Abolish gay marriage

i've got ~30 guns.

You can only hold one. Stay off of "grindr" I hear zoomers are jumping fags from there hahaha

You think leftists are the ones making trans bathrooms the issue?

not sure how old you are, but immediately after gay marriage was passed trannies in bathrooms became the next issue.

PLEASE

i mean why logically must someone in favor of gay marriage also be in favor of drugs/surgery for trans kids or whatever

it's the slippery slope that we're on. gay marriage was the start.

2331 arlington, va

why you bullying gays all the time
a gay didn't do anything to you

I always felt the main purpose for "gay marriage" was to adopt kids to molest with impunity.

but why
how are these things related
i can't think of any good answer and apparently you can't either

why you bullying gays all the time

a gay didn't do anything to you

the 'it's not my business what anyone does in the bedroom' argument. fucking bullshit.

I know yr not the one worth $1.2 million, but there are like 5 2331’s in Arlington

i can't think of any good answer and apparently you can't either

i already explained it to you. it's the activists. it's the reason for LGBT++. because they need money and they need new goals to survive. maybe you're not old enough to remember but it used to just be gay rights activists.

these activist groups need to find different goals to survive.

Apart from when he gave you the why in his very first post, which you ignored.

I know yr not the one worth $1.2 million, but there are like 5 2331’s in Arlington

go to each one and knock on the door and ask for mike. then you'll know you found me.

i'm talking about logical arguments
i thought you got this
like say i'm somebody who is in favor of gay marriage
explain to me logically why it would be hypocritical of me given that opinion to oppose the cutting up trans kids

explain to me logically why it would be hypocritical of me given that opinion to oppose the cutting up trans kids

activist organizations don't just close shop once they achieve their goal. they look for a new goal so they can keep bringing in money. i already explained this. hence gay marriage led to trans kids.

it seems like you're not understanding my point and i'm kinda at a loss of how to explain it
maybe picture this
say that two people are discussing what the right choice of action is on various issues
neither person is an activist for anything
they both somehow come to the conclusion that legalizing gay marriage is right
how then do you imagine that one of them might argue that because of this they must be in favor of surgery for trans kids
do you understand now

Marriage is one man and one woman for the creation and raising of children. It is something that is simple and "right". Don't focus on the "right" part for now I'll get to it.
As long as it was defined simply, there was nothing wrong.

Then came the push for "what feels good", and "what seems fair". Now you have people pushing for interracial marriage, because "they're in love". Let's just ignore the much higher incidence of health problems, psychological problems, feelings of alienation, who cares about the children, the important thing is the feel good fuzzies.
Now that we're on the "let people be with who they love", well, why not a man with a man. Now "production of children" isn't the point of marriage anymore, it's "being with who you love". In fact, children aren't even capable of being made in homo relationships.
"But that's not fair!" they cry. And so they push for gay adoption.
And so they push for lowering the age of consent. And so they push for polygamy. And so they push for allowance of incest.

There's zero logical arguments for why "being with the person you love" can't be "being with the people you love".
And by the way, if there's no children possible, why isn't homo incest allowed? "Ruining family bonds"? That was accomplished with the introduction of no fault divorces and a rocketing divorce rate.

I rambled a bit, but your answer is the simple societal shift from "what's right" to "what feels good".

do you agree with gays

ok fine

do you agree with trannies

ok fine

do you agree with tranny kids

it's how the homosexual industrial complex operates. now, do you understand?

First of all lowering the age of consent and allowing incest sounds a lot more like the southern Republican shitholes that have legal marriage ages at 13 if there’s even a limit.

I think when you’re as dumb as you are though there really isn’t much ‘person’ left. You should just kill yourself so you don’t have to waste societies time keeping you alive you pathetic maggot.

yes i get that activists switch topics
that's unrelated to what i'm asking about
do you not understand logic and principles
i'm asking you to make an argument here and you seem incapable
i don't blame you for that since i'm also incapable of making the argument since it makes no sense to me but i'm frustrated that you seem to not even understand what i'm saying

Bro yr talking to a fascist.

It doesn’t think.

These things don’t have complex thought.

before it was just 'gay rights'. now it's LGTB++ rights. i'm saying that it will never end so just go back to the times where fags were in the shadows.

