If anything I'm a paleocon without the gay hating. I voted Libertarian in 2012.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3745217&forum_id=2#34305447)

> presumes being anti-gay marriage = gay hating

sounds awfully lib of you.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3745217&forum_id=2#34305457)

I specifically said paleocon, which is best linked with Pat Buchannan. He notoriously hates gays, extending far beyond gay marriage. That's why I made that qualifier.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3745217&forum_id=2#34305471)

But in general it's an issue I don't really care about.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3745217&forum_id=2#34305477)

normies bought the propoganda about how normal/natural/all-american/just it was, hook line and sinker. once libs got their precious gay marriage, they just became louder and more obnoxious beacuse they realized that most normal americans are fucking pussies who wont fight back against their insanity.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3745217&forum_id=2#34305497)

You are claiming that gay marriage was a slippery slope, and I think you are right. I take the rational approach, which is that I don't really care about the first issue ("marriage," although as I said I'd overturn the SCOTUS decision) while vehemently opposing the further descent.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3745217&forum_id=2#34305525)

if you believe we should normalize homosexuality and teach kids it's cr..... good of you to be so open minded

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3745217&forum_id=2#34305528)

You don't like that I'd say I'd overturn the SCOTUS decision and would leave it up to the states?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3745217&forum_id=2#34305554)

http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3745217&mc=21&forum_id=2#34305599

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3745217&forum_id=2#34305615)

the unions don't work, they are not the same...

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3745217&forum_id=2#34305767)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3745217&forum_id=2#34305620)

I think gays should be treated equally. If it makes some of you happy, I'd say that the SCOTUS decision should be overturned, the concept of gay marriage should outlawed, and instead it should be replaced by a civil union concept with equal tax benefits.

I don't see any practical difference between the position I said earlier and this one, but if this makes you happy, so be it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3745217&forum_id=2#34305599)

I'm completely fine supporting gay civil unions and outlawing gay marriage. So, what of your OP?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3745217&forum_id=2#34305646)

I guess this is his way of trying to redeem himself. Whatever. I'm ok about the slack now that other measures have been taken.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3745217&forum_id=2#34305660)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3745217&forum_id=2#34305675)

1 - rampant public homosexuality has only been associated historically with cultures in deep decline. it should be fought tooth and nail on that basis.

2 - it's pretty arbitrary to take a stance on a mid-2000s issue as the line at which to stop liberalism. lawrence auster, who i respected a lot, tried to draw the line just as arbitrarily in the 1950s, and it didn't work there either.

the other posters are correct about drawing a line possibly at hardcore evangelical christianity, but i think christianity is fundamentally flawed with the core of "turn the other cheek" being too ingrained to successfully fend off a violent, aggressive religion like islam. also christianity has given birth to shitliberalism.

hence, spandrell's wonderful post about how we need a new religion:

https://bloodyshovel.wordpress.com/2016/05/15/we-need-a-new-religion-4/

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3745217&forum_id=2#34305641)

what would some of the tenets of this new religion be?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3745217&forum_id=2#34305656)

I don't see many alternatives on the upswing worldwide at the moment, do you? Christianity is collapsing everywhere and even the pope is a shitlib. The only alternative maybe that I see is Chinese areligious pragmatism, where they let people die in the streets out of fear of litigation and eat tortured dog meat, but white liberals aren't attracted to it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3745217&forum_id=2#34305793)

Or are you saying that even civil unions should be outlawed?

If the latter (based on your first point), that's fine, but we disagree. I am not using the civil union concept as a line in the sand at which to stop liberalism. I am using my common sense and saying they should be treated equally. That doesn't mean they are actually married, but it means they should receive equal treatment regarding tax benefits and the like.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3745217&forum_id=2#34305729)

I do think kids need a mother and a father, and that the absence of one fucks the kids up.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3745217&forum_id=2#34305762)

We aren't accusing me of supporting gay marriage, because I don't care if it's outlawed and replaced with civil unions. We are saying that I engage in "gay acceptance," and am therefore a heretic on those grounds.

