A recent trend of breaking taboos in Turkey, including a top government official’s reported use of the word ’Kurdistan,’ has Turkey’s LGBT community calling for stronger political commitments to fight discrimination against homosexuals. This is about rights and any tolerant society can benefit from its own diversity, the Danish ambassador says. Amid a recent flare-up of discussions about homosexuality in Turkey, representatives from a range of areas in society have come together for a meeting in Ankara in an attempt to confront the prevalence of homophobia in the country. The Turkish media was engrossed yesterday in the legal battle of a football referee who had to quit his job because of his sexual orientation. The referee was forced to leave his post because he had withdrawn from his compulsory military service on account of his homosexuality being documented in a medical report. In line with referee regulations, a related article states that anybody who fails to complete his military service for health reasons is unfit to perform as a referee. Another controversy on the issue that also drew attention yesterday was sparked when the columnist for the daily Zaman, Ali Bulaç, said the crimes committed against civilians in countries like Afghanistan and Iraq were carried out by homosexuals. Academics have described the remark as discriminatory, while lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender, or LGBT, organizations said: "He is in search of a mask for his homophobia." 

More

*********

Apparently Turkey is not as liberated as some claim it is..... Quotes like the one from Ali Bulaç belong to the nineteenth century, not the twenty-first!

 You prove my statement that Turkey is not that much liberated. Can you explain why you disagree with me that the above quote is not a nineteenth century one?

Homosexuality was once frowned upon and forbidden;  then it became free, as civilisation progressed. Thank god I shall not be alive,  when it becomes mandatory. 

 It never will. However, as no one asks you (general) about your sexual preferences and one certainly has the right to say ´it´s not your business what I do or don´t do in the bedroom´ why is that suddenly different when talking about gay people? Why is suddenly everyone entitled to frown, to disapprove, to discriminate, to reject?

What they do in the privacy of their bedrooms, between mutually consenting adults, do not bother me at all.

I do get ticklish however, when I see them posting sneaky promotional messages in this forum.

 Why would you get "ticklish"?  Are you afraid that you may be swayed in your sexuality?  

I would love to see an example of what you consider to be a "sneaky promotional message".  

 I think the OP was a flame baiting wind up. What has "Kurdistan" got to do with it and I´m sure the Danish ambassador is an expert on the subject.

 Read again and you´ll see it was both about taboos.

http://www.porges.net/Frankists.html      (copy&paste, if link does not work)

Jacob Frank was the head of a Jewish religious group, later called the FRANKISTS.  Jacob  beleved that the humanity could only be saved by Mesiah coming back to lead his people out of disgrace. He also believed that Mesiah would arrive only when things got really bad.

Logical move for Jacob to preemt the arrival of Mesiah then, was to help push morality down into deepest pits, as quickly as possible. Mesiah would then rush to the world to save his herd.

He presented his followers with weird sermons to achieve his mission. Things went fine, until one day he preached that homosexuality was a form of divine worship. Neither the Polish King nor the Catholic Inquisitors liked that. He was tried and jailed; his followers disbanded. Most of his followers suddenly declared that they would become devout  Catholic Christians from then on, and evaded penalties. The rumour is they secretly kept following Jacob´s sermons.

Where are the descendants of Frankists nowadays?  Who do you think is promoting homosexuality, unisex marriages  etc. and getting the Catholic Pope vey upset?

Note: Believe it or not, Jacob Frank was one of the disciples of Sabetai Tsevi, the latter being one of the gratest contributions of Turkish culture to world civilisation. Jacob spoke perfect Turkish and passed himself as a Turk, on more then a few tight occassions.

And where on this forum you see followers of Jacob Frank? Where/when can you hear them in Turkey? What does this man have to do with a statement two days ago in Zaman?

My words are to the "wise" only......

 That means I´m not wise, fine. But I still think you are not able to explain, else you would have taken the opportunity to teach me.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/court-outlaws-ban-on-gays-in-armed-forces-1122740.html

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20090515/tuk-pair-guilty-of-abusing-sol-campbell-6323e80.html

Thought you might like to read these - as an example, only just outlawed in the UK and the EU by the Court of Human Rights (and we  (UK) are a liberal society)!!!!

Sol Campbell, an ex-England player, taunted by homophobic chants ..........

So is Turkey really that backward?  Certainly not 19th Century, more mid-20th Century or even late 20th century................ as for the UK it only became mildly tolerated in the mid 20th Century.  It is still illegal in many countries and certainly not tolerated in many societies. And I did read somewhere that the Netherlands was thinking of castration as a cure.

Small steps I am afraid....... one thing we can always be assured of, there will always be homophobics and there will always be racists and there will always be extremists...

Source? I know a few people think of that as a ´solution´ for paedophilia, not for homosexuality!

http://www.onderzoekinformatie.nl/en/oi/nod/onderzoek/OND1316755/

Castration as a cure from the Netherlands.

Me trying to teach you anything is but futile Trudy.

You lack the basic prerequisites of  being a good disciple; you are neither humble nor modest.

If only you could be as humble and modest as I am....Try following my footsteps.

To some people, encouragement or defense of homosexuality is a way of attacking the idea of "family".

In countries - like Turkia -  where "family,  as a social institution" is revered and highly recommended by law, in fact by the Constitution,  it is hard to support  homosexuality - in terms of human rights.

Can you imagine one bringing up  kids, teaching them the virtues of "familiy" at home, yet escorting them to yearly Queers&Lesbians Ball every year, so they participate and gain a wider insight into different colors of life ?

Who can agree with the following statement ?  "Cancer cells are also created by god, hence they have  every right to thrive on a human´s body as the normal cells. Their surgical removal may save that individual´s life, but also means  certain untimely death for the cancer cells - hence is grossly inhuman."

Very good example, I really like it

What a horrible thought!!!  Teaching tolerance should be outlawed and those who practice should be drawn and quartered!!! 

I understand you compare homosexuals with cancer cells? Well, I may like them or not, but anyway I don´t see what kind of threat to "body" (I guess it means "society" here) they (homosexuals) could pose ?

Differences: - sexuality. Does this difference pose some danger to society? I don´t think so, that´s their privacy, and they are not doing any harm to anyone.

