What are the arguments against gay marriage?
If you don't take religious arguing into account (which a government shouldn't do), i can't see a single reason to forbid two loving individuals to marry eachother.
No babies. White genocide.
>>79354070
domestication of the vanguard. Gays are disproportionately intelligent and creative, there's a reason mother nature doesn't want them to waste their time raising kids, they're supposed to be inventing shit like your pic related
>>79354153
So, it's white genocide when humans who don't have kids marry and don't have kids? What?
>>79354895
Gays are too smart for marriage? That's a pretty funny reason.
marriage is for man and woman. gays can do whatever they want just don't call it marriage. Redefining a long standing tradition is ridiculous.
>>79354153
>gay people are infertile
Interesting
https://youtu.be/BMYBl2uzXEw
My main argument was that they would still ask for more rights and never be pleased because they try to change society to accept them because they can't accept themselves and it looks like I've been vindicated
>>79355363
Redefining tradition is ridiculous?
What is the problem with that?
They can't marry because you "don't like it" ?
You can live whatever tradition you like to live, but it should not obstruct advancement. Not the other way around.
>>79356099
>they ask for the same rights other people have
>if we allow that, they would ask for even more rights
>they want us to accept them, because they can't accept themselves
Dude what? That made zero sense.
>>79357394
let me clarify
I was never explicity anti gay marriage I just didn't understand why they were so focused on having it called marriage when this proves why it can't be
>>79355953
Why did they want it to be marriage so bad? psychological and sociological issues.
>>79357674
It's just a part of breaking down the meaning of marriage and the family unit.
>>79357674
You mean, you don't understand why they are focused on having the same rights as other people?
Why are you so focused on NOT having it called marriage?
"because tradition" is one of the worst arguments you can come up with. Tradition can never be used as an argument against something.
labels, names and categorizations are very powerful. Not giving them the right to marry basically means "yo, do what you want, but you don't have the same rights heterosexual people have and you are not as good."
>>79354070
Marriage is a religious institution.
Or at least it has been for centuries in the west.
Is your happiness and ability to live in a monogamous relationship dependent on your participating in an historically religious ceremony, then signing a contract with your significant other?
>>79358325
>marriage is a religious insitution
>2016
>>79358525
>I MEAN
>IT'S CURRENT YEAR!!!!
>>79358525
it is.
civil Unions are the legal non religious version.
>>79358666
satan knows
>>79354070
Encourages faggotry as a valid life style choice, rather then what it truly is. A Death Style.
>Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM)a represent approximately 2% of the United States population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV. In 2010, young gay and bisexual men (aged 13-24 years) accounted for 72% of new HIV infections among all persons aged 13 to 24, and 30% of new infections among all gay and bisexual men. At the end of 2011, an estimated 500,022 (57%) persons living with an HIV diagnosis in the United States were gay and bisexual men, or gay and bisexual men who also inject drugs.
>In 2010, gay and bisexual men accounted for 63% of estimated new HIV infections in the United States and 78% of infections among all newly infected men. From 2008 to 2010, new HIV infections increased 22% among young (aged 13-24) gay and bisexual men and 12% among gay and bisexual men overall.
>Among all gay and bisexual men, white gay and bisexual men accounted for 11,200 (38%) estimated new HIV infections in 2010. The largest number of new infections among white gay and bisexual men (3,300; 29%) occurred in those aged 25 to 34.
>Among all gay and bisexual men, black/African American gay and bisexual men accounted for 10,600 (36%) estimated new HIV infections in 2010. The largest number of new infections among black/African American gay and bisexual men (4,800; 45%) occurred in those aged 13 to 24. From 2008 to 2010 new infections increased 20% among young black/African American gay and bisexual men aged 13 to 24.
>Among all gay and bisexual men, Hispanic/Latino gay and bisexual men accounted for 6,700 (22%) estimated new HIV infections in 2010. The largest number of new infections among Hispanic/Latino gay and bisexual men (3,300; 39%) occurred in those aged 25 to 34
>centre of disease control
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/group/msm/
>>79354070
>If you don't take religious arguing into account (which a government shouldn't do)
He fell for the (((secularism))) meme
>>79358717
kek
My troll account on Bernie's Singles.
