The year was 2008 and Scott Eckern had everything he needed in life. He was the director at a top theater company. He had a lovely family and home. But then social justice warriors discovered a small sum Eckern had donated in opposition to gay marriage. Eckern soon found himself without a job, his family harassed and threatened, and his name smeared all over the news.
This was just the beginning. This kind of social oppression has grown, and it is most commonly seen from another movement: feminism.
A homosexual redefinition of marriage gives feminists ammunition to push their own agenda, using dishonestly, hatred, and indoctrination. Justify a government-takeover of marriage for the sake of sexual equality, and that opens all sorts of doors for how they can dictate your life. A woman who supports gay marriage in popular culture does not respect the value of natural roles, and will end up monopolizing your relationship.
Gay Marriage Encourages Feminism
In 2012, a European feminist group used anti-Christian displays to protest in favor of gay marriage. Most feminists despise the gay movement. So why did these feminists push gay rights? Don’t think for a second that feminists actually care about gays. Listen carefully and you will see that it is all just a rapacious attack on religion, and men.
Patriarchy is what distinguishes marriage from civil unions. The original idea behind marriage was that women “multiply and replenish the earth,” rear children at home, and that men work to provide a living. This arrangement means men are dominant. But feminists can’t handle being subservient, so they tear down the religious basis for marriage and the family any way they can. Soon after her excommunication, feminist Kate Kelly lashed out at “small-minded religious paradigms” about homosexuality. It is no coincidence that feminists pressure us to redefine marriage.
Gay marriage gives women an excuse to avoid personal responsibility. If feminists equate all civil unions under the term “marriage,” then a person can’t say a mother of seven children is any more successful than the woman who lazes at her boyfriend’s apartment all day.
If the government dictates what the word marriage means, it reduces the man’s leadership position and elevates the woman’s control. It allows government to further control your relationships. This trickles down to society’s definition of romantic relationships in general. A woman that accepts a government’s definition of marriage does not respect your definition of relationships, nor your rights. She is more concerned with popularity and fitting in.
Gay Marriage Leads To Censorship
In 2009, discussions were often civil. I had some positive, uplifting dialogue with gay activists. But times have changed. Today, if they discover that you have ever uttered a sentiment against gay marriage, don’t expect to keep your job. Don’t expect to have any kind of job in journalism, on TV, or as a CEO. Expect companies to be shamed by Huffington Post until they proclaim the gay marriage message.
Feminists have taken hold of this censorship power to further their own agenda. This censorship campaign is not just at school or in the media; it seeps into our daily lives. This is why the terms “husband” and “wife” are disappearing from our language. Now all you have is a “partner.”
Gay Marriage Destroys Fatherhood
Leftists often say, “it takes a village to raise a child.” I actually agree. Society has a responsibility for the children. But leftists have twisted this to mean that it is society that raises a child, not parents.
Feminists display a weird distaste for raising their children because the center of attention is distracted away from them. Social acceptance for gay parents helps them take the focus away from children. The children of gay couples are necessarily adopted or created with involving a third person, so marriage is no longer about two people having children. Children are an accessory that garnishes their marriage; marriage is not about resulting in children.
Feminists turn the focus onto themselves by inserting themselves into every aspect of the child’s life. They tear down or completely remove the father’s role in the child’s life, and thus more easily dictate the child’s life. It is therefore no surprise when they trumpet “studies” that claim children don’t need a traditional family arrangement. Forbes recently claimed that a study shows it doesn’t matter how much time mothers spend with children. But actually that study proved something very different:
“Family time appears a more beneficial type of time for adolescents; more accessible family time is associated with better self-concept and decreased drug use and more engaged family time is associated with fewer behavioral problems and better self-concept and math performance….
During adolescence, time may become more important. The mother time analysis shows a strong relationship between engaged mother time and risky behavior (Table 5), and family time, not necessarily just mother time, appears linked to other adolescent outcomes, including better self-concept and academic performance.”
The crusade against motherhood hurts children, ironically resulting in the kind of man who abuses women. Feminism is thus directly to blame for abusive men. Not only that, study after study finds that children need their fathers. A gay marriage arrangement where a father or mother is missing helps feminists achieve their demonic goal. Cases are abundant that show non-traditional families are destructive for children.
We Should Have Stopped Feminists At Gay Marriage
According to polls, acceptance of gay marriage has skyrocketed. Many people seem to think the propaganda that pervades film, music, television, churches, and the education system doesn’t affect their lives. They don’t understand that the homosexual marriages do affect them, and that it enables the feminists who make this world a nightmare.
If it were just about respecting gay people, they would be satisfied calling them “civil unions.” But they want to force you to consider gay unions equal to traditional marriages. That is the problem. A watered-down definition of marriage allows women to assume the role of power.
Delve into the gay marriage movement and you find that most gays themselves don’t want what is happening. Sure, they want respect, but they don’t need the government, churches, and other organizations to redefine the word marriage. Many recognize that the “village” model of childrearing is destructive, that children need both a man and woman in the home. Once people get past the circular arguments, appeal to emotion, and sheer propaganda, they don’t want it.
This is why men must avoid girls who support gay marriage, particularly those who have really thought about it. It indicates they don’t want to accept the discipline and hard work that goes into a successful relationship. A woman who accepts gay marriage in society will will reject your role as a father, telling you that fatherhood does not raise a child, and that she is somehow equal or better than you in every way.
Really, she will care more about herself than anyone else in the family.
If you avoid women and who support gay marriage you’re avoiding nearly all women in The Anglosphere, the only women I meet opposed to gay marriage are traditional christian women an there arn’t to many of them left. Hollywood an the media have turned gay marriage into some kind of massive human rights issue which has brainwashed the majority of people, even most men now seem to agree with gay marriage.
Most of the women I know don’t necessarily condone gay marriage, but they feel it would be mean to outlaw it. It’s all about the feelz.
Most women’s views are based on feels
Women rarely have opinions of their own. They merely parrot what the media tells them to. If you have a high SMV to women and express disdain for gays, you will be shocked at how many women around you suddenly don’t like it either.
This is true but many men are like that nowdays, just not on as a big a scale, I meet so many men who just believe something’s a seriouse an important issue if the media tells them it is.
It’s all part of them being still plugged in. Form your own opinions, with evidence to back them up, don’t acknowledge the whiners, and watch how their women start tagging along after you as well.
I always form my own opinions
reminds me of passing by the newspapers two days ago where it said on the title: “is milk really good? or bad? the war of opinions is at it’s peak.”
wtf? who cares about that shit?
and that was one of the “respectable” newspapers (leftist of course). issues are big issues if the media says they are. think of the sportpalast speech.
Yep there’s been issues I’ve been aware about for years then a news outlet does a big story on it an all of a sudden a heap of people I know are discussing it an going on about it even through the issue has been around for years. Your average person is still told what to think by the media, gay marriage wasn’t even considerd a big issue years ago but now the media an Hollywood have decided it’s a big issue suddenly it’s a major cause by people who never cared before.
One reason to avoid the media (TV) at all these days. I see similarities (here, today) with the propaganda that they spit out in communist countries (former Soviet Union, China, etc…).
Here (the U.S.), they like to keep people dumb and use entertainment to distract people. The news is now “anchored” by entertainment “journalists”.
News is just about creating headlines an keeping people dumb nowdays
Here’s something along these lines. Let’s say you are in a LTR.. You know her convictions, you know how she thinks etc.. As-soon-as she starts having an “independent” thought, something that comes out of the blue, you can bet your bottom dollar she just started fucking somebody else on the side. Pay attention to that..It-never-fails.
I agree completely, it’s always something to watch for.
Solid advice!
This is a very poignant observation.
Interest-level cuts through everything.
George Clooney or Brad Pitt could go into the most liberal bar in america and espouse the re-institution of slavery and even the most diehard liberal feminists in there would start nodding their heads
That’s the herd mentality going on. So if more men would speak out against any and all degeneracy – instead of befriending the freaks (fags and their ilk), or self-censoring whenever a feminist bulldyke loudly asserts her asinine views in public, expecting no dissent to be voiced – that would certainly go a long way. At the very least, it would reinforce the reality to these degenerates, that not everyone is just going to think the same as whatever current madness the SJWs are spewing. I’m shocked at how many people who have working voices yet don’t use them.
I like to call it the hivemind. Why are bees and ants mostly female?
A lost of individuality and stepped on a tyrannical queen. That is a feminist nation future.
Hmm that’s a good point. Never thought of the comparison to bees and ants, even down to the point where she has servants do all the real work for her. That’s interesting…
Bees and ants are not mostly female you moron.
Worker bees and ants are all female
Chameleons. For high SMV males, they will change to whatever they need to.
I don’t know what kind of women you surround yourself with. The women and men that I know and respect, are all tremendous Patriotic Conservatives with great intelligence and wisdom. We may differ in religious beliefs, but are unified by tremendous love for the Almighty G-d, country, family, and friends.
Yes, we do have opinions of our own, and you might be surprised by how many of us oppose this gay madness even though most men love it (especially enjoying the “company” of their gay “friends”). We also have sth called empathy (I know that as selfish as men are, they do not possess this quality), which is why we may go along with sth, we might not agree with. Nevermind, men in the u.s are so insecure, frightened and weak that is pitiful & shameful.
Men agree in public because they don’t want to lose their livelihood over a “disagreement”
True in many cases I think.
you don’t want to be the odd one out. it probably depends on how zealous the proponents of certain beliefs are whether you can have a civil exchange of ideas.
my dad builds houses and has quite extreme libertarian views, but he says he never discusses politics at work. despite being the boss.
and that is the sad part. We’ve become a nation (at least in the U.S.) where freedom of speech is taking a back seat to this nonsense. You can no longer (as a man) have an opinion (or opposing opinion) without the risk of say losing your job.
It reminds me of the former Soviet Union where your neighbors would turn you into the KGB if they saw or heard something you said (didn’t agree with the party).
Freedom of speech is dying at an alarming rate, there are issues an groups that are becoming immune to open debate an criticism.
Reminds me of a quote: “To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.”- Voltaire
Freedom of Religion has also died.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/07/colorado-bakery-owner-faces-up-to-a-year-in-jail-for-not-baking-cake-for-gay-wedding/
It has for Christians.
Voltaire didn’t say that. It was a man called Kevin Alfred Strom. He’s one of the leaders of the white nationalist group, the national alliance.
Do gays rule over us? I hope not….
When it comes to quotes, who said it rarely matters in comparison to how you relate to the quote. Hitler could have said it, it doesn’t affect how I relate to the thought
I finally found out why one person who seemed like a cool guy where I worked, was fired last year. He made an errant non-PC joke about how black people don’t tip. Somebody got wind of this joke that was presumably said in a private conversation, and told another person. That person told the manager and so, the guy was fired. Strangely enough, whites, blacks, mexicans, even the gays there won’t associate with that person that caused someone to lose his job.
Just like the Soviet union…turn in your comrades.
Agree….and gay couples only want to get married to have the security of traditional marriages. They don’t necessarily want to change the definition (as the author points out)…they just want the benefits and security similar to traditional marriages. One example: they want to know that if they pass on (in death) their benefits, property, money etc…will pass on to their partner (the legal side of marriage). Feminists (2.0 or 3.0) are trying to change the rules of the game; not the the gay community.
That could already be accomplished with a properly structured will.
By the way, if you disagree, why don’t you guys take a more firm stand on this issue? Like, organizing a protest or sth? Unless you’re 12 years old, you cannot be serious about “women being the guilty evil one causing all the problems”. Come on, get real!
Really? You’re assuming that women argue from reasoned positions.
All you need to do is to engage the woman you are interested in in a serious logical argument about why gay marriage is dumb and destructive. Of course she will argue with you the first time. Subsequently, she is more likely to come to embrace your views.
Good luck being celibate.
I completely “support” gay marriage around women and plebes.
Gay people will never be welcome in my home. I used to be the most militant pro gay texan you’d ever know, marching in their rallies and all that.
Living in Portland exposed me to what that lifestyle is all about. They hate straight men. I can only imagine how much infidelity my wife would engage in if she were one of those npr types.
Good advice.
Portland can turn a tie-died hippie into a hard core conservative in a matter of weeks.
The left-wing hatred/extremism in that area is frightening.
Conversely living with the bible thumpers can turn people liberal. Both extremes are pretty ridiculous.
That being said, I’m not for gay marriage. Then again, I think we should banish “traditional” marriage as well.
Feminists want to be “independent” of men. Great! I support that! Of course now you’re just a sex toy to me.
I’ve heard that Toronto and Portland are very comparable in some ways, particularly the militant leftism and the inbred social groups.
Been to Toronto with a couple (formerly) more liberal friends. I can confirm that is the case.
Wow. That’s usually how it goes in most leftist social movements. The biggest supporters are people that are completely removed from the subject. Back when black power was going on the most militant White supporters lived in places like Minnesota and Vermont few of them had ever even met a black person before. The most militant White opponents lived in places like Mississippi and Alabama these were people who had lived alongside huge amounts of black people their entire life
Interesting observation. The big problem here is quality of life, and letting Bert and Ernie spread around aids like Ebola is not something my country should encourage, like Hussein and his mob.
Of course letting gays serve on the front lines was a great idea heheheh. Let Ellen Degenerate go storm Iraq…
…um? Yes? Is this even something that needs pointing out?
Women love gay marriage because 90% of the worthless sluts are bisexual. They’re being told by their government that being a degenerate lowlife is okay. These are sickening times we live in. It sure as fuck seems like ALL of society’s problems stem from government. It’s high time we the good people left start screaming as loud the big whiny baby feminists and fags or else we’re fucking doomed.
The gays are a little late to the marriage circus. In my view marriage for the majority is irredeemably broken. Men are learning the hard way what feminism has done to the institution. The destruction of the nuclear family has brought us to this point in history. Birth rates among white westerners are below replacement levels. Within a few generations Europeans could be in the minority in their own countries all because the strong powerful independent women won’t quit their bullshit job and reproduce in adequate numbers…..
Uhh I hate to disagree but there are plethoras of teenage whores spitting out babies left and right… I don’t see how the birth rate could be below replacement rate. Maybe for older 30+ year olds… but teenagers alone are spitting out enough babies to keep population growth positive. Stats?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_European_Union
Go to Demographic Future….
Oh, you weren’t talking about the US. Growth rate here is .76% (claims to be the lowest since records began) with 40% of babies born out of wedlock. It’s a grrrrrreat country.
