Post: #376

If polygamy is eventually allowed in the US, it will be the women having multiple husbands instead of the other way around.

Post: #377

No, they will not because the main people pushing for it in the US are Mormon fundamentalists, who they hate.

Plus they know damn well it would lead to massive fraud in people marrying in order to pay less in taxes, criminals marrying to avoid being compelled to testify against one another, etc. etc.

They know they are hypocritical on this but don't care.

I think bans on incestual marriage will go, though, if they're not already legally invalid. How can they muster any argument against gay incestual marriage since the two involved can't produce mutant children?

They opened the pandora's box for the legitimization of degeneracy the likes of which the world has only rarely seen.

Post: #378

So who will win?

SJWs on the side of;

1: blacklivesmatter
2: LGBT
3: Muslims

Post: #379

The last paragraph of the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage is an open invitation to legalice anything: polygamy, pedophilic marriage, zoofilic marriage, extra-terrestrial marriage... You name it. However, don't expect the media to give the same attention to polygamy as that given to gay marriage because polygamy is a horrendous patriarchal institution.

Post: #380

There are multiple issues of significance wound up, interconnected, overlapping and confused in this one topic. Just a few of them include:
* The morality/immorality of homosexuality.
* The social impact (or non-impact) of homosexuality.
* The political agenda(s) driving the homosexual agenda.
* Individual rights versus governmental authority.
* States rights versus federal authority.
* The impact of the Supreme Court's actual decision in this case.

The discussion/argument cannot advance until everyone understands what it is they are arguing about. This guy is arguing individual rights, that guy is trumpeting morality and the guy over there is talking about the slippery slope, so it's all just noise and the "discussion" goes nowhere.

To me, one of the most important pieces of this is that the Supreme Court has made the definition of "marriage" subject to the whim of any federal judge on any bench anywhere. If your response to that is, "well, two guys getting married doesn't really affect me or my life," then you (a) we aren't discussing the same thing and (b) can't see anything past the "feels" (i.e., talking points) that the TV is babbling at you.

This and the Obamacare decision mark the open acknowledgement of a significant shift of power in this country, and I'd argue that the three-branch system of government designed by the Constitution has now been reduced to two branches, with the judicial no longer serving as an arbiter of rights but now firmly ensconced as an arm of the legislative branch. The executive branch has been sucking up legislative authority left and right as well, so we're not too far from a one-branch system of government.

Gentlemen, we are the animals in the barn, and we're watching the pigs in the house put on pants and decide how they are going to split up the cigars. The horse is on the way to the glue factory and, yeah, we're all equal, only they are much, much more equal than us.

But I'm sure whatever Planet Ham tweeted out about what someone else Facebooked her that TMZ reported last night about what Kim Kardashian said about gay rights is what we really should be focused on...

Post: #381

I don't think it will because it would piss off feminists since polygamy tends to favor men and is seen as sexist.

I also don't believe it will lead to adults marrying children. Before you ever saw that, you'd need to lower the age of consent. And there's no way in hell anyone is lowering the age of legal consent. Feminists would also virulently oppose that as it would mean more men going for sex with even younger females.

Post: #382

I've been amusing (or depressing) myself this morning in trying to speculate just how all of this bullshit would ever pan out in divorce court.

So you've got, say, two "married" men or two "married" women.

How will the Courts decide who gets what? Is one going to pay alimony or support to another?

Usually the decision is very easy for them: if you're the man, you get screwed, no matter what. But what are they going to do now?

My prediction:

If there are two gay males, the government will screw BOTH of them. Because they're men, and naturally they deserve it, just by being men. The government will make them both pay the government.

If there are two gay females, the government will GIVE them BOTH benefits. And you, the public, will have to pay for it. The government will REWARD them, because they're women.

The requirements of gender-based ideological imperatives will override everything else.

Post: #383

(06-29-2015 12:05 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  I've been amusing (or depressing) myself this morning in trying to speculate just how all of this bullshit would ever pan out in divorce court.

If there are two gay females, the government will GIVE them BOTH benefits. And you, the public, will have to pay for it. The government will REWARD them, because they're women.

The requirements of gender-based ideological imperatives will override everything else.

