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

[The Grand Nudger]

In much the same way that you've disregarded a group of people (and anything they might offer in their desire to be treated with similar respect and dignity that you would claim for yourself, going so far as to desire protection from people who can be demonstrably shown to be willing to enact violence upon them for this one difference) yes, and that's the point, isn't it?

All you have is "They aren't normal", "They're defective". Excuse me for finding these assertions just a tad less than convincing. 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. Do I find your rationalizations convincing? No. Would I personally employ them? No. However, since you seem to be intent upon doing so, I'm merely suggesting that the application of these rationalizations should be consistent.

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 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. All of this after waffling around about what you claimed to be clearly expressed in scripture, as though it provided some sort of justification, or added any credibility to your position even if you weren't in error (which you were).

I get so incredibly tired of watching you shit all over these boards and then retreat to "These are my last words on the subject" style cop outs in each and every case. Even so, I don't attempt to tell you that you shouldn't be able to try and make your case, which is precisely the position you've taken with regards to homosexuals.

[jess_essential]

:YAWN: The entire concept of church is to program mass populations into complying to things that intelligent people refuse to. OH, and also to take our money, condemn vast majorities of humans, show up on school campus' (LIKE MINE) with giant signs selling propaganda like fucking hotcakes. Every time a christian starts speaking all I ever hear is Charlie Brown's teacher's voice singing: "Wahhhh wahhhhh wahhhhhhhhh"

[Faith No More]

I get so incredibly tired of watching you shit all over these boards and then retreat to "These are my last words on the subject" style cop outs in each and every case.

Are you starting to see why I avoid talking with him on this subject at all costs?

[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.

[The Grand Nudger]

You aren't normal, you're abnormal.

No, we're having this discussion because you are defective.

Yeah, I'm just meddlesome. If the reasons that a human being might defend the interests of others completely elude you that would be pretty strong support for both of the above statements.

I'd say purple people would be different due to a biological factors surrounding their "condition". We might be able to do something about purple people (not very much) but this brings up the question, why should they need a "remedy", wtf is wrong with being purple? I should have known that skin tone would immediately spring to your mind though.

"My daddy hated teh gays, so goddamnit i hate teh gayz too"

I could suggest a few words for you. That your bigotry has bigger fish to fry has never been in doubt Mehm, you needn't remind me.

[Faith No More]

[kılıç_mehmet]

"My daddy hated teh gays, so goddamnit i hate teh gayz too"

Well, not just my father. No one here, or even in Germany likes gays.
Really, how could they, after seeing those weird guys at the gay parade that flew through Kurfürstendamm?
But really, it's not a matter of whether I like them or not.. I probably don't like a lot of people on earth, but gays are unique in that they are a minority that is actually not a minority. They are a minority that results from a defect. That actually makes me like them more than those I don't like.
Because they can't really help it.

No, we're having this discussion because you are defective.

Oh I guessed as much.

We might be able to do something about purple people (not very much)

Maybe. If I were purple, I'd like not to be purple.
If my whole people were purple, I'd like to be purple.

I'd say purple people would be different due to a biological factors surrounding their "condition".

Thank goodness that there are no purple people.
But there are gay people, and they are there due to biological factors.
I don't think that you are against this statement.

why should they need a "remedy", wtf is wrong with being purple?

Maybe they just don't want to be purple. But being purple is very different from being gay.

[Faith No More]

Methinks Mehmet doth protest too much.

[Tobie]

Well, not just my father. No one here, or even in Germany likes gays.
Really, how could they, after seeing those weird guys at the gay parade that flew through Kurfürstendamm?
But really, it's not a matter of whether I like them or not.. I probably don't like a lot of people on earth, but gays are unique in that they are a minority that is actually not a minority. They are a minority that results from a defect. That actually makes me like them more than those I don't like.
Because they can't really help it.

That's one sweeping statement you make there. No one in Germany or Turkey likes gays. I'm sure you have huge mounds of evidence to back you up on this.

As far as anyone knows, there is no single gene that causes homosexuality, so there is no defect causing it. Also, if they are a minority, how are they not really a minority?

[The Grand Nudger]

LOL< tell you what Mehm, you go out and find yourself some homosexuals, ask if they want to be "cured" or "remedied", and then come back and give us the sitrep eh?