Gay marriage

Can you bring any nonreligious argument against gay marriage?

>in4 degeneracy
it's something subjective and biased to say that homosexuality is degeneracy.

Other urls found in this thread:

whatweknow.law.columbia.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-wellbeing-of-children-with-gay-or-lesbian-parents/
dx.doi.org/10.1037/dev0000228
williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Patterson-Farr-Forssell-AppliedDevScience-Jul-2010.pdf
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00678.x/abstract?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=userIsAuthenticated=false
pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/06/26/same-sex-marriage/
archive.is/g0kHt
gallup.com/poll/212702/lgbt-adults-married-sex-spouse.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_content=morelink&utm_campaign=syndication
archive.is/MlP5k
quora.com/What-percent-of-gay-men-in-the-US-are-in-a-long-term-relationship-and-how-does-this-compare-to-the-general-population
prri.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/PRRI-Millennials-Web-FINAL.pdf
religionnews.com/2017/08/04/britains-first-same-sex-marriage-celebrated-in-a-scottish-church/
news.abs-cbn.com/overseas/08/25/17/italian-protestant-church-says-i-do-to-gay-blessings
abc.net.au/news/2017-08-23/same-sex-marriage-what-bible-has-to-say-robyn-whitaker/8831826
unvis.it/abc.net.au/news/2017-08-23/same-sex-marriage-what-bible-has-to-say-robyn-whitaker/8831826
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Bump.

Science on gays as parents:

whatweknow.law.columbia.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-wellbeing-of-children-with-gay-or-lesbian-parents/

www.asanet.org/documents/ASA/pdfs/12-144_307_Amicus_%20(C_%20Gottlieb)_ASA_Same-Sex_Marriage.pdf

Farr, R. H. (2017). Does parental sexual orientation matter? A longitudinal follow-up of adoptive families with school-age children. Developmental Psychology, 53(2), 252-264.
dx.doi.org/10.1037/dev0000228

williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Patterson-Farr-Forssell-AppliedDevScience-Jul-2010.pdf

How Does the Gender of Parents Matter?

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00678.x/abstract?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=userIsAuthenticated=false


Statistics on gays and marriage:

pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/06/26/same-sex-marriage/

archive.is/g0kHt

gallup.com/poll/212702/lgbt-adults-married-sex-spouse.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_content=morelink&utm_campaign=syndication

archive.is/MlP5k

quora.com/What-percent-of-gay-men-in-the-US-are-in-a-long-term-relationship-and-how-does-this-compare-to-the-general-population

7% of millennials are gay:

prri.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/PRRI-Millennials-Web-FINAL.pdf

DESU it's fine because gays tend to be liberal and the less liberals we have the better. Also they colonize inner cities which in all honesty is pretty funny.

marriage is a religious institution
there is a reason people get married in churches

It is unnatural and goes against social structures. Seeing your flag no wonder you are defending faggotry.

With marriage as it is today I don't give a shit it's meaningless anyway. As long as they don't force churches to marry people like they force bakers to make cakes.

>marriage is a religious institution
>there is a reason people get married in churches
Okay, why do people get married on boats? Is it an aquatic institution?

t. white trash ustase.
Fuck off, picka.

disease

Afara din tara poponar borat!

religionnews.com/2017/08/04/britains-first-same-sex-marriage-celebrated-in-a-scottish-church/

news.abs-cbn.com/overseas/08/25/17/italian-protestant-church-says-i-do-to-gay-blessings

No church or priest anywhere has ever been forced to marry a gay couple.

Insults are not arguments, faggot

There is more to coercion than physical force

Are you a christcuck? then go suck the dick of Pomohaci.
Your fucking church is filled with gays, why do you hate them?
Gays had been here since forever, you can't make them go out just because you're a brainwashed nationalist loser.

