Let's get this straight

>>8066554
We are superior to the lower castes why wouldn't we receive special treatment?

>>8066554
Half the board means it that way.

The other half means no more importing people who want to kill us.

>>8066554
I'd like to avoid being punched in the face when I walk through the street.

Also I'd like to avoid threatening from my boss when he realizes I like dicks

>>8066608

Both are already illegal?

>>8066562

Like what?


>>8066566

Half the board is against freedom of speech if it hurts their feelings?

>>8066618
Nah mate, plenty of states have no employment non-discrimination protection for sexual orientation, meaning it's perfectly legal to fire someone for being gay there.

>>8066554
To start with, I'd like to be allowed to marry the person I love in as much of a legal sense as Joe and Sally hetero can be married according to the state
I don't give a damn about "muh Christian values" because their god has nothing to do with my love life

>>8066629

So? employers should be able to fire whoever they want, imo.

>>8066554
id like to be able to marry, id like it to be illegal for someone to call me a faggot id like to be able to adopt kids and id like not to risk being beaten to death when i hold hands with bf in the streets

Mainly being able to walk outside after dark and not be scared shitless of getting abused or killed.
Also not really about rights, but would be nice if people could look at how I'm obviously doing all I can to be female, looking more or less like the real thing, and address me accordingly.

>>8066618
Well, the law says one thing, the judges do other, in my case discrimination from my boss was never punished. And the guy who punched a friend the same

>>8066660
Assault is a punishable offense by law, what the fuck are you on about.

>>8066651
>id like it to be illegal for someone to call me a faggot
I'd like for people to hate free speech to be sent somewhere there isn't any.

File: IMG_0981.jpg (132KB, 500x362px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 500x362px

>>8066554
OP the 'rights' you bring up are sometimes only on paper and in actuality in our society some enjoy these rights, while some do not

It is usually something like those who are poor or afflicted in some other way or who act contrary to authority or who deviate from society's norms who sometimes have their rights abused

Obviously, I think you can see plainly why LGBT people could fit the criteria of those who sometimes may have their rights abuses (sometimes in extreme cases)

we should all pull together as a team, I think (our whole society)

>>8066684
bump

>>8066638
CLASSKEK

>>8066689
bump

>>8066678
itd be better if other slurs like this were legal but they are not, unless its all or nothing it does count as discrimnation.

>>8066694
bump

File: IMG_0989.png (195KB, 378x425px) Image search: [Google]

195KB, 378x425px

>>8066697
trying to bump this thread until we get rid of the "666" in the numbers.....sorry

Bump

>>8066651
>>8066608
People can be violent at you for many reasons, do you want to get extra proteccion for what affects you only?

I want virgin privileges, virgin safe spaces and virgin representation in video games, series and films. I also demand virgin shaming to be frowned upon and I want the media to start talking about the virgin rights.

As an incel, I probably had to endure as much shit as you for liking dicks but I don't make victimism my way of life.

>>8066660
You have fewer chances of getting killed than if you were a normal male and fewer chances of getting raped than if you were a normal woman. Also people should be able to fire whoever they want.

File: IMG_0687.jpg (62KB, 400x289px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 400x289px

28And one of the scribes came up and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, asked him, “Which commandment is the most important of all?”

29Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.

30And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’

31The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”

32And the scribe said to him, “You are right, Teacher. You have truly said that he is one, and there is no other besides him.

33And to love him with all the heart and with all the understanding and with all the strength, and to love one’s neighbor as oneself, is much more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.”

34And when Jesus saw that he answered wisely, he said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” And after that no one dared to ask him any more questions.

>>8066696
Which slurs are illegal and why doesn't your country have free speech?

>>8066554
>What the fuck are LGBT rights?

Employment protections
Housing protections
Marriage protections
Being able to adopt
healthcare protections

Talk your conservaCuck nonsense all you want, this isnt a free country and you fucking know that.

here is this post again without the "666" in the numbers:

">>8066554 (OP) #
OP the 'rights' you bring up are sometimes only on paper and in actuality in our society some enjoy these rights, while some do not

It is usually something like those who are poor or afflicted in some other way or who act contrary to authority or who deviate from society's norms who sometimes have their rights abused

Obviously, I think you can see plainly why LGBT people could fit the criteria of those who sometimes may have their rights abuses (sometimes in extreme cases)

we should all pull together as a team, I think (our whole society)"

File: IMG_0682.jpg (46KB, 400x340px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 400x340px

1Brothers,a if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted.

2Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.

3For if anyone thinks he is something, when he is nothing, he deceives himself.

4But let each one test his own work, and then his reason to boast will be in himself alone and not in his neighbor.

5For each will have to bear his own load.

6Let the one who is taught the word share all good things with the one who teaches.

7Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap.

8For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.

9And let us not grow weary of doing good, for in due season we will reap, if we do not give up.

10So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone, and especially to those who are of the household of faith.

>>8066729
If you believe in the christcuck god why are you gay then?

>>8066713
>Employment protections
Should be left to the states, and it is.
>Housing protections
"
>Marriage protections
You should be allowed to have a union (not marriage) for legal purposes, but for marriage it should have the consent of the religious denomination performing the ceremony. For example, if you want to be a fucking heretical faggot you can, but you'll be estranged from, say, Catholicism.
>Being able to adopt
No. Keep your filthy mitts away from the children. You can subject yourself and other adults to your disgusting defect, but children should be protected from people like you at all costs.
>healthcare protections
Explain.

>Talk your conservaCuck nonsense all you want, this isnt a free country and you fucking know that.
You're free to do anything that doesn't harm others or yourself seriously.
What freedoms do you lack?

>>8066796
You are incredibly stupid. I say this as a certified genius and philosophy teacher.

>>8066631
Their God has a lot to do with the fucking concept of marriage though, you fucking moron. Go get your legal bullshit under a union, leave marriages to churches, you piece of ignorant shit.

>>8066809
>> genius
>> philosophy teacher
choose one.