>>79358129
yea labels are a big deal to people who make their who life revolve around their sexuality
it's kind of a fallacy to recognize that the term marriage has meaning yet you want to sully it with ambiguity
>>79358325
>Is your happiness and ability to live in a monogamous relationship dependent on your participating in an historically religious ceremony, then signing a contract with your significant other?
well i'd like to be able to visit him in the hospital, have a fallback legal status for end-of-life issues, etc.
negotiating all the rights that married couples have independently is excruciating and puts an undue burden on gay citizens
if i can have those rights then i seriously don't give a fuck whether it's called a "civil union" or w/e, though i do think all legal "marriages" should be called the same thing. if marriage is a religious institution then it shouldn't have a legal aspect
>>79357966
So you fear that everytime a gay couple marries, your marriage and your family is less worth?
>Oh no, those faggots got married, now my own marriage is worthless
How teh fuq does it break down the meaning of marriage and the family unit?
>>79355953
That is a pretty shitty argument.
>Yo, it's all about theory even if it doesn't make sense in practice
You might aswell say marriage was "invented" to provide a stable foundation for the raising of kids. And if you use this definition, gays should have the right to marry, because in his beloved theory they could adopt and raise kids.
>>79358717
if everyone died of aids we'd all live peacefully
>>79358830
Do you get attention from that account anon? Generally curious.
>>79358993
It's pretty simple. It's just undermining the point of marriage by making it arbitrary as well as promoting and normalizing degenerate behavior. It's just one part of it, but a step none-the-less.
>Letting gays raise kids
Why do you want to hurt children?
>>79354070
its a lost cause don't bother. put your time and effort into other actual issues other than sex and identity feels politics. you simply can't argue against feels in todays social/political climate. feels trump all. worry about real issues.
>>79354070
>What are the arguments against gay marriage?
It isn't marriage.
Gay "marriage" is like labeling strawberries as potatoes.
>>79358717
So your argument in a nutshell is
>gay people have a higher chance of hiv, therefore it's not a valid life style choice
?
>>79358824
Care to explain?
Marriage is by definition between a man and a woman is why secular government has nothing to do with it
>>79358958
>if marriage is a religious institution then it shouldn't have a legal aspect
Believe it or not, this has been my approach since the beginning of the gay marriage debate.
The govt should not recognize any part of the religious institution of marriage, however, there should be rights given by the stae to those in legal civil unions. Now part of the rights given to hetero couples are tax breaks to make it affordable to start a family. Since a gay couple can't have children, and the state gives tax breaks to those who adopt, I don't see why hetero civil unions and homo civil unions should be given the exact same rights. They are different situations and circumstances and should be treated as such by the state.
>>79359817
In order to break all power of resistance of the Romanian people, the Jews will apply a truly unique and diabolical plan:
1. They will try to break the spiritual ties of the Romanian to heaven, and to earth.
To break our ties with heaven they will engage in widespread dissemination of atheistic theories in order to separate the Romanian people or at least some of the leaders from God; separating them from God and their dead they can destroy them, not by sword but by severing the roots of their spiritual life. To break our ties binding us to the land, the material source of a nation’s existence, they will attack nationalism, labelling it “outmoded,” and everything related to the idea of fatherland and soil, in
order to cut the love thread tying the Romanian people to their furrow.
2. In order to succeed in this, they will endeavor to get control of the press.
3. They will take advantage of every opportunity to sow discord in the Romanian camp, spreading misunderstandings, quarrels, and if possible to split it into factions fighting each other.
4. Will seek to gain control of most of the means of livelihood of the Romanians.
5. They will systematically urge Romanians on to licentiousness, destroying their families and their moral fiber.
>>79354070
Marriage is a contractual agreement that the state may decide to recognize. If it does so, it's entirely free to define what then constitutes a marriage. MW, MM, WW, or other. Society should also be free to limit the definition to MF only for example.
It's not a natural right, i.e. no one is entitled to get married, so it's definition is subject to limitations from the state, and voters as opposed to judges, should be the ones to determine that definition.
>>79359477
So most of the arguing derives from
1. gays are somehow degenerate, perverted, twisted, not normal
2. I don't want faggots to have the same rights i have
and that all boils down to "Iam somehow superior than others, be it race, sex, sexual orientation or any other thing i was born with, so iam naturally better and more worth than others"
>>79354070
>Less gay man staying in the closet and having children
>Less overall rapes
>Less pedophiles
Seems pretty based to me.
>>79354070
It comes with a bunch of tax and legal advantages that are supposed to be linked with rearing children and shaping married men into the best goy.
If it was decoupled from those mechanisms I would not have issue with it.
>>79360795
>so iam naturally better
No, Adolf. Not better. Different. And we should be treated as such.
