Post: #76

(05-23-2015 12:23 PM)VolandoVengoVolandoVoy Wrote:  Who gives a shit? The less the government interferes and favors one group over another, the better.

If you don't support gay marriage, then don't get married to someone of the same sex.

Government should not be about social engineering. Marriage is a legal contract between two people, nothing more. For people who are religious, you are free to have a civil religious ceremony separate from the government legal one and give it whatever additional meaning you and your Sky Wizard want.

Government should be minimal, aimed at maintaining order while maximizing each individual's freedom.

All drugs, gay marriage, etc, should be fully legal. Basically, unless you are harming someone else or preventing someone else from exercising/enjoying their own freedom, you should be able to do whatever you want, and government should stay out of the way.

Personally, I don't find homosexuality in any way appealing, but the far greater danger in my mind is having the government interfere in the private business of citizens.

If you want minimal government, shouldn't you be asking for no legal marriage? Why have the government involved in marriage at all if you want to shrink it as much as possible? As it is, anyone can have a ceremony and call themselves married, why get the government involved?

You're asking to expand the definition of marriage in order to shrink government?

Post: #77

Well marriage traditionally was underpinning government itself (monarch, lords etc). That can at least explain why government had to be involved in its legalities to begin with.

Post: #78

(05-20-2015 05:22 PM)DickDastardly Wrote:  How many of the people voting on Friday have even read Article 41 of the constitution? Or any of the constitution for that matter.

If you have half a brain and don't drool you should see that the proposed amendment is contradictory to the rest of Article 41.

ARTICLE 41

The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.

The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State.

In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.

The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.

The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.



How the fuck is the marriage of two guys compatible with any of that?


If this passes it will reduce the rest of our constitution to a contradictory clusterfuck the ramifications of which are incalculable.

Effective today, it has been amended via Article 41(a) to read:

The State recognises your boyfriends arsehole as possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, equal to all positive law. The State pledges itself to guard with special care your Arsehole, on which your orgasm is founded , and to protect it against attack. In particular, the State recognises that by stimulating his prostate gland with the bell end of your plonker, you give your partner stimulation without which an uncommonly good orgasm cannot be achieved.

The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that you shall not be obliged by legal necessity to neglect your boyfriend's arsehole

Post: #79

(05-23-2015 12:36 PM)iop890 Wrote:  If you want minimal government, shouldn't you be asking for no legal marriage? Why have the government involved in marriage at all if you want to shrink it as much as possible? As it is, anyone can have a ceremony and call themselves married, why get the government involved?

You're asking to expand the definition of marriage in order to shrink government?

I think marriage is an outdated concept. Historically it was about property and passing property on to the next generation. Probably would be better off without it at all. But that's not realistic.

So, for better or worse, marriage exists.

Simplifying its definition is not expanding it. It is in fact contracting it, since the government's power to define the terms of the contract disappears.

Compare:

Case 1:
Marriage is a legal contract between two legal adults of sound mind, who must be a heterosexual male and a heterosexual female.

Case 2:
Marriage is a legal contract between two legal adults of sound mind.


Case 2 is much simpler and gives the government less to do. The less the government interferes with people's lives the better.


Lastly, I'm not asking for anything. I know my voice counts for nothing in any political or policy debate. I could give a shit about the culture wars or feminism or any other ism or politics at all. It's a much better use of my time to focus my efforts on self-improvement, wealth generation/preservation, and establishing and maintaining my own personal freedom. This morning was legs day. I just ate a big steak. I am now going for a long walk outside to scope out some ass and relax and loosen up my leg muscles which are sore. All of those things are much more relevant to my own personal happiness than the Irish buggering each other or buggering farm animals or whatever it is they do over there.

Post: #80

(05-23-2015 12:23 PM)VolandoVengoVolandoVoy Wrote:  All drugs, gay marriage, etc, should be fully legal. Basically, unless you are harming someone else or preventing someone else from exercising/enjoying their own freedom, you should be able to do whatever you want, and government should stay out of the way.

This type of libertarian utopian thinking is utter nonsense. Have fun in your libertarian paradise that inevitably degrades into a complete shithole of debauchery and vice because you reject the idea of imposing societal norms and standards. I'm sure your son will thank you when he is being brainwashed in school to believe that engaging in anal sex with another man is a harmless and normal past time, and your daughter will no doubt be enriched from being told by society that having dozens of sexual partners and multiple abortions in her twenties is no big deal. Or maybe your son winds up believing he's actually a girl, and your daughter mutilates herself with dozens of tattoos and piercings. Hey, they're not hurting anyone, right? It's all good. The fact that Western society thrived when cultural norms were much more conservative and is completely disintegrating in front of our eyes in today's environment of "anything goes" (aka libertarian) social acceptance seems to be completely lost on you. Just a coincidence, right?

