My country just legalized same sex marriage and i am pissed

thanks

>waaah my country did something I dislike through perfectly legal means and thus I accuse you of being privileged
How about you fellate your representatives a little better next time, maybe they'll listen.

get rekt, slavic breeder

#SlavBreedersBTFO

>>7825274
>It just goes to show that the gay lobby is above the law and that there is no democracy.
This is true.

In Britain, an unelected government brings in gay marriage that wasn't in the manifesto.

In Ireland, a referendum where the media and around fifty times the funding are on one side against the people.

In America, a handful of judges ignore Congress and the president to claim a three-hundred year old document somehow says gay marriage is real and everybody just misread it for all that time.

This isn't democracy and this isn't equality.

That's pretty lame desu. Can you have another popular vote to make it illegal by constitutional amendment or something?

>>7825291
Majority of the country is against it. Why waste money on having to vote on an issue if they are just going to pass the bill?

I wasted weeks of my life pushing against this bill and spent a couple hundred $.

>>7825313
lol u got btfo

>>7825312
I am pretty sure we can't. Its not even about marriage. I am afraid that gays will soon be able to adopt children and that the goverment will pass the bill.

>>7825312
You'd need a new party just for that. Look how long it took the UK to get a referendum on something the people wanted.

Does it really affect you if someone else is in the privacy of their own home taking it in the pooper?

>uses google
>is a mobile poster
>just now realizes that legislators don't actually care what constituents want

holy goyim

>>7825292
I don't even hate homosexuals i just hate the idea of them larping and having a wedding ceremony.

Just call it something else and we are fine. And don't ask to be "married" in a church.

Call it a gay unity or just unity

>>7825313
>Why waste money on having to vote on an issue if they are just going to pass the bill?
Ask them.
I mean it's pretty common to just throw the results of a referendum out the window.

>>7825338
I don't care what they do in their bedroom. The issue is gays larping as nuclear family and wanting children as a result

>>7825338
Yes. Especially if they are allowed to raise our kida gay (also most pedophiles are gay)

>>7825346
Marriage is through the state.
Holy matrimony is through the church.
Marriage hasn't been religious ever since you had to sign forms with the government to get married.

>>7825346
>church and gay couple can consensually agree to perform wedding ceremony
>this is somehow a problem

>>7825346
Lmao weddings aren't that special. Jesus straight people are delusional. Like 50% of marriages end in divorce, the majority of married people go through like 2-3 marriages.
There's not really any sanctity to it but it provides financial benefits which is whats most important.

Governments pretty much have to act on basic human rights of equal opportunities no matter what the people think, unless you're like a third world dictatorship.

>>7825338
>you need to be married to have sex
What Victorian alternate reality are you from?

>>7825342
I am comfyposting. All browsers are the same anyways a part from Tor maybe

>>7825362
So gays only care about the benefits? Well it's not surprising considering they aren't capable of love

>>7825356
Most pedos aren't gay, tho. Most don't show any sexual attraction to any adults.

>>7825373
>considering they aren't capable of love
And you are?
Don't make me laugh.

>>7825369
>basic human rights of equal opportunities
Which has nothing to do with marriage.

>>7825369
You really think the government cares about equality or equal rights?

You think your politicians are anything else besides bought coke addicts?

>>7825380
Yes. That's why I stand for true marriage, between a man and a woman. You just said it yourself you are only in for it for the benefits. Don't try to project your inability to love on me now

>>7825274
So. What's so bad about gay marriage?

>>7825338
This. Thousands of years of legal precedent couldn't stomp it out, just like we can't stomp out drug use or freedom of thought. Illegalizing a way of life because you think it's icky results in nothing but the marginalization of roughly ten percent of humanity.

Also, world leaders generally take their legislative cues from the United States. We've got our fingers in a lot of pies, and you'll probably just have to accept that this is how the die was cast. Thanks for playing; better luck next time.

>>7825369
>Governments pretty much have to act on basic human rights of equal opportunities
Gay people cab marry someone of the opposite sex like everyone else. They always had the same rights as the majority

>>7825373
>vaginal Jew
>capable of love

lmao, you're talking crazy now

>>7825357
>>7825358
>>7825362

Marriage is between a man and a woman. You can't marry an animal or someone of the same sex.

Call it something else and stop with the obsession with church. You literally stole the "gay" flag from the bible

>Slav

lol kys

File: laughinggirls.gif (3MB, 445x247px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 445x247px

>>7825394
>Yes.
Oh shit you're going all out aren't you?

>>7825400
The fact that a marriage is a contract between a man and a woman. Anything else is not a marriage

>>7825411
How do you expect the decadence of society to not affect me? I'm not asocial

>>7825373
The majority of people only care about the benefits, what reality are you even living in lol
Marriage is just a government approval of your relationship basically and weirdly enough it gets you better taxes and cheaper insurance. It's unfair to give straight people access only.
Civil unions and common-law help as well, but in many places the laws don't let them be equivalent to marriage so you lose out on benefits of marriage.
I don't think gays should force churches to marry them though, but I consider religious gay people kind of weird.

>>7825408
>you can't marry an animal

nonsense, humans marry Slavs all the time.

>>7825408
The Bible didn't invent rainbows.

>>7825274
It's just a glorified partnership, it's not legally called marriage. Stop spreading misinformation and go back to /pol/.

>>7825429
It didnt but it's a strange coincidence isnt it?

>>7825418
>How do you expect the decadence of society to not affect me?
I never expected anything from you.
It would be asking too much from you.

>>7825417
So, why does that matter?
Did you just vote against the fact that a word has changed it's meaning?

Are you also this upset when people use the word awesome or epic to mean great rather than huge as well?

File: shrug smug.jpg (7KB, 242x208px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 242x208px

Slavs should be gassed and/or prohibited from marrying humans tbqh

>>7825408
Gays unironically stole the rainbow flag from Cusco, the Peruvian city. The bible didn't make a rainbow flag afaik

>>7825419
>The majority of people only care about the benefits
False. If this were true no one would marry someone without insurance. The majority of people take marriage seriously.
>It's unfair to give straight people access only
No one denies gay people the posibility to marry someone of the opposite sex. They have the same right as straight people.

>>7825444
I am upset when people do not use the correct words especially when it comes to my native language.

>>7825438
No, not really. The first big social reformer to use a rainbow flag was Thomas Müntzer. Admittedly, Müntzer did it to reference the rainbow covenant, but really the LGBT movement stole it from him, not from the Bible.

Seriously. I'm a pretty right wing person and I generally hate the pride parade fags. But I see no reason to get upset about people being gay and getting gay married.

It's just such a silly thing to get upset about.
Hate the fags who makes their sexuality into a personality. Not gays in general.

>>7825417
Historically, the idea of marriage has changed and will continue to change.
Interracial marriages used to not be a thing at all.
Dowries used to be standard and required.
Arranged marriages for political reasons were perfectly normal and love had hardly anything to do with marriage.
Divorce was a huge no-no, death was the only way out.
Lots of cultures have/had legal polygamy.
And so on.
"Traditional marriage" is an idealized fiction, not reality.

>>7825445
My grandfather is a holocaust survivor. :/

>>7825445
This. They're so ugly, it's not even funny.

>>7825481
My grandfather died during the holocaust.

Wrong, marriage is for humans, which slavs aren't.

