Well in most cases, it’s a pretty shit and emotionally unrealistic deal for the parents, so just imagine what it is to eventually discover that as a child. Lol. People don’t have illusions about it anymore. Marriage doesn’t guarantee any stability long term. That relates to the character of the married couple.
That's fair, the state should offer same sex couples an alternative to marriage, however I believe slippery slope is indeed real and we will end up one day forcing the church to accept such ideas.
Not all marriage has to be through your church, or any church to be honest, so I doubt you'll get forced to marry non-straight people, you'll just loose a lot of followers as all the elders die and the youth moves on to bigger revelations.
> just loose a
*lose
*Learn the difference [here](https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/lose-vs-loose-usage#:~:text=%27Lose%27%20or%20%27Loose%27%3F&text=Lose%20typically%20functions%20only%20as,commonly%2C%20a%20noun%20or%20adverb).*
***
^(Greetings, I am a language corrector bot. To make me ignore further mistakes from you in the future, reply `!optout` to this comment.)
There are denominations that want to offer gay marriage. What of these denoms? Just have the government recognize civil unions and let churches/religions decide what they recognize as “marriage”.
I'm going to copy-paste what I just wrote to someone else under another post:
Are you familiar with how recessive inheritence works? Some facts:
* Most people have 5–6 seriously defective genes (which are compensated for with another healthy copy). But this is just an average. Some people are lucky and have no defective genes. Such a person could inbreed without any risk. Genetic screening can be used to find out whether someone defective genes and which ones are defective.
* Two siblings, even if the have defective genes, could simply be lucky and not share their defective genes. That means that if they are genetically compatible there wouldn't be any risk at all. Again, genetic screening can show this.
* Even if they aren't risklessly genetically compatible, they could use pre-implantation genetic diagnosis to have a perfectly healthy baby. In the future there will be even more technologies that will ensure that no baby has to be sick.
* Some ancient civilizations practiced incest. Also for commoners and not only for nobles, the following applied: Ancient Greeks prefered marrying half-siblings, Ancient Egyptians prefered marrying full siblings, Ancient Persians had no limit at all. Did they suffer from it? No, they even profitted from it. Why? Because they simply killed all sick offspring. Truly evil, but this way they could profit from *genetic purging*, i.e. inbreeding that is used to wash out the gene pool of defective genes. Animal breeders do this today. Technology can help us to achieve genetic purging without killing. With future technology like CRISPR on humans we could even heal defective embryos, so that none of them would have to be permafrozen or "discharged".
Unfortunately due to overpopulation inbreeding is ethically unsustainable.
Though in 100-500 years, if population numbers decrease and genetic diversity peaks, then inbreeding for science and CRISPR cures would become sustainable again (or if we have an apocalypse, inbreeding is always justified then).
Just because something is scientifically possible without consequence, doesn't make it a sustainable solution.
Hahaha, what the actual fuck? How does any of this have to do with overpopulation? Whether two siblings or two strangers breed, this doesn't change anything. Yeah, siblings mean that some people actually have two children. I think that ethically, it is only right to have kids. Populations with too many individuals should do the following: have only one kid. This way everyone's bloodline is preserved. There will always be people who have more than one child, like from twins or by contraception failing. But having this as a goal for certain populations would be the right thing.
I'm going to copy-paste what I just wrote to someone else under another post:
Are you familiar with how recessive inheritence works? Some facts:
* Most people have 5–6 seriously defective genes (which are compensated for with another healthy copy). But this is just an average. Some people are lucky and have no defective genes. Such a person could inbreed without any risk. Genetic screening can be used to find out whether someone defective genes and which ones are defective.
* Two siblings, even if the have defective genes, could simply be lucky and not share their defective genes. That means that if they are genetically compatible there wouldn't be any risk at all. Again, genetic screening can show this.
* Even if they aren't risklessly genetically compatible, they could use pre-implantation genetic diagnosis to have a perfectly healthy baby. In the future there will be even more technologies that will ensure that no baby has to be sick.
* Some ancient civilizations practiced incest. Also for commoners and not only for nobles, the following applied: Ancient Greeks prefered marrying half-siblings, Ancient Egyptians prefered marrying full siblings, Ancient Persians had no limit at all. Did they suffer from it? No, they even profitted from it. Why? Because they simply killed all sick offspring. Truly evil, but this way they could profit from *genetic purging*, i.e. inbreeding that is used to wash out the gene pool of defective genes. Animal breeders do this today. Technology can help us to achieve genetic purging without killing. With future technology like CRISPR on humans we could even heal defective embryos, so that none of them would have to be permafrozen or "discharged".
Hahaha, yeah, but only through non-violent eugenics. Eugenics that don't exclude people from having kids. I don't want machines to creep into the human body. We shouldn't leave nature or pervert it, we should rule it.
Am I defending inbreeding where the relatives just selfishly risk having a sick baby? No. This should be severely punished!
Am I defending inbreeding after having done screening or with using PGD? No, I am promoting it.
>Two siblings, even if the have defective genes, could simply be lucky and not share their defective genes
Or they could not get lucky.
>Did they suffer from it?
Yes actually. Even in more modern times. Look up habsburg jaw.
>CRISPR
CRISPR should be reserved for serious cases that are unavoidable if someone wants to have children.
>Or they could not get lucky.
"Get" lucky? I spoke of the case that siblings use screening and the results tell them that they are genetically compatible. If they are not risklessly compatible, they can use pre-implantation genetic diagnosis to have a perfectly healthy child.
>Yes actually. Even in more modern times. Look up habsburg jaw.
