(untitled)

Australia just voted Yes for marriage equality in the postal survey(Please remember to always elaborate on your opinions rather than just spilling the soykaf. This is a soyakf opening post, you could have also summarized the subject matter and your specific usage of it or elaborated on what this has to do with human condition, please try to write better opening posts in future.)

"Survey", exactly. It's not a referendum and legally meaningless. Same sex marriage has been legal in my country for a while. Afterwards, conservative voices eventually gave up huffing and puffing over it when they realized society was indeed not collapsing because of it and no one was listening to them anymore.

is like kicking dead whales down the beach to be australian. Not that I hate gays or anything, but this is the kind of thing that women ride off of and gain power from.

>>3551 Not sure why "s u c k s" is language-enhanced to is like kicking dead whales down the beach

>>3552 > Well, you *could* write a C compiler in COBOL, but it would be like kicking dead whales down the beach.

>>3551 Wait what? How did you come to that conclusion? And also, why is that a bad thing? Are you the kind of person who thinks woman should only exist for men? That isn't very /cyb/ of you, man. Not at all.

>>3551 That doesn't make any sense at all. Two guys getting married gives women power?

>>3554 > Not very /cyb/ of you man Not understanding that holding reactionary / neo-reactionary / primitivist views is the most cyb thing you can do in this rotten progressive world, you're in the majority now, you don't get to pretend that your views aren't mainstream or consensus.

>>3556 Good way to avoid the question. I'm pretty sure that wanting woman to stay submissive is such a progressive and forward way of thinking.

>>3556 Oh my god. You are actually suggesting that it's cyberpunk to hold views that are counter to the mainstream for the sole reason that they are counter to the mainstream and nothing else. Do you wait for stop lights to turn red on you before you go as well?

>>3557 I'm not OP >>3559 No, right wing death squads, helicopter rides, cool mercenaries, unrestrained capitalism, low-tech gangs, accelerationism etc. seem to be pretty popular tropes in cyberpunk literature. Hence they are cyberpunk.

>>3560 Yes those are valid topics for cyberpunk fiction, NOT things anyone in the real world ought to support. Were you raised entirely by Grand Theft Auto?

>>3561 Then don't say /cyb/ when you mean progressive or something. バカ

>>3562 I'm not saying what "is" /cyb/, only what isn't. Blatant contrarianism for no reason other than to be different is not /cyb/ but it is more or less the definition of being a hipster. Adding some moonrunes after everything you post to prove you can use Google Translate isn't /cyb/ either. It means you're another weeaboo.

Because being able to show your fetish for cock in public doesn't give you freedom, fam. Traditional marriage statistics are in decline. The deconstruction of the nuclear family has led to a generation of single-parent children raised by welfare queens. Progressivism is a scam, a charade by the marxist philosophers of the (((Frankfurt School))) to distract you from their globalist agenda. They use free trading agreements to destroy national economies in favor of multinational corporations and spout post-modernist propaganda to make you believe that our greatest problem are gay marriage or gender-neutral bathrooms.

>>3564 > fam Oh look it's this guy again. The thread had zero to do with "being able to show your fetish for cock in public". I'm actually starting to think you're a homemade bot triggered by certain OP images.

>>3563 > Blatant contrarianism for no reason other than to be different is not /cyb/ But that's not what you said, you said that viewing women as existing for men was "not /cyb/". If you think that the only reason people hold that view is contrarianism, I've got bad news for you. (I don't hold that view, don't argue that point with me.) I don't know what "being /cyb/" entails in your mind, but as you said yourself the things typically depicted in cyberpunk fiction are hardly desirable. Hence me pointing out that maybe you should refrain from using /cyb/ as a positive term. (That was my first post if that matters.) And merging western and eastern writing systems is definitely /cyb/, in so far as it does appear in some prominent works of the cyberpunk genre. >weeaboo >on an imageboard >with Lain as figurehead Present Day, Present Time! AHAHAHAHAHA!

>>3569 I don't know what you wrote after this because I stopped reading: > you said that viewing women as existing for men was "not /cyb/ Someone else said that. Good day.

>>3569 You can like Lain and not be a weeb. I don't think you know what the word actually means, do you? It doesn't include every single person who ever enjoyed some anime. We appreciate Lain for the story, the character, the concepts. Most of us don't fetishize her merely for being Japanese but I have a feelng some nuance is going to be lost on you here.

>>3570 Now I'm confused as to who argued what. Whatever whoever wrote the initial statement will read that hopefully. Take care. >>3571 I agree with all that. But seeing myself called a weeb for using a word that I've seen used since forever on every chan that I've frequented, regardless of their main language, I thought that he was using the broader definition.

>>3555 Yes, because women always tag along woth groups that are traditionally considered "oppressed" in order to further their own motives. >>3554 Yes, women absolutely have no function outside of serving men. I don't care if you think it isn't "/cyb/".

Australia is late at legal action. Support for gay marriage was at 48-58% in the US 2 years ago. >>3554 >>3555 he's the incels troll by the way.

>>3588 not sure what you mean by incels troll, but that's not me, as I am neither a troll nor do I come from "incels".

>>3589 thats a shame you would have loved it there.

>>3584 > I don't care if you think it isn't "/cyb/". Well, this a cyberpunk board, one would think that regressive ideas that take people's freedoms away wouldn't be welcome. A cyberpunk is a freedom fighter, not a polglitterboy. Just letting you know.

>>3591 >Cyberpunk means you have to support my political beliefs round 37. Cyberpunk is a literary genre, not a guide to life. People are welcome here no matter their political beliefs.

What a thread. Well, not that it had much substance before it got derailed. Anyways, here's a great video on it that expresses more than I ever could: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wJynBD_tEY

>>3594 I mean what were you expecting, a civilized discussion about gay marriage? There's no reason to talk about such an issue unless you're infected with authoritarian memes.

>>3584 But every second of public bandwidth spent on my right to force people to bake me a penis cake for my gay parner is a second NOT spent on raising #Awareness for WomynInStem..?

