Post: #176

Interesting article from a gay man warning of some of the negative consequences gay marriage might have within the gay community.


http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/...ously.html

Post: #177

(06-27-2015 01:56 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

(06-27-2015 01:30 AM)lurker Wrote:  Unbunch your collective panties.
...
In a year from now, you will have forgotten your outrage... Your lives will continue unchanged, except for the handful of you that are closet cases and finally come to grips with your own wants. The tempest will have died in the teacup.

My warning level is too high to respond candidly to this troll.

I've honestly typed up and deleted a post twice. That has got to be a troll. There is no way that anyone would seriously compare the black civil rights struggle, from before slavery to after segregation, to two dudes seeking to fuck each other in the ass with government approval.

Post: #178

I think what the Right needs to do now is to find a man and two women who want to marry, have him attempt to get the second marriage license and be denied, and then push it to the supreme court as fast as possible. The sooner it has become clear that things have got out of hand, the sooner pressure to have an Article 5 convention to restore power to the states could come to a head.

Post: #179

(06-27-2015 03:13 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  I think what the Right needs to do now is to find a man and two women who want to marry, have him attempt to get the second marriage license and be denied, and then push it to the supreme court as fast as possible. The sooner it has become clear that things have got out of hand, the sooner pressure to have an Article 5 convention to restore power to the states could come to a head.

Oh yes it's coming - fast.

I’ll predict the scenario: Within 90 days, some guy shows up at a small town marriage license office and asks for a license for his second wife. They refuse. He goes to court and locally loses, but challenges it to his state court. It won’t hit the Supreme Court until Oct 2017, but will be decided by summer of 2018. Polygamy will be the law of the land; they have no choice because of the interpretation of "happiness".

Post: #180

Not a big Ted Cruz fan, but this is interesting:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/42...-amendment

Post: #181

This is interesting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obergefell...er_factors

What we really need is a full republican congress and president, so they can increase the number of justices, and pack the court with constitutional originalists. At the very least, we need Ginsburg to survive until Obama leaves office, so there is a chance she'll be replaced by someone less subversive.

Post: #182

(06-27-2015 03:38 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  This is interesting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obergefell...er_factors

What we really need is a full republican congress and president, so they can increase the number of justices, and pack the court with constitutional originalists. At the very least, we need Ginsburg to survive until Obama leaves office, so there is a chance she'll be replaced by someone less subversive.

Why do you think Eric Holder has been so quiet lately? My guess is he's being groomed to replace Ginsburg.

Post: #183

Don't have a problem with gay marriage per se. What I do have a problem with is the fact that this was decided via judiciary fiat. You will see continuous assaults against the church and private organizations which is very troubling. This opens the door for a completely new type of tyranny which masquerades as "rights".

My FB feed is inundated from attention whoring both from Betas and girls looking to broadcast the fact that they are "with the struggle".

Post: #184

(06-26-2015 03:28 PM)VolandoVengoVolandoVoy Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 03:12 PM)Slim Shady Wrote:  VVVV, you have no problem with gay adoption and the consequences it will have eventually by infringing on the rights of straight couples with normal children?

This is my biggest issue with this.

Plenty of children are already being adopted by "traditional/straight" man-woman families where in reality one or both parents are bisexual or homosexual. It's not like the NSA puts cameras in people's bedrooms to see what they actually do with their genitalia in their spare time.

I think alcoholics and drug users and people with anger issues are far more likely to be bad parents.

Is your concern the icky homosexuals or do you have a genuine worry for all of the unadopted children currently in need of homes?

If you care about the children, well, there needs to be a three part solution. First, figure out a way to reduce unwanted pregnancies, which means providing sex education and family planning services. Second, increase the state support for those adopting children, so that the pool of potential adoptive parents is larger and of higher quality. Third, figure out a better way to filter who would be good parents and provide good homes. I don't think someone's stated sexual orientation is a good litmus test. There are some gay people who would provide a great home environment, and some straights that would provide a terrible one. Maybe it's even true that gays are more likely to be bad parents, but I don't know of any evidence to that effect. Even if that were true, I still think socioeconomic background, neighborhood, personality, etc, are better predictors of successful parents.

A child growing up in a homosexual household has a roughly 6 times (yes, 600%) greater chance of being abused than one in a heterosexual household. As hard as it is to believe, it's worse even than growing up in an orphanage.

