So I got a couple questions for all you guys on LGBT. If "Love is love" when it's between two gays/lesbians, then shouldn't love be love when it's between the 40 year old who LOVES the 6 year old and she loves him? Or what about the brother and sister who LOVE each other? Or the man and his horse? Or the father and his son? What about them? Can you then 'Legislate' their love? Is their love not valid?
>animals and children can give meaningful consent
I'll agree with your argument when you also agree to give 6 year old children and horses the right to vote and own property.
>>5468080
But it's still their love. They love each other just as much as the faggots love each other in their homo rallies.
>>5468100
>consent is irrelevant
>>5468106
No no. I am only saying if they love each other, because then it will be love and you know that "love is love".
>>5468067
If anyone is to judge, it should be up to the families and communities to decide what's appropriate. Worst case is you have to move to more or less liberal community. The extremes on either end would likely suffer. But this scheme would suck for oligarchs who depend on centralized power and wealth.
>>5468117
"love is love" doesn't make it legal. It's only legal if both individuals can give meaningful consent. Your argument is equivalent to saying theft should be legalized "because I really want it".
Personally, i don't care about incest, as long as a brother and a sister do not plan on procreating.
>/pol/
>asks a question
>gets answer with arguments
>replies with no real argument, spouting maymays
Who would've thought, amirite?
I've never really been into the "love is love/love is never wrong" line for exactly that reason.
Gays are okay because they are two consenting adults who aren't hurting anyone, not because "love."
Wow, gang, a wild slippery slope has traveled from the not-so-distant past to give us a quiet chuckle at the absurdity of days gone by. This is exactly what someone wanted for Christmas. Right?
>>5468117
then what are you advocating for, exactly? [noun] is [noun] is a pretty incontestable position, but what are you trying to say beyond that?
>>5468121
But isn't it a terrible thing if all homo's can't marry in all parts of the world, even if the people voted against it?
>>5468127
When I say love is love I mean both people are ok with it, I specified this already but I might have to go slower for your homo mind.
>>5468157
I am just saying the the fags keep yelling "Love is love" "You can't legislate love" when in fact they are in support of only things they find okay and accusing people of just that.
>>5468209
Love exists regardless, but why exactly should the government subsidize the rape of children?
>>5468209
Get out pedoscum.
>what you nigz are doing right now
>>5468219
I never was in support of it I was giving examples of what that very same phrase supports and why the phrase is shit. In fact I find all of that gross and bad the pedo, homo, and animal shit, all of it.
>>5468217
Once again, consent. Both people want it and we never said sex was involved. We are speaking of "love".
>>5468247
Not a troll thread, just a serious question. I want to see you fags defend it.
>>5468175
One man's heaven is another man's hell. The only fair answer is to have wheels if you don't like it.
>>5468278
Okay, so you think there should be marriages based on "love" in which sex is legally forbidden? I suppose that's possible, but I really don't see the point in it.
>>5468345
Legalizing gay marriage hurts no one. Yet it does extend equal rights to gays. Anyone who is opposed to gay marriage is simply opposed to equal rights for all citizens.
>>5468352
No, I don't think that at all. I am asking this so you can see why the "love is love" thing is shit. I think fag marriage should be done with. I am posting this so people understand why sometimes love is not love.
>>5468287
>>5468362
No that is not the case. People don't want fag marriage because it is forbidden. It goes against everything a lot of people believe in. When nations leave God behind they start to decline and become nothing but pages in the history book. Also if you can't defend it and everything it goes with (incest pedo animal) then don't defend it at all.
>>5468362
If all the people who want to lynch flaming homosexuals get shook out to the ass end of the country with whatever bible law suits them, I'm ok with that as long as their people can escape if they want. Don't give me your lvl1 material.
>>5468380
Okay, so you're saying you can call something "love" but sometimes it isn't love? That's trivial and pointless. Unless you're claiming that the definition of "love" is not the definition of "love" which is self-contraditory and nonsensical. In any case though "love" means a certain thing, and it is certainly possible for a 48 year old straight pedophile to love a 6 year old girl in the same manner as a 41 year old homosexual male loves a 39 year old homosexual male. That's not what's being argued here. What is being argued is that there is a clear reason NOT to let adults marry 6 year olds but there is no clear reason not to allow adults to marry other adults of the same sex.
>>5468421
>It goes against everything a lot of people believe in.
Why should anyone care about your irrational beliefs?
>>5468391
So I am a Nazi because I have a different view than you? I never said fags should be killed or wiped out or anything like that. You people, the people who flat out hate different views, are the Nazis.
