Fags

Marriage is an oppressive bourgeois institution and fags should be saved from it.

This clip is pretty good, also it's a black guy so you get bonus victim points.

Ignore the christfags in this thread, OP. You're clearly a faggot, but this is the kind of argument /we/ should be able to make at the drop of a hat. Here are mine:

Throughout history, homosexuality has been recognized for the plague that it is. The Jews try to sell us horseshit about how the AmerIndians had three genders, or the Ancient Greeks blah blah blah, but probably 90 percent of all the people who've ever lived have lived in a society that put faggots to death for being disruptive and unclean. Our (((modern))) society is no better, as you can see from the disease and child abuse rates (look these up to have them ready. The statistics-Jews have invented a narrative about how most child molesters are straight white men – you will hear this in rebuttal; be ready to refute). Encouraging this practice, with recognized fag marriage, for example, encourages the divisions in society and feeds the chaos-Jew.

It is also true that reasonable, sensible appeals to our basic decency and sense of privacy regarding faggots will be repaid a thousandfold by degeneracy in our streets. Fifty years ago, when faggots went to prison or the mental hospital, scenes like pic related would have been the stuff of fevered nightmares. Now, thanks to the steady creep of laws and customs, you're a fucking bigot if you object to any of this. In fact, a truly (((modern person))) would complain that those oppressed men on the ground are overdressed for a children's parade.

And this brings us to perhaps the hardest argument to make quickly, but the ultimate reason to resist creeping fag shariah – it's being used by social revolutionaries to destroy traditional values and leave us deracinated, disoriented, and demoralized, so we won't have the guts to stand up and fight back against the conquest-Jew. To a strong, united people – even if they share their land with niggers and a limited number of spics, it's easy to resist things like mass immigration and communist uprisings. 200 million confident whites could slay any marxist or Islamic dragon on our doorstep. By pushing degeneracy and filth as good, however, (((certain interests))) make us doubt our own sense of unity and right and wrong. Deprived of what used to be obvious moral verities, we now have no firm ground to object to anything, in much the same way a cult leader forces new recruits to strip naked and rub dog shit in their faces – once you've given up your pride, you can be made to do anything.

In this sense, fags are a stalking horse. The kikes who work toward our extinction would have used anything to break our resistance, but faggots and put-upon niggers happened to be the two most sympathetic groups to '60s-era bleeding hearts. Nobody wants to bully a "gay" kid into suicide, so the Jews Morley Safer comes to mind showed us clean-cut, respectable faggots who wore neckties and only wanted to be safe. Likewise, the Civil Rights-Jew showed us honest, hardworking niggers who just wanted to eat lunch like normal people and sit in front of the bus. And now we're here.

Gay marriage, like Civil Rights, is a PR wedge for people who want to sell your daughter into slavery, cut off your white son's balls, rape your wife, and see you dead. Not even the fags themselves; they're useful idiots, but the (((force behind it all))).

Because Satanism isn't real it's just edgelordism from the 80s. Even so, if that is the case then you shouldn't force churches to be open to devout Satanists either. Let churches operate at liberty to marry who they want to marry, if they exclude fags then they reserve the right to do so.

Yeah, and always will be because Americans owe it to Christianity that the Nation of America exists in the fucking first place. The best way for the church to operate is that is has the liberty to preach what the gospel says. Not what majority opinion says or what the government is saying at that time, that's not what is automatically true.

The point of marriage as a governmental institution is to give tax cuts for a man and a woman in a relationship, to incentivize them to get kids. You want more citizens and you want more quality citizens.

Children born in the nuclear family are the most stable, productive and intelligent children you can have, ensuring that the next generation of society will be prosperous and happy.

If you give it to homos, the government is losing money and the economy continues to make it more and more difficult for hetero married couples to actually have kids, especially if they're high IQ and think "Oh shit, I can't support a child in this economy".

But of course, that was a system designed back when the government cared. Nowadays its such a dysgenic mess that they don't care about the next generation.

ehe

i'm no debater, and i don't know if i've heard this win one before, but i'd say marriage means union, and humans being divided in two, two made for each other, unify to continue life, is the only union possible in the human species.
marriage, as defined by law 'union between man and woman' , does not (correct me if i'm wrong) concern itself with love nor acts as validator of love nor should it act as validator of love.
trendiness does not make right
there are gays who don't give a shit

Absolutely savage. Love how Obama is completely straight faced through out.

There is no such thing as "gay". There is sodomy, sodomitic acts can occur between individuals of the same gender (sodomites). The sodomitic act exists only as a perversion of sexual relations between a man and woman. It has no procreative value and as such has no place in a marriage.

Here it is, for you the big fag
Marriage defined five years ago archive.fo/mYHS
Marriage defined after a (((correction))) today archive.fo/mhg8W
See the difference? If you look up the root word, marry, then you also see this archive.fo/ujP98 . It is used in reference to a preist even today. Why is this so hard to understand? You can't be completed by another master/husband, only by a wife/servant.

Would you be alright if gays were unable to marry in religious ceremony but could be recognized as economically dependent on one another by the state? Separate the religious aspect from the equation. If two people want a civil union and are looking for the same economic parity as straight couples under the law, should the state not recognize it?

But you're OP so you'll just be seen as the fag with a lot of internalized homophobia.

The whole point of marriage is to reproduce and intimacy.
Money is neither of those things so no.

fag marriage authorizes state control over the Christian doctrine forcing churches to open the doors to fudge packers. That is why kikes push gay marriage so much.

well it wouldn't be a marriage, just a civil union with the same legal rights as those recognized by the state as "married."

