Has anyone heard social apologists pushing for marriage equality for any other group or is equality only worthy if you are a homosexual?

Makka wrote on May 22^nd, 2013 at 7:50pm:

Has anyone heard social apologists pushing for marriage equality for any other group or is equality only worthy if you are a homosexual?

What other groups?

FriYAY wrote on May 22^nd, 2013 at 7:52pm:

Makka wrote on May 22nd, 2013 at 7:50pm: Has anyone heard social apologists pushing for marriage equality for any other group or is equality only worthy if you are a homosexual? What other groups?

Any group that wants marriage equality

Makka wrote on May 22^nd, 2013 at 7:56pm:

FriYAY wrote on May 22nd, 2013 at 7:52pm: Makka wrote on May 22nd, 2013 at 7:50pm: Has anyone heard social apologists pushing for marriage equality for any other group or is equality only worthy if you are a homosexual? What other groups? Any group that wants marriage equality

For example.....?

FriYAY wrote on May 22^nd, 2013 at 8:01pm:

Makka wrote on May 22nd, 2013 at 7:56pm: FriYAY wrote on May 22nd, 2013 at 7:52pm: Makka wrote on May 22nd, 2013 at 7:50pm: Has anyone heard social apologists pushing for marriage equality for any other group or is equality only worthy if you are a homosexual? What other groups? Any group that wants marriage equality For example.....?

(1) Between family immediate members

(2) Between 1 man and many women

(3) Between 1 woman and many men

Makka wrote on May 22^nd, 2013 at 8:11pm:

FriYAY wrote on May 22nd, 2013 at 8:01pm: Makka wrote on May 22nd, 2013 at 7:56pm: FriYAY wrote on May 22nd, 2013 at 7:52pm: Makka wrote on May 22nd, 2013 at 7:50pm: Has anyone heard social apologists pushing for marriage equality for any other group or is equality only worthy if you are a homosexual? What other groups? Any group that wants marriage equality For example.....? (1) Between family immediate members (2) Between 1 man and many women (3) Between 1 woman and many men

If these groups want marriage equality then they should lobby for it.

Marriage equality between homosexuals has nothing to do with the above situations.

If you want these situations to be legalised then lobby for them.

Are you honestly trying to compare these to gay marriage?

Makka wrote on May 22^nd, 2013 at 8:11pm:

FriYAY wrote on May 22nd, 2013 at 8:01pm: Makka wrote on May 22nd, 2013 at 7:56pm: FriYAY wrote on May 22nd, 2013 at 7:52pm: Makka wrote on May 22nd, 2013 at 7:50pm: Has anyone heard social apologists pushing for marriage equality for any other group or is equality only worthy if you are a homosexual? What other groups? Any group that wants marriage equality For example.....? (1) Between family immediate members (2) Between 1 man and many women (3) Between 1 woman and many men

No, i haven't heard any of that.

It would appear the push is for same sex couples.

The ALP should go to the election with it.

Tony would crap his pants.

;D

Fit of Absent Mindeness wrote on May 22^nd, 2013 at 8:16pm:

Makka wrote on May 22nd, 2013 at 8:11pm: FriYAY wrote on May 22nd, 2013 at 8:01pm: Makka wrote on May 22nd, 2013 at 7:56pm: FriYAY wrote on May 22nd, 2013 at 7:52pm: Makka wrote on May 22nd, 2013 at 7:50pm: Has anyone heard social apologists pushing for marriage equality for any other group or is equality only worthy if you are a homosexual? What other groups? Any group that wants marriage equality For example.....? (1) Between family immediate members (2) Between 1 man and many women (3) Between 1 woman and many men If these groups want marriage equality then they should lobby for it. Marriage equality between homosexuals has nothing to do with the above situations. If you want these situations to be legalised then lobby for them. Are you honestly trying to compare these to gay marriage?

So you are saying he is right?

:-?

What is wrong with someone wanting 2 wives/husbands/partners?

Equality.... :-?

I think the behavior of queers on this subject in the last few years has been appalling.

"Marriage equality" and "discrimination" are words chucked around by many who want Same Sex Marriage as a way of avoiding actual debate. Too many use these as a form of guilt tripping and attacking the opposition to SSM.

True marriage equality can not expand to include one group and ignore all others. SSM may broaden the inclusion zone of marriage, but it still maintains barriers and excludes many other forms or relationships. It is certainly not true "marriage equality".

Same deal with discrimination. The word is thrown around as an insult towards any who would argue against SSM. But most who want SSM still want to discriminate. They don't want marriage for all but simply want to include same sex into marriage. This means they want to move the line to include same sex and then draw a new line to exclude all others. If any and all discrimination is bad then the same sex marriage supporters who use such arguments are simply hypocrites. They basically say that discrimination against them is wrong, but it is ok to discriminate against all others.         

The reality is that no one who claims to want "marriage equality" and to remove "discrimination" in marriage actually want to have true equality and no discrimination. Instead they just want to have slightly less discrimination that what we currently have. Now that itself is fine, but you can not accuse people of discrimination just because they have a slightly more traditional line in the sand than you do.   

If someone wants to argue for SSM then fine... argue for it. Stop chucking easy words like "equality" and "discrimination" around and then say; 'but it is still ok to exclude these people.'

Makka wrote on May 22^nd, 2013 at 8:11pm:

FriYAY wrote on May 22nd, 2013 at 8:01pm: Makka wrote on May 22nd, 2013 at 7:56pm: FriYAY wrote on May 22nd, 2013 at 7:52pm: Makka wrote on May 22nd, 2013 at 7:50pm: Has anyone heard social apologists pushing for marriage equality for any other group or is equality only worthy if you are a homosexual? What other groups? Any group that wants marriage equality For example.....? (1) Between family immediate members (2) Between 1 man and many women (3) Between 1 woman and many men

;D ;D ;D

looking to marry your sister Gumpy? What a dumb statement

Just a dumb thread. Still, it gave Quantum a chance to indulge in semantics, so I guess it isn't all bad.

Personally, I believe giraffes should be allowed to marry hippos and will not cease to lobby for this until successful.

Makka wrote on May 22^nd, 2013 at 7:50pm:

Has anyone heard social apologists pushing for marriage equality for any other group or is equality only worthy if you are a homosexual?

First you ppl push the nonsense that if we allow gay marriage other groups will want it too. Now you say that nobody else wants it so gays shouldn't have it either?

SOB

Makka wrote on May 22^nd, 2013 at 8:11pm:

(1) Between family immediate members

No need: a legal kinship already exists.


Makka wrote on May 22^nd, 2013 at 8:11pm:

(2) Between 1 man and many women

Yes, and I have no problem with that.


Makka wrote on May 22^nd, 2013 at 8:11pm:

(3) Between 1 woman and many men

Yes, and I have no problem with that.

Next on the list is public toilets, Men who dress like women will want equal rights to female toilets. They will cry discrimination.

BlOoDy RiPpEr wrote on May 23^rd, 2013 at 9:07am:

Next on the list is public toilets, Men who dress like women will want equal rights to female toilets. They will cry discrimination.

news to me that toilets have reproductive organs. guess you spend more time around them so you should know.

____ wrote on May 23^rd, 2013 at 9:10am:

BlOoDy RiPpEr wrote on May 23rd, 2013 at 9:07am: Next on the list is public toilets, Men who dress like women will want equal rights to female toilets. They will cry discrimination. news to me that toilets have reproductive organs. guess you spend more time around them so you should know.

wtf are you on about greeny?

BlOoDy RiPpEr wrote on May 23^rd, 2013 at 9:07am:

Next on the list is public toilets, Men who dress like women will want equal rights to female toilets. They will cry discrimination.

Dear me.

This sounds serious.

Just as well there are already unisex toilets in countries all around the world.

Makka wrote on May 22^nd, 2013 at 8:11pm:

FriYAY wrote on May 22nd, 2013 at 8:01pm: Makka wrote on May 22nd, 2013 at 7:56pm: FriYAY wrote on May 22nd, 2013 at 7:52pm: Makka wrote on May 22nd, 2013 at 7:50pm: Has anyone heard social apologists pushing for marriage equality for any other group or is equality only worthy if you are a homosexual? What other groups? Any group that wants marriage equality For example.....? (1) Between family immediate members (2) Between 1 man and many women (3) Between 1 woman and many men

.....don't forget 'Rover'   ;D

Fit of Absent Mindeness wrote on May 22^nd, 2013 at 8:16pm:

If these groups want marriage equality then they should lobby for it.

So marriage equality is only available to those who lobby for it?

Quantum wrote on May 22^nd, 2013 at 9:08pm:

"Marriage equality" and "discrimination" are words chucked around by many who want Same Sex Marriage as a way of avoiding actual debate. Too many use these as a form of guilt tripping and attacking the opposition to SSM. True marriage equality can not expand to include one group and ignore all others. SSM may broaden the inclusion zone of marriage, but it still maintains barriers and excludes many other forms or relationships. It is certainly not true "marriage equality". Same deal with discrimination. The word is thrown around as an insult towards any who would argue against SSM. But most who want SSM still want to discriminate. They don't want marriage for all but simply want to include same sex into marriage. This means they want to move the line to include same sex and then draw a new line to exclude all others. If any and all discrimination is bad then the same sex marriage supporters who use such arguments are simply hypocrites. They basically say that discrimination against them is wrong, but it is ok to discriminate against all others.          The reality is that no one who claims to want "marriage equality" and to remove "discrimination" in marriage actually want to have true equality and no discrimination. Instead they just want to have slightly less discrimination that what we currently have. Now that itself is fine, but you can not accuse people of discrimination just because they have a slightly more traditional line in the sand than you do.    If someone wants to argue for SSM then fine... argue for it. Stop chucking easy words like "equality" and "discrimination" around and then say; 'but it is still ok to exclude these people.'

hear hear

I remember those who support the climate change movement using "climate denier" as a way to avoid and stifle debate as well

The technique of avoiding or stifling debate is called "demonising"

Makka wrote on May 22^nd, 2013 at 7:50pm:

Has anyone heard social apologists pushing for marriage equality for any other group or is equality only worthy if you are a homosexual?

You mean like mixed race marriages.....Or are you implying some people are not worthy of equal rights???

:-? :-? :-?