It’s the same scene in the US. Minorities reproducing more, especially combined with an open border.
We’ll all be mixed race before too long.
You mean the west will be.
I’ll give you that. We’ll be the first.
but what demographics are those who shit out the babies? many probably are immigrants / welfare recipients.
NOT so fast! in 20 years rejuvenation biotech industry will have caught up to the rate at which aging occurs, the accumulation of genetic damage which causes us to age is a very slow process, but we are close to being able to catch up with it,
Europeans will be around for centuries.(err, indefinately)
This also makes me Non-concerned about many ideologies, because they won’t survive the test-of-time
Do you really think a terrible ideology is going to survive 10,20,30 years?
No they are political fads that fade with time, and on a long enough time line with enough analysis, the standard ideology reverts to the median line.
Median. Line. Reversion
Stopping aging will never stop death, the heartbeat cannot be control (yet) and even if it could, population control would be like something out of a dystopian movie where people have their hearts stopped once they live a predetermined set of years. I’d rather die out as a race than have ANY generation go through that.
“Stopping aging will never stop death”
The biggest risk factor for mortality is age. Thats why an 80 year old is more likely to die within a shorter time frame than a 20 year old.
technically you’re right, we just won’t die from “aging” in 20 years, but you still have a risk of mortality, though very low
So within 100 years, we could technically croak, but capitalism will take care of that by allowing us to “backup” our brains and print-out replacement bodies, (this will be a big business and the way health insurance companies will adapt to stay in business)
We haven’t seen anything yet. Biology has 3 billion bases and we were not advanced enough to understand it in the past, the game is changing quick and DNA will just be like software on your computer, it’s just protein re-organization, Its low-tech that evolved billions of years ago, we are catching up, we are understanding enough about it, that it will no longer be an obstacle
As for “overpopulation”
First of all. The carrying capacity of the planet even with today low-tech solutions to energy and agriculture, is around 20 billion, The carrying capacity keeps going up with new innovations in these fields like verticle and automated farming, genetic engineering, and further advances in solar energy, (the sun is a fusion reactor that will last for 5 billion years) the earth is 70% water, and the technology to filter and use salt water already exists, Everything is plenty abundant to maintain a population of 20 billion right now, although we are behind on our space technology..
We have not yet discovered “anti-gravity” solutions that would allow us to create a portable and sustainable biosphere, put it into space, and live in it, but once again, not something that will be impossible in the future.
We create :”waste” right now because we have not figured out “atomic manufacturing” the ability to transform any material into something, disassemble it, than re-assemble it into another form on command. This IS a science-fiction technology right NOW, but it won’t be in the future.
Unlikely. We already are witnessing the “hoarding” of these essential technologies by the elites. The proles will not even notice the situation because they will be distracted with iphones, slut shitagram contests and silly cat videos. You can notice how non-essential technology is being peddled.
In most cases theses new technologies only breakthrough is the enabling of mass automated control, monitoring and supervision of many and/or most human activities in the near future (automated cars, google glasses, social media revolution at one blink of the eye ie. augmented reality) thus reducing the
freedom of human beings.
Free market would do wonders, but right now is very limited. I am confident that “elite” members will live hundreds of years, commoners will have considerably shorter lifespans…
Its true that the technology we get is 30 years old…
“World military expenditure in 2014 was an estimated $1776 billion.” at least half of that is research
A smart-phone is around 600$ that’s once the price performance reaches mass-consumer levels, and we think it’s new. But it isn’t actually “new” it just became cheap enough for YOU to buy within a given year, because that unlimited budget has the future technology already, almost every technology we have is because of military research and communications
Think about the kind of “smart phone” they can really make with 1 or 2 billion$ ….. that’s what you’ll have 30 years from now.. and you’ll think it’s “new” then.
They most likely already have created “microscopic” blood-cell sized micron thick robots which go into your arteries, remove the plaque, Scan every cell for mutations, Remove them, find senescent cells, remove them, Find aged cells, turn them back into youthful stem-cells ETC…
But, YOU will get them in 20-30 years… and you will think it’s “New”
The next big thing is “AI” its a race to develop the computers capable of the smartest defence strategies,(god knows how far they are) in 1997 they had ai that beat anyone at chess(thats just what they publicly admited they have)
We’ve been under control at the point-of-no-return since the 1100’s …
“give me your money because a man in the sky won’t love you” my point is that…………We’re idiots.
You’re 600$ phone is most definately NOT NEW compared to state of the art future tech already in the hands of powerful rulers of this planet. But you’re so simply and arrogant you think it is LOL
Anywhere i go, I can tune into a few AM/FM stations, with a 5$ device, Hell, these devices pick up these “invisible” frequencies anywhere, and they are so cheap they are worthless”.. Did you know our brains also have a way of communicating specifically our neurons.. When we have a thought, the organization of that thought creates a resonance signature similar to these frequencies, And oh yes, Your mind is being read fella it has been for the last 20 years! LOL
My point was that my smartphone if anything is more to facilitate control and monitoring and is not an essential technology, unlike micro-robots to de-toxify my blood or affordable space travel. Essential technology like that and the examples you mentioned will be sold only to the elites at affordable prices. Things like smartphones or even cleverer laptops will be used by most to store porn and other irrelevant stuff and in the case of women, to store selfies and cat videos.
If anything the next few years will be interesting since a slow motion financial collapse is playing right now. I don´t think this will get mad max but a lot of changes, lionized by unthinking “technologists” (people that barely understands the tech and its implications) will bring about a less free world (of course this could change but trends do not indicate so). This slow motion collapse can be seen in the declining wages, quality of life (beyond electronics) and reduction in population, first in the developed nations and later worldwide.
Very good points
We’ve been at the point of no return in terms of surveillance for a very long time…
Think about it, Your name is borrowed, You get a bullshit job that need not exist, in exchange for giving back 50% of the salary, You drive at the speed you’re told, You follow the same 12step education program as you’re told program as everyone else, than pick a similar career as everyone else. You are told when to get up on time, what to wear,
They literally would control you more, but you’d go nuts and big pharma has no solution for you yet,
Thats the role of media, to make you feel “sexy” cool”, like you aren;t a controlled moron, TO make you feel like you are still an individual
The list goes on. Surveillance and control. already happened.
But it doesn’t matter, here is the birds eye view for you to understand:
From the “elites perspective”
The agenda is to advance society, and that is difficult when your average citizen has an iq of 100, take 10 years to learn a basic skill at a decent level, and take 25 years to become fully mature adult, than once that citizen becomes 65, it can no longer work or function, its brain becomes even less plastic as it ages, and than further, it croaks after another 15-25 years. The break we get from our servitude, is when we are used up in the worst possible shape lol
we have a ton of limitations with these billion year old outdated “meatbags” on skeletons
The elites have decided that, Rather than have a citenzenry with limited capabilities, To “upgrade” the herd. Into human 2.0
So they have made the decision, to roll out slowly “life extension” and brain augmentation capabilities
This is so that you are more USEFUL to the agenda,
You can’;t keep up with the amount of information that exists to be useful to the advanced society that is going to exist in 20 years from now. You’ll be upgraded, You’ll have no choice
” Essential technology like that and the examples you mentioned will be sold only to the elites at affordable prices.”
technically, Life extension technology can cost millions since we’ll have hundreds or thousands of years to pay it back
=D
SDRs, no cash allowed, and it’s on like Donkey Kong!
I hope gays get raped in divorce courts just as straight men do. Gay relationships are even more unstable than regular ones..Let them have it.
Poor judges! And how on earth will they figure who’s the bad guy?!
Even with gay couples there is a “man” and “woman”. Wouldn’t be too hard to figure out who is who.
there’s that
What poor judges? they enables this system, let them reap what they sow! Having their lifespans shortened by the stress is just to me, another gift from a good-natured God.
is it possible you didn’t get the sarcasm?
Dear friend, I am just saying what I think about these so-called “judges”, who I wouldn’t even trust to judge a dog show! 🙂
Amen
I picked it up. Driver with the asst. (mark it).
privilege. determined by the length of penis.
It did cross my mind…
That my friend…is an excellent question. I would like to see how the courts will react to this one once the divorce is underway.
The reaction from the judge would be priceless “What, you mean there are two bad men? Where is snow white (the woman)?”.
Check this video out. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9M0xcs2Vw4&feature=youtube_gdata_player
SO true! Marriage will be all the rage in the Gay community, until the advent of ‘Gay divorce’.
The Divorce Industry has taught enough of us straight men about the dangers of marriage, so more and more of us are avoiding marriage and (increasingly) cohabitation as well.
But the Divorce Industry has become accustomed to its high profits, and doesn’t like how we straight men are wising up and Going Our Own Way, and aren’t lining up to be their victims anymore.
It won’t be long…
I recall a reader poll in a gay mens’ magazine asking about same sex marriage several years before its legalization swept through Canada and several States. A clear majority were opposed to the idea.
.
While it didn’t go into a detailed breakdown for the reason for that opposition the theme seemed to be “why ape the breeders?”
.
One of the half truths that the left rolled out – and continues to propagate – is that there are numerous historical precedents for SSM. The reality is that I variety of cultures throughout the ages have recognized same sex unions in various ways. However, those unions were never considered marriages which were about raising a family and protecting your lineage and estate. Of course, that was in a world before gay adoption and sperm donations.
Most definitely. Feminist love to take on any special interest group. Who has the most say? Women. You wanna push for any political agenda, do it through women.
Agree. When is the last time you heard a politician talk about issues that benefit men (especially white men)? You only hear politicians talking about benefits for women, minorities, working Americans or Americans in general.
But, women, by far, receive the most attention when it comes to our politicians (and the pandering for votes).
I laugh especially hard when they say they care about working Americans.
Of course they do. They need you to keep paying for everything!
I suppose that part is true. I am, after all, a working class white male. I have to keep the world moving and the money flowing while being the most hated and evil thing on the planet.
And now Hitlery will be president of the US. It’s only going to get worse.
She thought it was a sure thing back in 2008. I think she’s in for a rough ride, again.
The only rough ride she’s getting is from independent and social media. Everywhere else she’s blatantly promoted while even other democrats aren’t talked up as much… repubs are demonized etc. etc. it’s all a show. The powers that be want a woman in power and the people are getting tired of the same old… it’s going to be interesting.
The GOP has turned their primaries into a clown car event. Many on that stage are up there for the free publicity (new book coming out)…they don’t give a shit about being president.
We’re only going to get some real choices once the monopoly is broken up. The two parties, today, are actually funded by the same donors. It’s why they can switch from an R to a D so easily….same big donors.
The only one saying anything good is Rand Paul, but they’re just words.
Hillary is rotten to the core. A real witch. Stalin in a pantsuit . Of all the scandals the Billy Dale /travelgate scandal was most contemptible .
The rule of hillarity is neigh
Hillery will never be president. She has too many enemies. The CIA will continue to stay in power.
I don’t know. The main minority they fight for would be black men (in a facetious way because schools are still right next to prisons) and spanish immigrants because they will vote liberal as they gain citizenship all while driving the labor force capital down.
Edit: Women far and away get all of the perks the laws can provide. It isn’t even a questionable affair as you can’t address women without someone saying you are a misogynist.
Don’t get me wrong. A politician will go after any and all votes (from any group). But the trend for the last decade or so has been mostly for what women still need (or want). The birth control, the pay gap, etc, etc, etc.. I cannot remember a time when I have heard a politician say “Men need this, or it needs to be done for men”. They’ll say for all hardworking Americans or working class Americans, etc….but I have yet to hear a politician talk about the need of men (like we have everything…all is good).
Fascinating but pay attention during the next election cycle. I’ve been listening for years….never heard about he needs of men.
Finding a woman who respects men is slim to none just like women who doesn’t support the homosexual (feminazi,gay marriage) agenda. Proverbs 31:10 Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies.
Sad but true
and respect is something that is earned (another thing that women just can’t understand). They believe that everyone is supposed to respect a woman…..just because.
You earn respect from people….you don’t just get it automatically. It’s a concept that many women just don’t seem to grasp.
I think they really don’t understand the meaning of man-to-man respect. A man respects another man when he does respectable things. I rarely see women do respectable things these days. Respect that is given without cause isn’t even respect at all. What women mean by one respecting them is: “I will act as trashy, foul, and irresponsible as I want and you are supposed to to treat me as if I was not trashy, foul, and irresponsible,” That is their respect; its meaningless.
Right. They think it’s something that feminism has awarded them. No one is just handed respect. If you act like a whore, then you are treated like a whore (no respect). It’s the one concept that they truly do miss. I often hear women say “he should respect women”….sorry, not if she’s behaving like a 5 year old I (or he) won’t.
Women need to understand that respect is earned by everyone (they are not special).
This is why you must come down hard on them. There is one form of respect they will understand and that is what they will display when you put them in their place.
I had a woman tell me I didn’t respect her once. Later on that night we were shagging.
There is your respect.
Trash doesn’t deserve respect. Ladies deserve respect. That’s my opinion.
You rarely see women do respectable things these days? So Malala Yousafzai, Mia Farrow, Sonia Gandhi, Aung San Suu Kyi, Christiane Amanpour, Michelle Bachelet, Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, Angelina Jolie, Angela Merkel, and many other women including those who have gone through birth, one of the most painful things a human can experience, breast cancer, only one in one thousand men are diagnosed with breast cancer and one in eight women are diagnosed, and women who have been ostracized just for being a woman, do not deserve your respect? Also, only 1% of women are prostitutes, and 20% of men in the United States pay for that stuff at least once in their life. So who looks more respectable? 1/100 women being prostitutes, or 1/5 men paying for it.
Respect is currency one has to give in order to receive. That sounds like too much hard work for the entitled.
In The West women are put on a pedestal an told how they are precious an better than men, how society or men are resposible for their failures and how any man who criticizes them is a loser from an early age onwards. It’s no wonder they expect respect without thinking they have to do anything to deserve it.
Woman will respect you provided you demonstrate your dominance. Woman may talk about men this and men that but that is merely her fear of you talking. Trust me, she respects you.
I hate gay marriage and don’t accept it.. but the thing is it seems virtually impossible to find girls who are actually against this.
But at the same time the girls im with know that i’m against this and even if they are apparently for it they accept it, of course I do get the usual ‘youre just threatened’ crap and such at first.
Ok I just realized something, most of them are going to say they support it but it’s the ones who are militant about it, the ones posting all the bullshit around facebook that are the ones to avoid.
