Selections from Dan Cathy Post Comments

by W.F. Price on August 3, 2012

I noticed that my post on Dan Cathy and Chick-fil-A sparked a bit of controversy. A lot of readers were disappointed that I don’t support Cathy without reservations. That’s understandable, because there was a pretty good reason to give him our support. The man was attacked simply for speaking his mind, and threatened with legal sanction for doing so. This is a really terrible precedent, and paints progressives/liberals in a dismal tone. I’m pretty angry at those mayors myself, as I live in a very blue city and know first-hand how bigoted people on the left can be in their own strongholds. The last thing I want to see is them using the law to oppress people who disagree with them and getting away with it.

However, I’m frustrated by the focus on gay marriage to the exclusion of other problems. The danger, as I see it, is that this will draw attention away from the real problems with marriage. For the record, I don’t think gay marriage is one of those problems, because it is a fiction for all intents and purposes. It strikes me as an empty gesture to protect marriage by focusing on the least of its problems while ignoring the others.

I thought I’d highlight a few comments and responses to show how different readers interpreted the post in different ways:

NWOslave writes:

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.

They are often the same people, but not always. I don’t think it would be accurate to say there’s a direct correlation between supporting marriage 2.0 divorce theft and supporting gay marriage. Not at all, in fact. Conservative Christians, I would assume, are just as supportive of mother custody and punitive alimony/child support as those on the left. Probably more so in many cases.

I agree that those who want to preserve marriage should hold the line, but going after gay marriage when there are much bigger problems is misguided. If China invaded the US with a million men, would it make sense to ignore their army in favor of securing the Mexican border?

Clydesdale writes:

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.

I’m not dismissing Cathy for his efforts, just his effectiveness. His wealth gives him both security and power, and it would be much better spent reforming divorce and custody law than in opposing gay marriage. The man has given millions to groups opposing gay marriage. Has he ever given one red cent to groups opposing the very laws that make divorce so attractive to women? If he hasn’t, he’s done next to nothing for us.

This is why it’s fair to bring up his wealth and power — it’s relevant.

Rob writes:

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.

Yes, supporting an increase in father custody would make an enormous difference. What are Cathy’s views on that? I get the impression they’re something like this:

“The man should be at work providing for the wife and children.”

Nothing wrong with that view, unless the wife has no accountability, and under today’s marriage regime she doesn’t. Does Cathy support holding women legally accountable for their marriage vows? If so, you wouldn’t know it from what he’s said.

Zed writes:

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.

Lots of good and impassioned comments on this post. I hope it got some people thinking about what’s at stake here, and what will work to effect change for the better.

I view it as my duty to inform, and if that includes occasionally writing a piece that isn’t popular with everyone, so be it. I can only hope that it helped people see another point of view, and maybe think of things in a new light.

{ 44 comments… read them below or add one }

Anti Idiocy August 3, 2012 at 15:27

Many of those who are opposed to gay marriage base their stance on the use of the word “marriage” to describe a particular relationship between people other than one man and one woman. There will probably be objections to the idea of two members of one sex being able to raise a child as well as a man and woman. In addition to (or in opposition to that) what do people think about a national constitutional amendment allowing gay civil unions with all the same rights and responsibilities as heterosexual marriage.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
dragnet August 3, 2012 at 15:57

This is probably going to get me flamed, but I’m going on the record here as someone who supports gay marriage (to the extent the gov’t has any involvement in marriage at all—and I don’t think it should).

I support allowing gays the same civil marriage rights as heterosexuals because I think it’s important to integrate them into the mainstream of American life. Humans are relational beings, and craving to be acknowledged and to know others is a core need. Denying that to a swath of the population is a recipe for creating parallel societies and cultures that may not be conducive to broader social cohesion, and indeed, likely destructive.

Gay culture is a perfect example of what people are pushed to fringes engage in. The parallel culture they formed was one of enormous sexual license and hedonism and eventually spawned the AIDS epidemic, other STD epidemics, rampant substance abuse, shame, guilt—-a generally poisonous and unproductive culture. Worse still, because many of these men couldn’t be honest with the public about their sexuality, a good number of them married women and subjected completely clueless and innocent women and children to their lies, diseases, and worse. The closest has a way of warping and destroying not only the gay people living in it, but their families, friends and eventually significant swathes of the broader society. Permitting gays to marry gives them a stake in the mainstream of American life, and makes it clear that they now have responsibilities to maintain social cohesion just like the rest of us. And that because they are no longer hated and pushed to the fringes, they don’t have form a nasty and unproductive parallel culture. That because they have value, they no have to cling to a self-loathing and self-destructive culture. They no longer have to bring home AIDS to their sham wives or visit gloryholes. They can experience real and true intimacy with the social sanction that we all crave—they can at last be fully human.

While I support open homosexuality and gay civil marriage, I don’t support the destruction of gender polarity and the rise of “faggotry” that is the result of that. And it’s my believe that if it had been okay to be masculine and gay (as it was in many ancient cultures) that gay men wouldn’t have formed their misguided—but somewhat understandable—alliance with institutional feminist power.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jennifer Thieme August 3, 2012 at 16:09

Mr. Price,

I appreciate your support of Mr. Cathy, and I think your observation about the need to reform divorce laws is correct. There is no question that divorce harms the institution of marriage. No fault divorce, which is really unilateral divorce, is a complete failure. Reforming such laws has been tried and is incredibly difficult. It seems that there is an institution of divorce now, and it is resistant to change. Also your “winking at adultery” comment was spot-on.

However, I do not agree that this means the opposition to removing the gender aspect to marriage (aka “gay marriage) is without merit. As much as divorce harms marriage, removing the gender aspect will harm it even more. Historically there has always been a gender aspect to marriage, which is really a procreative aspect. If “gay marriage” becomes institutionalized on a wide scale, we will elevate non reproductive sexual activity to the same level as reproductive sexual activity. The problem is that reproductive sexual activity needs special accommodations: men and women won’t take on the additional burden of producing families with well brought up children without clearly defined institutional support. And such children are needed for the future of society. We see this decay already with the divorce culture. We see it in Europe where whites/Christians are not reproducing themselves. Removing the gender aspect to marriage will contribute to this decline and so should be fought on those grounds.

At any rate, I do appreciate your support of Mr. Cathy even if we don’t quite agree about the necessity of his remarks.

Regards,

Jennifer Thieme

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
dragnet August 3, 2012 at 16:09

I think it’s also worth pointing out that publicly sanctioned gay unions have a long history in the West. “Male-bonding” ceremonies were performed by priests in the Middle Ages with many of the same prayers and rituals used to join heterosexual couples. Twelfth-century liturgies for same-sex unions, for example, involved the pair joining their right hands at the altar, the recital of marriage prayers, and a ceremonial kiss. Eventually, the obvious sexual attraction involved became too much to ignore and increasingly severe anti-sodomy laws were put in place. The point is that sanctioned gay coupling isn’t foreign even to Christendom.

Which makes the traditional conservative outrage all the more laughable. They’re apoplectic over gay marriage which has some history of approval…but avidly stand behind divorce theft and bastardy—vices which have always been frowned upon and never sanctioned.

