Originally Posted by Taramarie

Of course it is but i still think he looks like an orangy spud.

Taste is subjective. Personally I wish he wouldn't use that dollar store brand bronzer he can afford better.

Originally Posted by Taramarie

We have many many charity organizations. I mention i am part of one of them....the SVA, remember? Do we make money out of what we do? Hell no!

The presence of charity organizations does not make a country socialist. If it did, then the US would be incredibly socialist because we have charities for everything.

Originally Posted by Taramarie

Which i agree with but i also do consider others may feel differently.

Those people are wrong and stupid. Since the legalization of same-sex marriage in Florida on the basis of the ruling of the Supreme Court there have been few problems but also few marriages. For the life of me I can't fathom why a straight person would choose to be married, particularly a straight man.

Originally Posted by Taramarie

I did not throw it in as it is irrelevant to me. I would say that i expect anyone to believe anyone should have the equal opportunity to do as they please whether it is getting married, or being with who they want to be with etc. Btw i feel the same about marriage as you do but i also think people may have a different opinion and wish them well and all the best if they do choose to be married.

It is irrelevant, but the concept of intersectionality is not and I encounter it frequently. Often when Odin and I argue it is on the basis of being a black faggot with the unapproved viewpoint. It is my view that the whole issue with marraige equality as it was called had absolutely nothing to do with equality--if the goal was equality blanket civil unions like France does would to the trick. No, rather, the point was for the Democrats and the SJW types to be able to plonk down all the little fags with their husbands and they tiny dogs in their nice gayborhoods and have a voting block.

Unlike most I understand that those who shout the loudest about this issue from the so-called progressive side do not care about me, or my BF or my adopted son as individuals. They care only about us as units of a collective known as "the homosexuals".

Originally Posted by Taramarie

I realize that. I was talking about their replacements.

If their replacements are citizens then they would have full rights of course.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Eric is terribly predictable. Hence why I don't debate him--he's boring and I debate for my own amusement. I've even been known to take up preposterous positions that I don't agree with for the point of debating.



Illegal immigrants have no legal recourse so those employers will not pay them the minimum wage let alone a fair wage, or even provide them with the worker's rights to which they would otherwise be entitled. Why is that? Because they are here illegally, and current policy is to deport the immigrant and to fine the company a small fee (far too small to be honest, so small it is considered "the cost of doing business").

As such the solution is to first stem the flow coming in--a wall will help there. And second a massive increase in fines for hiring them. No one is going to hire 100 Juans when the fine for being caught is 1 million dollars each. No jobs for them, no immigrants. This means these positions will either be automated (a lot of these jobs are very hard to automate) or hiring citizens with their full rights to benefits, minimum wage and etc.

Those with citizen children might be permitted to stay, in fact I think they should, but they should have to go through our legal process. I do not favor amnesty even if being in the country illegally is a misdemeanor. I'm looking at this from a national security perspective. We need to know who these people are, what they do and if they are a threat to our nation.



I have no interest in emigrating to South Africa, I have a fetish for working electricity and they've been having rolling black outs for the past year according to the BBC. As for our health, neither of us has any major health problems (I do have a bum knee but it doesn't prevent me from working), and neither of us is obese. Like I said, I checked it out, it would be easy for both of us to emigrate to NZ but we have no desire to leave our country.

Yup those black outs are called "load shedding." They happen often as they do not have enough generators to provide electricity to all. So they cut off areas for hours to days sometimes. I would not recommend going there even to my worst enemy. Not for the electricity issues but it is a very unstable and dangerous environment.

Originally Posted by Taramarie

Not only that....what about their children who may be US born citizens. What about the costs to ship them out? How are they going to round these people up and are they going to force their US born kids out with them? They will have to because who will look after them? Is that right to force out citizens? Loads of things to consider. Btw never going to go on the racist rant. I will leave that to the dems. I am considering stability of a nation.

Their parents are here illegally and their parents will have to make the choice whether to leave them with family members who are here legally or to leave here with them. As US citizens, they will have the right to return when they're adults. What would happen to NZ if a half a million more poor people showed up on your shores illegally with the intent of staying and your government refused to do anything? What impact would it have on you, NZ's infrastructure, cost of the services that you receive from the government and the taxes that you pay for them? I suspect it would have a major impact and I suspect the locals would begin to react negatively? Also, what would your opinion be of foreigners who demand that you should completely ignore them and accept all cost associated with them for the sake of the children among them who happened to be born in NZ?

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Taste is subjective. Personally I wish he wouldn't use that dollar store brand bronzer he can afford better.



The presence of charity organizations does not make a country socialist. If it did, then the US would be incredibly socialist because we have charities for everything.



Those people are wrong and stupid. Since the legalization of same-sex marriage in Florida on the basis of the ruling of the Supreme Court there have been few problems but also few marriages. For the life of me I can't fathom why a straight person would choose to be married, particularly a straight man.



It is irrelevant, but the concept of intersectionality is not and I encounter it frequently. Often when Odin and I argue it is on the basis of being a black faggot with the unapproved viewpoint. It is my view that the whole issue with marraige equality as it was called had absolutely nothing to do with equality--if the goal was equality blanket civil unions like France does would to the trick. No, rather, the point was for the Democrats and the SJW types to be able to plonk down all the little fags with their husbands and they tiny dogs in their nice gayborhoods and have a voting block.

