I wouldn't normally care, but we just had one here
>>69522404
and I didn't get to reply to a guy before it 404'd.
>>69546418
>The problem with this is it doesn't have statistics for long-term married gay couples.
Okay, that's a very fair criticism.
The study actually covered parents with long term homosexual parents as well as parents with just one homosexual fling, and put them into the same category. This is one objection that homosexuals and homosexual enablers have over it.
But the thing is you can parse your data out however you want. At some point, the people conducting the study have to say "okay, this is the variable we're going to examine," and sort of go with it. If you want to do your own research, go ahead.
But at the same time, this study is in itself evidence, and it contradicts the prevalent narrative, so the homosexuals worked actively to suppress it. That's the most important thing that study offers us: it's a concrete, real world example of the ideological thought police forcing homosexuality, and preventing real research.
Another problem is that this study has great validity because it's longitudinal. Going from memory, many of the respondents were as old as 35. 35 years ago there was no such thing as gay "marriage" anywhere. It wasn't even a concept. That's how depraved that homosexuals are. They want to make new shit up out of nothing just so they can get special treatment, and they don't even care who it hurts.
Which leads to the biggest problem with your suggestion. What you're suggesting is known as a live proof. To find out if homosexuality is harmful to children, you want to expose children to potentially harmful homosexuality. It's basically like saying that we'll test an ebola vaccine by giving it to a bunch of children, and then exposing them to ebola. How could you consider that ethical?
>>69547082
For one, we know for certain that ebola is harmful. Deadly, in fact. So that's not a fair comparison. I'm not for "exposing children to homosexuality to see if it's dangerous," I'm for giving straight couples the same adoption rights as straight couples. Then, if children are abused by a gay couple, you take the kids away. Same as with straight couples. You don't take straight couples' kids away just because some of the couples abuse.
Comes down to individual rights. I'm not an authoritarian Big Government cuck.
>>69547760
You don't take kids away from every straight couple, I mean. And there's simply not enough proof that gay couples make significantly worse parents than straight couples to deny the former adoption rights.
>>69547760
>we know for certain that ebola is harmful. Deadly, in fact. So that's not a fair comparison.
But, we also know that homosexuality is harmful. Deadly, in fact. The CDC says that if a man has sex with another man *just one time* he cuts on average 20 years off his expected lifespan. On top of that, there are studies that as much as 41% of people in the gay BLT attempt suicide. That's compared to the 1.6% national average. These people are literally dying of how gay they are, anon.
Further, the NFSS survey we're talking about shows quite clearly that there are negative outcomes for children of homosexual "parents." So the evidence is already there. Not everyone dies from having gay parents. Not everyone dies from ebola. But some do. So it's a fair comparison.
Straight couples who are the natural biological parents of their children have an absolute right to their kids. The kids also have rights in some regard to their parents. Homosexuals have no such rights because they're not actually related to "their" children.
Worse, once you inflict a child with gay "parents" you'll never be able to rescue them from the abuse that follows. Just as the rotherham england city council protected the predators because of the current cultural hegemony, you would never be able to convince a fucking social worker (who, let's face it, are all far leftists) to do something they perceive as negative to fags. Once a homo gets his claws on a child, that child will never be safe from him again.
>>69547856
Homosexual males have the right to marry whatever woman they can convince, equal to heterosexual males. Homosexual females have the right to marry whatever man will have them, equal to heterosexual females. That's equal rights.
It takes big government to override that and shove fag "marriages" (even though they're not actually marriages at all) down everyone else's throats.
>>69548165
>the "I'm being forced" meme
>>69548097
Suicides are caused by social pressure. Souce on the lifespan statistic? I'm calling bullshit.
Also, no parent has absolute right to their children. If that were the case, straight parents could just rape their kids and the state wouldn't be able to do anything about it. Children are people, too.
>>69548165
If you hate big government so much, then you'll agree that the state shouldn't be involved in marriage at all, right? But no, when big gubmint gives special privileges to heterosexual couples or Christians, that's okay. But when it tries to extend those rights to people you don't like, that's when you get angry. Fucking Christfags
>>69548541
Incorrect. Suicides are caused by weak individuals killing themselves. Nobody else is putting the gun in their hands. Nobody else is pulling the trigger. In the case of suicides, the murder victim is the murderer. To say otherwise is to say that convenience stores cause robberies.
