Philippe de Villiers: “For Sarkozy, the Islamization of Europe Is Inevitable”

“In fact, there are two weapons used by European leaders to kill the demographically Europe: the promotion of gay marriage and abortion mass.”

This is how I have always felt. This is not that complicated. It behooves a society to promote live biths.

Hello from Spain.

Villiers is right. The phenomenon is really dangerous and the whole european society do not what to see the threat because the solution to this problem would cause human suffers to inmigrants, but there´s no other choice if we want to survive as a civilization.

Nevertheless, I think there´s no hope and islamization is inevitable. We europeans are allowing all this in a colective suicide. We have gone too far and we have no determination to avoid it, we prefer to say “you are exagerating, islam is peace, etc”

Some may find the following version easier to read:
Famille Chretienne: Why do you focus on the theme of Turkey and Islamization?
Philippe de Villiers: Simply because we are going to see the first transformation of churches into mosques in the next three years. In any case, this is what Nicolas Sarkozy said.
FC: When?
PdeV: I had a substantive discussion with him at the Elysée at the end of last year, he said: “You have an intuition; I have the figures. And your intuition is confirmed by my numbers. The Islamization of Europe is inevitable.” Note that the process will not happen instantly, but will take a few decades.
FC: Why does this issue seem central to you?
PdeV: Most politicians are blissfully ignorant of what Islam is, and they propose to transform Europe into a supermarket of competing religions. They are unaware that Islam is not only a religion but (confusing the temporal and the spiritual) imposes a system of law. But behind that blissful ignorance of politicians, there are those who know. And those who know drafted the Green Paper published in 2000, which is a strategic tool for the Commission in Brussels. It makes the following observation: in the coming years there will occur a demographic collapse involving tens of millions of missing workers. In response, the EU is proposing an injection of new people—they say so explicitly. The reality is that we are moving towards a displacement with mass abortion in Europe and the promotion of homosexual marriage and, on the other hand, mass immigration. This is now called ‘selective immigration,’ and combines the absurdity of rootlessness with an outrageous pillaging the elites from poor countries.
FC: Aren’t you exaggerating the dimensions of the phenomenon?
PdeV: No. The substance of the matter is simple: Europe is rejecting its own demographic future. It has a weapon for this in the Charter of Fundamental Rights attached to the Treaty of Lisbon: the promotion of homosexual marriage. This is being done by means of the principle of non-discrimination and by dissociating the idea of marriage from the sex of the spouses (as stated in Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights). In fact, there are two weapons being used by European leaders to kill Europe demographically: the promotion of gay marriage and mass abortion. And a third: recourse to immigration (80% of it Islamic) to replace the missing population. Finally, Turkey will join Europe: France declares itself unfavorable, but is doing nothing to stop it. We had completed two stages (out of thirty-five in the accession process) two years ago, have completed ten now, and it will be twelve just after the European elections. It was under the French Presidency of the EU that the two most important stages in the accession process were begun. The French are being misled, being told that the UMP is hostile to Turkey’s entry. In fact, the UMP is accelerating the process. It is clear that there is a double standard. On the one hand, you are told in a private “I am against Turkey’s entry,” on the other, negotiations on accession continue, rather than on a mere privileged partnership.

I believe that the megalomaniac elites of the European Union, who envision themselves ruling over a massive multicultural empire, are advocating large-scale Muslim immigration to make the populace more malleable. But what these short-sited, hare-brained politicians fail to realize is the fact that their arbitrary policies will have the consequence of Islamicizing Europe.

The low birth-rates of Europe, assisted by the legal acceptance and legitimization of homosexual marriage and abortion, which are two factors the article mentioned, combined with massive Muslim immigration and their sheer fecundity make Islamicization seem all but inevitable—that is, unless the political circumstances change to favor native Europeans instead of circumstances that doom Europe to demographic suicide. And that seems possible, given the recent and significant victory of the Dutch Freedom Party and the minor but notable victory of the British National Party.

As the cultural clash between the West and Islam further deteriorates in Europe—and you can be certain that it will, considering the demographic explosion of unassimiable Muslims—more and more ordinary Europeans will awaken to their alarming demographic and cultural plight. Consequently, nationalist parties across Europe will get a sufficient amount of votes and gain power, then we’ll finally have politicians who care about our race and culture, and the newly-elected leaders will work towards reversing the Islamicization of our civilization.

