Quote: (06-26-2015 01:54 PM)Downtown Wrote:  

Quote: (06-26-2015 10:57 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

Homosexuality is a mental illness with no genetic basis. The majority of faggots were created after being molested or fucked during or before puberty by an older homosexual.

The real clincher for this movement, however, is it will be used to shut down Christian churches. Churches that refuse to marry faggots will be closed down for violating the "rights" of gays (i.e. mentally-ill people) to marry. We've seen this precedent with the baker who refused to make a gay wedding cake and was fined so much money he had to shut down his business. Of course, Islamic Mosques will be left alone. The attack on faggotry will be used to shut down Churches across America until they become a den of faggots like many Catholic churches.

I think today is the official start of the second dark age.

You can get banned for not capitalizing your sentences but this type of speech is ok?

cripes!

Amen brother. Gay marriage has already been legal for over 10 years in parts of the US and in a majority of states for the past several years. And... life has basically just gone on the same as before. Just like it will tomorrow.

I am completely unconvinced that this has any effect whatsoever on you unless you plan on getting married to someone of the same sex.

Who the fuck cares what two consenting adults do in their private lives?

And if those two adults pay taxes and follow the law, they are entitled to equal protection. Marriage is just a stupid legal contract. Chivalry died a long time ago, if it even ever existed.

I also really don't understand the vocal neo conservative segment of RVF that is virulently opposed to "SJWs" but would like nothing more than to live in a authoritarian religious theocracy that imposes a belief system on other people, which is exactly what SJWs try to do.

Let everyone keep to their goddamn selves, give equal protection under the law to everyone, and let the individuals have the freedom to decide how they want to live their own lives. Government should be a neutral order keeper, not an enforcer of morality or personal opinions. Keep the roads paved, the water on, electricity, etc, and that's fine.

I personally don't approve of homosexuality. So, what do I do? Do I get my panties in a bunch and rage against the fall of society and the imminent rainbow apocalypse that will force us all to sodomize goats in public? No, I just go about my own business and don't have sex with other men. And guess what? The sun still rises every morning, and I haven't noticed a bit of difference in my real life.

"No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family …"

Gays and fidelity?

Quote: (06-26-2015 12:24 PM)Blick Mang Wrote:  

Part of Scalia's dissent:

Quote:Quote:

This is a naked judicial claim to legislative—indeed, super-legislative—power; a claim fundamentally at odds with our system of government. Except as limited by a constitutional prohibition agreed to by the People, the States are free to adopt whatever laws they like, even those that offend the esteemed Justices’ “reasoned judgment.” A system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy. Judges are selected precisely for their skill as lawyers; whether they reflect the policy views of a particular constituency is not (or should not be) relevant. Not surprisingly then, the Federal Judiciary is hardly a cross-section of America.

Take, for example, this Court, which consists of only nine men and women, all of them successful lawyers who studied at Harvard or Yale Law School. Four of the nine are natives of New York City. Eight of them grew up in east- and west-coast States. Only one hails from the vast expanse in-between. Not a single Southwesterner or even, to tell the truth, a genuine Westerner (California does not count). Not a single evangelical Christian (a group that comprises about one quarter of Americans), or even a Protestant of any denomination. The strikingly unrepresentative character of the body voting on today’s social upheaval would be irrelevant if they were functioning as judges, answering the legal question whether the American people had ever ratified a constitutional provision that was understood to proscribe the traditional definition of marriage. But of course the Justices in today’s majority are not voting on that basis; they say they are not. And to allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation.

The most insidious part of this event is what is in bold. The process of creating law has been circumvented, and because it's wrapped in a polarizing subject like gay marriage, people are distracted from the precedent that was just set for the government to further impose controls on our lives. I have no doubt that the gay marriage issue will continue to be used as a bludgeon against Christianity, but even devoutly anti-gay Christians should be concerned with the deeper issue about the judicial branch creating law. The government has just been empowered to impose upon us without even a token of our representation.

Quote: (06-26-2015 02:24 PM)blacknwhitespade Wrote:  

Quote: (06-26-2015 01:49 PM)dog Wrote:  

Quote: (06-26-2015 01:42 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  

It's just occurred to me: what we really need is "gay residency" to accompany gay marriage and other gay privileges. That way, homo wonderlands can draw all the poofters away from the rest of the world. By allowing them all to drain into the world's new social waste receptacles, it would further increase the benefit RVFers get from moving overseas.

It's also only a matter of time before Australia gets fagged too. It's holding out for now under Abbott, but it'll probably only take the next term or two.

