Forum

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

Pages: 1 
Send Topic Print
Marriages to be annulled (Read 5546 times)
AugCaesarustus
Gold Member
*****
Online


Founding Father of Australia's
First Republic

Posts: 4319
Marriages to be annulled
Oct 3rd, 2017 at 9:38pm
 
Based on my conversations with several members, I believe that they have breached the principals of traditional marriage, and therefore, because of that, their marriages should be annulled.

1) Grendel: he has admitted that he has had sex for pleasure. The traditional definition of marriage indicates that marriage is solely for the purpose of having children and procreation. Any act that does not result in this purpose is contrary to marriage, and is therefore not marriage.

Grendel, you should not be married. I declare your marriage to be annulled.

2) Valkie: he has admitted to having sexual intercourse with his wife solely for pleasure, which has not resulted in procreation. Therefore, this violates the sanctity of marriage. Therefore, legally Valkie's marriage should be annulled on this basis.

Any person who:

- has had sex for pleasure, either before or during their marriage;

- has divorced their wife/husband and has remarried;

- has been in relationship that has not produced children

has not/is not/ and has never been married.
----
Marriage is only valid when:

- you are married in a religious institution with the first person with whom you were engaged.
- you have only had sex with your wife/husband, which act has resulted in the birth of children.
- you have children.
- and you die still married to that person.

Any other marriage consumed under any other circumstances is not marriage and should not be legally recognized.

Q.E.D.

Sorry Grendel and Valkie. You should'nt be married.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
.JaSin.
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 5144
...near water.
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #1 - Oct 3rd, 2017 at 9:42pm
 
You forgot one thing.
Marriages were also formed for 'Power' - the uniting of Kingdoms and Tribes.
These marriages were based on 'Privilege' and not for children. Basically, either totally Celibate circumstance or minor sexual encounters to cement the bond.
The ancient Pharaohs were a good example where being at the top of the pyramid meant that one was indeed 'alone' and while the people enjoyed the 'breeding' aspect of society, the best the Pharaoh could achieve was with his sibling.

But hey, that's the price you pay when you base your life on Wealth n' Power.
Back to top
 

Like, totally 'OWNED' the Pecker Head & Smith Chips !!!
 
IP Logged
 
AugCaesarustus
Gold Member
*****
Online


Founding Father of Australia's
First Republic

Posts: 4319
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #2 - Oct 3rd, 2017 at 9:45pm
 
.JaSin. wrote on Oct 3rd, 2017 at 9:42pm:
You forgot one thing.
Marriages were also formed for 'Power' - the uniting of Kingdoms and Tribes.
These marriages were based on 'Privilege' and not for children. Basically, either totally Celibate circumstance or minor sexual encounters to cement the bond.
The ancient Pharaohs were a good example where being at the top of the pyramid meant that one was indeed 'alone' and while the people enjoyed the 'breeding' aspect of society, the best the Pharaoh could achieve was with his sibling.

But hey, that's the price you pay when you base your life on Wealth n' Power.


So, what is traditional marriage then? Apparently, it's been the same throughout all time and all cultures, according to Frank and Grendel. It's always been for the purpose of bearing children.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
.JaSin.
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 5144
...near water.
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #3 - Oct 3rd, 2017 at 9:56pm
 
AugCaesarustus wrote on Oct 3rd, 2017 at 9:45pm:
.JaSin. wrote on Oct 3rd, 2017 at 9:42pm:
You forgot one thing.
Marriages were also formed for 'Power' - the uniting of Kingdoms and Tribes.
These marriages were based on 'Privilege' and not for children. Basically, either totally Celibate circumstance or minor sexual encounters to cement the bond.
The ancient Pharaohs were a good example where being at the top of the pyramid meant that one was indeed 'alone' and while the people enjoyed the 'breeding' aspect of society, the best the Pharaoh could achieve was with his sibling.

But hey, that's the price you pay when you base your life on Wealth n' Power.


So, what is traditional marriage then? Apparently, it's been the same throughout all time and all cultures, according to Frank and Grendel. It's always been for the purpose of bearing children.


I think in early 'Tribal' ages of Humanity, long before 'farming' evolved. The concept of Marriage was not formed as breeding had to use as much 'variation' to stop inbreeding. That is, every female bred with every male.

Aboriginals purposely sent their males upon far 'walkabouts' in search of a breeding partner for this very reason and even then, with 40-60,000 years up their sleeve, the isolation even 'narrowed' their gene pool considerably.

Marriage is many things. People get married as part of their joint career efforts - a vocation in life, rather than procreation.

Putting Marriage in one box for Procreation.
Is like saying your four daughters should only have children and one is not to be a great Academic or Technical Achiever, etc.

But as for Gays?
Well Australia already has a Man's love for his fellow Man.
Its called MATESHIP.
Sticking one's penis into a bacterial faecal orifice kinda just stinks to be honest.
You know, give a metre - but some take a mile.
Back to top
 

Like, totally 'OWNED' the Pecker Head & Smith Chips !!!
 
IP Logged
 
Ye Grappler
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 33074
Mid-North Coast NSW
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #4 - Oct 4th, 2017 at 12:07am
 
People wandering does not breach the marriage between men and women.  In some cultures it is the accepted thing that some will stray, but since marriage is essentially a business arrangement between a man and a woman for the purpose of establishing a socio-economic bond that will ensure the future prosperity of their descendants........ who cares if someone strays.. as long as they don't bring it home.

It's a worry when married men stray with gay boys and pass on terrible things....... just saying.

Even in Victorian times it was accepted that men would stray rather than impose upon their wives and thus have them 'barefoot and pregnant' all the time.  Funny how those claims of 'oppression' by a certain social group are turned to absurdity in the light of simple realities.

Argh, aye, 'tis better that 'Is Lordship bother the slaves or even his page than that he bother the Missus..... she be grown weary o' the task.... an' not be wantin' more bairns.....
Back to top
 

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams
 
IP Logged
 
issuevoter
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 4463
The Great State of Mind
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #5 - Oct 4th, 2017 at 7:22am
 
To satisfy the noisy minorities, homosexual marriage should be legal, and separate from real marriage, and no way allowed to confer some kind of equality between normal people and sexual fetishists.
Back to top
 

Philosophically opposed to ritual, superstition,religion, and secret ju-ju. Not big on flying saucers either.
 
IP Logged
 
Grendel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 24108
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #6 - Oct 4th, 2017 at 7:40am
 
AugCaesarustus wrote on Oct 3rd, 2017 at 9:38pm:
Based on my conversations with several members, I believe that they have breached the principals of traditional marriage, and therefore, because of that, their marriages should be annulled.

1) Grendel: he has admitted that he has had sex for pleasure. The traditional definition of marriage indicates that marriage is solely for the purpose of having children and procreation. Any act that does not result in this purpose is contrary to marriage, and is therefore not marriage.

Grendel, you should not be married. I declare your marriage to be annulled.


Dear dickhead, you have no right to lie about me or my life on this site or any other.
You don't know me.
You don't know if I'm married, single, divorced. bi or even gay.
You don't know if I was married and am now not and never will be again.
You certainly know nothing of my sex life.
You are a total wanker and a fool. Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy
Back to top
« Last Edit: Oct 4th, 2017 at 7:45am by Grendel »  
 
IP Logged
 
AugCaesarustus
Gold Member
*****
Online


Founding Father of Australia's
First Republic

Posts: 4319
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #7 - Oct 4th, 2017 at 10:46am
 
Grendel wrote on Oct 4th, 2017 at 7:40am:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Oct 3rd, 2017 at 9:38pm:
Based on my conversations with several members, I believe that they have breached the principals of traditional marriage, and therefore, because of that, their marriages should be annulled.

1) Grendel: he has admitted that he has had sex for pleasure. The traditional definition of marriage indicates that marriage is solely for the purpose of having children and procreation. Any act that does not result in this purpose is contrary to marriage, and is therefore not marriage.

Grendel, you should not be married. I declare your marriage to be annulled.


Dear dickhead, you have no right to lie about me or my life on this site or any other.
You don't know me.
You don't know if I'm married, single, divorced. bi or even gay.
You don't know if I was married and am now not and never will be again.
You certainly know nothing of my sex life.
You are a total wanker and a fool. Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy


When you start resorting to ad hominem arguments, you know have lost the argument.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Grendel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 24108
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #8 - Oct 4th, 2017 at 12:10pm
 
When you post lies about people and fail to withdraw or apologise, others know you are a disingenuous immature fool.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
AugCaesarustus
Gold Member
*****
Online


Founding Father of Australia's
First Republic

Posts: 4319
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #9 - Oct 4th, 2017 at 12:55pm
 
Grendel wrote on Oct 4th, 2017 at 12:10pm:
When you post lies about people and fail to withdraw or apologise, others know you are a disingenuous immature fool.


It is no lie that you wish to deny a minority of people the right to marriage. That makes you anti-freedom and against the principal of 'equality under the law'.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Grendel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 24108
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #10 - Oct 4th, 2017 at 3:59pm
 
In a democracy minority groups are often denied things especially spurious claims based on lies.
That doesn't excuse you from doing exactly what you accused me of... you lying dung-heap.
You attacked me and lied about me in your opening post, still no withdrawal and no apology.

I have you pegged. Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Aussie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 33017
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #11 - Oct 4th, 2017 at 4:03pm
 
You have never 'pegged' anyone on any Forum, Grendel.  You may have bored people to tears....but never 'pegged.'

Is this a lie?

Quote:
(Grendel) has admitted that he has had sex for pleasure.


That is all which was said of you in the OP.
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 #12 - Oct 4th, 2017 at 4:31pm
 
Grendel wrote on Oct 4th, 2017 at 3:59pm:
In a democracy minority groups are often denied things especially spurious claims based on lies.
That doesn't excuse you from doing exactly what you accused me of... you lying dung-heap.
You attacked me and lied about me in your opening post, still no withdrawal and no apology.

I have you pegged. Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes


Please provide me with an example of a minority who are excluded under law that is enjoyed by the majority?


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


OzPolitic

Posts: 24108
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #13 - Oct 4th, 2017 at 5:10pm
 
Aussie wrote on Oct 4th, 2017 at 4:03pm:
You have never 'pegged' anyone on any Forum, Grendel.  You may have bored people to tears....but never 'pegged.'

Is this a lie?

Quote:
(Grendel) has admitted that he has had sex for pleasure.


That is all which was said of you in the OP.

Post the quote or piss off... with your tail between your legs as usual.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Aussie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 33017
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #14 - Oct 4th, 2017 at 5:15pm
 
Quote it yourself, Grendel.

The only matter of fact referred to was as I have already quoted.  The rest was comment.
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 #15 - Oct 4th, 2017 at 5:32pm
 
AugCaesarustus wrote on Oct 4th, 2017 at 12:55pm:
Grendel wrote on Oct 4th, 2017 at 12:10pm:
When you post lies about people and fail to withdraw or apologise, others know you are a disingenuous immature fool.


It is no lie that you wish to deny a minority of people the right to marriage. That makes you anti-freedom and against the principal of 'equality under the law'.

Oh and before I forget...  this lie about me denying a minority...  should we deny a majority for a minority?
I have always stated that they can have a union, call it civil call it gayrriage or whatever they like but for the thousands of years and billions of people that have gone before the right to the term marriage should remain for them.

But you know that is unacceptable to the gay and social activists they have bigger plans, societal change.

So if you cant tell the truth bugger off eh. Roll Eyes
Back to top
« Last Edit: Oct 4th, 2017 at 6:18pm by Grendel »  
 
IP Logged
 
The Mechanic
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 10293
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #16 - Oct 4th, 2017 at 6:13pm
 
AugCaesarustus wrote on Oct 3rd, 2017 at 9:38pm:
Based on my conversations with several members, I believe that they have breached the principals of traditional marriage, and therefore, because of that, their marriages should be annulled.

1) Grendel: he has admitted that he has had sex for pleasure. The traditional definition of marriage indicates that marriage is solely for the purpose of having children and procreation. Any act that does not result in this purpose is contrary to marriage, and is therefore not marriage.

Grendel, you should not be married. I declare your marriage to be annulled.

2) Valkie: he has admitted to having sexual intercourse with his wife solely for pleasure, which has not resulted in procreation. Therefore, this violates the sanctity of marriage. Therefore, legally Valkie's marriage should be annulled on this basis.

Any person who:

- has had sex for pleasure, either before or during their marriage;

- has divorced their wife/husband and has remarried;

- has been in relationship that has not produced children

has not/is not/ and has never been married.
----
Marriage is only valid when:

- you are married in a religious institution with the first person with whom you were engaged.
- you have only had sex with your wife/husband, which act has resulted in the birth of children.
- you have children.
- and you die still married to that person.

Any other marriage consumed under any other circumstances is not marriage and should not be legally recognized.

Q.E.D.

Sorry Grendel and Valkie. You should'nt be married.



is a blowjob in a Skyrail Rainforest Cablecar over Australia’s World Heritage listed Tropical Rainforest canopy and deep into the forest ok or am I going straight to hell??  Undecided

im not saying that I done that ... I'm just asking...  Undecided
Back to top
 

The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his.
 
IP Logged
 
Grendel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 24108
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #17 - Oct 4th, 2017 at 6:20pm
 
You don't have to say you've done anything mechanic...  he makes it up as he goes along.

Every day in every way he's sounding more and more like mothra.  That is a good reason to steer clear.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Gnads
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6945
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #18 - Oct 4th, 2017 at 6:28pm
 
AugCaesarustus wrote on Oct 4th, 2017 at 10:46am:
Grendel wrote on Oct 4th, 2017 at 7:40am:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Oct 3rd, 2017 at 9:38pm:
Based on my conversations with several members, I believe that they have breached the principals of traditional marriage, and therefore, because of that, their marriages should be annulled.

1) Grendel: he has admitted that he has had sex for pleasure. The traditional definition of marriage indicates that marriage is solely for the purpose of having children and procreation. Any act that does not result in this purpose is contrary to marriage, and is therefore not marriage.

Grendel, you should not be married. I declare your marriage to be annulled.


Dear dickhead, you have no right to lie about me or my life on this site or any other.
You don't know me.
You don't know if I'm married, single, divorced. bi or even gay.
You don't know if I was married and am now not and never will be again.
You certainly know nothing of my sex life.
You are a total wanker and a fool. Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy


When you start resorting to ad hominem arguments, you know have lost the argument.


You lost the argument when you posted this thread.
Back to top
 

Politicians are like nappies; they need to be changed often and for the same reason.
The most difficult choice a politician must ever make is whether to be a hypocrite or a liar.
 
IP Logged
 
Gnads
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6945
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #19 - Oct 4th, 2017 at 6:30pm
 
AugCaesarustus wrote on Oct 4th, 2017 at 12:55pm:
Grendel wrote on Oct 4th, 2017 at 12:10pm:
When you post lies about people and fail to withdraw or apologise, others know you are a disingenuous immature fool.


It is no lie that you wish to deny a minority of people the right to marriage. That makes you anti-freedom and against the principal of 'equality under the law'.


Therein lies the crux of the matter .....

another minority group wishing to impose their demands on the majority.

You are a complete waste of space with that response.
Back to top
 

Politicians are like nappies; they need to be changed often and for the same reason.
The most difficult choice a politician must ever make is whether to be a hypocrite or a liar.
 
IP Logged
 
Gnads
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6945
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #20 - Oct 4th, 2017 at 6:34pm
 
The Mechanic wrote on Oct 4th, 2017 at 6:13pm:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Oct 3rd, 2017 at 9:38pm:
Based on my conversations with several members, I believe that they have breached the principals of traditional marriage, and therefore, because of that, their marriages should be annulled.

1) Grendel: he has admitted that he has had sex for pleasure. The traditional definition of marriage indicates that marriage is solely for the purpose of having children and procreation. Any act that does not result in this purpose is contrary to marriage, and is therefore not marriage.

Grendel, you should not be married. I declare your marriage to be annulled.

2) Valkie: he has admitted to having sexual intercourse with his wife solely for pleasure, which has not resulted in procreation. Therefore, this violates the sanctity of marriage. Therefore, legally Valkie's marriage should be annulled on this basis.

Any person who:

- has had sex for pleasure, either before or during their marriage;

- has divorced their wife/husband and has remarried;

- has been in relationship that has not produced children

has not/is not/ and has never been married.
----
Marriage is only valid when:

- you are married in a religious institution with the first person with whom you were engaged.
- you have only had sex with your wife/husband, which act has resulted in the birth of children.
- you have children.
- and you die still married to that person.

Any other marriage consumed under any other circumstances is not marriage and should not be legally recognized.

Q.E.D.

Sorry Grendel and Valkie. You should'nt be married.



is a blowjob in a Skyrail Rainforest Cablecar over Australia’s World Heritage listed Tropical Rainforest canopy and deep into the forest ok or am I going straight to hell??  Undecided

im not saying that I done that ... I'm just asking...  Undecided



I'll be right behind you ... coz I want one of them .. there.  Grin Cheesy
Back to top
 

Politicians are like nappies; they need to be changed often and for the same reason.
The most difficult choice a politician must ever make is whether to be a hypocrite or a liar.
 
IP Logged
 
Aussie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 33017
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #21 - Oct 4th, 2017 at 6:38pm
 
Gnads wrote on Oct 4th, 2017 at 6:30pm:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Oct 4th, 2017 at 12:55pm:
Grendel wrote on Oct 4th, 2017 at 12:10pm:
When you post lies about people and fail to withdraw or apologise, others know you are a disingenuous immature fool.


It is no lie that you wish to deny a minority of people the right to marriage. That makes you anti-freedom and against the principal of 'equality under the law'.


Therein lies the crux of the matter .....

another minority group wishing to impose their demands on the majority.

You are a complete waste of space with that response.


Which minority is seeking to impose...what, Gonads?
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
 
Gnads
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6945
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #22 - Oct 4th, 2017 at 6:39pm
 
Aussie wrote on Oct 4th, 2017 at 6:38pm:
Gnads wrote on Oct 4th, 2017 at 6:30pm:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Oct 4th, 2017 at 12:55pm:
Grendel wrote on Oct 4th, 2017 at 12:10pm:
When you post lies about people and fail to withdraw or apologise, others know you are a disingenuous immature fool.


It is no lie that you wish to deny a minority of people the right to marriage. That makes you anti-freedom and against the principal of 'equality under the law'.


Therein lies the crux of the matter .....

another minority group wishing to impose their demands on the majority.

You are a complete waste of space with that response.


Which minority is seeking to impose...what, Gonads?



Come on Aussie ... are you that thick or just fishing?
Back to top
 

Politicians are like nappies; they need to be changed often and for the same reason.
The most difficult choice a politician must ever make is whether to be a hypocrite or a liar.
 
IP Logged
 
Aussie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 33017
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #23 - Oct 4th, 2017 at 6:41pm
 
No....I want you to express an answer.
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
 
Frank
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 6599
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #24 - Oct 4th, 2017 at 6:47pm
 
AugCaesarustus wrote on Oct 4th, 2017 at 12:55pm:
Grendel wrote on Oct 4th, 2017 at 12:10pm:
When you post lies about people and fail to withdraw or apologise, others know you are a disingenuous immature fool.


It is no lie that you wish to deny a minority of people the right to marriage. That makes you anti-freedom and against the principal of 'equality under the law'.



Lots of other people are also denied the right to marry: siblings, parent/child, etc - should they all be allowed?
And if not? why not? What about one plus one - is that sacrosanct? Why not marry, say, 47 people of various permutations IF THEY ALL SAY THEY LOVE EACH OTHER?


If the single most obvious, fundamental aspect that makes marriage marriage - ie that it is between men and women - is removed, what aspect of marriage is beyond further change and adjustment?


This is why SSM marriage is not an extension but the destruction of marriage. Now if you and the gays want to destroy it, say so. But do not pretend that removing the obvious meaning of it will have no consequences





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


Australian Politics

Posts: 6945
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #25 - Oct 4th, 2017 at 6:51pm
 
So you need it tattooed on your forehead that a minority....

the LGBITQ/Alphabet community want to impose their demands on the majority of Australians by having legislation /the marriage act changed to (supposedly) give them equal rights to be married.

When that is far from the truth of the matter & there is a minority activist group that wish to impose their ideals across a whole lot of social issues on the majority of the population...

and to speak out against this agenda is going to be considered hate speech by the PC wankers in authority?

Does that make you feel better?  Roll Eyes
Back to top
 

Politicians are like nappies; they need to be changed often and for the same reason.
The most difficult choice a politician must ever make is whether to be a hypocrite or a liar.
 
IP Logged
 
Gnads
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6945
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #26 - Oct 4th, 2017 at 6:53pm
 
Frank wrote on Oct 4th, 2017 at 6:47pm:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Oct 4th, 2017 at 12:55pm:
Grendel wrote on Oct 4th, 2017 at 12:10pm:
When you post lies about people and fail to withdraw or apologise, others know you are a disingenuous immature fool.


It is no lie that you wish to deny a minority of people the right to marriage. That makes you anti-freedom and against the principal of 'equality under the law'.



