HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA MORE LIKE FAGVILLE!!
[Laughs in Washingtongue]
I see nothing wrong with this
>>58927747
GOD BLESS AMERICA OUR CIVILIZATION IS SAVED
It was about damn time.
Fags wanted this for a long fucking time, at least we got them to shut the fuck up for a while with some pretty lights and a legislation or two.
Why's it called the white-house when the person that lives in it isn't white and it's coloured with the sodomite flag?
>>58927934
>implying they will shut up
>implying they haven't already found new stuff to complain about
>>58927747
delete this
>>58927973
good post
>>58927845
sverige ja
>>58927979
They never will.
And if they do in some miracle, a new minority will start whining.
'tis the vicious cycle.
As opposed to the UK which made poor ol' Turing eat a poisoned apple for being a "poofter"
>>58928093
Implying there was something wrong with that
>>58928137
I'm sorry, I got lost here on the way to reddit. Is this not where SJWs hang out?
>>58928093
wtf i hate england now
>>58928137
He literally saved your asses in World War II you ungrateful fuck. There probably isn't any one human who contributed as much to the Allied victory as he did.
>muh morals!
If there was any justice in this world he would have gotten a fresh twink every day for the rest of his life, instead of being persecuted for it. His contribution cannot be overstated.
>>58928447
Ahh yes yanksplaining:
the act of completely missing the point and then attempting a smug, arrogant and downright wrong response
>>58928473
Ahh yes Britsplaining:
the act of completely ignoring history and whitewashing literally everything the Anglos have ever done (including starting two world wars)
I'm onto you, Nigel. I'm sick of your shit.
>>58928545
Ahh yes yanksplaining:
the act of completely missing the point and then attempting a smug, arrogant and downright wrong response
>>58928473
>>58928576
>>58928545
You're both unfathomably cringey.
You pieces of shit don't deserve the lives you have been given.
>>58928640
fuck off fag lover
>>58928665
>>>/pol/
You should only start posting outside of /pol/ when you graduate high school
>>58928473
Post A:
>As opposed to the UK which made poor ol' Turing eat a poisoned apple for being a "poofter"
Post B (refuting moral justification that is basis for A):
>Implying there was something wrong with that
...nope, I got the point completely. There is literally no ambiguity with those posts. I hope I spelled it out for you in a way you can understand. And if you disagree with Turing's significance you can of course post a counterpoint (but you probably don't know enough about WWII or cryptography to do any of that).
P.S. you can apologize to me at literally any time :)
>>58928723
/pol/ is literally a sodomite loving board.
>>58928757
He won the war, but he was a criminal. That's literally all there is to the discussion. Don't break the law if you don't want to be put in jail.
>>58928815
You are terrible at shitposting.
Trolling is all about subtlety. You're getting 1-2 (You)s per shitpost, tops, because everyone can see through your edgy retard shtick. I mean even Canadians can do this better.
You need to re-evalutate your life friend
>>58928907
>shitposting
/pol/ is literally mainly trap threads or people sucking that degenerate Milos cock. I only post here and on /his/.
>>58928935
Who the fuck said anything about /pol/?
>>58928969
see >>58928723
>>58928862
That was pretty terrible. Did you brits send all your best shitposters to Australia? Try again.
>>58929280
It wasn't shitpost though. He was a paedophile.
>I oppose gay marriage but not for religious reasons
~no one ever
Your religion has 0 authority on this matter
>>58929409
>b-but you can be m-moral and not r-religious!!!
>>58929409
I do oppose it for non-religious reasons though.
>>58929484
List them?
>>58929464
You can, in case you haven't figured it out, the book doesn't make you a good person.
>>58929535
Homosexuals do not have the same claim to the legal benefits of marriage that heterosexuals do due to the fact that their relationships will never in principle bring forth children which is the entire reason those legal benefits were given to heterosexual couples.