Unlike most I understand that those who shout the loudest about this issue from the so-called progressive side do not care about me, or my BF or my adopted son as individuals. They care only about us as units of a collective known as "the homosexuals".



If their replacements are citizens then they would have full rights of course.

You would think he would but he obviously likes being an oompa loompa.

No they aren't. Their life, their choice. Who are we to stop them from marrying because it is deemed"wrong and stupid?" Gasp, is that an "irrelevant PERSONAL opinion" i hear? Who are you to tell people what they can and cannot do with their lives? Are you wanting to live their lives for them? We have our own personal view on marriage. Mine is very similar to yours in fact. But i also believe my opinion should not impact the lives of others. Same for others too. You did not want other people to impact your life so why do so to them? As for a straight man, i hear you on that. Women tend to benefit from divorces which is wrong in my opinion.

I think maybe some in fact were wanting equality and nothing more. I am one of those who simply wanted them to have equal rights. You probably will not believe me as usual but that is the truth. What makes you think they do not care about you individually? I see a lot of news from over there. It baffles me that they lump people into categories. Whites, blacks, hispanics, gays, straights etc. Very off putting. They make it seem like a war.

Originally Posted by Taramarie

I have heard that will not stop those coming in from sea. Immigrants come from all over. If this wall is just between us and mexico i do not see how it will help at all. Immigrants come from all over. How will they make sure they leave when they are supposed to and how is a wall going to stop that? Does he really think the mexicans will build that wall?

Well for starters there will likely be greater enforcement at our ports and airports as well. It really isn't hard to spot a foreigner in this country. I have to deal with them on a daily basis. It doesn't take much to actually enforce the borders and points of entry, but the biggest problem is people walking across the southern boarder which is "protected" by a rag tag collection of sheet metal that was put up piecemeal by the locals.

Personally I think think that is red meat for the base. I certainly wouldn't want the Mexicans building the damn thing--sounds like an invitation to sabotage. I also doubt they would pay for it either--but it doesn't hurt to ask.

Originally Posted by Taramarie

It already is in the ways i mentioned. I noticed Eric had no response when i told him this when he was debating with me that immigrants create jobs by being customers.....they need a freaking job before they become a customer! Therefore they are taking up jobs that kiwis are unable to get as they are a cheap hire. At my job alone, it is like spot the black or white person. Most of them are hispanic immigrants. I know because they say they were not born here. They favour them over citizens. Naturally because they are cheaper to hire. Destabilizing my country. Try tell Eric that though.

Try telling Eric that reality are those things that still exist even when you stop believing in them. He doesn't get that one either.

I think we're on the same page as far as the destabilizing element that immigration causes, particularly unchecked immigration, and particularly at times when the number of workers exceeds the number of jobs. But it goes further than that, unchecked immigration destabilizes the culture of a nation. Culture is a manifestation of the national psychology, and as such absorption into a new culture can take quite some time, and that assumes that the culture being immigrated to has an assimilationist bend to it (like the US does clearly and NZ probably does). It becomes much harder when it does not, like say Germany where there are people who are born German citizens, but who are still culturally alien to Germans even though their family has been in Germany three or four generations.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Their parents are here illegally and they're parents will have to make the choice whether to leave them with family members who are here legally or to leave here with them. As US citizens, they will have the right to return when they're adults. What would happen to NZ if a half a million more poor people showed up on your shores illegally with the intent of staying and your government refused to do anything? What impact would it have on you, NZ's infrastructure, cost of the services that you receive from the government and the taxes that you pay for them? I suspect it would have a major impact and I suspect the locals would begin to react negatively? Also, what would your opinion be of foreigners who demand that you should completely ignore them and accept all cost associated with them for the sake of the children among them who happened to be born in NZ?

Classic xer, you should know i am against people coming in that we cannot support. It was be devastating to our economy. If children are born in NZ, they have the right to stay here. That is their right. This is why I am voting for winston Peters. He will control who comes in here to stop this from happening till we are stable enough to allow more in.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Well for starters there will likely be greater enforcement at our ports and airports as well. It really isn't hard to spot a foreigner in this country. I have to deal with them on a daily basis. It doesn't take much to actually enforce the borders and points of entry, but the biggest problem is people walking across the southern boarder which is "protected" by a rag tag collection of sheet metal that was put up piecemeal by the locals.

Personally I think think that is red meat for the base. I certainly wouldn't want the Mexicans building the damn thing--sounds like an invitation to sabotage. I also doubt they would pay for it either--but it doesn't hurt to ask.



Try telling Eric that reality are those things that still exist even when you stop believing in them. He doesn't get that one either.

I think we're on the same page as far as the destabilizing element that immigration causes, particularly unchecked immigration, and particularly at times when the number of workers exceeds the number of jobs. But it goes further than that, unchecked immigration destabilizes the culture of a nation. Culture is a manifestation of the national psychology, and as such absorption into a new culture can take quite some time, and that assumes that the culture being immigrated to has an assimilationist bend to it (like the US does clearly and NZ probably does). It becomes much harder when it does not, like say Germany where there are people who are born German citizens, but who are still culturally alien to Germans even though their family has been in Germany three or four generations.