While homosexual “marriage” is a side show it is not the cause of Europe’s demise. There have always been homosexuals. The problem is heterosexuals who either refuse to have children or wait until late in life to have children. It is also the fault of the elites who allowed, encouraged and continue to allow and encourage dissimilar immigration. And these same elites have passed laws that punish Europeans for speaking out in their own defense. All the “racial hate” laws. No where in the third world would a non-European country protect a white Christian the way Europeans protect muslims, blacks and asians.

France folded like a cheap deck of cards to the Nazis. They will give in to the third world as well. Hopefully the rest of Europe is waking up. Just say no to further non-white immigration. Actively deport illegals and any children they may have had while in Europe illegally.

Europe is headed toward another bloody world war. Islamization will turn bloody once they have the numbers on their side. The transformation will not be peaceful no matter how much the Europeans accommodate the invaders.

Although I consider myself a “gay” person, I am not especially friendly to the idea of gay marriage. Why? Because it serves no beneficial purpose, no real purpose at all, and it only stirs up resentment and hostility among the general population.

Also, it’s quite evident that Nature intended marriage to be between a man and a woman. I can’t deny that. I wouldn’t try. It’s simply beyond question and beyond debating. To claim otherwise is absurd.

Anyway, it is just a certificate, a piece of paper after all, so why do they (the radical Left) make such an issue of it? And I note that this same issue is currently going on in all the white countries — another phenomenon, like so many others, that can be no mere coincidence or accident. Obviously, these things are being coordinated, somewhere, by someone, and for a purpose.

But while the issue serves to divide people and recruit gay groups into the ranks of the Left, I think it should not be a cause for worry to the rest of the population. I know people get all worked up about it, but they shouldn’t. The simple fact is that even if “gay marriage” is legitimized, there are NOT going to be millions of straight people rushing to turn “gay”. That simply won’t happen! It’s not going to change anybody’s orientation at all. When Prohibition was repealed, did millions of people suddenly go out and become alcoholics? The only people who wanted to drink were those who already wanted to drink. But even there, you can BECOME an alcoholic; but you DON”T “become gay”. You either are or you aren’t. Most people aren’t. And they’re going to stay that way, no matter what laws are passed.

If you’re not interested in gay marriage, you’re still not going to be interested when or if it becomes legal. The only people who are going to take advantage of the opportunity are those few who are already so inclined. So relax! As I see it, it’s a non-issue not worth getting upset about. I’m not.

Well, Posters #2, and #3 as well as Nicolas Sarkozy, of France, are all set to through in the towel, and start bowing toward Mecca on a prayer rug.

Well, not so fast. We just witnessed the European Elections that provided a Center-Right Wing Majority in the European Parliament, as well as locally, and Nationally, in each Country.

I don’t know about you, but I took that as a sign of Providence, which gave me hope, that fellow White Europeans are waking up from their long tolerant Nightmare.

Personally, I have great hope to not only stop this madness in Europe, but throughout the rest of the White world.

In Spain, the people there should rally around the works of such men as El Cid, and Generalisimo Francisco Franco. El Cid chased the Muslim Moors out of Spain, and Franco kept Spain from falling to the Communists.

In France, the History of Emperor Charlemagne forming the Frankish Empire, should serve as a rallying call to all Frenchmen.

Likewise, Hermann who engaged Roman forces on the Rhine, and destroyed them, as well as Frederick the Great,and Otto von Bismarck are all strong German leaders, that saved their lands and then forged a Nation, “Out of Blood and Iron”.

We Americans have our Founding Fathers to guide us, should we ever look to their example, again.

The spirit of George Washington, and Robert E. Lee should be examples of Martial strength and courage, regardless of the odds against them.

Europe is sailing in uncharted waters, always a bad move. Europe will deeply regret this decision.

The plan to flood Europe with Third World migrants was crafted by financial elites, who are currently trying to protect their asset values.

They looked ahead and saw that economic growth would slow, as the baby boomers retired and the population shrank.

Frightened by that prospect, their agenda became one of obtaining ownership of everything of value in Europe, and filling it with a docile and divided population of Third World-ers, desperate to live the Western dream.

Once European nationalism is rendered ineffective by mass immigration, so the plan goes, the continent will be a multicultural free market, and all wealth will then trickle up unfettered to the unelected dictatorship.

Well, hold on Gay Poster. Gay Marriage is no immediate threat to Heterosexuals but it is a cultural threat. Why? Because
as soon as it is legalized, it becomes not only the law of the
land but a cultural norm. Do you not think that the Teaching
Profession is very liberal? And that as soon as it legalized,
they will proceed to push it in the classrooms. A father here in
Massachusetts was lead away in handcuffs from the school. He in-
sisted that the school notify him when the subject came up so he
could take his child out of the class. The school refused saying
that gay marriage is the law now and they need not make any spe-
cial provision as they did in the past. The man and his wife end-
ed up spendind their whole life savings to get this to the sup-
reme court-and then the judge refused to hear it.