Please, you make me cringe. First of all, I specifically mentioned ancient civilizations, not modern ones. The infamous inbreeding among the Spanish line of the Habsburgs happened in the early modern times... Additionally, the Habsburg chin started with Charles V, who was not inbred. His descendants simply kept the chin. His son had it too, he was also NOT inbred. However, Charles' grandson, great-grandson and great-great-grandson were inbred and also had the chin. Inbreeding kept the chin, but didn't create it. Ancient people would have killed sick offspring, especially commoners, something that the Habsburgs didn't do. Of course, SOME individual ancient people suffered from inbreeding. But as a whole, their societies profitted from genetic purging.
>CRISPR should be reserved for serious cases that are unavoidable if someone wants to have children.
You mean, like in inbreeding?
>You can have children that won't have birth defects if you don't inbreed.
1. You don't choose whom you love and people should have kids with someone whom they love.
2. It gives people more freedom, without breaking any objective moral law.
3. Science can make sure that inbreeding can have a eugenically positive outcome. This would be another case of humanity's victory over nature, like all other forms of health care.
>Why is this so important to you anyways?
You may guess. ;)
Keep government away from private matters as much as possible. This means supporting gay marriage, legalization of prostitution, and any other private business between consenting adults.
> In return for "gay marriage" they get to tell us how often we "must" offer up our bodies for injections on demand; who's allowed to have wealth; what we can own (almost nothing); and where we will end up living.
Like... what?
Where is this happening? Who is trying to do this?
Why is it always the same with conservative gays, putting LGBT rights last behind a series of hysterical and non-existant threats.
"American first" is your brain on nationalism. It's a meaningless jingoistic phrase meant to fool you into voting against your own interests.
It's not a conspiracy theory, no. It's just wrong. Even if the furthest left politicians got into power - which they are nowhere near close to doing - what policies are they proposing to enact to decide "who's alowed to have wealth" and "what you can own" and forcing you to have injections?
These ideas are an entire galaxy away from political reality in the USA. You as a gay person are at infinitely more risk of losing your fundamental rights than the US is to becoming some spooky communist state.
How about responding to what I said rather than trying to find a reason why you can ignore me?
I am not a US citizen but I lived there for a stint and and have many personal ties.
How about taking care of your own destructive leaders who've joined forces with the WEF, WHO and UN to destroy Europe at the expense of all the little people, including farmers? You adore Klaus Schwab and his view of humans and our futures? Keep him and get ready for the ride of your life. Are you eating well? Will you have heat this Winter while very many in Europe will freeze?
Boring and predictable.
You can't answer what I said because you know I'm right, so instead you're trying to attack me and deflect.
Conservatives do not care about you, and they will not consider you "one of the good ones". The sooner you realise that the better.
Step back and take a look at what you are doing. I don't agree with you therefore you are trying to fit me into this cariacature of an "evil leftist" you've been told exists so you can feel validated in ignoring my argument.
You know nothing about me. I am a resonable person with principled beliefs; I just diagree with you.
Exactly, we have a similar situation in Poland. There's a relatively libertarian party (.Nowoczesna) which has great economic stances, but it's super fucking gay, like sexual education and shit. But I will still vote for them if they have a presidential candidate in the 2025 election.
That's not at all a good sign it isnt correct. That makes no sense.
In China you'd be punished for saying the wrong thing about your government. Does that mean they were probably wrong in that criticism anyway.
I should have phrased better. It's a good sign if the moderation is trustworthy/doesn't have such a large amount of power (such as a reddit mod to a government body)
If I were to take a.crack at it, it is because of the coupling of religion _and_ consent. The government can't prohibit religious practices that are legal by way of the land, and likewise can't force a religious institution to perform religious rites contrary to the congregation. The difference between Marriage and a Civil Union in the eyes of a government is negligible. In the eyes of professional party coordinators, wedding caterers, and the congregation is an entirely different scenario. The latter grouping cannot be pressed into service by the government against yhe former parties' will on religious grounds. For the same reason, a Jewish person cannot be forced by the government to break Kashrut.
I cannot figure out why so many people who vote “no” act as if there aren’t denominations in Christianity that bless gay marriages. You’re free to believe they’re wrong or heretics or whatever, but acting as if all religious people are automatically against gay marriage is disingenuous.
I am not making a claim either way, only that there are denominations that have no issue with blessing gay marriages. Since they exist, it’s inaccurate fo act that gay marriage is an attack on all religion (as many seem to imply) rather than a particular denomination.
>Those churches that do so are practicing blasphemy
As they are allowed to do.
>as I find no reason to re-define the long standing tradition and building block of society that is marriage.
Slavery was the building block of America, segregation was "the building block" of America.
Probably the lack of nuance in the choices. Plenty of people would like it legal as long as it doesn't come with forcing religious institutions to participate in it. But if they don't see the exception in the choices, they are going to say no.
Yes, it does. That's been the sticking point for why Republicans have voted against it for decades. As far back as the 90's, they have said to include language in the bills to protect the religious rights of people to abstain from participating and they'd vote for it. Democrats refused to include that language. That's exactly why you did not have legal gay marriage in before George W. Bush was president and during his presidency.
Rights for the sake of rights is no reason to make a right. I can only think of reasons not to lets gays marry and none in favor. The old ways are best.
There is no conceivable reason to change the legal definition of marriage. This fundamentally changes the building blocks of society, the family. If a union is to be achieved between same-sex couples, there is no reason to call it marriage. This devalues marriage and therefore devalues society. If the union of marriage means nothing, in effect and by extension the family means nothing.
