Forum

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

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 ... 22
Send Topic Print
Rethinking SSM (Read 16732 times)
Grendel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male
Re: Rethinking SSM
Reply #90 - Dec 16th, 2017 at 8:30am
 
As for this shyte.
Quote:
How was the women's suffrage movement, and the civil rights movement (in America) different from SSM movement? Don't forget that there was a widespread perception that giving women the right to vote was be destructive to society; but society has adapted to incorporate this change. So, why is SSM any different?

Why isn't women suffrage's NOT natural? Or racial segregation NOT natural?

Marriage is the Union of a Man and A Woman... not simply ticking a box on a ballot paper.  Even YOU should be able to tell the vast differences. Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy
Just how is ticking a ballot paper NATURAL?  Where exactly does it occur in NATURE?

Oh dear shotdown again.  Now please stop this idiocy and try to debate sensibly. Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: Rethinking SSM
Reply #91 - Dec 16th, 2017 at 11:21am
 
Frank wrote on Dec 15th, 2017 at 9:16pm:
Auggie wrote on Dec 15th, 2017 at 4:35pm:
Grendel wrote on Dec 15th, 2017 at 4:21pm:
Good grief...  well I'll give Grappler first shot at your stupid post from a page ago Auggie.
But let me tell you this...  Marriage is based on Nature, not religion. Roll Eyes


Let me ask you ask this, as a social conservative.

How was the women's suffrage movement, and the civil rights movement (in America) different from SSM movement? Don't forget that there was a widespread perception that giving women the right to vote was be destructive to society; but society has adapted to incorporate this change. So, why is SSM any different?

Why isn't women suffrage's NOT natural? Or racial segregation NOT natural?

Being a woman is not a deviance, Bwian Junior.

Being tinted is not a deviance.

Lusting for the Kyber pass is.



Well, the abrahamic religions are predicated in the fact that women are ‘deviant’ because of eve and the apple. This view was held for thousands of years.

Many believed that the white man was normal and that the negro was inferior. Was that not deviant?
Back to top
 

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: Rethinking SSM
Reply #92 - Dec 16th, 2017 at 11:25am
 
Grendel wrote on Dec 16th, 2017 at 8:30am:
As for this shyte.
Quote:
How was the women's suffrage movement, and the civil rights movement (in America) different from SSM movement? Don't forget that there was a widespread perception that giving women the right to vote was be destructive to society; but society has adapted to incorporate this change. So, why is SSM any different?

Why isn't women suffrage's NOT natural? Or racial segregation NOT natural?

Marriage is the Union of a Man and A Woman... not simply ticking a box on a ballot paper.  Even YOU should be able to tell the vast differences. Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy
Just how is ticking a ballot paper NATURAL?  Where exactly does it occur in NATURE?

Oh dear shotdown again.  Now please stop this idiocy and try to debate sensibly. Roll Eyes Roll Eyes


Clearly you know nothing.

Opposition against women’s suffrage had nothing to do with ‘ticking a box’. That’s like saying that marriage is simply a contract. There were deeper more underlying notions about the nature of women and how society would change if they voted.

On the one hand you seem to be reducing women’s suffrage to ‘ticking the box’ and are not refusing marriage to be a contractual arrangement.

Who’s obfuscating now??? Grin Grin
Back to top
 

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: Rethinking SSM
Reply #93 - Dec 16th, 2017 at 11:28am
 
Grendel wrote on Dec 16th, 2017 at 8:24am:
Grendel wrote on Dec 15th, 2017 at 4:40pm:
Hey GRAP, he's asking for it...

Auggie wrote on Dec 15th, 2017 at 12:22pm:
Grap. You conceded a moment ago that not allowing same sex couples to marry is akin to segregation, and now you’re saying that they shouldn’t be allowed to be married?

Your definition of marriage is based on the judeo-Christian understanding of marriage, which has its roots in religion. The legal institution of marriage is one of those religious things that crept its way into the state. If we want a true secular state then we should really abolish legal marriage.

I can not reconcile the principle of equality before the law and being anti ssm. When it comes to the rights of citizens, it has to be that everyone has the right or no one has the right (affirmative action is not the same for various other reasons); you can’t pick and choose who has what right and who doesn’t. And gays have he right to have their relationship recognised equally in the same terms as everyone else by law. Law being the key word here, i.e. civil unions.

