My opinion on homo marriage

My opinion on homo marriage

John Bjarne Grover

Homo is a perversion ('going astray' that means) that develops due to custody problems in the period of upbringing of the child. It is a perversion because it means the rejection of the rights of the children - the homo has been abused or led astray by the adults in the upbringing and wants as adult to do the same with other children in return.

Marriage exists in all cultures because it is the institutionalization of the rights of the children: A child is born from the marital conjunction which is defined as an act of love and that is what secures the rights of the children to be loved and not led astray.

If sex is the same as the marital conjunction then homo is a perversion because it rejects the rights of the children. Homo sex cannot create children.

'Homo marriage' means to give priority to the frankensteins that will develop within some decades of time. They have no childhood and a limited or at least special understanding of reality.

Of course it is not right to reject people who have been unfortunate in the upbringing any more than one rejects a person with a wooden leg. But that is not about institutionalization of the fundamental human relations. Homo marriage means to give priority to the world of secret service that has developed from Adolf Hitler.

'Homo marriage' is probably an attempt to install by political means love into the upcoming frankensteins. Humans have only a humble 80 gigas or so in their brains while the frankensteins will have scaring teras - and nothing can be more important (think the human poodles) than securing that these teras be filled with love.

Could be there is some sense in this - could be this is the 'Hunde' in my 'Dornenstrauch' - the puzzling way of reductionism in the thinking of the homo sapiens. Could be, of course, that sex generally is a human attempt to pump love into a remote structure - could be even of a slightly cold and threatening character. They want to protect their children against the indifference of the 'frankensteins'. But is that the same as 'children's rights'? Left and right hemispheres could have different views on this. Clearly sex (with or without love-pumps) as such is not dependent on marriage, and children can be conceived without a marital conjunction - but all this is marginal and it is likely that the institution of marriage serves to protect the children against abuse. That is what marriage is for and it exists in all cultures - but there cannot be a protection in it except for that concept of 'love in the marital conjunction which creates the children'. To make it more difficult for the one part to run off with a lover is not the reason. But then homo marriage can deprive the children of these rights because it cannot create children - and should that make the frankensteins less threatening?

In the worst case, homo marriage threatens not only the children's rights but also the fundamental principles of democracy. Two essential observations:

1) Most people will, if they get their first book manuscript rejected by a publisher, try another publisher and then a third, but will never start the work on the second book before the first is accepted by the society. After rejection #36 they either give up or try #37 but still cannot start the work with book #2 before the publisher has agreed to publish #1. In my case this was not possible - I had to continue the work before the first book was accepted - and that is why I came to the blue metre.

2) With the new surveillance technology, revolution is no longer possible.

These are one and the same thing. That is a mighty challenge to the wits of the ruling power. If they cannot let the blue metre through to public fact, then the human race has started going for a future as poodles - and then the self-reproducing frankensteins cannot be avoided. That could even come to replace traditional religion - the poodles believing in the divine frankensteins and thereby being their 'best friends', paying 'service' with slippers and evening news. State terrorism could be an attempt of politics to imitate the 'scaring teras' of the frankensteins - you must multiply the gigas with 1000 - the blue metre! - for getting to the teras.

It is also possible that the extensive 'theatre' of word games and funny roles in alleged 'politics' serve the role of providing for a membrane between the world of human poodles and the new reality.

If homo marriage means that the children are deprived of the institutionalized right to be loved, it means that the child cannot invest very much into its intellectual development and achievements for the best of society since it cannot really trust the upbringing. It asks what the cup is called and the caretakers say it is an anus, and only years later is the child able to reject the mock (or 'theatre' of word games and funny roles) as incorrect. Such leading-astray slows down the development seriously - and it could resemble the situation of the applicants to research councils when a detailed overview and time schedule for progress and new discoveries is required in advance. It is precisely for avoiding that sort of mock that marriage is established - and that is what makes cultural progress possible. To go for a society wherein the humans behave like machines is not desirable.

The conclusion is that knowledge of the blue metre should not be a threat to the human existence - on the contrary it could be the rescue. It is very possible that this whole problemshift - including the possible administrative wish to reject a blue-metre identity between the Bhagavadgita and the Odyssey for keeping them apart like a Robert Ganzo and an Alain Bosquet - could be that very much work that has been invested into planning of the future will turn out be wasted when the blue metre comes to the surface.

PS I add to the story of the blue metre that 'Smolensk' even could be a reference to my name as a spoon from 'crawl-smukk' (crawl-pretty) to 'smallcrukk' - and then even John Smo-Lennon-sk could be about that 'len'.