![marriage-is-about-love-gay-marriage-26811416-500-375[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/k9WeDuy.jpg "marriage-is-about-love-gay-marriage-26811416-500-375[1]")
Give me one good reason why gay people shouldn't be allowed to get married you homophobic assholes. JUST FUCKING ONE.
they like poo
>>69522404
This thread is /b/ tier bait. Everyone here knows that homosexuality is disordered and that the queer marriage movement is a Jewish scheme to advance degeneracy in the West.
>>69522404
And sex is about biological realities, not love.
Wanna play some more?
>he fell for the gay people are healthy meme
>he fell for cultural marxism
>he actually listens to the TV and celebrities over Chruch and reason
if they love each other why do they need a special certificate saying they love each other
>>69522404
Somebody with half decent shoops skills, please change the last line into NOT AGE. Or alternatively into NOT SPECIES. Or into NOT CONSANGUINITY.
Marriage is about procreating and improving your economic standing.
>>69522404
OP BTFO. off to plebbit i suppose.
>>69522404
Marriage is about money not love.
>>69523155
wrong one
>>69522871
visitation rights, adoption rights, etc.
>>69522404
because they'll just find something else to bitch about. give them an inch they take a mile
>>69522404
Because it is a farce. Gay monogamy is a myth and marriage is all about exclusivity.
>>69522404
Libtard shill
Go back to /b/
Marriage is about reproduction, and a contract uniting two families, not just two individuals
it is NOT about love, at least it wasn't until the Eternal Anglo destroyed the family with the idea of romance poisoning the minds of women and doing away with arranged marriage
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-08-22/features/sc-senpai-0821-arranged-marriage-20120821_1_marriages-free-choice-satisfaction
The contemporary concept of marriage is a disaster. All legal and tax benefits that come from marriage should be transferred to a secular civil union so that each religion can keep its own definitions of "marriage" and there is no possibility of the state being discriminatory.
>>69523972
I mean that marriage should be a religious institution, and civil unions could replace what we have now, pertaining to parenting rights, etc. as a state institution so that the churches can retain their rights to define marriage, without breaking any laws or having to regulate marriage for other people.
>>69522404
The exact logic used in OPs pic could very easily be applied to pedophilia, incest, and beastiality
1/10 b8 for getting me to reply
>>69523761
>Marriage is about reproduction
Marriage is about a lot of things. Land and property rights. Dowries. Not just children. Why shouldn't gay people get to be married because they're missing one thing from the batch? Should people who don't own their own property not be allowed to marry either?
>>69523761
Nice link shitlord.
>>69523485
This is bullshit. My best friend is gay and he's been in a stable relationship with his partner for almost 5 years now. Plenty of gay people are monogamous.
Two men don't deserve tax breaks by dicking each other, they already make more money according to your wage gap.
>>69522404
Tradition is extremely important for maintaining healthy and strong societies
When you destroy centuries old institutions just so that a small minority of people can be appeased then you are committing cultural suicide
>>69523485
>the marriage traditionalist is an expert on gays and their love lives
Every time
>>69522404
They eat the poopoo, we can't let them eat the poopoo of our children
>>69525014
>your wage gap
don't pin the blam for feminism on gay dudes. faggot
>>69522404
No, marriage is a social contract and has nothing to do with love. Men agree to provide for the family if a women bares his children. But that's all meaningless now, so if a guy wants to take it up the ass from another man, go right ahead. Nothing was keeping anyone from doing that anyway.
>>69524891
>This is bullshit. My best friend is gay and he's been in a stable relationship with his partner for almost 5 years now. Plenty of gay people are monogamous.
>One case disproves research done on gay couples.
>50% of the gays getting HIV, got it from their "monogamous" partner
Are sure they don't have an open relationship?
>>69524891
Marriage and sexuality are still inherently about reproduction. All that other stuff is just bonus benefits, not actually an essential part of marriage.
Gay sexuality defies the natural law by taking reproductive sex organs and applying them to a non-reproductive end.
Homosexual couples will still end up bitching about social justice more, just like niggers, bitches, trannies, spics and sand niggers.
>>69522404
Marriage is about the distribution of property, not love.
>>69522783
Because 100% of straight sex leads to babies right?
WOOSH
>>69525926
100% of babies were an creation of strait sex you dumb shit
>>69522404
Low quality shill.
>>69525234
Without the regressive left, neither third-wave feminism nor the queer "rights" movement would exist. It's the same crowd driving both movements.
That said, I agree that gay dudes are definitely far better than feminists, and are by no means personally responsible for feminism.
>>69522404
Marriage is between a man and a woman. Just like reproductive sex.
>>69523220
>muh fee-fees are hurt by gay people
>>69526041
>What is artificial insemination?
>>69523414
Or several inches of dick disgusting freaks
>>69522404
They had Civil Unions, but apparently those weren't good enough.
Why weren't they good enough?
>>69526131
Actually reproductive sex is about a sperm, egg and a womb. Give it enough time and womb will become obsolete. Men are certainly not needed to make babies anymore. And soon women might not be needed either.
Get with the times.
>>69522404
marriage is about kids and nothing else
>>69526161
Still requires one of each sex genius. Got any more witty little retorts in your bag of tricks?
>>69526487
There are millions of people that get married and never have kids.
The reason gay marriage is such an issue is because with marriage you have tons of tax incentives and insurance benefits, etc. Prohibiting gay people from getting married prohibits them from benefiting from the legalities of marriage.
>>69522708
/thread
>>69526461
>men are not needed
Where do they get sperm from then if not from men?
>>69522404
Mariage is privilege. Not right.
>>69526724
from the sperm bank
Marriage isn't about love.
>>69522404
Gays want legal marriage because they want to be domesticated and chastised as a political tool.
>>69525105
go to a parade for proof, ask them you leaf, gays are proudly promiscuous. while you can not control how you feel, you can control how you act
>>69526778
And who makes the sperm they put in the sperm bank?
>>69522404
I have none. The jews got to me.
>>69526726
What is a right in your opinion?
>>69522404
The propagation of white progeny
>muh equal rights
every single person in america has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex.
>>69522404
Because marriage is a religious institution and it shouldn't be endorsed by the government anyways. The very fact that it's a requirement for tax breaks is a violation of the principle of Separation of Church and State.
The government should have its own terminology. Things like "partnership" and "domestic group" for any pair or number of people that wish to file taxes together. Marriage shouldn't be a part of it at all.
Non-religious people are not entitled to marriage. No one is. Marriage is a religious idea that was hijacked by the government and now it needs to be reclaimed as a purely religious notion. The fact that so many non-religious people people are trying to change what marriage is is just a testament to this simple solution.
>>69525712
>Marriage . . . is still inherently about reproduction.
Show me a lawbook that backs that statement up. Children are tax writeoffs, sure, but nowhere in the definition or the spirit of the laws does it enforce that marriage = children.
>>69527132
that one man who donated when the sperm bank first opened decades ago. You seem to be missing the point here. Men are NO LONGER NEEDED is not the same as men were NEVER NEEDED.
And I want to make sure we are talking about the same thing here. This is about making babies, not making babies for Anon. There's a difference. Scientist can make babies without men or women because they already have the materials needed banked up in order to do so.
So this idea that you need a man and a woman to make babies is archaic, it's old fashion thinking, it's unevolved.
>>69522404
>human being
>faggot
Pick one.
You are a birth defect, and a reproductive dead end.
"Homophobe"? No one is afraid of you, we are disgusted by you.
You are similar to dog shit on the bottom of a shoe. No one is afraid of that, but they are naturally disgusted by it.
And the reason why your suicide rate is so high? Because deep down inside, you know there is something wrong with you.
>>69522404
They should. A gay man should be allowed to marry any woman that will have him. A gay woman should be allowed to marry any man she can convince. That's the equal right to straights.
But a man and another man is not a marriage, regardless of what they may want to call it.
>Marriage is about love
Marriage is not, and never ever has been about love. It has always been about property and economics. Fucking disney retards.
>>69527572
This.
>>69524891
Homosexuals cannot reproduce thus marriage contracts in this context are pointless.
>>69522404
because marital tax benefits exist to encourage white children and jews exist to encourage the opposite
>>69527543
So what happens if no men contribute to the sperm banks and they run out? It's a finite resource there champ. Would the human race start reproducing by budding? Men are still required for reproduction.
>>69527572
chuckled because of the HARSH TRUTH that you fagbags have to deal with on a daily basis, HILARIOUS.
>>69527863
>because marital tax benefits exist to encourage white children
A: Wow, racist much?
B: It's not about children. Children are separate tax writeoffs when you file your taxes. It's completely different.
>>69528098
Where do you think children come from, fag?
And it's not racist, it's true. You're a racist for jumping to the conclusion that everything is racist so quickly, you racist.
