Is there any secular logically argument against homosexual marriage that isn't based off of conservashit retort of MUH...

Of course we should all embrace Islam.

They can secretly buttbang each other. As gross as I find that, I don't think that should be illegal.

However, they MUST keep their faggotry in the closet and must carry on as a normal member of society for me to respect them. I think it's a biological thing, but I don't think they should be married and have their degenerate faggotry shoved in the faces of people, especially young children.

There is no argument for civil marriage at all, except that it might result in children who are the state's only justifiable interest in the sex lives of citizens.

Since gay couples can't have accidental children, that thin smoke blows away

Is there any logical argument FOR same sex marriage besides muh feels?

Faggots pay taxes. As long as they do, I could give a fuck.

Thanks for considering that the several minutes i put into my post was worthy of your lazy strawman, Australia.

>bump
anatomically penises don't belong in anuses

>/lgbpt/ gets btfo every day
>continues to come back
It's like they have daddy issues

Life is about spreading genes(atheistic way to see life)live, reproduce, die, repeat.
>gay people don't reproduce
>gays are already genetically dead
>gays also spread desease
>so gays are both desease vectors and humans that are already genetically dead
>gays are more likelly to be pedophiles and sexually deviant in other ways

basically there's no place for gays in a coherent civilization, they must go if there's no cure. You see, no religion on my conclusion cuck.

>btfo
no refer to my last post

>Let them have their marriage rights

Fags could have a civil unions settling legal issues like inheritance rights and so forth but shouldn't get married.

Marriage is the union of a man and woman for the purpose of procreation, it's not for celebrating buttfucking buddies.

>coherent civilization
Let me know when we have one, m8

>Is there any secular logically argument against homosexual marriage that isn't based off of conservashit retort of MUH FEELS?
Sure.

You could argue that the benefits that same-sex couples receive are to encourage the production of children which will help keep the population of the country stable. And since science supports that children from loving homes with a mother and father have the highest likelihood of being happy and healthy those benefits provided to that type of marriage are worth promoting.

And since same-sex marriages do not provide any of those things to society giving them those benefits is somewhat nonsensical. They will not produce any offspring and will not keep the population stable. There are also plenty of other ancillary reasons as to why same-sex couples can in no way be directly analogous to heterosexual couples given the vast disparity in typical life choices and financial priorities.

So the secular answer would be to either not provide benefits to either, or provide a second form of benefits that has a significantly reduced set of benefits and could be available to both same-sex couples and heterosexual couples who are incapable of (or have decide they never will be) producing offspring.

We are being slid because the FBI just released documents that can lead to Hillary's endirement

GET THE FUCK IN HERE AND ABANDON THIS SLIDE THREAD

Yes, degenerate behaviour corrupts traditional values and erodes conservative society. Fags need and must vote to the Left, and for restrictions on free speech, and "hate crime" laws to protect their degenerate lifestyles.

>the purpose of marriage is to bring together great chefs and fashion designers

Are you a tax man?

Something about gays not playing enough of a role in rearing children, but that sort of fails in the face of the two arguments

A: "If marriage is about raising children, why don't we just give benefits to people that raise dependants, it seems marriage is the problem here rather than gay marriage"

and

B: "Plenty of kids in foster care without a home"

I don't know, the people around here that talk about how totally straight they are because they hate gay dudes and their huge cocks are losing the culture war hard.

>Conservatives support free speech
When will this meme die...

Gay couples are the highest earning group in America, user.

They are some of the best people to be raising children.

So old people shouldn't be able to get married?

People who can't reproduce?

People who don't want kids?

How can you claim to be anti-authoritarian and hold these invasive views on marriage?

Faggots are brain damaged. You aren't supposed to be attracted to the same sex, it goes against nature itself.

Yes, evolution.

williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Food-Insecurity-in-LGBT-Communities.pdf

>29 percent of LGBT adults, approximately 2.4 million people, experienced food insecurity
>One in 5 gays and lesbians aged 18-44 received food stamps in the last year

although most arguments against faggots like me being able to exist dont hold much weight (besides std rates and mental illness), most defences are usually just cliches or utter nonsense.

faggots are gross and spread aids and undermine traditional conceptions of masculinity and marriage. there is a reason the jews promote faggotry so much and that is that faggots are the perfect docile consumerist degenerates.

