Australian Politics Forum
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl
General Discussion >> Chat >> Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1339451670

Message started by Maqqa on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:54am

Title: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Maqqa on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:54am
The homos' argument is equality. But isn't marriage about love? In this area I agree with Gillard's comments last night. Marriage should be about love and love does not require a marriage certificate.

Those who do not agree with the homos are subjected to verbal abuse (demonising) by them and their supporters. Like a spoilt child kicking up a stink in the middle of a supermarket - they might get what they want but because then they'll want something else then something else.

The Greens - I thought the Greens are environmental warriors instead they now become Homo warriors. They used demonising in the Climate Change debate and now transferred it to the Homo debate.

What do you call a group of homos debating this issue?

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Armchair_Politician on Jun 12th, 2012 at 8:05am
The thing that gets me with the pro gay marriage lobby is that anyone who objects to gay marriage must, by definition, be homophobic. I have gay relatives and gay friends who I love dearly - but personally I do not believe that marriage laws should be changed to allow gay marriages.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by BlOoDy RiPpEr on Jun 12th, 2012 at 8:38am
The gay section of the community are always disrespectful of others. They don't like criticism yet have no problem criticising other groups in the community. Its a bit of a double standard.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by warrigal on Jun 12th, 2012 at 8:56am
Homophobia

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Spot of Borg on Jun 12th, 2012 at 10:00am
ANOTHER GAY MARRIAGE THREAD

Gillard is judged by a lot of religious groups as sinful because she isnt married.  the only way to win in this issue is to give ppl equality. some ppl reckon "marriage isnt important" for gays but it is for themselves. Obviously gillard isnt one of those.

SOB


Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by longweekend58 on Jun 12th, 2012 at 12:49pm

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 8:05am:
The thing that gets me with the pro gay marriage lobby is that anyone who objects to gay marriage must, by definition, be homophobic. I have gay relatives and gay friends who I love dearly - but personally I do not believe that marriage laws should be changed to allow gay marriages.


you make a good point. Not agreeing with gay marriage is hardly definitionally homophobic. After all, a gay former Chief CJustice of the High Court also opposes gay marriage. is he therefore homophobic?

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by corporate_whitey on Jun 12th, 2012 at 1:12pm
The whole Gay marriage thing is a vicious and calculated propaganda war against the Australian people by a government so steeped in deceit and ideological extremism that it is dangerously clinically insane and the Australian people are in great peril, by a Government that thinks nothing aout grading them economically according to biology and purging them.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Soren on Jun 12th, 2012 at 1:59pm

BlOoDy RiPpEr wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 8:38am:
The gay section of the community are always disrespectful of others. They don't like criticism yet have no problem criticising other groups in the community. Its a bit of a double standard.



It's living with pain in the arse.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Soren on Jun 12th, 2012 at 2:01pm

Maqqa wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:54am:
What do you call a group of homos debating this issue?


Homorrhoids.


Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by skippy. on Jun 12th, 2012 at 2:06pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 12:49pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 8:05am:
The thing that gets me with the pro gay marriage lobby is that anyone who objects to gay marriage must, by definition, be homophobic. I have gay relatives and gay friends who I love dearly - but personally I do not believe that marriage laws should be changed to allow gay marriages.


you make a good point. Not agreeing with gay marriage is hardly definitionally homophobic. After all, a gay former Chief CJustice of the High Court also opposes gay marriage. is he therefore homophobic?

Name him or its just another one of your  lies.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Grandmaster on Jun 12th, 2012 at 2:07pm

Soren wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 2:01pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:54am:
What do you call a group of homos debating this issue?


Homorrhoids.



I always thought the correct term for a flock of homos was a "poovery".


Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Uncle Meat on Jun 12th, 2012 at 2:09pm

... wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 2:07pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 2:01pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:54am:
What do you call a group of homos debating this issue?


Homorrhoids.



I always thought the correct term for a flock of homos was a "poovery".



You spend an awful lot of time thinking about homosexuals, don't you?


Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Grandmaster on Jun 12th, 2012 at 2:13pm
No more than you spend thinking about illegal immigrants.  Kinda sad that such trivial issues are in the news every day innit?

So anyway, Is "poovery" the correct word or not?

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by PoliticalReality on Jun 12th, 2012 at 2:14pm

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 8:05am:
The thing that gets me with the pro gay marriage lobby is that anyone who objects to gay marriage must, by definition, be homophobic. I have gay relatives and gay friends who I love dearly - but personally I do not believe that marriage laws should be changed to allow gay marriages.


Why not?

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Uncle Meat on Jun 12th, 2012 at 2:17pm

... wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 2:13pm:
So anyway, Is "poovery" the correct word or not?


Whatever you and your friends decide on, is fine with me.





Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Grandmaster on Jun 12th, 2012 at 2:20pm

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 2:17pm:

... wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 2:13pm:
So anyway, Is "poovery" the correct word or not?


Whatever you and your friends decide on, is fine with me.



Language only works insofar as it is commonly understood, so no, it's not a matter of just deciding on a name.


Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Spot of Borg on Jun 12th, 2012 at 2:25pm
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Poovery

1.      Poovery      
     
inappropriate and overt behaviour towards a samesex personage
That boozer is a den of Poovery


Nope wrong word sorry.

SOB

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Uncle Meat on Jun 12th, 2012 at 2:29pm

... wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 2:20pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 2:17pm:

... wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 2:13pm:
So anyway, Is "poovery" the correct word or not?


Whatever you and your friends decide on, is fine with me.



Language only works insofar as it is commonly understood, so no, it's not a matter of just deciding on a name.


Well, "a flock of" heteros is called a crowd

Why don't you just use crowd?

Why do you need a special word?

Seeing as you asked though, how about: 'closet', or 'flame'?

:-/

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Grandmaster on Jun 12th, 2012 at 2:31pm

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 2:29pm:

... wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 2:20pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 2:17pm:

... wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 2:13pm:
So anyway, Is "poovery" the correct word or not?


Whatever you and your friends decide on, is fine with me.



Language only works insofar as it is commonly understood, so no, it's not a matter of just deciding on a name.


Well, "a flock of" heteros is called a crowd

Why don't you just use crowd?

Why do you need a special word?

Seeing as you asked though, how about: 'closet', or 'flame'?

:-/


ahhhuunno.

Why is a "murder of crows" not just a "flock of crows"?  Why do those black bastards need a special name?  they just do.

Your suggestions are OK, but I reckon a "mince" is better. 


Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Gist on Jun 12th, 2012 at 2:32pm

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 2:29pm:

... wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 2:20pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 2:17pm:

... wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 2:13pm:
So anyway, Is "poovery" the correct word or not?


Whatever you and your friends decide on, is fine with me.



Language only works insofar as it is commonly understood, so no, it's not a matter of just deciding on a name.


Well, "a flock of" heteros is called a crowd

Why don't you just use crowd?

Why do you need a special word?

Seeing as you asked though, how about: 'closet', or 'flame'?

:-/


But then how could he indulge in poovery?

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by skippy. on Jun 12th, 2012 at 2:35pm
I thought Cwissy Pyne let the cat out of the bag a couple of week ago, they are called gazelles.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by skippy. on Jun 12th, 2012 at 3:47pm

skippy. wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 2:06pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 12:49pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 8:05am:
The thing that gets me with the pro gay marriage lobby is that anyone who objects to gay marriage must, by definition, be homophobic. I have gay relatives and gay friends who I love dearly - but personally I do not believe that marriage laws should be changed to allow gay marriages.


you make a good point. Not agreeing with gay marriage is hardly definitionally homophobic. After all, a gay former Chief CJustice of the High Court also opposes gay marriage. is he therefore homophobic?

Name him or its just another one of your  lies.

BUMP before longlyingfraud goes and hides under his rock ,again.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Gist on Jun 12th, 2012 at 3:48pm

skippy. wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 2:35pm:
I thought Cwissy Pyne let the cat out of the bag a couple of week ago, they are called gazelles.


;D

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Andrei.Hicks on Jun 12th, 2012 at 3:50pm
I don't know why on earth this is still issue - it affects like a miniscule portion of the population - hairdressers, wedding planners, interior designers and make up artists.

Straight people marry.

Ponces can register their friendship in a book or something.

Done. Dusted. Now let's concentrate on things which affect people like taxes, the economy, jobs etc....

bugger me dead what is the matter with people.
Talking about two fellas 'marrying' - what on earth would our ancestors make of this????

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Grandmaster on Jun 12th, 2012 at 3:55pm
We've already deal with that Andrei, and moved on to biger issues.  namely, what is a the correct term for a group of homos?

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Uncle Meat on Jun 12th, 2012 at 3:59pm

... wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 3:55pm:
We've already deal with that Andrei, and moved on to biger issues.  namely, what is a the correct term for a group of homos?



Grandmaster et al. ?     :-/

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Grandmaster on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:00pm
hohoho.

But there's nothing wrong with that, is there?

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Uncle Meat on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:04pm

... wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:00pm:
hohoho.

But there's nothing wrong with that, is there?


No, no, of course not! People's personal sexual preferences are nobody's business but their own!

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Spot of Borg on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:06pm

Quote:
Ponces can register their friendship in a book or something.


Because in order to piss off ppl like you they have to get married. The sooner the better.

SOB

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Grandmaster on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:14pm

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:04pm:

... wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:00pm:
hohoho.

But there's nothing wrong with that, is there?


No, no, of course not! People's personal sexual preferences are nobody's business but their own!



Exactly right. 

So long as they leave it at their sexual preferences, and don't demand society validate their relationship with their friend/dog/pet rock as equal to a real relationship.


Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Grandmaster on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:15pm

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:06pm:

Quote:
Ponces can register their friendship in a book or something.


Because in order to piss off ppl like you they have to get married. The sooner the better.

SOB



That's the most honest and compelling reason I've heard for the introduction of homosexual unions.

Sadly for you, I'm unlikely to suppprt a measure designed solely to piss me off.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Gist on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:16pm

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 3:59pm:

... wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 3:55pm:
We've already deal with that Andrei, and moved on to biger issues.  namely, what is a the correct term for a group of homos?



Grandmaster et al. ?     :-/


I've occasionally wondered why so many chess pieces look like knobs. I think you've explained it for me. Thanks Uncle.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Uncle Meat on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:19pm

... wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:14pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:04pm:

... wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:00pm:
hohoho.

But there's nothing wrong with that, is there?


No, no, of course not! People's personal sexual preferences are nobody's business but their own!



So long as they leave it at their sexual preferences, and don't demand society validate their relationship with their friend/dog/pet rock as equal to a real relationship.



Why is that?

If every homosexual couple in the world were legally married tomorrow, my life would not be affected in the slightest.

What is it that concerns you the most?

Where will the impact be felt the most if they were all to marry tomorrow?

And, why aren't their relationships "real"?




Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Andrei.Hicks on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:21pm

... wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 3:55pm:
We've already deal with that Andrei, and moved on to biger issues.  namely, what is a the correct term for a group of homos?



Hmmm, a "gaggle" of homos?

PS - did you know a group of camels is known as a caravan?
I learned this in a pub quiz the other night....

a caravan of queers?

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Andrei.Hicks on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:24pm

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:06pm:

Quote:
Ponces can register their friendship in a book or something.


Because in order to piss off ppl like you they have to get married. The sooner the better.

SOB


People like me?

straight people?
English?
Accountants?


Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by corporate_whitey on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:24pm
Nasty propaganda like homosexual rights and foreign aid, racism ect are the only weapons this Government has to demonize the Australian people with.  But we see through these tactics of the Government now for the lies and propaganda it is.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Grandmaster on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:24pm

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:19pm:

... wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:14pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:04pm:

... wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:00pm:
hohoho.

But there's nothing wrong with that, is there?


No, no, of course not! People's personal sexual preferences are nobody's business but their own!



So long as they leave it at their sexual preferences, and don't demand society validate their relationship with their friend/dog/pet rock as equal to a real relationship.



Why is that?

If every homosexual couple in the world were legally married tomorrow, my life would not be affected in the slightest.

What is it that concerns you the most?

Where will the impact be felt the most if they were all to marry tomorrow?

And, why aren't their relationships "real"?




AAAAND here's the exact point where the views of the drones and the thinkers diverge.

You see, the real relationships that marriage "cements" have utility.  Homosexual ones do not.  Well, unless you count the entirely selfish.  However, that's not really comparable to the continuation of our species, is it?

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Andrei.Hicks on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:26pm

corporate_whitey wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:24pm:
Nasty propaganda like homosexual rights and foreign aid, racism ect are the only weapons this Government has to demonize the Australian people with.  But we see through these tactics of the Government now for the lies and propaganda it is.



Ah Bill, there you are mate.
I've been worried about you.

I blame the foreigners and the propaganda you know.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Uncle Meat on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:27pm

... wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:24pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:19pm:

... wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:14pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:04pm:

... wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:00pm:
hohoho.

But there's nothing wrong with that, is there?


No, no, of course not! People's personal sexual preferences are nobody's business but their own!



So long as they leave it at their sexual preferences, and don't demand society validate their relationship with their friend/dog/pet rock as equal to a real relationship.



Why is that?

If every homosexual couple in the world were legally married tomorrow, my life would not be affected in the slightest.

What is it that concerns you the most?

Where will the impact be felt the most if they were all to marry tomorrow?

And, why aren't their relationships "real"?




AAAAND here's the exact point where the views of the drones and the thinkers diverge.

You see, the real relationships that marriage "cements" have utility.  Homosexual ones do not.  Well, unless you count the entirely selfish.  However, that's not really comparable to the continuation of our species, is it?



You missed the first part of my post:

If every homosexual couple in the world were legally married tomorrow, my life would not be affected in the slightest.

What is it that concerns you the most?

Where will the impact be felt the most if they were all to marry tomorrow?


Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Andrei.Hicks on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:29pm
It doesn't affect you if we changed the law along the lines of some of the Arab World where men marry 8 year olds.

You ok with doing that then?

It wouldn't affect you.....

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Uncle Meat on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:31pm

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:29pm:
It doesn't affect you if we changed the law along the lines of some of the Arab World where men marry 8 year olds.

You ok with doing that then?

It wouldn't affect you.....



We aren't talking about Arabs or 8 year olds.

Are you capable of answering my question or not?


Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Andrei.Hicks on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:33pm

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:31pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:29pm:
It doesn't affect you if we changed the law along the lines of some of the Arab World where men marry 8 year olds.

You ok with doing that then?

It wouldn't affect you.....



We aren't talking about Arabs or 8 year olds.

Are you capable of answering my question or not?



You're saying we shouldn't care because it doesn't affect us in the slightest.
Neither does my example above.

Using your logic we should be fine with that too?

It's about moral compass and cultural acceptance.

Society's cultural norm is that men wed women and that adults wed and not children.

Both are the same argument.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Uncle Meat on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:34pm

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:29pm:
It doesn't affect you if we changed the law along the lines of some of the Arab World where men marry 8 year olds.

You ok with doing that then?

It wouldn't affect you.....


Let me ask the question in a way that even a moron can understand, seeing as you had such difficulty with it previously.

If every single consenting, legal age gay couple got married tomorrow, how would any one's life be adversely affected?



Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Andrei.Hicks on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:34pm

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:34pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:29pm:
It doesn't affect you if we changed the law along the lines of some of the Arab World where men marry 8 year olds.

You ok with doing that then?

It wouldn't affect you.....


Let me ask the question in a way that even a moron can understand, seeing as you had such difficulty with it previously.

If every single consenting, legal age gay couple got married tomorrow, how would any one's life be adversely affected?



it wouldn't.

If we allow 100 men to then marry 8 or 9 year olds - how would our lives be affected?


Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by longweekend58 on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:35pm

skippy. wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 3:47pm:

skippy. wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 2:06pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 12:49pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 8:05am:
The thing that gets me with the pro gay marriage lobby is that anyone who objects to gay marriage must, by definition, be homophobic. I have gay relatives and gay friends who I love dearly - but personally I do not believe that marriage laws should be changed to allow gay marriages.


you make a good point. Not agreeing with gay marriage is hardly definitionally homophobic. After all, a gay former Chief CJustice of the High Court also opposes gay marriage. is he therefore homophobic?

Name him or its just another one of your  lies.

BUMP before longlyingfraud goes and hides under his rock ,again.


so says the person who thinks labor losing 31 seats will give abbot a 31 seat majority.

62, moron.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Grandmaster on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:35pm

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:27pm:

... wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:24pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:19pm:

... wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:14pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:04pm:

... wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:00pm:
hohoho.

But there's nothing wrong with that, is there?


No, no, of course not! People's personal sexual preferences are nobody's business but their own!



So long as they leave it at their sexual preferences, and don't demand society validate their relationship with their friend/dog/pet rock as equal to a real relationship.



Why is that?

If every homosexual couple in the world were legally married tomorrow, my life would not be affected in the slightest.

What is it that concerns you the most?

Where will the impact be felt the most if they were all to marry tomorrow?

And, why aren't their relationships "real"?




AAAAND here's the exact point where the views of the drones and the thinkers diverge.

You see, the real relationships that marriage "cements" have utility.  Homosexual ones do not.  Well, unless you count the entirely selfish.  However, that's not really comparable to the continuation of our species, is it?



You missed the first part of my post:

If every homosexual couple in the world were legally married tomorrow, my life would not be affected in the slightest.

What is it that concerns you the most?

Where will the impact be felt the most if they were all to marry tomorrow?



Principle mate. 

I don't appreciate being forced to lie - to recognise 2 clearly inequal things as equal.  I've got an Orwell quote for this situation:

freedom is the freedom to say 2+2=4.   

Now let me ask you - if every gay couple woke up tomorrow and still weren't legally recognised as married, how would that affect them?  They wouldn't be affected in the slightest, would they? 

All they'd be missing is a certificate from the government.  I thought they wanted the government to "stay out of their bedrooms"? 

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Andrei.Hicks on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:36pm
If then allow a group of farmers to marry their sheep

How would it affect the rest of us in our lives?

See the point....

It's about moral compass not whether you directly are affected.
You could argue my social morality is impacted letting a pair of fellas play house and get married.

I don't want children to grow up thinking its normal.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Uncle Meat on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:36pm

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:33pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:31pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:29pm:
It doesn't affect you if we changed the law along the lines of some of the Arab World where men marry 8 year olds.

You ok with doing that then?

It wouldn't affect you.....



We aren't talking about Arabs or 8 year olds.

Are you capable of answering my question or not?



You're saying we shouldn't care because it doesn't affect us in the slightest.
Neither does my example above.

Using your logic we should be fine with that too?

It's about moral compass and cultural acceptance.

Society's cultural norm is that men wed women and that adults wed and not children.

Both are the same argument.



I'm not talking about children.  I don't agree with child marriages, but that's not the point. You are deflecting the issue in a bid to avoid answering the question.

Now, try to stay focused and answer my question.  Can you do that or not?

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Uncle Meat on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:38pm

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:36pm:
If then allow a group of farmers to marry their sheep

How would it affect the rest of us in our lives?

See the point....

It's about moral compass not whether you directly are affected.
You could argue my social morality is impacted letting a pair of fellas play house and get married.

I don't want children to grow up thinking its normal.



Can you answer my question or not?

Or, do you wish to continue changing the subject?

Answer my question.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Uncle Meat on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:40pm

... wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:35pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:27pm:

... wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:24pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:19pm:

... wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:14pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:04pm:

... wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:00pm:
hohoho.

But there's nothing wrong with that, is there?


No, no, of course not! People's personal sexual preferences are nobody's business but their own!



So long as they leave it at their sexual preferences, and don't demand society validate their relationship with their friend/dog/pet rock as equal to a real relationship.



Why is that?

If every homosexual couple in the world were legally married tomorrow, my life would not be affected in the slightest.

What is it that concerns you the most?

Where will the impact be felt the most if they were all to marry tomorrow?

And, why aren't their relationships "real"?




AAAAND here's the exact point where the views of the drones and the thinkers diverge.

You see, the real relationships that marriage "cements" have utility.  Homosexual ones do not.  Well, unless you count the entirely selfish.  However, that's not really comparable to the continuation of our species, is it?



You missed the first part of my post:

If every homosexual couple in the world were legally married tomorrow, my life would not be affected in the slightest.

What is it that concerns you the most?

Where will the impact be felt the most if they were all to marry tomorrow?



Principle mate. 

I don't appreciate being forced to lie - to recognise 2 clearly inequal things as equal.  I've got an Orwell quote for this situation:

freedom is the freedom to say 2+2=4.   

Now let me ask you - if every gay couple woke up tomorrow and still weren't legally recognised as married, how would that affect them?  They wouldn't be affected in the slightest, would they? 

All they'd be missing is a certificate from the government.  I thought they wanted the government to "stay out of their bedrooms"? 



Answer my question.  Go on, give it a go.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Grandmaster on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:41pm
WTF?  I just did!


You're nearly as bad as Borg.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Uncle Meat on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:42pm

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:34pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:34pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:29pm:
It doesn't affect you if we changed the law along the lines of some of the Arab World where men marry 8 year olds.

You ok with doing that then?

It wouldn't affect you.....


Let me ask the question in a way that even a moron can understand, seeing as you had such difficulty with it previously.

If every single consenting, legal age gay couple got married tomorrow, how would any one's life be adversely affected?



it wouldn't.


Then why would anyone be opposed to gay marriage?

Remember, we're talking about gay marriage here, nothing else.

If it has no adverse affect on any one else, and it makes the gay people happy, why would you object to it?



Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Andrei.Hicks on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:43pm
I have answered it about 5 times.

I would not be affected, others would not be affected.
However that is as relevant as I would not be affected by people marrying their dogs or young children.

It is morally wrong.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Andrei.Hicks on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:43pm

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:42pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:34pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:34pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:29pm:
It doesn't affect you if we changed the law along the lines of some of the Arab World where men marry 8 year olds.

You ok with doing that then?

It wouldn't affect you.....


Let me ask the question in a way that even a moron can understand, seeing as you had such difficulty with it previously.

If every single consenting, legal age gay couple got married tomorrow, how would any one's life be adversely affected?



it wouldn't.


Then why would anyone be opposed to gay marriage?

Remember, we're talking about gay marriage here, nothing else.

If it has no adverse affect on any one else, and it makes the gay people happy, why would you object to it?



MORAL GROUNDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Uncle Meat on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:43pm

... wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:41pm:
WTF?  I just did!


You're nearly as bad as Borg.



"Where will the impact be felt the most if they were all to marry tomorrow?"

I didn't see an answer.


Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Uncle Meat on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:46pm

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:43pm:
It is morally wrong.



(according to you, maybe)

And how will that cause any harm?

If every gay couple married tomorrow, and it is indeed "morally wrong" as you suggest, how will that affect anyone?


Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Uncle Meat on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:48pm

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:43pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:42pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:34pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:34pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:29pm:
It doesn't affect you if we changed the law along the lines of some of the Arab World where men marry 8 year olds.

You ok with doing that then?

It wouldn't affect you.....


Let me ask the question in a way that even a moron can understand, seeing as you had such difficulty with it previously.

If every single consenting, legal age gay couple got married tomorrow, how would any one's life be adversely affected?



it wouldn't.


Then why would anyone be opposed to gay marriage?

Remember, we're talking about gay marriage here, nothing else.

If it has no adverse affect on any one else, and it makes the gay people happy, why would you object to it?



MORAL GROUNDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Really?

So, you think it is morally acceptable to deny all of those people their happiness?

Even though their happiness will not affect you or me in the slightest, you think you're taking the higher moral ground by denying them their happiness?

Hmmm, very strange.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Grandmaster on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:49pm

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:43pm:

... wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:41pm:
WTF?  I just did!


You're nearly as bad as Borg.



"Where will the impact be felt the most if they were all to marry tomorrow?"

I didn't see an answer.



Oh pardon me, your majesty.

In my head is where. 

Now, there was a question for your good self tacked on there.  You will answer it won't you?

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Spot of Borg on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:50pm

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:36pm:
If then allow a group of farmers to marry their sheep

How would it affect the rest of us in our lives?

See the point....

It's about moral compass not whether you directly are affected.
You could argue my social morality is impacted letting a pair of fellas play house and get married.

I don't want children to grow up thinking its normal.


The old sheep "argument" again. Its nothing like it. Gays are humans. heteros are humans. Sheep are sheep.

SOB

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by corporate_whitey on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:53pm
Blah, bkah blah, the usual distractions and vicious Government \propaganda.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Uncle Meat on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:53pm

... wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:49pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:43pm:

... wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:41pm:
WTF?  I just did!


You're nearly as bad as Borg.



"Where will the impact be felt the most if they were all to marry tomorrow?"

I didn't see an answer.



Oh pardon me, your majesty.

In my head is where. 

Now, there was a question for your good self tacked on there.  You will answer it won't you?



Yep, as soon as you answer mine.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Grandmaster on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:55pm

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:53pm:

... wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:49pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:43pm:

... wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:41pm:
WTF?  I just did!


You're nearly as bad as Borg.



"Where will the impact be felt the most if they were all to marry tomorrow?"

I didn't see an answer.



Oh pardon me, your majesty.

In my head is where. 

Now, there was a question for your good self tacked on there.  You will answer it won't you?



Yep, as soon as you answer mine.



WTF????  I just did!!

AGAIN!


Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Gist on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:56pm

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:50pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:36pm:
If then allow a group of farmers to marry their sheep

How would it affect the rest of us in our lives?

See the point....

It's about moral compass not whether you directly are affected.
You could argue my social morality is impacted letting a pair of fellas play house and get married.

I don't want children to grow up thinking its normal.


The old sheep "argument" again. Its nothing like it. Gays are humans. heteros are humans. Sheep are sheep.

SOB


No. Andrei is a sheep. He gets very nervous that some burly bloke may take him in marriage.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Andrei.Hicks on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:58pm

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:46pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:43pm:
It is morally wrong.



(according to you, maybe)

And how will that cause any harm?

If every gay couple married tomorrow, and it is indeed "morally wrong" as you suggest, how will that affect anyone?



It will impede upon my moral compass.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Uncle Meat on Jun 12th, 2012 at 5:00pm

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:58pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:46pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:43pm:
It is morally wrong.



(according to you, maybe)

And how will that cause any harm?

If every gay couple married tomorrow, and it is indeed "morally wrong" as you suggest, how will that affect anyone?



It will impede upon my moral compass.



Well, we certainly can't have that can we.

::)

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Grandmaster on Jun 12th, 2012 at 5:06pm

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 5:00pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:58pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:46pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:43pm:
It is morally wrong.



(according to you, maybe)

And how will that cause any harm?

If every gay couple married tomorrow, and it is indeed "morally wrong" as you suggest, how will that affect anyone?



It will impede upon my moral compass.



Well, we certainly can't have that can we.

::)



Erm well, no we can't.  Quite why we should disadvantage ourselves to grant favour to a handful of whiny fags is anyones guess.  I mean, if they were being systematically slaughtered, sure.  But they're not - any "discrimination" they claim to suffer is as much a figment of their imagination as our "moral compass" is to us. 

So I'll add another question to your "waiting list" uncie.

- why should a homos mental anguish take precedence over our own?

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Spot of Borg on Jun 12th, 2012 at 5:14pm

Quote:
- why should a homos mental anguish take precedence over our own?


Because theirs can be fixed and yours can be ignored. Letting them be equal effects only them. Your "moral compass" seems to radiate and effect others. It needs to be banned.

SOB

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Soren on Jun 12th, 2012 at 5:15pm
A procession of queens, a float of poofs, a festival of pr!cks, a mince of men.
,

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by PoliticalPuppet on Jun 12th, 2012 at 5:16pm

Soren wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 5:15pm:
A procession of queens, a float of poofs, a festival of pr!cks, a mince of men.
,

A sad sack of sorens

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Grandmaster on Jun 12th, 2012 at 5:20pm

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 5:14pm:

Quote:
- why should a homos mental anguish take precedence over our own?


Because theirs can be fixed and yours can be ignored. Letting them be equal effects only them. Your "moral compass" seems to radiate and effect others. It needs to be banned.

SOB



I appreciate the effort, but a) the question wasn't directed to you and b) If you don't want to get abused, don't come at me with such idiocy.


I try.  I really do try, but you sure don't make it easy.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Grandmaster on Jun 12th, 2012 at 5:26pm
Oh uncie Herb.

You harp on and on about people "not answering your questions" even when they have done so repeatedly.  Then when questions are directed to you, you're nowhere to be seen.

I was right about you all along.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Quantum on Jun 12th, 2012 at 5:28pm

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 5:14pm:

Quote:
- why should a homos mental anguish take precedence over our own?


Because theirs can be fixed and yours can be ignored. Letting them be equal effects only them. Your "moral compass" seems to radiate and effect others. It needs to be banned.

SOB


If it effects someone's moral compass (therefore the assumption can be made that it effects them emotionally) then letting gays be "equall" actually does have an effect on others. If the people it can have an affect on can be ignored, then those wanting to marry the same sex can be ignored as well. Likewise, if we can and should ban people's moral compasses, then why can't we keep gay marriage banned?

Basically, why is one side of the argument permitted to use shockingly inconstant logic, while the other side needs to shut up?

Actually I just answered my own question. It is because one side uses shockingly inconsistent logic. Hence why no one will touch the earlier question on this thread of how a man marrying a five year old will personally affect them. Otherwise one would be forced to acknowledge that the arguments used in favor of gay marriage can also be used to allow anything no matter how perverse.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by longweekend58 on Jun 12th, 2012 at 6:07pm

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:42pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:34pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:34pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:29pm:
It doesn't affect you if we changed the law along the lines of some of the Arab World where men marry 8 year olds.

You ok with doing that then?

It wouldn't affect you.....


Let me ask the question in a way that even a moron can understand, seeing as you had such difficulty with it previously.

If every single consenting, legal age gay couple got married tomorrow, how would any one's life be adversely affected?



it wouldn't.


Then why would anyone be opposed to gay marriage?

Remember, we're talking about gay marriage here, nothing else.

If it has no adverse affect on any one else, and it makes the gay people happy, why would you object to it?


what a lameass attitude. consensual pedophilia doesnt affect me either but Im not about to say it is good or that it shoudl be legal.

You seem to stumble over the concept of people having BELIEFS and STANDARDS they subscribe to. while at the same time blindly expecting us to submit to YOUR belifes and standards.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by longweekend58 on Jun 12th, 2012 at 6:10pm

... wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 5:26pm:
Oh uncie Herb.

You harp on and on about people "not answering your questions" even when they have done so repeatedly.  Then when questions are directed to you, you're nowhere to be seen.

I was right about you all along.


meat-boy hasnt yet worked out that an 'answer' can include responses he doesnt agree with.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by longweekend58 on Jun 12th, 2012 at 6:11pm

Quantum wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 5:28pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 5:14pm:

Quote:
- why should a homos mental anguish take precedence over our own?


Because theirs can be fixed and yours can be ignored. Letting them be equal effects only them. Your "moral compass" seems to radiate and effect others. It needs to be banned.

SOB


If it effects someone's moral compass (therefore the assumption can be made that it effects them emotionally) then letting gays be "equall" actually does have an effect on others. If the people it can have an affect on can be ignored, then those wanting to marry the same sex can be ignored as well. Likewise, if we can and should ban people's moral compasses, then why can't we keep gay marriage banned?

Basically, why is one side of the argument permitted to use shockingly inconstant logic, while the other side needs to shut up?

Actually I just answered my own question. It is because one side uses shockingly inconsistent logic. Hence why no one will touch the earlier question on this thread of how a man marrying a five year old will personally affect them. Otherwise one would be forced to acknowledge that the arguments used in favor of gay marriage can also be used to allow anything no matter how perverse.


exactly.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Spot of Borg on Jun 12th, 2012 at 6:45pm

Quantum wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 5:28pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 5:14pm:

Quote:
- why should a homos mental anguish take precedence over our own?


Because theirs can be fixed and yours can be ignored. Letting them be equal effects only them. Your "moral compass" seems to radiate and effect others. It needs to be banned.

SOB


If it effects someone's moral compass (therefore the assumption can be made that it effects them emotionally) then letting gays be "equall" actually does have an effect on others. If the people it can have an affect on can be ignored, then those wanting to marry the same sex can be ignored as well. Likewise, if we can and should ban people's moral compasses, then why can't we keep gay marriage banned?

Basically, why is one side of the argument permitted to use shockingly inconstant logic, while the other side needs to shut up?

Actually I just answered my own question. It is because one side uses shockingly inconsistent logic. Hence why no one will touch the earlier question on this thread of how a man marrying a five year old will personally affect them. Otherwise one would be forced to acknowledge that the arguments used in favor of gay marriage can also be used to allow anything no matter how perverse.


First of all that was tongue in cheek didnt the "they should be banned"" tip you off?

Secondly someone marrying a 5 year old is a different thing entirely and would cause harm to the child so theres harm there. Same as the animal thing. 2 consenting adults though are people. They only affect themselves - nobody else. Who cares if someone elses feelings will be hurt if they do something. You set a precedent of letting that go then what if someone mowing their lawn in shorts bothers me. I can make them stop? Or maybe I could mind my own business and leave other ppl alone.

SOB

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Grandmaster on Jun 12th, 2012 at 6:58pm

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 6:45pm:

Quantum wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 5:28pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 5:14pm:

Quote:
- why should a homos mental anguish take precedence over our own?


Because theirs can be fixed and yours can be ignored. Letting them be equal effects only them. Your "moral compass" seems to radiate and effect others. It needs to be banned.

SOB


If it effects someone's moral compass (therefore the assumption can be made that it effects them emotionally) then letting gays be "equall" actually does have an effect on others. If the people it can have an affect on can be ignored, then those wanting to marry the same sex can be ignored as well. Likewise, if we can and should ban people's moral compasses, then why can't we keep gay marriage banned?

Basically, why is one side of the argument permitted to use shockingly inconstant logic, while the other side needs to shut up?

Actually I just answered my own question. It is because one side uses shockingly inconsistent logic. Hence why no one will touch the earlier question on this thread of how a man marrying a five year old will personally affect them. Otherwise one would be forced to acknowledge that the arguments used in favor of gay marriage can also be used to allow anything no matter how perverse.


First of all that was tongue in cheek didnt the "they should be banned"" tip you off?

Secondly someone marrying a 5 year old is a different thing entirely and would cause harm to the child so theres harm there. Same as the animal thing. 2 consenting adults though are people. They only affect themselves - nobody else. Who cares if someone elses feelings will be hurt if they do something. You set a precedent of letting that go then what if someone mowing their lawn in shorts bothers me. I can make them stop? Or maybe I could mind my own business and leave other ppl alone.

SOB



Sooooo if I wanted to join curves health club (women only gym) nobody could stop me, on the grounds that "I'm not hurting anyone"?  Do you think my simple presence in a gym is harming anyone?

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by MOTR on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:03pm
Yes, it is hurting those who can't exercise because of your presence.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Grandmaster on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:06pm

MOTR wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:03pm:
Yes, it is hurting those who can't exercise because of your presence.



Not that a womens only gym has ever been full at any time, anywhere.  But, let's say I'd only go off-peak. 

hurting noone. 

Orrrr...does my simple membership to the insitution make a mockery of what it stands for?

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Spot of Borg on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:09pm

... wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:06pm:

MOTR wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:03pm:
Yes, it is hurting those who can't exercise because of your presence.



Not that a womens only gym has ever been full at any time, anywhere.  But, let's say I'd only go off-peak. 

hurting noone. 

Orrrr...does my simple membership to the insitution make a mockery of what it stands for?


I dont think women (or men for that matter) should have sexist clubs like that.

SOB

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by MOTR on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:14pm

... wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:06pm:

MOTR wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:03pm:
Yes, it is hurting those who can't exercise because of your presence.



Not that a womens only gym has ever been full at any time, anywhere.  But, let's say I'd only go off-peak. 

hurting noone. 

Orrrr...does my simple membership to the insitution make a mockery of what it stands for?


Do you mean after hours by yourself.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Grandmaster on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:15pm

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:09pm:

... wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:06pm:

MOTR wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:03pm:
Yes, it is hurting those who can't exercise because of your presence.



Not that a womens only gym has ever been full at any time, anywhere.  But, let's say I'd only go off-peak. 

hurting noone. 

Orrrr...does my simple membership to the insitution make a mockery of what it stands for?


I dont think women (or men for that matter) should have sexist clubs like that.

SOB


Really?  You don't think any organisation should have a say on who can or can't become a member? 

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Grandmaster on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:17pm

MOTR wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:14pm:

... wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:06pm:

MOTR wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:03pm:
Yes, it is hurting those who can't exercise because of your presence.



Not that a womens only gym has ever been full at any time, anywhere.  But, let's say I'd only go off-peak. 

hurting noone. 

Orrrr...does my simple membership to the insitution make a mockery of what it stands for?


Do you mean after hours by yourself.



No, I mean availing myself of all the services membership entitles me to.  Full membership. 

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by MOTR on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:17pm
Organizations can't usually discriminate, it is against the law.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Grandmaster on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:19pm
Not too worried about what the law says.   What do you think?

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by MOTR on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:19pm

... wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:17pm:

MOTR wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:14pm:

... wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:06pm:

MOTR wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:03pm:
Yes, it is hurting those who can't exercise because of your presence.



Not that a womens only gym has ever been full at any time, anywhere.  But, let's say I'd only go off-peak. 

hurting noone. 

Orrrr...does my simple membership to the insitution make a mockery of what it stands for?


Do you mean after hours by yourself.



No, I mean availing myself of all the services membership entitles me to. 


If your presence prevents others from attending, you actions do have negative  implications for others.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Grandmaster on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:20pm

MOTR wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:19pm:

... wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:17pm:

MOTR wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:14pm:

... wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:06pm:

MOTR wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:03pm:
Yes, it is hurting those who can't exercise because of your presence.



Not that a womens only gym has ever been full at any time, anywhere.  But, let's say I'd only go off-peak. 

hurting noone. 

Orrrr...does my simple membership to the insitution make a mockery of what it stands for?


Do you mean after hours by yourself.



No, I mean availing myself of all the services membership entitles me to. 


If your presence prevents others from attending, you actions do have negative  implications for others.



So you think that simply having me present harms the institution, and they have the right to exclude me?

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Quantum on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:22pm

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 6:45pm:

Quantum wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 5:28pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 5:14pm:

Quote:
- why should a homos mental anguish take precedence over our own?


Because theirs can be fixed and yours can be ignored. Letting them be equal effects only them. Your "moral compass" seems to radiate and effect others. It needs to be banned.

SOB


If it effects someone's moral compass (therefore the assumption can be made that it effects them emotionally) then letting gays be "equall" actually does have an effect on others. If the people it can have an affect on can be ignored, then those wanting to marry the same sex can be ignored as well. Likewise, if we can and should ban people's moral compasses, then why can't we keep gay marriage banned?

Basically, why is one side of the argument permitted to use shockingly inconstant logic, while the other side needs to shut up?

Actually I just answered my own question. It is because one side uses shockingly inconsistent logic. Hence why no one will touch the earlier question on this thread of how a man marrying a five year old will personally affect them. Otherwise one would be forced to acknowledge that the arguments used in favor of gay marriage can also be used to allow anything no matter how perverse.


First of all that was tongue in cheek didnt the "they should be banned"" tip you off?


Sadly no. It is hard to tell these days. All the accusations of being a bigot or homophobic against anyone who disagrees with homosexual marriage, makes silencing opinion a matter of course.


