What is your memeless opinion of gay marriage?
>>56608343
Everything is a meme.
>>56608343
Pretty gay desu
Gas
>>56608343
fag marriage is a meme
they haven't irritated me enough to wish something like marriage upon them
literally nothing wrong with it desu
>tfw you will never be raised by two lesbian mothers
>>56608343
Don't care but they need to stop trying to get pizza places to cater and getting offended when they won't
>>56608578
This, why complicate my response?
Marriage is an institution, and an irrelevant one at that. They can have it, but I am not going to respect them any more than I would married straight couples. Nothing good can come from a pair of homosexuals who want nothing more than to be normalshits.
>>56608343
Gay marriage is for queers
well it's pretty fucking gay to start
>>56608343
I literally don't care. Evangelical social conservatism is retarded and has ruined the republican party.
>>56608343
Why should I care? If they want let them do it. If church doesnt want to, then dont marry in church. Just dont adopt kids. I would be ok for adopting children when they are 15 yo, but no less and they have to agree and want. It would be a great compromise and you wont damage their views when young.
>>56608343
don't care, they don't hurt anyone with it
>>56608343
I used to be for it since it removes gay guys from the competition and lesbians are always good to have
something went horribly wrong and now they're not getting out of the spotlight.
really wish i had that webm with the kid's show in sweden
>>56608343
As long as it's for hot lesbians only I'm fine with it.
>>56608733
yeah this shit. I can refuse you service just because i dont like your face. Welcome to the free world faggots.
>>56608578
>lesbian
don t you mean
>fap
>>56608343
Don't care. The government should not be sanctioning personal relationships in the first place.
I don't give a shit, if people are happy then more power to them.
What isn't cool is that it's forced down people's throats and they're forced to accept it. If people disagree with it, let them.
>mfw we got gay marriage one month before the usa did
>mfw the usa saw what we did and jumped on the bandwagon
>mfw the usa made a much bigger deal out of it than we ever did
top kek tbhlad
There are many legal reasons why you might want to get married such as property rights and decision making in case of illness.
That being said I think childless couples shouldn't get tax benefits. No matter whether straight or homo.
Being gay is fucking trendy now, gays will have you believe it's genetic, bollocks, it's environmental, even straight men don't know how to be men anymore.
>>56608853
this.
when will i finally be able to support a party that shares my economic and political philosophy without the baggage of puritanistic, religious zealotry?
>>56609168
And they had to Supreme Court that shit because it would most likely fail in a nationwide referendum
I'm glad they aren't allowed to marry here.
>>56608343
Its costs a lot of money to have a typical flamboyant marriage. Therefore a lot of tax is generated to go into public services.
They should go nuts over what I think is a pointless ceremony.
>>56609308
Literally never. Fiscal conservatism is viewed as the ideology of the super rich or libertarians, both of which are unpopular groups whose involvement is toxic to pandering to mainstream centrists. The evangelical base are the most motivated republican supporters anyway.
>>56608343
oxymoron.
marriage is the unity of male and female, bride and groom, husband and wife. opposites attract, 2 become 1, manifest, in principle, in the ability to procreate. none of that applies to homosexuals
/thread
>>56609654
How butthurt are you?
>>56608343
If they don't force churches to wed them I'm ok. Honestly I don't want any government involvement with marriage at all. It's just a way to make money for the government when it's supposed to be under God, a religious thing
>>56608343
It's a standard marriage contract; courts can decide to ignore it or not.
>>56608343
there sno reason for two women or two men to be in a marriage. they cant have children.
if they insist on abstaining from sex until theyr emarried, then I'm cool with that. at the very least it means youre taking what it means to be in a marriage seriously.
but if youre just some homo looking to fuck your boy in the butt and get married for tax benefits and to prove youre serious, its a joke and I don't really recognize it. a gay coupel can get divorced and I don't give two shits.
>>56609842
There are already hundreds of thousands of churches who will marry them, with or without legal backing.
Really, we should just have the standard marriage contract, the legal arrangement, called 'civil union'; then the couples can call the ceremony around it whatever they like, and they can call their relationship whatever they like.
I continue to not give a shit about things that don't affect me.
>>56610123
>but if youre just some homo looking to fuck your boy in the butt and get married for tax benefits and to prove youre serious, its a joke and I don't really recognize it.
So what if 2 straight people do this? Just marry, fuck and do drugs? This sounds like the life tbqf mi familia
>>56610123
So how long should childless straight marriages be permitted to continue before they're automatically annulled?
Also, ban marriage for anyone who can't have children without adoption or medical assistance, like the elderly, or anyone who requires IVF?
>>56608343
Whatever, just don't be all fucking flamboyant and gay all up in my face. Just be a fucking normal person who happens to prefer the same sex.
>>56610282
But you'd vote yes on a referendum?
>>56608504
You're a pretty funny meme /pol/and
>>56609740
not at all.
0 substantive counter-response then? I'll take that as a concession.
Marriage in general is a fucked up system.
You can live together without any strings attached. This tradition of marriage should be stopped.
>>56610520
>just be dishonest, live a double life and shit on those who refuse to apologize for being a giant faggot
>>56610669
The marriage you're talking about is a legal union made to economically incentivize the raising of children. The sacrament of marriage is a purely religious institution.
>>56610396
straight marriages have the potential to result in children, naturally. gays either have to be artificially impregnated, or simply cannot and have to use a surrogate mother, which means they don't need a marriage.
>>56610725
One of those things doesn't seem to be like the others.
You don't have to live a double life where the fuck did you get that?
You don't have to be dishonest.
You probably should shit on those who refuse to apologize for being a gigantic faggot. Just fucking be a normal god damn person who sleeps with dudes, not a faggot that puts they gayness at the forefront of their identity.
Many people nowadays are really obsessed with sexual preferences of others thanks to mass media. Years later they will discuss their favorite poses in sex openly.
About faggotry rites: In my opinion marriage is not needed at all, gay or not.