>>7825467
Then you should grow up and realize the entire fucking point of language is to be changed and adapted upon. Not to stay stagnant to the point of irrelevancy.

>>7825478
>Interracial marriages

Are like 90% failure and 90% fetishism.

>>7825274
Good, the fundamental human rights should not be left in the hands of uneducated and prejudiced masses.

>>7825481
Kys. It's very obvious you were never meant to be.

>>7825417
More like contract between man and child.

>>7825486
>>7825495

Well i am a holocaust denier though since i know it was not a planned thing. But i can't use any other word to explain it.

People starved because the camps ran out of food.

>>7825481
then it seems like being sent to a work camp is in your genes. it's your destiny

It's funny because slavs are lesser even than gays.

"marriage is a religious thing" literally means "I am perfectly fine with marrying children because it is a religious thing"

>>7825494
>sticking your dick into someone's shithole
>fundamental human right
You are mentally ill

>>7825505
Oh, I get it, you're not like the other Jews? Right? No one gives a FUCK. Do the right thing and sudoku, Shlomo, then you can be honorary white.

>>7825526
>speaks about how sacred marriage is
>doesn't even know what marriage is

Kek.

>>7825512
My people are destined for greatness. My clan may be weak right now but in a few generations it will return to it's former glory.

>>7825526
>sticking your dick into someone's peehole
>fundamental right
>mentally ill

I can make you sound ridiculous by using toilet words too.

>>7825525
Why are gays always thinking about fucking children? They are always bringing it up

>>7825536
Judaism is a religion not a race you far left conspiracist.

>>7825544
Women have different holes you retarded faggot

>>7825547
Why are breeders always talking about fucking animals? They always find a way to bring it up.

>>7825547
>1.6 billion straight people worship a literal straight pedophile
>"Why are gays always thinking about fucking children?"
The irony is lost on you.

>>7825547
>You can't change marriage. It wouldn't be marriage anymore if you did.
>We already changed marriage so you can't marry kids anymore. And it's still marriage.
>UH UH... PEDOPHILES!!!

>>7825552
Comma he said comma as if he's ever been with a woman.

>>7825549
>Judaism is not a race
>you can literally spot a jew from a mile away

k

>>7825564
Underage people can still get married with the consent of their parents in many places. Changing the legal age of consent is not changing marriage. It's still between a man and a woman, as it should only be

>>7825576
That's because you are paranoid. You are seeing things that do not exist.

Seek help

>>7825547
I know, it's really bad. Now they're talking about letting slavs get married like they're people. It's a sick world.

>>7825580
What's wrong with underage people marrying? 16 17 year olds are young men and women. It's not paedophilia but they do need a few years to mature in modern society that shelters them.

>>7825580
*swoosh*
The sound of a goalpost migrating to a different climate.

>>7825580
>he thinks an 11 year old is a woman
Damn nigga.

>>7825580
So you're a pedophile.

>>7825585
>it's a Schlomo (SLAVIC Shlomo to boot) deludes xirself into thinking xir's white and tries to convince others about xir whiteness

get out

>>7825592
But they can marry. They just need the consent of their parents
>>7825595
>makes a comparision that makes no sense
>is explained why his argument is retarded
>heh moving the goal posts aren't we?

>>7825592
There's a world of difference between two 16-17 year old teens marrying each other and marrying a 12 year old girl to a 40 year old man.

>>7825600
>knowing how the law works makes you a pedophile
Tell your boyfriend to stop hitting you in the head with his cock

>>7825580
Changing the legal age of consent changed who is eligible for marriage.
Legalizing gay marriage changed who is eligible for marriage.
You're going to have to explain the difference.

>>7825611
>Government meddling with religious marriage literally does not count because it's goalpost migration season

>>7825619
Marriage is between a man and a woman. Changing the age a man and a woman can marry does not change what marriage is.

Gay marriage directly contradicts marriage. It'd be like saying toddlers should be eligible for retirement

>>7825274
Slavs are subhuman trash. Why should we care what they think? More trouble than they're worth. Nuke the Slavs and be done with it.

>>7825618
You think little girls are women that fit the definition of marriage/coupling, ergo, you are a pedophile.

>>7825603
At least you won't breed. Your clan and your race will die out and we will rule over you.

Bark online see if i care. You are nothing but a filthy animal.

>>7825628
The only thing Hitler did wrong in Eastern Europe is lose.

>>7825632
>we will rule over you.
>Empire of Dust

>>7825629
I don't think anything. What the law says is not my opinion.

>>7825627
>Marriage is between a man and a woman
Except that's not true is it.

>Changing the age a man and a woman can marry does not change what marriage is.
It is considering a woman is an adult female. Not a child.

>>7825622
Actually, they're changing the legal definition of marriage. It's understandable that you confused the two, but let me be the first to explain that, unless you live in a theocracy, there will likely be at least some separation of church and government in your country.

I swear, if you kids can't play with democracy nicely, we'll take it away.

>>7825627
You realize we're not talking about your religious ceremony right? The definition of that is between you and your god.
We're talking about the legal institution and the government is perfectly capable and allowed to modify a legal definition.

>>7825637
It is your opinion.
>Changing the legal age of consent is not changing marriage. It's still between a man and a woman, as it should only be
Therefore, you believe age isn't a factor in the acceptability of a partnership (marriage). You don't think it would change marriage if a guy married a baby girl. That means that you personally think that baby girls count as women within the definitions of what marriage should be. It can only be assumed, therefore, that you are either a pedophile yourself or perfectly happy with pedophilia.

>>7825638
>It is considering a woman is an adult female. Not a child.
What's your point? An adult man marrying an adult woman is not a marriage between a man and a woman? The definition is unaltered.

>>7825639
>they're changing the legal definition of marriage.
But that means the legal definition can be changed to include same sex marriage as well.

>>7825640
>We're talking about the legal institution and the government is perfectly capable and allowed to modify a legal definition
It shouldn't be if the majority of people are against it
>>7825649
I don't know why you keep saying that the law is my opinion. Maybe because you don't have any arguments?

>>7825649
So keep the definition and call the faggy gay in a gay marriage a woman or the butch lesbian in a lesbian marriage a man.

Marriage keeps its definition, between a man and a woman.

>>7825649
No. That a 30+year old man marrying a 11 year old isn't a marriage between a man and a woman but a man and a girl.

I.E, the law has changed. Marriage is different than it was. And that's not counting shit like polygamy.

Fuck, men have been marring men since one of the first human civilizations became a thing.

>>7825274
Do not give up, OP. Get moving and get it revoked

>>7825665
I was arguing in your corner. I quoted the wrong post (whoops)

>>7825677
You did include your opinion. You consider a change to the age range of marriage to not be a change in the definition of marriage, but a change in the genders/sexes of the partners not to be a change in the definition, despite a change in age potentially having the exact same impact on things like fertility and the capacity to successfully raise children as a couple. That has nothing to do with the law, you just stated that those laws are different around the world, the rest was your opinion, and is your opinion.

>>7825682
You can argue about ages as much as you want but that won't change the fact that marriage is between a man and a woman

>>7825690
Actually, Slovenia already tried that. They struck down a bill in 2015 legalizing same-sex marriage by referendum because most slavs are hyperconservative shitlords.

