Categories
antifeminism armageddon gender policing homophobia hypocrisy imaginary oppression men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny pedophiles oh sorry ephebophiles playing the victim post contains sarcasm PUA reactionary bullshit red pill rhymes with roosh transphobia

Roosh V: Gay marriage is part of “a degenerate march to persecute heterosexuals” and destroy society

First gay marriage. Then ... this?
First gay marriage. Then … this?

Bigots of a feather flock together, so it shouldn’t come as a great surprise to any of you that the woman-hating, rape-legalization-promoting pickup artist Roosh V is also a raving homophobe. He’s long banned gay folks from posting in his comments, and in a recent video expressed a weird bemusement at the idea of gay men using his, ahem, teachings to have “buttsex.”

Now he’s decided to take up arms against gay marriage. He’s a teensy bit late on this one — it’s already legal in all 50 states, dude! But that doesn’t stop him from spewing forth one of the most over-the-top, conspiratorial takes on the issue that I’ve ever seen. In a post last week on his blog, Roosh argued that

the legalization of gay marriage [is] a full frontal attack on heterosexual men …one phase of a degenerate march to persecute heterosexuals, both legally and socially, while acclimating young children to the homosexual lifestyle. 

How so, Roosh?

The … societal reorganization that is necessary to allow gay marriage automatically elevates homosexuals to a special class of citizenry. To hoist one class you must demote another, meaning that heterosexual men are by default the enemies and oppressors of homosexuals.

Well, some of them are, dude. Like, for example, the ones who go around saying that the legalizing gay marriage is a degenerate attack on heterosexuals.

It is a foregone conclusion that these oppressors, which includes both straight men and women, must be ordered to give tribute, benefits, and submission to the “victim” class. You will eventually kneel whether you like it or not.

Interesting choice of words there. Roosh is such a thickheaded clod that I’m not sure if he did that on purpose or not.

In addition to “aggressively modifying” hetero dude behavior “through social shaming and re-education in schools,” Roosh argues, the Gay Gestapo will force

straight men … to pay taxes for the AIDS drugs of gays, their impulsive sex changes, their mental and medical treatments resulting from sleeping with hundreds of partners, and also the salaries of politicians that continue to vote against traditional family values and basic morality standards.

Oh, and the eeevil gays and their allies will also crack down on the free speech of brave realtalking hetero men. Indeed, he complains, straight men are already muzzled by the Gay Thought Police.

You can make a comment about “toxic masculinity” at work and not get written up by human resources. You can make fun of “lame pick up artists” in your co-ed social circle and get pats on the back. But what happens if you say that homosexuals are degenerates who are spreading HIV to the general population? What happens if you say gay marriage is state-sponsored anal sex?

People laugh at you for being an idiot as well as a raving homophobe?

It won’t be long until you will be forced to declare your allegiance to the homosexual lifestyle to retain your job, to pretend that you’re a believer in social justice just to keep bread on the table.

Not only that, but your co-workers will be deprived of your fascinating disquisitions on how gay marriage is state-sponsored butt sex.

Even more sinister than modifying our speech and behavior is that the homosexual agenda aims to convert children by sexualizing them at a young age. The media normalizes homosexuals as loving and lively characters by showing their lifestyles as exciting, adventurous, and fun instead of the disease-ridden cesspool of drugs and medical horrors that it really is.

[citation needed]

Millions of boys who grow up to experiment with “cool” anal sex thanks to the propaganda will grow up to lead sterile and disturbed lives because of it—if they’re lucky enough not to avoid getting abused through adoptions by homosexual men.

Wat.

Child abuse and pedophilic sex rings will skyrocket, but I hope you’re not expecting this abuse to be covered by the media. Instead, they will push fantastical new rape hoaxes that try to portray straight men as evil. Crimes by homosexuals will be not be pursued or publicized while false crimes done by heterosexuals will be manufactured. 

I think Roosh may be turning into Mr. Burns.

And all this will, of course, lead to THE END OF THE WORLD.

Once heterosexuals such as yourself are persecuted and shamed for preferring vanilla sex, and children are converted to bisexuality or homosexuality with the aid of a gay and transsexual obsessed media, marriage will decline from its already pathetic rate, birth rates will plummet, and society itself will collapse… 

Yipes. And he hasn’t even gotten to the … TRANS MENACE.

