathetic to a wealthier divorcée’s “plight”.

Anyone from Atlanta (Chick-Fil-A’s HQ) want to fill us in on that area’s mentality towards divorcées?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
TFH August 2, 2012 at 22:42

zed,

Out of the 6 people there who I was closest to in HS, 3 men and 3 women, they had a total of 15 “traditional marriages” between them, along with the accompanying 15 “traditional divorces.”

ALL 15 ended in divorce? So that all 6 are presently unmarried?

High divorce rates exist, but 100%?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
W.F. Price August 2, 2012 at 23:09

You have had people aim guns at you five times?

That seems to be an unusually high number outside of military combat or someone who is a police officer themselves.

How many of those times were the product of feminist law?

-TFH

Only one. All the rest were the result of “surprising” cops (2X — walking through unlit areas at night), cops surprising me (once), and one time a fight. I used to walk all over, often at night, and Seattle is a very dark city. When you walk so much, you come across a lot of things. I could write a couple books about all the crazy stuff I saw while walking around at night. I can kind of understand why women are so obsessed over the night, because I’ve never in my life met one single female who had that kind of freedom to walk alone in the dark in strange places. For young men, it’s an exhilarating feeling. I’ve lost that, and it’s kind of a bummer.

By the time the cops came after me with guns following a false accusation, I’d already settled down and stopped my wandering ways. That made it all the more shocking to me. I thought “why now? why come after me when I’ve already bowed to convention and ‘done the right thing?’”

It really convinced me that it was all a big fraud, and there’s no reason to follow convention, because you’ll be treated like a criminal either way.

Anonymous Reader August 2, 2012 at 23:23

Welmer asks:
How many Baptists get divorced?

If they are like other evangelicals, about 38% of marriages fail.
As opposed to 40% to 50% of people who don’t go to church.
Although there was a commenter on Dalrock’s site who claimed some eye popping numbers for California (70%+) and suggested that was why Cali doesn’t offer up such numbers as a state statistic any more – it might call the divorce industry into question. Can’t have that…

How often do their women file?

I dunno. Maybe, oh, 60% of the time? Maybe 65% of the cases in the 35 to 45 year old age group? Just at a guess?

It’s a national embarrassment, and here Cathy – a wealthy heir – rubs it in our faces and plays holier than thou.

It’s always a special moment when some Defender of Marriage appears on the web or TV and pontificates on all the things that threaten marriage – except, er, women’s hypergamy. Or anything else about women. It’s as if divorce is some big force of nature, like a tornado, or an earthquake, or a flood, rather than a conscious choice. A choice that more often than not is made by…the woman in question.

I don’t eat fast food…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Anonymous Reader August 2, 2012 at 23:25

Clydesdale
The opposition to “Gay Marriage” has nothing to do with what gays do in private and everything to do with mocking and cheapening the very concept of marriage itself. T

So why is it that when women, as a group, mock and cheapen the very concept of marriage itself, all the Defenders of Marriage — look the other way, eh?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Venom Froggy August 2, 2012 at 23:52

@anon:
“If anything, I’m glad that they’re gay because that means less competition!”

True.

And in some cases, it means less competition and more t-girls.

A very viable (if still unpopular) alternative for disenfranchised straight males who don’t want to turn gay and/or go celibate indefinitely.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Venom Froggy August 3, 2012 at 00:00

An addendum to my last comment, the t-girl alternative I brought up will only work if the straight male in question doesn’t want to employ Game for whatever reason.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
!!SPARTA!! August 3, 2012 at 00:16

Yea, this is the first time that I have to completely disagree with you.
From what I remember, he never “attacked” gays specifically, he said that he supports traditional, “biblical” marriage, and while that includes opposition to gay marriage, there is a lot more to it.

Also, I get the impression that you’re holding his success/luck/fortune against him. He’s fortunate to have been born into a family where traditional marriages are easier to maintain, but that has nothing to with his message

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
jack August 3, 2012 at 00:24

I don’t believe in gay marriage, but frankly I don’t care what homosexuals want to call their partnership. It isn’t my business, and I don’t care.

Well said. Why are so many MRAs bent on alienating the potential support of male homosexuals by opposing the extension to gays of what has become a farce? If homosexuals want to play husband & wife and get burnt (or burn each other) in divorce settlements, let them do it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
a_guy August 3, 2012 at 00:46

The reasoning in this article is highly flawed. Dan Cathey is not responsible for the decline of marriage. In fact, in this day and age, he is one of the few people of influence actually defending traditional marriage. Why would you assume he is also someone who says “man up” and “it’s always the man’s fault”? Did you ever see any evidence to back up this assumption, or are you just projecting all of your hurt feelings on this guy?

For all you know, Cathey could be a severe MRA. For all you know, he could be reading the Spearhead right now. Yet, because he sticks his neck out to defend the concept of traditional marriage and, oh yeah, his Christian beliefs, you attack him because he hasn’t single-handedly reversed all of the damage done to marriage? And all of the damage done to our culture? You would attack one of your own allies because, in your mind, he hasn’t stuck his neck out far enough to suit you?

Let me make something else clear: the entire concept of “gay marriage” is nothing but a sham to further destroy our culture and make way for Marxist Armageddon. It comes from the same place as feminism, socialism, racial politics, extreme environmentalism, and all of the other severe left-wing “isms” that there are. Why on earth would any sane culture change the definition of one of its most basic and fundamental institutions just to accommodate 1 -2 % of the population who suffer from a sexual disorder? No sane culture would, which should tell you something.

Supporting the whole gay-ification of society will not restore sanity, and it will not punish those who broke this culture. It only punishes heterosexual men MORE. And it only hastens our inevitable demise as a culture. If that’s what you want, fine, but that is an extremely profound example of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
walking in hell2 August 3, 2012 at 00:53

I get your point Price.

America is a garbage dump of 11 million single mothers, a completely failed institution of heterosexual marriage, oppressed and depressed fathers who have lost their children; and then this self righteous douche bag only focuses on the 2 percent of gays who want to get married, because he is too much of a coward to confront the filthy Baptist hypergamous sluts in his congregation.

