The IrRev. Bill Cruise had a fight on his hands last night on 2GB, he, all for gay being permitted to marry and most callers totally against this.

The objectors couldn't satisfactorily explain why they were anti so I'll do that for them.

As gays destroyed the word "gay" (no synonym quite covers its one-time meaning) so they'll trash the real meaning of "marriage".

No reason why they shouldn't be given rights to some ceremony but it'll have to have a different name.

come on saulty just think they will also have the divorce court to face as well..like it or not marriage is just a piece of paper it takes two people to make it work. I have been a widow for 22 years now and there isnt a day I dont miss him..dont begrudge someone else if they are lucky enough to meet Mr or Ms right. the sanctity of marriage. love is getting shorter in supply these days. we should encourage it.

cods wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 7:16am:

come on saulty just think they will also have the divorce court to face as well..like it or not marriage is just a piece of paper it takes two people to make it work. I have been a widow for 22 years now and there isnt a day I dont miss him..dont begrudge someone else if they are lucky enough to meet Mr or Ms right. the sanctity of marriage. love is getting shorter in supply these days. we should encourage it.

------

Glad that you had a happy marriage. I hadn't for my man was an incorrigible womaniser so I was glad when eventually, I swept him out the door with the other rubbish!

To my subject:

Todays gays, like Olive Twist, keep demanding "more".

I know most of them are born, not made, and am horrified as to how they were jailed in the past (thinking about Oscar Wilde)

- that said, they are getting noisier and noisier. . .

I really preferred them when they romped in closets or practised  celibacy (as many heterosexuals do without noise)

Regards!

OS

*sigh*




*sigh*

olde.sault wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 8:01am:

cods wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 7:16am: come on saulty just think they will also have the divorce court to face as well..like it or not marriage is just a piece of paper it takes two people to make it work. I have been a widow for 22 years now and there isnt a day I dont miss him..dont begrudge someone else if they are lucky enough to meet Mr or Ms right. the sanctity of marriage. love is getting shorter in supply these days. we should encourage it. ------ Glad that you had a happy marriage. I hadn't for my man was an incorrigible womaniser so I was glad when eventually, I swept him out the door with the other rubbish! To my subject: Todays gays, like Olive Twist, keep demanding "more". I know most of them are born, not made, and am horrified as to how they were jailed in the past (thinking about Oscar Wilde) - that said, they are getting noisier and noisier. . . I really preferred them when they romped in closets or practised  celibacy (as many heterosexuals do without noise) Regards! OS

well at least you are honest..have to admit I am over the Mardi Gras stuff.. but apart from that...I dont begrudge anyone being happy and if being married makes them happy so be it.

I fail to understand how it affects either of you. You're not planning to marry one are you? Please explain.

Gist wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 8:39am:

I fail to understand how it affects either of you. You're not planning to marry one are you? Please explain.

Gist, she's worried about preserving the integrity of the word 'marriage' even after it has been pillaged for years by celebrity marriage and divorce rates higher than success rates.

but she totally makes sense - as always ;D

olde.sault wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 8:01am:

To my subject: Todays gays, like Olive Twist, keep demanding "more".

EQUALITY ?


How DARE they !

Actually Buzz, you'll find that in Australia now, you have pretty much the same rights as I do.

In regards rights, you have the same as a de-facto legal couple.

Let's not go painting the wrong picture here.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 10:02am:

Actually Buzz, you'll find that in Australia now, you have pretty much the same rights as I do. In regards rights, you have the same as a de-facto legal couple. Let's not go painting the wrong picture here.

Yes who still don't hold the same property rights as a married couple.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 10:07am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 10:02am: Actually Buzz, you'll find that in Australia now, you have pretty much the same rights as I do. In regards rights, you have the same as a de-facto legal couple. Let's not go painting the wrong picture here. Yes who still don't hold the same property rights as a married couple.

so write a will.

... wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 11:22am:

so write a will.

Wesss!! My bigoted friend!!! I missed ya sooo much :)

The problem is not to do with death, but to do with status of ownership during living.  So it's not about gay people writing wills.  

But I don't expect someone of your bigoted status to appreciate this difference. Carry on :)

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 11:25am:

... wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 11:22am: so write a will. Wesss!! My bigoted friend!!! I missed ya sooo much :) The problem is not to do with death, but to do with status of ownership during living.  So it's not about gay people writing wills.   But I don't expect someone of your bigoted status to appreciate this difference. Carry on :)

So what is the problem?  Tell me, and I will offer a solution.

... wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 11:27am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 11:25am: ... wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 11:22am: so write a will. Wesss!! My bigoted friend!!! I missed ya sooo much :) The problem is not to do with death, but to do with status of ownership during living.  So it's not about gay people writing wills.   But I don't expect someone of your bigoted status to appreciate this difference. Carry on :) So what is the problem?  Tell me, and I will offer a solution.

You've already tried and resulted in an epic fail.  The problem is that under marriage, property, assets all come under joint ownership. Under defacto, they don't.  

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 11:34am:

... wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 11:27am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 11:25am: ... wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 11:22am: so write a will. Wesss!! My bigoted friend!!! I missed ya sooo much :) The problem is not to do with death, but to do with status of ownership during living.  So it's not about gay people writing wills.   But I don't expect someone of your bigoted status to appreciate this difference. Carry on :) So what is the problem?  Tell me, and I will offer a solution. You've already tried and resulted in an epic fail.  The problem is that under marriage, property, assets all come under joint ownership. Under defacto, they don't.

Is that code for "well theres not really a problem as such, but I will allude that there is in order to make it sound as though there is a convincing argument for gay marriage."

Just write a damn will.

... wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 11:38am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 11:34am: ... wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 11:27am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 11:25am: ... wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 11:22am: so write a will. Wesss!! My bigoted friend!!! I missed ya sooo much :) The problem is not to do with death, but to do with status of ownership during living.  So it's not about gay people writing wills.   But I don't expect someone of your bigoted status to appreciate this difference. Carry on :) So what is the problem?  Tell me, and I will offer a solution. You've already tried and resulted in an epic fail.  The problem is that under marriage, property, assets all come under joint ownership. Under defacto, they don't.   Is that code for "well theres not really a problem as such, but I will allude that there is in order to make it sound as though there is a convincing argument for gay marriage." Just write a damn will.

I've already told you, it is not just in regard to ownership after death.

and I believe overall that it's more about getting a convincing argument against gay marriage, opposed to a convincing argument for it.  ;D  But you can keep trying your nonsense if you like ;)  I do recall that you have a varied view on this matter.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 11:39am:

... wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 11:38am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 11:34am: ... wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 11:27am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 11:25am: ... wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 11:22am: so write a will. Wesss!! My bigoted friend!!! I missed ya sooo much :) The problem is not to do with death, but to do with status of ownership during living.  So it's not about gay people writing wills.   But I don't expect someone of your bigoted status to appreciate this difference. Carry on :) So what is the problem?  Tell me, and I will offer a solution. You've already tried and resulted in an epic fail.  The problem is that under marriage, property, assets all come under joint ownership. Under defacto, they don't.   Is that code for "well theres not really a problem as such, but I will allude that there is in order to make it sound as though there is a convincing argument for gay marriage." Just write a damn will. I've already told you, it is not just in regard to ownership after death. and I believe overall that it's more about getting a convincing argument against gay marriage, opposed to a convincing argument for it.  ;D  But you can keep trying your nonsense if you like ;)  I do recall that you have a varied view on this matter.

So how do these 'property laws' create a problem?  

Share with me your wisdom oh alevine, so that I may see the error of my ways.  Or not.

... wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 11:42am:

So how do these 'property laws' create a problem?   Share with me your wisdom oh alevine, so that I may see the error of my ways.  Or not.

1. With regard to divorce.
2. With regard to taking over liability.
3. the notion of having equal share.

I don't think you'll ever see the error of your ways. But it's hilarious to read your deluded views :)

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 11:47am:

... wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 11:42am: So how do these 'property laws' create a problem?   Share with me your wisdom oh alevine, so that I may see the error of my ways.  Or not. 1. With regard to divorce. 2. With regard to taking over liability. 3. the notion of having equal share. I don't think you'll ever see the error of your ways. But it's hilarious to read your deluded views :)

Could you please elaborate further?  Maybe I'm just a bit slow, or maybe you've simply put up some vague, meaningless statements in the hope that you can bluff your way out.

I'm calling your bluff - what's the problem?

To that list, I'd add:

4. No recognised equity when borrowing

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 10:02am:

Actually Buzz, you'll find that in Australia now, you have pretty much the same rights as I do.

Equality and "pretty much the same rights" are NOT one in the same



There is no equality in property settlement  on separation
There is no equality on inheritance - when one partner dies intestate
( ... claims can be contested by families of the deceased - with all too frequent success)

Mixed marriages have no problem

... wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 11:54am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 11:47am: ... wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 11:42am: So how do these 'property laws' create a problem?   Share with me your wisdom oh alevine, so that I may see the error of my ways.  Or not. 1. With regard to divorce. 2. With regard to taking over liability. 3. the notion of having equal share. I don't think you'll ever see the error of your ways. But it's hilarious to read your deluded views :) Could you please elaborate further?  Maybe I'm just a bit slow, or maybe you've simply put up some vague, meaningless statements in the hope that you can bluff your way out. I'm calling your bluff - what's the problem?

I'd say you're a little slow.

Go over it again, and use your index finger to point to the words.  Spell them out, and you should get there...eventually ;D  

If you really need elaboration then you are severely void of individual thinking and processing. Sad.

Quote:

There is no equality in property settlement  on separation

Work it out amongst yourselves - are you children?


Quote:

There is no equality on inheritance - when one partner dies intestate

So write a will.


There, less than 1 minute thought, 2 problems solved.  Oh and look, it's only 10am - Anyone else have any other 'insurmountable challenges' they need solving before lunchtime?

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 11:59am:

... wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 11:54am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 11:47am: ... wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 11:42am: So how do these 'property laws' create a problem?   Share with me your wisdom oh alevine, so that I may see the error of my ways.  Or not. 1. With regard to divorce. 2. With regard to taking over liability. 3. the notion of having equal share. I don't think you'll ever see the error of your ways. But it's hilarious to read your deluded views :) Could you please elaborate further?  Maybe I'm just a bit slow, or maybe you've simply put up some vague, meaningless statements in the hope that you can bluff your way out. I'm calling your bluff - what's the problem? I'd say you're a little slow. Go over it again, and use your index finger to point to the words.  Spell them out, and you should get there...eventually ;D   If you really need elaboration then you are severely void of individual thinking and processing. Sad.

Bluff called succesfully.

You fold, I take the pot.

... wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 12:03pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 11:59am: ... wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 11:54am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 11:47am: ... wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 11:42am: So how do these 'property laws' create a problem?   Share with me your wisdom oh alevine, so that I may see the error of my ways.  Or not. 1. With regard to divorce. 2. With regard to taking over liability. 3. the notion of having equal share. I don't think you'll ever see the error of your ways. But it's hilarious to read your deluded views :) Could you please elaborate further?  Maybe I'm just a bit slow, or maybe you've simply put up some vague, meaningless statements in the hope that you can bluff your way out. I'm calling your bluff - what's the problem? I'd say you're a little slow. Go over it again, and use your index finger to point to the words.  Spell them out, and you should get there...eventually ;D   If you really need elaboration then you are severely void of individual thinking and processing. Sad. Bluff called succesfully. You fold, I take the pot.

If you say so ;D ;D ;D

... wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 12:02pm:

There, less than 1 minute thought, 2 problems solved.  Oh and look, it's only 10am - Anyone else have any other 'insurmountable challenges' they need solving before lunchtime?

Well... you haven't addressed the equity issue.

olde.sault wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 5:52am:

The IrRev. Bill Cruise had a fight on his hands last night on 2GB, he, all for gay being permitted to marry and most callers totally against this. The objectors couldn't satisfactorily explain why they were anti so I'll do that for them. As gays destroyed the word "gay" (no synonym quite covers its one-time meaning) so they'll trash the real meaning of "marriage". No reason why they shouldn't be given rights to some ceremony but it'll have to have a different name.

Exactly right. Gay marriage is an abomination unto the Lord, and makes a mockey of values, decency and overall mankind.

Gist wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 12:13pm:

... wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 12:02pm: There, less than 1 minute thought, 2 problems solved.  Oh and look, it's only 10am - Anyone else have any other 'insurmountable challenges' they need solving before lunchtime? Well... you haven't addressed the equity issue.

No need to - it's the same situation as for defacto relationships.

matty wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 12:16pm:

olde.sault wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 5:52am: The IrRev. Bill Cruise had a fight on his hands last night on 2GB, he, all for gay being permitted to marry and most callers totally against this. The objectors couldn't satisfactorily explain why they were anti so I'll do that for them. As gays destroyed the word "gay" (no synonym quite covers its one-time meaning) so they'll trash the real meaning of "marriage". No reason why they shouldn't be given rights to some ceremony but it'll have to have a different name. Exactly right. Gay marriage is an abomnation unto the Lord, and makes a mockey of values, decency and overall mankind.