Well, this angle is really interesting. What about if you have a very benevolent ruling in a 'lesbian' marriage: Both parties just split and leave with their previous assets. Then you got a precedeing that some sly attorney (in the like of Saul Goodman) can use in a 'heterosexual' marriage's divorce in favor of men.

Post: #384

(06-29-2015 11:35 AM)CleanSlate Wrote:  If polygamy is eventually allowed in the US, it will be the women having multiple husbands instead of the other way around.

(06-29-2015 12:03 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  I don't think it will because it would piss off feminists since polygamy tends to favor men and is seen as sexist.

Polyandry (one woman multiple husbands) favours women. Would that get passed? It already exists in societies where there is a lack of women (some parts India, Tibet and Nepal). The situation in the US is so bad, with so many thirsty men that it could feasible – an 8 or 9 would have a line of men willing to take part in this. If polyandry gets passed then so would polygamy.

I can’t see anybody pushing for incest, that’s just too much for people to contemplate.

We all know that many women are OK with “their” man banging other women if he’s discrete about it.

Post: #385

The main reason homosexuality is being aggressively pushed in the media is because the elite want to reduce the population. More gay people means the birth rate is slowed down. Polygamy goes against that so the powers that be will never have it legalized.

Post: #386

The main victors would be wealthy men that want harems of beautiful women. Virtually no western women want multiple husbands.

Post: #387

http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/how-same-s...d-society/

“Just as the gay marriage movement peaks, so does a debate about whether gay identity is dimming, overtaken by its own success,” New York Times reporter and CBS News contributor Jodi Kantor wrote in a Page One article. Kantor joins “CBS This Morning” to discuss her article, "Historic Day for Gays, but Twinge of Loss for an Outsider Culture."

Excerpts from Kantor's article:

Quote:...
“What do gay men have in common when they don’t have oppression?” asked Andrew Sullivan, one of the intellectual architects of the marriage movement. “I don’t know the answer to that yet.”
...
“There is something wonderful about being part of an oppressed community,”
...

The culture is not being gay, just like for feminists it's not about being a woman and for Rev Sharpton it's not about being black.

It's about being a victim.

Make no mistake, their identity crisis will not mean the fight is over and they'll lay down their weapons. It means they will continue looking for more battles to win, for more vengeance to pour out.

Post: #388

I'm going to step out on a limb and propose this was the end game all along of teh gey marriage. The rich and powerful, who are overwhelmingly men, want extra wives. They have been to the oil states and seen the shieks with their young babes in tow behind the older wives and NO ONE will complain about it over there. They have armies of lawyers ready to move into this area as soon as all the church folk have been effectively silenced on the latest issue. Already I'm seeing rainbows proliferate at an alarming pace on Facebook. In a few months they will be able to disenfranchise everyone who WON'T put a rainbow on their profile.

Post: #389

The only thing that's fucking me up is it's still illegal to smoke weed but two dudes can get married. The fuck?

Fix this

Post: #390

(06-29-2015 01:00 PM)Jetlagged Wrote:  The only thing that's fucking me up is it's still illegal to smoke weed but two dudes can get married. The fuck?

Perhaps they should legalize 'inanimate object marriage'. Then you could marry a bag of weed, and retort "Officer, I am giving my husband a blowjob as an expression of my love. Please do not deny us our rights because we are different."

Post: #391

(06-29-2015 01:22 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 01:00 PM)Jetlagged Wrote:  The only thing that's fucking me up is it's still illegal to smoke weed but two dudes can get married. The fuck?

Perhaps they should legalize 'inanimate object marriage'. Then you could marry a bag of weed, and retort "Officer, I am giving my husband a blowjob as an expression of my love. Please do not deny us our rights because we are different."

Lol. Post is relevant to thread but offense taken at underhanded gay insinuation

But seriously, it doesn't make sense.

Post: #392

Politicians don't care much for 'sense' though..

Also turns out it's a real thing LOL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_sexuality

Post: #393

(06-29-2015 12:05 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  I've been amusing (or depressing) myself this morning in trying to speculate just how all of this bullshit would ever pan out in divorce court.

So you've got, say, two "married" men or two "married" women.

How will the Courts decide who gets what? Is one going to pay alimony or support to another?

Usually the decision is very easy for them: if you're the man, you get screwed, no matter what. But what are they going to do now?

