tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3390382704873671828.post1836183398660207348..comments2023-11-03T07:23:30.909-05:00Comments on The Monarchist 2.0: First on the road to hell?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger49125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3390382704873671828.post-3025136337966740712007-12-08T22:45:00.000-05:002007-12-08T22:45:00.000-05:00Perhaps McDonalds could sell kebabs, and buyers co...Perhaps McDonalds could sell kebabs, and buyers could support the American globalisation of Islam.Stevenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05321133627941151860noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3390382704873671828.post-19109969124338130132007-12-08T21:06:00.000-05:002007-12-08T21:06:00.000-05:00Sorry, buying a kebab is supporting Islam? One of ...Sorry, buying a kebab is supporting Islam? One of the single stupidest comments I have ever read. Its grilled meat in bread for Gods sake, people were making it before Christianity or Islam had even begun.Lord Besthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08505734600505832039noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3390382704873671828.post-23587686100373477112007-12-08T12:47:00.000-05:002007-12-08T12:47:00.000-05:00Urban, and many suburban areas, are in a lot of tr...Urban, and many suburban areas, are in a lot of trouble.<BR/><BR/>Before you leave England, though, you must see Oxford on a sunny day, and the Cotswolds. There are problems in parts of Oxford, but the two of them will restore some of your faith in our future (even if we're going to have work jolly hard for it).<BR/><BR/>The tragedy is, though, that it isn't just a city-centre thing. It's not just like the old Times Square; an unusual, highly out of the way, highly urban, fractured environment. The town centres of sleepy, prosperous market towns run orange with vomit and blood, and are just as bad as the centre of some run-down council estate dump.<BR/><BR/>The rot spreads.mrcawphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01762566258901538306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3390382704873671828.post-8094158440723981312007-12-08T08:28:00.000-05:002007-12-08T08:28:00.000-05:00As an Southerner, a Catholic, a Monarchist, an agr...As an Southerner, a Catholic, a Monarchist, an agrarian, and a sane person, the last months that I have spent studying in England have been a great shock. I wasn't expecting Arcadia, but I am amazed at the deterioration.<BR/><BR/>Every night the streets around town are full of drunken 18 year olds who seem unable to say anything but the f-word. They dress in a manner, that in a better age, not even the prostitutes would consider proper. Manchester sees 30 armed men walking around town and firing shots and nothing is done. <BR/><BR/>Last night, I came to a sad realization. I was looking for some food at 9:30pm. The choice was one of the Kebab shops or McDonald's. Support Islam or support American Globalism? Catch-22 indeed. As posted above, the filth that passes for American "culture" these days (which I think we all recognize as not really being American) is a major part of the problem. <BR/><BR/>I really feel sorry for the British. It is so sad, but then again. It is coming to my home as well. Christendom must triumph.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3390382704873671828.post-34000863028114935232007-12-07T04:25:00.000-05:002007-12-07T04:25:00.000-05:00I think everybody should be allowed to buy a car a...<I>I think everybody should be allowed to buy a car and drive it, including bikers.</I><BR/><BR/>And my bike is a car, because I choose that definition, and so I'll go and register my bike as a car.J.K. Baltzersenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00096616644588479917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3390382704873671828.post-11847888804492984272007-12-06T22:29:00.000-05:002007-12-06T22:29:00.000-05:00The only way for me to agree with most of it would...The only way for me to agree with most of it would be to twist it into something that Pitt most likely did not intend when writing it.<BR/><BR/>"We strongly affirm the integral place of the natural family in our common life, affirming marriage and family life as the foundation of society. We consider that the natural family, and the marriage which binds it together, is entitled to the highest consideration and the protections of the civil government."<BR/><BR/>See, I could easily use that to promote same-sex marriage, but I won't, as I know that Pitt did not mean "natural family" to mean anything other than a man, a woman, and their children joined in what was most likely a church setting.Stevenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05321133627941151860noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3390382704873671828.post-36906429243259117442007-12-06T22:03:00.000-05:002007-12-06T22:03:00.000-05:00You... generally... disagree with it?I hope I am n...You... generally... disagree with it?