Civil unions are a fair compromise. Gay unions should be allowed. Gay pride parades are basically homosexual men prancing around wearing giant signs the say "UNFIT PARENTS". Gay people have a long way to go before they earn the right to parenthood. Jewish media is heavily to blame because there is no such thing as a positive (aside from HIV) gay role model in modern society. I'm actually gay and as long as the majority of us are part of the ultra liberal left we don't deserve the right to raise children in an unfit environment. Support your local log cabin republicans.

They still get a pastor to do the wedding ceremony though.

Homosexuality is going to phase out in liberal society. It originally probably persisted as a kin selection mechanism by providing extra resources to siblings or through socially imposed heterosexual behavior. Most people are barely having kids, and gays aren't forced into the closet now. That means kin selection barely matters if at all, and there's effectively no incidental breeding. If it's genetic, it'll vanish from Western society in a generation or two. Lesbianism is probably a plastic adaptation to polygyny, so it might stick it out.

Marriage exists as a basis for the family. Without children, marriage is pointless. Since faggots shouldn't be anywhere near children, they have no reason to marry. While I disagree with slippery slopes as an argument, it clearly applies here. Gay marriage will lead to faggots adopting children becoming acceptable.

You weak pussy can't even bring a argument, you just throw a childish insult, proving how retarded you are.

...

Whats your point? They are not Christian, just because they call themselves that doesn't mean they are. Homosexuality is a sin.

Why do you get to define who is and is not a Christian?

Also:

abc.net.au/news/2017-08-23/same-sex-marriage-what-bible-has-to-say-robyn-whitaker/8831826

Please archive those
unvis.it/abc.net.au/news/2017-08-23/same-sex-marriage-what-bible-has-to-say-robyn-whitaker/8831826

You must truly be wicked.

I asked you to stop posting that image.

Why do you keep posting it?

You keep hurting my feelings.

I'm a human just like you.

Do my feelings matter nothing to you?

Because it's unnatural. Marriage was always between a man and a women and it should always be. You can say but "muh rights" but it's not about that. What if some redneck inbred hillbilly brother and sister wanted to get married? By such standards they should because if two adults love each other, who are we to judge, right? So you can either deny them their "rights" or support incest. I for one hold the belief marriage should stay traditional and should not be changed because of one small minority. They literally do not even matter nor does gay marriage.

>naturalistic fallacy

are plastics natural?

then you went into a straw man with incest

I don't, but the bible clearly says homosexuality is a sin. And I'm not even Christian, or religious at all, but Leviticus 18:22 clearly forbids homosexual relations between men.

>No church or priest anywhere has ever been forced to marry a gay couple.
Technically under state laws, a priest may be forced to marry a gay couple.

All states in the USA allow priests to get state certification to perform weddings as an agent of the state in order to promote greater parity between civil and religious marriages and make it so you can just get shit done through your priest instead of having every couple go down to the courthouse/whatever office handles that shit.

As part of that certification they become bound by the anti-discrimination laws of the state through which they are certified.

If a gay couple comes to them seeking a civil marriage and they don't officiate it, they can be sued/lose their certification.

They wouldn't have to perform a religious ceremony, nor would they have to provide a church venue, but they would absolutely be forced to perform their government job.

The same principle must be applied, faggot. Hypocritical much?

Semi-religious/non-religious argument:
The US Constitution has "seperation of church & state" as interpreted by SCOTUS.

Therefore, it is illegal for the State to be involved in any Religious institution's made up matrimony ceremony.

If one wants a Civil Union, without the Religious order aspect, that would be a State run matrimony ceremony.

Men are ugly.

>Can you bring any nonreligious argument against gay marriage?

priests have never been successfully sued for refusing to perform gay marriage

>it's something subjective and biased to say that homosexuality is degeneracy.
No it isn't because you literally cannot generate a human being with two people of the same sex. You are becoming involved in a relationship with the same sex, using your organs designed to create life into lust, twisting the pleasure you're supposed to get from reproducing into not producing anything, just gaining pleasure from sexual acts which ultimately do nothing positive for a person's life.

>They still get a pastor to do the wedding ceremony though.
Nope, a notary public will do. And boat captains can be that too.

i thought this was decided globally in 2015, why is it still being talked about

>homosexuality is degeneracy.

