Marriage discrimination struck down in Arkansas.

[kılıç_mehmet]

Is that what you call that? You said they were only small groups, and then... that was it. You just kinda... dismissed it out of hand by reasserting your initial case, leaving the special pleading intact, only now with the added benefit that we can all see how unwilling you are to actually address a salient point.

My point is clear. Either adress it appropriately or not.
The purpose of marriage is not defined by whether some people are unable or unwilling to reproduce. And those who are unable or unwilling to have children do actually represent a minority, since most people who get married do so with having children in mind. That's what a productive society needs, future generations. So, marriage still aims to propagate traditional norms of family, that present the best environment for the bearing and raising of children, which is why these notions still exist today.
In fact, the deviation from these is what moves society to the wrong direction.

And gay people can do the same, since you've got such a boner for families. In fact, even leaving aside surrogacy and IVF options, legalizing gay marriage would do much to alleviate the stress on the foster care system.

Just another way your state argument falls apart, revealing the much more insipid truth behind it, I suppose.

Gay people were never meant to have children, which is why natural means of reproduction involve a man and a woman.

Nobody needs homo foster parents. I'd say that those kids are better off in an orphanage than at the hands of those. Many countries are taking exclusive steps to stop children from becoming the pets of some homos from 1st world countries.
India, especially has outlawed surrogacy, as it is merely another form of exploitation of women, unethical in many ways. Similarly, it is unethical to give people that were never meant to be part of the familial structure the right to raise children.

Children are nothing more than pets to homos, they feed them, clothe them, and have them walk besides them, pet them when they want to, and use them as prestige items.

Hey, there's your real argument! Finally, a bit of honesty!

Its rather a supplementary argument. I wonder how they're going to explain their abnormal acts to the children they might adopt.

Yes, it's called the "I am the world" fallacy.

I am part of it, yet never have I dared to speak for anyone. Instead I let others speak for me, in this case, the majority of the human population that just happens to see the truth.

Two people wanting a loving, committed relationship is degenerate?

The exact circumstances of the relationship are degenerate. Although it really is no concern of mine. My only concern is society and the preservation of good customs and traditions, especially those that are widespread as marriage.
Besides, these are dangerous words, my friend. They are the key to a wide range of other abnormal relations, such as incest, which, I bet, you also condone as being normal and very acceptable.

And don't immediately leap to talking about anal sex, because that's not what this is about at all.

Yeah, whatever man. Such things are beyond my comprehension.

That remains legal even without gay marriage, so don't try to deflect with that garbage.

Legal, true, yet not acceptable by public standards, considered abhorrent and abnormal, which is why the homos have their own subculture rather than being part of the contemporary public.
Besides, its not just about male-male stuff, but female-female, and another wide range of fucked up combinations that we see floating around tumblr.

Except that you've already admitted and accepted that traditions change over time.

They do, but not in the way you would want them to change. You are advocating cultural revolution, just like the commies did, yet you lack the brute force that they used to accomplish it.
To be honest, all of this was based on the Frankfurt school of thought and the new-left bullshit that was advocated by its adherents in the US. It has spread like wildfire from there.
It was them who first advocated whatever you're advocating, whereas they were subject to ridicule in the Soviet Union as "rootless cosmopolitans", rightfully so.
You're advocating a culture without roots, traditions without a basis, a society without borders.

You just don't seem to see the irony of spinning around and using the appeal to tradition fallacy this time.

I appeal to tradition, you appeal to base human individualism, egoism and animalistic desire. Which one is less fallible?
The way I see it, you wish to disattach the marital institution from the public and individualize it to a point where everyone can make up their own defitinition of what marriage is.

You've got this random line drawn in your head that, because this is the time you happened to be born in, all the traditions you grew up with are the ones that need to stay, because you're the most important person in the world, damn it!

You don't understand. Its not about me.
Besides, my traditions have been in existence for more than a thousand years.
But there are certain aspects that we have shared with your traditions, concepts like fidelity, the importance of family, and the harmony between a man and a woman, the idealized concepts of marriage, and their importance as the generative force of society.
You on the other hand support degenerative forces, advocating their so-called and non-existent rights, their unwarranted self-importance, and their non-existing stakes in an institution that they never were a part to begin with.
They are usurpers, and you are their footsoldier.

If you lived in a country where the tradition was gay marriage only and no straight marriage, would you feel the same?

There would be no such a country. If you speak of a hypothetical sitution at least to make it as realistic as possible. Such a country wouldn't exist due to the lack of family, and the lack of appreciation for the propagation of the human population.
This is not a matter of empathy.

And again, this strange notion that you and you alone get to decide what's legitimate. Don't we all get a say in that too?

Well, the marriage exists to provide legitimacy. I thought you should know that. It makes the union of two people legitimate in public eyes, and children born into that marriage are considered legitimate. Else, they are known as bastards, a term for illegitimate children, still in existence, and rightfully so.

actually untrue: it's you that's in the majority, which is why it's so strange that you keep pulling this argument. It's almost as if the actual facts don't matter to you as much as your tired rhetoric does...

As you had said, it is me that is in the majority. Not just in the US, you merely need to go anywhere on the globe to see that what you're advocating is simply something that people will not accept as their society is built on what I'm advocating here. The union of a man and woman, marriage, the institution of family.
For these things to change, "hypothetically" you'd need to have a society that you've described above, 95% homos, in which case I don't think that society would be able to propagate anyways. If we would establish a country for gays and lesbians, that country would vanish within a single generation unless it receives a substantial amount of migrants over the course of years.
Where is this majority of yours?

So you admit that you're a criminal, trying to triumph over the majority, here?

You mean merely because I advocate the traditional norms of marriage? So you mean you're against them, right?

And so far, your views are all you've given. It's very hard to attack an idea when all you've given is repetitions of your opinion with nothing backing them beyond further opinions.

What is it that you require? I base my opinions on historical facts and the way that contemporary society was established.

The fact that you have an interconnected layer of justifications and excuses for your bigotry that don't hitch up to the real world at all doesn't suddenly make them right, or justified.

The real world? Friend, it is you, who is daydreaming. Dreaming of a world where nothing is true and everything is permitted.
You attack key social and cultural institutions under the guise of liberty and equality.
The fact is, you have not contributed to anything regarding society, yet wish to be the ones to define it.

Actually, given that your side is still 44%, and 70% of the younger generations support gay marriage, you are still in the minority, and that fact is only going to become more true as the old fogeys die off.

How nice that you refer to your elderly in such manners. Maybe you should kill them off to hasten the process.
Besides, I'd rather call on a referandum to decide on this issue if you are so confident in your numbers as the majority. Why don't you?

I don't put much stock in the fantasies of people who use terms like "neo-liberalism." Rolleyes

I call it neo-liberalism, because as all neo-movements, its a bastardized version of what the terms really meant and advocated.

So, now you're just denying demonstrable, polled facts in favor of pathetic speechifying. This isn't even an argument, it's just sad.

How exactly would you explain this shift in public opinion in a single year?
A miracle? What if the opinion shifts in your disfavor the next year, and documented via a poll lets say.
I'd still say that this does nothing to change the definition of marriage.

So... no? Just pointless, well poisoning rhetoric with not even an allusion to anything factual? Thinking

Well, for the year, I guess I'll give it to you that 2014 will be the "year of the faggot", with Wurst winning the Eurovision contest aswell. You will sooner or later, come to realize the importance of the traditional norms and values of marriage. Until then.