There's no nicer way to say this but...

[kılıç_mehmet]

No, because tis the same for your society also. Since when was homosexuality so cherished in your country? It still isn't, really. Your customs and traditions denounce it. But I guess it's this whole counter-culture movement and the false impression of individual independence it brings that makes you come up with new meanings for things.

It isn't, countries can't have an opinion but the people residing in it can. The majorities opinion leads towards things like freewill, human rights, peace, love. These are the things we cherish. I don't care if someones gay or not, I just respect their right to pursue that life because it isn't hurting me and I wish the best for them. If the majority feels these things are important enough then customs and traditions can change because we can change them.
I'm very sorry the majority of your countries population and some of Americas population apparantly doesn't feel those things are important.
I do though.

Well, countries are as a matter of fact, the people. Without the people, the country would not exist. Without the country, the people would be subject to others.

Free will, human rights, peace, love, yes, these sound nice. I'm not against these either. But none of these are complete without the customs and traditions that provide as the basis of these. Without our customs and traditions, our culture, who would we be?
Our people are a fiercely independent people. However, we have our limits within society. This requires us to protect the institution of marriage for the sake of the future of the society. I feel rather proud that such stuff has not been able to surface in my country. I can feel at least secure and at ease when I go out on the street.

Don't get me wrong. I also respect their right to pursue whatever they want.
However this doesn't mean that I respect whatever they aim to do.
But once again, it's rather irrelevant as we still live on the saner half of the world. No offense.
Your part is slowly sliding into madness.
Moving away from what is relevant to society, to what is irrelevant to society is a sign of madness to me. In our part of the world, this is not even an issue. But obviously people do actually vote for people on their stance on gay marriage. This spells lunacy to me, nothing else.

[Reforged]

Well, countries are as a matter of fact, the people. Without the people, the country would not exist. Without the country, the people would be subject to others.

Free will, human rights, peace, love, yes, these sound nice. I'm not against these either. But none of these are complete without the customs and traditions that provide as the basis of these. Without our customs and traditions, our culture, who would we be?
Our people are a fiercely independent people. However, we have our limits within society. This requires us to protect the institution of marriage for the sake of the future of the society. I feel rather proud that such stuff has not been able to surface in my country. I can feel at least secure and at ease when I go out on the street.

Don't get me wrong. I also respect their right to pursue whatever they want.
However this doesn't mean that I respect whatever they aim to do.
But once again, it's rather irrelevant as we still live on the saner half of the world. No offense.
Your part is slowly sliding into madness.
Moving away from what is relevant to society, to what is irrelevant to society is a sign of madness to me. In our part of the world, this is not even an issue. But obviously people do actually vote for people on their stance on gay marriage. This spells lunacy to me, nothing else.

Countries are bits of land governed by those rich or corrupt enough to of gotten into power. Its people usually have greatly varied opinions but I believe I speak the majority of England when I say that we don't care if someone wants to have fun time with the anus of another man as long as it consensual. We also don't really care if they marry. However, the bigoted (and mostly religious) minority kicks up so much fuss the governments avoid the issue at all costs.
And you are wrong, those virtues I listed are virtues by themselves. Traditions and customs are simply nice sentiments, nothing more. If the consequences of keeping a sentiment is impeding someones human rights when they have done nothing wrong then it should be dropped, no questions asked.
I find the suggestion that one half of the world could be saner than the other to be a purile statement and a vulgar generlization.
I am rather taken aback by it especially considering we just established your people used to kill people for drinking coffee and that you live on the same side as Japan, China, Korea and Saudi Arabia. Although it could be argued that the West is prone to a more concealed kind of madness with a better PR campaign it would be a gross error to declare either side "the sane" one.

[kılıç_mehmet]

Countries are bits of land governed by those rich or corrupt enough to of gotten into power.

Well, those are politicians. Countries are above politicians.
Even with those people dead, the country and it's people are still there.

Its people usually have greatly varied opinions but I believe I speak the majority of England when I say that we don't care if someone wants to have fun time with the anus of another man as long as it consensual.

Well, neither do we, but I think I speak for the majority of the lands of Turan when I say that we care deeply about public decency, and would like such acts to remain where they are. Behind curtains, where they belong.
And we do not want people that define themselves on their performing of these acts (i.e. the gay community) to publicize themselves and flaunt public decency.
If they were an ethnic minority that preached seperatism, or a religious group that called for the destruction of our national monuments, they surely would receive a lot more tolerance than a minority that defines itself by it's sexuality? We do not want such depravity on our streets. Granting them the privilage of marrying would archive just that.