Quote:
Secondly someone marrying a 5 year old is a different thing entirely and would cause harm to the child so theres harm there. Same as the animal thing. 2 consenting adults though are people. They only affect themselves - nobody else. Who cares if someone elses feelings will be hurt if they do something. You set a precedent of letting that go then what if someone mowing their lawn in shorts bothers me. I can make them stop? Or maybe I could mind my own business and leave other ppl alone.

SOB


The discussion isn't if a man marrying a 5 year old is harmful to the kid. The discussion is if two men marrying each other will have any effect on the life of those who oppose. Therefore the same question can be asked if a man marrying a 5 year old will have an effect on those who oppose. No one wants to answer that.

If the argument is made that two men marrying each other does not effect those in opposition, then the same argument can made for;
Polygamy,
Zoophilia,
Pedophilia,
Incest,
Etc.
None of these will effect the greater population, yet even most gays would condem them.

Likewise the other argument put forward in objecting to gay marriage is that it is hurtful to homosexuals as they are not being treated as equall. Hence my comment that allowing it can be hurtful to those who object. You made the counter argument that if we took it to that extreme then we would have to ban everything that hurt someone. That's a fair enough point.

However, if we are to think about the feelings of the gays and give them what they want because it will hurt them to say no,  why don't we think of the pedo's feelings and give them what they want? After all, who am I to tell two people in love they can't marry just because of age? It doesn't effect me right? Same for people wanting zoophilia, incest, polygamy. How can I hurt them by not giving them equality?

Therefore, the two biggest arguments in favor of gay marriage;

*If it doesn't effect you why object,
And
*it hurts the gays to deny them equality

Can be used for many other sexual preferences. So what guide do you use to draw the line at allowing gay marriage, while banning everything else?

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by MOTR on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:23pm

... wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:19pm:
Not too worried about what the law says.   What do you think?


I support anti discrimination laws, I also support the provision for exemptions in special cases such as women only gyms or swimming pools.

I believe denying SSA people the right to marry makes them second class citizens. 

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Grandmaster on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:24pm
So you think that simply having me present harms the institution, and they have the right to exclude me?


Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Avram Horowitz on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:25pm

MOTR wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:23pm:

... wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:19pm:
Not too worried about what the law says.   What do you think?


I support anti discrimination laws, I also support the provision for exemptions in special cases such as women only gyms or swimming pools.

I believe denying SSA people the right to marry makes them second class citizens. 


What about when Muslims demand exceptions so as drivibng in burqa and not show faces in secure zones like bank tellers?
Do you support they being above the Law?

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Avram Horowitz on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:27pm
It is sad to see but criticism is silenced by people who say racism or homophobia to stop the answer of difficult questions.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by MOTR on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:27pm

... wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:24pm:
So you think that simply having me present harms the institution, and they have the right to exclude me?


Of course. If the institution has been set up to allow women to exercise unwatched by men, your presence would fundamentally harm the purpose of the institution.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by MOTR on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:29pm

Avram Horowitz wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:27pm:
It is sad to see but criticism is silenced by people who say racism or homophobia to stop the answer of difficult questions.


What, like accusing people questioning the actions of the Israeli government, anti-Semite.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Grandmaster on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:32pm

MOTR wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:27pm:

... wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:24pm:
So you think that simply having me present harms the institution, and they have the right to exclude me?


Of course. If the institution has been set up to allow women to exercise unwatched by men, your presence would fundamentally harm the purpose of the institution.


I see.  So naturally an insitution that was set up to affirm the relationship between a man and a woman should alos be afforded the same right. Excellent, I'm glad we've come to an agreement.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by MOTR on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:34pm

Avram Horowitz wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:25pm:

MOTR wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:23pm:

... wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:19pm:
Not too worried about what the law says.   What do you think?


I support anti discrimination laws, I also support the provision for exemptions in special cases such as women only gyms or swimming pools.

I believe denying SSA people the right to marry makes them second class citizens. 


What about when Muslims demand exceptions so as drivibng in burqa and not show faces in secure zones like bank tellers?
Do you support they being above the Law?


There are ways around most things. I didn't know it was illegal to drive in a burqa.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by MOTR on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:35pm

... wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:32pm:

MOTR wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:27pm:

... wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:24pm:
So you think that simply having me present harms the institution, and they have the right to exclude me?


Of course. If the institution has been set up to allow women to exercise unwatched by men, your presence would fundamentally harm the purpose of the institution.


I see.  So naturally an insitution that was set up to affirm the relationship between a man and a woman should alos be afforded the same right. Excellent, I'm glad we've come to an agreement.


The concept of marriage does not solely belong to the church.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Avram Horowitz on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:36pm

MOTR wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:34pm:

Avram Horowitz wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:25pm:

MOTR wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:23pm:

... wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:19pm:
Not too worried about what the law says.   What do you think?


I support anti discrimination laws, I also support the provision for exemptions in special cases such as women only gyms or swimming pools.

I believe denying SSA people the right to marry makes them second class citizens. 


What about when Muslims demand exceptions so as drivibng in burqa and not show faces in secure zones like bank tellers?
Do you support they being above the Law?


There are ways around most things. I didn't know it was illegal to drive in a burqa.


It affect vision to drive. We demand they remove it immediate or they are not allow to continue.

Be care of making allowances for everyone.

I do not like gay people to marry.
It is personal for me, it offends me.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Grandmaster on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:38pm

MOTR wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:35pm:

... wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:32pm:

MOTR wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:27pm:

... wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:24pm:
So you think that simply having me present harms the institution, and they have the right to exclude me?


Of course. If the institution has been set up to allow women to exercise unwatched by men, your presence would fundamentally harm the purpose of the institution.


I see.  So naturally an insitution that was set up to affirm the relationship between a man and a woman should alos be afforded the same right. Excellent, I'm glad we've come to an agreement.


The concept of marriage does not solely belong to the church.



Correct.

But throughout it's entire history and across all cultures, it is about affirming the scared relationship between man and woman.  That is it's fundamental purpose, which would be undermined by admitting those who don't meet the membership criteria.   


Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by MOTR on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:40pm
Your prejudices are your own personal problem.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Grandmaster on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:41pm

MOTR wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:40pm:
Your prejudices are your own personal problem.



Now now, this isnot about me.

Lets get back to how you draw the distinction between which instutions have the right to discriminate, and which don't. 

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by MOTR on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:44pm

... wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:38pm:

MOTR wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:35pm:

... wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:32pm:

MOTR wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:27pm:

... wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:24pm:
So you think that simply having me present harms the institution, and they have the right to exclude me?


Of course. If the institution has been set up to allow women to exercise unwatched by men, your presence would fundamentally harm the purpose of the institution.


I see.  So naturally an insitution that was set up to affirm the relationship between a man and a woman should alos be afforded the same right. Excellent, I'm glad we've come to an agreement.


The concept of marriage does not solely belong to the church.




Correct.

But throughout it's entire history and across all cultures, it is about affirming the scared relationship between man and woman.  That is it's fundamental purpose, which would be undermined by admitting those who don't meet the membership criteria.   


That is up to the individual church. If a church does not want to recognise a particular marriage, that is up to them. We live in a secular state, we make the rules. In our secular state SSA people should not be discriminated against.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by MOTR on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:47pm

... wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:41pm:

MOTR wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:40pm:
Your prejudices are your own personal problem.



Now now, this isnot about me.

Lets get back to how you draw the distinction between which instutions have the right to discriminate, and which don't. 


That was directed at Avram who is personally offended by gay marriages.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Grandmaster on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:48pm

MOTR wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:44pm:

... wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:38pm:

MOTR wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:35pm:

... wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:32pm:

MOTR wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:27pm:

... wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:24pm:
So you think that simply having me present harms the institution, and they have the right to exclude me?


Of course. If the institution has been set up to allow women to exercise unwatched by men, your presence would fundamentally harm the purpose of the institution.


I see.  So naturally an insitution that was set up to affirm the relationship between a man and a woman should alos be afforded the same right. Excellent, I'm glad we've come to an agreement.


The concept of marriage does not solely belong to the church.




Correct.

But throughout it's entire history and across all cultures, it is about affirming the scared relationship between man and woman.  That is it's fundamental purpose, which would be undermined by admitting those who don't meet the membership criteria.   


That is up to the individual church. If a church does not want to recognise a particular marriage, that is up to them. We live in a secular state, we make the rules. In our secular state SSA people should not be discriminated against.


Then the only fair way to decide would be to poll the existing members of the insitution. ie married people. 

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by MOTR on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:52pm
There is a very good chance they would vote to allow same sex marriages. Would that make it O.K.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Grandmaster on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:55pm

MOTR wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:52pm:
There is a very good chance they would vote to allow same sex marriages. Would that make it O.K.



It would make it fair, so I can respect that, if not like it.

But I don't think you'd draw much support seeing what sectors of society still actually get married. 

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by MOTR on Jun 12th, 2012 at 8:04pm
In Alabama just over 50% of citizens believe interracial marriages should be legal. 21% are against it and the rest are unsure. If the majority of married people had to vote to accept interracial marriages there is a good chance interracial marriages would still be illegal in Alabama.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Uncle Meat on Jun 13th, 2012 at 12:10am

... wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:38pm:
But throughout it's entire history and across all cultures, it is about affirming the scared relationship between man and woman. 


Er, no.

You might want to study history a little more.

"Evidence exists that same-sex marriages were tolerated in parts of Mesopotamia and ancient Egypt. Artifacts from Egypt, for example, show that same-sex relationships not only existed, but the discovery of a pharaonic tomb for such a couple shows their union was recognized by the kingdom."

http://www.randomhistory.com/history-of-gay-marriage.html

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Uncle Meat on Jun 13th, 2012 at 12:26am

... wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 5:06pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 5:00pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:58pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:46pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:43pm:
It is morally wrong.



(according to you, maybe)

And how will that cause any harm?

If every gay couple married tomorrow, and it is indeed "morally wrong" as you suggest, how will that affect anyone?



It will impede upon my moral compass.



Well, we certainly can't have that can we.

::)



Erm well, no we can't.  Quite why we should disadvantage ourselves to grant favour to a handful of whiny fags is anyones guess.  I mean, if they were being systematically slaughtered, sure.  But they're not - any "discrimination" they claim to suffer is as much a figment of their imagination as our "moral compass" is to us. 

So I'll add another question to your "waiting list" uncie.

- why should a homos mental anguish take precedence over our own?



Gays getting married will not cause me any mental anguish.

It won't affect me at all, therefore, I have no reason to object to their request.

Live and let live.  If it makes other people happy, I'm happy.


Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Uncle Meat on Jun 13th, 2012 at 12:38am

MOTR wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 8:04pm:
In Alabama just over 50% of citizens believe interracial marriages should be legal. 21% are against it and the rest are unsure. If the majority of married people had to vote to accept interracial marriages there is a good chance interracial marriages would still be illegal in Alabama.



But you'd still be able to marry your sister   ;)


Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by longweekend58 on Jun 13th, 2012 at 10:01am

MOTR wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:23pm:

... wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:19pm:
Not too worried about what the law says.   What do you think?


I support anti discrimination laws, I also support the provision for exemptions in special cases such as women only gyms or swimming pools.

I believe denying SSA people the right to marry makes them second class citizens. 


what about brotehrs marrying sisters? why do you think you can deny them that right?

MOTR, the argument being made here is simple: most of the arguments for gay marriage could be made for many other currently illegal behaviours. So, you need to make a case that is more coherent and more specialised than 'discrimination'.  This isnt homophobia, it is debating and picking holes in an argument. After all, if you can make an argument that doesnt also support incest and pedophilia then you do your side a great favour. at the moment, the arguments are weak and not at all special.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by longweekend58 on Jun 13th, 2012 at 10:06am

MOTR wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:44pm:

... wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:38pm:

MOTR wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:35pm:

... wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:32pm:

MOTR wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:27pm:

... wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:24pm:
So you think that simply having me present harms the institution, and they have the right to exclude me?


Of course. If the institution has been set up to allow women to exercise unwatched by men, your presence would fundamentally harm the purpose of the institution.


I see.  So naturally an insitution that was set up to affirm the relationship between a man and a woman should alos be afforded the same right. Excellent, I'm glad we've come to an agreement.


The concept of marriage does not solely belong to the church.




Correct.

But throughout it's entire history and across all cultures, it is about affirming the scared relationship between man and woman.  That is it's fundamental purpose, which would be undermined by admitting those who don't meet the membership criteria.   


That is up to the individual church. If a church does not want to recognise a particular marriage, that is up to them. We live in a secular state, we make the rules. In our secular state SSA people should not be discriminated against.


why not? we discriminate against underage couples and incest couples. What makes gays so special? again, this is not homophobia. It is askign you to defend your position.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by longweekend58 on Jun 13th, 2012 at 10:07am

MOTR wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:52pm:
There is a very good chance they would vote to allow same sex marriages. Would that make it O.K.


yes it would. would you be ok if they voted to exclude gay marriage?

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Spot of Borg on Jun 13th, 2012 at 10:07am

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 10:01am:

MOTR wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:23pm:

... wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:19pm:
Not too worried about what the law says.   What do you think?


I support anti discrimination laws, I also support the provision for exemptions in special cases such as women only gyms or swimming pools.

I believe denying SSA people the right to marry makes them second class citizens. 


what about brotehrs marrying sisters? why do you think you can deny them that right?

MOTR, the argument being made here is simple: most of the arguments for gay marriage could be made for many other currently illegal behaviours. So, you need to make a case that is more coherent and more specialised than 'discrimination'.  This isnt homophobia, it is debating and picking holes in an argument. After all, if you can make an argument that doesnt also support incest and pedophilia then you do your side a great favour. at the moment, the arguments are weak and not at all special.


Oh? Which arguments? you say most but these are the main 2 arguments:

That they are both consenting adults? Nope
that they arent hurting anyone? Nope

What arguments then? What arguments for gay marriage can be made for any other illegal behaviours?

SOB

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Grandmaster on Jun 13th, 2012 at 10:08am

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 12:26am:

... wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 5:06pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 5:00pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:58pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:46pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:43pm:
It is morally wrong.



(according to you, maybe)

And how will that cause any harm?

If every gay couple married tomorrow, and it is indeed "morally wrong" as you suggest, how will that affect anyone?



It will impede upon my moral compass.



Well, we certainly can't have that can we.

::)



Erm well, no we can't.  Quite why we should disadvantage ourselves to grant favour to a handful of whiny fags is anyones guess.  I mean, if they were being systematically slaughtered, sure.  But they're not - any "discrimination" they claim to suffer is as much a figment of their imagination as our "moral compass" is to us. 

So I'll add another question to your "waiting list" uncie.

- why should a homos mental anguish take precedence over our own?



Gays getting married will not cause me any mental anguish.

It won't affect me at all, therefore, I have no reason to object to their request.

Live and let live.  If it makes other people happy, I'm happy.


Well it would cause me mental anguish, and you, as an unmarried person (ie not a member) don't deserve a say in it. 
What club/institution/group/organisation would allow non-members to vote? 

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by longweekend58 on Jun 13th, 2012 at 10:09am

MOTR wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 8:04pm:
In Alabama just over 50% of citizens believe interracial marriages should be legal. 21% are against it and the rest are unsure. If the majority of married people had to vote to accept interracial marriages there is a good chance interracial marriages would still be illegal in Alabama.


so now you want to backtrack and say majority opinion DOESNT count? You need to be a little bit more convincing than that.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Grandmaster on Jun 13th, 2012 at 10:12am

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 12:10am:

... wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:38pm:
But throughout it's entire history and across all cultures, it is about affirming the scared relationship between man and woman. 


Er, no.

You might want to study history a little more.

"Evidence exists that same-sex marriages were tolerated in parts of Mesopotamia and ancient Egypt. Artifacts from Egypt, for example, show that same-sex relationships not only existed, but the discovery of a pharaonic tomb for such a couple shows their union was recognized by the kingdom."

http://www.randomhistory.com/history-of-gay-marriage.html



LOL.  You dumbshit.  Evidence that a pharaoh was a sexual deviant.  Compelling.  Of course, being the pharaoh and all, if he wanted to marry a carrot, it'd have to be "recognized by the kingdom" or else. 

So that's all you've got?  Nothing a bit more...widespread? 

PS you never did get round to answreing those questions....

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by longweekend58 on Jun 13th, 2012 at 10:12am

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 10:07am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 10:01am:

MOTR wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:23pm:

... wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:19pm:
Not too worried about what the law says.   What do you think?


I support anti discrimination laws, I also support the provision for exemptions in special cases such as women only gyms or swimming pools.

I believe denying SSA people the right to marry makes them second class citizens. 


what about brotehrs marrying sisters? why do you think you can deny them that right?

MOTR, the argument being made here is simple: most of the arguments for gay marriage could be made for many other currently illegal behaviours. So, you need to make a case that is more coherent and more specialised than 'discrimination'.  This isnt homophobia, it is debating and picking holes in an argument. After all, if you can make an argument that doesnt also support incest and pedophilia then you do your side a great favour. at the moment, the arguments are weak and not at all special.


Oh? Which arguments? you say most but these are the main 2 arguments:

That they are both consenting adults? Nope
that they arent hurting anyone? Nope

What arguments then? What arguments for gay marriage can be made for any other illegal behaviours?

SOB


it's usualy a waste of time to respond to you but I will try - again.

incest is usually between consenting adults and they are hurting anyone. The same argument (consent) can be made for consensual pedophilia, polygamy etc.

Teh gay marriage debateis unremarkable in that it uses weak argument

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by longweekend58 on Jun 13th, 2012 at 10:14am

... wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 10:12am:

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 12:10am:

... wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:38pm:
But throughout it's entire history and across all cultures, it is about affirming the scared relationship between man and woman. 


Er, no.

You might want to study history a little more.

"Evidence exists that same-sex marriages were tolerated in parts of Mesopotamia and ancient Egypt. Artifacts from Egypt, for example, show that same-sex relationships not only existed, but the discovery of a pharaonic tomb for such a couple shows their union was recognized by the kingdom."

http://www.randomhistory.com/history-of-gay-marriage.html



LOL.  You dumbshit.  Evidence that a pharaoh was a sexual deviant.  Compelling.  Of course, being the pharaoh and all, if he wanted to marry a carrot, it'd have to be "recognized by the kingdom" or else. 

So that's all you've got?  Nothing a bit more...widespread? 


there ar entire communities that practice incest (tasmanis! LOL) and even been small societies that practiced pedophilia - the romans etc

once again a pro-gay marriage argument goes BOOM!

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Soren on Jun 13th, 2012 at 10:15am

... wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 10:12am:

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 12:10am:

... wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:38pm:
But throughout it's entire history and across all cultures, it is about affirming the scared relationship between man and woman. 


Er, no.

You might want to study history a little more.

"Evidence exists that same-sex marriages were tolerated in parts of Mesopotamia and ancient Egypt. Artifacts from Egypt, for example, show that same-sex relationships not only existed, but the discovery of a pharaonic tomb for such a couple shows their union was recognized by the kingdom."

http://www.randomhistory.com/history-of-gay-marriage.html



LOL.  You dumbshit.  Evidence that a pharaoh was a sexual deviant.  Compelling.  Of course, being the pharaoh and all, if he wanted to marry a carrot, it'd have to be "recognized by the kingdom" or else. 

So that's all you've got?  Nothing a bit more...widespread? 

He is a unionist. He is not familiar with the idea of 'widespread' support. All that matters is what the 'leadership' says.



Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Spot of Borg on Jun 13th, 2012 at 10:25am

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 10:12am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 10:07am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 10:01am:

MOTR wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:23pm:

... wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:19pm:
Not too worried about what the law says.   What do you think?


I support anti discrimination laws, I also support the provision for exemptions in special cases such as women only gyms or swimming pools.

I believe denying SSA people the right to marry makes them second class citizens. 


what about brotehrs marrying sisters? why do you think you can deny them that right?

MOTR, the argument being made here is simple: most of the arguments for gay marriage could be made for many other currently illegal behaviours. So, you need to make a case that is more coherent and more specialised than 'discrimination'.  This isnt homophobia, it is debating and picking holes in an argument. After all, if you can make an argument that doesnt also support incest and pedophilia then you do your side a great favour. at the moment, the arguments are weak and not at all special.


Oh? Which arguments? you say most but these are the main 2 arguments:

That they are both consenting adults? Nope
that they arent hurting anyone? Nope

What arguments then? What arguments for gay marriage can be made for any other illegal behaviours?

SOB


it's usualy a waste of time to respond to you but I will try - again.

incest is usually between consenting adults and they are hurting anyone. The same argument (consent) can be made for consensual pedophilia, polygamy etc.

Teh gay marriage debateis unremarkable in that it uses weak argument


well those are not the MAIN arguments as you said they were. incest does hurt the children of the relationship. pedos hurt the child whether they consent or not. you are right about polygamy maybe it should be legal.

SOB

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Maqqa on Jun 13th, 2012 at 10:29am

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 10:25am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 10:12am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 10:07am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 10:01am:

MOTR wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:23pm:

... wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:19pm:
Not too worried about what the law says.   What do you think?


I support anti discrimination laws, I also support the provision for exemptions in special cases such as women only gyms or swimming pools.

I believe denying SSA people the right to marry makes them second class citizens. 


what about brotehrs marrying sisters? why do you think you can deny them that right?

MOTR, the argument being made here is simple: most of the arguments for gay marriage could be made for many other currently illegal behaviours. So, you need to make a case that is more coherent and more specialised than 'discrimination'.  This isnt homophobia, it is debating and picking holes in an argument. After all, if you can make an argument that doesnt also support incest and pedophilia then you do your side a great favour. at the moment, the arguments are weak and not at all special.


Oh? Which arguments? you say most but these are the main 2 arguments:

That they are both consenting adults? Nope
that they arent hurting anyone? Nope

What arguments then? What arguments for gay marriage can be made for any other illegal behaviours?

SOB


it's usualy a waste of time to respond to you but I will try - again.

incest is usually between consenting adults and they are hurting anyone. The same argument (consent) can be made for consensual pedophilia, polygamy etc.

Teh gay marriage debateis unremarkable in that it uses weak argument


well those are not the MAIN arguments as you said they were. incest does hurt the children of the relationship. pedos hurt the child whether they consent or not. you are right about polygamy maybe it should be legal.

SOB



Interesting point about polygamy

If a man/woman live in a committed relationship with multiple partners - it's legal

If a man/woman gets married and live in a committed relationship with multiple partners - it's illegal

So the difference is the marriage certificate

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by longweekend58 on Jun 13th, 2012 at 10:29am

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 10:25am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 10:12am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 10:07am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 10:01am:

MOTR wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:23pm:

... wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:19pm:
Not too worried about what the law says.   What do you think?


I support anti discrimination laws, I also support the provision for exemptions in special cases such as women only gyms or swimming pools.

I believe denying SSA people the right to marry makes them second class citizens. 


what about brotehrs marrying sisters? why do you think you can deny them that right?

MOTR, the argument being made here is simple: most of the arguments for gay marriage could be made for many other currently illegal behaviours. So, you need to make a case that is more coherent and more specialised than 'discrimination'.  This isnt homophobia, it is debating and picking holes in an argument. After all, if you can make an argument that doesnt also support incest and pedophilia then you do your side a great favour. at the moment, the arguments are weak and not at all special.


Oh? Which arguments? you say most but these are the main 2 arguments:

That they are both consenting adults? Nope
that they arent hurting anyone? Nope

What arguments then? What arguments for gay marriage can be made for any other illegal behaviours?

SOB


it's usualy a waste of time to respond to you but I will try - again.

incest is usually between consenting adults and they are hurting anyone. The same argument (consent) can be made for consensual pedophilia, polygamy etc.

Teh gay marriage debateis unremarkable in that it uses weak argument


well those are not the MAIN arguments as you said they were. incest does hurt the children of the relationship. pedos hurt the child whether they consent or not. you are right about polygamy maybe it should be legal.

SOB


incest has a higher risk of genetic problems but if you exclude having chidlren then what is the objection to incest? and consensual pedophilic relationships do occur and sometimes the only harm is those opposing them.

IM not in favour of either. Im saying that the argument for gay marriage is identical to the arguement for incest and underage relationships.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by angeleyes on Jun 13th, 2012 at 10:32am

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 10:25am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 10:12am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 10:07am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 10:01am:

MOTR wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:23pm:

... wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:19pm:
Not too worried about what the law says.   What do you think?


I support anti discrimination laws, I also support the provision for exemptions in special cases such as women only gyms or swimming pools.

I believe denying SSA people the right to marry makes them second class citizens. 


what about brotehrs marrying sisters? why do you think you can deny them that right?

MOTR, the argument being made here is simple: most of the arguments for gay marriage could be made for many other currently illegal behaviours. So, you need to make a case that is more coherent and more specialised than 'discrimination'.  This isnt homophobia, it is debating and picking holes in an argument. After all, if you can make an argument that doesnt also support incest and pedophilia then you do your side a great favour. at the moment, the arguments are weak and not at all special.


Oh? Which arguments? you say most but these are the main 2 arguments:

That they are both consenting adults? Nope
that they arent hurting anyone? Nope

What arguments then? What arguments for gay marriage can be made for any other illegal behaviours?

SOB


it's usualy a waste of time to respond to you but I will try - again.

incest is usually between consenting adults and they are hurting anyone. The same argument (consent) can be made for consensual pedophilia, polygamy etc.

Teh gay marriage debateis unremarkable in that it uses weak argument


well those are not the MAIN arguments as you said they were. incest does hurt the children of the relationship. pedos hurt the child whether they consent or not. you are right about polygamy maybe it should be legal.

SOB



Does your keyboard have a....................

shift-key.jpg (10 KB | 25 )

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Soren on Jun 13th, 2012 at 10:42am

Maqqa wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 10:29am:
Interesting point about polygamy

If a man/woman live in a committed relationship with multiple partners - it's legal

If a man/woman gets married and live in a committed relationship with multiple partners - it's illegal

So the difference is the marriage certificate



And the reason for that is that marriage is not just about the people in the marriage.





Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Spot of Borg on Jun 13th, 2012 at 10:47am

Soren wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 10:42am:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 10:29am:
Interesting point about polygamy

If a man/woman live in a committed relationship with multiple partners - it's legal

If a man/woman gets married and live in a committed relationship with multiple partners - it's illegal

So the difference is the marriage certificate



And the reason for that is that marriage is not just about the people in the marriage.


And yet you still cant answer what else it is about

SOB

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Quantum on Jun 13th, 2012 at 11:11am

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 10:25am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 10:12am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 10:07am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 10:01am:

MOTR wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:23pm:

... wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:19pm:
Not too worried about what the law says.   What do you think?


I support anti discrimination laws, I also support the provision for exemptions in special cases such as women only gyms or swimming pools.

I believe denying SSA people the right to marry makes them second class citizens. 


what about brotehrs marrying sisters? why do you think you can deny them that right?

MOTR, the argument being made here is simple: most of the arguments for gay marriage could be made for many other currently illegal behaviours. So, you need to make a case that is more coherent and more specialised than 'discrimination'.  This isnt homophobia, it is debating and picking holes in an argument. After all, if you can make an argument that doesnt also support incest and pedophilia then you do your side a great favour. at the moment, the arguments are weak and not at all special.


Oh? Which arguments? you say most but these are the main 2 arguments:

That they are both consenting adults? Nope
that they arent hurting anyone? Nope

What arguments then? What arguments for gay marriage can be made for any other illegal behaviours?

SOB


it's usualy a waste of time to respond to you but I will try - again.

incest is usually between consenting adults and they are hurting anyone. The same argument (consent) can be made for consensual pedophilia, polygamy etc.

Teh gay marriage debateis unremarkable in that it uses weak argument


well those are not the MAIN arguments as you said they were. incest does hurt the children of the relationship. pedos hurt the child whether they consent or not. you are right about polygamy maybe it should be legal.

SOB


Not if it's two brothers banging each other. What grounds do you have for stoping two siblings of the same sex enjoying the joys of marriage? In what ways does it effect you personally that you have a right to object?

In fact, what stops 3 or more brothers from all marrying each other? Doesn't harm anyone else. No chance of deformed kids. What reasons are there for not allowing it?

While we're at it, why not chuck a roo and a sheep into the relationship as well. Can't be anymore harmful to the animals than chopping them up and serving them for dinner. So what danger is 3 men, a sheep, and a roo in bed together to the rest of us? Can't see any reason against it except for some of us being a bit old fashioned.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by PoliticalReality on Jun 13th, 2012 at 11:17am

... wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:24pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:19pm:

... wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:14pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:04pm:

... wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:00pm:
hohoho.

But there's nothing wrong with that, is there?


No, no, of course not! People's personal sexual preferences are nobody's business but their own!



So long as they leave it at their sexual preferences, and don't demand society validate their relationship with their friend/dog/pet rock as equal to a real relationship.



Why is that?

If every homosexual couple in the world were legally married tomorrow, my life would not be affected in the slightest.

What is it that concerns you the most?

Where will the impact be felt the most if they were all to marry tomorrow?

And, why aren't their relationships "real"?




AAAAND here's the exact point where the views of the drones and the thinkers diverge.

You see, the real relationships that marriage "cements" have utility.  Homosexual ones do not.  Well, unless you count the entirely selfish.  However, that's not really comparable to the continuation of our species, is it?


I'd be very careful calling only for things which have utility - probably do yourself out of an existence ...

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by PoliticalReality on Jun 13th, 2012 at 11:19am

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:29pm:
It doesn't affect you if we changed the law along the lines of some of the Arab World where men marry 8 year olds.

You ok with doing that then?

It wouldn't affect you.....


Would have a pretty big impact on the 8 years olds though ...

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Spot of Borg on Jun 13th, 2012 at 11:21am

Quantum wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 11:11am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 10:25am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 10:12am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 10:07am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 10:01am:

MOTR wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:23pm:

... wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:19pm:
Not too worried about what the law says.   What do you think?


I support anti discrimination laws, I also support the provision for exemptions in special cases such as women only gyms or swimming pools.

I believe denying SSA people the right to marry makes them second class citizens. 


what about brotehrs marrying sisters? why do you think you can deny them that right?

MOTR, the argument being made here is simple: most of the arguments for gay marriage could be made for many other currently illegal behaviours. So, you need to make a case that is more coherent and more specialised than 'discrimination'.  This isnt homophobia, it is debating and picking holes in an argument. After all, if you can make an argument that doesnt also support incest and pedophilia then you do your side a great favour. at the moment, the arguments are weak and not at all special.


Oh? Which arguments? you say most but these are the main 2 arguments:

That they are both consenting adults? Nope
that they arent hurting anyone? Nope

What arguments then? What arguments for gay marriage can be made for any other illegal behaviours?

SOB


it's usualy a waste of time to respond to you but I will try - again.

incest is usually between consenting adults and they are hurting anyone. The same argument (consent) can be made for consensual pedophilia, polygamy etc.

Teh gay marriage debateis unremarkable in that it uses weak argument


well those are not the MAIN arguments as you said they were. incest does hurt the children of the relationship. pedos hurt the child whether they consent or not. you are right about polygamy maybe it should be legal.

SOB


Not if it's two brothers banging each other. What grounds do you have for stoping two siblings of the same sex enjoying the joys of marriage? In what ways does it effect you personally that you have a right to object?

In fact, what stops 3 or more brothers from all marrying each other? Doesn't harm anyone else. No chance of deformed kids. What reasons are there for not allowing it?

While we're at it, why not chuck a roo and a sheep into the relationship as well. Can't be anymore harmful to the animals than chopping them up and serving them for dinner. So what danger is 3 men, a sheep, and a roo in bed together to the rest of us? Can't see any reason against it except for some of us being a bit old fashioned.


Obviously it would hurt the roo.

As for the rest of your crap well maybe there is nothing wrong with it. Maybe as per your suggestion they should be made legal. Whose name should the brothers take?

Gays getting married does not lead to incest or bestiality or paedophilia. That is just BS dreamed up by the ppl that cant handle other ppl being different.

SOB

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Grandmaster on Jun 13th, 2012 at 11:23am

PoliticalReality wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 11:17am:

... wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:24pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:19pm:

... wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:14pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:04pm:

... wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:00pm:
hohoho.

But there's nothing wrong with that, is there?


No, no, of course not! People's personal sexual preferences are nobody's business but their own!



So long as they leave it at their sexual preferences, and don't demand society validate their relationship with their friend/dog/pet rock as equal to a real relationship.



Why is that?

If every homosexual couple in the world were legally married tomorrow, my life would not be affected in the slightest.

What is it that concerns you the most?

Where will the impact be felt the most if they were all to marry tomorrow?

And, why aren't their relationships "real"?




AAAAND here's the exact point where the views of the drones and the thinkers diverge.

You see, the real relationships that marriage "cements" have utility.  Homosexual ones do not.  Well, unless you count the entirely selfish.  However, that's not really comparable to the continuation of our species, is it?


I'd be very careful calling only for things which have utility - probably do yourself out of an existence ...



heh.  :-X

Seriously, I'm not calling for them to be exterminated, just that something with no utility not be elevated to par with something that does.  Recognising inequal things as equal is inequality.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Grandmaster on Jun 13th, 2012 at 11:24am

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 11:21am:
Gays getting married does not lead to incest or bestiality or paedophilia. That is just BS dreamed up by the ppl that cant handle other ppl being different.

SOB


Care to elaborate on how you reached this conclusion? 

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by PoliticalReality on Jun 13th, 2012 at 11:26am

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 6:07pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:42pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:34pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:34pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:29pm:
It doesn't affect you if we changed the law along the lines of some of the Arab World where men marry 8 year olds.

You ok with doing that then?

It wouldn't affect you.....


Let me ask the question in a way that even a moron can understand, seeing as you had such difficulty with it previously.

If every single consenting, legal age gay couple got married tomorrow, how would any one's life be adversely affected?



it wouldn't.


Then why would anyone be opposed to gay marriage?

Remember, we're talking about gay marriage here, nothing else.

If it has no adverse affect on any one else, and it makes the gay people happy, why would you object to it?


what a lameass attitude. consensual pedophilia doesnt affect me either but Im not about to say it is good or that it shoudl be legal.

You seem to stumble over the concept of people having BELIEFS and STANDARDS they subscribe to. while at the same time blindly expecting us to submit to YOUR belifes and standards.


There no such thing as "consensual pedophilia" you idiot, children lack the capacity to give consent, adults don't.

Surely even and idiot on your magnificance can understand this?

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Uncle Meat on Jun 13th, 2012 at 11:33am

... wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 10:12am:

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 12:10am:

... wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:38pm:
But throughout it's entire history and across all cultures, it is about affirming the scared relationship between man and woman. 


Er, no.

You might want to study history a little more.

"Evidence exists that same-sex marriages were tolerated in parts of Mesopotamia and ancient Egypt. Artifacts from Egypt, for example, show that same-sex relationships not only existed, but the discovery of a pharaonic tomb for such a couple shows their union was recognized by the kingdom."

http://www.randomhistory.com/history-of-gay-marriage.html



LOL.  You dumbshit.  Evidence that a pharaoh was a sexual deviant.  Compelling.  Of course, being the pharaoh and all, if he wanted to marry a carrot, it'd have to be "recognized by the kingdom" or else. 

So that's all you've got?  Nothing a bit more...widespread? 



Just to refresh your "dumbshit" memory. You said ...

"But throughout it's entire history and across all cultures, it is about affirming the scared relationship between man and woman."

And, my post shows how wrong you were (again).

You don't really know much about anything really, do you?

Sad.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Quantum on Jun 13th, 2012 at 11:33am

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 11:21am:

Quantum wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 11:11am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 10:25am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 10:12am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 10:07am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 10:01am:

MOTR wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:23pm:

... wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:19pm:
Not too worried about what the law says.   What do you think?


I support anti discrimination laws, I also support the provision for exemptions in special cases such as women only gyms or swimming pools.

I believe denying SSA people the right to marry makes them second class citizens. 


what about brotehrs marrying sisters? why do you think you can deny them that right?

MOTR, the argument being made here is simple: most of the arguments for gay marriage could be made for many other currently illegal behaviours. So, you need to make a case that is more coherent and more specialised than 'discrimination'.  This isnt homophobia, it is debating and picking holes in an argument. After all, if you can make an argument that doesnt also support incest and pedophilia then you do your side a great favour. at the moment, the arguments are weak and not at all special.


Oh? Which arguments? you say most but these are the main 2 arguments:

That they are both consenting adults? Nope
that they arent hurting anyone? Nope

What arguments then? What arguments for gay marriage can be made for any other illegal behaviours?

SOB


it's usualy a waste of time to respond to you but I will try - again.

incest is usually between consenting adults and they are hurting anyone. The same argument (consent) can be made for consensual pedophilia, polygamy etc.

Teh gay marriage debateis unremarkable in that it uses weak argument


well those are not the MAIN arguments as you said they were. incest does hurt the children of the relationship. pedos hurt the child whether they consent or not. you are right about polygamy maybe it should be legal.

SOB


Not if it's two brothers banging each other. What grounds do you have for stoping two siblings of the same sex enjoying the joys of marriage? In what ways does it effect you personally that you have a right to object?

In fact, what stops 3 or more brothers from all marrying each other? Doesn't harm anyone else. No chance of deformed kids. What reasons are there for not allowing it?

While we're at it, why not chuck a roo and a sheep into the relationship as well. Can't be anymore harmful to the animals than chopping them up and serving them for dinner. So what danger is 3 men, a sheep, and a roo in bed together to the rest of us? Can't see any reason against it except for some of us being a bit old fashioned.


Obviously it would hurt the roo.

As for the rest of your crap well maybe there is nothing wrong with it. Maybe as per your suggestion they should be made legal. Whose name should the brothers take?

Gays getting married does not lead to incest or bestiality or paedophilia. That is just BS dreamed up by the ppl that cant handle other ppl being different.

SOB


How can that be the case, when in the very same post you just said...

"As for the rest of your crap well maybe there is nothing wrong with it. Maybe as per your suggestion they should be made legal. Whose name should the brothers take?"

So far the argument in this thread is that if you allow gay marriage, then the same reasons can be used to allow other forms of marriage as well.

You have conceded that there is nothing really wrong with polygamy. Your only issue with incest is the children it would bring about, but that is not an issue with siblings of the same sex.

Can you not see the pandora's box that gay marriage brings? Once you allow it then a flood of other minority groups will argue for their own marital status using the very same arguments.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by angeleyes on Jun 13th, 2012 at 11:33am
Obviously it would hurt the roo.



Speaking from experience is my guess.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Uncle Meat on Jun 13th, 2012 at 11:37am

... wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 10:08am:
Well it would cause me mental anguish, and you, as an unmarried person (ie not a member) don't deserve a say in it. 
What club/institution/group/organisation would allow non-members to vote? 


Using your "logic" ...

You are, supposedly, not gay.

Therefore, you don't deserve a say in gay marriage.

What club/institution/group/organisation would allow non-members to vote?     :-/

(such a dumbshit   ::)  )

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by PoliticalReality on Jun 13th, 2012 at 11:38am

... wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:41pm:

MOTR wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:40pm:
Your prejudices are your own personal problem.



Now now, this isnot about me.

Lets get back to how you draw the distinction between which instutions have the right to discriminate, and which don't. 


You do know that one of the core reasons "women only" gyms get an exemption is because there are plenty of other gyms that men can join, therefore they're not being discriminated against?

If a law was passed banning all men from joining any gym then I'd have a problem with it.

Your example is more suited to an argument why a particular church / institution should be allowed to not perform same sex marriage.

It's definitely not an argument to ban it for everyone, even if there are institutions willing to perform the ceremony ...


Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by PoliticalReality on Jun 13th, 2012 at 11:43am

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 10:12am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 10:07am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 10:01am:

MOTR wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:23pm:

... wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:19pm:
Not too worried about what the law says.   What do you think?


I support anti discrimination laws, I also support the provision for exemptions in special cases such as women only gyms or swimming pools.

I believe denying SSA people the right to marry makes them second class citizens. 


what about brotehrs marrying sisters? why do you think you can deny them that right?

MOTR, the argument being made here is simple: most of the arguments for gay marriage could be made for many other currently illegal behaviours. So, you need to make a case that is more coherent and more specialised than 'discrimination'.  This isnt homophobia, it is debating and picking holes in an argument. After all, if you can make an argument that doesnt also support incest and pedophilia then you do your side a great favour. at the moment, the arguments are weak and not at all special.


Oh? Which arguments? you say most but these are the main 2 arguments:

That they are both consenting adults? Nope
that they arent hurting anyone? Nope

What arguments then? What arguments for gay marriage can be made for any other illegal behaviours?

SOB


it's usualy a waste of time to respond to you but I will try - again.

incest is usually between consenting adults and they are hurting anyone. The same argument (consent) can be made for consensual pedophilia, polygamy etc.

Teh gay marriage debateis unremarkable in that it uses weak argument


You really are ten shades of stupid aren't you?  Incest isn't hurting anyone?  So when their kids come out deformed this isn't harmful?  Think before you type it's not that hard (well shouldn't be anyway)

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by angeleyes on Jun 13th, 2012 at 11:43am

PoliticalReality wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 11:38am:

... wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:41pm:

MOTR wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:40pm:
Your prejudices are your own personal problem.



Now now, this isnot about me.

Lets get back to how you draw the distinction between which instutions have the right to discriminate, and which don't. 


You do know that one of the core reasons "women only" gyms get an exemption is because there are plenty of other gyms that men can join, therefore they're not being discriminated against?

If a law was passed banning all men from joining any gym then I'd have a problem with it.

Your example is more suited to an argument why a particular church / institution should be allowed to not perform same sex marriage.

It's definitely not an argument to ban it for everyone, even if there are institutions willing to perform the ceremony ...

Female genital mutilation is performed in OZ on kitchen tables so do we repeal the law to allow it.


Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Grandmaster on Jun 13th, 2012 at 11:43am

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 11:33am:

... wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 10:12am:

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 12:10am:

... wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:38pm:
But throughout it's entire history and across all cultures, it is about affirming the scared relationship between man and woman. 


Er, no.

You might want to study history a little more.

"Evidence exists that same-sex marriages were tolerated in parts of Mesopotamia and ancient Egypt. Artifacts from Egypt, for example, show that same-sex relationships not only existed, but the discovery of a pharaonic tomb for such a couple shows their union was recognized by the kingdom."

http://www.randomhistory.com/history-of-gay-marriage.html



LOL.  You dumbshit.  Evidence that a pharaoh was a sexual deviant.  Compelling.  Of course, being the pharaoh and all, if he wanted to marry a carrot, it'd have to be "recognized by the kingdom" or else. 

So that's all you've got?  Nothing a bit more...widespread? 



Just to refresh your "dumbshit" memory. You said ...

"But throughout it's entire history and across all cultures, it is about affirming the scared relationship between man and woman."

And, my post shows how wrong you were (again).

You don't really know much about anything really, do you?

Sad.



Yep.

"culture" suggests it's practised by society - by the people, not just by a pharaoh and his boy-slave.  Is "english culture" synonymous with eating watercress and cucumber sandwiches within buckigham palace?  Naaah, cos it's not practised by wider society.  If I jumped through a flaming hoop on my motorcycle, does that make flaming-hoop motorcycle jumping synonymous with 'australian culture"?

Fail again Uncie.  What is it with you and failure?

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Uncle Meat on Jun 13th, 2012 at 11:45am

... wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 11:43am:

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 11:33am:

... wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 10:12am:

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 12:10am:

... wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:38pm:
But throughout it's entire history and across all cultures, it is about affirming the scared relationship between man and woman. 


Er, no.

You might want to study history a little more.

"Evidence exists that same-sex marriages were tolerated in parts of Mesopotamia and ancient Egypt. Artifacts from Egypt, for example, show that same-sex relationships not only existed, but the discovery of a pharaonic tomb for such a couple shows their union was recognized by the kingdom."

http://www.randomhistory.com/history-of-gay-marriage.html



LOL.  You dumbshit.  Evidence that a pharaoh was a sexual deviant.  Compelling.  Of course, being the pharaoh and all, if he wanted to marry a carrot, it'd have to be "recognized by the kingdom" or else. 

So that's all you've got?  Nothing a bit more...widespread? 



Just to refresh your "dumbshit" memory. You said ...

"But throughout it's entire history and across all cultures, it is about affirming the scared relationship between man and woman."

And, my post shows how wrong you were (again).

You don't really know much about anything really, do you?

Sad.



Yep.

"culture" suggests it's practised by society - by the people, not just by a pharaoh and his boy-slave.  Is "english culture" synonymous with eating watercress and cucumber sandwiches within buckigham palace?  Naaah, cos it's not practised by wider society.  If I jumped through a flaming hoop on my motorcycle, does that make flaming-hoop motorcycle jumping synonymous with 'australian culture"?

Fail again Uncie.  What is it with you and failure?



Not only a "dumbshit", but also too stupid to realise/admit when you were wrong.

You really are an amusing piece of work.

::)

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Grandmaster on Jun 13th, 2012 at 11:46am

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 11:37am:

... wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 10:08am:
Well it would cause me mental anguish, and you, as an unmarried person (ie not a member) don't deserve a say in it. 
What club/institution/group/organisation would allow non-members to vote? 


Using your "logic" ...

You are, supposedly, not gay.

Therefore, you don't deserve a say in gay marriage.

What club/institution/group/organisation would allow non-members to vote?     :-/

(such a dumbshit   ::)  )



No such thing as gay marriage, therefore your "point" is moot. 

If however, they were to institute their own version, let's call it homorriage, then of course, I would have no say.  But when they want to horn in on an existing institution, they have no right to any input whatsoever. 

Fail.

Again.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Grandmaster on Jun 13th, 2012 at 11:46am

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 11:45am:

... wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 11:43am:

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 11:33am:

... wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 10:12am:

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 12:10am:

... wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:38pm:
But throughout it's entire history and across all cultures, it is about affirming the scared relationship between man and woman. 


Er, no.

You might want to study history a little more.

"Evidence exists that same-sex marriages were tolerated in parts of Mesopotamia and ancient Egypt. Artifacts from Egypt, for example, show that same-sex relationships not only existed, but the discovery of a pharaonic tomb for such a couple shows their union was recognized by the kingdom."

http://www.randomhistory.com/history-of-gay-marriage.html



LOL.  You dumbshit.  Evidence that a pharaoh was a sexual deviant.  Compelling.  Of course, being the pharaoh and all, if he wanted to marry a carrot, it'd have to be "recognized by the kingdom" or else. 

So that's all you've got?  Nothing a bit more...widespread? 



Just to refresh your "dumbshit" memory. You said ...

"But throughout it's entire history and across all cultures, it is about affirming the scared relationship between man and woman."

And, my post shows how wrong you were (again).

You don't really know much about anything really, do you?

Sad.



Yep.

"culture" suggests it's practised by society - by the people, not just by a pharaoh and his boy-slave.  Is "english culture" synonymous with eating watercress and cucumber sandwiches within buckigham palace?  Naaah, cos it's not practised by wider society.  If I jumped through a flaming hoop on my motorcycle, does that make flaming-hoop motorcycle jumping synonymous with 'australian culture"?

Fail again Uncie.  What is it with you and failure?



Not only a "dumbshit", but also too stupid to realise/admit when you were wrong.

You really are an amusing piece of work.

::)




Why do you alwasys expect me to 'admit I'm wrong" when I'm not?

Becasue you're a failure, and false victory claims are all you've got?

Not wrong there, am I, uncie herb?

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Uncle Meat on Jun 13th, 2012 at 11:49am

... wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 11:46am:

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 11:37am:

... wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 10:08am:
Well it would cause me mental anguish, and you, as an unmarried person (ie not a member) don't deserve a say in it. 
What club/institution/group/organisation would allow non-members to vote? 


Using your "logic" ...

You are, supposedly, not gay.

Therefore, you don't deserve a say in gay marriage.

What club/institution/group/organisation would allow non-members to vote?     :-/

(such a dumbshit   ::)  )



No such thing as gay marriage, therefore your "point" is moot. 

If however, they were to institute their own version, let's call it homorriage, then of course, I would have no say.  But when they want to horn in on an existing institution, they have no right to any input whatsoever. 



LOL    It seems you're actually more ignorant than I thought.

Mention the "no such thing as gay marriage" thing to  Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, and Sweden and see what they say.

LOL    dumbshit.     ;D


Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by PoliticalReality on Jun 13th, 2012 at 11:50am

Maqqa wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 10:29am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 10:25am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 10:12am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 10:07am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 10:01am:

MOTR wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:23pm:

... wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:19pm:
Not too worried about what the law says.   What do you think?


I support anti discrimination laws, I also support the provision for exemptions in special cases such as women only gyms or swimming pools.

I believe denying SSA people the right to marry makes them second class citizens. 


what about brotehrs marrying sisters? why do you think you can deny them that right?

MOTR, the argument being made here is simple: most of the arguments for gay marriage could be made for many other currently illegal behaviours. So, you need to make a case that is more coherent and more specialised than 'discrimination'.  This isnt homophobia, it is debating and picking holes in an argument. After all, if you can make an argument that doesnt also support incest and pedophilia then you do your side a great favour. at the moment, the arguments are weak and not at all special.


Oh? Which arguments? you say most but these are the main 2 arguments:

That they are both consenting adults? Nope
that they arent hurting anyone? Nope

What arguments then? What arguments for gay marriage can be made for any other illegal behaviours?

SOB


it's usualy a waste of time to respond to you but I will try - again.

incest is usually between consenting adults and they are hurting anyone. The same argument (consent) can be made for consensual pedophilia, polygamy etc.

Teh gay marriage debateis unremarkable in that it uses weak argument


well those are not the MAIN arguments as you said they were. incest does hurt the children of the relationship. pedos hurt the child whether they consent or not. you are right about polygamy maybe it should be legal.

SOB



Interesting point about polygamy

If a man/woman live in a committed relationship with multiple partners - it's legal

If a man/woman gets married and live in a committed relationship with multiple partners - it's illegal

So the difference is the marriage certificate


Well no, you can't have multiple de-facto relationships (not under the legal definition of it anyway)

You can have as many relationships as you want, but only won of them can be de-facto and if you can't isolate which one that is then none of them are.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Grandmaster on Jun 13th, 2012 at 11:50am

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 11:49am:

... wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 11:46am:

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 11:37am:

... wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 10:08am:
Well it would cause me mental anguish, and you, as an unmarried person (ie not a member) don't deserve a say in it. 
What club/institution/group/organisation would allow non-members to vote? 


Using your "logic" ...

You are, supposedly, not gay.

Therefore, you don't deserve a say in gay marriage.

What club/institution/group/organisation would allow non-members to vote?     :-/

(such a dumbshit   ::)  )



No such thing as gay marriage, therefore your "point" is moot. 

If however, they were to institute their own version, let's call it homorriage, then of course, I would have no say.  But when they want to horn in on an existing institution, they have no right to any input whatsoever. 



LOL    It seems you're actually more ignorant than I thought.

Mention the "no such thing as gay marriage" thing to  Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, and Sweden and see what they say.

LOL    dumbshit.     ;D



Ahhh right you are.  Well done.

Tell you what - I won't claim any right to input in the marriage laws of those countries OK? 

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Spot of Borg on Jun 13th, 2012 at 11:53am

angeleyes wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 11:33am:
Obviously it would hurt the roo.



Speaking from experience is my guess.


What a brilliant argument. your parents must be proud to have raised such a brilliant intellectual with great debating skills. Who woulda thought an attempted insult with no reference to the topic @ hand whatsoever would be such tactical genius. you have convinced me. whatever point you are trying to make must be the right one.

SOB

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Maqqa on Jun 13th, 2012 at 11:54am
Is homosexuality a case of "mate-ship" going too far?

Is gay marriage a case of homosexuality not going far enough?

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Maqqa on Jun 13th, 2012 at 11:56am

PoliticalReality wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 11:50am:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 10:29am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 10:25am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 10:12am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 10:07am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 10:01am:

MOTR wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:23pm:

... wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:19pm:
Not too worried about what the law says.   What do you think?


I support anti discrimination laws, I also support the provision for exemptions in special cases such as women only gyms or swimming pools.

I believe denying SSA people the right to marry makes them second class citizens. 


what about brotehrs marrying sisters? why do you think you can deny them that right?

MOTR, the argument being made here is simple: most of the arguments for gay marriage could be made for many other currently illegal behaviours. So, you need to make a case that is more coherent and more specialised than 'discrimination'.  This isnt homophobia, it is debating and picking holes in an argument. After all, if you can make an argument that doesnt also support incest and pedophilia then you do your side a great favour. at the moment, the arguments are weak and not at all special.


Oh? Which arguments? you say most but these are the main 2 arguments:

That they are both consenting adults? Nope
that they arent hurting anyone? Nope

What arguments then? What arguments for gay marriage can be made for any other illegal behaviours?

SOB


it's usualy a waste of time to respond to you but I will try - again.

incest is usually between consenting adults and they are hurting anyone. The same argument (consent) can be made for consensual pedophilia, polygamy etc.

Teh gay marriage debateis unremarkable in that it uses weak argument


well those are not the MAIN arguments as you said they were. incest does hurt the children of the relationship. pedos hurt the child whether they consent or not. you are right about polygamy maybe it should be legal.

SOB



Interesting point about polygamy

If a man/woman live in a committed relationship with multiple partners - it's legal

If a man/woman gets married and live in a committed relationship with multiple partners - it's illegal

So the difference is the marriage certificate


Well no, you can't have multiple de-facto relationships (not under the legal definition of it anyway)

You can have as many relationships as you want, but only won of them can be de-facto and if you can't isolate which one that is then none of them are.


So the difference then is the recognition of the relationship and a reference point where the law can serve you with a notice you've done something wrong

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by PoliticalReality on Jun 13th, 2012 at 11:58am

angeleyes wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 11:43am:

PoliticalReality wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 11:38am:

... wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:41pm:

MOTR wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:40pm:
Your prejudices are your own personal problem.



Now now, this isnot about me.

Lets get back to how you draw the distinction between which instutions have the right to discriminate, and which don't. 


You do know that one of the core reasons "women only" gyms get an exemption is because there are plenty of other gyms that men can join, therefore they're not being discriminated against?

If a law was passed banning all men from joining any gym then I'd have a problem with it.

Your example is more suited to an argument why a particular church / institution should be allowed to not perform same sex marriage.

It's definitely not an argument to ban it for everyone, even if there are institutions willing to perform the ceremony ...

Female genital mutilation is performed in OZ on kitchen tables so do we repeal the law to allow it.


Are we talking about a consentual adult.  Ie an adult who is consenting of her own free well to be mutilated?  If we're not then your point is lost on me ...

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by angeleyes on Jun 13th, 2012 at 12:00pm

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 11:53am:

angeleyes wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 11:33am:
Obviously it would hurt the roo.



Speaking from experience is my guess.


What a brilliant argument. Thanks for your praise.your parents must be proud to have raised such a brilliant intellectual with great debating skills. How did you know that? Have you been speaking to them? Who woulda thought an attempted insult with no reference to the topic @ hand whatsoever would be such tactical genius. Come on Borg don't be bashfull, you know I am a genius.you have convinced me. I knew you would see my brilliance.whatever point you are trying to make must be the right one. Absolutely.

SOB


Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by angeleyes on Jun 13th, 2012 at 12:01pm

PoliticalReality wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 11:58am:

angeleyes wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 11:43am:

PoliticalReality wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 11:38am:

... wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:41pm:

MOTR wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:40pm:
Your prejudices are your own personal problem.



Now now, this isnot about me.

Lets get back to how you draw the distinction between which instutions have the right to discriminate, and which don't. 


You do know that one of the core reasons "women only" gyms get an exemption is because there are plenty of other gyms that men can join, therefore they're not being discriminated against?

If a law was passed banning all men from joining any gym then I'd have a problem with it.

Your example is more suited to an argument why a particular church / institution should be allowed to not perform same sex marriage.

It's definitely not an argument to ban it for everyone, even if there are institutions willing to perform the ceremony ...

Female genital mutilation is performed in OZ on kitchen tables so do we repeal the law to allow it.


Are we talking about a consentual adult.  Ie an adult who is consenting of her own free well to be mutilated?  If we're not then your point is lost on me ...


We are talking about underage girls.

FFS do you have a brain??

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by PoliticalReality on Jun 13th, 2012 at 12:06pm

... wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 11:43am:

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 11:33am:

... wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 10:12am:

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 12:10am:

... wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:38pm:
But throughout it's entire history and across all cultures, it is about affirming the scared relationship between man and woman. 


Er, no.

You might want to study history a little more.

"Evidence exists that same-sex marriages were tolerated in parts of Mesopotamia and ancient Egypt. Artifacts from Egypt, for example, show that same-sex relationships not only existed, but the discovery of a pharaonic tomb for such a couple shows their union was recognized by the kingdom."

http://www.randomhistory.com/history-of-gay-marriage.html



LOL.  You dumbshit.  Evidence that a pharaoh was a sexual deviant.  Compelling.  Of course, being the pharaoh and all, if he wanted to marry a carrot, it'd have to be "recognized by the kingdom" or else. 

So that's all you've got?  Nothing a bit more...widespread? 



Just to refresh your "dumbshit" memory. You said ...

"But throughout it's entire history and across all cultures, it is about affirming the scared relationship between man and woman."

And, my post shows how wrong you were (again).

You don't really know much about anything really, do you?

Sad.



Yep.

"culture" suggests it's practised by society - by the people, not just by a pharaoh and his boy-slave.  Is "english culture" synonymous with eating watercress and cucumber sandwiches within buckigham palace?  Naaah, cos it's not practised by wider society.  If I jumped through a flaming hoop on my motorcycle, does that make flaming-hoop motorcycle jumping synonymous with 'australian culture"?

Fail again Uncie.  What is it with you and failure?


Don't worry about the past this is happening everywhere right now.

Same sex marriage is performed and recognised in:

Argentina
Belgium
Canada
Denmark
Iceland
Netherlands
Norway
Portugal
South Africa
Spain
Sweden
Mexico: Mexico City
United States: CT, DC, IA, MA, NH, NY, VT, Coquille, Suquamish

Also recognised in:

Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten (Netherlands only)
Israel
Mexico: all states (Mexico City only)
United States: CA (conditional), MD, RI

This change is really only a matter of time - we as a country just need to work out how mature we actually are compared to the rest of the planet

I think we're just about there we just need the politicians to catch up



Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Spot of Borg on Jun 13th, 2012 at 12:09pm
Someone (who doesnt know how to quote) doesnt know what sarcasm is. Perhaps you will learn something today.


Quote:
sar·casm
   [sahr-kaz-uhm]
noun
1.
harsh or bitter derision or irony.
2.
a sharply ironical taunt; sneering or cutting remark: a review full of sarcasms.
Origin:
1570–80; < Late Latin sarcasmus < Greek sarkasmós, derivative of sarkázein to rend (flesh), sneer; see sarco-

Related forms
su·per·sar·casm, noun

Synonyms
1. sardonicism, bitterness, ridicule. See irony1. 2. jeer.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sarcasm

SOB

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Grandmaster on Jun 13th, 2012 at 12:10pm
And so we continue onto the ol "it happened somewhere else, therefore it should/will happen here" argument. 

Just what do you think is the slightest bit compelling about that? 

It sounds much the same as the ol' "if such and such were to jump off a cliff would you do it too" I used to get from my mother.  I understood her point then...why does it elude you even now that you are presumably a grown man?

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by longweekend58 on Jun 13th, 2012 at 12:29pm

PoliticalReality wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 11:26am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 6:07pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:42pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:34pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:34pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:29pm:
It doesn't affect you if we changed the law along the lines of some of the Arab World where men marry 8 year olds.

You ok with doing that then?

It wouldn't affect you.....


Let me ask the question in a way that even a moron can understand, seeing as you had such difficulty with it previously.

If every single consenting, legal age gay couple got married tomorrow, how would any one's life be adversely affected?



it wouldn't.


Then why would anyone be opposed to gay marriage?

Remember, we're talking about gay marriage here, nothing else.

If it has no adverse affect on any one else, and it makes the gay people happy, why would you object to it?


what a lameass attitude. consensual pedophilia doesnt affect me either but Im not about to say it is good or that it shoudl be legal.

You seem to stumble over the concept of people having BELIEFS and STANDARDS they subscribe to. while at the same time blindly expecting us to submit to YOUR belifes and standards.


There no such thing as "consensual pedophilia" you idiot, children lack the capacity to give consent, adults don't.
Surely even and idiot on your magnificance can understand this?


in legal terms, yes. in practical terms, no. or do you not realise that for the vast majority of history people got married at 12+? It was consensual there too. Im not supporting it, simply saying that consent is not defined just by law.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by longweekend58 on Jun 13th, 2012 at 12:34pm

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 11:45am:

... wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 11:43am:

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 11:33am:

... wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 10:12am:

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 12:10am:

... wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:38pm:
But throughout it's entire history and across all cultures, it is about affirming the scared relationship between man and woman. 


Er, no.

You might want to study history a little more.

"Evidence exists that same-sex marriages were tolerated in parts of Mesopotamia and ancient Egypt. Artifacts from Egypt, for example, show that same-sex relationships not only existed, but the discovery of a pharaonic tomb for such a couple shows their union was recognized by the kingdom."

http://www.randomhistory.com/history-of-gay-marriage.html



LOL.  You dumbshit.  Evidence that a pharaoh was a sexual deviant.  Compelling.  Of course, being the pharaoh and all, if he wanted to marry a carrot, it'd have to be "recognized by the kingdom" or else. 

So that's all you've got?  Nothing a bit more...widespread? 



Just to refresh your "dumbshit" memory. You said ...

"But throughout it's entire history and across all cultures, it is about affirming the scared relationship between man and woman."

And, my post shows how wrong you were (again).

You don't really know much about anything really, do you?

Sad.



Yep.

"culture" suggests it's practised by society - by the people, not just by a pharaoh and his boy-slave.  Is "english culture" synonymous with eating watercress and cucumber sandwiches within buckigham palace?  Naaah, cos it's not practised by wider society.  If I jumped through a flaming hoop on my motorcycle, does that make flaming-hoop motorcycle jumping synonymous with 'australian culture"?

Fail again Uncie.  What is it with you and failure?



Not only a "dumbshit", but also too stupid to realise/admit when you were wrong.

You really are an amusing piece of work.

::)


Actually he crushed your 'argument' like a bug. it is basic sociology that a handful of instances of behaviour does not constitute culture per se...

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by longweekend58 on Jun 13th, 2012 at 12:40pm

... wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 12:10pm:
And so we continue onto the ol "it happened somewhere else, therefore it should/will happen here" argument. 

Just what do you think is the slightest bit compelling about that? 

It sounds much the same as the ol' "if such and such were to jump off a cliff would you do it too" I used to get from my mother.  I understood her point then...why does it elude you even now that you are presumably a grown man?


That argument supprts:

honour killings (officially scantioned)
female circumcision
men marrying 9yo girls
and a lot of other things...

epic fail...

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by mozzaok on Jun 13th, 2012 at 12:42pm
I think that there is at least one aspect of this debate, that makes it more problematic, for people such as myself, who oppose "Gay Marriage", simply upon the basis that it is an incorrect use of language, in that "Marriage" is the word that has ALWAYS described the legal, and religious union, between a man and a woman.

When society started to "nominate" DeFacto Relationships, as DeFacto Marriages, THEY broadened the use of the word Marriage to include people who were not married, but lived in a relationship similar to, or in most ways, virtually the same as, a normal Marriage relationship.

I suppose from the point of view of the Gay community, their argument could be that society already recognises heterosexual relationships, not formalised in any way, as "marriage", so why should they be excluded?

I can sympathise with that, but personally default to the two wrongs do not make a right, position.

The fact that naming defacto relationships as a marriage, has become commonly accepted, already diminishes and blurs the use of the word marriage, from it's true meaning.
I would be in favour of that stopping, and be happier with defacto couples being called, just that, a DeFacto Couple.
I would also be in favour of homosexual defacto couples being called defacto couples.
I am also in favour of homosexual couples, who do wish to engage in a civil commitment ceremony, to be able to call themselves a Civil couple, or Civil Union, or they can "CREATE" a NEW word if they wish to do so, to describe their homosexual life partnership, but it should be something other than "marriage", that word is already taken.

I also foresee a potential problem in changing the marriage act to declare homosexual unions as marriage, in that it could lead to calls upon existing institutions, like certain religions as an example, to perform Homosexual marriages, despite these religions specifically opposing any form of homosexual unions, and charges of discrimination being made against any who wish to not perform such ceremonies.
Sound far fetched???

IF the Marriage Act was changed, I would put money on just that type of thing happening.

I am 100% supportive of Gay rights, but I think that the determination that a Gay Union should be able to be recognised as equal in all legal ways to a Marriage, it should never be presented to the community as being exactly the same, as they are equal, but also, DIFFERENT.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Uncle Meat on Jun 13th, 2012 at 12:58pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 12:40pm:

... wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 12:10pm:
And so we continue onto the ol "it happened somewhere else, therefore it should/will happen here" argument. 

Just what do you think is the slightest bit compelling about that? 

It sounds much the same as the ol' "if such and such were to jump off a cliff would you do it too" I used to get from my mother.  I understood her point then...why does it elude you even now that you are presumably a grown man?


That argument supprts:

honour killings (officially scantioned)
female circumcision
men marrying 9yo girls
and a lot of other things...

epic fail...



LOL  ;D    What is this, "dumbshit day"?

All of your examples, and the one from Grandmaster Flush, involve either physical harm, acts that go against one's will, or non-consenting children.

Only a moron would try to compare them to the act of two consenting adults entering into a social union based on love.

LOL   You guys crack me up, seriously   :D


Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Spot of Borg on Jun 13th, 2012 at 12:59pm
In all the countries where it is equal - has this happened?

SOB

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Uncle Meat on Jun 13th, 2012 at 1:04pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 12:34pm:
Actually he crushed your 'argument' like a bug. it is basic sociology that a handful of instances of behaviour does not constitute culture per se...



And a new King "dumbshit" steps forward.

Grandmaster Flush said:

"But throughout it's entire history and across all cultures ... "

Read it carefully, Bozo.

He was wrong on both counts.

::)




Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Grandmaster on Jun 13th, 2012 at 1:07pm

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 1:04pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 12:34pm:
Actually he crushed your 'argument' like a bug. it is basic sociology that a handful of instances of behaviour does not constitute culture per se...



And a new King "dumbshit" steps forward.

Grandmaster Flush said:

"But throughout it's entire history and across all cultures ... "

Read it carefully, Bozo.

He was wrong on both counts.

::)


Crushed.  Like a bug. 

Don't take it so hard mate.  You'd think you'd have learned to deal with failure by now.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by PoliticalReality on Jun 13th, 2012 at 1:10pm

angeleyes wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 12:01pm:

PoliticalReality wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 11:58am:

angeleyes wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 11:43am:

PoliticalReality wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 11:38am:

... wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:41pm:

MOTR wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:40pm:
Your prejudices are your own personal problem.



Now now, this isnot about me.

Lets get back to how you draw the distinction between which instutions have the right to discriminate, and which don't. 


You do know that one of the core reasons "women only" gyms get an exemption is because there are plenty of other gyms that men can join, therefore they're not being discriminated against?

If a law was passed banning all men from joining any gym then I'd have a problem with it.

Your example is more suited to an argument why a particular church / institution should be allowed to not perform same sex marriage.

It's definitely not an argument to ban it for everyone, even if there are institutions willing to perform the ceremony ...

Female genital mutilation is performed in OZ on kitchen tables so do we repeal the law to allow it.


Are we talking about a consentual adult.  Ie an adult who is consenting of her own free well to be mutilated?  If we're not then your point is lost on me ...


We are talking about underage girls.

FFS do you have a brain??


You're drawing a comparison to underaged girls having their genitals mutilated to a same sex consentual relationship and you're calling me stupid?

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Uncle Meat on Jun 13th, 2012 at 1:11pm

... wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 1:07pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 1:04pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 12:34pm:
Actually he crushed your 'argument' like a bug. it is basic sociology that a handful of instances of behaviour does not constitute culture per se...



And a new King "dumbshit" steps forward.

Grandmaster Flush said:

"But throughout it's entire history and across all cultures ... "

Read it carefully, Bozo.

He was wrong on both counts.

::)


Crushed.  Like a bug. 

Don't take it so hard mate.  You'd think you'd have learned to deal with failure by now.



You were wrong on both counts, and you don't even have the brains to understand why.

Classic   ;D


Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Maqqa on Jun 13th, 2012 at 1:11pm

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 1:04pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 12:34pm:
Actually he crushed your 'argument' like a bug. it is basic sociology that a handful of instances of behaviour does not constitute culture per se...



And a new King "dumbshit" steps forward.

Grandmaster Flush said:

"But throughout it's entire history and across all cultures ... "

Read it carefully, Bozo.

He was wrong on both counts.

::)



longie

It's the same argument they used with Climate Change

They can't explain the Climate Change that created the 4 Ice Ages but they want to take 200 years worth of data in Earth's 4.5Billion years history to explain AGW.

They take a few isolated incidents and extrapolate it - remember AL Gore's graphs and his cherry picker stunt?

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Uncle Meat on Jun 13th, 2012 at 1:15pm

PoliticalReality wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 1:10pm:
You're drawing a comparison to underaged girls having their genitals mutilated to a same sex consentual relationship and you're calling me stupid?



Hard to imagine such stupidity exists.    ::)

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Grandmaster on Jun 13th, 2012 at 1:16pm

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 1:11pm:

... wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 1:07pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 1:04pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 12:34pm:
Actually he crushed your 'argument' like a bug. it is basic sociology that a handful of instances of behaviour does not constitute culture per se...



And a new King "dumbshit" steps forward.

Grandmaster Flush said:

"But throughout it's entire history and across all cultures ... "

Read it carefully, Bozo.

He was wrong on both counts.

::)


Crushed.  Like a bug. 

Don't take it so hard mate.  You'd think you'd have learned to deal with failure by now.



You were wrong on both counts, and you don't even have the brains to understand why.

Classic   ;D


I know exactly why you say that, and I've already stated it - because false victory claims are all you've got.

But unfortunately for you, I am not so magnanimous as to let the baby have his bottle, so I will keep pointing out that here, as in life, you have failed. 

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by PoliticalReality on Jun 13th, 2012 at 1:18pm

... wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 12:10pm:
And so we continue onto the ol "it happened somewhere else, therefore it should/will happen here" argument. 

Just what do you think is the slightest bit compelling about that? 

It sounds much the same as the ol' "if such and such were to jump off a cliff would you do it too" I used to get from my mother.  I understood her point then...why does it elude you even now that you are presumably a grown man?


Look as much as I appreciated the debating tactic:

You raised the issue claiming that marriage has always been about sanctifying the relationship between a man and a woman.

And then when people came back with arguments against that point you then say "well we shouldn't do what other people do or have done"

It's an basic debating technique and you don't use it very well.

To counter the actual argument, I don't really care what the rest of the world has done / is doing.  I don't even care what marriage has "always been" in your blinkered view

What I care about is the fact that there is NO logical reason to preclude same sex couples from the act of being married, none, I've asked and I've yet to see a single argument which is actually based on logic.

I don't think governments should have laws which discriminate against anyone, unless there are damned good reasons for it and I'm not seeing any ...

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by PoliticalReality on Jun 13th, 2012 at 1:20pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 12:29pm:

PoliticalReality wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 11:26am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 6:07pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:42pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:34pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:34pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:29pm:
It doesn't affect you if we changed the law along the lines of some of the Arab World where men marry 8 year olds.

You ok with doing that then?

It wouldn't affect you.....


Let me ask the question in a way that even a moron can understand, seeing as you had such difficulty with it previously.

If every single consenting, legal age gay couple got married tomorrow, how would any one's life be adversely affected?



it wouldn't.


Then why would anyone be opposed to gay marriage?

Remember, we're talking about gay marriage here, nothing else.

If it has no adverse affect on any one else, and it makes the gay people happy, why would you object to it?


what a lameass attitude. consensual pedophilia doesnt affect me either but Im not about to say it is good or that it shoudl be legal.

You seem to stumble over the concept of people having BELIEFS and STANDARDS they subscribe to. while at the same time blindly expecting us to submit to YOUR belifes and standards.


There no such thing as "consensual pedophilia" you idiot, children lack the capacity to give consent, adults don't.
Surely even and idiot on your magnificance can understand this?


in legal terms, yes. in practical terms, no. or do you not realise that for the vast majority of history people got married at 12+? It was consensual there too. Im not supporting it, simply saying that consent is not defined just by law.


Well since this debate is about the law, how about we stick to that?

I'm a little concerned about your belief in consensual sex with underaged children but I'm happy to let that slide in the interest of the debate ...

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Uncle Meat on Jun 13th, 2012 at 1:23pm

... wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 1:16pm:
I know exactly why you say that ...



And your white flag has been accepted.

Life is good.


Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Grandmaster on Jun 13th, 2012 at 1:28pm
See?  False claims is all you've got.

Do your false claims cheer you up when you're down?
Do your false claims keep you warm at night?
Do your false claims tell you they love you?

I almost feel pity for such a wretched, pathetic being, but then I remind myself - you brought it upon yourself.


Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Uncle Meat on Jun 13th, 2012 at 1:30pm
Life is goooood.




Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Grandmaster on Jun 13th, 2012 at 1:30pm

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Uncle Meat on Jun 13th, 2012 at 1:34pm

... wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 1:28pm:
I almost feel pity for such a wretched, pathetic being ...


Meh, nothing wrong with a bit of self pity.

Give yourself a treat.


Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Grandmaster on Jun 13th, 2012 at 1:41pm

PoliticalReality wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 1:18pm:
What I care about is the fact that there is NO logical reason to preclude same sex couples from the act of being married, none, I've asked and I've yet to see a single argument which is actually based on logic.

I don't think governments should have laws which discriminate against anyone, unless there are damned good reasons for it and I'm not seeing any ...


The simple, logical reason why homos can't marry each other, is that homos can't marry each other.  :)
Marriage, being the union of man and woman, makes it an impossibility. 

If you redefine what marriage is, it ceases to be marriage - it becomes something else. They can celebrate their particular union in a way similar to marriage if they choose, but marriage it is not. 

I'm not happy to dismantle, destroy and reconstitute marriage in a new form.  There is simply no logical reason to do so.       

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Spot of Borg on Jun 13th, 2012 at 1:48pm
Marriage = 2 ppl who make a commitment to each other. Hmmm that works

SOB

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Soren on Jun 13th, 2012 at 1:50pm

mozzaok wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 12:42pm:
The fact that naming defacto relationships as a marriage, has become commonly accepted, already diminishes and blurs the use of the word marriage, from it's true meaning.



No, it hasn't become commonly accepted, or used . A de facto relationship is called just that because it is not a de jure relationship (ie marriage).

It has taken you an awful lot of words to NOT say that.



ANyway, marriage is not just about the two - or more - people in it. It is most decidedly not a private matter, like wanking is a private matter, or colour prefences or taste in ice cream flavours . It is not just about sex, either. It is not even necessarily about children.



Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Grandmaster on Jun 13th, 2012 at 1:52pm

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 1:48pm:
Marriage = 2 ppl who make a commitment to each other. Hmmm that works

SOB



No it doesn't.  If I make a business deal with someone, that fits your defintion perfectly.  Marriage is a specific kind of commitment. 

Different from a business deal,
Different from boyfriend/girlfriend. 
Different from defacto.
Different from one bloke pretending to be another blokes wife.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Spot of Borg on Jun 13th, 2012 at 1:54pm

... wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 1:52pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 1:48pm:
Marriage = 2 ppl who make a commitment to each other. Hmmm that works

SOB



No it doesn't.  If I make a business deal with someone, that fits your defintion perfectly.  Marriage is a specific kind of commitment. 

Different from a business deal,
Different from boyfriend/girlfriend. 
Different from defacto.
Different from one bloke pretending to be another blokes wife.


lol well work on it a bit. Im sure you can make it work. Just take the (recently updated) definition of marriage - with ppl instead of "male and female".

SOB

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Grandmaster on Jun 13th, 2012 at 1:56pm

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 1:54pm:

... wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 1:52pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 1:48pm:
Marriage = 2 ppl who make a commitment to each other. Hmmm that works

SOB



No it doesn't.  If I make a business deal with someone, that fits your defintion perfectly.  Marriage is a specific kind of commitment. 

Different from a business deal,
Different from boyfriend/girlfriend. 
Different from defacto.
Different from one bloke pretending to be another blokes wife.


lol well work on it a bit. Im sure you can make it work. Just take the (recently updated) definition of marriage - with ppl instead of "male and female".

SOB



No.

Cos you know what would "make it work"? 

Leaving it the hell alone.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by PoliticalReality on Jun 13th, 2012 at 1:57pm

mozzaok wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 12:42pm:
I think that there is at least one aspect of this debate, that makes it more problematic, for people such as myself, who oppose "Gay Marriage", simply upon the basis that it is an incorrect use of language, in that "Marriage" is the word that has ALWAYS described the legal, and religious union, between a man and a woman.


Firstly marriage predates any known religion on the planet, people where getting married without the Church (and people still get married without the Church) for thousands and thousands of years.

And it has not ALWAYS been so, there are more than twenty jurisdictions around the world that currently recognise same sex marriage as well as numerous examples of this having historically been the case.


Quote:
When society started to "nominate" DeFacto Relationships, as DeFacto Marriages, THEY broadened the use of the word Marriage to include people who were not married, but lived in a relationship similar to, or in most ways, virtually the same as, a normal Marriage relationship.


In my experience this has never been the case, there has always been a distinction between being married and being in a defacto relationship.  For those who don't understand the difference they're generally happy to stay in a defacto relationship and that's ok.

In my mind what marriage is all about is an outward showing of committment.  The opportunity to gather together all the people in your life and say to them, under law, we are pledging to live the rest of ours lives together as a couple.

A defacto relationship is doing that by default until something better comes along.

There is nothing to convince me that same sex relationships do not hold the same qualities and characteristics as other relationships, given this, how can they not have the same recognition?


Quote:
I suppose from the point of view of the Gay community, their argument could be that society already recognises heterosexual relationships, not formalised in any way, as "marriage", so why should they be excluded?

I can sympathise with that, but personally default to the two wrongs do not make a right, position.

The fact that naming defacto relationships as a marriage, has become commonly accepted, already diminishes and blurs the use of the word marriage, from it's true meaning.
I would be in favour of that stopping, and be happier with defacto couples being called, just that, a DeFacto Couple.
I would also be in favour of homosexual defacto couples being called defacto couples.


Defacto does not equal married - Same sex couples can already have a defacto relationship, have been able to for some time, what they can't do is take the next step and get married

If you're so hell bent on making sure there's a distinction between a defacto relationship and a marriage (which I agree with btw) how can you propose to exclude a class of people from that group and go on to claim that it's not discrimination?