My cousin does that and i’ve seen how she treats her fiance :Z
most people aren’t too zealous about such beliefs and are easily weirded out by discussions. these things are just meaningless conversational topics for them to bond over and have a chat.
They are not trying to redefine a word (‘marriage’), they are trying to redefine an archetype (marriage, man and wife, the traditional wedding, bride in a white wedding dress and man in a tux, the nuclear family, etc.) Its ludicrous.
For a comparison, somehow in my country, the rainbow has become a symbol of gay ness. When I was a kid my mum told me that the rainbow was a symbol of God’s promise to never destroy the world by flood again. Now its the symbol of giggly faggots and grumpy dykes.
Same with the mardi gras parade in my country now: it is an archetype for the celebration of homosexuality.
That’s fine whatever, but what if it was decided that the archetype of the mardi gras parade needed to be more ‘inclusive’ so that it included celebrating heterosexual relationships as well.
Gay rights activists would be outraged! The mardi gras parade is THEIR thing. It would lose meaning if it was made more inclusive. It would become pointless.
And so too would marriage become pointless if it was made more inclusive.
Which country are you from? In the US, mardi gras is very heterosexual. A few minutes in New Orleans’ Bourbon Street would teach you that.
Australia. The Sydney mardi gras is the premier gay event in our country.
How do you figure they aren’t trying to redefine the word marriage? Marriage is between a male and a female… they’re doing everything they can to change the definition of both the word and the archetype.
My point was, the archetype is much more important and significant than simply the word. It contains images and symbols and values, traditions and culture, meaning.
But not when it comes to the laws and legal definitions. I’m scared of the laws more than the archetypes. The law is the precedence of the archetypes as it sets the stage for the archetypes. It’s debatable. But when it comes to the law, the word and definition of the word is everything and people ultimately do what the law allows.
“Same with the mardi gras parade in my country now: it is an archetype for the celebration of homosexuality. That’s fine whatever,” No. It’s not fine. The homosexual fascists always seek to change the meaning of and destroy the traditions of the society they’re in, just like the mardi gras example you gave. That’s the problem – society has become apathetic to homosexual invasion of spaces that did not previously pander to them. The homosexual agenda is fully intent on total control over society in every way – physical (parades with nudity that is not punished by authorities, when it would be if done by straight males), mental/psychological (brainwashing children as young as 5 that they may be gay or not “cisgender”, dressing boys up in dresses, from a curriculum designed by a charged pedophile Ben Levin under the approval of the Ontario Canada dyke premier, etc.; convincing society that homosexuality doesn’t harm others, when in reality it not only leads to skyrocketing STD and DV rates, but it also breaks down people’s rights such as freedom of speech and increases censorship), occupational (being fired for not supporting homos, thought crimes, etc.), and culturally (can’t even read a magazine or turn on the TV without pro-homo PC propaganda). There are countless ways that the lgbt has led to the destruction of society, and we cannot take this lightly. We have to call it out for what it is, and at least try to reverse this trend.
“For a comparison, somehow in my country, the rainbow has become a symbol of gay ness. When I was a kid my mum told me that the rainbow was a symbol of God’s promise to never destroy the world by flood again. Now
its the symbol of giggly faggots and grumpy dykes.”
“What if I told you that every time a Volkswagen hits 100,000 miles a German engineer gets his wings?” Then engineers at a VW plant start sprouting wings usually associated with angels.
Back in the car, the daughter replies, “Yeah Dad, and I’m sure at 200,000 miles, rainbows shoot out of their butts.” A winged engineer then has rainbows shoot out of his anus.
The two of the most of the renowned outpouring of God’s wrath have to do with male/angel butts (Genesis 19, the men of Sodom wanted to rape two men who were really angels) and rainbows (the Flood).
Listen closely to the background song and you’ll hear “Dooby Dooby Doom.” Doom as poured out in the days of Noah (rainbows) and Lot (angel butts).
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2017:26-30
26 “Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man. 27 People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all.
28 “It was the same in the days of Lot. People were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building. 29 But the day Lot left Sodom, fire and sulfur rained down from heaven and destroyed them all.
30 “It will be just like this on the day the Son of Man is revealed.
I realize this may be poor form but… red pill me on homosexuals please?
What?
He is asking what is the red-pill stance on homosexuals.
Seems to be two schools of thoughts. One is they are a natural occurrence and are only a fad now because they have come up with enough wealth to effectively come out of the closet. The other school of thought is that they are the creation of effeminate father’s and lowered masculine training so with weak male role models they relate to men much as men do with the unknown sex, women, as sexual objects.
I think they’re born like that. Just don’t call me a freak because I think their gig is not normal.
This is one stance where I’m curious to find out more. Women who cut themselves have been known to have weak relationships with their fathers. So do women who tend to venture on the slutty side. What’s to stop having a weak father figure from affecting a man in a detrimental way?
And I used to strongly believe in the you are who you are approach.
Sex is nothing but reproduction in its early stages, if a man or woman can be sexually attracted to the same sex, it would mean that they view the same sex as reproductive candidates even though that would be impossible.
So yes they are born that way but it’s as much a mental birth defect as being transgendered.
Most slutty women with daddy issues may believe that THEY are in control and going against “daddy” who would’ve been her standard image of a man.
It’s very hard to put myself in their shoes, but homosexuality is so far from normal biology that no influence or lack thereof could push a person that way.. Besides it applies to both sexes.. That is very hard to explain based on environment alone.
That is quite telling because, typically, the more they do it, the unhappier they become and the more they need to immerse themselves in pleasure, like a drug addict.
By the way, fascinating point about reproductive transference. It is another layer to this humanity puzzle.
It may be, but of the two men I can speak on, one has no father in his life, another is a ward to his adopted family, so both have no male figures to speak of. It isn’t a far cry for a boy’s transference and desire to have a male role model become a sexualized affair because he never learned the proper way to relate to males. This is my hypothesis as to why church figures have gotten away with pedophilia for decades. Or feminists and gays suggest male sexuality is androgynous. It isn’t. I haven’t found a full on way to prove it yet, but there may be something to the weak father making males sexualize men idea.
It is a loading topic so any idea I promote is just a bull-dogged hunch
OK, let’s flow with that for a moment.. There is no father, and he is missing something fundamental and he starts looking at other men.. But.. but. Here’s this hot woman coming down on him. Is he going to turn her down? This is where my circuit breakers get tripped.. I simply can’t conceive someone who’s born straight do that..
All the gay guys I know have dabbled in straight sex. Even know women who have been with guys they later have known to be gay. If there sexuality had little to do with an idealization, I would excuse it, but in truth, the men wanted these women, and then later admitted to wanting men. The only conscious switch I can think of is aggressive/ passive tendencies being reversed. Not unlike the men who always want the women to be in control or the men who may low testosterone levels and hate aggression in all forms, biologically they are placing themselves as receptive because they understand it easiest and it feels good. It could also mean they are internally afraid of being masculine or view it as an unruly destructive force.
It is easy to understand yourself as straight when you can relate positively to your own sex. Like I said, this is all a hypothesis.
I understand what you are saying.. I simply can’t put myself in their place, and therefore I refrain from judging them…
I am mainly curious because I would prefer not to have to deal with those issues if I am raising a son.
Did you ever ask one of you gay acquaintances about all these? I never did, so again I don’t know.
We have had open discussions about this. I am typically non judgmental in person and am curious in a scientific sort of way. They have just had the father issues in common. Not that they hated their fathers altogether, but something was off. It is tricky to staple the core down as typically people don’t look at their lives in a cause effect pattern.
You know, for a masked machine gun serial killer you seem pretty chill.
Sometimes I use rubber bullets. It depends on the day
Tits and pussy isn’t enough to prove male sexuality isn’t androgynous?
In a feminist dreamland maybe. They all want to swim in sex so they love having gays around because then male sexuality is safe because he is doing it to the other man too.
Women are easily explained. Genetic studies show that twice as many of our pre-agriculture female ancestors reproduced compared to male ancestors. Makes perfect sense given the rough conditions back then, males died in droves. Polygamy was the norm for most of human existence.
Nice work here Red.
***********
It is not politically convenient, but more and more I see evidence for a fluid model of sexuality. Unfortunately for those who would be victims, this robs them of almost all of the benefit of the “Born This Way” argument.
I’ve noticed something similar the more I speak with gay males and even bisexuals. In the talks I’ve had with them one on one, those that were open to revealing this fact showed they either looked into getting testosterone boosts, had a poor relationship with their fathers, or sometimes had no father. It does make me lean towards the thought that a strong male figure empowers a male to not sexualize other men and understand the gamut of how men can relate.
At this stage, this is not addressed publicly because of the equality prejudice going around to excuse their behavior. Being gay is the only sexuality that can endanger your life and it is normalized.
By the way, I remember reading once before that you had two STEM degrees. That is phenomenal! I’ve always wanted to venture into STEM but set that to the side for a liberal degree. Which STEMS did you get? Currently looking into returning for a second degree in STEM this time.
Don’t be too impressed. I don’t work in my degree fields.
BS Zoology.
Masters in Parasitology.
I mean more along the lines of how they differ from heterosexuals. As opposed to the line that they are EXACTLY THE SAME beyond preferring different equipment
That is a different question entirely. Think of it this way, for sex to operate effectively we need to have excellent communication of our sexuality. When everything is optimal for a man it reads as masculine energy you can trust and for women it reads as receptive energy that is warm, alive, and embracive of you. Homosexuals remove the body and stick with just the energy. Which is they operate off of bottom/top paradigm or butch/feminine paradigms. I imagine the ones that can alternate are no different than your heterosexuals that oscillate between masculine and feminine energy. If we were all blind we may typically reach for the same aspect, procreation that only the polar opposites can provide, masculine and feminine. That is my working theory at this time.
“Really, she will care more about herself than anyone else in the family.”
Actually, if a woman was selfish she would realize that being a good wife and mother would make her happy.
This was a brilliant piece of psychological analysis.
When women start marching for some human rights issue, the red flag should go up. They care as much for gay people as they do about the survival of the spotted owl. It’s all about them – always has been, always will be.
They are looking to eradicate to traditional model by redefining it. If they cannot be happy, nobody will.
Also, getting down to it…I believe it’s another example of attention whoring (being the center of attention).
Usually, with this type, it’s any attention at all (and being the center of it). Right, they could care less what the cause really stood for as long as the cameras are rolling.
Histrionic personality disorder…. the world needs an internationally funded mental institution with a military budget.
Start in southern California (the capital of it all) and move to other areas. It’s needed.
Feminists obviously don’t want to acknowledge statistics suggesting that actual, hardcore street rapists come disproportionately from single-mother households.
I’m sure most feminists and homos come from single mother households as well.
Feminism and homosexuality are on a spectrum in that they deny traditional sex roles: men and women are exactly the same from the neck up and other equalist nonsense. Trannies are an interesting case. They strongly believe in masculinity and femininity as being part of our essence as human beings. Otherwise, what’s the point in cutting your dick off if it’s all just a social construct?
your point about trannies rings true with me, although i am skeptical about these people.
I see it as hypocrisy from eqaulitists, if gender is purely a social construct then why change genders if you feel you are born the wrong one? Surely this defeats their own arguments that gender doesn’t exist.
Many have called trannies (or the thought process) a mental defect. The problem today (once again) is that we can’t call out any outrageous behavior (unless it’s by your typical white man) because it will offend someone. We used to have nut houses for a reason…many people were diagnosed with serious mental issues. Today, that’s not allowed so we have to let these people roam the streets.
One of the biggest problems is that they are treated as the rule instead of the exception to it. Whether or not gays, transsexuals, and others are otherwise normal functioning people isn’t necessarily the big issue. I believe the big problem is that they’re being treated as though the occurrences of these abnormalities are the same as normal straight people. The actual number of LGBT people is incredibly low because they’re the exception to the rule, but being portrayed and fooled into believing that they’re everywhere.
I wouldn’t really have a problem with the LGBT shit if society functioned normally, the traditional family unit was still supported, and emphasis in our society wasn’t being put on these frankenfamilies. LGBT would still be an abnormality and exception to the rule, but that doesn’t mean they couldn’t get civil unions or have to be stoned to death or something.
It is truly fucked up. Mental help is very hard to get nowadays and most people that need it simply can’t get it. They tried to close every single state funded mental hospital in my state until people complained about rapists and elderly pedophiles being released… now they’re keeping ONE open. It’s truly pathetic but also tied into the prison industrial complex because more crazy people equals more revenue from jails and prisons instead of more debt from funding mental hospitals.
I think all women support gay marriage.Likewise, most of women support flooding Europe with negroes and middle easterners.
The sexually deviant are the results of an improperly raised child-the result of the improper imprinting of gender norms by the parents. This I’ve seen firsthand from several of my former close friends. It is terrifying to see what were once rational, logical young men become rainbow wearing children.
This is all about the destruction of masculinity so there is no one to fight. Fight against what, I do not know. Foreign invasion? Domestic oppression? Either way, fuck that shit.
One more reason why I HATE SJW because they are demons and cancer to te world. If you say no to gay marriage, you are attacked. I’m tired of this man. I hope god would un leash judgment now!!!!!
Here’s my problem with all of this… I don’t care what people do in their bedrooms, and how they arrange their lives, but I don’t want to see billboards depicting gays or be told that I am a freak for not accepting the depicted image as normal. It is not fucking normal. It’s their business, I don’t care, I’m not going to fight it but leave me alone. That’s all I’m asking.
50% of convicted pedophiles are homosexual (convicted for a crime against the same sex) as opposed to what, 1-2% of the population, and you don’t care what they do in their bedrooms?
Agreed. Cannot stand this “I don’t care because it doesn’t involve me” mentality – it reeks of the solipsism that you’d expect from the average western whore (plus, that’s not even true, it really does affect everyday life in various ways). Would people feel the same way towards other sexual deviancy such as pedophilia? I hope not. So why the apathy towards homos…It is this attitude that allowed society to get to the point of self-censoring or facing fines, being fired, or even jail time. Not to mention, homos spread STDs the most, making them unhygienic and not suitable to hire (especially when dealing with food).
Not so long as it involves consenting adults I don’t.
Same with heterosexual couples.
You’re still okay with that statistic?
If the mainstream media started promoting goat fucking the same way they promoted gays there would be goat/human marriage legislation in 15 years with 50%+ public support.
Control the media and you control minds.
Control the media and you control minds.