Never try to reason the prejudice out of a man. It was not reasoned into him, and cannot be reasoned out.
Sydney Smith (1771 - 1845)

Quantum wrote on May 22^nd, 2013 at 9:08pm:

"Marriage equality" and "discrimination" are words chucked around by many who want Same Sex Marriage as a way of avoiding actual debate. Too many use these as a form of guilt tripping and attacking the opposition to SSM. True marriage equality can not expand to include one group and ignore all others. SSM may broaden the inclusion zone of marriage, but it still maintains barriers and excludes many other forms or relationships. It is certainly not true "marriage equality". Same deal with discrimination. The word is thrown around as an insult towards any who would argue against SSM. But most who want SSM still want to discriminate. They don't want marriage for all but simply want to include same sex into marriage. This means they want to move the line to include same sex and then draw a new line to exclude all others. If any and all discrimination is bad then the same sex marriage supporters who use such arguments are simply hypocrites. They basically say that discrimination against them is wrong, but it is ok to discriminate against all others.          The reality is that no one who claims to want "marriage equality" and to remove "discrimination" in marriage actually want to have true equality and no discrimination. Instead they just want to have slightly less discrimination that what we currently have. Now that itself is fine, but you can not accuse people of discrimination just because they have a slightly more traditional line in the sand than you do.    If someone wants to argue for SSM then fine... argue for it. Stop chucking easy words like "equality" and "discrimination" around and then say; 'but it is still ok to exclude these people.'

OK I will bite.....Why should gay people not be allowed to marry each other???

:-? :-? :-?

Peter Freedman wrote on May 23^rd, 2013 at 5:08am:

Just a dumb thread. Still, it gave Quantum a chance to indulge in semantics, so I guess it isn't all bad. Personally, I believe giraffes should be allowed to marry hippos and will not cease to lobby for this until successful.

Actually I think Quantum made a good point. I never thought of it that way.


philperth2010 wrote on May 23^rd, 2013 at 11:50pm:

OK I will bite.....Why should gay people not be allowed to marry each other??? :-? :-? :-?

I don't see it as a problem. Let's just be ready for more debates about the limits of marriage.

In advance, let me say I think polygamy should be legal.

Makka wrote on May 23^rd, 2013 at 8:21pm:

Quantum wrote on May 22nd, 2013 at 9:08pm: "Marriage equality" and "discrimination" are words chucked around by many who want Same Sex Marriage as a way of avoiding actual debate. Too many use these as a form of guilt tripping and attacking the opposition to SSM. True marriage equality can not expand to include one group and ignore all others. SSM may broaden the inclusion zone of marriage, but it still maintains barriers and excludes many other forms or relationships. It is certainly not true "marriage equality". Same deal with discrimination. The word is thrown around as an insult towards any who would argue against SSM. But most who want SSM still want to discriminate. They don't want marriage for all but simply want to include same sex into marriage. This means they want to move the line to include same sex and then draw a new line to exclude all others. If any and all discrimination is bad then the same sex marriage supporters who use such arguments are simply hypocrites. They basically say that discrimination against them is wrong, but it is ok to discriminate against all others.          The reality is that no one who claims to want "marriage equality" and to remove "discrimination" in marriage actually want to have true equality and no discrimination. Instead they just want to have slightly less discrimination that what we currently have. Now that itself is fine, but you can not accuse people of discrimination just because they have a slightly more traditional line in the sand than you do.    If someone wants to argue for SSM then fine... argue for it. Stop chucking easy words like "equality" and "discrimination" around and then say; 'but it is still ok to exclude these people.' hear hear I remember those who support the climate change movement using "climate denier" as a way to avoid and stifle debate as well The technique of avoiding or stifling debate is called "demonising"

Nope. Perhaps you should look it up.

SOB

Mnemonic wrote on May 24^th, 2013 at 12:30am:

Peter Freedman wrote on May 23rd, 2013 at 5:08am: Just a dumb thread. Still, it gave Quantum a chance to indulge in semantics, so I guess it isn't all bad. Personally, I believe giraffes should be allowed to marry hippos and will not cease to lobby for this until successful. Actually I think Quantum made a good point. I never thought of it that way. philperth2010 wrote on May 23rd, 2013 at 11:50pm: OK I will bite.....Why should gay people not be allowed to marry each other??? :-? :-? :-? I don't see it as a problem. Let's just be ready for more debates about the limits of marriage. In advance, let me say I think polygamy should be legal.

As I am not a Conservative I accept the world must change so all people are given the same rights to freedom and the right of law.....Gay people are allowed to marry in many countries around the world without a call for people to be allowed to marry their pets or window dressings.....In some countries men already have the legal right to take many wives so that argument falls flat on its face.....Quantum has called for a reasoned debate on gay marriage so lets stick to that instead of raising bullshit possibilities that have nothing to do with the subject.....Every human being deserves the same rights regardless of their sexual orientation.....So why shouldn't gay people be allowed to marry???

:-? :-? :-?

philperth2010 wrote on May 23^rd, 2013 at 11:32pm:

Makka wrote on May 22nd, 2013 at 7:50pm: Has anyone heard social apologists pushing for marriage equality for any other group or is equality only worthy if you are a homosexual? You mean like mixed race marriages.....Or are you implying some people are not worthy of equal rights??? :-? :-? :-? Never try to reason the prejudice out of a man. It was not reasoned into him, and cannot be reasoned out. Sydney Smith (1771 - 1845)

Was interracial marriage ever illegal in Australia?

No, you say?  So what's the relevance bud? 

philperth2010 wrote on May 24^th, 2013 at 7:06am:

Every human being deserves the same rights regardless of their sexual orientation.....So why shouldn't gay people be allowed to marry???

Their rights don't differ.


Quote:

since 1 July 2009, same-sex couples receive the same level of recognition as de facto opposite-sex couples in federal legislation including tax, health, superannuation, and aged care.

Just like I don't have the right to redefine universal, traditional institutions, neither do they.

No issue here. 

... wrote on May 24^th, 2013 at 8:37am:

philperth2010 wrote on May 23rd, 2013 at 11:32pm: Makka wrote on May 22nd, 2013 at 7:50pm: Has anyone heard social apologists pushing for marriage equality for any other group or is equality only worthy if you are a homosexual? You mean like mixed race marriages.....Or are you implying some people are not worthy of equal rights??? :-? :-? :-? Never try to reason the prejudice out of a man. It was not reasoned into him, and cannot be reasoned out. Sydney Smith (1771 - 1845) Was interracial marriage ever illegal in Australia? No, you say?  So what's the relevance bud?

Where does it state Australia in my post.....Another deflection when you have no substance to your argument!!!

:-? :-? :-?

... wrote on May 24^th, 2013 at 8:42am:

philperth2010 wrote on May 24th, 2013 at 7:06am: Every human being deserves the same rights regardless of their sexual orientation.....So why shouldn't gay people be allowed to marry??? Their rights don't differ. They are not allowed to get married...That right is not afforded to gay people!!! Quote: since 1 July 2009, same-sex couples receive the same level of recognition as de facto opposite-sex couples in federal legislation including tax, health, superannuation, and aged care. Just like I don't have the right to redefine universal, traditional institutions, neither do they. No issue here.

So when it happens as it will you will have to accept it.....No issue here!!!

:) :) :)

My money is on Abbott allowing a conscience vote on gay marriage once he becomes PM and once its passed by the Liberal Govt of the day people like Maqqa will say what a grand idea it is and praise Abbott for being so open minded.
Lets face it..the cheer squad change their collective spots like a woman changes shoes  :D

philperth2010 wrote on May 24^th, 2013 at 5:07pm:

... wrote on May 24th, 2013 at 8:37am: philperth2010 wrote on May 23rd, 2013 at 11:32pm: Makka wrote on May 22nd, 2013 at 7:50pm: Has anyone heard social apologists pushing for marriage equality for any other group or is equality only worthy if you are a homosexual? You mean like mixed race marriages.....Or are you implying some people are not worthy of equal rights??? :-? :-? :-? Never try to reason the prejudice out of a man. It was not reasoned into him, and cannot be reasoned out. Sydney Smith (1771 - 1845) Was interracial marriage ever illegal in Australia? No, you say?  So what's the relevance bud?  Where does it state Australia in my post.....Another deflection when you have no substance to your argument!!! :-? :-? :-?

well, we are in australia...

So, what is the relevance of interracial marriage?  Presumably there was a reason why you brought it up?

philperth2010 wrote on May 24^th, 2013 at 5:09pm:

They are not allowed to get married...That right is not afforded to gay people!!!

When i got married, I had to have someone of the opposite sex to get married to.  They have exactly the same right.


Quote:

So when it happens as it will you will have to accept it.....No issue here!!! :) :) :)

True.  I was never under the impression that I had veto power over government decisions.

However, my ideal scenario would be for them to just STFU immediately and not waste any more time on such garbage. 

... wrote on May 24^th, 2013 at 5:41pm:

philperth2010 wrote on May 24th, 2013 at 5:07pm: ... wrote on May 24th, 2013 at 8:37am: philperth2010 wrote on May 23rd, 2013 at 11:32pm: Makka wrote on May 22nd, 2013 at 7:50pm: Has anyone heard social apologists pushing for marriage equality for any other group or is equality only worthy if you are a homosexual? You mean like mixed race marriages.....Or are you implying some people are not worthy of equal rights??? :-? :-? :-? Never try to reason the prejudice out of a man. It was not reasoned into him, and cannot be reasoned out. Sydney Smith (1771 - 1845) Was interracial marriage ever illegal in Australia? No, you say?  So what's the relevance bud?  Where does it state Australia in my post.....Another deflection when you have no substance to your argument!!! :-? :-? :-? well, we are in australia... So, what is the relevance of interracial marriage?  Presumably there was a reason why you brought it up?

Read the OP again Einstein and get back to me!!!

::) ::) ::)

Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions.
Albert Einstein

Same-sex marriage sets a "dangerous precedent" which could lead to sibling marriage or polygamy, says Lord Carey.

Ahead of the Lords debate on the bill next week, the former archbishop of Canterbury argued there could be "unintended consequences".

He has previously courted controversy by likening critics of gay marriage to persecuted Jews in Nazi Germany.

Gay rights group Stonewall said the comments were "regrettable" and accused the peer of "hyperbolic shroud waving".

Lord Carey has been a vocal opponent of the government's Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill for England and Wales, which will be debated by peers on Monday.

It is expected to face a tough passage through the Lords - crossbench peer and former West Midlands chief constable Lord Dear has tabled an amendment to refuse it a second reading - which if passed would effectively kill the bill.

The government has confirmed that if the Lords debate over-runs, the vote will be carried over until the next day.

