I think all marriages should be banned. The reason is that when a couple (either hetero or homo) gets married, immediately the individuals of the couple get "rights". These rights, at least in Europe, are the rights to get pensions in some circumstances. The problem is these pensions are funded by taxes paid by individuals who have nothing to do with that marriage. This is an externality. Since it makes no sense that I have to fund payments to a couple when, for example, this couple divorces, I do not want that official marriages exist. Of course, private contracts are OK.
The Gay Marriage Controversy
- Thread starter kirei_na_me
- Start date
srdceleva
Banned
- Messages
- 414
- Reaction score
- 76
- Points
- 0
- Location
- Austria
- Ethnic group
- 75% Slovak, 25℅ American mix
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- R1a-m458(L260)
- mtDNA haplogroup
- U4b1b1
In a culture where no children are being born it's mean as an incentive for couples to come together and start families, I don't see anything wrong with that as it's necessary.
Sent from my KIW-L21 using Tapatalk
Having a government paper does not increase the likelihood of having children. Government could give subsidies for having children (this is an externality, so I could agree with it), but you can have children when signing a private contract.
On the contrary, the guaranteed payments for signing an official marriage have nothing to do with having children: they are payments in case of a divorce (!) or pensions for old age. Things that people could do privately.
On the contrary, the guaranteed payments for signing an official marriage have nothing to do with having children: they are payments in case of a divorce (!) or pensions for old age. Things that people could do privately.
MaraMe
Regular Member
- Messages
- 10
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 0
In Romania, in 2018, they created a referendum to forbid gay marriages. Fortunately, people didn't bite the trap and didn't wont to vote.
I really don't understand what is with this paranoia with gays. They should have the same right like everybody else.
I really don't understand what is with this paranoia with gays. They should have the same right like everybody else.
bigsnake49
Regular member
- Messages
- 1,820
- Reaction score
- 423
- Points
- 83
- Ethnic group
- Thracian
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- R-PF7558 (LDNA)
- mtDNA haplogroup
- U5a1b
I think gay marriage was banned by the state and the official religion because it did not produce children. Same as the prohibition against masturbation and abortion. Always look for rational reasons of self interest behind these kind of prohibitions.
Krum
Regular Member
- Messages
- 60
- Reaction score
- 10
- Points
- 8
- Location
- Varna
- Ethnic group
- Bulgarian
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- E-V13
- mtDNA haplogroup
- J1c-C16261T
Forbidden because it is unnatural, antimoral. Whoever he wants to go to bed with but doesn't need to occupy the whole world. Once they want to have a gay marriage, they find a way to reproduce without using a donor of the other sex. If that were normal then physiologically they would be able to reproduce. Gay marriage. Absolutely not
AlexWill1989
Junior Member
Personally, I think this should be allowed. This is one of the variants of the norm. And who cares who is married to whom? Just give others the opportunity to be happy.
Yeaahhh.
Leviticus 20:13
"If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have
committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense."
Leviticus 18:22
"Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin."
1 Corinthians 6:9-11
Don't you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don't fool yourselves.
Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or
practice homosexuality, or are thieves, or greedy people, or drunkards, or are abusive, or cheat people-
none of these will inherit the Kingdom of God. Some of you were once like that. But you were cleansed;
you were made holy; you were made right with God by calling on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and
by the Spirit of our God.
1 Timothy 1:8-10
Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid
down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy andprofane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who
practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine ...
Jude 7
And don't forgetSodom and Gomorrahand their neighboring towns, which were filled with immorality
and every kind of sexual perversion. Those cities were destroyed by fire and serve as a warning of the
eternal fire of God's judgment.
More and more.
Last edited:
Doggerland
Regular Member
- Messages
- 197
- Reaction score
- 78
- Points
- 28
- Ethnic group
- Germanic
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- I
- mtDNA haplogroup
- H
Wont happen so because the known genetic reasons for homosexuality are not exclusive linked to homosexual behavior, but to many other things. For example the SNPs associated with homosexual behavior are also linked to promiscuous sexual behavior in everybody. And this is and was an advantage for many men to reproduce.
There are many single moms today that got children from irresponsible guys and the government makes it possible for them to survive without a men on their side. Their genes will pass on.
In the past promiscuous leaders would definitely had more offspring then the monogamous ones.
Borderline Personality Disorder is also a reason for homosexuality and is widespread in the population. It is a horrible condition and I really cant stand this people, but the women who have it for example are also very sex hungry, even if they are bad mothers in general.
The men who have it are often antisocial/psychopaths and may had been great leaders in the past and brutal warlords.
And then there are metabolic conditions like thyroid disease which are linked to homosexual behavior in men, or polycistic ovaries in women. Polycistic ovaries produce more testosterone and can lead to homosexual behavior in women. It is a widespread condition and present in up to 32% of normal women and 80% of lesbian identified women.
To get the actual European population disease free, you would have to do massive inbreeding projects, because the population is soaked with recessive disease causign alleles, that wont show up until you do line breeding. This is due to the fact that the European populations is heterozygote for many things, due to of constant mixing over thousands of years.
