>Zizek in his talk on state with varoufakis
>"We *sniff* maasht tayk eeeen de reffyoojeesh, and so on and so on, but they must be told that they tolerate gays, Jews, right of women, and so on and so on"
>see picrelated
>>442452
littrered
>>442452
>people celebrate banning gay rights
Pathetic.
>>442475
Pederast BTFO
>>442493
slippery slope
>hurr if we allow fag marriage then we will have to allow child marriage than animal marriage than rock marriage
listen, 2 consenting adults should get married. Children-Animals-Rocks have less developed intelligence and cannot consent therefore they should not get married. You might argue that age of consent should be lowered to 16 etc but really fuck off with your slippery slope bullshit.
>>442475
>Expecting something good from christians
Good thing they're dying out in first world countries.
>>442500
Faggots are the single biggest vector of HIV spread in the west. And they spread it willingly.
Also their entire personality is entirely based on their sexuality and not any qualities as a human bean.
>>442517
So Islam can take over and throw faggots off buildings?
>>442500
In some slav countries "pederast" stands for homosexual. What you considered a slippery slope argument may have been a boring insult.
Regardless, I agree with you, gay marriage should be allowed. The problem is that in some countries it is considered a religious ritual, and having a holy meaning. People should move away from that and realize its just a symbol of dedication from one person to another, and a convince for tax benefits, insurances and such.
>>442517
>Good thing they're dying out
the tolerant left :^)
>>442522
HIV spread has nothing to do with marriage. It is something that must be tackled, and perhaps you should move your effort away from boycotting human rights and into fighting HIV.
And the reason you think homosexuals have no personality outside of sodomy is because you are so brainwashed that you only see their sexual performance when you look at them, the same way that when you look at a 250kg man you only see "fat man", and not a person who loves jazz or buys meat for street dogs or any other thing. You are looking for that homosexuality, you seek it and you find it. You get it stuck in your eyes and ignore the rest. This is a mental illness and you should consult specialists.
>>442524
>Muh muslim are worse than us
Literally the only argument left.
>>442500
>listen, 2 consenting adults should get married
When did marriage turn from a religious ceremony into a meaningless phrase about rights and shit? Was marriage ever a religious ceremony first and foremost?
>>442535
Marriage is not a right dum-dum. Neither is adoption. What we saw in this referendum is that democracy still works.
>>442543
Marriage has never been a religious ceremony. It fucking predates religion, and sure as fuck predates Christianity and homophobia.
>>442543
When states got involved with it.
Here's a thought, if marriage were left between nobody but the couple and their church then gay marriage would be an oxymoron.
>>442543
>I don't know nothing about history: the post
You must be a christian.
>>442535
>mental illness
not that guy, but to call someone mentally ill is a cruel ad hominem considering that gays themselves were considered mentally ill until the 1980s. anyway, considering that people have so many biases, its retarded to single out people who don't like fat people or gay people for being mentally ill.
>>442562
Its not about liking X or Y, its about having a mania about X and Y, so strong that the mare sight of them blinds you to everything else.
Mania is a mental illness. Looking at a human, a most complex biological machine tied to an even more complex social person, and saying that there is nothing more than "fat" or "gay" in there, is mania.
>>442550
>Marriage has never been a religious ceremony. It fucking predates religion, and sure as fuck predates Christianity and homophobia.
Is it recognizable with the modern idea of marriage or is it completely different?
>>442583
There is no modern idea of marriage. People get married in New Vegas by an Elvis impersonator, or in a garden by a black lesbian in a space blanket, or at the beech by the local serf club president.
Marriage has long stopped having a meaning more than making an official announcement that you and that other person are a couple, and getting tax benefits from it. The only time its seen as a "religious institution" by anybody is when conservatives protest against gay rights.
>>442572
If your not a professional, you don't have the experience or knowledge to judge who has mania and who doesn't, especially over an anonymous message board. And by your definition of mania, everyone suffers from bouts of obsession.
>so strong that the mare sight of them blinds you to everything else.
Again, you cannot judge this over an internet board. For all we know the person your replying to is a person who, even if he doesn't like gays and maybe he even has an obsessive fear or hatred of them, does not impede his ability to function in society.
>>442583
"Modern idea of marriage" is basically an ancient Roman thing.
