Is there any reason gay marriage/sex shouldn't be legally allowed?

The only argument I ever see against it on here is that it's degenerate, but that's not convincing enough for me.

Other urls found in this thread:

discord.gg/DZDpN
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Marriage is a union of Man and Woman in ofder to start a Family (have children). Homos cannot have children, at least not naturally so they should not marry.

Also marriage is a religious matter, so that should be left to religion.

State should fuck off in that matter. If it wants to give civilian unions to it's citizens, it's more then welcome, and then everyone who pays taxes should be allowed to enter it, but it should not be named marriage.

That is all

does this have russian version?

Only thing I can think of is that everyone will get gay married and not have kids, society crumbles, government fails and everyone gets raped

Its a religious union.
And that religion believes gays will make their god turn them into salt or something.
So you are essentially forcing the state to bully the religion to accept you.

Now if gays deserve the same legal treatment as couples is another argument.

So a man and woman who don't have children shouldn't be able to get married either then? Not that I disagree with your points.
Are you not aware of the Nationalist Spurdo meme? There's pretty much one for every country, ideological movement, etc.
> Everyone will get gay, everyone gets raped
Probably ironic shitpost but retarded nonetheless.

No poofs mate, still illigal in straya

this
and for homos having sex the argument against the :
>it doesn't concern you, let them make their free choices in their private life as long as it doesn't affect you

is really degeneracy, it doesn't matter that it's unnatural except that they're programmed to not want to enjoy this and therefore they had to evolve some kind of disorder which can easily be seen by their attention whoring, female acting (which a man shouldn't be, that's degeneracy) and the changing of their voice - all clear indicators that they've got psychological damage. Just because something they do is private, doesn't mean you want or like people like that.

>So a man and woman who don't have children shouldn't be able to get married either then?

No, they might get them later, a miracle might happen if they cant have them, etc.
This is a general rule for it. In the end like I said, It should be left to their church. If they are atheists they should not care, if they care about non-secular marriage while being atheists they are hypocrites and should fuck off.

but it's not religious in the US, it's a government issue

gays are not the enemy here and splitting them off because of this Milo idiocy is nonsensical. Peter Thiel is a big reason that Trump won

>but it's not religious in the US, it's a government issue
Then it is fine.
Over here marriage has very strong religious connotations.

Yes. Men and women create babies, that's how civilization advances. Your gay as fuck lifestyle is an alternative lifestyle, as long as it doesn't harm anyone but you, that's fine. You start trying to normalize your alternative lifestyle, we have a problem.

I understand the religious aspect, but legally, just say for something like Civil Unions, there is no reason for them not to be allowed. I fail to see merit in the argument(s) that allowing gays to live together or publicly do what they want (excluding ridiculous public examples like nudity and pride parades around children, etc.) will degenerate society morally.
Are Civil Unions allowed and recognized in Australia? If so then de facto it's essentially the same thing.

>a miracle might happen if they cant have them
>a miracle if they are over 70
>a miracle if a woman literally has no womb
>a miracle if a man has no testicles

Maybe they can walk on water while they're at it.

>but legally, just say for something like Civil Unions, there is no reason for them not to be allowed
That is what I meant with another argument.
That is how we done it in germany.

I believe they have all the same rights and I don't believe their legal partnerships are going to corrode society.

But I do have a problem with forcing christians to accept people who are not following their rules
Despite not agreeing with those rules
If that makes any sense.

> Men and women create babies, that's how civilization advances
Gay people having sex with each other or clubbing and getting into relationships with each other doesn't stop straight people from getting married and having children and going about their lives normally.
Marriage really is religious though, even if it's considered mostly legal in the US, if you were purely talking about Civil Unions, then yes, it's a purely governmental issue, but marriage generally has very religious connotations.
What about a straight couple that never wants children though? Can a man with a vasectomy and a woman be married? Is the ability to have children and the religious aspect the only thing that makes a marriage legitimate?

>In the end like I said, It should be left to their church

Matthew 22:21

Civil Unions are different matter, If for your government Civil Unions=Marriage, that is a matter between your gov. and it's citizens.

On the other hand, all the bonuses that come with marriage, like simplification of law, tax cuts, etc are there to make having children easier. If such an union cannot produce children (whatever their sexuality is) why should they benefit from the goods? But that is just my opinnion

>What about a straight couple that never wants children though?

Personally? See above. If they cannot/have not children there is no reason why the state should make things easier for them.

I guess that church would not want to antagonise it's believers by saying: "No child, no marriage" but on principal it should do so.

Of course it should be "legally" allowed, because any instrument of law which pretends to be protecting your for your benefit, is a shakedown. Will arresting drug dealers and marijuana users really protect my children from marijuana? No. It will create a prohibition market where marijuana flourishes and any demand for it is amplified.