>>56608343
Gay """""""""marriage"""""""""" was the moment the west died
enjoy your decadence.
>>56610952
So how long should a straight marriage be permitted without producing children?
One year?
Five years?
Ten years?
So you're okay with childless marriages, but not gay marriages?
>>56608977
>its okay when girls do it
>>56608343
>not accepting gay marriage
>in 2015
>>56610840
legality is secondary. I'm talking about spiritual/natural law, the root of paper law (when paper law is in harmony)
>incentivize the raising of children
it goes without saying
>The sacrament of marriage is a purely religious institution.
and yet it has been consistently heterosexual worldwide from the beginning of recorded time, independent of culture or religion
then again, degeneracy does exist, even if it is fleeting and far between. The Talmud says homosexual marriage certificates were issued prior to the Great Flood.
Degeneracy accompanies collapse, every single time.
Oh what, you thought it was an accident we're on the eve of ww3 and climate catastrophe? kek
>>56608343
I bet some good liking white men could rape both of them straight.
That's my only comment about this.
What I want to know is why the ever loving fuck do they want to be married inside a church?
>>56611258
Yes, gay people limiting themselves to having sex is exactly what is going to destroy the great western civilization.
Are you retarded?
>>56611474
>inb4 another western mass media agenda in 2017
>not accepting pedophiles and rapers
>2017
>>56611571
>>56610840
religion is also just a vehicle, not the source
>>56611571
>>incentivize the raising of children
If you wanted this, you'd pay people for raising children, not for being married.
>>56611313
a gay has no reason to be in a marriage but to benefit from tax loopholes. gays don't abstain from sex, so they have no value associated with what it means to be in a marriage.
>>56611609
Why does anyone want to get married in a church?
>>56611952
>gay people limiting themselves to having sex
el oh el
>>56610725
You don't need to lie, simply not bring it up unless you're asked or if it's relevant to the conversation.
People tend to not have a problem if a dude they already know just happens to be gay. If you introduce yourself licking a lollipop, lisping and wearing sleeveless, tight pink shirts and hot shorts, you're going to make people uncomfortable.
>>56611609
some are religious, but most just want to force christians to accept it
I literally don't care.
Since marriage has legal implications, I'm fine with fag marriage.
>>56608343
No problems with gay marriage and no problem with gay parades either (constitutional right)
Any sane law wont be passed in Poland as the religious lobby is too stronk.
>>56610698
No. There SHOULD NOT be any government involvement in the marriage tradition and should stay with the faiths/religion's that practice it.
All jokes aside, although it's gay and not for me I have no problem with other people doing it as well and states recognizing it. I would have a problem if religious institutions are forced to recognize it but they never will be. But whatever, it's not my life and it's not my butt getting fucked so it doesn't matter to me, good for them.
>>56608343
Fine.
Gays never took land from us, nor money, they aren't supremacists that want themselves and us to care about them as opposed to each for themselves.
There's nothing concretely wrong about gays. You can only ever be hurt by gays if you obsess about them and even there you're hurt by yourself not by them.
>>56612056
Then how long should a straight couple be allowed to be married just to benefit from tax loopholes?
One year?
Five years?
Ten years?
>>56611994
the primary incentive is social stability and personal harmony, not money
traditional marriage has existed around the world as such for thousands of years without public financial incentives. that's a red herring
Gay marriage is great.
Less excuses when they're talking about discrimination, business opportunities for everyone from wedding planners to couples counseling, lawsuits galore because gays cheat like a motherfucker,
It's just more money exchanging hands.
I don't care what faggots do in their free time as long as they don't do pic related.
>>56611571
>spiritual/natural law
>degeneracy
"Natural law" (a philosophy which varies greatly depending on time and people) is eroded by economic and social pressures, the same thing you call "degeneracy", or deviation from older social mores. The truth is that your conservatism is leagues ahead of the strictness of past restrictive social mores, and their "degeneracy" is leagues ahead of past lax social mores.
Your feelings of disgust are relative to a very particular set of values when looked at from the backdrop of human history.
>>56608343
For it desu
>>56609469
Well muslim countries are usually hostile to gays
>>56612428
Traditional marriage as in?
More than one wife?
Child brides?
You're happy to leave behind some traditions associated with marriage.
Marriage is just choosing your next-of-kin, rather than leaving it to be a member of your family.
it's cultural appropriation of christians and their culture
non-christians should invent their own methods of joining 2 people together
>>56608343
I don't like marriage as is so I suppose I'm de facto against it.
Just found out my Dad's getting married again. I tried to warn him. I really will not be surprised if everything goes to shit for him again.
>>56612391
for fuckign ever. they are meant to have kids.
gays cannot create children when they are jizzing into rectums.
only a man and woman can procreate. marriage is for unions of men and women only. they have that right because they CAN have children and they have both genders present in the agreement. there sno assigned date to end a marriage. if you ente rinto marriage, you can have sex for fuckign ever, its your right as a married couple.
a gay couple can have sex, but they cant have children. gays do not abstain from sex until marriage. therefore they don't need it and it is not their right.
>>56612538
>(a philosophy which varies greatly depending on time and people)
it's not just a "philosophy". it's the laws of physics. the laws of physics do not change. seasons change. the forces that determine the interaction of heat and movement do not change.
Natural law is eternal; it's not eroded by anything.
Degeneracy accompanies collapse; this abomination will soon pass. it's not the first time a society has degenerated in excess, after all
Okay with it...but i just dont get why youd want one cock when you can have 1000 cocks?
Huehue
>>56608343
It's ok. People can do what they want with each other as longs as both agree. Just remove church out of it since marriage is clearly a government thing nowadays instead of purely religious.
>>56611984
Tupac Shakur was good tbqh family
>>56612742
the principle consistency is heterosexuality/complementarity
>Marriage is just choosing your next-of-kin
It's much more than that. it's how you live that's important.