>>69527499
It's about the natural law, not a human law that one can look up in a lawbook. Look at the design of sexual organs, and the function of marriage across the world: sex is clearly oriented towards reproducing.
Also, I pity you if you use the U.S. legal code as a moral guide for anything.
>>69526461
Shit posting? From an Australian? Incredible!
Marriage is supposed to be a system of subsidizing the replenishment of taxpayers by making it more affordable to have children. Married couples who don't have at least two children are essentially committing fraud.
Gays, outside of some very specific circumstances involving third parties acting on their behalf, can't procreate in a monogamous relationship. Unless they create an artificial womb, and feminists will do everything in their power to prevent the redundancy of women, the only ones reasonably able to do this are women through sperm donors. Once, again, however, that loops back to the problem of monogamy and the fact that the child will be born a bastard no matter how much you try to flower it away with
>muh love.
It was never about love; it was always about the money.
>>69522404
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrD8zvCUtWc
>>69522404
They are degenerates who will run our country into the ground.
THEY ARE FAGGOTS.
>>69528240
>Where do you think children come from, fag?
From straights breeding, obviously, but your claim was that marriage was about production of children. I am telling you that according to American tax codes, that is not what marriage is about. Gays won't be putting children on their taxes unless they adopt, obviously, so marriage is literally the same aside from horrific and outdated Christian definitions of marriage. They fill out the same forms and, in the eyes of the law, are completely the same.
/pol/ BTFO.
>>69528311
I'm seeing appeals to emotion but not to logic.
>>69522404
There isn't, you're right. However all homosexual propaganda should be banned and it should not be pushed onto the main stream.
Keep your faggotry in the bedroom
>>69522404
Because there are churches all around the United States that want no business with them because of their beliefs, and gays can push it down their throats forcefully.
>>69522404
>marriage is about love
According to who? It's a legal contract. If you want to be with someone forever, why involve the state? Because you want certain legal protections afforded by the state in the event things go tits up.
>>69527995
Do you know how much sperm a scientist can extract from one man in one sitting? Enough sperm to make millions of babies. Each male baby will produce their own sperm. Its a finite resource that can potentially be exploited to never run out.
Men are as required for reproduction as you are required to go to the town well to get drinking water. If all CURRENT men on this planet became sterile there is still enough banked sperm to ensure humanities survival. If all past, present and future sperm became sterile that would be another story completely.
But as things are currently and with the technology we have, you can say that men are not needed to make babies. That's just fact. The technology might not be mainstream, socially accepted but doesn't mean we can't do it.
>>69522404
"Gay marriage is a straight conspiracy, to make gay people just as boring and depressed as straight people are."
There you go, THAT'S FUCKING ONE.
>>69528474
Where is the appeal to emotion? I'm saying all you have to do is look at sex and sexual biology objectively, and you will see that it's about reproduction, not about "land and property rights" or any of the other external benefits you mentioned in your original post.
>>69527572
K den hitler
>>69528909
Sex is independent of marriage. Try again.
>>69527543
You just said that reproductive sex is not about a man and a woman, but about a sperm and an egg. Until they figure out how to make sperm out of eggs, I'd say there's always an ephemeral Chad McManSteed with his industry grade procreation juice looming on the horizon.
>>69522404
Honestly i used to not give a shit what you did but now the years of whining i am sick of it. I half hope the Muslims take over at least it will put an end to the constant you have to accept me whine from you faggots. Wave to me on your way down when they teach you to fly from the nearest tall building.
>>69522404
I don't need any arguments because Im a homophob.
Marriage is a religious rite about love. State supported marriage is a sham.
>>69529138
That only changes his argument to being against gay sex rather than gay marriage. It doesn't make his argument less valid. You should be attacking the fact that he is assuming that our organs and bodily features were created with the intent to do something in particular, rather than a result of selective pressures in the environment.
The fact that you aren't makes you look like a retard.
>>69528613
If that were true they wouldn't have those draconian rules for sperm donors where they have you donate sperm basically every week and you can't pull out in every sense of the word. Truth is they still need it as fresh as possible and in as large a quantity as possible, all this for a good reason.
We're not at level yet, my self-hating friend. Getting there, though. Definitely getting there.
>>69529138
I already gave you a reason (see above).
YOU... ARE... SHIT.
>>69529749
This desu senpai. Marriage has existed for all human history, most of which there was no registration, nor a state to even register the marriage with. This is still the case in many countries today.
Gay marriage wouldn't be talked about at all were it not for the fact that state sanctioned marriage exists.
Don't they have a disproportional amount of STDs compared to the rest of the population?
>>69528474
The law doesn't decide what marriage is. Neither do tax codes, which shouldn't be for anything other than revenue anyway. It's not just Christianity that decided marriage involves one woman and one man. It's every society in all of human history. But here along come the faggots and they insist on their special treatment.
Fag "marriage" is the best reason why fags should all be dragged into the street and shot.
>2020.
>Interspecies marriage is now legal.
B-but we love each other.
>>69530918
>But here along come the faggots and they insist on their special treatment.
But marriage is just two people who love eachother making a vow. How is that expecting special treatment?
Because we have to protect the gays from themselves. Dyes tend to go apeshit if they are bound to one woman at the time. They'll either het emotionally manipulative which leads to murderous tendenices and SJW bullshit. If physical abuse is there, they might get killed but blame it on someone else and then everyone else has to clean up their shitshow. Gay guys are okay with being duck butter buddies but they tend to internalize everything and get suicidal and/or manic depressive. Hell there was a study showing at 50% of gays will develop mental illness, especially schizophrenia. Because it's hip and cool to marry, you get in a contract with a ticking time bomb and when it goes off everyone gets fucked but somebody had to clean up the mess and the LGBTQ+ can't even keep their own house straight.
>>69522404
>you homophobic assholes
What would you call a Muslim then? They kill fags. They should get you next.
>>69522783
>And sex is about biological realities, not love.
OP's talking about love, not sex
>>69523060
>Marriage is about procreating and improving your economic standing.
I guess there should be a law that you must have a child if you're married, right? Or else no rights.
>>69523761
>It is NOT about love, at least it wasn't until the Eternal Anglo destroyed the family with the idea.
Behind the times. Do you still use sundials or typewriters? Or do you think we live in a third-world country?
>>69525014
>Two men don't deserve tax breaks by dicking each other
Neither do you shitlord
>>69525097
>a small minority
9 million in the US at least. Not including ones that are in the closet because they're afraid of being bullied/killed by people.
>>69527572
>And the reason why your suicide rate is so high? Because deep down inside, you know there is something wrong with you.
No, studies have shown that it's because of people like you, cancer
>>69527572
> "birth defect", and a reproductive dead end.
You call it a birth defect, but any genetic trait that reduces the chances of producing the offspring usually gets eliminated very quickly in populations. Homosexuality is EVERYWHERE in the animal kingdom.
>>69528311
>It's about the natural law, not a human law
Hooking up and sex is natural law, a made-up ceremony like marriage is human law.
>>69529953
>Are you seriously so shortsighted that you don't think gay marriage will involve gay sex?
Are you seriously so shortsighted to believe there's never been a marriage with lack of/ without sex?
wow so much dogshit here
>>69528594
>Because there are churches all around the United States that want no business with them because of their beliefs, and gays can push it down their throats forcefully.
The LGBT movement want basic rights from the government, not to add a book in the bible saying "let there be gays"
>>69527482
>Because marriage is a religious institution
Then I guess all non-religious marriages should be illegal right?
They shouldn't be allowed tax breaks, visitation rights, adoption rights, etc?
>>69532010
Because obviously that's not what marriage is. Faggots have literally "redefined" the word.
By your definition, you would be permitted to "marry" a 2 year old. Which is probably what you want anyway, you sick fuck.
>>69532715
>"i want to marry the love of my life" (who happens to be from the same gender
> "you want to fuck a 2 year old? The fuck is wrong with you, you sick fuck?!!"
>>69533039
>marriage is just two people who love eachother making a vow
You said it, pedophile. Not me. Besides, homosexuality and pedophilia are the same brain disease. Which is why over 80% of fags admit to having sodomized a boy under the age of 19.
>>69522404
Because marriage is a religious institution and not a government one. The government should not recognize marriage. Instead religion should cover it.
So you'd just have to find a faggot religion that doesn't care about disgusting acts.
>>69527572
>The first ones that will be skinned alive by shitskins
WE LOVE MUSLIMS!
>>69533742
Exactly. They're fucking mental.
