Quote:

......Like i have said several time and Abu saw it but you are selectively blind - i know all religions want to impose their beliefs on everyone else. They all want everyone else to be just like them. Its how it works. However the threat in australia is the xtians not the muslims. The xtians are closer to imposing their crap on the rest of us than the muslims...........

What rot

Sprintcyclist wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 8:09am:

Quote: ......Like i have said several time and Abu saw it but you are selectively blind - i know all religions want to impose their beliefs on everyone else. They all want everyone else to be just like them. Its how it works. However the threat in australia is the xtians not the muslims. The xtians are closer to imposing their crap on the rest of us than the muslims........... What rot

while I'll agree in general that it's rot ... he may actually have a point if Abbott gets his way.

I've reached the point now where I don't even bother reading anything SOB posts concerning religion.  It's invariably bigoted, uninformed rubbish.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 8:09am:

Quote: ......Like i have said several time and Abu saw it but you are selectively blind - i know all religions want to impose their beliefs on everyone else. They all want everyone else to be just like them. Its how it works. However the threat in australia is the xtians not the muslims. The xtians are closer to imposing their crap on the rest of us than the muslims........... What rot

Look @ how they are trying to impost their "gay is evil" and "abortion is murder" and etc on ppl. Western govts are open to xtian lobby groups and not muslim ones. Therefore xtians are more of a threat.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 10:02am:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 8:09am: Quote: ......Like i have said several time and Abu saw it but you are selectively blind - i know all religions want to impose their beliefs on everyone else. They all want everyone else to be just like them. Its how it works. However the threat in australia is the xtians not the muslims. The xtians are closer to imposing their crap on the rest of us than the muslims........... What rot Look @ how they are trying to impost their "gay is evil" and "abortion is murder" and etc on ppl. Western govts are open to xtian lobby groups and not muslim ones. Therefore xtians are more of a threat. SOB

And atheist like you are trying to impose their "gay is normal" and "abortion is a choice"  etc on people. Since those claims seem to be more accepted today than a hundred years ago, should we conclude that atheist are more of a threat than anyone else?

Would a more logical assumption be that many atheist and Christians have different world views, and both have a voice in a secular country?

You seem to want to impose your worldview on everyone else but claim that anyone who disagrees should shut up.

Frances wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 9:46am:

I've reached the point now where I don't even bother reading anything SOB posts concerning religion.  It's invariably bigoted, uninformed rubbish.

As distinct from posts not concerning religion???

Trendy atheists only take those positions because it opposes the religious' pre-existing positions.

Atheists purposely take a stance they know will create conflict, and then blame the other side for holding the views they have always held.  Whether you like what they preach, at least their principles are based on a foundation of natural law...as opposed to (trendy)atheists whos beliefs are based on a foundation of being a jerk.

Quantum wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 11:46am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 10:02am: Sprintcyclist wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 8:09am: Quote: ......Like i have said several time and Abu saw it but you are selectively blind - i know all religions want to impose their beliefs on everyone else. They all want everyone else to be just like them. Its how it works. However the threat in australia is the xtians not the muslims. The xtians are closer to imposing their crap on the rest of us than the muslims........... What rot Look @ how they are trying to impost their "gay is evil" and "abortion is murder" and etc on ppl. Western govts are open to xtian lobby groups and not muslim ones. Therefore xtians are more of a threat. SOB And atheist like you are trying to impose their "gay is normal" and "abortion is a choice"  etc on people. Since those claims seem to be more accepted today than a hundred years ago, should we conclude that atheist are more of a threat than anyone else? Would a more logical assumption be that many atheist and Christians have different world views, and both have a voice in a secular country? You seem to want to impose your worldview on everyone else but claim that anyone who disagrees should shut up.

Its not am imposition when it doesnt effect anyone else. "gay is normal" doesnt effect anyone but gays. On the other hand stopping them from being equal does effect them.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 12:34pm:

Quantum wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 11:46am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 10:02am: Sprintcyclist wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 8:09am: Quote: ......Like i have said several time and Abu saw it but you are selectively blind - i know all religions want to impose their beliefs on everyone else. They all want everyone else to be just like them. Its how it works. However the threat in australia is the xtians not the muslims. The xtians are closer to imposing their crap on the rest of us than the muslims........... What rot Look @ how they are trying to impost their "gay is evil" and "abortion is murder" and etc on ppl. Western govts are open to xtian lobby groups and not muslim ones. Therefore xtians are more of a threat. SOB And atheist like you are trying to impose their "gay is normal" and "abortion is a choice"  etc on people. Since those claims seem to be more accepted today than a hundred years ago, should we conclude that atheist are more of a threat than anyone else? Would a more logical assumption be that many atheist and Christians have different world views, and both have a voice in a secular country? You seem to want to impose your worldview on everyone else but claim that anyone who disagrees should shut up. Its not am imposition when it doesnt effect anyone else. "gay is normal" doesnt effect anyone but gays. On the other hand stopping them from being equal does effect them. SOB

It also affects normal people.

Soren wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 12:36pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 12:34pm: Quantum wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 11:46am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 10:02am: Sprintcyclist wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 8:09am: Quote: ......Like i have said several time and Abu saw it but you are selectively blind - i know all religions want to impose their beliefs on everyone else. They all want everyone else to be just like them. Its how it works. However the threat in australia is the xtians not the muslims. The xtians are closer to imposing their crap on the rest of us than the muslims........... What rot Look @ how they are trying to impost their "gay is evil" and "abortion is murder" and etc on ppl. Western govts are open to xtian lobby groups and not muslim ones. Therefore xtians are more of a threat. SOB And atheist like you are trying to impose their "gay is normal" and "abortion is a choice"  etc on people. Since those claims seem to be more accepted today than a hundred years ago, should we conclude that atheist are more of a threat than anyone else? Would a more logical assumption be that many atheist and Christians have different world views, and both have a voice in a secular country? You seem to want to impose your worldview on everyone else but claim that anyone who disagrees should shut up. Its not am imposition when it doesnt effect anyone else. "gay is normal" doesnt effect anyone but gays. On the other hand stopping them from being equal does effect them. SOB It also affects normal people.

Yes gays are normal ppl. It doesnt effect ppl who are not gay though.

SOB

Yes it does.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 12:57pm:

Soren wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 12:36pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 12:34pm: Quantum wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 11:46am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 10:02am: Sprintcyclist wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 8:09am: Quote: ......Like i have said several time and Abu saw it but you are selectively blind - i know all religions want to impose their beliefs on everyone else. They all want everyone else to be just like them. Its how it works. However the threat in australia is the xtians not the muslims. The xtians are closer to imposing their crap on the rest of us than the muslims........... What rot Look @ how they are trying to impost their "gay is evil" and "abortion is murder" and etc on ppl. Western govts are open to xtian lobby groups and not muslim ones. Therefore xtians are more of a threat. SOB And atheist like you are trying to impose their "gay is normal" and "abortion is a choice"  etc on people. Since those claims seem to be more accepted today than a hundred years ago, should we conclude that atheist are more of a threat than anyone else? Would a more logical assumption be that many atheist and Christians have different world views, and both have a voice in a secular country? You seem to want to impose your worldview on everyone else but claim that anyone who disagrees should shut up. Its not am imposition when it doesnt effect anyone else. "gay is normal" doesnt effect anyone but gays. On the other hand stopping them from being equal does effect them. SOB It also affects normal people. Yes gays are normal ppl. It doesnt effect ppl who are not gay though. SOB

Gays are not 'normals'. They are gays. They wouldn't call themselves gays if they were 'normals'.

... wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 1:04pm:

Yes it does.

lol - how?

SOB

Soren wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 1:17pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 12:57pm: Soren wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 12:36pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 12:34pm: Quantum wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 11:46am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 10:02am: Sprintcyclist wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 8:09am: Quote: ......Like i have said several time and Abu saw it but you are selectively blind - i know all religions want to impose their beliefs on everyone else. They all want everyone else to be just like them. Its how it works. However the threat in australia is the xtians not the muslims. The xtians are closer to imposing their crap on the rest of us than the muslims........... What rot Look @ how they are trying to impost their "gay is evil" and "abortion is murder" and etc on ppl. Western govts are open to xtian lobby groups and not muslim ones. Therefore xtians are more of a threat. SOB And atheist like you are trying to impose their "gay is normal" and "abortion is a choice"  etc on people. Since those claims seem to be more accepted today than a hundred years ago, should we conclude that atheist are more of a threat than anyone else? Would a more logical assumption be that many atheist and Christians have different world views, and both have a voice in a secular country? You seem to want to impose your worldview on everyone else but claim that anyone who disagrees should shut up. Its not am imposition when it doesnt effect anyone else. "gay is normal" doesnt effect anyone but gays. On the other hand stopping them from being equal does effect them. SOB It also affects normal people. Yes gays are normal ppl. It doesnt effect ppl who are not gay though. SOB Gays are not 'normals'. They are gays. They wouldn't call themselves gays if they were 'normals'.

They would be normal if they were equal. Its their inequality that sets them apart.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 1:18pm:

... wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 1:04pm: Yes it does. lol - how? SOB

I'll tell ya - right after you tell me how does "it" affect homos?

Quote:

They would be normal if they were equal. Its their inequality that sets them apart. SOB

Ahh.

Well that clears it all up then doesn't it?

Quote:

They would be normal if they were equal. Its their inequality that sets them apart. SOB

If my uncle was an aunt he wouldn't be.
But he is so he isn't.

SOBlogic, now everyone cry for my uncle.

Soren wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 1:17pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 12:57pm: Soren wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 12:36pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 12:34pm: Quantum wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 11:46am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 10:02am: Sprintcyclist wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 8:09am: Quote: ......Like i have said several time and Abu saw it but you are selectively blind - i know all religions want to impose their beliefs on everyone else. They all want everyone else to be just like them. Its how it works. However the threat in australia is the xtians not the muslims. The xtians are closer to imposing their crap on the rest of us than the muslims........... What rot Look @ how they are trying to impost their "gay is evil" and "abortion is murder" and etc on ppl. Western govts are open to xtian lobby groups and not muslim ones. Therefore xtians are more of a threat. SOB And atheist like you are trying to impose their "gay is normal" and "abortion is a choice"  etc on people. Since those claims seem to be more accepted today than a hundred years ago, should we conclude that atheist are more of a threat than anyone else? Would a more logical assumption be that many atheist and Christians have different world views, and both have a voice in a secular country? You seem to want to impose your worldview on everyone else but claim that anyone who disagrees should shut up. Its not am imposition when it doesnt effect anyone else. "gay is normal" doesnt effect anyone but gays. On the other hand stopping them from being equal does effect them. SOB It also affects normal people. Yes gays are normal ppl. It doesnt effect ppl who are not gay though. SOB Gays are not 'normals'. They are gays. They wouldn't call themselves gays if they were 'normals'.

'Normal' is a misnomer.....there is NO normal in the human classification...

Having 2 eyes is "normal".  The fact that some unfortunate people may have 1 or 3 doesn't change that.

Having 2 legs is "normal" - that some people have 0, 1, 3 or more doesn't change that.

And being sexually attracted to the opposite sex is normal - that some have different objects of attraction doesn't change that.

Now if you wanted to argue that homosexuality isn't "evil" I'd agree with you...but trying to combat these perceptions with outright lies like homosexuality being "normal" doesn't do the cause any favours. 

... wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 2:05pm:

Having 2 eyes is "normal".  The fact that some unfortunate people may have 1 or 3 doesn't change that. Having 2 legs is "normal" - that some people have 0, 1, 3 or more doesn't change that. And being sexually attracted to the opposite sex is normal - that some have different objects of attraction doesn't change that. Now if you wanted to argue that homosexuality isn't "evil" I'd agree with you...but trying to combat these perceptions with outright lies like homosexuality being "normal" doesn't do the cause any favours.

Yes it does....people are tall, short, fat, thin, pale, dark, blue eyed, brown eyed, green eyed, right handed, left handed, ambidexterous, heterosexual, homosexual.....it's ALL 'normal' within the range of human existence...

gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 2:13pm:

... wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 2:05pm: Having 2 eyes is "normal".  The fact that some unfortunate people may have 1 or 3 doesn't change that. Having 2 legs is "normal" - that some people have 0, 1, 3 or more doesn't change that. And being sexually attracted to the opposite sex is normal - that some have different objects of attraction doesn't change that. Now if you wanted to argue that homosexuality isn't "evil" I'd agree with you...but trying to combat these perceptions with outright lies like homosexuality being "normal" doesn't do the cause any favours.  Yes it does....people are tall, short, fat, thin, pale, dark, blue eyed, brown eyed, green eyed, right handed, left handed, ambidexterous, heterosexual, homosexual.....it's ALL 'normal' within the range of human existence...