>>442601
Lets delete this board then, because nobody here is a specialist in anything being discussed, and all these discussions should not be done over an anonymous image board anyway.
Or you could just leave, and have the rest of us, who are happy with the information being exchanged, continue exchanging it.
>>442616
accusing everyone who disagrees with you of being mentally ill makes you a real asshole to be honest family
>>442636
I only accused one person, who was displaying maniacal behavior. I asked him to go to a specialist to get checked.
I am sorry I triggered you. I didnt mean to remind you of your getting bullied in school or your mother smoking a long black cigar.
Good for Slovenia. The same faggots who whine about Western imperialism are flustered because a 3rd-wrld Slavic shithole decided to exercise its right to self-determination. Fuck yourself if you don't realize why internationalist progressivism and anti-colonialism are contradictory positions in this day and age.
>>442593
>There is no modern idea of marriage. People get married in New Vegas by an Elvis impersonator, or in a garden by a black lesbian in a space blanket, or at the beech by the local serf club president.
That's a pretty big claim to make just because there exist exceptions to the rule. You clearly know what people mean when they say "marriage" and you have an image in your head, you're just needlessly complicating matters and acting as if marriage can't be related to religion because they didn't pop up at the same time.
>>442648
he was displaying perfectly normal behavior. he just said something you didn't like.
>marriage
Someone red pill me on this ancient custom.
>>442680
Once upon a time a man and a woman would bond to raise a family.
Thousands of years later it is the worst enemy of the single mom handouts.
>>442683
Point being it's a useless arrangement that should systematically be cut out of society and legislation.
>>442698
>legislation
isn't marriage the same as domestic partnerships?
>>442543
When did marriage turn into a religious ceremony?
>>442719
>When did marriage turn into a religious ceremony?
Between 1545 and 1563, at the Council of Trent in Trento (Trent) and Bologna, Italy.
>>442475
> gay rights means GET MARRIED FOR SOME MINOR TAX BENEFITS
top kek, you class distraction shills
>>442755
>you are allowed to get married
>unless you are gay
Thats discrimination. Since the government forces it, its institutionalized discrimination. I dont get how you can possibly be against it.
>>442768
I don't see how that's discrimination.
>>442775
Thats the textbook definition of discrimination. Are you pretending to be retarded here?
>>442778
How is it discrimination if a gay man can marry a lesbian woman (or any other combination of straight / gay man and striaght /lesiban woman)?
>>442768
Gays have exactly the same right to marry a woman if they want.
>>442805
It isn't an identical right, though. The right has been defined for a long time, in the legal traditions that matter in the Western world, as being between a man and a woman, not just between two persons.
>>442805
>Preferred partner
I didn't know that was the legal criteria for marriage. I guess that throws arranged, business, and other similar marriages out the window. And a gay person can still marry their preferred female partner.
>2015
>Caring about marriage
Marriage is an obsolete and dying practice in developed world, there is literally no reason to have institutionalized monogamy at this point. I don't get why gays care about it so much, instead of watching it implode.
>>442850
>le current year meme being used unironically
>>442850
ITS
You guys know that the news is half true.
The great majority of people in Slovenia was for the equal marriage BUT the Slovenian gov then decided to slap with that together full right of adoption by gay couples.
That is the part that had a large backlash in the population of Slovenia with the group of pushing for the no vote grouping around an initiative called "Children are at stake".
Basically no body expected the referendum to pass cause it also was talking about adoption and not just marriage.
>>442872
>>442855
>>442872
>2011+4
>not recognizing a vintage meme
>>442883
Well if you don't allow adoption then we consider slovenians even more bigoted shitlords
>>442768
Wage-based discrimination hurts us much more.
Why tackle symptoms instead of causes? Because you still want to be a selfish asshole AND feel morally superior?
People don't have food or shelter and I'm supposed to give a fuck about Timmy the Fairy being able to throw a huge party for his legal Wedding™.
>>442500
Sure so when will we allow brother-sister, father-daughter marriage then?
>>442910
Fallacy of relative privation.
>>442914
Nah, you're after morality points and pissing off Christians. No altruism in gay marriage at all.
>>442911
Slippery slope fallacy.
>>442917
Ad hominem fallacy+strawman fallacy combo x2.