Anything else: like anyone else -> they live, work (or not), pay (or not) their taxes, etc. etc.

And if they aren´t dangerous, then I think that this statement doesn´t say anything interesting here (besides stating obvious fact that not anything "natural" is "ok", like, say, natural disasters).

Yes they do harm the society

They are abnormal for certain

If you asked a little kid how to make a family, he would answer that he will marry a Female, this is the only natural way.

Why animals still have natural laws, they still make families as they always do for billions of years and some High Minded humans are trying to tell the nature that life should be colored in abnormal way.

Laws are laws..

Writing one thing in our own laws, then flexing it as necessary,  to suit others,  is not tolerance.

When the laws change to read "homosexuality is morally correct and superior to heterosexuality", I shall sing your song, if I am still around.

Until then, you will not be seeing me at the yearly Queers&Lesbians Ball.

Actually, I´d prefer not to have to think about what consulting adults do in the privacy of their own bedrooms.  Doesn´t anyone practice discretion anymore?  I´m not peeping into anyone´s keyhole, and I´d prefer they not peep in mine...or make any conjecture as to what I´m doing, imagine or would like to do or might do.

Have we ever had masturbator, adulter or fornicators parades?  I hate this in your  face tactic.  If you say anything against the in your face tactics, you are called a bigot. 

I think this whole thing came about from  suppositions & conjecture and repressed sexuality in Western culture.  By that I mean the fact that celibacy is highly regarded state in Christian cultures.  

I wonder if the fact that there are numerous of hormone disrupters in the enviornment  now that change sexual identity, or mix it up has anything to do with it?  We have had an increase in hermaphroditism. 

 I almost wish this would become true, Alpha. Your ideas about humans with other preferences than yours and, more important, your refusal to give them the same rights as you have, increase that wish.

Maybe you haven´t paid attention in biology class but FYI it is not necessary to marry to make a child.

Never mind biology, Trudy......What are friends for?

Please reconsider carefully, before you opt for an artificial insemination. Very dangerous and no fun at all; so they tell me.

It is not necessary to marry to make a child hmm... even for animals its name is MARRIAGE

We don´t accept kids out of wedlock, so we don´t think of another way to make them out of it.

I never had biology classes as I studied maths, but still I know well that only MARRIAGE can make good healthy kids.

We? As in ´old fashioned, stubborn people who deny others the things they do themselves´? Yes, for that type of ´we´ you are right. And I´m o-so happy I don´t belong to that ´we´ of yours.

 Honey, I don´t have kids and I don´t want them (the risk they might end up as stubborn as you.... ) . But your sources (?) about dangerous and painful suck I think, I´ll tell you how it works as soon as you have grown up, ok?

 I´m with this view point to an extent .... no one else´s business what goes behind closed doors etc but the society that we live in.....everyone wants to be famous, to be known, to be popular...social networking sites are bit by bit taking away any privacy to an extent that I can see privacy eventually becoming illegal!!.......so your closed doors will be open for all to see......

and I´m liking the sound of your parades ha ha

If they call you stubborn, backward idiots....it is OK.

If you call them perverts in return

They shout back, "you just proved my point...."

This is freedom of speech.

You know what "we" means, ´old fashioned, stubborn people who deny others the things they do themselves´ hmmm .... as an Old Fashioned stubborn one, let me plz think for two centuries to reach New Fashion and Mind Flexibility that you always had all over the time ...

I´m glad too as you don´t belong to "we" of "us", because "we" don´t accept weird and mad ideas to be spreaded among "us" of "we"

C´est grave qu´on voit ce genre d´insultes ici, Trudy vous pouvez être polie d´arrêter insulter vous même. Et merci de toute façon.

You are right Brother

There is stuborness from both sides here, neither side wishing to understand the other - both sides claiming they are right.  Not wishing to teach grandma to suck eggs, but this comes from the different societies / cultures that those posters above live in and the level of acceptance within those cultures and the tolerance of different views.  And thinking about those, Algeria is at one end of the spectrum whilst the Netherlands is at the other, so unlikely that opinions will converge

If you want my view on the subject , then to me it does not matter what sexual orientation someone is, so long as they are within the law and don´t force their opinions on to me (and I am the same with religion) I prefer to make my own mind up .... if they can do a job as well as the next person, then who cares.

And now in English please.

try www.reverso.com

or post a translation request here and I would translate it with pleasure

 Le sarcasme est la sorte la plus basse d´humour

If you believe that gay marriage should be legalized then what about polygamists?  When you look outside of the traditional man and woman marriage and believe gay´s should have the same rights, then where does the limits stop with sexuality.  I see more and more employers being forced to offer health insurance to partners, even in states where it´s not legalized to be married.  So, what´s next do we extend this out to their 3 husband or wives as well?  How about polygamous?  Those are people who may be married but have multiply partners.  No, not swingers those are a different crowd of people.  Do we give them the same rights to health insurance and benefits? 

 I have friends who are homosexual, even though in my faith and my beliefs are different, I accept them for who they are.  However, I do back up Miss California when it comes to her opinion on marriage!

You guys certainly have freaky ideas about sex.

Can you not manage normal, natural heterosexuel sex, or what?

For me the love of two adults who both agree with their relationship is fine even though some of these relationships are not my personal choice. Who am I, who are you (general) to deny two adults to have their relationship seeing formalised? If one denies it for religious reasons, I personally think that person is sitting on God´s throne. So yes, gay marriage should be allowed - or at least gay relationships should be allowed - but to compare it with polygamy is comparing on non-equal base because then there will be always at least one person loosing.

 And what is normal heterosexual sex? Missionary position, in the dark, under the blankets?

I think I asked for translation in post #38. So tell me in plain English what you said there. 

Not necessarily....What exactly is the civilised and enlightened alternative you propose?

Hey!  That one´s much better than Google translator!     Pity it doesn´t do Turkish

Normal, natural heterosexual sex is sex with someone of the opposite sex.   One version of unnatural sex is sex with someone of the same sex - simple as that! .   (Do homosexuals normally have sex on top of the blankets in daylight then?   I admit I didn´t know that

I shall stop even "hellos" to Trudy, if she picks "insest" as the next taboo to be broken...

  only if you are called George

Check this one out.....it is the most complete one I´ve seen.