>Souce on the lifespan statistic? I'm calling bullshit.
http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/26/3/657.abstract
>CONCLUSION: In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years will not reach their 65th birthday. Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban centre are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871.
>Also, no parent has absolute right to their children. If that were the case, straight parents could just rape their kids and the state wouldn't be able to do anything about it. Children are people, too.
Wrong, Parents do have the right their children. It's just that children are, as you note, also entitled to rights, such as to not be raped.
>>69548855
So it's right for you to carve out rights where they don't exist because you sort of want to, but it's not right to respect rights that already exist? You think it's fine to destroy marriage as an institution just because you don't want to acknowledge that Christianity shepherded marriage for two thousand years? Why are you so Christianphobic, considering that every society in all of history came to the same conclusion that Christians did with regard to male female pair bonding enshrined as marriage?
>So it's right for you to carve out rights where they don't exist because you sort of want to, but it's not right to respect rights that already exist?
Was it right for marriage rights to have been carved out in the first place? And if the people will the creation of new rights, then so be it. This is a democracy after all.
>You think it's fine to destroy marriage as an institution just because you don't want to acknowledge that Christianity shepherded marriage for two thousand years?
Yeah, I do, actually. I don't give a fuck about Christians. Recognizing only religious marriages is respecting the establishment of religion, which violates the First Amendment.
>Why are you so Christianphobic?
Because I disagree with the ideology of Christianity and the way cuckservatives are trying preserve its cultural hegemony upon the country - always disguised as "states rights" or "religious freedom," of course.
>>69549410
Yes, the cause of suicides is ultimately the individual in question. That's the definition of suicide. But people are more likely to commit suicide if they've been treated poorly by family or society.
Part of that life expectancy statistic may be explainable by suicide, actually. Although the rest is AIDS, of course.
>>69550855
>Was it right for marriage rights to have been carved out in the first place? And if the people will the creation of new rights, then so be it. This is a democracy after all.
Incorrect. Rights either exist, or they don't. They can neither be created nor destroyed.
>Yeah, I do, actually. I don't give a fuck about Christians.
Clearly. You're a hateful bigot.
>Recognizing only religious marriages is respecting the establishment of religion, which violates the First Amendment.
Incorrect. The first amendment merely prohibits the congress from making a law recognizing the establishment of religion. You need to read your constitution.
>preserve its cultural hegemony
That's a lost war. The degenerates have already achieved their goals. It's a fait accompli.
>always disguised as "states rights"
You should really read your constitution. That one's called the tenth amendment.
>or "religious freedom,"
And that one's the first. That's what the first amendment is actually about.
You can regulate my penis like you regulate your unregulated well regulated militias
>>69547057
From the first chapter of Romans:
>and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
>28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,
>receive in themselves the due penalty of error
No man can undo what God has done. Debating the merits of this is an exercise in futility.
>>69551680
But that's not a compelling argument to a nonbeliever. So you have to have a secular argument, too.
>>69547057
Any sexual relation built not on procreation (actual procreation, not adoption or insemination) is built on hedonistic self-indulgence. Legitimizing lifestyles which center around hedonistic self-indulgence causes more and more people to choose lifestyles of hedonistic self-indulgence. This causes political short-sightedness (why care about the future if you aren't going to have kids who will have to live in it?), political self-interest to trump collective national interest ("I don't care that social security is going to go bankrupt, I want free health care and lower taxes!"), and a general decay of society as a result of these shifts in the cultural paradigm. A nation of family-less individuals looking out for number 1, not a nation of families and neighbors. This will lead to an increase in the kinds of negative social trends which we already see. Government will continue to grow in power while declining in effectiveness, ignorance and consumerism will continue to be the ruling law of the land, and an effete and coddled populace will lose the will to fight to defend their nation, militarily and otherwise. This has all happened before. When hedonism replaces civic duty in the hearts and minds of the majority, then the virtue of the electorate will have been completely destroyed, and no republic can survive without a virtuous electorate.
>>69551680
>falling for the bible
I wish Hitler would have won sometimes. It would have been Catholics in the oven just after the Jews.
My parents are divorce lawyers so I support gay marriage wholeheartedly because I want my inheritance to increase.
