Onward, Social Justice Warriors!

[Sennin of Logic]

I find two things about this funny.

One is how racists and sexists most probably said the same thing at least once about equal rights for minorities and women.

Second is how people use "social justice warrior" as an insult. "Look at you, fighting passionately for the rights and equal treatment of people in society who aren't harming anyone or themselves."

Edit: I was wrong, three things about this are funny. The fact that people really think America is gonna end because of this. "YES. Tom can marry Jerry. Now, let's all run in the streets naked and **** rabbits and kill each other for sport."

Aim, you need to chill. Go duck hunting, eat a mayonnaise sandwich, **** a rainbow. Do something to calm down.

SJWs is used as a term for people that look for social ills to solve even when there isn't any true ills to begin with, either misinterpreting, or inventing faults to pick at. This usually ends in a form of an overreach of government and the expense of others simply living out their lives. A perfect example is the hardcore feminists. Look at Sargon or TL;DRs videos. There's remarkable bullcrap behind those "solving society's ills."

 

[TimothyTheTomato]

It was a joke dude.

My bad. You wouldn't believe the people I've argued with

 

[A$AP Wap]

lol where is beastiality legal?
someone showed me a video where a horse was THRASHING someone

as soon as the horse had that nxgga mounted, it was over with

I went to a reaction video and I'm sorry, the comments were funny as fukc

 

[Sennin of Logic]

Beastiality is rape. Incest makes deformed babies

We kill animals. If we're using human crime terms for animals, every time we have meat, we're experiencing the labors of murder. Clearly, there are animals that are considered absolutely expendable, and distasteful reactions to it is merely opinionated.

Cough*birth control*Cough. No one said the incest couples had to have babies. If reproduction measures the worth of a sexual relationship, then homosexuals should not have access to mariage. In other words, to support gay marriage, and not incestual ones is hypocrisy.

 

[Senju Bean]

The Supreme Court exists to make sure that the people cannot decide what is right and wrong.

States may make up their own laws, but for things that can be determined to be absolutely moral, the state has no right to decide

Just like the states cannot change 1+1 into 3

 

[Senju Bean]

We kill animals. If we're using human crime terms for animals, every time we have meat, we're experiencing the labors of murder. Clearly, there are animals that are considered absolutely expendable, and distasteful reactions to it is merely opinionated.

Cough*birth control*Cough. No one said the incest couples had to have babies. If reproduction measures the worth of a sexual relationship, then homosexuals should not have access to mariage. In other words, to support gay marriage, and not incestual ones is hypocrisy.

Because if incest is legalized, then social attitudes towards it will improve, and by strict probility, the number of deformed babies will go up, by chance alone.

But gay marraige has no such secondary results since sexual preferance is determined by genetics

 

[TimothyTheTomato]

We kill animals. If we're using human crime terms for animals, every time we have meat, we're experiencing the labors of murder. Clearly, there are animals that are considered absolutely expendable, and distasteful reactions to it is merely opinionated.

Cough*birth control*Cough. No one said the incest couples had to have babies. If reproduction measures the worth of a sexual relationship, then homosexuals should not have access to mariage. In other words, to support gay marriage, and not incestual ones is hypocrisy.

Bruh are you serious. Meat eating is for living not fornication. In nature animals eat each other and that's What keeps the world balanced (ecosystems) not a monkey banging a dolphin or a human banging his chinchilla. Incestual people aren't confined to liking one group of people they choose to bang the people they grew up with. Gay people ain't got the choice to like anything else except their own gender.


Bruh you just nasty Im out

 

[TimothyTheTomato]

Because if incest is legalized, then social attitudes towards it will improve, and by strict probility, the number of deformed babies will go up, by chance alone.

But gay marraige has no such secondary results since sexual preferance is determined by genetics

Boom!
Incest belongs in hentai only! XD

 

[Sennin of Logic]

Because if incest is legalized, then social attitudes towards it will improve, and by strict probility, the number of deformed babies will go up, by chance alone.

