(November 14, 2013 at 10:35 am)Searching4truth Wrote: kılıç_mehmet=asshole

Above statement=useless

I would kindly request that you avoid making useless insult-only posts in the future. Or at least, if you have to do it: do it with style.

---

(November 14, 2013 at 11:13 am)Faith No More Wrote: Of course I chose the path of vulgarity. I'm a vulgar person, even by non-archaic, Turkish standards. I don't have foolish hangups that attempt to preserve my ego-fueled, sanctimonious facade. I chose to edit it out because it was another direct attack on you that wouldn't look good with our new rules we implemented. You know, lead by example and all that.

If you think there is a prize to be won by arguing over the internet, I'd suggest re-examining your priorities.

See... this is why yall need me on the staff I *never* need to make a 'direct attack that wouldn't look good with the new rulez'... 'cause no matter what, if I'm attacking someone: it'll be the sex

I've found there rather is a prize for it. Not all prizes are material, cappa

Your kindness is appreciated but that means nothing to me.... It was directed at someone who expressed his opinion and I expressed mine to him.

(November 14, 2013 at 11:18 am)Searching4truth Wrote: Crybaby? Lol. Says the one offended by equality. How you concluded that I am a crybaby from two words is beyond me but I guess I gotta consider who I'm talking to

Come now, don't be disappointing me. So like, now I'm curious as to whether you've got it in you, so:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5kisPBwZOM

---

(November 14, 2013 at 3:17 pm)Searching4truth Wrote: Your kindness is appreciated but that means nothing to me.... It was directed at someone who expressed his opinion and I expressed mine to him.

You wouldn't like my non-kindness, dearie I wouldn't expect my opinion to be valued and recognized if I walked up to a group of people who don't know me and I shouted "YOU'RE AN ASSHOLE!" all obnoxious-like in their faces.

I'd expect the group to laugh me off, express their concern for my well-being, and possibly look at me like I'm quite the retard. Especially this last scenario if I should then sit with them and hold myself as though I commanded a certain modicum of respect

---

(November 14, 2013 at 11:18 am)Doubting Thomas Wrote: The very simple fact is that NOBODY has or ever will be able to show how heterosexual marriage is harmed in any way, shape, or form by allowing gay people to get married as well. And like I pointed out, if you keep banning gay marriage it's not going to force gay people back into the closet, so why be a dickhead and continue to refuse them the legal benefits of marriage?

We could always threaten them with the death penalty again That usually elicits a response. Which is great, because it makes defenders of homosexual just that much easier to find, and hopefully: off

I mean, sure... they'll be all sorts of secretive and careful to not be caught (or they'll die)... but it should hammer home the message, eh?

---

(November 14, 2013 at 12:16 pm)kılıç_mehmet Wrote: I think when speaking of illusion, I think one must consider the illusions that you think are reality. Like, "equality" when it comes to marriage. Let it be known, that such an equality will not even be there even if you make it legal. First and foremost of all, legitimate children will never be the fruits of that union. Second, they will never have the same social acceptance, nor the social responsibility of heterosexual couples, precisely because they lack tradition to back it up.
They will never be part of the family institution even if you want them to.
So what equality are we talking about? The only equality you know is not on earth, but in the fringe of your minds, they are illusions, and have no valid examples on earth.

Can you imagine our technology in even 100 years? I sure can't. So... I'm personally not comfortable using any of those 'never' statements. Especially the social-acceptance one XD

---

(November 14, 2013 at 2:55 pm)Ryantology Wrote: Yeah, whatever. Listen, Hitler Jr, acting like a butt pimple on the internet is great and all, but we're actually making things change and you're actually not stopping it.

Jesus holy tittyfucking-Christ. Ryan! Staph! PLZ! Plz staph!

For serious.

---

(November 14, 2013 at 3:11 pm)Ryantology Wrote: He self-identifies as a fascist nationalist; I'm only obliging.

Because there aren't hundreds of examples of all political factions ever being absolutely despicable human beings? Or even just normally flawed human beings?

Quote:Discussion forum? Debate? Differing opinions?

Bleh, whatever. Tongue

I wasn't even taking away anyone's rights away. That is outside of my jurisdiction.

Quote:Well, really... it's between a man and woman of royal (or otherwise noble) blood. All these commonfolk getting married and shit is an affront to the institution of marriage. Why they even want to get married is just... beyond me. I mean, if you're going to attach some sort of religious significance to a union or partnership: why the hell is a secular state using it for legal matters?

Marriage is not an institution that can be defended, or attacked by the use of such examples. Marriage has an innate purpose, something that is bound by tradition, and something that is bound by the natural mechanics of procreation. Since homosexuals are unable to fit into any of the said categories, they are in truth, quite irrelevant.
Its not as though as the "heterosexual nobles" oppressing the "homosexual peasants".