The dust from gay marriage hasn’t even settled before the establishment has begun forcing transsexual acceptance down our throats with ABC, ESPN, and Starbucks leading the charge. 

Starbucks?

The media has also started attempts to promote pedophilia as a reasonable alternative lifestyle. 

Dude, I think you’ve mixed up “the media” with “all those Red Pill dudes who want the age of consent lowered to 12.”

[I]f this degenerate march is not halted, we will see a complete inversion of American society where most masculine behaviors are made illegal and the traditional family becomes a relic of the past. Homosexual marriage will only embolden the degenerate forces that have power in America today. Unless they are stopped, I fear great catastrophe, not only for us men, but the country itself.

In other words:

Hysteria? More like man-steria.

 

124 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
epitome of incomprehensilibility

Apparently gay marriage is dusty!

The dust from gay marriage hasn’t even settled before the establishment has begun forcing transsexual acceptance down our throats with ABC, ESPN, and Starbucks leading the charge.

The School of Mixed Metaphors has taught him well.

Let me give a dramatic monologue based on my interpretation of the above paragraph.

“Hm, I want some unnecessarily fancy coffee. Oh, there’s a Starbucks nearby! Cool. Yes, you can take my order. I’ll have a vanilla latte with cinnamon… Excuse me, I didn’t ask for any “transsexual acceptance” with it… Um, you say I have to drink it? Well, okay… Ew, it tastes all dusty! Must be the dust from all that gay marriage going on. Hey, stop trying to make me drink dusty coffee! THAT’S DEGENERATE!!!”

Kat
Kat
9 years ago

@Matt

Shorter Rooshbag: “I mean, *I’d* love to enslave humanity and put to the sword all who resist, so clearly EVERYONE is working from the same script.”

Yes! Well stated, Matt.

Argenti Aertheri
Argenti Aertheri
9 years ago

Orion — I think Muslim husbands are also expected to fulfill their wife’s sexual needs. Fuck, for how repressed with think Victorian London was, they were far raunchier than the American standard seems to be now.

Side note, Monty Python and the Holy Grail is getting an anniversary release here, please tell me they aren’t censoring it to get it PG-13 approved. There’s no way we’d pass that scene with the nuns as PG-13, is there? Is that all more implied and less naked than I remember?

Bina
Bina
9 years ago

Muslim husbands were/are most definitely expected to satisfy their wives in bed; there’s even a guidebook for them, called The Perfumed Garden, which explicitly lays out quite a few of the ways to do so. In fact, if a polygamous Muslim man can’t treat ALL his wives equally well, in bed and out, they have grounds to divorce him, because he’s not entitled to more than he can handle. Says so in the Qur’an…

(Note that this is not an endorsement of polygamy, just an observation that Muslims have very definite rules for it that, unlike the fundie-Mormon form, don’t entirely favor the males.)

Pithy Pseudonym
9 years ago

State-sponsored anal sex? Pshaw. I’ll have you know I sold the naming rights for my anal sex to Bank of America in a 5-year, $20 million deal.

reimalebario
reimalebario
9 years ago

“You can make a comment about “toxic masculinity” at work and not get written up by human resources. You can make fun of “lame pick up artists” in your co-ed social circle and get pats on the back. But what happens if you say that homosexuals are degenerates who are spreading HIV to the general population? What happens if you say gay marriage is state-sponsored anal sex?”

And while we’re at it, you can say a few encouraging words to a coworker and everyone will think you’re just swell but if you spit a coworker or client in the face because they’re members of some minority group you hate, you may find yourself out of a job!
And you can hold a door for a co-worker, but if you punch just one baby in the face, the liberal feminazi gay sympathizers will think you’re some kind of monster!