As for Topic: I think the libertarian stance is the best Let people define "marriage" as they will. Let the government handle the enforcement of this bond as the people have agreed to it. If you want to merge your bank accounts? Go ahead! If your religion has specific protocols for how child custody is to be handled? Write it into your marriage contract! The more we explicitly codify marriage into The Law as such, the more liberty we take away from people to define it--and we deincentivize it, too! What Conservative arguments there are to be made about >The Liberals are trying to destroy my family values [by legalizing things I don't like]" are utterly invalid Are two dudes fugging in the privacy of their home breaking up your marriage? Are two feminists scissoring ruining your son's chances of finding a good wife? Perhaps you need to reconsider your existence, if so. But that's not to say that..perhaps...the "alt-right" concerns about population manipulation through media aren't legitimate I mean, just look at the birth rates Things like Sweden's suicide rate among gay 'married' couples But that said, if you really think there's a "gay agenda", the answer is f0cking simple: don't be gay. If you're worried about xenoestrogens in the water or something like that, just filter it. The only way to resolve the issue perfectly in everyone's (except statists') favor is to just "delegalize" marrirage entirely and let people write (or find, possibly from their religious or legal advisors, or through the nearest matching existing marriage contract to what they have in mind) their own damn definitions

>>3623 Delusional female worshipping tryhard. Women piggyback on these movements and gain power as they gain power, because they are seen as ALLIES. This means that when gay rights get advanced, female control gets advanced. Women are the jews of gender. They control everything behind the shadows, and like parasites, they take everything that others earned.

The female species must die.

>>3609 >My stance on the subject is de facto Correct and everyone who disagrees with me is a Nazi. That's not very conducive of a civilized discussion either. What are the actual arguments in favor of gay marriage? Presumably our society has a lot of infrastructure invested in this basic assumption that only men and women get married. The way I see it, this is a small section of society demanding some frivolous privilege that *someone else* needs to pay for to implement. If the transition is not free and my tax dollars will be paying for it then I feel justified in asking why is it necessary. >But every second of public bandwidth spent on my right to force people to bake me a penis cake for my gay parner is a second NOT spent on raising #Awareness for WomynInStem..? This is exactly what I hate about the lgbt movement. Do you get stoned to death for being gay? No. Do you get imprisoned for being gay? No. Do people shout at you on the street for being gay? Maybe but they go to jail after. You really have no idea what it's like to be truly persecuted because of your sexual orientation. If anything being a "minority" is an advantage and will get you jobs you may not even be qualified for. Only if you are the right kind of "minority" though. Pedophiles and furrys don't count for some reason. I think women in stem is also a dubious cause but the overall point is the same. We have much bigger problems in our society and in the wider world than rainbow penis cakes. I am sick of these guys sucking energy away from things that matter for a cause they have already basically won.

>>3635 >Presumably our society has a lot of infrastructure invested in this basic assumption that only men and women get married. I can't think of any, but I'm sure you'll provide plenty of examples. >What are the actual arguments in favor of gay marriage? Humans are very sensitive to the feeling of injustice. Denying a right to a part of the population for no good reason is going to make many people feel a bit worse, gay or not. Sometime granting the right is going to create even more bad feels (like allowing rape) ; but I don't see that it would be the case with "gay" marriage. (If you could actually show that allowing same-sex marriage would cost a lot to the state, that would be another story.)

>>3624 >Let people define "marriage" as they will. >Let the government handle the enforcement of this bond as the people have agreed to it. I'm inclined to see things that way too, in theory a government has no business meddling in a voluntary private contract as long as it doesn't restraint other people. In practice though marriages have an effect on social programs, tax rates, and inheritances, so governments certainely won't let people make up their own terms. Even if they were willing to do so it would be a complete mindfuq to implement

>>3559 Couldn't agree more. >>3560 Actually as far as lainchan is concerned, most people in here seem to be less or more extreme anticapitalists, especially pronounced in their views on software licensing (looks like this board is largely disconnected from the tech and sec section if this chan apparently). There's no such thing like a single valid definition of cyberpunk for me, it's a bit more fluid and subtle to boil down to one aspect of your political stance. >>3571 This >>3624 This concludes the thread imo >>3632 Holy soykaf, calm down, edgy kid

>>3632 Also female human isn't a separate specimen, you uneducated troglodyte

>>3641 uhh, i meant species

>look i have a vagina >im gay btw :) pretty sums up larpchan, huh?

>>3640 >most people in here seem to be less or more extreme anticapitalists not exactly, they're just the most obnoxious. Btw the most fervant supporters of capitalism are against IP and copyright laws

>>3631 I still fail to see how two dudes fugging in a mansion they paid for without giving a cent to women advances feminism. They "take what others have earned"..in what way? I mean, consider the statistics of "muh wage gap" but vs the SPENDING gap.. Straight males seem to be advancing the "female agenda" (such as it exists) the most, as far as I can reckon. Being gay is like the Übermensch of MRA/TRP IYKWIM. Oppression Olympics is a competition, remember? There's only so much reparations to go around, and my previous point stands: every ounce of public bandwidth spent on gay 'rights' (dubious as they may be) is an ounce of bandwidth NOT spent rigging the system further in favor of women. Unless you think that "the gays" by and large are concerned with intersectionality? >when gay rights get advanced, female control gets advanced I think this is the core of your argument (that is, without it the rest of what you've said is just rambling nonsense), but do you care to expand on it? Provide some evidence perhaps of where females are advantaged by gay rights? Yes I know I'm not supposed to feed the trolls. Sorry Lain ;_; mods pls

>>3635 >What are the actual arguments in favor of gay marriage? See >>3624 and https://fee.org/articles/on-privatizing-marriage/ is a reasonably good write-up on the topic, to expand on "the libertarian stance" and define it a bit Basically the argument "for" it is the NAP and that being "against" is a waste of yours and everyone else's time

>>3649 >time meant to add "and money" to that since all legal situations involve obscene cost