Reference Post #7: Nicolas Sarkozy is ready to throw in the towel, etc., etc..

I don’t know how I missed that.

Homosexuals comprise roughly two percent of any given national population. The lower the birth rate, the smaller the proportion of homosexuals, since the likelihood of male homosexuality appears to be enhanced by the number of previous male births (or pregnancies, at least) for any given mother— the theory being that male fetuses are seen by a woman’s body as being alien, and are thus subjected to natural defenses that can alter the subsequent sexual orientation of male offspring.

At any rate, the notion that homosexual marriage— which I personally oppose precisely because I am a civil libertarian, by the way, rather than because of any neolithic religious proscriptions— is going to significantly alter the overall birth rates in countries that adopt such an unnatural institution is patently absurd. If anything, it might have somewhat the opposite effect, as homosexual couples, in recent years, have been going out of their way to have children unnaturally, in their vain (in both senses) attempt to establish that they really are just like the rest of us. Whether homosexual marriage is a veritable godsend or the very harbinger of the Apocalypse, however, it is all-but-irrelevant to the birth dearth, and its calamitous effect on Western Civilization, in both the Old and New Worlds.

As for abortion, it is certainly an hot-button issue— arguably THE hot-button issue in the United States, ever since January 22, 1973— morally and legally. If it were to be outlawed altogether, however, or simply to disappear of its own accord, birth control would still do the job of keeping the birth rates of Western nations below the replacement level of 2.1 live births per adult female. Rather than to blame either the procedure of abortion itself or the technology and availability of cheap and effective birth control, one should concentrate on the regnant mindset that tells modern individuals in Western societies that parenting is itself an anachronism, if not an outright abomination against Mother Gaia, that they ought to forego if at all possible.

That modern mindset has been an important cog in an intellectual movement that has sought to destroy our Western Heritage since the Nineteenth Century— indeed, an intellectual movement whose anti-Western origins actually can be traced back to 332 B.C., when Alexander and his Hellenizing army was en route from Greece to Egypt. Without defeating the full spectrum of this broad assault on Atticism by an unwavering enemy that has managed to co-opt the very heirs of Greece and Rome— and of the erstwhile British Empire— there is very little hope of turning back the tidal wave of History that seems about to destroy it all in a single lifetime, for those unfortunate enough to have been born at just the right— or wrong— place and moment in time.

“There will be time, there will be time
To prepare a face to meet the faces that you meet;
There will be time to murder and create,
And time for all the works and days of hands
That lift and drop a question on your plate; 30
Time for you and time for me,
And time yet for a hundred indecisions,
And for a hundred visions and revisions,
Before the taking of a toast and tea.”

—T.S. Eliot (1917)

no doubt there is an agenda. and there will be a struggle. but there is always a struggle. life is a struggle and anyone not willing to struggle has surrendered their right to live. but there are also advantages. at no time in history have things been as good for us as they are right now. there is no famine or disease. infant mortality is negligible. everyone has access to education and opportunity. therefore, i say stop whining. there is no problem that work, marriage and children will not solve. so do it! dont get weak. get moving. get rocks in your jaws and get tough!

Yes, we white nationalists should bear in mind that one of the most powerful weapons in a war (and make no mistake, we are at war with Islam and its Marxist facilitators) is to spread a mood of defeatism among the enemy, with a view to demoralisation.

Even if the situation really were hopeless, I’d prefer to go down fighting. However, the situation is far from hopeless. We are still very numerous, and we are incomparably superior to our enemies.

Hi again from Spain

Although I have voted to the center-right in Spain (I do not like socialists at all), Center-Right Wing Majority in the European Parliament won´t change just a simple page in the muslim agenda.

They have no courage enough to change things. I´m afraid everything is lost. Europeans can´t stand efforts

I think Francistan is further along than the rest of EU to be a muslim empire of black african muslims, there are enough of them there to burn France down now if one ‘outrages’ the muslims. Sarkozy’s attitude of ‘Islamiloveya’ is of no help to the French Whites either. Weapons are our friends, AND the French Whites friends.

Homosexuality and anti-homosexuality don’t factor into any white versus black/Arab/Mexican/Islam argument.

Turkey is going to join the EU. It’s only a matter of time. Frankly, Europe owes them this. They’re not completely ‘unassimilable’ as far as race is concerned. The children of Turks/whites could be considered white. There is the reality of people with blond hair becoming extinct across Europe.