Then they have the nerve to say if you are a man and you have lost your children through divorce, “it is your fault.”

I get it. Slut worship and Manly masochism is a heresy; It is a disgrace to Christianity and to men. The churches in America represent one of the biggest enemies to men.

To clean the churches up properly, you would need an inquisition.

I say this as a Christian.

By the way, I really miss the up/down votes.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
W.F. Price August 3, 2012 at 01:12

Unless the version of said statement I received was abridged, I didn’t see the word “divorce” anywhere in there. I did read the “first wives” bit, but found no mention of “first husbands” reciprocity on wives. That’s a very tradcon all-the-fault-on-the-men way of phrasing.

-Artie

Yeah, I think some readers didn’t quite get that part of it. If you’ve never been divorced, it’s hard to understand what a slap in the face that kind of statement is for divorced men.

In most cases, we did not want to divorce, but we had no choice. But when you hear guys like Dan Cathy say “we are still married to our first wives” the implication is that it’s your fault that you aren’t.

That attitude is the problem with marriage in a nutshell. Of course men can be part of the problem in a marriage, but women these days walk out for any and all reasons, abetted by corrupt law, and Cathy’s big problem is with gay marriage? Gay marriage is totally irrelevant to most straight divorces. It’s things like no-fault divorce, consequence-free adultery, child support windfalls, rewarding single mothers, default mother custody and all the rest that have brought this about, but he’s donating all his money to stopping gays from waving around marriage certificates?

I understand why people want to support him, and I deplore the behavior of the petty tyrants that run liberal cities, but he’s just shooting at the wrong target. Preventing gay “marriage,” which is just a decadent fad that nobody ought to take seriously, will do next to nothing to save straight marriage.

JFP August 3, 2012 at 01:28

Price: “Homosexuals are barely 2% of the US population, and they marry at far lower rates than heteros. Yet Cathy would have us believe they are a threat to the integrity of marriage.”

They are a threat, its called the tyranny of the minority. We’ve gone from tolerance to “embrace diversity” aka forced acceptance. You’re right that men like Cathy either ignore or lightly mention hypergamy and should be called on it but this is one guy daring to stand up to convention and state his beliefs, unpopular as they may seem.

I ultimately don’t care about gay marriage/civil unions/partnerships but I no longer consider it equal to straight marriage. Legally, you could make the argument but culturally or biologically, it is not equal. I’ll care about legalizing gay marriage when those supporters of it denounce the collectivist laws that have destroyed marriage and families in favor of the state and when hate crime laws are denounced and repealed nationwide.

Bully gets fired…
http://www.businessinsider.com/vante-cfo-bullies-chick-fil-a-worker-then-promptly-gets-fired-for-it-2012-8

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Ecclesiastes August 3, 2012 at 02:24

The comparison to muslims and Islam is an ignorant one, at best.

At it’s worst, it would be a cynical bit of smirking hypocrisy.

Please don’t do that anymore.

Thank you.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
anonymous August 3, 2012 at 02:55

traditional marriage.

You are already using the Marxist Newspeak. By calling marriage “traditional”, you agree that there are other “untraditional” marriages. It might even put the speaker into “paleo” group of people ‘clinging’ on to the archaic “traditional”, er, marriage.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Geezer August 3, 2012 at 04:53

Price, you ok?

Guns pulled on you by cops 4 times? Effin-aye. I know you live “near that part of town” but geez. I feel for ya, bro.

As to the article, I am kinda puzzled by your take on this.

I think Cathy doesn’t like “gayness” not doesn’t like gays. He spoke out, good for him.

Big picture, yes, why is he not speaking on the divorce machinery that encourages and subsidizes it. If skank-a-licious wants to leave you fine, she leaves the kids. Problem (almost) solved!

Why does my head hurt, and it is still very very early in the morning?

The Geezer

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zimmy August 3, 2012 at 06:04

Everyone is free to voice their First Amendment rights. Organized attacks
by mayors and advocacy groups to these rights is a very dangerous precedent; indeed, it is Orwellian.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
greyghost August 3, 2012 at 06:16

Marriage was and done a long time ago. Cathy doesn’t know it because his wealth insulates him from that reality. Also if he is a church going christian he is just parrotting what the feminized church is teaching. He is practicing churchianity and beleives he is being a good christian with his statement. Throw in a couple of outstanding characteristics of what the guy has done in principle outside of what his misguided beliefs on marriage and we have a road to hell paved with good intentions.
The point being most people never looked at his statement on marrage with the red pill eye we have here as Welmer explained. What I think the message that was actually received from the public was a man standing up to a politician threatening to use government power to harm a private individual for not having his mind right. I applaud the guy for that as what seems to be a large number of people.
The marriage thing is something that also needs to be addressed and I guess this article and conversation is a first step. Welmer, do you think you are to the point to where you could write a pro gay marriage article that also tells the redpill truth? Something that on first quick read looks good for the oppressed homosexual community. But on second look exposes the elephant in the room. An article like that will make a great opion piece in MSM print.
I have never on my own inititive gone into a chick felay to buy any thing. I have been to one twice with other people that wanted to go. But after this stunt here I may on occasion just go myself. I like the idea of a man being non PC. Even if it really isn’t from a true position of courage.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Rod August 3, 2012 at 06:36

Though I agree with you nearly all the time, Mr. Price, and find your perspectives well thought-out, I’m having trouble understanding why you are so exercised about Mr. Cathy’s statement. One could choose (as you have apparently done) to quibble over Cathy’s pride in his family’s traditional values, at their being married to their first wives, and so forth. But those “sins” are merely rhetorical, and pale in comparison with the big-guns bullying by so many mayors and city officials, actions that strain not only any concept of civility but also of legality. I should think even people on the cultural left ought to be worried about municipal governments punishing individuals and their businesses for thought crimes. THIS is what deserves our condemnation, not Mr. Cathy’s innocuous overstatements.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed August 3, 2012 at 08:35

ALL 15 ended in divorce? So that all 6 are presently unmarried?

High divorce rates exist, but 100%?

Yes, all 6 are presently unmarried. And, if you count the people instead of the marriages as the base, the rate is not 100% but 250%.