Yes it certainly does. Yes we are on the same page. As for making sure immigrants do not come in and stay i hope so. But what if they are simply here for a visit and overstay. Can they go into hiding? Is that even possible anymore? Clearly yes as there are illegals now working. He would have to make it impossible for illegals to get jobs unless they have a work visa or intending on becoming a permanent resident/citizen. Even still i am against it as Americans, like kiwi's need work and they should come first. So, how to make sure a visitor will leave a country when they are supposed to....

Originally Posted by Taramarie

Yup those black outs are called "load shedding." They happen often as they do not have enough generators to provide electricity to all. So they cut off areas for hours to days sometimes. I would not recommend going there even to my worst enemy. Not for the electricity issues but it is a very unstable and dangerous environment.

Parts of Orlando are quite dangerous as well. One of the worst neighborhoods being locally known as "Crime Hills" (its real name is Pine Hills...but the violence there is really high).

I brought up the electricity thing because having been outside of the US I have really found no country I like better. The UK comes a close second followed by Canada (I can deal with the cold, but I would prefer not to). I went to Australia once, didn't care for it. And the EU has ruined Europe so they're out too though Germany used to be really nice.

Originally Posted by Taramarie

You would think he would but he obviously likes being an oompa loompa.

That or he hasn't gotten around to firing whatever staff member is responsible for it. But it is a small matter. My support is not based on his taste (or lack thereof) in cosmetics.

No they aren't. Their life, their choice. Who are we to stop them from marrying because it is deemed"wrong and stupid?" Gasp, is that an "irrelevant PERSONAL opinion" i hear? Who are you to tell people what they can and cannot do with their lives? Are you wanting to live their lives for them? We have our own personal view on marriage. Mine is very similar to yours in fact. But i also believe my opinion should not impact the lives of others. Same for others too. You did not want other people to impact your life so why do so to them? As for a straight man, i hear you on that. Women tend to benefit from divorces which is wrong in my opinion.

Yes, they are wrong and stupid. The civil institution of marriage is the weakest business arrangement one can enter into, and one that confers very few rights should the contract be dissolved. Furthermore, it has obvious and clear religious connotations and as such it is my view that the government, both state and federal has no business involving itself in a sacrament of the churches. Allowing everyone regardless of their sex to enter into a civil union with anyone else regardless of their sex would solve the problem, and could be constructed in such a way that the dissolution of that union confers certain rights to both parties. There is a reason why MGTOW is a thing these days.

Women benefit far too much from divorce, in fact most divorces are initiated by women, usually on silly grounds like "they're not happy" or "irreconcilable differences". In short it is an excuse for them to take off, find a different man and force their ex-husband to pay of it while refusing him custody and access to his progeny. For heterosexuals the whole thing is a sham, why should I want that as a gay man? I like being able to pick up and leave and have sex with whomever I want. And that is exactly how I'd behave if I didn't have my BF, who I'm monogamous with because that is what we've chosen to be. In short I'm not a cuck, and I respect and love him too much to turn him into a cuck.

I think maybe some in fact were wanting equality and nothing more. I am one of those who simply wanted them to have equal rights. You probably will not believe me as usual but that is the truth. What makes you think they do not care about you individually? I see a lot of news from over there. It baffles me that they lump people into categories. Whites, blacks, hispanics, gays, straights etc. Very off putting. They make it seem like a war.

If the end goal is equality I'm all for that. The best way to get it is to simply not have the government involved in marriage at all. Marriage has clear religious connotations and is therefore not the business of government. I want a separation of church and state because like Madison I believe that church involvement in the secular affairs of the state corrupts the state, and conversely the state involved in matters of faith corrupts the church.

The SJW types wish there was a race war. A lot of it is that Racism is dead, Homophobia is dead, Sexism is dead and they are looking to cook up any excuse to continue existing. It is Kafkaesque.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Those people are wrong and stupid. Since the legalization of same-sex marriage in Florida on the basis of the ruling of the Supreme Court there have been few problems but also few marriages. For the life of me I can't fathom why a straight person would choose to be married, particularly a straight man.

Straight males get married to legally protect the status and financial future of their chosen wife/wives and their children. I understand why you are unable to fathom the reason as to why we do it. I assume that you have never loved a woman in the the same way as I have during my life. The way you love a mother or sister or girlfriend is very different than the way you love a woman who has the potential to become a long term wife.

Originally Posted by Taramarie

Yes it certainly does. Yes we are on the same page. As for making sure immigrants do not come in and stay i hope so. But what if they are simply here for a visit and overstay. Can they go into hiding? Is that even possible anymore? Clearly yes as there are illegals now working. He would have to make it impossible for illegals to get jobs unless they have a work visa or intending on becoming a permanent resident/citizen. Even still i am against it as Americans, like kiwi's need work and they should come first. So, how to make sure a visitor will leave a country when they are supposed to....

Let us assume that you came here on a tourist visa, or a student visa. The former allows you to stay up to six months per year for 10 years. You cannot work on that visa at all so economics would force you to return if you bothered to get such a visa. The vast majority of illegals in the US did not bother with that, they crossed the boarder by walking across it. Those that come by boat are usually caught by the Coast Guard--they are pretty efficient about it too. Airports have pretty tight security and only a few are international ports of entry.

