Does anybody here disagree with gay marriage? What are your reasons?

>>6899127
>hey faggots do you disagree with your right to marry your partner faggots like straight people can?

If anyone does it's because they're an uncle Tom.
>nice b8, r8 8/8. Can't w8 to see your next b8, won't hesit8 to give my (You)s

>>6899127
/pol/ and /lgbt/ here.

No decided other people's marriage status is wrong

>>6899127
>we can't have kids (adoption and surrogacy don't count and are dysfunctional, inb4 retards who say 2 dads are just like a dad and a mom)
>marriage exists as a state-sanctioned institution to incentivize procreation, not for homos to roleplay as normal couples

In the end though, it wasn't gays that killed marriage, it was disloyal and adulterous straight people.

File: spankie_no-homers_zps9495f015.jpg (63KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 640x480px

The only reason I'm for gay marriage is because there's nothing about straight marriage that gay people can't be a part of.

If it's about procreation, fine, gay people shouldn't get it. But neither should infertile people, adoptive parents, or people who don't intend to have children.
If it's about religion, fine, gay people probably shouldn't get it unless their church approves or some shit. But the same should go for nonreligious couples, etc.

But these kind of arguments only ever target gay people, which exposes the motive as simple bigotry.

Marriage is the union of a 'man and woman' and should be left as such.
To re-define marriage by allowing homosexual couples to be apart of this is to devalue its original values and sanctity.

Don't care. Marriage is one of those matters only how much you believe it does. All the arguments against gay marriage are shit.

>it's for procreation

Well good. It also does in any way affect anyone's ability to procreate. A gay couple's marriage has no objective influence on straight marriages. It isn't magic. It's simple cause and effect.

>children deserve a mom and dad

And I deserve to be king of Denmark. People don't always get what they deserve. Anyways not all gay marriages would result in children or obvious reasons. Lots of kids are orphans, lost parents, or would never have any kind of family.


>muh religion

This is just dumb.

>gay people prey on kids

Come on, you're not even trying to hide that you just hate gay people at this point

>>6899506
>In the end though, it wasn't gays that killed marriage, it was disloyal and adulterous straight people.
This
and the ridiculous alimony/child support court system

>>6899127
Why should any LGBT person have any reason to oppose gay marriage? It's dumb

I dream of getting married and starting a family one day. It's not fair to tell gay people the only way they can live is by spending their entire lives being sex objects, hell half of them already do that and look where it's gotten us.

Government should not recognize marriage, straight or gay.

>>6901265
Yes, it should first legalize gay marriage and then stop recognizing any marriage at all

>>6899127
Marriage is a sacrament, and sacraments aren't meant to be perverted by sin.
Legal marriage hurts Christianity by appropriating a sacrament and turning it into a profane and oft-disrespected legal agreement.

Only the Pope should be able to grant divorce.

>>6901248

It's funny because the people who are against gay marriage often hold that view because they think being gay is just a lifelong sex party, and somehow don't see how having the ability to actually build a life might curb that.

>>6901286
>You need marriage to build a life
no.

Even if it was necessary we still wouldn't be entitled to it - it's for straight couples.

>>6901285
>what is gay marriage in the Lutheran chutch
Low quality bait

>>6899127
Why do gays even want to marry? Its just a contract stating that you're going to lose half of your shit after divorce + the wealthier partner has to pay for the other one for the rest of his life. Gee I don't understand why marriage rates are dropping.

>>6901325
1. Beautiful ceremony
2. It helps tp obtain citizenship

>>6899967
Marriage was originally a form of business contract between two families. They would agree to either trade something or be at peace with each other, binding the contract permanently by binding the families through a pair of (often non-consenting) individuals and their offspring. Should we make marriage like this again? After all, this whole "loving union" nonsense has devalued the sanctity of original marriage.

>>6901285
What about other religions (that are accepting of gay marriage)? Surely not allowing gay marriage for them would be religious discrimination, no?
What about non-religious/atheist couples?

>>6901293
Why is it for just straight couples? Back up your point.

>>6901340
>Why is it for just straight couples?
Cause hes a racist bigot! He supports discrimination against the homo race

>>6901315
Martin Luther was a fucking heretic blasphemer.

>>6901340
They don't have marriage, they have profane rituals. You can have gay profane rituals if you wish.
Marriage is for straight couples because it's holy matrimony between a MAN and a WOMAN, according to the RCC.

>>6901358
>Martin Luther was a fucking heretic blasphemer
I think the same about Cucktholicism

>>6901358
>according to the RCC
The what?

Also (assuming you mean the "what about the other religions/irreligious?")
>Thinking only Christians have marriage
>Thinking Christians are objectively right an all other religions are objectively wrong
>Being this egocentric and oblivious
>>>/trash/ Your retardation goes here.

>>6900094

>People don't always get what they deserve.

It's still fairer to prioritise the interests of the weakest one. Orphans need protection and guidance, while fags who want to adopt seek something higher in the Maslowian pyramid at the orphans' expense.