 I guess I could pose the same question back..who am I or who are we to deny someone to have more than 1 wife or husband?  What makes it any different?  If your saying it´s ok to marry the same sex, why would we put conditions on how many you can marry?  Polygamists could use the same arguement as gays do to obtain legal rights.  This opens a door for many more people who feel their rights are restricted.  I personally don´t think there is anything wrong with following God´s intention for men and women.

 I have to agree with you here - not a great fan of same sex marriages and all the fuss that is made about them - some famous ones have now "divorved" so not a lot different from straights.   And yes, what right is going to next, the right to have sex with animals has not been mentioned yet!

 Don´t be ridiculous....handsom hasn´t been around in weeks!!

 Elisabeth!  I´m shocked!!   What do you mean????  

Nope. What you describe is heterosexual sex. Not specifically ´normal´. I´m very interested to hear what Alpha calls normal. Is it normal to do ´it´ outside your bedroom, in public, to like SM, to use toys, to read/watch porn, to have several partners at the same time or in a continuously row of lovers, to have an age gap of decades between partners, etc? Still, all these things are practised by people who call themselves ´normal heterosexuals´. Anyone who can enlighten me? 

Your last sentence is problematic for me. As holy books are written by people, it is for me as an agnost, very difficult to see why people - centuries later - shouls put themselves in his place and tell others what THEY think HE wants.

 As you never ´hellood´ me before, there´s nothing to stop. BTW incest is something I never will see as a taboo that needs to be broken.

 Trudy,

have you ever heard of discretion.....

Shakespeare, in Henry IV, Part One, 1596:

Falstaff: ´The better part of valour is discretion; in the which better part I have saved my life.´

 Something to think about....maybe?

 The answer is no. I´m not a prude hypocrite.

 Yes, you´re something else for sure.

Less

vous pouvez seulement dire "le sarcasme est la sorte la plus bass d´humour" sur mes commentaires, de toute façon je n´ai pas besoin de votre commentaire.

Merciiiii

 Like what?

though I don´t want to spread my precious words here but I will tell you

"It is terrible to see such insults here, you can be polite and stop insulting yourself,  thanks anyway"

again I would say "you are not worthy for my words,but I would like to tell you that I would call you to account all your words in front of my God in the important day, be sure we will meet that day and every word you said would be counted and I would remind you. I know you don´t believe in these words and good you do, but you will say that day : " I wish I believed"

 Why should I wish I believed if God is so hard on people? My parents taught me that God is love, mercyful and forgiving, not a punisher.

 It´s a public forum  comments are allowed from all!

...ummm...well not exactly....but something akin to  how Hannibal Lector might think some are picky eaters.  ...or how some who refuse to partake of Soylent Green might be disdained by the authorities?

 EEEEliiiiiiizabeeeeeth!

Yes Finally you said something I agree with God is Mericful yes but I said I would call you for your words

between us in front of God

but about that God is not a punisher I don´t agree with you

 I´m related to Hannibal? Then I know who to eat. (On second thoughts: no, I don´t want to get sick.)

I didn´t say comments are not allowed

I wonder why you said your comment only about my comment

as I always see "le sarcasme est l´image de ce forum"

Of course all comments are allowed as long as they don´t breach forum rules!     Please remember QueenT that not everyone can understand French and the language of the forums is English

yes LIR I know forums language is English and I don´t forget that for sure

but I supposed that French is more elegant to speak about politeness

you won´t for sure

You are too old to be enlightened now, Trudy...We´ll just have to live with you.

Your family should have enlightened you long ago...They were probably too busy, breaking their own taboos then

 Oui, vous avez raison - je suis d´accord    (and a smack on the hand for me for not practising what I preach!  )

... are we looking for some vacarious pleasure here?

 As I mentioned earlier, I´ve never heard of fornicator, adulterer parades....We have a policy here of "don´t ask, don´t tell", that is not enough for some people.  How does anyone know what people do in private unless they choose to divulge the information themselves?

You know, back in the day, women who dared to claim they´re equal to men were considered sick and abnormal as well. They also did protest marches, demonstrations etc. And they made a change. I wounder how much they´d have succeeded if they kept their "crazy" idea to themselves...

What is hard for me to comprehend is how easily people judge others as abnormal. We hear that it is only natural for people of opposite genders to have sex as only they are able to procreate (I won´t even bother to comment on the "married people only" idea as I´m still laughing at it). So, logically, people who use contraception are doing something abnormal as they are having intercourse not leading to conception.

Gays are more likely to be a threat to society only if most countries promote intolerance. Then we´ll have more aggressive "in-your-face" kind of gays. Aggression provokes aggression. Accept that they are just the way they are, they do not hurt anyone by preferring to go to bed with people of their own gender. Is it strage to accept that they want to be legally recognised as partners? Two people who spend their life together  may come to the point that they can´t decide about their partner´s life (eg whether or not to turn off life-supporting equipment) or cannot inherit after their partner. It is all that the fact of being married entitles you to. So what if it´s John & JOhn rather than John & Mary?

Comparing homosexuals to perverts is a huge exaggeration, after all it´s two ADULT people having sex they both CONSENTED to. I don´t really see the menace to society. So what if your teacher is gay? Do you expect him/her to talk about his sex life? Do you expect your heterosexual teachers to talk about theirs? If teachers are to promote heterosexual marriages, then all single and divorced teachers should be laid off.

 You probably, I´m not. So no, no ´we´. (Yikes, the idea of ´we´.)

 Great post DD.   However to react to your first paragraph, there are possible some members who still think women declaring themselves equal to men are crazy.....

I would definitely expect heterosexual teachers to talk to kids about human sex life, when and as necessary....not of their own sex lives.

The idea of a homosexual ( or one with other kinds of sexual perversions, including heterosexuals who like to talk about their own sex lives) teacher trying to impart attidudes similar to Trudy´s or DD´s - to kids in growing stage - is disgusting to me.

I for one still think that the women declaring themselves equal to men are crazy.If these girls want to fell trees or go hunting, so be it...

Thank god, intelligent women are well aware that they are better.