Lots of other people are also denied the right to marry: siblings, parent/child, etc - should they all be allowed?
And if not? why not? What about one plus one - is that sacrosanct? Why not marry, say, 47 people of various permutations IF THEY ALL SAY THEY LOVE EACH OTHER?


If the single most obvious, fundamental aspect that makes marriage marriage - ie that it is between men and women - is removed, what aspect of marriage is beyond further change and adjustment?


This is why SSM marriage is not an extension but the destruction of marriage. Now if you and the gays want to destroy it, say so. But do not pretend that removing the obvious meaning of it will have no consequences







Well said & there is no reasonable or logical counter to that.


Back to top
 

Politicians are like nappies; they need to be changed often and for the same reason.
The most difficult choice a politician must ever make is whether to be a hypocrite or a liar.
 
IP Logged
 
Aussie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 33017
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #27 - Oct 4th, 2017 at 7:26pm
 
Gnads wrote on Oct 4th, 2017 at 6:51pm:
So you need it tattooed on your forehead that a minority....

the LGBITQ/Alphabet community want to impose their demands on the majority of Australians by having legislation /the marriage act changed to (supposedly) give them equal rights to be married.

When that is far from the truth of the matter & there is a minority activist group that wish to impose their ideals across a whole lot of social issues on the majority of the population...

and to speak out against this agenda is going to be considered hate speech by the PC wankers in authority?

Does that make you feel better?  Roll Eyes


They do not want to IMPOSE anything on you me or anyone else.

They have lobbied for support, they have had Government respond, and Government has decided to conduct a Poll (dumb arse Poll.)

The Poofs do not have a gun to anyone's head.

They have no capacity to IMPOSE anything, just like Muslims or Calathumpians cannot IMPOSE anything.
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 #28 - Oct 4th, 2017 at 8:30pm
 
Gnads wrote on Oct 4th, 2017 at 6:39pm:
Aussie wrote on Oct 4th, 2017 at 6:38pm:
Gnads wrote on Oct 4th, 2017 at 6:30pm:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Oct 4th, 2017 at 12:55pm:
Grendel wrote on Oct 4th, 2017 at 12:10pm:
When you post lies about people and fail to withdraw or apologise, others know you are a disingenuous immature fool.


It is no lie that you wish to deny a minority of people the right to marriage. That makes you anti-freedom and against the principal of 'equality under the law'.


Therein lies the crux of the matter .....

another minority group wishing to impose their demands on the majority.

You are a complete waste of space with that response.


Which minority is seeking to impose...what, Gonads?



Come on Aussie ... are you that thick or just fishing?

He's just a lonely troll looking for attention apparently gnads.
How can anyone truly be that thick? Roll Eyes
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Gnads
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6945
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #29 - Oct 4th, 2017 at 8:31pm
 
Aussie wrote on Oct 4th, 2017 at 7:26pm:
Gnads wrote on Oct 4th, 2017 at 6:51pm:
So you need it tattooed on your forehead that a minority....

the LGBITQ/Alphabet community want to impose their demands on the majority of Australians by having legislation /the marriage act changed to (supposedly) give them equal rights to be married.

When that is far from the truth of the matter & there is a minority activist group that wish to impose their ideals across a whole lot of social issues on the majority of the population...

and to speak out against this agenda is going to be considered hate speech by the PC wankers in authority?

Does that make you feel better?  Roll Eyes


They do not want to [highlight]IMPOSE anything on you me or anyone else.
[/highlight]
They have lobbied for support, they have had Government respond, and Government has decided to conduct a Poll (dumb arse Poll.)

The Poofs do not have a gun to anyone's head.

They have no capacity to IMPOSE anything, just like Muslims or Calathumpians cannot IMPOSE anything.


You are so far wrong that it's unbelievable.

What has has happened in nearly every country that has legalised SSM goes far beyond the simplistic BS that is being put forth by the Yes camp ... is they simply want to get married.

It isn't about equality it's a social agenda which also includes the Safe Schools Program.

Which also is not merely about preventing bullying at school.

You are as deef to this as you are to the Muslim agenda ... of which the truth has manifested in other western countries.

Bit I suppose your faith that this is Australia & it won't or isn't happening here is you source of comfort.
Back to top
 

Politicians are like nappies; they need to be changed often and for the same reason.
The most difficult choice a politician must ever make is whether to be a hypocrite or a liar.
 
IP Logged
 
Grendel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 24108
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #30 - Oct 4th, 2017 at 8:33pm
 
LOL
Aussie doesn't like the IMPOSE word...  ok Aussie the gays and social activists want to appropriate a term that has nothing to do with them. 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 #31 - Oct 4th, 2017 at 8:38pm
 
Gnads wrote on Oct 4th, 2017 at 8:31pm:
Aussie wrote on Oct 4th, 2017 at 7:26pm:
Gnads wrote on Oct 4th, 2017 at 6:51pm:
So you need it tattooed on your forehead that a minority....

the LGBITQ/Alphabet community want to impose their demands on the majority of Australians by having legislation /the marriage act changed to (supposedly) give them equal rights to be married.

When that is far from the truth of the matter & there is a minority activist group that wish to impose their ideals across a whole lot of social issues on the majority of the population...

and to speak out against this agenda is going to be considered hate speech by the PC wankers in authority?

Does that make you feel better?  Roll Eyes


They do not want to [highlight]IMPOSE anything on you me or anyone else.
[/highlight]
They have lobbied for support, they have had Government respond, and Government has decided to conduct a Poll (dumb arse Poll.)

The Poofs do not have a gun to anyone's head.

They have no capacity to IMPOSE anything, just like Muslims or Calathumpians cannot IMPOSE anything.


You are so far wrong that it's unbelievable.

What has has happened in nearly every country that has legalised SSM goes far beyond the simplistic BS that is being put forth by the Yes camp ... is they simply want to get married.

It isn't about equality it's a social agenda which also includes the Safe Schools Program.

Which also is not merely about preventing bullying at school.

You are as deef to this as you are to the Muslim agenda ... of which the truth has manifested in other western countries.

Bit I suppose your faith that this is Australia & it won't or isn't happening here is you source of comfort.


Has NZ fallen apart at the seams?  No, it has not.  No other Country which has SSM has either.

This Poll is about SSM and nothing else.  Only panic merchants (or those snowed by stupid propaganda) who think the sky is about to fall in believe otherwise.

Nobody is IMPOSING anything.  Poofers are certainly in no position to IMPOSE as you were asserting.
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 #32 - Oct 4th, 2017 at 9:13pm
 
Back to top
« Last Edit: Oct 5th, 2017 at 12:53pm by Grendel »  
 
IP Logged
 
Aussie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 33017
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #33 - Oct 4th, 2017 at 9:16pm
 
Grendel wrote on Oct 4th, 2017 at 8:33pm:
LOL
Aussie doesn't like the IMPOSE word...  ok Aussie the gays and social activists want to appropriate a term that has nothing to do with them. Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy



No, they simply want to get married.  Nothing be appropriated.
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
 
The_Barnacle
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2934
Melbourne
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #34 - Oct 4th, 2017 at 9:22pm
 
AugCaesarustus wrote on Oct 3rd, 2017 at 9:38pm:
Marriage is only valid when:

- you are married in a religious institution with the first person with whom you were engaged.
- you have only had sex with your wife/husband, which act has resulted in the birth of children.
- you have children.
- and you die still married to that person.

Any other marriage consumed under any other circumstances is not marriage and should not be legally recognized.

Q.E.D.



Thats exactly right
Surely those people supporting "traditional" marriage aren't cherry picking what "traditional" means
Back to top
 

The Right Wing only believe in free speech when they agree with what is being said.
 
IP Logged
 
Grendel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 24108
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #35 - Oct 4th, 2017 at 9:29pm
 
Aussie wrote on Oct 4th, 2017 at 9:16pm:
Grendel wrote on Oct 4th, 2017 at 8:33pm:
LOL
Aussie doesn't like the IMPOSE word...  ok Aussie the gays and social activists want to appropriate a term that has nothing to do with them. Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy



No, they simply want to get married.  Nothing be appropriated.

Get a dictionary.
When you better understand English, start reading all that stuff you've missed, ignored or not understood. Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy

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


Founding Father of Australia's
First Republic

Posts: 4319
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #36 - Oct 4th, 2017 at 9:31pm
 
The_Barnacle wrote on Oct 4th, 2017 at 9:22pm:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Oct 3rd, 2017 at 9:38pm:
Marriage is only valid when:

- you are married in a religious institution with the first person with whom you were engaged.
- you have only had sex with your wife/husband, which act has resulted in the birth of children.
- you have children.
- and you die still married to that person.

Any other marriage consumed under any other circumstances is not marriage and should not be legally recognized.

Q.E.D.



Thats exactly right
Surely those people supporting "traditional" marriage aren't cherry picking what "traditional" means


This man's got it.

Hail, Caesar!
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Grendel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 24108
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #37 - Oct 5th, 2017 at 12:49pm
 
The_Barnacle wrote on Oct 4th, 2017 at 9:22pm:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Oct 3rd, 2017 at 9:38pm:
Marriage is only valid when:

- you are married in a religious institution with the first person with whom you were engaged.
- you have only had sex with your wife/husband, which act has resulted in the birth of children.
- you have children.
- and you die still married to that person.

Any other marriage consumed under any other circumstances is not marriage and should not be legally recognized.

Q.E.D.



Thats exactly right
Surely those people supporting "traditional" marriage aren't cherry picking what "traditional" means

Funny that both of you should be so stupid.
So barnacle you think Auggies rules for marriage are the real rules do you?
You gonna join the church of Auggie too? Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Karnal
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 51660
Gender: female
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #38 - Oct 5th, 2017 at 12:53pm
 
AugCaesarustus wrote on Oct 3rd, 2017 at 9:38pm:
Based on my conversations with several members, I believe that they have breached the principals of traditional marriage, and therefore, because of that, their marriages should be annulled.

1) Grendel: he has admitted that he has had sex for pleasure. The traditional definition of marriage indicates that marriage is solely for the purpose of having children and procreation. Any act that does not result in this purpose is contrary to marriage, and is therefore not marriage.

Grendel, you should not be married. I declare your marriage to be annulled.

2) Valkie: he has admitted to having sexual intercourse with his wife solely for pleasure, which has not resulted in procreation. Therefore, this violates the sanctity of marriage. Therefore, legally Valkie's marriage should be annulled on this basis.

Any person who:

- has had sex for pleasure, either before or during their marriage;

- has divorced their wife/husband and has remarried;

- has been in relationship that has not produced children

has not/is not/ and has never been married.
----
Marriage is only valid when:

- you are married in a religious institution with the first person with whom you were engaged.
- you have only had sex with your wife/husband, which act has resulted in the birth of children.
- you have children.
- and you die still married to that person.

Any other marriage consumed under any other circumstances is not marriage and should not be legally recognized.

Q.E.D.

Sorry Grendel and Valkie. You should'nt be married.



Hold onto your hat, Caesar, but some of them have actually been...

Divorced.

I know I know, it's shocking, but these people actually want a say in the marriage laws.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Karnal
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 51660
Gender: female
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #39 - Oct 5th, 2017 at 12:56pm
 
Grendel wrote on Oct 4th, 2017 at 12:10pm:
When you post lies about people and fail to withdraw or apologise, others know you are a disingenuous immature fool.


Good point, Grendel. You most certainly did not have sex for pleasure.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Valkie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 4265
Central Coast
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #40 - Oct 5th, 2017 at 5:12pm
 
The_Barnacle wrote on Oct 4th, 2017 at 9:22pm:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Oct 3rd, 2017 at 9:38pm:
Marriage is only valid when:

- you are married in a religious institution with the first person with whom you were engaged.
- you have only had sex with your wife/husband, which act has resulted in the birth of children.
- you have children.
- and you die still married to that person.

Any other marriage consumed under any other circumstances is not marriage and should not be legally recognized.

Q.E.D.



Thats exactly right
Surely those people supporting "traditional" marriage aren't cherry picking what "traditional" means


Thats me.
One wife for life.
3 kids, 6 grandkids
Back to top
 

I HAVE A DREAM
A WONDERFUL, PEACEFUL, BEAUTIFUL DREAM.
A DREAM OF A WORLD THAT HAS NEVER KNOWN ISLAM
A DREAM OF A WORLD FREE FROM THE HORRORS OF ISLAM.

SUCH A WONDERFUL DREAM
O HOW I WISH IT WERE TRU
 
IP Logged
 
AugCaesarustus
Gold Member
*****
Online


Founding Father of Australia's
First Republic

Posts: 4319
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #41 - Oct 6th, 2017 at 3:40pm
 
Valkie wrote on Oct 5th, 2017 at 5:12pm:
The_Barnacle wrote on Oct 4th, 2017 at 9:22pm:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Oct 3rd, 2017 at 9:38pm:
Marriage is only valid when:

- you are married in a religious institution with the first person with whom you were engaged.
- you have only had sex with your wife/husband, which act has resulted in the birth of children.
- you have children.
- and you die still married to that person.

Any other marriage consumed under any other circumstances is not marriage and should not be legally recognized.

Q.E.D.



Thats exactly right
Surely those people supporting "traditional" marriage aren't cherry picking what "traditional" means


Thats me.
One wife for life.
3 kids, 6 grandkids


Not quite, Valkie.

Ever made love to your wife with contraception?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Aussie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 33017
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #42 - Oct 6th, 2017 at 3:42pm
 
Or for mere enjoyment?
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 #43 - Oct 6th, 2017 at 3:47pm
 
Aussie wrote on Oct 6th, 2017 at 3:42pm:
Or for mere enjoyment?



Boooya!
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Grendel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 24108
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #44 - Oct 6th, 2017 at 6:37pm
 
You kiddies do understand that today you don't have to get married to have sex right?

Back to the monastry with you...  self flagellation for all those impure thoughts eh.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Gnads
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6945
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #45 - Oct 6th, 2017 at 6:45pm
 
Aussie wrote on Oct 4th, 2017 at 8:38pm:
Gnads wrote on Oct 4th, 2017 at 8:31pm:
Aussie wrote on Oct 4th, 2017 at 7:26pm:
Gnads wrote on Oct 4th, 2017 at 6:51pm:
So you need it tattooed on your forehead that a minority....

the LGBITQ/Alphabet community want to impose their demands on the majority of Australians by having legislation /the marriage act changed to (supposedly) give them equal rights to be married.

When that is far from the truth of the matter & there is a minority activist group that wish to impose their ideals across a whole lot of social issues on the majority of the population...

and to speak out against this agenda is going to be considered hate speech by the PC wankers in authority?

Does that make you feel better?  Roll Eyes


They do not want to [highlight]IMPOSE anything on you me or anyone else.
[/highlight]
They have lobbied for support, they have had Government respond, and Government has decided to conduct a Poll (dumb arse Poll.)

The Poofs do not have a gun to anyone's head.

They have no capacity to IMPOSE anything, just like Muslims or Calathumpians cannot IMPOSE anything.


You are so far wrong that it's unbelievable.

What has has happened in nearly every country that has legalised SSM goes far beyond the simplistic BS that is being put forth by the Yes camp ... is they simply want to get married.

It isn't about equality it's a social agenda which also includes the Safe Schools Program.

Which also is not merely about preventing bullying at school.

You are as deef to this as you are to the Muslim agenda ... of which the truth has manifested in other western countries.

Bit I suppose your faith that this is Australia & it won't or isn't happening here is you source of comfort.


Has NZ fallen apart at the seams?  No, it has not.  No other Country which has SSM has either.

This Poll is about SSM and nothing else.  Only panic merchants (or those snowed by stupid propaganda) who think the sky is about to fall in believe otherwise.

Nobody is IMPOSING anything.  Poofers are certainly in no position to IMPOSE as you were asserting.


Wrong .... and you being a supposed authority on law and the repercussions there of ....

there is plenty of evidence of the LGBITQ activists agenda here in Australia & with the so called Safe Schools Progarm in Canada, the US & the UK.

Pull your head out Aussie ..... it not simply about allowing two poofs or two Lesos to get married.

It's about obtaining power by changing legislation that then allows the self interest group to change society to their ideology through children in the education system.

Wakey wakey hand off snakey.  Roll Eyes
Back to top
« Last Edit: Oct 6th, 2017 at 6:50pm by Gnads »  

Politicians are like nappies; they need to be changed often and for the same reason.
The most difficult choice a politician must ever make is whether to be a hypocrite or a liar.
 
IP Logged
 
Gnads
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6945
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #46 - Oct 6th, 2017 at 6:46pm
 
Aussie wrote on Oct 4th, 2017 at 9:16pm:
Grendel wrote on Oct 4th, 2017 at 8:33pm:
LOL
Aussie doesn't like the IMPOSE word...  ok Aussie the gays and social activists want to appropriate a term that has nothing to do with them. Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy



No, they simply want to get married.  Nothing be appropriated.



Wrong .... those who simply want to get married are not driving the agenda.

They are relying on dills like you believing that's all it's about.
Back to top
 

Politicians are like nappies; they need to be changed often and for the same reason.
The most difficult choice a politician must ever make is whether to be a hypocrite or a liar.
 
IP Logged
 
Grendel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 24108
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #47 - Oct 6th, 2017 at 6:48pm
 
It's not difficult for thinking people to see that there will be and are repercussions and consequences that will bring on adverse changes to our society and way of life.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Gnads
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6945
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #48 - Oct 6th, 2017 at 6:49pm
 
AugCaesarustus wrote on Oct 6th, 2017 at 3:40pm:
Valkie wrote on Oct 5th, 2017 at 5:12pm:
The_Barnacle wrote on Oct 4th, 2017 at 9:22pm:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Oct 3rd, 2017 at 9:38pm:
Marriage is only valid when:

- you are married in a religious institution with the first person with whom you were engaged.
- you have only had sex with your wife/husband, which act has resulted in the birth of children.
- you have children.
- and you die still married to that person.

Any other marriage consumed under any other circumstances is not marriage and should not be legally recognized.

Q.E.D.



Thats exactly right
Surely those people supporting "traditional" marriage aren't cherry picking what "traditional" means


Thats me.
One wife for life.
3 kids, 6 grandkids


Not quite, Valkie.

Ever made love to your wife with contraception?


What a wank ....  that's what should have happened to you .... shot on the sheets.

A good f*&# wasted.
Back to top
 

Politicians are like nappies; they need to be changed often and for the same reason.
The most difficult choice a politician must ever make is whether to be a hypocrite or a liar.
 
IP Logged
 
Aussie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 33017
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #49 - Oct 6th, 2017 at 6:51pm
 
Quote:
it not simply about allowing to poofs or two Lesos to get married.


It is as simple as that.  Others like you like to read garbage into it, in a silly attempt at scaremongering.

Let's see what the results are and then decide who the fools are.
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
 
Gnads
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6945
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #50 - Oct 6th, 2017 at 6:56pm
 
Aussie wrote on Oct 6th, 2017 at 6:51pm:
Quote:
it not simply about allowing to poofs or two Lesos to get married.


It is as simple as that.  Others like you like to read garbage into it, in a silly attempt at scaremongering.

Let's see what the results are and then decide who the fools are.


The results of the survey are irrelevant to the agenda behind SSM.

Seems you're too dim to see it. Or to reseach information from countries that have legalised SSM 7 see what is happening in schools there.

It's not reading anything into it ... it's hearing testimony from people here & overseas.

You should look further than this forum & the Courier Mail.
Back to top
 

Politicians are like nappies; they need to be changed often and for the same reason.
The most difficult choice a politician must ever make is whether to be a hypocrite or a liar.
 
IP Logged
 
Grendel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 24108
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #51 - Oct 6th, 2017 at 6:57pm
 
Aussie wrote on Oct 6th, 2017 at 6:51pm:
Quote:
it not simply about allowing to poofs or two Lesos to get married.


It is as simple as that.  Others like you like to read garbage into it, in a silly attempt at scaremongering.

Let's see what the results are and then decide who the fools are.

Others like you are shallow thinkers and fail to see any consequences or repercussions. Cheesy
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Grendel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 24108
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #52 - Oct 6th, 2017 at 6:57pm
 
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Grendel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 24108
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #53 - Oct 6th, 2017 at 7:00pm
 
In Canada, same-sex marriage is destroying all other rights


To see the real effects of redefining marriage, look no further than Canad
a. Regardless of whether one is for or against redefining the traditional definition of marriage in Australia, it is impossible to deny that the majority of Canadians have lost their fundamental rights as a result marriage being redefined.

According to an online post featured in The Chronicle:

In Canada, freedoms of speech, press and religion have suffered greatly. If one says or writes anything considered "homophobic", anything questioning same sex marriage, one could face discipline, termination of employment, and/or prosecution by the government.

First and foremost, it drastically changed the way in which parenthood was defined, and tacitly states that children have no right to their biological roots: 

Canada's gay marriage law, Bill C-38, included a provision to erase the term "natural parent" and replace it across the board with gender-neutral "legal parent" in federal law.