Post: #185

(06-27-2015 01:47 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  This is only the beginning. Now expect the emboldened tyranny of LGBT witch hunts as they turn all dissenting opinions into "hate speech". What what happens to the public education system and the way they will force gay propaganda down the throats of children. Watch it shoved in our faces in advertising, movies. Watch the lawsuits against churches and bakeries. Watch how many people will lose their jobs because somebody googled something "homophobic" they said years ago. Mark my words. If I'm still on RVF in a few years. I'll gladly revisit this post and eat my words if this doesn't happen.

The next perversions "they" are going to push for are much less acceptable, so I fully expect them to double down on their culture war.

People who want to live peacefully in accordance with their deeply held beliefs will be dragged out in public and repeatedly attacked until everyone is aware that thought crimes will destroy you.

We are already seeing that innocently questioning or challenging the approved narrative results in public humiliation of people who have achieved great things, by reprehensible troglodytes who will never do anything of note.


Taleb's point in Antifragile has never been more keenly felt - we no longer have a culture where people will take a charitable view of each other, the most negative interpretation is the only one that can be allowed.

Post: #186

This is what happens when you use the state to define marriage. It shouldn't be defined by the government period. This is what democracy and the state do, given a long enough time line and prosperity, Russia and Eastern Europe will come to the same conclusion. Conservative values always lose in the long run because governments want to keep growing, so they'll adopt Marxists ideology to grow even further.

If the state is not wielded by the conservative or religious people, its wielded by the bleeding heart socialists or communists.

Post: #187

(06-26-2015 07:28 PM)Roosh Wrote:  I'm disappointed at the number of men in this thread who cannot see more than a few months in the future at how such a ruling will effect society and ultimately, the way of life they currently enjoy---how this is but a beginning of getting the camel's full body in the tent and pushing for more policies that will marginalize their lifestyles in a short amount of time (i.e. within 10 years). But that's okay, because many of us here do understand what this ruling means, what the attack on the Confederate flag means, etc., and we will continue sounding the alarm. We will now begin to scratch the depths of degeneracy that no civilization has explored before. Many dark years await us.

Really? Don't you think that's just a tad bit hyperbolic?

I thought you enjoyed reading about history.

You don't even have to go as far back as the Persians and Romans and Mongols and Aztecs to find examples of extreme savagery and degeneracy that far exceed anything we might manage.

I recently finished reading a book by Barbara Tuchman called "Stillman and the American Experience in China" which covered the period of 1911-1945, and gave lots of info on Chiang Kai-shek's government.

They were horribly degenerate, ran the country like a medieval dungeon, and life for the average Chinese was awful. Starvation, rape, torture, etc, were all standard, and never punished. A peasant could be beaten to death on the spot by a tax collector and no one cared. Soldiers starved in his WW2 capital Chongqing and no one cared. It was a mafia government whose only interest was exploitation, personal enrichment, and holding onto power.

I truly believe that you have gone down a rabbit hole, become paranoid, and in the echo chamber of your own forum have views that sharply diverge from reality and what is likely to happen. You can go ahead and ban me for voicing this opinion, but it is sincerely held, and politely stated.

The idea that the SCOTUS ruling yesterday somehow heralds a massive societal downturn that will "marginalize [our]their lifestyles in a short amount of time (i.e. within 10 years)" is extremely unlikely to say the least.

And to say that this is somehow going to lead us to be more degenerate than any society that has ever existed, despite the high levels of socioeconomic development we now enjoy is simply not true.

Post: #188

^^ He's talking about degeneracy, not tyranny.

(06-26-2015 11:47 PM)Dusty Wrote:  "We firmly believe that for a number of issues, including ...women's rights... ,there are not two sides."

We are being marginalized at an alarming pace. This government/media/academia/corporate nexus is saying any opposition to any of their issues, including feminism, is no longer going to be tolerated.

Yes, the media is not even trying to hide their bias anymore. Ten years ago the media tried its best to dispel the notion that they were somehow "liberal" and say that the "liberal media" is a myth.

They are not even trying anymore. They are marching in lock step with this, and they will attempt to destroy anyone that disagrees. The media's role as ecclesiastical court has now been brazenly revealed. The attitude seems to be a finger waving "nah nah what are you gonna do about it you pussies?!"

Post: #189

The significance of a marriage died as soon as the state decided to start meddling with it, i.e. no fault divorce etc. I always thought marriage was an institution of religious faith with minimum involvement from the state. That died years and years ago before even my parents were married.

All the SC decision did was chop another limb off an already dead and butchered concept.