+99999999999
Exactly. Kind of worrying what will be next – bestiality, incest, pedophilia, etc. The same idiots saying “none of my business what they do in their bedrooms” would be saying “none of my business what they do in their back yard” or “the animal isn’t resisting so it’s consensual”. Then we’d get called “bestophobics” or whatever. There’s a saying something along the lines of “stand for nothing, fall for anything”. Society needs to get a backbone and fast.
“If you don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything”
I found it at 78% of admitting to be gay
Also got to love how these homos say pedophilia and homosexual are completely different sexual feelings. Having urges to underaged boys is gay period
Three well known openly gay politicans have been caught with underaged boys. Yes and the Pope was a gay pedophile doesn’t matter if he was associated to Catholicism.
Yeah, I’m just reading the latest ROK article.. Disgusting…
Exactly. I used to be far more ‘live and let live’ before America went full blown (no pun) gay and started pushing this shit everywhere.
Yea that’s because we start to realize there IS no middle ground. You’re either pushing your views on others or someone is pushing theirs.
If you’re apathetic about certain issues. The people doing the pushing will eventually hit a place close to home for you.
The problem is when you realize this is how the world works, the loonies have already gained considerable ground while we were busy “living and letting live” and ” just trying not to be negative brah”
Sometimes I wonder what if all of those men who died in WWII lived instead. I bet like 80% of the whining today would never exist.
Hmm. Makes you wonder who was behind WWII and who benefited most from the deaths of millions of whites, men in particular. (what group spawned feminism?)
What’s that line about knowing who rules us because we are not allowed to criticize them?
Godwin’s Law to take effect in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1…
You’re either the homo bigot who hates straights and wants the government to force them to bake a cake for you, or you’re part of the marginalized normals who can’t even utter a critical word against gays or else lose your job. One of many low grade civil wars ignited in America.
leave me and my hypothetical kids alone. they know they have to indoctrinate children because kids instinctively know it’s wrong
even when they think the opposite sex has cooties.
He has, it is called AIDS and hepatitis both are contracted and spread by deviant (to nature. (religion is just making rules from natural laws)) behavior.
I personal hate how Gay-Marriage has become an issue that people (especially on the Left) fighting over this while other things far more important like War, National debt and other things are ignored. The issue of marriage should not be political but is and has been ever since marriages required licenses. Politicians love when people want issues to be decided by government because it means more money will come in from both sides. Really marriage used to be and I think it should return to be a community activity (which ever community you surround yourself with) and issues like this would come down to who you wish to associative with.
SJW lack the intelligence to talk about those issues hence why they stick to gay agenda, feminism, religion bashing (actual knowledge in religion not just Christianity requires a brain though), far as they go on those issues is the meanies like ISIS and Hitler but only use their names to compare with someone they are arguing with
Well SJW type people without the power of government are just annoying people. Honestly how many really care about say sexism in video games? Well the people playing it don’t care (otherwise they would stop playing it) and most other people who are not playing it are doing something else. Most people know once they start criticizing they might get criticize back for their opinions and hobbies so will hold their judgement. But with government power different groups and individuals want used the force. This is the danger with people like SJW, ISIS or other groups is not the arguments that they make (because people are either persuaded or not) but when they get power or someone who has power forces their ideas and laws on society over the peaceful means of persuasion.
Egotist/Narcissist only believe and think about things that pertain to them. They do so, so much that they start to believe that the rules that they like, pertain to everyone, and the ones they do not like, pertain to everyone else. All fags and lesbo are narcissists so they see the world and everybody in it as players in their game. The reason that Narcissism was dropped from the the list of disorders, is that the psychs reasoned that since all gays are normal, they almost all test out as narcissists, narcissist must actually be normal. From my experience, the people making the rules are gay. So what can you expect?
I hadn’t thought about it much until recently, but the two movements (feminism and gay marriage) are closely linked. I think it’s (gay marriage) detrimental to society (2 men or 2 women won’t produce children [which IMO each individual has a societal obligation to produce]), and while I’m against it on social/cultural levels (marriage to me is a religious issue), I’m “OK” with it legally.
The bigger issue I have is that for a good chunk of their supporters, you have to agree with not just their stance 100%, but their rationale 100% too.
Dalrock has a lot of good material on this. In short, gay marriage is framed in the companionate marriage model, which feminists advocate consistent with their emphasis on Feeeeelings; patriarchal marriage is/was a deal/arrangement to have families. The two things have similar nomenclature and terminology but radically different outcomes.
If a woman advocates gay marriage, she will treat her own according to her feelings, and not with respect to the marriage commitment.
Let’s see if the gay divorce rate skyrockets as it (gay marriage) becomes increasingly common. I think gays (on an individual level) can be just as able to honor the marriage commitment as much as straights.
Irrelevant- it’s the conception of the model that matters. If you think marriage is about making you happy (vs a commitment to having a family) then you’re more likely to leave when you’re not “happy” all the time. This is the mentality most women have now.
True. The problem for most marriages occurs when the fantasy goes away. If the fantasy was the only thing that marriage had going for it, then there’s nothing left in that marriage.
Gays have much higher open relationship rates. Over 50% of gay couples are fucking other people on the side (known or unknown by the other partner). throw in hyper promiscuity, bug chasing, and higher rates of mental illness in gays, and the prospects of them ‘honoring marriage commitment’ is laughable. Talk to some actual gay people if you don’t believe me.
That’s the other lie pushed by mainstream media: Gays are “just like us”. Nope. They’re not. They’re far more fucked up, but don’t let facts get in the way of progressive propaganda, hm k?
It’s funny that anyone can say a person in the mental hospital is insane qnd analyze them as such but don’t you dare say gays are mentally crazy
If producing children is an “obligation” what about couples (hereosexual) where one partner is infertile and conception is impossible?
Should they be allowed to marry?
Oblique counter argument. I call bull shit.
Not at all. It directly addresses one of his points.
Yeah.
And as we’ve seen, marriage isn’t a prerequisite to having children. Unmarried people have kids all the time.
That doesn’t address my question in the slightest.
Marriage, real one at least, used to be a religious and cultural experience where the union of a man and his woman was officialized, in the context of either a monogamous or polygamous relation. Thiese didn’t change with a few occurrences of infertility (even in today’s factories a small amount of machines manufactured have defects, the same applies to biology).
The main purpose of marriage, in this context is for the union of men and women and the conception and raising of the future generations, along with whatever wealth can be accumulated and passed on to the descendants of the union. The man got descendants and the woman got her children taken care of financially and physically (security against threats), hence the possibility of early child death was reduced.
This all changed with the abomination of legal marriage where the government took control of the institution, signaling its demise later on. Nowadays, in the hierarchy of contracts, the marriage is the lowest of the low, hence less people are willing to marry.
That still doesn’t address my question.
In that case, the infertility is not due to sexual orientation (a choice), but rather medical issues (not a choice). So, yes, the couple should be allowed to marry, since they at least chose the right gender for each other. They could adopt. After all, it is married heterosexual couples that raise children the best (children’s behavior is more stable, better grades, since hetero parents have least chance of abusive environment, etc).
Neither is a choice.
That’s BS. You know who started claiming that homos were “born that way” and that “gender is a social construct” BS? It wasn’t “lady” gaga – it was a pedophile (surprise, surprise) named John Money, who advocated for pedophilia. The same freak who sexually experimented with twin boys and forced them to engage in homosexual acts, causing one twin to later committed suicide from the mental torment it caused while the other developed schizophrenia.
So how many dicks did you suck before you decided you were straight and gay wasn’t for you?
Public authorities would be justified in suppressing homosexuality on public health grounds alone.
In other words, single white female feminism is using the gay “marriage” argument and support as red herring to reel in suckers.
I’ve personally known gay guys in real life and if I were in their shoes, I would rightfully feel butthurt and betrayed for getting used like this. For the record, I even had gay men as father figures, especially when I got deprived of growing up with a biological father figure all the way to adulthood.
Seriously, this is the 3rd Millennium of the Gregorian Calendar and yet, SWFs in the Anglosphere still feel butthurt about ‘competition’ from gay men as if we were still in Victorian England.
I don’t really have a problem with homosexuality, because what they do doesn’t affect my life one bit. What two people do in private, well, whoopty do as far as I am concerned. Much worse than gay marriage is the lesbians in Australia like Penny Wong who insist on ‘having babies’ with their girlfriends and saying they are ‘mothers’, and are celebrated by the lefty media as heroes, despite sharing zero DNA with the child. And what about the poor kid, deliberately denied a father so lesbians can make a political statement by having a ‘trophy baby’ – makes me sick. This isn’t just two consenting adults having sex, it is deliberately making an innocent person’s life a freakshow. Very selfish in my opinion..
So if a male is infertile and he and his wife get a sperm donor from a clinic and he raises that child, is he the “father” to that child?
Biology says no.
Yes, exactly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinderella_effect
Animals, human beings included, tend to mistreat offspring who are not genetically related to them.
Think about it from an evolutionary view. Why would an animal invest time and energy into offspring that are genetically unrelated to them? That would only serve to waste time and energy on offspring that isn’t theirs, reducing the amount of time and energy that would’ve been used in the continuation of their genes.
Thus, animals(humans too) who are genetically adapted to ignore offspring that aren’t related to them will have more time and energy to invest in their own offspring, thereby increasing the prevalence of those ‘ignore unrelated’ genes.
My point is: SJWs are trying to ignore and change fundamental tenants of biology in the name of ‘progress’. They tell mothers that they can leave the biological fathers of their children without consequences. They tell LGBT people to bear children that aren’t theirs. etc.
This has the side effect of making the lives of these children worse, despite their intentions.
Exactly. And then the next question is: How about the rights of those children?… Really dangerous stuff they’re messing with..
Society says yes.
Society says that dress is gold-coloured, when it’s obviously blue.
Biology existed before society. Biology sets the rules, not a delusional society.
Gold
SJWs ignore all scientific information that contradicts their narrative.
Doesn’t matter what discipline.
Yes he is, the sperm donor cannot show up 9 months later and make a claim to that child.
The problem being (in many cases) the child not having the influences of a mother or a father. You can argue “technicalities” all day long. Some men, today, are not the biological fathers of children but they’ve had an impact on the child’s life growing up (the influence of a man in their life). Same for the mother.
It think that’s what we all need to focus on. Not having one or the other is detrimental to the child’s well being.
Actually studies have shown that children who grow up in a stable two parent same sex household tested virtually the same as in stable two parent heterosexual households.
They actually scored higher but it fell within the margin of error.
The sex of the parents seems to matter less than the stability of the household and that there is two parents there.
What Driver was referring to wasn’t quantifiable measurements such as sociability or intelligence but overall psychological well-being and whether they are adjusted for adulthood proper. Gay unions are still to new to assess this completely but with regards to straight couples, they are noticeable deficiencies when one or both sexes operate off kilter.
I don’t mean stable or unstable. I’m talking about certain influences that a child can only get through one or the other. Women bring some things to the table and men bring some things to the table. I believe a child can benefit greatly from having both influences.
Psychological well being was one of many categories they measure in these studies.
And the conclusion in every one of them that went through peer review was that children need stability more than any other thing.
Back in 2012, Professor Regnerus of the University of Texas conducted a study comparing 3000 adults, and found that stability was provided best in married heterosexual relationships. Compared to children raised by married heterosexual couples, the children raised by homosexual couples were “Two to four times more likely to be on public assistance. More than twice as likely to be unemployed. Twice as likely to have contemplated suicide. More likely to seek treatment for mental illness. More likely to have engaged in unmarried sex. At greater risk of poverty, substance abuse, and criminality.” (from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000610).
Of course, homosexuals were butt hurt (no pun intended) about the professor’s audacity to publish scientific truths, and launched a vicious attack on his career – he was accused of “scientific and scholarly misconduct, possible falsification of research, and deviating from ethical standards…the University convened a four-person faculty committee and hired an outside expert in “research integrity” to conduct an inquiry. The Committee concluded that none of the allegations against Professor Regnerus were substantiated, and that there was no scientific misconduct on his part.”
So now all of a sudden we have “studies” claiming that children are better off raised by degenerates, in order to launch more attacks against traditional marriage.
More info at: http://www.henrymakow.com/gay-parenting-conducive-to-sex.html#sthash.paq6xq8u.dpuf
But there is a drastic problem in assessing their stability; children are very compliant to adults. This is the biggest reason it is so hard to know what affected them in a negative or sometimes positive way, because they don’t know much other than following directives. When on their own you can see more of who they really are but it is a crap shoot where you do your best and still have to leave some areas to trust.
The reason Regnerus’s study has been derided has nothing to do with the “homosexual agenda”. It has to do with it being bad science.
The writer of this article is a bigot, who needs to get educated to the fact that there are different lifestyles in this world. I personally feel I should of been born a slug. I am trying to get my arms and legs amputated and get mucus gland implants all over my body. I have known all my life I should of been a slug ever since I was a child. I am prevented from living the true “slug life” because of horrible hate filled bigots like the readers of this misogynistic and homophobic web site.
I was really born a lion but unfortunately I was placed in a human’s body…im not even a “male” either im a 2 spirited, halfling lion born completely wrong. I understand how you feel, hopefully we’ll be able to beat the socially norms and live our lives freely!
Haha that was kinda fun…
And Snoop Dogg was a dog born in a human’s body. Who then morphed into a lion in a human’s body. And then back to a dog. Can’t we all just admit that these people are crazy?
Hehe, has Diane Sawyer contacted you for an interview?
No not yet, she is probably a human supremacist
She’s more likely a speciest.
Are you transgender or trans-species?
This world needs more bigots — bigots who make the correct, right and moral choices and shun that which is depraved and perverse. Only a perverse culture makes bigotry that chooses the better over the lesser, or the natural over the unnatural, a sin worthy of eternal punishment.
What’s right?
Nature is blind to man’s ideals and will prove the intellectual idealist a fool when his or her being is snuffed out in favor of a stronger force. Darwinian? Perhaps. I just say it’s nature’s way. And that, my friends, is enough to put me in the bigot column.
Ah, whatever. I’m getting to old for this shit.
>This world needs more bigots
Ah, finally someone gets it
You are worse than a slug, you are a queer.
You only say that because you secretly want my snail trail…
I’m not sure about this post. I believe in rationality. But Scott Eckern is a mormon who didn’t support gay marriage. Most mormons don’t. Feminism has very little to do with mormon opposition to gay marriage. What’s your point?
