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

[Gooders1002]

Such hypothetical cases could of course be visualized if I'd think hard enough, but empathy is a really hard thing to do in this case. Hmmm..what would I do if it was me who would not be able to marry. Well, if there was a case in which the homosexuals were a majority, there would not be anything that could be considered close to the definition of marriage.

Of course it was hypothetical but your missing the point, Gay people have every right to marry as well and the definition of marriage has changed over many 1000's of years.

Friend, I certainly would not remain for too long in a land like that. I'd sooner or later realize that it's destined to crumble in a very short time.
As I said, when you think "opposite" you realize that such a society cannot ever be put into use, and is therefore irrelevant when it comes to empathy.

What if that was the only land you could be in? and of course it would crumble but your missing the point I am trying to put you in a position to see the other side and how gay people see it. At least try and put your self in a gay persons shoes for a second. Heterosexual people have so many benefits over Homosexual people and I can list them if you like. And what is so wrong about letting gay people marry?
I tell you what if letting Gay people marry globally distorys the world as we know it (as in bring mass hysteria and Armageddon type destruction on a global scale) I will give you £1m (or $1,612,000 at the current exchange rate)or the equivalent amount.

[kılıç_mehmet]

Of course it was hypothetical but your missing the point, Gay people have every right to marry as well and the definition of marriage has changed over many 1000's of years.

No, the definition did not change. It's just like the left and right in politics.
For example, examine the leftist politics. The economical doctrines change, but the ideals behind it do not.
Similarly, marriage can go from a polygamic nature to a monogamic nature, or vice versa. But the core, still remains the same. It's between a man and a woman.

There is no definition of change to speak of, if the definition of marriage was depicted as being between a man and a woman on Egyptian hieroglyphs, or Hurrian cuneiform scripts, as it is now, today, in every part of the world.

What if that was the only land you could be in?

What if, what if. Really, such arguments are pointless, as such a society is only thinkable if and only if gays live in it.

I am trying to put you in a position to see the other side and how gay people see it.

Well, there is no other side to speak of. Gays are not able to marry due to the various reasons I've already listed. There are times when you just have to say no. Okay, society has allowed homosexuality to be accepted to a degree within society. They are not hunted down by the law no more, in most countries. And now they ask for further "rights".
These so-called rights infringe the future of society by hampering with it's fundamentals. I don't think that there is anything to say at all.

And what is so wrong about letting gay people marry?
I tell you what if letting Gay people marry globally distorys the world as we know it (as in bring mass hysteria and Armageddon type destruction on a global scale) I will give you £1m (or $1,612,000 at the current exchange rate)or the equivalent amount.

I don't need your money. Besides, I've already said all what I could say on this subject. Besides, there will be no gay people marrying globally type of thing. At least not here on the lands of Turan.

[Gooders1002]

Never say never, example: the Titanic would never sink or Woman would never vote, or there would never be interracial marriage.
This "rights" include:
- Inheretence.
- Social Security coverage.
- The right to be covered under a partner's insurance.
- The right to refuse to testify against their partner in court.
- The right to be informed of their partner's medical condition .
- The right to speak for their partner in deciding treatment in medical emergency if their partner cannot speak for themselves.
- The right to even visit their partner in a hospital
- The right to automatically speak for a partner's children.
- The right to file joint tax returns.
- The right to stay in the country if one partner is not a citizen.
- The right to adopt.
- The right to live together in a nursing home.
- The right to not be force out of a house if there partner is take taken to a nursing home to cover high nursing home fees.
- The right to roll over a deceased partners 401(K) with out having to withdraw everything, pay taxes on it and not loss the tax deferral befits.
And that's just 14 of the 1049 rights that Gay couple can not access with out marriage, do you really want them to be denind these fundamental rights? because clearly you do. And I think its sick.

[Reforged]

Well, those are politicians. Countries are above politicians.
Even with those people dead, the country and it's people are still there.

And there will always be other corrupt asshats to take their places claiming they have the peoples interests at heart.

Well, neither do we, but I think I speak for the majority of the lands of Turan when I say that we care deeply about public decency, and would like such acts to remain where they are. Behind curtains, where they belong.
And we do not want people that define themselves on their performing of these acts (i.e. the gay community) to publicize themselves and flaunt public decency.