>>3646 >Btw the most fervant supporters of capitalism are against IP and copyright laws No True Scotsman I'm pretty ancap, and where I fall on the IP issue (software- and digital-wise) is Copyright: good, necessary, just, natural Patent: bad, crony capitalism, monopoly-inducing

>>3638 >I can't think of any, You are obviously not incentivized to think very hard though. >but I'm sure you'll provide plenty of examples. I said presumably. This does seem like a very fundamental assumption to base the whole bureaucratic system around. It's not like someone has a big switch they can pull and everything changes overnight. >Humans are very sensitive to the feeling of injustice. Yeah nobody cares about Saudi homosexuals being dragged out of their homes and getting their heads severed off in the middle of the street. It's really important that you don't feel the slight emotional prick of "injustice". Ignoring the fact that we all live in an outrageously unfair universe. If having a sexual abnormality that does not get you killed, imprisoned or ostracized but you can't get married is the greatest injustice in your life you should count yourself fuarrrking lucky. >(If you could actually show that allowing same-sex marriage would cost a lot to the state, that would be another story.) I don't think it is a lot of cost but to me any cost is not really worth the benefit. I think Western lgbt folk need to shutup and start thinking about other people for a change.

Family concept is tied to procreation and mutualism between generations. Marriage is an act of establishing family with church/state controlling it. Gays only seek to fulfill their degenerate sexual desires and can not physically create an offspring, hence the concept of marriage should not be applied to LGBTQFPBCD+-=?% couples. Also this: http://harmful.cat-v.org/society/gay_marriage In fact, most people today can't hold long relationships at all, this is also why marriage is an obsolete construct for google-controlled society.

This is by far the worst thread on lainchan

>>3653 >http://harmful.cat-v.org/society/gay_marriage if you ignore the off-topic political/philosophical tangents that constitute a bulk of the text in this article, it actually has a few very strong core points: >Advocates of ‘gay marriage’ claim that they are fighting for ‘equal rights’, but in reality what they are pushing for is to have ‘privileged rights’ extended to themselves >There is no justification for the word ‘marriage’ to be part of any law. And if so inclined, it should be up to the involved parties to come up with a contractual agreement that fits their wishes. >The only way to really end all discrimination related to marriage is to get government out of the marriage business.

>>3653 >Marriage is an act of establishing family with church/state controlling it. That's an interesting point. If you think about marriage as a construct for keeping couples together long enough to successfully raise their kids then it is completely meaningless in the context of same sex couples. So far all I heard from the pro-side of the issue is, why not? and, anyone who is against this is a Nazi, which rubs me the wrong way.

>>3686 There is also an archaic religious aspect to it (a union before God) which does not apply to same sex couple either.

>>3653 response to your source cat-v >why are we giving special privileges to gays? We're not, they are getting the same rights straight people have already had since the creation of marriage.

>>3687 >which does not apply to same sex couple either Not necessarily.. lots of gays try to justify their relationship in religious context Especially once you open the doors to pagan and other non-Judeo-Christian traditions, it becomes a lot easier and doesn't even need jumping through mental hoops to call your SS FWB partnership a "sacred union"

>>3689 Right, but his point is that those privileges have no business being dispensed by the government in the first place

>>3651 I shoud have phrased that better, I didn't mean to imply that it was a requirement, I meant that one can totally be hardcore capitalist while also being in favour of alternative software licencing, both issues are pretty much unrelated. I'm personally pro trademarks and against patents/copyrights and collectivism in general but enough off topic even if it's a great subject >>3654 try the thread about racemixing >>3689 way to miss the point buddy

Why have the alt-right edgibois invaded my lainchan? Anywho >Right, but his point is that those privileges have no business being dispensed by the government in the first place Sure! Totes! I agree - the government shouldnt dispense any right! It's not like gay people are in any way part of the system and marriage is a business that would benefit from gay marriages and the only reason to not want gay marriage is to be a fuarrrking idiot that believes in "Muh cultural marxism"(remember kids: All grand narratives are bullsoykaf! "Patriarchy", "cultural marxism", "capitalism is evil", "Jews secretely control the world", each and every one of them!) We should just be like Venezuela! I hear that their desicion to not dispense any priviledge to journalists works real well for them, after all, those journalists were DISRUPTING the ORDER of their goverment, and what do journalists really /do/ for a goverment anyway? If they are going to badmouth it, they better not exist, right?

>>3750 I'm confuse about how everyone who disagrees with you are simultaneously "alt-right" and Marxist. >Sure! Totes! I agree Your whole post is uniformly retarded throughout so I'm not sure if this part is supposed to be sarcasm or not. It would be easier to have a discussion if you just talked normally...

>>3751 >I'm confuse about how everyone who disagrees with you are simultaneously "alt-right" and Marxist. classic post-left wankery.

>>3750 I can't even tell what you're saying though >It's not like gay people are in any way part of the system and marriage is a business that would benefit from gay marriages and the only reason to not want gay marriage is to be a fuarrrking idiot that believes in "Muh cultural marxism" what did he mean by this I can't tell if the >Sure! Totes! I agree is sarcasm or not based on the two paragraphs that followed What does >Government fukk out of my bedroom have to do with whatever atrocities journalists are facing in Thirdworldistan:South America Edition?

>>3546 Whoops, I ticked no!

>>3557 >I'm pretty sure that wanting woman to stay submissive is such a progressive and forward way of thinking. It is. It's what is best for society. Not that Man or women are inferior to each other, just that each have their purpose.

>>3686 >If you think about marriage as a construct for keeping couples together long enough to successfully raise their kids Not just raise, have more.

>>3755 >post left lol what? how can anything be post-left?

>>3759 what makes you fit to know whats best for society.

>>3762 also if I wanted to be a submissive man, why would my purpose be to be a dominant man? because you said so? then how do you know my purpose better than me, and why dont I also know your purpose better than you?