Of course, this is the inevitable result of an atheistic worldview that admits no objective morality, no standard for determining right from wrong. With no way of knowing the proper way to live, the atheist-libertarian has no solid ground to stand to determine his own behavior, much less to dictate the behavior of others. So he's forced to simply throw his hands up in the air and say, "Do whatever you want! Just don't hurt me!" Obviously, when looked at in this manner, the cowardice of this philosophy becomes readily apparent. The atheist-libertarian is forced to either join in with the increasingly debaucherous behavior of his society, or withdraw from its corrupting influence. He fights for nothing because he stands for nothing. He just wants to be left alone while society crumbles around him, because in his childish desire to deny God (and thus objective morality) he simultaneously robs himself of the moral and spiritual foundation necessary to oppose the forces of destruction and decay. Thinking himself intellectually powerful for refuting God, he has rendered himself morally impotent, and is thus powerless to oppose the corruption that surrounds him.

Post: #81

Very sad. Great point about the infantile nature of SJWs. These people are in denial over human biology.

Post: #82

I disagree that marriage is founded in contract. Marriage is founded in natural law. It is observable since time immemorial that men and women tend to glue together, utilize division of labour based on gender differences, and reproduce in 'families'. This 'gluing together' (spending large amounts of time together, living in the same house, sleeping in the same bed, putting each others interests ahead of other peoples, reproducing in this context) has been given a word, probably in every single culture on earth. In English, it is marriage. Marriage is foremost a label for a natural phenomenon, like 'weather' or 'war'.

And if you redefine 'sun' to mean 'moon', that won't stop the earth revolving around it. You can't vote the earth flat either.

'Behavior which states support or attack' is a completely separate question from 'what is the definition of a word' or 'what is human nature'. States shouldn't interfere with private relationships; but for the pride of being intelligent human beings, individuals shouldn't believe things about human nature that are completely false.

Post: #83

(05-23-2015 01:34 PM)scorpion Wrote:  This type of libertarian utopian thinking is utter nonsense. Have fun in your libertarian paradise that inevitably degrades into a complete shithole of debauchery and vice because you reject the idea of imposing societal norms and standards. I'm sure your son will thank you when he is being brainwashed in school to believe that engaging in anal sex with another man is a harmless and normal past time, and your daughter will no doubt be enriched from being told by society that having dozens of sexual partners and multiple abortions in her twenties is no big deal. Or maybe your son winds up believing he's actually a girl, and your daughter mutilates herself with dozens of tattoos and piercings. Hey, they're not hurting anyone, right? It's all good. The fact that Western society thrived when cultural norms were much more conservative and is completely disintegrating in front of our eyes in today's environment of "anything goes" (aka libertarian) social acceptance seems to be completely lost on you. Just a coincidence, right?

Of course, this is the inevitable result of an atheistic worldview that admits no objective morality, no standard for determining right from wrong. With no way of knowing the proper way to live, the atheist-libertarian has no solid ground to stand to determine his own behavior, much less to dictate the behavior of others. So he's forced to simply throw his hands up in the air and say, "Do whatever you want! Just don't hurt me!" Obviously, when looked at in this manner, the cowardice of this philosophy becomes readily apparent. The atheist-libertarian is forced to either join in with the increasingly debaucherous behavior of his society, or withdraw from its corrupting influence. He fights for nothing because he stands for nothing. He just wants to be left alone while society crumbles around him, because in his childish desire to deny God (and thus objective morality) he simultaneously robs himself of the moral and spiritual foundation necessary to oppose the forces of destruction and decay. Thinking himself intellectually powerful for refuting God, he has rendered himself morally impotent, and is thus powerless to oppose the corruption that surrounds him.

What a beautiful, paranoid, apocalyptic rant.

FYI, God is a human invented concept used to control, manipulate, and dominate men.

Organized religion has been the source of limitless ignorance, human suffering, and hundreds of millions of deaths.

The idea that society will descend into chaos if people don't believe in a fairytale is outlandish.

If your son is a transvestite that thinks anal sex is a fun past time, or your daughter is a slut who enjoys abortion, that is not the fault of society for not being sufficiently fascist and religious. That means you were a shitty parent.

If I were to choose to have children, I would not expect or want society to raise them for me.

I think it would be pretty horrible to live in a society that used the law to impose a series of arbitrary cultural norms based on religious myths.

It is the responsibility of the individual to safeguard his own conduct and that of his family.

You seem to view a fascist theocracy as an ideal form of government, I do not share your views.

Anyway, I won't say more about religion, since the last thread I got into discussing it, one of you got butthurt, complained to Roosh and he banned me for a week.

Post: #84

I'm surprised how many guys on here are anti-gay marriage when marriage itself is a crock of shit anyway founded in a religious context which is also BS.

Who cares what gay dudes do

Look after yourself, don't get married.