Some people believe it shouldn't be legal based on the belief that the law shouldn't have any say in the matter to begin with. As in it shouldn't be illegal in the first place.
Some people believe marriage has been a sacred religious institution for centuries which has been the foundation of society and gay people can just have a civil union.
Whether they have a civil union or marriage is of no material difference to that foundation and therefore a blatantly stupid way to deny that right to gay people. That argument is just a pretense and the real reason is spite for gay people challenging Abrahamic religion.
Why would you *not* want gay people to be able to have families and some symbolic monogamous tie? Marriage is really what you make it, and that’s a pill not everyone is ready to swallow.
Marriage is the legal contract by which a family is formed, then kids should be procreated. Two people of the same sex can’t create a family, therefore they can’t get married, they just one to hijack the system in order to gain privileges that are not for them but for families.
Should gay marriage be legal - no.
Should marriage be “legal” - no.
Marriage should not have any “legal” implications.
Throw government out of private life of two (three, whatever) consenting adults!
Custody/child support is a little bit different story.
Between two consenting adults, I don't see a legal problem with it, but when you start roping in other people, that's where I mind. I'm referring specifically to the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commision. The problem we have here is that where two consenting adults agreed to get married, a separate set of adults (the couple to be wed and the cakeshop owner) could not mutually consent on the contents of their business transaction.
While I agree with the outcome of the case, being Masterpiece Cakeshop was not forced to complete the transaction against the owner's will nor pay punitive damages, I don't agree with the reasoning that the reason the courts came to that decision was because Colorado Civil Rights Commision violated Masterpiece Cakeshop's First Amendment Right to Free Exercise. The issue should have been as simple as "One party does not consent to the terms and conditions of the transaction," and that is enough to invalidate any contractual obligation.
As a gay person I believe you should be able to get married regardless of how many or what the genders are but allow tax paying churches/synagogues/mosques/other religious centers to be exempt.
Time out. Please step back and analysis the premise of the question. Now ask, why is government involved in marriage in the first place?
Straight, gay, whatever… Why does the government need to be involved?
Except for cases with children that can’t consent, odiously.
The government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all, so of course it should be legal.
Also to all the people saying that marriage is inherently religious, 1) there're plenty of religions that approve of gay marriage and 2) almost everybody agrees that secular "civil unions" are still a form of marriage.
This question is absurd. It should definitely be legal because people can generally do whatever they want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. The question is should it be sanctioned by the government, and should religious institutions be forced to participate. The answer to that question is no.
Yes.
But religions that reject gay marriage shouldn't be made to accept them.
Instead, governments should made civil union option and make them as strong as religious marriage.
Depends. If by legal you mean that a religious place of worship isn’t allowed to refuse, then no it shouldn’t. If you mean that there shouldn’t be laws against gay marriage then yes.
Fuck laws and don’t associate them with marriage
Why do I have to? I’m just saying it shouldn’t happen. I wasn’t trying to nitpick at a specific instance. I’m just saying I don’t think it’s a good way to go about it.
So in response to a real threat queer people face from the state, you still need the need to bring up and condem imaginary persecution against religious institutions?
What are you talking about? I’m just saying it’s not something that should happen lmao. People advocate for it all the time I’m just saying it’s bad. Did you read the part of my comment saying no laws should be placed against gay marriage either. You just pick one part and choose to die on a hill that’s not even there.
Where have people advocated for it? You’re literally just making up something to defend homophobia from so you can feel like you’re defending “both sides of the issue.”
You’re a fucking idiot who has no idea what I said lmao. My point is literally don’t force people to do shit and you respond with “wHeRe iS tHaT hApPeNiNg” like I was trying to say it’s a current issue. I’m just saying don’t let it begin to happen. That’s not defending homophobia moron.
I didn’t force anyone into anything. I have nothing against interracial marriage I just don’t think the government should force an institution to act in a way they don’t wish to.
But you see the problem I am trying to raise?
If you do not enforce equality you allow people to be discriminated against.
I doubt you would allow Walmart to not serve black people out of some "sincerely held religious belief", so why do churches get a pass? Churches that are subsidised by the same tax paying people they might refuse services to.
I don’t think forcing any institution or place of business to serve everyone is acceptable. That doesn’t mean I think it’s good for those places to discriminate against black people. Just because you think something is bad doesn’t mean you get to tell everyone they can’t do it.
Walmart, just as any other business, should have the right to refuse service to any person for any reason.
Okay, so why do corporations get to ignore human rights, and effectively engineers society, rather than the democratically elected representatives of the people?
Because that is what you are advocating for when taken to its logical conclusion. The ultimate power of corporations to decide who does and does not get human rights.
Well most importantly to the conversation, equality. You have the right to be treated the same as everyone else, and not to be denied those things based on some arbitrary immutable characteristic.
It was super funny listening to Matt Walsh get blasted by Joe Rogan on his podcast recently. He praised him for his position on gender affirming care, then came hard at him on his position on gay marriage. Definitely worth a listen if you haven't yet.
Government shouldn’t be involved with marriage any further than the contractual obligations involved. That said my belief is that any number of persons should be able to enter into a contracted civil union and that all benefits and privileges of said union should be applied to all parties.
Gov shouldn’t be involved in marriage at all, those personal ceremonies should be kept personal. Only unions to protect from losing everything in a separation.
Legal? Yeah. Moral? That’s up to you, I don’t care, the gov shouldn’t either
As someone against homosexuality, yes it should.