 Bit late for that comment, there are female lumberjacks and women go hunting (i used to!) and there are plenty of women in construction (my industry) bricklayers, plumbers, decorators, carpenters etc etc but I don´t know many men who have had a baby

Being a teacher I told - in the past - many youngsters about the existence of all aspects of human sexuality, including homosexuality, incest (and how to file complaints!), rape (and how to protect - as far as possible), porn, prostitution, STD´s (and how to protect yourself), pregnancy (and how to avoid), abortion and a lot more. Why? Because the curriculum in my country says these are compulsory subjects. Did I give my opinion? In a way, yes, by stating that I think people should be free in their acts as long as it is within all laws. Did I favour any? No. E.g. when teaching about the difficult subject of abortion I gave information about adoption, clinics and keeping the child - all options. When teaching about homosexuality I told what the law says, where to find people alike but also where to find ´help´ if one couldn´t handle it.

Now, still a teacher but not longer teaching youngsters, I once in a while have to tell - mostly on request - about what is regarded as normal in my country. Why? Because the compulsory course of becoming a citizen with a permanent visa or getting a passport says newscomers have to know about these subjects. These are even on the video that goes with the course one needs in the country of birth before coming here.

Is that perverted? So be it. I think it is liberal. As liberal as allowing newscomers to have their own beliefs and traditions, within the law.

1. The kind of ladies you list here are at the bottom of my own "Enhanced, favorite ladies classification list", immediately above feminist ladies and lesbians.

2. You win !  Some of Trudy´s gentlemen friends may be trying their best to  get themselves impregnated - but it will not work.

 ummm....excuse me, but it was you who asked the question:

"I´m very interested to hear what Alpha calls normal. Is it normal to do ´it´ outside your bedroom, in public, to like SM, to use toys, to read/watch porn, to have several partners at the same time or in a continuously row of lovers, to have an age gap of decades between partners, etc? Still, all these things are practised by people who call themselves ´normal heterosexuals´. Anyone who can enlighten me? "

Note you said you are VERY interested.

I said:

"Actually, I´d prefer not to have to think about what consulting adults do in the privacy of their own bedrooms.  Doesn´t anyone practice discretion anymore?  I´m not peeping into anyone´s keyhole, and I´d prefer they not peep in mine...or make any conjecture as to what I´m doing, imagine or would like to do or might do."

 What age were the children?  How extensive were the topics covered?

 As usual, a thoughtful comment. Of course, I disagree with much of it.......but this will take some time.  In short though....one would find it difficult not to show one is a male or female, that fact is self evident, particularly after puberty. 

Homosexuality is a private matter.  The only way one would know about it is if one disclosed it themselves. 

The US and England had the Coverture Laws.  A married woman simply did not exist. 

"British law defined the role of the wife as a ‘feme covert,’ emphasizing her subordination to her husband, and putting her under the ‘protection and influence of her husband, her baron, or lord.’(see Coverture) Upon marriage, the husband and wife became one person under the law, as the property of the wife was surrendered to her husband, and her legal identity ceased to exist. Any personal property acquired by the wife during the marriage, unless specified that it was for her own separate use, went automatically to her husband. Further, married women were unable to draft wills or dispose of any property without their husbands’ consent."

In fact much of this law still existed in the US until the 70s, when the plight of the Vietnam POW and MIA wives came to attention.  Those poor women could hardly function as their husbands were not available and they could not sell property,

When the family´s 1958 Ford began wheezing its last, Mrs. Virginia Fobair of Tampa, Fla., tried first to sell it, then to give it away. Hemmed in by legalisms, she finally donated it to an elementary-school carnival where, for only a dime, customers could swing a hammer at Mrs. Fobair´s "frustration car." Mrs. Evelyn Grubb of Colonial Heights, Va., applied twice for a BankAmericard; both times the company replied that her husband´s signature was required on the application. Mrs. Phyllis Kline and her husband, also of Tampa, owned an interest in a nearby orange grove that Mrs. Kline wanted to put on the market. But since the name of her husband, Air Force Lieut. Colonel Robert Kline, was on the title, she could not negotiate a sale.

The three women share a common problem: the agony of having their husbands missing in action or prisoners of war in Southeast Asia is compounded by frustrating legal tangles in their daily lives. They and the other wives run into a variety of restraints. Summer camps sometimes will not accept a child without the father´s written approval. An insurance company held up payment for property destroyed in a fire. Colonel Kline gave his wife some legal power to deal with his property before he went to Viet Nam, but it proved not to be broad enough.

As for sex being only for procreation, that is a Christian concept.  It does not exist in Islam or Judaism. 

I agree homosexuality is a private matter that´s why homosexuals do not fight for their right for the right to be branded. What I believe they fight for is the right not to be discriminated against. Of course it´s easier to hide one´s sexual preferrence than sex or skin colour but does that mean it has to be hidden? If you´re a woman, don´t you demand being treated equally to men? Or if you´re a person of colour, don´t you demand equal rights? So, why shouldn´t you demand equal rights if you´re gay? Will you make a worse employee merely because of your orientation? If you´re gay you should have the right not to live in hide-out. Gays should be able to live together, take mortgage, do their taxes together without being treated like freaks.

We cannot live pretending there are no homosexuals around us. There are many. And they just want to get the same opportunities heterosexual people get. What is wrong with that? Times change, attitudes change. Like you wrote above, in the ´60 or even ´70 women meant nothing without husbands in the west (I was actually surprised it lasted till so recently. My mum was born in 1957 and she is from the generation of women who made their own decisions about their life), and still there are women in Muslim countries who cannot even leave their house without a man by their side. Things have changed for women in the west and I´m sure so they will for those men-dominated women in the east. Wester women didn´t get their rights for free. They had to protest, march and demonstrate to be noticed and heard. Black people were subject to segregation until uhm 60s? Should they have been quiet about it? Had they been discreete and inconspicuous, they would still be banned from sitting in front seats on buses. They fought for their rights and now they have them. It will be the same with homosexual people. They will finally get what they should be entitled to. Of course there are people who´ll always be prejudiced against some groups, against women who are not chained to kitchen sinks, against coloured people sitting next to them on a train or gay people living in the apartment next door. Fortunately, we are a peculiar kind of species that gets used to what we get to know better. The more we hear about something the more normal it begins to seem. That´s why gay people encouraged to come out no longer have to pretend. They can live the life they want, not hurting anyone.

