Read more about it here:

http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/201...ornia?lite

Quote:Quote:

In a pair of landmark decisions, the Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down the 1996 law blocking federal recognition of gay marriage, and it allowed gay marriage to resume in California by declining to decide a separate case.

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.

Yeah I had to log off facebook. Will people now take down these stupid red equal signs.

When California begins allowing same-sex marriages, that will mean that 13 states plus Washington, D.C. allow same-sex marriages.

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.

Quote: (06-26-2013 10:53 AM)Kabal Wrote:  

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.

I don't really care if gay people want to get married. On this issue, it is the Jesus freaks & homophobes that annoy me with their religious arguments.

Quote: (06-26-2013 11:12 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  

Yeah I had to log off facebook. Will people now take down these stupid red equal signs.

They probably won't since now the fight will be to get more states to legalize same-sex marriage.

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?

My only thought was, 'great this is going to fuck with the tax code all over again'...seventeen more boxes with things like "if you are in a homosexual marriage in this state use form 5537"

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.

Anything that reconfigures marriage is ultimately positive for men like us. As we all know, marriage is currently a raw deal for men, but revisions to the current, and obsolete, white-knight philosophy (women are angels who are never to blame and should be provided-for for the rest of their lives) is good. When men start to be "the women" in certain marriages, things are bound to happen.

Anybody want to get hitched with me for the tax break?

Quote: (06-26-2013 01:24 PM)EisenBarde Wrote:  

Anybody want to get hitched with me for the tax break?

Honestly this seems like a great loophole for permenant bachelors and their friends to now start to take advantage of tax breaks, insurance issues etc.

I wonder if they will have to institute gay inspectors nationwide

One of the better comments I've read today was along these lines:

"I'm glad gays can finally get married. Maybe now they'll shut the fuck up about it."

The government should have no fucking input at all in who you co-habitate with. None. All the social advantages can be done through private contract and there should be no tax/financial advantages.

Quote: (06-26-2013 01:24 PM)EisenBarde Wrote:  

Anybody want to get hitched with me for the tax break?

Send me a pm.

Quote: (06-26-2013 02:20 PM)MattW Wrote:  

One of the better comments I've read today was along these lines:

"I'm glad gays can finally get married. Maybe now they'll shut the fuck up about it."

Its mostly the holier-than-thou straight people who are blowing up my facebook page about it, so far.

Quote: (06-26-2013 11:16 AM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

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?

I think the only thing I'd point out is that despite the fact that the controversy tends to focus around gay males, the majority of same-sex marriages happen between women. Otherwise yeah... don't care.

If anything, this presents an interesting "in" with immigration.

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

Step 2. Profit.

Step 3. Divorce and repeat.

Step 4. Claim anybody who get's suspicious as a discriminatory homophobe who just doesn't understand our asexual transgender life decisions

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.

Speakeasy, the cat is out of the bag, so to speak, on the morality of society.

The bigger problem is that heterosexual marriage is way down and out-of-wedlock births are way up. That is what is going to have the biggest impact on the future of our society since it is directly impacting the next generation. The gay marriage debate is a side issue at best.

Quote: (06-26-2013 06:10 PM)The Texas Prophet Wrote:  

Speakeasy, the cat is out of the bag, so to speak, on the morality of society.

The bigger problem is that heterosexual marriage is way down and out-of-wedlock births are way up. That is what is going to have the biggest impact on the future of our society since it is directly impacting the next generation. The gay marriage debate is a side issue at best.

This is true in that issues like gay marriage are the bread and circuses that distract the populace from more ominous issues like dysgenic breeding and immigration patterns, the Ponzi Scheme that is Social Security, and the rising-price-death-spiral that is the healthcare system.

Quote: (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.

Quote: (06-26-2013 06:19 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

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.

Yup. Look at how they've brow-beaten the Boy Scouts into capitulating to their demands, which is also a private quasi-religious institution. Now they won't have churches forced to do gay weddings, but they will start demanding that the government revoke their tax-exempt status since gay and straight marriages are equal under the law. Then they will start shaming people who go to churches that don't perform gay weddings. Just as you might be shamed if you went to a church that refused interracial weddings. This will happen within 5 years.

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.

After churches, it will then be making school curriculum more gay inclusive. In California they have already done it:

http://www.npr.org/2011/07/22/138504488/...-classroom

Why it's necessary for me to know what sex Michaelangelo slept with is beyond me(and I honestly couldn't give a fuck). But I guess this type of stuff makes the cultural left happy.

Does anyone know the source of that Vox tweet?

Quote: (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.