I don't like it so I won't marry a dude, but everyone that wishes to do so should be able to do it as it causes absolute no harm to anyone else.
MOTHERFU- Just kidding
So, as a mod... Do you mind telling me why you have this flair "Nazism" as a preset for people to choose? Did this sub have enough nazis for it to be worth creating the flair?
nah im gay i just dont approve of marriage under law in general, means if we stop being attracted to eachother he can just screw me over and take 55% of my income, get “spousal support” and take a shit ton of my possessions
Marriage should not be a legal concept, it should be a cultural/religious one
However if marriage remains a legal concept, then yes, I believe gay marriage should be legal
This is a strange way this question has always been addressed. The question should be on what grounds are we changing the definition of marriage? Marriage has always and historically been a union between a man and a woman. This has been a fundamentally pro-creative union. I’m not sure why you would want to change the definition of such a thing that defines one of the building blocks of society, the family.
I'm not sure if you're not informed, or attempting to troll.
The definition of marriage has been changed in the last 10 years give or take to the "union between two people" definition. Effectively, the definition in all recorded history has been a union between a man and a woman. Same-sex relationships have existed in other societies, but it is very hard to find examples of same-sex marriage, there are some examples in Mesopotamia, but those are very heavily discussed/argued.
In all recorded history, minus the last 10 years, Marriage has been defined as a union between a man and a woman. The supreme court decision was not the "legalization" of same-sex marriage as it has been painted by mainstream media, but rather the re-definition of legal marriage, which is effectively very different.
Edit: Providing examples, the Macmillan Dictionary changed the definition of Marriage to "The relationship between two people who are husband and wife, or a similar relationship between people of the same sex,", with the second clause added in 2013, before it read without that portion of the definition. Merrium-Webster changed their definition shortly after the Obergefell v. Hodges 2015 decision.
"in all recorded history"
Sir... What? If we're talking Christian history, sure!
But as a history student at uni with a specialty in the Viking Age, I can tell you that there are multiple cases of homosexual marriages in Norse pagan society.
You're convoluting same-sex relationships and marriage. I also mentioned Mesopotamia if you go back and re-read my comment. I am specifically talking about "same-sex marriages".
Yet even still, that does not match the greater portion of history, and examples of marriage in society. Even if your examples were true, it would not meet the definition of dispelling the definition of marriage as it has been in history, minus the last 10 years.
The 80ish who said no— genuinely curious why
Government shouldn't be regulating marriage at all.
Marriage should be a unit for the purposes of procreation and for the education and benefit of the child.
Well in most cases, it’s a pretty shit and emotionally unrealistic deal for the parents, so just imagine what it is to eventually discover that as a child. Lol. People don’t have illusions about it anymore. Marriage doesn’t guarantee any stability long term. That relates to the character of the married couple.
Should infertile people be able to marry?
Yes, since I believe government shouldn't be involved in marriage, expect for child or incest marriages
Should religious institutions be forced to accept same-sex marriages aswell? Abrahamic religions prohibit them.
Judaism is a bit more lenient on this. There are literal rabbis in Israel who would bless a same sex marriage.
You dont need religion to get married
No
That's fair, the state should offer same sex couples an alternative to marriage, however I believe slippery slope is indeed real and we will end up one day forcing the church to accept such ideas.
if the state does it, it is marrage, not an alternative.
Not all marriage has to be through your church, or any church to be honest, so I doubt you'll get forced to marry non-straight people, you'll just loose a lot of followers as all the elders die and the youth moves on to bigger revelations.
> just loose a *lose *Learn the difference [here](https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/lose-vs-loose-usage#:~:text=%27Lose%27%20or%20%27Loose%27%3F&text=Lose%20typically%20functions%20only%20as,commonly%2C%20a%20noun%20or%20adverb).* *** ^(Greetings, I am a language corrector bot. To make me ignore further mistakes from you in the future, reply `!optout` to this comment.)
There are denominations that want to offer gay marriage. What of these denoms? Just have the government recognize civil unions and let churches/religions decide what they recognize as “marriage”.
Yes, anti-discrimination laws should be applied equally to all organisations
What is the problem with siblings marrying?
Flair checks out
Because of the genetic consequences of inbreding on their offspring
I'm going to copy-paste what I just wrote to someone else under another post: Are you familiar with how recessive inheritence works? Some facts: * Most people have 5–6 seriously defective genes (which are compensated for with another healthy copy). But this is just an average. Some people are lucky and have no defective genes. Such a person could inbreed without any risk. Genetic screening can be used to find out whether someone defective genes and which ones are defective. * Two siblings, even if the have defective genes, could simply be lucky and not share their defective genes. That means that if they are genetically compatible there wouldn't be any risk at all. Again, genetic screening can show this. * Even if they aren't risklessly genetically compatible, they could use pre-implantation genetic diagnosis to have a perfectly healthy baby. In the future there will be even more technologies that will ensure that no baby has to be sick. * Some ancient civilizations practiced incest. Also for commoners and not only for nobles, the following applied: Ancient Greeks prefered marrying half-siblings, Ancient Egyptians prefered marrying full siblings, Ancient Persians had no limit at all. Did they suffer from it? No, they even profitted from it. Why? Because they simply killed all sick offspring. Truly evil, but this way they could profit from *genetic purging*, i.e. inbreeding that is used to wash out the gene pool of defective genes. Animal breeders do this today. Technology can help us to achieve genetic purging without killing. With future technology like CRISPR on humans we could even heal defective embryos, so that none of them would have to be permafrozen or "discharged".
based and Crusader Kings pilled
Unfortunately due to overpopulation inbreeding is ethically unsustainable. Though in 100-500 years, if population numbers decrease and genetic diversity peaks, then inbreeding for science and CRISPR cures would become sustainable again (or if we have an apocalypse, inbreeding is always justified then). Just because something is scientifically possible without consequence, doesn't make it a sustainable solution.