File: 7hWYBbgl.jpg (42KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 500x500px

>>7825408
Let's see how many arguments this post has.
>Marriage is between a man and a woman.
Not an argument
>You can't marry an animal or someone of the same sex.
Not an argument
>Call it something else and stop with the obsession with church. You literally stole the "gay" flag from the bible
Not an argument

>>7825698
Not anymore it isn't lel

>>7825698
>11-year-old girls are women
Yeah, sure, just try and keep it in your pants when you drive by the local elementary school, Mohammed.

>>7825698
>but that won't change the fact that marriage is between a man and a woman

Guess I shouldn't try to convince a pedo who sees nothing wrong with marrying 11 year olds.

And you think people would look to you for moral guidance about marriage.

>>7825677
That's bullshit, goverments often have to implement unpopular policies.

>>7825274
YES YES YES YES

GET FUCKED BIGOT EUROTRASH

>>7825736
Yeah but all the queers marrying will all be slavs too so it's more of a wash than a victory.

>>7825715
>>7825722
>P-PEDOO!!
Is it that hard to come up with actual arguments?
>>7825723
In extreme situations, not when a lobbying group forces them to do so

>>7825789
A positive is that they won't be able to have children. So less slavs.

>>7825794
>Is it that hard to come up with actual arguments?

I'm waiting for you to come up with one that haven't continually been refuted.

>>7825794
>Is it that hard to come up with actual arguments?
It's super easy to come up with the argument that you're a pedophile because you practically state as much.

>>7825274
The idea of marriage in general, at least the way people like you see it, is fucking stupid.

Also, stop wasting your energy trying to stop people from doing something that effects them positively and doesn't effect you at all. Idiot. No one appreciates your superiority complex, you're not better than everyone else.

File: Sad_Love_and_Melo.jpg (27KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 640x360px

are we being raided by /pol/?

>>7825346
>Just call it something else and we are fine.
Is second class citizenship some kind of a core value for eastern europeans, or are you even aware that civil unions or whatever nonsense word you want to use allows for all sorts of legal fuckery to be done to gay couples?

>And don't ask to be "married" in a church.
If the church (Presbyterian, etc.) is fine with letting people marry each other in it; then let them have their marriages wherever they want you authoritarian cry baby.

Also pretty sure that legal marriages and whatever hocus pocus married in the eyes of jeebus spiritual church marriages aren't the same thing for the people that care about that religious stuff. But I don't know how fucked your nation is with anti-secularism, so who knows what your countries government can do to your religious institutions.

>>7825802
>>7825805
My argument is that marriage is between a man and a woman and that gay people have always had the very same right to marry someone from the opposite sex as straight people, so in no way there was unfair treatment. Especially since, as many anons on here have said, they only want to get married because of the benefits, not because of love. The benefits from a partner from the opposite sex are just as good.
You on the other hand are saying I'm a pedo because I said that requiring the two people to get married to be of a certain age doesn't go against the definition of marriage.

>>7825946
>My argument is that marriage is between a man and a woman
Literally not an argument.

>>7825946
Marriage is ultimately just a legal institution and the goverment defines who is eligible for such institution. If it says that gay people are eligible for it, then marriage is between gay people, too.

>>7825981
We've already gone through this. The state shouldn't be able to do that when the majority of people is against it. That's what happened in this case.

>>7825291
>perfectly legal

But not at all democratic. The referendum for equal marriage failed, and failed pretty miserably too. But the government still forced it on an unwilling populace.

>>7825946
>between a man and a woman
Why? Marriage is a social construct. Homosexual couples can raise children. Unless your country is a theocracy there is no reason to stop it.

>>7825994
>The state shouldn't be able to do that when the majority of people is against it.
That's not how it works at all.

>>7825994
Why should the majority deny rights that they have to others just because they are different?

>>7826002
Marriage is a legal term, not a social construct. You can't change the definition of murder because you want to claim that you were murdered at the grocery store because the milk was too expensive.
>>7826003
see>>7826000
>>7826013
Because you can't have a peaceful society if you go against what a considerable number of the population wants. That's how civil wars happen.

>>7826017
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

>>7825994
No, the goverment must sometimes enact upopular policies to protect the equal rights for all people.

>>7826022
>>7826025
There was no tyranny and no one was being denied rights because no one was denying gay people to marry someone from the opposite sex, just like how the majority was able to.

>>7826017
Law is a social construct unless you believe it comes from a divine source.

The tyranny of the majority is a source for violent conflict.

If the majority voted for it you would still be bitching so why not just crawl into a cave and ignore the world.

>>7825291
It's literally a violation of Democratic ideals, his complaints are more than valid, not everything revolves around you fag, though I'm a little glad homophobes got rekt, it's more of a loss

>>7825994
>The state shouldn't be able to do that when the majority of people is against it.
Rights and laws aren't determined by majority opinions.

>>7826032
But people were denied the right to marriage with their significant other.

>>7826032
That was the same argument made in the usa about interacial marriage. You are debying rights based on sex. Why can a man marry a woman but not a man?

>>7825946
>My argument is that marriage is between a man and a woman
Your argument so far has been that age of consent laws don't matter when talking about what constitutes acceptable marriage, which you have stated time and time again. Shall I quote every time you said it or can we both agree on this demonstrable fact?

>gay people have always had the very same right to marry someone from the opposite sex as straight people, so in no way there was unfair treatment.
You also have the right to buy tampons, so by your logic, in no way could you ever be discriminated against based on sex.

>they only want to get married because of the benefits, not because of love
If love were not the incentive, this would be the most convoluted tax break plan in history.

>You on the other hand are saying I'm a pedo because I said that requiring the two people to get married to be of a certain age doesn't go against the definition of marriage.
Yes for reasons already laid out, but for your sake since you are so dense we will lay it out again: By stating that legitimate marriage can be between two people of any age, you are stating that a legitimate partnership can be between two people of any age. You also have very strongly implied that 11-year-old girls are women, and have said things that lead logically directly to that conclusion. You are endorsing what would be considered pedophilia both legally and socially.

Basically we're taking time out of our day to mentally babysit a pedophile and probable slav, so really, being in this thread should count as community service for the mentally and genetically disabled.

>>7826032
>and no one was being denied rights because no one was denying gay people to marry someone from the opposite sex,
They were denied the right to marry the person they love.

>>7826042
If you word it like that, you are asking for someone to bring up the obvious slippery slope. What if their significant other is their sibling?
>>7826048
Because marriage is the union between a man and a woman. If you want another kind of union, you should give it another name.

>>7826038
The only people in favor of mob rule are the ones that think there mob is bigger. How about law is designed through logical analysis instead of emotion.

>be me
>be 7
>at friends house for a play date
>he has to go poop
>I follow him into bathroom and help him construct a bridge of toilet paper spanning the toilet bowl
>he poops and it lands on the toilet paper bridge
>mom walks in
>sends me to gay conversion camp

>>7826056
>Because marriage is the union between a man and a woman
According to what? Marriage has been many things.

>>7826056
>What if their significant other is their sibling?
If they don't procreate and are both adults capable of consent, what's the problem?

>>7826032
That shit goes both ways. Technically, everyone gains rights from gay marriage being legalized. Anyone can marry a member of their gender now, you don't have to be gay to take advantage of that.

