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

[kılıç_mehmet]

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?

Well, I'm sure that there are people like you both in Turkey, and in Germany.
But general opinion about gays still is the same, believe me.

As if there is a single or multiple gene causing homosexuality, it still causes it. It's a biological condition, and I am not really sure, but I think it has something to do with hormones.
Maybe a hormone treatment will cure homosexuality one day, or genetics will be so advanced that they will be able to single out these genes, and not allow them to surface.

[The Grand Nudger]

So, re: the list of things to oppress.

-minorities
-anyone different than yourself
-genes

You've got your work cut out for you.

[Tobie]

There is no reason to "cure" homosexuality. They are no less human than a heterosexual. Why should they be subjected to what will essentially be bigots like you forcing them to change against their will?

If it is caused by some genetic factor, there is still no reason to treat it as if it is a disease. Turks are a minority world-wide, and being turkish has a genetic factor, yet we see no reason to cure you of being turkish.

[kılıç_mehmet]

There is no reason to "cure" homosexuality. They are no less human than a heterosexual. Why should they be subjected to what will essentially be bigots like you forcing them to change against their will?

We're not changing them against their will. Science will perhaps hinder the birth of children with defects such as homosexuality to actually see the light of the world.
Likewise, with blind, deaf and other children with birth defects. By your words, blind and deaf people are no less human, but we're trying to remedy their condition, aren't we?
Like I've once heard of a couple who wanted their newborn child to be deaf as they were...disgusting, really.
Why would anyone want their child to be a homosexual in the future? Would you especially want your child to be a homosexual? Since homosexuality isn't a matter of choice anyways, what really is so evil about eliminating it from the human gene pool?

[Paul the Human]

Maybe one day a gene that causes bigotry will be discovered and repressed, so that bigotry will no longer surface.

[Tobie]

There is no reason to "cure" homosexuality. They are no less human than a heterosexual. Why should they be subjected to what will essentially be bigots like you forcing them to change against their will?

We're not changing them against their will. Science will perhaps hinder the birth of children with defects such as homosexuality to actually see the light of the world.
Likewise, with blind, deaf and other children with birth defects. By your words, blind and deaf people are no less human, but we're trying to remedy their condition, aren't we?
Like I've once heard of a couple who wanted their newborn child to be deaf as they were...disgusting, really.
Why would anyone want their child to be a homosexual in the future? Would you especially want your child to be a homosexual? Since homosexuality isn't a matter of choice anyways, what really is so evil about eliminating it from the human gene pool?

Seeming as there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, it doesn't make you disabled like being blind or deaf does ( despite what fundies say ) so I doubt anyone is going to prioritise finding the "gay gene" over, I dunno, a cure for cancer.

[kılıç_mehmet]

There is no reason to "cure" homosexuality. They are no less human than a heterosexual. Why should they be subjected to what will essentially be bigots like you forcing them to change against their will?

We're not changing them against their will. Science will perhaps hinder the birth of children with defects such as homosexuality to actually see the light of the world.
Likewise, with blind, deaf and other children with birth defects. By your words, blind and deaf people are no less human, but we're trying to remedy their condition, aren't we?
Like I've once heard of a couple who wanted their newborn child to be deaf as they were...disgusting, really.
Why would anyone want their child to be a homosexual in the future? Would you especially want your child to be a homosexual? Since homosexuality isn't a matter of choice anyways, what really is so evil about eliminating it from the human gene pool?

Seeming as there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, it doesn't make you disabled like being blind or deaf does ( despite what fundies say ) so I doubt anyone is going to prioritise finding the "gay gene" over, I dunno, a cure for cancer.

Oh, it makes you disabled. Does it not? It makes you socially disabled at first.
It makes you even more disabled in the times we live in today. You are not able to marry and reproduce in the ways nature intended it to be. You can not have a normal, socially accepted form of family. You cannot contribute to the future of humanity. Really, gays are disabled people.
And some are rather getting themselves disabled willingly, undergoing operations that change their bodies, but not their Y chromosomes in the likeness of a real female body, some even get their organs cut off, and replace them with a small slit that goes 14 cm into their bodies.
Great, if not a disability, what the fuck is this, I wonder, that makes people do this sort of thing? No offense Vaeolet.
Crossdressing might go as wide as to be called "artistic", but this is just really not a "disability". A disability to live in the current body they possess.

[Tobie]

Contrary to your deluded and bigoted beliefs, there have been several homosexuals that have contributed to the human race. Isaac Newton, for one, was most probably gay, and he made one of the most significant leaps forward in science and mathematics made by a single person. Alan Turing was also gay, and he was one of the finest minds of the 20th century.Alexander the Great was gay, and he's definitely had an impact.

[kılıç_mehmet]

Contrary to your deluded and bigoted beliefs, there have been several homosexuals that have contributed to the human race. Isaac Newton, for one, was most probably gay, and he made one of the most significant leaps forward in science and mathematics made by a single person. Alan Turing was also gay, and he was one of the finest minds of the 20th century.Alexander the Great was gay, and he's definitely had an impact.

Really, I don't know if he contributed to human society with his gay identity which never actually surfaced into public, or with his contributions to mathematics and physics? I don't really know if he was gay or not, and I don't know where you know if he was gay, but I see that there is a general demand from the gay community to produce several "gay historical celebrities".
Indeed, Alexander the Great was "gay" in the sense you'd probably not see much these days, but I didn't see him taking his lover as his official husband, nor allowing the likes of his to marry as the gays want to marry today, although he certainly had the power to do so, being the king he is.
As you see, even your "prominent gays" did not really do much in terms of publicizing homosexuality.
Besides, I don't know what kind of a corrolation you see between homosexuality and their archivements anyways.

[Tobie]

Contrary to your deluded and bigoted beliefs, there have been several homosexuals that have contributed to the human race. Isaac Newton, for one, was most probably gay, and he made one of the most significant leaps forward in science and mathematics made by a single person. Alan Turing was also gay, and he was one of the finest minds of the 20th century.Alexander the Great was gay, and he's definitely had an impact.

Really, I don't know if he contributed to human society with his gay identity which never actually surfaced into public, or with his contributions to mathematics and physics? I don't really know if he was gay or not, and I don't know where you know if he was gay, but I see that there is a general demand from the gay community to produce several "gay historical celebrities".
Indeed, Alexander the Great was "gay" in the sense you'd probably not see much these days, but I didn't see him taking his lover as his official husband, nor allowing the likes of his to marry as the gays want to marry today, although he certainly had the power to do so, being the king he is.
As you see, even your "prominent gays" did not really do much in terms of publicizing homosexuality.
Besides, I don't know what kind of a corrolation you see between homosexuality and their archivements anyways.

They may hot have publicised homosexuality, but you said that homosexuals cannot contribute to humanity, which is clearly wrong.