Dan Cathay and his ilk need to wake up: gay marriage just isn’t that big a deal compared to the destruction that traditional conservatives have enabled. Even if it becomes legal in all 50 states, they only gays getting married will be a few dozen old lesbians. But marriage will still be a joke because of what institutional feminist power has done to it, with the tacit (and sometimes full-throated) support of the church and other tradcons.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
doclove August 3, 2012 at 16:53

I’m against homosexual marriage too as it is against God’s law and would never regard it as any more of a real marriage than I was coerced into doing. That said, Render unto Ceasar’s what is Ceasar’s and unto God what is God’s. Marriage between men and women has proven to be a disaster for children, men and women. Children get the worst of it with men coming in a close second. Homosexual marriage will make a mockery of state sanctioned marriage. Even if a man finds himself wanting to marry and have children which I believe is a mistake, at least only do so inside the church and avoid the state sanctioned marriage. You can only be had for child support and domestic violence that way and not the division of assets of which at least half will be taken by the man. Even then you should have seperate bank accounts and credit cards. I sin against God by Fornicating, but if God can not forgive me and many other men for doing so then he isn’t much of a loving, merciful forgiving God because of the horrific state marriage and/or siring children has been turned into by the spawn of Satan and his human minions on Earth. Emotionally and spiritually, I would be happy to be married, but the cross is too heavy to bear because of the laws, social mores and social attitudes as well as the strict enforcement of these being very anti-male and even worse anti-children, so I choose not to marry and try to carefully(wearing latex condoms) pursue the life of hedonism by seriously attempting to use women as the cum dumpsters most of them are in the First world, Western World and the USA in particular.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
doclove August 3, 2012 at 16:56

I made a typo above. I meant to say at least half the assets will be taken from the man by the woman in a divorce.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Rob August 3, 2012 at 16:58

One thing I always have to chuckle about in regard to this debate is how it all is framed on the word marriage. Canada went through this BS several years ago already, and the arguments are the same – “give them a civil and legally recognized union but just don’t call it ‘marriage.’”

In this regard, the marriage “savers” are correct – there are homosexual activists out there who fully know what they are doing by insisting on it being called ‘marriage.” For example:

“Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so. … Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family, and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. … As a lesbian, I am fundamentally different from non-lesbian women. …In arguing for the right to legal marriage, lesbians and gay men would be forced to claim that we are just like heterosexual couples, have the same goals and purposes, and vow to structure our lives similarly. … We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society’s view of reality.” — Paula Ettelbrick, “Since When Is Marriage a Path to Liberation?”, in William Rubenstein, ed., Lesbians, Gay Men and the Law (New York: The New Press, 1993), pp. 401-405.

“A middle ground might be to fight for same sex marriage and its benefits, and then, once granted, redefine the institution completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution.” — Michelangelo Signorile, “Bridal Wave,” OUT Magazine, December/January 1994, p.161

“It [gay marriage] is also a chance to wholly transform the definition of family in American culture. It is the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statutes, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into public schools, and, in short, usher in a sea of change in how society views and treats us.” — Michelangelo Signorile, “I do, I do, I do, I do, I do,” OUT Magazine, May 1996, p.30

So, the marriage “savers” have a point – there obviously is a subversive element in the radical wings of the gay agenda (and thus, you can see why they have allied with feminists, who also want to radically redefine the definitions of the family). And, much of this radical change is based upon word manipulation – and by making it called ‘marriage’, they can therefore extend their agenda further into society. I wrote a piece many years ago – one of the first I ever wrote actually – called A New Kind of Bigotry. The article shows how, once gay marriage was legalized in Canada, gay activists used it to ram a homosexual agenda into our school system. It was only 2 or 3 years earlier that they were claiming that gay ‘marriage’ would have absolutely no effect on the state of ‘traditional families’ – but as soon as they got their gay ‘marriage’, they passed into law that heterosexual families were no longer allowed to “opt out” their children from homosexual brainwashing in our school system. So, in my mind, there is absolutely no doubt that there are elements of the Gay Agenda that are supporting a Cultural Marxist agenda to radically alter society.

However, as has already been pointed out by other posters here, “marriage” in our culture has already been radically altered and in no way resembles the Marriage 1.0 which the entire concept was based upon in the first place – which was, father custody as a way to bring men directly into the family. While marriage certainly benefited women more than men in the past, the essential element that made marriage was that the children belonged to the father, not the mother. Mothers can have ‘families’ quite easilty, as our single mother culture has well illustrated. But fathers? It’s pretty hard to be a father in the family sense without Marriage 1.0, that is, with presumed father custody. (Marriage designed to provide men with children of their own).

Since none of this exists anymore… then what the hell! Tear the whole ‘marriage’ thing apart, I say, and redefine the living shit out of it. Once you’ve defined the sun as existing on the bottom of the ocean, I really don’t care if you want to tell me that said sun also farts kool-aid flavoured rainbows that protect us from globaloney warming. I mean, the definition of the thing is so fubar’ed already, why not open it up again and redefine it a bit more? Maybe once it is re-opened and being redefined, the real definition can be slipped in there too.

Heh, but anyway, back to my first paragraph about how the argument always boils down to “the word” called marriage, and how the marriage ‘savers’ (saving a bastardized version of marriage) keep whining and snivelling about not calling it ‘marriage’ but giving gays civil unions and legal rights – just not called ‘marriage.”

Well, it always blows my mind that they’ve gotten that far to realize that about Newspeak, but then fail to extend it to what other possibilities are out there.

Instead of saving the word ‘marriage,’ why not just give the feminists and the gays the word and recreate something that, say, has presumed father custody in a male-female reproductive agreement, and simply call this new agreement “egairram”?

The funny thing about Marxism and its dialectical manipulations is that it is not immune to itself. One can use the the same tricks that were used to destroy to also rebuild in the same fashion. Just because they are based in relative truth and manipulate that truth for their own purposes, doesn’t mean that others – like marriage savers – couldn’t use the relative truth to manipulate back towards the real Truth.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
doclove August 3, 2012 at 17:06

Adding to the comments above is necessary. Until Dan Cathy and his likes truly do something to improve the state of marriage for men which will lead to even more of an improvement for the children by extension, then they deserve to lose on the Homosexual marriage issue and it looks like they eventually will even though I too oppose homosexual marriage in religious institution such as the Catholic Church and Christianity of which I consider myself a member. I’m wary of it for state sanctioned marriage but not nearly to the same degree. I think it can be used to show what a mockery marriage has become but they first did this to man and woman marriages. I agree with W.F. Price.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed August 3, 2012 at 19:45

The problem is that reproductive sexual activity needs special accommodations: men and women won’t take on the additional burden of producing families with well brought up children without clearly defined institutional support.

@Jennifer,

An excellent comment overall. The portion I have quoted above cuts right to the heart of the issue. It is the lack of institutional support for the male role combined with massive, and often fraudulent support, for the female one, which has undercut support for the institution of marriage itself.

I wrote a much longer comment, and then lost it when my browser crashed. But, to an outside observer, marriage, particularly what Mr. Cathy claims to support, looks like an exclusive Country Club which is very choosy about who they let in, but once someone has joined shows no concern at all for their safety. Female members always get walked to their cars by security personnel, while male members get mugged left and right while they are coming and going.

It is this situation which made me decide years ago not to join your country club, because it seemed too dangerous, which also leaves me without much concern regarding who you do, or do not, allow to join.

In short, it is exactly the lack of institutional support that contemporary marriage does not provide, which made me decide against it. It does not matter how much you restrict your membership, you will make no progress toward getting men to re-engage until you re-establish some protections for the role of men in marriage.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
David F. August 3, 2012 at 19:53

@dragnet

There was no such thing as “publicly sanctioned gay unions” in Medieval Europe.