The problem with this little slice of intellectual dishonesty is that everything becomes "normal".  But "normal" already has a meaning, quite at odds with your redefintion of the term.


Quote:

nor·mal   /ˈnɔrməl/ Show Spelled[nawr-muhl] Show IPA adjective 1. conforming to the standard or the common type; usual; not abnormal; regular; natural.

Just chooose another angle to argue from - nobody likes being lied to.  If you can't argue your stance without resorting to falsehoods, perhaps you should rethink whether it's worth arguing?

... wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 2:23pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 2:13pm: ... wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 2:05pm: Having 2 eyes is "normal".  The fact that some unfortunate people may have 1 or 3 doesn't change that. Having 2 legs is "normal" - that some people have 0, 1, 3 or more doesn't change that. And being sexually attracted to the opposite sex is normal - that some have different objects of attraction doesn't change that. Now if you wanted to argue that homosexuality isn't "evil" I'd agree with you...but trying to combat these perceptions with outright lies like homosexuality being "normal" doesn't do the cause any favours.  Yes it does....people are tall, short, fat, thin, pale, dark, blue eyed, brown eyed, green eyed, right handed, left handed, ambidexterous, heterosexual, homosexual.....it's ALL 'normal' within the range of human existence... The problem with this little slice of intellectual dishonesty is that everything becomes "normal".  But "normal" already has a meaning, quite at odds with your redefintion of the term. Quote: nor·mal   /ˈnɔrməl/ Show Spelled[nawr-muhl] Show IPA adjective 1. conforming to the standard or the common type; usual; not abnormal; regular; natural. Just chooose another angle to argue from - nobody likes being lied to.  If you can't argue your stance without resorting to falsehoods, perhaps you should rethink whether it's worth arguing?

AND?? there is no 'normal', in the concept of human....humans cover a whole range of things...the idea of 'the standard or the common type; usual; not abnormal; regular; natural.' is covered by human...there's no specific 'natural' thing with people...

I get the impression you know what youre arguing is wrong.  I think that stems from the fact that I am objectively correct.  But you're sticking firm.  I don't understand why, but it's not that unusual these days. 

Obviously you're too far immersed in doublethink to see reason, so I don't really know why I'm bothering, but I'll just leave you to ponder this:

If heteroseuxality isn't "normal" why is it a necessity for the survival of the species?

... wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 2:39pm:

I get the impression you know what youre arguing is wrong.  I think that stems from the fact that I am objectively correct.  But you're sticking firm.  I don't understand why, but it's not that unusual these days.  Obviously you're too far immersed in doublethink to see reason, so I don't really know why I'm bothering, but I'll just leave you to ponder this: If heteroseuxality isn't "normal" why is it a necessity for the survival of the species?

No, what I'm arguing isn't 'wrong'...and I didn't say that heterosexuality isn't 'normal'....

It's all part of the marvelous cycle of 'life'...
In the scheme of things....females being attracted to 'traditional' male triggers or males being attracted to 'traditional' female triggers (big boobs for females or muscles for males) is such a small 'deviation' that it's not worth worrying about...

If 5% or 10% of guys are attracted to guys, or 5% or 10% of girls are attracted to girls, it's really not going to affect the survival of the species....frogs and some fish spontaneously change sex in an environment with too much of one sex....mammals can't quite manage the physical shift...but what of it??.....

It won't affect YOU or ME.....except under religion...

Quote:

If 5% or 10% of guys are attracted to guys, or 5% or 10% of girls are attracted to girls, it's really not going to affect the survival of the species....

Nope, but that's not the issue.  The issue is you claiming that something practised by "5 or 10%" is "normal." 


Quote:

frogs and some fish spontaneously change sex in an environment with too much of one sex....

Good for them.  But we're not frogs or fish, we are humans. 


Quote:

mammals can't quite manage the physical shift...but what of it??.....

I dunno - what of it?  You're the one who feels the need to redefine the wordl around you so that homos can be "normal".  What's so fantatstic about being "normal" anyway?


Quote:

It won't affect YOU or ME.....except under religion...

It wouldn't affect me if you claimed you were the King of Siam either - but I'd still say you were lying.
For soemtrhing that is so insignificant, you sure do a lot of mental gymnastics to make it conform with your platitudes.  Why do you bother? 

Eye Color

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061027122029AA71bCC


Quote:

32% blue/grey irises 15% blue/grey/green irises with brown/yellow specks 12% green/light brown irises with minimal specks 16% brown irises with specks 25% dark brown irises Source(s): American Academy of Opthamology

So lets see only 12% in the world have green eyes. They must not be normal. Better stop them from marrying because it will effect everyone else if they do.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 3:31pm:

Eye Color http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061027122029AA71bCC Quote: 32% blue/grey irises 15% blue/grey/green irises with brown/yellow specks 12% green/light brown irises with minimal specks 16% brown irises with specks 25% dark brown irises Source(s): American Academy of Opthamology So lets see only 12% in the world have green eyes. They must not be normal. Better stop them from marrying because it will effect everyone else if they do. SOB

Eyes still perform the same function no matter what colour they are.  A better analogy would be blindness. 

Is blindness "normal"?

... wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 3:21pm:

[quote] It wouldn't affect me if you claimed you were the King of Siam either - but I'd still say you were lying. For soemtrhing that is so insignificant, you sure do a lot of mental gymnastics to make it conform with your platitudes.  Why do you bother?

Simply to irritate YOU....Gay marriage won't affect anyone other than gay people...so it's really not worth worrying about.....whhen it becomes compulsory, THEN I'll bother to get upset and start spitting vitrol...

gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 3:54pm:

... wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 3:21pm: [quote] It wouldn't affect me if you claimed you were the King of Siam either - but I'd still say you were lying. For soemtrhing that is so insignificant, you sure do a lot of mental gymnastics to make it conform with your platitudes.  Why do you bother? Simply to irritate YOU....Gay marriage won't affect anyone other than gay people...so it's really not worth worrying about.....whhen it becomes compulsory, THEN I'll bother to get upset and start spitting vitrol...

That's a bit of a jump there - I thought you were arguing that homosexuality is "normal".  When did the argument shift from that to whether or not homorriage should be allowed?

For the record, IF the government must have a say in what unions it formally recognises, then it should draw distinctions between different ypes of unions.  Just as we don't say that your relationship with your best friend is "just the same" as that with your wife, so we shouldn't say that a relationship between 2 people of the same sex (ie with no higher utility or function than each parties gratification) is "just the same" as one with 2 people of the opposite sex.


What's the bet I have some rube asking "whats the difference"  Before you type out such inanity, just follow this link and all will be explained.

http://www.amazon.com/Where-Did-I-Come-From/dp/0818402539

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 1:18pm:

They would be normal if they were equal. Its their inequality that sets them apart. SOB

So they are 'gay' because they are unequal? Doesn't make sense. They should call themselves 'stodgy'.

... wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 3:58pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 3:54pm: ... wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 3:21pm: [quote] It wouldn't affect me if you claimed you were the King of Siam either - but I'd still say you were lying. For soemtrhing that is so insignificant, you sure do a lot of mental gymnastics to make it conform with your platitudes.  Why do you bother? Simply to irritate YOU....Gay marriage won't affect anyone other than gay people...so it's really not worth worrying about.....whhen it becomes compulsory, THEN I'll bother to get upset and start spitting vitrol... That's a bit of a jump there - I thought you were arguing that homosexuality is "normal".  When did the argument shift from that to whether or not homorriage should be allowed?

I kind of am...It is normal, within the amount of variation in the human race.....Skin colour, religion, sexual preference ( within the species) isn't important...

... wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 2:05pm:

Having 2 eyes is "normal".  The fact that some unfortunate people may have 1 or 3 doesn't change that. Having 2 legs is "normal" - that some people have 0, 1, 3 or more doesn't change that. And being sexually attracted to the opposite sex is normal - that some have different objects of attraction doesn't change that. Now if you wanted to argue that homosexuality isn't "evil" I'd agree with you...but trying to combat these perceptions with outright lies like homosexuality being "normal" doesn't do the cause any favours.

not that I'm looking to buy into such a stupid argument, but I remember once hearing about a study that determined if you isolate 2 or 3 men from childhood, in an area outside the influence of other people, they will invariably develop homosexual tendancies ... if such a thing is true, then your argument that homosexuality is not normal is utter rubbish, we are taught that man developes a bond with women and not to other men, it is not, according to this study, a normal part of our DNA.

Now, this is a study I had heard of many years ago ... don't ask me to provide a link because I don't have one ,and I don't even know how reliable the story or my memory of it is ... but what if?

Quote:

sexual preference ( within the species) isn't important...

If you want the species to last for longer than 1 generation it is *quite* important.

You do know why we even have reproductive organs don't you? 
(hint:  reproductive)

John Smith wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 4:07pm:

I remember once hearing about a study that determined if you isolate 2 or 3 men from childhood, in an area outside the influence of other people, they will invariably develop homosexual tendancies ...

How did that get through the research ethics committee??

:D

John Smith wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 4:07pm:

... wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 2:05pm: Having 2 eyes is "normal".  The fact that some unfortunate people may have 1 or 3 doesn't change that. Having 2 legs is "normal" - that some people have 0, 1, 3 or more doesn't change that. And being sexually attracted to the opposite sex is normal - that some have different objects of attraction doesn't change that. Now if you wanted to argue that homosexuality isn't "evil" I'd agree with you...but trying to combat these perceptions with outright lies like homosexuality being "normal" doesn't do the cause any favours. not that I'm looking to buy into such a stupid argument, but I remember once hearing about a study that determined if you isolate 2 or 3 men from childhood, in an area outside the influence of other people, they will invariably develop homosexual tendancies ... if such a thing is true, then your argument that homosexuality is not normal is utter rubbish, we are taught that man developes a bond with women and not to other men, it is not, according to this study, a normal part of our DNA. Now, this is a study I had heard of many years ago ... don't ask me to provide a link because I don't have one ,and I don't even know how reliable the story or my memory of it is ... but what if?

This study could be summed up as:

If you subject people to unnatural conditions, they will develop unnatural traits.

No great surprise there.  I'd expect if someone was raised in a gorilla troop without outside influence, they'd probably find themselves attracted to gorillas.  Does it then follow that human-gorilla sex is "equal" to some good old fashioned human-on-human action?

... wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 4:10pm:

Quote: sexual preference ( within the species) isn't important... If you want the species to last for longer than 1 generation it is *quite* important. You do know why we even have reproductive organs don't you?  (hint:  reproductive)

Not really...the numbers aren't any where near a dangerous level....You might as well classify masturbation as counter productive...When and IF the birth rate drops due to homosexuality, I'll get concerned..but that hasn't happened yet, and may never happen...gay people do still conceive and have children...


I'm much more concerned about mindless bigotry than I am about the 'decline and fall' of the human race....

... wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 4:15pm:

John Smith wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 4:07pm: ... wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 2:05pm: Having 2 eyes is "normal".  The fact that some unfortunate people may have 1 or 3 doesn't change that. Having 2 legs is "normal" - that some people have 0, 1, 3 or more doesn't change that. And being sexually attracted to the opposite sex is normal - that some have different objects of attraction doesn't change that. Now if you wanted to argue that homosexuality isn't "evil" I'd agree with you...but trying to combat these perceptions with outright lies like homosexuality being "normal" doesn't do the cause any favours. not that I'm looking to buy into such a stupid argument, but I remember once hearing about a study that determined if you isolate 2 or 3 men from childhood, in an area outside the influence of other people, they will invariably develop homosexual tendancies ... if such a thing is true, then your argument that homosexuality is not normal is utter rubbish, we are taught that man developes a bond with women and not to other men, it is not, according to this study, a normal part of our DNA. Now, this is a study I had heard of many years ago ... don't ask me to provide a link because I don't have one ,and I don't even know how reliable the story or my memory of it is ... but what if? This study could be summed up as: If you subject people to unnatural conditions, they will develop unnatural traits. No great surprise there.  I'd expect if someone was raised in a gorilla troop without outside influence, they'd probably find themselves attracted to gorillas.  Does it then follow that human-gorilla sex is "equal" to some good old fashioned human-on-human action?

but the question has to be is it a natural trait if it has to be taught? and don't mistake the act of procreation with forming a loving bond with someone .. the two are completely unrelated .......  a lot of gay guys will have the sex with a woman just for the purpose of having kids ...

John Smith wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 4:27pm:

but the question has to be is it a natural trait if it has to be taught? and don't mistake the act of procreation with forming a loving bond with someone .. the two are completely unrelated .......  a lot of gay guys will have the sex with a woman just for the purpose of having kids ...