Also as for your second point, it isn't about attaching a religious significance to your union. In my country, all marriages are secular unions, and they are done by civil servants, not by clergymen.
It isn't about attaching a religious undertone, its about giving your union a social acceptance, a social significance, something that binds people other than the personal bonds they share with another.
Besides, the marriage is not validated by the church, the church actually uses the power given to it by the state, not otherwise.
In todays world, the marital services provided by churches serve a strictly traditional role. Here, the traditional role has been stripped off of its power by the state, it is only done if someone really wants it to have a religious undertone, but is otherwise valid when done without it(also from a religious sense).

Quote:Marriage utterly removed from any and all legal benefits, I say. Give the benefits now-associated with that shit to a superior legal license.

Could be done, though these are all things that are related to matters of law and property. They ought to be discussed under a different context.

Quote:Only the ignorant argue FOR their ignorance, lol. By 'you people' I guess you mean non-believers? Well, Mr. morality, you put yourself here prepared to argue your position, so don't cop out and switch this on me, getting all huffy when you're challenged. Remember how the bible condones slavery, rape, abortion, thievery and suppression of the rights of women? If you do any of those things now, besides being an immoral piece of shit, you go to jail. In the future, marriage equality will be totally like that. but you don't see that cause you cling to your ancient writings of hypocrisy and masochism

No, I don't mean non-believers, I mean people of your ideology. Liberal humanism, cosmopolitanism or whatever you call yourself these days.
And how you brought in the bible is beyond me. Did you see me quote any verses from the bible? I'm not even Christian, nor come from a Christian family.

Quote:He self-identifies as a fascist nationalist; I'm only obliging.

This is due to your lack of knowledge of nationalistic movements around the globe. I do not adhere to the same ideology as Hitler, nor as Il Duce.
I adhere to a specific brand of nationalism, Turkish nationalism, and the importance lies in its Turkish character. Something neither Hitler nor Mussolini do possess.

Quote:I would kindly request that you avoid making useless insult-only posts in the future. Or at least, if you have to do it: do it with style.

No no, its alright. One must be ready to take insults. As a Turkish saying goes, "He who goes to the hamam, sweats."

Quote:Can you imagine our technology in even 100 years? I sure can't. So... I'm personally not comfortable using any of those 'never' statements. Especially the social-acceptance one XD

Well, this isn't something that is going to change unless people find a way to make people reproduce asexually. Because therein lies the meaning and purpose of marriage my friend. I think that marriage is the way that the union of two people is connected to social progress. By creating the basis of the family, the family that we know, the family that is created from the mechanics of natural procreation.

I say this because 100 years before, marriage wasn't any different in its purpose, and it won't be different in its purpose 100 years later on, as it is in fact an institution that is strongly tied to tradition. You cannot seperate tradition from marriage. You cannot create a seperate form of marriage that is disattached from tradition.
But what goes on here is that people try to do this, not with the consent or on the request of the relevant people, but on the request of marginals.

Quote:Jesus holy tittyfucking-Christ. Ryan! Staph! PLZ! Plz staph!

For serious.

As I said before, stopping people is out of my jurisdiction, I alone account for no man but myself, and I certainly cannot account for anyone in the states, but what we're discussing here are concepts and ideas.

Violet
Kay. Your attacks are pretty juvenile and militantly hypocritical. I'm not here to join in all these petty little side arguments, especially one with a child. Talk about a prime example of the pot calling the kettle black, sheesh. lol

---

kılıç_mehmet
oh my bad for assuming you're a xtian. I guess you're just into suppressing rights of people that don't apply to you

[quote='Searching4truth' pid='543297' dateline='1384460149']
Kay. Your attacks are pretty juvenile and militantly hypocritical. I'm not here to join in all these petty little side arguments, especially one with a child. Talk about a prime example of the pot calling the kettle black, sheesh. lol

---

[quote='kılıç_mehmet' pid='543286' dateline='1384459288']
[quote]
oh my bad for assuming you're a xtian. I guess you're just into suppressing rights of people that don't apply to you
[/quote]
That's because you are acting on certain patterns you have readied in your head for anyone who thinks different than you. If you're against gay marriage, you must be a Christian fundamentalist, oh no. You need to broaden your horizons my friend.

I don't care what you are. If you're against gay marriage, you're just a prick.

Love is love.

(November 14, 2013 at 3:20 pm)Violet Lilly Blossom Wrote: Because there aren't hundreds of examples of all political factions ever being absolutely despicable human beings? Or even just normally flawed human beings?

There aren't really a great deal of examples of fascist political factions ever not being absolutely despicable human beings.

(November 14, 2013 at 4:01 pm)kılıç_mehmet Wrote: I wasn't even taking away anyone's rights away. That is outside of my jurisdiction.

