Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps. The stories and information posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact. You are currently reading a thread in /b/ - Random
1. Affirmative Action, discriminating people based on their race, is racism, and all it does is devalue any degrees a minority person may get, because they had it easier; before hiring someone, you take that into consideration; thus, Affirmative Action does a disservice to all the people it was intended to help.
2. Similarly, forcing the presence of women in any single field does the same. Take politics. Where women have no special privileges, the few women who are active politically get all the more credit for it, think about South American female presidents: those don't get any favours and work a tough job. The result? More credit to them. Take France, half the government has been made female by decision (it was decided by men) and all the "feminists" applaud. That's like clapping when your master gives you a bone. Secondly, it devalues women in politics since whenever there's a woman in politics in France now, you can always say she had it easier. The result is less credibility in politics and a general decrease in the credibility of women in general. Equality is not obtained with special favours. Respect is not obtained by being exempt of obstacles everyone else has to overcome.
3. "Feminism" in the West has no battles to fight and struggles painfully to create new ones. From a legal standpoint, men and women have the exact same rights (as men) in Europe and North America. All women can go to school, vote, drive, drink alcohol, buy a house, get a job, etc. Not all nations grant women these rights, but in our countries, women have the same rights as men. There is literally nothing they can ask for, legally, which is why they don't. Instead, they try to make ideological arguments about trivial matters or acts that are already against the law: "Rape is bad!", "I shouldn't have to shave my legs to please men!"
4. Victimisation is self-destruction. If you think of yourself as a victim, you will act like one, think like one, and, worse, you will be thought of as one by everyone else, which is generally the desired result. The problem with this is that the people doing this aren't children anymore and children are the only ones who might get any success with victimisation if their parents are none the wiser. When you are an adult, however, and you pull the same tricks, it will only do two things: bring you the scorn of actual adults (men and women alike), and bring you more people who think like you do. A victim is passive and cannot act; everyone is a victim every now and then but the sooner you exit that position and become active, the better. Blaming everyone else for everything results in you not having any control. Victimisation is disempowering.
5. "Social Justice Warriors" claim to be tolerant, loving, intellectual, and civil. The reality is that as soon as you slightly disagree with them (or are part of a group of people they discriminate against), you see their true face: intolerant, hateful, bigoted, intellectually dishonest, and hostile.
6. The constant twisting of words for ideological purposes. "Gender" was a word used for grammar, technically, it is used to refer to the "sex" of nouns, masculine, feminine, or neutre, that many languages have. It was never intended to be used for human biology. Ideology is why you now refer to someone's sex as their "gender". "Homosexual" simply means a human being attracted to their own sex; using the word "gay", and thus virtually killing the original meaning of the word, has brought nothing to anyone except turning what was simply a sexuality into a "life-style", as if a sexuality was a way to live your life. It's not. It's just a sexuality. The rest is ideology. This backfired as "gay" garnered negative connotations (because changing words does not change anything except the surface) and this is only fair: you play with words, words play with you. "Homosexual" was a descriptive word and it should have stayed that way to everyone's benefit.
7. LGBT, Femen, and other groups are a danger to the people they claim to help. Because of LGBT's actions and forced associations (transsexuals don't see themselves as homosexuals; homosexuals don't feel adequately represented by the group) the supposed benefiters pay for the group's deeds. Femen presents feminism as pure hysteria, further discrediting women. Attacking churches has effectively destroyed the sympathies of many for Femen; women of faith who wanted to help will not because they are now targetted and considered the enemy. More generally, Femen does nothing to help women or feminism; all it does is show an embarrassing display of emotionalism, shlock, and in a very real sense, it shows the face of neo-fascism (physically attacking people who think differently or believe different things is nothing if not raw fascism). Complaining that your body is sexualised by using your body's sexual appeal to garner attention is a humorous contradiction at best. Ideas and arguments must always follow once you have people's attention. If tits and ass and a few words on your skin are all you have, you're doing nothing. As to homosexuals, LGBT's actions endanger homosexuals in every nation that isn't in the West, as those nations watch us and they don't like what they see, and they don't want this in their own populations; thus, homosexuals from these countries get beaten and attacked if they display their homosexuality via clothes or else the way they're encouraged to do.
All well and good, but have you ever really sat down and thought about their point of view? I've found that even though you have to disregard their disgusting victim mentalities to realize it, they really are onto something with the way they analyze things. Really and truly, beyond their (generally futile) attempts to hold guilty parties accountable for the effects of this perceived "rape culture", all they want is to bridge the gaps in understanding that have fucked society over for centuries.
8. "Social Justice" is a danger to everyone's health. Currently, homosexuals are not allowed to donate blood. Many see this as discrimination (it is) and wish to see it abolished. Discrimination is a good thing in many cases. In this case, the reason is simple: 1 out of 5 homosexuals has AIDS, a ratio so high that the decision not to take any blood from homosexuals is completely justified, if we think with facts and logic and if we care for everyone equally. The only way to still think this is unfair is to assume that the feelings of a few of us matter more than the very lives of most of us (including the few mentioned before, as homosexuals need blood as well, and they'd rather not get infected by AIDS because you were scared to hurt their feelings). To further convince you, half the homosexuals who are infected aren't aware that they are. AIDS is spread more easily via anal sex than it is with vaginal sex. Homosexual men who choose to have many partners can have sex with dozens upon dozens of other men in a short period of time. That does not mean all homosexuals do so, but the ones who do are extremely efficient vehicles for the disease. This explains the extremely high rates of infected amongst the male homosexual population.
>>557289985 >all they want is to bridge the gaps in understanding that have fucked society over for centuries.
There never was a misunderstanding until they started fantasising.
>I'm a fucking dragon >society doesn't understand ---------------------------------------------------------
9. Acting like everyone is the same and all cultures view things the same way and thinking that if they don't, they must be wrong. Example: Russians are against homosexual rights because they think of them as pedophiles. While this claim causes shock and consternation in the West, the overlap between homosexuals and pedophiles is far more important than Westerners would like to think, and gives some legitimacy to the Russians' worries concerning homosexual rights. Activists should keep that in mind before attacking Russians with propaganda targetted at their children, which they have done during the Olympics. The situation has reached such extremes that Russians currently have vigilantes whose sole activity is to trap homosexuals/pedophiles to beat them up and humiliate them; they film these acts and publish them on the Internet for all to see. This is the combined result of Western activists who both encourage homosexuals to shock society and the concerns of that society in the face of it. The result is violence.