Johnny English, you are so right. I am disgusted by the defeatism I read here. The situation often seemed hopeless during the earlier Muslim invasions of Europe, but our ancestors prevailed. Remember Don Pelayo and Charles Martel.

Yes, we are soft today. But the poverty and hardships our enemies wish to inflict on us could become a blessing in disguise by hardening us into men again.

there is no famine or disease.(BEEN TO AFRICA LATELY?) infant mortality is negligible (BEEN TO AFRICA LATELY?). everyone has access to education and opportunity (BEEN TO AFRICA LATELY?). therefore, i say stop whining. there is no problem that work, marriage and children will not solve. (Well! the africans are certainly having enough children and 1 out of 3 ain’t to bad for Africa)

I just want to correct the translation on this one point. Thanks to the others, above, who clarified the rest of the translation.

“Finally, Turkey will join Europe: France said it is not favorable, but it does.”

should read more like

“Finally, Turkey will enter the EU: France says it is not in favor of this, but does not work against it.”

I disagree with Nicolas Sarkozy. I believe there is hope. It only takes about 20 to 30 percent of the population to be firmly committed to a goal to enact sweeping changes. But they must possess an iron will, what Nietzsche called the “will to power.”

William Hendershot wrote at 6:13 PM on June 11:
“In fact, there are two weapons used by European leaders to kill the demographically Europe: the promotion of gay marriage and abortion mass.”

This is how I have always felt. This is not that complicated. It behooves a society to promote live biths.

> I don’t agree with this view. I lived in Europe for some time and had friends in a number of nations there. Europeans have simply been trying to be responsible and only birth the children they could support. (That reminds me of how we Amren posters so often complain about Hispanics birthing more children than they can support). Some do wait a long time, but Europeans, once married, generally stay married as opposed to North American straight couples. The promotion of gay marriage will not create more gays, so this is hyperbole. The real issue is Turkey’s entrance into the EU. I am sure that this is simply because it will open up the pipeline for an enduring cheap labor source. The real enemy here are the CAPITALIST manipulators who only care about making more and more money. They have no future vision except the projections of balance sheets.

And to the poster who said that Europe owes Turkey membership in the EU; This would be nothing more than final capitulation to the symbolic Ottoman Empire that tried to fight its way into Europe for 400 years. Now, it will likely get in the way it got into most of the Balkans; through bribes and intrigues.

War is fought on a moral, mental, and physical level. This is in order of importance. Europe has forsaken its legitimate claim to moral superiority over more barbaric peoples in the name of their insane egalitarianism. As far as the mental level goes, who intimidates whom on the streets of Europe?
“Simply because we see the first transformation of churches into mosques.” I am a secular person but this statement fills me with sadness. Churches in Europe may well be relics but they deserve preservation to remind us of our moral origins.
Never forget that the most recognizable landmark in Turkey is a mosque that was once a church!

Dear Gay Citizen,

Thank you for your comments. I appreciate your moderate attitude about this issue. Perhaps you have experienced your sexuality as very fixed and unchangeable, but I don’t think human sexuality works that way. Homosexuality was celebrated in ancient Greece, and the result was that virtually all males came to view it as erotic and desireable. What makes you think that can’t happen in our society?

I do agree with you that we shouldn’t scapegoat homosexuals. I tend to think that voluntary childlessness, confirmed bachelorhood, etc. among heterosexuals is more of a threat. But still homosexuality doesn’t help. Particularly problematic among homosexuals, present company excluded, is the idea that life partnerships is primarily for the emotional and/or sexual gratification of the partners. It is not. It is for procreation and the proper upbringing of children.

to Randolph Carter:

Exactly. Sweeping changes are rarely sparked by majorities, simply because it is almost impossible to satisfy or convince everyone, but by dedicated individuals and visionaries who had the passion and fire to spread their world views to others.

“Europeans have simply been trying to be responsible and only birth the children they could support.”

The problem is that Europeans, who live in the wealthiest and most advanced nations on Earth, are having children at a rate far lower than what they could support. At the very least, an average of three children per family shouldn’t be too much to ask.

“Particularly problematic among homosexuals, present company excluded, is the idea that life partnerships is primarily for the emotional and/or sexual gratification of the partners.”

I have anything against gay people, but the modern “gay culture/lifestyle” is one of the most destructive mentalities we have, and affects the rest of society by promoting sexual pleasure over healthy, fruitful families.

War is fought on a moral, mental, and physical level. This is in order of importance.

No, wars are fought on a POLITICAL and MATERIAL level. As a famous politician pointed out “war is a nation’s politics, by other means” Material reasons are why Japan went to war, they needed them and couldn’t get them, and I think we in the U.S. MAY have had something to do with that.