You are referencing a tendentious argument by John Boswell that a “brother-making” ceremony blessing loyalty and friendship between men implied the practice of sodomy. Boswell’s thesis is not taken seriously in medieval scholarship, but the media spun a full blown pseudo-history of “medieval gay marriage” out of it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
American August 3, 2012 at 20:03

The American Gender, gender-Raunch community are going to keep perverting law enforcement until relationships between men and women are such a “legal liability” that only the stupid males will “Go there”.
Then American hetero-women will begin to understand the Gender, Gender-Raunch communities agenda is not really in their best interests, and it may be them that start to fight back against the gender-raunch’s perversions of our legal system.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Troll King August 3, 2012 at 20:31

I’m not dismissing Cathy for his efforts, just his effectiveness. His wealth gives him both security and power, and it would be much better spent reforming divorce and custody law than in opposing gay marriage. The man has given millions to groups opposing gay marriage. Has he ever given one red cent to groups opposing the very laws that make divorce so attractive to women? If he hasn’t, he’s done next to nothing for us.

Welmer, I am dismissing him and will continue to do so.

Ask yourself why social conservatives and traditionalists like Cathy support the things they do, especially Gay Marriage.

In my opinion, Gay Marriage is a distraction from the real issues. Most people are too dumb to follow the trends or to properly recongnize and analyze what is wrong with our social and cultural climate. They simply sense that something is off.

By focusing on Gay Marriage, guys like Cathy can rally a base and distract people from what is actually happening. The things that he benefits from.

Note: I don’t buy into any of these conspiracy theories for one simple reason: It isn’t hidden, all you have to do is look and connect the dots to realize that is isn’t a grand design conspiracy. It is nothing more than a bunch of people looking out for their own interests.

If anything, I suspect the reason he got attacked by the left so viciously is due to them recognizing that he is doing what they do. He is no different, in my view, than Biden.

Let’s break it down:

What does Cathy Do? How does he make his money?

He runs a fast food franchise. Fast food is basically retail or to be more exact, it is a part of the service industry.

Now, I am going to be simple with my explanation due to not wanting to pepper this comment with NAWALTS.

If you look at the human collective and how it interacts with economies then it becomes clear to me. We basically have two macro economies that are separated and impacted and function due to our dimorphic sexual nature.

To put it simply:

Women = Service-Based Economy (retail, food and hospitality, law, medicine, politics, etc.. (note: Just because it appears male dominated on the surface doesn’t mean it actually is, peel back the top layer and you find a small army of female paper pushers, lobbyists, secretaries, event co-ordinatores, etc…this is in reference to politics, but is seen in other areas too))

Men = Production+knowledge-Based Economy (STEM, Construction, Drilling, Electrical, Plumbing, Fabrication, etc..)

Now, look at all the triumphant celebration in the last few years about how we have transformed into a emergent service-based economy. All this at the same time as sky high divorce rates, incredibly low marriage rates, sky high single-mother by choice rates, the mancession, etc..

Service economies require cheap labor that is hospitable, that is what women offer en masse. This is the true reason that guys like Cathy will never come out against the divorce racket.

Almost all divorced women need work, even if they didn’t work prior to their divorce, to make ends meet.

To put it another way, this isn’t a bug in the system it is part of the design.

Now, I don’t know to what degree Cathy is conscious of this. I don’t know if he is aware or unaware of the design, which by the way is not a conspiracy but simply powerful interests looking out for their interests, but he is benefitting from it and being that he is so successful I doubt he isn’t aware.

In fact, I think that is why so many liberals are attacking him. They know how the game is played and they see him playing THEIR game at THEIR expense.

In other words, he crossed into their territory. They, these sorts of progressives, don’t like the fact that a man with bipolar views compared to theirs is benefitting off of their hard work and manipulation.

Ultimately, I don’t care whether it is a liberal or progressive or social conservative or traditionalist because they are ultimately doing the same thing. Their only difference is that they have different motivations.

I think Zeds comment on the post is correct:

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.

Marriage has already been destroyed, the only reason gay marriage is brought up is to distract people by creating a witch hunt to give people someone to blame. Women and powerful interests destroyed marriage.

In fact, it is kinda scary how women as a group would destroy their families for the ability to make minimum wage at a fuckin chicken joint.

So maybe I shouldn’t be blaming guys like Cathy, I still am BTW, because all he did was, at most, benefit from holding or helping to hold a carrot infront of womens collective faces who were way too eager to destroy their families for.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
a_guy August 3, 2012 at 21:07

Homosexuality is a sexual disorder. Period. It is not about love, or fairness, or equality. It is about people with a particular sexual fetish that occurs in roughly 1% of the population demanding that the entirety of society reform itself to accommodate their behavior. It is guys who get off on playing with each other’s sh!t. This entire debate is manufactured crap, begun by people whose sole purpose is to destroy Western Civilization and replace it with some “utopia” that would most likely be the closest thing to hell on earth that we could get. Think the idealism of communism versus the actual practice of it in the Soviet Union.

Any of you guys who blame people like Cathy for the state of modern marriage are just projecting. Does anyone here have any quotes attributable to Cathy where he says “man up”, “it’s the fault of men” or any other such thing? I bet not. The guy has done nothing but run a successful business and publicly stand up for his Christian beliefs and half of you want to string him up as if he personally screwed you over in divorce court. You are projecting things on this guy that you have no evidence of being true. You are putting words in his mouth he never said. And the worst part of it is that Cathy is most likely a bona fide ally of men’s rights, but you’ll get out the torches and pitchforks just because of things you IMAGINE he believes.

I simply can’t believe that any serious MRA would not support Cathy here. The whole world has gone insane.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
freebird August 3, 2012 at 21:10

As a person in tough with the older boomers (2nd largest voting demographic)
I can say that queer/lesbian marriage is on of the few perversions that get their old school morality in an uproar.

It is EASY talking points to *couple* the lesbian agenda with unwed mothers,welfare fraud,corrupt churches,and yes-corrupt divorce courts.

To lay down and walk away is to lose the support of that major demographic,the ones the young guys accuse of laying down and walking away on other important moral stances…..

This is a serious chance to show them their brainwashed minds are being further poisoned.
Use it.
Do it for your future sons too.
( Or for a fair chance for a future son..)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
W.F. Price August 3, 2012 at 21:18

Any of you guys who blame people like Cathy for the state of modern marriage are just projecting.

-a_guy

Guy, I’m not blaming Cathy; I’m just saying he’s spinning his wheels. If he wants to fix marriage, gays are not the place to start. I sincerely hope he gets the message.

Professor Woland August 3, 2012 at 21:23

The Men’s Rights Movement needs to learn a lesson from Dan Cathy and the point blank backfiring into the faces of liberals from the Chic-Fil-A cockup. If you have money and access to friendly media it is much harder to get pissed on by better organized and more ruthless adversaries. To me the question is not about gay marriage but whether or not people can to stand up the legal, media, and financial juggernaut of political correctness imposed by the liberals.

Feminists want nothing less than legal supremacy and preferential treatment from greater society and they will pull any dirty underhanded trick to promote their interests. This especially means preventing men from organizing. This assault includes keeping us off the public airwaves, eroding our due process rights, and glomming on to our money and resources. I have nothing against gays in particular but they have, without question, formed an alliance with feminists to advance their own agenda. My rights have been part of the collateral damage and the fact that no one within the gay movement can even acknowledge that is testament to how vicious and partisan they are. They have made me the enemy and now they get to reap the whirlwind.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Johnycomelatley August 4, 2012 at 01:06

Great post.