Post: #190

----------------------------------------

Post: #191

This is the worst supreme court opinion I have ever read, and I am a fan of Kennedy. The logical leaps are truly breathtaking.

In essence, marriage is a fundamental right (doctrinally correct, court has ruled multiple times marriage is a fundamental right). The definition of marriage has always been between a man and a woman. Therefore, we must redefine marriage to include homosexual unions, says the court.

It's like saying there is a fundamental right to play soccer ----> soccer has always been about kicking a ball ----> we must recognize handball as part of soccer.

Post: #192

I'm starting to wonder if the only step that makes sense here is Agree And Amplify.
Consider the consequences if a there was a mass movement of men to "convert" to Islam, then march down to the local courthouses and demand to marry additional wives.
I know the Sons of the Prophet get a bad rap here, but there as many variations of Islam as Christianity. The Sufi's have long been known for their peace and tolerance.
Hell, go for a double: find a North African Tuareg tribe who will adopt you as a member and declare that you should now be allowed to wear a veil in public, as do all the other Tuareg tribes.
Now watch the SJW's melt when mobs of men in veils start showing up with wife #1, #2 and #3 in tow.
Hossam Aleakhem, my Brothers!

Post: #193

“If you support gay marriage, you MUST, by the same logic, support a marriage between a brother and sister or a father and daughter if they are both adults, because if that’s who they are sexually attracted too, by liberal logic, you can’t judge them as mentally ill or perverted because they’re just being themselves and were born that way and it’s totally “normal” and you’re just an incestphobe if you disagree.”

-Mark Dice

Post: #194

^You do see many liberal websites promoting incest nowadays.

It is hilarious because five years ago, I remember I didn't think gay marriage was a big deal, and I know many people who specifically said things like "And Republicans act like it's going to cause incest, they're so out of their minds." I suppose most of those people still don't support incest but in another 5 years...

Post: #195

(06-27-2015 01:30 AM)lurker Wrote:  Unbunch your collective panties. The purpose of the Constitution (at least, the majority of the Amendments) is to prevent the collective will of the people (often referred to as the 'tyranny of the majority') from passing laws that infringe individual rights.

Almost fifty years ago, the Court decided a nearly identical case, except the couple was interracial instead of gay. That case was decided on the exact same grounds seen here - that both substantive due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment prohibit the state from interfering in this aspect of its citizens' private lives. If you bothered to read and understand today's decision, you'll note that earlier case is comprehensively relied on throughout the opinion. Western Civilization didn't end then, and it won't now.

Make no mistake. This is a victory for individual liberty against the autocracy of the state. As amusing as it is to see half of you lose your shit simply because that freedom inures to a faction you perceive to be antagonistic to yourselves in a culture war, and clamor to diminish the due process rights of others while publicly bemoaning encroachments on your own, you're willfully ignoring that this is a recitation of basic protections you hold for granted.

In a year from now, you will have forgotten your outrage. The distinct minority of Americans who are gay will go about their lives, some married. Your lives will continue unchanged, except for the handful of you that are closet cases and finally come to grips with your own wants. The tempest will have died in the teacup.

Couldn't agree more. You guys have created a great echo chamber here for your delusions.

This thread has provided plenty of LOL moments for me. Russo-Chinese conspiracy???? The Fall of the West???? Give me a break.

Enjoy your conspiracy fever-dream circle jerk, fellas!

Doc Holliday out!

Post: #196

(06-27-2015 02:06 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  Interesting article from a gay man warning of some of the negative consequences gay marriage might have within the gay community.


http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/...ously.html

From the article you link:

Quote:many folks on the right share the fear articulated in this image and its associated story: Marriage equality is almost certainly coming, and it will have Unintended Consequences. For one thing, it will violate the personal and religious freedoms of business owners, flattening them under the unbearable mass of having to serve LGBTQ citizens. It will also probably lead to legal polygamy and all manner of other relational deviance, including the frightening realization that healthy marriages may not require monogamy, resulting in an opening up of what the institution might mean. Marriage equality will also hasten our shift to a world in which, as with interracial marriage, it is no longer considered couth to question the dignity of same-sex love in polite society. Lastly, it will of course be devastating to the children.

Notice how he threw in that part about the realization "that healthy marriages may not require monogamy". I'm guessing that in the gay male community monogamy is harder to achieve, and therefore cheating is less of a deal breaker for gay men. I am willing to bet this type of thinking will trickle over into heterosexual relationships as women will use married-but-not-monogomous gay marriages as leverage/evidence that they should be allowed to fuck around on their beta male husbands.