What a load of crap,here's a tip, simple one, there is no god.

matty wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 12:16pm:

olde.sault wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 5:52am: The IrRev. Bill Cruise had a fight on his hands last night on 2GB, he, all for gay being permitted to marry and most callers totally against this. The objectors couldn't satisfactorily explain why they were anti so I'll do that for them. As gays destroyed the word "gay" (no synonym quite covers its one-time meaning) so they'll trash the real meaning of "marriage". No reason why they shouldn't be given rights to some ceremony but it'll have to have a different name. Exactly right. Gay marriage is an abomnation unto the Lord, and makes a mockey of values, decency and overall mankind.

Are you saying that Allen, your hero, is an abomination?

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 12:22pm:

matty wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 12:16pm: olde.sault wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 5:52am: The IrRev. Bill Cruise had a fight on his hands last night on 2GB, he, all for gay being permitted to marry and most callers totally against this. The objectors couldn't satisfactorily explain why they were anti so I'll do that for them. As gays destroyed the word "gay" (no synonym quite covers its one-time meaning) so they'll trash the real meaning of "marriage". No reason why they shouldn't be given rights to some ceremony but it'll have to have a different name. Exactly right. Gay marriage is an abomnation unto the Lord, and makes a mockey of values, decency and overall mankind. Are you saying that Allen, your hero, is an abomination?

Okay, I made one small typo, but you repeatedly fail to spell his name correctly. Why is that?

... wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 12:18pm:

Gist wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 12:13pm: ... wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 12:02pm: There, less than 1 minute thought, 2 problems solved.  Oh and look, it's only 10am - Anyone else have any other 'insurmountable challenges' they need solving before lunchtime? Well... you haven't addressed the equity issue. No need to - it's the same situation as for defacto relationships.

OK, I'll pay that one.  ::)

(that'll teach me for posting here in between doing other stuff)

... wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 12:18pm:

Gist wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 12:13pm: ... wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 12:02pm: There, less than 1 minute thought, 2 problems solved.  Oh and look, it's only 10am - Anyone else have any other 'insurmountable challenges' they need solving before lunchtime? Well... you haven't addressed the equity issue. No need to - it's the same situation as for defacto relationships.

when it comes to wills... nothing not even gay relationships will stop anyone contesting them.. when it comes to greed they are all the same.. never heard of anyone contesting who will pay for the funeral have you?...

I would so love to know that my Will is and will be my last testament..the thought that someone can take it to court and a stranger can rearrange it all makes me fair sick it really does..its about time unless someone can prove a crime.. this sort of thing became very hard to do..

if a couple have lived together for years and years since when is it anyones business if they get their partners things.if you had been decent family I am sure you would have got a mention..

matty wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 12:24pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 12:22pm: matty wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 12:16pm: olde.sault wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 5:52am: The IrRev. Bill Cruise had a fight on his hands last night on 2GB, he, all for gay being permitted to marry and most callers totally against this. The objectors couldn't satisfactorily explain why they were anti so I'll do that for them. As gays destroyed the word "gay" (no synonym quite covers its one-time meaning) so they'll trash the real meaning of "marriage". No reason why they shouldn't be given rights to some ceremony but it'll have to have a different name. Exactly right. Gay marriage is an abomnation unto the Lord, and makes a mockey of values, decency and overall mankind. Are you saying that Allen, your hero, is an abomination? Okay, I made one small typo, but you repeatedly fail to spell his name correctly. Why is that?

Stop answering questions with questions.

You had a complete thread about a grammatical error and yet you seem to not care about your own errors.  

Are you saying that Allen, your hero, is an abomination?  Yes or no, and explain.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 12:30pm:

matty wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 12:24pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 12:22pm: matty wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 12:16pm: olde.sault wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 5:52am: The IrRev. Bill Cruise had a fight on his hands last night on 2GB, he, all for gay being permitted to marry and most callers totally against this. The objectors couldn't satisfactorily explain why they were anti so I'll do that for them. As gays destroyed the word "gay" (no synonym quite covers its one-time meaning) so they'll trash the real meaning of "marriage". No reason why they shouldn't be given rights to some ceremony but it'll have to have a different name. Exactly right. Gay marriage is an abomnation unto the Lord, and makes a mockey of values, decency and overall mankind. Are you saying that Allen, your hero, is an abomination? Okay, I made one small typo, but you repeatedly fail to spell his name correctly. Why is that? Stop answering questions with questions. You had a complete thread about a grammatical error and yet you seem to not care about your own errors.   Are you saying that Allen, your hero, is an abomination?  Yes or no, and explain.

There's a difference between a typo and a speaking error. I will answer your question, as long as you first tell me why you cannot spell his name correctly.

matty wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 12:32pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 12:30pm: matty wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 12:24pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 12:22pm: matty wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 12:16pm: olde.sault wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 5:52am: The IrRev. Bill Cruise had a fight on his hands last night on 2GB, he, all for gay being permitted to marry and most callers totally against this. The objectors couldn't satisfactorily explain why they were anti so I'll do that for them. As gays destroyed the word "gay" (no synonym quite covers its one-time meaning) so they'll trash the real meaning of "marriage". No reason why they shouldn't be given rights to some ceremony but it'll have to have a different name. Exactly right. Gay marriage is an abomnation unto the Lord, and makes a mockey of values, decency and overall mankind. Are you saying that Allen, your hero, is an abomination? Okay, I made one small typo, but you repeatedly fail to spell his name correctly. Why is that? Stop answering questions with questions. You had a complete thread about a grammatical error and yet you seem to not care about your own errors.   Are you saying that Allen, your hero, is an abomination?  Yes or no, and explain. There's a difference between a typo and a speaking error. I will answer your question, as long as you first tell me why you cannot spell his name correctly.

Dont waste your time,alevine, matty/mel/haim/log me in isn't sure what sock she's posting as let alone if she should admit Gloria should have the right to marry one of his boyfriends.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 11:34am:

... wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 11:27am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 11:25am: ... wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 11:22am: so write a will. Wesss!! My bigoted friend!!! I missed ya sooo much :) The problem is not to do with death, but to do with status of ownership during living.  So it's not about gay people writing wills.   But I don't expect someone of your bigoted status to appreciate this difference. Carry on :) So what is the problem?  Tell me, and I will offer a solution. You've already tried and resulted in an epic fail.  The problem is that under marriage, property, assets all come under joint ownership. Under defacto, they don't.

You are wrong. After six months, a de facto partner can claim
as much as a wife. Relatives can take the matter to court, of course, but that takes money.

In my initial post, I suggested that gays should be allowed a ceremony but of another name.

It has happened that after a gay tended his sick partner for years, he was kicked out of the house, empty handed, by the relatives of the deceased.

That should be corrected.

As for wills, they are constantly contested, and it's the lawyers who end up enriched.

The reason why their is not equity pertaining to property is that with married couples they settlement is decided uniformly in a federal court, but with a defacto relationship the property settlement is decided according to state laws which vary from state to state.

Where it is that a couple is married and no will exists, probate usually finds in favour of the widow or widower. The same is not true in defacto cases.

Hetrosexual defacto couples can choose to marry. Homosexual defacto couples cannot.

This is not a religious argument. No one is talking about a gay couples right to marry in a church. This is about the Marriage Certificate which is issued by the state.

Pack them off to Canada.
You can marry your pet rock in Canada as long as you have the cash.

Let them get married, who cares.

Just don’t expect/force everyone to agree with you that sticking your willy up some other blokes dirty blurter is a good thing.... :-/

matty wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 12:16pm:

olde.sault wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 5:52am: The IrRev. Bill Cruise had a fight on his hands last night on 2GB, he, all for gay being permitted to marry and most callers totally against this. The objectors couldn't satisfactorily explain why they were anti so I'll do that for them. As gays destroyed the word "gay" (no synonym quite covers its one-time meaning) so they'll trash the real meaning of "marriage". No reason why they shouldn't be given rights to some ceremony but it'll have to have a different name. Exactly right. Gay marriage is an abomination unto the Lord, and makes a mockey of values, decency and overall mankind.

So, matty.....does this mean EVERY marriage that takes place out side of Abrahamic religions is an abomination??
And what about the marriages that took place before the Abrahamic religions started up, were they all 'abominations' too????

Marriage is a social construct, that has been co-opted by the various religions.....simply for control purposes.

matty wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 12:32pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 12:30pm: matty wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 12:24pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 12:22pm: matty wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 12:16pm: olde.sault wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 5:52am: The IrRev. Bill Cruise had a fight on his hands last night on 2GB, he, all for gay being permitted to marry and most callers totally against this. The objectors couldn't satisfactorily explain why they were anti so I'll do that for them. As gays destroyed the word "gay" (no synonym quite covers its one-time meaning) so they'll trash the real meaning of "marriage". No reason why they shouldn't be given rights to some ceremony but it'll have to have a different name. Exactly right. Gay marriage is an abomnation unto the Lord, and makes a mockey of values, decency and overall mankind. Are you saying that Allen, your hero, is an abomination? Okay, I made one small typo, but you repeatedly fail to spell his name correctly. Why is that? Stop answering questions with questions. You had a complete thread about a grammatical error and yet you seem to not care about your own errors.   Are you saying that Allen, your hero, is an abomination?  Yes or no, and explain. There's a difference between a typo and a speaking error. I will answer your question, as long as you first tell me why you cannot spell his name correctly.

Just answer the question and stop avoiding.  Especially if you wish to be taken seriously and not as a 12 year old who argues with parents and creates ultimatums to avoid eating your peas.  Are you saying that Allen, your hero, is an abomination?  YES or NO and EXPLAIN.

:) Thanks.

FriYAY wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 1:21pm:

Let them get married, who cares. Just don’t expect/force everyone to agree with you that sticking your willy up some other blokes dirty blurter is a good thing.... :-/

I don't think they are seeking you to agree.  Gay people just wish to have the same rights as heterosexuals and to be left alone to go about their normal daily lives without discrimination by our own government and laws.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 1:54pm:

FriYAY wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 1:21pm: Let them get married, who cares. Just don’t expect/force everyone to agree with you that sticking your willy up some other blokes dirty blurter is a good thing.... :-/ I don't think they are seeking you to agree.  Gay people just wish to have the same rights as heterosexuals and to be left alone to go about their normal daily lives without discrimination by our own government and laws.

You are confsuing "rights" with "privileges".  There is no right to get married, it is a privilege, reserved for those who meet the criteria.  

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 1:54pm:

FriYAY wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 1:21pm: Let them get married, who cares. Just don’t expect/force everyone to agree with you that sticking your willy up some other blokes dirty blurter is a good thing.... :-/ I don't think they are seeking you to agree.  Gay people just wish to have the same rights as heterosexuals and to be left alone to go about their normal daily lives without discrimination by our own government and laws.

Fair enough, so long as people that don't agree with their life style are free from being labelled.

... wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 1:57pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 1:54pm: FriYAY wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 1:21pm: Let them get married, who cares. Just don’t expect/force everyone to agree with you that sticking your willy up some other blokes dirty blurter is a good thing.... :-/ I don't think they are seeking you to agree.  Gay people just wish to have the same rights as heterosexuals and to be left alone to go about their normal daily lives without discrimination by our own government and laws. You are confsuing "rights" with "privileges".  There is no right to get married, it is a privilege, reserved for those who meet the criteria.

And just like once the No Johnny's club didn't accept Johnnys, criteria changes.  Get used to it.  

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 1:59pm:

... wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 1:57pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 1:54pm: FriYAY wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 1:21pm: Let them get married, who cares. Just don’t expect/force everyone to agree with you that sticking your willy up some other blokes dirty blurter is a good thing.... :-/ I don't think they are seeking you to agree.  Gay people just wish to have the same rights as heterosexuals and to be left alone to go about their normal daily lives without discrimination by our own government and laws. You are confsuing "rights" with "privileges".  There is no right to get married, it is a privilege, reserved for those who meet the criteria.   And just like once the No Johnny's club didn't accept Johnnys, criteria changes.  Get used to it.

I'll get used to it IF it changes.  Don't count your chickens before they've hatched.

... wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 2:00pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 1:59pm: ... wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 1:57pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 1:54pm: FriYAY wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 1:21pm: Let them get married, who cares. Just don’t expect/force everyone to agree with you that sticking your willy up some other blokes dirty blurter is a good thing.... :-/ I don't think they are seeking you to agree.  Gay people just wish to have the same rights as heterosexuals and to be left alone to go about their normal daily lives without discrimination by our own government and laws. You are confsuing "rights" with "privileges".  There is no right to get married, it is a privilege, reserved for those who meet the criteria.   And just like once the No Johnny's club didn't accept Johnnys, criteria changes.  Get used to it.   I'll get used to it IF it changes.  Don't count your chickens before they've hatched.

Like any progressive society, Australia will see a change soon.  Better start getting used to it because I know that with your kind of bigoted beliefs it will be very hard to adjust.  And what, with everyone turning gay because of it and females unable to find husbands, oh no!!