As long as we properly frame the issue, I'm fine with the input. I'm sure you are right about the historical basis part, and maybe I have seen too much propaganda, but apart from the flamboyant faggots, I have seen some normal gays and do accept them as being entitled to enter into a union where they receive tax benefits like a real marriage.

As I responded above, I think kids are a different story.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3745217&forum_id=2#34305797)

I'd say that I strongly believe in God, but I think that most religious doctrine is bullshit. Call that what you will, but it's not an atheist.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3745217&forum_id=2#34305906)

1. Fine with outlawing gay marriage and replacing it with civil unions that ensure equal benefit treatment.

2. Think that children should have a mother and a father and on that basis, gays should not be allowed to adopt kids.

If you really think that's so shitlib or extreme, have at it. I think OP's crazy.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3745217&forum_id=2#34305989)

If you think that makes me a shitlib, so be it.

And nice edit to delete most of your poast.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3745217&forum_id=2#34307833)

We all know that is far from the case.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3745217&forum_id=2#34307852)

'b/c those were good people, also equality = good?'

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3745217&forum_id=2#34307886)

Big difference.

Equality is a core tenet of shitliberalism and essentially is the lie that we are all identical, of equal abilities.

Equal treatment means that if some receive government benefits, so should others who engage in the same conduct (form a monogamous relationship that is supposed to be permanent). Since liberals have been dying for marriage to be a thing, because (I agree with the others) they used it as a launching pad to attack the institution of the nuclear family, I'm fine with outlawing gay marriage.

But I believe in equal treatment and that's why I support gay civil unions. Like I said, if you think that makes me a shitlib, so be it. I don't think any of them would see it that way.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3745217&forum_id=2#34307918)

Govt should issue fraud licenses it expects to quickly revoke with fundamentally flawed premises and realities whenever tried?

If you can't possibly use your organs to reproduce together, the govt shouldn't bind you to a union which is about producing nuclear families

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3745217&forum_id=2#34308035)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3745217&forum_id=2#34308190)

But it's not. I agree that the purpose of marriage is generally to have children, but that simply isn't the criteria for what qualifies for tax and other benefits.

So as I said, I'm for equal treatment under the law. If the government denied tax benefits to marriages where one party was impotent, or where they did not have children, then things would be different. But that's not the case.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3745217&forum_id=2#34308098)

So long as the government is in the business of conferring tax benefits on marriages and binding people together, I'm in favor of equal treatment under the law in the form of civil unions.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3745217&forum_id=2#34308129)

Marriage is TTT at the moment, but that is another issue

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3745217&forum_id=2#34308159)

As I said above, having kids is not the criteria to receive marriage tax benefits. That's just an artifice you are employing.

Also, although it's a red herring I'm interested in the link that proves "most young gays identify [as] heterosexual by 40."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3745217&forum_id=2#34308113)

The purpose of marriage is not in order to extend the tax benefits that have been created for it. The reason for the establishment of marriages (and the premise upon it is worth maintaining) is making of conditions cr for child-having.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3745217&forum_id=2#34308227)

Even if there are some lucky guys using it this way- license indicates genders that potentially could produce children.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3745217&forum_id=2#34308340)

http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=3745217&mc=100&forum_id=2#34308310

You called me out. Don't run away now.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3745217&forum_id=2#34308366)

That's not what we are talking about. We are talking about equal treatment under the government's laws.

The government does not condition its award of benefits on marriages producing children. As such, I see no reason why kidless marriages should result in government benefits and gay unions not to.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3745217&forum_id=2#34308275)

As I already explained to you, if the government conditioned its issuance of marriage benefits on the actual production of children, then I would agree with you.

But this is not the case, so I do not agree with you.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3745217&forum_id=2#34308310)

Lol? You're just talking about lesbians right? No way this is true for fags.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3745217&forum_id=2#34308242)