What is an argument in favour of homosexual marriage that cannot be used in favour of incestuous marriage, say father and daughter?
If you can't find an argument, justify why one is OK with you and not the other.
That's why we have abortion. Are you against abortion? Didn't think so.
See the above.
If a father and a daughter fucked, you'd have no birth defects either. It takes way more inbreeding to have any consequences. Secondly, making a baby isn't necessary. You can abort it in case of an accident, can't you?
Thirdly, normal couples make babies with birth defects, should they be made illegal too?
All arguments rejected.
I made perfect sense.
I don't actually want to, I just want to point out that you guys can't justify allowing homosexual marriage but not incestuous marriage.
This proves you're both illogical and disgusting.
>he's Fox News
I'm not even American. You've proved you can't defend homosexual marriage. I'm merely pointing out that your behaviour is irrational and hysterical.
What's it to you if a father and his daughter want to be married? Eh? Why do you care what people do in their bedrooms?
She is. Now explain what the problem is? Because, so far, all you have is "it grosses me out" which homosexual marriage does to plenty of people and you never considered that an argument, so why should be an argument now?
>So? Father and daughter don't HAVE to make a baby. Condoms exist. Argument rejected.
Father and daughter CAN make a tard baby.
You rejection is invalid.
Meanwhile, if father/daughter were legal, fathers would:
a) "groom" their daughter for marriage
b) worry that they were unintentionally "grooming"
c) be accused of "grooming"
d) all of the above
>Father and daughter CAN make a tard baby.
Not more than any other couple. Inbred problems only happen after quite a few generations with the same genepool.
Believing what you believe is comparable to the idea that homosexuals are pedophiles. Same urban legend. Argument rejected.
The rest of your argument can be used against homosexual marriage as well, as pedos can pretend to be homos to marry, adopt babies, fuck babies for years and more. That's grooming too.
Well personally I support the abolition of all marriage laws and am in favour of marriage instead being regulated by the existing contract laws which already means everyone involved would have to be of legal age and sound mind and so on...
So yes, I would gladly let father and daughter get married if they were both of legal age and had undergone the genetic counselling that is required when close relatives want to get married in countries with more liberal laws.
That being said the genetic argument is a fully valid one for the purpose of this thread, and OP is just being a faggot that will reject any argument to keep the bait going.
Incestuous relationships can be ones based off of manipulation from a Seat of power (I.e. dad over daughter, mother over son, dad over son, mother over daughter). also, there are genetic defects that come from incest. How foes one protect themselfs from their mother or father raising them to be their husband/wife or just fuck toy from when they were young? You cant. It doesnt work.
>Inbred problems only happen after quite a few generations with the same genepool.
So your hypothetical legalization of incest marriage would only last one generation?
>blah blah blah
Opie, are you off your meds?
The probably with this fallacy is very simple.
What is an argument for marriage in general that cannot be used in favor of incestuous marriage, say father and daughter?
If you were to say procreation, well a father and a daughter can procreate.
What about incest tard children? Normal couples can produce mentally handicapped children, and it usually takes more than one generation for incest tard children to accidentally.
What about religion? 1) This is a man and a woman, so this does not commit a sin. 2) Most major religions have texts that do not frown upon incest. Some even encourage it.
What about love? Who's going to say the father and daughter don't love each other in a down south Alabama kind of way?
Closer kin, deeper in.
Incest marriages are legal in some states as long as both partners can prove they cannot reproduce.
Condoms never 100%
Most women chose not to have an abortion.
Takes only one generation of incest to completely fuck up genetics
Many individuals in the first generation of inbreeding will never live to reproduce. Over time, with isolation, such as a population bottleneck caused by purposeful (assortative) breeding or natural environmental factors, the deleterious inherited traits are culled.
you can argue with wikipedia, i won't give credence to this dribble
I work with a guy who is 1st generation inbred, not a retard but not the smartest guy ever, by any stretch.
>Not more than any other couple. Inbred problems only happen after quite a few generations with the same genepool.
>Believing what you believe is comparable to the idea that homosexuals are pedophiles. Same urban legend. Argument rejected.
Did you fail genetics or something? inbreeding increases the number of homozygous allele pairs in our genes, causing more recessive genes to be expressed. This ALWAYS happens right away, to some extent, though yes it does increase dramatically down the line. But we all have a certain number of lethal recessive alleles in us, six on average, waiting to be paired up with another recessive allele and produce a genetic disorder. That's why people get them even when they don't inbreed, there's always a chance.
But since fathers and daughters share a huge number of common alleles, the chance of their offspring expressing any lethals goes up dramatically, even in the first generation.
In pets and livestock it's not a big deal, people not so.
What is an argument in favour of homosexual marriage that cannot be used in favour of heterosexual marriage, say man and woman.
If you can't find an argument, justify why one is OK with you and not the other.
So your arguement is that incest is a better alternative to homosex because retarded individuals are a valuable commodity?
All the faggots in this thread saying 2 married men can't have an incest baby are retarded.
Legal marriage has absolutely 0, jack, nothing to do with sex. It's not a forcefield that makes you monogamous. "Gay" men can, and do, fuck women and get them pregnant.
Likewise, the prohibition of incestuous marriage is not a forcefield that prevents incestuous sex. Relatives can, and do, fuck each other.
