Gay marriage

File: GenGay.png (379KB, 666x940px) Image search: [Google]

379KB, 666x940px

>>139103853
Science on gays as parents:

http://whatweknow.law.columbia.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-wellbeing-of-children-with-gay-or-lesbian-parents/

www.asanet.org/documents/ASA/pdfs/12-144_307_Amicus_%20(C_%20Gottlieb)_ASA_Same-Sex_Marriage.pdf

Farr, R. H. (2017). Does parental sexual orientation matter? A longitudinal follow-up of adoptive families with school-age children. Developmental Psychology, 53(2), 252-264.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/dev0000228

http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Patterson-Farr-Forssell-AppliedDevScience-Jul-2010.pdf

How Does the Gender of Parents Matter?

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00678.x/abstract?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=userIsAuthenticated=false


Statistics on gays and marriage:

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/06/26/same-sex-marriage/

http://archive.is/g0kHt

http://www.gallup.com/poll/212702/lgbt-adults-married-sex-spouse.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_content=morelink&utm_campaign=syndication

http://archive.is/MlP5k

https://www.quora.com/What-percent-of-gay-men-in-the-US-are-in-a-long-term-relationship-and-how-does-this-compare-to-the-general-population

7% of millennials are gay:

https://www.prri.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/PRRI-Millennials-Web-FINAL.pdf

>>139103853
DESU it's fine because gays tend to be liberal and the less liberals we have the better. Also they colonize inner cities which in all honesty is pretty funny.

>>139103853
marriage is a religious institution
there is a reason people get married in churches

>>139103853
It is unnatural and goes against social structures. Seeing your flag no wonder you are defending faggotry.

With marriage as it is today I don't give a shit it's meaningless anyway. As long as they don't force churches to marry people like they force bakers to make cakes.

>>139104258
>marriage is a religious institution
>there is a reason people get married in churches
Okay, why do people get married on boats? Is it an aquatic institution?

>>139104317
t. white trash ustase.
Fuck off, picka.

>>139103853
disease

>>139103853
Afara din tara poponar borat!

>>139104258
http://religionnews.com/2017/08/04/britains-first-same-sex-marriage-celebrated-in-a-scottish-church/

http://news.abs-cbn.com/overseas/08/25/17/italian-protestant-church-says-i-do-to-gay-blessings

>>139104369
No church or priest anywhere has ever been forced to marry a gay couple.

>>139104386
Insults are not arguments, faggot

>>139104475
There is more to coercion than physical force

>>139104413
Are you a christcuck? then go suck the dick of Pomohaci.
Your fucking church is filled with gays, why do you hate them?
Gays had been here since forever, you can't make them go out just because you're a brainwashed nationalist loser.

Civil unions are a fair compromise. Gay unions should be allowed. Gay pride parades are basically homosexual men prancing around wearing giant signs the say "UNFIT PARENTS". Gay people have a long way to go before they earn the right to parenthood. Jewish media is heavily to blame because there is no such thing as a positive (aside from HIV) gay role model in modern society. I'm actually gay and as long as the majority of us are part of the ultra liberal left we don't deserve the right to raise children in an unfit environment. Support your local log cabin republicans.

>>139104373
They still get a pastor to do the wedding ceremony though.

Homosexuality is going to phase out in liberal society. It originally probably persisted as a kin selection mechanism by providing extra resources to siblings or through socially imposed heterosexual behavior. Most people are barely having kids, and gays aren't forced into the closet now. That means kin selection barely matters if at all, and there's effectively no incidental breeding. If it's genetic, it'll vanish from Western society in a generation or two. Lesbianism is probably a plastic adaptation to polygyny, so it might stick it out.

Marriage exists as a basis for the family. Without children, marriage is pointless. Since faggots shouldn't be anywhere near children, they have no reason to marry. While I disagree with slippery slopes as an argument, it clearly applies here. Gay marriage will lead to faggots adopting children becoming acceptable.

>>139104413
You weak pussy can't even bring a argument, you just throw a childish insult, proving how retarded you are.

>>139104448
Whats your point? They are not Christian, just because they call themselves that doesn't mean they are. Homosexuality is a sin.

>>139104706
Why do you get to define who is and is not a Christian?

>>139104706
Also:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-23/same-sex-marriage-what-bible-has-to-say-robyn-whitaker/8831826

>>139104770
Please archive those
https://unvis.it/abc.net.au/news/2017-08-23/same-sex-marriage-what-bible-has-to-say-robyn-whitaker/8831826

>>139104674
You must truly be wicked.

I asked you to stop posting that image.

Why do you keep posting it?

You keep hurting my feelings.

I'm a human just like you.

Do my feelings matter nothing to you?

>>139103853
Because it's unnatural. Marriage was always between a man and a women and it should always be. You can say but "muh rights" but it's not about that. What if some redneck inbred hillbilly brother and sister wanted to get married? By such standards they should because if two adults love each other, who are we to judge, right? So you can either deny them their "rights" or support incest. I for one hold the belief marriage should stay traditional and should not be changed because of one small minority. They literally do not even matter nor does gay marriage.

>>139104963
>naturalistic fallacy

are plastics natural?

>>139104963
then you went into a straw man with incest

>>139104750
I don't, but the bible clearly says homosexuality is a sin. And I'm not even Christian, or religious at all, but Leviticus 18:22 clearly forbids homosexual relations between men.

>>139104475
>No church or priest anywhere has ever been forced to marry a gay couple.
Technically under state laws, a priest may be forced to marry a gay couple.

All states in the USA allow priests to get state certification to perform weddings as an agent of the state in order to promote greater parity between civil and religious marriages and make it so you can just get shit done through your priest instead of having every couple go down to the courthouse/whatever office handles that shit.

As part of that certification they become bound by the anti-discrimination laws of the state through which they are certified.

If a gay couple comes to them seeking a civil marriage and they don't officiate it, they can be sued/lose their certification.

They wouldn't have to perform a religious ceremony, nor would they have to provide a church venue, but they would absolutely be forced to perform their government job.

>>139105017
The same principle must be applied, faggot. Hypocritical much?

>>139103853
Semi-religious/non-religious argument:
The US Constitution has "seperation of church & state" as interpreted by SCOTUS.

Therefore, it is illegal for the State to be involved in any Religious institution's made up matrimony ceremony.

If one wants a Civil Union, without the Religious order aspect, that would be a State run matrimony ceremony.

>>139103853
Men are ugly.

>>139105061
>Can you bring any nonreligious argument against gay marriage?

>>139105097
priests have never been successfully sued for refusing to perform gay marriage

>>139103853
>it's something subjective and biased to say that homosexuality is degeneracy.
No it isn't because you literally cannot generate a human being with two people of the same sex. You are becoming involved in a relationship with the same sex, using your organs designed to create life into lust, twisting the pleasure you're supposed to get from reproducing into not producing anything, just gaining pleasure from sexual acts which ultimately do nothing positive for a person's life.

>>139104598
>They still get a pastor to do the wedding ceremony though.
Nope, a notary public will do. And boat captains can be that too.

i thought this was decided globally in 2015, why is it still being talked about

File: a-man-wears-womens-clothes-in-the-gay-pride-parade-in-new-york-city-C5GYMF.jpg (145KB, 1300x956px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 1300x956px

>>139103853
>homosexuality is degeneracy.

No it is literally not. Suicide rates, STD rates, promiscuity, and infidelity rates, among many other things, are much higher in homosexual men than it is in straight men.

Further, are you going to sit there and tell me that pic related is a shining example of decency?

You don't want a religious argument? Fine, it is self-evidently degenerate and should not be tolerated by society much less sanctioned by the state.

To the gas chamber with you.

>>139105179
Like I said before, marriage is a religious institution.

There is nothing forbidding gays from forming civil unions.

>>139105335
Nothing forbidding us from marriage either.

>>139103853
ok well religion aside naturally a man and woman come together for love sure but more importantly to reproduce.
Seeing as how gays can't reproduce coming together for marriage doesn't make sense as it doesn't have all attributes of a straight marriage. Of course they could adopt but that is an absolutely appalling idea with the child being in a completely unnatural household setting. One could only imagine the stinted growth or abnormal development.
Things are bad enough when a child has just one parent let alone 2 of the same sex.

>>139105361
Semi-religious/non-religious argument:

The US Constitution has "seperation of church & state" as interpreted by SCOTUS.

Therefore, it is illegal for the State to be involved in any Religious institution's made up matrimony ceremony.

If one wants a Civil Union, without the Religious order aspect, that would be a State run matrimony ceremony.

>>139105304
wtf, make up your mind are you saying its degenerate or not?