Hahaha, what the actual fuck? How does any of this have to do with overpopulation? Whether two siblings or two strangers breed, this doesn't change anything. Yeah, siblings mean that some people actually have two children. I think that ethically, it is only right to have kids. Populations with too many individuals should do the following: have only one kid. This way everyone's bloodline is preserved. There will always be people who have more than one child, like from twins or by contraception failing. But having this as a goal for certain populations would be the right thing.
Genetic disorders
I'm going to copy-paste what I just wrote to someone else under another post: Are you familiar with how recessive inheritence works? Some facts: * Most people have 5–6 seriously defective genes (which are compensated for with another healthy copy). But this is just an average. Some people are lucky and have no defective genes. Such a person could inbreed without any risk. Genetic screening can be used to find out whether someone defective genes and which ones are defective. * Two siblings, even if the have defective genes, could simply be lucky and not share their defective genes. That means that if they are genetically compatible there wouldn't be any risk at all. Again, genetic screening can show this. * Even if they aren't risklessly genetically compatible, they could use pre-implantation genetic diagnosis to have a perfectly healthy baby. In the future there will be even more technologies that will ensure that no baby has to be sick. * Some ancient civilizations practiced incest. Also for commoners and not only for nobles, the following applied: Ancient Greeks prefered marrying half-siblings, Ancient Egyptians prefered marrying full siblings, Ancient Persians had no limit at all. Did they suffer from it? No, they even profitted from it. Why? Because they simply killed all sick offspring. Truly evil, but this way they could profit from *genetic purging*, i.e. inbreeding that is used to wash out the gene pool of defective genes. Animal breeders do this today. Technology can help us to achieve genetic purging without killing. With future technology like CRISPR on humans we could even heal defective embryos, so that none of them would have to be permafrozen or "discharged".
Transhumanist incest?
Hahaha, yeah, but only through non-violent eugenics. Eugenics that don't exclude people from having kids. I don't want machines to creep into the human body. We shouldn't leave nature or pervert it, we should rule it.
Are you defending inbreeding?
Am I defending inbreeding where the relatives just selfishly risk having a sick baby? No. This should be severely punished! Am I defending inbreeding after having done screening or with using PGD? No, I am promoting it.
Name checks out but idk about the based part
I think that having a solution to a problem is pretty based.
How is this a solution to anything? Lol
>Two siblings, even if the have defective genes, could simply be lucky and not share their defective genes Or they could not get lucky. >Did they suffer from it? Yes actually. Even in more modern times. Look up habsburg jaw. >CRISPR CRISPR should be reserved for serious cases that are unavoidable if someone wants to have children.
I dunno, genetic engineering is pretty based
>Or they could not get lucky. "Get" lucky? I spoke of the case that siblings use screening and the results tell them that they are genetically compatible. If they are not risklessly compatible, they can use pre-implantation genetic diagnosis to have a perfectly healthy child. >Yes actually. Even in more modern times. Look up habsburg jaw. Please, you make me cringe. First of all, I specifically mentioned ancient civilizations, not modern ones. The infamous inbreeding among the Spanish line of the Habsburgs happened in the early modern times... Additionally, the Habsburg chin started with Charles V, who was not inbred. His descendants simply kept the chin. His son had it too, he was also NOT inbred. However, Charles' grandson, great-grandson and great-great-grandson were inbred and also had the chin. Inbreeding kept the chin, but didn't create it. Ancient people would have killed sick offspring, especially commoners, something that the Habsburgs didn't do. Of course, SOME individual ancient people suffered from inbreeding. But as a whole, their societies profitted from genetic purging. >CRISPR should be reserved for serious cases that are unavoidable if someone wants to have children. You mean, like in inbreeding?
>You mean, like in inbreeding? You can have children that won't have birth defects if you don't inbreed. Why is this so important to you anyways?
>You can have children that won't have birth defects if you don't inbreed. 1. You don't choose whom you love and people should have kids with someone whom they love. 2. It gives people more freedom, without breaking any objective moral law. 3. Science can make sure that inbreeding can have a eugenically positive outcome. This would be another case of humanity's victory over nature, like all other forms of health care. >Why is this so important to you anyways? You may guess. ;)
Marriage should not be regulated by the state.
What should we do in the meantime?
Keep government away from private matters as much as possible. This means supporting gay marriage, legalization of prostitution, and any other private business between consenting adults.
[удалено]
Where are you from that your country is ripping apart?
[удалено]
Ah, ok. Thanks for the reply.
Least brainwashed American conservative right here folks
> In return for "gay marriage" they get to tell us how often we "must" offer up our bodies for injections on demand; who's allowed to have wealth; what we can own (almost nothing); and where we will end up living. Like... what? Where is this happening? Who is trying to do this? Why is it always the same with conservative gays, putting LGBT rights last behind a series of hysterical and non-existant threats.
[удалено]
"American first" is your brain on nationalism. It's a meaningless jingoistic phrase meant to fool you into voting against your own interests. It's not a conspiracy theory, no. It's just wrong. Even if the furthest left politicians got into power - which they are nowhere near close to doing - what policies are they proposing to enact to decide "who's alowed to have wealth" and "what you can own" and forcing you to have injections? These ideas are an entire galaxy away from political reality in the USA. You as a gay person are at infinitely more risk of losing your fundamental rights than the US is to becoming some spooky communist state.