Most of us were born in the 20´th century. That century brought forth two major wars, long periods of recession, crises, invasions and civil wars. Literacy rates in most societies were nowhere near those attained through the end of the century.  In the first half of it, the Black people in America went through a systematic state racism, and in Germany, Jews faced one of the most horrible massacres in human history. There are also allegations about Turk´s murdering Armenians and many more.

The social structure in 20´th century was an elaboration of the  patriarchal setting of the previous century.  It was a period when unorthodox behaviour was severely punished. Women for example had won suffrage but were unable to use that right to their full benefit. Amid all these periods of transience, homosexuality has existed despite punishments and scorns.

Today, Turkey is discussing the eligibility of a Gay referee for his profession. Most readers of online newspapers carrying this think the referee has a right to do his job and his private preferences are nobody´s business. There are some people who criticize the referee on account that he requested exemption from military service due to his homosexuality. They say he is fit for refereeing and uneligable for military service. This is of course ridiculous. It is next to inconceivable for someone who is known to be a gay to perfom his military service without being harassed by people.  After all, military service is compulsory only for males. There is a catch here though; if someone is homosexual he is considered to be a male (or a female) who is aroused by his/her own sex. Some advocate the existance of a third sex based on preference which can make things easier from a legal point of view. After all, if you offer exemption to someone because of his sexual preferences why wouldn´t you offer the same exemption to conscientious objectors for example?

If by "conscientious objector" you mean  those guys elligible for military service,  but would try any means to avoid it.....let me tell you that I consider them to be smarter perverts than mere homosexuals.

That is one case where I would be prefering a homosesual´s company.

Well Ghandi for example was a conscientious objector of his own right. There are people in this world who think there should be no wars and to them the best way to achieve this end is by not associating in any military organization. Like homosexuals these people are oppressed by society and the legal system.

Would you support Muhammad Ali´s decision no to take up arms against Vietnamese army which he famously declared  in 1966 saying: "I ain´t got no quarrel with them Viet Cong ... They never called me nigger." Because he is probably the most famous conscientious objector ever and his cause looks correct to me for all intents and purposes.

For my own part, I fulfilled my military service years ago. Although I was  the best among my fellow soldiers  at shooting the targets on the training ground (boasting) I never took interest in taking someone´s life nor did I actually like the weapons. If you ask me weapons must be regarded as cancerous tumors. We must be very sorry that we have to resort to them when it becomes necessary to defend our borders. Other than that, I wish they all disappeared from the face of the Earth and that people could live more peacefully together. While I do recognize the need for owning them, I still greatly detest them.

I applaud both Daydreamers and Vineyards brilliant eloquent posts!

After reading I noticed that some people are saying that "looking for some peace and light" is same as "moving a finger in a dirty mixture" ( I won´t say what this mixture is)

... or the foreigners living and working in the UK...

You have the whole thing screwed up in your mind.

Muhammad Ali was being pushed into war with a poor nation half the the world away by weapon dealers of a country that treated Muhammad himself as shit. Neither his country nor his own family or his own life were under immediate danger. His was not the story of a coward who rejected to stand up for his country when called for duty, but an honorable stand against dirty political games of war mongers. Story in Turkia is rather different. We are under threat from separatists, religioue fanatics and we have many homosexual friends - worse than enemies - all around us. We are not imperialists scheming to sit on anyone´s gas reserves, oil fields or land under the pretense of extending democracy. TC army is to protect the welfare and borders of the country, and any b..tard who turns away from duty will be treated as stipulated in associated laws. It is not because we love to fight that me, my sons and friends risked our lives at the borders.  Those we protected probably included your mother, wife and sisters, as well. If and when it is your turn to take over the watch, you will bloody well turn up for duty, or will be shot like the coward you are. Work for peace all you can - by all means - but do not even imagine there will be fancy word games with you, if you dont show up when called for.

Gandhi was a single citizen who fully felt the pain of the British yoke; very few others in millions of Indians shared his honorable frustration. He neither had an army nor had he the necessary military training. Those shortcomongs however, did not stop this great man from standing up and finally putting his life on line - for the honor and future of a country he believed in; against a world power, equipped with a pair of sandals, and a walking stick. How dare you compare this man to the faceless cowards you seem to side with?

If our country is in any danger, anything else is bulshit !.

Alfa now that you writing on a public forum, you should pay attention to what you write.  Statements like "the whole thing screwed up in your mind"  don´t deserve a proper answer and may start yet another flame war.  In the past I fell into so many of these traps set by those whose only concern is patronizing others. I am determined not to repeat it. I suggest you should do the same. Discuss ideas without attacking persons.

I do not particularly like exchanging ideas with likes of you, unless I am really pushed anyway.

There is nothing wrong in what I wrote in my post. If you did not feel very  proud when you read it, it is your problem.

If you don´t like exchanging opinions with people of my kind, you should not bother exchanging ideas in the first place. Save yourself from contradicting with yourself and stop hijacking this thread into your own alpha male territory where all opinions are subject to approval. This is supposed to be a free and democratic platform not a place where you can call people names at will. 

Anyone remember Saint Fergie recently sneaking around and  exposing the so  called miserable conditions in Turkish orphanages.

Well, she does not have to travel that far for her heroic conquests, anymore.  Followers of dear Frank Jakob are busy in similar institutions of Ireland, teaching young boys the pleasures of a civilised life. (Note: Rest othe time they probably teach the boys how to pray)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090520/ap_on_re_eu/eu_ireland_catholic_abuse

We should help deserving homosexuals all we can...YES !

We should let them survive under the rocks or within crevices, unnoticed.....NO !

Do not underestimate others in this forum.....most others here are at least three grades above your intellectual quality.

The system may allow you to contribute your half cooked ideas, but do not extend yourself making rules or suggestions for others.

I tend to think conscientious objectors must not necessarily be cowards. There are different opinions and different measures of decency. As explained before, I am not a conscientious objector myself. Nevertheless, if people become conscientious objectors because of their beliefs or ideologies then we should at least listen to them. They can still be recruited if constitutionally military service must be compulsory and can be assigned supportive duties that don´t involve killing people. This may serve a  middle point for them. I understand there will be radical minds who will think even a supportive role will be a violation of their beliefs but when we look at the matter from the other angle, if other people must die for their countries they must do something in return. In other words, there must be a comprimize.