>>6901359
Europe/America is christian land, our ancestors conquered and defended it for centuries, why should we give a shit about the traditions of other cultures, go fuck off to China if you want a gay marriage.

meant this guy:
>>690136

>>6901382
What about the pagan religions that came before Christianity in Europe?
What about the native american religions that came before Christianity in America?
What about Animism, which came before all of them?

Why is Christianity considered this untouchable, standard baseline when it's clearly just one religion in a timeline of many?

>>6901382
Religion is a leftover from the bygone age. Adn yes, if some tradition promotes homophobia, I will do my best to destroy this tradition.

>>6899127
Marriage is a legal thing, in any secular country like America or France it should remain as such, and the rights and benefits with legal marriage should not be declined to gays, infertile, old or anyone who cant have children. I dont give a shit what your religion says, it doesn't matter at all in law.

>>6899127

What really bothers me is the fact that gays can adopt children. I mean, I can't see how those kids won't be fucked up when they grow.
Most gays are not an example of mental stability and no matter how hard they try, they won't be able to replace the mother.

>>6899127
Marriage is a christian religious ceremony designed for a man and a woman to bond together for the purpose of starting a family. Two people of the same sex cannot start a family hence the ceremony has no purpose and furthermore its an insult to people who believe in the value of marriage as an institution to trivialize it by allowing people who arent able to raise children of their own to do so.

As well as this gay people can already get all the same shit from a civil union, just without shitting all over the concept of a marriage. Id also say that its likely that most gays only want gay marriage just because its something they can't do, do any of you really give a shit about getting married in a church? Do you want to spit on traditional moral values that much?

>>6899127
Nope. I agree with it 100%. I just wanted to be in the thread.

Gay men can still marry women and straight man still can't marry guys, so it isn't really an equal rights issue man :)

On another note I just want a femboy harem so idk

>>6899127

It's a patriarchal institution.

LGBT should work to eliminate patriarchal institutions, not embrace them.

>>6901910
>LGBT should work to eliminate patriarchal institutions,


>>>/oven/

>>6901930
>being a literal neo-nazi


>>>/pol/

File: 1453940717871.jpg (26KB, 368x475px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 368x475px

>>6902002

Stop recruiting LGBT for your liberal bullshit.

>>6899127
I do disagree with gay marriage. Reason is because marriage is a pointless outdated tradition that doesn't function in the modern society. Marriage is not a right and less a human right. It's not even a real thing. You don't need it to live a normal life, it doesn't even give you anything. It's nothing but a made up silly fantasy that doesn't even physically exist nor have any real meaning except in people's imagination. Btw I disagree with gay marriage as much as I disagree with straight marriage or any other kind of "marriage". If you have to get married in order to have a relationship then you're not the kind of person who should even be in one.

>>6902034
This piece of racist shit literally made a holocaust joke you dipshit.

>>6902034
>calling me a liberal
top kek
Also what >>6902059 said.

>>6902629
>Marriage is permanent tradition which fundamentally keeps our communities organized and functional.
If you consider a society in which 50% of the population is subjugated to brutal violence to be "functional"...

>The justice system may have complicated that with the legalization of divorce, promotion of loose sexual behavior in the media, and general attack on the traditional family by taking the females' side in almost every divorce case.
Oh yes, it seems you really hate women.

>>6899127
Because the purpose of marriage as far as the state goes is basically a unit for procreation. Gays getting married gives them tax benefits without the return of children.

>but muh gay adoption/surrogacy

Fuck off. Gay parents are suboptimal in comparison to heterosexual parents and have worse outcomes for the children.

>>6902685
>worse outcomes for the children
Citation?

>>6902667
Wow, the 50% thing really went over your head didn't it?
In a patriarchal society, which uses marriage as one of the many institutions of oppression, women as a class are subjected to brutal violence.

The whole point of marriage, historically, is to give a man legal rights over the body of a woman. It's a system of slavery. Literally.

Unit of procreation my ass.

>>6902700
http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/new-study-on-homosexual-parents-tops-all-previous-research

>>6902737
>http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/new-study-on-homosexual-parents-tops-all-previous-research
>Family Research Council
>I wonder what kind of organization this is
>Abortion: FRC recognizes and respects the inherent dignity of every human life from conception ...
>Euthanasia / End of Life issues: Disabling diseases and injuries, including those for which there is a terminal diagnosis, are tragic. However, ...
>Stem Cells and Biotechnology: Advances in science, medicine, and technology may hold promises of improved health and well-being, but ...
>Women's Health: Family Research Council believes that abortion, far from empowering women, is a destructive force in women's lives.
Wow this sounds like a really non-biased website whose research summary I can trust!

Is this run literally by /pol/?

>>6902753
>women miserable in the 50's
Women have been miserable for approximately 10,000 to 20,000 years.

>posts frog
>OMG YOU ARE A MARXIST
Into the trash it goes.

Am I still on /lgbt/?

