Marriage - a contract of the state that is designed to encourage

gays can have children.

>>131078635
By saying that it's absolutley correct.

J A R O S L A W

File: gay2.jpg (63KB, 580x720px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 580x720px

>>131078635

Homosexuality is most likely a mutation of the X chromosome that mainly makes women MORE attracted to men so they on average have more kids, and men who have the mutation have less kids on average.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xq28

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2012.02785.x/abstract

http://sci-hub.bz/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2012.02785.x

Plausible theory: Gays have a mutation on the X chromosome that women also get (of course) that makes them more attracted to men than they would be otherwise. In women, this is advantageous, and a study showed women who are relatives of homosexuals have 1.3x the number of kids on average. For men, it is deleterious but women can carry the gene onward so it doesn't disappear. Gay men do sometimes reproduce and surrogacy will only increase that number

>>131079816
wouldnt it just equal out then if youre making a ton of babies with a higher chance of being gay?

File: Screen Shot 2017-06-22 at 2.34.10 PM.png (173KB, 1820x872px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 1820x872px

>>131080016
Nature doesn't care if you have 1 baby that's gay and 5 more that will reproduce. That said, gay reproduction rate is lower than straight, not zero. Some gays adopt or employ surrogates, where legal, and others choose to marry or simply reproduce with women anyways.

There's basically no practical reason, just a ME TOO! thing where if straights have something, then gays too must also have it even if it wasn't made for them, makes no sense for them to have it, and gay monogamy is an oxymoron. Of course the tax breaks are kind of pointless for straights now too because working women don't have kids and the government had decided to keep infinite expansion going by replacing us with migrants.

>b-but what about muh hospital visits
Then your problem is with needlessly restrictive hospital visitation policies, not the entire institution of marriage

>>131080824
Wanting kids and to be able to call someone your husband rather than having to use separate language is not practical?

>>131081021
You can call your bottom whatever the fuck you want to dude, the government doesn't have to rubber stamp it. You obviously can't have your own kids unless you arrange some kind of surrogate or adoption, which once again is between you and them and if their policies exclude you then there's your problem.

>>131081374
I can't legally call them my husband or wife without marriage, and that matters. Marriage is an important status, socially and politically, as well as legally. In many places being able to say you are married confers benefits of legal surrogacy and adoption. Often civil unions are ways to grant limited legal rights to gay couples without granting the right to joint-adopt or hire surrogates. I don't see why this is so hard to understand for you that some gays would want greater status, rights, and privileges. If these things all had been legal and unrestricted prior to gay marriage becoming legal in 2015 federally your points might make some sense but there were plenty of places where marriage came right along with rights to surrogacy and adoption that hadn't existed in many jurisdictions before.

>>131080385
is it even possible for a gay man live happily with a wife or even with kids?

>>131078635
To gays(men only) marriage is a concrete expression of their love for one an another if a gay is married it means they truely do love their spouse with all their heart thats why fags bitch about marriage because they really want to prove their love unlike women who see marriage as a way to ego trip over unmarried women and leech from a man.

>>131079816
Neurological differences would seem like a more reasonable assertion. No different having a favourite colour really.

>>131078847

Yes, by having heterosexual intercourse.

Gay people, by definition, do not stay with their opposite-sex partners. This is the problem.

>>131078635

in the future with the computer-monitored artifical womb gays will have more offspring than straight men

heterosexuals cuck themselves with marriage, doing all the heavy financial lifting, whereas gays are not dragged economically by a woman (imbecile)

>>131082308
I don't think neurology is an adequate explanation. Neurology generally gets into womb environment and hormones which implies that a fetus in ideal conditions does not turn out homosexual, which I do not believe to be true, and that neurological intersexuality is possible, in the absence of physical manifestations (aka trannies). I haven't seen good research for that. I think that homosexuality being based on mutations on the X chromosome seems likely so far. I think womb environment (perhaps) "activates" these genes to some extent but I don't think that is as clear.

>>131078635
>a contract of the state
But that's wrong. People were getting married long before muh gibs were ever invented.