<BR/><BR/>I hope I am not thought melodramatic when I say it is the kind of political, moral, cultural and historical manifesto that I would gladly die trying to achieve. In it - or similar conclusions and age-old principles, fortified in the face of modern horror - lies the only way out of this present mess we are in.mrcawphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01762566258901538306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3390382704873671828.post-63381392403790025982007-12-06T21:58:00.000-05:002007-12-06T21:58:00.000-05:00I should also say that this is the first time I've...I should also say that this is the first time I've actually seen real debate over the issue. Usually, it just denigrates into "God says so" and "Icky" on one side and "No he doesn't" and "so are you" on the other. I'm quite pleased.Stevenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05321133627941151860noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3390382704873671828.post-4475169141164359002007-12-06T21:53:00.000-05:002007-12-06T21:53:00.000-05:00I have, and I generally disagree with it.I have, and I generally disagree with it.Stevenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05321133627941151860noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3390382704873671828.post-4606761725783577842007-12-06T21:35:00.000-05:002007-12-06T21:35:00.000-05:00Well. We obviously have very different conceptions...Well. We obviously have very different conceptions of rightheous government.<BR/><BR/>Incidentally, have you read Pitt's Radical Tory Manifesto on the main page...?mrcawphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01762566258901538306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3390382704873671828.post-83129552199062677882007-12-06T21:32:00.000-05:002007-12-06T21:32:00.000-05:00I'm not trying to make anything sound natural. I'm...I'm not trying to make anything sound natural. I'm trying to state why the state should grant protections to that couple. It could be unnatural and hideously contrived, and I would see no reason for the state not to unless doing so would do measurable harm to a specific person, set of persons, or their rights to do as they so please.<BR/><BR/>"Also - can't you find anything other than these weak hinges for your argument?"<BR/><BR/>Two people want to be married. The state says no. Why should the state value one couple more than another when there is no quantifiable reason not to? That is my argument.<BR/><BR/>My arguments re children are in response to your statements that the primary reason for <I>legally-recognized</I> marriage is children, when clearly it is not so, otherwise infertile or post-menopausal couples would be prohibited from being married, and all marriages would dissolve upon menopause of the woman so that the man could go find somewhere else to "spread his seed," so to speak.<BR/><BR/>I'm talking about the law and its protections, not anything else. I don't care about any arguments other than why one class of couples should have different rights <I>under the law</I> than another.<BR/><BR/>What is "socially acceptable" or "traditional" shouldn't factor into an individual's <I>legal</I> rights.<BR/><BR/>I don't want the government of a country I'm in to tell me what a "social experiment" is or isn't. That is the role of moral authorities such as churches or other groups. My ideal government is the one that does not interfere in my rights to do as I please (whether "unnatural" or "odd" or anything else) and be recognized as such unless I am doing measurable harm to someone or their rights.<BR/><BR/>There is no good reason that the <I>law</I> should value one set of people over anotherStevenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05321133627941151860noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3390382704873671828.post-2812519006060602922007-12-06T20:06:00.000-05:002007-12-06T20:06:00.000-05:00Stop!Stop! Stop! Stop!(Okay, in passing, and closi...Stop!<BR/><BR/>Stop! Stop! Stop!<BR/><BR/>(Okay, in passing, and closing, hopefully: homosexual couples can never have children, infertile heterosexual couples, of course, often can, whether through chance or science, as many hope. Those who resolve never to have children also often change their mind. Etc. Also - can't you find anything other than these weak hinges for your argument? You aren't putting forward a positive case, but one based on snivelly little qualifications and exceptions. You are also hilariously odd and unconvincing in trying to make gay marriage seem casual and just as natural as sneezing. At least admit that it is a leap, and then try and justify it. We aren't likely to be hoodwinked).mrcawphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01762566258901538306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3390382704873671828.post-10680101942805185182007-12-06T20:00:00.000-05:002007-12-06T20:00:00.000-05:00I was slightly insulted, that's why I directed it ...I was slightly insulted, that's why I directed it back at you as well!<BR/><BR/>(Ha Ha!)<BR/><BR/>I don't think whether or not a couple can have children should matter as to their legal rights.<BR/><BR/>If a couple knows going into marriage that they <I>cannot</I> have children, then they are by your logic the same as homosexuals, whether accidentally or not. The only reason you make homosexuals a separate class is because it's much easier to look at a couple and tell if they are of the same sex then whether or not they can bear children.<BR/><BR/>Arguments like this are why I think the best situation is to take away legally-defined marriage and let churches, individuals, and whosoever wants to to define the word "marriage."<BR/><BR/>Considering common law marriage was recognized until comparatively recently, I think it's safe to say that recognizing only state-supported marriages as unions deserving of legal respect is an "exotic, contrived social experiment."Stevenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05321133627941151860noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3390382704873671828.post-43796404592872940832007-12-06T19:51:00.000-05:002007-12-06T19:51:00.000-05:00You do? I am glad you are so self-aware and humble...You do? I am glad you are so self-aware and humble; I had thought you would have been insulted by the description.