File: 1478693873522.jpg (17KB, 315x347px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 315x347px

>>7826058
Lol shilling for the political elites I see

>>7826051
>Your argument so far has been that age of consent laws don't matter when talking about what constitutes acceptable marriage
You are the one who is not getting it. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Maybe some time ago, an 11 year old was considered a woman and as such she could get married. Nowadays she would need to be older than that. That didn't change the definition of marriage, it changed the definition of woman.

>You also have the right to buy tampons, so by your logic, in no way could you ever be discriminated against based on sex
I really do not see how this has to do with anything.

>>7826068
>Everything I disagree with is shilling.

Nope. You are just an uneducated fool. I personally believe a political competency test should be passed in order to vote. I'm confident most people would fail.

>>7826055
>They were denied the right to marry the person they love
But people state again and again that marriage is not about love but about the benefits. You can get the benefits from someone of the opposite sex

>>7826105
They want those benefits with the person they love, ding dong. It makes no sense to file taxes jointly, for example, with a random person rather than the loved one you live with.

File: o-DONALD-TRUMP-MEMES-facebook.jpg (119KB, 2000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 2000x1000px

>>7826097
No you are literally arguing for the creation of an """"""elite""""" group of voters to rule over commoners, that is literal shilling for political elites, retard

>>7825346
Then we should eliminate the entire institution of state-sanctioned """marriage""" and let marriage just be some religious larper ceremony, label the legal side of things as just civil union or something.

>>7825354
Child abuse is still illegal, unless you actually live in a shithole. Saying gay people shouldn't be allowed to adopt because they MIGHT be abusive or something is both imposing on others, and going against the principle of innocent until proven guilty. There's plenty of straight people I know that I hope never become parents, but it's not my business, and not the state's either, until there is actual evidence of abuse.

>>7826056
>What if their significant other is their sibling?
no kids = no problem

>>7826065
So let's legalize sibling marriage too now.

>>7826131
>Then we should eliminate the entire institution of state-sanctioned """marriage""" and let marriage just be some religious larper ceremony, label the legal side of things as just civil union or something.
This is the answer. The state has no place dictating what is and is not marriage.

>>7825373
That's all most people care about anyway, no matter what orientation they are. The idea that marriage is some sacred holy thing is just a dank meme that straight diseases use to claim their marriages are legitimate and gay marriages aren't.

>>7825403
>>7825463
But that's a dogshit lie you straight Christian disease.

File: a68.jpg (131KB, 350x474px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 350x474px

>>7825408
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/marriage
>A union of two or more people that creates a family tie and carries legal, social, and/or religious rights and responsibilities.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/marriage
>Marriage is the process by which two people make their relationship public, official, and permanent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage
>Marriage, also called matrimony or wedlock, is a socially or ritually recognized union between spouses that establishes rights and obligations between them, between them and their children, and between them and their in-laws.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage
>the state of being united as spouses in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law

>>7825438
a strange coincidence that rainbows appear in the bible and that they are used elsewhere in the world?

>>7826155
It's not to my taste, but I'm not a faggot that thinks the other kids have to play exactly the way I do or I need to go tattle to teacher on them.
As long as everyone is a consenting adult and they don't produce inbred children, there's literally no issue with that.

>>7826155
and why not?

>>7825505
At best it's horrendously gross incompetence. As in "try to change a ligbtbulb and accidentally murder everyone in your entire neighborhood" level incompetence. If the Germans had just left the Jews alone they wouldn't have starved. They tried to pull off a half genocide and when it became a full genocide they were all like "Oops, did I do that?".

>>7826170
>my leftist propaganda websites agree with me so I'm right

>>7826172
> and they don't produce inbred children
That creates a question - should people with serious genetic disorders be allowed to reproduce?

>>7826094
>You are the one who is not getting it.
I've just been critically examining your claims, you've just been restating them. I am guilty only of not "getting" your retardation, a crime I will readily admit to.

>Maybe some time ago, an 11 year old was considered a woman and as such she could get married. Nowadays she would need to be older than that.
Wrong and you have stated as much:
>Underage people can still get married with the consent of their parents in many places. Changing the legal age of consent is not changing marriage. It's still between a man and a woman, as it should only be
So no, she wouldn't have to be older than that, she'd just need a pedophile parent to be willing to give her to another pedophile. You have used an 11-year-old girl before as an example of someone who would fit an acceptable female role by your definition of marriage, which is a form of pedophilia.

>That didn't change the definition of marriage, it changed the definition of woman.
Apparently you don't mind changing definitions of "woman" so long as marriage stays okay, which has been my point all along. At last we're in agreement: You think little girls count as women and women count as acceptable partners for men. By the transitive property, based on your arguments so far, pedophilia is fine with you.

>I really do not see how this has to do with anything.
Right, I'm sorry, I've been making these posts assuming you can follow basic reasoning. Silly me, in a thread about slavs of all places! What you said was:
>gay people have always had the very same right to marry someone from the opposite sex as straight people
Which for gay people is about as useful as men having the "very same right" to purchase tampons as women. In other words, at best it's useless, and at worst, it's unwanted. You also said
>so in no way there was unfair treatment.
Which is why I made the apt analogy to discrimination based on gender.

>>7825549
It's both.

>>7825552
Yes and their holes are for disposing of bodily waste, not for sticking bodily waste into.

>>7826172
>>7826174
>tfw no hot sibling

>>7826000
>The referendum for equal marriage failed, and failed pretty miserably too.
So did the referendum on the treaty of Lisbon and the referendum on the Ukraine treaty.
Guess what happened to those?
A government can reject the results of a referendum if the law states that it can.
The people can punish the ruling government in the next election for that trick.
And if you really disagree with them shoving the referendum aside you can take that shit to court.

>>7826038
>his complaints are more than valid
And? What his government did is just as valid.
If he disagrees he'll have to take it to court, or simply vote for someone who does respect the outcome in the next elections and undo it.
He lives in a democracy, not North Korea.
>not everything revolves around you fag
I hope you die of cancer.
Twice.

>>7825580
Children marrying with the consent of their parents is the sort of thing that could only come out of the diseased mind of a straight dogshit Christian. That's not even how consent works, you can't consent FOR someone else, if they're unable to consent, then consent simply isn't happening. That's like saying it's okay to rob someone's house if they're not there to tell you no. But of course straight diseases don't even understand the concept of consent, to them it's just some abstract legal concept, in their mind when they think about it all they see is an empty void, they just think it's some formality that everyone agrees to but has no actual substance.

>>7826111
Why should the barely literate, uneducated and superstitious be able to influence the lives of those objectively better than them? If people want a say then they can work to improve themselves.

File: 1487802737982.jpg (159KB, 566x467px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 566x467px

>>7826180
>some of the most popular websites that are generally trustworthy and are agreed upon by most of the world are leftist propaganda because i do not agree with them
im not even a leftie, retard

>>7826105
This >>7826110.

It's not hypocritical to marry for love and economic benefits, so I don't understand why you're trying to frame arguments against civil unions that way.

Being in a committed relationship with my significant other doesn't mean I have to become a second class citizen just because of something as arbitrary as your personal definition of marriage.

>>7826202
Don't you know that facts are a Jewish plot?

>>7826182
people with serious genetic disorders should be barred from public healthcare and special education for their children desu, they can reproduce if they can pay for it or they can deal with their mistake on their own

>My one (1) vote in the election went against giving people equal (not privelidged) rights so there's no fair mommy wah

>>7825274
Actual democracy doesn't vote about human rights.