>>8066738
just because one is gay that doesn't mean God isn't real

I think that everything is in God's hands and He is righteous no matter who you are

>>8066809
>ree ur dum, Im a +200 IQ techer :(
Good post.

>>8066796
Anon, I agree with everything you've said except the adoption stuff. Wouldn't you rather someone spend their childhood in with loving gay parents than grow up in an orphanage or being moved around in the foster system?

>>8066810
...Marriage predates the shit out of all Abrahamic faiths.

>>8066810
Their god has fuck all to do with marriage you retard. Why don't you go look up the history of human marriages, and see that Christianity/Catholicism is way too late to the party to be claiming dibs on anything.

>>8066817
152 actually. Not that IQ matters much and if you believe it does? Kek.

>>8066819
>Wouldn't you rather someone spend their childhood in with loving gay parents than grow up in an orphanage or being moved around in the foster system?
No. I'd prefer them sleeping on the bare ground and eating nothing but bread and water than have the mentally ill care for children.

>>8066827
>I'm a certified genius
>IQ doesn't matter
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXzEcwYs8Eo

>>8066704
>being a virgin
>LGBT
how are they remotely the same?

>>8066829
An incredibly high amount of children are sexually abused in the foster care system. Even more are physically abused, and then even MORE are emotionally abused.
As it is, the system for abandoned children is good at nothing but turning out broken, hopeless criminals who are a drain on society.

The fact you'd rather perpetuate that than let gays raise children is all the proof needed to dismiss your argument.

>>8066842
>Even more are physically abused, and then even MORE are emotionally abused.
in what ways?

>>8066708
idk, ask my country. its illegal to call someone a nigger in the streets like in every country rich enough to afford having own law

>>8066852
I see, you're an idiot who thinks his opinion = the law.

>>8066842
>An incredibly high amount of children are sexually abused in the foster care system.
Stats pls
>Even more are physically abused, and then even MORE are emotionally abused.
"
>As it is, the system for abandoned children is good at nothing but turning out broken, hopeless criminals who are a drain on society.
I can't comment until I see the data.

>>8066868
https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/cm2015.pdf#page=78
There you go. If it doesn't automagically scroll down for you, you're looking for table 5-5 "Perpetrators by relationship to their victim"
This isn't the best set of stats as it includes *all* cases of child abuse and not just fostercare ones, but I'm not putting in anymore effort into something I know to be true.

>>8066903
>https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/cm2015.pdf#page=78
>There you go. If it doesn't automagically scroll down for you, you're looking for table 5-5 "Perpetrators by relationship to their victim"
Thank you.
>This isn't the best set of stats as it includes *all* cases of child abuse and not just fostercare ones, but I'm not putting in anymore effort into something I know to be true.
Then why post it, if you're going to immediately post "it was real in my mind" tier bullshit.

>>8066919
Because the numbers still add up to it being really real, and not just in my head. But this is 4chan, and I know that it would be real easy to see that abuse cases are more numerous by other relationships and then turn that into a fallacious argument.

BTW, found a study on the relationship between foster care and criminality as well
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0927537114001146

It seems that boys <13 suffer a negligible increase in likelihood, while boys >13 are anywhere from 38% to 55% more likely to be criminals.

>>8066944
>teenage boys
>getting adopted
???

>>8066954
It's a fair point, and if this discussion has revealed anything to me it's that teenage boys need to be adopted more.

>>8066962
By heterosexual couples, yes.

>>8066554
not being fired or segregated for being LGBT

no denial of service

marriage or equivalent is nice

other then that I don't really give a shit

>>8066971
I suppose no denial of service unless it really makes sense. If it's like a scientific or specifically religious thing then sure.

>>8066971
>not being fired or segregated for being LGB
Fine, just don't bring it up.
>T
No, fuck off you mentally ill piece of shit.
>no denial of service
No, people should not be forced to interact with others.
>marriage or equivalent is nice
Civil unions are fine. Don't intrude on the sanctity of marriage.

>>8066971
>>8066974
>or specifically religious thing then sure.
I'm not even in favor of anti DOS laws and this exemption offends me.

>ITT: taking the bait this hard

>>8066996
>ugh that's so offensive, could you not?
>>>/reddit/

>>8066704
HERP DERP FREE MARKETS BRUH
EMPLOYERS SHOULD JUST NOT PAY GAY PEOPLE AND MAKE THEM WORK FOR FREE IF THEY FEEL LIKE IT AMIRITE

>>8067002
Offensive in the way gender or racial quotas are.

>>8067009
>EMPLOYERS SHOULD JUST NOT PAY GAY PEOPLE AND MAKE THEM WORK FOR FREE IF THEY FEEL LIKE IT AMIRITE
If the gays accept such generous pay for them, then yes.

File: ttj.jpg (8KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 225x225px

>>8067013

>>8066554
>You are born in a free country and you have the same rights than everyone else.

Where being openly gay within some of our lifetimes resulted in society lobotomizing us.

>>8066638

Oh god, you are one of those libertarian subhumans. Do not pass go, do not collect $200, go straight to the slave pen.

>>8066796
There is no god, and I don't need consent from your god or your religion to get married if I ever wanted to.

t. atheist who enjoys triggering christcucks

>>8066554
here are the rights /t/ needs
>having access to treatment for dysphoria (hormones) without years of gatekeeping
You wouldn't leave someone with crippling depression for years without anti-depressants would you?
>being able to come out to parents without being kicked out of house and disowned
>being able to date someone without being murdered when I tell them I'm trans

reasonable?

>>8067213
>being openly gay within some of our lifetimes resulted in society lobotomizing us
Wait when? Where?

>Oh god, you are one of those libertarian subhumans.
Not her but what's wrong with her view and what's the better alternative?

>>8066554
Equality and freedom and progress are all bullshit. We just want power.

God is a faggot and Ayn Rand is a stupid nigger.

>>8066554
LGBT rights generally means
>Same legal protections as everyone else
>No workplace discriminations based on sexual orientation or gender identity
>Right to have sex with and marry each other (both with consent)
>Right to parent/care for children (this one's disputed, with some for, some against, and some apathetic; consider optional)
>etc.
Leftist agendas and the special snowflakes of Gen Y and Z have warped this into a load of privilege seeking tripe. Very few people are dumb enough to believe these things and use 4chan, though.

