Gay marriage has never been the will of the people
(media.scored.co)
Comments (73)
sorted by:
I remember in the 90s and early 2000s thinking that the “what we do in private isn’t your business” or “we just want to be left alone” arguments were reasonable and tolerance was acceptable. I never would’ve imagined what we have today. I mean look at the massive overrepresentation in tv.
The trick is they don't want to leave you alone. Or your children.
That’s pretty clear. That was another thing they said. We aren’t going for your children
Then they sang songs about how they actually are and why that’s a good thing
The committed sinner only finds true satisfaction in dragging other people into his misery
Based and Christpilled
"You should live a debauched life like me it'll make you happy."
"Are you happy"
"No, but that's beside the point"
There was an article the other day about how a woman in Germany was declared ineligible for unemployment because she refused a job offer as a prostitute, because German law considers prostitution a "moral" and legitimate line of work, and this person was refusing a legitimate offer for work.
Oh you have moral issues with being a prostitute? You might as well have moral issues with driving a car, or having a woman ring up your groceries at the store. This is 2022! Get with the times!
These bumper-stick arguments like "what we do in private isn't your business" and "sex work is work" always have unforeseen consequences. The former doesn't even make sense as an argument if you think about it: if it's "private" it's literally unknown to anyone but you. The only way it would be made known is if you made it known, and at that point it's no longer "private". And a consequence of something being public is that others will judge you for your public behavior. How could it be otherwise?
I was naive. At the time they sounded reasonable but I never imagined it would morph into what we see today
You and me both. But there's always a new generation of naïve young adults (who will most likely do what you and I apparently did: ignore the wisdom of our elders telling us how naïve we were) that we have to try to get through. Even if it's in a vague "planting the seeds" sort of way.
There's also the idea that sex is nothing special. Just "something" you do for fun.
Well, in that case I guess no one will mind if I make my employee have sex with me. After all, there's nothing to sex and "sex work is real work."
What the FUCK?
How is that in any sense of the word sane?
It's not. Because the entire West is now experiencing Weimar Germany levels of degeneracy.
They probably told her to whore herself to get some of her tax money back, all the while screeching "My body my choice!" at the TV talking about US court cases.
Would be fucking peak irony.
And Bobby Knight was castigated for saying a woman being raped should just sit back and enjoy it.
Now the German government is claiming that's a moral good!
Sexuality has always been used in politics as a vehicle to control people.
I have no idea how it works, but clearly over and over we see them do it.
It kinda seems like "pregnancy scare" stuff morphed into "you can never get pregnant because you're gay now" stuff.
Sodom and Gomorrah could habe told you that was bullshit
You think that’s bad? Try to find even one poll or survey showing majority support for immigration.
I want them all deported along with their children.
I don't care how many generations your family has been here, you aren't American and you have to go back.
That's not a remotely viable policy at this point though, so I gotta figure out a more realistic approach to salvaging the nation.
Naval salvage. Dig it up off the ocean floor in 200 years when the technology to do so exists.
You realize that's going to be almost the entire population of the US, right?
The amount of people who are descendants of the population as of 1776-1789 is vanishingly small at this point. Honestly, I don't think I've met anyone who can trace their history back to Revolutionary War. Even I'm technically a "7th Generation Immigrant"
He's talking about Mexicans though.
What's the difference?
A person who is Latino, but has been in America since Texas became America is someone who has been in the US for a dozen generations.
"I don't care how many generations your family has been here".
Well, at some point, you're just deporting Americans.
It's more than just the south landers that have to go back.
1st gen = 2 parents 2nd gen = 4 grands 3rd gen = 8 grands 4th gen = 16 grands 5th gen = 32 grands 6th gen = 64 grands 7th gen = 128 grands
I got into genealogy some time ago. Tracked my dad's male line back to Germany. When I got a gene test, like 90% of my lineage is from British Isles. Almost no German! My paternal genotype matches up with exactly where I traced my German ancestors back to, so that's legit. I forget the number of generations but it was like 9 or so back I think. Early 1700s.
So, my male line is (was German), but that's like virtually none of my DNA. I've traced ~4-5 ancestors back to the time of the revolution. Any one of those people contributed a vanishingly small amount of my DNA.
My point really is just that if you go back to the point at which you are dealing with 128/256/etc ancestors, there's a really good chance one of them was around in America then, unless your family is very recently immigrated. You're also barely related to any one person!
Yeah... the "one drop" rule that these people operate under goes in the opposite direction.
