The Gay Marriage Ruling: Why Everyone Loses But The State

As everyone knows, on June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ___(2015). At issue was whether “marriages” between gay couples would be recognized legally. By a narrow majority, the Court found that homosexual marriages were in fact a “fundamental right” worthy of societal acceptance.

The concluding paragraph of the majority decision rose to a disturbing level of opaque sentimentality. Inappropriately condescending to identify emotionally with one of the litigants, the Court issued this maudlin pronunciamento:

No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.

And that was it. With one stroke of the pen, the Court found fit to overturn the definition of marriage (as a union between man and woman) that had attended humanity for thousands of years. The arrogance and presumption of the opinion was truly breathtaking. To understand why Obergefell was wrongly decided, we must do something the Court studiously avoided doing: we must trace the experience of history.

Historical Background

As an institution, marriage indeed appears to predate man. Biologists tell us that in certain bird species, males and females will live together for long periods. Gorillas and orangutans live together as males and females, with their offspring, in familial units.

Among humans, marriage has had a long and variable history among different cultures. Anthropologists tell us that among many primitive tribes (e.g., the Yakuts of Siberia, the Orang Sakai of Malacca, and certain Tibetan peoples) the marriage union could be freely terminated by either man or woman at any time.

In old Tibet, we even find “mass marriages” between groups of males and females, unifying collectively at once. Polygamy has seen institutional acceptance in some Middle Eastern societies, within certain boundaries and limitations.

gay2

The modern conception of marriage, as between man and woman, apparently arose to address a number of social needs: (1) care and rearing of the young; (2) the need to regulate sexual activity within acceptable bounds, so as to prevent social disorder; and (3) the need to pass on property to one’s kin in an ordered fashion. These practices predate history. We can conclude that marriage as the union of man and woman has existed for tens of thousands, perhaps even hundreds of thousands, of years.

Always, the union of marriage has been defined as the relationship between a man and a woman. As we survey the peoples of the globe, we cannot find one single society, primitive or modern, in which marriage was ever accepted as a union between man and man, or woman and woman. It simply has never existed. We do not find gay marriage historically among Europeans, Asians, Africans, American Indians, Polynesians, or native Australians.

Social institutions develop in response to the needs of humanity. Those institutions that stand the test of time do so for a very good reason: they have served as a net benefit for social order.

This is not to say, of course, that homosexuality has not existed since the dawn of history. Without doubt it has. Whether through environment or genetics, or a combination of both (the question is not one I am qualified to answer), some humans find satisfaction in what may be called “sexual inversion”: that is, the inverting of sexual desire from the opposite gender, to one’s own gender.

gay3

But even though homosexuality has existed in every society, it has always been confined within specific limits. It was never permitted to gain official sanction as actual “marriage” co-equal to a normal marriage between a man and woman.

Proponents of gay marriage like to toss around historical “examples” of institutionalized homosexuality in history as somehow supporting their arguments. History does not support their argument.

Homosexuality was tolerated, for example, in the classical world, as well as in ancient China, India, and Persia. It also makes its appearance in the medieval period in nearly every civilization on record. But it was permitted to go only so far, and no further. This makes all the difference.

Among the ancient Greeks, we find an acceptance of the practice in all the major city-states; it was not stigmatized, but at the same time, the thought of two men living together as “husband” and “wife” would have been unthinkable. Aristotle himself puzzled at the practice’s ubiquity; he believed it was a social defense against overpopulation.

More likely it was an outgrowth of the strict segregation of the genders in Greek society, where both men and women spent most of their time with their own genders.

In any case, the point here is that we must distinguish between homosexuality as a practice, and homosexual marriage as an officially-sanctioned institution. The former has a long lineage; the later has never existed in history. In the classical world, the attitude towards homosexuality was generally this: it was accepted as a fact of life, and as long as its practitioners did not proselytize their views or threaten the established social order, they were generally tolerated.

Again, the point needs to be made here—which was lost on the Obergefell majority—that there has not been a single society, ancient, medieval, or modern, that has extended the definition of “marriage” to mean a union between two men or two women.

This is the fact that proponents of gay marriage have no answer for. They have no answer because there is no answer. If a social institution—marriage—has been defined for countless thousands of years as between two different genders, then this fact carries authority. It cannot be brushed aside. We cannot say that we, in the past fifteen years, have suddenly gained a greater insight and wisdom into human nature than all the generations before us.

Rationales

Same-sex marriage

It is characteristic of the feebleness of gay marriage proponents that they refuse to respond to this fact. When pressed on why they think gay marriage is appropriate, their answers are always a version of these arguments:

1. “It doesn’t matter anyway, because marriage itself is a ruined institution.” This is not a meaningful answer. One does not refute a flawed proposition (gay marriage) by stating that the object of that proposition (marriage) is a ruined thing. Despite all its flaws and abuses, marriage remains what it always has been: the cornerstone of social order.

2. “They have a right to be happy.” Civil unions could have given homosexual couples nearly everything they claim to have wanted. Yet it was not enough; they wanted to become co-equal with traditional marriages. One cannot get everything one wants in life; the hard reality of life is that some behaviors are socially acceptable, and some will remain only acceptable within certain boundaries.

The Court’s ruling will now be used as an invitation to further test the boundaries of acceptable conduct. The Court’s decision claims that religious institutions need not fear they will be forced to perform homosexual marriages; yet it is difficult to see exactly how this can be squared with their ruling.

gay4

The Obergefell decision undermines the status of both men and women. It denigrates the roles each of them play in a traditional marriage, and presumes to assert that two men can act as husband and “wife,” and that two women can behave as “husband” and wife. The indoctrination will now commence with greater intensity in the schools, the media, and in other spheres of social activity. Dissenters will be marginalized, and then penalized.

The Real Winners

One wonders how the collective experience of many thousands of years could be consigned to the trash bin so easily. The answers are there, but are deeply unsettling. The reality is that those who hold the levers of power do not really care about homosexuals. They care, in truth, very little about the “rights” of the gay community. Gays are being manipulated and used by the power structure, which has its own agenda.

What is this agenda? Control. The power elites want to see the traditional institutions of society neutered. They want to see the educational system shaped to serve their needs; they want the curricula dumbed down to accommodate the needs of the compliant masses. They want traditional morality (as espoused by religions) undermined, as it stands in the way of creating the perfect consumer zombies that they love so much.

When the social bonds which preserve order become frayed, the state is forced to step in and impose its own rules.  In this way creeping authoritarianism moves forward, slowly but steadily, under the guise of liberation and empowerment.

And finally, they want to see the family unit, with the roles and authorities of the father and mother, neutered. They want the real mother and father to be them, the state. Marriage has now become meaningless with the Obergefell decision. By undermining marriage, they enhance their own power over their consumer-driven citizens, and replace themselves as every citizen’s surrogate parent.

They gay community thought it won a big victory with Obergefell, but they lost along with the rest of us. It will turn out to be a hollow victory. Authoritarianism is laughing. Obergefell opened the door to yet more government intrusion into the personal lives of individuals and families; for when the family unit is weakened, only the state wins.

The gay community got played. They got used. They just don’t know it yet.

Read More: The Key To Facing Your Fears Confidently

442 thoughts on “The Gay Marriage Ruling: Why Everyone Loses But The State”

  1. Russia, China and Iran must be laughing their asses off. I’m sure they’re all deathly terrified of us now!

    1. Now Uruguay gets to say to ‘Murica “You Are Ugly, Fat, And (Now) Gay Too”

    2. Just like Germany was laughing its ass off when the Jews left?
      How did that work out for them. Einstein.

  2. Hit the nail on the head. It is to weaken the family – they don’t want families – and IMO the 50s “Nuclear Family” was a media image to weaken a “Clan” an earlier model much stronger – they want leaves in the wind scrambling for sh-t jobs and buying dumb ‘virtual’ entertainment – then likely the state takes over and raises kids. The elites keep their families and can pay the “fees” etc. to keep them. The rest dump them in state homes that raise them and “Brave new world” condition them for levels of work/caste. A few pretty ones might be taken for playthings of the elite – or sacrifices to the devil of course. Perhaps blood drained to feed the needs of a foreign country.

    1. Notice the rise of porn and video games during the past 20 years. Men distract themselves with mindless stuff such as porn and video games. Very easy to implement these changes when the masses are distracted by things such as this.

      1. Yeah…
        IMO a Japanese “Otaku” is the perfect model for them. Works hard enough to have a one room apartment and some spending money which he then throws away on junk toys and games. Total slave, leaf to the wind. Well, potentially deadly, psychotic if that’s threatened, but if he goes nuts and kills a pop singer idol ‘coz she starts doing porn, no one (him and the fake celebrity) they couldn’t replace.
        Hard to reproduce that way – but as obviously they’ll legalize prostitution soon it’ll be quite easy to get sperm and combine it with “Big Data” match it to people to breed perfect worker slaves.
        The push-back – btw – if anyone wants to avoid this is to:
        1. Get RID of illegals – do this by pressuring at the state/local level to enforce existing laws. Organize local boycotts. Go on jury duty and nullify any crime against illegals or those that hire them.
        2. Then push for an end to any and all tax breaks and subsidies to companies that send jobs overseas.
        -furthermore-
        3. Push for taxes on stock trading, interest, etc. And monopoly laws being enforced to break up media conglomerates.
        Start with 1, work to 3 – it’d break their cash then their backs. For bonus points legalize DRUGS. Anyone here actually MET any 1%ers? They are hyper obsessive addiction prone personalities. Legalize all drugs then their kids will spiral to oblivion during high school and college and the family fortune will be spent on damage control.

  3. I don’t believe that a lot of these pro-gay-marriage enthusiasts even really know what they’re talking about. I know more single-straight and asexual folk in favour of gay marriage than actual gay people.

  4. Good explanation, Quintus. This has always been about state control. The government increasingly interferes in personal relationships, from “consent” laws to media propaganda, so that they can wield greater social control. They are further undermining the divine relationship between a parent and child, and above all destroying patriarchy with gay marriage. This unconstitutional ruling dilutes the definition of marriage to be synonymous with “civil union,” turning the family into a government-controlled machine. The cult of social equality is a religion of universal salvation, and anyone who distinguishes their relationship as “better” will be punished.
    This is the red line that must not be crossed. The list of consequences is dire and affects all of us, a carefully placed piece in the strategy to ruin the family and control your life. Can you imagine having to grow up a child today? All the confusion over something so basic as what your gender is? Who you should be attracted to? What your parents are supposed to be like?
    The issue is not equal opportunity and legal benefits. Gays can have those by other means. The issue is moral equivalency of human relationships, and more importantly state engineering of your relationships.

  5. People always overlooks ancient wisdom, society created monogamous marriage between men and woman as an evolutionary response to organize the foundations of society. You can see it, as the divorce rates between same sex individuals are ridiculously higher than the traditional marriage. SJW gay marriage is not working. http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02

  6. (1) care and rearing of the young. **the majority of generation x’ers through our present ‘millenials’ have/had either parents that were shit-for-brains, or ‘reared’ by a ‘guardian’ (ie. the state) rather than parents** (2) the need to regulate sexual activity within acceptable bounds, so as to prevent social disorder **bwahahaha! as all of us red-pillers know, there is no regulation to female ‘sexual activity’ anymore (well until ‘the wall’ is hit, then ‘why can’t i find me a good/fully-employed man?’)**; and (3) the need to pass on property to one’s kin in an ordered fashion **don’t worry, the state will be more than happy to accept your property when you die and become soylent green**
    the cultural decline is reaching terminal velocity.

  7. From what I’ve seen, alternative sexualities develop from the improper acquisition of gender roles. If a boy sees the females within the vicinity acting improperly or unsafely, as he develops he will seek a safe outlet for his sexual urges, in some cases the same sex.
    The effect of the self-image is important as well, as if a man believes himself unworthy of women, he may seek comradery in an accepting community, such as LGBTQ, who are accepting of everyone except straight folks. The advent of social media is also why we’re seeing a percieved increase in Alphabet soup folks: they trust strangers more than their parents.
    I had an old friend who was sexually attracted to women, but because of a lack of self-esteem and proper gender role models, he is now considers himself a transgender lesbian, and has more problems than he did before changing.
    If these deviants would accept their biology, they would have less mental issues than vehemently denying it.

  8. Me personally this needed to go through, because now we get to sit back and watch the divorces of the gays, the “married” lesbians domestic violence, they get to suffer in the court room now as a married couple, get your popcorn and 3d glasses.

    1. No the movie starts when the bio-lesbian mother takes custody of her child from the other lesbian mother and the lesbian mother who isn’t even biologically related to the kid has to pay child support.

      1. Can’t wait for that kind of shit to happen. These are interesting times we get to live in. Just lean back and watch the show

  9. I am going to have to respectfully disagree with the author; marriage is indeed a ruined institution in the U.S./the “West” at least and while traditionally it has essentially functioned as one of society’s cornerstones, marriage 2.0 ruined the construct of marriage/”guaranteed source of sex and “love” for betas in exchange for provisioning and social acceptance for women. That whole construct is now completely demolished and even though gay marraige is an illegitimate joke in and of itself, frankly who cares? Welcome to the next generation of single mom-“led” households, lesbian couples raising kids pretending their “marriage” is legitimate as the new family unit, etc. The genie is out of the bottle because like the author of this article says, it effectively serves elite interests to promote the whole charade while as usual, the fallout only really affects the underclass/consumers/compliant workerbees. Playbook=Distract the masses with contrived social issues while picking their pockets and rigging the political system to ensure oligarchy.

  10. “And finally, they want to see the family unit, with the roles and
    authorities of the father and mother, neutered. They want the real
    mother and father to be them, the state.”
    That’s the big picture, yes. I’ve argued much the same. As far as I’m aware of one gay man – Andrew Sullivan – who started arguing for gay marriage in the 90s and was generally ignored on the issue. There were a few other gay and lesbian activitists, like Kitzinger & Wilksonson, but they political radicals who were dead against the patriarchy & heterosexuality itself. It wasn’t until suddenly the mass media decided as a whole to take up the cause as a major civil rights issue that any significant number of people took it seriously including most gay people who just didn’t seem to care much.
    I fear the analysis is correct. Gay rights / marriage has been weaponised, and I doubt it will do anything for the long term demise of homophobia that gay marriage has triumphed at exactly the lowest point in heterosexual marriage, or for that matter between relations between men and women generally. Its worth remembering the mid-years of the twentieth century the leading lights of the frankfurt school like Marcuse saw homosexuality and transgressive sexuality as something to be promoted in order to weaken the institutions of the bourgeoisie, the chief amongst these being patriarchy – the frankfurt school being notable for their melding together of marxism and the freudian idea that the world pathology was sexual repression. This is what we see going on everywhere, and it has been one of the motivating engines of the growth of gay rights. Of course, those aren’t the arguments that you’ll find in the press, except with respect to the conflation of hyper-sexuality with love, something which is highly questionable. Having said that you can’t really blame gay people for seizing the opportunity to get rights, power, status they wouldn’t otherwise have – that’s just human nature – but its unfortunate that this has come about in the way that it has.

    1. Except it was weaponised by conservative politicians to drive their base to the polls. It worked very well. The fact those folks have lost the war they started is their own damned fault.

      1. could you explain. I’m not disputing I just don’t really understand what you mean

        1. At several American elections, but most memorably 2004, ballot initiatives on recognition of same sex partnerships were held at the same time at the general elections. The clear aim of this was to motivate conservative religious voters to come to the polls because, while they might not be terribly enthused about the Republican candidate, once they’d gone there to vote against same sex partnerships they’d probably vote for them.
          Evangelicals et al have been abused by the Republicans ever since Reagan, as electoral cannon fodder.

        2. I see. So you’re saying the republican’s effectively mainstreamed the issue? I’ll have to check that out. In UK it wasn’t even on the agenda. And then the ‘conservative’ government unilaterally introduced it. The reason appears to have to do with shenanigans in the EU which wanted to harmonize the issue

        3. They kicked the pendulum.
          In the UK it’s the obvious continuation of a policy process that began with the abolition of Section 28. It also was in the Conservatives’ 2010 Manifesto in the Equalities section. Cameron has been rather vocal on the issue, but I believe it was more Osborne and Francis Maude, the latter as atonement for saying horrendous things about homosexuality before realising his dying brother was homosexual.
          The EU point is simply one about recognition. If you are married in one state that marriage is recognised in all of them. The harmony has much more to do with heterosexual marriages and the history of national churches.

  11. Quintus, it is all about a Marxist agenda of power and then control, one of the main goals of marxism is the destruction of the traditional family unit, because acording to Marx it is the basis of capitalism, and it is just one step in the process to begin with the full Marxist control on the economy.
    They have to destroy the culture first to keep people used to the rulings of the political class (cultural marxism), and then get to the economy (pure marxism).

  12. What is with using “cisgender” as an insult?? So if we decide we want to keep all the body parts we came into the world with instead of become living Frankensteins like Bruce Jenner, we’re… “inferior”, someway somehow? Unfuckingbelievable!

      1. Yeah. Took me awhile to figure that out. I identify as a woman because I have two tits and a puddy. That makes me cisgender scum. Ohhhhhhh well.

      1. Yeah, I really have no interest in becoming a disgustingly obese man-woman thing with short hair dyed like a bag of Skittles and bitterness and rage seething through me about shit that really is ultimately irrelevant in the course of my life. I really don’t. Also @txu99:disqus

    1. I find it more funny that these lgbt creeps constantly push for equality while creating more obscure titles to further marginalize everyone into groups. They’re like idiots trying to bring equality and peace by telling people that they’re not the same. Since when did being equal = being different. You can’t treat different people equally unless you equally treat them different and in this world that’s either a ‘Phobia’, ‘ism’, or ‘discrimination’.

  13. Great post QC. I think gay people are malignant narcissists. No one was stopping them from being happy or having dignity. Civil Unions were marriage in all but name but that wasn’t enough. Gay people will destroy a civilization just for their infantile desire for acceptance and happiness. It’s really all about the gays desire for a “stamp of approval”by the state. We are going to see some fucked up kids in the future. Can you imagine a boy raised by 2 lesbians?? How can a boy learn to be man when raised by women??

    1. Thank Hell we’ll be long gone when these sissy-Marys are on the front line trying to fend off the inevitable Shiite Red Dawn.