It doesn't follow that it has to be "taught".

The experiment unnaturally deprives them of something they would otherwise be exposed to (females).  Normal exposure to something isn't "teaching" anything in itself, it facilitates normal development.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 4:22pm:

You might as well classify masturbation as counter productive...

Only for men though......

Frances wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 4:36pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 4:22pm: You might as well classify masturbation as counter productive... Only for men though......

Masturbation is just a short-ciruciting of the positive feedback loop used to drive reproduction.  Such an important job is best not left to chance, so mother nature, (or god, charles darwin - whoever) made it so that sex would feel good - reward us, giving us reason to seek it out.  But we smart apes learned how to get pleasure without the responsibility.  Still, that doesn't change it's original purpose. 

Frances wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 4:36pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 4:22pm: You might as well classify masturbation as counter productive... Only for men though......

Why?? Masturabtion is sex without reproduction...it applies equally to men AND women...

gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 4:22pm:

I'm much more concerned about mindless bigotry than I am about the 'decline and fall' of the human race....

I'm more concerned with just plain mindlessness...hence why I am picking apart the steady stream of platitudes that emanate from your keyboard.

... wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 3:58pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 3:54pm: ... wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 3:21pm: Quote: It wouldn't affect me if you claimed you were the King of Siam either - but I'd still say you were lying. For soemtrhing that is so insignificant, you sure do a lot of mental gymnastics to make it conform with your platitudes.  Why do you bother? Simply to irritate YOU....Gay marriage won't affect anyone other than gay people...so it's really not worth worrying about.....whhen it becomes compulsory, THEN I'll bother to get upset and start spitting vitrol... That's a bit of a jump there - I thought you were arguing that homosexuality is "normal".  When did the argument shift from that to whether or not homorriage should be allowed? For the record, IF the government must have a say in what unions it formally recognises, then it should draw distinctions between different ypes of unions.  Just as we don't say that your relationship with your best friend is "just the same" as that with your wife, so we shouldn't say that a relationship between 2 people of the same sex (ie with no higher utility or function than each parties gratification) is "just the same" as one with 2 people of the opposite sex. What's the bet I have some rube asking "whats the difference"  Before you type out such inanity, just follow this link and all will be explained. http://www.amazon.com/Where-Did-I-Come-From/dp/0818402539 Gizmo [quote]Gay marriage won't affect anyone other than gay people

See that was the whole point until you came along with your strawmen.

SOB

Soren wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 4:01pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 1:18pm: They would be normal if they were equal. Its their inequality that sets them apart. SOB So they are 'gay' because they are unequal? Doesn't make sense. They should call themselves 'stodgy'.

Obviously not even pretending to be discussing any topics @ hand as usual.

SOB

... wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 4:51pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 4:22pm: I'm much more concerned about mindless bigotry than I am about the 'decline and fall' of the human race.... I'm more concerned with just plain mindlessness...hence why I am picking apart the steady stream of platitudes that emanate from your keyboard.

Nope doesn't work that way....

I like the opposite sex...a lot, but I'm not going to bother burning people who are 'different' at the stake...

There are no 'platitudes'  involved...
Once we go down the path of condemning people for variegating from a conceived 'norm' where dfo we stop?? (ok THAT is a platitude)...will we end up disenfrancising people who do (or don't) take milk in their coffee???

Wasn't my strawman.  Theres a good reason you could call me a reactionary.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 4:57pm:

... wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 4:51pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 4:22pm: I'm much more concerned about mindless bigotry than I am about the 'decline and fall' of the human race.... I'm more concerned with just plain mindlessness...hence why I am picking apart the steady stream of platitudes that emanate from your keyboard. Nope doesn't work that way.... I like the opposite sex...a lot, but I'm not going to bother burning people who are 'different' at the stake...

Good.  Neither am I. 


Quote:

There are no 'platitudes'  involved...

Weelll....I think a few of your utterances fall firmly in the platitude camp.  But no matter - forgiven.


Quote:

Once we go down the path of condemning people for variegating from a conceived 'norm' where dfo we stop?? (ok THAT is a platitude)...will we end up disenfrancising people who do (or don't) take milk in their coffee???

Who's "condemning" anyone?  If I said "normal" people can't lift 3 times their bodyweight, how does that translate to "condemning" those that can? 


http://media.keprtv.com/images/120729_om_yun_chol_660.jpg

Not normal.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 4:51pm:

Frances wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 4:36pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 4:22pm: You might as well classify masturbation as counter productive... Only for men though...... Why?? Masturabtion is sex without reproduction...it applies equally to men AND women...

But doesn’t male masturbation waste reproductive material (i.e. semen) and, as a result, temporarily reduce the ability of the man to reproduce?

In the case of a woman, there is no reproductive material wasted in masturbation.  In fact, you could argue that, rather than being counterproductive, it could actually aid the reproductive process, as penetration would be easier…..

I think that spot has an agenda to portray religion as the heart of every problem. Part of this is to portray every religion as equally bad. Therefor any hint that any particular religion may be more of a problem has to be countered. So you will only see the following claims from spot:

1) Sweeping generalisations about all religions. If you push him to criticise any specific aspect of Islam, this is all you will get.

2) Specific criticism of other religions and other religious people (to attempt to 'level the playing field' so all religions are equally bad).

3) Not all Muslims are the same. While sweeping generalisations about religion are OK, spot does not allow any sort of generalisation about Islam or Muslims and tries to stamp it out of discussions.

4) Muslims cannot possibly be the problem because the ones in malaysia (eg his servants) were not hostile towards him.

5) Denial. If faced with an unpalatable truth about what a specific Muslim believes, Spot will substitute that truth with his own version. He simply ignores what they actually say, and attempts to read the opposite into what they do not say.


Quote:

Look @ how they are trying to impost their "gay is evil" and "abortion is murder" and etc on ppl.

Yet when Muslims talk about rejecting freedom and deomocracy, imposing Shariah law on people and killing people for spostasy, spot turns the other way and pretends they said the opposite.


Quote:

Western govts are open to xtian lobby groups and not muslim ones. Therefore xtians are more of a threat.

Surely it is what they might do with that power that matters? Yet you refuse to acknowledge this, even though it plays a major role in just about every war that is happening today.


Quote:

Its not am imposition when it doesnt effect anyone else.

Can you explain why you refuse to acknowledge how Muslims wanting to kill people for apostasy might have an impact on other people - like for example the people they kill?

... wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 4:36pm:

John Smith wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 4:27pm: but the question has to be is it a natural trait if it has to be taught? and don't mistake the act of procreation with forming a loving bond with someone .. the two are completely unrelated .......  a lot of gay guys will have the sex with a woman just for the purpose of having kids ... It doesn't follow that it has to be "taught". The experiment unnaturally deprives them of something they would otherwise be exposed to (females).  Normal exposure to something isn't "teaching" anything in itself, it facilitates normal development.

normal exposure  ::: ie, watching what other do  .... isn't that a taught behaviour?

gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 4:05pm:

sexual preference ( within the species) isn't important...

Why do you qualify this?

On what grounds can you set that limit but not the limit of marriage = man + woman?

It was never spelled out anywhere that marriage is between men and women because it was so obvious that it didn't need spelling out.

ANd that's what the homo fraternity exploited - it was never spelled out, they figure, therefore it is not limited to men and women.

SO now, to your little species-centric arbitrary qualifier: it has never been spelled out any where that marriage is for humans only, so why do you put this limit on it? WHat is your incontrovertible grounding for this? Surely not tradition? Surely not the ordinary meaning of words? Surely not because you are, after all, afraid of the slippery slope?
Of course you aren't. But why then?
If you can't limit marriage to men and women, how can you limit it to humans only?

Quantum wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 11:46am:

[to SPOT;] You seem to want to impose your worldview on everyone else but claim that anyone who disagrees should shut up.

Nice one Quantum !!    ;)




+++


Open a dictionary [SPOT!];

bigot = = a person who is prejudiced in their views and intolerant of the opinions of others.


Bigots, are those people who are,
".....intolerant of the opinions of others."




SPOT,

People like yourself, ARE EXAMPLES OF INTOLERANT [and often violent, but always unacknowledged] BIGOTRY.




+++


SPOT,

IN RECENT DECADES THE MEANING OF MANY ENGLISH WORDS HAVE BEEN PERVERTED, BY PEOPLE LIKE YOURSELF.

e.g.

I am Yadda.

And i am a very gay person.

[........but i am not a chocolate miner, or an ar$e licker, or a former senator from Tas.]





SPOT,

People like yourself, ARE NOT LIBERAL [i.e. 'tolerant'] in your worldview.

The only time people like yourself show any semblance of tolerance, is when your opinion coincides with the opinion of another person.

[......that is not 'liberalism'. But is more akin to a mutual admiration society.]

But then immediately another person expresses an opinion which does not coincide with your own opinion, you will abuse the person who express an opinion which does not coincide with your own opinion.






Dictionary;
liberal = =
· adj.
1 respectful and accepting of behaviour or opinions different from one’s own; open to new ideas.         (of a society, law, etc.) favourable to individual rights and freedoms.
2 (in a political context) favouring individual liberty, free trade, and moderate political and social reform.
3 (of education) concerned with broadening general knowledge and experience.
4 (especially of an interpretation of a law) broadly construed; not strictly literal.
5 given, used, or giving in generous amounts.
· n.
1 a person of liberal views.
2 (Liberal) (in the UK) a Liberal Democrat.



SPOT,

Here is an image of yourself, in all of your 'liberal' finery, and among all of your 'liberal' friends.
click to open...
http://featherfiles.aviary.com/2012-08-04/f77694d11/d446ff5841c0448e9b9f72623d145061_hires.png

image source....
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/08/the-war-for-freedom-on-the-streets-of-stockholm.html






+++

Isaiah 32:5
The vile person shall be no more called liberal, nor the churl said to be bountiful.
6  For the vile person will speak villany, and his heart will work iniquity, to practise hypocrisy, and to utter error against the LORD, to make empty the soul of the hungry, and he will cause the drink of the thirsty to fail.
7  The instruments also of the churl are evil: he deviseth wicked devices to destroy the poor with lying words, even when the needy speaketh right.
8  But the liberal deviseth liberal things; and by liberal things shall he stand.

Tolerator

Quote:

Who's "condemning" anyone?  If I said "normal" people can't lift 3 times their bodyweight, how does that translate to "condemning" those that can?

Yeah you were saying gays arent normal though. They are normal they just have a different sexual preference like having green eyes. A minor variation in the basic human model.

Freediver

Quote:

I think that spot has an agenda to portray religion as the heart of every problem. Part of this is to portray every religion as equally bad. Therefor any hint that any particular religion may be more of a problem has to be countered. So you will only see the following claims from spot:

Haha every problem? Feeling threatened freediver? Every religion is equally bad but you want your religion to be exempt from this. Sorry its not - its just as silly as all the others. Whatever your religion is (obviously some form of xtianity).

Freediver

Quote:

Blah blah blah blah points:

All religion are bad. All religions use their invisible entities as excuses for whatever they want to do. the holy books are like google in that you can find a verse to support any opinion you want because they are so vague they can mean anything. Just call it "interpretation".

I just point out that they are all equally as bad because you pick on 1 above the others and hypocritically dont admit your own religion is the same. you want to restrict muslim women wearing hijabs but dont want to stop xtians knocking on ppls doors and bothering them. Nuns also wear "hijabs" but not in australia since 1983 cause the pope said aussie nuns didnt have to wear them cause its too hot. In the rest of the world they do though.

Freediver

Quote:

5) Denial. If faced with an unpalatable truth about what a specific Muslim believes, Spot will substitute that truth with his own version. He simply ignores what they actually say, and attempts to read the opposite into what they do not say.

Hahahahahaha! A lil projection from the king of twisting and turning and quoting out of context . . . .

Freediver

Quote:

Yet when Muslims talk about rejecting freedom and deomocracy, imposing Shariah law on people and killing people for spostasy, spot turns the other way and pretends they said the opposite.

They arent doing this in australia - unlike the xtians who are wanting to restrict ppls freedom. Xtian groups are lobbying parliament allt he time for ending abortion, banning gays rights, putting religion in schools, etc etc . . .. oh yeah and banning the head covering of muslims - how about the jews? Are they allowed to wear their lil hats to school?

Freediver

Quote:

Surely it is what they might do with that power that matters? Yet you refuse to acknowledge this, even though it plays a major role in just about every war that is happening today.

Yeah. Howard brought religion back into schools. Gillard is stopping gay marriage. Newman REVERSED gay civil unions.