But gay marraige has no such secondary results since sexual preferance is determined by genetics

I'm sorry, but who's using the slippery slope now? Incest has the probability of making bad genes. Homosexuality removes them entirely. Simple solution, make birth control and/or abortions mandatory for incest couples.

Bruh are you serious. Meat eating is for living not fornication. In nature animals eat each other and that's What keeps the world balanced (ecosystems) not a monkey banging a dolphin or a human banging his chinchilla. Incestual people aren't confined to liking one group of people they choose to bang the people they grew up with. Gay people ain't got the choice to like anything else except their own gender.


Bruh you just nasty Im out

These aren't my beliefs. They're simply me analyzing the implications of an attitude. I wouldn't even consider *** with an animal or family member, nor do I find it acceptable, but that's the thing. People have similar feelings towards homosexuality. The pro-gay argument basically consists of disregarding the negative emotions towards a taboo, and basically saying "who are you to tell me what to do with my *** life." If we were to disregard taboos if all we have against it is an emotional distaste, and if we have the attitude of "letting people do what they want even if it's considered disgusting," then such things should be allowed, as you really can't say that either is more destructive against humanity with the right legislation than homosexuality, and the end result is that the problems people have against them is purely emotional.

 

[Aim64C]

I find two things about this funny.

One is how racists and sexists most probably said the same thing at least once about equal rights for minorities and women.

No.

They insisted that it would lead to homosexuality becoming normal. They were not wrong in their predictions.

Second is how people use "social justice warrior" as an insult. "Look at you, fighting passionately for the rights and equal treatment of people in society who aren't harming anyone or themselves."

You are not fighting for equal treatment. You are fighting for privileged status. No one can disagree. No one can criticize.

Just look at your own posts. Simply because I disagree with the ruling, I'm a "homophobe."

You must be registered for see links

"In light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to make gay marriage legal nationwide, the Harrisburg, PA newspaper The Patriot News announced that both they and their online site PennLive.com “will very strictly limit op-Eds and letters to the editor in opposition to same-*** marriage.”

Writing in an editorial published shortly after the Court’s ruling, the leading newspaper in the Keystone State’s capital justified their move by comparing opposition to gay marriage to “criticisms of interracial marriage or those claiming that women are less equal than men in the eyes of the law.”"

It's not about equality, it's about control.

Edit: I was wrong, three things about this are funny. The fact that people really think America is gonna end because of this. "YES. Tom can marry Jerry. Now, let's all run in the streets naked and **** rabbits and kill each other for sport."

Prepare to be disappointed, dear boy. America has no future but civil war.

Aim, you need to chill. Go duck hunting, eat a mayonnaise sandwich, **** a rainbow. Do something to calm down.

I need to do absolutely nothing. There are other things that I should do, and even more things that I want to do...

But this is not the place to discuss such things.

The Supreme Court exists to make sure that the people cannot decide what is right and wrong.

. . . Where is your civics teacher? I need to know who needs to be punched, you, or him/her.

States may make up their own laws, but for things that can be determined to be absolutely moral, the state has no right to decide

Just like the states cannot change 1+1 into 3

The Constitution outlines the manner in which the laws work and the Supreme Court is limited by the content and context of the Constitution.

If the authority is not granted to the federal government, then even the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to rule upon it. The SCOTUS does not exist to enact moral judgments. The Supreme Court exists to rule upon the meaning of the language of the Constitution and of Federal Law.

It can't do more than that. It was not designed to do more than that.

Because if incest is legalized, then social attitudes towards it will improve, and by strict probility, the number of deformed babies will go up, by chance alone.

Stop and think about this for a second, kiddo.

Homosexual marriage was illegal in some parts of the country, right?

Yet those parts of the country still had homosexual couples, right?

Would you say that social attitudes regarding homosexual marriage led to the changing of laws, or that the changing of laws led to changes in views of homosexual marriage?