In an article for the think tank Civitas, Lord Carey, who is a member of the House of Lords, argues that the government is effectively seeking to change the definition of marriage to "a long-term commitment between two people of any sex, in which gender and procreation are irrelevant".

He says he does not want to be "alarmist", but that could logically be extended to "say, two sisters bringing up children together" or "multiple relationships, such as two women and one man".

"Ultimately, the proposed legalisation of same-sex marriage represents a paradigm shift in our understanding of marriage," he argues.

It is not the first time the former Archbishop of Canterbury has suggested that legalising same-sex marriage could pave the way for polygamy - suggesting at the Conservative Party conference last year that there was a "slippery slope" to allowing a "Mormon-style relationship".

The Department for Culture, Media and Sport said it did not want to respond directly to Lord Carey's comments.

But Stonewall chief executive Ben Summerskill said: "This is regrettably hyperbolic shroud waving.

"We pray other peers will be a little more attuned to the 21st Century during next week's debate."

On Thursday the Bishop of Salisbury, the Rt Rev Nicholas Holtham suggested in a letter to the Telegraph that it was time to "rethink" attitudes about same-sex marriage, as Christians had done with slavery and apartheid.

"No one now supports either slavery or apartheid. The Biblical texts have not changed; our interpretation has."

He argued that same sex marriage did not "detract from heterosexual marriage" and that the "development of marriage for same sex couples is a very strong endorsement of the institution of marriage".

The bill would allow same-sex couples, who can currently hold civil ceremonies, to marry.

Religious organisations would have to "opt in" to offering weddings, with the Church of England and Church in Wales being banned in law from doing so.

It is backed by Prime Minister David Cameron, his Lib Dem deputy Nick Clegg and Labour leader Ed Miliband. But it was opposed by 161 MPs in a free vote in the Commons, 133 of them Conservative - and has been criticised by some Conservative activists.

Mr Cameron hopes it will become law soon, with the first ceremonies taking place by next summer.

The Scottish government has confirmed it will introduce a bill shortly to allow same-sex marriage.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22727808

philperth2010 wrote on May 24^th, 2013 at 11:57pm:

... wrote on May 24th, 2013 at 5:41pm: philperth2010 wrote on May 24th, 2013 at 5:07pm: ... wrote on May 24th, 2013 at 8:37am: philperth2010 wrote on May 23rd, 2013 at 11:32pm: Makka wrote on May 22nd, 2013 at 7:50pm: Has anyone heard social apologists pushing for marriage equality for any other group or is equality only worthy if you are a homosexual? You mean like mixed race marriages.....Or are you implying some people are not worthy of equal rights??? :-? :-? :-? Never try to reason the prejudice out of a man. It was not reasoned into him, and cannot be reasoned out. Sydney Smith (1771 - 1845) Was interracial marriage ever illegal in Australia? No, you say?  So what's the relevance bud?  Where does it state Australia in my post.....Another deflection when you have no substance to your argument!!! :-? :-? :-? well, we are in australia... So, what is the relevance of interracial marriage?  Presumably there was a reason why you brought it up? Read the OP again Einstein and get back to me!!! ::) ::) ::) Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions. Albert Einstein

Nothing in the Op about interracial marriage either. 

So why did you mention it?

BlOoDy RiPpEr wrote on May 23^rd, 2013 at 9:07am:

Next on the list is public toilets, Men who dress like women will want equal rights to female toilets. They will cry discrimination.

Thanks to homosexuals there are hardly any public toilets, because they used to congregate there, and now if one needs a quick toilet stop, there is a problem.
What is more of a concern, is, that homosexuals can ogle at young heterosexuals in public dressing rooms and showers, after all, we don't use common showers for both sexes.
In France there seems to be a backlash against homosexuals because of same sex marriages.
The myth that 70% of the people are for same sex marriages, that the politicians and the homosexual lobby has been pushing, maybe at last exposed.

hawil wrote on Jun 1^st, 2013 at 8:00pm:

BlOoDy RiPpEr wrote on May 23rd, 2013 at 9:07am: Next on the list is public toilets, Men who dress like women will want equal rights to female toilets. They will cry discrimination. Thanks to homosexuals there are hardly any public toilets ...

Source?

Hahahahahha

SOB

hawil wrote on Jun 1^st, 2013 at 8:00pm:

BlOoDy RiPpEr wrote on May 23rd, 2013 at 9:07am: Next on the list is public toilets, Men who dress like women will want equal rights to female toilets. They will cry discrimination. Thanks to homosexuals there are hardly any public toilets, because they used to congregate there, and now if one needs a quick toilet stop, there is a problem. What is more of a concern, is, that homosexuals can ogle at young heterosexuals in public dressing rooms and showers, after all, we don't use common showers for both sexes. In France there seems to be a backlash against homosexuals because of same sex marriages. The myth that 70% of the people are for same sex marriages, that the politicians and the homosexual lobby has been pushing, maybe at last exposed.

It's a lose/lose situation because if they ogle you it's threatening and if they don't it's insulting  ;D

Amadd wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2013 at 6:25am:

hawil wrote on Jun 1st, 2013 at 8:00pm: BlOoDy RiPpEr wrote on May 23rd, 2013 at 9:07am: Next on the list is public toilets, Men who dress like women will want equal rights to female toilets. They will cry discrimination. Thanks to homosexuals there are hardly any public toilets, because they used to congregate there, and now if one needs a quick toilet stop, there is a problem. What is more of a concern, is, that homosexuals can ogle at young heterosexuals in public dressing rooms and showers, after all, we don't use common showers for both sexes. In France there seems to be a backlash against homosexuals because of same sex marriages. The myth that 70% of the people are for same sex marriages, that the politicians and the homosexual lobby has been pushing, maybe at last exposed. It's a lose/lose situation because if they ogle you it's threatening and if they don't it's insulting  ;D

Very unusual comment; I'am too old to be ogled at or ogle at someone else, nor I have ever been so inclined for same sex people.

Honestly this equality thing is crap.

Any man or woman has equality in this already they can marry any member of the opposite sex that wants to marry them.

Marriage is between a man and a woman.
tennis is tennis not football.  No need to change the language or the marriage act for a minority of a minority.

Personally I think that Bisexuals need to speak up in this... for equality, they are the forgotten sexual preference...  they should be allowed to marry a man and a woman.  As should their partner...  ::)

hawil wrote on Jun 1^st, 2013 at 8:00pm:

Thanks to homosexuals there are hardly any public toilets, because they used to congregate there, and now if one needs a quick toilet stop, there is a problem

Rubbish ... the main reason for the demise of public toilets is the cost of maintenance due to vandalism, and liability councils faces if someone is injured in them and sues ...

that and the increase in the number of 7eleven and maccas stores.

Grendel wrote on Jun 4^th, 2013 at 7:08pm:

Any man or woman has equality in this already they can marry any member of the opposite sex that wants to marry them

thats, fine ... if you want to marry a member of the opposite, but it's hardly equal if you prefer someone of the same sex.
boy 1 ... wants to bugger girls so marries a girl, ends up with nagging wife but occasional sex
boy 2 wants to fck boys but has to marry a girl ... ends up with nagging wife and no sex

not equal.

John Smith wrote on Jun 4^th, 2013 at 7:33pm:

Grendel wrote on Jun 4th, 2013 at 7:08pm: Any man or woman has equality in this already they can marry any member of the opposite sex that wants to marry them thats, fine ... if you want to marry a member of the opposite, but it's hardly equal if you prefer someone of the same sex. boy 1 ... wants to bugger girls so marries a girl, ends up with nagging wife but occasional sex boy 2 wants to fck boys but has to marry a girl ... ends up with nagging wife and no sex not equal.

Well if the idea doesn't appeal to them, they could always just...not get married.  Why make an issue when there is none?

John Smith wrote on Jun 4^th, 2013 at 7:33pm:

Grendel wrote on Jun 4th, 2013 at 7:08pm: Any man or woman has equality in this already they can marry any member of the opposite sex that wants to marry them thats, fine ... if you want to marry a member of the opposite, but it's hardly equal if you prefer someone of the same sex. boy 1 ... wants to bugger girls so marries a girl, ends up with nagging wife but occasional sex boy 2 wants to fck boys but has to marry a girl ... ends up with nagging wife and no sex not equal.

Since marriage is between a man and a woman it is fine and equal...

... wrote on Jun 4^th, 2013 at 7:49pm:

John Smith wrote on Jun 4th, 2013 at 7:33pm: Grendel wrote on Jun 4th, 2013 at 7:08pm: Any man or woman has equality in this already they can marry any member of the opposite sex that wants to marry them thats, fine ... if you want to marry a member of the opposite, but it's hardly equal if you prefer someone of the same sex. boy 1 ... wants to bugger girls so marries a girl, ends up with nagging wife but occasional sex boy 2 wants to fck boys but has to marry a girl ... ends up with nagging wife and no sex not equal. Well if the idea doesn't appeal to them, they could always just...not get married.  Why make an issue when there is none?

Exactly

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jun 1^st, 2013 at 5:20pm:

Same-sex marriage sets a "dangerous precedent" which could lead to sibling marriage or polygamy, says Lord Carey.

Nope. Its not a precedent since in order to bring in any of those other things new laws would have to be made. How about you look up precedent?

SOB

... wrote on Jun 4^th, 2013 at 7:49pm:

John Smith wrote on Jun 4th, 2013 at 7:33pm: Grendel wrote on Jun 4th, 2013 at 7:08pm: Any man or woman has equality in this already they can marry any member of the opposite sex that wants to marry them thats, fine ... if you want to marry a member of the opposite, but it's hardly equal if you prefer someone of the same sex. boy 1 ... wants to bugger girls so marries a girl, ends up with nagging wife but occasional sex boy 2 wants to fck boys but has to marry a girl ... ends up with nagging wife and no sex not equal. Well if the idea doesn't appeal to them, they could always just...not get married.  Why make an issue when there is none?

So not having formal recognition of a relationship is not an issue?

I love this - those that are saying there is no issue can already get married.

I have access to it but you can't because......

I don't like you, it's icky, I have issues with my own identity.

There wasn't an issue with black people having to sit at the back of the bus either.

This is what is humorous - all of the same arguments against have been put up by those against equal rights for women voting(because dogs got the vote!) and black people voting (because people then started to marry their brothers, sisters, a chair, printer cable, their dog!)

It amazes me that those against care so much about people that have no bearing on their life. I imagine it must be quite boring to think about what others are doing.

As for the "think about the children" line of thinking - who has gay babies?

Who has babies that are accidents?

