poptart Posted April 24, 2018 Author Posted April 24, 2018 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: Are you a rager? You never came across that way. A what? 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: If the Catholics did that we would probably flee into the wilderness again. From what i've seen of Utah that's not much of an option. There's talk of developing the parks and places like Lehi that used to be small have exploded. The days of white flight are well, kinda gone.
The Nehor Posted April 24, 2018 Posted April 24, 2018 27 minutes ago, Daniel2 said: I'd love to see ongoing polling of devout members still active in the pews every few years to see how many continue to believe that both Church leadership's calls to action and their own actions in support of the passage of Prop 8 "were right." As far as Prohibition was concerned, even as a life-long and fiercely devout Latter-day Saint with a firm belief that the consumption of alcohol violates God's will growing up for my first 30 years of life, I never believed that the Prohibition movement "was right," from a legal or civil perspective. I wonder how many active LDS members feel that the Prohibition movement "was right"....? I admit I would oppose Prohibition but then again I work in the drug and alcohol testing industry so I just do not want anyone taking away my gravy train.
The Nehor Posted April 24, 2018 Posted April 24, 2018 20 minutes ago, poptart said: A what? From what i've seen of Utah that's not much of an option. There's talk of developing the parks and places like Lehi that used to be small have exploded. The days of white flight are well, kinda gone. You said you were a raging homo. Doesn’t that make you a rager? We can always join the Lost Ten Tribes hiding under the glaciers at the North Pole. At least until global warming melts them all.
smac97 Posted April 24, 2018 Posted April 24, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Daniel2 said: Assuming we're speaking of recognition in the United States of America, what do you mean by "opposing same-sex marriage" in the above context? "Opposing same-sex marriage" can mean supporting initiatives like Prop 8. Quote Do you mean: a) you think that it's "quite possible" to "oppose religiously-recognized same-sex marriage" on religious principles (grounds)? (as in, hold the understanding that The Plan of Salvation cannot be adjusted to include marriages between same-sex couples)? That's included, yes. But not exclusive. Quote Or do you mean: b) you think that it's "quite possible" to "oppose civilly/legally-recognized same-sex marriage" on civil and/or religious principles (grounds)? (as in, hold that the sum of our laws and/or Constitution shouldn't legally recognize the marriages of same-sex couples)? Yes, that's included also Quote Or do you: c) think it's "quite possible" to "oppose both religiously-recognized and civilly-recognized same-sex marriage" on "principled grounds"? Yes. Quote If either of the latter two is the answer, could you explain the civilly-based principles upon which you base your belief that it's possible to oppose civil-recognition of same-sex marriages, aside from either a) the religious freedom to do so, or b) freedom of speech (if any, other than those two)? Well, I've addressed this quite a few times in the past, often in threads in which you have participated. Here are a few that immediately come to mind: 1. SSM = Radical Re-definition of Marriage Marriage has long been defined as the association of two people based on the attributes of those people, including A) gender (a man and a woman), B) number (two people), C) age (this one varies by jurisdiction a bit), D) mental capacity, E) consent (no coerced marriages), F) consanguinity and G) species (no human / non-human marriages). Since the Supreme Court has decided that the constitution mandates tossing out one attribute as a defining element of marriage (gender), then it would seem all of the others can be constitutionally tossed out as well. In other words, same-sex marriage was a radical re-definition of one of the bedrocks of society. And, as set forth below, that seems to have been a feature, not a bug, of SSM. 2. SSM essentially decouples marriage from procreation The government's interest in regulating marriage has long heavily involved the role of marriage in procreation. Our country is in constant need of a next generation of taxpayers. Across the board, heterosexual marriage facilitates that, and same-sex marriage does not. See, e.g., here: Quote Another very important aspect of marriage - its relationship to childbearing and childrearing - is also very different in comparative terms between heterosexual and same-sex "families." See here (emphasis added): Quote Claims regarding the numbers of children being raised in homosexual and lesbian households vary widely and are often unsubstantiated. According to a study on homosexual parenting in the American Sociological Review, researchers have given figures "of uncertain origin, depicting a range of...6 to 14 million children of gay or lesbian parents in the United States." According to the study's authors, Judith Stacey and Timothy J. Biblarz, the higher estimates are based upon "classifying as a lesbigay [sic] parent anyone who reports that even the idea of homoerotic sex is appealing." Instead, the authors