What is Holla Forums stance on gay marriage and other types of progressiveness?

Communism is an economical theory

I personally support it. I'd like to gay marry someone myself

commy cross tier

It could be your brother, or your child shagging other dudes. Sounds pretty impactful.

Nazbols are against gay men or women, so under their rule even if there was no law, gays would still be persecuted somehow.
Also, how would abolished marriage help to deal with divorce, and not leave the stronger party (male) taking everything for himself?

What the actual fuck? why?

It will be the only form of marriage allowed under communism.

This.

I'm not a nazbol so I don't really see who that's relevant tbh. Regardless, gay sexual promiscuity is the result of forcing them underground into a gay subculture. Under communism homosexuals were normalized the degenerate aspects of gay culture would quickly dissapear due to social pressure and a lack of shilling for degenerate lifestyles.

Why should the state set out and enforce rules governing a personal relationship? Why should it confer material - tax - benefit for that?
Things like assuring and rewarding procreation, raising children, could be funded and incentivized directly if that's what you are after. Marriage is a relic of a rotting bourgeois society.

Most fags are racist reactionaries, Lesbians are reactionary liberals who are mad that Chad wouldn't touch them and bug-chasers/gift-givers should be burned alive.

Throughout the history of humanity there's always been some group of things "common" to all or groups of them. Among those things are material things (water, air), but also things that are less material (peace, knowledge, democracy, free expression). However, sometimes things that are part of these commons are things that have subsequently been viewed to not be particularly useful. For instance, it was one common knowledge in the west that there was no such thing as a continent west of Europe and east of Asia. Occasionally, parts of the immaterial commonwealth become harmful and should be driven out. The institution of marriage and the inherent heterosexuality of it were at one point inducted into this immaterial commonwealth.

Now, fast forward a few thousand years. The system dominating the world is now capitalism. As a part of capitalism, the ruling class is supposed to act to gain materially as much as possible; nothing else is important. As a result, the bourgeois have turned to the commonwealth and started working to see if there's any part of it it might be possible to remove to enhance their profit while still keeping it standing. The result has been the Jengaization of the commonwealth; more and more of not only the immaterial but the material parts of the commonwealth have suddenly underwent testing, found that they don't carry enough advantage to merit not being discarded for the sake of profit, and discarded. This happened with enclosure at the beginning of capitalism, the invention and massive extension of copyright, the phenomenon of climate change, the vast reduction in civic engagement, the obesity epidemic, and, yes, gay marriage.

Now, as socialists and communists, it is essential to us that the commonwealth, the republic be not only preserved but also expanded. The very core of our ideology is the commonwealth being expanded to include the means of production that are used to produce the goods we need to survive and thrive. The immaterial parts of the commonwealth are also often exceptionally useful and worth preserving and expanding; a society where everyone trusts each other and speaks frankly is superior to one where everyone has to hide their true thoughts. But what we must still do is continue in the capitalist's process of continually critique of the commonwealth.

The institution of marriage provides children with stable families and adults with companionships. It should be kept. However, there is very little reason to restrict it to heterosexual couples, and immense person benefit that homosexual couples could gain from extension to them. Thus, we should throw out the necessary heterosexual component of marriage.

And if it IS my borther? I love my brother because he's my fucking sibling, not because he has sex with women. If you think less of people based what they put their dick into, you are the exact "degenerate" you're so afraid of.

then let them. I'm not the fun police.

Do you really think the state should be able to decide whose relationships are legitimate?

Yeah, but under communism there will no such things. Marriage will mean only marriage, more symbolic than anything else. Why it shouldn't be allowed?

...

gay marriage absolutely is, it's full blown appropriation of traditional institution and it completely defies its original criteria, also homophobia is reactionary and it means full legal normalization of homosexuality

Faggot Shit

WOAH I NEVER THOUGHT OF IT LIKE THAT!
I AM #REDBULLED NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

why are homophobes more obsessed with anal sex than gay people themselves

Holy fucking shit, kill yourself as soon as possible.

Well you have pretty much taken everything that matters out of marriage at that point. That kind of marriage, sure, let people do or don't do as they want.

Sounds like a secondary factor knowing that men are simply more free to have sex than females. For females the psychological factor plays a much higher role towards sexual gratification than for men, so the barrier to sexual intercourse is much higher, which leads to less straight sex. Female casual sex isn't viewed as lightly either.
It's the female problem that gay men go around allowing them to have lots of unprotected casual sex which leads to higher spread of stds. This isn't society going against gays, but purely female/male dynamics that are already part of the society and nature. Yes, unwanted pregnancies are not an issue to gays.

