(July 21, 2013 at 9:45 am)kılıç_mehmet Wrote: Indeed, as gays are considered to not have fulfilled the role that they were born with, meaning, being a part of the human reproductive cycle, is it obvious that normal society will shun them. Should there be any other explanation for this?

This idea falls apart in numerous ways: the first is that we don't have the same reaction to, say, infertile people, so this clearly has nothing to do with reproduction. We don't shun people that simply don't want kids, so... hey.

Quote:Next you're going to tell me that disapproval of bestiality is not innate. Yeah, so is disapproval of rape, muder, theft and everything, its not innate, is it not?

Way to poison the well, without ever having to furnish evidence for your ideas.

Quote:Normal people disapprove of deviants.

And your proof that homosexuality is deviant, in the face of the numerous natural examples of it?

Quote: In case for gays, they have lived out their lives in secret for millenia, and were shunned everywhere in the world, among the Turks, Arabs, Jews, Zulus, Anglo-Saxons, and even the Greeks(where pederasty was considered to be okay, but I guess you're not going to argue with me about pedophilia).

Because everything that happens for a significant length of time is right, yeah?

Quote:This idea falls apart in numerous ways: the first is that we don't have the same reaction to, say, infertile people, so this clearly has nothing to do with reproduction. We don't shun people that simply don't want kids, so... hey.

Well, they are however acting in the way we believe that things are ought to happen. A man and a woman. Not anything else.
I've already discussed the prospect of infertile people and "those who don't want kids" a few pages back, friend. Infertile as they may be, they still conform to the norms of more intimate human relations.

Quote:Way to poison the well, without ever having to furnish evidence for your ideas.

I am not poisoning the well, simply saying that humans have an innate disapproval of things, and I do see that they do so for homosexuality aswell. And as for "without evidence" I'd say that history proves otherwise. People have an innate dislike for homosexuality as they do for many other things. I don't know why this is so hard to accept.

Quote:And your proof that homosexuality is deviant, in the face of the numerous natural examples of it?

And it isn't, you say? If there was somewhat of a 50:50 ratio, I probably would not have said that.
Indeed, the reproductive organs of the two sexes obviously speak for themselves, that the norm is, that a man and woman ought to have intimate relations with eachother, rather than their own sex. IF they feel an urge to do so, that means that there is something wrong with that person.
It is a deviation from what we perceive as the norm. No matter how much you tell people otherwise, they'll still view the heterosexual relation as normal, and other as abnormal. Obviously due to reasons that they actually result in reproduction, something that is vital for our survival.

Quote:Because everything that happens for a significant length of time is right, yeah?

Well, those that have changed, have changed already. But why is it that this one still remains? Do you really think it has nothing to do with what is actually the normal thing to do?
And I stress the word "normal". Homosexuality is something natural, but not everything that is natural is a good thing. For example, many gene defects that are not caused by external factors such as radiation or exposure to another mutagen are considered to be "natural" though they are for the most part, not normal. Similarly, homosexuality, another defect, is not normal, and therefore, not well received by the public.

(July 21, 2013 at 8:06 am)kılıç_mehmet Wrote: I really don't know how gays somehow contributed to the raising of children man. Since they generally distance themselves from the rest of their families, or do not really exist with that identity at all, I'd say that homosexuals contribute little to the raising of children. This is all nothing but bullcrap. Gays as nature's babysitters, yeah, makes a lot of sense.

"This is all nothing but bullcrap."

Wow.

You just showed me up.

No, not gays as nature's babysitters. Small bands of hunter-gatherer's. Members that gathered food. Instead of sitting around being a kid and being hungry as shit.

You are a pathetic excuse for your people.

Turkey deserves a better representative than you.

You do a disservice to your country.

"Since they generally distance themselves from the rest of their families, or do not really exist with that identity at all,"

What? I'd distance myself from any culture that just wanted to slaughter me for existing. You would too, you fuck.

I'm going to tell my buddy Broderick how "he distances himself from his family". He'll laugh his ass off. He lives with his mom.

I'm going to tell my female cousin Kari Lynn how "she distances herself from her family". Her and Petey will laugh their asses off in their mother's home, my aunt's home at the retard Turk's statement.

(July 21, 2013 at 10:03 am)kılıç_mehmet Wrote:

(July 21, 2013 at 9:56 am)Psykhronic Wrote:

You're so full of yourself, thinking that you disrespect and ridicule me with using a smiley, instead of a proper reply to points you disagree about.

.. or even a proper reply to points supported improperly.

(July 21, 2013 at 11:30 am)Rahul Wrote:

(July 21, 2013 at 8:06 am)kılıç_mehmet Wrote: I really don't know how gays somehow contributed to the raising of children man. Since they generally distance themselves from the rest of their families, or do not really exist with that identity at all, I'd say that homosexuals contribute little to the raising of children. This is all nothing but bullcrap. Gays as nature's babysitters, yeah, makes a lot of sense.

"This is all nothing but bullcrap."

Wow.

You just showed me up.

No, not gays as nature's babysitters. Small bands of hunter-gatherer's. Members that gathered food. Instead of sitting around being a kid and being hungry as shit.

You are a pathetic excuse for your people.

Turkey deserves a better representative than you.

You do a disservice to your country.

Yeah, hunter gatherhers. You people try too much sometimes. Like giving homosexuals some kind of a "natural purpose" which they obviously don't have, no matter what they do, their homosexuality contributes to nothing.