>>69533324
citeit
>>69533324
>brain disease
>disease
marriage is about children, love is a bonus
>People still dont know /pol/ is a gay board
lmao
>>69534166
>73% of all homosexuals have had sex with boys under 19 years of age
Jay and Young. The Gay Report. Summit Books, 1979, p. 275.
cited in http://www.consumingfirefellowship.org/Homosexual%20Fact%20Sheet.htm
>>69534256
it's not just the woman you marry, it's the family you're marrying into you should be thinking about.
>>69534637
of c
>>69522404
As a gay bloke I don't give a shit about the state, don't need to dodge taxes by getting a economic policy made exclusive for people who breed, and don't need to pretend to be a victim.
They can ban gay marriage for all I care as long as they don't restrict my partner from living here.
>>69532396
Or you know, going into areas known for fundmentalism or conservative values demanding respect out of sheer want for contreversy like they've done for the last few years to the point there's probably fiften incidents of "CHRISTIAN BAKERS DIDN'T BAKE MY CAKE"
>>69534539
HOL UP
So u be sayin
73% of gays been playing tummysticks since at least a year after becoming legal consenting adults?
SSSSHIIIEEEEEET
>>69532237
Homosexuality isn't predominant in the animal kingdom. Something like 1000 species being gay can sound like a lot but there's 8 billion species on this planet, majority either asexual or heterosexual. So it is in fact a fucking defect.
>>69534539
>1979
>Literally citing a study older than most people on this board
LMAO try again homophobe
I actually think it's good they get married. Gays have a problem with degenerate behavior like having multiple sex partners or open relationships. If they're forced into same as straight couples it might eventually lead to them sticking to one person only since people in general treat cheating in marriage worse. Fuck faggots like Milo who think it's admirable to fuck as many niggers as possible.
>>69536317
>Fuck faggots like Milo who think it's admirable to fuck as many niggers as possible.
Citation required.
>>69536280
Stats are stats. That was before the homosexual lobby infiltrated universities to the point that actual research can't get done.
>>69534539
>>73% of all homosexuals have had sex with boys under 19 years of age
But, that's legal. And it's probably like 95% of heterosexual males have had sex with girls 19 and under lol.
>>69536414
He blatantly shames Dave Rubin who chose to live in monogamous relationship and get engaged because it "goes against his nature" as gay man. He constantly talks about sucking nigger dick.
>>69536280
I didn't realize there was a statute of limitations on facts. If you want to explain why the data is no longer relevant, then give it your best shot, but just because it's older than your underaged ass doesn't mean it can't be true.
>>69536477
>It's a conspiracy!!!
K cupcake.
>>69522404
Give me one good reason the government should have any say in who or what gets married. JUST FUCKING ONE.
>>69536317
Since when did america become the figure of degenerate behaviour?
I've only ever seen such statistics come from america, and for fuck sake australia had a white australia policy untill the 70s, so I''m doubting that we suddenly started to become liberal faggots, especially considerable our politics.
I honestly just think this faggots being degenerate thing just came from people generalizing american behaviours for white people.
>>69536636
>Attention seeking queen, seeks attention
BREAKING NEWS
>>69536741
Woah, I'm tired.
>For the rest of gays in the west
>>69522708
/thread
>>69536741
Actually it's originally UK not America
But you all share the same degenerate Anglo blood
>>69536602
18-19 is legal, but still wrong for an 80 year old man to abuse a 19 year old boy. However, under 19 of course includes actual children, many of whom homosexuals have also abused.
Because homosexuals are pedophiles.
>>69536699
The masses are brain dead cattle no different from a baby. They have been conditioned to be like this, dependent on the teet of their govt. infants have no rights.
there is no justification.
>>69536893
Nice deflecting
>>69536691
I don't think it's just one giant conspiracy, obviously. However it is undeniable that the extant cultural hegemony heavily favors faggots, and is heavily prejudiced against straights. Furthermore honest research can't be done because it won't be funded, and if it doesn't come to the foregone conclusions that faggots are perfectly good and moral, the ideological thought police will suppress the results and ruin the careers of the researchers.
>>69522404
Marriage is not about love, it's about tradition.
Anyway, why UK and America? Because America had the worst situation with AIDS and Reagan didn't do anything about it. UK because late 80s and 90s the usage of alcohol and drugs among brits skyrocketed.
>>69537058
>Furthermore honest research can't be done because it won't be funded, and if it doesn't come to the foregone conclusions that faggots are perfectly good and moral, the ideological thought police will suppress the results and ruin the careers of the researchers.
That's just plain not true, and I challenge you to find me an example of gays shutting down research like that. Just one.
>>69532598
You don't need to be married to establish visitation rights with anyone you choose. Just set up the legal paperwork that is STILL simpler than getting a marriage license. The only people who don't realize this are people that have never tried to get visitation rights and are just trying to list off how 'innocent people are harmed' by keeping marriage traditional.
>>69537161
So it wasn't sexuality, it was practically just negative cultural behaviour and practices.
>>69537232
Just playing the devil's advocate here, why the fuck would people who've been fighting to be recognized as average people then want to have scientific research declare them otherwise?
>>69536903
Eh, I'm not convinced that homosexuals are that much more likely to be pedos. Especially considering entire relgions are based around heterosexual pedophilia. And heteosexual laws surrounding marriage, age of consent, etc. are all pretty pedo-friendly. Hell, child porn was legal throughout much of Europe well into the 70s. Some of their biggest sellers were fat sweaty Danish guys fucking 12 year girls on camera.
>>69522404
I'm for small government and I believe in most conservative beliefs but I don't care who marries who.
>>69537106
No it's not.
It's about merging tribes and families.
Google that shit.
>>69537232
Okay. Look up the NFSS. It was done by an honest researcher who expected to find that fag "parents" are normal. When he found the opposite, the thought police suppressed the results from publication. It took the taxpayers of the state of Texas (it was a public university funded survey) suing to force the school to release the findings. Then the survey was "discredited," because the researcher conflated homosexual males with "men who have sex with men." Because apparently to the faggot infested university community, there is such a thing as a man who has sex with men but isn't gay. When that failed to have the intended suppressive results, they mounted a campaign of personal destruction against the researcher himself, in a typical leftist attempt to destroy his reputation and career.
So, now that you've been #TOLD faggot, what are you going to do? Are you going to admit that I'm right and the facts are on my side?
No. You're going to double down on your faggotry. You're going to pretend that didn't happen, or attack it yourself, or attack me. Because facts that contradict your orthodoxy have to be silenced in the extant cultural hegemony, of which you yourself are a part. You are a Catholic priest silencing supporters of Galileo, insisting that the universe is geocentric.
>>69537390
Sounds like no more than anti-Catholic bigotry to me. age of consent laws exist in the first place as hetereosexual. Their very existence proves the opposite of your claim.
>>69536903
>However, under 19 of course includes actual children, many of whom homosexuals have also abused.
>Includes actual children
DAMN SON
there are CHILDREN who are younger than 19?
Those are some mad facts you be droppin
How many of them were "children" btw famallama?
Cuz that whole age of consent thing tends to shift around states.
Also good to know only males are getting molested by other adult gay males. Guess girls got nothing to worry about now since all pedophiles are gay!
>>69537359
The sexuality part comes from the fact that when there are two men involved, it's more easy to have sex.
Most men would and will cheat on their wife if they're offered something better. No one should deny this, our biology wants us to act like degenerates. But since men rarely get such opportunity unless they pay for it, they stick with their wife.
>>69522404
Its against the bible
>This is a bait thread
>>69537806
Appeal to nature is honestly retarded comparison, especially when you're failing to actually apply it.
>>69537758
You're backwards. All gays are pedophiles. Thanks for playing.
>>69537750
>Sounds like no more than anti-Catholic bigotry to me.
How so? I was talking about Muslims.
>Age of consent laws exist in the first place as hetereosexual. Their very existence proves the opposite of your claim.
Right, but if you look up the age of consent laws, you will see that they are often well under 18. In fact, until very recently, many proud heterosexual cultures had age of consent laws as low as 12 and 13. IE - legal pedophilia.
There is no reason gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry each other. The government should not be involved in any marriage. Religious institutions should be allowed to have bullshit ceremonies if they want to.
Let the butt-fugging commence.
>>69537815
have many bible rules have you broken
>>69538009
Because it's popular to pretend that Catholics are pedos these days. More people hate Catholics than hate fags, and at least the fags deserve it.
Age of consent laws tend to be under 18 to protect against things like a guy turning 19 and having sex with his 17 year old girlfriend the next day being a sex crime. You're really just pointing out the limitations of bright line laws. They're still used in the common law tradition for a reason, though, whether you agree with it or not.
>>69538123
None as bad as the proscription against faggotry.
Thou shalt not lay with mankind as with womankind. It is abomination.
>>69537909
GAYS BTFO
How can bumfiddlers recover?
I mean, anon's got opinions AND pics of boys kissing.
