Their icky emotions about it predate religion.

You’re going to have to prove that one because religion has existed alongside humanity for all of known history and marriage of first cousins is still common in the Arab world.

We already know that rules against incest don’t lead to rules against people with defects reproducing.

Says who? We’ve only just started our journey down the path of total secularity. We have no idea how this is going to play out. China’s CRISPR program has already demonstrated that gene editing is possible and Canada is letting people kill themselves. Brave New World already imagined how these ideas will run wild once free of the baggage of the past. Secularity has no moral construct. All options are on the table including the sterilization of people with hereditary defects.

You’re expecting people who support gay marriage to convince you about some other thing.

No I’m saying that gay marriage crosses the rubicon. It is a complete departure from what marriage means in any historical or religious context. Which begs the question of what it is and why it even exists. If gays can marry despite prohibition across all cultures for all of human history then where are the limits? Who sets those limits and why to they get to be in charge of who gets to be married? It all falls apart you see.

And if any of these social taboos are actually a good idea, then you’re lumping gay marriage in with them, like comparing gays to pedophiles.

Don’t dismiss the argument because you are uncomfortable with the possible implications. Contend with the premise. You drew that conclusion not me.

Your view is an intellectually honest one from a modernist perspective. I would go further though and say that marriage should have no secular existence at all.

• polygamy is patriarchy, gay marriage isn’t

First of all this is a self-refuting assumption. It assumes out of the gate that women aren’t equally capable of leveraging polygamy to the subjugation of men. If women are not equally capable of abusing polygamy then patriarchy is naturalistic. If they ARE equally capable then this objection collapses.

Secondarily modernity leverages nothing but subjective feelings to make a moral claim about why something like patriarchy is wrong in the first place. “Patriarchy is bad” says who? And why should anyone care? Most of the world and history disagrees with that characterization. If cultural imperialism is “bad” isn’t it culturally imperialist to wholly reject all surviving traditions that predate the last 150 years because they aren’t compatible with an emergent value system? I could go on but hopefully you get my point about rootless modernism and it’s lack of justification for ought claims. Not to mention the lack of logical consistency for their ever-changing framework.

• incest is bad for the gene pool, gay marriage isn’t

Should people with genetic defects be able to reproduce? To what extent are we just acting as eugenicists?

Marriage and the rules around it are inherited from traditions that modernism rejects. The attempt to continue PARTS of these traditions by arbitrarily picking and choosing rules because of what makes us “comfortable” undermines the authority of marriage in general. Why even continue it?

Modernist takes on marriage are anathema to the entire point of marriage in the first place. Furthermore modernism offers no satisfactory reasons for why “modern marriages” should exist at all. “Taxes” is often cited but this could be managed in many other ways. (e.g. legal contractual relationships that enable many of the same benefits ala power of attorney)

If someone supports gay marriage they have no basis for opposing polygamist or incestuous marriages outside of how it subjectively makes them feel. Marriage is historically a religio-cultural institution. Without that context there can be no restrictions that don’t also violate foundational secular values such as personal freedom. Secularity and modernism gatekeeping marriage is a hilarious mental gymnastics routine. These days marriage is just something to keep lawyers in business anyway. The government should just get out of the marriage business entirely at this point.

We will need an immutable signature for content at some point moving forward since AI is going to be so prevalent and it will be easy to make fraudulent clips, podcasts etc. NFTs would be perfect for this.

It’s shorter if you just write “I’m stupid”

Everyone is stupid except for me

I’m being intentionally simplistic. Of course Dems are in on the grift of hollowing out the country.

This is the truth. Politics that really matter happen at home. Prioritize self-reliance and live in accordance with your values to the best of your ability. It’s literally the best you can hope for which is why it is the singular pursuit of people throughout history. The smart man knows the government does not and will never care about him.

Pretending Democrats aren’t corporatists is just dishonest at this point.

They really are the same though and no this isn’t some demoralization post. People always get pissed on here because they think it’s propaganda or something. There is no meaningful difference between Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell outside of the performatives. It’s a joke.

Neoconservatism ruled the last 40 years but it’s not even a “conservative” doctrine. It’s a bipartisan Zionist foreign policy. Trump is a knee jerk response to Dems alienating people with centrist social opinions, Republicans shipping jobs overseas and both of them sustaining pointless forever wars.

You cannot be racist against white people 🤣

I’m sure the same kind of person who complains about a radicalized young white generation.

Yes. Men and women are different.

Context: Just so no one gets confused— The scenario in this post is that the woman presumably who does not want to go to work, possibly because she wants to stay at home and be a domestic worker, is forced to by the state. There is no mysoginy here. Just a comment on what a woman is being forced to do against her will when she may, instead, want to be a mother which is totally fine and normal.

Comment: You can ignore my point if you want. This post is about women being forced to enter the workforce when they want to stay at home. The cope for this disempowerment is that “the state” (e.g. some other person) will raise her kids while she does whatever she is ordered to do. If you don’t see this as anti-human and dystopian I can’t do anything for you.

Commentary: The banning on this instance is a sign of weakness and intellectual dishonesty. My point is valid and actually in support of a woman’s choice in how she wants to live her life. Engage with the idea or accept your sickness as a shill/grievance monger. Lord have mercy.

Wah wah ad hominem. By your logic the state could just pay her to be a Mom.

Removed by mod

Yeah exactly. Mom is going to work to pay for someone to watch her kids when she could just do it herself.

You don’t need all of these communal things if a family simply raises their kids in a traditional way. What you’re describing is the commoditization of the nuclear family. It’s roundabout and worse overall. No one will love your kids and care for them like you will. Also the state pays for nothing because the state makes no money. It comes from the labor of the people. So really the mom is forced into the workforce to pay for childcare. Lol.

Ergodox EZ checking in…