>>139105335
>There is nothing forbidding gays from forming civil unions.
until 2015 there was a constitutional amendment in the united states that did exactly that. I'm not sure about other countries, they don't exactly matter to me, but I highly doubt outside of the US and canada fags can get unioned.

>>139105179
>priests have never been successfully sued for refusing to perform gay marriage
They've never been unsuccessfully sued either. What's your point? Gay marriage is relatively new and you need an asshole gay couple willing to push a priest and a priest stupid enough to refuse even though they'd be sued.

>>139103853
honestly considering a fake marriage to save some taxes

File: hearty Aussie keks.png (118KB, 600x528px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 600x528px

>gay marriage is legal in his country
why is every country besides Australia so fucking shit

>>139105401
Marriage is a civil institution. You can get married in a courthouse. If marriage had always been restricted only to churches your argument might hold more water.

>>139105401
>Therefore, it is illegal for the State to be involved in any Religious institution's made up matrimony ceremony.
That's what civil marriage is for.
>If one wants a Civil Union, without the Religious order aspect, that would be a State run matrimony ceremony.
So would a civil marriage. So would a common law marriage for that matter.

>>139105460
There's an article people tote around where a gay couple threatened to sue a church or priest for not allowing gay marriage but I couldn't find any evidence they went through with it let alone won.

fucking romanian

>>139105460
you should turn off your proxy so I can get a frame of reference about your intelligence but around here it is pretty hard to sue an individual priest for not doing something that violates his religion.

>>139105061
Then I hope you don't mix clothes, or any other weird shit the bible forbids you doing.

>>139105589
fucking white trash.

>>139103853
Just separate the concept of religious marriage from legal marriage Jesus. It's not like marriage didn't exist before the church.
So let the gays have their legal marriage and allow churches to refuse. Also shift marriage tax breaks to child tax breaks.

File: fags.png (443KB, 1506x3976px) Image search: [Google]

443KB, 1506x3976px

>>139103853

>>139105198
>No it isn't because you literally cannot generate a human being with two people of the same sex.
So, what about barren couples? Do we prohibit barren people from marrying?

>>139105590
>not doing something that violates his religion.
It's a separation of church and state thing.

You can't make them perform religious duties, but you can totally fucking force them to do the civil duties because they basically have 2 jobs.

If someone worked at the county clerk's office and they were also a priest on weekends, you could totally god damn force them to file a gay marriage certificate on penalty of firing. Same shit.

You can't force priests that aren't certified to perform civil marriages to do jack shit. It's only the ones that have 2 jobs (which is to say most any priest performing marriages).

>>139105625
I'm not Christian so i dont give a fuck, but the bible is clearly against faggotry, and all those churches allowing gay marriage are heretics

Gay marriage acknowledges the governments power to interfere with private affairs instead' of challenging it. Effectively it is statist bootlicking. While ostensibly fighting for their rights, they are instead ceding them to the government, asking only that the government slackens its rapacious grasp just enough to let them live happy lives as obedient subjects. And in so doing, they sell our rights as well.

>>139105576
Exactly why I said, "semi-religious/non-religious".
If one wants the "church ceremony", that is a religious ceremony.

If one is an atheist, there is the "common law" or courthouse.

I don't understand why people make a big deal about the ramblings of "holy books", which contradict themselves.

>>139103853
Can you fuck off and stop stealing people's land gypsy?

>>139103853
It's really quite simple: Marriage exists as a privileged status that aims to further procreation.

>>139105832
Semi-religious/non-religious argument:
The US Constitution has "seperation of church & state" as interpreted by SCOTUS.

Therefore, it is illegal for the State to be involved in any Religious institution's made up matrimony ceremony.

If one wants a Civil Union, without the Religious order aspect, that would be a State run matrimony ceremony.

>>139105933
More like hereditary, there always was procreation outside marriage.

>>139105772
>It's only the ones that have 2 jobs (which is to say most any priest performing marriages).
That's very strange. Maybe it's just a Catholic thing but every priest I've known would not marry someone who was not part of their congregation, and most (really all that I know of) would not accept a homosexual couple. So I guess what is your point here?

>>139105990
>Semantics

>>139105764
Why are they barren? If they become married not because they want to start a family but because they just want sex/pleasure from one another, then they shouldn't be married. Regardless that is a different issue than the homosexual one and just because we don't refute couples who end up barren does not mean we therefor have to allow homosexual couples into marriage.

Marriage originally gave tax benefits from the government as a reward and because you would have offspring; now it's allowing those benefits for people who don't plan on having kids or at most they are forced to adopt.

In summary, if you don't plan on having kids, then you shouldn't be getting married, period. Marriage is a religious ceremony that signifies the union of man and woman, and the beginning of life/a family; it has been taken over and twisted for peoples own selfish desires, which marriage in reality is supposed to be a selfless act.

>>139106002
Marriage formalizes procreation and gives a legal guarantee to all involved: husband, wife, inlaws and offspring.

>>139106120
Pointing out that Gay Marriage has always been there as a Civil Union/Common Law run by the State.

Many pushing the Agenda are too stupid to realize this though.

>>139106213
So why do gays who have kids, and some do, not merit those same guarantees?

>>139103853
Nature selects, those who don't reproduce will be the last generation of their own groups. Especially if all species do so.

>>139106036
>Maybe it's just a Catholic thing but every priest I've known would not marry someone who was not part of their congregation, and most (really all that I know of) would not accept a homosexual couple.
They can say that, but they're either talking explicitly about the religious aspect or they aren't aware they can be sued because nobody has ever tried to sue them.

Priests are bound by the same laws as justices of the peace in regards to officiating the civil aspect of marriages. If a justice of the peace tried to refuse to marry someone based on their sexuality or religion, they would be out of a god damn job in a hurry.

This shit just doesn't come up often because again, other than people looking for a lawsuit, who's going to go to deliberately go to someone outside of their denomination to perform a civil marriage from anyone but a justice of the peace?

>>139106213
Marriage is also used as a way for the State to pull more taxes from the Citizens.

>>139106312
Justices are required to marry all-comers per their job. Priests are not held to local or state anti-discrimination ordinances because churches are not considered public accommodations.

>>139106277
>Civil Union
Civil Unions are a relatively new invention designed to prevent the gays from getting civil marriage. It conferred far less rights and would only be recognized in the state it was issued in with no federal recognition.

Gay common law marriage was just as illegal as gay civil marriage.

>>139105648
I'm romanian too, manca-mi-ai coaiele de jidan prost ce esti

>>139106400
And back to the SCOTUS decision of seperation of church & state.

It is also the reason churches can file 501 c3.

>>139103853
Incest. Literally no argument against legalizing it if you legalize gay marriage. Two consenting adults, so who are you to judge? Also kids don't make a marriage - they are irrelevant to the act of marriage. You also can't say it's weird or unnatural because that doesn't work when I use it for gays.

The thing you should be taking from what I'm saying is: Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should.

>>139106177
>Regardless that is a different issue than the homosexual one
Not really, so straight barren couples shouldn't get married? Even if they plan to adopt?
Legal marriage is not religious in origin, and there are many benefits to the spouses that don't necessarily need to have kids.
Your taking away freedom from responsible adults just because.
Also marriage is selfish, it's done to gain rights and legal protection.

>>139103853
Mortii ma-tii de poponar imputit, mars inapoi pe rodditor(de pule)
Avem nevoie de Vadim 2.0 ca presedinte sa curete tara asta de comunisti, poponari(bolnavi mintal), tigani si bozgori(cei care se integreaza si se declara romani sunt ok)
Si Homohaci a dovedit din nou ca homosexualii=pedofili si bolnavi mintali pt ca habar n-are in ce grava situatie se afla din punct de vedere religios chiar daca a fost preot.


The main argument for gay marriage is that they're 2 consenting adults so they can whatever they want
When you bring up bestiality, they say animals can't consent yet, they somehow can consent to be killed for your food? They can consent to be your pet?
Slippery slope is real, and as years pass by, all the other shit like bestiality, necrophilia, even pedophilia will be normalized
I don't give a shit about faggots as long as they're marriage isn't legalized and can't adopt children, and obviously aren't promoted
Also, homosexuality is clearly promoted and used to reduce the global population, but its used in Europe and USA(and refugees) so the whites disappear, not China with 1.5 billion people or India with 1.3 billion

>>139106503
That's because they are non-profit. That has nothing to do with them being public accommodation or not.

>>139106529
Blood relations negate consent.