>>69551730
I understand. The whole point of the post is that this is impossible.
If you can't accept the diseases and reduced well-being it causes as having any bearing on its merit, where can you start with a "secular" person? It is impossible to engage with them.
>>69551820
"falling" for the teachings that underpinned all of Western culture and predicted
>Christian persecution by Muslims
>development of world-wide communications and travel
>electronic currency
>the global spread, acceptance, and eventual rejection of its own teachings
You are the one that has fallen for tricks, my friend. I suggest you actually read and try to understand the Bible before you reject it. If you don't you'll be making a huge mistake.
>>69551883
>If you can't accept the diseases and reduced well-being it causes as having any bearing on its merit, where can you start with a "secular" person?
That is a secular argument.
So what you really have to do, I think, is find a way to present those facts in a compelling way that they can accept.
On the other hand, it may well be a futile attempt all the same if there is no compelling way that they can accept. But that opens up its own series of questions. Why are they so committed to their ideology that they refuse to accept facts? And if that's the case, what can be done to change their minds anyway? And if their minds cannot be changed no matter what, what else can be done?
Because clearly things *can* be done. The communists, for instance, were once so taboo that they could not exist in our culture. Now they are everywhere. The faggots were once so taboo they had to be "closeted." Now they prance about and felate one another on public streets. Obviously change is possible.
>>69551883
That's a shitty argument. You should suppress your biological instinct based on the higher rate of contracting a disease that is easily preventable and likely will not be pertinent within the next fifty years? Moreover, this is about gay marriage, not sodomy. Believe it or not, there's a difference.
>>69552040
Read the Bible, didn't like what I saw. Sure, it's no Quran, but it's heavily objectionable.
Calling bullshit on the middle two, by the way. Provide a specific passage.
>>69547057
my view is - it's fine if you want to be (objectively) degenerate, by all means.
But the culture shouldn't be promoted or passed down to children
>>69552087
>it may well be a futile attempt...
I agree. As Romans said, GOD gave them up to a reprobate MIND. They can't see despite the theological AND secular reasons against because God decreed that they would not. That was my point.
Also, I am not so sure anything can be done by us. Of course change is possible, but this is such a broad statement that it can't really apply to this narrow situation without considering the other realities at play.
IMO, people cannot accept this because they don't want to change. They love pleasure more than the rules of God. It's very difficult to look at yourself and see all your flaws and accept that you are not in control and need help to change.
Many people resist this process, which is our natural impulse.
>>69552215
>objectively
I do not think you know what that word means.
>>69551572
Humans rights are a social construct. They have to be upheld by law. In a true anarchy, there would be no rights.
>you're a bigot
This is /pol/ m8, what did you expect? That aside, you seem pretty bigoted against homos yourself. Which is actually worse, because homos don't choose to be gay. Hating someone for what they can't control seems kinda shitty. On the other hand, Christians actively choose to follow a retarded ideology, except for the ones brainwashed by fear as children, of course.
>respecting Christian marriages only isn't respecting the establishment of religion
Okay.
I think the Constitution served as a valid framework in the past, but some of the Amendments are outdated. Plus, I'm more of a federalist than a states' rights person, especially since states have been using their rights to literally legalize discrimination.
Religious freedom should mean that you aren't treated differently based on your religion. Aside from that, everyone should have to follow the same rules. No one should be granted special rights just because of religion.
>>69552310
>people cannot accept this because they don't want to change
In that case, HOW DID THE CHANGE OCCUR from what we used to have to what we have now?
It's been done, and recently. It can be done the other way. We just have to understand it.
>>69552153
>didn't like what I saw
this is a terrible reason and philosophy, choosing what to believe based on whether you like it or not? Might as well stop believing in gravity after you get fat
>middle two
>World-wide communications is in revelations. The entire world will witness the death of two witnesses and send each other gifts after they die. Just google this if you really care about whether it's in there.
>electronic currency
No man shall be able to buy or sell without the mark of the beast. This is also in revelations. There is no conceivable way commerce could be controlled this tightly without electronic currency controlled by a central bank ledger.
>>69552310
The rules of God are more than likely arbitrary bullshit, m8. There's no reason to acknowledge them when it comes to public policy, especially since not everyone is a Christfag. You have no greater claim to truth than anyone else.
