Romania May Redefine Marriage "Between 1 Man and 1 Woman"

[The South Falls]

Nonsense, there may be unconscious preferences, but throughout history, many people engaged in sexual intercourse with people regardless of their sexuality, and even until recently, most "homosexuals" engaged in intercourse and marriage regularly with non-homosexuals. We merely come to identify our preferences with exclusive ideas of sexuality that exist in society, which explains why many "straight" people have homosexual experiences and vice-versa.

A person who's gay and having sex with a member of the opposite sex is not straight.

They will still have the same desires. It's still innate. Repressed desires are still desires. For most of history, people had no choice. They could be jailed and -- further back than that -- killed if anyone found out.

That doesn't mean they weren't LGBT.

Of course, I suppose, if you're only going for the appearance, regardless of how miserable people are.

I would personally rather see people happy, in fulfilling relationships than locked in show-marriages, constantly living a lie.

People say that trapping people in loveless marriages like that somehow brings "social cohesion". I have no idea what cohesion unhappiness brings.

[Kannap]

It really isn’t, at most it says he has a sense of humour. At this point it seems you’re just reaching for something to criticise him for.

Not sure how Nazism is funny, but you do you guy

In the exact same way racism and homophobia are funny, it isn't

[The Huskar Social Union]

Apparently the turnout is low, and many people seem to be boycotting the referendum

[Kubrath]

Is that Vasil Levski?

Yes it is.

To be fair, I only recognized him, because I myself am Bulgarian, as my name and motto betrays. Kudos to you, my man. I feel like we need Levski now more than ever.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Nonsense, there may be unconscious preferences, but throughout history, many people engaged in sexual intercourse with people regardless of their sexuality, and even until recently, most "homosexuals" engaged in intercourse and marriage regularly with non-homosexuals. We merely come to identify our preferences with exclusive ideas of sexuality that exist in society, which explains why many "straight" people have homosexual experiences and vice-versa.

None of that invalidates the likelihood of our sexuality, just like everything else related to our reproductive tendencies, to be fixated, at least in part, by our biology. If sexuality is on a spectrum, then that's just how nature rolls with us. Still not something that you "choose".

I didn't say it was something we chose, I said it was a social construct. If people weren't influenced by culture, they would probably have sex with members of both sexes.

[Kubrath]

Apparently the turnout is low, and many people seem to be boycotting the referendum

"A library chain even offered a book discount over the weekend for those who wanted to stay in and read rather than vote."

Now that is how you gain KNAWLEDGE!

[The Huskar Social Union]

Apparently the turnout is low, and many people seem to be boycotting the referendum

"A library chain even offered a book discount over the weekend for those who wanted to stay in and read rather than vote."

Now that is how you gain KNAWLEDGE!

ROMANIAN KNOWLEDGE POWER.

[Kannap]

mfw they care more about marriage then their corrupt government

Shame the citizenry can fall for such a blatant distraction from the government.

[The South Falls]

Apparently the turnout is low, and many people seem to be boycotting the referendum

Well, that's good, if enough people vote no.

[The Free Joy State]

A person who's gay and having sex with a member of the opposite sex is not straight.

They will still have the same desires. It's still innate. Repressed desires are still desires. For most of history, people had no choice. They could be jailed and -- further back than that -- killed if anyone found out.

That doesn't mean they weren't LGBT.

Of course, I suppose, if you're only going for the appearance, regardless of how miserable people are.

I would personally rather see people happy, in fulfilling relationships than locked in show-marriages, constantly living a lie.

People say that trapping people in loveless marriages like that somehow brings "social cohesion". I have no idea what cohesion unhappiness brings.

Maybe it's a fancier way of saying "misery loves company"?

I still think it's a bad basis for policy.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Apparently the turnout is low, and many people seem to be boycotting the referendum

The Social Democrats are so unpopular that people who support the measure are boycotting, that's amazing.

[The Huskar Social Union]

mfw they care more about marriage then their corrupt government

Shame the citizenry can fall for such a blatant distraction from the government.

Well apparently not if you look at the link i found, saw a few others that seemed to mention the same thing. Possibility it might not make the 30% threshold needed.

[The South Falls]

People say that trapping people in loveless marriages like that somehow brings "social cohesion". I have no idea what cohesion unhappiness brings.

Maybe it's a fancier way of saying "misery loves company"?

I still think it's a bad basis for policy.

It's a base for policy that is almost completely without logic.

[Kubrath]

None of that invalidates the likelihood of our sexuality, just like everything else related to our reproductive tendencies, to be fixated, at least in part, by our biology. If sexuality is on a spectrum, then that's just how nature rolls with us. Still not something that you "choose".

