William M. Briggs

Statistician to the Stars!

Page 3 of 591

128 Million Bigots (Including Your Mother): Gmarriage By The Numbers. Updates

A citizen undergoes treatment to remove his opposition to gmarriage.

A citizen undergoes treatment to remove his opposition to gmarriage.

Your Mother Is Evil

Latest Gallup survey showed about 40% of citizens did not support gmarriage. According to gmarriage supporters, those who oppose gmarriage are bigots. Since mostly older people and folks not in our great coastal cities support Truth, your mother and grandmother (if these sweet ladies, filled with non-governmental supplied dignity, are still with us), are almost certainly bigots. Good luck telling them so. According to many Tolerant on Twitter, no punishment is too harsh for them. (They were old anyway.)

Interesting (see below) that Friday nearly all major companies told a near, or in some cases even a full, majority of their employees that they hate them. The occupiers of the now Rainbow House told a large chunk of citizens its rules that there were bigots.

Watch the latest poll for support uptick sharply. It is now a crime, or rather it will be thought a crime, a thoughtcime, to hold to Truth. People are scared.

Gallup also says about 30% of citizens do not support divorce, either. But an increasing number, up to about 15% now, support polygamy. It’s coming. You bigot.

(Voting does not decide Truth, of course.)

Orwell & Persecution

How long before we’re all required the chant slogans like these?

Sodomy is Healthy1

Gay Marriage is Healthier Than Straight Marriages

War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.

George Orwell only partly guessed right. In 1984, the Party declared “2 + 2 = 5″ a truth to which assent must be given—or else. Yet it was because the Party knew this to be false that it became a weapon, a tool to command obedience. This is not completely the case with gmarriage.

Many, but not all, in The Party today believes gmarriage to be a truth. Assent to it, like to “2 + 2 = 5″, will certainly, as everybody knows, be required. But in most cases it is because the Tolerant have a raging hatred against dissent. Those that don’t care about gmarriage, but who assent to it and are in positions of leadership, will insist others do likewise, but their hearts won’t be in it—unless they get something good out of it.

Orwell, though wrong in detail, nailed the spirit:

Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable — what then?

Why Persecution?

What everybody forgets is that marriage is not just a permanent bond between a man and a woman (only two)—this is the Truth—but an agreement or understanding between that couple and society. This is why the same-sex attracted fought so vigorously for the term “married”. After all, no one was stopping them from any “experiments in living” they imagined. They wanted acknowledged and affirmation that their actions were not sinful, and not just not sinful, but equal with Truth.

In order for a couple to be married, others must agree if society is to function. Since many do not agree with gmarriage, society will not be able to function harmoniously. Supporters of Truth must be made to put the pinch of incense in the fire or gmarriages won’t seem real. The government must supply and defend (artificial) Dignity.

Size Of Persecution

Persecution will arise largely from gmarriage “test” cases. How many will there be?

There are around 2% of citizens declaring exclusive same-sex attraction (many citizens, succumbing to relentless propaganda believe that number is 20% or higher). That’s around 6 to 7 million folks. Of these, maybe 60-70% are adults (limiting gmarriage to adults is an arbitrary prejudice, surely2), which gives maybe 4 million. Given cultural conditions and our knowledge of behavior of the same-sex attracted, maybe (at most) only half of these people would want a gmarriage ceremony.

That leaves 2 million. Since the government (so far) arbitrarily puts marriages at only two people, this makes only about 1 million possible ceremonies, a number which is probably on the high side (by twice?). And these ceremonies will be spread out over time. The rate depends on culture and how many same-sex attracted “come up through the ranks”, a number which must increase as the number of gmarriages occur (think of effects of adoption, enculturation, etc.).

Most of these ceremonies will be where most of the population is. More in San Francisco than in Butte Montana. Now, the majority of participants are not bug-eyed litigious Tolerant angry religio-phobes. The majority of any peoples just want to be left alone (but most want to be acknowledged). So we’re down to a few thousand Tolerant ceremonies, maybe 100 per annum, to the nearest order of magnitude. And from these the pool of “test cases” will arise. Since most threats of lawsuits go nowhere, we’re looking at roughly 1 or so newsworthy, important case per year.

Don’t forget it’s mostly the non-same-sex attracted who work themselves into a tizzy over thoughtcrimes. So any pair (only a pair!) of Tolerant people seeking gmarriage will always find an army of angry allies.

Kinds Of Persecution

Employers, when they think of it, will search prospective employee’s names, eliminating from consideration those who hold to Truth. There will be few or no open firings, but there may be secret ones. The Tolerant refuse to consort with their many enemies. The argument will be freedom of association, that business can hire whomever they want. And this is true. Discrimination is good. Most large corporations already told their faithful employees to stick it (by adopting the “rainbow” flag, etc.).