      1. These would be Communist Persians? How do they get to America exactly, magic carpet?

        1. Iranians, Russians, and Chinese all allied together. They would come riding luck dragons.

    2. If Civil Partnerships were effectively marriage anyway, then why do you object to what is, by your own admission, a simple name change?

  14. The US supreme court is controlled by 5 judge majority of 3 feminists and 2 manginas. The only red pill judge is clarence thomas (black) who had to survive trial by fire against accusations of sexual harassment, with scalia (italian) usually backing him up.

    1. Thomas is the most intellectually weak member of the court. He rarely if ever asks questions, and writes few opinions himself. I would hardly call him redpill.
      The only recent reasonable member of the court was David Souter (1990-2009), who was somewhat libertarian in his rulings, and typically sided in favor of the rights of the people when they came in conflict with the powers of government. He retired and was replaced under Obama by Sotomayor.

      1. I’m going to disagree on your mention of Souder as well.
        If Thomas shouldn’t be considered red pill, Souder for his part shouldn’t be considered red anything. He’s the guy who ruled in favor of PP in PP vs Casey which not only upheld the unconstitutional ruling rendered in Roe, but also formally annihilated the parental right of a Father to object to his wife, girlfriend etc having an abortion.
        It’s been blue pill ever since.

        1. That’s his libertarian side shining through. Most libertarians think abortion should be a medical decision, not a political one. Also, all this decision did was uphold Roe v Wade, which has been the law of the land my entire life, so I don’t really “blame” Souter for continuing the status quo, as the majority of justices do every year.
          Personally, it is an ethical decision to me, that I would not want an abortion, but I think our society would be fundamentally worse if the lower classes did not have the option of abortion and every time they became pregnant it resulted in a new child. I think people like Souter realize that you cannot legislate morality, and one must look at the real consequences of the actions, not just the ideals in a perfect world.

        2. The word “libertarian” as it’s come to mean today might as well be reclassified as “liberaltarian” since they tend to be hybrid liberals who lean (conservative) right on fiscal matters but decidedly left on social ones. This would be a high contrast to the “classic” libertarianism of the Founding Fathers, who would have more in common with today’s paleoconservative (such as myself) than them.
          The Founders understood that liberty must by necessity be regulated by moral self restraint, otherwise passion and temptation would become the fundamental force behind anyone’s actions related to anything they considered of consequential necessity. Our current US so called culture demonstrates this in droves. The works of Washington, Adams, Wilson and others are examples of this, and i will include them if you deem it necessary.
          Regardless of the moral implications of abortion, a strict Constitutional interpretation of it would mean that one could not be in favor of it, since there is no right, stated or otherwise, listed in the US Constitution. Souder’s remarks in PP vs Casey might as well be no more than an obiter dicta (as rehnquist himself noted) because it has no foundation on Constitutional law. A SCOTUS must by necessity render his or her judgments based on what the Constitution undeniable states or unquestionably implies, since it represents the supreme law of the land and they exist to interpret its intent. When you have a SCOTUS that issues verdicts based on personal progressive feelings irrespective of any Constitutional foundation, then that SCOTUS is essentially putting itself on equal footing (if not a superior one) by essentially creating a law through judicial precedent; a power that the Constitution itself in no way bestows upon them.
          PP Vs Casey essentially nullified the “spousal consent” a female had to get from her spouse in order to get an abortion. While the court upheld the other contested consents, THIS one is the one which essentially invalidated the rights of Men (husbands especially) to have a say so over whether his Wife could have an abortion or not. The plaintiff used the same arguments that homos today did on Obergefell to press the belief that Marriage is a right, irrespective of any actual Constitutional verbiage to establish that. Souder’s damnable gender quisling role in that is undeniable, and i am providing evidence to you so that you can see it for yourself. You are an exceptionally intelligent fellow, and because of that i have no doubt in my mind that you will see that for him to rule in favor of PP was not only a betrayal of the Constitution, but also of every Alpha male that was born to lead the US in life and bled to defend the US in death.
          http://www.thisnation.com/library/casey.html
          It has become exceptionally obvious that the 14th amendment, because of its unfortunately ambiguous wording, has become the preferred weapon of judicial choice of the US far left, in that they have used it to successfully sell the belief that want A equals right B thanks to amendment 14.
          Morality is at the heart and soul of every law, presuming of course that those who make the law have a heart and soul to begin with.
          When you intentionally construct a nation to not legislate on morality, you therefore end up with a nation that legislates on “immorality” aka anything the populist democratic masses consider a right irrespective of what the Constitution actually says. Again, our current American subculture reflects this, particularly with the “HMIC” (head mangina in charge) in the White House.
          Remember…the US was never intended to be a democracy, where anyone/everyone could simply make their feelings into rights by virtue of activism concomitant with persistence, it was intended to be a Constitutional republic made up of laws…which is why we are (were) considered to be a nation of laws, and not Men. These laws were derived from the Abrahamic faith, which listed prohibitions on murder, theft, perjury, and once upon a time, adultery and homosexuality. Jefferson for his part authored a bill which made it a crime and dismemberment the punishment for engaging in it. If that is not an example of legislating on morality, and one from our Founders no less, then nothing i have said is of any meaning and you should therefore ignore the rest of what i have said, and will say later on.
          I know you’re a fan of Jefferson, which is why i left my remarks of him for last.

      2. I don’t know that I agree with you about Thomas. Thomas’ opinions on affirmative action are about as red pill as you can get. And if you don’t think much of his intellect, I have to ask if you’ve ever read one of his dissents?
        As to how many “opinions” he writes, you should be careful here. Thomas is one of the most conservative judges in a group of mostly liberals. He doesn’t get to choose how many opinions he writes, and whether something is an “opinion” or a “dissent” or a “concurring opinion” depends on the votes, not Thomas’ intellect. On that point, I believe that he is one of the leading dissent writers, which is not surprising given the liberal slant to the court in comparison to Thomas’ views.
        Finally, I’m always curious why people think that not asking questions at oral argument is a mark against the man. Personally, I have never participated in an oral argument since my law school days as my practice doesn’t involve much appellate work. But I have watched a couple of SCOTUS arguments, and listened to others. In my limited experience, there is a vast difference between asking insightful questions, and filling space to showboat your own beliefs. Most of what goes on in the Supreme Court falls into the latter category, with Justices not really even paying attention to what the attorney has to say, if they even give him time to answer before stampeding over one another to pose “questions” that are really just arguments to the other Justices. Thomas, in my view, rightly sees this for what it is, pointless judicial theater that accomplishes nothing. None of the justices have any doubts about their vote prior to oral argument, and none are persuaded by anything an attorney says there. How could they be? They don’t give them time to answer! I actually credit Thomas for refusing to participate in something that cheapens the court, and quite frankly, is disrespectful to the attorneys appearing there.

        1. One of the female judges actually performed a same sex wedding before the ruling.

        2. Reinforcing your comment: “None of the justices have any doubts about their vote prior to oral argument”

    2. right, the three feminists should have been repeatedly struck down throughout their careers so they don’t attain positions of power
      part of the blame falls on the men who enable these things for misguided moral reasons

  15. This is very articulate, but never addresses the fundamental legal issue involved, which is the problem of STATE MARRIAGE LICENSES. When you give control over marriage to Caesar, then Caesar can marry whomever and whatever Caesar wishes. Churches in the US, and most everyone else, started getting marriage licenses in droves only a little over a century ago. Prior to that, most marriages were contained within each respective church, and when a couple recorded that union in their family Bible, this became LAW even with the State.
    So the marriage license is a novelty in American history. And THIS is foundational to the issue, and virtually everyone (except the judges) ignore and remain ignorant of this.
    Think about it: Neither George and Martha Washington, nor Abe and Mary Todd Lincoln, had a marriage license.
    Hello! McFly? Anybody in there?

    1. ^^this. This is the answer BUT Big Gay will have none of it as it takes away the issue which is what they want.

    2. Valid argument.
      However …
      The majority in the LGBT community lean far left. As in they consider GOV’T a personal friend and want him involved in everything.
      Consider what’s occurring in Oregon: 2 dykes — rather than moving along to another bakery — had to use their friend Big Gov’t to slap a massive fine, gag order and lein on couple’s business simply for not wanting to partake in gay wedding. These folks are control freaks & in complete favor of government limiting liberty whenever it’s against a person or business who disagrees with them.

  16. I don’t feel one way or another about gay marriage but I strongly believe it is not the place of the Supreme Court or any other branch of the federal government, to dictate to an entire country what marriage means. Our goal should have been to get the government out of the marriage game. There should be no government granted privileges associated with marriage whatsoever.

    1. My business law professor in 2006 once said;”If you guys thing the president, house or senate have power, think about the Supreme Court Justices. They are undoubtedly the most powerful rulers of our land, who directly affect the daily lives of more of us than anyone else. And once they’re in, they tend to hold their position until they either die, or simply can’t walk to their seat anymore.”

    2. It’s amazing that if someone is to be convicted of a crime, 12 members of a jury must agree. The decision must be unanimous. This decision affects ONE person’s life.
      The Supreme Court, however, can make decisions that affect the lives of EVERYONE and pass whatever they want as law with a vote of 5-4.

  17. While I view homosexuality as irregular and abnormal, and think it would be a horrible lifestyle to be born gay, I must disagree with this article.
    First, the current institution of marriage is not the same one that has been around for “thousands of years.” In fact, the idea of two young people, by choice, marrying for “love” is quite a new and modern concept. And one that does not appear very successful. With a failure rate of roughly 50%, it’s shocking that it is allowed to continue. Throughout history, marriage has held many forms, and meant different things in different societies. It has also evolved greatly (making the “you can’t change the definition of marriage” argument weak).
    Throughout most of western civilization, and much of the rest of the world, marriage was seen primarily as a union of TWO FAMILIES. It was a way to strengthen society on a micro level. If Brad and Stacy married, it was a union of the dozens of family members that Brad and Stacy each had, not a union of Brad and Stacy themselves. The extended family of each pledged to support Brad and Stacy however they could. If one of them was sick, an aunt or uncle could come take care of some household duties, help with children, etc. The extended female family members would all assist with childrearing and education. The male members would work together to build things, fix things, and support each other.
    Often, families would arrange or at the very least, suggest marriages. Even today, if one wants to marry a very traditional, religious minded woman, you will likely work through her family first, and many times if your family doesn’t know hers, it’s not going to happen. Indeed, if you marry someone from a traditional culture such as South America or Asia, their family becomes a part of your life. The idea of marrying for love is modern, and indeed church marriages are a relatively new phenomenon (typically vows would be exchanged in a private ceremony, and eventually the church became involved for reasons of control and finance). The idea of a civil or state marriage is only a couple of hundred years old, as the state wanted in on the money and power than the church obtained from marriage.
    A dowry was often paid (and indeed expected and demanded, and still is in many parts of the world) when the man agrees to take on the burden of a wife. A wife is expensive and typically a net negative to household finances (hence why baby boys are preferred as they can be productive workers, while girls could typically only do household tasks that men could do just as easily). Women were also not trusted to handle money independently, so the way a man passed on money to his daughter was by using a dowry to give funds to her husband once she married. The dowry was often used to support the wife and children, so as to reduce the financial impact of the bachelor male and intice him to marry. It is worth noting that dowry was a way of the bride and grooms family both contributing to the cost of establishing a new household, but the “pro-equality” feminist movement does not support such practices today, ironically.
    The idea of a man and woman voluntarily entering into a joint loving relationship of marriage is about 50 years old. While the human race is not dying off and children are still being spawned, it is, by all independent methods of measuring, a complete and utter failure. If any other institution had a failure rate of 50%, I cannot imagine it would be allowed to exist. Imagine if public school graduates only graduated half of its students with the ability to read and write. Imagine if hospitals killed half their patients. Imagine if the transportation system resulted in a 50% accident rate. Why anyone tolerates this alteration to historical marriage is a mystery.
    But if it is valid to marry someone just because two people have strong feelings, love each other, and have a desire to be together indefinitely, then it logically follows that gay marriage is just as legitimate as straight marriage. Further, in the eyes of the law, all citizens must be treated equally and therefore the state must present valid reasons why certain people (blacks, gays, children) must not be allowed to marry. In the case of gays (and blacks, as decided a few decades prior), there is no valid reason found.
    When marriage was more of a social contract than a sexual one, it was perfectly acceptable to have mistresses, and if one was gay, then one would presumably have a gay mistress, and maintain the husband / wife relationship for the reasons it was instituted. Then instead of the huge deal we have today of everything being celebrated and shoved in ones face, we would instead have straight husbands quietly taking straight mistresses, short to medium term romantic / sexual escapades which would die out of their own course, and gay husbands would quietly be taking gay mistresses, and it would be nothing of anyones business and no reason to discuss it whatsoever. There is a long history of married men who procreated, but were clearly gay and most of the sex they had was with other men. But they didn’t make a big deal about it.
    To summarize the points in the article:
    (1) It doesn’t matter anyway, because marriage itself is a ruined institution
    Modern marriages of choice between parties that have romantic feelings for each other, is a failed solution, but it is the form of marriage we have today. Yes, we should move away from this form of marriage and to a more reasonable, traditional marriage, such as what sustained humanity for thousands of years, but until there is a movement to do so, letting gay people marry for “feelings” is not fundamentally different than letting straight people marry for “feelings.”
    (2)They have a right to be happy. Civil unions could have given them what they want” Civil unions are precisely what we have today. A state sanctioned, state recorded database of approved household sharing is a civil union. The fact that the government calls it a marriage does not change what marriage was for thousands of years. What is the difference between a modern marriage and a modern civil union, other than semantics?
    I feel sorry for the gays who will be duped into getting a modern marriage, because marriage today is a scam, but the quality of marriage and society is not changed by this decision.
    I’ve read some books on the history of marriage which is quite interesting, but here is a brief link with some quick facts:
    http://www.livescience.com/37777-history-of-marriage.html

    1. Yet another comment at ROK, that could be submitted as an article. I agree with you. The idea of people marrying for love is very new, if compared to the vast history of mankind. Traditional marriage was, indeed the union of two families, and it actually worked.

      1. Marriage today isn’t about love imo. Today marriage is a business deal between two CEOs who spend months/years feeling each other out trying to gain more leverage over the other so that once the deal is made they can make off with more if it doesn’t workout.
        At the end of the day couples today have sex more when not married and even move in with each other and have kids while not married legally. Most unmarried couples are what married couples should be. Married couples today have the finger on the button ready to file for divorce if their spouse fucks up.

    2. I kind of tried to say something similar below but in a less articulate way that resulted in someone telling me to go back to HuffPost haha..

    3. I just want to see gay couples getting into family court and alimony shitfests…

    4. Good response and pretty accurate except for one thing: the religious authorities were in all history of Christendom and even in most pagan societies, involved at least as witnesses of the union of the two families, on behalf o the deity(ies) that were worshipped by that region/people. It was not for power or money (at least not most of the time) but in order to strengthen the ties between the bride and the groom, putting the deity as witness of that union.
      Government licenses and civil marriages are an aberration of history and the institution itself must die if some semblance of sanity is to return to man-women relationships (and with it all regulations and laws that attempt to regulate family life).

      1. The Council of Trent (1545-1563) issued several important decrees which changed the way the church operated, specifically addressing marriage by requiring a priest and two witnesses to be present for a wedding to be considered valid. Prior to that point, some areas of Christendom may have had priests performing marriages by tradition or custom, but it was not the norm, nor required.

        1. Marriage is one of the two sacraments (along with baptism) where no priest is needed in order to be valid. In the case of marriage, even though it’s advisable to have a priest as a witness, it was not mandatory for a marriage to be valid. Otherwise the marriages in other religions wouldn’t be considered valid. That’s why, after Vatican II, the sacrament is stil valid since in marriage, the two people constitute the matter of the sacrament and their mutual consent is the form.

    5. “If Brad and Stacy married, it was a union of the dozens of family
      members that Brad and Stacy each had, not a union of Brad and Stacy
      themselves.”
      Wrong.
      “The man said, ‘This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She
      shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man.’ For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.”
      So, you’ll see, in the Bible, women married off to men in other countries and never seeing their parents or any of their side of the family again. You’ll see that again among colonists and pioneers of America.
      With your ideas of someone being able to be “born gay” and Communist conception of marriage, you’re a transition point to the current public school indoctrination below:
      https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CJW4ME1XAAA2wDs.jpg

  18. I agree with Quintus when he says that the winners are the power elites, not the homosexuals. For decades now the power elites have been trying to undermine and do away with all traditional values. Once traditions go out the window, hedonism and anarchy take their place. And once these are in place and society is in disarray and in total confusion because of a lack of a moral compass, then the power elite step in and establish order amidst the confusion and chaos. This order will take the form of an Orwellian style dystopia where all facets of life are monitored, controlled and regulated. Both the social conditions and the technology are now firmly in place for this.

        1. tom, you seem to have more faces than azriel the cat has lives
          are we supposed to be the smurfs in this equation?

        2. are you referring to my profile picture? i am having trouble with my beard. but yes, i truly haven’t had a consistent look for a long time. guess i like to play around.
          yes, the smurfs.

        3. “i am having trouble with my beard”
          I had no idea you were gay Tom. Just kidding.

        4. A beard is someone of the opposite sex who is used or employed by a gay person as cover. I pretended that I thought you meant you were having trouble with your opposite sex beard while all the time I really knew you were referring to your facial hair.

  19. With all of these moves would it be too radical to suggest there really is a planned end goal?
    More estrogen in the food. Pornography free flowing throughout society. Extensive pushes to have more women in power. Extensive pushes to embrace women as leaders and neutering male sexuality. Promoting gay marriage finally. What does all of this have in common? A removal of future aggressive leaders willing to fight for anything as they will be made docile through estrogen, sex, and liberal thought control. Is the next step too much of a jump to just say? We should all watch the money very closely from now as it would be a great time for families to position themselves for global authority. And it all starts with corporations that have the most invested in America.

    1. American culture continues to go blue pill direction. Basically it comes to the reality that blue pill males are more docile, less likely to question authority, easily led and controlled. So that’s the political incentive for restructuring society as blue pill.

      1. What do you think happens when you let your “feelings” become your conscience? I’ll give you a hint as to America’s future…SWEDEN!!

