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

[Tiberius]

@mehmet: My problem with your argument is the use of the word "privilege". The government did not invent marriage; why should they invoke any right to give it out as a "privilege"?

[kılıç_mehmet]

..
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.

Of course, I do not tolerate everything, just as you do not tolerate everything. Obviously, you too have standards on what you do tolerate and what you don't. I respect gays as long as they respect me. No one can come up to me, and just demand respect. They have to earn it. But that respect too, has a limit. If I believe that my own, or the boundaries of the people are being crossed, I see this as a sign of disrespect, and there, I will respectfully refuse them their demands.

In what sense am I distorting your words? You said it would cause the "pillars of society" to crumble.

You spoke of it as it was the only thing contributing to it. Thankfully, it isn't a prime contributor yet. But who knows what really the future holds. You aim for a society where no distinction between the homosexual and straight person exists. But this is a distinction that was laid down thousands of years ago, and has not changed yet in the minds of many.
It can't, because it contradicts our nature. We need certain norms. Breaking these norms will destroy everything that is tied to it. Marriage, and family, two very important institutions, with which society cannot survive.

How long till you admit that you can't stand the thought of man on man action so much

And I guess you are able to do that, eh? Why aren't you homosexual yet?
Besides, as I said such things are irrelevant.
I also cannot stand the thought of siblings having sex with eachother.
Neither can you. But obviously homosexuals are just at a different place in your mind, even though both are doing what you always told me that they were doing. Hurting no one. Why don't they deserve to be treated as "normals" in society, and practice their ways openly?

you can't allow anyone who pursues that life to be treated with the same basic dignity.

I personally do not determine the dignitiy of a person by their sexual orientation. But obviously, the fact that they enjoy man-man action is supposed to be their criteria for determining how dignified they are before society!
They request dignity from others due to the fact that they are homosexuals. That is not really my concern.

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.

As I said, they are a political issue in your own country perhaps. Maybe you are just lacking in ideals, problems, or both, that your politicians have turned to harvesting votes using things that should not be even a point of discussion.
Besides, I believe that the west will eventually destroy itself, from within.
This high level of cosmopolitan thought that leaves no place for public ideals, traditions, customs will simply get people not to care too much about what happens to their society, as long as their pockets are full.
That's what it's all about though.

Its about time we gave them the same basic rights

Well, you do that.

we can stop acting like children when it comes to peoples sexuality and focus on adult matters.

And I believe that homosexuals act like adults when they really think that their marriage will really constitute a "marriage" and just because they can adopt kids they will constitute real parents?
Don't make me laugh.
It's like a child, creating a makeshift cart from materials and thinking that it will run like a ferrari.
I believe that the actual childlike mind of homosexuals, and their supporters just do not want to hear the brutal truths about society and what constitutes marrige and family.
As I said, tis' not about rights.

---

@mehmet: My problem with your argument is the use of the word "privilege". The government did not invent marriage; why should they invoke any right to give it out as a "privilege"?

The government is the legal standing point of marriage. It doesn't really matter if they invented marriage or not. But marriage was there, ever since antiquity, a privilage granted to the parties by society and any form of government that recognized their union. It was a privilage given to men and women who wished to live together and raise a family, to legally and socially bind them, with more than just "love".
If they do not invoke this, they could just outlaw it. What good would that do for you? Could you still get married? Of course not, it has no legal standpoint.

[Gooders1002]

[quote]we can stop acting like children when it comes to peoples sexuality and focus on adult matters.

And I believe that homosexuals act like adults when they really think that their marriage will really constitute a "marriage" and just because they can adopt kids they will constitute real parents?
Don't make me laugh.
It's like a child, creating a makeshift cart from materials and thinking that it will run like a ferrari.
I believe that the actual childlike mind of homosexuals, and their supporters just do not want to hear the brutal truths about society and what constitutes marrige and family.
As I said, tis' not about rights.

I am normally not offended by much, but that my friend to be frank is the most insulting thing I have heard from anybody. BTW That are many different types of familys and the one man, one woman bullshit has only been around for the last 100-200 years or so and still in not every country.