>>79354070
its gay
>>79360460
So, let's take black people f.E.:
Marriage is a contractual agreement that the state may decide to recognize. If it does so, it's entirely free to define what then constitutes a marriage. BW, BB, WW, or other. Society should also be free to limit the definition to WW only for example.
It's not a natural right, i.e. no one is entitled to get married, so it's definition is subject to limitations from the state, and voters as opposed to judges, should be the ones to determine that definition.
also, captcha is fucking me bigtime, i have to wait minutes until i can post.
>>79354070
Gays are fine, but they opened the door for all sorts of faggots
>>79359817
Anon, you lost. You had your chance to walk away from the thread, but instead you now look like a tool/troll, who has to dance around the fact fags are degenerates at best, and complete black holes of nihilistic, nurgle teir abominations, at worst.
Of 2-4% of people that are fags, 2% get "married", that's including those who consider "open marriage" as a legitimate* thing.
Society, by not only removing the "social taboo" of homosexuality, but even embracing it through homo-marriage, has "Liberated" and "Promoted" the homosexual, to destroy themselves, in the sameway a high functioning heroin addict, would be a role model to children promoted by schools.
For the price of a handful illegitimate feelings and political posturing, YOU have killed more faggots then Relgions or the State ever have.
Millions of otherwise what would be restrained, or borderline people, are throwing on their freak dog collars and embracing a way of life sociopaths like you have given the thumbs up for, without even knowing the road which it would take them.
You're irresponsible, reckless, and despite your virtue signalling, actually don't care what happens to people as long as you get to play the "good guy".
Bravo on another successful undercover eugenic program, you progressive fuck.
>>79361342
This
>>79361019
>>79354070
An alternative:
>Dissolve all legal aspects of marriage/civil unions.
>Institute a new legal framework under business law that allows two people to essentially incorporate, giving each other legal authority (above family etc), sharing assets, merging them as a taxable entity etc. This would have the advantage of making any stupid case law some divorce court jewdge implements also apply to other incorporated entities. Corporate battle-jew lawyers would quickly end those shenanigans. This could be done between any two people regardless of living arrangements. So I could incorporate with my best friend/brother to protect my assets from my partner.
>link the tax cuts/incentives/programs currently linked to marriage for the purpose of child rearing to an explicit contract. For access to those advantages a parent/guardian agrees to abide by particular requirements. EG, your kids has to go to school, your kid has to maintain a minimum attendance, your kid has to not be a criminal, your kid has to visit the doctor occasionally to confirm they are not being abused and get vaccinated. Any parent can opt out of this if they want, but they lose access to any and all gibes me dats and tax benefits related to having kids.
>>79354070
Sir Francis Bacon, the Godfather of the Scientific Method, first proposed what we know today as: "The 7 Life Processes Common to All Living Things" to serve as a functioning model allowing people to determine whether or not something is dead, sick, or injured.
This is how we determine whether or not medical conditions are actual illnesses, disorders or just benign mutations.
For instance, ALS interferes with the process of Movement, therefore, we know for sure that ALS is an Illness.
Klinefelter's syndrome is a genetic mutation that, because it can severely effect sex hormones, interferes with the Process of Reproduction, which is why we can definitely say that it is a very tragic Syndrome or Disorder.
Ever since Bacon initially proposed the model, the specific list of processes has undergone numerous revisions, expansions and consolidations, but one process has never changed:
The Process of Reproduction!
Homosexuality, bisexuality, transexuality, asexuality etc. all interfere with the necessary Life Process of Reproduction, at least to some degree. So we can scientifically determine, to the degree an organism is NOT exclusively heterosexual, IS also the degree that the organism in question, is injured or sick.
There are many different explanations as to why people only choose to have sex with the same sex, choose to have sex with both sexes, believe for some reason they are of the opposite sex, or simply have no sex at all, but it is purely scientific to determine that whatever those reasons are, they must be either illnesses or injuries.
It is also important to note that illnesses do not need to interfere with Life Processes with a 100% success rate in order to be considered illnesses.
For example, if Pneumonia needed to interfere with Respiration with a 100% degree of success before doctors were allowed to make a diagnoses, everyone would die from Pneumonia before ever receiving treatment! Not very Scientific!
>>79355110
No, feminism drives white women away from the cold harsh reality that they need men, which also drives birthrates donw the tube beaucse no sane person would stick their dick in crazy. It's rally simple when you think about it (Not trying to unsult you)
>>79361504
No, you did by giving them ground with this "degenerate homos are okay" bullshit.