Dear Gay Citizen,
….. Homosexuality was celebrated in ancient Greece, and the result was that virtually all males came to view it as erotic and desireable. What makes you think that can’t happen in our society?

I have never advocated “celebrating” it. Nor would I. But if you are, you just are. Penalizing it won’t change it any more than celebrating it. Nor will it attract “converts” from people who are straight anyway. If you’re not interested, you’re not going to be interested — it’s just not your cup of tea. As for ancient Greece, I cannot comment. I’ve never been there!

I do believe it remains the same in Turkey and the Arab world today (no matter what someone may indignantly deny). But they suffer no dearth of population, certainly. Well, that’s another culture.

Particularly problematic among homosexuals,… is the idea that life partnership is primarily for the emotional and/or sexual gratification of the partners. It is not. It is for procreation and the proper upbringing of children.

I agree with you PRECISELY. Every word! I could not possibly agree more.
But I have to wonder if you meant to write “heterosexuals” instead. (?) That would seem to fit the sentence better….at least in a great many cases, certainly those that I know.

The formation of families in a secure home is the very basic, fundamental purpose of marriage. Marriage should not be viewed as a way of getting social Security benefits, nor even (primarily) as a source of companionship. People , straight or gay, who just want to have a fling or “shack up” can do so nowadays without legal impediment or even social disapproval. No certificate necessary. What once drew shocked gasps has become quite ordinary. In fact the straight men I know (and many posters here too) insist that legal marriage has become a disadvantage for men — they don’t want it. That’s another reason that I can’t see why gays would want it, when even straights don’t.

In fact (and you can believe me) I try to encourage them to get married, but they are the ones who argue against it! I haven’t convinced anyone yet. They are satisfied with their girlfriends and their temporary relationships. For example, I know an extremely nice young man, attractive and intelligent, thirty, straight, and unmarried. He would make some lucky girl a wonderful husband. His father is an attorney specializing in divorce cases. His father has advised him against getting married because of all the disabilities against men. I was aghast when I learned of this. Doesn’t his father want to have any grandchildren? He is also the last of his line! I’m afraid many people just don’t think in genetic terms.

I have[nt] anything against gay people, but the modern “gay culture/lifestyle” is one of the most destructive mentalities we have, and affects the rest of society by promoting sexual pleasure over healthy, fruitful families.— Anonymous

Maybe you should thank Hugh Heffner, Larry Flynt, and Bob Guccione for that; it sarted with them long before it reached gays. I am no advocate of what you call “the modern gay culture/lifestyle”. Im not defending it. Are you an advocate of the Playboy Bunny lifestyle? Do all straight guys spend their spare time hanging out in strip joints and topless bars? Do all straight women spend their time dancing around a pole in a “gentlemens’ club”? In fact, my “lifestyle” is probably no different from yours. Quite ordinary. But the thing is, I wouldn’t attract your attention.

In truth, when it comes to irresponsible hedonism, I am sure it can be found among people of all stripes. Gays didn’t invent it. I think gays get more blame for it because some of them, a few, are quite flamboyant and attract more attention. But not all. You would never notice me in a crowd. You would never see me perched on a float in the Gay Day parade. To each their own.

“19 — Anonymous wrote at 12:17 PM on June 12:
Johnny English, you are so right. I am disgusted by the defeatism I read here. The situation often seemed hopeless during the earlier Muslim invasions of Europe, but our ancestors prevailed. Remember Don Pelayo and Charles Martel.

Yes, we are soft today. But the poverty and hardships our enemies wish to inflict on us could become a blessing in disguise by hardening us into men again.”

I hope you’re right but there isn’t any time to waste. Let’s get to it. Here in the USA with the numbers of White victims of attacks by criminals “of color” increasing every day, we don’t have to luxury to adhere to a “Let’s wait and see” attitude.

Dear Gay Citizen,

I agree with much of what you say. The playboy lifestyle is more of a threat to white survival. If you get resistance to that fairly obvious statement, perhaps consider that people have become very protective of their sexual freedoms these days. I bet many people put that first and foremost when they go to the polls. It is sad that we have gotten to this point.

The idea that marriage is anti-man is total rubbish. In some sense, the institution of marriage is and always has been an institution designed to channel male sexuality in a creative direction. The purpose of the institution from the dawn of time has been to hold men responsible for their offspring and their mates.

