[speakeasy]

(05-11-2012 06:48 PM)Keyser Söze Wrote:  

1. The shocking hatred and bigotry that I have read in this thread has permanently changed my view of some members, and has made me consider leaving RVF so that I cannot in any way be associated with the comments here.

Look man, if you are the type that's sensitive and easily offended by controversial view points, this is seriously not a forum you should be on. I'm frankly surprised anyone would be on any sort of game/PUA forum and be that sensitive about politically incorrect topics. This thread probably ranks amongst the least controversial of shit that's been said either here or on Roosh's blog. It's clear you must be a newb.

Anyway, I'm done with this topic.

[teh_skeeze]

(05-11-2012 06:48 PM)Keyser Söze Wrote:  

1. The shocking hatred and bigotry that I have read in this thread has permanently changed my view of some members, and has made me consider leaving RVF so that I cannot in any way be associated with the comments here.

Really? You obviously don't read the news. Don't you know we are a hate group?

[Roosh]

Keyser Soze has been suspended for 7 days due to attacking a senior member with name calling.

[oldnemesis]

(05-11-2012 07:36 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

I'm aware that they were struck down in 2003. But still, it's not like anyone in recent history has gone to jail for consensual sodomy. It was simply an archaic law that was still on the books.

The problem is that people might have gone to jail. I guess you wouldn't really like having a law which would state that a black guy who has sex with a white girl should be punished by a year in a jail, even if the most jurisdictions wouldn't enforce it. Because there is always a chance that you'll get some racist prosecutor who would. And having it in your criminal record (in most states it was misdemeanor) isn't fun either. You know what Lawrence v Texas started from?

Quote:

Let me also reiterate that opposition to interracial marriage and opposition to gay marriage are different things. For example, polls show that nearly everyone that's opposed to gay marriage is simultaneously in favor of civil unions that offer basically the same benefits as marriage. However nobody that's opposed to interracial marriage ever offered civil unions between blacks and white. Even if you don't like those that oppose SSM, you must acknowledge by this fact that it's coming from a fundamentally different place than those that opposed IRM.

Doesn't it sound "separate but equal" to you? I mean, those two different drinking fountains were the same, and had exactly the same water. It is just one had the "whites only" sign, but it is irrelevant, because you don't drink from the sign and otherwise everything is the same. Correct?

Quote:

Homosexual marriage changes the definition of marriage in a fundamental way that interracial marriage doesn't even come close to.

How exactly? Myself I have been married for a while now, so could you please enlighten me how two gay dudes being married would affect MY marriage in any meaningful way?

Quote:

And as I've said before, banning interracial marriage had more to do with keeping blacks as an under caste than it did with any philosophical opposition to interracial marriage itself.

And this is exactly what happens with gays. "God hates fags" and so on.

Quote:

Whites and Native Americans often married during this time. As did blacks and Native Americans. Some Chinese railroad workers even married black women. Why weren't these marriages halted under the law?

Let me tell you that your knowledge of those laws is quite limited. Please read some Wikipedia at least.

Quote:

When you scratch the surface, what the opponents of SSM don't like is the social normalization of homosexuality and all that comes along with it(such as teachers reading stories like this to kids). Most Americans(myself included) are rather tolerant towards gays, but stop short of promoting it as something equal in all ways to heterosexuality.

Yes, I can understand that. However as the multiple courts have said there is not a legitimate governmental interest to support traditional beliefs by refusing the right to an unpopular group. In layman terms, you may not like gays (Jews, blacks, atheists, autistic people, whoever), but the U.S. Constitution does not allow the legislatures to create the laws punishing the group just because you don't like them. Even if you really, REALLY don't like them. Even if all your friends and all their friends don't like them. Constitution is such a tough bitch.

Quote:

I don't have to wait 20 years. They already do. Hell, sometimes I feel like Rip Van Winkle. 8 years ago if I said marriage should be between men and women, it was considered a perfectly normal and reasonable opinion. Now you are a Nazi for saying that.

I feel you. You know, there is still a lot of people who believed that desegregation was the worst thing happened to America, and every issue we ever had from hippies and feminism to current depression is caused by that. So you are definitely not alone.

And your friends did not really change their opinions. They just didn't have their own opinion before, as they took the opinion pushed down them by some retarded talk show host. If you ever think about it yourself, you'd see no legitimate lawful reason to deny marriage to gays. Again, nobody asks you to like gay people, but the "I don't like them" is NOT a legitimate reason for the marriage ban, thanks to the U.S. Constitution.

[SkeletonJelly?]

Go look up gay marriage statistics in California. Gays don't want to get married, they want to push the normal bar on deviance. I want to hear your case for how homosexual marriage is a "fundamental human right," because it seems like you think a union is for name and show only.

[Veloce]

(05-12-2012 09:12 AM)SkeletonJelly? Wrote:  

Go look up gay marriage statistics in California. Gays don't want to get married, they want to push the normal bar on deviance. I want to hear your case for how homosexual marriage is a "fundamental human right," because it seems like you think a union is for name and show only.

As someone who was born, raised, and has lived in California my entire life, I can safely say you're wrong. I grew up being around gay couples, my best friend in high school was gay, and I currently live in West Hollywood, the largest concentration of gay people in L.A. county. I don't even need to look up gay marriage statistics here to know you're wrong. When San Francisco allowed marriage licenses to homosexuals, gay couples from the entire country flocked here in hopes of getting married.

If you think gays want to get married to "push the normal bar on deviance" you're hopelessly deluded and I can only assume you're making that assertion from some armchair while being inundated with whatever conservative Christian crap that spews from your T.V. on a daily basis.

[speakeasy]

(05-11-2012 09:26 PM)oldnemesis Wrote:  

The problem is that people might have gone to jail. I guess you wouldn't really like having a law which would state that a black guy who has sex with a white girl should be punished by a year in a jail, even if the most jurisdictions wouldn't enforce it. Because there is always a chance that you'll get some racist prosecutor who would. And having it in your criminal record (in most states it was misdemeanor) isn't fun either. You know what Lawrence v Texas started from?

Just to be clear, I didn't say I supported the anti-sodomy law. Or any law making gay acts illegal for that matter. I'm not sure if you think I did or not.

Quote:

Doesn't it sound "separate but equal" to you? I mean, those two different drinking fountains were the same, and had exactly the same water. It is just one had the "whites only" sign, but it is irrelevant, because you don't drink from the sign and otherwise everything is the same. Correct?