>>56612906
>the laws of physics
STEMfag here. Please don't make these analogies between physics and sociology. It's like some normiebook clickbait.
>>56612861
>for fuckign ever. they are meant to have kids.
But you think they can stay married forever without having kids? So the kids part isn't the important one for you?
>only a man and woman can procreate. marriage is for unions of men and women only. they have that right because they CAN have children and they have both genders present in the agreement. there sno assigned date to end a marriage. if you ente rinto marriage, you can have sex for fuckign ever, its your right as a married couple.
How are you going to stop gay couples calling their relationship a marriage?
>a gay couple can have sex, but they cant have children. gays do not abstain from sex until marriage. therefore they don't need it and it is not their right.
Who abstains from sex until marriage?
>>56608343
Exactly as pointless as straight marriage.
>>56608343
Do you think when actual Asian lesbians have sex its sweet and passionate, or do they do that weird chink "let's lick each other's tongue" thing like in da movies?
>>56613157
It's more than that, but next-of-kinship is the essence of it, it's the part of marriage that you can't remove without ending the marriage.
>>56613284
Puke in each others mouths level shit.
>>56612685
underrated 10/10
>supporting mental disorder
ever
>>56613245
whatever a gay has, be it a civil union or so forth, what they have is nto a marriage unless they abstain until they are married.
if they have fucked prior to "marrying", then its justa fuckign union.
but it snot marriage.
of course, in order to have kids, you need to have sex and, well, fine.
but whatever gays have when they pretend to get married isn't marriage. its just a two fuckign faggots looking for tax benefits and to make a joke of someones definition of marriage.
call it something else.
fuckign before you marry is just more stressor son your life. and it devalues the marriage in principle, so like, why are you even getting married?
>>56610656
> mfw this WW3 is also meme
Marriage is for gays
>jews hate gays
>integrate them into other societies
> literally being kukedd
Wake up /pol/
>>56609654
Can we make it an official rule to never /thread yourself? That defeats the whole point, we know you're completely convinced and infatuated with your opinion, it's supposed to mean more than bolstering your own confidence in your post
>>56613862
>whatever a gay has, be it a civil union or so forth, what they have is nto a marriage unless they abstain until they are married.
Then let them get married.
>of course, in order to have kids, you need to have sex and, well, fine.
You were saying earlier that kids were the point of marriage.
So how long without children should a straight marriage be permitted to continue?
>call it something else.
How can you stop gay couples from calling their relationship a marriage?
I don't care. What two men or two women decide to do in the privacy of their own home doesn't impact me, nor do the social contracts they choose to engage in undermine my values.
My dad came out as a closeted homosexual, and it hasn't changed how I see him an ounce. He's still the same person, and I respect that this is something he felt he had to do; if he's happier with his dick in someone's ass, so be it.
The Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage was a populist perversion of the law, though.
>>56608343
I couldn't care any less than I do now.
Don't let em have kids tho.
>>56613228
orly? is sociobiology outside the laws of physics? never-never land maybe?
>>56613369
>it's the part of marriage that you can't remove without ending the marriage.
it's not the only part you can't remove
>>56614196
welcome to 4chan.
>>56608343
In b4 Sweden accepts 20.000.000 male Turkish refurgies age 16-36
>>56614284
>The Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage was a populist perversion of the law, though.
They found that it was unconstitutional to prevent two men or two women from signing a standard marriage contract.
Seriously though, marriage has no purpose in the Statist sense.
The government should have nothing to do with marriage whatsoever. Marriage should be a religious ceremony only and should not involve the state.
If people were not fucking kektards and state slaves they'd simply disregard the state's relationship with marriage and simply enjoy their personal ceremony.
The government shouldn't be involved with whether you love a person and want to spend your life with them.
Don't be a statist kek.
>>56614547
sorry wrong thread
>>56608343
Who gives a fuck, we've got bigger fish to fry senpai
>>56608343
It's bad.
>>56608343
Let them do what they will. When the world becomes hell they will be among the first to suffer.
>>56614435
>it's not the only part you can't remove
You can remove the parts about raising children, or multiple wives, or taking child-brides, or non-consensual marriage, all the other parts of traditional marriage, without affecting whether it's a marriage or not.
If the two who are married are not next-of-kin, in what way is it a marriage?
>>56614435
No fuck off, not that many people /thread themselves, only idiots do it. We need that etched in stone so we aren't wasting our time legitimately considering your opinions
>>56614608
It has to involve the state, so long as the state has anything to do with contract recognition.
The state can either order courts to recognize all marriage contracts, or they can allow courts to pick and choose which are legitimate and which aren't.
Gay people can already get married in religious ceremonies everywhere in the world, most churches are made up of decent people, but the law does not recognize them in the way it does straight marriages.
>>56614972
"next of kin" is merely a legal concept. how long as the legal concept existed? how long has legality existed? how long has marriage existed? a lot longer than ideas of "next of kin"
traditionally the state has nothing to do with marriage beyond recognition, if at all
>>56615050
you know what - if I were wrong on the merits you'd be able to refute it - anything. but no, you're here metacomplaining. you got nothin' kid. time to stop posting
Don't care, but making it a federal law is an assault on state rights.
>>56615267
Yes, it's all just legal concepts. Next-of-kinship is the only essential element of a marriage, even if it wasn't spelled out in modern terms during the time of traditional marriages.
Out of all the traditions of traditional marriages, only next-of-kinship remains a constant. Not all cultures engage in arranged marriage, not all cultures engage in non-consensual marriage, not all culture demand children from married couples, not all cultures allow for multiple wives, and not all cultures allow for child brides; all parts of traditional marriage.
>traditionally the state has nothing to do with marriage beyond recognition, if at all
Then you should be fine with recognizing the gay marriages performed by any religious group.
>>56614565
i see. i read the dissenting opinions of several of the judges and none of them touched upon the actual legal reason for the ruling, instead suggesting it violated other legal precedents.
thanks.
