I have a hard time understand myself sometimes so for you to understand me based on a couple of paragraphs would be very odd indeed. You express yourself very interestingly and I must admit to accepting that you've been conditioned a certain way and that you do not wish to question this conditining, nor where or why that conditioning came to be. For myself, I've had the luxury to recieve a decent basic education and aquired many friends with completely different opinions on almost every subject you can think of. And thank God, I do question it all, regardless of social stigma.

While I wouldn't deny my wishes for Turkey to become more Godless and heathen, there are numerous aspects of Turkish society that are too wonderful to change. There is a passion down there that I have yet to see matched.

It's just that, for me to answer a question regarding the turban, I like to put the political aspect of it in context. I'd do the same with smoking and drug use and I'd still be "vehemently" opposed to such bans (of course, not all drugs). I've stated that I'd like for the turban ban to be lifted, but as it is now, I do not. Perhaps that is just how it is..

And my founding father can turn in his grave all he wants, it doesn't change that the proposal is interesting.

That is understandable considering there is a huge gap in your uber libertarian thoughts. You try to fill this gap with an extended analysis of anything related, on the way of finding an excuse. It doesn’t sound and feel right at the start, so you dig deeper and get confused along the way.

Hahahaa… Aren't you a lucky boy...?
You are looking for details that aren’t there mate. Everybody is conditioned to a certain extent and most often they are a product of their environment. I am a product of Turkish culture, values and education system. I have been abroad for 20 years and had many friends of different backgrounds as well, quite possibly many times over than yours. You can’t tell a %99 Muslim nation that they “aren’t allowed to wrap their head but it’s OK if you go ahead and fuck your sister”. And when they don’t wanna listen, “all right then, we’ll partition the country, interesting proposal innit…?”

Which drugs would you leave out…?

Funny, I do not seem to find the gap in my thoughts. Perhaps it is your conditioning that disables your mind from seeing what I'm seeing? After all, how would you know? Not that you are any blinder than I am, but as the same way there is a huge gap in your train of thoughts regarding how everything is and, indeed, always will depend on how a person was pre-conditioned by their envrioment etc. it seems as if a stone is being thrown where alot of glass lies trembling. Why is it that you are not seperate from your upbringing? Is it by mere chance that you think as the way you do, or isn't there an Emre lodged inside, a priori so to speak, that truly governs your moral code?

Not to seem crude, but "finding an excuse" is essentially the same as you saying that I'm merely persisting out of spite, if not by some narcissistic need to prove myself, which in many levels may be taken as quite an offensive assumption. Do not fear, you are not entirely wrong to assume such, but wrong nonetheless to have done so.

Back to topic.

There is, and here once and for all, a true logical reason - as in a reasonable reason - for me to deny the squeeze-me-heads their rightful freedom to bear symbolic warfare with the laicist establishment of Turkey. That reason is; fear. Like any other fundamentalists (and, indeed almost all of mankind), I am driven by the sole, undeniable, ever-present fear of what I do not agree or know enough about. Taking my own example into light, as an antitheist by many accounts, naturally, by the egocentric drive we all share, I am inclined to strive for whatever society I would most likely find myself in. Hence, when freedoms I so passionately wave fists for are turned against me, the true value and irksome greatness of democracy reveals itself and reminds me that I am not as good a man I wish to be, nor is anyone else. There are even freedoms I'd deny and of course that denial is not by any means a satisfactory state to be in. Arrival at self determination and improvement. I do not wish to keep those poor women "naked" in schools. I'd like, now stated for the oumpht time, for the ban to be lifted, but must also take this fear into account. Enter AKP. Whatever, these fools are trying to buy us off with buttered up expressions all wrapped nicely in a big stinking pile of bullshit, they bring nothing but this fracking ban to the table as anything near what I would call "fresh" or "uplifting". What is more important to me? These rights or how much I do not agree with this ruling party? Right now, my heated gut shouting fear left and right tells me the latter. These freedoms would mean nothing to me if they were not enjoyed in a society I would found myself, or atleast support mildly based on their fundamental philosophy.

