Does Sup Forums support gay marriage?

Why or why not?
Has same sex marriage been legalized in your country?
Do you think it will be?

Other urls found in this thread:

carm.org/statistics-homosexual-promiscuity
traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/a02rStatistcs.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Marriage is for procreation, thus any marriage by sexual devients is void.

This, what the fuck is the point of financially and legally binding yourself to another person if not to create offspring? The only reason they do it is cause "muh feelings look at us and how normal we are we're just like straights" hooo shit fuck off.

Marriage is a religious institution fuckwit, it should be up to the church to decide, whole procreation is possible it is permitted.

No. Of course not. The marriage is the basic building block of the family and to fulfil its social and biological purpose must be between a man and a woman. Fags can have civil unions and be happy with them.

Not yet. Our left and centre-left parties managed to get the prospect of a national plebiscite on gay marriage shot down so they could continue to use it as an electoral issue.

Probably. Don't think the pendulum will swing back fast enough for this one. Hope I'm wrong though.

no gays are icky

>Does Sup Forums support gay marriage?

Ofc, gay means happy. I just don't support FAGGOTS getting married.

But marriage is no longer a religious institution - straight couples are able to get legally married without any input from the church

Good point about the plebiscite, I fully agree that labor doesn't care about this happening, they just want to be able to use it to get themselves into power.

Another question, if the plebiscite had been held, do you think it would have passed?

Lol then it isn't really marriage it's a legal bond like civil partnership

>marriage is a religious institution
>all major religious scripture explicitly states being gay is an act against God
huh

Not really, at least in Australia, there are legal differences between a marriage and a civil union, albeit small ones, especially when it comes to division of property in the even of divorce and such

Not legal in Germany but most parties obviously want to make it legal. It's a difficult topic, because the ruling parties have to pander to the leftists as much as to the Muslims.

But why can't civil partnerships have equal powers as marriage without chanfingers the definition of marriage.

For some reason this made me chortle for a good while, thanks.

But if they were the same, would there be any reason to call them two different things?

don't really care
tiny fraction of gays ever get married and gays are already a tiny fraction of society

Your kidding right? As I stated marriage is a religious institution and should be reserved for straight couples within the church, if someone wants a civil partnership somewhere else have it but don't call it marriage.

The only thing I support about faggots is their right to die in a fire

Sorry, didn't realise you were the same guy after you changed your flag. Are you saying then that you would prefer that every "marriage" taking place outside of a church was called a civil union, with that term being reserved for a religious marriage?

K user

Yes, besides the process is difervent.

Honestly, I could not give a fuck if two dudes or two chicks get married. Who am I to deprive them the misery of marriage that the rest of us have to deal with?

Unless venues are now turned into churches

Nope. You either swore before your God to be with that person until death do you part or you're just living in sin.

and divorce are not allowed by the church either but you don't see people making a fuss there.

Right, but in that scenario, a religious marriage would have no legal bearing, and any couple would also need to get a civil union

>No
>Homosexuals are degenerate and account for over 50% of pedophiles despite barely being 1% of the population. In addition they do not breed and spread STDs, propogating white genocide and disease
>no
>not on my fucking watch

Most likely.

The (((polls))) would suggest almost certainly but Australia does have a tendency toward being conservative with referendums and there have been some massive electoral upsets recently.

What country is that, just out of interest?

Hey that's what I support too! :)

>Does Sup Forums support gay marriage?
Yes.
>Why or why not?
It's 2017. Also the logical next step to progress to is polygamous and incestuous marriage. It's something LGBT doesn't want to support for some fucking reason (probably because they are too afraid of upsetting conservatives over the top and looking "too degenerate")
In the future (sooner than you think) there will be a movement for polygamous marriage and it WILL become legal whether you like it or not.
>Has same sex marriage been legalized in your country?
No.
>Do you think it will be?
Never this country is riddled with religious fanatics.

Sorry?

No. At best I'll tolerate it, simply because there are bigger fish to fry at the moment.

no, you fucking faggots

No. You'd just say that marriage by the appropriate religious official automatically confers legal union but vice versa does not apply.

Marry them then hang them.

Also note that white genocide isn't a white only issue, us chinks outside of the communist shitheap that is china are also suffering from the same problem.

They should be able to have a serious relationship, but not a real marriage.
They don't produce children, they don't help ensuring the country's future. They should absolutely not get tax cuts etc. associated with marriage.
>inb4 not all hetero couples get children
Yes and those should also not receive the tax benefits. Exactly right senpai.