Ok, not sure how marriage works over there but over here its not a free licence to screw in public. I say this because that must be how you think it works based on your comments about "flaunting" and "public decency". So, with this in mind; whos it really hurting?

I think you should, if there certainly is such a demand.

Again, who is it really hurting?

If this is such a big issue, maybe you should take it to a public referandum. How about that. Democracy at it's finest.

Let me explain how government works. Politicans want our votes, if an issue is considered controversial or important they avoid it so they don't lose votes. We give them money for this service. Thats it. There have been many marches, this alone shows the want.

Traditions and customs are on which societies are built upon. And as I said, marrige is a privilage, not a "right". It's a privilage for people who can actually create a normal family that are in accordance with customs and traditions.
It doesn't really matter if what they do is wrong. Obviously, people who engage in incestious relationships believe that they have done nothing wrong. I guess you should grant them the same acceptance as the gays.

Don't compare them to incest, thats just insulting. Those types of relationships can create genetic defects in offspring, also fucking your own sister just isn't nice considering you come from the same family. The traditions and customs your country pursues and unwillingness to break with them has left your country in an "interesting" position. I, personally, don't intend to get married when I find the woman I love. I find it a strange concept as it turns an otherwise harmless and fufilling relationship that could last a lifetime into a legally binding shackle. The adventure and excitement must fade very quickly. Why am I still allowed the right when there are countless people out there who want it, who fight for it but are denied it?

I believe that the excess you swim in has driven you to look for things that are rather trivial in today's world. But the harsh necessities of life will one day, hit you hard, if you continue at this pace, destroying the pillars that keep your society up one by one.
Marriage, and the institution of family, one of them.

Oh right? Talk me through how this would happen.

Yes, but you obviously have not read my post, and you have no real historical knowledge on why such a law was enacted. Besides, I've already said that drinking coffee was not the offense, going to coffee houses was the crime.

Your madness is there, out in the open. You're just trying to inflict us with the same madness, that's all.

To be fair, I'm not the most informed on Turkish history I could be but enough to know its extremely bloody and certainly not the guiding light of the world.
Ok, let me rephrase that. You guys *killed* people for staying in coffee houses... and you're "the sane ones".
Also, found an interesting Turkish law:
"All drivers must carry a hygienic body bag suitable for carrying a body up to 18st 12lbs (120 kilos). Failure to do so will result in a fine and possible a 6 month jail sentence."
... wtf.

Oh and lets not forget a history of censorship.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Turkey

Its not even as though your countries intolerance extends only toward gays:
http://undhimmi.com/2011/06/13/turkish-c...tolerance/

And you are going to sit there with a straight face and tell us we should be more like your country? Is that whats going on here? You want to hear what our "insanity" gives us? A country that has working plumbing and tap water thats sanitary enough to *drink.* You really want to argue whos behind here? Really?

[LastPoet]

OH NOES! RD, you dared speak ill of Turkey, the future great realm of Turan™.

How dared you

[kılıç_mehmet]

or there would never be interracial marriage.

In America? Yeah, they once strived to protect this illusion of "whiteness" of theirs once upon a time. And blacks have tried to protect, perhaps their blackness.
Who knows, really. In my mind, there is no such a thing. I can't really think of getting married of a person of another race. Things would be just too complicated.

This "rights" include

I am against gays having anything to do with children, so scrap that one too.
The rest can be handled through various means.

And there will always be other corrupt asshats to take their places claiming they have the peoples interests at heart.

Well, with the current system of demoncracy, yes.
Democracy just fuels corruption. It's not the fault of the nation or the country.

Ok, not sure how marriage works over there but over here its not a free licence to screw in public. I say this because that must be how you think it works based on your comments about "flaunting" and "public decency". So, with this in mind; whos it really hurting?

You don't need a free license to screw in public. However, they can certainly do so if they think that they have received enough public acceptance to bring their homosexual identities, the identity by which they seem to self-identify before everything else, to each and every part of society.
Of course, "they're not hurting anyone", as you said. But as I also said, if I went and laid a sheet of newspaper in front of your door, took a dump on there, and later on disposed of it in the trash bin, have I not "hurt" you?
Have I not flaunted public decency? Even if my private parts did not show for the slightest bit, I've done something grotesque. Similarly, homosexuals, although they do not perhaps have sex out in the open(I assume that you're an opponent of public nudity), are *there*. They are there as homosexuals. Not as anyone else. When I look at that person, I see his homosexuality, because that is what he wants me to do. And he wants me to accept his presence as the homosexual in every parts of society. That, I cannot abide.