Why are you supporting tax breaks on married couples?
Don't you know that the original reason there was a reduced price for them is because married couples were treated as the same person? Like the women being the property of the man who then gets a reduced price on things to better care for his property?
Yea that's another arguement.

Sad but true. Always a bigot at heart ;-;

Marriage is an institution that is in principle, though not in practice today, rested on reproduction and the continuation of the nation. Such an institution cannot be founded upon whims, much less the degeneracy of sodomy. Basically extend Nietzsche's idea here:

Not to mention how damaging, both physically and spiritually, two fathers or mothers might be on an adopted child, from pedophile parents to the lack of a father or mother figure in the kid's life.

Fags are wildly degenerate sexual predators who molest children and intentionally spread STDs for fun. Anything that normalizes faggotry, such as fag marriage, is therefore a very bad thing.

Just be graphic about it. By being graphic about what homosexualism actually is, at the least you can offend any males with decent test levels. "I think it's degenerate and disgusting for men to masturbate with eachother's rectums. Permitting that sort of vile behavior does not lead to a healthy or successful society- in fact, it has no benefits at all. Society should not focus on catering to the weak and depraved; rather, it should focus on offering opportunities to those with potential."

You could also mention the slippery slope, the fact that all sexual deviants are political allies against those that seek to prevent their perverse behavior. In other words, gay marriage is a stepping stone towards gay adoption (which is already child rape), which is then a stepping stone towards legalizing pedophilia in some form (which they are already pushing for with euphemisms like "child love" and "minor attracted persons").

Also, if you actually get statistics, studies and bullshit like that you can mention how gays are prone to STDs, promiscuity, depression, drug use, suicide, sexual crimes (including child abuse), and you can even mention Jeffrey Dahmer.

/thread

wouldn't that help incentivize marriage and child rearing? woman being dependent upon her husband and taking care of kids isn't something people here regularly masterbait to the thought of being a "cultural norm" again?

Does the thought of a man being dependent upon another really bother you that much if they kept to themselves?

He's using the "da libruls r da reel sexisss" argument.

Never use your enemy's points, it's not a winning strategy.

Public acceptance of faggotry and governments allowing dykes and fags to legally marry and adopt kids is a symptom of a society without enough well rounded competent masculine men to create a traditional order. The only reason fags and kikes are able to normalize their disorder is that they are filling in a power vacuum. Scaring people about the realities of fag marriage is all well and good, but degenerates will continue to get their way legally until traditionalist institutions are reinvented and rebuilt to reduce the number of single women and numales that have nothing invested in the future generation.

Homosexuality seems to be a kind of last stand of implicit White identity.
t. Dicky Spence

there was monogamous marriage before christianity

Of course, Christianity nicked plenty of things from other cultures and religions. The thing is, the current form of marriage is a Christian thing.
Homosexuals could just as easily get a civil ceremony, which is effectively the same thing with all the religious connotations removed. It's still a legal marriage, all strings attached. I really don't see what the issue here is.

...

Marriage is a public display of intent to stay together and raise children. Gays do not procreate therefore the public has no incentive to keep gay couples together.

It's not a public display of affection or love, marriage was always with the intent to stay together in order to raise children properly.

The tax benefits married couples get is because the state has a vested interest in children being born.

youtu.be/jjPQ_jVlEnQ?t=285

4U part 1

and two.

Incoming pastebin, standby…

paste.ee/p/vKJFr

REMEMBER

You can not "win" against college marxists, because they will always double down, even if they are proven wrong with scientific evidence. The purpose should be to sway the ~10% of receptive onlookers.

Tips: I have archived all of this myself, but double check to make sure the archives are still working. If they aren't working, make a new one with the source material. If you can't, do some of your own footwork to fill in the gaps.

Always make light of your opponent and appear in good humor. Be smart, research common counterarguments and have quick answers.

Browbeat the fuck out of them.
Sorry, real life isn't a Will and Grace fantasy sitcom.
Sorry, real statistics don't care about your feelings.
Sorry, scientific research isn't homophobic, sometimes it's just the uncomfortable truth.

Remember, they will call everything you present pseudo science, or cherry picked. Always question the material they present in turn.

What is the sample size on that study? Oh you don't know? Well I'm familiar with your source, they only used 20 people from San Francisco's red light district.

Who funded that research? Oh, it was the lgbt coalition of america? Are we to believe cigarettes are safe using Marlboro cigarette's sponsored research?

(And my favorite) Are there any other studies that have duplicated the results of the first? Because that's one of the qualifications of it being accepted as real proof. (Try as hard as you can to get multiple studies correlating your argument, as this will prevent this fr being turned on you.

Best of luck. That paste will expire in a month, so be sure to snag it and save it.

Gays seeking the approval of christian institutions is some Daddy Issues level shit on mass scale.

It's like the hot girl whose daddy left her mommy when she was young and didn't give her enough attention or approval and replaced her with children to another woman. Now she seeks attention and approval from men in a pathological manner.

Gays are no different, ass hurt daddy issues and a pathological need for acceptance from the thing that rejected them, or something symbolic of the thing that rejected them. For fags, this is society, and especially the church.

Fuck ever giving these cunts the satisfaction of acceptance. Take attention and acceptance away from them and they will destroy themselves and remove themselves and their shitty behaviour from our good earth.

Damn.

I dont wanna start a new thread,

Can we get some good arguments against race mixing as well?

How are fags going to marry after we've stoned them all?