/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

I usually have this type of argument:

Sex is a tool for procreation mainly (well, also for union between spouses, but I'm talking about purely biological standpoint). Faggotry prevents that and twists the nature of sex, hence why it is called a perversion. According to purely biological point of view, any kind of sexual or otherwise biological behaviour preventing spreading of your genes is an anomaly and illness, with subject ending up being ousted by natural selection. There is NOTHING natural or healthy in faggotry. If I would state that I am Julius Caesar, they would send me to a mental hospital with various Napoleons and Justinian's. But if I would say that I am a woman, they would start defending my """rights""". Pathetic

Also, they want marriage for boons regarding taxes, while these boons are meant to help couples raising children, which faggots do not.

P.S.

There's also an elaborate screen cap about faggotry being illness and unhealthy, if someone could posted I would be grateful. Thank you.

>>813642

The biggest issue with this is that if you start from a position of irreligious individualism then marriage itself becomes meaningless, and redefining it is just a step to undefining it, for it is a byproduct of a society that was both religious and communalistic. You need one of these for marriage to make sense. From a communalistic point of view, marriage encourages the family unit, which is the smallest self regulating unit after the individual (who are usually very bad at self regulation). The family unit also allows the continuation and expansion of the society, through the procreation of children.

Now, the opponent might ask, "what about those who are barren and cannot have children? Why should they marry?". And the answer is that a barren man and woman who marry can make up society's image of the family unit. A communalistic point of view suggests that the community has an ideal way of life whose main purpose is to continue the community. Everyone has faults, whether physical or mental, but we all strive to reach the communal ideal.

And this is where we hit a roadblock: the above makes absolutely no sense in an individualistic society: what does the individual care about the community, beyond his own satisfaction? So if he has perverse desires, he will indulge them and encourage others to do so, breaking down the communal ideal.

There is a whole other topic about how homosexuality can spread - specifically how perverse desires can be inflicted upon young children. Two recent examples were Milo Yiannopolous and George Takei confirming they were molested as young teenagers. Before backtracking, Milo had suggested that man-child relationships can help a child "discover who they are and give them security and safety and provide them with love…". He later confirmed he had been molested as a young boy.

The communal ideal eventually can be threatened not just among homosexuals, but heterosexuals who desire that lifestyle. Much of the casual sex culture in western society was predated by gay culture. Casual hookups and drugs at festivals? They gays don't have a monopoly anymore…

But as said, you will hit a roadblock because unless they are either religious or communal, they will reject this argument completely. Their headspace does not cross paths with ours.

>>813642

Legal marriage was invented to trace inheritance(you can live your couple almost perfectly without getting legally married), not "love".

Given they don't have biological kids, it's irrelevant.

The only thing remaining are those cases where your gay "spouse" can't visit you in hospital, or inherit your stuff, if you die suddenly, or other fringe situations.

But that also applies to cases where your family is a bunch of predatory jackals, and the only person you can trust, or that is available at that moment is your best friend/fiance/roommate/whatever.

In short, make those things a bit more flexible, if that's your concern.

>>813642

Basically read Nichomachean Ethics and tell them what you learned.

Marriage used to be a personal contract; not between husband and wife, but between the husband and the wife's father. Priests originally blessed the union, eventually became essential and, around the 10th and 11th centuries, became the ones doing the contract, sealing it. The problem is that the state eventually usurped the priests role. If you ask me, no kind of marriage should be legal, cause the state should have no say on it. It's between the man, the woman and the Church, who blesses that union. People want to celebrate some kind of parody of it, a "civil marriage"? Good for them, it's absurd, but go ahead. Without religion involved, marriage is nothing but playing play-pretend. They could make a company to manage their earnings and combined expenses and it'd be exactly the same.

Actual marriage is a sacrament. Civil marriage is a farce. Gay marriage is not any worse than regular civil marriage; it's the state trying to usurp the Church's role, trying to become the new religion.

>>813642

You can't argue mythology against a logical atheist.

>>813642

The purpose of marriage is to give stability and children. Marriages are not because of love. If love is the only reason then we cannot forbid marriages between men, men with animals, etc. I believe Cato the Elder wrote about this.