>>6902753
>Where are the stats provong that stable marriages leads to increased violence?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marital_rape

>Where has a matriarchy not lead to more violence against women/ societal decay?
There literally has never been a matriarchy in human history except as tiny communities built to escape male violence such as
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2015/aug/16/village-where-men-are-banned-womens-rights-kenya
which work fairly well, by the way.

>How hasn't the west protected its women from harm?
Prostitution, rape, wife battery, men killing their whole families including the children, ...

>Can you prove that women aren't payed as much as men
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap_in_the_United_States

>When did a women's body not belong to the commune rather than her?
Indeed, it did always belong to the "commune" (read: men) rather than herself!

Holy mother of Donald Drumpf, what a fucking clueless idiot you are.

>>6899127
As a Catholic, my faith compels me to reject it. However, I don't oppose others who take advantage of their rights.

Really, the only reason to argue against it here is to be contrarian.

>>6902831
>>No argument
The post was so fucking retarded I didn't think it was worth responding to, yet I wasted 5 minutes of my life doing so anyhow: >>6902832

Now comes your post full of delusional drivel denying well-established facts.

>M-M-MUH WIKIPEDIA CAN BE EDITED BY ANYONE
Go edit it to reflect reality then, removing all mention of actual research proving you wrong.

>>6902836
Why don't you just go out and google, since all of these things are so fucking basic I have a hard time comprehending how strong of a conservative bubble you must be living in not to know about them.
Do you ever visit other websites than 4chan or go outside the house?

>>6902871
>>6902892
Yup, here comes the delusional drivel ignoring facts.

Good that I didn't post this before, so now you've proven that you haven't even looked into the linked article before denouncing it:

>David R. Hekman and colleagues found that men receive significantly higher customer satisfaction scores than equally well-performing women. Customers who viewed videos featuring a female and a male actor playing the role of an employee helping a customer were 19% more satisfied with the male employee's performance and also were more satisfied with the store's cleanliness and appearance although the actors performed identically, read the same script, and were in exactly the same location with identical camera angles and lighting. In a second study, they found that male doctors were rated as more approachable and competent than equally well performing female doctors. They interpret their findings to suggest that customer ratings tend to be inconsistent with objective indicators of performance and should not be uncritically used to determine pay and promotion opportunities. They contend that customer biases have potential adverse effects on female employees' careers.[78][79][80][81][82]

On an unrelated note I like it how these cucks assume I'm a woman because their tiny brains can't comprehend how a man might not be in support of male supremacism and see women as subhuman creatures.

>Similarly, a study (2000) conducted by economic experts Claudia Goldin from Harvard University and Cecilia Rouse from Princeton University shows that when evaluators of applicants could see the applicant's gender they were more likely to select men. When the applicants gender could not be observed, the number of women hired significantly increased.[83][84] David Neumark, a Professor of Economics at the University of California, Irvine, and colleagues (1996) found statistically significant evidence of sex discrimination against women in hiring. In an audit study, matched pairs of male and female pseudo-job seekers were given identical résumés and sent to apply for jobs as waiters and waitresses at the same set of restaurants. In high priced restaurants, a female applicant's probability of getting an interview was 35 percentage points lower than a male's and her probability of getting a job offer was 40 percentage points lower. Additional evidence suggests that customer biases in favor of men partly underlie the hiring discrimination. According to Neumark, these hiring patterns appear to have implications for sex differences in earnings, as informal survey evidence indicates that earnings are higher in high-price restaurants.[72]

>Research finds that work by men is often subjectively seen as higher-quality than objectively equal or better work by women compared to how an actual scientific review panel measured scientific competence when deciding on research grants. The results showed that women scientists needed to be at least twice as accomplished as their male counterparts to receive equal credit[89] and that among grant applicants men have statistically significant greater odds of receiving grants than equally qualified women.[90]

>Research on competence judgments has shown a pervasive tendency to devalue women's work and, in particular, prejudice against women in male-dominated roles which are presumably incongruent for women.[91] Organizational research that investigates biases in perceptions of equivalent male and female competence has confirmed that women who enter high-status, male-dominated work settings often are evaluated more harshly and met with more hostility than equally qualified men.[92][93] The "think manager – think male" phenomenon[94] reflects gender stereotypes and status beliefs that associate greater status worthiness and competence with men than women.[95] Gender status beliefs shape men's and women's assertiveness, the attention and evaluation their performances receive, and the ability attributed to them on the basis of performance.[95] They also "evoke a gender-differentiated double standard for attributing performance to ability, which differentially biases the way men and women assess their own competence at tasks that are career relevant, controlling for actual ability."[96]

There's a lot more on the pay gap but I'll switch to spousal rape now.

>David Finkelhor and Kersti Yllo published a study in 1985 on marital rape that drew on a scientifically-selected area probability sample from the metropolitan Boston area of 323 women who were married or previously married who had a child living with them between the ages of six and fourteen. The study found that of the women who were married the instance of sexual relations through physical force or the threat of physical force was 3%.[165]

>In 1994, Patricia Easteal, then Senior Criminologist at the Australian Institute of Criminology, published the results of survey on sexual assault in many settings. The respondents had been victims of numerous forms of sexual assault. Of these, 10.4% had been raped by husbands or de facto spouses, with a further 2.3% raped by estranged husbands/de factos.

