What is your opinion on LGBT+ marriage?

[The New California Republic]

What is the idea of marriage?

Everyone is free to use whatever symbols, etc. to express their consensual love between two (or more) human beings.

But my problem is purely with the government assigning benefits to it.

What is love?

[The Blaatschapen]

You reasoning is backwards. You argue "I believe it should be so, therefor reality must agree" instead of looking what reality actually is and then basing your understanding on that.

Fact is that homosexuality is common in nature and that having a few homosexuals around seems to improve the reproductive succesrate of (animal) populations. Examining why is your homework assignment.

Reality can be whatever I want

That is fantasy.

[Cekoviu]

What is the idea of marriage?

Everyone is free to use whatever symbols, etc. to express their consensual love between two (or more) human beings.

But my problem is purely with the government assigning benefits to it.

What is love?

Shrek.

[Caleonia]

What is love?

Baby don’t hurt me.

No more...

[Tankmen]

I am indifferent about gay marriage. I really don't see the significance of it nor do I understand the willingness of homosexuals to want their part in it aside from a vague sense of being considered second-class citizens due to being excluded from a cultural practice and recognition of their orientation by the state, neither of which will better the lives of homosexuals in any material way. Gay marriage doesn't bring food to the table or pay your bills.

Whether or not gay marriage is legal or illegal, homosexuals would technically still be able to enter relationships, adopt children, arrange their preferred ceremonies whenever and wherever they could and have the same human rights which everyone else has, gay or not. The legality of everything else pertaining to homosexuality just tends to follow the legality of gay marriage which is mostly why it is supported in the first place. Alone and in a vacuum, the policy is just a liberal artifact, aesthetic and a troll towards the right-wing.

So support it if you like or don't. It doesn't prevent me from eating ass either way.

[Caleonia]

I don’t really think I’ve stated my in-depth explanation.

Overall, about LGBT+ marriage, I honestly couldn’t care less. I don’t really understand affection at my current state, and how one could be in such way. I’m fine with it as long as you don’t make it an excuse to be “special”. People who use gay marriage as an excuse to be entitled turd and possibly even feel like they should be treated differently are actual scum. Those are the worst types of people. Otherwise, I feel like if you feel better being LGBT+, okay.

[The New California Republic]

I’m fine with it as long as you don’t make it an excuse to be “special”. People who use gay marriage as an excuse to be entitled turd and possibly even feel like they should be treated differently are actual scum. Those are the worst types of people.

What on Earth are you talking about? I have no idea what people you are referring to. I honestly think you are trying to manufacture an issue in order for there to be a problem with gay marriage.

[Caleonia]

I’m fine with it as long as you don’t make it an excuse to be “special”. People who use gay marriage as an excuse to be entitled turd and possibly even feel like they should be treated differently are actual scum. Those are the worst types of people.

What on Earth are you talking about? I have no idea what people you are referring to. I honestly think you are trying to manufacture an issue in order for there to be a problem with gay marriage.

Yup, I completely expected this. My bad, I’ll just go now. What I was trying to say was kinda like the whole “vegan” thing, where people are so enthusiastic about being “vegan” that they will use that as an excuse for many things, but since that is neither relevant nor applicable in the concept of gay marriage the whole point is invalid. In short, I screwed up and tried making a point that doesn’t actually exist.

[Ethel mermania]

It's not for me,

But as a concept I like it, in this world people trying to be a family with rights and obligations to love honor and cherish each other should be encouraged.

Pope joan has made an arguement that I think is right; gay marriage should be a conservative idea. These people are trying to extend families to lead a normalized, predictable, and loving life. You want to be down on lewd lascivious gays, rail against the anonymous sex of the gay bathhouses, but gay marriage is the polar opposite of that.

[Tarsonis]

What is love?

This sketch never really made me laugh except the one with Jim Carrey. His face and head bob are just ridiculous.

[Cekoviu]

It's not for me,

But as a concept I like it, in this world people trying to be a family with rights and obligations to love honor and cherish each other should be encouraged.

Pope joan has made an arguement that I think is right; gay marriage should be a conservative idea. These people are trying to extend families to lead a normalized, predictable, and loving life. You want to be down on lewd lascivious gays, rail against the anonymous sex of the gay bathhouses, but gay marriage is the polar opposite of that.