favor a figure of about one million, which "derives from the narrower...definition of a lesbigay parent as one who self-identifies as such." However, even the lower figure of one million children being raised in gay and lesbian households does not stand up to statistical analysis. The U.S. Census Bureau reports that there are 594,391 same-sex unmarried partner households in the United States (301,026 male homosexual households and 293,365 lesbian households). This indicates that only one percent of the total of 59,969,000 households contain same-sex partners. Assuming the Stacey/Biblarz estimate that one million children have a homosexual or lesbian parent, this would mean that, on average, every homosexual household has at least one child. However, the 2000 Census figures show that only 33 percent (or 96,810) of female same-sex households and 22 percent (or 66,225) of male same-sex households have their own children living with them. These 163,035 same-sex couples (or 326,070 individuals) comprise only 8 percent of the estimated homosexual and lesbian population. Put another way, 92 percent of the estimated adult population of homosexuals and lesbians in the U.S. do not live with children. By comparison, the 2000 Census showed that 46 percent of married couple households have at least one child living in the household. However, this figure underestimates the total number of married couples who have had children, as many older couples have grown children who are no longer living at home. To me, the defining attributes of marriage are emotional/sexual fidelity, having/rearing children, complementary exemplars for children (father figures and mother figures), pooling of resources, longevity, and so on. Pretty much all of these attributes appear be largely missing from most same-sex "marriages." Without the link to procreation, the government's interest in regulating marriage is substantially reduced. 3. SSM necessarily deprives children of a father and a mother. There is quite a lot of sociological data showing that children substantially and materially benefit from having both a father and a mother in the home (I looked for a post I wrote previously about this, but I could not immediately find it). SSM not only hasa 0% chance of facilitating procreation, and not only do same-sex couples have a radically lower number of children in their households (compared to heterosexual married couples), it necessarily and by design deprives those children of either a father or a mother. 4. SSM does not appiear to have much of a "stabilizing" effect. Marriage has a stabilizing, "settling down" effect on heterosexual men. See here: I am not sure that, across the board, same-sex marriage has a comparable effect. See, e.g., here: Quote From the linked article in the OP: Quote Gay Open Marriages Need To Come Out of the Closet2015 was the year of marriage equality—and now it’s time to celebrate the openness at the heart of many same-sex partnerships. ... What makes these newly married couples unique is more than their gender. Surveys indicate that a high percentage of same-sex relationships—particularly among queer men—are non-monogamous, and often even after marriage. Over the past decade and a half, studies from San Francisco State University and Alliant International University have found that around half of gay relationships are open. This rate is considerably higher than for heterosexual and lesbian couples... ... Conservative estimates suggest that less than 1 percent of all married couples are in an open relationship, but other approximations are much higher. Back in 1983, the authors of American Couples, Phillip Blumstein and Pepper Schwartz, found that around 15 percent of committed partners—whether homo or heterosexual—had agreements that allowed for some degree of flexibility. In a 2013 column for Slate, Hanna Rosin called non-monogamy the gay community’s “dirty little secret,” citing a study from the ’80s, which showed that up to 82 percent of gay couples had sex with other people. That number sounds about right to me, but here’s the thing: It’s not dirty and it’s hardly a secret... ... Monogamish couples are a constant presence on apps like Grindr and Scruff, which allow gay men to connect with other men to chat or hook up. ... I spoke to one couple that hasn’t let marriage get in the way of their Scruff account. Eric, 34, and Martin, 33, walked down the aisle last October after dating for five years. Like many gay couples, they were initially monogamous, although with “infrequent and informal” exceptions. “Think post-bar bathhouse outings,” Eric explained. But after creating a profile together on Scruff a few years ago, the couple agreed on a set of boundaries. “We only sleep with people together, we have to both communicate with the person to some extent before we meet up, and the guy has to very clearly be attracted to both of us,” Eric said. Like nearly everyone I spoke to, the pair had few gay friends that were in monogamous relationships, and Martin believes it’s because there are fewer rules and expectations around gay relationships. “I think we don’t have heteronormative templates that we have to subscribe to,” Martin said. “There’s just not that same kind of pressure to be monogamous when you’re gay.” ... Gays might be “saving” marriage, but for far too long, the burdens of the marriage