Hi Holla Forums

I hope you don't have hair that gets niggerish when wet

A darwinistic measure would be them dieing from AIDS.

I don't believe gayness is right but marriage is only a government contract, fags will be together regardless. Banning 'gay marriage' is putting a bandaid on an oozing wound. Preventing fags from adopting and raising children is more important imo

This. It was a religious thing EVERYWHERE. Sure the religions were a little different, but it was always religious. And a scientific man might even argue that it remained that way because the first religion, whatever it may have been, instilled this general notion into the first humans who were monogamous.

No. Like many things its aim is to divide and conquer. Whilst a lot of women and thirsty-"men" support faggotry, it has essentially no impact on real life as despite the non-stop propaganda, the masses still instinctively see it as an abomination. Far better to focus on the more pressing and dangerous divide and conquer strategies; racism, immigration, multiculturalism, abortion, feminism and atheism. Those are far greater threats than faggotry, though they are all the same strain of kike injected cancer.

But conservatism is not cool anymore. At least the old boomer conservatism.

Also how do sluts factor into this, user? That's a different topic.

Why do they do that though?

I completly understand that, friend. But here is one thing.

isn't there a case to be made for the positive eugenic effects of ignoring faggotry, so that only people without the fag genes breed?
I mean if you force closet fags and trannies to act like straight men, isn't there a danger of their genes being passed on? More than just "tolerating" them?

I mean secular in the sense that marriage isn't religious, which in my opinion makes it an even stronger case against gay marriage.

But they don't breed anyway, so that wouldn't make a difference. At least not directly.

Then why do all historical, spiritual religions perform ceremonies to recognize life-long partnerships?

It's a better alternative. The longer the gay lifespan becomes, the more gays there will be that will be able to adopt and "raise" children.

State marriage, and more specifically the tax write-offs, when instituted due to the positive effect stable marriages brought to society. Most notably, growing families, with limited dysfunctiojn amongst them. At its core, marriage tax deductions are an incentive to breed and grow the population. Fags only breed disease and societal dysfunction. They do not deserve the same tax benefits, as they do not contribute the same positive effects for the country. This is to say nothing on the religious aspect of marriage, which is indefensible to force upon the religious community.

All white blood is precious given white genocide. Clearly you dont have your priorities straight. Maybe you lack the information to make an educated opinion, but faggotry is a cancer promoted and caused largely by the Jew, with the intention of rotting our society and contributing to our extermination. No, its not acceptable, to any degree that we can resist. At some point, you need to make accommodations for peoples vices like female brothels, but homosexuals should be outlawed, and if they are overlooked to any degree it should completely out of sight and more important out of the publics mind. People who have these thoughts should put them in the backs of their minds and continue a normal life. Thats how it was for a long time, and thats a large part of why theres such a sudden "increase" in the numbers of faggots, and open faggots on the supposed far right.

But it wasn't religious, user. Learn your history. How can it be religious? Pagans did it. Romans, greeks, Germanics.

The christian church actually tried to make it religious in Spain. They were pissed that Spain had secular marriages and they started a christianization process of Spain and built a churches everywhere, so to really make sure that the local population always asks a priest before marrying.

I think it even makes a better case against gay marriage, if you acknowledge that it's secular and was done in all human cultures.

Because the family unit is the most important part of society and religions want to be very important in society, so they try to involve themselves in that.

Also IIRC even the Catholic church itself believes that marriage is secular. It's a "wordly" construct. In heaven people aren't married or something like that. I am sure a Christfag can explain that better here.

But the supply of kids to be adopted will always remain a certain size.

I don't know. I think forcing faggots to be hetero can cause anxiety and make them abuse their kids. And their wives will also suffer under that. They have needs too.

I just don't think there are enough fags to make a difference.
I think we should focus on people, who at least identify as hetero and improve them. In particular make them more masculine and help them to make their gilfriends more feminine and submissive.

Their should be a guide to mould your woman. Make her cook, pick up some traditional feminine hobby. Make her like kids and have the same political opinion as you.
I personally think I could do that intrinsically, but it's always good to see how men with an established family do that kind of stuff.

I mean you wouldn't even try to make a good woman out of a complete slut with no sense of loyality, right? Same with faggots. They are just trash to be discarded.
If you raise them right though, that should be prevented. But once it already comes to that, there is no point in trying to make a faggot masculine again.

There are no positive effects of ignoring faggotry. That's like saying there are positive effects of ignoring that your house is on fire.

Yeah, I'm sure they were all secular.