That said, single people should not be paying for those with children. Whether a church wants to marry two fags is up to the church, not the state.

>>131078635
Hagar. Surrogacy. Artificial eggs and wombs made only from male parts. Adoption. Truvada. You're a jew bag piece of shit liar

>>131082315
Barren women have hetero intercourse at IVF facilities? Dykes must do this too with turkey basters

>>131083655

And what do you think those acts are simulating? Heterosexual intercourse.

Gay people do not have some special method of reproducing that is unavailable to the rest of the human race. They are doing exactly the same thing the rest of us are. The only difference is that they then immediately abandon the other parent and live a life of meaningless sin which harms themselves, the child, and the society in general.

>>131078635
Rewarding people for doing something goes against the very principles of democracy. In a democracy, everyone is completely equal and the state can not discriminate between them in any way or treat them differently. Treating marriage as something to encourage children is racist against anyone who can not or does not want to have children, and thus is unacceptable in a modern democratic society.
This is why not letting gays have the same benefits as straights makes you a bigot.

Marriage is a cultural institution that differs depending on the cultural context, but there is a universal thread of it having some religious content to it, so it is primarily the domain of the church or religious institution on whether or not they would allow a marriage ceremony between fags.

Personally I don't think gays should get the tax benefits that hetero married couples do though. These financial benefits should be for 'families', not 'couples', and should work towards incentivizing the native population to have children, something like a loan, where you have to pay less back for each child you have.

>>131078635
Heterosexual couples that can't have children can still get married

>>131083985
t. regnerus

We won't have actual good data on how gay married parents fare as parents to adopted and surrogate kids vs married straight parents, as well as how long the marriages last on average, until 2040.

>>131084868

These relationships have been taboo for all of recorded history. That's enough evidence for me.

You can stick with your "studies" that take 30 years to show you something that normal "uneducated" people have known for a hundred thousand. It's your life to waste, after all.

I just don't see why I should pay to support your bad decision.

They can adopt children. In fact, it's the reason why we should want more gay marriages and adoptions, considering our shitty demographics.

>>131085171
>But gay people can steal children from straight couples, so what's the problem?

Fun fact: 99% of gays report being sexually abused in their youth - by other homosexuals.

You're just advocating for an endless cycle of child abuse here. You realize that, right?

Just make LGBTXYZ a religious institution and earn the rights for marriage.

>>131085135
Pay what exactly?

>>131085299
>99% c'mon at least try to sound believable

>>131085481
>explicitly refuses to address the central point of the argument

Thank you for your concession, pedophile.

>>131085612
the conclusion is not worth addressing if the premises are phony.

It spreads like a virus.

You let one gay couple walk down the street and next thing you know. Faggots. Faggots everywhere.

...and with enough faggots comes extinction.

>>131087254
Turn off the free money spigot and the number of faggots will be greatly reduced, down to manageable levels.

>>131088167
There's no way to reduce the number of faggots.

The only thing we can do is give them the freedom to travel as far away as possible.

Mars perhaps?

>>131078635
That Polish dude is Redpilled as fuck

>>131088667
They will, in general, flow away from no-gibs areas toward societies that will support them financially. Glorious ancap solves this problem nicely.

>>131078635

MUH FEEEEEEEEEEEEEEELSSSSSSSSSS

>>131089250
I heard japan is degenerate as fuck!

>>131078635
>Marriage - a contract of the state that is designed to encourage couples to have children.

Marriage was designed to keep society from devolving into men trying to kill each other for the right to fuck women and reproduce. It also gives women the right to not be subjected to things like rape or to have to turn to things like prostitution to support her children. More children survive to adulthood.

It promotes civil harmony and produces superior children if the parents are good role models.

File: sept-1944-der-st rmer-.jpg (189KB, 611x1088px) Image search: [Google]

189KB, 611x1088px

>>131078635
>Marriage - a contract of the state
"state marriages" only exist in communist precincts

File: Ayn Rand.jpg (161KB, 500x584px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 500x584px

>>131089250
>>131089621