You can't start a vote to bury all crippled people alive.
A majority could vote for it, but it wouldn't be democratic.

>>7826213
Some serious genetic disorders don't show symptoms untill people are willing to procreate. But it's not like I disagree with the idea after all.

>>7826184
>by your definition of marriage
It was not my definition of marriage. Someone brought up that underage people could get married before and now they can't and that because of that the definition of marriage has changed. I'm pointing out that what changed is the definition of man/woman or grown up, not the definition of marriage.
>Apparently you don't mind changing definitions of "woman" so long as marriage stays okay
It's not what I mind or don't mind. It's what happened. Just like how 11 year olds could work on factories before but they can't now. Me recognizing that fact doesn't mean I want to make children work at factories. It just means that the definition of child and grown up changed. Working is still working and marriage is still marriage. It is also a fact that underage people can get married in some places. That doesn't mean I agree with it. It's just something that happens. I know you want to call me a pedophile to discredit my words, but it really is not helping your case.

>at best it's useless, and at worst, it's unwanted
It is not useless because they would still get the benefits from it.

>>7826222
it absolutely would be democratic in the literal sense, fuckwit, which is why we don't live in full and actual democracies

>>7825946
>is that marriage is between a man and a woman
Assertion is unproven. Rejected.

>gay people have always had the very same right to marry someone from the opposite sex as straight people, so in no way there was unfair treatment.
Argument equivalent to saying "you have equal rights if women are only allowed to marry men named John". Rejected.

>they only want to get married because of the benefits, not because of love.
Legal marriage provides benefits but does not facilitate love in any meaningful way. You can love someone without marrying them, the only thing marriage adds is the benefits. Rejected.

>You on the other hand are saying I'm a pedo because I said that requiring the two people to get married to be of a certain age doesn't go against the definition of marriage.
Definition of marriage is not objective. By declaring a definition you are supporting it. Declaring a definition of marriage in which adults can marry children is supporting pedophilia.

>>7825994
So if the majority of people were okay with gay marriage, you'd support it being legalized?

>>7826228
Then realize that the marriage is above else an union of two people eligible for marriage. And the definition of who is eligible has changed here as well, same as with your example of changing definition of grown up.

>>7826017
>legal term, not a social construct
Legal term means label applied to legal construct. Legal construct implies social construct because the legal system is a subset of society.

>>7826032
But that was not the right they wanted. The right they demanded was to marry regardless of gender.

>>7826056
>What if their significant other is their sibling?
There's LITERALLY no harm in that if both are the same sex. Fucking your siblings is only bad because it leads to bad genetics in thet offspring.

>>7826180
Maybe that wouldn't happen if the right stopped living in a fantasy world. Just saying.

>>7826243
>Argument equivalent to saying "you have equal rights if women are only allowed to marry men named John"
False. That does not grant the same right to every man and woman like marriage between a man and a woman does.
>the only thing marriage adds is the benefits
Then gay marriage is not needed because the benefits from a partner of the opposite sex are just as good.

>>7825346
Unless you live on a really undeveloped country, church and state should have been separated a long time ago. This means that legal, civil marriage (whatever you call it the bureaucratic process the state performs to bind couples together) has nothing to do with religious ceremonies. The only thing they share now is literally the name and the binarism (two people for dummies). That means legalizing gay marriage won't interfere at all on what happens inside your Religious temples and sort of mating ritual you engage in there.
But who knows, maybe you're from such backwards country that the church is still responsible for printing birth and death certificates.

>>7826276
>The right they demanded was to marry regardless of gender
That is not marriage. They should name it something else.

>>7826278
Wrong. If you live in a country that does not recognize homosexual marriages and your partner ends up in hospital, you won't be able to obtain medical information about his well being. And that's just one example.

>>7826278
>That does not grant the same right to every man and woman like marriage between a man and a woman does.
So denying people equal rights on the basis of their name is wrong, but denying them equal rights on the basis of their sex is okay?

>Then gay marriage is not needed because the benefits from a partner of the opposite sex are just as good.
That's a ridiculous solution though. Why should someone marry someone they have no interest in, and in the process deny that person from being married to someone they love? Why not just let any two consenting adults marry and recieve the benefits?

>>7826282
Fine, but also remove the dank meme of "marriage" from being a legal concept. Let all legal "marriages" be called civil unions and let marriage become a religious term with no legal weight.

>>7825540
lol

>>7826291
They have the right to obtain information about their spouse of the opposite sex just like the majority. They have the same rights.

>>7826228
>I'm pointing out that what changed is the definition of man/woman or grown up, not the definition of marriage.
Right, and what I've been saying this entire time is not that you are wrong on that point but that your point in itself, the very thing which you have successfully argued within the bounds of this thread, is a defense of pedophilia, which you have yet to address besides trying to loop it back around to marriage rather than biting the bullet and facing the consequences of the stupidly simplistic definition of marriage that you've been working with this whole time.

>It's not what I mind or don't mind. It's what happened.
Yes, it's what happened, and so far, according to you, it's been fine. Why do we know this? Because your definition of marriage, that you, you personally, have been using, makes it so.

I have in no way questioned your definition of marriage, others have but not me. All I'm doing is pointing out that there's a noose around your neck and that the floor is about to drop out from under you, while you keep being bothered that I don't agree with you that it's a fancy necktie, and that historically speaking, that floor did drop out once but now is flat so it's fine.

>Just like how 11 year olds could work on factories before but they can't now.
Not really like it at all unless you start arguing that the definition of a workplace could include children because it used to.

>It just means that the definition of child and grown up changed.
In this case, no, they didn't suddenly discover that 10-year-olds were children, they knew that, they just decided that children shouldn't work.

>It is also a fact that underage people can get married in some places.
Right, and you consider that to be within the bounds of what marriage should be.

>>7826307
False.
If you're male, you're allowed to get information on your wife.
If you're female, you're not allowed to get information on your wife.
How is this not sex discrimination?

>>7826307
But they don't have the same right when that person is of the same sex. So they don't have equal rights.

>>7826302
>but denying them equal rights on the basis of their sex is okay?
No one is denying them rights. They can still marry someone of the opposite sex like the majority of people. They have the same rights.

>Why should someone marry someone they have no interest in, and in the process deny that person from being married to someone they love?
I never said they should. Just that they have the same right like everyone else.

>>7826323
You are denying the right for a woman to marry a woman when a man can marry a woman. You are denying rights based on sex.

What reason is there to deny homosexual couples marriage?

>>7826307
How is it right for someone to live with another person that is the love of their life for years, then if something happens they can't even see them in the hospital when they could be literally dying? And then the family that rejected their partner because they were gay and hasn't seen or talked to their kid in years rolls in and gets to see them and make the medical decisions instead of the devoted partner?
That's just cruel.

>>7826320
>How is this not sex discrimination?
There is not discrimination. All women can get information about their male spouses. All men can get information about their female spouses.
>>7826321
>But they don't have the same right when that person is of the same sex
Because marriage is between a man and a woman

>>7826228
>That doesn't mean I agree with it.
Pointing it out on its own? No, it doesn't. Using it as an example of something that doesn't negatively change the definition of marriage, however, does mean you find it to be within acceptable bounds. In order for this to be the case, you must accept the fundamental premise of the acceptability of a man and a woman being together without regards for age, since age is, as you have repeatedly said, a change in the definition of man and woman, not marriage, so marriage is acceptable without taking these into consideration. This directly opens the door for pedophilia.