Private businesses will be banned from placing signs such as “No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service” (you know what I mean), because these are discriminatory. Businesses cannot not hire certain people nor deny groups inimical to their faith services. Discrimination is bad. The inconsistency will not bother the Tolerant, who let rage blind their reason. Bake the cake or lose your business. Many will voluntarily close up (consequently there will be many more large businesses and more people depending on government for support).

Government employees involved in gmarriage are in deep kimchi. They will either have to violate their consciences or quit. “Good riddance!” say the Tolerant.

Faithful adoption agencies will close. The Tolerant cannot abide that a (say) Catholic orphanage will only place children in faithful homes. (But this and this will not bother them.)

A Tolerant couple is bound to sue a church for refusing to service them. The grounds will be that since this church has agreed with the government to also administer the civil aspects of marriage, the church has no choice but perform the entire ceremony. The Tolerant couple, whatever their initial success, will lose. I do not think any church will be forced (from the outside) to change beliefs. Though smart money says that churches will lose the ability to perform civil duties, though this loss will be state by state and somewhat gradual.

Christian colleges and organizations with married housing or which now offer benefits to married students or employees will be hit hard and fast. Next 18 months. A Tolerant couple will sue, probably braced by the ACLU or similar big-money group. Depending on which state the first suits hits, the Christian organization will win or lose, so look for district shopping by the Tolerant. Either way, win or lose, the suit is bumped to a higher level. Now if this organization is, say, a nunnery, the faithful have a reasonable chance of beating the Tolerant, but if it is a hospital, school, charity, or the like, they will lose.

Churches proper, though I speculated otherwise before, I do not think will lose their tax-exempt status. Even the pathetic Justice Kennedy3 allowed for freedom of worship—though not, infamously, freedom of practice of religion. (See below about the law being mere words.)

Many churches will slip over the cliff, naturally. Look to Europe for plenty of examples. It’s only post-Christian nations in which gmarriage is legal, incidentally. This is why faithful churches will be largely left alone. There will be too few of them to bother with.

Most persecution will be soft, the worst kind. Why? Because ultimately it is souls that matter, and nothing else.

Look for lost friendships, associations, and the like. As in all Tolerant societies, silence will be inadequate; it will be noticed. And punished. “Sally must be one of those religious bigots. She didn’t contribute to Steve and Steve’s wedding card. I’m telling HR.” “Sally, this is HR, can you come by on Tuesday at 10 am? You have to attend our diversity training.” Alas, this one already happens. Tolerance is a willful cancer that must spread.

Fighting Persecution

“In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.” —George Orwell

Some brave soul will push back publicly against the kind of bullying seen in HR departments. God bless her (I’m guessing it’s a lady). Others will write articles, which increasingly will have little effect. Many churches will eschew the topic, fearing irritating its diminishing members, always a losing tacit. But some, only a few, will become champions for Truth.

We must be reminded (as Father Z has done) that “No ideology can erase from the human spirit the certainty that marriage exists solely between a man and a woman…” and “There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family. Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law.” And

Moral conscience requires that, in every occasion, Christians give witness to the whole moral truth, which is contradicted both by approval of homosexual acts and unjust discrimination against homosexual persons.

Every is a strong word. Requires heavy lifting. Not all have the strength. Yet “clear and emphatic opposition is a duty.” Support is “gravely immoral.”

Nobody said life would be easy—or fair. It is folly to think the opposite.

The Law Is Mere Words

Don’t bother quoting the law. It is now only a rough guide. Words are meaningless, as Justice Scalia recently noted (in another case). The Law means what the powerful say it means.

Update Catholic Priest Reports Being Spit On At Gay Marriage Parade. Fr Jonathan Morris (I was on his show two week ago.) Also this:

Update Now’s the Time To End Tax Exemptions for Religious Institutions

Update Adults only: this gentleman did us the service of documenting San Francisco’s Folsom Street Fair over this weekend. E.g. this and this. And this. And this. Not safe for work.


1“Many same-sex attracted people do not engage in sodomy.” “Is the argument then, ‘Most people do not murder therefore murder is healthy’?”

2“Marriage requires consent. Children can’t give it.” “How do you know?” “It’s not in the nature of children to be able to.” “But it’s not in the nature of mankind to support gmarriage. If there is no human nature, all choices are by will alone.”

3If any a man, besides Yours Truly, needed our prayers, it is he.


Stream: Why Gmarriage Is Worse Than You Think


Today’s post is at The Stream: Why Gmarriage is Worse than You Think: The government can only reinvent marriage when we believe that men can be gods.

Before we begin, it’s gmarriage to indicate government-defined-marriage, which is not actual marriage. The neologism allows us to save the language, a precious thing, while avoiding the exhausting process of using scare quotes around locutions like same-sex “marriage”. The g is silent, as in gnostic.