I didn't say it was something we chose, I said it was a social construct. If people weren't influenced by culture, they would probably have sex with members of both sexes.

Yeah, you don't know any of that. The evidence does not point to sexuality being a social construct, nor is there any evidence to suggest acceptance of homosexuality would lead to a more varied spectrum that wasn't already there, like others have pointed out.

[United Muscovite Nations]

I didn't say it was something we chose, I said it was a social construct. If people weren't influenced by culture, they would probably have sex with members of both sexes.

Yeah, you don't know any of that. The evidence does not point to sexuality being a social construct ,nor is there any evidence to suggest acceptance of homosexuality leads to a more varied spectrum that wasn't already there, like others have pointed out.

Far more people identify as homosexual now that there is broad acceptance, even in private surveys.

[Kubrath]

Yeah, you don't know any of that. The evidence does not point to sexuality being a social construct ,nor is there any evidence to suggest acceptance of homosexuality leads to a more varied spectrum that wasn't already there, like others have pointed out.

Far more people identify as homosexual now that there is broad acceptance, even in private surveys.

Is that because social constructs are making people gay or is it because more people feel more comfortable to be out about it? Of course, the two aren't mutually exclusive, but one of those lacks substantial evidence.

[The South Falls]

Yeah, you don't know any of that. The evidence does not point to sexuality being a social construct ,nor is there any evidence to suggest acceptance of homosexuality leads to a more varied spectrum that wasn't already there, like others have pointed out.

Far more people identify as homosexual now that there is broad acceptance, even in private surveys.

Because people aren't having pokers up their asses for it.

[Kannap]

Homosexuals, infertile women, and sterile men therefore should not marry, make marriage between any of those parties illegal.

Did you forget about adoption and in-vitro insemination?

It's two concepts that allow infertile couples and same-sex couples to have children.

And don't you dare pull the "muh youth gay corruption" card on me, because a child with a family is better than a child with no family, regardless of whether he has two dads, two moms, or two parents that don't resemble the child.

Surprised you'd expect me to pull the "muh youth gay corruption" card but oh well.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Far more people identify as homosexual now that there is broad acceptance, even in private surveys.

Is that because social constructs are making people gay or is it because more people feel more comfortable to be out about it? Of course, the two aren't mutually exclusive, but one of those lacks substantial evidence.

I'm just not sure how you go most of history (and indeed most cultures) with most people being pansexual in one way or another, and then we come up with "scientific" exclusive sexual categories in the 1900's that only really explain our narrow ideas of sexuality.

[Internationalist Bastard]

Far more people identify as homosexual now that there is broad acceptance, even in private surveys.

Is that because social constructs are making people gay or is it because more people feel more comfortable to be out about it? Of course, the two aren't mutually exclusive, but one of those lacks substantial evidence.

Considering I’ve yet to see any evidence proving something makes people guy after birth I’d say it’s probably just people feeling less oppressed

[Kannap]

Their...noses? Is there no end to homosexual depravity?

People always underestimate the usefulness of the nose, the most underappreciated of all the bodily protrusions.

Usefully weaponized when you have the flu.

[Kubrath]

Is that because social constructs are making people gay or is it because more people feel more comfortable to be out about it? Of course, the two aren't mutually exclusive, but one of those lacks substantial evidence.

I'm just not sure how you go most of history (and indeed most cultures) with most people being pansexual in one way or another, and then we come up with "scientific" exclusive sexual categories in the 1900's that only really explain our narrow ideas of sexuality.

I'm gonna need a massive source on that one. Maybe a few dozen for good measure. And I don't even know what you're on about in that second part.

[The South Falls]

People always underestimate the usefulness of the nose, the most underappreciated of all the bodily protrusions.

Usefully weaponized when you have the flu.

Also a good drug vector.

[The South Falls]

I'm just not sure how you go most of history (and indeed most cultures) with most people being pansexual in one way or another, and then we come up with "scientific" exclusive sexual categories in the 1900's that only really explain our narrow ideas of sexuality.

I'm gonna need a massive source on that one. Maybe a few dozen for good measure. And I don't even know what you're on about in that second part.

Yea, I think that first claim is wrong.

[United Muscovite Nations]

I'm just not sure how you go most of history (and indeed most cultures) with most people being pansexual in one way or another, and then we come up with "scientific" exclusive sexual categories in the 1900's that only really explain our narrow ideas of sexuality.

I'm gonna need a massive source on that one. Maybe a few dozen for good measure. And I don't even know what you're on about in that second part.

It's all theoretical of course, but I could find you plenty of sources of how it was acceptable in the past for straight men to have sex with other men throughout most of history and most cultures. Still is in many places.