>>58929584
And infertile heterosexual couples, for instance the elderly, no longer should be rewarded with those legal benefits then?
>>58929641
No because heterosexual couples in principle can always have children.
>>58929703
What do you mean? He was specifically talking about infertile ones
>>58929584
Gay people can have kids, not just through adoption. Does that change your opinion?
>>58929703
And homosexual couples are also capable of doing so, usually through artificial insemination with a surrogate mother.
>>58927747
It was so embarrassing that night on /int/
>>58929409
I oppose it on groubds of societal tradition and state's rights.
But now it is over and I have let my fight go. There are bigger things to worry about.
>>58929777
>>58929826
I'm sorry, you don't really understand what I'm saying. Heterosexuals in principle can always reproduce. Exceptions do not change that simple fact. That's why the legal benefits of marriage were created in the first place. This is not true for homosexual couples.
>>58929826
No they can't. Homosexual couples cannot in principle reproduce, and I do not believe homosexual couples should be allowed to raise children anyway so them having "marriage" rights is completely pointless.
>>58929641
We do not know for a fact if the couple is infertile. The government cannot know.
A couple that writes "same-sex" on the legal form is guaranteed to not have kids sexually.
Apples and oranges.
>>58929641
No.
>>58929953
Indeed.
By definition every homosexual couple is infertile. Obviously this is not true for heterosexuals, hence why heterosexual marriage gets benefits.
>>58929940
I know a guy who was secretly gay, had 2 kids and then came out/got divorced and now has a male partner. Should he be allowed to raise his kids with his new partner?
>>58929804
Ummm..... No they cannot.
Gay people in English = Male/Male
Or sometimes Male/Male Female/Female.
Either way "Gay people" are known by the government to not be able to reproduce with each other. The government does not know if that is true for heterosexuals, so the analogy is broken.
Infertile couples don't have to tell the government they are infertile, so the possibility of reproduction exists for them in the eyes of the government. Not for gay people.
>>58929826
That's not a sexual relationship between the two then.
There is no way for a gay couple to reproduce with each other.
>>58929940
man you're an edgy brit
>>58930035
That's a strange situation. I'd say that it would be allowed as long as the child has contact with the mother as well.
>>58930035
The kids should go to the heterosexual parent.
>>58930095
>edgy
Short term memory loss? Gay marriage was a laughable concept about 5 years ago. It passed here and more than half of the Conservative party (the one I vote for) didn't vote for it.
heteros BTFO
>>58930063
The rights aren't about biology though, they never have been. Straight couples who adopt, or where only one parent is the biological parent of a couples kid still have those rights.
>>58929940
>Heterosexuals in principle can always reproduce
Yes this is a fundamental truth, it is also fundamentally true that having working genitalia means you can help conceive children.
It is far less likely, admittedly however there still exists the chance that the couple could conceive a child outside of their relationship and wish to raise it together.
>allowed to raise children anyway so them having "marriage" rights
Oh goody someone be sure to confiscate all the children of single parents because you cannot raise a kid without a vag and a penis flopping about the flat.
>>58929953
Ah yes who can tell if that 80 year old couple can have kids, you never know right?
>>58930082
Congrats Captain Obvious.
He is arguing that because the couple is not straight then they are fundamentally incapable of having children whatsoever.
>>58930035
They'll stay with the mother regardless.
>>58930307
Single parents are a different concept because they don't normalise the alien concept of two parents of the same sex.
>>58928447
>fresh twink every day
good image
>>58930390
They're a different concept because they're single you twat.
You seem to make it out that the only purpose for marriage ever is to conceive children, which it isn't.
You can have and raise kids single, you can have and raise kids married, so why are you so adamant about refusing gays couples the privilege to do the same?
Is it okay if a single gay parent raises a child?
Lel, the salt is real.
It's not even about the mechanics of homosexuality, or how it works. That's irrelevant in a legislative environment.
What matters is that the majority of the US population wanted to legalize gay marriage federally, and the gays took it upon themselves to march the streets to get what they want. They marched for decades.