10. There were other ways. If homosexuals had decided that their Gay Pride was about showing everyone how they are truly the same and respectable people, by dressing up with suits, briefcases, ties, etc, and displaying a respectful behaviour and nothing special, society would have had an easier time giving them extra rights (they are extra rights because homosexuals and heterosexuals always had the same rights before the law); instead, they chose to dress like SM perverts with feathers up their asses and dance to techno while taking drugs. There were other ways. The "culturification" of homosexuality has proved to be the bane of homosexuals around the world. It has become political, "cultural" and has made it all the more difficult for homosexuals to be part of society, as being homosexual does not decide your political beliefs or even your religious beliefs.
11. The activists themselves are generally not the concerned individuals. White people will speak for black people; heterosexuals will protest for homosexuals; men will speak for women; a few women will speak for all women; etc. You'd be surprised the amount of homosexuals who hate LGBT and the amount of women who despise Femen. You'd be surprised, that is, if you never thought much about these issues and never cared to discuss them with those who are directly concerned. There is a reason why you have seen naked Femen activists but never read Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
12. Equality means that 1 person is worth 1 person. Because of this, you cannot tell people that a minority is more important than the rest. Doing this is not equality, it's favouritism and it is stigmatising for the minority you claim you want to help. Be it black people, homosexuals, or women (who are not a minority but treated as one, which is telling), the liberal help they have received has often proved insulting, counter-productive and discrediting. Acting like children and being treated like children is something these "Social Justice Warriors" seem to enjoy. Cry about something and those who are in power come to your aid. This would never make an empowered person feel happy. They wouldn't even think to cry for help as they couldn't be proud of having something they didn't obtain by themselves.
13. Slutwalks. Similar to Femen in its negative effects. The whole phenomenon is based on the following fallacy: some men are rapists therefore all men are potentially rapists. What these people do, and other "feminists", is discrimination based on false evidence, or nonexistent evidence. Not all men are rapists, only a very few individuals with sadist tendencies and probably some psychopathy (the actual kind that affects 2% of the population, not the Hollywood kind). These individuals will not stop raping because of a slutwalk or because someone told them rape was bad. Rape is illegal and punished by law. It's nothing new. "Feminists" are therefore not trying to convince society that rape is bad because it's already in the law, and most of us know what to think about rape, which leaves the actual rapists, who do not care about what these people have to say. There is no need to further comment on the futility of these slutwalks. What it boils down to is attention-seeking, feeling like a hero and probably quite some exhibitionist tendencies. Slutwalkers, all you do is further discredit women. Being a slut is a bad thing, by which we mean a real slut, not "someone thought of as a slut when she really isn't." If someone isn't a slut, then she isn't a slut. Stop making words meaningless and communication will flow more easily. A slut is a woman who sleeps with many men and has no faithfulness to any of them while they all think they're in an exclusive relationship. That's a slut. It's a bad word used for bad people. Instead of telling sluts not to be sluts, you try to turn the word "slut" into a good word. You do nothing good by doing that. That is as if I wanted you to stop using the word "shit" and start saying "chocolate" instead, hoping that next time you eat a mouthful of shit it'll taste awesome. It won't. It'll taste like shit because it is shit.
14. Fat acceptance. Being fat is not beautiful, it's dangerous for one's health. Again, emotionalism is taking over facts, logic, science, and a general concern for everyone's health. Are your feelings so important that you should not be warned of physical consequences? Of course not. Here's what's happening: cowards and uneducated people will tell you you are beautiful as a big person and 20 years later you'll die of a heart attack. They are happy because they think they did a nice thing to you. As to you, you're dead. The other way to handle this is to stick with facts, truth, science, logic, and actual concern: people who tell you to lose weight because it's dangerous care for you more than those who let you indulge in your unhealthy ways. People who truly care for you will not mind seeming to be assholes in the short run if their words help you in the long run. Remember, hurt feelings do not mean you're right, and they don't mean someone hates you either. If you want to lose weight, calculate your daily need in calories and eat less than that every day. It is that simple. Working out isn't even mandatory. Calories in, calories out. Everything else is generally bullshit by both corporations and lazy people; the former want you to think it's highly complicated so you buy their products and diets, while the latter want you to think it's complicated so they have excuses not to try. Fact is, losing weight is easy and simple. Calories are like fuel in a car. Starvation mode is a myth: your body cannot create energy from nothing.
15. Shame. Slut-shaming, fat-shaming, and related terms, are a concern. For those of you who understand little about the world, please become aware that shame is the root of civilisation. It is shame that made us evolve and stop behaving like animals. Shame has a social role of tremendous importance and, once again, hurt feelings shouldn't be more important than facts and acts. Sluts are shamed because their behaviour is unnacceptable, period. Your problem is that when I say "slut", you don't hear "slut", you hear this: "A perfectly fine woman who was misfortunate enough to sleep with the wrong person, who later called her a slut." That's a psychological problem you have right there: I said "slut", I didn't say "innocent woman". Your problem is that you can't imagine a real slut, only innocent women. Sluts exist. Women who cheat on their man or many of their men do exist. Denying reality is why your movement only takes hold with the most deluded of us and gets no credit from the rest of us. Fat-shaming is usually used against statements of facts. When I said losing weight was easy, some of you probably thought I was "fat-shaming". If so, then so be it, shame on you. I'm serious, please feel ashamed of yourself and do something about it that doesn't involve swallowing donuts as tears run down your plump cheeks. Did that sound mean? Did that hurt your feelings? My care for you goes beyond hurting your feelings. I'll hurt your feelings a million times if it saves your goddam life. Remember, hurt feelings aren't a reason.
16. Dissent. People who disagree with you are not automatically hateful, uneducated, stupid, racist, sexist, homophobic, or any of the other lovely terms you may have for them. It is fundamental that you, as an adult, be able to view opposition with respect and entertain the possibility that they not only may be right (and you wrong), but that they have legitimate reasons for their opinions, reasons that you, however intelligent and educated you may be, do not know. This is vital if you hope to remain civilised. Empathy is essential. You think you know this, but you only empathise with people who are like you and think like you. That's not empathy. When you argue with someone, publically or not, try to remember that, as the best way to convince anyone is to first show that you understand them, which, in most cases, you don't. Winning an argument is when your opponent leaves the debate with something new, even if it's just a little bit of something new. You don't win by thinking you won. Nobody cares about that, and if you're the sort who takes pride in winning arguments this way, be sure that you never won anything. Your opponents often have reasons that they won't bother sharing with you due to their complicated and/or intimate nature (a religious person will not display the more personal aspect of their faith if you're aggressive towards them, and that's your loss, not theirs).