Feminism has everything to do with any opposition to gay marriage.
Agree. Most people don’t realize that if you’re not with them then you’re against them (their line of thought).
You can’t be independent (like Switzerland) in these wars….they won’t allow it.
You must agree with them or they’ll call you out, too.
Agreed.
Feminists support gay marriage because they’re dykes. It’s not just an alliance between feminists and gays. In a lot of cases those are the same people.
Spot on. And women being the herd animals that they are, will support others in the herd simply because they are also women.
Most conservatives would have absolutely no problem with government issuing civil unions between any group of consenting adults who wished to combine their legal dealings for tax, inheritance, medical, insurance and other such legal purposes, and leaving weddings and marriages strictly to the religious sector.
But you’re right, it is all about control. Only government can legally punish people who don’t go with the flow.
Wow what a very stupid article. Gay marriage has little to no effect on fatherhood. Also in most countries civil unions do not entitle people to the exact same rights as Marriage. So the civil union argument is bogus USA is also one of the few western countries in the world that doesn’t allow gay marriage. A girl opposed to what other consenting adults do would turn me off. Give me a feminist, and communist with a personality over a bland “traditional” robotic Stepford wife.
Here’s to hoping you get one.
Already have.
Heh. You’re gonna get it alright.
The words “irreconcilable differences” will soon become well known to you.
Amongst other words.
Not married and don’t have plans for it. So I do not see those words becoming known to me.
Try not to become “commitmentphobic” lol.
Call me crazy, but I’d rather have a woman who actually respects me and embraces her femininity.
I bet your wife is fat, hairy, and bossy.
Not a single one of those things. Also what do political views have to do with appearance?
You said you are not attracted to Stepford wives, which if you bothered to notice are very feminine and attractive. Feminist generally are lesbians, fat, ugly, whores, bossy personalities, and most normal men avoid them like the plague. If you are into the uglies well I commend you for taking one for the team.
Here are some words you need to familiarize yourself with, open marriage, adultery, divorce, child support, alimony, debt, and weekend visits with the children if your wife hasn’t already aborted them all.
Bless you. I speak from experience. The last part is 100% accurate. Don’t forget to mention the mental anguish of it all.
Yea I have met Feminists that meet that description. I also met some very ugly fat women hitting on me that had some scary conservative “family values” and hated labor unions. Political ideology has no connection to appearance. Also I doubt most normal men would avoid Emma Watson who is a feminist.
She’s such a brave girl, going to places like Riyadh, Karachi and Kabul to encourage oppressed women there that they too can be free.
Oh wait.
Clearly you don’t know many “normal” men
I’ll remember that next time another guy praises the values of the angry feminist over a beautiful, sweet, feminine woman which has become a diamond in the rough in the west.
Emma Watson is a limousine liberal. She pays lip service to feminism, then goes on about how she likes more aggressive men, and can be seen going out with guys who might be considered more “alpha.”
She practices feminism from her penthouse apartment. You have to love these types the most. They’re not really down in the trenches with everyone else..they just parrot the nonsense back to the people “yeah, I’m with you…..from up here”.
Got to love the ones that are anti gun with their armed bodyguards
TROLL HERE. I though I would share this with everyone so you can be as mad as I am right now!!!!!!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsxnezDOPHw
of course….they need protection. They’ll gladly make appearances, talk nonsense about the environment, blah, blah, blah….they just never do any of the heavy lifting.
How the fuck would having two MOMS not have an effect on FATHERhood?
Despite what delusional feminists and single moms think, a woman can not be a fucking father.
Because father is a social construct a long with everything else, bla bla bla, privilege, etc etc etc.
Until the girl starts cutting herself, has a permanent little girl voice because she is more prone to rape, or searches for daddy in whatever crotch says yes. Not to mention a higher unavailability to trust men as a whole. Wonder why all these girls are touting rape culture? Look no further than their absent fathers.
It’s obviously the fault of the patriarchy and evil heteronormative societal conventions making her act that way.
Isn’t that the truth. I’ve been around long enough to the see the rise in the “daddy issues” with women. I’ve seen it with women starting in their 20s through their 40s (and it’s getting worse). You can see it in the way that women interact with men (more so over long term).
Those red flags are always there. She might try to hide them but they eventually pop out.
Obviously. I hear Bin Ladin has been working on a subtle theta wave programming since 1847. This feedback loop might have been what Alexander Graham Bell came upon to start the telephone, but the programming was well under way.
I think all the men saying yes to feminism and unveiling their own hatred for masculinity, and the jarring notion that a real man is servile to a woman. Lesbian parents, single mothers, absent fathers, adopted children, hell I know a person who was a ward of the state. A Ward of the State! I didn’t know that even existed outside of fiction.
Men will only realize that it’s in their best interest only after they’ve been dragged through hell (divorce court) by a woman. Many men only wake up (and come here) after that initial shock. Until then, many are still plugged in. We’ll help them once they cross over.
I completely agreed with you. I have seen some shit, too much shit, for one life time to ever truly be plugged in. If it weren’t for a relationship I was in ending in a very jarring way, and me being a stubborn guy not going back, I may have never openly have come across this site. Only after a recommendation did I realize this was a place that I have sought to create in real life for a long while. The self improvement aspects are amazing and I have noticed a quantifiable difference as to how much love I have for myself. I’ll gladly extend the same courtesy to any other patron to this site I run across.
I went through my 20s (in the 90s) but I always had the feeling something was off. As I’ve read more over the years (from this site, the rational male, etc…) and seeing the Matrix it became pretty clear. We’re lucky to have this information (and confirmed for me)…it will help to unplug many of the others.
Men only had meetings like these to share information at the old “men only” clubs and locker rooms. Once the feminist tore those down, we had nowhere to go to share the info.
Feminists and SJWs are pissed because we’ve rebuilt our club (the new stronghold).
As well they should be. If more of us get together the faux power they have amassed will be toppled in such a way they will never see power again.
I remember those men only meetings. I held quite a few in high school and then later re-instated them in college. It is funny how the men who never sat at the table I always suspected to be cowards in some way, shape, or form. I was 100% right about every one of the guys I had suspicions on.
Divorce court isn’t even needed…. child support is just as bad if not worse.
Marxist theorists-Antonio Gramsci of Italy and Georg Lukacs of Hungary-concluded that the Christianized West was the obstacle standing in the way of a communist new world order. The West would have to be conquered first.
Gramsci posited that because Christianity had been dominant in the West for over 2000 years, not only was it fused with Western civilization, but it had corrupted the workers class. The West would have to be de-Christianized, said Gramsci, by means of a “long march through the culture.” Additionally, a new proletariat must be created. In his “Prison Notebooks,” he suggested that the new proletariat be comprised of many criminals, women, and racial minorities.
The new battleground, reasoned Gramsci, must become the culture, starting with the traditional family and completely engulfing churches, schools, media, entertainment, civic organizations, literature, science, and history. All of these things must be radically transformed and the social and cultural order gradually turned upside-down with the new proletariat placed in power at the top.
In 1919, Georg Lukacs became Deputy Commissar for Culture in the short-lived Bolshevik Bela Kun regime in Hungary. He immediately set plans in motion to de-Christianize Hungary. Reasoning that if Christian sexual ethics could be undermined among children, then both the hated patriarchal family and the Church would be dealt a crippling blow.
The primary goal of the Frankfurt School was to translate Marxism from economic terms into cultural terms. It would provide the ideas on which to base a new political theory of revoltuion based on culture, harnessing new oppressed groups for the faithless proletariat. Smashing religion, morals, It would also build a constituency among academics, who could build careers studying and writing about the new oppression.
“In Aug., 2003, the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) announced the results of their $1.2 million tax-payer funded study. It stated, essentially, that traditionalists are mentally disturbed. Scholars from the Universities of Maryland, California at Berkeley, and Stanford had determined that social conservatives…suffer from ‘mental rigidity,’ ‘dogmatism,’ and ‘uncertainty avoidance,’ together with associated indicators for mental illness.” http://www.edwatch.org/ ‘Social and Emotional Learning” Jan. 26, 2005)
Reading most of the comments here on ROK has led me to believe that the Cultural Marxists “Long slow march through the institutions” has been a limited success over the generations. Most here reject any form of racism and or Christianity, but not all. Another twenty years will see nearly all Americans finally reject everything which is not politically correct. Or end up for life in an insane asylum or in front of a firing squad.
ROK is here for profit, not much else really. The day Roosh ceases to make money with ROK will be the day our club, our stronghold, will crumble.
Some interesting points…but there always be others. The manosphere is the stronghold…not just ROK..it’s not just one site. It’s a movement that is growing by the day.
I don’t like the term movement. Zeitgeist perhaps but not movement. I had a movement this morning.
A list of red flags would be great for those who have not experienced all of them… that’s if an article hasn’t been done about this already.
I have been thinking about writing such an article. But my list of red flags is pretty unique. Roosh recently pointed out some.
You only need to look where a woman is trying to interject herself into any “movement”.
Then, start questioning why she’s doing it…what’s motivating her to do so? Don’t listen to her answer or words…just watch her actions (it will tell you everything). If she’s in the middle of every parade, photo shoot, camera shot, filming, etc….then you know it’s all (really) about attention whoring…nothing else.
She’ll tell you all day long that it’s because of her beliefs or her brother (or sister) but the real reason is for the attention. Ask her if her dad was around at all…did she get attention when she was younger. You’ll eventually hit the real problem once you start digging.
Turn off the fucking TV your prog propaganda talking points are showing.
“Feminists display a weird distaste for raising their children because the center of attention is distracted away from them. Social acceptance for gay parents helps them take the focus away from children. The children of gay couples are necessarily adopted or created with involving a third person, so marriage is no longer about two people having children. Children are an accessory that garnishes their marriage; marriage is not about resulting in children.”
Correct. On the homosexual marriage, it is really totally artificial divide-and-conquer issue created by YKW and their cohorts. I live in NYC and have some homosexuals who I would call friends. 90% or more of the male homos could care less about all this political garbage. They get plenty of respect and really always have. Sure, in small towns they won’t be totally accepted, but a lot of them know the small towns need to be more conservative for a society to function at all. Feminists don’t get this. Homo men also get all the respect and fulfillment they need if they live in NYC, Chicago, LA, etc. There most of them have high profile/status jobs, large social circles, and little to know discrimination toward them. It has been this way in the big cities for a long time, so all this political “respect” BS is just that. It is about destabilization nothing more.
Other than using them as a political tool, feminists generally hate homosexual males. All the areas where straight men don’t prove superior to women homo men do. With straight men women recognize their inferiority in endeavors like sports, weightlifting, fighting, science, guitar playing, chess, welding, carpentry, mechanics, farming, etc, etc, etc. Homo men fill in the rest by being better than women at would normally be thought of as female endeavors: hair styling, fashion design, interior decoration, event planning, etc. Straight men and homo men together prove conclusively: if men put their mind to it they are better than women at everything except one thing: having children and nuturing them. The funny thing is, homos will state this more brazenly than us. This is what feminists hate most.
Agreed. All of my gay male friends tend to be as red pill as any guy here. As long as you don’t attack them on their sexuality. And really you shouldn’t have to as long as they keep their sexual misadventures to themselves
Same. I’ve met gay dudes that are more self-reliant and masculine than an average straight beta.
Had a conversation with my gay male friend from New York and he was one of the first to call power grab syndrome on women as a whole with regards to feminist culture. Another guy I know, who sleeps with a lot of women, works out, martial artist, and high IQ, is far more skeptical, labels himself a feminist, and avoids any hint at the truth even as he has had exes who have burned him, or slept with women who were with guys. I’d label him as an inverted red-pill guy.
I highly doubt lisp talking is biological… You don’t come out of the uterus acting like a stereotypical fag.
Whether some men have an openness to sexual relations with other men however seems to me most likely to be a mix of biological disposition and social development. There is most likely a spectrum of gayness as well with variation in its influences.
I’m ok with letting people be themselves but liberals create hysteria around these issues to leverage their political agendas.
i think it;s partially a form of dominance, a man having sex with another man to dominate and make the man his “bitch” is not necessarily “sexually attracted to him” it’s possible to be so alpha that you are willing to have sex with a man as a sadistic endeavor
I bet there really are gay men out there like that. I get the impression the ancient Romans were into some of that shit… personal boy slaves and all…
But I think gays are a heterogenous group. Not all gay males are going to fit that mould. There is probably a lot of variety in what drives gays to prefer men as sexual partners.
“i think it;s partially a form of dominance, a man having sex with another man to dominate and make the man his ‘bitch’ is not necessarily ‘sexually attracted to him’ it’s possible to be so alpha that you are willing to have sex with a man as a sadistic endeavor”
No matter their reasons (“In prison with no ladies, what’s a brother to do?”), no matter their desires (“I’m not really sexually attracted to men, I’m just a sadist”), no matter their excuses (faggots catch, “ultra” men pitch. Or, young boys aren’t men yet, so having sex with one doesn’t make a man a faggot. Etc.); they’re all abominations.
The root of homosexual practices stems from sexual abuse suffered when they were children. Homosexuality was on the Mental Disorders list for a reason, until PC and feelings got in the way of science and truth, and it is being pushed as “normal”. Dr. Thomas Schmidt, author of Straight and Narrow, states that, “although under 4 percent of boys are molested by men, a recent major study found that the rate of childhood molestation by men among homosexual or bisexual men was nearly ten times that (35 percent)…75 percent of homosexual men report their first homosexual experience prior to the age of sixteen, as compared to 22 percent of heterosexual men reporting their first heterosexual experience.” One could also argue that the lack of a father figure growing up, with the encouragement of the single mom and society in general (sometimes taking the form of putting her son in a dress), as well as the pro-gay sex-ed written by a pedophile, could also increase the number of those identifying as homosexual.
Yup. No excuse for sexual deviancy, whether it be homosexuality, incest, bestiality, pedophilia, etc. I don’t even know why people associate (heh) with those degenerates, especially since they are often hostile to dissent regarding their lifestyle choices (which they often bring up and shove in everyone’s faces).
Interesting. I do know someone that fits that description perfectly.
I haven’t done enough research on this subject to factor out possible biological influences though.
Spartans — Pederasty. It was the way young boys started their warrior training.
They left that part out of the 300 movie.
Spartans started their training with a cockmeat sandwich?
Feminists all have gay male friends. Its the trendiest thing going. Its the fag hag trend.