>>5468440
>the people who flat out hate different views
projection at its finest
>>5468421
>People don't want fag marriage because it is forbidden.
Forbidden? By who? Your god, an entity with no legal existence? My god says it's sinful not to give me $1000 per day. Why should your god be listened to but not mine?
>When nations leave God behind they start to decline and become nothing but pages in the history book. Also if you can't defend it and everything it goes with (incest pedo animal) then don't defend it at all.
Obvious slippery slope argument. Try harder or go back to >>>/pol/.
>>5468425
I never once said I wanted to kill homos or force them out of the country or anything like that.
>>5468440
>Implying this isn't a /pol/ bait thread
Step up yo game nigga
>>5468427
Why? Why can't 40 year olds marry 6 year olds if they both want it and no sex is involved? They just love each.
>>5468435
My beliefs helped and continue to shape the world. They are hardly "irrational". Also many people do care.
>>5468444
I never said I hated them, just disagree. I don't agree with liberals but don't hate them.
>>5468474
Because sex isn't the only form of child abuse that is possible, and marriage is a legal contract between two people. A 6 year old cannot legally consent to such a contract, so marrying one is impossible.
>>5468480
>My beliefs helped and continue to shape the world
A belief being influential does not mean it is rational. You can't redefine rational to mean "whatever all my freinds agree with."
>>5468449
Of course it is forbidden by God, read the Bible. You just made up your god and does not help your argument. The "slippery slope argument" just shows that you can't defend the fags.
>>5468492
Love would mean they love each other and people who love each other don't abuse their lover.
>>5468464
It is actually the dialectic dance between pol kids progressive kids and prenatal trolls. I'm hoping for adult moderates from this crop.
>>5468502
Never said "whatever all my freinds agree with." made it rational. I'm not a dumbass.
>>5468480
>My beliefs helped and continue to shape the world.
The greek mythology helped to shape the world as well. The actual beliefs of morality, liberal values and human rights are older than your religion yaknow, those are the actual forces that shaped the world. Your irrational sugarcoating is just a way to sell it to the dumb masses
>They are hardly "irrational"
Yes they are, by definition, irrational
>irrational - not logical or reasonable
>>5468508
And what actual evidence is there of your God? Why should the Bible mean anything as a source, we don't even know who wrote it?
>>5468519
Sounds like a no true scotsman argument to me. Abuse definitely can exist in relationships allegedly based on "love".
>>5468531
Rationality still has nothing to do with consensus. I could make a rational statement and it would still be equally as rational if everyone else on earth disagreed with it.
>>5468534
Still not irrational. Also why are you talking about this? It is not the point of the argument.
>>5468553
The beliefs are not really based on logic. That means they're not really rational.
>>5468545
The evidence of God is all over. The things that needed to be perfect for the universe, let alone a habitable world, to be created are so low that there is no way it could have just happened. Also there would have to be the "unmoved mover". I never said it was allegedly based on love I said it was based on love.
>>5468588
There would have to be an "unmoved mover", however that is no reason to assume that the "unmoved mover" is anything like the God of the Christian Bible.
The existence of the "unmoved mover" follows from a logical argument. But is there any logical argument to support the idea that this "unmoved mover" opposes gay marriage?
>>5468602
The Bible, the word of God is what tells me this.
>>5468626
How do you know that the Bible is the word of God?
>>5468553
>Still not irrational
It's not based on blind faith rather than logically derived from observations and thus it's very much irrational.
>Also why are you talking about this? It is not the point of the argument.
>It goes against everything a lot of people believe in.
You brought it in not me. You used it to justify your irrational position yet earlier "muh god" and "muh popular opinion" are not rational justifications for anything and add nothing to your argument.
Yeah I know I'm replying to a bait thread but m8 you need to step up your baiting game. There are a lot of SJW's on this board that are just as dumb as your anti-SJW bait, if you tried just a little bit harder you could hook them so much better and be that much less obvious.
>>5468640
It is the Bible, it has been the word of God ever since it was created. Also you just can't win the things I brought up so you are trying to avoid the argument. We can debate the real topic or debate nothing.
>>5468654
When I said the "It goes against everything a lot of people believe in." because someone else went off topic.
>>5468666
>It is the Bible, it has been the word of God ever since it was created.
And who told you this?
>Also you just can't win the things I brought up so you are trying to avoid the argument. We can debate the real topic or debate nothing.