Now all children only have "legal parents", as defined by the state. In effect, same-sex marriage not only deprives children of their own rights to natural parentage, it gives the state the power to override the autonomy of biological parents, which means parental rights are usurped by the government.

Second, fair business is all but obliterated, as companies and organisations which refuse to side with the LGBTI lobby continue to being taken to court for ‘discrimination’.

As for talk about how a shop (read wedding cake shop) would not make a same-sex wedding cake they should be fined. This is the rubbish that the left carries on with. A business should be able to retain the right to refuse service on principle. If only one wedding cake shop existed in Australia as a monopoly, this view would be valid.

Our democracy, with many businesses available to service customers, anyone seeking a service, will find a business that will service their needs. The LGBTQ should respect that some will refuse service on principle, and just accept it, without ranting and raving and wanting to change laws.

The burden and damage of redefining marriage is clearly being felt by the Canadian people ­– but the grievance do not end there. In late October of 2016, Canadian Senate passed Bill C-16, which stands as the beginning of an end to free speech for the country. As NBC News summarised:

The Canadian Senate passed Bill C-16 by a 67-11 vote. The bill adds prohibitions against discrimination on the basis of gender identity and gender expression to the Canadian Human Rights Act, amends the criminal code to extend protections against hate speech and allows judges to take into consideration when sentencing whether a crime was motivated by hatred of the victim’s gender identity or expression.

The eleven members of Senate who opposed the bill predict that the only thing that will come from it is the loss of freedom for the common man:

During the Senate hearings, opponents of the bill gave testimony against it, arguing it undermines free speech, “criminalizes” incorrect pronoun use and threatens “women only” spaces such as rape crisis centers.

The same-sex marriage lobby has come out in droves across the world to hammer into people that “the only people redefining marriage affects are same-sex couples”. But the facts prove otherwise, as the majority of Canadians are refused their fundamental rights. Unable to access their biological roots, practice free market in a supposedly free market society, or speak out on any gender related issues without being ‘discriminatory’, they have been forced to their knees at the bequest of a tiny minority.

There is no doubt that if the silent majority of Australians does not stand against the redefinition of marriage, we will inevitably be forced to relinquish our dearest rights to a demanding few.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Aussie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 33017
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #54 - Oct 6th, 2017 at 7:12pm
 
Quote:
In Canada, same-sex marriage is destroying all other rights


Then why do they still have it.....and every State in the USA?

Explain.
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 #55 - Oct 6th, 2017 at 7:23pm
 
Ever tried to unscramble an egg ? 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 #56 - Oct 6th, 2017 at 8:28pm
 
Grendel wrote on Oct 6th, 2017 at 7:23pm:
Ever tried to unscramble an egg ? Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy


No....but I have seen legislation amended or revoked many times.  Why has Canada and every State of the USA not amended or revoked SSM legislation?
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 #57 - Oct 6th, 2017 at 9:17pm
 
You really are a shallow thinker aren't you....
ever heard of letting the Genie out of the bottle?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Aussie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 33017
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #58 - Oct 6th, 2017 at 9:17pm
 
Grendel wrote on Oct 6th, 2017 at 9:17pm:
You really are a shallow thinker aren't you....
ever heard of letting the Genie out of the bottle?


You really believe in Genies??????

Huh?????
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 #59 - Oct 6th, 2017 at 9:24pm
 
Wassup Troll...  got nothing? Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy
Stop wasting my time.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Ye Grappler
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 33074
Mid-North Coast NSW
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #60 - Oct 6th, 2017 at 9:25pm
 
Did he say marriages to be anal?
Back to top
 

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams
 
IP Logged
 
AugCaesarustus
Gold Member
*****
Online


Founding Father of Australia's
First Republic

Posts: 4319
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #61 - Oct 7th, 2017 at 12:06pm
 
Grendel wrote on Oct 6th, 2017 at 6:37pm:
You kiddies do understand that today you don't have to get married to have sex right?

Back to the monastry with you...  self flagellation for all those impure thoughts eh.


And you understand that traditional marriage is traditional marriage, G. If you're chopping and changing then I can too.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
AugCaesarustus
Gold Member
*****
Online


Founding Father of Australia's
First Republic

Posts: 4319
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #62 - Oct 7th, 2017 at 12:08pm
 
Gnads wrote on Oct 6th, 2017 at 6:49pm:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Oct 6th, 2017 at 3:40pm:
Valkie wrote on Oct 5th, 2017 at 5:12pm:
The_Barnacle wrote on Oct 4th, 2017 at 9:22pm:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Oct 3rd, 2017 at 9:38pm:
Marriage is only valid when:

- you are married in a religious institution with the first person with whom you were engaged.
- you have only had sex with your wife/husband, which act has resulted in the birth of children.
- you have children.
- and you die still married to that person.

Any other marriage consumed under any other circumstances is not marriage and should not be legally recognized.

Q.E.D.



Thats exactly right
Surely those people supporting "traditional" marriage aren't cherry picking what "traditional" means


Thats me.
One wife for life.
3 kids, 6 grandkids


Not quite, Valkie.

Ever made love to your wife with contraception?


What a wank ....  that's what should have happened to you .... shot on the sheets.

A good f*&# wasted.


And no sound, reasoned argumentation? Typical gnads using ad hominem arguments.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Grendel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 24108
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #63 - Oct 7th, 2017 at 9:59pm
 
AugCaesarustus wrote on Oct 7th, 2017 at 12:06pm:
Grendel wrote on Oct 6th, 2017 at 6:37pm:
You kiddies do understand that today you don't have to get married to have sex right?

Back to the monastry with you...  self flagellation for all those impure thoughts eh.


And you understand that traditional marriage is traditional marriage, G. If you're chopping and changing then I can too.

I don't think YOU understand anything about this Auggie.
Clearly everything you write points to that.
My argument hasn't changed 1 little bit...  your inability to grasp that and continuously creating strawmen and lying about me proves that. Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
AugCaesarustus
Gold Member
*****
Online


Founding Father of Australia's
First Republic

Posts: 4319
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #64 - Oct 7th, 2017 at 10:23pm
 
Grendel wrote on Oct 7th, 2017 at 9:59pm:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Oct 7th, 2017 at 12:06pm:
Grendel wrote on Oct 6th, 2017 at 6:37pm:
You kiddies do understand that today you don't have to get married to have sex right?

Back to the monastry with you...  self flagellation for all those impure thoughts eh.


And you understand that traditional marriage is traditional marriage, G. If you're chopping and changing then I can too.

I don't think YOU understand anything about this Auggie.
Clearly everything you write points to that.
My argument hasn't changed 1 little bit...  your inability to grasp that and continuously creating strawmen and lying about me proves that. Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy


I think you're opinion and reasoning on traditional marriage is clear, G.

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


OzPolitic

Posts: 24108
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #65 - Oct 8th, 2017 at 11:59am
 
No you don't....
You don't know me or have any real idea.
You keep writing the crap floating around in your head.

Perhaps you should try flushing it more regularly. 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 #66 - Oct 8th, 2017 at 12:27pm
 
Grendel wrote on Oct 8th, 2017 at 11:59am:
No you don't....
You don't know me or have any real idea.
You keep writing the crap floating around in your head.

Perhaps you should try flushing it more regularly. Roll Eyes


I know you, G. I know you're anti freedom and anti equality before the law. You're an autocrat.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Grendel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 24108
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #67 - Oct 8th, 2017 at 12:55pm
 
Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin
steeerriiiiiike 3.....  your outa here Cheesy
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
AugCaesarustus
Gold Member
*****
Online


Founding Father of Australia's
First Republic

Posts: 4319
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #68 - Oct 8th, 2017 at 5:01pm
 
Grendel wrote on Oct 8th, 2017 at 12:55pm:
Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin
steeerriiiiiike 3.....  your outa here Cheesy


Denying a minority the right to engage in a contractual relationship - that violates the principle of 'equality before the law.'

You don't believe in 'equality before the law', do you?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Frank
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 6599
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #69 - Oct 8th, 2017 at 5:25pm
 
AugCaesarustus wrote on Oct 8th, 2017 at 5:01pm:
Grendel wrote on Oct 8th, 2017 at 12:55pm:
Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin
steeerriiiiiike 3.....  your outa here Cheesy


Denying a minority the right to engage in a contractual relationship - that violates the principle of 'equality before the law.'

You don't believe in 'equality before the law', do you?



All sorts of minorities are excluded from all sorts of laws. And gays are not denied the right to engage in a constractual relationship. They are even allowed to marry.  They already have the right to marry any other gays of the opposite sex. They can have a civil contractual partnership with gays of the same sex.
They are just not allowed to claim to be BOTH majority and minority, to claim to be the same as heterosexuals. They have fought for decades to be recognised as different to straights - to be gay, bent, queer, etc - but now they demand that we ignore that very difference they have fought to be recognised by.



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


Founding Father of Australia's
First Republic

Posts: 4319
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #70 - Oct 8th, 2017 at 5:30pm
 
Frank wrote on Oct 8th, 2017 at 5:25pm:
All sorts of minorities are excluded from all sorts of laws


Such as?

Frank wrote on Oct 8th, 2017 at 5:25pm:
They can have a civil contractual partnership with gays of the same sex.


So, they can have a 'second-class' contractual partnership, but not a 'first-class' one? We shouldn't have segregation of civil relationship laws.

Either everyone can get married, or everyone can get civil unions. You can't pick or choose.

I'm willing to abolish legal marriage, and institute legal civil unions, and leave marriage up to religious institutions. Are you?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Aussie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 33017
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #71 - Oct 8th, 2017 at 5:47pm
 
Frank wrote on Oct 8th, 2017 at 5:25pm:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Oct 8th, 2017 at 5:01pm:
Grendel wrote on Oct 8th, 2017 at 12:55pm:
Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin
steeerriiiiiike 3.....  your outa here Cheesy


Denying a minority the right to engage in a contractual relationship - that violates the principle of 'equality before the law.'

You don't believe in 'equality before the law', do you?



All sorts of minorities are excluded from all sorts of laws. And gays are not denied the right to engage in a constractual relationship. They are even allowed to marry.  They already have the right to marry any other gays of the opposite sex. They can have a civil contractual partnership with gays of the same sex.
They are just not allowed to claim to be BOTH majority and minority, to claim to be the same as heterosexuals. They have fought for decades to be recognised as different to straights - to be gay, bent, queer, etc - but now they demand that we ignore that very difference they have fought to be recognised by.





Gawd Sore End, really!

Social Edict:

Poof:  I want to be recognised as different but as human as everyone is.

Sore End:  Different people may not drink milk.

Gays:  We want to drink milk.

Society:  We recognise you as human.

Gays:  So, may I drink milk.

Society:  (Let's see.)

Sore End:  You can't be human and drink milk.  I don't 'loik' it.
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
 
Frank
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 6599
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #72 - Oct 8th, 2017 at 6:33pm
 
AugCaesarustus wrote on Oct 8th, 2017 at 5:30pm:
Frank wrote on Oct 8th, 2017 at 5:25pm:
All sorts of minorities are excluded from all sorts of laws


Such as?


Siblings who want to marry, can't. Citizens of other countries can't sit in Parliament. The blind can't get a driver's licence. And so on.



Frank wrote on Oct 8th, 2017 at 5:25pm:
They can have a civil contractual partnership with gays of the same sex.


So, they can have a 'second-class' contractual partnership, but not a 'first-class' one? We shouldn't have segregation of civil relationship laws.

Either everyone can get married, or everyone can get civil unions. You can't pick or choose.

I'm willing to abolish legal marriage, and institute legal civil unions, and leave marriage up to religious institutions. Are you? [/quote]


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.

Homosexuals are not just an alternative to heterosexuals, but as far as the species and societies are concerned, a complete dead end.

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.

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


OzPolitic

Posts: 24108
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #73 - Oct 8th, 2017 at 7:02pm
 
He's a bit thick Frank and continually makes things up to argue strawmen he creates.
The Prog Left do it all the time, they make up something then claim victory... Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Grin Grin Grin Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy

oh well it makes them happy.

I've asked about the Equality thing here and all I get from them is the usual trolling and ridicule and attempts to destroy a perfectly good topic...  can't have that now can we? Roll Eyes
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
greggerypeccary
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 69976
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #74 - Oct 8th, 2017 at 7:06pm
 
Grendel wrote on Oct 8th, 2017 at 7:02pm:
I've asked about the Equality thing here


You'll never be equal to the rest of us.

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


OzPolitic

Posts: 24108
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #75 - Oct 8th, 2017 at 7:07pm
 
Thank God....
Whatever Equal means eh peccerhead.
Got nothing as usual 'cept trolling eh. Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
greggerypeccary
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 69976
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #76 - Oct 8th, 2017 at 7:08pm
 
Grendel wrote on Oct 8th, 2017 at 7:07pm:
Thank God....
Whatever Equal means eh peccerhead.
Got nothing as usual 'cept trolling eh.


He/she/it won't help you.

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


OzPolitic

Posts: 24108
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #77 - Oct 8th, 2017 at 7:10pm
 
YAWN
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
AugCaesarustus
Gold Member
*****
Online


Founding Father of Australia's
First Republic

Posts: 4319
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #78 - 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.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
AugCaesarustus
Gold Member
*****
Online


Founding Father of Australia's
First Republic

Posts: 4319
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #79 - Oct 8th, 2017 at 7:26pm
 
Grendel wrote on Oct 8th, 2017 at 7:07pm:
Thank God....
Whatever Equal means eh peccerhead.
Got nothing as usual 'cept trolling eh. Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy


Equal means 'equal under the law', G. Politics 101.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Grendel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 24108
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #80 - Oct 8th, 2017 at 8:08pm
 
peccerhead can talk for himself I'm sure.

You on the other hand are clueless.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
greggerypeccary
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 69976
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #81 - Oct 8th, 2017 at 8:10pm
 
Grendel wrote on Oct 8th, 2017 at 8:08pm:
peccerhead can talk for himself I'm sure.

You on the other hand are clueless.


All I'm hearing today is queefs.

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


OzPolitic

Posts: 24108
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #82 - Oct 8th, 2017 at 10:54pm
 
You don't have to stalk me Gweggy...
I'm not interested in stupidity.

Find someone else to troll. Roll Eyes Roll Eyes 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 #83 - Oct 9th, 2017 at 7:07pm
 
Grendel wrote on Oct 8th, 2017 at 8:08pm:
peccerhead can talk for himself I'm sure.

You on the other hand are clueless.


A person who can't provide his own definition of equality is clueless.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Grendel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 24108
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #84 - Oct 10th, 2017 at 5:28am
 
AugCaesarustus wrote on Oct 9th, 2017 at 7:07pm:
Grendel wrote on Oct 8th, 2017 at 8:08pm:
peccerhead can talk for himself I'm sure.

You on the other hand are clueless.


A person who can't provide his own definition of equality is clueless.

Oh I have provided the definition of EQUALITY...
I'm waiting for a YES Supporter to provide just what it means to them...  so far no takers... and no reason... Cheesy
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
greggerypeccary
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 69976
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #85 - Oct 10th, 2017 at 3:30pm
 
Grendel wrote on Oct 7th, 2017 at 9:59pm:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Oct 7th, 2017 at 12:06pm:
Grendel wrote on Oct 6th, 2017 at 6:37pm:
You kiddies do understand that today you don't have to get married to have sex right?

Back to the monastry with you...  self flagellation for all those impure thoughts eh.


And you understand that traditional marriage is traditional marriage, G. If you're chopping and changing then I can too.

I don't think YOU understand anything about this Auggie.
Clearly everything you write points to that.
My argument hasn't changed 1 little bit...  your inability to grasp that and continuously creating strawmen and lying about me proves that.


You have an argument?

Okay, I missed that.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Grendel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 24108
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #86 - Oct 10th, 2017 at 3:50pm
 
Wassup gweggy...  can't debate? Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy
Then just don't hang around here and TROLL... 
Site ran much better with your absence.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
greggerypeccary
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 69976
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #87 - Oct 10th, 2017 at 3:53pm
 
Grendel wrote on Oct 10th, 2017 at 3:50pm:
Wassup gweggy...  can't debate?
Then just don't hang around here and TROLL... 
Site ran much better with your absence.



Shush, not now Goose.

I'm still looking for your argument.
...
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Grendel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 24108
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #88 - Oct 10th, 2017 at 4:58pm
 
YAWN


Pity you haven't the ability to do what you require of others eh. Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy
I've already posted many reasons to vote NO.

How about you peccerhead...  nothing, nada, zip... Roll Eyes
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Frank
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 6599
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #89 - 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.



Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
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: 6599
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
 
AugCaesarustus
Gold Member
*****
Online


Founding Father of Australia's
First Republic

Posts: 4319
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #105 - Oct 12th, 2017 at 3:43pm
 
Isn't funny, we would accept racial segregation even if facilities and resources were exactly equal, yet many are willing to accept marriage segregation.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Frank
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 6599
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #106 - Oct 12th, 2017 at 10:37pm
 
AugCaesarustus wrote on 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?

'Procreation card's, Bwian?  Really? Like it's  a furphy that we ARE a species made up heterosexual men and women?

The socialization of boys and girls is a furphy? The social, cultural bridging of of generations is a furphy?

You can't  be so stupi d as to ignore all these things across the ages for the new slogan of love is love (How dam BANAL can you go?)
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
AugCaesarustus
Gold Member
*****
Online


Founding Father of Australia's
First Republic

Posts: 4319
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #107 - Oct 12th, 2017 at 11:31pm
 
Quote:
'Procreation card's, Bwian?  Really? Like it's  a furphy that we ARE a species made up heterosexual men and women?

The socialization of boys and girls is a furphy? The social, cultural bridging of of generations is a furphy?

You can't  be so stupi d as to ignore all these things across the ages for the new slogan of love is love (How dam BANAL can you go?)


We have been and always will be a society of men and women; same-sex marriage doesn't and won't change this. Heterosexuals will continue to be the majority, and the human race will continue to procreate.

Allowing same-sex couples to marry no more affects the institution of marriage and society any more than capitalism affects society, or how pornography affects people.

You might wake in the morning on the day after the Parliament has passed the law, and feel that your marriage is no longer what it was.

And that would be your problem.... And no one else's.

Same-sex marriage doesn't affect you. As to how it affects society, everything affects society, so let's ban everything, institute a totalitarian state with Kim Jong-UN as the Dear Leader because he knows best - after all he discovered DNA, and can apparently walk on water??? Because we would all be so much better off if we just all shut-up and listened to you, Frank.



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


OzPolitic

Posts: 24108
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #108 - Oct 13th, 2017 at 8:27am
 
AugCaesarustus wrote on Oct 12th, 2017 at 3:43pm:
Isn't funny, we would accept racial segregation even if facilities and resources were exactly equal, yet many are willing to accept marriage segregation.

I accept that Football is Football and Tennis is Tennis...  how about you? Cheesy
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Grendel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 24108
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #109 - Oct 13th, 2017 at 8:32am
 
greggerypeccary wrote on 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

YOU KEEP TELLING YOURSELF TAT GWEGGY IF IT MAKES YOU FEEL EQUAL...
Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Grendel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 24108
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #110 - Oct 13th, 2017 at 8:34am
 
So Auggie how has the human race been sustained and continued to grow population wise?

Gays? Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy

Bigger cabbage patches?
More Storks?

Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Frank
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 6599
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #111 - Oct 13th, 2017 at 8:59am
 
AugCaesarustus wrote on Oct 12th, 2017 at 11:31pm:
Quote:
'Procreation card's, Bwian?  Really? Like it's  a furphy that we ARE a species made up heterosexual men and women?

The socialization of boys and girls is a furphy? The social, cultural bridging of of generations is a furphy?

You can't  be so stupi d as to ignore all these things across the ages for the new slogan of love is love (How dam BANAL can you go?)


We have been and always will be a society of men and women; same-sex marriage doesn't and won't change this. Heterosexuals will continue to be the majority, and the human race will continue to procreate.

Allowing same-sex couples to marry no more affects the institution of marriage and society any more than capitalism affects society, or how pornography affects people.

You might wake in the morning on the day after the Parliament has passed the law, and feel that your marriage is no longer what it was.

And that would be your problem.... And no one else's.

Same-sex marriage doesn't affect you. As to how it affects society, everything affects society, so let's ban everything, institute a totalitarian state with Kim Jong-UN as the Dear Leader because he knows best - after all he discovered DNA, and can apparently walk on water??? Because we would all be so much better off if we just all shut-up and listened to you, Frank.




When two blokes marry, which one is the wife? If they adopt kids, who will be the mother?
What will the kids say to their friends?  'Bwian is me mum's?

It is a farcical notion. Its like slapstick, SSM.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
greggerypeccary
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 69976
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #112 - Oct 13th, 2017 at 9:01am
 
Frank wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 8:59am:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Oct 12th, 2017 at 11:31pm:
Quote:
'Procreation card's, Bwian?  Really? Like it's  a furphy that we ARE a species made up heterosexual men and women?

The socialization of boys and girls is a furphy? The social, cultural bridging of of generations is a furphy?