Are you calling the act itself degenerate or only the "faggy" aspects? I don't understand your stance fully.

disallowing behavior means preventing it with physical coersion.
pysical coersion for the sake of upholding an arbitrary rule is the definition of the state.
so you're either for physical state coersion or for letting people do what they want

Well no. Couples don't get married to share the rent, they do it because is the highest expression of love. The ones that do it for economic reasons get divorced in less than 5 years

Homosexuality is a bourgeoise institution.

Yeah you better explain how it is then.

You hopeless romantic, you! People who marry out of love are the ones that get divorced fastest. I'm not even entirely kidding, people who also think about marrying in these very vulgar, practical money terms are in effect already long-term planning a marriage. You of all people should appreciate that long term planning is a better guarantor for success.

Jesus you're a faggot.

I didn't know. But what kind of marriage that would be. Also I'm a bit sided because it didn't worked out that well with me

Under this logic, wouldn't arranged marriages be even a better idea to have?

Hmmm

We are advocating for marxism not ancapism.
Joking, marriage for economic reason exist only because of the economic needs behind it. If those needs doesn't exist why fake marriage should?

A lot of arranged marriages are stable. But that might also be influenced by difficulty to get a divorce in places where it's practiced.

I could not care less. Whether you make it criminal or let them adopt kids, the world will still be the same place afterwards. Anyone who has a strong opinion on this matter either way belongs in the gulag for distracting the movement with irrelevant BS.

Acting like it's entirely nature is retarded. Social expectations and gender roles play a huge role. And anyways, why oppose gay sex?

If someone should marry they should atleast support it with a 5 year plan.

They outperform regular ones by a lot of metrics. But also included is social death if you end up with a sadist or some such whom you have to get away from. So don't buy the hype.

Kidding aside, mixed bag. These kind of marriages would be hard without being either between loveless people, or people who can tolerate infidelity. If you're too passionate or attached or whatever for that, you need a loving marriage.

/thread

All for it.

Homophobia is a spook & a sign of low intelligence.

Adjusting deck chairs on the Titanic.

Why?

Proof please

Marriage is concentual. No one’s forcing it on you or forcing you not to do it.

heh, good metaphor

I think the only data we have is about arranged marriages - closest proxy to a planned marriage. Those have very low divorce rates, but those numbers will be distorted because of the social pressures in those cultures to stay married. It was mostly a joke.

People should be able to marry whomever they want to. Most of Holla Forums feels this way, but there are also some here, as we already see present in the thread, that think legal marriage should be abolished & are even antinatalist(whether because of population control or they deem it immoral to bring another into this shit world). We should be free to choose who we want to marry, not marry if we choose & have children if we want or not. You know… Freedom.
Such as? This thread feels like one that the OP just makes & leaves, though. So I'm not expecting a reply from them.

Funny, I just wrote this out to go with my post here but then figured it was not related enough or rambling as most of my posts are. But now since you've mentioned arranged marriage, might as well share.

This weekend I went to a friend's engagement, of an arranged marriage. Pretty crazy stuff to a Westerner. Marrying as a business or power decision would be closest to our equivalent.

I have seen some arranged marriages that are going very well. One in particular I thought was a "love marriage"(as they call marrying your lover, in India), but it turns out they were also arranged. They're a great match; extremely fortunate. My SO's cousin just had an arranged marriage recently, too & it's going very well. His wife is already pregnant, lmao.

Most of these arranged ones are done either through friends & family searching for a girl, or places like Tamilmatrimony.com or shaadi.com (shaadi = marriage in Hindi). I just looked & they even have apps, lmao… But it's like a dating registry or site that we're used to, except for marriage instead of just dating. On these sites you can see caste(fuck the caste system, obv), height, weight, age, hobbies, languages they speak, what the girl is looking for in a man, all sorts of things.

First you meet the possible spouse(usually for tea, with the fiance/groom & all parents - this is actually standard regardless of arranged or love marriage), then if you like each other & the parents agree, you get married. Arranged marriage is still the norm in India.

I just thought some might find this interesting.

...

This planet is already way too fucking overpopulated. The more gay couple's not having children the better.

Wrong, edgy idiot.