Society and Tyranny

by ishambat | August 14, 2012 at 08:06 pm

276 views | 0 Recommendations | 22 comments

A Republican Maine politician, Michael Thibodeau, voted against same-sex marriage under the claim that it "tears away at the very fabric of our society." I get tired of arguments such as this.

What is the "fabric" of "society?" More importantly, where does one cast vote for or against "society" or its "fabric"? And how dare a politician claim to be speaking for "society" without anyone having voted - either for "society" or for him as its executory organ?

Instead, in politics, society is this: An excuse for smuggling in an unofficial totalitarian agenda that is extracurricular to Constitutional law. There is no constitution for "society." There is no executive, legislative or judicial branch for "society." It is an unelected, unofficial, unchecked, unbalanced and unaccountable organ of usurpation of power - which, being all these things, has nothing to keep it from turning tyrannical or corrupt.

And to assume such an entity and claim to speak for it is a vast and illegitimate power grab, as well as a let-in for this tyranny and corruption.

It's the same as with people who claim to speak for God. Nobody would dare question the person who claims to speak for God; so he has unelected, unchecked and unbalanced power over others. With society we see the exact same thing. There is no constitution, no accountabilityand no officiality, balance or check on society. Which means that the power that society-mongerers wield is usurpatory, unconstitutional and illegitimate altogether.

The homosexuals are far from the only people who come at the receiving end of such illegitimate usurpations of power. Any number of non-homosexuals do as well. Any time we see someone claiming to speak for society, what we find is someone practicing an unconstitutional power grab. This is the case regardless of the person's political affiliations.

Any time someone starts speaking for society, what we see therefore is a voice of tyranny and corruption. And voices of tyranny and corruption have very little place in countries that are intended to be free. This is the case for Thibodeau; this is the case for anyone else who attacks constitutional rights and liberties under the claim of speaking for society.

If societies are to be made organs of power, then it must be power that is official, accountable, checked and balanced. All the practices must be codified as they are and subjected to accountability from within and without in case that the practices or their enforcement violates human rights and constitutional liberties. Otherwise society is nothing more than an excuse for tyranny and corruption on the part of people who seek to practice such things.

And it is from these people, not homosexuals or anyone else that they attack, that the countries intended to be free most deserve and require protection.

0 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend Sign In or Join to post comments

"thirty-aught-six" (not verified)

at 23:06 on August 14th, 2012

According to Naomi Gerstel and Natalia Sarkisian, "marriage diminishes ties to relatives, neighbors, and friends."

Jean-Paul Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir always expressed opposition to marriage. "Marriage, understood existentially, proposes to join two free selves into one heading, thus denying the freedom, the complete foundation, of each self".

The feminist view, "The institution of marriage is the chief vehicle for the perpetuation of the oppression of women; it is through the role of wife that the subjugation of women is maintained."

Sheila Cronan claims that "freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage" and points to historical, legal and social inequalities of wedding, family life and divorce.

Some men's rights writers say that marriage is unfavourable to men, particularly the financial consequences of divorce. Father's rights advocates claim that there is a continuing societal bias favoring women as custodial parents in the face of "no-fault" divorce laws and is unjust to men when marriages fail.

There is no social reason for marriage. Just excuses. For their own mental and physical health gay's should reject the institution of marriage en-mass. Far better cohabitant contracts can be written outside of the courts.

ishambat

at 01:55 on August 15th, 2012

Interesting comment, 36. I've certainly seen marriages that worked well, along with any number that were horrible. When my wife and I got together, we both promised not to be oppressive toward the other, and we haven't been. Marriage, like any contract, is as good or as bad as what the two parties do to each other within it. If homosexuals or heterosexuals want to make pairings that are not marriage, that should be their right; but if two homosexuals want to marry each other I do not see a problem with that.

"thirty-aught-six" (not verified)

at 05:01 on August 15th, 2012

Marriage isn't like any other contract. That's the whole point. Marriage is a social construct/contract that legally binds lives to each other[disproportionately]. There is no equality of persons set down in the contract. And the divorce Courts are always punitive rarely equitable.

Mutual pairings were the historical 'pagan' contract. Marriage- before the State decided it was necessary to issue it's seal on the union[and at the same time create State sanctioned inequalities].