You can't  be so stupi d as to ignore all these things across the ages for the new slogan of love is love (How dam BANAL can you go?)


We have been and always will be a society of men and women; same-sex marriage doesn't and won't change this. Heterosexuals will continue to be the majority, and the human race will continue to procreate.

Allowing same-sex couples to marry no more affects the institution of marriage and society any more than capitalism affects society, or how pornography affects people.

You might wake in the morning on the day after the Parliament has passed the law, and feel that your marriage is no longer what it was.

And that would be your problem.... And no one else's.

Same-sex marriage doesn't affect you. As to how it affects society, everything affects society, so let's ban everything, institute a totalitarian state with Kim Jong-UN as the Dear Leader because he knows best - after all he discovered DNA, and can apparently walk on water??? Because we would all be so much better off if we just all shut-up and listened to you, Frank.




When two blokes marry, which one is the wife? If they adopt kids, who will be the mother?
What will the kids say to their friends?  'Bwian is me mum's?

It is a farcical notion. Its like slapstick, SSM.


Hard to believe that such ignorance still exists in this country, in 2017.

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


Australian Politics

Posts: 6599
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #113 - Oct 13th, 2017 at 10:07am
 
greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 9:01am:
Frank wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 8:59am:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Oct 12th, 2017 at 11:31pm:
Quote:
'Procreation card's, Bwian?  Really? Like it's  a furphy that we ARE a species made up heterosexual men and women?

The socialization of boys and girls is a furphy? The social, cultural bridging of of generations is a furphy?

You can't  be so stupi d as to ignore all these things across the ages for the new slogan of love is love (How dam BANAL can you go?)


We have been and always will be a society of men and women; same-sex marriage doesn't and won't change this. Heterosexuals will continue to be the majority, and the human race will continue to procreate.

Allowing same-sex couples to marry no more affects the institution of marriage and society any more than capitalism affects society, or how pornography affects people.

You might wake in the morning on the day after the Parliament has passed the law, and feel that your marriage is no longer what it was.

And that would be your problem.... And no one else's.

Same-sex marriage doesn't affect you. As to how it affects society, everything affects society, so let's ban everything, institute a totalitarian state with Kim Jong-UN as the Dear Leader because he knows best - after all he discovered DNA, and can apparently walk on water??? Because we would all be so much better off if we just all shut-up and listened to you, Frank.




When two blokes marry, which one is the wife? If they adopt kids, who will be the mother?
What will the kids say to their friends?  'Bwian is me mum's?

It is a farcical notion. Its like slapstick, SSM.


Hard to believe that such ignorance still exists in this country, in 2017.




Oh? Have I missed the latest directive on the korrekt  nomenclature? https://uwm.edu/lgbtrc/support/gender-pronouns/
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
greggerypeccary
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 69976
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #114 - Oct 13th, 2017 at 10:13am
 
Frank wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 10:07am:
greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 9:01am:
Frank wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 8:59am:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Oct 12th, 2017 at 11:31pm:
Quote:
'Procreation card's, Bwian?  Really? Like it's  a furphy that we ARE a species made up heterosexual men and women?

The socialization of boys and girls is a furphy? The social, cultural bridging of of generations is a furphy?

You can't  be so stupi d as to ignore all these things across the ages for the new slogan of love is love (How dam BANAL can you go?)


We have been and always will be a society of men and women; same-sex marriage doesn't and won't change this. Heterosexuals will continue to be the majority, and the human race will continue to procreate.

Allowing same-sex couples to marry no more affects the institution of marriage and society any more than capitalism affects society, or how pornography affects people.

You might wake in the morning on the day after the Parliament has passed the law, and feel that your marriage is no longer what it was.

And that would be your problem.... And no one else's.

Same-sex marriage doesn't affect you. As to how it affects society, everything affects society, so let's ban everything, institute a totalitarian state with Kim Jong-UN as the Dear Leader because he knows best - after all he discovered DNA, and can apparently walk on water??? Because we would all be so much better off if we just all shut-up and listened to you, Frank.




When two blokes marry, which one is the wife? If they adopt kids, who will be the mother?
What will the kids say to their friends?  'Bwian is me mum's?

It is a farcical notion. Its like slapstick, SSM.


Hard to believe that such ignorance still exists in this country, in 2017.




Oh? Have I missed the latest directive on the korrekt  nomenclature? https://uwm.edu/lgbtrc/support/gender-pronouns/


Judging by that post, I'd say you missed an education.

Sad.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
AugCaesarustus
Gold Member
*****
Online


Founding Father of Australia's
First Republic

Posts: 4319
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #115 - Oct 13th, 2017 at 1:25pm
 
Grendel wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 8:27am:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Oct 12th, 2017 at 3:43pm:
Isn't funny, we would accept racial segregation even if facilities and resources were exactly equal, yet many are willing to accept marriage segregation.

I accept that Football is Football and Tennis is Tennis...  how about you? Cheesy


Still haven't answered the question...

How about you do?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
AugCaesarustus
Gold Member
*****
Online


Founding Father of Australia's
First Republic

Posts: 4319
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #116 - Oct 13th, 2017 at 1:26pm
 
Grendel wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 8:34am:
So Auggie how has the human race been sustained and continued to grow population wise?

Gays? Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy

Bigger cabbage patches?
More Storks?

Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin


And it will continue to grow notwithstanding same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage has no impact on procreation. The majority will continue to be heterosexual. We will still be a society of men and women.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
AugCaesarustus
Gold Member
*****
Online


Founding Father of Australia's
First Republic

Posts: 4319
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #117 - Oct 13th, 2017 at 1:27pm
 
Frank wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 8:59am:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Oct 12th, 2017 at 11:31pm:
Quote:
'Procreation card's, Bwian?  Really? Like it's  a furphy that we ARE a species made up heterosexual men and women?

The socialization of boys and girls is a furphy? The social, cultural bridging of of generations is a furphy?

You can't  be so stupi d as to ignore all these things across the ages for the new slogan of love is love (How dam BANAL can you go?)


We have been and always will be a society of men and women; same-sex marriage doesn't and won't change this. Heterosexuals will continue to be the majority, and the human race will continue to procreate.

Allowing same-sex couples to marry no more affects the institution of marriage and society any more than capitalism affects society, or how pornography affects people.

You might wake in the morning on the day after the Parliament has passed the law, and feel that your marriage is no longer what it was.

And that would be your problem.... And no one else's.

Same-sex marriage doesn't affect you. As to how it affects society, everything affects society, so let's ban everything, institute a totalitarian state with Kim Jong-UN as the Dear Leader because he knows best - after all he discovered DNA, and can apparently walk on water??? Because we would all be so much better off if we just all shut-up and listened to you, Frank.




When two blokes marry, which one is the wife? If they adopt kids, who will be the mother?
What will the kids say to their friends?  'Bwian is me mum's?

It is a farcical notion. Its like slapstick, SSM.


Children will say that they have 2 dads, or 2 mums. What's the big deal?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Frank
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 6599
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #118 - Oct 13th, 2017 at 2:23pm
 
AugCaesarustus wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 1:27pm:
Frank wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 8:59am:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Oct 12th, 2017 at 11:31pm:
Quote:
'Procreation card's, Bwian?  Really? Like it's  a furphy that we ARE a species made up heterosexual men and women?

The socialization of boys and girls is a furphy? The social, cultural bridging of of generations is a furphy?

You can't  be so stupi d as to ignore all these things across the ages for the new slogan of love is love (How dam BANAL can you go?)


We have been and always will be a society of men and women; same-sex marriage doesn't and won't change this. Heterosexuals will continue to be the majority, and the human race will continue to procreate.

Allowing same-sex couples to marry no more affects the institution of marriage and society any more than capitalism affects society, or how pornography affects people.

You might wake in the morning on the day after the Parliament has passed the law, and feel that your marriage is no longer what it was.

And that would be your problem.... And no one else's.

Same-sex marriage doesn't affect you. As to how it affects society, everything affects society, so let's ban everything, institute a totalitarian state with Kim Jong-UN as the Dear Leader because he knows best - after all he discovered DNA, and can apparently walk on water??? Because we would all be so much better off if we just all shut-up and listened to you, Frank.




When two blokes marry, which one is the wife? If they adopt kids, who will be the mother?
What will the kids say to their friends?  'Bwian is me mum's?

It is a farcical notion. Its like slapstick, SSM.


Children will say that they have 2 dads, or 2 mums. What's the big deal?

Er... it's a fake, 2 dads. Where's mum? How did 2 dads  make the little guy?
What a terrible thing to put on a little person out of sheer vanity.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Frank
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 6599
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #119 - Oct 13th, 2017 at 2:25pm
 
greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 10:13am:
Frank wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 10:07am:
greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 9:01am:
Frank wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 8:59am:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Oct 12th, 2017 at 11:31pm:
Quote:
'Procreation card's, Bwian?  Really? Like it's  a furphy that we ARE a species made up heterosexual men and women?

The socialization of boys and girls is a furphy? The social, cultural bridging of of generations is a furphy?

You can't  be so stupi d as to ignore all these things across the ages for the new slogan of love is love (How dam BANAL can you go?)


We have been and always will be a society of men and women; same-sex marriage doesn't and won't change this. Heterosexuals will continue to be the majority, and the human race will continue to procreate.

Allowing same-sex couples to marry no more affects the institution of marriage and society any more than capitalism affects society, or how pornography affects people.

You might wake in the morning on the day after the Parliament has passed the law, and feel that your marriage is no longer what it was.

And that would be your problem.... And no one else's.

Same-sex marriage doesn't affect you. As to how it affects society, everything affects society, so let's ban everything, institute a totalitarian state with Kim Jong-UN as the Dear Leader because he knows best - after all he discovered DNA, and can apparently walk on water??? Because we would all be so much better off if we just all shut-up and listened to you, Frank.




When two blokes marry, which one is the wife? If they adopt kids, who will be the mother?
What will the kids say to their friends?  'Bwian is me mum's?

It is a farcical notion. Its like slapstick, SSM.


Hard to believe that such ignorance still exists in this country, in 2017.




Oh? Have I missed the latest directive on the korrekt  nomenclature? https://uwm.edu/lgbtrc/support/gender-pronouns/


Judging by that post, I'd say you missed an education.

Sad.

Cheesy

A virtue-signalling, vain turd! I don't  read the Star Observer, turdy. Tell us the latest korrekt thinking.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Karnal
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 51660
Gender: female
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #120 - Oct 13th, 2017 at 2:28pm
 
Frank wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 2:25pm:
greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 10:13am:
Frank wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 10:07am:
greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 9:01am:
Frank wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 8:59am:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Oct 12th, 2017 at 11:31pm:
Quote:
'Procreation card's, Bwian?  Really? Like it's  a furphy that we ARE a species made up heterosexual men and women?

The socialization of boys and girls is a furphy? The social, cultural bridging of of generations is a furphy?

You can't  be so stupi d as to ignore all these things across the ages for the new slogan of love is love (How dam BANAL can you go?)


We have been and always will be a society of men and women; same-sex marriage doesn't and won't change this. Heterosexuals will continue to be the majority, and the human race will continue to procreate.

Allowing same-sex couples to marry no more affects the institution of marriage and society any more than capitalism affects society, or how pornography affects people.

You might wake in the morning on the day after the Parliament has passed the law, and feel that your marriage is no longer what it was.

And that would be your problem.... And no one else's.

Same-sex marriage doesn't affect you. As to how it affects society, everything affects society, so let's ban everything, institute a totalitarian state with Kim Jong-UN as the Dear Leader because he knows best - after all he discovered DNA, and can apparently walk on water??? Because we would all be so much better off if we just all shut-up and listened to you, Frank.




When two blokes marry, which one is the wife? If they adopt kids, who will be the mother?
What will the kids say to their friends?  'Bwian is me mum's?

It is a farcical notion. Its like slapstick, SSM.


Hard to believe that such ignorance still exists in this country, in 2017.




Oh? Have I missed the latest directive on the korrekt  nomenclature? https://uwm.edu/lgbtrc/support/gender-pronouns/


Judging by that post, I'd say you missed an education.

Sad.

Cheesy

A virtue-signalling, vain turd!


Now now, old boy, Greggery's a married man. You stop flattering him so.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Karnal
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 51660
Gender: female
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #121 - Oct 13th, 2017 at 2:30pm
 
Frank wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 2:23pm:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 1:27pm:
Frank wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 8:59am:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Oct 12th, 2017 at 11:31pm:
Quote:
'Procreation card's, Bwian?  Really? Like it's  a furphy that we ARE a species made up heterosexual men and women?

The socialization of boys and girls is a furphy? The social, cultural bridging of of generations is a furphy?

You can't  be so stupi d as to ignore all these things across the ages for the new slogan of love is love (How dam BANAL can you go?)


We have been and always will be a society of men and women; same-sex marriage doesn't and won't change this. Heterosexuals will continue to be the majority, and the human race will continue to procreate.

Allowing same-sex couples to marry no more affects the institution of marriage and society any more than capitalism affects society, or how pornography affects people.

You might wake in the morning on the day after the Parliament has passed the law, and feel that your marriage is no longer what it was.

And that would be your problem.... And no one else's.

Same-sex marriage doesn't affect you. As to how it affects society, everything affects society, so let's ban everything, institute a totalitarian state with Kim Jong-UN as the Dear Leader because he knows best - after all he discovered DNA, and can apparently walk on water??? Because we would all be so much better off if we just all shut-up and listened to you, Frank.




When two blokes marry, which one is the wife? If they adopt kids, who will be the mother?
What will the kids say to their friends?  'Bwian is me mum's?

It is a farcical notion. Its like slapstick, SSM.


Children will say that they have 2 dads, or 2 mums. What's the big deal?

Er... it's a fake, 2 dads. Where's mum? How did 2 dads  make the little guy?
What a terrible thing to put on a little person out of sheer vanity.


Where's your children's mother, dear boy?

I'm curious.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
mothra
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 24633
Gender: female
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #122 - Oct 13th, 2017 at 2:39pm
 
greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 9:01am:
Frank wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 8:59am:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Oct 12th, 2017 at 11:31pm:
Quote:
'Procreation card's, Bwian?  Really? Like it's  a furphy that we ARE a species made up heterosexual men and women?

The socialization of boys and girls is a furphy? The social, cultural bridging of of generations is a furphy?

You can't  be so stupi d as to ignore all these things across the ages for the new slogan of love is love (How dam BANAL can you go?)


We have been and always will be a society of men and women; same-sex marriage doesn't and won't change this. Heterosexuals will continue to be the majority, and the human race will continue to procreate.

Allowing same-sex couples to marry no more affects the institution of marriage and society any more than capitalism affects society, or how pornography affects people.

You might wake in the morning on the day after the Parliament has passed the law, and feel that your marriage is no longer what it was.

And that would be your problem.... And no one else's.

Same-sex marriage doesn't affect you. As to how it affects society, everything affects society, so let's ban everything, institute a totalitarian state with Kim Jong-UN as the Dear Leader because he knows best - after all he discovered DNA, and can apparently walk on water??? Because we would all be so much better off if we just all shut-up and listened to you, Frank.




When two blokes marry, which one is the wife? If they adopt kids, who will be the mother?
What will the kids say to their friends?  'Bwian is me mum's?

It is a farcical notion. Its like slapstick, SSM.


Hard to believe that such ignorance still exists in this country, in 2017.




Indeed. At least Frank is honest about his objections but yes indeed, that is the level of ignorance we're working with.
Back to top
 

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


Australian Politics

Posts: 51660
Gender: female
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #123 - Oct 13th, 2017 at 2:44pm
 
mothra wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 2:39pm:
greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 9:01am:
Frank wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 8:59am:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Oct 12th, 2017 at 11:31pm:
Quote:
'Procreation card's, Bwian?  Really? Like it's  a furphy that we ARE a species made up heterosexual men and women?

The socialization of boys and girls is a furphy? The social, cultural bridging of of generations is a furphy?

You can't  be so stupi d as to ignore all these things across the ages for the new slogan of love is love (How dam BANAL can you go?)


We have been and always will be a society of men and women; same-sex marriage doesn't and won't change this. Heterosexuals will continue to be the majority, and the human race will continue to procreate.

Allowing same-sex couples to marry no more affects the institution of marriage and society any more than capitalism affects society, or how pornography affects people.

You might wake in the morning on the day after the Parliament has passed the law, and feel that your marriage is no longer what it was.

And that would be your problem.... And no one else's.

Same-sex marriage doesn't affect you. As to how it affects society, everything affects society, so let's ban everything, institute a totalitarian state with Kim Jong-UN as the Dear Leader because he knows best - after all he discovered DNA, and can apparently walk on water??? Because we would all be so much better off if we just all shut-up and listened to you, Frank.




When two blokes marry, which one is the wife? If they adopt kids, who will be the mother?
What will the kids say to their friends?  'Bwian is me mum's?

It is a farcical notion. Its like slapstick, SSM.


Hard to believe that such ignorance still exists in this country, in 2017.




Indeed. At least Frank is honest about his objections but yes indeed, that is the level of ignorance we're working with.


Well yes, Frank has always been partial to a bit of virtue-signalling stool, it's just a fact.

He misses his dear Mormor's cooking back in the old country. He still gets homesick, you know.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Frank
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 6599
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #124 - Oct 13th, 2017 at 2:53pm
 
mothra wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 2:39pm:
greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 9:01am:
Frank wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 8:59am:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Oct 12th, 2017 at 11:31pm:
Quote:
'Procreation card's, Bwian?  Really? Like it's  a furphy that we ARE a species made up heterosexual men and women?

The socialization of boys and girls is a furphy? The social, cultural bridging of of generations is a furphy?

You can't  be so stupi d as to ignore all these things across the ages for the new slogan of love is love (How dam BANAL can you go?)


We have been and always will be a society of men and women; same-sex marriage doesn't and won't change this. Heterosexuals will continue to be the majority, and the human race will continue to procreate.

Allowing same-sex couples to marry no more affects the institution of marriage and society any more than capitalism affects society, or how pornography affects people.

You might wake in the morning on the day after the Parliament has passed the law, and feel that your marriage is no longer what it was.

And that would be your problem.... And no one else's.

Same-sex marriage doesn't affect you. As to how it affects society, everything affects society, so let's ban everything, institute a totalitarian state with Kim Jong-UN as the Dear Leader because he knows best - after all he discovered DNA, and can apparently walk on water??? Because we would all be so much better off if we just all shut-up and listened to you, Frank.




When two blokes marry, which one is the wife? If they adopt kids, who will be the mother?
What will the kids say to their friends?  'Bwian is me mum's?

It is a farcical notion. Its like slapstick, SSM.


Hard to believe that such ignorance still exists in this country, in 2017.




Indeed. At least Frank is honest about his objections but yes indeed, that is the level of ignorance we're working with.

Grin  Grin 'you are working with?' You, one of the most PC, group-think addled person for miles!


What is ignorant about pointing out that you need a man and a woman to make a baby, to socialise it properly into a heterosexual species and society and to nurture it and and bring it into adulthood and to be, in turn, the next bridge between you and future generations?

What is 'ignorant' about recognising the way of the world?

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


Founding Father of Australia's
First Republic

Posts: 4319
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #125 - Oct 13th, 2017 at 2:53pm
 
Frank wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 2:23pm:
Er... it's a fake, 2 dads. Where's mum? How did 2 dads  make the little guy?
What a terrible thing to put on a little person out of sheer vanity.


What about single parent households? Other children may ask the same question? What about women who choose to raise children as single mothers, without a father?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Aussie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 33017
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #126 - Oct 13th, 2017 at 2:54pm
 
AugCaesarustus wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 2:53pm:
Frank wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 2:23pm:
Er... it's a fake, 2 dads. Where's mum? How did 2 dads  make the little guy?
What a terrible thing to put on a little person out of sheer vanity.


What about single parent households? Other children may ask the same question? What about women who choose to raise children as single mothers, without a father?


Ban them!
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
 
greggerypeccary
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 69976
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #127 - Oct 13th, 2017 at 2:55pm
 
Frank wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 2:53pm:
mothra wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 2:39pm:
greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 9:01am:
Frank wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 8:59am:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Oct 12th, 2017 at 11:31pm:
Quote:
'Procreation card's, Bwian?  Really? Like it's  a furphy that we ARE a species made up heterosexual men and women?

The socialization of boys and girls is a furphy? The social, cultural bridging of of generations is a furphy?

You can't  be so stupi d as to ignore all these things across the ages for the new slogan of love is love (How dam BANAL can you go?)


We have been and always will be a society of men and women; same-sex marriage doesn't and won't change this. Heterosexuals will continue to be the majority, and the human race will continue to procreate.

Allowing same-sex couples to marry no more affects the institution of marriage and society any more than capitalism affects society, or how pornography affects people.

You might wake in the morning on the day after the Parliament has passed the law, and feel that your marriage is no longer what it was.

And that would be your problem.... And no one else's.

Same-sex marriage doesn't affect you. As to how it affects society, everything affects society, so let's ban everything, institute a totalitarian state with Kim Jong-UN as the Dear Leader because he knows best - after all he discovered DNA, and can apparently walk on water??? Because we would all be so much better off if we just all shut-up and listened to you, Frank.