These little dipshits that think the law is God...fuck'em
Strawman. I never said that. My point is that it's hypocritical to allow one form of degeneration and not another. I'm against all forms of marriage that aren't based on biology and reproduction.
what if they can't reach the abortion clinic
what if they refuse to get an abortion
what if they can't because their family will know they're incesting and aborting
you see it doesn't matter if countermeasures to incest-pregnancy exist
The bottom line is that it is POSSIBLE, and therefore WRONG, when compared to a gay couple.
So if a women has ovarian cancer, and has her ovaries removed, she should be banned from marriage?
She defeats both the biology and reproduction reasons for heterosexual marriage.
>implying the vast majority of country isn't against gay marriage.
Also homos have been around since ever causing no commotion whereas incestuous couple caused the end of dynasties so civiliasations, like these inbred Spanish kings
Fine I'll do sometging simple. Assume dad is Tt and mother is TT. Let's also assume t is gene for schizophrenia. Now the likely out comes of parents is: TT,Tt Tt and TT Now daughter is born Tt. Dad and kid. Its likely outcome is Tt, TT, Tt, tt. Far more likely of being a carrier of t or even having it. Continue down the incest line and in only a few generation genetics are completely fucked.
>Legal marriage has absolutely 0, jack, nothing to do with sex.
That's true. But I think OP's argument was different. Let me put it this way... why can't I marry my 80-year old mother? Obviously (to most, even on 4chan) it isn't about sex. It would be about being able to give her the benefits (health insurance, taxes etc...) of being married.
For that matter, why shouldn't I be able to marry my father for the same reasons? The argument behind gay marriage is to be able to give benefits to someone you love, regardless of sex. SO if I love a parent (assuming the other parent is deceased), shouldn't I be able to marry them to give them greater benefits?
>So if a women has ovarian cancer, and has her ovaries removed, she should be banned from marriage?
Why should she? She's already sterile, why do you want her to be banned?
She has a dysfunction, it's not her fault. She's not asking society to change its traditions. She can get married because normal women are fertile. On behalf of that, she can marry.
Homosexuals, even healthy ones, cannot procreate with other homosexuals. It's simple.
Homosexuality is obviously not beneficial in any way. Prove me wrong.
>inb4 "too many people"
>homos are accepted in countries with low birth rates while countries with "too many people" condemn them violently
I agree, and this is why agree with OP, and this is why I have always been in favor of civil unions for everyone. If some neckbeard wants to get in a civil union with his mom, I don't care if he's fucking her or not, let him.
Christians desperately fought civil unions because they were afraid it would hurt "marriage," now marriage is going to become exactly what civil unions were going to be - any two people who want to set up the arrangement can have one.
I've gota GF and a suck buddy and I've fucked 3 different traps so far.
Pussy, tits, cock and ass are all fun as fuck and your prostate is there to be stimulated.
Yall faggots missing out.
People are going to fuck whoever they're going to fuck. Getting your panties in a bunch over it is stupid. You don't see animals getting mad at other animals having sex aside from when there's a dispute between who gets to lay who.
Tell me why incestual marriage between two consenting adults is wrong, provided they are not allowed to have children as to avoid birthing children with genetic abnormalities.
Note: "muh morals", "but it's grooooosssss", and other braindead arguments of the like are NOT valid arguments.
So marriages are granted based on the degree of "romantic" love that exists.
They have these machines in courthouses now?
"I'm sorry, but the machine says your love is only "Warm"...we only grant marriages for "Hot Stuff" or above."
Now you're combining the two; good on you! The thing is, the way you wrote it first, it sounds like there are two scenarios: a relationship between family, and a relationship between homosexuals. In that case, you're not related to your homosexual partner.
I bet you fuck your mother on the regular, huh?
The bottom line is that incestual sex it -IS- amoral, and disgusting, on a fundamental level, and therefore it is wrong, and should not be done.
That's all that needs to be said.
Homosexuality doesn't dilute the gene pool by producing individuals with a less-than-sterling genetic record. In fact, it doesn't really do anything harmful to anyone, whereas incest creates people with genetic abnormalities. See why it makes sense to make one illegal and allow the other one because it's harmless?
Marriage should have remained what it was and we should have invented new unions, but not damage traditional marriage.
The damage is done now. Militants wanted to hurt traditional marriage and they did.
Civil unions would have been fine.
Now you're all fucked.
One person loves Potato Salad.
The other calls it revolting.
One person loves Death Metal.
The other calls it just a bunch of shitty noise.
One person enjoys a nice BBQ feast.
The other is a vegan.
What's disgusting for you may not be disgusting for others is all I'm saying.
"Romantic" love between family members is disgusting and, yes, if there WERE love machines they wouldn't mean as much as love between unrelated people.
Because love between unrelated people isn't freakish and almost certain cause for horrid deformities.
It's two people giving eachother pleasure, company and sharing all or parts of their lives. It decreases the net suffering of the world. That is a fucking benefit, often literally.
And even if it wasn't, it's not doing any harm.
4chan is more of a contributor to degeneracy than homosexuality.
Prove me wrong.
She cannot reproduce because of a dysfunction of her body.
A healthy homo can reproduce if he wants to.
That's the difference. Sterile woman can't at all.
Homo can impregnate a woman if he chooses to.
