Marriage and democracy

Only those who are parents of legitimate offspring or want to become parents of legitimate offspring would support marriage. If there are more parents of bastard offspring and more bastards than there are those who are legitimate, then you would expect slut single mothers, morally compromised slut fuckers who have sired bastard offspring, sodomites and bastards not to support marriage. Since this is already the case, it highlights the moral bankruptcy of democracy and tells us it is time to take it out with the trash.

What does it mean to support marriage?

The most important rule of marriage is the forbidding and punishing of extramarital sex since the purpose of doing so is to make couples marry in order to have the right to have sex and children with each other.

If you allow people to have sex outside marriage ie fornication, sodomy, adultery etc, then people would predictably use these marriage substitutes to have exclusively recreational sex all their lives and not be troubled by the expense and inconvenience of rearing of the next generation either properly or at all.

A declining birth rate is a sign of a dying civilisation that cannot even replace itself in sufficient numbers to fight a successful defensive war. This means that such a society would have the characteristic of a risk-averse elderly woman and nations with this characteristic will be easily conquered by nations with the characteristic of enterprising young fighting men.

Slut single mothers, men who have sired bastard offspring with slut single mothers, bastards and sodomites who acknowledge that the next generation would be better off brought up by two married parents living together would at least support marriage in principle if not in practice, if they cared about the national interest.

If slut single mothers, fathers of bastards and LGBTs can neither acknowledge this truth nor accept the imperative of promoting the national interest, then they are clearly doubly subversive, making it even more justifiable to ignore their anti-marriage views. The views of those who are both selfish and intellectually dishonest should certainly be ignored.

The philosophical, demographic and atheist-agnostic case for patriarchy and theocracy

For the avoidance of doubt, I feel I must declare that I do not assume that God exists or that He is efficacious. I assume that no deity exists at all and that all moral and religious principles were attributed to God by wise men of the past who deduced that posterity would be less likely to obey the laws of dead men however wise and more likely to obey the laws of an omnipotent, eternal and eternal God whose existence they were indoctrinated into believing over generations and whose existence they prefer to believe in anyway.

The wisest man in China was Confucius. Do the Chinese practice Confucianism? Do they hell. The Chinese are as Confucian as Westerners are Christian.

Can you imagine the current lot of Chinese parents even willingly wanting to have more than one child? They will be moaning and groaning that the their only only child is more trouble and expense than they can bear without losing their insanity. If you are familiar with the rules of Chinese ancestor worship, you will know how these rules brought about patriarchy in China. They were the Chinese equivalent of requiring men to marry and have an heir and at least a spare to ensure that they do not suffer loss of status in the afterlife. This was what caused China to produce an excess of men capable of at least waging a successful defensive war or acquiring empire.

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/how-to-become-hungry-ghost.html

While China currently has plenty of spare men unable to find women http://www.rfa.org/english/news/china/gender-01222015125826.html, these men are useless for waging war and acquiring empire because these are the only sons of mothers who will not bear the loss of their only son in battle with the same equanimity as a mother who has more than one son. Yes, sadly for the Chinese, they have fucked up big time with their one child policy, but mysterious and sinister demographic changes are also happening in Taiwan, Korea and Japan who do not have a one child policy. The reason for the below replacement birth rate in the Far East is simple: the availability of the pill and the practice of condoning premarital sex.

All five world religions promote patriarchal moral values. This is because all advanced civilisations are patriarchies and all matriarchies are declining and primitive societies. Rational and decent people prefer to live in a patriarchy while irrational and immoral degenerates who are atheists prefer to live in a matriarchy because they just want to fill their boots with sexual liberation until they are dead with no thought for posterity or their children, let alone descendants.

I trust this is finally clear. I am in particular addressing those who suspect me of being Muslim fanatic. I am just an agnostic who sees the benefit of law and order, progress and peace, which are the products of marriage which brings about social cohesion, patriarchy and rationally small government.

The most profound truths are paradoxical, and the paradox is that it is theocracy that produces minimal and rational good government while sexual liberation produces the abusive nanny state. 

What to say against gay marriage

1. Marriage is eugenic, feminism dysgenic.
2. More female MPs proportionately will support gay marriage than male MPs, calling into question their moral judgment and ability to think rationally and independently.
3. The fact that more female Tory MPs will support gay marriage than male Tory MPs is evidence of their moral judgment and ability to think rationally and independently.
4. Our political classes do not respect marriage.  
5. Our political classes do not know how to respect marriage.
6. If our political classes respected marriage, they would see the necessity of privileging married couples over unmarried couples.
7. Currently, not a single political party you will have heard of proposes privileging married couples.  
8. Marriage is for the rearing of children and so is exclusively for male-female pairings who are not in the prohibited degrees of consanguinity capable of procreative sex. 
9. Just because there are childless married couples does not detract from the original nature and purpose of marriage.
10. Catholics could have their marriage annulled (ie treated as it never happened) if one of the couple is infertile, which demonstrates the original purpose of marriage, which is to have children.
11. Gay marriage is immoral because it is not necessary.
12. Gay marriage is not necessary because same-sex couples already have the civil partnership, allowing them to take free of inheritance tax which starts at 40%.  
13. It is not necessary in the long-term national interest to legalise gay marriage.
14. It is destructive to the long-term national interest to legalise gay marriage because if gay marriage is an option then more people will avail themselves of it.
15. If more people avail themselves of gay marriage then there will be fewer children being born to husbands and wives.
16. If there are fewer children being born to husbands and wives then there will be a labour shortage.
17. If there is a labour shortage more immigrants will be allowed in
18. If there is even more immigration people will get even more alarmed and resentful causing social unrest and anomie. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anomie
19. The reason why married couples should be treated as a degree above same-sex couples, all things being equal, is that married couples are the ones whose children are most likely to be brought up in an environment that produces well-adjusted adults capable of becoming useful citizens.   
20. Same-sex couples do not produce offspring with their civil partner.
21. Same sex couples do not undergo the sacrifice, burden and inconvenience of rearing the next generation.
22. If same-sex couples were capable of sexual reproduction only then would it be moral to have gay marriage.
23. It is as well to acknowledge that it was feminism that was the thin end of the wedge that led to gay marriage.  For some reason, most women do not mind about gay marriage.  It is either because marriage was the invention of a man and they spitefully wish to destroy his creation, or because they are too stupid and irresponsible to grasp the pivotal role of marriage in regulating human relations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rectification_of_names