I swear, with all the car analogies, that I was on slashdot and not AF.

(May 10, 2012 at 9:18 pm)C Rod Wrote: You should not want war, war brings only death, and death brings only pain. Should we do what we know is wrong to stop something we think is wrong?
Our society is based on freedom but you have no idea what that is, you will never know of something you do not experience or share.

Well, it was a joke, mate.
Besides, your society is, to me, not based on freedom. It seems to me as it's based on simple slavery of selfishness. Your concept of freedom is fixed on how well you can do drugs, how open you can be about sex, how you can violate the basic laws of public decency, and generally break about every social traditions and laws there are.
All the while you're just only wage slaves, consuming slaves, driven by ever growing cosmopolitan needs. Needs that you place above good customs and traditions, things that define a society.
Of course, society is ever changing, however, the core traditions on which it was built stay the same. Marrige is a core tradition of society, and it too has core rules, and fundamentals. One is that it has to be between a man and a woman, husband and wife, mr. and mrs. taking from the earlies concepts, the ones who have defined it back then.

Now, I am open to change. But I only approve of change that does not violate the most basic principles, the core of what it means to be Turkish!
I doubt that homosexuality is a core, basic principle of what it means to be of any people, any culture, not even if one is a Greek.

Its not about making it norm or popular, its about making everything fair, equal, and free.
As for good customs, how do YOU treat gays?
What is difference between 2 people who are together for their whole life and are not married compared to 2 people who are together their whole life and are married? The connection is the same for both yet the word that might imply such a connection is only with one example. Should it be we stop such a connection because we think it means something its not or share it because it actually means something?

(May 10, 2012 at 10:01 pm)C Rod Wrote: Its not about making it norm or popular, its about making everything fair, equal, and free.
As for good customs, how do YOU treat gays?

Well, if I wanted to make everything fair, "equal" and free, I'd suggest that nature makes them fair, equal and free first. If we were all hermaphrodites, showing characteristics of both sexes for each and every individual, I'm certain we could practice this famed fairness and equality in marriage. But we obviously have defined sexes, and a fairly visible dimorphism between sexes.
I guess it would be only fair to keep marriage where it belongs. Between a man and a woman.
How do I treat gays? Well, as long as they behave in accordance with public decency around me, I treat everyone with respect. Should they practice things in front of me that are not in accordance with public decency, I verbally warn them, or call the authorities as a last measure if they do not stop. Thankfully, I've met gay people on very, very rare occasions in some english pubs in Nicosia, and transvestites in various districts of Ankara, where they are known as being notorious criminals and prostitutes.

Quote:What is difference between 2 people who are together for their whole life and are not married compared to 2 people who are together their whole life and are married? The connection is the same for both yet the word that might imply such a connection is only with one example. Should it be we stop such a connection because we think it means something its not or share it because it actually means something?

If you really can't tell the difference, I guess there is no point in discussing this with you. You do not even understand the concept of marrige. If there is no difference, why actually get married? Is that what you're getting at?
If so, why do homosexuals want to get married? The connection is the same, according to your words.
No, the connection is not the same. Married couples have declared their connection, their union, to be a union for life, publicly, and have made clear their aims to create a family, hopefully with children of their own flesh and blood. These two people legally share property, and have equal rights and obligations on the children, and are considered to be the guarantee for well-raised, newer generations.
Of course, this aim might, or might not be archived. But the concept of marriage aims for this.
The fundamental form of marrige, for that matter, is between a man and a woman, as these two are capable of reproducing with eachother.

WHY actually get married? "The connection is the same," its love and they want to prove it, like everyone else(fair).
"Family isn't about whose blood you have. It's about who you care about." South park
The means of reproduction don't guarantee a family or even a desire for kids. Its a decision, made out of love, just like that of marriage

Quote: its love and they want to prove it, like everyone else(fair).

Well, they can have a different form of proof, then.

Quote:Family isn't about whose blood you have. It's about who you care about.

Romanticized, yes. But the form of family that is actually relevant to most societies is a family that constitutes a man, a woman and children of the same blood. These could also be adopted, if any of the two is infertile, or wealthy enough to provide for the adopted one.

Quote:The means of reproduction don't guarantee a family or even a desire for kids. Its a decision, made out of love, just like that of marriage

Indeed, there is no guarantee for anything in life. But it generally seems to be a great incentive, yes? As like, most married people try to have children on their own... Made out of love? Again, yes, in a romanticized form of thinking. For me, it is to secure the future of my bloodline. Not to suggest that I won't love my children, but the intent behind it is at least realistic, and in accordance with nature.

It's about frickin' time a President endorsed gay marriage. Hopefully state governments will follow suit.

What different form of proof, marriage but not marriage.

"Most societies" because we wont change.

I try to exist more than nature, more romantic, better than that because we can.

(May 11, 2012 at 12:44 am)C Rod Wrote: What different form of proof, marriage but not marriage.

"Most societies" because we wont change.

I try to exist more than nature, more romantic, better than that because we can.

You can't. You can't move marriage beyond it's most fundamental concept of being between a man and a woman.

Based on the law of the land or religion?