Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 ... 22
Send Topic Print
Marriages to be annulled (Read 5548 times)
Grendel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 24108
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #90 - Oct 11th, 2017 at 8:12am
 
Wink
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
AugCaesarustus
Gold Member
*****
Online


Founding Father of Australia's
First Republic

Posts: 4319
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #91 - Oct 11th, 2017 at 10:43am
 
Frank wrote on Oct 11th, 2017 at 7:52am:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Oct 8th, 2017 at 7:25pm:
Frank wrote on Oct 8th, 2017 at 6:33pm:
Siblings who want to marry, can't.


First of all, 'siblings' aren't a minority in the same way as homosexual people are. And frankily, I think that's actually wrong; if siblings want to get married, they should be allowed to.

Frank wrote on Oct 8th, 2017 at 6:33pm:
Citizens of other countries can't sit in Parliament.


In this case, this applies to ALL foreign citizens. We haven't said 'oh, only citizens of America can sit in Parliament but not citizens of Japan. It applies to all citizens, so the law is consistent: all or nothing.

Frank wrote on Oct 8th, 2017 at 6:33pm:
The blind can't get a driver's licence.


This is silly example. Blind people driving is about public liability and the risk of causing death. SSM marriage doesn't cause anyone harm.

Frank wrote on Oct 8th, 2017 at 6:33pm:
Is it first class to be normal, heterosexual? Marriage is about the heterosexual nature of our species. That's what it has always been and everyone understood that, until 10 minutes ago.


The reason why marriage is about the 'heterosexual' nature of the species as you claim is because of the expectation that marriage will lead to the birth of children, right? Therefore, you also need to agree that heterosexual marriages that DON'T lead to the birth of children should not be considered marriage.

Frank wrote on Oct 8th, 2017 at 6:33pm:
Homosexuals are not just an alternative to heterosexuals, but as far as the species and societies are concerned, a complete dead end.


As I stated above, and as you have mentioned below, marriage is a legal institution - a contract between two consenting adults. The legal institution doesn't have any other condition, other than the consent of both individuals. It doesn't matter what about the 'alternative' or whether they are a 'dead-end' as you have said.

Frank wrote on Oct 8th, 2017 at 6:33pm:
The churches sanctify marriage but you can marry without ever going to church (so it is not an exclusively religious institution).  It is an exclusively heterosexual institution. That is the universal common thread across cultures and times.


So, if we recognize marriages without going to church, then we should recognize same-sex marriages. If non-religious people can get married, then same-sex couples should be allowed to as well.

Again, marriage was exclusively a heterosexual institution because it was expected that people procreate, which was their 'social duty'. Today, no such expectation exists, and less and less people are procreating, so the prerequisite for marriage is no longer valid.

You want to be stupid so I  can't  really help you.

Procreation is an essential part of every society and so it is institutionalised in every society. But even without every married couple procreating, we are STILL a species made up of men and women. So every society has an interest in formalizing the relationship between the sexes, so women and girls are protected, men and boys are harnessed and anchored, the two sexes, complementing each other, are brought together to form a bridge between generations, whether they have their own kids or not. No society has any interest in formali sing homosexual relationships because they are defective and irrelevant to society. At best they are tolerated, at worst they are purged.

Homosexual relationships are a dead end in the broad sense as well as the narrow one of procreation. Homosexuals do not bring the sexes together, they do not complement each other, they do not create a microcosm in which the broader society and it's norms, values, interpersonal relations are fully and importantly created and reflected.

If there were no homosexuals, nothing would change. If there were no heterosexuals, everything would change and we would quickly disappear. That difference must not be ignored or downplayed by idiotic non-arguments like yours.






You seem to be implying that homosexuals are going to increase exponentially in number and will take over the world, thereby resulting in the extinction of the human race.

There is no risk of this ever happening. Same-sex marriage is not a threat to heterosexual majority and will never be a threat. The majority of people will continue to be heterosexual. Sexual orientation is natural, in so far as a person doesn't make that choice to align one way or the other.

Homosexuality has within recent years become more and more accepted. Even in societies where it is brutally oppressed like Muslim-majority countries, it still exists. We know now that two same-sex couples are able to love each other as much as two heterosexual couples. Granting them the right to marry does not demean 'traditional marriage' but it strengthens marriage as a whole. Same-sex couples are just as able to be committed to each other as heterosexual couples, and by having more committed people married, this would actually make marriage more meaningful.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Grendel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 24108
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #92 - Oct 11th, 2017 at 11:01am
 
Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy clueless...
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Aussie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 33017
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #93 - Oct 11th, 2017 at 11:17am
 
Grendel wrote on Oct 11th, 2017 at 11:01am:
Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy clueless...