A student visa you can stay provided you are a student, usually at a university but it would also apply to exchange students as well in lower levels of education. There is some limited work permissions, but generally when you graduated would be reported to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

If current laws were rigidly enforced, it would be impossible for illegals to work without proper documentation. The problem is that these laws are not rigidly enforced, and haven't been since Ronald Reagan and that has been the case under Republican and Democratic administrations. Becoming a resident alien is pretty easy if you have a citizen sponsor (a child over 21, a spouse [includes gay partners due to that supreme court ruling], or other immediate relative [parent, grandparent, aunt/uncle etc])...citizenship is more difficult. One needs to be a resident alien for a number of years, refrain from being convicted of any felony and be able to support themselves and pass a difficult test.

Most of what Trump wants to do in this regard is to merely enforce existing laws.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Parts of Orlando are quite dangerous as well. One of the worst neighborhoods being locally known as "Crime Hills" (its real name is Pine Hills...but the violence there is really high).

I brought up the electricity thing because having been outside of the US I have really found no country I like better. The UK comes a close second followed by Canada (I can deal with the cold, but I would prefer not to). I went to Australia once, didn't care for it. And the EU has ruined Europe so they're out too though Germany used to be really nice.



That or he hasn't gotten around to firing whatever staff member is responsible for it. But it is a small matter. My support is not based on his taste (or lack thereof) in cosmetics.



Yes, they are wrong and stupid. The civil institution of marriage is the weakest business arrangement one can enter into, and one that confers very few rights should the contract be dissolved. Furthermore, it has obvious and clear religious connotations and as such it is my view that the government, both state and federal has no business involving itself in a sacrament of the churches. Allowing everyone regardless of their sex to enter into a civil union with anyone else regardless of their sex would solve the problem, and could be constructed in such a way that the dissolution of that union confers certain rights to both parties. There is a reason why MGTOW is a thing these days.

Women benefit far too much from divorce, in fact most divorces are initiated by women, usually on silly grounds like "they're not happy" or "irreconcilable differences". In short it is an excuse for them to take off, find a different man and force their ex-husband to pay of it while refusing him custody and access to his progeny. For heterosexuals the whole thing is a sham, why should I want that as a gay man? I like being able to pick up and leave and have sex with whomever I want. And that is exactly how I'd behave if I didn't have my BF, who I'm monogamous with because that is what we've chosen to be. In short I'm not a cuck, and I respect and love him too much to turn him into a cuck.



If the end goal is equality I'm all for that. The best way to get it is to simply not have the government involved in marriage at all. Marriage has clear religious connotations and is therefore not the business of government. I want a separation of church and state because like Madison I believe that church involvement in the secular affairs of the state corrupts the state, and conversely the state involved in matters of faith corrupts the church.

The SJW types wish there was a race war. A lot of it is that Racism is dead, Homophobia is dead, Sexism is dead and they are looking to cook up any excuse to continue existing. It is Kafkaesque.

Again, your opinion. Just because i have no intent on marrying anyone does not mean my opinion should affect others. To solve it, have options.

This we agree on. But look out, someone will call you a sexist. Won't be me as i mentioned earlier women benefit more from a divorce, especially if there is a child involved. Or they marry just for the money then divorce so they get their share.

Personally, and i have mentioned this to others who are even more so for marriage, that my opinion is that no one needs marriage. Marriage should not define how people feel about each other. It should be about the couple. But he kept going on saying it is destabilizing the economy and families etc. But, that said....that is just an opinion. One that is personal and should remain so as others should feel free to do as they wish. If they want to marry, have at it. Have a civil union, have at it. Just be together, go for it. Gay, straight etc etc. You keep saying sjw but i have no idea what that is. For me personally, yes it is for equal opportunity. I cannot tell you what others intent are. Homophobia, sexism and racism certainly is alive and well. When i went over to SA, i tell you...i was shocked. I have recently been hearing it is also here in NZ although on a lesser scale. It used to be way worse before i was born. Against maori's. But not so much now. Most actually blast people if they make some nasty remark. I suppose they did not do that as much back in the day. In SA it is actually getting worse. Was quite frightening to be over there.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Straight males get married to legally protect the status and financial future of their chosen wife/wives and their children. I understand why you are unable to fathom the reason as to why we do it. I assume that you have never loved a woman in the the same way as I have during my life. The way you love a mother or sister or girlfriend is very different than the way you love a woman who has the potential to become a long term wife.

I've not even had a girlfriend, cause I'm a gold star gay. So no, I've never loved a female in the the same way as one typically describes loving a wife. My boyfriend however is practically an extension of myself so I may have some inkling of the feeling, something that isn't true of my mother or my sister or my father--but we both find the concept of marriage silly. Why do we need a piece of paper to tell us what we already know?

But let us be serious here for a moment. The institution of marriage, stripped of all its religious la-di-da exists for two main reasons, particularly for heterosexuals, that is to secure the inheritance of property however small or great to the offspring created from that marriage and to secure for the mother of said offspring the resources to insure those offspring survive. In reality, and historically, it has typically had little if anything to do with love, it was a business arrangement. The female derives protection and resources in exchange for offspring.