Now we all know that gmarriage is bad, and we know why. So let’s don’t bother discussing what is already understood. Let’s instead discover why it’s not just bad, but awful.

What happened was that, in these once United States, as has already occurred in several other post-Christian societies, and not un-coincidentally every country which has mandated gmarriage was once Christian, man declared himself to be God.

Hyperbole? Not in the least. Here’s why.

Incidentally, as many of you know, writers rarely get to write their own headline. Mostly because we’re bad at it. Headline writing is a skill entirely different than prose writing, and the majority of my attempts are workmanlike at best. This one, but the not the sub, is mine. It’s okay. Kind of Internety.

The prose is largely mine, though somewhat simplified (one of the editors worried about some of my larger words).

One of my key arguments is where? Turns out gmarriage is supported in only post-Christian countries, because why? Because of two philosophical errors catalyzed by the corruption of Christianity called Egalitarianism.

Go there to read the rest.


Gmarriage Open Thread

Workers preparing the slope

Workers preparing the slope

Sheri was right. Yesterday was the last day of class. Today, I leave it to you to fill in the blanks.

Yesterday, the USA joined Mexico which earlier this week ensconced gmarriage as the law of the land. What say you?

Don’t just say (what is true, and obvious) “We are doomed”, say why. Don’t just shout (like a man drunk on egalitarianism or filled with revolutionary fervor) “Yippe”, say why. Include relevant quotes from SCOTUS (pdf).

And be civil. I have had a long and exhausting three weeks and am not in the mood to hear people shout at one another. I’m particularly interested in hard, concrete, timetable-including, verifiable predictions, especially from gmarriage supporters.

I am writing a piece entitled, “Why Gmarriage Is Worse Than You Thought” to tell you that, as bad as you think it is, it’s worse. And why.

I’ll check back with the comments later, but otherwise will be away until tomorrow.


What Causes Democracies To Incline Towards Pantheism


Wrapping up class. I’ll be on the Bill Meyer Show today at 11:10 AM ET. He’s a Medford, man. Medford, Oregon. (Let he who readeth understand.)

This will keep up busy until I’m free again. Martin Gregory reminds us of these words by Alexis de Tocqueville from Alexis de Tocqueville Democracy in America Vol II.

I SHALL show hereafter how the preponderant taste of a democratic people for very general ideas manifests itself in politics, but I wish to point out at present its principal effect on philosophy.

It cannot be denied that pantheism has made great progress in our age. The writings of a part of Europe bear visible marks of it: the Germans introduce it into philosophy, and the French into literature. Most of the works of imagination published in France contain some opinions or some tinge caught from pantheistic doctrines or they disclose some tendency to such doctrines in their authors. This appears to me not to proceed only from an accidental, but from a permanent cause.

When the conditions of society are becoming more equal and each individual man becomes more like all the rest, more weak and insignificant, a habit grows up of ceasing to notice the citizens and considering only the people, of overlooking individuals to think only of their kind. At such times the human mind seeks to embrace a multitude of different objects at once, and it constantly strives to connect a variety of consequences with a single cause. The idea of unity so possesses man and is sought by him so generally that if he thinks he has found it, he readily yields himself to repose in that belief. Not content with the discovery that there is nothing in the world but a creation and a Creator, he is still embarrassed by this primary division of things and seeks to expand and simplify his conception by including God and the universe in one great whole.

If there is a philosophical system which teaches that all things material and immaterial, visible and invisible, which the world contains are to be considered only as the several parts of an immense Being, who alone remains eternal amidst the continual change and ceaseless transformation of all that constitutes him, we may readily infer that such a system, although it destroy the individuality of man, or rather because it destroys that individuality, will have secret charms for men living in democracies. All their habits of thought prepare them to conceive it and predispose them to adopt it. It naturally attracts and fixes their imagination; it fosters the pride while it soothes the indolence of their minds.

Among the different systems by whose aid philosophy endeavors to explain the universe I believe pantheism to be one of those most fitted to seduce the human mind in democratic times. Against it all who abide in their attachment to the true greatness of man should combine and struggle.

The mistake you might make while pondering this is to suppose that the pantheism must be of the old-fashioned gods and goddesses sort, with unicorns, dragons, and magic. There is another sort, which I wrote about here: The Scientific Pantheist Who Advises Pope Francis: The scientist who influenced Laudato Si, and who serves at the Vatican’s science office, seems to believe in Gaia, but not in God.

The essence of Scientism is Pantheism, a statement which I shall prove (if it’s not otherwise obvious) in time.

For now, back to class!

« Older posts Newer posts »

© 2015 William M. Briggs

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