The World According To Bob

Bob Allen is a philosopher and cyber libertarian. He advocates for the basic human rights of men. Bob has learned to cut through the political nonsense, the propaganda hate, the surface discourse, and talk about the underlying metamessage that the front is hiding. Bob tells it like it is and lets the chips fall where they may. If you like what you read be sure to bookmark this blog and share it with your friends.

Location: United States

You can't make wrong into right by doing wrong more effectively. It's time for real MEN to stand up and take back our families, our society, and our self respect. It is not a crime to be born a man. It is not a crime to act manly.

Thursday, July 27, 2006

Marriage is about procreation

The Washington State Supreme Court yesterday affirmed the legitimate state interest in its statement that the purpose of marriage is to promote procreation and the raising of children. The court affirmed the state's Defense of Marriage Act while telling several lower court minions of Satan that they had significantly overstepped their bounds without any rational application of law.

Procreation and child rearing is a legitimate state interest. Defense of Marriage Act furthers that legitimate interest. The Legislature is entitled to determine that two faggots do not further that legitimate interest. All men and all females of the state may marry so neither is denied equal legal rights. Washington State Supreme Court.

Marriage and child rearing needs to be further strengthened by repeal of so-called "no fault" divorce and the evil of phony "child support" payments to females for destroying marriages. For more reading on saving marriage see The World Accroding to Bob, Saving Marriage


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Selective wording, indicative of predetermination rather then deliberation, quite simply a failure to uphold the constitution.

July 27, 2006 1:36 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Note to anonymous: Irrational wishful thinking does not make rump riders or lolly lickers into husbands and wives. The court deferred legislation to the Legislature, which upholds the constitution.

July 27, 2006 3:09 PM  
Blogger Rich Bansha said...

I have a problem with this decision in that it perpetuates the ridiculous charade that the so-called Defense of Marriage Act defends anything.

No matter what the peter-eaters do, marriage is no better off. Infact, it is getting worse day by day. Until they have a Defense of Marriage Act that outlaws divorce, makes the man the undisputed head of the family,and explicitly forbids the state from interference with the absolute authority of the head of the family; I can't go along with the lie.

Let the turd burglars get their piece of toilet paper from city hall. It is no more an abomination than divorce.

July 27, 2006 8:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It seems like the question asked was not “Should homosexual relationships be protected by the constitution?” but “How do we make such relationships illegal?”. It's the same abominable hypocrisy I've come to know from the left.

A straight person defending gay marriages is like an anti-gun person, voting and fighting for the pro-gun lobby because somebody sneaked “right to bear arms” into the constitution. “Created equal” is an all or nothing thing and unquestionably clear. I would be well above station by undermining the rights of another because of religious conviction (and I'd be a hypocrite) or simple opinion.

heh, how about votes for felons? (or removing defaulted parents from the list)

July 27, 2006 9:49 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Note to Rich Bansha,
You are right that such laws as so-called "no-fault divorce," "spousal rape," and the VAWA have gutted marriage. For more of Bob's opinion on marriage see Saving Marriage

The Defense of Marriage Act does recognize that marriage has always been the society's way of supporting procreation and rearing of the next generation. It also makes clear that the state has a strong interest in marriage for that purpose. Fudge packer whining about "rights" ignores the meaning and purpose of marriage, which is the biological union that creates children and family.

July 27, 2006 10:08 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Note to anonymous: (July 27, 2006 9:49 PM)
The Defense of Marriage Act does not make rump rider relationships illegal. It recognizes the biological fact that only the sexual union of a man and female create children and family, and hence constitutes a marriage. The Legislature determined that there is a legitimate purpose in promoting procreation, and child rearing in two parent homes. It is not a question of left vs. right, but of family and children vs. perversion. People of all political leanings form biological unions, marriages, and create families.

The institution of marriage, the union of man and a female that to create and raise children, is a fundamental human behavior probably at least 50,000 years old according to paleoanthropological theories. It is far, far older than any current popular religion although all modern religions recognize marriage in much the same manner. For more of Bob's opinion on marriage see Saving Marriage

July 27, 2006 10:19 PM  
Blogger The Geezer said...

Geez, Mr. Allen--

Here I thought you were an old Geezer like me, but perhaps not.

Suggesting a return to "fault" divorce is a canard!

I was divorced twice, once under "fault". Let me spell it out for ya. That means one party tells lies about the other party, often in collusion, to meet one of the tests for dissolving a marriage.

While it sounds good, it doesn't make a tinkers damn worth of difference if we have fault, or no-fault divorce.

Now, if ya wanna talk about dis-incentivizing divorce, so that it is not as financially attractive, then we can speak.

The Geezer

July 28, 2006 8:04 AM  
Blogger Bob said...

Note to the Geezer:
I think you and Bob are on the same page. Paying females to break up their families has been a disaster, especially when its combined with easy, walk away, marriage laws. The purpose of marriage, which most people ignore, is to create a stable family for procreating and rearing children. When the mother's only involved in a marriage until her female emotions have a hissy fit it has no stability. When the lack of stability is combined with paying her to destroy her family marriage isn't worth the paper its recorded on. Women file 90% of divorces in the US because they are paid to do so.