equality movement—which highlighted the universality of love—made many feel like they couldn’t be honest about what makes same-sex relationships unique. In a 2013 piece for Gawker, Steven Thrasher wrote, “Gay-rights groups are often nervous about sociologists or reporters looking too closely at what really happens in the bedrooms of gay relationships, out of fear that anti-gay activists will bludgeon them with a charge of sexual promiscuity, as a reason to deny them equal rights.” To sum up even a bit further: "Surveys indicate that a high percentage of same-sex relationships—particularly among queer men—are non-monogamous, and often even after marriage." "Around half of gay relationships are open. This rate is considerably higher than for heterosexual and lesbian couples." "Up to 82 percent of gay couples had sex with other people." "That number sounds about right to me, but here’s the thing: It’s not dirty and it’s hardly a secret." "I spoke to one couple that hasn’t let marriage get in the way ... Like many gay couples, they were initially monogamous ... The pair had few gay friends that were in monogamous relationships ..." “'There’s just not that same kind of pressure to be monogamous when you’re gay.'” "The burdens of the marriage equality movement ... made many feel like they couldn’t be honest about what makes same-sex relationships unique." “'Gay-rights groups are often nervous about sociologists or reporters looking too closely at what really happens in the bedrooms of gay relationships, out of fear that anti-gay activists will bludgeon them with a charge of sexual promiscuity..." Now take a look at this article from today's Salt Lake Tribune: Quote Gay couple on Bravo’s new season of ‘Newlyweds’ includes ex-Utahn, ex-Mormon By SCOTT D | Pierce The Salt Lake Tribune Television » Couple say Bravo reality series will show that their marriage is no different from others. So gay "marriages" (male ones, anyway) are, according to the Trib article, "no different from others" and yet, according to the article in the OP, have "considerably higher" rates of infidelity/promiscuity (being "open") than heterosexual marriages ("up to 82% of them"!)? I'm having a hard time buying what the Trib is trying to sell (that same-sex marriages are "no different" from heterosexual ones). The astonishing rates of infidelity/promiscuity referenced in the OP's linked article shows that. I have a friend who supports same-sex marriage because this friend believes the institution will "tame" (my friend's word) homosexuals, that is, reduce or eliminate the normative high levels of promiscuity that are - by even the reckoning of the radical gay rights folks - characteristic of the vast majority of same-sex relationships. I think the problem is that, as the OP article put it, if there is "a charge of sexual promiscuity" to be asserted against people in same-sex relationships, that charge is systemically valid. Not only that, the notion that same-sex marriage might have an ameliorating effect on this rampant promiscuity appears to be mostly wishful thinking. What's worse, it's not merely wishful thinking, it's a line of reasoning that is being openly rejected by the article's author. As he put it, "what really happens in the bedrooms of gay relationships" is flagrant, systemic, widespread infidelity/promiscuity, but this is "not dirty" nor "hardly a secret" because "there's just not that same kind of pressure to be monogamous when you're gay." Words fail me. What are we to make of a re-definition of marriage that is characterized this way? Back to the Trib article: Quote Utah's struggle for legalized gay marriage is about to take center stage once again — on a cable TV reality series. Season 3 of Bravo's "Newlyweds: The First Year" starting Sunday features husbands Brandon Liberati and Craig Ramsay. And, while the couple live in California, Liberati is a Salt Lake City native who grew up in a Mormon family. "Utah is a huge part of my story, of our story," Liberati said. "And we talk about it in the show." ... "One of the main reasons we did this was for marriage equality," Liberati said. "To actually show people who had fear about the [Supreme Court] decision [legalizing gay marriage] that we're actually no different than any other married couple." I have no interest in delving into this couple's married life. But if the linked article in the OP is any indicator of systemic trends in same-sex "marriages", I am rather skeptical that such relationships are "actually no different than any other married couple." Quote Like other couples, Liberati and Ramsay argue at times. Like other couples, they struggle to start a family. "We have to create our families. And it's done in such a loving way," Ramsay said. "Hopefully, it's going to resonate — especially with people in Salt Lake City — that we have really strong family values." "Really strong family values" will, to most Mormons, include sexual fidelity within marriage. According to the linked article in the OP, such fidelity is very much the exception to the rule of rampant promiscuity/infidelity in same-sex relationships. Quote The other three couples aren't representing anything other than themselves. Liberati and Ramsay are aware they will, unavoidably, be symbols for gay marriage, although Ramsay, in particular, resists the idea that they are role models, pointing