>>28890696 but you're degenerates why not just raise a puppy? you can play home and it's just an animal, won't suffer severe psychological trauma how many dogs/cats/etc. go around being hungry, lonely and have to be put down because no one adopts them? go on, adopt a pet
>>28890788 marrying to a goat would be great for your country. legalize it too if you're talking about religious unions, that's another thing entirely. no "muh feels" can impose their views on an exclusive club such as an organized religion. if they don't like it better they make their own club, their own church
>>28890977 What are they going to turn into some evil Satan worshipping demons ready to destroy everything on their way? Cause I literally can't imagine how being raised in a peaceful environment even if not consists not two same sex parents is going to harm them more than being an unwanted child in a foster home for example.
>>28891099 >two same sex parents is going to harm them more than being an unwanted child in a foster home for example both are bad the same the ideal is to live in a normal house. either if you're a lone orphan or living among two weirdos and laughed at by the whole society is something i wouldn't want for any child. but shit happens
As a faggot, I couldn't care less. Gays just like to play the victim card because they're manchildren, and groups like the Human Rights Campaign or whatever just want to make money off idiots by pushing "equality for all" and whatever. It's so fucking stupid it makes my head spin. I mean, I really am gay (and you couldn't pay me enough to be straight), but the idea of two men getting married makes me laugh. I can't imagine what straight people think of it.
>>28891576 No, I don't do drugs (well, I drink). I'm not promiscuous either. I can see myself forming a long term relationship with a man, and living with him. But I don't need it to be validated by society, nor do I care about muh tax breaks that exist for married couples. Again, I love being gay, but I laugh at the thought of having a wedding with two men getting married. Maybe I'll change my mind in 20 years, whatever.
>>28891617 your cultural choice in my culture both have the same word (matrimonio) so they aren't different
>>28891601 you can't really marry a loose-twat bitch. not for long at least, unless you're some sort of masochist so yeah, all this cultural marxism is what's killing our society nowadays. admitting gays into society is just a part of the whole problem, there's slut-ism too, among a lot of things adding to the snowball
>>28891804 It's pretty nice. Women are like another fucking species to me, and they all look like sluts. Seriously, is it just me being a misogynistic faggot, or do most American 20~ year olds dress like sluts? Not to mention how vapid and narcissistic they are...
I'm opposed to it, but I am also opposed to heterosexual marriage.
All of the legal benefits extensed to married couples should be contracts they create. I don't care if gay or straight people do this.
There should be no economic benefits to marriage. Extended employment benefits, tax advantages shouldn't exist. This is just a tax on single people.
The government should move these savings into tax credits for number of children had.
I really hage how homosexuality was always defended as >it's between two consenting adults I'm ok with this, if you weren't ok with this you would be called nosy. But now they are adopting children. It is not just between two adults now. And if you have a problem with it you are a homophobe.
My problem isn't that they are gay. It's that they are of the same sex. A child should have a mither and a father when possible.
>>28891808 I've not no idea what does Rome have to do with us but OK I'm just saying that our 'sick culture' and equality have done no harm to the country, gay people are worth just as much as any other taxpayer and a functioning member of the society, so we treat them equally, as they deserve.
Ok, so the government should stay out of it completely? Then surely you would have no problems if one or several churches would decide to perform gay marriages? After all, they should be free to do so without government interferance, and you can simply join a different church if you disagree with the doctrine.
Is it just me, or are the same countries that fully embrace gay rights also the same ones that embrace Muslim immigrants who will kill gays at the first chance they get? Thats how it worked in California.
>We need to be more tolerant of people not like us!! Stop oppressing people! >Let California get flooded with Mexicans >Try to pass gay marriage >It gets shot down because all those Mexicans they imported were staunch Catholics >Eventually force it down the states throat through judicial activism >Mexicans beat gays in Mexican controlled areas
>>28891989 >>28891969 heterosexual relationships generate babies, which in turn are future voters and working force family is the pillar of society. think about that: no parenthood -> no more healthy children -> no more of your people -> you faggots get invaded by other cultures -> sharia law, niggers in my neighborhood, speako spanish esse, etc.
Good, because that's basically why gay marriage needs to be legalized at all, since the state approves marriages and decides who is authorized to wed people. If we get rid of that, there is no problem, but under current legislation it needs to be legalized first before churches can make that judgement. I dunno how it is in the rest of the world, but here the governmetn only decided to allow it, but doesn't force anyone to perform it. The baptists have chosen not to, for instance, as has the catholic church in Sweden, obviously
>>28892058 >>28892054 if the church has nothing to do with the law and government, then there'd be no legal unions yeah the faggots can make their own Church of Butt Salvation, but their marriages would be illegal because the government doesn't recognize them you guys are thinking this backwards. in the end what matters is to be equal _to the law_. who cares about religious people think if you don't belong to their group? on the other half what makes you think that your degeneracy doesn't harm (at least indirectly) the society as a whole?