Interpreting is not your skill, is it? ´We´ as in you and me, thát made me say ´yikes´.

I really don´t think that is what vineyards was saying at all.  The concept of conscientious objector is a valid one.  Of course, one must be questioned to verify the reality of the objection, rather than it just being cowardice, or one of not wanting to be bothered.  It’s an issue now with the Iraq war and the conflict in Afghanistan.  Many are morally against the methods used in this conflict. 

In fact the Nuremberg trials made questioning military commands and methods mandatory. No more can anyone say “I was just following orders”. " The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him."

Ghandi, Martin Luther King Jr were brave men who sacrificed their lives for causes…causes that won. Neither man was a coward.  Probably if the Palestinians adopted such methods the cause they advocate would have a much better chance at success.

As I´m not very knowledgable about Turkish laws regarding military service, I´m wondering if there were any other options for this coach other than declaring himself homosexual?

 Hmmm....interesting idea?  The fact of the matter is it looks like the "third sex" is here now. 

DES Daughters

Deformed uteruses, fallopian tubes, and ovaries
Lowered egg production
Higher rates of infertility, ectopic pregnancies, miscarriages, and premature babies
Higher rates of endometriosis, uterine tumors, breast tumors, and pituitary tumors
Increased frequency of ovarian cysts and abnormal follicles  Immune system problems
Abnormal glucose tolerance and glucose utilization
Abnormal development of gender-specific sexual behavior in DES offspring (feminized males and masculinized females), suggesting that DES caused abnormal sex differentiation during fetal development

DES Sons

Increased genital defects, undescended testicles, and stunted testicles and penises
Low sperm counts, abnormal sperm, and reduced fertility
Higher rates of testicular cancer at earlier ages
Immune system problems
Abnormal glucose tolerance and glucose utilization
Abnormal development of male sexual behavior

Timeline of Synthetic Endocrine Disruptors (POPs)

1929: Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are developed
1930s: “Nerve gases” is developed in Germany and later used by the Nazis in WWII; these later became the basis for pesticides
1938: DDT is first synthesized and manufactured. DES, the first synthetic estrogenic compound, is produced
1940—1945: First widespread use of synthetic chemicals worldwide and widespread exposure to living organisms
1940s—1950s: First human generation exposed to synthetic chemicals in infancy
1940s—1970s: DES is in widespread use during pregnancy; first human generations are born after being exposed to synthetic estrogenic chemicals, pesticides, and other industrial pollutants (POPS) in the womb
1970s—2000: Health problems with DES children become manifest
1970s—1990s: First human generation to have been exposed to POPs in the womb is now reaching reproductive age when hormone disruptions become more pronounced and noticeable
2000: Second generation DES sons and daughters are now old enough for adverse health effects to be manifest

source

True. There is also the possibility that a person could chose not to get involved in any armed conflict just because it contradicts with his/her belief or opinion. In the case of Muhammad Ali, there are other factors which he explained by saying that he had no interest whatsoever in taking part in the wars of the Christian community his being a Muslim who would only answer a call to arms issued by Muslim leaders in line with the teachings of Quran.  That would be a holy war or jihad which is the Islamic version of crusade.

Today by definition most industrialized societies are run by secular regimes requiring worldly and religious affairs to be seperated. In other words, while it sounds logical to open a window for different beliefs, it seems rather problematic to accord legislation to the specific needs of individual religions in certain controversial matters like military service.  The cause of Muhammed Ali therefore a controversial one too. True, he is a conscientious objector but he also states he would answer a religious call to  war and how much does that violate his responsibilities as a citizen is a matter of curious debate.

On the other hand, if a nation attacks other nations by intentionally placing themselves on the side of a certain religion and demonizes other religion(s) how secular can it be?  For example,  the EU describes itself as a community with shared values. It goes without saying that many of those are Christian values. That is why the EU is often referred to as a  Christian club. That also points out to the wide spread public preference among European countries about staying together as a Christian society.

Other aspects of his decision as laid out in the paragraph I quoted from your reply are quite applausable since his stance requires both sacrifice and bravery. In the end, he loses his fighting license, a few golden years in his cintillating career which was spent in stead  facing  fierce criticism. It takes being in his shoes to understand the difficulty and complexity of that decision.

Interesting, today he probably would have been sent to Guantanamo.

Actually, at least in the US, there are many religions who are known as conscientious objectors.  The Quakers, Mennonites, Amish are groups of Peace Churchs in particular that are famous for this issue.

 "War will exist until the distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige as the warrior does today."

– John F. Kennedy (1917-1963), the thirty-fifth President of the United States, letter to a Navy friend

In 1948, the issue of the right to “conscience” was dealt with by the United Nations General Assembly in Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It reads: “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.” The proclamation was ratified during the General Assembly on 10 December 1948 by a vote of 48 in favour, 0 against, with 8 abstentions.

The issue of conscientious objectors has become a hot topic lately, as many are concerned about the return of the military draft.

More here:

I was once warned about the incorrect use of words describing races.

Wow, you are fluent in French aren´t you?

yeah, I was wondering if it wasn´t a faux-pas but I wasn´t sure what synonym to use to cover non-white population

 Nope!

 The current popular term is "person or persons of color...woman of color....man of color....

This expression is so typically ´PC´ .   I am sure most ´women/men of colour´ don´t feel the need to refer to themselves as such.  Presumably in this climate I should refer to my self as a ´woman of no colour´?  So going back to the main post in this subject I would like to declare that I´m proud to be a straight woman of no colour - is that allowed? 

 Yes, I agree....it´s sooooooooo PC....but that is the way it is.  People actually do call themselves  "a person of color"....BTW....I´ve noticed the definition of just who is "white" has narrowed greatly in the last 20 years. 

As regards to your statement...for me I´m trying to be human.....