When two blokes marry, which one is the wife? If they adopt kids, who will be the mother?
What will the kids say to their friends?  'Bwian is me mum's?

It is a farcical notion. Its like slapstick, SSM.


Hard to believe that such ignorance still exists in this country, in 2017.




Indeed. At least Frank is honest about his objections but yes indeed, that is the level of ignorance we're working with.

Grin  Grin 'you are working with?' You, one of the most PC, group-think addled person for miles!


What is ignorant about pointing out that you need a man and a woman to make a baby...


Off-topic.

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


Australian Politics

Posts: 6599
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #128 - Oct 13th, 2017 at 2:56pm
 
AugCaesarustus wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 2:53pm:
Frank wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 2:23pm:
Er... it's a fake, 2 dads. Where's mum? How did 2 dads  make the little guy?
What a terrible thing to put on a little person out of sheer vanity.


What about single parent households? Other children may ask the same question? What about women who choose to raise children as single mothers, without a father?

What about them? In what way do they pretend that they are as whole and natural as a complete family?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
greggerypeccary
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 69976
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #129 - Oct 13th, 2017 at 2:58pm
 
Frank wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 2:53pm:
mothra wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 2:39pm:
greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 9:01am:
Frank wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 8:59am:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Oct 12th, 2017 at 11:31pm:
Quote:
'Procreation card's, Bwian?  Really? Like it's  a furphy that we ARE a species made up heterosexual men and women?

The socialization of boys and girls is a furphy? The social, cultural bridging of of generations is a furphy?

You can't  be so stupi d as to ignore all these things across the ages for the new slogan of love is love (How dam BANAL can you go?)


We have been and always will be a society of men and women; same-sex marriage doesn't and won't change this. Heterosexuals will continue to be the majority, and the human race will continue to procreate.

Allowing same-sex couples to marry no more affects the institution of marriage and society any more than capitalism affects society, or how pornography affects people.

You might wake in the morning on the day after the Parliament has passed the law, and feel that your marriage is no longer what it was.

And that would be your problem.... And no one else's.

Same-sex marriage doesn't affect you. As to how it affects society, everything affects society, so let's ban everything, institute a totalitarian state with Kim Jong-UN as the Dear Leader because he knows best - after all he discovered DNA, and can apparently walk on water??? Because we would all be so much better off if we just all shut-up and listened to you, Frank.




When two blokes marry, which one is the wife? If they adopt kids, who will be the mother?
What will the kids say to their friends?  'Bwian is me mum's?

It is a farcical notion. Its like slapstick, SSM.


Hard to believe that such ignorance still exists in this country, in 2017.




Indeed. At least Frank is honest about his objections but yes indeed, that is the level of ignorance we're working with.

Grin  Grin 'you are working with?' You, one of the most PC, group-think addled person for miles!


What is ignorant about pointing out that you need a man and a woman to make a baby ...


Nobody is saying anything to the contrary.

Ignorance is saying something like "which one is the wife?".


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


OzPolitic

Posts: 33017
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #130 - Oct 13th, 2017 at 2:59pm
 
Frank wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 2:56pm:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 2:53pm:
Frank wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 2:23pm:
Er... it's a fake, 2 dads. Where's mum? How did 2 dads  make the little guy?
What a terrible thing to put on a little person out of sheer vanity.


What about single parent households? Other children may ask the same question? What about women who choose to raise children as single mothers, without a father?

What about them? In what way do they pretend that they are as whole and natural as a complete family?


My turn
.....Off Topic!
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 #131 - Oct 13th, 2017 at 2:59pm
 
Frank wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 2:53pm:
What is ignorant about pointing out that you need a man and a woman to make a baby, to socialise it properly into a heterosexual species and society and to nurture it and and bring it into adulthood and to be, in turn, the next bridge between you and future generations?

What is 'ignorant' about recognising the way of the world?




Why do you think that heterosexuality normality will decline if ssm is allowed?

Do you think it will encourage people to be gay or something?

And you do not need any gender parent at all .. you just need someone who loves you. The more, the merrier.
Back to top
 

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


Founding Father of Australia's
First Republic

Posts: 4319
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #132 - Oct 13th, 2017 at 3:02pm
 
Frank wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 2:56pm:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 2:53pm:
Frank wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 2:23pm:
Er... it's a fake, 2 dads. Where's mum? How did 2 dads  make the little guy?
What a terrible thing to put on a little person out of sheer vanity.


What about single parent households? Other children may ask the same question? What about women who choose to raise children as single mothers, without a father?

What about them? In what way do they pretend that they are as whole and natural as a complete family?


A single mother who voluntarily chooses to raise a child may believe that they are 'whole and natural as a complete family' as you state.

Frankly, if people are going to make judgements about other people based on whether or not they have two parents or not, then they're not worth salt.

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


Australian Politics

Posts: 51660
Gender: female
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #133 - Oct 13th, 2017 at 3:12pm
 
Frank wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 2:53pm:
'you are working with?'


Well, it might be work, but Mother has much love too. She does her best, dear boy. These things take time.

Remember, every day, in every way, things keep getting better and better.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
greggerypeccary
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 69976
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #134 - Oct 13th, 2017 at 3:13pm
 
mothra wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 2:59pm:
Frank wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 2:53pm:
What is ignorant about pointing out that you need a man and a woman to make a baby, to socialise it properly into a heterosexual species and society and to nurture it and and bring it into adulthood and to be, in turn, the next bridge between you and future generations?

What is 'ignorant' about recognising the way of the world?




Why do you think that heterosexuality normality will decline if ssm is allowed?

Do you think it will encourage people to be gay or something?



Once SSM is legalised, we're all gonna catch the gay.

Hilarious   Grin
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Karnal
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 51660
Gender: female
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #135 - Oct 13th, 2017 at 3:14pm
 
Frank wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 2:56pm:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 2:53pm:
Frank wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 2:23pm:
Er... it's a fake, 2 dads. Where's mum? How did 2 dads  make the little guy?
What a terrible thing to put on a little person out of sheer vanity.


What about single parent households? Other children may ask the same question? What about women who choose to raise children as single mothers, without a father?

What about them? In what way do they pretend that they are as whole and natural as a complete family?


You?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Karnal
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 51660
Gender: female
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #136 - Oct 13th, 2017 at 3:18pm
 
greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 3:13pm:
mothra wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 2:59pm:
Frank wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 2:53pm:
What is ignorant about pointing out that you need a man and a woman to make a baby, to socialise it properly into a heterosexual species and society and to nurture it and and bring it into adulthood and to be, in turn, the next bridge between you and future generations?

What is 'ignorant' about recognising the way of the world?




Why do you think that heterosexuality normality will decline if ssm is allowed?

Do you think it will encourage people to be gay or something?



Once SSM is legalised, we're all gonna catch the gay.

Hilarious   Grin


You could do worse, Greggery. He might struggle, but the old boy loves the intimacy of a strong, confident and assured man deeply penetrating him.

Superior culture, innit.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Ajax
Gold Member
*****
Offline


CO2 has never controlled
temperature on Earth

Posts: 6493
Australia
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #137 - Oct 13th, 2017 at 3:26pm
 
You're all silly sausages when you support this propaganda you're supporting the United Nations and when you support the United Nations you are inadvertently supporting the oligarchy's plans for all of us plebs........ Roll Eyes

Ajax wrote on Oct 8th, 2017 at 9:32am:
They've come along way in 4 years.

SSM issue being pushed around the world.

And the transgender agenda too.


...

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=45503#.WdlpZ2dryUk
Back to top
 

1. "There has never been a more serious assault on our standard of living than the carbon tax." Ajax
2. “Scratch the average homosexual and you will find a pedophile" Kevin Bishop (homosexual)
 
IP Logged
 
Karnal
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 51660
Gender: female
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #138 - Oct 13th, 2017 at 3:38pm
 
Ajax wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 3:26pm:
You're all silly sausages when you support this propaganda you're supporting the United Nations and when you support the United Nations you are inadvertently supporting the oligarchy's plans for all of us plebs........ Roll Eyes

They've come along way in 4 years.

SSM issue being pushed around the world.

And the transgender agenda too.


That's true, Ajax. If I remember rightly, the TA is a UN plot for Darkie to outbreed the superior white race. It started with Alfred Kinsey, who aimed to turn our children into trannies through his sinister paedophile experiments.

Thanks for exposing this. It's all there in your link - a ridiculous little Negroid fellow promoting the Transgender Agenda - as they do.

Typical.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
AugCaesarustus
Gold Member
*****
Online


Founding Father of Australia's
First Republic

Posts: 4319
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #139 - Oct 13th, 2017 at 3:39pm
 
Ajax wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 3:26pm:
You're all silly sausages when you support this propaganda you're supporting the United Nations and when you support the United Nations you are inadvertently supporting the oligarchy's plans for all of us plebs........ Roll Eyes

Ajax wrote on Oct 8th, 2017 at 9:32am:
They've come along way in 4 years.

SSM issue being pushed around the world.

And the transgender agenda too.


https://preview.ibb.co/hYcMqb/un01.jpg

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=45503#.WdlpZ2dryUk


Sorry, conspiracies aren't real. I don't believe in them.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Ajax
Gold Member
*****
Offline


CO2 has never controlled
temperature on Earth

Posts: 6493
Australia
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #140 - Oct 13th, 2017 at 3:42pm
 
AugCaesarustus wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 3:39pm:
Ajax wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 3:26pm:
You're all silly sausages when you support this propaganda you're supporting the United Nations and when you support the United Nations you are inadvertently supporting the oligarchy's plans for all of us plebs........ Roll Eyes

Ajax wrote on Oct 8th, 2017 at 9:32am:
They've come along way in 4 years.

SSM issue being pushed around the world.

And the transgender agenda too.


https://preview.ibb.co/hYcMqb/un01.jpg

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=45503#.WdlpZ2dryUk


Sorry, conspiracies aren't real. I don't believe in them.



You might not believe in them now but when they touch upon your nik of the woods you might.

Then again some people go through life without a clue.

Maybe you're one of them...................... Wink
Back to top
 

1. "There has never been a more serious assault on our standard of living than the carbon tax." Ajax
2. “Scratch the average homosexual and you will find a pedophile" Kevin Bishop (homosexual)
 
IP Logged
 
Karnal
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 51660
Gender: female
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #141 - Oct 13th, 2017 at 3:44pm
 
Ajax wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 3:42pm:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 3:39pm:
Ajax wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 3:26pm:
You're all silly sausages when you support this propaganda you're supporting the United Nations and when you support the United Nations you are inadvertently supporting the oligarchy's plans for all of us plebs........ Roll Eyes

Ajax wrote on Oct 8th, 2017 at 9:32am:
They've come along way in 4 years.

SSM issue being pushed around the world.

And the transgender agenda too.


https://preview.ibb.co/hYcMqb/un01.jpg

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=45503#.WdlpZ2dryUk


Sorry, conspiracies aren't real. I don't believe in them.



You might not believe in them now but when they touch upon your nik of the woods you might.

Then again some people go through life without a clue.

Maybe you're one of them...................... Wink


Maybe you should tell him more about it, Ajax. Open Caesar's eyes to all this.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
AugCaesarustus
Gold Member
*****
Online


Founding Father of Australia's
First Republic

Posts: 4319
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #142 - Oct 13th, 2017 at 3:45pm
 
Ajax wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 3:42pm:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 3:39pm:
Ajax wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 3:26pm:
You're all silly sausages when you support this propaganda you're supporting the United Nations and when you support the United Nations you are inadvertently supporting the oligarchy's plans for all of us plebs........ Roll Eyes

Ajax wrote on Oct 8th, 2017 at 9:32am:
They've come along way in 4 years.

SSM issue being pushed around the world.

And the transgender agenda too.


https://preview.ibb.co/hYcMqb/un01.jpg

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=45503#.WdlpZ2dryUk


Sorry, conspiracies aren't real. I don't believe in them.



You might not believe in them now but when they touch upon your nik of the woods you might.

Then again some people go through life without a clue.

Maybe you're one of them...................... Wink


You know there are psychological explanations for conspiracies. The main one is that it helps people to better understand the world by dividing the forces of light and darkness. It makes a complex world look simpler.

I understand the grey area. Do you?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Ajax
Gold Member
*****
Offline


CO2 has never controlled
temperature on Earth

Posts: 6493
Australia
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #143 - Oct 13th, 2017 at 3:48pm
 
Karnal wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 3:44pm:
Ajax wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 3:42pm:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 3:39pm:
Ajax wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 3:26pm:
You're all silly sausages when you support this propaganda you're supporting the United Nations and when you support the United Nations you are inadvertently supporting the oligarchy's plans for all of us plebs........ Roll Eyes

Ajax wrote on Oct 8th, 2017 at 9:32am:
They've come along way in 4 years.

SSM issue being pushed around the world.

And the transgender agenda too.


https://preview.ibb.co/hYcMqb/un01.jpg

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=45503#.WdlpZ2dryUk


Sorry, conspiracies aren't real. I don't believe in them.



You might not believe in them now but when they touch upon your nik of the woods you might.

Then again some people go through life without a clue.

Maybe you're one of them...................... Wink


Maybe you should tell him more about it, Ajax. Open Caesar's eyes to all this.


I'll leave that to you karnal, you seem to have a grip on something.......like the blind leading the blind........ Kiss
Back to top
 

1. "There has never been a more serious assault on our standard of living than the carbon tax." Ajax
2. “Scratch the average homosexual and you will find a pedophile" Kevin Bishop (homosexual)
 
IP Logged
 
Ajax
Gold Member
*****
Offline


CO2 has never controlled
temperature on Earth

Posts: 6493
Australia
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #144 - Oct 13th, 2017 at 3:49pm
 
AugCaesarustus wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 3:45pm:
Ajax wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 3:42pm:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 3:39pm:
Ajax wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 3:26pm:
You're all silly sausages when you support this propaganda you're supporting the United Nations and when you support the United Nations you are inadvertently supporting the oligarchy's plans for all of us plebs........ Roll Eyes

Ajax wrote on Oct 8th, 2017 at 9:32am:
They've come along way in 4 years.

SSM issue being pushed around the world.

And the transgender agenda too.


https://preview.ibb.co/hYcMqb/un01.jpg

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=45503#.WdlpZ2dryUk


Sorry, conspiracies aren't real. I don't believe in them.



You might not believe in them now but when they touch upon your nik of the woods you might.

Then again some people go through life without a clue.

Maybe you're one of them...................... Wink


You know there are psychological explanations for conspiracies. The main one is that it helps people to better understand the world by dividing the forces of light and darkness. It makes a complex world look simpler.

I understand the grey area. Do you?


Yes that first part is true.

Want to bury the truth, call it a conspiracy................. Grin
Back to top
 

1. "There has never been a more serious assault on our standard of living than the carbon tax." Ajax
2. “Scratch the average homosexual and you will find a pedophile" Kevin Bishop (homosexual)
 
IP Logged
 
Karnal
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 51660
Gender: female
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #145 - Oct 13th, 2017 at 3:51pm
 
Ajax wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 3:48pm:
I'll leave that to you karnal, you seem to have a grip on something......


Thanks, Ajax.

Watch the Rocky Horror Picture Show, Caesar. It's all in there. Transylvanian transexuals creating new breeds of humans to have sex with and take over the world.

Kunning, no?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Ajax
Gold Member
*****
Offline


CO2 has never controlled
temperature on Earth

Posts: 6493
Australia
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #146 - Oct 13th, 2017 at 3:54pm
 
Karnal wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 3:51pm:
Ajax wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 3:48pm:
I'll leave that to you karnal, you seem to have a grip on something......


Thanks, Ajax.

Watch the Rocky Horror Picture Show, Caesar. It's all in there.


Your encyclopedia.............???................. Kiss
Back to top
 

1. "There has never been a more serious assault on our standard of living than the carbon tax." Ajax
2. “Scratch the average homosexual and you will find a pedophile" Kevin Bishop (homosexual)
 
IP Logged
 
greggerypeccary
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 69976
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #147 - Oct 13th, 2017 at 3:55pm
 
Karnal wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 3:51pm:
Ajax wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 3:48pm:
I'll leave that to you karnal, you seem to have a grip on something......


Thanks, Ajax.

Watch the Rocky Horror Picture Show, Caesar. It's all in there. Transylvanian transexuals creating new breeds of humans to have sex with and take over the world.

Kunning, no?


Dammit ...
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
mothra
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 24633
Gender: female
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #148 - Oct 13th, 2017 at 3:59pm
 
greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 3:55pm:
Karnal wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 3:51pm:
Ajax wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 3:48pm:
I'll leave that to you karnal, you seem to have a grip on something......


Thanks, Ajax.

Watch the Rocky Horror Picture Show, Caesar. It's all in there. Transylvanian transexuals creating new breeds of humans to have sex with and take over the world.

Kunning, no?


Dammit ...



But isn't it nice.
Back to top
 

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


Australian Politics

Posts: 51660
Gender: female
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #149 - Oct 13th, 2017 at 4:03pm
 
mothra wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 3:59pm:
greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 3:55pm:
Karnal wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 3:51pm:
Ajax wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 3:48pm:
I'll leave that to you karnal, you seem to have a grip on something......


Thanks, Ajax.

Watch the Rocky Horror Picture Show, Caesar. It's all in there. Transylvanian transexuals creating new breeds of humans to have sex with and take over the world.

Kunning, no?


Dammit ...



But isn't it nice.


It's not nice at all, Mother, it's sinister.

Not racist, of course.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
mothra
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 24633
Gender: female
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #150 - Oct 13th, 2017 at 4:10pm
 
Karnal wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 4:03pm:
mothra wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 3:59pm:
greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 3:55pm:
Karnal wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 3:51pm:
Ajax wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 3:48pm:
I'll leave that to you karnal, you seem to have a grip on something......


Thanks, Ajax.

Watch the Rocky Horror Picture Show, Caesar. It's all in there. Transylvanian transexuals creating new breeds of humans to have sex with and take over the world.

Kunning, no?


Dammit ...



But isn't it nice.


It's not nice at all, Mother, it's sinister.

Not racist, of course.


Just close your eyes. You'll be alright.

Now, isn't that better?
Back to top
 

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


Founding Father of Australia's
First Republic

Posts: 4319
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #151 - Oct 13th, 2017 at 4:23pm
 
Ajax wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 3:49pm:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 3:45pm:
Ajax wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 3:42pm:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 3:39pm:
Ajax wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 3:26pm:
You're all silly sausages when you support this propaganda you're supporting the United Nations and when you support the United Nations you are inadvertently supporting the oligarchy's plans for all of us plebs........ Roll Eyes

Ajax wrote on Oct 8th, 2017 at 9:32am:
They've come along way in 4 years.

SSM issue being pushed around the world.

And the transgender agenda too.


https://preview.ibb.co/hYcMqb/un01.jpg

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=45503#.WdlpZ2dryUk


Sorry, conspiracies aren't real. I don't believe in them.



You might not believe in them now but when they touch upon your nik of the woods you might.

Then again some people go through life without a clue.

Maybe you're one of them...................... Wink


You know there are psychological explanations for conspiracies. The main one is that it helps people to better understand the world by dividing the forces of light and darkness. It makes a complex world look simpler.

I understand the grey area. Do you?


Yes that first part is true.

Want to bury the truth, call it a conspiracy................. Grin


Like that JFK was assassinated by the CIA?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
greggerypeccary
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 69976
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #152 - Oct 13th, 2017 at 4:25pm
 
AugCaesarustus wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 4:23pm:
Ajax wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 3:49pm:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 3:45pm:
Ajax wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 3:42pm:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 3:39pm:
Ajax wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 3:26pm:
You're all silly sausages when you support this propaganda you're supporting the United Nations and when you support the United Nations you are inadvertently supporting the oligarchy's plans for all of us plebs........ Roll Eyes

Ajax wrote on Oct 8th, 2017 at 9:32am:
They've come along way in 4 years.

SSM issue being pushed around the world.

And the transgender agenda too.


https://preview.ibb.co/hYcMqb/un01.jpg

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=45503#.WdlpZ2dryUk


Sorry, conspiracies aren't real. I don't believe in them.



You might not believe in them now but when they touch upon your nik of the woods you might.

Then again some people go through life without a clue.

Maybe you're one of them...................... Wink


You know there are psychological explanations for conspiracies. The main one is that it helps people to better understand the world by dividing the forces of light and darkness. It makes a complex world look simpler.

I understand the grey area. Do you?


Yes that first part is true.

Want to bury the truth, call it a conspiracy................. Grin


Like that JFK was assassinated by the CIA?


Watch the Zapruder film again.

There's a Muslim on the grassy knoll.

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


Australian Politics

Posts: 24633
Gender: female
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #153 - Oct 13th, 2017 at 4:27pm
 
A Muslim Lizard.
Back to top
 

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


Australian Politics

Posts: 69976
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #154 - Oct 13th, 2017 at 4:29pm
 

Under the trees ... in the shadows.