Now - let's put that all together.

What makes you think declaring incest illegal is any more effective at preventing incestuous relationships than banning homosexual marriage was effective at preventing homosexual relationships?

But gay marraige has no such secondary results since sexual preferance is determined by genetics

Sexual preference is not determined by genetics. Twin studies have verified this.

Sexual preference is determined by neurology and is developed through a system of behavior reinforcement that culminates in a preference that is firm, but not unchanging.

 

[slimreaper]

Because if incest is legalized, then social attitudes towards it will improve, and by strict probility, the number of deformed babies will go up, by chance alone.

But gay marraige has no such secondary results since sexual preferance is determined by genetics

they can choose not to have children. As the homos have said "marriage isn't about rearing children anymore"

 

[A$AP Wap]

So there's no such thing as being born gay
I knew that excuse was BS

 

[Yubel]

May America burn in hell, screw that country and its never ending bs.

 

[Aim64C]

Boom!
Incest belongs in hentai only! XD

You must be registered for see links

By the time you get to first cousins, it's really not an issue.

"In the United States, there is significant stigma associated with consanguineous marriage. Consanguineous couples may keep their relationship hidden because of fears of stigma, discrimination, ostracism, and even legal prosecution. These beliefs are often promulgated in the medical community, where the roots of misconceptions about the consequences of consanguineous unions are deeply ingrained. A New England physician in 1859 noted:

"Perhaps no opinion upon subjects of a medical character is more widely diffused among the public, or more tenaciously held, than that the results of the marriage of blood relations are almost uniformly unfortunate. This opinion has been so long held and so often reiterated by sheer force of these circumstances alone it has come to be regarded as an unquestioned and unquestionable fact" (Bell, 1859).

First Cousins

(Third-Degree Relatives)

Risk above general population:

1.7% to 2.8% for significant congenital defects
4.4% for pre-reproductive mortality

Consanguineous Relationship Risk Data

In fact, couples who are first cousins are estimated to have about a 1.7% to 2.8% increased risk for significant congenital defects above the population background risk. There is approximately a 4.4% increased risk for pre-reproductive mortality above the background risk, some of which includes major congenital defects (Bennett et al., 2002). The general population risk for significant birth defects varies among populations because of their varied sociodemographic characteristics and how various studies define adverse health outcomes in the first years of life.

The offspring of consanguineous unions may be at increased risk for genetic disorders because of the expression of autosomal recessive gene mutations inherited from a common ancestor. The closer the biological relationship between parents, the greater is the probability that their offspring will inherit identical copies of one or more detrimental recessive genes (see table above). Offspring of consanguineous unions may also be at increased risk for disorders of multifactorial or complex inheritance; however, well-controlled studies evaluating the effect of consanguinity on multifactorial diseases of childhood and adulthood have not been conducted (Bennett et al., 2002). Chromosome anomalies do not occur more commonly in the offspring of consanguineous unions."

There is somewhat of an increased risk, but third degree separations are not really a genetic problem.

Even first degree relations (brother and sister or father and daughter) are not a huge deal within a single generation in most cases.

You must be registered for see links

" In the few months that Baylor has been performing these detailed genetic tests, there have been fewer than 10 cases of consanguinity — the phenomenon of inheriting the same gene variations from two closely related people, said Dr. Arthur L. Beaudet, chairman of Baylor’s department of molecular and human genetics. However, wider use of such testing in children with disabilities is expected to identify additional cases of incestuous parentage. [ABC News]

In the United States it’s illegal for first-degree relatives to have ***, but when both partners are adults, it usually goes unreported. Doctors are worried about all close incestuous parings that result in a child, since such children have a much higher risk of disabilities. But Beaudet and other doctors are particularly worried about cases that involve sexual abuse of a minor."