>>139106400
>Justices are required to marry all-comers per their job
So are priests
>Priests are not held to local or state anti-discrimination ordinances because churches are not considered public accommodations.
I didn't say anything about churches. Priests don't have to provide venues or religious services. They just have to process the creation of the marriage license. That state certification that lets them issue those also effectively makes them government agents as long as the issue at hand is the civil documents portion of marriages and the government can't discriminate. They're only allowed to be a part of church and state as long as they follow the rules of both.

>>139106277
If it gives the same rights and obligations why not call it the same?
>If it looks like a duck

>>139106594
Priests are not required by any law to marry anyone who comes their way.

>>139106435
Which is why it should be defined as :
The equivalent of Religious marriage with the same rights of Religious marriage. I.E. inheritance, spousal rights

>>139106540
Asa barosaneee, bine dracu ca mai sunt si oameni ca noi doi in tara asta.

>>139106534
>Legal marriage is not religious in origin
That's where you're wrong buddy and my whole point.
>Also marriage is selfish, it's done to gain rights and legal protection.
That is what it has become, but my point is that it didn't originate as that and therefor is not truly that at its core, hence why people believe it has become twisted and not what it was intended, thus no longer being even what is considered truly 'marriage'.

>>139106653
>Priests are not required by any law to marry anyone who comes their way.
Government is and priests that get state certified are a part of government.

Human children need a Mother and Father to not grow up to be pieces of shit.

This is undisputed biological science.
/thread

>>139106698
Priests are not considered government employees.

>>139103853
You can't separate marriage from religion. Marriage is a religious institution, and is defined as a contract between a man and a woman. It's essentially a sacred promise that a man and a woman make to God that they will stay faithful to one another for the rest of their lives in order to raise their offspring in a healthy and stable environment. Marriage is not about love between two adults. Love doesn't even need to exist in a successful marriage. It's about raising children, and maintaining social cohesion. Going by this understanding of marriage, gays don't have children (nor should the be allowed to adopt) so there is no purpose for gays to marry.

That said, marriage in the modern world has been twisted and perverted into a meaningless secular legal contract that can be broken at any time and for any purpose with very little financial or social cost (not taking into account the well being of the children, ironically enough), thus negating the entire purpose. It's already been made a mockery of, so gay marriage is just the icing on the cake. There is no rational argument against gay marriage in the western world, because gay marriage is simply a symptom of the disease (liberalism) that has perverted the institution of marriage to begin with.

>>139106669
>with the same rights of Religious marriage
Religious marriages don't provide any rights.

People that get religious marriages that wish to attain marriage rights also get civil marriage licenses.

>>139106546
>That's because they are non-profit.

Hahahaha, Churches = non-profit, hahaha

Marriage, as per original definition, can only happen between a man and a woman. If gays want to "marry" they should come up with a different word for it.

>>139103853
AIDS and hepatitis and destruction of the nuclear family thus destruction of the remainings of society.
Also Leviticus and Saint Paul.

>>139106279
Gays can't have kids in the first place.

>>139103853
>Can you bring any nonreligious argument against gay marriage?

Marriage must be consentuated with sex otherwise it is a sham marriage. Putting together groups of people who will never be able to physically have sex means that sham marriage becomes more acceptable in society so sham marriages for things like citizenship for migrants becomes acceptable too so will happen more often.

So same sex marriages means more illegal immigrants getting in down the line.

File: 1.png (44KB, 1132x983px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 1132x983px

>01110100011010000110100101110011
not
>1000000000000000000000000000000

>>139106893
Gays often have kids as part of a heterosexual relationship and then raise them on their own or with a homosexual partner. Alternatively, some gays adopt or hire surrogates.

>>139106546
>church
>non-profit
Patriarch Daniel from Romania recieves a monthly salary of 61.000 dollars

>>139106684
Marriage was always done to separate rightful heirs from bastards. There's no more deep meaning into it.

>>139106586
>Stopping two people from getting married because they're related by blood
That sounds very ignorant anon, I'll bet your also against two people getting married because they're from the same se- oh wait. See how easy it is to destroy your garbage arguments based on emotion?

>>139106773
>>139106773
>>139106773
>>139106773
well said, especially the part about love. most of society is lost in the darkness to this truth. 10/10 post

>>139103853
I don't care about gay marriage.

Still, being gay is not natural since it is no part of natural selection since no genes are passed down.
Homosexuality happens so the hormones don't drive males crazy since we are more horny than women in that way.


This crap with letting others carry out children though is something I am hugely against.

Sure gay couples can be caring parents but it is totally narcissistic to think that you ''deserve'' to have a child carried out and by birth this child will have huge lacks of natural feelings for his or her parents.
That is something that is inside our instincts.


Get married, have gay sex but fucking hell it is not normal and I don't have to call it so.

Be happy that you can have each other and you don't get killed for being gay.

Don't think your freaking sexuality is the one thing that defines you as a human.

IT IS NOT.
Your education, taste in arts and music ect. is more defining than your freaking sexual prefference.


That really pisses me off and I don't have to support anything while topics like economy and other political issues are more dramatic and urgent.

>>139106733
>Priests are not considered government employees.
State certified ones are insofar as it relates to their duties to perform civil marriages.

The state certification process involves them agreeing to act as agents of the state (you literally cannot get state certified unless you agree to that shit, which is why not all priests can get you a marriage license). That prohibits them from discriminating. They are effectively working for the government as a type of notary. It's a government job and they're bound by government rules. None of this impacts their religious duties.

>>139106940
This should be illegal. A child needs both a mother and a father figure in their lives. There is an abundance of statistics out there showing how fucked up children become when they lack one or the other. Daddy issues, mommy issues, addictions, anti-social behaviour, mood disorders etc. etc.

Bulangiu

>>139103853
It's a tax scam. Faggots don't get to access reproductive phase discounts and services. Case closed, faggots btfo.

why do they want "marriage"? why not instead fight to give civil unions the same rights as a marriage?

"marriage" as in the holy matrimony ceremony conducted over the last couple thousand years or so (or even the marriage conducted in more ancient times) is something so steeped in religious connotations and a means of bringing people together to procreate that it doesn't make sense to even want it in the first place, as a homosexual.

it's less a question of why not give them marriage, and more a question of why they even want to be associate with the term marriage in the first place.

if christianity weren't on such a back foot in popular culture, they could probably claim cultural appropriation. kind of like what muslims do.

>>139106773
>legal contract that can be broken at any time and for any purpose with very little financial or social cost

Divorce is costly, then there is alimony.

Also the negative impact on the children with the perception of it being their fault.

Which furthers into social impact with children of divorce becoming divorced as adults.

>>139107067
Bullshit.

They are not considered state employees. They are not held to state anti-discrimination laws.

You have 0 sources that claim otherwise.

>>139106821
>Semantics

>>139106775
If true, then what is the big deal?

In the end it is all run by the State.

>>139107049
you are literally retarded, I have nothing left to say to you if you close your ears and refuse to look anything up

>>139106821
Civil Union?

>>139103853
its fucking gross
frankly most of the problems are open displays of contact like making out in public
most straight couples already know its fucking rude to start pawing each other in the fucking street
if you can't control yourself, why should we let you just do whatever you want?
gross shit needs to stop
you wanna play house and get married and shit and playact like you're normal go ahead
you'll find the problem is people, not whether you're married or not to any of them
so this isn't an argument against gay marriage larping, just bitching about the gross shit
>literally shitdick, feces, poo, gross gross gross but we are just like anyone else
no

>>139107282
Separate but equal is inherently...

>>139103853
It always was a non-religious argument:
Christians:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Poland
>Poland was one of the first countries to avoid punishing homosexuality in early modern era. This was formally codified in 1932, and Poland introduced an equal age of consent for homosexuals and heterosexuals, which was set at 15.[1][2] Poland is one of few countries where sexually active gay and bisexual men are not legally restricted from donating blood.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_DSM
>1973[6] – On 15 October the Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatry Federal Council declares homosexuality not an illness – the first such body in the world to do so; in December the American Psychiatric Association removes homosexuality from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-II), based largely on the research and advocacy of Evelyn Hooker.

Communists:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_history_in_Russia
>In 1933, the Soviet government, under the leadership of Joseph Stalin, recriminalised homosexual activity with punishments of up to five years' hard labor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_China
>When the People's Republic of China was established in 1949, the Communist Party declared homosexuality a sign of bourgeois decadence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_communism
>When the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was formed, it adopted Yugoslav Criminal Code of 1929, a previous law of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia banned "lewdness against the order of nature" (anal intercourse) between human beings.

What are you voting here? GAY marriage in CHURCH. We aren't talking about gay unions, since gay unions would be for atheists. Gay marriages are for Christians.

Gay people who want to get married are fucking retarded because every religion says gays are to be killed.

>>139107269
That would be my line, pal.

File: marriages_divorces_per_capita.png (37KB, 797x517px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 797x517px

>>139107143
>Divorce is costly, then there is alimony.
It's only costly for the loser. I should have clarified, very little financial or social cost to the one who wins in court. It's quite the opposite for the one who ends up giving away half of their earnings for the rest of their life.

>Also the negative impact on the children with the perception of it being their fault.
I did mention this. That's the irony of it all. The corruption of marriage means that it has failed at performing its sole role in society, at least to a large degree. I'm sure if marriage was abolished entirely things would be far worse, but I digress, this chart speaks for itself.

>>139106940
Wait so are you saying that gays can be heterosexual?

>>139103853
The very reason to get married at all is to carry on your lineage, that requires a man and a woman to make children.
You are not carrying on anything, faggot. Why would you even get about getting married?

>>139107483
No, gays sometimes repress and then enter into opposite sex partnerships. Gay marriage lessens these instances.

>>139107491
Marriage confers dignity and social benefits.

>>139107483
>Bisexuals

>>139107390
Then why does one need the certificate from the State if it is not already "seperate but equal"?

>>139107544
To make legal matters easier.

>>139103853

Because there's one and only one reason society bestows certain rights and
privileges upon married couples. Society needs people to reproduce and also to
nurture the young in a conductive environment, and marriage is history's
solution to fulfill this function. Acting like the legal perks of being married
or getting to romantically play house with someone are basic human rights is
bullshit. You have to bring something to the table to obtain those things, and
that's a tacit promise to reproduce. It's a 'rights and responsibilities' sort
of deal, if there's no potential to fulfill the responsibility, you shouldn't
have the right. Simply unfair.

>>139107536
Those social benefits exist for the benefit of your children, not you.

>>139107587
They are not conferred upon having kids, they are conferred upon 2 people entering into a legal contract with the state.

>>139107446
show me where marriage began as proof to separate rightful heirs from bastards? in england a bastard son was hidden because that would automatically allow them to be of royal blood and it was seen as shameful to have sex outside of marriage. marriage wasn't created as a cover-up for bastard children, if anything marriage created a hindrance for having bastard children since you were no longer polygamous. otherwise anyone within your line would be considered of royal blood.

>>139107147
>They are not considered state employees.
The term is agent of the state. They're effectively performing a legal duty for and in place of their local government. They're bound by the same regulations as that government if they want to continue to perform that duty.

Otherwise a priest could legally marry a duck to a chair. They have to follow all the same rules as a justice of the peace.

>>139107606
You're talking about the modern implementation of marriage which is all but meaningless. See: >>139106773

>>139107586
People reproduce all the time outside marriage since ancient times.
Reproduction was never restricted to marriage but INHERITANCE RIGHTS were.
Religion is an afterthought.

>>139107478
Your chart shows that as marriage decreases, so does divorce.

Agree partially with other arguments.

>>139107663
Do you have a source for this?

>>139107689
Marriage existed prior to Christianity.

>>139107231
Religious marriages aren't run by the state.
>If true, then what is the big deal?
About what?

File: Putin-Thumbs-Up-262x300.jpg (20KB, 262x300px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 262x300px

>>139105763
Saved

>>139103853
the most simple argument, why does the state need any involvement in marriage?

>>139105523
>implying that gay marriage isn't going to be made legal in Australia pretty soon.

>>139105763
>muh infographics

>>139107536
>Marriage confers dignity
Highly delusional of gays to think having the states permission to marry someone legitimizes homosexuality, but they aren't exactly mentally healthy people so it checks out.

>>139107645
>show me where marriage began as proof to separate rightful heirs from bastards
Probably since the ceremony inception, but, in a written more formal way, since Greece and Roma.

>>139107536
Might a couple have those same "social benefits" through bypassing the Religion and getting the "License" directly from the State?

>>139107771
They have to issue passports for people's kids, settle custody disputes, inheritance issues.

>>139107720
Regardless, marriage in western culture is a Christian tradition.

>>139107833
Most gay people don't get married in churches.

>>139107704
Here's a right wing retard bitching about it
http://www.mercyseat.net/marriagelicense.html
> I also cannot marry someone with a marriage license because to do so I have to act as an agent of the State!

>>139107541
No such thing, if you're attracted to men, you're gay period!!

>>139103853
1. stop the national government from interfering with states rights to allow or not allow gay adoption
2. stop leftists from harping on about the next thing they deem to be some massive civil rights movement (tranny bathrooms, bestiality, 6 gorillion genders, etc)

>>139107564
Haha, lawsuits begin!

>>139107088
>It should be

Fuck off, it isn't and that is reality.

>>139107850
Marriage existed prior to Christianity and is not held exclusively to Christians. Why should one religion have a monopoly on a practice involving two individuals signing a secular contract with the state conferring secular benefits? Not everyone is Christian. We don't live in a theocracy.

>>139103853
>Can you bring any nonreligious argument against gay marriage?
can you give a nonreligious argument for marriage?

Abolish marriage.

>>139107837
okay, so changing the legislation for gay people does nothing as they already get all those things with civil partnerships.

>>139107720
Christianity has played a direct role in developing the modern institution of marriage.

>>139107858
Has nothing to do with priests being legally held to be state employees and thus beholden to state anti discrimination laws.

>>139103853
Getting married, having children and raising them well is the cornerstone of a healthy society. In the past this was enforced, both as a social norm and by shaming deviation (spinster, faggot, etc). Cue healthy birth rates.

Unfortunately we're currently stuck in a dysgenic cycle, where we accept (and enforce the acceptance of) behaviours which are contradictory to survival (childlessness, homosexuality, no pressure to marry, easy divorce, etc). Hence sub-replacement fertility and the replacement of preexisting populations by healthier, more conservative societies.

It's a fluke that happens sometimes - look up dysgenics. An unlucky mutation can wipe out a mouse population by becoming dominant and then causing infertility. We have the social equivalent, it's called liberalism.

>>139107837
hence why we have civil unions. the idea of upgrading that to marriage is just shitting on religions unnecessarily

>>139107951
No they can't. Proper marriage makes all those things easier. Courts have no idea how to interpret civil unions whereas marriages have a uniform interpretation. There have been cases where a gay couple married in the U.S., moved to Australia and then had trouble getting passports issued for the child since the non-birth mother was the Australian citizen.

>>139107954
Marriage is just a legal contract, not an institution and definetly not tied to any religion in particular.
Actually, the most dvelopment it had was during roman times.

>>139108043
Separate but equal is inherently unequal.

Australian marriage laws would explicitly include religious exemptions per every draft of the bills.

>>139103853
>Evettte Falarca
Poop Dick

>>139107895
What exactly is your argument? I've already acknowledged that there is no rational argument against gay marriage in the modern western world. I'm simply expressing that it is fundamentally wrong.

>>139107917
>Why should one religion have a monopoly on a practice involving two individuals signing a secular contract with the state conferring secular benefits?
You're going in circles here. Marriage in western culture is derived from Christianity. We are Christian nations. No one is forcing you to part take in Christianity, but you should not benefit from our traditions if you do not wish to take part in them. As far as secular law goes, I've already covered this. It is wrong and immoral.

>>139108057
and changing the name will alleviate that because it just will?

>>139108132
Marriage is a legal contract between two individuals and the state.

>>139108081
stated this succinctly

>>139107111
what if they adopt or one had a heterosexual relationship before being in a heterosexual one

>>139108168
If you can refer to individuals as husband and wife that conforms more closely to existing case law. Why create a new second-class tier of partnerships where people cannot legally use certain words?

>>139107063
nobody 'deserves' to have kids. I've literally never heard a single person say this, gay or otherwise.

>>139108092
what the fuck are you on about, you have the same rights as everyone else. it's not shitting on religious institiutions, it's shitting on religion as a whole

>>139107990
>Has nothing to do with priests being legally held to be state employees
They aren't legally held to be state employees. The state doesn't pay them jack. They're legally held to be agents of the state.

They are functioning as an arm of government.

>>139108175
>Marriage is a legal contract between two individuals and the state.
Are you being obtuse on purpose or are you just cognitively challenged? I've already addressed that particular point three times now.

File: ivan slav lol.jpg (104KB, 531x419px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 531x419px

>>139103853
1st, i'm against any state recognize relationship between people. So, i'm also against traditional marriage.

Gay marriages are sterile, they bear no offspring. They do not perpetrate the society or guarantee that it will still exist in the future simply procreating new members of the said society.

>married couples have no oblige to procreate
Which is the reason why marriage is become meaningless.