<BR/><BR/>(Ho ho!)<BR/><BR/>Again, re: fertility. Homosexuals INHERENTLY cannot have children. Infertile heterosexuals ACCIDENTALLY cannot. Your arguments are hinging on the most trivial and weak things.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, it seems clear that you wish a bargain with the world and I don't. I have given my reasons. I don't think your arguments really justify the same kind of exasperation as I have occassionally expressed. All you have are very weak, tendentious, slightly begging, illogical propositions. It is fun, but a little tiring, exploding them out of the water one by one. Perhaps we should move on...?mrcawphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01762566258901538306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3390382704873671828.post-86671780587176955662007-12-06T19:48:00.000-05:002007-12-06T19:48:00.000-05:00"You clearly don't understand marriage, then, if y..."You clearly don't understand marriage, then, if you believe that."<BR/><BR/>I don't care about understanding what individual views on marriages are. I care about the state choosing which couples are somehow deserving of more legal rights than others on the basis of the sex of each partner.<BR/><BR/>Like I said, abolish the artificial legal construct called "marriage" and be done with such arguments. You want to call yourself "married", have a ceremony, etc. Knock yourself out and leave the state out of it for good and for all.Stevenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05321133627941151860noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3390382704873671828.post-58795370900987405982007-12-06T19:45:00.000-05:002007-12-06T19:45:00.000-05:00Why are infertile couples "statistically insignifi...Why are infertile couples "statistically insignificant" but homosexuals aren't? According to you earlier, only 1-2% of people are homosexual, and I would, if forced to guess, say that's the same as or less than the number of infertile couples or couples that are completely opposed to the idea of having children.<BR/><BR/>I'm talking about the legal rights conferred by the state on a form with the word "marriage" at the top. Inheritance rights, tax rights, etc. Those should be the same for all couples. Whether or not you call it a true marriage should be irrelevant in the eyes of the law.<BR/><BR/>At this point, I support the complete absence of the state in that, and support allowing people to designate any person, be they a spouse, partner, family member, or friend as a legal heir and proxy, thereby getting the state out of such a matter. The only thing that leaves out is certain tax situations in certain countries, and that can be changed.<BR/><BR/>Sodomy:Homosexual::Vaginal intercourse:Heterosexual<BR/><BR/>"It's useless having this debate here, and even more useless having it with someone who is very clearly willing to drag society and the past into whatever waters he believes best, even whilst vast fogbanks of ignorance and immaturity surround him."<BR/><BR/>I feel the same way.Stevenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05321133627941151860noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3390382704873671828.post-38483835811137146842007-12-06T19:23:00.000-05:002007-12-06T19:23:00.000-05:00You clearly don't understand marriage, then, if yo...You clearly don't understand marriage, then, if you believe that.<BR/><BR/>The very premise of marriage is a contract between two people on the one hand, and those two people and the state and wider society, on the other. The bands of marriage being read, the call for witnesses, the legal rights and duties bestowed and imposed in consequence, the very idea of "Mr and Mrs", etc, etc, all flow from that.<BR/><BR/>It's useless having this debate here, and even more useless having it with someone who is very clearly willing to drag society and the past into whatever waters he believes best, even whilst vast fogbanks of ignorance and immaturity surround him.<BR/><BR/>As for "monogamous sodomy" - the whole point is that, divorced as homosexuality is from reproduction, heredity, complimentarity, etc, it can never be anything more than that. But of course heterosexual marriage is. (Regardless of statistically insignificant exceptions, such as infertility).<BR/><BR/>Look. Gay marriage is bizarre. It is extraordinary that gays even want it, letalone get it. We might as well have a binding agreement between trapeize artists called marriage, or a model train club called marriage. A contract, founded on affection, does not a marriage make. You might eke it out as a parodic shadow of a marriage, but you will have toppled and redefined the original thing that cast that shadow, and soon find yourself with nothing.mrcawphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01762566258901538306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3390382704873671828.post-69500765010766139992007-12-06T19:14:00.000-05:002007-12-06T19:14:00.000-05:00"As for chromosomes and whatnot, the trifling gene..."As for chromosomes and whatnot, the trifling genetic difference between gays and hetereosexuals you are trying to posit: that's a no-hoper, too. Aren't we about 2% of DNA off from being cabbages, or something, after all? In genetics, little is large."<BR/><BR/>I was referring to the two people in the car being males or females. I hope you'll agree that their chromosomes are different!