Herbert, is that the one line word graffiti about which you claim....you know, the thing which ruins Threads?
Back to top
 

And Indian women aren't exactly LBFMs. ~ A Member
A Member ~ kill every man woman and child, who is a Muslim.
A Member ~ I know if he had touched my kid he [taxi driver]would need an Ambulance
 
IP Logged
 
Grendel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 24108
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #94 - Oct 11th, 2017 at 9:51pm
 
Aussie wrote on Oct 11th, 2017 at 11:17am:
Grendel wrote on Oct 11th, 2017 at 11:01am:
Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy clueless...


Herbert, is that the one line word graffiti about which you claim....you know, the thing which ruins Threads?

TROLL someone else Aussie unlike you I make lots of pertinant posts.

I've already commented on Auggies idiocy elsewhere and yet again it posts the same refuted nonsense.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Grendel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 24108
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #95 - Oct 11th, 2017 at 9:56pm
 
Quote:
Granting them the right to marry does not demean 'traditional marriage' but it strengthens marriage as a whole. Same-sex couples are just as able to be committed to each other as heterosexual couples, and by having more committed people married, this would actually make marriage more meaningful.


This of course is just more deluded rubbish.

Since when is ANAL SEX the same as sex that creates life?
How can same sex couples create life together and so create a real family made up of children that are the progeny of both?

Like I said CLUELESS.....

Would you like me to explain it again for YOU Aussie.
I could type slower if you like, most people would have understood exactly my point originally and many would have seen me make the point over and over again on this site.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Aussie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 33017
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #96 - Oct 11th, 2017 at 10:03pm
 
Grendel wrote on Oct 11th, 2017 at 9:51pm:
Aussie wrote on Oct 11th, 2017 at 11:17am:
Grendel wrote on Oct 11th, 2017 at 11:01am:
Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy clueless...


Herbert, is that the one line word graffiti about which you claim....you know, the thing which ruins Threads?

TROLL someone else Aussie unlike you I make lots of pertinant posts.

I've already commented on Auggies idiocy elsewhere and yet again it posts the same refuted nonsense.


Yes, I know Grendel ~ and this is one of your best:

Quote:
Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy clueless...



Back to top
 

And Indian women aren't exactly LBFMs. ~ A Member
A Member ~ kill every man woman and child, who is a Muslim.
A Member ~ I know if he had touched my kid he [taxi driver]would need an Ambulance
 
IP Logged
 
Grendel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 24108
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #97 - Oct 11th, 2017 at 10:29pm
 
Twain once said.

BETTER TO REMAIN SILENT AND BE THOUGHT A FOOL, THAN OPEN YOUR MOUTH AND REMOVE ALL DOUBT.

That is very apt for you and your sniping and trolling Aussie.
Wassup no one talking to you again? Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Aussie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 33017
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #98 - Oct 11th, 2017 at 10:47pm
 
Grendel wrote on Oct 11th, 2017 at 10:29pm:
Twain once said.

BETTER TO REMAIN SILENT AND BE THOUGHT A FOOL, THAN OPEN YOUR MOUTH AND REMOVE ALL DOUBT.

That is very apt for you and your sniping and trolling Aussie.
Wassup no one talking to you again? Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy



Yes that is what someone said, Grendel.  Good find as I'm sure no-one here has ever heard it before.

Was that one of your 'pertinent' contributions to discussion here?
Back to top
 

And Indian women aren't exactly LBFMs. ~ A Member
A Member ~ kill every man woman and child, who is a Muslim.
A Member ~ I know if he had touched my kid he [taxi driver]would need an Ambulance
 
IP Logged
 
AugCaesarustus
Gold Member
*****
Online


Founding Father of Australia's
First Republic

Posts: 4319
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #99 - Oct 11th, 2017 at 11:20pm
 
Grendel wrote on Oct 11th, 2017 at 9:56pm:
Quote:
Granting them the right to marry does not demean 'traditional marriage' but it strengthens marriage as a whole. Same-sex couples are just as able to be committed to each other as heterosexual couples, and by having more committed people married, this would actually make marriage more meaningful.


This of course is just more deluded rubbish.

Since when is ANAL SEX the same as sex that creates life?
How can same sex couples create life together and so create a real family made up of children that are the progeny of both?


You're a complete idiot. What if a man bangs his wife/partner with a condom and doesn't result in knocking her up? Is that ok? Is that equivalent to anal sex?



Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Aussie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 33017
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #100 - Oct 11th, 2017 at 11:42pm
 
I predict his response will be:

Quote:
Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy clueless...
Back to top
 

And Indian women aren't exactly LBFMs. ~ A Member
A Member ~ kill every man woman and child, who is a Muslim.
A Member ~ I know if he had touched my kid he [taxi driver]would need an Ambulance
 
IP Logged
 
mothra
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 24633
Gender: female
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #101 - Oct 11th, 2017 at 11:44pm
 
To be fair to Grendel, he'll probably call Caesar a troll to. And a shallow thinker. Who wastes his time.