>The damage is done now.
The damage was done when religious people asked a government that was bound by the 1st amendment to start regulating and legislating a religious institution.
That never could have ended well, and hey look, it didn't.
>implying marriage has always had one set definition and has never changed
>comparing hatred of incestual sex to differing tastes in music and food
Finally someone who knows what I'm talking about - it's a beautiful thing not having restrictions.
But you chose to define marriage based on biology and reproduction, that particular case defeats both.
You literally backed yourself into a corner, all the non relevant shit you want to throw is fine, but it's just not relevant to what you said earlier, and that's the end of it.
>Implying there is a difference as all are integral parts of life
>Not knowing what preference is, and how one can't choose what turns them on any more than they can choose what they like to eat or listen to
>Not knowing all of that is subconsciously controlled
>Calling me stupid when you clearly can't grasp my higher logic
Everyone ITT that is opposed to incestuous marriage because of possible genetically malformed babies is also in favor of banning people with genetic problems from having sex, right?
Because otherwise, you're a bunch of inconsistent douches who can't separate tradition from ethics.
Give me a pussy on my dick, a buttplug in my ass and a cock in my mouth and I'm one happy deviant.
ITT: People born in the 40s who didn't go to Woodstock and never learned ancient history. Ya'll need to loosen up some.
No damage was ever done, it's consistently being undone to a flawed original idea of marriage based on merging land properties and setting inheritances.
Traditional marriage will not magically disappear when non-traditional forms are allowed. Why do people think this? Are you still treating marriage as a business? Are you afraid of the competition? And how much can your traditional marriage really be worth if it can be threatened so easily?
>A homosexual doctor is worse than a straight NEET with no qt3.14 gf
>Government is for everyone. Democracy, bitch.
>It's OK for a democratic republic government to shit on the rights of the minority at the request of the majority
>Separation of church and state was instored to protect religion from the state, learn your fucking history, faggot.
You've got it backwards, read some enlightenment literature and Machiavelli.
Gay sex, incest, zoo, pedo - yeah the ancients knew how to live it up. When did we become so tightassed?
lots of straight men like trannies, they're just women with a little something more.
Finding dick interesting doesn't make you gay, dreaming about some guy's muscley, hairy chest and arms lovingly cradling you or having a crush on a man does.
>Separation of church and state was instored to protect religion from the state, learn your fucking history, faggot.
No idea what instored means. Clarify?
I'm well aware of the intent of the 1st amendment.
It made the legal defense of recent marriage laws laughable. Lawyers for traditional marriage showed up in court and they had to rely on the weakest-ass arguments imaginable. They couldn't say "your honor, marriage is and always has been the union of one man and one woman as modeled in Genesis and sanctioned by the church", instead they had to say "marriage between a man and a woman is...um..better because...you can have babies that way and...that's the way we've done it for a long time."
If you believe in the Genesis definition of marriage, you have nothing to fear, because then it doesn't matter what laws are passed, it will remain unchanged.
>No damage was ever done, it's consistently being undone to a flawed original idea of marriage based on merging land properties and setting inheritances.
Can you say something that...makes sense? Like, in English?
it doesn't. Healthy women are fertile. It's not hard to understand:
- you don't sanction someone who's already sanctioned by nature
- homosexuals can reproduce if they choose to
Homosexuals had the same rights as everybody else. They too could marry a woman and have children.
Since when is it mandatory to feel sexually attracted to your partner? Why is sex at the center of marriage when it actually isn't?
A man and a woman, if both are healthy, CAN reproduce, this is why ALL women and ALL men were granted that right (duty, in the past). No homosexual ever has been able to make a baby with another man because it's not possible. Do you get it?
We learned to purify our water, so alcohol stopped being the safest thing to drink
Take a trip to Afghanistan and you'll find everything you're looking for, they still to the pedo boy "mentees", incest with their daughters, and you know a few of them fuck their goats
Yup. Worst thing to have ever happened. When we invent time travel, first thing I'm doing is going back and ensuring Jesus dies of old age.
Marriage was supposed to secure a future for a nation via children. That's marriage. It was turned into faggotry of romance and now literal faggotry.
This is how civilisations die out.
Enjoy your great replacement.
>USA = Hispanics only
>Europe = Muslims
Guess who still has traditional marriage? Muslims and Catholics. They'll inherit the earth if you don't man up.
American separation of church and state was put in the law because early Americans were persecuted for their religion. Not to know this is to be fundamentally retarded.
Machiavell, whom I've read, has shit to say about American history, for obvious reasons.
The Enlightenment authors weren't a bunch of fedoras as all of them believed in God.
I believe marriage should be 1 man and 1 woman because allowing anything else is opening a Pandora's box. You'll see the damage soon enough.
Pro-tip, it ends with marketing third world babies to rich homosexuals while less rich homosexuals get a poke in the eye. Also pedos who claim to be homos to get their hands on children.
What is an argument in favour of homosexual marriage that cannot be used in favour of pedophile marriage, say 50-yo man and 7-yo girl?
If you can't find an argument, justify why one is OK with you and not the other.
No, you moron, you need to finance your families so you can replace your people with YOUR PEOPLE and not foreigners.
Europe needs to do the same thing and stop relying on immigrants.