I don't think it will take more than 5 years until all western countries are celebrating gay marriage. Not even just the anglosphere, all western countries. The holdouts will be incredibly rare, and probably demonized by leftist forces.

I was tempted to put scare/sarcasm quotes around "celebrating", but it truly is a celebration. Homecoming soldiers and Super Bowl winners don't get the sort of widespread adulation from politicians, media, corporations and celebrities that this ruling recieved.

When you say all Western Countries, would you also be including Latin American and Caribbean countries?

Well, take a look at this map:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_m...y_laws.svg


Australia is the last holdout in the Anglosphere. South America is well on it's way. Is Latin American culture going to be able to withstand the amount of propaganda they are surrounded by? People like Soros will fund protestors and send NGOs to any countries that might seem resistant.

That map almost looks like a map of a new cultural cold war. If they wish to remain aligned with the rest of North and South America they will probably have to make concessions and promote homosexuality. Otherwise, the only other protection is aligning themselves with Russia or China.

The ex-Soviet KGB defector Yuri Bezmenov warned about this type of subversion in the 1980s. You can see a full interview here where he talks about this method once used by KGB operatives.

The biggest threat here isn't two guys getting it on at a truck stop. That used to be a private matter. No longer. They need submission in the way Islam and Feminism and Communism need submission. Four horsemen.

Yuri said, "A few years back, two gays went and did their dirty business in private and no one cared. Now they want ssssspecial rights. Rights over everybody else based on sexual behavior. The way to counter this is not to kill them, no no. You just do not give them positions of power."

He said this in 1982.

He goes on to state that it takes 20 years to undue that level of subversion. TWENTY YEARS. Two decades to undo the federal government telling the States (and now The Church!) what to do. Whom to marry. Whom to accept. Whom to congregate with. Anyone remember the last time the Federal government stepped over the line? Yeah... the Civil War.

The old Soviet politburo would be overjoyed with the way this will now destabilize the country even further. Yuri said it didn't really matter to the Soviets WHAT it was that people fought over as long as they were fighting like angry hornets. It just so happens that homosexuality and feminism happen to be two of the most potent weapons in the devil's arsenal. And if you dance with the devil, he is going to come for his due sooner or later. In other words, it's going to get damn bloody.

It's what happens when you kick God out of the country.

I open up Spotify, and right on top is a fresh new playlist called # love wins. The Google main search page has a pro gay message today. It's like all these millennials and SJWs vie with each other to prove how much they approve homosexuality. It's literally like a symbol of status amongst them to prove their tolerance.

Quote: (06-26-2015 02:40 PM)Soothesayer Wrote:  

The ex-Soviet KGB defector Yuri Bezmenov warned about this type of subversion in the 1980s. You can see a full interview here where he talks about this method once used by KGB operatives.

Excellent video. Soviet subversion of the West never ceases to fascinate me.

To paraphrase him regarding the 20 years necessary to demoralize a nation, it is 20 years because that is how long it takes to educate a new generation and get them into positions of influence and power.

Well, they are already in positions of influence and power. And the generation being educated now is more radical than any preceding generation. The question is really how bad can it get before the power elite are threatened and do something about it.

Ben Shapiro made a prediction: Religious schools will lose accreditation. Parents will homeschool. The CPA will put an end to that.

Twinks around the country should be beside themselves. Marry a gay old man and get half if it doesnt work out. Lesbians not so much. Most all I have seen are broke or barely getting by. Damn that patriarchy again!

Does this mean mosques will be forced to accommodate gay marriage ceremonies?

If so....

Quote: (06-26-2015 02:35 PM)VolandoVengoVolandoVoy Wrote:  

I am completely unconvinced that this has any effect whatsoever on you unless you plan on getting married to someone of the same sex.

Who the fuck cares what two consenting adults do in their private lives?

And if those two adults pay taxes and follow the law, they are entitled to equal protection. Marriage is just a stupid legal contract. Chivalry died a long time ago, if it even ever existed.

I also really don't understand the vocal neo conservative segment of RVF that is virulently opposed to "SJWs" but would like nothing more than to live in a authoritarian religious theocracy that imposes a belief system on other people, which is exactly what SJWs try to do.

Let everyone keep to their goddamn selves, give equal protection under the law to everyone, and let the individuals have the freedom to decide how they want to live their own lives. Government should be a neutral order keeper, not an enforcer of morality or personal opinions. Keep the roads paved, the water on, electricity, etc, and that's fine.