Jesus Christ was a sissy boi who loved to suck down Roman loads. The hardest he came in his faggoty life was when Longinus thrust that big, hard spear right into his side.

>>8067308
>LGBT rights generally means a bunch of privileges and more privileges I won't even mention
>not a load of privilege seeking tripe
Choose one

>>8067246
You surely can enforce the first one, but how would you enforce the last two?

>>8067213
>libertarian subhumans
I'm not a libertarian but one of the things our country was founded upon was freedom of association.

>>8067366
Look, I think the movement is a bunch of baloney as much as the next guy, but those aren't unreasonable pursuits. Those are pretty basic rights. And when I say "movement", I'm referring to the bandwagoners--because we all know they exist, just like they exist in every community.

Admittedly, in a lot of places, they already have them all, so their complaining makes little sense. I live in Vancouver, for example, and all their bitching seems horribly out of place, like a whole bunch of LGBT people just want to bitch about anyone who's not them. I understand that not everywhere is Vancouver, however.

OP touched on the "tripe" in regards to safe spaces, limiting speech if it hurts someone's feelings, and things like that. I don't believe anyone's feelings ought to be protected under law. That's a slippery slope.

I do think a lot of problems would be solved if the LGBT stopped creating labels to further segregate themselves, though. "Cis" has no reason to exist, other than to, ironically, discriminate. We don't need more discrimination, we need less.

>>8067532
>"Cis" has no reason to exist, other than to, ironically, discriminate.
Better get rid of 'heterosexual' as well. After all we don't need words for normal people, right?

Being able to talk accurately and precisely about things is not discrimination.

>>8067578
muh fee fees are hurt when obese trannies call me cis scum

File: 3df7b75806e3d042b793b0ad76e25b5a.jpg (62KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 640x640px

>>8066810
>I have no idea what I'm talking about and have blindly accepted common misconceptions as fact with no examination! Maybe if I say it with passion and belittle dissenters, no one will notice I'm full of shit!

>>8066638
>hurr who needs job security let's just have a society where everyone walks around under the sword of damocles regardless of their work ethic and expertise, resigned to praying that they don't set off a superior's irrelevant pet peeve with every move, like that twilight zone episode with the magic kid

>>8066651
>id like it to be illegal for someone to call me a faggot
u r a faget

>>8066554
Rights like being able to marry and adopt, and not be discriminated against in employment and housing.

File: de8cd24fdfb4be249b6d387c4845152d.jpg (62KB, 480x640px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 480x640px

>>8066658
>Mainly being able to walk outside after dark and not be scared shitless of getting abused or killed.
How gay are you that strangers can spot it in the dark?
Everyone walks around with that fear.

>>8067236
Then you have no right to marriage as you do not believe in the religious aspects of it, however, you may have a civil union that affords the same legal privileges as marriage, just not with the infringement of religious beliefs.
And you're a fool to believe that Agnostics would not support this, who are far more numerous than fedora tipping retards like yourself.

>>8066671

You imply police necessarily give a shit when it comes to queers.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/world/australia/australia-gay-men-killed-suicides-sydney.html?_r=0

>>8067643

Marriage is not a religious practice, it's a legal contract.

>>8066618
>Half the board is against freedom of speech if it hurts their feelings?
Why should anyone be in favor of speech that they don't like?

>>8066638
I disagree. If employers disproportionately fire LGBT people, even after adjusting for the quality of labor, then those employers are objectively causing harm to the LGBT community and should be penalized.

>>8066704
>You have fewer chances of getting killed than if you were a normal male
Wrong. Both gay men and trans women are more likely to be subjected to violence than "normal males".

>>8066796
>Should be left to the states, and it is.
Wrong, discrimination is either okay or it isn't. If it's okay, no state should forbid it, if it is, all states should forbid it. Would you be okay if laws against rape, murder, theft were all decided at the state level?

>You should be allowed to have a union (not marriage) for legal purposes, but for marriage it should have the consent of the religious denomination performing the ceremony. For example, if you want to be a fucking heretical faggot you can, but you'll be estranged from, say, Catholicism.
Marriage already exists purely legal concept. My (straight) parents are married, but by the state, not by a priest. I'd be okay with renaming legal marriage as civil unions, as long as it's done that way for all gender combinations.

>No. Keep your filthy mitts away from the children. You can subject yourself and other adults to your disgusting defect, but children should be protected from people like you at all costs.
I'd only agree with that if the gay couple in question actually had documented history of committing sexual abuse or other sex-related crimes. And the same should apply to straight couples.

>You're free to do anything that doesn't harm others or yourself seriously.
Yet you claim that gays adopting children is harming them, while firing people for being gay is not harming gay people. Your definition of harm apparently has very little connection to reality.

>>8067660
Based Ausbros

>>8067642
She's a tranny you dope.

>>8067660
That was a long time ago in terms of trans acceptance.

>>8066796
>No. Keep your filthy mitts away from the children. You can subject yourself and other adults to your disgusting defect, but children should be protected from people like you at all costs.

>question: what rights do lgbt people want? you have all your rights!
>answer: "to not be treated like a lower form of human"
>reply: "no u lower form of human!!"

I wonder what the problem might be here?

You fear the discomfort of empathy. You dehumanise other people, because you are scared to face up to the difficult idea that they might really face undue suffering. You fear the complexity of real life and the idea that your own worldview might be inadequate, thus you stop yourself from ever listening in good faith. You couldn't handle the guilt if it ever turned out you were wrong to see other people like this, so you dig deeper and deeper...how long until you jack out of reality altogether?

>>8067678
>>8067678
No, it's an evolution from what was monogamous relationships between a man and a woman for purposes of rearing children.
Religion adopted the practice and expanded on it, making it a part of the doctrine.
Then it evolved into a civil practice alongside religion, resulting in this mess of system where the civil and religious aspects are combined, when they should be separated.

