patrick.net

Ceffer says

They were eventually disbanded, then came back in a somewhat modified form, and oddly enough, became some of the 'free thinkers' of the Church, which was unlike their original mission to be enforcers. The Church offered moral exceptions to its apparatchiks. They had already established networks of schools and universities, so they remained in eduction.

Exactly. The whole history of 16th-17th Century England is basically Jesuit Subversiveness.

forklift says

Well, now we're stuck with this shitty solution because the right wanted to force their culture upon others, so the left has deemed it necessary to force their own culture onto society. Wouldn't it have been great if we were all just left to choose what culture we wanted for ourselves and our families?

The exact opposite; the whole thing was a slippery slope that started with decriminalizing/not enforcing Sodomy laws, through civil unions that become marriage, that became anti-bullying, that has now ended up with not only Pro-Gay Affirmation Propaganda, but Trans Propaganda at the public level, paid with public funds.

It should have started and ended with Sodomy laws not applying in residences of gays or select "gay areas" like bars and bathhouses, but enforced everywhere else. Now California has banned police from DNA testing condoms and tissues in public bathroom troll locations, lest a gay person be held to the same standards of Hets in terms of Public Indecency. Or that the knowing spread of HIV/AIDS (and HIV alone) by non-disclosure is decriminalized, whereas TB and anything else is rigorously held to regulations and enforcement.

The mistake of Libertarians was to forget that nature abhors a vacuum, and if Conservatives don't stand up to Sexual Immorality, the void will be filled with Leftist Degeneracy.

I used to believe "Don't impose your morality on me" ... it's become "Let me impose my immorality on you"

Sexuality is the most territorial of territorial instincts. It will always raise hackles, and it is why it needs to remain compartmentalized. Even aside from moral arguments, there have been subcultures that catered to those whose behavior and sexuality offended the bulk of the population. They need to remain in their subculture venues with like minded individuals.

The social subversives know that sexual minority practices are always the bomb against public instincts of family, pair bonding, genetic succession and nominal morals. They just use it as gasoline subversion.

Gays and sexual minorities should know better than to step outside their subculture contexts, because they will never be immune to social backlash, it's in the biology for better or worse.

Patrick says

I guess it's cheaper to file jointly if you are legally married.

It depends. If dual income it's usually more expensive.

Tenpoundbass says

Gay marriage is pointless, the whole point of marriage is to procreate in a family unit to nurture children, and future generation, of "YOUR" genes.

Yes, marriage is in essence about legitimizing children in a ceremony where the man says "I agree to support the children from this marriage." And men do this with the understanding that the woman will not cheat and will care for the kids. Even with infertile couples, it's still a promise for the husband to support the wife.

Gay marriage is a mockery of all that, a childish demand to be called something they are not. Very much like tranny demands for you to lie in public about their actual sex.

Eric Holder says

It depends. If dual income it's usually more expensive.

At least in California it’s cheaper to file jointly. That’s because California has a community property rule where the sum total of a husband/wife’s income is split to calculate tax liability if filing separately. And there’s a benefit in the tax schedules to filing jointly. I suppose if they aren’t married then it might be different.

Shaman says

At least in California it’s cheaper to file jointly. That’s because California has a community property rule where the sum total of a husband/wife’s income is split to calculate tax liability if filing separately.

True. But this is another way this state is fucked.

Eric Holder says

True. But this is another way this state is fucked.

Har, Har! "How is California totally fucked? Let me count the ways."

Ceffer says

Har, Har! "How is California totally fucked? Let me count the ways."

It sure would be a lot nicer if there wasn’t such a hefty state income tax.

MisdemeanorRebellionNoCoupForYou says

I'm working on a theory about Puritans > Faith replaced in Politics > Puritanical Religion.

If you look at the whole thrust of Leftism in the US, it begins in Western Mass/Upstate NY in the late 19th among Liberal Christians. "Women's Bible", etc.

Huh, I think you're right there. Had not considered it.