The original topic was that gay marriage should be banned because some people don't like it. Which is illogical - a lot of people don't like taxes or homework, but that's no reason to ban those things. And furthermore, almost every individual is FORCED to participate in paying taxes or doing homework - whereas just because gay marriage is legal doesn't mean you have to get a gay marriage. We're not even talking about forcing churches to perform gay marriage, we're talking about marriage in the legal sense.
>>5468080
Age and species are social constructs. Why do you hate love, you bigot? #lovewins
>>5468067
i think it should be brought down to 14 bottom but 6year olds are not inteligent enough to make a life choice unlike when they become older / early teens. And animals cant give consent unless they talk and understand human language
>>5468708
Age and species are social constructs, but they're necessary to support the idea of consent, itself a social construct. And while these things are all social constructs, they're a useful, efficient way of preventing people from being taken advantage of.
>>5468693
That was not the argument. In fact I was simply tell this fags that "Love is love" is as stupid as their false union because it cover incest, pedos, and animal fucking yet the is "disgusting and should be illegal".
>>5468731
>false union
And you're saying it's false because your God told you so, and you haven't been able to support your argument of why we should care what your God says.
>>5468708
I never said I hated love I asked why fags say "love wins" when they think incest should be illegal because it is gross. They also don't think a 14 should be able to get with a 39 year old because of age. If you can't defend it all don't talk shit.
>>5468746
>get with
Doesn't this term imply sex? You can give up your claims that you were talking about sexless relationships now, now you're claiming pedophilia is equivalent to adults having sex.
>>5468740
God was never part of the argument until you people brought it up. You have been going off topic and making it something it is not. Debate the correct topic or don't post.
>>5468739
I, and others, find fags repulsive yet it is "bigotry".Also how are homos progressive, I assume you mean with children and if so then you must mean that no child at all is better than a retard (incest) child.
>>5468757
You're using God to argue that there's a fundamental difference between straight and gay marriage. Otherwise, why not ban straight marriage too, if it's the same as pedophilic marriage?
>>5468755
When I mean get with I mean they are a couple. They love each other. You are digging to much into a popular saying.
>>5468788
If I find Christian fundamentalists repulsive and think they shouldn't be given equal rights, is that not bigotry?
>>5468788
if took one of the fags and used some fucking science magic and made hes sperm into a egg you could produce a next gen baby whiles if a father and his daughter had a kid it would have non mixed genes and as such it would not be a next genereation child
>>5468798
And a couple implies sex. To the general population there is no such thing as a romantic relationship without a sexual component.
But in other words, you're asking if I support the right for a marriage between an adult and a child, provided no abuse is involved? In theory, I do. However, sex isn't the only thing children can't consent to, they can't consent to a contract either, and marriage requires consent of both participants. But I have no problem with love existing between adults and children, provided that it is really love and not lust and there is no abuse involved.
>>5468799
marriage is between a man and a woman. that's how it is defined. there's no reason for two men to marry legally. it's a dumb idea and just a way for people to complain that they're a victim.
every faggot in the world can pretend they're married at any time. no one's stopping you from doing that.
>>5468821
>every faggot in the world can pretend they're married at any time. no one's stopping you from doing that.
So are you in favor with eliminating the LEGAL aspects and benefits of marriage? Because if gays cannot get LEGAL marriage, there are privileges that straight couples get that they do not. None of us are talking about religious marriage, we're just talking the legal side of things.
>>5468799
That is not the shit I am getting at. God fucking damn it you dumb fucks on LGBT can't read worth shit.
>>5468853
Either both are bigotry, or neither are bigotry. There is no third option.
>>5468867
What the fuck? That is not the fucking point damn it. Read what was fucking posted.
>>5468067
If they truly love each other then they can wait until they can consent.
>>5468900
What about the incest and animals?
>>5468889
The only other stuff you said was some implication that it would be better to reproduce a through incest than not to reproduce at all. Which is nonsensical, I personally have zero issues with consensual non-reproductive incest, but incest does lead to a high risk of birth defects, some of which could prevent the child from being able to reproduce, so it doesn't really make sense from a reproduction standpoint. So yes, I would say that both non-reproductive incest and homosexuality are preferable than reproduction via incest.
>>5468945
That has nothing to do with what was posted. Can't you read? I never said was for any of that I just ask why fags yell "Love is love" when they are in support of making types of "love" illegal.
>>5468911
Animals cant consent. I do not care about incest but any children that would be a life burden should be culled.
>>5468996
They're not in favor of making "love" illegal. There are no laws whatsoever about who you can love. What laws deal with is who you can marry and fuck. And children and animals cannot give the consent required for marriage or sex.