Let me explain how government works. Politicans want our votes, if an issue is considered controversial or important they avoid it so they don't lose votes. We give them money for this service. Thats it. There have been many marches, this alone shows the want.

Good for them. If I were a politician I'd take a staunchc opposition to this, however, would try to negotiate with the homosexual communities to find a middle path. Obviously, your politicians reflect your stubbornness.
Besides, those are how elections work. You cannot comprehend how a government works, let alone the ones who claim to rule it cannot comprehend it.
It's because they do not. They make laws, perhaps, or determine budgets, but it is the people of the country that make the government running even if they want it to stop.

Don't compare them to incest, thats just insulting.

Oh? Why? Are you suggesting that incest is a wrong form of conduct?
Oh come on, I thought you were a bit more freethinking than that!

Those types of relationships can create genetic defects in offspring,

Let's say that all have their tubes tied, how about that? Let's say that they also want things like adoption, or surrogacy to have children to look after.
No offspring from the original mothers and fathers. Besides, you've been babbling to me about marriage being just about love, and not having children and etc and etc. Now why can't you say the same about incest?
In my viewpoint, it's simply the same.
My views on homosexuality and incestious relationships are same.
It's just incest can also include homosexual or heterosexual relationships, so it also comes down to where you stand.

also fucking your own sister just isn't nice considering you come from the same family.

And it's nice to fuck or be fucked by your fellow male?
And are incestious relationships not abundant in nature aswell(more so than homosexuality ever could)?
That would instantly make them normal. Or it should.

The traditions and customs your country pursues and unwillingness to break with them has left your country in an "interesting" position. I, personally, don't intend to get married when I find the woman I love

Well, that is why I said that the institution of marriage is crumbling in the west. It's fine for me, if you choose not to get married. I guess you just don't want to go under the burden of marrige, but I'm not certain how she will treat this decision of yours.
And why would I break with my traditions of customs?
These are things by which I define myself.
Just like homosexuals define themselves by their homosexuality.

I find it a strange concept as it turns an otherwise harmless and fufilling relationship that could last a lifetime into a legally binding shackle.

When enough people like you begin to think so, your society will have entered a point of no return. The concept of family will be destroyed, and soon, anything else. I believe that this selfish position you maintained in this thread is something that will change in the future. You will get married, have kids and contribute to future generations by looking after these kids. These legally binding shackles will be a driving force behind it.
But you could also choose the easy path, and die alone with no one to look after you, strong independent person.

The adventure and excitement must fade very quickly. Why am I still allowed the right when there are countless people out there who want it, who fight for it but are denied it?

They don't fight for it because they want it so much. They fight for it to normalize their condition. They are denied this privilage because this privilage was never meant for them to begin with. It was meant for a man and a woman. I've maintained this position from the start.
It's underlying reasons are simple.
Homosexuals do serve only to complicate things further than they should.

Oh right? Talk me through how this would happen.

With the dilution of marriage through people who just do not want to bear the burden of having a stable life, or are completely at odds with it's most fundamental concepts, have already started this erosion. Fewer and fewer couples now go the path of marriage, and even more are divorcing at the first sight of any unrest.
And they use this to maintain that gays are the supposed saviors of marriage because they want it so much. They want it so much due to the aformentioned reasons. Their love to eachother has very little to do with it.

To be fair, I'm not the most informed on Turkish history I could be but enough to know its extremely bloody and certainly not the guiding light of the world.

Yes, we are known to have clashed with several civilisations on many occasions. Guiding light of the world? Obviously, the circumstances are also not the same.

Ok, let me rephrase that. You guys *killed* people for staying in coffee houses... and you're "the sane ones".

By you guys, you mean us, killing ourselves. Because the people who went to coffee houses, and the ones performing the executions were still the same people. It's ridiculous to claim such a thing. And with your meagre knowledge of Turkish history, I guess you can't tell me during whose reign it happened for how long.

And with the same insanity, you've witnessed the beheadings of your own queens, simply because they were not able to bear children. In our society, such a thing would be unthinkable to slay a woman over that.