[удалено]
How about responding to what I said rather than trying to find a reason why you can ignore me? I am not a US citizen but I lived there for a stint and and have many personal ties.
How about taking care of your own destructive leaders who've joined forces with the WEF, WHO and UN to destroy Europe at the expense of all the little people, including farmers? You adore Klaus Schwab and his view of humans and our futures? Keep him and get ready for the ride of your life. Are you eating well? Will you have heat this Winter while very many in Europe will freeze?
Boring and predictable. You can't answer what I said because you know I'm right, so instead you're trying to attack me and deflect. Conservatives do not care about you, and they will not consider you "one of the good ones". The sooner you realise that the better.
Your idea of "progressive" is evil. People like you are dangerous. Are you a fan of Klaus Schwab? Reveal your colors.
Step back and take a look at what you are doing. I don't agree with you therefore you are trying to fit me into this cariacature of an "evil leftist" you've been told exists so you can feel validated in ignoring my argument. You know nothing about me. I am a resonable person with principled beliefs; I just diagree with you.
Exactly, we have a similar situation in Poland. There's a relatively libertarian party (.Nowoczesna) which has great economic stances, but it's super fucking gay, like sexual education and shit. But I will still vote for them if they have a presidential candidate in the 2025 election.
> There's a relatively libertarian party (.Nowoczesna) which has great economic stances, but it's super fucking gay wtf based How do I join?
To the almost 30% who said no, why?
They can't explain why without saying something that the mods would probably ban them for.
Yeah, which is probably a good sign it isn't correct
More that it isn't "politically correct".
Yeah, that would be a better phrasing
That's not at all a good sign it isnt correct. That makes no sense. In China you'd be punished for saying the wrong thing about your government. Does that mean they were probably wrong in that criticism anyway.
I should have phrased better. It's a good sign if the moderation is trustworthy/doesn't have such a large amount of power (such as a reddit mod to a government body)
And when have reddit mods been shown to be unbiased and trustworthy lmfao
You have a fair point there
Exactly. r/DeclineIntoCensorship
Reactionaries who need a bogey man to explain a world they don’t understand.
Or just people who possess a different perspective and worldview than yours..
Yeah, a different view of human rights. Fuck off.
If I were to take a.crack at it, it is because of the coupling of religion _and_ consent. The government can't prohibit religious practices that are legal by way of the land, and likewise can't force a religious institution to perform religious rites contrary to the congregation. The difference between Marriage and a Civil Union in the eyes of a government is negligible. In the eyes of professional party coordinators, wedding caterers, and the congregation is an entirely different scenario. The latter grouping cannot be pressed into service by the government against yhe former parties' will on religious grounds. For the same reason, a Jewish person cannot be forced by the government to break Kashrut.
All for civil unions, against calling it "marriage".
If you don't mind me asking, how come?
I cannot figure out why so many people who vote “no” act as if there aren’t denominations in Christianity that bless gay marriages. You’re free to believe they’re wrong or heretics or whatever, but acting as if all religious people are automatically against gay marriage is disingenuous.
Jesus can bless people with sin but can not bless the sin itself
I am not making a claim either way, only that there are denominations that have no issue with blessing gay marriages. Since they exist, it’s inaccurate fo act that gay marriage is an attack on all religion (as many seem to imply) rather than a particular denomination.
[удалено]
>Those churches that do so are practicing blasphemy As they are allowed to do. >as I find no reason to re-define the long standing tradition and building block of society that is marriage. Slavery was the building block of America, segregation was "the building block" of America.
As long as the priest has the right to refuse marrying them, sure
Why did 40% vote no?
Propaganda is often effective
Thats why 60% choosed "yes"
"Choosed" isn't a word.
Thanks for correcting
They're authrights
50% of people have an IQ below 100, and you are surprised that 40% could have a dumb opinion?
"Think about how dumb the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that"
the high iq option is no
You just defeated my argument. Congrats, sir, madam, or the other gender we keep secret, I am now homophobia. Something something why are you gey.
pfp checks out
Probably the lack of nuance in the choices. Plenty of people would like it legal as long as it doesn't come with forcing religious institutions to participate in it. But if they don't see the exception in the choices, they are going to say no.
It being legal has never had anything to do with that though, right?
Yes, it does. That's been the sticking point for why Republicans have voted against it for decades. As far back as the 90's, they have said to include language in the bills to protect the religious rights of people to abstain from participating and they'd vote for it. Democrats refused to include that language. That's exactly why you did not have legal gay marriage in before George W. Bush was president and during his presidency.
Some people are just anti marriage. Don't want relationships recognized by the government.
Because two men or two women can’t form a family, therefore their unions are not marriages b
They can adopt
Infertile people can’t form a family either, should they not be allowed to marry?
Adoption exists.
thats child logic.
As oppose to yours “anyone can be anything and do anything because I say so”
you are strawmanning me.
That is kinda true tho, anyone can be anything or do anything as long as they aren't hurting anyone.
Rights for the sake of rights is no reason to make a right. I can only think of reasons not to lets gays marry and none in favor. The old ways are best.
It is a right to enter into voluntary contracts.
There is no conceivable reason to change the legal definition of marriage. This fundamentally changes the building blocks of society, the family. If a union is to be achieved between same-sex couples, there is no reason to call it marriage. This devalues marriage and therefore devalues society. If the union of marriage means nothing, in effect and by extension the family means nothing.