It's not like gay people have sex and then say "oops, we occidentally signed up for IVF/Adoption!"

A real concern is - how would those who don't like gay people react if their children are gay?

Of course I know the answer to this - instead of loving the child unconditionally some of them disown the child.  Only realising years down the road (when the child is grown up, has moved on and has their own life) how wrong they were.

Don't worry - gay people will continue to lobby for marriage equality and with each passing day it gets closer to reality.

This is why those who are against it are so loud - their getting worried that their view is no longer mainstream and that as more people deal with gay people and realise how boring and normal we actually are it's not so scary after all.

Fit of Absent Mindeness wrote on Jun 5^th, 2013 at 9:33am:

I love this - those that are saying there is no issue can already get married. I have access to it but you can't because......

But that's just it - you do have access to it!  The exact, precise same access that I do!


Quote:

It amazes me that those against care so much about people that have no bearing on their life. I imagine it must be quite boring to think about what others are doing

And yet here you are wailing about whether the government - that most impersonal of entities - validates your relationship.  What bearing does THAT have on your life?  And before you answer, consider that;


Quote:

However, since 1 July 2009, same-sex couples receive the same level of recognition as de facto opposite-sex couples in federal legislation including tax, health, superannuation, and aged care.

There is no issue.

;D ;D ;D

yep...  it is not about equality
it is not about love

it is about marriage...  the union of a man and a woman.

The issue isn't about homophobia or human rights.  It is about lifestyle, choice, tradition and in some cases (perhaps, the majority) of Religion.

I know lots of people who are homosexual and guess what...  they don't want to get married.  Most "gay" people do not seek marriage.  So who are you supposedly representing?  The choice to be "gay" automatically excludes one from MARRIAGE, that being the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, a commitment to monogamy, the initiation of the natural family unit. 

Face it choosing a "gay" lifestyle or relationship excludes one from having a family in the NATURAL context. IE a man and a woman, (husband and wife), having children.  The tradition of marriage is based on this natural order.  If I chose to be gay, I would accept this fact.  No one is excluding anyone or trampling on anyone's human rights.  No more than a Vegan is prevented from eating meat...  it is a choice, made by the individual.  Choices have consequences.  If I choose to play Cricket, I cannot then expect everyone to call it Football, just because I wish it.

As long as same sex relationships are afforded the same legal rights as heterosexual relationships (and they do) then, lets all stop the pandering to a vocal minority who seek to change the language and the meaning of our words and get on with life.

To those who say it's a choice - when did you choose to be gay? Did you try both and then choose women?

I can say I have tried both and can 100% say I'm gay!

As for your other opinions about gay people getting married to women - no thanks, this results in marriages being broken apart, men having unprotected sex with other men and endangering their wives with std's and other countless issues.

It's the cowards way out - men who are gay shouldn't marry women just because that's their only option.

As for defacto = marriage so there is no issue - wrong again.

The marriage act says "Between a man and a women for life" it was changed in 2004 to this definition.

Notice the "for life" part - we allow divorce and yet it says "for life".  Not exactly upholding the sanctity of marriage with 50% of couples getting divorced.

Are you scared that gay couples have better relationships than straight couples?

Our 8 1/2 years and going strong pales in comparison to that 72 day marriage of kim karsh-whatever her name is.

Fit of Absent Mindeness wrote on Jun 5^th, 2013 at 1:37pm:

It's the cowards way out - men who are gay shouldn't marry women just because that's their only option.

Only option?  WTF are you on son?  get married, or don't - there's a choice. 


Fit of Absent Mindeness wrote on Jun 5^th, 2013 at 1:37pm:

As for defacto = marriage so there is no issue - wrong again.

there should be a difference, but there's not. What is the issue?

Fit of Absent Mindeness wrote on Jun 5^th, 2013 at 1:37pm:

To those who say it's a choice - when did you choose to be gay? Did you try both and then choose women? I can say I have tried both and can 100% say I'm gay! As for your other opinions about gay people getting married to women - no thanks, this results in marriages being broken apart, men having unprotected sex with other men and endangering their wives with std's and other countless issues. It's the cowards way out - men who are gay shouldn't marry women just because that's their only option. As for defacto = marriage so there is no issue - wrong again. The marriage act says "Between a man and a women for life" it was changed in 2004 to this definition. Notice the "for life" part - we allow divorce and yet it says "for life".  Not exactly upholding the sanctity of marriage with 50% of couples getting divorced. Are you scared that gay couples have better relationships than straight couples? Our 8 1/2 years and going strong pales in comparison to that 72 day marriage of kim karsh-whatever her name is.

hahaha...  they keep proving my point.
This one thinks he's the only gay in the world.
He seems to think gays don't have unprotected sex or bad relationships  ::)
If he really wanted to debate the facts he'd better bone-up on the subject.

I await his revelation that it's been proven people are born gay.  That would make it in science papers and newspapers right round the world...  hint...  so far that is an unproven rumour started by gays.

I'm not the only gay in the village - far from it. Not only do I not speak for all gltbq people, I also don't claim to speak for anyone else.

Now - who is it that is claiming the "moral" high ground/speaking on behalf of the "silent majority."

Here is your chance - as you are the expert on sexuality and think it's a choice - show me that being gay is a choice.

Show me the unbiased scientific evidence that backs this up.

When did you choose?

Does that mean you can choose to sleep with men as well?

What happens if one of your children is gay or lesbian?

I must work on converting people and check in on the updated "gay agenda."

Makka wrote on May 22^nd, 2013 at 7:50pm:

Has anyone heard social apologists pushing for marriage equality for any other group or is equality only worthy if you are a homosexual?

The argument is for same sex marriage...in other words u can marry your drinking buddy if you're so inclined.

adelcrow wrote on Jun 5^th, 2013 at 3:49pm:

Makka wrote on May 22nd, 2013 at 7:50pm: Has anyone heard social apologists pushing for marriage equality for any other group or is equality only worthy if you are a homosexual? The argument is for same sex marriage...in other words u can marry your drinking buddy if you're so inclined.

That would be fine if your drinking buddy was of the opposite sex because marriage is the union of a man and a woman.

Fit of Absent Mindeness wrote on Jun 5^th, 2013 at 3:30pm:

I'm not the only gay in the village - far from it. Not only do I not speak for all gltbq people, I also don't claim to speak for anyone else. Now - who is it that is claiming the "moral" high ground/speaking on behalf of the "silent majority." Here is your chance - as you are the expert on sexuality and think it's a choice - show me that being gay is a choice. Show me the unbiased scientific evidence that backs this up. When did you choose? Does that mean you can choose to sleep with men as well? What happens if one of your children is gay or lesbian? I must work on converting people and check in on the updated "gay agenda."

Honestly...  you gotta lie and create strawmen to build an argument?

As for my sex and sexual preference that is my business.

Giving you one last chance to have a think about your questions before I CHOOSE to answer them and make you look sillier than you already do.

I don't think being gay is a choice, but I don't see why it matters if it is.

It doesn't...  because marriage is the union of a man and a woman.

Ps.  I don't think what you think about it counts.  It is as yet unproven that one is born gay.  Nature and Nurture baby.

Worked in Medical Theatres where operations were aplenty done because of what damage ANAL sex does.
It is a very UN-HYGENIC act in the name of Sexual Health and unofficially the main culprit behind sexually transmitted diseases.

Its not because of RELIGION that Gay Marriages shouldn't be justified to justify ANAL SEX.
Even though Gays are using USA Politics and Law to BULLY Religion.
(...watching gays hurl abuse at Catholic Church carrying its cross...)

"If my son was Gay?"
I would say...
"Son. We all make mistakes. Sometimes they are financial, social, etc. They main thing is that you learn that what you did was wrong, and there is a better way of living for the betterment of everyone."
and
"Do you think they should legalise me sleeping with another man's woman? I mean - its love too and I want to. BUTT too much of a good thing can be bad for you (me)."

Gays: They tried to jump on the horse of Celibacy and fell off the other side to kiss the dirt (and blame the horse!).

...and Rednecks are failed 'Family' people.

It_is_the_Darkness wrote on Jun 5^th, 2013 at 8:31pm:

Worked in Medical Theatres where operations were aplenty done because of what damage ANAL sex does. It is a very UN-HYGENIC act in the name of Sexual Health and unofficially the main culprit behind sexually transmitted diseases. Its not because of RELIGION that Gay Marriages shouldn't be justified to justify ANAL SEX. Even though Gays are using USA Politics and Law to BULLY Religion. (...watching gays hurl abuse at Catholic Church carrying its cross...) "If my son was Gay?" I would say... "Son. We all make mistakes. Sometimes they are financial, social, etc. They main thing is that you learn that what you did was wrong, and there is a better way of living for the betterment of everyone." and "Do you think they should legalise me sleeping with another man's woman? I mean - its love too and I want to. BUTT too much of a good thing can be bad for you (me)." Gays: They tried to jump on the horse of Celibacy and fell off the other side to kiss the dirt (and blame the horse!). ...and Rednecks are failed 'Family' people.

But hey its okay for religion to hurl abuse @ everyone else huh?

http://my.greasy.com/host/images/68346185.jpg

SOB

Grendel wrote on Jun 5^th, 2013 at 1:26pm:

;D ;D ;D yep...  it is not about equality it is not about love it is about marriage...  the union of a man and a woman. The issue isn't about homophobia or human rights.  It is about lifestyle, choice, tradition and in some cases (perhaps, the majority) of Religion. I know lots of people who are homosexual and guess what...  they don't want to get married.  Most "gay" people do not seek marriage.  So who are you supposedly representing?  The choice to be "gay" automatically excludes one from MARRIAGE, that being the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, a commitment to monogamy, the initiation of the natural family unit.  Face it choosing a "gay" lifestyle or relationship excludes one from having a family in the NATURAL context. IE a man and a woman, (husband and wife), having children.  The tradition of marriage is based on this natural order.  If I chose to be gay, I would accept this fact.  No one is excluding anyone or trampling on anyone's human rights.  No more than a Vegan is prevented from eating meat...  it is a choice, made by the individual.  Choices have consequences.  If I choose to play Cricket, I cannot then expect everyone to call it Football, just because I wish it. As long as same sex relationships are afforded the same legal rights as heterosexual relationships (and they do) then, lets all stop the pandering to a vocal minority who seek to change the language and the meaning of our words and get on with life.

Oh boy another one that calls sexual preference a 'lifestyle'. . . .. .