17. The incoming backlash. We are now at the phase where physical violence enacted by these people on others is happening (priests get beaten up during protests, churches and the elderly are stormed, sacred items are damaged, etc.) and, for now, still tolerated. This will not last. People, en masse, will eventually see where the real fascism is and the entitlement period will come to an end. The attitudes of "Social Justice Warriors", however, will not stop right away, and this is when things will get ugly. Today's liberal fascism is making the bed for tomorrow's conservative fascism. The excess of today will fuel the fire of tomorrow's counter-movement, as people will strive for traditions, stability, responsibility, empowerment, justice (the real one, the one that believes in equality in rights and duties), all the things our civilisations were built on. By condoning "Social Justice" or being a part of it, you are objectively making things worse for everyone and the ensuing backlash nearer and nearer. If you truly care about people - all the people - then go back to basics: logic, facts, responsibility, science, respect, empathy. You have been indulged by the masses for very long but the tides are turning. People can now see how unsound many of your views are and how childish your lot tends to be: "Isn't it racist and sexist to call good teeth 'straight and white'?" Your hunt for "homophobes" and "sexists" and "racists" is nothing more than the McCarthyism of our time.
I figured, but I couldn't find that anywhere in the FAQ.
I understand the logic, but as a frequent OP, I know that a thread has about 5 to 10 minutes to live without a bump. That's rarely enough to start anything interesting. Is everyone aware that OP's can't bump anymore?
>>557291384 Yea im aware and you are right. Some fun threads just die because no one else has anything else to share. Self bump should be allowed at least once in my opinion.. but not more than 3-4 i guess
Thank you for the bumps and attention. I wrote this on the go yesterday. Took me anywhere between 2 to 3 hours. Maybe more. I'm not sure. The Lord made me ecstatic and used me like a flute. God willed it.
>>557289384 >"Rape is bad!" you lost me here. Rape is the one part of the feminist argument that is backed by science.
Their whole point is that it's illegal, but goes ridiculously under-reported and under-punished, which is just true. Fighting for laws that are on the books to be enforced isn't "sjw nonsense", it's being a responsible citizen.
Except everyone who bumped and the lurkers who don't feel the need to bump since others bump it. Remember, 70% of anons are lurkers.
Statement rejected, with scorn.
>grow up or go post this shit on tumblr
So, either I grow up, OR I post this on Tumblr? I wonder what your definition of growing is all about. Telling retards how it is doesn't strike me as immature. As to Dumblr, I'm not setting cirtual foot there.
>>557293481 >you lost me here. Rape is the one part of the feminist argument that is backed by science.
>backed by science
What do you even mean?
>Their whole point is that it's illegal, but goes ridiculously under-reported and under-punished, which is just true.
And? Protesting about it won't do jackshit. However, you're wrong. rape is the most abused accusation as well. Many "rapists" actually aren't. There are countless cases of men accused of rape, who simply had sex with the accuser, sometimes not even, and they went to prison anyway.
>Fighting for laws that are on the books to be enforced isn't "sjw nonsense", it's being a responsible citizen.
What does it do? Nothing. This is like me protesting about murder saying it's bad. It doesn't change anything. That's what's completely futile.
>>557294929 Said it in a thread I started yesterday...people should be forced to fuck people in their same weight class...hopefully it would disgust them so much that they'd lose weight to get into a lower fuck bracket
Rape IS under-reported, AND under-punished. Those are statistics from everywhere. Colleges with thousands of students claim zero rapes. It's just un-true.
That has nothing to do with the repercussions for those who are accused, and nothing to do with false accusations. They're separate issues.
Rape just happens to be a crime that's easier to frame people for than most other crimes.
You could cause just as much or more damage to someone's reputation by claiming an authority figure in your life molested you as a child, with no evidence at all. Does that mean that we shouldn't investigate or punish alleged pedophiles?
I'm not saying there's not problems on both sides of the rape debate, but blindly saying that for the greater good, women don't get to report it unless they're covered in bruises or something? It's specious and simply not thought out.
This can't be stated. How would you know anything about the unreported cases? You can't. It's logical. It's an argument from silence, it's a fallacy.
I'm pretty sure rapes go unreported like many other crimes, but you can't have any serious numbers on it. Most rapes are reported in the West, and those that don't are a case of "it's complicated", meaning it wasn't quite rape.
Most rapes occur between people who know each other already. 90% of the time, it's not a stranger in a parking lot, it's your good buddy while both of you were drinking. You end up fucking because you're both drunk and horny, and then you don't remember or aren't sure. Many women will sue for rape, others will have the common sense to take their responsibility and won't consider it rape.
In Europe, everything is underpunished.
>Colleges with thousands of students claim zero rapes. It's just un-true.
So, if reality doesn't fit your expectations, reality is wrong? You have no evidence for this. Contrary to what you Dumblr Dork believe, society isn't a rapefest. You guys are psychotic, you see rape everywhere.
I'll find you a study about this. Give me a moment.
Men in prisons get raped often, by many people, across the years. Women get raped once, when it happens.
Men falsely accused of rape go to prison and get raped far more for being alleged rapists. Here's a true story from the news:
>teenage girl is upset at her dad >decides to accuse him of rape >dad goes to prison >dad gets raped daily for 5 years for being a pedo, inmates hate pedos >girl eventually decides it's time to admit she lied >tells the judge she lied >says she's a virgin >gets tested, she's indeed a virgin, hymen is intact >nobody bothered to test her claims >justice not sure if dad should be let out
This stuff pisses me off beyond belief. Women are proxy-rapists. If you get raped by 120 men, 120 times, because society trusts a woman over you for no reason, fucking hell.
It exists. It's on the news often enough. Googling it should yield results fairly easily.
>teacher, 30 >student, 15 >they fuck and suck >slap on the wrist >nothing more
It's as if a 15-year-old kid was given more credit than a girl of the same age. Nobody would trust a girl of that age being in love with a man of 30, but if a boy does it with a woman of 30, suddenly it's cool.
Hope you notice that means society actually thinks females are more retarded. Hope you realise that's what feminists want.
>>557297601 I'd kind of like to see what you have on the gay marriage one, I come from a country where it's legal (all benefits tax and otherwise included) and wouldn't mind seeing a different perspective.
>>557297601 Anti racism might be interesting, but the main problem with gay marriage is that religious ceremonies are part and parcel of what people call marriage.