Oh look it's the one-line-leftyshit again.
Just sage him. He's not interested inany discussion only converting people into marxism.

But how do you reply to my slut comparison. I think there are positive effects of ignoring sluts and not seeing them as viable candidates for the mother of your children.

Just sayin' bro.

It's actually really interesting and makes a better case for the traditional concept of marriage.

have you read the thread, user?

Professional coincidence theorist here. Yes, it is just a coincidence.

Marriage is a union of man and woman until death us apart.

;^)

I am posting in a troll thread, but whatever. I'll take the bait.
There is no such thing as gay marriage. Marriage is a mechanic that has been in place for the sole reason to have families be able to formally interract with eachother, giving the possibility of extending a family through the bloodline, when conceiving a baby.
Since you can NOT extend the bloodline of your family as a gay couple (do not bring me adoption, adoption breaks the bloodline and is never actually admitted as true family extension), the idea of gay marriage makes absolutely no sense. That's all there is to it. Marriage is not about love,security,whatever you name it. No. Marriage is about family and bloodline extension and NOTHING ELSE.

Also gays should all go to the oven and disappear, but I am not going to debate this in this post.

Hahahahaha no

Death is a timeless state before reincarnation before it's time for more suffering(fun).

Gay marriage simply is an oxymoron. It's impossible. In history, naturally there's tons of homosex but at the same time gay marriage is nonexistent. The reason is simple, marriage really is strictly between a man and a woman. If you want to be gay then be gay but don't pretend two dudes or two chicks makes a marriage, it never will.

I am not saying that, but you either raise them right or when they become sluts, you cut them off and make it so that they are ageing into childless hags.

You could maybe fix a slut up and make her into a good wife, but who would do that?

So how do you feel about it being such a popular term?

Forgot to add:

Gay marriage is the unholy union between two STD-infested perverts that they use an excuse to adopt and abuse innocent children.[12] Draining the bogs was a mistake.

I personally feel that it is a very large misuse of language and semantics to have the concept of "gay marriage" accepted and used. It should be called different and should have a strictly different value than actual family marriage. It annoys me that gays deliberately pretend not to understand this and always bitch and whine about everything just for muh equality.

Yes exactly user, you've cracked this. The LGBT community pushing for gay marriage is an excuse used for paedophiles to access to child adoption in order to freely and legally get a stock of children to abuse and perform wicked satanic rituals onto. Excellent point.

Some things are impossible to undo. When you cross a line, you gain the experience of having crossed that line that you cannot unlearn. You can explicit this easily with your own experiences. Before using drugs one says / thinks that they will never do it and you can trust the person into not doing it… Until they cross this line, the way they will prevent themselves from doing it will not be the same as before since they already have the experience of it.
If it is not clear, I know, my english is not accurate but I'm a french retard so I have a hard time expressing my thoughts here.

nah, you're perfectly intelligible

and people with enough self-awareness can extend this truth to others based on their own experiences

Because they are ideological extremists looking to undermine any traditional social standards in the West. Because it isn't about equality under the law, which civil unions provided, it's about selling their shithole fucking as something as natural as the sexual union between a man and a woman, who by entering into a commitment with with each other, greatly increase the chance that their children will survive into adulthood. There are other benefits but this is the main underlying biological imperative. Which is something they also seek to undermine with all this 87 genders bullshit btw. Not all women have vaginas, goy!
The idea of marriage being about love is a modern largely selfish one that they have used to their advantage to pull at the heartstrings of normalfags. This "Love is Love" drivel is as manipulative as it is meaningless, but highly effective on the intellectually vacant, emotionally hyper-sensitive masses.
It's my opinion that it was economically and socially beneficial much more than religious in nature, which is why it's found in some form everywhere. It's no coincidence that now that we've changed it so that it's not so much about children anymore but about feels, it collapses. More than half of marriages end in divorce today. To me that proves it's main (but not only) function is and always was to ensure successful child rearing.

Is it a condolence that it will be forever called "gay marriage" and never just "marriage"?

I understand you, frenchbro. But I don't think you are disagreeing. I think we are both in agreement.

Because they're entitled little shits with a less-than-firm grasp on reality.

Btw I think everything was said here. I think discussing this further is pointless.

I want to refer you to another thread though:

I didn't want to make my own one just for this.

Religion and culture are inseparable, and any historian or anthropologist will confirm this. Atheism was never a thing outside of a few jewish-led heretical cults. Your Romans, Greeks, Germanics and all forms of Pagans had religious aspects to essentially everything in their lives, marriage included.

