I’ve been doing that for like 30 pages lol.
LGBT and the US Conservative Movement
- Thread starter FriedCFour
- Start date
Ok, then it should be easy for you to just quote an instance of yourself giving that sort of example.
America and Western Europe is facing increased instability, dealing with a mass population of muslim migrants even still that they can’t really integrate, and continually see things like pushes that there’s no such thing as a German or a French person by their Politicians. They’ve all lost much of their religious social cohesion and have become increasingly democratic. They actively fight against having any kind of identity and politically expunge those who push for it. Poland is the most religious nation in Europe and retains solid social cohesion and stability and was capable of rejecting pretty much all migrants. They have a more cohesive identity and society than most of the west.
I firmly belive your people will take over the republican party and conservatism in america and when the red necks find out about it they will get on their knees and thank you for it.
strunkenwhite
Well-known member
No problem.
My post already addressed why civil unions as they then existed were seen as insufficient; the Supreme Court acted but there's no reason Congress couldn't have solved the problem another way.
As for "why people", I think that "consenting adults" is a good (clear, highly defensible) line to draw that is in accordance with social mores. This excludes children, who have not reached the requisite stage of development, and animals, who are less able to consent for a variety of reasons. (As well as other beings/objects, obviously.)
As for "why two", I admit I don't have an immediate off the cuff answer to that one. Certainly there have been religious sects in the past that pushed for marriage to encompass more than two partners.
As for publicly operating businesses having to recognize civil unions that their proprietors may find objectionable on religious grounds, I suppose that would be just as true as it is true of marriages today.
we are seeing more and more legitimizing of pedophilia in society lol. It’s not gonna be long before the P is added to LGBT. You can see it in hundreds of articles. “Pedophilia is an unchangeable sexuality and shouldn’t be discriminated against” is also gaining.
Theres hardly anything that can be put forward to say that discriminating against the polygamous is any different than LGBT. “You’re preventing them from seeing loved ones in the hospital” and all related arguments apply just the same. And of course, love is love right? At best, I think you can argue it makes tax codes more complicated but that’s hardly a reason to deny someone the right to be married to who they love right?
Last edited:
DocSolarisReich
Esoteric Spaceman
The logic of 'Penumbras and Emanations' and nominally subjective assigned signification over a dumb and mute nature, ala Obergefell V Hodges: "The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity." Tells us there is in fact no limit to how far this can go, other than the power of the system to enforce it's mandates on the clay that is the mass of 'people'. And things like 'Tranny Story Hour' clearly show that Dildolech wants your children.
All the nonsense and junk science about 'born this way' aside, this is about the liberation of the will from the 'prison' of a cosmos where meanings and telos-endbyrdness are objective and essential within the form of things.
It's Gnosticism and the revenge of the Cathars. It's the Words of the Serpent to Eve in the Garden.
And this is why no one who truly sees Dexter and Sinister for what they are, Right-hand and Left-hand paths of ritual and cosmic signification, no on who says that the Nature and Telos of Man order himself and his relations to a transcendent goal, even if there are disagreements about the goal or the path to get there, can make anything more than tactical and temporary common cause with those who say there is no goal, no end, and what's more that Natures are what we say they are.
And all of this derives from the Classical Liberal madness that Law can be designed as artifice rather than discovered from the praxis of ages gone by of the Wise and the Just.
LindyAF
Well-known member
See, this is about what I mean, I think this answer just sort of removes the question a step.
"Why should I care what God has commanded?"
"Because he will judge you."
"Why should I care if he judges me?"
"Because it will determine if you will have eternal life or damnation."
"Why should I prefer to have eternal life over damnation?"
"Because eternal life is good and damnation is bad."
"Why is eternal life good and damnation bad?"
See, I think you're separating as two categories things that aren't, really, they're a spectrum. Politics is inherently the use of force to achieve ends. That force can be cloaked or obfuscated in certain ways, but it's always there, just beneath the surface. With the mugger, this can be shown trivially- instead of a mugger, imagine someone working to pass a tax on you that would benefit him. As with most taxes, if he were to succeed in passing it and you failed to pay, you would be fined, if you failed to pay the fine you would be arrested, and if you resisted arrest you would be beaten or shot. The situation is only different in it's reliability.
On the subject of America- I'm sorry, since I think I was being unclear, but when I talk about America, just as with all nations, I am generally not talking about the particular structure of governance. I am talking about the nation in the original sense of the word- a people, the government they institute among themselves & the territory they hold. But the defining feature is the first. France, for instance, did not cease to be France, during the shift from the Fourth to Fifth Republic, or even during the French Revolution. Nor would a loss of territory be a nation "ceasing to be."
"America ceasing to be America" means my, my family, and my people's dispossession. I do not doubt that might be good for some people. If someone is in favor of it, then it is probably is good for them. But it would be bad for me and mine. We have mutually exclusive interests, so there's no merit in debate, the only question is who is better able to advance their interests.
Almost all so-called "fallacies" are just excuses for smart people to outthink themselves. "Correlation doesn't imply causation, but it does whisper 'hey, look over there' and wink."
Last edited:
strunkenwhite
Well-known member
1. False, false, either false or meaningless, and false.
2. If you're trying to make an actual connection between homosexual marriage and polygamous marriage, I don't understand it. After all, polygamy is still a marriage between male and female, but more than once per person. (While proponents of homosexual marriage may be ardent monogamists.) If, however, you're saying that removing the standards that block homosexual marriage would necessarily mean polygamous marriage would also be let in, I'm not sure what non-arbitrary standard you are applying. ("One man, one woman" is fine, but why? "One consenting adult, one other consenting adult" would allow homosexual marriage but prevent polygamous marriage just fine.)