SOB

Grendel wrote on Jun 5^th, 2013 at 8:22pm:

It doesn't...  because marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Ps.  I don't think what you think about it counts.  It is as yet unproven that one is born gay.  Nature and Nurture baby.

yeah...neither of which imply choice.   :-?

Grendel wrote on Jun 5^th, 2013 at 5:10pm:

Giving you one last chance to have a think about your questions before I CHOOSE to answer them and make you look sillier than you already do.

Why should I think about my questions - you haven't answered them as yet.

By attacking me - yet again - your showing you either can't answer these questions, don't like the answers or simply don't want to answer.

I'm not the one who looks silly.

It appears that those against don't like it when you ask them why they are against it.

They don't seem to want to provide evidence to back up their positions - after all they are in the majority (apparently) and it should be fairly easy to come up with some compelling evidence.

You can attack me all you want, I'm not the one who looks silly because I don't have anything to support my position.

You say I am creating a strawman argument, yet those against bring up things like:

Incest
Bestiality
Marrying a chair
Having children
The sanctity of marriage

Yet when pressed for evidence based on their position - they attack the other side and bring up immorality, the gay agenda and how allowing 2 consenting adults to have formal relationship recognition will some how be the downfall of society.

If this was really about the sanctity of marriage divorce would  be illegal.

If this was really about tradition, women would still be owned by men.

If the bible really was a foundation for our laws you could stone people who worked on sunday and non virgins.

Of course divorce is legal and we don't stone anyone.

The bible is the basis for a religion - it isn't the basis for our legal system and our society has since moved past it with less people being religious.

Being gay isn't about having anal sex either - straight couples engage in this practice as well - does this mean we should deny them the right to marry?

Fit of Absent Mindeness wrote on Jun 6^th, 2013 at 8:28am:

You say I am creating a strawman argument,

Says the man who thinks the only opposition is based on the bible. 

... wrote on Jun 6^th, 2013 at 8:30am:

Fit of Absent Mindeness wrote on Jun 6th, 2013 at 8:28am: You say I am creating a strawman argument, Says the man who thinks the only opposition is based on the bible.

Show me where I said the only opposition was based on the bible?

There are those non religious people who are against it also.

Either way, it doesn't change the fact that their arguments always have the same themes too them.

When pressed about their arguments and whether they can show evidence they seem to go on the attack.

It's like they have no evidence, they don't like being challenged about their beliefs and don't like that their beliefs aren't shared by everyone.

It_is_the_Darkness wrote on Jun 5^th, 2013 at 8:31pm:

Worked in Medical Theatres where operations were aplenty done because of what damage ANAL sex does.

" ... 44 percent of straight men and 36 percent of straight women admitted to having had anal sex at least once in their lives."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/06/anal-sex-heterosexual-couples-report_n_1190440.html

I know three gay guys and none of them have anal sex.  In fact, all three are quite repulsed by the act.

I'm straight, and I've had anal sex with many of the women I've slept with (and all except one absolutely loved it).

... wrote on Jun 6^th, 2013 at 8:12am:

Grendel wrote on Jun 5th, 2013 at 8:22pm: It doesn't...  because marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Ps.  I don't think what you think about it counts.  It is as yet unproven that one is born gay.  Nature and Nurture baby. yeah...neither of which imply choice.   :-?

I was referring to the obvious and oft noted facts that impact behaviour.  Let me know when you get it honky, sometimes one trumps the other by a longshot.  I can't be bothered getting into a pedantic struggle with you re Nurture and choice  ;D

No need for a pedantic struggle. Just a quick, 25 word summary of how one 'chooses' their genes and developmental environment will be fine thanks.

I people knew what homos did they wouldn't support them:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjnrLt3VuSM

... wrote on Jun 6^th, 2013 at 11:58am:

No need for a pedantic struggle. Just a quick, 25 word summary of how one 'chooses' their genes and developmental environment will be fine thanks.

So you think the act of a man having sex with another man or woman with a woman is genetic?

Wow.  If you can prove that it's Nobel prize time for you.

Because up till now no scientific study has been able to prove that.

oh and honky...  to back up my experience and understanding...


Quote:

Dean Byrd, the past president of NARTH, confirmed that the statement from the American Psychological Association came in a brochure that updates what the APA has advocated for years. Ads by Google     * Basic PoliticsTraining courses in Sydney. Open to everyone. Enrol online now. cce.sydney.edu.au     * Management JobsHow To Get That Management Job. Free Consultation. Contact Us. EPR.com.au/Management-Jobs Specifically, in a brochure that first came out about 1998, the APA stated: “There is considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person’s sexuality.” However, in the update: a brochure now called, “Answers to Your Questions for a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality,” the APA’s position changed. The new statement says:     “There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles. …” “Although there is no mention of the research that influenced this new position statement, it is clear that efforts to ‘prove’ that homosexuality is simply a biological fait accompli have failed,” Byrd wrote. “The activist researchers themselves have reluctantly reached that conclusion. There is no gay gene. There is no simple biological pathway to homosexuality.” Byrd said the APA’s documents both new and old “have strong activist overtones,” but the newer document “is more reflective of science and more consistent with the ethicality of psychological care.”

Grendel wrote on Jun 6^th, 2013 at 1:30pm:

... wrote on Jun 6th, 2013 at 11:58am: No need for a pedantic struggle. Just a quick, 25 word summary of how one 'chooses' their genes and developmental environment will be fine thanks. So you think the act of a man having sex with another man or woman with a woman is genetic? Wow.  If you can prove that it's Nobel prize time for you. Because up till now no scientific study has been able to prove that.

Acts aren't genetic, but predispositions or inclinations to commit them can be.

Don't tell me you're of the belief that they shouldn't choose to act on them?  A bit unfair innit?

Grendel wrote on Jun 6^th, 2013 at 1:46pm:

oh and honky...  to back up my experience and understanding...

...A cut and paste job resulting froma google search along the lines of 'gay gene'.  You must be an expert.


Quote:

“There is considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person’s sexuality.”

Yep.  Do you know what a "signfiicant role" means?


Quote:

“There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles. …”

I am one of that many.  I agreed with your "nature and nurture" statement, but asked where choice came into it.  You didn't answer. :(


Quote:

“Although there is no mention of the research that influenced this new position statement, it is clear that efforts to ‘prove’ that homosexuality is simply a biological fait accompli have failed,” Byrd wrote. “The activist researchers themselves have reluctantly reached that conclusion. There is no gay gene. There is no simple biological pathway to homosexuality.”

So?  I say it, like everything else, is nature AND nurture.  hardly a "biological fait accompli".
Genes interact with each other and the environment to produce effects, so looking for 1 single gene as a cause of a particular trait is a fools errand.

So, I ask again: where does "choice" fit in?

I'm sorry you still fail to understand honky.
I can't see how to make it clearer for you. 
Perhaps you should lose the bias or the dislike of the bias you think I have.
I might be gay or bisexual yet you seem to presume otherwise.  gay or heterosexual it doesn't effect the facts.
You are the one who seemed to think it was just genetic.
You are the one who cannot fathom choice in nurture.
One never stops learning and experiencing honky...  does that help you any?

Quote:

I can't see how to make it clearer for you.

You could start by answering the question you've been evading:  Where does choice fit in?

Fit of Absent Mindeness wrote on Jun 6^th, 2013 at 8:33am:

... wrote on Jun 6th, 2013 at 8:30am: Fit of Absent Mindeness wrote on Jun 6th, 2013 at 8:28am: You say I am creating a strawman argument, Says the man who thinks the only opposition is based on the bible.  Show me where I said the only opposition was based on the bible? There are those non religious people who are against it also. Either way, it doesn't change the fact that their arguments always have the same themes too them. When pressed about their arguments and whether they can show evidence they seem to go on the attack. It's like they have no evidence, they don't like being challenged about their beliefs and don't like that their beliefs aren't shared by everyone.

Honky doesn't have beliefs, just vague, shadowy impulses. Unconscious urges. Reptlilian desires brought on by Pavlovian triggers. The whole thing's motivated by genetics, innit.

When Honky's beliefs are challenged, he just tells you what Dad said. Adam and Steve, anal fistulas, nature over nurture. I'm not sure he can respond to your post above, Icytone.

There's nothing about eugenics in it. Innit.

Ahh karnal, glad you're here.  Did you choose to be gay?

... wrote on Jun 6^th, 2013 at 5:07pm:

Quote: I can't see how to make it clearer for you. You could start by answering the question you've been evading:  Where does choice fit in?

Ah. Good question.

Choice fits in when people experiment and try new things.

Bobbie, for example, was once a devout virgin prude. But before long, he decided to give it a go and made the plunge.

He's not cured yet, but he's exploring his sexuality and discovering untold new pleasures.

He realises now that people are born bi-curious. Rather than being stuck in a rut, performing the same tired actions day after day after day, Bobbie chooses to renew himself each and every day.

People are not heteronormative by nature, they're polymorphous. I can give you some good readings from the faculty, Honky, if you'd like to join the club.

Bobby. wrote on Jun 6^th, 2013 at 12:07pm:

I people knew what homos did they wouldn't support them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjnrLt3VuSM

Karnal - don't eat da poo poo.

Quote:

You are the one who seemed to think it was just genetic.

So no matter how many times I state that it's a complex mix of nature AND nurture, I still belive it's entirely genetic?  Why do I bother?


Quote:

You are the one who cannot fathom choice in nurture.

ask a hommer, and they'll tell you they knew they were gay from a very young age.  I believe them, because I knew I was attracted to girls by age 6 - One does wonder how much choice a 5 or 6 year old has in their environment. 

... wrote on Jun 6^th, 2013 at 5:12pm:

Ahh karnal, glad you're here.  Did you choose to be gay?

Is that a pick up line? This one's taken, sister.

You might like to try that bat character over in the corner. If you're up for some raw meat, that is.

Karnal wrote on Jun 6^th, 2013 at 5:16pm:

... wrote on Jun 6th, 2013 at 5:07pm: Quote: I can't see how to make it clearer for you. You could start by answering the question you've been evading:  Where does choice fit in? Ah. Good question. Choice fits in when people experiment and try new things.

If you need to experiment to find out if you're attracted to the same sex, you're already in, or very close to, the gay end of the spectrum of gaynesstm

... wrote on Jun 6^th, 2013 at 5:19pm:

Quote: You are the one who seemed to think it was just genetic. So no matter how many times I state that it's a complex mix of nature AND nurture, I still belive it's entirely genetic?  Why do I bother? [quote] You are the one who cannot fathom choice in nurture.

ask a hommer, and they'll tell you they knew they were gay from a very young age.  I believe them, because I knew I was attracted to girls by age 6 - One does wonder how much choice a 5 or 6 year old has in their environment.  [/quote]

A number of hommers also converted later in life. Oscar Wilde is one. He had a happy marriage until he was seduced by a chappie. He said going back to women would be like going with cold mutton.

