The Case For Secular Social Conservatism Part I: Against Gay Marriage

A society which tolerates licentiousness and decadence will rot. Although it seems to work alright for some, a wild and crazy personal life does not make for a good societal model. Some people can handle drugs, most cannot. The same goes for homosexuality, multiculturalism, and feminism. These things are not good in general. They are not for mass consumption.

Secular social conservatism is about recognizing “human nature,” and by that I mean the average human’s biological tendencies. Sure there are outliers who can be functional, productive, and socially well-adjusted while simultaneously leading lives of filth and vulgarity, but that simply can’t work on a macro scale. Most people aren’t built that way.

Let’s start with the gays. The gay agenda has destruction written all over it. The fagification of the Western world looks like a foregone conclusion, but let’s go ahead and make the case against it now while we’re still somewhat free to do it… for posterity’s sake. Eventually detractors of the gay agenda will be entirely silenced, ushered into prisons where they will be subjected to — you guessed it — buttrape.

Where is the argument against the gay agenda that is based on secular rationality? We clearly need one. Christianity isn’t clear enough in its condemnation of homosexuality and the overemphasis on forgiveness and tolerance can be seen as downright counterproductive in this struggle. Invoking Jesus/The Bible works less and less. Christians are becoming more and more forgiving, which seems to be Christ’s central message anyway. This tolerance fetish isn’t getting us anywhere. At least Christ was on the right track when he said that marriage should be for hetero couples. It’s understandable that Jesus wouldn’t directly challenge pervasive gay culture or the idea of queer marriage. These are modern bourgeois concerns. How could Christ predict that society would forget about the whole point of marriage and guys would start trying to marry the dude they hooked up with at the Lady Gaga concert?

So if God doesn’t care, what’s so wrong with a pro-gay culture, or even a society that’s neutral towards the homosexuality? A lot. Gays carry more diseases, mental illnesses, and have shorter lifespans. They don’t create their own children, and children are necessary for the continuation of the species. This lack of natural children leads gays to tend to have high time preference. They are less invested in the future of society because they won’t be passing on their seed. Grand cultural experiments that may have terrible repercussions are fine by them, their grandchildren won’t be around to see the results.

21st Century queer culture is a blight on society, pulling down hallowed social institutions faster than leather pants in a gay club men’s room. The gay culture is waging an assault against traditional masculinity, it is a contributing factor in the feminizing of the West. Flamboyant gay culture breeds weakness. Society has an innate desire to keep homosexuality on the fringes for this very reason. In earlier times if you were going to be a homosexual you needed to keep it quiet. Knee-jerk conservatives have such a strong revulsion to gayness because most humans are hardwired to be repulsed by gays. Masculine homosexuals have existed in history, but the modern gay movement celebrates the complete feminization of men.

Today’s gay activists have embarked on a destructive mission to make homosexuality socially acceptable to mainstream society. They are an organized force. Their power must be recognized. The gay agenda is real. The might they wield is disproportionate to their numbers. Gays are still a tiny demographic but the airwaves are full of cultural faggotry. The gayness in Hollywood movies and on TV is pervasive, all encompassing, ubiquitous. Not every minority is sacred and entitled to redefine time honored social traditions of the majority. The majority has rights too.

Despite what you may hear about the Greeks, homosexual love has been roundly rejected throughout history. The Greeks frowned on sex between male peers. If respectable men were to engage in sodomy in ancient Greece they had to be the pitcher and their catchers had to be effeminate younger men or boys. It was not cool to be a flaming faggot.

Human nature is real and it has definite characteristics. We are not infinitely malleable. Societal norms and governmental institutions that revolt against nature will have calamitous results. When this happens the cultural left will be shocked by the repercussions of their grand experiment, as if nobody warned them it would happen.

Even the gay world has started a backlash against outlandish sexual degeneracy. Mainstream gays don’t like the furries or the asexuals and feminist dykes don’t like transsexual “girls” (ex-dudes) that complain about discrimination when other minge munchers won’t touch their freakish sexual apparatus. The hilariously long acronym LGBTQA is currently inscribed above college offices across America. How many more letters can we add on? How much more absurd can we get? When do we remind them that they’re weirdos? When do we say that broad public acceptance isn’t for them? You’re here, you’re queer, now shut the fuck up and get back in the closet.

One powerful tactic that LGBT activists are using to penetrate society’s anus and spew forth disease ridden concepts is “special interest” legislation. It is now a hate crime to stand against the gay agenda. The gayness has seeped so deeply into western education that gay teachers, “queer theory” classes and “gender neutral” classrooms are becoming the norm. And the top item on the gay agenda — queer marriage is a forgone conclusion. State subsidization of homosexuality is just around the corner if it’s not here already.

