Iran, more arrests of gays and lesbians.

[kılıç_mehmet]

OK, just so I understand you, do you think that a 14 year old boy who realizes that he fantasizes about boys and not girls, should hate himself because the other kids on the block are different than him?

Your faulty thinking begins here. While you look at it in terms of individuals, I look at in terms of numbers. Individuals themselves are of no real concern to the public, nor a real problem, until they become a part of a collective. And the homosexuals have been rounded up in this manner under the LGBT banner.

Since they formally formed a community, they now are to be treated in a collective manner, and that's what I'm doing. Individuals here and there have no real impact on public until they form a collective identity. But an artificial identity was created for the so-called LGBT community, under "sexual minorities".

Should that boy suppress his life so that others will not see that he is gay?

Well, I say again, its not about "should" it is that he will do that because he will understand that his behavior or his way of thinking is drastically different from the people around him, and that it somewhat does not fit in with the rest of the people. This is why he will seek others that are like him, and so will others until they form a collective. After forming a collective, they will obviously create an understanding based on what makes them so different from the majority and they will as such, become a minority.

This in itself is still not a problem, unless that minority starts to feel as though they have the right to enforce their collective identity upon the majority which obviously does not conform to it.
In the case of homosexuals, that is somewhat harder, because their lifestyles are quite anti-social. They defy anything that has to do with society. This is where they differ from etnic minorities, while ethnic minorities will often seek political goals, homosexuals seek goals related to how society works, what is to be considered normal or not, and how the culture and tradition behind this should be seen.
As I said, this thing is not an individual problem. Individual homosexuals that are not involved into the whole LGBT community thing already have their vices covered up by some other means, they have families and wives and jobs and fit fairly well into normal society.
And those who don't, usually try to keep out of the eyes of society, not just because society puts pressure on them, but their condition itself puts the pressure on them, because they do realize that they cannot fit into a society that is built on heterosexuality, and well, modern societies are all built on heterosexuality, family, marriage, child bearing and raising.
So when that person becomes part of a collective way of thinking, he seeks to change, or otherwise undermind the said roots of society.

Which all comes to what I just have said. Minorities trying to enforce their own agenda onto the majority, changing either politics or society to conform to their ideals.
This I previously have said, is not acceptable to me.

Is wanting that boy to live the best life he can in fair cooperation with heterosexuals a liberal agenda or a "cosmopolitan" campaign that is unfair to heteros?

In truth, I don't think that there can be fairness in majority minority relations. In almost all societies, the majority and minorities always clash with eachother at some point. Both sides have something at stake. For the heterosexual majority, their cultural and traditional values and institutions are at stake here, because they are about to be stripped from them, and re-defined or completely torn down by the whims of a minority.
The liberal cosmopolitan agenda never actually sides with the majority, as their ideals that do roughly the same that homosexuals do, encouraging counterculture, humanism and internationalism, have never appealed to any majority anywhere on the world. People do like to have their respective cultures, traditions and ethnic identities. And heterosexuality, since it is the only way for humans to procreate, plays an important part in the mentality of the said majority. So liberal cosmopolitans are also at a constant war with society itself, which is the reason that they support antisocial and abnormal behavior.

Yes, since contemporary society has never been defined by homosexual standards, and it has been perpetrated from the time the human species existed by heterosexuality, meaning, procreation, trying to re-define contemporary society by the standards of homosexuals is not only unfair, but also hostile, and this is why it meets a hostile reaction.

Rights campaigns are ugly and uncomfortable, but until the rights are fully accepted, they are necessary.

Just as the ethnic minorities here state that "armed resistance", what most of us would call terrorism, is necessary until we grant them whatever they want.
In short, minorities do have their ways of trying to gain a psychological advantage over the majority. Like you say, "if they don't give us what we want, we're going to go out in freaky latex suits with dildos protruding from their sides or wearing wigs and fake tits just to show the public we can actually mock them and they can't say anything about it." But no, you're wrong, because people, as I said, are getting tired of this.

I once thought you were smart - I'm learning otherwise.

Just because I believe that the majority have inherent rights on how things should work over the minorities, I'm dumb. I get it.

The right to exist is an interesting choice of words.

Define homosexual propaganda.

I did. Read my previous posts.

Self proclaimed minority? What else would you call the LGBT community exactly? We are not a majority.

