The Purpose of Marriage by George McAuley of UK Men's Movement

Chastity, followed by marriage, followed by fidelity, was a wing-ding of a social construction, because it controlled men by giving them a small market-share of carnality. Marriage was a trap all be it a honey-trap, for men, not women. It was devised by men, with but one goal—to provide the best possible template for successfully raising children, as many children as possible, in an under-populated world. Marriage is a triumph of man’s civil conscience over his instinct to rut with every nubile female that he can outrun over ten miles. The Feminazi were right, it was a patriarchal construct, but it was forced on men, by other men, with the carrot of regular, if limited, sex, and the big, vengeful stick of tribal exclusion or worse for those who demurred. It was pure patriarchal altruism, a triumph of civilised man over base instinct.

Marriage was constructed for one purpose only- the successful raising of children. It was a sacred covenant made between man and woman, sworn to in front of their family, friends, community and God. It imposed sensible restrictions on behaviour, with powerful sanctions against those who broke them. Society, recognising a good thing, still favoured it when they introduced a bad thing- . taxes - by sticking it to the unmarried with a vengeance, but easing the foot off the gas when a litter of kids came along. Socially, legally and culturally, marriage between a man and a woman was very powerfully protected. Even in Muslim countries, where, in strict legal terms it is easy for a man to divorce, there are huge social costs in peer and family disapproval for a man who divorces for anything other than very serious transgressions of the marriage vows. Old-style Christian marriage also existed to protect kids and women.

Politicians in thrall to minorities, issue their facile diktats on (so-called) equality: inclusion and discrimination are good and bad respectively, without ever pausing to consider what is wise to exclude, and what it is wise to discriminate against. The whores and pimps of the press, devoid of reasoned argument, harangue us with ludicrous labels like “homophobe” if we dare to question the new orthodoxy, likewise the vote-hungry or marker-paying politician. The arts are queer turf, and they don’t allow any straight dogs peeing on their lamppost The contrived deceptions of producers, scriptwriters, news-anchors and chat-show host compete daily to portray sympathetic depictions of GLBT strength, decency, cleverness and their all-round betterness compared to up-tight wierdo straights.

For the sake of all our children we should be underpinning traditional marriage with family laws that penalise misconduct, and with faith, with the arts, and not least, with benefits and tax relief favouring intact families. The unique, special nurturing that marriage between natural parents provide for children is under constant attack from the Feminazi, the homosexual lobby and a New World Order that wants to disconnect people from families, culture, and faith. It wants them wedded to Nissan, Adidas and Gap. They don't like faith, it makes people difficult for them to control. They don't like real fathers and real marriages either, because they make people stronger, practically and spiritually. Civil contracts are the thin edge of normalising queerness. If you say it’s harmless, you’re a dope, or worse.

Now, I’ve said some pretty harsh things about some of my fellow men and women tonight, no doubt causing offence, but my anger is not really directed at individuals, but at the homosexual lobby and their Feminazi fellow travellers. They are both key players in the New World Order that is being forced upon a somnolent, whipped and emasculated humanity. The Roman Empire controlled the masses through fear and with bread wine and circuses, but it collapsed under the weight of its own cruelty and degeneracy, and the courage of those unafraid of the Coliseum’s lions.

The New World Order has dole, drugs, network TV. and the PC thought police. They have in common the use of bribery and bullying to eliminate original thinking. You don’t have to go into the arena with the lion, you just need to vote. If you believe that homosexual union is harmful, if it strikes something visceral, that maybe can’t even begin to articulate, hold back on approval until you’ve doped it out. If you think that it’s against God’s word, decency and common sense, vote agin it. Vote agin it even if you are afraid of being thought prejudiced, bigoted, or politically incorrect - There are worse things than being thought uncool,; like bending with every ill wind that blows, kow-towing to superficially virtuous semantics, and leaving tomorrow’s children to suffer in the mess your weakness helped create.

[The above have been extracted from an essay by George McAuley.]


Popular posts from this blog

Divorced women who literally turn their sons into women

The 30 second rapist

Religion and Recreational Sex: sharia-compliant threesomes and mini-orgies?