>I know you want to call me a pedophile to discredit my words, but it really is not helping your case.
My case is that you defend pedophilia and are too stupid to realize it, so I am helping you to see how and why so that you can update your arguments and no longer defend pedophilia if you don't wish to. I did call you a pedophile because at the time I assumed you were logically capable of following along, but I saw shortly after that you need your hand held, which is why I'm still talking about this. It's an act of charity.

You now have the right to marry someone of the same sex if you wish.
You get more rights but you reject them.
Don't you want more rights?

>>7826335
>What reason is there to deny homosexual couples marriage?
Marriage is between a man and a woman.

>>7826323
Here's a simple rule to determine if something is sex discrimination:

If there exists an illegal situation, where changing the sex of any one person would cause it to become legal, then sex discrimination is occuring.

If Alice and Bob are both female, then their marriage is illegal. But if you change Bob's sex to male, it becomes legal. Thus, sex discrimination is occurring.

This "opposite sex" stuff is the equivalent of the "seperate but equal" policies they had in the American south. It was supposedly "equal" because everyone could use the facilities for their race. But it was still racial discrimination because it failed the above test: it was illegal for Alice to use the white bathrooms because she's black, but if she was white it would be legal.

>>7826351
do you have an actual reason or you just going to play the broken record?
you and your shitty god lost, get over it.

>>7826351
Not in your country or mine.

Why should it be only a man and woman?

>>7826339
>There is not discrimination. All women can get information about their male spouses. All men can get information about their female spouses.
Then the rights are inequal. A right that all men have (getting information about their female spouse) is denied to all women.

>Because marriage is between a man and a woman
[citation needed]

File: Red-Panda.jpg (152KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 1000x1000px

>>7826339
>>7826351
Allright everyone, that's it. We have reached the point when OP can't make any arguments anymore and just repeats one phrase. It's time to abandon this thread and enjoy our lives again.

>>7826388
It is not my fault that you can not understand basic concepts.

>>7825346
>Just call it something else and we are fine. And don't ask to be "married" in a church.
Some religions are perfectly fine with the idea of gay marriage, do you think you should be able to limit their religious freedom? Or do you think that Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, etc. shouldn't be able to get married either because they don't share the exact same religious values you do?
Hell, marriage wasn't even originally a religious thing, it only became that way due to Christianity trying to stick their noses into everyone's personal lives.

>>7826394
We under stand your "basic concepts" just fine. We just don't agree with them.

>>7826357
>If there exists an illegal situation, where changing the sex of any one person would cause it to become legal, then sex discrimination is occuring.
gonan start pissing in the womenfolks' washroom tomorrow, wish me luck
t. cis male

>>7826394
Its not our fault you can't think logically.
You have failed to support your own position.

>>7826394
Apparently you're unable to grasp the concept of change.

>>7826388
His slavic saturation point (his 'slavination' point) for new ideas has been reached. This is a slow process, like teaching a gorilla sign language. You won't teach a gorilla to form a coherent sentence on day one, you have to start with simple words. However, Slavs are capable of some forms of higher speech, so there is some hope that they will be the second or third non-humans to be civilized after chimps and dolphins.

>>7826407
Does anyone really think that sex-segregated bathrooms AREN'T a form of sex discrimination? Many consider them an acceptable and justified case of discrimination, but you'd have to be literally insane to say that no discrimination is occurring.

>>7826407
Was that ever truly a law or just a courtesy guideline? I have encountered plenty of cis females going into the men's room just because the women's was full.

>>7826420
I see you have no further arguments and have resorted to insult me. ok.
>>7826427
It does not fit their agenda so they conveniently ignore it

>>7826351
You fail to understand that saying that marriage, as a legal construct, is between a man and a woman, without providing any reasoning for it does not constitute an argument.

Before you refer to the Bible's definition of marriage, I remind you were speaking on a purely legal level, and not a religious one.

And if you try to argue the legal benefits of marriage exist to stimulate procreation, then justify why infertile people are allowed to get married.
And, continuing along this argument, if you justify it by the low percentage of people who are infertile, then you must justify why the same logic doesn't apply to homosexuals, since they are also a small minority.

>>7826433
>It does not fit their agenda so they conveniently ignore it
Just like same sex couples can now legally be married.

>>7826427
There's no discrimination as long as the facilities are more or less equal in conditions
>>7826420
Well there's a reason why the word slav comes from a word slave.

>>7826420
Gorillas can't learn to form sentences at all, dumbass; they can only learn individual vocabulary words. Grammar is a development unique to humans.

>>7826443
separate but equal sounds real familiar.

>>7826433
>I see you have no further arguments
See? Already the slav is starting to ape larger words. If we can steer him away from his natural impulse to ask for alcohol and to call in sick to his minimum-wage factory job, we may one day teach him how to count or even spell.

>>7825313
Sounds like you got played. Maybe next time spend your money on something besides being on the wrong side of history.

>>7826444
There are married women that do porn. Now you just look like a retard. Apparently my phones ip range has been blocked from reporting so I can't report you from posting porn on a blue bored.

>>7826449
The thing about separate but equal in US in 50s was wrong, because these facilities were unequal in the first place. So the priniples, when it came to racial separation, had to be thrown into the garbage.

>>7826427
>>7826433
While sex segregated bathrooms are forms of sex dicrimination, there are good reasons for it.

However, if you cannot provide any similarly good reasons for same sex marriage being illegal, and I speak of marriage in a purely secular standpoint, then it's unjustified discrimination, and should be legalised.

>>7826443
>Well there's a reason why the word slav comes from a word slave.
Pretty sure it's the opposite.

>>7826444
>>7826454
Whom art thou quoteth?

>>7826446
lolretard, even computers can learn grammar, and any mammal brain is far more powerful than any computer.

>>7826468
they also want to adopt

>>7826446
They can learn to answer simple questions with accuracy higher than guesswork. They're no geniuses syntactically, obviously, but that's good news because Slavs are slightly smarter than they are. Not much, not smart like a good hunting dog or something, but better than a gorilla.

>>7826469
except slav's brain :^)

>>7826433
>I see you have no further arguments and have resorted to insult me. ok.
How about you support your own argument? You have failed to do so.

>>7826476
And?

>>7826486
No one has been able to explain me how gays do not have the same rights when they can marry people from the opposite sex just like everyone else

Hope you die alone and in pain OP, like LGBT people who have suffered in place of true demons like yourself. And when I finally die myself, I'm going to increase your torment 50x more in hell.

>>7825313
I'm really glad you did

>>7826469
It's not a question of computing power, moron. Grammar is hardwired in human brains. Great apes have not undergone the same development and can not learn grammar.

>>7826493
I am the demon, but I was not the target of the AIDS epidemy. Huh.

>>7826492
Well, now you have the right to marry a man just like everyone else, congratulations.

>>7826493
hell isn't real

>>7826492
Because the right is not "to marry the opposite sex" you retard. The actual right is "to marry a woman". A right which men have, and women don't. Thus, discrimination.

>>7826514
Not for long hopefully. Already making arrangement with other people to start taking it down.

>>7826492
If a man can marry a woman then why can a woman not marry a woman?
If you fail to answer this question then you fail in your argument entirely. Be specific. "it is wrong" or "marriage is only between a man and woman" are not answers to this. If you can not support your statement then you fail to make one.