Facts ain't got nothing on homie over here!
>>69537592
So let's assume you're actually telling the truth here for a minute and not just being a homophobe mad that his racist paper got shut the fuck down for hate speech.
So what, people shouldn't be allowed to marry because they're "degenerate"? Should people under a certain income bracket not be allowed to marry either? Urban youths are more prone to crime and poverty. Maybe we shouldn't let them get married either.
>>69538362
>Age of consent laws tend to be under 18 to protect against things like a guy turning 19 and having sex with his 17 year old girlfriend the next day being a sex crime.
I agree that that's the case today, but I find it hard to believe such considerations were being made when a number of countries and US states set them as low as 12 and 13.
>They're still used in the common law tradition for a reason, though, whether you agree with it or not.
It's not really consequential whether I agree with them. I was merely pointing out that there is a long and strong and robust tradition of reglious-approved and legally-sanctioned heterosexual pedophilia. I only point this out as a counter-point to this idea that pedophilia is somehow only a homosexual problem.
>>69522404
>marriage is about love, not species
>marriage is about love, not age
I understand the whole slide fallacy, but fucking really man. Really?
I agree with you and you are still a retarded shitposter.
>>69538447
At least you can say you're a good person who is holier than thou, good for you, may you get everything you deserve
>>69538521
You're pretty heavy on snark, as is typical for faggots. Light on facts, though. I suspect the cock in your ass has affected your brain.
>>69538697
Pointing out that fags are terrible to the children they are inflected on to raise is racist? That's hilarious, considering race was not even studied!
But thanks for proving my point, though. You don't like the findings, so they're hate speech and should be suppressed.
Nice try at conflating the issue with something else when you get wrecked, though. More proof of the fundamental dishonesty of homosexuals.
Give me one good reason to marry a woman. I bet you can't. They're all terrible
>>69539072
its ok no one is ever going to want to marry you anyways.
Dumping lesbian wedding pics
Marriage is an outdated legal arrangement that comes from a time when you traded goats for women. When you sign that paper the fine print you're signing up for is literally books full of legal precedents and nonsense that, when you decide you don't want to be married anymore, you will pay lawyers $300 an hour to understand until you go broke.
You wanna get married faggots? You go right fucking ahead. You had it good, now you fucked it up.
>>69539309
>>69538775
Your incredulity is not an argument. Age of consent laws around menarche are reasonable from a biological standpoint. Especially in times when youth mortality rates are high, and average expected lifespans are much lower than they are today.
Further I would dispute that a law that sets the age of consent at 12 is sanctioning pedophilia. If two twelve year olds have sex, are they both pedophiles? Are they abusing one another? Especially in an era where consent theory isn't the driving philosophy governing sexuality?
Your counterpoint is making the same mistake as that other anon. I never said that all pedos are fags. I said all fags are pedos. Which is true. It's part of the homosexual brain disease to desire children, who more resemble females.
>>69539355
>>69539374
>>69538793
At least I can say that our society only functions with a public sense of morality, and that as morality goes away so does society.
>>69539021
The only point you've made was that gays are "degenerate" according to some homophobic study and that's why they shouldn't get married. That's not a point and it's not a conflation of the issue to point out that other demographs also have higher crime rates and promiscuity and still are allowed to marry. So why the homophobia?
>>69539430
>>69522404
It's the gateway drug for retarded liberalism. It in and of itself is not terrible, its the fucking shills running the movement. THEY dont actually want expansion of rights, they wanna feel important and have power.
>>69539328
You won't have any progeny that is worth a shit and that is a good thing. The future looks much better without your kind.
>>69539501
>So why the homophobia?
insecurity. anyone who looks at all the pics iv posted still thinks lesbians shouldnt be allowed to get married is just plain salty.
>>69522404
Marriage is about PROCREATION, not love.
>>69522404
I don't have anything against gay people marrying.
I have a thing against divorce. Marriage isn't just between two people. It involves their families, friends and community. It is a convenant not just between two people, but to everyone. To not just be together, but to build upon it. Just like all of your relationships to your family, friends and community.
To divorce is not just a destruction of a covenant. It is a destruction of character. If such a relationship can just be thrown away then what is the meaning of all other relationships that is currently maintained?
If you married a fucking loser then just separate. A divorce isn't worth marring yourself. Sadly not everyone has a choice because it's the parents and community's fault (aka arranged), but divorce shouldn't be an excuse for other's faults. Very few can hold their dignity and backbone in such shitty situations, so I understand that they need help the most.
>>69526133
>muh fee-fees are hurt cause some asshole said their private business, which they own and administrate, wont cater my wedding!
>>69539719
Already discussed. It's not just about procreation. It's multifaceted; property rights and visitation rights are included.
Saying that gays shouldn't be able to get married because they can't procreate is like saying poor people shouldn't be able to get married because they don't own a house.
>>69539719
>Marriage is about PROCREATION, not love.
> t. forever alone virgin
If marriage was only about procreation then married couples would be forced to have kids. They arent. Marriage is a thing so people who are together for a long time can get certain spousal rights to make living together easier.
>>69526133
It's more like a sense of melancholy at the decline of Western civilization. I love how you people downplay your degeneracy. It's not you that's the problem, it's everyone else who takes issue with your displays of mental illness.
>>69539620
I certainly hope not, I paid a surgeon good money to make sure that never happens.
Enjoy your complex legal arrangement.
>>69538858
Oh shit son
you turned up the heat!
See that cake boys? We found your gay ass coloring books!
I bet they don't even kiss girls.
>>69522404
>Give me one good reason why gay people shouldn't be allowed to get married you homophobic assholes. JUST FUCKING ONE.
By gaining the right to be married legally, they would have to pay increased taxes the same way that heteros do.
Also, faggots aren't real people, they have no humanity, and should be shot.
>>69539877
>of mental illness.
>0 proof that being gay is a mental illness other than your fee fees
stay mad son
>>69539430
>De kike, boss. De kike!
>>69539366
>Age of consent laws around menarche are reasonable from a biological standpoint.
Yes, but isn't the main concern regarding pedophilia that it's psychologically damaging to the child?
I would dispute that a law that sets the age of consent at 12 is sanctioning pedophilia.
How so? It made legal adult males having sex with children. And as you noted earlier, these consent laws only mirrored prevailing practices at the time at common law, particularly with regard to taking child brides.
If two twelve year olds have sex, are they both pedophiles? Are they abusing one another?
I feel like you are being disingenuous with this line of reasoning, unless you truly believe that such considerations were the primary motivators behind the laws.
>I said all fags are pedos. Which is true.
It's equally true that all heterosexuals are pedos.
>>69522404
gay people should be allowed to marry. Government just shouldn't be forcing religious people to marry them. In fact government should have no involvement in marriage at all, apart from supporting the procreation of the next generation. Which btw, gay people suck balls at.
Now get off my board libtard
>>69539501
Incorrect. You challenged me to provide you with an example of the homosexual enabling extant cultural hegemony suppressing academic research because it did not come to the foregone conclusion that fags are good and normal.
>>69537232
>and I challenge you to find me an example of gays shutting down research like that. Just one.
Just one, you said. Because you were SO confident that it didn't exist. So, I gave you a great one that fulfills your exact scenario: The New Family Structures Survey.
>>69537592
So then you, without so much as googling it, called it racist hate speech, and implied that it should be "shut the fuck down." Basically because you didn't like its conclusions sight unseen, just because I used it as an example to blow you the FUCK out.
>>69538697
Which is my exact point. You can't have honest research today because it shows unequivocally that gays are bad. This contradicts the orthodox ideology, so it must be suppressed. When confronted with facts that contradict your ideology, you reject the facts and double down on your ideology. Your own replies prove this, as I showed here.
>>69539021
So now you're backtracking like a motherfucker, desperately trying to do some damage control.
>>69539501
In a word, you challenged me, and I beat your challenge. You just don't like it because you're ideologically committed to the untrue notion that fags are good. So here. Let me help you.
http://www.familystructurestudies.com/
That site compiles the research findings into a nifty little web tool that explains in a very accessible way just how bad faggot parents are for children. So the research was published despite fag suppression. Why don't you read it. I bet you won't even find it to be unreasonable.
Or you can do what we all know you're going to do anyway: shove your fingers in your ears and insist that everyone who disagrees with you is just a hateful bigot and therefore can be dismissed.
>>69540015
>sometimes lesbians are also jewish
WOW. You know most jews are straight right?
>>69539950
Why do you say faggots propagandize children into homosexuality, if not to groom them for pedophilic abuse?
>>69539501
>homophobic
There's the little buzzword faggots like to use, just like when blacks call you "racist" when they can't get their way. Reminder -
>human being
>faggot
Pick one.
You are a birth defect, and a reproductive dead end.