Currently with women being able to obtain economic resources in the absence of men, marraige has become superfulous to heterosexuals. I see very little for men to gain from it, particularly for a marriage to a woman. And for homosexuals the historical basis is not even present--we have always existed and existed outside of the construct of marriage except wherein the procurement of offspring was of paramount importance. That is one reason why the term "confirmed bachelor" is a euphemism for someone who is a gay man.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Let us assume that you came here on a tourist visa, or a student visa. The former allows you to stay up to six months per year for 10 years. You cannot work on that visa at all so economics would force you to return if you bothered to get such a visa. The vast majority of illegals in the US did not bother with that, they crossed the boarder by walking across it. Those that come by boat are usually caught by the Coast Guard--they are pretty efficient about it too. Airports have pretty tight security and only a few are international ports of entry.

A student visa you can stay provided you are a student, usually at a university but it would also apply to exchange students as well in lower levels of education. There is some limited work permissions, but generally when you graduated would be reported to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

If current laws were rigidly enforced, it would be impossible for illegals to work without proper documentation. The problem is that these laws are not rigidly enforced, and haven't been since Ronald Reagan and that has been the case under Republican and Democratic administrations. Becoming a resident alien is pretty easy if you have a citizen sponsor (a child over 21, a spouse [includes gay partners due to that supreme court ruling], or other immediate relative [parent, grandparent, aunt/uncle etc])...citizenship is more difficult. One needs to be a resident alien for a number of years, refrain from being convicted of any felony and be able to support themselves and pass a difficult test.

Most of what Trump wants to do in this regard is to merely enforce existing laws.

Ok sounds good to me. That is what winston is pretty much wanting to do here.

Most studies indicate that people in long-term relationships (like marriage) are healthier in middle age. After divorce, men tend to return to better health sooner than women.

In general, men become richer after divorce: http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandst...women-research

In the US, probably because women are more likely to leave the workforce to have/raise children and therefore have a lower income when returning to work.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Women benefit far too much from divorce, in fact most divorces are initiated by women, usually on silly grounds like "they're not happy" or "irreconcilable differences". In short it is an excuse for them to take off, find a different man and force their ex-husband to pay of it while refusing him custody and access to his progeny. For heterosexuals the whole thing is a sham, why should I want that as a gay man? I like being able to pick up and leave and have sex with whomever I want. And that is exactly how I'd behave if I didn't have my BF, who I'm monogamous with because that is what we've chosen to be. In short I'm not a cuck, and I respect and love him too much to turn him into a cuck.

As a general, it takes years of emotional/physical rejection for a woman to come around to the idea of filing for divorce based on the grounds that they're unhappy or irreconcilable differences. I dunno, I'd rather be the one who is free to do what I want, when I want with whoever I want, where ever I want without having to take the interests of the wife and kids into account and dish out a fixed percentage of income with a guaranteed amount of home equity that is legally owed to me in the future than be the one stuck with paying the mortgage and cost associated with up keep and stuck with the kids and the bulk of the costs associated with the kids and a massive decrease in the pool of prospective male suitor's due to the baggage.

Originally Posted by Taramarie

Again, your opinion.

It is not my opinion that marraige has significant cultural and religious implications. It is a social fact. It is a reality, those implications don't go away when I stop believing in them.

This we agree on. But look out, someone will call you a sexist.

Well I'm not sexist. I actually love some women--most can go to hell but so can most men. I've been called sexist before. Hell I've been called a racist homophobe before. A gay black man with a white boyfriend a racist homophobe!

Won't be me as i mentioned earlier women benefit more from a divorce, especially if there is a child involved. Or they marry just for the money then divorce so they get their share.

As the institution is currently structured, there is little to no benefit to men in the context of today's society.

Personally, and i have mentioned this to others who are even more so for marriage, that my opinion is that no one needs marriage. Marriage should not define how people feel about each other. It should be about the couple. But he kept going on saying it is destabilizing the economy and families etc. But, that said....that is just an opinion. One that is personal and should remain so as others should feel free to do as they wish. If they want to marry, have at it. Have a civil union, have at it. Just be together, go for it. Gay, straight etc etc. You keep saying sjw but i have no idea what that is. For me personally, yes it is for equal opportunity. I cannot tell you what others intent are. Homophobia, sexism and racism certainly is alive and well. When i went over to SA, i tell you...i was shocked. I have recently been hearing it is also here in NZ although on a lesser scale. It used to be way worse before i was born. Against maori's. But not so much now. Most actually blast people if they make some nasty remark. I suppose they did not do that as much back in the day. In SA it is actually getting worse. Was quite frightening to be over there.

Gay marriage isn't going to destabilize the family unit, feminism has already seen to that. (in before Odin comes in with "Hurr, Kinser is a reactionary sexist, durp.") Rather the historical and cultural point of marriage is not relevant to gay people, particularly gay men. The only real reason to even have it is for tax, insurance and inheritance purposes for one's partner--all of which can be easily covered under a civil union, and covered even better under power of attorney.

As to SJWs...I mean Social Justice Warriors. They are a particular breed on the Regressive Left who use feminism, racial politics and other forms of "causes" to promote their regressive agenda, such as resegregation on the basis of race. Seriously MLK must be spinning in his grave over some of the bullshit Black Lives Matter has been pulling recently. The topic is really too deep and involved to get into here, but if you're truly interested in a classical liberal perspective on them I suggest Sargon of Akkad's youtube channel. He's fairly decent (and kind of cute even if /pol/ calls him a cuck on occasion but /pol/tards is as /pol/tards does).