And I bet most of those very liberal Christians were women.

MisdemeanorRebellionNoCoupForYou says

How does Gay Marriage Harm You?

Someone could as easily make the case of How does child molestation harm you? If it doesn't harm you in any way, shouldn't it be OK in general?

Ceffer says

It's called demoralization, not moralization, simple. Everything is upside down, nothing makes sense, people are scrambled on purpose, lies are force fed as doctrine etc. etc.

Yeah I dread June and all the gay worship.

It hurts everyone. Promotes idea of sodomy as normal... existance based on hedonistic pleasure seeking and life of irresponsible behavior.

Patrick says

And I bet most of those very liberal Christians were women.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxKAI3gIVRU

The whiff of hopium: Look at the crowd in the pews; all of them are past their fertile years, many by decades.

MisdemeanorRebellionNoCoupForYou says

It ain't even about the Gay, or the Religion, it's about controlling you. Forcing you to condone degeneracy is a bonus.

People hate Bible Christianity because the Bible peers into the heart and soul and reveals every offense we are guilty of. The homonormative, transnormative, pedonormative, whateverotherperversionormative movement seeks to override their own consciences as well as societies conscience which is silently screaming day and night that these lifestyles are offensive to the Creator.

I believe that the reason people with strange sexual lives want so desperately for others to accept and condone their behavior is because deep down their conscience is condemning themselves.

The fact that Christians are now being arrested for speaking their beliefs tells you how far gone this culture has become. If you are offended by a person who says that God condemns a certain lifestyle, that is your problem. But if we start jailing people for speaking their beliefs that is ALL of our problems. When people can be jailed for speaking their beliefs it is only a matter of time before they jail any one of us on their whims of control.

Fortwaynemobile says

Promotes idea of sodomy as normal

What about anal sex in a hetero relationship, do you also see this as wrong?

BayArea says

Fortwaynemobile says

Promotes idea of sodomy as normal

What about anal sex in a hetero relationship, do you also see this as wrong?

That is actually wrong yes. Biblically wrong, fucking poop basically.

First, the state has no authority to say who's married or not. And last, this isn't about gay marriage, it's about free speech. Gay marriage isn't harming this guy, censorship is. But good news, this sound extremely libelous, lawyer up dude!

Anal sex is freakin' nasty, period. Would you stick your dick in a gas station toilet with a turd in it?

MisdemeanorRebellionNoCoupForYou says

Would you stick your dick in a gas station toilet with a turd in it?

There you go, getting them all excited again.

MisdemeanorRebellionNoCoupForYou says

Anal sex is freakin' nasty, period. Would you stick your dick in a gas station toilet with a turd in it?

Not in Bloomington, IL. Came back from Ozarks over the weekend and stopped there. Zero fucks were given on upkeep and meth heads chilling in a single occupant bathroom, probably fucking each other or blowing each other. Two motels next door. Shady America at it's finest. They also got $1,200+ if they have a dependent for drugs and are fucked up.

We've got to stop paying people to be deadbeats. There's no valid argument. I'd rather pay to open the asylums again at this point. Lobotomize people again. We've gone full Tropic Thunder retard at this point.

WookieMan says

We've got to stop paying people to be deadbeats. There's no valid argument. I'd rather pay to open the asylums again at this point.

Well, you're just 40 years too late.

I mean honestly, how hard would it be to build a building designed exclusively for high density living in a secluded area for homeless people to get clean and back on their feet?

A 10' by 3' room with just a bed, and if you want to get fancy, extended by 3x3' for a toilet, sink and shower. You wouldn't even have to heat a place so small. Fold up bed, communal kitchen, and then a bunch of work programs or education. Maybe mental health workshops.

The truth is the government has no interest in fixing the problem. They only care about exploiting people.

You could rent new RV's for less than $2600 in quantity.

I agree that it would actually be pretty cheap to house in the homeless far away from the cities, and that government does not actually care about doing that.