Also this is a big fuck you to the Catholic Church in Ireland, a paedophilic sanctum that rapes little boys while saying sex outside marriage and condom use is bad for consenting adults

Post: #85

No it is not religion-founded, Que, as I just explained.

But also yes, the church certainly has no history of a higher moral standard than the general public. And unless 'God' can join us in this thread to explain his position, invoking his name is moot.

Post: #86

On a side note guys, have any of you seen this years Eurovision. Just as many gay couples kissing and holding hands as there are straight ones.

Just a theory but I do wonder if homosexuality is on the increase in the Anglosphere because of the way in which masculinity and men are constantly undermined. It has happened before where boys getting bullied, end up turning gay, they can't take it anymore. If collectively men are being raised to be submissive and not really getting to grips with the whole 'dating game'. They eventually opt for the choice of just getting with other men. Especially if you have a sub culture which is presented by the media as being generally fun and easy going, with an unlimited number of partners.

Either way a lot of activist and fabian society types, do use homosexuality as a way of 'challenging societal norms' and deflating tradition. If the LGBT community really gave a toss about the protection of homosexual rights, you would see regular action being taken in Tower Hamlets (East London).

Post: #87

(05-23-2015 12:23 PM)VolandoVengoVolandoVoy Wrote:  Who gives a shit? The less the government interferes and favors one group over another, the better.

The government favors many groups over others. Unless they also legalize polygamy they are favoring couples over group relationships. But libertarians never complain about that being an infringement on personal liberties. Same with incestuous marriage. At least I don't see any movement from civil libertarians demanding freedom for polygamy and intra-family marriages.

Quote:If you don't support gay marriage, then don't get married to someone of the same sex.

Government should not be about social engineering.

Then we should get rid of public school? That's a form of social engineering. As is any social safety net. Labor unions? Anti-discrimination/segregation laws?

Quote:Marriage is a legal contract between two people, nothing more.

Why limit it to two?

Quote:For people who are religious, you are free to have a civil religious ceremony separate from the government legal one and give it whatever additional meaning you and your supreme being want.

Government should be minimal, aimed at maintaining order while maximizing each individual's freedom.

Maintaining social order I would guess is one of the Catholic church's arguments for voting no yesterday.

Quote:All drugs, gay marriage, etc, should be fully legal. Basically, unless you are harming someone else or preventing someone else from exercising/enjoying their own freedom, you should be able to do whatever you want, and government should stay out of the way.

Personally, I don't find homosexuality in any way appealing, but the far greater danger in my mind is having the government interfere in the private business of citizens.

Governments have been defining marriage as male/female since the dawn of time. What was the great danger this brought about? This only became a "problem" a decade ago when SJWs decided to make it one. Especially when civil unions basically give them the same legal benefits anyway. It had nothing to do with rights. Feminism, evisceration of gender norms, gay marriage, LGBT activism and misandry all go hand in hand and are the product of the same crowd pushing a unified agenda.

Quote:If the government gets to pick and choose who can enter into one type of legal contract, why not another type?

My problem with the libertarian(lowercase "l") position on this topic is similar to the problem I have with them on other issues such as immigration. I think libertarians tend to lack long-term thinking and don't understand how much culture is every bit as important as the economy and freedom. Too much freedom can destroy a culture. In the case of (mass)immigration through cultural displacement and in the case of marriage through cavalierly redefining what a family unit means and the importance of procreation. What this law means is that gay and straight preference are elevated to equal status in the culture and under the law. Now this has implications for adoption rights, and how children are taught in school. Remember the incident in Massachusetts where a teacher began reading young students children's books promoting gay marriage? The parents objected but couldn't do anything about it because gay marriage was legal in Massachusetts and the school district basically told them to piss off. You now have businesses getting sued if they don't want to bake a cake for a gay wedding. Rahm Emmanuel threatened to shut down Chic-Fil-A in Chicago because he didn't like the personal views of its CEO. Manny Pacquiao was banned from a major outdoor mall in Los Angeles where he was to make an appearance because he said he's opposed to same sex marriage. This is a man who was reared and lives in a Catholic country. I've seen no demonstrations from civil libertarians on their behalf. Only the noise brigade from the LGBT gestapo. They won the culture war, now they're roaming the countryside shooting any survivors. To them, "you're either with us or against us" and if you aren't with them you represent hate and bigotry. It's as simple as that with these fucking people.

Then you start having the secondary effects such as complaints that there aren't enough LGBTs in visible roles in the media and advertising. Why aren't there more gay politicians? Why don't we have more openly gay athletes? Why not more gays winning Oscars? More scenes on TV and movies showing gays in romantic and sexual acts? More gay studies taught in high school? They will soon start trying to dismantle religion because in their eyes it's a hate cauldron. At the very least they will attempt to take away their tax-exempt status as they tried to do with the Boy Scouts until they folded under SJW pressure. That's what comes after the legal rights(and the accompanying privilege of cultural equality) are secured. I'm telling you, we are only seeing the beginning of this gay movement.

