Pride Month

[Dendyy]

I hate fags.

 

[Sooty Soot]

This is incorrect. I know what you are referencing, but weren't those public polls bundling the entire lgbtq+ together? I would be interested in seeing the split between groups. Acceptance of Gay marriage is at an all time high this decade with only a leveling happening these past 3 years. While the reasons as to how Gay rights became accepted so quickly are multifaceted - as annoying as pride is, it did contribute to the positive trend of acceptance that has been occuring over the past 50 years.

Ver archivo adjunto 9089816

Infinity Indians will put an end to fag and tranny parades.

Screenshot this post and come back to it in 20 years.

 

[NoReturn]

Happy pride month from Tess Holliday!

 

[Hooked on phobics]

Infinity Indians will put an end to fag and tranny parades.
Ver archivo adjunto 9090319
Screenshot this post and come back to it in 20 years.

Are you sure?



Indians are weird in that they are homophobic, but also quite accepting if you are a 2/10 effort tranny, so its really more of a larp than anything

But honestly more gay and trans Indians means less Indians overall. LGBT is a sterilizing force. So fuck it, I support transing indians

 

[Sooty Soot]

Are you sure?

Ver archivo adjunto 9090346

Indians are weird in that they are homophobic, but also quite accepting if you are a 2/10 effort tranny, so its really more of a larp than anything

But honestly more gay and trans Indians means less Indians overall. LGBT is a sterilizing force. So fuck it, I support transing indians

Hijras aren't trans, they're real women.

0:15

 

[Anton LaVay’s watersports]

We desperately need another big degenerate faggot boogeyman serial killer like Dahmer or Gacy to scare kids away from the letter mafia.

 

[ewefr8deez nuts]

You're a faggot, question. 1) what was the goal? 2) who was giving the money? 3) how much damage did the trannies do? 4) what about the omney cause and the whole queers for muslims?

1.) Of pride originally? People wanting wider society to accept fags, to serve the interest of a handful of politicians, and to pay a small number of nonprofit workers.
Pride now? People wanting wider society to accept fags, to serve the interest of a plurality of politicians and to pay a moderately larger number of nonprofit workers.

2.)A small amount donations by private citizens, a large amount from companies who want to be seen as inclusive, and the occasional endowment from cities. (All the funds are public information) Those last two camps have been reducing funding as of recent.

3.) a lot of you ask me

4.) not sure what you are asking. If it's "why queers stand for Muslims that want them dead?" It's pretty simple: it's a part of the progressive narrative. They are progs first, queers second. It's not that crazy to think people get caught in narratives that go against their interests. It happens all the time. (See the Democrats and Republicans)

Its because stupid retards don't actually consider purpose of marriage. Marriage fundamentally is the foundation for family, with tax breaks, laws to help cohesion of family unit, ect.

People hate admitting this but its true.

Inb4 some retard mentions sterile couples or whatever, the point is any straight couple has very high odds of reproduction, and I've seen "sterile" couples still end up with kids regardless.

Thats the purpose of marriage, and with fags its throwing that money away from taxes to fund a sodomite life style. Making it about love was the worst thing for the discussion, it's like saying wages are about respect, therefore you must pay anyone who ever volunteers out of respect. That's stupid.

And fags adopting kids is uncommon and often they end up fucked anyway

Love isn't really the central element of marriage, STABILITY is, which is why divorces over otherwise stable marriage over dying sparks are horrible. Loveless marriages get too much shit, especially when sparks can be reignited

Yeah. I think as a secular legal institution gay marriage is fine, if not a bit of a misnomer. But cultural marriages were an institution made for straights. Jack Donovan and Sir Issac Scruton have good takes on gay marriage.

I'm not convinced on your ideas of adoption. Care to support it?

 

[Hooked on phobics]

I think as a secular legal institution gay marriage is fine, if not a bit of a misnomer. But cultural marriages were an institution made for straights.

that's literally backwards. Even as anti gay as I am, I'd find it an acceptable compromise if fags got a cultural tolerance of their existence, and perhaps fringe benefits like hospital visits or whatever, but adding in children adoption, tax benefits, and everything else IS the problem. Hell, I think if anything I think a homo tax as a penalty for domestic union would be applicable, since they are otherwise EXTREMELY wasteful. Double income, no kids, and tax benefited homo couples are an IMMENSE tax waste.

Also cultural is impossible to so firmly control so saying we should give them law benefits but fight for cultural shit is retarded. Even more when culture follows law often. But them being a notable underclass would be acceptable enough for me. Them JUST being tolerated existing is really such a minimal issue compared to everything else which is why it was the Trojan horse for gay rights, turning into hate crime law, baking the cake court orders, ect.