This is a joke, right? We’re supposed to find attractive young women who put out, and are simultaneously uptight enough to oppose what other other people so in the bedroom. Gotcha.
I suppose that depends on if your end goal is looking for someone to stick your dick in right away or stick your dick in as part of a relationship.
Well, I personally don’t oppose gay marriage. I don’t go championing it, just think it’s none of my fucking business. I’m pretty libertarian like that, why would I seek women who disagree with my own belief?
If she’s more against it, then she’s a lot more conservative, and conservative girls are far better relationship material than liberal ones. They’re also more likely to listen and be receptive to what you have to say.
No argument there. Just think there are better barometers of a girl being traditional on male/female roles than how they feel about this issue. And in 2015, there aren’t even many conservative girls still against gay marriage (and I live in the south) -Edited to add, I’m not a churchgoer, so that about kills it.
There are plenty of women who are against it. Don’t hide behind the whole this is 20xx. Humanity hasn’t changed much in how we house our group-centrism.
There can definitely be better barometers. Being more negative on this issue will probably tell you a whole lot more about the girl, though. If she’s against gay marriage, then you can bet she’s probably pretty traditional… unless she’s so far into feminism that she believes gay marriage is sexist towards women because gay men just hate them.
Live in the south as well. Churches aren’t what they used to be down here. They are very much pandering to feminists as well to get more “butts in the seats”.
Any man going to church, today, who has attended church in the past knows that it’s a very different climate.
Feminists and gays both believe all their unhappiness in life can be blamed on “patriarchy”. They are natural allies. Gays learned all their tactics from feminists. Most gay men are male feminists. All gay women are feminists.
We will need gay marriage once it is illegal for men to be single. I have a great friend I trust. And because he is a male and neither of us want children nor a traditional marriage he is the perfect candidate. Any prenup will stand because it is “men”.
Sooo… The gay marriage thing may come in handy some day. Mark my words… with MGTOW and MRA as hot button issues and men refuse to marry this may be the protection straight men need.
I work in a place that’s mostly female and trust me: they already act like it’s a crime for a straight-male to be single.
Women generally dislike it when a wallet goes unclaimed.
hahahaha
Right you are.
Something to think about, though. I’m wondering if two men (marry) will they be taxed at a different rate since neither one will be able to become pregnant. It would be similar to the “bachelor tax” that we talk about on here.
Will the government need to change things because daddy government will still need the support money (if men go this route). This one is something to think about (and keep an eye on).
Chances are that may occur. Once a non-favored group figures out how to game the game the laws will change.
Men don’t marry other men, but degenerates do. You can’t call yourself a man if you practice sexual deviancy.
Who said anything about sex. It is all about keeping the government out of your pocket book. All I said was marrying a buddy. They only thing you are using is the person as a place filler.
My guess.. You saw sex in the comment and wanted it. From a man.
Gay marriage in america was forced on the people by courts. The shit was voted down twice in california, the most liberal state. Judges are dictators in black robes that subvert the will of the people. America is not a democracy, but we already knew that. I’m not trying to bait the stormwatch trolls but gay marriage is going to be decided by the supreme court and who wants to bet that all 3 jewish judges support it? Then you can marry your sister because… tolerance…
Women often support shit they have no clue about, but FEEL STRONGLY ABOUT. That’s why it’s necessary to put a bit in their mouth like a horse and control them lest they tear down a society.
Any woman that supports a “cause” other than her husband and family has at a minimum emotional issues, and at worst severe psychological issues.
Supporting GLBT issues shows how deranged the american female is. And if it’s a male jumping on the bandwagon, their masculinity is open for questioning.
It’s been straight downhill ever since they gained the right to vote…………….
No doubt. But if men ruled women, they’d vote the way we tell ’em to …. ore else! And women with any sense in their heads would respect that and do what they’re told, rather than what tingly feelings in their crotch the look-good, feel-good politicians invoke.
99% of women are incapable of logical thinking and are myopic to the point that it should disqualify them from taking part in any form of governing and decision making. In saying that the majority of men are barely thinking zombies and should have as much say in governing as women. A non commercial all male elite would be preferable , or at least an elite that didn’t rule solely in the interest of the business class.
That is a problem in Anglo-English speaking society. “Tenderness” being soft for women.
You can see it with Henry VIII, as the Wolfe Tones said, “his dick was bigger than his head.”
Any source on that 99% fact?
On rocket sleds…
The Bible was so right about women.
“As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.”
Yeah, women HATE the Bible once they take the time to read the damn thing rather than follow their feelings, spurred on by a torrent of false teachings and preaching in most mainstream feel-good churches.
So be it!
We’re learning now exactly why it was right..
I think that only feminists hate it. I see a lot of women reading it on the train. These are usually women with families, performing their traditional roles.
Yep, strong, empowered, independent women despise it. But I’ve seen plenty of strong marriages in the Orthodox church because these women get it. They enjoy staying at home, being obedient, covering their heads in church, and raising the kids.
Would you mean quoting the verse, chapter etc? Thanks.
1 Timothy 2:11 Apostle Paul writing to Timothy, his protege.
The Bible is not right about shit. This article was written by a moron.
Hey, sports fans, after all these thousands of years we have with us one of the original writers of the Bible. Welcome aboard.
Try telling that to God, on Judgment Day.
I commend you for your incisive, logical dissent that revealed a great intellect and superior knowledge of history. Were you captain of your debate team in college?
Was there any real point to debate in what he said? As soon as a person turns to the bible they are not actually thinking.
I am not a feminist, but when a person turns to the bible for answers they are dumber than a feminist.
Which god? Why do you feel the god your parents told you about is the right one?
When you die, there is nothing after. Believing in an afterlife is garbage. Go blow yourself up in a Jihad if you think that way.
What do you know about the many anonymous authors of the bible?
How is the bible any different than any other holy book?
Unwin said the religion of a society is changed by the sexual liberty of women, just as the prosperity and function of society itself. So, i well understand your religion or lack of it is not exactly a totally free choice. Still it is your religion and deserving of tolerance as anyone’s beliefs are.
The study bibles mostly have best theories on who wrote which book in the Bible. Based on Hebrew historians and other information as analyzed by modern computer systems..
In the early days of the US, universities such as Harvard and Yale were actually seminaries. Non-believers used to heckle the seminary students. Things like, “Where are your Hittites?”
Of course, later the existence of the Hittites was proven.
Modern computers have helped sort out a lot of stuff on the Bible. There is actually a lot of data available in archeology but no one could sort it out.Today, with computerization, they can catalog it and have found much of the history stated in the Bible was based on reality. That is the history stuff, not the theology stuff.
I realize you are simply trying to pick a fight, and frankly I have much better things to do with my time. However the correct answer to your last question is, if you don’t believe any of them, for your purposes there is no difference between them.
http://lowres.jantoo.com/religion-gods-afterlife-classicist-popes-zeus-74030744_low.jpg
We have sorted out that the old testament had 5 main authors who edited the ones that came before them. We learn that the Hebrew people where not monotheistic until around 500BC. That was when a king at the time, along with the religious leaders, decided that the war god, Yahweh, should be worshiped alone.
We have learned that cities they mention did exist. That and possibly a line of kings is about all it has for history.
I am not trying to silence ply pick a fight. I guess I am just disappointed to find out that RoK is written by idiots. If they think gay men are any kind of threat it is because they are not secure with themselves somehow. It too often takes a Christian theme and becomes nonsense.
I find it interesting that you say several times, “We”. Who exactly is “We”, NO, am not asking anyone to out themselves.
I am wondering if you are an academic studying Hebrew history. Or, perhaps you belong to an organization which prints their agenda articles giving such a view. Or have read in depth. “We” is a strong statement.
Just as calling ROK writers idiots is a strong statement. And, an unwise one.
You make the same error many gays make. You use fear words to describe the feelings of straights towards gays. We feel threatened. We are not secure.
Listen up, okay. We are not afraid of you. We don’t like you, period. There aren’t enough of you to make us afraid.
I have a nephew who is gay. My best friend in the USA has a nephew who is gay. In both cases, we really don’t care about their sexual practices. They are trouble makers, period.
Whenever there is a gay, there is fussing and fighting about SOMETHING.
My friend says when his nephew comes in the room, he is looking around to see who he can get to fight with whom.
My nephew does pretty much the same thing. And, even while he has people fighting amongst themselves, that stupid smile never leaves his face.
The gays I worked with were pretty much the same, man or woman. Always drama and quarreling. And, lies.
A few years ago, there was a major campaign stating that AIDs was growing fastest among straights. Later, a journalist who participated in that campaign admitted that he knew it was a lie, but he felt sorry for the gays so he helped out.
And, now the attitude is anyone who does not openly embrace gays as being totally normal must be destroyed.
This will also have been a mistake.
Just as forcing our kids to listen to gay indoctrination in primary school was a mistake.
And, this was noted several thousand years ago.
The bible is mostly dogma… like the majority of religions! Religion is like muddy water, you have to shift the mud out to get the truth… this is the case with most aspects of our evolving thought processes and belief constructs! To say that there is no after life is a gross assumption that I will not dare make because I simply cannot be sure what fate awaits me once I die… whatever happens however I very much doubt that it will be nothing at all! I feel much much older then my biological age and I believe there is a reason for that!
As to people who turn to the bible are dumber then feminists… well your off your rocker about that one! Feminists by far are close to the dumbest most brainwashed imbeciles I have ever met anywhere around the world! Most religious individuals have more mental power leaking out their ass then a feminist could hope to gather in her entire lifetime!
Self Mastery is the only solution to any issue that presents itself… time for us to get back to the basics!
There is no difference between being brainwashed by feminism and being brainwashed by a holy book. The two are quite equal in that regard.
Talking about what happens after life is as stupid as a car asking how it will run after it is turned off.
Self mastery can not really start until you get rid of the things causing your brainwashing. You will never get far with religious ideas holding you back.
I have read the works of people who have studied ancient Hebrew and how the books now known as the Old Testament have changed throughout history.
I found it most interesting how the many gods the Hebrew people believed in were slowly rewritten into being only one god. I also find it funny that it was their war god that they stuck with, and that Christians worship today.
RoK writers are showing their true colours as idiots. I am now thinking the only return they are talking about is the idea of a second coming of Jesus.
Gay people are people. They do often seem a lot like women. You may have had some problems with some gay people, but that is no different than having trouble with any other people. It is no different than labeling an entire race because of problems you had with a few individuals.
There are lots of people with problems. That doesn’t mean all people like them are the same. You can not pretend you have never had problems with straight men acting like fools.
Also, I am not gay just because I am not threatened by them. You really have shown you have a problem.
Great post; I love your line “if you don’t believe any of them, for your purposes there is no difference between them” There is some great wisdome in the Bible. But most people are looking for the “Genie” that will grant them their wishes and not the “Jesus” that requires things of them. I am not religious, and have read and practiced many religions, only to find that most appeal to the best of MANkind and it is when they try to make it appeal to WOMANkind that it falters…
According to the Torah, no one can die for the sins of anyone else. Everyone is responsible for their own bank account. It is mentioned several times in the Tanach (what is referred to as “The Old Testament”).
Ezekiel excoriates this concept in Chapter 18 in depth. This concept is one that is at complete odds with Judaism.
The Almighty G-d wants no person to die for their sins. This is why He gave us a way to make amends, through repentance, prayer, and charity.
That is just … I have never seen anything so blatantly misogynistic.
Go cry to your mommy about it, child.
Haha wow!! You really got me there!! Kudos to you. In fact, I’m up-voting your incredibly witty and clever comment.
Deranged indeed. Who honestly in their right mind can pretend that two males cramming their parts into an area where it doesn’t belong (resulting in bleeding and feces entering the bloodstream, eventually resulting in anal cancer), or two dykes shoving a replica of a male body part into each other, is just as normal as heterosexuality? Their brains are probably sending signals, saying, “Something isn’t right with that.”, but their SJW thought training tells them to stifle those natural instincts or to label such thoughts as “hate speech”. Notice the overly-emotional reactions from SJWs when a non-PC thought is expressed – trained just like Pavlov’s dogs, probably foaming at the mouth and all.
Wow. You are aware that two women having sex doesn’t necessarily involve ‘shoving a replica of a male body part into each other’? You are aware that orgasms can be achieved in a multitude of ways- though to be fair I’m questioning anyone’s ability to give an orgasm if they aren’t aware of that. Also ‘natural’? You are aware that different species of animals are naturally not always heterosexual- right? This is just wrong, I’m afraid. I mean, anal sex doesn’t involve just ramming something in there- bleeding only happens if it’s done incorrectly- and anyway anal sex is a thing heterosexual people do as well. I could go into more, but there is never going to be enough time in the day to do so.
Gay Marriage all comes down to money – tax dollars – in marriage couples get tax breaks because they are supporting society, they can also pass their inheritance on death to their partner tax free…
the broke, spendthrift politicians didn’t want to give that break to alternative couples because they’d lose revenue… that’s all it was about… but of course tax revenue is less important than votes for Joe Career Politician, so the change came…. the problem is it came very slowly meaning a huge (and false) political movement got started that shove gay marriage in everyone’s face…
this is one issue where the resistance to something that kind of makes sense in a way, formed the loud mouth activist movement…. if politicians had quit the conservative angle and just brushed over it, it never would have become such an issue….
What a bunch of slack-jawed drivel.
slack-jawed drivel? I think not. And you provide nothing more than a feeble name-calling rather than point out why it’s such.
Perhaps, Tank, you’re really a skank in a skirt.
“Perhaps, Tank, you’re really a skank in a skirt”
Maybe I am, but this skank knows drivel when he/she reads it.
Thanks for the lesson on name calling, you certainly have the concepts down pat.
pathological altruism on display
this is why activism should not be seen as heroic
“Any woman that supports a “cause” other than her husband and family has
at a minimum emotional issues, and at worst severe psychological issues.”
You wrote that. Like really, on every level this is wrong.
Oh man, this is just wrong. I mean, ‘put a bit in their mouth like a horse’, have you heard of the idea that perhaps women aren’t domesticated creatures? Also, any woman that supports a cause other than her husband and family? Yeah man, basic human empathy is terrible- it should definitely be removed.
Haha wow!! I never knew someone could be so obviously uneducated, pathetic, homophobic and sexist. Your comment is why we need feminism.
Please send me an address so I can send you an American English dictionary. You throw terms around like an amateur cook throws spaghetti at the wall to see if it sticks.