It’s the equivalent of taxation, imagine a group demanding that only they be taxed and other groups don’t deserve the right of being taxed.

Ram marriage and all that it entails down the throats of whoever want it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed August 4, 2012 at 07:54

I simply can’t believe that any serious MRA would not support Cathy here.

Support him how? By buying one of his sandwiches? Unless he finds a way to keep stirring the pot, this whole incident will be forgotten in a month in this Attention Deficit Disorder culture in which we live.

When wildfires broke out recently in Colorado, thousands of people turned out to fight them and keep them from spreading. They did not wait to mobilize until half the western US was burning.

Yet, Dan Cathy waited until almost half of all Americans were in favor of “gay marriage” to blow this up into an issue for him. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/pew-poll-shows-rising-support-for-gay-marriage/2012/07/31/gJQAJsLSNX_blog.html

We are in the middle of a cultural perfect storm, which has been being built toward for more than 30 years. Fear of sexual harassment accusations was one tool used to drive men out of the teaching profession, beginning back in the 1980s. As feminist women began to dominate teaching, they indoctrinated the kids in feminist beliefs. As kids of my generation got indoctrinated in citizenship and recited the pledge of allegiance to the US flag every day, modern day kids were forced to pledge allegiance ever day to the idea that homosexuality was just another, and equally valid, lifestyle.

The book “Heather Has Two Mommies” came out in 1989.

The story is about a child, Heather, raised by lesbian women: her biological mother, Jane, who gave birth to her after artificial insemination, and her biological mother’s same-sex partner, Kate. At Heather’s playgroup, her family situation is discussed simply and positively, as are those of other children in non-traditional family units.

So, where did Dan Cathy stand in the 1980s on the false accusations of men of “inappropriately touching” their students – which drove men out of education and abandoned children to feminist indoctrination?

In Jan 2006, more than 6.5 years ago, nymag.com published an article on the “cuddle puddle of Stuyvesant High School”

Researchers find it shocking that 11 percent of American girls between 15 and 19 claim to have same-sex encounters. Clearly they’ve never observed the social rituals of the pansexual, bi-queer, metroflexible New York teen.

http://nymag.com/news/features/15589/

It’s highly likely that many of the pro-gay critics of Cathy are alumni of a cuddle puddle somewhere.

The situation we are in is like a homeowner ignoring a sinkhole in his back yard which has been growing for 40 years, and then waking up one day totally surprised that his back porch has fallen off. And, then figuring out that he can’t rebuild it until he does something about the sinkhole.

Before I will even entertain the idea of supporting him, I would have to hear what he plans to do about that sinkhole – and whether he has any solutions to offer other than Bill Bennett’s/Hugo’s suggestion that men whose entire houses and families have already disappeared into the sinkhole “man up” and use their bodies as landfill and throw themselves into it.

I’ll bet $50 that the majority of people involved in the same-sex-kiss-in protests were the product of single mothers.

Maybe he ought to look at that phenomenon as a place to start rebuilding “biblical marriage.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed August 4, 2012 at 08:46

The Men’s Rights Movement needs to learn a lesson from Dan Cathy and the point blank backfiring into the faces of liberals from the Chic-Fil-A cockup.

So, what less can we learn from him – that we would should have picked better, wealthier, parents to gave us a thriving franchise business which could make us wealthy?

If you have money and access to friendly media it is much harder to get pissed on by better organized and more ruthless adversaries.

Yeah, and IF we had some ham, we could have some ham & eggs, IF we had some eggs, that is.

And, IF cows could fly, we would all have to walk around wearing hats with big, very wide, brims. I guess it’s a good thing they can’t, so we don’t have to.

To me the question is not about gay marriage but whether or not people can to stand up the legal, media, and financial juggernaut of political correctness imposed by the liberals.

Feminists want nothing less than legal supremacy and preferential treatment from greater society and they will pull any dirty underhanded trick to promote their interests. This especially means preventing men from organizing.

It is important to understand that FEMINism is FEMININE-ism. The vast majority of women are feminist to some degree. It is extremely difficult for a married man to oppose feminism at all, when he has an undercover feminist agent at his side.

Dalrock has done an unbelievable job of tearing this subject UP, dealing with the incursion of feminist thinking into the contemporary church. I would suggest reading the entire site, starting with “Everyone Knows” – http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/08/01/everyone-knows/ – and his entire series on “Reframing Christian Marriage” – http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/05/20/reframing-christian-marriage-part-5-sex-as-a-weapon/

The biggest thing that has kept men from organizing is other men. Most women, and at least half of all men play for “TEAM WOMAN”, and about the only way to get 3 random guys who even know that there is such a thing as a MRM to agree on anything is to shoot 2 of them.

It really gets ugly when politics, religion, and biology collide. More and more scientific studies are coming out showing that women tend to be more naturally bi-sexual than men. http://news.yahoo.com/eyes-pupil-dilation-indicates-sexuality-225906910.html

The reactions of study participants’ pupils revealed that heterosexual men responded most to images of women and homosexual men responded most to images of men.

Additionally, researchers found that homosexual women responded most to images of women, and heterosexual women expressed arousal in response to both men and women, though they were more likely to choose to watch men.

So, put this together with the numbers for support of gay marriage –
48% of the total population,
65% of Democrats, and
51% of Independents.

Given that African Americans – one of the core Democratic constituencies – are pretty cool on gay marriage, where did the nearly 2/3 majority supporting gay marriage come from?

Answer – single women – the “Julias” out there who want big government to be substitute daddy and husband.

Yeah, if we all had been born to a wealthy family and had a thriving business handed to us, we would have probably been better able to fight this.

But, we weren’t.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
djc August 4, 2012 at 09:11

Professor Woland August 3, 2012 at 21:23

The Men’s Rights Movement needs to learn a lesson from Dan Cathy and the point blank backfiring into the faces of liberals from the Chic-Fil-A cockup. If you have money and access to friendly media it is much harder to get pissed on by better organized and more ruthless adversaries. To me the question is not about gay marriage but whether or not people can to stand up the legal, media, and financial juggernaut of political correctness imposed by the liberals.

Feminists want nothing less than legal supremacy and preferential treatment from greater society and they will pull any dirty underhanded trick to promote their interests. This especially means preventing men from organizing. This assault includes keeping us off the public airwaves, eroding our due process rights, and glomming on to our money and resources. I have nothing against gays in particular but they have, without question, formed an alliance with feminists to advance their own agenda. My rights have been part of the collateral damage and the fact that no one within the gay movement can even acknowledge that is testament to how vicious and partisan they are. They have made me the enemy and now they get to reap the whirlwind.

It’s the equivalent of taxation, imagine a group demanding that only they be taxed and other groups don’t deserve the right of being taxed.

Ram marriage and all that it entails down the throats of whoever want it.

This! The same tactics have been used by feminists and minority groups. Why? Because they work. And the end game is not equality. It’s superiority.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Keyster August 4, 2012 at 09:12

Guy, I’m not blaming Cathy; I’m just saying he’s spinning his wheels. If he wants to fix marriage, gays are not the place to start. I sincerely hope he gets the message.

He’s not trying to “fix” anything, but merely protecting one flank from one very loud and powerful portion of the secular-progressive agenda.