Supposedly me:

Quote:

Its not am imposition when it doesnt effect anyone else.

Freediver

Quote:

Can you explain why you refuse to acknowledge how Muslims wanting to kill people for apostasy might have an impact on other people - like for example the people they kill?

I dont know where you got that quote from. Looks like something i said about gay marriage.

SOB

Soren wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 9:49pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 4:05pm: sexual preference ( within the species) isn't important... Why do you qualify this? On what grounds can you set that limit but not the limit of marriage = man + woman?

Because animals cant give consent. It would be rape on another species. Within our species and consenting adults wtf is wrong with it?

SOB

Quantum:

Quote:

[to SPOT;] You seem to want to impose your worldview on everyone else but claim that anyone who disagrees should shut up.

When have i ever told anyone to shut up? You make a lot of accusations and you never back them up. Oh i did tell you to apologise or back up your claims though didnt i - dont see any apology or backing up anywhere - just more accusations.

Yadda

Quote:

Bigots, are those people who are, ".....intolerant of the opinions of others."

Where am i not tolerant of the opinions of others? So if i debate or disagree im intolerant?

Yadda

Quote:

I am Yadda. And i am a very gay person.

lol.


Quote:

But then immediately another person expresses an opinion which does not coincide with your own opinion, you will abuse the person who express an opinion which does not coincide with your own opinion.

Hmm lil bit of projection from yadda now. Show me where i have abused you not in self defense. you are the one that abuses as an argument.

Yadda

Quote:

Blah blah blah blah liberal blah blah

i have never claimed to be liberal. Even with your redefinition of the term.

SOB

you are the winner SOB !!
A thread on you - 4 pages. Well done.  :-)

I think mine was only 1 page  :-(

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 7^th, 2012 at 5:30am:

Soren wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 9:49pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 4:05pm: sexual preference ( within the species) isn't important... Why do you qualify this? On what grounds can you set that limit but not the limit of marriage = man + woman? Because animals cant give consent. It would be rape on another species. Within our species and consenting adults wtf is wrong with it? SOB

Where does it say anywhere that marriage has to be based on consent? It is not written anywhere that it has to be between man and woman and it is not written anywhere that it has to be consensual.

SO on what basis are you introducing 'consent' as a requirement when 'man + woman' is not a requirement?

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 7^th, 2012 at 5:36am:

Quantum: Quote: [to SPOT;] You seem to want to impose your worldview on everyone else but claim that anyone who disagrees should shut up. When have i ever told anyone to shut up? You make a lot of accusations and you never back them up. Oh i did tell you to apologise or back up your claims though didnt i - dont see any apology or backing up anywhere - just more accusations.

You accuse Christians of being a threat to this country due to their worldview. Christians are the majority of this nation, but you don't want them to have any say in how it is run.

If you don't want Christians to shut up, then what exactly is your problem? Your happy for gays to lobby the government, but Christians shouldn't. How is that not trying to shut anyone up?

Soren wrote on Aug 7^th, 2012 at 9:47am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 7th, 2012 at 5:30am: Soren wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 9:49pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 4:05pm: sexual preference ( within the species) isn't important... Why do you qualify this? On what grounds can you set that limit but not the limit of marriage = man + woman? Because animals cant give consent. It would be rape on another species. Within our species and consenting adults wtf is wrong with it? SOB Where does it say anywhere that marriage has to be based on consent? It is not written anywhere that it has to be between man and woman and it is not written anywhere that it has to be consensual. SO on what basis are you introducing 'consent' as a requirement when 'man + woman' is not a requirement?

that doesnt say "marriage"it says "sexual preference" and in the context of marriage i expect he put it that way so you cant say the old mantra "then why cant animals get married" crapola.

SOB

Quantum wrote on Aug 7^th, 2012 at 9:50am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 7th, 2012 at 5:36am: Quantum: Quote: [to SPOT;] You seem to want to impose your worldview on everyone else but claim that anyone who disagrees should shut up. When have i ever told anyone to shut up? You make a lot of accusations and you never back them up. Oh i did tell you to apologise or back up your claims though didnt i - dont see any apology or backing up anywhere - just more accusations. You accuse Christians of being a threat to this country due to their worldview. Christians are the majority of this nation, but you don't want them to have any say in how it is run. If you don't want Christians to shut up, then what exactly is your problem? Your happy for gays to lobby the government, but Christians shouldn't. How is that not trying to shut anyone up?

Ahhh i see. Well why should religion have anything to do with politics? Hmmmm? And if it did have anything to do with politics which religion should?

Basically though:

a) religions dont pay tax why should they have a say?
b) religion is a bunch of primitive fairy tales that shouldn't be forced onto anyone - supposed to be between you and your fairy king
c) how do you decide which sect of which religion should dictate the rules?

SOB

Bollocks, as always.  They were arguing about 'normal' and gizmo, like you, argued that homos are normal and so marriage for them is normal. But he qualified normal.

ARe you both saying that thousands of goatherds and shepherds are evil perverts and inferior to you just because they shag livestock? Very judgemental and oppressing of you, mother. Very judgemental indeed.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 7^th, 2012 at 10:34am:

that doesnt say "marriage"it says "sexual preference" and in the context of marriage i expect he put it that way so you cant say the old mantra "then why cant animals get married" crapola.

As opposed to the "then why can't 2 blokes get married" crapola?  What's the distinction?

... wrote on Aug 7^th, 2012 at 11:10am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 7th, 2012 at 10:34am: that doesnt say "marriage"it says "sexual preference" and in the context of marriage i expect he put it that way so you cant say the old mantra "then why cant animals get married" crapola. As opposed to the "then why can't 2 blokes get married" crapola?  What's the distinction?

Well animals arent human is the distinction silly.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 7^th, 2012 at 11:25am:

... wrote on Aug 7th, 2012 at 11:10am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 7th, 2012 at 10:34am: that doesnt say "marriage"it says "sexual preference" and in the context of marriage i expect he put it that way so you cant say the old mantra "then why cant animals get married" crapola. As opposed to the "then why can't 2 blokes get married" crapola?  What's the distinction? Well animals arent human is the distinction silly. SOB

I know.

And men aren't women either, yet you argue that one can "stand in" for the other.  Where is it written that animals can't "stand in" for one partner in a mariage in the same way?

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 7^th, 2012 at 11:25am:

... wrote on Aug 7th, 2012 at 11:10am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 7th, 2012 at 10:34am: that doesnt say "marriage"it says "sexual preference" and in the context of marriage i expect he put it that way so you cant say the old mantra "then why cant animals get married" crapola. As opposed to the "then why can't 2 blokes get married" crapola?  What's the distinction? Well animals arent human is the distinction silly. SOB

are you inferring aminals don't have feelings ?
oh, humans are a sunset of animals.
so, non-human animals then. ...........

... wrote on Aug 7^th, 2012 at 11:40am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 7th, 2012 at 11:25am: ... wrote on Aug 7th, 2012 at 11:10am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 7th, 2012 at 10:34am: that doesnt say "marriage"it says "sexual preference" and in the context of marriage i expect he put it that way so you cant say the old mantra "then why cant animals get married" crapola. As opposed to the "then why can't 2 blokes get married" crapola?  What's the distinction? Well animals arent human is the distinction silly. SOB I know. And men aren't women either, yet you argue that one can "stand in" for the other.  Where is it written that animals can't "stand in" for one partner in a mariage in the same way?

consent

SOB

PS full circle i see

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 7^th, 2012 at 10:40am:

Quantum wrote on Aug 7th, 2012 at 9:50am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 7th, 2012 at 5:36am: Quantum: Quote: [to SPOT;] You seem to want to impose your worldview on everyone else but claim that anyone who disagrees should shut up. When have i ever told anyone to shut up? You make a lot of accusations and you never back them up. Oh i did tell you to apologise or back up your claims though didnt i - dont see any apology or backing up anywhere - just more accusations. You accuse Christians of being a threat to this country due to their worldview. Christians are the majority of this nation, but you don't want them to have any say in how it is run. If you don't want Christians to shut up, then what exactly is your problem? Your happy for gays to lobby the government, but Christians shouldn't. How is that not trying to shut anyone up? Ahhh i see. Well why should religion have anything to do with politics? Hmmmm? And if it did have anything to do with politics which religion should? Basically though: a) religions dont pay tax why should they have a say? b) religion is a bunch of primitive fairy tales that shouldn't be forced onto anyone - supposed to be between you and your fairy king c) how do you decide which sect of which religion should dictate the rules? SOB

Worse reply yet.

Christians pay tax. Considering how many Christians there are in this country; and how many very wealthy Christians are in this country; then Christians probably pay more tax then any other group. So how do they not get a say?

As always you mix entities with individuals when it suits your argument. Does some gay group or rally asking for marriage equality pay tax? Do they lobby the govenrment? So why can they have a say yet a group of Christians can not?

Likewise, you hide behind the word religion to support your case. You ask "how do you decide which sect of which religion should dictate the rules?", when the really question is, what worldview should we live by? Or how should we live in a society with many different views?

You avoide using worldview because atheism is a worldview. You use words like religion and atheism to make two different groups, that way you can set two different standards. That way you can claim that atheist can have a say, while all religions should remain quiet. Again, you want to silence and ridicule anyone who doesn't have the same worldview that you do.

Round n round we go.
Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 7^th, 2012 at 11:50am:

consent SOB PS full circle i see

Indeed round n round we go.  And round n round we will continue to go, until you admit that IF you accept the premise that a bloke can be someones wife, you will ALSO need to accept that the role of "wife" can be performed by animals, vegetables or minerals as well.

Soren wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 9:49pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 4:05pm: sexual preference ( within the species) isn't important... Why do you qualify this? On what grounds can you set that limit but not the limit of marriage = man + woman? It was never spelled out anywhere that marriage is between men and women because it was so obvious that it didn't need spelling out. ANd that's what the homo fraternity exploited - it was never spelled out, they figure, therefore it is not limited to men and women. SO now, to your little species-centric arbitrary qualifier: it has never been spelled out any where that marriage is for humans only, so why do you put this limit on it? WHat is your incontrovertible grounding for this? Surely not tradition? Surely not the ordinary meaning of words? Surely not because you are, after all, afraid of the slippery slope? Of course you aren't. But why then? If you can't limit marriage to men and women, how can you limit it to humans only?

Basically...I qualified it to avoid the (almost) automatic reference to incest of beastiality....which you have, naturally, brought up..

Quote:

Christians pay tax. Considering how many Christians there are in this country; and how many very wealthy Christians are in this country; then Christians probably pay more tax then any other group. So how do they not get a say?

Well organised religion and churches do not pay tax. that is what i have been saying all along that organised religion should stay out of politics. you front bottoms just try to confuse things by going in circles and quoting out of context and changing goalposts but that was my original statement and ive said it many times in here.


Quote:

So why can they have a say yet a group of Christians can not?

Gay groups dont call themselves charities. They dont pretend not to be interested in politics then try to impose their will on others. all they want is equal rights.


Quote:

Likewise, you hide behind the word religion to support your case. You ask "how do you decide which sect of which religion should dictate the rules?", when the really question is, what worldview should we live by? Or how should we live in a society with many different views?

No - my question was sarcastic because you were never going to answer it. Thing is if xtians wanna dictate rules to the rest of us then so will muslims and hindus and etc etc. Its all fairy tales. organised religion needs to stay out of the real world. It doesnt belong here.


Quote:

You avoide using worldview because atheism is a worldview. You use words like religion and atheism to make two different groups, that way you can set two different standards. That way you can claim that atheist can have a say, while all religions should remain quiet. Again, you want to silence and ridicule anyone who doesn't have the same worldview that you do.

Utter bullshit. Atheism is a lack of belief in fairy tales. It is not a worldview - its a lack of a fairy tale view.

i dont care wtf anyone believes or pretends to believe. Just dont bother other ppl with it and dont shove it down my childrens throats and stay away from politics.

SOB

... wrote on Aug 7^th, 2012 at 11:57am:

Round n round we go. Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 7th, 2012 at 11:50am: consent SOB PS full circle i see Indeed round n round we go.  And round n round we will continue to go, until you admit that IF you accept the premise that a bloke can be someones wife, you will ALSO need to accept that the role of "wife" can be performed by animals, vegetables or minerals as well.

So you dont understand the concept of consent. I am surprised you arent in jail.

BTW why wife? why not husband? lol you have problems mate.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 7^th, 2012 at 1:15pm:

... wrote on Aug 7th, 2012 at 11:57am: Round n round we go. Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 7th, 2012 at 11:50am: consent SOB PS full circle i see Indeed round n round we go.  And round n round we will continue to go, until you admit that IF you accept the premise that a bloke can be someones wife, you will ALSO need to accept that the role of "wife" can be performed by animals, vegetables or minerals as well. So you dont understand the concept of consent. I am surprised you arent in jail. BTW why wife? why not husband? lol you have problems mate. SOB

And round we go back to "consent" being the sticking point.