>>69552624
>taking me literally when I say 'i didn't like it'
It directly contradicts what I hold true several times. Delusions of grandeur are not for me.
>just google it
>expecting me to do your work for you.
Nah. You're full of shit. I'm not going to search through the book of revelations to find some cryptic passage that was written two to four years ago which have taken the liberty to interpret any way you want.
>no man shall be able to buy or sell without the mark of the beast.
Case in point.
>>69552807
alright m80. I just think you'd be making a big mistake in life to overlook this. Remember this stuff was written thousands of years ago and not only survived, but influenced the entire world.
Also the predictions about Islam persecuting Christians, thinking they are serving God but not "knowing the Father nor Me (Christ)" was written 600 years before Muhammad got his supposed "revelations."
Ignore at your own peril.
>>69552373
>Humans rights are a social construct. They have to be upheld by law. In a true anarchy, there would be no rights.
Incorrect. In an anarchy, rights would still exist. They would either be respected, or violated, but they would still be. The same holds true in the presence of government. I think that one of the most important things a government can do is shepherd and respect rights, but it can just as easily violate them. In violation of rights at a governmental level, the rights are not destroyed. They still exist.
The quintessential example is antebellum slavery. Did slaves not have basic human rights just because the government said they didn't? Or did they have rights the entire time, and the government simply failed to protect their rights?
Because if rights come from government, then government can decide what they are. It can make new ones, and it can destroy old ones at leisure. Thus they're not rights at all, they're just privileges that are written into law.
>respecting Christian marriages only
That's not my argument at all. Christian marriages are an important example of marriage, because we are in a western society that comes from the Christian tradition. But other forms of marriage have always been respected under our law. They have just always conformed to the Christian concept of marriage, because all cultures have come to roughly the same idea. There has never been a society, until very recently, when two men could consider themselves "married."
>I think the Constitution served as a valid framework in the past, but some of the Amendments are outdated.
So you subscribe to the living document interpretation of the constitution. I disagree. More importantly, our law disagrees. The constitution is the supreme law of the land period. If you want to change it, you know the process.
>>69548452
kek
>>69552373
>I'm more of a federalist than a states' rights person
That's common in our contemporary society, mainly due to the civil war. The states' rights guys lost, and our federal government has never worked as intended ever since. Furthermore, you have our public school system to contend with which has, quite on purpose, shaped the popular zeitgeist with regard to this issue. In other words, you're a product of your time.
>since states have been using their rights to literally legalize discrimination.
So has the federal government, so has it always, so it continues today. So what.
Worse, I don't think your accusations hold up compared to recent history. They make for great rhetoric, but they don't reflect reality. Protecting the right of Christians to not be forced to cater a gay "marriage" is not legalizing discrimination.
Or even more importantly, discrimination isn't the evil that it seems most people want to think it is. We all discriminate every day. You just don't want systemic discrimination along lines to which you are ethically opposed. But your set of ethics ought not dictate that of other people.
>Religious freedom should mean that you aren't treated differently based on your religion.
In part. It really should mean that you have freedom of conscience. I can't force you to believe what you don't want to believe, and you can't force me to do the same. Sadly, that's not our current system. We are all forced to endure faggot "marriage."
>everyone should have to follow the same rules
Nice thought. The devil's in the details. What are those same rules? If we ban crosses, we can ban them for everyone, but only Christians would actually be impacted. But we'd all follow the same rules.
>>69552373
>No one should be granted special rights just because of religion.
We definitely should recognize the special place that Christianity played in the creation of our society. Further, some religions are better than others. If you worship the ancient Hawaiian religion and think we should toss human sacrificial victims into the volcano to appease the spirits, then that should be prevented. But again it comes down to what are "special rights." The devil's in the details.
>>69553112
>rights are just privileges written into law
That's literally all they are. Unless you subscribe to the idea of "god-given rights," from where else would they come than social creation? Rights not protected would be pointless anyway, since there would be nothing to prevent their violation.
>There has never been a society, until very recently, when two men could consider themselves "married."
Well, now that we've established precedent, gay marriages should be okay, at least following from your logic.
The Amendment process is complicated, but I still support following it to amend the Constitution. That doesn't stop justices from interpreting it in the context of modern society, however.
>>69552992
And many parts didn't survive. The Gospel of Thomas for one was only (relatively) recently discovered.