That's what I said. You are a self-proclaimed minority, what else?

Minorities do not have the right to voice their agenda huh? How else are they supposed to move forward to try and gain equal rights in society exactly?

Well, why would you voice and agenda if you don't want it to be implemented? Is there a real reasoning behind that? You do want things to change in your favor, and I don't exactly see how this is something that is related to the majority, so I simply see nothing but a minority that tries to change things to fit their own view on how it should work. Its really a part of the minoritiy collective thinking that is being encouraged by liberals.

I take it you are talking about gays fighting for rights in your country. It is funny how these "if you dont like it get out or dont look" attitude comes out but if the roles are reversed people cry persecution.

No, because there is no such thing going on in my country. Here, they generally lay low and tend to keep to themselves. But we do have a lot of problems with ethnic minorties to the point of armed insurrection and terrorism. And they basically say nothing different from what gay rights activists say, so I think that it is a rather fittng connection.

I don't cry persecution, gays, nor any minority has the power to persecute me. However, I'm attacking their entitlement mentality, and how they somewhat feel as though they were wronged, but all they did was to simply focus the disapproval of the majority by attacking their values, or say, their rights as a sovereign nation, in my case.

How is being gay and wanting a legal gay union anti-social exactly? They are not forcing the majority to do anything other than to ALLOW them to be legally recognised as a united couple exactly the same as heterosexual couples. That is all.

Well, I'm not really an opponent of gays legally sharing property and etc. Though their unions can never be held on equal regard as marriage, as marriage has traditionally and culturally defined as being between a man and a woman, and is the way that families are formed in a socially acceptable way. Meaning, the "rights" that homosexuals want for themselves today are strongly tied to the culture, values and traditions of the majority that have practiced them for centuries before the gay marriage debate began, so trying to somewhat distort marriage, would be to distort the previously mentioned values that society is built upon. So this is obviously a counterculture and anti-social movement.

No one ever said that us homos are needed by anyone. We are what we are and your arguement doesnt really make much sense in this regard. I do not recall trying to reshape society, just working towards being able to be myself in society. Two entirely different things.

So what really makes you think that the majority should actually distort its own values in order to create marriage that fits your expectations? Well as I previously stated, you cannot be yourself in society unless you conform to certain expectations of the majority. And I don't think that you wish to conform to their expectations, quite the reverse actually, you wish them to conform to your expectations, to which I say, you're clearly out of your league.

Why is it that you think that your way is the best way or the right way, and that other ways are not? There are plenty of religious and/or heterosexuals who support what it is the LGBTs are trying to achieve. WHat do you say to them?

Well, this is not just about being heterosexual. Heterosexuality is just one aspect that is tied to whatever values, culture and traditions I've stated that define society. One person can be heterosexual while being non-conformist and counterculture, which would define todays cosmopolitants. They do not concern themselves with these values, so they are not really offended by whatever you might try to archive. In this context, they do not constitute a part of the majority, but are a minority like yourself.

That last paragraph kinda smelt of consipiracy. Artificially created? Say what now

Well, it was artificially created. Gays are not a recent phenomena. They have existed for centuries. And until the 20th century they have not surfaced as a minority. Unlike natural minorities, like ethnic minorities, the so-called sexual minorities are a new phenomena, and are the result of the counterculture movement, which makes them artificial.

No one "needs" to fear gays...fear is rarely rational.

Also, gays can create children. We are not born barren. The method is just a little different

No you can't create children. You need to use the natural dynamics in order to do so, so you must conform to the only way of reproduction there is. Heterosexual reproduction. Gays can have children via surrogate mothers. The only thing that they do is to ejaculate into a petri dish instead of directly ejaculating into a woman. Or have someone plant sperm into their womb, instead of getting them planted via coitus.
But it all involves male sperm, and female eggs.
Nothing is different, you're just lying to yourself.

Sorry but even outside our species inequality exists. There are alpha males and subordinates. You stupidly think by stripping that alpha male of it's title and the subordinate of it's title then things will magically be ok.

Well, I'm not talking about alpha males and their titles. Yes, men need leaders. Though this has nothing to do with what I want to say.

