Tucker Carlson Endorses So-Called “Gay Marriage”

Tucker Carlson this week came out and endorsed so-called “anal marriage” in an incredibly disappointing turn for the only mainstream media figure beloved by the internet.

On the topic of so-called “gay marriage” (also known as “two-fisted matrimony”), Carlson said: “Should people able to get married if they love each other? Yeah, they should, that’s fine.”

This is the first time Carlson has been on record endorsing this vile abomination before the Lord, and has led to severe backlash from the internet, which believes that America needs to follow God’s law rather than Satan’s law (also known as “Jewish tribal law”).

Referring to anal sex as “love” is particularly repulsive and unforgivable. This is much more severe than if he had simply made a legal case or a libertarian case. He actually endorsed the idea that a man sadistically ramming his penis, his fists, and other objects into another man’s anus, an act of the most demonic hatred, is in fact “love.”

If you love someone, you don’t ram things into their rectum, causing them to bleed and blast feces all over the place. That is in extreme opposition to love.

Of course, he got away with saying this – or believes he got away with saying it – by saying that tranny genital mutilations are bad. He says “well sure, I endorse gay marriage like all reasonable people, but this tranny stuff has gone too far.” Apparently, he thinks this is very clever. In fact, this is the slippy slope that right-wingers have been complaining about for decades, and it is unlikely he is fooling anyone by endorsing the previous point on the slippery slope while denouncing the latest iteration.

The only reason we have trannies is that gay marriage was legalized. On the practical level, after gay marriage was legalized, there were many big money lobbying groups that wanted to keep making big money, so they repurposed themselves into tranny advocacy groups, and started pushing for the tranny agenda to be forced on schoolchildren. More importantly, on the psychological level, after you’ve normalized one offensive agenda, you can then begin pushing for the next phase.

If you believe in the Bible, this is all very obvious. God says there is one way to live. No one is going to live up to that in the final reckoning, but everyone must try to live up to it, and we must always recognize right from wrong. If you start declaring evil to be good, then there is no bottom on how far you can fall. There is simply no way to say “I want only a certain amount of evil to be good, I don’t want the really extreme evil to be good.” You can’t say that because you do not have a moral compass.

Under what moral order can you say that gay sex is good, and gay marriage is good, but mutilating people’s genitals or having sex with children is bad? The only thing you can do is go into weird, abstract notions of good and evil which really aren’t based on anything. To say adult gay sex is good but child gay sex is bad, you have to go into notions of consent and the doctrine of consent theory, which is muddy and ridiculous. This is not even a system, and is actually just totally arbitrary. I would never engage in consent-based arguments, because I don’t believe in consent, but if I did, I could easily say “a man can’t consent to having his anus violated because if he wants to consent to that he is mentally ill and therefore incapable of issuing consent.” Meanwhile, a consent-believer can just say “children can consent” (they are already saying this with regards to the mutilations).

It has been clear for some time that these progressive conservatives who want to go back to business as usual after the evaporation of the revolutionary energy around Donald Trump were going to use transgenderism and especially the child tranny movement to say “this is too far,” while also pushing to normalize everything that came before that.

We ultimately have to ask: who does this even appeal to? The right-wing movement in America is a Christian movement primarily, and it is impossible for a Christian to say “anal sex is love.” Meanwhile, the only “gays” I’ve seen against the child tranny movement, and the “drag queen story hour” molestation movement, is a lesbian woman that Tucker Carlson interviews. For months now, he’s been pushing a narrative that being gay doesn’t automatically mean you support these movements targeting children. I have no idea if that is true, but it is very clear that upwards of 95% of homosexuals do support this. Even if 4-5% don’t support it, that is a very small group to target with your political agenda. It’s ultimately unclear why the normalization of homosexuality would be part of the agenda of any right-winger, unless that person was a bad actor attempting to undermine the Christian foundations of America.

The steelman here would be that he’s planning to build a Tulsi Gabbard style “economic populism” movement where leftists and rightists come together under a banner of “reasonableness.” Frankly, no one should want that to happen, but from a practical point of view, it is not going to happen. In order to fight back against the kind of monsters that are coming against us, we need to believe in something. No one is going to be willing to die for “economic populism,” whatever that even is. What’s more, the number of leftists who would be willing to accept this “reasonable” alternative, this plan to hit the brakes on the slippery slope, is an irrelevant fraction of the population. The only thing pushing this kind of material into the narrative does is morally undermine and weaken Christianity.

However, we must concede that it is possible that Carlson legitimately believes in this bizarre fantasy of “left and right unite for moderate homosexual values,” and that would mean he is not necessarily a bad actor, but merely seriously misguided. That said, he has also begun aggressively pushing the neocon agenda for a global war against the Chinese, and it’s much more difficult to give him the benefit of the doubt on that one.