>>8066810
Again, I'd agree with that if non-religious straight legal unions weren't called "marriages" either.

>>8066815
Burden of proof is on the one claiming God is real. No atheist can prove that God DOESN'T exist, but if it's so hard for a mortal human to prove that God DOES exist, then that implies that God's existence has such little effect on us that we might as well ignore him.

>>8066829
Then you're advocating harming children.

>>8066919
>"it was real in my mind"
>>>/pol/

>>8067426
Freedom of association should not be considered an absolute, other factors need to be considered and balanced against.

>>8067643
Wrong. Plenty of straight people get "married" without any religious officials consenting to it.

>>8067727
>Wrong. Plenty of straight people get "married" without any religious officials consenting to it.
>>8067718

>>8067687
I meant LGBT acceptance.

>>8067679
>Why should anyone be in favor of speech that they don't like?
More to the point, why should anyone be in favour of speech that attacks them via alienation, dehumanisation, exclusion, and occasionally propaganda doing all of the above, for things that aren't their fault (i.e. the 'crime' of existing).
The minimisation of these things into "hurt feelings" and "don't like" is a tool to alienate/dehumanise/exclude people further. The minimisation of the active power of speech is the same.

>>8067000
This

>>8067727
>Then you're advocating harming children.
No, I'm saying they're relatively better off than having faggots for parents.

>>8067727
>>"it was real in my mind"
are you saying that wasn't a retarded comment?
>>>/pol/
no :^)

>>8067687
>That was a long time ago in terms of trans acceptance.
The point is, murder was still illegal back then, and people still didn't give a shit.
The fact that something is illegal doesn't automatically mean it's unacceptable or that potential victims are equally protected.

>>8067718

Right. Meaning marriage is not a religious practice, it's a legal contract. Because we live in the present day, and your personal shoulda coulda wouldas are not relevant.

File: spam.jpg (48KB, 956x183px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 956x183px

>>8067694
Apparently mentioning reddit is spam.

>>8067810
you're a fag lol

>>8067687
>She's a tranny you dope.
lol whoops, fair enough, it seems I fucking black out after the first sentence.

boohoo im scawed of being a homo so they should suffer cause feels = reals

>>8067808
What part of it's both did you miss?
It's a civil contract while simultaneously a religious one.
My "shoulda coulda wouldas" are that they should be separated into two separate contracts instead of being overlapped.

>>8067808
Either that or we should do away with marriage as a legal concept entirely.
Then if somebody wants to have their relationship acknowledged by church, sure, get married, but if you want it acknowledged by state you need civil union.

>>8067815
xD ur so funni man!

>>8067366
>Legal protections from being beaten up are privileges
>Having a job to feed yourself is a privilege
>Having a fully consensual private life is a privilege
>Reproducing is undoubtedly and unarguably a privilege
What kind of brain damage is this?
As >>8067532 said, just because these are rights, doesn't mean they are denied to LGBT. If anything, the fact that these rights exist make them more tangible than if they were rights we currently demand.

>>8067789
Proof?

>>8067840
>it was nonreligious until religion adopted it
>now no one else can have it
Yeah nah.

>My "shoulda coulda wouldas" are that they should be separated into two separate contracts instead of being overlapped.
Still just shoulda coulda wouldas. By all means, fight for it, but that doesn't change present reality.

>>8067860
Of what? That they're relatively better off?
Good luck finding statistics for the abuse rates of homosexual parents for a comparison between that and orphans.

>>8067840
Not that anon, but help me if I'm missing something:
The US was based on freedom of religion too, so that means that the state, if upholding a religious practice, should uphold the similar practice of any religion.
So if I'm a follower of the Holy Church of Cock, where only dickwielders may marry, is the state under legal-religious obligation to respect my religious doctrine?

>>8067848
you're seriously a closeted faggot

>>8067883
ah great, so you're going to base your beliefs on feelings rather than evidence. good work dude

>>8067884
If you managed to actually form a recognized religious group based on that, then yes, they could be married under your denomination.

>>8067870
>Still just shoulda coulda wouldas. By all means, fight for it, but that doesn't change present reality.
>Gay marriage is just shoulda coulda wouldas By all means, fight for it, but that doesn't change present reality.

>>it was nonreligious until religion adopted it
>>now no one else can have it
Wait, so when it's convenient to say "oh, that's not based in reality" it's fine, but when it isn't you just go
>Yeah nah.
?

>>8067679
>Why should free speech exist

Do I really need to explain this to you?

>>8067892
Of course I am. After all, those damn homophobes are just scared of us! It's not like they could find us disgusting or anything :)

>>8067922
>>Gay marriage is just shoulda coulda wouldas By all means, fight for it, but that doesn't change present reality.
...Yes. I never denied this.

(Except obviously the places where gay marriage is a reality).

>>8067899
When I have no hard evidence to draw upon, I defer to anecdotal until it arises. Your point being?

>>8067679
>>8067737
Because that leads to a closed society. Imagine if all speech that Trump/the GOP, or whoever is governing your country, didn't like and agree with was banned. DO you want to live in a society like that?

>>8067932
ewww yucky!! eww things that are gross, like, shouldnt even exist. Yuck. mature alpha males like me should never be uncomfortable, cause like, we're sooooo cool

>>8067945
that is an insanely retarded way to live. Hey, I don't have EVIDENCE per se that you're a faggot, but anecdotally i have a gut feeling. Must be true!

>>8067945
>implying no studies have been done on this
>implying they don't all inconveniently refute your position

>>8067922
>If you managed to actually form a recognized religious group based on that, then yes
But there are many religious groups that do and did allow gay marriage, so it shouldn't have been an issue.
Plus, how come agnostics and atheist aren't barred from marriage because of a lack of legitimizing religious filiation?

>>8067954
>>8067960
I'm sorry that only having my own interactions with gay parents to draw upon as evidence bothers you two, but as I at the very least implied before, there aren't any hard statistics to draw upon that can be comparable to the abuse rates between adoptive children of Homosexuals and orphans in foster care.

