My views on gay mariage

[CleanShavenJesus]

You're so full of yourself, thinking that you disrespect and ridicule me with using a smiley, instead of a proper reply to points you disagree about.

What's the point? You ignore them anyway.

[kılıç_mehmet]

Your starting point is that this is the way it has always been, which is actually something you can't possibly know. Leastwise you are in no better position to speak for what has always been or what is essential about what has always been than anyone else is in.

I can possibly know it as far as it goes back, friend. Other than that, yes true, I cannot go beyond written history, but neither can you. And in that regard, I'd say that written history shows that marriage has been between people of two different sexes.
Obviously I'm not speaking for anything, marriage speaks for itself, does it not?

My starting point is that marriage is the way we establish our families beyond that into which we are born. Pair bonding is the nucleus for formalizing our 'inner circles' going forward at adulthood. (It may be that some folks will prefer a bigger starting unit than a pair but lets leave that to the side for now.) Some may even prefer to live in solitude and we -from both our points of view- do not begrudge them to exercise their preference in this, do we? For others, like my wife and myself, there is no desire to enlarge the inner circle beyond ourselves. We did not marry to provide conditions for raising a child. That was never our intention. I would like to know if you have any problem from your traditional outlook with our arrangement? Should people be allowed to enjoy a married status if our only rationale for joining is the satisfaction it gives us to make and share our lives together?

I do not begrudge you for not wanting a child, though I can't really understand why. Taking up a huge responsibility such as marriage, yet wishing to avoid the responsibility of child care? Having said that, the fact that you avoid having a child in marriage is not really my concern though I'd like to add that you obviously take for granted a gift that some would perhaps kill for(like infertile couples).
Other than that, I still stand by my point that the main purpose of a marital environment is to bear and raise children in a proper manner(in the form that you probably have seen from your own parents). The fact that you don't wish to have children, or can't have children doesn't change the fact that if you do, by either a mistake, or in the form of an adoption, you both share a legal responsibility to look after it, no?

If your traditional view can allow for my wife's and my preference, I surely do not see why two people of the same sex choosing to get together to make and share their lives should matter so much. Some of them at least will want to adopt or pursue children with artificial assistance. My wife and I have intention of doing even that much. We're not worried that the world will run out of people without our contribution and we don't feel we need to have children for our own satisfaction either.

Well, surely I do not approve of the fact that you do not have children, as I'm sure that you'll be a lot more lonelier in your later lives, and will never perhaps have the joy of grandchildren and etc. I am in no position to force you to have children. I can only give you an advice based on my observations on some people who have reached their mids without a child, a decision that they now regret.

I have no problem with two people sharing their lives. But marriage is not just about two people, it's about society as a whole, friend. This is why I put an emphasis on the creation and raising of children, which are the means by which the next generations are created. Marriage is there to provide an environment for these.
Homosexuals as homosexuals have never been in a position to do so, and they obviously are unable to procreate by default. Since they cannot do these, I fail to see why they should be included in a meaningful tradition such as marriage. Other things such as adoption and surrogacy are another matter of discussion, as for example, lesbians can get pregnant via artificial insemination, and can raise the child together, without actually being married. So what is this fuss all about? They simply cannot accept the fact that marriage was not meant for gays. Just as that.


IF their purpose is to simply share wealth and etc. they can be given another form of existence, seperate from marriage. But that's not what it's about, neither do I think it's about love. I think its about gays looking for a way to make themselves more acceptable to the public, as marriage also serves as a way to make relations between a man and a woman "acceptable", they believe that if they can legally "marry" as a man and a woman would, society would hold them in equal regard.

The reason I say your traditional position is improperly supported is that you can't use its being traditional to support the argument that tradition is better. You can use it to justify your own preference, but it gives you no basis to justify imposing your preference on anyone else.