>traditions and costumes evolves
Which is why in the future somebody will ask for polygamy, and somebody will demand to be able to marry a 6 years old.

>people have rights, and the State must provide and sustain ever-changing rights
Which is why within a few years you will be required to have a certificate of friendship, and the government will survival on your "right to friendship" by accessing a mandatory list of all your friends (yes, sooner or later social media will be mandatory and they will have to correspond and report every single human relationship you have).

>>139108257
Ok so agents of the state makes them held to state laws re: public accommodations according to what then?

>>139108081
>Marriage is just a legal contract
You can ignore the significantly religious underpinnings it has all you want - it won't make it any less insignificant.

The purpose of marriage is to provide a supportive environment for the children of the couple. Gay couples can't reproduce, therefore there is no purpose in implementing them in the marriage institution, and do not deserve the rights and benefits that marriage brings.

>>139107690

Then why is there marriage in primitive tribes where there's no private property to inherit?

It's just more stable to pair off men and women than to deal with the infinite frustration of beta chumps (which in the absence of civilization could be pretty murderous, think everyone is an Elliot Rodger), or the boundless tyranny and rape of the strong, or any mixture of such things. But such societies would not fare well in their chaos either against nature or against competing tribes.

>>139108265
You seem to imply there is a necessary religious component when there is not. A legal agreement between the state and two individuals has no religious dimension. People can separately opt for religious ceremonies but it is not required.

>>139108132
> I've already acknowledged that there is no rational argument against gay marriage in the modern western world
Have you also acknowledged that there is also no argument against incest and bestiality?
You're a leaf after all, I think bestiality is kinda legal in your country
>I'm simply expressing that it is fundamentally wrong
Well there you go

>>139108283
>public accommodations
Government is not a public accommodation. They're held to state laws governing discrimination by government.

Public accommodations are private businesses.

>>139107850
Civil union = Atheists, Buddhists
Marriage = Christians, Muslims

>>139108217
how is it second-class tier? it's just a different name, stop drinking the marxist kool aid

>>139108335
>You seem to imply there is a necessary religious component when there is not.
Yes, there is. See: >>139108371 and >>139108305

>>139104258
Marriage started way before religion happen

>>139103853
Well they do tend to be diseased ridden and spread diseases due to their lifestyle.

>>139108368
Which apply to state employees, which priests have never legally been held to be.

>>139108389
Because you are restricting the terms husband and wife solely to opposite sex partnerships, legally speaking. So in custody battles, it isn't between their legally wedded parents, it is between their birth parent, and their partner. It is just creating an extra set of obstacles for same sex couples to have to go through that opposite sex couples don't have the burden of without a compelling secular governmental interest to do so.

>>139103853
Disgusting degenerate.

>>139108471
Lesbians have lower STD rates than any other demographic by a landslide.

>>139108411
Then why can I get married without a religious ceremony?

>>139108305
>significantly religious underpinnings
They are quite irrelevant in the grand scheme of things, I must say.

>>139108323
Name succesion is also a thing, the family line.

>>139108450
Religion solidified the original purpose of marriage. Marriage in the western world is based on Christian marriage, which in turn is derived from Roman civil unions.

>>139108553
There is history of recorded same-sex unions around the world.[2] Various types of same-sex unions have existed, ranging from informal, unsanctioned relationships to highly ritualized unions.

Same-sex unions were known in Ancient Greece and Rome,[2] ancient Mesopotamia,[3] in some regions of China, such as Fujian province, and at certain times in ancient European history.[4]

Same-sex marital practices and rituals were more recognized in Mesopotamia than in ancient Egypt. The Almanac of Incantations contained prayers favoring on an equal basis the love of a man for a woman and of a man for man.[5]

In the southern Chinese province of Fujian, through the Ming dynasty period, females would bind themselves in contracts to younger females in elaborate ceremonies.[6] Males also entered similar arrangements. This type of arrangement was also similar in ancient European history.[7]

An example of egalitarian male domestic partnership from the early Zhou Dynasty period of China is recorded in the story of Pan Zhang & Wang Zhongxian. While the relationship was clearly approved by the wider community, and was compared to heterosexual marriage, it did not involve a religious ceremony binding the couple.[8]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

>>139108500
>Which apply to state employees, which priests have never legally been held to be.
And agents of the state, which priests have to be held to be to officiate civil marriages, which they do regularly.

If they weren't functioning as an agent of the state their status as an officiant would have no legal merit.

So either literally every marriage officiated by a priest is null and void or priests function as agents of the state.

>>139108516
I've already answered that question. You need to do more reading and less replying.

>Can you bring any nonreligious argument against gay marriage?

yeah, there is no point to gay marriage basically.
marriage was conceived to preserve the rights of the woman because men were the primary bread winners.
so tell me, why the fuck would they get married in the first place?

>>139108595
When has this ever been applied in a legal ruling?

>>139108411
Why would you as atheist get married? You get a civil wedding, why does an atheist need a church and priest's blessing? Atheists don't need churches and priests or blessings.

>>139107721
If there is a supposed "seperation of church & state" in the US, explain this:

If a couple is atheist, they would skip the "Religious" ceremony and use common law/civil union by going to the State directly.

The couple in the "Religious" ceremony, with the priest/pastor as a supposed "agent of the State", still needs the State license?

>>139105376
Get a load of this idiot

>>139108197
Still a tax scam. If I 'marry' a friend of mine to pay less taxes it's tax evasion, it's a given we're not goint to produce children, ever. Adoption for faggots should be banned as well. Those children suffer enough.

>>139108634
>When has this ever been applied in a legal ruling?
On this continent? Like 1600s Connecticut when civil marriage first became a thing IIRC.

>>139108553
>Roman civil union
That had very little to do with religion.
Question, if a straight couple just wants to marry by a civil ceremony, no religion whatsoever, want to have kids, etc, etc.
Would they be married at all in your opinion?

File: 1503597580622.gif (710KB, 1470x1080px) Image search: [Google]

710KB, 1470x1080px

Oh blah blah. Fags just want to get married. Are you kidding me? The concept of marriage applied to these people is a bizarre joke. They just want everything everyone else has plus special protection and freedom from criticism in the media, and they have a lot of power. They are second only to the jews in that regard. And they're very close to censoring textbooks. Look around your local high school. You probably have a "Gay Straight Alliance". This is is just another way to attack normal white people.

Fuck the fags.

File: b74a8fb3c499be504f836e0bdd2299ea--catholic-marriage-vocation.jpg (129KB, 667x1000px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 667x1000px

>>139103853
why would i need nonreligious arguments against a religious institution?

Marriage is a sacred religious ceremony and bond between a man and a woman in every religion known to man

any other type of marriage is a mockery

>>139103853
There is absolutely no reason for society to treat relationships that exclude one of the sexes in the same way as relationships that include both a man and a woman.

>>139108586
What's your point exactly?

>>139108643
>If there is a supposed "seperation of church & state" in the US, explain this:
We're fucking terrible at separation of church and state. Also why blue laws are a thing and why we stick god on everything.

>>139107854
True, but the architecture and acoustics are beautiful.

>>139108684
What does that have to do with gay marriage?

>>139108739
What is yours? You claim to not be religious or Christian but all you do is argue on their behalf without dealing with the fact that the secular state government has no compelling interest to denying gays full legal representation of their unions and children.

>>139103853
Okay, here's one: Marriage is a traditional thing, not just a declaration of love. That's what a relationship is called.

If you want to redefine marriage as to permit homosexual marriage, why not redefine it so that you allow three people to get married, or for people to be married to several others? It's very possible for people to love several others, just look at how prevalent cheating is. Also, some people love their pets more than their own kind, and they're sure their pets love them very much, too. Why do we have to be so closed-minded that we can't allow for interspecies marriage? So on, and so on.

>>139108670
Sure and why don't we let some goofy religious family adopt instead.

>>139108703
>That had very little to do with religion.
I didn't say otherwise. Christianity derived marriage from secular practices in Rome.
>The word matrimonium, the root for the English word "matrimony", defines the institution's main function. Involving the mater (mother), it carries with it the implication of the man taking a woman in marriage to have children. It is the idea conventionally shared by Romans as to the purpose of marriage, which would be to produce legitimate children; citizens producing new citizens.

>>139108809
>You claim to not be religious or Christian
Uhh where did I say that? Quote me please?

>>139108643
>The couple in the "Religious" ceremony, with the priest/pastor as a supposed "agent of the State", still needs the State license?
Which the priest/pastor can furnish.

The pastor is performing the duty of a justice of the peace, usually after filing with their local government.