>A 1997 study led by Kathleen C. Basile found that 13% of US married women had experienced rape (defined as unwanted sex obtained through the use or threat of force) by their current husband.[166]

>In the UK, statistics disseminated by the Rape Crisis Federation yield the information that the most common rapists are husbands, ex-husbands, or partners.[167]

>Men and women are both victimized, but violence against women has a higher prevalence rate.[14] Although men and women commit equivalent rates of unreported minor violence via situational altercation, more severe perpetration and domestic battery is committed by men.[15][16][17] This is based on newer CTS methodology as opposed to the older version that didn't contextualize violence since 1975.[18] A 2008 review published in journal of Violence and Victims found that despite less serious altercation or violence was equal among both genders, more serious and violent abuse was perpetrated by men. It was also found that women's physical violence was more likely motivated by self-defense or fear while men's was motivated by control.[19] A 2011 systematic review from the journal of Trauma Violence Abuse also found that the common motives for female on male domestic violence were anger, a need for attention, or as a response to their partner's own violence.[20]

>Studies indicate that sexual assault by an intimate partner is neither rare nor unique to any particular region of the world. For instance, 23% of women in North London, England, reported having been the victim of either an attempted or completed rape by a partner in their lifetime. Similar figures have been reported for Guadalajara, Mexico (23.0%), León, Nicaragua, (21.7%), Lima, Peru (22.5%), and for the Midlands Province in Zimbabwe (25.0%). The prevalence of women sexually assaulted by an intimate partner in their lifetime (including attempted assaults) has also been estimated in a few national surveys (for example, Canada 8.0%, England, Wales and Scotland (combined) 14.2%, Finland 5.9%, Switzerland 11.6% and the United States 7.7%).

>>6902951
>I cannot deal with facts, the post

Reminder that as of 2013, 84% of Wikipedia editors were men. Just before anyone starts talking about how evil feminazis have infiltrated Wikipedia and made it all biased against men.

>>6902960
>ad hom that isn't even accurate
Even if I were NOT a hairy 1.80 guy, you would not have an argument.

>>6902971
>everything that challenges my world view must be wrong for unexplained reasons that only I am smart enough to see

Didn't somebody just speak of the Krueger effect?

The irony is just delicious.

Take your meds and stop having a breakdown.

If "cuck" were a legitimate insult, you would be the definition of cuck.

I'll find something funnier to do now. You can go on on your hissy fits about how all research proving you wrong is just evil Marxist propaganda.

>>6902892
>I fucking dare you to walk into the ghetto all alone without a man by your side.
>The world needs more white males.
>I'm a conservative because unlike youo, I actually care enough to look into studies
>pay attention to the concrete science behind IQ scores

People like you are as cringey as the most obnoxious feminists.

>what are your thoughts about gay marriage
>HURR /pol/
>HURR FEMINISM
well this thread derailed pretty hard.

>>6899127
I disagree with it in the sense that I believe the state should completely abrogate any involvement in the concept of marriage, allowing literally anyone to hand out marriage certificates on their own terms.

Want to marry your dog, car or shoes? Fine, I'll print you a certificate and throw a little party for you. Want a marriage certificate you can actually tell people about without dying of shame? Go get the Catholics to print you one.

File: tell me more.gif (443KB, 250x170px) Image search: [Google]

443KB, 250x170px

>>6903055
>accuses others of ad hominem
>entire post is ad hominem

>>6903719
Right, assuming that someone is of a particular background and that they therefore have no idea what they're talking about is a rational argument. You are so far above simply calling someone stupid.

>>6903951
For all of your debate club-style pedantry and reverence for the holy LOGOS, you really do suck at following a simple line of thought. Now, pay attention.

You posted about how people who disagree with you are spoiled white kids who don't understand the real world. In the very same post you complained about personal attacks. I pointed out the cognitive dissonance and you've proceeded to prove that you are indeed irony-impaired. This is the present point of our conversation. I don't give a shit about your views on racial science.

Very first reply warned that this is how the thread would turn out.

>>6904645
It's not easy to get anon, only so many people can use the past to prepare for the future, just look at the United States.

>>6902706
>The whole point of marriage, historically, is to give a man legal rights over the body of a woman. It's a system of slavery. Literally.

Brilliant fucking insight.

We have 25 million American females who have read an average of 20 romance novels per month, often with the fantasy of marriage. So, we have to ask if the feminists are suggesting that these 25 million women have enslavement fantasies because they fantasize about marriage, and this is the reason why Danielle Steel was once the best selling author in the world. Never has there been a slave class who has spent a lot of time dreaming about being a slave and purchasing books and magazines that told them how to get a slave master to commit. Either marriage is something different than slavery to women or you are implying that women are too stupid to recognize slavery, or perhaps stupid enough to recognize it as "slavery" but still desire it.