>>8067922
>>8067884

There's no way that'd be legally recognised though, right? That seems like one hell of a giant loophole considering how long this fight's been going on.

>>8067976
oh, so this is all lashing out at your parents. sorry your life sucks but it doesn't correlate to statistical signifigance

>>8067966
Oh, you mean the actual system?
Then no, current system is that all aspects of the civil and religious functions of marriage are combined, meaning that one affects the other.
No that would not work.
>>8067978
Whoops.

>>8067980
This might seem surprising to you, but people other than edgy teenagers and "cool" college kids come here, I'm talking about friends of friends that I've visited and interacted with.

>>8067978
If law depends on whether the government deems something a religion or not, then it's bad law.

>>8066810
>abrahamic religion has existed in some form for maybe 3500 years if they're lucky
>essentially beginning their existence as heretic nomads breaking off from a polytheistic population
>the epic of Gilgamesh, widely regarded as one of the oldest surviving written stories of humanity, is approximately 4000 years old and describes a well-established culture including marriage
>proto-Indo-Aryan peoples are recorded for at least 6000 years and are noted for having a caste system with consequences on who could marry whom
>China has existed for approximately 4000 years and has a long history of marriage traditions, and a similar history of keeping foreign beliefs out
But by all means keep thumping your Bible

>>8068013
Then you don't even have a reason to believe this shit. No evidence, not even lived experience. Your entire thesis is a solipstic mess.

>>8068029
>interact with the people I'm talking about
>not even lived experience
W E W

>>8068041
Keep justifying letting your feelings rule your thoughts you stunted retard

>>8067992
>is that all aspects of the civil and religious functions of marriage are combined, meaning that one affects the other.
If you say so.
But if it really is so, again, why can't I homo marry if my religion recognizes it, and why can people with no religious recognition hetero marry? Because that goes fully against what you say.

>>8067978
The COC was an hyperbole, but there ARE quite a few religous sects that did allow for religious homo marriage cerimonies.

>>8068048
A bold piece of advice from one who lets the same problem affect him.

>>8068013

I have a few friends with gay parents, they're fine, therefore it's fine.
The only fucked up people I know had straight parents, clearly their sexuality is the problem.

>>8068058
I can call you a retarded faggot without believing everyone on this site is a retarded faggot so I don't think we have the same problem

>>8066618
>Half the board is against freedom of speech if it hurts their feelings?
The straight, white ,female half.

>>8068070
Did I say all gays would be bad at rearing children? I must've implied it at the very least for that claim. I'm saying I would like to have hard data on the rate of abuse for Homosexual parented children. Until then, I go on anecdotal evidence in how I act, not how I expect others to act.

>>8068068
And that's your view until hard evidence comes out saying otherwise.

>>8066651
>make it Illegal to call me a faggot.


You are 25% of what's wrong with this country.

>>8068096
>And that's your view until hard evidence comes out saying otherwise.
No it's not. Hard evidence is my evidence. I was being facetious, you fucking mongoloid.

>>8068128
>No it's not. Hard evidence is my evidence. I was being facetious, you fucking mongoloid.
You have the abuse rates of Homosexual adoptive parents and their children?
Could you post it?

>>8066809
>You are incredibly stupid. I say this as a certified genius

*Tips fedora*
*Pwns Le stupid Christians*

>>8068145
This is the second time I saw proper use of the fedora meme.

>>8068142

It's not my job to educate you, shitlord.

(...Being facetious again, FYI. But it's 3am and you can honestly just google it, this shit's not remotely hard to find. Nighty night, don't let the homos bite).

>>8066827
IQ is such a meme. I'm one of the high functioning austist that's better at the barely applicable things you're tested on the almost anything else.

>>8068167
Fuck off back to Melbourne.
It actually is hard finding anything related to that.

'mental illness = something i don't like' = the true mental illness of socially acquired autism

>>8067252
Mate,Sodomy Laws were nation wide until 1955 or so,And sodomy laws were on the books in various states until 2004 when they were declared unconstitutional.

>>8068199
>failing to answer either question
I guess you were just meming then.

>>8067800

No that's not the point, the thread is about NOW the present. So yeah, you just wanna bitch because you want to bitch.

>>8067737
Lots of reasons actually
1.In general it's a bad idea to send people to prison for non violent crimes (I happen to think our prison system is so fucked that we may as well just execute the guilty if we aren't going to make serious attempts at rehabilitation)
2. It creates Bad precedent where any upsetting speech can potentially banned,and I think we all believe in something that's very upsetting to others
3. It doesn't make hate go away,Just makes it put on a friendlier face. Hate speech laws are really common around Europe,but that still hasn't stopped the rise of far right parties.
4. A lot of anti semitism is rooted in conspiracy theories. The worst thing you could do to stop this is create an actual law to prevent people from discussing these sorts of things. It gives them too much ground to stand on.
5.homestly Discussing and debunking will always work better than hiding. When you hide something,a lot of people will want it more.

>>8068282

The guy who started this post chain was sharing a story about how the law didn't apply in cases of his and his peers' discrimination.
Saying "but it's against the law" does not mean anything in situations where the law is ignored due to the prejudice of those responsible for enforcing it.

>>8066554
I don't want to be discriminated against in terms of housing, employment, or services. I'd also like an physical assault made against my person to be punished regardless of his/her anger at finding out that I am trans.

>>8066638
I should be able to drown whoever I want in a bucket of concrete, imo. Individual protections are important to societal stability.

>>8066554
>I am an idiot and do not know what I am talking about
The point isn't about more rights, it's about having your rights respected and protected like everyone else, instead of trampled upon by society, as is the case the moment you set foot outside of civilisation.

jesus christ these threads are always trash

/mlpol/ please go any time

>>8068853
>i want illiberal laws but i don't want to have to defend that opinion

Right to marry and right to adopt, among other things. Basically, legal privileges given to heterosexual couples should be equally available to LGBT. Also, preventing the creation of new laws that would cause LGBT to be second class citizens. It is illegal in Russia for trans people to drive cars, for instance.