If tradition is not better, why really follow that tradition? If you believe that tradition is bad, you should be able to say the same for marriage, something which is in itself a tradition, which is nothing more than the mimicry of the behavior of previous generations. Marriage is the same. Its rituals, its boundaries, and its social and legal connections are based on tradition. And tradition holds that its between a man and a woman for the sake of reproduction. Why do you still think that personal preference does have a role in this?
If so try creating some other form of insitution that is free of social and legal bonds, and call it marriage, I don't care, but real marriage was not meant for gays, or some other form of whatever people desire, three men and four women, or etc.

---

You're so full of yourself, thinking that you disrespect and ridicule me with using a smiley, instead of a proper reply to points you disagree about.

What's the point? You ignore them anyway.

I surely don't. I value your opinions, they give me a chance to test my own ideas by hearing about another.

[Rahul]

Well, give those to the homeless people on your streets. Better yet to the poor indians in your concentration cam.. eh, reserves....

It would only be acceptable in America by America's homeless people.

In the mighty country of Turkey? Fuck yeah! Buy the fuck out of that shit. Fancy as fuck.

A stylin' Turk. I got worn out Nikes. I'm the shit.

I've been friends with a lot of Native Americans. Tobias Frazier, Emily, Todd, Chocktaw, Cherokee, Black Foot.

You don't know shit about us. Don't pretend like you do.

I've carried Toby, a full blooded Chocktaw, from danger when he was knocked out cold in the middle of shit going down. I was fiercely concerned for him. Even to the point of exposing myself to potential death. The fucker has even sobbed in front of me. Us guys. Us tough guys in the military but he broke down in front of me and Kevin and fucking cried. And I cried with him. My brother. But he fucking lived. And I'm eternally grateful for that. And in one piece physically.

Your dumb, turkish ass doesn't even know what the fuck Chocktaw is. Brand new word for you isn't it? Better do a quick internet search. I know these people. How dare you belittle our relationship.

But you're just a fucking Turk. A country that mildly sat out WWII signing an agreement of non aggression and friendship with Nazi Germany for the most of the war, and then only declaring war on them in the last few months to get into compliance with the stipulations of UN membership. Your people are shit. And they have no balls. They just have bias, and hatred, and condemnation. And you're all fucking muzzies. Fuck your muslim archaic asses.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

Your starting point is that this is the way it has always been, which is actually something you can't possibly know. Leastwise you are in no better position to speak for what has always been or what is essential about what has always been than anyone else is in.

I can possibly know it as far as it goes back, friend. Other than that, yes true, I cannot go beyond written history, but neither can you. And in that regard, I'd say that written history shows that marriage has been between people of two different sexes.
Obviously I'm not speaking for anything, marriage speaks for itself, does it not?

Big fucking deal. So from now on, it'll be between 2 people of the same gender or of different gender and 6000 years from now, they'll say, yea marriage has been between heteros and homos for thousands of years. So if this is what you want to stick to, you'll have to consider not making any changes to the world as it is right now. Cos it'd be WRONG.

My starting point is that marriage is the way we establish our families beyond that into which we are born. Pair bonding is the nucleus for formalizing our 'inner circles' going forward at adulthood. (It may be that some folks will prefer a bigger starting unit than a pair but lets leave that to the side for now.) Some may even prefer to live in solitude and we -from both our points of view- do not begrudge them to exercise their preference in this, do we? For others, like my wife and myself, there is no desire to enlarge the inner circle beyond ourselves. We did not marry to provide conditions for raising a child. That was never our intention. I would like to know if you have any problem from your traditional outlook with our arrangement? Should people be allowed to enjoy a married status if our only rationale for joining is the satisfaction it gives us to make and share our lives together?

I do not begrudge you for not wanting a child, though I can't really understand why. Taking up a huge responsibility such as marriage, yet wishing to avoid the responsibility of child care? Having said that, the fact that you avoid having a child in marriage is not really my concern though I'd like to add that you obviously take for granted a gift that some would perhaps kill for(like infertile couples).
Other than that, I still stand by my point that the main purpose of a marital environment is to bear and raise children in a proper manner(in the form that you probably have seen from your own parents). The fact that you don't wish to have children, or can't have children doesn't change the fact that if you do, by either a mistake, or in the form of an adoption, you both share a legal responsibility to look after it, no?

