Post: #1

Special logos for facebook. Special artwork people can change their profile pictures to. Lots and lots of prepared stories. The gay lobby has been preparing for years for today, and has spent upwards of 10 million on their media press releases. They really want to buy the Supreme Court however they can.

And now that they've silenced the Mormon Church, there is no opposition financing left. It's virtually a one sided conversation: All gay, all the time, 24-7.

The loudest group supporting gays on facebook is heterosexual, barren, childless women. They're just copy and paste fanatics today.

Still trying to figure out why that is.

And what kind of wife posts embarrassing soft-porn pictures of a lesbian Statue of Liberty and thinks that's appropriate to do in public? They might as well post "My weak ass failure of a husband hasn't fucked me in years; I'm now into lesbian porn."

Post: #2

Gay groups have spent decades behind the scenes racking up money and influence. You see a shift now as Men have been thrown down the economic ladder, specifically post 2007-2008 and in this vacuum with Women and Feminists groups being propped up due to surviving post 2008 in better standing then Men you now see this perfect storm lining up.

They have Big $$$ and Big influence so hold onto your hats because its going to be a hell of a ride as they try to push their Agenda through the
S.C.. California as the most populated and most "liberal" State has to be destroyed as their movement has no creditability if Cali is not 100% on board, on paper with their Agenda. Cali represents minus propaganda what the majority of people think in solace in the mind and in the solace of the voting booth.

That:

"Look I don't care what people do with each other but you can't tell me a duck is a chicken. These people are separate from me, but equal."

Gay Men (mostly) and women have zero credibility because they for many years did not face any discrimination publicly. They could hide their lifestyle and still indulge in the capitalist lifestyle freely. They were not subjugated to to lesser opportunities due to Immigration status or their race like many in America in decades past. A Gay Male in the 1940's could do anything he wanted even though he failed to provide anything to the basic social contract of providing offspring that will be in better standing then your own to help propel society. You can't just make money, anybody can make money and emasse wealth but its the passing down of that wealth to your next generation which was propels societies and nations forward. Gay people knowingly did not participate in that part of the contract.

Your right about other groups being tapped out. Christian and Church groups after what happened in California are out of resources, Right-edged groups are more fractured and unable to collaborate capital and resources. The Left has ditched its old movements in favour of the LGBT agenda because it has a lot of money behind it. The drums to end wars and drone attacks have switched to the drum sounds to make me think that its okay for Suzy to marry Jane. I don't care if they do but don't tell me Suzy and Jane married, with a family is the same as James and Ashley. A pig is a pig and not a chicken. If lawmakers we're credible they would identify this and work with groups to establish a unique set of parameters to suit LGBT "unique" needs which they cry about on the daily about having but yet when it comes to laws and reforms they seem to forget. This shows the hollowness of Left-Groups whom will shill for anything as long as it gets them funding/donations/grants. The same Left groups whom worked actively to dis-franchised Blacks prior to the Civil Rights Movements found a avenue to exploit them in the ultra right winged racist days of America, they never gave a shit about Black America, and still don't but in those days it was extremely advantageous and it gave them a power boost that spanned 35 years+.

Here in Toronto and Ontario the stars are aligning that whiten 2-3 years:

The Premier (Governor) of Ontario will be a Gay Women

The Mayor of Canada's largest City will be a Gay Women

And the leader of Ontario and by default Canada's largest public Union group will be a Gay Male.

And most striking that by 2015/2016 Canada will have a Gay Prime Minister if the media loved Justin Trudeau (closet homo, anybody whom lives in Montreal knows the deal) ends up succeeding in securing the Liberal a return to power in our next election.

These groups are actively taking power and will shape policy going forward.

But going way forward I do see a day when Gay Men will be ditched/cut off from the Feminist/Lesbo agenda. Once they use up all their money they will have to cut the cords from them. Gay Males will not have some delusional view of "power" that hardcore feminists do, as they have lived normal lives and not have legal backing to openly live their lives how the want. They will be tapped out and will simply just be critical of the over arching feminist perspective that Men must be destroyed for their own (purely economic) gains. Plus it will come the a point where they will start to mess with their earnings and wealth for simply them being Males. At this point is when this collaboration/partnership will end and you can see the shift stating now with these Feminists groups being hostile to Men in their umbrella movements regarding Trannies. In that environment they are completely hostile to Men more so then Women and Male's whom are facing the same "gender issues" are not held to the same weight, many feminists view males with "gender issues" as a type of ruse to try and gain control and sex from women (I kid you not).

