[Know It All]

Probably a subject that has been discussed here prior to me joining, but I just wondered what you think.

Look, I have no problem with what people choose to do behind locked doors, and I actually believe that some sort of a legal bond is a good idea for financial reasons. I believe that if two people love each other, regardless of sex, it can only be a good thing. Of course, I am like most heterosexual men, and really don't want to withness any form of affection between two men. However, I am fundamentally and adamantly opposed to gay marriage. I am not religious, however marriage started as a religious concept, and it was made pretty clear that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. In fact the term "gay marriage" is actually an oxymoron. It is my belief that allowing two people of the same sex get married has demograted marriage.

[Zionist Nationalist]

dont like them and dont like being around those bunch of weirdos
next step of liberal craziness is marriage with animals (alredy happening on a small scale)

[One Degree]

It has been discussed before. The economic advantages couples enjoy overwhelms the moral debate. If you accept homosexuality, then it becomes unfair to deprive them of economic advantages that marriage offers. The real argument is whether or not our society accepts homosexuality.

[Bridgeburner]

Homosexuals have instilled in them a sense of total war against the heterosexual community and particularly traditional families who reproduce. The level of promiscuity and "hookup" culture is insanely amplified in homosex "relationships" compared to standard male-female pairings, what constitutes a relationship for them versus traditional sex dynamics is utterly alien. Lets completely set aside the public health menace too.

They've always treated us as the enemy and it's time to do the same. No gay rights period. I'm tired of 3% of the population pontificating, if they don't show obsequiance to the actual engines and drivers of society they don't deserve anything.

[Decky]

I don't believe in state recognised marriage for anyone gay or straight. If two people (or three or four people why the hell not) want to have a big party (perhaps with priest and perhaps not) and then declare themselves to be married then it is up to them but I don't see why the state should be expected to care about it. We don't have contracts when we make a new friend or a "divorce" when we stop being friends with someone and that system works perfectly well.

The government should be building houses and providing full employment and giving arms to communist revolutionaries across the world so those people can be free too. It should not be concerning itself with what two consenting adults choose to call each other while they are in a relationship. It makes no difference to anyone but as usual the right want the state butting into people's private lives to a silly degree and want legislation on marriage as if it was some sort of vital government function.

[Saeko]

Probably a subject that has been discussed here prior to me joining, but I just wondered what you think.

Look, I have no problem with what people choose to do behind locked doors, and I actually believe that some sort of a legal bond is a good idea for financial reasons. I believe that if two people love each other, regardless of sex, it can only be a good thing. Of course, I am like most heterosexual men, and really don't want to withness any form of affection between two men. However, I am fundamentally and adamantly opposed to gay marriage. I am not religious, however marriage started as a religious concept, and it was made pretty clear that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. In fact the term "gay marriage" is actually an oxymoron. It is my belief that allowing two people of the same sex get married has demograted marriage.

Lots of things started as religious concepts and practices, but are no longer so.

[mikema63]

Ew gross icky gays want to get married, live in houses, have jobs, have kids, get old, retire to Florida, and die.

What next? will we be expected to let them eat our babies and force us to divorce with their vile ways?

[anasawad]

I don't have a problem with gay marriage. I support full freedom in the marriage topic for people including homosexual marriage, polygamy for both genders and to all genders.
However, what i do not like from gay men or more specifically Lebanese gay men is that they constantly wear things that are practically designed to show their package and i hate seeing other men's stuff hanging around in the open.
Women, sure, put it out there, no problem. But men, in general both straight and gay, keep it in. No one wants to see a dick and a cup of balls in the open whether live or behind tight pants.

[mikema63]

Gays should have the same right to objectify as straights.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

I don't believe in state recognised marriage for anyone gay or straight. If two people (or three or four people why the hell not) want to have a big party (perhaps with priest and perhaps not) and then declare themselves to be married then it is up to them but I don't see why the state should be expected to care about it. We don't have contracts when we make a new friend or a "divorce" when we stop being friends with someone and that system works perfectly well.

The government should be building houses and providing full employment and giving arms to communist revolutionaries across the world so those people can be free too. It should not be concerning itself with what two consenting adults choose to call each other while they are in a relationship. It makes no difference to anyone but as usual the right want the state butting into people's private lives to a silly degree and want legislation on marriage as if it was some sort of vital government function.