>>8069277
No rights against discrimination or to be recognized as their chosen sex?

>>8068947
nice job putting words into my mouth, you can only dislike /mlpol/ crossboarders if you're a libtard right?

Fuck off

File: 1489556958244.png (242KB, 800x1160px) Image search: [Google]

242KB, 800x1160px

>>8068853
>/lgbt/ would have started killing themselves if paired with any board because they're special snowflakes
>tries to use that as an insult against boards who can actually have fun
Really makes you think.

File: 05 - UqupU2p.jpg (61KB, 500x556px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 500x556px

>>8066796
>No. Keep your filthy mitts away from the children. You can subject yourself and other adults to your disgusting defect, but children should be protected from people like you at all costs.
>>8066554
>you have the same rights than everyone else

>>8066991
>No fuck off you mentally ill piece of shit
Then we should fire people for having ADD or autism or depression.

>>8072198
If it significantly affects their ability to work, or the ability of others to work, then yes.
For the good of the company, they should be let go as soon as legally possible, to hire someone without debilitating mental health problems.

>>8072172
Yes you have the same rights. Producing children is a right reserved for those who can naturally do so, to acquire children born of others is not.
Of course, with the advent of surrogates this becomes far more complicated.

File: Eva-Beatrice_2.png (700KB, 1187x1064px) Image search: [Google]

700KB, 1187x1064px

>>8072219
we should also fire people for being ugly
no company wants people who aren't desirable or don't appear aesthetically pleasing
we should also be able to fire black people on the basis of race. have you seen the iq tests of those savages?
might as well let women go too, at that.
or people who use 4chan. companies don't want people who can't associate with desirables
or people that use the internet at all. not devoting all time to continually improving yourself is bad, and besides, the bad eyesight wouldn't help

>>8072239
>Producing children is a right reserved for those who can naturally do so
>to acquire children born of others is not
>is not
so only people who can't naturally reproduce can acquire children? then what's your problem?

>>8072258
Holy shit your reading comprehension is bad.
>Producing children is a right
carries forward to
>to acquire children born of others is not
which results in the meaning of
>to acquire children born of others is not a right

>>8072239
Rights are just words.
Enforcement is all.

>>8072288
its probably your bad sentence structure
>Producing children is a right reserved for those who can naturally do so, to acquire children born of others is not [a right reserved for those who can naturally do so]
you started the sentence speaking of a right reserved for those who can naturally do so but then carry on to talk of acquiring children born of others solely as a right, without the 'for those who can naturally do so' part and no indicator saying so

don't transfer the blame to me

>>8072316
Oh, you're retarded.
I'll put this simply.
Me say Mommy and Daddy get kids.
Me say that a right.
Me say Daddy and Daddy not have kids of dead Mommy and Daddy.
Because not a right.
Tell me if I have to simplify it further, I'll get you colorful diagrams for you to look at.

>>8072258
How is being ugly relevant? Does an ugly person miss deadlines on important projects because of woe is me bullshit?
If niggers are contributing poorly to the company they should be replaced.
Same for women.
Why or how would you let anyone with authority over your employment know you use this shithole of a site?
>or people that use the internet at all
Is probably the dumbest thing I've read all day.
>not devoting all time to continually improving yourself is bad
Technically, yes.

>>8067789
And they're better off for having parents with numerous other traits as well. So should we forbid every such group from adopting as well?

>>8067840
I agree that it should be seperated with regards to the terminology, but for many people there is literally zero religious aspect to it.

>>8067929
I'm asking how personally do I benefit from homophobes/transphobes having free speech?

>>8067948
>Because that leads to a closed society. Imagine if all speech that Trump/the GOP, or whoever is governing your country, didn't like and agree with was banned. DO you want to live in a society like that?
No, but "what if it was the opposite" is a retarded argument. It's like saying we shouldn't have law enforcement because "well what if the Nazis came into power and had the police drag everyone into concentration camps".

>>8068088
Yeah, like there's no way any male could ever disagree with your enlightened opinions.

>>8072383
>Me say that a right.
Who put you in charge of deciding what is and isn't a right?

>>8072450
>numerous other traits
Yes, serious mental illness is a trait.
Just as suicidal depression is a trait. Or schizophrenia.
Got it

>>8072455
The UN.
>(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

>>8072450
>I agree that it should be separated with regards to the terminology, but for many people there is literally zero religious aspect to it.
Then they should be reclassified to civil unions.
Unfortunately, because of the terminology used in the declaration of human rights, that can't happen.
So what it amounts to is the permanent binding of the two. Well, at least until the collapse of civilization, but legal documents will be the least of your worries at that point.

>>8072463
What's your point exactly? Surely no amount of mental gymnastics could convince you that this is a valid argument. You do realize that there are plenty of traits that aren't "serious mental illness"?

>>8072483
But what gives you the right to dictate who the children of some other couple are adopted by? That's completely outside of your family.

>>8072645
>dude it's an interesting quirk xD
No, it's a disgusting mental illness that children should not be subjected to.

>>8072676
>No, it's a disgusting mental illness that children should not be subjected to.
No credible medical authority says it is. What makes you think you know better than them?

>>8072645
From the articles:
>2. The right of men and women of marriageable age to marry and to found a family shall be recognized.
Now, that could be argued to mean all pairings of men and women.
However, if you think back to when the document was created (1948), I doubt that they were referring to any other couplings aside from one, that of a man and a woman.
Or maybe the lawmakers of that day were so progressive and tolerant that they also intended for this to come about.
And before you comment something along the lines of "haha, but the 2nd amendment :^)", that was intentionally left ambiguous in order to prevent the abuse of a literal interpretation.

>>8072715
Oh, you mean the psychiatric authorities who after intense pressure from said groups were forced to remove it from the DSM?
Who after nearly 50 years have become entirely infested with nigh dogmatic reverence to what would be thought as leftist ideas?
That authority?

Homo/transsexuals should not be allowed to adopt. They may spread their mental illness to other normal people.