>>56615503
Like if the Feds said 'gun ownership is an unalienable right', they would imposing themselves on states that want to ban guns?
>>56612103
>>56611609
Some who are religious are also gay and want to marry in their church.
I think we struck a good balance here with an opt-in system for religious bodies who perform marriages. They can't be forced to hold gay marriages but churches like the Quakers and so on can opt in.
I dont support it. I dont actively oppose it, because I know its unnatural on several levels, and any threat comes from the lax direction of the culture and government generally; the incidence of same sex marriage is too low to be directly an issue. Its the acceptance that denotes a problem, not the act that is a problem itself.
I like to think I am pretty good at being a faggot and understanding men, society and our role in it. I distinguish myself from actual normal men who occassionally use a fag, as well as 'gay' which is a poliltical sex cult. Once I departed 'gay' political values, I found life was much easier and that society had a lot more tolerance of me.
I dismiss lesbian issues instantly because any reasoning that lesbians put forth is reasoning about society according to a female and historically worthless.
For passive exclusive homosexuals like myself, I dont consider homosexuality as lifestyle of 'love', but rather a guild of dedication to the service and support of men and mankind. We are at our best when we serve, support, and humble ourselves for the various situational needs of men when the presence of females is not possible or appropriate. Its historically validated and from a nature/social perspective, not really complicated.
The idea that we are socially equal to breeding males is egalitarian nonsense, ridiculous, wrong headed and outright dangerous. We are not purposed to try to imitate normal men and doing so totally upsets and devalues our innate abilities.
Therefore the idea that exclusive, passive homosexuals should be encouraged imitate normal male social roles and be held in parity with them in ways such as marriage seems utterly backwards to me, and is clearly the product of the same social disease that purports women are equal to men. Being unequal doesnt make one bad. Inequality is simply a poor way to look at the value of social order and resent the natural role of the self.
Marriage is a religious tradition that has always been between a man and a woman. Allowing gay marriage is the dumbest shit ever, marriage is for men and women. We could call gay couples "partners" and still give them the same benefits of marriage but calling it marriage is spitting in the face of a religious process.
Tldr fucking fags ruin traditions
>>56614206
I simply don't have to recognize it
I don't have a guy to marry so no one else should be able to do that either
>>56615438
I don't care about the topic of the actual argument, think whatever. I'm working for a better tomorrow for /pol/. We don't deserve having to suffer your self /thread and we need to stand against it when we see it
>>56615970
And they don't have to recognize yours.
Wouldn't it be funny if you were trying to get visitation rights to your spouse in hospital, and a gay judge decided that you didn't have a real marriage because you hadn't yet produced children?
I'm all for gay marriage but not lesbian marriage.
I think civil unions are more appropriate. I'm a bisexual myself but I respect the sanctity of marriage being between a man and a woman. That doesn't mean I might end up with some guy in the future where we'll want benefits together. I think there should be a fine distinction between civil unions and marriages but both should have the same benefits.
>It doesn't affect so I don't care xD xD xD
So I guess having a sick degenerate decaying society doesn't affect you amirite???
>>>/r/eddit
>>56615648
>Yes, it's all just legal concepts. Next-of-kinship is the only essential element of a marriage
If marriage existed before legality, then legality (eg. "next of kin") cannot be said to be essential to marriage
>>56615648
>fine with recognizing the gay marriages
You can't recognise something that can't be recognised; it's an oxymoron. A judge could declare you a hippopotamus. Would I be compelled to recognise you as a hippopotamus?
>This thread
>>56616086
there is no "tomorrow" for /pol/. /pol/ is where we wait for the happening. It won't be long.
>>56616623
Marriage didn't exist before legality, marriage existed before the terms 'marriage', 'legality', or 'next-of-kin' existed.
The only essential part of marriage is the declaration that this other person is now your chosen family, your next-of-kin, made in some form that the community sees it, or the state recognizes it.
>>56616911
What did you expect AmericUcks are the biggest faggot enablers/lovers in the world.
Poor brainwashed morons.
>>56616797
A judge wouldn't be asked to judge on whether I was a hippopotamus, only on whether a particular contract I signed was valid.
You're saying marriage contracts aren't valid without children (except for straight marriages), and/or without religious approval (except for straight marriages).
>>56608343
There's literally nothing wrong with gay marriage.
There's everything wrong with leftist shit bags who think that's the biggest fish to fry that the world is facing.
>>56616571
tfw greek men are gay as fuck
>>56617275
those are some strong words considering france exists
>>56615889
Its more than a tradition. Its an essential social contract that needs coherent and practical definition. When a society stops recognizing the primacy of strong families as a life plan, the destruction to the society becomes generational and becomes a slow cascading failure.
Some things are naturally occurring and serve to alleviate tension, and can be simultaneously held in contempt quite logically and rationaly. Examples are the prevalence of prostitution or mind altering substances like alcohol. Its entirely natural for these things to exist and equally natural to hold them in contempt as a symbol of human frailty.
Trying to compensate for it by institutionalizing the very things that represent frailty rather than simply accept that nature produces some humbling ironies is not the way to address it. Pretending marriage is a loose definition in any way for the convenience of anyone- homosexual or heterosexual- is simply social suicide by the poison of relativism, apathy and submission to the weakness of humans rather than challenging and resisting it.
Just my opinion.
>>56608947
Here you go.
>>56608343
Marriage is a religious institution, they can have civil unions. Also I think it would be good to have a register of all confirmed gays for the future.
>>56608504
Also this
>>56617531
So traditional marriage is not biblical marriage?
It's biblical marriage, but without the multiple wives, without the forced marriage, and without the child brides?
>>56617598
Then call all legally recognized unions 'civil unions', and let the couples call the ceremony whatever they want and call the relationship whatever they want.
>>56612685
>>56617043
>marriage existed before the terms 'marriage', 'legality', or 'next-of-kin' existed.
well there you go
>your next-of-kin
again, merely a technicality, and literally after the fact. the important thing is how you live
>>56608343
Don't give a fuck what they do, I'm just sick of having it shoved in my face everywhere I go.
