Post: #26

@Speakeasy: I agree with everything you are saying but many times I see in public people equating LGBT rights and even feminism to the civil rights movement of the 1960s. On TV, I see people like Charles Barkley and many other prominent Black analysts say, “As Black men we have to be at the forefront of this movement and support gays or women or whatever”. That’s not an exact quote but the tone is always similar.

Personally, comparing feminism and LGBT rights to race equality is quite stupid. But this has become an emerging trend where if you disagree with anything relating to LGBT and “women’s rights” you are branded a bigot and people say would you also say the same during the 1960s. What are your thoughts on this and how do you counter when people compare these “movements” to the actual civil rights movements of the 1960s.

Post: #27

(06-26-2013 06:58 PM)TheSlayer Wrote:  Personally, comparing feminism and LGBT rights to race equality is quite stupid. But this has become an emerging trend where if you disagree with anything relating to LGBT and “women’s rights” you are branded as a bigot and people say would you also say the same during the 1960s. What are your thoughts on this and how do you counter when people compare these “movements” to the actual civil rights movements of the 1960s.

The only apt parallel between LBGTXYZ rights and women's rights with the civil rights movement of the 1960's is that if you have any disagreement with it, you are a bigot.

To quote Jason Whitlock, "When it suits their purpose, gay activists claim they want the same treatment as black people. Funny how they never ask of it when they're standing in court or applying for a bank loan or buying a new car."

It makes me laugh when people talk about "human rights" and all that BS. Is not having the ability to marry someone of your own gender on par with forced labor for being of the wrong religion?

Post: #28

(06-26-2013 03:38 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  Even for those who have an "I don't care" attitude about the issue, it does tie into other issues you probably do care about. For example, it's the ultimate obliteration of gender roles and moves us ever closer to an androgynous society. It essentially says that gender is so irrelevant that two men can be "husband and husband".

Men won't stop being men and women won't stop being women if we do away with gender roles, men and women will merely be able to define their own identity separate from society. I think you'll find that when we finally do away with obligatory gender roles, you'll see a shift back toward men and women embracing who they naturally are without trying to impose some kind of dysfunctional and confused "equality" on society. Part of the reason for all the dysfunction is that people feel like they're being forced into an identity rather than being free to choose one.

I do agree with you though that heterosexuality is normal, and nothing will never ever change that. But I don't see any reason to deny homosexuals access to all the same rights granted to everyone else.

Plus marriage is wtfbroken at this point anyway. Let the gays get married, lol.

(06-26-2013 06:52 PM)Wutang Wrote:  I've been making the same argument you just summed up nicely in this post: that it is hypocritical to be for homosexual marriage but also against polygamy.

How so? Heterosexual marriage is defined between two people. Gay marriage would still be an institution of marriage defined between two people. In both cases you'd have a marriage between two people. We already have a legal system set up for marriage between two people.

Polygamy is a completely different marital concept.

Post: #29

(06-26-2013 07:14 PM)Moose11 Wrote:  

(06-26-2013 06:58 PM)TheSlayer Wrote:  Personally, comparing feminism and LGBT rights to race equality is quite stupid. But this has become an emerging trend where if you disagree with anything relating to LGBT and “women’s rights” you are branded as a bigot and people say would you also say the same during the 1960s. What are your thoughts on this and how do you counter when people compare these “movements” to the actual civil rights movements of the 1960s.

The only apt parallel between LBGTXYZ rights and women's rights with the civil rights movement of the 1960's is that if you have any disagreement with it, you are a bigot.

What? That was my whole point. PC media and people say that if you don't agree with LGBT rights and feminism you are a bigot, just like you would have been if you had disagreed with the civil rights movements in the 1960s and I disagree with that comparison (because equating homosexuality and feminism to actual race equality is incredibly stupid). You seem to agree with it. How is that an appropriate parallel between these movements?

Post: #30

(06-26-2013 07:19 PM)TheSlayer Wrote:  

(06-26-2013 07:14 PM)Moose11 Wrote:  

(06-26-2013 06:58 PM)TheSlayer Wrote:  Personally, comparing feminism and LGBT rights to race equality is quite stupid. But this has become an emerging trend where if you disagree with anything relating to LGBT and “women’s rights” you are branded as a bigot and people say would you also say the same during the 1960s. What are your thoughts on this and how do you counter when people compare these “movements” to the actual civil rights movements of the 1960s.

