Crowder has a pretty poor argument, but I know it resonates with Groypers because it's such a poor argument.

I mean, "marriage is not a human right, it's a privilege". And so is "citizenship" so de-citizen niggers and deport them all, shoot if they resist, because human rights were not violated.

Well, that resonates with paleoconservativism because niggers weren't supposed to intermingle with whites.

But it's a piss poor argument.

Marriage to citizenship is quite the leap, marriage isn’t a right, otherwise the incels would have a point when they talk about state mandated girlfriends

If you reject equality under the law and only refer to inalienable rights, you can remove privileges arbitrarily. Why should a nigger be allowed to own a car?

I mean, it's not a human right! It's a privilege. Privilege can be taken away.

A skin color test might be a good way to determine who loses his driving license.

That doesn’t really have anything to do with equity under the law or inalienable rights. In fact here in the US driving is JUST a privilege the state can just take away at the snap of their fingers

whoa - who's talking about rejecting equality under the law?

But we don’t see blacks losing their cars

Well unless they break the law but that’s the same with whites and other races

@snake But should it done to niggers for being dark-skinned, and why not? Not talking about traffic violations here.

No, what would be the point of that?

What is the point of gays not having a way to get state-based marriage benefits like heterosexual couples?

And before you go with "children", do acknowledge that people with tubes tied can get married.

Why should sterile heterosexual couple have the privilege of marriage?

Maybe they shouldn’t

Yeah, but **we don't hear Crowder or Groypers arguing that**.

We hear them being anti-gay but not anti-sterile.

Because it hasn’t been brought up

They have the chance to bring it up, yet they bring up gays instead. You cannot blame a third party for them to use bad arguments.

If you went on twitter or payed Nick Fuentes 1 buck on his stream to ask the question then you’ll get the answer

If marriage is for children, marriage should **NOT** be allowed to childree heterosexuals. They should get at least a certificate of pregnancy. (edited)

It’s not a bad argument, because the focus is on gays which is LGBT

Which is what their talking about

Gay marriage becoming a slippery slope

For what?

2015 gay marriage
2019 gay pride parades with old men flashing their dongs to boys

Forced transition of kids

That’s what they mean, the slippery slope

I don't really see reason why gay marriage necessitates continuing that route since those aren't even about marriage.

It's just that LGBT had no genuine issue to fight anymore, so they're spinning their wheels now, fighting against boredom. It's the same as with suffragettes and 2nd wave feminists.

Their worried about the deconstruction of social norms

Entirety of feminism is because women got bored to stay at home, being provided by men.

Which is ironic that tradcons want to re-institute the conditions what created female boredom and feminism.

Well I’ll talk to you later, my bus just got to school

>2019 gay pride parades with old men flashing their dongs to boys
That already happened 20 years ago, and iirc even earlier

There's also no consistent argument against gay marriage, meaning you'd just let irrationality rule

Reason is the only thing keeping me sane, so that would be a big no from me

Also, imo married couples shouldn't get any extra benefits just for being married, and not even for having children