That ABC journalist who got busted for speed in Singapore is another. He made the switch in his late 30s. He'd never been interested in guys before that.

Many peope just go with the flow. Some people will have sex with anything. Some people can get turned on by anything.

These people are the ubermenschen Neitzsche mentioned, people who rise above the constraints of petty morality.

The rest of the human race merely grazes like cattle.

Karnal wrote on Jun 6^th, 2013 at 5:26pm:

He'd never been interested in guys before that.

He'd never admitted to being interested in guys before that, but one on the edges of the spectrum of gaynesstm cannot choose to swing to the other side.  One a scale of 1-100, 1 being the gayest gay and 100 being the heteroest hetero, a 51 may choose to be gay, but an 80 (or a 20) is steadfast in their orientation.  There is some elasticity, but not enough to make a meaningful difference for the vast majority of people.

Karnal wrote on Jun 6^th, 2013 at 5:26pm:

... wrote on Jun 6th, 2013 at 5:19pm: Quote: You are the one who seemed to think it was just genetic. So no matter how many times I state that it's a complex mix of nature AND nurture, I still belive it's entirely genetic?  Why do I bother? [quote] You are the one who cannot fathom choice in nurture. ask a hommer, and they'll tell you they knew they were gay from a very young age.  I believe them, because I knew I was attracted to girls by age 6 - One does wonder how much choice a 5 or 6 year old has in their environment.

A number of hommers also converted later in life. Oscar Wilde is one. He had a happy marriage until he was seduced by a chappie. He said going back to women would be like going with cold mutton.

That ABC journalist who got busted for speed in Singapore is another. He made the switch in his late 30s. He'd never been interested in guys before that.

Many peope just go with the flow. Some people will have sex with anything. Some people can get turned on by anything.

These people are the ubermenschen Neitzsche mentioned, people who rise above the constraints of petty morality.

The rest of the human race merely grazes like cattle.
[/quote]

would it be possible to get turned on by a selection of fine cheeses karmal (or is that carnal) ;)

Karnal is a poof - backs against the wall when he's around.

... wrote on Jun 6^th, 2013 at 5:32pm:

Karnal wrote on Jun 6th, 2013 at 5:26pm: He'd never been interested in guys before that. He'd never admitted to being interested in guys before that, but one on the edges of the spectrum of gaynesstm cannot choose to swing to the other side.  One a scale of 1-100, 1 being the gayest gay and 100 being the heteroest hetero, a 51 may choose to be gay. There is some elasticity, but not to make a meaningful difference for the vast majority of people.

Gee - that's scientific. How do you know all this, Honky?

i'm just not interested in feces.  yuk,  i feel quesy when i step in it,  put the holiest of holies in the garbage disposal unit. 

ee  gadds  never :D :D

aquascoot wrote on Jun 6^th, 2013 at 5:32pm:

Karnal wrote on Jun 6th, 2013 at 5:26pm: ... wrote on Jun 6th, 2013 at 5:19pm: Quote: You are the one who seemed to think it was just genetic. So no matter how many times I state that it's a complex mix of nature AND nurture, I still belive it's entirely genetic?  Why do I bother? [quote] You are the one who cannot fathom choice in nurture. ask a hommer, and they'll tell you they knew they were gay from a very young age.  I believe them, because I knew I was attracted to girls by age 6 - One does wonder how much choice a 5 or 6 year old has in their environment.  A number of hommers also converted later in life. Oscar Wilde is one. He had a happy marriage until he was seduced by a chappie. He said going back to women would be like going with cold mutton. That ABC journalist who got busted for speed in Singapore is another. He made the switch in his late 30s. He'd never been interested in guys before that. Many peope just go with the flow. Some people will have sex with anything. Some people can get turned on by anything. These people are the ubermenschen Neitzsche mentioned, people who rise above the constraints of petty morality. The rest of the human race merely grazes like cattle.

would it be possible to get turned on by a selection of fine cheeses karmal (or is that carnal) ;)[/quote]

It most certainly would. The old boy has tempted me on a number of occasions.

Bobby. wrote on Jun 6^th, 2013 at 5:33pm:

Karnal is a poof - backs against the wall when he's around.

Saucy!

... wrote on Jun 6^th, 2013 at 5:32pm:

Karnal wrote on Jun 6th, 2013 at 5:26pm: He'd never been interested in guys before that. He'd never admitted to being interested in guys before that, but one on the edges of the spectrum of gaynesstm cannot choose to swing to the other side.  One a scale of 1-100, 1 being the gayest gay and 100 being the heteroest hetero, a 51 may choose to be gay, but an 80 (or a 20) is steadfast in their orientation.  There is some elasticity, but not enough to make a meaningful difference for the vast majority of people.

i'm not sure how much eleasticity there is, a vagina can strech for a 9 lb baby.  lets see a homo push out a 9 lb turd

Karnal wrote on Jun 6^th, 2013 at 5:33pm:

... wrote on Jun 6th, 2013 at 5:32pm: Karnal wrote on Jun 6th, 2013 at 5:26pm: He'd never been interested in guys before that. He'd never admitted to being interested in guys before that, but one on the edges of the spectrum of gaynesstm cannot choose to swing to the other side.  One a scale of 1-100, 1 being the gayest gay and 100 being the heteroest hetero, a 51 may choose to be gay. There is some elasticity, but not to make a meaningful difference for the vast majority of people. Gee - that's scientific. How do you know all this, Honky?

1.because I'm a genius. 
2.because I am learned.

Karnal wrote on Jun 6^th, 2013 at 5:26pm:

A number of hommers also converted later in life. Oscar Wilde is one. He had a happy marriage until he was seduced by a chappie. He said going back to women would be like going with cold mutton. That ABC journalist who got busted for speed in Singapore is another. He made the switch in his late 30s. He'd never been interested in guys before that. Many peope just go with the flow. Some people will have sex with anything. Some people can get turned on by anything. These people are the ubermenschen Neitzsche mentioned, people who rise above the constraints of petty morality. The rest of the human race merely grazes like cattle.

They would like to think they're Ubermensch. The gay, lesbian and bi-sexuals in the academe certainly do think they are different and above the mundane "hetronormative" people. But sticking your dick into a few holes or muff diving is far removed from a Nietzschean Ubermensch.

The Ubermensch is a creator, a law-giver, and highly stoic. Think Jesus, Napoleon, or maybe Goethe. 

... wrote on Jun 6^th, 2013 at 5:07pm:

Quote: I can't see how to make it clearer for you. You could start by answering the question you've been evading:  Where does choice fit in?

I already answered you.
just how dumb are you?  ::) ::) ::)

Here let me help again...  when you have sex do you choose your partner?  Do you choose the type of sex you have?  Or do you just let people rape you...  which dear honky is also a choice.

Grendel wrote on Jun 6^th, 2013 at 5:58pm:

... wrote on Jun 6th, 2013 at 5:07pm: Quote: I can't see how to make it clearer for you. You could start by answering the question you've been evading:  Where does choice fit in? I already answered you. just how dumb are you?  ::) ::) ::) Here let me help again...  when you have sex do you choose your partner?  Do you choose the type of sex you have?  Or do you just let people rape you...  which dear honky is also a choice.

We have the ability to choose our partners and the type of sex we have, however, we can not choose who we are attracted to.

... wrote on Jun 6^th, 2013 at 5:19pm:

Quote: You are the one who seemed to think it was just genetic. So no matter how many times I state that it's a complex mix of nature AND nurture, I still belive it's entirely genetic?  Why do I bother? [quote] You are the one who cannot fathom choice in nurture.

ask a hommer, and they'll tell you they knew they were gay from a very young age.  I believe them, because I knew I was attracted to girls by age 6 - One does wonder how much choice a 5 or 6 year old has in their environment.  [/quote]

Ok I give in you are an idiot.
one who led a very sheltered life by the sound of it.
Were you sexually attracted to girls at 5 honky...?   my my my you were very progressive for your age.  ;D

Do I ignore you and your stupidity or keep leading you around by the nose letting you continue to make stupid statements and assumptions?
Ah that is the question. ;D

so honky am I to assume you accept that Karnal is a genuine homosexual?  You inferred as much.


Quote:

He realises now that people are born bi-curious. Rather than being stuck in a rut, performing the same tired actions day after day after day, Bobbie chooses to renew himself each and every day.

need I point out various aspects of this post for you too?

Karnal wrote on Jun 6^th, 2013 at 5:16pm:

... wrote on Jun 6th, 2013 at 5:07pm: Quote: I can't see how to make it clearer for you. You could start by answering the question you've been evading:  Where does choice fit in? Ah. Good question. Choice fits in when people experiment and try new things. Bobbie, for example, was once a devout virgin prude. But before long, he decided to give it a go and made the plunge. He's not cured yet, but he's exploring his sexuality and discovering untold new pleasures. He realises now that people are born bi-curious. Rather than being stuck in a rut, performing the same tired actions day after day after day, Bobbie chooses to renew himself each and every day. People are not heteronormative by nature, they're polymorphous. I can give you some good readings from the faculty, Honky, if you'd like to join the club.

pretty good answer karnal...  but only pretty good.
you are right though he has no clue where choice and nurture fits in apparently.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 6^th, 2013 at 6:03pm:

Grendel wrote on Jun 6th, 2013 at 5:58pm: ... wrote on Jun 6th, 2013 at 5:07pm: Quote: I can't see how to make it clearer for you. You could start by answering the question you've been evading:  Where does choice fit in? I already answered you. just how dumb are you?  ::) ::) ::) Here let me help again...  when you have sex do you choose your partner?  Do you choose the type of sex you have?  Or do you just let people rape you...  which dear honky is also a choice. We have the ability to choose our partners and the type of sex we have, however, we can not choose who we are attracted to.

Yes I agree with this. Sexual attraction isn't a "social construction". There's definitely something biological about it (which is a given when you consider its main purpose).

... wrote on Jun 6^th, 2013 at 5:32pm:

Karnal wrote on Jun 6th, 2013 at 5:26pm: He'd never been interested in guys before that. He'd never admitted to being interested in guys before that, but one on the edges of the spectrum of gaynesstm cannot choose to swing to the other side.  One a scale of 1-100, 1 being the gayest gay and 100 being the heteroest hetero, a 51 may choose to be gay, but an 80 (or a 20) is steadfast in their orientation.  There is some elasticity, but not enough to make a meaningful difference for the vast majority of people.