Of course, when I point out that many a 10 year old girl would consent to marrying a bloke, you'll say "but that's against the law" to which I'll reply "so was homosexuality a few short decades ago" to which you'll reply "yes but it is'nt now" to which I'll reply "so what's to stop paedos lobbying in the same way homos did" to which you'll reply "society doesn't accept paedos" to which I'll reply "they didn't accept homos either, yet lobbying can change that".................and so on and so forth.

Quote:

Utter bullshit. Atheism is a lack of belief in fairy tales. It is not a worldview - its a lack of a fairy tale view.

Modern (trendy) atheism is just another word for liberalism - a worldview complete with it's own set of fairytales. 

Where does it say that marriage must be based on consensus?

Soren wrote on Aug 7^th, 2012 at 2:18pm:

Where does it say that marriage must be based on consensus?

Pretty sure in australia unconsensual marriage is illegal

SOB

... wrote on Aug 7^th, 2012 at 2:17pm:

Quote: Utter bullshit. Atheism is a lack of belief in fairy tales. It is not a worldview - its a lack of a fairy tale view. Modern (trendy) atheism is just another word for liberalism - a worldview complete with it's own set of fairytales.

No there is no "worldview" associated with atheism. Its just a lack of belief. There are sme atheists who subscribe to whatever you mean by "liberalism" i guess but not all because it has nothing to do with atheism.

SOB

... wrote on Aug 7^th, 2012 at 2:12pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 7th, 2012 at 1:15pm: ... wrote on Aug 7th, 2012 at 11:57am: Round n round we go. Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 7th, 2012 at 11:50am: consent SOB PS full circle i see Indeed round n round we go.  And round n round we will continue to go, until you admit that IF you accept the premise that a bloke can be someones wife, you will ALSO need to accept that the role of "wife" can be performed by animals, vegetables or minerals as well. So you dont understand the concept of consent. I am surprised you arent in jail. BTW why wife? why not husband? lol you have problems mate. SOB And round we go back to "consent" being the sticking point. Of course, when I point out that many a 10 year old girl would consent to marrying a bloke, you'll say "but that's against the law" to which I'll reply "so was homosexuality a few short decades ago" to which you'll reply "yes but it is'nt now" to which I'll reply "so what's to stop paedos lobbying in the same way homos did" to which you'll reply "society doesn't accept paedos" to which I'll reply "they didn't accept homos either, yet lobbying can change that".................and so on and so forth.

Only because you ignored it. Consent is the point. a 10 year old cant give consent. An animal cant give consent. A human adult can.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 7^th, 2012 at 3:08pm:

... wrote on Aug 7th, 2012 at 2:17pm: Quote: Utter bullshit. Atheism is a lack of belief in fairy tales. It is not a worldview - its a lack of a fairy tale view. Modern (trendy) atheism is just another word for liberalism - a worldview complete with it's own set of fairytales.  No there is no "worldview" associated with atheism. Its just a lack of belief. There are sme atheists who subscribe to whatever you mean by "liberalism" i guess but not all because it has nothing to do with atheism. SOB

haha - some.
Try upwards of 95%.  Atheist is a code word for "leftwad drone".

So you're sticking with "consent" then.

OK.  Lets say an 18 year old bloke consented to marrying his mother.

All good then? 

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 7^th, 2012 at 3:06pm:

Soren wrote on Aug 7th, 2012 at 2:18pm: Where does it say that marriage must be based on consensus? Pretty sure in australia unconsensual marriage is illegal SOB

Didn't realise marriage was a purely Australian institutrion.

Soren wrote on Aug 7^th, 2012 at 3:23pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 7th, 2012 at 3:06pm: Soren wrote on Aug 7th, 2012 at 2:18pm: Where does it say that marriage must be based on consensus? Pretty sure in australia unconsensual marriage is illegal SOB Didn't realise marriage was a purely Australian institutrion.

Where did you think we were talking about? pay attention.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 7^th, 2012 at 3:06pm:

Soren wrote on Aug 7th, 2012 at 2:18pm: Where does it say that marriage must be based on consensus? Pretty sure in australia unconsensual marriage is illegal SOB

So the arranged marriages of thousands of 'new Australians' are illegal?

Will you tell them or shall I, mother?

... wrote on Aug 7^th, 2012 at 3:16pm:

So you're sticking with "consent" then. OK.  Lets say an 18 year old bloke consented to marrying his mother. All good then?

Thats bigamy but you are just being a dick. Theres fantastical and theres realistic. Realistic is human consenting adult with differing sexual preferences marrying. Incest is not a sexual preference since it has nothing to do with gender.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 7^th, 2012 at 3:27pm:

... wrote on Aug 7th, 2012 at 3:16pm: So you're sticking with "consent" then. OK.  Lets say an 18 year old bloke consented to marrying his mother. All good then?  Thats bigamy but you are just being a dick. Theres fantastical and theres realistic. Realistic is human consenting adult with differing sexual preferences marrying. Incest is not a sexual preference since it has nothing to do with gender. SOB

Ummm no bigamy is being married to 2 people.

Speaking of which...why shouldn't people be allowed to marry 2, 3 or even 10 people, assuming all parties consent?

It's not your place to dictate what is "realistic" and what isn't.  If that boy loves his mama and wants to marry her, on what grounds do you deny them?  Consent is all it takes remember? 

Quote:

Incest is not a sexual preference since it has nothing to do with gender.

Do beastialists care what sex the animals they have sex with are?

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 7^th, 2012 at 1:12pm:

Quote: Christians pay tax. Considering how many Christians there are in this country; and how many very wealthy Christians are in this country; then Christians probably pay more tax then any other group. So how do they not get a say? Well organised religion and churches do not pay tax. that is what i have been saying all along that organised religion should stay out of politics. you nice people just try to confuse things by going in circles and quoting out of context and changing goalposts but that was my original statement and ive said it many times in here. [quote]So why can they have a say yet a group of Christians can not?

Gay groups dont call themselves charities. They dont pretend not to be interested in politics then try to impose their will on others. all they want is equal rights.


Quote:

Likewise, you hide behind the word religion to support your case. You ask "how do you decide which sect of which religion should dictate the rules?", when the really question is, what worldview should we live by? Or how should we live in a society with many different views?

No - my question was sarcastic because you were never going to answer it. Thing is if xtians wanna dictate rules to the rest of us then so will muslims and hindus and etc etc. Its all fairy tales. organised religion needs to stay out of the real world. It doesnt belong here.


Quote:

You avoide using worldview because atheism is a worldview. You use words like religion and atheism to make two different groups, that way you can set two different standards. That way you can claim that atheist can have a say, while all religions should remain quiet. Again, you want to silence and ridicule anyone who doesn't have the same worldview that you do.

Utter bullshit. Atheism is a lack of belief in fairy tales. It is not a worldview - its a lack of a fairy tale view.

i dont care wtf anyone believes or pretends to believe. Just dont bother other ppl with it and dont shove it down my childrens throats and stay away from politics.

SOB [/quote]

Yet that is exactly what you are doing by telling everyone who has a different worldview to you to shut up.

You are shoving your worldview down people's throats and trying to control politics by only allowing people with the same worldview as you to speak.

Claiming you don't have a worldview because your an athiest is a joke. Everything you see and hear is being filtered by your view of the world. The only people who dont have a worldview are those who are brain dead.

But. Speaking of brain dead, how is this for a good laugh,


Quote:

you nice people just try to confuse things by going in circles and quoting out of context and changing goalposts

Wow... A quick read over what you have said just on this thread alone, followed by that quote. Wow...

It's like you have taken every issue people have of you, stuck it in a sentence, and used it as your own accusation. You have an unbelievable inability of self reflection and evaluation. Why do you think every thread turns into you verse the world? Because everyone else is wrong and is picking on you?

Quantum wrote on Aug 7^th, 2012 at 4:25pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 7th, 2012 at 1:12pm: Quote: Christians pay tax. Considering how many Christians there are in this country; and how many very wealthy Christians are in this country; then Christians probably pay more tax then any other group. So how do they not get a say? Well organised religion and churches do not pay tax. that is what i have been saying all along that organised religion should stay out of politics. you nice people just try to confuse things by going in circles and quoting out of context and changing goalposts but that was my original statement and ive said it many times in here. [quote]So why can they have a say yet a group of Christians can not? Gay groups dont call themselves charities. They dont pretend not to be interested in politics then try to impose their will on others. all they want is equal rights. [quote]Likewise, you hide behind the word religion to support your case. You ask "how do you decide which sect of which religion should dictate the rules?", when the really question is, what worldview should we live by? Or how should we live in a society with many different views?

No - my question was sarcastic because you were never going to answer it. Thing is if xtians wanna dictate rules to the rest of us then so will muslims and hindus and etc etc. Its all fairy tales. organised religion needs to stay out of the real world. It doesnt belong here.


Quote:

You avoide using worldview because atheism is a worldview. You use words like religion and atheism to make two different groups, that way you can set two different standards. That way you can claim that atheist can have a say, while all religions should remain quiet. Again, you want to silence and ridicule anyone who doesn't have the same worldview that you do.

Utter bullshit. Atheism is a lack of belief in fairy tales. It is not a worldview - its a lack of a fairy tale view.

i dont care wtf anyone believes or pretends to believe. Just dont bother other ppl with it and dont shove it down my childrens throats and stay away from politics.

SOB [/quote]

Yet that is exactly what you are doing by telling everyone who has a different worldview to you to shut up.

You are shoving your worldview down people's throats and trying to control politics by only allowing people with the same worldview as you to speak.

Claiming you don't have a worldview because your an athiest is a joke. Everything you see and hear is being filtered by your view of the world. The only people who dont have a worldview are those who are brain dead.
[/quote]

i obviously meant religious organisations as i pointed out before freediver.

I am saying that atheism itself is not a worldview.

SOB

... wrote on Aug 7^th, 2012 at 3:33pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 7th, 2012 at 3:27pm: ... wrote on Aug 7th, 2012 at 3:16pm: So you're sticking with "consent" then. OK.  Lets say an 18 year old bloke consented to marrying his mother. All good then?  Thats bigamy but you are just being a dick. Theres fantastical and theres realistic. Realistic is human consenting adult with differing sexual preferences marrying. Incest is not a sexual preference since it has nothing to do with gender. SOB Ummm no bigamy is being married to 2 people. Speaking of which...why shouldn't people be allowed to marry 2, 3 or even 10 people, assuming all parties consent? It's not your place to dictate what is "realistic" and what isn't.  If that boy loves his mama and wants to marry her, on what grounds do you deny them?  Consent is all it takes remember?

Obviously you dont know the difference between reasonable and unreasonable and you still havent figured out what consent means either - im surprised you arent in jail.

seriously what the frig does any of this ridiculous crap you are bringing up have to do with gays?

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 7^th, 2012 at 4:45pm:

Quantum wrote on Aug 7th, 2012 at 4:25pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 7th, 2012 at 1:12pm: Quote: Christians pay tax. Considering how many Christians there are in this country; and how many very wealthy Christians are in this country; then Christians probably pay more tax then any other group. So how do they not get a say? Well organised religion and churches do not pay tax. that is what i have been saying all along that organised religion should stay out of politics. you nice people just try to confuse things by going in circles and quoting out of context and changing goalposts but that was my original statement and ive said it many times in here. [quote]So why can they have a say yet a group of Christians can not? Gay groups dont call themselves charities. They dont pretend not to be interested in politics then try to impose their will on others. all they want is equal rights. [quote]Likewise, you hide behind the word religion to support your case. You ask "how do you decide which sect of which religion should dictate the rules?", when the really question is, what worldview should we live by? Or how should we live in a society with many different views? No - my question was sarcastic because you were never going to answer it. Thing is if xtians wanna dictate rules to the rest of us then so will muslims and hindus and etc etc. Its all fairy tales. organised religion needs to stay out of the real world. It doesnt belong here. [quote]You avoide using worldview because atheism is a worldview. You use words like religion and atheism to make two different groups, that way you can set two different standards. That way you can claim that atheist can have a say, while all religions should remain quiet. Again, you want to silence and ridicule anyone who doesn't have the same worldview that you do.

Utter bullshit. Atheism is a lack of belief in fairy tales. It is not a worldview - its a lack of a fairy tale view.

i dont care wtf anyone believes or pretends to believe. Just dont bother other ppl with it and dont shove it down my childrens throats and stay away from politics.