Quote:
I am also in favour of homosexual couples, who do wish to engage in a civil commitment ceremony, to be able to call themselves a Civil couple, or Civil Union, or they can "CREATE" a NEW word if they wish to do so, to describe their homosexual life partnership, but it should be something other than "marriage", that word is already taken.


Do you see what you're doing here?  Marriage is essentially a civil union, many people also like to tag a religious emphisis to it, which is fine, but in essence it's a civil union.

We already have an act of law which deals with this but what you're proposing it to set up a seperate class of civil union purely for same sex couples.  They call that discrimination.

Sort of like the black people can drink in the pub but only if it's in their section?


Quote:
I also foresee a potential problem in changing the marriage act to declare homosexual unions as marriage, in that it could lead to calls upon existing institutions, like certain religions as an example, to perform Homosexual marriages, despite these religions specifically opposing any form of homosexual unions, and charges of discrimination being made against any who wish to not perform such ceremonies.
Sound far fetched???

IF the Marriage Act was changed, I would put money on just that type of thing happening.


Any change to the Marriage Act should (and will) contain a specific clause which states that no religious institution can be forced the perform same sex marriage ceremonies.  We have a right to religious expression, this should not be setting government for those who are not part of that religion.

There are plenty of religious institutions which are happy to expand marriage to include same sex couples, its all about choice

This isn't controversial and is similar to what has happened in most of the jurisdictions where they now have same sex marriage.


Quote:
I am 100% supportive of Gay rights, but I think that the determination that a Gay Union should be able to be recognised as equal in all legal ways to a Marriage, it should never be presented to the community as being exactly the same, as they are equal, but also, DIFFERENT.


Then you're not 100% supportive of gay rights, sorry but it's just that by definition.  If you don't support the right of same sex couples to get married, particularly after you've stated your strong belief that marriage is a seperate right to being in a defacto relationship, then you do not 100% support gay rights.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Uncle Meat on Jun 13th, 2012 at 1:58pm

... wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 1:41pm:
If you redefine what marriage is, it ceases to be marriage - it becomes something else. 


LOL    Classic.




Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Grandmaster on Jun 13th, 2012 at 2:00pm
jus can't get enough of those false claims eh?

You're even sadder than i thought.  I'm edging closer towards that emotion you mortals know as "pity".

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by PoliticalReality on Jun 13th, 2012 at 2:02pm

... wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 1:56pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 1:54pm:

... wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 1:52pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 1:48pm:
Marriage = 2 ppl who make a commitment to each other. Hmmm that works

SOB



No it doesn't.  If I make a business deal with someone, that fits your defintion perfectly.  Marriage is a specific kind of commitment. 

Different from a business deal,
Different from boyfriend/girlfriend. 
Different from defacto.
Different from one bloke pretending to be another blokes wife.


lol well work on it a bit. Im sure you can make it work. Just take the (recently updated) definition of marriage - with ppl instead of "male and female".

SOB



No.

Cos you know what would "make it work"? 

Leaving it the hell alone.


Well it's not working for a large chunk of the population, expanding it to include same sex couples would let it work for those people without changing anything for anyone else.

Except for those who are uncomfortable with homosexuality and then can, well, suck a dck I guess  :P

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Gist on Jun 13th, 2012 at 2:02pm

... wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 1:56pm:
No.

Cos you know what would "make it work"? 

Leaving it the hell alone.


Hmm... well as I recall John Howard was the one who fecked with it. So let's leave it the hell alone the way it always was and undo that idiot Howard's change.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Uncle Meat on Jun 13th, 2012 at 2:03pm

... wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 2:00pm:
jus can't get enough of those false claims eh?

You're even sadder than i thought.  I'm edging closer towards that emotion you mortals know as "pity".



"If you redefine what marriage is, it ceases to be marriage - it becomes something else."  Grandmaster Flush




Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Soren on Jun 13th, 2012 at 2:04pm

PoliticalReality wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 1:18pm:

... wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 12:10pm:
And so we continue onto the ol "it happened somewhere else, therefore it should/will happen here" argument. 

Just what do you think is the slightest bit compelling about that? 

It sounds much the same as the ol' "if such and such were to jump off a cliff would you do it too" I used to get from my mother.  I understood her point then...why does it elude you even now that you are presumably a grown man?


Look as much as I appreciated the debating tactic:

You raised the issue claiming that marriage has always been about sanctifying the relationship between a man and a woman.

And then when people came back with arguments against that point you then say "well we shouldn't do what other people do or have done"

It's an basic debating technique and you don't use it very well.

To counter the actual argument, I don't really care what the rest of the world has done / is doing.  I don't even care what marriage has "always been" in your blinkered view

What I care about is the fact that there is NO logical reason to preclude same sex couples from the act of being married, none, I've asked and I've yet to see a single argument which is actually based on logic.

I don't think governments should have laws which discriminate against anyone, unless there are damned good reasons for it and I'm not seeing any ...




Why not call any kind of cohabitation 'marriage'? Or not even co-habitation, as married couples can live in separate households.

Why not just go the way as we seem to be going with everything else and say that if you feel that you are marriaed, then you are married.
It doesn't matter if you are or aren't 'married' if you self-identify as 'married', then that's it, you are married. ANd if then anyone says otherwise, they are being hurtful.

Why not? Same 'logic'.






Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Grandmaster on Jun 13th, 2012 at 2:05pm

PoliticalReality wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 2:02pm:

... wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 1:56pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 1:54pm:

... wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 1:52pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 1:48pm:
Marriage = 2 ppl who make a commitment to each other. Hmmm that works

SOB



No it doesn't.  If I make a business deal with someone, that fits your defintion perfectly.  Marriage is a specific kind of commitment. 

Different from a business deal,
Different from boyfriend/girlfriend. 
Different from defacto.
Different from one bloke pretending to be another blokes wife.


lol well work on it a bit. Im sure you can make it work. Just take the (recently updated) definition of marriage - with ppl instead of "male and female".

SOB



No.

Cos you know what would "make it work"? 

Leaving it the hell alone.


Well it's not working for a large chunk of the population, expanding it to include same sex couples would let it work for those people without changing anything for anyone else.

Except for those who are uncomfortable with homosexuality and then can, well, suck a dck I guess  :P



well if it's "not working" for some people, nothings forcing them to partake.  They could (should) just leave it to those for whom it is working. 
If say, your bank is "not working for you" do you demand they fundamentally change, or do you just take your business elsewhere?

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Gist on Jun 13th, 2012 at 2:05pm

Soren wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 2:04pm:
Why not call any kind of cohabitation 'marriage'? Or not even co-habitation, as married couples can live in separate households.

Why not just go the way as we seem to be going with everything else and say that if you feel that you are marriaed, then you are married.
It doesn't matter if you are or aren't 'married' if you self-identify as 'married', then that's it, you are married. ANd if then anyone says otherwise, they are being hurtful.

Why not? Same 'logic'.


Isn't that what is known as "de-facto marriage"?

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Grandmaster on Jun 13th, 2012 at 2:06pm

Gist wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 2:02pm:

... wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 1:56pm:
No.

Cos you know what would "make it work"? 

Leaving it the hell alone.


Hmm... well as I recall John Howard was the one who fecked with it. So let's leave it the hell alone the way it always was and undo that idiot Howard's change.



No, he safeguarded it. 

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by PoliticalReality on Jun 13th, 2012 at 2:07pm

Soren wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 2:04pm:

PoliticalReality wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 1:18pm:

... wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 12:10pm:
And so we continue onto the ol "it happened somewhere else, therefore it should/will happen here" argument. 

Just what do you think is the slightest bit compelling about that? 

It sounds much the same as the ol' "if such and such were to jump off a cliff would you do it too" I used to get from my mother.  I understood her point then...why does it elude you even now that you are presumably a grown man?


Look as much as I appreciated the debating tactic:

You raised the issue claiming that marriage has always been about sanctifying the relationship between a man and a woman.

And then when people came back with arguments against that point you then say "well we shouldn't do what other people do or have done"

It's an basic debating technique and you don't use it very well.

To counter the actual argument, I don't really care what the rest of the world has done / is doing.  I don't even care what marriage has "always been" in your blinkered view

What I care about is the fact that there is NO logical reason to preclude same sex couples from the act of being married, none, I've asked and I've yet to see a single argument which is actually based on logic.

I don't think governments should have laws which discriminate against anyone, unless there are damned good reasons for it and I'm not seeing any ...




Why not call any kind of cohabitation 'marriage'? Or not even co-habitation, as married couples can live in separate households.

Why not just go the way as we seem to be going with everything else and say that if you feel that you are marriaed, then you are married.
It doesn't matter if you are or aren't 'married' if you self-identify as 'married', then that's it, you are married. ANd if then anyone says otherwise, they are being hurtful.

Why not? Same 'logic'.


As you clearly do not understand what marriage is perhaps you should stay out of the debate?

Ask yourself the question "Why do people get married?"

Now is there anything about same sex relationships that should stop them from being able to ask themselves the same question?

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Grandmaster on Jun 13th, 2012 at 2:07pm

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 2:03pm:

... wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 2:00pm:
jus can't get enough of those false claims eh?

You're even sadder than i thought.  I'm edging closer towards that emotion you mortals know as "pity".



"If you redefine what marriage is, it ceases to be marriage - it becomes something else."  Grandmaster Flush




Do you have a point, or do you just enjoy embarrasing yourself?

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by PoliticalReality on Jun 13th, 2012 at 2:08pm

Gist wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 2:05pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 2:04pm:
Why not call any kind of cohabitation 'marriage'? Or not even co-habitation, as married couples can live in separate households.

Why not just go the way as we seem to be going with everything else and say that if you feel that you are marriaed, then you are married.
It doesn't matter if you are or aren't 'married' if you self-identify as 'married', then that's it, you are married. ANd if then anyone says otherwise, they are being hurtful.

Why not? Same 'logic'.


Isn't that what is known as "de-facto marriage"?


No it's a defacto relationship


Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Gist on Jun 13th, 2012 at 2:08pm

... wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 2:06pm:

Gist wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 2:02pm:

... wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 1:56pm:
No.

Cos you know what would "make it work"? 

Leaving it the hell alone.


Hmm... well as I recall John Howard was the one who fecked with it. So let's leave it the hell alone the way it always was and undo that idiot Howard's change.



No, he safeguarded it. 


Is "safeguard" the same as suddenly realising your argument is full of sh!t?  :D

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by PoliticalReality on Jun 13th, 2012 at 2:08pm

... wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 2:06pm:

Gist wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 2:02pm:

... wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 1:56pm:
No.

Cos you know what would "make it work"? 

Leaving it the hell alone.


Hmm... well as I recall John Howard was the one who fecked with it. So let's leave it the hell alone the way it always was and undo that idiot Howard's change.



No, he safeguarded it. 


From what? an attack from the rear?  :-*

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Grandmaster on Jun 13th, 2012 at 2:09pm
No.


Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Gist on Jun 13th, 2012 at 2:10pm

PoliticalReality wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 2:08pm:

Gist wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 2:05pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 2:04pm:
Why not call any kind of cohabitation 'marriage'? Or not even co-habitation, as married couples can live in separate households.

Why not just go the way as we seem to be going with everything else and say that if you feel that you are marriaed, then you are married.
It doesn't matter if you are or aren't 'married' if you self-identify as 'married', then that's it, you are married. ANd if then anyone says otherwise, they are being hurtful.

Why not? Same 'logic'.


Isn't that what is known as "de-facto marriage"?


No it's a defacto relationship


Not when I was growing up in the sixties, especially if you were talking to the couple across the road!  ;)

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Soren on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:18pm

PoliticalReality wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 2:07pm:
As you clearly do not understand what marriage is perhaps you should stay out of the debate?

Ask yourself the question "Why do people get married?"

Now is there anything about same sex relationships that should stop them from being able to ask themselves the same question?



Two guys getting 'married' is a perversion of the idea of marriage.
Marriage is a social institution for the purpooses of the society first, the married couple second (that is why it is a legal, not merely personal matter). It is a social institution. That is why the state is a stakeholder. For the churches it is also a sacrament, that is, it is recognbised by religious and secular tradition as a social institution. There is no such thing for friendship, or even siblinghood. There is no Friendship Act or Sibling Act but there is Marraige Act.
SO let's take that as read - it's not just about the two people.

So why do people get married? People get married because they want to be recognised as a social unit that is bridging the generations and performs all the other social and sacred acts that marraige is recognised for. People do not get married to have sex or kids or any of the private things that they can do equally without being married.

It is no accidnt that marriage is a ceremony. Like all ceremonies, it is a transformation. It trascends the two persons getting married and makes them into something that they cannot be without that ceremony.

It is a commitment to the other person as well as the society that sanctions the marriage. ANd that society is about preserving and improving what it has inherited and will transmit to the future.


Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by dsmithy70 on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:22pm

Soren wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:18pm:

PoliticalReality wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 2:07pm:
As you clearly do not understand what marriage is perhaps you should stay out of the debate?

Ask yourself the question "Why do people get married?"

Now is there anything about same sex relationships that should stop them from being able to ask themselves the same question?



Two guys getting 'married' is a perversion of the idea of marriage.
Marriage is a social institution for the purpooses of the society first, the married couple second (that is why it is a legal, not merely personal matter). It is a social institution. That is why the state is a stakeholder. For the churches it is also a sacrament, that is, it is recognbised by religious and secular tradition as a social institution. There is no such thing for friendship, or even siblinghood. There is no Friendship Act or Sibling Act but there is Marraige Act.
SO let's take that as read - it's not just about the two people.

So why do people get married? People get married because they want to be recognised as a social unit that is bridging the generations and performs all the other social and sacred acts that marraige is recognised for. People do not get married to have sex or kids or any of the private things that they can do equally without being married.

It is no accidnt that marriage is a ceremony. Like all ceremonies, it is a transformation. It trascends the two persons getting married and makes them into something that they cannot be without that ceremony.

It is a commitment to the other person as well as the society that sanctions the marriage. ANd that society is about preserving and improving what it has inherited and will transmit to the future.


Do you really care?

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Spot of Borg on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:23pm

Soren wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:18pm:

PoliticalReality wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 2:07pm:
As you clearly do not understand what marriage is perhaps you should stay out of the debate?

Ask yourself the question "Why do people get married?"

Now is there anything about same sex relationships that should stop them from being able to ask themselves the same question?



Two guys getting 'married' is a perversion of the idea of marriage.
Marriage is a social institution for the purpooses of the society first, the married couple second (that is why it is a legal, not merely personal matter). It is a social institution. That is why the state is a stakeholder. For the churches it is also a sacrament, that is, it is recognbised by religious and secular tradition as a social institution. There is no such thing for friendship, or even siblinghood. There is no Friendship Act or Sibling Act but there is Marraige Act.
SO let's take that as read - it's not just about the two people.

So why do people get married? People get married because they want to be recognised as a social unit that is bridging the generations and performs all the other social and sacred acts that marraige is recognised for. People do not get married to have sex or kids or any of the private things that they can do equally without being married.

It is no accidnt that marriage is a ceremony. Like all ceremonies, it is a transformation. It trascends the two persons getting married and makes them into something that they cannot be without that ceremony.

It is a commitment to the other person as well as the society that sanctions the marriage. ANd that society is about preserving and improving what it has inherited and will transmit to the future.


I pity your husband if that is the reason you got married

marriage is an institution that is legislated so ppl that are married can have certain rights. The religious ceremony is separate and not binding.

Ppl get married in order to make a commitment to someone they love. Well most do. Obviously not you.

SOB

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Soren on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:26pm

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:22pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:18pm:

PoliticalReality wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 2:07pm:
As you clearly do not understand what marriage is perhaps you should stay out of the debate?

Ask yourself the question "Why do people get married?"

Now is there anything about same sex relationships that should stop them from being able to ask themselves the same question?



Two guys getting 'married' is a perversion of the idea of marriage.
Marriage is a social institution for the purpooses of the society first, the married couple second (that is why it is a legal, not merely personal matter). It is a social institution. That is why the state is a stakeholder. For the churches it is also a sacrament, that is, it is recognbised by religious and secular tradition as a social institution. There is no such thing for friendship, or even siblinghood. There is no Friendship Act or Sibling Act but there is Marraige Act.
SO let's take that as read - it's not just about the two people.

So why do people get married? People get married because they want to be recognised as a social unit that is bridging the generations and performs all the other social and sacred acts that marraige is recognised for. People do not get married to have sex or kids or any of the private things that they can do equally without being married.

It is no accidnt that marriage is a ceremony. Like all ceremonies, it is a transformation. It trascends the two persons getting married and makes them into something that they cannot be without that ceremony.

It is a commitment to the other person as well as the society that sanctions the marriage. ANd that society is about preserving and improving what it has inherited and will transmit to the future.


Do you really care?



ACtually, I have children so I do care about the shape of things to come.


Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by dsmithy70 on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:32pm

Soren wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:26pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:22pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:18pm:

PoliticalReality wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 2:07pm:
As you clearly do not understand what marriage is perhaps you should stay out of the debate?

Ask yourself the question "Why do people get married?"

Now is there anything about same sex relationships that should stop them from being able to ask themselves the same question?



Two guys getting 'married' is a perversion of the idea of marriage.
Marriage is a social institution for the purpooses of the society first, the married couple second (that is why it is a legal, not merely personal matter). It is a social institution. That is why the state is a stakeholder. For the churches it is also a sacrament, that is, it is recognbised by religious and secular tradition as a social institution. There is no such thing for friendship, or even siblinghood. There is no Friendship Act or Sibling Act but there is Marraige Act.
SO let's take that as read - it's not just about the two people.

So why do people get married? People get married because they want to be recognised as a social unit that is bridging the generations and performs all the other social and sacred acts that marraige is recognised for. People do not get married to have sex or kids or any of the private things that they can do equally without being married.

It is no accidnt that marriage is a ceremony. Like all ceremonies, it is a transformation. It trascends the two persons getting married and makes them into something that they cannot be without that ceremony.

It is a commitment to the other person as well as the society that sanctions the marriage. ANd that society is about preserving and improving what it has inherited and will transmit to the future.


Do you really care?



ACtually, I have children so I do care about the shape of things to come.


Ok so were you an outspoken advocate against women in the workforce?

Many many social & behavioral problems in modern children never occurred as little as 2 to 3 decades ago when the vast bulk of women still had traditional roles.Then they started to feel the need to be "Empowered" by working 40+ hours p/week & chucking little Joanne/Johnny into long day care a month or less after birth.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Soren on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:34pm

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:23pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:18pm:

PoliticalReality wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 2:07pm:
As you clearly do not understand what marriage is perhaps you should stay out of the debate?

Ask yourself the question "Why do people get married?"

Now is there anything about same sex relationships that should stop them from being able to ask themselves the same question?



Two guys getting 'married' is a perversion of the idea of marriage.
Marriage is a social institution for the purpooses of the society first, the married couple second (that is why it is a legal, not merely personal matter). It is a social institution. That is why the state is a stakeholder. For the churches it is also a sacrament, that is, it is recognbised by religious and secular tradition as a social institution. There is no such thing for friendship, or even siblinghood. There is no Friendship Act or Sibling Act but there is Marraige Act.
SO let's take that as read - it's not just about the two people.

So why do people get married? People get married because they want to be recognised as a social unit that is bridging the generations and performs all the other social and sacred acts that marraige is recognised for. People do not get married to have sex or kids or any of the private things that they can do equally without being married.

It is no accidnt that marriage is a ceremony. Like all ceremonies, it is a transformation. It trascends the two persons getting married and makes them into something that they cannot be without that ceremony.

It is a commitment to the other person as well as the society that sanctions the marriage. ANd that society is about preserving and improving what it has inherited and will transmit to the future.


I pity your husband if that is the reason you got married

marriage is an institution that is legislated so ppl that are married can have certain rights. The religious ceremony is separate and not binding.

Ppl get married in order to make a commitment to someone they love. Well most do. Obviously not you.

SOB



And where do they make that commitment, you increadibly thick person? In a ceremony. You can't get married with just the two persons in the room, saying, 'I marry you' and 'so do I'. You have to do it in a certain ceremonial way in front of others. Why? Because it is more than just the two peole getting married.

Two people just agreeing to act as if they were married is not marriage. This means that it is not just a matter of private agreement or commitment. It requires social approval through a defined ceremony. That's what the debate is about, you brainless drone, the socially sanctioned bit, not about how they feel about each other.





Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Spot of Borg on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:38pm

Soren wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:34pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:23pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:18pm:

PoliticalReality wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 2:07pm:
As you clearly do not understand what marriage is perhaps you should stay out of the debate?

Ask yourself the question "Why do people get married?"

Now is there anything about same sex relationships that should stop them from being able to ask themselves the same question?



Two guys getting 'married' is a perversion of the idea of marriage.
Marriage is a social institution for the purpooses of the society first, the married couple second (that is why it is a legal, not merely personal matter). It is a social institution. That is why the state is a stakeholder. For the churches it is also a sacrament, that is, it is recognbised by religious and secular tradition as a social institution. There is no such thing for friendship, or even siblinghood. There is no Friendship Act or Sibling Act but there is Marraige Act.
SO let's take that as read - it's not just about the two people.

So why do people get married? People get married because they want to be recognised as a social unit that is bridging the generations and performs all the other social and sacred acts that marraige is recognised for. People do not get married to have sex or kids or any of the private things that they can do equally without being married.

It is no accidnt that marriage is a ceremony. Like all ceremonies, it is a transformation. It trascends the two persons getting married and makes them into something that they cannot be without that ceremony.

It is a commitment to the other person as well as the society that sanctions the marriage. ANd that society is about preserving and improving what it has inherited and will transmit to the future.


I pity your husband if that is the reason you got married

marriage is an institution that is legislated so ppl that are married can have certain rights. The religious ceremony is separate and not binding.

Ppl get married in order to make a commitment to someone they love. Well most do. Obviously not you.

SOB



And where do they make that commitment, you increadibly thick person? In a ceremony. You can't get married with just the two persons in the room, saying, 'I marry you' and 'so do I'. You have to do it in a certain ceremonial way in front of others. Why? Because it is more than just the two peole getting married.

Two people just agreeing to act as if they were married is not marriage. This means that it is not just a matter of private agreement or commitment. It requires social approval through a defined ceremony. That's what the debate is about, you brainless drone, the socially sanctioned bit, not about how they feel about each other.


lol. Ask any NORMAL person why they got married.

I was talking about the religious ceremony. Not binding. Gays dont need the religious ceremony. Just the official secular one. Which i might add consisted of 2 witnesses and a justice of the peace and a piece of paper (oh and $105). In fact it wasnt even a ceremony really it was a witnessing of documents. WE made some predefined promise and thats it.

SOB

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by FriYAY on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:42pm
I think gays want to get married because it is a link to being normal.

I mean if you had to take it in the dot, you’d want something out of it.

:o

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Soren on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:43pm

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:32pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:26pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:22pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:18pm:

PoliticalReality wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 2:07pm:
As you clearly do not understand what marriage is perhaps you should stay out of the debate?

Ask yourself the question "Why do people get married?"

Now is there anything about same sex relationships that should stop them from being able to ask themselves the same question?



Two guys getting 'married' is a perversion of the idea of marriage.
Marriage is a social institution for the purpooses of the society first, the married couple second (that is why it is a legal, not merely personal matter). It is a social institution. That is why the state is a stakeholder. For the churches it is also a sacrament, that is, it is recognbised by religious and secular tradition as a social institution. There is no such thing for friendship, or even siblinghood. There is no Friendship Act or Sibling Act but there is Marraige Act.
SO let's take that as read - it's not just about the two people.

So why do people get married? People get married because they want to be recognised as a social unit that is bridging the generations and performs all the other social and sacred acts that marraige is recognised for. People do not get married to have sex or kids or any of the private things that they can do equally without being married.

It is no accidnt that marriage is a ceremony. Like all ceremonies, it is a transformation. It trascends the two persons getting married and makes them into something that they cannot be without that ceremony.

It is a commitment to the other person as well as the society that sanctions the marriage. ANd that society is about preserving and improving what it has inherited and will transmit to the future.


Do you really care?



ACtually, I have children so I do care about the shape of things to come.


Ok so were you an outspoken advocate against women in the workforce?

Many many social & behavioral problems in modern children never occurred as little as 2 to 3 decades ago when the vast bulk of women still had traditional roles.Then they started to feel the need to be "Empowered" by working 40+ hours p/week & chucking little Joanne/Johnny into long day care a month or less after birth.



I am against what you describe. I wouldn't and didn't have my kids in childcare until they were ready for the 2-3 half-days at kindy, at age 3. None of them went to kindy full time. What's the point of bringing them into your life if you are going to park them in long daycare? I think sending babies into long daycare is terrible.


Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Spot of Borg on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:43pm
Actually if you are religious (and you certainly seem to be) you would have had to do the paper signing as well as the religious ceremony. You know it isnt really a ceremony. Its like buying  a house and you need witnesses for that too.

Does your husband know the real reason you married him? How about your kids?

SOB

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Soren on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:45pm

FriYAY wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:42pm:
I think gays want to get married because it is a link to being normal.


I agree, that's the point of the same sex marriage push, to normalise homosexuality.


Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Spot of Borg on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:46pm

Soren wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:45pm:

FriYAY wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:42pm:
I think gays want to get married because it is a link to being normal.


I agree, that's the point of the same sex marriage push, to normalise homosexuality.


It is normal

SOB

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Soren on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:50pm

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:46pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:45pm:

FriYAY wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:42pm:
I think gays want to get married because it is a link to being normal.


I agree, that's the point of the same sex marriage push, to normalise homosexuality.


It is normal

SOB



Yeah, it's normal like you are normal.
;D


Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by longweekend58 on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:50pm

mozzaok wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 12:42pm:
I think that there is at least one aspect of this debate, that makes it more problematic, for people such as myself, who oppose "Gay Marriage", simply upon the basis that it is an incorrect use of language, in that "Marriage" is the word that has ALWAYS described the legal, and religious union, between a man and a woman.

When society started to "nominate" DeFacto Relationships, as DeFacto Marriages, THEY broadened the use of the word Marriage to include people who were not married, but lived in a relationship similar to, or in most ways, virtually the same as, a normal Marriage relationship.

I suppose from the point of view of the Gay community, their argument could be that society already recognises heterosexual relationships, not formalised in any way, as "marriage", so why should they be excluded?

I can sympathise with that, but personally default to the two wrongs do not make a right, position.

The fact that naming defacto relationships as a marriage, has become commonly accepted, already diminishes and blurs the use of the word marriage, from it's true meaning.
I would be in favour of that stopping, and be happier with defacto couples being called, just that, a DeFacto Couple.
I would also be in favour of homosexual defacto couples being called defacto couples.
I am also in favour of homosexual couples, who do wish to engage in a civil commitment ceremony, to be able to call themselves a Civil couple, or Civil Union, or they can "CREATE" a NEW word if they wish to do so, to describe their homosexual life partnership, but it should be something other than "marriage", that word is already taken.

I also foresee a potential problem in changing the marriage act to declare homosexual unions as marriage, in that it could lead to calls upon existing institutions, like certain religions as an example, to perform Homosexual marriages, despite these religions specifically opposing any form of homosexual unions, and charges of discrimination being made against any who wish to not perform such ceremonies.
Sound far fetched???

IF the Marriage Act was changed, I would put money on just that type of thing happening.

I am 100% supportive of Gay rights, but I think that the determination that a Gay Union should be able to be recognised as equal in all legal ways to a Marriage, it should never be presented to the community as being exactly the same, as they are equal, but also, DIFFERENT.


very well said. Since when does Gay Rights include the right to everything? 'Rights' as such are very different from priviledges and always has been. the term 'right' is overused. Any very small minority (such as gays) do not intrinsically ahve the right to overturn a majority position or usurp a majority's cultural/religious objection.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by PoliticalReality on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:51pm

Soren wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:18pm:

PoliticalReality wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 2:07pm:
As you clearly do not understand what marriage is perhaps you should stay out of the debate?

Ask yourself the question "Why do people get married?"

Now is there anything about same sex relationships that should stop them from being able to ask themselves the same question?



Two guys getting 'married' is a perversion of the idea of marriage.
Marriage is a social institution for the purpooses of the society first, the married couple second (that is why it is a legal, not merely personal matter). It is a social institution. That is why the state is a stakeholder. For the churches it is also a sacrament, that is, it is recognbised by religious and secular tradition as a social institution. There is no such thing for friendship, or even siblinghood. There is no Friendship Act or Sibling Act but there is Marraige Act.
SO let's take that as read - it's not just about the two people.

So why do people get married? People get married because they want to be recognised as a social unit that is bridging the generations and performs all the other social and sacred acts that marraige is recognised for. People do not get married to have sex or kids or any of the private things that they can do equally without being married.

It is no accidnt that marriage is a ceremony. Like all ceremonies, it is a transformation. It trascends the two persons getting married and makes them into something that they cannot be without that ceremony.

It is a commitment to the other person as well as the society that sanctions the marriage. ANd that society is about preserving and improving what it has inherited and will transmit to the future.


And all of those would also apply to a same sex marriage, the only sticking point is you see it as some kind of perversion.

That's fine if that's your argument, you don't like gay people and they make you uncomfortable, but at least have the decency to say that rather than dressing it up as anything else.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Soren on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:51pm

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:43pm:
Actually if you are religious (and you certainly seem to be) you would have had to do the paper signing as well as the religious ceremony. You know it isnt really a ceremony. Its like buying  a house and you need witnesses for that too.

Does your husband know the real reason you married him? How about your kids?

SOB


Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Grandmaster on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:51pm

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:46pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:45pm:

FriYAY wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:42pm:
I think gays want to get married because it is a link to being normal.


I agree, that's the point of the same sex marriage push, to normalise homosexuality.


It is normal

SOB



Is it mate?

Well, you tell me which defintion of normal it fits would you?


Quote:
nor·mal/ˈnôrməl/Adjective: Conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected.


Noun: The usual, average, or typical state or condition.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by PoliticalReality on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:57pm

Soren wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:43pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:32pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:26pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:22pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:18pm:

PoliticalReality wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 2:07pm:
As you clearly do not understand what marriage is perhaps you should stay out of the debate?

Ask yourself the question "Why do people get married?"

Now is there anything about same sex relationships that should stop them from being able to ask themselves the same question?



Two guys getting 'married' is a perversion of the idea of marriage.
Marriage is a social institution for the purpooses of the society first, the married couple second (that is why it is a legal, not merely personal matter). It is a social institution. That is why the state is a stakeholder. For the churches it is also a sacrament, that is, it is recognbised by religious and secular tradition as a social institution. There is no such thing for friendship, or even siblinghood. There is no Friendship Act or Sibling Act but there is Marraige Act.
SO let's take that as read - it's not just about the two people.

So why do people get married? People get married because they want to be recognised as a social unit that is bridging the generations and performs all the other social and sacred acts that marraige is recognised for. People do not get married to have sex or kids or any of the private things that they can do equally without being married.

It is no accidnt that marriage is a ceremony. Like all ceremonies, it is a transformation. It trascends the two persons getting married and makes them into something that they cannot be without that ceremony.

It is a commitment to the other person as well as the society that sanctions the marriage. ANd that society is about preserving and improving what it has inherited and will transmit to the future.


Do you really care?



ACtually, I have children so I do care about the shape of things to come.


Ok so were you an outspoken advocate against women in the workforce?

Many many social & behavioral problems in modern children never occurred as little as 2 to 3 decades ago when the vast bulk of women still had traditional roles.Then they started to feel the need to be "Empowered" by working 40+ hours p/week & chucking little Joanne/Johnny into long day care a month or less after birth.



I am against what you describe. I wouldn't and didn't have my kids in childcare until they were ready for the 2-3 half-days at kindy, at age 3. None of them went to kindy full time. What's the point of bringing them into your life if you are going to park them in long daycare? I think sending babies into long daycare is terrible.


Each to their own I guess.  I personally think not putting kids in childcare is a bit cruel, I'm nowhere near arrogant to think that I have better skills at early education that trained early education teachers, nor could I give my kid 1/10th the attention she gets in childcare.

If you want your kids to be social retards who can't relate to people their own age, don't get to play any group games and live in abject poverty because both parents can't work then yeah sure, keep them out of childcare.

They might even end up like you  :-/

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Spot of Borg on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:58pm

... wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:51pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:46pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:45pm:

FriYAY wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:42pm:
I think gays want to get married because it is a link to being normal.


I agree, that's the point of the same sex marriage push, to normalise homosexuality.


It is normal

SOB



Is it mate?

Well, you tell me which defintion of normal it fits would you?


Quote:
nor·mal/ˈnôrməl/Adjective: Conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected.


Noun: The usual, average, or typical state or condition.


Yup. Both. Its been around as long as humans. Some animals are even gay. Its normal within humanity for some to have a different sexual orientation.

SOB

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Spot of Borg on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:59pm
What is the stupid picture supposed to mean sorenette?

SOB

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Quantum on Jun 13th, 2012 at 4:03pm

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:46pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:45pm:

FriYAY wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:42pm:
I think gays want to get married because it is a link to being normal.


I agree, that's the point of the same sex marriage push, to normalise homosexuality.


It is normal

SOB


Would a 50 year old man marrying his 20 year old son be classed as normal? If not, on what grounds do you class it as abnormal or wrong?

Because I fail to see how you can redefine marriage to allow gays to marry, but then arbitrarily draw a line that disallows other relationships that don't harm anyone else.



Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by dsmithy70 on Jun 13th, 2012 at 4:04pm

Soren wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:51pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:43pm:
Actually if you are religious (and you certainly seem to be) you would have had to do the paper signing as well as the religious ceremony. You know it isnt really a ceremony. Its like buying  a house and you need witnesses for that too.

Does your husband know the real reason you married him? How about your kids?

SOB



I always loved you as Techno Viking.

So much better than the "Poppa Bear" look you now project. ;)

But back to the topic, I wasn't asking whether you did these things or not, but whether you were just as outspoken on the changing of women's traditional roles?

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Uncle Meat on Jun 13th, 2012 at 4:05pm

FriYAY wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:42pm:
I think gays want to get married because it is a link to being normal.

I mean if you had to take it in the dot, you’d want something out of it.

:o



I know a few single women who "take it in the dot", and I've never heard any of them asking for a ring (pardon the pun).


Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Uncle Meat on Jun 13th, 2012 at 4:06pm

Quantum wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 4:03pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:46pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:45pm:

FriYAY wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:42pm:
I think gays want to get married because it is a link to being normal.


I agree, that's the point of the same sex marriage push, to normalise homosexuality.


It is normal

SOB


Would a 50 year old man marrying his 20 year old son be classed as normal? If not, on what grounds do you class it as abnormal or wrong?

Because I fail to see how you can redefine marriage to allow gays to marry, but then arbitrarily draw a line that disallows other relationships that don't harm anyone else.



A legal kinship already exists between a father and son.

Thus, no marriage is required.


Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Soren on Jun 13th, 2012 at 4:10pm

PoliticalReality wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:57pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:43pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:32pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:26pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:22pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:18pm:

PoliticalReality wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 2:07pm:
As you clearly do not understand what marriage is perhaps you should stay out of the debate?

Ask yourself the question "Why do people get married?"

Now is there anything about same sex relationships that should stop them from being able to ask themselves the same question?



Two guys getting 'married' is a perversion of the idea of marriage.
Marriage is a social institution for the purpooses of the society first, the married couple second (that is why it is a legal, not merely personal matter). It is a social institution. That is why the state is a stakeholder. For the churches it is also a sacrament, that is, it is recognbised by religious and secular tradition as a social institution. There is no such thing for friendship, or even siblinghood. There is no Friendship Act or Sibling Act but there is Marraige Act.
SO let's take that as read - it's not just about the two people.

So why do people get married? People get married because they want to be recognised as a social unit that is bridging the generations and performs all the other social and sacred acts that marraige is recognised for. People do not get married to have sex or kids or any of the private things that they can do equally without being married.

It is no accidnt that marriage is a ceremony. Like all ceremonies, it is a transformation. It trascends the two persons getting married and makes them into something that they cannot be without that ceremony.

It is a commitment to the other person as well as the society that sanctions the marriage. ANd that society is about preserving and improving what it has inherited and will transmit to the future.


Do you really care?



ACtually, I have children so I do care about the shape of things to come.


Ok so were you an outspoken advocate against women in the workforce?

Many many social & behavioral problems in modern children never occurred as little as 2 to 3 decades ago when the vast bulk of women still had traditional roles.Then they started to feel the need to be "Empowered" by working 40+ hours p/week & chucking little Joanne/Johnny into long day care a month or less after birth.



I am against what you describe. I wouldn't and didn't have my kids in childcare until they were ready for the 2-3 half-days at kindy, at age 3. None of them went to kindy full time. What's the point of bringing them into your life if you are going to park them in long daycare? I think sending babies into long daycare is terrible.


Each to their own I guess.  I personally think not putting kids in childcare is a bit cruel, I'm nowhere near arrogant to think that I have better skills at early education that trained early education teachers, nor could I give my kid 1/10th the attention she gets in childcare.

If you want your kids to be social retards who can't relate to people their own age, don't get to play any group games and live in abject poverty because both parents can't work then yeah sure, keep them out of childcare.

They might even end up like you  :-/

"long day care a month or less after birth". I highlighted it for you.
You evidently were in long daycare from day 3. You probably still are: still minimum attention span, incomprehension, big fooking noise with the rattler, no ability to follow simple narratives, pants full of sh!t.
Carry on.







Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Spot of Borg on Jun 13th, 2012 at 4:10pm

Quantum wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 4:03pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:46pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:45pm:

FriYAY wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:42pm:
I think gays want to get married because it is a link to being normal.


I agree, that's the point of the same sex marriage push, to normalise homosexuality.


It is normal

SOB


Would a 50 year old man marrying his 20 year old son be classed as normal? If not, on what grounds do you class it as abnormal or wrong?

Because I fail to see how you can redefine marriage to allow gays to marry, but then arbitrarily draw a line that disallows other relationships that don't harm anyone else.


50 year old men arent asking to marry their 20 year old sons. In fact ive never heard of anyone like that. Have you? I bet you havent. Maybe 1 psycho in all of time in some other country. Gays on the other hand are everywhere and have been forever. They are a normal part of our society.

SOB

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Grandmaster on Jun 13th, 2012 at 4:11pm

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:58pm:

... wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:51pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:46pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:45pm:

FriYAY wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:42pm:
I think gays want to get married because it is a link to being normal.


I agree, that's the point of the same sex marriage push, to normalise homosexuality.


It is normal

SOB



Is it mate?

Well, you tell me which defintion of normal it fits would you?


Quote:
nor·mal/ˈnôrməl/Adjective: Conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected.


Noun: The usual, average, or typical state or condition.


Yup. Both. Its been around as long as humans. Some animals are even gay. Its normal within humanity for some to have a different sexual orientation.

SOB



So different sexual orientations are "normal" then. 

Ok, lets explore that.

Bestiality = normal.
necrophilia = normal
coprophilia = normal.

You starting to realise the absurdity of that statement?

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Soren on Jun 13th, 2012 at 4:19pm

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 4:04pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:51pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:43pm:
Actually if you are religious (and you certainly seem to be) you would have had to do the paper signing as well as the religious ceremony. You know it isnt really a ceremony. Its like buying  a house and you need witnesses for that too.

Does your husband know the real reason you married him? How about your kids?

SOB



I always loved you as Techno Viking.

So much better than the "Poppa Bear" look you now project. ;)

But back to the topic, I wasn't asking whether you did these things or not, but whether you were just as outspoken on the changing of women's traditional roles?