At this rate, the entire West will be the South in effect. You have a century to get your shit right, unless you want to be the first race to go extinct.
30 years from now, TV series have father/daughter relationships to convicne your children that it's good and should be legal.
The way you feel about incest is how you should feel about homosexuality, you degenerates.
OP, I'm a bit confused. So, incestuous marriages don't have to involve breeding, sex or even romance. The thread is about the marriage alone, as a contract of sorts, between two individuals, from which the two can reap benefits like comradeship or legal "stuff" (i assume) and the irrationality of preventing the coming together of the two because they are related. Is that about right?
It doesn't matter what people do within their marriage. It can be chess or anal, it's none of our business. So yes, that's about right.
What if they don't want one? Then they have a kid and deal with it. You can sterilise the kid at birth if you want. Where's the problem, bro?
I feel like the "it's none of out business" line of thought should be applied to far more that incest if it were to be actually applied.
eg. pedophelia where the child consents, that one case where a dude volunteered to be eaten by a cannibal, Mexican stand-offs and fist fights to the death.
As long as no external party is directly affected ("OMG think of the children" being set aside") any action between two or more people should be accepted
. I could be pushing it but the aforementioned are things we frown upon rather instinctively, so i think this scaling-up is playing fair.
Are you willing to go that far?
>Not being ok with everything
Who knew so many backwards people were on 4chan, the one place you'd expect to not find them (with all the furries, cloppers, hentai, traps, fetishists, a gay board and even the occasional pizza).
It'd be top kek if I hadn't left other forums for this exact same reason.
I'm not willing. My point is that allowing fag marriage opened Pandora's box and we're left with no honest reason to refuse all sort of degenerate unions.
What's frightening is that the logic that enables homosexual marriage can be used to enable the whole list you presented. That's not right.
Society needs to man up and respect the rules that built it. It should encourage families and people who make children.
As it is, having children is too expensive and the West relies on immigration to replace people who no longer have children. It's shameful but part of the plan.
I'll re-explain: all women can marry and all men can marry based on the fact that a normal woman and a normal man can make children together. This grants every woman on earth the right to marry a man. Period. Women who don't want children also have the right to marry based on that biological function that applies to all.
Homos also get that right: a homosexual man can marry a homosexual woman and they can both have children too. They CAN "create" a baby too.
For two homos not to be able to make a baby together is NORMAL because it can't be done at all, while a sterile woman is an EXCEPTION. We write laws based on NORMALCY not exceptions.
It's REALLY not hard to understand.
"because we are used to it this way" is not a valid reason to do anything. Its not a valid reason to, say, continue human sacrifices in mexico because "Its for the best, i mean we always did it this way, ever since before the white man came."
Is OP still here?
Gay couples need it more.
Gay couples are denied the rights like insurance and dependant status afforded to most couples, because they cannot be legally married.
A father-daughter relationship can still claim those rights by family relation.
Either way, Canadian here, so this is purely an intellectual exercise for me, as we have been civilised enough to allow gay marriage for some time.
>ITT: OP argues for 2 hours, "argument rejected" on sound logic.
The argument that "it's 2014 so it's OK" is retarded. Would you have used it in 1933 when Hitler came into power? No.
The very idea that time can only improve everything and everything can only improve one way - your way - are two absolutely childish ideas.
You need to grow up.
How about this: what's your legitimate reason for declaring that gay marriage is worse than incestuous marriage. Religion, by the way, is not a valid reason since that's a personal alignment and subject to different interpretations.
>"because we are used to it this way" is not a valid reason to do anything
Not your call to make. What saddens me is that you don't understand why corporations want families to die out.
A united family generates less money than a divided home. There there is one fridge, there there are two. Etc.
I don't think your point in >>559887220
is fair: if one were analysing this practically (say, with a view to passing laws), one would have to admit that a large proportion of marriages do in fact, involve breeding - the law would not work on a "chess or anal" basis, right? Would you then add a caveat regarding breeding, just for this particular case? Is this about getting the legal benefits of marriage?
Also, I think you need to capture all (or as many) of the specifics of this proposed marriage, mainly because some of the things implied by marriage between relatives is problematic:
1. If it is legal to marry a relative once they are of normal marital age, what prevents me from grooming them when they are underage?
2. I'm not sure of the exact mechanism of homosexual attraction vs. familial attraction (Westemark? effect notwithstanding) - apparently homosexuality is epigenetic - but you would presumably not want to increase the group-wise proclivity to family marriages for the aforementioned baby risks (i.e. gay marriage may not promote more homosexuality, but family marriage may promote more incest).
So, what's the idea here?
>Gay couples are denied the rights like insurance and dependant status afforded to most couples, because they cannot be legally married.
That's a lie. They can marry a woman and get the same benefits. You just have to adapt to society and not expect society to adapt to you, especially when you're only a ridiculous percentage of the population.
What kind of arrogant prick wants everyone else to adapt for them?
Why would you want to deface a beloved tradition with your own prissiness? I don't get it.
Sure, society should do loads of things but aren't individuals built for self fulfilment? (I'll just take your word for the immigration).
We do what we want if we are able to and willing to accept the re precautions. Even if an act is perilous for the society if popularized, why would you intervene in the life of the individual? (silly question)
We are all supposed to be free right?
