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

[kılıç_mehmet]

Of course you are, I just asserted that you were.

And I know that your assertions are incorrect.
But you cannot dare to say that my "assertions" are incorrect.
You simply cannot. Even while it's barely on the ground that homosexuality is an abnormality, that drives people to feel sexual attraction towards their own sex while they do not have the necessary means to create an offspring proves me that it's abnormal, a defect, something that has to do with hormonal abnormality.

[The Grand Nudger]

No you don't, you're just publicizing your opinions. I've told you, you have no such right, and it offends my decency.

You remain abnormal and defective. You dare not say my assertions are incorrect. (see the above)

[Anomalocaris]

You are full of shit, Meh. The prevelence of homosexuality appears to extend right across animal kingdom, through entirely different phylums whose last common ancesters lived over 800 million ago. This suggest that homosexuality is genetic, and has evolved independently several times, and there is some strong, although probably subtle and as yet unspecified, survival advantage to a sexually reproducing population having certain percentage of homosexual individuals.

The commonality of homosexuality through phylums, not to mention species and ethnic groups, also spit in the face of your classification of it as "abnormal". Even in humans, it is much more normal than blue eyes or blond hair.

Also, in many parts of the world creation of offspring is something one does as part of one's inescapable duty and chore regardless of whether one is hetro or homosexual, while sexual attraction belongs entire in a different realm of discretionary pleasure.

They are orthagonal to each other.

[Faith No More]

Well, what I was saying is how you'd view a "non-hateful" way of thinking.

A non-hateful way of thinking would be accepting them without telling them they need hide their ways or thinking of them as not normal. This is why we say that you don't accept homosexuals, because to truly do that, you would at least need to realize that they have a right to be who they are without putting on a 'normal face' in public.

[kılıç_mehmet]

No you don't, you're just publicizing your opinions. I've told you, you have no such right, and it offends my decency.

You remain abnormal and defective. You dare not say my assertions are incorrect. (see the above)

If you would explain why you think I'm abnormal and defective, we can elaborate on the matter.

You are full of shit, Meh. In many parts of the world creation of offspring is something one does as part of one's duty and chore regardless of whether one is hetro or homosexual, while sexual attraction belongs entire in a different realm of discretionary pleasure.
They are orthagonal to each other.

No. Creation of offspring is done through marriage, regardless of whatever culture you can think of. Homosexuals also had to do this until the modern times, as not to let their abnormal condition resurface, or supressed it altogether, and still brought forth offspring only through a state and society sanctioned marriage.
It really didn't matter what your sexual attraction was, if it was homosex, you still had to comply with social standards. Nowadays, these standards have been relaxed, and homosexuals are trying to push this laxity towards social institutions like marriage.

A non-hateful way of thinking would be accepting them without telling them they need hide their ways or thinking of them as not normal. This is why we say that you don't accept homosexuals, because to truly do that, you would at least need to realize that they have a right to be who they are without putting on a 'normal face' in public.

Well, if I did think of them as normal, I'd not be accepting them as the way they are. If I treated a child with autism like a normal child and sent it to a normal school, instead of specialized schools that deal with those kind of children, I'd surely "treat it as normal", but it's still be wrong. Likewise, I am in favor of looking at homosexuals as peoples with an abnormality, a defect. If I overlooked their defect, I'd overlook the thing that defines themselves as minority. And they want to be recognized as a minority. Meaning, they would not like for me to overlook their defect.
So why blame me?

If they don't put a normal face in public, what face will they put? Homosexual face? What does that one look like, I wonder.
It's not about their "right" to be what they are, this is not something they do out of their own pleasure, as far as I'm concerned, they do this because this is what they are, biologically. So they are automatically still under the protection of the right to live, right to healthcare and etc. all that stuff. But I don't know what exactly gives them the right on social institutions, especially those which are the basis of family.

[The Grand Nudger]

Why should I have to do so? I'm normal, I'm the majority. I've clearly defined what it means to be normal as to be like me. You are not like me. You are abnormal, and defective.

The matter needs no further elaboration. At what point will you stop publicizing yourself? It's as offensive now as it was when you began.

(I'll ask you again, are you suggesting that homosexuals should accept this? Why won't you?)

[Anomalocaris]

So what is the problem even if homosexuality leads to reduced reporduction rate, in this rapidly overpopulating world, Meh? Is it because theoretically reduced fertility rate seem to threaten your dream of having your fantasy turkic mongol horde breed like rabbits and and crowd out other more civilized people in this overpopulating world? Meh?

Would a Nazi german style SS stud farm solve your concern?

[kılıç_mehmet]

Why should I have to do so? I'm normal, I'm the majority. I've clearly defined what it means to be normal as to be like me. You are not like me. You are abnormal, and defective.

The matter needs no further elaboration. At what point will you stop publicizing yourself? It's as offensive now as it was when you began.

(I'll ask you again, are you suggesting that homosexuals should accept this? Why won't you?)

Yes they should. But really, you think that you're beating me with my own words, but in reality, you're simply writing them down without further elaborating the circumstances regarding them. Homosexuals have never been viewed as normals, not in where you live, nor where I live.
Deal with it.

So what is the problem even if homosexuality leads to reduced reporduction rate, in this rapidly overpopulating world, Meh? Is it because theoretically reduced fertility rate seem to threaten your dream of having your fantasy turkic mongol horde breed like rabbits and and crowd out other more civilized people in this overpopulating world? Meh?

Would a Nazi german style SS stud farm solve your concern?

Well, it does not lead to a reduced reproduction rate though, I don't know how you actually managed to extract this from my words, but I made no such claim.
Obviously, we do not need a china or india like crowded population of Turks.
It is the quality that matters, not quantity.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yes they should.-snipped-

Then so should you. The buck stops here.

[kılıç_mehmet]

Yes they should.-snipped-

Then so should you. The buck stops here.

Again, you're disregarding every circumstance, while concentrating on words.
I am tired of your stupid arguments rhythm, it's really pointless to argue about things with you.
You view this as a philosophical debate, perhaps, but it's not really a matter of philosophy.