to some advice he once got from Rosie O'Donnell. "She said, 'You can't be a role model. All you can be is yourself. And if it's relatable to others, it's up to others to put you into that category,' " he said. "With that said, I do feel like we have a huge responsibility to our community in how we portray ourselves and change people's attitudes toward our marriage — toward gay marriage," Liberati said. To be frank, the article in the OP will, to me, ultimately be far more illuminating, and damning, about same-sex "marriages" than this TV series. The OP article is more persuasive because I think it's more indicative of what is really happening in same-sex "marriages", and the out-and-proud nature of the infidelity/promiscuity that seems to infect the vast majority of such relationships. As one fellow aptly put it: “'There’s just not that same kind of pressure to be monogamous when you’re gay.'” Quote And the recent controversy over LDS Church policy that Mormons who enter into same-sex unions will be considered apostates and their children will be barred from blessing and baptism rituals without the permission of the faith's highest leaders is something that troubles the couple. "My family is directly affected," Liberati said. "And even if it doesn't directly affect me because I'm no longer participating in the church, it affects the way friends and family that are still active as Latter-day Saints treat us." But Ramsay said he's encouraged by what he's experienced in Utah on recent trips. "We have lots of family and friends — Brandon's family, that is — that are still Mormon. And we find tremendous support from them," he said "There's definitely a shift happening within the Mormon church by such people, because they want change. They don't want to have to be in the closet where they can't openly support us." The couple are hoping their time on "Newlyweds" will help contribute to that understanding. "I would love for people to walk away with their own opinion of marriage through watching us, and not adopting something that somebody else is forcing on them or making them believe," Liberati said. "Honestly, people will see there is no difference between us and those other couples. We are just like you. Our marriage is just like yours." I bear no ill will for these men. I hope they find as much happiness as they can. And I hope that their marriage really is "just like" the normative heterosexual marriages. But if it is, it will be - according to the OP's article - an anomaly. An exception to the rule. Because the "norm" for same-sex "relationships" - including marriages - appears to involve rampant infidelity and promiscuity. So while this couple's relationship may be "just like" the relationship between me and my wife, the vast majority of their fellows cannot make the same claim, or anything like it. And as long as such rampant infidelity and promiscuity exist in same-sex relationships (and based on the tone and content of the article in the OP, I think this state of affairs - pun intended - is not going anywhere), I think the advocates of such relationships will have a hard time persuading me of the legitimacy and/or viability of those relationships. And here: Quote A few more: Andrew Sullivan, a conservative ‘gay’ advocate, in his book ‘Same-Sex Marriage–The Pro and Con’ confesses that any homosexual marriage must entail a greater understanding of the ‘need’ for "extramarital outlets" and "openness of the contract." For homosexuals very likely resist allowing their "varied and complicated lives" to be flattened into a "single, moralistic model." (Link) "Rather than being transformed by the institution of marriage, gay men — some of whom have raised the concept of the ‘open relationship’ to an art form — could simply transform the institution itself, making it more sexually open, even influencing their heterosexual counterparts.’’ - Michelangelo Signorile (Link) "In our (gay) culture, we haven't created the same hierarchy as has heterosexual culture. We know that love has many faces, and names, ages, places. … We know that a 30-year relationship is no better, than a nine-week, or nine-minute, fling – it's different, but not better. Both have value. We know that the instant intimacy involved in that perfect 20-minute …in Stanley Park can be a profoundly beautiful thing." - Gareth Kirby (Link) In The Male Couple, authors David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison report that in a study of 156 males in homosexual relationships lasting from one to thirty-seven years: "Only seven couples have a totally exclusive sexual relationship, and these men all have been together for less than five years. Stated another way, all couples with a relationship lasting more than five years have incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity in their relationships." (David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1984), pp. 252, 253.) (Link) The 2003-2004 Gay/Lesbian Consumer Online Census surveyed the lifestyles of 7,862 homosexuals. Of those involved in a "current relationship," only 15 percent describe their current relationship as having lasted twelve years or longer, with five percent lasting more than twenty years. (Link) In The Sexual Organization of the City, University of Chicago sociologist Edward Laumann argues that "typical gay city inhabitants