"Homophobe"? No one is afraid of you, we are disgusted by you.
You are similar to dog shit on the bottom of a shoe. No one is afraid of that, but they are naturally disgusted by it.
And the reason why your suicide rate is so high? Because deep down inside, you know there is something wrong with you.
>>69522404
The state should not be involved in the personal relationships of private citizens. Ever.
There was a time when this served a purpose, but it not longer does. "Legal" marriage should be abolished. If private citizens wish to have a solemn service and desire to identify themselves as "married" according to their traditions, beliefs, religion, culture, identity, or whatever, that is fine, but there is absolutely no reason for government to be involved in any of it.
>>69526084
>Without the regressive left...
I have never understood the use of this term. While it applies, certainly, it would still be apt to call them "progressives," since progress can still take place in a negative trend. Observe:
>Sorry, Anon, but despite our best efforts to treat your cancer, it is still progressing. What you can expect now is that your symptoms will get progressively worse as time goes on, and, if the current rate of progress remains unchecked, we expect that you may have six months to live.
The word "progress" does not necessarily imply a positive outcome. One can make progress in the wrong direction. It is, therefore, more apt to spin the term in the opposite direction, since it is grammatically correct.
One can legitimately make progress on the road to hell. We should make this known.
>>69540202
>http://www.familystructurestudies.com/
>literally linking religiously funded anti gay propaganda
HAHAHAHAHAHAH
Yeah if thats not 100% biased and false then im the queen of england.
>>69539427
God is more concerned about an individuals own sense of morality, each is responsible for his or her own action. You know Christ was never quick to anger but the one thing he hated most is hypocrites.
>>69522799
>church and reason
>church
>reason
kek americans really are the dumbest
>he doesn't know faggots could provide money
Three words you uneducated cunts
GAY. BRIDAL. INDUSTRY.
>>69539366
>the homosexual brain disease to desire children, who more resemble females.
>Homosexual brain disease
>desire children b/c they look female
>Gays want to diddle little boys b/c they look like girls
At last I truly see
>>69540371
She grew up in a shit hole mining town, poor girl.
>>69540527
Children deserve to grow up in an environment free from drugs, aids and constant exposure to semen/fecal matter.
>>69540066
Well, I suppose I would be forced to agree that child sexual abuse is stigmatized and criminalized because it ruins lives. So yes. Of course, the majority of homosexuals were gayed through a process of CSA.
An age of consent of 12 may have decriminalized adults having sex with 12 year olds, although those laws are typically much more complex than that. I think they were more for the point of allowing young people to marry and start adult life earlier, because again, lifespans were shorter.
Oh, and I never made the point that consent laws were mirroring common law practices. I said that bright line laws are part of a common law tradition, and touched on the idea that they're a problem everywhere you find them, but yet are still used for a reason despite that. I.E. If I drive 56 mph on the highway, technically I'm a criminal. But is 56 mph really all that worse than 55 mph?
>It's equally true that all heterosexuals are pedos.
Not according to Jay and Young, who point out that 73% of homosexuals are pedophiles. You have yet to provide data for what percentage of heterosexuals you consider to be pedophiles, but it would be absurd to consider it so high. Meanwhile, that's literally what it is for fags. Homosexuality and pedophilia are the same mental illness.
>>69540716
>ay and Young, who point out that 73% of homosexuals are pedophiles.
thats not a reputable source and if you think it is im embarrassed to live on the same continent as you.
>>69540673
So Aussie's shouldn't have children?
>>69540883
+200 upboats
>>69540373
Thanks for proving my point again.
http://www.prc.utexas.edu/nfss/
It is literally a publicly funded study out of the University of Texas at Austin. The researchers involved expected to find that there are no meaningful or important differences between children raised by fags versus children raised by straights. But that's not what they in fact found.
Consequently? You suppress the data because you don't like it.
This is what fags are always like. It's dishonest.
Consider. If one were a homosexual "parent" (and of course, only at most one homosexual can even be the actual parent of any given child), wouldn't one desire the best they could possibly give to their child? Wouldn't they want to make their kid's life better than theirs was? And if there's some risk or hazard that may exist from the parent's lifestyle which could negatively impact the child, wouldn't an actual parent want to know that? Because by knowing the risks, they can do something about them.
But that's not what the homo does. Instead he insists that fags inflicting themselves on kids has no possible problems whatsoever. And when the evidence comes out that's not so, they suppress the evidence and put their "children" at greater risk. That's what fag parenting is like. They're not really parents, so they don't really love their children. They're happy for them to have more negative outcomes in life, so long as they get their little status symbol.
>>69522404
No child should grow up without love from both parents! male and female. mother and father! also...anal sex is peak degeneracy. Any society that thinks one man putting his penis where another man shits is doomed!
>>69522799
>church
>reason
>same sentence
>>69540442
I am most concerned about the survival of my nation, and my society. Without societal morals, that cannot happen. Christ was angry plenty of times for the same reason. Furious, sometimes. He but had to see the money changers on the steps of the Temple of Solomon for him to fly into a rage and overturn their tables. Because they had degenerated in the exact same way our modern society has.
>>69541119
>http://www.prc.utexas.edu/nfss/
Your link doesnt say ANYTHING about what you says it does and the results arent even linked anywhere on the site.
I didnt read the rest of your post because its pure autism.
>>69540527
They prefer beardless, androgynous male children because they resemble females, yes. Remember, homosexual males are still biologically male. They're still driven by the same genetic and psychological evolution processes that operate in heterosexual males. They're just perverts.
>>69540814
It is a reputable source. Indeed, it's one of the most reputable because it is not subject to contemporary ideological thought policing, and the extant cultural hegemony that is hostile to honest research, but promoting of faggotry in all avenues.
>>69541319
>. They're just perverts.
holy shit you are dumb. homosexual men are attracted to MASCULINE men. You make it extremely obvious you have never been to a gay bar or interacted with any gay men in real life.
>>69541245
How nice it must be to absolve yourself of all sins in the name of patriotism.
>>69540716
>You have yet to provide data for what percentage of heterosexuals you consider to be pedophiles
Here's a study that found that the ratio of heterosexual pedophiles to homosexual pedophiles to be 11:1. J Sex Marital Ther. 1992 Spring;18(1):34-43.
So, out of 100 pedophiles, about 9 will be homosexual and about 91 will be heterosexual. This seems to roughly track percentages of homosexuality in the general population, which is often estimated to be about 10 out of 100.
What this suggests to me is that homosexuals and heterosexuals have about an equal change to be pedophiles.
Marriage is about child rearing though...
>>69541393
>It is a reputable source.
its not and its completely funded by religious fundamentalists pushing an agenda. Stop embarrassing yourself.
>>69522708
/thread
>>69522404
https://join.skype.com/FX2zfMjQ1HTc
>>69541298
Okay. Well if you don't want to read, there's not much I can do for you. I gave you the accessible version, which you called religious. I gave you the primary source, which you didn't read. I mean, what more do you want? I guess I can give you Wikipedia, which is notoriously biased on topics like this because the articles get edited by vandals with political agendas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Family_Structures_Study
>concluded that children raised by parents in same-gender relationships were at a greater risk of several adverse outcomes, including "being on public assistance, being unemployed, and having poorer educational attainment."
Of course, since you're not being intellectually honest, what you're going to do is take whatever specific criticisms you can glean from that, and use those as attacks. But why do you do this?
Because you cannot stand facts. You fundamentally believe that fags are good, and no evidence will sway you in any way.
Basically, you're a bigot.
>>69522404
because they're gay
>>69541319
>They prefer beardless, androgynous male children because they resemble females, yes.
Your understanding of the twisted inner machinations of the cunning gay is a sight to behold.
Spread the word brother! Let the world know homos are all secretly heterosexuals looking for cunny!
>>69541434
Oh, I see. Which is why they're all limp wristed fruitcakes.
Marriage died when birth control came along, it is purely about children, they made it about love to sugar coat it so then gay people wanted it, but its not about love, its about children, seeing as we have DNA testing and courts can order child support, marriage has lost all meaning. Religion used to be what the state is now, now it's just a fairy tale when it comes to marriage. All laws regarding tax should have no effect on marriage. Why should a couple get benefits over a single person? Only children should incur benefits.
As long as there are zero benefits, gay people can have their make believe ceremony.
>>69541469
My sins aren't at issue. I don't suck dicks. The topic here is literally those who do.
>>69541651
from your own link.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Family_Structures_Study#Criticism
>Cynthia Osborne, who is on the UT-Austin faculty along with Regnerus, argued the study was unable to show "whether same-sex parenting causes the observed differences."[1] She also said that "Children of lesbian mothers might have lived in many different family structures, and it is impossible to isolate the effects of living with a lesbian mother from experiencing divorce, remarriage or living with a single parent."[1] Similarly, Gary Gates of the Williams Institute argued that the study's comparison of children of lesbian mothers was a less fair comparison than, for instance, comparing "children of heterosexual or same-sex couples who were raised in similar homes".[1]
holy shit you are dumb.