In the US all marriages are civil marriages first and foremost, they are State sanctioned social contracts and not specifically a right. In contradiction to that, the Supreme Court has historically held that marriage is a civil right. Problem one is that the State is allowed to set their own restrictions and by that legal authority nullifies any true civil right. It becomes a privilege given or withheld by the State as it will. Rights are inherent, irrevocable and held by all citizens. A privilege is conditional.

In setting down the 'civil right' to marriage the US supreme Court has always used section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868 as follows: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So therein lies the contradiction of marriage as civil right since the State does make and enforce laws which abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, and by extension, does deny to persons within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Gay marriage being but one lapse in the State's generosity in the administration of civil rights.

Here we diverge. You say you see no problems if two homosexuals want to marry each other. I do!
Actually I see several problems with gay marriage none though for any moral consideration. I find nothing moral about the State stamping a piece of paper and charging $60 bucks for the privilege.

Perhaps more confusing for me is that a subculture who parades as social victim denied the State's privilege wants to enter a State sanctioned contract that will bind them in inherently unequal legal terms and practices. Marriage is not going to bring gays and social equality. It will add one more layer of victimhood.

By that reasoning I am against gay marriage. I'm also against heterosexual marriage for the very same reason. Marriage is punitive by law, not necessarily a by-product of the coupling itself but, by the 'institution' of marriage and the big lie behind the sponsorship of State sanctioned inequality.

The Supreme Court should hang their 'collective' head in shame. Obviously, the sitting judges for the last several hundred years have been ignorant of the words and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. And when the judicial arm of 'government' neglects to follow pivotal law as set down in the Fourteenth Amendment, no one citizen has a duty to abide such 'government'.

* No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. *

ishambat

at 04:11 on August 16th, 2012

A fairly unusual view, but often those are the most interesting ones.

Marriage can go in any number of different ways; so can non-marital pairings.

I am not convinced that doing away with marriage will solve relationship-based problems. They would occur anyway under a different contract. And a person who wants to be a bastard can find a way to be a bastard even in a situation that is non-marital.

"thirty-aught-six" (not verified)

at 13:43 on August 16th, 2012

"They [relationship-based problems] would occur anyway under a different contract.". That's not an entirely true statement. Marriage under current license by government is an instrument of inequality. If the State bound genuine equality to the license and made the acknowledgement of equality part of the ceremony, much of the problems would disappear. I don't deny that there will always be assholes of one sex or the other but, surely you are not suggesting that 46% of marriages [2012 us/aus failure rate] are held by bastards finding a way to be bastards.

"thirty-aught-six" (not verified)

at 13:36 on August 17th, 2012

I need to clarify that in terms of social expectation. The traditional expectation of woman being cared for and man as provider no longer exists. However, that idea still remains rooted in the social psyche for men. Like chivalry and the knight in shining armor.

While the education system and the Courts have done a good job reenforcing the changing social values for women, they have been abjectly MIA when it comes to educating males on their changing social role and values. Feminism has freed Men from traditional expectations and the "system" needs to do a better job of promoting male social freedoms.

Part of the domestic violence psychology is being fueled by "old" expectations and social ideals placed on men while emphasizing woman's rights. That has created another layer of inequality and the old assumptions are felt as means of oppressing today's men while freeing today's women. The demonization of men in social policy is but one negative aspect of this failure to keep both men and women equal in law.

ie: there is a nice example reported in Australian Travel about several instances where men have been removed from their seats because an unaccompanied child had the seat next to them. In effect treating male passengers like pedophiles as a matter of policy. This kind of sexual politics is rife with in all aspects of family matters. The entire "system" has been negligent, especially the Courts in maintaining the social balance that feminism was to bring.

Men have been relieved of the load of social expectation. Men have to know, be taught with in the same system at the same time that teaches woman's freedoms, that men are free of the old expectations too. When that happens I think much of the domestic violence will dissipate rather quickly. Both sexes will then not be conflicted by mismatched social ideals and values. Of course the "system" has to do it's job for this to come true. A much much better job.

ishambat

at 17:18 on August 17th, 2012

In Australia and apparently in any number of other places, there is a concept of "de-facto relationship." People are living together without being married, it is still recognized. If there are children from such a relationship, the courts treat them in the same way that they would if the party is married. This allows a bastard a way to be a bastard in the same way that he would be if he was married.

As for the 46% number, I would definitely say that there are any number of people who know how to exploit such situations, and that even includes people who aren't naturally bastards but who are taught to be that way by men who believe that men should dominate women, that women are evil, or any number of widespread attitudes to that effect.