My personal stance on homosexuality is that it's a defect. I've come to the conclusion that it's caused by improper hormonal balances in the mother's womb. These hormones get it right 97% of the time in assigning the correct sexual-preference to the correct sex. But there's a 3% failure rate. I also think in some cases it can be environmentally caused. I don't think it's a choice(in most cases) but I don't believe it's genetic either since there's no such thing as a gay gene. All evidence points to hormone levels in the mother's womb. The fact that you only have a 50% chance of having two gay identical twins vs one gay and one straight shows that there's a strong environmental component as well.

While I don't think homosexuality is immoral, I think it's an undesirable trait to be born with. I think it should be tolerated but not socially promoted. I don't believe in bigotry against gays or giving them a hard time for their ways. I also believe that men are men and women are women for a reason and it's mainly to pair bond and create families and children and marriage is the right of passage for that to happen and fundamentally doesn't apply to gays. SJWs use the bait and switch tactic of "equality and rights" when what they really want is gay acceptance. What "gay acceptance" entails is that homosexuality and heterosexuality are seen as equally ideal in every way. Ask any SJW if they'd prefer their kid to be born gay or straight and every, single, one of them will say "it doesn't matter" and that they are equal. Which to anyone not looking at this topic with politically correct blinders is complete bullshit, considering that one populates the planet. I once debated a liberal by saying, "but if all gays vanished tomorrow, the world would go on like normal. If all straights vanished, humanity would go extinct, so how can yous say both are equal if the main purpose of life is survival and procreation of the species?" At that point all they can do is get mad and walk away.

I really wish the West had the same view on homosexuality that you find in SE Asia. Asian societies are not politically correct so there's no SJW culture. Yet there's no rampant homophobia either for SJWs to react to. There is no groundswell for gay marriage in these countries nor the hatred of gays that came out of cultures based in the Abrahamic faiths. They are accepted. I think it's a refreshing middle ground. I don't see mass gay demonstrations about "fighting hate" nor do I see any pro gay marriage rallies. They seem to have a gentlemen's agreement on the matter. We treat gays fine and we keep male/female marriage and heterosexuality the norm. I wish it was like that in the West. I don't even have a problem with living in a "gay-friendly" country. Doesn't bother me at all. But there are lines to be drawn and unfortunately the West is all-or-nothing on this matter.

Post: #88

I'd say gay dudes and straight dudes tend to be fairly set in their sexuality , women are more flexible and likely to go both ways.

Constitution people are going to steer clear of Tower Hamlets because they see it as a sinkhole of poverty and depravity. They would rather stick to Soho

Post: #89

(05-23-2015 02:24 PM)VolandoVengoVolandoVoy Wrote:  FYI, God is a human invented concept used to control, manipulate, and dominate men.

Religion is simply an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views.

It can be used for "good" as well as "evil". Religion helped to civilize man and give his life meaning. It helped to answer questions that most people are unable to deal with.

That isn't to say that religion hasn't been abused or used as a means to control people.

Simply that it isn't as cut and dry as "religion is evil." You might as well say that thinking is evil.

(05-23-2015 02:24 PM)VolandoVengoVolandoVoy Wrote:  Organized religion has been the source of limitless ignorance, human suffering, and hundreds of millions of deaths.

More people were killed under the banner of Atheism last century.

Post: #90

Once again I urge the rating notes to be expanded so I can link more of Speakeasy's fantastic posts under his +1 mark.

Post: #91

(05-23-2015 02:24 PM)VolandoVengoVolandoVoy Wrote:  FYI, God is a human invented concept used to control, manipulate, and dominate men.

Organized religion has been the source of limitless ignorance, human suffering, and hundreds of millions of deaths.

Ah yes, Christianity, that bane of civilization, that ancient conspiracy to manipulate men into being kind, forgiving, responsible, self-sacrificing, humble, charitable, disciplined and far-sighted. Truly one of the great evils of all time.

(05-23-2015 02:24 PM)VolandoVengoVolandoVoy Wrote:  If your son is a transvestite that thinks anal sex is a fun past time, or your daughter is a slut who enjoys abortion, that is not the fault of society for not being sufficiently fascist and religious. That means you were a shitty parent.

Or it means your children grew up in a society that sought to corrupt them from their youth, leaving you the choice between acquiescing to their corruption or completely sheltering them from those destructive influences. Good luck achieving the latter, especially without the help of religion. What are you going to say to your son when he comes home and tells you he wants to try having sex with a man because his friends and teachers tell him it's perfectly natural? How are you going to tell him it's wrong without having any moral foundation on which to base your beliefs? You will have no legs to stand on. Your objections are then impotent and will be ignored since they will have no basis besides your personal prejudices.