Another way would be genetic engineering/embrional selection but I think this would be too expensive. And don’t forget, with that you eliminate variants that may be diseases today, but could be the base for more advanced human life in the future. You could crash the whole society by eliminating psychopaths, who knows.
bigsnake49
Regular member
- Messages
- 1,820
- Reaction score
- 423
- Points
- 83
- Ethnic group
- Thracian
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- R-PF7558 (LDNA)
- mtDNA haplogroup
- U5a1b
Angela do you think that the institution of marriage is breaking down and is no longer needed?
Angela
Elite member
- Messages
- 21,822
- Reaction score
- 12,338
- Points
- 113
- Ethnic group
- Italian
I'd say yes to the first but no to the second, and it gives me no joy to say so.
The vows which people make on their wedding day don't seem to matter very much to them nowadays; I'm weary of getting all dressed up and spending lots of money to go to weddings and watch couples make promises which in all likelihood they're not going to keep. All those protestations of undying love, and care, and fidelity don't last very long for a lot of people nowadays, that's if the women can ever manage to get the men to commit to them in any real way, never mind marriage, before their biological clocks have timed out.
That's not a good thing imo, certainly not for children. Yes, it's not good for children to live in a home where the parents are at war with one another constantly, but unless the fighting is really terrible, it's worse, imo, being the product of a broken home. All the studies, if done honestly, show the same thing. Children need to be raised by a mother and a father in a stable environment. The goal is to make the union, the commitment, whether or not it's a legal marriage, work if at all possible, although I think the legality and the ritual are also important in meeting that goal.
I also don't think it's a good thing for men and women. I saw what company my parents were for one another after my brother and I left, and more importantly, I saw the constant care and support my father gave my mother during her long illness. She died holding his hand as well as mine. That's what I want for myself and what I want for my children.
I'm probably not the best person to ask, however, because I was raised very conservatively and have lived my life very conservatively. I fell in love almost at first sight very young, as did my mother, and it's been a lifelong affliction.
Not that we haven't had our issues, because we have, as two hot tempered individuals were bound to have, but it would take something catastrophic to induce me to leave him, and he has never shown the slightest inclination to let me go. Far from it. Of course, in the early years I was probably also influenced by my father's words to me shortly before our marriage. He told me in no uncertain terms that I had to make my marriage work, that it was now my over-riding commitment, and that minus my husband beating me or our children, becoming an alcoholic or drug addict or gambler, or moving a mistress into the house, I'd made my bed and I would have to lie in it. Whether he actually meant it I now doubt, but I believed it at the time.
It seems to run in my family, this idealistic view of love. My great-aunt had her issues with my great-uncle, mostly stemming from the fact that contrary to his promise he brought her to live in his family home with mother-in-law and father-in-law, sisters-in-laws, debts, the Nazi occupation, you name it. Yet she often used to speak to me of how she loved him and what a hole his dying had left in her life. She'd say, "After a long day of work, I'd wash my face and comb my hair and put on a fresh apron,and stay near the door or window looking for him to come in from the fields. When I saw him coming over the hill my heart would lift, and everything would be right with the world." If you choose well and think that it's not just being in love but working at loving that counts, that's what you can have.
The vows which people make on their wedding day don't seem to matter very much to them nowadays; I'm weary of getting all dressed up and spending lots of money to go to weddings and watch couples make promises which in all likelihood they're not going to keep. All those protestations of undying love, and care, and fidelity don't last very long for a lot of people nowadays, that's if the women can ever manage to get the men to commit to them in any real way, never mind marriage, before their biological clocks have timed out.
That's not a good thing imo, certainly not for children. Yes, it's not good for children to live in a home where the parents are at war with one another constantly, but unless the fighting is really terrible, it's worse, imo, being the product of a broken home. All the studies, if done honestly, show the same thing. Children need to be raised by a mother and a father in a stable environment. The goal is to make the union, the commitment, whether or not it's a legal marriage, work if at all possible, although I think the legality and the ritual are also important in meeting that goal.
I also don't think it's a good thing for men and women. I saw what company my parents were for one another after my brother and I left, and more importantly, I saw the constant care and support my father gave my mother during her long illness. She died holding his hand as well as mine. That's what I want for myself and what I want for my children.
I'm probably not the best person to ask, however, because I was raised very conservatively and have lived my life very conservatively. I fell in love almost at first sight very young, as did my mother, and it's been a lifelong affliction.
Not that we haven't had our issues, because we have, as two hot tempered individuals were bound to have, but it would take something catastrophic to induce me to leave him, and he has never shown the slightest inclination to let me go. Far from it. Of course, in the early years I was probably also influenced by my father's words to me shortly before our marriage. He told me in no uncertain terms that I had to make my marriage work, that it was now my over-riding commitment, and that minus my husband beating me or our children, becoming an alcoholic or drug addict or gambler, or moving a mistress into the house, I'd made my bed and I would have to lie in it. Whether he actually meant it I now doubt, but I believed it at the time. It seems to run in my family, this idealistic view of love. My great-aunt had her issues with my great-uncle, mostly stemming from the fact that contrary to his promise he brought her to live in his family home with mother-in-law and father-in-law, sisters-in-laws, debts, the Nazi occupation, you name it. Yet she often used to speak to me of how she loved him and what a hole his dying had left in her life. She'd say, "After a long day of work, I'd wash my face and comb my hair and put on a fresh apron,and stay near the door or window looking for him to come in from the fields. When I saw him coming over the hill my heart would lift, and everything would be right with the world." If you choose well and think that it's not just being in love but working at loving that counts, that's what you can have.
bigsnake49
Regular member
- Messages
- 1,820
- Reaction score
- 423
- Points
- 83
- Ethnic group
- Thracian
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- R-PF7558 (LDNA)
- mtDNA haplogroup
- U5a1b
The question that many people have asked is that since women have now acquired equal status and pretty much can support themselves without needing a man, why do women need a man anymore? Just for the sperm? There are a lot of men that do not help with the kids, do not help with chores and basically make a nuisance of themselves besides bring a paycheck home if at that. I also believe that kids need both a dad and a mom to raise them. But other than that and the occasional sex, do we really need each other?
Angela
Elite member
- Messages
- 21,822
- Reaction score
- 12,338
- Points
- 113
- Ethnic group
- Italian
Yes, we do. That's what I was trying to explain in talking about my parents and my great-aunt and great-uncle.
I didn't need my husband to support me, although he's made triple the amount of money than I ever made. I definitely needed him to be a father to my children, and he's been a damn good one. That's a bond we share that will never be broken.
It's also about companionship and friendship, but more than that, and even more than sex. I think it sounds disparaging to call it "occasional sex". If it's "right" between you sexually it helps to create that unbreakable bond between you.
God knows I loved my parents immeasurably, and love my children that way as well, so much so that my husband used to joke that if we were all drowning, I'd save my mother first, then my children, then my father, and then him. That was only when he'd been particularly domineering and bull-headed, however.
Seriously, how can anyone explain love between a man and woman, or how it enriches one's life just to feel that way about someone. It's vastly more important than "being" loved.
My parents are gone now, my children as well in a way now that they're grown. Would I want to face the next decades, God willing, alone, with only my women friends and some "gentleman friend" for comfort, or would I want to be with my best friend, my mate, the man with whom I sacrificed and raised children and built a life, and whom I took care of as he's taken care of me?
My father was my mother's primary care giver for the last nine months of her life. I don't think he ever really slept, because he didn't trust anyone else to turn her every few hours, clean her, cream and powder her. She never got a single bed sore. I would watch him try to coax her to eat for hours at a time, comb her hair, bathe her face, put perfume on her, sing to her, read to her. When she died, some blowhard at the funeral reception told me not to worry about him because in six months he'd be in Florida beating off the women. He didn't know my father. Three months after she died, he was diagnosed with small cell lung cancer and died six months after that. I expected it. All he kept saying was: I want to go be with your mother. I think he willed his own death; it was like his main spring was broken. They, my grandparents, my great-aunt and uncle, and many others in my family showed me what love between a man and a woman can be, and also showed me it isn't something that you're given or that just happens. You create it between you.
I wanted a marriage just like theirs, and have done my best to create and maintain it.
It used to be much more common to see marriages like that. That's why I'm not very optimistic about what the world will be like in another generation or two.
I didn't need my husband to support me, although he's made triple the amount of money than I ever made. I definitely needed him to be a father to my children, and he's been a damn good one. That's a bond we share that will never be broken.
It's also about companionship and friendship, but more than that, and even more than sex. I think it sounds disparaging to call it "occasional sex". If it's "right" between you sexually it helps to create that unbreakable bond between you.
God knows I loved my parents immeasurably, and love my children that way as well, so much so that my husband used to joke that if we were all drowning, I'd save my mother first, then my children, then my father, and then him. That was only when he'd been particularly domineering and bull-headed, however.
Seriously, how can anyone explain love between a man and woman, or how it enriches one's life just to feel that way about someone. It's vastly more important than "being" loved.
My parents are gone now, my children as well in a way now that they're grown. Would I want to face the next decades, God willing, alone, with only my women friends and some "gentleman friend" for comfort, or would I want to be with my best friend, my mate, the man with whom I sacrificed and raised children and built a life, and whom I took care of as he's taken care of me?
My father was my mother's primary care giver for the last nine months of her life. I don't think he ever really slept, because he didn't trust anyone else to turn her every few hours, clean her, cream and powder her. She never got a single bed sore. I would watch him try to coax her to eat for hours at a time, comb her hair, bathe her face, put perfume on her, sing to her, read to her. When she died, some blowhard at the funeral reception told me not to worry about him because in six months he'd be in Florida beating off the women. He didn't know my father. Three months after she died, he was diagnosed with small cell lung cancer and died six months after that. I expected it. All he kept saying was: I want to go be with your mother. I think he willed his own death; it was like his main spring was broken. They, my grandparents, my great-aunt and uncle, and many others in my family showed me what love between a man and a woman can be, and also showed me it isn't something that you're given or that just happens. You create it between you.
I wanted a marriage just like theirs, and have done my best to create and maintain it.
It used to be much more common to see marriages like that. That's why I'm not very optimistic about what the world will be like in another generation or two.