 

[I was a Teenage “JA”-man]

I'm less worried about corporate virtue signalling, and much more worried about this:

Ver archivo adjunto 9090146Ver archivo adjunto 9090152Ver archivo adjunto 9090148Ver archivo adjunto 9090147Ver archivo adjunto 9090153

Cue viral “my kids are below reading level” purple haired teacher tiktok

We desperately need another big degenerate faggot boogeyman serial killer like Dahmer or Gacy to scare kids away from the letter mafia.

cause that worked so well for the troon school shootings the kirk assasination + the love for ted bundy.

 

[SpiderBitch]

Here’s the official video from Postmates advertising it. It’s pretty nauseating.

YTDown_YouTube_Eat-With-Pride-Introducing-the-Bottom-Fr_Media_qmSX7NjsDKA_001_1080p 2.mp4

Really makes you wonder why God continues to put up with this modern-day Sodom and Gomorrah

ETA: The doctor they consulted with on this abomination is a proctologist in New York City by the name of Evan Goldstein, who specializes in surgically repairing the colons of faggots after they horrifically sodomize each other. No I am not making any of this up.

https://drevangoldstein.com/

The jokes write themselves these days, really.

Second edit: According to his website, the faggot colon surgeon is a faggot himself, and has two sons with his husband. He is also a regular contributor to “Gays With Kids” which is an organization that tries to spread faggot propaganda to children and their families.

Jesus fucking wept.

Unironically I have seen some people call this thing problematic towards queers because it ripped off a queer owned business specialising in 'bottom-friendly recipes' as well as just generally encouraging disordered eating for the sake of having more conventional/hetronormative non-poopy sex

 

[ewefr8deez nuts]

that's literally backwards. Even as anti gay as I am, I'd find it an acceptable compromise if fags got a cultural tolerance of their existence, and perhaps fringe benefits like hospital visits or whatever, but adding in children adoption, tax benefits, and everything else IS the problem. Hell, I think if anything I think a homo tax as a penalty for domestic union would be applicable, since they are otherwise EXTREMELY wasteful. Double income, no kids, and tax benefited homo couples are an IMMENSE tax waste.

Also cultural is impossible to so firmly control so saying we should give them law benefits but fight for cultural shit is retarded. Even more when culture follows law often. But them being a notable underclass would be acceptable enough for me. Them JUST being tolerated existing is really such a minimal issue compared to everything else which is why it was the Trojan horse for gay rights, turning into hate crime law, baking the cake court orders, ect.

Interesting. I find the gay tax situation a bit niche since a majority of gay men and a plurality of gay women don't get married (source: trust me bro, but please correct me if I'm wrong.) I think incentivising people to be together is good for society since having too many single people kinda sucks. I can't argue that a gay tax break being the same as a hetero tax break is giving in advantage to gays that don't have children. I think you're characterization of homo couples being an "IMMENSE" tax waste is blown out of proportion. What are the numbers on that? How much does the US spend on marital tax incentives? I believe the scale of the funds could be described as an inefficiency at worst.

Also you brought up child adoption again. I'm interested in reading your argument against gay adoption. Please share. Don't be a fag and just reference it without any support.

 

[stupid frog]

I'm interested in reading your argument against gay adoption. Please share. Don't be a fag and just reference it without any support.

You already know his answer is going to be baby rape. Here's a recent one https://kiwifarms.st/threads/flag-england-teacher-said-baby-was-dead-meat-jury-hears.244530/

 

[SpiderBitch]

Unironically I have seen some people call this thing problematic towards queers because it ripped off a queer owned business specialising in 'bottom-friendly recipes' as well as just generally encouraging disordered eating for the sake of having more conventional/hetronormative non-poopy sex

Important to note that in most places the only thing on the 'bottom friendly menu' was plain iced coffee.

 

[Hooked on phobics]

gay tax situation

For taxes, the amount isn't too important compared to that we are EFFECTIVELY spending taxes on faggots, since that's what tax cuts are. And even assuming 100k homosexuals married couples exist, and get 1k$ tax break, thats 100 mil if my math is right, effectively spent on homos just from my example math, but it could be far, far more..

And I'm not ok effectively spending that to make gays comfy, when its purpose is to subsidize procreation.

As for why raising is bad, rape risk, murder risk (there's many cases of dykes slitting little boys throats because of male derangement syndrome) and plenty of studies show being from a gay parent is perhaps the hugest predictor for life failure of the child, worse than poverty, alone by far.

I'm sure another kiwi can pull up studies or evidence, I'm positive some even exists IN THIS THREAD, but I can't be arsed to look them up atm. These kinda things aren't secret, but I'm also not going to spend 20 minutes looking shit up just so a week later some other asshole can do the same shit. Especially when I'm sure you won't accept it anyway

 

[HOMO FOR LIFE RETURNS]

Happy pride month from Tess Holliday!
Ver archivo adjunto 9090349

How is this hog not dead from heart attack

 

[Maori Kiwifruit Growers]

that's literally backwards. Even as anti gay as I am, I'd find it an acceptable compromise if fags got a cultural tolerance of their existence, and perhaps fringe benefits like hospital visits or whatever, but adding in children adoption, tax benefits, and everything else IS the problem. Hell, I think if anything I think a homo tax as a penalty for domestic union would be applicable, since they are otherwise EXTREMELY wasteful. Double income, no kids, and tax benefited homo couples are an IMMENSE tax waste.