This article is stupid.
FRIENDLY TROLL HERE. I though I would share this with everyone so you can be as mad as I am right now!!!!!!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsxnezDOPHw
Good article. No real man would ever marry a feminist. Let alone one who is OK with gay marriage. No way.
Wow, nice to know men are not allowed to marry a woman who think they are equal. So apparently, all women must see themselves as inferior because even though they are statistically smarter, they have a vagina and dudes have a penis.
I’m pro-gay marriage because I’m an extreme libertarian. If only consenting adults agree to it, who is the government to tell them no? Gay marriage, polygamy, prostitution, and recreational drug usage should all be legal following the principles of personal liberty and government non-interference outlined by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution.
In that sense I would be too. But children shouldn’t be witness to the gay propaganda.
An “extreme libertarian” would deny the government’s role in any kind of marriage. By saying “you can’t tell them no” then you are in fact legitimizing government’s intrusion into marriage. That’s the opposite of libertarian.
That’s exactly the way it should be. Any time we let government define marriage that’s the moment we empower it to force that definition onto everyone else, even if they don’t agree.
That has nothing to do with the necessary and proper role of any government.
Thank the Pilgrims and their communistic ways of placing government institutions over religious ones.
Then I guess I’m confused. I’m saying it’s not the role of government to tell which consenting adults can and can’t marry. What are you saying?
Get the government out of the marriage license business.
It’s none of their goddamned business anyway.
Support of gay marriage: A red flag, most certainly.
“Leftists often say, “it takes a village to raise a child.” ”
————————–
Heh, it takes a village to raise a child not the Village People.”
Hahahaha
Nice one!
This will set a legal precedent . How can you legally deny polygamy?? How can you deny somebody marrying their hamster or toaster?? How can you deny harems?? Once you “constitutionalize” gay marriage how can any religious organization then NOT perform marriages??
Today’s “slippery slope” often becomes tomorrow’s “progress”
That’s easy. All religious organisations will need to forego all civil marriages and stick strictly to sacramental marriages only.
Sorry unrelated comment but thanks to the admins of this site! It’s the only public place on the internet where I can swear uncensored. I gotta say it’s fucking nice to not have to censor myself!
People think this site is for neanderthals – NO, rather it’s a place to be whatever you want to be, unencumbered by the liberal poison.
I must be a cave woman.
That is correct. Fat women are fat women..you don’t have to sugar coat it. Fuck them if they get mad because someone is pointing it out. They have no problem making any statement about men.
Best response ever… My uncle said something about the hostess of a party being heavy. It got back to her later and, fueled with alcohol, she came over to set him straight…
His answer to her question of “Why did you say I was fat?”
Uncle: I didn’t know it was a secret.
The look on her face and the guffaws from everyone in earshot were priceless.
Nice…..and agree. How can anyone not talk about that white elephant in the room (literally)?
I’d bet that your uncle is a cool guy to hang out with!
Yes! Fucking right you are. I keep getting kicked off the local rag website. My latest infraction (yesterday) was pointing out that same sex marriages have a higher incidence of domestic abuse was quickly wiped off. Can’t have the truth messing up the agenda.
Can’t let logic get in the way of a politically correct narrative.
Great article. But I feel like 99% of all girls support gay marriage. How do I find the small percentage that doesnt?
fuck them. If they don’t agree thaty gay marriage is stupid, dump them. Preferably out of a car. at high speed.
Let me tell you the reason why the left is successful in its advertisement is the same reason Christianity was. Helping the weak and vulnerable. The problem is that if you are vulnerable and weak but do not match any of the left aspirations like being gay or a woman don’t expect the left to sympathize or help you on your sake. I made the mistake of thinking this way but they don’t care about you. Don’t expect your agenda to be supported by the left any time soon.
i don´t care about gay marriage. because society has destroyed everything noble in marriage anyway. let the gays and lesbians marry for everybody to see that marriage is a joke that lost its dignity long time ago. let also humans marry beasts. that will be the next big thing. bestiality
Then society is like: “He is a bestialophobe”
it’s not beastiality that is next, it is normalizing Gay men and young boys.
MLB’s- really sick group of that needs to be exterminated.
Try this. Consider all ‘straight claiming’ gay supporter gay and watch this hypocrite get mad
as soon as feminism became gender feminism pushing homosexuality became a central concern (read Christina Hoff Sommers) even if only ones in the gender studies classes were aware of it. Because ‘patriarchy’, christianity etc is normative, feminism naturally allies with ‘transgressive’ sexuality and feminist footsoldiers eventually buy into this even if they have no inherent interest in such alternative lifestyles. Since feminism also identifies the central ‘institution’ of heterosexual marriage / relationships, namely penetrative sex (penis in vagina sex) as inherently ‘rapey’ it will also align with any form of sex that does not involve penetration, although typically that does not require condemnation (as opposed to distaste for) the activities of gay males because all homosexual relationships are deemed to be ‘equal’ (a lie) as opposed to the unequal male / female couplings within hetero unions. Feminism therefore supports all varieties of gayness, and any other form of the ‘transgressive’ (defined against the heterosexual) because it equates all heterosexuality with male heterosexuality. Where feminism doesn’t automatically condemn heterosexuality per se (most feminist are after still heterosexual ….well at least outside of the ‘academy’) it seeks a more feminist oriented sexuality (what it calls ‘women’s own sexuality) which again will always be defined in opposition to the ‘penetrative’. Typically this will involve a focus on anything to do with the clitoris, and the superiority of the clitoral orgasm over the vaganal orgasm (on account of superiority of nerve endings or whatever). What this translates into in practice is that a high proportion of straight women who identity as feminist (as well as those who are high on the narcissism scale) will claim to be bisexual or equally attracted to men and women – something which has far more to do with politics than it has to do with sex.
Also worth remembering the fact that feminism is allied with queer theory of the judith butler variety i.e. performativity. Basically this encourages women / feminists to choose to identity as pan-sexual, bi-sexual or whatever with a view to altering sexual performance over time etc. Women like Cynthia Nixon claim to have chosen to become lesbians, and one of the interesting contrasts between male and female homosexuality is that while male homosexuals routinely claim ‘I was born gay’ this is far less common amongst feminist women inclined towards gayness for the simple reason that feminism arguably aims to make women ideologically gay (or obsessed with rape culture or both for that matter). Even the cognitive dissonance threshold of your typical femninist doesn’t allow her to completely disregard the fact that feminism effectively starts with the course 101 in “how to be as homosexual as you can be”. Most women though are never going to be completely indoctrinated by feminism, and are going to remain fundamentally straight. Supporting gay marriage is for them then a way to at least pay some lip service to an ideology which they know as femninists they’re supposed to believe in heart and soul, but in reality would prefer to support indirectly
Feminist have a history of using certain groups or other movements to get their own agenda pushed through. It’s no longer about equality….it’s about power and control.
I’d a gay marriage of convenience. But feminism itself has always had a lesbian academic component which is politically / theoretically lesbian before it is so orientation wise. Gay men were always obvious if not necessarily natural allies
One might say, ‘accessories’
let me fly this past the kings.
In the UK it is illegal to discriminate against someone based on blah,blah,blah and sex according to the equality act of 2010. Now I have seen some adverts for rented accommodation in my local area that say women only. Do you see where I’m going with this? I’ve been reading through the equality act, landlord rights websites and this is absolutely in breach of the law. (Not that I agree with the law.) I asked my cousin (he’s near the end of his law degree) about this and after a quick look, he agrees that this is clearly discrimination based on sex.
Let me know what you think. Believe me I’d have the brass neck to follow through on it.
Your photo is priceless. There are so many Americans who have swallowed his Marxist bullshit. Even many of the so called red pillers who post here.
Cheers. A couple of people have pointed out its brilliance. I’d never take it down. It’s my favourite photo. When I look at it I can’t help but smile.
Does the equality act even apply for men too or only against men?
equality = eliminate influence of men (especially white) in society (but first do everything possible to remove their wealth and status).
man everything is just getting more an more rigged against us.If this really is a village half the members are village idiots
http://menrightsindia.net/2015/01/why-indian-men-should-be-very-careful-in-filing-divorce.html
https://twitter.com/Zelcorpion/status/586231092874780674
FRIENDLY NEIGHBORHOOD TROLL HERE. I though I would share this with everyone so you can be as mad as I am right now!!!!!!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsxnezDOPHw
This crazy bitch lives on 30 bananas a day … and one can tell.
These maniacs are/were a pain in the arse on paleo/primal discussions forums and are heading this way too.
I’m off for a steak and a cigar.
White female who isn’t getting fucked well cries out for attention. You don’t see this with other races. This borderline personality disorder is a white female thing caused by sexual dysfunction.
BoobTube. Any freak schizo with a camera can give an opinion. Take note of the messy room and bag of garbage by the bed. I’m sure this moonbat eagerly enjoys hot tubesteak wrapped in underwear with an all natural environmentally friendly protein injection.
yeah but the terrifying thing is she has 350000 followers!
hi
Go away
and interracial mixing dogshit, and feminists, and any self styled “liberal” female. both the males and females are the scum of the earth.
This is what I’ve always said. If the idea is for “equality” then the main focus should be in benefits, operation of the law. They almost have all of this/have all of this. Yet, the protests are increasing, why? It’s because it’s not about benefits, it’s about labels. They WANT it to be called marriage and they’d have accepted that first blush even if it didn’t have the benefits attached to it.
It’s the difference between acceptance and approval. Gays are already accepted in our society, that’s obvious and most of them are just fine with that. But the leftists don’t want that, they want to tell society what to approve of, and that’s why it’s not enough that the benefits are given equally, it has to be called marriage because redefining something as something it’s not is tantamount to forcing approval.
Patriarchy is what distinguishes civilization from equality
you’re a poet terry… love your comments!
Think about it. Why the fuck do two gays need to be married?
Because they want to destroy everything hetrosexuals have.
I meant it from a practical point of view. As in what benefit does it bring? The point is a joining of families through the product was children. It creates a structure supporting the raising of those children.
Two guys nobbing each other don’t give a shit about this unless their names are Elton John and David Furnish. These guys are in the minority.
No use really, unless they’re trying to get benefits.
I think that gays have a warped psychological need of wanting to be viewed by society as “normal”, in spite of the fact that they can never be viewed as “normal” by a healthy society.
You are right. It is a certain form of denial. They are born with an unfortunate flaw that will devastate their ability to reproduce (the core of what life is about). Rather than accept the flaw for what it is they want everyone else to accept them as normal and become like them.
I think the consequence however, is less gays in the future. If gays no longer feel the need to “pretend” and get married to women they will not reproduce and thus this genetic flaw will be less likely to be passed on.
So divorce lawyers can clean house when they get divorced?
What are the odds of mentally ill hedonists staying married (committed to one partner) when supposedly stable men and women get divorced at over a 50% clip?
Looks like a payday for the ABA to me.
Why should the government be able to prevent you from engaging in a voluntary interaction with another person? The government shouldn’t even be involved in marriage at all.
Simply don’t tell. The only reason people want this is for some selfish reasons or some sort of benefits.
I believe the law should recognize gay marriage, because I believe in minimal government regulation and separation of church and state. I do not believe in gay marriage under the christian religious definition of marriage. Personally, I think the government messed up recognizing ANY kind of marriage, because it is a religious institution and religions define it differently. ALL marriages as far a the government is concerned should just be a civil union, although I don’t think the government should recognize them at all, I’d rather they just look at individuals.. then we wouldn’t have the marriage shackles men face today.
What a heart warming commercial…
Not only is that little girl deaf, but judging by her new mothers her haircut will look like she is blind too.
Be cool if the kid looked back in disgust and said, ‘two Mommies? Screw that, where’s my Dad’…….
I normally love RoK but this article was retarded. Gay marriage hurts nothing.
Marriage is between a man and a woman, not two faggots.
Actually it is between two people, and no one’s marriage is going to change someone else’s.
If you can not get your life in order don’t blame gay people. It is your own fault.
So it’s my fault that gays destroyed the institution of marriage? Whatever floats your boat.
Says a book from the bronze age. I couldn’t give a fuck what the bible says. There is no reason to oppose gay marriage unless you are a bible thumping idiot.
There is no reason to oppose the Bible, unless you love to live a life of sin. If God doesn’t exist and evolution is true, then where did our conscience and morality come from? How do we tell the difference between right and wrong, without an all-powerful God who gives us rules?
Sadly the questions you ask are asked repeatedly by people like you, but the answers never seem to spread. They just ask the question again smugly.
There are many simple reasons to oppose the bible. One of which is the existence of many other holy books. What makes you think the Bible is somehow special?
You almost answered your own second question. Those traits evolved over time. Not because we needed them, but because populations that evolved those traits did better than others. Those particular traits evolved in us long before we were human, and exist in other animals to different degrees. The last being well observed and studied.
If a god dictates what is right and wrong then thee is no morality. There is just commands. Morality comes not from being told what to do. It comes from you deciding what you should do.
You will likely hand wave away the answers. It is sad how often these simple questions get asked as if they are significant.
You’re right, we can decide what to do. God gave us free will to accept or reject him. But be warned, the price for rejecting Jesus’ death on the cross, is death and hell. The fires in hell are so hot, that they incenerate you instantly, but you are still alive and you feel all of it. Maggots will eat your burning flesh, and you will have no rest or peace of mind. God doesn’t want ANYONE to go to hell. Jesus died in your place, so that you may have LIFE.
No, people were not warned about rejecting Jesus, at least not long before the story about him was created.
Also I was once Christian, and felt what I thought was the Holy Spirit. Now I understand it as an emotional response and nothing more. Anyone can simulate that feeling, even while rejecting Jesus.
Funny how hateful Christians are, and how much they threaten you with violence for rejecting their religious ideas. These threats of hell do not come from some god. They come from you. They are also going against what Christians are taught. You are acting like a judge in place of god. Technically if what you believed was true you would be sinning.
Sorry that answering your simple questions made you so angry and hateful. Maybe one day you will grasp the concepts I tried to explain.
According to Judaism, every gentile who keeps the Seven Noachide Laws, earns a share in the World to Come.
Please know that I have Christian friends. We respect each other tremendously. We agree to disagree. We are unified by tremendous love for G-d, country, friends, and family.
I like to present another view, at times, namely the Jewish one. 😉
You have gotten it so backwards, it is mind boggling!
Firstly, the Torah a/k/a “The Law”, is completely Divinely Inspired. I would most certainly consider that to be very special, indeed.