SOB [/quote]

Yet that is exactly what you are doing by telling everyone who has a different worldview to you to shut up.

You are shoving your worldview down people's throats and trying to control politics by only allowing people with the same worldview as you to speak.

Claiming you don't have a worldview because your an athiest is a joke. Everything you see and hear is being filtered by your view of the world. The only people who dont have a worldview are those who are brain dead.
[/quote]

i obviously meant religious organisations as i pointed out before freediver.

I am saying that atheism itself is not a worldview.

SOB[/quote]

Another sock accusation. How original and constructive.

So you have no beliefs and no Worldview at all. Just nothing? You simply exist?

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 7^th, 2012 at 4:52pm:

Obviously you dont know the difference between reasonable and unreasonable and you still havent figured out what consent means either - im surprised you arent in jail. seriously what the frig does any of this ridiculous crap you are bringing up have to do with gays?

Who's to judge what is "reasonable" or not?  You?

I think it's "reasonable" to leave marriage between a man and a woman.  But you're not happy with that, yet if other groups, such as paedos, bestialists and incesticons (new word) use the exact same reasoning you do to justify it, you throw a tanty. 

Now then, thats the 2nd time you've said I don't know what "consent" is.  Are you saying an 18 year old man is incapable of giving consent?  Please explain.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 7^th, 2012 at 4:52pm:

... wrote on Aug 7th, 2012 at 3:33pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 7th, 2012 at 3:27pm: ... wrote on Aug 7th, 2012 at 3:16pm: So you're sticking with "consent" then. OK.  Lets say an 18 year old bloke consented to marrying his mother. All good then?  Thats bigamy but you are just being a dick. Theres fantastical and theres realistic. Realistic is human consenting adult with differing sexual preferences marrying. Incest is not a sexual preference since it has nothing to do with gender. SOB Ummm no bigamy is being married to 2 people. Speaking of which...why shouldn't people be allowed to marry 2, 3 or even 10 people, assuming all parties consent? It's not your place to dictate what is "realistic" and what isn't.  If that boy loves his mama and wants to marry her, on what grounds do you deny them?  Consent is all it takes remember?  Obviously you dont know the difference between reasonable and unreasonable and you still havent figured out what consent means either - im surprised you arent in jail. seriously what the frig does any of this ridiculous crap you are bringing up have to do with gays? SOB

It's to do with your ridiculous assertion that two arse bandits or two muff divers marrying each other is no different to a man and a woman marrying each other.

Quote:

I just point out that they are all equally as bad because you pick on 1 above the others and hypocritically dont admit your own religion is the same.

What about the truth spot? Abu wants the death penalty for apostasy. I don't. Abu wants to destroy democracy. I don't. Abu wants to destroy freedom of religion. I don't. Abu wants to destroy women's rights. I don't. You are so hung up on your 'all religions are equal' BS that you have to constantly discard reality to defend your position. You are more concerned about insisting that all religions are equal than you are about the actual threat posed by religion to people's political freedom. You have it so far backwards that you end up defending the very people who want to take your freedom away.


Quote:

you want to restrict muslim women wearing hijabs but dont want to stop xtians knocking on ppls doors and bothering them.

Again spot, try sticking to the truth. When I quote you directly, you whinge that this is some kind of deliberate misrepresentation. Yet you make up complete BS about me.


Quote:

Hahahahahaha! A lil projection from the king of twisting and turning and quoting out of context . . . .

No spot. That is what you actually do. I quote you directly. You say that is misrepresentation. You make stuff up about me. I quote Abu directly for you. You choose not to believe that either.


Quote:

They arent doing this in australia

Yes they are spot. Right here on this board. I quoted Abu for you. You refused to believe it.


Quote:

religions dont pay tax why should they have a say?

Religions do not pay tax. Political ideologies do not pay tax. Sexual preferences do not pay tax. People pay tax spot. People have a say. It's that simple.


Quote:

how do you decide which sect of which religion should dictate the rules?

Spot, Abu is the only one here who actually believes that one religious sect should dictate the rules. That is the only example you have of this actually happening, and you refuse to believe what is right in front of your eyes.


Quote:

that is what i have been saying all along that organised religion should stay out of politics.

So how do you expect to achieve this if you run away every time you see someone promoting it? Organised religion has a tight grip on political power over a big chunk of the world. Australians are dying in an attempt to wrest it from them. All you can do in response is cover your ears and chant your silly little mantras about all religions being equal.


Quote:

Gay groups dont call themselves charities.

Plenty do spot. Again, denying reality is no way to win an argument.


Quote:

i obviously meant religious organisations as i pointed out before freediver.

That was quantum. See if you can spot the difference.

So how much sense does this make - spot believes that religions are all equally bad. He completely ignores the bad part and harps on about the equal part -  so much so that when he actually comes across a person who wants to do all the worst things he attributes to religion, he defends that person and attacks all the people who want to protect freedom and democracy. He refuses to believe what is right in front of him. He openly rejects reality and replaces it with his own - all so that he can go on claiming that all religions are equally bad.

Sometimes I think he would happily sacrifice freedom, democracy etc in his quest against 'all religion'.

Soren wrote on Aug 7^th, 2012 at 5:08pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 7th, 2012 at 4:52pm: ... wrote on Aug 7th, 2012 at 3:33pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 7th, 2012 at 3:27pm: ... wrote on Aug 7th, 2012 at 3:16pm: So you're sticking with "consent" then. OK.  Lets say an 18 year old bloke consented to marrying his mother. All good then?  Thats bigamy but you are just being a dick. Theres fantastical and theres realistic. Realistic is human consenting adult with differing sexual preferences marrying. Incest is not a sexual preference since it has nothing to do with gender. SOB Ummm no bigamy is being married to 2 people. Speaking of which...why shouldn't people be allowed to marry 2, 3 or even 10 people, assuming all parties consent? It's not your place to dictate what is "realistic" and what isn't.  If that boy loves his mama and wants to marry her, on what grounds do you deny them?  Consent is all it takes remember?  Obviously you dont know the difference between reasonable and unreasonable and you still havent figured out what consent means either - im surprised you arent in jail. seriously what the frig does any of this ridiculous crap you are bringing up have to do with gays? SOB It's to do with your ridiculous assertion that two arse bandits or two muff divers marrying each other is no different to a man and a woman marrying each other.

How is it different? They are human? They are adults? They dont affect you in any way?

SOB

Ugggh I just spent 1/2 an hour answering the wrong post in the wrong thread.


Quote:

Abu wants the death penalty for apostasy.

He says he doesnt. Why cant you accept what he says? and why the heck do you keep hassling me about abu? i don't speak for him and he is just 1 muslim.


Quote:

What about the truth spot?

i dont think it means what you think it means.


Quote:

You are more concerned about insisting that all religions are equal

all religions are equally absurd. in australia they are not equal though. The xtians have all the "power".


Quote:

When I quote you directly, you blah blah

well by "you" i meant "you ppl" religious nuts  . . . .


Quote:

Yes they are spot. Right here on this board. I quoted Abu for you. You refused to believe it.

Why would i believe you? Abu answered my questions. I wouldn't mind talking to him more but i cant in this environment because you will try to make me explain everything he says.


Quote:

Religions do not pay tax. Political ideologies do not pay tax. Sexual preferences do not pay tax. People pay tax spot. People have a say. It's that simple.

See? you completely ignored where I said i was talking about religious organisations. Any other for profit organisations DO pay tax.


Quote:

Spot, Abu is the only one here who actually believes that one religious sect should dictate the rules. That is the only example you have of this actually happening, and you refuse to believe what is right in front of your eyes.

Obviously i was talking about the religions generally there. Of course you knew that but decided to pretend I was talking about abu again.


Quote:

So how do you expect to achieve this if you run away every time you see someone promoting it?

What the heck are you talking about there? You have no idea what i do in real life.


Quote:

Plenty do spot. Again, denying reality is no way to win an argument.

They do? Got a link?


Quote:

That was quantum. See if you can spot the difference.

Theres no difference except for the obvious lack of adminship to he can be more abusive than you can be with your label.

SOB

freediver wrote on Aug 7^th, 2012 at 6:47pm:

So how much sense does this make - spot believes that religions are all equally bad. He completely ignores the bad part and harps on about the equal part -  so much so that when he actually comes across a person who wants to do all the worst things he attributes to religion, he defends that person and attacks all the people who want to protect freedom and democracy. He refuses to believe what is right in front of him. He openly rejects reality and replaces it with his own - all so that he can go on claiming that all religions are equally bad. Sometimes I think he would happily sacrifice freedom, democracy etc in his quest against 'all religion'.

Equally "absurd" <--------------

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 8^th, 2012 at 6:19am:

Quote: Abu wants the death penalty for apostasy. He says he doesnt. Why cant you accept what he says?

Spot, making up silly excuses for not answering the question is not the same as saying whatever it is you think he said. You are the only one who has outright refused to believe what you see when confronted with a direct quote from me. This is what a straight answer looks like:


freediver wrote on Aug 7^th, 2012 at 10:05pm:

abu_rashid wrote on Oct 9th, 2008 at 7:44pm: Quote: What is that again? I think there was some abiguity last time we touched on that. Not from me, perhaps with Malik. Apostasy is a capital offense.

Quote:

Why would i believe you? Abu answered my questions.

Because I quoted Abu where he did give a straight answer and and he did not actually answer your questions.


Quote:

Obviously i was talking about the religions generally there.

Yes spot, I have noticed that you refuse to discuss religions specifically when it concerns Islam. You run and hide.


Quote:

Equally "absurd" <--------------

Spot, to what extent would you be willing to undermine democracy and freedom in your quest against "all religion"?

Hey - you ask and ask and ask and you dont answer questions. How about providing that link?

SOB

7 pages.

SOB has gone from "prejudiced" to "obsessed"

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 8^th, 2012 at 5:59am:

Soren wrote on Aug 7th, 2012 at 5:08pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 7th, 2012 at 4:52pm: ... wrote on Aug 7th, 2012 at 3:33pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 7th, 2012 at 3:27pm: ... wrote on Aug 7th, 2012 at 3:16pm: So you're sticking with "consent" then. OK.  Lets say an 18 year old bloke consented to marrying his mother. All good then?  Thats bigamy but you are just being a dick. Theres fantastical and theres realistic. Realistic is human consenting adult with differing sexual preferences marrying. Incest is not a sexual preference since it has nothing to do with gender. SOB Ummm no bigamy is being married to 2 people. Speaking of which...why shouldn't people be allowed to marry 2, 3 or even 10 people, assuming all parties consent? It's not your place to dictate what is "realistic" and what isn't.  If that boy loves his mama and wants to marry her, on what grounds do you deny them?  Consent is all it takes remember?  Obviously you dont know the difference between reasonable and unreasonable and you still havent figured out what consent means either - im surprised you arent in jail. seriously what the frig does any of this ridiculous crap you are bringing up have to do with gays? SOB It's to do with your ridiculous assertion that two arse bandits or two muff divers marrying each other is no different to a man and a woman marrying each other. How is it different? They are human? They are adults? They dont affect you in any way? SOB

This book has all the answers you seek....

http://www.amazon.com/Where-Did-I-Come-From/dp/0818402539

... wrote on Aug 8^th, 2012 at 10:05am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 8th, 2012 at 5:59am: Soren wrote on Aug 7th, 2012 at 5:08pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 7th, 2012 at 4:52pm: ... wrote on Aug 7th, 2012 at 3:33pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 7th, 2012 at 3:27pm: ... wrote on Aug 7th, 2012 at 3:16pm: So you're sticking with "consent" then. OK.  Lets say an 18 year old bloke consented to marrying his mother. All good then?  Thats bigamy but you are just being a dick. Theres fantastical and theres realistic. Realistic is human consenting adult with differing sexual preferences marrying. Incest is not a sexual preference since it has nothing to do with gender. SOB Ummm no bigamy is being married to 2 people. Speaking of which...why shouldn't people be allowed to marry 2, 3 or even 10 people, assuming all parties consent? It's not your place to dictate what is "realistic" and what isn't.  If that boy loves his mama and wants to marry her, on what grounds do you deny them?  Consent is all it takes remember?  Obviously you dont know the difference between reasonable and unreasonable and you still havent figured out what consent means either - im surprised you arent in jail. seriously what the frig does any of this ridiculous crap you are bringing up have to do with gays? SOB It's to do with your ridiculous assertion that two arse bandits or two muff divers marrying each other is no different to a man and a woman marrying each other. How is it different? They are human? They are adults? They dont affect you in any way? SOB This book has all the answers you seek.... http://www.amazon.com/Where-Did-I-Come-From/dp/0818402539

Doesnt answer my question. How does it effect you in any way?