Yes, yes, we all know the republicans aren't fuzzy little bubble-gum bears that love freedom of thought and democracy. Then again, if was had to choose if I was going to be raped by a secularist deep state or an islamic deep state; well...the answer should be obvious.

Well yes, to a certain extent. After that extent one's own thinking should kick that conditioned thinking's ass. You are a product of that educational system? Therein lies the problem. If you're somekind of assembly-line production you aren't supposed to disagree. I mean agree by all means, but agree going through the right phases and come to the conclusion with reason. You can't just lean on the fact that that's how you are and don't bother to question it because it feels right. Of course it does, it's been conditioned to do so. I'm not saying it's wrong either, but you must ALWAYS come to moral conclusions based on more than what you've shared with me.

I'm not telling 99% of the people, but the mere minority (and I say minority, because that is who they are fighting for) that they may not break the law as of yet. "Please wait a while" would be to put it mildly. I'd say that just out of spite I'll disagree here even though I do not, to make a bigger point. To state something unspoken with this pro-*test*-('") - well, that is essentially what it is - a pro-*test*-('"), a stand agaist a rival rule saying that freedom may come, but come on my terms. Perhaps what I'm saying is not that I deny them their freedom, but that I deny them mine.

So how can I tell them to fuck their sisters with a straight face? Well I'm not actually, the society in which I'd alow incest in would be a society I'd allow turbans to be worn freely everywhere. The only conflict here, and strange that you've not seen it (or perhaps I've been unclear) is that I was unwilling to lend only turban freedom and not incest. To me, atleast, if you have the audacity to suggest one, you should also suggest the other.

Regarding drugs.

Atleast weed. Weed must be legalized. Everything else can be banned. But seeing as how there's a HUGE black market out there for criminals, perhaps governments around the world should think of new ways to fight the war on drugs other than shooting people through the head. Taxation? I really don't know. And don't care so much either.

What makes you think that I don’t see what you are seeing...? A better way of posing that question is : What do you claim to see that I can not...? Hmmm... Let see, let me ask my inner priori... He sees a father fucking his daughter... What do you see....? Two consenting adults having sex. Now, while both of those remain as facts, do you expect me to disregard one, or just come to terms with it...? I can question this 151 different ways but the outcome is always a very disturbing act, hence it remains socially unacceptable in my mind.

You are reaching... Surely you don't feel that important.

Codex asked the three questions and it’s obvious he had the Turkish society in mind when doing so and made that even clearer with his reply to you. You now explain that your answers exclude Turkish society. Since the rest of what you say is inconsequential after this, we have a bit of an anticlimax but a fitting one. This can be seen as double standards in other people’s minds, but I understand the need of different laws for different societies.

Nothing of the sort, abi, you can arrive at the conclusion that all of them should be stripped bare, tortured or 7 days and then shot through the nuts. All I'm saying is that you must (and forgive this french, it seems very rude of me to say 'must') come to ANY conclusion through a rational train of thought. I'm not saying what that is for you, I'd never judge that if you'd simply made it clear why you find it unacceptable. Conditioning simply is not a valid reason. Other than that, you haven't provided me with anything. So perhaps you haven't thought this particular subject through? Perhaps your conditioning prevented you from looking at this completely objectively? (let's face it, even doing that, for some people is considered equal to fucking your grandma up the ass). Is it really hard to believe that a product of the Turkish educational system, of the Turkish culture, would find it unacceptable to even consider this subject as anything else but taboo?? I'm just saying...

Well certainly not now, anyway...

Well it became about Turkish society after Alper questionied the turbans. And it's always been about Turkish, or potential Turkish society. The society I mused about was a future Turkish one. I don't see how it's impossible to eradicate the influence of religious doctrine and implement new ideas in the next two or three generations. But as I said, the reason for not allowing them their rights is fear and inconsistency from the ruling party. And a personal philosophy of reasonable thought when it comes to incest. It's extreme but logically it's the same thing. And I don't rememebr saying that I'd allow incest and not turbans, if I'm going to allow one, I'll have to allow the other. And it's always been about Turkey - a rather westified Turkey.