These people are perfect examples of how divorce “rates” can be very skewed, and why they become totally meaningless applied across a large enough population. Mix those 6 people in with 24 people who has never been divorced and you get a “divorce rate” of 50% of all marriages in the group. That would be a totally distorted picture.

This entire argument is a perfect case study why any sort of MRM has, and always will be, stillborn.

A lot of people act as though it is some sort of referendum on homosexuality. It isn’t.

If people want a real referendum on homosexuality, then turn JCPenny into a “penny stock” – drive its share price through the floor. Never, ever, buy anything from them again. Trash talk them every time they come up in conversation. Anyone who ever tunes in the Ellen DeGenerate show is voting for homosexuality, and gay marriage – and most of them are women. Anyone who buys a product from one of her advertisers is voting for homosexuality.

People think they are making some sort of big statement for “traditional/biblical marriage” when they line up once on cue, at a fast-food joint to buy a piece of fried cardboard on a bun for $5, from which Cathy maybe makes $.10. But, then they turn around and drop $500 on “back to school” clothes at JCPenny who has one of the highest profile homosexuals in the world as their spokeslesbian – whose “civil union” to another woman has already lasted longer than a lot of “traditional/biblical marriages”.

If the entire concept of marriage had not already been degraded to a legally-sanctioned hookup, this conversation would not be taking place at all.

There is a legal definition of marriage and a cultural definition of marriage. The cultural definition allows such phrases as “trial marriage”, or “starter marriage” used in the same connotation of “starter house.”

One of the women in that group of 6 has quoted to me several times over the years some actress who said –
“Every woman should get married 3 times – once for love, once for children, and once for money.”

She missed out on the “once for money” one.

The famous gold-digging serial marrier/divorcer socialite Zsa Zsa Gabor supposedly once said –
“I am a great housekeeper. Every time I divorce a man, I keep his house.”

She certainly did not stay at home and raise her 5th husband’s children, so what gave her the power to confiscate his house when she divorced him? — The legal definition of marriage.

“Marriage” today amounts to little more than an undated summons to appear in family court – the date to be filled in by the wife when she becomes “unhaaappppyyy”, and a Quit-claim deed to all children and all personal wealth handed over to the court with a durable power of attorney which authorizes them to dispose of all marital assets as they see fit.

This current battle is over nothing more than which groups of people are “eligible” to come under the legal definition.

The battle over the cultural definition was lost over the past 40 years.

The tradcons were AWOL for that battle.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Skeptic August 3, 2012 at 08:57

I still reckon you guys in USA probably need to watch out.
It’s been my experience when politicians pull out some controversial issue just before election time it’s because they want your attention diverted whilst there up to no go with another issue, or in damage control mode over an issue that is cresting which they don’t want to much attention drawn to.
I trust politicians less than used car salesmen.
At least with a used car you can kick the tires and take the car for a test drive.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed August 3, 2012 at 09:13

If you’ve never been divorced, it’s hard to understand what a slap in the face that kind of statement is for divorced men.

In most cases, we did not want to divorce, but we had no choice. But when you hear guys like Dan Cathy say “we are still married to our first wives” the implication is that it’s your fault that you aren’t.

That attitude is the problem with marriage in a nutshell. Of course men can be part of the problem in a marriage, but women these days walk out for any and all reasons, abetted by corrupt law, and Cathy’s big problem is with gay marriage? Gay marriage is totally irrelevant to most straight divorces.

Well, according to Churchian mythology, the guy in the movie “Fireproof” is also “still married to his first wife” (http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/10/20/the-endless-courtship-fantasy/
http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/10/30/firebombed/)

– that is after the Churchian men ganged up on the husband, cut him off at the knees (http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/05/01/cutting-leaders-off-at-the-knees/) and force him to “submit to his wife’s headship” http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/05/17/reframing-christian-marriage-part-3-husbands-as-helpmeets/

Churchian men are like inhabitants of a walled city at the middle of small country. The country was invaded years ago, but the “NIMBY” attitude prevailed within the walled city – as long as it wasn’t happening in their back yards, it did not concern these men. And, since the peasants were so busy fighting the invaders, it was a good time to raise taxes on them since they were too busy to revolt.

Well, the invasion has taken all of the lower class households, and made huge inroads to the middle class. And now “the barbarians are at the gate” of the walled city, and the Churchians are calling out the peasants to defend the city they can’t live in.

The only problem is – all the peasants are now dead.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Keyster August 3, 2012 at 09:34

Who would you rather have boycott your business, gays or women?

IOW, had Mr. Cathy inferred, in even the most subtle of manner, that one of the issues with Marriage is that women need to WOMAN-UP!, and stand by their men more, etc., the backlash of it would have been unrecoverable. Chick Fil-A would be sold off and/or rebranded within a year – – and recruited a female CEO for good measure. Not to mention Mr. Cathy’s wife waiting for him to get home.

Being against gay marriage is one “common enemy” that can unite the religious-right; whether it has any effect on the reality of marriage today or not.

Suffice to say, as I alluded, you DO NOT touch the electric-third-rail of socio-political discourse. And that is TEAM WOMAN. If you dare touch it, you CANNOT be male, and if you’re a liberal female it’s pure heresy. Only social-conservative women can do it, and rarely do they, but they leave the unabashed man-shaming to the men of the flock.

One brave man speaks out against the problem with society and marriage today is the Liberal/Marxist Female. He get’s skewered, but is generally spared only because he’s also black.

Google Rev Jesse Lee Peterson.
He’s the ultimate MRA, that MRA’s have never heard of.
He tells it the way it is, like us here.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
BSimpson August 3, 2012 at 09:59

Perhaps it isn’t hypocrisy. What if he is just ignorant?

I have seen many, well meaning, “christians” try to uphold the virtues and morals of a righteous position in many things without being able to even pin-point what the problem is exactly. They have been told that something should be a certain way and they feebly try and fight for it.

