The purpose of marriage

THE PURPOSE OF MARRIAGE IS THE CONTINUATION AND PRESERVATION OF OUR CIVILISATION BY MAINTAINING AND RAISING STANDARDS

The lauded benefits of marriage is a con trick to entice men and women to make the sacrifices necessary to rear the next generation in optimum conditions in order to prevent the degeneracy of our society and the extinction of our civilisation as well as the loss of the knowledge, skills and achievements of our ancestors.

Marriage is what the current generation owes to previous generations who brought us into being.
It can be seen that marriage is a moral practice even if judged in purely Kantian terms of universalisability. (The principle of universalisability simply invites us to imagine how society would be if all of members of it murdered each other for gain and fun, for example.) Therefore its opposite - bastardy - is immoral.

Why do we owe a duty to previous generations now dead? Imagine, if you will the kind of existence we would have if all the things we now take for granted - electricity, air travel, the rule of law etc - had to be invented afresh by us in our lifetimes. If all the trappings of civilisation were taken away we would be instantly reduced to the state of lower animals.

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN MOST OF YOUR SOCIETY ARE FEMINISTS, SLUTS AND BASTARDS AND THE GOVERNMENT AND LEGAL SYSTEM IS RUN BY FEMINAZIS?

You get taken over by people who are not sluts and bastards eg Jews, Muslims, Asians who believe in and respect the institutions of marriage and the family.

WHAT HAPPENS TO WOMEN WHOSE MEN FAIL TO PROTECT AND PROVIDE FOR THEM BECAUSE THEY HAVE HAD THEIR MORALE DESTROYED BY FEMINISM?

They are taken as booty and sold as slaves after their defeated men are slain in battle.

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/helen-was-slut-paris-was-mcsf-and-troy.html

The cowardice of Jews, Christians and Muslims in challenging the extremist liberals who want gay marriage

Rabbi Zvi Solomons' letter to the Jewish Chronicle on 15 June 2012:

I note the silence of my colleagues over the gay marriage debate. This is understandable but avoids more serious issues which need fixing, whilst giving the impression that this does not apply to us as much as to other religious groups.

Reform needs to take account of the failure to protect those who have only a religious marriage without registering civilly. In other religions, except for the Quakers and CofE, there is no opportunity for civil registration at the time of the wedding. This means that Muslim, Sikh or Hindu weddings may not protect the bride and groom in the event of marriage breakup. I propose a solution. Let everyone be legally required to register a civil partnership. This would bring equality in the law without using a charged term, "marriage" and restore marriage to its original place, at the heart of belief, leaving it up to every group to decide whether they wish to call it by that name and to whom it may apply.

This Orthodox Rabbi does not object to the civil partnership, it seems.  If he does not, he would appear not to be taking into account the teachings of his own scripture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoning#In_Judaism says homosexuals should be stoned to death.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_homosexuality demonstrates that the Bible disapproves of homosexuality.  This means, dear reader, that both Judaism and Christianity ought to disapprove of homosexuality!

Yet the Archbishop of Canterbury, widely known to be a Red with a third rate mind says active homosexual relationships are comparable to marriage in the eyes of God.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/2512123/Archbishop-of-Canterbury-compares-gay-relationships-to-marriage.html

Sometimes, one just longs to for the good old days when heretics were burnt at the stake.

Even the Muslims have gone native.

While http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_Islam#The_Quran demonstrates that Koran disapproves of homosexuality, we have this nonsense below by Mona Siddiqui, who appears to have forgotten her own scriptures, just like Jews and Christians who have tried to fit in with the demented matriarchy that was created by liberalism and feminism.

http://www.platitudes.org.uk/platblog/tftd120614.mp3 has what she really said.

Below is a parody of what she said.

Mona Siddiqui, Professor of Islamic and Inter-Religious Studies, Assistant Principal for Religion and Society, New College on the Mound, University of Edinburgh  

Thursday, 14 June, 2012, 08:15 AM - Sex, Siddiqui
Rating 4 out of 5 (Highly platitudinous)

Gay marriage: right or wrong? It's a simple, straightforward question. So Let me be absolutely clear in my opinion. I want to state, categorically, leaving no room for doubt, that I'm unambiguously sitting on the fence on this one. 

You didn't really think I was going be foolish enough to give a simple, straightforward answer did you? Lord Singh might do that, but I'm a professor and far too clever to fall for that one.

In Islam, marriage is a civil contract between consenting adults. It's not a sacrament. So, on this important and controversial topic, we fully intend to firmly keep our heads down and wait for it all to blow over. Let some other religion be called homophobic for a change.

I will just say enough about marriage being about, love, commitment, intimacy and life long partnership, to make it sound as if my liberal credentials allow for gay marriage. On the other hand, I'll sympathise with those of any particular religion who don't have my enlightened views. 

This is what Thought For The Day is all about: saying, on the one hand, and then on the other hand, dropping hints in both directions and keeping one's own opinion safely to oneself.

It is obvious that all the Abrahamic faiths remain incorrigibly homophobic.  Liberals tell us it is sinful to be homophobic while adherents of the Abrahamic faiths who read and understand their scripture as well as practice their religion would have to acknowledge that it is the practice of sodomy that is sinful.

Who is right?

As I am an atheist, I would like to resolve this impartially.

Kant has this idea of the unversalisability.  If something is OK if everyone else does it, then it is OK, eg being polite, honest and refraining from killing people for fun.

If something is not OK if everybody does it, then it is immoral.   If everyone had extramarital sex then there would be widespread family breakdown and children with terrible childhoods of physical and sexual abuse, which his what we have now.  If everyone were gay, then there wouldn't be much of a next generation to speak of, since, no matter how pleasurable, all homosexual couplings are sterile.

They can now adopt, of course, but not that many of them want to, and it is doubtful that they are really the best people to parent children.

The term homophobia, suggesting that those who hate and fear homosexuals are irrational and neurotic, is really a bit of a propaganda trick.  It is the widespread tolerance of extramarital sex - which includes homo sex - that has led to the proposal by the supposedly socially conservative Conservative Party to think it politically and morally acceptable to promote gay marriage.

Gay marriage, I would suggest, is analogous to the dead canary of a coal miner.  The dead canary will not cause the miner to die, but it augurs ill for the miner if he does not change direction.

Too bad then that none of the religious leaders of any of the Abrahamic faiths have the courage of their convictions to denounce this proposal of Cameron's , because they are too anxious to fit with the current political orthodoxy.

What is the current political orthodoxy?  Atheist feminist extremist PC liberalism that goes against Nature and Reason.   Indeed, it delights in flouting EVERYTHING that the Abrahamic faiths say, because it thinks it can, without fear of the consequences, so heedless are they and arrogant. They think the fact that they are white and liberal alone is enough to protect from the consequences of their actions.

But pride comes before a fall.  

Why I have won the argument on disability on grounds of Kant's principle of UNIVERSALISABILITY

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

If every woman did what my school friend did the human race would die out.

So game, set and match to me.

Too bad the BNP aren't familiar with these concepts and did not see fit to give me the opportunity to explain it to them.

Imagine, if I had been allowed to explain this to the liberal media and gave the impression that the dunces and dunderheads of the BNP had heard of Kant's principle of universalisability.   Wouldn't that bring the party into repute?

Wouldn't it have been glorious to beard the liberal lion in its lair?

But the BNP has made it a principle of practice to emulate the liberals in all their cowardice and hypocrisy and that is why they will continue to falter and fail, until and unless they make me Press Officer.