>>3763 >also if I wanted to >want it's not about what you want. Just because you want something doesn't mean it's good for you or society. It's not necessarily about "dominance" but taking the lead and doing the right thing to progress your people and your family. You can't drink soykaf all the time, or else you become a soyboy wimp

>>3761 It's a term some people use. I don't use it myself. Imagine if you had access to some global computer network full of information; you could look up terminology you don't recognize instantly.

>>3771 >It's a term some people use. I don't use it myself. why tf do you answer then stupid moran I got better soykaf to do than searching for the definition of a retarded oxymoron

>>3766 you aren't establishing why that in specific is best for society. if being dominant is good why isnt it good when a girl does it then?

>>3775 or sorry "taking the lead".

>>3775 >why isnt it good when a girl does it says who?

soykaf sorry forgot to change the name field

>>3780 The original person I replied to in response to >I'm pretty sure that wanting woman to stay submissive is such a progressive and forward way of thinking. said >It is

>>3786 oh I didn't read the whole thing nvm sorry

>>3789 it happens

I am really happy that the Australian people are accepting of gay people. I'm a gay man from the middle-east (Jordan, specifically) and being gay here is a nightmare. I can never reveal myself to anyone, not even my closest friend. I will probably never have sex in my entire life, because if I am caught, my life and career is ruined. No one will hire me, no one will associate with me, no one will want to have anything to do with me. Even my family will probably hate me; I know they'll hate me, since they hate gay people. I tried converting myself to a heterosexual when I was a teenager; it only ended up making me more miserable.

>>3818 If I were you I'd think about moving to another country if possible.

>>3821 >if I lived in third-world shіthole where my existence is a crime and unimaginable poverty is "upper-middle-class" >I would think about moving out

>>3821 I have been trying to move for years. It is one of the most difficult processes ever. I think I have a chance to move to Greece, but I am not very certain that it will work. I am trying, though. >>3823 >if I lived in third-world shіthole where my existence is a crime and unimaginable poverty is "upper-middle-class" Technically, it is not a crime; there are no laws in Jordan prohibiting gay sex or gay couple (as long as it's done at home; i.e. no signs of affection in public. But that applies to straight couples too; kissing in public (even for straight couples) is illegal). The problem is not legal; it's social; it's a social taboo to be lgbt here. >unimaginable poverty is "upper-middle-class" That's Saudi Arabia and the Arab Gulf countries, not Jordan. In Jordan, there is truly unimaginable poverty; you won't believe it unless you see it, and I assure you; it's not pretty. I do have hope for the future, though; millennials and generation z are much more accepting of diversity; diversity in sexual orientation, religion and opinions. But I can't say that for generation X and older.

>>3827 >That's Saudi Arabia and the Arab Gulf countries, not Jordan. I thought Saudi Arabia was wealthy because of all the oil. I guess they won't be so rich in 30 years when we all have flying electric cars.

>>3831 > 30 years from today > not living offworld entirely

>>3831 Our chemical industry can't magically produce plastics and lubricants from sunlight or some hydrogen-rich gmo corn. You still need oil for those kind of things, fuels are about 30% of oil industry, m8.

>>3827 honestly hope youre gonna make it lad. All the jordanian girls I've met are so cute, must suck being a user there. brr

>>3835 and by user I meant fagget

>>3827 I think he meant living in unimaginable poverty would be considered upper middle class there.

>>3833 >Our chemical industry can't magically produce plastics and lubricants from sunlight or some hydrogen-rich gmo corn. You still need oil for those kind of things, fuels are about 30% of oil industry, m8. Fuel is by far the most important. > 70% of all oil consumed in the U.S. is used for transportation. http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/fuels.aspx Without fuel your local Walmart will have no food and you will die on the street like a dog.

>>3841 Yea, can confirm this is what I meant If you're in a country where >not starving to death, but no amenities (aka unimaginable poverty) is considered >upper-middle-class Then it sounds like you've got bigger issues than >they will stone me if I fug my best friend

>>3870 Oh, I apologize for misunderstanding. I agree with you, in that case; there are way more important social, economic and legal issues that need to be addressed before addressing lgbt rights in the middle-east. But it's still frustrating.

That is gay

>>3990 Yeah and now it's legal too

I hate this literal gay country. The way the media handled it was horrid as well, it was blatant one sided propaganda and any minor voice opposing it was bashed by everybody in the media and the media then has the nerve to call them bigots even though by the definition of the word they are the ones being bigots.

>>4047 People don't want to argue with the other side because all of the arguments against gay marriage have been thrown around and everyone is aware of them and has decided they don't agree. Now and then someone with a different take or credibility, and you hear about them. Despite being on the left, I knew of say Jordan Peterson and saw videos of him. It wasn't like the media hid him from me, I still don't agree but I was aware of his presence and even watched him talk. This isn't that related to gay marriage i'm just pointing out that when somebody is eloquent and their points don't come down to some bullsoykaf we all have heard before, people hear about them. I'm not exactly sure who you think the media is anyways. I'm sorry none of "the media" agree with you, what do you want to hear. They probably figure people would tune out if they brought someone on to as I said reiterate the same points heard so many times, since like 2010 probably. It's been a good while of public debate, and if you look at any tv shows or media from like I said 6 or 7 years ago, there was a much more objective stance on this specific topic. A majority of the public decided they were fine with it, and now most shows, news, whatever goes with the public. It's like kicking a dead horse at this point, most people have their minds made up by now. I can't change your opinion, you can't change mine. If we argued it to death it would come down to some fundamental point we just can't agree on that is a matter of opinion. So it's pointless. They aren't intolerant, they just figure anyone who argues against it holds some bigoted beliefs because usually that was the case. Just as you assume me and everyone else is dumb sheeple probably because you know the arguments by now.

The biggest argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

>>4050 the biggest argument against the internet is a 5 minute conversation with anyone on this board in real life yet here we are.