    2. Speaking of estrogen and crap in the food, I read an article recently about how adult men can handle levels of estrogen found naturally in many foods, ie from soybeans, without it affecting their sexuality, but children cannot. Be very careful of the foods you are feeding your children. And then there is the issue of pharmaceuticals in the water supply–our municipalities do not filter for this, and public water supplies are loaded with residue from anti-psychotic medications, estrogen, etc. and it does not dissipate naturally, so the concentrations increase over time. Buy a good reverse osmosis or similar water filter, for ~$500 or so, it is well worth it.

        1. I have a friend who has one, and they have been around a long time. I have never heard anything bad about them. Personally, I highly recommend Pure Water Products of Texas who sell a variety of systems:
          http://www.purewaterproducts.com/black-and-white-ro
          My system is tied in to the plumbing, although it was only a minor installation. I specifically wanted to remove the fluoride, I don’t recall if the Berkey does that. These guys are extremely knowledgable about many different types of systems. It all comes down to what you want to eliminate and what is your local water like (hard/soft, city/well, fluoridated/not, levels of particulates, ph level). Once you change the $10 prefilter after 6 months or so and see all the shit you were drinking before (not to mention the microscopic and chemical stuff you can’t see) you will regret not purchasing earlier.

        2. I got a standalone version that sits on my counter. I can taste the difference already in the water. The Filter can last up to 6 months and are really inexpensive.

        3. I have a propur and its great, my water tastes like its from a fine restaurant(berkeys are better than propurs btw). Im upgrading to an RO filter so Ill see if its that much better.

        4. APEC makes stand alone RO filters, although from experience the tower filters are great(Berkey is better than propur except for their flouride filter made from toxic powdered aluminum). A shower filter is another good investment.

      1. So that’s what we blame for so many fem-males these days… said to see men lose without being able to at least swing back. We’re being eradicated like roaches with no idea what to do, this is why men should learn cooking at least at a basic level.

        1. One has to laugh at the irony that the response to an alleged feminisation of the male population is for manly men to get in the kitchen and start baking.

      2. i know guy who grew up on a farm in Kansas that had hundreds of acres of soy and he told me all soy in America is now GMO and probably not good for you at this point

      3. Right. Well, I had a mortal allergy to dairy as a child, ate/drank nothing but soy bean shit for my first 11 years. Still got hair on my chest, still got a good package, still ended up straight.

    3. You hit it right on the head with this (see below). No one challenging the status quo.
      ‘What does all of this have in common? A removal of future aggressive leaders willing to fight for anything as they will be made docile through estrogen, sex, and liberal thought control.”

        1. Correct! empires rise and fall because men rise and challenge the status quo. You oppress/suppress masculinity and the ability to foster it and you get a “bonobo society”

        2. Yes…
          Look at the evolution of male sports in the last two decades. Concussions this, concussions that. “Oh, I don’t want my son to play football because it is too violent”. LOL Not just in sports, a boy who gets in a fight will be expelled or even arrested, everyone wins, no more bullies…

        3. I don’t want to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but the state seems to be tactically expanding it’s power by reducing the power of men. Now the state can take away children from men. The state can force men to pay alimony and child support to their wives. The state can put men in prison if they refuse to do so. The bigger the daddy government gets, the more the power of men diminish as the leaders of their families and the leaders of the society.
          The state actually fears, strong, aggressive and masculine men. These type of men threaten their control. Thus, the state, uses, feminists, metrosexuals, and other liberal idiots to curb the masculinity of men. All this propaganda for men to embrace their feminine side, and to be sensitive, nurturing or to embrace the roles of house husbands, is state sponsored to counter men’s masculinity, and their aggressive nature.
          The more stronger and bigger the government gets, we can expect masculinity to be considered toxic, and be shamed more and more, and any man who displays even a faint hint of testosterone will find himself to be hounded by the society.

        4. Thus the trojan horse…
          Could you imagine the sight in San Francisco when the hordes from the East invade?
          You’d have the gays waving their Rainbow Flags, the herbavores sipping their tea, and the betas watching anime and jacking to porn.

        5. You wanna hear a conspiracy? Back in 2001 some guy named John Titor claimed to have come from the future (2036) and said that by the end of 2015 unrest then a civil war in America would lead to WWIII, he doesn’t look so crazy considering everything going on here and around the world, America’s fucked.

        6. I’ve never believed it and always called BS but crazier things have happened in America in 2015 alone to make me think im having a pretty bad acid trip or I could be in a coma. Some of this stuff going on is just so ass backwards.

        7. He probably tried but it’s unstoppable. You just try stop the hipster movement now..how ? walking the streets doing knockout game on every hipster you see ?

        8. Tom are you going full retard on me now ? It’s like you dont understand my very simple jokes

        9. You mean where we spend all our days looking after each other and having sex rather than cracking skulls over meaningless status points?
          Heaven forfend.

        10. Yea cuz we are not still cracking skulls..no way, that doesnt happen. Well, I know it doesnt happen in YOUR hood. Take a look around genius, ok ?

        11. i am extending on it. if he is a mass of hair, he can logically not see out of it. thus, wherever he looks, he sees a mass of hair.

        12. Being a family man today is a joke. Your wife can post on instagram that you slapped her or just that you dont want to do the dishes..boom ur life is over.
          You post on instagram that your wife slapped you and dont want to do the dishes…they will tell you to man up and call you a misogynist and she will be celebrated for her girl power.
          Someone still stupid enough to believe this game is not rigged ?

        13. I’ve really reached my boiling point with the convenient picking and choosing by women demanding “equality.”
          They want men to do 50% of traditional women’s work in home … but a guy wanting to split the tab? No. It’s tradition for guy to pay in full. Man Up. Be a “gentleman.”
          They’re obsessed with amount of women in air condition positions like TECH and CEO. Yet never speak on how completely male dominated moving, sanitation, paving, roofing and mining jobs are.
          Some play football and wrestle with guys — demanding they be allowed on teams with males. But a woman assaulting man and guy hitting her back in self-defense, “Men don’t hit women!”

        14. There are such stupid people. They’re called feminists, SJWs and white knights. Actually, maybe we should call these so called “white knights” something else. They’re a disgrace not only to true knights but all men.

        15. Don’t be such a smug fool. Docility comes at a cost. The unfortunate reality is that progress requires masculine energy, aggression, and yes, even violence. You have to be able to defend yourself against external threats and enemies. We like to believe we can continue in our safe, coddled, feminist and liberal Western world by emasculating men and “empowering women” but all this social engineering comes at a cost. Bonobos only managed to survive because they weren’t near any other competitors. They wouldn’t last too long against the more violent, male-dominated chimpanzees. They would be wiped out in no time.

        16. If violence and aggression were the keys to dominating the planet then the chimps, stronger and fiercer as they are, would rule and keep us in zoos.
          Progress requires co-operation, sharing of resources and exchange of ideas. We are social creatures and, as Newton put it, that we see so far is only because we stand upon the shoulders of giants.
          That technological advancement has gone hand in hand with amiability would seem to indicate a relationship between the two.
          The idea that men today are too reticent to smash each other’s head in with a rock over whose dick is bigger seems a rather odd one, but if you’re volunteering as a blood sacrifice to kindle these carnal lusts then feel free.

        17. Unless your anecdote is real I wouldn’t put that out in the universe. No point in giving anyone any ideas.

        18. Or they join a traditionaly masculine field like firefighting or the military then demand standards be lowered because they find the standards to hard. That’s not equality that’s special privilege.

        19. Progress requires both: co-operation and competition. It’s too simplistic and frankly, demonstrably false, to pretend civilization and progress requires only one.
          Like it or not, conflict and war have been some of the greatest engines of technological progress. Your claim that “technological advancement has gone hand in hand with amiability” is just wrong. Many technological innovations such as radar and even the Internet were the result of war and the military research. See this article for example:
          http://science.howstuffworks.com/war-drive-technological-advancement.htm
          I would also argue that the male sexual drive, male aggression and masculine energy, and desire to gain status over other men in order to attract women, has been one of the greatest motivators for men and driven many men to achieve great things.. many of them risking their lives to explore and conquer new territory. This is why progress is driven primarily by men, and not women, notwithstanding feminist delusions.

        20. And hordes of landwhales will be shouting that beauty comes in all shapes and sizes, and ironically complaining about manspreading. While blue haired angry, ugly women will be telling everyone why women must grow their armpit hair and cut their hair short. By then, we would have fifty percent women in the army by quota, and all of them will be screaming, “Don’t tell us to fight and give our lives to save you, but tell them not to kill us.”
          And the men in the army would be writing essays on how not to sexually harass women in the army.

        21. And some idiotic white knight will tell you that real men get slapped by women and don’t complain. Moreover, he’ll brag that he’s always been that real man.

        22. And yet most men don’t wake up. They’re busy eating hamburgers, dating land whales and jacking off to porn.

        23. Ah, the war, I thought this was coming.
          And it rather proves my point. When the society is threatened the tendency for co-operation sky-rockets. Divides of class, sex and ethnicity are subducted to the unifying cause. Scientific rivals who would have closely guarded their research in peacetime pool it all to get the grand prize out their in the New Mexico desert.
          And what do we see in society? World War Two gave birth to the modern Welfare state across Europe and North America. Socialist governments swept to power. And the wonderful flowering of productivity and human emancipation slowly followed.
          That humans do well under pressure of an external threat has a truth to it, but there are plenty to go round, from dying honey bees to rising sea levels to wandering asteroids without us needing to create more. When we’ve conquered every pathogen, developed fusion and set up the space laser then let’s talk about the need for Fight Club.

        24. Feminism has become nothing but a proliferation of special rights and non responsibility for women.
          The biggest thing which makes me livid is idea men can’t strike back when being assaulted by a violent female. Every damn time there’s video of female initiating violence on a man and the guy finally hits back, the MSM turns him into the villain and puts all responsibility on guy. As in “he should have walked away,” etc … .
          Never do you hear these people say, “A woman shouldn’t hit a man and expect him not to strike back.” (Well … some people did and they were crucified. ) After all this would force women to be accountable for their actions.
          So again we’re told the only difference between men and women is a social construct. And when getting past that, we’re complete equals. Yet magically anytime there’s negative ramifications to a woman’s actions where a man is present, suddenly the guy is treated like a rationally superior being who should know better and has to baby sit the woman since she’s just too irrational an infantile to be responsible for her actions.

        25. Agreed! They are happy with their mediocre lives with minimal sex. It’s about having principles and virtues that transcends all things physical. It’s a shame.

        26. the main reason they are lobotommizing all the kids with vaccines, mercury, aluminum, and toxic substances. they cant have the 5 % threatening their power base in the future. too many awake people have had enough.

        27. I can see the protests for the military:
          The less capable members will demand
          “Teach the enemy not to shoot!!!!”
          If & when Russia, China, ISIS or whomever shows up on our beaches, we can insist that they undergo sensitivity training, and that they may only go after white males, obvs!!
          Perhaps we can have a water balloon fight or something instead, or we can have a bunch of fat HR directors harangue the invaders into submission.
          Captured enemy soldiers can be subjected to 957 straight hours of gender/gay sensitivity training by a shrill-voiced HR ditz who ends every sentence with the up-inflection.

        28. It’s not the “state” it is the capitalist oligarchs who pay off the politicians who are doing that

        29. Cooperation is required. It is required between members of like minded individuals. He did not say it required allllll members of the species to cooperate. That was kind of a false dichotomy fallacy really.
          To look at both from the extreme, with 100% cooperation you could still see SOME advancement of humanity. With 100% competition you would have a feral nightmare.
          Avoid the false dichotomy whenever possible.

        30. not plausible, simply for the reason that the word “dream” is probably not appropriate to describe our experience. some people say it is a computer simulation.
          whatever it is, it is a fascinatingly logical system. sometimes, i look up to the sky and imagine what a feeling it would be if gravity suddenly stopped existing and the atmosphere would vanish only to let me be sucked up by dark space.

        31. It always starts with a little nibble. A little compromise. Then, it escalates into an entire shark bite. Took me long enough to notice this myself. And I was one of those who’d consider all manner of conspiracy as nuts in a previous lifetime.

        32. Reverse punch with the ‘white knights are misogynists’ line for treating women as not being equal by taking away their accountability & treating them like children. That’s worked for me..heh.

        33. He should have gone back to 1972. Prevented those masculine man hunting Sentinels from being created by Dr Tyrion Lannister Trask…
          and therefore avoiding our current predicament 😀

        34. Yea the matrix theory is very interesting. We are so reliant on forces out of out control to live it’s sacry when you think about it.

        35. Yeah that often works. Some days ago I got into an argument with female troll. I browsed her other posts. She often wrote hateful comments about the people of Saudi Arabia, justifying it with the way they treat woman.
          I called her a racist, a white nationalist cunt. As I expected that drove her crazy. Liberals and leftists go crazy whenever they are proven to be or are called racist, misogynist, homophobe or something similar.
          Reverse blue bill attack works. Keep it up.

        36. Yes. As for the gays, it started with “recognizing” that gay people exist. Then people were told to tolerate the effeminate way gays behave, though their behavior deviated from how people expected men and women to behave. At that time people were tolerated gays for the sake of compassion, because gays “couldn’t help it” . Then came an era, when people were told that they don’t have to tolerate gays for the sake of compassion but because gays had the right to behave as they do. They homosexual relations began to be excepted. Films began to have homosexual characters. All of a sudden there were gay jokes, and feelings of sympathy for homosexuals. Then parents were shamed for being concerned when their children came out as gay, and being gay became a matter of pride. Being gay became fashionable, and a way of attention whoring. Children were encouraged to “experiment” with their sexuality, and at that time we witnessed a mass confusion among teenagers regarding their sexuality. This type of confusion was never seen in another time or place, throughout the history of mankind. And now we have gay marriage.
          A lot of times a heavy outpour starts with a mere trickle.

        37. And they are giving drugs to little boys in schools to calm them down. Somebody else posted that while adult men are able to counter the effects of estrogen in their diet, children cannot. What if these drugs contain estrogen or a synthetic chemical akin to this hormone? Then we have an entire nature of fucked up effeminate boys.
          And at the same time, this sends a twisted message to little boys. The are told that willingness to run around or make a little mess are abnormal behavior. In fact, this is not abnormal. Normal, heterosexual young boys are like that. Shaming their masculinity at such a young age isn’t right.

        38. “any man who displays even a faint hint of testosterone will find himself to be hounded by the society”
          Once artificial birthing means are developed – the production of sperm from bone marrow, the system could simply devlare that male genitaila are things that need to be removed because ‘they cause anti social behavior’ imagine state mandated castratuonn of newborn boys. It is not outside the relm of possibility if things contunue as they have been.

        39. “Someone still stupid enough to believe this game is not rigged?”
          Unfortunately yes. These retards are referred to as “the groom”

        40. Thanks for your insightful comment. Yes, it could happen. Acceptance of homosexuality and feminism would seem very radical a hundred years ago, but now they are accepted, with very few people questioning these ideologies. Although It seems too radical now, it could happen. Feminists could argue that castration for all newborn boys should be mandatory because it would annihilate rape.

        41. I just don’t get the point of pursuing artificial birthing means.
          I mean, sure you can extract the bone marrow from someone and do it that way..
          Or, and this gonna sound crazy.. you could go out and fuck someone

        42. “If violence and aggression were the keys to dominating the planet then the chimps, stronger and fiercer as they are, would rule and keep us in zoos.”
          Flawed argument. We have weapons and are better organized and thus are a lot better at violence than animals.

        43. We’re better at co-operation, which makes us better at just about every task. Indeed, the very fact you can compartmentalise actions as violent is indicative of how non-violent we are as a species.

        44. Lion and tigers dont rule over mankind because they don’t have the brains to do it.

        45. You’re absolutely right. That completely slipped my mind. It’s gotten to the point where if a man’s livelihood involves any type of strength or physical violence, you choices are a) off dating foreign (read: traditional) women or b) living a ascetic lifestyle of solitude.

        46. “The idea that men today are too reticent to smash each other’s head in with a rock over whose dick is bigger seems a rather odd one, but if you’re volunteering as a blood sacrifice to kindle these carnal lusts then feel free.”

        47. White Minions? They come rushing to a woman to protect her the second she claims to be in danger… also they blindly follow anything their masters say.

        48. What? Are you retarded!? Do you have a death wish or do you truly WANT to be arrested for rape.

        49. No, they only see a mass of hair in the mirror which even covers their eyes. So they would have a massive amount of hair in their eyes. Thus when they look anywhere all they are able to see is hair.

        50. Very true! Much like anti-bodies against known diseases, it kills them dead, and builds up your tolerance. A social-immune system if you will.
          I had a “black-supremacist” tell me to check my privilege a couple semesters ago. I used that exact tactic, and he almost completely shut down.

        51. Of course, they don’t want to pick up fifty percent of taking out the trash. Doing the yard work. Shoveling the snow. Cleaning the dog crap. wrestling with he kids. Driving long distances. Dealing with bullies. Working mass overtime, or overnight.
          Or paying for anything.
          Basically, if you are married to a feminist bitch, and are not able to go back to school/start-a-business while paying for everything from daycare to groceries and a mortgage while she sits on her ass. Simultaneously doing your studies or sales while doing her share of everything as well you are a dead beat misogynist.

        52. Too funny…but I agree, it’s sometimes hard to believe this insanity is real life.

        53. Call me a knuckle dragger, but I can never come to believe there isn’t something VERY wrong with a man who wants a cock up his ass. Also, there is nothing wrong with informing those so inclined that they are doing that wrong…that’s outside the equipment’s design parameters.

        54. Yeah!
          They want a 50-50 split on the things where they can take male dominance away. However, when it comes to other things, they want to take 100% of the liability. How many women preach 50-50 but when a guy takes them out on a date they want to be taken care of? How many of these so called “career women” will jettison their careers once they snag a provider and become the stay at home mom leach. ***BTW Roosh, it would make a ton of sense to write an article about this trend. There are so many women nowadays who are using the stay at home mom scheme to spend their husbands money, attend crossfit class, neglect homemaker chores and children” There are the same women who hook up with the trainer from the crossfit classes and get a favorable divorce ruling. I’m sick and tired of hearing about feminism and their struggle. They have won! Wish someone would say something!