Ok, so the government should "say out of it" and "leave it to the churches", but now they should apparently dictate which church can and cannot perform acual marriages? How about you settle on one position there, Pekka?
It's like straight marriage. You like that partner, you and your partner's relationship is getting stronger, now becoming more than friends. Starting dating for 10 to 20 years, until you marry your partner become husband and wife, or two wives or two husbands. So they could make a family with children. Anything mess up their marriage, they're work together. If not, divorce. If they want to make themselves happy, that's fine.
>>28891876 In any case, marriage and religion goes fairly hand-in-hand in Western culture. It also remains a strong sentiment within religions. If the state simply did not recognize marriage, than none of this would be an issue.
But the truth is that equality is not what the LGBT SJWs want. No, they want to force the state, religion, and everyone else to accept their way of life. They are not Christians, but they will march into a church, demand the priest marries them, and cry fowl when the priest says no. The best way to fix this is to just have the state stay out of religious affairs and not grant any recognition from marriage. Religious people could still get married and keep the tradition sacred, and gays could live together just like straight couples do. Everybody wins, but like I said, these people are not interested in real solutions.
>>28892102 if the families cannot afford to support children without tax breaks related to marriage it just means the taxes are too fucking high in general. people didn't have any problem with making children for centuries and the technological advancement and the standard of living were much lower
Honestly? The Church should be in no way obliged to hold ceremonies it sees inappropriate. If they feel marriage is only for a man nad woman, so be it. It's their institution, their religion, their views.
That said, if a gay couple does register their relationship, it should hold exactly the same privileges, rights, duties and legal standing as any church-blessed marriage. This should be the case not only for gay couples, but those couples who simply don't wan't to have a church wedding. After all, behind the scenes, the only thing that's going to change are a few ticks in a few pieces of paper. Whether or nor there's some deity who's mad about not having a wedding the way he likes it involved is irrelevant to the bureucracy.
>>28892355 Avioliitto = marriage is something that should only be handled by our state church. Rekisteröity parisuhde = civil union is something that should be handled by our government. If our state church wants to be against female priests or gay marriages, then let them. No one is forcing you to be part of the church. You can always get a civil union in that case.
>>28892264 No, I'm not thinking this backwards. Like you say, as long as the governement are the ones who approve who can and cannot get married, equality under the law would make this a non-issue and gay marriage would be legal, the government would perform non-demonimational services for same sex couples and churches are free to do so IF THEY WISH. This is why I don't get why this is even a debate, if you have issues with faggots getting married, then don't marry another man. If you have religious reservatiosn against it, then by all means join a church that doesn't perfrom marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples.
Same thing hetero relationships are about I guess? YOu're right though, I'm in it for the pussy mainly, but having someone to split the bills is nice too. A better question would be why anyone would want marriage, in that case.
>>28892232 but it seems the problem is with the fact that the state approves marriages and decides who is authorized to wed people, not the legalization of gay marriages. as I said the state shouldn't get involved in relationships in any way
>>28892404 "welfare" itself is a huge bad idea. it should be a loan: to get your money, you have to prove that you're spending in a way that it'll return to the society's funds
>>28892508 well, it's true back then they'd have 19 children, of those 14 or 12 would survive to become peasants/soldiers and of those only 4 or 5 would have children themselves the problem remains that nowadays no white people wants to make more than 3 children, taxes or no taxes. the problem is the paradigm itself
>>28892679 Idk how is it in america but in the UK, a country with the highest divorce rate in the EU don't differ that much between hetero and homosexuals. What's the point of heterosexual marriage if most of them end with divorce?
2. I don't really care about this, even though I'd like to get married one day; the only actual important thing is for homosex to be legal, and it is not in many countries: that is a way bigger fight.
3. The fight for gay marriage actually alienates a lot of people. I could see this in France. Homophobia is much higher since they legalized gay marriage despite all the opposition.
4. I understand perfectly the opponents' arguments against same-sex marriage. I don't agree with them because that's a lot of hypocrysy and implications, as a same-sex couple can raise a child way better than many straight couples that noone would dare to deprive of the right to reproduce; but whatever. If the majority of a country doesn't want marriage and adoption to be open to same-sex couples, it's alright, not a human rights violation, nor a breach of equality before law.
5. It annoys me to post ITT because for some reason /int/ tonight is very much like /pol/ and on a couple of previous threads I was just unable to have any intelligent debate. Just /pol/ shitposting. So I guess I won't stay long.