If the State won’t cuff you for slandering homosexuals, they will take care of you themselves with vicious roving “lavender posses.” Decry their undue influence and you will be terrorized by glitter bombs and death threats. Ask them to tone it down and they’ll parade through your town on floats swinging their dongs around until you submit. Try not serving homosexuals at your restaurant and you’ll have a gay kiss-in on your hands.

Gay marriage is a huge debate right now. It obscures a larger issue, but let’s deconstruct it nonetheless. A key reason why good secular arguments against gay marriage fail to gain traction is because they are complicated. You must first grasp the purpose and importance of traditional marriage and then understand how gay marriage undermines it. This is too much for the average American. It’s so much simpler to just say “GAWWWD CONDEMNS IT Y’ALLL!” Knee jerk conservatives have a gut instinct that it’s wrong, but can’t come up with good arguments against it. The right wing argument against gay marriage is weak because run of the mill conservatives are not capable of discerning the more fundamental issues at play. They buy into the egalitarian ploys and PC framing of the left. The true value of marriage is absent from conservative arguments.

The context, the fact that heterosexual marriage is already on its deathbed, is left out. Social conservatism has been dealt blow after blow, and gay marriage is just the icing on the cake. Gay marriage is yet another gut punch to the institution of marriage. In a world gone egalitarian an exclusive, patriarchal institution like traditional marriage is a sitting duck. It’s VILE DISCRIMINATION! Modern marriage has been rendered meaningless. It’s just another club that everyone can get into with no particular purpose or reason. The debate rages over a dying institution gasping its last breaths.

But just because marriage appears to be down for the count doesn’t mean I don’t have good reasons for wanting it to rise again. Sure traditional marriage is practically a corpse, but we don’t have to piss on it. Let’s have some reverence for a lost establishment that has given us so much. As a good rule of thumb we should be loath to meddle with ancient traditions. Heterosexual marriage has been revered for thousands of years. It has historically been a valuable social institution in which individual desires were to be set aside for greater concerns such as cultural, familial and genetic continuation.

The left is constantly crying “DOUBLE STANDARD.” If men and women can get married, why can’t two womyn? This is comparing apples and oranges. Marriage should be for competent heterosexual adults. They say we’re all consenting adults, and that two consenting adults in love should be able to marry. But this argument reeks of a poisonous individualism. Society is not obligated to treat homosexuals the same way that it treats heterosexuals because they are not equal or the same. One relationship is constructed to continue human civilization, the other is not.

“True justice does not mean treating situations the same… it means treating situations appropriately.”

I used to come from a position of tolerance and libertarian acceptance of gayness, but generally speaking gays are not libertarians, they are totalitarian humanists. Gays demand cultural acceptance. They want to modify the mainstream. They want to make society conform to their unnatural ways.

“With respect to libertarian eccentricity, the dream of an absolute private freedom is one of those visions that issue from between the gates of ivory; and the disorder that they would thrust upon society already is displayed in the moral disorder of their private affairs. Some present here will recall the article on libertarianism in National Review, a few years ago, by that mordant psychologist and sociologist Dr. Ernest van den Haag, who remarked that an unusually high proportion of professed libertarians are homosexuals. In politics as in private life, they demand what nature cannot afford.” — Russell Kirk

Gay advocates are always arguing that conservatives have failed to demonstrate how legally recognizing gay marriage will harm traditional marriage. It seems pretty obvious to me. You drag a hallowed establishment through the mud and society ceases to benefit as much from the institution. The law instructs, and also follows, social trends. Codifying queer marriage into law will reinforce the degradation of Western culture. Most people are slightly disturbed at the thought of homosexuality, but they push this feeling aside in order to be good liberals. People equate homosexuality with deviance. Many are repulsed by it. Taking a key social construct and associating it with what is widely regarded as a perversion is obviously harmful. Queers are not appropriate for marriage.

People won’t take traditional marriage seriously when everyone is allowed into the club. Faith in traditional marriage is undermined by gay marriage (among other things). Liberals will argue that straights are allowed to get married without procreating, well I say we should oppose too. People that are not at least planning on having children shouldn’t be allowed to marry either. Only procreative unions which carry on civilization are worthy of society’s gifts (state benefits) and the title of “marriage.” A successful society that wants to stay that way must incentivize the continuation of a high quality lineage.