But from my experiences with the homeless in SF, they demand to be in the cities because that's where the drug supply is, and the majority of them are on hard drugs. That's what they live for, so they're not going to go out to the boonies. I think a lot of them are thieves and prostitutes to get their drug money, and the pickings would also be slim out in the countryside.

There's another set, I think a smaller set, which is the mentally ill. They may want help, but some of them are quite difficult to help. They might benefit from a stable place to live away from the city, but they would need food as well as housing. They live on the scraps of the city, kind of like pigeons.

I think there are very few who are truly long-term homeless outside those two groups. Anyone who is not mentally ill and willing to work can usually find someplace to live.

Patrick says

marriage license is a government "license to fuck"

I'm not married to my "wife" for this exact reason. 18 years and going strong. I do not invite the government into my relationships.

It’s not my intention to hurt anyone, but there are certain truths that we must face when ready. I love all of my students, but I will never lie to them regardless of the consequences. I’m a teacher, but I serve God first, and I will not affirm that a biological boy can be a girl and vice versa because it’s against my religion. It’s lying to a child, it’s abuse to a child, and it’s sinning against our God.

On Friday, the district confirmed that Cross had been put on paid leave. Leesburg Elementary principal Shawn Lacy issued a brief statement.

“Because this involves a personnel matter, I can offer no further information,” Lacy wrote.

Cross’s wife believes all the information needed to understand her husband’s forced leave is available. Angela Cross took to Facebook on Friday to say that her husband was placed on leave “as a result of his speaking out.”

“As Americans, we believe that every American has the right to their beliefs, but NO AMERICAN HAS THE RIGHT TO IMPOSE THEIR BELIEFS ON OTHERS,” she wrote.

“We spoke out first and foremost to protect the children and also to defend the first amendment rights of teachers and staff,” Angela Cross wrote.

“We spoke out first and foremost to protect the children and also to defend the first amendment rights of teachers and staff.”

According to the Loudoun Times-Mirror, the specific policy Cross refused to follow stated that “staff shall allow gender-expansive or transgender students to use their chosen name and gender pronouns that reflect their gender identity without any substantiating evidence.”

Angela Cross stated that her husband “will do everything he can” to return to work as soon as possible.

https://www.breitbart.com/sports/2021/05/28/gym-teacher-put-on-leave-after-refusing-to-address-trans-students-by-preferred-pronouns/

https://notthebee.com/article/japanese-district-court-rules-against-same-sex-marriage-because-and-i-quote-marriage-is-a-relationship-between-a-man--a-woman

Japanese court rules against same-sex marriage because, and I quote, "marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman"

Japan remains the only member of the Group of Seven major industrialized nations that does not recognize same-sex marriage, as the Osaka District Court ruled that the country's ban on gay marriage does not violate the nation's constitution.

In 2019, 14 same-sex couples filed lawsuits against the government in five cities: Sapporo, Tokyo, Nagoya, Fukuoka, and Osaka. So far Sapporo and Osaka have had rulings; neither granting a ruling against the government.

While the Sapporo opinion ruled that banning same-sex marriage was a form of discrimination that violated Article 14 of the Japanese constitution, it did not violate Article 24 of the Japanese constitution, which lays out the country's rights concerning marriage and says,

"Marriage shall be based only on the mutual consent of both sexes and it shall be maintained through mutual cooperation with the equal rights of husband and wife as a basis."

Note the "both sexes" bit.

Homosexuality has been legal in Japan since 1880, so they made a point to make marriage distinctly for heterosexual couples in their constitution, which makes it very difficult to argue that banning gay marriage is "unconstitutional."

The Osaka court reiterated the country of Japan's official position on marriage, which is that the

"purpose of marriage was reproduction," and that "marriage is a relationship between a man & a woman to bear children and raise them together in cohabitation."

Yup. Gay marriage was another landing craft for this war on the family. Rockefeller/lesbian financed feminism was one of the first. Women were stupid enough to believe that shit, while insisting on full female privilege. They always insist on full female privilege.