>>79361794
This op. Slipperly slope is not a Fallcy, it happened and this is a perfect example of it.
>>79354070
Any group that is into bug chasing and standard fuck parties is probably not suited for marriage. Not all male gays do this, but enough do, particularly when they average hundreds of sex partners during a lifetime. Gays are just too promiscuous, whether it be sexual practices or high use of intravenous drugs. They make a mockery of marriage by doing this, and so it is just seen as something "two people in love do" instead of something for family formation and stability for children.
I'd say the same for promiscuous women. Should hookers be getting married and having kids? Absolutely not, those kids would be in danger.
As for lesbians, I also don't believe lesbianism exists, I think that is just women who can't get a man. Plus I have dicked a woman who was supposedly a lesbian. It's not real.
>>79354070
Marriage in a christian church or other religions that defy homosexuality shouldn't be allowed. If they want to marry in other circumstances it's perfectly fine go wild op.
>>79355110
maybe its funny but don't forget there's a reason for every genetic loose end. We've had gays and people of ambiguous sexual/gender mores since at least 4000 years ago, probably longer but we don't have proofs before that
in every society with faggots, they were always part of the elite, always working on things that moved society forward in some way.
American culture wants faggots to be 2.5kids and a dog white picket fence cucks so they get a mortgaged house and 3 cars. faggots are supposed to be sneaking into secret clubs on weekdays and having huge orgies while pretending to be completely normal.
>>79361794
This pretty sums up my feelings
https://youtube.com/watch?v=e3h6es6zh1c
>>79361958
In your ideal world, would people with religious beliefs still be able to get married at a church per request?
>>79361458
Sure - it was that way for centuries, until society decided to change.
I actually couldn't give a shit if two fags want to live together and get legally married.
As long as they're not infringing on my rights or civil liberties they can get on with their lives without affecting me in any way.
Live and let live. Too many other bigger problems to worry about.
>>79354070
The strongest argument against it in the U.S., to me, is the fact that the """""authorities""""" threw away all proper legal precedent and procedure in order to establish SSM, without regard to whether the citizens wanted it to be law or not. That kind of cram-down of arbitrary rules is a terrific danger sign that your civilization is wildly out of control.
>>79362074
No. And it's not necessarily my ideal world it's simply THEIR fucking believes not your place to decide. Respect that. There are other ways to get married you selfish fag. But you are a d&c shill
>>79354070
Gay marriage? Meh, I personally have no problems with it, as long as they're not being faggots (as opposed to homosexuals). They should be banned from raising kids, and banned from working in any form of educational institution.
Marriage, in the traditional sense, is between a man and a woman. Period.
Therefore, if it's two gays, it's not marriage. (citation: bible)
And I guess the bible kind of makes sense when you look at it sociologically, because people get married to do their #1 task as an organism: create offspring.
The problem is, that the government decided they needed to be involved with marriage; that has none of their fucking business. Marriage is between two souls, and god. That's it.
If two gays want to get married, and they truly believe they're right, then they should. None of the government's fucking business.
>>79354070
Because it isn't marriage.
A marriage is the union of two people for the purposes of creating children. The Romans and Greeks were openly homosexual societies and they never even had a concept of gay marriage, because to be frank, a gay marriage is not actually a marriage, it's two guys larping. I can see the theoretical argument that they can adopt children, but they could do that anyway, it's not illegal for a gay guy to adopt a kid.
All that gay marriage is is an attempt by Leftists to further undermine the traditional family unit by redefining it into meaninglessness. It's a wedge issue created by Leftists to distract people from their actual problems. In that capacity I don't have a problem with surrendering the point just to deny the retards another weapon, but in principle I do not consider it itself to be defensible.
>>79363227
>Marriage, in the traditional sense, is between a man and a woman. Period.
>Therefore, if it's two gays, it's not marriage. (citation: bible)
Really? I got married - legally - without a tax dodging church or pedo priest anywhere in sight. God wasn't even invited to the reception.
>If two gays want to get married, and they truly believe they're right, then they should. None of the government's fucking business.
True dat.
>>79358129
Alright reverse the approach.
Functional family units for raising children are absolutely critical for society, so much so that it makes sense for government to support them, and society to have a separate name for them.
Call functional family bonds for raising children a new name then. Hell, even throw in gays who adopt into this new category.
>>79364185
You got married by the state, but not by a strict interpretation of the bible.