Much of the liberalization in divorce laws we have seen over the last half-century have, ironically, been demanded by feminists although they primarily benefit men. Mothers who bear children in wedlock are no longer entitled to lifelong support from the fathers of their children. There is no doubt that this simple fact reduces white fertility. Women focus on their careers because they know they may have to support themselves. Indeed, even men who are capable of supporting their families often insist that their wives go out to work, placing their children in a day care center.

Marriage now places fewer demands on men than it ever has. Yet the self-interested Hugh Heffners of the world bash it in an attempt to justify their own irresponsible lifestyles. Men who lack proper perspective on the role of sexuality in human life (most of them, gay or straight) quickly latch on to this message.

Therein lies the very serious problem with unmarried cohabitation. In the past, men were required to take lifelong responsibility for their wives and their children as a precondition of sex. Now men feel entitled to unmarried sex without making any promises to stick around. It is really sad.

Now for the part I don’t agree with you about. I don’t think it is true that “either you are or you aren’t” homsexual. I personally know a girl who grew up in an intact family with a father and a mother. After her mother died, her father got involved with a homosexual partner. To me, it appears that her father perhaps had a preference for me but was obviously capable of functioning heterosexually as well. This kind of thing happens all the time I hear.

God bless you.

I often ask the question, how did the world function before economists? I would also ask the question, how did the world function before demographers?

Here’s the UN report on “Replacement Migration”. (I’ve been posting this for years. People didn’t believe it was real or planned. It has been in the works for years)

Replacement Migration:
Is It a Solution to Declining and Ageing Populations?

http://tinyurl.com/6nv55

The purpose of the institution from the dawn of time has been to hold men responsible for their offspring and their mates.

I think deeper investigation will reveal that marriage, as we in the U.S. know it, is a relatively recent happening brought on by the Christians. Before that, ‘marriages’ were more effectively one tribe/clan/faction/country giving a woman as a “wife/hostage” to cement diplomatic arrangements and these arrangements were broken often as politics change.

One poster said that legalaizing gay marriage creates the impression for both gays and straights alike that the institution’s main purpose is about personal and/or sexual gratification for the two partners. Absolutely true, and even though i myself am gay, i do not support same-sex marriage because I feel this is the perception it gives our society. Heterosexuals and gays alike need to realize that marriage is primarily for the bearing and nurturing of the next generation. And nature requires a male and a female to create that next generation. But those of us who are concerned about the survival of Western Civilization shouldn’t spend too much time fretting about homosexuality. What we should concern ourselves with is how to get the fertility rate in Western countries at least up to replacement level and ending immigration from third-world countries. And for those who are “concerned” about us gays, hostility to homosxuallity is far greater from muslim and other foreign cultures than from the supposedly intollerant and traditional whites. I’d personally rather live in Kansas than Iran. Just don’t allow the former to turn into the latter by replacing westeners with non-westerners. Stop Islamization of europe and america!!

“I think deeper investigation will reveal that marriage, as we in the U.S. know it, is a relatively recent happening brought on by the Christians. Before that, ‘marriages’ were more effectively one tribe/clan/faction/country giving a woman as a “wife/hostage” to cement diplomatic arrangements and these arrangements were broken often as politics change.”

Charming. Well I’m not an anthropologist, but I certainly don’t think Christians invented marriage. We find it in Genesis, which is by all accounts 3000 years old at least. According to Genesis, a man shall “cleave unto his wife”, who is a “suitable helpmate” for him and “fill the earth” with her. All the basic elements of marriage are already there: companionship, procreation, indissolubility.

Of course that doesn’t mean abuses of the sort you mention haven’t been commonplace, and that Christians haven’t had to work at bringing society back to the beautiful ideal of marriage found in the Bible.

Sofita wrote
“Homosexuality was celebrated in ancient Greece, and the result was that virtually all males came to view it as erotic and desireable. What makes you think that can’t happen in our society? “

If I remember my history correctly, the men in ancient Greece were separated from women most of the time. Their culture was very different from our modern culture. Also, how could it be that MOST males came to view it as desirable, if they were hetereosexual? That sounds unlikely.

Skip wrote: “I think deeper investigation will reveal that marriage, as we in the U.S. know it, is a relatively recent happening brought on by the Christians. Before that, ‘marriages’ were more effectively one tribe/clan/faction/country giving a woman as a “wife/hostage” to cement diplomatic arrangements and these arrangements were broken often as politics change”

Don’t be so sure of this. My devout Catholic Italian relatives (from Italy) had a spouse picked out for them by their parents, although they were not forced at gun point to marry, there was enormous pressure to do so. I have heard similiar, much worse stories from Italians my own age, only their was far more pressure to marry the gal that was brought home to meet them one day.
Also,I think of my sister, a medical MD and very straight laced, very intelligent, fluent in 3 languages. When my sister got married,her husbands family didn’t really like her, they just saw her as great breeding stock and a wonderful social-and financial- asset by her husband’s McClean, VA family. Think about that a minute. Real advanced, huh?