Well, to play devil's advocate -- sure. Send 'em back to the European countries they came from, or to Japan or Korea. They've all got declining birthrates and need immigrants. Who better than repatriated natives?
There may be a reason they left.
Damned cossaks...
Free white persons of good moral character are a minority, yes.
Well, Mr. Rogers is dead so that leaves us with zero.
Lower your expectations.
Adopted? Hell, 2nd gen immigrants should be fluent, 3rd gen should be entirely naturalised or they never had any intention to become American in the first place..
Comment Reported for: Rule 2 - Violent Speech (x2)
Comment Removed: Rule 2 - Violent Speech
Gay marriage is an oxymoron, even gays admit it. This is why “consummating the marriage” was such a funny joke to them. Repealing no fault divorce and making these faggots actually be married is going to be my joke on them.
I don't think you've met any gay people to verify that.
Married gays and unmarried gays are to wildly different demographics with completely different sexual behaviors.
I think one of the most galling statistics that proves marriage is super useful shows that gay men (not lesbian women) getting married creates social and familial stability, while providing two upwardly mobile income earners to the family unit. Improved health outcomes, financial outcomes, social outcomes, etc. One of the best things a gay man can do is get married.
Lesbians on the other hand? Oof. Not so much. Lesbian marriages basically go sideways because neither party is effectively the primary earner. The benefits of marriage help, but the increase is marginal at best.
Lesbians are just basically domestic violence with extra steps.
Ironically going by the stats it appears to need fewer steps.
I've heard from people I know IRL that many gay men in a marriage or relationship keep some variation of an open relationship. High level of sexual promiscuity. Beats me how accurate that is.
There's the Lesbian Dead Bedroom, and high rates of violence in Lesbian relationships too.
The problem with this kind of statistic is that it's the epitome of correlation != causation, or putting the cart before the horse. It's entirely possible, even likely, that the marriages only "creates" stability in relationships that were already going to be stable to begin with. Unstable gay relationships or gay people with personality types unlikely to lead to stable relationships would never get married to begin with, so it would drastically skew the results of any such surveys.
I'd argue that the results of lesbian marriage support this hypothesis; people are going to be who they're going to be regardless of whether they're married or not.
Well I guess that begs the question, out of the number of gay (not lesbian) relationships out there, how many are stable and how many are the promiscuous type?
A majority of the Cluster B borderline/narcissistic types are women, and I can't imagine what happens when two Cluster B lesbians marry each other, but statistics prove it never ends well.
But for men do we know what the stable vs unstable rates are? For every Dave Rubin (yeah yeah yeah, I know you guys don't like him, bear with me here) how many Carlos Maza types are there?
As an anecdote, there is an extremely high rate of transmittance of monkeypox among gays right now, which gives me the impression that there's way less "stable" relationships and way more open relationships where they're mansluts.
I don't think that having a title causes stable relationships. I think that following the outline of what a "good marriage" is highly beneficial. Obviously marrying your abuser doesn't do anything good, but the point is that when people follow good behaviors, their life tends to dramatically improve. We call that set of good behaviors in a relationship a "marriage".
30% of gay male marriages openly admit to being “open” marriages. Just wait, gay people will be running away from marriage when we stop selling this infantilism.
I don't know that statistic, and don't really trust you for sources.
That’s fine, it’s only a quick look away sweetheart
"Educate yourself!"
And since we have 0 actual data on what happens to kids raised in gay households, that familial stability might be worth dick.
Honestly though, we need to reform marriage moreso than Gays. Civil Unions were a mistake, and they've just made hedonistic lifestyles more prevalent as people don't treat marriage as a sacred institution anymore.
At the first sign the partner is cool, they marry and then 2 months later, at the first sign the partner isn't 100% identical to them, they divorce.
Bring back strong couples who know how to compromise and stay fucking married for their entire lifetime.
No statistical data, but I haven't seen any negative anecdotal data. I'd bet money that marriage as an institution probably has the same positive effect on children in gay parent households, that it would under a straight parent family household. Afterall, marriage seems to have proven it's value as an institution for gays and lesbians as well.
That's fucking silly. You're better off going entirely the other direction and removing the state from relationships altogether. A Civil Union is a sacred as getting a judge to sign your marriage certificate in Las Vegas, because that's all any marriage is to the state. A mechanism to identify how tax and benefit programs should be arranged.
These are purely cultural problems. The state physically can't solve them, as the state can't, and shouldn't* try to solve social or cultural problems. You're gonna need to do the hard work of acculturating people into new behaviors using social pressures and morays, then teaching people why those behaviors are a good idea.