Secondly, man is not capable of setting his own moral compass. Without The Law, everything is up for subjective interpretation!
Some examples, the KKK felt it was just to murder blacks due to their skin color. The Germans thought it was righteous to murder six million Jews in all kinds of barbaric ways, redistribution of wealth is in reality, stealing. The Left lauds this behavior.
I could go on and on. You either “get it”, or you don’t.
You really nailed it. Man would never be capable of setting a moral compass. Some examples: The Germans thought it was righteous to murder six million Jews in all kinds of barbaric ways, Christians and Jews are being butchered by Islamic Extremists and these acts of barbarism are celebrated by their peers, redistribution of wealth is in essence, stealing, but the Left lauds it as being righteous and “having skin in the game.”
As we both know quite well, one either “gets it”, or they don’t. 😉
The KKK and the Nazi party are both examples of Christian groups doing horrible this they feel the Bible justifies. It is crazy that you use them as examples.
The moral compass of the Bible and Torah are sick. They are immorality and horrible. Sure they have good ideas, but the bad ones trump it all.
I am sorry that you refuse to accept reality as it is. It find it strange that out of the many books that claim to be divinely inspired you think this one book actually is.
It would take a lifetime to educate you. I don’t have that kind of time, nor do I have any interest. I will not even respond to you anymore.
You actually believe that the Bible condones barbaric actions performed by the KKK and the Nazis. That statement, alone, speaks volumes.
Please do not post to me anymore. Your statements about the Almighty G-d of Israel and the Torah make me sick to my stomach. You have no comprehension of the Ten Commandments, alone, which includes the prohibition against murder.
King Solomon speaks about “wise” people like yourself. Proverbs: 1:7 “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge. Fools despise wisdom and discipline.”
One step further, the Almighty G-d said that it is an abomination. That is the strongest language that G-d ever uses to express his extreme displeasure, to say the least! Leviticus 20:13 “And a man who lies with a male as one would with a woman both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon themselves.”
Anyone who has a complaint about this, has to take it up with the Almighty
G-d, himself. I had nothing to do with it.
Your god is a lie you use to justify your bigotry. Take your disgusting hate cult and go to Afghanistan where you belong. Communist.
Bob are you a Bolshevik?
Hey Bob want to go see U2 with me?
You are not only a coward, but a very stupid one at that.
Tragically, you never even learned how to look in a mirror. What a pity! You are the hater! Anyone with a smidgen of common sense, who reads your wise and witty postings, will glean that knowledge for himself.
Hating hatred doesn’t make one a hater.
Ok. What exactly makes me a coward? Is it a difference of religious opinions? Because your religion is a joke.
Religion has absolutely nothing to do with the inarguable fact that you are a coward and a bully.
You have caught my attention bob and looking at your comments I see a sad troll, probably divorced sitting in a crappy one bedroom apartment just hating on the world. Good for you pumpkin.
Better a sad troll than a homophobic hate monger.
But seeing as how ALL of your assumptions are incorrect, I don’t feel insulted. Keep trying though!
Bully? Sure. I guess an uninformed, digitally-challenged person like yourself would consider trolls and bullies to be the same thing. But if I was a coward, would I really go to a message board FILLED with people who disagree with me? Seems like you’re the REAL coward.
Oh I am not a homophobic hate monger, didn’t comment on the story at all. Just that you are a troll based on all your loser comments. Say what you will, pretty sure I am right. Why don’t you yell up to mom for more juice and hot pockets…. Then get a life
I’m a troll!? Oh my god!! I had no idea!! Thank the powers that be for your incredible insight!! Where would we be without your tireless commitment to STATING THE OBVIOUS!?
I’m gonna go change my ways! Some random person on a message board doesn’t approve of me!! I could just die a thousand deaths.
No come on bob you are more than that, you are a super troll! You have a funny name and photo, bet you have a catch phrase and everything. Come home at night after a long day in a minimum wage job, mommy makes you a snack and then you go to work!!! God bless you keeper of the knowledge. I bet you replay your best barbs when you meet the boys for dungeons and dragons.
“Hurts nothing”? It’s always wrong to give subsidies and status to something that deserves neither. Not a single good thing would disappear from the world if all the homosexuality stopped tomorrow. Buggery is socially worthless.
You are wrong on every point. Good can come from subsidies sometimes. Also there is nothing about gay people that makes them not deserve to be married.
Not a single good thing would disappear if all religions were stopped tomorrow… See how I used your statement to show how meaningless it was?
This is why I will never date liberal women again!
It should go further that is avoid women who support anything pro-LGBT.
What timing…hanging out with some girl for the first time tonight who I know has a couple of gay friends. Hate to be cynical but I’ve basically erased any chance of long term potential already.
The red pill cannot be unswallowed.
lol so how did that go?
do what I do… let her believe whatever she wants as long as you secure the bang… just don’t knock her up, and never commit!
“This is why men must avoid girls who support gay marriage, particularly
those who have really thought about it. It indicates they don’t want to
accept the discipline and hard work that goes into a successful
relationship. A woman who accepts gay marriage in society will will
reject your role as a father, telling you that fatherhood does not raise
a child, and that she is somehow equal or better than you in every way.”
Seriously? This paragraph alone is filled with assumptions and misinformation. As a women (that alone means I’m not welcome to comment on this site), I clearly don’t agree with much of what is written here. But I at least expected it to make some sense. To be based on some amount of research, or at least logic.
Aren’t women the ones who are always being told we’re illogical and base every decision on our changing moods and emotions? Only “masculine” men are welcome to comment here? Fine. But this article, and much of the comments here are sound like the whiny complaints of children.
I’m not even trying to be insulting, but I’m not trying not to either since men tend to pride themselves on shooting straight from the hip. So here we go:
We’ve ALL been lied to in this matrix man…men, women, all races, everyone. We can go back and forth over who had it “worst” but it’s really just a matter of perspective at the end of the day, so why bother?
Anyone that has ever had a superiority complex, or inferior one (pretty much one in the same). Anyone that thinks there’s a war against them, anyone whose perceptions of an entire group is based on negative experiences and portrayals. We’ve all been brainwashed in some regard.
Better than aligning with (or attempting to lead) some group into victimhood (just as you would accuse feminists, right) it’s better to think independently, look at oneself and take accountability for your actions, your self-identity…
I don’t think it means silence, but one road of delusion is no better than the other.
We all need a place to vent, men included.
But let’s stop the blame game for once, and look at ways to make things better. Make yourself better, first and foremost. All else with radiate outward. That’s what real men (and women) do at least.
You’re argument falls on deaf ears here, for many reasons, one being that it was too long so didn’t read. Perhaps summarise it into one non-emotional paragraph.
I actually skimmed it. And based on your last paragraph, that is what this site is about, making men better. Better at being themselves and better at understanding the world as it is, this article’s topic included. What we chose to or not to filter out is our own business however the article writers are free to express their views without social censorship.
Okay, so I’ll skip your first “emotional” paragraph attempting to shame the length of my post. Fail.
Anyway, I have no intention on censoring anyone. Especially since I have no power over what is written on this site, nor do I want that power. I read the article and responded, just as you responded to me. Clearly, we don’t all have to agree. Simple as that.
See as these people come out of the closet anyone who is a Christian or just someone who objects to this is labeled and is being hearded in the closet. It’s a war, homosexualilty is mentioned in the Old Testament and both times its violent rape trying to be perpetrated. See if you think it just won’t bother you if you don’t bother them no they are on your tv becoming your child’s teachers. Why do you think every tv show has a gay character and it’s mostly adolescent shows because if you veiw something enough it deadens your sense to it. Watch in a couple years they’ll mske saying anything hate speech and if you won’t perform gay marriage ceremony they’ll take that churches tax free status then jail is next.
It doesn’t matter if you believe in God or Darwin, homosexuality is bad in both cases. If you are religious, being gay is just wrong. If you are a science man, you know that gays are an evolutionary dead end. Leftists are already destroying religion, just wait for them to destroy science just to make “reality” suit their needs.
No worries. Conservatives produce far more children than liberals. You might say the school system will indoctrinate them. This is true, and it does happen, but not as much as you think. The #1 indicator for a child’s politics is their parents politics.
I was married.
I don’t want it, they can have it.
Gay marriage could positively redefine domestic violence laws. Traditionalism and its style of marriage is dead and even Dr. Frankenstein can’t bring it back.
MGTOW
wow the people on this website is completely and utterly just as low, pathetic and sad as feminazis!
I know I am gonna be crucified for this…
I have been reading the latest articles. I know this site has some rather bad articles at times, but usually they are just laughable. Like something on how foreign women are not what they seem, then one after on how great foreign women are and how to pick them up.
These recent articles, I don’t get. They are jumping to some rather drastic conclusions and it has come to the point where other bloggers and such are openly making fun of this site.
Fury Road: There is no backlash. Most people love it. Whether it is good or bad is debatable (I’m probably not gonna see it) but to type up that there is a backlash worth noting is kind of a lie. It really gives fuel to the allegations that this is a sexist site full of MRA’s.
This article: Be against gay marriage. More power too ya. I personally don’t care, but I do care about how SJW’s ruin the lives of anyone who do not agree with them 100%. But these blurbs are making huge leaps here. Reminds me of the folks that talk about how gay marriage will lead to marrying animals.
It seems like this site has been recently taken over by some Feminists who want to type some shit that is so out there in order to make this site and its readers look like women hating, homophobe losers. That aint us. At least I didn’t think that was us.
While she rejoiced at the prospect of gay marriage being allowed, I tried to explain to a 21 year old* pre-spinster that marriage re-definition will hurt her in the future. Promiscuity is grounds for dissolution of traditional marriage, but once gays join the party, legal-eagles will be able to argue that promiscuity is a natural part of marriage (gays are highly promiscuous). I told her that men already view women as not worth the risk. Further reduce the expectation of fidelity and she’ll never get her day in a white dress (white dress redefinition has now extended to slores who’ve had under 50 nobs up them).
One of the other reasons (among many) that it’s a very dangerous development, is that a woman giving up her child for adoption will have no say in what ‘marriage’ her child goes to. If she stipulates that it’s to go to a heterosexual couple, she could face prison for discrimination, since marriage equalidee and all that.
Despite being called “low-life, sick individual, ‘the problem’, etc” I persisted in warning her about the dangers of marriage redefinition to society. Her response was “you seem to know so much about gays, maybe you want to get married to a gay man”. So along with all the other personal attacks (remember pre-spinsters, attack the person, not the issue!) she tried to belittle me as being gay. Of course I informed her that her revulsion for gays was now clear, but all the pre-spinsters that came off the conveyor belt in the last 40 years have been manufactured with bulletproof solipsism by their feminsit/communist engineers, so the irony would have been completely lost on her.
However, as Rick pointed out, the gay rights issue doesn’t concern them whatsoever – it’s more about rebelling against their fathers, and “giving society a make over”.
*Note: feminists only exist above the age of 40, when they chose that title. Pre-spinsters under 40 aren’t aware of what feminism is, rather they’ve been manufactured on the feminist production line. Asking an under 40 pre-spinster if they’re a feminist, is like asking a fish how it breathes in water).
I have never read such a pack of misogynistic (means you hate women) clap trap in all my life, what a bunch of knuckle dragging neanderthals. Shame on the lot of you you!!!
Ouch, that hurt so bad! The shame! The shaaaaaaaaaame!
Tank ! I hate mankind !!
But…………….. I love womankind !
Since most women are pro-gay marriage, what are the options ? goats ? dogs ?
You can’t forget that feminazis (man hating dykes) have tried to ban the Bible. Not to mention shown true blasphemy against God by creating “The Womans Bible” & “Jesus feminism”. Proverbs 7:27 Her house is the way to hell, going down to the chambers of death.
http://www.inquisitr.com/1657382/angry-australian-gamers-create-petition-to-ban-the-bible-grand-theft-auto-to-blame/
What I love about Irish Lesbians, is that they prefer men !
Whatever let the fags turn gay, not my problem, more women for me, LOL.
With that attitude I’m surprised you get any women
I couldn’t finish the article. It is not that you are wrong about the feminist agenda in supporting gay marriage it is just that you are trying to beat a dead horse. I supported gay marriage because it demonstrated even more clearly that marriage in the west is dead and the corpse has been decomposing for quite a while. Marriage does not exist, so why not let gays in on the joke.
Gay ‘marriage’ is the height of selfishness – putting the capricious wishes of adults over the needs of vulnerable children. Please spare a prayer for Ireland which will be voting on this issue on Friday.
Unfortunately it is looking like it will be made legal in Ireland and have the exact same constitutional protections as traditional heterosexual marriage. Looks like marriage has just died in another western society. Another win for the SJW’s.
I usually say I don’t care who gets married. Ideally I wouldn’t since I’m pretty much a libertarian but all the political crap makes that position untenable. My reply is designed to not give anyone any emotional satisfaction and excuse to attack; the person, usually leftist, simply gets angrier and angrier while I act reasonable and pretend to be baffled. It can reasonably lead to questioning the SJW’s motives. In that situation there are many leads to follow in making the idiot further enraged.
Maybe the most dangerous slogan of the left is that “the personal is political” — which contradicts keeping government out of your bedroom — because it calls for meddling and micromanaging of people’s personal lives by distant authorities acting on theory and policy statements from ever more distant bureaucrats.
I am so equal or better than you in every way ☺️
Just to be clear, your position is for us to grant the right to civil unions to gay people? Isn’t this still increasing government influence?
Solid article – this clear headed discussion was needed back in 2003 when they were first pushing this nonsense in Massachusetts.
Yes please avoid me at any cost.
Anyway, I must say RoK is never boring.
Now I’m waiting either for a storm of insults or for my comment to be deleted. Whatever you prefer.
I read your article, and now I want to throw up. You’re so selfish and wrapped up in your own false masculinity, I feel sick. Now I can add ‘homophobic’ to the list of traits I’m compiling for straight white men.
Why would you use men and girls in the same sentence?
So you´re going to date and fuck only traditional and homophobic christian women with strong conservative values… It sounds really hot and exciting… Good luck!
Remove kebab from the premises. TRUMP 2016!
The ‘village’ model taken the extreme has been shown to be an utter failure.
Take the Israeli kibbutz ‘village’ model where they experimented with collectivist child rearing where in some cases, the children weren’t even told who their biological parents were.
It utterly fell apart in under a decade.