Perhaps he means well, but has not recognized the plank in his own eye? Just a thought, but I suspect this whole gay thing will be a further awakening to mens movements. Also, if you add in the expectant shit storm of the attachment parenting crap, men and a few more women, will wake up, “feeling” something has gone awry.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
No BS August 3, 2012 at 10:01

Those who conceived and agitate for homosexual marriage to be legalized, in fact, those marketing the normalization of the whole homosexual ethos, represent just one more tentacle of the same tired Cultural Marxist octopus. The goal of the Marxists is the same as always; strangle and annihilate the traditional foundations of the Western Civilization and replace it with a Marxist utopia which they will conveniently control. To wit, it is nothing more than a naked power grab by those who have proven time and again throughout the ages wholly incapable of looking out for the best interests of anyone but their own narrow “chosen” clique.

Mr. Cathy is to be commended not just for speaking out. That is important, but of course others have done that in the past. No, what he is to be commended for is not backing down (to date) to the tyrannical forces of politically correct thought in this country. This is both rare and courageous.

But I suspect that we have not seen the last act in this play, but rather the first. The Cultural Marxists in this country have just suffered a rather humiliating public defeat at the hands of Mr. Cathy and those who have rallied to support him. They are not used to losing, in fact they have had an almost unbroken string of victories in this nation for at least fifty years. Nor, despite their incessant ad nauseam preaching of tolerance, are the Marxists known for their tolerance of dissent. In fact, they are known for just the opposite; they do not tolerate dissent, they crush it.

Consequently, I suspect the next act in this play will be the attempt to either destroy Mr. Cathy, his company, or both. Expect governmental investigations to be opened up on Chic-fil-A. Expect negative stories to be appear in the media on both Chic-fil-A, Mr Cathy, or his family. Expect lawsuits to be filed and extortionate settlements to be demanded out of the flush coffers of Chic-fil-A. When you see these things happen, seemingly out of the blue, you will know the truth of what I say.

Is their any scandal to be out there to be found on Mr. Cathy or his family? No doubt private investigators have already been hired and are hard at work digging up and sifting through the dirt in the hope that they will find the hidden gem of scandal. If discovered, it can be used to either compel Mr. Cathy to publicly recant his views in the most abject way possible, or alternatively, to humiliate and discredit him in the media by exposing the discovered gem in public. The public has a right to know, don’t you know?

And of course, if all else fails, violence or the threat of violence have never been a tool that Marxists have failed to use when other means proved ineffective.

For Mr. Cathy has committed an unpardonable sin from the perspective the Marxists. He has shown the people of this country that
they vastly outnumber their Marxist overlords and their cohorts and that victory over the Marxist tyranny that is being systematically and relentlessly imposed is possible. This is a very dangerous idea. Courage is infectious. History has proven that such ideas, when commonly accepted, are detrimental to the long term well being of tyrants. Hence, I fully expect them to move quickly to make an example of Mr. Cathy. Time will tell us whether they succeed, or not.

God bless Mr. Cathy, his family, his company, and our nation.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Yeoman August 3, 2012 at 10:14

I have to disagree with this article, which is a rare occurance. Christians waited a little too long to draw their line in the sand on the marriage issue but they aren’t wrong.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Poester99 August 3, 2012 at 10:14

Mr. Cathy is publicly and prominently fighting a good and just fight at no little risk to himself, and I am hard pressed to understand how he is somehow NOT on the side of those who, perhaps like you, are innocent victims of this country’s rejection of standards and eager acceptance of the gross and obscene.

Actually they were doing no such thing, and said no such things.

In the end it is part of their faith, though, so they’ll probably be forced to publicly take a side.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Clydesdale August 3, 2012 at 10:16

@ Anonymous Reader

“So why is it that when women, as a group, mock and cheapen the very concept of marriage itself, all the Defenders of Marriage — look the other way, eh?”

Who says all of them do?

As noted by NWOslave, “The same forces that have destroyed marriage and the family are the same forces that promote gay marriage…[T]he people who rewarded single motherhood, promoted the welfare nanny state, took fathers away from their children, rewarded women for divorcing their husbands, encouraged the slut movement, are the same damned people.” True words there.

Traditional marriage is mocked and cheapened every time an Elizabeth Gilbert is rewarded with million dollar book and movie deals, rather than shunned and shamed. It is mocked and cheapened every time a marriage takes place, not in a church, but on a beach with a meaningless exchange of cafeteria-selected, PC-approved vows and the couple’s various bastard children in attendance. It is mocked and cheapened every time celebrity trash gets married for the seventh time and a sycophantic public looks on with admiration. And it is mocked and cheapened every time a court forces an innocent man to share his hard-earned fortune with a cheating ex-spouse who now lives with her real boyfriend and actual father of the children he thought were his.

Oh yes, there is plenty of blame to be shared with women and the men who let them get away with it. “Gay Marriage” is just another sad symptom of a sick and decaying society. I do not see that Mr. Cathy is giving them a pass either.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed August 3, 2012 at 11:21

Perhaps it isn’t hypocrisy. What if he is just ignorant?

I have seen many, well meaning, “christians” try to uphold the virtues and morals of a righteous position in many things without being able to even pin-point what the problem is exactly. They have been told that something should be a certain way and they feebly try and fight for it.

Perhaps he means well, but has not recognized the plank in his own eye?

Which kills you more dead – being gored by an angry rhinoceros, or crushed by an lumbering elephant?

“Absence of malice” is a legalistic defense for journalists, but good intentions will lead one straight to hell just about as quickly as good intentions.

Closing the barn door 3 decades after the horse has bolted accomplishes nothing.

Let’s see Cathy put some money behind repealing the Bradley Amendment, and pushing for father custody in at least 50% of all divorces, and maybe some of us who watched guys like him stand around with their heads and thumbs up their asses until we got to the point where we are now, will start to regard him as something other than a useless idiot.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
keyster August 3, 2012 at 11:24

Perhaps it isn’t hypocrisy. What if he is just ignorant?

In my experience traveling within Conservative circles, that is typically the case. Their knowledge of feminism is limited to abortion rights. Whenever concepts like family court bias, hypergamy, real VAWA stats, Title IX, etc. are broached, they have NO IDEA any of this even exists.

Those of the Manosphere delude themselves into thinking the Men’s Rights narrative is common knowledge. Lemme tell ya, it’s way, way not. It’s more like on the fringes of the fringe groups. The state of men and boys is astoundingly insignificant in today’s cultural gestalt.

