/lgbt/ - LGBT » Thread #5122064

[30 / 4 / ?]

107KiB, 640x1136, image.jpg

Anonymous Sat 24 Oct 2015 13:18:16 No.5122064 View Reply Report Delete

Quoted By: >>5122072 >>5122608 >>5123909

I'm curious to know. Seriously, because gay and lesbians say marriage doesn't need to have procreation as a purpose for marriage anymore.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 24 Oct 2015 13:21:24 No.5122072 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>5124651

>>5122064
the purpose of marriage was always cementing social structure and engendering an institution of family

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 24 Oct 2015 13:46:18 No.5122157 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>5122182

Incest is still a taboo. But realistically, gay incest is of no consequence to anyone and is not morally reprehensible. Straight incest presents the mild danger of birth defects, but provided its consensual and they understand the risks, there's not much wrong there either.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 24 Oct 2015 13:52:31 No.5122182 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>5122189 >>5122660

>>5122157
straight people will never accept this. We're fucked.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 24 Oct 2015 13:54:43 No.5122189 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>5122352

>>5122182
I think incest is pretty acceptable if you argue it with people. Their only defense is that they think incest is gross, which is logically not a sound argument.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO image.jpg, 71KiB, 634x650

Anonymous Sat 24 Oct 2015 14:25:37 No.5122328 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>Gay incest sex morally superior to straight incest sex
>Gay sex superior to straight
>Gay > Straight

Gay superiority confirmed

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 24 Oct 2015 14:31:06 No.5122352 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>5122360 >>5122615 >>5124654

>>5122189
but marriage is another thing altogether. Everyone laughed at the "slippery slope" argument but it is true. Marriage doesn't really have a definition anymore other than "two people love each other" which tbh reduces it to a pretty unimportant and vestigious institution. In the past it actually institutionalized a certain way of life (nuclear family) which for better or for worse did affect society pretty strongly. Personally, I agree in encouraging strong family values both in the homosex and straight communities
Either get rid of it entirely or acknowledge that there's something actually important about it other than "anyone or anything can be married if that's how they feel deep down"

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO polygamy_1490320c.jpg, 26KiB, 460x288

Anonymous Sat 24 Oct 2015 14:33:29 No.5122360 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>5122592 >>5122647

>>5122352
* "two+ people loving each other" soon

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 24 Oct 2015 15:39:05 No.5122592 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>5122360
All these wives and not a good-looking one in the bunch.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 24 Oct 2015 15:44:37 No.5122608 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>5122064
Incest will grow less and less controversial as time goes on, with medical science making the risk of babies practically null. It won't be accepted soon though, it'll take time and possibly a few generations.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 24 Oct 2015 15:46:45 No.5122615 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>5122775

>>5122352
It has been an unimportant and vestigial institution for a long time. For generations now it's just been a legal agreement between members of a relationship to share resources and become officially family members. Anything else is simply symbolism and different combinations of people being able to marry doesn't lessen that symbolism in any way since it's entirely subjective.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 24 Oct 2015 15:55:09 No.5122647 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>5122660

>>5122360
the one on the left probably beating everyone's ass up

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 24 Oct 2015 16:00:17 No.5122660 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>5122693

>>5122182
Wait, why is insest acceptable in a homosexual capacity?
I still think it's gross as fuck tbqh
>>5122647
That's the bottom bitch for sure

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 24 Oct 2015 16:10:23 No.5122693 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>5123181

>>5122660
Because there's no chance of fucked up babies in gay incest.
And again, the only argument people have is "omg gross"

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 24 Oct 2015 16:50:13 No.5122775 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>5122615
yes, it has become common to view it as subjective which has rendered it completely useless. I say abolish it from the public sphere completely and any cultural trappings associated with it. Redefine marriage as a purely cultural and/or spiritual institution with meaning outside of the government. Everything else becomes common law and cohabitation laws.
I think a lot of the marriage debate is not whether people care that two gays are receiving legal benefits, but rather what they see as a complete rejection of the importance of marriage as a very influential cultural institution outside of the legal benefits it gives. It changes culture, and some people would rather not take another step towards a culture where "everything is subjective". Overall we need meaning no matter what we believe in and whether we like it or not marriage is one way in which we can impart meaning to society.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 24 Oct 2015 19:06:54 No.5123181 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>5123226 >>5123245