The only apt parallel between LBGTXYZ rights and women's rights with the civil rights movement of the 1960's is that if you have any disagreement with it, you are a bigot.

What? That was my whole point. PC media and people say that if you don't agree with LGBT rights and feminism you are a bigot, just like you would have been if you had disagreed with the civil rights movements in the 1960s and I disagree with that comparison (because equating homosexuality and feminism to actual race equality is incredibly stupid). You seem to agree with it. How is that an appropriate parallel between these movements?

I do agree with what you said. My reply was supposed to expand on it not contradict it.

The way I counter the horseshit comparison is by saying that we need to close down the women's only colleges and prep schools because they're discriminatory.

Post: #31

(06-26-2013 07:25 PM)Moose11 Wrote:  

(06-26-2013 07:19 PM)TheSlayer Wrote:  

(06-26-2013 07:14 PM)Moose11 Wrote:  

(06-26-2013 06:58 PM)TheSlayer Wrote:  Personally, comparing feminism and LGBT rights to race equality is quite stupid. But this has become an emerging trend where if you disagree with anything relating to LGBT and “women’s rights” you are branded as a bigot and people say would you also say the same during the 1960s. What are your thoughts on this and how do you counter when people compare these “movements” to the actual civil rights movements of the 1960s.

The only apt parallel between LBGTXYZ rights and women's rights with the civil rights movement of the 1960's is that if you have any disagreement with it, you are a bigot.

What? That was my whole point. PC media and people say that if you don't agree with LGBT rights and feminism you are a bigot, just like you would have been if you had disagreed with the civil rights movements in the 1960s and I disagree with that comparison (because equating homosexuality and feminism to actual race equality is incredibly stupid). You seem to agree with it. How is that an appropriate parallel between these movements?

I do agree with what you said. My reply was supposed to expand on it not contradict it.

The way I counter the horseshit comparison is by saying that we need to close down the women's only colleges and prep schools because they're discriminatory.

I read the article you linked to. I see what you were trying to say, I just wasn't clear on it. Makes sense that this was written by a Black author but it does no good when prominent Black personalities on TV repeatedly say that they have to be accepting of LGBT rights and feminism because of their history.

Post: #32

(06-26-2013 06:40 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  Justice Scalia voted against overturning sodomy laws because he said that this is what it will lead to. That sounded like the ultimate slippery slope argument at the time but he turned out to be spot on.

One of the things I've realized with age is that the slippery slope fallacy is not a fallacy, but a truism. It really does start with a few small things that snowball into the whole shebang.

Post: #33

(06-26-2013 07:14 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:  We already have a legal system set up for marriage between two people.

Polygamy is a completely different marital concept.

"Excuse me, are you some kind of bigot? Do you not understand that the country is changing? Your outmoded definition of marriage being between only two people is insulting to those of us who love more than one person. You need to get with the times. You must be some kind of caveman, because you're clearly on the wrong side of history, buddy. This is a human rights issue. Love is love." - Future Polygamist Activist echoing the arguments for gay marriage

Post: #34

(06-26-2013 08:05 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(06-26-2013 06:40 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  Justice Scalia voted against overturning sodomy laws because he said that this is what it will lead to. That sounded like the ultimate slippery slope argument at the time but he turned out to be spot on.

One of the things I've realized with age is that the slippery slope fallacy is not a fallacy, but a truism. It really does start with a few small things that snowball into the whole shebang.

That's how laying a chick on a week day works too.

From your perspective: Grabbing a drink after work transitions to shots of tequila, then a venue bounce to another bar for wine, then you roll back to your place because you "have to" show her vacation pictures from your last trip, then a make-out commences, some fingering occurs, and all a sudden there's penis-in-vagina action.

From her perspective: "OMFG WE MET FOR A DRINK AND ONE THING LED TO ANOTHER AND OMG IT JUST LIKE HAPPENED."

The slippery slope is everywhere!

Post: #35

(06-26-2013 06:58 PM)TheSlayer Wrote:  @Speakeasy: I agree with everything you are saying but many times I see in public people equating LGBT rights and even feminism to the civil rights movement of the 1960s. On TV, I see people like Charles Barkley and many other prominent Black analysts say, “As Black men we have to be at the forefront of this movement and support gays or women or whatever”. That’s not an exact quote but the tone is always similar.