"All drivers must carry a hygienic body bag suitable for carrying a body up to 18st 12lbs (120 kilos). Failure to do so will result in a fine and possible a 6 month jail sentence."
... wtf.

And? I guess if we're going down that highway, I could dig up a few stupid laws that are never enforced in England. Certainly, this law is nothing we've ever heard of.
Meaning, it's there, but never enforced. Why you come up to me with these things, I can't really comprehend.

Oh and lets not forget a history of censorship.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Turkey

Its not even as though your countries intolerance extends only toward gays:
http://undhimmi.com/2011/06/13/turkish-c...tolerance/

And? Censorship is first and foremost applied to us, the people who value the Turkish nation. But relaxed for your common homosexual-supporting leftist, liberal and etc. Things that you should like, as we're not able to "spout hate speech anymore". If you're through with your ad hominem, I'd like to go back to our original point of discussion.

And you are going to sit there with a straight face and tell us we should be more like your country?

I think you could follow the example of our country by actually looking at the problems that are relevant to society. Obviously, homosexuals are the least relevant of anyone's problems in Turkey. That is no one really thinks of them too much unless they become too much of a thorn in anyones eye to be noticed as one.

You want to hear what our "insanity" gives us? A country that has working plumbing and tap water thats sanitary enough to *drink.*

And you maintain that we don't have that, having toured the lot of our country to look for remote kurdish villages which lack such systems, not due to our lack of efforts though.

You really want to argue whos behind here? Really?

Are you through with your ad hominem and tu quoque? Not that it held much truth within it, but it was a nice waste of time replying to questions irrelevant to our topic. If you want to direct your wrath towards my country with further questions, you can do so in another thread, I'd be more happy to answer. Obviously, there is no shame in ignorance. There is shame in willfully remaining ignorant, though.

[Reforged]

Tell you what, lets put it to a vote here today. Who here thinks that our "crumbling countries" should save themselves by penalizing gays and shifting our policies to be more like that magical land where dreams come true; Turkey.

Don't be shy now. Remember, if gays are allowed to marry civilization will cease to be!!!
I mean... I'm not sure where hes getting examples of this happening from but anyway, choose wisely. :-)

[kılıç_mehmet]

vTell you what, lets put it to a vote here today. Who here thinks that our "crumbling countries" should save themselves by penalizing gays and shifting our policies to be more like that magical land where dreams come true; Turkey.

Well, there is no "penalizing" the gays here. If they, like had the rights and privilages to marriage, and you'd take them away all of a sudden, that could be seen as "penalizing" the gays, or anyone else for that matter of fact.
But not granting them a privilage they never had...A privilage which never had any relevence to them.

Besides, I never said Turkey was a magical land. In Turkey, gay marriage is not a topic of discussion, it never was and never will be. Tis' just in accordance with our good customs, culture and traditions.
Even transvestites in Turkey comply with these.

Don't be shy now. Remember, if gays are allowed to marry civilization will cease to be!!!

You're distorting my words.
But giving gays this privilage means giving others a similar privilage, all the while discrediting the people to whom this privilage was originally aimed at.
When this happens, the institution slowly crumbles. So does society.

I mean... I'm not sure where hes getting examples of this happening from but anyway, choose wisely. :-)

Well, the fact that no society has incorporated anyone but a man and a woman in a marriage should actually speak for itself.

[Gooders1002]

Mehmet, why are you against gay people having anything to do with children? Homosexual are no more likely to be paedophiles the heterosexuals and Gay people raise healthy happy children that are normal and are no more likely to be gay then if they had straight parents. the only possable difference it that there more excepting of other people.

[Reforged]

Oh please, the intolerence is plain to see. You honestly want to tell me if a man is found to be gay hes treated with respect like everyone else?
Bull and you know it.
In what sense am I distorting your words? You said it would cause the "pillars of society" to crumble.
How long till you admit that you can't stand the thought of man on man action so much that you can't allow anyone who pursues that life to be treated with the same basic dignity. That you have to accuse them of eroding the fabric of our society and ensure they never get the same respect as us. They're a skapegoat, a controversial issue dredged up and denied time and time again so morons don't turn their attentions to the issues that *could* destroy our countries because they're so preoccupied with where their cocks are going. Its about time we gave them the same basic rights so we can stop acting like children when it comes to peoples sexuality and focus on adult matters.