If you really want to understand the GLBTQ “rights” movement in American today please read “After the Ball”. The MRM could learn alot from their insidious tactics, to “transform” America from hetero-normative to morally-relative. “Breeders” are the enemy.

http://www.amazon.com/After-Ball-America-Conquer-Hatred/dp/0452264987

What annoys me is this insistence of (left-leaning) MRA’s to heap equal blame on TradCons for “not trying hard enough” to combat feminist governance. TradCons are not the problem, Secular-Progressive/Cultural-Marxist/Feminists are the problem. Just because some TradCon of note doesn’t speak up for men’s rights, he’s just as culpable as any Liberal.

Don’t you understand?
They want to save the institution of marriage, they just don’t know how. The Secular-Progressive movement owns the industrial media complex, they have a President in the White House (and they control the Senate), and they rule our education system. The Right has been doing nothing but compromising for the last 30 years – – with the victim grievance industry, including feminists.

This isn’t a war of men against women, nor will it ever be. It’s a cultural war to actually SAVE and PRESERVE the relationship between men and women – – which is kind of important in the grand scheme of humanity. If we can only have a central government that will enforce economic and social justice for everyone, we will live in a harmonious egalitarian utopia of love and peace…such as “co-partnering” instead of marriage.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed August 4, 2012 at 09:36

Try again –
“So, what lesson can we learn from him?”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed August 4, 2012 at 13:21

What annoys me is this insistence of (left-leaning) MRA’s to heap equal blame on TradCons for “not trying hard enough” to combat feminist governance. TradCons are not the problem, Secular-Progressive/Cultural-Marxist/Feminists are the problem. Just because some TradCon of note doesn’t speak up for men’s rights, he’s just as culpable as any Liberal.

Don’t you understand?
They want to save the institution of marriage, they just don’t know how.

Oh, Keyster, stop with the “left versus right” bullshit. Both sides of the political spectrum are the enemy of the average man. I generally refer to them as “Crips and Bloods in suits.”

A pox on both their houses!

Both sides have used sexual harassment law to stick knives in each other’s ball carriers – the Dems used it against Clarence Thomas, even though Anita Hill didn’t seem bothered enough by it at the time to not follow him from job to job, and the Reps used it against Bill Clinton. Talk about shooting themselves in the foot! How many congressional leaders did the Reps lose over that dog-fight, when it came out that their own pasts were not Lilly-white?

The average John Q. Public has gotten caught in the crossfire between these two massive political gangs.

I say again, a pox on both their houses!!!

So, they want to “save the institution of marriage”, eh? Well, let’s start with repealing marital rape laws and the Bradley amendment. Even that darling of the right wing, Phyllis Schlafly, realizes what a complete boondoggle the Bradley Amendment is.
http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2006/mar06/06-03-01.html

When our supposedly compassionate federal government pokes its nose into areas that, under our principle of federalism, should be none of its business, the result is often unintended consequences, gross injustices, and of course massive costs. A prime example is the 1986 federal Bradley Amendment, which mandates that a child-support debt cannot be retroactively reduced or forgiven even if the debtor is unemployed, hospitalized, in prison, sent to war, dead, proved to not be the father, never allowed to see his children, or loses his job or suffers a pay cut.

The result of this incredibly rigid law is to impose a punishment that makes it impossible for any but the very rich to get out from under a Bradley debt. Thousands of fathers are sentenced to debtor’s prison (a medieval practice we thought America abolished centuries ago), and thousands more have their driver’s license confiscated (making it extraordinarily difficult to get a job).

There is no requirement that, if and when the Bradley debt is paid, the money be spent on the children, or that the debt be based on an estimate of the child’s needs, or even that the so-called children actually be children (some states require the father to pay for college tuition). The Bradley debt is misnamed “child support”; it is a court-imposed judgment to punish men and extract money from them to support some mothers and a $3 billion federal-state bureaucracy.

If the right wing wants to “save marriage”, then why don’t they do something about dads being made “public enemy #1″? Why don’t they do something about those poor guys who did get married, played by all the rules, and are now being hunted down and placed in permanent peonage?

Why don’t the do something about the dads who come back from serving in the Armed Forces in these stupid wars we have started in the Middle East, and are arrested the moment they set foot on US soil for “child support arrears”?

Why don’t they do something about those guys?

Why don’t they do something about the fact that every interaction a man can have with a woman has been criminialized – from the moment he pays her some “unwanted sexual attention” to when she decides, after-the-fact, that the sexual interaction they were having and which she was giving every indication was welcome and that she was enjoying, was actually “raaayyyyyppppe”?

Why don’t they do anything about that?

Creating a legal fiction called “same sex marriage” and letting anyone apply for it is not going to “destroy marriage”, when, as Jennifer astutely observed above,

The problem is that reproductive sexual activity needs special accommodations: men and women won’t take on the additional burden of producing families with well brought up children without clearly defined institutional support.

when every last bit of institutional support for the male role in marriage has been systematically stripped from the legal system.

Saving marriage is all well and good, particularly when you have someone like me who views that marriage and fatherhood have been progressively criminalized over the past 40 years – with enthusiastic participation of both sides of the political spectrum and both political parties.

One thing that they both have in common, is that they absolutely hate men who are not part of their gang.

And, a third time – a pox on both their houses!!!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
greyghost August 4, 2012 at 18:36

zed you just made keysters point. The so cons are fools for not knowing how to save marriage. the so con are also delusionally saving an instituton that doesn’t exist except in name (marriage) It is just another criminalized interaction between men and women as you have stated. ( it is the truth BTW,That truth is the basis of my support for homosexuals getting “married.”) Actual real marriage is good for men woman and society in general. The cluster fuck we have today called marriage is not good for any body, especially not men. The so cons delusion is the blue pill mind set and is what the femminization of what is normal looks like. Through years of discussion and thought we have learned to see with red pill eyes. The left and right political issue is real both are blue pill the difference is one is doing it on purpose.
Now I may not be as smart and articulate as some here like to think they are but I do know with confidence that removing the blind delusion from the right should be a focus of MRA attention. I’m willing to bet keyster understands that and I understand it and need to step out and say so. The MRM and MRA’s conversion and debate needs to be removing the blue pill delusion from the so cons. The left is doing it on purpose to weaken the individual for socialism. ( feminism is seen as a way to destroy men, and a way to make women dependant on a lie and not their strong man) Socialism is the goal of the left and the cultural saturation of the left with feminism (blue pill brain washing) has prepaved the road to hell with traffic signs for the traditional valued types that in their mind are doing “right” by their god, country and family. PC is a road sign to assist the good travelers on their journey to hell. Look at the what dalrock has dug up on christian highway. We red pillers know it as churchian road. I hope that helps explain the difference with left and right. As it stands now both are working to destroy the west. Only one is blindly thinking he is saving it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
meistergedanken August 4, 2012 at 20:39

Zed wrote: “Oh, Keyster, stop with the “left versus right” bullshit. Both sides of the political spectrum are the enemy of the average man.”

Oh, Zed, stop with the “left = right” bullshit. Seriously, this is one of the reasons why progress is so slow – we keep having to rehash the same tiresome arguments. Just when we get close to achieving consensus on something, or settling some base point from which we could plot a reasonable strategy and move on, some sanctimonious guy shows up, likening himself to Moses down from the Mount carrying the F**cking stone tablets to set us all straight, and he only succeeds in muddying the waters.

How many pieces of evidence do Keyster, and I, and others have to present before we definitively prove that, while the right may be indifferent to the plight of men, the Left is actively hostile to us, and their animosity is unquenchable? For example, did you read my last article here? Maybe not, maybe you are too occupied motorcycling around or shoveling gravel or whatever it is that you do.