You'll have to have a missionary program in the US to re-civilize the Americans.
"O kind missionary, O compassionate missionary, leave China! come home and convert these Christians!"
The gays have been prog stormtroopers in every other arena, but sure, let them raise children what could go wrong
Not like there's tons of cases of gay couples molesting kids or anything
Queers, not gays. Learn the difference.
I'd rather let kids be raised by Dave Rubin and Andy Ngo, before I'd let kids be raised by most of the heterosexual teachers on Libs of TikTok, or the obvious wine mom on "Red, Wine, and Blue" who sang about "a plan for our world" in celebration of the vaccines.
Gee, I wonder why Media who's all big Gay wouldn't report any negative effects of same sex couple raising children...
The same Media who thinks Drag story times are Family friendly.
No, it's literally true. Divorce rates are through the roof, and the popularity of hook up culture is beyond what has ever been seen before.
that's literally what I said.
I give up, your post gets any better or does it remain defense of hedonistic, LGBT degeneracy and non-family tradition the whole way through ?
I'm not talking about media. I'm saying there's no statistical data in general. How can you have a 40 year study on the effect of gay marriage, when most gay marriages only became legal in the 21st century? I have to use anecdotal data.
I wasn't talking about any of this, I don't think.
Funny, I defended family traditions.
Exactly. What. I. said.
Well I was.
"Democracy" is a euphemism for globalist occupation.
In California we banned gay marriage with Prop 8 in 2012, then a court overturned it and then Obama used the Supreme Court to pass Obergefell.
35 states have laws on the books or in their state constitutions banning gay marriage, if we had just 3 more states join them we could call a Constitutional convention and BAN gay marriage at the federal level.
That would be unfathomably based, if politicians didnt believe twitter represented reality.
Are there ANY states that even have a chance of banning gay marriage in that remaining 15?
The 35 account for almost all the red and purple (leaning red) states. The remaining are all the shit parts of the US that make the US insufferable because they're metro left wing strongholds. How can we convert those?
the european way.
vote wrong? vote again until the correct decision is reached.
a court doing it is new.
So true. That's how the EU was formed.
Recall that California voted 80% against it too.
Conservatives were wrong--they claimed gay marriage would kill trad marriage, but it's already dead. All marriage is effectively illegal.
There was never a popular vote for this degeneracy in america either. The supreme court simply bulldozed the 10th amendment to make a mockery of a religious ceremony.
I STILL don't care what two (or many) adults do in their own home.
But "gay marriage" was and IS an oxymoron.
The entire point of marriage is to facilitate raising a family and having children. Period!
That's the thing about degenerates - they never keep it in their own home.
id wager 90% of the world dont like faggy stuff.. middle east, africa, half of asia.. not sure about south america.
only places its being promoted are urban cities of western cities, corporations and social media sites.
https://archive.ph/IPtdi
That's not true for the US, or most of the west really.
In 2012, CALIFORNIA voted to ban gay marriage.
CALIFORNIA.
The only reason we have gay marriage now is because obama's scotus forced it on states.
Don't let the media fool you. For example, there's polls that show that the Americans believe that there are A LOT more minorities and faggots in this country than there actually are. And the only reason they believe that is because the media is vastly over-representative of those groups.
Minor point: it was 2008 not 2012.
But yes, it frustrates me to hear people say "the right just needs to accept the gay marriage thing". The right did the "boots on the ground" thing in 2008 to keep it illegal through the same sort of "democratic" means the left uses to push through their social agenda, then the courts came by and told them "sorry, wrong answer".
Why should the right accept that is the end all/be all for debate on the subject? If the right listened to these sorts of people about abortion, Roe v. Wade would still be precedent.
Huh? I thought Prop 8 being stricken down was 2012...
Googles
HOLY FUCKING SHIT
How the fuck.
I'm aware of the polling data, and it's entirely consistent with the linear change over the past 70 years without significant deviation.
What about California voting it down?
It's the first time the Democrats discovered "the unintended consequences of mass migration from Latin America" actually had a potentially negative political ramification.
Turns out, rabid Catholics fleeing communist persecution are okay with handouts, not with sacrilege.
In general, the American population has been more accepting of both homosexuality and homosexual marriage on a slow linear increase over 70 years.
If they want to be miserable, they can go ahead.
I'm just curious what happens when a lesbian divorces. Does the one acting as the man in the relationship lose everything to the feminine one, or do they have to both pay each other obscene amounts that basically make it break even?
You shouldn't be downvoted for asking an entirely reasonable question.