It was all over by the time I reached adulthood. But yes, I have been outspoken against long daycare in my circle.

However, you conflate things unnecessarily. A woman going to work is not the same as a woman marrying her girlfriend.



Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Quantum on Jun 13th, 2012 at 4:20pm

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 4:10pm:

Quantum wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 4:03pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:46pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:45pm:

FriYAY wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:42pm:
I think gays want to get married because it is a link to being normal.


I agree, that's the point of the same sex marriage push, to normalise homosexuality.


It is normal

SOB


Would a 50 year old man marrying his 20 year old son be classed as normal? If not, on what grounds do you class it as abnormal or wrong?

Because I fail to see how you can redefine marriage to allow gays to marry, but then arbitrarily draw a line that disallows other relationships that don't harm anyone else.


50 year old men arent asking to marry their 20 year old sons. In fact ive never heard of anyone like that. Have you? I bet you havent. Maybe 1 psycho in all of time in some other country. Gays on the other hand are everywhere and have been forever. They are a normal part of our society.

SOB


Your bigoted attitude towards men who want to marry their sons shows through. ;)

Considering how many fathers have been known to fiddle with their own kids, how can you claim that the desire is not there and has not been there forever? Maybe there are a lot of fathers in the closet that are too sacred to come out because of people like you.

Since you class gays (5-10% of the population depending on who you believe) as normal, how many people does a minority group take before it can be classed as normal?

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Gist on Jun 13th, 2012 at 4:26pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:50pm:
very well said. Since when does Gay Rights include the right to everything? 'Rights' as such are very different from priviledges and always has been. the term 'right' is overused. Any very small minority (such as gays) do not intrinsically ahve the right to overturn a majority position or usurp a majority's cultural/religious objection.


Very good. Since the majority position is in fact to support gay marriage then you agree that the vocal minority do not have the right to overturn the that position and that they should therefore accept such marriage.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Spot of Borg on Jun 13th, 2012 at 4:28pm

Quantum wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 4:20pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 4:10pm:

Quantum wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 4:03pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:46pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:45pm:

FriYAY wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:42pm:
I think gays want to get married because it is a link to being normal.


I agree, that's the point of the same sex marriage push, to normalise homosexuality.


It is normal

SOB


Would a 50 year old man marrying his 20 year old son be classed as normal? If not, on what grounds do you class it as abnormal or wrong?

Because I fail to see how you can redefine marriage to allow gays to marry, but then arbitrarily draw a line that disallows other relationships that don't harm anyone else.


50 year old men arent asking to marry their 20 year old sons. In fact ive never heard of anyone like that. Have you? I bet you havent. Maybe 1 psycho in all of time in some other country. Gays on the other hand are everywhere and have been forever. They are a normal part of our society.

SOB


Your bigoted attitude towards men who want to marry their sons shows through. ;)

Considering how many fathers have been known to fiddle with their own kids, how can you claim that the desire is not there and has not been there forever? Maybe there are a lot of fathers in the closet that are too sacred to come out because of people like you.

Since you class gays (5-10% of the population depending on who you believe) as normal, how many people does a minority group take before it can be classed as normal?


you are just being a dickhead. Gays are a normal part of society.

SOB

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Uncle Meat on Jun 13th, 2012 at 4:30pm

... wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 4:11pm:
Bestiality = normal.
necrophilia = normal
coprophilia = normal.


Ah, Berlin.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Gist on Jun 13th, 2012 at 4:30pm

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 4:04pm:
I always loved you as Techno Viking.

So much better than the "Poppa Bear" look you now project. ;)


Poppa bear? I thought it was a bearded man wearing some kind of condom on his head. Just goes to show no two people see exactly the same thing.  ;D

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Quantum on Jun 13th, 2012 at 4:46pm

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 4:28pm:

Quantum wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 4:20pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 4:10pm:

Quantum wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 4:03pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:46pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:45pm:

FriYAY wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:42pm:
I think gays want to get married because it is a link to being normal.


I agree, that's the point of the same sex marriage push, to normalise homosexuality.


It is normal

SOB


Would a 50 year old man marrying his 20 year old son be classed as normal? If not, on what grounds do you class it as abnormal or wrong?

Because I fail to see how you can redefine marriage to allow gays to marry, but then arbitrarily draw a line that disallows other relationships that don't harm anyone else.


50 year old men arent asking to marry their 20 year old sons. In fact ive never heard of anyone like that. Have you? I bet you havent. Maybe 1 psycho in all of time in some other country. Gays on the other hand are everywhere and have been forever. They are a normal part of our society.

SOB


Your bigoted attitude towards men who want to marry their sons shows through. ;)

Considering how many fathers have been known to fiddle with their own kids, how can you claim that the desire is not there and has not been there forever? Maybe there are a lot of fathers in the closet that are too sacred to come out because of people like you.

Since you class gays (5-10% of the population depending on who you believe) as normal, how many people does a minority group take before it can be classed as normal?


you are just being a dickhead. Gays are a normal part of society.

SOB


No, you just refuse to give any form of logical framework for your views.

You want to argue that homosexuality is normal and that gay marriage doesn't hurt anyone else, therefore it is of no one else's concern and should be permitted. You are free to argue that. But as soon as the same argument is used for other sexual preferences you avoid the question.

Calling people a dickhead does not avoide the fact that you refuse to use the very arguments in defense for gay marriage in any other scenario.


Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by dsmithy70 on Jun 13th, 2012 at 4:52pm

Soren wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 4:19pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 4:04pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:51pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:43pm:
Actually if you are religious (and you certainly seem to be) you would have had to do the paper signing as well as the religious ceremony. You know it isnt really a ceremony. Its like buying  a house and you need witnesses for that too.

Does your husband know the real reason you married him? How about your kids?

SOB



I always loved you as Techno Viking.

So much better than the "Poppa Bear" look you now project. ;)

But back to the topic, I wasn't asking whether you did these things or not, but whether you were just as outspoken on the changing of women's traditional roles?



It was all over by the time I reached adulthood. But yes, I have been outspoken against long daycare in my circle.

However, you conflate things unnecessarily. A woman going to work is not the same as a woman marrying her girlfriend.


The changing of what could be regarded as "Traditional Society" is though.
Are you against the word marriage or against homosexuality period?

I really thought I didn't care about it until I posted that example, I don't know maybe it's just nostalgia but the 50's through to the mid 70's seems to be the golden age of our society in almost every way.
Everything before seems to be ground work everything after seems to be in decline.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Spot of Borg on Jun 13th, 2012 at 4:57pm

Quantum wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 4:46pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 4:28pm:

Quantum wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 4:20pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 4:10pm:

Quantum wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 4:03pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:46pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:45pm:

FriYAY wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:42pm:
I think gays want to get married because it is a link to being normal.


I agree, that's the point of the same sex marriage push, to normalise homosexuality.


It is normal

SOB


Would a 50 year old man marrying his 20 year old son be classed as normal? If not, on what grounds do you class it as abnormal or wrong?

Because I fail to see how you can redefine marriage to allow gays to marry, but then arbitrarily draw a line that disallows other relationships that don't harm anyone else.


50 year old men arent asking to marry their 20 year old sons. In fact ive never heard of anyone like that. Have you? I bet you havent. Maybe 1 psycho in all of time in some other country. Gays on the other hand are everywhere and have been forever. They are a normal part of our society.

SOB


Your bigoted attitude towards men who want to marry their sons shows through. ;)

Considering how many fathers have been known to fiddle with their own kids, how can you claim that the desire is not there and has not been there forever? Maybe there are a lot of fathers in the closet that are too sacred to come out because of people like you.

Since you class gays (5-10% of the population depending on who you believe) as normal, how many people does a minority group take before it can be classed as normal?


you are just being a dickhead. Gays are a normal part of society.

SOB


No, you just refuse to give any form of logical framework for your views.

You want to argue that homosexuality is normal and that gay marriage doesn't hurt anyone else, therefore it is of no one else's concern and should be permitted. You are free to argue that. But as soon as the same argument is used for other sexual preferences you avoid the question.

Calling people a dickhead does not avoide the fact that you refuse to use the very arguments in defense for gay marriage in any other scenario.


You are just putting up silly scenarios that have nothing to do with gay marriage. And trying to insult while you are @ it but thats par for the course in this forum it seems.

SOB

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by longweekend58 on Jun 13th, 2012 at 4:58pm

PoliticalReality wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:57pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:43pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:32pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:26pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:22pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:18pm:

PoliticalReality wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 2:07pm:
As you clearly do not understand what marriage is perhaps you should stay out of the debate?

Ask yourself the question "Why do people get married?"

Now is there anything about same sex relationships that should stop them from being able to ask themselves the same question?



Two guys getting 'married' is a perversion of the idea of marriage.
Marriage is a social institution for the purpooses of the society first, the married couple second (that is why it is a legal, not merely personal matter). It is a social institution. That is why the state is a stakeholder. For the churches it is also a sacrament, that is, it is recognbised by religious and secular tradition as a social institution. There is no such thing for friendship, or even siblinghood. There is no Friendship Act or Sibling Act but there is Marraige Act.
SO let's take that as read - it's not just about the two people.

So why do people get married? People get married because they want to be recognised as a social unit that is bridging the generations and performs all the other social and sacred acts that marraige is recognised for. People do not get married to have sex or kids or any of the private things that they can do equally without being married.

It is no accidnt that marriage is a ceremony. Like all ceremonies, it is a transformation. It trascends the two persons getting married and makes them into something that they cannot be without that ceremony.

It is a commitment to the other person as well as the society that sanctions the marriage. ANd that society is about preserving and improving what it has inherited and will transmit to the future.


Do you really care?



ACtually, I have children so I do care about the shape of things to come.


Ok so were you an outspoken advocate against women in the workforce?

Many many social & behavioral problems in modern children never occurred as little as 2 to 3 decades ago when the vast bulk of women still had traditional roles.Then they started to feel the need to be "Empowered" by working 40+ hours p/week & chucking little Joanne/Johnny into long day care a month or less after birth.



I am against what you describe. I wouldn't and didn't have my kids in childcare until they were ready for the 2-3 half-days at kindy, at age 3. None of them went to kindy full time. What's the point of bringing them into your life if you are going to park them in long daycare? I think sending babies into long daycare is terrible.


Each to their own I guess.  I personally think not putting kids in childcare is a bit cruel, I'm nowhere near arrogant to think that I have better skills at early education that trained early education teachers, nor could I give my kid 1/10th the attention she gets in childcare.

If you want your kids to be social retards who can't relate to people their own age, don't get to play any group games and live in abject poverty because both parents can't work then yeah sure, keep them out of childcare.

They might even end up like you  :-/


Clearly, you know next to NOTHING about childcare. one-on-one parenting is superior, just not always possible. Childcare centres dont exist because they are superior. they exist because economics demands them.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by longweekend58 on Jun 13th, 2012 at 5:00pm

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:58pm:

... wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:51pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:46pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:45pm:

FriYAY wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:42pm:
I think gays want to get married because it is a link to being normal.


I agree, that's the point of the same sex marriage push, to normalise homosexuality.


It is normal

SOB



Is it mate?

Well, you tell me which defintion of normal it fits would you?


Quote:
nor·mal/ˈnôrməl/Adjective: Conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected.


Noun: The usual, average, or typical state or condition.


Yup. Both. Its been around as long as humans. Some animals are even gay. Its normal within humanity for some to have a different sexual orientation.

SOB


like cancer and genetic abnormalities are normal? EXISTENCE isnt sufficient evidence to call anything normal. Pedophilia is a sexual orientation too. Is that normal? And if not, why not. You have the exact same problem as you and most others have. You are using the same arguments to justify gay marriage as you can use to justify pedophilia and incest.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by longweekend58 on Jun 13th, 2012 at 5:02pm

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 4:06pm:

Quantum wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 4:03pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:46pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:45pm:

FriYAY wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:42pm:
I think gays want to get married because it is a link to being normal.


I agree, that's the point of the same sex marriage push, to normalise homosexuality.


It is normal

SOB


Would a 50 year old man marrying his 20 year old son be classed as normal? If not, on what grounds do you class it as abnormal or wrong?

Because I fail to see how you can redefine marriage to allow gays to marry, but then arbitrarily draw a line that disallows other relationships that don't harm anyone else.



A legal kinship already exists between a father and son.

Thus, no marriage is required.


same as a kinship exists betwen gay couples therefor no marriage is required?

Its wonderful watching you give reason after reason that has EPIC fail associated with it.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by longweekend58 on Jun 13th, 2012 at 5:03pm

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 4:10pm:

Quantum wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 4:03pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:46pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:45pm:

FriYAY wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:42pm:
I think gays want to get married because it is a link to being normal.


I agree, that's the point of the same sex marriage push, to normalise homosexuality.


It is normal

SOB


Would a 50 year old man marrying his 20 year old son be classed as normal? If not, on what grounds do you class it as abnormal or wrong?

Because I fail to see how you can redefine marriage to allow gays to marry, but then arbitrarily draw a line that disallows other relationships that don't harm anyone else.


50 year old men arent asking to marry their 20 year old sons. In fact ive never heard of anyone like that. Have you? I bet you havent. Maybe 1 psycho in all of time in some other country. Gays on the other hand are everywhere and have been forever. They are a normal part of our society.

SOB


too easy....

paedophiles are as commone (if not more so) than gays. is that enough reason to legalise it?

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by longweekend58 on Jun 13th, 2012 at 5:06pm

Gist wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 4:26pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:50pm:
very well said. Since when does Gay Rights include the right to everything? 'Rights' as such are very different from priviledges and always has been. the term 'right' is overused. Any very small minority (such as gays) do not intrinsically ahve the right to overturn a majority position or usurp a majority's cultural/religious objection.


Very good. Since the majority position is in fact to support gay marriage then you agree that the vocal minority do not have the right to overturn the that position and that they should therefore accept such marriage.


only acceptable if it is a majority support within the clube they are trying to join ie MARRIED people. take a vote among married people and see how that works. why shoudl you non-members of the Marriage Club have a say on who we accept or reject as members?

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by longweekend58 on Jun 13th, 2012 at 5:07pm

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 4:28pm:

Quantum wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 4:20pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 4:10pm:

Quantum wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 4:03pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:46pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:45pm:

FriYAY wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:42pm:
I think gays want to get married because it is a link to being normal.


I agree, that's the point of the same sex marriage push, to normalise homosexuality.


It is normal

SOB


Would a 50 year old man marrying his 20 year old son be classed as normal? If not, on what grounds do you class it as abnormal or wrong?

Because I fail to see how you can redefine marriage to allow gays to marry, but then arbitrarily draw a line that disallows other relationships that don't harm anyone else.


50 year old men arent asking to marry their 20 year old sons. In fact ive never heard of anyone like that. Have you? I bet you havent. Maybe 1 psycho in all of time in some other country. Gays on the other hand are everywhere and have been forever. They are a normal part of our society.

SOB


Your bigoted attitude towards men who want to marry their sons shows through. ;)

Considering how many fathers have been known to fiddle with their own kids, how can you claim that the desire is not there and has not been there forever? Maybe there are a lot of fathers in the closet that are too sacred to come out because of people like you.

Since you class gays (5-10% of the population depending on who you believe) as normal, how many people does a minority group take before it can be classed as normal?


you are just being a dickhead. Gays are a normal part of society.

SOB


so the argument went over your head?

who exactly is surprised?

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Uncle Meat on Jun 13th, 2012 at 5:12pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 5:03pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 4:10pm:

Quantum wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 4:03pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:46pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:45pm:

FriYAY wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:42pm:
I think gays want to get married because it is a link to being normal.


I agree, that's the point of the same sex marriage push, to normalise homosexuality.


It is normal

SOB


Would a 50 year old man marrying his 20 year old son be classed as normal? If not, on what grounds do you class it as abnormal or wrong?

Because I fail to see how you can redefine marriage to allow gays to marry, but then arbitrarily draw a line that disallows other relationships that don't harm anyone else.


50 year old men arent asking to marry their 20 year old sons. In fact ive never heard of anyone like that. Have you? I bet you havent. Maybe 1 psycho in all of time in some other country. Gays on the other hand are everywhere and have been forever. They are a normal part of our society.

SOB


too easy....

paedophiles are as commone (if not more so) than gays. is that enough reason to legalise it?



Do you have any concept of the term "consenting adult"?

Seriously? 

You latched onto "common" and conveniently disregarded the fact that he's talking about "consenting adults".

Why are you guys so insistent on bringing children and  paedophiles into the argument?  I'm starting to worry about some of you.

Too easy, indeed.     ::)

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Grandmaster on Jun 13th, 2012 at 5:14pm
.*sigh*


and round we go again............

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Uncle Meat on Jun 13th, 2012 at 5:17pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 5:02pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 4:06pm:

Quantum wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 4:03pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:46pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:45pm:

FriYAY wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:42pm:
I think gays want to get married because it is a link to being normal.


I agree, that's the point of the same sex marriage push, to normalise homosexuality.


It is normal

SOB


Would a 50 year old man marrying his 20 year old son be classed as normal? If not, on what grounds do you class it as abnormal or wrong?

Because I fail to see how you can redefine marriage to allow gays to marry, but then arbitrarily draw a line that disallows other relationships that don't harm anyone else.



A legal kinship already exists between a father and son.

Thus, no marriage is required.


same as a kinship exists betwen gay couples therefor no marriage is required?

Its wonderful watching you give reason after reason that has EPIC fail associated with it.




Read it again Bozo: I said "legal" kinship.

"A legal kinship already exists between a father and son."

"Thus, no marriage is required."

A legal kinship does not exist between gay couples (who are not married).

Now, are you pretending to be this stupid or do you actually have some sort of mental retardation?  Seriously.   ::)


Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Quantum on Jun 13th, 2012 at 5:18pm

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 4:57pm:

Quantum wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 4:46pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 4:28pm:

Quantum wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 4:20pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 4:10pm:

Quantum wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 4:03pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:46pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:45pm:

FriYAY wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:42pm:
I think gays want to get married because it is a link to being normal.


I agree, that's the point of the same sex marriage push, to normalise homosexuality.


It is normal

SOB


Would a 50 year old man marrying his 20 year old son be classed as normal? If not, on what grounds do you class it as abnormal or wrong?

Because I fail to see how you can redefine marriage to allow gays to marry, but then arbitrarily draw a line that disallows other relationships that don't harm anyone else.


50 year old men arent asking to marry their 20 year old sons. In fact ive never heard of anyone like that. Have you? I bet you havent. Maybe 1 psycho in all of time in some other country. Gays on the other hand are everywhere and have been forever. They are a normal part of our society.

SOB


Your bigoted attitude towards men who want to marry their sons shows through. ;)

Considering how many fathers have been known to fiddle with their own kids, how can you claim that the desire is not there and has not been there forever? Maybe there are a lot of fathers in the closet that are too sacred to come out because of people like you.

Since you class gays (5-10% of the population depending on who you believe) as normal, how many people does a minority group take before it can be classed as normal?


you are just being a dickhead. Gays are a normal part of society.

SOB


No, you just refuse to give any form of logical framework for your views.

You want to argue that homosexuality is normal and that gay marriage doesn't hurt anyone else, therefore it is of no one else's concern and should be permitted. You are free to argue that. But as soon as the same argument is used for other sexual preferences you avoid the question.

Calling people a dickhead does not avoide the fact that you refuse to use the very arguments in defense for gay marriage in any other scenario.


You are just putting up silly scenarios that have nothing to do with gay marriage. And trying to insult while you are @ it but thats par for the course in this forum it seems.

SOB


Actually you are the one that has been insulting. I haven't called you a dickhead or anything like that.

The scenarios are not silly and have everything to do with any future redefinition of marriage. You want people to accept gays as normal, and if two men who love each other want to get married we should let them. But, you refuse to give an answer as to what would happen if two brothers want to marry in the future.

*Two brothers are both men, and if gay marriage is permitted then their gender is irrelevant.
*Two brothers can not reproduce, therefore no chance of deformed children.
*Their love for each other is none of anyone's business.
*It is discrimination not to allow two consenting adults to get married.
*it does not hurt anyone else.
*Incest has been around for as long as homosexuality, and is also wide spread around the world.

If you don't have a problem with two brother marrying eachother then admit that your fine with it.

If you do have a problem, then give a logical reason as to why it is wrong, and also give a reason as to why your allowed to take issue with two brothers getting married (and therefore interfering with their personal lives), but those who are against gay marriage should not interfere with redefining marriage.



Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by skippy. on Jun 13th, 2012 at 5:19pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:35pm:

skippy. wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 3:47pm:

skippy. wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 2:06pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 12:49pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 8:05am:
The thing that gets me with the pro gay marriage lobby is that anyone who objects to gay marriage must, by definition, be homophobic. I have gay relatives and gay friends who I love dearly - but personally I do not believe that marriage laws should be changed to allow gay marriages.


you make a good point. Not agreeing with gay marriage is hardly definitionally homophobic. After all, a gay former Chief CJustice of the High Court also opposes gay marriage. is he therefore homophobic?

Name him or its just another one of your  lies.

BUMP before longlyingfraud goes and hides under his rock ,again.


so says the person who thinks labor losing 31 seats will give abbot a 31 seat majority.

62, moron.

NO, so says the person that knows you are a compulsive liar and I will keep bumping this post until you post up who it is you keep avoiding to answer.LIAR.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by skippy. on Jun 13th, 2012 at 5:21pm
I'm sure everyone has noted you chose to hide under your rock and throw abuse rather than answer the question, LIAR. Thats what liars LIKE YOU,do.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Gist on Jun 13th, 2012 at 5:22pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 5:06pm:

Gist wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 4:26pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:50pm:
very well said. Since when does Gay Rights include the right to everything? 'Rights' as such are very different from priviledges and always has been. the term 'right' is overused. Any very small minority (such as gays) do not intrinsically ahve the right to overturn a majority position or usurp a majority's cultural/religious objection.


Very good. Since the majority position is in fact to support gay marriage then you agree that the vocal minority do not have the right to overturn the that position and that they should therefore accept such marriage.


only acceptable if it is a majority support within the clube they are trying to join ie MARRIED people. take a vote among married people and see how that works. why shoudl you non-members of the Marriage Club have a say on who we accept or reject as members?


I've been married to the same woman now for over 30 years longdickhead. Love her to bits too. So I think I can happily speak for that club of yours.

But in any case, your argument is as stupid as you are. Marriage is governed by the Marriage Act which is an act of the Parliament which speaks on behalf of ALL citizens. EVERYONE gets a say and the majority rules. That's how democracy works on this planet.

Of course, you probably do things different on planet Longloser but that's your problem.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Gist on Jun 13th, 2012 at 5:25pm

Quantum wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 5:18pm:
Actually you are the one that has been insulting. I haven't called you a dickhead or anything like that.

The scenarios are not silly and have everything to do with any future redefinition of marriage. You want people to accept gays as normal, and if two men who love each other want to get married we should let them. But, you refuse to give an answer as to what would happen if two brothers want to marry in the future.

*Two brothers are both men, and if gay marriage is permitted then their gender is irrelevant.
*Two brothers can not reproduce, therefore no chance of deformed children.
*Their love for each other is none of anyone's business.
*It is discrimination not to allow two consenting adults to get married.
*it does not hurt anyone else.
*Incest has been around for as long as homosexuality, and is also wide spread around the world.

If you don't have a problem with two brother marrying eachother then admit that your fine with it.

If you do have a problem, then give a logical reason as to why it is wrong, and also give a reason as to why your allowed to take issue with two brothers getting married (and therefore interfering with their personal lives), but those who are against gay marriage should not interfere with redefining marriage.


Geezus matty! What are you afraid of? You've had the snip now so you're a girl. So it'll be OK if you marry your father.

Well...

...maybe not...  :-/

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by corporate_whitey on Jun 13th, 2012 at 5:26pm
relentless violent Government propaganda war to silence the Australian people, that is all this is.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Grandmaster on Jun 13th, 2012 at 5:32pm

Gist wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 5:22pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 5:06pm:

Gist wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 4:26pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:50pm:
very well said. Since when does Gay Rights include the right to everything? 'Rights' as such are very different from priviledges and always has been. the term 'right' is overused. Any very small minority (such as gays) do not intrinsically ahve the right to overturn a majority position or usurp a majority's cultural/religious objection.


Very good. Since the majority position is in fact to support gay marriage then you agree that the vocal minority do not have the right to overturn the that position and that they should therefore accept such marriage.


only acceptable if it is a majority support within the clube they are trying to join ie MARRIED people. take a vote among married people and see how that works. why shoudl you non-members of the Marriage Club have a say on who we accept or reject as members?


I've been married to the same woman now for over 30 years longdickhead. Love her to bits too. So I think I can happily speak for that club of yours.

But in any case, your argument is as stupid as you are. Marriage is governed by the Marriage Act which is an act of the Parliament which speaks on behalf of ALL citizens. EVERYONE gets a say and the majority rules. That's how democracy works on this planet.

Of course, you probably do things different on planet Longloser but that's your problem.



I don't recall having voted on that topic. 

However, I did conduct an impropmptu poll at my workplace, comprised completely of married, univeristy educated people and found 100% opposition to homosexual marriage.  Fancy that eh?

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Uncle Meat on Jun 13th, 2012 at 5:38pm

... wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 5:32pm:
However, I did conduct an impropmptu poll at my workplace, comprised completely of married, univeristy educated people and found 100% opposition to homosexual marriage.  Fancy that eh?



You work at home and you polled your wife and yourself,  yes?   ;D

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by longweekend58 on Jun 13th, 2012 at 5:39pm

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 5:12pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 5:03pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 4:10pm:

Quantum wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 4:03pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:46pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:45pm:

FriYAY wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:42pm:
I think gays want to get married because it is a link to being normal.


I agree, that's the point of the same sex marriage push, to normalise homosexuality.


It is normal

SOB


Would a 50 year old man marrying his 20 year old son be classed as normal? If not, on what grounds do you class it as abnormal or wrong?

Because I fail to see how you can redefine marriage to allow gays to marry, but then arbitrarily draw a line that disallows other relationships that don't harm anyone else.


50 year old men arent asking to marry their 20 year old sons. In fact ive never heard of anyone like that. Have you? I bet you havent. Maybe 1 psycho in all of time in some other country. Gays on the other hand are everywhere and have been forever. They are a normal part of our society.

SOB


too easy....

paedophiles are as commone (if not more so) than gays. is that enough reason to legalise it?



Do you have any concept of the term "consenting adult"?

Seriously? 

You latched onto "common" and conveniently disregarded the fact that he's talking about "consenting adults".

Why are you guys so insistent on bringing children and  paedophiles into the argument?  I'm starting to worry about some of you.

Too easy, indeed.     ::)


because meat-head, the GIST of the debate is that the same identical arguments for gay marriage can be used to support a whole heap of other things including incest and paedophilia. I think the problem might be that you really have a great deal of digesting information that is not spewed out by you in the first place. The argument is simple and indisputable. What the brighter among us is asking you (aka the dimmer) is to construct a pro-gay marriage argument that stands on its own two feet and not be the same as promoting other behaviours?

I assume you dont understand the above, but I am willing to have you prove me wrong.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Grandmaster on Jun 13th, 2012 at 5:40pm

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 5:38pm:

... wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 5:32pm:
However, I did conduct an impropmptu poll at my workplace, comprised completely of married, univeristy educated people and found 100% opposition to homosexual marriage.  Fancy that eh?



You work at home and you polled your wife and yourself,  yes?   ;D



No, but I've polled that sample too.  Again - 100% opposition.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by longweekend58 on Jun 13th, 2012 at 5:40pm

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 5:17pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 5:02pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 4:06pm:

Quantum wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 4:03pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:46pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:45pm:

FriYAY wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:42pm:
I think gays want to get married because it is a link to being normal.


I agree, that's the point of the same sex marriage push, to normalise homosexuality.


It is normal

SOB


Would a 50 year old man marrying his 20 year old son be classed as normal? If not, on what grounds do you class it as abnormal or wrong?

Because I fail to see how you can redefine marriage to allow gays to marry, but then arbitrarily draw a line that disallows other relationships that don't harm anyone else.



A legal kinship already exists between a father and son.

Thus, no marriage is required.


same as a kinship exists betwen gay couples therefor no marriage is required?

Its wonderful watching you give reason after reason that has EPIC fail associated with it.




Read it again Bozo: I said "legal" kinship.

"A legal kinship already exists between a father and son."

"Thus, no marriage is required."

A legal kinship does not exist between gay couples (who are not married).

Now, are you pretending to be this stupid or do you actually have some sort of mental retardation?  Seriously.   ::)


a DEFACTO relationship IS a legal relationship, meathead. Gay relationships now are DEFACTO. therefore already exists.

I think your meat suffers from mad Cow.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Uncle Meat on Jun 13th, 2012 at 5:41pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 5:39pm:
because meat-head, the GIST of the debate is that the same identical arguments for gay marriage can be used to support a whole heap of other things including incest and paedophilia.



Why are you so obsessed with these things?  It's starting to become alarming.

:-/

Is there something you want to tell us?

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by longweekend58 on Jun 13th, 2012 at 5:43pm

skippy. wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 5:19pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:35pm:

skippy. wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 3:47pm:

skippy. wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 2:06pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 12:49pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 8:05am:
The thing that gets me with the pro gay marriage lobby is that anyone who objects to gay marriage must, by definition, be homophobic. I have gay relatives and gay friends who I love dearly - but personally I do not believe that marriage laws should be changed to allow gay marriages.


you make a good point. Not agreeing with gay marriage is hardly definitionally homophobic. After all, a gay former Chief CJustice of the High Court also opposes gay marriage. is he therefore homophobic?

Name him or its just another one of your  lies.

BUMP before longlyingfraud goes and hides under his rock ,again.


so says the person who thinks labor losing 31 seats will give abbot a 31 seat majority.

62, moron.

NO, so says the person that knows you are a compulsive liar and I will keep bumping this post until you post up who it is you keep avoiding to answer.LIAR.


MICHAEL KIRBY, you brain dead moron. probabyl everyone else on this thread knew that but you, you had to remind everyone just how desperately stupid you are - as if anyone had forgotten.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Spot of Borg on Jun 13th, 2012 at 5:45pm

Quote:
Actually you are the one that has been insulting. I haven't called you a dickhead or anything like that.


Didnt call you one either


Quote:
The scenarios are not silly and have everything to do with any future redefinition of marriage.


You are assuming there would be a redefinition of marriage in the future


Quote:
But, you refuse to give an answer as to what would happen if two brothers want to marry in the future.


Pretty sure i havent refused to answer it. Maybe i havent answered THIS TIME because im getting sick of the same excuses all the time. Basically it wont come up. Its not on anyone agenda. Its a silly example that wont ever happen.


Quote:
If you don't have a problem with two brother marrying each other then admit that your fine with it.


I havent given it any thought and dont have an opinion on it except that its silly and wont ever come up.

SOB

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Uncle Meat on Jun 13th, 2012 at 5:46pm

... wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 5:40pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 5:38pm:

... wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 5:32pm:
However, I did conduct an impropmptu poll at my workplace, comprised completely of married, univeristy educated people and found 100% opposition to homosexual marriage.  Fancy that eh?



You work at home and you polled your wife and yourself,  yes?   ;D



No, but I've polled that sample too.  Again - 100% opposition.


What numbers are we talking here? 

6 people?  60?  A dozen maybe?

And what sort of industry, broadly speaking?  Finance, legal, etc.

I'm genuinely curious.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Spot of Borg on Jun 13th, 2012 at 5:51pm

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 5:46pm:

... wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 5:40pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 5:38pm:

... wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 5:32pm:
However, I did conduct an impropmptu poll at my workplace, comprised completely of married, univeristy educated people and found 100% opposition to homosexual marriage.  Fancy that eh?



You work at home and you polled your wife and yourself,  yes?   ;D



No, but I've polled that sample too.  Again - 100% opposition.


What numbers are we talking here? 

6 people?  60?  A dozen maybe?

And what sort of industry, broadly speaking?  Finance, legal, etc.

I'm genuinely curious.


1,000,m000 catholic church

SOB

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Grandmaster on Jun 13th, 2012 at 5:52pm

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 5:46pm:

... wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 5:40pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 5:38pm:

... wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 5:32pm:
However, I did conduct an impropmptu poll at my workplace, comprised completely of married, univeristy educated people and found 100% opposition to homosexual marriage.  Fancy that eh?



You work at home and you polled your wife and yourself,  yes?   ;D



No, but I've polled that sample too.  Again - 100% opposition.


What numbers are we talking here? 

6 people?  60?  A dozen maybe?

And what sort of industry, broadly speaking?  Finance, legal, etc.

I'm genuinely curious.


8 people (no, not everyone at the workplace, just those who were in the vicinity when i got on my soapbox)

Scientific industry.  Makes sense to me - hard sciences attract logically minded people, who aren't so easily suckered in by emotive crap. 

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by longweekend58 on Jun 13th, 2012 at 5:56pm
do you notice thatr pinhead (perceptions) is now back and his first effort is to be the moron tjhat he always is and moves threads that clearly are getting a great deal of activity and moves it to chat where it will die.


pinhead - you are a moron. and frankly, not many would disagree.

and of course DRAHs' drivel remains.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Grandmaster on Jun 13th, 2012 at 5:58pm

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 5:45pm:

Quote:
Actually you are the one that has been insulting. I haven't called you a dickhead or anything like that.


Didnt call you one either


Yes you did!


Quote:
The scenarios are not silly and have everything to do with any future redefinition of marriage.


You are assuming there would be a redefinition of marriage in the future
[/quote]

That's the point we've spent 10 pages trying fruitlessly to explain to you - that by the reasoning you use to justify homosexual marriage, you can't deny anyone the 'right" to marry who/whatever they please!


Quote:
But, you refuse to give an answer as to what would happen if two brothers want to marry in the future.


Pretty sure i havent refused to answer it. Maybe i havent answered THIS TIME because im getting sick of the same excuses all the time. Basically it wont come up. Its not on anyone agenda. Its a silly example that wont ever happen.
[/quote]

Yes, much like 30 years ago homosexual marriage was a silly example that wasn't on anyones agenda.


Quote:
If you don't have a problem with two brother marrying each other then admit that your fine with it.


I havent given it any thought and dont have an opinion on it except that its silly and wont ever come up.

SOB[/quote]

It will when a precedent is set. 

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Quantum on Jun 13th, 2012 at 6:09pm

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 5:45pm:

Quote:
Actually you are the one that has been insulting. I haven't called you a dickhead or anything like that.


Didnt call you one either


"you are just being a dickhead"

I suggest you don't go walking into any pubs and accuse people of being dickheads. I doubt the excuse I didn't call you a dickhead will wash.


Quote:
Pretty sure i havent refused to answer it. Maybe i havent answered THIS TIME because im getting sick of the same excuses all the time. Basically it wont come up. Its not on anyone agenda. Its a silly example that wont ever happen.

And...

I havent given it any thought and dont have an opinion on it except that its silly and wont ever come up.


I'm sure people said the same thing about gay marriage 50 years ago.

Do you really think that incest, pedophillia, and other abnormal sexual desires don't exist? That if homosexuality gets accepted and then granted marriage that these other minorities won't push for their own acceptance and legal standing?

Oh, one last thing...


Quote:
Pretty sure i havent refused to answer it. Maybe i havent answered THIS TIME because im getting sick of the same excuses all the time.

Followed by...

I havent given it any thought and dont have an opinion on it.


Nice try.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Soren on Jun 13th, 2012 at 6:09pm

Gist wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 5:22pm:
Marriage is governed by the Marriage Act which is an act of the Parliament which speaks on behalf of ALL citizens. EVERYONE gets a say and the majority rules. That's how democracy works on this planet.



But of course the Marriage Act didn't create the institution of marriage, which existed long before the Marriage Act or the Parliament of AUstralia or even Westminster.

My point is that while marriage is a legal contract, it is not just a legal contract. SO while you can change what the Marriage Act of AUstralia or any other country, no parliament or law can change that part of marriage that had existed well before any Act - that it is essentially and unalterably a heterosexual social institution.

It's like being bi-peds. We may crawl on all fours, you may swim or fly in planes and gliders but we are essentially and unaletrably bi-peds, not fish or fowl.


Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Spot of Borg on Jun 13th, 2012 at 6:13pm

Quote:
Yes you did!


Nope. only in the same way he called me a bigot. If he didnt insult me i didnt insult him.


Quote:
That's the point we've spent 10 pages trying fruitlessly to explain to you - that by the reasoning you use to justify homosexual marriage, you can't deny anyone the 'right" to marry who/whatever they please!


Nobody else is asking for any "rights".


Quote:
Yes, much like 30 years ago homosexual marriage was a silly example that wasn't on anyones agenda.


30 years ago it was on some ppls agenda. 30 years ago they were trying to get accepted. Marriage was a long way off but they were still looking towards it. In fact round about 30 years ago was when they started to be accepted and the mardis gras in sydney became "gay and lesbian".


Quote:
It will when a precedent is set.


No it wont.

SOB

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Grandmaster on Jun 13th, 2012 at 6:15pm
I give up.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Spot of Borg on Jun 13th, 2012 at 6:19pm

Quantum wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 6:09pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 5:45pm:

Quote:
Actually you are the one that has been insulting. I haven't called you a dickhead or anything like that.


Didnt call you one either


"you are just being a dickhead"

I suggest you don't go walking into any pubs and accuse people of being dickheads. I doubt the excuse I didn't call you a dickhead will wash.

[quote]Pretty sure i havent refused to answer it. Maybe i havent answered THIS TIME because im getting sick of the same excuses all the time. Basically it wont come up. Its not on anyone agenda. Its a silly example that wont ever happen.

And...

I havent given it any thought and dont have an opinion on it except that its silly and wont ever come up.


I'm sure people said the same thing about gay marriage 50 years ago.

Do you really think that incest, pedophillia, and other abnormal sexual desires don't exist? That if homosexuality gets accepted and then granted marriage that these other minorities won't push for their own acceptance and legal standing?

Oh, one last thing...


Quote:
Pretty sure i havent refused to answer it. Maybe i havent answered THIS TIME because im getting sick of the same excuses all the time.

Followed by...

I havent given it any thought and dont have an opinion on it.


Nice try.
[/quote]

I see. Another freeliar clone.

SOB

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Quantum on Jun 13th, 2012 at 6:22pm

Quote:
Nope. only in the same way he called me a bigot. If he didnt insult me i didnt insult him.


Weak excuse. I said;


Quote:
Your bigoted attitude towards men who want to marry their sons shows through. ;)


In reference to you saying that a man wanting to marry his son was a lone psycho. It is rather obvious that it was sarcastic. Allow me to quote you again;


Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 12:09pm:
Someone (who doesnt know how to quote) doesnt know what sarcasm is. Perhaps you will learn something today.


Quote:
sar·casm
   [sahr-kaz-uhm]
noun
1.
harsh or bitter derision or irony.
2.
a sharply ironical taunt; sneering or cutting remark: a review full of sarcasms.
Origin:
1570–80; < Late Latin sarcasmus < Greek sarkasmós, derivative of sarkázein to rend (flesh), sneer; see sarco-

Related forms
su·per·sar·casm, noun

Synonyms
1. sardonicism, bitterness, ridicule. See irony1. 2. jeer.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sarcasm

SOB


One would think that you of all people would have got it.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Spot of Borg on Jun 13th, 2012 at 6:26pm
me of all ppl - yeah but you didnt get my lil ironic hit back did you

yeah took me a while to recognise you

SOB

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Quantum on Jun 13th, 2012 at 6:30pm

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 6:19pm:

Quantum wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 6:09pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 5:45pm:

Quote:
Actually you are the one that has been insulting. I haven't called you a dickhead or anything like that.


