Marriage discrimination struck down in Arkansas.

[Esquilax]

They do not meet the proper criteria to be married, meaning. The concept of marriage aims to create families, families that fit the description of the traditions associated with marriage.

As has been pointed out to you before, I suppose this means you're also against straight marriage in cases of infertility, disinterest in having kids, and the elderly?

No, of course not. Because this "purpose of marriage" bullshit is a smokescreen over the real answer, which is that you're just grossed out by it. I dunno, if you really thought your reasons were compelling would you have to concoct cover stories to obscure them?

But since the liberal and rootless cosmopolitan mentality tries to tear down everything related to traditional social norms and institutions, they try to re-define what marriage actually tries to accomplish.

Yes, because everyone who disagrees with you is part of a giant evil conspiracy to get you! Grow up.

Another thing is to normalize homosexuality by giving it what it never had before, legitimacy.

And if anyone gets to determine what's legitimate, it's you, ain't it?

Traditions are changed via majority consensus. The way I see it, the minority forces its ways upon the majority consensus.

See, this is how completely divorced from reality you are: As of right now, you are in the minority. You have been for at least a year, and that means that, by your own logic, you continuing to stand in the way of gay marriage is a bad thing you should stop, right?

After all, you wouldn't want to be forcing your ways upon the majority, would you?

Well, I'd say that heterosexual relationships are what is considered normal, and anything else is considered abnormal. I think that there is a consensus to that in any part of the world you visit.
And in any part of the world, marriage is defined by the standards of normal people, by that, heterosexuals who have at least some use for marriage.

It's interesting that you keep appealing to the majority as though you're still a part of that.

Acceptance is one thing, redefining society according to them is another thing.
Besides, for that to happen, like me being part of the minority in this regard, I'd say that you'd need to brainwash at least 5 more generations with your pro-gay bullshit.

Sorry, we're already there. And I'm not sorry: do you have anything for an argument beyond dishonest well poisoning? For a guy who keeps bitching about the redefining of terms you seem pretty bent on forcing the language of the discussion into one sided rhetoric.

[kılıç_mehmet]

Fine, then. Don't worry about it. If marriage equality came to your country, it wouldn't actually have any effect on you anyway.

The people here are not as silent as the people in your country. They don't take every bullshit that the gov. throws at them.

Yeah, it's so terrible to, uh, do what? Demand the recognition of equal rights that our country's Constitution guarantees?

Constitution grants the right to marriage to homosexuals? Since when?

That's an important point in this debate in America, the point everybody on the wrong side of this debate seems to ignore: this sort of discrimination has been illegal since the passage of the 14th amendment 150 years ago.

It's not a ban, its the default.
It was the default until you tried to define the very meaning of default by including the homosexuals aswell.
That's the dictatorship of the minorities.

It doesn't really matter, anyway. By the end of this decade, only the most deeply-inbred states won't have majority support for it anyway.

You're wrong there my friend. Reaction is growing strong, both in Europe and in the US, against this neo-liberal horsecrap.
Soon, even if you have the law on your side, the people will rise in anger against the attacks made on their social institutions, traditions and cultures.

Legalization of same-sex marriage is a reality, whether you want to accept it or not.

And so is the fact that it does not have popular support amongst the majority.

Stating only one man and one woman is a tactful extension of one's bigotry.

I guess you're open to sharing your wife.That's fine by me, but don't try to involve this into the institution of marriage and the family.

Marriage equality has no effect on you or on your rights, you dumb fuck.

Well as a matter of fact, it ignores me and people like me.
We cannot define marriage, but instead have to conform to the type of "marriage" which is in fact nothing more than a twisted and bastardized version of what used to be marriage, that homos and their supporters have laid before us, or be called fascists and bigots.

Marriage equality does not affect others' traditions. Your argument is nonsense.

There is no tradition of the other. Traditions of marriage are not defined by individuals, but by collective consciousness.
Muslims, Christians, Jews, different ethnic groups, all have their own forms of traditions.
And the legalization of this strongly affects all, as all traditions of marriage without exception, involve the union of a man and woman within its heart. The legalisation of gay marriage aims to destroy this very basis of marriage.