I assume that the reason many people were against it was because (for eg) a church might be forced to have a ceremony for a gay couple when the vast majority of the people who actually go to that church were against gay marriage.
>>557289384 >>557293481 >>557293728 This one is tricky. While it is true that rape is against the law. Most acts of rape go unreported because many women feel ashamed and like it is their fault While this is very sad indeed this isn't the mistake of all men (only the rapist). Also being accused of rape (just accused not convicted) of rape as a man will end your life. Where I live, if you are accused of rape you will lose your education (if still schoolgoing) or your job. Also you will lose you hobbies and you can't show your face in the town where you live. >Once met a girl, hang out, mess around a bit (both of us) >Found out she'd been talking about me assaulting her. >never assaulted her and everything I did she smiled at and never told me to stop. >never had sex with her, never kissed her >backed the fuck away from her and started completely ignoring her for as much as possible because I knew it could end badly for me.
Yes, you've missed the main point: people are upset that a minority changed a majority's tradition.
The real deal here is this: should individuals adapt to society or society to individuals? When the whole population has to adapt to 6% or less, something is not right.
Moreover, when civil unions was made, 90% of those who used it were heterosexuals. Homos don't care that much about marriage, so the result of civil unions was to undermine marriage in general, as many people chose civil unions instead of marriage even though they had no reason other than "muh fedora, muh patriarchy".
What happens is that a few homos and a whole lot of activists wanted to spite everyone else by attacking marriage, the foundation of family.
It was perceived as an attack, and it was. Very few homos care about getting married, as stats show.
>>557298541 I've had friends and talked with them and several of them have been raped and none of them reported it because they felt ashamed or disgusting. This fits with the claim that most go unreported.
False rape reports are very wrong and also something that happens way too often. This should be punished far more severly.
>>557298243 >Most acts of rape go unreported because many women feel ashamed and like it is their fault
Think like a man, it'll simplify things: if it IS your fault, then you should feel bad about and not sue anyone; if it IS your fault, then it's not rape.
If it ISN'T your fault, then you have no reason to feel bad about it.
I think the idea that women don't dare to sue because they "think it's their fault" is bullshit to cover up the fact that they're just feeling too cowardly or too guilty to sue.
A woman who is raped has no rational reason to feel guilty. If she does, that's on her. Acquire guts and do what it takes. Don't blame others.
I know a guy who's the nicest guy there is, and he was in a relationship with a crazy girl. They ended up having arguments about the apartment they live in. She called the police and said he was beating her. Total bull, but the cops assumed she was telling the truth and treating him like shit, while she smiled.
When this shit happens around you, and you KNOW the guy accused of the beating, you can't believe it. I've known that fucker since he was 10. I can guarantee he is no wife beater.
I also know the girl, she's the sort of crazy cunt who will physically attack you for lols. She tried wrestling me. I had to physically restrain her.
This isn't true. Are you retarded? They are obligated to register your complaint. Why would they laugh at you? How fucking stupid are you?
They can get fired for doing their job poorly. These are just fucking excuses not to report rape.
>sluts gonna slut >get drunk >fuck around with drunk jock >end up fucking >RAPE >want to sue but doesn't because it's not really rape >convince self that cops will laugh >never report >say cops would laugh
>>557298992 or she's aware how hard of a road it will be to prove it to people, having to tell the story over and over to police officers and in court, as well as possible blowback from friends and family
>>557299185 people report thefts when there's a possibility the goods will be recovered.
You can't 'get back' a rape. Your only motivation is punishing the offender and possibly, MAYBE preventing future crimes by that offender. And you have to tell an embarassing thing to lots of people publicly and spend a LOT of time and effort to do so.
It absolutely seems easier to try to forget about it and move on
>>557298892 >I've had friends and talked with them and several of them have been raped and none of them reported it because they felt ashamed or disgusting. >This fits with the claim that most go unreported.
Quite likely, however, what do you think should be done about it? These women should be shamed because of NOT reporting. They have only themselves to blame for not reporting.
I hate women sometimes. You either report the rape or shut the fuck up forever about it.
>>557299515 >Implying woman brag about their rape experiences They don't tell the world and they are not proud of it. They don't want you to fix this (which is really womanlike) but wanna tell their story.
>>557299515 so, you're saying that if there was a huge spike in rape reports, you'd be okay with punishing them all thoroughly and let go of your "but bitches report falsely and hurt men" bullshit? Because that sounds like the opposite of what you said before.
If your opinion isn't gelled enough to last a 10 minute argument, don't literally write it down in a manifesto for other people to use as copy pasta.
>>557299156 think about it. complete solitude, and you are thousands of miles away from the nearest feminist. plus, you will also go down in history as the first man to live on the moon. it will be a virtual paradise however, all online games will have at least 1 second of lagtime, but i guess thats how it works
>>557298604 I can see where you're going with the gay marriage in a church where it might make people uncomfortable, but I have a difficult time grasping that guys are getting married to just spite the church. But I feel like they might be getting married instead of being civil partners for the same reasons as straight people do, love, faith, money, and of course marriage benefits. or does your country not have marriage benefits?
>>557299897 embarassing yourself publicly to help possible victims you don't know in the future of a non-deadly crime is something that should come naturally to most people? Have you met people? This requires a ton of mental fortitude.
Being raped, for real or not, has become a badge of honor for feminists. It's proof of everything they believe. It's as if a black guy robs a white skinhead. It's confirmation and they'll cling to it. Victimisation depends on it.
>>557299747 >so, you're saying that if there was a huge spike in rape reports, you'd be okay with punishing them all thoroughly and let go of your "but bitches report falsely and hurt men" bullshit?
If you can prove the rape beyond a reasonable doubt, yes, I'm for very severe punishment of rapists. In my country, I voted for permabans on rapists, just so you know. But to do this, you need serious evidence.
>no known connections between rapist and victim (most rapes happen between people who know each other, not denying that, just saying that this configuration makes for a better case, or does it...)
>>557299393 But if women are trying to forget about it and move on instead of reporting aren't they the ones supporting the very "rape culture" they stand against so heavily?
One of my favorite questions is, if a 17 year old girl, gets her 18 year old boyfriend HAMMERED beyond any point where you could argue he gave consent, then accepts money to let other underage women sleep with him, who goes the jail?
>>557299972 >but I have a difficult time grasping that guys are getting married to just spite the church.
They're not. All they wanted was to destroy traditional marriage, which happened. Now you have a new sort of marriage, it's not the same anymore and everyone knows this. Once again, most homosexuals do not marry.