 

[Disquiet]

I'm of the opinion that if we are to reach such a stage, that it matters not which deviant lifestyle was accepted first, I'm not even so sure if the acceptance of one even depends on so much as the existence of another. I believe this stage has been reached by becoming more open in general, or to put it another way, all the "little things" that you, me, or anyone else approve of, condone, or support paved the way for this.

Though I should say, you, me, or anyone else may or are likely to show some form of approval on.

Don't believe blacks should be the slave of the white man and will speak on it? It was that, there. Believe racists should have the right to express their racism and will speak up on it? It was that, there. Believe that white people should be able to say the word ***** like black people do and will speak on it? It was that, there. Believe that women should have the right to vote and will speak on it? It was that, there. Believe that political correctness shouldn't be an issue when trying to present the truth and will speak on it? It was that, there. Believe everyone should have the right to follow the religion they choose/should not be oppressed by a state religion and will speak on it? It was that, there. Believe that everyone have the right to say their opinion and will speak on it? It was that, there.

Believe that a man can wear the color pink and will speak on it? It was there, there. Believe a man should be able to show his tears and will speak on it? It was that, there. Believe a woman should be able to wear a tight mini skirt without getting gawked at or receive any kind of sexual advances and will speak on it? It was that, there. Believe that an adult can watch cartoons and will speak on it? It was that, there. Believe people should adopt independent thinking and not always conform to majority, dogmatic, or authoritative beliefs and will speak on it? It was that, there. Believe that kids don't have to follow the career path their parents set for them, but instead go with what they're happy with and will speak on it? It was that, there.

I'll leave it to you guys' contemplation to expand on the list. I'm pretty sure everyone gets the point by now. Freedom to do this, freedom to do that. It's not always the smack-in-your-face most controversial topic of the decade that directly causes the smack-in-your-face most controversial topic of the century. There's a lot of tug of war going on in the middle, only it's almost completely one-sided because these middles issues are approved by nearly everyone, even the loudest and most prominent anti-(insert whatever issue is being discussed at that time). So why everyone is busy discussing gay rights or transsexuals, this mentality has long ago crept in from the back of our minds.

Furthermore, if incest or whatever other issue is closely alike to homosexuality, then that implies the prerequisites for approval are already present regardless if homosexuality exist or not. So you see, it further backs up my belief that the mind was already conditioned to this. So if incest or polygamy (which I don't have a problem with nor do I have one with homosexuality) is to be accepted, it won't necessarily be because of homosexuality. I'll agree that it does provide for an important precedent, largely because of how controversial it's being made, it will certainly seem like a huge achievement. But as I said, if all the ingredients for homosexuality are present in incest or pedophilia as some claim, then this is only a wake up call to what's already been sleeping in our minds. In 100 years (random number) or more, incest or pedophilia, if accepted, most likely wouldn't have needed for homosexuality to exist.

We have all been playing our part, even if inadvertently, in the "freedom for all and everything" movement.

 

[A$AP Wap]

I heard the people in the government are nothing but relatives

 

[Jazzy Stardust]

I agree to an extent on the acceptance of polygamy. But a law being passed for marriage of polygamists and pedophiles is silly and probably won't happen.

1. Polygamy is a terrible case to be used against this. The marriage arrangement isn't the same and would be extremely difficult to regulate. As in guy decided to get married to 5 women, has multiple kids with each and it ends up not working out and one of the women wants divorce. The other women would have to pay child support as well since legally it would be there child since it's a unified marriage. Then let's say another one decides to get divorced and needs child support. My whole point is it would be a cluster **** for the state. The acceptance may happen but marriage won't, and if it does it would take away the rights from one side of parties in order for it to work. Which won't happen if equality is the end goal.