spend most of their adult lives in 'transactional' relationships, or short-term commitments of less than six months." (Link) A study of homosexual men in the Netherlands published in the journal AIDS found that the "duration of steady partnerships" was 1.5 years. (Link) In his study of male homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, Pollak found that "few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners." (Link) A survey conducted by the homosexual magazine Genre found that 24 percent of the respondents said they had had more than one hundred sexual partners in their lifetime. The magazine noted that several respondents suggested including a category of those who had more than one thousand sexual partners. (Link) In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in the Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that "the modal range for number of sexual partners ever [of homosexuals] was 101-500." In addition, 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and 1,000 partners. A further 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than one thousand lifetime sexual partners. (Link) A Canadian study of homosexual men who had been in committed relationships lasting longer than one year found that only 25 percent of those interviewed reported being monogamous." According to study author Barry Adam, "Gay culture allows men to explore different...forms of relationships besides the monogamy coveted by heterosexuals." (Link) 5. Some advocates of SSM appear to have had the intent to use SSM to destabilize/destroy heterosexual marriage. See, e.g., here: Quote CB, you seem like a pretty stand-up guy. So for the life of me I cannot figure out how or why you expect us to ignore published statements from your compatriots, as follows: "The real question that should be debated is not whether gay marriage should be allowed, but rather, is marriage really something we need anymore?" "A middle ground might be to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution. [Legalizing "same-sex marriage"] is also a chance to wholly transform the definition of family in American culture.” "And after all, we are advocating the destruction of the centrality of marriage and the nuclear family unit... ." "But perhaps the next step isn’t to, once again, expand the otherwise narrow definition of marriage but to altogether abolish the false distinction between married families and other equally valid but unrecognized partnerships." "Wouldn't marriage's death as a state institution, including for straight people, be the best solution?" "Marriage is the proverbial burning building. Instead of pounding on the door to be let in... queers should be stoking the flames!" "We must aim at the abolition of the family, so that the sexist, male supremacist system can no longer be nurtured there." "... fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there—because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie. The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist." "Rather than being transformed by the institution of marriage, gay men — some of whom have raised the concept of the ‘open relationship’ to an art form — could simply transform the institution itself, making it more sexually open, even influencing their heterosexual counterparts.’’ So please explain. We are listening to your compatriots who are making public declarations about marriage being an "archaic institution" that they want to "radically alter," that it may be something we don't even "need anymore," that they are "advocating the destruction of the centrality of marriage and the nuclear family unit," that they want to "abolish" any distinctions between marital and non-marital relationships," that the "death" of marriage would be "the best solution" for "straight people," that "queers should be stoking the flames" destroying marriage, that their "aim" is the "abolition of the family," that they have been "lying" about what they are going to do with marriage once same-sex marriage became a reality, that marriage "should (not) exist," and that they are hoping to export the infidelity/promiscuity inherent in "open" gay marriages to "their heterosexual counterparts." We're reading these things, and you are accusing us of paranoia when we say that marriage is "under attack." We feel this way because your compatriots are openly telling as much. So what gives? 6. The LDS Church's Amicus brief included quite a few secular reasons to oppose SSM See here. There are more, but I am running low on time. Quote I'm just curious if, aside from religious-based and/or speech-based principles, you feel there's are other compelling civilly-based principles upon it's quite possible to oppose the civil recognition of marriages between same-sex couples. Yes. Quite a few, actually. Thanks, -Smac Edited April 24, 2018 by smac97 3
poptart Posted April 24, 2018 Author Posted April 24, 2018 24 minutes ago, The Nehor said: You said you were a raging homo. Doesn’t that make you a rager? We can always join the Lost Ten Tribes hiding under the glaciers at the North Pole. At least until global warming melts them all. ....that was sarcasm, wasn't serious. Nope, not into rollerblading down streets waving a rainbow flag. Have fun with that, let me know if you find that secret base the nazis built there, or was that the south pole.