Nevermind,
pretty much covers it

Exactly pretty simple really...

Why does pol now change f a m into senpai? Teh fuck?

How new are you?

In germany, there are certain financial benefits for marriage. F.e. a married couple can give their child an inhetitance of 500.000€ tax free, while unmarried people can only give up to 20.000 tax free.
Or married couples with far different incomes can benefit too when paying taxes in general

Gays are degenerate sub humans that are pushed in media to lower public morals and used as a tool to break down religion and common human decency. There should be no support for them in any way, shape or form beyond basic human rights and protections - ie its not right to be beating them in teh streets with no reprecussions basically. But they dont get to marry. They dont get to abuse adopted children with their degeneracy. Nothing.

No
It's nothing more than a fetish and as such it doesn't constitute the rights of marriage
Yes
N/A

You filthy Jews keep trying to debase our beautiful continent, but BEGONE.
We are the chosen of Christ.
Every homosexual deviant will die.
I will personally undertake the Will of GOD
No Reprobate will be suffered to live in the Land of Christ

I propose this: Fags will be allowed to exist, and will be legal, but fag behavior will be illegal and punishable by death. Fags will still be allowed to remain celibate or to engage in heterosexual behavior. Trannies will be shot in public or at best locked up in a psychiatric ward for life.

Wow I'm already anti-gay but some of those still sounded outrageous, sure enough I look it up and they're even worse than I thought. Wew.

Celebrating my two year anniversary with my husband today. It's been a good life. We can now file our taxes jointly and receive all the benefits any other couple would receive.

its not, actually

t. not even in support of gay marriage

Only 4.5% of gay men don't cheat on their partner, I'd check his phone.

You pay less taxes if you are separated.

We're actually very open with our phones. I don't have any suspicions. It's entirely positive for a /k/ommando and a Sup Forumsirgin to have a love affair for the ages.

...

that seems a little excessive even for gays, im having a hard time believing that

>allowing me to exist legally
hey thanks man

I do not support gay marriage because our laws have an axiomatic relationship with christian values that is often left unmentioned nowadays. Breaking up this relationship and defining marriage as a purely civil contract between consenting parties would lead to several problems. These are incest and polygamy. In Germany there was already a case of a brother and sister succesfully making their case in front of the European Court for Human Rights. Their relationship was accepted under the premise that they stop producing children. The next big push will come from the Muslims who will demand their harem.
Another problem with granting gay marriage is that it will have a demoralizing effect on those who hold traditional values. Why should Christians fight for a society that doesn't want their beliefs? As a result the muslims with high morale will sooner or later take over.

The most important reason though is the further resulting disassociation of law and christian values. The idea that humans are free is a christian ideal that was postulated as an objective fact for all humans. There will come a point in our society when the disassociation of christian ideals and the law will reach a point where even this first and fundamental ideal will get question. We already see signs of this with SJW saying that not fucking a tranny is bigoted and not fucking a negro or arab is racist.

kek

As long as you do not engage in homosexual behavior (includes homosexual sex, homosexual kissing, etc.) you are free to exist as you please. That's the fairest way to combat degeneracy while also recognizing homosexuals as human beings and giving them a choice to be clean.

SEX is for procreation, sweetheart. Marriage is for familial stability.

lmfao the retards in this thread.

>straight marriage must be between one man and one woman
>civil union can be any other shit with the same legal benefits
not sure if it would work but i bet theres some solution that can be made.

The fuck does it matter?

I've been here since 2007, on Sup Forums since 2013, but i've never posted anything with f a m until now.

I don't support gay marriage because gay marriage doesn't support anything or anyone

>christian values
No such thing. Christianity takes undue credit for the good things and exascerbates the bad things.

Honestly me too until I looked it up. It's an older study so take it how you will carm.org/statistics-homosexual-promiscuity

>gays don't get gay married
>durr

There is no such thing as "gay marriage"; just because you can create phrases like "round square" or "solid gas" or "gay marriage" doesn't make them signify anything real. Gays always had the right to get married, just like straights. What they were pushing for (and got in many places) was a new right that nobody ever had--the right to be married to someone of the same sex. Now both gays and straights have the right to be married, like they always had, and the right to this secondary, pseudo-marriage to someone of the same sex. But that's not marriage, no matter what you call it, it's an imitation of marriage.

No i dont support Gay marriage, but if two people want to enter a domestic partnership be it for emotional or financial reasons. IE you have a room mate, the government should look at it all the same on paper. Marriage is a religion things, it should be up to the church on who is "married" the government should not even be worried about male or female.