The gay rights advocates likes to inject frequent allegory("separate but equal") to the civil rights movement so that they become blacks version 2.0. But the analogy doesn't hold. You cite water fountains in your example above, but that was probably the least pernicious aspect of segregation. There were separate schools with inferior funding, decrepit equipment and poor teachers. There were laws such as poll taxes designed to curtail black voting. There was discrimination in housing, public transit and accommodation even though these basic necessities were required by law to be of equal quality of that provided to whites, which they were not. None of this stuff applies to gays. Changing the fundamental definition of marriage is nothing like asking that your kids be given the same quality education as white kids, or not being subjected to poll taxes intended to keep you from voting.

So, are civil unions really a form of "separate but equal"? Well, of course they are, in a sense. But I don't consider homosexuality functionally equal to heterosexuality. To put things simply, if all gays tomorrow woke up straight, the world continues as normal. If everyone woke up gay, humanity would cease to exist within 100 years. Stop and think about that for a moment. If that doesn't clearly portray the asymmetry of value between the two orientations, I don't know what else to say. So I have no philosophical qualms about regarding homosexuality as something socially undesirable. I am not saying a homosexual as a person is not equal to a heterosexual. I'm referring strictly to the behavior of homosexuality. To say both orientations are on equal footing is to deny the obvious reality that the two sexes evolved for a mutually dependent reason which is primal to why we even exist in the first place. This last factor is why I could NEVER be a gay advocate, although I advocate tolerance toward them.

Also, I want to make sure you clearly understood what I said prior. Because this is crucial for SSM proponents to understand given that they are always throwing around the terms "hate" and "bigotry". If rejection of SSM were based on hate, these same people would oppose civil unions as well. But that is not the case. So we are not dealing with hate here. Even if you don't like my position on the issue, I would hope that we could at least agree that it's not based on hate. Because that is a major factor which puts me off in all the pro SSM movement. The sheer amount of venom for anyone that doesn't see it their way. Most these people have no idea that there are people on the other side who can argue rationally without invoking hateful religious rhetoric. It reminds me of how some in the black community cast as racist anyone that opposes affirmative action without acknowledging that there may be cogent arguments from the other side. In either case, even if one doesn't agree, it's not necessarily coming from a malicious place.

Quote:

How exactly? Myself I have been married for a while now, so could you please enlighten me how two gay dudes being married would affect MY marriage in any meaningful way?

I didn't say it would effect you. If a guy wanted to marry his dog or his pillow, that wouldn't effect your marriage in any personal way either. But that doesn't mean it deserves to be officially sanctioned and held in equal esteem to man pairing with woman. Is this what I want kids growing up to believe? If the criteria is nothing more than, "it has no effect on my marriage", then I can come up with countless ridiculous scenarios like the above examples that would have no personal effect on you(if that's your only criteria). I guess some here may be libertine enough to think that's fine, but I beg to differ.

Quote:

Let me tell you that your knowledge of those laws is quite limited. Please read some Wikipedia at least.

Okay, fair enough. But I wasn't entirely wrong either. The anti-miscegenation laws were universally aimed at blacks throughout all states. However, not all states banned whites from marrying Native Americans or Asians. Some did, others did not. Blacks were allowed in many states to marry other non-whites.

Quote:

Yes, I can understand that. However as the multiple courts have said there is not a legitimate governmental interest to support traditional beliefs by refusing the right to an unpopular group. In layman terms, you may not like gays (Jews, blacks, atheists, autistic people, whoever), but the U.S. Constitution does not allow the legislatures to create the laws punishing the group just because you don't like them. Even if you really, REALLY don't like them. Even if all your friends and all their friends don't like them. Constitution is such a tough bitch.

Well, everybody does this, including gays. Ask the gay spokespersons if they support polygamy and most of them will decry the practice. I even see gay advocates poking fun at Romney and the prior Mormon support for it. Even though all the arguments used to justify SSM could also be used to justify polygamy(for example why can't a bisexual marry both a man and a woman simultaneously? Isn't that denying them their right to be who they are?). The same people would likely recoil at the thought of sibling marriage, but once again, you could claim the same argument in that case. That it's a consensual agreement between two adults which doesn't effect anyone else's marriage. So EVERYONE carries certain boundaries of what's acceptable that may be arbitrary to some extent. Even gays.

Quote:

And your friends did not really change their opinions. They just didn't have their own opinion before, as they took the opinion pushed down them by some retarded talk show host.

Come on, man. Like opinions don't get pushed down people's throats by liberal teachers, MTV, Hollywood, music, etc. Everyone has their own agenda and tries to force it on people, both left and right. Look at where most of us stand on feminism. Do you think the androgynous world feminist pine for is the natural state of things or did it come from years of liberal brainwashing where biological reality is denied?

[kosko]

(05-12-2012 03:56 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(05-11-2012 09:26 PM)oldnemesis Wrote:  

The problem is that people might have gone to jail. I guess you wouldn't really like having a law which would state that a black guy who has sex with a white girl should be punished by a year in a jail, even if the most jurisdictions wouldn't enforce it. Because there is always a chance that you'll get some racist prosecutor who would. And having it in your criminal record (in most states it was misdemeanor) isn't fun either. You know what Lawrence v Texas started from?

Just to be clear, I didn't say I supported the anti-sodomy law. Or any law making gay acts illegal for that matter. I'm not sure if you think I did or not.

Quote:

Doesn't it sound "separate but equal" to you? I mean, those two different drinking fountains were the same, and had exactly the same water. It is just one had the "whites only" sign, but it is irrelevant, because you don't drink from the sign and otherwise everything is the same. Correct?

The gay rights advocates likes to inject frequent allegory("separate but equal") to the civil rights movement so that they become blacks version 2.0. But the analogy doesn't hold. You cite water fountains in your example above, but that was probably the least pernicious aspect of segregation. There were separate schools with inferior funding, decrepit equipment and poor teachers. There were laws such as poll taxes designed to curtail black voting. There was discrimination in housing, public transit and accommodation even though these basic necessities were required by law to be of equal quality of that provided to whites, which they were not. None of this stuff applies to gays. Changing the fundamental definition of marriage is nothing like asking that your kids be given the same quality education as white kids, or not being subjected to poll taxes intended to keep you from voting.

So, are civil unions really a form of "separate but equal"? Well, of course they are, in a sense. But I don't consider homosexuality functionally equal to heterosexuality. To put things simply, if all gays tomorrow woke up straight, the world continues as normal. If everyone woke up gay, humanity would cease to exist within 100 years. Stop and think about that for a moment. If that doesn't clearly portray the asymmetry of value between the two orientations, I don't know what else to say. So I have no philosophical qualms about regarding homosexuality as something socially undesirable. I am not saying a homosexual as a person is not equal to a heterosexual. I'm referring strictly to the behavior of homosexuality. To say both orientations are on equal footing is to deny the obvious reality that the two sexes evolved for a mutually dependent reason which is primal to why we even exist in the first place.