>>79354070
Well, no tax breaks to the fags unless they adopt (if it is allowed). Other then that there is absolutely no problem with faggots having their piece of paper and "special day", unless you are a professional offended
>>79361705
>Homosexuality, bisexuality, transexuality, asexuality etc. all interfere with the necessary Life Process of Reproduction, at least to some degree. So we can scientifically determine, to the degree an organism is NOT exclusively heterosexual, IS also the degree that the organism in question, is injured or sick.
They can donate their sperm to lesbos.
>>79359283
the most current reference in your fact sheet is from 1994
>>79365457
>Implying that it's any less relevant or true
>>79363563
You are criminally under-representing the benefits of being legally married in regards to adoption.
Being legally entwined means more stability, financially and emotionally. Guess what the most important attribute for raising a child is?
>>79361705
So in other words, if you don't make childrens, you are sick? So people who chose not to have any kids have psychological problems?
Second, we aren't animals anymore. We don't need that whole "my genes against yours" thing. One could argue what genes are for animals, culture is for men. It's not about whether your genecode originated in india, german or japan, it's about your virtues, your mindset, your worldview. And homosexual couples can pass that one to children, if they choose to adopt some.
third, as long as it doesn't affect anyone negative, i wouldn't call something illness. Sickness always needs to have a negative impact.
>>79361792
Feminism? We were talking about gay marriage, i don't understand what your point has to do with the topic
>>79361940
So
>i claim something without providing any sources.
>Some of group X do Y, that's why X shouldn't be allowed to do Z
Some Niggers do crime, so they shouldn't have the same rights as white people, amirite?
>People who want to spread HIV and attend orgys shouldn't marry
Yeah, something tells me that those people aren't really interested in " monogamous relationships" such as marriage
>i don't believe lesbians exist.
This is so arrogant i can hardly believe it.
>Yeah, all those girls just can't get a man, that's why they fuck woman instead. Good thing i found a girlfriend, otherwise i would be sucking dick now. Also, did i mention this personal story that happend to me? My worldview is based on this.
>>79362067
It is hard for me to understand you. What are you trying to point out?
>>79362156
this is basically my point of view. It doesn't affect me in any way, so i don't have to right to forbid it. Personal freedom ends where it affects the freedom of other people. And that is not the case with gay marriage.
>>79362285
First of all, i don't think it is the decision of the people whether ssm should exist or not. In a islamist state, women have no rights, and that's what the people want.
>>79365533
that was the exact implication I was making
How many times will this thread show up. Pic related ends the argument but I'm sure people will continue to comment and ignore it cuz faggots gonna fag
>>79354070
Marriage is a contract made for the purposes of procreation.
aids
>>79354895
Nice story but not science and citations.
What did marriage do to you to call it gay?
>>79364838
>You got married by the state, but not by a strict interpretation of the bible.
Yeah. Exactly. You don't need the bible to get married legally.
>>79362765
Why should they be banned from having kids or from working as a teacher?
>>79363563
So, "the left" wants to "undermine the traditional family" to "distract people from their actual problems"? What?
>>79364362
or just call them marriage? What is the problem?
>>79365193
But to be consequent, you are also not allowed to give tax breaks to a married couple if they won't get a child.
>>79365533
I didn't have to time to look into every source, but if you are arguing about slavery, and your most recent source is 200 years old, yeah, there might be something off. You will find many old sources about why women shouldn't work and shouldn't vote, because it was normal back in the day to have such a view. Your proof should be as modern as possible.
>>79354070
There's literally nothing wrong with being gay :^)
>>79354070
What are the arguments for it? What good does it do for society or for two people even?
I don't believe governments should subsidize relations they should only subsidize procreation. They need more tax payers to survive.
>>79354070
Government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all. I don't give a shit if fags wanna have a little homo ceremony but right now they just want tax benefits.
>>79354070
>What are the arguments against gay marriage?
Well the fact there's no such thing for one.
Marriage is between a man and a woman, not between a man and a man, not between, a man and a dog, not between a man and a tree.
Words have meanings.
I don't mind if two fags want to play make-believe but there's no reason for the state to recognize it as marriage.
>>79366493
>they should only subsidize procreation.
So you agree to increase taxed on childless couples, or couples who lost their children? :^)
>>79354070
Gays are not going to produce baby taxpayers and thus shouldn't get any tax breaks. The government should not make laws interfering with religion.
>why shouldn't you be against this if you don't take into account of one the biggest reasons to be against it.
