There's no nicer way to say this but...

[kılıç_mehmet]

Way older than your wholly babble, and a small step ahead of your barbaric religious ideology.

Righteousness does not include harming socially important intsitutions, does it now?

so they could have the same legal protections Hetero couples already had.

Can't you have that without actually making this "union" of some sort a true marriage?
Civil unions seem to be a step that both parties of the debate could or should agree upon.
But to be deemed as a marriage, I think that it needs to fulfill several important tasks that are relevant to society. How will the marriage of two gays, who will not reproduce normally, and hopefully, benefit this society of yours? It doesn't even constitute a real family that one, even if there is a child, adopted or via surrogate mother.

[Kayenneh]

[LastPoet]

Its about having a just society Mehmet. Surely having children isn't the only way a married couple can help it. And your argument fails because there are alot of hetero couples that choose NOT to have children, what you're gonna do? Force them to do that? As an hetero married guy, I don't think the fact that gays can marriage take any value away from my marriage, nor have any detrimental effects on me. But I do feel better knowing that 2 people that love eachother can have the same rights and protection me and my wife have.

I sincerely hope that when you have children, they don't turn out to be gay, not because of you, but because of my concern about that hyphotetical child having to deal with his own father's bigotry, and the whole suffering that would bring.

[kılıç_mehmet]

Thankfully, here, gay marriage is not even brought up by any political platform, or social institution. The people would certainly not stand by this offense against the nature of marriage.
How it directly affects *your* life, however, is like this. It really makes marriage something else than what it was supposed to be. Marriage was created solely to sanctify the union of two people, and protect the weaker party, which is the woman, financially or socially, if this union should be broken apart in any case at all. The union between two gays have never archived this social sanctity at any given time in human history save for few instances, where they still were not given the right to marry eachother.
Defiling the nature of marriage, is to defile one of the pillars of human society.
This is not exclusive to a religion or a culture. I can say that marriage takes up many forms throughout different parts of history, but the intent behind it remains the same still.
It affects your life directly by giving non-sanctioned unions the right to sanctity, and the rights to what was reserved to naturally child-producing unions, unions between a male and a female, the guarantee of future generations, and the marriage forms the concept of "the family" where children are supported by their parents until they form a home, a family on their own.

Allowing gays to enter "marriage", will probably change many fundamental concepts that are relevant to how society has progressed so far. I think that it will probably bring about the destruction of the family, and therefore, society.
Their (legal)unions should be given a seperate existence, and allow them to share property legally, and divide property accordingly on a breakup of any kind.

---

Its about having a just society Mehmet. Surely having children isn't the only way a married couple can help it. And your argument fails because there are alot of hetero couples that choose NOT to have children, what you're gonna do? Force them to do that? As an hetero married guy, I don't think the fact that gays can marriage take any value away from my marriage, nor have any detrimental effects on me. But I do feel better knowing that 2 people that love eachother can have the same rights and protection me and my wife have.

Well, surely there are couples who choose not to have children. But I'm sure that these form quite a minority amongst the majority of couples who choose to have children.
Besides, I can tell you for a fact that it's rare that I've seen a marriage holding out for longer than 10 years without a child(I'm excluding straight couples who are physically unable to bring forth a child. These try other means to have a child, either via today's medical advancements, or by adoption, life is very hard on these people.). A child is like a glue, it forces people to handle their problems in marriage through means of dialogue, for the sake of the child. Wheras a marriage without a child is like a marriage for the sole purpose of sharing property. It holds no real relevance to society, although it still is socially sanctified, as being between a man and a woman.

I sincerely hope that when you have children, they don't turn out to be gay, not because of you, but because of my concern about that hyphotetical child having to deal with his own father's bigotry, and the whole suffering that would bring.

Well, that is what all fathers hope for, don't they. Have you ever met a father who said "Whoa, I hope that my child turns out to be gay!"?
By your accord, 99% of all fathers in the world are bigots and tyrants, who make their children suffer.

---

But I say this for a fact, I certainly would be very reluctant to have ties with an openly gay child of mine. Just as I would cut off my ties with a child who has done things to publicly shame me, even though if I have taught him/her otherwise, I would cut off my ties with a child who practices his/her vices openly. Doing it secretly shows his/her respect to me, and my position in society. I also do things that I don't tell my parents. If I'd tell them that I have sniffed glue(socially not very acceptable), I'm sure they would be very upset. Besides, there is no need to tell them, as it's my own, private life.
Similarly, if I'd have a gay child, of whom I'm not aware of being one, and one that does not shame me by going around and doing things that are socially unacceptable, than he/she has respected the things that I've taught him/her, and taken up the burden instead of me. That is what I expect a child of mine to do.

[Napoléon]

To reply to Annik--No but GOD did and does.

You christians really are competing lately for the "Most retarded post" award aren't you.

[LastPoet]

Well, surely there are couples who choose not to have children. But I'm sure that these form quite a minority amongst the majority of couples who choose to have children.

This minority, as you say, its bigger than the number of homossexual couples.

Besides, I can tell you for a fact that it's rare that I've seen a marriage holding out for longer than 10 years without a child(I'm excluding straight couples who are physically unable to bring forth a child. These try other means to have a child, either via today's medical advancements, or by adoption, life is very hard on these people.).

(bold mine)

A fact eh?
You call anecdotal stories a fact? I happen to know two couples that are married for more than 30 years without kids. Where is your argument now?

A child is like a glue, it forces people to handle their problems in marriage through means of dialogue, for the sake of the child. Wheras a marriage without a child is like a marriage for the sole purpose of sharing property. It holds no real relevance to society, although it still is socially sanctified, as being between a man and a woman.

Are you serious? Are you saying that 2 people that don't get along, should stick to a failing marriage just because of the kids? Naivete doesn't suit you well. 'Sanctified'? How saint is a home where father and mother just don't get along? (usually it ends up involving domestic violence) Is that any good to the child or to your vaunted society?

Well, that is what all fathers hope for, don't they. Have you ever met a father who said "Whoa, I hope that my child turns out to be gay!"?
By your accord, 99% of all fathers in the world are bigots and tyrants, who make their children suffer.

I think fathers and mothers should love their children for what they are, not for what they want them to be. If I had a kid, my only wish for them is that they come healthy and respectfull towards others.

Oh, and 99% of statistics are made on the spot.

In conclusion, you have nothing but your bigotry as an argument, but you're not alone. You keep peddling that high horse you have, not noticing that you are in a deep hole with it. 'Sanctity', appeals to history, appeals to emotion. A bunch of crock shit for all that matters to a rational person.

[ohh EPiC FAiL]

It goes a lot deeper than property. Are you aware of death taxes? Married people don't have to pay them, but civil union couples do last I checked. How much bullshit is that? You have to pay to die just because you love someone that's the same sex as you? It's bullshit on any level, but it's even worse to deny someone the ability to circumvent that tax just because of their sexual orientation. It even goes deeper than that and property, but I think that's all that really needs to be said. If two people are in love, they should be able to get married. Period.

And DeeTee, doesn't your god say its a sin to lay with another man? It doesn't say it's a sin to be homosexual, just that it's a sin to have sex with another man. Ask just about any straight guy that's been married for a while and we'll all tell you it's possible to have a sexless marriage. Even taking your holy book and your god into account, who are you to deny them their right to all the legal and social benefits that straight couples enjoy?

[kılıç_mehmet]

This minority, as you say, its bigger than the number of homossexual couples.

Maybe in western countries. Well, its your funeral. Not mine.
However, I can tell you this that the people who marry without the intent of having children at all are still a very small minority. I guess you meant to say the total married couples without children, rather than those who don't want to have children.

A fact eh?
You call anecdotal stories a fact? I happen to know two couples that are married for more than 30 years without kids. What a big fail.

Anecdotal stories they certainly are not. I've seen marriages fall with my own eyes. I could say the same for marriages with children, however I believe that these are a lot harder to seperate than marriges where no children are present.
You know two couples that are married for 30 years without kids, I know ten who have seperated after 5 years when the male or female partner grew tired of it, or even ended the marriage after he/she found out that the spouse was infertile. What a shock.

Are you saying that 2 people that don't get along, should stick to a failing marriage just because of the kids?

Well, if they really have serious problems as to reflect badly on the child itself, they should break up for the sake of the child.
But I think that being married requires you to solve problems, actually, especially if there is a child. Things like, "I don't find you attractive anymore" or "you lost your job" or "I met someone else" are really selfish reasons for an unselfish concept like marriage.
Besides, there are other problems obviously, that can be overcome, but today's world is making divorce easier and easier, while feeding the lawyers who are probably behind this conspiracy.

How saint is a home where father and mother just don't get along

How can they ever? Have you ever seen two people that get along too well?
If that is the case, I'd say that there is something wrong there. Either both parties cheat on eachother, find solace elsewhere as to reflect their problems on eachother, or their marriage is a fake one, simply as that.
Marriage requires people to get along, but if they can't, they need to work on how to get along.
If you simply give up and go off to other horizons, I can say that you'll probably leave behind more and more marriages in the future. Marriages do not require people to be lazy. They do not require people to be impatient.
If my mother was like that, he would have dumped my father when he went on his 7 month work at the sea, working in large container ships to send us money. Or she'd bring home men discreetly, of which I hear examples of. But she was patient, she waited for my father to come home after 7 months of not seeing his face at all. Same for my father, of course.

usually it ends up involving domestic violence

Oh really? My grandfather and my grandmother never got along too well. As long as I knew myself, he and she slept in different beds. She was later found out to be mentally sick, but my grandfather did take care of her for the rest of his life, while my grandmother has taken care of him while he lived out his last days.
Not even once, has my grandfather hit my grandmother in his entire life.
And they were married through an arranged marriage, where they never saw eachother before.
There is a saying in Turkish: "Nikahta keramet vardır..." which translates to, "There is a huge power in marriage..."
This is just a single testimony to the power and necessity of marriage.

I think fathers and mothers should love their children for what they are, not for what they want them to be.

Of course, an extreme case, but would you love your child if he/she had renounced you, spit on you, and brought anarchy upon your home?
There is no "no matter what", nothing in the whole world is that sacred.
This is like "husbands should love their wives for what they are, not for what they want them to be." even if she commits adultery with other men, that is what she is, maybe. She can't help it. There is no such world, friend.

If I had a kid, my only wish for them is that they come healthy and respectfull towards others.

Of course, health comes first, but I guess you and I have different opinions on what is to be considered "healthy". As for respect, I've already told you what I think of respect. This includes respecting me and my wife first, before anyone else, as I'm the father and she's the mother.
Just as my parents have not taught my to be a chronic fornicator, a drunkard and hedonist, I'd disrespect them if I openly showed these negative characteristics they have told me not to do. If they did not teach me any values at all, they would be held accountable for it. But they certainly could not say anything to the child, as the child "reflects" them.
If my child acts against my wishes, and it reflects poorly on me, I reflect this back on the child, as the responsibility lies entirely on him, not me.

Oh, and 99% of statistics are made on the spot.

And I guess you know any fathers who just wish their kids to be gay before they were even born.
Of course, I know some parents who like to dress up their boys like girls, and treat them as girls, those are mentally ill people, and clearly a very small minority amongst the majority of people who just want normal kids, normal, like themselves.

In conclusion, you have nothing but your bigotry as an argument, but you're not alone.

Sure, bigotry. Your no. 1 word against those who don't seem to share your opinions. I've never called out you people with any special names, have I? But from now on, I will. Each time you use this word, I'll use a word on my own.

You keep peddling that high horse you have, not noticing that you are in a deep hole with it. 'Sanctity', appeals to history, appeals to emotion. A bunch of crock shit for all that matters to a rational person.

You are not rational. Rational people would accept things as they are, and were meant to be. You're nothing but romantics bordering the romanticism of the communists of old. And even they did not support crap like the crap you support. You're not rational, you're insane.
Sanctity, of course, means nothing to a madman. He can go out with his penis hanging out, he can go and take a crap on the highway, because he's insane. He has no boundaries at all, nothing is sacred to him but the small candle he has stuck on his forhead, maybe. He defends it with such ferocity, all the while disregarding the irrelevance of his candle to society.
This is how I view you people.
Likewise, you disregard the sanctity of things like marriage, nations, flags, countries, cultures, traditions, things that are relevant to society, things that are relevant to civilisation, all the while holding on to LGBT rights, something that is irrelevant, something that is like the candle to the naked lunatic.

---

It goes a lot deeper than property. Are you aware of death taxes? Married people don't have to pay them, but civil union couples do last I checked. How much bullshit is that? You have to pay to die just because you love someone that's the same sex as you?

I never heard of such a thing, but I guess that can be overcome with a small change in the law. Really, no big deal.

If two people are in love, they should be able to get married. Period.

Why does it require just people? Maybe I want to get married to my car, because I love my car, and I maintain the notion that my car loves me.
We can get the same benefits of a married couple, even though my car is not even a person, but may be a person in my mind.
Really, you speak of things that are as stupid as the story above.

And DeeTee, doesn't your god say its a sin to lay with another man? It doesn't say it's a sin to be homosexual, just that it's a sin to have sex with another man. Ask just about any straight guy that's been married for a while and we'll all tell you it's possible to have a sexless marriage. Even taking your holy book and your god into account, who are you to deny them their right to all the legal and social benefits that straight couples enjoy?

I can tell you this. You obviously have no knowledge on what marriage was all about at it's very foundation. Have you ever wondered why fornication, meaning, sex outside of the bedlock, is a frowned upon, or sometimes punished form of conduct in many societies around the world?
Marriage is supposed to be the sanctification of sex between two people.
But with the social and jurisdictional restrictions on sex outside of the marriage being lifted, what really is the point for gays to get married if they won't have sex at all?
True, sexless marriages are possible, but I guess this is just a hypothetical marriage in which both partners have serious psychological issues.

[Faith No More]

Mehmet, clearly you don't like being called a bigot(who would?) for what you see as simple disagreement, but you have no problem throwing around words like 'lunatic' and 'mentally ill' at people who don't agree with you. Think about that for a bit before you post again on this issue.

[DeistPaladin]

I still don't understand why they won't let homosexual couples get married.

What makes them so damn special?!!

Why should gay couples get a free pass?!? They should have to suffer just like the rest of us straight guys. It's only fair!

I still remember one letter read on CNN about the issue back when W Bush was pushing for a constitution amendment on the Federal level. It went something like this:

"As a divorced man, I see no reason why gays need to be constitutionally protected from the heartbreak and financial ruin that I experienced. If they're dumb enough to want to go through it, I say 'let em learn the hard way'."

As for yet another state amendment, I say let them all pass their amendments. They're not worth the paper they're written on. They'll all be struck down in a heartbeat as being in conflict with the 14th amendment.