(05-23-2015 02:24 PM)VolandoVengoVolandoVoy Wrote:  If I were to choose to have children, I would not expect or want society to raise them for me.

I think it would be pretty horrible to live in a society that used the law to impose a series of arbitrary cultural norms based on religious myths.

It is the responsibility of the individual to safeguard his own conduct and that of his family.

You and your children are not an island. Society has a massive impact on you whether you like it or not. Children are especially vulnerable because they are so impressionable, and look outward to society to learn social norms and behaviors. And the choice is not between norms imposed by God and no norms at all - it's the choice between the norms of God and the norms of man. And as we are currently seeing in the West, the norms of man are inevitably destructive and short-sighted.

(05-23-2015 02:24 PM)VolandoVengoVolandoVoy Wrote:  You seem to view a fascist theocracy as an ideal form of government, I do not share your views.

Anyway, I won't say more about religion, since the last thread I got into discussing it, one of you got butthurt, complained to Roosh and he banned me for a week.

While not ideal, a fascist theocracy is at least a stable and proven form of government, unlike libertarianism, which exists nowhere because it is incapable of sustaining and defending itself. When your philosophy of government can be distilled to, "I don't give a shit about anything that happens to anyone except me," your nation isn't going to last very long.

Post: #92

(05-23-2015 02:24 PM)Que enspastic Wrote:  I'm surprised how many guys on here are anti-gay marriage when marriage itself is a crock of shit anyway founded in a religious context which is also BS.

Why is it that there are more places in the supposedly theocratic United States where gays can get married then in East Asia, where in 2015 there is finally one place in the entire region (Tokyo) where gays can get married? You can't blame it on Japan's long Judeo-Christian background.

Pretty much every civilization has had marriage of some sort whether it be monogamous or polygamous.

Post: #93

(05-23-2015 01:34 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

(05-23-2015 12:23 PM)VolandoVengoVolandoVoy Wrote:  All drugs, gay marriage, etc, should be fully legal. Basically, unless you are harming someone else or preventing someone else from exercising/enjoying their own freedom, you should be able to do whatever you want, and government should stay out of the way.

This type of libertarian utopian thinking is utter nonsense. Have fun in your libertarian paradise that inevitably degrades into a complete shithole of debauchery and vice because you reject the idea of imposing societal norms and standards. I'm sure your son will thank you when he is being brainwashed in school to believe that engaging in anal sex with another man is a harmless and normal past time, and your daughter will no doubt be enriched from being told by society that having dozens of sexual partners and multiple abortions in her twenties is no big deal. Or maybe your son winds up believing he's actually a girl, and your daughter mutilates herself with dozens of tattoos and piercings. Hey, they're not hurting anyone, right? It's all good. The fact that Western society thrived when cultural norms were much more conservative and is completely disintegrating in front of our eyes in today's environment of "anything goes" (aka libertarian) social acceptance seems to be completely lost on you. Just a coincidence, right?

Of course, this is the inevitable result of an atheistic worldview that admits no objective morality, no standard for determining right from wrong. With no way of knowing the proper way to live, the atheist-libertarian has no solid ground to stand to determine his own behavior, much less to dictate the behavior of others. So he's forced to simply throw his hands up in the air and say, "Do whatever you want! Just don't hurt me!" Obviously, when looked at in this manner, the cowardice of this philosophy becomes readily apparent. The atheist-libertarian is forced to either join in with the increasingly debaucherous behavior of his society, or withdraw from its corrupting influence. He fights for nothing because he stands for nothing. He just wants to be left alone while society crumbles around him, because in his childish desire to deny God (and thus objective morality) he simultaneously robs himself of the moral and spiritual foundation necessary to oppose the forces of destruction and decay. Thinking himself intellectually powerful for refuting God, he has rendered himself morally impotent, and is thus powerless to oppose the corruption that surrounds him.

....And he's back!

Despite being an atheist-libertarian, described with such delicate detail above, I agree that gay marriage has no logical place in society. My beliefs don't stop me from being anti-abortion either.

The problem with gay marriage goes beyond gays bumming each other - which by the way you will never stop unless you kill them all. The problem is that gay couples will adopt kids, or use artificial methods to further their line by having their own kids.

If you understand biology,you know that the presence of gays generally can not be eliminated. They are present in many species in nature. But even in nature they are not meant to reproduce and further their line. In fact the very reason nature makes gays of any species is due to a general high stress environment in the system which requires a lowering in the reproduction numbers and a lowering in mating competition. The higher number of gays and trannies we see today is because of a higher level of chemical and mental stresses on the population. zthese people have an uncurable sickness, and it should be treated as such.

