Post: #1

Spotted this today: http://nyti.ms/1z71R5k

Some quotes:

Quote:Leading law firms are willing to represent tobacco companies accused of lying about their deadly products, factories that spew pollution, and corporations said to be complicit in torture and murder abroad. But standing up for traditional marriage has turned out to be too much for the elite bar. The arguments have been left to members of lower-profile firms.

In dozens of interviews, lawyers and law professors said the imbalance in legal firepower in the same-sex marriage cases resulted from a conviction among many lawyers that opposition to such unions is bigotry akin to racism. But there were economic calculations, too. Law firms that defend traditional marriage may lose clients and find themselves at a disadvantage in hiring new lawyers.

The NYT is coming out and saying it: it's impossible for certain positions to get a fair hearing at trial because the best legal talent won't take the case.

Post: #2

Gay Lobby officially more powerful than the Gun Lobby, Tobacco Lobby, Dumping Chemicals In The River Lobby, etc.

Post: #3

Elite firms fill their ranks with alums from T14 schools. T14 schools are socially overwhelmingly liberal.

Post: #4

I saw that article as well and thought it was quite interesting, worth reading in full.

As the article points out, there is a long and distinguished tradition of the best American law firms and the most accomplished lawyers defending some very unpopular causes, including causes unpopular among the educated elites. But not anymore. Not a single lawyer from a top law firm is willing to argue against the idea that there is a right to gay "marriage" enshrined in the US Constitution -- even though the very idea of gay "marriage" would have been incomprehensible to those who wrote the Constitution, and indeed to most people in the country as recently as, say, 20-30 years ago.

The level of conformity and intolerance of dissent among today's elites is truly insane and unprecedented. Not only are you supposed to believe that gay "marriage" is good and desirable -- you have to believe that it is a right guaranteed by the Constitution even in states where most people are against it. If you don't believe that, you are a bigot and will be ostracized.

This is typical of what I like to call Year Zero thinking. Not only must you believe in a completely new idea that would have seemed ludicrous and literally incomprehensible to people throughout history, and as recently as a couple of decades ago -- but you must believe in it absolutely, with complete conviction that allows no dissent. The past might as well not have existed -- hence the idea of Year Zero, starting the counting of the years from whatever is the revolution du jour; the only correct ideology is known right now, and it must be imposed by any and all means necessary. That is how these people think and act, and that is the reality that we are obliged to contend with.

Post: #5

(04-12-2015 09:35 AM)floor7 Wrote:  Elite firms fill their ranks with alums from T14 schools. T14 schools are socially overwhelmingly liberal.

I'm pretty sure most of those lawyers would get 'outted' pretty quick if they started arguing against the gay guys they shared dorms with.

Post: #6

Play this however you want, but gay associates don't have children.

WIA

Post: #7

(04-12-2015 11:51 AM)WestIndianArchie Wrote:  Play this however you want, but gay associates don't have children.

WIA

When did bisexual and guys on the DL stop having children?

Post: #8

I see a return to Sodom and Gomorrah coming out of all of this. It will most likely come swiftly and without warning, except those who've seen the writing on the wall, so to speak.

Always have a backup plan to get out quickly if necessary. I guess that applies to just about anything.

The other thing I'd guess is that you need to "choose on this day whom you shall serve," so if the time does come where we're all in a Sodom-like environment and you're cornered by a group of AIDS-ridden homos with knives threatening to go triple-play on your ass, you're not tempted to deny your own faith to save your own skin. Such things will be remembered in the afterlife.

Go down fighting.

Post: #9

(04-12-2015 11:51 AM)WestIndianArchie Wrote:  Play this however you want, but gay associates don't have children.

WIA

And yet there seem to be more and more of them, leading one to believe that this isn't necessarily a 100% genetic thing.

Post: #10

redacted

Post: #11

*deleting tangent post*

Post: #12

(04-12-2015 12:29 PM)WestIndianArchie Wrote:  

(04-12-2015 11:59 AM)Aliblahba Wrote:  

(04-12-2015 11:51 AM)WestIndianArchie Wrote:  Play this however you want, but gay associates don't have children.

WIA

When did bisexual and guys on the DL stop having children?

You're right, Bi's and DL guys have kids.

Lemme run you through the calculus.

Most law firm new hires are 24.
They went straight from from high school, to college, to law school.