They had the freedom to do this, and population of supporters and gays alike were heard by the US government.
>From a politician's perspective, publicly disagreeing with rights toward homos getting hitched, or even disagreeing they should be around at all would get them unfavorable ratings these days.
>All in all, it's fine if you think that gays should not marry, but denying a right to certain Americans because of such a petty thing like sexuality is stupid in the land of freedom.
So from a political and legal standpoint it's perfectly logical to legalize it.
>>58930563
>You seem to make it out that the only purpose for marriage ever is to conceive children, which it isn't.
No, I don't, What I said was the legal benefits of marriage - what the gay marriage campaign was wanting - were created under the premise that straight couples WOULD have children, and therefore it wasn't appropriate for homosexuals to be given these benefits.
>>58930581
It was a state issue voted upon the states and rejected in many until the SCOTUS shat on state rights (again). Nothing more than that.
Good. No one cares what gays do
>>58930608
and that premise has shifted dramatically with the advent of birth control
there have been changes in both medicine and the rise of individualism that take the stress off of children
in light of shifts in both society and science, policies change and shift
>>58930704
No it hasn't. It just means the number of children is decreased. Most heterosexual marriages do return children. Which is what the state wants.
>>58927747
I get why you laugh at us, Abdula Jamal bin-Mohammad. It's because homosexuality is banned under sharia law, huh?
>>58930795
Do you ever speak in anything other than memes?
>>58930647
>2016
>States rights
One of the many outdated ideals of the GOP.
You know, whether Papi D gets the presidency or not, the GOP will be fractured and utterly irrelevant for about a decade.
>The GOP needs to become the new conservatives, or they're kill.
>I am for the most part a conservative person, but socially, and among other things, America's Glorious Conservatives have outdated as fuck ideals
>>58930795
No, it's because hating America is a meme and these cucks don't really know why they're disparaging us.
>>58930825
>call yourself conservative
>say real conservatives have "outdated as fuck ideals"
Literally what are you smoking?
>>58930854
ur mum's panties you fish and chips faggot
>>58930854
Conservatism can be both economic and social. Not just 'muh Jesus', 'muh small government' and other meme issues the GOP cares about so much.
>>58930647
Somewhat true, it was more akin to states voting against gay marriage despite public approval tipping past majority.
SCOTUS fucked over the majority of conservative states in the interest of the general public, which is expected from the Federal Government.
>>58930743
Yes it has, nowadays marriage is based on the pretense of wanting to commit oneself in a lasting relationship.
Children are a benefit of this, though they can be happily excluded now thanks to birth control.
And they very, very often are.
And nowadays these benefits are given to couples who often do not need them since they don't have any children. Gays, seeing this as a privilege, then demand equality.
If you really wanted to remedy the situation you could change the benefits to only apply when a couple is raising a child, since you are so adamant that's what they're made for.
And since it's designed to help alleviate financial burdens when raising children, you could happily apply this to gays in the interest of the children.
Thoughts?
>>58930825
>>I am for the most part a conservative person, but socially, and among other things, America's Glorious Conservatives have outdated as fuck ideals
aka I'm libertarian but people have bullied me for saying that word so I switched to calling myself mostly conservative
>>58930854
>Doesn't know there are different types of conservatism
>The GOP are reactionary conservatives, they want shit as it was before
>Do your research brit
>>58930981
most of GOP are socially neutral neocons
>>58930981
There are conservatives, and then there are cuckservatives (ie. those that don't want to offend anyone and just think real conservatives are "outdated").
I guess I know what category you fall in.
>>58931025
A cuckservative is the one that bends over for corporate lobbies and wants to see corporations humilliating and destroying his country while he jerks off in the corner.
I'll never understand why US conservative parties care so much about meme issues.
>>58930975
No because I see zero problem with giving the benefits only to heterosexuals who get married because it may also incentivise them to have children once they enter the marriage and realise they can afford it.