The other problem is that these kids with gay liberal values will be sitting next to your kids in class in kindergarten. Your precious kid will be invited to a play date at these couples' houses, and it will be a crime for you to reject the invitation purely because they are deviants.

Young kids should not be introduced to any sexuality and having gay couples with kids forces you to introduce them to sexual deviance at an early age. You wont be able to tell them that being gay is abnormal either, because the child will be confused, and if he repeats your words out loud, like kids often do, you will get into trouble for being intolerant.

But just because I realize this does not mean I condone religion. In fact I believe that the only way to successfully argue with liberals is to get rid of unnecessary religious argument in these matters and argue them empirically. You don't argue against abortion using the point that God says life is sacred and begins at conception, you argue it using the point that a unborn fetus is still a developed human being with form and organs and thus has the right to life. You might even believe in religion, but that should not be the basis of our argument.

Absolute "libertarianism" could become anarchy, but not many of us atheist-libertarians support absolute anything. Absolutism on any level is generally bad. My value system takes points from good sources of value, rejects and accepts them based on their merit, and comes up with hopefully a better system. Why are people so afraid to make their own choices? Do not tell me that Christianity is an already present best possible system that built society. Christianity, like it's brother Islam, have only helped to retard progress being made by us as a species. We have risen despite religion, not because of it.

In many ways I am a traditionalist, but my values are based on logic that tells me that certain things are wrong. Reason can give you a much better value system for what we want to achieve here. Religion, while it works well against certain deviant parts of society, can not be merged with other parts of our lifestyle and belief system such as due process rights, fact based argument, freedom of choice, and fornicating with attractive 18 year old girls.

There is an alternative.

Post: #94

VolandoVengoVolandoVoy ' Wrote:  What a beautiful, paranoid, apocalyptic rant.

...

The idea that society will descend into chaos if people don't believe in a fairytale is outlandish.

If your son is a transvestite that thinks anal sex is a fun past time, or your daughter is a slut who enjoys abortion, that is not the fault of society for not being sufficiently fascist and religious. That means you were a shitty parent.

If I were to choose to have children, I would not expect or want society to raise them for me.

Ah, fuck it. Some of you are very naïve.

I transitioned from Criminal Psych to Juvenile Justice Psych a couple of years back.

I've spoken before about how Policing, Psychology and Justice was subverted by Radfems and Marxists in the 80's. This was the PC craze of the late 80's, (education fell in the 70's), and this is where from the idea of Justice transferred from protecting victims of crime to treating criminals as the 'real victims' who have somehow been victimised by society.

This line of Marxist Thought has its logical conclusion in the recent dangerous think pieces of the similarly-subverted mainstream media: women should not be jailed for any crime, because they're victims of society; rioters in Baltimore aren't committing any crimes because they're victims of society.

I know how toxic ideas like these spread like memes through academia and the chattering class. I know thought can be dictated through floating reasonable enough propositions in front of vain, privileged people of limited intelligence who think their gender studies credentials mean they're the intellectually-elite, (the 110-130 IQ set are very, very dangerous in this regard).

So, when I'm telling you Mainstream Media sites like Gawker and Huffpo have started trying to demystify and show sympathy for people with sexual attraction towards children over the last 18 months, selling it as something that Good and Right Chattering Progressives should 'have enlightened views on', I know what the end game is. They're arrogant and high on normalising homosexuality, which is why they're suddenly ramming trans-sexuality down everyone's throats. They won't even wait for the win: the process is already in motion. Kids are next.

I know. I know. "That'll never happen."

Quote:It is the responsibility of the individual to safeguard his own conduct and that of his family.

As I said, I've been working in Juvenile Psych, and I'm telling you now: if someone in a protected class wants to fuck your child, there is not a damn thing you can do about it, and no-one will dare risk their comfortable jobs by being tarred with the misogynist / racist / homophobic label, particularly as the Justice / Policing / Media structures are now Matriarchal and women are cowards at heart.

I'd estimate a good 45% of the officers in my town are Lesbians, which is why I've found it so interesting that Feminists keep promoting the myth of policing as a Patriarchy, staffed by nothing but CIS White Men. They want power over women, not justice for them.

So, if you think you can simply 'safeguard' your family, I can tell you about a three year-old-boy repeated anally-violated by a fifty-eight year old Lesbian, who shocked his parents and their guests at a party by showing them the 'game she played with him'.

Despite the witnesses to this; despite interviews and evaluations of the child showing he was too young to be coached and was suspicious and distrustful of being around the Lesbian; despite the Lesbian's tell of not asking 'what is this about' when interviewed; despite both birth parents then denying her any access to the child; the Lesbian sued and the High Court mandated her unsupervised access to the child and had officers accompany her to take the child from the parents to continue doing whatever she was doing to him - I'm guessing it's about wanting him to grow up gay so he doesn't rape women with his evil penis.

