TR Casual Discussion Çay Bahçesi

[Tornadoss]

Islam plays a big role in many Muslim countries.

For centuries Islam has always been the heart and soul for a lot of these countries. Historical facts.

Nothing wrong with that. Arabs and Pakistanis demostrating for Sharia are a small number most Muslims actually respect the law of the land.

Since we respect the law of the land we also expect they respect our rights not impose things that go against our religion and our culture.

Not everybody living in these countries are Muslims, you are forcing religion to these people.

 

[Ryder]

it's the conservatives and most of these conservatives are religious people. You are dictating how people should live and what they should do. In Muslim countries or in catholic countries such as Poland it's religious people down their views on people throats, not only this but also attacking people because of what they do.

If you studied history you wont be saying stuff about Muslim countries or Poland.

When Poland was founded as a kingdom it was actually founded to be Jesus's kingdom

Poland is one of the most catholic countries on the planet because Catholicism played a role in the identity of the Polish people.

Funny how people constantly try to divorce the fact how religion played a role in people's identity.

Not everybody believes French Revolution robspierre bullshit.

 

[Tornadoss]

If you studied history you wont be saying stuff about Muslim countries or Poland.

When Poland was founded as a kingdom it was actually founded to be Jesus's kingdom

Poland is one of the most catholic countries on the planet because Catholicism played a role in the identity of the Polish people.

Funny how people constantly try to divorce the fact how religion played a role in people's identity.

Not everybody believes French Revolution robspierre bullshit.

We Turks had Tengrism guess we also lost our identity after mass conversion to Islam.

 

[Ryder]

I didn't say go back, guess you have comprehension problem. I said it to because there is no LGBT in these country unlike in Australia where he feels discomfort, mine was friendly suggestion.

Afghanistan literally has Bachabazi. If Saudis have their fair share of homosexuals.

Do you see lbgt Afghans or lbgt Saudis imposing their views on the country?

No chance of that happening. Because they are a minority. They have to respect the country they live in and its culture.

 

[Tornadoss]

Afghanistan literally has Bachabazi. If Saudis have their fair share of homosexuals.

Do you see lbgt Afghans or lbgt Saudis imposing their views on the country?

No chance of that happening. Because they are a minority. They have to respect the country they live in and its culture.

Yes, no chance. Because they are got killed or imprisoned otherwise.

 

[B_A]

I think marriage should be abolished all together. People can love and live together. And you can even have kids outside of marriage.

A child born outside of marriage would require both parents consenting to be parents. In case the man doesn't want, a fatherhood test can be conducted.

Some Western Countries still have archaic rules in that regard.

You'd even solve the problem with family reunification unless it's children of the parents. Spouses would need to be viable to move to a country and not just because your husband/wife is living and working in that country.

Abolishing marriage would solve many things

That s because people need marriage to protect their own right.Not for children or love.

 

[Ryder]

We Turks had Tengrism guess we also lost our identity after mass conversion to Islam.

Did Tengrism allow lbgt?

Ibn Fadlan reported how the Pagan Turks punished adultery and homosexuality.

Homosexuality was pretty rare among Nomads as they constantly had to have kids because the mortality rates were so high.

Plus masculinity played a big role in how the Turks lived. The Society literally gave no benefit to anybody who was weak.

 

[B_A]

That s because people need marriage to protect their own right.Not for children or love.

If you live together and have childen and spend many time for family without marriage.When your partner find others and flee that s hard to protect your right.

 

[Tornadoss]

Did Tengrism allow lbgt?

Ibn Fadlan reported how the Pagan Turks punished adultery and homosexuality.

Homosexuality was pretty rare among Nomads as they constantly had to have kids because the mortality rates were so high.

Plus masculinity played a big role in how the Turks lived. The Society literally gave no benefit to anybody who was weak.

Issue here is not Tengriism and homosexuality religions does not go hand in hand with homosexuality. The comment was about religion and keeping the identity there.

 

[Ryder]

Issue here is not Tengriism and homosexuality religions does not go hand in hand with homosexuality. The comment was about religion and keeping the identity there.

Turks took up many religions before Islam.

Once you take a religion and that religion becomes apart of your peoples identity.

The Turks had an identity with Tengrism. Turks also had their own identity with Islam. Gaguz Turks, Orthodox Christianity became their identity.

This was pretty normal for people who switched to a different religion that the religion became apart of their identity as centuries passed.

 

[NEKO]

Its just a fetish, don't turn it into a lifestyle.

 

[Afif]

I think marriage should be abolished all together. People can love and live together. And you can even have kids outside of marriage.

A child born outside of marriage would require both parents consenting to be parents. In case the man doesn't want, a fatherhood test can be conducted.

Some Western Countries still have archaic rules in that regard.

You'd even solve the problem with family reunification unless it's children of the parents. Spouses would need to be viable to move to a country and not just because your husband/wife is living and working in that country.

Abolishing marriage would solve many things

'Living togather' outside marriage and having kids on mass scale would completely destabilize the human civilization as whole.
And that is not a religious perspective, rather, a sociological one.