I don't see why a civil union giving them the same rights shouldnt't have been acceptable. The reason is spite.
My country doesn't allow homosexual marriage and I hope it won't.
>>557301371 Well if you think about, traditional marriage hasn't really been all too traditional in the past century.
Again, I don't think that it's spite, there's many gay people who do it for the same reason as straights, an extreme act of commitment saying "I love you so much, and I commit to you so much, that if I ever break my vows I will have legal repercussions and punishment". I think that says a bit more then any civil union. I hope your country (US?) allows it someday and maybe it's people will see that guys aren't so bad if you get to know them.
>>557302212 >Well if you think about, traditional marriage hasn't really been all too traditional in the past century.
Not sure what you mean by "traditional" here. Marriage has certainly changed a lot in how people view it, which is why homo-marriage became legal.
>Again, I don't think that it's spite, there's many gay people who do it for the same reason as straights, an extreme act of commitment saying "I love you so much, and I commit to you so much, that if I ever break my vows I will have legal repercussions and punishment".
Those who DO get married, YES. But the majority does NOT get married because they don't personally care about marriage; however, they wanted it legal partly out of spite for those who didn't want marriage to change, for religious people, for "homophobes", and etc. That is spite.
Homosexual marriage is a symbol of a few changing society for everyone, and that's why unrested started in many countries because of this. Russia would riot if that was allowed for them.
I'm not American.
I have no problems with most homosexuals per se. My enemy is the activists who want to change society to what they think is better.
Please be aware that the people who wanted homosexual marriage are the same who open the borders for Muslim immigrants, who attack homosexuals.
Liberal arts: English, French, Social Sciences. I used to be a Liberal, very leftwing, very atheistic, etc, and I completely changed opinions as I got older. This gives me a great understanding of people on the other side because I've been on both sides and generally understand people.
I've argued with countless people for years, and have actually made an effort to understand them. This gives me better arguments because I know what I talk about (usually).
I suppose you assumed I was more on the scientific side of things. Truth be told, I have serious respect for the hard sciences and not that much for social sciences and such, because I know this field from the inside, and while there is a lot of good, there is also a lot of crap that can be used whichever way you want.
If I had to start again, and didn't suck so bad at maths, I'd probably study something else.
>>557303010 >I used to be a Liberal, very leftwing, very atheistic, etc, and I completely changed opinions as I got older. Seems to be a common theme for a lot of people. I used to be leftwing but snapped and went full right.
I didn't go far enough to study Liberal Arts, but I hope it didn't fuck up your prospects too much.
Nobody says otherwise. I think the main question you have to ask yourself is how people get raped.
You're more likely to get raped if you go to a party alone, dressed in a way that shows whether you're hot or not, get drunk, and get frisky with a stranger.
That doesn't mean you "asked for it". Not at all. That doesn't mean the rapist is right. Of course not. But what it means is that you did put yourself in a dangerous situation.
There's a difference between blaming the victim and realising that rape could have been avoided.
>be me >sexy bitch >dress like a slut to get boners going >dance like a slut, rub against a few groins >dude wants to invite me home, can't rape me in the club >I go, because why not >I get raped >IT WAS INEVITABLE
>be me >sexy KKK member >dress like a KKK slut >sexy ghost >dance like a KKK slut, country line-dance >rub against some nigga groins >he wants me in his place >I go >he brings 40 friends >they all beat me up and fuck my ass >DICK FOR THE HONKY, DICK FOR THE HONKY >I get fucked hard >It was inevitable, fucking niggers
What amazed me was that there's a whole rightwing conservative field in social sciences but nobody seems to acknowledge its existence. Probably because most students of that are leftwing.
I'm a teacher now. When students want to discuss certain issues, I try to make them think critically by being the devil's advocate (which, most often, is my actual opinion, but education is the land of the left, so I thread carefully).
i mean, you can seperate many opinions in a left/right spectrum but i don't think politics is always that one-dimensional.
for example, many right thinking people share the same solutions like lefties. the only big difference is the origin of the problem: right thinkers often think its the natural change of things (or as you can say: the decreasing consercative thinking) and for left thinking people it's the increasing inequality (or the lack of equity).
i really understand your point. left thinking is one sided at many topics but so is right thinking as well.
i think politics (or social issues) are kinda multidimensional, but thats just my opinion.
>i mean, you can seperate many opinions in a left/right spectrum but i don't think politics is always that one-dimensional.
Especially nowadays. Things are more logically being divided based on other things, such as the European Union, for Europeans, pro or against. Globalism or nationalism, etc.
Sociology, roughly, differs on the individual: the left sees a person as the result of their environment and the right sees a person as choosing things. I find the leftwing approach very belitting, entitling, disempowering, and generally negative, as people will all too easily assume the role of a victim and blame everyone else for their own choices.
Gj OP, very interesting post so far, feels good to come on /b/ sometimes and have some fap material for brain.
As for Dumbler or fagbook, you don't need to post on it. It s a shame thought because your arguments are pretty valid and interesting. Even if I don't agree with everything you said at least it is matter to discuss on.
I understand these "feminist" point of view on 4chan. The first time I came here, I was like wtf is this shit. It looked like the depth of the internet but I was desperately attracted by it.
But then I understood why I like this community so much. Yes they are some fucked up people on 4chan, but at least the shit is real in here. It is not like Facebook or Tumblr where everything is just show off. Here people can expose any argument they want with no fear of consequences. In here we have freedom.
For me the main difference between facebook, tumbler and 4chan is that in here people may have very dark humor or show pictures of fucked up things they do or think, but it is what it is. The world is full of fucked up thing and hopefully on 4chan people understand this point and laugh, cry, argue about it.
"Femenists" call us fascists, terrorists, rapists and so on and think of us as big virgin nerds with sick ideas. Well let them think what they want, karma will strike back one day, as it will strike back for us. It doesn't matter. They just need to learn to deal with life as we all have to do. Life is fucked up and we just have to deal with it.
>>557306440 >the left sees a person as the result of their environment and the right sees a person as choosing things.
thats a really good point though. it kinda remembers me of marx, which have always stated (in his economy system and his religious criticism) that the main problems are enviromental.
but i think, that the right thinking has one big problem: not everyone starts with the same initial conditions. it is true though, that you are in charge of your own actions but there are many people which are (literally) victims.
but maybe im thinking to "left" right now.
thanks for the discussion OP, that was a good thread. you are the reason i'm still coming to /b/
You're right, nothing is that clearcut and even rightwing sociolists are aware that your environment will make a difference, but what they refuse to do is to accept that your are defined entirely by your environment. You may have less choices, but you can still do it.