        55. I wonder when society is going to tolerate men being men, like in the same way they tolerate gays being gay, it seems to me that if your a man, your worthless, and if a woman says your a bad man, thats it, off with the head…whisked away to a dog house to get fucked by bubba in the back of the prison cell.

        56. well not really, men do have prostate which is actually healthy to have massaged from time to time to increase blood flow and decrease cancer risks etc, but yea…man loving is just so wrong…but to have men pumping each others bums and pulling shit out and flicking it all over the walls just doesnt seem natural…I could understand like a guy wanting to feel a dildo or something like that in there to massarge the prostate for overall health reasons but poo pounding is just hmmm ewww

        57. I know a guy who was divorced is now married to a mega feminist. He is so brainwashed that he totally embraces it. He struts around like a flaming metrosexual. Guess where his wife is from? Sweden? I lost all respect for the dude once I got to know him. Instead of becoming a red pill man, he sold out and now is a feminist lapdog. The worst is that he now has a little son, who is already be indoctrinating in how to be a man. I won’t be look till his life falls apart and he becomes divorced. He just moved to the Rocky Mountains and there are a ton of real men out there. He will be divorced again!

        58. He got divorced and married again? And that also to a feminist woman from Sweden? Looks like he didn’t face a financial rape during his first divorce, and thus didn’t realize the danger he was plunging himself in. Although I wouldn’t want him to suffer, it’s likely that he will learn a lesson this time. That woman from Sweden sounds promising.

        59. The society will begin to tolerate men being men, when men themselves start acting like men and don’t apologize for it.

        60. Neither I. When I was a child I believed it is wrong because the Bible says it. I believe this today too.
          But I don’t argue with people like this. I don’t want them to insult the Bible or Christianity. Instead, I argue with them with scientific facts. That means hardcore scientific facts, not the liberal interpretation of science. Biologically speaking, sex is for the purpose of reproduction. Homosexual sex can’t achieve that. Male and female bodies are designed to fit together. Two men’s or women’s bodies aren’t. Vagina is specifically designed for the insertion of penis. The anus isn’t. It’s not naturally lubricated, and inserting penis in anus without a condom, can cause a plethora of STD’s, even if a couple is monogamous. Opposites attract, likes repel. The world is based on polarity.
          Further more, numerous studies have shown that children for, a healthy growth, need a male and a female role model, that is their mother and father. Children in a two mother, or two father family don’t grow healthy. The often have behavior problems, and are often under achievers and are also far more likely to end up on welfare.Some people argue that homosexuality exists in animals too, so it must be okay. I disagree. A number of psychological and physical disorders exist in animals and humans alike. Do we say that is normal too?

        61. Also, because the anus isn’t designed for sex, penetration causes tears in the anus. The semen enters the bloodstrem through the tears and spreads disease.

        62. Why don’t you come over to the dark side then honey ;p
          You won’t have to deal with feminist bitches and guys are really good at sucking dick. Bet you would love a good arse shagging, once the heads in you’ll have the time of your life. Hit me up if you ever fancy it xxx

      1. All the feminine whiners complaining about women are missing the point about the State and its intentions. In fact, they are playing right into their hands.
        Stop hating on women and figure out in whose interest it is to have the population turn on each other over each and every polarizing issue.

    4. Google, Apple, and Facebook pretty much have us under watch constantly and we allow it. Where do our gmail passwords go? To a computer? Yes, but who has access to that computer? The elites of Google. And with everything connecting our accounts it’s easy to hack us without us ever knowing.
      This is evident when you see the seemingly “random” raids on someone’s house and they “randomly” find child porn or beastiality. Google, Apple, and Facebook pretty much have a monopoly on America even with smaller corps/businesses they have the market the same way the Dems and Repubs have the government.

        1. I’m not politically correct, a meaningless term anyway, I’m just not scared of/secretly attracted to men who have sex with other men, and so have no need to try and denigrate them.

        2. Who am I speaking up for? I’m correcting a jackass on his nonsense. If he said Vikings were really stupid for wearing those horned helmets, and I said that was a misconception based on flawed Victorian notions, would that show I felt, “the need to speak up for” Vikings?

        3. The old tired “if we disagree with the radical and stupid notion that an abnormal and perverted sexual relationship between two men or women is on the same level and has the same societal importance and weight as that between a man and a woman that means we’re scared of men having sex with other men or even more laughable, that we’re secretly attracted to men” trope.
          See, you’re not the only one who can play these silly, childish games.

        4. Sure guy. You seem insecure. I feel comfortable shelving this conversation, for now. For your sake of course.

    5. Been thinking the same myself about what the end game of all that is. You’re right it’s to create a docile population.

    6. I’m certainly no prude but it’s obvious to me that it’s a many pronged attack over the last few generations to gradually change normal people’s belief systems.
      I’m not sure about the food additives because farmers were always doing that to increase production and I couldn’t say how it effect men BUT it does seem odd and it may just be one of those variations that occur for some unknown reason, Testosterone levels and sperm counts have been dropping since the 50’s;not sure what effect it has on fertility or manliness.
      Porn is definitely planned because it was sort of pushed all over the place, and it wasn’t due to more demand.
      Psychiatric drugs, like SSRI’s were definitely planned and aggressively promoted to alter people’s and especially kids perceptions and to make them more susceptible to suggestion promoted through the boobtube and media and unfortunately the millenials and GenY are the hardest hit due to the fact that they were exposed to TV virtually from birth.
      I’m against ALL drugs laws but promoting Cannabis is another tactic they use.If I wanted to slowly break down a person’s resistance I’d get them in the habit of smoking it.

    7. The Power Brokers of our time are always looking for the next category of Useful Idiots to manipulate and groom as cat’s paws. Chalk this up as a notch in their Win column. The rest of us here need to keep arming ourselves with mental & physical skills necessary for cleaning up the mess approaching on the horizon. History has shown masculinity always gets called upon to clean up & rebuild after whatever doom the Useful Idiots bring upon the rest of us.

    8. That assessment is very accurate and I would add the endgame is a satanically controlled dystopia, with added mark of the beast. Those useful idiots on Facebook with the rainbow profile pictures have no idea. Do not be fooled – the societal endorsement of paedophilia is next, this has been predicted for many decades following gay marriage (‘love wins’ remember). The North American man boy love association will increase in political influence. The degradation will then be complete.

    9. The end goal is akin to what Joe Haldeman described in “The Forever War,” which was written in either the late ’70s or the early ’80s. The book was about a soldier who, due to time dilation, aged very little while traveling between earth and the alien planets to which he was deployed. The problem was, the passage of months for him was like years passing on earth. Each time he came back, he found that society had gotten just a bit more loopier. On his last visit, he found out that nearly everyone on Earth had become homosexual. He found out that being heterosexual had been deemed a mental dysfunction requiring state-sponsored reeducation except in rare cases. The protagonist’s extensive career, which put him high up in the societal hierarchy, was about the only thing that allowed him to avert that fate. But in the end, he left Earth altogether in the hopes of finding some semblance of normalcy in the cosmos.
      The endgame today is what it’s been ever since Sodom and Gomorrah, the Greek and Roman Empires, and the like: the state-wide recognition and normalization of deviant behavior and twisted world-views. It’s like the millennia-long battle between the Jedi and the Sith. None of this is anything new. Throughout history, feminists, atheists, communists, and other ultra-libtards and social deviants have reared their ugly heads to challenge the infrastructure built by normal, decent, right-thinking people. As long as the rabble-rousers were sent running back into their hidey-holes, society went on. But every time the deviants got the upper hand, society fell. The problem is, liberals don’t care if society falls and we all end up living like those poor bastards we see in those “Mad Max” movies. After all, it is in chaos that they feel the most “free.” It’s a pity that neither they nor the Supreme Court justices bothered to heed historian Arnold Toynbee’s warning that 19 of the 22 societies in history fell once they reached the moral state America is in today.

    10. Estrogen in the food? Does that also explain high obesity rates in the US, too?

      1. In a word, yes. I would highly suggest you look into the food industry and what the effects have been of the additives included.

      1. The problem isn’t the change that the American environment endorses, but the covert aspects being used on their populace to shift society into a new body as a whole. Whether one can or should entertain the notion of a big conspiracy will only induce lunacy and my original statement did not intend to do this. However, as a straight male, the attack has been brought home by the man who believed the male has a duty to be subservient and protective to all. In turn each man originally only had a duty to protect himself. In the last 15 years, with the man who has grown to seek his approval through woman, has evolved into an attack on men who sees errors within this new ideology.
        Does this make the male who sees different an automatic misogynist? Should man be perceived as a criminal for his sexuality? The obvious answer is no, yet, here we are, with laws that will further remove males from the educational sphere. The only ones allowed will be men who perform for sex in ways that are approved by women, which are backed by laws. That is an ever shifting platform as there is plenty of sexism promoted by women against men in this sphere and the argument is they have a right to it.
        As the future is enacted by us day by day, we have a responsibility to think freely. Change, while the end result of free thought and coming to a democratic decision, is removed from the American argument when you control thought, you control behavior, and you criminalize difference as lack of free thought is anti-American. These free thinkers, in this instance men, are needed to be vigil as something is very wrong when free thought becomes a hindrance.
        What is still clear is the change is leaning towards masculinity in the ways that have led humanity to the apex that it has become, has become a vice to the popular world. To the man who inherently has this in his genome, this is an attack on him. He therefore has a responsibility to himself, and to those who respect him, to find a way to insure his survival. Hopefully this will lead to a future that works best for all alive, including women, but the legal field and the authority allowed to our government is clearly the new battleground.

        1. This theory would best explain the current movement and why some men vehemently believe that being male feminist is right as they view women as a class oppressed for far too long. The inherent problem here is a community of men has long been robbed of society as wars have created a wedge between men and separate clans have made it hard for any cooperation to occur.
          This may not matter to women, as this could be an end all be all existence. What this will amount to is the death of cultural enhancement. It is this illusion of God and servitude to a higher cause that has allowed the great creations of humanity to exist. With the death of sexism, there will be nothing to exalt or praise. Nothing to push forward to other than a higher paycheck and the ability to ensure a profitable existence while alive. With a finite existence already in play, why settle for the short term of resource hoarding when any corporation is open to destruction? It does gel with all of the niches crafted to support sexuality (or hedonism depending on your stance) and our belief that our immediate knowledge makes us superior to thousands of years of humanity.
          This all reminds me of the man who flew to the sun in hopes of attaining knowledge of the universe and this existence that supported his life. All he ended with was hastening his own death as he knew not what he sought.

        2. Illusions are the stuff of dreams. They are hard to make endorse as they typically go against the norm of substantiated beliefs. An eternal argument against God has been the maintained belief that it is an illusion. I use the term here as it is the easiest to follow. The elevator was an illusion, a concept in the minds of fools, as was the airplane, and the submarine. Electricity was also an illusion as was the ability to find or later, split an atom. Will we find proof of God one day? Who is to say we haven’t found it already.? At the end of the day that is an esoteric notion, but on my original point, humanity has maintained illusions to induce progress and change.
          As of late, the only illusions purported are those to free women as a class, hinder masculinity to where it is chosen by women as a class as to how it shall exist, and enforce laws to instill obedience to societal constraints.
          Whether this is the role of the obedient slave is of little concern as I admit my only slavery was always to creating a new human to enjoy or hate this existence, or simply decide what they choose to decide of it. As have I had to make the same choice. What is to state that the real slavery enstated now isn’t to mitigate the populace through rules and ordinance all while momentarily placated the masses with freedom?
          How is there freedom when the most free of existences holds only in anonymity?

        3. Simply put, I am a slave to my desire to have a family. This can be re-tooled to simply bedding many women. We all serve a master at the end of the day. Whether it be our desires or someone else’s is always up for debate.

  20. Great article, thank you!
    What do the one percenters’, SJW’s, feminists, pro-gay, and leftist lobbies all have in common?
    They are destroying Western Civilization.
    It all starts at the top with the one percenters’. This plan has actually been in motion for almost 50 years.
    The plan was basically this. In order to control the world there needed to be a breakdown of the social class structure. You needed to have the very rich will all the influence and everyone else. Money equals power. Take the money away from the masses and you gain power. They couldn’t just do it at once. People would rebel and resist the changes. So, it has been a plan that has been played out over the past 50 years.
    Stage 1: Destroy the Social System: This happened during the 1960’s and 70’s. The rise of the free love movements, feminism, and the rejection of traditional values started the erosion of Western Society.
    Stage 2: Destroy the Middle Class: This started in the early 80’s and continued until the late 2000’s. Break unions, eliminate blue collar jobs, stagnate wages. The traditional nuclear family now is disrupted. Two parent wage earners now take precedence. Children lack guidance. Latch key syndrome. Minorities have less blue collar opportunities and turn to crime. Single mothers grow exponentially.
    Stage 3: Falling Away From Church: This started in the 90’s and has been accelerating of late. The broken nuclear family system now affects faith. Boomers come to age and stop putting a precedence on their parents values. A whole generation is raised without having to live by morals. Organized religion starts to decline.
    Stage 4: Rise of Women: Blue collar men can no longer find viable careers. Women start educating-up. Feminism is rampant and hypergamy becomes the norm. Most men cannot match women’s incomes and become marginalized. MGTOW, PUA, and Red Pill movements grow in response. This starts around 2004 and now is fullblown.
    Stage 5: Breakdown of Moral Systems: Feminism, SJW’s and gays have taken over positions of power. Perverse has now become norm. Mindless sheep populate throughout Western civilization due to the moral vacuum. The silent and greatest generations are now elderly or dead. The millennials and boomers are now the dominant social groups.
    Stage 6: Now: The nuclear family system is broken, moralistic norms that were respected for thousands of years are ignored, the male hierarchy is limited to those with power (one percenters), average men don’t procreate or take care of other men’s children, women don’t marry, birthrates continue to plummet, tax bases dwindle, you guess whats next…

        1. That is the question. The losses piled up on all sides and the rebuilding process led to the USA extending it’s global reach.

        2. The Soviet Union was a deliberate, calculated sacrifice to further the ideal of “global communism” (like drawing the enemy in with a weak line to pincer them between superior forces).
          While we all watched the icon of communism (so to speak) burn, the ideology itself rapidly continued to spread throughout the world. Who went off to fight the “dreaded red menace” in Korea and Vietnam? Naive yet patriotic kids, many of whom died or came back mentally destroyed, certainly disillusioned with their prior governments.
          How many countries then began openly teaching the social justice dogma in universities now that the focus had shifted away from their activities as being subversive? How many countries right now are feeling the burden of having overextended their means trying to balance socialist demands? Free health care, environmental protection, welfare checks and food stamps.
          Greece is pretty well screwed, Britain and Germany are trying to withdraw before they burn but can’t let go of Nanny completely, China, Cuba and others are already Communist. Canada and Australia are completely around the bend, and the nation many consider the crux of it all, the creator of the UN and NATO, the United States is doubling down on a pair of deuces (the next two establishment candidate morons who will continue the same tripe regardless of their partisan affiliation.
          And it isn’t really even about communism, socialism, fascism, or whatever, they are the means to an end: the establishment of a world-wide totalitarian reich of the wealthy chosen.
          The question might better be asked, who won World War I?

        3. As much as you may dislike Trump he seems to be the only person wealthy and well-known enough to rise above the machine.
          I don’t really trust him but he has enough of his own money. He is not PC and that is good in my book.
          But look at the concerted effort by mainstream media and business to destroy him?

        4. What can they do to him? Seriously? Cancel his show? Oh, darn! All those billions in this country ALONE (not to mention where all else he’s hiding money, which I’m sure he’s very cunning at) cannot be touch by the media and SJWs. Really wish he would create a militia to shove these vermin into blast furnaces with all of his money!

    1. Settle down Chicken Little. It’s not like this hasn’t been coming for a while. Enjoy what you can, and brace for impact.

    2. It’s deeper than that – the behavior of all those groups can be traced back to pathological, but uncontrolled compassion, without it leftist positions cannot stand

      1. Do you think the power and influence of the Rockefeller and Rothschild families ceased to have their wealth once their wealthy heirs died? Or what about the Bush family? Isn’t another one running for the While House? It’s not just about one generation. It’s a cadre of elites who want to maintain their control and way of life- even beyond their time on this earth.
        These elites have used the liberals, SJW’s, minorities as “pawns” to propagate their plans for world domination. There are plenty of secret clubs that are known to meet from time to time who are made up of these people. Do you think they are talking about Bruce Jenner’s sex change and their latest golf scores?
        It’s actually kind of funny now that I am bringing Jenner up because he is mixed in this whole thing in a very weird way. Did you notice that Nikki Hilton married at Rothschild recently? Some say it could be the greatest merging of two of the most wealthiest families. Also, the Hiltons are close friends to the Kardashians. They actually rose to prominence through Paris Hilton. And for all those years people were fooled to think Paris Hilton was an idiot. She is not! It was all a ruse! Birds of a feather flock together. Remember that? Power elites intermarry constantly.
        To answer your original question, you cannot think like a person with tremendous wealth unless you have it. When you have wealth you will do almost anything to accumulate more and keep it. Those who have wealth wield tremendous power. They are not dumb! They know that if they lose their wealth they will lose their legacy. And for these people, their decedents are their legacy.

        1. Believe what you will. But how many of these prominent families have disowned their children when they have gone against the family business? Nevertheless, I stick by my assertion that there is a grand conspiracy and there are a lot of people in on it.