Marriage is designed for the family, the bedrock of civillization. And a family consists of a father and a mother. They're as inseperable as peanut butter and jelly. A family's main job is to create offspring, without which the state wouldn't exist. That's why the state provides married couples with special benefits.

can you connect any of that to issues related to trans kids
like which argument that might convince someone to favor gay marriage will also convince them of favoring trans treatments

(As a man)
Being with a woman creates kids, it's for the continuance of society. Sex happens, you raise them well, society benefits by new workers and productive people.
You get with a man, and what happens. Nothing. No children.
In that vein, even incestuous relationships are better for society than homo relationships.

but anon

you say.

that's still a jump! there are plenty of children, 8 billion people around!

Let's ignore the falling birthrate argument because that's a whole other topic.
If two gay men wanted to be together, why couldn't they just live together and be together? They always could. Marriage is about societal recognition and acknowledgement. Allowing homo marriage is saying "yeah, you go gays, marriage should exist for you to be selfish and not for the sake of society!"

There's zero reason to support homo marriage and not support incest marriage.

but muh retard children

You could make them have some sort of agreement to not have children. Or hell, the first generation of brother-sister pairings have a lower likelihood of something going wrong than a mother over 35, yet geriatric pregnancies are sky high right now.

Give me one reasonable argument in support of homo marriage while being against incest marriage. Also for the purpose of this argument I'm referring to bro-sis or cousin-cousin to avoid the obvious grooming/abuse angle.
If children aren't part of the picture there's zero reasons that don't apply to homos.

It's a fundamental perspective shift on "what's right" vs. "what feels good".
Thus slippery slope.

"What's right" is allowing children to experience the natural development cycle of life. I.e. normal puberty.
"What feels good" is "preventing the poor thing from experiencing the dysphoria of the wrong sex puberty" or whatever.
Ironically this isn't even an argument against transgenderism in general, as this would allow them to transition once they become an adult (though I'm still against that). 1/2

Actual trannies were more normalized before gay marriages than they are now, they were just less prominent and less of a political issue. Also there weren't "tumblr transtrenders", just the sense that some people are "born in a wrong body" and need a "sex change operation" to "change sex"

There were ton of media showing trannies as normal or at least, sex as something that can be changed to the point no one is aware of the change

If a popular and beloved straight male heart throb actor played a drag queen in a multiracial, pro-tranny, pro-feminist movie today it would be a massive "woke" scandal and yet Patrick Swayze did it without any issues in 1990s

used to think that it was schizo to think that this would all lead to pedos

It still is a schizo opinion. The second you start consuming rightoid media you are already being misinformed.

like which argument that might convince someone to favor gay marriage will also convince them of favoring trans treatments

the T in LGBT stands for trans. 'gay rights' somehow became trans rights too. then morphed into trans rights for kids. it's ridiculous that you can't comprehend this.

Idk about trans kids but you can connect the consenting adults argument made in favor of "homosexuality" for a bunch of other stuff too.

Why do you oppose polyandry? If 5 guys wanna be with 2 chicks, then that's their prerogative. They're all consenting adults after all.

Why do you oppose incest? The guy and his cousin, they're both consenting adults and use protection to avoid deformed babies.

2/2
Puberty blockers do not, in fact, serve as a simple pause button. You miss the development window that's it.
And puberty affects a plethora of functions that cripple the child later in life from missing it.
It's a negative result all the way around, and it happens due to the slippery slope of "what feels good" rather than doing "what is right".

I'm scared of puberty!

Puberty is tough for everyone kid, sorry. No pausing or interrupting it, hold on to your butt and enjoy the ride.

I said ironically earlier, let me continue that. Puberty blockers lead to small genitalia to work with which makes the transitioning harder (or at least the SRS portion).
But people don't care about the end results, or the child's health, or even the trannies health. They're caught up in some weird social zeitgeist thing thinking children can consent to life altering surgery that is, by it's very nature, irreversible while also decrying the child from dating anyone over the age of majority because they're not mature enough for a relationship. Lmao. (That's why I earlier mentioned the age of consent btw).

i'm getting absolutely nowhere with op so i'll give you a shot
ignore anything related to gays ok
just pretend if you're capable that we've all decided that gay people can marry
now try to put yourself in the mindset of someone who wants their kid to undergo a sex change surgery
make the argument to me that because i'm in favor of gay marriage, i therefore must also be in favor of your thing

Actual trannies were more normalized before gay marriages

i worked at a dollar store in high school. there was a regular customer that came in dressed as a woman. we all just knew him as that weird guy. the fact that they want to normalize this shit now is insane.