>>56612685
top kek
>>56618573
>well there you go
We made up those terms to describe what was happening. The only common link between all traditional marriage is the next-of-kinship.
>again, merely a technicality, and literally after the fact. the important thing is how you live
>how you live
Which means?
>>56617281
it's the same level of fiction
pieces of paper blow away in the wind and catch fire all the time
what is essential and intrinsic remains and always has
>You're saying marriage contracts aren't valid without children (except for straight marriages)
no, you're simply misunderstanding the concept of "in principle". here's a lesson;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMYBl2uzXEw
>>56618382
It is less important what the particular parameters are that a society defines for marriage and more important that they remain consistent over generations and distinguish some discipline for upholding a family.
>>56618583
That's what it means to live in a civil, secular society.
You have to put up with the same shit everyone else does.
Another person might be sick of religious people forcing themselves into every public debate.
>>56618843
All marriages are the kind of 'fiction' you describe.
They are just a promise made by two people in front of other people.
>>56618804
no, that's irrelevant. hunter gatherers lived for hundreds of thousands of years without even the idea of "next of kinship" and they still had marriage; they had children. children are also technically "next of kin". the plot thickens
>>56608343
I don't give a shit one way or another, so do most of my coworkers, friends and family.
>>56618918
The only part that has remained constant is that the betrothed announce that they now share next-of-kinship.
I know of no tradition where childless marriages are automatically annulled without the consent of the betrothed, though you seem to believe this is part of traditional marriage.
>>56619119
I don't call marriage a fiction. only "gay marriage".
To call a hippopotamus a hippopotamus is not outrageous. To call a man a hippopotamus is fiction.
>They are just a promise made by two people in front of other people.
simplistic nonsense. marriage is yin and yang coming together. it's what the universe does.
>>56608343
useless
>>56619146
They had the concept of next-of-kinship, to the degree that your parents or partners or children's stuff became yours if they die, and that your parents, or partner, or children, could speak for you if you were not present.
Parents and children are also next-of-kin, so no special new rights are created when two unrelated people decide to transfer this to each other; all that is required is that the community acknowledges it. Restricting this right is a good way to impose your authority on people, I suppose that is why religion decided to monopolize it for so long.
I dont give a shit, they're not hurting anyone.
>>56619380
Marriage is two people coming together.
Are you really saying that your personal preference should be made universal law?
>>56608343
I don't care what faggots do, if they want to pretend they're a normal married couple the so be it.
They shouldn't be encouraged to have kids though. Fuck that
>>56619119
What is the value of the promise to people outside the couple?
>>56619289
I suggested no such thing. That some people cannot have children or lose them are an exception. It is in itself not a logical reason to re-imagine what the purpose of marriage is just because not everyone can meet the original, initial ideals.
Some people cheat. Thats not a reason to include cheating into the definition of the contract. You dont remove ideals for everyone just because some people do not meet them.
>>56608343
I don't care as long they're not forcing anyone to facilitate it, like priests.
>>56619571
marriage means your stuff was already theirs, even while you were living. 2 become 1. "next of kin" is ex-post facto redundancy.
>>56617565
I-Is the first one a boy?
>>56619703
I'm saying universal law is my personal preference.
>>56619790
>marriage means your stuff was already theirs, even while you were living. 2 become 1.
What about this arrangement makes it impossible for two men or two women to agree to it?
Earlier you said children were the most important factor in marriage, but now it's not relevant?
>>56619808
yes, yes he is
Is /pol/ even right wing?
I just saw some liberal faggot with antisemitism as a meme
>>56619901
So you had no personal preferences, then you discovered that the universal law was such, and you changed your preference to match it?
Or you're just happy to discover that your personal preferences match up with universal laws?
...euthyphro
>>56608343
the union of a man and a woman was celebrated in nearly every society
on the other hand people have always been naturally opposed to homosexuality (just like zoophillia) if it weren't part of some bizarre ceremony or tradition
normalization of homosexuality is backwards and that same sex couples should't be considered equal to normal ones
the social engineering that is happening to normalize homosexuality is insane
>>56608343
Don't care.
If the church doesn't want them to marry as christians they should be able to say no. State should just handle them as two people wanting to be married like anybody else.
Also lesbians are pretty hot tbqh
>>56619703
>Marriage is two people coming together.
It is demonstrably more than that. The more vague and inclusive you make the definition, the more pointless it becomes to have a definition at all, and therefore the premise for it existing as specific, distinguishable thing becomes moot.
The more a word means for something, the less the something matters. You can void a concept simply by blurring its definition beyond practical usefulness.
Which is the premise for calling a man a woman, that you can destroy the notion of gender by making it mean anything.
Idc.
>>56620241
>lesbians
>hot
FYI those porn stars are straight most of the times
Marriage is literally a meme. Please don't fall for it.
>>56620225
Not really, we've just decided that the consent of those involved in the relationship is more important than the approval of the leaders of their society.
Tolerance and acceptance of alternate forms of sexuality where all partners consent is implied by that; a move away from acceptance of traditional sexual mores, things like non-consensual sex, or pedophilia, is also implied by the same underlying movement.
>>56620377
You can find some decent amateur lesbian porn.
>>56620241
You've clearly never seen a real life lesbian
I used to live with one, and she'd bring 30 of her lesbian friends round. They were the nastiest creatures I've ever met
>>56620377
nigga nobody gives a fuck about that
>>56608343
In favor of.
We have to speed up the decline.
>>56619986
>What about this arrangement makes it impossible for two men or two women to agree to it?
because marriage is about more than just who owns what stuff. material is immaterial
>Earlier you said children were the most important factor in marriage
I didn't say "most important factor". I said the ability to procreate, in principle, is a manifestation of marriage in spirit too (the meeting of yin and yang into a viable new being
homosexuals cannot into any of that
it's just a matter of fact. opposites attract; energy and gravity combine into existence. 2 arrows of the same charge resist one another, which is why all homosexual relationships are intrinsically hostile, which also explains why they tend to be so fleeting
>>56620325
Then give me the list of things that are required for something to be a marriage.
