Marriage is an institution recognized by the state and state benefits are connected to marriage.
There is no logical argument against same sex marriage. The only half way reasonable argument would be about the religious sanctity but even then, marriages are a state institution.
So let's hear it, fag haters, why shouldn't gays be able to marry?
Marriage is an institution recognized by the state and state benefits are connected to marriage.
There is no logical argument against child marriage. The only half way reasonable argument would be about the religious sanctity but even then, marriages are a state institution.
So let's hear it, pedophile haters, why shouldn't I be able to marry children?
Fuck off degenerate subhuman.
>What is consent
It's like you aren't even trying. Do you realize how fucking stupid that sounds? A marriage between two consenting adults is absolutely incomparable to a child and adult.
Honestly kill yourself, brain damaged muzzie.
>what is consent
something homosexuals can't give, because they're mentally ill.
The most functional, supportive members of society are a married man and woman rearing children.
Everything and everyone else can ultimately be classified as either resource leeches or future inmate breeders.
Marriage only exists for the benefit of children.
Faith dont need logics
> A marriage between a consenting child and an adult is absolutely incomparable to a child molestation.
>Muslims are against pedophillia
Nice meme you got there degenerate cunt
The state recognizes marriage for the purposes of producing and raising (as a family) children for the continued existence of the state. The state cannot continue without future generations, and children grow into worthy citizens best and most reliably under the supervision of a stable family including a mother and father to instruct the children in the customs of the society that produced the state and in the gender roles needed to produce further generations of families. The state does not endorse marriage to legitimate pleasure or feelings of pair-bonding, but to produce children. Gays do not produce children, so the common good gains nothing from legitimating or recognizing their lust.
This Flag is a disgrace.
>they are fags
>they want a family
pick one
And what if lesbians birth children from donors?
>The most functional, supportive members of society are a married man and woman rearing children.
I wont argue children are an essential function of continuing society but to try and claim a person can't contribute anything other than children is just asinine.
Who is Alan Turing?
Who is Da Vinci?
Who is Tchaikovsky?
Who is Oscar Wilde?
All faggots that positively influenced history more than you ever will.
Children are not required in order to shape the world for the better. Being a sentient creature allows us to pass our selves forward through intellectual, artistic, scientific, and social ways.
Lesbians cannot fulfil the requirement of raising the children in a family that gives children instruction in the proper gender roles. The children of lesbians will not be socialized with the proper understanding of manly virtue, since there is no man in the family, and they will be learn concepts of femininity that do not produce optimal families for the future.
>marriage is a privilege not a right
>the privilege of tax breaks are given to married individuals because marriage is the single greatest thing for the prosperity of a society, almost entirely due to the insurance of the future of the state.
>gay marriage contributes nothing to society
Therefore why should they have this privilege?
i'm ok with same sex marriage, they should be able to hold any mock ceremony with as much pizza as they want, right before the state executes them for the crime of sodomy.
>The children of lesbians will not be socialized
Looks like the entire Sup Forums is offspring of them
You REALLY think there is no logical argument against child marriage?
>Lesbian couples will raise feminazi SJWs
Damn. I think you're on to something here.
>comes into a board dedicated to political incorrectness
>posts politically correct shit
Shill much?
because no child ever suffered from the lack of a strong father figure...
>I can think of at least 4 productive people that never married or were products of failed not-marriages!
ok.
... wait... are you trying to suggest Leonardo Da Vinci was gay or something? The guy that never married but managed to knock up several women?
>can't argue a position with reason and logic
>hand waives it away by calling it PC.
Sad as fuck you care more about whether something is PC or not over the actual validity of argument.
So all things that are politically incorrect are inherently truth?
Literally retarded, kill yourself. You gave no rational argument. Shills don't stay in their thread and debate.
They were fags though.
And only 2 of those made any real impact.
2.5 of them are artists, which doesn't change the world.
Also, there are a tad bit more Straight people that made the world better.
Also, the fact that faggots raise shit children means that they should not be able to raise children.
Nor should they marry because that is a religious institution.
They could enter a economic union, and fuck eachother in the ass. But they should not be allowed any type of wellfare or government aid, because they will ultimately not have kids which will return the investment into society.
LMAO.
>knock up several women?
Umm... no. First off, he never had any children. There is zero evidence to suggest he had children, ever.
He had an endless series of male "students" that lived with him and there are no records of his having any substantial relationships with women.
It's debatable whether he was gay but he certainly never had children.
>2.5 of them are artists, which doesn't change the world.
LMAO
Hey moron, that's not the point.
We're talking about gay marriage, not homosexuality in general.
Look at my point here
you would be the first going trough the chimney
>There is no logical argument against same sex marriage
Homosexuality is a self-destructive and dangerous mental illness, promoted and normalized in White countries by the Jewish elite and the Jewish controlled media,to the detriment of the White race, White traditions and White culture.
>Marriage is an institution recognized by the state and state benefits are connected to marriage.
Marriage is between one man and one woman.
>The only half way reasonable argument would be about the religious sanctity but even then, marriages are a state institution.
Marriage was created by god for man and woman. Not for homosexuals.