Yes they don't want equality they want privileges for being special snow flakes. I personally think they need mental help. There's no way you can look at a full grown man wearing damn pig tails and a dress and tell me they are mentally sound. I read a story somewhere that said 70 percent of gender fluid people were treated with anti psychotics and it cured a lot of them. Go figure.

>>8072731
>However, if you think back to when the document was created (1948), I doubt that they were referring to any other couplings aside from one, that of a man and a woman.
In that case I think it's time for the document to be revised and extended. The original US Constitution didn't say women had the right to vote, but that's not a valid argument for opposing their right to vote in the modern day. Societal standards are subject to change, and I see no reason why not to interpret the document in the way that supports the maximum extent of human rights. The overall message of that excerpt is clearly "marrying and raising a family is a human right". Using explicitly gender-neutral terminology in the context of marriage would have gotten a few funny looks, if not worse, in 1948, but I think in applying the general concept to the modern age it would be consistent to extend it to all couples regardless of gender. As far as I know the document doesn't present a specific reason why gay couples should be denied the right of marriage and family raising, and as a general rule, I think anything that's a "human right" for one sex should be a human right for the other sex, unless one is able to make a convincing argument why it should not be so.

>>8072795
Here's your (you)

>>8072755
>intense pressure
is literally how all scientific progress is made. Nobody questions their beliefs until they're forced to. Besides, if you're going to claim that they're all "leftists" who reject science in favor of ideology (something which you and your crowd are guilty of doing), you're going to have to present some evidence. Show me exactly why their studies are conclusions are wrong.

>>8072795
>They may spread their mental illness to other normal people.
Making this argument requires you to prove 1) that it is a mental illness and 2) that it is contagious in the way you describe.

>>8072795
>I personally think they need mental help.
We currently give them all the mental help they can afford. There really isn't any much more that can be done in that direction until we have a breakthrough in medical science.

> I read a story somewhere that said 70 percent of gender fluid people were treated with anti psychotics and it cured a lot of them.
Everything I've read stated a ridiculously low success rate for treatment of dysphoria with antipsychotics, and when it does succeed it's usually in people who obviously have other mental disorders that could have caused the gender issues in the first place. There doesn't seem to be evidence that it would work on those trans people who seem mentally healthy apart from gender dysphoria.

>>8072795
>Yes they don't want equality they want privileges for being special snow flakes.
So not being discriminated against on the basis of your gender or sexual orientation is a "privilege"?

>>8072801
> The overall message of that excerpt is clearly "marrying and raising a family is a human right".
Because the concept of the mentally ill being allowed to raise children wasn't an issue they thought would come about.

>The overall message of that excerpt is clearly "marrying and raising a family is a human right".
When taken out of historical context, yes.

>would have gotten a few funny looks
You would've been (rightfully) thrown in a loony bin.

>but I think in applying the general concept to the modern age it would be consistent to extend it to all couples regardless of gender.
And I think that it should reformed to explicitly state marriage is between men and women, unions can be used for the mentally ill.

>As far as I know the document doesn't present a specific reason why gay couples should be denied the right of marriage and family raising, and as a general rule, I think anything that's a "human right" for one sex should be a human right for the other sex, unless one is able to make a convincing argument why it should not be so.
Because there was no need to, there were laws on the books preventing faggots from anything close to this situation from happening.
And there is the right for both genders, for a man to marry a woman, and a woman to marry a man.

>>8072842
>And there is the right for both genders, for a man to marry a woman, and a woman to marry a man.
But that's not equal rights, that's different rights for men and women. It's no different than saying "men have the right to vote, women have the right to stay home and wash the dishes, what are you complaining about". As I said before, human rights by default exist regardless of gender. It being a right for one gender but not the other is only legitimate if you can present an argument for why such it should be so. Which you have not done. All you're doing is going in circles about "mental illness" without actually making any coherent argument other than that people should be denied equal rights because it offends your feels.

>>8072827
>is literally how all scientific progress is made.
Yes, those nobles who significant discoveries were really feeling the burn mate. And pressure I'm talking about is from outside an academic and catastrophic sphere, which should have absolutely no influence on where the research goes.
>Nobody questions their beliefs until they're forced to.
Unless they happen to think "gee, maybe I should go back and examine what I believe just to make sure what I think is true, is.
>besides, if you're going to claim that they're all "leftists" who reject science in favor of ideology
I'm saying they reject paths that might actually question what is true. There's something like a ~90% rate of leftist ideology within the soft sciences.

>>8072861
>men have the right to marry the opposite gender
>women have the right to opposite gender
>BUH THAS NUT EQUIL
kys

>>8072861
Woman and men have the right to marry the opposite genders. There is no way that is not equal.
Essentially this, >>8072876 without the shit grammar.

>>8072870
>There's something like a ~90% rate of leftist ideology within the soft sciences.
Psychology is a soft science now?

>>8072876
>kys
Not an argument. That's like saying "men can take on the role appropriate for their gender, and women can take on the role appropriate for their gender" to justify making it illegal to deny women the right to vote.

>>8072884
>There is no way that is not equal.
No. It's unequal because I, as a man, have the right to marry Ellen, a woman. However, her lover Abigail, a woman, is denied that right. This is the case even though Ellen has stronger feelings for Abigail than she does for me. Given the choice, she would choose to marry Abigail. However, according to you the government should decide to forbid Abigail the right to marry Ellen, even though I have that right. Abigail has spent her entirely life in the country, and is college educated, just as I am. Neither of us have any criminal record. Yet, according to you, Abigail should be forbidden by the government from doing something that it is perfectly legal for me to do, solely because she is the "wrong" gender.

>>8072910
>Psychology is a soft science now?
Are you intentionally being retarded?
Its always been a soft science.

>Not an argument.
I don't think it's supposed to be.

>That's like saying "men can take on the role appropriate for their gender, and women can take on the role appropriate for their gender" to justify making it illegal to deny women the right to vote.
It's not. One refers to the right of one gender to marry the opposite, the other refers to one gender taking on more responsibility and thus garnering more rights, which shouldn't happen.