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 8^th, 2012 at 6:19am:

Quote: That was quantum. See if you can spot the difference. Theres no difference except for the obvious lack of adminship to he can be more abusive than you can be with your label. SOB

You are actually a fairly offensive person spot, you just don't realize it. You accuse people of being liars, misquoting and misrepresenting, of being brain washed, stupid, of being socks, and being bigots, etc... and that's to people who are being polite to you. When they have had enough of it and stand their ground, you then whine like a baby that people are abusive or picking on you. If you can't take it stop dishing it out.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 8^th, 2012 at 11:14am:

... wrote on Aug 8th, 2012 at 10:05am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 8th, 2012 at 5:59am: Soren wrote on Aug 7th, 2012 at 5:08pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 7th, 2012 at 4:52pm: ... wrote on Aug 7th, 2012 at 3:33pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 7th, 2012 at 3:27pm: ... wrote on Aug 7th, 2012 at 3:16pm: So you're sticking with "consent" then. OK.  Lets say an 18 year old bloke consented to marrying his mother. All good then?  Thats bigamy but you are just being a dick. Theres fantastical and theres realistic. Realistic is human consenting adult with differing sexual preferences marrying. Incest is not a sexual preference since it has nothing to do with gender. SOB Ummm no bigamy is being married to 2 people. Speaking of which...why shouldn't people be allowed to marry 2, 3 or even 10 people, assuming all parties consent? It's not your place to dictate what is "realistic" and what isn't.  If that boy loves his mama and wants to marry her, on what grounds do you deny them?  Consent is all it takes remember?  Obviously you dont know the difference between reasonable and unreasonable and you still havent figured out what consent means either - im surprised you arent in jail. seriously what the frig does any of this ridiculous crap you are bringing up have to do with gays? SOB It's to do with your ridiculous assertion that two arse bandits or two muff divers marrying each other is no different to a man and a woman marrying each other. How is it different? They are human? They are adults? They dont affect you in any way? SOB This book has all the answers you seek.... http://www.amazon.com/Where-Did-I-Come-From/dp/0818402539 Doesnt answer my question. How does it effect you in any way? SOB

You asked "how is it different?"
The book will explain how. 

... wrote on Aug 8^th, 2012 at 11:42am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 8th, 2012 at 11:14am: ... wrote on Aug 8th, 2012 at 10:05am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 8th, 2012 at 5:59am: Soren wrote on Aug 7th, 2012 at 5:08pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 7th, 2012 at 4:52pm: ... wrote on Aug 7th, 2012 at 3:33pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 7th, 2012 at 3:27pm: ... wrote on Aug 7th, 2012 at 3:16pm: So you're sticking with "consent" then. OK.  Lets say an 18 year old bloke consented to marrying his mother. All good then?  Thats bigamy but you are just being a dick. Theres fantastical and theres realistic. Realistic is human consenting adult with differing sexual preferences marrying. Incest is not a sexual preference since it has nothing to do with gender. SOB Ummm no bigamy is being married to 2 people. Speaking of which...why shouldn't people be allowed to marry 2, 3 or even 10 people, assuming all parties consent? It's not your place to dictate what is "realistic" and what isn't.  If that boy loves his mama and wants to marry her, on what grounds do you deny them?  Consent is all it takes remember?  Obviously you dont know the difference between reasonable and unreasonable and you still havent figured out what consent means either - im surprised you arent in jail. seriously what the frig does any of this ridiculous crap you are bringing up have to do with gays? SOB It's to do with your ridiculous assertion that two arse bandits or two muff divers marrying each other is no different to a man and a woman marrying each other. How is it different? They are human? They are adults? They dont affect you in any way? SOB This book has all the answers you seek.... http://www.amazon.com/Where-Did-I-Come-From/dp/0818402539 Doesnt answer my question. How does it effect you in any way? SOB You asked "how is it different?" The book will explain how.

Explain how it effects you in any way if gays get married.

SOB

Quantum wrote on Aug 8^th, 2012 at 11:36am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 8th, 2012 at 6:19am: Quote: That was quantum. See if you can spot the difference. Theres no difference except for the obvious lack of adminship to he can be more abusive than you can be with your label. SOB You are actually a fairly offensive person spot, you just don't realize it. You accuse people of being liars, misquoting and misrepresenting, of being brain washed, stupid, of being socks, and being bigots, etc... and that's to people who are being polite to you. When they have had enough of it and stand their ground, you then whine like a baby that people are abusive or picking on you. If you can't take it stop dishing it out.

In defence.

Only people i have accused of being liars and misquoting are the lying misquoters.

SOB

... wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 1:19pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 1:18pm: ... wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 1:04pm: Yes it does. lol - how? SOB I'll tell ya - right after you tell me how does "it" affect homos?

I'm still waitin....

freediver wrote on Aug 7^th, 2012 at 6:42pm:

Quote: I just point out that they are all equally as bad because you pick on 1 above the others and hypocritically dont admit your own religion is the same. What about the truth spot? Abu wants the death penalty for apostasy. I don't. Abu wants to destroy democracy. I don't. Abu wants to destroy freedom of religion. I don't. Abu wants to destroy women's rights. I don't. You are so hung up on your 'all religions are equal' BS that you have to constantly discard reality to defend your position. You are more concerned about insisting that all religions are equal than you are about the actual threat posed by religion to people's political freedom. You have it so far backwards that you end up defending the very people who want to take your freedom away.

LOL

Wow!

Proof that the world is turning on its axis.         ;)

freediver wrote on Aug 7^th, 2012 at 6:47pm:

So how much sense does this make - spot believes that religions are all equally bad. He completely ignores the bad part and harps on about the equal part -  so much so that when he actually comes across a person who wants to do all the worst things he attributes to religion, he defends that person and attacks all the people who want to protect freedom and democracy. He refuses to believe what is right in front of him. He openly rejects reality and replaces it with his own - all so that he can go on claiming that all religions are equally bad. Sometimes I think he would happily sacrifice freedom, democracy etc in his quest against 'all religion'.

Hmmm.


Is it because lotsa people [i.e. our children] are today, being 'educated' to pursue their own vested interests, at the expense of discernment [.....discernment between what is 'good', and what is 'evil'] ?

Values, integrity vs self interest ?




Children today, are not encourage to evaluate, to consider, the causes of problems.

Rather, our children are being taught what has already been 'determined' to be good.

And they are being taught to reject individualism.

And they are being taught that it is always 'good', to reject all the opinions of all persons who challenge the established, prevailing, ubiquitous PC views, about everything.

---

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 8^th, 2012 at 9:30am:

Hey - you ask and ask and ask and you dont answer questions. How about providing that link? SOB

What link?

If you look at some of the quotes, like the one above where I quoted you, you will see the author name in red. That is an active link to the post where they said it. I usually do it that way when I am quoting older posts.


Quote:

Only people i have accused of being liars and misquoting are the lying misquoters.

Given that you appear to have not known how to follow the links to see for yourself where you or Abu said it, can we expect a retraction any time soon?

Would you like me to quote Abu again where he rejected democracy and freedom and called for apostates to be stoned to death?

Quantum wrote on Aug 8^th, 2012 at 11:36am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 8th, 2012 at 6:19am: Quote: That was quantum. See if you can spot the difference. Theres no difference except for the obvious lack of adminship to he can be more abusive than you can be with your label. SOB You are actually a fairly offensive person spot, you just don't realize it. You accuse people of being liars, misquoting and misrepresenting, of being brain washed, stupid, of being socks, and being bigots, etc... and that's to people who are being polite to you. When they have had enough of it and stand their ground, you then whine like a baby that people are abusive or picking on you. If you can't take it stop dishing it out.

.....and, we are also 'Dickwads'.

My question:


Quote:

Explain how it effects you in any way if gays get married.

... wrote on Aug 8^th, 2012 at 11:55am:

... wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 1:19pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 1:18pm: ... wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 1:04pm: Yes it does. lol - how? SOB I'll tell ya - right after you tell me how does "it" affect homos? I'm still waitin....

They get to be seen as equal instead of ostracised by society. They get to adopt and to be next-of-kin and all the other benefits other humans enjoy. None of this will effect you in any way. Giving someone else rights you already have does not effect you - it lets them join the human race.

SOB

Freediver

Quote:

Plenty do spot. Again, denying reality is no way to win an argument.

Spot

Quote:

They do? Got a link?

Since you take all the references out of posts and you didnt answer the question you can do the scrolling back to see what it was about yourself like you make me do all the time.

SOB

Yadda wrote on Aug 8^th, 2012 at 12:47pm:

Quantum wrote on Aug 8th, 2012 at 11:36am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 8th, 2012 at 6:19am: Quote: That was quantum. See if you can spot the difference. Theres no difference except for the obvious lack of adminship to he can be more abusive than you can be with your label. SOB You are actually a fairly offensive person spot, you just don't realize it. You accuse people of being liars, misquoting and misrepresenting, of being brain washed, stupid, of being socks, and being bigots, etc... and that's to people who are being polite to you. When they have had enough of it and stand their ground, you then whine like a baby that people are abusive or picking on you. If you can't take it stop dishing it out. .....and, we are also 'Dickwads'.

I dont think i have accused you of misquoting because i dont think you have done it?

You get called names when you call me names. In fact i think you will find that is how it is all the time. I take the poo for a while then i start responding back with what you gave me, You were calling me "moslem" among other things. Your intent was extreme insult since you hate "moslems".

Reap what you sow.

That quantuim has been ugly and nasty to me since the first post it ever wrote to me. That is how i know its a sock.

SOB

Poor SOB, in 8 pages he has gone from unjustified to obsessive to exposed.


Still, hard to see the basis of someone who champions both homos and islam.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 8^th, 2012 at 1:04pm:

My question: Quote: Explain how it effects you in any way if gays get married. ... wrote on Aug 8th, 2012 at 11:55am: ... wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 1:19pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 1:18pm: ... wrote on Aug 6th, 2012 at 1:04pm: Yes it does. lol - how? SOB I'll tell ya - right after you tell me how does "it" affect homos? I'm still waitin.... They get to be seen as equal instead of ostracised by society.

Which has nothing at all to do with being "married".


Quote:

They get to adopt and to be next-of-kin and all the other benefits other humans enjoy.

Just as I think single parenthood by design is foolish and harmful, I don't see 2 "parents" of the same sex as soemthing that is desirable.  Besides...you don't need to be married to live together as a family do you?

Much is spoken of the "benefits" of being married - what are they?


Quote:

None of this will effect you in any way.

It forces me to contravene my principles.  I understand this is meaningless to you, as you have none, but it's actually a pretty big deal.


Quote:

Giving someone else rights you already have does not effect you - it lets them join the human race. SOB

They already have the right to marry.  They have all the rights that you and I do.  But they don't, nor should they ever, have the right to change what marriage is. 

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 8^th, 2012 at 1:12pm:

Yadda wrote on Aug 8th, 2012 at 12:47pm: Quantum wrote on Aug 8th, 2012 at 11:36am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 8th, 2012 at 6:19am: Quote: That was quantum. See if you can spot the difference. Theres no difference except for the obvious lack of adminship to he can be more abusive than you can be with your label. SOB You are actually a fairly offensive person spot, you just don't realize it. You accuse people of being liars, misquoting and misrepresenting, of being brain washed, stupid, of being socks, and being bigots, etc... and that's to people who are being polite to you. When they have had enough of it and stand their ground, you then whine like a baby that people are abusive or picking on you. If you can't take it stop dishing it out. .....and, we are also 'Dickwads'. I dont think i have accused you of misquoting because i dont think you have done it? You get called names when you call me names. In fact i think you will find that is how it is all the time. I take the poo for a while then i start responding back with what you gave me, You were calling me "moslem" among other things. Your intent was extreme insult since you hate "moslems". Reap what you sow. That quantuim has been ugly and nasty to me since the first post it ever wrote to me. That is how i know its a sock. SOB

You have proof of that? Maybe even a link?

I was nothing but polite until you started accusing me of being a liar, misquoting, and being a sock. That seems to be your behavior towards anyone with a different opinion to you. You throw the first punch and then blame the other person.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 8^th, 2012 at 1:12pm:

Yadda wrote on Aug 8th, 2012 at 12:47pm: Quantum wrote on Aug 8th, 2012 at 11:36am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 8th, 2012 at 6:19am: Quote: That was quantum. See if you can spot the difference. Theres no difference except for the obvious lack of adminship to he can be more abusive than you can be with your label. SOB You are actually a fairly offensive person spot, you just don't realize it. You accuse people of being liars, misquoting and misrepresenting, of being brain washed, stupid, of being socks, and being bigots, etc... and that's to people who are being polite to you. When they have had enough of it and stand their ground, you then whine like a baby that people are abusive or picking on you. If you can't take it stop dishing it out. .....and, we are also 'Dickwads'. I dont think i have accused you of misquoting because i dont think you have done it? You get called names when you call me names.......