>>442918
Give me one argument against incestuous marriage that also can't be used against fag marriage.
>>442926
Currently? Its seen as morally wrong by most people. Perhaps in the future this will go away.
Scientifically? A heterosexual incestuous marriage might promote inbreeding and retarded children.
Practically? Allowing parents to see their children as potential partners might promote pedophilia.
>>442908
not really, this very same issue of adoption was taken up in france in 2013 and even though it passed, a lot of people opposed the gay adoption of children
>>442452
What Liberals will never accept is that Gay marriage is actually fascism. Rather than the state staying out of people's lives (ie bedrooms) the state gains more power to control life/reproduction.
Legally speaking, adoption for Gay couples means that children from their biological parents are only considered their children because the state allows you to adopt your own biological child.
There's no difference between a child adopted by Gays and a child born of its own parents.
Now the state has control over who is allowed to adopt.
Gay marriage is a tool of biopolitical control that Foucault and Walter Benjamin warned about.
The consequences of Gay marriage are extremely worrying and I will argue further that the desire for marriage among homosexuals was not that high until recently.
>>442908
>we
this thread is straight up /pol/ tier shit.
Why is this in this fucking board.
Every single day that passes, /his/ is getting worse.
And it started so well...
>>442947
>"removing government restrictions is basically fascism"
Being retarded fallacy.
>>442941
Same can be said of fag marriage being morally wrong.
On the child note statisticly its no less possible of having a fucked up kid as a woman 40 or over yet we don't ban women 40 or over from having kids or getting married. same basic defense fags use against the fags can have kids argument. And also thanks to fags marriage can be seen as no longer being about having or reading kids so that point is moot.
>>442636
>respectability politics
Shut the fuck up. Fuck this homophobic piece of shit
>>442962
>On the child note statistically its no less possible of having a fucked up kid as a woman 40 or over
It isnt, the numbers are lower, unless you get way up in the years. And thats considering she can give birth, because nature takes over and fights against that, unlike inbreeding.
>And also thanks to fags marriage can be seen as no longer being about having or reading kids so that point is moot.
Slippery slope.
Also there is a restriction. You should provide reasons for the restriction to exist, rather than me providing reasons for it not to exist.
Protip: the only reasons are found in Christianity, and thus have no room in modern government.
>>442952
I don't think you really get what the debate about "gay marriage" is about.
Married couples receive tax breaks. The sole purpose of this is to help ease the burden of having children. This was done in 1948. Before that, the Federal government had absolutely no interest in marriage. Marriage was a religious union between two people and was recorded at a church. There was no need for the secular government to get involved because it had absolutely nothing to do with it and could not offer boons or burdens upon marriage.
Homosexuals wanted those tax breaks however, despite being unable to produce children. The debate was not over rights, it was over whether or not people should receive tax breaks because not having them hurt their feelings.
The government having a hand in marriage was not something the Fascists cared about so it's not Fascism, but yes, the government being able to control who you can and cannot marry is totalitarian. Because before this legislation there WAS no legislation in place allowing the Federal government to have any say in marriage.
>>442947
dumbest thing I've read this morning. by your logic, the state has been fascist for years because couples can be potentially snatched by couples with infertility issues.
>biopolitical control
and to what end is that?
>extremely worrying
if you can't say why it is worrying, without resorting to your absurd reasoning, then your opinion is worthless
>>442981
>because couples
because the children of couples
>>442974
The slippery slope is not a fallacy unless it cannot be demonstrated that there is a logical progression between point A and point B.
>>442986
Demonstrate it then.
>>442980
There is a government enforced rule on who can marry and who cant. This rule is being removed. You are calling this fascism.
You are saying that the government removing government enforced rules is fascism.
>>442974
The argument for incestuous marriage are the same exact ones for gay marriage. Arguing against one is arguing against the other. Unless. Of course you want to put arbitrary restrictions on your so called marriage 'rights'
>>443000
The post you replied to already mentions difference between the arguments. Work on your reading comprehension.
>>442995
You aren't getting this.
Before this year there WAS no Federal ruling on who you could or could not marry. There was nothing saying two homosexual men could not walk into a church, ask to be married, and have their marriage officiated by a priest.