No. It's been centred around a man and many women, or a man and his female slaves, or a man and any women they can get their hands on, including raping virgins, in the Abrahamic traditions.

Sorry?
No matter how it goes, its still between a man and a woman, mate.
I guess you couldn't comprehend that.

Many other cultures accepted gay relationships, especially among men.

And? The fact that teh Greeks were boy-fuckers, along with the Romans, did not change the fact that there still was a standard for marriage, being between a man and a woman.
The institution of the family centered around it.
Besides, this just shows me that humanity is not moving beyond our current century, but moving backwards into antiquity. So why not adopt some of its other awesome customs such as slavery? I'd very much like to see that one.

Now, if your view of a marriage is valid simply because of the chance for kids, do you therefore not recognise marriages where the couples choose not to have kids, or marriages between elderly people?

Well, those are minor and fringe, although the modern world actually encourages people not to have kids, which is why the birthrates are falling in Europe.
Still, the main reason for marriage is to lay the basis of the institution of the family, to ensure that children are born into a committed relationship of a man and a woman, and are taken care of the best way that both can provide.


The fact that there are people who cannot have or do not want children get married does not change this fact, as the definition of marriage is not something that is affected by the actions and thoughts of minor and fringe groups of people.

If you're determined that tradition trumps all then let me mention that slavery was traditional for ceenturies, as were many other things we find abhorrent today.

Do you now? Just to be clear, slavery is not a tradition, its an institution, an obsolete institution. Comparing marriage to slavery means that you either wish to abolish marriage, or reinstate an unrecognizable form of slavery.

If we can change our attitudes on those, why is marriage such a sticking point?

Slavery was able to be abolished mainly due to the fact that there was an industrial revolution going on, an the institution of slavery was becoming obsolete. Would you say the same for Marriage? If so, why really advocate it for the homos?

Because, ewww.

That's something else, of course. Their relationships are still widely regarded as disgusting, and abnormal.

And this is the direction that the rest of my country is heading towards, and has been heading towards for decades at this point. Even in the past, when acceptance of same sex marriage was in the minority, it was still on an upward trend. Is it not possible that this is the invention of a new system of traditions that has started several decades ago?

Then, my friend, why is it that your liberal-democrat president fails to acknowledge it?


And no, there are no traditions associated with the marriage of homos. You can see this from even a very simple point that parties of a marriage are called "husband & wife" and specific dress codes for ceremonies are not unisex but are centered around traditional notions of masculinity and femininity. Not to mention that we still have the notions of the "standard" and "normal" family, involving a husband and wife, and children.
Homos, as they form a fringe group, cannot influence the traditions of the majority. They may influence the laws, but traditions are not for them to decide. And nowhere on earth is a majority so disattached from its status as the majority to let minorities bend and shape them at will.

The idea of a traditional marriage has already been destroyed in this country. Higher and higher divorce rates, more children born to non-married parents, more people choosing not to marry at all yet remain in monogamous relationships, these issues have plagued what was once called traditional marriage. I think marriage isn't looked at with the same reverence that it once was, and now one of the main reasons for marrying someone isn't the symbolic and ceremonial aspect anymore, but has more to do with the legal benefits you acquire with respect to your spouse.

Well why do you support it then? Just abolish the institution altogether.
Since it does not serve any purpose, merely allow for "partners" who might or might not even be in a relationship to go to a court and sign a document that allows them to share property. This might involve friends, housemates and etc.
Would that be marriage? Obviously not. Similarly, a "marriage" for the mere purpose of its legal benefits is not marriage. The homos know that, and so do you.

The fact is, that the majority of people, especially the middle-class(who yet adhere to monogamy, and traditional norms of society and morality), are rather defiant.
They do value the traditional aspects of marriage, and the imporance of family, and child raising.
The fact is, homos simply want "legitimacy" for their abnormal ways, and the only thing that can give them this legitimacy is marriage, both in legal and social terms.
And that legitimacy is still bound by traditions.

---

As has been pointed out to you before, I suppose this means you're also against straight marriage in cases of infertility, disinterest in having kids, and the elderly?