>>5122693
>omg gross
That is the argument against any sexual perversion, really.
And if people didn't react that way, we'd have pedo marriages, animal marriages, master/slave marriages and tons of other fucked up shit.
There have to be boundaries.
Allowing homosexuality (which is rather common), should not also be a premise to allowance of other deviations (which are quite rare).
Otherwise you have to admit that /pol/ is right with their "slippery slope" stance.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 24 Oct 2015 19:18:46 No.5123211 Report Delete

Quoted By:

I think they should, but I don't think that many want to
To be honest I don't get why anyone wants to get married these days

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 24 Oct 2015 19:22:51 No.5123225 Report Delete

Quoted By:

No real reason. Incest is a bad because of muh feels

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 24 Oct 2015 19:23:17 No.5123226 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>5123181
We should not place specific requirements on who can get married, but keep it as a legal contract. That way, people still wouldn't be able to marry children or animals (since they cannot consent to a contract).

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 24 Oct 2015 19:27:36 No.5123245 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>5123616 >>5124549

>>5123181
I post this probably once a week: it's 100% about consent. "omg gross" is not a valid argument. "Can't consent" is.

>pedophilia
can't consent

>animals
can't consent

>master/slave
I'm not really sure what you mean by this. Assuming a BDSM thing, that's already legal. And there is consent.

>homosexuality
capable of consent

>polygamy/polygyny/polyamory
capable of consent

It's not that hard.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 24 Oct 2015 19:33:50 No.5123278 Report Delete

Quoted By:

The problem that people find with incest is that quite a lot of the time sibling relationships are non-consensual or start at such a young age that the lines are really blurred. Parent/child relationships are even worse in this regard.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 24 Oct 2015 20:40:53 No.5123616 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>5123690

>>5123245
>pedophilia
>can't consent
Apparently they can "consent" to so many things there parents or the government maybe forcing them through for "their own good", but not to something they actually want?
Not to mention that every culture has different age of consent.
>animals
>can't consent
They can "consent" to being murdered for food though.
And somehow they have sex with each other just fine without even knowing what "consent" or any other cultural marxist term is.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 24 Oct 2015 20:51:44 No.5123681 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>5123728

Soon enough two men will be able to have kids with both their genes in it.

The places with the worst inbreeding in the world are places where consanguineous marriage is legal and culturally encouraged. Whereas islands and less populous nations where you'd expect inbreeding have the same rate of it as large and landlocked countries. Ergo inbreeding is deliberate not accidental, I think all consanguineous should be banned for this reason, it makes it less culturally taboo to marry your relation.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 24 Oct 2015 20:53:11 No.5123690 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>5123728

>>5123616
Neither animals nor children really count as citizens. They're essentially outside the law, when the law covers them they're considered a special form of property.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO polgbt.jpg, 476KiB, 626x2452

Anonymous Sat 24 Oct 2015 21:00:46 No.5123728 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>5123681
>Soon enough two men will be able to have kids with both their genes in it
Feminists will make all reproductive technology outlawed.
>>5123690
It's not about what counts as what and to whom the law applies. The law is what we make it to be.
If the majority of people believe homosexuality is a sin, then it is also forbidden by law.
Sexual deviancy is only punished or thought of as immoral, because we naturally find it repulsive and align our rules according to our feelings.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 24 Oct 2015 21:29:20 No.5123909 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>5122064

Leaving mongoloid offspring out of the equation, incestuous marriages could never have stayed in fashion because marriage has always been about forming alliances with other families/tribes. If you let your children marry their own siblings, your family makes no lasting diplomatic ties in the greater community and consequently weakens your family name's social standing.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Oct 2015 00:19:06 No.5124549 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>5123245
its not about consent (ex. if I bend over and a horse willingly enters me, is that consent?) the issue is full legal standing as persons, which animals do not have and children have limited versions of.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Oct 2015 00:50:54 No.5124651 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>5122072
No it wasn't. It has been many things throughout history.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Oct 2015 00:52:02 No.5124654 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>5124663

>>5122352
The nuclear family is incredibly modern and even more incredibly western. Please kill yourself at the nearest opportunity for being such a complete dumbass.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Oct 2015 00:56:32 No.5124663 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>5124654
I didnt say it wasnt modern?
I was implying that marriage was one of the main institutions holding it up and that in general marriage is important because of its power to influence culture.

Subject

Name

E-mail

Password

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Verified Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Manager Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts Only Founder Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images Only Spoiler Images Only Non-Spoiler Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

On these boards

Your latest searches