Also, your argument that gays can marry the opposite sex, so they have he same rights,  is a silly argument. Should I expect you to marry a person of the same sex and expect you to endure the pressure and stress of that relationship?? Come on, Grap, that’s akin to torture!

My solution is: abolish legal marriage: institute civil unions for everyone, and let churches confer ‘marriage status’ on couples whom they wish. The Catholic Church will never marry gays, so catholic gay couples wont be considered married.


I'm still gonna wait for Grap since you addressed him on this shyte you wrote.

But let me give you a hint of what is yet to come.

Quote:
Your definition of marriage is based on the judeo-Christian understanding of marriage, which has its roots in religion.

Many religions have the same understanding of marriage.
It is the Union of a Man and a Woman.
That IS based on Nature.

You are in for such a battering. Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy


Oh, so now, you’re using religion as a justification for marriage??? I thought you had a completely secular view??

Obfuscation...  Grin Grin Grin
Back to top
 

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
Grendel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male
Re: Rethinking SSM
Reply #94 - Dec 16th, 2017 at 11:40am
 
Auggie wrote on Dec 16th, 2017 at 11:21am:
Frank wrote on Dec 15th, 2017 at 9:16pm:
Auggie wrote on Dec 15th, 2017 at 4:35pm:
Grendel wrote on Dec 15th, 2017 at 4:21pm:
Good grief...  well I'll give Grappler first shot at your stupid post from a page ago Auggie.
But let me tell you this...  Marriage is based on Nature, not religion. Roll Eyes


Let me ask you ask this, as a social conservative.

How was the women's suffrage movement, and the civil rights movement (in America) different from SSM movement? Don't forget that there was a widespread perception that giving women the right to vote was be destructive to society; but society has adapted to incorporate this change. So, why is SSM any different?

Why isn't women suffrage's NOT natural? Or racial segregation NOT natural?

Being a woman is not a deviance, Bwian Junior.

Being tinted is not a deviance.

Lusting for the Kyber pass is.



Well, the abrahamic religions are predicated in the fact that women are ‘deviant’ because of eve and the apple. This view was held for thousands of years.

Many believed that the white man was normal and that the negro was inferior. Was that not deviant?

You do write some dumb stuff.
Woman was created as a partner for Man.  Not considered a "deviant" at all.  Where do you get this rubbish from.
How could Eve be a "deviant" what norm did she deviate from?  She was the only woman.
Racism of the kind you poorly express was based on "primitive" peoples vs "civilised" peoples.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Ajax
Gold Member
*****
Offline


CO2 has never controlled
temperature on Earth

Posts: 10952
Australia
Gender: male
Re: Rethinking SSM
Reply #95 - Dec 16th, 2017 at 11:42am
 
Auggie wrote on Dec 16th, 2017 at 11:21am:
Well, the abrahamic religions are predicated in the fact that women are ‘deviant’ because of eve and the apple. This view was held for thousands of years.

Many believed that the white man was normal and that the negro was inferior. Was that not deviant?


Not at all, the devil targeted the woman cause she was more gullible and naïve, still happens today.

If a man sleeps with his female agent it might be for the sole purpose of getting a lead part in some movie or play but more than likely its because he wants to bed her that he does.

How many women have kept silent about such actions in todays day and age in the hope of not unleashing a hornets nest and hopefully getting that role.
Back to top
 

1. There has never been a more serious assault on our standard of living than Anthropogenic Global Warming..Ajax
2. "One hour of freedom is worth more than 40 years of slavery &  prison" Regas Feraeos
 
IP Logged
 
Grendel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male
Re: Rethinking SSM
Reply #96 - Dec 16th, 2017 at 11:43am
 
Auggie wrote on Dec 16th, 2017 at 11:28am:
Grendel wrote on Dec 16th, 2017 at 8:24am:
Grendel wrote on Dec 15th, 2017 at 4:40pm:
Hey GRAP, he's asking for it...

Auggie wrote on Dec 15th, 2017 at 12:22pm:
Grap. You conceded a moment ago that not allowing same sex couples to marry is akin to segregation, and now you’re saying that they shouldn’t be allowed to be married?

Your definition of marriage is based on the judeo-Christian understanding of marriage, which has its roots in religion. The legal institution of marriage is one of those religious things that crept its way into the state. If we want a true secular state then we should really abolish legal marriage.