Morally, no because i dont support gays in their current iteration in our generation. When it was simply, "Hey i like to fuck dudes and i just dont wanna get killed because of it." Thats fine, not "Im gay you have to accept my way of life or your a bigot!"

F a m has been wordfiltered to senpai since Sup Forums harbor.
T b h is also filtered to desu and C U C K (in all caps) is filtered to KEK

This is what happens when you apply straight standards and presumptions to gay men.

Of course the retard in this thread is Canadian

The liberal in me says I don't care what you faggots do to each other.

The dad in me says Fuck you faggots for fucking with kids.

You need to be gassed alone with the fucking jew.

Because 'separate but equal' has failed before. You can call them 'civil unions' but then all standing legislature that specifically states "Marriage" won't apply in a legal loophole. Ultimately, just calling them both 'marriage' provides them both with the same legal rights. If it's such an issue with the religious background, then all partnerships would need to be called "civil unions."

>lalalala I can't hear you

Fuck off retard

That pic is inaccurate, Mecca is halfway down the coast of Saudi

>Fuck you faggots for fucking with kids
The female equivalent of you is a feminist who hates men because they're rapists

No, it's not a "right" since our cave idiot ancestors raped their mates. All hospitals and other agencies have to do is make a tweek to that "immediate family" rule amd they dont need to fet married anymore.

Difference here is that fags account for less than 1% of the population and still account for over 50% of pedophiles. Men don't, and on top of that they don't organize rape organizations and march around streets chanting about making rape legal.

Your reading is inaccurate. Mecca is the birthplace of Mohammed, not an action of god.

That's not relevant, you fucking retard. Individuals are not responsible for the actions of other individuals in their demographic.

The purpose of marriage is to keep a man and woman loyal to each other in order to raise children. Any other purpose is perversion.

No.

By a plebiscite, only the normative marriage is constitutional.

Not in my lifetime, unless a revolt happens and reds win.

>Gays organize chold molestation organizations and march around streets chanting about making child molestation legal.

Cite a source for that one you dumb fuck
also prove it representative of the demographic

>Individuals are not responsible for the actions of other individuals in their demographic.
Too bad that the reality of life is that people look at what the majority does, and not what the minority doesn't. If niggers account for 50% of violent crime and 50% of their males will be incarcerated at some point in their lifetime then I think the problem is niggers and not anything else.

What happens between two consenting adults is none of anyone's fucking business. That said, whites need to make babies.

>personal happiness and fulfillment including community building enabled by stable partnership is perversion

Someone needs to send all you Christcucks and Islamocunts to an island and just let you kill each other.

Look up NAMBLA. North American Man Boy Love Association. Stupid fucking leaf.

If marriage is not for procreation and raising a family, then what is the point?

Hey look, a not-a-retard.
Welcome.

NONONONONO
Gay marriage ruiened our country. Bisexual and trans middle schoolers is becoming normal. We made a huge mistake with this one.

I said prove it representative.
If NAMBLA is representative of gays then radical feminism is representative of women, and if you believe that you can go fuck yourself.

>pedo demgraphic
traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/a02rStatistcs.html
>33% of homosexuals ADMIT to minor/adult sex (7).
>Homosexuals commit more than 33% of all reported child molestations in the United States, which, assuming homosexuals make up 2% of the population, means that 1 in 20 homosexuals is a child molestor, while 1 in 490 heterosexuals is a child molestor (19).
>73% of all homosexuals have had sex with boys under 19 years of age (9).
>Many homosexuals admit that they are pedophiles: "The love between men and boys is at the foundation of homosexuality" (22).

>b-but they aren't representative
And they don't account for all gay pedophiles. Only some of them. That's where your false equivalency with feminism falls flat, because feminism is a): an idea created by jews and b): an ideology, whereas pedophilia is a state of mind and a fetish.

Once again, a fucking leaf.

I'm with you on the trans issue, but do you have any evidence that legalizing same sex marriage had any effect on it?

% of homosexuals ADMIT to minor/adult sex (7).
minor as in younger than the age of consent or as in yonger than 18?

>73% of all homosexuals have had sex with boys under 19 years of age (9).
shocking!!!!

Check the source you stupid fucking leaf. Everything's been handed to you on a silver platter.

"Under 19 years of age" includes children and teenagers by the way. Even then having sex with teenagers just past the age of consent is still morally wrong.

>traditioninaction.org
that's like citing the daily mail as a proper news source

>Even then having sex with teenagers just past the age of consent is still morally wrong.

That's your opinion.