>>79366599
yep
>>79361504
Gays are not ok
>>79366803
Good :^)
>>79366318
>But to be consequent, you are also not allowed to give tax breaks to a married couple if they won't get a child.
No, because a heterosexual is a possible procreator. Fags aren't
>>79366599
Thats not how it works. The reason you give them tax breaks is to incentivize them to have children. We should take away tax breaks from people un able to procreate.
That does not mean couples without children or couples with dead children.
>>79366923
>No, because a heterosexual is a possible procreator. Fags aren't
Not true, gays have fathered children before. If you're only going to give tax breaks based on procreation potential, gays are equally eligible.
Triggered? :^)
>>79354070
Government has no place in marriage.
>>79367016
Gays can not create children. It is physically impossible. Adopting children is not the same as creating children. That adopted child was already going to be a taxpayer when he grew up.
>>79354070
As long as society doesn't have to recognize relationships that exclude one of the sexes, knock yourself out.
>>79361342
Seriously /pol/? I had to scroll half way through the thread?
>>79367055
>I have to agree with some random faggot on a mongolian WW2 artifact board.
>>79367016
>Not true, gays have fathered children before.
But not gay couples
> If you're only going to give tax breaks based on procreation potential, gays are equally eligible.
Again, not gay couples
>Triggered? :^)
Yes
what is the argument FOR gayshit? spoiler: there is none.
>>79367143
Gay have a penis and can absolutely create children.
Also, gay adoption should be legalized, orphans deserve an increased chance of growing up in a loving, caring household :^)
>>79367267
Not true, they can turn to surrogate mothers, which should be encouraged :^)
>>79367016
You fags are unbearably cringey debaters.
>>79367382
>Not true, they can turn to surrogate mothers, which should be encouraged :^)
But then again, it's not a gay couple fathering, it's a faggot having a son with another woman.
>>79365664
All sources in your pic are atleast 20 years old.
Ofc i don't have to time to argue against all of that, but some stuff is just plain retarded.
>If Homosexuality is romantic, why does nature disallow reproduction
>If there is nothing wrong with beeing a "female", why would an entirely "female" society cease to exist?
Many thing have no citation, such as gay parents are more likely to raise gay kids. My sources doesn't back that up. The whole idea of "indoctrinating" sexuality sounds pretty hilarious.
What he continues to lay out is in simple words:
>gays can't make children
>therefore it is not biological
>therefore it is not not a choice.
I don't speak english well enough to clad my points in a wannabe scientific language.
And holy shlt, the whole toxoplasmosis chapter!
nvm, the chapter about eating feces and homosexuals beeing pedophiles.
I just stop arguing here. I know you will take that as a "victory", but i don't think it is possible to argue with someone who has this kind of mindset.
>>79366717
>Gays are not going to produce baby taxpayers and thus shouldn't get any tax breaks.
But they themselves are tax payers and any tax payer who is not a drain on society should be afforded the same rights as everyone else.
>The government should not make laws interfering with religion.
Freedom of religion is paramount, but churches should pay tax.
>>79367277
The argument is that in a country with freedom for all, all people should be allowed the same freedoms.
>>79367397
>Waaaaah, waaaaaaah!
>>79367594
So you agree it's gays procreating. Good :^)
>>79354070
cause they dont look twink enough and wont dress like tomoko
>>79367808
Yes, but they shoudln't have tax breaks. Let the faggot pay child support
>>79366923
>heterosexuals get taxbreaks because they can have kids
>fags don't get taxbreaks even if they can adopt and have kids
You see the inconsequence?
>>79366989
You can adopt children, and that reality renders your whole argument pointless
>>79367016
Look, this may sound naive or retarded to you, but iam actually trying to understand why people are against ssm. I know "trolling" and beeing a retard has a long tradition on 4chan, but i came here to get unfiltered opinions.
>>79367143
That is a very weak argument. Taxpayer? And if the child leaves the country? And i would argue that adopting a child and giving him a family is even "better" than creating your own. The state has to pay less, the kids gets loving parents, and the orphanage is probably happy to have one less thing to worry about.
>>79367277
I dunno, basic human rights and stuff?
>>79367397
>I smear my opponent with badly drawn pictures
>yo, you guys are unbearable debaters
>>79368400
>muh feelings: the """"""argument""""""
>>79368598
I don't know what ssm means.
>>79358830
> Birthday: 22
> Birthday
>>79368690
Same sex marriage? I didn't use the term before
>>79362285
used it. I thought the term is more widespread.