No it is literally not. Suicide rates, STD rates, promiscuity, and infidelity rates, among many other things, are much higher in homosexual men than it is in straight men.

Further, are you going to sit there and tell me that pic related is a shining example of decency?

You don't want a religious argument? Fine, it is self-evidently degenerate and should not be tolerated by society much less sanctioned by the state.

To the gas chamber with you.

Like I said before, marriage is a religious institution.

There is nothing forbidding gays from forming civil unions.

Nothing forbidding us from marriage either.

ok well religion aside naturally a man and woman come together for love sure but more importantly to reproduce.
Seeing as how gays can't reproduce coming together for marriage doesn't make sense as it doesn't have all attributes of a straight marriage. Of course they could adopt but that is an absolutely appalling idea with the child being in a completely unnatural household setting. One could only imagine the stinted growth or abnormal development.
Things are bad enough when a child has just one parent let alone 2 of the same sex.

Semi-religious/non-religious argument:

The US Constitution has "seperation of church & state" as interpreted by SCOTUS.

Therefore, it is illegal for the State to be involved in any Religious institution's made up matrimony ceremony.

If one wants a Civil Union, without the Religious order aspect, that would be a State run matrimony ceremony.

wtf, make up your mind are you saying its degenerate or not?

>There is nothing forbidding gays from forming civil unions.
until 2015 there was a constitutional amendment in the united states that did exactly that. I'm not sure about other countries, they don't exactly matter to me, but I highly doubt outside of the US and canada fags can get unioned.

>priests have never been successfully sued for refusing to perform gay marriage
They've never been unsuccessfully sued either. What's your point? Gay marriage is relatively new and you need an asshole gay couple willing to push a priest and a priest stupid enough to refuse even though they'd be sued.

honestly considering a fake marriage to save some taxes

>gay marriage is legal in his country
why is every country besides Australia so fucking shit

Marriage is a civil institution. You can get married in a courthouse. If marriage had always been restricted only to churches your argument might hold more water.

>Therefore, it is illegal for the State to be involved in any Religious institution's made up matrimony ceremony.
That's what civil marriage is for.
>If one wants a Civil Union, without the Religious order aspect, that would be a State run matrimony ceremony.
So would a civil marriage. So would a common law marriage for that matter.

There's an article people tote around where a gay couple threatened to sue a church or priest for not allowing gay marriage but I couldn't find any evidence they went through with it let alone won.

fucking romanian

you should turn off your proxy so I can get a frame of reference about your intelligence but around here it is pretty hard to sue an individual priest for not doing something that violates his religion.

Then I hope you don't mix clothes, or any other weird shit the bible forbids you doing.

fucking white trash.

Just separate the concept of religious marriage from legal marriage Jesus. It's not like marriage didn't exist before the church.
So let the gays have their legal marriage and allow churches to refuse. Also shift marriage tax breaks to child tax breaks.

...

>No it isn't because you literally cannot generate a human being with two people of the same sex.
So, what about barren couples? Do we prohibit barren people from marrying?

>not doing something that violates his religion.
It's a separation of church and state thing.

You can't make them perform religious duties, but you can totally fucking force them to do the civil duties because they basically have 2 jobs.

If someone worked at the county clerk's office and they were also a priest on weekends, you could totally god damn force them to file a gay marriage certificate on penalty of firing. Same shit.

You can't force priests that aren't certified to perform civil marriages to do jack shit. It's only the ones that have 2 jobs (which is to say most any priest performing marriages).

I'm not Christian so i dont give a fuck, but the bible is clearly against faggotry, and all those churches allowing gay marriage are heretics

Gay marriage acknowledges the governments power to interfere with private affairs instead' of challenging it. Effectively it is statist bootlicking. While ostensibly fighting for their rights, they are instead ceding them to the government, asking only that the government slackens its rapacious grasp just enough to let them live happy lives as obedient subjects. And in so doing, they sell our rights as well.