Racism? Never personally experienced it. At most I might have detected so-called microagressions which is little more than ignorant people being ignorant and only relevant to those who choose to live their lives being offended by everything and everybody. I know people like that, they are fucking miserable and make everyone around them miserable. Do. Not. Want. Homophobia is very much dead. I've not been ever discriminated against for being gay not even in the military and on a submarine no one has any secrets. I've been called faggot loads of times but I've been called a nigger too. I don't let it bother me. Sexism is very very dead.

But why do I say that these three things are dead? The answer is simple, if our society was racist no one would be concerned at all at being called a racist...The same is true for homophobe and sexist. The racist/sexist/homophobic component would simply be part of the way things are and no one would think about them in the slightest. Instead in the US the police are afraid to profile Arab men for fear of "racial profiling" even though many acts of terrorism have been committed by that group in our and other countries. The Rotherham rape case in the UK wouldn't be a thing in a racist society--a case where the police did nothing about a rape ring of minor white british girls by a gang of Pakistani men. And the list goes on and on.

If anything the currently existing racism is coming from these supposedly progressive Social Justice Warriors and the cuck hangers on. They are seeking to create racism, sexism and homophobia where none exists to justify their continued existence.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

It is not my opinion that marraige has significant cultural and religious implications. It is a social fact. It is a reality, those implications don't go away when I stop believing in them.



Well I'm not sexist. I actually love some women--most can go to hell but so can most men. I've been called sexist before. Hell I've been called a racist homophobe before. A gay black man with a white boyfriend a racist homophobe!



As the institution is currently structured, there is little to no benefit to men in the context of today's society.



Gay marriage isn't going to destabilize the family unit, feminism has already seen to that. (in before Odin comes in with "Hurr, Kinser is a reactionary sexist, durp.") Rather the historical and cultural point of marriage is not relevant to gay people, particularly gay men. The only real reason to even have it is for tax, insurance and inheritance purposes for one's partner--all of which can be easily covered under a civil union, and covered even better under power of attorney.

As to SJWs...I mean Social Justice Warriors. They are a particular breed on the Regressive Left who use feminism, racial politics and other forms of "causes" to promote their regressive agenda, such as resegregation on the basis of race. Seriously MLK must be spinning in his grave over some of the bullshit Black Lives Matter has been pulling recently. The topic is really too deep and involved to get into here, but if you're truly interested in a classical liberal perspective on them I suggest Sargon of Akkad's youtube channel. He's fairly decent (and kind of cute even if /pol/ calls him a cuck on occasion but /pol/tards is as /pol/tards does).

Racism? Never personally experienced it. At most I might have detected so-called microagressions which is little more than ignorant people being ignorant and only relevant to those who choose to live their lives being offended by everything and everybody. I know people like that, they are fucking miserable and make everyone around them miserable. Do. Not. Want. Homophobia is very much dead. I've not been ever discriminated against for being gay not even in the military and on a submarine no one has any secrets. I've been called faggot loads of times but I've been called a nigger too. I don't let it bother me. Sexism is very very dead.

But why do I say that these three things are dead? The answer is simple, if our society was racist no one would be concerned at all at being called a racist...The same is true for homophobe and sexist. The racist/sexist/homophobic component would simply be part of the way things are and no one would think about them in the slightest. Instead in the US the police are afraid to profile Arab men for fear of "racial profiling" even though many acts of terrorism have been committed by that group in our and other countries. The Rotherham rape case in the UK wouldn't be a thing in a racist society--a case where the police did nothing about a rape ring of minor white british girls by a gang of Pakistani men. And the list goes on and on.

If anything the currently existing racism is coming from these supposedly progressive Social Justice Warriors and the cuck hangers on. They are seeking to create racism, sexism and homophobia where none exists to justify their continued existence.

I agree, but that does not mean that you get a say as to whether people should feel free to marry or not. No one should get to say that. It is your opinion when you say they are stupid and wrong regardless of whether you think they are or not. Personal choice at the end of the day should remain free.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

It is not my opinion that marraige has significant cultural and religious implications. It is a social fact. It is a reality, those implications don't go away when I stop believing in them.



Well I'm not sexist. I actually love some women--most can go to hell but so can most men. I've been called sexist before. Hell I've been called a racist homophobe before. A gay black man with a white boyfriend a racist homophobe!



As the institution is currently structured, there is little to no benefit to men in the context of today's society.



Gay marriage isn't going to destabilize the family unit, feminism has already seen to that. (in before Odin comes in with "Hurr, Kinser is a reactionary sexist, durp.") Rather the historical and cultural point of marriage is not relevant to gay people, particularly gay men. The only real reason to even have it is for tax, insurance and inheritance purposes for one's partner--all of which can be easily covered under a civil union, and covered even better under power of attorney.

As to SJWs...I mean Social Justice Warriors. They are a particular breed on the Regressive Left who use feminism, racial politics and other forms of "causes" to promote their regressive agenda, such as resegregation on the basis of race. Seriously MLK must be spinning in his grave over some of the bullshit Black Lives Matter has been pulling recently. The topic is really too deep and involved to get into here, but if you're truly interested in a classical liberal perspective on them I suggest Sargon of Akkad's youtube channel. He's fairly decent (and kind of cute even if /pol/ calls him a cuck on occasion but /pol/tards is as /pol/tards does).