How many articles, pundits and experts do you need?
Because everything that justifies one consenting adult and another and disregards male and females has no argument against quantity. I’m applying the same standards and arguments made by everyone here.
strunkenwhite
Well-known member
1. It depends on how good their evidence is.
2. But what justifies your "one man, one woman" standard?
2.
Have you ever been in a room with lots of mad women?
dealing with one mad woman is not fun, dealing with multiple mad women all of them pissed off at you is expodentially worse.
https:// twitter.com/justinbaragona/status/1364972626221875204?s=19
Levine is a monster, he has no soul and he wants to institutionalize the ritualized mutilation and rape of your children.
Rand paul is absolutely right to compare it to that...it is a ritual...and its a human rights abuse and doctors who perform SRS are morally comparable to the people who worked for Shiro Iishi and Mengele.
Levine is a monster, he has no soul and he wants to institutionalize the ritualized mutilation and rape of your children.
Rand paul is absolutely right to compare it to that...it is a ritual...and its a human rights abuse and doctors who perform SRS are morally comparable to the people who worked for Shiro Iishi and Mengele.
Last edited:
strunkenwhite
Well-known member
OK but what does that have to do with Mark Levin?
the evidence is utterly irrelevant. It’s just that more people are claiming such, utilizing the same arguments and justification that got LGBT passed through.
Already gone over it, oriented around creation of family and best pairing of family in most cases, which is the primary purpose of marriage.
strunkenwhite
Well-known member
1. I was asking for your evidence that that is true and that it's being seen as more legitimate. I mean sure the unrepentant pedos will flock to whatever fad they think will give them a chance to decriminalize their horrible desires, but that doesn't mean they actually have a chance.
2. I'm not convinced homosexual unions are less effective at raising a child. Obtaining the child is more difficult but not inherently more difficult than for a sterile heterosexual couple. Also, if that is the basis of your standard, how do you justify banning polygamy?
That wasn't as clever as you thought it was
you have commentators like Vaush and Destiny who support it and have substantial fan bases and get praise from the media.
TEDx speaker argues that pedophilia should be accepted as "an unchangeable sexual orientation"
TEDx was forced to remove the video after a medical student said accepting pedophiles will help decrease their "suffering"
www.google.com
What Can Be Done About Pedophilia?
Academics on the most common questions, and where we stand with "treatment"
www.google.com
Meet pedophiles who mean well
The men behind VirtuousPedophiles.com are attracted to children but devoted to denying their desires
www.salon.com
The paedophiles who don't want to abuse - BBC News
There are paedophiles who say they would never abuse children. Should they be given more support?
www.google.com
This isn’t even a new thing.
A Pedophile Opens Up About Being Targeted By Vigilantes
Todd Nickerson is attracted to children but says he’s never abused one.
www.google.com
All of this is virtually identical to the pushes that happened pushing for sodomy to be legalized, it’s all about humanizing, giving them a voice, ending their discrimination, demonization, etc. If that becomes the norm and the Overton window shifts, then it goes more and more. It’s what’s happened time and time again.
There is a substantive difference between men and women, hell even raising an adopted child and one that is biological. It’s 30/1 adoptees to children waiting to be adopted. More people to adopt isn’t necessary.
Multiple partners is not a good thing for a family unless you are a bronze/Iron Age warlord
strunkenwhite
Well-known member
1a. Your sources seem to be saying "it's natural (in the sense of "occurs in nature") and cannot be altered or 'cured', so therefore we should focus on how to deal with them in a way that minimizes harm" (i.e. for current society routine executions are pretty much off the table so focus on enforcing lifelong celibacy for people whose sole attraction is unacceptable). They may or may not be wrong about it being an unalterable orientation, but either way this is not a position advocating "legitimization" of pedophilia.
1b. This is completely wrong. Advocacy for toleration of sodomy never pushed the angle "it's wrong to act out these desires even once in your life; therefore as a society we have to figure out how to impose total celibacy on these people." Far from not being the goal, that was basically the starting point activists were trying to move away from! Celibacy or denial.
2a. Irrelevant unless you propose a ban on all childless marriages, homosexual or otherwise.
2b. Evidence?
It absolutely is. Framing it in these ways and promoting “virtuous” pedophiles and that they must be allowed to be tolerant and open and not to judge them is legitimizing it.
No, the starting point was that these people were dangerous and that it was an aberration that was degenerate. The pedo stuff is pushing against that.
it’s really not. A childless marriage is absolutely doing it wrong but the modes of control to prevent or enforce people having children in a marriage are ridiculously high. Something that is wrong to do or contravenes it’s purpose or value doesn’t mean it should now be illegal unless you do it exactly that way that it’s supposed to be for. I’ve already explained this over, and over, and over again as well. A marriage where one or both partners are infertile (which by the way, often causes divorce, which should show you the purpose of marriage and why we get married), but both are heterosexual, is far less egregious against the purpose because between the partners it’s an exception, not the rule.
If you have no kids you go extinct lol. All societies raise children in some fashion, mostly mom and dad with kids in house up to a certain age, we don’t breed like animals that leave a bunch of babies in one place, leave, and then they fend for themselves from birth. We are extremely vulnerable from birth, and we don’t do well without a household and with only one parent, we do better with both. Every society had marriage in some fashion, it’s a natural product of humanity in specifically how we civilize and create order, stability and civilization.