This shit all reads like a shitty novel and I laugh because it won't end well at all.

Post: #3

As most are aware, these pictures are a reaction to the US Supreme Court's hearings and potential rulings on gay marriage. Every SWPL says stuff like, "If two people love each other then why shouldn't Darcy be able to visit Greta in the hospital if she gets sick? Because, you know that since they can't get married..."

Right, but this whole gay marriage thing isn't about marriage at all. It's about adoption. If the Federal government legalizes gay marriage for all fifty states, homosexual advocates have, by default, won the right to adopt kids everywhere.

How's a state child services agency supposed to turn down the application of legally married (under federal law) couple with a nice house and good credit that wants to adopt? You think they won't summon "=" muscle?

In the future some states will try to stop gays from adopting, but the "twitter-sphere" will all make snarky hillbilly jokes about Alabama in between pointing out "courageously progressive" parallels between the 201? Gay Adoption Crusade and Dr. King's Birmingham campaign.

If you two (guys/girls) can't, at least, in theory make a child then how are you supposed to raise one?

There's something twisted about the state employee getting little four-year old little Timmy to meet his new mommies...

Post: #4

Liberty was a total butch lesbian anyway, Justice was just drunk and doesn't want those pictures out on the internet really.

Post: #5

Justice is blindfolded, isn't that rape?

Post: #6

why are you guys so worried if gay people can get married or not? who cares? let gay people get married; big deal

Post: #7

(03-30-2013 11:06 PM)bacan Wrote:  why are you guys so worried if gay people can get married or not? who cares? let gay people get married; big deal

Well that's the thing, isn't it? Who's arsed? I think it's wrong but I'm not preaching about it and couldn't give two shits.

What's happening though is all these campaigns and shaming tactics being used on people that genuinely don't give a fuck. All you see in terms of the opposition on the internet is pictures of middle aged religious fanatics with signs and banners saying its wrong. These pictures get paraded around to make out as if there's a massive worldwide opposition to gay marriage and that they're winning a fight.

Typically, women (read feminists) are making a massive issue out of something that really isn't as big an issue as it's made out to be in order to find something to do with their meaningless lives. What I'm seeing more and more on my Facebook is shaming pictures about people who are opposed to gay marriage.

One picture was of a massive crowd of people with text on top saying "people protesting about gay marriage because homosexuality is a sin" and in the second picture below was of a tumbleweed with text over the top "people protesting about divorce because Jesus said it's wrong".

Sick to death of it. My feelings are stronger for them failing so they shut the fuck up and don't get what they want rather than my opinion on gay marriage as a whole.

Post: #8

(03-30-2013 11:06 PM)bacan Wrote:  why are you guys so worried if gay people can get married or not? who cares? let gay people get married; big deal

It's becoming a big deal because the people who support gay marriage are redefining the opposition to it as "hate speech." This includes religious speech. Those comments Dr. Ben Carson made opposing it are being deemed as "bigoted" and "hateful" and I've seen calls for him to be censured or fired.

When you express a religious viewpoint and it's deemed as bigoted, we've entered Soviet-styled groupthink. THIS is why people have a problem with gay marriage: because once it passes, its supporters will be able to point to any church that doesn't want to perform a gay marriage ceremony and claim "discrimination." So we've now entered the realm where religion it and of itself is becoming "bigotry."

I am someone who despises religion and has supported gay marriage on Constitutional grounds (because there is no provision in state laws based on which sex you are). But seeing how this is panning out, I'm changing my mind. I'm now starting to agree that gay marriage is the first step down a slippery slope. But I don't think that slope is about polygamy as everyone has said. I think it's about more censuring of free speech and freedom of expression from the politically correct left.