it was always a slippery slope

That is so important to understand when it comes to all social political issues. Most of the younger generations who were born into endless LGBTQ propaganda do not understand the endless social political battles to get to this point

Many of you faggots think the social political battles of today are new and topics are just being covered for the first time. You do not understand that arguments from the LGBTQ faggots of the 1980s/90s and 2000s have almost been completely abandoned by the LGBTQ faggots because they are no longer pretending and lying

Endlessly in the 1980/90s and 2000s the faggots would argue that the faggot movement would never become a slippery slope even though it already was. The faggots said they would never target children which they did in private at the time and do openly now

If the AIDS spreading LGBTQ faggots of the 1980/90s and 2000s could see how one day they would no longer hide their motivations the LGBTQ movements would have been crushed instantly. The LGBTQ faggots lied endlessly to get people to accept their agenda

It was always a slippery slope

I've already made several posts explaining the underlying philosophy. If you can't grasp that then I'm not sure what to tell you.

The argument for gay marriage is ultimately "people should be able to do whatever they want as long as they're not hurting anyone!".
I explained earlier how previous ideas of marriage were not, in fact, about "doing whatever you wanted", but I'll try to keep it simple in this post.
If you support gay marriage, a permutation of "do whatever you want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone", there's no reason not to support transgenderism, "do whatever you want as long as it's not hurting anyone". And thus that same consistent mindset will also apply to children "doing whatever they want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone".

Some people may try to argue drug use, but that's easily countered by "drugs hurt the user duh". But if you support transgenderism for adults, why not for children? Of course, there are many reasons why not, more for children than for adults of course due to the aforementioned puberty blockers, but people willingly ignore the arguments for adults so why not ignore the arguments for children also.
Because it's no longer about "what's right", or doing whatever for their physical well being, it's about placating delusions, "what feels good".

now try to put yourself in the mindset of someone who wants their kid to undergo a sex change surgery

make the argument to me that because i'm in favor of gay marriage, i therefore must also be in favor of your thing

"Why do you care? It's not hurting anyone."

but people willingly ignore the arguments for adults so why not ignore the arguments for children also.

the main argument for not allowing kids do to any given thing can't apply to adults, which is that kids aren't adults and therefore don't have the same rights as adults to decide certain things for themselves

The argument for gay marriage is ultimately "people should be able to do whatever they want as long as they're not hurting anyone!".

do you actually mean people in general or do you mean consenting adults

Are you unable to grasp the concept of "slippery slope"? Like, can you imagine another scenario where it would exist outside of this one?
Or am I attempting to explain per capita to some black man.

do you actually mean people in general or do you mean consenting adults

It doesn't matter. If you want to play the game of "consenting adults" then, as mentioned earlier and completely ignored apparently, argue why polygamy and incest isn't included in your "consenting adults" stance.

Are you unable to grasp the concept of "slippery slope"?

maybe i don't understand it the same way you do
if to you it just means that people arguing in favor of one thing will switch to arguing in favor of another thing for no reason then i get it
if it means that there is a reason then i'm still at a loss to find the reason in these issues

argue why polygamy and incest isn't included in your "consenting adults" stance

no because that's completely beside the point
maybe arguments in favor of gay marriage can be used for that or maybe not but i don't care because what i'm interested in is how gay marriage relates to trans kids
stay on topic
so far i've seen nothing to convince me that support for gay marriage must necessarily logically lead to a support for trans kid "treatments"

People defending faggotry on Anon Babble

The last bastion of the resistance was penetrated. The west has truly fallen. ITS OVAH kek

if to you it just means that people arguing in favor of one thing will switch to arguing in favor of another thing for no reason then i get it

if it means that there is a reason then i'm still at a loss to find the reason in these issues

Well. It seems you don't actually understand it then.
I don't really know what else to tell you besides taking a break and researching that itself.

Explaining why left wing activists slippery sloped us from legalizing sodomy to communist preschool teachers gaining the legal right to confiscate and forcibly castrate your young children without informing you or requiring your consent is less relevant than the fact that they did

Gay 'marriage' is not a thing, stop using their language. The fact it's legally recognized does not make it a thing. You could call it a marriage but it's not a marriage and never will be, this is the great irony for them. Reality stands as a witness against them, now ofc this doesn't mean that the legal system should recognize something that does not exist.