Personally, comparing feminism and LGBT rights to race equality is quite stupid. But this has become an emerging trend where if you disagree with anything relating to LGBT and “women’s rights” you are branded a bigot and people say would you also say the same during the 1960s. What are your thoughts on this and how do you counter when people compare these “movements” to the actual civil rights movements of the 1960s.

A few things come to mind. Race is a phenotype. Your race is determined by what you look like. Homosexuality is defined by your behavior. What you look like and how you behave aren't comparable traits. A gay can put his behavior in the closet, I can't put my race in the closet. Sex preference can also be malleable to some extent. There are gay men married to women by choice and there are straight girls who make out with other girls for attention, straight guys who fuck other men in prison. There is no such flexibility with race. They are two fundamentally different things.

Secondly, there's nothing in the law that forbids gays from marrying. There are gay men married to women. Those marriages are not illegal, ie nobody asks your sexuality when applying for a marriage license so long as you conform to the parameters of socially defined marriage. Thus nobody is being treated differently under the law. What their complaint is is that marriage as it has always been defined doesn't make room for their preference of partner. But there's nothing in the Constitution guaranteeing the right to marry anyone you want. It's still illegal for a father and son to get married. Though somebody will probably fight to overturn that as well eventually.

Post: #36

(06-26-2013 08:07 PM)scorpion Wrote:  "Excuse me, are you some kind of bigot? Do you not understand that the country is changing? Your outmoded definition of marriage being between only two people is insulting to those of us who love more than one person. You need to get with the times. You must be some kind of caveman, because you're clearly on the wrong side of history, buddy. This is a human rights issue. Love is love." - Future Polygamist Activist echoing the arguments for gay marriage

It will be referred to as "polyamory" and the term is becoming more popular. It pops up often enough on young women's online dating websites because that's what they claim they are into. Polyamory is the politically progressive, politically correct term and should be used over and over and over when having any discussion of this issue.

When a woman has a non-sexual male harem of non-Charismatic orbiters who act as white knights, providers, and emotional tampons, she's simply practicing emotional and financial polyamory. Why not make it a business contract surrounded by the trappings of a wedding and marriage recognized by the courts and government?

A Charismatic man can form a sexual harem and everyone involved can make the same business arrangement and call it a marriage. Of course, this will blow up family courts during the dissolution part of such "marriages". Actually, family courts will blow up when faced with gay divorce. It's beginning to happen already.

It'll take another generation but "group" marriage will ultimately happen.

Post: #37

Am I the only one here that noticed that "doma" is motherfucker in Vietnamese? Had a good chuckle at the coffee shop in Westminster today when it came out on the news and every Vietcrip in the house was busting at the seams with laughter.

Post: #38

A man fucking another man is unnatural.

A man and woman makes babies.

A woman and woman or a man and a man do not.

Simple as that.

Post: #39

(06-26-2013 07:14 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:  

(06-26-2013 03:38 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  Even for those who have an "I don't care" attitude about the issue, it does tie into other issues you probably do care about. For example, it's the ultimate obliteration of gender roles and moves us ever closer to an androgynous society. It essentially says that gender is so irrelevant that two men can be "husband and husband".

Men won't stop being men and women won't stop being women if we do away with gender roles, men and women will merely be able to define their own identity separate from society. I think you'll find that when we finally do away with obligatory gender roles, you'll see a shift back toward men and women embracing who they naturally are without trying to impose some kind of dysfunctional and confused "equality" on society. Part of the reason for all the dysfunction is that people feel like they're being forced into an identity rather than being free to choose one.

I do agree with you though that heterosexuality is normal, and nothing will never ever change that. But I don't see any reason to deny homosexuals access to all the same rights granted to everyone else.

Plus marriage is wtfbroken at this point anyway. Let the gays get married, lol.

(06-26-2013 06:52 PM)Wutang Wrote:  I've been making the same argument you just summed up nicely in this post: that it is hypocritical to be for homosexual marriage but also against polygamy.

How so? Heterosexual marriage is defined between two people. Gay marriage would still be an institution of marriage defined between two people. In both cases you'd have a marriage between two people. We already have a legal system set up for marriage between two people.

Polygamy is a completely different marital concept.

The argument that has been made for the justification of gay marriage is that it is between consenting adults and that there should be no legal restrictions on any actions between consenting adults. If you believe that there should be no restrictions on activity between consenting adults, then it follows that you must be for polygamy as long as all parties involved are consenting adults.