If gay marriage was about gay marriage, it would be fine. But it's really a metaphor for how the left wants to remove to freedom for people to worship or think in a non-politically correct way.

The criticism Dr. Carson took was the turning point for me. The man is a genius neurosurgeon and an innovator who has saved lives. Yet people are calling for him to get fired because of a politically incorrect statement? Do you see where this is heading? If Dr. Carson isn't safe, no one is, and this is just the beginning. Free speech is not hate speech.

Post: #9

Here's why I think gay marriage is a diversion and/or waste of time.

In today's world, marriage is irrelevant. It used to have public meaning, but now it's anachronistic unless you are trying to raise a child.

I say that marriage should be private, and that subsidies for kids should go to be people who are raising kids.

I also think they should make it legal for gays to be treated like married couples are when it comes to hospital visitation etc.

Everything else is noise.

I feel like this is attention whoring on a massive scale. Government should have no business in marriage or personal relationships. I think that people on many sides of the political spectrum would agree with this hard logic.

Gov't should be concerned with making things better in the public world. Who you stick your dick in is private.

BTW I consider myself to be liberal.

Post: #10

It's weird how socially conservative this board is on some issues. I agree that over liberalization of society could promote a "thats rape!" culture and demonize our bachelor ways... But we're still a long way from being so liberal that its a hindrance to bachelorhood at 38 and dating girls 2/3 our age.

Post: #11

(03-27-2013 12:54 AM)Blackhawk Wrote:  Still trying to figure out why that is.

Because misery loves company. So a childless woman (which goes against her instincts, thus making her miserable) supporting people who can't have kids means more people for her to hang out with.

Post: #12

(03-30-2013 11:20 PM)MattC Wrote:  Sick to death of it. My feelings are stronger for them failing so they shut the fuck up and don't get what they want rather than my opinion on gay marriage as a whole.

That's how I'm starting to feel about abortion. They just had that law passed in N. Dakota I think it was that is one of the strictest abortion laws ever passed that will make a challenge to Roe v Wade. The feminists are now in DEFCON. Thing is, I'm pro-choice even though I don't have any strong feeling on abortion one way or the other. And for guys like us, abortion is actually a good option to be available. Abortion really shouldn't be the big political issue it is, feminist made it into one and made it this big watershed moment in women's liberation when it should just be a medical issue. But the way the women's movement is so fucking extreme about it and saying it's sexist to be opposed to it makes me glad the damn law actually passed. Sometimes I wish they would just ban abortion to piss them off.

Post: #13

Liberals and people on the left are starting to seem like the most closed minded pussies out there. I'm not political so someone can correct me if they want. At least skinheads and racists are straight up with you and don't beat around the bush.

Post: #14

This is about getting the legislative and judicial branches of our government to bow to the homosexual lobby. It's about adoption. It's also about changing DOMA such that it allows homosexuals to jointly file. These are the bullet points.

The warm fuzzies that everyone seems to identify with is just the cherry on top. I wish more people understood this. But as most of you know, the average schmuck is a mindless blue-pill chomping asshat.

Too bad... America is fucked.

Post: #15

Since I don't consider any marriage--gay or straight--"sacred" (what a stupid-ass, vague term), I don't give a nano-fuck about which consenting adults want to do it.
How much time are "straight" men going to spend contemplating which man's ass another man's dick is penetrating.
The more gay men, the more pussy for me.
How trivial can one's day-to-day be, if two lesbian bitches, or two men, getting paperwork putting a stamp of approval on what they're doing anyway, can throw your life into shambles???
What is it? Is it biblical? Are we basing this on the writings of pre-literate, superstitious, Middle Eastern shepherds who got high on ergotized bread & fly agaric mushrooms & called their "trips" the "word of god?"
Fuck that shit. Get out there and fuck the "left-behind" chicks whom the gay men aren't servicing.
Bitches are out here yearning for you to pound their poonani-pavement, and you're getting upset because the gay guy doesn't want to fuck her.

Post: #16

(03-27-2013 05:43 PM)Baldwin81 Wrote:  As most are aware, these pictures are a reaction to the US Supreme Court's hearings and potential rulings on gay marriage. Every SWPL says stuff like, "If two people love each other then why shouldn't Darcy be able to visit Greta in the hospital if she gets sick? Because, you know that since they can't get married..."

That's why I don't understand why the gay community wouldn't have just been satisfied with civil unions which would have provided every one of those sort of benefits (hospital visitations as you mentioned, etc.) The typical response I've heard to this is that marriage is an important cultural institution but with marriage becoming more and more of a joke these days I don't really having your relationship being referred to as a marriage really grants it any sort of higher status. And for those people who really do believe in the tradition and culture behind marriage, why do you need the government to grant it to you? Speaking as a guy who isn't against the possibility of getting married, I don't give two hoots about whether the government recognizes my marriage as a marriage - just give me the tax breaks and all the other material benefits and i'm good to go. Any sort of emotional value you get out of marriage should be strictly between you and your partner, you and your church if choose to get a church sanction it (there are certain Christian denominations that do recognize gay marriage), you and your family and the like.

Post: #17

First post!!

Great discussion. The fact that we’re even having it on this forum speaks volumes about the lack of any sort of credible intellectual discourse in the mainstream media and among elites, who have pretty much silenced any anti-gay marriage debate IMO. I mean when did you see something on CNN, the NY Times etc. negative about gay marriage? Let alone the ‘pros and cons’. When it is entertained, it’s in the “Progressives versus the Neanderthal Religious Nuts” context, with the underlying message “why can’t Americans/Brits/etc. get over their predjudice and get on board the train?”

We really get zero real debate on it and the costs and benefits (socially and economically) – and the pro gay marriage guys frame up the debate anyway and avoid the tougher issues. To me it’s similar to how they don’t ever dare question (and never did) Feminism and many other things in the more broadly liberal media. The media and elites basically all want gay marriage, and will stop at nothing to silence debate.
(BTW I’m fairly liberal on most social issues and not really all that religious, know some gay dudes who I’ve worked with and had no issues, etc.).

Anyway, I’ve been struggling with this whole gay marriage thing, but if I had to spell it out, basically here’s my “gay marriage sounds good an all but is actually a bad idea and road to ruin” rational. (I’m willing to hear any rebuttals for sure as my mind is not made up yet, but right now am pretty much against, which I think is fast becoming non-mainstream):

1) The primary reason for marriage should be for the stable raising of children. Simply put, it takes a man and a woman to have a kid, and anything else isn’t supposed to be how it works, in recent history and in theory at least;

2) Second, given divorce rates and the difficulty of modern marriage, why would the government be incentivizing ANYONE to get married unless it’s to help raise kids who will eventually become educated, participate and support the society, spend money/pay taxes/buy houses etc. and become citizens? As pure public policy, marriage reduces state income and gives tax breaks, so the government take goes down if more and more people get married. So only those who really are committed to living together to raise kids really qualify in my mind – I mean why the hell else would I get married and give up chasing women, especially considering the massive downsides with divorce for men??;

3) Third, as Baldwin81 wrote, marriage is a Trojan Horse for eventual gay adoption, which I think is not in the interests of society and the state in general, and is frankly just not normal. I know, I know…..the gay lobby will come up with tons of exceptions about how gays make good parents (usually sourcing some biased research from some San Francisco study), show the high divorce rates/single mom’s raising kids and point out how committed gays would make better parents, etc. (which is actually an argument AGAINST them being awarded state marriage rights I would say). I’m generally against promoting gay adoption in society, and think it should only be allowed in special cases and not as general public policy – that’s ridiculous.

4) Fourth, as Soup said, “I don't consider any marriage--gay or straight--"sacred". I think that’s a ridiculous conceit. It’s probably the best structure we have (and the one with the most historical context) to raise kids in a supportive environment, but it’s a long, difficult road and not much fun most of the time, and demands completely committed partners to get through it all without eventually hating one another.

5) Fifth, economically gay marriage will cost us all something bc of the benefits and tax breaks that the recipients receive. Gays already have Civil Unions that give them certain breaks, medical coverage etc, but I’m not sure I really want to award two dudes who basically are roommates for life with all these benefits just bc they are gay. Could be argued out of it, but why do they get breaks that many times are really for the benefit of couples with kids? (same goes with married couples with no kids – will admit I’m not up to speed on how these benefits work as I’ve never been married).

6) Sixth, as stated above, gays already have Civil Unions and the track record of the Gay Community in terms of monogamous relationships isn’t very good. Now I’m sure that there are plenty of monogamous gays out there would might make good couples, but I think it’s pretty well established that gay men (and men in general) stray a lot and there’s a culture with gay people of having multiple partners all the time, the public toilet glory holes, etc. Ok this isn’t the best reason to say no marriage, but gays already have Civil Unions in many states awarding them benefits, why do they need Marriage too? Sounds politically motivated and fishy.

7) Seventh, “Marriage” in the modern context has been defined as a man and a woman for many years. Now we’re saying everyone can have it including two women and two men. Ok great…but obviously the next question is if we’re going to broaden that definition, then the next step is polygamy right? (which I’m not necessarily against) Or communal raising of children on a mass scale (even by the State, which I am against) way bigger in scale than current foster care programs, etc. You can’t award gays marriage and not look down the road and see what’s coming, and not discuss it – these issues are all interconnected. But that’s exactly what’s happening now…the Gay Lobby and Progressives want to go step by step without highlighting or even discussing the ‘Big Picture’;

8) Eigth, this whole silly debate (or lack thereof) shows the ‘herd’ mentality of ‘wanting to do the right thing’ when it actually might very well be the wrong thing to do, and we all know we’ve seen that before with things like divorce laws that are incredibly skewed-against men, ‘anti-discrimination/female empowerment’ laws, ‘harassment’ legislation, etc. So I think you should always be questioning these seemingly innocuous do-gooders who don’t tell you the whole story and are hiding things under the auspices of being “Progressive” and “Liberal” when most of the time they are anything but.

Finally, from 10,000 feet, it’s unreal that given the MASSIVE societal breakdown issues were facing in the West these days, and with and collapse of the Western economies, lack of jobs, out of control spending and non-discretionary benefits, rampant military buildup, increasing domestic surveillance, etc. that all the major media outlets and even the Democrats and President would choose to push forward gay marriage as one of the supposed main issues of our times. Where are our priorities? (I’m no Republican but would say they are not pro gay marriage in general).
In general I tend to err on the side of more freedom and ‘let them do what they want’ but come on gay marriage will cost something and change society, especially marriage, potentially in a dramatic way, and to pretend otherwise is just silly.

That’s my tldr 2 cents for now.

Post: #18

Seriously ridiculous discussion.

Normally I just ignore the anti homosexuality sentiments, but now it's becoming too much.

It's gay to be against homosexuals.

Some men want to sleep with women. Some men want to sleep with men. They're different sexual strategies and why do you care about what another men wants to do with his penis. You want force another guy's dick in a pussy? You want to manually put it in yourself?

"I'm not against homosexuals, as long as they don't make any moves on me." Like they want your ugly ass anyway.

No homo.

These boards are filled with aspiring alpha males who feel the need to emphasize their nongayness whenever they give a guy a compliment. "Nice dress shirt. No homo." Oh really, you're on a board and you like women even though you can discuss someone's looks and clothing. How revolutionary!

This is taken from insecure wannabe gangsters that have to stress "no homo" because they get fucked in the ass in prison. Sean Connery and Mick Jagger are definitely not going to say it and are secure in their sexuality. And they can actually get high quality chicks. No-homo-farmerboys most often cannot.

Marriage is for kids.

This is something I could agree with: kids should be raised by their two parents, and marriage should be an economic incentive to keep families together.

But marriage is fucked up. Protest against divorce. Protest against degenerates getting children in the first place. In this disgenic world, two people that love each other is not the worst place for children to grown up. Instead, you'd rather see them live with a single mom welfare queen?

Aren't we on the side of men, against the blue pill?

This is all a remnant from religious forces that want to enforce a one-men-one-women society so everyone breeds and spreads their dogma. Blue pill, guys. Anyway, breakfast now.