>>4051 browsing this site for 5 minutes a day has cured my internet addiction

>>4049 >I'm sorry none of "the media" agree with you, what do you want to hear. I'm not the person you are responding to but I don't think that is the point. The point was the it was impossible to raise any kind of opposing view without being brushed off and ostracized. The irony for the lgbt community is that it was exactly this hostility against thinking differently that lead to their persecution in the first place. >They aren't intolerant, they just figure anyone who argues against it holds some bigoted beliefs because usually that was the case. That's exactly the problem. Democracy doesn't work if policies can just be steamrolled through without opposition because people are convinced that they don't need to listen to dissenting views because they are "bigots" or whatever. You are not physically beating people up for disagreeing but psychologically it's almost the same thing.

>>4049 >They aren't intolerant, they just figure anyone who argues against it holds some bigoted beliefs because usually that was the case. Just as you assume me and everyone else is dumb sheeple probably because you know the arguments by now. Actually most people are not gay and don't give a soykaf about gay marriage. This thread has not a single argument in favor of gay marriage except "if I don't vocally support it then my peers will think I'm a [deplorable person], so you should support it too". And that's not good. Gay marriage is just a frivolous waste of time and money but history has shown us that this kind of social structure has the potential to go very badly if the wrong types of people get control of it.

>>4057 Your using lainchan as a sample size for "most people". Most people if asked would say "Yes i'm fine with it". I'd be willing to bet if you looked up polls its majority yes.

>>4056 I don't think the hostility was due to them "thinking different" it's because they ARE different. The funny part is some might argue they aren't, all the more reason for them to get up and arms. thats the biggest thing I see here. Forget about whos right and whos wrong for a second, regardless one side perceives persecution based on who they are as a person, the other side perceives persecution based off of their ideas. one of these things is worth taking more seriously. maybe this is where we disagree. I will always understand outrage over being attacked for something you feel you had no control over, it feels like an injustice and it feels unfair. Somebody being attacked for their ideas? Welcome to arguments and fights. Theyve been around forever and is what happens when two opposing ideas clash. Its up to you to somehow make your point clear, if the other person is just screaming at you and calling you a bigot either you are bad at arguing or that person wasnt worth arguing with and you should pick your battles.

>>4058 >Your using lainchan as a sample size for "most people". I'm saying most humans in the world are not gay and therefor don't give a soykaf one way or another about gay marriage. That's why I am skeptical of this randomly fanatic widespread support for it. It doesn't really make sense for such a niche issue. What's actually happening is social pressure is forcing people to conform and condemning anyone who tries to actually stop and think for a second and that's bad regardless of the issue. >>4059 >one of these things is worth taking more seriously. maybe this is where we disagree. I understand what you mean; treating someone differently because of something they can't change is soykafty behavior. It's also really important that no speech is de facto taboo. I think both things are equally important though. Or not comparable if you prefer. People should never be punished for expressing an idea. Free speech is not about defending people who have soykafty ideas. It's about ensuring that society can break away from groupthink and avoid collectively jumping off intellectual cliffs. Good ideas don't need force and bad ideas are countered by good ideas. If you need to publicly shun people and call them bigots for not agreeing with your idea then maybe it's not so fuarrrking great to begin with.

>>4056 > You are not physically beating people up for disagreeing but psychologically it's almost the same thing. You don't have the right to not have your feelings hurt.

As long as they don't normalize it in wider society I don't see where the problem is. The biggest trend today is the rise of "bisexuals" that never had any relations with same sex and don't really want to but kinda feel pulled into that due to fetishization that media made it off.

>>4117 >As long as they don't normalize it in wider society I don't see where the problem is. Elaborate please. Now that gay marriage is legally equal to traditional marriage it certainly will normalize it in wider society. >The biggest trend today is the rise of "bisexuals" that never had any relations with same sex and don't really want to but kinda feel pulled into that due to fetishization that media made it off. I don't understand. Do you say that people are being coerced into having sex with the same sex because the media says so or do you mean that people are starting calling themselves bisexual but they really aren't?

>>4119 >elaborate "Normal" in its pure defition of the word is "standard by its characteristics or operations" which is what I think of when I say "normalized". It obviously is abnormal behaviour that isn't leading to procreation, normalizing that culturally can only be detrimental... at best it can have neutral effect at culture at large. Legally you can have any type of sexual activity or behaviour be permitted by your big bro gov or wider public (even necrophilia). I am not here to say that Gov has a right to tell you what you can do or not do to the extent you are not hurting or destryoing the fabric of society but culturally looking what effect do gay parades have on the world at large? Beyond waving dildo swords and having BDSM play parties on the street what does that affect social perception of world? >Do you say that people are being coerced into having sex with the same sex because the media says so or do you mean that people are starting calling themselves bisexual but they really aren't? Both at same time. I would say "because the media says so" is understatement though because most people don't really perceive the media they consume (and eventually assimilate their ideas with) as something "other" than themselves. They become one with ideas incorporated and portrayed in media. You can not honestly argue that media has no influence in shaping our lerception of world. "I kissed a girl and I liked it, I hope my boyfriend don't mind it" 15 year old little girl sings. Don't you think ANY of these girls actually thought of trying it because of that song?

>>4117 >The biggest trend today is the rise of "bisexuals" that never had any relations with same sex and don't really want to but kinda feel pulled into that due to fetishization that media made it off. Really? Biggest trend? Here's the thing: I have no doubt that those people absolutely exist. However, my best guess is that they exist on the order of 1 per hundred thousand people. What is much more likely (order of magnitude guess: 1 per thousand people) is that the people who are describing themselves as bisexual actually do have bisexual feelings. Do you really believe that the former group is larger than the latter?

>>4122 >It obviously is abnormal behaviour that isn't leading to procreation, normalizing that culturally can only be detrimental... I don't see why this has to be the case at all. If anything, normalizing homosexuality prevents people from having to go to the seedy bathhouses or be secret megaperverts to get their kicks. It hasn't been a problem in my country so far and I don't see why Australia would have to suffer culturally (whatever that means).