Let me repeat that, THERE WAS NO LAW SAYING HOMOSEXUALS COULD NOT MARRY.
The TAX BREAKS only applied to HETEROSEXUAL COUPLES because heterosexual couples produce children.
The Federal government is not removing a law, it is adding one. Only this one doesn't say "Gays can't marry" it says "You cannot stop gays from marrying".
>>443011
I dont think you are a slovenian talking about Slovenia.
>>443011
>There was nothing saying two homosexual men could not walk into a church, ask to be married, and have their marriage officiated by a priest.
>Only this one doesn't say "Gays can't marry" it says "You cannot stop gays from marrying".
Do you see the contradictions in these statements? Why do you think the law is now changed to "You cannot stop gays from marrying"? Because, many states until recently have explicitly not allowed gay couples to marry because they are in control of marriage rights. Benefits aside, this is the crux of the issue.
>mentally ill, maladapted humans believe they can call critics of homosexual depravity mentally ill
The only reason it isn't considered a mental illness any more is due to politics, faggot.
>>443027
and let me add, gay marriage IS banned in certain states you idiot.
>>443007
The arguments for and against both are logically the same.
He pointed out that incestuous coup plea can get married because they could possiblity have fucked up kids. To counter this one can point out that other couples that have the possiblity of having fucked up kids are not barred from getting married, such as the mentally disabled or women of advanced age.
This is
>>443035
This is logiclly the same as when people argue against gay marriage on the basis that they can't have kids to which they retort that other couples that can't have kids are not barred from getting married.
>>443031
Not after Obergefell v. Hodges. Unless you're not talking about US states.
>>442963
go die of aids
If Gay Marriage was allowed, wouldn't that mean gays could use infidelity in court to make money off one another during divorce procedures, meaning they would be less likely to sleep around and thus reduce HIV spread?
Plus, if they are gay and want to have kids, they won't have to marry a woman. Which removes 1 sleeping partner from the equation. Also reducing AIDS spread.
Equal rights in all things should be the norm, but gay marriage has nothing to do with this since marriage laws discriminate against the unmarried.
Unmarried people get less welfare, perks and tax breaks.
Aids is spread by blacks on the down low
>>443112
Any thing that is licenced by the state is not a right.
>>443046
I meant before the ruling. Thats why the ruling was passed
>>443011
>>442980
>>442947
Can't you instead give tax breaks to people who HAVE children instead of married couples and call it a day? Or maybe eliminate the Tax Breaks altogether (except for things like inheritance, of course)
I mean, sterile people who get married or heterosexual couples who decide not to have children are still abusing the system by your definition..
>>443123
of course, the laws passed to secure rights are not the rights themselves
>>442452
>marriage
>a right
isnt this basically a case of a kid wanting a toy simply because another kid is playing with it?
>>443147
Marriage is a right.
Tax breaks are not.
>>443147
Gays marriage will prevent straight people from marry?
>/pol/ shitflinging: the thread
Remind me how this is /his/ related again?
>>442540
underrated post
>Hey we demand people to live according to our beliefs but at least we are not as demanding as mudslimes
>>443102
>use infidelity in court
There are countries who still take this into account when doing divorces? My country hasn't for almost thirty years.
>>443147
If someone is giving out free toys to everyone except you, with the motivation that you are gay, is that really fair?
>>442452
Oh, no, door to zooerastia is locked.
>>442980
>despite being unable to produce children
lel
Producing children isn't hard, the purpose of the tax rebate isn't to "produce" children, it's to fucking raise them.
>>442906
It stopped being funny when John Oliver started spamming it. I don't see >constanza.jpg used in conjunction with it nearly often enough anymore.
>>442995
>You are saying that the government removing government enforced rules is fascism.
But the government isn't removing regulations, just adding a regulation to strengthen the state's control over who is "legally" considered your child.
It's the very opposite of deregulation.
They didn't allow gays to marry, but they added a regulation to say that they will determine whose child belongs to whom.
>>442452
Congratulations bro.
>I have a drivers license so why cant I fly a plane?
>>443011
Listen mate, before the federal government got involved, marriage was meaningless. If the government had nothing to do with marriage, a gay couple could probably find one priest who would marry them. Hell, they might not even use a priest, they don't have to be Christian.