>Completely ignoring everything I said about 4chan and pretending this site doesn't cater to all of that
>Equating sexual liberation to hitler
I don't see you refuting my point.
Besides, as a sidenote, inbred hillbillies fucking their children don't into legal documentation or health insurance anyways, so I don't see how having legal marriage would benefit them in any way that simply living in the backwoods and breeding flipper babies would not.
>How about this: what's your legitimate reason for declaring that gay marriage is worse than incestuous marriage.
It's not worse, it's just as bad. Leave religion out of this, fedora-fucker.
There is not an inherent power disparity between the individuals as a general homosexual couple. The same can not be said in incestuous relationships. Certainly in father/daughter and mother/son (and even same sex parent/offspring relationships) there is a degree to which the parent is most commonly the authoritative figure. Brother/sister less so; a different argument is necessary there.
FUN FACT. I've done a lot of research on that time period. Not only was Jesus one of many doomsday prophets, his 'son of god' stuff was reconnected to make him more like the divine roman emperors, and the virgin birth was for the gentiles to get the 'god likes fucking mortals' that the roman-etruscan gods were so fond of. Finally, Jesus may very well have been a militant rebel, concerning his method of execution and the records of the roman courts.
Society needs to man up and force its citizens. We're currently in the phase that immediately precedes fascism, as explained by Socrates. In a democracy, people get freedom and want more freedom. We're currently reaching the excesses of freedom as people's freedoms are conflicting now. It'll cause tensions, as it does now, and eventually people will crave freedom no longer, but order and authority and discipline. That's when fascism sets in.
Tumblr is the best promoter of fascism there ever existed. I cannot read a fucking page of it without praying on my hands and knees for a new Hitler to come to purge this filth and this retardation.
People need to understand that the society they live in was built by people who sacrificed a lot and didn't complain like fucking pussies. People worked hard for this comfort of yours and your right to express yourself and be heard, and you're just pissing it all away by being a faggot and spreading your legs for Muslims.
Fuck this shit. Man the fuck up.
I am not arguing whether gay marriage should be legal at all.
Read your own OP. You asked for one reason that did not apply to incest.
I gave you one.
Though the majority of the Founding Fathers were deists. They did not believe in an almighty christian god, they believed that there was a divine presence that all religions had a say in.
I didn't equate sexual "liberation" to Hitler you moron, I took a shot at your stupid argument about "time means improvement of everything".
It's the most fallacious shit and I see it all the time.
Unlike you, I don't believe that we are forced to "go with the flow" and agree with any opinion or mainstream idea "because it's 2014!" That's fucking retarded. My point was that YOU don't like Hitler so YOU wouldn't have said that in 1933, proving that you're full of shit, since "time improves everything" but only when it goes the way YOU want.
Get it now?
>still believe Hollywood propaganda about American farmers
This is just shameful. The people who feed you get insulted in countless movies and series and you don't even realise this.
American farmers are just as grossed out as you are by incest. You're seriously retarded.
>People are made for society, society is not made for people.
Selfish. That amounts to "I have what I want/need from society, other people not getting what they want/need does not matter."
Thought experiment: do you get to generally fall in love with someone, and then reap benefits from being with that person? Straight people can generally answer yes. Homosexuals can not. They can fall in love with someone, and they can reap benefits from being with A person, but they can not reap benefits from being with the person they are in love with. Therefore there is an inherent disparity that needs correcting.
I'm from >>559890543
I know the passage you're talking about, it's fantastic! Funnily enough, the the first time I read it was after it was cited on the blog of one Mencius Moldbug. Sometimes I feel dirty for knowing about him, but, eh, do you know of him, perchance?
The Athenians got in on those humpfests too. The Spartans and the Thebans were just the most flamboyant. Plus the Theban gay soldiers kicked the shit out their enemies. The exclusively gay ones, that being the Sacred Band.
Do you actually believe most couples function on equality? How naive. Most couples have a rather clear authority and the other person submits to it. Most of the time it's the man, but not always. You need to get out there and live, my friend. I've never been in a relationship where we were equal on anything.
And the idea that a daughter is always submissive to her father is retarded. I've seen many children who bully their parents around like no tomorrow, at age 5.
>So, if society democratically decides that gay marriage is fine, then you have no objections, since your saying that society is your only backing for your claim?
I'd still have objections on the grounds that the society that built the society we live in now were against it and that the current society hasn't shown its quality yet.
That said, there are no countries in the world where homosexual marriage was democratically accepted. Only the government forced it on everywhere.
Take women and their right to vote. If you don't force it on the people, they'll take decades more to accept it. Homomarriage might have never gottan accepted in the USA if it had been a democratic vote, instead of a republican vote. How ironic.
1.I think you need to chill
2.Society, a large group of individuals, is unlikely to find the incentive to force it's members to do something. You'd need an external input as in the case of the experiment with the monkeys and the banana
You didn't. Father and daughter can also argue that they're denied common insurance despite their love for each other.
Are you high?
And? You want to sound like you're contradicting me but you're not. I said they believed in God and you say nothing else. You're a fucking faggot.
nigger can you read?
I am saying that while there is not usually equality, there is not an inherent inequality to homosexuality, whereas there will be pretty much every single time in a parent/offspring incestuous relationship.
Also, did you just equate homosexuality to heterosexuality and then oppose both of them to incestuous relationships? What an utter shitshow.