It's a domino effect.

it does not procreate the next generation of taxpayers therefore the govt should not be interested in it

yeah. basic biology

all faggots should be put to death

Marriage is a cultural meme to encourage family building.

At this point in western society marriage seems irrelevant, with the breakdown of traditional family units and even married or defacto heterosexual couples reproducing at lower rates.

You may as well let homosexuals marry.

Ironically, there seems to be a hold off against polygamy, even though this is more traditional, less problematic and seems to be popular among religious types who do reproduce a lot.

Given the strange objects liberals have against polygamy but their support for homosexual marriage, I tend to believe none of them have thought about the subject critically and are merely virtue signalling.

Which is why I will vote against gay marriage.

Gay people have always had the right to marry in all 50 states, they just didn't want to! They wanted to change the definition of marriage to be two consenting adults... They can't argue that they were being denied a right, because it never existed. Even straight people couldn't marry someone of the same sex. B.b.bb...but they don't want to marry the opposite sex! They should be able to marry the person they LOVE!

Normies regret swallowing the rainbow pill. You all got the wool pulled over your eyes.

tl;dr Gays were never denied the right to marriage, ever.

gays should be deported to the congo

Slippery slope is a fallacy unless your argument includes supporting evidence linking each domino as you put it.

He said homosexual marriage, not marriage between homosexuals.

nice slide thread. no one cares about your faggot meme marriage

>Fags could have a civil unions settling legal issues like inheritance rights and so forth but shouldn't get married.
Except it didn't because the federal government didn't recognize civil unions. That's actually how DOMA was struck down, a fucking inheritance was being taxed for millions that shouldn't have been.

Whoa I'm not gay! Your're gay! Why are you wanting to be gay with me? I'm being attacked! Police, help, I'm being raped!

Fag marriage administers the lie that there is no difference between a man and a woman. That either one can be substituted in the family and it makes no difference.

And look what's happening now. People are really starting to think that there is no difference. People think you can change from a man to a woman simply if you feel like you are one.

...

The institution of marriage is both a legal and religious one in this country. This gives both the religious right and the homosexual community ground to stand on in the debate. As this country is supposed to separate church and state it has failed to do so on this matter. The concept of gay marriage should be abandoned altogether and marriage itself should be replaced with a civil union, conferring all the same rights as marriage does now but removing the religious aspect of it.

Also fuck you OP for starting this thread like an average Cred Forumstard. Please kill yourself at your earliest convenience. Saged

There's nothing wrong with being a faggot just don't be a fairy

It's not based on muh feels. That you actually think it is means you're a moron.

There is literally no purpose other than
>b-but muh feels
Fags will never have the motivation to raise a healthy family because any motivation to raise a family is based in narcissism and envy.

>Homosexuality flies in the face of proliferation of the species.

/thread

>Yes I just thread'd' my own response. Go fuck yourself. Oh wait, you already do that with any random household object of about 8" inches in length or less.

Yeah, marriage is religious and they hate Christianity but want to be a part of their religious sanction.
It's hypocritical and idiotic. No one is saying you can't be gay, just quit stealing shit from religion just because (((Hollywood))) taught you that marriage is the be all end all in any relationship.

Marriage is a religious ceremony. Forcing a religion to perform a ceremony against their wishes is a violation of their first amendment rights.

>When will this meme die...
When it stops being true.

>the most money=the best environment for kids
Nope.

Also doesn't apply to education, or a host of other issues the left is convinced is the best solution to a societal problem. We as a country spend far more cash on education than any other, for example, only to get middling results. (Besides which, your assertion isn't even true. I made the mistake of actually believing for a moment an assertion pulled right from your ass)

Rather, the best environment as predictor to success is the intact hetro-nuclear family. >So old people shouldn't be able to get married? People who can't reproduce? People who don't want kids? How can you claim to be anti-authoritarian and hold these invasive views on marriage?
Any pair which conforms to the traditional definition of marriage, one man to one woman. As a matter of practicality, we should want the state out of the question of marriage altogether, so that the institution is returned to the social sphere to which it belongs: the religion of one's conscience. Fag marriage proponents can have their own friendly denominations in that case, and if it pleases the people to affirm it then that denomination can remain viable. This is the antithesis of the authoritarian solution.

can you faggots get off my fucking board pls

I'm with you on this. Get the state out of marriage altogether.