I personally don't approve of homosexuality. So, what do I do? Do I get my panties in a bunch and rage against the fall of society and the imminent rainbow apocalypse that will force us all to sodomize goats in public? No, I just go about my own business and don't have sex with other men. And guess what? The sun still rises every morning, and I haven't noticed a bit of difference in my real life.

VVVV, you have no problem with gay adoption and the consequences it will have eventually by infringing on the rights of straight couples with normal children?

This is my biggest issue with this.

Quote: (06-26-2015 10:57 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

I think today is the official start of the second dark age.

Maybe not the official start of a dark age, but definitely a big step closer to the breakdown of the United States as one union. Basically 180 from the President's speech. I'm already seeing the strong defiance in Church circles and anti-big government types. Emotions will "cool down" as the days pass, but the inevitable slippery slope that this has created will ensure that it keeps coming back. The American cultural framework has been eroding for years, this is a hallmark moment in hastening that breakdown.

delete

Quote: (06-26-2015 03:17 PM)blacknwhitespade Wrote:  

Quote: (06-26-2015 10:57 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

I think today is the official start of the second dark age.

Maybe not the official start of a dark age, but definitely a big step closer to the breakdown of the United States as one union. Basically 180 from the President's speech. I'm already seeing the strong defiance in Church circles and anti-big government types. Emotions will "cool down" as the days pass, but the inevitable slippery slope that this has created will ensure that it keeps coming back. The American cultural framework has been eroding for years, this is a hallmark moment in hastening that breakdown.

I think the US will begin to self segregate into clusters of like minded people with a vetting of new people wanting to come in. Every aspect of life will have a list of approved options by the group.

The country is run by an oligarchy. This is what happens when this much power is given to nine lawyers wearing black robes. Reagan should have never nominated Kennedy. He's a disaster.

This whole deal today is significant for several reasons;

You can see how much the country has slipped into steepening moral decay by some of the comments just here on this thread; the blaise 'I don't give a damn' or 'so what' attitude. I can understand people thinking that, but I'll tell you 'so what'; It's another cog in the moral decay that is America.

Today's ruling plays into the whole narrative of there being no more good traditional feminine women in America. The fact that you have to treat an American woman like shit , basically escalate to sex asap, for a relationship with one. It plays into the narrative of girls desecrating their flesh with tattoos, piercings, and cow bell rings through their noses. It plays into flaky entitled behavior. All of these subjects, including the shit (dark shit ) Hollywood puts out, the Kardashians, and now, the ruling in favor of gay marriage are under the umbrella of things that are causing or are the by product of the downfall of the country. It's all part of the organic slimy avalanche that is the decay of America cascading down the once great mountain.

It's certainly a 'fuck you' to traditional America, though the justices may not have intended in that way ( some probably did , like ginsberg)

It's telling this happened during the Obama administration. I think if people had heard what Obama was going to bring us back in 2008 before he was elected; socialized health care , the repercussions of which haven't even begun to be felt yet, gay marriage, tenser race relations in the USA ( Obama maybe or maybe not to blame - that's up for debate) et al, then many Americans would have been, if not shocked back then, at least alarmed that these things were down the pike.

Now, most Americans, take it, including todays news, in stride. Marriage between a man and a woman and the family and the PROPER rearing of children has been the foundation , the bedrock of civilized societies for thousands of years of human history. Now, we've just thrown an aberration, a Caitlyn Jenner if you will, into the long standing acceptance of marriage and what it means to a society.

Another thing to think about is all the children either now alive, or who will be born, who will somehow end up being raised in a gay household. Young skulls full of impressionable mush. So much for the propagation of the species.

Some of the thinking goes : 'the justices thought it would happen sooner or later anyway, like in 20 years, so why not go ahead and pass it' ? 20 years later is better than today. Those who don't want the US to be totally sucked into the same places defunct empires like ancient Rome were sucked ( due in large part to moral decay coupled with an influx of 'aliens' a la the Modern day USA ), would wish to delay it as long as possible. Maybe some miracle, or newly elected politicians would pop up in the next 20 years and save us from the implosion.

Caesar has been dying sometime from the many stab wounds of cultural marxism. This is just one more blow. It's a big one I think. This could be akin to the knifing from Brutus.

Quote: (06-26-2015 03:12 PM)Slim Shady Wrote:  

VVVV, you have no problem with gay adoption and the consequences it will have eventually by infringing on the rights of straight couples with normal children?

This is my biggest issue with this.

Plenty of children are already being adopted by "traditional/straight" man-woman families where in reality one or both parents are bisexual or homosexual. It's not like the NSA puts cameras in people's bedrooms to see what they actually do with their genitalia in their spare time.