I can not reconcile the principle of equality before the law and being anti ssm. When it comes to the rights of citizens, it has to be that everyone has the right or no one has the right (affirmative action is not the same for various other reasons); you can’t pick and choose who has what right and who doesn’t. And gays have he right to have their relationship recognised equally in the same terms as everyone else by law. Law being the key word here, i.e. civil unions.

Also, your argument that gays can marry the opposite sex, so they have he same rights,  is a silly argument. Should I expect you to marry a person of the same sex and expect you to endure the pressure and stress of that relationship?? Come on, Grap, that’s akin to torture!

My solution is: abolish legal marriage: institute civil unions for everyone, and let churches confer ‘marriage status’ on couples whom they wish. The Catholic Church will never marry gays, so catholic gay couples wont be considered married.


I'm still gonna wait for Grap since you addressed him on this shyte you wrote.

But let me give you a hint of what is yet to come.

Quote:
Your definition of marriage is based on the judeo-Christian understanding of marriage, which has its roots in religion.

Many religions have the same understanding of marriage.
It is the Union of a Man and a Woman.
That IS based on Nature.

You are in for such a battering. Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy


Oh, so now, you’re using religion as a justification for marriage??? I thought you had a completely secular view??

Obfuscation...  Grin Grin Grin

Oh dear your delusion has leaked out and you've crapped it all over the post.
YOU need help.
You brought up religion...  NOT ME.
I brought up NATURE...
Do try to not make yourself look so addle-brained when debating a point. Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy
Lying about what people say when it is apparent and clearly so what they actually said is stupidity Auggie.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Grendel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male
Re: Rethinking SSM
Reply #97 - Dec 16th, 2017 at 11:48am
 
Auggie wrote on Dec 16th, 2017 at 11:25am:
Grendel wrote on Dec 16th, 2017 at 8:30am:
As for this shyte.
Quote:
How was the women's suffrage movement, and the civil rights movement (in America) different from SSM movement? Don't forget that there was a widespread perception that giving women the right to vote was be destructive to society; but society has adapted to incorporate this change. So, why is SSM any different?

Why isn't women suffrage's NOT natural? Or racial segregation NOT natural?

Marriage is the Union of a Man and A Woman... not simply ticking a box on a ballot paper.  Even YOU should be able to tell the vast differences. Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy
Just how is ticking a ballot paper NATURAL?  Where exactly does it occur in NATURE?

Oh dear shotdown again.  Now please stop this idiocy and try to debate sensibly. Roll Eyes Roll Eyes


Clearly you know nothing.

Opposition against women’s suffrage had nothing to do with ‘ticking a box’. That’s like saying that marriage is simply a contract. There were deeper more underlying notions about the nature of women and how society would change if they voted.

On the one hand you seem to be reducing women’s suffrage to ‘ticking the box’ and are not refusing marriage to be a contractual arrangement.

Who’s obfuscating now??? Grin Grin

I'm sorry.
I'm sorry you are so thick you cant grasp a point even when its been made simple to help your understanding.

BTW yes VOTING is as simple as ticking a box  Wink Wink Wink

You keep trying to make out I'm obfuscating...  I'm NOT.
But boy you sure are making a hash out of trying to debate sensibly. Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: Rethinking SSM
Reply #98 - Dec 16th, 2017 at 11:53am
 
You’re the one who is lying G. You can’t make up you’re mind as to why you oppose SSM. First, it’s nature, next it’s about sexual deviance; and then it’s religion and nature.

Keep going like this and you’ll up in a mental institution
Back to top
 

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: Rethinking SSM
Reply #99 - Dec 16th, 2017 at 11:55am
 
So, if it’s as simple as ticking a box, then you shouldn’t have a problem with accepting millions of Syrian refugees and giving them the right to vote???

You don’t think that will change society?
Oh but it’s only a tick in the box  Grin Grin
Back to top
 

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: Rethinking SSM
Reply #100 - Dec 16th, 2017 at 11:58am
 
Ajax wrote on Dec 16th, 2017 at 11:42am:
Auggie wrote on Dec 16th, 2017 at 11:21am:
Well, the abrahamic religions are predicated in the fact that women are ‘deviant’ because of eve and the apple. This view was held for thousands of years.

Many believed that the white man was normal and that the negro was inferior. Was that not deviant?


Not at all, the devil targeted the woman cause she was more gullible and naïve, still happens today.

If a man sleeps with his female agent it might be for the sole purpose of getting a lead part in some movie or play but more than likely its because he wants to bed her that he does.