>If a couple is atheist, they would skip the "Religious" ceremony and use common law/civil union by going to the State directly.
Also the atheist couple would usually get a civil marriage. Common law marriages are relatively rare and sometimes don't even require going to the state and civil unions are ass.

>>139108533
>I must say.
Again, you can say, but that would just be your opinion. You can't ignore the past just because we live in the present.

>>139108760
Haha, so true.

Choosing to voluntarily remove yourself from the gene pool

>>139108900
Sorry there was some other Canadian flag saying they weren't religious but gays needed to not be allowed to marry because of Christian interests.

>>139108500
wife = a woman, husband = a man. what purpose is gained by making these terms meaningless? they're literally just terms of utility. you seem to imply that if we just change the word to marriage then suddenly everything is fixed in court battles when the issue is still there. one of you is the biological parent with precedent and one of you is not, seems much easier to just change the way it works for same sex couples rather than to make a superfluous change to the terminology which maintains the same problem you've identified. there are no obstacles added by the distinction in terminology so much as it is a problem of same sex couples being unable to give birth and will work itself out regardless of the change of terminology

>>139108902
Civil marriage is literally you organizing your own party, your own music. Civil marriage doesn't has priest, church or choir. As an atheist you have to be stupid or uneducated in law to pay church money.

>>139108980
The purpose gained is to include same sex partnerships into legal representation schemes for custody, inheritance, taxation and medical visitation schemes.

>>139108703
>Question, if a straight couple just wants to marry by a civil ceremony, no religion whatsoever, want to have kids, etc, etc. Would they be married at all in your opinion?
Yes in the yes of the state, no in the eyes of God.

File: 525441253.513816public.jpg (127KB, 450x800px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 450x800px

>pic related video

https://youtu.be/7g4vphO1SkE

>>139103853
Gay marriage is OK.
Whatever makes them shut up is good.
Where it's not OK is when they want to adopt children.
Hello? You chose to be non-reproductive, and literally a drag for society.
We tolerate you, but maybe we don't have the same definition for tolerance.
Just go suck a dick.

>>139108900
>word matrimonium
>Semantics
Many words mean something different now that their original meaning.

a "christian" priest or """pastor"""" that marries faggots is not christian and the marriage is a sham

a marriage between sodomites will never be a real marriage, only an imitation of one, which is exactly their goal, to pretend they are normal and imitate normal people

>>139103853
Yes, though the argumentation depends on what type of marriage you're referring to.

1. Religious marriage: Most religions have rules against gay marriages. demanding they break those rules just because a minority wants them to is neither democratic nor just.

2. state marriage: for this, the explanation is a bit long, so bear with me.
It is a commonly accepted fact hat children that grow up without strong presence of both sexes are more likely to develop personality disorders then those that have them. Though this has never been proven for gays (due to political correctness, I assume) there are tons of studies proving this correlaton for children raised by single parents or with one parent away most of the time.

So: [only one sex present in childhood] == [higher probability of personality disorders]

Due to this, gays should not be allowed to adopt or be granted custody of children except for borderline cases (like adopting a dead relatives child). Of course, there's still the posibility that a lesbian has some random man impregnate her, but I'll disregard this.
If we assume that gays do not raise children, the logical result is that they have no right to the tax advantages given to heterosexual marriages so that they can save up money to raise children at a later point. These, however, are the main point of state licensed marriages - which is why the state should not marry gays.

Of course, state marriage has other points, namely that couples do not have to testify against each other in court, the right to be informed fully if their partner is hospitalised and unconscious and rights to the inheritance.
However, the inheritance can be granted in a testament, and for the other two rights, there's the option of introducing a new formal state of relationship that does not include tax advantages or adoption rights. In my opinion, that's the way to go.

>>139107820
polygamy was common in greece moron, and no not since the ceremony inception either. again, show me where.

>>139108902
>The pastor is performing the duty of a justice of the peace, usually after filing with their local government.

That is my point. They have to file with the"State".

In other words, as has been established with "Blue Laws", there is no seperate identity of "Church & State" because it is all State run.

>>139109096
It's not semantics. The purpose of marriage is literally in the name "Holy matrimony", which is derived from the Romans.

>>139109025
>Civil marriage is literally you organizing your own party, your own music.
That's not a civil marriage. That's a nondenominational wedding.

A civil marriage is when you file shit with the county clerk's office after seeing a judge and having them help you fill out a marriage license. Generally less music and more gavel.

>>139108911
>You can't ignore the past
Sure, but I can't live the way people lived 1000 years ago either.
Things and humans evolve, so do traditions and societies, thankfully.

File: 1503316917854.png (1MB, 1050x903px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1050x903px

Gay male homosexual relationships are hedonistic and promiscuous. The Toronto study of Gay Marriage discovered that 80% of MM newlyweds opened up their relationship to other partners within 18 months and by five years that figure was 100%.

This isn't a dig at gay men. They do what they do and enjoy every second of it. It's not monogamy, though. Marriage plays no role in their relationships.

And tellingly, it's not gay men getting gay married, it's lesbians for the most part. Bulldykes are getting married and beating each other up like never before. You are FORTY times more likely to be hospitalized by your spouse in a lesbian marriage than a heterosexual one.

Yet I don't even believe it was gays who pushed for gay marriage in the first place. It came out of nowhere, suddenly errupting onto the statute books in half a dozen countries all at once, with no debate or manifesto dsicussions. Another dozen countries followed suit almost immediately after, again fast-tracking this demographic nothingness into law with an urgency as if it was responding to a war threat or something?

>>139108081
In Christianity it became a sacred covenant - more than a country.

>>139103853
Default position is not gay marriage, its straight marriage. Therefore one should give argument why gay marriage should be a thing, not the other way around.
There's no arguments, except "equality" but its falls flat because we traditionally, culturally and legally do not treat all love relations the same as exemplified by incest, pedophilia, zoophilia, etc. The only way out of this is through some arbitrary and subjective qualifiers that are dismissed by pro-homo advocates when they're applied to faggots themselves.

File: faktai apie pyderus.jpg (209KB, 906x1024px) Image search: [Google]

209KB, 906x1024px

>>139103853

>>139109141
>polygamy was common in greece moron,
what a load of horse shit

in ancient greece marriage was the same as in every other place on planet earth at any time in history, a sacred bond between a man and a woman, the only mention of polygamy in ancient greece was greek writers bashing the etruscans, saying they were a vile degenerate culture where orgies were common place and no father knew who his son was

>>139109201
>Things and humans evolve, so do traditions and societies, thankfully.
We are not evolving, we are regressing. Some traditions need to be forgotten, but some are fundamental to the very foundations of civilization. Marriage is the latter.

>>139109041
>no in the eyes of God
He probably doesn't mind that much.
Neither should you.

>>139109213
Of course that's a dig at gay men.

In a California study based on a 2003 random sample telephone survey, 37%-46% of gay men compared to 51%-62% of lesbians and 62% of heterosexuals were found to be engaged in cohabitation if some kind.[1] In a 2011 study by The Williams Institute of US States that provide marriage demographic statistics,[2] a number of findings on legalized homosexal relationships were published, including:

Same sex couples seek to marry at about the same rate as heterosexual couples.

62% of same sex couples who entered into a formally recognised relationship were female.

The average annual dissolution rate was about 1% for homosexual couples versus 2% for heterosexual couples, but about 50% for both over time.

The 1998 Partners National study of Gay and Lesbian Couples [3] had a number of findings, including:

The average length of previous relationships in years was 4.2 for men vs. 6.3 for women.

91% of women and 68% of men were in relationships where they agreed to be monogamous, while 90% of women and 63% of men had never broken their sexual agreement.

The average number of sexual encounters with their partners per month was 7.1 for women and 10.1 for men.
54% of women and 34% of men rated the quality of the sex with their partner excellent.

>>139109154
>In other words, as has been established with "Blue Laws", there is no seperate identity of "Church & State" because it is all State run.
The separation is between civil and religious marriage.

A priest can marry you for the state but not perform a wedding for you. You'd be legally married, but single within your religion. Alternatively they could do the reverse. And being married in one religion doesn't automatically transfer over to any other religion. And divorces and annulments are all separate between the various religions and the state.

Hell you could have a Catholic marriage with one person and a civil marriage with another. It's all separated.