Are you willing to let one consenting adult work for another, when the other pays him only $4 an hour?
Or does that kind of consenting arrangement piss you off too much :)
Yes, it should. It should regulate it, finance it, and demand children from it.
That's what marriage is for. You fucks are ruining everything. 200 years from now, the West is just Liberal niggers and faggots. I hate you.
Legitimate historical research over several years, not pop shit. I do my research firsthand, from the direct text translations. The religious context of the times was, for one that many believed that the Judaic apocalypse was coming, and flocked to doomsday prophets.
Id respectfully disagree. I dont think i have ever met anyone irl who was against gay marriage, everyone from classmates to coworkers to my grandparents. In the society I live in, the society made up of the people I know, its perfectly fine to be gay, and to be in monogamous gay relationships. The state I live in hasn't forced that on us, in fact its illegal for them to marry, but our society accepts it.
That argument won't get you very far. What if someone's happiness is about rape? What of the damage done by buttsecks to entire nations?
The Roman Empire fell because of anal, do you want this to happen to you too?
But that's not the same union at all. They want society to recognise them as LOVERS not as father and child, just like homos want to be recognised by law as lovers, not as workmates or buddies.
So what, would it be illegal to marry in your family if your parents did it and had you?
>Argument can be used against homosexual marriage as well
>Implying that straight people are never pedos and people in straight marriages never molest their kids.
Your line of reasoning is SO weird. Allowing, legally, father-daughter marriage creates the opportunity to do something technically illegal (which is always a possibility) with the bonus of if not being illegal after a period of time. That argument can NOT be used for homosexual marriages. Also, "grooming" is not fucking. Fucking your daughter while underage is still illegal, and would not stop being illegal if familial marriage were legal (unless the case was dropped by the daughter and no one pursued it as a criminal case).
Money doesn't have an inherent value...Result of people's faith...everything is interconnected,,,
If you can see the argument i would have used that's good, if not oh well ( it would have been long and probably pompous)
Oh boy. you picked the wrong history nerd to get anal (hah) with.
The roman empire fell because of it's own size. The lack of instantaneous messenger systems meant that the legions were stretched thin. Soon, the local tribesmen, or European barbarians were admitted entrance into the legions, not just natives of the Italian peninsula and roman Gaul. These barbarians eventually subverted the army to the point of it requiring reform by the christian emperor Constantine, who ended up making it even worse than before, directly leading to it's laxity, the moving of the capital to Byzantium due to his religious convictions and visions and the fall of rome.
The roman empire fell because of Christianity, genius.
I try, but you guys piss me off so much I just have to insult you all, which isn't an ad hominem argument because I'm not arguing shit with my insults, I'm just insulting you. Learn the difference. Faggot.
Fascism is not simply just order and discipline, IT is also characterized by extreme nationalism and xenophobia.
Fascism is not exactly the same thing as a dictatorship, but is usually lead by a dictator.
Actually, you did equate sexual liberation to Hitler, at least on a subconscious level. In an attempt to define why being accepting of sexual liberation is not ok, the example you chose to provide was Hitler. In your mind, both are egregiously vile and unthinkably reprehensible and as such sought to use the idea of Hitler - who was not in any way related to the subject at hand - as a way to disparage my statement. In your mind, mass genocide and world war is subconsciously on par with sexual liberation, which is why you chose to use Hitler as an example of why time doesn't equal improvement of everything, instead of something more akin to, say, Civil Rights, which is much more similar to Sexual Liberation as it is the social acceptance of a group of people.
Okay, you cited that there is usually a dominant person, and that it is usually the man. Homosexual relationships have two men. Congratulations, point made and point taken as "it could be either person being dominant in a homosexual relationship"
next up: blah blah some parents bullied by their kids. Care to give me some numbers on how much that relationship turns into an incestuous one? I would venture to say almost none; feel free to correct me. My claim (that I'm holding until proven otherwise) is that parent/offspring incestuous relationships are dominated by the parent an overwhelming amount of the time.
Lastly: you totally did. You demonstrated the power dynamic of a straight couple while I was talking about homosexual couples (this would equate the two), and then showed how alike it was to incestuous relationships. To your credit, you hold them all to be similar in power dynamic, but the simple fact that you are willing to equate homosexuality with heterosexuality in terms of power dynamics in relationships shows an interesting bit about your mindset in this argument.
There isn't one. There's no reason why people shouldn't be able to partake in incest or polygamy if they so wish, the present laws in most countries are just based on archaic nonsense.
HOWEVER, incest obviously has biological downsides, so closely related people shouldn't be allowed to breed. Not sure how this could be enforced though.
I'm not trolling you asstwat. I'm really mad.
Liberals will quickly give way to Muslims, who will burn Bibles and destroy churches. They'll also kill homosexuals and debase women to animals.
You'd get what you deserve.
Not that guy, but I think you need to read the text (so that we may agree on its interpretation, or discuss it at the very least - no one is really claiming he's predicting the future). Remember, Athens had a functioning "democracy", and a lot of that text has to do with the things that can be observed in general in democracies given certain stipulations.
Why should society give you bonuses if you don't give anything in return? You get benefits for being married because you give society children. That's the only reason why marriage grants benefits.