Many in the US are registered colored on their birth certificates.  Then there was a time when people where just "black" regardless of what ever other blood they had.  I knew a woman who was Amerindian, Chinese, Filipina, Arab and White.  She was incredibly exotic looking, but at that time, she was just "Black".  A new term for multiracial/ethnic people is in the works....but it hasn´t stabilized yet. 

It might interest you to know that the NAACP stands for National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

Turkish word used for black people is "zenci" a derivative of zanci from the Persian language. A quick browse about the origins of this word produces the interesting etymology of the town of Zanzibar.  Zanci originally means rusty.

Interestingly Turks had not had contact with any black people before the 11th century. Therefore all the vocabulary describing them was borrowed from other cultures.  People used the word zenci for ages and then began using siyah or siyahi following the anti racist trend in the US.  The word zenci is now kind of avoided in formal situations.

I have always found the American people to be  extra sensitive about skin color.  Although people in Turkey can´t be called homogeneous racially, there are just a couple words used to describe skin color like esmer and acik tenli (dark and light skinned) or sarýþýn (blonde). 

I know there are many races living in the country but in my opinion race must not be used as part of one´s identity in the US (and any other place).  I mean, we shouldn´t call people as that black lady over there, that white boy etc.  If we don´t know their names, we must call them just a man or a woman. In a newspaper article, unless it is really needed, we musn´t introduce people as black, yellow or white; just their names and surnames. This way we can clean racial awareness in society by educating children accordingly.

 I agree, that is one of the things that I love about Turkish culture.  To define people by their color, ethnicity,  gender preference (LGBT is controversial in more ways than one) is in my opinion silly impractical, inefficient and uncouth. 

 It is has saddened me greatly when I see people who come here from other countries get defined with these narrow categories.  I´ve seen some Turks and in particular some of the darker Turks, and people from other countries become aware of their and other people´s color. 

Actually there is a lot of baggage associated with the "black" designation, and the adoption of it by "black" people.  It was sort of a protest, or play on words, so to speak.  It comes from the "one drop" rule.  That was if a person had one drop of black blood, they had different rights.

As  Langston Hughes wrote, "You see, unfortunately, I am not black. There are lots of different kinds of blood in our family. But here in the United States, the word ´Negro´ is used to mean anyone who has any Negro blood at all in his veins. In Africa, the word is more pure. It means all Negro, therefore black. I am brown."

The one-drop rule was a tactic in the U.S. South that codified and strengthened segregation and the disfranchisement of most blacks and many poor whites from 1890-1910. After Supreme Court decisions in Plessy v. Ferguson and related matters, White-dominated legislatures felt free to enact Jim Crow laws segregating Blacks in public places and accommodations, and passed other restrictive legislation. Legislatures sought to prevent interracial relationships to keep the white race "pure", long after slaveholders and overseers took advantage of enslaved women and produced the many mixed-race children."

It was only as recent as 1967 antimiscegenation laws were repealed in all parts of the USA.

No pun intended but.... why can one call people as ´the man with glasses´, ´the bald man´, ´that fat lady´, ´the blonde overthere´ but not ´the black lady over there´? Sometimes it´s just easy to make clear who you (general)  mean, especially when pointing at a group or crowd. I think it´s more in the minds of people hearing these words calling it racist than it´s meant by the speaker.

I have to agree with you.  If you are pointing out someone in a crowd (and don´t forget it´s rude to point ) then it makes sense to use their most obvious characteristic and if this is their colour then it makes sense.   What I think is most ridiculous is the trend to consider it wrong to use expressions like ´black sheep´ or even ´blackball´

 My sons girlfriend is half Mauritian so therefore "coloured" and she has no problem with being referred to as "coloured" or "black" or "brown".  We have had long discussions about it (what term should be used that is).   I think we get far to hung up about these things and it is not the people who are affected that are offended but those who promote the PC society.

 Again...I totally agree.

Trudy, Ladyinred and Libralady,

Of course you do have a point. If that problem in the mind did not exist, it would be nonsense to get offended by words, descriptions and choices of vocabulary. Nevertheless, there is indeed a racial awareness still going strong today. This racial awareness splits people into camps. There are many who use this race specific vocabulary for derogatary purposes. There are tens of thousands of people filling stadiums in the heart of Europe booing African players, calling them names, jumping on their seats like monkeys. Samuel Eto´o is just one of these players. He even thought about leaving Europe and playing for an Uzbek club despite being one of the best players in the world. On the other hand, there still a disturbed and agitated black community in the US. This tension sometimes causes violent incidents. If you can not defend an argument in say Harlem or Bronx where the problem (as far as I know) is more evident, you shouldn´t defend it in Paris either.

Whatever we think, whatever that goes through our minds is registered in our language. Language is a mirror of who we are. We cannot think about anything that is impossible to convey in language. Though seemingly incorporeal language therefore, is an organic part of the human body. Language serves a pathway for younger people into our cultures. If you belong to a culture where it is normal to treat people of different colors as if they are different creatures, you see nothing wrong in doing so. You do have a problem if your child wants to marry one of them, if you run into a black person in a dark street and vice versa. If you are a cop, you regard a black person as a potential criminal though he may actually be more innocent than you ever have been. All these are in the thinking and in the language which are mutually related. The starting point of all of this nonsense is the feeling that people of different colors are essentially different. It has such an easy starting point...

In other words, if your language contains myriad of phrases differentiating between blacks and whites then you do have a problem in your social mentality which is properly reflected in the mirror of language. Language is a snapshot of all your social dynamics at any given time.

Any person including a child must see a human when he looks at a person of whatever color in the first place. Any associations in the mind about the nature or personality of that person with his/her skin color is a racist association which we keep inheriting to new generation.

I do agree with you to a great extent, but........... what to black people call us?  White people or honkey!  I don´t agree with calling someone a nigger or a spade or slit eye, or what ever (which is the sort of language that I grew up with) as that is meant to be derogatory.  It is impossible to describe someone by their nationality so how else do you describe them if they are not white, what are the options? And racism exists without colour definition .........

And your last point, my daughter-in-law (sort of) is a teacher and the children see her as a teacher not as a coloured person. 

I think the reference ´coloured´ is a better descripter for a white person.....

we go green with envy and also with sickness

we go red with embarrassment, anger, (or too much booze)

we go blue when exposed to coldness

we go pink after 2 seconds in the sun

we go yellow when we are scared

 ...don´t forget - white with shock  and purple with rage - and, interestingly, some of us do our utmost to get as brown as possible in the summer! (not Trudy of course!)