[Reforged]

I enjoy spending my time with women, thats just how I'm wired. That doesn't define the essence of my being and you shouldn't assume anyones sexuality defines the essence of theirs.
As for the "childlike" mindset of homosexuals, take a look in a mirror. Anyone whos willing to judge an entire section of society based on who they fall in love with doesn't even measure up to "childlike", most children could tell you thats not how you judge the value of a person. Most children could tell you its an individuals actions and deeds thats make them the person they are, not their sexuality. This is demonstrated by abusive hetrosexual parents, according to you they're wired correctly but have still failed to take proper care of their child. In my humble opinion, a morale homosexual father who teaches and nurtures his son when compared to a immorale hetrosexual father beating and berating his is more worthy of the privledge that is parenthood regardless of eithers sexuality.
I know you will disagree with this, it is deeply ingrained in you and will have been from birth that someone who is not of the mainstream sexuality is in someway sub-human and destructive to the fabric of your society.
We have no common ground on this subject, this exchange is over.

[kılıç_mehmet]

And I believe that homosexuals act like adults when they really think that their marriage will really constitute a "marriage" and just because they can adopt kids they will constitute real parents?
Don't make me laugh.
It's like a child, creating a makeshift cart from materials and thinking that it will run like a ferrari.
I believe that the actual childlike mind of homosexuals, and their supporters just do not want to hear the brutal truths about society and what constitutes marrige and family.
As I said, tis' not about rights.

I am normally not offended by much, but that my friend to be frank is the most insulting thing I have heard from anybody. BTW That are many different types of familys and the one man, one woman bullshit has only been around for the last 100-200 years or so and still in not every country.

Insulting? If they had the mind of an adult, they would know a futile and much unnecessary enterprise when they aw it.
There are many different types of a concept called "family". But in ideal, they all remain the same. Even families with just a single parent, that single parent generally looks out to fill in the gap with a spouse. Of course, there might be exceptions to this, but exceptions do not change the general picture of things.

The "one woman bullshit", as you call it, is, in my opinion, another pinnacle of human social evolution. Complete equality between man and woman can only be archived by monogamy. Still, polygamy also does not contradict the fact that marriage was supposed to be between a man and a woman, and families do require at least one husband and one wife as the default definition of a family.

Anything else is simply a deviation from the default form and should not be encouraged.

[Gooders1002]

there is no default form only an artificial form that it man made, for most of the tie human have been fucking everybody else, in fact in more ancient pre abrahamic cultures like Roman it was seen a weird for a person not to have a lover from both genders.
I think you need to read up a bit of history. And say homosexuals have childlike minds is the most unintelligent, ignorant homophobic thing you can say, if it was not for Alan Turing (who was gay) you could not write this bullshit on the computer or everything Leonardo Da Vinci created and you still say Gay people have childlike minds.
The one one on here who has a child like mind is you and your inability to see the really world that that gay people have every right as heterosexuals and the only fuckingdifference between heterosexuals and homosexuals is who they sleep with at night, gay people can do the job of straight people just as good.

[kılıç_mehmet]

I enjoy spending my time with women,

So do many homosexuals, I guess.

That doesn't define the essence of my being

It doesn't? It does, actually. You're doing the bidding of the body with which you were born. It requires you to like women. You are not a deviant from the default type, the "normal" type.

you shouldn't assume anyones sexuality defines the essence of theirs.

I do not assume things. The homosexuals want to be known as "homosexuals" and have built their communities on that identity. I never built my identity upon my sexual orientation, or even my gender association.

They define themselves by their sexuality, not I.
Same goes for any other sexual minority.
Weird people, the lot.

Anyone whos willing to judge an entire section of society based on who they fall in love with doesn't even measure up to "childlike", most children could tell you thats not how you judge the value of a person.

It's not about love. It never was about law. As you said it in your previous post, they want their sexuality(practices included) to be recognized by the society, not their love or whatsoever.
I judge people according to which criteria they want to be judged.
They want to be judged according to their sexuality.
I oblige them.
But how I judge the "value" of a person is quite a lot more complex than that.
But I could tell you this that a homosexual would incur no penalties on my part if I would see respect for social conduct on his part.

Most children could tell you its an individuals actions and deeds thats make them the person they are, not their sexuality.

That is because children are generally happily ignorant about the current state of affairs.
The homosexuals, mind, I speak of them as homosexuals, I don't refer to them by their religion, race, or tribal association, which should actually give you a hint on how the slightest deviation from the sexual norm can actually shift the identity of a person. They also accept this, and refer to themselves as such.