Let me tell you how retarded marriage is. My dad can legally marry people, as he is an ordained minister in the Church of Bob. All he did was pay like twenty bucks to the church and now he can marry people.
>>443857
>>443160
>>443123
>>443102
>>442980
>>442475
The marriage has always been about filiation, about the legitimate descendants. The purpose was to marry two families. Today, with the marriage for love, it is only two individuals who get married. A marriage for love fits well into the individualistic era such as ours, but it remain an aberration.
Today, since the homos have the right to marry, we say that the filiation happens only via the education. This is pure ideology naturally. What makes you a parent ? It can be :
-the genes
-the education
-the genes and the education
With the human rights for all, you see that the couples infertile by the nature of their relationship, or by their natural infertility, can enter into a filiation only through the education.
The first step became apparent when the bastard children were recognized the same rights as the legitimate ones, in the marriage for the heteros, especially when it comes to the inheritance.
Of course, women never had any remorse to be fucked by the neighbor, give birth to bastards nor to pass them as legitimate, so the theory of the marriage is a bit phony but as we conceived them by the dozen, as they died a lot, we might as well go with the flow. Now, that we conceive only a few children, we tend to be picky on the filiation.
You see here a tension between the 'everything is social like the left dreams about' and the stance that 'everything is genetics, from the right' since it is common knowledge today that we are determined genetically for what matters.
Nowadays, the marriage is dead and buried. There is clearly no relevance in going into it. Even more so when the sexual fidelity is no longer accepted and desired, when the divorce without fault becomes the rule (I am tired of you, so let's divorce and you do not even have a word to say in my decision).
The bourgeoisie destroyed the marriage by their mores.
Would like to point out that "child marriage" is already proscribed in any civilized country because children cannot into enter legal contracts. For all those who fret about the "slippery slope".
>>446333
Should we try to reform the laws around marriage or get rid of it altogether
>>442475
more pathetic than that is to have the majority legislating the rights of the minorities... and in this case in particular is even worse since we're talking about 3rd world apes
>>442475
Where does anybody consider marriage a right?
Where does anybody consider getting to marry who you want a right?
>>446460
The Supreme Court of the United States of America (at least its majority).
>>446555
Why would it be somebody's right to get married?
Like I have nothing against allowing gays to marry, but why would it be a right?
>>446565
The capabilities aporoach. Basically.
>>442475
>marriage is a legal and social institution celebrating and bonding a couple as the foundation for the creation of a family
>it's a right for gay couples
Even ancient Greeks would think you're a basket case.
Jesus Christ you retards. Legalizing gay marriage is about recognizing same-sex common-law couples. As for producing children, people should just stop being goddamn crybabies and let fags adopt. Like, seriously, are you worried gay people are going to start spreading the gay agenda or some other bullshit? At least two-parent gay homes are more conducive to child-raising than single-parent homes. And no one is arguing that single parents should never have custody of children.
>>446565
In the United States, the legalistic argument is derived from the 14th Amendment. This Amendment states that all citizens are to be extended equal protection under the law.
Given that marriage carries with it legal protections and privileges, if you extend it to one group of people, you must also extend it to others. Women get to vote, niggers get to be people, consenting adults of the same sex can also get married.
So essentially to bring society in to line with a law that's been on the books for over a century, it was necessary to either A) allow homos to get hitched, or B) divest the institution of marriage of it's legal protections and privileges.
This is where the notion of "civil unions" came from, since it was supposed to be something new that functioned like marriage, but lacked the name that inflamed the sensibilities of certain groups. Then you could just relegate "marriage" to a private religious matter handled entirely within your church, after which you'd go to the county clerk's office and get your "civil union" license or whatever.
Instead we ended up just throwing open the existing institution of marriage to the gays. Simpler logistically, but bound to piss a lot of people off.
So there you go. It's your right because it is guaranteed by the Constitution, at least in the US.
>>446603
So if a couple gets married but decides not to have children, should they eventually have their marriage annuled by the state?
>>446603
>freedom is a right
Even ancient Greeks would think you're a basket case.
>>446664
This is actually not the argumentation that was presented in the decision, which is much more abstract and general in its language, 'the right to intimacy' and so on. It really does read like a fortune cookie, as one commentator has put it.