I made an explanation regarding infertile people, elderly and those who do not wish to have kids.
Besides, people who are infertile do seek out ways to have children, and medicine supports them in this regard.

No, of course not. Because this "purpose of marriage" bullshit is a smokescreen over the real answer, which is that you're just grossed out by it. I dunno, if you really thought your reasons were compelling would you have to concoct cover stories to obscure them?

That I am, I find their ways disgusting, and I do not need to hide this, if I weren't, I'd be one of them.

Yes, because everyone who disagrees with you is part of a giant evil conspiracy to get you! Grow up. Rolleyes

Well, it isn't really a conspiracy if its done in the open. I'm just saying whatever I'm seeing.
Degeneracy, trying to triumph over decency.
Rootlessness, trying to triumph over tradition.
Illegitimacy, trying to triump over legitimacy.
Minority, trying to triumph over the majority.

Gay marriage involves all these crimes in one notion.

And if anyone gets to determine what's legitimate, it's you, ain't it? Rolleyes

Your individualistic mindset forces you to attack the person, rather than the idea that defines the person.
I do not define my views, my views define me.

See, this is how completely divorced from reality you are: As of right now, you are in the minority. You have been for at least a year, and that means that, by your own logic, you continuing to stand in the way of gay marriage is a bad thing you should stop, right?

After all, you wouldn't want to be forcing your ways upon the majority, would you? Dodgy

I guess you know that being 49% does not equal to being a minority, it just means that you have split the nation in half.
And I'm fairly certain that with the reaction against neo-liberalism on the rise, things will soon start to be a thorn on your side.

It's interesting that you keep appealing to the majority as though you're still a part of that. Thinking

I am, both in the old world where I live and in the new world. And you yet have not managed to change the notion of what marriage really is(not that you can change something that has been so for thousands of years), marriage is still defined by the concepts of the union of a man and a woman and gays merely conform to that since they don't really have much of a tradition other than visiting gay bars and holding meth orgies.

Sorry, we're already there. And I'm not sorry: do you have anything for an argument beyond dishonest well poisoning? For a guy who keeps bitching about the redefining of terms you seem pretty bent on forcing the language of the discussion into one sided rhetoric.

Well, your rhetoric is one sided as it is, my side is clear and so is yours.
My side is the side of the many generations before me, that have benefitted from the traditional form of marriage and family, had clean and well adjusted societies and members of society, instead of fringe degenerates who are consumed in their indvidualistic desire for abnormal pleasures that they wish everyone else to accomodate their ways by granting it legitimacy via marriage.
Your worldview is rotten, and when you realize it, it will already be too late.

[Esquilax]

I made an explanation regarding infertile people, elderly and those who do not wish to have kids.

Is that what you call that? You said they were only small groups, and then... that was it. You just kinda... dismissed it out of hand by reasserting your initial case, leaving the special pleading intact, only now with the added benefit that we can all see how unwilling you are to actually address a salient point.

Besides, people who are infertile do seek out ways to have children, and medicine supports them in this regard.

And gay people can do the same, since you've got such a boner for families. In fact, even leaving aside surrogacy and IVF options, legalizing gay marriage would do much to alleviate the stress on the foster care system.

Just another way your state argument falls apart, revealing the much more insipid truth behind it, I suppose.

That I am, I find their ways disgusting, and I do not need to hide this, if I weren't, I'd be one of them.

Hey, there's your real argument! Finally, a bit of honesty!

Well, it isn't really a conspiracy if its done in the open. I'm just saying whatever I'm seeing.

Yes, it's called the "I am the world" fallacy.

Degeneracy, trying to triumph over decency.

Two people wanting a loving, committed relationship is degenerate? And don't immediately leap to talking about anal sex, because that's not what this is about at all. That remains legal even without gay marriage, so don't try to deflect with that garbage.

Rootlessness, trying to triumph over tradition.

Except that you've already admitted and accepted that traditions change over time. You just don't seem to see the irony of spinning around and using the appeal to tradition fallacy this time. You've got this random line drawn in your head that, because this is the time you happened to be born in, all the traditions you grew up with are the ones that need to stay, because you're the most important person in the world, damn it!