This is stupid, if no one is entitled to any rights, majority or minority, all you are arguing is might makes right. You do realize if you got plucked out of your space and plopped in some other part of the world you'd be that "minority" and I am damned sure in the context of zealous majority you wouldn't argue "oh well, fuck they don't owe me shit".

Well, thats pretty much about it on a primitive level, but here we have a society that in its foundations, gays had no part in. They simply had played no part in it. At least not with their gay identities. But now they feel as though as they are entitled to the right of changing it as they please. They're not requesting anything, they're not asking for compromise or what the majority is willing to give to them.

Besides, that second part won't work with me. I have lived as part of a minority in Germany. And I can state that I was the only Turkish kid in the Block, I didn't even live in the Turkish populated areas. However per my status as a minority, I am entitled to yes, education, but I am required to learn the German language, and I'm required to abide by German laws, I am required to integrate into German society to a certain degree. And well, as I respected the majority rights of the Germans, perhaps even more than themselves, because I also believe them to be a great people, I have had no run-ins, no fights and absolutely no problems with Germans, not more so than I did with other minorities, which were my only enemies in Germany.
The majority are not bullies, they simply wish to be respected, and they simply wish that their rights as the majority be untouched.
And true, they don't owe me anything, I am a stranger in their land, they have allowed me to come there, and live for a certain period of time. Thats for them to decide, they have the power due to their extensive national rights on the country. If I expect to wield the same rights, I'm laying claim on something that was never mine to begin with.

The other part of evolution while recognizing inequality is part of nature, does not mean our compassionate side which is also part of evolution, cannot work to level the playing field more.

Compassion does not equal bending over to the every wish of minorities. This is what liberals to nowadays. In your country, in my country, in Europe, in Russia, and wherever they are.

I see no problem using majority or minority just like in reality there are alpha males and subordinates. If we are going to talk about not having rights to anything why should you have rights? "Get your own fucking state" seems to me like a sense of self serving narcissism and lack of empathy. You are not arguing anything but "it is right when I get what I want".

Well, there is no corrolation, no. You again try to apply individualistic thought to collectivist thought. In a tribe, both the alpha male and the "subordinates" are part of the same majority. It is just that leadership qualities are defined in a different manner in such animal societies.

In human society though, minorities are known for their different qualities and characteristics that set them apart from the majority.
Normally, I am not really against the propagation of such characteristics. People can have different cultures, and different ways of life. However once they tell me that I am the one to accept these as equals to my culture, and my way of life as the majority, like the immigrants of Europe do today, with the help of liberals of course, they only earn the animosity of the majority. People begin to tell them, well, if you don't like the laws, if you don't like the education system, if you don't like our ways of life, you can go back to the country you came from, and they are right, they are right. Because minorities are part of a social contract. This outlines that founding majorities have more say, due to their greater share in the creation of countries or institutions than minorities. Once you violate this contract, people will tell you to go and live in a state that fits your expectations.
I am not arguing on this part, this is something that we can see today.

No one is entitled to anything really?

No? Am I not entitled to the blood and sweat of my ancestors?

Ok, then can I murder you? But somehow I think you'd rightfully reject that idea.

I don't know how that is somewhat of a relevant argument.

Now still think no one is entitled to have rights? Or why don't you say what you really mean, "its only right when I get what I want".

All I am saying is, minorities are entitled to the rights that the majority has. Just for another example for it to get into your stubborn mind, the hispanic community in America are entitled to English education. But they are not entitled to Spanish education, and they are not entitled to request that Spanish be made equal to English in all levels of society, and the USA be made a bilingual state, laws, politics and education and all that.
They cannot enforce their own national agendas.

I smell a utopian uber libertarian anarchist on par with the delusional theist I debate.

Well, you say this because you still can't break through your boundaries of individualism. You still think that I also look at this through the eyes of an individual, though I'm not. I always think in a collective way. I am a nationalist, not an anarchist.

If you hate anti social behavior then don't be a dick and tell gays they are arguing for special rights or more rights. Please don't embarrass yourself, you're going to make my irony meter explode.

Well, I am not really going against things that define society. Gays don't define society. But gays today do openly strive to change or re-define things that define society, in spite of their status as a newly born minority that had no influence on culture, tradition and social insitutions. This is anti-social behavior on a massive scale. Opposing this is to work for the society, not against it.

I am not gay so if you have a problem with gays, debate them and then be willing to listen, otherwise you are displaying that "anti social" behavior you wrongfully accuse them of.