...And there it is folks.




.....


PS The economic aspect is key. Its the elephant in the room pro-LGBT folks don't want to talk about. They have largely been afford economic freedoms throughout history. They could own property, own a business, attend the best schools whatever. These we're not and still not are available to many groups within the USA.

Establishment supports this.. maybe not on paper through guaranteed lawful rights, but all natural rights we're guaranteed which is to the contrary of many ethnic or religious groups which have inhabited the USA. But from a marco-standpoint the wealth generated from LGBT couples only goes 1 or 2 generations deep and gets sucked back into the system. The system views this as a trade off or surplus since they do not give back to the system off-spring that would in-turn grow the economic base of the nation from the platform built from their parents.

Look at the money they have at their disposal. 100s of millions of dollars that Civil Rights leaders could only dream off in their days from collecting various church donations from across the south. They could not afford NYT spreads, TV commercials, lobbyists, none of that. The LGBT movement won't talk highly about that though because they wanted to be painted as a poor and helpless victim just like the Blacks in Alabama in 1940. When in fact these Lesbians and Gay men we're part of the very system that oppressed those very Blacks they claim to mirror there cause on many decades ago.

[oldnemesis]

(05-12-2012 09:12 AM)SkeletonJelly? Wrote:  

Go look up gay marriage statistics in California. Gays don't want to get married, they want to push the normal bar on deviance. I want to hear your case for how homosexual marriage is a "fundamental human right," because it seems like you think a union is for name and show only.

I guess you just don't understand what the word "right" means.

[oldnemesis]

(05-12-2012 03:56 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

Just to be clear, I didn't say I supported the anti-sodomy law. Or any law making gay acts illegal for that matter. I'm not sure if you think I did or not.

Whether you supported it or not is not relevant. What is relevant though is that there WERE laws criminalizing gay behavior, and they only were struck down pretty recently. This is very important because it defines how the Equal Protection clause applies to homosexuals as a protected class (google "Strict scrutiny")

Quote:

The gay rights advocates likes to inject frequent allegory("separate but equal") to the civil rights movement so that they become blacks version 2.0. But the analogy doesn't hold. You cite water fountains in your example above, but that was probably the least pernicious aspect of segregation.

Well, this is a perfect analogy because it allows me to ask you a direct question, and please answer it now. Here is the question:

Would you be, Speakeasy, comfortable with having separate drinking fountains for blacks and whites? The fountains are the same brand, and the water they provide is the same, it is just one of them has a "for blacks" sign. Do you think it is fine and there is no discrimination as long as the water quality is the same?

Then please tell me why do you think it is fine to give homosexuals the "equal" definition of marriage labeled "for homosexuals", and how this is not a discrimination?

Quote:

So, are civil unions really a form of "separate but equal"? Well, of course they are, in a sense. But I don't consider homosexuality functionally equal to heterosexuality.

Well, you're of course right. And no one would say the white person is the same as black person unless they're blind. Yeah, they're different. But does it justify having separate drinking fountains?

Quote:

To put things simply, if all gays tomorrow woke up straight, the world continues as normal.
If everyone woke up gay, humanity would cease to exist within 100 years. Stop and think about that for a moment.

This is one of the craziest thing I ever heard in my life.
Could you tell me why is is even worth consideration?
Is there the slightest chance this might actually happen?
And if so, how the ban on the gay marriage prevents it?

Quote:

If rejection of SSM were based on hate, these same people would oppose civil unions as well. But that is not the case. So we are not dealing with hate here. Even if you don't like my position on the issue, I would hope that we could at least agree that it's not based on hate. Because that is a major factor which puts me off in all the pro SSM movement.

So if I say there should be separate drinking fountains for blacks (but with the same quality water), would you say I'm not racist? See, I'm not saying there should be no drinking fountains for blacks, or that the water should not be as good as in white fountains. Then this is not discrimination, correct?

Let's face it: modern Americans are pussies. Very, very few people have the guts to stand up and speak their mind without a marketing makeup. This is why I respect the "God hates fags" crowd and a racist Johnny Rebel much more than your ordinary fellows - at least those guys have the balls to speak their mind openly, and while I disagree with their position, they earn my respect by standing up to their beliefs. The majority of anti-gay crowd lacks it. Do you know that when we had a court trial here in California the majority of anti-gay witnesses refused to testify as soon as they learned the trial is going to be videotaped? That's your regular "protecting the children" crowd. Lame cowards.

Quote:

I didn't say it would effect you. If a guy wanted to marry his dog or his pillow, that wouldn't effect your marriage in any personal way either. But that doesn't mean it deserves to be officially sanctioned and held in equal esteem to man pairing with woman. Is this what I want kids growing up to believe?

The obvious issue with two examples is lack of consent. The marriage is a "mutual consent" act, and neither the dog nor the pillow can give the consent recognizable by the law.

However the main reason I asked this question is that some folks tend to believe (or say so) that letting gays to marry somehow undermines traditional marriage. So far nobody yet explained it to me how exactly would it do so, that's why I asked you.

Quote:

Well, everybody does this, including gays. Ask the gay spokespersons if they support polygamy and most of them will decry the practice. I even see gay advocates poking fun at Romney and the prior Mormon support for it. Even though all the arguments used to justify SSM could also be used to justify polygamy(for example why can't a bisexual marry both a man and a woman simultaneously? Isn't that denying them their right to be who they are?).

Polygamy is indeed more complex issue because of all the benefits associated with the marriage. Which raises the questions like could you marry, for example, two million Filipino girl and sponsor them all for a green card as a spouse? Would be a huge cash cow. What about direct inheritance, spousal consent on medical decisions, etc? None of those issues is relevant to gay marriage.

Quote:

The same people would likely recoil at the thought of sibling marriage, but once again, you could claim the same argument in that case. That it's a consensual agreement between two adults which doesn't effect anyone else's marriage.

Personally I think ban on sibling marriage would not sustain the judicial review either. Again, I see the legitimate reason why siblings should not fuck (the high possibility of birth defects for the kids), but I see no legitimate governmental reason to prevent them from the marriage. Yet again, "I don't like it" is NOT a legitimate governmental reason.

Quote:

So EVERYONE carries certain boundaries of what's acceptable that may be arbitrary to some extent. Even gays.

Yes, they do - and I'm pretty sure some don't like IR marriages as well. My point is that according to the U.S. Constitution your certain boundaries cannot be used as a reason for the legislation. I don't know why it is so difficult to understand.

Quote:

Come on, man. Like opinions don't get pushed down people's throats by liberal teachers, MTV, Hollywood, music, etc. Everyone has their own agenda and tries to force it on people, both left and right. Look at where most of us stand on feminism. Do you think the androgynous world feminist pine for is the natural state of things or did it come from years of liberal brainwashing where biological reality is denied?