>>446676
No, it just means there was no point in them getting married. But it's never been that a marriage doesn't have validity until you have kids, just that kids are the point of marriage in the same way as marriage is the point of getting engaged.
>>446679
Freedom is a state, not an institution, and no, it obviously isn't a legal right, or else we couldn't send anyone to prison. Freedom is a privilege contingent upon certain behavior.
>>446755
There are a large amount of children up for adoption. Homosexual couples can (and have expressed desire to) raise those children. It's not as if the Earth desperately needs more humans at all costs.
>>446763
You can say homosexual adoption is preferable to foster parents or orphanages, while at the same time being very opposed to gay marriage. John Milbank holds this position.
>>446763
It's not a matter of needing people, it's a matter of social institutions.
Throughout history, throughout cultures, marriage has had two objectives: strenghtening bonds between families and producing the next generation. That's what marriage is, that's what it has always been; it might have been polygamous, it might have been monogamous, it doesn't matter. Throughout space and time, even in cultures where homosexual sex was pretty common and accepted, homosexual marriages were either never celebrated or only very rarely, and in those few cases they were seen as freak shows.
So homosexual marriage isn't a possibility not because I don't want them to marry, it's because they can not marry.
I'm perfectly fine with civil unions, where civil unions are defined as a legal bond to gain some bureaucratic privileges. Civil unions for both hetero and homosexual couples, of course and in neither case they would grant you the right to adopt.
>>446794
But they can marry. Marriage as a meaningful institution is not dead-set in stone passed down from the government. Yes, marriage has religious connotations, but there are so many sects of religions that it is impossible not to find one that condones marriage of homosexual couples.
And just because an institution meant something at one time doesn't mean that it is absolute and immune to change. That is what is at issue here. It's a new definition of marriage.
>>446812
>But they can marry
No, they can't. They can do a thing that sort of looks like marriage and might be called marriage by some, but it's not. A bald bear looks like a dog and I can even call it woofie but it's still a bear.
And I'm not talking about religious institutions, I'm talking about a capital T tradition, as in a tradition that was chosen by virtually every succesfull society ever.
>It's a new definition of marriage.
Exactly, which is very dangerous behavior. We're not playing in labs here, we're playing with an extremely complicated machine called society. While the cons of "not letting gays marry" are quantifiable and miniscule, the cons of keeping up with the redefinition of marriage that has been going on for the past 60 years or so are both non quantifiable and potentially disastrous.
But gay "marriage" is actually a ruse, it's a red herring. I'm not really that interested in opposing it, the real deal is no-fault divorce and stuff like it.
>>446812
Religious support for homosexual marriage, such as with Mainline Protestants, is a very new thing and a product of secular support for it.
But this isn't even about religion. Civil marriage was the same thing.
>It's a new definition of marriage
Why should there be? It's patently absurd, it's homosexual couples trying to ape heterosexual ones, "I wanna be like you!" But they're not, homosexual couples can't reproduce and more importantly, they can never be a social or cultural symbol of the basis of procreation. Gay marriage is a product of envy and resentment over gay couples being seen as something very different, but that's what they are. The Greeks even saw homosexual love as higher than heterosexual love, but the idea that it was entitled to marriage would have seem bizarre to them. Gays want marriage but gay relations are not what marriage is about. It's like smoking cigarettes and wearing a fedora and demanding the term "private detective" be changed so it applies to anyone who wears a fedora and smokes cigarettes. Gay marriage is built entirely on the cultural significance, glamour and mystery of procreation, gays want to have all that without the substance, they don't even have the raw signifier: a heterosexual couple still is a signifies, even if unconsciously, in the public mind, of procreation and the biological magic of two people creation an entirely new person.
>>442522
>faggots spread HIV, so they shouldn't marry
Literally how is this an argument, wouldn't marriage lower promiscuity and thus HIV spreading? Think before you post nigger.
>>446856
>being a gay is contagious believer
By not allowing gays to marry and adopt, you are encouraging them to become closeted gays, marry women, spread their gay genes, and have gay children.
>>446864
>wouldn't marriage lower promiscuity
In heterosexual couples, maybe, in homosexual couples no, as research after research has shown.
But yes, his argument is still bad.