How? The truthful way allows us to see that EVERY culture saw marriage, as in the union of a man and a woman for the purposes of child-rearing, as a God/gods ordained thing. If they made up these God/gods then it shows that they were naturally inclined towards these monogamous relationships for the purpose of child-rearing.

As far as we know such things did not exist, at least not amongst Europeans. The few instances of men marrying more than 1 woman that we have in recorded history were for diplomatic reasons. Even among non-Europeans there is usually a 'wife' and a whole bunch of 'consorts', with the wife being the one which had a marriage ceremony.

It's a pointless discussion. The only thing of worth regarding homosexuals and transgenders is how alien and abominable they are to natural humans. They are such a small percentage of people that they are truly irrelevant as something that needs to be addressed. I'm with the other anons who think they should be disposed of in bogs, but really they are so few in number that they do not matter. Care about the 20% of muslims in Germany and all the pro-immigration, pro-multiculturalism people. Care about the HUGE numbers of women who are 'feminists' that seek to better their own position regardless of how it damages men and society - they matter far more than the 0.1% of society that is transgender and the maybe 2% of society that is homosexual (and lets be honest - a large % of that 2% is probably just doing it for victim points, or because they are butt ugly and every man/woman in their lives rejected them).

Sage for all of the reasons above.

...

Why are you idiots even bothering to reply to this piece of shit.
He'll dismiss your whole argument with a one liner and proclaim himself a winner.
This piece of shit comes here once a month with another topic to "debate" and push his marxism from another angle.
Again, sage this motherfucker. He is a recurring leftypol/plebbit cancer.

The only purpose that state mediated marriage has is to produce children which perpetuate the nation state. Faggots cannot produce children as a pair, they fuck children which liberals foolishly allow them to adopt, and abuse children at a rate 29 times that of normal individuals. They are trash who have no function in society. The modern state "recognizes" them because it has long since given up on encouraging adaptive behavior and is openly importing masses of worthless shitskins who themselves will destroy the states they invade.

Bullshit people in antiquity and indeed up until the 18th century saw now division between religion, state, and society. There were no "religious" or "secular" concepts, each was an indivisible part of the other. Marriage is always been mediated by society, religion, and tradition for the express purpose of facilitating the production and raising of viable offspring.

Faggots are not only worthless they are a biohazard and should be disposed of accordingly.
HIV Among Gay and Bisexual Men
cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/
cdc.gov/hiv/risk/gender/msm/
Everyone who is not an exclusive heterosexual makes up about 2.1-2.7% of the population. With about 1% being homosexual. So the number of dudes that fuck dudes would be around 1.3% at most. So if they account for 56% of new infections they are 43 times more likely to be infected.

The total number of these dude-fuckers shall we call them who are infected each year is 28,200. Given that sexual activity occurs between 15 and 45 that means that in that time 846,000 of the sexually active dude fuckers will be infected. Their total population is about 4.095 million at the most. Of which 55% will be within that 15-45 age group. So about 2.25 million of them are sexually active in a given 30 year period of which 846,000 will be infected. So about 37.5% of their sexually active population will be infected in their lifetimes. Now before you say “but that is just niggers and spics”, look at the data, even when only accounting for whites the rate of infection is still 31%. Which is admittedly better than 37% but still not great.

Homosexual Men Have 50 Times Higher Rate of AIDS
cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.htm#incidence

One in Five Gay, Bisexual Men in U.S. Cities Has HIV
reuters.com/article/2010/09/23/us-aids-usa-idUSTRE68M3H220100923

Report Finds Black Gay Males in US Worst Hit By HIV-AIDS
ca.news.yahoo.com/report-finds-black-gay-males-us-worst-hit-161752246.html

STD Facts - Syphilis & MSM
cdc.gov/std/Syphilis/STDFact-MSM-Syphilis.htm

I am not. Honestly I agree basically with most of you. Maybe that's why this whole thread was pointless in the first place.

Anyway. Does anyone want to discuss from the perspective of a theoretically bisexual man how much better than faggots at everything are?

I think we should state the obvious sometimes. Who wants to take up my challenge on why women are better mates than faggots for men?

Because they can reproduce.

You deserve the fucking gas plebshit.

Still a faggot, you are still a broken organism which displays the same maladaptive behaviors. You have a malformation of your central nervous system which produces symptoms besides merely wanting to fuck men's assholes. You kill yourselves, kill each other, use narcotics, abuse children, and interfere with society at rates far higher that that of any other demographic. You have no value. Things which cannot function correctly should be destroyed and replaced.

Male and female homos(including all "bisexuals and other freaks in this" have androgynous nervous systems. That is to say certain regions of their brains display physical characteristics in terms of structure which more closely resemble the mean structure of the opposite sex than is normal for the mean of their sex. Homosexuality is also 20% inheritable as determined by closeted faggots only having a 20% to produce a child who displays homosexual behaviors even when they raised them. Note that political and religious affiliation is 93% inheritable(reflecting the positions of the biologic parents) even when the child is raised by unrelated parents. But it is far above the threshold of traits which are considered weakly or non-inherited with a 2% incidence of heritability. I suspect that the inherited factor is not often a predisposition to faggotry itself but a vulnerability to environmental factors, specifically bacterial or viral infection in adolescence, which cause a developmental abberation and create the pathology we see displayed in the brains of adult homosexuals we have dissected. This would also explain why so many homos are "converted" by sexual abuse during adolescence. The abuse itself if continual or more likely exposure to a pathogen carried by homosexuals causes the abberant development of the central nervous system. We know that fevers and viral infections can lead to abberant physiological characteristics developing later in life if the infection occurs in early childhood.

The fact that the typical neurology displayed by the homosexuals is a maladaptive abberation is seen clearly in their rates of suicicide and their propensity for risk taking and outright self destructive behavior. The mean age of death for male homosexual(defined as anyone who engages in homosexual activity at any time during their lives) in the US is 45 and the mean age of death for female homosexuals is 49. Despite the claims to the contrary by homosexuals even the pro-homo American Psychological Association which was the first to depathologize homosexuality admits that these behaviors are not likely to arise from social rejection nor is the high suicide rate of homosexuals due to social pressure. It is no usual for deformity to correlate with dementia and abnormal behavior, even if like polydactyly the apparent deformity isn't in the central nervous system. Flaws in the blastomere or inherited traits which lead to deformity effect more that what is readily apparent, including the structure of the central nervous system.

Like many things homosexual behaviors appear to derive from a physiological deformity mediated by environmental factors(pathogens?) and it is inheritable but not always expressed in the phenotype.

According to the US Survey in 1990 1.2% of the population was homosexual and 1.8% were bisexual by 2010 the number of homosexuals had declined to 0.8% of the population(0.6% for whites) and the number of bisexuals had declined to 1.1% of the population.

blogs.scientificamerican.com/bering-in-mind/2011/08/01/the-end-of-gays-gay-marriage-and-the-decline-of-the-homosexual-population/

The hypothetical cause of this decline is the decline in the homosexual birthrate since the 1960s, when social obligations which previously ensured some homosexuals entered into marriages with the opposite sex and produced some offspring who have a 20% chance of expressing some sort of homosexual or bisexual behavior.
What will likely happen is 1) homosexuality will continue to decline in relative frequency due to those carrying traits for it not breeding. 2) If a more rightist ideology comes to power it is likely that individuals will use germ line engineering, in utero chemical treatment

latimesblogs.latimes.com/booster_shots/2010/07/preventing-homosexuality-in-utero-could-we-would-we-should-we-1.html, and surgical brainwashing to prevent the traits from manifesting in the phenotype and possibly further reducing the number of individuals carrying traits that predispose them toward homosexual behavior in the first place.

Now there is always the possibility of mutations that would create the predilection anew. But these would be eliminated in a similar manner.

shut up faggot

With women, there's a future for mankind, without them, there is none
Faggots can't have children and as a result they're only concerned with gratifying their immediate primal urges. They have no future.

[x] lifelong
[x] children,
[x] grandchildren

[ ] lifelong
[ ] children,
[ ] grandchildren

Checking these heavenly trips of truth.

If that screenshot is from the mod I think it's from, I'm glad to see that they took the time to implement their political asspain instead of fixing that broken buggy mess.

Dude, no. Marriage is one of the seven holy sacraments, meaning the Holy Spirit (i.e. God) is present and personally blesses every legitimate union. The Church teaches that one can only achieve salvation through being ordained as a priest/monk or through marriage.

that's not the only reason

Here I talk about some other ones:

In a crazy world, we sometimes have to state the obvious to make people remember.

I am not a faggot, I love women.

1. Fuck you
2. No, I mean why women are better, not why faggots are worse.

Tell me why you love women.

Here are some more:

Do your own school work.

It's not marriage, it's an uncivil fecal union.

...

I never heard of the term. Sounds made up.

Sage