poptart Posted April 24, 2018 Author Posted April 24, 2018 (edited) 20 minutes ago, smac97 said: "Opposing same-sex marriage" can mean supporting initiatives like Prop 8. That's included, yes. But not exclusive. Yes, that's included also Yes. Well, I've addressed this quite a few times in the past, often in threads in which you have participated. Here are a few that immediately come to mind: 1. SSM = Radical Re-definition of Marriage Marriage has long been defined as the association of two people based on the attributes of those people, including A) gender (a man and a woman), B) number (two people), C) age (this one varies by jurisdiction a bit), D) mental capacity, E) consent (no coerced marriages), F) consanguinity and G) species (no human / non-human marriages). Since the Supreme Court has decided that the constitution mandates tossing out one attribute as a defining element of marriage (gender), then it would seem all of the others can be constitutionally tossed out as well. In other words, same-sex marriage was a radical re-definition of one of the bedrocks of society. And, as set forth below, that seems to have been a feature, not a bug, of SSM. 2. SSM essentially decouples marriage from procreation The government's interest in regulating marriage has long heavily involved the role of marriage in procreation. Our country is in constant need of a next generation of taxpayers. Across the board, heterosexual marriage facilitates that, and same-sex marriage does not. See, e.g., here: 3. SSM necessarily deprives children of a father and a mother. There is quite a lot of sociological data showing that children substantially and materially benefit from having both a father and a mother in the home (I looked for a post I wrote previously about this, but I could not immediately find it). SSM not only hasa 0% chance of facilitating procreation, and not only do same-sex couples have a radically lower number of children in their households (compared to heterosexual married couples), it necessarily and by design deprives those children of either a father or a mother. 4. SSM does not appiear to have much of a "stabilizing" effect. Marriage has a stabilizing, "settling down" effect on heterosexual men. See here: I am not sure that, across the board, same-sex marriage has a comparable effect. See, e.g., here: And here: 5. Some advocates of SSM appear to have had the intent to use SSM to destabilize/destroy heterosexual marriage. See, e.g., here: 6. The LDS Church's Amicus brief included quite a few secular reasons to oppose SSM See here. There are more, but I am running low on time. Yes. Quite a few, actually. Thanks, -Smac Change the divorce and child support laws and the whole marriage shaming thing might hold some more water, until then i'm going to sit back and watch movements like mgtow gain more steam. Honestly, to me things like this are meaningless fluff. American society needs to put their money where their mouth is and actually do something that benefits children and stops screwing men over. I've seen this stuff pushed, they forget to cite that if your spouse divorces you she gets half your pension, if the kids aren;t yours your still on the hook and overall enlisted men get the short end of the stick. I heard countless stories from buddies stationed out of JBLM in washington state how women would get knocked up on purpose to dodge deployments then as soon as they either were assigned desk duty or given an honorable discharge complete with benefits they had an abortion. Also the stuff you don't hear about, an angry spouse showing up and killing the ex wife, kids than himself. I had to pay more than a few claims on stuff like that, seeing the divorce decrees, parenting plans, restraining orders and other documents made me sick to my stomach. Of course middle/upper middle class Wasps from the burbs can safely pass judgment behind their nice white picket fences, so long as inner city problems don't encroach... I have a better idea, lets be like Germany, where they make enlisted take saltpeter which makes pregnancy almost impossible, abortion is a crime after the first trimester and the courts administer child support? I like this but I sure don't see the LDS church pushing things like this here in the states....,., https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/world/europe/germany-nazi-era-abortion-law.html Meanwhile, it's never ending man shaming, complaing when men refuse to be extorted by a corrupt system and more meaningless drivel of this sort. I'm not buying it and will continue to enjoy watching the whole corrupt ponzi scheme that is the insitution of marriage burn here. How about you stop expecting men to be sacrificial lambs? Why not make it fair for everyone? No one wants to do that so here we are and as far as i'm concerned my point still stands, let gays marry, if it takes antifa tier violence to get the point across, keep religion out of the civil aspect of it and geez do what Jesus would do, get along. It's not that hard. Edited April 24, 2018 by poptart