It’s the GAY AGENDA!!!

occasional reader
occasional reader
9 years ago

Hello.

marriage will decline from its already pathetic rate

Hmm ? Am i wrong with mathematics ? If you open marriage to more various sexual orientation persons, this may lead to more persons marrying (or is it “getting married” ? Sorry, i am often confused with english verb forms), thus the rate will be increasing, not declining…
But maybe what may cause a decline of this rate is the offensive behavior of some people ? The kind of behavior which make potential partners think twice (and some times, even just once) before engaging with you, like abusive and irrespectuous behaviors…
And “teaching” men to elect partners on absurdly low behavior and high appearance standards only, furthermore to sex-only meetings, is not what we can call a way to foster marriage. He does not like marriage, it is his choice, but then he should not try to speak for it.
By the way, he is calling his “skills” and “technics” the “Game”, while the term “gamos”, in greek, means marriage (like in polygamous). Such a sad irony…

Have a nice day.

EJ (The Other One)
EJ (The Other One)
9 years ago

@occasional reader:

Homophobes don’t count gay marriage as being marriage. To them it’s a “straight people only” thing. Therefore, gay people getting married doesn’t change the marriage rate.

The whole “people won’t get married because now marriage has been tainted” thing is such a weird little canard, anyway. There’s lots of things that gay people are allowed to do which straight people do too. For example,I bet you that no straight men are boycotting blowjobs because they’re something that gay people can legally indulge in.

Snowberry
Snowberry
9 years ago

If you open marriage to more various sexual orientation persons, this may lead to more persons marrying (or is it “getting married” ? Sorry, i am often confused with english verb forms), thus the rate will be increasing, not declining…

To the best of my understanding, marriage has been gradually declining for the past few decades at least. There are more people who put off marriage until later in life, due to a combination of focusing on their careers more than relationships, and living together for longer to decide whether to make it permanent. People who divorce are less likely to remarry, and there are more who never marry at all. (I would assume that the rise in poly relationships plays partly into that, but that’s only a guess…)

However, there are a lot of conservative types who see “degenerate” lifestyles becoming more culturally acceptable, and conclude that this is the reason behind the decline in marriage rates. They might be right to a limited extent (see my speculation about poly people above, as poly people can’t marry all their partners, or in some cases any). But more likely a combination of economic factors and people being more reluctant to jump into a situation which may not be right for them are more significant.

Basically, never mind that there will be a temporary boost in marriages now that same-sex ones are possible, in the long run, the acceptance of those degenerate relationships will erode marriage rates even more. Pretty soon anyone will be able to marry anyone or anything, and the term “marriage” will cease to have meaning, and thus no one will get married ever. That seems to be the logic behind the claim.

Also: Both “marrying” and “get married” are acceptable English. There are some situations where the choice of words implies a specific nuance, but for a general discussion of people engaging in marriage, they mean the same thing.

Moocow
Moocow
9 years ago

comment image

bluecatbabe
bluecatbabe
9 years ago

All of Roosh seems to boil down to “People who are not me have rights, and I HATE it! Waaaah!”

All the rest is attempts at justification, with glimpses into the completely bizarre maelstrom that is his mind.

I particularly enjoyed “Their impulsive sex changes”… yeah, Roosh, that’s exactly how it is.

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
9 years ago

There are many parallels between Judaism and Islam. This was especially the case with 7th century Judaism.

In fact in the early days of Islam many outsiders thought Muslims were just a particularly pious sect of Jews.

That’s unsurprising if you subscribe to the historical, rather than supernatural, origins of Islam.

It was essentially a synthesis of some aspects of Judaism and pre Islamic Arabic paganism.

The views on women seem to be an amalgam of judaic beliefs, incorporating some of the Lilith myth and the Arabic trinity, including the Moon Goddess. That’s very apparent when you look at the Satanic Verses.

Had Islam not tried to explain that aspect away and adopted pure monotheism, it would have been interesting to see the result.

occasional reader
occasional reader
9 years ago

Hello.

@EJ (The Other One) and @Snowberry (thank you for the language tip)
Well, maybe the “religious” marriages are going down, but administrative marriage may stay afloat ? And if, themselves, do not count non-straight monogamous marriages as marriages, that does not mean that official statistics are going to follow their exclusive principles.
But you may be right that, as marriage is so strongly linked, in the mind of many people, to the religious one, that this one will keep decreasing. However, there are administrative contracts (like the PACS in France) which tend to provide almost the same rights (and duties) as administrative marriage. If it is just a problem of term, and if this kind of contracts end up having the same rights, well, indeed, the “marriage” rate may called a 0 sooner or later, but not the social and legal representation of the bond of two (or more) peoples.
If it was not for the social benefits of the marriage (which are maybe a bit discrimnatory, if we compare to singles), maybe the rate would be declining even more strongly ?