This is the parable: we are trapped in a burning house. A conservative and a liberal are standing out by the sidewalk. The conservative probably will look upon the scene with some interest but probably won’t lift a finger to help. The liberal, on the other hand, will shove us back into the inferno as soon as we emerge and then toss a gasoline can into the mix just for good measure.

Zed, I know you are not going to grasp this; you are too old, your line of thinking is rigidly set, I get that. My wife’s grandma is like that: FDR is just the greatest man that ever lived to her, etc. You are a product of your times that will not transcend them. So I say this for the benefit of everyone else here, especially the men on the fence, or the newer readers.

There is a big difference between perpetrating harm and failing to rectify it due to ignorance. If you think the amount of culpability is the same then you are subscribing to a concept of ideological purity that does not exist in this world except for the most brief instants. And you will be a lonely, unhappy and defeatist man.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Whammer August 4, 2012 at 20:43

Guy, I’m not blaming Cathy; I’m just saying he’s spinning his wheels. If he wants to fix marriage, gays are not the place to start. I sincerely hope he gets the message.

Before you and the others here were burned in divorce court or harmed by some fake accusation etc etc how many of you even gave a thought to these matters? Cathy does not belong in the demographic where divorce problems are a big deal and where divorces are handled quite differently from what you know so why should he devote his time or money for what is a problem that you caused yourselves? You were all old enough to know what you were getting into and what the consequences of divorce are. This doesn’t concern Cathy who if he ever got divorced is not going to end up a pauper. These things are a big problem for you so you believe it’s the biggest problem in the world and that everyone in the world should drop everything they’re doing and solve it for you.
The baby boomers solved their own problems and in another generation will all be dead do why would they care about solving your problems?
Go look in the mirror and say this “we have met the enemy and he is us” :)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
W.F. Price August 4, 2012 at 20:56

You were all old enough to know what you were getting into and what the consequences of divorce are. This doesn’t concern Cathy who if he ever got divorced is not going to end up a pauper.

-The Whammer

Oh please. You think a typical guy in his 20s knows the law around these issues?

Sure, I got a few vague warnings, but a lot more pressure in the other direction.

As for Cathy, he purports to care about marriage in general. So why do you make it out as though he’s some wily old fox who’s just laughing at the young suckers?

If that’s actually the case, and for the record I give him more credit than that, then he deserves to be lambasted from coast to coast as one of those truly wicked top hat wearing capitalist types the idiots in OWS conjure up.

zed August 4, 2012 at 20:58

zed you just made keysters point.

In a strange way, that is exactly what I was intending to do.

The so cons are fools for not knowing how to save marriage. the so con are also delusionally saving an instituton that doesn’t exist except in name (marriage)

The left and right political issue is real both are blue pill the difference is one is doing it on purpose.

The MRM and MRA’s conversion and debate needs to be removing the blue pill delusion from the so cons. The left is doing it on purpose to weaken the individual for socialism.

First of all, I think you are giving the left way too much credit. Take away all the actions of the left which are based simply on envy and greed, and there is not much left.

Second, even if they knew what they were doing, which I don’t believe they do, I will still take dealing with malice over dealing with stupidity. If you know that someone holds malice toward me, I can keep an eye on them. Stupid people are simply dangerous to be around because they can destroy you without meaning to.

Third, you cannot take every issue in the world and neatly divide them into two buckets – left and right. If I would go issue by issue with a lot of right-wingers, they would probably find me a lot more right-wing than they are on a lot of issues, but they would still categorize me as “left leaning” based on one or two hot-button issues.

Fourth, I have a lot of historic animosity toward the religious right because I have been going head to head with them since the early 1980s, when they climbed into bed with two of the sickest feminists who ever lived – Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon – over the issue of “teh PR0N.” Churchians know that male sexual desire is pure evil and sinful, except when it goes away and women cannot use it to manipulate men any more. They agreed with MacKinnon and Dworkin that porn was bad – because it would drive men wild with the incontrollable urge to “rayyyyppppe” women. Oh, but wait, 30 years later “teh PR0N” is bad, because it makes men desire women less instead of too much. Well, never mind, they know that “teh PR0N” is bad, and if they keep at it long enough they will stumble across the right reason why it is bad.

Fifth, when it comes to “gay marriage” and “saving marriage” by preventing gay people from getting married, the game is over. The socons have lost. Gallup found that support among voters between the ages of 18 and 34 is at 66 percent. They have totally, and completely lost young people.

And, they have lost the support of a lot of older men. On one of these threads I talked about 6 people I knew in HS who, 45 years later, had 15 marriages and divorces between them. All 3 of the women had been married and divorced 3 times. The men had 3, 2, and 1 marriage/divorces. The man who had been married/divorced 3 times was a minister.

Same-sex marriage is a legal fiction that does not threaten me a bit. Paternity assignment by default – if I don’t get the notice or fail to respond by the deadline – and “imputed income” are legal fictions which scare the shit out of me.

Yes, socons are fools – the biggest fools because they have shot most of their defenders in the backs.

I have put myself beyond their ability to destroy me as much as I can. Taking the red pill now will benefit them a lot more than it will ever benefit me, and not taking it will harm them a lot more than they can make it harm me.

We are now at the stage of endgame. I have a sense that it is going to get really ugly.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed August 4, 2012 at 21:04

How many pieces of evidence do Keyster, and I, and others have to present before we definitively prove that, while the right may be indifferent to the plight of men, the Left is actively hostile to us, and their animosity is unquenchable?

And, how many pieces of evidence do I have to present that the religious right is still playing out the story of the Garden of Eden, believing that women are perfect, incapable of evil, and if something evil happens, that the way to solve it is to find some man to blame it on?

The good news is that I have reached the age where it takes no effort to treat all women like they likely have the plague, so if they want to blame me for the evil that some woman does, they are going to have to track me down, first.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Whammer August 4, 2012 at 21:37

As for Cathy, he purports to care about marriage in general. So why do you make it out as though he’s some wily old fox who’s just laughing at the young suckers?

My guess is that he just made a comment that was picked up and then blown out of all proportion by the media. Hey, he’s the perfect target. A rich white guy(evil) who said something that the homo lobby and liberals didn’t like to hear.
You can be sure if Cathy ran a hotdog wagon instead of a laege business that no one would give a rat’s arse what he said.

And Price, you were not living back in the 50′s or 60′s where you were sort of pressured to get married by a certain age. But even back then there were bachelors aka playboys who did what they wanted.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
AnonymousWolf August 4, 2012 at 23:08

i agree that the mrm must focus on making marriage fair for men first rather than unrelated gay marriage. although i cannot deny that the same-sex marraige issue is the same type of pc social engineering that goes against all logic like feminism and will screw up cohesion even further. its plainly obvious that gays are using the same gender correctedness.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
meistergedanken August 5, 2012 at 13:22

Zed wrote: “- how many pieces of evidence do I have to present that the religious right is still playing out the story of the Garden of Eden,”

Have you submitted such evidence lately – that’s current (i.e., set in the 21st century)? People here keep screeching about Bill Bennet, of course, but he is hardly a power broker of the right. When is the last time he held an important post or was elected to office? He’s just some old guy who gets to write a column occasionally, like George Will or Krauthammer. So he writes a book here and there, so what? Who reads those? There’s a lot more to the Right than the religious part. I know a lot of fairly conservative people who are not religious at all (I myself am agnostic), then there are the libertarian-leaning ones, and the capitalist ones, the nationalist ones and those who are simply advocates for smaller government and less debt. The Tea Party is not dead, it just isn’t getting any press lately (unless you are one of those people swayed by the Rolling Stone/Vanity Fair articles: “OMG, the Koch brothers have totally subverted the movement!”). The religious right are certainly less than half the republican party faithful, and a lot of independents suspicious of government are for all intents and purposes part of the Right, just not party members. It sounds like you are stuck in the 80′s, when they were shouting about the lyrics of rock music.

