Post: #201

(06-26-2015 07:09 PM)Gimlet Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 07:02 PM)docholliday Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 06:55 PM)Gimlet Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 05:42 PM)Downtown Wrote:  Can someone please explain to me just how your individual lives will be affected by this?

I know two guys who will get married because of this.

How does this change my life with my girlfriends and my kids?

Is it because you think people will be less likely to get married and have kids?

Is it because you think your own children will be swayed into being gay now?

It won't. Because you have sired bastards with a woman or women willing to carry on a man's genes without the benefits of marriage and property. You children are not your heirs. You will pass along nothing beyond "love" which is the socialist ideal. You are correct, gay marriage does not affect you. You are already a part of the system in which marriage is destroyed.

Um, we don't live in Game of Thrones world. His kids are still his heirs in the eyes of the law. Unless he changes his will to leave to someone else of course.

Men are not women and are not bonded at the hip to offspring. Once his commitment to his girlfriend ends, so will his commitment to his children. Ask any child of divorce what his/her relationship is like with his father. Religions frown upon divorce for a damn good reason. They know it is destructive to society. Not marrying at all is even worse. Getting a female to further genes without the expending of his resources is a win for a male. Men are hardwired to exploit that. Which is in part why marriage exists,among many other reasons which all benefit society.

I am currently sitting here with my kids as I type this, even though I live with none of their mothers (two of them).

Not sure what you're getting at with that.

But Yes I am part of the broken system already. I don't see how gay marriage changes that for me.

If there is indeed a slippery slope into polygamy and beastiality / pedo then yes I'll look back at this as a turning point.

I can't hardly see any of that happening though.

If and when it does, I'll eat my share of crow.

Post: #202

(06-26-2015 05:46 PM)Truth Teller Wrote:  Part of me is convinced that all this LGBT bullshit is just a way to distract the masses from the real problems of the world.

Ukraine's still in the grip of war, Argentina's bankrupt, Putin continues to rattle the saber, Iran creeps ever closer to a bomb, who cares? None of that matters to most Americans. American infrastructure is falling apart, but it doesn't matter. What matters to these idiots is that nine unelected officials decided to radically redefine what marriage actually is.

If Americans got their heads out of their asses about all these "social justice" things, the government would have to actually be competent. But the American people are largely stupid and only care about social issues. That's how Obama won in 2012. He had the right position on social (i.e. unimportant) issues. His economic policies were a disaster. Romney's social positions were unpopular, and while his economic plan was a mess, it arguably made a little more sense than Obama's.

Marriage has been redefined. How much longer until a fundamental right (speech, press, assembly, etc.) gets redefined?

This is the point I wanted to make but wasn't articulate enough to write.

This is a distraction from the real issues.

By being so bent out of shape over it, people are doing exactly what 'they' want us to do - expend energy in the wrong direction.

Post: #203

(06-26-2015 11:55 AM)The Moonlight Patriot Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 11:40 AM)Slim Shady Wrote:  On the other hand, I'm waiting for my right to sit in my tent with my 8 wives.

I would stop at three wives. I don't want every weekend in my month ruined.

Actually, its ok. They will all sync up after a while. Now what you'll do with half a gallon of period blood every month is your business.

Post: #204

(06-27-2015 06:32 AM)VolandoVengoVolandoVoy Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 07:28 PM)Roosh Wrote:  We will now begin to scratch the depths of degeneracy that no civilization has explored before. Many dark years await us.

Really? Don't you think that's just a tad bit hyperbolic?

I thought you enjoyed reading about history.

You don't even have to go as far back as the Persians and Romans and Mongols and Aztecs to find examples of extreme savagery and degeneracy that far exceed anything we might manage.

And to say that this is somehow going to lead us to be more degenerate than any society that has ever existed, despite the high levels of socioeconomic development we now enjoy is simply not true.

Serious question with no intent of snark or irony: has there ever been another civilization/culture in history that has held up homosexuality as heroic and meritorious, particularly among those who don't (and have no intention to) practice it?

I'm aware that Plato at least theorized about some "ideal" homo love, but I feel like my question is more specific...

Also, if you can identify such a culture, what were the primary characteristics of its decline?

Post: #205

(06-27-2015 09:34 AM)DaveR Wrote:  groups have been formed here in St. Petersburg to hunt down pedophile-faggots on social media sites and then report them to employers, child protection agencies and the Police.

Sorry for the double post.

Surely we can all recognize the above statement is equally as terrifying as the supreme court ruling, and would definitely be used as a weapon to attack (innocent) political enemies now and in the future.

Post: #206

Pretend you are religious and want to marry a religious woman. But the new legalized gay marriage counters your religious beliefs. I would think you have legal footing to create some separation between religious marriage and state marriage. How can the state enforce you to believe marriage is for gays when you religion does not believe it- and yet still operate under the guise of freedom of religion.

There will be a divorce between two religious people, and the man will be ordered to hand over half his possessions. He will argue, "Judge, I'm not going to do that because I'm not married by the state and the state's beliefs. I'm married by my religion and its beliefs." And now I hope you can see the judges dilemma. The judge must choose between enforcing either divorce law or the Constitution. And of course women will bow to the single momma 9 times out of 10. Effectively shitting on the Constitution.

This is how it affects you.

Post: #207

(06-27-2015 10:28 AM)TooFineAPoint Wrote:  

(06-27-2015 09:34 AM)DaveR Wrote:  groups have been formed here in St. Petersburg to hunt down pedophile-faggots on social media sites and then report them to employers, child protection agencies and the Police.

Sorry for the double post.

Surely we can all recognize the above statement is equally as terrifying as the supreme court ruling, and would definitely be used as a weapon to attack (innocent) political enemies now and in the future.

Which part of my statement do you find terrifying? Homosexuals have no place in the government of this country.

Post: #208

Maybe the reason why Roosh is warning of new depths of depravity is the intense luxury that the world now sees.

Acts like yesterday are going to have immediate and long term consequences. The West is still coasting on momentum, and at the moment is still at it's power. As destructive cultural changes take effect, by explicitly celebrating and promoting actions that do not create a strong future generation (infertile gay relationships, single motherhood, SJW hurty feely legislative ointment), the seeds are being sown for the worse.

Similar things have happened, but the Romans were always surrounded by invasion from within and without that would destroy them in days. The West still has the infrastructure and military to defend it from outside threats while eating itself alive from within in one big degenerate insane orgy. The outside world may even just stop listening because the insane things going on may just be too much when you're still trying to be a powerful nation.

Then, when the doors open after the electrical infrastructure and hopey feelies have run out, the visitor will wonder what the hell happened. It doesn't even need to destroy everything, just have enough cultural drift to look insane compared to outside forces that still have to deal with invasion.

That's worse, to me. One big groupthink disaster that gets to coast on a civilization's worth of technology while not being able to improve or replace it, while the rest of the world has to have a productive, family creating philosophy to survive. The U.S in particular is well shielded from external threats, and will be for some time, so it can continue on a self destructive path for some time before nature cashes her check.

Post: #209

(06-27-2015 10:42 AM)DaveR Wrote:  

(06-27-2015 10:28 AM)TooFineAPoint Wrote:  

(06-27-2015 09:34 AM)DaveR Wrote:  groups have been formed here in St. Petersburg to hunt down pedophile-faggots on social media sites and then report them to employers, child protection agencies and the Police.

Sorry for the double post.

Surely we can all recognize the above statement is equally as terrifying as the supreme court ruling, and would definitely be used as a weapon to attack (innocent) political enemies now and in the future.

Which part of my statement do you find terrifying? Homosexuals have no place in the government of this country.

Knowing human nature, do you suppose that any group given power to "hunt down" people will always act in just and honest ways, and will never attract those who wish to abuse that power?

You need not go far into modern Russian (Soviet) history to see multitudinous examples of this.

Post: #210

"It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage. If “if [t]here is dignity in the bond between two men or two women who seek to marry and in their autonomy to make such profound choices,” why would there be any less dignity in the bond between three people who, in exercising their autonomy, seek to make the profound choice to marry? If a same-sex couple has the constitutional right to marry because their children would otherwise “suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser,” why wouldn’t the same reasoning apply to a family of three or more persons raising children? If not having the opportunity to marry “serves to disrespect and subordinate” gay and lesbian couples, why wouldn’t the same “imposition of this disability,” serve to disrespect and subordinate people who find fulfillment in polyamorous relationships?" - Chief Justice John Roberts, dissenting.

*Slow clap*

Post: #211

   

Post: #212

Post: #213

How about some guys and girls who want to marry their gun(s)? That would make them “happy” and since nothing can get in the way of “happiness”, it must be allowed per SCOTUS.

Gun laws in this country to too hodgepodge...they impinge on “happiness”. They need to be universal from coast to coast, sea to sea.

#HappinessIsAWarmGun

Post: #214

(06-26-2015 03:50 PM)Vitriol Wrote:  There has definitely been a massive, organized media campaign planned as a response to this decision.



Source

   

Post: #215

(06-27-2015 08:50 AM)YossariansRight Wrote:  “If you support gay marriage, you MUST, by the same logic, support a marriage between a brother and sister or a father and daughter if they are both adults, because if that’s who they are sexually attracted too, by liberal logic, you can’t judge them as mentally ill or perverted because they’re just being themselves and were born that way and it’s totally “normal” and you’re just an incestphobe if you disagree.”

-Mark Dice

I've cornered them with this argument before. Often they'll grudgingly admit that there is no constitutional basis to deny polygamous or incestuous marriages. They're also willing to accept those "as long as it doesn't hurt anybody".

That last line is their universal mantra. Anything is fine if it doesn't hurt anyone. But "how does this hurt me?" always struck me as the wrong question to ask. It's ultimately selfish. The question should be rather, "how is this good for society?"

Post: #216

Am I the only one who reads all of this about the "Decline" and think, "more pussy for me!" ??

Post: #217

I've noticed a lot of people on Facebook have changed their profile picture to have it superimposed with a gay flag. They are all women or guys that don't get pussy.

Post: #218

Can someone explain to me how polygamy is bad? If that is what this leading to - isn't that something that would be advocated by the "harem" types on here?

What I'm hearing in here these days sounds more like the tent of a fundamentalist group rather than the smokey den of pick up artists.

Post: #219

First regarding the gay marriage question itself, I think more of us are apprehensive about the inquisitorial orthodoxy and the fanatics devoting themselves to the LGBT movement than the actual LGBT people themselves. That's how I always thought about it. As it's been mentioned before, political correctness is basically a mandated religion now.

Now regarding polygamous marriages, that's actually far more dangerous than many people realize, and even more so than homosexual marriage in general, which was my biggest problem with it - as a stepping stone. One of the things that actually made Western civilization more stable than other places was that it eschewed polygamy going all the way back to its beginnings in Greece. Obviously the top guys in the West have had and will always have harems of attractive young mistresses but that's not quite the same thing. Those mistresses would presumably marry someone else later.

Societies with polygamous marriages have historically and to this day been a lot more unstable. Unlike the mistress deal in the West, many women necessarily get permanently removed from the sexual selection, restricting men. Dynasties were often destroyed by infighting from polygamous families but also by removing those women you are leaving many men without the possibility of finding a wife. Legions of single, sexually frustrated young men are never a good thing for civilization.

If they try to go for polygamous marriages now, the trends we talk about at length here will likely accelerate. We can always say divorce laws will discourage marriage in the end but for the top guys with millions of dollars to spare do you honestly believe they'll really give a fuck?

Edit: @Downtown, I might as well have been typing for you. If you're looking at this with only a selfish hedonistic short-term lens than yeah it's "more pussy for you," but if you care about the long term viability of your civilization you need to look deeper and through a longer term lens.

Post: #220

Libertas -

Yes, you're right about polygamy creating legions of unmarried men. Bad for everyone.

Somehow I think those really pushing the agenda here know this.

The real goal hasn't ever been about gay marriage, its about distractions. Gay marriage is part of the bread and circus.

RE: Caring about long term survival of our civilization:

I don't know that I do. What makes this one any better than all the other shitty ones that died out before us?

Short term (rational) hedonism is really about the only sane approach to life given time, space, and infinity anyhow.

I understand that there is a mix of voices on here but pick up, game, and self improvement are for the 'let it burn' types because being alpha or perceived as such will be key to survival.

The social conservative voices on here are actually arguing for the preservation of the beta state. Monogamy and rock solid marriage was about giving each beta a pussy to fuck so they dont go crazy.



Social conservatism is like the nanny state for beta males in the sexual marketplace.

Post: #221

(06-27-2015 11:48 AM)Downtown Wrote:  Am I the only one who reads all of this about the "Decline" and think, "more pussy for me!" ??

Can you explain how that would work?

As far as I know, the only way to get more pussy is approaching more women. Not sure how this gay rights shit factors in the equation.

Post: #222

ObamaRobertsCare-—buggery-—illegal aliens: They’re all connected, the strings are being pulled by the same puppeteers.

Post: #223

(06-27-2015 11:51 AM)Downtown Wrote:  Can someone explain to me how polygamy is bad? If that is what this leading to - isn't that something that would be advocated by the "harem" types on here?

What I'm hearing in here these days sounds more like the tent of a fundamentalist group rather than the smokey den of pick up artists.

It's the steamrolling of the leftist agenda without allowing any dissent.

Wait until "street harassment" becomes a crime, or "Yes means Yes - Affirmative Consent" moves from the college campus to society at large.

Post: #224

(06-27-2015 05:24 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

A child growing up in a homosexual household has a roughly 6 times (yes, 600%) greater chance of being abused than one in a heterosexual household. As hard as it is to believe, it's worse even than growing up in an orphanage.

Can you point me to the source for this or any similar study?

Post: #225

(06-27-2015 12:22 PM)Dusty Wrote:  

(06-27-2015 11:51 AM)Downtown Wrote:  Can someone explain to me how polygamy is bad? If that is what this leading to - isn't that something that would be advocated by the "harem" types on here?

What I'm hearing in here these days sounds more like the tent of a fundamentalist group rather than the smokey den of pick up artists.

It's the steamrolling of the leftist agenda without allowing any dissent.

Wait until "street harassment" becomes a crime, or "Yes means Yes - Affirmative Consent" moves from the college campus to society at large.

That sounds like the opposite of the "age of degenerates" that seems to be advocated in this very same thread?