Some people start in horrible places and become millionaires and geniuses.
Marx's materialism isn't necessarily wrong but it's short-sighted.
My take on this is that you'd rather err on the rightwing side of things and keep telling people they are responsible. Even if it's not completely true, it'll encourage people to try and they'll get results. If you tell people it's not their fault, they won't even try.
I know this because someone in my family works in prisons, and "social" people visit inmates and tell them it's society's fault. So, of course, they embrace that, feel like victims, and learn nothing. They come out and keep raping, assured that it's their parents and society's fault.
>>557308748 definitely write some more, you should start a blog or try writing for a magazine or website or something. Its refreshing reading social commentary from a rational, level headed perspective rather then an extremest (left/right) view or being self-righteous or obnoxious.
My change from left to right happened gradually. Mainly because I started having serious arguments with people around me, notably feminists who wanted equality and how men weren't treated or considered equally. That's how it started. I termed myself a "masculinist" long before the MRA stuff. I'm not an MRA person right now, but I believe the MRA movement is a normal response to feminism: both assume that men and women are the same, whereas I currently believe we should acknowledge our differences and cherish them, and accept that not everything will be the same for either of us, since they're not (despite feminism, women will never be 90% of the workforce on construction site and other menial jobs).
That's how it started, then I got more and more sickened by the left. All it took was a few intelligent people from the right making good points. It opened my mind and I looked into it.
I'm going to get working on the homosexual marriage thing. It will be done in the same spirit. Nothing aggressive. It'll be an explanation of why many people are against it, because, by any means, many have no clue why anyone could be against it.
Mainly because we're destroying traditions due to the hurt feelings of the few, backed up by the politically interested and the narcissistic activists.
That's the main reason. It also means we're forgetting to live and work for something higher than ourselves, our nations, in this case.
There is a reason why people on high want us to consider ourselves individuals without social networks (the real ones: family, nation, religion, race); all these actual social networks have been undermined for decades and in some countries, most of them are dead. You can't rely on these networks anymore, for various reasons.
Feminism and the gay movement are further used to undermine networks amongst people of the same social class. Feminism is there to disrupt men/women solidarity while gay movements do the same on a political level.
Everything is done so we forget that economical classes are all that counts. While workers bicker about feminism, they do nothing against those who use and abuse them.
have to say op i disagree on your stance on gay marriage. I think they should be allowed the same option straight couples get. Maybe we're dividing them from us by not having things like marriage available to them. I think certain traditions can be changed a little with the times if done carefully
All these movements generally favour globalism and undermine the working class. That's the endgoal.
Make individuals weak by destroying their networks:
>family >nation >race >religion
It's obvious to anyone that those pillars are constantly under attack. White people can't even think they have a race network. Religions are constantly targetted by the media. Family is under attack with things like homosexual marriage, the idea that "love" and "romance" is the heart of marriage doesn't help either.
Weak individuals can't do shit except buy stuff to resist depression and meaninglessness.
Holy shit, I was going to call bullshit on this 1 in 5 ratio but it turns out to be almost true.
"A recent CDC study found that in 2008 one in five (19%) MSM in 21 major US cities were infected with HIV, and nearly half (44%) were unaware of their infection." (Center for Disease Control, cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm)
However, the 1 in 5 ratio only applies to homosexual men in major cities, not homosexual women or men in other parts in the country. Still pretty shocking
>scroll through god-tier thread >"RAPE IS UNDERREPORTED >THE MAJORITY OF RAPES AREN'T REPORTED How the fuck do you know without recording numbers that don't exist? Are you just pissed off that women aren't being raped enough?
>>557316893 >So, it's like...they think their an army or something? They think they're hardcore but they're just the same as any obsessive fanbase and the bane of every con goer everywhere.
When people were spamming gore and shit in their tag they kept saying they had seen worse and then spammed homestuck shit here. Plus they got kicked out of /co/ which is saying something when you remember how absolutely shit /co/ is.
I'm writing one about homosexual marriage but I doubt the quality is on par. Maybe the format is wrong, maybe I should have listed arguments in favor of it and countered, instead of making a list of reasons against it.
That's the study I used. It kills me that this isn't common knowledge. I heard a doctor on the radio saying it was a shame that homos couldn't donate. I almost had a car accident because I was driving when I heard that and I bit my steering wheel out of rage.
1. The main reason has less to do with homosexuality per se than with the relationship between individuals and society at large. Basically, the question is this: should individuals adapt to the society they live in or should society adapt to the individuals that live in it? Only the former is a viable system as the latter would involve constant contradictions: society cannot adapt to every individual or minority, nor should it. You can't make everyone happy by answering the wishes of the few, or adapting to the few. Being a responsible adult means a certain degree of abnegation where you do what Kennedy asked Americans to do, "Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country." And this is coming from a Democrat. Nowadays, if you say that, people get offended and feel like they're being disregarded.
2. Marriage was defined as between a man and a woman, nothing else. If you define basketball as a game played by two teams of five players, having 6 players is not allowed, by definition. It's that simple. Demanding something else will deface the tradition and people have a problem with that, even if it doesn't affect them directly.
3. Homosexual marriage damages marriage. How so? You might ask. Marriage, originally, was something like a small company, whose purpose was to produce humans. There was no question of love or romance: you were socially paired up to produce more people. If people maintained this conception and stopped caring ever so much about their own teenage romantic ideas, there would be less divorce and less disappointments. Since our leaders don't do anything about the decrease of births in our nations, people forget why marriage even exists. You cannot change marriage and not affect it; changing the definition changes what marriage is for everyone, not just homosexuals.
4. Homosexuality is a mental disease. Don't be offended, don't be shocked. There are countless mental diseases and it's nothing to be ashamed of. You have no more reasons to be ashamed of homosexuality than you have of depression or schizophrenia. Yes, homosexuality has been declassified as a mental disease in the 1970's, but it was done via a vote, not with evidence, not with the scientific method. Psychologists merely agreed that it no longer was a mental disease. When asked, most people will give you the following definition, "It's not a mental disease because it brings no discomfort." This is arguable as young homosexuals have much higher rates of suicides than heterosexuals; when confronted with this fact, most people will argue that society is to blame (bullying, etc.) even when the homosexual youth never disclosed his homosexuality and everyone around him had no idea about it. Either way, there are many mental illnesses that don't bring discomfort. People who are sexually attracted to objects, for instance, aren't inconvenienced. A woman officially married the Eiffel Tower and is officially called Mrs. Eiffel. She masturbates to pictures of the Eiffel Tower and rubs against it whenever she goes to France. She doesn't mind it and understands that she's not normal (from "norm", meaning the average, no judgement call here) and she doesn't feel all that bad about her abnormal sexuality. Would you say she's mentally sane? She herself would not.