We already have a thread about it.

[oldnemesis]

(05-12-2012 04:55 PM)kosko Wrote:  

PS The economic aspect is key. Its the elephant in the room pro-LGBT folks don't want to talk about. They have largely been afford economic freedoms throughout history. They could own property, own a business, attend the best schools whatever. These we're not and still not are available to many groups within the USA.

Yeah, I understand your jealousy. Is it why you support denying them the marriage? Sorry, this is not the valid governmental interest either.

[gringochileno]

(05-12-2012 06:00 PM)oldnemesis Wrote:  

However the main reason I asked this question is that some folks tend to believe (or say so) that letting gays to marry somehow undermines traditional marriage. So far nobody yet explained it to me how exactly would it do so, that's why I asked you.

I found some ways for you:

[soup]

The world is over-populated. Let gay people marry and adopt kids that don't have families. If homo is a "lifestyle" choice, then it shouldn't have any affects on the heterosexuality of a child if he's got a built in desire to bang broads.

Also, if you say homo is a lifestyle choice, than you have to say the same about hetero.

I don't care if gays get married. I don't think marriage should be a legal issue. Married people shouldn't get any benefits that singles do.

This issue here comes down to separating church and state.

[speakeasy]

(05-12-2012 06:00 PM)oldnemesis Wrote:  

Well, this is a perfect analogy because it allows me to ask you a direct question, and please answer it now. Here is the question:

Would you be, Speakeasy, comfortable with having separate drinking fountains for blacks and whites? The fountains are the same brand, and the water they provide is the same, it is just one of them has a "for blacks" sign. Do you think it is fine and there is no discrimination as long as the water quality is the same?

Of course not.

Quote:

Then please tell me why do you think it is fine to give homosexuals the "equal" definition of marriage labeled "for homosexuals", and how this is not a discrimination?

You're comparing apples and oranges. Apples to Apples would be asking me if I think we need separate drinking fountains for gays and straights. To which my answer would also be "no".

Secondly, nobody claims that civil unions are the same thing as marriage, otherwise we'd just do away with the semantics and call it all marriage. So even bringing it up as separate but equal is almost moot. Civil unions are basically a workaround to give gays the basic rights they say they are being denied by marriage(visitation rights, inheritance, adoption, etc), while at the same time maintaining male/female union as the social idea and not normalizing homosexuality and all that would result from it.

I've said this before and I'll say it again. Gays don't merely want the same exact rights. They want homosexuality to be accepted as a social ideal equally alongside heterosexuality. They will not stop forcing the issue until they meet this goal. That is the gay rights agenda in a nutshell when you strip away the fluff.

And then there are lots of social consequences that will cascade from that. If you see your son hugging up on another boy too much, do you tell him he shouldn't do that or would you now be considered a homophobe? If someone says they prefer their son to be straight, they are now by definition homophobic. You start having schools pushing more things like this on students: http://www.keyt.com/news/local/Gay-Studi...58489.html

Now if somebody wants to take gay studies as an elective, fine...but why are people being forced by the government to study it? I don't even recall whites being forced to take African-American studies classes. Personally I couldn't care less if Plato and Michaelangelo were gay. It's nothing more than a peripheral footnote in their legacy. And btw, it's interesting how we even have gay studies classes in public schools. Given that we are damn near last in math, reading and sciences(the stuff that really counts), you wonder why they are spending public funds on stuff like this. It just goes to show how powerful the gay lobby is in America even though they are such a small demographic.

Places like Sweden which already have gay marriage are a few decades ahead of the curve on us. So it wouldn't surprise me if things like will soon be coming to the U.S. : http://redicecreations.com/article.php?id=15936

Tampering with gender dynamics has social consequences, and the redefinition of marriage is the ultimate tampering. I hate giving slippery slope arguments, but just witnessing what's going on in Scandinavia is making me say "no thanks" for wanting the same here.

Quote:

This is one of the craziest thing I ever heard in my life.
Could you tell me why is is even worth consideration?
Is there the slightest chance this might actually happen?
And if so, how the ban on the gay marriage prevents it?

Of course it sounds crazy. It's a hypothetical scenario to demonstrate a point, the utility of heterosexuality and why homosexuality is not the equivalent. But I think you already knew the point I was making.

Quote:

So if I say there should be separate drinking fountains for blacks (but with the same quality water), would you say I'm not racist? See, I'm not saying there should be no drinking fountains for blacks, or that the water should not be as good as in white fountains. Then this is not discrimination, correct?

I answered that up above already. Now since I answered your question, I have one for you. Would you prefer that your son grow up straight? I'm not saying you would reject him if he was gay, or that it's even your decision to make. But do you have a preference one way or the other that your son(or daughter) grow up straight. If not, why not?

Quote:

Let's face it: modern Americans are pussies. Very, very few people have the guts to stand up and speak their mind without a marketing makeup. This is why I respect the "God hates fags" crowd and a racist Johnny Rebel much more than your ordinary fellows - at least those guys have the balls to speak their mind openly, and while I disagree with their position, they earn my respect by standing up to their beliefs. The majority of anti-gay crowd lacks it. Do you know that when we had a court trial here in California the majority of anti-gay witnesses refused to testify as soon as they learned the trial is going to be videotaped? That's your regular "protecting the children" crowd. Lame cowards.

Can't say I respect the "God hates fags" crowd. It's not even a matter of having balls, it's that they are so insane that they don't care. Anyone that truly believes God(if such a thing even exists) created AIDS for the purpose of killing off gays isn't even worthy of listening to. Especially since most people infected are straight. They might as well be the drunk homeless man babbling about the end of the world on the street corner.

Quote:

Yes, they do - and I'm pretty sure some don't like IR marriages as well. My point is that according to the U.S. Constitution your certain boundaries cannot be used as a reason for the legislation. I don't know why it is so difficult to understand.

Hmm, well if the Constitution was that clear cut on how equal protection applies to SSM, then SSM bans in various states would've already been struck down by the Supreme Court. There's a lot of debate as to how SSM fits within the Constitutional framework and whether marriage is even a "right" to begin with. The more I think about it, I don't even think marriage is a right in the first place. I agree with this person's opinion:


http://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/0...vil-right/

Quote:

1. Is marriage a civil right?

No. Civil rights, by definition, are rights guaranteed in the constitution. Marriage is not mentioned in the constitution.