>>4122 >Both at same time. I would say "because the media says so" is understatement though because most people don't really perceive the media they consume (and eventually assimilate their ideas with) as something "other" than themselves. They become one with ideas incorporated and portrayed in media. Adults don't turn gay just because of gay propaganda. I don't know about kids though. Are people born gay or are they turned gay during childhood? If the latter then you may have a point. "Liberal" societies could literally be removing themselves from humanity by encouraging their children to be gay.

>>4126 >I have no doubt that those people absolutely exist. However, my best guess is that they exist on the order of 1 per hundred thousand people Any person in LGBT community will tell you that bisexuals are biggest attention seeking fakers. Not to mention the SUDDEN rise of bisexuals, most of which HAVE NEVER and WILL NEVER have contact with same sex. Do I believe? I don't need to, there were studies on this topic already and there are obviously more people that are willing to call themselves bisexual while not actually swinging for same team. >>4137 >normalizing homosexuality prevents people from having to go to the seedy bathhouses or be secret megaperverts to get their kicks. Implying this is the case for anyone other than hardcore degenerates. Homosexual men have much MUCH more sexual encounters than homosexual females. Why? Homosexuals today have their own dating sites and apps yet still bathhouses and bug chasing is still a thing. Why? My question is "why do they have to be in main centre of cultural topics and influence?", why aren't we talking at the moment about Fermi energy states rather than this inconsiquential soykaf? They have their own little thing they do in the corner of their little fuarrrkhouses and they are like 10% of population, who gives a soykaf about them.

>>4153 >Adults don't turn gay just because of gay propaganda "adults"? I said "a little girl", and a lot of this soykaf starts in High School and early college where people "discover themselves" and "experiment". "Adults" are considered when your frontal lobe is developed enough (medically it stops at 21 or 22) so I don't know what the fuarrrk you're talking about. >Are people born gay or are they turned gay during childhood? Well, if it's "born" then there are two ways. Genetic and hormonal influences during birth. Most people will agree that genes that purposefully mutate to disable sexual drive for opposite sex will not continue to reproduce, RIGHT? Therefore "gay genes", if they ever existed ought to not exist a long time ago. Other thing, which there is much MUCH more proof for in scientific world is the hormonal part. Biggest and most stable way of prooving this is looking at families with 3 or more boys born. There was a great study showing how after second or third boy mothers uterus starts creating some hormones that actively fight against the male embryo in uterus and producing more female hormones, actively feminizing it. Even most gays will say that this is actually the case. The other part of this debate is the "environment" part. I can't talk about anti-social behaviour like that in prisons where heterosexual men out of sexual frustration and anti-social behaviour and aggression have either concensual or not sex with other men, but thing that bothers me is the propaganda part which is more and more mainstream. "Gays" this, "gays" that. Who fuarrrking cares but those that want to actively pat themselves on the back or want to turn others gay. >"Liberal" societies could literally be removing themselves from humanity by encouraging their children to be gay. The "we strayed from God" is a symbolic way of saying "we strayed from natures way of telling us when it's time to stop reproducing". 7 fuarrrking billion of us on this small rock. I say no more.

>>4156 >7 billion >let's propagate homosexuality in small European nations instead of among those that actually breed like swines and then flood well-off countries with their uncontrolled swarm

>>4154 >Any person in LGBT community will tell you that bisexuals are biggest attention seeking fakers uh no they won't you biphobic retard. >Not to mention the SUDDEN rise of bisexuals, most of which HAVE NEVER and WILL NEVER have contact with same sex you mean people now feel comfortable to like the same sex since LGBQ people are persecuted less without repercussions? >most of which is that what your study says? you're so fuarrrking knowledgeable i would never doubt your claims for a prejudiced closet case. >neurosuggesting this is the case for anyone other than hardcore degenerates except there's nothing wrong with sex. but the rest of your post makes you sound like a 16 year old taking high school physics that isn't getting any sex. >Homosexual men have much MUCH more sexual encounters than homosexual females. Why? because at this moment girls are sexually repressed. >Homosexuals today have their own dating sites and apps yet still bathhouses and bug chasing is still a thing apps are supposed to stop this because? do straight people not have stripper bars where more lewd goes on than just lap dancing? do straight people not have swinger clubs? does the straight pornography community not exist? >My question is "why do they have to be in main centre of cultural topics and influence?" if you haven't noticed heterosexual relationships are still the main center of cultural topics and influence. so it all reduces down to your confirmation bias. it's wrong gay people get a share when 1 out of 10 people are gay because? >why aren't we talking at the moment about Fermi energy states rather than this inconsiquential soykaf? lol are you fuccking trolling, that's not even new science.

I see a lot of "who cares about this when X problem is way more important". With that logic why care about anything, there always is a more important problem. Rarely are they exclusive. Its not like you can't focus on I dont know global warming or people starving on the streets and lgbbq issues. i am a disgusting CIS WHITE MALE and im totally fine with all this gender stuff happening. i think itd be dope to just walk around wearing a dress and horribly done makeup every now and then and for people to just be like yeah hes just vibing over there let him be. Obviously thats not the main goal of all this, but I see it as a positive side outcome, I think fundamentally all of this is about self expression. Im in a city where this stuff is pretty prevelant, and it changes things in a way I like. Makes you take people one at a time, you dont really assume anything. It makes for interesting conversation too when you get to know said person better and talk with them about sexuality and stuff and both people can just be open. also from what I understand bi people don't just like all girls and guys. They have preferences too, just sometimes a guy meets them and sometimes a girl does. and also worrying about people doing x for attention or to feel special is kind of stupid. Again in a city like mine you arent special really no matter what you are and these people still exist. I dont really care about marriage, I think it would have been sick if all of these people were like you know what fuarrrk your institution. I wouldnt be surprised if that was the real reason to push gay marriage through. Arguably if gay people did that they might get even more support from the populace and then there might be some kind of large group forming of straight people who decide to forego marriage as well. Its already on the decline (I think). This is a half assed conspiracy I thought up now and I wouldnt debate somebody if they just outright called it retarded. regardless it does involve a big flip in values and society as we know it. Ive always been somebody that likes change and am kind of a reject so I think its cool but not everyones like that. Some people prefer stability, and its good those people exist too. In my personal life I might go a little crazy if I didnt have people to question everything I was doing and call me an idiot for believing x or y even if I disagree. I think its healthy to just look at everyones opinions as voices, even the opinions you think are fuarrrked up and then you just personally decide which ones you will listen to and dont bother with calling people bigots and soykaf. I think arguing is really only healthy if you think you might be wrong. Arguing with somebody you see as an intolerant homophobe or whatever is just leading them on and nobodies going to be happy at the end.