You've established that it can't just be two people coming together to get married; that it doesn't matter if they have children together or not; so what is it that makes gay marriage impossible?
>>56620145
when I was a baby I didn't think about this stuff. You live, you learn.
>Or you're just happy to discover that your personal preferences match up with universal laws?
It's not about being happy; it's about being right.
>>56608343
They have just as much right to make their life shit as anyone else does. I don't know why anyone would ever fall for the trap that is marriage though desu.
>>56620615
>I didn't say "most important factor". I said the ability to procreate, in principle, is a manifestation of marriage in spirit too (the meeting of yin and yang into a viable new being
Yet you don't follow this to it's logical conclusion, and exclude those who don't or can't have children from being married. Except when it comes to gay marriages.
>>56620377
If you have sex with somebody of your own gender you are pretty gay already. So they might be bi. But definetly not straight. Everything else is niggerlogics.
>>56620530
I dunno whether I have ever seen one. That's not really a thing I'm interested in people anyways. But still. The only porn you should fap to should involve only women.
>>56620076
The only wings I need are Satan's, as he carries me off into eternity.
>>56620858
>I dunno whether I have ever seen one. That's not really a thing I'm interested in people anyways. But still. The only porn you should fap to should involve only women.
And not drawn images of women, which are usually done by men?
Masturbating is a pretty homosexual act to begin with, but masturbating to another mans creation is hard gay, bro.
>>56621047
This.
What is the difference between masturbating, and giving another man a handjob?
Nothing, that's what.
Masturbation is gay.
>>56620815
the logical and also real conclusion is that homosexuals do not represent the universal duality, period, nor the manifestation thereof.
>>56608343
I honestly couldn't give a fuck, something like 3% of the whole world identifies as something other than straight, they're a fucking statistical blip.
>>56620076
I'd like to believe /pol/ is right, not right wing.
The whole right/left wing paradigm is bullshit, they disagree on all the insignificant matters but agree on everything to do with collectivism and with such, the NWO.
>>56621340
So for you it's about an aesthetic expression of the universal duality, not about the production of children?
>>56621375
/pol/ does not have a problem with collectivism, only with all those in the collective profiting from their involvement.
>>56621155
>>56621047
That logic is fucking retarded. That would imply that you are gay for not pissing freehandedly or wiping your ass. because it "could" be another mans dick/ass.
>>56621604
intrinsic expression, not merely aesthetic
the production of children is a manifestation thereof
>>56620615
>which is why all homosexual relationships are intrinsically hostile, which also explains why they tend to be so fleeting
I wouldn't say they are hostile. I wouldn't even really call them relationships. The premise that two people in a domicile can be equals is itself an irritant that places value on the individuals over the strength of the household. Many 'gay's are egalitarian and suffer that problem. Perhaps thats what you are seeing.
Regardless, relationships are transient by nature. It is entirely natural for homosexual 'relationships' to be even moreso. I agree with your conclusion, but Im a bit puzzled at your logic.
>>56620690
I can't do that because I am an individual, not the incarnation of every society in history. You may as well ask me what is required to be the definition of a good government amidst monarchies, democracies and communists.
I can tell you that something needs a consistent definition that is distinguished by discipline from other values. Typically, in this case, the values are the society above the wants of the self. I cannot globally tell you what the breadth or specifics are.
We were discussing, presumably, the Western definition of marriage as evinced by predominantly Christian cultures.
You seem to be implying that we should widen the definition universally, essentially suggesting one set of values and definitions should dominate and replace all others, which I thought was the very thing you were objecting to.
>>56608343
Marriage shouldn't be a legal institution.
I don't really give a shit. You can be a faggot, just don't be a faggot about it.
>>56621818
Typical closet homo logic.
>>56622071
And I wouldn't even care if I was genuinely gay. But seriously. I don't get behind this retardation.
>>56621879
>monarchies, democracies and communists
What if the UK voted to get rid of currency and just gave people what they needed?
>>56608343
They are like children playing pretend, in the real world.
>>56609177
Hahaha good thing you flip burgers faggot
Banning it is pointless, since any country that would legalize it is already fucked beyond repair.
>>56608343
It personally doesn't bother me. What doe bother me though is how they force their agenda on people, like forcing churches to officiate the wedding or suing bakers who won't make them a cake on religious grounds. Fascist little cunts.
>>56615833
>>56617531
>>56618918
>>56619765
>>56620325
>>56621879
I've spent an hour in this thread trying to carefully drill down to basic social mechanics with carefully articulated observations.
Regardless, the discussion so far has yet to reach the discourse of text messages traded in study hall. I am wasting my time in a dull, juvenile and dying thread.
Good day.
>>56608343
God will utterly destroy the west for the sacrilege
>>56621879
>The premise that two people in a domicile can be equals is itself an irritant that places value on the individuals over the strength of the household.
men and women are equal, not identical. they fit together harmoniously.
>Regardless, relationships are transient by nature.
Not necessarily. Both sets of my grandparents married young and stayed married until each of my grandfathers died. doesn't sound fleeting to me. granted, some are more fleeting than others; the principle expresses itself with varying degrees of strength
>>56621840
Then marriages without children are not real marriages? Or only gay marriages without children?
>>56621879
>We were discussing, presumably, the Western definition of marriage as evinced by predominantly Christian cultures.
Not as defined in the bible (clearly not, that would be barbaric), but as it was actually practiced in the western world?
Then next-of-kinship is the only essential element.
We don't annul childless marriages, we don't bar the infertile from marriage, we don't require the parents permission to perform a marriage, all we ask is that two people show up and sign the contract.
How does this intrinsically exclude two men or two women?