>>6899127
Unless you disagree with marriage as an institution, there's no good reason.

The "muh family unit" argument is bullshit because gays can make babies (via artificial insemination and the like) or adopt, and no one would dare suggest that infertile (or unwilling) straight people should be banned from getting married. Ultimately marriage is a legal contract.

>>6899127
>Does anybody here disagree with gay marriage? What are your reasons?
Yes. It's SJW and pointless and is only a thing so leftists can look progressive.

Marriage is a bad thing in the first place and gays are in a worse position from having it.

It's also profoundly undemocratic:
>In the US, the unelected Supreme Court foisted it on all states, ignoring their constitutional rights to govern themselves.
>In the UK, the government pushed it through with no mandate from the people.
>In Ireland, the pro-gay marriage campaign spent around 50 times the money in the gay marriage referendum, buying the vote.

>>6904787
>Unless you disagree with marriage as an institution, there's no good reason.
So you're just going to ignore that whole perspective and not defend gay marriage from it?

>Ultimately marriage is a legal contract.
If that was true, then civil partnerships with the same legal privileges would be enough. It never is, which puts tell to your lie.

>>6905699
>So you're just going to ignore that whole perspective and not defend gay marriage from it?
The people who bring up this argument never condemn non-reproducing straight couples, they don't actually believe what they say, they just use it as an excuse to be bigoted against gays

>If that was true, then civil partnerships with the same legal privileges would be enough. It never is, which puts tell to your lie.
Because the "civil partnerships" term is chosen specifically to indicate something less than marriage, even if they have equal rights. Most gays would however be okay with eliminating all references to "marriage" in the legal system and transferring all associated rights to civil partnerships for both hetero and homo couples.

>>6908679
>The people who bring up this argument never condemn non-reproducing straight couples, they don't actually believe what they say, they just use it as an excuse to be bigoted against gays
What are you talking about? Disagreeing with marriage as an institution has nothing to do with whether a couple have kids or not.

>Because the "civil partnerships" term is chosen specifically to indicate something less than marriage, even if they have equal rights.
There you go, "Ultimately marriage is a legal contract" is bullshit. Hypocritically, considering what you just said, the people who bring up this argument never call for civil partnerships as an acceptable alternative to marriage, they don't actually believe what they say, they just use it as an excuse to trick people into supporting gay marriage out of a sense of fairness.

>Most gays would however be okay with eliminating all references to "marriage" in the legal system and transferring all associated rights to civil partnerships for both hetero and homo couples.
"Most gays" are irrelevant; we're talking about gay marriage supporters. And no, most of them would not be ok with that. They want marriage and nothing else is good enough, because nothing else spits in the face of their enemies the same way. Cut the crap.

File: tumblr_lxnfi8fC401qjlxvmo1_500.gif (493KB, 500x282px) Image search: [Google]

493KB, 500x282px

>>6899127
>marriage
Marriage is about creating new citizens.
No kids = no benefits from the Government.
Come back when you can plop a child out of your butt, Arnold.

>>6909092
>because nothing else spits in the face of their enemies the same way
Is that what you think gay marriage is all about?
Are you really that much of a self-absorbed prick that you actually believe that we get off to the thought of you BAWWing while we say our vows?
Pull your head out of your arse, you whiny, narcissistic manchild. I (and virtually all other gays) couldn't give less of a shit about how you feel, whether you're for or against us, when we're getting married. I know it makes you feel as if you're actually important, but the truth is, we don't think about you at all: not during the preparation, not during the ceremony, not during the reception, not during the night we spend together after that, not for the rest of the whole fucking marriage. You're nobody to us; suck it up and move on, instead of whining and taking up space on the yaoi-yuri-ryouseiaisha-futanari section of a Vietnamese whittling forum.

>>6899675
>there's nothing about straight marriage that gay people can't be a part of.
Giving birth to children.

>>6900094
>A gay couple's marriage has no objective influence on straight marriages.
You are abusing the system wasting my tax money. No benefits for you.

>>6901221
Because "gay marriage" is an oxymoron?
You can get a separate legal status IF you think of another name for your gay union.

>>6901336
>2. It helps to obtain citizenship
So...you want to bring more dirty Mexicans into the States? Very Democrat of you.

>>6909182
>>6909190
>What are hetero couples with infertile members?
>What are hetero couples that don't want children?
>What are hetero couples that would rather adopt children than have genetic offspring?

If you say "B-but muh sanctity/religion//morals/etc.", you've proven that childbearing wasn't actually your core problem and you're using false flag arguments.
If you actually stand by your point and agree that these other types of couples should also be banned from marriage, then hats off to you for having some consistency in your beliefs. Not that your opinions/words are law or that I agree with you, but at least you aren't mentally disabled.

>>6901401
>What about the pagan religions that came before Christianity in Europe?
>What about the native american religions that came before Christianity in America?
>What about Animism, which came before all of them?

Yeah, they all murdered Homosexuals as well.