There is literally nothing wrong with gay marriage
>>69541966
unless they are ugly
>>69541816
If I wanted to address the topic I would have addressed the topic. You were the one who approached me remember. I'm just replying to you.
Yea we are not talking about your sins, we are talking about the hypocritical nature of the sinner. Or as you call it, "concerned patriot"
>>69539991
Of course, it's a mental illness. It's a deviation from the norm. Normal people's brains are not wired that way. It's a There's plenty of proof at your degenerate, "pride" spectacles.
>>69541474
>often estimated to be about 10 out of 100.
Those estimates are lies. The true numbers of homosexuals in the general public are about 3.5%. According to a CDC study
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr077.pdf
And a Pew poll (hardly an anti-gay organization) with an independent methodology.
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/files/2013/06/SDT_LGBT-Americans_06-2013.pdf
So, that means that fags are 2-3 times more likely to be homosexual than their proportion of the population.
Of course, that includes the entire gay blt. So transvestites, bisexuals, and carpetmunchers count as well.
But a much more troubling concern is the victims of pedophilia who do not report it. That's much more common than you think. Going from memory, it's about half. That's dependent on the amount of grooming that the victim receives prior to the abuse. That is, the more children are taught to believe that sexual abuse is okay, the less likely they are to report it as a crime. And that's the primary way that people become homosexuals. They are groomed for abuse by older homosexuals. They're told they're gay, and it's okay. These days, they have the message reinforced by all the other aspects of society, and indeed they even gain social status from homosexuality. Then they grow into gay adults who in turn sexually abuse children. And so homosexuals propagate.
Marrige is based on a religous concept in which homosexuality is descirbed as an abomination. Court marriges are not real marriges and may as well just be redefining how you are taxed, being gay and getting married has no real meaning other than the way the law defines your rights.
>>69522708
/thread
>>69541502
>I don't like facts, so they're not true.
-Faggots.
>>69525712
So what about heterosexuals who cannot reproduce?
>>69541784
Yuck, this is why /fit/ is free of the homo menace! The assblaster can't handle the sight of muscular Aryan men lifting heavy things up and putting them down.
>>69541827
From my own post, which YOU linked and clearly didn't read.
>Of course, since you're not being intellectually honest, what you're going to do is take whatever specific criticisms you can glean from that, and use those as attacks. But why do you do this?
>Because you cannot stand facts. You fundamentally believe that fags are good, and no evidence will sway you in any way.
Holy shit, it's almost like I've got a crystal ball.
>>69522404
I am okay with that but homosexuality and pedophilia are both nearly identical mental illnesses, it fucking pisses me off that being gay is something to be proud of and people will cheer for you for liking the same gender, yet millions of people who suffer from pedophilia are seen as vile fucking monsters who deserve to be burned in a cross.
Both are equally wrong, equally degenerate and must be cured, not celebrated.
>>69542398
there's really not a reason for them to get married
>>69522404
The stability of society
>>69522404
Marriage is the state's way of providing incentives to couples willing to stick together and form stable households - usually for the purpose of raising children. So long as kids are growing up in stable, loving environments, the sex of their parents is irrelevant. Gay and lesbian couples can always adopt and be just as good of parents as straight couples.
>>69542038
>"concerned patriot"
I don't believe I ever used those words, so I'll thank you to not put them in my mouth.
You're wrong. I've been talking about the sins of homosexuals this entire thread. With you, and everyone else. That's the conversation here.
>>69542150
And it causes real and severe harm to those who suffer from it.
>>69542595
>Gay and lesbian couples can always adopt and be just as good of parents as straight couples.
I wish this were actually true
>>69542316
>So, that means that fags are 2-3 times more likely to be homosexual than their proportion of the population.
I meant to say 2-3 times more likely to be pedophiles. I'm sure you understood that, but all the same. Correction is necessary.
>>69542595
>gay men
>stable environments
pick one once you get back from the truckstop glory hole
>>69542413
>I never learned to form an argument, but it's okay because I have snark!
>>69542674
Seems to be. Knew a kid raised by lesbians. He was chill as hell
>>69525712
There's no such thing as "natural law." There's using your reproductive organs for unintended purposes, but there's nothing actually stopping you from doing so.
The laws of society should allow for as much personal freedom as is possible, not attempt to force arbitrary ideas of "how things should be" on people.
Find me an example of a successful society in which people of the same gender could marry. Protip: you can't.
There have been marriages between one man and many women, between many men and one woman, between many men and many women... but never between two men or two women. Marriage is by definition between men and women.
>>69542597
That wasn't our conversation though. Sorry didn't mean to put words in your mouth but you can't exactly blame me for coming to such a conclusion about you.
So pass me that rock and we can throw them at some sinning homosexuals. Someone as holy as you probably has a lot of stones on the ready to throw at others.
>>69542813
>anecdotal evidence is more valid than statistical analysis
educate yourself.
http://www.familystructurestudies.com/outcomes/
>>69522708
first post best post
>>69522447
DELETE THIS
>>69542316
>Those estimates are lies. The true numbers of homosexuals in the general public are about 3.5%.
I'm not intellectually-equipped to determine which estimates are true and which are lies, so I have nothing to say on that point.
>So, that means that fags are 2-3 times more likely to be pedophiles than their proportion of the population.
Maybe. Here's an interesting survey of the scientific literature that reaches the conclusion that homos are not more likely to be molest children, relative to population numbers.
>But a much more troubling concern is the victims of pedophilia who do not report it. That's much more common than you think.
I think this is a problem with heterosexual molestation as well. I agree with your assessment that society reinforces child sexuality, which in turn drives down report rates even further. But, I argue that young girls are taught to be sexual beings way more than young boys, at least in the media, which would suggest that report rates for heterosexual pedophilia are even lower than gay report rates.
>>69542977
Alright, so then your defense of homos is that I'm not allowed to criticize them where they're bad because you think I've sinned somewhere else.
Is that about it? Have I got your position correct?
>>69542316
>>69543039
Forgot link to survey of molestation literature: http://psc.dss.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/HTML/facts_molestation.html
>>69542745
Not all gays are promiscuous. Men deliberately avoid marrying promiscuous women; as a gay man, why would you attempt to enter a monogamous relationship with a person who's clearly not interested in being monogamous?
>>69522404
>allowed
No one should be allowed. It should be a voluntary contract between individuals, no government necessary.
>>69542935
>its never been this way before
that's not an argument, anon.
>>69542674
I wish someone could provide actual proof that it wasn't. But this is /pol/, the home of unsourced infographics about holocaust denial, so who am I kidding?
>>69543107
Nope. My position has been sinners are often hypocrites. Each person will answer for their own actions, their own sins. You're not responsible for what I do, neither am I responsible for what you or anyone else does or how they choose to live their life.
That has been my position from the start. And frankly I think its shameful anyone would use the word of God as a tool of condemnation. Further widening the gap between the God and man, its the devils work. One person's misdeeds is not a green light for malice.
>>69542501
Oh I get it!
>Sex in the Missionary Position for the sole purpose of procreating=God fearing patriot
>Wiener in the pooper=Islamic Gommunist Kike terrorists
Btw anon, what's will all that gay shit you got saved? You really shouldn't keep that kind of degeneracy on your computer. What if you kids saw that! Won't you think of the children?
>>69543039
>I'm not intellectually-equipped to determine which estimates are true
Then allow me to make the argument from authority, and suggest that the CDC and Pew are the superior sources.
>http://psc.dss.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/HTML/facts_molestation.html
Yes, I'm familiar with Dr. Herek's "research." Do you not find it telling that he uses purple hyperlinks and literally rainbow colors on his website? At the University of California?
I think I was arguing this with someone else in this thread, but you can find it by reading up. You can't trust contemporary academia in this field. They have already decided what their conclusions are, a priori. Homosexuality = good is a first principle to them, and their thought police will not allow any other dissenting evidence.
For fuck's sake, Herek testified against Proposition 8, and is so proud of it that he links a dramatic reenactment on his supposedly academic website.
>I think this is a problem with heterosexual molestation as well.
Oh, it is. Pedophilic vampirism (that is, the idea that you become the thing that bit you) is a very common problem in cases of child sexual abuse. Specifically, about 50% of victims are at risk. The thing is, this is the mechanism of homosexuality. This is how straight people become gayed. There's no gay gene. It's not epigenetics. It's abuse. At least in the majority of cases. Some cases of homosexuality have people gayed in other ways. But this is the primary vector of homosexuality spread.