Yes of course. Even if you do not have children, or ever plan to have children, you should only marry to provide an environment for the nonexistent children. Stand by your point. Your point makes a lot of sense.

Same thing with gays, if they adopt, they'll have a legal responsibility to look after it. what's the difference again? OOOOH they're not normal. Normal just means majority. Every single one of us is not normal at at least 1 thing.

If your traditional view can allow for my wife's and my preference, I surely do not see why two people of the same sex choosing to get together to make and share their lives should matter so much. Some of them at least will want to adopt or pursue children with artificial assistance. My wife and I have intention of doing even that much. We're not worried that the world will run out of people without our contribution and we don't feel we need to have children for our own satisfaction either.

Well, surely I do not approve of the fact that you do not have children, as I'm sure that you'll be a lot more lonelier in your later lives, and will never perhaps have the joy of grandchildren and etc. I am in no position to force you to have children. I can only give you an advice based on my observations on some people who have reached their mids without a child, a decision that they now regret.

i guess we're just not selfish enough to have kids just to burden them with the task of taking care of us when we're old.

I have no problem with two people sharing their lives. But marriage is not just about two people, it's about society as a whole, friend. This is why I put an emphasis on the creation and raising of children, which are the means by which the next generations are created. Marriage is there to provide an environment for these.

you really do. the rest of this quote you're just repeating yourself.

Homosexuals as homosexuals have never been in a position to do so, and they obviously are unable to procreate by default. Since they cannot do these, I fail to see why they should be included in a meaningful tradition such as marriage. Other things such as adoption and surrogacy are another matter of discussion, as for example, lesbians can get pregnant via artificial insemination, and can raise the child together, without actually being married. So what is this fuss all about? They simply cannot accept the fact that marriage was not meant for gays. Just as that.


IF their purpose is to simply share wealth and etc. they can be given another form of existence, seperate from marriage. But that's not what it's about, neither do I think it's about love. I think its about gays looking for a way to make themselves more acceptable to the public, as marriage also serves as a way to make relations between a man and a woman "acceptable", they believe that if they can legally "marry" as a man and a woman would, society would hold them in equal regard.

oh no? tell me, why do heterosexuals marry? What's the purpose of a pair of man and woman, having no intentions of having children, marry?

The reason I say your traditional position is improperly supported is that you can't use its being traditional to support the argument that tradition is better. You can use it to justify your own preference, but it gives you no basis to justify imposing your preference on anyone else.

If tradition is not better, why really follow that tradition? If you believe that tradition is bad, you should be able to say the same for marriage, something which is in itself a tradition, which is nothing more than the mimicry of the behavior of previous generations. Marriage is the same. Its rituals, its boundaries, and its social and legal connections are based on tradition. And tradition holds that its between a man and a woman for the sake of reproduction. Why do you still think that personal preference does have a role in this?
If so try creating some other form of insitution that is free of social and legal bonds, and call it marriage, I don't care, but real marriage was not meant for gays, or some other form of whatever people desire, three men and four women, or etc.

yea, that's your only point. that you cannot stomach it, so it cannot happen.

[Chas]

.. or even a proper reply to points supported improperly.

Improper, please tell me how you think that they are improperly supported. From the beginning of the argument, I have had one support, and one support only. That marriage is an insitution that is regulated by traditions, and that marriage, from the beginning of its existence had one main goal, to provide a safe environment for a child to be concevied, and raised, with a legal/social obligation for both of the parties to look after the child. In short, I have stated that this was the primary goal of the marriage, to provide for the newer generations by bringing two people who are able to procreate together.