>your entire existence revolves around your right to getting fucked in the ass
Yeah... totally normal

>>139109286
if he didn't mind he wouldnt order faggots to be put to death in the old testament

>>139103853
Because "gay marriage" is a completely nonsensical concept. The point of marriage is to tighten the bond between a man and a woman who have sex with each other, which has a probable risk of conceving a child. Through marriage, men and woman bind themselves together and swear to stick together for the sake of a child they might conceive, because a stable family is extremely important for the well-being of a child. Without a stable environment, children are at a much greater risk for drug abuse, crime, poverty and mental illness. Society benefits from this, because children are are it's future, they ensure the well-being of their elders, standard of living and the continuation of a people. Society emerges from functional families, it cannot exist without it. Because it is the very foundation of every society, wether tribe or Nation, the family (as in man, woman and children) deserves special privileges.
Gay people may very well contribute to the success of a society, but they cannot procreate, plain and simple. Financial benefits granted to married couples plan on these couples having children, thus ensuring the existance of a society and generating new tax payers, workers, artists, farmers, fathers and mothers.
I am all for gays commiting to stable relationships, but a homosexual relationship is not the same as a marriage, nor will it ever be. Slapping the state's seal of approval on a gay couple won't make it a real marriage.
Having "gay marriage" declared as being just as important as real marriage serves no purpose other than virtue signalling "Oh, look how tolerant and progressive we are", but it greatly demeans the special nature of marriage, defined as a permanent bond between man and woman for the purpose of starting a family. It is an attack on the foundation on which Western civilization, or any civilization for that matter, rests, wether the people pushing for it realize this or not.

>>139109028
look you fucking retard, you can't even address my point because you know that changing the word does NOTHING for any of that. it will put you under the same framework as hetero couples which, protip here, means that a biological parent has precedent over a step parent in custody, a biological child is the rightful receiver of their parents inheritance and so on. these problems will still be there regardless and will only further complicate things if we're under the same framework as any legislation passed to alleviate these issues will then affect hetero couples as well. the issues you refer to are a key reason why we need the distinction. stop putting your fucking head in the sand

>>139103853
Two members of the same sex cannot produce a child. That means it is unnatural, and therefore degenerate.

>>139109172
You get papers, then you organize wedding or don't have a party at all. Normally we have traditional music at civil weddings, you sit at big table and people drink and eat white some accordion plays, then people make noise..etc. That's a civil wedding.
While marriage is priest blessings, priest talking his mantra with ring and choir singing and church bells ringing or some shit.
Muslim marriage is obviously in mosque, you aren't going to go to church.
Buddhist union is you going to Buddhist temple, not church of course.

>>139109389
Surrogacy, adoption, children from prior heterosexual relationships.

2 parent couplings are more stable, per your own admission, so why not adopt a framework that maximizes encouraging them amongst gay couples?

>>139109201

Thankfully? Are you one of the idiots who believe that society evolving is always a good thing? It was maybe good from 1500 to 1600, it hasn't been good the past 5 decades.

>>139109353
yes, that is their entire identity, they are not french or german, they are not muslim or christian, they are not white or black, they are people who have cocks shoved up their ass first, and everything else second, this is their entire identity, they even have a flag

>>139109271
you are retarded, read homer and you'll see polygamy was not uncommon, kys
>in ancient greece marriage was the same as in every other place on planet earth at any time in history,
let me guess you also read guns germs and steel

>>139108879
Because it's a family, not a tax evasion racket.

>>139109417
In a gay marriage biological parent doesn't have increased rights for the child if the other has adopted it or is automatically granted that right by virtue of marriage. Marriage is a framework by which all children had by 2 people are considered joint property. This can easily apply to both same sex and opposite sex pairings.

>>139109500
>society evolving
don't fall for their word play my shqip friend, society is not "evolving", it is changing yes, but not in a good way, it is devolving

>>139109379
oh yeah, we're all dogmatic followers of the OT
>>139109517
>they even have a flag
kek

>>139109141
>polygamy was common
Also homosexuality, men and women married to have kids and then went homo outside of it.
Legal marriage was always an arrange between families to arrange succesion, you can see it in tribes nowadays. Nothing more, nothing less.

>>139109517
It must be a sad and shallow life. Imagine if straight people acted like this. A small minority do and we call them fetishists and immoral.

>>139109606

I didn't fall for it. Evolving doesn't mean 'getting better'. Well actually some people use it for that purpose, but it can also mean simply 'change', and change is not always good, which was my whole point.

The Enlightenment fucked everything up with that Idea of Progress bullshit

File: 1502464624432.jpg (18KB, 303x321px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 303x321px

>>139109287
No, a dig at gay men would be to point out there's no such thing as "homosexuality" in the first place, and that the APA never actually declassified the disorder into a sexuality.

But who gives a shit what they do for fun on their own time? It's only when the mad hangers-on use them like a magic bullet to promote their own society-wrecking agenda do the rest of us even notice them at all.

>>139109609
>oh yeah, we're all dogmatic followers of the OT
we're not, we follow the new testament, we don't judge people, but we also don't allow people to make a mockery of the sacred institution that is marriage, which is not only sacred but it is the backbone of civilization

>>139109389
Your argument falls apart when looking at the divorce rate among religious people.

>>139109621
homosexuality did not exist as a concept back then. did people have sex with the same sex? yes but they did not enter unions from it.sexual acts were seen as just acts and not exclusive traits that formed an identity around someone.

sorry but youre wrong

>>139109742

It's not about religion, it's about traditional values, which religion helped enforce for most of human history. Divorce rate going up among religious people simply means religion isn't as potent as it used to be (in the West at least)

>>139109757
see
>>139108586

>>139109273
>>139109500
Don't romantize middle ages so much.
Degeneracy is inherent to human nature, all bad that happens now happened before.
I like the modern way of life, thank you.

>>139109585
so in other words your entire argument was worthless?
>we need equal rights for the non-biological parent
>therefore changing terminology will somehow fix this
>oh but actually they already have equal rights for the child
also, if i'm in a cuck relationship and i adopt my partners child, that person SHOULD have legal precedent for custody should we split up; how can you possibly balance this cognitive dissonance in that you recognise the necessity of a separate legal framework for this reason yet still say that somehow merging the two is a good thing

File: gay marriage and gay unions.png (68KB, 264x1353px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 264x1353px

>>139105335
Depends what country. Some countries have legal civil unions, others have legal marriages, some both. Legalizing gay marriages doesn't legalize gay civil unions and vice versa.

>>139104963
Is marriage natural? Marriage isn't monogamy, but a broader social construct.

>>139109920
They don't already have equal rights without marriage.

>>139109726
love thy neighbour pls and what was it that jesus said about turning the other cheek if someone slaps you?

Fun Fact: In the future a woman will be able to carry the child with the mitochondrial DNA of another woman and the DNA of 2 more women effectively allowing a child to have 4 mothers and no father, due to current advances in cellular engineering.

>>139109859
>literally upkept by (((interest groups)))

>>139109913

It's not about romanticizing the Middle Ages, it's about realizing that modern life is past the point where it gets better and instead goes crazier and stupider by the minute. There is no such thing as linear progress. I would rather live in the 70s than I would now or the Middle Ages

>>139103853
Penis is meant to go in vagina. That is what the human body is designed for. If human beings have a preference for slapping dicks together they are sick in the head obviously.

>>139108586
thats bull shit, read any ancient literature and they only mention the sanctity between man and woman, never with man and man; if anything you were ridiculed for having sex with the same sex. nice disinformation, especially using wikipedia as a source, that site notoriously uses faulty citations to try and warp your view of the world.

>>139103853
>it's something subjective and biased to say that homosexuality is degeneracy.

we have people who likes children
we have people who like scat
we have people who like animals

can you bring any non retarded argument to prove above is not degenerated ?

and remember that
>it's something subjective and biased to say that pedophilia/bestiality/scat is degeneracy.

normalize one degeneracy another will follow

>>139110047
>Bone marrow
YES

>>139110005
what the fuck is even your point, stop contradicting yourself. marriage, as i have pointed out three times without you making a single coherent point, will not fix this and will only complicate things further. as i just pointed out, the distinction is necessary in order to avoid legal liability down the road

>>139109742
See >>139109849
Also, divorce rates of religious couples are still lower than those of irreligious ones.

>>139110108
Pre-judaic cultures generally frowned only on being the passive partner. homosexuality blanket bans came with Judaism.

>>139110181
Marriage will fix this. How would it not?

>>139110047

Fun fact: possible consequences of that are unknown

Fun fact: women will probably be subordinate servants to men in the future considering the future is more likely to be similar in every way to the far, far past. (You don't actually think modern civilization will continue forever, do you? Only question is when does shit hit the fan)

>>139109353
no, it is the right to get married to the person that I love. I need to make this stupid fucking identity BS because it seems to be the only way to overthrow centuries of draconian religious views. All so I can live the life that I want to.