And we won't be able to prove it because people like Dr. Herek suppress that sort of research in favor of their own grandstanding.
>>69543193
>Not all gays are promiscuous
Yes they are. And hypersexual.
>>69522404
hacked phone numbers relating to the #cruzsexscandal
this is a distraction thread
>>69543452
>You're not responsible for what I do, neither am I responsible for what you or anyone else does
That's not what the Bible says. You are your brother's keeper.
>tool of condemnation
It's more shameful to permit homosexuals to prance about and spread their sin. Should we allow them to gay more people, and tempt innocents into sin? Or should we stand up and speak out against their evil?
It seems to me you're just abusing religion in order to enable faggotry.
>>69522708
/thread
>>69542977
Enough with the ad hominems about anon's own sins. Either talk about homosexuality, or talk about anon's sins, but don't act like the two have anything to do with each other.
>>69543548
Hey look, more straw man "arguments!" Never could have seen that one coming!
Never could have seen "well you hate gays so you're gay!" That's the first time anyone has ever used that one!
>>69522708
/thread
>>69543616
You have literally no proof for this statement, but I would agree that there are more promiscuous gays than straights. But I would argue that's because they've been shunned into staying closeted and dented marriage rights until recently, which impedes monogamous relationships. It'll probably start to change now that being gay is more socially acceptable.
>>69543548
>this much butthurt
Can't handle the truth, eh? Stay salty, poofter.
>>69522708
/thread
Marriage has historically been defined as being between a man and a woman.
I don't give a shit if you share a life and reap tax benefits, but get your own goddamn word.
>>69543627
>.com
>Wikipedia says the Witherspoon Institute is a conservative think tank that opposes same-sex marriage and abortion
Wow discarded because of obvious fucking bias, why don't you link a Fox News article next you fucking retard
>>69543869
>Never could have seen "well you hate gays so you're gay!" That's the first time anyone has ever used that one!
But anon, I never said you were gay! I'm just wondering why you have such filthy, immoral degenerate material on your computer. You wouldn't keep cockroaches in your home just to show other people how gross they are now would you?
>>69522404
>Marriage is about love
Why do we have a legal institution that gives people tax breaks and whatnot because of love?
>>69543782
I'm not enabling faggotry, I don't believe homosexuality is a sin against God but rather a sin against archaic men.
It seems to me you are just a hypocrite, a sinner with a sinners life and your wrath against homosexuals is just a product of your own hatred for yourself. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Love thy neighbour is also in the bible, Jesus treating whores with compassion is also in the Bible. Jesus condemning homosexuals I have not seen that anywhere.
But hey if you honestly feel responsible for the lives of all the homosexuals on earth, then go ahead, continue your ways. You've obviously convinced yourself that you are on some holy crusade against a very specific subgroup of what you consider to be sinners. I can't stop you, but I hope I have brought to your attention how your actions are being perceived. So you can't exactly say you didn't know any better.
>>69543905
>You have literally no proof for this statement
>One study reports that the average homosexual has between 20 and 106 partners per year (6). The average heterosexual has 8 partners in a lifetime.
Corey, L. and Holmes, K. "Sexual Transmission of Hepatitis A in Homosexual Men." New England J. Med., 1980, pp. 435-38.
Cited in
http://www.consumingfirefellowship.org/Homosexual%20Fact%20Sheet.htm
I could come up with more evidence, but I have that one up from earlier and I'm lazy. It's very well established that homosexuals are essentially incapable of forming long term mutually monogamous pair bonded relationships. They just can't do it.
Now, you can make a sociology argument and say, "w-well it's ACTUALLY because of factor X Y and Z," if you want. But that's exactly why sociology is a pseudoscience. When you get pinned down on facts, you run away rather than changing your mind.
Anyway, your assertion would be easy to test. Look at the gays who were not "shunned into staying closeted" in the past, then determine if they are more or less promiscuous than straights. If you did that, I'm confident you would find they were far more promiscuous.
>>69522404
Marriage is not about love, it is about joining together a male and a female to create another family unit. Marriage only makes sense in general if there is a potential for children, as otherwise there is no benefit for two people to make a lifelong vow of monogamy.If we're gonna let just any combination of sexes get married while also allowing them to break the vow whenever the fuck they desire then the whole point of marriage is gone. Gay marriage is a joke and should not be considered a real thing but divorce is the real reason the institution of marriage is falling apart.
>>69544261
Because if I didn't have them, people like you would say they don't exist.
>>69544177
The nice thing about human language is that it's completely arbitrary, and thus words are capable of changing meaning over time.
>>69522404
Watch Common Filth and repent of your degeneracy you disgusting homoatheist faggotlover.
Homoniggers destablize society.
>>69544211
Yea I wonder why they would oppose same sex marriage with the statistics they found from their study.
>>69543548
They are filling that man with HIV positive sperm... its like the holy grail for gay men.
>>69540505
Maple Syrup slurping moose fucking degnerate homoloving fedoras are the most dumbass
It's against the law in uncucked countries.
>>69527572
>Gay rally
>pro Islam
kek
Oh well let them figure it out the hard way. Liberals only understand the truth if it kills them.
>>69544341
Well, no, defending faggotry is enabling faggotry. And that will necessarily result in more people being harmed by it in the future. Because of you. I'm sure you can live with yourself, though.
But, oh, you're so right! I'm actually a self hating sinner! Right? Is that what you expected? Is that what you honestly thought would happen? No, anon, you're just using religion to try to shield fags from something that is so severely evil that it has been condemned by every moral authority for over two thousand years. You're just cherry picking the parts of the bible you want, and ignoring the rest.
Frankly, I suspect you're just a shit dicked faggot.
>>69544341
Jesus never condemned molesting children either. Doesn't make it okay though.
Seriously, you can't say "If Christ himself did not condemn it in the Gospels, then I must love it" to everything, can you?
>>69544515
>>69544618
lmao. Like an Englishman's rectum after a day in Mumbai, this guy's on fire.
>>69522447
They eat da poo poo
>>69544649
Well said. Good to see the alt-right getting de-pozzed from all this kike homolover propaganda
>>69522404
Marriage as a state institution is the government encouraging reproduction through subsidy. Gays cannot get married. They seem to know this too, since like .01% of them actually do it even when it's legalized.
>>69544494
That isn't so at all. Words must have objective meaning, because if they didn't communication would be impossible.
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog could actually mean that you owe me a million dollars.
>>69544425
>Because if I didn't have them, people like you would say they don't exist.
That's right! Gays don't exist! You said it yourself. There are no gays only broken heterosexuals.
>>69544353
>consuming fire fellowship
I'm really doubting the impartiality of your sources is all. It's obvious that you're too lazy to actually support your assertions. "It's very well established that..." Says who? Stereotypes are not axioms, and without actual proof from unbiased, peer-reviewed sources, you're pissing in the wind.
I do agree that sociology moves goalposts too much though. I was simply proposing a hypothesis about non-monogamy in the gay community based on personal experience, not trying to make and argument. My actual position is to refuse assuming that gays make bad parents until I have reason to believe so.
>>69522404
It really is simple. Gay people are allowed to marry. 2 men cannot marry one another because that isn't marriage. Marriage is a religious institution involving men and women. Enacting laws in america and attempting to force homosexual marriage is a direct violation of the first amendment(funny how that wall between church and state works 1 way with leftists). It gets even worse when there are homos and judges attempting to jail and fine priests/pastors for refusing to marry people of the same sex. States are now enacting laws to prevent religious persecution and stop the insane federal government.
>>69544525
Or maybe they cherry-picked studies to draw from because of pre-existing bias?
>>69544914
Yes, and the word for this manner of broken heterosexual is homosexual. Which we colloquially have come to call gays, fags, faggots, queers, butt munchers, socksuckers, fruitcakes, ass pirates, and other similar names.
And what they do has nothing to do with love, and everything to do with butt lust.
>>69543295
Read my post again, I defined marriage.
>>69544649
>using religion to shield fags
You know Jesus tried to save sinners not burn them right? What you do drives people further and further away from God. So you are sin enabling. Which I'm trying to make you aware of, homosexuals aren't just going to magically stop being gay, your method is cruel and malicious. But you're not concerned about that, the only thing you care about is your nation. So like I said I can't stop you from what you are doing, but I hope you come to a realization of your actions.
>>69544905
Words don't have an objective meaning. They're literally just sounds strung together. Their meaning is relative to societies and communities. The meaning of a word can change depending on which community you're dealing with. For example, the word "fanny" means "ass" in America but "vagina" in the UK.
>>69544914
The only time any normal human being is gay is when they verbally assrape a degenerate libtard like yourself
All this bullshit, the real reason you guys don't like gays is "ew it's gross." Just fucking admit it to yourselves. Boys kissing. Who fucking cares. Get a life people.