Ah yes. Let's ignore all of the pieces of shit who are married and raising kids and focus on gay people. Great idea.

If we always looked at statistics and applied them to policy in this way, men would have far less rights than women due to being a far more violent demographic.

Your arguments are basically just "I don't like fags getting married" which, I'm sorry to say, doesn't matter at all.

Marriage isn't religious in nature anymore.

Because the sole purpose of sexual intercourse, and, by extension, marriage, is to produce offspring
This is not a religious view, in fact the church is against evolution. It's undeniably why we adapted intercourse in the first place, every organism that doesn't reproduce asexually has a either a male reproductive organ, a female one, or both.
If an organism refuses to reproduce, it is without a will to survive, and is practically begging to be smote by Natural Selection's unforgiving hand, and wiped out of the gene-pool.
For this reason, the trait of homosexuality is not beneficial to any organism, no matter how common it is, as we have not yet adapted the ability to reproduce asexually.
Without the ability to have intercourse, there is no need for marriage.

Marriage is about securing "what straight people have" for homosexuals because rather than living their own lives they need to "win" the stuff that straight people "own". It's a petty strategy to grab and degrade what normal people can possess and distribute it to every weirdo and degenerate, degrading it.

Civil partnership is perfectly fine for pairs of adults who cannot biologically procreate, and even those who can if they prefer it over the more traditional ceremony, but that doesn't fuel pointless social movements so it's not enough for them.

The gay marriage movement is primarily supported by those in legal professions because more marriages = more divorces = more money for divorce lawyers.

Of course the debate in general is pointless because for the above reason, marriage in modern society has no meaning anymore, and only serves as a revolving door industry of allowing cunning scroungers to con gullible people out of their money by pretending to love them.

Also, even if they could be legally married, no one should be legally forced to do something as simple as that. And if the fact that this community stages protests over cakes isn't reason enough to hate them, I don't know what is.
The rainbow flag is a sign of everything wrong with the LGBTQ+++++ community.

Other boys are cute and i want to kiss them.

>inb4 pedo
If someone says boys and you automatcally think minors. You are the pedo

sage

>Let's ignore all of the pieces of shit who are married
red herring. This isn't a thread about anecdotal aberrations from the norm in hetero marriages,
>and focus on gay people
the subject of the thread IS gay people. that's why we're focusing on it.

>Your arguments
are detailed above. They're basically an affirmation of why the intact traditional marriage is in fact, in results, the best marriage. Best for the longevity of the partners. Best for children for economic advancement. Best to avoid prison in the future. Best for the emotional well being of offspring. Best for reported levels of happiness. If none of that matters, all that does is your fe fes. And guess what. To you, that's all that does matter. That, and relishing the destruction of the good for the elevation of the evil.

It shouldn't surprise anyone that the state of marriage has so degraded ever since the political state became involved.

>Marriage is about securing "what straight people have" for homosexuals because rather than living their own lives they need to "win" the stuff that straight people "own"
It's actually more to do with the lgbt movement being a vehicle by which institutions of tradition can be attacked. "What straight people have" could for the most part have been settled outside marriages with just a few tweeks in certain laws (inheritance laws) or a medical ethics (allowing gay partners into recovery wards). But that wasn't ever the real issue. Note how just as soon as gay marriage ruling came out of the supreme court lgbt spun out the next bit of "progress" society was expected to swallow from the alphabet soup.
>The gay marriage movement is primarily supported by those in legal professions because more marriages = more divorces = more money for divorce lawyers.
Disagree. Consider the lgbt movement, like many other institutions won over to that brand of politics, to merely be foot soldiers of the progressive movement. They are as a weapon tearing down traditional marriage, resulting in unfavorable conditions for raising healthy, productive, INDEPENDENT offspring. Such people, if denied their own resources, have left to them the recourse the left offers: ministrations of the state.