>>4171 Sorry, by think you might be wrong I meant more would be willing to accept your wrong. For example I know no one can change my opinion that gay marriage is fine so im not going to argue about it its a waste of time for them and for me. But I would argue with someone about say our system of government. Because to be honest I dont really know what system would work best and though I have strong preferences im aware they could potentially change. I wasnt implying just never listen to peoples arguments if you think your right.

>>4160 >because at this moment girls are sexually repressed. In what way exactly? A woman can wake up any day of the year and decide she will have sex today. Even the fat ones. The reason women tend to be less sexually active is evolutionary. Men can ejaculate into 100 women and live life as normal (possibly in another town though). A women only has to have sex once and her life could be ruined for the next 18 years. Our monkey brains don't understand the concept of contraception, that's why women are naturally more sexually cautious. >you mean people now feel comfortable to like the same sex since LGBQ people are persecuted less without repercussions? I feel like society is pushing too hard in the other direction. Like being bi-sexual is the cool new thing to be and nobody will take you seriously if you are "normal". I think we should have stopped at, adults can fuarrrk who they want in private. Nothing good will come from glorifying lgbt culture the way white western counties are now. >>4157 >let's propagate homosexuality in small European nations instead of among those that actually breed like swines and then flood well-off countries with their uncontrolled swarm This is something I don't get. There can't be more than like 2 billion whites on the planet. That's like 1/4? Whites are the real minority race and we're the only ones glorifying homosexuality. Should I be worried about this or will people just call me a Nazi?

>>4176 > Should I be worried about this No. > or will people just call me a Nazi? You're really not enough of a threat to rate that high.

>>4160 >muh "everything is cultural and nothing is genetically predisposed" >muh "we must make place in this culture for a small demographic that doesn't really care" >biphobic >not new science, not worth talking about You must be a fruity sassy user who thinks he knows everything right?

>>4177 Sassy user strikes again with the one liners Oooohhhh How will he recover, holy soykaf

>>4177 >No. 4. You should always elaborate on your opinions rather than just spilling the soykaf.

>>4187 >2. Do not call for mods, or announce reports in a thread.

>>4188 >idiots who don't know about rules try to act sassy by mentioning the rules

>>4188 Citing the rules != calling for mods. glitterboy.

>>4176 >In what way exactly? A woman can wake up any day of the year and decide she will have sex today. i said sexual repression which is a behavior that doesn't seek sex. it has nothing to do with how attractive you are or how many people hit on you. it's called r e p r e s s i o n for a fuarrrking reason. women are less sexually liberal in this world. in my experience, more men are open to knew sexual ideas, watching porn, and aren't stigmatized over sex. men don't get called sluts. on the other hand, women can't get sex without threat of previous partners, women are demanded sex from current partners, women are hit on all the time, which is really annoying. all of this is really obvious about what's it like to be a girl, so it makes me wonder if you even talk to women. this sort of misogynistic and homophobic commentary is very revealing of how lonely and fuarrrking pathetic you are. > The reason women tend to be less sexually active is evolutionary sorry, but this is a miserable failure at being scientific. >Men can ejaculate into 100 women and live life as normal (possibly in another town though) except contraception can be used and abortion can be used. also, why do you think we let men continue to have normal lives when it's the man's baby and the mother's? shouldn't sex be equally risky for males and females? >Our monkey brains don't understand the concept of contraception yeah that's not substantiated with any evidence. we have a lot of reckless people who want to go in raw isn't indicative they don't understand it. especially since a condom takes less than 20 seconds to put on. >that's why women are naturally more sexually cautious. in my previous post, the context was lesbian women. i think women are sensitive to pregnancy accidents, which isn't a natural reason at all because it isn't a crude feeling in any sense, it's done by intelligent agency. so you just sound like a fuarrrking idiot. women are oppressed sexually into repression. women can have fun with a lot less risk, but they don't because the way women are treated. it has very little to do with pregnancy. women will one day be as careless as men are, without discrimination for liberal sexual practices. >I feel like society is pushing too hard in the other direction. Like being bi-sexual is the cool new thing to be and nobody will take you seriously if you are "normal". i think you're projecting. also the population is more biphobic than homophobic. >I think we should have stopped at, adults can fuarrrk who they want in private. Nothing good will come from glorifying lgbt culture the way white western counties are now. that's funny. i would also like to add on how >>5154 mentioned why should anyone "give a soykaf" when we have people like >>4176 and >>4181 who actually post this inane soykaf on the internet. take a look at yourselves. what do you think this kind of person thinks when they a gay couple in public? anything positive? do you think anything positive is made out of that? >Should I be worried about this or will people just call me a Nazi? i would expect you to be very slow to object nazism. >>4181 >muh "everything is cultural and nothing is genetically predisposed" you don't any substance to support that idea. so just shut the fuarrrk up. k thx. >muh "we must make place in this culture for a small demographic that doesn't really care" i don't even know that means. i can't make sense of what you're trying to say. >biphobic are you denying it's biphobic? let me repost what i said for you, you fuarrrking retard 1. they claimed without ANY credibility most bisexuals will never have contact with the same sex. 2. they claimed bisexuals must be fakers without credibility 3. they think gay people are degenerate based on their closet feelings. 4. they think gay people are in control as if any acceptance of gays is a threat 5. they think being gay should be neglected as if we still don't live in a society that doesn't have people like you. 6. they think less lesbian sex is indicative of a mental disorder >not new science, not worth talking about well this is a dishonest misrepresentation of my argument. older science is hardly consequential. you're a fuarrrking joke. >you must be a fruity sassy user who thinks he knows everything right? i'm not a guy so. but yeah any alt-right freak would attack sexuality and gender as if it matters in this context.