I just did. And well, one only has to look at their so-called pride parades, and how willing they are to show their extensive differences in the most degenerate ways possible.
This is how they present themselves to the majority.

[Brian37]

I am a nationalist, not an anarchist.

So, anything blindly followed to the dogmatic position of not allowing dissent or pluralism is a religion. If there is no such thing as a utopia, then getting stupidly scared that someone different than moved in is absurd. Common law is what keeps us civil, not our differences.

[IAmNotHere]

Quotes went funny so had to post this a little differently...

In response to kılıç_mehmet

And the homosexuals have been rounded up in this manner under the LGBT banner.

Rounded up? What are we? A pack of dogs?

Individuals here and there have no real impact on public until they form a collective identity. But an artificial identity was created for the so-called LGBT community, under "sexual minorities".

I still fail to see how it is arficial. Anything that is not a part of the majority is a minority. It is what it is.

After forming a collective, they will obviously create an understanding based on what makes them so different from the majority and they will as such, become a minority.

Again, you do not become a minority. You either are in the minority or you are not. There is not a special minority club or anything.

In the case of homosexuals, that is somewhat harder, because their lifestyles are quite anti-social. They defy anything that has to do with society.

How do they defy anything that has to do with society?

Individual homosexuals that are not involved into the whole LGBT community thing already have their vices covered up by some other means, they have families and wives and jobs and fit fairly well into normal society.
And those who don't, usually try to keep out of the eyes of society, not just because society puts pressure on them, but their condition itself puts the pressure on them, because they do realize that they cannot fit into a society that is built on heterosexuality, and well, modern societies are all built on heterosexuality, family, marriage, child bearing and raising.

Did I read that right? Condition? It is not a condition.
What puts the pressure on us is the fact that people are too interested in who everyone else is sleeping with and make it their issue if they do not agree with it. If people minded their own business there wouldnt be such a big issue.

In short, minorities do have their ways of trying to gain a psychological advantage over the majority. Like you say, "if they don't give us what we want, we're going to go out in freaky latex suits with dildos protruding from their sides or wearing wigs and fake tits just to show the public we can actually mock them and they can't say anything about it." But no, you're wrong, because people, as I said, are getting tired of this.

What are you even talking about?

That's what I said. You are a self-proclaimed minority, what else?

A minority is what it is. You either are in the minority or you are not. To say that it is self proclaimed is to hint at it being invalid in some way.

Well, why would you voice and agenda if you don't want it to be implemented?

What you see as agenda I see as seeking rights.

So what really makes you think that the majority should actually distort its own values in order to create marriage that fits your expectations? Well as I previously stated, you cannot be yourself in society unless you conform to certain expectations of the majority. And I don't think that you wish to conform to their expectations, quite the reverse actually, you wish them to conform to your expectations, to which I say, you're clearly out of your league.

I fail to see what values are supposedly being distorted. I do not wish to conform to anything and I do not expect others to conform either. Looking for people to confirm and seeking equal rights for all are two different things.

Well, it was artificially created. Gays are not a recent phenomena. They have existed for centuries. And until the 20th century they have not surfaced as a minority. Unlike natural minorities, like ethnic minorities, the so-called sexual minorities are a new phenomena, and are the result of the counterculture movement, which makes them artificial.

It is not a phenonema, full stop. I fail to see how sexual minorities are not natural minorities.

No you can't create children. You need to use the natural dynamics in order to do so, so you must conform to the only way of reproduction there is. Heterosexual reproduction. Gays can have children via surrogate mothers. The only thing that they do is to ejaculate into a petri dish instead of directly ejaculating into a woman. Or have someone plant sperm into their womb, instead of getting them planted via coitus.
But it all involves male sperm, and female eggs.
Nothing is different, you're just lying to yourself.

It is a form of reproduction. Sorry it doesnt conform to your idea of how it should be done.

You seem to have this attitude of anything that is different should be quiet or sod off, which is very primal.

[FlyingNarwhal]

I'm not in favor of government marriage in general, but how is trying to gain equal marriage forcing an agenda on to the majority. They are not forcing gay marriage upon the heterosexual majority, they are trying to adopt an aspect of the majority. Doesn't sound like they are forcing an agenda, sounds like they are assimilating.