Warclave

If you wish to fully enjoy the forums and all its features, or simply engage with the community don't forget to register!

Are Gay Marriages acceptable?

Tehfebeb

Good Goyim
Donator
Messages
1,292
Likes
839
#2
Marriage is a contract to make kids

Anyone who cant get kids shouldnt be married

Adoption doesnt count
 

OrlokDaEternal

Strategist
Loyalist
Messages
1,529
Likes
465
#3
Marriage is a religious ritual therefore theoretically homosexual marriage is not permitted by religious law. However, all ideas can change. The historical definition of marriage is no longer the realistic definition therefore heck yeah let those homosexes have a chance at divorce!
 

Ske

Mostly Trustworthy
Tech Admin
Donator
Strategist
Messages
916
Likes
709
#4
We ain't nothin' but mammals—well, some of us, cannibals
Who cut other people open like cantaloupes
But if we can hump dead animals and antelopes
Then there's no reason that a man and another man can't elope
But if you feel like I feel, I got the antidote
Women, wave your pantyhose, sing the chorus, and it goes—
 

ok-ck

Strategist
Messages
176
Likes
60
#5
No polemics, but a healthy dose of apologetics,

Marriage is a holy union between one man and one woman, this union was established in the garden of Eden as God saw Adam was unfulfilled alone, he created Eve out of his rib, which he took during a heavy sleep he had given him, this story clearly shows man and woman without each other is incomplete, the man needs the helper and lover, and the woman the provider and protector.

It is not by chance that the order of the universe God has created is under siege, not only is marriage under siege by man deceived by Satan to redefine it as they please, but even the nature of genders is being redefined, a surge in masculine traits in women and feminine traits in men is rampant, and even promoted.

Nobody needs to be told marriage between two men, or two women is unnatural and wrong, but to be under this dillusion demands constant reeducation through media, education and eventually society at large.

The civil union of two men is in my humble opinion not an issue in a secular society, if we lived in ancient Israel which was theocratic such abominations should of course be eradicated, but the step of demanding the churchs blessing in a union that defies the basics of any religion, especially Christianity, because the Christian worldview is based much stronger on this intimate union than for instance Islam which allows polygamy, is in my opinion perverse and absurd, it is the act of a little child who tries his parents boundries, and I think it is time to set them firm and clear to end the continual and speedy degredation of society.

To top it all off I will leave a few scriptures that clearly state sodomy is a sin and an abominaton.

Romans 1:22-28

22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

And I will reference Genesis 19:1-29
The story of Sodom and Gomorrah, which is mentioned throughout the bible as a symbol of Gods wrath of sexual immorality, including homosexuality but also pedophilia, which was one of the main sins of the twin cities.
 

OrlokDaEternal

Strategist
Loyalist
Messages
1,529
Likes
465
#6
Anti-homosexuality arose as a biological imperative. The requirement of people is that they propagate the species, homosexuality doesn't help, therefore ban homosexuality. The Bible acts as a handbook in service of efficiently and safely propagating the species. However, it is no longer a biological imperative that we outlaw homosexuality. We are fully capable of properly keeping up population levels and we are no longer at risk of civilization-destroying phenomena (I mean this in terms of a tribe of people, not as a nation). Much of this is passed down generationally as the correct way to live, and as new efficient ways of living arise then the teachings get appended. That is how the Bible was collated, and how it continues to be tweaked in the eyes of the people. Women are advancing in the Catholic church, they are open about homosexuality, etc. Religion is coming in line with our new 'efficient' ways of living our lives. Therefore, the need for homosexuality to have any negative circumstances is completely gone. We just need to wait for the rest of civilization to fully catch up. Note, in places that have big issues with keeping up their population, I suppose it does make sense to bully the gays into submission. BUT, I mean this from a biological sense. It's not a good way of doing things by any means, even if it does make biological sense.
 

Dragon

The Mighty Dragon
Donator
Strategist
Game Admin
Messages
1,546
Likes
899
#9
Religiously, no.
Morally, yes.
Let them have a marriage without the religious ceremony.
But its probably that they want religious recognition, and that is where the conflict is, so tbh i think they either accept some non religious ceremony marriage or just find their own religion.
 

Tehfebeb

Good Goyim
Donator
Messages
1,292
Likes
839
#11
Religiously, no.
Morally, yes.
Let them have a marriage without the religious ceremony.
But its probably that they want religious recognition, and that is where the conflict is, so tbh i think they either accept some non religious ceremony marriage or just find their own religion.
What is the point of marriage then?

if it isnt a contract to get kids, and its not fucking religious, then what is the difference between civil union and ur 'marriage' concept?
 

ok-ck

Strategist
Messages
176
Likes
60
#12
@Tehfebeb I agree with your premise within marriage of childbearing, but this is only one aspect of marriage, it is not that shallow, but without children, marriage has not consumated which is one of its main goals, to be fruitful and multiply, as it is stated in Genesis 1:28.
A civil union is not a marriage, it is a formality that you can have in a secular society to give similar previleges to a same sex couple or non religious people that a married couple has, if said society deems that reasonable.