If it’s not being covered in the MSM, it ain’t sh*t to anybody.
The closest the MRM ever came was Marc Rudov on Fox News for a couple of years, and that was made into a satirical sideshow by the women he debated and the show host (usually Neil Cavuto). It was something for a while. It managed to engage me at least.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Migu August 3, 2012 at 11:30

The only problem is – all the peasants are now dead.

–zed

Nahh, we just told the NIMBY folks to pound sand.

It really is amazing what you can do with $7.25/hour if you’re not married.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed August 3, 2012 at 11:31

Skeptic August 3, 2012 at 08:57

I still reckon you guys in USA probably need to watch out.
It’s been my experience when politicians pull out some controversial issue just before election time it’s because they want your attention diverted whilst there up to no go with another issue, or in damage control mode over an issue that is cresting which they don’t want to much attention drawn to.

Very astute observation. While the news media is focused on same-sex-kiss-ins going on around the country, and the socons think they are striking a big blow for “traditional marriage” by lining up to buy a fried patty of chicken-parts paste, they really can’t be bothered to think about the >8% unemployment rate which has gone on for more than 3 years, and the $16,000,000,000,000 deficit.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Migu August 3, 2012 at 11:31

And BTW, marriage is gone, done, bu bye. Get over it already.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
JFinn August 3, 2012 at 11:50

“The same forces that have destroyed marriage and the family are the same forces that promote gay marriage”

Ronald Reagan comes to mind as a key player in the destruction of marriage.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Anonymous Reader August 3, 2012 at 12:10

Clydesdale
@ Anonymous Reader

“So why is it that when women, as a group, mock and cheapen the very concept of marriage itself, all the Defenders of Marriage — look the other way, eh?”

Who says all of them do?

I say that. You point me to a “defender of marriage” in the public, who stands up to the disaster of “men’s fault” divorce. Mr. Cathy doesn’t.

Traditional marriage is mocked and cheapened every time an Elizabeth Gilbert is rewarded with million dollar book and movie deals, rather than shunned and shamed

Agree. Now, you show me any “Defense of Marriage” group that said even one word about Eat, Betray, Lust. Show me any “Defender of Marriage” who states on TV that Gilbert is a bad woman. Show me any church that publicly denounces women who divorce, or a churchian organization=don’t pick “Focus on the Family”, Glenn Stanton thinks that unmarried women with children are “heroes”.

You can’t do it. That’s the whole point of Welmer’s article.

Oh yes, there is plenty of blame to be shared with women and the men who let them get away with it. “Gay Marriage” is just another sad symptom of a sick and decaying society. I do not see that Mr. Cathy is giving them a pass either.

Cathy is totally giving a free pass to the entire divorce industry, by focusing only on homosexual marriage. Cathy is giving the likes of Gilbert a free pass by focusing only on homosexual marriage. Cathy is giving a free pass to divorce theft by only focusing on homosexual marriage.

Maybe he’s opposed to all the real destroyers of marriage, but only in private. In which case, he’s given a free pass to them all. Because his public opposition is only to homosexual marriage, not to the divorce industry, not to women who get money and prizes for committing divorce theft on their husbands, not to the churches that demand accountability from men and nothing from women.

Again, that’s the point of the article. If you are arguing Welmer is wrong, then you have to provide some counter examples of public “Defenders of Marriage” who are opposed to men’s-fault divorce. Good hunting. You’ll need it – the snipe is a wily bird.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed August 3, 2012 at 12:38

Perhaps it isn’t hypocrisy. What if he is just ignorant?

In my experience traveling within Conservative circles, that is typically the case. Their knowledge of feminism is limited to abortion rights. Whenever concepts like family court bias, hypergamy, real VAWA stats, Title IX, etc. are broached, they have NO IDEA any of this even exists.

Those of the Manosphere delude themselves into thinking the Men’s Rights narrative is common knowledge.

But, I will bet you a 20-spot that at least half, or maybe more, of those guys who have no clue about Sherman’s Long March Through the Culture can tell you who has won every Super Bowl since 1990, and a lot of them can tell you who won the World Series, too.

To all the residents of Pompeii in AD 79 – Ignore the shakings and rumblings of that mountain. It ain’t nothing to be worried about.

My experience with trying to enlighten conservatives is that even if you shout loudly enough at them to penetrate the sand where they keep their heads buried, they will then stick their fingers in their ears and go “la la la, I can’t hear you.” If you keep at them, they will then accuse you of saying all this because you are bitter because you can’t get laid.

Besides, it will never happen to them because they have “Tight Game” – whatever “game” they think they are playing.

Good grief, it is such a manosphere cliché that the guy who just got served divorce papers “never saw it coming.” Well, he might have seen it coming if he had ever pulled his head out of his ass and took his eyes off the boob toob.

Like I keep saying, there is no point in trying to recruit for the MRM – because most men will fight you tooth and nail, until the red pill gets administered to them in suppository form, and then they suddenly flip to wondering why “men” aren’t lining up to “help” him and are acting exactly like he used to act before he got reality shoved up his bum.

As far as the “conservatives” go – when they came after “us” you either ignored it and blamed “us” for it. Now, they are coming after “you” – using the resources “you” supported them in stealing from “us” – and in typically clueless fashion, “you” can’t figure out why we have no resources or willingness to help “you” any more than “you” helped “us.”

Oh, shit, maybe the rumblings of that mountain were something worth paying attention to.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
dragnet August 3, 2012 at 12:48

Great comments on this thread here.

That traditional conservatives are picking the gay marrige issue to get to “serious” about traditional marriage just proves what a joke the whole thing has become. The only gays getting married are a few dozen lesbians in San Fran and Boston and that gets these people up in arms, meanwhile women have been divorce-robbing fathers and kicking them out of their childrens’ lives for decades now and you hear nary a peep from them. In fact, the divorce rate among evangelicals is nearly 40 percent. Ridiculous.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed August 3, 2012 at 13:04

The same forces that have destroyed marriage

Notice the use of past tense. The destruction of marriage is a done deal. Even the so-called “defenders” of marriage admit that.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed August 3, 2012 at 13:13

Migu August 3, 2012 at 11:31

And BTW, marriage is gone, done, bu bye. Get over it already.