Probably the english version of "Homoehe".
>>79368598
>fags don't get taxbreaks even if they can adopt
I said they could have tax beaks if they adopted. On the question of a fag fathering a kid with a woman, it would have to raise the question if two married fags could have full parental rights.
In my opinion, >muh tax breaks would be decided wether fag couples could adopt and/or take on full parental rights of a kid fathered by one of the fags.
>>79368879
There is no rational argument against it.
Opponents just find gays "icky", that's it, for varying reasons (one of which is that some of them are repressed homosexuals themeselves).
>>79368952
No, i understand your arguing in such a way, that a hetero marriage always gets taxbreaks, and a "fag couple" only if they adopt kids. That doesn't seem to be fair.
>>79369062
From what ive seen in this post, that's probably it.
But i think it's dangerous not to try and understand the points of the opposing site. Makes you blind. That's why i created this thread in the firstplace, to understand the arguments against ssm.
>>79354070
I don't buy into the whole Milo theory that gays are supposed to be trashy sluts who somehow invent shit and progress society because they sleep around with other dudes. Look at the people who actually live lifestyles like that and try to tell me with a straight face that THOSE are the trailblazers of innovation.
I'm not particularly against gay marriage in a private sense, but I don't see any incentive for the government to give benefits to people who have merely committed themselves to one another and don't plan on having kids, regardless of their sex. Visitation rights, next of kin, etc. kind of benefits should be available to anyone regardless of sex.
The more secular argument against it that they shouldn't be allowed to marry because they shouldn't be allowed to raise kids I don't agree with. There's probably an ideal set of parents to strive for, and it would most likely have a mom and a dad, but given the shortage of parents adopting I see no reason to ban gays from trying to help out. Kids should certainly be given the best AVAILABLE parents though, so if the imbalance ever reversed, then straight parents (all other factors equal) would get priority over gay parents. This is all assuming straight parents truly are better than gay parents (all other factors equal), there's no way we'll ever know since leftists have made it taboo to question their view that everything and everyone are always equal.
>>79367277
Freedom, bitch, it's what we believe in here in America
>>79369429
>greek
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Dawn_(political_party)
The issue is in the word "marriage".
Gays should be able to enjoy all the same rights as straight people. It is after all (esp. for the non-religious) just a piece of paper preceded by a ceremony. However, a tiny portion of the population (gays) many of whom are non-religious, somehow have managed to beat an already threatened religious community to an absolute pulp and force them to submit their previously sacrosanct institution to people that they feel do that institution an injustice.
You end up with a sour irony, which is that this is a compelling reason for the separation between church and state. The only reason this is so threatening to the religious community is because marriage is in affect legally mandated. Therefore, marriage is understood legally and defined by the state. The further marriage is from the state, the freer you are to define it yourself.
It doesn't help that there are obnoxious bigots that will call you every name under the sun if you take your religion seriously at all. These people really should be told to fuck off.
>>79369274
Sobering response mate, well done
>>79354070
Marriage is for the kids, OP. It always has been. Don't be a dense faggot.
>>79367086
Also this.
>>79367806
technically, they still have the same freedoms, just not the freedom to marry whoever they want, which is a freedom that every country should have
>>79369274
not every heterosexual marriage wants kids, and you can also adopt them, which completly nullifys your argument against ssm.
Most of the studys show there is no strong negative impact on kids raised from ssm. We are both no psychological doctors, so we should let the experts decide what is better.
The whole idea of the left vs right thing is completly retarded. Many "leftists" are retarded, so are many rightwingers. Beeing against "the right" or "the left" makes you blind.
>>79370049
>Don't take my right to discriminate away
Religion often has very strong, and very negative views on things like woman rights, gay rights, science and other religions. Those things are cancer to the society and therefore should be fought. Noone cares if you pray to god or praise Allah in your church or in your home.
>>79354070
that's right goy, abandon your God and embrace degeneracy. Gay rights for everybody.
Well, this thread was pretty interesting, even if it further proved my point that there is no real argument against ssm, sadly.
>>79372594
There's nothing worse than the minority posters on /pol/ who complain about the Jews and then turn around and take a liberal stance on fags. Will be glad when they all die off from AIDS.
God bless you anon
>>79354070
Analysis sex is unhygienic and a danger to public because of fecal Contamination. There is no way you can clean the mud 100%.
Hoop, there it is!