Exactly why I said, "semi-religious/non-religious".
If one wants the "church ceremony", that is a religious ceremony.

If one is an atheist, there is the "common law" or courthouse.

I don't understand why people make a big deal about the ramblings of "holy books", which contradict themselves.

Can you fuck off and stop stealing people's land gypsy?

It's really quite simple: Marriage exists as a privileged status that aims to further procreation.

Semi-religious/non-religious argument:
The US Constitution has "seperation of church & state" as interpreted by SCOTUS.

Therefore, it is illegal for the State to be involved in any Religious institution's made up matrimony ceremony.

If one wants a Civil Union, without the Religious order aspect, that would be a State run matrimony ceremony.

More like hereditary, there always was procreation outside marriage.

>It's only the ones that have 2 jobs (which is to say most any priest performing marriages).
That's very strange. Maybe it's just a Catholic thing but every priest I've known would not marry someone who was not part of their congregation, and most (really all that I know of) would not accept a homosexual couple. So I guess what is your point here?

>Semantics

Why are they barren? If they become married not because they want to start a family but because they just want sex/pleasure from one another, then they shouldn't be married. Regardless that is a different issue than the homosexual one and just because we don't refute couples who end up barren does not mean we therefor have to allow homosexual couples into marriage.

Marriage originally gave tax benefits from the government as a reward and because you would have offspring; now it's allowing those benefits for people who don't plan on having kids or at most they are forced to adopt.

In summary, if you don't plan on having kids, then you shouldn't be getting married, period. Marriage is a religious ceremony that signifies the union of man and woman, and the beginning of life/a family; it has been taken over and twisted for peoples own selfish desires, which marriage in reality is supposed to be a selfless act.

Marriage formalizes procreation and gives a legal guarantee to all involved: husband, wife, inlaws and offspring.

Pointing out that Gay Marriage has always been there as a Civil Union/Common Law run by the State.

Many pushing the Agenda are too stupid to realize this though.

So why do gays who have kids, and some do, not merit those same guarantees?

Nature selects, those who don't reproduce will be the last generation of their own groups. Especially if all species do so.

>Maybe it's just a Catholic thing but every priest I've known would not marry someone who was not part of their congregation, and most (really all that I know of) would not accept a homosexual couple.
They can say that, but they're either talking explicitly about the religious aspect or they aren't aware they can be sued because nobody has ever tried to sue them.

Priests are bound by the same laws as justices of the peace in regards to officiating the civil aspect of marriages. If a justice of the peace tried to refuse to marry someone based on their sexuality or religion, they would be out of a god damn job in a hurry.

This shit just doesn't come up often because again, other than people looking for a lawsuit, who's going to go to deliberately go to someone outside of their denomination to perform a civil marriage from anyone but a justice of the peace?

Marriage is also used as a way for the State to pull more taxes from the Citizens.

Justices are required to marry all-comers per their job. Priests are not held to local or state anti-discrimination ordinances because churches are not considered public accommodations.

>Civil Union
Civil Unions are a relatively new invention designed to prevent the gays from getting civil marriage. It conferred far less rights and would only be recognized in the state it was issued in with no federal recognition.

Gay common law marriage was just as illegal as gay civil marriage.

I'm romanian too, manca-mi-ai coaiele de jidan prost ce esti

And back to the SCOTUS decision of seperation of church & state.

It is also the reason churches can file 501 c3.

Incest. Literally no argument against legalizing it if you legalize gay marriage. Two consenting adults, so who are you to judge? Also kids don't make a marriage - they are irrelevant to the act of marriage. You also can't say it's weird or unnatural because that doesn't work when I use it for gays.

The thing you should be taking from what I'm saying is: Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should.

>Regardless that is a different issue than the homosexual one
Not really, so straight barren couples shouldn't get married? Even if they plan to adopt?
Legal marriage is not religious in origin, and there are many benefits to the spouses that don't necessarily need to have kids.
Your taking away freedom from responsible adults just because.
Also marriage is selfish, it's done to gain rights and legal protection.

