>>5550984 lesbian here. where i live you're officially married by the uhm registry office (don't know what it's called in english), but it's also common to marry in a church additionally (with that whole white dress, traditional ceremony whatsoever). i personally believe gay marriage is okay as long as you don't marry in the church because i just think being homosexual is against what the bible says. sry for my bad english
>>5550984 I don't think most gay men should get married. It really isn't a good dynamic for most men. However, marriage between two men should remain legal since people should be allowed to do dumb shit. Lesbian marriage should be banned though because lesbians are too sexless and monogamous; they were already too sexless, even before they could get married.
>>5551272 This. Gay marriage is fine but I do think lacking a mother or father is detrimental to a child's development. Not to mention the harassment the kid will go through for having same-sex parents. Better than a deadbeat low-income abusive household? Yes, but nowhere near optimal.
>>5550984 Marriage as a whole needs to be reformed and focused on raising kids instead of money, and gay marriage tends to be pretty far on the "let's make marriage a way to get free stuff" end of the spectrum.
Maybe they should make having a kid a requirement for being legally married. People could still have private ceremonies for the tradition. Infertile people can suck it.
There need's to be a complete reform of the system. A complete separation of church and state.
There should be Civil partnerships for everyone (hetro/homo/whatever). Meaning that a Civil partnership is a mandatory legal requirement to be recognised as a couple and claim the legal benefits that come from that. This is purely legal without any religion involved.
Then if a couple wants to get "married under the eyes of god" they can go to a church or mosque or whatever and do their religious ceremony there in addition to the Civil partnership.
It shouldn't be illegal to get married in a church/mosque/synagogue, but it should be entirely the choice of the hosting religion. Gays have no right to force their views on the church and visa versa.
>>5551830 >Most people aren't even interested in getting married FTFY. I think we should go with Rand Paul's idea and get rid of legal marriages all together. The only piece of paper that binds two people together should be civil partnerships, give any civil partnership the same rights as what "marriage" used to have, and allow any any consenting pair of adults enter one. We'd all be equal, we'd all be filed under the same term, and we'd get the religious idiots off our back on this one. They'd still be on it but it wouldn't be as bad
>>5552576 I was trying to explain this position to some people and I got called a conservative idiot and a bigot. I think the whole gay marriage campaign is misguided. really the campaign should be about removing government from marriage and letting different organizations do what they want, instead of adding rules to how marriage is defined.
>>5552687 The problem is that completely eliminating legal marriage would affect hetero people too, so it would be a much bigger deal and require much greater change to society. It's easier to just expand existing marriage laws to cover homosexual couples, it doesn't really affect anyone except the gays.
>>5552680 we have a nearly complete separation of church and state in germany (at least when i comes to marriage), but lgbt people shit at churches for not wanting to marry gay people. i don't know why ppl want to get married in the church if they don't care about christianity, like most of them don't even go to church on christmas. fucking social justice people....
I agree, I guess its people who want something they cant have, but they don't even know why they want it.
I'm friends with a Hetro couple who want to get a civil partnership instead of a marriage. In the UK Hetro people cant get Civil partnerships only teh gays. The thing is, while they support gay rights, they're doing it purely for religious reasons (well the lack of them to be more accurate). They're both atheist and want a legal bond without the religious ceremony. Apparently a purely legal bond without religion isn't available in the UK yet.
My knowledge gets a little rough at this point but, You can have a marriage at a registrars office instead of a religious building, but it still needs to be tied to a religion. If it isn't tied to a religion its not recognised legaly.
>>5552727 Why? I agree that sexuality should be a personal thing, but if heteros are going to make their sexuality public (which they've been doing blatantly for decades if not centuries) homos should be allowed to do the same.
>>5553353 Why should hetero and homo be treated the same? Homosexuality is an aberration and can often lead to bad social consequences (see all of gay culture and the gay scene).
I don't accept the idea that we need to go around making anything and everything or everyone equal. Things should be allowed to exist and thrive in their own space with their own rules and for their own good.
>>5552708 I just looked it up and civil unions are legal for heterosexuals in the UK. File for codependency/common-law on your taxes and your insurance. As long as you're living together It's identical to marriage. The trick with codependency is banks and insurance companies will try to worm their way out of giving you the marriage discounts so you have to be persistent and make sure they give you that codependency discount.
>>5554554 >Why should hetero and homo be treated the same? Because, unless there is compelling evidence that it's more beneficial to treat them differently (which there isn't in this case), the reasonable thing to do is to treat similar things the same.
>Homosexuality is an aberration That's a purely subjective classification.
>and can often lead to bad social consequences So can heterosexuality. Sexualization of children, teenage pregnancy, rape culture, virgin shaming are all a consequence of excessive glorification of heterosexuality. The problem is excessive emphasis on sex, not who one has sex with.
I knew a kid in highschool who was adopted by two Daddies. He was a cool kid. He used to do Chinese YoYo, was fluent in three languages, had a 4.0, and had a lot of friends. ... Except he used to hate a lot of kids for no reason. Very arrogant. He was pretty OK, just kind of a cock.
