Tolerance should be good enough. I hate the whole acceptance/validation

[Wormy]

up, but they are not obligated to attack anyone for speaking up his mind either.

If I stand up and say "You're full of shit and we don't care", that's also my freedom of speech.

If a majority, or even large minority, of people were actually LGBTQ, wouldn't that cause societal collapse at best, or human extinction at worst?

And if a frog had wings, it wouldn't bump it's ass when it hopped. If such a thing legit becomes a possibility, then I'll worry, but that's so far out it's still got a nice suite in fantasy land.

 

[Aero the Alcoholic Bat]

And if a frog had wings, it wouldn't bump it's ass when it hopped. If such a thing legit becomes a possibility, then I'll worry, but that's so far out it's still got a nice suite in fantasy land.

A large minority of Zoomers identify as LGTBQ. 40%, I think.

It's not that I support conversion therapy or anything (on the grounds that it doesn't work), but if homosexuality were the result of nurture rather than nature, that's potentially worrying.

There are people who want to legalise marriage with animals or children.
I don't think two gays getting together is harming anyone contrary to a man and a kid or a man and an animal.

Whether or not it "hurts" anyone else is irrelevant.

The institution of marriage is intended to foster the best environment for children to grow up in, and to provide parental role models of both sexes, at the bare minimum. Homosexual couples cannot provide that.

Marriage is not intended as a means to validate those with disordered sexualities, no matter how benign it may seem.

 

[SouthernBitchBob]

The institution of marriage is "intended" to unify resources and smooth relations between two rival families, too. Does the married gay couple next door ruin your marriage and spoil the family values you've instilled in your kids? All of this "think of the children" bullshit falls apart with the smallest pushes. What if the gay couple doesn't want kids?

"Marriage" is a legal contract, and creating that contract between two adult strangers doesn't cheapen your own contract. Unless you're a religious nut cloaking your religious nuttery by pretending you have ever-increasingly goofy secular objections, but we've seen *that* for years. Just go back to saying it's against the Will of Jesus, at least that deranged ranting was honest.

 

[Wormy]

A large minority of Zoomers identify as LGTBQ. 40%, I think.

I don't buy it. Trenders.

 

[Aero the Alcoholic Bat]

"Marriage" is a legal contract, and creating that contract between two adult strangers doesn't cheapen your own contract. Unless you're a religious nut cloaking your religious nuttery by pretending you have ever-increasingly goofy secular objections, but we've seen *that* for years. Just go back to saying it's against the Will of Jesus, at least that deranged ranting was honest.

I was once a lolbertarian too.

The gay couple could just cohabitate in peace. Few gay couples even express interest in getting married. The reason to have marriage be a legal institution in the first place is out of the assumption that it benefits society at large. Homosexual couples don't really do that, even if they don't cause any "harm" either. Otherwise we'd only have common law marriages at most, or just let adults cohabitate unceremoniously.

There's also a major push to legitimize polyamory or cuckoldry, which the LGBTQ community wholeheartedly embraces. And even if you were to make the case that marriage could include homosexual couples, it definitely would cheapen or degrade the institution of marriage to include those.

And if there's anything we could gather from casual observation of current events, the slippery slope isn't as much of a fallacy as we thought it was.

 

[Noir drag freak]

I was once a lolbertarian too.

The gay couple could just cohabitate in peace. Few gay couples even express interest in getting married. The reason to have marriage be a legal institution in the first place is out of the assumption that it benefits society at large. Homosexual couples don't really do that, even if they don't cause any "harm" either. Otherwise we'd only have common law marriages at most, or just let adults cohabitate unceremoniously.

There's also a major push to legitimize polyamory or cuckoldry, which the LGBTQ community wholeheartedly embraces. And even if you were to make the case that marriage could include homosexual couples, it definitely would cheapen or degrade the institution of marriage to include those.

And if there's anything we could gather from casual observation of current events, the slippery slope isn't as much of a fallacy as we thought it was.

Homosexual males make more than straight males. Why should gay couples essentially pay a bachelor tax or higher taxes? I understand that the institution of marriage is important to you. This was one of my problems with the campaign. It focused to much on the whole love is love thing. Focus on the practical and economic side of the issue. As a homosexual, the last thing I think about are feelings.