Yeah, I just don't 'get' people, sometimes

Quote:Marriage is not an institution that can be defended, or attacked by the use of such examples. Marriage has an innate purpose, something that is bound by tradition, and something that is bound by the natural mechanics of procreation. Since homosexuals are unable to fit into any of the said categories, they are in truth, quite irrelevant.
Its not as though as the "heterosexual nobles" oppressing the "homosexual peasants".

The goal of marriage is not for procreation... but for increasing the chance that progeny will survive (in a natural, completely non-law applicable setting). In a similar manner are many religious and legal constructs devised... at the root of it all is not 'marriage according to procreation': it is marriage for the protection of prior procreation.

In enacting protection of procreation, homosexuality and heterosexuality are utterly irrelevant.

[quote\Also as for your second point, it isn't about attaching a religious significance to your union. In my country, all marriages are secular unions, and they are done by civil servants, not by clergymen.
It isn't about attaching a religious undertone, its about giving your union a social acceptance, a social significance, something that binds people other than the personal bonds they share with another.
Besides, the marriage is not validated by the church, the church actually uses the power given to it by the state, not otherwise.
In todays world, the marital services provided by churches serve a strictly traditional role. Here, the traditional role has been stripped off of its power by the state, it is only done if someone really wants it to have a religious undertone, but is otherwise valid when done without it(also from a religious sense).[/quote]

I'm speaking of it from the common american perspective (which is that marriage is, infact, a holy union). Different countries do things differently... you certainly have the option of a 'secular marriage' in the united states. However, even these unions remain quite affected by the religious shenanigans behind them... and the places most against homosexual marriage's legality also happen to be the most religious states (of this particular Union).

From this, (and many other examples I'm willing to highlight, should you press me for them) it can be inferred that the people most against homosexual marriage are against it for a religious reason

This nation was 'founded' by rather nonsecular protestants eager to avoid persecution in the practice of their religion. We're indeed quite lucky that the 'freedom of speech' and religious practice is among the foremost laws enacted by those who formed 'the constitution' of the United States... else this likely would long have been a theocratic state.

Quote:Could be done, though these are all things that are related to matters of law and property. They ought to be discussed under a different context.

Probably. All the more reason to remove any and all religious aspects from it

Quote:No no, its alright. One must be ready to take insults. As a Turkish saying goes, "He who goes to the hamam, sweats."

True... but one should also naturally expect that the insults they take be *worthy* of their response.

Quote:Well, this isn't something that is going to change unless people find a way to make people reproduce asexually. Because therein lies the meaning and purpose of marriage my friend. I think that marriage is the way that the union of two people is connected to social progress. By creating the basis of the family, the family that we know, the family that is created from the mechanics of natural procreation.

I certainly don't claim to know the creative methods by which impossible tasks today could be made possible tomorrow. I rather subscribe to a more psychological approach to 'family', where blood really only affects who you should or should not breed with. Ultimately, we probably all come from similar lineage, and humanity is a 'couple of really big families'... I find that friends can be so close as to become a part of your family (an easily notable example would be 'marriage', but such ceremony is but ceremony, and the reality is with or without the ceremony).

I'm but marginally different in my approach: I just expand that closeness to include any man who I would call brother, and any woman who I would call sister.

Quote:I say this because 100 years before, marriage wasn't any different in its purpose, and it won't be different in its purpose 100 years later on, as it is in fact an institution that is strongly tied to tradition. You cannot seperate tradition from marriage. You cannot create a seperate form of marriage that is disattached from tradition.
But what goes on here is that people try to do this, not with the consent or on the request of the relevant people, but on the request of marginals.

The denial of marriage (itself) to serf classes in the middle ages stands out like a sore thumb, I'd say. Sure, often peasants might perform similar ritualistic behavior... but plenty of them just slept together and called it good

Again, the 'tradition' of marriage is for the protection of offspring... and nothing else. I happen to find a 'marriage' between three people (or more) to be a far superior construct... but one that would require at least 3 offspring brought to success (harder to do than 2, back in the day when the average age of human mortality was... 5).

Processes have to adapt with the times. Today, it wouldn't be a poor idea to have a *negative* reproduction rate over the course of a population. A thousand years ago, and that same rate would leave a population extinct.

Quote:As I said before, stopping people is out of my jurisdiction, I alone account for no man but myself, and I certainly cannot account for anyone in the states, but what we're discussing here are concepts and ideas.

Not you I just have to laugh at people repeatedly doing retarded things. Why respond at all if your only response is to spam 'your mom!' comments, or 'X person is HITLER!'

(November 14, 2013 at 5:04 pm)Ryantology Wrote: There aren't really a great deal of examples of fascist political factions ever not being absolutely despicable human beings.

That's why the saying "Absolute power corrupts absolutely" came from.