Racism? Never personally experienced it. At most I might have detected so-called microagressions which is little more than ignorant people being ignorant and only relevant to those who choose to live their lives being offended by everything and everybody. I know people like that, they are fucking miserable and make everyone around them miserable. Do. Not. Want. Homophobia is very much dead. I've not been ever discriminated against for being gay not even in the military and on a submarine no one has any secrets. I've been called faggot loads of times but I've been called a nigger too. I don't let it bother me. Sexism is very very dead.

But why do I say that these three things are dead? The answer is simple, if our society was racist no one would be concerned at all at being called a racist...The same is true for homophobe and sexist. The racist/sexist/homophobic component would simply be part of the way things are and no one would think about them in the slightest. Instead in the US the police are afraid to profile Arab men for fear of "racial profiling" even though many acts of terrorism have been committed by that group in our and other countries. The Rotherham rape case in the UK wouldn't be a thing in a racist society--a case where the police did nothing about a rape ring of minor white british girls by a gang of Pakistani men. And the list goes on and on.

If anything the currently existing racism is coming from these supposedly progressive Social Justice Warriors and the cuck hangers on. They are seeking to create racism, sexism and homophobia where none exists to justify their continued existence.

Racism is alive and well in Africa i assure you. On both sides.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

As a general, it takes years of emotional/physical rejection for a woman to come around to the idea of filing for divorce based on the grounds that they're unhappy or irreconcilable differences. I dunno, I'd rather be the one who is free to do what I want, when I want with whoever I want, where ever I want without having to take the interests of the wife and kids into account and dish out a fixed percentage of income with a guaranteed amount of home equity that is legally owed to me in the future than be the one stuck with paying the mortgage and cost associated with up keep and stuck with the kids and the bulk of the costs associated with the kids and a massive decrease in the pool of prospective male suitor's due to the baggage.

Many of these same women base this emotional/physical rejection on the fact that in order for them to justify the continuance of the marriage they need to be able to extract more and more resources from the man. Female hypergamy is such that women almost never marry down but a man clearly will if said woman is "hot enough". Naturally this will eventually lead to his physical and emotional exhaustion leading to such rejection. A well rested man who isn't emotionally drained (assuming his anatomy is functioning correctly) should be down to service her at any time she desires. It is simply male biology.

As for the financial drain that children pose, it is called child support, and you will pay it, or else. Often this is more than enough to support both her and the children in the manner to which they are already accustomed, furthermore with child custody structured the way they are she will have control of the children and can grant or limit your access to those children as she sees fit.

If your goal is to do what you want, when you want, with whom you want your best option is to never marry if straight or be gay. If I were straight I would see many merits in the MGTOW philosophy, but I'm not, and I thank whatever supreme being(s) may exist that I was born gay and never have to suffer through that nonsense.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

It is not my opinion that marraige has significant cultural and religious implications. It is a social fact. It is a reality, those implications don't go away when I stop believing in them.



Well I'm not sexist. I actually love some women--most can go to hell but so can most men. I've been called sexist before. Hell I've been called a racist homophobe before. A gay black man with a white boyfriend a racist homophobe!



As the institution is currently structured, there is little to no benefit to men in the context of today's society.



Gay marriage isn't going to destabilize the family unit, feminism has already seen to that. (in before Odin comes in with "Hurr, Kinser is a reactionary sexist, durp.") Rather the historical and cultural point of marriage is not relevant to gay people, particularly gay men. The only real reason to even have it is for tax, insurance and inheritance purposes for one's partner--all of which can be easily covered under a civil union, and covered even better under power of attorney.

As to SJWs...I mean Social Justice Warriors. They are a particular breed on the Regressive Left who use feminism, racial politics and other forms of "causes" to promote their regressive agenda, such as resegregation on the basis of race. Seriously MLK must be spinning in his grave over some of the bullshit Black Lives Matter has been pulling recently. The topic is really too deep and involved to get into here, but if you're truly interested in a classical liberal perspective on them I suggest Sargon of Akkad's youtube channel. He's fairly decent (and kind of cute even if /pol/ calls him a cuck on occasion but /pol/tards is as /pol/tards does).

Racism? Never personally experienced it. At most I might have detected so-called microagressions which is little more than ignorant people being ignorant and only relevant to those who choose to live their lives being offended by everything and everybody. I know people like that, they are fucking miserable and make everyone around them miserable. Do. Not. Want. Homophobia is very much dead. I've not been ever discriminated against for being gay not even in the military and on a submarine no one has any secrets. I've been called faggot loads of times but I've been called a nigger too. I don't let it bother me. Sexism is very very dead.

But why do I say that these three things are dead? The answer is simple, if our society was racist no one would be concerned at all at being called a racist...The same is true for homophobe and sexist. The racist/sexist/homophobic component would simply be part of the way things are and no one would think about them in the slightest. Instead in the US the police are afraid to profile Arab men for fear of "racial profiling" even though many acts of terrorism have been committed by that group in our and other countries. The Rotherham rape case in the UK wouldn't be a thing in a racist society--a case where the police did nothing about a rape ring of minor white british girls by a gang of Pakistani men. And the list goes on and on.