On the first point you hit the idea that the needs of the few are starting to outweigh the needs of the many. To me this is indicative of problems down the road for society when we have this minority ruling class that everyone else is supposed to conform to. In conforming to the ideologies of the few, you leave the many waving in the wind.
This idea of the needs of the few is becoming endemic to me.
That being said society and the individual are not necessarily mutually exclusive as one is comprised of the other. Society absolutely cannot adapt to every individual but in turn individuals needs to realize that sometimes they may just not fit within a certain society and to expect a society, any society, as a whole to accept and conform to them is as asinine as it is unrealistic.
5. Every argument in favour of homosexual marriage can be used for father/daughter marriage, yet proponents of homosexual marriage would not favour this union. This is hypocrisy at its finest. A significant part of the people find homosexual relationships repulsive, the same happens with incestous relationships. There is no logical reason to allow homosexuals to marry and not father and daughther, or brother and sister. Look for a reason, you will find none. You may say that the problem is the incestuous offspring of a father and his daughter, but the answer is simple: they don't have to procreate. At that point, it's the same as homosexual unions, with the slight difference that one thing disgusts you and the other doesn't, which isn't an argument. Because of this, destroying the definition of marriage allows for all sorts of unions which you have no rational reasons to refuse.
6. A normal heterosexual reaction to homosexuality is repulsion. Don't be shocked, don't be offended. Seeing two men kissing, or more, creates a negative reaction in heterosexual males. This is a normal and healthy reaction. Note that a reaction is not an act. Most heterosexual men will not react aggressively to this, nor will they even mention their reaction. That's called being civilised. The main point here is to acknowledge this reaction. Seeing homosexual acts is comparable to seeing someone lick a turd to heterosexual males. It's at that level of grossness to them, whether you believe it or not. Maybe now you understand better why, in some countries, people react extremely violently to homosexuals on a purely gut-level. That said, a gut-reaction is not an argument. Just be aware that most decisions about marriage were made at this level. You don't have any better arguments against father/daughter marriages or siblings getting married. It's at that level too.
7. Homosexual marriage is mostly used as a political weapon. The fact is: homosexuals aren't interested in marriage. When civil unions are allowed, the majority of those interested are heterosexuals who don't like the idea of traditional marriage (because they dislike organised religions and/or Christianity in general, because they think marriage is oppression from the "patriarchy", etc.). Over 90% of civil unions are heterosexual couples. This, again, damages marriage. It did very little for homosexuals and weakened traditional marriage. The vast majority of those who support homosexual marriage are not themselves homosexual, nor do they think much of traditional marriage. More often than not, these activists despise heterosexual marriage, are heterosexual themselves, and would sooner have a civil union. This should be a hint that homosexual marriage wasn't desired for itself, but much more so because it was a way to undermine the social network that is family. All social networks (the real ones, not Facebook and Twitter) have been under attack for decades because they made individuals stronger together; they are: family, nation, race, and religion, in that order, as each group expands on the previous and encapsulate larger groups of people. You can't rely on most of these networks nowadays and that's exactly what the desired result was. Homosexual marriage is simply another blow against the family network.
My only critique of this would be the inherent negative connotation 'metal disease' carries. I fight with depression. I could never tell an employer (law enforcement) because they would recognise the negative connotation as use that to reflect on my ability to do my job. It just seems labeling a personal preference as a disease rubs me the wrong way.
in the same vein couldn't one say a preference of Mint Chocolate Chip Ice cream over Vanilla Ice Cream is a mental disease as well?
8. In many countries, homosexual associations first asked for civil unions, arguing that if they got that, they would not ask for marriage. It didn't take long before they asked for more. The concern here is that when they asked for marriage, they argued that if they got it, they wouldn't ask for adoption. They will ask for adoption and more very soon. The problem with this is that we are moving away the natural family where two people naturally make a family, to a model where you can customise your family with adoption or rented wombs, and this will marketise family, which is probably the intention of a lot of people on high. Corporations like divorce better than a family because a family needs one TV, one fridge, one house or apartment, while divorced people need twice the set. This means twice as much money for everyone, twice as much electricity, etc. If you can start farming babies to sell to homosexuals couples, that's more money too. If illegal, homosexual couples will buy babies from China and other places, highlighting the social class problem as poorer homosexual couple won't be able to do so.
But I address that problem. I've suffered from major depression as well. No reason to feel ashamed, in general, even though I didn't tell my employers about it. I'm fully functional so there was no reason to do so.
The problem with your example is that culinary tastes aren't something you'll ask society to change for.
Wanting dicksucking to be recognised as normal by law is another matter.
9. Much like the "gender" discussion, marriage is a social ritual and a legal act intended to represent something that occurs in reality: men and women get together and make babies. Men are different from women and "genders" and all our rituals serve to insist on the difference and make us beautifully unique in our ways, which makes us attractive to each other. Social constructs are built on pre-existing natural aspects and are justified because of that. The same cannot be said for "transgender" people and homosexuals.
1 - i see what you mean society cant possibly cater perfectly to everyone 2 - definitions can change, the word gay changed its definition and sports do change rules now and then. 3 - i dont see marriage as a set in stone definition of labor creators i think that children are optional so there more of a by-product of marriage family and marriage can be totally separate things. Also i found it strange you think of marrage as a maschine like process and remove or devalue the love aspect. love being the reason you choose your partner and maybe get married anyway 4 - is interesting, but i feel this almost dehumanizes gay people and still is no reason to not let a loving couple of adults decide how they can or cannot be married.
Let me preface with an apology for chopping your argument up as you post, i'm just responding as I see it posted. -------------------------------------------------------
I would go even further back to when marriage was more of a business transaction to ensure the safety and continuation of countries, bloodlines, ect. While it was often used in this fashion it was still intertwined with religion.
Now im an atheist myself but i recognize the idea of precedent. It is kind of an unsung hero when it comes to holding our society together.
In that same line of thought, religion had well defined marriage long before the idea of gay marriage was thought of.
The best representation of the idea of gay marriage I have heard of was media.
Take a movie produced in the 90s and it will have been on VHS. You can put that same movie on a DVD now and call it the same but you cannot ignore the difference.