This is demonstrated by abusive hetrosexual parents, according to you they're wired correctly but have still failed to take proper care of their child

Ah yes, they're wired correctly. And they have brought forth a child, because of it. Failing to take "proper care" of the child is not really sign of whether you are wired correctly or incorrectly, it is a sign of how mature you are. If you enter an unplanned pregnancy, with economic hardships and fears of having to take care of an unwanted child while you're so young, or just not ready, are all psychological factors affecting these.
In a planned pregnancy within a marriage, things generally go pretty well.
Me, for example.

In my humble opinion, a morale homosexual father who teaches and nurtures his son when compared to a immorale hetrosexual father beating and berating his is more worthy of the privledge that is parenthood regardless of eithers sexuality.

Well, still, no. A child that grows up in an environment that involves two homosexuals will grow up with confusion. Even the worst of normal families lack this type of confusion.
Besides, I could say the same by stating that the moral heterosexual father will always be vastly superior to the homosexual "father" or "mother" whatever role they like to play within the marriage, the child will be obviously unable to comprehend these, how much the homosexuals try to explain, the more they will grow confused themselves at what the hell they're doing.

I know you will disagree with this, it is deeply ingrained in you and will have been from birth that someone who is not of the mainstream sexuality is in someway sub-human and destructive to the fabric of your society.

I will, but not because I consider gays subhuman. My criteria for that one is not related to sexual orientation.
But I won't deny that it's harmful to the fabric of any society, not just mine.

[Gooders1002]

I think you do consider gays sub human and not worthy of equal rights, or you just have a deep a hated for gay people. You are deluded in you that you think gay marriage will harm society. Why give me a good answer that straight to the point with no frilly softened bits, I want to know the bare truth.

[paintpooper]

@mehmet: My problem with your argument is the use of the word "privilege". The government did not invent marriage; why should they invoke any right to give it out as a "privilege"?

Exactly. The government took control of marriage and then was able to curb the people's rights when it came to marriage. Once then government get involves in anything we start to lose our rights. As per the constitution we are all born with all the same rights as humans beings and the governments job to to UPHOLD the constitution to make sure those inalienable rights are upheld. Yet for some reason we have done a 180 and it seems the governments job it to create laws that take away rights, it's all backwards people. They create issues like this solely to divide the population, in conjunction with propaganda, so people will be stuck up and hung up on these wedge issues, when in fact if we just followed the damn constitution gay marriage would not be an issue, but then how would they divide the people (14 page thread, my evidence lol)

The government created the "marriage license" for the SOLE reason of taking away the peoples rights. Once they made "marriage" a legal issue they could then create laws to regulate marriage(taking away rights).

If we just went back to how things should be, gay marriage would be a non-issue, it should be a non-issue today, but the government has hijacked marriage from being a human right to a government regulated "privilege".

"Liberals" want to create laws to verify gay rights, "conservatives" want to create laws to ban gay rights. They are both WRONG, because "gays" have the same rights as everyone, and creating laws to take away rights is not what the governments job is.

All people are equal in the rights they have, every last one of us, the faster we realize that, and the faster we realize the government is no longer protecting those rights, but actually taking them away, the faster this world can fix itself the fuck up.

[kılıç_mehmet]

I think you do consider gays sub human and not worthy of equal rights, or you just have a deep a hated for gay people. You are deluded in you that you think gay marriage will harm society. Why give me a good answer that straight to the point with no frilly softened bits, I want to know the bare truth.

No, you are deluded in how you view society.
I do not harbor hatred towards anyone, not even our greatest enemies. If I have to fight them on the battlefield, will I kill them due to personal hatred, or for the greater glory of our people?
Same, I do not oppose the marriage of gay people due to my intense hatred towards them. While it's true that I feel uncomfortable around openly gay people, and would be reluctant to spend another ten minutes in the same place, hatred is a too strong emotion that one must only use when confronting a very powerful enemy, or a very weak one, which isn't worthy of killing, perhaps, but must be killed, so one must tap into hatred and anger as not to show mercy at the moment of truth.

As we've already cleared this one, I've listed my reasons for opposing this.
Take it or leave it.