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 2:04pm:

... wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 2:00pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 1:59pm: ... wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 1:57pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 1:54pm: FriYAY wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 1:21pm: Let them get married, who cares. Just don’t expect/force everyone to agree with you that sticking your willy up some other blokes dirty blurter is a good thing.... :-/ I don't think they are seeking you to agree.  Gay people just wish to have the same rights as heterosexuals and to be left alone to go about their normal daily lives without discrimination by our own government and laws. You are confsuing "rights" with "privileges".  There is no right to get married, it is a privilege, reserved for those who meet the criteria.   And just like once the No Johnny's club didn't accept Johnnys, criteria changes.  Get used to it.   I'll get used to it IF it changes.  Don't count your chickens before they've hatched. Like any progressive society, Australia will see a change soon.  Better start getting used to it because I know that with your kind of bigoted beliefs it will be very hard to adjust.  And what, with everyone turning gay because of it and females unable to find husbands, oh no!!

What's to get used to?  IF the law changes, I'll treat gay couples just the same as I do now - by completely ignoring them.

... wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 2:07pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 2:04pm: ... wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 2:00pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 1:59pm: ... wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 1:57pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 1:54pm: FriYAY wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 1:21pm: Let them get married, who cares. Just don’t expect/force everyone to agree with you that sticking your willy up some other blokes dirty blurter is a good thing.... :-/ I don't think they are seeking you to agree.  Gay people just wish to have the same rights as heterosexuals and to be left alone to go about their normal daily lives without discrimination by our own government and laws. You are confsuing "rights" with "privileges".  There is no right to get married, it is a privilege, reserved for those who meet the criteria.   And just like once the No Johnny's club didn't accept Johnnys, criteria changes.  Get used to it.   I'll get used to it IF it changes.  Don't count your chickens before they've hatched. Like any progressive society, Australia will see a change soon.  Better start getting used to it because I know that with your kind of bigoted beliefs it will be very hard to adjust.  And what, with everyone turning gay because of it and females unable to find husbands, oh no!! What's to get used to?  IF the law changes, I'll treat gay couples just the same as I do now - by completely ignoring them.

But when the law changes, apparently all the men will turn gay. Are you going to ignore all men?

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 2:12pm:

... wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 2:07pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 2:04pm: ... wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 2:00pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 1:59pm: ... wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 1:57pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 1:54pm: FriYAY wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 1:21pm: Let them get married, who cares. Just don’t expect/force everyone to agree with you that sticking your willy up some other blokes dirty blurter is a good thing.... :-/ I don't think they are seeking you to agree.  Gay people just wish to have the same rights as heterosexuals and to be left alone to go about their normal daily lives without discrimination by our own government and laws. You are confsuing "rights" with "privileges".  There is no right to get married, it is a privilege, reserved for those who meet the criteria.   And just like once the No Johnny's club didn't accept Johnnys, criteria changes.  Get used to it.   I'll get used to it IF it changes.  Don't count your chickens before they've hatched. Like any progressive society, Australia will see a change soon.  Better start getting used to it because I know that with your kind of bigoted beliefs it will be very hard to adjust.  And what, with everyone turning gay because of it and females unable to find husbands, oh no!! What's to get used to?  IF the law changes, I'll treat gay couples just the same as I do now - by completely ignoring them. But when the law changes, apparently all the men will turn gay. Are you going to ignore all men?

A stupid argument, even by your rock-botom standards alevine.

... wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 2:15pm:

A stupid argument, even by your rock-botom standards alevine.

It's not my argument, it's the argument of those you agree with.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 2:27pm:

... wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 2:15pm: A stupid argument, even by your rock-botom standards alevine. It's not my argument, it's the argument of those you agree with.

No, it's a false argument, propagated as an attempt to discredit those opposed.  Much like no anti-DLS exponent has ever said 'It'll fade the curtains' as a reason why they're opposed to it, yet it gets trotted out time and again as though it was the basis for all opposition.

 

... wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 2:33pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 2:27pm: ... wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 2:15pm: A stupid argument, even by your rock-botom standards alevine. It's not my argument, it's the argument of those you agree with. No, it's a false argument, propagated as an attempt to discredit those opposed.  Much like no anti-DLS exponent has ever said 'It'll fade the curtains' as a reason why they're opposed to it, yet it gets trotted out time and again as though it was the basis for all opposition.

Anger over rally to ridicule gay marriage
August 16, 2011
Ads by Google


Independent MP Bob Katter auctioned his hat at the "Don't meddle with marriage" rally at Parliament House in Canberra for $2700. Photo: Alex Ellinghausen
Marriage equality advocates have condemned comments that same-sex marriage would allow unions between pedophiles and children made at a rally in Canberra.

They say organisers of the pro-marriage rally where conservative American commentator Rebecca Hagelin made the statement should distance themselves from her remarks.

The rally today, organised by the Australian Christian Lobby and the Australian Family Association, heard from a handful of federal MPs including Queensland independent Bob Katter.

Mr Katter told the gathering of several hundred people the proposition should not be treated seriously.

"Truly this proposition deserves to be laughed at and ridiculed," he said to cheers and thunderous applause.

Australian Marriage Equality spokesman Rodney Croome said offensive rhetoric like that of Mr Katter and Ms Hagelin had no place in debate on same-sex marriage.

"The Australian Christian Lobby, which often complains about opponents of same-sex marriage being ridiculed and demonised, must show it is sincere about a mature debate by distancing itself from the offensive comments made today", he said.

A Queensland psychologist who specialises in the mental health of gays and lesbians said comments made at the rally were "damaging".

"Prejudice and ridicule damage the mental health of young same-sex attracted people and the last thing they need to hear are these kinds of offensive comments from people who purport to represent 'family values'," Paul Martin said.

Nationals Senate leader Barnaby Joyce told the rally his four daughters would be affected if same-sex marriage was allowed.

"We know that the best protection for those girls is that they get themselves into a secure relationship with a loving husband, and I want that to happen for them.

"I don't want any legislator to take that right away from me."

But Australian Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young, whose bill to allow same-sex marriage is before the Senate, said the senator had misunderstood.

"There is nothing in my Marriage Equality Bill that would prevent Senator Joyce's daughters from getting married to the partner of their choice," Senator Hanson-Young said.

"Rather than taking rights away, the bill extends the rights to all couples."



Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/anger-over-rally-to-ridicule-gay-marriage-20110816-1iw1e.html#ixzz1deRYGooU

Hmmm...I think you're wrong ONCE again Wes.  You must be getting pretty tired of always being wrong?

... wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 2:33pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 2:27pm: ... wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 2:15pm: A stupid argument, even by your rock-botom standards alevine. It's not my argument, it's the argument of those you agree with. No, it's a false argument, propagated as an attempt to discredit those opposed.  Much like no anti-DLS exponent has ever said 'It'll fade the curtains' as a reason why they're opposed to it, yet it gets trotted out time and again as though it was the basis for all opposition.

You need to get out from under that rock you live under,Wes, I've heard that silly old bitch that runs the NSW anti DLS campaign actually use the fade the curtains excuse ,that's why most people think morons like that are in fact ,morons.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 1:53pm:

matty wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 12:32pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 12:30pm: matty wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 12:24pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 12:22pm: matty wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 12:16pm: olde.sault wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 5:52am: The IrRev. Bill Cruise had a fight on his hands last night on 2GB, he, all for gay being permitted to marry and most callers totally against this. The objectors couldn't satisfactorily explain why they were anti so I'll do that for them. As gays destroyed the word "gay" (no synonym quite covers its one-time meaning) so they'll trash the real meaning of "marriage". No reason why they shouldn't be given rights to some ceremony but it'll have to have a different name. Exactly right. Gay marriage is an abomnation unto the Lord, and makes a mockey of values, decency and overall mankind. Are you saying that Allen, your hero, is an abomination? Okay, I made one small typo, but you repeatedly fail to spell his name correctly. Why is that? Stop answering questions with questions. You had a complete thread about a grammatical error and yet you seem to not care about your own errors.   Are you saying that Allen, your hero, is an abomination?  Yes or no, and explain. There's a difference between a typo and a speaking error. I will answer your question, as long as you first tell me why you cannot spell his name correctly. Just answer the question and stop avoiding.  Especially if you wish to be taken seriously and not as a 12 year old who argues with parents and creates ultimatums to avoid eating your peas.  Are you saying that Allen, your hero, is an abomination?  YES or NO and EXPLAIN. :) Thanks.

Okay, to answer your question, no.

Now, could you kindly return the favour and answer my question?

matty wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 3:00pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 1:53pm: matty wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 12:32pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 12:30pm: matty wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 12:24pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 12:22pm: matty wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 12:16pm: olde.sault wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 5:52am: The IrRev. Bill Cruise had a fight on his hands last night on 2GB, he, all for gay being permitted to marry and most callers totally against this. The objectors couldn't satisfactorily explain why they were anti so I'll do that for them. As gays destroyed the word "gay" (no synonym quite covers its one-time meaning) so they'll trash the real meaning of "marriage". No reason why they shouldn't be given rights to some ceremony but it'll have to have a different name. Exactly right. Gay marriage is an abomnation unto the Lord, and makes a mockey of values, decency and overall mankind. Are you saying that Allen, your hero, is an abomination? Okay, I made one small typo, but you repeatedly fail to spell his name correctly. Why is that? Stop answering questions with questions. You had a complete thread about a grammatical error and yet you seem to not care about your own errors.   Are you saying that Allen, your hero, is an abomination?  Yes or no, and explain. There's a difference between a typo and a speaking error. I will answer your question, as long as you first tell me why you cannot spell his name correctly. Just answer the question and stop avoiding.  Especially if you wish to be taken seriously and not as a 12 year old who argues with parents and creates ultimatums to avoid eating your peas.  Are you saying that Allen, your hero, is an abomination?  YES or NO and EXPLAIN. :) Thanks. Okay, to answer your question, no. Now, could you kindly return the favour and answer my question?

What part of YES or NO and EXPLAIN did you not understand?

Quote:

Hmmm...I think you're wrong ONCE again Wes.  You must be getting pretty tired of always being wrong?

What you think, and reality are poles apart.

FriYAY wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 1:21pm:

Let them get married, who cares. Just don’t expect/force everyone to agree with you that sticking your willy up some other blokes dirty blurter is a good thing.... :-/

Indeed, very risky!

At least, one can get cyctitis, that usually needs antibiotic to cure, at most, AIDS.

Hardly a practice that can be sprinkled with Holy Water!

That is why such a relationship needs a different tag to a marriage between heterosexuals - I don't mean stunt- weddings between celebrities but that of a sincere couple planning to raise a family.

olde.sault wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 3:19pm:

FriYAY wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 1:21pm: Let them get married, who cares. Just don’t expect/force everyone to agree with you that sticking your willy up some other blokes dirty blurter is a good thing.... :-/ Indeed, very risky! At least, one can get cyctitis, that usually needs antibiotic to cure, at most, AIDS. Hardly a practice that can be sprinkled with Holy Water! That is why such a relationship needs a different tag to a marriage between heterosexuals - I don't mean stunt- weddings between celebrities but that of a sincere couple planning to raise a family.

What business is it of yours if a couple of gay people want to marry? mind your own bloody business, its interfering, clueless, bigoted fools  that cause all the problems in society today.

skippy. wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 3:27pm:

olde.sault wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 3:19pm: FriYAY wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 1:21pm: Let them get married, who cares. Just don’t expect/force everyone to agree with you that sticking your willy up some other blokes dirty blurter is a good thing.... :-/ Indeed, very risky! At least, one can get cyctitis, that usually needs antibiotic to cure, at most, AIDS. Hardly a practice that can be sprinkled with Holy Water! That is why such a relationship needs a different tag to a marriage between heterosexuals - I don't mean stunt- weddings between celebrities but that of a sincere couple planning to raise a family. What business is it of yours if a couple of gay people want to marry? mind your own bloody business, its interfering, clueless, bigoted fools  that cause all the problems in society today.

What business is it of yours if someone doesn't want to lend legitimacy to a gay couple pretending they are married?  

:-[quote author=WESLEY.PIPES link=1321213935/60#60 date=1321249498]
skippy. wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 3:27pm:

olde.sault wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 3:19pm: FriYAY wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 1:21pm: Let them get married, who cares. Just don’t expect/force everyone to agree with you that sticking your willy up some other blokes dirty blurter is a good thing.... :-/ Indeed, very risky! At least, one can get cyctitis, that usually needs antibiotic to cure, at most, AIDS. Hardly a practice that can be sprinkled with Holy Water! That is why such a relationship needs a different tag to a marriage between heterosexuals - I don't mean stunt- weddings between celebrities but that of a sincere couple planning to raise a family. What business is it of yours if a couple of gay people want to marry? mind your own bloody business, its interfering, clueless, bigoted fools  that cause all the problems in society today.

What business is it of yours if someone doesn't want to lend legitimacy to a gay couple pretending they are married?  [/quote]
No ones asking for your legitimacy, just to mind your own business, no one tells you who to marry.Now back under your rock.

skippy. wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 3:48pm:

:-[quote author=WESLEY.PIPES link=1321213935/60#60 date=1321249498] skippy. wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 3:27pm: olde.sault wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 3:19pm: FriYAY wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 1:21pm: Let them get married, who cares. Just don’t expect/force everyone to agree with you that sticking your willy up some other blokes dirty blurter is a good thing.... :-/ Indeed, very risky! At least, one can get cyctitis, that usually needs antibiotic to cure, at most, AIDS. Hardly a practice that can be sprinkled with Holy Water! That is why such a relationship needs a different tag to a marriage between heterosexuals - I don't mean stunt- weddings between celebrities but that of a sincere couple planning to raise a family. What business is it of yours if a couple of gay people want to marry? mind your own bloody business, its interfering, clueless, bigoted fools  that cause all the problems in society today. What business is it of yours if someone doesn't want to lend legitimacy to a gay couple pretending they are married?