My second issue with the whole let’s cohabitation thing is that marriage comes with legal and economic protections. You’ll essentially lose everything if your lover dies.

Why do gay couples need society’s blessing? Wealthy and powerful homosexuals sure don’t. They just exploit loopholes. That’s been that way in Western issue since the 18th century. The whole time talk about marriage as a sentimental institution is very middle class. Real talk, marriage isn’t sentimental or symbolic. It’s just a tool to build wealth and power. The upper classes know that. Hence, marriage for breeding and lovers for pleasure.

 

[Kermit Jizz]

"Marriage" is a legal contract, and creating that contract between two adult strangers doesn't cheapen your own contract.

LMAO. I am surely immune to the whims of society and exist in an isolated bubble!

 

[Noir drag freak]

LMAO. I am surely immune to the whims of society and exist in an isolated bubble!

If you’re wealthy, you can isolate yourself and then some. The marriage rates for the elite is still high, it’s the poor that can’t get married.

As a homosexual male, why is that we’re wasting time with the word or institution. I feel like this would be one of the situations where separate and equal will do.

 

[gang weeder]

Yup, but they are not obligated to attack anyone for speaking up his mind either.

There are people who want to legalise marriage with animals or children.
I don't think two gays getting together is harming anyone contrary to a man and a kid or a man and an animal.

They are harming each other, at the very least. Even if we accept the premise that that's okay, the fags do not then have the right to go and change the definition of marriage for society as a whole in an attempt to force people to accept their degenerate lifestyle, which of course is what they went out and did. So fuck them and back into the closet IMO.

A large minority of Zoomers identify as LGTBQ. 40%, I think.

It's not that I support conversion therapy or anything (on the grounds that it doesn't work), but if homosexuality were the result of nurture rather than nature, that's potentially worrying.

Like someone else said, a lot of it is indeed "trending." In particular young white women will claim to be some form of LGBTQBBQ@)*($&!*($EYUHJRFYR*( in order to get onto the victimhood totem pole and escape the shame of just being a regular white person.

The institution of marriage is "intended" to unify resources and smooth relations between two rival families, too. Does the married gay couple next door ruin your marriage and spoil the family values you've instilled in your kids? All of this "think of the children" bullshit falls apart with the smallest pushes. What if the gay couple doesn't want kids?

"Marriage" is a legal contract, and creating that contract between two adult strangers doesn't cheapen your own contract. Unless you're a religious nut cloaking your religious nuttery by pretending you have ever-increasingly goofy secular objections, but we've seen *that* for years. Just go back to saying it's against the Will of Jesus, at least that deranged ranting was honest.

Marriage is a contract between a man and a woman. Any attempt to force me to say or believe otherwise constitutes an attempt to control my speech and thought, in exactly the same way as trannies forcing you to use their heckin' pronouns. I can't force you not to be a degenerate, but if you must do it, don't try and force people to play along with your fantasies.

And yes, letting fags "marry" has cheapened the concept into now meaning nothing more than two people who want to get some tax breaks and other legal conditions. There is no functional difference between two "married" fags and two unmarried ones who simply co-habitate. They cannot have children thus there is no point in them "marrying" besides to own the straights.

There's also a major push to legitimize polyamory or cuckoldry, which the LGBTQ community wholeheartedly embraces. And even if you were to make the case that marriage could include homosexual couples, it definitely would cheapen or degrade the institution of marriage to include those.

And going by the logic of LGBT marriage those are valid and should be included. A dude should be able to have a "marriage" with 4 wives, or a cuck couple including their "bull" in their "marriage contract." It's not hurting you, right?

 

[HarryHowler]

Whether or not it "hurts" anyone else is irrelevant.

The institution of marriage is intended to foster the best environment for children to grow up in, and to provide parental role models of both sexes, at the bare minimum. Homosexual couples cannot provide that.

Marriage is not intended as a means to validate those with disordered sexualities, no matter how benign it may seem.

That's true in certain countries, but in many other countries marriage is intended to formally make a woman the property of a man, possibly even just one of several women that he owns. And as has been mentioned already, lots of marriages in Medieval Europe were done just to cement political alliances.

It's true that the traditional Christian marriage was the cornerstone of Western family units for many centuries, but I think more and more people have just stopped giving a fuck about it in recent years - all but one of my five cousins has kids, and of the four that do have them, only one is actually married, with none of the others having any real intention to do so mostly just because a wedding would be too expensive for their liking.