My prediction:

If there are two gay males, the government will screw BOTH of them. Because they're men, and naturally they deserve it, just by being men. The government will make them both pay the government.

If there are two gay females, the government will GIVE them BOTH benefits. And you, the public, will have to pay for it. The government will REWARD them, because they're women.

The requirements of gender-based ideological imperatives will override everything else.

My prediction: The judge will decide (perhaps unconsciously) which of the two gaymates is the "husband" and which is the wife. One will have a more masculine or assertive role, the other a more feminine or subservient role. The judge will then punish the "husband" and reward the "wife."

You can take the gender out of the marriage but you can't take out the way two people in a marriage relate to each other, which will be husband and wife even if they are both men or women. That's why when the man is a beta and the woman is the breadwinner, she eventually starts pegging him, figuratively or literally. Its just the way shit works.

And that is also why "gay marriage" is bullshit.

Post: #394

I say it's time to reclaim rainbows from the fags.

   

Post: #395

(06-29-2015 12:05 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  I've been amusing (or depressing) myself this morning in trying to speculate just how all of this bullshit would ever pan out in divorce court.

So you've got, say, two "married" men or two "married" women.

How will the Courts decide who gets what? Is one going to pay alimony or support to another?

Usually the decision is very easy for them: if you're the man, you get screwed, no matter what. But what are they going to do now?

My prediction:

If there are two gay males, the government will screw BOTH of them. Because they're men, and naturally they deserve it, just by being men. The government will make them both pay the government.

If there are two gay females, the government will GIVE them BOTH benefits. And you, the public, will have to pay for it. The government will REWARD them, because they're women.

The requirements of gender-based ideological imperatives will override everything else.

From what I've been told by a Dutch friend on how they handle gay/lesbian divorce in the Netherlands, it's based on income levels.

Post: #396

Well, Joe Biden just spilled the beans...

Post: #397

(06-29-2015 02:26 PM)Seboist Wrote:  From what I've been told by a Dutch friend on how they handle gay/lesbian divorce in the Netherlands, it's based on income levels.

They say that here too, but as we all know, the way things are supposed to happen are not how they actually happen.

Post: #398

(06-29-2015 02:45 PM)Luvianka Wrote:  Well, Joe Biden just spilled the beans...

From the article

Quote:Jewish leaders in the media are in large part responsible for American acceptance of gay marriage, Vice President Biden said Tuesday night.

“I believe what affects the movements in America, what affects our attitudes in America are as much the culture and the arts as anything else,” he said at a Democratic National Committee reception for Jewish American Heritage Month. He cited social media and the sitcom "Will and Grace," giving Jews a large part of the credit for both.

“I bet you 85 percent of those changes, whether it’s in Hollywood or social media are a consequence of Jewish leaders in the industry," he said. "The influence is immense, the influence is immense. And, I might add, it is all to the good. ”

The vice president also praised Jewish contributions to science, immigration reform, the civil-rights movement, the arts, the law and to feminism.

"I think you vastly underestimate the impact you've had on the development of this nation," he said. "We’re a great country because of the contributions and most importantly because of Jewish heritage and the values you brought."

The praise was so profuse that New York Magazine's Jonathan Chait found it worrisome, noting that white supremacists are already taking Biden's speech as evidence of a secret Jewish conspiracy.
Rachel Weiner covers local politics for The Washington Post.

Post: #399

So Biden basically just said: "It's the Jews' fault".

When in doubt, blame the Jews.

Post: #400

(06-29-2015 11:00 AM)Dan Woolf Wrote:  I read a text by someone who was worried about the "slippery slope" we are now in. Overwhelming majority of the comments blasted him and basically laughed at his worries that legalizing gay marriage would lead to other groups (e.g incest couples) demanding and getting equal rights for sex, marriage etc. He got called a bunch of names, including nazi and homophobe.

They won't get it until it's too late, will they?

sure seems that way - but is it really that hard to just stop reading CNN, Facebook et al and do even just a little bit of thinking about it or read some counter-arguments? It's like nobody uses critical thought and reason anymore - ughhh.

(06-29-2015 12:06 AM)Eskhander Wrote:  Lovely people.

Yeah and so brave...yet not one image of Islam or Muhammad in there...probably bc they know they'd get their asses kicked guaranteed (or worse) if the did anything like that....