No ones asking for your legitimacy, just to mind your own business, no one tells you who to marry.Now back under your rock.[/quote]

True, noone tells me who to marry specifically, but you and I both know (though I bet you'll pretend not to)  that it'd have to be someone of the opposite sex, otherwise it's not a marriage.  

... wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 3:54pm:

skippy. wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 3:48pm: :-[quote author=WESLEY.PIPES link=1321213935/60#60 date=1321249498] skippy. wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 3:27pm: olde.sault wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 3:19pm: FriYAY wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 1:21pm: Let them get married, who cares. Just don’t expect/force everyone to agree with you that sticking your willy up some other blokes dirty blurter is a good thing.... :-/ Indeed, very risky! At least, one can get cyctitis, that usually needs antibiotic to cure, at most, AIDS. Hardly a practice that can be sprinkled with Holy Water! That is why such a relationship needs a different tag to a marriage between heterosexuals - I don't mean stunt- weddings between celebrities but that of a sincere couple planning to raise a family. What business is it of yours if a couple of gay people want to marry? mind your own bloody business, its interfering, clueless, bigoted fools  that cause all the problems in society today. What business is it of yours if someone doesn't want to lend legitimacy to a gay couple pretending they are married?   No ones asking for your legitimacy, just to mind your own business, no one tells you who to marry.Now back under your rock.

True, noone tells me who to marry specifically, but you and I both know (though I bet you'll pretend not to)  that it'd have to be someone of the opposite sex, otherwise it's not a marriage.  

[/quote]
You need to get out from under that rock more often, many places allow same sex marriage and it wont be long before Australia join them. I'm not gay, it doesn't do it for me, but I 'll defend anyone's right to legally marry the partner of their choice no matter what sex they are. As I said before, its interfering bigots  that are the problem with society. I couldn't care less what you marry if that's what you want, its none of my business, just like its none of yours if a man or woman wants to marry their partner to formalise their relationship.

Quote:

I couldn't care less what you marry if that's what you want, its none of my business, just like its none of yours if a man or woman wants to marry their partner to formalise their relationship.

You're almost correct.  It'd be none of my business if a gay couple wanted to formalise their relationship UNLESS they plan to do so by usurping and redefining a recognised and integral social institution.  Call it what you want, but marriage already has a definition.

... wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 4:12pm:

Quote: I couldn't care less what you marry if that's what you want, its none of my business, just like its none of yours if a man or woman wants to marry their partner to formalise their relationship.   You're almost correct.  It'd be none of my business if a gay couple wanted to formalise their relationship UNLESS they plan to do so by usurping and redefining a recognised and integral social institution.  Call it what you want, but marriage already has a definition.

Well a lot of the world have changed the definition you hold onto, its about time you said hello to the 21st century.

... wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 4:12pm:

Quote: I couldn't care less what you marry if that's what you want, its none of my business, just like its none of yours if a man or woman wants to marry their partner to formalise their relationship.   You're almost correct.  It'd be none of my business if a gay couple wanted to formalise their relationship UNLESS they plan to do so by usurping and redefining a recognised and integral social institution.  Call it what you want, but marriage already has a definition.

A definition? Great! We'll change it!

skippy. wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 4:14pm:

... wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 4:12pm: Quote: I couldn't care less what you marry if that's what you want, its none of my business, just like its none of yours if a man or woman wants to marry their partner to formalise their relationship.   You're almost correct.  It'd be none of my business if a gay couple wanted to formalise their relationship UNLESS they plan to do so by usurping and redefining a recognised and integral social institution.  Call it what you want, but marriage already has a definition. Well a lot of the world have changed the definition you hold onto, its about time you said hello to the 21st century.

You're being a bit generous with your definition of 'a lot'.  A few countries have changed, but the vast majority have not, and are not likely to either.

I just noticed that this issue is a lot like the DLS debate - the best reason the 'pro' crowd can come up with in both issues is to 'get with the 21st century' which isn't a reason at all.

... wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 4:25pm:

skippy. wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 4:14pm: ... wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 4:12pm: Quote: I couldn't care less what you marry if that's what you want, its none of my business, just like its none of yours if a man or woman wants to marry their partner to formalise their relationship.   You're almost correct.  It'd be none of my business if a gay couple wanted to formalise their relationship UNLESS they plan to do so by usurping and redefining a recognised and integral social institution.  Call it what you want, but marriage already has a definition. Well a lot of the world have changed the definition you hold onto, its about time you said hello to the 21st century. You're being a bit generous with your definition of 'a lot'.  A few countries have changed, but the vast majority have not, and are not likely to either. I just noticed that this issue is a lot like the DLS debate - the best reason the 'pro' crowd can come up with in both issues is to 'get with the 21st century' which isn't a reason at all.

And the best reason the "con" crowd can come up with is that it'll fade the curtains. Which is even less of a reason.

Gist wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 4:28pm:

... wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 4:25pm: skippy. wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 4:14pm: ... wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 4:12pm: Quote: I couldn't care less what you marry if that's what you want, its none of my business, just like its none of yours if a man or woman wants to marry their partner to formalise their relationship.   You're almost correct.  It'd be none of my business if a gay couple wanted to formalise their relationship UNLESS they plan to do so by usurping and redefining a recognised and integral social institution.  Call it what you want, but marriage already has a definition. Well a lot of the world have changed the definition you hold onto, its about time you said hello to the 21st century. You're being a bit generous with your definition of 'a lot'.  A few countries have changed, but the vast majority have not, and are not likely to either. I just noticed that this issue is a lot like the DLS debate - the best reason the 'pro' crowd can come up with in both issues is to 'get with the 21st century' which isn't a reason at all. And the best reason the "con" crowd can come up with is that it'll fade the curtains. Which is even less of a reason.

That is, if you discount everything the anti-DLS/gay marriage proponents actually say, and just substitute their argument for your own.  I've never heard anyone use the faded curtains line, except for pro-DLSers using it to mock their opposition.  

Even if you were correct, us antis still have one key factor on our side - the status quo.  A prudent judge doesn't change just for the sake of it - if it aint broke, don't fix it.

... wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 4:37pm:

That is, if you discount everything the anti-DLS/gay marriage proponents actually say, and just substitute their argument for your own.  I've never heard anyone use the faded curtains line, except for pro-DLSers using it to mock their opposition.   Even if you were correct, us antis still have one key factor on our side - the status quo.  A prudent judge doesn't change just for the sake of it - if it aint broke, don't fix it.

But it is broke, that's what you refuse to acknowledge. Glad to hear you're willing to see it fixed though! That means you won't be too disappointed when it happens.

Gist wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 5:05pm:

... wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 4:37pm: That is, if you discount everything the anti-DLS/gay marriage proponents actually say, and just substitute their argument for your own.  I've never heard anyone use the faded curtains line, except for pro-DLSers using it to mock their opposition.   Even if you were correct, us antis still have one key factor on our side - the status quo.  A prudent judge doesn't change just for the sake of it - if it aint broke, don't fix it. But it is broke, that's what you refuse to acknowledge. Glad to hear you're willing to see it fixed though! That means you won't be too disappointed when it happens.

What's 'broke' about it?  That conditions on who can enter into it exist?

... wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 5:08pm:

Gist wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 5:05pm: ... wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 4:37pm: That is, if you discount everything the anti-DLS/gay marriage proponents actually say, and just substitute their argument for your own.  I've never heard anyone use the faded curtains line, except for pro-DLSers using it to mock their opposition.   Even if you were correct, us antis still have one key factor on our side - the status quo.  A prudent judge doesn't change just for the sake of it - if it aint broke, don't fix it. But it is broke, that's what you refuse to acknowledge. Glad to hear you're willing to see it fixed though! That means you won't be too disappointed when it happens. What's 'broke' about it?  That conditions on who can enter into it exist?

Glad to see you prove my point.

Gist wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 5:09pm:

... wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 5:08pm: Gist wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 5:05pm: ... wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 4:37pm: That is, if you discount everything the anti-DLS/gay marriage proponents actually say, and just substitute their argument for your own.  I've never heard anyone use the faded curtains line, except for pro-DLSers using it to mock their opposition.   Even if you were correct, us antis still have one key factor on our side - the status quo.  A prudent judge doesn't change just for the sake of it - if it aint broke, don't fix it. But it is broke, that's what you refuse to acknowledge. Glad to hear you're willing to see it fixed though! That means you won't be too disappointed when it happens. What's 'broke' about it?  That conditions on who can enter into it exist? Glad to see you prove my point.

The paedos, bestialists and polygamists will be glad to hear they have your support if they decide to push for 'equality' too.

skippy. wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 3:48pm:

:-[quote author=WESLEY.PIPES link=1321213935/60#60 date=1321249498] skippy. wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 3:27pm: olde.sault wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 3:19pm: FriYAY wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 1:21pm: Let them get married, who cares. Just don’t expect/force everyone to agree with you that sticking your willy up some other blokes dirty blurter is a good thing.... :-/ Indeed, very risky! At least, one can get cyctitis, that usually needs antibiotic to cure, at most, AIDS. Hardly a practice that can be sprinkled with Holy Water! That is why such a relationship needs a different tag to a marriage between heterosexuals - I don't mean stunt- weddings between celebrities but that of a sincere couple planning to raise a family. What business is it of yours if a couple of gay people want to marry? mind your own bloody business, its interfering, clueless, bigoted fools  that cause all the problems in society today. What business is it of yours if someone doesn't want to lend legitimacy to a gay couple pretending they are married?

No ones asking for your legitimacy, just to mind your own business, no one tells you who to marry.Now back under your rock.[/quote]

The problem is that it'll bring marriage down to its lowest denominator. Folks won't bother so, you'll have gays going for the ceremony and heterosexuals, shacking up.

Parents have to set an example and I can't imagine a child (however begotten)  brought up in a gay household.

As children are apt to follow the example of their carers, I suspect conflicting emotions and bullying at school.

Most kids don't want to be seen as different by fellow-students.

Wesley, polygamy, pedophilia and beastiality are illegal. Homosexuality is not.

... wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 5:11pm:

Gist wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 5:09pm: ... wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 5:08pm: Gist wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 5:05pm: ... wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 4:37pm: That is, if you discount everything the anti-DLS/gay marriage proponents actually say, and just substitute their argument for your own.  I've never heard anyone use the faded curtains line, except for pro-DLSers using it to mock their opposition.   Even if you were correct, us antis still have one key factor on our side - the status quo.  A prudent judge doesn't change just for the sake of it - if it aint broke, don't fix it. But it is broke, that's what you refuse to acknowledge. Glad to hear you're willing to see it fixed though! That means you won't be too disappointed when it happens. What's 'broke' about it?  That conditions on who can enter into it exist? Glad to see you prove my point. The paedos, bestialists and polygamists will be glad to hear they have your support if they decide to push for 'equality' too.

Don't particularly care about polygamists. Anyone stupid enough to have more than one woman around deserves all they get.

The others are just typical mean minded narrow-necker arguments that have nothing to do with gays. I guess you do believe about the faded curtains, eh?

olde.sault wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 5:25pm:

The problem is that it'll bring marriage down to its lowest denominator. Folks won't bother so, you'll have gays going for the ceremony and heterosexuals, shacking up. Parents have to set an example and I can't imagine a child (however begotten)  brought up in a gay household. As children are apt to follow the example of their carers, I suspect conflicting emotions and bullying at school. Most kids don't want to be seen as different by fellow-students.

Hah! Salty, you should sit down before you read this.

Heterosexuals are already "shacking up". In droves! *gasp*

Annie Anthrax wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 6:32pm:

Wesley, polygamy, pedophilia and beastiality are illegal.

So is gay marriage.  

Would you outlaw homosexuality if you could?

Gist wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 6:33pm:

... wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 5:11pm: Gist wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 5:09pm: ... wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 5:08pm: Gist wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 5:05pm: ... wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 4:37pm: That is, if you discount everything the anti-DLS/gay marriage proponents actually say, and just substitute their argument for your own.  I've never heard anyone use the faded curtains line, except for pro-DLSers using it to mock their opposition.   Even if you were correct, us antis still have one key factor on our side - the status quo.  A prudent judge doesn't change just for the sake of it - if it aint broke, don't fix it. But it is broke, that's what you refuse to acknowledge. Glad to hear you're willing to see it fixed though! That means you won't be too disappointed when it happens. What's 'broke' about it?  That conditions on who can enter into it exist? Glad to see you prove my point. The paedos, bestialists and polygamists will be glad to hear they have your support if they decide to push for 'equality' too. Don't particularly care about polygamists. Anyone stupid enough to have more than one woman around deserves all they get. The others are just typical mean minded narrow-necker arguments that have nothing to do with gays. I guess you do believe about the faded curtains, eh?

Deride them as 'mean minded narrow-necker arguments' if you must - it doesn't hide or change the fact that the exact same argument you use to support gay marriage can be copied verbatim to use for any number of zany causes, like child marriage, beastilaity etc.....