2. Is marriage a human right regardless of what the constitution says?

I don’t believe it is. Otherwise it should also be illegal for a person to leave a spouse since that would be denying his/her spouse the right to be married. Rejecting someone’s marriage proposal could also be classified as illegal and discriminatory. If it is a human right, it should be guaranteed to all people. But marriage cannot be a guaranteed right as society has not the power nor the authority to enforce such a guarantee.

3. Do “genders… [have] distinct roles in society and in marriage”?

Absolutely. As long as there is a difference between the genders, there will be a difference, on some level, of their roles. Although individually there are extremes among both genders, each gender is generally different from the other on so many levels–biological, physical, parental, psychological, emotional, genetic, etc.– that it is ridiculous to even suggest that the genders of human beings are exactly equal or even exactly similar. To say that “civil rights” belong to all people is one thing, but to make the leap that gender roles, whatever they may be, no longer exist, is simply a fallacy.

4. Does a state-sanctioned “traditional” definition of marriage discriminate against same-sex couples?

Yes. It does. Under this definition, same-sex couples do not have the ability to marry each other and cannot currently obtain the same legal benefits as a married couple without a much more expensive and difficult legal process (with contracts and such), if it is possible at all.

A “civil union” law could be passed that gives all the same legal rights that marriage allows with the same level of ease. So, why do same-sex couples feel the need to fall under the “marriage” definition umbrella?

I believe it is more a political and social push than it is a defense of some moral standard or human right.

5. Should the “traditional” definition of marriage and Prop 8 be upheld?

Most American religions believe that it should. A majority of Californians believe that it should. Even the president believes that it should. Can all of these authorities be wrong? Yes. But our laws are not based on what is right and wrong. They are based on the authority derived from the people and those elected to represent them. This process is based on the “actual” content of the constitution. No one judge should be allowed to silence the voice of the people.

I already know at this point that gay marriage at the nationwide level is as inevitable as the San Andreas earthquake. I have my philosophical disagreements and concerns, but if SSM is what most of my countrymen want, than so it is.

I would seriously consider as a compromise, just abolishing federally recognized marriage for everyone and only recognizing civil unions. The institution performing the ceremony can call it whatever they want informally. I think there's a libertarian case to be made as to why the government should not be involved in marriage.

[oldnemesis]

(05-12-2012 10:01 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

You're comparing apples and oranges. Apples to Apples would be asking me if I think we need separate drinking fountains for gays and straights. To which my answer would also be "no".

No, I'm complaining apples to apples. Basically you agree that even if you provide the same thing and just label it differently, it is already discrimination. Just having multiple drinking fountains is not a problem, the problem is labeling one of them "whites only". This is why having two different sets of "marriages" is the same discrimination as having two different water fountains.

Quote:

Civil unions are basically a workaround to give gays the basic rights they say they are being denied by marriage(visitation rights, inheritance, adoption, etc), while at the same time maintaining male/female union as the social idea and not normalizing homosexuality and all that would result from it.

The California and Iowa court decisions already addressed that in great lengths, and I don't want to copy-paste twenty pages of their arguments. I suggest to read them if you're interested to know the legal opinion about it.

Quote:

I've said this before and I'll say it again. Gays don't merely want the same exact rights. They want homosexuality to be accepted as a social ideal equally alongside heterosexuality. They will not stop forcing the issue until they meet this goal. That is the gay rights agenda in a nutshell when you strip away the fluff.

Yes, they do. Same way as blacks didn't merely want to drink from the "whites only" fountains, they wanted to be accepted into the society and not being the second class citizens. Those restrictions come solely because there is discrimination - because a lot of people in this country do hold homosexuals as second class citizens, same as they held blacks not too long ago. If you think more about it, the whole fuss about gay marriage issue is nothing more that "they're not as valuable as us", which is exactly what the discrimination is.

Quote:

And then there are lots of social consequences that will cascade from that. If you see your son hugging up on another boy too much, do you tell him he shouldn't do that or would you now be considered a homophobe?

Why would I tell him he shouldn't do it?
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think you believe homosexuality is something like a disease which you can catch just by doing something. For example, you go to a gay bar because you're curious, you got drunk and let a dude suck your dick. Voila - you're now gay, and the only way you can now be with a women is when she's wearing a ten inch strapon. And you believe that if your son is born gay but he never hears or sees gay people or behavior around, he'll grow up straight. Do you really believe in that bullshit?

Quote:

If someone says they prefer their son to be straight, they are now by definition homophobic.

No, they're naive. It is no different than saying you prefer your (black) son to be white. It doesn't matter what they prefer. Someone who is born gay is gay, and there is nothing they can do except accepting that fact.

Quote:

Now if somebody wants to take gay studies as an elective, fine...but why are people being forced by the government to study it? I don't even recall whites being forced to take African-American studies classes.

This is because you didn't even look:

California law already requires state schools to teach about the contributions of Native Americans, African-Americans, Mexican-Americans, and Asian-Americans, among other groups.

And this has been the case not just in California!

Quote:

Places like Sweden which already have gay marriage are a few decades ahead of the curve on us.

A few decades? Same-sex marriage in Sweden has been legal since 1 May 2009. Where do you get your information, from some retarded conservative talk show?

Quote:

I answered that up above already. Now since I answered your question, I have one for you. Would you prefer that your son grow up straight? I'm not saying you would reject him if he was gay, or that it's even your decision to make. But do you have a preference one way or the other that your son(or daughter) grow up straight. If not, why not?

This is not very different from a "would you like your son to grow tall or short?" question. The value of my preference carries exactly the same weight as with your question. Nevertheless I can answer it - I'd prefer him to grow up straight because it is still much harder to live as a gay. But, again, my preference here is irrelevant. You have less influence on your son's sexual orientation comparing to his height.

Quote:

Hmm, well if the Constitution was that clear cut on how equal protection applies to SSM, then SSM bans in various states would've already been struck down by the Supreme Court.

It is on the way there, and I'm pretty sure it will be. The Supreme Court cannot just struck the law per se, there is a process to get the case there.

Quote:

The more I think about it, I don't even think marriage is a right in the first place. I agree with this person's opinion

This person obviously never read any relevant court decisions. But, again, his opinion is completely irrelevant. He obviously knows nothing about the Constitution and the discrimination legal cases. Just look at that:

Quote:

2. Is marriage a human right regardless of what the constitution says?
I don’t believe it is. Otherwise it should also be illegal for a person to leave a spouse since that would be denying his/her spouse the right to be married.

I stopped reading right here. This dude is a complete idiot who doesn't even understand what he's talking about. If this is the kind of people you read, well, you're hanging with a wrong crowd.
Before you reply I'd ask you to read at least this court decision. Sure it may be not as amazing as some conservative dude blog, but it is the decision of the U.S. Federal Judge which was so far upheld by the appellate court, so I'd give it at least as much attention as you give to conservative blogs. It will answer a lot of questions you have.