I held the mother as she broke down in my arms, not understanding how something could be so obvious, yet, ignored, and how justice could not be done, simply out of people not wanting to risk their little pile of comfort and their social media likes by floating incorrect thought. Being a woman, she now has scars from wrist to elbow.

Of course, you'd expect the media to be interested in such a story, especially when you're risking jail for telling them. Surely they wouldn't just offer 'the editor says the story isn't a good fit for us' when they realise the molestation was a lesbian, not a man, and then throw snarky contempt when challenged for their cowardice. Surely even Female Typists have empathy for children?

This was about the time Lena Dunham talked about her sexualisation of her sister - seeing her as an extension of herself, and Marion Zimmer Bradley's daughter came out about her mother repeatedly-raping her, and I finally realised just how little the media and 'social justice warriors' care about child abuse. You can't turn to them hoping for justice, because their narcissism has been cultivated by social media, and, as such, everyone else is just a tool for their pleasure, so, I'm convinced they don't see the horror in this.

The media ignoring what happened at Rotherham isn't the exception, it's the rule. It's not 'at risk' at happening: it's already here, and it's only going to get worse.

I've thought about this long and hard over the last six months, and I'm abandoning my country to the fangs of the vicious wolves who believe in nothing but their own narcissistic pleasure. I gave my notice last week when w00t told me I was anti-fun and anti-joy for being suspicious of a Mad Max movie written by a radical feminist who tried to normalise sex between a 13 year old girl and a 28 year old woman as a 'positive experience' in one of her plays. He thought the movie was 'fun'. Good for him. It was the push I needed, and I'm thankful to him.

I'm intending to find a more fitting country with a strong religious tradition. Oppressive or controlling is fine with me, because I've seen what the lack of any higher belief leads to in a society, and it has stolen my home from me.

Post: #95

(05-23-2015 04:05 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  So, if you think you can simply 'safeguard' your family, I can tell you about a three year-old-boy repeated anally-violated by a fifty-eight year old Lesbian, who shocked his parents and their guests at a party by showing them the 'game she played with him'.

Despite the witnesses to this; despite interviews and evaluations of the child showing he was too young to be coached and was suspicious and distrustful of being around the Lesbian; despite the Lesbian's tell of not asking 'what is this about' when interviewed; despite both birth parents then denying her any access to the child; the Lesbian sued and the High Court mandated her unsupervised access to the child and had officers accompany her to take the child from the parents to continue doing whatever she was doing to him - I'm guessing it's about wanting him to grow up gay so he doesn't rape women with his evil penis.

WTF? On what grounds?

Post: #96

If I had a 3 year old, and that child was raped, and I could positively ID who had done the rape, I wouldn't bother going to the police in the first place. Likewise, if my neighbor or a client had the same situation, and was unable to take care of things themselves, I would help with that.

Peru used to have the death penalty for rape of a child under 12. A sensible policy. In this case I would carry out the sentence myself, from a distance, using one of my hunting rifles. I'm an excellent shot and used to compete. Problem solved, no need for religion or fascism.

Post: #97

AB assuming this is true, all I can say is, I hope all of this is well documented, names and all, so if the Restoration one day comes, those awaiting justice will receive it.

What safeguards would you recommend to keep distance between these people and one's family, based on what you've seen?

Post: #98

(05-23-2015 03:37 PM)scorpion Wrote:  Or it means your children grew up in a society that sought to corrupt them from their youth, leaving you the choice between acquiescing to their corruption or completely sheltering them from those destructive influences. Good luck achieving the latter, especially without the help of religion. What are you going to say to your son when he comes home and tells you he wants to try having sex with a man because his friends and teachers tell him it's perfectly natural? How are you going to tell him it's wrong without having any moral foundation on which to base your beliefs? You will have no legs to stand on. Your objections are then impotent and will be ignored since they will have no basis besides your personal prejudices.

You and your children are not an island. Society has a massive impact on you whether you like it or not. Children are especially vulnerable because they are so impressionable, and look outward to society to learn social norms and behaviors. And the choice is not between norms imposed by God and no norms at all - it's the choice between the norms of God and the norms of man. And as we are currently seeing in the West, the norms of man are inevitably destructive and short-sighted.

While not ideal, a fascist theocracy is at least a stable and proven form of government, unlike libertarianism, which exists nowhere because it is incapable of sustaining and defending itself. When your philosophy of government can be distilled to, "I don't give a shit about anything that happens to anyone except me," your nation isn't going to last very long.

There are no norms of God, because God exists only in your imagination.

Children don't need a delusional parent who wants someone else to do their job for them.

They need a man who provides firm, individual guidance and takes care of his own business.

Post: #99

(05-23-2015 02:47 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(05-23-2015 12:23 PM)VolandoVengoVolandoVoy Wrote:  Who gives a shit? The less the government interferes and favors one group over another, the better.