smac97 Posted April 24, 2018 Posted April 24, 2018 3 minutes ago, poptart said: Change the divorce and child support laws and the whole marriage shaming thing might hold some more water, I don't understand. What is this "marriage shaming thing" you reference? 3 minutes ago, poptart said: until then i'm going to sit back and watch movements like mgtow gain more steam. I am also concerned about the MGTOW movement. It's not a healthy thing. Men are coming to perceive - with some justification - that marriage is a very risky business. The alternative is to stay single, which means less work (see the YouTube video linked in my previous post). IOW, laziness and lack of ambition become incentivized. That can't be good for society. MGTOW means that men spend less time working and more time playing. Playing has its place in life, but it doesn't materially improve society. It does not generate wealth. It does not provide service to our neighbors. It does not facilitate the procreation and rearing of children (and in fact heavily distracts from these things). MGTOW skews men's perception of sex. Sex is decoupled from procreation and children (not unlike same-sex marriage, actually). Sex becomes transactional. Meaningless. MGTOW skews men's perception of women and their worth as individuals and partners in life. Women become an expensive and unnecessary distraction. One night stands, porn, and even sexbots and VR are seen as sufficient to satiate sexual desires. Friends and work and after work provide socialization. Life starts to be centered on video games, sports, and generalized playing, rather than working on a relationship with and fidelity toward a woman and the rearing and nurturing of children. MGTOW is not a healthy development in our society. 3 minutes ago, poptart said: Until that time, things like this are meaningless fluff. American society needs to put their money where their mouth is and actually do something that benefits children and stops screwing men over. I think some changes are in order in terms of how the legal system addresses child custody and alimony. These are the biggies. 3 minutes ago, poptart said: That's not happening so to someone like me this is absolutly meaningless. I think it can happen. It will take work. Thanks, -Smac
smac97 Posted April 24, 2018 Posted April 24, 2018 31 minutes ago, poptart said: I've seen this stuff pushed, they forget to cite that if your spouse divorces you she gets half your pension, if the kids aren;t yours your still on the hook and overall enlisted men get the short end of the stick. Yes, some things need to change. But checking out of marriage and society, while understandable to some extent, is not the way to go. 31 minutes ago, poptart said: Also the stuff you don't hear about, an angry spouse showing up and killing the ex wife, kids than himself. I had to pay more than a few claims on stuff like that, seeing the divorce decrees, parenting plans, restraining orders and other documents made me sick to my stomach. Of course middle/upper middle class Wasps from the burbs can safely pass judgment behind their nice white picket fences, so long as inner city problems don't encroach... Huh? 31 minutes ago, poptart said: Meanwhile, it's never ending man shaming, complaing when men refuse to be extorted by a corrupt system and more meaningless drivel of this sort. The system needs fixing and improvement. 31 minutes ago, poptart said: I'm not buying it and will continue to enjoy watching the whole corrupt ponzi scheme that is the insitution of marriage burn here. Such nihilism doesn't help. 31 minutes ago, poptart said: How about you stop expecting men to be sacrificial lambs? I don't expect that. I am a man, after all. 31 minutes ago, poptart said: Why not make it fair for everyone? I think that's a great idea. MGTOW does not accomplish that, though. 31 minutes ago, poptart said: No one wants to do that so here we are and as far as i'm concerned my point still stands, let gays marry, if it takes antifa tier violence to get the point across, keep religion out of the civil aspect of it and geez do what Jesus would do, get along. It's not that hard. I'm not understanding your reasoning at all. Thanks, -Smac 1
mfbukowski Posted April 24, 2018 Posted April 24, 2018 (edited) 8 hours ago, california boy said: here What would you do? Just what would you do if a group, say the Catholic Church decided that Mormons should no longer have the right to marry. Would you say that you have every right to marry? That the constitution specifically states that Mormons should not be treated differently than any other citizen? That you can't target Mormons just. because they are Mormon. That the Catholic Church does not have the right to decide who can marry and who can't? That they may disagree with your right to marry, but they are crossing a huge line to think they can decide what citizens can marry and what ones can't. And what if the Catholic Church sent letters to every member of their congregation to give as much time and money to this campaign as they possibly can. What if church leaders broadcasted to each of their churches how the members were suppose to handle this campaign, what to say and how to attack the "Mormon issue". What if Catholics were standing on corners in your streets, knocking on doors in your neighborhoods, passing out flyers in your communities telling people that it was their moral right to prevent Mormons from marrying. And what if the Catholic Church took those millions of dollars they collected and broadcasted lies and misrepresentations of what would happen if the Mormons were allowed to continue to marry. Things like, if we allow Mormons to continue