Look at the state of the black family today as compared to decades past. from low percentages to a condition now where 70% of families consists of single parent environments (imperfect graph for the point, but the trend is still observable). And generations of black families where the state, and all sorts of state assistance, has replaced the husband. And then look at how reliable a voting block the black community has become, for any threat to the state services is a threat to their "modern" family.

>(imperfect graph for the point, but the trend is still observable)
Forgot the pic

Because two men can't love each other in the same way men and women can

t. bisexual degenerate

there are moral arguments

...

Humans are social creatures. Not every single one has to reproduce in order to contribute to the success of their species. The reason that a lot of famous philosophers and artists are gay (and celibate) is because they weren't distracted by the social and economic burdens of raising children.

...

>t. bisexual degenerate
Do you chase bugs?

>Jesus and gays
>supposed to be a politics board

People have a instinctual bond with their biological offspring.

Marriage is a social institution that honors and protects that constructive energy and conserves it.

Marriage is essentially a prestige mechanism to direct energy into building the next generation. It had its prestige because married folk are doing the very honorable thing by being loyal to one another and raising the next generation. They are the beloved of Civilization, because they create civilization by making more high-quality people.

Faggots are sterile and their presence degrades the institution. Faggots don't have children, and the children they do have aren't theirs. Adoption doesn't generate that deep biological bond. Step-parents neglect and abuse their kids much more often.

So basically you're eroding an already deeply eroded cornerstone of civilization and saying "Hey, we'll replace it with something unnatural and unproven. Indoctrination and false hope! It will all work out!"

Just like communism, no, it won't. Leftists deny nature and think humans are interchangeable infinitely programmable, which is empirically insane.

The argument against that doesn't stem from "muh feels" is that homosexuality is a mental illness caused by Toxoplasma gondii and we need to focus more on treatment of individuals with T. gondii rather than allowing them to carry on as if they aren't mentally ill.

It's a slippery slope and it's getting worse every day. We always feared that gay marriage would lead to shit like man-horse marriage, man-child marriage, polygamy, etc. Turns out it was much worse. Now we're enabling more extreme forms of mental illness by lopping off dicks.

I don't even want to think about what kind of fucked up mental illness we'll stop treating people for next.

No, getting HIV is a fate worse than death for me.

Leftists are always confusing symbol with actual value.

Marriage had prestige because married couples aren't degenerate faggots.

If you let degenerate faggots marry, they're still degenerate faggots, and marriage will fall into ill repute.

Same with the label shell game with niggers. Shitty niggers taint every label associated with them. They wear one out, and so the leftists give them a "shiny new one." But they fuck up that one too, and so they get another... and another... and another... but beneath it all is the same ol' nigger.

Buttsex doesn't make babies Cletus.

Gay marriage = no population growth

Get swamped and replaced by immigrants with 15 children

Good plan faggot cucks

There's two parts to it. The first is that marriage is inherently "sexist" - the law grants different rights to the male and female, male getting the better half of the deal. When two men get married, the bonus stacks. The obvious solution is to register one with the same rights as a female. One of them is the bottom bitch anyway so it really isn't an issue.

The second part is the core of the cuckservative belief system. To them, the smallest denomination is the family unit, not the individual. Any non-retard knows the modern world works by combining the specialised skills of individuals, but cuckservatism is rooted in the past, where families had to work together to get anything done. Two men doesn't count as a family for them (despite one is often the "female," adoption / surrogates exist), so the only way their brain can respond is by chimping out: bible edition. The "two men" is the most important part, because by "family unit" they really mean "the father plus three," which totals only one vots. Having two men means one family gets two votes, ruining their entire system.

Neither of these are arguments of course, because there is no argument. What they're REALLY saying is "I can't rig things the way I used to, but I don't want anyone to know about the rigging, so let's divert this by getting mad at fags."

It prevents the breeding of the human race and reduces fertility rates.
>the human species evolves slower and populations can't grow as fast.
>if global fertility rates were below 2.1 than the human race could not sustain itself

Pic related. It's primarily about the destructive force that women's suffrage has been but sprinkled throughout are the logically sound arguments against homosexuality as well.