Annie Anthrax wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 6:58pm:

Would you outlaw homosexuality if you could?

nah.

Bullshit. The relationship between homosexuals isn't illegal - you can't compare it with beastiality.

Then why not allow them to marry? I don't understand your reasoning.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 7:02pm:

Then why not allow them to marry? I don't understand your reasoning.

Because marriage is between a man and a woman.  Always has, alwasy will.  Two blokes can love each other, and want to proclaim their commitment to each other, but it ain't marriage, so i refuse to call it that.  Some might be prepared to turn a blind eye, or call a spade a manual digging instrument, but a man of principle sticks to his guns.  

Annie Anthrax wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 7:01pm:

Bullshit. The relationship between homosexuals isn't illegal - you can't compare it with beastiality.

I'm not comparing the practices, I am saying that the main justification on offer for gay marriage (words to the effect of 'they should be allowed to...just because') would also apply in principle to any kind of union.  

Any legal union.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 7:23pm:

Any legal union.

Well no, because the justification wouldn't even need to be made if it was already legal.  

... wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 6:58pm:

Gist wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 6:33pm: ... wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 5:11pm: Gist wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 5:09pm: ... wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 5:08pm: Gist wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 5:05pm: ... wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 4:37pm: That is, if you discount everything the anti-DLS/gay marriage proponents actually say, and just substitute their argument for your own.  I've never heard anyone use the faded curtains line, except for pro-DLSers using it to mock their opposition.   Even if you were correct, us antis still have one key factor on our side - the status quo.  A prudent judge doesn't change just for the sake of it - if it aint broke, don't fix it. But it is broke, that's what you refuse to acknowledge. Glad to hear you're willing to see it fixed though! That means you won't be too disappointed when it happens. What's 'broke' about it?  That conditions on who can enter into it exist? Glad to see you prove my point. The paedos, bestialists and polygamists will be glad to hear they have your support if they decide to push for 'equality' too. Don't particularly care about polygamists. Anyone stupid enough to have more than one woman around deserves all they get. The others are just typical mean minded narrow-necker arguments that have nothing to do with gays. I guess you do believe about the faded curtains, eh? Deride them as 'mean minded narrow-necker arguments' if you must - it doesn't hide or change the fact that the exact same argument you use to support gay marriage can be copied verbatim to use for any number of zany causes, like child marriage, beastilaity etc.....

Except that nobody is asking for those things nor do they have popular support. Therefore they are completely irrelevant to the discussion.

Gist wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 7:36pm:

... wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 6:58pm: Gist wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 6:33pm: ... wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 5:11pm: Gist wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 5:09pm: ... wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 5:08pm: Gist wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 5:05pm: ... wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 4:37pm: That is, if you discount everything the anti-DLS/gay marriage proponents actually say, and just substitute their argument for your own.  I've never heard anyone use the faded curtains line, except for pro-DLSers using it to mock their opposition.   Even if you were correct, us antis still have one key factor on our side - the status quo.  A prudent judge doesn't change just for the sake of it - if it aint broke, don't fix it. But it is broke, that's what you refuse to acknowledge. Glad to hear you're willing to see it fixed though! That means you won't be too disappointed when it happens. What's 'broke' about it?  That conditions on who can enter into it exist? Glad to see you prove my point. The paedos, bestialists and polygamists will be glad to hear they have your support if they decide to push for 'equality' too. Don't particularly care about polygamists. Anyone stupid enough to have more than one woman around deserves all they get. The others are just typical mean minded narrow-necker arguments that have nothing to do with gays. I guess you do believe about the faded curtains, eh? Deride them as 'mean minded narrow-necker arguments' if you must - it doesn't hide or change the fact that the exact same argument you use to support gay marriage can be copied verbatim to use for any number of zany causes, like child marriage, beastilaity etc..... Except that nobody is asking for those things nor do they have popular support. Therefore they are completely irrelevant to the discussion.

You WISH they were irrelevant - they highlight how poor the justification to allow gay marriage is.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 1:29pm:

matty wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 12:16pm: olde.sault wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 5:52am: The IrRev. Bill Cruise had a fight on his hands last night on 2GB, he, all for gay being permitted to marry and most callers totally against this. The objectors couldn't satisfactorily explain why they were anti so I'll do that for them. As gays destroyed the word "gay" (no synonym quite covers its one-time meaning) so they'll trash the real meaning of "marriage". No reason why they shouldn't be given rights to some ceremony but it'll have to have a different name. Exactly right. Gay marriage is an abomination unto the Lord, and makes a mockey of values, decency and overall mankind. So, matty.....does this mean EVERY marriage that takes place out side of Abrahamic religions is an abomination?? And what about the marriages that took place before the Abrahamic religions started up, were they all 'abominations' too???? Marriage is a social construct, that has been co-opted by the various religions.....simply for control purposes.

Gizmo, marriage is a covenant between God, man and woman. Man-man and woman-woman marriages are an absolute disgrace, and an abomination unto the Lord.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 3:05pm:

matty wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 3:00pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 1:53pm: matty wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 12:32pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 12:30pm: matty wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 12:24pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 12:22pm: matty wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 12:16pm: olde.sault wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 5:52am: The IrRev. Bill Cruise had a fight on his hands last night on 2GB, he, all for gay being permitted to marry and most callers totally against this. The objectors couldn't satisfactorily explain why they were anti so I'll do that for them. As gays destroyed the word "gay" (no synonym quite covers its one-time meaning) so they'll trash the real meaning of "marriage". No reason why they shouldn't be given rights to some ceremony but it'll have to have a different name. Exactly right. Gay marriage is an abomnation unto the Lord, and makes a mockey of values, decency and overall mankind. Are you saying that Allen, your hero, is an abomination? Okay, I made one small typo, but you repeatedly fail to spell his name correctly. Why is that? Stop answering questions with questions. You had a complete thread about a grammatical error and yet you seem to not care about your own errors.   Are you saying that Allen, your hero, is an abomination?  Yes or no, and explain. There's a difference between a typo and a speaking error. I will answer your question, as long as you first tell me why you cannot spell his name correctly. Just answer the question and stop avoiding.  Especially if you wish to be taken seriously and not as a 12 year old who argues with parents and creates ultimatums to avoid eating your peas.  Are you saying that Allen, your hero, is an abomination?  YES or NO and EXPLAIN. :) Thanks. Okay, to answer your question, no. Now, could you kindly return the favour and answer my question? What part of YES or NO and EXPLAIN did you not understand?

Okay, as I have just outlined to gizmo in post 90, marriage is a covenant between God, man and woman. Man-man and woman-woman marriages are an absolute disgrace, and an abomination unto the Lord.

The act of homosexuality, and "marriage" that eventuates from that, is a disgrace and an abomination. Not homosexual people themselves, which incidentally, I should point out, is something with which Alan has never identitified.

Now, please answer my question.

matty wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 8:34pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 1:29pm: matty wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 12:16pm: olde.sault wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 5:52am: The IrRev. Bill Cruise had a fight on his hands last night on 2GB, he, all for gay being permitted to marry and most callers totally against this. The objectors couldn't satisfactorily explain why they were anti so I'll do that for them. As gays destroyed the word "gay" (no synonym quite covers its one-time meaning) so they'll trash the real meaning of "marriage". No reason why they shouldn't be given rights to some ceremony but it'll have to have a different name. Exactly right. Gay marriage is an abomination unto the Lord, and makes a mockey of values, decency and overall mankind. So, matty.....does this mean EVERY marriage that takes place out side of Abrahamic religions is an abomination?? And what about the marriages that took place before the Abrahamic religions started up, were they all 'abominations' too???? Marriage is a social construct, that has been co-opted by the various religions.....simply for control purposes. Gizmo, marriage is a covenant between God, man and woman. Man-man and woman-woman marriages are an absolute disgrace, and an abomination unto the Lord.

Matty, men and woman were getting married looooonnnnggg before the Abrahamic God (the god of Judaism, Christianity and Islam) was worshipped...
'Life mating' rituals existed as far back as the Stone Age, every culture has had some ritual or ceremony to indicate a life long bonding....

For all we know, the Neanderthals may have had a marriage ceremony too....

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 11:49pm:

matty wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 8:34pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 1:29pm: matty wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 12:16pm: olde.sault wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 5:52am: The IrRev. Bill Cruise had a fight on his hands last night on 2GB, he, all for gay being permitted to marry and most callers totally against this. The objectors couldn't satisfactorily explain why they were anti so I'll do that for them. As gays destroyed the word "gay" (no synonym quite covers its one-time meaning) so they'll trash the real meaning of "marriage". No reason why they shouldn't be given rights to some ceremony but it'll have to have a different name. Exactly right. Gay marriage is an abomination unto the Lord, and makes a mockey of values, decency and overall mankind. So, matty.....does this mean EVERY marriage that takes place out side of Abrahamic religions is an abomination?? And what about the marriages that took place before the Abrahamic religions started up, were they all 'abominations' too???? Marriage is a social construct, that has been co-opted by the various religions.....simply for control purposes. Gizmo, marriage is a covenant between God, man and woman. Man-man and woman-woman marriages are an absolute disgrace, and an abomination unto the Lord. Matty, men and woman were getting married looooonnnnggg before the Abrahamic God (the god of Judaism, Christianity and Islam) was worshipped... 'Life mating' rituals existed as far back as the Stone Age, every culture has had some ritual or ceremony to indicate a life long bonding.... For all we know, the Neanderthals may have had a marriage ceremony too....

The Neanderthals would certainly have had life mating rituals like Marriage.  Since Neanderthal forms a part of the makeup of European and central Asian people there is no reason why these rituals were not among those peoples or part of the structure of their village and tribal life.  Neanderthal became absorbed by the transition to modern humans finally around 25,000 years ago.  Thats not long ago in the scheme of things and the evidence is that they lived in complex social groupings.  there is no reason to suppose Marriage is a religious mandate or that it must be defined by rigid socio economic ideologies.  The rituals most likely arose out of clan based family groupings and were really quite diverse in nature and broad in definition...

... wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 3:54pm:

skippy. wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 3:48pm: :-[quote author=WESLEY.PIPES link=1321213935/60#60 date=1321249498] skippy. wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 3:27pm: olde.sault wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 3:19pm: FriYAY wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 1:21pm: Let them get married, who cares. Just don’t expect/force everyone to agree with you that sticking your willy up some other blokes dirty blurter is a good thing.... :-/ Indeed, very risky! At least, one can get cyctitis, that usually needs antibiotic to cure, at most, AIDS. Hardly a practice that can be sprinkled with Holy Water! That is why such a relationship needs a different tag to a marriage between heterosexuals - I don't mean stunt- weddings between celebrities but that of a sincere couple planning to raise a family. What business is it of yours if a couple of gay people want to marry? mind your own bloody business, its interfering, clueless, bigoted fools  that cause all the problems in society today. What business is it of yours if someone doesn't want to lend legitimacy to a gay couple pretending they are married?   No ones asking for your legitimacy, just to mind your own business, no one tells you who to marry.Now back under your rock.

True, noone tells me who to marry specifically, but you and I both know (though I bet you'll pretend not to)  that it'd have to be someone of the opposite sex, otherwise it's not a marriage.  

The problem with gays is that they want their practices to be accepted as normal which is incorrect.

I live on a 5 acre farm. At one time my ex and I reared goats, Saanen, Toggenburgs.

Most goats are very friendly (too friendly) but a Toggenburg kid born was unapproachable. We thought the wild one was a doe but eventually discovered that it was a hermaphrodite.

A more-experienced goat breeder explained  that this happened through inbreeding (for show purposes).

He said it didn't mean this very mating but that the kid could have been a throwback from earlier practices.

Anyway, these were his findings and he wasn't an idiot (although proclaimed himself a communist)




[/quote]

olde.sault wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 5:25pm:

skippy. wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 3:48pm: :-[quote author=WESLEY.PIPES link=1321213935/60#60 date=1321249498] skippy. wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 3:27pm: olde.sault wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 3:19pm: FriYAY wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 1:21pm: Let them get married, who cares. Just don’t expect/force everyone to agree with you that sticking your willy up some other blokes dirty blurter is a good thing.... :-/ Indeed, very risky! At least, one can get cyctitis, that usually needs antibiotic to cure, at most, AIDS. Hardly a practice that can be sprinkled with Holy Water! That is why such a relationship needs a different tag to a marriage between heterosexuals - I don't mean stunt- weddings between celebrities but that of a sincere couple planning to raise a family. What business is it of yours if a couple of gay people want to marry? mind your own bloody business, its interfering, clueless, bigoted fools  that cause all the problems in society today. What business is it of yours if someone doesn't want to lend legitimacy to a gay couple pretending they are married?   No ones asking for your legitimacy, just to mind your own business, no one tells you who to marry.Now back under your rock.

The problem is that it'll bring marriage down to its lowest denominator. Folks won't bother so, you'll have gays going for the ceremony and heterosexuals, shacking up.

Parents have to set an example and I can't imagine a child (however begotten)  brought up in a gay household.

As children are apt to follow the example of their carers, I suspect conflicting emotions and bullying at school.

Most kids don't want to be seen as different by fellow-students.