If you lived in a country where the tradition was gay marriage only and no straight marriage, would you feel the same? If not, I'll thank you to drop this nonsense argument.

Illegitimacy, trying to triump over legitimacy.

And again, this strange notion that you and you alone get to decide what's legitimate. Don't we all get a say in that too?

Minority, trying to triumph over the majority.

Factually untrue: it's you that's in the minority, which is why it's so strange that you keep pulling this argument. It's almost as if the actual facts don't matter to you as much as your tired rhetoric does...

Gay marriage involves all these crimes in one notion.

So you admit that you're a criminal, trying to triumph over the majority, here?

Your individualistic mindset forces you to attack the person, rather than the idea that defines the person.
I do not define my views, my views define me.

And so far, your views are all you've given. It's very hard to attack an idea when all you've given is repetitions of your opinion with nothing backing them beyond further opinions. The fact that you have an interconnected layer of justifications and excuses for your bigotry that don't hitch up to the real world at all doesn't suddenly make them right, or justified.

It just means you like them.

I guess you know that being 49% does not equal to being a minority, it just means that you have split the nation in half.

Actually, given that your side is still 44%, and 70% of the younger generations support gay marriage, you are still in the minority, and that fact is only going to become more true as the old fogeys die off.

And I'm fairly certain that with the reaction against neo-liberalism on the rise, things will soon start to be a thorn on your side.

I don't put much stock in the fantasies of people who use terms like "neo-liberalism."

I am, both in the old world where I live and in the new world. And you yet have not managed to change the notion of what marriage really is(not that you can change something that has been so for thousands of years), marriage is still defined by the concepts of the union of a man and a woman and gays merely conform to that since they don't really have much of a tradition other than visiting gay bars and holding meth orgies.

So, now you're just denying demonstrable, polled facts in favor of pathetic speechifying. This isn't even an argument, it's just sad.

Well, your rhetoric is one sided as it is, my side is clear and so is yours.
My side is the side of the many generations before me, that have benefitted from the traditional form of marriage and family, had clean and well adjusted societies and members of society, instead of fringe degenerates who are consumed in their indvidualistic desire for abnormal pleasures that they wish everyone else to accomodate their ways by granting it legitimacy via marriage.
Your worldview is rotten, and when you realize it, it will already be too late.

So... no? Just pointless, well poisoning rhetoric with not even an allusion to anything factual?

[Chas]

Marriage equality has no effect on you or on your rights, you dumb fuck.

Well as a matter of fact, it ignores me and people like me.
We cannot define marriage, but instead have to conform to the type of "marriage" which is in fact nothing more than a twisted and bastardized version of what used to be marriage, that homos and their supporters have laid before us, or be called fascists and bigots.

How others define marriage has no bearing on how you define marriage, and vice versa. That you think it does belies your fascist beliefs.

Marriage equality does not affect others' traditions. Your argument is nonsense.

There is no tradition of the other. Traditions of marriage are not defined by individuals, but by collective consciousness.
Muslims, Christians, Jews, different ethnic groups, all have their own forms of traditions.
And the legalization of this strongly affects all, as all traditions of marriage without exception, involve the union of a man and woman within its heart. The legalisation of gay marriage aims to destroy this very basis of marriage.

What? I understand that English is not your first language, but you have completely inverted the meaning.

It doesn't matter whether there is a tradition for something different - there is absolutely no effect on your tradition. Quit worrying about what others do that has no effect on you.

Mind your own fucking traditions and leave others alone.

[kılıç_mehmet]

Is that what you call that? You said they were only small groups, and then... that was it. You just kinda... dismissed it out of hand by reasserting your initial case, leaving the special pleading intact, only now with the added benefit that we can all see how unwilling you are to actually address a salient point.

My point is clear. Either adress it appropriately or not.
The purpose of marriage is not defined by whether some people are unable or unwilling to reproduce. And those who are unable or unwilling to have children do actually represent a minority, since most people who get married do so with having children in mind. That's what a productive society needs, future generations. So, marriage still aims to propagate traditional norms of family, that present the best environment for the bearing and raising of children, which is why these notions still exist today.
In fact, the deviation from these is what moves society to the wrong direction.