Besides, I really don't need your approval for being a representative of my country as you're not a citizen of my country to give me your approval, albeit, after going around and calling my people and my country names, do you expect anything better as to tell me that my country deserves better?
I'm really tired of your two-faced behavior.

(July 21, 2013 at 11:32 am)whateverist Wrote:

(July 21, 2013 at 10:03 am)kılıç_mehmet Wrote: You're so full of yourself, thinking that you disrespect and ridicule me with using a smiley, instead of a proper reply to points you disagree about.

.. or even a proper reply to points supported improperly.

I'm done with him, Whatevs. He's full of shit and there's nothing any of us are going to say that he can't "refute" with fallacious thinking.

(July 21, 2013 at 11:32 am)whateverist Wrote:

(July 21, 2013 at 10:03 am)kılıç_mehmet Wrote: You're so full of yourself, thinking that you disrespect and ridicule me with using a smiley, instead of a proper reply to points you disagree about.

.. or even a proper reply to points supported improperly.

Improper, please tell me how you think that they are improperly supported. From the beginning of the argument, I have had one support, and one support only. That marriage is an insitution that is regulated by traditions, and that marriage, from the beginning of its existence had one main goal, to provide a safe environment for a child to be concevied, and raised, with a legal/social obligation for both of the parties to look after the child. In short, I have stated that this was the primary goal of the marriage, to provide for the newer generations by bringing two people who are able to procreate together.

I yet have to see an argument that was more anymore proper than mine.
Others have gone about how marriage has changed, how it is a right for everyone, not it's not for everyone. In the old days, and yet still in our country, though you can legally marry, no one will marry you unless you have a proper job, have done your military duty, and many other factors such as how well off your family is, or how less problematic your family is, whether you smoke, drink and etc..
Back then, marriage was something that was regulated by higher standards than today.
Not everyone could marry. But today, marriage is like a game...Therefore you think that gays, who do not meet the least requirements to form a marital couple, meaning, being male and female should marry.
I disagree on the basis I've mentioned above. What really is your standing point?

(July 21, 2013 at 11:36 am)kılıç_mehmet Wrote: do you expect anything better as to tell me that my country deserves better?

Your country needs all the help it can get. I think I have some worn out Nike's in my closet. Let me toss that to you.

Happy birthday! Whoop!

(July 21, 2013 at 12:22 pm)Rahul Wrote:

(July 21, 2013 at 11:36 am)kılıç_mehmet Wrote: do you expect anything better as to tell me that my country deserves better?

Your country needs all the help it can get. I think I have some worn out Nike's in my closet. Let me toss that to you.

Happy birthday! Whoop!

Well, give those to the homeless people on your streets. Better yet to the poor indians in your concentration cam.. eh, reserves....

(July 21, 2013 at 12:02 pm)kılıç_mehmet Wrote:

(July 21, 2013 at 11:32 am)whateverist Wrote: .. or even a proper reply to points supported improperly.

Improper, please tell me how you think that they are improperly supported. From the beginning of the argument, I have had one support, and one support only. That marriage is an insitution that is regulated by traditions, and that marriage, from the beginning of its existence had one main goal, to provide a safe environment for a child to be concevied, and raised, with a legal/social obligation for both of the parties to look after the child. In short, I have stated that this was the primary goal of the marriage, to provide for the newer generations by bringing two people who are able to procreate together.

I yet have to see an argument that was more anymore proper than mine.
Others have gone about how marriage has changed, how it is a right for everyone, not it's not for everyone. In the old days, and yet still in our country, though you can legally marry, no one will marry you unless you have a proper job, have done your military duty, and many other factors such as how well off your family is, or how less problematic your family is, whether you smoke, drink and etc..
Back then, marriage was something that was regulated by higher standards than today.
Not everyone could marry. But today, marriage is like a game...Therefore you think that gays, who do not meet the least requirements to form a marital couple, meaning, being male and female should marry.
I disagree on the basis I've mentioned above. What really is your standing point?

Your starting point is that this is the way it has always been, which is actually something you can't possibly know. Leastwise you are in no better position to speak for what has always been or what is essential about what has always been than anyone else is in.

My starting point is that marriage is the way we establish our families beyond that into which we are born. Pair bonding is the nucleus for formalizing our 'inner circles' going forward at adulthood. (It may be that some folks will prefer a bigger starting unit than a pair but lets leave that to the side for now.) Some may even prefer to live in solitude and we -from both our points of view- do not begrudge them to exercise their preference in this, do we? For others, like my wife and myself, there is no desire to enlarge the inner circle beyond ourselves. We did not marry to provide conditions for raising a child. That was never our intention. I would like to know if you have any problem from your traditional outlook with our arrangement? Should people be allowed to enjoy a married status if our only rationale for joining is the satisfaction it gives us to make and share our lives together?

If your traditional view can allow for my wife's and my preference, I surely do not see why two people of the same sex choosing to get together to make and share their lives should matter so much. Some of them at least will want to adopt or pursue children with artificial assistance. My wife and I have intention of doing even that much. We're not worried that the world will run out of people without our contribution and we don't feel we need to have children for our own satisfaction either.

The reason I say your traditional position is improperly supported is that you can't use its being traditional to support the argument that tradition is better. You can use it to justify your own preference, but it gives you no basis to justify imposing your preference on anyone else.