What do you think about same sex marriage? Do they deserve the same rights as regular families...

Firstly, we must define who has the burden of proof. As SSM raising children is a fairly recent phenomenon, it requires prudence on the part of the one who affects change.
Most studies on this topic don't have a large enough sample (for obvious reasons) and can't be trusted to the extent we would like. On top of this, it is axiomatic that the natural environment for raising children is, in theory, superior for the upbringing of children. Mothers and fathers with often has different yet complimentary temperaments too with respect to children. (The good cop and bad cop if you will)
So the advocate of SSM has to overcome a large hurdle to prove his point.

>What do you think about same sex marriage?
Why should I care, it has been legal for years. >Do they deserve the same rights as regular families?
Yes
>Would you allow them to adopt children?
Yes

You made a claim, I asked you to cite any source to back up this claim, and you claim the burden of proof is on me. Delightful.

>Looking at that pic
>You will never have a beautiful sans culotte gf
Fuck, I should just end it now.

I gave you reasons that don't require a source to understand - when speaking of generalities. That the psychology of a mother and father are different is just plain fact and only the deliberately obtuse would require a sociological study to comprehend that.
>and you claim the burden of proof is on me
You misunderstand me. I mean that the burden of proof *for the policy* is on you given how it only passes recently with no real scrutiny - just appeals to emotion and 'equality'.
But I'll reiterate that I did provide reason, albeit not the reason you want.

Wh*Tes are turning gay because they know in their heart that they cannot compete with the IstanBULL for their women

>I gave you reasons that don't require a source to understand - when speaking of generalities.
Again, you're making an unfalsifiable claim based on nothing more than your feelings, which are entirely inconsequential, about the matter
>That the psychology of a mother and father are different is just plain fact and only the deliberately obtuse would require a sociological study to comprehend that.
I'll be obtuse here, provide proof to what you're saying
>>and you claim the burden of proof is on me
>You misunderstand me. I mean that the burden of proof *for the policy* is on you given how it only passes recently with no real scrutiny - just appeals to emotion and 'equality'.
Uh huh, the argument over gay marriage going to the supreme court involves no real scrutiny. The decades long battle through the entire US court system involved no real scrutiny.
>But I'll reiterate that I did provide reason, albeit not the reason you want.
Your "reason" is not rooted in any facts, at least none you've provided. You keep saying that everything you posted is self-evident but if it was you could easily find data to back up your claim.
Meanwhile, in a meta-analysis of 75 studies, children of same sex parents fare no better or worse
whatweknow.law.columbia.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-wellbeing-of-children-with-gay-or-lesbian-parents/

I'll clairfy once again.
Every right thinking person can see for themselves that men and women have empirically different psychologies. As children have been raised by men and women since time imemorial it stands to reason that this was good for them.

The studies that deal with this subject (no matter how numerous) are flawed in many ways and we can't draw a conclusion from them.

Even if my claims of psychology were not true, being agnostic on the issue of raising children would *not* give you room to support SSM as you'd risk throwing children under the bus for the cult of equality and diversity.

Bump

I'm against same sex marriage (SSM).

There are two ways of viewing marriage:
(1) Marriage is a lifelong partnership with the purpose of procreation and raising children. This is the traditional view of marriage.
(2) Marriage is about romantic love. It is about your feelings. This is the most popular view in the West right now.

Under (1), SSM doesn't make sense. Under (2) it does. If you do allow SSM, you are strengthening the idea that marriage is about (2) rather than (1). And why this is bad? Because (1) is superior to (2).

One thing that you will notice if you look at literature in the area, is that t children raised by two biological parents in a stable marriage do better than other children in a very large amount of outcomes. And view (1) leads to a more stable environment than view (2). Romantic love lasts about 2 years. If your relationship is based on romantic love, you will end it after those years and start other relationships. Which is not a very stable environment.

latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-1027-goldberg-family-structure-20151027-column.html

Another issue is that (2) leads to people overrating the importance of romantic love for their lives, which leads to unhappiness. After all, you are basing your life and your happiness on something that lasts 2 years and which is comparable to a drug in a certain sense.

Here are two sources:
today.com/health/how-long-does-passion-last-four-stages-love-t108471
webmd.com/pain-management/news/20101013/romantic-love-affects-your-brain-like-a-drug#1

Same sex "marriage" is not even worth talking about. There is no reason to post about it unless you are trying to pollute this board.

It’s one of the most controversial topics in Europe now. As this board is also for humanities I can’t see how is this polluting.

nah fags should stay in the closet lest they infect others with their mental illness

we don't want a repeat of a greek society