This has gone long enough to lose its zest. I really don't know what else to tell you other than what I already have. You seem to have accepted it to be somewhat natural and just expect everyone else to do he same : If only I sat down and thought rationally and objectively enough, I will come to my senses and realize that it is/isn't such a bad thing. Then I would be able to make it clear to you why I find it acceptable/unacceptable.

I don’t find it acceptable because people aren’t supposed to fuck their mothers, why would one do so...? Is it the convenience, the fact that she is always around...? I don’t think so, no one could be that desperate nor lazy, surely. Is it one’s extreme affection that pushes them to incest...? That would mean that they love their mom/dad/siblings/children more than I do, I doubt it. Is it the lack of affection...? More likely, but fuck, we’d have every prick trying to fuck their family member that they shun, just to get back at them. Are you horny yet son, I just remembered the day you broke that vase that my mother had left me in her will... What else could it be...? The need to take the place of a lost kin..? I can’t accept anything more than a parent being both a mother and father to a child. You tell me why one would have the need to engage in incest or are the reasons irrelevant all together...? Does it give an adrenalin rush resulting in a huge high...? Take up skydiving and forget the fucken chute. Should we involve the family pet in...? Next time her gorgeous lab is humping her leg, she can drop her dacks and bend over, no one likes a dry root, not even dogs ! The Dutch can make a study to determine the level of consent a dog has, by how far he sticks his tongue out.

Two or three generations..? I very much doubt it.

Sadly, here is the reality of it my friend. Unfortunately we always had a certain % of fundamentalists in our society. While they didn’t have much influence in the past, this has been changing steadily. Our society is rife with different religious sects, a backward ılımlı İslam thesis is being pushed on it, the Arab culture is gaining more momentum each day. To top it all off, the system is in their favour, imam hatip graduates have been reaching ridiculous amounts and the left has been ineffective for a long time. It’s quite ironic that each coup was targeted against the right, (80 is debatable) but they are the ones that ended up getting all the concessions and growing stronger. I am sorry mate, but you won’t have Turkey westified enough to allow incest for some time and certainly such extremes as incest shouldn’t be the measuring stick for it. After all, West needs to allow for it yet... and we are still figuring out if your friend's sister is fair game or not, let alone your own !

Hm, the reason why they choose to do it is, actually, irrelevant when you compare to why what they are doing is bad. Sure, there's no natural reason at all to feel sexually attracted to any close member of the family. It's a taboo that makes perfect evolutionary sense. But that sense is solely based on the fact that the product of sex, the reproduction it contrives are malign. Cut that part out of the equation and that evolutionary taboo makes no sense. But let's just propose that some guy and his mother just have the genetic composition that makes them want to bone their brains out. And then assume that there is a law that prevents them from having sex without proper insurance that there will not be a baby as a result of this. What this then becomes, as there is no third party affected (excluding possible psychological trauma it might bring friends, family etc.) is a question of free will. Who cares if that reason derives from not getting enough adrenalin? Or enough comfort as a child? Is that a reason enough to ban something? Imagine if we implemented that rationale on everything. If we feel that something is wrong, we should be able to explain why. And convincingly.

Hehe about the dog, no one should ever be allowed to fuck any animal. Period.

Me too, but if there were large scale action taken starting tomorrow, that would be possible. That is, if I were in charge.

Yes, spot on. Sadly, but yes.

But why...?
After all, if the dog is more than willing (this would not be very hard to prove, owning a shepherd and a ridgeback in the last 15 years, I can -*test*-('")ify for a dog’s determination to show their love at various times ) and she has no problems with it, why deny them this “pleasure”...? You can understand one’s urge to fuck her father but not her dog that she dearly loves...? Maybe you are not approaching this in a rational manner.