...

She's wearing a burka, which makes it hard to see her.

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


Australian Politics

Posts: 24633
Gender: female
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #155 - Oct 13th, 2017 at 4:38pm
 
I'll bet the burqa hides many a reptilian shape-shifter.
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: 6599
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #156 - Oct 14th, 2017 at 8:30am
 
greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 2:58pm:
Frank wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 2:53pm:
mothra wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 2:39pm:
greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 9:01am:
Frank wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 8:59am:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Oct 12th, 2017 at 11:31pm:
Quote:
'Procreation card's, Bwian?  Really? Like it's  a furphy that we ARE a species made up heterosexual men and women?

The socialization of boys and girls is a furphy? The social, cultural bridging of of generations is a furphy?

You can't  be so stupi d as to ignore all these things across the ages for the new slogan of love is love (How dam BANAL can you go?)


We have been and always will be a society of men and women; same-sex marriage doesn't and won't change this. Heterosexuals will continue to be the majority, and the human race will continue to procreate.

Allowing same-sex couples to marry no more affects the institution of marriage and society any more than capitalism affects society, or how pornography affects people.

You might wake in the morning on the day after the Parliament has passed the law, and feel that your marriage is no longer what it was.

And that would be your problem.... And no one else's.

Same-sex marriage doesn't affect you. As to how it affects society, everything affects society, so let's ban everything, institute a totalitarian state with Kim Jong-UN as the Dear Leader because he knows best - after all he discovered DNA, and can apparently walk on water??? Because we would all be so much better off if we just all shut-up and listened to you, Frank.




When two blokes marry, which one is the wife? If they adopt kids, who will be the mother?
What will the kids say to their friends?  'Bwian is me mum's?

It is a farcical notion. Its like slapstick, SSM.


Hard to believe that such ignorance still exists in this country, in 2017.




Indeed. At least Frank is honest about his objections but yes indeed, that is the level of ignorance we're working with.

Grin  Grin 'you are working with?' You, one of the most PC, group-think addled person for miles!


What is ignorant about pointing out that you need a man and a woman to make a baby ...


Nobody is saying anything to the contrary.

Ignorance is saying something like "which one is the wife?".



Well, in marriage there is a wife and a husband. So who is who in SSM?

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


OzPolitic

Posts: 24108
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #157 - Oct 14th, 2017 at 9:21am
 
AugCaesarustus wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 1:26pm:
Grendel wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 8:34am:
So Auggie how has the human race been sustained and continued to grow population wise?

Gays? Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy

Bigger cabbage patches?
More Storks?

Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin


And it will continue to grow notwithstanding same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage has no impact on procreation. The majority will continue to be heterosexual. We will still be a society of men and women.

You didn't answer the question Auggie.
Cant face the truth eh.
In countries where SSM has been implemented it has been reported that marriage rates in the heterosexual  majority have fallen.  Some have commented that marriage has been devalued and that they now see no reason to marry any more.
One minute you say everything effects society and the next you ignore the effects Auggie.  Tsk, tsk, tsk... 

Canada is more like us than any other SSM country and has had it in place long enough to start to see the broader effects.

The Impact on Human Rights

The formal effect of the judicial decisions (and subsequent legislation) establishing same-sex civil marriage in Canada was simply that persons of the same-sex could now have the government recognize their relationships as marriages. But the legal and cultural effect was much broader. What transpired was the adoption of a new orthodoxy: that same-sex relationships are, in every way, the equivalent of traditional marriage, and that same-sex marriage must therefore be treated identically to traditional marriage in law and public life.

A corollary is that anyone who rejects the new orthodoxy must be acting on the basis of bigotry and animus toward gays and lesbians. Any statement of disagreement with same-sex civil marriage is thus considered a straightforward manifestation of hatred toward a minority sexual group. Any reasoned explanation (for example, those that were offered in legal arguments that same-sex marriage is incompatible with a conception of marriage that responds to the needs of the children of the marriage for stability, fidelity, and permanence—what is sometimes called the conjugal conception of marriage), is dismissed right away as mere pretext.

When one sees opposition to same-sex marriage as a manifestation of sheer bigotry and hatred, it becomes very hard to tolerate continued dissent. Thus it was in Canada that the terms of participation in public life changed very quickly. Civil marriage commissioners were the first to feel the hard edge of the new orthodoxy; several provinces refused to allow commissioners a right of conscience to refuse to preside over same-sex weddings, and demanded their resignations.  At the same time, religious organizations, such as the Knights of Columbus, were fined for refusing to rent their facilities for post-wedding celebrations.

The Right to Freedom of Expression

The new orthodoxy’s impact has not been limited to the relatively small number of persons at risk of being coerced into supporting or celebrating a same-sex marriage. The change has widely affected persons—including clergy—who wish to make public arguments about human sexuality.

Much speech that was permitted before same-sex marriage now carries risks. Many of those who have persisted in voicing their dissent have been subjected to investigations by human rights commissions and (in some cases) proceedings before human rights tribunals. Those who are poor, poorly educated, and without institutional affiliation have been particularly easy targets—anti-discrimination laws are not always applied evenly.  Some have been ordered to pay fines, make apologies, and undertake never to speak publicly on such matters again. Targets have included individuals writing letters to the editors of local newspapers,  and ministers of small congregations of Christians.  A Catholic bishop faced two complaints—both eventually withdrawn—prompted by comments he made in a pastoral letter about marriage.

Reviewing courts have begun to rein in the commissions and tribunals (particularly since some ill-advised proceedings against Mark Steyn and Maclean’s magazine in 2009), and restore a more capacious view of freedom of speech. And in response to the public outcry following the Steyn/Maclean’s affair, the Parliament of Canada recently revoked the Canadian Human Rights Commission’s statutory jurisdiction to pursue “hate speech.”

But the financial cost of fighting the human rights machine remains enormous—Maclean’s spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees,  none of which is recoverable from the commissions, tribunals, or complainants. And these cases can take up to a decade to resolve. An ordinary person with few resources who has drawn the attention of a human rights commission has no hope of appealing to the courts for relief; such a person can only accept the admonition of the commission, pay a (comparatively) small fine, and then observe the directive to remain forever silent.
pt1
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Grendel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 24108
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #158 - Oct 14th, 2017 at 9:27am
 
pt2.

As long as these tools remain at the disposal of the commissions—for whom the new orthodoxy gives no theoretical basis to tolerate dissent—to engage in public discussion about same-sex marriage is to court ruin.

Similar pressure can be—and is—brought to bear on dissenters by professional governing bodies (such as bar associations, teachers’ colleges, and the like) that have statutory power to discipline members for conduct unbecoming of the profession.  Expressions of disagreement with the reasonableness of institutionalizing same-sex marriage are understood by these bodies to be acts of illegal discrimination, which are matters for professional censure.

Teachers are particularly at risk for disciplinary action, for even if they only make public statements criticizing same-sex marriage outside the classroom, they are still deemed to create a hostile environment for gay and lesbian students.  Other workplaces and voluntary associations have adopted similar policies as a result of their having internalized this new orthodoxy that disagreement with same-sex marriage is illegal discrimination that must not be tolerated.

Parental Rights in Public Education

Institutionalizing same-sex marriage has subtly but pervasively changed parental rights in public education. The debate over how to cast same-sex marriage in the classroom is much like the debate over the place of sex education in schools, and of governmental pretensions to exercise primary authority over children. But sex education has always been a discrete matter, in the sense that by its nature it cannot permeate the entirety of the curriculum. Same-sex marriage is on a different footing.

Since one of the tenets of the new orthodoxy is that same-sex relationships deserve the same respect that we give marriage, its proponents have been remarkably successful in demanding that same-sex marriage be depicted positively in the classroom. Curriculum reforms in jurisdictions such as British Columbia now prevent parents from exercising their long-held veto power over contentious educational practices.

The new curricula are permeated by positive references to same-sex marriage, not just in one discipline but in all. Faced with this strategy of diffusion, the only parental defense is to remove one’s children from the public school system entirely. Courts have been unsympathetic to parental objections: if parents are clinging to outdated bigotries, then children must bear the burden of “cognitive dissonance”—they must absorb conflicting things from home and school while school tries to win out.

The reforms, of course, were not sold to the public as a matter of enforcing the new orthodoxy. Instead, the stated rationale was to prevent bullying; that is, to promote the acceptance of gay and lesbian youth and the children of same-sex households.

It is a laudable goal to encourage acceptance of persons. But whatever can be said for the objective, the means chosen to achieve it is a gross violation of the family. It is nothing less than the deliberate indoctrination of children (over the objections of their parents) into a conception of marriage that is fundamentally hostile to what the parents understand to be in their children’s best interests. It frustrates the ability of parents to lead their children to an understanding of marriage that will be conducive to their flourishing as adults. At a very early age, it teaches children that the underlying rationale of marriage is nothing other than the satisfaction of changeable adult desires for companionship.

Religious Institutions’ Right to Autonomy

At first glance, clergy and houses of worship appeared largely immune from coercion to condone or perform same-sex marriages. Indeed, this was the grand bargain of the same-sex marriage legislation—clergy would retain the right not to perform marriages that would violate their religious beliefs. Houses of worship could not be conscripted against the wishes of religious bodies.

It should have been clear from the outset just how narrow this protection is. It only prevents clergy from being coerced into performing marriage ceremonies. It does not, as we have seen, shield sermons or pastoral letters from the scrutiny of human rights commissions. It leaves congregations vulnerable to legal challenges if they refuse to rent their auxiliary facilities to same-sex couples for their ceremony receptions, or to any other organization that will use the facility to promote a view of sexuality wholly at odds with their own.

Neither does it prevent provincial and municipal governments from withholding benefits to religious congregations because of their marriage doctrine. For example, Bill 13, the same Ontario statute that compels Catholic schools to host "Gay-Straight Alliance" clubs (and to use that particular name), also prohibits public schools from renting their facilities to organizations that will not agree to a code of conduct premised on the new orthodoxy. Given that many small Christian congregations rent school auditoriums to conduct their worship services, it is easy to appreciate their vulnerability.

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


Founding Father of Australia's
First Republic

Posts: 4319
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #159 - Oct 14th, 2017 at 9:27am
 
Oooh. So marriage rates have fallen?
That’s been happening for more than 50 years now, notwithstanding same sex marriage.

If people feel that marriage has been devalued then that’s their problem.

Finally the article you quoted talked about free speech and anti ssm. It had nothing to do with children becoming sodomites or with an increase in the homosexual population.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Grendel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 24108
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #160 - Oct 14th, 2017 at 9:32am
 
pt 3.

Changes to the Public Conception of Marriage

It has been argued that if same-sex marriage is institutionalized, new marital categories may be accepted, like polygamy. Once one abandons a conjugal conception of marriage, and replaces it with a conception of marriage that has adult companionship as its focus, there is no principled basis for resisting the extension of marriage licenses to polygamist and polyamorist unions.

In other words, if marriage is about satisfying adult desires for companionship, and if the desires of some adults extend to more novel arrangements, how can we deny them? I will not here evaluate this claim, but simply report how this scenario has played out in Canada.

One prominent polygamist community in British Columbia was greatly emboldened by the creation of same-sex marriage, and publicly proclaimed that there was now no principled basis for the state’s continued criminalization of polygamy. Of all the Canadian courts, only a trial court in British Columbia has addressed whether prohibiting polygamy is constitutional, and provided an advisory opinion to the province’s government.

The criminal prohibition of polygamy was upheld, but on a narrow basis that defined polygamy as multiple, concurrent civil marriages. The court did not address the phenomenon of multiple common-law marriages. So, thus far, the dominant forms of polygamy and polyamory practiced in Canada have not gained legal status, but neither have they faced practical impediments.

The lesson is this: a society that institutionalizes same-sex marriage needn’t necessarily institutionalize polygamy. But the example from British Columbia suggests that the only way to do so is to ignore principle. The polygamy case’s reasoning gave no convincing explanation why it would be discriminatory not to extend the marriage franchise to gays and lesbians, but not discriminatory to draw the line at polygamists and polyamorists. In fact, the judgment looks like it rests on animus toward polygamists and polyamorists, which is not a stable juridical foundation.

The Impact on the Practice of Marriage

As for the practice of marriage, it is too soon to say much. The 2011 census data establish that, first, marriage is in decline in Canada, as it is in much of the West; second, same-sex marriage is a statistically minor phenomenon; and third, there are very few same-sex couples (married or not) with children in the home.

There are approximately 21,000 married same-sex couples in Canada, out of 6.29 million married couples. Same-sex couples (married and unmarried) constitute 0.8% of all couples in Canada; 9.4% of the 64,575 same-sex couples (including common-law and married) have children in the home, and 80% of these are lesbian couples. By contrast, 47.2% of heterosexual couples have children in the home. Canada stopped tracking divorce after 2008, and has never provided data on same-sex divorce.

What we can gather from these data is that same-sex marriage has not, contrary to arguments that it would, powered a resurgent marriage culture in Canada. Nor are there any census data (one way or the other) for empirical arguments tying the institutionalization of same-sex marriage to marriage stability.

Without empirical data on divorce rates (which are not forthcoming in Canada), we are left with conceptual arguments that must be evaluated on their merits. Here, the Canadian experience cannot provide much information. We are left with the question, does the institutionalization of same-sex marriage rest on a conception of marriage that places a premium on stability, as does the conjugal conception? If it does not, then we can reasonably believe same-sex marriage will speed up cultural acceptance of a conception of marriage—the adult companionate model—that has done much social damage over the past fifty years.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Grendel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 24108
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #161 - Oct 14th, 2017 at 9:33am
 
Well there you go TROLLS...  more stuff you can ignore as you continue on trashing topics... Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
AugCaesarustus
Gold Member
*****
Online


Founding Father of Australia's
First Republic

Posts: 4319
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #162 - Oct 14th, 2017 at 9:34am
 
Let me ease your mind, G.

First, marriage is between two consenting adults, nothing more now thing less.

Second, churches should not be forced to do anything against their conscience.

Third, people who oppose ssm are not necessarily bigots.

Happy?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
AugCaesarustus
Gold Member
*****
Online


Founding Father of Australia's
First Republic

Posts: 4319
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #163 - Oct 14th, 2017 at 9:40am
 
Grendel wrote on Oct 14th, 2017 at 9:33am:
Well there you go TROLLS...  more stuff you can ignore as you continue on trashing topics... Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy


I simply disagree with those facts. I don’t believe that SSM devalues marriage. Marriage is personal and is no one’s busy but their own.

Second, I actually agree with you on one point: churches and/or religious institutions should not be forced to marry or recognise SSM. Also, I don’t agree with the leftist crusade on shutting down everyone who disagrees with ssm. I’m a libertarian, not a lefty, G.

I will never force a priest to marry a gay couple, nor would I force a baker to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

Marriage is defined as TWO consenting adults. Not children or animals; nor more than TWO. I think that’s pretty blatantly obvious.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
greggerypeccary
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 69976
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #164 - Oct 14th, 2017 at 9:47am
 
Frank wrote on Oct 14th, 2017 at 8:30am:
greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 2:58pm:
Frank wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 2:53pm:
mothra wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 2:39pm:
greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 9:01am:
Frank wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 8:59am:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Oct 12th, 2017 at 11:31pm:
Quote:
'Procreation card's, Bwian?  Really? Like it's  a furphy that we ARE a species made up heterosexual men and women?

The socialization of boys and girls is a furphy? The social, cultural bridging of of generations is a furphy?

You can't  be so stupi d as to ignore all these things across the ages for the new slogan of love is love (How dam BANAL can you go?)


We have been and always will be a society of men and women; same-sex marriage doesn't and won't change this. Heterosexuals will continue to be the majority, and the human race will continue to procreate.

Allowing same-sex couples to marry no more affects the institution of marriage and society any more than capitalism affects society, or how pornography affects people.

You might wake in the morning on the day after the Parliament has passed the law, and feel that your marriage is no longer what it was.

And that would be your problem.... And no one else's.

Same-sex marriage doesn't affect you. As to how it affects society, everything affects society, so let's ban everything, institute a totalitarian state with Kim Jong-UN as the Dear Leader because he knows best - after all he discovered DNA, and can apparently walk on water??? Because we would all be so much better off if we just all shut-up and listened to you, Frank.




When two blokes marry, which one is the wife? If they adopt kids, who will be the mother?
What will the kids say to their friends?  'Bwian is me mum's?

It is a farcical notion. Its like slapstick, SSM.


Hard to believe that such ignorance still exists in this country, in 2017.




Indeed. At least Frank is honest about his objections but yes indeed, that is the level of ignorance we're working with.

Grin  Grin 'you are working with?' You, one of the most PC, group-think addled person for miles!


What is ignorant about pointing out that you need a man and a woman to make a baby ...


Nobody is saying anything to the contrary.

Ignorance is saying something like "which one is the wife?".



Well, in marriage there is a wife and a husband.


Not in SSM.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
greggerypeccary
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 69976
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #165 - Oct 14th, 2017 at 9:48am
 
Frank wrote on Oct 14th, 2017 at 8:30am:
greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 2:58pm:
Frank wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 2:53pm:
mothra wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 2:39pm:
greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 9:01am:
Frank wrote on Oct 13th, 2017 at 8:59am:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Oct 12th, 2017 at 11:31pm:
Quote:
'Procreation card's, Bwian?  Really? Like it's  a furphy that we ARE a species made up heterosexual men and women?

The socialization of boys and girls is a furphy? The social, cultural bridging of of generations is a furphy?

You can't  be so stupi d as to ignore all these things across the ages for the new slogan of love is love (How dam BANAL can you go?)


We have been and always will be a society of men and women; same-sex marriage doesn't and won't change this. Heterosexuals will continue to be the majority, and the human race will continue to procreate.

Allowing same-sex couples to marry no more affects the institution of marriage and society any more than capitalism affects society, or how pornography affects people.

You might wake in the morning on the day after the Parliament has passed the law, and feel that your marriage is no longer what it was.

And that would be your problem.... And no one else's.

Same-sex marriage doesn't affect you. As to how it affects society, everything affects society, so let's ban everything, institute a totalitarian state with Kim Jong-UN as the Dear Leader because he knows best - after all he discovered DNA, and can apparently walk on water??? Because we would all be so much better off if we just all shut-up and listened to you, Frank.




When two blokes marry, which one is the wife? If they adopt kids, who will be the mother?
What will the kids say to their friends?  'Bwian is me mum's?

It is a farcical notion. Its like slapstick, SSM.


Hard to believe that such ignorance still exists in this country, in 2017.




Indeed. At least Frank is honest about his objections but yes indeed, that is the level of ignorance we're working with.

Grin  Grin 'you are working with?' You, one of the most PC, group-think addled person for miles!


What is ignorant about pointing out that you need a man and a woman to make a baby ...


Nobody is saying anything to the contrary.

Ignorance is saying something like "which one is the wife?".



Well, in marriage there is a wife and a husband.


In SSM there are two partners.

Two husbands, or two wives.

Try to keep up.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Grendel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 24108
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #166 - Oct 14th, 2017 at 11:05am
 
Really...  not co-parents or simply parents or carers?

Why not Lover A and Lover B...  it's all about love right?
Oh wait that's not Equal is it.

How about Equals... 

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


Australian Politics

Posts: 69976
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #167 - Oct 14th, 2017 at 11:08am
 
Grendel wrote on Oct 14th, 2017 at 11:05am:
Really... 


Really.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Karnal
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 51660
Gender: female
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #168 - Oct 14th, 2017 at 11:16am
 
Grendel wrote on Oct 14th, 2017 at 9:33am:
Well there you go TROLLS...  more stuff you can ignore as you continue on trashing topics... Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy


Your article doesn't point out one tangible thing that doesn't happen already, Grendel.

Sorry if this wastes your time.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
AugCaesarustus
Gold Member
*****
Online


Founding Father of Australia's
First Republic

Posts: 4319
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #169 - Oct 14th, 2017 at 11:30am
 
Grendel wrote on Oct 14th, 2017 at 11:05am:
Really...  not co-parents or simply parents or carers?

Why not Lover A and Lover B...  it's all about love right?
Oh wait that's not Equal is it.

How about Equals... 



Remember, G, two consenting adults, nothing more nothing less. Not children, not animals. Not more than 2.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Frank
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 6599
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #170 - Oct 14th, 2017 at 12:18pm
 
AugCaesarustus wrote on Oct 14th, 2017 at 11:30am:
Grendel wrote on Oct 14th, 2017 at 11:05am:
Really...  not co-parents or simply parents or carers?

Why not Lover A and Lover B...  it's all about love right?
Oh wait that's not Equal is it.

How about Equals... 



Remember, G, two consenting adults, nothing more nothing less. Not children, not animals. Not more than 2.



Why is 'two consenting adults' unchallengebleable when 'one man and one woman' is not?

What undeniable principle does the former have that the latter lacks?


Please explain.

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


Australian Politics

Posts: 6599
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #171 - Oct 14th, 2017 at 12:33pm
 
greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 14th, 2017 at 9:48am:
In SSM there are two partners.

