More fundamentally though, Landry is correct that marriage has been degraded. While gay marriage has been a result of a long campaign of degradation, I’m not convinced that it was the reason for this campaign, and to my mind seems like a symptom of the disease rather than the disease itself.

And example of this would be the response of a liberal Protestant clergyman when presented with the following text from the 1662 Book of Common Prayer marriage ceremony stating three cardinal reasons for marriage:

First, It was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name.
Secondly, It was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication; that such persons as have not the gift of continency might marry, and keep themselves undefiled members of Christ’s body.
Thirdly, It was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity. Into which holy estate these two persons present come now to be joined. Therefore if any man can shew any just cause, why they may not lawfully be joined together, let him now speak, or else hereafter for ever hold his peace.

His response was to edit the text to the following:

Marriage was ordained as a gift of God for the joy, comfort, and blessing of a man and woman, both in prosperity and adversity. Into which holy estate these two persons present come now to be joined.
Marriage was ordained so that children, if they come, will be brought up in awe and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name.

The notion that marriage merely exists so a man and a woman can enjoy each other’s company, that the raising of children is a secondary and optional concern, and the removal of all reference to the fact that marriage serves as an institution against fornication very much reflects the modern understanding of marriage. Given that starting point, it is no wonder that the political winds have shifted and allowed such a laughable idea as gay marriage to become the law of the land.

You don’t get it, and you probably never will.

No, widespread social acceptance does not confer legitimacy. Slavery is not right just because the mob says so.

The acceptance of gay marriage has come about because of a change in how we understand what marriage is. The question to ask people is: what differentiates a marriage from a long term legally recognised cohabitation? If you can’t spot the difference then you’re part of the problem.

Traditional societies married through a religious ceremony or blessing. The union was meant to have supernatural dimension, insofar as the union was not just two people shacking up, but two people in a union blessed by the God/Gods. And the Gods were only going to give their blessing provided certain rules were kept.

This is why atheism is such a potent poison to the institution of marriage, it undermines the very conceptual framework. Marriage in an atheistic environment becomes something “two people just do” and the state simply confers upon it some privileges. What the State chooses to recognise is a political thing and hence a function of politics. Politics is second order to culture; so change the culture, change politics, change marriage. Hence the importance of Cathedral Prolefeed in a demokraci.

“My car’s rear window is broken, so I might as well break all the other windows, slash the tires, and pour sugar in the gas tank, too!” It’s a bizarre argument from the left – that if something is a little bit broken, the answer is to break it more instead of fixing it – but as we all know, they will use any argument, no matter how bizarre or insensible, in order to get their way.

As for Marc B, he’s only channeling Moldbug here. Public opinion really *is* merely a function of whose army is guarding the television station. And Moldbug, of course, was channeling Chomsky, except that Chomsky doesn’t want to talk about the fact that it’s as easy to manufacture consent for something like gay “marriage” as it is to manufacture it for any war.

The Cathedral is a machine that pumps opinion into people’s minds. Right now, approval for gay “marriage” hovers around 60%, and it will likely stay there until that machine is finally switched off for good. Once it is, its effects will slowly but surely begin to wear off, similar to what we’ve been seeing in Russia over the past quarter century. It’s like the old joke about the Grateful Dead:

Q: What did the Grateful Dead fan say when the marijuana wore off?

A: “This music sucks!”

I apologize for the friendly fire. I misunderstood. I thought you were with Them. When They went after The Dukes of Hazard…well, it ratched up the Defcon level on me. Sorry about that.

As for the rest, what you just wrote makes me think of that book, The Fourth Turning; the WWII Gen losing power to the Baby Boomers and older members of the Silent Gen. If that pattern is true, then we have reason to hope. We’re gonna get through this. For now we just have to make it through all the full-spectrum faggotry.