My guess is that you are making the argument that there would be legal problems if polygamy is allowed such as what would happen in a divorce. I'll grant you that but let's focus on the "moral" issues involved since the nature of the debate about gay marriage has been whether it is "right" for gays to marry and whether it's immoral, unethical, and hateful to deny gays the ability to get married.


If gay marriage would have led to some messy legal issues (not saying that it would but for the sake of argument assume that it does) in the same way polygamy does and if anti-gay marriage people used that as an argument against gay marriage, then I'm sure the pro-gay marriage people would be up in arms: "Wait are you saying some bureaucratic red tape is more important then human beings and TRUE LUV."

Post: #40

(06-26-2013 11:51 PM)Wutang Wrote:  If gay marriage would have led to some messy legal issues (not saying that it would but for the sake of argument assume that it does) in the same way polygamy does and if anti-gay marriage people used that as an argument against gay marriage, then I'm sure the pro-gay marriage people would be up in arms: "Wait are you saying some bureaucratic red tape is more important then human beings and TRUE LUV."

Ultimately it opens the door not just to polygamy, but as have some here have predicted, to all forms of polyamory, including "relationships" involving multiple women *and* multiple men.

It also destroys the traditional arguments society made in prohibiting incestuous marriage. If it's between two consenting adults, the state has no place in outlawing it. So mothers should be allowed to marry their adult sons. Nor will the birth defect issue prevent this, since gay marriage already severs the traditional reproductive function of marriage from the institution altogether.

Combine these two outcomes together and it's difficult to see how the state could deny equal protection to "marriages" of entire nuclear families, fathers, mothers, and children, so long as all members are of the age of majority.

Edit: I should add, for those who think this to be a fantastic scenario, that bisexuals have gone ignored in the gay marriage debate. Bisexuals will inevitably campaign for marriage to spouses of both genders at once. This all but ensures that polyamory will be instituted into law and be afforded the full and bounteous panoply of government benefits.

Post: #41

(06-26-2013 03:09 PM)EisenBarde Wrote:  If anything, this presents an interesting "in" with immigration.

Step 1. Find an IRT who wants the U.S Passport.
. . .

Already being done. There's 24,700 "binational same-sex couples" already scamming the immigration system with this approach.

And green-card weddings between lesbians and gays both acting as a beard for the other have been going on at least since the 60s.

Post: #42

(06-27-2013 12:02 AM)Therapsid Wrote:  

(06-26-2013 11:51 PM)Wutang Wrote:  If gay marriage would have led to some messy legal issues (not saying that it would but for the sake of argument assume that it does) in the same way polygamy does and if anti-gay marriage people used that as an argument against gay marriage, then I'm sure the pro-gay marriage people would be up in arms: "Wait are you saying some bureaucratic red tape is more important then human beings and TRUE LUV."

Ultimately it opens the door not just to polygamy, but as have some here have predicted, to all forms of polyamory, including "relationships" involving multiple women *and* multiple men.

It also destroys the traditional arguments society made in prohibiting incestuous marriage. If it's between two consenting adults, the state has no place in outlawing it. So mothers should be allowed to marry their adult sons. Nor will the birth defect issue prevent this, since gay marriage already severs the traditional reproductive function of marriage from the institution altogether.

Combine these two outcomes together and it's difficult to see how the state could deny equal protection to "marriages" of entire nuclear families, fathers, mothers, and children, so long as all members are of the age of majority.

Edit: I should add, for those who think this to be a fantastic scenario, that bisexuals have gone ignored in the gay marriage debate. Bisexuals will inevitably campaign for marriage to spouses of both genders at once. This all but ensures that polyamory will be instituted into law and be afforded the full and bounteous panoply of government benefits.

I think the only thing that is stopping polygamy from being recognized is that most of people who are involved in these sort of relationships don't really care about having their relationships being accepted by the mainstream. They just want to live in their compounds with their 80 wives lol. I remember there was some reality show that involved a Mormon guy living with his 4 wives or whatever. He was only legally married to one but he has other wives. To people like that, the only thing that matters is that their marriage is recognized by their faith and that everyone is cool with the arrangement.

The campaign for polygamy is only going to get underway once the SWPL people decide that it's a priority.

Post: #43

(06-27-2013 12:04 AM)Blackhawk Wrote:  

(06-26-2013 03:09 PM)EisenBarde Wrote:  If anything, this presents an interesting "in" with immigration.