Two husbands, or two wives.

Try to keep up.

Grin Grin Grin Grin

An utter farce. 

Two bucks, two hens, two toms, two bitches - a joke.

You will have to violate language to accommodate this nonsense. Very 1984.

The Boys Scouts will accept girls now. And gay scout masters. And the Girls SCouts will no doubt accept boys and  lesbians.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Oct 14th, 2017 at 12:40pm by Frank »  
 
IP Logged
 
AugCaesarustus
Gold Member
*****
Online


Founding Father of Australia's
First Republic

Posts: 4319
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #172 - Oct 14th, 2017 at 12:36pm
 
Frank wrote on Oct 14th, 2017 at 12:18pm:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Oct 14th, 2017 at 11:30am:
Grendel wrote on Oct 14th, 2017 at 11:05am:
Really...  not co-parents or simply parents or carers?

Why not Lover A and Lover B...  it's all about love right?
Oh wait that's not Equal is it.

How about Equals... 



Remember, G, two consenting adults, nothing more nothing less. Not children, not animals. Not more than 2.



Why is 'two consenting adults' unchallengebleable when 'one man and one woman' is not?

What undeniable principle does the former have that the latter lacks?


Please explain.



Because marriage is a legal institution and allowing same sex couples to marry abides by the principle of ‘equality before the law’.

We wouldn’t accept separate but equal for race, but we accept it for marriage?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
greggerypeccary
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 69976
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #173 - Oct 14th, 2017 at 12:58pm
 
Frank wrote on Oct 14th, 2017 at 12:33pm:
greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 14th, 2017 at 9:48am:
In SSM there are two partners.

Two husbands, or two wives.

Try to keep up.



An utter farce. 



No. Just the way it is, in many countries.

Get used to it, because it's coming here too.

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


Australian Politics

Posts: 69976
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #174 - Oct 14th, 2017 at 12:59pm
 
Frank wrote on Oct 14th, 2017 at 12:33pm:
greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 14th, 2017 at 9:48am:
In SSM there are two partners.

Two husbands, or two wives.

Try to keep up.


The Boys Scouts will accept girls now. And gay scout masters. And the Girls SCouts will no doubt accept boys and  lesbians.



This is about SSM.

Not children, or scouts.

Try to remain focused.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Oct 14th, 2017 at 2:25pm by greggerypeccary »  
 
IP Logged
 
Karnal
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 51660
Gender: female
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #175 - Oct 14th, 2017 at 1:01pm
 
Frank wrote on Oct 14th, 2017 at 12:33pm:
[quote author=greggerypeccary link=1507030717/165#165 date=1507938519]
In SSM there are two partners.


The Boys Scouts will accept girls now. And gay scout masters. And the Girls SCouts will no doubt accept boys and  lesbians.


They do already, dear boy.

It is a jolly world, no?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
AugCaesarustus
Gold Member
*****
Online


Founding Father of Australia's
First Republic

Posts: 4319
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #176 - Oct 14th, 2017 at 1:04pm
 
greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 14th, 2017 at 12:59pm:
Frank wrote on Oct 14th, 2017 at 12:33pm:
greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 14th, 2017 at 9:48am:
In SSM there are two partners.

Two husbands, or two wives.

Try to keep up.


The Boys Scouts will accept girls now. And gay scout masters. And the Girls SCouts will no doubt accept boys and  lesbians.



This about SSM.

Not children, or scouts.

Try to remain focused.


Nor is it about gender.

The way frank talks about it, society will collapse. We’ll all turn into zombies.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
AugCaesarustus
Gold Member
*****
Online


Founding Father of Australia's
First Republic

Posts: 4319
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #177 - Oct 14th, 2017 at 1:08pm
 
...
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Grendel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 24108
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #178 - Oct 14th, 2017 at 1:47pm
 
Karnal wrote on Oct 14th, 2017 at 11:16am:
Grendel wrote on Oct 14th, 2017 at 9:33am:
Well there you go TROLLS...  more stuff you can ignore as you continue on trashing topics... Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy


Your article doesn't point out one tangible thing that doesn't happen already, Grendel.

Sorry if this wastes your time.

YOU waste my time.
Try reading things before you comment or get an adult to explain it to you first. Roll Eyes
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Grendel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 24108
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #179 - Oct 14th, 2017 at 1:50pm
 
AugCaesarustus wrote on Oct 14th, 2017 at 9:40am:
Grendel wrote on Oct 14th, 2017 at 9:33am:
Well there you go TROLLS...  more stuff you can ignore as you continue on trashing topics... Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy


I simply disagree with those facts. I don’t believe that SSM devalues marriage. Marriage is personal and is no one’s busy but their own.

Second, I actually agree with you on one point: churches and/or religious institutions should not be forced to marry or recognise SSM. Also, I don’t agree with the leftist crusade on shutting down everyone who disagrees with ssm. I’m a libertarian, not a lefty, G.

I will never force a priest to marry a gay couple, nor would I force a baker to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

Marriage is defined as TWO consenting adults. Not children or animals; nor more than TWO. I think that’s pretty blatantly obvious.

LOL
You can disagree with those FACTS, but guess what Auggie... 
they still remain FACTS


Disagreeing with reality says something disturbing about you and people like you. Cheesy
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
greggerypeccary
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 69976
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #180 - Oct 14th, 2017 at 2:26pm
 

Stop wasting Goose's time, everyone.

He's getting upset.

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


Founding Father of Australia's
First Republic

Posts: 4319
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #181 - Oct 14th, 2017 at 3:03pm
 
Grendel wrote on Oct 14th, 2017 at 1:50pm:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Oct 14th, 2017 at 9:40am:
Grendel wrote on Oct 14th, 2017 at 9:33am:
Well there you go TROLLS...  more stuff you can ignore as you continue on trashing topics... Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy


I simply disagree with those facts. I don’t believe that SSM devalues marriage. Marriage is personal and is no one’s busy but their own.

Second, I actually agree with you on one point: churches and/or religious institutions should not be forced to marry or recognise SSM. Also, I don’t agree with the leftist crusade on shutting down everyone who disagrees with ssm. I’m a libertarian, not a lefty, G.

I will never force a priest to marry a gay couple, nor would I force a baker to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

Marriage is defined as TWO consenting adults. Not children or animals; nor more than TWO. I think that’s pretty blatantly obvious.

LOL
You can disagree with those FACTS, but guess what Auggie... 
they still remain FACTS


Disagreeing with reality says something disturbing about you and people like you. Cheesy


What? The fact that there is a growing trend of dissolved marriages due to SSM? Get real? That’s a consequence of the modern world, G. Looks like you need a dose of reality.

Why not blame capitalism? Or pornography for he breakdown of marriage? Why not ban divorce to preserve the sanctity of marriage?

There are many cause as to why marriage has broken down and SSM certainly isn’t one of them.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Karnal
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 51660
Gender: female
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #182 - Oct 14th, 2017 at 4:04pm
 
AugCaesarustus wrote on Oct 14th, 2017 at 3:03pm:
Grendel wrote on Oct 14th, 2017 at 1:50pm:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Oct 14th, 2017 at 9:40am:
Grendel wrote on Oct 14th, 2017 at 9:33am:
Well there you go TROLLS...  more stuff you can ignore as you continue on trashing topics... Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy


I simply disagree with those facts. I don’t believe that SSM devalues marriage. Marriage is personal and is no one’s busy but their own.

Second, I actually agree with you on one point: churches and/or religious institutions should not be forced to marry or recognise SSM. Also, I don’t agree with the leftist crusade on shutting down everyone who disagrees with ssm. I’m a libertarian, not a lefty, G.

I will never force a priest to marry a gay couple, nor would I force a baker to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

Marriage is defined as TWO consenting adults. Not children or animals; nor more than TWO. I think that’s pretty blatantly obvious.

LOL
You can disagree with those FACTS, but guess what Auggie... 
they still remain FACTS


Disagreeing with reality says something disturbing about you and people like you. Cheesy


What? The fact that there is a growing trend of dissolved marriages due to SSM? Get real? That’s a consequence of the modern world, G. Looks like you need a dose of reality.

Why not blame capitalism? Or pornography for he breakdown of marriage? Why not ban divorce to preserve the sanctity of marriage?

There are many cause as to why marriage has broken down and SSM certainly isn’t one of them.


Grendel's article doesn't include any facts. It points to things like "increased risk" of civil damages for people refusing to rent venues out to gays, for example, or polygamists being "emboldened", or advocates "demanding" same sex marriages be treated the same in the classroom.

None of this actually means anything. It's the same argument applied to the gay marriage debate here. It shows that after legalising same sex marriage, nothing has actually changed in Canada at all.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Oct 14th, 2017 at 4:09pm by Karnal »  
 
IP Logged
 
greggerypeccary
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 69976
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #183 - Oct 14th, 2017 at 4:09pm
 
Karnal wrote on Oct 14th, 2017 at 4:04pm:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Oct 14th, 2017 at 3:03pm:
Grendel wrote on Oct 14th, 2017 at 1:50pm:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Oct 14th, 2017 at 9:40am:
Grendel wrote on Oct 14th, 2017 at 9:33am:
Well there you go TROLLS...  more stuff you can ignore as you continue on trashing topics... Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy


I simply disagree with those facts. I don’t believe that SSM devalues marriage. Marriage is personal and is no one’s busy but their own.

Second, I actually agree with you on one point: churches and/or religious institutions should not be forced to marry or recognise SSM. Also, I don’t agree with the leftist crusade on shutting down everyone who disagrees with ssm. I’m a libertarian, not a lefty, G.

I will never force a priest to marry a gay couple, nor would I force a baker to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

Marriage is defined as TWO consenting adults. Not children or animals; nor more than TWO. I think that’s pretty blatantly obvious.

LOL
You can disagree with those FACTS, but guess what Auggie... 
they still remain FACTS


Disagreeing with reality says something disturbing about you and people like you. Cheesy


What? The fact that there is a growing trend of dissolved marriages due to SSM? Get real? That’s a consequence of the modern world, G. Looks like you need a dose of reality.

Why not blame capitalism? Or pornography for he breakdown of marriage? Why not ban divorce to preserve the sanctity of marriage?

There are many cause as to why marriage has broken down and SSM certainly isn’t one of them.


Grendel's article doesn't include any facts. 


Hmm, that's unlike Grendel.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
AugCaesarustus
Gold Member
*****
Online


Founding Father of Australia's
First Republic

Posts: 4319
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #184 - Oct 14th, 2017 at 4:13pm
 
Karnal wrote on Oct 14th, 2017 at 4:04pm:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Oct 14th, 2017 at 3:03pm:
Grendel wrote on Oct 14th, 2017 at 1:50pm:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Oct 14th, 2017 at 9:40am:
Grendel wrote on Oct 14th, 2017 at 9:33am:
Well there you go TROLLS...  more stuff you can ignore as you continue on trashing topics... Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy


I simply disagree with those facts. I don’t believe that SSM devalues marriage. Marriage is personal and is no one’s busy but their own.

Second, I actually agree with you on one point: churches and/or religious institutions should not be forced to marry or recognise SSM. Also, I don’t agree with the leftist crusade on shutting down everyone who disagrees with ssm. I’m a libertarian, not a lefty, G.

I will never force a priest to marry a gay couple, nor would I force a baker to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

Marriage is defined as TWO consenting adults. Not children or animals; nor more than TWO. I think that’s pretty blatantly obvious.

LOL
You can disagree with those FACTS, but guess what Auggie... 
they still remain FACTS


Disagreeing with reality says something disturbing about you and people like you. Cheesy


What? The fact that there is a growing trend of dissolved marriages due to SSM? Get real? That’s a consequence of the modern world, G. Looks like you need a dose of reality.

Why not blame capitalism? Or pornography for he breakdown of marriage? Why not ban divorce to preserve the sanctity of marriage?

There are many cause as to why marriage has broken down and SSM certainly isn’t one of them.


Grendel's article doesn't include any facts. It points to things like "increased risk" of civil damages for people refusing to rent venues out to gays, for example, or polygamists being "emboldened", or advocates "demanding" same sex marriages be treated the same in the classroom.

None of this actually means anything. It's the same argument applied to the gay marriage debate here. It shows that after legalising same sex marriage, nothing has actually changed in Canada at all.


Not only that they’re conflating same sex marriage with freedom of conscience or being deprived of their free speech rights. This vote has nothing to do with any of these.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Karnal
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 51660
Gender: female
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #185 - Oct 14th, 2017 at 4:18pm
 
AugCaesarustus wrote on Oct 14th, 2017 at 4:13pm:
Karnal wrote on Oct 14th, 2017 at 4:04pm:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Oct 14th, 2017 at 3:03pm:
Grendel wrote on Oct 14th, 2017 at 1:50pm:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Oct 14th, 2017 at 9:40am:
Grendel wrote on Oct 14th, 2017 at 9:33am:
Well there you go TROLLS...  more stuff you can ignore as you continue on trashing topics... Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy


I simply disagree with those facts. I don’t believe that SSM devalues marriage. Marriage is personal and is no one’s busy but their own.

Second, I actually agree with you on one point: churches and/or religious institutions should not be forced to marry or recognise SSM. Also, I don’t agree with the leftist crusade on shutting down everyone who disagrees with ssm. I’m a libertarian, not a lefty, G.

I will never force a priest to marry a gay couple, nor would I force a baker to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

Marriage is defined as TWO consenting adults. Not children or animals; nor more than TWO. I think that’s pretty blatantly obvious.

LOL
You can disagree with those FACTS, but guess what Auggie... 
they still remain FACTS


Disagreeing with reality says something disturbing about you and people like you. Cheesy


What? The fact that there is a growing trend of dissolved marriages due to SSM? Get real? That’s a consequence of the modern world, G. Looks like you need a dose of reality.

Why not blame capitalism? Or pornography for he breakdown of marriage? Why not ban divorce to preserve the sanctity of marriage?

There are many cause as to why marriage has broken down and SSM certainly isn’t one of them.


Grendel's article doesn't include any facts. It points to things like "increased risk" of civil damages for people refusing to rent venues out to gays, for example, or polygamists being "emboldened", or advocates "demanding" same sex marriages be treated the same in the classroom.

None of this actually means anything. It's the same argument applied to the gay marriage debate here. It shows that after legalising same sex marriage, nothing has actually changed in Canada at all.


Not only that they’re conflating same sex marriage with freedom of conscience or being deprived of their free speech rights. This vote has nothing to do with any of these.


Of course. There's actually more of a risk of these happening in a society without gay marriage. Those "demanding" gay marriage are more likely to demand these things as a form of protest.

The article contains no incidents or court rulings on the examples it's describing. It's no more than a silly rant.

This doesn't waste Grendel's time. He's perfectly free to ignore all this.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Grendel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 24108
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #186 - Oct 14th, 2017 at 4:35pm
 
greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 14th, 2017 at 2:26pm:
Stop wasting Goose's time, everyone.

He's getting upset.


You don't upset me gweggy...  you have tickets on yourself.
YOU are just a FOOL. Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
greggerypeccary
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 69976
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #187 - Oct 14th, 2017 at 4:36pm
 
Grendel wrote on Oct 14th, 2017 at 4:35pm:
greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 14th, 2017 at 2:26pm:
Stop wasting Goose's time, everyone.

He's getting upset.


You don't upset me gweggy... 


No, but the people wasting your time do.

Stop it, people!

Goose is busy.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Grendel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 24108
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #188 - Oct 14th, 2017 at 4:38pm
 
Karnal wrote on Oct 14th, 2017 at 4:04pm:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Oct 14th, 2017 at 3:03pm:
Grendel wrote on Oct 14th, 2017 at 1:50pm:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Oct 14th, 2017 at 9:40am:
Grendel wrote on Oct 14th, 2017 at 9:33am:
Well there you go TROLLS...  more stuff you can ignore as you continue on trashing topics... Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy


I simply disagree with those facts. I don’t believe that SSM devalues marriage. Marriage is personal and is no one’s busy but their own.

Second, I actually agree with you on one point: churches and/or religious institutions should not be forced to marry or recognise SSM. Also, I don’t agree with the leftist crusade on shutting down everyone who disagrees with ssm. I’m a libertarian, not a lefty, G.

I will never force a priest to marry a gay couple, nor would I force a baker to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

Marriage is defined as TWO consenting adults. Not children or animals; nor more than TWO. I think that’s pretty blatantly obvious.

LOL
You can disagree with those FACTS, but guess what Auggie... 
they still remain FACTS


Disagreeing with reality says something disturbing about you and people like you. Cheesy


What? The fact that there is a growing trend of dissolved marriages due to SSM? Get real? That’s a consequence of the modern world, G. Looks like you need a dose of reality.

Why not blame capitalism? Or pornography for he breakdown of marriage? Why not ban divorce to preserve the sanctity of marriage?

There are many cause as to why marriage has broken down and SSM certainly isn’t one of them.


Grendel's article doesn't include any facts. It points to things like "increased risk" of civil damages for people refusing to rent venues out to gays, for example, or polygamists being "emboldened", or advocates "demanding" same sex marriages be treated the same in the classroom.

None of this actually means anything. It's the same argument applied to the gay marriage debate here. It shows that after legalising same sex marriage, nothing has actually changed in Canada at all.

Really karnal...  YOU do have problems with English don't you.
The Canadian professor who studied the changes also disagrees with you.
The fact you are still ignorant or dishonest about tthe facts says a lot about you.  Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Grendel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 24108
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #189 - Oct 14th, 2017 at 4:39pm
 
Keep trying to trash the place folks with your ridicule and lies...  no skin off my nose.
You just make fools of yourselves.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Karnal
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 51660
Gender: female
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #190 - Oct 14th, 2017 at 4:44pm
 
Grendel wrote on Oct 14th, 2017 at 4:38pm:
Karnal wrote on Oct 14th, 2017 at 4:04pm:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Oct 14th, 2017 at 3:03pm:
Grendel wrote on Oct 14th, 2017 at 1:50pm:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Oct 14th, 2017 at 9:40am:
Grendel wrote on Oct 14th, 2017 at 9:33am:
Well there you go TROLLS...  more stuff you can ignore as you continue on trashing topics... Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy


I simply disagree with those facts. I don’t believe that SSM devalues marriage. Marriage is personal and is no one’s busy but their own.

Second, I actually agree with you on one point: churches and/or religious institutions should not be forced to marry or recognise SSM. Also, I don’t agree with the leftist crusade on shutting down everyone who disagrees with ssm. I’m a libertarian, not a lefty, G.

I will never force a priest to marry a gay couple, nor would I force a baker to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

Marriage is defined as TWO consenting adults. Not children or animals; nor more than TWO. I think that’s pretty blatantly obvious.

LOL
You can disagree with those FACTS, but guess what Auggie... 
they still remain FACTS


Disagreeing with reality says something disturbing about you and people like you. Cheesy


What? The fact that there is a growing trend of dissolved marriages due to SSM? Get real? That’s a consequence of the modern world, G. Looks like you need a dose of reality.

Why not blame capitalism? Or pornography for he breakdown of marriage? Why not ban divorce to preserve the sanctity of marriage?

There are many cause as to why marriage has broken down and SSM certainly isn’t one of them.


Grendel's article doesn't include any facts. It points to things like "increased risk" of civil damages for people refusing to rent venues out to gays, for example, or polygamists being "emboldened", or advocates "demanding" same sex marriages be treated the same in the classroom.

None of this actually means anything. It's the same argument applied to the gay marriage debate here. It shows that after legalising same sex marriage, nothing has actually changed in Canada at all.

Really karnal...  YOU do have problems with English don't you.
The Canadian professor who studied the changes also disagrees with you.
The fact you are still ignorant or dishonest about tthe facts says a lot about you.  Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy


Which facts, Grendel? Would you like to point one out?

Sorry if this wastes more of your time.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Frank
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 6599
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #191 - Oct 14th, 2017 at 5:34pm
 
AugCaesarustus wrote on Oct 14th, 2017 at 1:04pm:
greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 14th, 2017 at 12:59pm:
Frank wrote on Oct 14th, 2017 at 12:33pm:
greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 14th, 2017 at 9:48am:
In SSM there are two partners.

Two husbands, or two wives.

Try to keep up.


The Boys Scouts will accept girls now. And gay scout masters. And the Girls SCouts will no doubt accept boys and  lesbians.



This about SSM.

Not children, or scouts.

Try to remain focused.


Nor is it about gender.

The way frank talks about it, society will collapse. We’ll all turn into zombies.


It's such a 'white' obsession, SSM. The Asians, Africans, Arabs etc are not hot for it, it's the perpetually guilt-ridden, self-abnegating whites who are hot for SSM, multiculturalism, euthanasia, no kids, climate catastrophe mongering - all the social suicide stuff.

