@roboneko @SpurgAnon
That's actually my problem too.
There are no alternatives to this legal contract, that obviously doesn't fit all the situations.

And by using this exact version now even on same sex couples, it is even less adaptive to the individual needs.

@roboneko @SpurgAnon
The natural situation is: people will form groups of mostly 2, and sometimes have kids.

The fact, that the state needs to fuck this natural instinct up with 100 pages legal document is disgusting to me. And now, they will push the same dystopian control on gays too.

@roboneko @SpurgAnon
So, respond already.
WHY DO WE NEED A SINGULAR LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR EVERY POSSIBLE COMBIMATION OF LONG TERM COHABITATION?

@LukeAlmighty @SpurgAnon we don't necessarily. I didn't make that claim. I'm saying that if the government is going to make eligibility distinctions then those need to be non-religious and non-lots-of-other-stuff as well. but it would probably make a lot of sense for various things to be explicitly split off into separate laws

@roboneko @SpurgAnon
WHERE DID I MENTION RELIGION FUCKFACE?

@roboneko @SpurgAnon
I have been writing my non-religious reasons for abolishing legal marriage for the last several posts.

@LukeAlmighty @SpurgAnon at the start I said that you'd presumably need a non-religious justification to make such a distinction. while you've certainly made it clear that you're not a fan of the current state of the law you don't seem to have provided a non-religious justification for discriminating based on the biological sex of the individuals

or in other words I was suggesting that doing away with such a distinction wasn't without reason given the absence of such a justification

@roboneko @SpurgAnon
So, I will repeat that.

Marriage is extremely broken system based on 100 assumptions, 99 of which don't apply to straight couples. It's original purpose was to bond people together.

Now, the bonding part is optional, the consent is optional, and the purpose is division of assets on divorce.

And I do not believe, that forcing homosexuals into the same system will help them in the slightest. Not only would the "original purpose" not fit, but the current one is even more retarded.

@LukeAlmighty @SpurgAnon

> It's original purpose was to bond people together.

purpose in what sense? there are plenty of bible passages putting prices on women and various transgressions. imo the purpose of marriage is and always has been to maintain social stability. historically there would nearly always have been children involved but even with that being different now plenty of the same dysfunctions still exist

@roboneko @SpurgAnon
> Bible
I'm not reading that bullshit.
Write me an argument, not some 2000 year old copy-pasta

@LukeAlmighty @SpurgAnon I never claimed that you did. I point to it as evidence of how far back the history goes and to explain why I see the purpose of the legal construct as "maintaining social stability"

@roboneko @SpurgAnon
If you cannot write an argument without referencing that book, then you aren't capable of writing something worth reading

@LukeAlmighty @SpurgAnon I mean this is hardly new. it's been going on since approximately forever because it turns out that there are a bunch of social ills where people will screw each other over and it destabilizes society

I think it's at least somewhat analogous to "abolish the police". there are plenty of examples of abuse but that institution came to exist for good reason. things could certainly stand to be improved tho

@roboneko @SpurgAnon
Sorry, but I missed the argument.

> There has to be a good reason
That is the premise, but without a good reason, you are admitting defeat.

Yes, there has to be a reason. And without it, this shit is indefensible

@LukeAlmighty @roboneko @SpurgAnon what are you saying here? that you don't see the social ills that marriage attempts to address? or what?

@roboneko@breastmilk.club @roboneko@bae.st @SpurgAnon
Do you mean the law or the social interaction?

Of course I see the benefit of 2 peoples saying "I am fully committed to this".

Marriage law on the other hand is a legal trade document based around creating the conditions for leaving. And that is the exact opposite.

@roboneko@breastmilk.club @roboneko@bae.st @SpurgAnon
I also see the benefit of two gay people committing to each other. And guess what? Their commitment is absolutely different on the fundamental level. And they do deserve the right to form their own boundaries without some fat politician fucking it up.

@LukeAlmighty @roboneko @SpurgAnon

> Their commitment is absolutely different on the fundamental level.

how is it fundamentally different than a straight couple who decides not to have children?

one of the primary social ills that marriage laws attempt to address are the things that happen when one of the parties stabs the other in the back several decades later. having older or disabled or whatever people unexpectedly left destitute is not in society's best interests

that isn't to say that there aren't serious issues with the current legal situation. same as with the police in many places. but even if they could use improvement, these institutions both exist for good reason

@roboneko@breastmilk.club @roboneko@bae.st @SpurgAnon
Why do you keep repeating "there are issues", while ignoring them completely?