*sigh* Is there a single person from the anti-gay-marriage crowd who actually knows what he's talking about? All I hear is speculation from the people with little to no knowledge about the country history, laws and legal process. Honestly I think you should be kinda ashamed that a Russian immigrant teaches you about your country history, laws and practices.

[Hooligan Harry]

This has gone beyond pathetic.

Some of the shaming language being thrown around here is no better than the arguments feminists and their white knights are so quick to throw around. You slander and degenerate someone for holding a different point of view, doing your utmost to bully agreement out of them, and then feel justified in doing so because you just happen to hold the politically correct view?

You are hypocrites, and some of the comments aimed at Speakeasy have been fucking disgusting. You guys just resorted to the same bullshit and shaming tactics you would take issue with when you are on the receiving end of it. Yet you have no qualms in resorting to the same bullshit when it suits you though? Character attacks, shaming language, screams of ignorance? THIS HAS IT ALL. Talk about character weakness and a lack of principle.

Should any one of:

Old Nemisis
Keyser Soze
Gringochileno
Bacan

have the audacity to complain about feminism, Ill be sure to point them back to this thread. A thread where they resorted to shaming tactics and attacked another member outright for having the audacity to hold traditional views, even though he knew they were unpopular.

God forbid someone on this forum believe in gender roles! Fuck, imagine this forum being full of guys who believe in that sort of bigotry! Gender roles? HHHmmmmppph! Social constructs perpetuated by bigots looking to retain privilege and hide their social phobias. Thats all they are! We are progressive "gaming" machines who reject gender! Yes! Makes perfect sense!

@Gringochileno

For all your research posted:

- Sample sizes are small
- Adoption rights for gay parents are hardly going to produce decades of high sample research
- Much of the research was based on wealthy, highly selected individuals OR individuals who came out after conception.

Remember, countless studies show women earn 82cents to the dollar chum! The research means so little because its loaded to produce a desired outcome. You can see a mile away.

Fact is, single parent homes produce delinquents in droves, and the studies supporting that are far more numerous and thorough than what you put up. While some of that is economic, a great deal has to do with a home lacking two parents and clear, defined gender roles within those homes. Gay couples adopting might not have the economic problems inherent with single parent homes, but it WILL be a home with no clear gender roles in place. If anything, there would be more confusion for the child, and the result would be far higher levels of delinquency. Its the lack of gender roles that is problematic and concerning, which far more conclusive research and evidence shows leads to delinquency and social problems. I have no doubt the couple would love the child and care for it, but thats not the point.

So which is it chaps?

Gender roles matter - you reject feminism, but as a result you understand it applies to same sex parenting and it would be hypocritical to find same sex parenting acceptable. As ugly as it is, you have to reject the notion of gay parenting too.

Gender roles are a social construct - You get to feel warm and fuzzy about gay parenting, but as a result accept the underlying philosophy of feminism as a whole too. You reject the role of gender completely.

I take it for Keyser Soze and Old Nemisis in particular, its the latter. Both would support the feminist position too because they agree with the underlying philosophy that supports the entire ideology of feminism in the first place. Gender means fuck all, this is why homosexuals can adopt without issue. To suggest otherwise would make them hypocrites. Lets help them both stay congruent and consistent with their beliefs going forward. Cant have people pick and choose what they believe after they claimed the moral high ground and attacked the character of people they disagreed with can we? I want to make sure they get to keep breathing all that clean air up there.

Thread bookmarked for later reference.

As for my position, its rather simple. If gays want to marry, let them. Makes no difference, its a choice between two mature adults and its no ones business but theirs. Adoption rights should not be granted though. Gender roles in a home are vital for social development in children, and a child has the choice thrust upon them when adopted.

There is no middle ground on this. Well, there is no middle ground on this if you have any principle at all I would say. Being a man means we have to believe unpopular, uncomfortable things too from time to time too. We dont get the luxury of blowing with the wind and it comes with having a pair of balls. This is why we lead.

The cornerstone of emotional decision making is a lack of principle. Looks like we have a few guys here looking to embrace their femininity from what I can see. Men without principle are not worth dogshit IMO

[Deluge]

I was under the impression that homosexuals overwhelmingly adopt females. I don't see gay men adopting girls having a negative effect on their child, they can go adopt as many Chinese girls as they want. However I do foresee (less common) instances of gay men adopting boys and lesbian women adopting either gender as having a negative effect on how they will turn out as adults, gender role wise. It's a very very small demographic we're talking about though. 5% maximum (some estimates as low as 3%) of men are homosexual and it's even smaller for females so same-sex couples adopting is not going to have a macro effect on society, especially because the majority will be gay men adopting female children.

[Hooligan Harry]

Quote:

It's a very very small demographic we're talking about though. 5% maximum (some estimates as low as 3%) of men are homosexual and it's even smaller for females so same-sex couples adopting is not going to have a macro effect on society, especially because the majority will be gay men adopting female children.

And the rights and needs of those individuals when they are children are secondary to the civil rights of gay couples then? They mean nothing at all? Sacrificial lamb to the proverbial slaughter? This is not about the effect on greater society, its about putting children into homes where genders have been removed and replaced by what is nothing more than quasi inter-gender dominance trying to define a role in the relationship.

No ways, there is no middle ground on this. Girls need their mothers too, and no effeminate man is going to do that job. Kids need their mothers and their fathers, ideally under the same roof where the father is the head of the home. Fuck ANYONE who takes issue with that too. Conclusive evidence shows that this environment produces stable, well adjusted children far more frequently than single parent homes. And gay homes are going to be fucked up versions of single parent homes because gender roles are blurred even further.

Denying children mothers or fathers so that we can make progressive, liberal statements has to be one of the most irresponsible things we could do. It might only be a small segment of the population who is adopted, but the rights of that individual should not be pissed on just so that homosexuals can play house or because men lacking principle are too fucking weak to find their balls and say no.

There is no compromise on this shit, esp for guys on this forum who have all taken a heavy stance against feminism. Its such a hypocritical point of view its not funny.

Either you believe gender roles are the natural order, or you believe they are a social construct. The only man of principle who could support gay adoption would be a man who believes gender is a social construct, which makes him a feminist by default. The alternative is a man without principle who acknowledges the importance of gender roles and accepts it as the natural order, only to ignore it because it does not suit the outcome he wants or needs.