Grendel can write more than three sentences at once.
Back to top
 

If you can't be a good example, you have to be a horrible warning.
 
IP Logged
 
Frank
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 6601
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #102 - Oct 12th, 2017 at 6:14am
 
AugCaesarustus wrote on Oct 11th, 2017 at 10:43am:
Frank wrote on Oct 11th, 2017 at 7:52am:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Oct 8th, 2017 at 7:25pm:
Frank wrote on Oct 8th, 2017 at 6:33pm:
Siblings who want to marry, can't.


First of all, 'siblings' aren't a minority in the same way as homosexual people are. And frankily, I think that's actually wrong; if siblings want to get married, they should be allowed to.

Frank wrote on Oct 8th, 2017 at 6:33pm:
Citizens of other countries can't sit in Parliament.


In this case, this applies to ALL foreign citizens. We haven't said 'oh, only citizens of America can sit in Parliament but not citizens of Japan. It applies to all citizens, so the law is consistent: all or nothing.

Frank wrote on Oct 8th, 2017 at 6:33pm:
The blind can't get a driver's licence.


This is silly example. Blind people driving is about public liability and the risk of causing death. SSM marriage doesn't cause anyone harm.

Frank wrote on Oct 8th, 2017 at 6:33pm:
Is it first class to be normal, heterosexual? Marriage is about the heterosexual nature of our species. That's what it has always been and everyone understood that, until 10 minutes ago.


The reason why marriage is about the 'heterosexual' nature of the species as you claim is because of the expectation that marriage will lead to the birth of children, right? Therefore, you also need to agree that heterosexual marriages that DON'T lead to the birth of children should not be considered marriage.

Frank wrote on Oct 8th, 2017 at 6:33pm:
Homosexuals are not just an alternative to heterosexuals, but as far as the species and societies are concerned, a complete dead end.


As I stated above, and as you have mentioned below, marriage is a legal institution - a contract between two consenting adults. The legal institution doesn't have any other condition, other than the consent of both individuals. It doesn't matter what about the 'alternative' or whether they are a 'dead-end' as you have said.

Frank wrote on Oct 8th, 2017 at 6:33pm:
The churches sanctify marriage but you can marry without ever going to church (so it is not an exclusively religious institution).  It is an exclusively heterosexual institution. That is the universal common thread across cultures and times.


So, if we recognize marriages without going to church, then we should recognize same-sex marriages. If non-religious people can get married, then same-sex couples should be allowed to as well.

Again, marriage was exclusively a heterosexual institution because it was expected that people procreate, which was their 'social duty'. Today, no such expectation exists, and less and less people are procreating, so the prerequisite for marriage is no longer valid.

You want to be stupid so I  can't  really help you.

Procreation is an essential part of every society and so it is institutionalised in every society. But even without every married couple procreating, we are STILL a species made up of men and women. So every society has an interest in formalizing the relationship between the sexes, so women and girls are protected, men and boys are harnessed and anchored, the two sexes, complementing each other, are brought together to form a bridge between generations, whether they have their own kids or not. No society has any interest in formali sing homosexual relationships because they are defective and irrelevant to society. At best they are tolerated, at worst they are purged.

Homosexual relationships are a dead end in the broad sense as well as the narrow one of procreation. Homosexuals do not bring the sexes together, they do not complement each other, they do not create a microcosm in which the broader society and it's norms, values, interpersonal relations are fully and importantly created and reflected.

If there were no homosexuals, nothing would change. If there were no heterosexuals, everything would change and we would quickly disappear. That difference must not be ignored or downplayed by idiotic non-arguments like yours.






You seem to be implying that homosexuals are going to increase exponentially in number and will take over the world, thereby resulting in the extinction of the human race.
.



Oh, please don't  be a complete idiot. Where do I 'seem to be implying' any such complete idiocy? It is entirely your own stupid invention.
If you do not understand what I posted then ask but don't make up Bwianesque crap. Unless that is all you are here to do.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
greggerypeccary
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 69976
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #103 - Oct 12th, 2017 at 6:32am
 
AugCaesarustus wrote on Oct 11th, 2017 at 11:20pm:
Grendel wrote on Oct 11th, 2017 at 9:56pm:
Quote:
Granting them the right to marry does not demean 'traditional marriage' but it strengthens marriage as a whole. Same-sex couples are just as able to be committed to each other as heterosexual couples, and by having more committed people married, this would actually make marriage more meaningful.


This of course is just more deluded rubbish.