>>28891920 I think women in general are just are a bit slutty even when religion was in fashion people were still screwing each other in secret left and right, anyway many aren't actually THAT slutty from what I've seen but perhaps this is just a Dutch/regional thing. Even at clubs many are not even that crazy from what I've experienced at least because of social pressure from other women but also because they genuinely don't have such a high sex drive or aren't really impulsive.
I just adapt myself to the reality of today's world; don't depend too much on a woman, ever. Try to make it work with what you think is a gem but don't be surprised she isn't one after a period of time. That's just how it goes, I hope I'm lucky one day though a good woman can be so fantastic but you have to be lucky to get one.
But I definitely could understand that some bro love could be cool; when it comes to relationships; men understand each other after all. Good for you being gay.
>>28892967 >Just don't force my church to marry faggots. I don't understand this kind of debate. In France only civil marriages have legal value, and church weddings are just some private ceremony ruled by the churches and which the State has nothing to do with. It makes no sense for a secular State to force churches to practice some religious ceremony, even more when it goes against that churche's religion.
I'm not saying it isn't bad, I'm saying the state didn't force it on the church like you implied. And being labeled a bigot isn't a sentence handed down by the state either, stop crying and pretend you're oppressed, it's pathetic. Just go on keepin' on like the rest of us.
>>28890347 I support it, but only because my sister is a lesbian and I want her to be happy. Otherwise I don't care. Fun fact: in Jamaica it's illegal for men to be gay, but not for women to be lesbians.
>>28893276 Sweden has a State Church, so I guess it's normal that it causes some weird stuff like that. But Americans always say the same thing about forcing churches to perform gay marriages, and I don't get it since they're secular.
>>28892948 Easy. They want to tell me what is normal and what isn't. They want to shove a piece of paper in my face and say "SEE?!? LOOK HOW LEGITIMATE WE ARE!!" The issue isn't marriage, nobody cares about marriage except religious people. They want to redefine my views of what is normal, when in reality I may dislike gays but I don't care what they do in their home.
In Sweden both have legal value. And our state weren't officially secular till 2000, and still have very close ties to the former national church. Especially seeing as voters (mostly atheists) vote in the parliamentary parties to the Church of Sweden assembly.
No we don't, did until 2000 though. But yeah,that is the underlying problem. Because it USED to be a state church, it is ruled by the church assembly, which is a politicla body with political parties, and we have elections for it. Only members are allowed to vote though, but because it used to be a state church, lots of people are members who are not christians, which means SJW bullshit seeps in.
It is not easy not getting pissed when a church with a millennia of history (though half of it papist) is run by atheists who doesn't give a shit about Christian teachings and proceed to make it into a SJW mess.
You have to have a certain number of members in your Organization (at least 1500 I think), but yes, they can. Recently the Pagans gained enough memebers to be allowed to do so, other examples are various non-lutheran christians.
>>28893468 The kicker is that they want to be normal among people who will never, ever see them as normal. I wouldn't care about this topic if gays just lived together and fucked, but no. They want me to have to accept their lifestyle when I don't and won't.
>>28893444 Who cares if someone's against it? There were people who were against interracial marriage. It's a matter of whether one has the right to deny others rights.
>>28893461 Sorry, some cunt confused Sikhs with Muslims for a second.
>>28893464 And who the hell cares? The Wholly Babble is against shellfish too!
>>28893588 Sorry, the American spelling is Catlick.
>>28893606 >The kicker is that they want to be normal among people who will never, ever see them as normal. I wouldn't care about this topic if people of different races just lived together and fucked, but no. They want me to have to accept their lifestyle when I don't and won't. Fixed.
Yeah, I know and I agree with you, luckily the Reverend at my church is high church and conservative so I don't have to hear about it on sundays. I suggest you join Arbetsgemenskapen Kyrklig Förnyelse.
>>28890347 Gay people are already a minority, and amongst them those who wish to marry are even more of a minority. Gay marriage is a non-issue, it concernes so few people that I don't even understand why anyone would ever bother legalizing it. Wait I know, it's a way for politicians to get some more votes by showing how progressive they are, and they can act as if they are actually doing something with their life.
It's all Gustav Vasas fault, really, fancied himself a mini-Pope. Olaus Petris theology is sound though, and no matter what the assembly or the current SJW Arch Bishop says, that theology still remians in the church´.
>>28893804 >separating from wordly politics >by cutting yourself from the rest of Christendom, and establishing a national church ruled by the head of State and part of the State administration Uhm... great idea, yes.
Mine doesn't talk about it much either, the vicar were opposed to gay marriage so. Problem with joining another church is that most of them are too conservative with "hurr durr the world is 6000 years old" which is almost worse.