Post: #19

Its a deliberate attack on everything masculine, and thus everything civilised. Homos are a force of destruction. Like Jack Donovan explained, its flamboyant dishonour designed to weaken a tribe and leave them vulnerable to takeover from outsiders. You can't simply leave them be. Their decision to attack civilisation means they are the enemy.

Post: #20

(04-01-2013 06:11 AM)Krauser Wrote:  Its a deliberate attack on everything masculine, and thus everything civilised. Homos are a force of destruction. Like Jack Donovan explained, its flamboyant dishonour designed to weaken a tribe and leave them vulnerable to takeover from outsiders. You can't simply leave them be. Their decision to attack civilisation means they are the enemy.

Fucking bullshit.

Weakness is destroying our society.

These fucking pansies are mostly women and straight gays.

If you wanna talk about civilization, what have you done for it lately?

Write a fucking blog on the internet?

Damn, you're what empires are made of.

Post: #21

(04-01-2013 07:00 AM)sixsix Wrote:  

(04-01-2013 06:11 AM)Krauser Wrote:  Its a deliberate attack on everything masculine, and thus everything civilised. Homos are a force of destruction. Like Jack Donovan explained, its flamboyant dishonour designed to weaken a tribe and leave them vulnerable to takeover from outsiders. You can't simply leave them be. Their decision to attack civilisation means they are the enemy.

Fucking bullshit.

Weakness is destroying our society.

These fucking pansies are mostly women and straight gays.

If you wanna talk about civilization, what have you done for it lately?

Write a fucking blog on the internet?

Damn, you're what empires are made of.

Quite a hissy fit there

Post: #22

This is not so much about gay marriage as it is about driving a wedge between two groups of Americans. The "cultured, bi-coastal" elite is trying to inflame tensions. They have beaten the conservative, Tea Party types in two straight elections and now they are just trying to shove their face in shit like a puppy that just shat on the rug. They are browbeating socially conservative people with gun control bills, Obamacare, forcing Catholics to pay for birth control, and now gay marriage.

I'm not terribly antigay, gays have much to add to society and I tolerate the lifestyle but don't want it shoved in my face and am uneasy about two gays adopting children. I posted this before in another thread but it sums up the issue very well:

"Gay marriage is now the issue through which the elite advertises its superiority over the redneck masses"

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/brenda...ck-masses/

Post: #23

It seems like people on the left automatically assume the worst things and try to group you with dumb shit (redneck, uneducated, racist, sexist, evil, etc) if you don't agree with them. Is there a reason they're so closed minded or am I looking at it wrong? Someone educate me.

I am not political but I don't appreciate them labeling me as evil because I like my gun, don't like hearing about fags on every news channel/website, and honestly don't give a fuck about strangers. DO what you do and I'll do what I do, but stay the fuck out of my business. At least I keep it real. Their whole thing seems like a big stinky turd "You can say and do what you want because we love everyone and are for equal rights. But it better be what we like or we'll tell you to shut up".

Post: #24

It's textbook use of mass directive language to achieve cultural control and the submission of all dissenters.

It employs the exact same methods used by feminists, social conservatives, and anybody else with a puritanical crusade against society. And the advantage will always be with women in this fight because they are naturally better on the grand scale of playing this game.

The reason it is so effective is because it prevents FUTURE actions by those who are not in lockstep with them under the assumption, real or fabricated, that they will be shunned by everybody else for even the slightest deviation from orthodoxy.

Thus, the mind of the average person subconsciously goes from "I couldn't care less about the gays." to "I better support what everybody else is or keep my mouth shut lest I die a virgin."

That is why there is the appearance of hostility to gays on this forum, even when there is no real animosity towards homosexuals. The "red pill" mindset we espouse, though subject to our own misconceptions and directives, is largely a reactionary enemy of the societal movement to control men against their own benefit. There is nothing inherently wrong with directive language, as it can just as easily be used to hold together society as it can to fracture it. But the stark similarities of the promise of the egalitarian utopia offered by both feminist and homosexual advocates will naturally induce a negative response to those of us who have conditioned ourselves against such speech.

Post: #25

If gays are allowed to marry - how will they decide which one gets fat?