Didnt call you one either


"you are just being a dickhead"

I suggest you don't go walking into any pubs and accuse people of being dickheads. I doubt the excuse I didn't call you a dickhead will wash.

[quote]Pretty sure i havent refused to answer it. Maybe i havent answered THIS TIME because im getting sick of the same excuses all the time. Basically it wont come up. Its not on anyone agenda. Its a silly example that wont ever happen.

And...

I havent given it any thought and dont have an opinion on it except that its silly and wont ever come up.


I'm sure people said the same thing about gay marriage 50 years ago.

Do you really think that incest, pedophillia, and other abnormal sexual desires don't exist? That if homosexuality gets accepted and then granted marriage that these other minorities won't push for their own acceptance and legal standing?

Oh, one last thing...

[quote]Pretty sure i havent refused to answer it. Maybe i havent answered THIS TIME because im getting sick of the same excuses all the time.

Followed by...

I havent given it any thought and dont have an opinion on it.


Nice try.
[/quote]

I see. Another freeliar clone.

SOB[/quote]

I see another aversion from actually debating anything. Instead you seem obsessed to run around in circles spewing the same ill conceived opinions without ever having your worldview questioned.

Don't ever expect anyone to ever agree with your views when you don't even understand them yourself.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by longweekend58 on Jun 13th, 2012 at 6:30pm

... wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 6:15pm:
I give up.


FD had the same experience with him in the private schools debate. unfortunately Borg is literally too stupid to understand the argument. Some here are too pig-headed to accept an opinion but Brg actually IS too stupid. You are not alone. most people realise this pretty quick.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Quantum on Jun 13th, 2012 at 6:32pm

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 6:26pm:
me of all ppl - yeah but you didnt get my lil ironic hit back did you

yeah took me a while to recognise you

SOB


So now your suggesting I am someone's sock?

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Spot of Borg on Jun 13th, 2012 at 6:36pm
Thats pretty rich from ppl that are suggesting that paedophilia is socially acceptable.

SOB

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Quantum on Jun 13th, 2012 at 6:42pm

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 6:36pm:
Thats pretty rich from ppl that are suggesting that paedophilia is socially acceptable.

SOB


No one is suggesting that it is. It is as acceptable as homosexuality 100 years ago. Do you see a trend?

You refuse to acknowledge that pedo's will start using the same excuses of being born that way; other cultures at times have accepted it; stop discriminating against people who are different . What will be your response to them?

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Spot of Borg on Jun 13th, 2012 at 7:01pm

Quantum wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 6:42pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 6:36pm:
Thats pretty rich from ppl that are suggesting that paedophilia is socially acceptable.

SOB


No one is suggesting that it is. It is as acceptable as homosexuality 100 years ago. Do you see a trend?

You refuse to acknowledge that pedo's will start using the same excuses of being born that way; other cultures at times have accepted it; stop discriminating against people who are different . What will be your response to them?


Pedos cant use "the same excuse" because they are harming children. You cant see the difference?

SOB

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Quantum on Jun 13th, 2012 at 7:15pm

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 7:01pm:

Quantum wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 6:42pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 6:36pm:
Thats pretty rich from ppl that are suggesting that paedophilia is socially acceptable.

SOB


No one is suggesting that it is. It is as acceptable as homosexuality 100 years ago. Do you see a trend?

You refuse to acknowledge that pedo's will start using the same excuses of being born that way; other cultures at times have accepted it; stop discriminating against people who are different . What will be your response to them?


Pedos cant use "the same excuse" because they are harming children. You cant see the difference?

SOB


The same excuses as "being born that way" and "accepting people who are different."

You changed the topic from marriage to being socially accepted. Now you are changing back to marriage again.

Fine, in regards to marriage; the definitions of a child and a pedophile are legal clarifications. That can be changed. There is always the possibility that in thirty years from now a 35 year old man will be able to marry a 13 year old. Your reason that it is harming the child is dependent on the current definition of child and what is classed as a pedo. If the law is changed, it would no longer be considered harmful, as harm is only assumed based on the current law. (even if I personally consider it sick and harmful irrespective of any laws).

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by MOTR on Jun 13th, 2012 at 7:21pm

Soren wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:45pm:

FriYAY wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:42pm:
I think gays want to get married because it is a link to being normal.


I agree, that's the point of the same sex marriage push, to normalise homosexuality.


Homosexuality is normal.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Spot of Borg on Jun 13th, 2012 at 7:23pm

Quantum wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 7:15pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 7:01pm:

Quantum wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 6:42pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 6:36pm:
Thats pretty rich from ppl that are suggesting that paedophilia is socially acceptable.

SOB


No one is suggesting that it is. It is as acceptable as homosexuality 100 years ago. Do you see a trend?

You refuse to acknowledge that pedo's will start using the same excuses of being born that way; other cultures at times have accepted it; stop discriminating against people who are different . What will be your response to them?


Pedos cant use "the same excuse" because they are harming children. You cant see the difference?

SOB


The same excuses as "being born that way" and "accepting people who are different."

You changed the topic from marriage to being socially accepted. Now you are changing back to marriage again.

Fine, in regards to marriage; the definitions of a child and a pedophile are legal clarifications. That can be changed. There is always the possibility that in thirty years from now a 35 year old man will be able to marry a 13 year old. Your reason that it is harming the child is dependent on the current definition of child and what is classed as a pedo. If the law is changed, it would no longer be considered harmful, as harm is only assumed based on the current law. (even if I personally consider it sick and harmful irrespective of any laws).


You are a liar. I didnt say marriage OR socially acceptable there. you misrepresent and quote out of context and you wonder how i knew you were freediver.


Quote:
The same excuses as "being born that way" and "accepting people who are different."


Nope. the criteria has always been "as long as they arent hurting anyone". liar.

SOB

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by MOTR on Jun 13th, 2012 at 7:26pm
Those claiming some sort of equivalency between pedophilia and homosexuality are as offensive as a those who compare interracial sex to bestiality.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by MOTR on Jun 13th, 2012 at 7:27pm

MOTR wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 7:26pm:
Those claiming some sort of equivalency between pedophilia and homosexuality are as offensive as a those who compare interracial sex to bestiality.


Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Quantum on Jun 13th, 2012 at 7:34pm

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 7:23pm:

Quantum wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 7:15pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 7:01pm:

Quantum wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 6:42pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 6:36pm:
Thats pretty rich from ppl that are suggesting that paedophilia is socially acceptable.

SOB


No one is suggesting that it is. It is as acceptable as homosexuality 100 years ago. Do you see a trend?

You refuse to acknowledge that pedo's will start using the same excuses of being born that way; other cultures at times have accepted it; stop discriminating against people who are different . What will be your response to them?


Pedos cant use "the same excuse" because they are harming children. You cant see the difference?

SOB


The same excuses as "being born that way" and "accepting people who are different."

You changed the topic from marriage to being socially accepted. Now you are changing back to marriage again.

Fine, in regards to marriage; the definitions of a child and a pedophile are legal clarifications. That can be changed. There is always the possibility that in thirty years from now a 35 year old man will be able to marry a 13 year old. Your reason that it is harming the child is dependent on the current definition of child and what is classed as a pedo. If the law is changed, it would no longer be considered harmful, as harm is only assumed based on the current law. (even if I personally consider it sick and harmful irrespective of any laws).


You are a liar. I didnt say marriage OR socially acceptable there. you misrepresent and quote out of context and you wonder how i knew you were freediver.


Quote:
The same excuses as "being born that way" and "accepting people who are different."


Nope. the criteria has always been "as long as they arent hurting anyone". liar.

SOB


Yes you did.

So you think I'm freediver? I'm happy to let any mod check my ISP to prove that I am not him (or anyone else).

I have not misquoted or misrepresented you. You have however misrepresented me just in the quotes above. You seriously have no comprehension of written English. Do you think it is a coincidence that several people in just this thread have given up replying to you? Or do just assume that we are all the same person to avoid having to deal with the possibility that you are unable to understand an argument?

I truly hope you came off a boat. I would hate to think that Australian education is this bad.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by longweekend58 on Jun 13th, 2012 at 8:04pm

MOTR wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 7:21pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:45pm:

FriYAY wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:42pm:
I think gays want to get married because it is a link to being normal.


I agree, that's the point of the same sex marriage push, to normalise homosexuality.


Homosexuality is normal.


no it isnt. by any definition is it an ABBERRATION on the norm. that doesnt necessarily mean we should discriminate but a small minority does not become the norm because you want it to be so.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by longweekend58 on Jun 13th, 2012 at 8:06pm

MOTR wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 7:26pm:
Those claiming some sort of equivalency between pedophilia and homosexuality are as offensive as a those who compare interracial sex to bestiality.


sigh. no one and I repeat NO ONE is comparing the two behaviours. they are comparing the supporting arguments and finding they are almost identical.

THAT IS THE ARGUMENT

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by longweekend58 on Jun 13th, 2012 at 8:07pm

Quantum wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 7:34pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 7:23pm:

Quantum wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 7:15pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 7:01pm:

Quantum wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 6:42pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 6:36pm:
Thats pretty rich from ppl that are suggesting that paedophilia is socially acceptable.

SOB


No one is suggesting that it is. It is as acceptable as homosexuality 100 years ago. Do you see a trend?

You refuse to acknowledge that pedo's will start using the same excuses of being born that way; other cultures at times have accepted it; stop discriminating against people who are different . What will be your response to them?


Pedos cant use "the same excuse" because they are harming children. You cant see the difference?

SOB


The same excuses as "being born that way" and "accepting people who are different."

You changed the topic from marriage to being socially accepted. Now you are changing back to marriage again.

Fine, in regards to marriage; the definitions of a child and a pedophile are legal clarifications. That can be changed. There is always the possibility that in thirty years from now a 35 year old man will be able to marry a 13 year old. Your reason that it is harming the child is dependent on the current definition of child and what is classed as a pedo. If the law is changed, it would no longer be considered harmful, as harm is only assumed based on the current law. (even if I personally consider it sick and harmful irrespective of any laws).


You are a liar. I didnt say marriage OR socially acceptable there. you misrepresent and quote out of context and you wonder how i knew you were freediver.


Quote:
The same excuses as "being born that way" and "accepting people who are different."


Nope. the criteria has always been "as long as they arent hurting anyone". liar.

SOB


Yes you did.

So you think I'm freediver? I'm happy to let any mod check my ISP to prove that I am not him (or anyone else).

I have not misquoted or misrepresented you. You have however misrepresented me just in the quotes above. You seriously have no comprehension of written English. Do you think it is a coincidence that several people in just this thread have given up replying to you? Or do just assume that we are all the same person to avoid having to deal with the possibility that you are unable to understand an argument?

I truly hope you came off a boat. I would hate to think that Australian education is this bad.


It is distinctly possible that his education is pre-war (WW2). his brthdate certainly is.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Quantum on Jun 13th, 2012 at 8:19pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 8:07pm:

Quantum wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 7:34pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 7:23pm:

Quantum wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 7:15pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 7:01pm:

Quantum wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 6:42pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 6:36pm:
Thats pretty rich from ppl that are suggesting that paedophilia is socially acceptable.

SOB


No one is suggesting that it is. It is as acceptable as homosexuality 100 years ago. Do you see a trend?

You refuse to acknowledge that pedo's will start using the same excuses of being born that way; other cultures at times have accepted it; stop discriminating against people who are different . What will be your response to them?


Pedos cant use "the same excuse" because they are harming children. You cant see the difference?

SOB


The same excuses as "being born that way" and "accepting people who are different."

You changed the topic from marriage to being socially accepted. Now you are changing back to marriage again.

Fine, in regards to marriage; the definitions of a child and a pedophile are legal clarifications. That can be changed. There is always the possibility that in thirty years from now a 35 year old man will be able to marry a 13 year old. Your reason that it is harming the child is dependent on the current definition of child and what is classed as a pedo. If the law is changed, it would no longer be considered harmful, as harm is only assumed based on the current law. (even if I personally consider it sick and harmful irrespective of any laws).


You are a liar. I didnt say marriage OR socially acceptable there. you misrepresent and quote out of context and you wonder how i knew you were freediver.


Quote:
The same excuses as "being born that way" and "accepting people who are different."


Nope. the criteria has always been "as long as they arent hurting anyone". liar.

SOB


Yes you did.

So you think I'm freediver? I'm happy to let any mod check my ISP to prove that I am not him (or anyone else).

I have not misquoted or misrepresented you. You have however misrepresented me just in the quotes above. You seriously have no comprehension of written English. Do you think it is a coincidence that several people in just this thread have given up replying to you? Or do just assume that we are all the same person to avoid having to deal with the possibility that you are unable to understand an argument?

I truly hope you came off a boat. I would hate to think that Australian education is this bad.


It is distinctly possible that his education is pre-war (WW2). his brthdate certainly is.


If he is in anyway representative of that era it is amazing that we made it this far as a nation. I assumed he was late teens.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by longweekend58 on Jun 13th, 2012 at 8:28pm

Quantum wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 8:19pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 8:07pm:

Quantum wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 7:34pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 7:23pm:

Quantum wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 7:15pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 7:01pm:

Quantum wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 6:42pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 6:36pm:
Thats pretty rich from ppl that are suggesting that paedophilia is socially acceptable.

SOB


No one is suggesting that it is. It is as acceptable as homosexuality 100 years ago. Do you see a trend?

You refuse to acknowledge that pedo's will start using the same excuses of being born that way; other cultures at times have accepted it; stop discriminating against people who are different . What will be your response to them?


Pedos cant use "the same excuse" because they are harming children. You cant see the difference?

SOB


The same excuses as "being born that way" and "accepting people who are different."

You changed the topic from marriage to being socially accepted. Now you are changing back to marriage again.

Fine, in regards to marriage; the definitions of a child and a pedophile are legal clarifications. That can be changed. There is always the possibility that in thirty years from now a 35 year old man will be able to marry a 13 year old. Your reason that it is harming the child is dependent on the current definition of child and what is classed as a pedo. If the law is changed, it would no longer be considered harmful, as harm is only assumed based on the current law. (even if I personally consider it sick and harmful irrespective of any laws).


You are a liar. I didnt say marriage OR socially acceptable there. you misrepresent and quote out of context and you wonder how i knew you were freediver.


Quote:
The same excuses as "being born that way" and "accepting people who are different."


Nope. the criteria has always been "as long as they arent hurting anyone". liar.

SOB


Yes you did.

So you think I'm freediver? I'm happy to let any mod check my ISP to prove that I am not him (or anyone else).

I have not misquoted or misrepresented you. You have however misrepresented me just in the quotes above. You seriously have no comprehension of written English. Do you think it is a coincidence that several people in just this thread have given up replying to you? Or do just assume that we are all the same person to avoid having to deal with the possibility that you are unable to understand an argument?

I truly hope you came off a boat. I would hate to think that Australian education is this bad.


It is distinctly possible that his education is pre-war (WW2). his brthdate certainly is.


If he is in anyway representative of that era it is amazing that we made it this far as a nation. I assumed he was late teens.


he arguing/debating skill makes pansi look pretty good. The only equivalent is greens_lose who as far as anyone can tell has never actually debated the same point that everyone else is. he just slides areound topics like snot on a doorknob and with the same value. Borg however, seems not to ever really know what is going on outside his own world-view.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Soren on Jun 13th, 2012 at 10:46pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 6:30pm:

... wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 6:15pm:
I give up.


FD had the same experience with him in the private schools debate. unfortunately Borg is literally too stupid to understand the argument. Some here are too pig-headed to accept an opinion but Brg actually IS too stupid. You are not alone. most people realise this pretty quick.


The stupid SOB is BOTH dumb guards. The way his mind works is captured here perfectly. They must know him personally.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdKa9bXVinE

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by MOTR on Jun 14th, 2012 at 1:19am

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 8:04pm:

MOTR wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 7:21pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:45pm:

FriYAY wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:42pm:
I think gays want to get married because it is a link to being normal.


I agree, that's the point of the same sex marriage push, to normalise homosexuality.


Homosexuality is normal.


no it isnt. by any definition is it an ABBERRATION on the norm. that doesnt necessarily mean we should discriminate but a small minority does not become the norm because you want it to be so.


Grey eyed people are less common than same sex attracted people. Are grey eyed people an aberration. If so most of us are abnormal for one reason or other.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by MOTR on Jun 14th, 2012 at 1:28am

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 8:06pm:

MOTR wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 7:26pm:
Those claiming some sort of equivalency between pedophilia and homosexuality are as offensive as a those who compare interracial sex to bestiality.


sigh. no one and I repeat NO ONE is comparing the two behaviours. they are comparing the supporting arguments and finding they are almost identical.

THAT IS THE ARGUMENT


It's a long thread, Longy, I might have missed the post, but I have yet to see you make this argument. I've seen you jump to this conclusion, but I've yet to see you make the argument. For the two arguments to be "almost" identical they would have to have "almost" identical premises. It's the implied premise I find offensive.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Spot of Borg on Jun 14th, 2012 at 6:14am

Quote:
You refuse to acknowledge that pedo's will start using the same excuses of being born that way; other cultures at times have accepted it; stop discriminating against people who are different . What will be your response to them?


Thats because pedos are a different thing to a gay person. A pedo causes harm to a child. This will never be accepted.


Quote:
The same excuses as "being born that way" and "accepting people who are different."


your lie not mine. I never said they were "born that way"

Thing is - its not the same. Gays are not pedos. Gays are just ppl with a different sexual orientation to you (if thats true - cant assume anything here can we). However okay - present your case that pedos are "born that way". dont forget to present your case for "accepting them".


Quote:
I truly hope you came off a boat. I would hate to think that Australian education is this bad.


Education? you were TAUGHT to use faulty logic like that?


Quote:
It is distinctly possible that his education is pre-war (WW2). his brthdate certainly is.


lol. thats a bit of an exaggeration isnt it? So you are ageist too. You going to voluntarily euthanise when you reach a certain age?

MOTR said:

Quote:
It's the implied premise I find offensive.


Yes and they arent making the actual argument either.

SOB

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Quantum on Jun 14th, 2012 at 8:24am

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 14th, 2012 at 6:14am:

Quote:
You refuse to acknowledge that pedo's will start using the same excuses of being born that way; other cultures at times have accepted it; stop discriminating against people who are different . What will be your response to them?


Thats because pedos are a different thing to a gay person. A pedo causes harm to a child. This will never be accepted.

[quote]
The same excuses as "being born that way" and "accepting people who are different."


your lie not mine. I never said they were "born that way"

Thing is - its not the same. Gays are not pedos. Gays are just ppl with a different sexual orientation to you (if thats true - cant assume anything here can we). However okay - present your case that pedos are "born that way". dont forget to present your case for "accepting them".


Quote:
I truly hope you came off a boat. I would hate to think that Australian education is this bad.


Education? you were TAUGHT to use faulty logic like that?


Quote:
It is distinctly possible that his education is pre-war (WW2). his brthdate certainly is.


lol. thats a bit of an exaggeration isnt it? So you are ageist too. You going to voluntarily euthanise when you reach a certain age?

MOTR said:

Quote:
It's the implied premise I find offensive.


Yes and they arent making the actual argument either.

SOB[/quote]

Stop mixing up different people's quotes, and stop quoting out of context. It's amazing how you can do the very thing you accuse others of and not see it.

While your learning those basic rules of discussion, try to also keep up with the difference between someone making a claim themselves, in contrast to pointing out the argument that can logically be made by a particular group. That distinction completely changes the meaning of what has been said.



Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Spot of Borg on Jun 14th, 2012 at 8:41am

Quantum wrote on Jun 14th, 2012 at 8:24am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 14th, 2012 at 6:14am:

Quote:
You refuse to acknowledge that pedo's will start using the same excuses of being born that way; other cultures at times have accepted it; stop discriminating against people who are different . What will be your response to them?


Thats because pedos are a different thing to a gay person. A pedo causes harm to a child. This will never be accepted.

[quote]
The same excuses as "being born that way" and "accepting people who are different."


your lie not mine. I never said they were "born that way"

Thing is - its not the same. Gays are not pedos. Gays are just ppl with a different sexual orientation to you (if thats true - cant assume anything here can we). However okay - present your case that pedos are "born that way". dont forget to present your case for "accepting them".

[quote]I truly hope you came off a boat. I would hate to think that Australian education is this bad.


Education? you were TAUGHT to use faulty logic like that?


Quote:
It is distinctly possible that his education is pre-war (WW2). his brthdate certainly is.


lol. thats a bit of an exaggeration isnt it? So you are ageist too. You going to voluntarily euthanise when you reach a certain age?

MOTR said:

Quote:
It's the implied premise I find offensive.


Yes and they arent making the actual argument either.

SOB[/quote]

Stop mixing up different people's quotes, and stop quoting out of context. It's amazing how you can do the very thing you accuse others of and not see it.

While your learning those basic rules of discussion, try to also keep up with the difference between someone making a claim themselves, in contrast to pointing out the argument that can logically be made by a particular group. That distinction completely changes the meaning of what has been said.


[/quote]

lololol dont like it done back to you? Wasnt really out of context though was it. you are saying that paedophiles and homosexuals are the same argument right? Well lets hear it. Lets hear the argument for paedophiles to be married.

As for MOTR i put his name next to his quote and ill quote who i please in my post. Its referenced properly.

Meanwhile did you provide a valid argument? No? Just attempted insults? Try again. Provide your argument for paedophiles being equal and accepted in society.

SOB

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Quantum on Jun 14th, 2012 at 8:49am

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 14th, 2012 at 8:41am:

Quantum wrote on Jun 14th, 2012 at 8:24am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 14th, 2012 at 6:14am:

Quote:
You refuse to acknowledge that pedo's will start using the same excuses of being born that way; other cultures at times have accepted it; stop discriminating against people who are different . What will be your response to them?


Thats because pedos are a different thing to a gay person. A pedo causes harm to a child. This will never be accepted.

[quote]
The same excuses as "being born that way" and "accepting people who are different."


your lie not mine. I never said they were "born that way"

Thing is - its not the same. Gays are not pedos. Gays are just ppl with a different sexual orientation to you (if thats true - cant assume anything here can we). However okay - present your case that pedos are "born that way". dont forget to present your case for "accepting them".

[quote]I truly hope you came off a boat. I would hate to think that Australian education is this bad.


Education? you were TAUGHT to use faulty logic like that?

[quote]It is distinctly possible that his education is pre-war (WW2). his brthdate certainly is.


lol. thats a bit of an exaggeration isnt it? So you are ageist too. You going to voluntarily euthanise when you reach a certain age?

MOTR said:

Quote:
It's the implied premise I find offensive.


Yes and they arent making the actual argument either.

SOB[/quote]

Stop mixing up different people's quotes, and stop quoting out of context. It's amazing how you can do the very thing you accuse others of and not see it.

While your learning those basic rules of discussion, try to also keep up with the difference between someone making a claim themselves, in contrast to pointing out the argument that can logically be made by a particular group. That distinction completely changes the meaning of what has been said.


[/quote]

lololol dont like it done back to you? Wasnt really out of context though was it. you are saying that paedophiles and homosexuals are the same argument right? Well lets hear it. Lets hear the argument for paedophiles to be married.

As for MOTR i put his name next to his quote and ill quote who i please in my post. Its referenced properly.

Meanwhile did you provide a valid argument? No? Just attempted insults? Try again. Provide your argument for paedophiles being equal and accepted in society.

SOB[/quote]

Firstly, you mixed up quotes between longweekend and myself.

Secondly, anyone but yourself can see that I have not been misquoting you. The statements, quotes and the timeline in which they happened are preserved in this thread to be checked. If I misquoted you, prove it.

Thirdly (and this is where it all went downhill) you keep changing the discussion between marriage and scocial acceptance. These are two different things. Even in this very post you have mixed the two up.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Spot of Borg on Jun 14th, 2012 at 8:52am

Quantum wrote on Jun 14th, 2012 at 8:49am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 14th, 2012 at 8:41am:

Quantum wrote on Jun 14th, 2012 at 8:24am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 14th, 2012 at 6:14am:

Quote:
You refuse to acknowledge that pedo's will start using the same excuses of being born that way; other cultures at times have accepted it; stop discriminating against people who are different . What will be your response to them?


Thats because pedos are a different thing to a gay person. A pedo causes harm to a child. This will never be accepted.

[quote]
The same excuses as "being born that way" and "accepting people who are different."


your lie not mine. I never said they were "born that way"

Thing is - its not the same. Gays are not pedos. Gays are just ppl with a different sexual orientation to you (if thats true - cant assume anything here can we). However okay - present your case that pedos are "born that way". dont forget to present your case for "accepting them".

[quote]I truly hope you came off a boat. I would hate to think that Australian education is this bad.


Education? you were TAUGHT to use faulty logic like that?

[quote]It is distinctly possible that his education is pre-war (WW2). his brthdate certainly is.


lol. thats a bit of an exaggeration isnt it? So you are ageist too. You going to voluntarily euthanise when you reach a certain age?

MOTR said:
[quote]It's the implied premise I find offensive.


Yes and they arent making the actual argument either.

SOB[/quote]

Stop mixing up different people's quotes, and stop quoting out of context. It's amazing how you can do the very thing you accuse others of and not see it.

While your learning those basic rules of discussion, try to also keep up with the difference between someone making a claim themselves, in contrast to pointing out the argument that can logically be made by a particular group. That distinction completely changes the meaning of what has been said.


[/quote]

lololol dont like it done back to you? Wasnt really out of context though was it. you are saying that paedophiles and homosexuals are the same argument right? Well lets hear it. Lets hear the argument for paedophiles to be married.

As for MOTR i put his name next to his quote and ill quote who i please in my post. Its referenced properly.

Meanwhile did you provide a valid argument? No? Just attempted insults? Try again. Provide your argument for paedophiles being equal and accepted in society.

SOB[/quote]

Firstly, you mixed up quotes between longweekend and myself.

Secondly, anyone but yourself can see that I have not been misquoting you. The statements, quotes and the timeline in which they happened are preserved in this thread to be checked. If I missed quoted you, prove it.

Thirdly (and this is where it all went downhill) you keep changing the discussion between marriage and scocial acceptance. These are two different things. Even in this very post you have mixed the two up.
[/quote]

No you have mixed them up. We were talking about marriage. If you changed the subject to something else i missed it. You said the argument is the same. (Works for either topic anyway) so lets see the argument.

SOB

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Quantum on Jun 14th, 2012 at 9:09am

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 14th, 2012 at 8:52am:

Quantum wrote on Jun 14th, 2012 at 8:49am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 14th, 2012 at 8:41am:

Quantum wrote on Jun 14th, 2012 at 8:24am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 14th, 2012 at 6:14am:

Quote:
You refuse to acknowledge that pedo's will start using the same excuses of being born that way; other cultures at times have accepted it; stop discriminating against people who are different . What will be your response to them?


Thats because pedos are a different thing to a gay person. A pedo causes harm to a child. This will never be accepted.

[quote]
The same excuses as "being born that way" and "accepting people who are different."


your lie not mine. I never said they were "born that way"

Thing is - its not the same. Gays are not pedos. Gays are just ppl with a different sexual orientation to you (if thats true - cant assume anything here can we). However okay - present your case that pedos are "born that way". dont forget to present your case for "accepting them".

[quote]I truly hope you came off a boat. I would hate to think that Australian education is this bad.


Education? you were TAUGHT to use faulty logic like that?

[quote]It is distinctly possible that his education is pre-war (WW2). his brthdate certainly is.


lol. thats a bit of an exaggeration isnt it? So you are ageist too. You going to voluntarily euthanise when you reach a certain age?

MOTR said:
[quote]It's the implied premise I find offensive.


Yes and they arent making the actual argument either.

SOB


Stop mixing up different people's quotes, and stop quoting out of context. It's amazing how you can do the very thing you accuse others of and not see it.

While your learning those basic rules of discussion, try to also keep up with the difference between someone making a claim themselves, in contrast to pointing out the argument that can logically be made by a particular group. That distinction completely changes the meaning of what has been said.


[/quote]

lololol dont like it done back to you? Wasnt really out of context though was it. you are saying that paedophiles and homosexuals are the same argument right? Well lets hear it. Lets hear the argument for paedophiles to be married.

As for MOTR i put his name next to his quote and ill quote who i please in my post. Its referenced properly.

Meanwhile did you provide a valid argument? No? Just attempted insults? Try again. Provide your argument for paedophiles being equal and accepted in society.

SOB[/quote]

Firstly, you mixed up quotes between longweekend and myself.

Secondly, anyone but yourself can see that I have not been misquoting you. The statements, quotes and the timeline in which they happened are preserved in this thread to be checked. If I missed quoted you, prove it.

Thirdly (and this is where it all went downhill) you keep changing the discussion between marriage and scocial acceptance. These are two different things. Even in this very post you have mixed the two up.
[/quote]

No you have mixed them up. We were talking about marriage. If you changed the subject to something else i missed it. You said the argument is the same. (Works for either topic anyway) so lets see the argument.

SOB[/quote]

You changed it right here,


Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 6:36pm:
Thats pretty rich from ppl that are suggesting that paedophilia is socially acceptable.

SOB


No one had suggested that it was. That was a misrepresentation by you.

Once you did this, it was then explained to you the way it may be argued by pedo's in the future (it was hypothetical), by making the claim that they were born that way and therefore should not be persecuted.

No one was saying that they are accepted socially today. You made the accusation that people were saying that. In doing so you changed the discussion from marriage to social acceptance which are two different things.

For example; homosexuals are socially accepted today, but gay marriage is not permitted. So any claim that social acceptance and marriage are the same thing is clearly wrong. Likewise, if there comes a day that pedophiles are socially accepted (and again, no one is claiming that they currently are),  that does not mean they will be permitted to marry children.



I noticed that you didn't admit to mixing my quotes with longweekend after claiming that you had not mixed quotes.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by longweekend58 on Jun 14th, 2012 at 9:14am

MOTR wrote on Jun 14th, 2012 at 1:28am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 8:06pm:

MOTR wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 7:26pm:
Those claiming some sort of equivalency between pedophilia and homosexuality are as offensive as a those who compare interracial sex to bestiality.


sigh. no one and I repeat NO ONE is comparing the two behaviours. they are comparing the supporting arguments and finding they are almost identical.

THAT IS THE ARGUMENT


It's a long thread, Longy, I might have missed the post, but I have yet to see you make this argument. I've seen you jump to this conclusion, but I've yet to see you make the argument. For the two arguments to be "almost" identical they would have to have "almost" identical premises. It's the implied premise I find offensive.


grandmaster and I have bothe been making the same point: that the arguments used in favour of gay marriage are the same that could be used in support of incest etc. Both of us are saying that the gay marriage arguments presented are so far, unpersuasive. You may beieve in gay marriage and clearly you do, but the arguments for it however are not very convincing beyong 'I support it'. And of course, that is your right. What we are saying is that dont pretend that your position is based on overwhelming argument. it isnt.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by longweekend58 on Jun 14th, 2012 at 9:18am
This has been a pretty good thread and better than most. It actually had element of true debate! arguing the point as against nothing but abuse.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Soren on Jun 14th, 2012 at 9:57am

MOTR wrote on Jun 14th, 2012 at 1:19am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 8:04pm:

MOTR wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 7:21pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:45pm:

FriYAY wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 3:42pm:
I think gays want to get married because it is a link to being normal.


I agree, that's the point of the same sex marriage push, to normalise homosexuality.


Homosexuality is normal.


no it isnt. by any definition is it an ABBERRATION on the norm. that doesnt necessarily mean we should discriminate but a small minority does not become the norm because you want it to be so.


Grey eyed people are less common than same sex attracted people. Are grey eyed people an aberration. If so most of us are abnormal for one reason or other.


Grey eyed people only look into your eyes like blue and brown eyed people (ie they are not doing anything different with their eyes). Gays want to get up your arse.

Do you notice any difference? Probably not. 

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Spot of Borg on Jun 14th, 2012 at 12:26pm

Quantum wrote on Jun 14th, 2012 at 9:09am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 14th, 2012 at 8:52am:

Quantum wrote on Jun 14th, 2012 at 8:49am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 14th, 2012 at 8:41am:

Quantum wrote on Jun 14th, 2012 at 8:24am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 14th, 2012 at 6:14am:

Quote:
You refuse to acknowledge that pedo's will start using the same excuses of being born that way; other cultures at times have accepted it; stop discriminating against people who are different . What will be your response to them?


Thats because pedos are a different thing to a gay person. A pedo causes harm to a child. This will never be accepted.

[quote]
The same excuses as "being born that way" and "accepting people who are different."


your lie not mine. I never said they were "born that way"

Thing is - its not the same. Gays are not pedos. Gays are just ppl with a different sexual orientation to you (if thats true - cant assume anything here can we). However okay - present your case that pedos are "born that way". dont forget to present your case for "accepting them".

[quote]I truly hope you came off a boat. I would hate to think that Australian education is this bad.


Education? you were TAUGHT to use faulty logic like that?

[quote]It is distinctly possible that his education is pre-war (WW2). his brthdate certainly is.


lol. thats a bit of an exaggeration isnt it? So you are ageist too. You going to voluntarily euthanise when you reach a certain age?

MOTR said:
[quote]It's the implied premise I find offensive.


Yes and they arent making the actual argument either.

SOB


Stop mixing up different people's quotes, and stop quoting out of context. It's amazing how you can do the very thing you accuse others of and not see it.

While your learning those basic rules of discussion, try to also keep up with the difference between someone making a claim themselves, in contrast to pointing out the argument that can logically be made by a particular group. That distinction completely changes the meaning of what has been said.


lololol dont like it done back to you? Wasnt really out of context though was it. you are saying that paedophiles and homosexuals are the same argument right? Well lets hear it. Lets hear the argument for paedophiles to be married.

As for MOTR i put his name next to his quote and ill quote who i please in my post. Its referenced properly.

Meanwhile did you provide a valid argument? No? Just attempted insults? Try again. Provide your argument for paedophiles being equal and accepted in society.

SOB[/quote]

Firstly, you mixed up quotes between longweekend and myself.

Secondly, anyone but yourself can see that I have not been misquoting you. The statements, quotes and the timeline in which they happened are preserved in this thread to be checked. If I missed quoted you, prove it.

Thirdly (and this is where it all went downhill) you keep changing the discussion between marriage and scocial acceptance. These are two different things. Even in this very post you have mixed the two up.
[/quote]

No you have mixed them up. We were talking about marriage. If you changed the subject to something else i missed it. You said the argument is the same. (Works for either topic anyway) so lets see the argument.

SOB[/quote]

You changed it right here,


Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 6:36pm:
Thats pretty rich from ppl that are suggesting that paedophilia is socially acceptable.

SOB


No one had suggested that it was. That was a misrepresentation by you.

Once you did this, it was then explained to you the way it may be argued by pedo's in the future (it was hypothetical), by making the claim that they were born that way and therefore should not be persecuted.

No one was saying that they are accepted socially today. You made the accusation that people were saying that. In doing so you changed the discussion from marriage to social acceptance which are two different things.

For example; homosexuals are socially accepted today, but gay marriage is not permitted. So any claim that social acceptance and marriage are the same thing is clearly wrong. Likewise, if there comes a day that pedophiles are socially accepted (and again, no one is claiming that they currently are),  that does not mean they will be permitted to marry children.



I noticed that you didn't admit to mixing my quotes with longweekend after claiming that you had not mixed quotes. [/quote]

Rightio i used the wrong reference and of course instead of answering the question you had to argue about semantics.

That they were "born that way" isnt going to get them accepted in society. It also isnt going to get them allowed to marry.

Gays on  the other hand are harmless and adults with a different (supposedly) sexual orientation to you. They harm nobody and will be allowed to marry. Despite all this crap from the fairytale believers it will eventually come to pass that all ppl are equal in the eyes of the government and marriage.

SOB

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Grandmaster on Jun 14th, 2012 at 12:44pm
Of course most all of us are abnormal in some respect or another. 

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Uncle Meat on Jun 14th, 2012 at 12:50pm

Soren wrote on Jun 14th, 2012 at 9:57am:
Gays want to get up your arse.



They don't want to get up mine.

What is it that they find so appealing about yours?   :-/

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Quantum on Jun 14th, 2012 at 2:28pm

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 14th, 2012 at 12:26pm:

Quantum wrote on Jun 14th, 2012 at 9:09am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 14th, 2012 at 8:52am:

Quantum wrote on Jun 14th, 2012 at 8:49am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 14th, 2012 at 8:41am:

Quantum wrote on Jun 14th, 2012 at 8:24am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 14th, 2012 at 6:14am:

Quote:
You refuse to acknowledge that pedo's will start using the same excuses of being born that way; other cultures at times have accepted it; stop discriminating against people who are different . What will be your response to them?


Thats because pedos are a different thing to a gay person. A pedo causes harm to a child. This will never be accepted.

[quote]
The same excuses as "being born that way" and "accepting people who are different."


your lie not mine. I never said they were "born that way"

Thing is - its not the same. Gays are not pedos. Gays are just ppl with a different sexual orientation to you (if thats true - cant assume anything here can we). However okay - present your case that pedos are "born that way". dont forget to present your case for "accepting them".

[quote]I truly hope you came off a boat. I would hate to think that Australian education is this bad.


Education? you were TAUGHT to use faulty logic like that?

[quote]It is distinctly possible that his education is pre-war (WW2). his brthdate certainly is.


lol. thats a bit of an exaggeration isnt it? So you are ageist too. You going to voluntarily euthanise when you reach a certain age?

MOTR said:
[quote]It's the implied premise I find offensive.


Yes and they arent making the actual argument either.

SOB


Stop mixing up different people's quotes, and stop quoting out of context. It's amazing how you can do the very thing you accuse others of and not see it.

While your learning those basic rules of discussion, try to also keep up with the difference between someone making a claim themselves, in contrast to pointing out the argument that can logically be made by a particular group. That distinction completely changes the meaning of what has been said.


lololol dont like it done back to you? Wasnt really out of context though was it. you are saying that paedophiles and homosexuals are the same argument right? Well lets hear it. Lets hear the argument for paedophiles to be married.

As for MOTR i put his name next to his quote and ill quote who i please in my post. Its referenced properly.

Meanwhile did you provide a valid argument? No? Just attempted insults? Try again. Provide your argument for paedophiles being equal and accepted in society.

SOB


Firstly, you mixed up quotes between longweekend and myself.

Secondly, anyone but yourself can see that I have not been misquoting you. The statements, quotes and the timeline in which they happened are preserved in this thread to be checked. If I missed quoted you, prove it.

Thirdly (and this is where it all went downhill) you keep changing the discussion between marriage and scocial acceptance. These are two different things. Even in this very post you have mixed the two up.
[/quote]

No you have mixed them up. We were talking about marriage. If you changed the subject to something else i missed it. You said the argument is the same. (Works for either topic anyway) so lets see the argument.

SOB[/quote]

You changed it right here,


Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 6:36pm:
Thats pretty rich from ppl that are suggesting that paedophilia is socially acceptable.

SOB


No one had suggested that it was. That was a misrepresentation by you.

Once you did this, it was then explained to you the way it may be argued by pedo's in the future (it was hypothetical), by making the claim that they were born that way and therefore should not be persecuted.

No one was saying that they are accepted socially today. You made the accusation that people were saying that. In doing so you changed the discussion from marriage to social acceptance which are two different things.