>>4176 >The reason women tend to be less sexually active is evolutionary. It's worth noting that this can be true along with >>4196, that there are also cultural reasons for women being less sexually active. It's also worth noting that if the evolutionary basis for the difference in sexual behavior is true, then it's all the more imperative to remove cultural stigma: we are more than our history as animals.

>>4196 >it has very little to do with pregnancy. I used contraception as an example but this obviously applies to same sex relationships too. The point is that the primitive parts of our brains that drive sexual behavior doesn't understand that pregnancy is not possible. Sex always equals pregnancy, and because pregnancy has a massively different cost to men and women, men and women have massively different behavior towards it. Women can only have a limited number of children and each one takes a significant amount of time and effort to raise. That's why they instinctive go "wow hang on a minute girl, are you sure you want to do that with this person?". Men on the otherhand have no consequences after sex. They can just shoot and run. So evolutionarily, men's brains are hardwired to not give a soykaf about who or what they fuarrrk. That's why men are more "liberal" about sex. >shouldn't sex be equally risky for males and females? In an intellectualized society that might be ideal. But in reality that's not how human biology works and there is only so much natural instinct society can beat out of people. Especially people with low general intelligence. >women are hit on all the time, which is really annoying. I think you are looking at this the wrong way. You make it out that women spend their whole days rejecting hordes of men. That means that all they have to do is say "yes" and they get sex any time they want. Doesn't that give women a tremendous amount of power? Maybe "slut" is just a word society uses to describe a women who abuses that power. >sorry, but this is a miserable failure at being scientific. More likely you simply don't understand the science.

>>4196 >women are less sexually liberal in this world. in my experience, more men are open to knew sexual ideas, watching porn, and aren't stigmatized over sex. Hey, I'm a different anon, I just had a question. I was always told that it was women who were more open and varied sexual content, like sex with other women or more violent scenarios like rape fantasies. Am I just mistaken? Because I was also explained that men tend to be way more rigid sexually speaking, refusing to sleep with other men, etc.

>>4187 > again But that was my first post in the thread.

>>4176 >Whites are the real minority race and we're the only ones glorifying homosexuality. Should I be worried about this or will people just call me a Nazi? This whole line of thought scares me Here's the thing; if you're worried about Preserving the Race I think this goal is at least a bit fundamentally racist, which is not good against "(((((them)))))" (specifically thinking of stuff like where Europe encourages its citizens inb4 yuropnotacountry not to breed "for the environment" or "because life isn't worth living" or some such while simultaneously importing coincidentally monochrome alleged """worker refugees to prop up our failing socialist economy""" in bulk) Then just remember that the "flip side" is that there's always organizations like Planned Parenthood that probably slaughter enough unborn American niglets every day than Britain's "native" (roman descendants or whatever tf idc ykwim) to completely repopulate a territory in Europe if they were white So The Illuminati, if it exists, is like that filthy frank quote >Equal Prejudice: everyone gets soykaf idk if they can't decide who to genocide or what but oh well

>>4176 >>4646(Me) To continue that post (I neglected these topics) I'll just mention that a) being gay is at least OK. Considering things like Milo has pointed out where gay couples are the masterrace basically due to integrated thot resistance and biologically programmed loyalty among BOTH members of the couple, I mean if "western civilization" has to die by everyone turning gay at least it's done comfortably and with style rather than all males going vegan and being easily murdered by their unstable feminist wife or half-black son b) If you're REALLY THAT WORRIED about people that look like you (and this applies to any race; not just whites!) dying out or generally becoming enslaved or marginalized, the solution is dead f0cking simple >find wife (OK maybe this is not so simple) >have kids (more than two because life) >work hard to provide >raise them RIGHT, to not be hooligans and hopefully reproduce themselves and pass on a similar mission to at least one or two of their kids

>>4646 >there's always organizations like Planned Parenthood that probably slaughter enough unborn American niglets every day than Britain's "native" (roman descendants or whatever tf idc ykwim) to completely repopulate a territory in Europe if they were white holy piss that sentence got brutalized I rephrased it but got distracted halfway through consistency checking Basically I was trying to say that PP kills enough black kids that, if they were white kids who lived instead of black kids who died, you could probably repopulate Europe to its approximately "normal" genetic makeup

>>4196 >women are less sexually liberal in this world. in my experience, more men are open to knew sexual ideas, watching porn, and aren't stigmatized over sex that is natural biological way we evolved men are more sexually aggressive and more polygamy driven while females are more monogamy driven for sole purpose of spreading genes this is how we evolved, jesus you imbecile females want to have alpha males all for themselves (because then there will be more resources for her and her offspring) and alpha males want to spread their genes all over that is why women menstrual cycles sync up (they sync up based on female alpha in the group, so she has the best chances of having sex with alpha male while ovulating) LOOK IT UP, you numbskull female =/= male and male =/= female we are different, and THAT IS GOOD

>>4646 >if you're worried about Preserving the Race I think this goal is at least a bit fundamentally racist, which is not good Define racism >Racism is the belief in the superiority of one race over another Acknowledging that race exists is not racism. "Preserving the Race" is not racism. I don't really understand the rest of this post. Was that supposed to be a sentence? >>4647 >being gay is at least OK. Agreed. The point of the post you are responding to is that we are actively glorifying homosexuality and pressing it onto children who are still impressionable. Tolerating adult gays is fine. fuarrrking with children's sexual development is not fine.

Jesus Christ, what happened to this place?

Welp, this thread confirms it You're a normal haven I'm not bothering with you