See karnal...  YOU were wrong.
Honky knew Oscar and all about him he knows Oscar just never admitted it.
Voila...  no choice involved  ::) ::) ::)

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 6^th, 2013 at 6:03pm:

Grendel wrote on Jun 6th, 2013 at 5:58pm: ... wrote on Jun 6th, 2013 at 5:07pm: Quote: I can't see how to make it clearer for you. You could start by answering the question you've been evading:  Where does choice fit in? I already answered you. just how dumb are you?  ::) ::) ::) Here let me help again...  when you have sex do you choose your partner?  Do you choose the type of sex you have?  Or do you just let people rape you...  which dear honky is also a choice. We have the ability to choose our partners and the type of sex we have, however, we can not choose who we are attracted to.

getting back on topic just for a moment...

We also can't marry everyone we are attracted to either.  Imagine the size of that polygamous relationship.  ;D

BTW sometimes we cannot choose our partners and there of course also, the rejection thingy.

Would it surprise you that attraction is relative and can change during a lifetime?  Why do you suppose that happens?  Shouldn't happen if we were genetically wired for one sex or the other, right?

oh and would you believe that people attracted to the opposite sex can indulge in sex with people of the same sex?  hard to believe eh...  who'd think they'd ever choose to do that.

Oh and I almost forgot...  there are people not sexually attracted to anyone...  yet they too can be in an intimate relationship...  doing their duty.

gee whiz...  must have missed out on that gene altogether eh.

Grendel wrote on Jun 6^th, 2013 at 6:19pm:

oh and would you believe that people attracted to the opposite sex can indulge in sex with people of the same sex?  hard to believe eh...  who'd think they'd ever choose to do that.

Of course I can believe that: I just said as much in my previous post.

"We have the ability to choose our partners and the type of sex we have, however, we can not choose who we are attracted to."

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 6^th, 2013 at 6:25pm:

Grendel wrote on Jun 6th, 2013 at 6:19pm: oh and would you believe that people attracted to the opposite sex can indulge in sex with people of the same sex?  hard to believe eh...  who'd think they'd ever choose to do that. Of course I can believe that: I just said as much in my previous post. "We have the ability to choose our partners and the type of sex we have, however, we can not choose who we are attracted to."

nice that we can agree on something isn't it.
Do you get the feeling I was talking to more people than just you?

just a weird glitch

ahhh so you do think that homos should choose not to act on their attraction.  Th
greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 6^th, 2013 at 6:25pm:

Grendel wrote on Jun 6th, 2013 at 6:19pm: oh and would you believe that people attracted to the opposite sex can indulge in sex with people of the same sex?  hard to believe eh...  who'd think they'd ever choose to do that. Of course I can believe that: I just said as much in my previous post. "We have the ability to choose our partners and the type of sex we have, however, we can not choose who we are attracted to."

I also agree - so for grendel, would you say someone who is attracted to people of the same sex but doesn't act on it, is really gay? 

By the same token, Is a schoolboy virgin who lusts after pin-up girls (but obviously doesn't sleep with them) really heterosexual?

I say yes.  But these attractions aren't a choice. 

... wrote on Jun 6^th, 2013 at 6:59pm:

ahhh so you do think that homos should choose not to act on their attraction.  Th greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 6th, 2013 at 6:25pm: Grendel wrote on Jun 6th, 2013 at 6:19pm: oh and would you believe that people attracted to the opposite sex can indulge in sex with people of the same sex?  hard to believe eh...  who'd think they'd ever choose to do that. Of course I can believe that: I just said as much in my previous post. "We have the ability to choose our partners and the type of sex we have, however, we can not choose who we are attracted to." I also agree - so for grendel, would you say someone who is attracted to people of the same sex but doesn't act on it, is really gay?  By the same token, Is a schoolboy virgin who lusts after pin-up girls (but obviously doesn't sleep with them) really heterosexual? I say yes.  But these attractions aren't a choice.

;D ;D ;D

honestly...
honky would you say that a man who is hetero and finds a woman attractive and doesn't act on it is gay?  Or shy?  Or respectful? or..... 
was she attractive or sexually attractive...  do you recognise a difference?

schoolboys and pinups?
hmmm...  given they were probably brought up in a hetero norm society i'd say they have realistic expectations to find the pinups attractive and even sexually arousing.  id say that is a societal expectation.  wouldn't you?
never masturbated eh... hmmm...

ever watched porn?
hetero or gay?

let me tell you I choose to buy the magazine and the type of magazine.... for a specific purpose.
Do you not think learned behaviour is part of that?
It's all a bit Pavlovian you know.

here ya go kiddies...


Quote:

Yes I agree with this. Sexual attraction isn't a "social construction". There's definitely something biological about it (which is a given when you consider its main purpose).

really?
yet different societies and cultures find different things attractive.  in some cultures large woman are considered attractive in others not.  Some older men.  etc, etc, etc...  so the attraction thing can indeed be a social construct.  It can be learned by and ingrained in both sexes.

You seem to be getting overwhelmed and confused.  Best keep it simple, and stick with what gerggery said:

"We have the ability to choose our partners and the type of sex we have, however, we can not choose who we are attracted to."

... wrote on Jun 6^th, 2013 at 7:54pm:

You seem to be getting overwhelmed and confused.  Best keep it simple, and stick with what gerggery said: "We have the ability to choose our partners and the type of sex we have, however, we can not choose who we are attracted to."

I'm not confused in the least.
perhaps you are.

You keep wanting to move the goalposts...  hint...  your aim is still bad

want me to explain what karnal said or did you finally work that one out?

Grendel wrote on Jun 6^th, 2013 at 7:54pm:

here ya go kiddies... Quote: Yes I agree with this. Sexual attraction isn't a "social construction". There's definitely something biological about it (which is a given when you consider its main purpose). really? yet different societies and cultures find different things attractive.  in some cultures large woman are considered attractive in others not.  Some older men.  etc, etc, etc...  so the attraction thing can indeed be a social construct.  It can be learned by and ingrained in both sexes.

Attraction is primal and biological. Penises, vaginas, testosterone, oestrogen, testicles etc. aren't social constructs. Any "choice" would be a secondary act; one that requires cognition, asceticism, self-discipline, training, education etc. that directs the primal urge.

What I am saying is, you don't make a decision first to be attracted to someone and then be attracted. Attraction comes first and then "choices" are played out on top of that initial attraction.

Gay marriage is like me demanding admission to the lesbian convention on the grounds that I am a lesbian trapped in a man's body.
Ridiculous. Preposterous. Marriage equality is the stupidest smacking nonsense.

But it is also sinister.

Imagine if I demanded to be allowed to enter a float in the next Mardi Gras with the theme of 'Gay men are vagina-phobes. Down with vagina-phobia! Down with misogynist vagina denialists!!

Or "Lesbians are phallo-phobes, down with phallo-phobic discrimination!!"


That's how stupid gay 'marriage' is. If it's OK for two blokes to 'marry' - what is it NOT OK to marry?

Once gay marriage is OK, who says where the limit is? Pony? Cat (hello, SOB)? Dog? Pet rock? 500 pet rocks. 200 cats? 200 blokes and 200 lasses?

If this perversity and aberration is OK, which perversity and aberration is NOT OK? On what grounds can you exclude any other perverts from 'marrying' their particular arsehole object of fixation??

I like that Soren...

... wrote on Jun 6^th, 2013 at 5:37pm:

Karnal wrote on Jun 6th, 2013 at 5:33pm: ... wrote on Jun 6th, 2013 at 5:32pm: Karnal wrote on Jun 6th, 2013 at 5:26pm: He'd never been interested in guys before that. He'd never admitted to being interested in guys before that, but one on the edges of the spectrum of gaynesstm cannot choose to swing to the other side.  One a scale of 1-100, 1 being the gayest gay and 100 being the heteroest hetero, a 51 may choose to be gay. There is some elasticity, but not to make a meaningful difference for the vast majority of people. Gee - that's scientific. How do you know all this, Honky? 1.because I'm a genius.  2.because I am learned.

Learned, are you? Who learned you?

A gentle older man who learned you through the ways of learning with an abundance of patience?

Or merely by your own hand?

One thing is certain, Honky. A genius you are not. Misty will testify to that.

Soren wrote on Jun 6^th, 2013 at 9:57pm:

Gay marriage is like me demanding admission to the lesbian convention on the grounds that I am a lesbian trapped in a man's body. Ridiculous. Preposterous. Marriage equality is the stupidest smacking nonsense. But it is also sinister. Imagine if I demanded to be allowed to enter a float in the next Mardi Gras with the theme of 'Gay men are vagina-phobes. Down with vagina-phobia! Down with misogynist vagina denialists!! Or "Lesbians are phallo-phobes, down with phallo-phobic discrimination!!" That's how stupid gay 'marriage' is. If it's OK for two blokes to 'marry' - what is it NOT OK to marry? Once gay marriage is OK, who says where the limit is? Pony? Cat (hello, SOB)? Dog? Pet rock? 500 pet rocks. 200 cats? 200 blokes and 200 lasses? If this perversity and aberration is OK, which perversity and aberration is NOT OK? On what grounds can you exclude any other perverts from 'marrying' their particular arsehole object of fixation??

The only good thing about the gay marriage idea is that it causes the old boys an enormous amount of beard-tugging anxiety.

What a pointless debate. No one on any side has any good arguments. It's all a lot of hot air, signifying nothing.

Tomorrow, and tomorrow and tomorrow.

Old boy, you win the prize for the most het-up pointless denier and defender in this thread. You've completely forgotten what you're defending.

Good work.

I guess that's the essence of what old boy's do - argue about things they've forgotten why they're arguing.

Yes friends, first prize goes to the old boy. A bowl of stool will be sent in the mail - a treat!

Keep up the good work, old chap.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jun 6^th, 2013 at 9:55pm:

What I am saying is, you don't make a decision first to be attracted to someone and then be attracted. Attraction comes first and then "choices" are played out on top of that initial attraction.

Young chappies who think with their dicks don't always understand the ways of love.

Love is, indeed, a choice.

If it wasn't, no one would stay together after the honeymoon period.

The best attraction comes from the heart. All else is just rubbing others raw beneath sheets.