” I have a lot of historic animosity toward the religious right because I have been going head to head with them since the early 1980s, when they climbed into bed with two of the sickest feminists who ever lived – Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon – over the issue of “teh PR0N.” ”

Hah! So you ARE stuck in the 80′s! That’s pretty funny. I guess I should be happy you are also not bringing up the Vietnam War and the evils of Nixon. Well, two generations of voters have grown up since then, and none of the Republicans I know have issues with porn (although they are uncomfortable with some of the sexualization of young girls as shown in toys and television programs). That’s probably one of the reasons that porn has become a billion dollar industry… I find it telling that you use the word “historic” as an adjective. It’s history, all right. Maybe you can also be angry about Republicans supporting the gold standard as opposed to bimetallism in the 1890′s, or angry about their lassez faire economic policies in the 1920′s.

There are plenty of muslims stuck in the past, too. They are still bitching about the Crusades, even though the last one took place over 500 years ago. Sometimes you have to recognize the situation has changed and move on.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
greyghost August 5, 2012 at 21:29

meistergedanken
The best place to take the conversation is to a place where the mechanics of removing the so con delusion and calling out the so con leaders. i really have no interest in the US looking like Syria. Dalrock is really working on the churchians.
Also We can spend less time discreditting an arguement that brings friction to focused movment to action. Share ideas that can be used by individual men for action would be a good direction to follow.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed August 6, 2012 at 09:04

Have you submitted such evidence lately – that’s current (i.e., set in the 21st century)?

Why, yes, I have, in this very thread -
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2012/08/03/selections-from-dan-cathy-post-comments/#comment-163442

Dalrock has identified one of the major sources of the cancer, and is pounding on it every day. His blog, and some related ones, have spawned a growing circle of anti-Churchian authentic Christians.

I think his best post ever was http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/11/15/40-years-of-ultimatums/

However, in the case of the gender war feminists have made an unspoken agreement with traditional conservatives:

You hold him down while I rob him.

And then, when the robbing is done, they split the loot.

Some of his other high-water marks are –
http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/03/29/women-are-innately-good/

http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/12/03/husbands-submit-yourselves-to-your-wives/

http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/11/18/we-are-trapped-on-slut-island-and-traditional-conservatives-are-our-gilligan/

Quite interestingly, a new Christian men’s blog has recently formed – called the Christian Men’s Defense Network. And, what these Christian men believe they most need defense against is other Christians – or Churchians. The lead article, right now, is exactly what I am talking about – http://cmd-n.org/2012/07/26/the-tyranny-of-tingles-part-2-daughters-of-eve/

Rollo spelled it out so clearly that even most socons could understand it – if they would just pull their heads out of their asses – http://rationalmale.wordpress.com/2012/07/27/pathologizing-the-male-sexual-response/ Rollo’s entire blog is also worth reading.

Socons are very fond of driving a stake into the ground and saying “If you are not on my side of the stake, you are the enemy.” Unfortunately for them, for the past 40 years they have caved in to the ultimatums of the feminists and fallen back, and fallen back, and fallen back, and circled the wagons, and the area inside those stakes has become a tiny fraction of the area outside them.

Then, when they find themselves in a firefight, they look at each other with that blinky-blinky-blinky deer-in-the-headlights look on there faces and ask each other “Why do we have so few allies?”

Churchianity jumped the shark with Mary and Matthew Winkler. Matthew was “a good Christian man” – a minister, no less – in a “a good Christian marriage” to a “a good Christian woman”, who for some strange reason thought that a little bit of “a good Christian sex” was part of the deal.

The phrase “shooting us in the back”, does not get any more literal than the Winklers. Then, after serving less time in jail for murdering her husband than Michael Vick spent in prison for organizing dog-fights, the Churchians supported Mary in gaining back custody of her children from an authentic “good Christian couple” who was still married and who had not considered that the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” really didn’t apply to them – Matthew’s parents.

Everyone knows that Mary was “a good mom.” Killing someone, even her own husband, had no effect on her being “a good mom.”/sarcasm

So, now that it IS happening in their back yard, socons are now out recruiting from the very group of people they have been shooting in the back for years, asking our support?

Trust us guys, we are no where nearly as stupid as you are. No, our names are not all “Pat Tillman” – volunteering to “defend his country” and then downed by friendly fire.

Bill Bennett, who no one has ever accused of being a “leftist”, and Hugo, who no one can judge as anything but a left-wing loony wacko, are singing out of the same hymnbook.

So, as Migu put it – “Go pound sand.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Juan Bautista August 6, 2012 at 15:35

Accountability of wives under contracts of marriage is of no value when their cultural conditioning has taught them that marriage is of little or no value.

It is the responsibility of a man to choose a good wife and to keep her. The state cannot do this, nor are his pleas for state intervention in this regard manly.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
James A. Donald August 7, 2012 at 00:01

> Not at all, in fact. Conservative Christians, I would assume, are just as supportive of mother custody and punitive alimony/child support as those on the left. Probably more so in many cases.

You would “assume” that? Maybe you should check it out. If someone deviates from the New Testament position on marriage, he is not a Christian conservative.

Firstly, it is mighty hard to find any “conservative” Christians. The new testament says: no divorce, except for *female* adultery or lack of virginity, no homosexuality, nor effeminacy, (which I suppose forbids cross dressing or wearing symbols implying homosexuality, mandates don’t ask, don’t tell), no remarrying a divorced woman, (presumably because only women are divorced for fault), and, most reactionary of all: Consent to sex is given once and forever. The wife must honor and *obey* the husband. The husband must do his best to pleasure his wife, and his wife her best to pleasure her husband, even if she is feeling unappreciated, mistreated, or not in the mood.

Refraining from marital sex requires *mutual* consent, hence no such thing as marital rape. Sex only requires the consent of one spouse. If one spouse is in the mood, the other spouse has a marital duty to do their best even if they are not in the mood.

In 1960, every church and every preacher at least pretended to endorse these positions, even if they tended to weasel out of them in practice. Today, it is very hard to find any church or any preacher than endorses these positions, particularly that wives must obey and that consent to sex is given once and forever – perhaps a few tiny embattled congregations that think of themselves as “the remnant”

So no conservative Christians support divorce theft, because if someone deviates from the New Testament position on marriage, he is not a Christian conservative, and the New Testament position on marriage is that women may not divorce, and if a woman is nonetheless divorced, she may not remarry.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
James A. Donald August 7, 2012 at 00:12

> It is the responsibility of a man to choose a good wife and to keep her. The state cannot do this, nor are his pleas for state intervention in this regard manly.

If the state were to refrain from throwing men out of their homes, confiscating their assets, and taking their children away from them, women would be considerably less inclined to divorce.

Back in the days when women had no right to divorce, except for total impotence or abandonment, no woman was ever returned home forcibly, but, to leave their husbands, had to leave their homes instead of forcing her husband to leave his home. Which they were profoundly reluctant to do, so much so that this prohibition of female divorce was widely perceived as highly effective.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
James A. Donald August 7, 2012 at 00:17

> Has he ever given one red cent to groups opposing the very laws that make divorce so attractive to women? If he hasn’t, he’s done next to nothing for us.