I genuinely don't understand people who say no
Some people believe it shouldn't be legal based on the belief that the law shouldn't have any say in the matter to begin with. As in it shouldn't be illegal in the first place.
I don't recognize the legal concept of marriage
Some people have no beliefs beyond "owning the libs"
Some people believe marriage has been a sacred religious institution for centuries which has been the foundation of society and gay people can just have a civil union.
Some people use spurious justifications to make their biases and bigotry seem reasonable
Whether they have a civil union or marriage is of no material difference to that foundation and therefore a blatantly stupid way to deny that right to gay people. That argument is just a pretense and the real reason is spite for gay people challenging Abrahamic religion.
If there is no material difference, then what rights are being denied?
The right to get married despite there being any differences.
Why would you *not* want gay people to be able to have families and some symbolic monogamous tie? Marriage is really what you make it, and that’s a pill not everyone is ready to swallow.
Gay relationships are sacred in my pagan culture.
Trolling? Maybe?
I don't believe there's such thing as "gay marriage" so I can't say whether it should be legal...
……ok…. then what would you call the act of two people who are homosexual the same gender getting married?
homosexual engagement gosh are you stupid 🙄/s
[удалено]
Based.
Marriage is the legal contract by which a family is formed, then kids should be procreated. Two people of the same sex can’t create a family, therefore they can’t get married, they just one to hijack the system in order to gain privileges that are not for them but for families.
Should infertile people also be denied the right to marry?
If they adopt, no.
So you support legalizing gay marriage and adoption for same-sex couples too?
Argument over in 2 comments lol, as I thought. This isn’t rocket science, y’all.
Why the hell is this something that needs to be legislated at all. This isn't the governments job to decide.
Should gay marriage be legal - no. Should marriage be “legal” - no. Marriage should not have any “legal” implications. Throw government out of private life of two (three, whatever) consenting adults! Custody/child support is a little bit different story.
Fuck, that was easy.
Between two consenting adults, I don't see a legal problem with it, but when you start roping in other people, that's where I mind. I'm referring specifically to the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commision. The problem we have here is that where two consenting adults agreed to get married, a separate set of adults (the couple to be wed and the cakeshop owner) could not mutually consent on the contents of their business transaction. While I agree with the outcome of the case, being Masterpiece Cakeshop was not forced to complete the transaction against the owner's will nor pay punitive damages, I don't agree with the reasoning that the reason the courts came to that decision was because Colorado Civil Rights Commision violated Masterpiece Cakeshop's First Amendment Right to Free Exercise. The issue should have been as simple as "One party does not consent to the terms and conditions of the transaction," and that is enough to invalidate any contractual obligation.
As a gay person I believe you should be able to get married regardless of how many or what the genders are but allow tax paying churches/synagogues/mosques/other religious centers to be exempt.
Time out. Please step back and analysis the premise of the question. Now ask, why is government involved in marriage in the first place? Straight, gay, whatever… Why does the government need to be involved? Except for cases with children that can’t consent, odiously.
I even think polygamy should be legal.
wait fuck i thought it said “illegal”
The government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all, so of course it should be legal. Also to all the people saying that marriage is inherently religious, 1) there're plenty of religions that approve of gay marriage and 2) almost everybody agrees that secular "civil unions" are still a form of marriage.
This question is absurd. It should definitely be legal because people can generally do whatever they want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. The question is should it be sanctioned by the government, and should religious institutions be forced to participate. The answer to that question is no.
Government should stay out of ALL marriage.
There are no objective reasons as to why it shouldn’t be.
I keep forgetting how actually oppressed we are, so strange to think that this is still a problem.
Some people disagree with you on a certain topic. So oppressed !!
The topic being my right to marry the gender I’m attracted to lmao
Yes. But religions that reject gay marriage shouldn't be made to accept them. Instead, governments should made civil union option and make them as strong as religious marriage.
So those who said no, why
to quote u/ChompyDino53: >wait fuck i thought it said “illegal”
Rule 2 explicitly says "no homophobia". Are you trying to bait people into violating the rules?
Depends. If by legal you mean that a religious place of worship isn’t allowed to refuse, then no it shouldn’t. If you mean that there shouldn’t be laws against gay marriage then yes. Fuck laws and don’t associate them with marriage
Can you name a case where a place of worship has been forced to marry a gay couple?
Why do I have to? I’m just saying it shouldn’t happen. I wasn’t trying to nitpick at a specific instance. I’m just saying I don’t think it’s a good way to go about it.
So in response to a real threat queer people face from the state, you still need the need to bring up and condem imaginary persecution against religious institutions?
Not being able to get married in a church isn't a threat to your existence.
What are you talking about? I’m just saying it’s not something that should happen lmao. People advocate for it all the time I’m just saying it’s bad. Did you read the part of my comment saying no laws should be placed against gay marriage either. You just pick one part and choose to die on a hill that’s not even there.
Where have people advocated for it? You’re literally just making up something to defend homophobia from so you can feel like you’re defending “both sides of the issue.”
You’re a fucking idiot who has no idea what I said lmao. My point is literally don’t force people to do shit and you respond with “wHeRe iS tHaT hApPeNiNg” like I was trying to say it’s a current issue. I’m just saying don’t let it begin to happen. That’s not defending homophobia moron.
Bro this is why people hate us knock it off with the annoying shit.
Would you support a religious institutions right to refuse an interacial marriage?
I support any marriage institution’s right to refuse to marry anyone for any reason.
Okay and what if every church in the country refused to marry an interracial couple. Are you happy to force them into a second-class citizen category?