Same content maybe but they are different platforms and to ignore that difference is to do both sides a disservice.
Don't worry, I don't feel on such solid ground as I did with the feminism stuff. My opinions aren't too sure either, just trying to show the other side of this issue.
As to love in marriage, "love" always dies. You won't always feel "in love" with your partner. You marry someone when you get along, are sexually attracted (that's a bonus) and can live together without killing each other.
Romanticism is why divorces are so high. Adults want to leave as soon as they don't feel tickled in their hearts anymore.
9. Much like the "gender" discussion, marriage is a social ritual and a legal act intended to represent something that occurs in reality: men and women get together and make babies. Men are different from women and "genders" and all our rituals serve to insist on the difference and make us beautifully unique in our ways, which makes us attractive to each other. Social constructs are built on pre-existing natural aspects and are justified because of that. The same cannot be said for "transgender" people and homosexuals.
10. Homosexuality has a much stronger connection to pedophilia than people like to think. Pedophiles who molest children are almost always men (those who are caught, at least); a third of all child abuse is committed by homosexual pedophiles, that is, men who are attracted to little boys. Simply because someone is attracted to children doesn't allow you to deny that children aren't all the same: there are males and females amongst children, and the choice made by pedophiles to abuse a boy or a girl isn't done at random. Thus, the overlap between homosexuality and pedophilia is not something you can brush off as the lunacy of homophobes. It is grounded in reality, in facts, in acts, and denying this is a dishonest act of hyprocrisy, where you are literally "under-critical" of the facts you are given.
>>557289212 You are just a retard trying to act retard, don't be offended, don't be shocked
Homosexuality's relative diseases are product of discrimination and social pressure you ignorant. When you feel the only one that had that sexual behavior, and those behaviors are considered shameful to yourself, so you keep it to yourself, you can't tell nobody because you might fear judgement on a sexual matter.
> And being attracted to a fucking building is less shameful than a person from the same sex because there's no feeling of submission in the eyes of society.
That pressure leads you to anxiety and you start to avoid social episodes, that worsens the anxiety and leads to other mental disorders. That's why monkeys can have homosexual relations without any problems.
Marriage is a society's creation to seal bonds, it's a "now i know you can't cheat me and i can get you pregnant" because culture doesn't quite accept unmarried pregnant people.
>>557322410 >Homosexuality's relative diseases are product of discrimination and social pressure you ignorant.
I doubt that, as I can absolutely see how a bisexual person may feel bad about his homosexuality. Not everyone wants to become a flaming faggot. There are many homosexual men who wish they were heterosexual to lead a normal life and have children without being deviant.
People have killed themselves for less.
The idea that being a homosexual today is something to fear is not true. Nobody in the West will attack you for it as you are one of the sacred cows of the movement that ravages our civilisation.
You're far more at risk if you are a racialist, a religious person, an anti-Islam activist, etc.
>>557322256 Give a man a fish and you'll feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you'll feed him for a lifetime >So he can go fucking learn to Google. The mockery is an additional incentive as n-one like to look as stupid as this guy >>557321923
>your utter garbage language Which is why it's fast becoming the lingua franca of most of the civilised world >did you see what I did there?
You're looking at everything through the stained glass of an ideology that is much younger than the actual ideas that made things like marriage exist.
>Marriage is a society's creation to seal bonds, it's a "now i know you can't cheat me and i can get you pregnant" because culture doesn't quite accept unmarried pregnant people.
That's incredibly biased. That's not how marriage happened, either. Originally, men and women lived together because women couldn't both hunt and be pregnant. Women were pregnant all the time, as they are supposed to be by nature, hence monthly periods. Men supported them. This natural team is what marriage makes official, legal, ritualised.
It's not something done out of jealousy, anger, or anger at pregnant unmarried people.
This came later. Being pregnant and not married meant, quite simply, that you had sex with someone you didn't marry, meaning that your priority was your carnal desire and not your rational thinking. As a woman, you'd better think twice before becoming pregnant, that's why, in the past, you only fuck a man whom you're sure will support you, hence marriage, hence men working, etc.
In the old model, it made perfect sense. It doesn't anymore because we changed our habits, but don't try to see everything backwards to make "muh patriarchy" some evil organisation.
X Arguments for Homosexual Marriage and their Counter Arguments
1. "Homosexuality is natural, animals do it."
Animals do all sorts of things: they eat their own feces, their young, whom they also have sex with, etc. Just because animals do it does not mean much about us. Animals do not marry, animals do not build pyramids. There is virtually no reason to look at the animal kingdom and think we should adapt our social habits to theirs.
Moreover, there is a slight, but important, fallacy about this statement. Homosexual acts are not homosexuality. In other words, you can force, at gun point, a heterosexual man to have anal sex with another man, but this won't make him a homosexual, as being a homosexual means you feel sexual attraction to someone of the same sex. You can be a homosexual and a virgin. Acts don't matter here. Who would say that a dog humping your leg is sexually attracted to your leg and that you should invent a name for this behaviour and consider it a life style? It's not. Animals will have sex with anyone or anything as long as it feels good to them. Dogs would hump a puddle of mud if it feels good. So not only is the animal argument not true, even if it was, it would still not mean anything to us humans. Being "natural" is not an argument. Everything is natural, pedophiles' attraction to childre is natural too, that doesn't make it acceptable.
2. "What's it to you? Why do you care? What difference does it make in your life?"
People who say this function on the idea that you should live for yourself and nothing else. This is exactly what some people want you to do, generally so that you buy more stuff and never fight for any of your social networks (family, nation, race, religion). This makes you isolated and weak, as intended.
People who oppose homosexual marriage do so out of concern for any combination of these four social networks. They don't do it for themselves as inviduals, but instead of being commanded for this abnegation, they are admonised for being stupid to care about anything beyond themselves. This is a blatant demonstration of social isolation and the deconstruction of networks.
3. "Only religious people oppose homosexual marriage."
This statement is not true of all religious people by far. However, trying to belittle the opposition by suggesting that only crazy Catholics oppose homosexual marriage is dishonest. The same people who push for homosexual marriage and mass immigration often seem to forget that the immigrants they welcome are strongly against homosexuality (not just homosexual marriage). "Religious" isn't just Catholics, it's also Muslims.
Religious people may have an opinion or another, but not even the Pope can change the rules about marriage, nor should anyone expect that of any religion. Changing such a rule would undermine the religion to the point where it becomes a farce, much like traditional marriage has become a farce.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.