There are three fundemental things that seperates us from other species and only unique to human.

1. Consciousness.
2. Intelligence.
3. Ability to speak language.

All of which enables us to organize every aspect our lives, unlike animals.

A loose definition of human organization would be, setting rules in our social, economic and political aspects of our lives. That's how we developed civilizations.

The better a group of people is organized socially, economically and politically, the more likely they would prosper.

From the ancient time, the very first organizing structure of human society is marriage.
That's because, first and foremost we are a biological organism. Hence, the very process of organizing ourselves starts from the biological aspect of our lives.

If you abolish marriage on mass scale, no matter what ad-hoc solutions you propose to compensate the economic and child custody aspects marriage, the result is still likely to be catastrophic.

When we talk about the violation/corruption of human dignity, people generally assume we are talking in religious terms.
But it is also be a secular term. Corruption of human dignity means, living disorganized in various aspect of our lives despite having the ability to organize ourselves for better.

 

[Saithan]

'Living togather' outside marriage and having kids on mass scale would completely destabilize the human civilization as whole.
And that is not a religious perspective, rather, a sociological one.

There are three fundemental things that seperates us from other species and only unique to human.

1. Consciousness.
2. Intelligence.
3. Ability to speak language.

All of which enables us to organize every aspect our lives, unlike animals.

A loose definition of human organization would be, setting rules in our social, economic and political aspects of our lives. That's how we developed civilizations.

The better a group of people is organized socially, economically and politically, the more likely they would prosper.

From the ancient time, the very first organizing structure of human society is marriage.
That's because, first and foremost we are a biological organism. Hence, the very process of organizing ourselves starts from the biological aspect of our lives.

If you abolish marriage on mass scale, no matter what ad-hoc solutions you propose to compensate the economic and child custody aspects marriage, the result is still likely to be catastrophic.

When we talk about the violation/corruption of human dignity, people generally assume we are talking in religious terms.
But it is also be a secular term. Corruption of human dignity means, living disorganized in various aspect of our lives despite having the ability to organize ourselves for better.

I agree with some of what you said. But you’ll have to put it into perspective of how women can go to a clinic and get inseminated with a donor sperm.

then take it further from there, why should women have to put up with a partner if she can get sole custody over her child from donor sperm. A Boyfriend would have to step up anyway if he wants some fun action.

Thus I imagine civilized countries will become like Japan, Denmark etc. When you remove religion from society or marriage, as it fundamentallt gives you more freedom in a relationship.

 

[B_A]

I agree with some of what you said. But you’ll have to put it into perspective of how women can go to a clinic and get inseminated with a donor sperm.

then take it further from there, why should women have to put up with a partner if she can get sole custody over her child from donor sperm. A Boyfriend would have to step up anyway if he wants some fun action.

Thus I imagine civilized countries will become like Japan, Denmark etc. When you remove religion from society or marriage, as it fundamentallt gives you more freedom in a relationship.

Japan is a conservatist country and full of temple.....and ban same-sex marriage...

 

[Afif]

But you’ll have to put it into perspective of how women can go to a clinic and get inseminated with a donor sperm.

then take it further from there, why should women have to put up with a partner if she can get sole custody over her child from donor sperm. A Boyfriend would have to step up anyway if he wants some fun action.

Sure, indeed women can do that. No technical problem to it.
However, as an student of sociology I know statistically, children raised by two parents are on avarage better than the children raised by single mother/parent.

And yes, a boyfriend can step in. But it doesn't solve the porblem, because he will never have the the same emotional connection to the child as he would've if it was his own biological child.

And even we let go the emotional aspect of this, (which is very important btw) for a single mother it would be considerably difficult to raise a child while providing for him/her financially on her own.

I am dam sure sperm donor ain't paying the child support. And if you try to force boyfriends legally to pay it, I am pretty sure most young men won't enter such relationship to begin with.

 

[TR_123456]

Sure, indeed women can do that. No technical problem to it.
However, as an student of sociology I know statistically, children raised by two parents are on avarage better than the children raised by single mother/parent.

And yes, a boyfriend can step in. But it doesn't solve the porblem, because he will never have the the same emotional connection to the child as he would've if it was his own biological child.

And even we let go the emotional aspect of this, (which is very important btw) for a single mother it would be considerably difficult to raise a child while providing for him/her financially on her own.

I am dam sure sperm donor ain't paying the child support. And if you try to force boyfriends legally to pay it, I am pretty sure most young men won't enter such relationship to begin with.

Women doing such a thing are predominatly independent financially.

 

[Afif]

Women doing such a thing are predominatly independent financially.

That's not what we are talking about.
If I understood correctly, Saithan suggesting to do it on mass scale by abolishing marriage.

 

[TR_123456]

That's not what we are talking about.
If I understood correctly, Saithan suggesting to do it on mass scale by abolishing marriage.

Where did he state that?

 

[Afif]

Where did he state that?

Post in thread 'Çay Bahçesi' https://defencehub.live/threads/Çay-bahçesi.146/post-285359

 

[uçuyorum]

Level of this discussion