I yet have to see an argument that was more anymore proper than mine.
Others have gone about how marriage has changed, how it is a right for everyone, not it's not for everyone. In the old days, and yet still in our country, though you can legally marry, no one will marry you unless you have a proper job, have done your military duty, and many other factors such as how well off your family is, or how less problematic your family is, whether you smoke, drink and etc..
Back then, marriage was something that was regulated by higher standards than today.
Not everyone could marry. But today, marriage is like a game...Therefore you think that gays, who do not meet the least requirements to form a marital couple, meaning, being male and female should marry.
I disagree on the basis I've mentioned above. What really is your standing point?

Marriage is defined and regulated by the state. In the West, that means (generally) a secular state.
Religions can define it however they want, but in civilized countries they are not the state.

Marriage of gay people will soon be legal everywhere in the West. If you don't like that, too bad. But it in no way affects you personally.

We call it human rights and freedom. We call your attitudes bigotry and repression.

[Whateverist]

Therefore you think that gays, who do not meet the least requirements to form a marital couple, meaning, being male and female should marry.
I disagree on the basis I've mentioned above. What really is your standing point?

Marriage is defined and regulated by the state. In the West, that means (generally) a secular state.
Religions can define it however they want, but in civilized countries they are not the state.

Marriage of gay people will soon be legal everywhere in the West. If you don't like that, too bad. But it in no way affects you personally.

We call it human rights and freedom. We call your attitudes bigotry and repression.

But don't worry, you can grow out of it! You may not realize it yet but some time in the future when your little boy comes home hand in hand with another little boy to tell you the good news .. you may yet evolve and join us in the modern world.

[FlyingNarwhal]

Deny government sponsored marriage for all!!! Ahhh, tastes like equality...

[kılıç_mehmet]

Improper, please tell me how you think that they are improperly supported. From the beginning of the argument, I have had one support, and one support only. That marriage is an insitution that is regulated by traditions, and that marriage, from the beginning of its existence had one main goal, to provide a safe environment for a child to be concevied, and raised, with a legal/social obligation for both of the parties to look after the child. In short, I have stated that this was the primary goal of the marriage, to provide for the newer generations by bringing two people who are able to procreate together.

I yet have to see an argument that was more anymore proper than mine.
Others have gone about how marriage has changed, how it is a right for everyone, not it's not for everyone. In the old days, and yet still in our country, though you can legally marry, no one will marry you unless you have a proper job, have done your military duty, and many other factors such as how well off your family is, or how less problematic your family is, whether you smoke, drink and etc..
Back then, marriage was something that was regulated by higher standards than today.
Not everyone could marry. But today, marriage is like a game...Therefore you think that gays, who do not meet the least requirements to form a marital couple, meaning, being male and female should marry.
I disagree on the basis I've mentioned above. What really is your standing point?

Marriage is defined and regulated by the state. In the West, that means (generally) a secular state.
Religions can define it however they want, but in civilized countries they are not the state.

Marriage of gay people will soon be legal everywhere in the West. If you don't like that, too bad. But it in no way affects you personally.

We call it human rights and freedom. We call your attitudes bigotry and repression.

Well, marriage here is a point above your secularity, as marriages can only be conducted by civil servants, not by priests, imams or rabbis, friend. So I believe that marriages here are a lot more secular than in your country where priests have a legal right to marry people. No, not here.

It certainly doesn't affect me personally, but I'm giving my opinion on why I believe it should not be the case.
What you call human rights, I simply call a legitimization of depravity.

But don't worry, you can grow out of it! You may not realize it yet but some time in the future when your little boy comes home hand in hand with another little boy to tell you the good news .. you may yet evolve and join us in the modern world.

Oh, you're still stuck in the cold-war era as it seems.
As a famous Turkish poet, has stated in a stanza of the same poem that became the national anthem of our country, "the west is nothing but a monster that has had a single tooth left."
And indeed, your bark is generally worse than your bite. I'd like to see you bringing us your freedoms and "democracy" as you had brought to others, if you dare.
For so-called freedoms can only spread their taint by the use of force.