If anything the currently existing racism is coming from these supposedly progressive Social Justice Warriors and the cuck hangers on. They are seeking to create racism, sexism and homophobia where none exists to justify their continued existence.

May be true in America, but in other societies not so much regarding sexism, homophobia etc. They still lynch and burn people for being different in some places. But I would say at least it is dying in America and other places due to backlash, most often from younger generations.

Originally Posted by Taramarie

I agree, but that does not mean that you get a say as to whether people should feel free to marry or not. No one should get to say that. It is your opinion when you say they are stupid and wrong regardless of whether you think they are or not. Personal choice at the end of the day should remain free.

But it does. The state has no business in marriage at all because of those social and religious implications. I fail to see what is so hard to understand about wanting a complete separation of the religious and the secular. Of course that could be a uniquely American phenomenon.

Originally Posted by Taramarie

Racism is alive and well in Africa i assure you. On both sides.

Racism is a problem in Africa, but Africa is not the West which is where we both live. Anyone who wants to go fight racism in Africa is welcome to try, but Africa cannot be fixed from without, only from within so they are ultimately wasting their time.

Originally Posted by Taramarie

May be true in America, but in other societies not so much regarding sexism, homophobia etc. They still lynch and burn people for being different in some places. But I would say at least it is dying in America and other places due to backlash, most often from younger generations.

Again, any who wants to tackle those problems in those places is welcome to. In the West they are nothing more than shrill neo-puritians devoid of any joy in life and seeking to ensure that no one else can possibly have any joy.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

But it does. The state has no business in marriage at all because of those social and religious implications. I fail to see what is so hard to understand about wanting a complete separation of the religious and the secular. Of course that could be a uniquely American phenomenon.



Racism is a problem in Africa, but Africa is not the West which is where we both live. Anyone who wants to go fight racism in Africa is welcome to try, but Africa cannot be fixed from without, only from within so they are ultimately wasting their time.

Well some marriages can be without the religious part involved in a marriage. If i were to marry i would go for that and also make sure mine and my hubby's property and money was kept separate. I am sure there is some arrangement available for that. Never been married. I love being single. My ex wants to try come to NZ again once he has paid up his car. Wants to marry me. Eh, i would not care if married or not but i would opt for the non religious sort if to marry as i am an atheist. But that would be a decision for the both of us to discuss. I think America does tend to mix religion and politics together more. It is an odd culture to me. But I am sure many places tend to mix it in also in varying degrees. The east especially, like Yemen to name one place. Yes, it has no place in politics, but it should be an option for some who want to have that service available and keep other alternatives available too.

As for fixing racism in Africa....good luck to anyone who tries but they are risking their lives if they try. Yes, wasting their time and also will likely be killed. Life is cheap over there sadly.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

But let us be serious here for a moment. The institution of marriage, stripped of all its religious la-di-da exists for two main reasons, particularly for heterosexuals, that is to secure the inheritance of property however small or great to the offspring created from that marriage and to secure for the mother of said offspring the resources to insure those offspring survive. In reality, and historically, it has typically had little if anything to do with love, it was a business arrangement. The female derives protection and resources in exchange for offspring.

Currently with women being able to obtain economic resources in the absence of men, marraige has become superfulous to heterosexuals. I see very little for men to gain from it, particularly for a marriage to a woman. And for homosexuals the historical basis is not even present--we have always existed and existed outside of the construct of marriage except wherein the procurement of offspring was of paramount importance. That is one reason why the term "confirmed bachelor" is a euphemism for someone who is a gay man.

The two of you have opted to wing it which is fine for the two of you. The two of us opted to legally bind with marriage just in case one of us died or we ended up getting a divorce. We have one legal piece of paper that sorts everything out. How many legal pieces of paper will you need to sort everything out if something bad happens or you split? Lets see, you need a legal will, a legal beneficiary statement from insurance, a living will, a legal power of authority, a legal title for property and so on. We have one legal piece of paper that covers everything.

Originally Posted by Taramarie

Well some marriages can be without the religious part involved in a marriage. If i were to marry i would go for that and also make sure mine and my hubby's property and money was kept separate. I am sure there is some arrangement available for that. Never been married. I love being single. My ex wants to try come to NZ again once he has paid up his car. Wants to marry me. Eh, i would not care if married or not but i would opt for the non religious sort if to marry as i am an atheist. But that would be a decision for the both of us to discuss. I think America does tend to mix religion and politics together more. It is an odd culture to me. But I am sure many places tend to mix it in also in varying degrees. The east especially, like Yemen to name one place. Yes, it has no place in politics, but it should be an option for some who want to have that service available and keep other alternatives available too.

As for fixing racism in Africa....good luck to anyone who tries but they are risking their lives if they try. Yes, wasting their time and also will likely be killed. Life is cheap over there sadly.

America is a mix of religion, ethnicity, cultures and political belief that has been largely kept together by the simple notion of common courtesy. The bulk of Americans are god believers of some sort. Your world wouldn't have been discovered and settled without people who had faith in God. I doubt an atheist would be willing to accept a challenge considered to be humanly impossible and venture across uncharted waters to locate and settle unknown lands. True, we don't need as much faith in god on a planet that we now know like the back of hand that has been civilized enough to travel and live safely.