to marry, they will start teachings kintergarders that it is ok to be Mormon. Let's say the Catholic Church was successful in it's effort to write a new constitutional amendment preventing Mormons from marrying. Would you sit back the next day. and say "Oh well, I guess that is that". Or would you get out your paint brush, make signs and protest this incredible injustice perpetuated by the Catholic Church. Would you fight this vote with everything you had including all the way up to the Supreme Court. Shame on the Catholic Church for ever thinking they had the right to pour millions and marshal thousands to take away the civil rights of Mormons just because they thought Mormons are a small minority that can't stand up for themselves and fight back. In a perverse way Prop 8 galvanized the gay marriage movement not only in the United States, but world wide. It did more to sway the public on how wrong this issue is than any other act. For months after the passing of Prop 8, TV commentators had both groups on programs to shed sunlight on this issue. People saw the injustice of what the Mormon Church had done. It convinced people who previously didn't think it was their fight to make it their fight. By the time Prop 8 was finally ruled upon, even many Mormons who were standing on those corners realized the wrong the church had committed. And the church has paid and will continue to pay a heavy price for it's shameful roll in fighting to take away a minorities civil rights. What did they expect to happen? The US government had already told us that we did not have a right to marry who we wanted. Been there done that. My wife's great grandfather went to prison because he would not divorce his wife. It is happening just as you suggest right now as we speak. The mobs are winning. We cannot even speak about it anymore. We have successfully been shouted down. For every action there is a reaction. I appear in that video several times and helped lead the mob to Westwood earlier than planned, when things started getting too hot at the temple. I had my mob leadership training nearby at UCLA years before in my student radical days. It doesn't take much to move a mob. What is not shown is what happened when a hundred or so gigantic Samoan brothers showed up to defend the temple perimeter, all peacefully but their huge presence was simply awe inspiring, keeping protesters away from the fences. All they needed to do was stand there! Ours was a political effort, peaceful and perhaps admittedly a poor political move, but it was not mob rule. And it will get worse for us, that is guaranteed. The prophecies have been there for two thousand years. But in the long run..... we shall see on the spiritual side. Edited April 24, 2018 by mfbukowski
poptart Posted April 24, 2018 Author Posted April 24, 2018 (edited) 11 minutes ago, smac97 said: Yes, some things need to change. But checking out of marriage and society, while understandable to some extent, is not the way to go. Huh? The system needs fixing and improvement. Such nihilism doesn't help. I don't expect that. I am a man, after all. I think that's a great idea. MGTOW does not accomplish that, though. I'm not understanding your reasoning at all. Thanks, -Smac My point still stands, all sides could lobby and make things fair for all, till then i'll stand back and gleefully watch conflict unfold. I agree, MGTOW isn't unhealthy, it's a symptom of a disease but until men have more of a voice you will see more of it. Is what it is. 10 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: The US government had already told us that we did not have a right to marry who we wanted. Been there done that. My wife's great grandfather went to prison because he would not divorce his wife. Been there done that and it is happening just as you suggest right now as we speak. The mobs are winning. I appear in that video several times and helped lead the mob to Westwood earlier than planned, when things started getting too hot at the temple. I had my mob leadership training nearby at UCLA years before in my student radical days. It doesn't take much to move a mob. What is not shown is what happened when a hundred or so gigantic Samoan brothers showed up to defend the temple perimeter, all peacefully but their huge presence was simply awe inspiring, keeping protesters away from the fences. All they needed to do was stand there! Ours was a political effort, peaceful and perhaps admittedly a poor political move, but it was not mob rule. And it will get worse for us, that is guaranteed. The prophecies have been there for two thousand years. But in the long run..... we shall see. Ahh, American entitlment. My religion isn't getting its way, must be the end times. I'm sure the Protestants and Catholics spouted the same prophetic nonsense before the Kaiser and Northern Princes went at it, ended with 8 million dead and the ottomans almost taking Vienna. Life went on, the Church reformed and that was that. P.S, will agree there, nothing scarier than a huge Samoan. Honolulu cops used to dread Samoan weddings, you could hit em with a nightstick and to them it was a mosquito bite. What would scare me is when they show up with molontov coctails and other weapons. (I.E Antifa...) Don't care how big you are, if you're not properly equipped, you're dead. Edited April 24, 2018 by poptart
Recommended Posts