Five minutes of hate news

Cherico

Well-known member
The one thing I remember about the gay marriage decision and I've brought it up before when @Abhorsen made a thread about this.

Was that all the rich progressive lesbians started sounding like bardcord MRA Bros. Because for years their corporations created bonuses and benefits that simulated the marriage tax breaks for LGBT people.

And with the decision those companies all announced on the same day that they weren't gonna do that anymore.

So places like NPR were filled with them all "oh great now I'm actually gonna have to marry my partner to get any benefit and now she can divorce me and take half my shit". :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:

So much for the great civil rights strides. To the assholes at the top at least. It was all about money.

If an alliance between MRAs and lesbians actually fixed our broken family court system that would be a massive victory.
 

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Moderator
Staff Member
Comrade
Osaul
The one thing I remember about the gay marriage decision and I've brought it up before when @Abhorsen made a thread about this.

Was that all the rich progressive lesbians started sounding like bardcord MRA Bros. Because for years their corporations created bonuses and benefits that simulated the marriage tax breaks for LGBT people.

And with the decision those companies all announced on the same day that they weren't gonna do that anymore.

So places like NPR were filled with them all "oh great now I'm actually gonna have to marry my partner to get any benefit and now she can divorce me and take half my shit". :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:

So much for the great civil rights strides. To the assholes at the top at least. It was all about money.
In response to this, I'll say what someone else put better: "Marriage should be between Adam and Steve, not Adam and Steve and Government. But in the world we live in, this is an improvement."

Could the law have been better, by adding protections to religious people? Yes. Does that make it a bad bill? No. Just less good than it could have been.

As for the other shit, adoption is good, because the alternative is the government, and that's just objectively the worst option. There have always been people who adopt in order to abuse, so gays doing it just makes them like everyone else.
 

The Immortal Watch Dog

Well-known member
Hetman
As for the other shit, adoption is good, because the alternative is the government, and that's just objectively the worst option. There have always been people who adopt in order to abuse, so gays doing it just makes them like everyone else.

Oh no doubt if there's a choice between a married gay couple and a single mom looking to adopt? The gay couple gets the kid 10/10 times.

90% of serial killer, dictators and school shooters aren't raised by same sex couples but they are the product of single moms.

There are times where pragmatism needs to weigh in on these social decisions. And I think that's where pragmatism weighs heavily in favor of same sex adoption.

If an alliance between MRAs and lesbians actually fixed our broken family court system that would be a massive victory.

Not only would it be a massive victory but it would be hilarious.
 
Last edited:

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Moderator
Staff Member
Comrade
Osaul
Oh no doubt if there's a choice between a .arrived gay couple and a single mom looking to adopt? The gay couple gets the kid 10/10 times.

90% of serial killer, dictators and school shooters aren't raised by same sex couples but they are the product of single moms.

There are times where pragmatism needs to weigh in on these social decisions. And I think that's where pragmatism weighs heavily in favor of same sex adoption.
I wish there was an alternative of a single mom or dad. That'd be better than the actual altrenative: a group home who might view the kid as a paycheck, and aren't actually parents.
 

The Immortal Watch Dog

Well-known member
Hetman
I wish there was an alternative of a single mom or dad. That'd be better than the actual altrenative: a group home who might view the kid as a paycheck, and aren't actually parents.

They also have a disturbingly ubiquitous rep for pimping kids out.

Those are blatant fucking lies

I still remember how all the news were all going about on how "poor gay guy denied hospital visiting rights"

And there we run into the issue of the LGBT mythology...a lot of the indictments against the normative society simply never happened. Or their martyrs were actually scumbags.

Harvey Milk? Child raping piece of shit who was buddy buddy with Jim Jones.

Branden Teena? Not the victim of an anti-trans hatecrime. She was a two-bit drug dealer who muscled in on another dealer's turf and got executed gangland style for her trouble. Simple drug beef but they lionized her (And there's ample evidence she groomed and raped her girlfriend.,..so much for that star-crossed lover angle eh?) as if she was some saintly innocent victim.

Nah she was a thug, she lived on dem streets, died on dem streets.

Matthew Shepherd? Meh I'm not gonna get into it, but if he was the spotless martyr everyone thinks he was, his family wouldn't sperg out to sue anyone anywhere that goes at his image as saint Matthew of the fence post.

edit- When you found a civil rights cause based off a foundation that's 70% muck...people are gonna notice half your shit sinking into the mire. Sorry but to quote an avid Italian American backer of the ADL "Dem's da breaks"
 
Last edited:

mrttao

Well-known member
Nothing I said was about justifying grooming
I didn't say you were justifying grooming, I was saying the policy in question does.

You are pro gay marriage. Gay marriage is for grooming.
Your claims that it is for "insurance", "legal reasons", and "hospital visits" are wrong.

You take an anti grooming stance.
But support policies written by the groomers while repeating groomer propaganda and arguments.

As I said, your tribe did you wrong. I can relate.
Stop viewing your tribe with such rose tinted glasses.
 
Last edited:

Bacle

When the effort is no longer profitable...
Founder
I didn't say you were justifying grooming, I was saying the policy in question does.

You are pro gay marriage. Gay marriage is for grooming.
Your claims that it is for "insurance", "legal reasons", and "hospital visits" are wrong.

You take an anti grooming stance.
But support policies written by the groomers while repeating groomer propaganda and arguments.