[oldnemesis]

Well, Harry, this is quite funny. You basically entered the thread on your high horse, and told us how our position is shit. You didn't bother to explain yourself or even stay on a topic. What you did is exactly what you accused of us doing. For example in your post you mention the following:

- Traditional values (this makes sense in church but not when we discuss the legislation)
- Gender roles (I don't even see how is it relevant here and you failed to explain it. Looks like something completely brought up)
- Issues with gay adoption studies (you didn't provide any other studies to counter them though, you just said you don't believe them)
- And you ended up saying you're fine with gay marriage (which we're discussing) but not ok with adoption rights (which are not even discussed here).

So who's the hypocrite?
And this thread is about gay marriage. Why don't you start a separate topic if you want to talk about adoption rights? I'd really like to know whether you think the single parent adoption (which is legal and thriving here in US) should be banned too? And I really want to see the studies which confirm that "kids need their mothers and their fathers, ideally under the same roof where the father is the head of the home". Yep, I'm sure the bible says that, but this ain't an argument for me, nor - for the record - for the court of law.

For example, you state "Conclusive evidence shows that this environment produces stable, well adjusted children far more frequently than single parent homes." which is true and supported by the studies. But when you state "And gay homes are going to be fucked up versions of single parent homes because gender roles are blurred even further" - this is a pure feel-good speculation from your side.

[gringochileno]

(05-13-2012 06:57 AM)Hooligan Harry Wrote:  

For all your research posted:

- Sample sizes are small
- Adoption rights for gay parents are hardly going to produce decades of high sample research
- Much of the research was based on wealthy, highly selected individuals OR individuals who came out after conception.

Remember, countless studies show women earn 82cents to the dollar chum! The research means so little because its loaded to produce a desired outcome. You can see a mile away.

I don't think the sample size objection holds up because there's a large number of studies whose results all point in the same direction. If there were a real effect on child well-being from having gay parents, the research to date would have enough statistical power to detect it. The only effect that researchers ever find is that some studies suggest that children of gay parents do better in measures of social adjustment and school performance than children of straight parents (I don't think that's been conclusively demonstrated, though).

Your other objection about selection bias is valid for some of the research from the 1970s and 80s, but the study designs have improved considerably since then and those factors are pretty well controlled for now. In particular, some of the recent prospective studies do a very good job of ruling out any confounding effect of wealth. (In any case, as the American Psychologist article points out, most of the hypothesized biases, such as that favoring couples that divorced after one of the partners came out as gay, would tend to skew the results in favor of showing an effect where there really is none. The fact that the research that didn't correct for these methodological flaws still shows no effect is pretty remarkable.)

It's always a good idea to look at research critically, but I don't think there's any doubt that the evidence fails to support the idea that children of same-sex couples have worse outcomes.

At any rate, you should certainly support letting gay couples adopt children preferentially to single parents. Will you at least raise your hand to that?

(05-13-2012 08:36 AM)Hooligan Harry Wrote:  

Conclusive evidence shows that this environment produces stable, well adjusted children far more frequently than single parent homes. And gay homes are going to be fucked up versions of single parent homes because gender roles are blurred even further.

This is the only claim I found in your post that was backed by evidence, and it isn't a legitimate inference. You can't draw the conclusion that children with two gay parents have bad outcomes from the observation that children of single parents do worse than average. What you need is empirical research on the children of gay parents, which incidentally is available and finds no evidence of a disadvantage.

One thing you said that I do appreciate is that the adoption issue is quite separate from the marriage issue. You could have gay marriage without adoption, gay adoption without marriage, neither, or both (although if you're concerned with the well-being of children, it would probably benefit children being raised by gay parents if the parents were allowed to get married). The gay adoption thing is something of a red herring as it applies to the marriage equality debate.

I also agree that emotions tend to run high on both sides of this debate, and it makes the discussion pretty unproductive. If we're rational and data-driven about it, I really don't think there are good reasons to deny gay people the right to marry or adopt children.

[kosko]

These studies I find are flawed. You compare to wealthy gay parents to a poor minority single mother. Of course the child of the gay parents will do better in school as they don't get the opportunity to go to a crap school in a lethargic tax area. These studies only focus on economic well being and not other metrics to the child's mental and long term well being. Three studies are a generation or two away from holding any weight. Plus it's pure foolishness to think the same money that supports pro-feminism studies and undermines pro-male studies (or simply common sense) would support and excel any studies that re-affirm the traditional family in which a man and a pro-male (and female) as being ideal.

Holligan is spot on calling out these trolls and hypocrites because essentially any Man whom wants to see the best for all man, fathers, and sons would share the notion of critically looking at the situation for what it is.

[speakeasy]

(05-13-2012 05:42 PM)kosko Wrote:  

These studies I find are flawed. You compare to wealthy gay parents to a poor minority single mother. Of course the child of the gay parents will do better in school as they don't get the opportunity to go to a crap school in a lethargic tax area. These studies only focus on economic well being and not other metrics to the child's mental and long term well being. Three studies are a generation or two away from holding any weight. Plus it's pure foolishness to think the same money that supports pro-feminism studies and undermines pro-male studies (or simply common sense) would support and excel any studies that re-affirm the traditional family in which a man and a pro-male (and female) as being ideal.

Holligan is spot on calling out these trolls and hypocrites because essentially any Man whom wants to see the best for all man, fathers, and sons would share the notion of critically looking at the situation for what it is.

Progress:



Patriarchal anachronism:

[All or Nothing]

(05-13-2012 08:36 AM)Hooligan Harry Wrote:  

Quote:

It's a very very small demographic we're talking about though. 5% maximum (some estimates as low as 3%) of men are homosexual and it's even smaller for females so same-sex couples adopting is not going to have a macro effect on society, especially because the majority will be gay men adopting female children.

And the rights and needs of those individuals when they are children are secondary to the civil rights of gay couples then? They mean nothing at all? Sacrificial lamb to the proverbial slaughter? This is not about the effect on greater society, its about putting children into homes where genders have been removed and replaced by what is nothing more than quasi inter-gender dominance trying to define a role in the relationship.

No ways, there is no middle ground on this. Girls need their mothers too, and no effeminate man is going to do that job. Kids need their mothers and their fathers, ideally under the same roof where the father is the head of the home. Fuck ANYONE who takes issue with that too. Conclusive evidence shows that this environment produces stable, well adjusted children far more frequently than single parent homes. And gay homes are going to be fucked up versions of single parent homes because gender roles are blurred even further.

Denying children mothers or fathers so that we can make progressive, liberal statements has to be one of the most irresponsible things we could do. It might only be a small segment of the population who is adopted, but the rights of that individual should not be pissed on just so that homosexuals can play house or because men lacking principle are too fucking weak to find their balls and say no.

There is no compromise on this shit, esp for guys on this forum who have all taken a heavy stance against feminism. Its such a hypocritical point of view its not funny.