And gay people can do the same, since you've got such a boner for families. In fact, even leaving aside surrogacy and IVF options, legalizing gay marriage would do much to alleviate the stress on the foster care system.

Just another way your state argument falls apart, revealing the much more insipid truth behind it, I suppose.

Gay people were never meant to have children, which is why natural means of reproduction involve a man and a woman.

Nobody needs homo foster parents. I'd say that those kids are better off in an orphanage than at the hands of those. Many countries are taking exclusive steps to stop children from becoming the pets of some homos from 1st world countries.
India, especially has outlawed surrogacy, as it is merely another form of exploitation of women, unethical in many ways. Similarly, it is unethical to give people that were never meant to be part of the familial structure the right to raise children.

Children are nothing more than pets to homos, they feed them, clothe them, and have them walk besides them, pet them when they want to, and use them as prestige items.

Hey, there's your real argument! Finally, a bit of honesty!

Its rather a supplementary argument. I wonder how they're going to explain their abnormal acts to the children they might adopt.

Yes, it's called the "I am the world" fallacy.

I am part of it, yet never have I dared to speak for anyone. Instead I let others speak for me, in this case, the majority of the human population that just happens to see the truth.

Two people wanting a loving, committed relationship is degenerate?

The exact circumstances of the relationship are degenerate. Although it really is no concern of mine. My only concern is society and the preservation of good customs and traditions, especially those that are widespread as marriage.
Besides, these are dangerous words, my friend. They are the key to a wide range of other abnormal relations, such as incest, which, I bet, you also condone as being normal and very acceptable.

And don't immediately leap to talking about anal sex, because that's not what this is about at all.

Yeah, whatever man. Such things are beyond my comprehension.

That remains legal even without gay marriage, so don't try to deflect with that garbage.

Legal, true, yet not acceptable by public standards, considered abhorrent and abnormal, which is why the homos have their own subculture rather than being part of the contemporary public.
Besides, its not just about male-male stuff, but female-female, and another wide range of fucked up combinations that we see floating around tumblr.

Except that you've already admitted and accepted that traditions change over time.

They do, but not in the way you would want them to change. You are advocating cultural revolution, just like the commies did, yet you lack the brute force that they used to accomplish it.
To be honest, all of this was based on the Frankfurt school of thought and the new-left bullshit that was advocated by its adherents in the US. It has spread like wildfire from there.
It was them who first advocated whatever you're advocating, whereas they were subject to ridicule in the Soviet Union as "rootless cosmopolitans", rightfully so.
You're advocating a culture without roots, traditions without a basis, a society without borders.

You just don't seem to see the irony of spinning around and using the appeal to tradition fallacy this time.

I appeal to tradition, you appeal to base human individualism, egoism and animalistic desire. Which one is less fallible?
The way I see it, you wish to disattach the marital institution from the public and individualize it to a point where everyone can make up their own defitinition of what marriage is.

You've got this random line drawn in your head that, because this is the time you happened to be born in, all the traditions you grew up with are the ones that need to stay, because you're the most important person in the world, damn it!

You don't understand. Its not about me.
Besides, my traditions have been in existence for more than a thousand years.
But there are certain aspects that we have shared with your traditions, concepts like fidelity, the importance of family, and the harmony between a man and a woman, the idealized concepts of marriage, and their importance as the generative force of society.
You on the other hand support degenerative forces, advocating their so-called and non-existent rights, their unwarranted self-importance, and their non-existing stakes in an institution that they never were a part to begin with.
They are usurpers, and you are their footsoldier.

If you lived in a country where the tradition was gay marriage only and no straight marriage, would you feel the same?

There would be no such a country. If you speak of a hypothetical sitution at least to make it as realistic as possible. Such a country wouldn't exist due to the lack of family, and the lack of appreciation for the propagation of the human population.
This is not a matter of empathy.

And again, this strange notion that you and you alone get to decide what's legitimate. Don't we all get a say in that too?