>>446856
>But gay "marriage" is actually a ruse, it's a red herring. I'm not really that interested in opposing it, the real deal is no-fault divorce and stuff like it.
That is true. I'm baffled how people who have been married several times can be up in arms about gay marriage without realizing they're part of the problem. Turning marriage into a merry-go-round is far more destructive to it than even gay marriage is, because marriage is supposed to be the very bedrock of family and thus society itself, how the hell can a merry-go-round be a bedrock?
>>446880
Post the studies please.
Also along with allowing them marriage, we need to make adultery a criminal offense again. For heterosexual couples as well.
>>446877
Homosexuality is less hereditable than aggressiveness.
Also, I don't have anything against homosexuals.
>>446882
You're right and I'd say more, I'd rather have a society with almost no divorce but gay "marriage" than a society with no gay "marriage" but the current levels of divorce.
>>446906
I think we really have to look back at the Reformation, and realize just how dangerous it was when Protestants started objecting to marriage being seen as Sacramental. Even from a secular point of view, this seed is what bore fruit in the 20th Century.
>>446899
Allowing gays to marry straights is a recipe for kekking, unhappy marriage, divorce and domestic instability. Letting gays ostracize themselves from the normal family unit does no harm to traditional marriage, it in fact, makes traditional marriage stronger as an institution, since you will no longer have gay-straight combinations weakening the social order.
A gay-straight marriage and encouraging a straight person to marry a closeted gay person is destructive to the institution of marriage. It's far more harmful than letting gay-gay marriages be allowed, and it lets those straights that would have married gays, marry straights, leading to one less issue of domestic strife.
>>446916
The problem is that gay marriage does massive damage to the public association of sex and procreation, which secularism is working very hard to sunder.
>>446859
I actually agree with your underlying argument, but I think the biological point is moot. Firstly because gays can raise children, but secondly and more importantly, because the legal institutions are not teleological, as in depending on function. A better justification would be that it is simply a matter of tradition in which the state should have no say, regardless of biology, and any attempt to invert this reality amount to intrusion and social engineering.
>>446926
It's a matter of tradition that the state has a say.
>>446931
The role of the state in this case is to sanction a traditional arrangement, not to completely redefine it. This is the difference between sensible regulation and social engineering.
>>442452
What the fuck does this have to do with /his/? GTFO back to /pol/
>>446935
Ethics->philosophy->humanities
Settle down
>>446936
Humanities niggers should off back to /lit/ desu. This board was never meant for them and I have no idea why they're included in the headline.
>>446914
The French Revolution is to blame.
But anyway civil marriage is part of reality now and it's not going to go away.
In fact, I don't even think conservatives should condone the outright banning of gay marriage, if it's done gradually and through the express will of the majority (as opposed to supreme court coups). Even without condemning it, however, we can at least be disappointed by gays turning to emulate heteros and giving up their own way of life.
>>446947
Humanities is the real thing. History is just a meme.
>>446934
I'd agree with that. I'm only saying that suggesting the state should stay out of marriage altogether is not a good idea.
>>446947
>history isn't one of the humanities
>>446947
>Humanities niggers should off back to /lit/ desu
Yeah, we should stick to chronology or whatever the fuck history is today.
>>442522
>Also their entire personality is entirely based on their sexuality
fucking this
>>442990
I've seen articles on salon and faggington post about pro pedos and pro incest so yes the left will always push for "progress."
>>442452
Based Slovenia
>>446705
Well that's silly, since pointing to the Constitution was simple, it supersedes all other laws, and was already in place. And that's what the S.C. is there to do in the first place.
>>447060
>people fall for this meme
>>446916
Don't look now Cotton but the institution of Straight Marriage has been in dire straits for decades now. This notion that straight people getting married is inherently stable or more stable or whatever fool idea you've got is laughable.
I would content that marriage as a whole is struggle so badly because modern life in a developed country has changed to such a degree that it no longer works properly, and is badly in need of re-definition and modernization. Extending it to the gays is one thing to do.
Leviticus is garbage, btw.
>>442452
From cca 1.6 million only 621.157 voted on the matter and only 393.185 were against it.
This is how referendums work in Slovenia.
And Žižek that fuck probably didn't even vote on it.
>>447294
>salon and huffington
You might as well cite buzzfeed
We have a news board.
>>>/news/