Mortii ma-tii de poponar imputit, mars inapoi pe rodditor(de pule)
Avem nevoie de Vadim 2.0 ca presedinte sa curete tara asta de comunisti, poponari(bolnavi mintal), tigani si bozgori(cei care se integreaza si se declara romani sunt ok)
Si Homohaci a dovedit din nou ca homosexualii=pedofili si bolnavi mintali pt ca habar n-are in ce grava situatie se afla din punct de vedere religios chiar daca a fost preot.


The main argument for gay marriage is that they're 2 consenting adults so they can whatever they want
When you bring up bestiality, they say animals can't consent yet, they somehow can consent to be killed for your food? They can consent to be your pet?
Slippery slope is real, and as years pass by, all the other shit like bestiality, necrophilia, even pedophilia will be normalized
I don't give a shit about faggots as long as they're marriage isn't legalized and can't adopt children, and obviously aren't promoted
Also, homosexuality is clearly promoted and used to reduce the global population, but its used in Europe and USA(and refugees) so the whites disappear, not China with 1.5 billion people or India with 1.3 billion

That's because they are non-profit. That has nothing to do with them being public accommodation or not.

Blood relations negate consent.

>Justices are required to marry all-comers per their job
So are priests
>Priests are not held to local or state anti-discrimination ordinances because churches are not considered public accommodations.
I didn't say anything about churches. Priests don't have to provide venues or religious services. They just have to process the creation of the marriage license. That state certification that lets them issue those also effectively makes them government agents as long as the issue at hand is the civil documents portion of marriages and the government can't discriminate. They're only allowed to be a part of church and state as long as they follow the rules of both.

If it gives the same rights and obligations why not call it the same?
>If it looks like a duck

Priests are not required by any law to marry anyone who comes their way.

Which is why it should be defined as :
The equivalent of Religious marriage with the same rights of Religious marriage. I.E. inheritance, spousal rights

Asa barosaneee, bine dracu ca mai sunt si oameni ca noi doi in tara asta.

>Legal marriage is not religious in origin
That's where you're wrong buddy and my whole point.
>Also marriage is selfish, it's done to gain rights and legal protection.
That is what it has become, but my point is that it didn't originate as that and therefor is not truly that at its core, hence why people believe it has become twisted and not what it was intended, thus no longer being even what is considered truly 'marriage'.

>Priests are not required by any law to marry anyone who comes their way.
Government is and priests that get state certified are a part of government.

Human children need a Mother and Father to not grow up to be pieces of shit.

This is undisputed biological science.
/thread

Priests are not considered government employees.

You can't separate marriage from religion. Marriage is a religious institution, and is defined as a contract between a man and a woman. It's essentially a sacred promise that a man and a woman make to God that they will stay faithful to one another for the rest of their lives in order to raise their offspring in a healthy and stable environment. Marriage is not about love between two adults. Love doesn't even need to exist in a successful marriage. It's about raising children, and maintaining social cohesion. Going by this understanding of marriage, gays don't have children (nor should the be allowed to adopt) so there is no purpose for gays to marry.

That said, marriage in the modern world has been twisted and perverted into a meaningless secular legal contract that can be broken at any time and for any purpose with very little financial or social cost (not taking into account the well being of the children, ironically enough), thus negating the entire purpose. It's already been made a mockery of, so gay marriage is just the icing on the cake. There is no rational argument against gay marriage in the western world, because gay marriage is simply a symptom of the disease (liberalism) that has perverted the institution of marriage to begin with.

>with the same rights of Religious marriage
Religious marriages don't provide any rights.

People that get religious marriages that wish to attain marriage rights also get civil marriage licenses.

>That's because they are non-profit.

Hahahaha, Churches = non-profit, hahaha

Marriage, as per original definition, can only happen between a man and a woman. If gays want to "marry" they should come up with a different word for it.

AIDS and hepatitis and destruction of the nuclear family thus destruction of the remainings of society.
Also Leviticus and Saint Paul.

Gays can't have kids in the first place.