The idea that a benevolent government makes these laws on your behalf is a joke. They just want a cut.

Should the government officiate any rules about marriage whatsoever? No. Telling them that they are allowed to prevent gays from marrying only further puts marriage under the purview of government. If my religion says I take four wives, who the fuck cares? Get your own harem. Pretending that the State even has the capacity to prevent gays from "marrying" (if you can call it that) is a meme.

The deep truth that many Anons aren't willing to accept is that OF COURSE it should be legal, so it can be ostracized. Demanding someone say "i love you" with a gun in their back doesn't really make them love you, it just makes them capitulate, and now they will never actually love you.

By mandating the culture you think you *ought* to have into law, you destroy any chance of it existing organically. Culture is chosen, not legislated, or it is not really a culture at all.

> If such an union cannot produce children (whatever their sexuality is) why should they benefit from the goods?
Well that's fine and can still be implemented rationally, the state should help couples who have children via healthcare, benefits, aid, etc. so that they can raise healthy children and families and produce the next generation of a healthy society. But if they're just married and don't currently have children I don't see why they should receive any benefits that anybody else doesn't receieve.
Even if it is degenerate how do you even go about banning or discouraging it? It's essentially unenforceable, not to mention you incur massive costs in doing so for very little actual societal benefits. It's almost as inefficient a waste as making drugs completely illegal.

>Well that's fine and can still be implemented rationally, the state should help couples who have children via healthcare, benefits, aid, etc. so that they can raise healthy children and families and produce the next generation of a healthy society. But if they're just married and don't currently have children I don't see why they should receive any benefits that anybody else doesn't receieve.

pretty much

No. And I think that's all fine. What's not fine is the entire power structure (media, government and most importantly SCHOOLS!) pushing homosexuality (and everything more perverse from there) as anything more than an alternative lifestyle that is not civilization-nurturing.

It is all so pervasive for how small a minority these people are, it's crazy. Again, I fully realize homosexuality has been around since the dawn of time. It's always been a very small % of humans, and it isn't 100% genetic or predetermined, don't even start with that shit. So when it gets forced into little impressionable kids' heads, it MATTERS

>Is there any reason gay marriage/sex shouldn't be legally allowed?

Yes, because then 2 pedos can marry and adopt children.

>So a man and woman who don't have children shouldn't be able to get married either then

Yes. Marriage should be defined as "Having made a child together".

You could just ban gay people/couples from adopting children, it doesn't mean you have to ban them from doing anything else normally. Also I don't have any statistics on the matter but I really doubt that any substantial majority of gays are pedos who do anything to their adopted children, and I don't know how their adopted children turn out but it's probably not too terrible.

Because marriage is a religious practice so it's up for the religious institutions to decide. Not the government.

If a man and a woman live in the same house for a year in Aus they are considered defacto. Defacto relationships are not a consensual bond its a government tax grab

sure. let the faggots get cucked for a change.

i'm sick of them flaunting their carefree childless lives. let's see how cool they are dealing with mortgages and diapers.

can't wait for the gay divorce industry to become a big thing too.

Join the OFFICIAL /polgb/ Discord:

discord.gg/DZDpN

>You could just ban gay people/couples from adopting children

No, you couldn't really. Because as soon as they get the right to marry, they can adopt. That's even THE MAIN REASON why gays push the right to marry: To be able to adopt children. A huge issue in the lesbian community.

>It's just two consenting adults
>It's literally nothing
>It's just two consenting people
>There's literally nothing wrong with being gay
>Being gay is not a choice
>So if your child is gay, they need to be allowed to express themselves
>It's just who they are there's nothing wrong with it
>We need to encourage children to explore their sexuality because not doing so will cause those poor gay children to become closeted and miserable
>They deserve to be happy too
>Children should be allowed to explore their sexuality with their peers and adults in their lives
>We need to teach these children about sex so they can make informed and safe decisions
>Well, as long as the teen is happy and understands what theyre doing, there's not really any issue with them experimenting with older adults
>If the child can understand what's going on, they can technically make informed consent so it's not really THAT bad
>It's just two consenting people, nothing wrong with that.
>We should legalize pedophilia, they can't really control who they love and besides! The children can make informed consent because they've been educated so I see nothing wrong with it.
>I guess we should also legalize beastiality because animals can understand and enjoy sex just as humans
>we should also legalize incest because it's literally no different than any other relationship only closer because they've known one another since birth

On top of the fact that homosexuality leads into extreme sexual deviance that includes pedophilia, trans, identity issues, mental issues; many in the gay community are 'bug chasers' and carry hellish STDs from their promiscuity; it's a net drag on society that makes life a living hell for everyone involved in it.