Why are some countries still scared of gay marriage in 2025?

>>211774080 (OP)
What the fuck is the point?

dey eat da poopoo and it takes an incredible amount of social conditioning to pretend that's not disgusting

>Why i voted against "gay" marriage.

>Let's start by admitting that discrimination (properly defined) is pervasive and totally accepted. Western society discriminates against many categories of people: mentally insane people (who are denied almost all civil rights based on a very arbitrary and ever-shifting definition of "mental illness"); physically handicapped people (who can be legally denied many jobs); convicts (two million citizens of the USA who are denied most civil rights, including the right to walk in a park); sick people (who are denied, for example, the right to adopt and sometimes even the right to travel); less educated people (who never have the same chance in life as higher educated people); last but not least, singles (who don't have the same rights as people who are married, from tax deductions to adoption). It is likely that all of these categories would like to have more rights than they have today. Then one could add soccer fans, who don't get as many fields as baseball fans, and listeners of avantgarde music, who don't get as many concerts as pop music fans, and so forth and so forth and so forth. You can come up with an infinite list of "minorities" that are discriminated because they are a minority.
So the argument that we should not "discriminate" against gay marriage calls for the opposite question: why is it anathema to raise issues about gay marriage when it is ok to have all sorts of discriminations against all sorts of categories?

>>211774080 (OP)
Why is thrace blue but not the rest of Turkiye?

>>211774210
>why is it anathema to raise issues about gay marriage when it is ok to have all sorts of discriminations against all sorts of categories?

We don't do blanket discrimination, we do derogations of rights based on clear objective needs. Also singles should pay the same tax as married people.

>Second, if we have to expand the definition of marriage, why only expand it to homosexuals? Why is marriage limited to two people? why can't you marry six women at the same time? why can't you have marriage between two men and three women? Polygamy has been pervasive in ancient times, and it is among most mammal species. It is perfectly legal to be a single mother or single father, but it is not legal to have a marriage among three people. Abraham, considered a prophet by Jews, Christians and Muslims alike, had three wives (Sarah, Hagar and Keturah): was he a criminal? The Bible is full of cases of polygamy and never refers to them as amoral. Mohammed, the founder of Islam, had five wives.
>Why are there age limits? why is it illegal to marry a 12-year old? Helen of Troy was 12. Juliet and Cleopatra were still teenagers when they became famous. Most heroines of classic novels and poems were underage by today's laws. Thomas Edison married a 16-year-old: was he a sex maniac? The oldest person in the USA, Hester Ford, got married at 14: today her husband would be in jail for statutory rape (2021 update: she died at the age of 116). I am not advocating anything, just stating facts. Medical studies show that the best age for a woman to have children is between 15 and 25 (lowest chances of miscarriage, of birth defects and, last but not least, of the woman dying while giving birth); while the worst age is after the mid 30s. And the younger you are, the more likely you are to cement a real friendship with your children; the older you are, the more likely that the "generational gap" will hurt your children's psychology. Therefore it is more "natural" to have a child at 16 than at 36. In countless countries of the world women have their first child at a very young age, and stop having children at a relatively young age. This is all illegal today in the USA, while it is perfectly legal to get pregnant at 40 or (thanks to medical progress) even at 70.

>>211774210
trvth nuke

>>211774080 (OP)
>scared of
*disgusted by

>>211774080 (OP)
I'm not gay.

>>211774337

>>211774080 (OP)
Total faggot death

>Today incest is illegal, but it was common in ancient times (all kings and queens of Egypt married their siblings or mothers): why is it illegal for two siblings to get married and why does incest disqualify a couple from adopting children? Again, i am not advocating anything, just stating contradictions in our moral and legal code.
>And, if we expand the definition of marriage to all of these categories, what rights do we give them? For example, to me it looks much more natural for a group of two men and three women to raise children (as it was in most ancestral societies) than for a same-sex couple to do so (something for which i find no precedents in ancestral societies).
>Prostitution is still illegal in most countries of the world, even though today it is normal for a woman to have sex with many men: why is it illegal to do it for money but legal to do it for fun? A secretary can sleep with her or his boss and a college student can sleep with her or his professor, but a prostitute cannot sleep with a customer for money: why? Paying dinner on a date is ok, and marrying someone for his income is not only ok but frequently advised by your parents. A former prostitute is disqualified from ever adopting children, whereas a woman or man who has had many sexual partners is considered perfectly fit to adopt children: why?
Circumcision (which is, ultimately, a form of genital mutilation) is not only legal in the USA, but routinely performed in all hospitals. Why?
(Note: these are questions, not answers. I am not advocating this or that. I am just pointing out inconsistencies in current "morality" and laws).
>Bottom line: there are many more "unnatural" and unreasonable laws today than the laws against homosexual marriage: why focus only on homosexual marriage and leave all the other restrictions on sex and marriage in place?

>>211774080 (OP)
Italia basata

weren't there at least two prominent cases last month of gay couples raping their adopted sons to death?

>>211774515
Shit.

>>211774515
Italians have Eastern European level of basedness while maintaining Western European level of prosperity, very based.

>>211774526
also, why do they overwhelmingly adopt sons?

>>211774337
trvth carpet bombing

Why is the new world so progressive, even latam thirdies?

>>211774493
Keep posting trvth

>>211774789
>The argument that i keep hearing is that there are many same-sex couples who are better parents than straight couples. I have no problem believing it (and personally know two of them). But what makes you think that a family with two men and three women wouldn't be good parents of their children? Or that a 15-year old mother married to a 30-year old man wouldn't be a better parent than a 25-year old mother married to a 26-year old man? Or that a prostitute wouldn't be a better mother than a business woman? Or that parents who are siblings are more likely to have abnormal children than women in their 40s? All of these are pure prejudices.
>For each of these sex-related categories, i would prefer to see a list of the specific rights, and then be asked to vote on each and every additional right that they want. But not on something so vague as "marriage", that is a higher category encompassing a broad range of rights that i am not familiar with. I wonder how many people who are in favor or against "gay marriage" can name all the rights that come with the status "married". I certainly don't.
>It is a bit odd that homosexuals frequently compare their political fight to the fight for gender equality. We do "discriminate" based on gender when it comes to physical strength, for example in Olympic sports, that are divided along gender lines. Why? Because women on the average are less strong than men. And we actually give women more rights in restrooms, in hospitalization, in the military draft, etc. Even current abortion laws are asymmetric, discriminating against men: when they talk about "choice", they mean "the woman's right to choose", and not the man's right to choose. Whenever there is a biological difference, we condone and sometimes encourage "gender-based discrimination".

>>211774860
>Claiming that those who discriminate against homosexuals are like the people who discriminate against women is 1. cheap propaganda (using the same logic, right-wing Republicans used to call traitors all those who opposed the war in Iraq) 2. an insult to women (that suffer from discrimination purely based on prejudice).
>What is missing on this issue is an honest debate because homosexuals have been able to create a terror campaign in "liberal" states like California, and their opponents have been able to create a terror campaign in "conservative" states. Living in California, sometimes i feel oppressed by homosexuals: the moment you speak up against gay marriage in California, you are treated like suspected communists were treated during the witch hunt of the 1950s. It's like criticizing Islam in Saudi Arabia. Some gay-rights advocates are proving to be children of the George W Bush era by using the same methods of psychological coercion that he used to go to war against Iraq and pass many dubious laws. When they call "prejudice" the opinion of others, they echo all the great dictators of the past. People who dare oppose gay marriage are branded as fanatics, but sometimes it's gay marriage advocates who are behaving like fundamentalists: they are creating a dogmatic religion in favor of gay marriage.
>Another non-trivial element in making me vote against homosexual marriage is that the world is falling apart and we waste energy and time discussing if homosexuals should or should not have the right to get married? It seems like we are tweaking the seats of the Titanic while it is sinking (which could be one of the reasons why it is sinking: we spent too much time around issues that were irrelevant while there was a much bigger problem that nobody really paid attention to).

>>211774080 (OP)
Normal country usually scared of gay marriage no matter its female or male thing