Since when is ANAL SEX the same as sex that creates life?
How can same sex couples create life together and so create a real family made up of children that are the progeny of both?


You're a complete idiot. What if a man bangs his wife/partner with a condom and doesn't result in knocking her up? Is that ok? Is that equivalent to anal sex?




Yes, he most certainly is.

He doesn't realise that heterosexuals have about as much anal sex as gay men.

He doesn't realise that lesbians (half of all gays) don't have anal sex at all.

And, he doesn't realise that heterosexual couples have oral sex all the time, which doesn't result in children.

Why these ignorant buffoons need to discuss children, and anal sex, in the SSM debate is anyone's guess   Roll Eyes
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
AugCaesarustus
Gold Member
*****
Online


Founding Father of Australia's
First Republic

Posts: 4319
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #104 - Oct 12th, 2017 at 3:29pm
 
Frank wrote on Oct 12th, 2017 at 6:14am:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Oct 11th, 2017 at 10:43am:
Frank wrote on Oct 11th, 2017 at 7:52am:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Oct 8th, 2017 at 7:25pm:
Frank wrote on Oct 8th, 2017 at 6:33pm:
Siblings who want to marry, can't.


First of all, 'siblings' aren't a minority in the same way as homosexual people are. And frankily, I think that's actually wrong; if siblings want to get married, they should be allowed to.

Frank wrote on Oct 8th, 2017 at 6:33pm:
Citizens of other countries can't sit in Parliament.


In this case, this applies to ALL foreign citizens. We haven't said 'oh, only citizens of America can sit in Parliament but not citizens of Japan. It applies to all citizens, so the law is consistent: all or nothing.

Frank wrote on Oct 8th, 2017 at 6:33pm:
The blind can't get a driver's licence.


This is silly example. Blind people driving is about public liability and the risk of causing death. SSM marriage doesn't cause anyone harm.

Frank wrote on Oct 8th, 2017 at 6:33pm:
Is it first class to be normal, heterosexual? Marriage is about the heterosexual nature of our species. That's what it has always been and everyone understood that, until 10 minutes ago.


The reason why marriage is about the 'heterosexual' nature of the species as you claim is because of the expectation that marriage will lead to the birth of children, right? Therefore, you also need to agree that heterosexual marriages that DON'T lead to the birth of children should not be considered marriage.

Frank wrote on Oct 8th, 2017 at 6:33pm:
Homosexuals are not just an alternative to heterosexuals, but as far as the species and societies are concerned, a complete dead end.


As I stated above, and as you have mentioned below, marriage is a legal institution - a contract between two consenting adults. The legal institution doesn't have any other condition, other than the consent of both individuals. It doesn't matter what about the 'alternative' or whether they are a 'dead-end' as you have said.

Frank wrote on Oct 8th, 2017 at 6:33pm:
The churches sanctify marriage but you can marry without ever going to church (so it is not an exclusively religious institution).  It is an exclusively heterosexual institution. That is the universal common thread across cultures and times.


So, if we recognize marriages without going to church, then we should recognize same-sex marriages. If non-religious people can get married, then same-sex couples should be allowed to as well.

Again, marriage was exclusively a heterosexual institution because it was expected that people procreate, which was their 'social duty'. Today, no such expectation exists, and less and less people are procreating, so the prerequisite for marriage is no longer valid.

You want to be stupid so I  can't  really help you.

Procreation is an essential part of every society and so it is institutionalised in every society. But even without every married couple procreating, we are STILL a species made up of men and women. So every society has an interest in formalizing the relationship between the sexes, so women and girls are protected, men and boys are harnessed and anchored, the two sexes, complementing each other, are brought together to form a bridge between generations, whether they have their own kids or not. No society has any interest in formali sing homosexual relationships because they are defective and irrelevant to society. At best they are tolerated, at worst they are purged.

Homosexual relationships are a dead end in the broad sense as well as the narrow one of procreation. Homosexuals do not bring the sexes together, they do not complement each other, they do not create a microcosm in which the broader society and it's norms, values, interpersonal relations are fully and importantly created and reflected.

If there were no homosexuals, nothing would change. If there were no heterosexuals, everything would change and we would quickly disappear. That difference must not be ignored or downplayed by idiotic non-arguments like yours.






You seem to be implying that homosexuals are going to increase exponentially in number and will take over the world, thereby resulting in the extinction of the human race.
.



Oh, please don't  be a complete idiot. Where do I 'seem to be implying' any such complete idiocy? It is entirely your own stupid invention.
If you do not understand what I posted then ask but don't make up Bwianesque crap. Unless that is all you are here to do.



You were the one that played the biology/procreation card.

If they're not going to effect the continuation of the human race, then who cares?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 ... 22
Send Topic Print