>>8072924
And if the roles were reversed, the opposite would also apply to you. It's equal. You can't marry your gay lover on the side, and Gail can't marry hers.

>>8072944
Sorry, I'm still unwilling to accept the notion that a right can be granted or denied on the basis of one's gender and/or sex. I have yet to be convinced that to do so would be in any way beneficial to society, never mind beneficial to an extent sufficient to justify deprivation of rights. If anything, I'm in favor of gender as a legal concept being abolished and having all references to it removed from all legal documents. Because, as you have pointed out, its main purpose as a legal concept is to deny people equal rights.

>>8072973
>A person of a gender can marry the opposite gender
There, nice and neutral, with no reference to anything specific. The right is granted to everyone, universally.
>If anything, I'm in favor of gender as a legal concept being abolished and having all references to it removed from all legal documents.
Oh, you're a retard who thinks that gender isn't an actual thing that should be addressed.
I wholeheartedly agree with >>8072910 's recommendation.

>>8073001
>There, nice and neutral, with no reference to anything specific. The right is granted to everyone, universally.
But you can describe it in specific terms. A man has the right to marry Ellen. A woman does not. Thus the right is unequal. It's no different than saying "a person of a race can use the facilities of their race". But long ago it was decided that segregating facilities by race was inherently unequal. In time people will release that the same principle applies to sex segregation.

>I wholeheartedly agree with >>8072910 (You) 's recommendation.
What, that women be denied the right to vote? That conclusion was to show how bad your line of reasoning was, it wasn't a conclusion you were supposed to accept.

>>8072876
>>8073026
Reply chains are nice and straightforward.

>>8073040
????

>>8066554
no you dumbass. lgbt rights basically boils down to employment, medical, and other types of security, like how someone can't fire you for being black, you can't fire me for being a faggot. gay marriage is already legal. anyone who thinks the rest need to be enforced by the law is probably an idiot who ate the sjw pill or they have a super fringe case problem that isn't worth the large scale attention.

>>8066554
A safe space isn't a privilege, though.

You should not be harassed in the street just for existing.

>>8066629
Gay men are bitchy and should be fired.
Dykes are natural bullies.
If I can tell your either your not getting a good job.
t.employer

>>8068625
That's murder.

>>8066638
You'd end up with colossal strikes. The relationship between employers and employees is already asymmetrical, you want to stack even more cards into the employer's hand.

The workers, sooner or later, would have no choice but to resist.

>>8074261
harassment is already a crime.

>>8074327
And yet it still happens. Just because something is illegal doesn't make it magicly happening, for example corruption.

>>8074308
When we automate these jobs I'd at least hope they would send out a drone to clean up the hordes of unemployables, it's the least they can do.

>>8072421
>thinks niggers, women and fags should be fired
>triggered by the concept of being fired for being ugly

>>8066991
>the sanctity of an abstract concept shared loosely around the world

your definition of marriage is the not the same as everyone elses, so why should they follow it

I mean Buddhists don't really give a shit about gay marriage or marriage in general; should everyone in the world not marry cause Buddhists don't?

>>8074321
>The relationship between employers and employees is already asymmetrical,
This much is true. The state needs to step in and rebalance it. More freedom to create the kind of contracts they want, no unionizing, a ban on strikes, total freedom to hire or dismiss for no reason, and more. Anyone else got good points to add?

>>8074308
Yes and refusing to sell to or employ someone on the basis of their sexual orientation is discrimination. What's your point exactly? That we have specific names for specific types of behavior that harm other people?

>>8074981
The relationship is already balanced in favor of employers though. Unions are already basically dead (largely because of muh ebil communism), and how exactly do you plan to "ban strikes"? You think you have a right to have armed guards prevent workers from walking out? And considering that many in the working class are below the poverty line DESPITE being employed, it's pretty clear that the exploitative power lies in the hands of the employers, not the employees. Please, tell me more of the plight of the business owners who are now starving in the streets because of minimum-wage and anti-discrimination laws.

>>8075336
The relationship hardly favors employers. Strikes would be an offense the employer could take employees to court over for compensation due to lost earnings.

>minimum-wage and anti-discrimination laws.
I forgot to mention these.

>>8066554
>What extra rights do you want?
There's literally not a single right you don't have access to as well, you retard.

Don't you want extra rights?
Don't you want extra freedom?

>>8075365
>Strikes would be an offense the employer could take employees to court over for compensation due to lost earnings.
So why doesn't the employee have the right to take the employer to court after being fired, for compensation due to lost wages? Why is the employer "entitled" to the future labor of the employee, but the reverse is not true? Seems like you're advocating an inherently unequal arrangement.

Again, please, I beg of you, show me just one example where these draconian laws make employers suffer anywhere near as much as the working poor.

>>8066856
>>8067636
>>8068117
Are you guys fucking retarded or is this an organized b8? When i say that id like it to be illegal to call me a faggot, i mean it as it would be counted as an offensive word in the eyes of the law just like other similar slurs are. Im not from the states and this kind of language is not treated merely as harshly by law as offending religions/nationalities/races and i think it should be accordingly adjusted cause the fact that goverment rejected this request many times already means that my goverment is not even trying to hide its' homophobia.

File: che-laughing.jpg (18KB, 323x330px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 323x330px

>>8074981
gr8 b8, I r8 8/8
I'd say shared/total control of the means of production

Also,
>a ban on strikes
>more freedom

>>8076100
>it would be counted as an offensive word in the eyes of the law just like other similar slurs are

If any words are illegal in your country, that's fucking retarded. Adding 'faggot' to the list might make it more consistent, but being consistently retarded isn't anything to boast about.

>>8076100
kill yourself faggot

>>8074330
>durrr
making it an extra crime wont prevent it from happening just as much, it will just piss people off.

>>8072944
>And if the roles were reversed, the opposite would also apply to you. It's equal. You can't marry your gay lover on the side, and Gail can't marry hers.
that only makes it even more unequal you idiot.

>>8079185
>but being consistently retarded isn't anything to boast about.
To be fair it's better than being retarded in a partisan way.