>>69553392
They're operating a business. They should either have to serve everyone capable of paying or have the right to refuse service to anyone. Plus, letting Christians refuse service to gays gives them more rights than other people. I couldn't refuse service to gays because I'm an atheist not willing to lie about my beliefs.
>freedom of conscience
Unless your conscience motivates you to do something that deprives others of their rights. Then you can fuck off.
If we somehow decide crosses should be banned, even though that's retarded, then we should ban them, regardless of what religion it affects. The state should be blind to religion, not whipped by it.
>>69553618
>Unless you subscribe to the idea of "god-given rights," from where else would they come than social creation?
Natural rights, yes. If you don't like a religious argument, the Darwinian argument is basically the same. Natural rights exist by virtue of us being human beings, who are all by creation equal to one another and deserving of the same rights, and at the same time different from any other species of creature.
>Rights not protected would be pointless anyway, since there would be nothing to prevent their violation.
There's nothing really to protect their violation even when they're protected except the government. And since the government can change at any time, then its protection is essentially worthless. Today your right to free speech might be protected. Tomorrow the government decides it's not. Did you lose the right to free speech? No, you still have it. The government can't take it away. They can just punish you for exercising it. Or they can punish others for attempting to punish you for exercising it, which is what protection is.
>Well, now that we've established precedent, gay marriages should be okay, at least following from your logic.
I don't see how, unless you are trying to strawman me into a classical conservative position wherein the legitimacy of an idea is derived from the length of time that it has lasted. In which case, a year or two of fag "marriage" doesn't outcompete the entire rest of human civilization.
>The Amendment process is complicated, but I still support following it to amend the Constitution.
This is an unfortunate necessity. If we really wanted a better society, we would have one in which the amendment process was limited to those who could understand how changes would alter the constitution. Otherwise we have what we have today: the wreckage of a functioning government.
>>69547057
debate it here in our /polgb/ Skype group!
https://join.skype.com/FX2zfMjQ1HTc
>>69553618
>That doesn't stop justices from interpreting it in the context of modern society, however.
No, the constitution itself stops that. Or should, at any rate. Judicial review does not exist anywhere in the constitution. Activist judges have done far more harm than good to our republic. Faggot "marriage" is just one example of that.
>>69554074
>/polgb/
No, boy. No. That manner of faggotry must not exist.
>>69554041
>They're operating a business. They should either have to serve everyone capable of paying or have the right to refuse service to anyone.
Why?
I don't think so.
If you disagree with them, then what you should do is open a competing store across the street, and put a bigass sign on it that says "Christian bakery doesn't serve gays. Gays welcome here!" Then out compete them, if you can. You don't need the jackboot of government to impose your ideology on people.
>Plus, letting Christians refuse service to gays gives them more rights than other people. I couldn't refuse service to gays because I'm an atheist not willing to lie about my beliefs.
Again, you're banning crosses. Your "set of laws that applies to everyone" only actually impacts a minority group. That's called disparate impact, anon, and it's very illegal under our current discrimination laws. Oh, unless you're targeting Christians, straights, whites, or males. You know, the identity groups to which the powerful political philosophy is opposed.
>your conscience motivates you to do something
Thoughts and actions are different, aren't they?
>regardless of what religion it affects.
You're missing the point. It only affects one religious group.
>The state should be blind to religion
Why?
>not whipped by it.
Freedom of religion only works one way. The government should not be involved with religion. That does not mean religion must not be involved with government.
inb4 Separation of church and state.
You won't find those words anywhere in the constitution.
If you don't believe me, you go ahead and look it up. Here's the link.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
You're looking for "Article the third."
>>69554049
Rights are protected by threat of punishment, obviously. Although that isn't so much a protection as it is a deterrant.
>And since the government can change at any time, then its protection is essentially worthless
This is why I only vote for people that I don't think are going to take away my "rights." Politics in a democracy is a constant power struggle between groups with vastly different values and goals, with everyone seeking to force their will on others. No one actually cares about compromise unless they have to.
>But other forms of marriage have always been respected under our law. They have just always conformed to the Christian concept of marriage, because all cultures have come to roughly the same idea. There has never been a society, until very recently, when two men could consider themselves "married."