[/quote]
Many kids are living in gay households. My neighbors are lesbians they have three children that all go to my sons school they are not bullied because of their mothers sexuality. Bullying is a learned trait, only kids from a bigoted household, like yours, would do such crap.The problem is not with the gay parents, the problem is with the likes of YOU.

Its good to see the  bigoted views of the extreme right here are way out of step with the overwhelming majority of Australians.


Quote:

ALMOST two thirds of voters support legalising same-sex marriage, indicating the public is more relaxed with the concept than politicians. With Julia Gillard to recommend today that Labor change its policy position to that of a conscience vote, the latest Herald/Nielsen poll shows 62 per cent of voters support legalising same-sex marriage outright. Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/voter-opinion-adds-weight-to-shift-in-marriage-policy-20111114-1nfkj.html#ixzz1diaG9nn4

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 11:49pm:

matty wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 8:34pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 1:29pm: matty wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 12:16pm: olde.sault wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 5:52am: The IrRev. Bill Cruise had a fight on his hands last night on 2GB, he, all for gay being permitted to marry and most callers totally against this. The objectors couldn't satisfactorily explain why they were anti so I'll do that for them. As gays destroyed the word "gay" (no synonym quite covers its one-time meaning) so they'll trash the real meaning of "marriage". No reason why they shouldn't be given rights to some ceremony but it'll have to have a different name. Exactly right. Gay marriage is an abomination unto the Lord, and makes a mockey of values, decency and overall mankind. So, matty.....does this mean EVERY marriage that takes place out side of Abrahamic religions is an abomination?? And what about the marriages that took place before the Abrahamic religions started up, were they all 'abominations' too???? Marriage is a social construct, that has been co-opted by the various religions.....simply for control purposes. Gizmo, marriage is a covenant between God, man and woman. Man-man and woman-woman marriages are an absolute disgrace, and an abomination unto the Lord. Matty, men and woman were getting married looooonnnnggg before the Abrahamic God (the god of Judaism, Christianity and Islam) was worshipped... 'Life mating' rituals existed as far back as the Stone Age, every culture has had some ritual or ceremony to indicate a life long bonding.... For all we know, the Neanderthals may have had a marriage ceremony too....

Gizmo, "marriage like" ceremonies, therefore quasi-marriage may have occurred, but not the marriage of today. Marriage as we know it began as the exclusive covenant between God, man and woman. Homosexuals taking part in this is a mockery and an insult to God and to mankind on general. Homosexual marriage must be mocked, scorned and vilified as must as possible, and we as a good, decent, moral and ethical nation must never even consider imposing such a wicked and vile thing.

matty wrote=
Quote:

Homosexual must be mocked, scorned and vilified as must as possible

Do you ring Gloria and mock, scorn and vilify him? what you just advocated is illegal as well, you should/could be charged for it, and   they could throw you in the big house where you could be fresh meat,assuming you were a real male, instead of a middle aged womens sock.

... wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 7:46pm:

Gist wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 7:36pm: ... wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 6:58pm: Gist wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 6:33pm: ... wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 5:11pm: Gist wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 5:09pm: ... wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 5:08pm: Gist wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 5:05pm: ... wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 4:37pm: That is, if you discount everything the anti-DLS/gay marriage proponents actually say, and just substitute their argument for your own.  I've never heard anyone use the faded curtains line, except for pro-DLSers using it to mock their opposition.   Even if you were correct, us antis still have one key factor on our side - the status quo.  A prudent judge doesn't change just for the sake of it - if it aint broke, don't fix it. But it is broke, that's what you refuse to acknowledge. Glad to hear you're willing to see it fixed though! That means you won't be too disappointed when it happens. What's 'broke' about it?  That conditions on who can enter into it exist? Glad to see you prove my point. The paedos, bestialists and polygamists will be glad to hear they have your support if they decide to push for 'equality' too. Don't particularly care about polygamists. Anyone stupid enough to have more than one woman around deserves all they get. The others are just typical mean minded narrow-necker arguments that have nothing to do with gays. I guess you do believe about the faded curtains, eh? Deride them as 'mean minded narrow-necker arguments' if you must - it doesn't hide or change the fact that the exact same argument you use to support gay marriage can be copied verbatim to use for any number of zany causes, like child marriage, beastilaity etc..... Except that nobody is asking for those things nor do they have popular support. Therefore they are completely irrelevant to the discussion. You WISH they were irrelevant - they highlight how poor the justification to allow gay marriage is.

No, they highlight your bigoted thinking. If you want to be completely bloody-minded, the justification for those are rooted in the justification for marriage. Once marriage is justified then those same justifications can be used for anything.

Therefore, by your argument all marriages should be annulled because someone somewhere may want to marry a sheep. (How does the sheep even say "I do??")

Completely stupid.

In the end though, it doesn't matter. You haven't put forward a single good contra argument. Saying marriage is "between a man and a woman" is simply a statement of the current situation, it isn't an argument. The fact is that the majority of the people support changing that situation and so it will change. Better get used to the idea Wesley.

matty wrote on Nov 15^th, 2011 at 7:50am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 11:49pm: matty wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 8:34pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 1:29pm: matty wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 12:16pm: olde.sault wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 5:52am: The IrRev. Bill Cruise had a fight on his hands last night on 2GB, he, all for gay being permitted to marry and most callers totally against this. The objectors couldn't satisfactorily explain why they were anti so I'll do that for them. As gays destroyed the word "gay" (no synonym quite covers its one-time meaning) so they'll trash the real meaning of "marriage". No reason why they shouldn't be given rights to some ceremony but it'll have to have a different name. Exactly right. Gay marriage is an abomination unto the Lord, and makes a mockey of values, decency and overall mankind. So, matty.....does this mean EVERY marriage that takes place out side of Abrahamic religions is an abomination?? And what about the marriages that took place before the Abrahamic religions started up, were they all 'abominations' too???? Marriage is a social construct, that has been co-opted by the various religions.....simply for control purposes. Gizmo, marriage is a covenant between God, man and woman. Man-man and woman-woman marriages are an absolute disgrace, and an abomination unto the Lord. Matty, men and woman were getting married looooonnnnggg before the Abrahamic God (the god of Judaism, Christianity and Islam) was worshipped... 'Life mating' rituals existed as far back as the Stone Age, every culture has had some ritual or ceremony to indicate a life long bonding.... For all we know, the Neanderthals may have had a marriage ceremony too.... Gizmo, "marriage like" ceremonies, therefore quasi-marriage may have occurred, but not the marriage of today. Marriage as we know it began as the exclusive covenant between God, man and woman. Homosexuals taking part in this is a mockery and an insult to God and to mankind on general. Homosexual must be mocked, scorned and vilified as must as possible, and we as a good, decent, moral and ethical nation must never even consider imposing such a wicked and vile thing.

Rubbish matty...as many as half of the marriages carried out today have zero religious content...They have to met STATE standards (licensed celebrant etc) but not church or religious ones...

And bear in mind, humans have existed for around 200,000 years, and Christianity has only existed for about 2000 years......the 'marriage-like' ceremonies have been around a whole lot longer than the religious influence (or the 'influence' of God for that matter)


Besides, if you read the historical/mythological texts of almost any religion throughout human history, you'll find that deities generally don't give a tinker's cuss about the 'sanctity of marriage'...

The Greek Gods certainly didn't...witness Hercules, illegitimate son of Zeus (who WAS married at the time) by a human woman...the Roman Gods were the same..

The Norse Gods used to descend to Earth for drunken orgies with their worshippers...
Look at how often the term 'demigod' comes up throughout the writtings of humanity (a demigod is half human and half god)

Even with the very basis of Christianity....the 'Virgin Birth'...one of two things happened there...Either God knocked up an unmarried virgin (and didn't marry her, which is against His own rules) OR He knocked up another man's wife....which is also a no no......

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 15^th, 2011 at 8:11am:

matty wrote on Nov 15th, 2011 at 7:50am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 11:49pm: matty wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 8:34pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 1:29pm: matty wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 12:16pm: olde.sault wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 5:52am: The IrRev. Bill Cruise had a fight on his hands last night on 2GB, he, all for gay being permitted to marry and most callers totally against this. The objectors couldn't satisfactorily explain why they were anti so I'll do that for them. As gays destroyed the word "gay" (no synonym quite covers its one-time meaning) so they'll trash the real meaning of "marriage". No reason why they shouldn't be given rights to some ceremony but it'll have to have a different name. Exactly right. Gay marriage is an abomination unto the Lord, and makes a mockey of values, decency and overall mankind. So, matty.....does this mean EVERY marriage that takes place out side of Abrahamic religions is an abomination?? And what about the marriages that took place before the Abrahamic religions started up, were they all 'abominations' too???? Marriage is a social construct, that has been co-opted by the various religions.....simply for control purposes. Gizmo, marriage is a covenant between God, man and woman. Man-man and woman-woman marriages are an absolute disgrace, and an abomination unto the Lord. Matty, men and woman were getting married looooonnnnggg before the Abrahamic God (the god of Judaism, Christianity and Islam) was worshipped... 'Life mating' rituals existed as far back as the Stone Age, every culture has had some ritual or ceremony to indicate a life long bonding.... For all we know, the Neanderthals may have had a marriage ceremony too.... Gizmo, "marriage like" ceremonies, therefore quasi-marriage may have occurred, but not the marriage of today. Marriage as we know it began as the exclusive covenant between God, man and woman. Homosexuals taking part in this is a mockery and an insult to God and to mankind on general. Homosexual must be mocked, scorned and vilified as must as possible, and we as a good, decent, moral and ethical nation must never even consider imposing such a wicked and vile thing. Rubbish matty...as many as half of the marriages carried out today have zero religious content...They have to met STATE standards (licensed celebrant etc) but not church or religious ones... And bear in mind, humans have existed for around 200,000 years, and Christianity has only existed for about 2000 years......the 'marriage-like' ceremonies have been around a whole lot longer than the religious influence (or the 'influence' of God for that matter) Besides, if you read the historical/mythological texts of almost any religion throughout human history, you'll find that deities generally don't give a tinker's cuss about the 'sanctity of marriage'... The Greek Gods certainly didn't...witness Hercules, illegitimate son of Zeus (who WAS married at the time) by a human woman...the Roman Gods were the same.. The Norse Gods used to descend to Earth for drunken orgies with their worshippers... Look at how often the term 'demigod' comes up throughout the writtings of humanity (a demigod is half human and half god) Even with the very basis of Christianity....the 'Virgin Birth'...one of two things happened there...Either God knocked up an unmarried virgin (and didn't marry her, which is against His own rules) OR He knocked up another man's wife....which is also a no no......

Well I totally disagree with you, gizmo. There is a difference between a general union, and the sacred bond and sacrament of marriage. I know what a demigod is, but the Greek gods didn't exist, they were pure fiction, and no one alive today follows that ancient religion anyway.

Your last is pure blasphemy, and you ought to be ashamed of yourself for uttering such filth. God decided that He would send down His son to free us mortals from our sins. He decided that Mary would be the perfect option as Mother of His child. Mother Mary was a mere mortal like the rest of us, but she was an example for all of us to follow as well. The angel Gabriel informed Mary that she was to be the bearer of God's child, conceived through the means of Immaculate Conception.

I would also like to make clear that, although I am totally against the act of homosexual marriage, my thoughts are not the same on homosexual people.

matty wrote on Nov 15^th, 2011 at 8:53am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 15th, 2011 at 8:11am: matty wrote on Nov 15th, 2011 at 7:50am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 11:49pm: matty wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 8:34pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 1:29pm: matty wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 12:16pm: olde.sault wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 5:52am: The IrRev. Bill Cruise had a fight on his hands last night on 2GB, he, all for gay being permitted to marry and most callers totally against this. The objectors couldn't satisfactorily explain why they were anti so I'll do that for them. As gays destroyed the word "gay" (no synonym quite covers its one-time meaning) so they'll trash the real meaning of "marriage". No reason why they shouldn't be given rights to some ceremony but it'll have to have a different name. Exactly right. Gay marriage is an abomination unto the Lord, and makes a mockey of values, decency and overall mankind. So, matty.....does this mean EVERY marriage that takes place out side of Abrahamic religions is an abomination?? And what about the marriages that took place before the Abrahamic religions started up, were they all 'abominations' too???? Marriage is a social construct, that has been co-opted by the various religions.....simply for control purposes. Gizmo, marriage is a covenant between God, man and woman. Man-man and woman-woman marriages are an absolute disgrace, and an abomination unto the Lord. Matty, men and woman were getting married looooonnnnggg before the Abrahamic God (the god of Judaism, Christianity and Islam) was worshipped... 'Life mating' rituals existed as far back as the Stone Age, every culture has had some ritual or ceremony to indicate a life long bonding.... For all we know, the Neanderthals may have had a marriage ceremony too.... Gizmo, "marriage like" ceremonies, therefore quasi-marriage may have occurred, but not the marriage of today. Marriage as we know it began as the exclusive covenant between God, man and woman. Homosexuals taking part in this is a mockery and an insult to God and to mankind on general. Homosexual must be mocked, scorned and vilified as must as possible, and we as a good, decent, moral and ethical nation must never even consider imposing such a wicked and vile thing. Rubbish matty...as many as half of the marriages carried out today have zero religious content...They have to met STATE standards (licensed celebrant etc) but not church or religious ones... And bear in mind, humans have existed for around 200,000 years, and Christianity has only existed for about 2000 years......the 'marriage-like' ceremonies have been around a whole lot longer than the religious influence (or the 'influence' of God for that matter) Besides, if you read the historical/mythological texts of almost any religion throughout human history, you'll find that deities generally don't give a tinker's cuss about the 'sanctity of marriage'... The Greek Gods certainly didn't...witness Hercules, illegitimate son of Zeus (who WAS married at the time) by a human woman...the Roman Gods were the same.. The Norse Gods used to descend to Earth for drunken orgies with their worshippers... Look at how often the term 'demigod' comes up throughout the writtings of humanity (a demigod is half human and half god) Even with the very basis of Christianity....the 'Virgin Birth'...one of two things happened there...Either God knocked up an unmarried virgin (and didn't marry her, which is against His own rules) OR He knocked up another man's wife....which is also a no no...... Well I totally disagree with you, gizmo. There is a difference between a general union, and the sacred bond and sacrament of marriage. I know what a demigod is, but the Greek gods didn't exist, they were pure fiction, and no one alive today follows that ancient religion anyway. Your last is pure blasphemy, and you ought to be ashamed of yourself for uttering such filth. God decided that He would send down His son to free us mortals from our sins. He decided that Mary would be the perfect option as Mother of His child. Mother Mary was a mere mortal like the rest of us, but she was an example for all of us to follow as well. The angel Gabriel informed Mary that she was to be the bearer of God's child, conceived through the means of Immaculate Conception.