Patrick says

I think there are very few who are truly long-term homeless outside those two groups. Anyone who is not mentally ill and willing to work can usually find someplace to live.

A homeless guy used to live on my street. He used to caution me against his "violent dog" who was anything but - I think he said that because he was afraid of me. I'm generally good with dogs anyhow and it was just a little thing, even if it was violent, nicks and scratches.

We struck up a little bit of a friendship. He was bankrupted by medical debt when he got cancer. He was employed. Worked security. He had a gym membership so he could shower and clean up. I'm right next to a Safeway that has a public toilet. I'm certain the proximity to Safeway gave him unlimited internet use as well. Not a bad guy.

I think there's quite a few people like that. He wasn't a drug addict, he wasn't mentally ill. He just needed some stability to get back onto his feet.

Ceffer says

Yup. Gay marriage was another landing craft for this war on the family. Rockefeller/lesbian financed feminism was one of the first. Women were stupid enough to believe that shit, while insisting on full female privilege. They always insist on full female privilege.

OK, I'm going to defend feminism, as it was in 1950.

My mother, when she got married, was immediately fired from her job, because what is the point of keeping a woman around in the graphical art department who is just going to be pumping out kids anyhow?

I had a great aunt that timed her pregnancies so that she gave birth during the summer so she wouldn't be fired as a teacher.

Now on the OTHER side of this....

I had a "math teacher" that got pregnant for 3 years straight, taught for 1/2 the year, and we were stuck with a substitute. Despite this asshole of a teacher, I managed to become an engineer. Fully paid leave, and this was under Ronnie Reagan.

richwicks says

He wasn't a drug addict, he wasn't mentally ill. He just needed some stability to get back onto his feet.

LOL! Since you have 'accurately' diagnosed him as neither a drug addict or mentally ill, why don't you give him a place to stay until he is back on his feet? That's the 'proof of the pudding' for the homeless co-dependents, until you find you fell for their sob story and start finding your belongings at the local pawn shop.

richwicks says

My mother, when she got married, was immediately fired from her job, because what is the point of keeping a woman around in the graphical art department who is just going to be pumping out kids anyhow?

Yep. And this keeps labor costs high and allows men to support a stay at home mother of their kids.

richwicks says

I think there's quite a few people like that. He wasn't a drug addict, he wasn't mentally ill. He just needed some stability to get back onto his feet.

Very few. Not even 10% of the homeless.

About 2/3 are drug addicts and most of the remaining third started as mentally ill, but because of the fictional book/movie Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest 60s Radical "People aren't Crazy, Society is" Leftist Propaganda, don't get the 24-7 institutionalized care (halfway houses with a Social Justice Worker can't keep tabs or control the half dozen or more of them) they used to get, develop alcohol/drug addictions to deal with the voices/instability.

Genuine Homeless people without serious mental or drug problems bounce back very quickly.

If you read the story I put up about my Sheriff and the Hotel, even the "Sympathetic" figure of the mother reveals the truth when she says her family is afraid to visit for fear of being pulled over - probably because they're barely functional drug addicts with a list of outstanding crimes.

AmericanKulak says

Genuine Homeless people without serious mental or drug problems bounce back very quickly.

Mainly because this is exactly the person they want for subsidized housing. However, there was one homeless woman on bad tube who had no drug or alcohol usage, didn't smoke, and she was homeless for a while and said every homeless person she met in the homeless camps except for herself had substance abuse problems. That's in addition to the mental illness, ex-cons etc. etc.

Every addict has a sob story that exonerates them because it is phishing for chumps.

AmericanKulak says

richwicks says

My mother, when she got married, was immediately fired from her job, because what is the point of keeping a woman around in the graphical art department who is just going to be pumping out kids anyhow?

Yep. And this keeps labor costs high and allows men to support a stay at home mother of their kids.

Perhaps, but I don't think women should have less opportunity then men, simply because of their sex.

I think very few people do.

Consider a woman that refuses to have children, but is suspected she may, she'd experience discrimination.