I'm not trying to strawman you, I'm just failing to understand why we shouldn't respect gay marriage as "another form of marriage" now that many cultures have it.
>>69554787
Banning crosses is perfectly fine if crosses are detrimental to society. If you're going to discriminate against someone based on your religion, you shouldn't be exempt from the normal punishment for a non-religious person doing so. Same way you shouldn't be allowed to kill people in the name of Allah and get off scot-free. Religious people should not be afforded special rights over nonreligious people, and should not be allowed to compromise the rights of others in the name of religion.
I don't care if separation of church and state isn't in the Constitution. This isn't really a Constitutional argument. It's about what's best for the country. Obviously our opinions differ in that respect.
>muh open a competing store meme
Businesses benefit from public works, and as such should be held to certain standards. One of those standards should be serving all members of the community regardless of the owner's personal biases. Mormons can't kick out niggers, Muslims can't kick out kaffir, why should Christians be able to kick out gays?
Wait
How those a gay guy who married affect my life in any way?
Why should i care?
Would my normal day routine be changed if some gay guy married another gay guy?
Plus if he married he will be happy and the economy would have more money from the mariage costs
>>69554787
>Your "set of laws that applies to everyone" only actually applies to a minority group.
Well technically saying that gays can't marry is imposing a minority group. Which is called disparate impact.
>>69553112
Your analogy about slaves having basic human rights the entire time and the government failing to protect their rights literally can be said the same about gays and the right to unify monogamously. . Maybe gays had these rights all along? and the government failed to protect these rights for the gays.
>imb4 Rights either exist, or they don't
How can you be so sure these rights didn't exist before? You go off about about how there wasn't a society that ever called two men or women married based on a belief system that is only 2000 years old. Our species is at least 50,000 years old.
However, i do believe that gays getting "married" under a theological Institution does impose religious rights. But denying their Managonus Unification imposes their rights. Inwhich to my understanding, is your current position on this topic.
We should come up with a different term for the monogamous unification of gays. So in the state's eyes they are considered to be "married" (insert term here) for having the same rights, benefits, and freedoms that are offered to heterosexual couples.
Gays wil have right to marry anyways.
Western system will collaps under they own faggotry.
Where feminazies will be given % of working places same as niggers and faggots.
Not because they deserv them, but just in the name of equality.
>>69554945
>Rights are protected by threat of punishment, obviously. Although that isn't so much a protection as it is a deterrant.
That's one way to go, yes.
>This is why I only vote for
good luck with that. Hope it works out for you when the tyranny of the majority opposes your opinion.
>Politics in a democracy is a constant power struggle between groups with vastly different values and goals, with everyone seeking to force their will on others. No one actually cares about compromise unless they have to.
You don't need the qualifier "in a democracy" there. That's realpolitik, period. Applies to every political system.
>now that many cultures have it.
That's not an argument. My argument is that traditional marriage is correct because it's what humans are evolved to do. The reason I can say humans are evolved to do it is because it's nearly universal. We're imposing social change on top of a natural system for no better reason than that one political system (that which supports fags) is what's popular now. That's a real shitty reason, and will damage everyone involved.
>>69555583
>shouldn't be exempt from the normal punishment for a non-religious person
What if the normal punishment is religious? Why do you equate religious and non-religious? Why are they the same to you?
>should not be allowed to compromise the rights of others in the name of religion.
Do you realize this is a normative argument that comes from your secular ideology? How's that different from a religious normative argument, to you?
>Businesses benefit from public works, and as such should be held to certain standards
Oh I see. You're a contemporary leftist. You've got the Barry Hussein/Elizabeth Warren "you didn't build that" argument.
But the businesses (and their owners/workers/investors) already paid for those public works. They don't owe any more. And anyway, it's weak to insist that because people exist in society you're allowed to abuse their rights.
>Mormons can't kick out niggers
Sure they can, and did up until the 1970s.
>Muslims can't kick out kaffir
Sure they can, and do even today.
>why should Christians be able to kick out gays?
Interestingly, Christian ideology is different. They wouldn't kick out gays. But they also wouldn't serve them in a way that contradicted Christian ideology.
But more importantly, to address your broader point, people absolutely should be entitled to not be forced to do things that contradict their ideology (religious or otherwise). If a store owner doesn't want to serve the left handed, he should not be compelled to. For any reason, or for no reason. Private business, private choices. If you don't like it, start your own store.