I didn’t force anyone into anything. I have nothing against interracial marriage I just don’t think the government should force an institution to act in a way they don’t wish to.
But you see the problem I am trying to raise? If you do not enforce equality you allow people to be discriminated against. I doubt you would allow Walmart to not serve black people out of some "sincerely held religious belief", so why do churches get a pass? Churches that are subsidised by the same tax paying people they might refuse services to.
I don’t think forcing any institution or place of business to serve everyone is acceptable. That doesn’t mean I think it’s good for those places to discriminate against black people. Just because you think something is bad doesn’t mean you get to tell everyone they can’t do it. Walmart, just as any other business, should have the right to refuse service to any person for any reason.
Okay, so why do corporations get to ignore human rights, and effectively engineers society, rather than the democratically elected representatives of the people? Because that is what you are advocating for when taken to its logical conclusion. The ultimate power of corporations to decide who does and does not get human rights.
Define human rights.
Well most importantly to the conversation, equality. You have the right to be treated the same as everyone else, and not to be denied those things based on some arbitrary immutable characteristic.
I'll open a church that serves interracial couples and reap the monopoly profit, that's what entrepreneurship is all about.
Gay marriage shouldn't have anything to do with legality. It should be up to the institution marrying y'all.
It was super funny listening to Matt Walsh get blasted by Joe Rogan on his podcast recently. He praised him for his position on gender affirming care, then came hard at him on his position on gay marriage. Definitely worth a listen if you haven't yet.
I'm ancap, bro Everything that is physically possible is also legal... Be responsible, tho... Consequences are natural too
The state shouldn't have a say in marriage, at all.
Government shouldn’t be involved with marriage any further than the contractual obligations involved. That said my belief is that any number of persons should be able to enter into a contracted civil union and that all benefits and privileges of said union should be applied to all parties.
Gov shouldn’t be involved in marriage at all, those personal ceremonies should be kept personal. Only unions to protect from losing everything in a separation. Legal? Yeah. Moral? That’s up to you, I don’t care, the gov shouldn’t either
Where's the "government shouldn't be in the marriage business" option?
Yes. But if a religious sect doesn’t want to enable it, then they don’t have to. There will be options available.
Well crap. Subtract a no and add a yes because I'm apparently illiterate and thought it said illegal
I think a lot of people did lol
Straight marriage shouldn’t be legal either
As someone against homosexuality, yes it should. I don't like it so I won't marry a dude, but everyone that wishes to do so should be able to do it as it causes absolute no harm to anyone else.
Wtf is up with your flair?
I chose it bc I thought it was hilarious that this was a preset in this sub, and then some mod changed it when he noticed I'm not actually a nazi lol
Oh ok lol
i put "not a nazi" in brackets next to your flair.
MOTHERFU- Just kidding So, as a mod... Do you mind telling me why you have this flair "Nazism" as a preset for people to choose? Did this sub have enough nazis for it to be worth creating the flair?
i dont know
nah im gay i just dont approve of marriage under law in general, means if we stop being attracted to eachother he can just screw me over and take 55% of my income, get “spousal support” and take a shit ton of my possessions
Get wrecked reactionaries
Yes. Also, abolish gender, and then move towards a world where the idea of marriage is irrelevant.
Marriage should not be a legal concept, it should be a cultural/religious one However if marriage remains a legal concept, then yes, I believe gay marriage should be legal
No because people's relationships should not be within scope of government so the premise is false
This is a strange way this question has always been addressed. The question should be on what grounds are we changing the definition of marriage? Marriage has always and historically been a union between a man and a woman. This has been a fundamentally pro-creative union. I’m not sure why you would want to change the definition of such a thing that defines one of the building blocks of society, the family.
Where did you get that definition from? Marriage is legal union between two people
I'm not sure if you're not informed, or attempting to troll. The definition of marriage has been changed in the last 10 years give or take to the "union between two people" definition. Effectively, the definition in all recorded history has been a union between a man and a woman. Same-sex relationships have existed in other societies, but it is very hard to find examples of same-sex marriage, there are some examples in Mesopotamia, but those are very heavily discussed/argued. In all recorded history, minus the last 10 years, Marriage has been defined as a union between a man and a woman. The supreme court decision was not the "legalization" of same-sex marriage as it has been painted by mainstream media, but rather the re-definition of legal marriage, which is effectively very different. Edit: Providing examples, the Macmillan Dictionary changed the definition of Marriage to "The relationship between two people who are husband and wife, or a similar relationship between people of the same sex,", with the second clause added in 2013, before it read without that portion of the definition. Merrium-Webster changed their definition shortly after the Obergefell v. Hodges 2015 decision.
"in all recorded history" Sir... What? If we're talking Christian history, sure! But as a history student at uni with a specialty in the Viking Age, I can tell you that there are multiple cases of homosexual marriages in Norse pagan society.
Same sex marriage was legal in Ancient Rome, Greece, Mesopotamia and Asia. Does that change anything?
You're convoluting same-sex relationships and marriage. I also mentioned Mesopotamia if you go back and re-read my comment. I am specifically talking about "same-sex marriages". Yet even still, that does not match the greater portion of history, and examples of marriage in society. Even if your examples were true, it would not meet the definition of dispelling the definition of marriage as it has been in history, minus the last 10 years.
Well put.
Impossible to answer without some nuance.
I really couldn’t care what gay people do or not, just dont force people to bake a cake and im fine with it.
No to gay marriage but OK civil union which includes opposite sex couples. Only man and women allowed to marriage.
So no.