A defining characteristic of the left and leftists is that they'll deny natural laws and processes, and are encouraged by their own hubris to offer their own interventions, with the predictable results of introducing chaos. The cyclical nature of the business cycle that they wanted to flatten. The first American war on drugs, prohibition, which came of the progressive era, being a basic denial of the law of supply and demand (unfortunate that that progressive philosophy still has many adherents among supposed rightists). It's "natural" that the leftist will deny what should be seen as the primacy function of the familial unit (natural bonding, natural parentage), and attempt to modify it.

>Just like communism, no, it won't. Leftists deny nature and think humans are interchangeable infinitely programmable, which is empirically insane.
Goes to the point that they see man as perfectible. They are quintessentially interventionists in all that they do. A good deal of them have the belief that a primary goal of humanity should be an attempt to regulate and control the climate to keep it from changing, as if that's not what climates inherently do. Only for the plebs, though, for that mantra is just a cover so that other leftists can intervene in the natural distribution of wealth and the world's resources.

is an unnatural mental disease. if you were to identify as a cat i'd call u a sped, and the same principle applies to faggots and trannies.

Yes marriage is for a stable relationship in order to reproduce and raise children. Homosexuality is natures way of weeding out shit genes by not allowing them to pass them on to future generations

faggots deserve to be thrown from roofs. Islam has the right idea. Prove me wrong
>protip: you can't

Most of this is correct, however, the meme about not being able to raise kids with a single parent's wage is a meme desu. My dad made 36k a year and he was able to give me the basic needs and a few nice things. I currently make 100k and I can easily raise a kid on my own doing. I'm gonna bet you can probably raise 2 kids on about 50-60k depending on how you budget and considering the average income here in burgerland is $51k, it's fine. As for the family vote, couldn't the husband say fuck it and vote for himself and only himself and just ignore his wife? I mean I know I would tbqh with you.

This

There is no right to fag marriage. Completely conjured out of thin air by 5 degenerate lawyers on the supreme court of "muh current year".

State sponsored fag marriage is completely fucking pointless. They can't create their own kids. They don't contribute anything to society as a married couple other than aids.

The real question is why the hell should fags get married in the first place? It means nothing. The only real meaning marriage holds is as a religious sacrament. Not a single faggot has ever received a valid religious sacrament of marriage since fag marriage is impossible from a religious standpoint.

So a fag marriage can only be a civil union. And I've already talked about why these are pointless too.

So the only ones using a "muh feels" argument are the abominable faggots who are demanding marriage.

Failure to reproduce is detrimental to.....everything

1. Gays cannot reproduce
2. Gays generally tend to hold destructive liberal beliefs
3. Being gay has nothing to do with genetics, and gays will willingly lie about this, so they are liars by default.
4. most faggots talk like pansies or annoying fat black women and lesbos look like ugly men (being unattractive is probably why they turned gay)
5. Gays are faggots

>any secular logically argument against homosexual marriage
Do you think for even half a fucking second that the 'gay rights movement' will just suddenly stop if they're given what they want?

Of course they'll keep going: they're a movement and they have no vision of an end goal. They won't rest until churches are ridiculed, marginalised, and not allowed any say in the media or in children's education, and even then they'll find new things to complain about and campaign for (and it doesn't matter how degenerate or immoral those things are because they'll do it for the sake of virtue-signalling for perceived minority groups).

stop bumping this cancer thread

Faggotry is degenerate.
Degeneracy is incompatible with civilized society.

government shouldnt have any involvement in marriage whatsoever

leave it up to religious institutions. if poofs wanna make their own religion that lets them get married then cool, if not, fuck ya

I'm not sure there's any valid religious argument, either. Jesus Christ said don't judge other people because you're a sinner, too. He didn't make any exceptions. Good enough for me.

That was our chance to abolish all laws regarding marriage and fix women too somewhat, but no instead we just said fuck it lets just fuck other men in the ass and keep marriage laws around so men keep getting fucked by women and be driven to become faggots

If we only let people with IQ's of over 150 marry, marriages would be more successful than they are now on average.

This logic is dumb.