How many women have kept silent about such actions in todays day and age in the hope of not unleashing a hornets nest and hopefully getting that role.


God also created woman from man, which indicates a subservience.
Back to top
 

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
Grappler Truth Teller Feller
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 79579
Proud pre-1850's NO Voter
Gender: male
Re: Rethinking SSM
Reply #101 - Dec 16th, 2017 at 12:03pm
 
I was openly discussing 'separate but equal' in terms of the potential for such differences to create an apartheid type society.  Unfortunately, unlike Blecks, who did not self-exclude from basic equalities and rights but were actively excluded, gays did and do self-exclude as a matter of choice knowing the reality, for the simple reason that marriage was between man and woman.

I've long argued this back and forth, and couple of years ago arrived at the conclusion that since gay marriage did no harm*, at the end of discussion it was acceptable to me.  That was changed by the harm inflicted and sought by the YES lobby during the campaign, and the potential for harm to be done to OTHERS as a result of the inclusion of gay in the definition of marriage became a reality.

I thus rejected gay marriage.  Now I am awaiting the screeching jihads against any who dare disagree or who refuse to kow-tow to it against their personal beliefs.

In that sense - with a significant number not acceding to gay marriage for many reasons, it would appear that 'gay marriage' IS viewed as separate though having been made 'equal' by legislation, by a very large number.

Let's await these proceedings and see what the real vote was... somehow I doubt the vote in a non-binding poll .. that poll should have been used as a trial with a sunset clause, and if warranted by the actual outcomes, a binding vote of the people taken, after they've had the opportunity to view at first hand what would happen.

Can you begin to imagine the carry-on if a future government reversed this falsely-based decision?

*  I can't PERSONALLY see that the gays I know being married would mean trouble for anyone else - but there is a large group intent on jihading others for perceived discrimination etc in the past - e know full well from the 'feminists' that once the foot is in the door, all of hell follows after it... for everyone else, but primarily for those perceived as being the past 'oppressors'.
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
 
TheFunPolice
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9009
waggawagga
Gender: male
Re: Rethinking SSM
Reply #102 - Dec 16th, 2017 at 12:04pm
 
Auggie wrote on Dec 16th, 2017 at 11:53am:
You’re the one who is lying G. You can’t make up you’re mind as to why you oppose SSM. First, it’s nature, next it’s about sexual deviance; and then it’s religion and nature.

Keep going like this and you’ll up in a mental institution

It’s because he doesn’t like you and your kind!

Get a clue brother  Wink

Nor do 40% of Australia, then there was the people that didn’t bother voting because it was rigged !

Back to top
 

......Australia has an illegitimate Government!
 
IP Logged
 
TheFunPolice
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9009
waggawagga
Gender: male
Re: Rethinking SSM
Reply #103 - Dec 16th, 2017 at 12:07pm
 
Auggie wrote on Dec 16th, 2017 at 11:58am:
Ajax wrote on Dec 16th, 2017 at 11:42am:
Auggie wrote on Dec 16th, 2017 at 11:21am:
Well, the abrahamic religions are predicated in the fact that women are ‘deviant’ because of eve and the apple. This view was held for thousands of years.

Many believed that the white man was normal and that the negro was inferior. Was that not deviant?


Not at all, the devil targeted the woman cause she was more gullible and naïve, still happens today.

If a man sleeps with his female agent it might be for the sole purpose of getting a lead part in some movie or play but more than likely its because he wants to bed her that he does.

How many women have kept silent about such actions in todays day and age in the hope of not unleashing a hornets nest and hopefully getting that role.


God also created woman from man, which indicates a subservience.

Do women get draughted to the frontline in times of war?

Wink

No, because they aren’t front line material!

Get a clue brother  Wink Grin Grin
Back to top
 

......Australia has an illegitimate Government!
 
IP Logged
 
Grendel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male
Re: Rethinking SSM
Reply #104 - Dec 16th, 2017 at 12:07pm
 
Auggie wrote on Dec 16th, 2017 at 11:53am:
You’re the one who is lying G. You can’t make up you’re mind as to why you oppose SSM. First, it’s nature, next it’s about sexual deviance; and then it’s religion and nature.

Keep going like this and you’ll up in a mental institution

Which simply shows YOU are an idiot. Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy
Honestly if you cant be fair dinkum and honest stop wasting my time.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 ... 22
Send Topic Print