>So let's hear it, fag haters, why shouldn't gays be able to marry?
Because they should be gassed, instead. Just like you should.
>Who is Alan Turing?
>Who is Da Vinci?
>Who is Tchaikovsky?
>Who is Oscar Wilde?
White people. Human beings.
>All faggots that positively influenced history more than you ever will.
Those people did not produce what they did because they were homosexual (even if they were homosexual).
Those people produced all that they did despite their mental illness.
Homosexuals are not a integral part of White society.
>you would be the first going trough the chimney
Is "chimney" a euphemism for your stretched-out anus? :^)
I'd be interested to know your rationale for allowing economic unions. Why should gays get that benefit?
And they should also be the first people to not have any human rights in the case of a emergency, such as a natural disaster or war.
Since they are disposable, and useless. And will not have any lasting impact beyond their insignificant labour.
They also should expect the general population to respect them, because they choose to throw away tens of thousands of years of evolution. They are degenerates, and should be treated as such.
Because tax break benefits are only reserved for productive people of society no homo aids spreading faggots. kill thyself nigger.
>There is zero evidence to suggest he had children, ever.
There is zero evidence he was homosexual.
On the contrary, we are 100% certain you're a sodomite.
underrated.
Mainly to uphold the integrity of freedom. Since restricting freedom can be a very slippery slope.
Personally, I am okay with homosexuals. What threatens me is the LGBT pretense to impose their lifestyle to other people or to religious institutions as "hip" or "cool". You want unions? Fine, that's affair of the state and you've done acting upon it. Do you want marriage? It's up to the Church or any religious organisation you wish to affiliate to.
About adoption there is still a lot of debate, and I would like to see things settle down before acting in a way or another.
But I don't care about your personal life, my goal is to have a family with a decent woman and do good for my own people, everything else that implies physically bashing people is futile (aside from defensive reasons). If Homosexuality is socially feasible, it'll survive; if not, things will evolve for the better by themselves. Have a good one lad.
biology
>Since restricting freedom can be a very slippery slope.
You know what else is a slipper slope?
Good argument.
Fags should and will burn.
Also aritists create stuff that is extremely disposable or replacable, its only value is the value people give it.
Hence if specific artists didn't exist, that wouldnt mean that art would be effected in any major way.
>You know what else is a slipper slope?
Your greased-up colon? :^)
My argument against tags marrying is I just wanna see them puss and moan about how they can't be miserable
>Your greased-up colon? :^)
But I'm not a buggerer.
Because it goes against the natural order of life on earth to marry in the first place, but being gay puts it over the tipping point.
>phase 1: denial
lmao
Well, the thing with economical unions are that they concern their own possesions.
While marriage and social issues concern other people in a society.
So unless they go around bother people with their problems with the economical unions, there cant really be an argument about them not having the right to use their own money however they want.
Maybe you could even tax these economical unions!
>There is zero evidence to suggest he had children, ever.
theguardian.com
I agree with everything on that image except for legalized prostitution.
What's wrong with prostitution?
If someone wants to sell his or her body for sex that person should have that right.
How is it detrimental to society? It will always have a social stigma whether or not it is legal.
How about not doing the Jews will and enabling sodomites?
So, marriage is a positive construct of the state but economic unions are inherent freedoms? If you're recognizing any sort of union that provides a benefit and is based on sexual union, aren't you just creating a slippery slope for the gays to argue their way into marriage? Make it an all-or-nothing binary: conform to social expectations of family life or expect nothing in return from the common good you reject.
It's disgusting and men should treat each other as brothers, rather than as you would treat a woman and dominate each other, i.e. dominating another man or wanting to be dominated by another man sexually as you would a woman, which is an abomination. Men are brothers to each other, the sisters are sexual servants to us.
>It's disgusting
"M-m-muh fee fees! MUH FEE FEES"
>What's wrong with prostitution?
It's anti-White.
>If someone wants to sell his or her body for sex that person should have that right.
...Because the Jews say so.
>How is it detrimental to society?
How is it beneficial to society? It's not.
>It will always have a social stigma whether or not it is legal.
It should have a social stigma because it's wrong and bad and degenerate and does nothing but harm people.
If you're a nigger wanting to "muh dik" his way through life, support prostitution.
If you're White, you'll stand against prostitution.
>"M-m-muh fee fees! MUH FEE FEES"
So you have no problem with this then?
"There are a number of flaws here. First, heterosexual couples need not swear an oath to reproduce in order to receive a marriage certificate. Heterosexual couples need not even be capable of reproducing to marry: no fertility tests are necessarily conducted for the granting of a marriage license. Elderly people who are incapable of bearing children get married all the time. Couples who simply don't want children can still marry. Marriages are not annulled by the state if a couple fails to produce children.
Furthermore, sexual reproduction is clearly possible without marriage (or do these people still believe that married couples sleep in separate twin beds and that a stork delivers them a baby?). Family units exist where nobody is married. Single moms and dads abound.
Clearly the primary purpose of marriage is not sexual reproduction.
Gays in fact can reproduce. They're not sterile. Many a lesbian has become pregnant through artificial insemination. Surrogate mothers aren't a new invention by any means.