2. Pedophilia marriages won't happen because it's actually regression rather than progression for one. The whole reason the age of consent was established was because a younger party doesn't have the mental capacity to understand the situation they're in and can end up being manipulated and trained to the point of borderline slavery to the older party. Which is again taking away freedom rather than giving it. To say "who says a child can't love an adult" is idiotic logic in the scenario because most kids and teens as proven aren't actually mature enough to know exactly what they're feeling and with raging hormones there judgement and emotions change drastically. It's part of the growing and adolescent process of learning, as proven by psychologists. With the knowledge the general public knows on the subject marriage will never happen.
-------------------

Gay marriage on the other hand is just as simple to handle legally as heterosexual marriage because of the number of people involved is the same. Divorces can be handled the same way and children can be handled the same way. Just instead two people are the same gender. I personally think marriage as a whole is unnecessary, but in this scenario the option should at least be there.

I do believe the ideology that if equality is to happen then other things like Polygamy and Pedophilia in theory should be too. But I'm not foolish enough to believe equality will ever be achieved.

 

[Punk Hazard]

No.

They insisted that it would lead to homosexuality becoming normal. They were not wrong in their predictions.

Well, now it's just he say-he say. I'm positive there were those who said that, and I'm positive that there were those who said what I said.

You are not fighting for equal treatment. You are fighting for privileged status.

No, I'm not.

No one can disagree. No one can criticize.

I am not doubting that there are people like this on both ends of the spectrum, but neither end consists of everyone like this. I'd appreciate it if you didn't act like everyone is this way.

People are free to disagree and are free to criticize homosexuality and its acceptance. Freedom of speech. But freedom of speech does not mean you don't get a reply. To go "I can say what I want, when I want, and you can't reply or say anything about it" is quite hypocritical, paradoxical and moronic. If you want to be able to openly criticize and disagree with homosexuality and its acceptance, then you accept that people have the right to disagree with and criticize your disagreement and critiques. If you voice your disapproval, and someone replies to your disapproval with their own of yours, you are free not to engage in the conversation. If you don't want someone to argue with your outlook, if you don't want to have the discussion, you don't accomplish that by telling others not to respond to you, but you take it upon yourself to walk away. What you wanted to say is said, so you lose nothing by simply ignoring the replies. Responding to them means you want to engage in the discussion, so you can't go and complain when the discussion has been formed.

Yes, you are free to say what you want to say, when you want to say it. Freedom of speech allows this. What it doesn't allow is for you to say what you want to say when you want to say it without consequence, and it doesn't allow you to control how people feedback, respond or react to what you say.

Just look at your own posts. Simply because I disagree with the ruling, I'm a "homophobe."

Yes, in a sense, you are homophobic for that. Another mistake people make, with racism as well, is that homophobia only exists in extremes. If you aren't going "Kill the gays!", then you're not homophobic. No, you are homophobic, just on a very small level. Racism, sexism, homophobia, they don't just exist in the extremes, it's a spectrum.

You must be registered for see links

"In light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to make gay marriage legal nationwide, the Harrisburg, PA newspaper The Patriot News announced that both they and their online site PennLive.com “will very strictly limit op-Eds and letters to the editor in opposition to same-*** marriage.”

Writing in an editorial published shortly after the Court’s ruling, the leading newspaper in the Keystone State’s capital justified their move by comparing opposition to gay marriage to “criticisms of interracial marriage or those claiming that women are less equal than men in the eyes of the law.”"

It's not about equality, it's about control.

So, the newspapers are reducing the amount of homophobic articles and letters. Your problem? They can do what they want with the newspaper. "It's about control...(ling the newspaper that belongs to you)." If they wanted to print articles with nothing but hate and disapproval, they are free to. It'd be incredibly bad for business, but they are free to.

Prepare to be disappointed, dear boy. America has no future but civil war.

Good, perhaps some of you will be weeded out.

I need to do absolutely nothing. There are other things that I should do, and even more things that I want to do...

But this is not the place to discuss such things.

You need to go to Taco Bell and order a peanut butter and jelly sandwich.

So there's no such thing as being born gay
I knew that excuse was BS

There's no such thing as being born with any sexuality.

 

[V h o]

Who knows it probably will, but only if society starts accepting it or considering it moral.