That reminds me of something Mirror of the Soul said several years ago –
“To all you ‘save marriage’ people – marriage is dead. Now go home.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed August 3, 2012 at 14:09

Welmer, do you think you are to the point to where you could write a pro gay marriage article that also tells the redpill truth?

Let me go on record as saying that I hope Bill does NOT write a “pro gay marriage” article.

It would be unbelievably tricky to tell the redpill truth using a fiction.

And, accepting that fiction would be very bad for all of us. The ultimate defeat that Winston Smith suffered in “1984″ was when he was broken enough to admit that 2+2=5 – because he believed that.

No one can be “pro gay marriage” because it cannot exist unless the term “marriage” is changed to mean something it doesn’t mean. Gay people can be “joined in a legal contract euphemistically called ‘marriage’ “, but they cannot have a real marriage, as marriage has been understood throughout history.

“Gay marriage” is like “nutritious poison”, or “lighter-than-air ocean liner” – the terms contradict each other.

If congress would pass a law that centipedes would from now on be called by the term “100-legged horses”, it does not make worms into horses, all it does is dictate what we have to call them.

The last frontier, and final battleground, is that I refuse to let government pass laws that they think rule my thinking. I can live among people who think differently, but they cannot brainwash me into thinking exactly like they do.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
W.F. Price August 3, 2012 at 14:32

Let me go on record as saying that I hope Bill does NOT write a “pro gay marriage” article.

It would be unbelievably tricky to tell the redpill truth using a fiction.

-Zed

That’s pretty much how I feel. Gay marriage does not exist. Liberals want to eliminate creationism from schools, because it is not scientifically accurate. But then they want schools to tell children that they can have “two mommies.” Is this any more scientific than the immaculate conception or creation stories?

Just because the state decrees something to exist doesn’t make it so.

Somehow, someday, we will abandon the fashionable fictions of the day. In the meanwhile, I am not (yet) obliged by law to pretend to believe them.

Ultimately, the gay marriage thing is a religious dispute, like abortion and creationism. People are taking sides based on which belief system they choose to associate with. Neither side has the entire truth on their side, and I’m not going to get too involved in that debate when there are more important, immediate problems to deal with. It isn’t always popular to point out the emperor’s lack of clothes, but that’s my job where these matters are concerned.

So if you support the Christian side of the gay marriage issue, that’s fine. No skin off my back. Likewise, as I’ve made clear, gay “marriage” will have practically no effect on the institution of marriage and family, so I view it as a peripheral issue. But if you claim to support marriage and family, I’m going to ask for a lot more than religious posturing before taking you seriously. If Christians could block gay marriage today, could they look at the state of marriage in their flock and claim victory? That’s the point. I hope it gets through to people with some influence.

Stallywood August 3, 2012 at 15:14

I think that anyone who thinks that ultimately, gay marriage will not affect us, or that it might even help us, are very misguided. Wrong even. I think that one of the first things that will happen, is that fatherhood will be thrown out of the bus. As in, men no longer needed. Need proof? Just look at all the great kids being raised by lesbians. Hell for that matter , who needs the traditional testosterone poisoned make for a father anyways, you can have two gay men do a better job. Think Im joking? Its already been claimed in studies. Especially that lesbians make better parents. How are you going to be able with a straight face, to claim to a judge, that “my children need me” when you yourself gave the nod to gay marriage, and furthered the belief, that yes, ANYone can raise a child. Men , straight men, not needed.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Centaur August 3, 2012 at 16:00

This incessant handwringing on the MRM about gay marriage is a mystery to me. I see the same way I see the white supremicists, or the SoCons try to use the MRM as a trojan horse to promote their personal issues and grievances.
Mens rights have not been trampled on by gays, its been by women- straight women- who have manipulated straight men to give them power by pretending they would reward said straight men with sex. Straight men stood alongside straight women to remove men from their homes, take their children and marginalize them on every front.
Long before gays were able to come out of the closet- which is a very recent development- women where beginning their program of fleecing men of their money and their children.
Men are supposed to be rational, just, and logical as opposed to emotional, yet here we are in MRM, with men offering nothing but emotional arguments about an issue that does not and will not effect mens marriages- unless they are gay of course.
Just and logical argument to recognize gay marriages legally:
Gays, just like straight people, pay taxes and are “created” with inalienable rights. If govt recognizes the union contract of two straight people who have decided to get married and bestow upon them priviledges, then every citizen who pays taxes and is supposed to be seen as equal under the eyes of the law should have the same benefit. How that person chooses to exercise that contract is of NO BUSINESS to the govt. NONE.
For me, I would like to see the govt out of the marriage business altogether- which is what the MRM should be using this issue to promote. Govt involvement in marriage is what has granted women the power to take your children, money and health. Its what has allowed women to manipulate the law with. If the govt where out of the marriage racket- then women would have no legal power to do shit. Child care and alimony and custody would be a private issue to be resolved amongst two people.. end of story. Churchs and religions would be free to to set whatever rules they want in a “marriage”
What the MRM and Socons want is hypocritical. They want to have a private ceremony at some church, but then they want the govt to recognize that ceremony, they want the govt to reward that ceremony with benefits and legal protections, then they want the govt to ratify that ceremony.
The when the divorce comes they want the govt to leave them alone. Well too bad, you literally signed a contract WITH the govt, you asked for its recognition, you asked for its power to sanctify your private arrangement..well, now the govt has the right to set the terms – because you agreed to involving it.
Ge the govt out of the marriage business. Full Stop. But if you want the govt to coddle and recognize and bless your union, then govt has the duty to offer that service to ALL citizens. Even the ones you don’t like- like interracial marriages, or other religions or even gays…
MRAs are missing a great opportunity here to pull the rug out from under women. Make “marriage” purely a private agreement. THe contract of which defines the terms… so if you get married at a catholic church, then the “legal” agreement of the marriage, the “contracts” terms are set by that church, etc. IN a way, straight men should be seeking “civil unions”.. a private contract drawn by two private parties, which terms they define and abide by legally.
So long as govt certifies marriage, it gets to set the terms, thus it will use that power to screw men over for its own sake and define it in a way that benefits govt, not the parties involved.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Highwasp August 3, 2012 at 16:57

Rev Jesse Lee Peterson for President!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed August 3, 2012 at 18:04

@Centaur

Outstanding comment!