>>6909185
>You're nobody to us; suck it up and move on,
Nah, I'm gonna do my best to get it repealed, and your dishonesty is all the more demonstration of why that's the right thing to do.

>>6909207
>>What are hetero couples with infertile members?
>>What are hetero couples that don't want children?
>>What are hetero couples that would rather adopt children than have genetic offspring?
They are fucking scum and should get their benefits taken away from them.
We need to be fair to all people.

>>6909209
My point isn't that they didn't do that (although I've seen no evidence to prove it and I'm fairly sure pagan religions (and Greek/Roman ones) were very gay friendly); it's that people who argue "muh Christianity sacred holy land" seem to think that it's OK for countries to turn from pagan/native-American religion to Christianity, but can't fathom the idea of countries turning from Christianity to irreligiosity (or at least secularism (a principle on which the USA, land of the "free", was founded)).

>>6909233
>countries turning from Christianity to irreligiosity
Over my dead body. Communism was 100% secular and it was total cancer. I grew up in a Communist country. Fuck no. People need religion or else the society collapses.

>>6909248
The US is constitutionally secular (ergo, if anyone even listened to the laws over there, it always was and always will be secular).
The UK is also secular (although that's not in the constitution to my knowledge).
So is Canada.

Secularism is the implication that religion should have no bearing or influence on state law and in political affairs. What you're describing is a ban on religion and forced Atheism, which, while not completely different since both involve an irreligious government, is different enough for there to be no risk of a "slippery slope" case.

>>6909279
>religion should have no bearing or influence on state law and in political affairs.
Yeah, that's a lie.
Without religion there is no foundation for morality. Without morality there can be no justification for law.

>>6909248
I highly doubt you grew up in a communist country. Because you'd have to be at least 70-80 since most "communist" countries became revisionist/market "socialist" in the 50s.

>>6909292
>there is no foundation for morality
What about your conscience?
Oh yeah. I forgot that religious people don't have consciences, so they need a book to help them not fucking steal from, harm, rape, and murder people and to supply promises of rewards for altruism and good behaviour.

Fucking terrifying how people who need to be explicitly told why it's wrong to go around hurting people still walk freely and unchecked among us.

File: HS2.gif (85KB, 289x288px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 289x288px

>>6909313
>What about your conscience?
Are you retarded? Religion and upbringing shapes your conscience.
For ancient Aztecs sacrificing people was good and moral. Their morality vs yours. If there is no God then who is right? Which morality is the objectively correct one?
See?

>>6909309
>I highly doubt you grew up in a communist country.
Eastern Bloc.
Life in the seventies was still shit. Don't try to romanticise Communism.

>>6909324
Exactly. When you introduce religious teachings, you introduce subjective morals.
Bar psychopaths and sociopaths, a conscience is pretty inherent in irreligious children.
Like I said, I know (without teaching) not to hurt people and other things around me, while you need a book to tell you this. Fucking terrifying.

>>6909327
Did you even read what I posted? Most communist countries (including most of the eastern bloc) became revisionist during the 50s.

>>6909328
You are talking about natural law.
You need religion to make simple people work for the society without asking retarded questions.
Christianity is awesome because it took almost all laws of nature and incorporated it into its core. That's why murdering people from your tribe is a sin and promoting homosexuality is also a sin.

>>6909332
Don't teach me history, fag.
I was there and your labels don't change shit. Life was hell in these countries and only Religion allowed us to survive this era.

>>6909332
Całe życie kurwa z debilami...

>>6909341
>All laws of nature

>Don't mix fabric
>Don't eat pork
>Don't be gay (yes it is natural - there are no valid arguments for it being unnatural)
>Don't do any work on a rest day
>Worship self-contradicting, temper tantrum overlord daddy
>Don't have sexual intercourse before a guy in a funny suit gives you some titles
>Don't ever denounce those titles... ever... unless you're Protestant...

>Laws of nature...

Listen, I need to lie down and sleep now. Your absolute retardation and level of pure delusion is baffling. Good luck remembering to breathe, comrade.

>>6909346
>"don't teach me history fag"
I'm sorry, but if facts offend you, you need to go back to your fucking safe space

>>6909092
>There you go, "Ultimately marriage is a legal contract" is bullshit. Hypocritically, considering what you just said, the people who bring up this argument never call for civil partnerships as an acceptable alternative to marriage, they don't actually believe what they say, they just use it as an excuse to trick people into supporting gay marriage out of a sense of fairness.
Again, the problem isn't that what gays are offered is civil partnership, the problem is that the government does offer straight couples legal "marriage" but denies it to gays. Even if the rights are the same, the difference in naming seems to be an attempt to imply that what gays have is somehow inferior. And the reasoning is apparently to avoid offending religious people, but doing so for that reason is basically a violation of seperation of church and state, because it implies that legal marriage is the same thing as religious marriage. Again, the best solution would be to define "marriage" as just a religious concept, which means literally nothing as far as the law is concerned, and for the law to allow both straight and gay couples to get civil partnerships.