I mean, I'd add that some of us are also lewd and lascivious when married.

[San Lumen]

I don’t really think I’ve stated my in-depth explanation.

Overall, about LGBT+ marriage, I honestly couldn’t care less. I don’t really understand affection at my current state, and how one could be in such way. I’m fine with it as long as you don’t make it an excuse to be “special”. People who use gay marriage as an excuse to be entitled turd and possibly even feel like they should be treated differently are actual scum. Those are the worst types of people. Otherwise, I feel like if you feel better being LGBT+, okay.

Excuse to be special? What does that mean?

No one who is LGBT is asking to be treated different or being an entitled person. They simply want the same rights that you have.

[Tarsonis]

I don’t really think I’ve stated my in-depth explanation.

Overall, about LGBT+ marriage, I honestly couldn’t care less. I don’t really understand affection at my current state, and how one could be in such way. I’m fine with it as long as you don’t make it an excuse to be “special”. People who use gay marriage as an excuse to be entitled turd and possibly even feel like they should be treated differently are actual scum. Those are the worst types of people. Otherwise, I feel like if you feel better being LGBT+, okay.

Excuse to be special? What does that mean?

No one who is LGBT is asking to be treated different or being an entitled person. They simply want the same rights that you have.

No none is a strong phrase.

[Christenmark]

we will not redefine marriage to include these people! that is just a disgusting principal! for all of human history, these people have existed: in ancient Greece, these people were even advantaged! but even then the ancient Greeks still did not allow two men to get married. They may form similar unions, but we will not force anyone to accommodate them against their religious teachings. Also, In my nation marriage is not even a responsibility of the government! if you wish to file a notice to the local officials of your marital status, that's fine, but those really only help us keep track of census data nothing more. so as far as my nation is concerned, this would only allow LGBT(tbh its mostly the G) unions to be classified under "marriage" in census polling. However, recognising that fact of my own country, we will not allow even that. WHy? Because we will not go redefining words that have had the same meaning for all of human civilization. So, we will leave the responsibility of marrying individuals up to the churches, not the state's government, and we will continue to refuse any non-traditional unions as "marriages" in our census data(a census which is optional, mind you). We will not step governmental feet into the business of marriage, nor will we recognize LGBT unions as marriages. we will not overhaul the rule for everyone, at the behest of 0.01% of our citizens. God bless you all, "rend unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's, and rend unto God that which is God's". Good day.

[Vassenor]

we will not redefine marriage to include these people! that is just a disgusting principal! for all of human history, these people have existed: in ancient Greece, these people were even advantaged! but even then the ancient Greeks still did not allow two men to get married. They may form similar unions, but we will not force anyone to accommodate them against their religious teachings. Also, In my nation marriage is not even a responsibility of the government! if you wish to file a notice to the local officials of your marital status, that's fine, but those really only help us keep track of census data nothing more. so as far as my nation is concerned, this would only allow LGBT(tbh its mostly the G) unions to be classified under "marriage" in census polling. However, recognising that fact of my own country, we will not allow even that. WHy? Because we will not go redefining words that have had the same meaning for all of human civilization. So, we will leave the responsibility of marrying individuals up to the churches, not the state's government, and we will continue to refuse any non-traditional unions as "marriages" in our census data(a census which is optional, mind you). We will not step governmental feet into the business of marriage, nor will we recognize LGBT unions as marriages. we will not overhaul the rule for everyone, at the behest of 0.01% of our citizens. God bless you all, "rend unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's, and rend unto God that which is God's". Good day.

Amazing. Every word you just said was wrong.

[The New California Republic]

we will not redefine marriage to include these people! that is just a disgusting principal! for all of human history, these people have existed: in ancient Greece, these people were even advantaged! but even then the ancient Greeks still did not allow two men to get married. They may form similar unions, but we will not force anyone to accommodate them against their religious teachings. Also, In my nation marriage is not even a responsibility of the government! if you wish to file a notice to the local officials of your marital status, that's fine, but those really only help us keep track of census data nothing more. so as far as my nation is concerned, this would only allow LGBT(tbh its mostly the G) unions to be classified under "marriage" in census polling. However, recognising that fact of my own country, we will not allow even that. WHy? Because we will not go redefining words that have had the same meaning for all of human civilization. So, we will leave the responsibility of marrying individuals up to the churches, not the state's government, and we will continue to refuse any non-traditional unions as "marriages" in our census data(a census which is optional, mind you). We will not step governmental feet into the business of marriage, nor will we recognize LGBT unions as marriages. we will not overhaul the rule for everyone, at the behest of 0.01% of our citizens. God bless you all, "rend unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's, and rend unto God that which is God's". Good day.

NSGeneral is OOC...

[Tarsonis]

we will not redefine marriage to include these people! that is just a disgusting principal! for all of human history, these people have existed: in ancient Greece, these people were even advantaged! but even then the ancient Greeks still did not allow two men to get married. They may form similar unions, but we will not force anyone to accommodate them against their religious teachings. Also, In my nation marriage is not even a responsibility of the government! if you wish to file a notice to the local officials of your marital status, that's fine, but those really only help us keep track of census data nothing more. so as far as my nation is concerned, this would only allow LGBT(tbh its mostly the G) unions to be classified under "marriage" in census polling. However, recognising that fact of my own country, we will not allow even that. WHy? Because we will not go redefining words that have had the same meaning for all of human civilization. So, we will leave the responsibility of marrying individuals up to the churches, not the state's government, and we will continue to refuse any non-traditional unions as "marriages" in our census data(a census which is optional, mind you). We will not step governmental feet into the business of marriage, nor will we recognize LGBT unions as marriages. we will not overhaul the rule for everyone, at the behest of 0.01% of our citizens. God bless you all, "rend unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's, and rend unto God that which is God's". Good day.

This thread is OOC

[Ginicun]

we will not redefine marriage to include these people! that is just a disgusting principal! for all of human history, these people have existed: in ancient Greece, these people were even advantaged! but even then the ancient Greeks still did not allow two men to get married. They may form similar unions, but we will not force anyone to accommodate them against their religious teachings. Also, In my nation marriage is not even a responsibility of the government! if you wish to file a notice to the local officials of your marital status, that's fine, but those really only help us keep track of census data nothing more. so as far as my nation is concerned, this would only allow LGBT(tbh its mostly the G) unions to be classified under "marriage" in census polling. However, recognising that fact of my own country, we will not allow even that. WHy? Because we will not go redefining words that have had the same meaning for all of human civilization. So, we will leave the responsibility of marrying individuals up to the churches, not the state's government, and we will continue to refuse any non-traditional unions as "marriages" in our census data(a census which is optional, mind you). We will not step governmental feet into the business of marriage, nor will we recognize LGBT unions as marriages. we will not overhaul the rule for everyone, at the behest of 0.01% of our citizens. God bless you all, "rend unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's, and rend unto God that which is God's". Good day.

NSG is ooc you idiot.

[Tankmen]

It's not for me,

But as a concept I like it, in this world people trying to be a family with rights and obligations to love honor and cherish each other should be encouraged.

Pope joan has made an arguement that I think is right; gay marriage should be a conservative idea. These people are trying to extend families to lead a normalized, predictable, and loving life. You want to be down on lewd lascivious gays, rail against the anonymous sex of the gay bathhouses, but gay marriage is the polar opposite of that.

Good for the children too to have loving parents. Let them have their families in peace and self-crit imo.

we will not redefine marriage to include these people! that is just a disgusting principal! for all of human history, these people have existed: in ancient Greece, these people were even advantaged! but even then the ancient Greeks still did not allow two men to get married. They may form similar unions, but we will not force anyone to accommodate them against their religious teachings. Also, In my nation marriage is not even a responsibility of the government! if you wish to file a notice to the local officials of your marital status, that's fine, but those really only help us keep track of census data nothing more. so as far as my nation is concerned, this would only allow LGBT(tbh its mostly the G) unions to be classified under "marriage" in census polling. However, recognising that fact of my own country, we will not allow even that. WHy? Because we will not go redefining words that have had the same meaning for all of human civilization. So, we will leave the responsibility of marrying individuals up to the churches, not the state's government, and we will continue to refuse any non-traditional unions as "marriages" in our census data(a census which is optional, mind you). We will not step governmental feet into the business of marriage, nor will we recognize LGBT unions as marriages. we will not overhaul the rule for everyone, at the behest of 0.01% of our citizens. God bless you all, "rend unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's, and rend unto God that which is God's". Good day.

Wrong forum but it raises an interesting question. Should churches be forced to marry gay couples?

[Elwher]

What is the idea of marriage?

Everyone is free to use whatever symbols, etc. to express their consensual love between two (or more) human beings.

But my problem is purely with the government assigning benefits to it.

What is love?

When you have not scored any points in tennis.

[San Lumen]

It's not for me,

But as a concept I like it, in this world people trying to be a family with rights and obligations to love honor and cherish each other should be encouraged.

Pope joan has made an arguement that I think is right; gay marriage should be a conservative idea. These people are trying to extend families to lead a normalized, predictable, and loving life. You want to be down on lewd lascivious gays, rail against the anonymous sex of the gay bathhouses, but gay marriage is the polar opposite of that.

Good for the children too to have loving parents. Let them have their families in peace and self-crit imo.

we will not redefine marriage to include these people! that is just a disgusting principal! for all of human history, these people have existed: in ancient Greece, these people were even advantaged! but even then the ancient Greeks still did not allow two men to get married. They may form similar unions, but we will not force anyone to accommodate them against their religious teachings. Also, In my nation marriage is not even a responsibility of the government! if you wish to file a notice to the local officials of your marital status, that's fine, but those really only help us keep track of census data nothing more. so as far as my nation is concerned, this would only allow LGBT(tbh its mostly the G) unions to be classified under "marriage" in census polling. However, recognising that fact of my own country, we will not allow even that. WHy? Because we will not go redefining words that have had the same meaning for all of human civilization. So, we will leave the responsibility of marrying individuals up to the churches, not the state's government, and we will continue to refuse any non-traditional unions as "marriages" in our census data(a census which is optional, mind you). We will not step governmental feet into the business of marriage, nor will we recognize LGBT unions as marriages. we will not overhaul the rule for everyone, at the behest of 0.01% of our citizens. God bless you all, "rend unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's, and rend unto God that which is God's". Good day.

Wrong forum but it raises an interesting question. Should churches be forced to marry gay couples?

No they should not.

[The Grims]

It's not for me,

But as a concept I like it, in this world people trying to be a family with rights and obligations to love honor and cherish each other should be encouraged.

Pope joan has made an arguement that I think is right; gay marriage should be a conservative idea. These people are trying to extend families to lead a normalized, predictable, and loving life. You want to be down on lewd lascivious gays, rail against the anonymous sex of the gay bathhouses, but gay marriage is the polar opposite of that.

Good for the children too to have loving parents. Let them have their families in peace and self-crit imo.

we will not redefine marriage to include these people! that is just a disgusting principal! for all of human history, these people have existed: in ancient Greece, these people were even advantaged! but even then the ancient Greeks still did not allow two men to get married. They may form similar unions, but we will not force anyone to accommodate them against their religious teachings. Also, In my nation marriage is not even a responsibility of the government! if you wish to file a notice to the local officials of your marital status, that's fine, but those really only help us keep track of census data nothing more. so as far as my nation is concerned, this would only allow LGBT(tbh its mostly the G) unions to be classified under "marriage" in census polling. However, recognising that fact of my own country, we will not allow even that. WHy? Because we will not go redefining words that have had the same meaning for all of human civilization. So, we will leave the responsibility of marrying individuals up to the churches, not the state's government, and we will continue to refuse any non-traditional unions as "marriages" in our census data(a census which is optional, mind you). We will not step governmental feet into the business of marriage, nor will we recognize LGBT unions as marriages. we will not overhaul the rule for everyone, at the behest of 0.01% of our citizens. God bless you all, "rend unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's, and rend unto God that which is God's". Good day.

Wrong forum but it raises an interesting question. Should churches be forced to marry gay couples?

Or forbidden ? After all, not all religions oppose gay unions.

[Internationalist Bastard]

OMG op, I thought you’d never ask
Yes, a thousand times yes

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

Wrong forum but it raises an interesting question. Should churches be forced to marry gay couples?

Legally speaking, no, but I see no problem with revoking at least some of their tax-exempt status if they refuse to do so. I'd like to see how far they're willing to take their morals when their wallet's on the line.

[The Blaatschapen]

OMG op, I thought you’d never ask
Yes, a thousand times yes

I thought you had better standards. Accepting a marriage proposal in an NSG post. Tsss.

That said, I know at least one NSGer who can perform wedding ceremonies.