This incessant handwringing on the MRM about gay marriage is a mystery to me.

Mens rights have not been trampled on by gays, its been by women- straight women- who have manipulated straight men to give them power by pretending they would reward said straight men with sex. Straight men stood alongside straight women to remove men from their homes, take their children and marginalize them on every front.

Long before gays were able to come out of the closet- which is a very recent development- women where beginning their program of fleecing men of their money and their children.

And, let me emphasize by repeating – with the enthusiastic cooperation of other straight men.

What the MRM and Socons want is hypocritical. They want to have a private ceremony at some church, but then they want the govt to recognize that ceremony, they want the govt to reward that ceremony with benefits and legal protections, then they want the govt to ratify that ceremony.

The when the divorce comes they want the govt to leave them alone.

This, I think, is the money quote. People, both straight and gay, want the sanction of “the government” (or “the church”) for their actions, regardless of what those actions are. But, by giving themselves over to being psychologically controlled by receiving those sanctions, they make themselves vulnerable to having those sanctions removed. In short, they want the government to endorse or enforce whatever they want to do.

Unfortunately, what “the government” does at any point in time is nothing more than enforce the whims of some petty bureaucrat. I frankly cannot understand why people are clamoring to give brainless bureaucrats even more control over their lives, or conversely try to hold on the exclusive right to have their personal lives run by some fool with a social science degree.

As a never-married, childless, man, I don’t have a dog in this fight on either side. My personal viewpoint is that marriage is like a prison. One guy I know even referred to his wife as “the warden.”

I look at gay people outside the prison clamoring to get in, and I look at some men inside the prison organizing to keep others out. Neither side makes any sense to me at all. I’m quite glad that I never committed the crime to put me there.

Even though there is no MRM (there are a few MRAs, but no coherent MRM) there are some larger philosophical beliefs which I hold which do tilt my attitude toward one side and against the other.

I can’t separate the gay marriage initiative from the implications of gay parenting. The concepts of marriage and parenthood are so tied up together that it is nearly impossible to unsnarl them. Parenthood is not a hobby or a pass-time, for many people it is the most significant task they undertake in life – fulfilling a biological drive that few understand, but driven to it by a compulsion which causes many to place its value above their own lives.

Attempting to replace a biological definition of “mother” and “father” with a social fiction is what I have come to call “The Conehead Initiative.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coneheads) The natural, biological, roles of “mother” and “father” would be replaced by declaring everyone to be an interchangeable “parental unit.”

I can see why fathers like Stallywood do not like this idea, and I am personally just as bothered by the guys who want to fight fire with fire and call for “reproductive independence” from women. In my opinion, the gender war has made both sides equally crazy.

One reason I decided not to have kids was because I did not want to see them taken away from me and “nationalized” and assigned to “parental units” chosen by people who had no emotional or personal investment in them.

Paradoxically, you might say that I like kids well enough not to have any.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed August 3, 2012 at 18:20

Hopefully, some of you will get why this is related. For those that don’t, I hope you get a good laugh.

A DEA officer stopped at a ranch in Texas, and talked with an old rancher. He told the rancher, “I need to inspect your ranch for illegally grown drugs.” The rancher said, “Okay , but don’t go in that field over there…..”, as he pointed out the location.

The DEA officer verbally exploded saying, ” Mister, I have the authority of the Federal Government with me!” Reaching into his rear pants pocket, the arrogant officer removed his badge and proudly displayed it to the rancher. “See this fucking badge?! This badge means I am allowed to go wherever I wish…. On any land !! No questions asked or answers given!! Have I made myself clear?…. do you understand?!!”

The rancher nodded politely, apologized, and went about his chores. A short time later, the old rancher heard loud screams, looked up, and saw the DEA officer running for his life, being chased by the rancher’s big Santa Gertrudis bull…… With every step the bull was gaining ground on the officer, and it seemed likely that he’d sure enough get gored before he reached safety. The officer was clearly terrified. The rancher threw down his tools, ran to the fence and yelled at the top of his lungs…..

“Your badge, show him your fucking BADGE!!”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Anonymous age 70 August 3, 2012 at 19:04

>>I don’t understand why government has any business at all in marriage. Why are marriage licenses required to make marriage “legal.”

Here in rural Mexico, they have what they call Free Union, and which I think is better called Private Marriage. They simply declare themselves married, and it is not the gov’ts business. An old aunt and uncle died 18 months ago, like 3 days apart after over 70 years of private marriage. No one ever hinted they were not truly married. The difference between Free Union / Private Marriage is in the US when a couple shacks up they make it clear they are not married. Here, they say, “We are married This is my spouse.” And, they mean it.

>>Although there was a commenter on Dalrock’s site who claimed some eye popping numbers for California (70%+) and suggested that was why Cali doesn’t offer up such numbers as a state statistic any more – it might call the divorce industry into question. Can’t have that

That may have been me, since I got it on DGM, from Lee. It was actually something like 780 divorces every year for 1000 marriages. Those are cumulative, not the same marriages, hee, hee. They do not give out the numbers but under FOI, they can get the list, if you can get volunteers to count them, a big job. And, allegedly some men’s group did just that.

>>Marriage was and done a long time ago. Cathy doesn’t know it because his wealth insulates him from that reality

Like wealth insulated Sir Paul? Are you sure about this?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Whammer August 3, 2012 at 21:01

Like wealth insulated Sir Paul? Are you sure about this?

Well it did insulate him the same way it did to Tom Ctuise. Under British law he may have had to divide his assets 50/50 with the former wife but he “only” paid her about $30-40 m. I doubt that McCartney is a billionaire but he probably has $500-600m assets so he lost about 5% of his assets.
Cruise has a net worth of about $300m and although in NY his divorce is sealed insiders say he’ll have to pay Holmes $10m so he too has only lost 5 % less of his assets. And that’s probably what he’ll pay over the years in child support and he likely wants to pay it because Holmes is not going to earn any real money as an actress and he doesn’t want his kid when the kid stays with her to be staying in some unsuitable place or going to some public school.