Among Athenians, to be on the receiving end of a homosexual encounter was contemptible. Most of the male to male sex involved a grown man putting himself between the thighs of a teen boy, not inside him. The boy was expected to resist. A brutish game, and I think it was closely tied to the Athenian’s low regard for women. How or if the game was played in other city-states is not so well documented as for Athens.

I don’t believe most gays support gay marriage. I believe the issue is being spearheaded by a small group in the gay community with a bigger agenda. Most gays could care less and I suspect a good number don’t want it BECAUSE it’s a straight thing.

Gays pushing the issue are just trying to get their foot in the door for other issues such as the right to teach openly in schools and the right to be boy scout leaders. Now, I’m NOT saying that gays are pushing these things to have access to young children for sex. What they ultimately want is to get into these positions of influence so they can push their agenda on small children in the hopes that by normalizing gay issues to kids, kids will grow up to be tolerant and accepting of ‘the gay life style’.

I don’t believe it will work. Most people have a visceral reaction to homosexuals and even if you make it seem normal and acceptable to children, when puberty kicks in, urges and revulsion kick in as well. Teaching a six year old that it’s OK to be huggy and kissy to your best friend doesn’t mean the child will find these things acceptable when they experience their own sex drives.

I’d even bet after all the effort and indoctrination, you’d end up with the same number of heterosexual teens who mock gays and use gay slurs.

I’m a straight woman and for the life of me I don’t understand what gays have to do with the self inflicted plight of Europe! Not even indirectly. If gays want to marry it’s their business. When will people finally understand homosexuality isn’t contagious? You don’t learn how to be gay - you just ARE.

Europeans are idiots. Europe is in deep denial about what Islam is and it’s true purposes. They want to save themselves? They should have kids! 3-4 kids a woman. If they had any brains, they would just invest in encouraging women to have kids and make it easier on them. A paid, long maternity leave. Free childcare and education, tax returns and so on. It will make it easier to have kids and they can invest all the money they are throwing on worthless immigration, on saving their own and their future. IT IS THAT EASY and doable.

34 SKIP: Since Christianity became the official religion of the Romans in the early 300s, are you saying that 1700 years ago marks the relatively recent establishment of marriage as we in the U.S. know it? Do you think that Mesopotamian farmers in 3000 B.C. used marriage to cement diplomatic arrangements? What about Chinese peasants of 2000 B.C? Rome was founded in 700+ B.C., a thousand years before Christianity was adopted, and the Roman Republic was built on the stability of the Roman family. Did the Romans base their marriage customs on Christianity?
It’s true that hunter-gatherer societies to this day have made a point of marriage outside of the immediate tribe, because inbreeding causes defective children. Whether by taboo or by reason, successful societies frown on breeding with one’s sister. I too married outside my immediate tribe. Christianity did not change that.
It is also true that having family relations scattered about is helpful. When my sister comes my way, I put her up. It saves her the cost of a motel. She lets me sleep on her couch too. Christianity did not change that either.
If you want to see societies that do not use the institution of marriage to hold men responsible for their wives and offspring, look to sub-Saharan Africa, or any American ghetto.

If the lack of a high birthrate among Europeans and whites elsewhere in the world is of concern, why not have larger white families? Why do you blame gays? They are always a small percent of the population, too small to really affect the growth rate, IMO. Don’t blame gay cultural values, either. You have control over your values and your lifestyle! If gays choose a racy, playboy lifestyle, it doesn’t mean you have to do the same!!!
You have control of your financial choices! If you don’t like the values of Hollywood movies, pop culture, etc. then DON’T go to see movies or listen to pop music or wear ridiculous clothing if you find the values offensive! If you think it is expensive to raise a child, take a look at HOW you are raising the child and on WHAT you spend your money. You don’t need a mcmansion, expensive home entertainment, designer clothes, gourmet meals or a luxury car. If you spend money on that, then don’t cry the blues you can’t afford a child. You can’t have it both ways! Your child doesn’t need enough toys and designer clothes to fill an entire room to be happy and productive.
Choices. It’s all about choices. What will you choose?

34 SKIP: Since Christianity became the official religion of the Romans in the early 300s, are you saying that 1700 years ago marks the relatively recent establishment of marriage as we in the U.S. know it?