The typical law firm career path is
- first year
- next few years as a junior
- new few years as a senior associate

at that point, lawyers get put out to pasture
- perpetual senior associate
- of counsel
- non-equity partner
- junior partner

Equity Partner - means you put up some money to buy into the business, but you take a share of the profits. In a lot of scenarios you jump from making 3-500k a year to 1.5-3 million. (the hours never seem to change though, and the stress only increases)

The select few, less than 1% end up becoming equity partners.

Most folks end up leaving or being pushed out, if they don't manage to develop a killer area of trendy expertise or leverage their networks to bring in clients.

Most of the drudgery and a huge part of the bill is done by the young lawyers for the benefit of the older lawyers. (it's a classic pyramid)

Keep in mind we're talking about kids in their 20's and early 30's.

Who's willing to sacrifice their youth for a very small shot at becoming partner?

Straight women?
Lesbians?
Straight men?
Openly Gay Men?

The straight women hear the clock ticking.
The straight men often get married (because their partner's clocks are ticking)

That leaves the gays.

When you look at nyc firms, numerically they are typically over-represented in the rank and file (but not the partnership)

Often times when you do see a female equity partner, she pursues an alternative lifestyle.

WIA

Very interesting I hadn't heard this before.

Post: #13

(04-12-2015 12:25 PM)Sonsowey Wrote:  

(04-12-2015 11:51 AM)WestIndianArchie Wrote:  Play this however you want, but gay associates don't have children.

WIA

And yet there seem to be more and more of them, leading one to believe that this isn't necessarily a 100% genetic thing.

Someone's been reading their Cochran.



Also, people who are openly-gay are also disproportionately high in IQ (even if on average, gays are overall no smarter than straights). On the right side of the bell curve, liberal values are associated with SES and education (which is associated with IQ), so all else equal they would appear to be "over" represented in cognitive fields, as non-open gays (who would be lower in IQ) are not included in the denominator.

Lower SES gays would tend to keep their mouths shut on their gayness even while their butt-holes are secretly open, since their social circles would be less approving of such a thing.

Post: #14

(04-12-2015 09:35 AM)floor7 Wrote:  Elite firms fill their ranks with alums from T14 schools. T14 schools are socially overwhelmingly liberal.

It might be more accurate to say they are overwhelmingly conformist. The ideology to which they conform is liberal, to be sure. But more often than not, the prevailing liberalism owes not to explicit indoctrination. It is the ether, the air in which the elites reside. Disagreeing with the liberal orthodoxy is simply not done. While there are in theory people who question homosexual marriage, they don't know any; such opposition is inconceivable. Their career prospects are threatened by not conforming.

You can tell when someone is this way, when they disagree with what you are saying, silently. They know what you are saying is socially dangerous, but they do not want to marshal evidence to change your mind - that would be beside the point. Their goal is to have the beliefs they need to rise to the next level of management, and changing an obvious alien's mind poses no benefit, as they may be infected by exposure with your unacceptable beliefs. They do not want the truth, lest it pose an obstacle. So there is no utility to arguing with you; they just change the subject.

Post: #15

Quote:This is typical of what I like to call Year Zero thinking. Not only must you believe in a completely new idea that would have seemed ludicrous and literally incomprehensible to people throughout history, and as recently as a couple of decades ago -- but you must believe in it absolutely, with complete conviction that allows no dissent.

Isn't this the foundation of cultural marxism? Tradition, morals, historical significance, religion all thrown out the window for a new paradigm of deviant equality. Cultural marxists view the 1950s as hell on earth: Patriarchy, meritocracy, gays in the closet, women at home baking muffins and dedicating every day with their kids, blacks "oppressed" even though black/white median incomes, out of wedlock births and education were almost equal at this point. But because the 1950s doesn't meet their arbitrary pajamaboy social justice criteria, the entire era is considered NaziLand by most college students now. This is dangerous.

I'd also like to repeat this point: Gay marriage was politically dangerous just 15 years ago. Did everyone in the U.S have a spontaneous spiritual fucking awakening in that time and decide anal sex/carpet munching between same sex couples is what will really get this country back on track? No. Mainstream media started the revulsion reversal beginning in the 80s/90s by slowly introducing same sex couples in sitcoms, commercials. If media can portray homosexuals as "just like heteros" but misunderstood and oppressed, that's a huge sympathy play.

I bought into the liberal propaganda too and had several gay dudes in my social circle. I also had roommates who were gay when I was blue pill and saw a lot of fucked up stuff.