Because civil marriage is the government's agreement to recognize religious marriage, in that religious marriage benefits the state to have a married couple reproduce and make more citizens. That's all 'marriage' is...a heterosexual pairing that can lead to reproduction. The government recognizes the biological union because that union has ability to make more citizens benefits the state.
Homosexuality is a biological anomaly that occurs as a deviation from the norm that serves as a population control. It exhibits in higher numbers in animal populations when the population is under stress or over-crowded, and incidents increase as the population stress/overcrowding increases. In humans the chance for a homosexual son also increases the more children a woman bears.
Homosexuality is a deviation from the norm, but serves a practical biological purpose to help stem reproduction in populations under stress.
it is a biological anomaly to our reproductive imperative. it is a deviation from the biological norm. Since a homosexual pairing does not exist reproduce citizens, there is no benefit to the state, and is not needing of recognition or reward.
-overcrowded animal populations and homosexuality:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/communication-central/200911/crowds-behavior-why-did-i-do
-more sons, higher chance of woman having a homosexual son:
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=2120218&page=1
-Homosexuality has a biological basis:
http://www.sciencefocus.com/feature/life/gay-genetics
-Homosexuality has biological function of population control:
https://richarddawkins.net/2015/03/darwin-day-2015-questions-is-homosexuality-natures-population-control-4/
more reading:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/g-roger-denson/is-homosexuality-populati_b_784449.html
http://articles.latimes.com/2006/jun/27/science/sci-brothers27
http://www.lse.ac.uk/researchAndExpertise/researchHighlights/Environment/rats.aspx
http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/87/2/09-062836/en/
>>69545096
>nothing to do with love, and everything to do with butt lust.
But only little boys butts do they lust for, because they look female. And now we all know that gay men only desire feminine buttocks because they are actually broken heterosexuals. Which is why they want to get married to other men, so that they can both adopt a feminine boy, who's girly ass they lust for.
What an enlightening evening this has been.
>>69545477
>All this bullshit, the real reason you guys don't like Necrophiles is "ew it's gross." Just fucking admit it to yourselves. Man kissing corpse. Who fucking cares. Get a life people.
I see no difference.
>inb4 muh consent
>>69545004
Well, that's a fair criticism. This is not, after all, an academic debate. Although I would like to point out that I actually have posted sources, when few others have even managed that. The website I cited happens to have a convenient compilation of relevant trivia, along with well cited impartial sources. You know, I didn't have to tell you that website. I could have just cited the website's source.
But you're also right to say that I'm being lazy about saying that homosexual trends are well established. I've done that before, and I'm really just sort of tired of it right now. I don't really have a lot to gain by doing the work again either, it's not like you're going to pay me. Nevertheless, we can talk about certain well established facts that apply to most or all homosexuals. For one, they're all or nearly all sexually attracted to the same sex. They all or nearly all engage in sexual acts with members of the same sex, or masturbate while fantasizing about members of the same sex. And for another, they all or nearly all are hypersexual, and are well documented to engage in other forms of risky sexual behavior stemming from their mental condition.
Indeed, when homosexuality was listed in the DSM as a recognized mental illness, a differential diagnosis was required based on the presence of a constellation of symptoms, not all of which may be present in every patient, but taken together are indicative of that diagnosis. Hypersexuality is one such symptom, and is absolutely deviant.
But I suppose you would prefer to just consider your personal anecdotes to be more compelling? Do you assert that you are gay? Is that why you think so?
>>69545004
My actual position is to refuse assuming that gays make bad parents until I have reason to believe so.
What evidence would you accept? What's the burden of proof to meat "reason to believe so?"
http://www.familystructurestudies.com/
http://www.prc.utexas.edu/nfss/
Does this not fulfill both requirements?
>>69545287
If the truth drives a sinner farther from God, then maybe the problem lies in the sinner, not in the person trying to tell him the truth.
When the Pharisees came to John the Baptist, he used harsh language to warn them that they were sinful and in need of change: "You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee the coming wrath? Therefore bear fruit in keeping with repentance."
>>69545614
>I see no difference between boys kissing and necrophilia
Well then you're a fucking retard bud
>>69545542
>Since a homosexual pairing does not exist reproduce citizens, there is no benefit to the state, and is not needing of recognition or reward.
By your own reasoning, isn't population control of a population under stress a benefit to the state?
>>69526577
http://www.lifenews.com/2015/02/24/scientists-say-they-can-create-a-baby-with-either-no-father-or-no-mother/
>>69545287
>homosexuals aren't just going to magically stop being gay
They're certainly not while their evil is being celebrated, and even the religious rally to their defense.
But consider it another way. Consider it as not merely a sin, but also a mental illness. As a disease, it should be treated. Some diseases are indeed incurable. But how do we treat people with incurable diseases?
The first thing we do is isolate them from other people, so they don't infect more innocents.
After that we can have compassion and try to mitigate their symptoms to make them more comfortable and extend their lifespan.
What you're doing is merely enabling of them to spread more homosexuality. Again, I suspect it's because you're a homosexual yourself. Or possibly you're just an ausfailian shitposter.
>the only thing you care about is your nation.
That's not the only thing I care about, no. But it is one of the most important things.
>come to a realization of your actions.
that doesn't mean anything.
>>69545542
So should couples without children be denied marriage benefits? I think we should have two tiers of "marriage," per se. One for economic purposes (pooling assets, insurance, etc) and one that provides further tax benefits for childrearing couples. Because encouraging parents to raise their children in a stable environment is good for society.
>>69522708
/thread
>>69545292
Within the context of speakers of a language, words do indeed have objective meaning. Otherwise, communication cannot occur.
Granted, it is possible that a given arrangement of phonemes may have arisen for arbitrary reasons, but now that they exist, their meanings exist as well.
It is true that in living languages, people change how they use words over time, however. Nevertheless, that does not deny the objectivity of words themselves. It's absurd to think that I could say something to you right now and expect you to understand me to mean the opposite just because I sort of felt like that at the time.
>>69545812
Or maybe it's that there is genuinely no argument for homosexuality that cannot also be applied to other inborn sexual deviances. Scalia even pointed this out in Oberhefell v. Hodges.
>>69545546
Not only, but primarily. And when they can't get that, they'll settle for the hairy assholes of other adult men. Because that's how depraved they are.
>>69545812
No, he's right. You're just ideologically inconsistent because your worldview is not based on reasoned self examination, but instead on the first principles you were indoctrinated to believe, and what makes you feel good.
>>69545717
>If the truth drives a sinner farther from God, then maybe the problem lies in the sinner, not in the person trying to tell him the truth.
That's a very good point.
>>69545830
Wait, are you going to make a Malthusian argument that we're somehow overpopulated?
Then account for illegal immigration.
>>69545619
The problem with this is it doesn't have statistics for long-term married gay couples. Just single parents that had a same-sex relationship for "some period of time." It seems too variable. Maybe now that gay marriage is legal there will start to be more relevant studies. There might be statistics from Nordic countries somewhere, though.
>>69546145
And he was an idiot as well. You can't just say any given thing is just like some other thing. It's a fundamentally stupid argument.
Homosexuality is homosexuality. Beastiality is beastiality. Necrophilia is necrophilia. Three different things.
And, he was on the losing side of Oberhefell v Hodges.
>>69545830
Its not my reasoning, that's WHY governments recognize marriage.
But no. a population under stress, can be from overcrowding like all the idiots cramming into cities. URBAN areas are overcrowded. URBAN areas have populations under stress. But non-urban areas are not.....in fact, birth rates are down so much that the US, and all of Europe are having to import citizens. And the US and countries in EUROPE all SAY that's why they have to import citizens.
You need more citizens to support the citizens you already have. If you have more free social programs, then you need more citizens born to grow up to become taxpayers.
Where the US is having a problem, is that its birthing citizens, but most of those grow up into gibmedats, and there are not enough reproduction of taxpaying citizens going on. Gotta support people on welfare, and maybe even free college comin up. Got to birth more people, a lot more.
Population control is of no benefit to the state.
>>69546100
You just admitted that words change meaning over time. The meaning of marriage in society and legal code has changed, just like the meaning of racism has changed to involve power. Using the old meanings doesn't make you right and society wrong.
>>69546361
I don't have an opinion one way or the other. I was merely pointing out that the conclusion he reached is logically inconsistent with the very evidence that brought him to that conclusion.
>>69546430
>wut is analogy
Our beliefs have logical consequences, and if you can't consistently apply the same framework of sexual ethics to different situations then you have a shitty framework.
Also, I hope you're not trying to make an appeal to authority by saying "SCOTUS is cool with buttsex in a 5-4 decision so it must be right."