It's a pointless discussion anyway because it's already happened where I live. The gays won their little victory unfortunately.
>>58931131
No it's not. It's never meant that.
>One definition of cuckservative is a conservative who sells out,[10] having bought into all of the key premises of the left,[11] and is enthralled with liberal values
That's always what it's been. It's someone who wants millions of non-white immigrants to appear progressive or pushes gay rights because promoting traditional families is "outdated".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuckservative
>>58931136
That's sorta why I said it'd apply when raising a child, so single parents would also receive some form of relief, which they currently do not outside of child support for divorcee's.
I'm thinking about the kids whereas you're thinking about... tradition?
>>58931224
I see, I presumed the US already had that. You already get what is called child benefit for having children in this country.
Marriage gives you another layer of benefits which is good because it provides people more incentives to bring up the children in a monogamous mother/father household.
>>58931032
Greatest ally
Greatest poster
>>58931310
Alright then, glad the misunderstanding is out of the way.
What's Ayrshire like?
>>58931164
>It's someone who wants millions of non-white immigrants to appear progressive or pushes gay rights because promoting traditional families is "outdated".
>Equating wanting to dismember the social unity of the West with arab foreigners with giving rights to homo citizens.
Conservatives sure can sometimes be drama queens.
>>58928473
>yanksplaining
Tumblrina plz go
>>58931423
Both are just ways of fundamentally changing society, which are what Conservatives are supposed to be against.
>>58931407
The Ayrshire coast is about as nice as it gets for Scotland functionally. Nice towns, great coastal scenic views and travel links. A whole lot of golf courses too, Trump owns one here. My town has about 10 golf courses in it alone and has two beaches.
The inland parts of Ayrshire are really deprived though. Very poor places that suffered when the mining industry went away. Most of those places I've never set foot in my life because there's simply no reason to ever go there.
What is South Dakota like?
>>58931584
Vast and lightly populated (~800k people)
Geographically divided the Missouri River, with East River being great farmland and flat when compared to West River, which is mostly plains and great ranching land.
We have the Badlands which are known for being beautiful places to look at and shit places to live off of, hence the name.
We also have the majority of the Black Hills which is a "Mountain" range, pretty cool place to be.
Industry is mainly tourist/agricultural thanks to Mt. Rushmore and the world's largest motorcycle rally and of course farming and ranching.
Lots of little communities dotted around, some with less than ten people living in them, others that'll speak German fluently. Oh and many many native Americans, thanks to half the state being designated a reservation before gold was found in the hills.
>>58931884
Sounds interesting.
Are you gay?
>>58932057
Bi(ased)
>>58932098
How does that work in South Dakota?
>>58932129
Peacefully, mostly because I'm not the sort of person to walk around in leotards and incessantly yammer on about how much I enjoy sucking cocks.
The only people who've displayed any discomfort was my family and that was mostly because they were practicing Catholics.
>>58932213
I see, I thought it would be pretty bad since it's rural America.
>>58932293
No not really, occasionally you'd get looks but it's not usually an issue if you're a committed member of society and are diplomatic about it.
Raising tempers isn't my forte and I don't particularly like doing so, so why bother with politics or religion or that nonsense? We have a state to improve, to at the very least make us the envy of those North Dakotan barbarians.
>>58932430
Do you not find homosexual relationships degrading or embarrassing?
>>58932475
Embarrassing at times, i.e. school reunions or balls in which you stick out like a sore thumb.
Degrading? Not really no. Perhaps if I or my partner is being degrading then sure obviously.
>>58932572
Interesting. Thank you for answering my questions.
>>58932677
My pleasure, it's nice to escape all the harshness of /int/'s shitposting and have an actual conversation with someone for once.
>>58928907
>posting solely to get responses
Fuck
We are slowly becoming reddit
>>58927934
They already take it in the bum, might as well let the IRS get its turn.