For example; homosexuals are socially accepted today, but gay marriage is not permitted. So any claim that social acceptance and marriage are the same thing is clearly wrong. Likewise, if there comes a day that pedophiles are socially accepted (and again, no one is claiming that they currently are),  that does not mean they will be permitted to marry children.



I noticed that you didn't admit to mixing my quotes with longweekend after claiming that you had not mixed quotes. [/quote]

Rightio i used the wrong reference and of course instead of answering the question you had to argue about semantics.

[/quote]

So instead of you just admitting you were wrong and being done with it, and that all the arguing for the last page about me misrepresenting, misquoting, and being a lier we're false accusations by yourself, apparently the real problem was me being pedantic about "semantics".


Quote:
That they were "born that way" isnt going to get them accepted in society. It also isnt going to get them allowed to marry.


How do you know that? Being born that way was one of the main points of acceptance for homosexuality. You have said it countless times yourself on this thread that being gay is "normal". It can't be normal is it is brain damage, or a disease, or childhood drama, or a depraved choice. Homosexuals being what they are by birth has been the biggest shift in people's acceptance of it over the last 20 years.

What you just said above is the very thing people said of gays 30 years ago. If perceptions can change for gays in 30 years, do not be surprised in decades to come that people will starts saying; "pedophiles were born that way. They can't help being attracted to children. It is wrong to demonize someone for their sexual desires. Stop judging people because they are different to you".

And for the last time; what we class as a pedo today is based on our law and culture. Many other cultures through the history of the world have permitted adults and children to marry; relationships that we would class as pedophilia by us. Stop pretending that our definition of what a pedophile is can not be changed in time. You have no way of knowing that in 50 years from now a 30 year old won't be able to marry a 13 year old. Just because we would class that relationship as pedophilia today does not mean it won't be considered normal in the future. That's the main point.


Quote:
Gays on  the other hand are harmless and adults with a different (supposedly) sexual orientation to you. They harm nobody and will be allowed to marry. Despite all this crap from the fairytale believers it will eventually come to pass that all ppl are equal in the eyes of the government and marriage.

SOB


Does that include those who are into pedophillia, incest, zoophilia, etc? (dont answer. I know You will say no. Perhaps if you were more precise about what you wanted to say, you wouldn't keep assuming that people are misquoting and misrepresenting you.)

I notice your still thinking that the issue with gay marriage is because of Christians (or as you so tolerantly say, fairytail believers). You do know that there are a lot of atheist out there against gay marriage as well. Besides our PM, you will probably find a lot of hardend tradesmen, miners, criminals, and other blokes etc, who consider Christianity for wimps, but find gays even worse. Stop pretending that this is a religious issue. Not everyone is pro gay.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Spot of Borg on Jun 14th, 2012 at 2:56pm

Quote:
How do you know that? Being born that way was one of the main points of acceptance for homosexuality. You have said it countless times yourself on this thread that being gay is "normal". It can't be normal is it is brain damage, or a disease, or childhood drama, or a depraved choice. Homosexuals being what they are by birth has been the biggest shift in people's acceptance of it over the last 20 years.


Well I havent said they were born that way. In fact they prolly were though. Thats where the evidence is pointing anyway. I was using yur example when i said "born that way".

30 years ago. Were you around 30 years ago? I was and I lived in oxford street in sydney. Most of the gays I knew that were shacked up with partners called themselves "married" because the newly accepted "defacto marriage" was the order of the day. In fact 30 years ago is a really bad example because 30 years ago is when they started being more open about themselves and the stupid "gay lifestyle" myth started. The flamboyant gays in oxford st and the drag queens. Abe Saffrons nightclubs.


Quote:
And for the last time; what we class as a pedo today is based on our law and culture.


Dont "for the last time" me. i said that before. Apart from that your argument is valid imo. I have no way of knowing. However in australia the legal age of consent is 16 so its not likely to happen. Paedophiles harm children and so are violent criminals. They are classified along with rapists and murderers. Gays have never been that kind of criminal.


Quote:
Stop pretending that this is a religious issue.


I was referring to the crap on the news about the anglican church and their objections. I suppose you dont watch the news.

The rest of your highly original spiel i already have said @ other times in this forum and prolly even this thread. Except for the insults.

SOB

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Quantum on Jun 14th, 2012 at 4:29pm

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 14th, 2012 at 2:56pm:

Quote:
How do you know that? Being born that way was one of the main points of acceptance for homosexuality. You have said it countless times yourself on this thread that being gay is "normal". It can't be normal is it is brain damage, or a disease, or childhood drama, or a depraved choice. Homosexuals being what they are by birth has been the biggest shift in people's acceptance of it over the last 20 years.


Well I havent said they were born that way. In fact they prolly were though. Thats where the evidence is pointing anyway. I was using yur example when i said "born that way".

30 years ago. Were you around 30 years ago? I was and I lived in oxford street in sydney. Most of the gays I knew that were shacked up with partners called themselves "married" because the newly accepted "defacto marriage" was the order of the day. In fact 30 years ago is a really bad example because 30 years ago is when they started being more open about themselves and the stupid "gay lifestyle" myth started. The flamboyant gays in oxford st and the drag queens. Abe Saffrons nightclubs.

[quote]And for the last time; what we class as a pedo today is based on our law and culture.


Dont "for the last time" me. i said that before. Apart from that your argument is valid imo. I have no way of knowing. However in australia the legal age of consent is 16 so its not likely to happen. Paedophiles harm children and so are violent criminals. They are classified along with rapists and murderers. Gays have never been that kind of criminal.


Quote:
Stop pretending that this is a religious issue.


I was referring to the crap on the news about the anglican church and their objections. I suppose you dont watch the news.

The rest of your highly original spiel i already have said @ other times in this forum and prolly even this thread. Except for the insults.

SOB[/quote]

Grow a pair. You are an insulting, abusive, and aggressive poster, constantly making your false accusations and taking your subtle little snips at people for uncalled for reasons.

Now that wouldn't be an issue in it self if you had a backbone. Many people on this forum talk tough, but they can take what they dish out. You however keep telling people to stop insulting you, but feel that you are free to say whatever you want. Your like a 5 year old splashing everyone else with water in the face, but when someone wets you back you going crying to mummy screaming about how everyone is picking on you. It's pathetic.

Worst still, most of the things you call insults are not even insults, but are simply people proving you wrong. If you find people arguing a different point of view from you insulting, then you need to find a safer inviromental than the Internet.

Basically, if you want to discuss something then stick to the topic. If you want to be a smartarse then go ahead. But be prepared to get back what you give out and stop having a whine over it.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Spot of Borg on Jun 14th, 2012 at 4:58pm

Quantum wrote on Jun 14th, 2012 at 4:29pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 14th, 2012 at 2:56pm:

Quote:
How do you know that? Being born that way was one of the main points of acceptance for homosexuality. You have said it countless times yourself on this thread that being gay is "normal". It can't be normal is it is brain damage, or a disease, or childhood drama, or a depraved choice. Homosexuals being what they are by birth has been the biggest shift in people's acceptance of it over the last 20 years.


Well I havent said they were born that way. In fact they prolly were though. Thats where the evidence is pointing anyway. I was using yur example when i said "born that way".

30 years ago. Were you around 30 years ago? I was and I lived in oxford street in sydney. Most of the gays I knew that were shacked up with partners called themselves "married" because the newly accepted "defacto marriage" was the order of the day. In fact 30 years ago is a really bad example because 30 years ago is when they started being more open about themselves and the stupid "gay lifestyle" myth started. The flamboyant gays in oxford st and the drag queens. Abe Saffrons nightclubs.

[quote]And for the last time; what we class as a pedo today is based on our law and culture.


Dont "for the last time" me. i said that before. Apart from that your argument is valid imo. I have no way of knowing. However in australia the legal age of consent is 16 so its not likely to happen. Paedophiles harm children and so are violent criminals. They are classified along with rapists and murderers. Gays have never been that kind of criminal.

[quote]Stop pretending that this is a religious issue.


I was referring to the crap on the news about the anglican church and their objections. I suppose you dont watch the news.

The rest of your highly original spiel i already have said @ other times in this forum and prolly even this thread. Except for the insults.

SOB[/quote]

Grow a pair. You are an insulting, abusive, and aggressive poster, constantly making your false accusations and taking your subtle little snips at people for uncalled for reasons.

Now that wouldn't be an issue in it self if you had a backbone. Many people on this forum talk tough, but they can take what they dish out. You however keep telling people to stop insulting you, but feel that you are free to say whatever you want. Your like a 5 year old splashing everyone else with water in the face, but when someone wets you back you going crying to mummy screaming about how everyone is picking on you. It's pathetic.

Worst still, most of the things you call insults are not even insults, but are simply people proving you wrong. If you find people arguing a different point of view from you insulting, then you need to find a safer inviromental than the Internet.

Basically, if you want to discuss something then stick to the topic. If you want to be a smartarse then go ahead. But be prepared to get back what you give out and stop having a whine over it. [/quote]


lol. Not one mention of the topic,

SOB

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by longweekend58 on Jun 14th, 2012 at 5:01pm

Quantum wrote on Jun 14th, 2012 at 4:29pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 14th, 2012 at 2:56pm:

Quote:
How do you know that? Being born that way was one of the main points of acceptance for homosexuality. You have said it countless times yourself on this thread that being gay is "normal". It can't be normal is it is brain damage, or a disease, or childhood drama, or a depraved choice. Homosexuals being what they are by birth has been the biggest shift in people's acceptance of it over the last 20 years.


Well I havent said they were born that way. In fact they prolly were though. Thats where the evidence is pointing anyway. I was using yur example when i said "born that way".

30 years ago. Were you around 30 years ago? I was and I lived in oxford street in sydney. Most of the gays I knew that were shacked up with partners called themselves "married" because the newly accepted "defacto marriage" was the order of the day. In fact 30 years ago is a really bad example because 30 years ago is when they started being more open about themselves and the stupid "gay lifestyle" myth started. The flamboyant gays in oxford st and the drag queens. Abe Saffrons nightclubs.

[quote]And for the last time; what we class as a pedo today is based on our law and culture.


Dont "for the last time" me. i said that before. Apart from that your argument is valid imo. I have no way of knowing. However in australia the legal age of consent is 16 so its not likely to happen. Paedophiles harm children and so are violent criminals. They are classified along with rapists and murderers. Gays have never been that kind of criminal.

[quote]Stop pretending that this is a religious issue.


I was referring to the crap on the news about the anglican church and their objections. I suppose you dont watch the news.

The rest of your highly original spiel i already have said @ other times in this forum and prolly even this thread. Except for the insults.

SOB[/quote]

Grow a pair. You are an insulting, abusive, and aggressive poster, constantly making your false accusations and taking your subtle little snips at people for uncalled for reasons.

Now that wouldn't be an issue in it self if you had a backbone. Many people on this forum talk tough, but they can take what they dish out. You however keep telling people to stop insulting you, but feel that you are free to say whatever you want. Your like a 5 year old splashing everyone else with water in the face, but when someone wets you back you going crying to mummy screaming about how everyone is picking on you. It's pathetic.
Worst still, most of the things you call insults are not even insults, but are simply people proving you wrong. If you find people arguing a different point of view from you insulting, then you need to find a safer inviromental than the Internet.

Basically, if you want to discuss something then stick to the topic. If you want to be a smartarse then go ahead. But be prepared to get back what you give out and stop having a whine over it. [/quote]

hard to disagree....

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Quantum on Jun 14th, 2012 at 5:29pm

Quote:
lol. Not one mention of the topic,

SOB


There is no mention of the topic because you killed it about 5 pages ago. I tired to keep it on life support, but the sheer magnitude of your stupidity overwhelmed it. Since then it has just gone around in circles without you understanding a word that is being said. All you keep saying is that everyone is lying; insulting you; not answering your questions, etc. It doesn't matter how many times the same thing is explained to you, or how much effort is made to present the information in a A B C format, you constantly keep muddling everything up, mixing different  topics and statements until all that is left is total gibberish.

I'm joining the others. I tried to be polite. Then i tried to be patient. Now i just give up. But before then, let me give one bit of advice;

On a forum, what you think is irrelevant. What you actually write is all that counts. It you learnt some basic English grammar then maybe you might be able to make a valid contribution. Likewise, what someone else writes is all that matters, not what you think their opinion is. Stop expecting people to be mind readers and then having a fit when they can't. Stop arguing points that haven't even been made, but are assumptions you have created by reading in between the lines.

Maybe if you can follow these two basic rules of written communication then all these people ganging up on you will go away.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by longweekend58 on Jun 14th, 2012 at 5:39pm

Quantum wrote on Jun 14th, 2012 at 5:29pm:

Quote:
lol. Not one mention of the topic,

SOB


There is no mention of the topic because you killed it about 5 pages ago. I tired to keep it on life support, but the sheer magnitude of your stupidity overwhelmed it. Since then it has just gone around in circles without you understanding a word that is being said. All you keep saying is that everyone is lying; insulting you; not answering your questions, etc. It doesn't matter how many times the same thing is explained to you, or how much effort is made to present the information in a A B C format, you constantly keep muddling everything up, mixing different  topics and statements until all that is left is total gibberish.

I'm joining the others. I tried to be polite. Then i tried to be patient. Now i just give up. But before then, let me give one bit of advice;

On a forum, what you think is irrelevant. What you actually write is all that counts. It you learnt some basic English grammar then maybe you might be able to make a valid contribution. Likewise, what someone else writes is all that matters, not what you think their opinion is. Stop expecting people to be mind readers and then having a fit when they can't. Stop arguing points that haven't even been made, but are assumptions you have created by reading in between the lines.

Maybe if you can follow these two basic rules of written communication then all these people ganging up on you will go away.


also well said...


so SOB, it isnt just me saying these things. Are you getting the point yet?

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Spot of Borg on Jun 14th, 2012 at 5:55pm

Quantum wrote on Jun 14th, 2012 at 5:29pm:

Quote:
lol. Not one mention of the topic,

SOB


There is no mention of the topic because you killed it about 5 pages ago. I tired to keep it on life support, but the sheer magnitude of your stupidity overwhelmed it. Since then it has just gone around in circles without you understanding a word that is being said. All you keep saying is that everyone is lying; insulting you; not answering your questions, etc. It doesn't matter how many times the same thing is explained to you, or how much effort is made to present the information in a A B C format, you constantly keep muddling everything up, mixing different  topics and statements until all that is left is total gibberish.

I'm joining the others. I tried to be polite. Then i tried to be patient. Now i just give up. But before then, let me give one bit of advice;

On a forum, what you think is irrelevant. What you actually write is all that counts. It you learnt some basic English grammar then maybe you might be able to make a valid contribution. Likewise, what someone else writes is all that matters, not what you think their opinion is. Stop expecting people to be mind readers and then having a fit when they can't. Stop arguing points that haven't even been made, but are assumptions you have created by reading in between the lines.

Maybe if you can follow these two basic rules of written communication then all these people ganging up on you will go away.


Thats 2 posts now not addressing the topic. Wow. it musta really upset you.

SOB

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Spot of Borg on Jun 14th, 2012 at 5:56pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 14th, 2012 at 5:39pm:

Quantum wrote on Jun 14th, 2012 at 5:29pm:

Quote:
lol. Not one mention of the topic,

SOB


There is no mention of the topic because you killed it about 5 pages ago. I tired to keep it on life support, but the sheer magnitude of your stupidity overwhelmed it. Since then it has just gone around in circles without you understanding a word that is being said. All you keep saying is that everyone is lying; insulting you; not answering your questions, etc. It doesn't matter how many times the same thing is explained to you, or how much effort is made to present the information in a A B C format, you constantly keep muddling everything up, mixing different  topics and statements until all that is left is total gibberish.

I'm joining the others. I tried to be polite. Then i tried to be patient. Now i just give up. But before then, let me give one bit of advice;

On a forum, what you think is irrelevant. What you actually write is all that counts. It you learnt some basic English grammar then maybe you might be able to make a valid contribution. Likewise, what someone else writes is all that matters, not what you think their opinion is. Stop expecting people to be mind readers and then having a fit when they can't. Stop arguing points that haven't even been made, but are assumptions you have created by reading in between the lines.

Maybe if you can follow these two basic rules of written communication then all these people ganging up on you will go away.


also well said...


so SOB, it isnt just me saying these things. Are you getting the point yet?


Prolly a sock but if you idiots think paedophiles are just like gays you have no place calling me stupid.

SOB

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by longweekend58 on Jun 14th, 2012 at 6:09pm

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 14th, 2012 at 5:56pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 14th, 2012 at 5:39pm:

Quantum wrote on Jun 14th, 2012 at 5:29pm:

Quote:
lol. Not one mention of the topic,

SOB


There is no mention of the topic because you killed it about 5 pages ago. I tired to keep it on life support, but the sheer magnitude of your stupidity overwhelmed it. Since then it has just gone around in circles without you understanding a word that is being said. All you keep saying is that everyone is lying; insulting you; not answering your questions, etc. It doesn't matter how many times the same thing is explained to you, or how much effort is made to present the information in a A B C format, you constantly keep muddling everything up, mixing different  topics and statements until all that is left is total gibberish.

I'm joining the others. I tried to be polite. Then i tried to be patient. Now i just give up. But before then, let me give one bit of advice;

On a forum, what you think is irrelevant. What you actually write is all that counts. It you learnt some basic English grammar then maybe you might be able to make a valid contribution. Likewise, what someone else writes is all that matters, not what you think their opinion is. Stop expecting people to be mind readers and then having a fit when they can't. Stop arguing points that haven't even been made, but are assumptions you have created by reading in between the lines.

Maybe if you can follow these two basic rules of written communication then all these people ganging up on you will go away.


also well said...


so SOB, it isnt just me saying these things. Are you getting the point yet?


Prolly a sock but if you idiots think paedophiles are just like gays you have no place calling me stupid.

SOB


we dont actually. But to explain that to you would require more intelligence and ability to comprehend than you possess.  You could read bakc for the dozen or so posts that have already attempted to explain it to you, but you just dont haev the capacity to understand and so it is a waste of time.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Quantum on Jun 14th, 2012 at 6:10pm

Quote:
Prolly a sock but if you idiots think paedophiles are just like gays you have no place calling me stupid.

SOB


At first I was confused. Then I was slightly frustrated. Now I am just amused. This is truly fascinating. I really should have done psychology. This is a phd begging to happen.

Does centrelink know what a goldmind you would be for scientific research? You should ask them if you can stop looking for a job and sign up to be studied in a laboratory. It's not just good money, but you may be able to turn your life around and become a benefit to humanity as well.

All sarcasm aside, get a clue. Your straw man was burnt to ashes at least 3 pages ago.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Spot of Borg on Jun 14th, 2012 at 6:12pm

Quantum wrote on Jun 14th, 2012 at 6:10pm:

Quote:
Prolly a sock but if you idiots think paedophiles are just like gays you have no place calling me stupid.

SOB


At first I was confused. Then I was slightly frustrated. Now I am just amused. This is truly fascinating. I really should have done psychology. This is a phd begging to happen.

Does centrelink know what a goldmind you would be for scientific research? You should ask them if you can stop looking for a job and sign up to be studied in a laboratory. It's not just good money, but you may be able to turn your life around and become a benefit to humanity as well.

All sarcasm aside, get a clue. Your straw man was burnt to ashes at least 3 pages ago.


Lol. You were the one with the strawman. Remember the paedophile?

You have spent 3 long posts trying to insult me now. Why? lollolol

SOB

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Spot of Borg on Jun 14th, 2012 at 6:15pm

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 14th, 2012 at 2:56pm:

Quote:
How do you know that? Being born that way was one of the main points of acceptance for homosexuality. You have said it countless times yourself on this thread that being gay is "normal". It can't be normal is it is brain damage, or a disease, or childhood drama, or a depraved choice. Homosexuals being what they are by birth has been the biggest shift in people's acceptance of it over the last 20 years.


Well I havent said they were born that way. In fact they prolly were though. Thats where the evidence is pointing anyway. I was using yur example when i said "born that way".

30 years ago. Were you around 30 years ago? I was and I lived in oxford street in sydney. Most of the gays I knew that were shacked up with partners called themselves "married" because the newly accepted "defacto marriage" was the order of the day. In fact 30 years ago is a really bad example because 30 years ago is when they started being more open about themselves and the stupid "gay lifestyle" myth started. The flamboyant gays in oxford st and the drag queens. Abe Saffrons nightclubs.

[quote]And for the last time; what we class as a pedo today is based on our law and culture.


Dont "for the last time" me. i said that before. Apart from that your argument is valid imo. I have no way of knowing. However in australia the legal age of consent is 16 so its not likely to happen. Paedophiles harm children and so are violent criminals. They are classified along with rapists and murderers. Gays have never been that kind of criminal.


Quote:
Stop pretending that this is a religious issue.


I was referring to the crap on the news about the anglican church and their objections. I suppose you dont watch the news.

The rest of your highly original spiel i already have said @ other times in this forum and prolly even this thread. Except for the insults.

SOB[/quote]

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Spot of Borg on Jun 14th, 2012 at 6:32pm


SOB

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Soren on Jun 14th, 2012 at 6:32pm

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 14th, 2012 at 6:12pm:
trying to insult me now. Why?

SOB



Because you are begging to be insulted with every single on of your 61 bloody daily post. You are an amazingly - what' the word? - stupid old bint. An absolute phenomenon on these boards, beating a large field by an incredibly large margin.

I have never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever seen you say something that was just mildly silly. Never, ever, ever, ever. Ever.
Always a solid or I should say dense performance from you. Every time, 61 times a day. FD should notify the Guinness Book of Records.



Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Spot of Borg on Jun 14th, 2012 at 6:37pm

Soren wrote on Jun 14th, 2012 at 6:32pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 14th, 2012 at 6:12pm:
trying to insult me now. Why?

SOB



Because you are begging to be insulted with every single on of your 61 bloody daily post. You are an amazingly - what' the word? - stupid old bint. An absolute phenomenon on these boards, beating a large field by an incredibly large margin.

I have never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever seen you say something that was just mildly silly. Never, ever, ever, ever. Ever.
Always a solid or I should say dense performance from you. Every time, 61 times a day. FD should notify the Guinness Book of Records.


you are a complete asshole (dumb and stupid too). I already told you thats an average. No idea of math either i expect. done maybe 20 today. Not that its any of your business. You have never ever ever ever ever ever spoken on topic. Only insults. And your sock too.

SOB

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by MOTR on Jun 14th, 2012 at 6:47pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 14th, 2012 at 9:14am:

MOTR wrote on Jun 14th, 2012 at 1:28am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 8:06pm:

MOTR wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 7:26pm:
Those claiming some sort of equivalency between pedophilia and homosexuality are as offensive as a those who compare interracial sex to bestiality.


sigh. no one and I repeat NO ONE is comparing the two behaviours. they are comparing the supporting arguments and finding they are almost identical.

THAT IS THE ARGUMENT


It's a long thread, Longy, I might have missed the post, but I have yet to see you make this argument. I've seen you jump to this conclusion, but I've yet to see you make the argument. For the two arguments to be "almost" identical they would have to have "almost" identical premises. It's the implied premise I find offensive.


grandmaster and I have bothe been making the same point: that the arguments used in favour of gay marriage are the same that could be used in support of incest etc. Both of us are saying that the gay marriage arguments presented are so far, unpersuasive. You may beieve in gay marriage and clearly you do, but the arguments for it however are not very convincing beyong 'I support it'. And of course, that is your right. What we are saying is that dont pretend that your position is based on overwhelming argument. it isnt.


Again you are implying some sort of equivalency between homosexuality and incest. One is accepted by mainstream society, the other is not. The argument you are using could be used to outlaw homosexual acts not just marriages. We accepted homosexuality but we don't accept incest, so clearly we are capable of making a legal and moral distinction.

How about you pretend you are sitting a critical reasoning exam and outline your argument.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Spot of Borg on Jun 14th, 2012 at 6:55pm

MOTR wrote on Jun 14th, 2012 at 6:47pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 14th, 2012 at 9:14am:

MOTR wrote on Jun 14th, 2012 at 1:28am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 8:06pm:

MOTR wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 7:26pm:
Those claiming some sort of equivalency between pedophilia and homosexuality are as offensive as a those who compare interracial sex to bestiality.


sigh. no one and I repeat NO ONE is comparing the two behaviours. they are comparing the supporting arguments and finding they are almost identical.

THAT IS THE ARGUMENT


It's a long thread, Longy, I might have missed the post, but I have yet to see you make this argument. I've seen you jump to this conclusion, but I've yet to see you make the argument. For the two arguments to be "almost" identical they would have to have "almost" identical premises. It's the implied premise I find offensive.


grandmaster and I have bothe been making the same point: that the arguments used in favour of gay marriage are the same that could be used in support of incest etc. Both of us are saying that the gay marriage arguments presented are so far, unpersuasive. You may beieve in gay marriage and clearly you do, but the arguments for it however are not very convincing beyong 'I support it'. And of course, that is your right. What we are saying is that dont pretend that your position is based on overwhelming argument. it isnt.


Again you are implying some sort of equivalency between homosexuality and incest. One is accepted by mainstream society, the other is not. The argument you are using could be used to outlaw homosexual acts not just marriages. We accepted homosexuality but we don't accept incest, so clearly we are capable of making a legal and moral distinction.

How about you pretend you are sitting a critical reasoning exam and outline your argument.


Heh i got one of them to do that and they didnt like my response.

SOB

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Quantum on Jun 14th, 2012 at 8:07pm

MOTR wrote on Jun 14th, 2012 at 6:47pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 14th, 2012 at 9:14am:

MOTR wrote on Jun 14th, 2012 at 1:28am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 8:06pm:

MOTR wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 7:26pm:
Those claiming some sort of equivalency between pedophilia and homosexuality are as offensive as a those who compare interracial sex to bestiality.


sigh. no one and I repeat NO ONE is comparing the two behaviours. they are comparing the supporting arguments and finding they are almost identical.

THAT IS THE ARGUMENT


It's a long thread, Longy, I might have missed the post, but I have yet to see you make this argument. I've seen you jump to this conclusion, but I've yet to see you make the argument. For the two arguments to be "almost" identical they would have to have "almost" identical premises. It's the implied premise I find offensive.


grandmaster and I have bothe been making the same point: that the arguments used in favour of gay marriage are the same that could be used in support of incest etc. Both of us are saying that the gay marriage arguments presented are so far, unpersuasive. You may beieve in gay marriage and clearly you do, but the arguments for it however are not very convincing beyong 'I support it'. And of course, that is your right. What we are saying is that dont pretend that your position is based on overwhelming argument. it isnt.


Again you are implying some sort of equivalency between homosexuality and incest. One is accepted by mainstream society, the other is not. The argument you are using could be used to outlaw homosexual acts not just marriages. We accepted homosexuality but we don't accept incest, so clearly we are capable of making a legal and moral distinction.

How about you pretend you are sitting a critical reasoning exam and outline your argument.


The reasons outlined in this thread for accepting homosexual marriage are;

1) it is discrimination to forbid people equality based on being different.
2) if it doesn't effect you personally, you don't have a right to object
3) if it doesn't hurt anyone and is between legally consenting people there is no grounds to object.
4) ones personal moral opinion is irrelevant. Just because someone disapproves or it violates their personal beliefs, is not justification for outlawing another's personal desires.


These have been the 4 reasons presented in this thread.

However, there are other forms of sexual relations that do not violate these 4 rules. For example, two brothers wishing to be married does not violate these 4 rules;

1) it is discrimination to forbid these two brothers equality based on them being different.
2) their relationship doesn't effect me personally.
3) their relationship doesn't hurt anyone and is between legally consenting people.
4) Just because I disapprove and it violates my personal beliefs, that is not justification for outlawing their wish to be married.


As yet, no one in this thread has given a suitable reason as to why incest in the above example is morally wrong and should not be accepted, while homosexuality is not wrong and should be accepted.

This does not mean that those arguing that homsexuality is wrong are claiming that homosexuality = incest. Just because two things are wrong does not make them equally wrong. But if one is to be classed as wrong while the other acceptable, there must be way by which to make that discernment.

However, those arguing for gay marriage have so far not been able to outline the criteria that is to be used for claiming that one form of sexual relationship is acceptable while the other is wrong, other than by personal opinion.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Soren on Jun 14th, 2012 at 11:14pm

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 14th, 2012 at 6:37pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 14th, 2012 at 6:32pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 14th, 2012 at 6:12pm:
trying to insult me now. Why?

SOB



Because you are begging to be insulted with every single on of your 61 bloody daily post. You are an amazingly - what' the word? - stupid old bint. An absolute phenomenon on these boards, beating a large field by an incredibly large margin.

I have never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever seen you say something that was just mildly silly. Never, ever, ever, ever. Ever.
Always a solid or I should say dense performance from you. Every time, 61 times a day. FD should notify the Guinness Book of Records.

I already told you thats an average. No idea of math either i expect. done maybe 20 today.
SOB


SO tomorrow we will have 100, just so you can maintain your average of 60 per day?
What's the polite way of saying f***n' 'ell??



Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by MOTR on Jun 15th, 2012 at 3:30am
What is the problem with the number of posts SOB makes a day. I don't get it.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by MOTR on Jun 15th, 2012 at 3:45am

Quantum wrote on Jun 14th, 2012 at 8:07pm:

MOTR wrote on Jun 14th, 2012 at 6:47pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 14th, 2012 at 9:14am:

MOTR wrote on Jun 14th, 2012 at 1:28am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 8:06pm:

MOTR wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 7:26pm:
Those claiming some sort of equivalency between pedophilia and homosexuality are as offensive as a those who compare interracial sex to bestiality.


sigh. no one and I repeat NO ONE is comparing the two behaviours. they are comparing the supporting arguments and finding they are almost identical.

THAT IS THE ARGUMENT


It's a long thread, Longy, I might have missed the post, but I have yet to see you make this argument. I've seen you jump to this conclusion, but I've yet to see you make the argument. For the two arguments to be "almost" identical they would have to have "almost" identical premises. It's the implied premise I find offensive.


grandmaster and I have bothe been making the same point: that the arguments used in favour of gay marriage are the same that could be used in support of incest etc. Both of us are saying that the gay marriage arguments presented are so far, unpersuasive. You may beieve in gay marriage and clearly you do, but the arguments for it however are not very convincing beyong 'I support it'. And of course, that is your right. What we are saying is that dont pretend that your position is based on overwhelming argument. it isnt.


Again you are implying some sort of equivalency between homosexuality and incest. One is accepted by mainstream society, the other is not. The argument you are using could be used to outlaw homosexual acts not just marriages. We accepted homosexuality but we don't accept incest, so clearly we are capable of making a legal and moral distinction.

How about you pretend you are sitting a critical reasoning exam and outline your argument.


The reasons outlined in this thread for accepting homosexual/interracial marriage are;

1) it is discrimination to forbid people equality based on being different.
2) if it doesn't effect you personally, you don't have a right to object
3) if it doesn't hurt anyone and is between legally consenting people there is no grounds to object.
4) ones personal moral opinion is irrelevant. Just because someone disapproves or it violates their personal beliefs, is not justification for outlawing another's personal desires.


These have been the 4 reasons presented in this thread.

However, there are other forms of sexual relations that do not violate these 4 rules. For example, two brothers wishing to be married does not violate these 4 rules;

1) it is discrimination to forbid these two brothers equality based on them being different.
2) their relationship doesn't effect me personally.
3) their relationship doesn't hurt anyone and is between legally consenting people.
4) Just because I disapprove and it violates my personal beliefs, that is not justification for outlawing their wish to be married.


As yet, no one in this thread has given a suitable reason as to why incest in the above example is morally wrong and should not be accepted, while homosexuality/interracial attraction is not wrong and should be accepted.

This does not mean that those arguing that homsexuality is wrong are claiming that homosexuality/interracial relationships = incest. Just because two things are wrong does not make them equally wrong. But if one is to be classed as wrong while the other acceptable, there must be way by which to make that discernment.

However, those arguing for gay/interracial marriage have so far not been able to outline the criteria that is to be used for claiming that one form of sexual relationship is acceptable while the other is wrong, other than by personal opinion.



Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by MOTR on Jun 15th, 2012 at 4:00am
The above argument could be used to argue against any subgroup you like. I've picked on interracial marriages because they have been banned under numerous jurisdictions in the past, as they were seen to be against the will of God. Our society accepts homosexual and interracial relationships, we do not accept incestuous relationships.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Spot of Borg on Jun 15th, 2012 at 7:10am

MOTR wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 3:30am:
What is the problem with the number of posts SOB makes a day. I don't get it.


For some reason its obsessed with everything i say/do

SOB

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Quantum on Jun 15th, 2012 at 9:07am

MOTR wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 4:00am:
The above argument could be used to argue against any subgroup you like. I've picked on interracial marriages because they have been banned under numerous jurisdictions in the past, as they were seen to be against the will of God. Our society accepts homosexual and interracial relationships, we do not accept incestuous relationships.


So the argument is basically; what ever our society accepts makes it ok, and what it doesn't accept is wrong?

As far as I know our society currently does not accept homosexual marriage anymore than it accepts incestuous ones. Both are outlawed. You have not outlined an argument for why one should now be accepted while the other one shouldn't.





On a side note; I am somewhat confused as to why you took issue with people using incest as an example (because it was somehow offensive to compare it with homosexual marriage), when you have now done the same thing with comparing interracial marriage and homosexual marriage. To quote;

"For the two arguments to be "almost" identical they would have to have "almost" identical premises. It's the implied premise I find offensive."

Interracial is not the same gender (at the moment). The removal of gender from marriage is a much bigger barrier to overcome than the question of skin colour. In fact, incest is even a smaller barrier than homosexual marriage. We actually already allow relations to marry in our society today, it is just a question of how closely related these two people can be before it becomes wrong. (of course not everyone agrees on how close is too close, even if the law at the moment has set a line.)

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by MOTR on Jun 15th, 2012 at 7:12pm

Quantum wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 9:07am:

MOTR wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 4:00am:
The above argument could be used to argue against any subgroup you like. I've picked on interracial marriages because they have been banned under numerous jurisdictions in the past, as they were seen to be against the will of God. Our society accepts homosexual and interracial relationships, we do not accept incestuous relationships.


So the argument is basically; what ever our society accepts makes it ok, and what it doesn't accept is wrong?

As far as I know our society currently does not accept homosexual marriage anymore than it accepts incestuous ones. Both are outlawed. You have not outlined an argument for why one should now be accepted while the other one shouldn't.


On a side note; I am somewhat confused as to why you took issue with people using incest as an example (because it was somehow offensive to compare it with homosexual marriage), when you have now done the same thing with comparing interracial marriage and homosexual marriage. To quote;

"For the two arguments to be "almost" identical they would have to have "almost" identical premises. It's the implied premise I find offensive."

Interracial is not the same gender (at the moment). The removal of gender from marriage is a much bigger barrier to overcome than the question of skin colour. In fact, incest is even a smaller barrier than homosexual marriage. We actually already allow relations to marry in our society today, it is just a question of how closely related these two people can be before it becomes wrong. (of course not everyone agrees on how close is too close, even if the law at the moment has set a line.)


I said homosexual relationships are accepted by our society, incestuous relationships are not.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by MOTR on Jun 15th, 2012 at 7:38pm
As for comparing homosexual relationships to interracial relationships, they are equally acceptable to me. Both are normal and entirely acceptable.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Bertram on Jun 15th, 2012 at 9:00pm
gay wolf


fluffy_white_dog.jpg (172 KB | 24 )

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Uncle Meat on Jun 15th, 2012 at 9:24pm

Quantum wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 9:07am:
As far as I know our society currently does not accept homosexual marriage anymore than it accepts incestuous ones. Both are outlawed. You have not outlined an argument for why one should now be accepted while the other one shouldn't.


Pretty simple.

Our society accepts homosexual relationships.

Our society does not accept incestuous relationships.

If we accept homosexual relationships, we can accept homosexual marriage.

Seeing as we don't accept incestuous relationships, there's no reason to even discuss incestuous marriage.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Spot of Borg on Jun 16th, 2012 at 6:05am

MOTR wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 7:12pm:

Quantum wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 9:07am:

MOTR wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 4:00am:
The above argument could be used to argue against any subgroup you like. I've picked on interracial marriages because they have been banned under numerous jurisdictions in the past, as they were seen to be against the will of God. Our society accepts homosexual and interracial relationships, we do not accept incestuous relationships.


So the argument is basically; what ever our society accepts makes it ok, and what it doesn't accept is wrong?

As far as I know our society currently does not accept homosexual marriage anymore than it accepts incestuous ones. Both are outlawed. You have not outlined an argument for why one should now be accepted while the other one shouldn't.


On a side note; I am somewhat confused as to why you took issue with people using incest as an example (because it was somehow offensive to compare it with homosexual marriage), when you have now done the same thing with comparing interracial marriage and homosexual marriage. To quote;

"For the two arguments to be "almost" identical they would have to have "almost" identical premises. It's the implied premise I find offensive."

Interracial is not the same gender (at the moment). The removal of gender from marriage is a much bigger barrier to overcome than the question of skin colour. In fact, incest is even a smaller barrier than homosexual marriage. We actually already allow relations to marry in our society today, it is just a question of how closely related these two people can be before it becomes wrong. (of course not everyone agrees on how close is too close, even if the law at the moment has set a line.)


I said homosexual relationships are accepted by our society, incestuous relationships are not.


Nor paedophilia

SOB

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Spot of Borg on Jun 16th, 2012 at 8:30am


SOB

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Andrei.Hicks on Jun 16th, 2012 at 9:15am
Gay relationships are not accepted by society at all.

How many times do you or your friends use the phrase 'queer' or 'poofter' to make fun of a guy in jest?

Alot I imagine.

"what do you reckon to these new football boots I got?"
"They are bright red. You fking queer!"

That's the norm.

Thinking two ponces together is a normal relationship is anything but society's accepted norm my friend and you know it.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by MOTR on Jun 16th, 2012 at 10:21am
It's legal and the vast majority of us don't have the same sexual hang ups as you obviously do, Andrei.

Don't you have any gay friends?

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by longweekend58 on Jun 16th, 2012 at 5:26pm

MOTR wrote on Jun 14th, 2012 at 6:47pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 14th, 2012 at 9:14am:

MOTR wrote on Jun 14th, 2012 at 1:28am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 8:06pm:

MOTR wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 7:26pm:
Those claiming some sort of equivalency between pedophilia and homosexuality are as offensive as a those who compare interracial sex to bestiality.


sigh. no one and I repeat NO ONE is comparing the two behaviours. they are comparing the supporting arguments and finding they are almost identical.

THAT IS THE ARGUMENT


It's a long thread, Longy, I might have missed the post, but I have yet to see you make this argument. I've seen you jump to this conclusion, but I've yet to see you make the argument. For the two arguments to be "almost" identical they would have to have "almost" identical premises. It's the implied premise I find offensive.


grandmaster and I have bothe been making the same point: that the arguments used in favour of gay marriage are the same that could be used in support of incest etc. Both of us are saying that the gay marriage arguments presented are so far, unpersuasive. You may beieve in gay marriage and clearly you do, but the arguments for it however are not very convincing beyong 'I support it'. And of course, that is your right. What we are saying is that dont pretend that your position is based on overwhelming argument. it isnt.


Again you are implying some sort of equivalency between homosexuality and incest. One is accepted by mainstream society, the other is not. The argument you are using could be used to outlaw homosexual acts not just marriages. We accepted homosexuality but we don't accept incest, so clearly we are capable of making a legal and moral distinction.

