Marriage discrimination struck down in Arkansas.

[kılıç_mehmet]

Fine, then. Don't worry about it. If marriage equality came to your country, it wouldn't actually have any effect on you anyway.

The people here are not as silent as the people in your country. They don't take every bullshit that the gov. throws at them.

Yeah, it's so terrible to, uh, do what? Demand the recognition of equal rights that our country's Constitution guarantees?

Constitution grants the right to marriage to homosexuals? Since when?

That's an important point in this debate in America, the point everybody on the wrong side of this debate seems to ignore: this sort of discrimination has been illegal since the passage of the 14th amendment 150 years ago.

It's not a ban, its the default.
It was the default until you tried to define the very meaning of default by including the homosexuals aswell.
That's the dictatorship of the minorities.

It doesn't really matter, anyway. By the end of this decade, only the most deeply-inbred states won't have majority support for it anyway.

You're wrong there my friend. Reaction is growing strong, both in Europe and in the US, against this neo-liberal horsecrap.
Soon, even if you have the law on your side, the people will rise in anger against the attacks made on their social institutions, traditions and cultures.

Legalization of same-sex marriage is a reality, whether you want to accept it or not.

And so is the fact that it does not have popular support amongst the majority.

Stating only one man and one woman is a tactful extension of one's bigotry.

I guess you're open to sharing your wife.That's fine by me, but don't try to involve this into the institution of marriage and the family.

Marriage equality has no effect on you or on your rights, you dumb fuck.

Well as a matter of fact, it ignores me and people like me.
We cannot define marriage, but instead have to conform to the type of "marriage" which is in fact nothing more than a twisted and bastardized version of what used to be marriage, that homos and their supporters have laid before us, or be called fascists and bigots.

Marriage equality does not affect others' traditions. Your argument is nonsense.

There is no tradition of the other. Traditions of marriage are not defined by individuals, but by collective consciousness.
Muslims, Christians, Jews, different ethnic groups, all have their own forms of traditions.
And the legalization of this strongly affects all, as all traditions of marriage without exception, involve the union of a man and woman within its heart. The legalisation of gay marriage aims to destroy this very basis of marriage.

No. It's been centred around a man and many women, or a man and his female slaves, or a man and any women they can get their hands on, including raping virgins, in the Abrahamic traditions.

Sorry?
No matter how it goes, its still between a man and a woman, mate.
I guess you couldn't comprehend that.

Many other cultures accepted gay relationships, especially among men.

And? The fact that teh Greeks were boy-fuckers, along with the Romans, did not change the fact that there still was a standard for marriage, being between a man and a woman.
The institution of the family centered around it.
Besides, this just shows me that humanity is not moving beyond our current century, but moving backwards into antiquity. So why not adopt some of its other awesome customs such as slavery? I'd very much like to see that one.

Now, if your view of a marriage is valid simply because of the chance for kids, do you therefore not recognise marriages where the couples choose not to have kids, or marriages between elderly people?

Well, those are minor and fringe, although the modern world actually encourages people not to have kids, which is why the birthrates are falling in Europe.
Still, the main reason for marriage is to lay the basis of the institution of the family, to ensure that children are born into a committed relationship of a man and a woman, and are taken care of the best way that both can provide.


The fact that there are people who cannot have or do not want children get married does not change this fact, as the definition of marriage is not something that is affected by the actions and thoughts of minor and fringe groups of people.

If you're determined that tradition trumps all then let me mention that slavery was traditional for ceenturies, as were many other things we find abhorrent today.

Do you now? Just to be clear, slavery is not a tradition, its an institution, an obsolete institution. Comparing marriage to slavery means that you either wish to abolish marriage, or reinstate an unrecognizable form of slavery.

If we can change our attitudes on those, why is marriage such a sticking point?

Slavery was able to be abolished mainly due to the fact that there was an industrial revolution going on, an the institution of slavery was becoming obsolete. Would you say the same for Marriage? If so, why really advocate it for the homos?

Because, ewww.

That's something else, of course. Their relationships are still widely regarded as disgusting, and abnormal.

And this is the direction that the rest of my country is heading towards, and has been heading towards for decades at this point. Even in the past, when acceptance of same sex marriage was in the minority, it was still on an upward trend. Is it not possible that this is the invention of a new system of traditions that has started several decades ago?

Then, my friend, why is it that your liberal-democrat president fails to acknowledge it?