I think there will absolutely be an "opening up of what the institution might mean" as he puts it. Now that they've broadened the definition of marriage, our culture will broaden the list of behaviors that are deemed acceptable within a marriage. If it were just about gays legitimizing their relationships, I wouldn't really care either way, but I honestly don't think its going to end here. Maybe I'm wrong.

Quote:It’s probably no surprise that most of these consequences do not trouble me greatly. In fact, some of them seem like clear bonuses to marriage equality, while others, if they come under serious consideration, will face the same refining legal and cultural scrutiny same-sex marriage has been subjected to over the last 30 years or so. And as for the children, they usually prove to be far more adaptable and fair-minded than the parents who would use them as culture war weapons anyway.

As far as the children, that's the same thing they said about divorce- children are "resilient and adaptable" and it's better to have mom and dad happily separated than unhappily married. That turned out to be wrong.

Post: #197

(06-27-2015 06:32 AM)VolandoVengoVolandoVoy Wrote:  Really? Don't you think that's just a tad bit hyperbolic?

I thought you enjoyed reading about history.

You don't even have to go as far back as the Persians and Romans and Mongols and Aztecs to find examples of extreme savagery and degeneracy that far exceed anything we might manage.

I think the fact that you felt compelled to reference the Aztecs in order to create sufficient contrast is in itself rather instructive.

Post: #198

(06-27-2015 09:18 AM)docholliday Wrote:  Couldn't agree more. You guys have created a great echo chamber here for your delusions.

This thread has provided plenty of LOL moments for me. Russo-Chinese conspiracy???? The Fall of the West???? Give me a break.

Enjoy your conspiracy fever-dream circle jerk, fellas!

Doc Holliday out!

Literally the entire Western establishment and broader public culture is ecstatically convulsing over the legalization of homosexual marriage, while publicly opposing the LGBT agenda has become professional and often social suicide.

...and you call this thread an echo chamber and a circle-jerk?

Somehow I don't think the forum will miss your enlightening contributions. Now scurry off, I'm sure you have some Modern Family back episodes to catch up on.

Post: #199

(06-27-2015 08:01 AM)Dan Woolf Wrote:  I've resigned myself to the fact that for the rest of my life, apart from my career related socializing and banging women, I will be extremely isolated. I don't think I'll have any real life friends ever again because I'd rather be alone than fight 24/7 to keep my mouth shut and if I fail to do so, I get called bitter and misogynist and racist and whatever.

I will pour my heart and thoughts into my art, at least they haven't taken that away. Yet.

It makes me feel very sad too. I see that degenerate culture is spreading quickly and there is little that can be done to stop it. Most of the Christian world has already fallen...

In Western Europe only Italy has not yet debased marriage, but it has a new, degenerate-loving government which already 'reformed' divorce laws this year and announced that it will soon create "civil" unions for faggots. Further debasement is not far away.

Most of South America seems to be already supporting homosexuals or has announced the intention to do so.

Russia is one of the few countries moving in the opposite direction, both legally and socially. As an example, groups have been formed here in St. Petersburg to hunt down pedophile-faggots on social media sites and then report them to employers, child protection agencies and the Police.

This year I've started working with the Russian Nationalists to catch foreign faggot-lovers... So far we've arranged for the deportation and 10-year ban of a British journalist who was collaborating with local gay activist groups. We also turned over evidence of drug use by an American woman who was writing a Ph.D on homosexuals in Russia. She's awaiting conviction and will likely spend three years in prison.
If anyone knows of other foreigners in Russia who are spreading faggot propaganda or otherwise supporting them, please let me know. I've built up a good network of contacts who can get the authorities onto it. Laws were strengthened this year, making it very easy for the FSB to deport foreigners who are considered a threat to national security, and that includes social warriors.

Post: #200

(06-27-2015 09:05 AM)Sonsowey Wrote:  ^You do see many liberal websites promoting incest nowadays.

It is hilarious because five years ago, I remember I didn't think gay marriage was a big deal, and I know many people who specifically said things like "And Republicans act like it's going to cause incest, they're so out of their minds." I suppose most of those people still don't support incest but in another 5 years...

Incest has been rebranded. It is now called "genetic sexual attraction". Google it and will find plenty of recent articles such as this:

What It's Like to Date Your Dad

Note the link within the article:

Full Marriage Equality