If it’s about the legal benefits of marriage and not the cultural institution itself, why not be satisfied with marriage-like civil unions? Why do gay activists feel the need to fully overturn a millennial institution for such trivial reasons? Not content with Civil Unions that could have the same benefits, they want to besmirch the time-honored institution of marriage itself. Go ahead and lobby for laws that require hospitals to allow visits from gay lovers. You don’t have to redefine the institution of marriage to get that. Bugger your buddy on your own time and in the privacy of your own home, but don’t make the community endorse the whole sordid affair by calling it “marriage.” There is no reason for this other than to rub your lifestyle in society’s nose.

Marriage is a covenant created between two adults so that they will provide for the needs of their offspring and create productive members of a future society. Denying the value of traditional marriage is shortsighted. Who raises the most well-adjusted and successful people? Stable married heterosexuals. A wealth of research demonstrates the marriage of a man and a woman provides children with the best life outcomes. Children raised in hetero-marriages that stay together outperform other family arrangements.

Marriage doesn’t fit the gay lifestyle. Gay men tend to want bathhouse gangbangs and casual hookups. No wonder gay divorce is on the rise. Gayness implies a rejection of the bourgeois institution of marriage. Why now would they want to be a part of it? It’s spiteful and destructive. Gays don’t really want marriage, but they don’t want the cisgendered heteros to have it either. Ultimately they’re throwing used colostomy bags at an already fecal splattered institution. Sure it may seem fun in a nihilistic “wreck-it-all” kinda way, but we have to eat in there. Children have to live in there.

Despite what the Modern Family sitcom tells you, gay dudes are not clamoring to get hitched and have kids. Lesbians are adopting kids, probably because their maternal instinct hasn’t yet been completely obliterated. This raises the issue of father hunger. Children need a father, and even a bulldyke with facial hair can’t replace dad. It has been empirically demonstrated that when homosexuals do have children those children are more likely to be homosexual. Gayness begets more gayness.

Of course gay marriage is a sign of social decay, but we social conservatives overplay this angle. To be clear it is not just gays that are destroying Western civilization, but leftism itself. Gay culture just happens to be a symptom of and contributing factor to this decay. I say a pox on leftism, a pox on gay culture! For they have surely been a pox on once-civilized Western culture. The gays are fucking us, and we’re not even going to get a reach around.

  • Darth Stirner

    This is part one in a multi-part series arguing for socially conservative positions without appealing to Christ, Vishnu, Allah or whatever. This is a secular argument, so If I slip up and call anything “evil” I am simply using shorthand for “socially harmful”, and anything “good” or “righteous” is simply that which is “socially beneficial”.

  • Mike

    Good piece, although I think it could have done without the occasional hyperbole or downright insult.

    And another point of marriage that I missed here, perhaps to be looked into for a future installment, is that it propagates monogamous lifestyle; that is to say a society wherein any individual is able to find a complementary counterpart to make one’s life whole.

    • Darth Stirner

      Yea I’ll get to that in the part about feminism….

      Monogamous marriage is a pillar of civilization.

      • David

        Arranged Marriage for status/wealth security is another potential for an Alt Right position. More stability and order involved than marrying for love when two people are otherwise incompatible.

    • Adelphopoiesis

      Good response, Mike! The overall critique has merit but the teenaged potty-mouthed name-calling makes me wonder about the author’s maturity.

      Check Jack Donovan’s book, Androphilia (2012, expanded edition).

  • Carl

    In response to the Hetero deceleration that “Homo Marriage defiles the sanctity of Marriage.” Homo’s claim that “even Hetero’s don’t consider Marriage as sacred” due to high divorce rates (50% divorce rate for first marriages in the U.S.).

    But, what the turd tasters don’t realize with their inductive-correlative logic is that high divorce rates are a sign of Western decline and not the ‘non-belief of the sanctity of Marriage.’

  • David

    “People that aren’t planning on having kids shouldn’t be allowed to marry either.”

    This is why I am so disgusted by my Feminist sister. My father wanted more kids, but my mother didn’t want to STAY IN THE GODDAMN KITCHEN. I have all female cousins who aren’t very smart and my sister is your typical nihilistic Leftist who spits upon our family by refusing to have children. My father made it my duty to give him many grandkids, which I fully intend to do. I want to honor him and carry on our gift of intelligence by having an heir. The modern intellectual class fails to recognize the greatest way to codify their knowledge and beliefs: family. My goal is to be a PATRIARCH who commands a strong line.

    Here’s a very strong argument against homosexuality:

    It’s by a Catholic scholar and published in a Catholic magazine, but the author makes a fully secular argument. Homosexuality can never be a private matter because tolerance of it changes the language, a public institution.

    • James

      To David:

      I’m just curious: if your father wanted grandkids, and a traditional family, then why did he marry a career woman?

      You seem like you have your head screwed on right. So again, I’m just curious: where was your father’s influence with your sister?

      • David

        He realizes he screwed up, but he’s too worn out to do anything about it. He just wants to retire and sit on beaches. If he was Japanese he’d take up gardening.

  • Carl

    Well put, David.

  • TheOldManInTheCave

    I think you forgot a “u” and an extra “a” in the LGBT acronym. Although who can be sure what it is now.

    Overall, I think this is a great article, name calling and all. Its disgusting and (give the devil his due) amazing how fast homosexuality went from being anathema to entirely mainstream (and yet encouraged). I’m with graaaaagh, when he says that there is a difference between homosexuality and faggotry; the difference being that those “openly gay” shout and scream about their rights while they are ready and willing to trample over everyone elses.

    • David

      “Its disgusting and (give the devil his due) amazing how fast homosexuality went from being anathema to entirely mainstream (and yet encouraged).”

      Autocatalysis. Historical, political, scientific, cultural trends increase at an exponential rate. That’s why in prehistory there’s thousands of years of nothing much happening, but then different tools were developed, then printing press and many other inventions, now we have globalization. In other words, the World and the human race all move much quicker now.

      • Bowtie and Fedora

        I really wish that weren’t the case. I think a stable life would be a much happier one.

  • Brodmd

    I thought this was a big step in the direction we are going to have to go if we are to have any hope in turning the tide in a culture where a third of the people say they don’t believe in a deity.

    I have often struggled with how to make it clear that homosexuality is horrible for society. The best I could do was say that it used to be illegal for the same reason dumpster diving is illegal. It is a public health menace. Look how quickly we went from sodomy being made legal in the 70s and 80s to babies dying of AIDS in NICUs all across the world.

  • Darth Stirner

    Eat da poo poo.

  • Darth Stirner

    Right, there is a difference between macho homos, and flaming queers.

    And on another note, to be clear…I actually think we should let the gays be gay to a certain degree. I just don’t think society should feel obligated to normalize their behavior or condone it. But we certainly don’t have to kick down their doors when they’re doing whatever it is they do in the privacy of their own homes.

  • Ragnar-Stirnerite

    This is pretty hilarious stuff…

    …be honest with me. Are you guys trolling?

    >> Calls himself darth stirner.

    >> Writes blogs full of spooks.


    • Darth Stirner

      Your a spook.

  • Darth Stirner

    I am the master of my ideology, my ideology is not the master of me.

    However, trying to go without an ideology… kinda hard.

  • EssEm

    I am happily homosexual, but not at all happy with the pervasive leftism, victimism and anti-masculine feminism that makes up gay culture. (HT to Jack Donovan’s “Androphilia” for making that clear to me.) Homosexuality will always be a minor phenomenon, in percentages, and deserves basic protection, but not outsized privilege. (Redefining marriage for a small minority of a small minority seems nuts to me.) But that’s the general rule with minorities/victims these days. None of them are ever satisfied.

    My personal gripe with homosexuality is not with the erotic orientation, of course, (which, to me, feels completely natural) but with the social construction of “gayness” as a subset of feminism in its war on men, manhood and masculinity. The sexual Yugoslavia known as LGBT, etc. exemplifies this. It’s one thing for men and women who share an experience of same-sex eros to form a kind of community of interest. But when you add the T, people who hate their own gendered bodies so much that they engage in chemical and sexual mutilation, well, what does that tell you about the real ideology at work? It’s not about a shared erotic orientation, but about the destruction of binary gender. Just as with feminism.

    • Lev Bronstein

      I have to agree with you on this. The individual isolated gay doesn’t bother me it’s the gay movement that seeks to impose it’s value system upon the non gay population that bothers me. They aren’t looking for freedom as they already have this freedom they are looking for absolute and total adoration from the public at large. They want their lifestyle to be celebrated as some kind of social achievement which is tantamount to religious worship. In other words I don’t hate them because “they have buttsex” I hate it because “They want my child to believe they are universal victims and portraits of morality because they have buttsex.”

  • Chuck

    I totally agree! Get this butt punishing back into the closet. But I have one complaint – you mentioned multiculturalism, but not miscegenation. That’s where this shit really started. Please write one about that!!’

  • Adelphopoiesis

    Here’s something that may help explain those who react so strongly against gay men in general :

    Something to think about, Darth.

    • Bulbasaur

      “If sexual diversity is natural.”


      Something to think about.

  • Ignatius

    Can I have a few citations showing gay adoption is a bad thing? I keep getting empirical arguments from leftists.