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


Australian Politics

Posts: 69976
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #192 - Oct 14th, 2017 at 5:36pm
 
Karnal wrote on Oct 14th, 2017 at 4:44pm:
Grendel wrote on Oct 14th, 2017 at 4:38pm:
Karnal wrote on Oct 14th, 2017 at 4:04pm:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Oct 14th, 2017 at 3:03pm:
Grendel wrote on Oct 14th, 2017 at 1:50pm:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Oct 14th, 2017 at 9:40am:
Grendel wrote on Oct 14th, 2017 at 9:33am:
Well there you go TROLLS...  more stuff you can ignore as you continue on trashing topics... Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy


I simply disagree with those facts. I don’t believe that SSM devalues marriage. Marriage is personal and is no one’s busy but their own.

Second, I actually agree with you on one point: churches and/or religious institutions should not be forced to marry or recognise SSM. Also, I don’t agree with the leftist crusade on shutting down everyone who disagrees with ssm. I’m a libertarian, not a lefty, G.

I will never force a priest to marry a gay couple, nor would I force a baker to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

Marriage is defined as TWO consenting adults. Not children or animals; nor more than TWO. I think that’s pretty blatantly obvious.

LOL
You can disagree with those FACTS, but guess what Auggie... 
they still remain FACTS


Disagreeing with reality says something disturbing about you and people like you. Cheesy


What? The fact that there is a growing trend of dissolved marriages due to SSM? Get real? That’s a consequence of the modern world, G. Looks like you need a dose of reality.

Why not blame capitalism? Or pornography for he breakdown of marriage? Why not ban divorce to preserve the sanctity of marriage?

There are many cause as to why marriage has broken down and SSM certainly isn’t one of them.


Grendel's article doesn't include any facts. It points to things like "increased risk" of civil damages for people refusing to rent venues out to gays, for example, or polygamists being "emboldened", or advocates "demanding" same sex marriages be treated the same in the classroom.

None of this actually means anything. It's the same argument applied to the gay marriage debate here. It shows that after legalising same sex marriage, nothing has actually changed in Canada at all.

Really karnal...  YOU do have problems with English don't you.
The Canadian professor who studied the changes also disagrees with you.
The fact you are still ignorant or dishonest about tthe facts says a lot about you.  Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy


Which facts, Grendel? Would you like to point one out?

Sorry if this wastes more of your time.


He logged out 2 minutes after your post, Karnal.

I guess he's gone to look for the facts.

I'm sure he'll be back later, with a complete and accurate list of all the aforementioned facts.

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


Australian Politics

Posts: 6599
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #193 - Oct 14th, 2017 at 5:38pm
 
AugCaesarustus wrote on Oct 14th, 2017 at 12:36pm:
Frank wrote on Oct 14th, 2017 at 12:18pm:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Oct 14th, 2017 at 11:30am:
Grendel wrote on Oct 14th, 2017 at 11:05am:
Really...  not co-parents or simply parents or carers?

Why not Lover A and Lover B...  it's all about love right?
Oh wait that's not Equal is it.

How about Equals... 



Remember, G, two consenting adults, nothing more nothing less. Not children, not animals. Not more than 2.



Why is 'two consenting adults' unchallengeable when 'one man and one woman' is not?

What undeniable principle does the former have that the latter lacks?


Please explain.



Because marriage is a legal institution and allowing same sex couples to marry abides by the principle of ‘equality before the law’.

We wouldn’t accept separate but equal for race, but we accept it for marriage?


So how the bloody hell does that make two consenting adults completely rock solid and unchallengeable?

Why not 75 consenting adults?

What is 'adult'?  What is 'consent'?  Gays are constantly agitating for the lowering of the age of consent. Efniks with arranged marriages don't even bother with consent. 1 mand and 4 wives? Two families? Three? A woman and 6 husbands, for 2 hours? No questions asked marriage, no fault divorce -
like Shia prostitution.  Self-mnarriage - why does it have to be TWO people??? Any madness can claim 'equality before the law'.

Are you going to deny them, Bwian?  On what grounds?





Back to top
« Last Edit: Oct 14th, 2017 at 5:46pm by Frank »  
 
IP Logged
 
Grendel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 24108
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #194 - Oct 14th, 2017 at 5:38pm
 
AugCaesarustus wrote on Oct 14th, 2017 at 3:03pm:
Grendel wrote on Oct 14th, 2017 at 1:50pm:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Oct 14th, 2017 at 9:40am:
Grendel wrote on Oct 14th, 2017 at 9:33am:
Well there you go TROLLS...  more stuff you can ignore as you continue on trashing topics... Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy


I simply disagree with those facts. I don’t believe that SSM devalues marriage. Marriage is personal and is no one’s busy but their own.

Second, I actually agree with you on one point: churches and/or religious institutions should not be forced to marry or recognise SSM. Also, I don’t agree with the leftist crusade on shutting down everyone who disagrees with ssm. I’m a libertarian, not a lefty, G.

I will never force a priest to marry a gay couple, nor would I force a baker to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

Marriage is defined as TWO consenting adults. Not children or animals; nor more than TWO. I think that’s pretty blatantly obvious.

LOL
You can disagree with those FACTS, but guess what Auggie... 
they still remain FACTS


Disagreeing with reality says something disturbing about you and people like you. Cheesy


What? The fact that there is a growing trend of dissolved marriages due to SSM? Get real? That’s a consequence of the modern world, G. Looks like you need a dose of reality.

Why not blame capitalism? Or pornography for he breakdown of marriage? Why not ban divorce to preserve the sanctity of marriage?

There are many cause as to why marriage has broken down and SSM certainly isn’t one of them.

LOL
You are so dishonest.
Why not address the FACTS I posted...  oh right you hate to admit you are wrong. Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Grendel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 24108
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #195 - Oct 14th, 2017 at 5:40pm
 
Quote:
Canada is more like us than any other SSM country and has had it in place long enough to start to see the broader effects.

The Impact on Human Rights

The formal effect of the judicial decisions (and subsequent legislation) establishing same-sex civil marriage in Canada was simply that persons of the same-sex could now have the government recognize their relationships as marriages. But the legal and cultural effect was much broader. What transpired was the adoption of a new orthodoxy: that same-sex relationships are, in every way, the equivalent of traditional marriage, and that same-sex marriage must therefore be treated identically to traditional marriage in law and public life.

A corollary is that anyone who rejects the new orthodoxy must be acting on the basis of bigotry and animus toward gays and lesbians. Any statement of disagreement with same-sex civil marriage is thus considered a straightforward manifestation of hatred toward a minority sexual group. Any reasoned explanation (for example, those that were offered in legal arguments that same-sex marriage is incompatible with a conception of marriage that responds to the needs of the children of the marriage for stability, fidelity, and permanence—what is sometimes called the conjugal conception of marriage), is dismissed right away as mere pretext.

When one sees opposition to same-sex marriage as a manifestation of sheer bigotry and hatred, it becomes very hard to tolerate continued dissent. Thus it was in Canada that the terms of participation in public life changed very quickly. Civil marriage commissioners were the first to feel the hard edge of the new orthodoxy; several provinces refused to allow commissioners a right of conscience to refuse to preside over same-sex weddings, and demanded their resignations.  At the same time, religious organizations, such as the Knights of Columbus, were fined for refusing to rent their facilities for post-wedding celebrations.

The Right to Freedom of Expression

The new orthodoxy’s impact has not been limited to the relatively small number of persons at risk of being coerced into supporting or celebrating a same-sex marriage. The change has widely affected persons—including clergy—who wish to make public arguments about human sexuality.

Much speech that was permitted before same-sex marriage now carries risks. Many of those who have persisted in voicing their dissent have been subjected to investigations by human rights commissions and (in some cases) proceedings before human rights tribunals. Those who are poor, poorly educated, and without institutional affiliation have been particularly easy targets—anti-discrimination laws are not always applied evenly.  Some have been ordered to pay fines, make apologies, and undertake never to speak publicly on such matters again. Targets have included individuals writing letters to the editors of local newspapers,  and ministers of small congregations of Christians.  A Catholic bishop faced two complaints—both eventually withdrawn—prompted by comments he made in a pastoral letter about marriage.

Reviewing courts have begun to rein in the commissions and tribunals (particularly since some ill-advised proceedings against Mark Steyn and Maclean’s magazine in 2009), and restore a more capacious view of freedom of speech. And in response to the public outcry following the Steyn/Maclean’s affair, the Parliament of Canada recently revoked the Canadian Human Rights Commission’s statutory jurisdiction to pursue “hate speech.”

But the financial cost of fighting the human rights machine remains enormous—Maclean’s spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees,  none of which is recoverable from the commissions, tribunals, or complainants. And these cases can take up to a decade to resolve. An ordinary person with few resources who has drawn the attention of a human rights commission has no hope of appealing to the courts for relief; such a person can only accept the admonition of the commission, pay a (comparatively) small fine, and then observe the directive to remain forever silent.
pt1

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


OzPolitic

Posts: 24108
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #196 - Oct 14th, 2017 at 5:41pm
 
[quote author=grendel link=1507030717/158#158 date=1507937251]pt2.

As long as these tools remain at the disposal of the commissions—for whom the new orthodoxy gives no theoretical basis to tolerate dissent—to engage in public discussion about same-sex marriage is to court ruin.

Similar pressure can be—and is—brought to bear on dissenters by professional governing bodies (such as bar associations, teachers’ colleges, and the like) that have statutory power to discipline members for conduct unbecoming of the profession.  Expressions of disagreement with the reasonableness of institutionalizing same-sex marriage are understood by these bodies to be acts of illegal discrimination, which are matters for professional censure.

Teachers are particularly at risk for disciplinary action, for even if they only make public statements criticizing same-sex marriage outside the classroom, they are still deemed to create a hostile environment for gay and lesbian students.  Other workplaces and voluntary associations have adopted similar policies as a result of their having internalized this new orthodoxy that disagreement with same-sex marriage is illegal discrimination that must not be tolerated.

Parental Rights in Public Education

Institutionalizing same-sex marriage has subtly but pervasively changed parental rights in public education. The debate over how to cast same-sex marriage in the classroom is much like the debate over the place of sex education in schools, and of governmental pretensions to exercise primary authority over children. But sex education has always been a discrete matter, in the sense that by its nature it cannot permeate the entirety of the curriculum. Same-sex marriage is on a different footing.

Since one of the tenets of the new orthodoxy is that same-sex relationships deserve the same respect that we give marriage, its proponents have been remarkably successful in demanding that same-sex marriage be depicted positively in the classroom. Curriculum reforms in jurisdictions such as British Columbia now prevent parents from exercising their long-held veto power over contentious educational practices.

The new curricula are permeated by positive references to same-sex marriage, not just in one discipline but in all. Faced with this strategy of diffusion, the only parental defense is to remove one’s children from the public school system entirely. Courts have been unsympathetic to parental objections: if parents are clinging to outdated bigotries, then children must bear the burden of “cognitive dissonance”—they must absorb conflicting things from home and school while school tries to win out.

The reforms, of course, were not sold to the public as a matter of enforcing the new orthodoxy. Instead, the stated rationale was to prevent bullying; that is, to promote the acceptance of gay and lesbian youth and the children of same-sex households.

It is a laudable goal to encourage acceptance of persons. But whatever can be said for the objective, the means chosen to achieve it is a gross violation of the family. It is nothing less than the deliberate indoctrination of children (over the objections of their parents) into a conception of marriage that is fundamentally hostile to what the parents understand to be in their children’s best interests. It frustrates the ability of parents to lead their children to an understanding of marriage that will be conducive to their flourishing as adults. At a very early age, it teaches children that the underlying rationale of marriage is nothing other than the satisfaction of changeable adult desires for companionship.

Religious Institutions’ Right to Autonomy

At first glance, clergy and houses of worship appeared largely immune from coercion to condone or perform same-sex marriages. Indeed, this was the grand bargain of the same-sex marriage legislation—clergy would retain the right not to perform marriages that would violate their religious beliefs. Houses of worship could not be conscripted against the wishes of religious bodies.

It should have been clear from the outset just how narrow this protection is. It only prevents clergy from being coerced into performing marriage ceremonies. It does not, as we have seen, shield sermons or pastoral letters from the scrutiny of human rights commissions. It leaves congregations vulnerable to legal challenges if they refuse to rent their auxiliary facilities to same-sex couples for their ceremony receptions, or to any other organization that will use the facility to promote a view of sexuality wholly at odds with their own.

Neither does it prevent provincial and municipal governments from withholding benefits to religious congregations because of their marriage doctrine. For example, Bill 13, the same Ontario statute that compels Catholic schools to host "Gay-Straight Alliance" clubs (and to use that particular name), also prohibits public schools from renting their facilities to organizations that will not agree to a code of conduct premised on the new orthodoxy. Given that many small Christian congregations rent school auditoriums to conduct their worship services, it is easy to appreciate the
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Grendel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 24108
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #197 - Oct 14th, 2017 at 5:41pm
 
Grendel wrote on Oct 14th, 2017 at 9:32am:
pt 3.

Changes to the Public Conception of Marriage

It has been argued that if same-sex marriage is institutionalized, new marital categories may be accepted, like polygamy. Once one abandons a conjugal conception of marriage, and replaces it with a conception of marriage that has adult companionship as its focus, there is no principled basis for resisting the extension of marriage licenses to polygamist and polyamorist unions.

In other words, if marriage is about satisfying adult desires for companionship, and if the desires of some adults extend to more novel arrangements, how can we deny them? I will not here evaluate this claim, but simply report how this scenario has played out in Canada.

One prominent polygamist community in British Columbia was greatly emboldened by the creation of same-sex marriage, and publicly proclaimed that there was now no principled basis for the state’s continued criminalization of polygamy. Of all the Canadian courts, only a trial court in British Columbia has addressed whether prohibiting polygamy is constitutional, and provided an advisory opinion to the province’s government.

The criminal prohibition of polygamy was upheld, but on a narrow basis that defined polygamy as multiple, concurrent civil marriages. The court did not address the phenomenon of multiple common-law marriages. So, thus far, the dominant forms of polygamy and polyamory practiced in Canada have not gained legal status, but neither have they faced practical impediments.

The lesson is this: a society that institutionalizes same-sex marriage needn’t necessarily institutionalize polygamy. But the example from British Columbia suggests that the only way to do so is to ignore principle. The polygamy case’s reasoning gave no convincing explanation why it would be discriminatory not to extend the marriage franchise to gays and lesbians, but not discriminatory to draw the line at polygamists and polyamorists. In fact, the judgment looks like it rests on animus toward polygamists and polyamorists, which is not a stable juridical foundation.

The Impact on the Practice of Marriage

As for the practice of marriage, it is too soon to say much. The 2011 census data establish that, first, marriage is in decline in Canada, as it is in much of the West; second, same-sex marriage is a statistically minor phenomenon; and third, there are very few same-sex couples (married or not) with children in the home.

There are approximately 21,000 married same-sex couples in Canada, out of 6.29 million married couples. Same-sex couples (married and unmarried) constitute 0.8% of all couples in Canada; 9.4% of the 64,575 same-sex couples (including common-law and married) have children in the home, and 80% of these are lesbian couples. By contrast, 47.2% of heterosexual couples have children in the home. Canada stopped tracking divorce after 2008, and has never provided data on same-sex divorce.

What we can gather from these data is that same-sex marriage has not, contrary to arguments that it would, powered a resurgent marriage culture in Canada. Nor are there any census data (one way or the other) for empirical arguments tying the institutionalization of same-sex marriage to marriage stability.

Without empirical data on divorce rates (which are not forthcoming in Canada), we are left with conceptual arguments that must be evaluated on their merits. Here, the Canadian experience cannot provide much information. We are left with the question, does the institutionalization of same-sex marriage rest on a conception of marriage that places a premium on stability, as does the conjugal conception? If it does not, then we can reasonably believe same-sex marriage will speed up cultural acceptance of a conception of marriage—the adult companionate model—that has done much social damage over the past fifty years.

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


Australian Politics

Posts: 69976
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #198 - Oct 14th, 2017 at 5:43pm
 

Okay, if the person who gave Goose a yellow highlighter could just keep the stationery cupboard locked in the future, that'd be great.

Thanks.

...
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Karnal
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 51660
Gender: female
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #199 - Oct 14th, 2017 at 5:48pm
 
greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 14th, 2017 at 5:36pm:
Karnal wrote on Oct 14th, 2017 at 4:44pm:
Grendel wrote on Oct 14th, 2017 at 4:38pm:
Karnal wrote on Oct 14th, 2017 at 4:04pm:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Oct 14th, 2017 at 3:03pm:
Grendel wrote on Oct 14th, 2017 at 1:50pm:
AugCaesarustus wrote on Oct 14th, 2017 at 9:40am:
Grendel wrote on Oct 14th, 2017 at 9:33am:
Well there you go TROLLS...  more stuff you can ignore as you continue on trashing topics... Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy


I simply disagree with those facts. I don’t believe that SSM devalues marriage. Marriage is personal and is no one’s busy but their own.

Second, I actually agree with you on one point: churches and/or religious institutions should not be forced to marry or recognise SSM. Also, I don’t agree with the leftist crusade on shutting down everyone who disagrees with ssm. I’m a libertarian, not a lefty, G.

I will never force a priest to marry a gay couple, nor would I force a baker to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

Marriage is defined as TWO consenting adults. Not children or animals; nor more than TWO. I think that’s pretty blatantly obvious.

LOL
You can disagree with those FACTS, but guess what Auggie... 
they still remain FACTS


Disagreeing with reality says something disturbing about you and people like you. Cheesy


What? The fact that there is a growing trend of dissolved marriages due to SSM? Get real? That’s a consequence of the modern world, G. Looks like you need a dose of reality.

Why not blame capitalism? Or pornography for he breakdown of marriage? Why not ban divorce to preserve the sanctity of marriage?

There are many cause as to why marriage has broken down and SSM certainly isn’t one of them.


Grendel's article doesn't include any facts. It points to things like "increased risk" of civil damages for people refusing to rent venues out to gays, for example, or polygamists being "emboldened", or advocates "demanding" same sex marriages be treated the same in the classroom.

None of this actually means anything. It's the same argument applied to the gay marriage debate here. It shows that after legalising same sex marriage, nothing has actually changed in Canada at all.

Really karnal...  YOU do have problems with English don't you.
The Canadian professor who studied the changes also disagrees with you.
The fact you are still ignorant or dishonest about tthe facts says a lot about you.  Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy


Which facts, Grendel? Would you like to point one out?

Sorry if this wastes more of your time.


He logged out 2 minutes after your post, Karnal.

I guess he's gone to look for the facts.

I'm sure he'll be back later, with a complete and accurate list of all the aforementioned facts.



Great. We all welcome his return.

Make sure you bring your list, Grendel. Cheers.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Karnal
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 51660
Gender: female
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #200 - Oct 14th, 2017 at 5:52pm
 
greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 14th, 2017 at 5:43pm:
Okay, if the person who gave Goose a yellow highlighter could just keep the stationery cupboard locked in the future, that'd be great.

Thanks.

https://imgflip.com/s/meme/That-Would-Be-Great.jpg


He didn't highlight this bit:

Quote:
In the absence of empirical data... we are left with conceptual arguments that must be evaluated on their merits.


Looks like Grendel won't be able to find those facts, Greggery. As his article shows, they don't exist.

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


OzPolitic

Posts: 24108
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #201 - Oct 14th, 2017 at 5:55pm
 
greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 14th, 2017 at 5:43pm:
Okay, if the person who gave Goose a yellow highlighter could just keep the stationery cupboard locked in the future, that'd be great.

Thanks.

https://imgflip.com/s/meme/That-Would-Be-Great.jpg

Just making it easier for TROLLS like YOU gweggy who have limited attention spans...  just read the highlighted stuff...  wouldn't want to tax your poor widdle bwain now would we. Cheesy
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Grendel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 24108
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #202 - Oct 14th, 2017 at 5:57pm
 
Karnal wrote on Oct 14th, 2017 at 5:52pm:
greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 14th, 2017 at 5:43pm:
Okay, if the person who gave Goose a yellow highlighter could just keep the stationery cupboard locked in the future, that'd be great.

Thanks.

https://imgflip.com/s/meme/That-Would-Be-Great.jpg


He didn't highlight this bit:

Quote:
In the absence of empirical data... we are left with conceptual arguments that must be evaluated on their merits.


Looks like Grendel won't be able to find those facts, Greggery. As his article shows, they don't exist.


Yes karnal and cherry picking and being dishonest about what it is about is right up your alley isn't it.

They have no data on gay marriage divorces so they don't comment on them. Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Grendel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 24108
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #203 - Oct 14th, 2017 at 5:58pm
 
The actual quote...  unadulterated and altered by you karnal...

Without empirical data on divorce rates (which are not forthcoming in Canada), we are left with conceptual arguments that must be evaluated on their merits.


tsk, tsk, tsk....  cant win a debate without lying eh...
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
greggerypeccary
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 69976
Gender: male
Re: Marriages to be annulled
Reply #204 - Oct 14th, 2017 at 5:59pm
 
Grendel wrote on Oct 14th, 2017 at 5:57pm:
Karnal wrote on Oct 14th, 2017 at 5:52pm:
greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 14th, 2017 at 5:43pm: