http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2015/01/wha...r-dad.html

Holy fuck. Marriage equality has some new horizons

Quote:Quote:

Do you ever call him Dad?
When I need my dad I say, “Hey, Dad, I need you.” And then he’s not going to be my fiancé or my boyfriend, but my father. "

Had you been depressed before that?
I’ve struggled with chronic depression, and I was bullied at school.

What were you bullied about?
Mostly my weight and the fact that I wasn’t pretty enough. But when my dad and I started dating I became more confident, and it’s funny how much more attractive that makes you feel."

Gay marriage and transsexual rights are the camel's head entering the tent. The most vulgar human acts, from pedophilia to sex with animals, will now be pushed upon us. Articles like the above are just testing the waters.

Quote: (05-24-2015 12:51 PM)Roosh Wrote:  

Gay marriage and transsexual rights are the camel's head entering the tent. The most vulgar human acts, from pedophilia to sex with animals, will now be pushed upon us. Articles like the above are just testing the waters.

Do you really believe that?

As far as I can tell, the above article is clickbait trolling rather than a stalking horse for societal degeneration.

Also, as disgusting as I may personally think transexualism or homosexuality is, I see a big difference between what two unrelated consenting adults do, and raping a child or an animal, as neither a child nor an animal can consent to sex.

Quote: (05-24-2015 12:51 PM)Roosh Wrote:  

Gay marriage and transsexual rights are the camel's head entering the tent. The most vulgar human acts, from pedophilia to sex with animals, will now be pushed upon us. Articles like the above are just testing the waters.

The core value of liberalism is autonomy. Details of your background like sex, race and ancestry must be made not to matter, so that you have full autonomy to control your own destiny.

Consequently, limiting relationships between consenting adults is a restriction on autonomy, and thus illiberal. When a liberal opposes gay marriage or incest, he is making an unprincipled exception, as the late writer Lawrence Auster called it. This exception is very much in contradiction with liberalism. It's only when the liberal proceeds to align his stances with the true ideology of liberalism that "conservatives" decry liberalism for going "too far."

This is nonsense; liberalism has not gone far enough. Consensual incest is the logical expression of liberalism; if I recall correctly, Steven Pinker condoned it in his book The Blank Slate, as an intellectual exercise - meaning that we have no grounds to oppose it, if the consenting adults do not have children. If a liberal does object to incest or homosexualism, then he is implicitly recognizing some greater authority than liberalism; but this is unstated, and intellectually unjustified. It is irrational. Because of that, this authority will no doubt ebb in its influence over time, until the liberal aligns himself fully with granting people full autonomy.

Pedophilia and bestiality pose issues of consent that do not necessarily admissible under liberalism. Polyamory poses no such issue.

I think Tony Soprano had it right:

But you, as a man, better not even look at that 17-and-half-year-old chick's ass in those nuclear daisy dukes.

   

She's 17? Looks like I'm going to jail

Quote: (05-24-2015 01:07 PM)VolandoVengoVolandoVoy Wrote:  

as neither a child nor an animal can consent to sex.

For now. But just you wait.

Quote:Quote:

Do you really believe that?

As far as I can tell, the above article is clickbait trolling rather than a stalking horse for societal degeneration.

There's no believe. I know it will happen, unless we stop it, all for the reason to excuse all behaviors done by women:

http://www.rooshv.com/the-end-game-of-feminism

They will also excuse behaviors by men who have made themselves subservient to women.

I agree with Roosh that the end game is bestiality and pedophilia.

When I look at gays, I see a group to whom unprotected anal sex is more important than slowing the spread of HIV.

Quote: (05-24-2015 12:51 PM)Roosh Wrote:  

Gay marriage and transsexual rights are the camel's head entering the tent. The most vulgar human acts, from pedophilia to sex with animals, will now be pushed upon us. Articles like the above are just testing the waters.

Note the Progressive Normalisation of Dysfunction. You redefine Language via offering softer, stigma-free academic-sounding terms that can be used as substitute for actual thought and which appeal to those insecure about their intelligence whose narcissistic construct is based upon making everyone think they're highly-educated and, as such, intellectually-superior to them.

It's not "Incest", it's “Genetic Sexual Attraction” (GSA).

You win the culture war not by having the facts on your side, but by appealing to the intellectual vanity of the 105-125 IQ crowd. An idea only has to sound plausible enough to be accepted as scientific truth without closer examination by people who are intelligent enough to be dangerous in a mob, but not securely-intelligent enough to stand against the mob.

"It's 2015! Can you believe that shitlords still literally believe incest is an actual thing? They need to educate themselves! Ooh, Taylor Swift just dropped an empowering video."

This insecurity is why, the moment you argue from a place of intellectual-superiority and start showing the obvious flaws in the narrative, these types double down on their beliefs: you're threatening their entire self-construct.

Quote: (05-24-2015 01:07 PM)VolandoVengoVolandoVoy Wrote:  

Also, as disgusting as I may personally think transexualism or homosexuality is, I see a big difference between what two unrelated consenting adults do, and raping a child or an animal, as neither a child nor an animal can consent to sex.

I normally stay away from the political debates here but this is an important topic. You mentioned two unrelated consenting adults. Why only 2? In the arguments in front of the SCOTUS Justice Alito asked:

Then groups of four people must be allowed to marry. “And let’s say they’re all consenting adults, highly educated,” he said, and then added, to laughter, “They’re all lawyers.”

Ms. Bonauto responded that marriage is about the mutual commitment of two people.

Her response does not make any legal sense and she knew it. The origins of marriage were based on the fact that for a society to exist more than one generation, it must encourage it's members to reproduce. Our biology requires a man and a woman. If it required a different grouping of people to create a child then marriage would be been defined exactly to line up with biology. If you go back to ancient societies, some (like ancient Egypt) required childbirth to consummate the marriage. Divorce was allowed in cases of infertility.

Once you remove the biology and reproduction from marriage how are you able to limit it? As Justice Alito said, why not 4? We're already breaking with tradition and biology. You can't say we keep 2 people "just cause it was always 2 people". It was a man and a woman before so what happened in the past doesn't count anymore. Shouldn't bigamy be legalized?

You mentioned "consenting adults". In the US minors under the age of 18 are allowed to legally marry in many states. Sometimes due to pregnancy, other times with their parents permission.

Finally, you mentioned "non-related". Why? Since marriage no longer is defined in such a way that children are a natural product, why should related people not be allowed? The major taboo of incest is based on the logical need to not create children with birth defects. If two brothers or two sisters want to marry there will be no risk of having children. Should they then be allowed to marry?

It seems crazy now to think that groups of related underage people may one day be allowed to marry. You have to keep in mind that how legal cases are argued isn't always straightforward. It will be increasing difficult to argue for a "traditional" view of marriage of only two non-related adults.

Dupe: http://www.rooshvforum.network/thread-44253

Quote: (05-24-2015 12:51 PM)Roosh Wrote:  

Gay marriage and transsexual rights are the camel's head entering the tent. The most vulgar human acts, from pedophilia to sex with animals, will now be pushed upon us. Articles like the above are just testing the waters.

B-b-but the slippery slope isn't real!!!

Quote: (05-24-2015 01:23 PM)Roosh Wrote:  

There's no believe. I know it will happen, unless we stop it, all for the reason to excuse all behaviors done by women:

http://www.rooshv.com/the-end-game-of-feminism

They will also excuse behaviors by men who have made themselves subservient to women.

I absolutely agree - there are plenty of statements from elite circles / social engineers that the plans are clear - first homosexuality, now transsexuality/ other kin, pedophilia to age zero, incest, bestiality and necrophilia. And even that would not be the end of it - snuff, sexual killings might be the final frontier - anything goes.

Also note an interesting fact in the article:

Quote:Quote:

In the late '80s, the founder of a support group for adopted children who had recently reconnected with their biological relatives coined the term “Genetic Sexual Attraction” (GSA) to describe the intense romantic and sexual feelings that she observed occurring in many of these reunions. According to an article in The Guardian, experts estimate that these taboo feelings occur in about 50 percent of cases where estranged relatives are reunited as adults (GSA’s discoverer had herself become attracted to the son she’d adopted out when she met him 26 years later, but her feelings were not reciprocated).

This is very telling - mostly those individuals with a variety of sexual perversions engage in research which supports their vices. Freud for example developed his oedipus mother-fucking complex after he actually wanted to bang the mother of his wife. And he accomplished that feat later on. Whenever he wanted to live out a fantasy, he wrote another 200.000 words on it to legitimize it.

Kinsey for example hired pedophiles who tested his theories on children who were less than 6 months old. Crying according to them meant that they were having an orgasm. Also he blatantly falsified promiscuity data of women by including prostitutes in the results - as well as inflating the homosexuality numbers of men by including prisoners and gays.





Good documentary. Interesting to note that Kinsey was financed by the Rockefeller foundation.

The hypersexualization of youth is already happening in some South American countries much earlier than in Western ones.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zKUorJmhaE (NSFW - Brazilian girls twerking in school - fully clothed, but I won't post a preview of that)

And the topic of fucking your close biological relatives - of course it can happen, but we should refrain as humans from excusing those relationships. There are good reasons why those things are taboo - not because we are prude, but because we know that fucking your biological daughter is fucked up. And please don't compare it to Woody Allen and his adopted one - that may be strange, but is acceptable since biological relations are the key here.

Quote: (05-24-2015 01:07 PM)VolandoVengoVolandoVoy Wrote:  

Quote: (05-24-2015 12:51 PM)Roosh Wrote:  

Gay marriage and transsexual rights are the camel's head entering the tent. The most vulgar human acts, from pedophilia to sex with animals, will now be pushed upon us. Articles like the above are just testing the waters.

...as neither a child nor an animal can consent to sex.

This is the key. Look at where the movement is heading now. Children can't consent to sex but we now have children that allegedly can responsibly choose their sexual identity and orientation. Look at how young boys at 8 years old are now coming out as "girls" or gay, supposedly of their own volition. If a child can choose their sexual orientation or identity before puberty, why can't they also have the ability to consent to sex?

This IS the trojan horse to opening up pedophilia. Look at how many of our elites across the world from the clergy, to Hollywood, to the heads of finance, to our very politicians are now being found to be pedophiles. No one imagined a decade ago that gender dysphoria and the dilution of the two sexes would become the new "Civil Rights" phase after gay marriage, but now look at where we are. The slippery slope is unfortunately looking like the world's largest water slide.

I hope the scientific community comes out against this shit - biologically, you WILL get problems from children of such unions.

Quote: (05-24-2015 06:23 PM)Tytalus Wrote:  

I hope the scientific community comes out against this shit - biologically, you WILL get problems from children of such unions.

They'll counter by saying they can use contraceptives or abortion.

And as far animals are concerned and consent, well, animals don't consent to being harvested for food, used as basically slaves or as pets. So that argument isn't a particularly strong one.

So yeah, now that marriage isn't about biology and starting a family, the genie is out of the bottle and going down the slippery slope as if it were at a water park.

Quote: (05-24-2015 02:20 PM)Gringuito Wrote:  

Once you remove the biology and reproduction from marriage how are you able to limit it? As Justice Alito said, why not 4? We're already breaking with tradition and biology. You can't say we keep 2 people "just cause it was always 2 people". It was a man and a woman before so what happened in the past doesn't count anymore. Shouldn't bigamy be legalized?

We won't see that happen since that would allow a man to marry several women. I don't think the feminists would be very happy with that.

Quote: (05-24-2015 06:53 PM)Luisaceo Wrote:  

Quote: (05-24-2015 02:20 PM)Gringuito Wrote:  

Once you remove the biology and reproduction from marriage how are you able to limit it? As Justice Alito said, why not 4? We're already breaking with tradition and biology. You can't say we keep 2 people "just cause it was always 2 people". It was a man and a woman before so what happened in the past doesn't count anymore. Shouldn't bigamy be legalized?

We won't see that happen since that would allow a man to marry several women. I don't think the feminists would be very happy with that.

Actually women are more than happy sharing an alpha male. Look at the current system of soft harems many of the guys here run. Remember, women love men that other women want.

Quote: (05-24-2015 06:57 PM)Gringuito Wrote:  

Quote: (05-24-2015 06:53 PM)Luisaceo Wrote:  

Quote: (05-24-2015 02:20 PM)Gringuito Wrote:  

Once you remove the biology and reproduction from marriage how are you able to limit it? As Justice Alito said, why not 4? We're already breaking with tradition and biology. You can't say we keep 2 people "just cause it was always 2 people". It was a man and a woman before so what happened in the past doesn't count anymore. Shouldn't bigamy be legalized?

We won't see that happen since that would allow a man to marry several women. I don't think the feminists would be very happy with that.

Actually women are more than happy sharing an alpha male. Look at the current system of soft harems many of the guys here run. Remember, women love men that other women want.

Yeah, but I doubt feminists would allow them to marry. They would twist the narrative and argue that those women are actually oppressed and that polyamorous relationships only make sense in a homosexual context

Quote: (05-24-2015 06:53 PM)Luisaceo Wrote:  

Quote: (05-24-2015 02:20 PM)Gringuito Wrote:  

Once you remove the biology and reproduction from marriage how are you able to limit it? As Justice Alito said, why not 4? We're already breaking with tradition and biology. You can't say we keep 2 people "just cause it was always 2 people". It was a man and a woman before so what happened in the past doesn't count anymore. Shouldn't bigamy be legalized?

We won't see that happen since that would allow a man to marry several women. I don't think the feminists would be very happy with that.

You're making the assumption that bigamy/polygamy being legalized would only involve polygyny. It's legalization would also involve polyandry, homosexual/lesbian polygamy and group polygamy of whatever male or female combination. That would be the most "equal" decision.

Besides, the feminists could hamster up some justification like women being "empowered" and breaking free of "patriarchal relationship norms" or some other bullshit.

Absolutely, the end game of feminism, SJWism, and all the rest is to remake Western society completely.

They want to consign 2000 years of history to the ash bin, and replace it with their own program. And that would be a world in which no genders exists, where women run the show, and where classical masculinity is criminalized.

Think I'm exaggerating?

I read a few days ago that a proposal was floated in the Fairfax Co (Virginia) school system to remove the definition of "boys" and "girls" from the curriculum.

There are whisperings--and probing voices--coming from some colleges that the traditional texts of the Western canon (that is, the literary monuments of the classical world, the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, and the Enlightenment) are not politically correct enough for some tastes.

This is just the beginning. They want to either bowdlerize these texts, censor them, or destroy them by consigning them to a Planet-of-the-Apes type of "forbidden zone."

If present trends continue, the very nature of masculinity will be threatened. So the time to resist is now.

It isn't all gloom and doom, fortunately. There are positive signs coming from the East.

In the Middle East, of course, religious vitality is as strong as ever, and--it must be said--acts as a bulwark against the corrupting inroads of Western liberalism. They have other problems, of course, but on this point things are secure.

The Russian Orthodox Church is putting up a very impressive fight against cultural degeneracy. The difference there is that the Russian Church has the implicit backing and support of the government.

In the West, there is no support from governments to control libertine excesses. I'm beginning to think that the entire course of European history since the Enlightenment placed too much faith on "Reason" and not enough appreciation for the benefits of "faith."

What warmed my heart was to see a squad of Cossacks break up a meeting of "Pussy Riot" troublemakers by force. It was a wonderful sight. This is how you defend your culture from a disease.

This is how you handle a virus. This is how you deal with people who want to destroy your culture. You disperse them by force:

Personally, I think that what we're seeing is a result of two things, no internal existential crisis, but at the same time a neurotic despair because we as a society are pretty much stagnant and the hopes of progressing for three generations now (X, Y, and Z) are for the most part dashed thanks to the greed, waste, and recklessness of the baby boomers and earlier. To quote a guy I follow named Nathan Hagens, who I will be citing often in a coming post, "for most people, economic growth is already over."

Of course that's only one thing, but I think it's a good piece of the puzzle.

As the promise and prosperity of your society continues to decay, you get a rise of neurotic behaviors in the population. This is what we're seeing with things like this.