We also don't really care if they marry.

I think you should, if there certainly is such a demand.

However, the bigoted (and mostly religious) minority kicks up so much fuss the governments avoid the issue at all costs.

If this is such a big issue, maybe you should take it to a public referandum. How about that. Democracy at it's finest.

Traditions and customs are simply nice sentiments, nothing more. If the consequences of keeping a sentiment is impeding someones human rights when they have done nothing wrong then it should be dropped, no questions asked.

Traditions and customs are on which societies are built upon. And as I said, marrige is a privilage, not a "right". It's a privilage for people who can actually create a normal family that are in accordance with customs and traditions.
It doesn't really matter if what they do is wrong. Obviously, people who engage in incestious relationships believe that they have done nothing wrong. I guess you should grant them the same acceptance as the gays.

I find the suggestion that one half of the world could be saner than the other to be a purile statement and a vulgar generlization.

I believe that the excess you swim in has driven you to look for things that are rather trivial in today's world. But the harsh necessities of life will one day, hit you hard, if you continue at this pace, destroying the pillars that keep your society up one by one.
Marriage, and the institution of family, one of them.

I am rather taken aback by it especially considering we just established your people used to kill people for drinking coffee and that you live on the same side as Japan, China, Korea and Saudi Arabia. Although it could be argued that the West is prone to a more concealed kind of madness with a better PR campaign it would be a gross error to declare either side "the sane" one.

Yes, but you obviously have not read my post, and you have no real historical knowledge on why such a law was enacted. Besides, I've already said that drinking coffee was not the offense, going to coffee houses was the crime.

Your madness is there, out in the open. You're just trying to inflict us with the same madness, that's all.

[Shell B]

Kilic, while I don't always agree with you and do not think the sanctity of marriage is important to a society, as much as it is important to individuals and groups within that society, I have to say that I am often impressed with how you articulate your positions. Also, as a person with an American flag permanently inked onto her skin, I have to respect your patriot pride. That is all.

RD, I agree with you. There is no sane side. Banning homosexual marriages is not going to be healthy for our country in the long run. For kilic's, it probably is. I can't imagine what gays would go through there. Here, it's only a matter of time before it is as commonplace as a person with a dark complexion using the toilet stall next to mine.

[kılıç_mehmet]

Shell, this is not just about patriotism. I just state what I believe is right, and what is actually needed.
If the homosexuals in my country would demand property sharing rights, I'd be more than happy to support them in this regard. But we, as a people, have customs and traditions that are beyond the selfish demands of anyone amongst us. If someone would call for the abolition of marriage, I'd oppose him as fiercely as if anyone would call for the giving homosexuals the privilage to marry eachother, as a man and a woman would.
These are destructive aims, in my opinion. You can take heed of my words, or not, it's up to you.

[Shell B]

It is about patriotism. You are protecting your culture, beliefs and country. You have made mention of it several times.

I don't think marriage equality is destructive. However, I agree that it might be in your country. In my country, it would give people equal rights and piss off people who it would not affect in the slightest. People like them have been pissed off before. It all worked out in the end.

[kılıç_mehmet]

It is about patriotism. You are protecting your culture, beliefs and country. You have made mention of it several times.

Well, I speak of things that are not exclusive to my culture, however.
I already know that such things cannot find a place within my own society, I do not need to protect it, as I do not see a visible threat that could come in the form of publicizing homosexuality, at least yet.

I don't think marriage equality is destructive.

Marriage equality is a wrong word to use. Marriage equality, for me, is equality within marriage.
Not equality for straight people and other sexual minorities. Equality is only amongst equals for that regard. How could the marriage of two straight people equal the marriage of two guys or gals, who cannot even perform the basic tasks that marriage actually endorses, like having children and creating a family, without external help from others? Marriage has been exclusively for a man and a woman only. That is why parties are known as "husband and wife", "Mr. and Mrs." "Bay ve Bayan" in Turkish. There are limits to everything, Shell. You cannot extend things to encompass everyone.
If you do, it will burst after a while. If you can fit 20 liters of water into a tank, you fill it with no more than 20 liters.
You have to use a seperate tank for it.
Similarly, gays can obviously have a seperate existence in terms of the economical benefits that marrige grants, but marriage has it's firm definitions.
It's not exclusive to us, the Turks, or Turkish culture. It's the same for the Russians, it's the same for the Japanese, the Chinese, the Arabs, Persians, Greeks, Lithuanians and etc.