It has been said that there's a state interest in supporting the reproductive family unit, and that is absolutely true. This can be accomplished, however, without excluding non-reproductive families; there's no reason that homosexual couples must be excluded any more than there's a reason that sterile couples or couples who simply do not wish to have kids should be excluded (and these heterosexual couples are not excluded at present). While there is a rational basis for the government to support heterosexual reproductive marriage, there is no rational basis for supporting it to the exclusion of others."
it is natural for humans to mate for life. The fact that our kids take so fucking long to grow up and become autonomous, coupled with the fact that they are basically suicidal from the second they can move (see that dog shit? Imma eat it! See that round ball, I'm going to try to breathe it in!) until they are the ripe age of 21, coupled with the fact that kids born OUTSIDE of marriages are completely fucked up compared to kids born INSIDE of marriages all suggest this.
Female psychology is also vastly affected by the number of sexual partners they have (a sort of imprinting). It's an uncomfortable psychological truth for progressives. Evolutionists say it's so the babby mama can find the babby daddy -- "but that in no way suggests like... patriarchal responsibility in any way or anything..."
>suddenly Sup Forums is eager to trust the claims of a woman
LMAO
Two retards are allowed to fuck and two kids are allowed to fuck, it's just when someone who is able to consent takes advantage of someone who isn't where there's a problem. AKA adults manipulating children.
Like, even if you think gay is a mental illness, your point is (((moot))).
Why would I not have a problem with that? :^)
Personally I have no problem with gays, but accepting them on Sup Forums could lead to a slippery slope situation, just like it did in real. It's probably better that things stay the way they are.
There is.
>Man + Woman = Baby
>Man + Man = Nothing
>Woman + Woman = Nothing
take a look at any study of married couples vs. live-in mom&dads and it becomes clear very very quickly that marriage is not "just a piece of paper"
They have more fidelity
They are more economically successful
Their kids don't grow up to go to prison
Their kids are more economically successful
etc.
>it is natural for humans to mate for life
Fucking hilarious. While I am for strong pair bonding, it's absolutely WRONG to claim the natural state of humans is monogamy. The natural state of human beings involves men literally raping any woman they want and whoever survives and is most successful passes on the stronger genes.
Jesus fucking christ.
>Why would I not have a problem with that? :^)
Because you're mentally ill of course.
Dangerously so.
Here's another article you'd have no problem with.
same sex marriages can't have children
>muh adoption
>muh in vitro
It's not the fucking same. If married people could have some priviledges it should be only because they can reproduce and have children. And I've never seen a baby come out of some fag's asshole
Oh, you can't read. That's sad. Also, a bit hilarious :^)
The state destabilizes marriage to the effect of dominating the weak.
>it's absolutely WRONG to claim the natural state of humans is monogamy
Spoken like a true faggot kike
>Oh, you can't read. That's sad. Also, a bit hilarious :^)
>"Not an argument"
Dude, shut the fuck up. You've been BTFO already. This thread isn't even about gay marriage anymore. You haven't been able to argue against anyone. You're just trying to change the goalpost now, by saying
>w-w-well there's nothing w-w-wrong with homosexuality
That's a completely different argument that has nothing to do with whether or not they should be allowed to get married.
It is correct to say that "You can't read" is not an argument.
It's a matter of fact :^)
>t-the natural human state is pure rape!
That's why women are so eager to raise rape babies, and rape babies do so well in life! Because it's the psychological "best case" scenario?
You fucking inbred piece of dog shit...
>It's a matter of fact :^)
You mean
>It's a fact
>There is no logical argument against same sex marriage.
What's to prevent two heterosexual people of the same sex marrying just for the benefits?
1. Same sex marriage is bad for the country strength (demographic, social and propaganda)
2. Government can ban whatever it pleases.
3. ...?
4. Profit!
>Who is ...
The men who lived and worked without same sex marriage just fine.
No, I meant it's a matter of fact. Is English your second language? :^)
Well I was raised in Belgium so why not?
Belgian beer is criminally underrated tho, everyone should try Affligem Dubbel :^)
>Who is Alan Turing?
>Who is Da Vinci?
>Who is Tchaikovsky?
>Who is Oscar Wilde?
People who did their thing without gay marriage.
Look at the world now. No Turing's, Da Vinci's, Tchaikovsky's, Wilde's anymore that gay marriage is legal.
Coincidence? I think not.
Never cared much for anything with alcohol in it.
>Never cared much for anything with alcohol in it.
then u must have hated ur mom nonstop lmao
No. Not at all.
>Implying this hard
>Implying they will ever be allowed to live in areas with child families.
They will be living in the slum as second class citizens senpai
Easy there, gas chamber fag.
Gay civil partnership, yes.
Gay marriage , no.
Marriage is a religious ceremony. It's not the church's fault that governments used an already established institution for their own means. And the government can very easily separate the state from marriage if they wanted to just by changing the word "marriage" to "civil partnership" on all legal documents and taxes.
Maybe he's not a fuckin degenerate
Why don't you suck his dick if you love him so much :^)