Kabal 
True Player
Posts: 1,704
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 44
|
RE: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA, paves way for gay marriage to resume in California
I'm all for equal opportunity across the board (including marriage), but seeing all these smug, self-righteous posts on Facebook is single-handedly making me side with the Jesus-lovers and homophobes on this one.
Marriage is/was a de facto tax on unmarried people. Why were these flamers not shrieking about separating church and state, instead of wanting in on something (marriage) that they would otherwise deem an instrument of the heteronormative Judeo-Christian patriarchy?
Oh yeah, it's because they just want to act outraged and indulge in some victim-complex attention whoring, not because they actually want consistent principles and equal opportunity.
#NoSingleMoms
#NoHymenNoDiamond
#DontWantDaughters
(This post was last modified: 06-26-2013 10:58 AM by Kabal.)
|
|
| 06-26-2013 10:53 AM |
|
![[-]](images/collapse.gif)
The following 5 users Like Kabal's post:5 users Like Kabal's post
Days of Broken Arrows, Handsome Creepy Eel, Architekt, Gold Doubloon, chexmix
|
Excelsior 
Innovative Casanova
Posts: 15,023
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 214
|
RE: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA, paves way for gay marriage to resume in California
So married gay couples can now receive full federal benefits and gays can get married in California once again? In short, gay couples have legally been given more equitable access to an institution (marriage) that most of us here agree hasn't been sacred in this society even among heterosexual couples for multiple generations now?
![[Image: z3hwbm4.gif]](http://i.imgur.com/z3hwbm4.gif)
Know your enemy and know yourself, find naught in fear for 100 battles. Know yourself but not your enemy, find level of loss and victory. Know thy enemy but not yourself, wallow in defeat every time.
|
|
| 06-26-2013 11:16 AM |
|
The following 7 users Like Excelsior's post:7 users Like Excelsior's post
MikeCF, Wadsworth, cibo, username, Matt Forney, renotime, The Troubled One
|
scorpion
True Player
Posts: 2,389
Joined: Sep 2012
Reputation: 241
|
RE:
What's interesting is that with this decision the Court has torn down any legal justification for opposition to polygamy and incestuous marriage. They rejected the ability of the government to discriminate against individuals based on moral grounds under the Equal Protection Clause. Their justification for homosexual marriage is that consenting adults have the right to marry other consenting adults, and that moral objections based on their being of the same sex are not sufficient to deny them this right.
Now that marriage is no longer defined as between one man and one woman, the same logic therefore applies to marriages with multiple partners or between relatives. In both cases, all involved would be consenting adults, and the only objections raised would be on moral grounds. Any arguments against polygamy or incestuous marriage apply equally to homosexual marriage, i.e. that changing the definition of marriage would upset society or not provide a stable environment for the raising of children, etc...
We can therefore expect that advocacy for polygamous marriage will begin over the next decade (I don't foresee any strong demand for incest any time soon, although legally there would be no defense against). This will happen under the guise of "polyamory" (which is a term you already see popping up among the feminist/SWPL vanguard) rather than under the similar but more loaded word "polygamy". We will be told that denying men and women the right to be legally married to multiple people in a loving relationship denies their human rights and dignity.
Polygamy will represent not only a further erosion of the traditional family, but an erosion of civilization itself. The average man will no longer have the expectation that if he follows the rules and contributes to society, he can have a wife and family of his own. The high alphas will build themselves harems of young women, while low betas and omegas may find themselves forced to legally share their wife and raise another man's offspring. (What's interesting is that we already see this situation playing out in a de facto sense without legalized polygamy: alpha men have harems outside of marriage, beta men share access to women and often get stuck raising another man's kid. Polygamy will simply institutionalize and formalize these existing relationships and behavioral patterns).
Feminists are perfectly fine with polygamy, because either way they come out ahead: either they have a share of an alpha man as a member of his harem (and as we know, 5 minutes of alpha is worth 5 years of beta), or else they manage to secure the attention and legally guaranteed financial support of multiple beta men instead of just one by running a harem of betas for themselves.