The government favors many groups over others. Unless they also legalize polygamy they are favoring couples over group relationships. But libertarians never complain about that being an infringement on personal liberties. Same with incestuous marriage. At least I don't see any movement from civil libertarians demanding freedom for polygamy and intra-family marriages.

Quote:If you don't support gay marriage, then don't get married to someone of the same sex.

Government should not be about social engineering.

Then we should get rid of public school? That's a form of social engineering. As is any social safety net. Labor unions? Anti-discrimination/segregation laws?

Quote:Marriage is a legal contract between two people, nothing more.

Why limit it to two?

Quote:For people who are religious, you are free to have a civil religious ceremony separate from the government legal one and give it whatever additional meaning you and your supreme being want.

Government should be minimal, aimed at maintaining order while maximizing each individual's freedom.

Maintaining social order I would guess is one of the Catholic church's arguments for voting no yesterday.

Quote:All drugs, gay marriage, etc, should be fully legal. Basically, unless you are harming someone else or preventing someone else from exercising/enjoying their own freedom, you should be able to do whatever you want, and government should stay out of the way.

Personally, I don't find homosexuality in any way appealing, but the far greater danger in my mind is having the government interfere in the private business of citizens.

Governments have been defining marriage as male/female since the dawn of time. What was the great danger this brought about? This only became a "problem" a decade ago when SJWs decided to make it one. Especially when civil unions basically give them the same legal benefits anyway. It had nothing to do with rights. Feminism, evisceration of gender norms, gay marriage, LGBT activism and misandry all go hand in hand and are the product of the same crowd pushing a unified agenda.

Quote:If the government gets to pick and choose who can enter into one type of legal contract, why not another type?

While I don't think homosexuality is immoral, I think it's an undesirable trait to be born with. I think it should be tolerated but not socially promoted. I don't believe in bigotry against gays or giving them a hard time for their ways. I also believe that men are men and women are women for a reason and it's mainly to pair bond and create families and children and marriage is the right of passage for that to happen and fundamentally doesn't apply to gays. SJWs use the bait and switch tactic of "equality and rights" when what they really want is gay acceptance. What "gay acceptance" entails is that homosexuality and heterosexuality are seen as equally ideal in every way. Ask any SJW if they'd prefer their kid to be born gay or straight and every, single, one of them will say "it doesn't matter" and that they are equal. Which to anyone not looking at this topic with politically correct blinders is complete bullshit, considering that one populates the planet. I once debated a liberal by saying, "but if all gays vanished tomorrow, the world would go on like normal. If all straights vanished, humanity would go extinct, so how can yous say both are equal if the main purpose of life is survival and procreation of the species?" At that point all they can do is get mad and walk away.

It goes back to the whole "everyone is equal in every way" mentality that so many people in the West adhere today without even considering why they adhere to it.

If marriage is simply a pact between consenting adults who feel a longing for each other for each other then I would say yes heterosexual and homosexual marriages are indeed equal. I would also argue that it would essential render marriage pointless and not different from any sort of boyfriend/girlfriend relationship.

If marriage on the other hand is a way for a society and civilization to sustain itself and to ensure that it continues to exist in both the sense of having new members of the civilization replace the ones that have died and also in maintaining it's culture and values; to create a family unit of some sort (whether monogamous or polygamous) which has proven to be the best way to maintain a civilization; and also seen as a vow to make sure that a couple will make their fullest effort to work towards living towards the two values talked about above, then heterosexual relationships are indeed of a very different nature from homosexual ones and therefore not the same which also implies that they are not equal. Equality can only exist if two things are in essence the same and under the second definition of marriage, they are not in essence the same.

Since so many people are unable to make subtle distinctions they will usually have an emotional response along the lines of how pointing this out this means that you must inherently think homosexuals are inferior in every single way. Nothing along those lines is being asserted. Instead, what is being asserted is that a particular feature of homosexuality makes it at worst unsuitable or at best pointless for marriages to be recognized between them. I don't believe anyone is trying to bring back anti-sodomy laws or trying to restrict homosexual behavior, rather they are just claiming that something of that nature of homosexual relationships doesn't warm it to what the institution of marriage has represented in nearly pretty much every civilization in human history.

With all that said most people probably are thinking that I must be opposed to legalization of gay marriage. That is not the case. At this point in human history marriage has changed so much that all the original meaning behind it has been lost. At this point civil marriage is nothing really more then a formality, an empty ceremony devoid of content and frankly I would blame modern day heterosexuals as much for this. It's basically the equivalent of a vestigial organ that still bears some superficial resemblance to the original thing but no longer has the same function. The only concern I have is what other people have pointed out, that it's giving the progressive left free reign people in the West.

Post: #100

Strictly religious people on the forum must be either virgins, married, or hypocrites.

Pick one.