Yes, sterile people should be granted less money if they marry because it's only for form and nobody gives a fuck. A marriage without children is like a condom without a dick.
Socrates was right all the same. His predictions happen in human history. Democratic Germany gave way to Nazism exactly as Socrates said it would.
It'll happen again, but far, far worse. The excesses of today are fuelling the fires of tomorrow. All the faggots, feminists, Liberals, and the rest of these degenerates will be kicked to the curb and cast away as they deserve.
Muslims will be expelled back into their countries and you faggots will be sent along. The worse nations become, the more it fuels the fire. The fire rises my brother. It won't be pretty and it'll all be your fucking fault.
I love how these leagues of fucking faggots are throwing themselves literally at this one dude trying to reconcile the fact that what he's saying is completely raping their naïve, over-entitled social perceptions, all just fucking failing and eating their own shit in the process.
Gay politics is a chimera, it's built entirely on lack of complete information or scrutiny thereof. The second a person actually looks at all of the data and peruses the literature, he sees how incredibly tenuous and unsubstantial it all is. At that point you become deeply ashamed at the fact that this is the society we live in, one where literally a complete fucking unsupported exaggeration/lie can mutate into an entire fucking Zeitgeist.
Hm. Have my friends debased any women to animals recently? nope. Don't think so, even though I live in the supposed land of terrorists, I see a burqa about once every two months, while I see christian missionaries once every two days.
Gay people give back to society economically, as well as being caregivers. A huge number of gay people work in medicine, as well as the phenomenon of the "gay super-uncle". Where single mothers with gay brothers have a male influence with a lot of disposable income lavish extra attention and funds on their children. Look it up.
To add to your nice stuff, do know that the Barbarians were also Christians, having been evangelised quite a bit by a number of missionaries from Rome. You're right about the part where it's stretched thin, but I think Romans fucked up because they focused more on orgies and fun and assassinations of all great Roman families. This led to the collapse of power.
There's a theory about lead pipes that poisoned countless people but I can't confirm.
>anal sex was a euphemism for people focusing on personal pleasures more than empire-management
because if a kid slides in out of icest he will lead a lineage with a sick gene, homosexuals cant make kids, they can only buy them so yeah
I'm pro gay mirrage btw, even tho I have no clue why gay people want to get married so bad but its not like I give a fuck either
What you're failing to understand is that this isn't optimal. It's a constipated type of socioeconomic reciprocation which would be better off if those 'gay uncles' were simply themselves heterosexual fathers.
>Fascism is not simply just order and discipline, IT is also characterized by extreme nationalism and xenophobia.
Xenophobia? Really? You think Hitler was scared? Why can't you say, "Fascism typically believes strong nations should be allowed to attack weaker ones."?
You'd sound more credible to me if you said that. But yes, I'm aware of those things and don't understand why you'd assume I didn't know that.
Not sure if serious. I like Hitler, so your analysis is wrong if only because of that.
Secondly, I used Hitler because I assume YOU think he is the vilest thing in the universe.
My argument was all about the "time = progress" fallacy.
Suck my cock.
But then instead of one cared for kid, we would have one cared for kid and one poor kid.
Thus increasing the number of people below the poverty line and allowing for overpopulation.
Don't get me wrong, I think people should only be able to breed if they can support the child adequately. But it is apparent (hueh) we do not live in a perfect world.
That was mostly Nero (who admittedly dressed like a hooker) and Caligula and a little bit of Commodus. They were dead and buried long before Constantine took power and screwed everything up. By which point the entire empire had become an irreconcilable bureaucratic mess.
But gay marriage had nothing to do with it. In fact during the 'gay hedonism' period, Rome created the Colosseum, Nero's Palace and other such cultural treasures. And don't forget how they were pretty much unstoppable militarily at that point.
>Okay, you cited that there is usually a dominant person, and that it is usually the man. Homosexual relationships have two men. Congratulations, point made and point taken as "it could be either person being dominant in a homosexual relationship"
What the fuck am I reading... I don't even see what your point is and how it contradicts anything I've said.
I'm pretty sure you're mentally retarded at this point.
>Gay people give back to society economically, as well as being caregivers.
That's if they work, and that has literally nothing to do with their sexuality. Heteros can do as much. Heteros, however, don't spread AIDS as much and as fast as you assblasters. There's a reason why hospitals refuse gay blood, too filthy.
Polygamous unions are generally illegal in the US because they include child brides, but that's a whole 'nuther can of worms. I'd say go for it myself. It's only a matter of time before it's legal anyways.
The picture itself says it.
It makes perfect sense.
And? What your rational argument against inbred kids? Homos can't even make a retard kid. An inbred kid can sweep the streets, homos can only shit slightly pale turds.
This. Really I'm not against incest. The whole reason humans made those laws was because they realized you make downs babies that way. If you're a Christian then Adam and eve's kids had to bone but they had perfect genes so all was well. I have no problem with two sterile people going at it even if they're dad/daughter.
I don't think either homosexuality or incest is right but since in America we believe in the pursuit of happiness I support both group's rights to a marriage as long as it doesn't harm anyone (including the probable unborn).
Another argument I haven't seen is gays don't get rights with regards to medical care. If a gay gets hit by a car only relatives or spouse gets rights over their care. father is already a relative so that's not an arguable reason.