I'll say this: homosexual lifestyles are nothing like heteros, even aside from the sexual preference differences. The lifestyle should not be something psychological healthy individuals should emulate or something kids be exposed to. Peter Pan syndrome, hyper-promiscuity to the point of self-destruction, bi polar/BPD/depression is rampant, STDs rampant, drama prone, very little value given to long lasting friendships and family networks (mostly due to obsession with functional relationships and narcissism: if a relationship doesn't directly benefit that person or is in any way "inconvenient", it's done away with). There are other frequent pathologies too, but you get the idea.

The religious arguments against gay rights/marriage are valid as well, but easy to dismiss by liberals. More people need to be talking about the psychological pathologies that show up like clockwork in homosexual communities. There was a reason this lifestyle was somewhat tolerated but kept out of mainstream culture for 1000s of years, and I believe it's because of the reasons I listed above which have long been forgotten due to political correctness.

We will relearn these lessons the hard way. The dude who mentioned Sodom and Gomorrah is absolutely right.

Post: #16

(04-12-2015 09:33 AM)Sonsowey Wrote:  Gay Lobby officially more powerful than the Gun Lobby, Tobacco Lobby, Dumping Chemicals In The River Lobby, etc.

Post: #17

(04-12-2015 03:20 PM)Alpone Wrote:  I'll say this: homosexual lifestyles are nothing like heteros, even aside from the sexual preference differences. The lifestyle should not be something psychological healthy individuals should emulate or something kids be exposed to.

The media simply Normalised and Glamourised Gays to society, particularly to women, and, as such, The 'Pet Gay' became a status symbol for women, because it made them seem more interesting - and, as always, morally-superior - by association.

As such, wherever the gays lead, the straight girls will follow, and what was Gay Pathology is now Standard-Issue Millennial Woman Pathology. Re-read your list - you're describing the majority of young women.

Quote:Peter Pan syndrome, hyper-promiscuity to the point of self-destruction, bi polar/BPD/depression is rampant, STDs rampant, drama prone, very little value given to long lasting friendships and family networks (mostly due to obsession with functional relationships and narcissism: if a relationship doesn't directly benefit that person or is in any way "inconvenient", it's done away with).

Tinder is simply heterosexuals hooking up like the homosexual community taught them to.

Post: #18

redacted

Post: #19

(04-12-2015 09:33 AM)Sonsowey Wrote:  Gay Lobby officially more powerful than the Gun Lobby, Tobacco Lobby, Dumping Chemicals In The River Lobby, etc.

I don't think this is an apt comparison.

If a law firm fights against big tobacco, big chemical, etc they get a PAYDAY if they win or if they lose.

If a law firm fights against gay marriage they get nothing if they win or if they lose.

Law firms are in this for the money and the money alone, not to to defend values. Hah.

Furthermore from a human resources perspective, it makes sense to not fight gay marriage. Many top lawyers are gay, and even more top lawyers believe in gay marriage. By fighting against gay marriage, a law firm is going to operate at a significant handicap for recruiting and retaining talent.

Additionally, one must ask oneself how do lawyers make money from marriage? They don't make money from marriages, but they make plenty of money from divorces! More people getting married = more people getting divorced = $$$.

All these taken together means a law firm has to be retarded not to advocate gay marriage.

Post: #20

(04-12-2015 11:37 AM)Aliblahba Wrote:  

(04-12-2015 09:35 AM)floor7 Wrote:  Elite firms fill their ranks with alums from T14 schools. T14 schools are socially overwhelmingly liberal.

I'm pretty sure most of those lawyers would get 'outted' pretty quick if they started arguing against the gay guys they shared dorms with.

Sharing dorms? How about offices. Don't underestimate the number of gay associates, lesbian paralegals and others who fit right in with the worldview. That these firms would not take gay marriage cases is unsurprising.

Post: #21

(04-12-2015 11:30 AM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  Not a single lawyer from a top law firm is willing to argue against the idea that there is a right to gay "marriage" enshrined in the US Constitution -- even though the very idea of gay "marriage" would have been incomprehensible to those who wrote the Constitution, and indeed to most people in the country as recently as, say, 20-30 years ago.

Yes the biggest problem is the 14th amendment, a real mess of an amendment used as a blunt instrument to remedy the slavery aftermath. They should have put 100 year sunset clause on it or something. The 'equal protection' can be interpreted so broadly that it basically gives the judicial branch the power to make social policy - something that should be strictly a legislative concern. Nothing has damaged the quality of the constitution greater than the 14th amendment other than maybe the 17th.