>>6909194
So how are gay marriages "wasting" your tax money when hetero marriages ae not?

>>6909198
How is it an oxymoron? Marriage is literally derived from a word meaning "a man". And in legal contexts it refers to a specific set of rights, it's silly to demand a different name for it just because different people are being granted that right

>>6909218
You're just going on and on about how gays are "dishonest" because they refuse to conform to your preconcieved notion. You might as well run around screaming "WAKE UP SHEEPLE" to anyone who denies that grass is purple.

>>6909248
Communism was bad precisely because it had, what was effectively a state religion. Criticize Stalin, go to gulag literally no different than criticize Pope, get burned at stake.

>>6909292
Morality should be based on the material world, and how other humans react. Murder isn't bad because God forbids it, but because you're hurting others and they will seek to hurt you in return. If you think morality comes from God, does that mean if God declared murder to be moral, in would be? Because that's exactly the type of reasoning Islamic terrorists use to justify themselves. And it's really no different than how dictatorships work, either. Supreme Leader says murder it's okay? Well then it is, because his word is law.

>>6909324
>Are you retarded? Religion and upbringing shapes your conscience.
Religion is only a small part of potential upbringing. Unless you define any sort of philosophy as religion, even if it doesn't involve any kind of gods or afterlife, it's definitely possible to get that without religion.

>>6909341
The notion of natural law is incredibly flawed. Yes, Christianity took cues from the laws of nature, but it took them in an incredibly ridiculous direction. They somehow went from "homosexuals cannot reproduce" to "homosexuals should be deprived of rights and put to death".

File: Sommer,_Giorgio_(1834-1914)_-_1516_-_MUSEO_DI_NAPOLI.jpg (45KB, 607x763px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 607x763px

>>6899127
yes
ultimately i'm a small part of the population and i don't care about claiming a vital institution like that for myself - the partnership benefits are just fine. i don't know why people are so keen to experiment with fundamental institutions of society with such little thought put into it. if gay marriage wasn't just a battleground for the culture war, we might actually have been able to have some rational debate about it. instead what we got is two different sides pitched against each other condemning the other as evil.
perhaps if we lived in a different type of society where same-sex relationships were given the same calling to a kind of 'sanctity' as heterosexual ones used to be, with the acknowledgement in the inherent difference in qualities between hetero and homosexual relationships (think Plato's Symposium) we might be able to have straight and gay marriage both be ideals to strive toward - instead of merely legal privileges and signifiers of a likely temporary relationship.
>>6899506
this

>>6909571
>"homosexuals cannot reproduce" to "homosexuals should be deprived of rights and put to death".
You are confusing Christians with Muslims.
You don't deserve any special rights because you are gay. You deserve the same rights that normal people have. Marriage is not a universal right.

>>6909555
Holy strawman Batman.

>>6899967
it's already devalued into the dirt by divorce though.

>>6912016
Doesn't mean we should devalue it any further.

>>6912309
There comes a point where a currency becomes so debased that the only further value extracted from it is going for the world record for "Number of zeroes printed on a currency"

Though as noted, I would ultimately prefer a free floating marriage market where any religious group provides marriage certificate and the state doesn't give preference to any of them. (i.e. straight people get civil unions too, and the Catholic marriage certificate can run in parallel competition to some guy printing them out of his backyard and consummating the marriage in the eyes of kek by getting dubs.)

Marriage doesn't mean anything and hasn't mattered for decades. Let the gays do what they want.

>>6909374
I'm more interested in the rules of nature
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3472Q6kvg0

>>6912874
EGGZELENT RAIDEN

>>6899506
Supreme court judge argued how a couple that married in their 60s would also not be reproducing

>>6912872
marriage is a tax on unmarried people, government doesn't cut spending to the equal amount of lost taxes that you can deduct when married, contributors to workplace benefits shouldn't have to pay for whoever your coworker is with

>>6909697
be nice if you could publicly disagree without being called homophobic, there's a significant economic aspect that was never mentioned

>>6899506
You're an idiot though.

Marriage didn't die because humans are humans. Do you think human nature changed, that we didn't cheat before?

Marriage died because of making divorce a possibility. It was only inevitable from that point.

>>6909829
>You are confusing Christians with Muslims.
No, I'm not. The Christian bible literally says homosexuals are to be killed by stoning. And many Christians cite that section of the Bible when saying that government should ban gay marriage.

>>6911038
Not an argument.

I disagree with all marriage so yes, I disagree with gay marriage.

>>6899127
I disagree with the term Gay marriage, not the legal rights itself. I would be ok if it would be called partnership or whatever. To me marriage is more religious contract than a legal contract, let the christiancucks keep their marriage.

Because I wouldn't want anything to do with a religious ceremony that's specifically against me.

I'm not for religious marriages, so I'm 50/50 I guess.

>>6899127
Not against it, but the government shouldn't be in the business of marriage.

>>6913118
You haven't made a single argument ITT, just faulty assertions.