SPOT,

You are a very sad, mixed up person.    [  <----- that is me calling you, a name.]




AND, where in this post [below] did Gizmo call you names    [...to be called by you, 'Dickwad' ] ???


Who wants peace?
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344200100/11#11

Quantum wrote on Aug 8^th, 2012 at 1:31pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 8th, 2012 at 1:12pm: Yadda wrote on Aug 8th, 2012 at 12:47pm: Quantum wrote on Aug 8th, 2012 at 11:36am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 8th, 2012 at 6:19am: Quote: That was quantum. See if you can spot the difference. Theres no difference except for the obvious lack of adminship to he can be more abusive than you can be with your label. SOB You are actually a fairly offensive person spot, you just don't realize it. You accuse people of being liars, misquoting and misrepresenting, of being brain washed, stupid, of being socks, and being bigots, etc... and that's to people who are being polite to you. When they have had enough of it and stand their ground, you then whine like a baby that people are abusive or picking on you. If you can't take it stop dishing it out. .....and, we are also 'Dickwads'. I dont think i have accused you of misquoting because i dont think you have done it? You get called names when you call me names. In fact i think you will find that is how it is all the time. I take the poo for a while then i start responding back with what you gave me, You were calling me "moslem" among other things. Your intent was extreme insult since you hate "moslems". Reap what you sow. That quantuim has been ugly and nasty to me since the first post it ever wrote to me. That is how i know its a sock. SOB You have proof of that? Maybe even a link? I was nothing but polite until you started accusing me of being a liar, misquoting, and being a sock. That seems to be your behavior towards anyone with a different opinion to you. You throw the first punch and then blame the other person.

Just like a moslem would.


"Quack, quack."

Sprintcyclist wrote on Aug 8^th, 2012 at 1:16pm:

Poor SOB, in 8 pages he has gone from unjustified to obsessive to exposed. Still, hard to see the basis of someone who champions both homos and islam.

Yeah, I want to hear SHeik Al Hilary on marriage equality for the oppressed Pink Muslim community.
Afghanistan is leading the way in that respect, by all accounts.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Aug 8^th, 2012 at 1:16pm:

Poor SOB, in 8 pages he has gone from unjustified to obsessive to exposed. Still, hard to see the basis of someone who champions both homos and islam.

So now i "champion" islam - because i say that the mainstream arent terrorists? So should i change it and say all muslims are terrorists? All x6tians are terrorists too because the KKK are. All hindus are terrorists because the kali worshippers are.

SOB

Quote:

Which has nothing at all to do with being "married".

It lets them be like everyone else. Not "separate" . . . unequal.


Quote:

Much is spoken of the "benefits" of being married - what are they?

I already answered that.


Quote:

It forces me to contravene my principles.  I understand this is meaningless to you, as you have none, but it's actually a pretty big deal

Why would it do anything to your principles? You dont have to be gay if you dont want. Perhaps you shouldn't have principles that involve other ppls living arrangements.


Quote:

They already have the right to marry.  They have all the rights that you and I do.  But they don't, nor should they ever, have the right to change what marriage is.

Howard changed what marriage is - he did it without a referendum or anything. He must be gay huh? Anyway the same crap was said about interracial marriage.

http://www.smartcitymemphis.com/wp-content/uploads/gay_marriage1.gif

SOB

Quote:

I was nothing but polite until you started accusing me of being a liar, misquoting, and being a sock. That seems to be your behavior towards anyone with a different opinion to you. You throw the first punch and then blame the other person.

If i accused you of that then you must have been doing it. It seems to be the way xtians argue when they dont like what im saying they just change it.

SOB

Quote:

SPOT, You are a very sad, mixed up person.    [  <----- that is me calling you, a name.] AND, where in this post [below] did Gizmo call you names    [...to be called by you, 'Dickwad' ] ??? Who wants peace? http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344200100/11#11

Yeah yadda did you see what i was replying to?

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 8^th, 2012 at 4:17pm:

Quote: I was nothing but polite until you started accusing me of being a liar, misquoting, and being a sock. That seems to be your behavior towards anyone with a different opinion to you. You throw the first punch and then blame the other person. If i accused you of that then you must have been doing it. It seems to be the way xtians argue when they dont like what im saying they just change it. SOB

Or you were wrong and blaming the other person is just your way of excusing your behaviour. Ever wonder why you seem to have the same problem with many different people on this forum? Or do you excuse that as well by convincing yourself that they are all socks of the same person?

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 8^th, 2012 at 4:16pm:

Quote: Which has nothing at all to do with being "married". It lets them be like everyone else. Not "separate" . . . unequal.

But they're not "like everyone else" in that regard.  They're homos.  Marriage is a formal recognition of the complementary nature of man and woman.  It does not apply to homos.  It never has, and even if we make it "offocial" it never really will mean anything other than that.  We can say "everyones a winner" but it really is an empty, token gesture. 



Quote:

Much is spoken of the "benefits" of being married - what are they?

I already answered that.
[/quote]

No you didn't.  Why do you always claim to have answered things that you clearly haven't?


Quote:

It forces me to contravene my principles.  I understand this is meaningless to you, as you have none, but it's actually a pretty big deal

Why would it do anything to your principles? You dont have to be gay if you dont want. Perhaps you shouldn't have principles that involve other ppls living arrangements.
[/quote]

I don't give a bugger about peoples "living arrangements".  Maybe they shouldn't have principles that involve them demanding people fundamentally change homoured and respected traditions to accommodate them? 


Quote:

They already have the right to marry.  They have all the rights that you and I do.  But they don't, nor should they ever, have the right to change what marriage is.

Howard changed what marriage is - he did it without a referendum or anything. He must be gay huh? Anyway the same crap was said about interracial marriage.
[/quote]

No he didn't you dumbshit.  He simply put what was always understood in writing to stifle you "where is it written" clowns. 

If homosexuality is indistinguishable from non-homosexuality, then everything is indistinguishable from everything else. We are all the same. If so, there is absolutely no ground to argue that any other deviation from heterosexuality is deviant.

Everything is made to be normal. If you want to stick your wick into whatever, your wanting is all that matters. Wanting is normal, so wanting to stick it up yer (your fetish here) is therefore perfectly normal.

Marry any and all objects of your sexual desires, animal, vegetable or mineral, it's all the same. You want it, you've got it. Who's to say otherwise?

In other words, if the limitation of marriage as between a man and a woman is removed, then there is no possible non-arbitrary ground to impose any other limitation on who can marry whom or what or their number.

Quote:

Since you take all the references out of posts and you didnt answer the question you can do the scrolling back to see what it was about yourself like you make me do all the time.

Spot this is only necessary because your standard response to any criticism is to repeat yourself, so it takes about ten times as long to have a discussion with you as it does with anyone else.

Here is the basics: Abu rejects democracy and freedom and wants to stone apostates to death. I quoted him previously for your benefit. You refused to believe it and insisted I was making it up. I can quote him again for you. That would make more sense than quoting a series of confused responses from you where you forgot what we were talking about. You also keep claiming that Abu has said he does not want Shariah law for Australia. He did not actually say this. Obviously I cannot quote this for you as I have no idea why you are so confused about it and it is kind of hard to quote him not saying something. I can quote you plenty of times where he has recently given dodgy excuses for not giving a straight answer to this question.

Quantum wrote on Aug 8^th, 2012 at 4:25pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 8th, 2012 at 4:17pm: Quote: I was nothing but polite until you started accusing me of being a liar, misquoting, and being a sock. That seems to be your behavior towards anyone with a different opinion to you. You throw the first punch and then blame the other person. If i accused you of that then you must have been doing it. It seems to be the way xtians argue when they dont like what im saying they just change it. SOB Or you were wrong and blaming the other person is just your way of excusing your behaviour. Ever wonder why you seem to have the same problem with many different people on this forum? Or do you excuse that as well by convincing yourself that they are all socks of the same person?

Nope i have the problem with 2 ppl freediver and you. well longy lies but not the same.

SOB

Quote:

But they're not "like everyone else" in that regard.

They are. They are human they can get married and have children and live normal lives. Well if they get equal rights which eventually they will just like interracial couples did.


Quote:

No you didn't.  Why do you always claim to have answered things that you clearly haven't?

Yes i did - why do youi always want me to repeat myself? They get the benefits of being able to adopt and inherit and whatever other benefits marriage bestows.


Quote:

I don't give a bugger about peoples "living arrangements".  Maybe they shouldn't have principles that involve them demanding people fundamentally change homoured and respected traditions to accommodate them?

Like those interracial couples did? Changed the meaning of marriage didnt they.

Look its a piece of paper. The religious crap remains religious crap. Nobody is forcing churches to perform gay ceremonies. Most gays arent religious anyway i expect.


Quote:

No he didn't you dumbshit.  He simply put what was always understood in writing to stifle you "where is it written" clowns.

Yes. He did you dumbshit. He changed it to mean "between a man and a woman" just so it would be harder for gays tog et equal rights.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 9^th, 2012 at 7:03am:

Quantum wrote on Aug 8th, 2012 at 4:25pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 8th, 2012 at 4:17pm: Quote: I was nothing but polite until you started accusing me of being a liar, misquoting, and being a sock. That seems to be your behavior towards anyone with a different opinion to you. You throw the first punch and then blame the other person. If i accused you of that then you must have been doing it. It seems to be the way xtians argue when they dont like what im saying they just change it. SOB Or you were wrong and blaming the other person is just your way of excusing your behaviour. Ever wonder why you seem to have the same problem with many different people on this forum? Or do you excuse that as well by convincing yourself that they are all socks of the same person? Nope i have the problem with 2 ppl freediver and you. well longy lies but not the same. SOB

Just count the amount of people in just this thread who you are arguing with. Are they all at fault?

Quantum wrote on Aug 9^th, 2012 at 8:12am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 9th, 2012 at 7:03am: Quantum wrote on Aug 8th, 2012 at 4:25pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 8th, 2012 at 4:17pm: Quote: I was nothing but polite until you started accusing me of being a liar, misquoting, and being a sock. That seems to be your behavior towards anyone with a different opinion to you. You throw the first punch and then blame the other person. If i accused you of that then you must have been doing it. It seems to be the way xtians argue when they dont like what im saying they just change it. SOB Or you were wrong and blaming the other person is just your way of excusing your behaviour. Ever wonder why you seem to have the same problem with many different people on this forum? Or do you excuse that as well by convincing yourself that they are all socks of the same person? Nope i have the problem with 2 ppl freediver and you. well longy lies but not the same. SOB Just count the amount of people in just this thread who you are arguing with. Are they all at fault?

I think your math is a lil lacking. Those are ppl that have a problem with me. Werent you talking about ppl that lie and misrepresent and misquote? Wasnt that what you were talking about? That was what you accused me of saying "lots of ppl" do? I said it was only 2. What are you on about now?

SOB

quantum - that thought struck me some pages ago.

"If it's you against the world, back the world."

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 9^th, 2012 at 8:21am:

Quantum wrote on Aug 9th, 2012 at 8:12am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 9th, 2012 at 7:03am: Quantum wrote on Aug 8th, 2012 at 4:25pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 8th, 2012 at 4:17pm: Quote: I was nothing but polite until you started accusing me of being a liar, misquoting, and being a sock. That seems to be your behavior towards anyone with a different opinion to you. You throw the first punch and then blame the other person. If i accused you of that then you must have been doing it. It seems to be the way xtians argue when they dont like what im saying they just change it. SOB Or you were wrong and blaming the other person is just your way of excusing your behaviour. Ever wonder why you seem to have the same problem with many different people on this forum? Or do you excuse that as well by convincing yourself that they are all socks of the same person? Nope i have the problem with 2 ppl freediver and you. well longy lies but not the same. SOB Just count the amount of people in just this thread who you are arguing with. Are they all at fault? I think your math is a lil lacking. Those are ppl that have a problem with me. Werent you talking about ppl that lie and misrepresent and misquote? Wasnt that what you were talking about? That was what you accused me of saying "lots of ppl" do? I said it was only 2. What are you on about now? SOB

No, the full list was accusing people of being liars, misquoting and misrepresenting, of being brain washed, stupid, of being socks, and being bigots, etc, and basically every thread turning into an argument if people have a different opinion to you.

This thread is you arguing with about ten different people. Were they all at fault? Did they all throw the first punch and you're just defending yourself?