I do not see how you can prove that an animal can be fully concenting. You could claim that a child is concentingly having sex with you by showing that she "wants" to do it. But she would have no idea what it meant and even though she'd ask you for it, you'd still be abusing her (as in rape) because you would have a psychological upper hand.

A dog has roughly the same intelligence as a small child. As such, a sane adult always has a psychological grip on it. The relationship is not equal to being between two adults but of one "child" and its guardian. As a guardian of someone or something that cannot think as rationally as you, you would have more obligations than priviledges. You couldn't reasonably form a sexual relationship with an animal even though the dog howls every night after your dick.

Now the reason is simple enough. Fucking your dog is sexual abuse. Always. Unless you can prove through some scientific -*test*-('") that a dog can grasp the meaning of a concenting sexual relationship between two adults. But I'm sure it has the capability of showing love, the same way a child could. That doesn't mean you could rationally fuck that child. It wouldn't mean that that child is ready for anything of the sort. To claim that would be very irrational and disturbing.

I follow your argument, but an animal mounting a human pretty much proves that animal’s initiative, resulting in consent. If consent of an animal is the only thing you are going by, I am pretty sure you couldn't find a dog volunteering to be castrated.

What are the laws on mentally challenged people having sex...?

Fucking an animal to me is as irrational as fucking a kid. A kid could be humping a woman's leg, which shows intent, but as the kid (and the animal) cannot truly grasp what they are doing it is safe to consider a follow-up sexual encounter as bad. But an animal or child cannot truly concent because of the psychological difference. If there is too much of a gap between the two parties, there can never be concent, no matter how much intent is shown. That is why, and reasonably so, fucking kids is considered unacceptable.

Of course when we consider someone sexually mature differs greatly. It's most certainly an individual progress and cannot be pinpointed by any exact age. Some girls and boys might be psychologically mature at an earlier age than others. Some might never reach full maturity. I'd say that between 15 and 18 is where most people aquire the psychological properties needed to engage in sex without it being abusive.

I don't know about mentally challenged people. I guess it depends on what mental illness they suffer from. Some pathologies do not hinder the human brain from understanding sexual activity. Others probably do.

Take the kids out of the equation will ya, we are talking about animals. While consent is a vital part of any sexual activity, consider this :

You can kill an animal to consume, you can kill an animal in the name of sport, you can castrate an animal because you want to, you can take an animal out of its natural habitat and cage them to exhibit, but you won’t let a deranged woman to bend over her beloved pooch. Where is the animal’s consent to be killed, castrated or caged...? How do you determine a mentally challenged person’s consent, not to deny them their right to sex...? If you really want to be rational about this, you are gonna have to admit the inconsistencies and realize that not all laws need to be scientifically and philosophically explainable. Maybe the above is accepted and bestiality is not, (and rightly fucken so) because it opens the door to paedophiles, to reason and justify their crap.

With incest, as you can’t police “consenting adults” engaging in incest, not to reproduce, its current legal status can’t change. Also, a vast majority of incest cases also happen to be child abuse. I am sorry (no I am not) but these perverts will have to do without their liberties as well.

Eyvallah, this is it from me on this subject.

Good, shut these organisations down - like everything else, you force something to keep quiet it only gets stronger and more determined and defiant. Can't these fools in the government understand this basic fact? the 'disease' of 'gayness' will never go away, lobbing ideals of morality about to justify shutting gay rights orgs. down is so fucking short sighted. As if the officials that pushed for it's closure are moral themselves, half probably take backhanders and the other 'pious' half probably perv over natashas using government internet time.

I have nothing against these organisations functioning, they don't bother me. If they DO bother someone it's 99% likely to be down to their own insecurities and having a chip on their shoulder.

Hopefully one day the powers that be will pull the malignant plug of traditionalism from their ever backward-looking arses and Turkey will have free organisations like this and the right to gay marriages.

(I only draw the line at adoption for the sake of the adopted kids.)