You might think I'm exaggerating here, but I'm not. I'm simply looking at the legal rationale of the Court and extrapolating the consequences based on societal trends.
Polygamy is the next great feminist victory, and its pathway to legalization has been cleared by this bit of judicial activism by the Court. Now that marriage has no meaning and the government is unable to define it as being anything other than a voluntary legal union between consenting adults, there is no legal rationale to block polygamous marriage. There are only the arguments from morality and tradition, both of which the Court jettisoned in this case.
The traditional family in this country is doomed. Men are doomed. If you think it's bad now, just wait until polygamy starts to hit. The hamster will then be operating in overdrive, and we'll see things like attractive young women having ten or twelve "husbands" that all give her and her children financial support. Moderately attractive women will join up in groups of two or three and enter into marriage with wealthy, older men, preferring that arrangement to the ignominy of settling for a single, financially unexceptional beta male. This will have catastrophic consequences for society as a whole, as the vast majority of men will come up short in the arrangement and will have no incentive to positively contribute more than their bare minimal effort to society.
One-man, one-woman marriage and the traditional family it creates has been recognized as the bedrock of Western civilization for millennia. No more. We're entering a Brave New World.
"For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.” - Romans 8:18
|
|
| 06-26-2013 12:34 PM |
|
The following 16 users Like scorpion's post:16 users Like scorpion's post
Aliblahba, Therapsid, MattW, bacon, Giovonny, kinjutsu, Wutang, Mirrorball, Days of Broken Arrows, cibo, Sherman, username, Yatagan, Handsome Creepy Eel, Matt Forney, Citlalli
|
speakeasy
Innovative Casanova
Posts: 9,099
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 102
|
RE: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA, paves way for gay marriage to resume in California
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". Secondly, it's not one of these issues that will just go away once gay marriage becomes federally recognized. It's just the beginning. Just like women didn't stop whining once they were granted equal rights. In fact they became even more demanding. It's not good enough that women are equal under the law, if we don't have a female president and 50% of all CEOs aren't female, and women don't make 100% of what men do, then we are a misogynistic society. I expect the gay rights movement to follow the same path. More entitlement, more whining, more demand for equal representation in government and education curriculum. More gay couples in TV ads, etc.
At the heart of all this blue pill thinking is radical egalitarianism. All things are equal, period. If you don't agree, you're a bigot. End of discussion. Homosexuality is not equal to hetereosexuality. That's not to say a person who is gay is not equally human as a straight, but the behavior of homosexuality is not equal nor is it desirable. Sperm and eggs exists for a reason. Men have a dick and women have a vagina for a reason. We just tolerate homosexuality because we realize some are born that way, probably due to an imbalance of prenatal hormones in the mother's womb, which would make homosexuality an aberration. But in our politically correct era, you can never say that out loud, because EVERYTHING is equal and we're not allowed to hurt anyone's feelings. Two men raising a kid is just as desirable as a mother and a father, or a single mother. It's all the same and all pairings are by definition equal. It's all such a bunch of blue pill bullshit.
(This post was last modified: 06-26-2013 03:57 PM by speakeasy.)
|
|
| 06-26-2013 03:38 PM |
|
The following 12 users Like speakeasy's post:12 users Like speakeasy's post
Kabal, MattW, scorpion, Therapsid, Benoit, EisenBarde, Major Tom, Wutang, Mirrorball, Days of Broken Arrows, username, Yatagan
|
Days of Broken Arrows
International Playboy
Posts: 4,389
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 184
|
RE: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA, paves way for gay marriage to resume in California
(06-26-2013 11:13 AM)samsamsam Wrote: Look what you are calling smugness and hype will all die down eventually. For some of these people they have waited a lifetime to be as unhappy as other marries couples are lol.
Whether you like the lgbt community or not they believe they finally got equal treatment. They can't celebrate that? Not even for 24 hours?
Not all gays are attention whores just like not all women are sluts just like not all white males are racists just like not all cops are bad cops.
The ones we like we just rarely hear about. There are plenty of gays who are not attention whoring today. You just are not hearing about it.
Let me be clear, I hate self promoting attention whores of all types. But give them a break. It has only been a few hours.
Guys here get all pissed off being told what to do. The chad ochocinco thread was all about a women telling a man what to do. Some people don't wanna listen to flight attendants turning off cell phones. So the gays can't be upset when told they can't marry? They can't celebrate like ochocinco did? Or do we need to throw them into jail for excessive celebration?
Just let them be happy for a few days. Trust me their divorce rates will be high.
"Whether you like the lgbt community or not they believe they finally got equal treatment. They can't celebrate that? Not even for 24 hours?"
It's not their celebrating that gets on my nerves. It's the back-clapping and moral preening of the SWPL crowd that would probably run screaming from their Park Slope townhouses if they found an actual gay man talking to their designer kids.
That said, the main reason not to celebrate this is that it's not the end of the battle, it's the beginning. Now gays will want to get married in church and start suing churches, which I think is going to start a disastrous domino effect that will encompass discrimination, hate speech, etc.
Blogger Vox Day re-Tweeted something written by a gay activist: "I'm so happy I have tears... Next step is taking down your vile homophobic churches."
The freedom of churches to do what they want is integral to the US. As much as I dislike religion, having a Soviet-style regime that tells churches what they can and can't do seems worse.
|
|
| 06-26-2013 06:19 PM |
|
The following 4 users Like Days of Broken Arrows's post:4 users Like Days of Broken Arrows's post
EisenBarde, speakeasy, username, Benoit
|
Wutang
True Player
Posts: 2,308
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 38
|
RE: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA, paves way for gay marriage to resume in California
(06-26-2013 12:34 PM)scorpion Wrote: What's interesting is that with this decision the Court has torn down any legal justification for opposition to polygamy and incestuous marriage. They rejected the ability of the government to discriminate against individuals based on moral grounds under the Equal Protection Clause. Their justification for homosexual marriage is that consenting adults have the right to marry other consenting adults, and that moral objections based on their being of the same sex are not sufficient to deny them this right.
Now that marriage is no longer defined as between one man and one woman, the same logic therefore applies to marriages with multiple partners or between relatives. In both cases, all involved would be consenting adults, and the only objections raised would be on moral grounds. Any arguments against polygamy or incestuous marriage apply equally to homosexual marriage, i.e. that changing the definition of marriage would upset society or not provide a stable environment for the raising of children, etc...
We can therefore expect that advocacy for polygamous marriage will begin over the next decade (I don't foresee any strong demand for incest any time soon, although legally there would be no defense against). This will happen under the guise of "polyamory" (which is a term you already see popping up among the feminist/SWPL vanguard) rather than under the similar but more loaded word "polygamy". We will be told that denying men and women the right to be legally married to multiple people in a loving relationship denies their human rights and dignity.
Polygamy will represent not only a further erosion of the traditional family, but an erosion of civilization itself. The average man will no longer have the expectation that if he follows the rules and contributes to society, he can have a wife and family of his own. The high alphas will build themselves harems of young women, while low betas and omegas may find themselves forced to legally share their wife and raise another man's offspring. (What's interesting is that we already see this situation playing out in a de facto sense without legalized polygamy: alpha men have harems outside of marriage, beta men share access to women and often get stuck raising another man's kid. Polygamy will simply institutionalize and formalize these existing relationships and behavioral patterns).
Feminists are perfectly fine with polygamy, because either way they come out ahead: either they have a share of an alpha man as a member of his harem (and as we know, 5 minutes of alpha is worth 5 years of beta), or else they manage to secure the attention and legally guaranteed financial support of multiple beta men instead of just one by running a harem of betas for themselves.
You might think I'm exaggerating here, but I'm not. I'm simply looking at the legal rationale of the Court and extrapolating the consequences based on societal trends.
Polygamy is the next great feminist victory, and its pathway to legalization has been cleared by this bit of judicial activism by the Court. Now that marriage has no meaning and the government is unable to define it as being anything other than a voluntary legal union between consenting adults, there is no legal rationale to block polygamous marriage. There are only the arguments from morality and tradition, both of which the Court jettisoned in this case.
The traditional family in this country is doomed. Men are doomed. If you think it's bad now, just wait until polygamy starts to hit. The hamster will then be operating in overdrive, and we'll see things like attractive young women having ten or twelve "husbands" that all give her and her children financial support. Moderately attractive women will join up in groups of two or three and enter into marriage with wealthy, older men, preferring that arrangement to the ignominy of settling for a single, financially unexceptional beta male. This will have catastrophic consequences for society as a whole, as the vast majority of men will come up short in the arrangement and will have no incentive to positively contribute more than their bare minimal effort to society.
One-man, one-woman marriage and the traditional family it creates has been recognized as the bedrock of Western civilization for millennia. No more. We're entering a Brave New World.
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. If the only criteria for marriage is that all parties are consenting adults then there is absolutely no argument against polygamy as it is between consenting adults - only difference is that it involves more than 2 adults. Same with incest. Some people have brought up as an argument that incestial union bring about defective offspring but that can be easily be prevented with birth control and abortion - and I know that no one who is for gay marriage is going to be against abortion.
The only reason I can think of that is preventing polygamy from being accepted in our culture is the same reason why there has been such a reversal on attitudes towards gays: namely media image. Compared the media image of homosexuals as opposed to polygamists. Homosexuals are seen as the quirky, loveable underdogs and also as fashionable, trendy, and on the cutting edge of culture. Polygamists on the other hand are usually associated with creepy religious fundamentalists living in cults with values that are at odds with the values of the SWPL people that are screaming the loudest in support of gay marriage.
Gays also had the advantage of having allies placed in strategic positions in our culture: namely entertainment and mass media. Before anyone accuses me of peddling tin-foil conspiracy theories, I am NOT suggesting that there has been a massive, planned conspiracy by homosexuals to place people in certain positions in the same way people have suggested the same of Jews/the Illuminati/alien lizard overlords or whatever. What am I saying is that for whatever reasons, gays and people sympathetic to them have traditionally been drawn to the entertainment and mass media fields and it is expected of them to use their influence to mold society in the way they see fit. I'm sure if fundamentalists Mormons were in the same position they would do the same - only they typically choose not to get involved in such areas.
That leads to another point I want to make: that the reason polygamists aren't accepted is that many of them choose not to engage with the culture at large. They simply want to be left alone to practice marriage in the way they see fit and they don't really care about changing society. Gays on the other hand actively work to be seen and heard. Also as pointed at before, what do people think of when they think of people engaged in polygamy? They think of fresh off the boat Muslims and traditional Mormons. When they think of gays, they instead of think people who are like themselves: urban, white-collar professional educated types who drink expensive lattes and do yoga. When they think of polygamists, they think of them as the "other". Despite all their claims of being inclusive and worldly, these sort of people are just as tribal as anyone else and are going to support who they see as being part of their tribe and be suspicious of those are outsiders.
Let's face it, most people on both sides of the marriage debate whether they are pro or con are basing their decisions on emotions rather then abstract reasoning. The reason the pro-gay marriage faction has been successful is because they have managed to create a public image of homosexual couples being the same as the idealized heterosexual sexual couples that is still promoted: name two people living in some white picket fence home with a dog and maybe some kids. Despite marriage going in to the shitters in the last few decades many Americans still uphold that vision of marriage and family as the ideal and the gay marriage supporters have managed to create an image in people's minds that gay relationships are like that - only with two men or woman instead of one man and woman.
(This post was last modified: 06-26-2013 06:57 PM by Wutang.)
|
|
| 06-26-2013 06:52 PM |
|
The following 5 users Like Wutang's post:5 users Like Wutang's post
scorpion, Yatagan, augen sehen, The Troubled One, EisenBarde
|
Home
RooshV.com
Search (Via Forum)
Member List
/
Supreme Court strikes down DOMA, paves way for gay marriage to resume in California