>>69555824
>It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
Very American argument, Serbcuck.
But what if it could be shown that it did impact you. Would you change your mind?
What's your standard for what you would accept as proof?
>>69556823
>Well technically saying that gays can't marry is imposing a minority group. Which is called disparate impact.
Except it's the opposite. Changing what a marriage is doesn't impose something on a minority, it carves out something new for them.
And by the way, I only use the disparate impact argument because it's what the EEOC and American courts use. I actually think that's a bad standard, too.
>Your analogy about slaves having basic human rights the entire time and the government failing to protect their rights literally can be said the same
Yes, it can. So prove that gays always had those rights. I'd love to see your historical basis. Extra points if you cite Caligula.
>How can you be so sure these rights didn't exist before?
Can't. All I can go on is the evidence I have. Pointing to a lack of evidence does not refute evidence. Besides, how can you be so sure that prehistoric humans didn't have traditional marriage?
>You go off about... based on a belief system that is only 2000 years old.
Closer to 8000 years old, yeah.
>Our species is at least 50,000 years old.
Closer to at least 150,000 years old, possibly as old as 500,000 years, and with extinct species of hominids being millions of years old.
So what?
The big point to understand is that *all* humans came up with the *same* idea about marriage. Even ones that had no contact with one another. Even ones that had divergent evolution in every different way. Even contemporary uncontacted (or really, those with small contact, but enough for us to know things about them) tribes of primitive humans.
>We should come up with a different term for the monogamous unification of gays.
That's the civil union argument. I'd still oppose that, but it's slightly more reasonable.
>>69557104
>Western system will collaps under they own faggotry.
Interestingly, that's what I think the main effort of Soviet KGB was throughout the 20th century. Ideological subversion to collapse the culture of the west in order to destroy their political adversary.
The western response was just to collapse the Soviet economy by forcing unsustainable levels of defense spending, and choking their economic influence around the world.
I think both strategies succeeded.
>>69558499
>*all* humans came up with the *same* idea about marriage.
By which I mean modern humans. Which some call Homo Sapiens Sapiens, but I wouldn't necessarily make the distinction between modern humans and early modern humans.
I guess the most fair way to do it is to say all humans with historical evidence.
The issue seems really simple to me.
Either
-allow gays to marry
or, the better option
-government shouldn't be involved in marriage (tax benefits etc) and instead should just give those benefits to couples with kids
>>69559195
I think that's the popular opinion these days.
Will you indulge me for a moment?
Why do you think you have come to that decision?
Especially contrast yourself with your parents and grandparents who presumably would have a different conclusion, but who would also think things are just as simple as you think they are.
Bonus points for not pointing to religion or ideology.
Being gay is ok with me because it does not harm anyone, and is not a mental illness.
>>69559277
I consider myself a classic liberal and think that the government should be involved in civil and economic stuff as little as possible.
The reason why the government is giving benefits to married couples is obviously to give incentives for having children, but with the change of gender roles in modern society among other things, it would be more effective to directly support having kids more.
I also don't think the state should be involved in religion at all, since it just creates conflict (as with gay marriage where the religion only allows marriage between a man and a woman which is their right as long as they stay a private organization).
I've come to this conclusion on my own and don't think it's the popular opinion here where I live, most people just support equal rights without reflecting on it (I did the same a couple of years ago).
>>69557788
>muh evolution
>muh appeal to nature
Oh, fuck off. Gays exist in nature, too. This is about what involvement the state should have in marriage, not what's natural.
>>69558143
I'm not willing to go through the massive pain in the ass it would be to explain why I think society ought to be secular, so I'll just admit to using normative arguments to that effect, mainly because I despise religion for all of its effects.
If you're saying that people should have the right to refuse service for any reason, I'm willing to respect that. But exceptions for religious reasons alone don't make much sense.
Only churches and other nonprofits can discriminate on religious basis. Private organizations cannot, at least not against protected classes. I would argue that gender and sexual orientation ought to be protected classes as well, but I don't think they are as of yet, so that's irrelevant.
>>69558499
Prove that rights exist. Protip: you literally can't. The fact that rights are mostly arbitrary is not going to stop me from arguing how things ought to be, but it's still an issue.
>>69559195
this desu