 

[gang weeder]

That's true in certain countries, but in many other countries marriage is intended to formally make a woman the property of a man, possibly even just one of several women that he owns. And as has been mentioned already, lots of marriages in Medieval Europe were done just to cement political alliances.

It's true that the traditional Christian marriage was the cornerstone of Western family units for many centuries, but I think more and more people have just stopped giving a fuck about it in recent years - all but one of my five cousins has kids, and of the four that do have them, only one is actually married, with none of the others having any real intention to do so mostly just because a wedding would be too expensive for their liking.

And has that been a good thing or is it a sign of a society in decline?

The cost of a wedding is cope, you can get married for nothing besides the court fee of the marriage license and maybe whatever a celebrant might charge. And even those costs shouldn't be there IMO but if you pretend you somehow couldn't afford even that much then you are making an excuse.

 

[Kiwi & Cow]

with none of the others having any real intention to do so mostly just because a wedding would be too expensive for their liking.

Yeah no, I will agree with the literal fundamentalist and borderline Totalitarian there, but a marriage at some random church is inexpensive, but idiots always want a "fun" marriage, so they'll try to get themselves a DJ or some lighting designer to make the marriage less boring which will obviously crank up the costs. That's it really, that's the whole story and a good waste of money too.

If someone tells you they don't want a marriage because it's expensive they're lying their asses off.

EDIT:

https://www.weddingforward.com/church-wedding-prices/

https://www.usmarriagelaws.com/marriage-license/application/fees-cost/

If you're really unlucky it could cost like 2'000$ at most, but people have gotten married for as cheap as 300$ in the US.

 

[HarryHowler]

And has that been a good thing or is it a sign of a society in decline?

The cost of a wedding is cope, you can get married for nothing besides the court fee of the marriage license and maybe whatever a celebrant might charge. And even those costs shouldn't be there IMO but if you pretend you somehow couldn't afford even that much then you are making an excuse.

Sure, you don't need to spend a lot on a marriage, but the commercialization of the marriage industry, with things like it being "traditional" to spend three months salary on engagement rings and guests practically being encouraged to compete to buy the best, most expensive gift to the happy couple, seems to have combined with the rising cost of living and shaky economy to convince more and more people that marriage falls into the "nice if you can afford it, but not really essential" category. Case in point - of the cousins I mentioned in my earlier post, the only one who is married did so about five years before she had any kids.

So, on the one hand I guess it's kind of a good thing that people are thinking for themselves and refusing to be drawn into this particular consumerist circus, but it's clearly coming at the expense of the traditional family values that the West abided by for hundreds of years.

 

[gang weeder]

Sure, you don't need to spend a lot on a marriage, but the commercialization of the marriage industry, with things like it being "traditional" to spend three months salary on engagement rings and guests practically being encouraged to compete to buy the best, most expensive gift to the happy couple, seems to have combined with the rising cost of living and shaky economy to convince more and more people that marriage falls into the "nice if you can afford it, but not really essential" category. Case in point - of the cousins I mentioned in my earlier post, the only one who is married did so about five years before she had any kids.

So, on the one hand I guess it's kind of a good thing that people are thinking for themselves and refusing to be drawn into this particular consumerist circus, but it's clearly coming at the expense of the traditional family values that the West abided by for hundreds of years.

The consoomerist aspect of marriage is also a relatively modern development, likely helped along by the widespread availability of cheap credit to finance extravagant ceremonies and the like. Anyone who thinks they need to spend five figures or they "can't get married" is just coping though, plain and simple. That's a retarded mindset that should be done away with, if it even really exists at all (to the extent that it does, I think it's just an indicator of the deeper issue that women generally don't want to marry men who don't have money).

 

[Aero the Alcoholic Bat]

The consoomerist aspect of marriage is also a relatively modern development, likely helped along by the widespread availability of cheap credit to finance extravagant ceremonies and the like. Anyone who thinks they need to spend five figures or they "can't get married" is just coping though, plain and simple. That's a retarded mindset that should be done away with, if it even really exists at all (to the extent that it does, I think it's just an indicator of the deeper issue that women generally don't want to marry men who don't have money).

A wedding should not cost any more than the average child's birthday party.

Probably less.