Or me!

Actually...there is a lot of truth in that.  I was once with a group of women, all whom had black hair and brown eyes.  There was a third woman not there being discussed.  One of the women said (not in a disparaging manner at all), " XXX is so colorful with her blond hair, blue eyes and pink skin". I thought about that and concluded what she was saying was very true.

Most "white" people are very colorful.  After all,blue/purple varicose veins, those drinkers noses are much more colorful on "white" people.  When they bruise, they get really colorful.....purple...yellow...and when they get sunburned...they turn very pink.

Unfortunately my language does have those phrases and words. But it does NOT mean I - or anyone - does automatically have a problem in my/our social mentality. Sure, people enough with horrid thoughts and ideas but also people enough who haven´t. Yes, we even have some not so friendly words/expressions in our language about Turks, but there´s not one cell in my body that uses them and if I hear them I only feel pity for the person using them, I´m not thinking ´aha, see that´s (a) typical Turk(ish).´

what a strange swift from homosexuals into coloured ppl.like from world crises into swine flue...and all this political correctness..black is black,white is white ..what is wrong with it???

 I guess are you already familiar with this site, so it should not come as a surprise that the on topic soon goes off topic   Diversity - that is what TC is all about.....

 U got me there Libra..and that is what I like about TC...

Well, I was only refering to social mentality the scope of which is limited to the general outlook of society and not that of individuals one by one.

In the Turkish cinema of the 60´s and 70´s, you would hear all non-muslim foreigners being called as gavur which is derived from the Arabic word kafir meaning infidel or blasphemous.  Tourists would be blamed for smelling like pigs and you name it. We no longer have this bullshit in our movies or in our daily conversations. This is a sign of advancement.

In the past, Europe seemed to be light years ahead of us. Today, the difference is mostly in the financial department. There are areas where I feel Turkey is better than most of Europe and that includes the capacity of improving oneself and getting rid of stereotypes.

 Actually Birdy is nearly the short version of my name ............. Bridy

 I know Bridget,I know

 A good point of view, worth discussing.

 so..let´s go on..btw welcome back vineyards without rideculous THE)

Thanks birdy, you would be someone I know?

Well, maybe because black is not black and white is not white....as far as people go anyway..........

I think as the world gets smaller and we are confronted with each other, our old ideas change. 

It´s interesting to note that in the "good old days"  many cultures didn´t even consider different humans to be human.  The Chinese called white people Red Devils....other Asians called them round eyes....Jewish people call none Jews Goyim, the Romany (aka Gypsies) people call "others" Gadge.....the Japanese called "others" Gaijin..and had to be forced to trade with Europeans.

Actually in this area there is a great amount of improvement in intercultural relations....most people admit to "others" being human.

 guess so..

Let´s keep on guessing.

 the history of humanity proves that we  humans tend to depreciate other nations,races,nationalities.is it selfishness?fear?-I tend to believe in this-self preservation?xenophoby?must be...anyway

what is wrong with us -preachers of western civilisationof  ,which is better?????(DOUBT)WESTERN VALUES,western style of living,western so and on?

 Alameda)in my opinion ppl are ppl no matter what colour of their skin is,no matter what God they pray,no matter what values they go for..

Of course they are.....!

However....a wise friend of mine once noted that humans are in essence "herd creatures". We have gone the range of clans, tribes and herds...to what we have today.

I´ve read that tribal society is the most efficient.....This social (herd nature) is probably why we have a difficulty being more inclusive.

http://history.club.fatih.edu.tr/103%20Huntington%20Clash%20of%20Civilizations%20full%20text.htm

if u have time guys)

Yes, that is a famous book....but I disagree....this statement in particular....

"First, differences among civilizations are not only real; they are basic. Civilizations are differentiated from each other by history, language, culture, tradition and, most important, religion."

The more we study human history, the more we realize we share the same family.  Look at the DNA....it´s in there...our similarities outweigh our differences. Only when cultures/civilizations try to impose what is different on others, problems ensue. That imposition comes out of a feeling of deficiency. (need more, don´t have enough, need to feel important)

We are more similar as human beings, (I might add, fellow mammals)  than different. In reality, very few want much other than to be able to life their lives unobstructed. It is only the fear (which books like this encourage) of being forced to adopt other ways they negatively react.

Even if one looks at religion, at their hearts, there is more similarity between them than disparity. Our basic needs, our basic values are the same.  In reality, we are one.

Years ago there were no sushi bars, nobody heard of shiatsu...soy sauce...?...Thai food was unheard of,.....but now you see these proliferating all over the place.  People extract what they like from other cultures more than they want to go to war with them....unless they are manipulated.

“Naturally the common people don´t want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”  so said Hermann Göring.

Is that true?  Ultimately we all want the most is to be loved and to love. We want to be part of the loving family.........when we fix our hair, get new cloths, it´s to make ourselves more lovable......

How about this?

The Second Forum of the Alliance of Civilizations

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-3X5hIFXYU

thinking to convert..............

Interesting video....somewhat alarmist. I´ve always wondered how they come up with such statistics? One can´t guarantee the children of anyone will adopt their belief system, particularly in today´s climate. 

I do think most people will weigh the altermatives and come up with their own belief system.

The idea of creating a "clash between civilisations" is long out of fashion nowadays, so is that old book.

The new approach is to create "clashes within the civilisations".

Why is it that it is usually writers/philosophers of Jewish origin to encourage a final showdown between Christians and Moslems? ?...extremely competitive and sporting guys .

Oh please!

....it´s an old strategy that has nothing to do with Jews...."divide et impera"...."divide and conquer"....."divide and rule"...been going on for thousands of years. 

What amazes me is that after all this time, it is it´s continued  success.

Today is Memorial Day in the US....all last night and today there have been programs on war.  Mutilated vetrans have been shown with their famlies.  It sickens and saddens me.

Why?

After all our years of so called "evolution", we spend so much creative energy and resources to better kill and mutilate each other.  In looking at most other animals, once one shows themself the stronger, the fight is over. Where is the humane in humans?