>>7826524
No, it's to marry the opposite sex. Man and woman. Everyone has the same rights. Including gay people.

>>7826535
That's not the right gay people want though. That's like saying "everyone has a right to eat chicken, but nothing else" and sperging out when people point out that some of them prefer fish to chicken.

>>7826529
>"marriage is only between a man and woman" are not answers to this
But that is the answer. Marriage is between a man and a woman. A chair is not a television.

File: btfo.jpg (24KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 400x400px

>>7826546
>A chair is not a television
Tell it to this guy.

>>7826527
I get the feeling like you think we care but I for one am seriously not joking when I say I seriously don't give a shit about slavic countries any more than I would give a shit about some starving African country. This whole thing is basically just trying to politically polish a turd of a country anyways, all the Febreeze in the world won't make a turd into a flower.

>>7826546
>Marriage is between a man and a woman
Now explain why that is. Pro tip, You can't.

>>7826545
>That's not the right gay people want though.
The majority voted to have the right to live in a country without gay marriage. Why should they not be listened?

>>7826546
>Marriage is between a man and a woman.
Why though?

>>7826561
We all know that if it was the other way around you would still be bitching.

>>7826561
So if everybody in EU voted on denying basic rights to slavs and got majority, that's all right with you?

File: tvchair.jpg (140KB, 500x333px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 500x333px

>>7826546

>>7826559
>>7826566
Because the right of marriage comes with responsibilities with your partner, your in laws and your children.

>>7826567
I would not support it but I would not go against it either because I believe in democracy. The majority's right to decide has been denied.

>>7826561
Because their behavior is illogical. They do not lose anything through the legalization of gay marriage - but gay people are denied something by having gay marriage being banned. Thus it is not an action that maximizes the well-being of society. The people who favor banning gay marriage are essentially bullies - they gain pleasure from harming others. Rights should be absolute, and not dependent on what the majority wants. That's what makes them rights.

>>7826580
>They do not lose anything through the legalization of gay marriage
We lose our society and decency.

>>7826579
>Because the right of marriage comes with responsibilities with your partner, your in laws and your children.
So? Gay couples can still be expected to be responsible.

>>7826579
>Because the right of marriage comes with responsibilities with your partner, your in laws and your children.
And now explain how those are different in couples where at least one person is infertile and homosexual couples, and why you're okay with one and not another?

>>7826585
Those aren't real things. You're free to live in accordance with your own ideas of decency, but not allowed to impose it on others.

>>7826588
Gay couples have the highest rates of cheating and lesbian couples have the highest rates of domestic violence. They can not be expected to be responsible

>>7826593
You have just decided that there is no difference between good and right. That is how culture is lost.

>>7826579
And gay people can't hold responsibilities with their partners and in laws?
And before you mention children >>7826438

>>7826579
>Because the right of marriage comes with responsibilities with your partner, your in laws and your children.


And this means same sex couples should not be allowed to marry how?
A same sex couple is little different that an infertile couple. Surrogacy and adoption exist.

Anything better? Because this is a complete failure on your part. I am giving you a chance to support your side and you fail to do so. This is why same sex marriage passed in the USA because no one could argue against it.

>>7826604
See>>7826597
Do not imply that lobbying is not part of the US's system.

>>7826600
Provide a logical argument for why the legalisation of same sex marriage infringes on your nations overall decency, keep in mind >>7826438

>>7826597
Men have the highest rate of violent crime. Should we forbid men from buying weapons or sharp or heavy tools?

>>7826600
Culture SHOULD be lost if it is unable to justify its continued existence.

>>7826597
Do your laws prevent the irresponsible from marrying? I doubt it because that would affect straight people.

>>7826609
You keep failing. There are irresponsible straight married couples in your country right now. No one has been able to make an argument against same sex marriage that did not also apply to straight couples. Just admit that you think it is wrong because of your religion so we can write you off as a theocrat and be done.

>>7826609
And even before gay marriage was made legal, half of all marriages ended in divorces. Plus, if you're going to use the domestic abuse statist, you should also justify how this is damning to lesbians, but not to straight men, who abuse their partners almost as often.

>>7826609
What does lobbying have to do with anything?

>>7826632
of course you will jump to defend the straight disease you dogshit pedophile

File: Laughing-Crying-Emoji-01.jpg (10KB, 220x200px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 220x200px

>>7825313
>spent a couple hundred $

>>7826634
Straight couples can properly raise children

>>7826585
MOMMY, THAT KID IS DOING SOMETHING I DON'T LIKE!
MAKE THEM PLAY THE WAY I WANT THEM TO!

>>7826649
Many are clearly unable to.

>>7826649
So can gays. Many straights can't .
I am in favor of baby licensing.

>>7826649
As seen with you.

Oh wait.

>>7826666
I do not think babies should drive.

>>7826677
I was raise by a single mother. The lack of a father figure is detrimental. So it the lack of a mother figure. Gay couples will produce only broken people.

>>7826683
Provide evidence of this that isn't based on pure speculation.

>>7826640
They're not defending them though, they're saying that the accusations of gays being irresponsible are just as applicable (if not moreso) to straight people.

>>7826649
So can gay couples.

>>7826683
I would suspect that the number of parents has a bigger impact than the parents' genders.

>>7826683
Why should we listen to you, then, a broken person, when many of us have both parents in our lives? Both of my parents are loving and supportive, if that makes me whole and a more productive member of society than you (which is true no matter how it came about), then why should we care about what you have to say over someone who can be trusted to give us a truth unbiased by how daddy didn't love them?

>>7826699
You are like that because you have straight parents.

>>7826683
I have met people from single parent homes that turned out fine and plenty of fuck ups from straight homes. How about we regulate who can have children.If they can prove to be a competent adult capable of raising children without the help of the government and are clean of illegal drug use then they should be allowed.

>>7826683
>I was raise by a single mother.
your opinion is basically worthless desu

>>7826702
You like spouting off things that you can not support.

>>7826683
>Gay couples will produce only broken people.
If loving parents result in broken people, then I hope God with his infinite mercy takes your children.

>>7826708
>>7826713
You argue against discrimination, but in truth you are very quick to support it. This is why you people can not be trusted.
>>7826717
Do you want to kill children?

>>7826649
Even dogs can raise their offspring to maturity. It's not fucking hard baka

>>7826702
Right, I have excellent models and an extremely close-knit family, which also knows that I'm gay and has welcomed my boyfriend into the fold immediately and without reservation or hesitation, so your point here is... well, you don't have one.

>>7826720
>Do you want to kill children?
No fate can be as cruel as being raised by you.

>>7826492
Just think of it as men and women not having the same rights, rather than gays and straights not having the same rights. Men could marry women but women couldn't marry other women and vice versa, therefore men and women didn't have the same rights. Now they do :^)

>>7826720
Who am I discriminating against? Anyone can be that If they try. Or do you support children growing up in homes with drug addicts and criminals in poverty?

>>7826720
no shit, you have to discriminate against the right people
single parent households are 9001 times as destructive as same-sex parent households

>>7826720
Actually, were just taking your arguments to their logical conclusion, if people raised by single parents are in some way broken, and you've been raised by a single mother, then by your own logic, you are broken.