You didn't answer shit, faggot. Deal with it.
You're fucking stupid: falling in love with your sister isn't a choice either, you fucking idiot.
Falling in love with another fag isn't a choice but banging them is.
Do you see how fucking idiotic you fucking are you moron?
>gay people spread STDs
>STDs were spread to their current extent by heterosexual couplings.
>STDs in the US are mostly spread by amorous heterosexual minority groups
>Gay people tend to be more comitted to one partner, as another may be difficult to find
Muslims who come to the West are on a mission to take over our lands via numbers. Of course they're nice now. They won't when they outnumber the rest of you. Take it from someone who knows Muslims.
>STDs were spread to their current extent by heterosexual couplings.
False. Africans first spread it. Homosexuals who wanted some nigger ass contracted AIDS and every homosexual community of the West soon got it.
There's no fucking doubt that homos inflicted AIDS on everyone. How did we punish them for killing so many of us for sheer anal pleasure?
We destroyed our central tradition, marriage, for them.
At this point, I think we deserve to be wrecked into oblivion until niggers and Muslims take over and start stoning everyone of us.
>Gay people tend to be more comitted to one partner, as another may be difficult to find
You gotta be fucking kidding me. Homos have a much easier time to find partners than heteros. Faggots don't need to take gloves with each other as they're the same sex. As a fag, you can go to a fag bar and a backroom and get sex within minutes. Try finding a place where you can do the same as a hetero without paying for it. I dare you.
Faggots can fuck 15 faggots in a single day, for free, simply by going to the right places.
Try having that for heteros, I dare you.
Oh, hey, nice tin foil hat.
Yes, pf course, all Muslims are privy to a secret plot to destroy america and all that's good, free and full of republicans in the world. There's no chance at all that they might just be people of another religion who are mostly decent human beings.
OP was raped by a gay Muslim when he was a kid, it's he only explanation for his mind-blowing hostility to both parties.
Well, maybe he's just stupid, but give him a chance. Faruz touched him in his naughty parts.
Incest leads to genetically poor offspring that fail to survive. That is why it has been bread out of us.
Homosexuals have, throughout history, still chosen to have kids. Thus they still breed so their numbers are larger.
Do you not understand the definition of checkmate? You have no argument against me. None at all. Resistance is futile.
>American separation of church and state was put in the law because early Americans were persecuted for their religion. Not to know this is to be fundamentally retarded.
To think that is to be fundamentally retarded. While the 1st amendment was meant to protect people from religious persecution, it was also meant to keep religion from fucking up the gov't, which was a big thing with Machiavelli and the enlightenment thinkers, all of whom were read by the founding fathers.
However, it's worth noting that Machiavelli's support of stability at all costs didn't sit well with the founding fathers.
Your last 2 lines are irrelevant and serve to show that you haven't read enough on this subject.
Marriage doesn't have much to do with breeding nor sex. In the US it's a legal status. Social Welfare, Tax codes, Guardian ship of parents, Life Insurance, Inheritance, and health care all change.
We went through the same shit with intteracial couples a few decades ago.
If niggers can marry, why not fags? Why not niggerfags?
Given an incestuous relationship, most of the tax/government benefits are already there simply by being related, or having other such legal status as guardianship assigned either with parent or child.
Homosexuality is logically and categorically superfluous. That's what a crime of nature is. Nature means efficiency, parsimony (hence Occam's razor; natura nihil agit frusta (nature does nothing in vain)). A crime against nature is therefore a crime against efficiency, and homosexuality is exactly that, as there already exists an efficient sexuality prior to homosexuality, and that is precisely heterosexuality. No this does not mean that the only type of sex one must therefore engage in is heterosexual missionary under the sheets with the lights off for the sole purpose of procreation, that's nothing but a fallacious explosion in the reticence of the logic, it simply means 'heterosexuality' (whatever that could possibly imply as a general category).
So there. You literally have no possibility to argue now. What I've just explicated to you is airtight.
because a homosexual marriage will not lead directly to inbreeding, which a father/daughter marriage would. Inbreeding makes retarded kids (e.g all sandniggers) which we have no practical use for on the planet currently.
You're mistaking 'nature' with the concept of naturalness. They are homonyms, but, in the sense in which you're using them, nature actually means the exact of opposite of natural. Nature denotes the chaotic aspect of the universe (and so you are therefore correct in stating that nature makes people gay, because homosexuality is, in essence, nothing other than sexual chaos), but the concept of naturalness denotes the opposite of chaos: efficiency, in which case, absolutely not, there's nothing efficient about homosexuality in and of itself. It only ever becomes efficient due to some interaction within an extrinsic reason (and it is within this extrinsic reason, the evolutionary and sociocultural aetiology of homosexuality, which most expressively describes its true nature).
Nature (in the general sense (i.e., precisely the process of evolution via natural selection)) utilises and makes advantage of everything, even all that which is ultimately disadvantageous. You can never mistake relative advantage with real advantage. Homosexuality (really just perversion in general) can be said to be advantageous only ever in some relative sense. Homosexuality in and of itself is however absolutely disadvantageous (as can be clearly seen if we replace 'homosexuality' with its parent class of 'sexual perversion', or even further 'chaos').
>Implying that they aren't
>Double super secret kek
OK faggot, when did you start?