As a matter of fact, he has. That is what Christian conservatives do.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jennifer Thieme August 10, 2012 at 20:05

zed,

“it is exactly the lack of institutional support that contemporary marriage does not provide, which made me decide against it. It does not matter how much you restrict your membership, you will make no progress toward getting men to re-engage until you re-establish some protections for the role of men in marriage.”

No fault divorce, which is really unilateral divorce, is the culprit. And I can understand your decision not to marry, I really can.

I read remarks from others here saying, basically, that marriage is already dead. I disagree. I am astounded at how well it’s doing actually, given that one of it’s most important components, the duration component, was destroyed starting in the late 1960s. I’m referring of course to no fault divorce. It removed the presumption of permanence.

I wrote a parody about the deconstruction of marriage just last night. I hope you all enjoy it. Let me know what you think:

http://www.ruthblog.org/2012/08/09/marriage-component-crash-burn/

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jennifer Thieme August 10, 2012 at 21:29

I would like to try one more time to persuade you all the ssm is a definite thread. Have you heard of Lisa A. Miller? If not, please take a moment to acquaint yourself with her situation. I am pretty sure you won’t view ssm the same way after reading this. There is more I can say about Lisa Miller, but her case is a great example of the harms we will be institutionalizing once ssm is widely accepted. I posted this last night.

https://www.facebook.com/TheRuthInstitute/posts/271050903007854

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed August 11, 2012 at 07:08

I read remarks from others here saying, basically, that marriage is already dead. I disagree. I am astounded at how well it’s doing actually, given that one of it’s most important components, the duration component, was destroyed starting in the late 1960s. I’m referring of course to no fault divorce. It removed the presumption of permanence.

I would like to try one more time to persuade you all the ssm is a definite thread.

I assume you meant “threat” instead of “thread.”

That lead to the question “threat to what?” What do you see being threatened that has not already been destroyed?

I’m not giving you a hard time here, Jennifer. I generally agree with what you have said here, and unlike most female commenters who show up here, you don’t seem like a fembot who just shows up to disrupt the discussion.

I’m asking a sincerely curious question in hopes of furthering dialogue – what do you see being left of “marriage” that ssm threatens?

If the expectation of permanence is taken out of marriage (I use the term “durable”) then what defines it as anything except a legally sanctioned hook-up? If we regard it as nothing more than a LSHU, then, yes, “marriage” is doing just fine. I ran into an old friend yesterday who recently got married for the 4th time. There is another guy that works in the same building that I do and we talk regularly when we run across each other taking a smoke break. He is getting ready to get married a 4th time, as soon as his 3rd divorce gets finalized. If we evaluate how well marriage is doing based on how many times men buy one, like Ford Motor company evaluates how well their product is doing by how many times someone buys the same model, then you are right – marriage is doing quite well.

But, from the consumer side, if I bought a house, and it fell down after a few years, and I had to buy another, then another, then another, and keep coming up with down payments because all my equity disappeared when the last house fell down, I would consider renting a much better option.

If someone thinks of marriage as “one spouse for life, or until one of us dies”, then that does not exist any more. “One spouse at a time, until one of us gets sick of the other, and then cashes out and wins cash and prizes (kids, house)” is more of a threat to men – who are the ones furnishing most of the cash and prizes and often go on to spend the rest of their lives in relative poverty – than letting two queers shack up with legal sanction for it. The differences between “civil unions” seem to be nothing more than a name – it would take an electron microscope to figure out what differences actually exist.

Having someone point a loaded gun at you is a “threat.” It ceases to be a threat the moment you get shot and then it becomes an injury.

More men have spent more time in jail and paid more in fines for getting married than they have for selling crack cocaine or cooking meth.

Maybe it’s time for women, and men who still believe in marriage, to start another organization called NORML – National Organization for the Reform of Marriage Laws.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed August 11, 2012 at 08:30

I wrote a parody about the deconstruction of marriage just last night. I hope you all enjoy it. Let me know what you think:

http://www.ruthblog.org/2012/08/09/marriage-component-crash-burn/

Well, one thing I think is that you are socially tone-deaf when it comes to the audience you are addressing. In particular, your treatment of the age component –

The Age Component. Third we have the age component. Gents – we all know how much you love those younger girls! Just think of the delights that await you if this component takes a beating!

Followed by a picture of a girl who looks to be about 5, with the caption “What a happy bride!”
http://www.childmarriage.org/images/Child_Marriage_Bride_cry.JPG

So, your way of convincing men to oppose ssm is to regurgitate the old canard that we are all child-molesters? Do you also support the practice of airlines of not allowing a man to sit next to an unaccompanied child?

Then, there is your treatment of the Number Component –

The Number Component. First we have the number component. If the number component crashes, we’ll have polygamy. Gents – would you love to see this marriage component changed? It’s a lightweight – after all, other cultures have polygamy and we can too!

Now, there you go, again – reciting the old feminist shibboleth about all these “patriarchs” wanting multiple wives. And then, the picture – looks like a South American Indian tribe, perhaps the Yanomamo, also known as “The Fierce People.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yanomami

Approximately 1/3 of all men are killed in wars, fights, and duels – over women and territory. The remaining women have a choice between sharing a husband, or no husband at all – like Kate Bollick chose. Not surprisingly, their cultural values are quite different than western values. A Yanomamo woman told the cultural anthropologist who was studying them, that “If your husband doesn’t beat you, then he doesn’t love you.”

In fact, the number component has already fallen. Do a web search on “Woman marries herself” and you will find that “marriage” has been reduced to “one woman, and a big party.”

I think you should probably not give up your day job and strike out as a writer until you get a better handle on assessing your audience.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jennifer Thieme August 11, 2012 at 13:16

zed – I expect insults from the Left but not from people here. I am sorry you’ve been hurt, I truly am. But your insult regarding my day job was unnecessary, juvenile and weak. You have no right to take your anger out on me. I didn’t create this mess and frankly I’ve been harmed by it as much as you have – probably more. And I’m at least trying to keep it from getting worse for future generations. What are you actually doing about it?

But back to the issue at hand: SSM. SSM will require the replacement of “biological parenthood” for “legal parenthood.” This is both harmful and insulting. The two cannot coexist within the law. With legal parenthood the state will be the grantor of parental rights, not the fact that the child came from your own body.

I am a parent by virtue of the fact that my children came from my body. The state didn’t grant me my parental rights. I’m proud of that and I’m not going to be bullied into giving that up for myself, for others, or for future generations (including future generations of gays children) for any reason, let alone misguided definitions of love and equality.

So where is the harm of legal parenthood? Well, take Lisa Miller who is on the FBI and Interpol Wanted lists for refusing to give up her child (her biological child) to her lesbian lover who is neither related to the child by blood or adoption. https://www.facebook.com/TheRuthInstitute/posts/271050903007854

If you’re an iconoclast then go ahead and try tear the marital structure down by advocating to remove the gender component to marriage. But do not vent your anger on me or insult me. I have not done anything to you except post here with honest intentions.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jennifer Thieme August 11, 2012 at 13:27

“If someone thinks of marriage as “one spouse for life, or until one of us dies”, then that does not exist any more.”

It does exist with most of the people who get marriage – around 60%. That’s what I mean when I say that marriage has been harmed with no fault divorce but not destroyed.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: