Saturday, July 04, 2015

Bitching On The Anniversary

On this day in 1776 a bunch of subjects of the British crown declared themselves and their fellow Americans to be the free citizens of a free nation.  Needless to say King George III and the British Aristocracy objected to this revolutionary act with deadly force.

Although the United States Constitution clearly prohibits the establishment of an aristocratic class one has been brought into effect by judicial fiat.  Homosexuals -- a group once commonly identified as depraved or mentally ill -- have been granted a separate and superior status with respect to the citizens of our nation.  Anyone who refuses a demand from a homosexual on any grounds are now subject to civil punishment.  Given this it would not be a surprise when the refusal of a demand by a homosexual will result in a criminal penalty as well.

In reality this is called oppression.  In the last year the Pink Triangle of the Homosexual Collective has changed from a sign of victim status to being a symbol of the oppressors.  It has become a symbol of tyranny like the Red Star of Soviet Communism and the Broken Cross of National Socialism.

What are your questions on this rant?


I'm reposting  a rant on the subject of Gay Rights.

The Myth Of Gay Rights

What is a right?

In Objectivism a right is a moral principle that defines and sanctions an individual’s freedom of action in a social context.  There’s only one basic right, a person’s right to their own life.[1]

So what is a Gay Right?

The so-called Gay Right is a political privilege, a law enacted for the private benefit of homosexuals, which negates the freedom of non-homosexuals.  In most of the cases on record it’s the freedom to not associate with homosexuals.

Why disassociate from homosexuals?

In the cases that have come up for judicial action individuals are being punished for complying with the Christian moral code.  In Christianity homosexuality is identified as a sin and as a result they are to be shunned.  In reality the act of shunning a homosexual does not violate his real rights because in a free society all personal interactions are voluntary.

In a case that came up for judicial action a homosexual couple entering into a pretend marriage sought to buy a wedding cake for their ceremony.  When they were refused on Christian moral grounds they sued the baker for the act of discrimination.  Instead of choosing a different baker to voluntarily provide the cake as is proper in a free society they chose to reject the principle of freedom and to judicially inflict their will upon the baker.[2]

Are there grounds to disassociate from homosexuals and thus a rational basis to do so?

In reality homosexuality is a mental dysfunction.  The homosexual act runs counter to the normal biological functions of human life.  And homosexuals have been disruptive to the normal interactions in civil and military groups. [3]  

Given that there are both religious and rational grounds for disassociating from homosexuals it’s no surprise that the adherents of tyranny, those that seek to establish the Primacy of the State with themselves fully in control, have quickly and firmly moved to exploit the homosexual voting block.  In exchange for the privilege of negating the rights of non-homosexuals this collective is consistently supporting the complete effort of the tyrants to impose their rule upon our nation.  This should result in a negative outcome for the homosexual collective.  When the present cold civil struggle becomes an open war the victims of the homosexual collective will seek an end to their problem.

A permanent end.

What are your questions on this block of instruction?   


1.  Ayn Rand, “Man’s Rights,” The Virtue of Selfishness.

2.  In finding for the homosexual couple the judge acted in the opposite manner of a judicial officer in a free society.  For this he should be taken out and shot.

3.  The ancient Greek city state of Thebes had a dedicated all homosexual military formation.  It was wiped out in action.

No comments: