Post: #426

(06-30-2015 06:31 PM)RexImperator Wrote:  This what you get from appointing a "wise Latina".

Had nothing to do with her being latina. It's because she's a liberal Obama appointee. Latinos are more likely to oppose gay marriage than whites. Her ethnicity has nothing to do with it.

In fact I'm sure that's part of why there was so much urgency to get gay marriage through the Supreme Court. As the country's demographics change it might be harder to pass it. Whites are more likely than blacks and Hispanics to support it. And whites will soon be the minority.

Post: #427

Well, it looks like the liberal Cathedral is having it's desired impact even faster than ever.

   

In less than 15 years the acceptance of gay or lesbian relations has shot up 23%. From a population that at most consists of 3-4% homosexuals, this poll belies their disproportionate impact. Only a matter of time before we see polygamy legalized too. Bet those three dudes who married each other in Thailand will be the test case.

There used to be a pretense of objectivity in journalism, along with a staunch free speech mantra. Now, overt advocating of their positions and censorship of dissent is the new normal for "journalism," whatever that is anymore.

Post: #428

There is a difference between specific changes in moral acceptability and an increase in general moral relativism. This chart indicates the latter, not the former.

It also indicates how susceptible the public is to propaganda.

Post: #429

(07-01-2015 09:42 AM)Aenigmarius Wrote:  There is a difference between specific changes in moral acceptability and an increase in general moral relativism.

Could you elaborate on that point? I fail to see a significant difference between the two. How does one change moral acceptability without moral relativism? They seem inextricably linked to me.

Post: #430

(06-30-2015 03:50 PM)TheWastelander Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 03:25 PM)ColSpanker Wrote:  Can we get back to the topic please? With this country going down hard we don't need to start bashing on each other.
Christ, I'm ready to delete my Facebook account from all the goddamn rainbows in it. I even have family members who have drank the Koolaid.

Ask yourself what you get out of having an account on Facebook. Unless you're selling a product I almost guarantee you will see that it's worthless. It is a medium for a bunch of grandstanding attention whores to express how holy they are for supporting whatever degenerate, suicidal cause is popular in the media.

Facebook was outed for using the rainbow profile picture folly as a way to data mine peoples profile on how easy they can be swayed into action via a popular topic.

Post: #431

(07-01-2015 10:18 AM)Socrates Wrote:  

(07-01-2015 09:42 AM)Aenigmarius Wrote:  There is a difference between specific changes in moral acceptability and an increase in general moral relativism.

Could you elaborate on that point? I fail to see a significant difference between the two. How does one change moral acceptability without moral relativism? They seem inextricably linked to me.

People haven't changed their tendency to have morals, but it's easy to sway specific morals due to their sheep-like behaviour.

Post: #432

(06-30-2015 07:35 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 06:31 PM)RexImperator Wrote:  This what you get from appointing a "wise Latina".

Had nothing to do with her being latina. It's because she's a liberal Obama appointee. Latinos are more likely to oppose gay marriage than whites. Her ethnicity has nothing to do with it.

In fact I'm sure that's part of why there was so much urgency to get gay marriage through the Supreme Court. As the country's demographics change it might be harder to pass it. Whites are more likely than blacks and Hispanics to support it. And whites will soon be the minority.

What I was trying to say was that she's obviously bought into the whole cultural Marxist narrative that being a member of some "oppressed" group gives her some special wisdom...I wasn't really intending to comment on the specific ethnicity. (Her words, not mine.)

Post: #433

(07-01-2015 10:18 AM)Socrates Wrote:  

(07-01-2015 09:42 AM)Aenigmarius Wrote:  There is a difference between specific changes in moral acceptability and an increase in general moral relativism.

Could you elaborate on that point? I fail to see a significant difference between the two. How does one change moral acceptability without moral relativism? They seem inextricably linked to me.

An individual can gain a greater understanding of a situation or circumstance and "change" his moral view of it based on thought, study and maturity.

For instance (and just as an example), a Christian might see the death penalty as immoral based on a strict reading of the Ten Commandments ("Thou shalt not kill"). But, over time, that individual might research or reflect, and determine that the "kill" as used in that commandment is meant to be "murder". (For the record, I am not arguing whether or not this is actually true or a proper interpretation, but it is an explanation some Christians do espouse.) Coming from that understanding, perhaps his view of the morality of the death penalty changes. The change here is not really that you think the death penalty was immoral and now you think it is moral. Your morality is based on the 10 Commandments and that morality doesn't change, you are merely applying that morality based on (what you believe is) a better understanding of that morality.

The opposite could happen. A person could believe in the tenant of "an eye for an eye" as a sound moral position, and thus, believe a murderer should be executed. However, with more information, that same person might determine that the way the death penalty is actually applied in the current system is not morally justified (i.e., DNA exonerating people years later, the method of the death penalty being "cruel" or some other justification.) (Again, not arguing whether either of these positions is correct or moral, just putting two things in contrast.) Here, you're morality is based on the "eye for an eye" tenant, but you believe that the death penalty as applied by the penal system is not actually consistent with the "eye for an eye" code.

In that way, an individual's moral understanding of something can evolve. He is still coming at it from a moral place, making a moral judgment, but his understanding of the morality of the issue changes.

This sort of individual change in "moral acceptance" (i.e., an change in a moral understanding or judgment) of a specific issue is different from a societal shift in "moral acceptance" (i.e., a change of opinion on a subject with moral connotations) across an entire spectrum of issues.

In other words, there is a difference in changing the nature of your personal moral values (i.e., having fluid morality) versus changing how you apply your (relatively constant) moral values to specific situations. The latter can be just as bad as the former, but that's not my point.

My point is that evidence of a societal trend in acceptance/rejection of morally based issues across a spectrum of political issues suggests moral relativism, because all the changes are basically in the same direction (e.g., all more accepting of abortion and more rejecting of animal testing). If it were individuals changing how they applied a self-constant morality, the direction of the changes would be back and forth (e.g., some accepting and some rejecting abortion).

Post: #434

(07-01-2015 09:42 AM)Aenigmarius Wrote:  There is a difference between specific changes in moral acceptability and an increase in general moral relativism. This chart indicates the latter, not the former.

It also indicates how susceptible the public is to propaganda.

Don't you see the sum of these examples as indicative of a general trend towards moral relativism? Morals themselves don't change in the space of 15 years, but media induced guilt trips, propaganda and online popularity contests can create incredible coping mechanisms. If the morals truly changed, SJWs would not get upset when their views on the above subjects are challenged. But since they do, we know the morals themselves are still intact (everyone knows two dudes can't really be husband and wife or create a family), while the relativist approach taken towards them has made gymnastic leaps at the Cirque du Soleil level of magnitude.

E.g., even the biggest cock carousel rider still has her slut defense radar up when it comes to lying about the number of partners she's had - she knows deep down inside, the actual morals did not change, but her relativism increased.

EDIT - saw your post above; that clears it up.

Post: #435

(07-01-2015 10:51 AM)SlickyBoy Wrote:  Don't you see the sum of these examples as indicative of a general trend towards moral relativism?

Yes, actually that was supposed to be the point of my post, but maybe I didn't make it clear enough.

Post: #436

(07-01-2015 10:19 AM)kosko Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 03:50 PM)TheWastelander Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 03:25 PM)ColSpanker Wrote:  Can we get back to the topic please? With this country going down hard we don't need to start bashing on each other.
Christ, I'm ready to delete my Facebook account from all the goddamn rainbows in it. I even have family members who have drank the Koolaid.

Ask yourself what you get out of having an account on Facebook. Unless you're selling a product I almost guarantee you will see that it's worthless. It is a medium for a bunch of grandstanding attention whores to express how holy they are for supporting whatever degenerate, suicidal cause is popular in the media.

Facebook was outed for using the rainbow profile picture folly as a way to data mine peoples profile on how easy they can be swayed into action via a popular topic.

The rainbows are one way to identify the SJW zombies. It takes a determined act to make the rainbow, so it's not an idle pastime. Of course, they can do the same and accuse you of not being part of The Family. I'm now looking at a lot of friends and associated in a whole new light on account of those rainbows.
But in answer to the original question I have my company's page on there and I do use FB to generate business, no matter how small.

Post: #437

I’ve heard people say to me that homophobia is the same as racism – I don’t agree with that. I think it’s offensive to compare the struggles of slavery and Jim Crow with banging men.

Does anybody have any arguments which prove that homophobia ≠ racism?

Post: #438

(07-01-2015 12:42 PM)WalterBlack Wrote:  I’ve heard people say to me that homophobia is the same as racism – I don’t agree with that. I think it’s offensive to compare the struggles of slavery and Jim Crow with banging men.

Does anybody have any arguments which prove that homophobia ≠ racism?

Don't accept the premise of the argument. Objecting to gay marriage has nothing inherently to do with homophobia...it's perfectly possible to hold no animus towards homosexuals while simultaneously observing that homosexual marriage is a moronic, nonsensical concept.

In the same way, the fact that I hold that two plus two equals four doesn't mean I hate the number five. Homosexual partnerships simply are not marriage, and giving it that label doesn't change that incontrovertible fact. One's opinion of homosexuals needn't be relevant.

As for those who claim that going against "homosexual marriage" (insofar as one can go against a logical impossibility) is the same as going against interracial marriage, that's utter stupidity for the following reasons:

a.) As the SCOTUS noted in its majority opinion of Loving v Virginia, bans on interracial marriage are in fact the exception and not the rule, and arose only due to the social consequences of slavery. Interracial marriages have been happening for thousands of years in western and non-western traditions...whereas even the most pro-homosexual societies in history (ie ancient Greece) never faintly considered recognizing homosexual partnerships as "marriage" precisely because it's a contradiction in terms.

b.) The SCOTUS' majority opinion in Loving v Virginia takes the biological basis of marriage as a major justification for the legalization of interracial marriage: "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival"...it's right there in black and white (pun not intended), procreation and our future as a species is the raison d'etre for marriage and the reason why interracial marriage cannot be fundamentally distinguished from intraracial marriage. For exactly the same reason, "homosexual marriage" is a baseless fiction.

Now, for those who say that marriage doesn't always include procreation, well that's true but it's accessorial to the main point. If an elderly man and woman marry and cannot procreate, reasonable people can distinguish between two people who could have once procreated and two people who will never be able to. If a man and woman with potency/fertility issues marry, reasonable people can again distinguish between two people who could procreate if not for a health issue and two people who will never be able to procreate no matter their health. Finally, if a man and woman marry and choose not to procreate, reasonable people can once again distinguish between two people who could procreate if they so chose and two people who will never be able to do so no matter what they choose.

In short, marriage is a function of sex. Race, therefore, is not central to its definition. Sexuality, however, is. It really is that simple.

Post: #439

(07-01-2015 12:42 PM)WalterBlack Wrote:  I’ve heard people say to me that homophobia is the same as racism – I don’t agree with that. I think it’s offensive to compare the struggles of slavery and Jim Crow with banging men.

Does anybody have any arguments which prove that homophobia ≠ racism?

I was actually thinking about this topic while my bike the other day. Main differences are that race is about what you look like and homosexuality is about the way you behave. Phenotype vs a behavior/way of life. That's why they can't be compared. There's no such thing as a gay race. To be gay you have to do something. You may feel gay inside without doing anything, but nobody knows that unless you do something to make it known. You don't have to do anything to be considered black.

Gays never had systematic oppression against them. They weren't sold into slavery, denied the right to vote, denied education, made to drink from separate fountains, banned from home loans, beaten in the street by cops, made to sit in the back of the bus, lynched by the KKK, etc. Gays have by and large been left alone, at least when compared to blacks, even if their sexual behavior has been subject to ridicule. Something you couldn't say about blacks. Gays also have the option of keeping it in the closet when it's convenient to do so. There's no equivalent of keeping your race in the closet.

So that's where it differs.

Post: #440

^^^^
The reason why I asked the question is because an Indian-American SJW lawyer relative of mine said that gay rights = civil rights. I told her a person can choose who they bang, but not the colour of their skin. She then said yes but there were black people who passed for white back in the day...I thought “fuck it” and changed the subject. I was a guest at their function so I didn’t want to start shit with anybody.

The worst thing is that her husband is a black American!

Post: #441

(07-01-2015 12:42 PM)WalterBlack Wrote:  I’ve heard people say to me that homophobia is the same as racism – I don’t agree with that. I think it’s offensive to compare the struggles of slavery and Jim Crow with banging men.

Does anybody have any arguments which prove that homophobia ≠ racism?

No. Just no.

Never have dividing lines been drawn between humanity more blatantly than race.

Colour, and less so, nationality, have been our most defining hallmarks -- with all the cultural and societal traits that come with them -- which best personify the idea of the "other". We are more inclined to discriminate against who we can visibly see as different, moreso than whomever may be fucking the same gender behind closed doors.

The Romans, Greeks and Chinese considered those residing beyond their borders to be barbarians and treated them accordingly, be it in the pursuit of trade, warfare, or diplomacy. Expansionist powers since then have adopted such a worldview likewise.

I challenge anyone to bring up an instance where homophobia has been enshrined in some form of state or hegemonic policy, or nationalistic sentiment. Where it has been the catalyst of two peoples going to war with each other, suppressed within a wider society, been the subject of restrictive immigration policies -- and further treated as an inferior other even so.

The idea that people of different colours may be subject to vilification on that basis alone has been such a defining aspect of our civilisation worldwide, so ingrained in the human psyche, that it's simply crass and offensive to suggest some sort of moral equivalency between the two.

It takes some sort of gilded comfort, shielded from any real oppression in an inner-city bachelor pad, to type out inane Bolshie ideas as this on a Mac. Should queers then demand equal recognition alongside Jews for suffering during the Holocaust? The Inquisition perhaps?

Post: #442

(07-01-2015 01:28 PM)WalterBlack Wrote:  ^^^^
The reason why I asked the question is because an Indian-American SJW lawyer relative of mine said that gay rights = civil rights. I told her a person can choose who they bang, but not the colour of their skin. She then said yes but there were black people who passed for white back in the day...I thought “fuck it” and changed the subject. I was a guest at their function so I didn’t want to start shit with anybody.

Yeah, no surprises there.

Anyway, had gays been denied any rights in this regard, she might have a point...but since they weren't, she doesn't. Being able to marry whomever one likes isn't a right, that's why a 50-year old has no right to marry an underage person ("but love is love! Age is just a number! Love always wins!"), or why western society is perfectly reasonable in refusing to institutionalize polygamy ("but love is love! 2 or 3 makes no difference! Love always wins!").

"Homosexual marriage" isn't a right, therefore it isn't a civil rights issue and cannot possibly be.

And there's no gender discrimination argument to be had, either: not recognizing "homosexual marriage" applied to men and women equally.

Post: #443

Racism and homophobia are both terms leftists came up with to play on our inherent altruistic natures and abused so much that they have lost pretty much all meaning, as far as I'm concerned. They simply have no effect on me and they shouldn't on you either.

For example, if you're against the government granting amnesty to millions of foreigners illegally in your country and express this viewpoint in public you're very likely to be accused of racism. If you're against anal marriage you'll be called a homophobe. The people making these accusations do not care about the facts or honest argument and never will. They automatically think they've won. What people need to understand is that they never were going to be open to changing their minds in the first place on these issues. They should be disregarded for their transparent shaming attempts. I will not be brought to heel by such a stupid accusation.

Post: #444

An article just came out in Politico titled No, Polygamy Isn't The Next Gay Marriage. Within it the writer (a gay marriage advocate) argues that same-sex marriage expands the opportunity for marriage to people who lack it, while polygamy takes away the opportunity for marriage from people who have it.

He argues that if polygamy becomes legalized, women will flock to high-status men, leaving low-status men without wives. This is could be considered an article about hypergamy in a mainstream media site.

Unfortunately, the writer neglects to examine why, if polygamy becomes legal, women will orbit high-status men.

Quote:Here's the problem with [polygamy]: when a high-status man takes two wives (and one man taking many wives, or polygyny, is almost invariably the real-world pattern), a lower-status man gets no wife. If the high-status man takes three wives, two lower-status men get no wives. And so on.

This competitive, zero-sum dynamic sets off a competition among high-status men to hoard marriage opportunities, which leaves lower-status men out in the cold. Those men, denied access to life's most stabilizing and civilizing institution, are unfairly disadvantaged and often turn to behaviors like crime and violence. The situation is not good for women, either, because it places them in competition with other wives and can reduce them all to satellites of the man.

Quote:By abolishing polygamy as a legal form of marriage, western societies took a step without which modern liberal democracy and egalitarian social structures might have been impossible: they democratized the opportunity to marry. It's no coincidence that no liberal democracy allows polygamy.

We have essentially reached a point in our society where soft polygamy is the rule rather than the exception. The top 20% of guys are getting 80% of the pussy. What could this mean for our liberal democracy I wonder.

Post: #445

(07-01-2015 02:16 PM)Lucky Wrote:  An article just came out in Politico titled No, Polygamy Isn't The Next Gay Marriage. Within it the writer (a gay marriage advocate) argues that same-sex marriage expands the opportunity for marriage to people who lack it, while polygamy takes the opportunity for away marriage from people who have it.

He argues that if polygamy becomes legalized, women will flock to high-status men and leave low-status women without wives. This is could be considered an article about hypergamy in a mainstream media site.

Unfortunately, the writer neglects to examine why, if polygamy becomes legal, women will orbit high-status men.

Quote:Here's the problem with [polygamy]: when a high-status man takes two wives (and one man taking many wives, or polygyny, is almost invariably the real-world pattern), a lower-status man gets no wife. If the high-status man takes three wives, two lower-status men get no wives. And so on.

This competitive, zero-sum dynamic sets off a competition among high-status men to hoard marriage opportunities, which leaves lower-status men out in the cold. Those men, denied access to life's most stabilizing and civilizing institution, are unfairly disadvantaged and often turn to behaviors like crime and violence. The situation is not good for women, either, because it places them in competition with other wives and can reduce them all to satellites of the man.

Quote:By abolishing polygamy as a legal form of marriage, western societies took a step without which modern liberal democracy and egalitarian social structures might have been impossible: they democratized the opportunity to marry. It's no coincidence that no liberal democracy allows polygamy.

We have essentially reached a point in our society where soft polygamy is the rule rather than the exception. The top 20% of guys are getting 80% of the pussy. What could this mean for our liberal democracy I wonder.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Rauch

Quote:Jonathan Charles Rauch (born April 26, 1960 in Phoenix, Arizona)[1] is an American author, journalist and activist. After graduating from Yale University, Rauch worked at the Winston-Salem Journal in North Carolina, for the National Journal magazine, and later for The Economist magazine and as a freelance writer. He has in the past described himself as "an unrepentantly atheistic Jewish homosexual".[2]

Curious coincidences, I'm sure. Earlier I wrote that they will not allow polygamy because fundamentalist Mormons are primarily the ones who have been pushing for it. If gays or some other group treasured by these degenerates were the ones wanting it they'd have it in short order.

Post: #446

Polygamy will happen. Once you open the definition of marriage, as I have said before, there becomes no real obstacle to continually expanding it.

I predict the test cases will be less the Mormon multiple-wives scenario and more a multiple-partner bisexual thing. In other words, It won't be Husband is already married to Wife A and wants to also marry Wife B, it will be three people who are all in love/sexually active with each other and want to all marry each other.

They will probably even rebrand it from "polygamy" to something else to distinguish it from the "patriarchal" one man with multiple wives thing.

Post: #447

(07-01-2015 01:28 PM)JWLZG Wrote:  

(07-01-2015 12:42 PM)WalterBlack Wrote:  I’ve heard people say to me that homophobia is the same as racism – I don’t agree with that. I think it’s offensive to compare the struggles of slavery and Jim Crow with banging men.

Does anybody have any arguments which prove that homophobia ≠ racism?

No. Just no.

Never have dividing lines been drawn between humanity more blatantly than race.

Colour, and less so, nationality, have been our most defining hallmarks -- with all the cultural and societal traits that come with them -- which best personify the idea of the "other". We are more inclined to discriminate against who we can visibly see as different, moreso than whomever may be fucking the same gender behind closed doors.

....

I challenge anyone to bring up an instance where homophobia has been enshrined in some form of state or hegemonic policy, or nationalistic sentiment. Where it has been the catalyst of two peoples going to war with each other, suppressed within a wider society, been the subject of restrictive immigration policies -- and further treated as an inferior other even so.

It's totally ridiculous that people base their identities on their sexuality. Ethnic identities are supported by centuries of lore, culture, language, perhaps a shared religion - things that you can base an enduring way of life and world view on. I suppose there is a sort of gay "culture" but I don't see how anyone can compare wearing ass-chaps at a gay parade to the things I just described. I suspect the reason people now fixate on their sexual identity to the almost the same level as people would affiliate with a tribal or ethnic or religious identity is due to special snowflake syndrome. It's the same reason why there's 20,000 sexual orientations now with a few being redundant variations of bisexual and others just being plain bizarre. People want to feel special and unique but since actually doing something that makes you stand out from the rest would take too much work it's much easier to just call yourself pansexual with a hint of genderfluid.

Post: #448

(07-01-2015 02:43 PM)Aenigmarius Wrote:  They will probably even rebrand it from "polygamy" to something else to distinguish it from the "patriarchal" one man with multiple wives thing.

They already have. They call it plural marriage. Pedophilia is likewise termed intergenerational intimacy and incest is genetic sexual attraction. The left is very clever in this regard, they understand very well the power of language when it comes to framing issues and influencing the public mind.

This is why it's so important to refuse to legitimize the language the left uses to sanitize their poisonous social agendas. Don't use the word "gay", for example, and don't speak of "same-sex marriage". When you do this you are buying into the leftist frame by utilizing their sanitized language. Instead, use language that is either objective or reactionary/right wing in nature, in order to combat their frame.

This is why I always use the word homosexual in place of "gay" or "same-sex". When I speak of "transgendered" individuals I always use the person's biological sex pronouns and pair the transgender label with "mentally ill", "freak" or "sex pervert".

Controlling language is controlling thought. By using the language of the left, you are unknowingly allowing them to control the debate, since everything is being talked about in their terms, which immediately makes them seem legitimate even if they are completely insane (i.e. referring to a man with female pronouns, or calling shameless homosexual perverts "gay" to soften their image and make them seem harmless).

Post: #449

Actually I think that Polygamy or plural marriages as they call it will be introduced by the polyamorous community. They have been pushing it for awhile and there has been some infighting between poly communities and gay communities. Just a few years ago they pushed the whole Sex at Dawn thing with all sorts of made up science talking about how polyamorous communities are the actual natural state for humanity and was only overturned due to patriarchal dominance and patrilineality and paternal investment through property rights.

I expect to see some ugly chick with two beta-boy lovers getting hitched in a poly wedding in the next two years. Take a look at places like r/poly on reddit to see where this is going.

Post: #450

(07-01-2015 09:40 PM)Troll King Wrote:  Actually I think that Polygamy or plural marriages as they call it will be introduced by the polyamorous community. They have been pushing it for awhile and there has been some infighting between poly communities and gay communities. Just a few years ago they pushed the whole Sex at Dawn thing with all sorts of made up science talking about how polyamorous communities are the actual natural state for humanity and was only overturned due to patriarchal dominance and patrilineality and paternal investment through property rights.

I expect to see some ugly chick with two beta-boy lovers getting hitched in a poly wedding in the next two years. Take a look at places like r/poly on reddit to see where this is going.

Will be interesting to see the circus that'll be legalization of polygamy play out.

What I'm most curious about is this, what would be the maximum(if any) limit to the amount of spouses one could have? And with homosexual marriage being legal, that could lead to group marriages of any gender combination.