Well, the marriage exists to provide legitimacy. I thought you should know that. It makes the union of two people legitimate in public eyes, and children born into that marriage are considered legitimate. Else, they are known as bastards, a term for illegitimate children, still in existence, and rightfully so.

actually untrue: it's you that's in the majority, which is why it's so strange that you keep pulling this argument. It's almost as if the actual facts don't matter to you as much as your tired rhetoric does...

As you had said, it is me that is in the majority. Not just in the US, you merely need to go anywhere on the globe to see that what you're advocating is simply something that people will not accept as their society is built on what I'm advocating here. The union of a man and woman, marriage, the institution of family.
For these things to change, "hypothetically" you'd need to have a society that you've described above, 95% homos, in which case I don't think that society would be able to propagate anyways. If we would establish a country for gays and lesbians, that country would vanish within a single generation unless it receives a substantial amount of migrants over the course of years.
Where is this majority of yours?

So you admit that you're a criminal, trying to triumph over the majority, here?

You mean merely because I advocate the traditional norms of marriage? So you mean you're against them, right?

And so far, your views are all you've given. It's very hard to attack an idea when all you've given is repetitions of your opinion with nothing backing them beyond further opinions.

What is it that you require? I base my opinions on historical facts and the way that contemporary society was established.

The fact that you have an interconnected layer of justifications and excuses for your bigotry that don't hitch up to the real world at all doesn't suddenly make them right, or justified.

The real world? Friend, it is you, who is daydreaming. Dreaming of a world where nothing is true and everything is permitted.
You attack key social and cultural institutions under the guise of liberty and equality.
The fact is, you have not contributed to anything regarding society, yet wish to be the ones to define it.

Actually, given that your side is still 44%, and 70% of the younger generations support gay marriage, you are still in the minority, and that fact is only going to become more true as the old fogeys die off.

How nice that you refer to your elderly in such manners. Maybe you should kill them off to hasten the process.
Besides, I'd rather call on a referandum to decide on this issue if you are so confident in your numbers as the majority. Why don't you?

I don't put much stock in the fantasies of people who use terms like "neo-liberalism." Rolleyes

I call it neo-liberalism, because as all neo-movements, its a bastardized version of what the terms really meant and advocated.

So, now you're just denying demonstrable, polled facts in favor of pathetic speechifying. This isn't even an argument, it's just sad.

How exactly would you explain this shift in public opinion in a single year?
A miracle? What if the opinion shifts in your disfavor the next year, and documented via a poll lets say.
I'd still say that this does nothing to change the definition of marriage.

So... no? Just pointless, well poisoning rhetoric with not even an allusion to anything factual? Thinking

Well, for the year, I guess I'll give it to you that 2014 will be the "year of the faggot", with Wurst winning the Eurovision contest aswell. You will sooner or later, come to realize the importance of the traditional norms and values of marriage. Until then.

[Esquilax]

I'm tapping out. I simply don't have the energy to go through everything you just said, Mehmet, and type out responses which would essentially be nothing more than pointing out each and every time you simply went back to the appeal to tradition fallacy, and made some more blanket assertions about degeneracy. It's clear that you've got no interest in taking this topic seriously, beyond using it as a platform for your wild assertions, and if you're going to use paragraph after paragraph to say nothing substantive, I'm just kinda done. I'm out.

"IS TRADISHUN!" and "you're all perverts!" is not a coherent argument. The end.

[Ryantology]

We interrupt this dialogue between modern day decent people and crusty, hateful throwbacks to announce that another nail has been pounded in the coffin of the hateful throwback cause. Idaho's ban on same-sex marriage declared unconstitutional.

[Rampant.A.I.]

Aww, really? We were just getting to the part where "traditional monogamous marriage" wasn't even monogamous until 6-9 CE. :-(

[Minimalist]

Idaho? Idaho??

Oh man, the fine xtians will be dusting off their AR-15's and going queer hunting for jesus.

[The Valkyrie]

We interrupt this dialogue between modern day decent people and crusty, hateful throwbacks to announce that another nail has been pounded in the coffin of the hateful throwback cause. Idaho's ban on same-sex marriage declared unconstitutional.

I just read that on HuffPost.

The religious nuts are going to have aneurisms over that!