>>6899127
Im against it because i want no trouble with the christians. I dont think it is good for us because we should he fucking freely in open relationships. Marriage leads to divorce anyways so lets just skip that. Besides marriage is before God and religion is so oppressive.

>>6899127
I don't believe the government should support or endorse any marriage/relationship/lifestyle. And I don't like the idea of begging the government to grant a right you believe you have.

IIRC marriage licenses were just created to stop blacks from marrying whites.

Also I don't need a piece of paper to validate my love.

File: retart.jpg (9KB, 238x192px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 238x192px

itss worngn

>>6902629
>>6902667
>>6902753
>>6902753
>>6902831
>>6902836
>>6902871
>>6902892
>>6902951
>>6902960
>>6902971
>>6902892
>>6903055
>>6903719
>>6903951
>>6904645
What happened here?

>>6902808
>Women have been miserable for approximately 10,000 to 20,000 years.
Women have been protected and served by men for 20 000 years. They have voluntarily been your literal slaves, risking their lives to protect and feed and baby you overgrown adult children.

>>6915416
You didn't even try to refute any of my points though.

>>6915989
>They have voluntarily been your literal slaves
The whole reason why slavery is considered so terrible is precisely because it's involuntary. "Voluntary slavery" is literally just employment. Some slaves were treated well by their masters, the problem was that if a slave felt they were being treated unfairly, they didn't have the option of leaving. With employment, if you feel your boss is treating you unfairly, you can always leave.

>>6915989
>What happened here?
/pol/ and /feminism/ completely derailing a thread (again)

>>6917469
Making up a strawman isn't a point.

>>6917529
>paraphrasing the bible is a strawman

>>6899506
Social institutions have evolved since Mesopotamia, you know. There's more to it than that.

Marriage allows you to see your partner in the hospital, defines what happens to your assets if you die without a will, determines what happens to children when a parent dies (less of an issue for gays, although it could happen for closeted gays who get married and have kids before their spouse dies. Bis, of course, have this issue), etc.

Lots of external rights are bundled with marriage/civil unions because 'married couple' is a convenient unit to work with. Everyone has equal rights under the law (in America, which I'm assuming we're referring to); denying those rights to any demographic is discrimination, plain and simple.

>>6917624
Yes, everyone has the right to marry a member of the opposite sex.

>>6917469
I'm not aware of women been paying somehow to men for having used them as worthless and replaceable tools from the beginning of times. And remember that sexual favors don't count since the act itself is mutual and in the modern times (the last hundred years) again, all about the female's comfort while men have to accept being the last to count in regards of their needs. It's a women first, second and every fucking time culture where men's needs come never because considering men human beings would be oppressive to women.

>>6917469
>With employment, if you feel your boss is treating you unfairly, you can always leave.
Yeah, because the divorce courts are known for treating men so kindly.

>>6913028
marriage died because one partner would be getting money from the deal, the partner that makes less money

the whole jointly owning money shit is a really bullshit concept

>>6921859
>>6921868
You're both missing the point. Marriage isn't guaranteed to be fair, but unlike slavery, you enter it voluntarily, and are allowed to leave. I fail to see how losing half your assets in divorce court is even remotely comparable to a slave being beaten to death for running away from their master. Especially since, as mentioned above, men aren't forced into marriage, it's something you have to do voluntarily, so if you don't want to face the consequences of divorce court, simply don't marry unless you know 100% you want to stay in that marriage forever. At most, marriage/divorce is more like voluntarily joining the military then getting shot for desertion, rather than being put into slavery against your will. Divorce court is literally 100% avoidable, by simply choosing not to marry.

>>6922288
Men are shamed into marriage and serving women. Men don't just lose half their property in a divorce but they become legal slaves and have to spend years and years later paying alimony and "child support" for punishment for opening their heart to a blood sucking parasite that was only in it for the benefits from the beginning. Half of black men in prison are because of unpaid divorce checks. Half of divorced men that get called "deadbeat dads" because they can't pay their masters, are homeless. So yeah, it's a legal form of slavery with no rights and no way out of it.

>>6922351
So you're saying men are literally so weak that people calling them mean names for being unmarried is as bad as being forcibly taken from your home and sold into slavery?

The only reasonable answer is to legalize same sex marriage but denying them adoption rights. At least for a few years.

Prove me wrong
You can't

Marriage should be wholly a religion institution and entirely separate from anything legal. Making homosexual marriage legal is more of a band-aid to an already broken system rather than something that actually addresses the flaws in the system.

Solution: Change the word 'married' in all legal definitions to 'legally partnered' then take it from there. People can be both or one of either. Bam. Nobody intruding on the church and the church stays the fuck away from the state.

>>6922676
What am I trying to prove wrong? All you did was state your opinion, I can't prove your opinion wrong.

>>6922288
common law marriage (admittedly not all that common) exists and basically forces you into it if you cohabit with a woman

>>6915709
>I dont think it is good for us because we should he fucking freely in open relationships. Marriage leads to divorce anyways so lets just skip that. Besides marriage is before God and religion is so oppressive.
I hope it's b8, for your's sake at least