Step 1. Find an IRT who wants the U.S Passport.
. . .

Already being done. There's 24,700 "binational same-sex couples" already scamming the immigration system with this approach.

So becoming a US citizen is as easy as paying a dude to marry you now? How much do you think they'll go for? 20K? 10? 5?

Post: #44

Something I've noticed is that for many people who otherwise don't give a shit about politics or what's going on in the world around them - the one issue that they do care about is gay marriage. This is especially prevalent with chicks. They don't care about unrest in far off shores where actual human lives are being destroyed but it's of vital importance that Stefen and Trevor can stuff wedding cake on each other's faces while wearing their tasteful and fashionable matching tuxedos.

Post: #45

My guess is those of us over 30 will be dead before polygamous marriage campaigning gets anywhere. The Mormons are too cautious to advocate for it, they shun the extreme Mormons who do it, Whites, Blacks and Latinos are also going to be against it, that leaves Musilms who are a small population and will have a real hard time getting that past any foreseeable Supreme Court.

As far as I know there's always been homosexual people, I was against gay marriage at first, and personally would rather see a civil union law with the same legal rights as marriage-- we men should get some extra credential for dealing with the insanity of women.

But now I'm toeing the librul line, what does it cost me if a couple people want to get married. If they'll be happier than fuck it, go ahead and do it.

You can argue all these _possible_ "cultural doom" effects from gay marriage, but the arguments seem pretty flimsy. The only negative I've heard is that kids from gay marriages have a higher chance of being gay, but I don't see what I can do about that.

Post: #46

(06-27-2013 12:36 AM)Wutang Wrote:  Something I've noticed is that for many people who otherwise don't give a shit about politics or what's going on in the world around them - the one issue that they do care about is gay marriage. This is especially prevalent with chicks. They don't care about unrest in far off shores where actual human lives are being destroyed but it's of vital importance that Stefen and Trevor can stuff wedding cake on each other's faces while wearing their tasteful and fashionable matching tuxedos.

Girls in America have become obsessed, not just with gay marriage, but with homosexual culture in general. This has gone well beyond a SWPL phenomenon at this point. Every female-oriented reality program or sitcom involves prominent, flamboyant, and morally righteous homosexual characters. Meanwhile, chicks parade gay friends as both status symbols and as surrogate male orbiters/boyfriends.

Public acceptance of homosexuality has only fed into female narcissism. Gay men pump girl's egos and feed them the lies they already received from their girlfriends, but beneath the guise of virile manhood. This is the biggest reason why men should oppose gay marriage and the whole gay rights movement.

Post: #47

(06-27-2013 12:36 AM)Wutang Wrote:  This is especially prevalent with chicks.

The same kind of chicks that will never take their own marriage responsibilities seriously. The same kind of chicks that will have bed death syndrome a few years into their marriage, rendering their husbands incel until divorce. This kind of chick is all for "marriage equality". Because in their mind it's all benes and no responsibilities.

Me, I think that Jewish marriage contracts have it right. If you're not fucking regularly, after six weeks of incel the marriage should be rendered null and void.

I am completely okay with married couples being required to keep a video log of regular sex in case they're audited. Back before Freud decided seeing his father fuck his multiple wives while growing up in their one room apartment with 12 other children somehow damaged him as a child, there wasn't the whole taboo about being seen while fucking. Given how many Gigabytes of amateur porn are posted every day, it's a pretty artificial taboo.

And I also believe if gays were required to fuck each other regularly without taking drugs beforehand as a requirement of being gay married, you'd see a whole lot less applicants.

Post: #48

Heres an interesting side effect when gays divorce who does the system protect and who does the system target to pay?

The de facto is 9 times out of 10 the guy pays by default. What happens when both partues in a divorce are the same gender?

Post: #49

(06-27-2013 02:44 AM)Clyde Rules Wrote:  Heres an interesting side effect when gays divorce who does the system protect and who does the system target to pay?

The de facto is 9 times out of 10 the guy pays by default. What happens when both partues in a divorce are the same gender?

The biological parent of the adopted or in vitro child of course - sperm donor most likely.

Post: #50

I'm also interested to see how gay divorce plays out, but I don't give the family court system any credit at all - I'm sure they can be very fair in gay divorce cases and still throw the book at the man in hetero divorce cases.

There's nothing stopping them from having double standards.