>>56622640
Didn't the bakers hand out personal information to a lot of people?
If they did it in a courthouse with legal papers and just left it at that then it would be fine but, these folks want to have weddings and go to churches and be attention whores about it. That is what pisses off alot of people about the whole thing. I don't personally care about what they're doing behind closed doors if they're keeping their diseases to themselves but fags want such a spectacle of a marriage that their narcissistic attitudes put everyone in a bad mood. Plus wanting to have a wedding at a church or mosque just spits in the face of every person in said religion. Normal people don't want to know or have anything to do with it if they can help it.
easy one:
dude,
Fine Sapphos getting hitched = all good...
Ugly Hairy Agenda Dykes = NoFucknWay
Any, repeat any fags = ibid / see above
>>56622806
marriages without children are the principle expressed, but expressed too weakly to manifest
"gay marriages" are nothing but fiction. the principle is not expressed at all, nevermind children.
>>56608343
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TDC9s-Kt-8
I came here for the rezubians, what is all this talk about gay marriage and shit?
>>56620509
stop degrading meaning of marriage fagget
it representss the union between two opposite poles that creates life
you are a product of brith defect
its not about muh evli leaders not allowing you have things
its like changing definition of sexual intercourse to include anal sex
i know it feels shit to be left out but you cannot have everything
>>56608343
Don't care but its pointless, the only people who want it are clueless fags and sjws who think its 'progressive' so it must be good. Even though we have an equivalent for gay marriage that doesnt require pissing off religious folk by messing with marriage.
it's cute when girls do it
>>56622640
LITERALLY first rule of business is that you serve everyone. The minute you are in charge of a business all your bullshit beliefs get tossed out the window if you want to compete in a capitalistic society. You can still have those morals similar to how Chick Filet opposes gays, but still serves them. Don't be a butthurt Christ fag.
>>56622640
You could tell this was going to happen when they couldn't accept it being called a union.
Marriage specifically refers to a union between a man and a woman.
>>56620858
women sexuality works differently than men's
unlike men they are aroused by other women getting off and don't find it repulsive
>>56623380
chickfilet serves them hamburgers, not wedding cakes
>>56609308
I have no idea, there seems to be a growing movement of people interested in Libertarian values but then are turned off by the staunch evangelicalism of any candidate that supports their views.(See:Ron and Rand Paul).
I think the time will come when a moderate Republican or Libertarian will come along with a social platform that is not based on enforcing Christian morality, but I don't know when. The vacuum seems to be growing though and most people at least that I know we're turned off by Ron Paul not because of his policies but for his Creationist beliefs which they assumed would lead him towards Christian fundamentalism.
I'm not even strictly against Christian candidates, I am however against them attempting to turn their religious beliefs into policy.
>>56623389
Alternatively: a combination or mixture of two or more elements. As in the mixing of two people's lives that metaphorically become one.
>>56608343
retarded, useless and an attack on the family unit. Shouldnt be allowed.
>>56608343
Have a close friend who is Lesbofag
>don't care on an individual level, person to person
>community to larger national scale it's going to ruin everything
>>56623380
Completely wrong. Marriage is defined as the pairing of a man and a woman, the whole point of it is to officially bind two people together so they can procreate and raise a family. Marriage obviously doesn't mean that anymore, and frankly I don't give a shit about it. But it's wrong to completely destroy the meaning of a ceremony like that.
>>56623241
>marriages without children are the principle expressed, but expressed too weakly to manifest
>>56623007
>it representss the union between two opposite poles that creates life
So how long should a straight marriage be permitted to continue without children before it is automatically annulled?
>>56623403
You should look that up, bro. Straight men are aroused by the sight of erect male members just as much as women are aroused by the sight of excited females.
>>56623728
How does allowing any gay marriage affect any straight marriage?
>>56623728
>But it's wrong to completely destroy the meaning of a ceremony like that.
You know who you sound like? An SJW on Tumblr who screams "MUH CULTRAL APPROPRIATION".
I'm absolutely okay with it.
>>56608343
Utter indifference.
Why anyone would want to go through a pricy ritual to acquire anhorrent in-laws is beyond me.
>>56623380
Exactly it's a capitalist society, they should be able to choose who they do and don't serve. If that then comes back on them losing business because people don't agree with their views and decide not to shop there then I have no problem with that I jut don't agree with them being sued and forced to do something that is against their own values. Btw i'm an atheist.
>>56623777
>marriages without children are the principle expressed, but expressed too weakly to manifest
??
>You should look that up, bro. Straight men are aroused by the sight of erect male members just as much as women are aroused by the sight of excited females.
i don't need to look that up im actually male and there are studies that prove what i said
the only reason men get aroused that way is because it brings up the memories of sex
in females it works differently
>>56608343
>There's a rulebook on marriage
>The bible, they literally define what and what isn't marriage
>Marriage
>A man and woman coming together in holy matrimony, witnessed under the eyes of God
>Not two men
>Not two women
>Not to non-binary gender fluid planetkin
>Not a human and an inanimate object
>Not a human and an animal
>A man and a woman
By it's very definition it isn't a marriage anyway. It's a glorified civil ceremony.
>>56623777
>So how long should a straight marriage be permitted to continue without children before it is automatically annulled?
Why automatically annul when the principle is there. maybe they adopt children, maybe not. either way such an anomalous tendency can be tolerated by a normal, healthy society. Traditionally infertility/sterility was one of the only grounds for divorce, before the nihilistic madness of "no-fault divorce", etc.
>>56622850
I don't know about that but it was jut one example of them forcing their agenda. Another was with the couple who owned the B&B being sued because they wouldn't offer a same sex couple a room.