    1. Exactly but I wonder when anyone is going to talk about this:

      “At present some 364,000 Israelis of Jewish ancestry — mostly immigrants from the former Soviet Union — are not considered Jewish according to ultra-Orthodox laws and are defined as “religionless,” meaning they cannot marry in Israel. Israel does not allow civil marriages or interfaith weddings.”
      source: http://news.yahoo.com/israel-rows-back-judaism-conversion-reform-160114708.html?soc_src=mediacontentsharebuttons&soc_trk=fb&fb_ref=Default

  21. I think marriage is almost irrelevant if you live in Western country. I’m serious. It’s relevant only to those like us who enjoy tradition and monogamy. But it’s fairly obvious looking at divorce, alimony, wife support (child support), child custody laws, and the dozens of programs for single moms that the family is destroyed in all but name only. Something like 40% of children are raised by single moms and the number is climbing across all races. In America I sincerely believe that only really religious people with a strong commitment to children, family, and religion should get married. Even that I would argue is pretty risky.
    These people that push for the “destruction” of marriage need to wake up, marriage already destroyed thanks to people like them. To be a smart, rational, hardworking man is to be one that meticulously avoids marriage as long as possible. The day you say “I do” is the day she has you legally by the balls. Every man that gets divorced almost says the same thing, “She was great before she married, she cleaned, cooked, fucked, sucked me off, then after marriage she became a total bitch.”(Also perhaps they’re not as crass) Not surprising when you lose all of your authority that she becomes disconnected.
    When I was a little kid I wanted to get married like my parents but now I see through the scam. My dad was a sucker and my mom was controlling. I am glad that he was there though thank God but really my grandpas and uncle taught me more than my dad. I first thought marriage was bullshit but with more research I realized that no, only Western marriage is bullshit.
    It is silly to worry that marriage will be destroyed in the Western world, it already is destroyed in all but name only. Especially now with gay marriage which just makes a whole mockery out of marriage. Marriage is for children and legacy, not to play dress up, have a wedding, and have society accept your faggotry. My only hope is that people in non-Western countries reading this article and what I have to say will work strongly against marriage destruction in their societies where it still matters.
    I would argue that they should destroy marriage in it’s current form. It’s STATE-RUN form. Going back to where the only people who get married can go to church or wherever and do so would be a huge IMPROVEMENT to the marriage system. One where private individuals choose to raise children “under God” is that much better for men then “Under U.S.A.” They can destroy the institution of marriage legally and I hope they do because it’s such a joke, but they can’t destroy it culturally, religiously or personally for a long time. That would go too far, people would step in and stop them. Or simply ignore them. How can they physically stop you from getting married? Marriage without the absurd state protections would encourage men to marry again. So I wish them the best of luck on destroying the state-run marriage racket and the millions if not billions passed through the courts, divorce lawyers, and other crooks. So ironically the best thing for marriage would be destroying it (At least in its state-monopolized existence).

    1. Get married.
      But get a good prenup first.
      And if she causes issues,
      “There’s the door”

  22. Most gay couples not even faithful to each other, and most don’t even want kids. Fail.

    1. Agreed! I’ve heard some disgusting stories about having open relationships. can you say public health crisis!

      1. This is a key point.. many gay couples, married or otherwise, have “open relationships” and this is considered quite normal and acceptable in gay culture.
        Gay marriage is a Trojan Horse that will end up cheapening and weakening the already weak institution of marriage, thanks to feminism. Heterosexual couples might be tempted to experiment with “open relationships” just like their gay married counterparts.. This is going to open the door to cuckolding of men, and this is really the worst thing possible for a married heterosexual man. Gay couples can sleep around and have “open relationships” without worrying about being tricked into raising the bastard offspring of another man, but straight men have no such luxury.

  23. “[homosexual marriage] has never existed in history.”
    you’re either an idiot or a liar. which do you prefer?

    1. There are some factual inaccuracies in this article (I pointed out some in earlier comments). Instead of namecalling, why don’t you tell us about these historical marriages? I doubt the author is either an idiot or a liar, but most likely ignorant and unaware of these marriages, as I am. Either way, no one has learned anything from your post except that you are angry and emotional.

      1. actually i think the author of the article does deserve this type of response. homosexuality has been with humans since humans walked this earth. just as homosexuality is observed in hundreds of other species. homosexual unions or marriages have been observed in human history for millennia across cultures. the author trots out the same old bigoted nonsense we’ve heard ad nauseum, against our families, our friends, our acquaintances, in order to deny homosexuals equal rights under the law.
        i actually should have said much worse. but for now, i’ll leave it at idiot or liar.

        1. you seem to be conflating all same-sex sexualised behaviour throughout history (not to mention within other species) with the homosexuality of modern identity politics. Its not a quibble: gay sex was common in greece and rome for example, but very few who engaged in homosexual relationships would have identified as homosexual in the modern sense. Homosexuality in Greece was simply a different animal from homosexuality in the modern world of identity politics

        2. Did you even read the article, you dumb fuck?
          The author clearly stated that homosexual behaviour has been around for ages.. and even mentioned how it was acceptable and tolerated in in the classical world.. in ancient Greece, for example.. but never was the radical and stupid notion introduced that two men could marry in the same manner as a man and a woman.
          Marriage is a core societal institution.. and one should be every careful with tampering with it and cheapening it by pretending two gay men or two lesbians have the same societal value and relationship as the union between a man and a woman, which is capable of creating and raising children.

        3. so are you next going to ban the elderly from marrying? or people that can’t possibly have children, like women that have had hysterectomies?
          what’s wrong with two men adopting a child or children? what’s wrong with one or both women being fertilized and having children? or just adopting?
          yeah, fuck you you stupid cunt. think about how fucking stupid and bigoted you’ve just exposed yourself to be.

        4. are you a complete bigot? because any day i’m waiting for you to ban marriage for the elderly or women who have had hysterectomies or any family that’s infertile.
          there are plenty of ways that either two men or two women can have children and raise them. children raised in same sex relationships are no different than any other children who’s parents love them.
          bye bye bigot.

    2. Sure, in Western History homosexual acts and behaviors have existed. However, homosexual behaviors have never been included in societal sanctifying rituals. If am wrong, please, correct me.

    1. There is no courage in following a psychotic delusion, but cowardice in not debunking it

  24. The Blue Pill male (aka herbavore, hipster, drug addict, geek, cosplay enthusiast, ultra-conservative religious fanatical, liberal sympathizer, metrosexual)
    – addicted to porn and/or video games
    – politically correct
    – out of shape or fat
    – does not read or pursue educational interests
    – is a SJW
    – has no friends
    – dates or marries single moms or fatties
    – abuses drugs or alcohol
    – flaunts wealth because of low self esteem
    – marries stay at home mom leacher
    – avoids dating and women
    – frequents stripclubs
    and much more

  25. Another solid article today. A couple of additional points:
    Quintus discusses tolerance of homosexuality in past times. What is lost today is the fight over the meaning of the word “tolerance.” Since when does tolerance mean that I have to attend gay pride parades, watch gays on TV shows, bake gay wedding cakes, and in general, bow at the alter of gay feelings to not be a hateful bigot?
    Many have noted that the aim should have been to get the government out of the marriage business, a view that I have also shared with close friends in the past. But it’s also easy to lose sight of another slight of hand being played here – the distinction between “rights” and “privileges” has been obliterated. The Constitution guarantees no one – homo or hetero – a right to marry. The Equal Protection clause says that states cannot deny people “protections” of the laws. “Protections” attach to “rights,” which under the Constitution are listed as prohibitions on government action. Since when do “protections” attach to privileges? Since when does any moron possess the “right” to drive a vehicle? The state issues licenses for this purpose, just as they issue marriage licenses. But, as anyone who has accrued too many points or tickets knows, this is a “privilege” that the government can deprive you of with no due process at all (try failing your driving test, or not paying your taxes, or fail a sobriety test to see how). When you have a license, all states recognize it, not because they are forced to by law, but because they have agreed to by compact. There is no more “right” for me to be married than any gay couple.
    And finally, for me, the most problematic thing about this decision is how quickly “democratic rule” can be disposed of when convenient. We speak of a “power elite” and wonder who are these nameless individuals lurking in the shadows pushing their personal agendas on the restive masses? They’re not hiding. Five of them: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Anthony Kennedy – none of whom are elected, and all of whom cannot be removed from the bench – simply dictated to an entire nation what they shall henceforth believe. There was a time when the Supreme Court refused to participate so blatantly in matters that are purely political, and instead of ruling by fiat, they would have let the wheels of social change turn slowly instead. Those days are gone. Look at culture today – is there really any doubt that acceptance of homosexuality is in danger? I cannot turn on the TV, look at a magazine rack, read the news, or listen to the radio without being bombarded by gay rights propaganda that would make Goebbels proud. I would have bet my entire life savings that within two decades gay marriage would have been legal everywhere anyway. But, rather than allow social change to happen organically, based on its merits, through proper legislative channels that are perceived (rightly or wrongly) as fair, and with a full hearing of the dissent, five people decided that they would just force us to not only tolerate gays, but to embrace them.
    I say this as someone who has a few gay people in my family that I care for – I understand the happiness. But I agree with Quintus, this is a fool’s errand, and nobody wins in the long term when we disregard our procedural legal mechanisms and allow our institutions to run roughshod over public opinion. It is best to remember that true acceptance is won, just like respect: when it is earned, not when it is forced.

    1. Good Comment. There’s no separation of powers any more between justice and politics.
      This is interesting – from the Washington Post on how the ladies votes: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/02/us/bound-together-on-the-court-but-by-beliefs-not-gender.html?_r=0
      “You can tell a lot about the Supreme Court by looking at who voted
      with whom. There are 36 possible pairs of justices, and in the term just
      concluded something interesting happened.
      Thetop three spots were all taken by pairs of women. However you matched
      them up, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan
      voted together at least 93 percent of the time.The alignments are a product of ideology, not biology. “They are the three most liberal justices on the court, and it makes sense that they would often be in agreement,”

      1. It must be the patriarchy at work, forcing these women to think and vote exactly the same without giving them any freedom to be individuals.

      1. Indeed. South Park explains it really nicely in episode “The Death Camp of Tolerance”

    1. i call it the “i am an obnoxious idiot” app. the great thing is: the people you don’t want to talk to mark themselves. preselection at work.

  26. This is exactly how I see it. I came to this conclusion though before the Supreme Court decision. The last fifty or a hundred years has led right to this point. Every social issue the democrats bring up including feminism and homosexuality leads to the destruction of the family. The result of the destruction of the family is that no one has a historical-social position in the world. The bonds between parents and children is broken, and what you have left is a bunch of individuals who can be manipulated and controlled. They have no claim to autonomy because there is no authority other than that of the govt. The authority of the family no longer exists. All that is left is the state.

    1. When society’s problems get blamed on patriarchy, the logical result is destruction of the family and/or installation of matriarchy. That’s american culture over the last 2 generations.

    2. You know what’s ironic about the whole change since the time frame you mentioned, is that I was watching History Channel, and they were speaking of the wartime women of the 40s, making bullets, clothing, even artillery to fight the war.
      Many think of these times as America’s greatest moments followed by the Utopian 50s vibe. However, they stated that due to women feeling of great worth, having been a supporting backbone of the war effort, it was the start of feminism at that very moment. I’d say it started in the 20s with the right to vote. Regardless, possibly the most masculine collective effort of our nation, to literally save the world, may have been the defining moment which led to this, social justice for all.
      It would only make sense, based on recent media logic, that we remove the stars and stripes. Since states are removing the confederate flag based on racism, since we killed so many indians conquering this nation. The insanity knows no ends.

  27. I wouldn’t go that far – this appears to be instigated by childish idealists, the elites are just pandering to them
    It’s the same kind of mentality that causes people to vote based on social issues in the first place, “nice is right”
    The real problem here was poor gatekeeping on two levels. First, the conservative justice who voted for it caved too easily to public pressure
    But also second, leftist justices like Ginsburg and Kagan should never have been allowed into power to begin with, but rather denied it along their entire career paths

  28. The historical purpose of marriage was for the purpose of establishing heirs. A man might have had numerous concubines, and children with those women, but only the offspring with his wife would inherit his fortunes upon his death. This is why most marriages used to be arranged by families. Marrying for “love” did not become popular until the 19th century. Because infatuation fades over time it’s probably a major reason why divorce is so common today. Gays never got married because they could not produce children, and thus there was no need for families to barter over inheritances.
    Inheritance is also why adultery was taken much more serious when the woman did it. A cheating wife would have introduced a false heir, which would’ve jeopardized the alliance between the families of the arranged marriage. If the husband impregnated another woman it didn’t matter as much, because that child would not receive inheritance, regardless.
    There’s no records of the Church formally licensing marriages until about 1,000 years after Jesus. A big reason was to prevent Christian women from running off with Jews and other undesirables. Prior to the Church, marriage was a private matter. These days families don’t get married to build alliances, probably because we live in one of the most wealthy debt-ridden societies ever, and thus family alliances aren’t exactly necessary for survival. They still exist in poorer parts of the world, though. If shit ever hit the fan, I have no doubt these cultural traditions would reappear.

  29. I’ve talked to a few people about this and it boils down to this; it’s one dogma trying to eat the other.

  30. Despite all its flaws and abuses, marriage remains what it always has been: the cornerstone of social order.

    right. every man should get married to support our current social order. bullshit.

    1. Isn’t that the Catch 22?
      It should have never gotten to this point but now we have to deal with it.
      Marriage will not work again until the old social order is restored. That, unfortunately, will take a lot of like-minded men binding together to reject PC culture and establishing a new wave of masculinity.
      The problem is that I don’t think there are enough men willing to put their money earning, sex seeking, personal interests aside to unite for greater humanity.

      1. i personally don’t give a rat’s ass about society as it is now.
        idealism isn’t my thing. for me, everything is a power game. there are better concepts for my liking, like freedom and capitalism and possibly patriarchy. but these are failing. i do not admire losers and i figure that i will have a better roi when i just look out for myself. i do some writing and enjoy being among the few men left and talking about self-improvement, but i do not think it will have major influence.
        that said, in a free society as it may have been a hundred years ago, yes, i may have adopted a different stance.

        1. i do envy psychopaths to a certain extent and i certainly share a lot of “their” world view. but i am too much of a coward to be one. maybe i can manage to become somewhat sociopathic, though.

  31. “If a social institution—marriage—has been defined for countless
    thousands of years as between two different genders, then this fact
    carries authority. It cannot be brushed aside. We cannot say that we, in the past fifteen years, have suddenly gained a greater insight and
    wisdom into human nature than all the generations before us.”
    ^^Appeal to Tradition fallacy. According to this logic, we shouldn’t have abolished slavery because that institution existed for thousands of years as well.

    1. Though you’re correct, it seems to me that the opposite here is simply an appeal to popularity fallacy. In other words, it’s just as fallacious for the Court to presume that something should be changed just because it is popular now to do so.

      1. Yeah I never bought that attempt at logic. Marriage and slavery aren’t comparable. That’s SJW rhetoric. The whole concept of same sex marriage is based on the fallacy that gender is merely a social construct. If that’s the case, I want to be legally married to my sofa so I can qualify for the benefits of married couples.

        1. Gender is not the same thing as biological sex, and your sofa can’t consent. But do feel free to continue your conjugal relations.

  32. There was one example Nero he had his lover castrated and he married him. Then he burned Rome and blamed it on the Christians.

      1. The Roman Empire survived same sex relations for centuries, it was this Christian nonsense that did for it.

        1. So the romans didn’t persecute enough christians? Typical comment from a gay marriage supporter.

        2. You assume I view the collapse of the Western Empire as a negative. Anything to get your victimhood fix I suppose.

  33. Wonderful article Quintus. The only bad thing is that you beat me to it. (oh well)
    Just to add some points to your otherwise thorough research:
    There must be a distinction made between the act of Marriage and the word Marriage itself. The existence of the former precedes the conception of the latter.
    While history shows there have been many similar unions to Marriage within the many different cultures in mankind, NONE of them specifically used the word “Marriage” in their many practices except the (religious) one that created it.
    This is of course no surprise, given that the word itself didn’t come into existence until much later on.
    The code of Ur-Nammu, arguably the oldest known code of (Mesopotamian) laws discovered thus far, doesn’t use that word to describe the unions between males and females and there are sufficient distinctions (such as the general consideration of females as slaves or polygamy being allowed later in the code of hammurabi) to have it considered not quite the same as what we have come to understand Marriage to be in the US.
    The argument the left (specifically the homosexual left) tends to make is that the existence of Marriage predates Christianity, ergo Christians don’t “own” Marriage.
    This argument fails not simply because of the information i just provided, because it considers the word “Marriage” itself as having been invented by those of a secular persuasion, when the facts themselves say otherwise.
    The word Marriage is etymologically derived from the latin word “maritatre” which meant a ceremonial joining (of a man and a woman) in a (holy) union by having the woman given to the man. The word itself was first used among catholics to describe scriptural unions between Men and Women as listed in the bible. The language at the time was latin, ergo the root word “maritatre” and all its relevant derivatives were used to describe religious unions occurring at the time STRICTLY between males and females and described previously in scripture.
    This part is key: “given.” Back in the 1100’s and beyond, when England had a real patriarchy, the Father would by social (and typically, legal) necessity have to give consent in order for the suitor to wed the daughter since it would have been considered obscene for them to Marry without it. This custom continues to this day, where a Man might ask for the Father for permission to wed his daughter, even if it’s no more than symbolic courtesy.
    Now if Marriage itself was really meant for just anyone, there would be no need to “give” a Male to another male, since that would imply that the role of that first male would be commensurate to the social status of the female at the time. Two guys could get married regardless of what the courted Father would think, since it was only females who were given away.
    All this was done to help legitimize the social dynamics involved whenever a male and female intended to be together in society and through the consent of the Church, although this was no more than an ostensible reason, since Marriages at the time were often prearranged by their families for political purposes resulting in situations where the female might not even know (much less love) the proposed suitor or vice versa. It goes without saying that a couple who didn’t get consent from their families could not ergo get approval to wed before the Church. Males had more Marrying privileges than the females but the males had lesser Marrying privileges than the parental progenitors (the Father especially) who would consent to them Marrying. The only people that truly married for love were those who were typically impecunious and bereft of acceptable status aka serfs. The higher in rank you were, the more you were expected to wed someone who was equal to or greater than your social standing in society. Your feelings of love were irrelevant. (that is nowhere in scripture, by the way)
    Children were considered an important reason for why a Man and Woman would wed (for the poor folk especially) however those who would wed them and those who would consent to them being wed routinely had ulterior motives in mind that were given precedent even over the couple’s wishes, as i mentioned earlier.
    This was also done to help distinguish holy unions from unholy ones, such as those cohabiting male and females could engage in. (The latter was extremely frowned upon by the Church of course) What’s interesting is, even though the Church created the word Marriage to give a formal definition and priority to God’s examples of religious unions within scripture, the Church nonetheless superimposed its own additional definers upon it, meaning that it wasn’t enough for males and females to marry under God and a priest, but they also had to Marry in the manner that the Church itself designated as religiously appropriate, irrespective of any descriptions of such (or lack thereof) in scripture. In this fashion they created Marriage for a male and female to wed not just under approval by God, but by consent of Church, through a wedding AS DEFINED by the Church, which in essence put the Church on equal spiritual footing with scripture at least with regard to Marriage. Jesus himself attended a wedding ceremony, but nowhere is the specific process for HOW to get Married listed in scripture…the CC simply filled in the blanks.
    The bottom line is, even if one were to argue that the Christian faith didn’t invent the concept of Marriage, it’s ultimately immaterial because it wasn’t invented by the secular ergo it’s not something US law can formally adapt and apportion equally among US citizens, especially when no such right in the US Constitution grants them that authority. Furthermore, US law adopted its fundamental interpretation Of (civil) Marriage (male and female) from the judeochristian umbrella faith, the prevailing faith at the time of the Founding Fathers, which contains no exceptions for polygamy (as the code of hammurabi would allow) or forced slave marriage, which would then allow US Marriage to be malleable based upon the need of the user. Biblical Marriage is unique in that, much to the surprise of many secular people today. females were not considered slaves, but simply a complementary “helpmate” gender to the leadership of the Man.
    The word itself was invented by faith, so the US government (especially given the first amendment) has no real Constitutional justification to interfere upon the already established RELIGIOUS definition for it. The fact that the US did anyway when it began offering “civil” Marriage and the fact that the recent SCOTUS unconstitutionally ruled as they did does not change that.