>>79372634
You stupid faggot. Why didn't you read my earlier post? You just pointed out a few debatable fallacies and ignored the rest. You're a liar just like your father the devil.
>>79354070
marriage comes with state benefits. their purpose is to incentivize the building of a strong nuclear family.
there is zero reason to extend these benefits to gays. doing so would simply privilege gay couples over single/unmarried people, which serves no purpose and therefor is not justifiable.
>>79372293
>not every heterosexual marriage wants kids
I'm aware, I don't think the government should be giving them benefits either because what's the point? There is no benefit to society so therefore no incentive for the government to subsidize that relationship
>and you can also adopt them, which completly nullifys your argument against ssm.
I don't know what you mean by this
I'm not against same sex adoption for practical purposes, but the child's interests should come first
>Most of the studys show there is no strong negative impact on kids raised from ssm. We are both no psychological doctors, so we should let the experts decide what is better.
Not totally true, look at some studies supported by "Traditional Family" groups and you'll find results that show that kids are worse off. Look at studies done by liberal college professors and you'll find results that show they're equal. There's not much of a consensus and it's a relatively new kind of family structure so the research isn't extensive to begin with.
>so we should let the experts decide what is better
I'm not interested in deferring power to people who may have their own prejudices or agendas. It's undemocratic
>The whole idea of the left vs right thing is completly retarded
No, it's completely relevant when the point I was making has to do with public opinion. The point I was making is that it's taboo to disagree with the narrative. That narrative happens to be controlled by the left, who has a much stronger influence on the media (obviously) and therefore public opinion. So anyone conducting a study on gay vs straight parents who comes to a conclusion that conflicts with the narrative may have their career put in jeopardy. This puts any results we see into question.
>>79354070
>If you don't take religious arguing into account (which a government shouldn't do),
America is religious as fuck so they can't do this while still claiming they're secular.
It's pathetic
>>79354070
marriage is a religious institution. religion says gays can't marry. ezpz
marriage on a purely legal basis i.e. civil union is okay
>>79361670
I like this.
I like this a lot actually.
>>79355953
My god, I can't believe a black was that well articulated. I guess it is culture and not IQ.
>>79372742
Could someone care to explain wtf is going on here? Some gay-jewish conspiracy?
>>79372810
Yes, i ignored the rest because nobody got time fo dat. Iam not sure if that devil part is serious or some kind of bait or troll. Iam bad at spotting these.
>>79373063
Again, Adoption. For a state, that is even better because he doesn't have to care for the orphan anymore.
>>79373220
I don't think our opinions differ that much, a few points tho:
Science isn't democratic. If science shows something which noone likes, it is still true. I rather let some professor decide who knows his shlt than thousands of uneducated morons who have no clue.
What Agenda could a professor in favor of ssm have? There may be some sjw morons (don't know much about that, we don't have that here in germany), but other than that he has no reason to "influence" his studys. People against it on the other hand have religion, which can massively bias your view.
From what i've seen here in germany over your presidential race, i don't think you are right. You have a far anti establishment rightwinger, and a cooperate centrist. Real "liberal/left" candidates like stein or sanders don't get that much coverage. I don't believe someone is jeopardizing his career if he is able to back up his study with facts.
But media is a whole different topic. I don't know enough about it, and may be a topic for another thread.
Thank you for your response.
>>79375393
atheism was started by the jews, homosexuality comes after obviously, once christianity no longer has influence over the law
>>79375608
Iam not often on /pol/, so i don't know if you are serious or "trolling". I'll ignore it either way.
>>79375706
serious, look up all the big atheist movements and see whose leading and funding them all. almost all are jewish
>>79365664
holy shit
faggots btfo'd
>>79360427
Based Codreanu.
>>79360795
>gays are some how degenerate
homosexuality is degenerate, yes.
>>79354070
Gay marriages are not a human right according to a ruling from the European court of human rights in Strasbourg.
Also, it is a sexual deviation.
>>79354070
they are more likely to have HIV and AIDS
>>79354070
Marriage isn't about love it's about creating a stable environment in which to raise the next generation. It's encouraged by governments for that purpose.
>>79375393
academia is extremely leftist in America, that's what I'm talking about. many of these people believe that doing wrong is justified if the end result furthers social justice or some other bullshit
>>79354070
It does nothing to benefit the rest of humanity. All it does is create a genetic dead end.
>>79354070
Statė marriage is not marriage. If its not done in a church, call it civil union.
>>79354070
The Frankfurt School of Cultural Marxism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QY82qNWMaaE