File: 8838708-3x4-700x933.jpg (62KB, 700x933px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 700x933px

>>139103853
Considering that most 1st world cuntries have had defacto laws in place for years now that legally and financially protect pooftas partners the same as they do straight couples all this screeching about
>muh marriage equality
really is just mincing faggots wanting to play the
>LOOK AT ME, LOOK AT ME, I'M DIFFERENT, PAY ATTENTION TO ME!!1!
card.

>>139103853
Mars afara cu homalii tai poponar infect. Pula mea nu trebuie sa fii religios ca sa ti se faca scarba de jigodiile alea.

>>139110095
Societal estructure through history works in a spiral.
Liberal and conservationist views come and go from generations before and will continue to do so.
But always for the better, like it has been.

File: gay marriage poll.png (442KB, 994x3157px) Image search: [Google]

442KB, 994x3157px

>>139110265
Australia is one of most pro-gay marriages countries, Sweden of course being the most pro-gay marriage.

>>139110223
before you make me repeat myself for the 18th time, can you give me a good reason as to why i should educate someone clearly incapable of comprehending the most basic legal points

>>139110199
yeah and their existed entire cities filled with sodomy. did you know pompeii (you know the place that got eradicated from a volcano), was a huge orgy filled with homosexuality and prostitution?

ever find it kind of strange that they got completely annihilated just like the stories of Sodom?
probably not because more than likely you don't believe in God, so at our cores we're always going to disagree.

File: 1418145859800.png (227KB, 318x295px) Image search: [Google]

227KB, 318x295px

>>139110039
i follow the jesus that beat the crap out of the moneylenders, not your marxist hippie jesus that is made up of cherry picking verses you fucking dog

>>139103853

RELEVANT THREAD:

>>139107368

>>139107368

>>139107368

>>139107368

>>139110047
>A lesbian harem/polygamy laws will actually happen in your lifetime

Damn it really feels good to be lesbian

>>139110236
Men population was declining, wasn't it?
Due to the deterioration of the y chromosome.

>>139103853
it's disgusting, legit enough to get rid of them

>>139110280

A flat circle.

Definitely not 'always for the better'. Society is like ice. Heat it and you get water which is denser. Heat water much more and you get gas which is less dense than even ice.

>>139110361
>Australia is full of the laziest cunts.
It's a postal vote, m8 half the countries envelopes won't even get put properly in the recycling.

>>139103853
Reductio ad absurdum.
Accepting fag marriage makes that any argument against marriage between adults and children be vanished

>>139110536
>Flat circle.
Nah.
People live better now than before, I call than advancing.

>>139110547
Gay marriage will happen in Australia, but you already have legalized gay civil unions.

>>139110498

You might get some muslim to say that is a prediction of apocalypse from their hadith which predicted a time there would be 1 men for every 50 women.
Either way I'm not well-read in what you said but it's tingling my pseudo-science senses

>>139110560
>What is consent
Really, this argument is dead.

>>139110428
Fuck off back to stormfront you cringy piece of shit.

>>139110361
bare in mind that older generations are staunchly against this whereas most people don't give enough of a fuck to actually vote on this, it'll definitely be close

The definition of marriage has been agreed upon by the entire planet for thousands of years. Gay marriage changes/modifies the definition. I don't believe the government should be in the business of telling people who they can be in a relationship with or re-defining words. In other words, the government shouldnt be in the business of marriage. Their only interest is for tax purposes and civil partnerships for everyone could accomplish that.

>>139103853
-If you accept gay marriage then automatically you'll be forced to accept gay adoptions, because how can you grant people the right to get married but deny the right to adopt? On what basis? Can't say "it's because you'll molest them" even though it's true.

-Marriage was a church thing from before there was a state, then the government recognised marriage, now government wants to own marriage and define what it can or can't be? How can you tell priests or imams "yeah fuck your holy books nigga marry those faggots even though your religion says it's an abomination and faggots should be put to death"?

-It's intentionally done as part of destroying every tradition by Marxist kikes and their brainwashed minions. It's part of the destruction of religion, goy traditions and so on. The goal is to make society unrecognisable.

File: 1503283130466.jpg (391KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

391KB, 1920x1080px

>>139110047
Yeah, but the technology and the know how to operate it will still be operated and gatekeeper'd by men 'cos women are useless. It'll be extended and used to provide artifical womb plugins for our Waifubots.

Robo-sexual Marriage soon.

>>139110627
Slov trying to shitstir me.

>>139110723
But see that's the thing - maybe 20% of the pop. has a vested interdast either way.
The rest of us probably can't even be fucked to open the envelope before shoving it into the bin.

>>139103853
They cannot have children and should not enjoy the tax exempt straight couples do. Before any faggots points out that they can adopt, remember that single people can adopt, too, and they get jack as well.

>>139110828
Surrogacy

>>139103853
If it's not religious then, what's the marriage based on? If is not also gender related, what's the principle? Love?

If a couple can marry, then 3 people can, also 5, also 10, an entire corporation can marry, gain social and legal benefits, and also adopt childs.

>>139106540
Bestiality goes against animal rights. You are potentially hurting the animals, because they aren't made to have sex with humans, hence bestiality laws to protect animals and sometimes humans from harm. The animals slaughtered for food shouldn't be mistreated and killed in a mostly painless manner as well.

Pedophilia is wrong, because kids aren't in a mental state to consent properly. Also, the danger of grooming and therefore jeopardizing of their upbringing/education. It gets harder to argue for adolescent humans, though, but that isn't true pedophilia, anyway.

No good arguments against necrophilia. You shouldn't be able to fuck just any corpse, though, you aren't supposed to fuck my sex toys either, for instance. If the living person consented and the relatives got no problem with it, fuck the corpse.

>>139110591

We have worse philosophy, literature, art, music than ever.
We have the internet for mediocre intelligence pretentious people to spread their pseudo-intellectualism, for pedophiles to prey on children and spread many more kinds of degeneracy.

People live more comfortable than ever. That doesn't mean such a life is better or more fulfilling. There's a reason liberals are going up in number. Modern life is too easy and creates weak people, who will in turn create problems (like antifa and the whining LBGT degenerates whose sole purpose isn't to get rights they already have, just bitch about something to exercise their slave-morality) that will create strong men. Even if that wasn't the case you don't seem to be aware Trump and Putin could destroy everything we have in a matter of minutes if they just wished so. The future is gonna resemble the past through one way or another.

>>139110780
>Can't say "it's because you'll molest them"
-Straight adopting couples can molest their adopted children too, even kill them. There's bad people everywhere.

-Marriage is a legal union, religion is accesory.

>>139104542
this

>>139104637
not genetical, youre brainwashed

>>139104653
state should support monogamous relationships of all orientations. tmw youre a chick and find out your straight husband is fucking dudes. gays must be encouraged to live peaceful lives devoted to work for the benefit of the nation. keep denying them the means to live stoic lives and you breed degeneracy

>>139104706
>implying straights dont sin
>allowing church to interfere in government issues
kys


>>139104963
>implying marriage is natural

>>139105160
most women are gross

>>139105198
then we should ban sex before marriage and birth control

>>139110850

If it was biologically good for gay people to have children, nature would have made it so.

File: 1502711439572.jpg (1MB, 1506x3976px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1506x3976px

>>139103853

This should have been first post.

Pol be slippin..

>>139110986
>There's bad people everywhere.
>hurr what are statistics
you must be a Catalan to be this much of a faggot. It's the same logic as cucks who say "yeah sure shitskins rape 30 times more than whites, but so what whites rape too"

Marriage wasn't a legal thing before there was a state, its origin is religion, stop being dense you Catalan faggot.

>>139111045
There is no good or bad in biology.

>>139110938
This is just a little period of time on the grand scale, not everything is as bad as you think it is.
Past times were never better.

File: 1502290578270.png (719KB, 579x761px) Image search: [Google]

719KB, 579x761px

>>139110780
>Can't say "it's because you'll molest them" even though it's true.
Now, come on. Gay Male "couples" are only 16 times more likely to sexually assault an adopted child than heteroseuxals. Barely statistically relevant, uh uh, your just racistly on the worng side of history.

Before Red Ice went full 1488 they were really the very best thing ever:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNsIRDFJWC0

>>139110850
Surrogacy of a fertilized egg between husband and wife is normal. Fucking someone else then raise the resulting child is literally legalizing bastards. Gay couples can only have the latter form of surrogacy. It's not a valid reason to grant them the merit of straight couples.

>>139111177

Yes they were. Not all of them, but there are a few decades I could think of that are vastly superior to the current day.

>>139111143

I'm sure it's convenient for you to believe that.

>>139111110
Not catalan.
But psycopathy doesn't discriminate by sex, religion or sexuality.
I'm talkng about people within the same culture though.