  34. So when two lesbos get divorced, who gets the house and kids and support payments? Does the judge make gut decision on which one appears more female? Isn’t that grounds for a whole new set of discrimination lawsuits?

    1. I say they have a mud wrestling match in the courtroom. Winner gets custody.

    2. What about those lesbos who go to sperm donors? How will they handle custody? Does the bio mom get kids while random bitch pays child support? Or does the sperm donor have to take responsibility?

      1. I heard if sperm bank is used the male isn’t responsible for anything. If the lesbos find their own male friend to do the deed then he could be responsible. So you should jerk off at the clinic and take your $100 and let the feral bitches solve their own problems.

        1. don’t believe a word. being a sperm donor is a liability nowadays. kiddos gonna have hurt feelz and come running to the government for a little bit of daddy and daddy’s wallet.

        2. only if the sperm bank does not keep a record of you. but even then, dna will make it possible to find you one day. throw an egg on a neighbor’s wall and whoop, you are in the database.
          don’t know if it was the usa or germany, but there was a ruling that formerly anonymous donors have to be exposed to make the kids feel good. the guarantee of today means nothing tomorrow.

        3. You might be right, if courts can claim the power to redefine marriage then they could just as easily redefine the word “parent”. Another feminist or mangina appointment to the court bench and its done.

        4. matter of time. where the freedom of association and contract (anonymity) is worth shit, the rest follows. combine this with the craig’s list example and you are all set.

        1. i remember watching this social behavior documentary where guys would be trained to either behave like gorillas or bonobos and go hit on women – hideous women. those who behaved like bonobos – nicely – were successful, while the “arrogant jerks” were turned down. in hindsight, i feel stupid for not seeing what a propaganda piece it most probably was.

  35. It was astounding to me that a news broadcast about tourists being murdered was interrupted by the Gay marriage bill being passed. It didn’t annoy except when I had to hear about it for hours on end as if it was the second coming. Perhaps ISIS is aware of something we are not. Understand I don’t care if these people want to marry, however, those terrorists probably won”t be as understanding. The end is nigh

  36. But isn’t this highly individualist, something that would fly against the collectivist nature that authoritarian governments impose on society?

    1. An individualist separated from familial tradition and authority will end up being a slave to the state. Hipsters and liberals have shown that despite all their ‘differences’ they are all the same. They are the ‘army of noncorformists’. They all think they are unique, but none of them would ever challenge the status quo of their progressive overlords.

    1. You know Tom, no matter how many times you say it, your mind will keep wandering to your buddy from the gym in the showers. It’s OK.

  37. You forgot to mention how NAMBLA was heavily involved in the LGTB crusades, they will go openly into the parades in 60s and 70s, it was not until LGTB started to hijack the civil rights movement that they have to make a PR move, the reason why many people were against gays in general has a lot to do because LGTB and NAMBLA were the same.
    They have manage to cover that fact with the media on their side, but if we were to look into GLAD and any other LGBT group, NAMBLA will pop up.

  38. Feminist victim (fraud) ellen pao has officially resigned (been fired) from reddit. Now she has more free time to work on her marriage to her bi (gay) husband.

  39. Sorry for irrelevant post here, but can somebody do an article about the #WhiteGirlsDoItBetter hashtag (see screenshot attached) and tie in this recent HuffPost article praising fraud Rachel Dolezal:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-miller-jen-hoffman/jenner-can-dolezal-cant-b_b_7754724.html ? The first comment on that article says it all…”I cant believe this is still a conversation. Did the writer just wake from a coma? Get back from extended vacation?”
    Oh and no I really don’t agree with a lot of the people on this site regarding their tradcon views on gay marriage… Roosh’s “it’s wrong because science” argument sounds like every fundamentalist I’ve ever heard. He is smart to point out that it can be a social construct. Regardless, that doesn’t make me worried about people becoming gay. This world is overpopulated anyway. And I really don’t care if humanity disappears in the long run because everyone turned gay. As long as I enjoy my stay here. Yes, I very much agree that straight men in this country are getting screwed by the feminist establishment, but I really support my gay brethren. They are much-needed allies in this fight. Regardless, just my 2 cents… Obviously Roosh has the right to put what he wants on this site. Anyway, hope someone does the article on #WhiteGirlsDoItBetter.

  40. “With one stroke of the pen, the Court found fit to overturn the definition of marriage (as a union between man and woman) that had attended humanity for thousands of years.”
    What’s the big deal about the “definition of marriage?” Definitions change all the time. Look at how “cool” means more than temperature. Definitions change as language and people evolve, and the world keeps on spinning.

    1. So the past 10,000 years means nothing, right? And we, in our infinite wisdom, have found a new definition in the past 20 years that no culture before us found in the past 10,000 years? I’ll place my bet on the collective wisdom of history, not on some American bullshit.

        1. It’s natural for a man to have more than 1 female but as we became more civilised the conditions were greatly improved and there were equal numbers of men and females.
          If there ever comes a time where there are 3x as many females as men then men can have 3 girls each.

      1. You’re right, we should look at what people did 10,000 years ago and start doing that. Time to reinstate human sacrifices to appease imaginary gods. Derp. Dumbest argument ever
        Face it, you just hate gays. You’re allowed to hate gays as much as you want, but the joke’s on you. Gay marriage is legal and you can’t do anything about it.

        1. “Fathe it, you jutht hate gayth. You’re allowed to hate gayth ath much ath you want, but the joke’th on you. Gay marriage ith legal and you can’t do anything about it.”
          ^ FTFY.

        2. Rulings are overturned kid, you’re just too young, stupid and brainwashed to know it. Nothing is permanent in this world and conditions change. Feminism has been gradually flushed down the toilet over the past 10 years.I saw the Berlin Wall go up and I saw it come down 25 years later.
          Our marriage customs are from the civilised Romans not some primitive mid East cults that sacrificed infants to Baal. Romans never had infant sacrifice or human sacrifice and even the primitive forebears of the arabs gave it up.
          Caucasians also never had cannibalism as a cult practice as the primitive Africans and other primitive peoples around the world did.
          We are the leaders in civilisation and developed the best ways of doing things, including marriage, that became the world standard after 100k years of living not much different from the animals.
          You’re just to dumb and young to know things.

        3. Why do you hate gays? Are you a Christian? Is that what your Jesus tells you to do in your bible

    2. Semantic changes do exist, but they aren’t usually forcefully done through government intervention. As a linguistics major, it disgusts me to see a bunch of unelected judicial activists attempt to prescribe a new meaning to a phrase.

  41. Prattling nonsense.
    Marriage, historically, was about bloodlines and inheritance of rights and property. “I own this woman, and the children she produces are my heirs.” Of course, hubby was permitted to get off with any other lower status woman he could while the wife was not, though the status of those children was lesser. Still, helpful if the wife didn’t provide the requisite number of male children.
    Hence, same sex marriage would be considered odd because what would be the point? Marriage wasn’t about romance and love.
    Now the key thing is that straight people have changed this. They evolved the contract over several centuries from being about property to being about a romantic partnership of equals. The modern construction has nothing to do with children.
    Given that, there is no reason to exclude same sex couples.
    No one has yet been able to articulate an argument as to why an infertile opposite sex couple should be able to marry but a same sex couple should not.

    1. “There is no reason to exclude same sex couples.”
      If that’s such a truism, then why has every society in history for 10,000 years excluded same sex couples from marriage?

      1. I answered that point in the rest of the post you’re quoting from.
        The marriage contract was about producing an heir. Straight people changed it to being a union of equals in romantic love. That they kept the same terminology doesn’t change the fact the modern civil marriage has as much relationship to the wedding of Henry VIII to Catherine of Aragon as a modern tablet does to the wax versions he would have used. But they’re both called tablets so obviously they’re the same thing.
        I’ll ask you again, why should opposite sex infertile couples have access to marriage but same sex couples not?

        1. Because marriage is (or was) a sacred institution between a man and a woman, that’s why its called marriage. Its the perfect, complementary union of 2 different elements, the ying and the yang, to form a whole. A “union” of 2 of the same element is not a marriage, its just redundancy, you idiot.

        2. Sorry, but your belief in magic has no application in either law or biology. But by all means have a ceremony with the chosen incarnate deity of your choice and define who can partake however you like. Why does a big strong Transylvanian care about the government definition?

    2. There is also no reason to get married. Why would any straight or gay person get married? Why is it even a subject. Everything that is done and felt by married couples is done and felt by unmarried couples.

      1. Can’t understand the impulse myself, but I don’t see why the law should stop them.

        1. So why would there be any laws on marriage? Why not just have the govt get out of marriage?

        2. I don’t have any objection to such a move. However while the institution exists I see no reason to exclude same sex couples.
          There is of course nothing compelling those who think marriage is a religious matter from having their relevant clergyman perform a marriage relevant to their beliefs and never getting a state enforcer to stamp it.

        3. I made a comment above about this, it’s actually more of a question since I don’t know for sure, but I think the only reason the government cares to put its nose into personal issues like marriage is for tax reasons, married people pay less. If you start letting anyone get married, people will take advantage, guys would marry their buddy to get a tax break. Same principal as these people who try to claim their dog as a dependent. If it was legal, everybody would have 15 dogs. Man and woman get the tax break because chances are high they will make babies. More babies will grow into more taxpayers/workers and create a more productive country, so this is what the government wants. Of course a man and woman could get married for no other reason than the financial incentives, but I think it’s less likely, I don’t know why but people don’t seem to be doing it. Again, this is just me speculating so maybe someone who knows some facts can add to it. I just think the government doesn’t waste resources fighting for or against something if there’s no financial benefit to it.

    3. “No one has yet been able to articulate an argument as to why an
      infertile opposite sex couple should be able to marry but a same sex
      couple should not.”
      Actually, many people have been able to articulate such an argument; it’s just that idiot egalitarians like you choose not to understand them, or even be open to them. Egalitarianism and “fairness” aren’t the only moral ideals a society has to consider. It has to weigh those considerations with others, such as what is necessary for the social order, and what is in the best interests of children.
      In the case of heterosexual marriage, inability or even lack of interest in having children is possible. But that isn’t the norm and isn’t guaranteed, unlike gay marriage, where you can be sure there is no natural way for the couple to have children. If gay and lesbian couples want to have children, they have to rely on 3rd party surrogates as sperm or egg donors, and this opens a Pandora’s Box of complications. It also means the children being conceived and born through these unnatural means will not be raised by at least one biological parent and will probably have no contact or relationship with that biological parent, and you can make a strong ethical case why this is not in the best interest of the child. A child needs both its biological parents.. mother and father. Again, this is not always possible in heterosexual marriages, but at least you can say it is the most likely scenario.. unlike gay or lesbian marriages.

      1. No, you haven’t answered the question, you’ve deliberately skirted it by saying it doesn’t apply to most heterosexual couples. That’s a dodge, and not even an elegant one at that. You then go on to discuss various means of conception, with Helen Lovejoy-esque shreiking “won’t somebody please tuink of the children!”, which are irrelevant, because access to the marriage contract is not dependent upon children.
        Let me make it even easier for you. We will take a couple in their fifties where the man has had a vasectomy, and the woman has had a hysterectomy. It is medically impossible for these two people to have children.
        Should that couple have access to the marriage contract? And if so, why should it be denied to same sex couples?

        1. It’s not a dodge in the least bit if you actually thought about deeply enough. And you resort to bitchy, childish temper tantrums and insults at the very serious question about what is in the best interests of a child.
          A society should make policies not based on exceptions, of which there are many.. but on what is the most likely scenario. And based on what is in the best interests of the society and children. It makes perfect sense for a society to privilege heterosexual marriages for all the reasons I have mentioned already: it serves as the core institution of society, allowing for the reproduction and raising of children, who will be future citizens of that society.
          Gay “marriage” is abnormal and unnatural. It can only duplicate the necessary function of heterosexual marriage through 3rd party surrogates, which I repeat, is bound to create far more complications and lead to all kinds of problems, not the least of which is the denial of the right of the child to be raised by its biological parents.

        2. And again, you don’t have to be able to procreate to access the marriage contract. Your argument is against IVF or adoption access for same sex couples. The literature that exists indicates you’re wrong and the children from these families grow up fine, perhaps you’d prefer the tens of thousands of children in state care to remain there, but it’s a whole different argument.
          If you don’t need to have, or be able to have children to get married, and you don’t, then on what basis do you exclude same sex couples?

        3. 1) What I have read as an explanation from some of my more religious friends, who do not advocate against gays out of fear, is that they see gay couples largely changing the nature of marriage, as apparently a sizable portion of those in successful long term partnerships are not monogamous.
          http://www.sfgate.com/…/Many-gay-couples-negotiate-open…
          http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html?_r=2
          Articles like this are often cited, but I have no idea how accurate they are.
          Given that in christian marriage, one is supposed to be faithful to their spouse (the whole not coveting your neighbors wife thing), this would be problematic (let alone paternity issues, and resultant child support), if it became socially acceptable to do the same for straight people as marriage would essentially have no meaning if there is no commitment to one another, and really would be reduced to roommates who possibly own common property, in which case there is no need for marriage in the first place.
          This seems like a more reasonable argument to me than claiming that God hates XYZ, but you rarely see it articulated.
          2) Is the slippery slope argument, but in a different way than most imagine.
          There is no requirement to love, or demonstrate love to receive a marriage license, and some minority communities, such as Indians, still engage in arranged marriages.
          If marriage merely becomes a way to transfer property, receive special tax benefits, and hospital access why can’t you marry anyone you want or have group marriages? This would be an easy way to keep property within a family and avoid inheritance taxes among the wealthy, such as a father marrying a son or daughter, or marrying them along with their wife.
          3) If marriage now is merely about how the government treats people, why are married couples special in the eyes of the law versus long term committed couples? After all some long term cohabitating couples never feel the need to get married, and some have access to benefits through their partner’s work.
          Law in some states recognize this and have “civil law” marriages, but others don’t. If the government is supposed to treat everyone equally, why are they giving special benefits to those that register their relationship with the government? What is the government’s interest in those relationships? Seems to me to be an equal protection issue.

        4. “Traditional” marriage as cited by the author never required the man to be monogamous. He was free to sexually use his slaves, servants, prostitutes, concubines, women captured in war or those of a lower social class. Male monogamy was a feature of a particular strand of Enlightenment thought that went hand in hand with the notion of female equality and romantic love.
          But you’re right, access to the marriage contract doesn’t require love, or children. But this was the case prior to same sex marriage.
          The historical anomaly of the state caring how and who anyone besides the elite were fucking may be coming to a close. I don’t really care in that regard either way. But even if same sex couples arrived just as the party was winding down, why not let them in?

        5. “If you don’t need to have, or be able to have children to get married, and you don’t, then on what basis do you exclude same sex couples?”
          A line has to be drawn somewhere. It’s also about the sanctity of traditions and ceremonies and the word itself. Gay relations are infertile in a very glaring way and including them in marriage tarnishes the sanctity of the tradition by further pushing its meaning in the direction of self-realisation. But personally i also think old or infertile couples or couples who are not intent on having children should be dissuaded from marriage, to respect the spirit and intent of the tradition as, underneath the romantical surface, an ordered, responsible and civilised way of going about human reproduction.
          It’s true that the romantic idea has run amok with marriage, making both entry and exit frivolous and egotistical. More reactionary types like me tend to think the romantic, sentimental side should be toned down and the view of it as a serious child rearing partnership strengthened. Because the ongoing sentimental, romantic and individualistic progressivism ultimately has adverse consequences for human reproductive behaviour as well as for the power balance in society.

        1. Your witless dodge says a lot more about you than it does about me. Go away, shitlib troll.

        2. That’s right faggot, keep working on that delivery. You’ll want to sound pitch perfect for master and his friends when they run a train and shoot their POZ loads up your bottom-bitch ass.

    4. “Given that, there is no reason to exclude same sex couples.”
      Sure there is: couples are not individuals, and, as such, shouldn’t be granted rights.
      Should individual gays be given rights? Yes, absolutely. And you know what? Homosexuals have always had the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, just like their hetero counterparts (and the latter have likewise been prohibited from marrying someone of the same sex.)
      So with regards to rights, marriage equality amongst gays and straights has always existed.

  42. Quintus, I think that you skirted around a point without quite touching on it. Generally, in the past, rights weren’t an issue for most people and marriage wasn’t about rights anyway, it was about duty, legal access to sex & legitimate children and it was necessary for survival. All that has been turned on its head: we have far less of a sense of duty to family/nation etc overall, unmarried sex and illegitimate children are not taboo and we don’t need marriage for survival. For the first time in history, it is about “rights”, not practical concerns.
    I’m looking on the bright side. As being gay becomes more boring and mainstream, it will lose its glamour.