It's only 'blasphemy' if I'm a Christian...which I'm not..

And in the last 6000 years there have been roughly 2870 'One True' Gods....

And, incidently, how do you KNOW the Greek Gods never existed??
Religions are not started by gods, they are started by men......and one of our (humans) major failings is that we hold people/beings we admire to completely impossible standards....be they gods, sports stars politicians or celebrities......and when they fail to meet our standards.....we crucify them (figuratively as well as literally)...

Only moron s believe in fairy tales matty/haim/mel/log me in, good to see you holding up your end of the bargain. I wouldn't bother trying to get into politics, when half the stuff you write on here is uncovered you'll be thrown out of any party you join. It's illegal to vilify homosexuals,and call for the assassination of the PM,even Abbott isn't stupid enough to do it in public.

matty wrote on Nov 15^th, 2011 at 8:55am:

I would also like to make clear that, although I am totally against the act of homosexual marriage, my thoughts are not the same on homosexual people.

matty the lying hypocrite also wrote-
Homosexual must be mocked, scorned and vilified as must as possible

Gizmo, I believe that God exists, and I believe in the teachings of Christianity. You have your opinion, I have mine. Isn't that the whole point politics and democracy? It seems that Lefties just can't face the fact that people disagree with them.

As it is, homosexual marriage is illegal, and I hope and pray with every fibre of my being that that remains the case.

skippy. wrote on Nov 15^th, 2011 at 7:27am:

olde.sault wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 5:25pm: skippy. wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 3:48pm: :-[quote author=WESLEY.PIPES link=1321213935/60#60 date=1321249498] skippy. wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 3:27pm: olde.sault wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 3:19pm: FriYAY wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 1:21pm: Let them get married, who cares. Just don’t expect/force everyone to agree with you that sticking your willy up some other blokes dirty blurter is a good thing.... :-/ Indeed, very risky! At least, one can get cyctitis, that usually needs antibiotic to cure, at most, AIDS. Hardly a practice that can be sprinkled with Holy Water! That is why such a relationship needs a different tag to a marriage between heterosexuals - I don't mean stunt- weddings between celebrities but that of a sincere couple planning to raise a family. What business is it of yours if a couple of gay people want to marry? mind your own bloody business, its interfering, clueless, bigoted fools  that cause all the problems in society today. What business is it of yours if someone doesn't want to lend legitimacy to a gay couple pretending they are married?   No ones asking for your legitimacy, just to mind your own business, no one tells you who to marry.Now back under your rock. The problem is that it'll bring marriage down to its lowest denominator. Folks won't bother so, you'll have gays going for the ceremony and heterosexuals, shacking up. Parents have to set an example and I can't imagine a child (however begotten)  brought up in a gay household. As children are apt to follow the example of their carers, I suspect conflicting emotions and bullying at school. Most kids don't want to be seen as different by fellow-students.

Many kids are living in gay households. My neighbors are lesbians they have three children that all go to my sons school they are not bullied because of their mothers sexuality. Bullying is a learned trait, only kids from a bigoted household, like yours, would do such crap.,  The problem is not with the gay parents, the problem is with the likes of YOU.[/quote]


Not true.

Quote:

No, they highlight your bigoted thinking. If you want to be completely bloody-minded, the justification for those are rooted in the justification for marriage. Once marriage is justified then those same justifications can be used for anything. Therefore, by your argument all marriages should be annulled because someone somewhere may want to marry a sheep. (How does the sheep even say "I do??") Completely stupid.

I agree - that IS a completely stupid attempt at logic.  Stick to the purely emotive arguments.

matty wrote on Nov 15^th, 2011 at 9:52am:

Gizmo, I believe that God exists, and I believe in the teachings of Christianity. You have your opinion, I have mine. Isn't that the whole point politics and democracy? It seems that Lefties just can't face the fact that people disagree with them. As it is, homosexual marriage is illegal, and I hope and pray with every fibre of my being that that remains the case.

How the heck would I know Matty....I'm more on the Right than the Left...(Coalition voter)....

All I'm trying to do here, is to get you to see that your values on the subject don't fit everyone...You can't apply Christian values to what is basically a secular arguement...Changing the Australian laws to fit the times...

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 15^th, 2011 at 11:55am:

matty wrote on Nov 15th, 2011 at 9:52am: Gizmo, I believe that God exists, and I believe in the teachings of Christianity. You have your opinion, I have mine. Isn't that the whole point politics and democracy? It seems that Lefties just can't face the fact that people disagree with them. As it is, homosexual marriage is illegal, and I hope and pray with every fibre of my being that that remains the case. How the heck would I know Matty....I'm more on the Right than the Left...(Coalition voter)....

All that I am saying gizmo is that it's fine that we disagree. You have your opinion, I have mine. We can respect each other's opposing view, can we not?

I know that you are on the right wing, you may even be more right wing than I am?

... wrote on Nov 15^th, 2011 at 9:56am:

Quote: No, they highlight your bigoted thinking. If you want to be completely bloody-minded, the justification for those are rooted in the justification for marriage. Once marriage is justified then those same justifications can be used for anything. Therefore, by your argument all marriages should be annulled because someone somewhere may want to marry a sheep. (How does the sheep even say "I do??") Completely stupid. I agree - that IS a completely stupid attempt at logic.  Stick to the purely emotive arguments.

Goodo, we agree on the stupid angle. Just remember that it is your logic not mine Wesley.

Gist wrote on Nov 15^th, 2011 at 12:01pm:

... wrote on Nov 15th, 2011 at 9:56am: Quote: No, they highlight your bigoted thinking. If you want to be completely bloody-minded, the justification for those are rooted in the justification for marriage. Once marriage is justified then those same justifications can be used for anything. Therefore, by your argument all marriages should be annulled because someone somewhere may want to marry a sheep. (How does the sheep even say "I do??") Completely stupid. I agree - that IS a completely stupid attempt at logic.  Stick to the purely emotive arguments. Goodo, we agree on the stupid angle. Just remember that it is your logic not mine Wesley.

No, if you can't or won't acknowledge a very simple concept - that marriage is a formalisation of the complementary relationship of man and woman - it's not my problem.  

matty wrote on Nov 15^th, 2011 at 11:59am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 15th, 2011 at 11:55am: matty wrote on Nov 15th, 2011 at 9:52am: Gizmo, I believe that God exists, and I believe in the teachings of Christianity. You have your opinion, I have mine. Isn't that the whole point politics and democracy? It seems that Lefties just can't face the fact that people disagree with them. As it is, homosexual marriage is illegal, and I hope and pray with every fibre of my being that that remains the case. How the heck would I know Matty....I'm more on the Right than the Left...(Coalition voter).... All that I am saying gizmo is that it's fine that we disagree. You have your opinion, I have mine. We can respect each other's opposing view, can we not? I know that you are on the right wing, you may even be more right wing than I am?

I suppose we can, although I generally object to having religion pushed at me...

I'm not sure I'm more right wing than you.....I don't agree with all the ideals of either side..

I got a lot of my attitudes from my father, and he worked on the old 'fair go' principle....he judged people on their actions, not on class/race/whathaveyou....Which is really why I don't oppose gay marriage...it's not going to affect ME one way or the other, nor is it going to 'destroy' the institution of marriage......After all much the same arguements were used about the various 'mixed' marriages of the past...Catholic/Protestant, Christian/NonChristian and even interracial marriages......Strangely, the 'institution' has managed to survive....

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 15^th, 2011 at 12:07pm:

matty wrote on Nov 15th, 2011 at 11:59am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 15th, 2011 at 11:55am: matty wrote on Nov 15th, 2011 at 9:52am: Gizmo, I believe that God exists, and I believe in the teachings of Christianity. You have your opinion, I have mine. Isn't that the whole point politics and democracy? It seems that Lefties just can't face the fact that people disagree with them. As it is, homosexual marriage is illegal, and I hope and pray with every fibre of my being that that remains the case. How the heck would I know Matty....I'm more on the Right than the Left...(Coalition voter).... All that I am saying gizmo is that it's fine that we disagree. You have your opinion, I have mine. We can respect each other's opposing view, can we not? I know that you are on the right wing, you may even be more right wing than I am? I suppose we can, although I generally object to having religion pushed at me... I'm not sure I'm more right wing than you.....I don't agree with all the ideals of either side.. I got a lot of my attitudes from my father, and he worked on the old 'fair go' principle....he judged people on their actions, not on class/race/whathaveyou....Which is really why I don't oppose gay marriage...it's not going to affect ME one way or the other, nor is it going to 'destroy' the institution of marriage......After all much the same arguements were used about the various 'mixed' marriages of the past...Catholic/Protestant, Christian/NonChristian and even interracial marriages......Strangely, the 'institution' has managed to survive....

Okay, but my intention, in this thread and elsewhere, is not to push my views on anyone, but to state them, and the reasoning behind them.

I do appreciate your point, gizmo, but I fundamentally view homosexual marriage as immoral, wrong and as an abomination.

I don't think that you are more right-wing than me either. I was just saying that you may be. For what it's worth, I consider you to be very moderately on the right wing, ie, centre, but leaning towards the right. May I please ask how you view me, out of the sake of interest?

matty wrote on Nov 15^th, 2011 at 12:12pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 15th, 2011 at 12:07pm: matty wrote on Nov 15th, 2011 at 11:59am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 15th, 2011 at 11:55am: matty wrote on Nov 15th, 2011 at 9:52am: Gizmo, I believe that God exists, and I believe in the teachings of Christianity. You have your opinion, I have mine. Isn't that the whole point politics and democracy? It seems that Lefties just can't face the fact that people disagree with them. As it is, homosexual marriage is illegal, and I hope and pray with every fibre of my being that that remains the case. How the heck would I know Matty....I'm more on the Right than the Left...(Coalition voter).... All that I am saying gizmo is that it's fine that we disagree. You have your opinion, I have mine. We can respect each other's opposing view, can we not? I know that you are on the right wing, you may even be more right wing than I am? I suppose we can, although I generally object to having religion pushed at me... I'm not sure I'm more right wing than you.....I don't agree with all the ideals of either side.. I got a lot of my attitudes from my father, and he worked on the old 'fair go' principle....he judged people on their actions, not on class/race/whathaveyou....Which is really why I don't oppose gay marriage...it's not going to affect ME one way or the other, nor is it going to 'destroy' the institution of marriage......After all much the same arguements were used about the various 'mixed' marriages of the past...Catholic/Protestant, Christian/NonChristian and even interracial marriages......Strangely, the 'institution' has managed to survive.... Okay, but my intention, in this thread and elsewhere, is not to push my views on anyone, but to state them, and the reasoning behind them. I do appreciate your point, gizmo, but I fundamentally view homosexual marriage as immoral, wrong and as an abomination. I don't think that you are more right-wing than me either. I was just saying that you may be. For what it's worth, I consider you to be very moderately on the right wing, ie, centre, but leaning towards the right. May I please ask how you view me, out of the sake of interest?