You are absolutely right that the remedy is to stop the incentives for divorce. The first incentive that needs to end is the gift of half, or more, of the family property as a reward for destroying the family. The family needs the house, the car, the kitchen pots and pans, and the savings. If the unfaithful bitch wants to run off with the newspaper boy she should be able to take her shirt, the one she's wearing, and her shoes, and that's all. The husband who is trying to keep the family together should be able to keep the kids and all the family property and assets which are needed to support the family. A huge mountain of data shows that kids who are taken from their fathers by divorcing moms are hurt in every measurable way. Kids who stay with their fathers, even when mom leaves, do as well as being raised by two parents.

In general, a female's lie about the husbands adultery should not be grounds for divorce. Its probably no more true than the lies females now tell about "abuse." None of those lies should be grounds to destroy a family. Female lies are reason and justification for the husband to exert some physical control on the female, not justification for her to destroy the family. However, the moment she bears a bastard, which should be found by routine DNA testing at birth, she has already divorced and violated her husband and family. The former husband has justification to boot the whore out with her shirt and shoes.

July 28, 2006 9:21 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Glad you approve Clinton and Monica.

August 02, 2006 4:34 PM  
Anonymous C said...

Anonymous is an angry woman who typically uses a red herring/logical fallacy to verify her misunderstanding of marriage.

A red herring is a way in which women try to manipulate the topic off a proverbial cliff.

Shes obviously already made up her mind and will not change it no matter how unrelated to the topic or how stupid it is!

August 05, 2006 1:30 PM  
Anonymous C said...

Take this following information for what it's worth.

At the time of creation of woman/eve, the suitable companion for Adam/The Man, it should be noted that woman is to be man's helper. The one is the complement of the other, therefore they are a perfect unity, under Divine direction, not so-called "marriage laws" as some know them.

But after an/(their) act of disobedience, that unity is lost; the harmony between them becomes discord, and they no longer have confidence in each other. The man blames the woman for his state, and she blames the power that tempted her. But, it could well be that in time; rather than acknowledge her crime and accept her own responsibility for it; she would blame the man for not preventing her action, so that a growing tension between them is inevitable.

Thank You to JAH.

August 05, 2006 1:50 PM  
Anonymous C said...

This is an interesting part of the bible(a book of history) which confirms that Men are the head of the family and household and society. Take it for what it's worth.


11:3 But I would have you know, that the head/(master) of every man is Christ; and the head/(owner) of the woman [is] the man; and the head(owner) of Christ [is] God.
11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover [his] head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
11:8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman (is part of/a helper for) of the man.
11:9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman (was created) for the man.
14:34 Let your women keep silence in the communities/(society): for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith The Law (of God - Gen. 3:16). (Be seen and not heard and children also).
14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a disgrace for women to speak in the community.

This is a great parable for men to understand. It requires a man to have a certain/without doubt/confident point of view.
I hope this is helpful for men.

August 05, 2006 2:04 PM  
Anonymous C said...

Feminism - denotes women who want to be men/regret being women and who act in a totally unfeminine/lesbianic manner/way, so feminism is the opposite of its definition. Its actually lesbianism.

Gay-homosexual - denotes someone who is unhappy with their gender and wants to pretend to be the opposite gender or to have a relationship with someone of the same gender because they are not happy with normality, so gay, which really means happy, is the opposite of its definition.

This is just an observation that pertains to Men and Women being different and that a real marriage is between a Man and a Woman only, and not these castrating, "cash out" dishonest whores or the pansy psychosexual perverts.

These groups of people (lesbians/perverts) choose a title that is the opposite of what they are or do, to try to deceive the whole world into believing that they are something that they are not, and can never be. In other words they are a LIE designed to hide the TRUTH and deceive us.

I hope my certain point of view makes sense to all of you.

August 05, 2006 2:24 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Note on comments: There has been too much religious scripture being posted as comments. Please review Bob's rules for comments.

August 08, 2006 9:59 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dictionary definition of Feminism:

Function: noun
1 : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
2 : organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests

* * *

Let "C" stick to the facts, and she will see that feminism is not the enemy. Basic justice and Civil Rights are good, not to be misinterpreted or subject to ad hominem attacks.

This is the example of "C's" irrational mud-slinging in her twisted view of Feminism:

... women who want to be men/regret being women and who act in a totally unfeminine/lesbianic manner/way, so feminism is the opposite of its definition. ...

August 08, 2006 4:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hello, I'm anon. written above...

I'm hardcore conservative and very close to a fundi christian as anyone can get.

I'm also male, born, breed, with all the benefits and vice.

August 13, 2006 9:33 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Anonymous said, "Let "C" stick to the facts, and she will see that feminism is not the enemy. Basic justice and Civil Rights are good, not to be misinterpreted or subject to ad hominem attacks"

Yes, according to the definition you posted feminism is organized (sexist prejudice) activity favoring women -- to the detrement of men. Yes, feminism and feminists are the enemies of men, and along the way have hurt uncounted millions of children and young women.

August 14, 2006 11:33 AM  
Anonymous C said...

Yes Bob, but I am not part of any religious "pay tithe or go to hell"
cults. Religions are all designed to be at loggerheads for eternity because they nitpick over every spiting word in the bible.

I just know and understand that the Bible, as many people assume to "know" it, is not a so-called religious "anything".
The Bible is just a Parable of Historical events that can be applied to everyday situations around us all.

Obviuosly this scorned "woman" is calling God a liar and The Dictionary is her "God".

August 19, 2006 7:13 PM  
Anonymous C said...

These Bible passages did relate to marriage and make real men interested and you want to understand what they mean.

They are interesting stories in these interesting times, that is all they are meant to be. Just take it for what it's worth.

August 19, 2006 7:19 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home