        1. Chalk meet blackboard…. you mentioned that the homosexual lifestyle will “lose its glamour”. I was pointing out George Michael’s aspersion that his “glamorous” lifestyle consisted of frequenting male public toilets and public parks cruising for other homosexuals for sordid brief encounters. When questioned on his behaviour he said it “was part of our culture”. He can keep it…..

    1. Same legal arguments for gay marriage could be used for 2 men who want to marry 2 women. Marriage has been rendered meaningless now.

    2. I think incest would be the easier argument to make, since you’re still talking about 2 consenting adults.

      1. Consent as a manner to justify sexually immoral relations is less important than some argue. Do we ask cows or chickens for consent before we slaughter them for food? Do we ask our cats and dogs for consent before we euthanize them? “Love is love.”
        Our distant ancestors didn’t imagine the effects of sexual “liberation”, women’s “equality” movements, and homosexual acceptance… they lived, suffered, and saw civilizations fall because of their consequences.

    3. If women takes over political authority then they would pass, but only for women, not for men. That’s what would happen.

  43. “Civil unions could have given homosexual couples nearly everything they
    claim to have wanted. Yet it was not enough; they wanted to become
    co-equal with traditional marriages. One cannot get everything one wants
    in life; the hard reality of life is that some behaviors are socially
    acceptable, and some will remain only acceptable within certain
    boundaries.”
    Sorry, this is just basically an argument for the state to set up separate but unequal laws governing gay marriage. The fundamental question is, (since marriage has already been ruled a fundamental right), what is the state’s basis for denying that right to gay couples?
    There are really only a few reasons, none which justify denying a constitutional right. First, (as this article states), it’s always been that way. This is not a legal defense to a denial of a right. Many rights were denied for long periods of time (blacks on a jury, etc) and then recognized, especially as society gains a greater understanding of a minority. On a side note, lets not pretend marriage, primarily an economic decision in the past, with polygamy and other wonderful side adventures was ever a static concepts that resembles modern day marriage.
    Second, which is the primary reason, is religious grounds. Sorry, we don’t live in a theocracy, next.
    Third, also advanced by this article, is animus against gays. Sorry, the state is not entitled to take your position that being gay is immoral and its gay citizens deserve less rights because of it.
    This entire article runs against the very nature of libertarianism. Regardless of how you feel about gay people, government should not be in the business of doling out rights on the basis of religious morals of elected officials. This Supreme Court decision was fully in line with past precedent.

      1. There are all different types of Libertarians just as there are republicans and democrats.

  44. Yes, gay marriage is legal in other countries but America is by far THE largest country. This has big implications.
    The gay mafia do not want to live in peace, they want to go around shoving it down everyone’s throat by instigating lawsuits. A bakery got fined 135000$ in Oregon because they refused to make a cake for a lesbo couple.
    A pizza shop got sued for the same reasons (who orders pizza for a wedding!?!?)
    I wish these gays would target Muslim shops and then see what true “homophobia” looks like. Muslims don’t eff around, which i admire about them (in certain situations) .
    Being pro Herero nowadays in the west will screw your business, personal and every other life that you have.
    But sooner or later all these militant homos and hetero libtards will see the rotten fruits of their labor.

  45. The author makes a fatal mistake that was likewise made by others: affirming a position for homosexuals, he displayed his sympathy for civil unions.
    What truly needs to be understood is that man is incapable of moderation. When idea is presented it must be accepted with the intention of eventually being implemented fully, or banned completely. This is the approach that must be taken in regard to homosexuals, because if we don’t we’ll get what we have now, out ancestors knew that.

    1. What truly needs to be understood is that man is incapable of moderation
      That is very true which was what I was talking about above.Nature moderates animals behaviour in various ways but man can completely destroy himself individually if the full weight of society didn’t control behaviour either by shamming or even locking up in jail.

  46. We have nobody to blame but ourselves. Gay marriage makes as much sense as two-income households, but people are still in denial about how two-income households pervert the quality of life for us all.

  47. This article is brilliant Quintus. Individual freedom is at stake, the traditional family is at stake. Big Brother is the only winner here. Argentina approved gay “marriage” in 2010. Enjoy the worldwide decline.

  48. Comment bomb this blog. Sure, they’ll delete them when they notice but show the Libtard media what the silent MAJORITY really believes. The majority who are never heard from because they ban and delete their comments. The Libtard and Femtard tiny minority has tried to make you believe they are bigger than what is true in reality so show them a bit of reality. At the very least you’ll ruin their day and keep them up at night worrying about what comments are on the blog lol
    http://sfist.com/2015/07/10/ellen_pao_resigns_by_mutual_agreeme.php

  49. Nah it’s as simple as constitutional rights. Every person should have the right to marry whoever they want in a free society. It’s funny that you mention that the state wants religion undermined in order to create zombies, since religion was an institution created in order to control large masses of people.

    1. Exactly. Free people in a free society should be able to make their own decisions about their lives, so long as it doesn’t interfere with the rights of others.

      1. Homos are too tiny a group to cause much trouble so I don’t really give a damn about them. It’s just one nail in the coffin but combined with all of the other libtard nails it can destroy life as we know it.Oh sure, life may still go on but it may not be very pleasant or safe. You’re too young and naive to understand this.One or two town drunks may just be a small annoyance but a town with 10% drunks becomes a big problem.
        http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Archive/Search/2012/9/12/1347455997439/Gin-Lane-by-William-Hogar-001.jpg

        1. Why not? Free people should have the ability to consent to whatever relationship they agree to.

        2. Well, it’s not legal and therefore I am being discriminated against. What I’m saying is, we either let the flood gates open(except anything involving minors) or we keep it one man and one woman. If nothing else, hypocrisy is rampant in this society.

      2. Is sticking a penis up another man’s anus a natural act? Can you make children by doing that? Can two women make children by grinding their clitoris’ together? If you can prove that as an effective means of procreating I’ll march down to the local courthouse and sing show tones. “thumbs up”
        I have no issue with a person being a homosexual. You are no longer an outlier. Take your flags down, end your pride parades and live well and prosper. You’ve won! Stop bothering everyone else who disagrees with your lifestyle!

    2. There is no right to re-write the English language because it makes you feel better about your biologically dysfunctional desires. As mentioned, civil unions and other legal measures would have enshrined exactly the same rights without an attack on the institution itself.

    3. Perhaps, but it was to control their savage behaviour for a more civilised and orderly society that ended up being a benefit.Even with the State, religion etc involved people sometimes still run amok and revert to primitive behaviour but without some controls to at least put some brakes on it they can completely generate.

    4. Well.. I want to marry multiple women and multiple women want to marry me. I have the means…Is that all right?

  50. So hilarious seeing these hateful right wingers implode after the ruling. Gays can get married, and you’re powerless to stop it. How fucking mad are you right now? You must be fucking furious. Lol! You can spew your religious bile or “definition of marriage” arguments all you want, but when you’re finished venting, gay marriage is still legal. So glad your kind are dying out. The sooner these invasive social conservatives die, the better. Progress comes one funeral at a time

    1. you are retarded. gays can’t reproduce. liberal women aren’t having children.
      it’s the left wing that’s dying off.
      conservative Christians, muslims, Mexicans, etc….all the right wingers are reproducing.
      this liberal millennial generation isn’t having hardly any kids. All that will be left is Christian Mexicans, muslims, and the conservative white families you are mocking

      1. Right wingers want government small enough to fit in the bedroom of two consenting adults

        1. Marriage is about more than the bedroom, faggot; it is about whether society works or not.

        2. ah, so you ignore the reality that liberals have an extremely low birthrate. the problem solves itself

        3. The right as you like to call it aka normal people has never looked in anyone’s bedroom so that’s a homo myth. The problem with homos is they like to do it in the road which was what Stonewall was about. People complained about these degenerates and the cops had to get involved. Normal straight people are more discreet sexually.Homos constantly loiter around public areas looking for sex whether toilets, parks, rest areas etcetc to an extent that straight males would never do mostly because females wouldn’t loiter around unsafe public places looking for strangers to fuck.

        4. It’s only because they are such a tiny 1% minority that they can’t really do any damage and I doubt if 1/4 of 1% of all marriages will be between homos.We’ll check the figures over the next couple of years about how many really marry.It will only be at the beginning that you’ll see higher numbers because it’s legal but will then die out.All of those old Jap star trek queers with one foot in the grave will marry.The younger ones will still be cruising around the gay clubs taking it up the arse a dozen times every weekend.

      2. Well they can’t breed with their life partner if that’s what you mean. Then again in the days when homosexuality was illegal the gay men got married and had children so they could appear heterosexual and avoid getting arrested. If anything I imagine many here would hate interracial marriages more because Black men can breed with their White wives.

        1. In reality very few black men married white women. People tend to associate with people like themselves.
          In a way gay marriage will reduce the number of homosexuals compared to the days where they would marry a woman to hide what they were and have kids. It’s really not hard to screw a wife until she gets pregnant even if you don’t like females.They would produce kids that would keep the gay genes alive but today that won’t happen now and their numbers will be depleted so gay marriage is a blessing in disguise.No AIDS to worry about either because the only sexual mode of transmission is anal sex.Homos acquire it by being fucked up the arse by another infected homo and since these guys sometimes have sex with females they pass it on to her by butt fucking. But you first had to acquire it by being butt fucked yourself so even if a normal man did this with a female she would not be at risk.In the future the rare homo will just be looked at as a freak of nature.

    2. Supreme Court rulings are overturned and those dissenting opinions become the basis of majority opinions sometimes in the future which is why justices write them.
      Homo marriage in reality won’t even amount to much and I doubt that even 1/2 of 1 % of ‘marriages’ will occur that are gay.Gays will always be viewed as odd couples.
      I’m an atheist so religion has nothing to do with my views. It’s a matter of natural law and the reason that male/female marriage was established to begin with.
      And as far as who dies out first just remember that the US is a big country and SF and NY are the oddities. There are plenty of white people around who still marry and have kids even though men are getting screwed in divorces. And just remember that Femtards and Libtards aren’t breeding. The old hag feminists will be dead and buried soon and the young girls are sick of their lessie man hating shit.
      The problem with Libtards is that they don’t understand human nature.I’m older so I’ve seen these girls at 20 and 25 and 30 etc and the ones who said they’d never want kids at 20 and spouted all sorts of femtard nonsense I’ll meet a few years later pushing the pram with twins in it lol Never believe what a female says esp. young stupid ones who want to be part of the herd watch what they really do.
      The future is for those who show up.

  51. Many cultures throughout history have accepted and socially recognized homosexual relationships. . . but they were never “marriages”. And there are large swaths of the gay community who never really wanted gay marriage per se: why “ape the breeders”?

    1. Which means that the people behind this have some sort of agenda and same sex marriage is just one area they’re using to break down society so it can be manipulated, same with illegal invasions.

  52. While I agree with most of the article, I disagree thar marriage remains a cornerstone of societal order. Marriage WAS the cornerstone of societal order. And it didn’t just join the happy couple, but their respective families as well. The resulting union produced a larger family unit that, with the combined resources and assets each possessed, could with overcome greater obstacles and weather the storms that they could otherwise not do by themselves.
    Such is not the case in the Western world anymore. The cancer of feminism has infected the legal system and has turned marriage into a mockery. Thanks to gynocentric judges who care only for the approval of their feminist overlords, women can expect to gain the most from today’s easily filed “no fault” divorces. Huge inequities in the division of assets and liabilities during the divorce push the majority of the debt onto the men while the women get to keep the majority of the money, the house, cars, and so forth. To add further to this debacle, mosy men are routinely deprived of custody and even visitation of their own children without any justification while women get to parade their new boy toys to the kids as “New And Mommy Approved Daddy”. Divorced women will gleefully remind everyone around them, including the former husband, that she is no longer dependent on a husband. But that won’t stop her from cashing the alimony checks he’s forced to pay her for her “sacrifice” in becoming a mother.
    Ever increasing numbers of men are opting out of marriage despite the demands of feminists that we should “man up” and get hitched to a fat, post cock-carousel whore with three kids. The marriage of today, for men, is little more than a game of Russian Roulette played with a semi auto where the woman gets to pull the trigger. So if gays and lesbians want to take a seat at the table and get their brains blown out by their partners, I could give a shit less. Marriage was already a bad business decision for Western men when it was just heterosexuals doing it. Arguing over whether or not gays and lesbians get to make the same stupid decison is like fighting over a pile of pig shit. No amount of government control conspiracy theory is going to change that.

  53. I am leaving the country soon. The battle has been lost here, and this country will continue to spiral into moral ruin.

  54. I’m not American so I don’t know all the rules there, but most countries have tax benefits to being married. I would think that the government would stand to lose a shitload of revenue when all these gay couples start claiming deductions. Nobody seems to be talking about this part of it, maybe it doesn’t work this way in the U.S. Personally I don’t really give a fuck. Gays will be gay and as long as they’re not in my face about it, it doesn’t concern me. I’m more worried about all the teen moms on social assistance that my tax dollars support. At least gays are physically incapable of producing bastard children that I have to help pay for.

    1. There’s no benefit in being married because although they may get lower rate it’s based on 2 incomes.

      1. But a lower rate on two combined incomes is still better than a higher rate on two separate incomes isn’t it? I just heard this whole tax thing from a guy who has a political science degree and is a Conservative party member, and against gay marriage. He told me that it’s easier for the party to fall back on the moral issue and rely on religious voters than to bring up the tax thing which would piss people off and be political suicide. Whether there’s any truth to this I don’t know, but it made enough sense.

        1. OK I was a little quick there. Yes, it would be sort of a benefit but everyone knows you’d need 3 times the income when a female is around lol And what about kids? That tiny exemption is crap and nowhere near what you spend on them(just look at what child support payments are).A spouse inheriting money may matter but the exempt amount has kept going up and became unlimited although it may revert to a lower sum. And I guess that a spouse can collect SS under another spouse’s SS or perhaps some health insurance stuff if one is employed. So yes a same sex couple may benefit financially while if unmarried would not in certain areas especially if one doesn’t work and acts as the ‘housewife’.
          But even if there are some benefits to being married those were still unfair to bachelors if they couldn’t get them. Some people argue that the family was the unit of society because of kids, but gays can’t have kids so that makes no sense.

    2. Getting married makes no financial sense when you consider the benefits an unwed mother can receive. I know a few people that are pulling some form of the list below:
      Follow these easy, proven 13 steps to financial well-being…
      1. Don’t get married to her
      2. Use your mom’s address to get mail sent to
      3. Guy buys a house
      4. Guy rents out house to his girlfriend who has two of his kids
      5. Section 8 will pay $900 a month for a three-bedroom home
      6. Girlfriend signs up for Obamacare so guy doesn’t have to pay out the butt for family insurance
      7. Girlfriend gets to go to college free for being a single mother
      8. Girlfriend gets $600 a month for food stamps
      9. Girlfriend gets free cellphone
      10. Girlfriend gets free utilities
      11. Guy moves into home but uses mom’s house to get mail sent to
      12. Girlfriend claims one kid and guy claims one kid on taxes… now you both get to claim head of household at $1,800 credit
      13. Girlfriend gets disability for being “bipolar” or having a “bad back” at $1,800 a month and never has to work again
      From: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/05/bill-bonner/zombies-brought-down-mayan-civilization/

      1. You think like a ghetto slug and btw, your figures are wrong.The guy would be paying child support for two kids and she’d know or some advisor would tell her what benefits she could get on her own without having you around.
        Sec 8 depends upon where you live and the rents in the area for what they pay for. A female with 2 kids may also only qualify for a 2 bedroom apt which of course can run $2k or more if you found one in Stamford etc
        Free cells are nothing and they only allow some minutes per month.
        She won’t get $1800 for a mental disorder unless it’s severe and then she’d only get SSI and the amount would depend on the State and what they kick into the Fed money so perhaps $800 in a good state, nothing for your kids (go to welfare but it’s not likely you’ll get anything else)
        The MAX she can get if she has 2 kids is about $500 in food stamps but she won’t get that because sec 8 is paying most of her rent and she’s getting SSI as income.

        1. You have no idea how I think so quit lying that you know what’s in my mind. I was reposting what I read on a website (the link is clearly marked). Also, what was posted I personally know somebody that is engaging in some of the benefits.

        2. Then you’re a ghetto slug if you know someone like this.
          I’ve never even heard of this going on.

        3. Go fuck yourself, faggot. Shouldn’t you be on your honeymoon with your husband by now?

  55. Fag marriage is not equal to real marriage. The anus is an evolutionary dead end- it is for spewing out waste, and not for creating life. The idea that is perverse relationship is equal to real marriage is an abomination against fact, reason, social order and our own natures. The purpose of legalizing faggot marriage is to denigrate real marriage. This is part of an ongoing war against everything that makes us great, and all fronts in this war have the same form- subvert what works, promote what makes us weaker. This is the cultural Marxist agenda, and it will be responsible for our social and cultural suicide. But a backlash is coming and we must return to what made us truly great- our religious values, our pro-family morals, our refusal to privilege feelings over facts, and our commitment to learning and investment over ignorance and consumption.

    1. Humans are a confused species probably still evolving. There is no homosexuality in animal species. What I think happened in humans is that when we became Homo sapiens over a long period of time and of course much weaker physically, the female needed the protection of the male and developed the ability to have sex 24/7 and not just when in heat as animals do. This caused the male and the female to become oversexed while animals only think of sex when a female is in heat. Humans did not know until quite recently in their 200k year history that PIV sex led to pregnancy so this overcharged sex drive probably went in all directions and the concept of homosexuality didn’t exist. The men who got it in the right hole passed on their genes and btw, I think this was the reason that only a fraction of men passed on their genes as many here talk about.As humans learned more they made the connexion between PIV sex and pregnancy, and then over time that a specific male was the father and sort of the owner of the offspring. This is when the idea of marriage came along. The men who didn’t practice PIV sex didn’t pass on their genes and little by little their pop. was reduced to what it is today about 1%. However, all of this was 5% of human history.Perhaps 10k years ago and the beginning of modern human history.Homosexuality is sort of a throwback or remnant of our very primitive past. Like having a vestigial appendix even though we don’t survive on a lot of nuts any more.(Squirrels etc have large ones) Same sex marriage makes no sense because same sexes don’t breed.