YES that’s what I’m saying. Contrary to what most people believe marriage is NOT a normal human condition, what BLACKS to is the normal thing, i.e. man runs around impregnating as many women as he can…The Roman concept of marriage was more political than you apparently believe, and when a early Roman citizen ‘married’ it may be the last he ever saw of his ‘wife’ if he were called to military service, the Roman Republic wasn’t built on the stability of the Roman family, it was built on the dicipline of the Roman army and the Senate and those two forces had less than stellar family values (some things never change)And NO, the Romans didn’t base their marriage customs on Christianity, I think we all know that, so I say again, marriages were made for political, familial, social and personal arrangements/alliances and ‘love’ if it entered into the arrangement was, as Tina Turner so aptly put “Is a second hand emotion” I have more:)

When a man and a woman marry two important events take place. First they exchange legally binding marriage vows. Second, they are honored and celebrated in a public ceremony followed by a grand party. Now what happens when homosexuals have the same legal rights and honors.
The immediate result is that it will put the State in direct conflict with the Church. Virtually all mainstream churches, with a few exceptions, hold homosexual behavior as a mortal sin. These churches will in fact become institutions of hate. Homosexual activist will demand that these churches must perform the religious marriage of homosexuals, and they will have the liberal courts to enforce there demands.
Once homosexual marriage is legal, the military will face the same problem as the churches. A legaly married homosexual will demand entry into the military, or an active duty soldier will get married to his homosexual lover while on leave and then demand that his new legal partner be granted the same rights as any other military spouse. The final arbitrator in all these problems will be our liberal courts.
Homosexual marriage is not about marriage, it is a cultural war directed against two of our most basic institutions, the family and the military. If they are successful, they will have put two gigantic nails into the coffin of traditional America.

44 SKIP: I suppose you could say that marriage isn’t natural. After all, the opposite of “nature” is “culture”, and marriage is a cultural institution. But for being unnatural, it surely is widespread. In fact, it exists in all civilizations, as does patriarchy. The universality of a given social arrangement is a strong indication that it is rooted in biology.

If you have read some of J. Phillipe Rushton’s work, you may recall the theory of r/K reproductive strategies. r strategies mean lots of offspring with little nurturing, and K strategies mean fewer offspring with more nurturing. Rats are r strategists and have large and frequent litters. Elephants are K strategists and have one calf every five years or so. Among humans, Blacks are r strategists and Orientals are K strategists, with Whites falling in between, but closer to the Orientals. Accordingly, it seems our behaviors have evolved to suit our environments. What chance had a carelessly reared child in ice age Europe? And what chance would that same carelessly raised child have had in ice-free Africa? The normal, natural breeding practices of Blacks are normal and natural only to the lowest of Whites. They are suitable for environments where you can walk around naked and find fruits and game to eat year round, or where White people take care of you. Surely you’re not suggesting that we take Blacks as our models in child rearing?

If the Roman Republic had been built on the discipline of the Roman Army, it would not have been a republic. 700 years after Rome’s founding, the Republic was abolished and the Army came to power. We call that sort of thing caesarism. (BTW, the Star Wars story is cribbed in large part from Roman history.) The Roman Army was no more severely disciplined than other ancient armies, its strength was in the way it was patterned on the Roman family and Roman society in general. Any Assyrian or Persian general could have shirkers killed, just as Roman generals could. But the Roman soldier Belonged in the ranks, the organization was literally, familiar. A soldier’s military family resembled his own, it was not so alien to him as other armies were alien to their troops.

That there were adulterous Romans is a fact. That their behavior would not be recognized as adulterous by Africans is also a fact. If you want an idea of what ancient, pre-Christian Classical marriage was, look to the myths and the literature. Adulterer though he was, Zeus was married, and tried to hide his infidelities from his wife. Penelope waited 20 years for Odysseus to return from the Trojan War. Pygmalion created a statue of the ideal woman, fell in love with the statue, and one of the goddesses took pity on him and gave the statue life. Orpheus went to the underworld to ask Hades to return his dead wife to him. These people knew about love and marriage just as we understand it. Civilized people’s may fall short of their own ideals, but they do not adopt the normal practices of Blacks and remain civilized for long.

Diego said “The immediate result is that it will put the State in direct conflict with the Church”.

Diego, here in the USA we have the separation of church and state. It has been that way since our countries creation. Do you understand that?
What a church does is their business, what people do outside that institution is another. This is NOT to say we shouldn’t let a religious principle guide our lives, don’t misunderstand.

Gay marriage is about just that, marriage, at least in the eyes of the law, the secular law. It is not about demanding your church change what it believes or accepts.