Gay Marriage Legalized In France

[Mystletainn]

Let the gays marry, continue human race by in vitro-fertilization.


Problem solved for the conservatives...

[Ainin]

Marriage is "owned" by society. Society is obviously very willing to allow homosexuals to marry so, no you are wrong. Also, for many it isn't a sin.

Marriage (as it should be) is also a religious institution, outside the frivolous whims of society. And many don't think it's a sin because, from my vantage point, many are deviating away from proper religious orthodoxy.

Society is only demonstrating how it is becoming debauched, debased, and depraved.

In case you didn't realize, religion depends on society. Which explains the rapid liberalization of the Church.

[Mystletainn]

That ends the thread right?

Yup. Go home everyone.

Sweet!

[Benuty]

Marriage is "owned" by society. Society is obviously very willing to allow homosexuals to marry so, no you are wrong. Also, for many it isn't a sin.

Marriage (as it should be) is also a religious institution, outside the frivolous whims of society. And many don't think it's a sin because, from my vantage point, many are deviating away from proper religious orthodoxy.

Society is only demonstrating how it is becoming debauched, debased, and depraved.

Hmm Im not sure if your joking, but how is gay marriage cause a debaucherous society exactly?

[The Emerald Dawn]

Marriage is "owned" by society. Society is obviously very willing to allow homosexuals to marry so, no you are wrong. Also, for many it isn't a sin.

Marriage (as it should be) is also a religious institution, outside the frivolous whims of society. And many don't think it's a sin because, from my vantage point, many are deviating away from proper religious orthodoxy.

Society is only demonstrating how it is becoming debauched, debased, and depraved.

Hey, that's great and I'mma let you finish, but your religion is one of the biggest crocks of shit of all time. OF ALL TIME.

[Anachronous Rex]

Marriage is "owned" by society. Society is obviously very willing to allow homosexuals to marry so, no you are wrong. Also, for many it isn't a sin.

Marriage (as it should be) is also a religious institution, outside the frivolous whims of society. And many don't think it's a sin because, from my vantage point, many are deviating away from proper religious orthodoxy.

Society is only demonstrating how it is becoming debauched, debased, and depraved.

Yeah... because it's not like society has generally improved marriage from what it once was... and religious institutions never change.

[Agymnum]

Marriage is "owned" by society. Society is obviously very willing to allow homosexuals to marry so, no you are wrong. Also, for many it isn't a sin.

Marriage (as it should be) is also a religious institution, outside the frivolous whims of society. And many don't think it's a sin because, from my vantage point, many are deviating away from proper religious orthodoxy.

Society is only demonstrating how it is becoming debauched, debased, and depraved.

Fuck religion.

Fuck religion.

Fuck religion.

And fuck religious institutions.

Did I mention, fuck religion?

NOTE: Agymnum is not against spirituality, only organized religion.

Brought to you by the "Fuck Religion" Secularists Organization. We love sausages, and you should too!

[Valcouria]

What, by giving legitimacy to a sin? Makes perfect sense (note: dripping sarcasm). Let them love each other, but they can do it without stealing marriage from its intended owners.

You don't own marriage?

Do you have a copyright on it? No? It's not yours, then.

Marriage existed before monotheistic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, etc) and will continue to exist after your pitiful religions have been extinguished.

Even before monotheistic religions, marriage was still largely considered to be between one man and one woman.

And as for trying to extinguish our religions, I can assure you that you will have quite a fight on your hands if you try to do that.

[Mystletainn]

Marriage is "owned" by society. Society is obviously very willing to allow homosexuals to marry so, no you are wrong. Also, for many it isn't a sin.

Marriage (as it should be) is also a religious institution, outside the frivolous whims of society. And many don't think it's a sin because, from my vantage point, many are deviating away from proper religious orthodoxy.

Society is only demonstrating how it is becoming debauched, debased, and depraved.

Society wants and is change.

Deal with it sir.

[Neutraligon]

Marriage is "owned" by society. Society is obviously very willing to allow homosexuals to marry so, no you are wrong. Also, for many it isn't a sin.

Marriage (as it should be) is also a religious institution, outside the frivolous whims of society. And many don't think it's a sin because, from my vantage point, many are deviating away from proper religious orthodoxy.

Society is only demonstrating how it is becoming debauched, debased, and depraved.

Wrong, marriage has for a long time been a secular institution. It existed for the combining of assets and family households. For the ending of fueds, for the gain of wealth. The religious part was secondary to this.

[Neutraligon]

You don't own marriage?

Do you have a copyright on it? No? It's not yours, then.

Marriage existed before monotheistic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, etc) and will continue to exist after your pitiful religions have been extinguished.

Even before monotheistic religions, marriage was still largely considered to be between one man and one woman.

And as for trying to extinguish our religions, I can assure you that you will have quite a fight on your hands if you try to do that.

Even more wrong, marriage was often between multiple people (polygamy).

[Ainin]

You don't own marriage?

Do you have a copyright on it? No? It's not yours, then.

Marriage existed before monotheistic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, etc) and will continue to exist after your pitiful religions have been extinguished.

Even before monotheistic religions, marriage was still largely considered to be between one man and one woman.

[citation needed]

And as for trying to extinguish our religions, I can assure you that you will have quite a fight on your hands if you try to do that.

The poor Christians are being persecuted? Source it.

[Agymnum]

Even before monotheistic religions, marriage was still largely considered to be between one man and one woman.

And as for trying to extinguish our religions, I can assure you that you will have quite a fight on your hands if you try to do that.

Reason will extinguish religion. Logic always triumphs over superstition.

Your God's power is waning with every scientific discovery we make. Soon he will be nothing more than a pittance.

[Valcouria]

It's not about the fact that there are too many people already. It is the fact-the basic, irreplaceable fact-that new generations need to be produced. Gays can't do that naturally, and so should not have access to an institution that can.

Yes, but our growth rate is unsustainable. Homosexuality is a drop in the bucket when considering growth rates. So your argument is invalid.

AGAIN...not about the fact of overpopulation. It's about the ability to create the next generation (THE ABILITY, NOT THE FACT). Gays cannot do this. Only man and woman can do this.

[Mystletainn]

You don't own marriage?

Do you have a copyright on it? No? It's not yours, then.

Marriage existed before monotheistic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, etc) and will continue to exist after your pitiful religions have been extinguished.

Even before monotheistic religions, marriage was still largely considered to be between one man and one woman.

And as for trying to extinguish our religions, I can assure you that you will have quite a fight on your hands if you try to do that.

Source plox. And our religions aren't dying... THEY'RE ADAPTING.

[The Emerald Dawn]

Yes, but our growth rate is unsustainable. Homosexuality is a drop in the bucket when considering growth rates. So your argument is invalid.

AGAIN...not about the fact of overpopulation. It's about the ability to create the next generation (THE ABILITY, NOT THE FACT). Gays cannot do this. Only man and woman can do this.

In vitro.

You're wrong.

Next.

[Valcouria]

Technically that is classified under heterosexuality; a man and a woman, as it should be.

But you just said "Two gays cannot naturally procreate by themselves"...

...Perhaps a rephrasing, then...two individuals of the same gender (which is the definition of homosexuality)...I do respect your play on words, though.

[Ainin]

Yes, but our growth rate is unsustainable. Homosexuality is a drop in the bucket when considering growth rates. So your argument is invalid.

AGAIN...not about the fact of overpopulation. It's about the ability to create the next generation (THE ABILITY, NOT THE FACT). Gays cannot do this. Only man and woman can do this.

And you think legalizing same-sex marriage will make heterosexuality disappear?

[Neutraligon]

Yes, but our growth rate is unsustainable. Homosexuality is a drop in the bucket when considering growth rates. So your argument is invalid.

AGAIN...not about the fact of overpopulation. It's about the ability to create the next generation (THE ABILITY, NOT THE FACT). Gays cannot do this. Only man and woman can do this.

With current technology, homosexuals can do it. Hopefully we will eventually have artificial wombs, male eggs and female sperm (we are getting there).

[Mystletainn]

AGAIN...not about the fact of overpopulation. It's about the ability to create the next generation (THE ABILITY, NOT THE FACT). Gays cannot do this. Only man and woman can do this.

In vitro.

You're wrong.

Next.

But I just suggested in vitro and no one listened....

*cries in a corner*

[Ainin]

In vitro.

You're wrong.

Next.

But I just suggested in vitro and no one listened....

*cries in a corner*

*comforts*
Here. Have another fabulous cookie.

[Mystletainn]

AGAIN...not about the fact of overpopulation. It's about the ability to create the next generation (THE ABILITY, NOT THE FACT). Gays cannot do this. Only man and woman can do this.

With current technology, homosexuals can do it. Hopefully we will eventually have artificial wombs, male eggs and female sperm (we are getting there).

The power of Fabulousness and science.

[Neutraligon]

But I just suggested in vitro and no one listened....

*cries in a corner*

*comforts*
Here. Have another fabulous cookie.

stares at cookie and drools.

[Valcouria]

Technically that is classified under heterosexuality; a man and a woman, as it should be.

No it isn't. The to people copulating, while performing heterosexual sex, are still homosexual.

They are performing a heterosexual act, which is normal for procreation. Whether they are gay or not in this scenario has no bearing on this.

[Mystletainn]

But I just suggested in vitro and no one listened....

*cries in a corner*

*comforts*
Here. Have another fabulous cookie.

Yay~

*noms*