Pretty much the same matty......except for the religious influence of course... ;)

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 15^th, 2011 at 12:34pm:

matty wrote on Nov 15th, 2011 at 12:12pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 15th, 2011 at 12:07pm: matty wrote on Nov 15th, 2011 at 11:59am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 15th, 2011 at 11:55am: matty wrote on Nov 15th, 2011 at 9:52am: Gizmo, I believe that God exists, and I believe in the teachings of Christianity. You have your opinion, I have mine. Isn't that the whole point politics and democracy? It seems that Lefties just can't face the fact that people disagree with them. As it is, homosexual marriage is illegal, and I hope and pray with every fibre of my being that that remains the case. How the heck would I know Matty....I'm more on the Right than the Left...(Coalition voter).... All that I am saying gizmo is that it's fine that we disagree. You have your opinion, I have mine. We can respect each other's opposing view, can we not? I know that you are on the right wing, you may even be more right wing than I am? I suppose we can, although I generally object to having religion pushed at me... I'm not sure I'm more right wing than you.....I don't agree with all the ideals of either side.. I got a lot of my attitudes from my father, and he worked on the old 'fair go' principle....he judged people on their actions, not on class/race/whathaveyou....Which is really why I don't oppose gay marriage...it's not going to affect ME one way or the other, nor is it going to 'destroy' the institution of marriage......After all much the same arguements were used about the various 'mixed' marriages of the past...Catholic/Protestant, Christian/NonChristian and even interracial marriages......Strangely, the 'institution' has managed to survive.... Okay, but my intention, in this thread and elsewhere, is not to push my views on anyone, but to state them, and the reasoning behind them. I do appreciate your point, gizmo, but I fundamentally view homosexual marriage as immoral, wrong and as an abomination. I don't think that you are more right-wing than me either. I was just saying that you may be. For what it's worth, I consider you to be very moderately on the right wing, ie, centre, but leaning towards the right. May I please ask how you view me, out of the sake of interest? Pretty much the same matty......except for the religious influence of course... ;)

Thanks for the feedback, giz. The likes of alevine, skippy and nem call me far-right.

I do think that religion should be part of politics. I don't support the separation of church and state.

matty wrote on Nov 15^th, 2011 at 12:43pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 15th, 2011 at 12:34pm: matty wrote on Nov 15th, 2011 at 12:12pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 15th, 2011 at 12:07pm: matty wrote on Nov 15th, 2011 at 11:59am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 15th, 2011 at 11:55am: matty wrote on Nov 15th, 2011 at 9:52am: Gizmo, I believe that God exists, and I believe in the teachings of Christianity. You have your opinion, I have mine. Isn't that the whole point politics and democracy? It seems that Lefties just can't face the fact that people disagree with them. As it is, homosexual marriage is illegal, and I hope and pray with every fibre of my being that that remains the case. How the heck would I know Matty....I'm more on the Right than the Left...(Coalition voter).... All that I am saying gizmo is that it's fine that we disagree. You have your opinion, I have mine. We can respect each other's opposing view, can we not? I know that you are on the right wing, you may even be more right wing than I am? I suppose we can, although I generally object to having religion pushed at me... I'm not sure I'm more right wing than you.....I don't agree with all the ideals of either side.. I got a lot of my attitudes from my father, and he worked on the old 'fair go' principle....he judged people on their actions, not on class/race/whathaveyou....Which is really why I don't oppose gay marriage...it's not going to affect ME one way or the other, nor is it going to 'destroy' the institution of marriage......After all much the same arguements were used about the various 'mixed' marriages of the past...Catholic/Protestant, Christian/NonChristian and even interracial marriages......Strangely, the 'institution' has managed to survive.... Okay, but my intention, in this thread and elsewhere, is not to push my views on anyone, but to state them, and the reasoning behind them. I do appreciate your point, gizmo, but I fundamentally view homosexual marriage as immoral, wrong and as an abomination. I don't think that you are more right-wing than me either. I was just saying that you may be. For what it's worth, I consider you to be very moderately on the right wing, ie, centre, but leaning towards the right. May I please ask how you view me, out of the sake of interest? Pretty much the same matty......except for the religious influence of course... ;) Thanks for the feedback, giz. The likes of alevine, skippy and nem call me far-right. I do think that religion should be part of politics. I don't support the separation of church and state.

Well that might be part of the problem matty.....politics covers ALL the people in the country...but religions only cover the followers of each particular religion...You can't really combine the two successfully...

skippy. wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 3:27pm:

olde.sault wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 3:19pm: FriYAY wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 1:21pm: Let them get married, who cares. Just don’t expect/force everyone to agree with you that sticking your willy up some other blokes dirty blurter is a good thing.... :-/ Indeed, very risky! At least, one can get cyctitis, that usually needs antibiotic to cure, at most, AIDS. Hardly a practice that can be sprinkled with Holy Water! That is why such a relationship needs a different tag to a marriage between heterosexuals - I don't mean stunt- weddings between celebrities but that of a sincere couple planning to raise a family. What business is it of yours if a couple of gay people want to marry? mind your own bloody business, its interfering, clueless, bigoted fools  that cause all the problems in society today.

AIDS is a health concern as is lowering the meaning of marriage.

olde.sault wrote on Nov 15^th, 2011 at 2:44pm:

skippy. wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 3:27pm: olde.sault wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 3:19pm: FriYAY wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 1:21pm: Let them get married, who cares. Just don’t expect/force everyone to agree with you that sticking your willy up some other blokes dirty blurter is a good thing.... :-/ Indeed, very risky! At least, one can get cyctitis, that usually needs antibiotic to cure, at most, AIDS. Hardly a practice that can be sprinkled with Holy Water! That is why such a relationship needs a different tag to a marriage between heterosexuals - I don't mean stunt- weddings between celebrities but that of a sincere couple planning to raise a family. What business is it of yours if a couple of gay people want to marry? mind your own bloody business, its interfering, clueless, bigoted fools  that cause all the problems in society today. AIDS is a health concern as is lowering the meaning of marriage.

AIDS affects more than just gays you know...And the meaning of marriage is simply a recognised, life long commitment between two people....

olde.sault wrote on Nov 15^th, 2011 at 2:44pm:

skippy. wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 3:27pm: olde.sault wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 3:19pm: FriYAY wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 1:21pm: Let them get married, who cares. Just don’t expect/force everyone to agree with you that sticking your willy up some other blokes dirty blurter is a good thing.... :-/ Indeed, very risky! At least, one can get cyctitis, that usually needs antibiotic to cure, at most, AIDS. Hardly a practice that can be sprinkled with Holy Water! That is why such a relationship needs a different tag to a marriage between heterosexuals - I don't mean stunt- weddings between celebrities but that of a sincere couple planning to raise a family. What business is it of yours if a couple of gay people want to marry? mind your own bloody business, its interfering, clueless, bigoted fools  that cause all the problems in society today. AIDS is a health concern as is lowering the meaning of marriage.

Only a fool would think only gay men get aids. In fact in Africa, aids is just as prevalent among woman, married ones who's husbands screw hookers.
OH, and your marriage comment just highlights how clueless you are, but we already knew that. :-[ for you.

skippy. wrote on Nov 15^th, 2011 at 2:47pm:

olde.sault wrote on Nov 15th, 2011 at 2:44pm: skippy. wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 3:27pm: olde.sault wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 3:19pm: FriYAY wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 1:21pm: Let them get married, who cares. Just don’t expect/force everyone to agree with you that sticking your willy up some other blokes dirty blurter is a good thing.... :-/ Indeed, very risky! At least, one can get cyctitis, that usually needs antibiotic to cure, at most, AIDS. Hardly a practice that can be sprinkled with Holy Water! That is why such a relationship needs a different tag to a marriage between heterosexuals - I don't mean stunt- weddings between celebrities but that of a sincere couple planning to raise a family. What business is it of yours if a couple of gay people want to marry? mind your own bloody business, its interfering, clueless, bigoted fools  that cause all the problems in society today. AIDS is a health concern as is lowering the meaning of marriage. Only a fool would think only gay men get aids. In fact in Africa, aids is just as prevalent among woman, married ones who's husbands screw hookers.

And in Western countries, the incidents of AIDS is high among IV drug users....

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 15^th, 2011 at 2:48pm:

skippy. wrote on Nov 15th, 2011 at 2:47pm: olde.sault wrote on Nov 15th, 2011 at 2:44pm: skippy. wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 3:27pm: olde.sault wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 3:19pm: FriYAY wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 1:21pm: Let them get married, who cares. Just don’t expect/force everyone to agree with you that sticking your willy up some other blokes dirty blurter is a good thing.... :-/ Indeed, very risky! At least, one can get cyctitis, that usually needs antibiotic to cure, at most, AIDS. Hardly a practice that can be sprinkled with Holy Water! That is why such a relationship needs a different tag to a marriage between heterosexuals - I don't mean stunt- weddings between celebrities but that of a sincere couple planning to raise a family. What business is it of yours if a couple of gay people want to marry? mind your own bloody business, its interfering, clueless, bigoted fools  that cause all the problems in society today. AIDS is a health concern as is lowering the meaning of marriage. Only a fool would think only gay men get aids. In fact in Africa, aids is just as prevalent among woman, married ones who's husbands screw hookers. And in Western countries, the incidents of AIDS is high among IV drug users....

Why oh why must the truth be ignored?


Quote:

HIV transmission in Australia occurs primarily through sexual contact between men. Around 65% of people newly diagnosed with HIV in 2009 were among men who have sex with men; 28.7% were exposed through heterosexual contact; 2.3% were due to injecting drug use; and a further 3% were men with a history of both injecting drug use and sex with other men.

http://www.avert.org/aids-hiv-australia.htm#

Is Australia in Africa now wes? wow there ya go.
Oh, what about the other 35% of Aids cases? are they just leprechauns?

skippy. wrote on Nov 15^th, 2011 at 3:08pm:

Is Australia in Africa now wes? wow there ya go. Oh, what about the other 35% of Aids cases? are they just leprechauns?

Is africa a 'western country' now skip?

... wrote on Nov 15^th, 2011 at 3:08pm:

skippy. wrote on Nov 15th, 2011 at 3:08pm: Is Australia in Africa now wes? wow there ya go. Oh, what about the other 35% of Aids cases? are they just leprechauns? Is africa a 'western country' now skip?

whats that got to do with anything anyway? don't black fellas passing on aids to their wifes count on the aids calculator?

enough of your pedantic anyway, I can see you squirming over the stupidity of the posts you are trying to condone, I'll leave you to squirm in peace. ;D

skippy. wrote on Nov 15^th, 2011 at 3:19pm:

... wrote on Nov 15th, 2011 at 3:08pm: skippy. wrote on Nov 15th, 2011 at 3:08pm: Is Australia in Africa now wes? wow there ya go. Oh, what about the other 35% of Aids cases? are they just leprechauns? Is africa a 'western country' now skip? whats that got to do with anything anyway? don't black fellas passing on aids to their wifes count on the aids calculator? enough of your pedantic anyway, I can see you squirming over the stupidity of the posts you are trying to condone, I'll leave you to squirm in peace. ;D

LOL.  You're pathetic.

skippy. wrote on Nov 15^th, 2011 at 3:19pm:

... wrote on Nov 15th, 2011 at 3:08pm: skippy. wrote on Nov 15th, 2011 at 3:08pm: Is Australia in Africa now wes? wow there ya go. Oh, what about the other 35% of Aids cases? are they just leprechauns? Is africa a 'western country' now skip? whats that got to do with anything anyway? don't black fellas passing on aids to their wifes count on the aids calculator? enough of your pedantic anyway, I can see you squirming over the stupidity of the posts you are trying to condone, I'll leave you to squirm in peace. ;D

Squirming Skip edits another post.

Everytime someone wants to deny the obvious truth, I will be there to shove it in their face.

http://img.thebody.com/cdc/2011/infections_fig1.jpg

http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/fastfacts-msm-final508comp.pdf

*MSM stands for men who have sex with men.

... wrote on Nov 15^th, 2011 at 3:38pm:

Everytime someone wants to deny the obvious truth, I will be there to shove it in their face. http://img.thebody.com/cdc/2011/infections_fig1.jpg http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/fastfacts-msm-final508comp.pdf *MSM stands for men who have sex with men.

But where are the stats for white male IDUs and white female IDUs???

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 15^th, 2011 at 3:51pm:

... wrote on Nov 15th, 2011 at 3:38pm: Everytime someone wants to deny the obvious truth, I will be there to shove it in their face. http://img.thebody.com/cdc/2011/infections_fig1.jpg http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/fastfacts-msm-final508comp.pdf *MSM stands for men who have sex with men. But where are the stats for white male IDUs and white female IDUs???

I'm glad you asked gizmo.  It's in the fine print:


Quote:

*Subpopulations representing 2 percent or less of the overall U.S. epidemic are not reflected in this chart.

matty wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 8:34pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 1:29pm: matty wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 12:16pm: olde.sault wrote on Nov 14th, 2011 at 5:52am: The IrRev. Bill Cruise had a fight on his hands last night on 2GB, he, all for gay being permitted to marry and most callers totally against this. The objectors couldn't satisfactorily explain why they were anti so I'll do that for them. As gays destroyed the word "gay" (no synonym quite covers its one-time meaning) so they'll trash the real meaning of "marriage". No reason why they shouldn't be given rights to some ceremony but it'll have to have a different name. Exactly right. Gay marriage is an abomination unto the Lord, and makes a mockey of values, decency and overall mankind. So, matty.....does this mean EVERY marriage that takes place out side of Abrahamic religions is an abomination?? And what about the marriages that took place before the Abrahamic religions started up, were they all 'abominations' too???? Marriage is a social construct, that has been co-opted by the various religions.....simply for control purposes. Gizmo, marriage is a covenant between God, man and woman. Man-man and woman-woman marriages are an absolute disgrace, and an abomination unto the Lord.

I know, Matty, but what if the two gays don't have sex or anything? Wouldn't tthis be okay? Say they just wanked but didn't touch each other?

Cuddles?