How about you pretend you are sitting a critical reasoning exam and outline your argument.


50 years ago they were treated the same - with disgust. We have outlined our argument many times. Quite simply the pro-gay-marriage crowd are using identical arguments to those which could also apply to legilising incest. Its not even a criticiam of gar marriage per se. it is a criticism of THE ARGUMENT. it is a very weak one and pretty much boils down to a tantruym wanting what someone else has but not being willing to full the membership requirements.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by longweekend58 on Jun 16th, 2012 at 5:29pm

MOTR wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 4:00am:
The above argument could be used to argue against any subgroup you like. I've picked on interracial marriages because they have been banned under numerous jurisdictions in the past, as they were seen to be against the will of God. Our society accepts homosexual and interracial relationships, we do not accept incestuous relationships.


but WHY not? after all, the arguments for gay mariage or homosecuality itself are the same as for incest. Does community acceptance of a behaviour imply it is right? After all, in the 1950s pedophilia was 'not talked about' thereby given it tacit approval which is why it flourished. was that ok?

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by MOTR on Jun 16th, 2012 at 6:02pm
You're one very sad individual, Longy. You might long for a time when homosexuals were treated with disgust, but we have moved on as a society. And to reconstruct the 50s as a time of social acceptance of pedophilia, is just plain nutty.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Spot of Borg on Jun 16th, 2012 at 6:54pm
Heh i see the example has changed from 30 years to 50 years. I have no idea what it was like 50 years ago but im guessing neither does anyone else here.

SOB

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Peter Freedman on Jun 16th, 2012 at 11:38pm

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jun 16th, 2012 at 9:15am:
Gay relationships are not accepted by society at all.

How many times do you or your friends use the phrase 'queer' or 'poofter' to make fun of a guy in jest?

Alot I imagine.

"what do you reckon to these new football boots I got?"
"They are bright red. You fking queer!"

That's the norm.

Thinking two ponces together is a normal relationship is anything but society's accepted norm my friend and you know it.



Penises are not accepted by society at all.

How many times do you or your friends use the word "prick" or "dickhead" to make fun of a guy in jest?

A lot I imagine.

"What do you reckon to this new trouser snake I've got?"

"It's just your old one, you dickhead, what a silly prick you are...."

That's the norm.

Thinking a penis is normal is anything but society's accepted norm, my friend, and you know it.

As for the four-letter word used to describe a woman's vagina, well, we won't even start on THAT one.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by MOTR on Jun 17th, 2012 at 7:05am
Well put, Peter. You've made my day.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Peter Freedman on Jun 17th, 2012 at 11:01am
No problem, MOTR.

I'll drop in from time to time. But I won't be as regular as before. There is far too much abuse and too many personal insults around here for my taste. It's a pity, this forum could be so good and is being dragged down by a small group of extremely active people who ensure thread after thread totally loses track and just becomes an unpleasant slanging match.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Spot of Borg on Jun 17th, 2012 at 11:09am

Peter Freedman wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 11:01am:
No problem, MOTR.

I'll drop in from time to time. But I won't be as regular as before. There is far too much abuse and too many personal insults around here for my taste. It's a pity, this forum could be so good and is being dragged down by a small group of extremely active people who ensure thread after thread totally loses track and just becomes an unpleasant slanging match.


BTW Valley Boy says to tell longy he quit voluntarily and wasnt banned or anything.

SOB

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Uncle Meat on Jun 17th, 2012 at 11:23am

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jun 16th, 2012 at 9:15am:
Gay relationships are not accepted by society at all.




Generally they are accepted.

It's only a small minority of people who don't accept gay relationships.

You need to get out more.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by longweekend58 on Jun 17th, 2012 at 1:29pm

MOTR wrote on Jun 16th, 2012 at 6:02pm:
You're one very sad individual, Longy. You might long for a time when homosexuals were treated with disgust, but we have moved on as a society. And to reconstruct the 50s as a time of social acceptance of pedophilia, is just plain nutty.


TRY READING what I am saying NOT what you think I am saying. those of us with the ability to think beyond the level of a 5yo see that the pro gay marriage argument is no different to the pro incest argument. so for the sake of repeating YET AGAIN, we are not debating gay marriage per se but discussing te weakness of the argument.

My example of the experienc of 50 years ago was to underline my point. Im disappointed you cant see past your rainbow-colored glasses to see what we are ACTUALLY talking about.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by longweekend58 on Jun 17th, 2012 at 1:30pm

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 16th, 2012 at 6:54pm:
Heh i see the example has changed from 30 years to 50 years. I have no idea what it was like 50 years ago but im guessing neither does anyone else here.

SOB


ever heard of BOOKS? literature and newspapers and other information? History books for instance? Not everybody is like you an unable to know or understand something your arent personally a part of.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by longweekend58 on Jun 17th, 2012 at 1:32pm

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 11:09am:

Peter Freedman wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 11:01am:
No problem, MOTR.

I'll drop in from time to time. But I won't be as regular as before. There is far too much abuse and too many personal insults around here for my taste. It's a pity, this forum could be so good and is being dragged down by a small group of extremely active people who ensure thread after thread totally loses track and just becomes an unpleasant slanging match.


BTW Valley Boy says to tell longy he quit voluntarily and wasnt banned or anything.

SOB


yeah, coz you'd know.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by longweekend58 on Jun 17th, 2012 at 1:33pm

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 11:23am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jun 16th, 2012 at 9:15am:
Gay relationships are not accepted by society at all.




Generally they are accepted.

It's only a small minority of people who don't accept gay relationships.

You need to get out more.


thats an assumption. 'acceptance' is not the same as tolerance. I think you would find that 'acceptance' probably doesnt even make a majority even though most tolerate it.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Spot of Borg on Jun 17th, 2012 at 1:40pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 1:33pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 11:23am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jun 16th, 2012 at 9:15am:
Gay relationships are not accepted by society at all.




Generally they are accepted.

It's only a small minority of people who don't accept gay relationships.

You need to get out more.


thats an assumption. 'acceptance' is not the same as tolerance. I think you would find that 'acceptance' probably doesnt even make a majority even though most tolerate it.


Who cares. Acceptance is enough.

SOB

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by MOTR on Jun 17th, 2012 at 3:07pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 1:29pm:

MOTR wrote on Jun 16th, 2012 at 6:02pm:
You're one very sad individual, Longy. You might long for a time when homosexuals were treated with disgust, but we have moved on as a society. And to reconstruct the 50s as a time of social acceptance of pedophilia, is just plain nutty.


TRY READING what I am saying NOT what you think I am saying. those of us with the ability to think beyond the level of a 5yo see that the pro gay marriage argument is no different to the pro incest argument. so for the sake of repeating YET AGAIN, we are not debating gay marriage per se but discussing te weakness of the argument.

My example of the experienc of 50 years ago was to underline my point. Im disappointed you cant see past your rainbow-colored glasses to see what we are ACTUALLY talking about.


When pedophilia is legal and not considered a heinous crime you might have an argument. Until then we can make a distinction between a legal loving relationship and a depraved illegal one. The fact that you can't make this distinction is what makes your argument stink.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by MOTR on Jun 17th, 2012 at 3:11pm
If you wanted to argue both are unacceptable in the eyes of God, you would have an argument in a faith based community. We live in a secular community, thank God for that.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by longweekend58 on Jun 17th, 2012 at 3:16pm

MOTR wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 3:07pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 1:29pm:

MOTR wrote on Jun 16th, 2012 at 6:02pm:
You're one very sad individual, Longy. You might long for a time when homosexuals were treated with disgust, but we have moved on as a society. And to reconstruct the 50s as a time of social acceptance of pedophilia, is just plain nutty.


TRY READING what I am saying NOT what you think I am saying. those of us with the ability to think beyond the level of a 5yo see that the pro gay marriage argument is no different to the pro incest argument. so for the sake of repeating YET AGAIN, we are not debating gay marriage per se but discussing te weakness of the argument.

My example of the experienc of 50 years ago was to underline my point. Im disappointed you cant see past your rainbow-colored glasses to see what we are ACTUALLY talking about.


When pedophilia is legal and not considered a heinous crime you might have an argument. Until then we can make a distinction between a legal loving relationship and a depraved illegal one. The fact that you can't make this distinction is what makes your argument stink.


for goodness sake MOTR. 50 years ago homosexuality was considered a 'depraved illegal one'. why dont you try and understand the nature of the debate instead of thinking this is about being anti-gay. we are saying that based on the arguments being presented there is no reason to think that in 50 years thime incest couples will makes the exact same arguments you are making today for gay marriage.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by longweekend58 on Jun 17th, 2012 at 3:16pm

MOTR wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 3:11pm:
If you wanted to argue both are unacceptable in the eyes of God, you would have an argument in a faith based community. We live in a secular community, thank God for that.


You really have no idea what the rest of us are talking about, do you?

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Spot of Borg on Jun 17th, 2012 at 3:18pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 3:16pm:

MOTR wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 3:07pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 1:29pm:

MOTR wrote on Jun 16th, 2012 at 6:02pm:
You're one very sad individual, Longy. You might long for a time when homosexuals were treated with disgust, but we have moved on as a society. And to reconstruct the 50s as a time of social acceptance of pedophilia, is just plain nutty.


TRY READING what I am saying NOT what you think I am saying. those of us with the ability to think beyond the level of a 5yo see that the pro gay marriage argument is no different to the pro incest argument. so for the sake of repeating YET AGAIN, we are not debating gay marriage per se but discussing te weakness of the argument.

My example of the experienc of 50 years ago was to underline my point. Im disappointed you cant see past your rainbow-colored glasses to see what we are ACTUALLY talking about.


When pedophilia is legal and not considered a heinous crime you might have an argument. Until then we can make a distinction between a legal loving relationship and a depraved illegal one. The fact that you can't make this distinction is what makes your argument stink.


for goodness sake MOTR. 50 years ago homosexuality was considered a 'depraved illegal one'. why dont you try and understand the nature of the debate instead of thinking this is about being anti-gay. we are saying that based on the arguments being presented there is no reason to think that in 50 years thime incest couples will makes the exact same arguments you are making today for gay marriage.


Why cant you understand that paedophiles actually HARM others and gays harm nobody?


Quote:
thank God for that.


lol

SOB

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by PoliticalPuppet on Jun 17th, 2012 at 3:23pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 3:16pm:

MOTR wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 3:07pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 1:29pm:

MOTR wrote on Jun 16th, 2012 at 6:02pm:
You're one very sad individual, Longy. You might long for a time when homosexuals were treated with disgust, but we have moved on as a society. And to reconstruct the 50s as a time of social acceptance of pedophilia, is just plain nutty.


TRY READING what I am saying NOT what you think I am saying. those of us with the ability to think beyond the level of a 5yo see that the pro gay marriage argument is no different to the pro incest argument. so for the sake of repeating YET AGAIN, we are not debating gay marriage per se but discussing te weakness of the argument.

My example of the experienc of 50 years ago was to underline my point. Im disappointed you cant see past your rainbow-colored glasses to see what we are ACTUALLY talking about.


When pedophilia is legal and not considered a heinous crime you might have an argument. Until then we can make a distinction between a legal loving relationship and a depraved illegal one. The fact that you can't make this distinction is what makes your argument stink.


for goodness sake MOTR. 50 years ago homosexuality was considered a 'depraved illegal one'. why dont you try and understand the nature of the debate instead of thinking this is about being anti-gay. we are saying that based on the arguments being presented there is no reason to think that in 50 years thime incest couples will makes the exact same arguments you are making today for gay marriage.

Once again you compare two completely different things.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by longweekend58 on Jun 17th, 2012 at 3:40pm

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 3:18pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 3:16pm:

MOTR wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 3:07pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 1:29pm:

MOTR wrote on Jun 16th, 2012 at 6:02pm:
You're one very sad individual, Longy. You might long for a time when homosexuals were treated with disgust, but we have moved on as a society. And to reconstruct the 50s as a time of social acceptance of pedophilia, is just plain nutty.


TRY READING what I am saying NOT what you think I am saying. those of us with the ability to think beyond the level of a 5yo see that the pro gay marriage argument is no different to the pro incest argument. so for the sake of repeating YET AGAIN, we are not debating gay marriage per se but discussing te weakness of the argument.

My example of the experienc of 50 years ago was to underline my point. Im disappointed you cant see past your rainbow-colored glasses to see what we are ACTUALLY talking about.


When pedophilia is legal and not considered a heinous crime you might have an argument. Until then we can make a distinction between a legal loving relationship and a depraved illegal one. The fact that you can't make this distinction is what makes your argument stink.


for goodness sake MOTR. 50 years ago homosexuality was considered a 'depraved illegal one'. why dont you try and understand the nature of the debate instead of thinking this is about being anti-gay. we are saying that based on the arguments being presented there is no reason to think that in 50 years thime incest couples will makes the exact same arguments you are making today for gay marriage.


Why cant you understand that paedophiles actually HARM others and gays harm nobody?


Quote:
thank God for that.


lol

SOB


Because

A) that is not the argument and
B) that is not necessarily true in either instance (which no doubt confuses you)

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by longweekend58 on Jun 17th, 2012 at 3:41pm

bobbythefap1 wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 3:23pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 3:16pm:

MOTR wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 3:07pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 1:29pm:

MOTR wrote on Jun 16th, 2012 at 6:02pm:
You're one very sad individual, Longy. You might long for a time when homosexuals were treated with disgust, but we have moved on as a society. And to reconstruct the 50s as a time of social acceptance of pedophilia, is just plain nutty.


TRY READING what I am saying NOT what you think I am saying. those of us with the ability to think beyond the level of a 5yo see that the pro gay marriage argument is no different to the pro incest argument. so for the sake of repeating YET AGAIN, we are not debating gay marriage per se but discussing te weakness of the argument.

My example of the experienc of 50 years ago was to underline my point. Im disappointed you cant see past your rainbow-colored glasses to see what we are ACTUALLY talking about.


When pedophilia is legal and not considered a heinous crime you might have an argument. Until then we can make a distinction between a legal loving relationship and a depraved illegal one. The fact that you can't make this distinction is what makes your argument stink.


for goodness sake MOTR. 50 years ago homosexuality was considered a 'depraved illegal one'. why dont you try and understand the nature of the debate instead of thinking this is about being anti-gay. we are saying that based on the arguments being presented there is no reason to think that in 50 years thime incest couples will makes the exact same arguments you are making today for gay marriage.

Once again you compare two completely different things.


ACtually, I dont. But the subtleties of the comparison apparently confuses you.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Peter Freedman on Jun 17th, 2012 at 3:46pm
longweekend is indulging in an argument much favoured by opponents of social reform.

They take a proposed change, exaggerate it to the nth degree and then argue that because the exaggeration is unacceptable therefore so is the original proposal.

This is the argument of the desperate who have nothing more logical to offer.

As a liberal who has no problem with either homosexuality or gay marriage I ask little of people like longweekend. They have a right to disapprove of homosexuality, never make a friend of a homosexual or invite one into their home.

They have a right to disapprove of gay marriage, never enter into one, never attend one or have one conducted in their backyard next to the chookhouse.

But they do not have the right to demand others be governed by THEIR morality or deny people equality before the law.

If they find they are not comfortable in a society which allows gay marriage then they have a choice. They can leave. Saudi Arabia is quite pleasant at this time of year.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by MOTR on Jun 17th, 2012 at 4:03pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 3:16pm:

MOTR wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 3:11pm:
If you wanted to argue both are unacceptable in the eyes of God, you would have an argument in a faith based community. We live in a secular community, thank God for that.


You really have no idea what the rest of us are talking about, do you?


I'm not entirely sure what you are on about. Incest and pedophilia are illegal in Australia. The argument for same sex marriages is that homosexual relationships are legal and in a secular society, separate from the laws of the church, homosexual citizens should have the same right to marry as do heterosexual citizens.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by MOTR on Jun 17th, 2012 at 4:09pm

Peter Freedman wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 3:46pm:
longweekend is indulging in an argument much favoured by opponents of social reform.

They take a proposed change, exaggerate it to the nth degree and then argue that because the exaggeration is unacceptable therefore so is the original proposal.

This is the argument of the desperate who have nothing more logical to offer.

As a liberal who has no problem with either homosexuality or gay marriage I ask little of people like longweekend. They have a right to disapprove of homosexuality, never make a friend of a homosexual or invite one into their home.

They have a right to disapprove of gay marriage, never enter into one, never attend one or have one conducted in their backyard next to the chookhouse.

But they do not have the right to demand others be governed by THEIR morality or deny people equality before the law.

If they find they are not comfortable in a society which allows gay marriage then they have a choice. They can leave. Saudi Arabia is quite pleasant at this time of year.


I tried to point out to Longy, that this same argument could have been used to forbid interracial marriages at a time when they too were illegal.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by longweekend58 on Jun 17th, 2012 at 5:19pm

MOTR wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 4:03pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 3:16pm:

MOTR wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 3:11pm:
If you wanted to argue both are unacceptable in the eyes of God, you would have an argument in a faith based community. We live in a secular community, thank God for that.


You really have no idea what the rest of us are talking about, do you?


I'm not entirely sure what you are on about. Incest and pedophilia are illegal in Australia. The argument for same sex marriages is that homosexual relationships are legal and in a secular society, separate from the laws of the church, homosexual citizens should have the same right to marry as do heterosexual citizens.


it is EXTREMELY hard to get you to understand this so let me try YET again just as several others have already tried.

A) this is not a debate about the pros and cons of gay marriage
B) it IS about the argument itself and the way it is done
C) the basic points of the pro-gay marriage argument are so weak as to easily also apply to supporting incest.

I dont know what is so hard abotu this except that perhaps it is the perennial problem: almost anyone can make an argument and hold an opinion on a particularl instance of a problem. But when asked to turn this into a principle they all go to water. Probably the hardest thing to ever discuss on here is a PRINCIPLED ARGUMENT. and this is a perfect example. What we are talking about is the PRINCIPLE of the points made in support of gay marriage. It is if you want a hypothetcical debate requiring you to think beyond what you see at the moment.

frankly, the problem appears to be that the mere notion of a discussion of  principle or indeed any topic that requires someone to think becomes too hard. This has been explained multiple times before in this thread and yet still people cannot understand it.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by longweekend58 on Jun 17th, 2012 at 5:20pm

Peter Freedman wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 3:46pm:
longweekend is indulging in an argument much favoured by opponents of social reform.

They take a proposed change, exaggerate it to the nth degree and then argue that because the exaggeration is unacceptable therefore so is the original proposal.

This is the argument of the desperate who have nothing more logical to offer.

As a liberal who has no problem with either homosexuality or gay marriage I ask little of people like longweekend. They have a right to disapprove of homosexuality, never make a friend of a homosexual or invite one into their home.

They have a right to disapprove of gay marriage, never enter into one, never attend one or have one conducted in their backyard next to the chookhouse.

But they do not have the right to demand others be governed by THEIR morality or deny people equality before the law.

If they find they are not comfortable in a society which allows gay marriage then they have a choice. They can leave. Saudi Arabia is quite pleasant at this time of year.


if you had the slightest clue what this discussion is your'd hang your head in shame at your idiotic post. Unfortunately there are only three people on here whom I think of when the topic comes to PRINCIPLED positions: myself FD and dsmithy. the rest of you wouldnt know a principle if it attacked you.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Spot of Borg on Jun 17th, 2012 at 5:23pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 5:19pm:

MOTR wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 4:03pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 3:16pm:

MOTR wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 3:11pm:
If you wanted to argue both are unacceptable in the eyes of God, you would have an argument in a faith based community. We live in a secular community, thank God for that.


You really have no idea what the rest of us are talking about, do you?


I'm not entirely sure what you are on about. Incest and pedophilia are illegal in Australia. The argument for same sex marriages is that homosexual relationships are legal and in a secular society, separate from the laws of the church, homosexual citizens should have the same right to marry as do heterosexual citizens.


it is EXTREMELY hard to get you to understand this so let me try YET again just as several others have already tried.

A) this is not a debate about the pros and cons of gay marriage
B) it IS about the argument itself and the way it is done
C) the basic points of the pro-gay marriage argument are so weak as to easily also apply to supporting incest.

I dont know what is so hard abotu this except that perhaps it is the perennial problem: almost anyone can make an argument and hold an opinion on a particularl instance of a problem. But when asked to turn this into a principle they all go to water. Probably the hardest thing to ever discuss on here is a PRINCIPLED ARGUMENT. and this is a perfect example. What we are talking about is the PRINCIPLE of the points made in support of gay marriage. It is if you want a hypothetcical debate requiring you to think beyond what you see at the moment.

frankly, the problem appears to be that the mere notion of a discussion of  principle or indeed any topic that requires someone to think becomes too hard. This has been explained multiple times before in this thread and yet still people cannot understand it.


How abut the PRINCIPLE of equality? Of not being bigoted? Of letting others lead their own lives without interfering?

SOB

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by MOTR on Jun 17th, 2012 at 6:57pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 5:19pm:

MOTR wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 4:03pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 3:16pm:

MOTR wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 3:11pm:
If you wanted to argue both are unacceptable in the eyes of God, you would have an argument in a faith based community. We live in a secular community, thank God for that.


You really have no idea what the rest of us are talking about, do you?


I'm not entirely sure what you are on about. Incest and pedophilia are illegal in Australia. The argument for same sex marriages is that homosexual relationships are legal and in a secular society, separate from the laws of the church, homosexual citizens should have the same right to marry as do heterosexual citizens.


it is EXTREMELY hard to get you to understand this so let me try YET again just as several others have already tried.

A) this is not a debate about the pros and cons of gay marriage
B) it IS about the argument itself and the way it is done
C) the basic points of the pro-gay marriage argument are so weak as to easily also apply to supporting incest.

I dont know what is so hard abotu this except that perhaps it is the perennial problem: almost anyone can make an argument and hold an opinion on a particularl instance of a problem. But when asked to turn this into a principle they all go to water. Probably the hardest thing to ever discuss on here is a PRINCIPLED ARGUMENT. and this is a perfect example. What we are talking about is the PRINCIPLE of the points made in support of gay marriage. It is if you want a hypothetcical debate requiring you to think beyond what you see at the moment.

frankly, the problem appears to be that the mere notion of a discussion of  principle or indeed any topic that requires someone to think becomes too hard. This has been explained multiple times before in this thread and yet still people cannot understand it.


I have clearly demonstrated that point C does not stand. It does not stand because a homosexual relationship is a legal relationship. Your argument also does not stand because it could be used to maintain the exclusion of interracial marriages in jurisdictions where interracial marriages are proscribed.

I'm not sure I can make it any clearer for you, Longy.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by MOTR on Jun 17th, 2012 at 7:02pm
You are clearly inferring that homosexual relationships have something in common with pedophiliac and incestuous relationships that interracial relationships don't.



Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Chard on Jun 17th, 2012 at 7:09pm
Q. Why are homosexuals so rude?

A.  You'd be a little rude to if you had to deal with bigoted dickheads like Longwinded there.


Hey, Long, provide evidence that there is a direct causal link between homosexuality and pedophilia. No, bullshit your pastor told you doesn't count.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by MOTR on Jun 17th, 2012 at 7:15pm

Chard wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 7:09pm:
Q. Why are homosexuals so rude?

A.  You'd be a little rude to if you had to deal with bigoted dickheads like Longwinded there.


Hey, Long, provide evidence that there is a direct causal link between homosexuality and pedophilia. No, bullshit your pastor told you doesn't count.


I don't believe Longy has made that particular claim in this thread. I doubt he has made it elsewhere.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Chard on Jun 17th, 2012 at 7:23pm

MOTR wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 7:15pm:

Chard wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 7:09pm:
Q. Why are homosexuals so rude?

A.  You'd be a little rude to if you had to deal with bigoted dickheads like Longwinded there.


Hey, Long, provide evidence that there is a direct causal link between homosexuality and pedophilia. No, bullshit your pastor told you doesn't count.


I don't believe Longy has made that particular claim in this thread. I doubt he has made it elsewhere.


Are you reading the same thread I am? I could swear that the last several pages he was attempting to equivocate arguments justifying giving homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals to arguments in favor of legalizing incest and pedophilia.  I also noticed that he hasn't actually said that he isn't against gay marriage as well.  From this one can easily infer that he's probably just a tad bigoted.

Now, if he comes out and clearly states that he has nothing against granting homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals I'll retract my statements and give Long an apology.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Spot of Borg on Jun 17th, 2012 at 7:23pm

MOTR wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 7:15pm:

Chard wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 7:09pm:
Q. Why are homosexuals so rude?

A.  You'd be a little rude to if you had to deal with bigoted dickheads like Longwinded there.


Hey, Long, provide evidence that there is a direct causal link between homosexuality and pedophilia. No, bullshit your pastor told you doesn't count.


I don't believe Longy has made that particular claim in this thread. I doubt he has made it elsewhere.


Heh yeah. They have kinda stopped short of that one on this forum but ive seen it enough elsewhere. Some of them have implied it enough though.

SOB

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by MOTR on Jun 17th, 2012 at 7:34pm

Chard wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 7:23pm:

MOTR wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 7:15pm:

Chard wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 7:09pm:
Q. Why are homosexuals so rude?

A.  You'd be a little rude to if you had to deal with bigoted dickheads like Longwinded there.


Hey, Long, provide evidence that there is a direct causal link between homosexuality and pedophilia. No, bullshit your pastor told you doesn't count.


I don't believe Longy has made that particular claim in this thread. I doubt he has made it elsewhere.


Are you reading the same thread I am? I could swear that the last several pages he was attempting to equivocate arguments justifying giving homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals to arguments in favor of legalizing incest and pedophilia.  I also noticed that he hasn't actually said that he isn't against gay marriage as well.  From this one can easily infer that he's probably just a tad bigoted.

Now, if he comes out and clearly states that he has nothing against granting homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals I'll retract my statements and give Long an apology.


He is equating the arguments. His reasoning seems a bit muddled so it is difficult to ascertain the nature of the equivalency, besides that homosexuality was once socially unacceptable.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Chard on Jun 17th, 2012 at 8:01pm

MOTR wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 7:34pm:
He is equating the arguments. His reasoning seems a bit muddled so it is difficult to ascertain the nature of the equivalency, besides that homosexuality was once socially unacceptable.


1.  Equivocating arguments like that is pretty much one of the biggest forms of intellectual dishonesty I can think of. It's saying that something that is completely victimless and without societal risk is the same as things that clearly have victims and can put society at risk.  It's a bullshit argument generally made by people who are huge bigoted tools but lack the enough conviction to come right out and admit their bigotry.

2.  The only reason why its socially unacceptable is because of is because of arbitrary religious morals inflicted on others by people who can't mind their own damn business and by people who feel threatened by gays because they're afraid to admit they might have sexual inclinations towards the same sex themselves.. The reasons for denying homosexuals the right to marry are every bit as mired in religiously driven bigoted bullshit and fear of admitting ones own sexual desires as the anti-miscegenation laws that we used to have in the US that made it a crime for blacks and whites to marry.

So, yeah, I honestly don't give a rusty f*ck what he was doing so much as I'm concerned about his motivations for doing so.


On a side note, what the hell is up with you people and these walls of quotes?  Do none of you know how to prune posts and operate simply BB code? Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over?

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Peter Freedman on Jun 17th, 2012 at 8:40pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 5:20pm:

Peter Freedman wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 3:46pm:
longweekend is indulging in an argument much favoured by opponents of social reform.

They take a proposed change, exaggerate it to the nth degree and then argue that because the exaggeration is unacceptable therefore so is the original proposal.

This is the argument of the desperate who have nothing more logical to offer.

As a liberal who has no problem with either homosexuality or gay marriage I ask little of people like longweekend. They have a right to disapprove of homosexuality, never make a friend of a homosexual or invite one into their home.

They have a right to disapprove of gay marriage, never enter into one, never attend one or have one conducted in their backyard next to the chookhouse.

But they do not have the right to demand others be governed by THEIR morality or deny people equality before the law.

If they find they are not comfortable in a society which allows gay marriage then they have a choice. They can leave. Saudi Arabia is quite pleasant at this time of year.


if you had the slightest clue what this discussion is your'd hang your head in shame at your idiotic post. Unfortunately there are only three people on here whom I think of when the topic comes to PRINCIPLED positions: myself FD and dsmithy. the rest of you wouldnt know a principle if it attacked you.



I take this response as meaning the author is defeated, knows it, and can think of nothing reasoned to say in reply. QED

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by MOTR on Jun 17th, 2012 at 8:44pm

Chard wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 8:01pm:

MOTR wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 7:34pm:
He is equating the arguments. His reasoning seems a bit muddled so it is difficult to ascertain the nature of the equivalency, besides that homosexuality was once socially unacceptable.


1.  Equivocating arguments like that is pretty much one of the biggest forms of intellectual dishonesty I can think of. It's saying that something that is completely victimless and without societal risk is the same as things that clearly have victims and can put society at risk.  It's a bullshit argument generally made by people who are huge bigoted tools but lack the enough conviction to come right out and admit their bigotry.

2.  The only reason why its socially unacceptable is because of is because of arbitrary religious morals inflicted on others by people who can't mind their own damn business and by people who feel threatened by gays because they're afraid to admit they might have sexual inclinations towards the same sex themselves.. The reasons for denying homosexuals the right to marry are every bit as mired in religiously driven bigoted bullshit and fear of admitting ones own sexual desires as the anti-miscegenation laws that we used to have in the US that made it a crime for blacks and whites



I'd say you've nailed Longy well. No pun intended, of course.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Avram Horowitz on Jun 17th, 2012 at 8:51pm
In Sydney I too have seen homosexuals to be rude as well. Specially at the university demonstration they were rude about religious people.

Why do they need to be offensive like this?

The gay society and Islam society at the university. If is my decision I would ban both of them! :)

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Peter Freedman on Jun 17th, 2012 at 8:57pm
In Brisbane, I've seen one legged men with flowers in their buttonholes who are extremely rude, especially if you tread on their remaining foot.

If it was my decision I'd ban them. In fact, why not just ban everybody, Avram, and be done with it?

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Peter Freedman on Jun 17th, 2012 at 9:00pm
Anyway, I wouldn't worry too much, Avram, Sydney is like Auckland, everyone is rude, it's compulsory. You have to pass a rudeness test before you are allowed in.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Avram Horowitz on Jun 17th, 2012 at 9:02pm
If they behave there is no need to ban anyone.

But they do not behave. They are screaming loudly and are offensive.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by MOTR on Jun 17th, 2012 at 9:07pm

Avram Horowitz wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 8:51pm:
In Sydney I too have seen homosexuals to be rude as well. Specially at the university demonstration they were rude about religious people.

Why do they need to be offensive like this?

The gay society and Islam society at the university. If is my decision I would ban both of them! :)


Of course you would, Avram.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Avram Horowitz on Jun 17th, 2012 at 9:09pm
Rude behavior is not acceptable in a civilized society.

You believe in this behavior MOTR?

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by MOTR on Jun 17th, 2012 at 9:17pm

Avram Horowitz wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 9:09pm:
Rude behavior is not acceptable in a civilized society.

You believe in this behavior MOTR?


I don't have a problem with protests or marches. They bring vibrancy to a democracy. Rude behaviour can happen anywhere.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Chard on Jun 17th, 2012 at 10:09pm

Peter Freedman wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 9:00pm:
Anyway, I wouldn't worry too much, Avram, Sydney is like Auckland, everyone is rude, it's compulsory. You have to pass a rudeness test before you are allowed in.


That's weird, last time I was down there people were pretty friendly. Dunno, maybe you guys are just nice to the tourists or something.


Avram, if being an asshole was a criminal offense 90% of the human race would be in jail, homes.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Peter Freedman on Jun 17th, 2012 at 11:38pm
Dear angeleyes, always can be relied upon to scrape the bottom of the barrel. Well done, darling.

A mental illness is no different from a physical illness. You may well suffer from one and not know it, sweetie. When I read some of your posts, well.........
:) :) :) :)
Mine is under control, except for the odd occasion when I wander the streets armed with a carving knife and a "Jack Nicholson in The Shining" look on my face.

Don't go walking in the dark, honey, you never know who may be lurking just around the corner.

Be afraid, angeleyes, be very afraid. Karma is just behind you.....   :D :D :D

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Chard on Jun 17th, 2012 at 11:40pm
Really?

Stay classy, Angeleyes....


Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Spot of Borg on Jun 18th, 2012 at 6:49am

Avram Horowitz wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 8:51pm:
In Sydney I too have seen homosexuals to be rude as well. Specially at the university demonstration they were rude about religious people.

Why do they need to be offensive like this?

The gay society and Islam society at the university. If is my decision I would ban both of them! :)


Why stop there? Ban the xtians and the budhists and all the political groups. Seriously you cant blame a whole group for what 1 person does. Also the gays would be pretty angry right now @ the churches interfering with them.

SOB

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Spot of Borg on Jun 18th, 2012 at 6:51am

Avram Horowitz wrote on Jun 17th, 2012 at 9:02pm:
If they behave there is no need to ban anyone.

But they do not behave. They are screaming loudly and are offensive.


Hmmmmm. You say this about the palestinians too. Do you see yourself as a parent disciplining children? Is this an israeli national attitude or just you?

SOB

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Andrei.Hicks on Jun 18th, 2012 at 9:14am
Freedman is insane.

I am not sure anyone else is going to be massively taken aback?

I have always said this place seems packed with lunatics and bludgers.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by angeleyes on Jun 18th, 2012 at 10:59am
What caused you to become a nut job pansi. Inbreeding perhaps?

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Andrei.Hicks on Jun 18th, 2012 at 11:22am
Pansi I do love how somehow you wish to paint me as an international businessman of some kind...

I think you'll find that's our mate Lastnail not I.

I am, as I have always been quite open, a FD of a region of a stream of products of one of the biggest and most successful energy companies in the world.

As for my education - yes I am quite proud that mine sh*ts all over yours. It certainly cost mum and dad enough pounds. I'd like to think I have repaid it.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Spot of Borg on Jun 18th, 2012 at 12:01pm
Hmmm doesnt seem to be the actual homos or greens that are rude in the thread does it . . ..

SOB

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by pansi1951 on Jun 18th, 2012 at 3:02pm

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 18th, 2012 at 12:01pm:
Hmmm doesnt seem to be the actual homos or greens that are rude in the thread does it . . ..

SOB


Well, if they are , they're not admitting to it. Oneupmanship is not my game so I bow out gracefully.

Homosexuals and Greens or leftwing voters are no ruder than any other cross section of the community. Some people just like to stigmatise others because they themselves feel inferior or worthless.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Peter Freedman on Jun 18th, 2012 at 3:59pm

angeleyes wrote on Jun 18th, 2012 at 10:59am:
What caused you to become a nut job pansi. Inbreeding perhaps?


This is the level to which some people will stoop when  crossed. And so long as the forum rules aren't enforced they continue to do it and drag the forum into the gutter.

As SOB observed I have never hidden my illness. In fact I have written a number of articles on it for various publications, and always under my own name. Angeleyes picked up on one of them, whether she was looking for ammunition to try and humiliate me, I don't know and don't care.

I write on the topic because I know that mental illness carries a stigma which is undeserved. If Angeleyes had found an article saying I had gout, or diabetes, or housemaid's knee she wouldn't have been interested. But because it mentioned a mental condition she saw what she thought was a weak spot and rushed to put the boot in. In a schoolyard you would call that bullying.

Sadly, for her, her effort fell flat because it was about as effective as saying Elton John is gay or Julia Gillard is unmarried. Most people know that already.

I also took the piss out of Andrei in a good humoured way, but I guess he felt the need to pay me back, and humour doesn't seem his strong suit.

Both their reactions are examples of how ignorant some people are about mental illness. It doesn't mean you are mad, Andrei, it usually just means a chemical imbalance which is often easily controlled.

Fortunately, I have also had some really good feedback from some of stuff I have written on the topic. One woman wrote to me saying she had been worried about her husband for some time, showed him my article and persuaded him to get help. She thanked me for having a role in saving her marriage.   :)

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Spot of Borg on Jun 18th, 2012 at 4:20pm
I have the feeling he would have had a go @ you about gout too. Anything @ all he could find out he would have had a go about. Bit like soren having a go @ me for my cat avatar being borg - its all he had on me. Ppl like that are just trolls.

SOB

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Peter Freedman on Jun 18th, 2012 at 4:26pm
I love your cat.........      :)

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Soren on Jun 18th, 2012 at 4:40pm
No-one has the right not to be offended.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Soren on Jun 18th, 2012 at 4:42pm

Peter Freedman wrote on Jun 18th, 2012 at 4:26pm:
I love your cat.........      :)

"cat......", eh?

It's a robotic pussy, probably Japanese. Apparently it has something to do with pussies in space on tele.
Are you hitting on SOB?




Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by MOTR on Jun 18th, 2012 at 7:32pm

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jun 18th, 2012 at 9:14am:
Freedman is insane.

I am not sure anyone else is going to be massively taken aback?

I have always said this place seems packed with lunatics and bludgers.


Peter comes across as a stand up bloke who you'd trust off the bat. I've no doubt he'd pull his weight and protect your back. He'd also be able to write the last two sentences without reverting to cliches. Someone with a narcissistic personality disorder such as your own shouldn't be throwing stones at a man who can honestly confront his own psychology.


Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Peter Freedman on Jun 18th, 2012 at 10:50pm
I see angel's anger management courses aren't working yet.

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by bobbythebat1 on Jun 19th, 2012 at 12:43am
People here spend an awful lot of time writing about homosexuals.
Don't you think that too?



Shrink.jpg (8 KB | 29 )

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Chard on Jun 19th, 2012 at 4:55am

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Spot of Borg on Jun 19th, 2012 at 7:14am
I want that tree in my yard.

SOB

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Spot of Borg on Jun 19th, 2012 at 7:17am

Quote:
You reckon?

BTW Peter the maximum speed allowed in Queensland is 110 not 120.


Personal information from outside the forum. Is this even allowed? you are thoroughly unpleasant angeleyes. Prolly a soren sock.

SOB

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Spot of Borg on Jun 19th, 2012 at 9:11am

angeleyes wrote on Jun 19th, 2012 at 8:31am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 19th, 2012 at 7:14am:
I want that tree in my yard.

SOB



I never thought that of you. Sheesh how wrong could I have been.


Thought what?

SOB

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Spot of Borg on Jun 19th, 2012 at 10:31am

angeleyes wrote on Jun 19th, 2012 at 9:17am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 19th, 2012 at 9:11am:

angeleyes wrote on Jun 19th, 2012 at 8:31am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 19th, 2012 at 7:14am:
I want that tree in my yard.

SOB



I never thought that of you. Sheesh how wrong could I have been.


Thought what?

SOB



OMG.

Are you really telling me you can't work it out?


I like a colourful tree. Whats the problem with that?

SOB

Title: Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Post by Peter Freedman on Jun 19th, 2012 at 12:47pm

angeleyes wrote on Jun 18th, 2012 at 11:43pm:
If Freedman is on Centrelink benefits and being paid for his writing by New Zealand papers............................very interesting.


If that were true, and it isn't, it would be absolutely none of your business. Your capacity for nastiness seems unending.

Anyway, you are going to have to play without me for a day or two. I find dealing with the likes of you a little like eating tripe, there's a nasty taste and too much at one sitting leaves  you having to make frequent trips to the dunny to throw up.

How you escape any form of punishment for blatantly ignoring the "rules" of this forum is beyond comprehension.

Australian Politics Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.5.2!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2024. All Rights Reserved.