>>56623855
It affects the norm of society. Slippery slope for example. Fag marriage becomes normal, then people will think being a fag is normal and straight as abnormal. Then people stop procreating as much, then people will think pedophilia is normal and beastiality and polygamy and even necrophilia. Would you like to live in that kind of world? And be fore you give the "morality" argument just remember. Sodomy is the new norm, there is nothing sacred left if this keeps going. Being gay is not normal and it must stay this way for the greater good
>>56624251
>>56623777
the thing is, traditionally a married couple would only be able to discover infertility or sterility after marriage, since their culture regarding pre-marital sex was much stricter too. one need not take the chance of marriage on homosexuals to see, because it's something we can see to begin with.
>>56624199
>There's a rulebook on marriage
>The bible, they literally define what and what isn't marriage
Christ fags besides Lutherans need to be purged for being this dumb.
>>56624471
Jack Thompson please leave
>>56624251
So your first objective should be to police straight marriages, to make sure nobody is married without children, and to get rid of divorce; gay marriage is a relatively minor issue that has no bearing on your real complaint.
How is 'no-fault divorce' madness? If one person doesn't want to stay in the marriage, you think the other should be able to force the state to force them to stay in the marriage?
Since you believe in traditional marriage, does this extend to arranged marriages?
>>56623855
it doesn't in any meaningful way, but it's still not real
I could pretend I'm a hippopotamus. That doesn't affect you, does it? But can you force yourself to consider me, honestly, a hippopotamus? probably not
>>56608343
I don't care at all. I only care if they pander it to small school children or when they try to ingrain it into society as normal.
>>56609469
based
>>56624627
Someone literally fucking debunked that argument, now you use it again.
>>56624471
We accept homosexuality for the same reason we no longer tolerate pedophilia, we recognize the importance of consent.
The first sign that pedophilia will become tolerated again would be that homosexuals will become less accepted.
>>56624519
Then you should make the law 'any marriage that lasts longer than five years without producing children or adopting children is automatically annulled', right? But you'd prefer to write it up in a way that excludes gay couples; while allowing straight couples to use IVF, surrogacy, and adoption, yes?
>>56624735
the thread has 243 replies you might as well link it
>>56624890
Yeah, except there's statutory rape, or "you're too young to decide for yourself" rape, there's no statutory faggotry, in fact you have lesbian couples brainwashing kids into changing gender in middle school.
>>56608343
Don't fucking care.
If you wanna marry someone of your own sex, do it.
No need to involve me into it.
>>56624627
You'd be pretending you're a hippo; a gay couple would actually have signed a marriage contract, and so would actually be just as married as a straight couple who signed the same contract.
The more apt comparison would be if you said that gay couples don't believe they are gay, instead they both believe they're engaging in straight marriage with a member of the opposite sex, in which case they would be mistaken.
it's a symptom of a sick society where morality is simply defined as whatever makes you happy and will slowly destroy our countries over the next few centuries. However, nothing drastic will happen in my lifetime so I don't care.
That assumes all females respond positively to the notion or image of female to female sex, and would still be heterosexual, while all males are repulsed by male-to-male sex and therefore others who are not must be active heterosexuals.
Both gays and straights look to find similarities and analogs between heterosex and homosex that aren't there, looking for equivalencies.
Sex between two males does not follow the same instinctive dynamics as it does between male and female. The latter has cultural context to support it, the former does not.
Many males view or even approach sex with another male as an expression of domination, humiliation and degradation, not as 'sex' in the heterosexual sense of the term. The motivations are different, and therefore so is the interpretation.
Some look at it and relate to the one penetrated as being pitiable and are repulsed. Some find it comical, some find it an absurd spectacle, some look at it as vice with no cultural context at all. And some relate to the male doing the penetrating and have a vicarious thrill seeing another male being degraded and humiliated in the most extreme way, relating to the power rush and domination. Some are either intrigued or repulsed just because it is considered taboo. Some simply look at it as an alternative sex.
Most of these dont relate to a specific preference, and a specific preference can view it different or even multiple ways.
>>56612075
>If you introduce yourself licking a lollipop
JAFFA CALLING
>>56625075
B-but, what if we want to have a threesome with you Finnbro?
>>56624615
>So your first objective should be to police straight marriages
I have multiple objectives; as well, sometimes these things largely resolve themselves
> to make sure nobody is married without children
it's not relevant
>to get rid of divorce
just "no-fault" divorce. sometimes it is called for.
>gay marriage is a relatively minor issue
that's true, but it's still wrong; see >>56624627
>How is 'no-fault divorce' madness? If one person doesn't want to stay in the marriag
Let me just put it this way; it increases psychosocial pressure, and the more pressure, the more people crack. look at the crime rate in black communities full of single mothers
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/formans/DefiningDeviancy.htm
simple put, divorce is a fault, and unless there is a greater justifying fault to remain, it is better to stay together. >40% of all single mothers (and their children) live in poverty. It creates bitter people, and the effect of failure cascades. social science has proven that too (having had previous partners makes future relationship success less likely).
>Since you believe in traditional marriage, does this extend to arranged marriages?
"having been arranged" is secondary to the primary truth of marriage, which we've been discussing. In many cultures people meet and couple with greater degrees of freedom. I'd say there's probably a good balance somewhere in between those 2 poles (the rigidity of the East and the laxity of the West)
>>56624199
>bible
Let me tell you what my countrymen think of it.
It's shit. Everyone in their right mind thinks of christians as mentally ill people. Yes, there are laws protecting them. Yes, you are the worst person ever if you badmouth them in real life. Doesn't stop the internet community from shitting on them on the net.
In other words, our christians are equivalent to your homosexuals.
>>56608343
I don't see why they'd want it, they're better of without marriage.
But personally, I can't wait for them to go through heavy divorce cases. Not because I like to see them suffer, just to see how the court/public will handle it.
I've know many lesbians (more that gays) and they are often pretty vicious towards eachother compared to straight couples. So when the shit comes down (and I know it will happen a lot) they'll want to get as much as possible out of the deal. The problem is - no bias to help them get the advantage over the other, not in the classic sense. Will the butch lesbian be screwed over? What if they're both pretty innocent looking girls?
A divorce will become a battle of wits and manipulation.
