Is there any secular reason why being gay is bad?

[ohh EPiC FAiL]

Of course not. There is no reason for anyone to be against being gay, and the ones that claim to have a reason stick to an old book full of contradictions.

And mehmet, you say you want them to be productive members of society and not harm anyone else, you're a fucking hypocrite. You are constantly belittling people on here and if I had to be completely honest it almost seems as if YOU are homosexual and trying to convince yourself that you can change it by choice. You can't. Just come out of your closet, it'd probably do you some good.

[Zen Badger]

Of course not. There is no reason for anyone to be against being gay, and the ones that claim to have a reason stick to an old book full of contradictions.

And mehmet, you say you want them to be productive members of society and not harm anyone else, you're a fucking hypocrite. You are constantly belittling people on here and if I had to be completely honest it almost seems as if YOU are homosexual and trying to convince yourself that you can change it by choice. You can't. Just come out of your closet, it'd probably do you some good.

That's the conclusion I'm coming to.

Mehmet is a closet queen and won't even admit it to himself.

But like I said, he's amongst understanding people here.

[LastPoet]

It may not be it, but just ordinary sexual insecurity, most prevailing in countries with alot of religiosity and 'tradition'. Add that to 1930's nationalism and you get mehmet. Simple.

[kılıç_mehmet]

I think Mehmet protesteth too, too much.

Generally when that happens it it not other homosexuals they fear so much as the homosexual within themselves.

It's OK Mehmet, we'll keep your little secret.

For you Mehmet

When you can't provide a good enough argument, call someone gay.
Cite insecurities.
Surely the best way to debate.

---

Of course not. There is no reason for anyone to be against being gay, and the ones that claim to have a reason stick to an old book full of contradictions.

And mehmet, you say you want them to be productive members of society and not harm anyone else, you're a fucking hypocrite. You are constantly belittling people on here and if I had to be completely honest it almost seems as if YOU are homosexual and trying to convince yourself that you can change it by choice. You can't. Just come out of your closet, it'd probably do you some good.

Who have I ever belittled here?
Do not state things that you cannot prove friend.
I don't know you, and you don't know me.
Obviously, you are just trying to end the argument by calling me gay.
Maybe I just call your mother a whore. It would have worked if we were at the same table, and I'd have to defend my name if you would have came up to me with such an accusation. Here, I just know that you're saying these due not having anything useful to say.

It may not be it, but just ordinary sexual insecurity, most prevailing in countries with alot of religiosity and 'tradition'. Add that to 1930's nationalism and you get mehmet. Simple.

The expert has spoken.
And since when do queer lovers like you exist, friend?

[Shell B]

"Queer lovers?" Come on, kilic, really?

[5thHorseman]

Is there and Secular reason why being gay is bad. not religious reasons, any not religious arguments?

Yes, it's a pain in the ass!

[kılıç_mehmet]

All arguments for normal rely on the fallacy ad populum, and irrelevant.

I did not start this. He stated from the start that he wants to be in accordance with the "norm". Your philosophical idiocracy won't work here.

If any of these things were subject to discrimination, then yes, you would become defensive about it.
To a certain extent, liking computer games sometimes requires a defensive position, for instance, if you enjoy first person shooters, you may be defensive in company of those who think they are responsible for gun sprees. The history of promoting games as an artistic medium like television or movies has been defensive in nature.

Oh, am I really so defensive when people clear the shelves from M rated games?
I am only defensive about a single thing. The thing that defines me. Turkish nationalism.

Quick question, hypothetically clearly, if your country became gay by majority, would you start dating men instead of women?

Hypothetical questions...Well, I would have to be born into that society.
That would obviously require you to be in accordance with that society.
But there never was such a society, and there never will be.

So Anti-miscegenation laws conferred equal rights to inter-racial couples because they still had the right to marry someone of the same racial background.

I think you misunderstand equal rights sir.

Not from my aspect. In my country, such law never existed. But gays still did not have the right to marry.

Then stop pretending they do have equal rights. People treat themselves differently based on religion, race, gender, and sexuality.

Evidently you believe this is a case for discrimination, I do not.

As I said, equality can only be amongst equals. Homosexuality can never be the equal of heterosexuality, and as such, cannot hope for the same acceptance.
Similarly, ethnic identities cannot find the same acceptance in front of the law.
These are all well defined things around the world. One must come in accordance with these.

I read that as I am a Jerk, whoops.

Equal rights don't matter because its not an issue that affects you personally. The critical test would be whether you would accept discrimination if you weren't.

There have been times where I have not been a majority. I've lived in Germany for three years. During my time, I have integrated myself into the German public, learned the German language and customs.
I did not force the Germans to learn my language, or follow my customs.
It's only fair if I follow the majority in a land where I'm the minority, an ethnic, on the top of that.
I'd expect the same from a German who would like to live in our country.

As in the holding hands must be stopped.. because.. because.. um.. its not natural!.. damn, naturalistic fallacy,
Because its not NORMAL, damn damn, ad populum,

They can hold hands in their own houses for as long as they like. It certainly is not normal here for two males to hold hands like a man and a woman would. We do not accept such things within the limits of our public decency. You're gay? Okay. But leave your gayness at home.