A major issue with civil unions of course is that it does undermine the previlege of marriage that makes it desireable, since a civil union has no religious ceremony or vows of any meaning other than at most a piece of paper, the union will never have the same value, but the institution of marriage is not only undermined by a similar equally beneficial union (in terms of previlege), it has also been undermined from the laws allowing easy and accessible divorce on demand, in my opinion that is more dangerous, since not everyone is religious in our society it is ok to allow previlege on a non religious basis, but easy divorce destroys the fabric of the most basic premise of marriage 'through thick and thin'.
 

60ep

Donator
Map Maker
Loyalist
Messages
1,392
Likes
489
#13
What is the point of marriage then?

if it isnt a contract to get kids, and its not fucking religious, then what is the difference between civil union and ur 'marriage' concept?
Mainly the differences are in law, and they are really big. Making a legal marriage affects kids, property, heritage, name and so many other things, and it's hard to break up legally. Couples get married mainly to show that they are serious about their relationship, and that they are going to be bound together till the end. "We get married to get kids" is what I've heard no one saying. Most couples nowadays in the west have kids before marriage anyway.

I don't see any big negative effect on the society when allowing gay marriage, and because many gay couples do seriously consider getting themselves married important, they should be allowed to have the right to do so.
 

Tehfebeb

Good Goyim
Donator
Messages
1,292
Likes
839
#14
Mainly the differences are in law, and they are really big. Making a legal marriage affects kids, property, heritage, name and so many other things, and it's hard to break up legally. Couples get married mainly to show that they are serious about their relationship, and that they are going to be bound together till the end. "We get married to get kids" is what I've heard no one saying. Most couples nowadays in the west have kids before marriage anyway.

I don't see any big negative effect on the society when allowing gay marriage, and because many gay couples do seriously consider getting themselves married important, they should be allowed to have the right to do so.
Incorrect. Civil Union has worked the same way as marriage in terms of property and heritability in alot of countries, Denmark included, before gay marriage was legalized. The only difference was that the church wasnt involved.

Also, you may not hear alot of people say they get married to get kids, but then why is it a meme that if you knock up a grill you have to marry her? Stereotypes are there for a reason
 

60ep

Donator
Map Maker
Loyalist
Messages
1,392
Likes
489
#16
Incorrect. Civil Union has worked the same way as marriage in terms of property and heritability in alot of countries, Denmark included, before gay marriage was legalized. The only difference was that the church wasnt involved.

Also, you may not hear alot of people say they get married to get kids, but then why is it a meme that if you knock up a grill you have to marry her? Stereotypes are there for a reason
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAEegQIBBAB&usg=AOvVaw1s83xNZBJQWshO4Jb3-Cvn

In denmark straight couples couldn't even have a civil union/registered partnership. For them the law only recognizes informal cohabitation, and holy shit the legal differences are huge.

Having kids encourages getting married but it doesn't mean marriage is a contract to get kids.
 

Hawk

The White Wolf
Strategist
Chieftain
Messages
1,320
Likes
631
#17
I think because of legal reasons, yes. Because not having that certificate who your partner is can create a bunch of legal problems if you're just 'verbally' married.
Morally and religiously I don't care because we need less people anyway earth is becoming overcrowded and faggots are helping.

I think the bigger question is should adoption be allowed for same sex couples
 

Dragon

The Mighty Dragon
Donator
Strategist
Game Admin
Messages
1,546
Likes
899
#18
What is the point of marriage then?

if it isnt a contract to get kids, and its not fucking religious, then what is the difference between civil union and ur 'marriage' concept?
???
how does that relate to the OP, and when gay people want to marry, religiously?

@Hawk its being overpopulated with third worlders, not first worlders, infact, if first worlders would populate like this, there would be much less problems as First world countries are able to deal with it, the issue comes with third world countries relying on the first world to sustain them, but for how long?
Point is, Population isn't the problem in First world Countries, such as in the EU and USA, and other places.
 

ok-ck

Strategist
Messages
176
Likes
60
#20
I don't see any big negative effect on the society when allowing gay marriage, and because many gay couples do seriously consider getting themselves married important, they should be allowed to have the right to do so.
This is a meme, not reality, you have to consider the homosexual lifestyle before you consider it compatible with marriage, the average homosexual dies 20 years earlier than the average straight person, the average homosexual had, when statistics were made, around 300 partners on average during their 20 year shorter life, compare that to the average straight person that today 30-40 years after these numbers and societal degredation is maybe somewhere between 3 and 6, so upwards of 50 to 100 times more. Is this compatible with monogamy? I am open to the fact that the homosexual community is not as insane as it was back in the day, but you could hardly get more sick than it was in the 80s, by generous estimates they are still 10x more promiscuous than straights, and this is after normalization where alot of people who probably are not homosexual, but are in the homosexual envirornment for whatever reason.

Remember homosexuality does not reproduce, it needs to recruit to sustain itself.

Also it is not uncommon for married homosexuals to still have sexual relations with other men or women, because their norms and culture is incompatible with traditional values, you can watch alot of movies and news segments promoting homosexuality, but they only show a sunny fake side of it, reality is these are sick people who need help, not pandering and enableing.
 

Top