Have a nice day.

Annabelle N
Annabelle N
9 years ago

“- if they’re lucky enough NOT to avoid getting abused through adoptions by homosexual men.”

Error or Freudian slip?

EJ (The Other One)
EJ (The Other One)
9 years ago

@occasional reader:

You’re right that to all intents and purposes, long-term couples are essentially the same as married people, just without the magic words having been said over them. However, for people who see the magic words as the important part, this is scant consolation.

I read an article many years ago in The Economist which looked at marriages and pointed out that although the average marriage length in the UK was becoming shorter, the annual number of weddings was rising; and the dichotomy could be explained by the fact that people no longer felt any compunction to remain in a nonfunctional relationship. Even then, back when I was a little ur-MRA who hadn’t yet come to his senses, I remember thinking that this was a good thing.

reymohammed
reymohammed
9 years ago

Poor Roosh. He wanted to be a mighty conqueror, but he got the order mixed up: vici, veni, VD.

Ultrablue
Ultrablue
9 years ago

” their mental and medical treatments resulting from sleeping with hundreds of partners, ”

Hmmm … well, he might know about that.

Ohlmann
Ohlmann
9 years ago

Note that the french marriage was extended to everyone because the PACS wasn’t enough of a regular marriage copy. In particular for inheritance.

Futile
Futile
9 years ago

Funny how lesbians dont exist to Roosh.

Catalpa
Catalpa
9 years ago

@occasional reader

“getting married” and “marrying” both mean essentially the same thing, and both are correct in context. “marrying” is a bit more formal/archaic than “getting married”. Same goes for “people” and “persons”. Both correct, but “persons” sounds more formal and old fashioned.

Bina
Bina
9 years ago

Occasional Reader, Roosh only thinks marriage rates are “pathetic” because now women are no longer being forced to marry (usually much older men) while still in their teens (or younger!). Now women get to pick who they WANT to marry…and it’s not him. Horror or horrors, sometimes it might even be Another Woman! Or a person of fluid or indeterminate gender! Or any guy but Roosh! That’s what’s got him so up in a pother. The fact that women now have choices, and they don’t choose him, really pisses him off. Because it’s such hard work practicing basic hygiene, much less actually taking good care of one’s appearance and cultivating a personality that isn’t utterly loathsome, you know?

Bina
Bina
9 years ago

Ugh. Should read “horror OF horrors”. Damn you, Typo Mammoth!

ETA: Also, women are now deciding WHEN to marry, and it’s often not before age 30. Apparently, to Roosh et al, this is A Very Very Bad Thing.

msexceptiontotherule
msexceptiontotherule
9 years ago

Since a lot of the guys who fall into the same general collection as Roosh believe that women are ‘past their expiration date’ by 30 years old, also believe that they ‘get better with age’, the fact that more women pass by their arbitrary “wall age” and still get married – usually to men of similar age or have relationships resulting in marriage that do not include THEM…seeing these guys starting to implode at the ‘unfairness’ of the world is actually a bit entertaining. 🙂

raysa
raysa
9 years ago

“weirwoodtreehugger on October 21, 2015 at 10:28 am

It’s been obvious for a long time that reactionaries cannot even conceive of equality, so they cling extra hard to privilege in fear of becoming the oppressed. What’s not obvious is why. Why is the assumption that equality can’t exist?”

Hey, WWTH! I am of the opinion that they are aware that equality can actually work, they just don’t want it to.

They enjoy having a boot on everyone else’s neck. If everyone is equal, then they have no power, they become just as good/valuable as everyone else. That’s frightening to the white dude that controls the rest of us.

And it is white guys. Not all white guys, not even a majority of white guys, but white men are the problem.

Joanna Jones
Joanna Jones
9 years ago

Hey David really, why don’t you write about the fact that antisemite Daryush Valizadeh promotes Unabomber a serial terrorist and keeps tweeting and writing articles about him praising Unabomber ? Who happens to be polish, as Roosh is living in poznan, Poland