And no, there are no traditions associated with the marriage of homos. You can see this from even a very simple point that parties of a marriage are called "husband & wife" and specific dress codes for ceremonies are not unisex but are centered around traditional notions of masculinity and femininity. Not to mention that we still have the notions of the "standard" and "normal" family, involving a husband and wife, and children.
Homos, as they form a fringe group, cannot influence the traditions of the majority. They may influence the laws, but traditions are not for them to decide. And nowhere on earth is a majority so disattached from its status as the majority to let minorities bend and shape them at will.

The idea of a traditional marriage has already been destroyed in this country. Higher and higher divorce rates, more children born to non-married parents, more people choosing not to marry at all yet remain in monogamous relationships, these issues have plagued what was once called traditional marriage. I think marriage isn't looked at with the same reverence that it once was, and now one of the main reasons for marrying someone isn't the symbolic and ceremonial aspect anymore, but has more to do with the legal benefits you acquire with respect to your spouse.

Well why do you support it then? Just abolish the institution altogether.
Since it does not serve any purpose, merely allow for "partners" who might or might not even be in a relationship to go to a court and sign a document that allows them to share property. This might involve friends, housemates and etc.
Would that be marriage? Obviously not. Similarly, a "marriage" for the mere purpose of its legal benefits is not marriage. The homos know that, and so do you.

The fact is, that the majority of people, especially the middle-class(who yet adhere to monogamy, and traditional norms of society and morality), are rather defiant.
They do value the traditional aspects of marriage, and the imporance of family, and child raising.
The fact is, homos simply want "legitimacy" for their abnormal ways, and the only thing that can give them this legitimacy is marriage, both in legal and social terms.
And that legitimacy is still bound by traditions.

---

As has been pointed out to you before, I suppose this means you're also against straight marriage in cases of infertility, disinterest in having kids, and the elderly?

I made an explanation regarding infertile people, elderly and those who do not wish to have kids.
Besides, people who are infertile do seek out ways to have children, and medicine supports them in this regard.

No, of course not. Because this "purpose of marriage" bullshit is a smokescreen over the real answer, which is that you're just grossed out by it. I dunno, if you really thought your reasons were compelling would you have to concoct cover stories to obscure them?

That I am, I find their ways disgusting, and I do not need to hide this, if I weren't, I'd be one of them.

Yes, because everyone who disagrees with you is part of a giant evil conspiracy to get you! Grow up. Rolleyes

Well, it isn't really a conspiracy if its done in the open. I'm just saying whatever I'm seeing.
Degeneracy, trying to triumph over decency.
Rootlessness, trying to triumph over tradition.
Illegitimacy, trying to triump over legitimacy.
Minority, trying to triumph over the majority.

Gay marriage involves all these crimes in one notion.

And if anyone gets to determine what's legitimate, it's you, ain't it? Rolleyes

Your individualistic mindset forces you to attack the person, rather than the idea that defines the person.
I do not define my views, my views define me.

See, this is how completely divorced from reality you are: As of right now, you are in the minority. You have been for at least a year, and that means that, by your own logic, you continuing to stand in the way of gay marriage is a bad thing you should stop, right?

After all, you wouldn't want to be forcing your ways upon the majority, would you? Dodgy

I guess you know that being 49% does not equal to being a minority, it just means that you have split the nation in half.
And I'm fairly certain that with the reaction against neo-liberalism on the rise, things will soon start to be a thorn on your side.

It's interesting that you keep appealing to the majority as though you're still a part of that. Thinking

I am, both in the old world where I live and in the new world. And you yet have not managed to change the notion of what marriage really is(not that you can change something that has been so for thousands of years), marriage is still defined by the concepts of the union of a man and a woman and gays merely conform to that since they don't really have much of a tradition other than visiting gay bars and holding meth orgies.

Sorry, we're already there. And I'm not sorry: do you have anything for an argument beyond dishonest well poisoning? For a guy who keeps bitching about the redefining of terms you seem pretty bent on forcing the language of the discussion into one sided rhetoric.

Well, your rhetoric is one sided as it is, my side is clear and so is yours.
My side is the side of the many generations before me, that have benefitted from the traditional form of marriage and family, had clean and well adjusted societies and members of society, instead of fringe degenerates who are consumed in their indvidualistic desire for abnormal pleasures that they wish everyone else to accomodate their ways by granting it legitimacy via marriage.
Your worldview is rotten, and when you realize it, it will already be too late.