Mind you, you don't actually seem that broken, but hey, you yourself said people raised by sinle parents were inferior, we just decided to agree with you.

>>7826720
Why would we care about the trust of some broken emo slav from a single-parent family? What could you possibly say about the family unit that would be of interest?

>>7826789
I can speak from experience. Something none of you can.

>>7826795
You're assuming none of us have single parent families?

>>7826803
None of you was raised by gay couples

>>7826795
You don't think any of us have grown up with single parents?

Here's what happens. If we say we come from good families, you say "you can't speak from experience, I can." If we come from single parent families, you say "Aha, I knew it, you're broken." Nobody's going to take pity on you here because we can all see that you're just some snake in the grass slavshit who's going to pounce with some dumb gotcha argument the second we say anything. You're not smart, you're not the first retard we've babysat on this board, and you won't be the last.

>>7826806
were you?

>>7826806
You don't know that.

>>7826812
You have so much anger inside. I would not expect you to be a good parent.

>>7826806
I have met children of gay couples that are better off than some children from straight couples. You have nothing real to support your side. Are you a theocrat? Are you against same sex marriage because of religious reasons?

>>7826829
You are such an obvious pussy. I know for a fact you will raise children to also be spineless.

>>7826837
>will raise children
I doubt he will get that far.

>>7826832
>I have met children of gay couples that are better off than some children from straight couples
Prove it.
>>7826837
You are very sexist too.

>>7826200
Yes.

>>7826847
Hardly. I've never met a woman who is a pussy like you. They have to push a whole baby out of their snatch during pregnancy and I imagine if being raised by a single mom was enough to leave you "broken," childbirth would kill you outright. Women by their physical nature are therefore stronger than you.

>>7826861
Women are just baby factories to you? Are you a homosexual male?

>>7826877
As much as men are living dildos.

>>7826847
>You are very sexist too.
You're the one that said discriminating against people on the basis of their sex is okay.

File: Der Untermensch.jpg (46KB, 320x430px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 320x430px

>>7826886
Slavs severely overestimate their own intelligence.

>>7826886
Not on the basis of their sex. On the basis of their deviance, maybe.

>>7826927
Certainly we know you never discriminate based on age.

>>7826847
>Prove it.
Ok ,What counts as proof? I'm not giving out the information of minors that could be used to attack them.

http://www.medicaldaily.com/study-finds-same-sex-couples-make-better-parents-it-because-theyre-more-prepared-291628

Prediction: "Leftist site, doesn't count" (link from proven hate group/political lobbyist)

You have done absolutely nothing to support your side.

What is your reason for being against same sex marriage?

Prediction: repeating of "one man one woman" nonsense and generally avoiding the questions.

>>7826927
That's circular reasoning. You conclude that a woman wanting the same rights as a man is deviant, and therefore does not deserve to have those rights. It's basically a Catch-22 (though I kind of doubt you're well-read enough to know what that means).

>>7826953
He's been trying to set up these really obvious and stupid double binds, I think because he was caught in one himself earlier.

File: mBN4gzG.png (40KB, 755x620px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 755x620px

>>7826962
This is what i'm expecting out of op.

still waiting for someone to explain me how gay people do not have the same right as straight people when they can marry someone of the opposite sex as well.

>>7826192
>defending EU anti-democracy

>>7827285
It has been explained. You continue to put your fingers in your ears and scream in order to ignore it.

Why should a woman or man have a right that the other doesn't? A woman can marry a man so why do you think a man should not be able to marry a man.

Of course your uneducated opinion does not matter because you have already lost.

>>7827333
Why do you call me uneducated when you are the one who does not understand the definition of marriage.

>>7827285

>>7826524
>>7826529
>>7826335
>>7826737

Here you go.

How does it feel to be so out of touch with reality. Is it a good high or bad high?

>>7827356
A woman can nott marry a woman and a man can not marry a man because marriage is between a man and a woman. It is not that hard to understand. I do not do drugs, but it seems that you do.

>>7827343

>>7826170
You are such a massive failure.

Where do you get your definition from? Your country thinks mine is right.

>>7827363
Your failure is so massive that I predict it will soon collapse under it's own weight. >>7827368

>>7827368
>>7827377
From my dictionary.
>Marriage: Legitimate union between a man and a woman.
Printed in January 2009

>>7827387
What is the name printed on the cover?
Your book is outdated,assuming it even exists.

File: 20170226_232052.jpg (521KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

521KB, 1600x1200px

>>7827407
I have many dictionaries. They date as back as the late 1800s. All of them with the same definition. How can I be on the wrong side when hundreds of history support me? Even thousands, actually.
>Your book is outdated
Maybe your knowledge is wrong. My knowledge has built societies. Yours only seek division and perversion.

>>7827488
Now show me the covers of those books or you prove your dishonesty. Keep in mind Merriam-Webster has already been posted and is on my side. You keep on failing.

>>7827516
You are a hypocrite. You say I can not dismiss your sources but you want to dismiss mine because they do not fit your agenda. Any dictionary before this decadent trend will support me. Thousands of years of human history.

>>7827544
I see no sources that you have provided. I asked you to provide a source but you refuse. History once said the sun was pulled across the sky by a god in a chariot. You keep failing as if you have no intention of succeeding.

Holy shit you know its bad when this cuck gets more action on this thread than most of the 10,000 trans threads on this board, Can't we just leave mohamad to be stupid and go talk about how cute some boys are?

>>7827758
Why not both? He leaves large gaps in his posts and gets worse each time.

>>7825313
>spending several hundread dollars in Slovenia (isn't this like an entire months worth of sallary? lmao) in order to stop people in love from marrying each other

you're a fucking idiot m8

>tfw they will have marriages that cost less than what you spent in your shitty lobbying effort
rekt

>hey guys how about everyone should have the right to marry people of the opposite sex
>no we don't want that
>why?
>because most people aren't gay

what a retarded line of argument, lets just ban things that the majority of people don't do!

>lets allow people to own guns
>no we shouldn't do that because most people aren't interested in owning guns

>lets allow people to put pineapple on pizza
>no we shouldn't do that because most people aren't interested in pineapple pizza

>lets allow people to have sex for money
>no we shouldn't do that because most people aren't interested in having sex for money


Maybe just admit that you're not arguing over what people want/don't want and are just interested in perpetuating your heteronormative societal order?

fucking breeders baka

>>7825313
>I wasted weeks of my life pushing against this bill and spent a couple hundred $.
This made my day, OP wasted money and effort to stifle a group of people doing something perfectly benign just because 'muh traditions'/etc.

Good job Slovenia, your system can overcome the wallets of deluded jagoffs like OP.

>>7827544
>Thousands of years of dictionaries
Can you even count?

>>7825313
Lol, thanks for making my day OP.

>>7825274
>ooga booga muh demogradic gubmint does stuff I don't like and it all should be the other way round because a collective of niggers says so
commie trash, just like most of right wingers

>>7827544
Congratulations, you have dictionaries from the Renaissance period, however, this does not actually prove your point, because if I wanted to, I could just pull up a manuscript from the same era where Geocentrism is accepted scientific fact.

Or I can go even further back, and show you some scrolls on how Egyptians, who are far older than any of your dictionaries, thought the Sun was a sentient entity, the Nile was gifted to them by the gods, and that they were ruled by gods themselves.

tl,dr: Just because something is old or traditional does not mean it's right.