"thirty-aught-six" (not verified)

at 17:29 on August 17th, 2012

ishambat

at 22:18 on August 18th, 2012

By being "relieved of the load of social expectations" I assume you mean the expectation of providing for the family and staying with the family?

I've known a number of men who left their families, and I personally think that they've made an irresponsible choice. But then there are any number of women who are raising the children by themselves, and many of them do a good job.

"thirty-aught-six" (not verified)

at 06:47 on August 19th, 2012

You assume to put words in my mouth so you can direct the conversation towards a men are evil meme. You say you know a number of men that left their families. I know a number of men who are raising someone eles's children and the mother gone off to live with her new boyfriend, leaving them with the responsibility. My brother being one of those men. Those men all do a good job.

Excuse me for not buying into your men are evil faux-feminism.

I hold to the concept that men and women are equal and equally responsible. And I don't hate or ever demean either as being less than the other nor praise one to be greater than the other.

Man is no longer the "provider". Even the word provider is ancient history. Only social Neanderthals would use such language today in reference to men. The word is sexist.

Feminism has relieved men of the old, traditional social expectations; just as it has relieved women of the old, traditional social expectations. The difference is that for women it is being taught to them in school and through discourse. Where as for men... simply neglected, until some Judge castigates them for holding on to tired old misbegotten ideas of male as familial head before sending them to jail to learn what the "system" neglected to teach the poor bastard in the first place.

Then there is the stats released since 2005 that show 10-16% of all family men by DNA testing are raising at least one child they believe to be theirs but isn't.

There was a good article posted by the NYT about how DNA testing is changing fatherhood. There is actually DNA vans now that patrol the NY neighborhoods doing on the spot DNA testing. Mens Health had several articles on paternity fraud. And then there was the epic Australian Magill vs. Magill paternity fraud case written into book by Lea Anna Cooper. The Ultimate Betrayal.

For every woman as victim there is a man as victim. The only difference is that as of now the courts are supporting the women who are victimizing the men, by punishing the men. Making the men continue to live the fraud, making the men financially responsible in the maintaining of the proven fraud. It's gross injustice.

I'm hopeful that one day there will be a charter of men's rights, and that with woman's rights and children's rights we will achieve equality of peoples. Until there are recognized men's rights we can expect some men to act out trapped between social dimensions as it were. Trapped between the old traditional social expectations and the new 20st century of men's rights of social equality and social justice.

ishambat

at 13:43 on August 19th, 2012

I'm definitely not doing anything of which you are accusing me. I fought political correctness since I knew what political correctness was. As for women who are simply misandrist, I see them in the same way as I do men who are simply misogynistic. Both are the worst in their gender, and neither deserve to speak for 50% of humanity.

I've definitely seen a number of legal situations in which the woman got severely injured. This included a number of situations in which the woman had experienced severe violence from the man, such as broken skulls. In 60% of cases where fathers contest, the fathers get custody. A lot depends also on the country and the area in the country. Some places will be feminist - in excess. Other places will be completely patriarchal.

Good man-woman relationships, with each party having rights, is my goal as well. And a part of it is doing away with both misandry and misogyny.

"thirty-aught-six" (not verified)

at 18:24 on August 19th, 2012

According to the American Census Bureau report, mothers constitute 85 percent of all custodial parents.

Even the 80 percent to 95 percent maternal preference documented by University family studies and others understates family-court discrimination against fathers by identifying many coerced child-custody arrangements as "uncontested." The vast majority of divorces involving children are initiated by women, and women usually are granted temporary custody of the children. Judges are reluctant to switch children from the custody of one parent to another.

Fathers, left to fight an uphill battle to gain custody, and often out of both money and hope, sometimes give up. Others spend their life's savings trying to obtain joint physical or sole custody so they can remain a part of their children's lives. Devastated financially and with little hope of winning, they often sign consent orders granting custody to mothers. In both of these common scenarios, the child-custody arrangement is "uncontested."

NOW has attempted to obscure this antifather family-court bias by claiming "according to several studies, when there is a custody dispute, fathers win custody in the majority of disputed cases." Yet NOW's claim, proclaimed in its national conference resolution attacking the fathers' rights movement, and again in Family Court Report, is without merit. All three of the sources NOW cites used survey pools that either were nonrandom or in which contested and uncontested custody cases were lumped together.