I think alcoholics and drug users and people with anger issues are far more likely to be bad parents.

Is your concern the icky homosexuals or do you have a genuine worry for all of the unadopted children currently in need of homes?

If you care about the children, well, there needs to be a three part solution. First, figure out a way to reduce unwanted pregnancies, which means providing sex education and family planning services. Second, increase the state support for those adopting children, so that the pool of potential adoptive parents is larger and of higher quality. Third, figure out a better way to filter who would be good parents and provide good homes. I don't think someone's stated sexual orientation is a good litmus test. There are some gay people who would provide a great home environment, and some straights that would provide a terrible one. Maybe it's even true that gays are more likely to be bad parents, but I don't know of any evidence to that effect. Even if that were true, I still think socioeconomic background, neighborhood, personality, etc, are better predictors of successful parents.

Quote: (06-26-2015 03:12 PM)Slim Shady Wrote:  

VVVV, you have no problem with gay adoption and the consequences it will have eventually by infringing on the rights of straight couples with normal children?

This is my biggest issue with this.

Could you explain your thinking? It's not clear to me how gay adoption would affect straight couples and their children.

VVVV,

While there are certainly problems that need to be addressed about unfit straight parents what we are doing here is adding more problematic parents into the mix just because we can't address an existing issue.

I can't get the goddamn picture to embed, but check this out: https://www.facebook.com/MacLeodCartoons...=1&theater



Paint a free health clinic giving an abortion to a female-to-male transman in the back and you will have successfully created the most baiting picture in Internet history.

Anybody else see women post selfies with a rainbow tint in honor of this historic day

I'm personally amused by this. A thousand hits of free crack for the SWPL hivemind. I've always held the view that if more questioning men choose that persuasion, male/female ratio could improve. Roissy agrees.

The song "Garbage - Queer" should have been released today, not in 1995 (lol).

Quote: (06-26-2015 03:12 PM)Collide Wrote:  

Does this mean mosques will be forced to accommodate gay marriage ceremonies?

Of course not. That would be bigoted.
More likely very few people will try and any stories of intolerance won't make the news.

Quote: (06-26-2015 03:38 PM)2Wycked Wrote:  

I can't get the goddamn picture to embed, but check this out: https://www.facebook.com/MacLeodCartoons...=1&theater



Paint a free health clinic giving an abortion to a female-to-male transman in the back and you will have successfully created the most baiting picture in Internet history.

Anybody else see women post selfies with a rainbow tint in honor of this historic day

Is this it?

This is the gayest fucking cartoon I've seen in a long time. And that fag's comment on it is ridiculous.

"Boohoo I was crying and my hand was shaking as I drew this."

Quote: (06-26-2015 03:28 PM)VolandoVengoVolandoVoy Wrote:  

Quote: (06-26-2015 03:12 PM)Slim Shady Wrote:  

VVVV, you have no problem with gay adoption and the consequences it will have eventually by infringing on the rights of straight couples with normal children?

This is my biggest issue with this.

Plenty of children are already being adopted by "traditional/straight" man-woman families where in reality one or both parents are bisexual or homosexual. It's not like the NSA puts cameras in people's bedrooms to see what they actually do with their genitalia in their spare time.

I think alcoholics and drug users and people with anger issues are far more likely to be bad parents.

Is your concern the icky homosexuals or do you have a genuine worry for all of the unadopted children currently in need of homes?

If you care about the children, well, there needs to be a three part solution. First, figure out a way to reduce unwanted pregnancies, which means providing sex education and family planning services. Second, increase the state support for those adopting children, so that the pool of potential adoptive parents is larger and of higher quality. Third, figure out a better way to filter who would be good parents and provide good homes. I don't think someone's stated sexual orientation is a good litmus test. There are some gay people who would provide a great home environment, and some straights that would provide a terrible one. Maybe it's even true that gays are more likely to be bad parents, but I don't know of any evidence to that effect. Even if that were true, I still think socioeconomic background, neighborhood, personality, etc, are better predictors of successful parents.

I'd say the real problem of gay adoption isn't gays themselves adopting, but pedophiles adopting under the guise of a gay adoption. Now it would be unfair to gays to disallow adoption because they "might" be pederasts, since there have certainly been cases of straight married couples diddling kids. However, in the current political climate any member of a liberal "victim" identity group that gets told no about something can immediately start screaming discrimination. Normally during an adoption the couple has to go through some serious screening, but what adoption agency is going to risk a liberal witch hunt by denying a suspicious adoption. For example look at Rotherham and the police fear of investigating child rapists due to anti-racism.