A broken legal system is something, that cannot be allowed to continue, and you ask me, why shouldn't it be forcen on even more people? Because that will make it even more broken.

> A spoon in context of grabbing food
ok. It helps somewhat
> A broken spoon in context of grabbing food
Doesn't help at all. It is actually wasting your time, and it cut your hand.
> A broken spoon in context of what to eat
What are you doing? Why would you eat a broken spoon?

@LukeAlmighty @roboneko @SpurgAnon seem to me to be saying in effect

> don't fix that issue because there are other issues

and I'm saying that both should be fixed but that one wrong doesn't justify another

@roboneko@breastmilk.club @roboneko@bae.st @SpurgAnon
One wrong justifies not spreading a broken system into even more broken context.

What's so complicated about that?

@roboneko@breastmilk.club @roboneko@bae.st @SpurgAnon
So, again. Can I divorce you after we split rent for an year?

@LukeAlmighty @roboneko @SpurgAnon nothing complicated about it, but I disagree with that sentiment. I see it as an indefensible distinction being made by the current law. I also don't see the current law as entirely broken, in the same way that I don't want to abolish the police

@LukeAlmighty @roboneko
>this is why the state should be forced to dissolve the concept of "legal" marriage

@LukeAlmighty @SpurgAnon

> doesn't fit all the situations

yeah the current legal situation does seem very "one size fits all" sometimes

> it is even less adaptive to the individual needs

I don't immediately see how things get any worse from this tho. seem to be largely the same

@roboneko @SpurgAnon
They seem one size fits all, because that was literally the point of the law you're defending now.

@roboneko @LukeAlmighty @SpurgAnon There is no secular argument for placing "gay marriage" on equal footing with actual marriage, because society has no interest in gays getting married in the first place. It has an interest in normal people getting married, because it in theory creates good and stable conditions for bringing up children, and replacement-levels of fertility and quality child rearing are something we all have a vested interest in. Gays playing house is only about them pretending that they and their relationships are equal to those of normal people, it's of no benefit to anyone else, and not deserving of recognition, let alone positive incentives.

@ChristiJunior @LukeAlmighty @SpurgAnon I guess baest is having technical difficulties

> There is no secular argument for placing "gay marriage" on equal footing with actual marriage

you seem to be presupposing that there is a distinction. my point is that in order to draw a line the government needs to have a non-religious justification for doing so

you make an interesting point tho. I have to thank you for providing one of the very few (I feel) coherent responses I've ever received on this topic

if we accept that the only point of relationships is having children then I'd agree with you. however there will inevitably be couples who won't have children in the end for whatever reason. you're still going to have most of the same social issues coming up. disputes of ownership, domestic disturbances, hospital visitation, financial dependence, etc etc etc

all of those same issues will apply whether or not a relationship is recognized by the state. common law marriage exists in many states for similar reasons

making any positive incentives dependent on children seems like a reasonable enough idea tho

@roboneko @ChristiJunior @SpurgAnon
> Common law marrige.
So, do you agree, that if you let me live with you for reasons of rent, and we live together long enough to enter a common-law marriage (because, time is a possible trigger), then I can take half of your shit?

Or is there something, that is making the marriage system abusive beyond comprehension, and making it even wider is retarded?

@LukeAlmighty @ChristiJunior @SpurgAnon

> So, do you agree ...

no? I made no such claim. on top of that you're conflating common law marriage and community property, plus probably some other stuff

I'm quite comfortable claiming that various social dysfunctions can result when people cohabitate regardless of the presence of children or sexual orientation or whatever other distinction you want to make. it is in the interests of broader society to attempt to address these various ills

@roboneko @ChristiJunior @SpurgAnon
No, I meant commonlaw marriage.
Because it isn't your decision if you're married. The judge decides that. That is the entire point of my previous post, and I am quite disappointed you didn't get it.

@LukeAlmighty @ChristiJunior @SpurgAnon yes, I understood that. I too was referring to common law marriage. just because you didn't formally agree to get married doesn't mean that the same social ills can't arise. hence that legal concept being created in the first place

oh it's cool I screwed my girlfriend over after a decade but we weren't married so it's all good

the historic non-bureaucratic solution to this was forced marriage, right? no sex before marriage, you fucked that lady, then essentially now you either agree that you're married or we kill you. how is that significantly different from the common law arrangement again?

@roboneko @ChristiJunior @SpurgAnon
I didn't say I would fuck you.
You're such a fucking pervert

@roboneko @ChristiJunior @SpurgAnon
So, gays need no justification, but asexuals are a fucking line for you?

You're an absolut hypocrite.

@LukeAlmighty @ChristiJunior @SpurgAnon what are you even on about now? seems like you keep putting words in my mouth

what distinction is it you think I've made between asexuals versus gays?

to clarify, my intention has generally been to refer to people (regardless of qualifiers) living together or otherwise doing the sorts of things where marriage as a legal construct tends to come up

@roboneko @ChristiJunior @SpurgAnon
Yes.
So, if you agree to split rent with me for an year, can I divorce you?

@LukeAlmighty @ChristiJunior @SpurgAnon presumably not because I doubt that's sufficient to trigger those laws. but I'm not a lawyer, there are some pretty crazy laws out there, so I guess I don't really know

pretty sure it's more like 7 or 10 years in most states and that one of the parties has to bring the case and present justification for it

@roboneko @ChristiJunior @SpurgAnon
And... you don't see how that's retarded? That a law created to avoid negative outcomes of having kids is now such a bullshit framework, that a case can be made for a guy who lived with you for convenience can take your life savings?

That is what I mean by spreading a broken system into even more broken context.

@LukeAlmighty @ChristiJunior @SpurgAnon

> a law created to avoid negative outcomes of having kids

I don't think it's specific to kids. I keep listing a bunch of stuff (certainly not exhaustive) of things that apply regardless of children

> for convenience

pretty sure you have to demonstrate a lot more than that to make a claim. but again I'm not a lawyer so

> take your life savings

also pretty sure that there's a lot more nuance to it

@roboneko @LukeAlmighty @SpurgAnon >if we accept that the only point of relationships is having children then I'd agree with you. however there will inevitably be couples who won't have children in the end for whatever reason.

Sure, but in the case of normal couples, the possibility of children will in principle always be there. Going out of our way to specifically exclude infertile straight couples, straight couples who aren't planning to have children (who might change their minds anyway) etc from marriage just seems more trouble than it's worth. Meanwhile, restricting marriage to normal couples is also a way to resist the recognition and normalization of homosexuality (an inherently anti-natalist lifestyle), which itself has value.

>making any positive incentives dependent on children seems like a reasonable enough idea tho

Sure, a system where being married merely grants you basic recognition of the relationship, while positive incentives and subsidies are restricted to married couples with children, sounds fine by me.

@ChristiJunior @LukeAlmighty
>Poland is rcc infested
They have full-blown fag marriages and even child drag shows by the end of the decade and it'll be promoted by their "clergy"

@SpurgAnon @LukeAlmighty I mean, hopefully the current Marxist Pope will croak before then, and his replacement won't be another Liberation Theology lunatic. That would buy Catholic countries some more time.

@ChristiJunior @LukeAlmighty lmao
His replacement will likely be worse; you know I'm right. Deep down.

@ChristiJunior @LukeAlmighty @SpurgAnon I still remember when I was promised atheism would usher in a new age of critical thinking, logic and evidence. But it was just used as a tool by leftists to undermine religious customs and they ended up worshipping a vaccine like it was the sacraments.

@rasterman @ChristiJunior @SpurgAnon
Sure bruh
https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2021-08/pope-francis-appeal-covid-19-vaccines-act-of-love.html

@LukeAlmighty @ChristiJunior @SpurgAnon Case in point.

@Rasterman @ChristiJunior @LukeAlmighty @SpurgAnon
Atheism was always a tool of the Jews for destroying civilizations, and it always will be. From the very beginning it was created to turn the much-astroturfed field of "science" into a new religion where labcoats, shitlib politicians, and journokikes are worshiped as gods and their words held as infallible.
Communism reveals the true purpose for which the Jews invented atheism: an instrument for genociding White Christian Men so as to enslave the "goyim" once and for all.

@Rasterman @ChristiJunior @LukeAlmighty @SpurgAnon
Denying Yahweh is, deep down, an exercise in useless thought.
It is like saying that death and disease is a lie and will not affect us as long as their objective and subjective reality is unknown.
or deny the holy spirit... in both cases denying its existence is an insufficient effort.!
Because sooner or later they are going to demonstrate to give the reminder to the human being,
that nothing is above god or that escapes his will.
Thank you very much for sharing your thought. 🙇‍♂️

@zoomgoboom @SpurgAnon
Yeah...
They made it into their 1 grand act of moral superiority.

@LukeAlmighty fuck, I'm not drunk enough for this @SpurgAnon