<BR/><BR/>"Monogamous sodomy? It is NOT the same as marriage, and never will be, even if you can persuade a few people to politely and condescendingly agree with you that it is."<BR/><BR/>In the legal view, it is the same in Canada and several other countries or federal jurisdictions.<BR/><BR/>I don't care about anything but the legal view. Churches and popular culture and what personal views of marriage are should matter not in the view of the law.<BR/><BR/>"Monogamous sodomy" relegates homosexuality to a mere act, while calling heterosexual relationships "marriage" grants them some higher status just for their genitalia.<BR/><BR/>"My own view on this divisive matter is that the state should leave the marriage business to the Churches, lest it undermine the institution through tinkering. The state has no business defining "marriage", if by defining it they are seeking to change the traditional definition. They should leave it well enough alone, and if they can't, they should get the bloody heck out of the way, and leave us to our definitions."<BR/><BR/>I agree that the state shouldn't be involved in defining marriage. They should have some kind of civil partnership for legal purposes and nothing else.<BR/><BR/>Unfortunately, I don't see a marriage abolition bill coming up in any countries.<BR/><BR/>What "marriage" is should be up to the couple and, if applicable, their God(s).Stevenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05321133627941151860noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3390382704873671828.post-80914587949405713832007-12-06T18:13:00.000-05:002007-12-06T18:13:00.000-05:00My own view on this divisive matter is that the st...My own view on this divisive matter is that the state should leave the marriage business to the Churches, lest it undermine the institution through tinkering. The state has no business defining "marriage", if by defining it they are seeking to change the traditional definition. They should leave it well enough alone, and if they can't, they should get the bloody heck out of the way, and leave us to our definitions.The Monarchisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10362198840081512460noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3390382704873671828.post-83180215977228734252007-12-06T16:07:00.000-05:002007-12-06T16:07:00.000-05:00Okay. This is making no sense now. It seems to me,...Okay. This is making no sense now. It seems to me, in a kind of closing statement, that the burden of proof rests with the homosexuals - and heavily, dreadfully, absolutely, everlastingly heavily with them. I still have not heard anything better than appeals to sensitivity, sympathy and equivalence, all of which are pretty thin stuff. As for chromosomes and whatnot, the trifling genetic difference between gays and hetereosexuals you are trying to posit: that's a no-hoper, too. Aren't we about 2% of DNA off from being cabbages, or something, after all? In genetics, little is large.<BR/><BR/>Monogamous sodomy? It is NOT the same as marriage, and never will be, even if you can persuade a few people to politely and condescendingly agree with you that it is.mrcawphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01762566258901538306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3390382704873671828.post-46236428483461005082007-12-06T15:11:00.000-05:002007-12-06T15:11:00.000-05:00"Since we in this day and age are well into this b..."Since we in this day and age are well into this business of redefining terms, why not say that my bike is a car?<BR/><BR/>After all, it is discriminatory that I cannot truthfully say I have car. So let's redefine terms, and I can say I have a car with no problem at all."<BR/><BR/>What's discriminatory is being told by the state that no matter what your car is, it can't be registered or driven on public roads because the chromosomes of the passengers happen to be the same.<BR/><BR/>I think everybody should be allowed to buy a car and drive it, including bikers.Stevenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05321133627941151860noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3390382704873671828.post-20669683511832094172007-12-06T11:25:00.000-05:002007-12-06T11:25:00.000-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3390382704873671828.post-28117429952956188052007-12-06T05:28:00.000-05:002007-12-06T05:28:00.000-05:00Since we in this day and age are well into this bu...Since we in this day and age are well into this business of redefining terms, why not say that my bike is a car?<BR/><BR/>After all, it is discriminatory that I cannot truthfully say I have car. So let's redefine terms, and I can say I have a car with no problem at all.J.K. Baltzersenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00096616644588479917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3390382704873671828.post-61159524128855831312007-12-06T05:19:00.000-05:002007-12-06T05:19:00.000-05:00Well I am glad there was a happy ending after all!...Well I am glad there was a happy ending after all!mrcawphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01762566258901538306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3390382704873671828.post-30760573903921518852007-12-05T23:32:00.000-05:002007-12-05T23:32:00.000-05:00Lord's Best and Feldon:Send me an email to themona...Lord's Best and Feldon:<BR/><BR/>Send me an email to themonarchist "at" rogers.com<BR/><BR/>If you are interested in contributing.<BR/><BR/>Yours aye,The Monarchisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10362198840081512460noreply@blogger.com