>>28893830 >Gay marriage is a non-issue, it concernes so few people that I don't even understand why anyone would ever bother legalizing it.
This. I think it's the fault of neolibral SJWs taking over most of the Western "Left", and acting like it's a greater tragedy that a wealthy male fashion designer can't marry his Filipino rentboy than declining wages/rising unemployment for the unskilled/low-skilled
Arbetsgemenskapen Kyrklig Förnyelse is not another church, it's an organisation within the Church of Sweden that protects our high church heritage and furthers the cause of conservative lutheran theology in accordance with the pricniples of the catechism and Concordia.
Vid related, one of their vesper services in Uppsala.
>>28894012 No, it's more like this: >Left-wing politicians stop believing in socialism at all and even are convinced by supply side economics >don't want to leave their party because they lead it and because many voters still believe in socialism so it's their easiest way to gain power >need something to distinguish from the right-wing >dig up all the SJWs theories and replace socialism with this
nah just kidding what you said here >certainly equal opportunity is the only thing that matters. the rest are obligations we're all bound to meet
>>28894412 that's the problem with representative democracy: people aren't thinking well of who's representing them. or at least aren't making them represent properly the people's interest most don't even vote to begin with. it's all really sad
>>28894412>>28894557 Whether they be gays or interracial couples or straight same-race couples or gay interracial couples or blacks or whites or whatever, they should be well enfranchised and able to exercise their rights and allow others to do the same.
>>28894997 It was the same thing except that under the civil union, the children of one of the partners were not legally considered the children of the other partner. They had no right to adopt children as well. But at the time when the civil union was made, politicians were like "we are just doing that so they can have equality, we won't go further than that". In the end most civil unions were between straight people, and then politicians legalized gay marriage and adoption only a few years later.
>>28894831 This is not at all a question of equality. When there is no gay marriage, everyone is already equally able to get married to someone of the opposite sex, because that's how the institution called "marriage" is defined there. Legalizing same-sex marriage means redefining this institution so that it can be contracted between people of any sex. That means that you can get married to women or men. This is not equality but freedom. Straights were not allowed to marry people of the same sex either, now everyone can marry anyone.
I don't really know why I'm being so butthurt and specific about this irrelevant thing, but even though I'm for gay marriage, all the "equality" arguments pissed me off for this reason.
>>28895149 >It was the same thing No. PACS is totally different from marriage, it is designed to be a lesser and looser form of union, which does not imply any love or family plan. You can get "pacsed" with your flatmate for fiscal reasons.
>>28895255 >Well this makes perfect sense as 2 men/women cannot both be biological parents. Well theoretically here family and parentality is defined as a social/legal thing, and not biological. Hence the stuff with paternity tests that gets used a lot to shitpost against France.
>And at least in Sweden children can only have 2 parents adopted or not. Here there are different forms of adoption, some of them do not totally replace the biological filiation.
>Here there are different forms of adoption, some of them do not totally replace the biological filiation.
Yeah, that is kinda my point, the other at least gets reduced allot. So if 2 women get parenthood automatically the man get left out. A regular adoption process must take place to ensure that both sides are represented.
Kill all faggots. Every last one. Single bullet to the brain, bodies in a shipping crate, cover in lye, bury in a ditch. Erase them from human history. Queers have the same rights as the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement: none whatsoever. Any government that is not actively working to remove threats to humanity itself does not deserve its station.
In before “HURR EDGY” In before “HURR INSECURE” In before “HURR BIGOT"
>>28897767 >"less population growth" is good, guise >"OMG WHY THERE ARE SO MANY NIGS AND SPICS WE WHITES ARE BEING OVERRUN THIS COUNTRY IS BEING INVADED" see? your decisions affect the enviroment on a long term
>>28890788 Well that's the thing isn't it? They just said "that's what it used to mean" and that's it changed.
To be honest I don't give a fuck. The truth about issues of leftists like gay rights is that you cannot stop it from happening and voicing any other opinion but a PC one gets you completely ostracised from just about everyone.
>>28898277 homosexuality is in the "mildly bad" category among many things like being a NEET or eating too much spicy food/soda as in "this is directly bad for you but it's also indirectly bad for others in the long term" every person that doesn't procreate.. alright, let's just make this /int/ related: every WHITE person that doesn't procreate affects population in the long term. and less kids = more old people = less working force but more retirement expenditure = your country gets poorer or less white like i sad it's definitely less malign than, say, smoking tobacco/cannabis or having wildlife as pets, but yah, it's still bad this is of course not including the ill effects of gay adoption because broken homes are so common people got used to them
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.