>>5556683 Leviticus also says that eating pigs, anything that swims without fins, and wearing of garment made of "two stuffs" falls into the same category as "lying with another man as he would a woman". Unless you're old-school Jewish, you really shouldn't be taking Leviticus seriously.
>>5552377 >Lesbians have more sex than straight women lesbians have a much broader definition of "sex" than het women. hets don't usually consider fingering or oral to be sex. They mostly only think PiV intercourse should be called "sex", so they'd likely have artificially lower statistics.
Yes. I don't like roleplaying heteros with their stupid rituals. Civil union is enough for everything. Gay adoption shouldn't be a thing because it fucks children up. Tax reductions and welfare benefits for married people don't make sense in case of homos, because they don't reproduce. Also, I don't need that divorce/property division shit.
i am against gay marriage laws if they don't come witha complete adoption law and allow for childs obtained through mother surrogacy.
i find marriage really stupid, and possibly slightly harmful to society, if having children is not part of the plan. it's incredibly silly and worthless to see it as a badge that show " your right to love another person". you don't need marriage for that.love is probably not eternal, marriage is not a sacred unbreakable oath anymore, if you need to bind each other economically (and note: both partners can easily have jobs if they live without children) there are other more simple less pretentious solutions avaible. marriage usually grants small economical benefits in terms of taxation and housing, but that's just a stupid side effect based on state regulation and you might as well think it would be better if those benefits were equally granted to any group of people living under the same roof or to family with actually fucking children.
recently, in the" first world", basing a family on a marriage as a love-bond is showing to not be so solid and successful for family, so instead of discussing whether gays should be allowed to have their raft dragged by a sinking ship or not politicians should think about fixing or changing the goddamn ship.
>>5552576 >>5552583 afaik no one really wants to get married in a church (well, there probably are some gays that want that, but they're really a minority)
Civil marriage is what people want. At least in general.
>>5552680 >I do think lacking a mother or father is detrimental to a child's development While this is true, it isn't true that only a woman can be a mother figure or that only a man can be a father figure.
Just look at single parents. Not all people who were raised by a single parent are fucked up, and that's because a single person can fulfill both roles.
Just how two person of the same sex can do it as well.
Also, one of the main points of gay marriage is to make it easier to adopt children. Adopting as a sinlge parent is nearly impossible, at least in my country (really, it is nearly impossible to adopt here unless you bribe someone, but that's a different issue)
>>5559448 >I don't like roleplaying heteros with their stupid rituals. legal privileges is a stupid rituak. k then. >Civil union is enough for everything. Yeah, except marriage and equal rights >Gay adoption shouldn't be a thing because it fucks children up. Any numbers to back that up? No? Didn't think so >Tax reductions and welfare benefits for married people don't make sense in case of homos, because they don't reproduce. This isn't a independent argument, if "homos" can get kids. Regardless, there are other perks of shared economy. >Also, I don't need that divorce/property division shit. Because that doesn't happen with heteros
[This is where I flame about internalized homophobia ]
>>5550984 Being gay, I feel like we sort of strongarmed our way to victory. I know you all feel like "B-But we deserve these rights", but we kind of just shoved our-self into a religious ritual with no natural background just so we could get rights that are more than possible from a million different ways, such as legal bindings. We could have tried to make everyone happy by making legal bindings available to all and every couple, but instead we wanted the big ceremony instead of making one of our own. We leech off of the cultures of others instead of making anything original, although to be fair, after seeing gay pride parades perhaps we realized how shit we are at making events.
>>5573274 Fuck that noise. Civil unions or any other shit like it would have always and forever been a second class citizen marriage.
Fuck religion, "you can't get married because my book of hocus pocus says you can't, and that offends me!" is the straight religious people version of "your rights end where my feelings begin!"
And I'll say it again because it's important: Civil Unions or the like would have just been a second class marriage system for second class citizens, even if it had all the legal rights of conventional marriage, it would still be socially viewed as unequal. Nevermind that shithole states like Alabama would be pulling shit on its citizens by saying "Well our local ordinances don't say nothin' bout no Civil Unions, we don't rightly care what the federal government says about Civil Unions; yall ain't married and you AIN'T getting [hospital visitation rights / a state tax break on inheriting an estate from your deceased spouse / other examples]"
So fuck that, stop being a self hating fag, just be glad you have the freedom to get married, and be glad the separation of church and state wins again.
>>5573274 The American left does this and it irritates me to no end. Why did yall meddle with marriage? Did it not occur to you that the only thing to be gained from gay MARRIAGE was a fancy word for something that could have been easily and uncontroversially accomplished by pumping up and renaming civil unions?
Instead there was a fight. You can never really win a fight. You can only win a point, like gay marriage or abortion. To the right wing of the united states, this is just a temporary thing - since gays shouldn't get married, gay marriage is going to end eventually. Gay marriage will be repealed in future. You guys are not going to understand why.
Then finally someone is going to grow a pair and pass a measure that pumps up and possibly renames civil unions to be gay-exclusive and have the same rights under the law as marriage and we can finally wash our hands of the stupidity that is this non-issue.
Marriage is religious. End of story.
Thread replies: 62 Thread images: 7
Thread DB ID: 437282
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.