I don't think there should be paid leave for women who have children either. That's a MAJOR THING in your life, and I think a woman that chooses to stay home with her kids, is probably the best caregiver her kids can possibly have.

Let society work it out, government - fuck off. Change attitudes, not laws.

I like the early feminism in that women just wanted equal opportunity, I fully support that unconditionally but I believe attitudes should have been modified, not the legal system. Government fucks everything up. I feel the same way about civil rights. Black people felt they were getting the short end of the stick, AND THEY WERE, so they started demanding that they could police their own communities but have access to white communities. Segregation was largely a government function, not private. If you're a corporation in a FREE MARKET, you don't discriminate based on race, a dollar is a dollar. This was working out in the 1950's and 1960's so when this was working out the government had to get involved to divide us once again.

If a company discriminated against blacks or Chinese or whatever, I'd boycott them today. So would most of the United States - in a free market, this shit works itself out.

AmericanKulak says

About 2/3 are drug addicts and most of the remaining third started as mentally ill, but because of the fictional book/movie Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest 60s Radical "People aren't Crazy, Society is" Leftist Propaganda, don't get the 24-7 institutionalized care (halfway houses with a Social Justice Worker can't keep tabs or control the half dozen or more of them) they used to get, develop alcohol/drug addictions to deal with the voices/instability.

I'm just talking about a sample of one. That means there is a 100% chance of statistical error in my viewpoint. One other homeless guy I knew on my street, is legitimately insane.

1) There are some homeless who have just fallen on hard times.

2) From there, I'd say it's mentally ill.

3) And from there it's drug addicts, of which either group can fall into.

The problem is our fucking government has no interest in solving the problem or helping people. That's the myth. NO EFFORT is made to solve the problem. It's not hard to make a secure safe, SMALL area for the homeless. People with drug problems can be treated. Mental health is more difficult.

For people without drug problems, build a sanatorium in the middle of nowhere and teach them job skills. Don't keep up? Kick them out. I believe society should protect the vulnerable, because it's cheaper to do in the long run.

Ceffer says

richwicks says

He wasn't a drug addict, he wasn't mentally ill. He just needed some stability to get back onto his feet.

LOL! Since you have 'accurately' diagnosed him as neither a drug addict or mentally ill, why don't you give him a place to stay until he is back on his feet? That's the 'proof of the pudding' for the homeless co-dependents, until you find you fell for their sob story and start finding your belongings at the local pawn shop.

No - he never asked me for a place to stay and I didn't feel sorry for him, and I never helped him. We just talked.

He never imposed upon me in any way. I can't say that about many other people I know. He was quite independent.

BayArea says

Fortwaynemobile says

Promotes idea of sodomy as normal

What about anal sex in a hetero relationship, do you also see this as wrong?

Personally - I just see it as gross. But whatever, you're adults!

You're adults, right?

richwicks says

Perhaps, but I don't think women should have less opportunity then men, simply because of their sex.

I think very few people do.

Women have childbearing work to do which is built into their nature. If this work is neglected, then a whole society dies, which is also a massive harm.

Everything is a tradeoff, but every society which agrees that it should die will be pretty soon be dead. How can that be a good trade for anything?

Ceffer says

Every addict has a sob story that exonerates them because it is phishing for chumps.

This is pretty much the essence of addiction, just like alcoholism.

As long as it's never their fault, it doesn't end. The acceptance of personal guilt and apologizing to all those they have harmed by their very, very bad choices is the beginning of recovery. Addicts have done something wrong and need to face up to that to change anything.

A few of the 12 Steps in AA:

5. Admitted to God, to ourselves, and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs.

6. Were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character.

7. Humbly asked Him to remove our shortcomings.

8. Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all.

9. Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.

10. Continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong promptly admitted it.

I'm pretty sure that gays are in the exact same boat. They have done something horribly wrong and need to take responsibility for their moral failing and apologize for the harm it has caused others, not to mention themselves.