As I said, your tribe did you wrong. I can relate.
Stop viewing your tribe with such rose tinted glasses.
It's not 'my tribe', I don't go to LGB events or groups, I do not make my bi status the center of my identity, and I think you are rather wrong about the impetus behind same-sex marriage.

But you are convinced that the legal issues which actually drove the situation were just a smokescreen, and nothing will convince you otherwise.
 

mrttao

Well-known member
It's not 'my tribe', I don't go to LGB events or groups, I do not make my bi status the center of my identity, and I think you are rather wrong about the impetus behind same-sex marriage.

But you are convinced that the legal issues which actually drove the situation were just a smokescreen, and nothing will convince you otherwise.
I am very open minded. if facts are presented I will change my mind.

I literally just admitted that I was wrong on this before, and that the bible was right. This is my current position. based on everything seen thus far
 

Bacle

When the effort is no longer profitable...
Founder
I am very open minded. if facts are presented I will change my mind.

I literally just admitted that I was wrong on this before, and that the bible was right. This is my current position. based on everything seen thus far
Except you have said that same-sex marriage was just a smokescreen for groomers/grooming, and that the legal issues which actually motivated most people were not what it was actually about.

I have seen plenty of evidence to support the idea that same-sex marirage was about legal issues, over many years now, and I have seen very little evidence that your claims the same-sex marriage being about grooming kids.

Because grooming kids is not just a non-hetero thing, or have you forgotten the grooming gangs in the UK made up of devout Muslims, or the groomers in the fundamentalist Mormon sects?
 

mrttao

Well-known member
Except you have said that same-sex marriage was just a smokescreen for groomers/grooming, and that the legal issues which actually motivated most people were not what it was actually about.

I have seen plenty of evidence to support the idea that same-sex marirage was about legal issues, over many years now, and I have seen very little evidence that your claims the same-sex marriage being about grooming kids.
1. where is all this so called evidence? all we have is articles from fake news media where they push blatant lies. And groomer organizations pushing it.
2. by their fruits shall you know them. This is 2022, we have already seen what actually happened.
Because grooming kids is not just a non-hetero thing, or have you forgotten the grooming gangs in the UK made up of devout Muslims, or the groomers in the fundamentalist Mormon sects?
The UK gangs are rape gangs, not grooming gangs.
The woke media is trying to whitewash what they are actually doing as "grooming" when it is so much worse.

And yes, there exists hetero grooming. ok? that is a whataboutism.

doesn't change the fact that the purpose of marriage is children. whether to sire them... or to otherwise acquire them
 

Urabrask Revealed

Let them go.
Founder
MLK warned about this six decades ago, early in his life he gave speeches about how he thought a gay illuminati was trying to destroy the Black and White races by feminizing men and even used the term "the eternal sodomite"

I used to make fun of that position as fucking insane and schizoid but...
Same reason why the glowies flood communities with hard drugs like crack and meth. Populations too busy shiving each other for the next shot are populations too distracted to see the elites plundering them.
 

Bacle

When the effort is no longer profitable...
Founder
No; the purpose of sex is children. So, if you've ever done anal with a girl, that's no less a sin than with a guy.

The purpose of marriage, historically, has had a lot more to do with economics than anything else.
Yep, and this is a historical fact a lot of the anti-LGB types like to try to ignore when making those sorts of arguments and moralizing.

Because the fact was mistresses, brothels, and such have exist for most of human history too, and were no where near as taboo as they are now, yet still produce plenty of children through non-marriage unions. Even their Biblical forefathers had multiple wives, harems, and visited prostitutes, because for most of human history that was more the norm in societies, rather than taboo.

Marriage is about money, inheritance, and those sorts of legalities; baby-making does not require marriage at all to happen or produce children, even if the outcomes are better.

Not to mention marriages were also used for things like cementing political alliances or doing 'arranged marriages' to cement business/diplomatic deals.
 

mrttao

Well-known member
No; the purpose of sex is children. So, if you've ever done anal with a girl, that's no less a sin than with a guy.

The purpose of marriage, historically, has had a lot more to do with economics than anything else.
1. you assume I had anal with a girl. I have only had oral and vaginal heterosexual sex. Never anal.

2. you are flat out wrong. marriage has historically always been about children.

3. male/female anal is filthy and wrong. it has been normalized, just like they normalized gay and are normalizing pedophilia. But IRL anal is nothing like porn anal. It is very much not clean, it is dangerous, and it spreads diseases of all kinds.
 

Terthna

Professional Lurker
1. you assume I had anal with a girl. I have only had oral and vaginal heterosexual sex. Never anal.
I assumed nothing; that's why I said "if".

2. you are flat out wrong. marriage has historically always been about children.
That's a modern misconception; marriage was usually about securing alliances and resources, children were just a byproduct. Nowadays you've got love tacked onto the reasons for getting married, but having kids? That's a motivation reserved for kings desperate for an heir, and those rarely ever got to be children.

3. male/female anal is filthy and wrong. it has been normalized, just like they normalized gay and are normalizing pedophilia. But IRL anal is nothing like porn anal. It is very much not clean, it is dangerous, and it spreads diseases of all kinds.
Well, it can certainly be filthy. You couldn't convince me to try it. Then again, I've heard similar talk from Muslims about pork, how pigs are unclean, dangerous, and spread disease; and you'll have to pry my bacon from my cold dead hands.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top