  56. The state has no right to issue a marriage license. It is and always was a religious institution between a man, a woman and GOD !!. The state has no reason to be in the marriage business in the first place. Marriage Licenses were rolled out when white women started to marry black men. The state had to put a stop to that so they started to get involved thus deciding who could marry and who could not. Civil Unions were recognized in several states to address the tax issue, of couples living together… and this arrogant push into effecting religious doctrine is a straw that if broken all the way [forcing churches to marry gay couples] will have serious consequences across our nation.

    1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
      jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the
      State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which
      shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United
      States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or
      property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
      There is no mention of minorities in there;there’s also no mention of slaves in the US Constitution. When they abolished the slave trade it was written like this and took effect in 1808:
      The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the
      States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the
      Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or
      duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each
      Person.

  57. Interesting article I notice the point where past societies have tolerated homosexuality within boundaries – If we have a look at the Dictatorship of Adolf Hitler he tolerated Ernest Rolm the leader of the “brownshirts” to exist despite his homosexuality it wasn’t until he stepped over those boundaries that he was executed.

    1. Hitler was redpill.
      From wiki
      Hitler created a public image as a celibate man without a domestic life, dedicated entirely to his political mission and the nation. He considered himself to be attractive to women, partly because of his position of power. Hitler’s friend Albert Speer recalled him stating a preference for unintelligent women who would not challenge him about his work or prevent him from relaxing in his leisure time. Kershaw speculates that Hitler preferred younger women who were easy to dominate and mold. He notes that at least three of Hitler’s close female associates (Eva Braun, Geli Raubal, and Maria Reiter) were far younger than himself: Braun was 23 years younger, Raubal was 19 years younger, and Reiter was 21 years his junior.

        1. You sound like a feminist. Strong male leadership is supposed to strike fear women & pussy men. They wouldn’t have it any other way.

      1. Hitler was a shagmeister. He did create that image of being so devoted to the party that he couldn’t marry but it was bullshit propaganda. He just didn’t want to be tied down by some wife. Girlfriends don’t really have any power over you and can be easily dropped when they become annoying which why they behave at that stage. It wouldn’t look good if he had to divorce a wife.Even Putin kept his divorce and marriage to the new girl very secret.

  58. Meh, no surprise here. While I think gayness is wrong and sinful and frankly believe it should have never been decriminalized such a move is natural given the way the law is written. You have an equal protection clause which was written to give black people equal rights. The law was amended to remove the words blacks to minority, then it was just everyone. Because of white fears of equality with blacks, they put the word minority in place of black. So now every weirdo and freak is demanding what the letter of the law says.
    The letter of the equal protection clause says you cannot discriminate based on gender. What is a marriage contract from a LEGAL view? A piece of paper, a contract, where two people of the opposite gender sign and submit it to the government and get government benefits. That is it. The government is saying you must be opposite gender to sign this contract. This makes no sense. The equal protection clause says that the government must operate gender blind. It cannot even consider the gender of the people signing the contract any more than it could consider race or hair color or language or geographic origin. If you have a law saying you cannot consider the gender and its part of the constitution, then the only logical and fair outcome would be permit anyone to marry anyone they please.
    Opponents of gay marriage (including myself) have long argued doing so would open the flood gates to every other perverted sexual marriage from men marrying cows, their cousins, their sisters, mothers, children, dogs, and multiple women. Because all these other groups are going to want the same “equal protection”.
    I’d just chalk it up as to Roosh would usually conclude in an article. Gentlemen, enjoy the decline. I look forward to the day where I can marry 8 women and marry my cows, and anyone who disagrees is just a cow hating cow-phobic. I hate you cow-phobic, cis-gender breeders.

  59. Most countries don’t have gay marriage. This is another indicator of american culture approaching peak beta, gender relativism.

  60. ‘As an institution, marriage indeed appears to predate man. Biologists
    tell us that in certain bird species, males and females will live
    together for long periods. Gorillas and orangutans live together as
    males and females, with their offspring, in familial units.’
    None of that is correct. The world has always been a primitive matriarchy and it was only civilisation that changed it a bit for humans.Civilisation is really when we became better organised and life became more stable and we were not living hand to mouth. We domesticated animals so we didn’t have to go look to find them and we had crops etc
    And btw, there isn’t any species of bird that stay together for life. They seem to stay together for mating whether it’s one season or more. At a bird sanctuary in England there was a male/female couple who were always together when they migrated there every year and were believed to be one of these monogamous species mating for life but one year the female had a new male. Don’t know the reason for this but I think the old one just wasn’t get the job done and getting her pregnant. Reproduction is the most important thing in life with birds or humans not bonding for life.
    Another thing, orang-utans do not live as families, they live as a primitive matriarchy with the female and kids. The male lives alone in the trees his entire life and only comes down to shag a female in heat who finds him. Male gorillas may live near the females and kids and acts as a protector (mostly just protecting his turf and harem and the kids) but it is still a primitive matriarchy because the females take care of themselves as far as finding food etc Lions are this way too. Only the human female cannot survive without the male which is why she evolved to have sex 24/7 and not just when in heat. It’s to keep the males in her vicinity for protection and food and if you think about it why would a male even bother with a female except for pussy.

    1. Man can swing both ways. He can be patriarchal or matriarchal. Wild beasts native to this planet are set in their orders but man isn’t pure but rather hybrid in form. The test of man is whether he sinks to the animalistic domestic matriarchy where the wild bitch mother eats her young, or whether man yokes and tames his women. Whether he ascends from the pitts of life within the food chain OR whether he rises to the plane of the patriarchal masters.
      The greatest forgers of civilization, architects, visionaries, statesmen, clan leaders, inventors are by a majority men who had submissive women, while their contemporaries who became beta whip providers remained on the fence, one foot ruled by woman and the other by the male driven energies.
      The male energies of the hunter gatherer, the builder/engineer, the venturer/explorer, the warrior and ultimately THE GRAND ARTICHECT are patently male traits.
      THE FEMALE traits or energies are the ‘mother’, the weaner, the caregiver and finally THE HEALER.
      In the south Pacific exist many matriarchal tribes of islanders which are renowned for practicing ritual cannibalism. Archeological investigation reveals that no large stone has been quarried by them above the fossil layer and no stone mason culture has taken root. They also live in grass huts. Brick and mortar is a distant memory to the tribes who long ago ‘killed the architect’. It is common to see a large senior matriarch with toothed neclace in her grass skirt sitting around a large cookpot with human bones jutting out, snapping her fingers at the smaller aboriginal males, dismissing them and dispatching the ones who displease her.
      The order of the islander is much like a microcosm of the larger and more developed western monarchies. In the west we now see weak celebrity kings henpecked by insectoid ‘counterfeit’ queen mothers or royalty who have grossed the celts, saxons and western tribes, insinuating a form of executive matriarchy upon western man that trickles down to the domestic level and is presently causing many unnatural ills.
      Only the bee or ant species is truly matriarchal with a queen ‘egg sack’ with lifelong fertility and smaller ‘expendable’ male workers and warriors.
      OUR FEMALES on the other hand, lose fertility at half life and then become cantancerous, bitchy, threatening to burn the place if they don’t get their way. Under threat basically, they demand the reigns to the ‘queenship chair’ either siezing executorship OR blowing a hardwire circuit in her failure to dominate, ending up like a fried exoskeleton in a bug zapper grill. Her hold on the domestic matriarchy is only a factor of the male’s will and tradition to maintain the patriarchal order, to not be dominated and eventually discarded, suicide by proxy. Under BITCH RULE civilization turns south quickly with grass huts on the horizon, and with no more venturing/exploring there is also universal debilitation with no more ‘architect’. Civilization and domestic patriarchal order both rise and fall in tandem. When the wild bitch mother gets her way, the ghetto expands, engulfing and finally shrinking the civilization.
      There is not a restful day in maintaining a stable civilization and to rise or advance takes energy. Keep the smackdown control on the bitches like the dribble on a basketball and the ‘heart’ of civilization remains in its chest cavity and the male ‘head’ maintains order and direction.
      Yes we can be either matriarchal or patriarchal. We swing both ways. One big thing seperating man from the animal kingdom is the order of patriarchy. The writing on the wall commands and instructs us to break and tame the bitch mother. The big queens say ”circumcise and fluoridate the peasants’. The little queens say ‘circumcise and fluoridate the kids’.

  61. Who ultimately are the power elites? The mega corporations? Government officials? NGOs? And how are they benefitting exactly? And most importantly, how do we counter them?

    1. How are they benefiting? Who do you think has more access to “attractive women” a guy who is loaded from a rich family or some normal dude from a poor ass family? The power elites has supported feminism because they knew that it would tilt the odds further into their favor. If men can’t secure wealth they have no power. So, now, you have women and homosexuals taking jobs that used to go to men. On the flip side, women are naturally attracted to the provider and want what others want. Notice the guy who most “attractive” women secure? Remind you anything of the 1950’s provider. Counteracting them would take a collective effort from all Red Pill men to realize for the good for humanity that we need to elevate our fellow brothers and sons. Unfortunately, too many men have been indoctrinated in the Rand philosophies of greed and materialism. What good is your Mazarati when you have hordes of angry mobs looking for food? We should all strive for improvement. We all want to get laid. But it seems that’s all that some of you really care about? Once you screw 20 or more women you realize that yeah, its fun and I love doing it but what good is when you can’t find any decent women to start a family and/or society is going to shit? We need to be leaders! There aren’t any strong male leaders. That’s why this society is going to shit.

  62. “It doesn’t matter anyway, because marriage itself is a ruined institution.”
    This^^^, exactly this.
    i´ll wait for the day they legalize beastiality and pedophilia.
    It´s funny how this worthless world system makes an idiot out of itself at any given opportunity.

  63. Historically in Western cultures, marriage was an agreement between a man and his wife’s father. Marrying for love is a modern invention, and as such, any two (or three or X) people ought to be able to get the same legal recognition as any others.

  64. So how did we get to this absurd situation where gay men have become the cool guys who receive all this consideration and support from elite institutions; while adult male virgins with normal desires have become the freaks, weirdos & expendables, apparently because women say so?
    Because not that long ago, people didn’t consider it noteworthy if a man married late without sexual experience. I suspect my deceased father did that, marrying at the age of 31.  He told me very little about his adult life before he married my mother; he probably didn’t have much to tell, and he never offered me dating advice when I grew up because he lacked his own experience in getting sex as a young single man.
    And Charles Darwin, the New Atheists’ big hero, apparently lacked notches when he married his cousin Emma Wedgwood about a month before he turned 30. He made up for the late start, however, by getting Emma pregnant ten times and producing a net seven children who survived to adulthood. Ironically if a Christian Quiverfull guy does that now with his wife, atheist bloggers would mock him as a superstitious retard.
    Come to think of it, if we lived in a parallel universe where male homosexuality emerged as a new behavior, without the massive propaganda machine in our reality to make us accept it as normal, it would freak out regular people, and we would see it as a frightening neurological disorder.

    1. Darwin was from a wealthy family so you can be sure that he was having sex at a young age before he married and had 10 kids at 30.
      Sexless bachelors are more a lower and middle class thing.
      Back in Darwin’s day the upper classes thought that sex was good for your health. Read about Tolstoy, same thing.
      And you had plenty of young country girl servants to screw.

  65. Corner stone of an article.
    Ok so now we know.
    What do we do next ?
    Are there ways for us, the people to fight the current ?

    1. Physically assaulting someone was already a crime. That has nothing to do with gay marriage debate. But faggots like to try the conflate issues to get sympathy.

  66. Frankly the time has arrived for patriarchy, race realism, the rollback of women’s sexual freedom and the delegitimization of especially male homosexuality to become the 21st Century’s “futuristic” ideas. 

  67. Good point(s) regarding the difference between tolerating something and legalizing it.

  68. Seems like everyone I know supports this garbage, but everyone is turning into half-a-fags nowadays so it should be no surprise to us. Watching a movie the other day, 2 guys are walking out of a whore house. “Did you fuck her in the ass?” one guy says to the other. “Of course I did; pussy is for faggots” replied the other. I thought it was brilliant and sums up our typical faggy thirsty male.

    1. Don’t you hear that sort of stuff on here? The lower classes are very susceptible to what they see in the media.If you went into any of their houses you’d find a TV in the living room and it’s always on. You never see TV’s in any upper class ‘living rooms’. If they have one it’s in some room somewhere and they rarely turn it on.

      1. I grew up in Fairfield County, CT buddy. Been in plenty of upper class homes, more than the average American, I’m sure of that. And guess what? They had TV’s in their living rooms! And their kitchens. And bedrooms. What the fuck are you talking about?

        1. I think we have a different idea about upper class kid. And Fairfield just like Westchester has a lot of different type people.

        2. Ok, so Fairfield and Westchester has a lot of different ‘type’ of people, yet your vision of ‘upper class’ is a place where everyone is the same and nobody has a tv in their living room. Got it.

  69. It is annoying that this Christian rag site still shows up in my news feed. The writers here are morons. I use to think this place was about a return to manhood, not about awaiting the second coming of Jesus.

    1. this isnt a christian site
      you gotta stop thinking like an american politico

    2. Yes, there are a lot of these Jesus freak sex starved yokels on here. However, marriage pre-dates Jesus and this jewish preacher is irrelevant.

  70. Every day this delusional insanity is getting stronger. These idiots want to abandon ‘husband’ a ‘wife’ terms.

    1. I would ban husband as well. It’s MAN and wife as in I now pronounce you MAN and wife.
      Husband is from the Anglo Saxon word husbonda and means like a house bound man.

    2. I am flattered that you have a confederate ‘stars and bars’ monacre and a Russian handle. Are the flags gaining popularity in Russia? Any Russian girls sporting these?:
      http://www.everytattoo.com/data/media/65/dixie_tat.jpg
      I would gladly brand my wife with one of these, but I wouldn’t allow my daughter to get one, not until she’s set with a patriarch and I can relax.

      1. I like southern culture, accents, food and most of all strong instinct (I can’t call it anything else) for Freedom and sovereignty. I’m very unhappy with defamation of Confederate battle flag. Eurasians are kinda like Americans split on it. Ignorant think it represents racism more educated see right through that propaganda. East Ukrainian rebels got a similar flag design but I’m not sure if any girls got tats like that. Currently Russians are not exactly happy with USA. Explaining that many people in USA including some yanks hate Fed is challenging…

  71. So… who are the “power elites?” The people with all the money? Why in the world would people with money want to create a welfare state, which they would have to finance?
    The truth is the “power elites” already have power, influence, and money. They’ve ran human civilization behind the scenes since day one, and always will. It’s been the same way since ancient times, as these people are well-documented in Ancient Greece and Rome. Thus, there’s little point for them to create an authoritarian government. They’ve already got power, money, and influence.
    Sounds like a silly conspiracy theory to me. I have my own theories about what’s going on in society today.

    1. It is in ‘power elite’s’ best interest to break plebe family structure. Consider typical settled homesteader families like wild free range packs of animals. The ‘elite’ land barons want to herd and domesticate. They want the homesteader’s land and resources to tap and manage as they deem. If the settlers are numerous and too populous for the ‘elites’ needs, a domesticated herd can be culled. If the males are aggressive and defensive, they are targeted first. Gay agenda has nothing to do with rights. It is about ‘elites’ agenda to move, control and domesticate populations.

  72. “Whether through environment or genetics, or a combination of both (the question is not one I am qualified to answer), some humans find satisfaction in what may be called “sexual inversion”: that is, the inverting of sexual desire from the opposite gender, to one’s own gender.”
    .
    Is it a mere coincidence that almost every homosexual who is willing to talk about his/her past, admits to having been molested as a child in one way or another?

    1. Homo-“marriage” may be popular for now, but watch, in a few years, very few homo’s will be thinking about getting married.
      The truth is, they never really wanted to get married, they just wanted to hijack and destroy another one of many sacred institutions; or in the case of marriage, merely finish it off.

  73. Quintus. I am disappoint. And that’s a first, when it comes to your articles. The part about gay marriage never having had official social or legal sanction regardless of the acceptance of homosexuality is a valid point.
    But the whole conspiracy bit about gay marriage being part of a massive conspiracy by power elites to break down anything that could compromise their position? Damn, have you given any thought to what scale and level of coordination such a conspiracy would require? What reason is there to believe in such conspiracies in the first place? The world is perfectly intelligible without postulating such.
    What’s next on RoK? “How the Illuminati invented Cultural Marxism to increase its own power”?

  74. Please, please, please, please, please….
    STOP using the Marxist-inspired term “gender” when speaking of men and women. The proper term, the correct term, is SEX! The Male and Female SEX.
    Gender is a term of grammar wherein certain nouns are classified by characteristics they are said to possess reflective of either man or woman, i.e. Masculine or Feminine. Gender as a term of grammar is quasi-malleable. SEX IS NOT! Sex is immutable. It is REALITY and cannot be changed!! A fairy can act feminine and a dyke can act masculine, but it will never be more than an act.
    Bruce Jenner can play lady all he wants, he will NEVER be female. How can I say that? How can I be so bigoted?
    Run his DNA! Count the number of chromosomes HE has.
    So please, at least here at returnofkings.com, let’s speak truthfully and accurately about SEX. it’s what we’re known for, after all!

      1. Hate monger? Sorry, the real hate mongers sit on your side of the isles. terrifictm is factually correct. You simply can’t change the definition because it makes you uncomfortable.
        Jenner will never be a woman. Science doesn’t support it. You know, the scientific method that supports “Global Warming” that we should take into account exists in biology too. He’ll never be able to nurse a child with silicone implants. He’ll never be able to give birth from a hole a surgeon carved between his legs.
        You guys love slapping labels on people that disagree with you. Always looking for an enemy. How is it any different from the Salem witch trials or Religious fanaticism? It isn’t, different platform, same insanity.
        Even if we are “hate mongers”If feelings matter and are never wrong, then hate is a valid emotion too, right? Of course it is.

  75. I’m confused why the argument “never in history” backs this article multiple times. History is full of thing that have existed, that I am so thankful don’t now. And it is full of terrible things that happened and sadly still do exist (ie slavery)! The fact of the matter is: human beings are a catalyst for changing rules and “norms” We rewrite history for better and worse all the time! To me winning is keeping the peace (causing the least amount of pain and suffering), loving your neighbor, and tending to your own *personal business* (like rocking in your own marriage). This year in history winners came out on top 😉 (or bottom, hey… to each their own!)

Comments are closed.