However, the state is frequently involved in knowing the state of a relationship. For instance, when the government builds houses, should it build one for every adult in the country? Or can it say "you two declared your relationship 'official' by getting married, therefore we only need to ensure one house for the two of you"? In a state with private property, the ideas of transfer of ownership, or joint ownership, come up too (though I suspect you don't hold with private property beyond purely personal possessions). And until your revolution comes, marriage is so thoroughly tied up with property law that I don't think it could be abolished until a communist nirvana comes about.

@Know It All, do you know anything at all about the politics and activism of your avatar?

[Decky]

I don't know what sort of third world country you live in (I strongly suspect it might be the United States) but in the UK the government conducts a census every 10 years. It already knows who lives with who anyway.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

I don't know what sort of third world country you live in (I strongly suspect it might be the United States) but in the UK the government conducts a census every 10 years. It already knows who lives with who anyway.

It's not a question of knowing who lives with whom. It's about the rights they get - property, or residence, or parental. As I said, even in a property-free society, you'd need to decide if you allocate a house to every individual, or if you have ones designed for multiple adults. If a couple are spending all their time in just one of the houses, do you take back the other one as unnecessary?

But in the current world of personal property, there are the existing laws to deal with - inheritance, parental rights and duties, taxation, and more.

[Decky]

You are pretending that marriage would be vital to such a system and it simply wouldn't. If a worker wants to live in a shared house put them in a shared house. It makes no difference to the all mighty state weather they are too friends or if they are fucking like rabbits.

The whole question is moot anyway if everyone is living in workers barracks.

[anasawad]

@Decky But if they're fucking like rabbits wont they need a bigger house ?

[Decky]

Then the state can build one.

[Political Interest]

It is simply impossible for those of the same gender to marry. In our traditions we never saw any such marriages. Even in the Dark Ages the Germanic tribes would execute those they found to have participated in homosexual actions. Of course, I do not advocate this, but it goes to show that since antiquity there was never a union between two people of the same gender. It is nothing other than an invented tradition.

In the Middle Ages and Early Modern Period there was no extreme racism against Africans. Same sex marriages are often compared to the emancipation of African Americans, but it is a simple fact that in pre-modern times there was no discrimination against Africans, while homosexual unions were always prohibited. Therefore, it is not correct to say that legalisaiton of same sex marriages is comparable to ending segregation.

We must aggressively defend traditional families. They are the foundation of our society and of all civilised societies.

[Pants-of-dog]

It is simply impossible for those of the same gender to marry. In our traditions we never saw any such marriages. Even in the Dark Ages the Germanic tribes would execute those they found to have participated in homosexual actions. Of course, I do not advocate this, but it goes to show that since antiquity there was never a union between two people of the same gender. It is nothing other than an invented tradition.

In the Middle Ages and Early Modern Period there was no extreme racism against Africans. Same sex marriages are often compared to the emancipation of African Americans, but it is a simple fact that in pre-modern times there was no discrimination against Africans, while homosexual unions were always prohibited. Therefore, it is not correct to say that legalisaiton of same sex marriages is comparable to ending segregation.

Acceptance of homosexual unions has happened in the past of many societies, even if it did not occur among the Germanic tribes.

We must aggressively defend traditional families. They are the foundation of our society and of all civilised societies.

I am certain that civilisation will not collapse because of gay marriage.

[Political Interest]

Acceptance of homosexual unions has happened in the past of many societies, even if it did not occur among the Germanic tribes.

Which societies? In any case, that is their own choice to make. Since I am from a civilisation that did not accept them, I can say that I do not accept them now.

I am certain that civilisation will not collapse because of gay marriage.

It is all part of the disintegration of Western culture.

[Pants-of-dog]

Which societies? In any case, that is their own choice to make. Since I am from a civilisation that did not accept them, I can say that I do not accept them now.

Since many societies also did not have the rule of law or democracy in thier pasts, do you also eschew thise things?

It is all part of the disintegration of Western culture.

I doubt it.

[Political Interest]

Since many societies also did not have the rule of law or democracy in thier pasts, do you also eschew thise things?

Even the barbarians had a rule of law. They had crime and punisment.

As for democracy, I do not think it is an absolute necessity. A society can be just without being a democracy.

I doubt it.

Well it is, because you are saying that marriage can be defined in any way you please. That is an erosion of the foundations of society.

Sounds like PI wants to force shariah on the west while claiming to be defending western values.

The Soviet Union and most of the Warsaw Pact were Shari'Ah states?