However, I agree that it might be in your country.

If the lawmakers, one day, suddenly decide to make it legal, then it's legal.
What can I do? Really? Besides, I do not advocate anarchy and vigilantism, unless the integrity of the nation is under immidiate, serious threat, such as an enemy invasion, under which I'm obliged to attack the enemy, even if I'm told to remain inside by either our or the enemy authorities.

But the concept of marriage can be saved by simply taking care of it as a nation. It's not that the only knife plunged into marriage is the newly suggested concept that homosexuals should be allowed to marry.
I also oppose the notion that people should have children outside of marriage, or live together for years and years without getting married. These are all, equally destructive for society.

In my country, it would give people equal rights and piss off people who it would not affect in the slightest.

Well, Shell, you might think so, but your grandchildren might think differently after seeing how social values have degraded to a point where there is no return.

People like them have been pissed off before.

Obviously, but as I said, you can stretch things to a certain point. Frogs can only leap about this high. No higher.

[Gooders1002]

Mehmet for one second think if it was the other way around and heterosexuality was the minority and homosexuality was the 'norm'?
How would you feel if your friend who were 'normal' were getting married and having family and were able to visit loved ones who were dying on there death bed and were able to make decisions for them if they were unable to and have all the other benefits that marriages allows them, then there you with your opposite sex partner unable to do any of that.
That means if you were in a hospital dying, you would die alone because the state will not allow opposite sex partner to be with you dying, or able to receive your half off the propertiy when you split even thought you have put just as much money into that house as they have, you would never feel the joy of a wedding and a honeymoon then all your friends can, or even not being allowed to make the decisions for your partner if there in a coma or can not properly communicate.
How would you feel if the rights your automatic granted because your heterosexual were take from you because of your sexual orientation and a single bill did that or that the marriage you have in one state is not valid in another because of the gender you fuck.
When did American change from 'everybody is welcome and everybody is equal and has equal rights' to 'Everybody is welcome and everybody is equal and has equal rights except for F*aggots and L*sbos and Atheists'

[Matt231]

How could the marriage of two straight people equal the marriage of two guys or gals, who cannot even perform the basic tasks that marriage actually endorses, like having children and creating a family, without external help from others?

I don't want to have children. So should I be banned from getting married, since I wouldn't be performing the "basic task" of marriage?

[kılıç_mehmet]

Mehmet for one second think if it was the other way around and heterosexuality was the minority and homosexuality was the 'norm'?

Such hypothetical cases could of course be visualized if I'd think hard enough, but empathy is a really hard thing to do in this case. Hmmm..what would I do if it was me who would not be able to marry. Well, if there was a case in which the homosexuals were a majority, there would not be anything that could be considered close to the definition of marriage.

How would you feel if your friend who were 'normal' were getting married and having family and were able to visit loved ones who were dying on there death bed and were able to make decisions for them if they were unable to and have all the other benefits that marriages allows them, then there you with your opposite sex partner unable to do any of that.

Friend, I certainly would not remain for too long in a land like that. I'd sooner or later realize that it's destined to crumble in a very short time.
As I said, when you think "opposite" you realize that such a society cannot ever be put into use, and is therefore irrelevant when it comes to empathy.

That means if you were in a hospital dying, you would die alone because the state will not allow opposite sex partner to be with you dying, or able to receive your half off the propertiy when you split even thought you have put just as much money into that house as they have, you would never feel the joy of a wedding and a honeymoon then all your friends can, or even not being allowed to make the decisions for your partner if there in a coma or can not properly communicate.

As I said, such things can be given in a seperate existence than marriage.

How would you feel if the rights your automatic granted because your heterosexual were take from you because of your sexual orientation and a single bill did that or that the marriage you have in one state is not valid in another because of the gender you fuck.

Well, this is the federal state of ways. You can always install a centralized form of government if you want to.

When did American change from 'everybody is welcome and everybody is equal and has equal rights' to 'Everybody is welcome and everybody is equal and has equal rights except for F*aggots and L*sbos and Atheists'

I think that the American dream was never "everyone is welcome and everyone is equal" to begin with. The American dream is to accumulate as much wealth as possible and to live according to it. It's the generic cosmopolitan ideology. Even in that state, customs and traditions exist. People know they do. And some try to preserve them.