Also cultural is impossible to so firmly control so saying we should give them law benefits but fight for cultural shit is retarded. Even more when culture follows law often. But them being a notable underclass would be acceptable enough for me. Them JUST being tolerated existing is really such a minimal issue compared to everything else which is why it was the Trojan horse for gay rights, turning into hate crime law, baking the cake court orders, ect.

The ONLY solution you can have that would have made both parties happy would be what Israel does where legally they don't allow gay marriage to occur in their country (they don't have it outlawed out right but the mechanism to get fags married doesn't exist because marriage is done at the religious level (and follows their laws and courts for these types of things) and Jews/Christians/Muslims don't allow fag marriage in their religion) but will accept the validity of fag marriages that occur outside the state. This would mean if fags really want to marry they actually have to make an effort, which most won't btw.

 

[thog]

Mike Lawler, (R) NY-17. Endorsed by Trump BTW

 

[Hannibalistique]

The ONLY solution you can have that would have made both parties happy would be what Israel does where legally they don't allow gay marriage to occur in their country (they don't have it outlawed out right but the mechanism to get fags married doesn't exist because marriage is done at the religious level (and follows their laws and courts for these types of things) and Jews/Christians/Muslims don't allow fag marriage in their religion) but will accept the validity of fag marriages that occur outside the state. This would mean if fags really want to marry they actually have to make an effort, which most won't btw.

I'm generally surprised how many (especially jewspergs) refuse to look at how Israel solves issues they complain about. If you think jews are the secret masters of the world, why not steal their solutions?
My pet peeve is how ultra-orthodox manage to combine very high TFR with females getting (secular) education (even more than males, if we only look at secular education), when this is inversely correlated in every other group (and a very visible problem in the west/"westernized" countries like korea etc.).

 

[Toxic BRAAAAP Mask]

Interesting. I find the gay tax situation a bit niche since a majority of gay men and a plurality of gay women don't get married (source: trust me bro, but please correct me if I'm wrong.) I think incentivising people to be together is good for society since having too many single people kinda sucks. I can't argue that a gay tax break being the same as a hetero tax break is giving in advantage to gays that don't have children. I think you're characterization of homo couples being an "IMMENSE" tax waste is blown out of proportion. What are the numbers on that? How much does the US spend on marital tax incentives? I believe the scale of the funds could be described as an inefficiency at worst.

Any joint tax break is really only noticeable when the two spouses have very disparate incomes as the higher earner gets averaged down into a lower bracket, an example would be a part time mom earning 20k and a full time husband earning 80k. If a couple earned say closer to 50/50, it doesn't matter much filing joint or single at standard deductions usually. Sometimes when adding child credits/head of houshold in with single parents and such, marriage penalties still can occur federally if they did get married and filed jointly; just one example of how this can still happen.

Penalties used to be a huge deal though. When two of nearly equal income would, it often turned into a penalty due to how the bracket calculations worked. There was a big Marriage Penalty Relief Act years ago because of how disasterous this was on lower income earners, and over a dozen states still have marriage penalties pop up at state tax level. Many couples of comparable income, regardless of sexuality, might be encouraged to not file jointly by a CPA because of this (or if one has major health bills compared to the other, tax liabilities, etc.).

As for children, unless gays have adopted or surrogate kids (IVF for fertile women and surrogacy expenses are not tax-deductible btw and surrogacy is a top 1 percent of a percentage of a percentage situation anyway), they usually aren't claiming dependants and are only able to claim the same child or adoption credits under the same qualifications as straight parents are anyway.

The TV stereotype is rich, white gays from the middle to upper class, but this definitely isn't reality, so unless a gay guy is marrying a guy way below his station (another percentage of a percentage), there's pretty negligible tax advantages to be had for low-mid income earners to joint file period as we don't live in much of a single-income family society anymore. In theory if one quit their job to raise kids this would bring a tax break (loss of income too so unlikely and pretty negligible unless rich) but the argument was that they're getting a break while having no kids and regardless it would end again once they went back to work, which I'd wager isn't more likely than a straight couple with kids doing the same in current year. Taxes are always going to be a fiddly system with hundreds of variables though.

So really the argument is marriage as an institution, which if it wasn't tied to the legal system, wouldn't be such a big deal, but it is and it was and here we are. But I'm not a tax expert though, I've just filed a lot of them, so grain of salt.

 

[BIG SHOT Autos]

Also you brought up child adoption again. I'm interested in reading your argument against gay adoption. Please share. Don't be a fag and just reference it without any support.

Katy Faust was raised by a lesbian couple by the way.