Once custody is lost, divorced dads often are at the mercy of both custodial mothers and the family courts. Divorced dads' complaints include blocked visitation and unenforced visitation orders; "move-away" spouses who permit or even use geography as a method of driving noncustodial fathers out of their children's lives; acceptance by the courts of false and/or uncorroborated accusations as a basis for denying custody or even contact between father and child; rigid, excessive and often punitive child-support awards; and burdensome legal costs.

The presence (or absence) of a father in a child's life is the largest factor in predicting whether a child will graduate from high school, attend college, become involved in crime or drugs, or get pregnant before age 18. The greatest and least recognized force behind America's epidemic of fatherlessness is the way courts allow custodial mothers to drive fathers out of their children's lives.

ishambat

at 14:25 on August 20th, 2012

For a different perspective: http://www.stopfamilyviolence.org/pages/308

"thirty-aught-six" (not verified)

at 03:20 on August 21st, 2012

I was going to counter with an article about women cutting their husbands penis off as the final act in a long list of private and public abuses against their men. However, it would only play into your game of exception to the rule.

What you offer is not another perspective. You have simple injected domestic violence into the conversation. Predictably, violence against women, rather than attempting to show you understand that domestic violence is not a violence against woman only issue.

I'm guessing that over coming the PC anti-male kool-aid must be like struggling with alcoholism.

I counted 49 women's rights organizations in the US vs. 4 men's rights advocacy organizations. I'd say that the heavily outnumbered men's rights advocacy need support more than the women do.

As I said several times already on this thread. Give men their social/familial rights, and along with male public educators/mentors sympathetic to educate young men on their rights, much of the violence against women will disappear.

ishambat

at 13:29 on August 21st, 2012

I'm definitely not part of political correctness. In fact I fought political correctness since I knew what political correctness was.

Everyone deserves rights, both men and women. At no point did I suggest to the contrary.

I'm not in US, I'm in Australia, and here men tend to be much worse than they are in liberal parts of America, whereas women tend to be much better.

And yes, for the most part real domestic violence is man-on-woman. There may be exceptions to that, but most real violence I've seen has been man-on-woman.

"thirty-aught-six" (not verified)

at 15:08 on August 21st, 2012

Some actual facts on the subject. Not anecdotal -"what violence I have seen".

**Due to cultural norms that require men to present a strong façade and that minimize female-perpetrated abuse**

(Mooney, 2000; Straus et al, 1997; Sorenson & Taylor, 2005), men are less likely to verbalize fear of any kind. (Dutton & Nicholls, 2005; Hines et al, in press)
(Dutton, D., & Nicholls, T. (2005). A critical review of the gender paradigm in domestic violence research and theory: Part I – Theory and data. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10, 680-714.
Hines, D., Brown, J., & Dunning, E. (in press) Characteristics of callers to the domestic abuse helpline for men. Journal of Family Violence. Mooney, J. (2000). Gender, violence, and the social order. New York: St. Martin’s Press. Sorenson, S., & Taylor, C. (2005). Female aggression toward male intimate partners: An examination of social norms in a community-based sample. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, 78-96. Straus, M., Kaufman-Kantor, G., & Moore, D. (1997). Change in cultural norms approving marital violence: From 1968 to 1994. In G. Kaufman-Kantor & J. Jasinski (Eds.), Out of the darkness: Contemporary perspectives on family violence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.)

**Individuals who are controlling of their partners are much more likely to also be physically assaultive, and this holds equally for both male and female perpetrators.**

(Felson, R., & Outlaw, M. (2007). The control motive and marital violence. Violence and Victims, 22 (4), 387-407. Graham-Kevan, N. (2007). Men’s and women’s use of intimate partner violence: Implications for treatment programs. Presented July 9, 2007 at the International Family Violence and Child Victimization Research Conference, Portsmouth, New Hampshire.)

**Societal norms support female-perpetrated abuse in the home. **

(Straus et al., 1997; Straus, 1999) (Straus, M. (1999). The controversy over domestic violence by women. In X. Arriaga & S. Oskamp (Eds.), Violence in intimate relationships (pp. 17-44).)

**Structural power does not necessarily translate to individual power.**

(Felson, R. (2002). Violence & gender reexamined. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.)