---

"Queer lovers?" Come on, kilic, really?

They try to provoke me. I will do the same from now on.
From a point on, they will lash out, Shell, I know it.

---

There have been other replies, who took the time to reply to my posts, thank you.
I will take the time to reply to yours:

So the identity of a person should be dictated by whatever the society is comfortable with? While I do think that defining yourself by just one trait of your personality that wasn't your choice to begin with, I do think that that option is up to the person in question. The should neither be censured nor "corrected".

Well, I think we have discussed this with you before. If you do not comply with the society you live in, you should not really be playing the victim if the society chastises you for it.

Any "harm" by the so called sexual deviants, exists only in your mind. Unlike your provocateur, they are not telling others to be gay or forcing their sexual identities on others.

In my mind? Well, collectively, they do have their print on the moral values of society.
I am not forcing my sexual identity on anyone else. They can sleep with men or with dogs if they want to. But publicizing this behavior is another thing.
Just like drugs. Can you do drugs in open public? Obviously not.

Acting normal or acting according to your idea of normal? That is the last argument left for bigots who have realized that they don't have a rational argument to stand on - "We are okay with you being gay, just as long as you don't tell anyone."

Let's ask the person I replied to, on "what" is normal.
He said he tries to blend in. Meaning, he tries to be a part of the "whole" something which he considers to be normal. I think you should stop speaking for others, and let others speak for themselves.

I'm with Zen on this one....me thinks mehmet protests FAR TOO much..

I am not protesting homosexuality. I am protesting the fact that it's being normalized.
That is all.

Why is marriage suddenly some inviolable institution that cannot be changed or even questioned?

It has been since it existed.
If you have a problem with that, you might start questioning society itself.

After 20 years of marriage, when I decided I'd had enough I walked away.

Great for you, friend. Now where are you?

So marriage is not so sacrosanct after all.

Not if you do not hold on to it. My grandparents have been married until my grandfather, may he rest in peace, passed away. I knew that he and my grandmother never really liked eachother too much. But they have four children from that marriage, and did take care of eachother for the rest of their lives.
Marriage is an important glue, that holds people, society together.
It produces people like my father, my two uncles and my aunt.
Without their marriage, would I exist? No.

[genkaus]

They can hold hands in their own houses for as long as they like. It certainly is not normal here for two males to hold hands like a man and a woman would. We do not accept such things within the limits of our public decency. You're gay? Okay. But leave your gayness at home.

You know the old saying, don't you? First they came for the Jews....

Your argument from public decency is invalid, because there can be no consensus on what constitutes public decency. If you seek to impose such things then you are no better than dictatorial majority imposing their will on the minority.

[kılıç_mehmet]

They can hold hands in their own houses for as long as they like. It certainly is not normal here for two males to hold hands like a man and a woman would. We do not accept such things within the limits of our public decency. You're gay? Okay. But leave your gayness at home.

You know the old saying, don't you? First they came for the Jews....

Your argument from public decency is invalid, because there can be no consensus on what constitutes public decency. If you seek to impose such things then you are no better than dictatorial majority imposing their will on the minority.

Well, I already said what constitutes public decency in many countries.
Obviously, there are some minor changes, but the minimal would hold that people do not walk around naked.
Even in the most primitive societies, there are public decency rules.
Homosexuality, too has a place within public decency.

[genkaus]

Well, I think we have discussed this with you before. If you do not comply with the society you live in, you should not really be playing the victim if the society chastises you for it.

Bullshit. If the society seeks to chastise you on a matter it really has no place chastising you on, then you are being victimized.

In my mind? Well, collectively, they do have their print on the moral values of society.
I am not forcing my sexual identity on anyone else. They can sleep with men or with dogs if they want to. But publicizing this behavior is another thing.
Just like drugs. Can you do drugs in open public? Obviously not.

In a truly free society, yes, you could do drugs in open public. And are you being made to wear clothes or act like gays? If not, then no one is forcing their sexual identity on you. But if you force them to dress "straight" then you are forcing your sexual identity on them.

Let's ask the person I replied to, on "what" is normal.
He said he tries to blend in. Meaning, he tries to be a part of the "whole" something which he considers to be normal. I think you should stop speaking for others, and let others speak for themselves.

Why? I can speak for them AND they can speak for themselves. It doesn't have to be one or the other.

---

Well, I already said what constitutes public decency in many countries.
Obviously, there are some minor changes, but the minimal would hold that people do not walk around naked.
Even in the most primitive societies, there are public decency rules.
Homosexuality, too has a place within public decency.

You are, ofcourse, ignoring all the exceptions to your "public decency" tenets when considering nude beaches or locker rooms where walking around naked in public is allowed. And then there are nudist colonies where wearing clothes is contrary to public decency. Thus, no consensus. The question of homosexuality is even more controversial.

And then you also have to justify why "public decency" should be considered grounds for curtailing people's freedoms.