Either you believe gender roles are the natural order, or you believe they are a social construct. The only man of principle who could support gay adoption would be a man who believes gender is a social construct, which makes him a feminist by default. The alternative is a man without principle who acknowledges the importance of gender roles and accepts it as the natural order, only to ignore it because it does not suit the outcome he wants or needs.

So the kids should just continue living in shit foster homes? Who cares about gender roles when it comes to providing a child with shelter and supportive parents?

If a kid had a choice between:
A) Living in a foster home where it's obvious that no one honestly cares about them or their future.
and
B) Living with a gay couple that will feed them, buy them nice clothes, give them a room of their own and support them.

What do you think they would choose?

Honestly, I do not think a child should be deprived of a home because the people that want to adopt are a gay couple.

(05-12-2012 10:01 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

I would seriously consider as a compromise, just abolishing federally recognized marriage for everyone and only recognizing civil unions. The institution performing the ceremony can call it whatever they want informally. I think there's a libertarian case to be made as to why the government should not be involved in marriage.

This is exactly how I believe gay marriage should be treated. I am 100% against gay marriage, simply because of the word marriage. Marriage carries a religious meaning that goes back to the religious roots of this country. The roots being deeply seated in Christianity. Marriage, as a part of the Christian religion, is between a man and a women. It has been that way since the inception of Christianity.

Quite honestly I do not even understand why marriage is still on the law books given its religious connotations. What happened to separation of Church and State in this case?

When it comes to a civil union, I do not care either way. Ideally, I would like to see marriage stripped from the law books. Then civil unions replace marriage as the legally/socially binding contract that exists between two people, and have it be available to everyone.

[Hooligan Harry]

(05-13-2012 02:13 PM)oldnemesis Wrote:  

And this thread is about gay marriage. Why don't you start a separate topic if you want to talk about adoption rights? I'd really like to know whether you think the single parent adoption (which is legal and thriving here in US) should be banned too? And I really want to see the studies which confirm that "kids need their mothers and their fathers, ideally under the same roof where the father is the head of the home". Yep, I'm sure the bible says that, but this ain't an argument for me, nor - for the record - for the court of law.

God damn, look at the attempt to shame away. Tell me Old Nemisis, did you get sand in your vagina or is that tampon just irritating you? Dont you just love the attempt to frame me as some religious wingnut (let me guess, therefore irrelevant hmmmmm?) while you then try and discard the possibility that it may actually be true that nuclear families produce fewer fucked up kids altogether. Adoption was brought into this as part of the attempted gang rape of Speakeasy by the moral hordes crusading through this thread.

We know we know. Attack the character invalidate the argument right? RIGHT?

There are numerous studies and countless research that has been conducted on single parenting. Tied into census studies, across decades, ethnic groups, religions, social classes, countries, you name it. And the result of all that research is the "hate fact" that single parent homes produce delinquents in alarmingly high numbers. We are talking 4 to 1 in some cases, if not higher. Google this shit, Im not about to post an encyclopedias worth of research on it because you are too lazy/ignorant/brainwashed to know/find this yourself.

There is a direct correlation between single parenting and delinquency. While some of that is related to the poor economic situation of single parent homes, a great deal is related to a lack of gender roles and active parent participation in the kids lives from both mother and father.

THESE ARE INDISPUTABLE FACTS.

Further to this, as someone who spends his days on a "game" forum where the topic of how destructive feminism has been is discussed in great detail, I find it amazing that you are so quick to discount the role of gender.

As soon as it did not suit you to accept gender roles because it was contrary to the political position you wished to take, you flipped like a rat looking at a 10 year stretch. And you then have the audacity to attempt to attack someone elses character?

Do you have any principle at all, or do you blow with the wind?

Quote:

For example, you state "Conclusive evidence shows that this environment produces stable, well adjusted children far more frequently than single parent homes." which is true and supported by the studies. But when you state "And gay homes are going to be fucked up versions of single parent homes because gender roles are blurred even further" - this is a pure feel-good speculation from your side.

Lol, you cant be serious. You just contradicted yourself.

The research supports the belief that traditional homes with clear defined gender roles tend to produce more well grounded kids? Its not small sample sizes over 10 years, we are talking about studies over entire countries and cultures across decades. The research shows that homes with mothers and fathers both involved in the raising of children produce far fewer fuckups, particularly a home where gender roles have been respected.

A GAY HOME HAS REMOVED ONE OF THOSE GENDERS! How exactly is it speculation on my part then, given the sheer volume of research we have, that gay homes would create an environment where a crucial component of a kids life is missing? If anything, it would be even more confusing, as its one gender, yet one person taking the role of dominant in the home! You remove one gender, then you sew further confusion by having one gender "act out" a submissive/dominant role. And I am the one speculating?

The levels of naivety in your belief are astounding, and what makes it even more ludicrous is the fact that you are on a forum where gender roles are a foundation for the very values the majority of us practice. You cannot be a PUA, MRA or MGTOW if you believe gender is a social construct. Its like being white supremacist and then taking an asian for a wife.

[Hooligan Harry]

(05-13-2012 05:42 PM)kosko Wrote:  

These studies I find are flawed. You compare to wealthy gay parents to a poor minority single mother. Of course the child of the gay parents will do better in school as they don't get the opportunity to go to a crap school in a lethargic tax area. These studies only focus on economic well being and not other metrics to the child's mental and long term well being. Three studies are a generation or two away from holding any weight. Plus it's pure foolishness to think the same money that supports pro-feminism studies and undermines pro-male studies (or simply common sense) would support and excel any studies that re-affirm the traditional family in which a man and a pro-male (and female) as being ideal.

Holligan is spot on calling out these trolls and hypocrites because essentially any Man whom wants to see the best for all man, fathers, and sons would share the notion of critically looking at the situation for what it is.

They are loaded studies and the sample sizes are so small they tell you nothing. Its why I say they produce the outcomes they want to produce. Unlike the statistics and studies I speak of which are based on census figures and state/county statistics across developed countries, they will hone in on a small group of wealthy homosexuals and compare the outcomes to impoverished single parent homes

You can see the levels of delusion when we see statements like this:

gringochileno Wrote:

The only effect that researchers ever find is that some studies suggest that children of gay parents do better in measures of social adjustment and school performance than children of straight parents

Yep, sounds like all those studies which prove women are better managers than men while they earn 20% less. Better entrepreneurs. Better at single parenting.

Here we have a study saying to us that two people, who naturally cannot even fucking conceive without a third party/medical intervention, are actually better parents than traditional mother/father combos.

Whats so funny about this though is that its expected to be taken seriously and was put forward seriously. By a guy on a forum dedicated to game, which is based almost entirely on the premise that gender roles exist.

Critical thinking seems to be lacking almost as much as basic principle with some it would appear.