Church stance on gay marriage "for good of society", says Bishop Michael Nazi

[kılıç_mehmet]

Let's start with this:

You are abnormal, you are defective, and you have no right to argue otherwise, because this would be publicizing your lifestyle choices, and again, it is offensive to my decency (why this itself matters is a mystery to me, but you seem to think that it does so I'm going with it).

I've not publicized anything that has not been publicized yet.
And well, it is offensive to public decency whether you like it or not. If you believe that I am going against your decency by acting like a normal human being, you're free to express this opinion. But don't expect much support.

All you have is "They aren't normal", "They're defective".

Just these two arguments would be enough. The fact that they are not normal is why we're having this discussion.

Excuse me for finding these assertions just a tad less than convincing.

There is nothing to be excused, as I know that your opinion is firmly fixed as mine. Why someone who is not gay would defend gays more than gays defend themselves is beyond me, but I guess that meddlesome people are like that. Similarly, I am not concerned with gays unless they are trying to make me concerned about them, which is no problem here, but it is a problem in America, obviously.

I've already heard you elaborate upon them at length, but your elaborations mean very little to me since I can simply dismiss them (and you) by the very same line of reasoning that you would leverage against homosexuals and homosexuality.

No, you think you can, since you look at this matter as though it was a matter of whether I like a group of people or not. It's not like stating "I hate purple people, they're not normal because they're purple". The abnormality that the homosexuals present are very very different from people that might just act abnormal due to their personal preferences or psychological problems. These are abnormal due to biological factors surrounding their condition, with no remedy for it in sight so far.

Besides, there is also the factor of a long tradition of public decency that has not been acceptive of homosexuality in public eyes. This has been relaxed since the exact circumstances regarding the nature of homosexuality has been made known to the public, but now we're talking about the "normalization" of homosexuality, not of the acceptance of homosexuality as what it is. This comes in forms of "rights" that they supposedly are entitled of. Like marriage, and parenting, the things that differentiate us, from them.
They do this to normalize themselves in the eyes of the public. For a country like your own, it seems befitting, but in concept, I think it's destructive to social moral values in that it further helps the degenaration of marriage, and creates confusion.

Do I find your rationalizations convincing?

I don't know, but you have not really rationalized your points of view for me.

However, since you seem to be intent upon doing so, I'm merely suggesting that the application of these rationalizations should be consistent.

I do not have to apply these as a single individual. If I did, I would be as you are. You are not really consistent with the world, you see. I on the other hand, am.

I agree, btw, it isn't a matter of philosophy, except insomuch as that your philosophy -is- bigotry. Bigotry plain and bare, elevated to the point of a guiding principle from which you draw a conception of a social or political ideal.

Yes, a word that you frequently use. Bigotry. I really don't have a word to account for your way of thinking in the english language, although I have many in Turkish.
Indeed, it's a principle, but gays are not really the prime targets of that principle.