>>Marriage was and done a long time ago. Cathy doesn’t know it because his wealth insulates him from that reality

That’s because the biggest problems are in the middle and lower classes.
Most of the people commenting here are just judging things based on their own little world and limited experience.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
greyghost August 4, 2012 at 00:56

Back from work. I still think the guy is insulated by his wealth because his wife isn’t going anywhere. Even Koby Bryants wife is sticking around. It is by default, hypergamy has no where else to look up and the social status that comes with the union or any number of reasons that millions of dollars allows a woman to see.
I am now all for gay marriage. For there is nothing to defend, there is no marriage, not as it is defined by the way it is legally and socially treated. Just more destruction of the west.
Some one else has already made mention of the fact that Cathy just may be blue pill ignorant. Most guys are until the beast comes for them. And a large chunk of those guys are still blue pill ignorant even after misandry is applied. So what, he does exist and he doing battle from a position of blue pill ignorance with socialist. The real issue to me is the government spokes person (elected official) going after somebody on the basis of PC ness. This whole gay thing is just a side line distraction from the US Government using Fascism as a tool for totalitarianism. (You got your mind right?)
An article “for” gay marriage written with the truth about what marriage is today will be seen as a homophbic attack on the gay community to force them into.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Binxton August 4, 2012 at 03:36

Gays, just like straight people, pay taxes and are “created” with inalienable rights. If govt recognizes the union contract of two straight people who have decided to get married and bestow upon them priviledges, then every citizen who pays taxes and is supposed to be seen as equal under the eyes of the law should have the same benefit.

Your comment is a perfect example of why the whole concept of MRM is a joke.

Homosexuality is deviance. It can never be normal. To advocate on behalf of people whose behavior has no place in a well-ordered, healthy society is to normalize sickness and the abnormal.

Silly terms like “Gay Americans” mock the whole idea of being an American and a citizen. It’s as embarrassing and stupid as “Heterosexual Americans” or “One-legged Americans.” To recognize homosexuals as a category with rights just like any other is to grant legitimacy and approval to what societies have always known to be destructive to the body politic.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
ActaNonVerba August 4, 2012 at 03:59

I enjoyed this article. My pimped out take on these events are as follows.

First and foremost, corporations should stay out of politics and even charity work. Maybe my imaginary world will never happen but just giving my opinion. I don’t want to see corporations taking money from customers (e.g. Jerry’s kids—Lewis not Sandusky..lol) then bragging about how much they “gave” (even if they match with a lump donation it’s almost always a tax game). I don’t want to see corporations running drives against clubbing baby seals, in favor of womyn’s groups, for global warming research, against global warming resarch, whatever. Despite whatever ridiculous law says what, corporations are neither people nor role models. So, in that vain, I think Dan Cathy (and all other corporate leaders) should just STFU. Companies that make chicken sandwiches should just shut up and make their chicken sandwiches, same for clothing companies, food product companies, etc…

Second, the “Chik Fil A Appreciation” and “Same Sex Kiss In” types just look like a carnival of fools to me. Admittedly, part of me is glad that there was some counter to the homo and leftists activists’ shrieking but, overall, the whole thing is just goofy on both sides.

If any good could come from these types of events, I hope eventually it will be that corporations will be boo’d out of doing anything but making and selling their wares or providing their services.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Manlyman August 4, 2012 at 04:29

Bang on Welmer. Love to see the SoCons get their panties in a bunch.

Those on that side of the spectrum need to do some serious soul searching on society’s state of affairs….but I don’t they have it in them.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Binxton August 5, 2012 at 03:51

American August 2, 2012 at 15:04

Binxton summarized a high minded and diplomatic perspective that is worth repeating…

“A healthy, patriarchal society tolerates aberrations like homosexuality, while never officially approving of it.

The difference is that now, society is trying to normalize it, and repudiate what everyone has known throughout the ages to be wrong”

Thanks for the kind words. I made a mistake in my last sentence. It should read: “society is trying to… repudiate what everyone has known throughout the ages to be TRUE,” i.e., that homosexuality is perversion that can only be tolerated at most, not embraced as normal.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
RHJunior August 6, 2012 at 19:59

That’s where the gay marriage opponents screwed up. First, they winked at adultery, then they lionized single mothers by choice. Then, they demanded victimized men pay faithless wives for their transgressions.

On what planet do you live? How much crack do they give you to smoke before writing this? Are you even getting oxygen to your brain?

The people who oppose gay marriage—- Conservative Judeo-Christians— are the same ones who have, since time immemorial, opposed adultery, condemned unwed motherhood, and loudly protested divorce. And they were treated the same way for all of these as they are being treated for opposing gay marriage… as “nazis, bigots, hatemongers, heartless, etc etc etc.”

Chik Fil A didn’t even come out “condemning gay marriage.” They spoke in support of traditional family values. (Which was enough to get the gays’ man-panties in a knot. Tells you a lot about what their real objectives are.)

No, pal, conservatives and Christians are not your enemies. Not by a long shot.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Ben October 3, 2012 at 21:11

” First, they winked at adultery, then they lionized single mothers by choice. Then, they demanded victimized men pay faithless wives for their transgressions.”

Who’s “they”, Conservatives didn’t vote in adulterer’s like Clinton and I sure as heck don’t remember voting for anyone who’s central platform was making men pay for the actions of slutty wives. Last I checked it was the femnazi and mangina democrats who think that men should pay for women’s birth control and believed in no-fault divorce (which, bythe way, is what Cathy was actually replying to when he said traditional marriage). Get your parties straight you ignorant hack!
About gay marriage 52-54% of homosexuals explicitly leave faithfulness out of their vows and here’s the kicker: there are actually intellectuals endorsing cheating among married couples because of it. You think there are problems with cuckoldry now just wait until unfaithfulness is espoused as an ideal instead of a betrayal.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: