I would no more care about what a crowd in church might cheer about than I would care what a troop of chimps near a sack of bananas might howl about.

(May 30, 2012 at 11:17 am)Tobie Wrote: So, for a group of people to be given the same rights as everyone else, they must form the majority of all useful professions? That is fucking retarded.

As for being a minority - they are a group of people that are less common than other groups of people. I don't know how that doesn't make them a minority. Not that it matters, they should have the same rights either way.

Well, they need to be actually relevant to society at first. Marriage is relevant and essential to society. Homosexuals are not in a position to change marriage for everyone.
They are a group of people that have come to become a group only recently.
I don't know whether they possess the qualities of a minority, or whether they ever did. They might classify as a community, perhaps, but saying homosexuals are a "minority" is like saying that...scene kids are a minority and should be given minority rights.
Pffft...
As I've already explained, this is not just about you. Obviously, there are people that actually value the nature of marriage, and do not want it to go wild and be accessible to people that have no relevance to the institution of marriage.
Yes, homosexuals have no relevance to the progress of society, unless they discard their homosexual identities and be in unison with the rest of the society, at which point, they become the majority and may marry women, or men if they're lesbian, and actually contribute to the future of society.

(May 30, 2012 at 11:27 am)kılıç_mehmet Wrote:

(May 30, 2012 at 11:17 am)Tobie Wrote: So, for a group of people to be given the same rights as everyone else, they must form the majority of all useful professions? That is fucking retarded.

As for being a minority - they are a group of people that are less common than other groups of people. I don't know how that doesn't make them a minority. Not that it matters, they should have the same rights either way.

Well, they need to be actually relevant to society at first. Marriage is relevant and essential to society. Homosexuals are not in a position to change marriage for everyone.
They are a group of people that have come to become a group only recently.
I don't know whether they possess the qualities of a minority, or whether they ever did. They might classify as a community, perhaps, but saying homosexuals are a "minority" is like saying that...scene kids are a minority and should be given minority rights.
Pffft...
As I've already explained, this is not just about you. Obviously, there are people that actually value the nature of marriage, and do not want it to go wild and be accessible to people that have no relevance to the institution of marriage.
Yes, homosexuals have no relevance to the progress of society, unless they discard their homosexual identities and be in unison with the rest of the society, at which point, they become the majority and may marry women, or men if they're lesbian, and actually contribute to the future of society.

Homosexuals getting married is not going to change marriage for you is it? Heterosexuals can still get married if homosexuals can.

So you're saying that homosexuals can't contribute to the future of society unless they suppress their feelings? You're fucking deluded.

I now have that accented child's voice on repeat in my brain. *sigh* Hello, repetitive thought of the day.

(May 30, 2012 at 11:26 am)Chuck Wrote: I would no more care about what a crowd in church might cheer about than I would care what a troop of chimps near a sack of bananas might howl about.

The problem with that is, chimps don't get to vote and baboons don't get elected... oh wait...

There is absolutely NO excuse to prevent same sex marriage. NONE. No one's dick or vagina will fall off, no one will magically make you or children turn gay, and their wont be public orgies if gays can get married.

Anyone against it is just being an insecure childish brat who cant handle that "different" doesn't mean bad.

Get the fuck over yourselves and grow up.

Here's a clue just for you Mehmet:

Homosexuals do not want to change marriage for everyone. The idea is to extend the legal recognition of marriage to include same-sex marriages in addition to the traditional ones. Much in the same way, in fact, that happened when mixed-race marriages were recognised in the legal context. It will make no difference to anyone else, married or not.

Let's just suppose that you were to fall asleep for a month and during that time same-sex marriage was in fact legalised. I guarantee you won't notice any difference after you wake up.

Also - and I'm sick and tired of saying this - marriage was not founded as a fucking religious institution!

(May 30, 2012 at 11:32 am)Tobie Wrote:

(May 30, 2012 at 11:27 am)kılıç_mehmet Wrote: Well, they need to be actually relevant to society at first. Marriage is relevant and essential to society. Homosexuals are not in a position to change marriage for everyone.
They are a group of people that have come to become a group only recently.
I don't know whether they possess the qualities of a minority, or whether they ever did. They might classify as a community, perhaps, but saying homosexuals are a "minority" is like saying that...scene kids are a minority and should be given minority rights.
Pffft...
As I've already explained, this is not just about you. Obviously, there are people that actually value the nature of marriage, and do not want it to go wild and be accessible to people that have no relevance to the institution of marriage.
Yes, homosexuals have no relevance to the progress of society, unless they discard their homosexual identities and be in unison with the rest of the society, at which point, they become the majority and may marry women, or men if they're lesbian, and actually contribute to the future of society.

Homosexuals getting married is not going to change marriage for you is it? Heterosexuals can still get married if homosexuals can.

So you're saying that homosexuals can't contribute to the future of society unless they suppress their feelings? You're fucking deluded.

It won't here, but obviously it will change marriage for you, him, her or some other person that lives in the US. It's going to devaluate this important institution more than it has been devaluated now in the US.
I'll be honest with you. My view of the American society, and recently, many European societies has been along these lines: society moves away from the values that have brought it here, and moves to the values of flesh, money and desire.
Homosexuals have long campaigned to get their desires recognized as "normal" by society. Here, they use marriage as their weapon. For we view marriage as a sacred thing. Or used to. We view it as the foundation of the family, the real family, the one that has evolved into the core family structure that we know, which is the thing that actually contributes to society.
On the other hand, you and probably the homosexuals that you support, tend to view any value that mankind used to consider sacred, like family, marriage, good behavior, respect for customs and etc. as backwards, the foolish counter-culture movement, the excessive individualisation of society. You even go as far as to state "what is the state doing in my marriage?" while the state actually recognizes your marrige, and any and all civil servants(here marriages are performed by them) or priests, get their authority to perform a marriage not from God, but from the state itself.
For the state is there to preserve society, to aid it, to lead it.
And the state in your country doesn't deem it fit to grant homosexuals a federal right to marriage, as they are obviously not relevant to it. Individual states, well, might grant them these privilages, but the federal government has to consider the wellbeing of society regardless.
Homosexuals are simply another front of the counter-culture movement, and have, in my opinion, nothing to do with human rights.
For human rights are there to protect humans, and therefore, protect the institutions relevant to the survival of humans.

You view marriage as a sacred thing, and that's perfectly fine; you still can. It'll still be as sacred as you want it to be even when (not if) the membership is opened up to same-sex couples. Nothing is being devalued here.