**Surveys find that men and women assault one another and strike the first blow at approximately equal rates.**

(Archer, J. (2000). Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 126 (5), 651-680. Dutton, D., Kwong, M., & Bartholomew, K. (1999). Gender differences in patterns of relationship violence in Alberta. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 31, 150-160 Morse, B. (1995). Beyond the Conflict Tactics Scale: Assessing gender differences in partner violence. Violence and Victims, 10 (4), 251-269.
Straus, M. (1993). Physical assaults by wives: A major social problem. In R. Gelles & D. Loseky (Eds.), Current controversies on family violence (pp. 67-87). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.)

**Men and women engage in overall comparable levels of abuse and control, such as diminishing the partner’s self-esteem, isolation and jealousy, using children and economic abuse; however, men engage in higher levels of sexual coercion and can more easily intimidate physically.**

(Coker, A, Davis, K., Arias, I., Desai, S., Sanderson, M., Brandt, H., & Smith, P. (2002). Physical and mental health effects of intimate partner violence for men and women. American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 23 (4), 260-268. Hammock, G., & O’Hearn, R. (2002). Psychological aggression in dating relationships: Predictive models for male and females. Violence and Victims, 17, 525-540.)

matt stefanovich (not verified)

at 14:03 on August 15th, 2012

even though I am more in favor of liberal agenda in US., I have some reservations towards the homosexuals as such. I respect the fact that there are homosexuals as a group of people who chose to be that way or they must be that way. I respect also single people {like me} and the men who like gold or career more than family, women, sex. Because people are of different sorts. Yet my prejudice against homosexuals {from my own eperience} is, that they cannot many times control their emotions, anger, dissatisfaction, hate. I was confronted several times with one bisexual lately and it was unpleasant and nasty experience. Educated adult who acted like a 17 year old boy or a girl. what a shame... just because I criticized him publicly and told him he is a ugly person a thief and a looser.. He tried to attack me physically, etc. Normal person with a university degree would accept or oppose my critique, not attack me. There are several issues and difficulties coming along with gays which are quite troubling. many times I feel sorry for them :) sorry for writing so long.

ishambat

at 00:47 on August 16th, 2012

Matt: If you call someone an ugly person, a thief and a loser, what do you expect?

The people I know who've experienced both physical and verbal abuse all say that verbal abuse hurts worse than does physical abuse. So if you're going to verbally abuse another person, I don't see why they wouldn't react physically.

If you say this kind of thing to a non-homosexual or non-bysexual gangster, expect to get shot. And these people are allowed to marry.

matt stefanovich (not verified)

at 12:05 on August 17th, 2012

I am still here... Ilia- the words I said are not exactly those, that I mentioned in the paragraph above.. I just tried to make long story short. I told him , that he is a thief, {which is right), for he was dealt with by the police, I did not tell him, he is ugly :) I usually do not mention private matters like this, but this time I could not resist. when I was young in the US. I had the same problem with one tough guy, but he was more "normal" than this sorry individual. I disagree with homosexual marriages all in all. I really do !! These people are many times unstable, cannot cope with many things and there is pretty high rate of violence, even murder among gay men... I am convinced, that if I tell you , that you have big ego and that you want to look interesting, you would not attack me.. am I wrong ?

ishambat

at 17:22 on August 17th, 2012

Matt, I'm used to being told that I have a big ego. As for homosexuals and bisexuals, what makes you think that the behavior of one person in that group is reflective of the whole group? My friends who are homosexual are not unstable, and some are quite accomplished.

There are probably just as many unstable people among heterosexuals as among homosexuals. A lot of them wind up becoming militantly religious, which is whole another can of worms.

matt stefanovich (not verified)

at 14:48 on August 18th, 2012

sure there are unstable people among heterosexuals, yes. or people who are more inclined to show anger, but they react differently. what I wrote is just my gut feeling or personal opinion. My dad was many times angry at fellow government clerks or even neighbors, but always calmed down the next day and the anger disappeared. He never had feeling of anger towards another man for two or three months. maybe just for a few days. I am not familiar with gay women and their emotions- just one case- former Czechoslovak than american tennis player Martina Navratilova { a lesbian}. She had so much anger at the tennis court, she could "feed the crowds with it". but I agree, its possible I am prejudiced.

ishambat

at 00:37 on August 19th, 2012

You had a bad experience with one thin-skinned person who happened to be a bisexual. It doesn't mean that all bisexuals or homosexuals are thin-skinned, and it doesn't mean that all thin-skinned people are bisexuals or homosexuals. There are thin-skinned people everywhere, and especially in America, where walking on someone's lawn results in prison term or a slight brush with another car results in large payments to the person.