Karnal wrote on Jun 6^th, 2013 at 10:33pm:

The only good thing about the gay marriage idea is that it causes the old boys an enormous amount of beard-tugging anxiety. What a pointless debate. No one on any side has any good arguments. It's all a lot of hot air, signifying nothing.

You blather as if you were above the arguments. But your assessment is also a self-assessment - so bugger off, you are full of "hot air, signifying nothing".

.

Come come, old chap. You've just said nothing again.

Shall we start from the beginning?

Soren wrote on Jun 6^th, 2013 at 10:54pm:

Karnal wrote on Jun 6th, 2013 at 10:33pm: The only good thing about the gay marriage idea is that it causes the old boys an enormous amount of beard-tugging anxiety. What a pointless debate. No one on any side has any good arguments. It's all a lot of hot air, signifying nothing. You blather as if you were above the arguments. But your assessment is also a self-assessment - so bugger off, you are full of "hot air, signifying nothing".

Oh, I am, old chap. I couldn't give a tinker's cuss whether boys or girls get to marry each other or dogs or chairs or anyone or anything at all.

Why would I? Why would you?

And as for the idea of "marriage equality", why not hideous mother-in-law equality? Misery equality? Being nagged until death equality?

Funny how no one mentions that.

As is your right not to care.

Other people though tend to hold the moral decay of society a little more seriously.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jun 6^th, 2013 at 11:23pm:

As is your right not to care. Other people though tend to hold the moral decay of society a little more seriously.

Hear hear Andrei.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jun 6^th, 2013 at 11:23pm:

As is your right not to care. Other people though tend to hold the moral decay of society a little more seriously.

Moral decay? Gays have been gay since before those silly religions. Why shoudlnt they have the same rights as anyone else? this is the interracial thing all over again. you ppl never learn.

SOB

Grendel wrote on Jun 6^th, 2013 at 7:54pm:

here ya go kiddies... Quote: Yes I agree with this. Sexual attraction isn't a "social construction". There's definitely something biological about it (which is a given when you consider its main purpose). really? yet different societies and cultures find different things attractive.  in some cultures large woman are considered attractive in others not.  Some older men.  etc, etc, etc...  so the attraction thing can indeed be a social construct.  It can be learned by and ingrained in both sexes.

yes, really. 


Quote:

There is a vast body of evidence indicating that men and women are biologically and psychologically different, and that what heterosexual men and women want in partners directly corresponds to these differences. The features men evolved to go for in women—youth, clear skin, a symmetrical face and body, feminine facial features, an hourglass figure—are those indicating that a woman would be a healthy, fertile candidate to pass on a man's genes. These preferences span borders, cultures, and generations, meaning yes, there really are universal standards of beauty.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/201010/the-truth-about-beauty


I'd read the article if I were you.  The blank slate theory you're pushing has been scientifically (though not politically) disproven for decades.

Karnal wrote on Jun 6^th, 2013 at 10:23pm:

... wrote on Jun 6th, 2013 at 5:37pm: Karnal wrote on Jun 6th, 2013 at 5:33pm: ... wrote on Jun 6th, 2013 at 5:32pm: Karnal wrote on Jun 6th, 2013 at 5:26pm: He'd never been interested in guys before that. He'd never admitted to being interested in guys before that, but one on the edges of the spectrum of gaynesstm cannot choose to swing to the other side.  One a scale of 1-100, 1 being the gayest gay and 100 being the heteroest hetero, a 51 may choose to be gay. There is some elasticity, but not to make a meaningful difference for the vast majority of people. Gee - that's scientific. How do you know all this, Honky? 1.because I'm a genius.  2.because I am learned. Learned, are you? Who learned you? A gentle older man who learned you through the ways of learning with an abundance of patience? Or merely by your own hand? One thing is certain, Honky. A genius you are not. Misty will testify to that.

Yers, I thought that might push your buttons - It's usually those with a 115-120 IQ that get most butthurt over people having higher intelligence than they. 

good point rob,

when i won the qld state maths contest in grade 6 (competing against kids in grade 7 mainly), i got hauled up at assembley and lauded as a child genius.

all my life, people having a crack at me for anything to do with intelligence has just been water off a ducks back.
its simply never fired me up.

i suppose it would be like someone telling megan gale she's ugly or telling steve jobs he doesnt have an imagination ;) ;).

it really is great to live with self confidence.

i suppose its a problem that sometimes one is therefore seen as arrogant, but arrogance is often the partner of excellence.

its how i know the lefties in the labor party just arent that smart.  they fire up SO quick if someone calls them dumb. paradoxically, this only makes them seem dumber ;) ;).

i apologise for my spelling and grammar, english bored the sh*t out of me at school and i felt it was a complete and utter waste of time.  sort of like a fish being asked to study water ;)

;D ;D ;D
Sorry honky but you are wrong
a quick look at past times even in western society shows that "beauty" and it's parameters have changed.

Bobby. wrote on Jun 7^th, 2013 at 1:06am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jun 6th, 2013 at 11:23pm: As is your right not to care. Other people though tend to hold the moral decay of society a little more seriously. Hear hear Andrei.

Oh, yes. Bobbie is most concerned about the moral decay of society - how to find a pair of Jimmy Choos in a size 13?

... wrote on Jun 7^th, 2013 at 9:04am:

Grendel wrote on Jun 6th, 2013 at 7:54pm: here ya go kiddies... Quote: Yes I agree with this. Sexual attraction isn't a "social construction". There's definitely something biological about it (which is a given when you consider its main purpose). really? yet different societies and cultures find different things attractive.  in some cultures large woman are considered attractive in others not.  Some older men.  etc, etc, etc...  so the attraction thing can indeed be a social construct.  It can be learned by and ingrained in both sexes. yes, really.  [quote] There is a vast body of evidence indicating that men and women are biologically and psychologically different, and that what heterosexual men and women want in partners directly corresponds to these differences. The features men evolved to go for in women—youth, clear skin, a symmetrical face and body, feminine facial features, an hourglass figure—are those indicating that a woman would be a healthy, fertile candidate to pass on a man's genes. These preferences span borders, cultures, and generations, meaning yes, there really are universal standards of beauty.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/201010/the-truth-about-beauty


I'd read the article if I were you.  The blank slate theory you're pushing has been scientifically (though not politically) disproven for decades.[/quote]

Honky, there is no such thing in the social sciences as "blank slate theory". The tabla rasa is more a general axiom that goes back to early empiricism. It’s not proven or disproven - it’s an important, but not provable, idea. It’s a philosophical proposition.

It would make you look smarter if you stopped going on about things you don’t understand.

Karnal wrote on Jun 7^th, 2013 at 12:38pm:

Honky, there is no such thing in the social sciences as "blank slate theory". The tabla rasa is more a general axiom that goes back to early empiricism. It’s not proven or disproven - it’s an important, but not provable, idea. It’s a philosophical proposition. It would make you look smarter if you stopped going on about things you don’t understand.

'Social sciences' - now there's an empty proposition.

I see this thread is still cruising along - some posters conversation, reasoning and level of argumentative skills is second to none.

They offer well thought out arguments that are backed up by evidence that people couldn't possibly refute.

It's like they don't want people to question their opinions (yes they are opinions) as this shows everyone exactly what they are:

Unhappy bitter individuals who can't stand that others have better lives than them.

It must really bother some posters that homosexuality is seen as "normal" and "part of nature".

Imagine if these posters - or heaven forbid their children - turned out to be gay or lesbian.

They wouldn't disown them would they? 

Grendel wrote on Jun 7^th, 2013 at 10:15am:

;D ;D ;D Sorry honky but you are wrong a quick look at past times even in western society shows that "beauty" and it's parameters have changed.

Not really. Superficial fads come and go but things like waist/hip ratio, youth and facial symmetry are universal and timeless. Maybe if you read the article I posted from psychologytoday.com, rather than sticking with psychology50yearsago.com, you'd be a bit more up to speed.  But somehow, I think you've grown quite comfortable with your ignorance.

Quote:

It would make you look smarter if you stopped going on about things you don’t understand.

Obsessing over looking smarter is another feature of the 115-120 IQ range personality.  Geniuses often try to hide their intelligence so as to fit in.

... wrote on Jun 7^th, 2013 at 2:11pm:

Grendel wrote on Jun 7th, 2013 at 10:15am: ;D ;D ;D Sorry honky but you are wrong a quick look at past times even in western society shows that "beauty" and it's parameters have changed. Not really. Superficial fads come and go but things like waist/hip ratio, youth and facial symmetry are universal and timeless. Maybe if you read the article I posted from psychologytoday.com, rather than sticking with psychology50yearsago.com, you'd be a bit more up to speed.  But somehow, I think you've grown quite comfortable with your ignorance.

good grief...  having read it and many besides over many years and having done psychology etc, etc, etc.... being a man and having life experience and not falling outside the norm parameters I think I may just have a clue about this honky.

Like I said you are wrong.

fashions do change so do the parameters for natural  beauty and hence the learned parameters change.
Culturally the needs of men and woman are different and their roles and expectations different most are not genetically based.

You know you can even google proof of what I've said.  Do me a favour and do it and save me posting heaps of crap everyone else apparently but you knows.

Grendel wrote on Jun 7^th, 2013 at 2:17pm:

Like I said you are wrong.

you are but what am I?

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/32387249.jpg

quote taken from honky's gay role model Karnal.


Quote:

Choice fits in when people experiment and try new things.  Usually honky, except perhaps for you and your 5 year old exploits... sex raises its head around puberty, that is when we are exposed as it were to more and more stimuli and relationships of the physical kind usually start... usually in small increments BTW.  The vast majority of people stick to the learned and socially "acceptable" hetero norm Bobbie, for example, was once a devout virgin prude. ta daaaaa... But before long, he decided to give it a go and made the plunge. He's not cured yet, but he's exploring his sexuality and discovering untold new pleasures.  Oh my god! Could it be?  His sexuality is being formed from experience...  his preferences are going to depend on what he chooses because of his experiences? He realises now that people are born bi-curious. Hmm born bi-curious? Doubt it.  Lets leave the babies out of it.  I doubt they have any sexual curiosity.  Puberty hormones and all that...  also I'd think people just grow up and become SEXUALLY CURIOUS. Rather than being stuck in a rut, performing the same tired actions day after day after day, Bobbie chooses to renew himself each and every day. People are not heteronormative by nature, they're polymorphous. Is this your gay icon telling you people are not born gay or straight?  Could it be?  Damn would a gay person say they actually chose to be sexually active in the way they prefer through experience? I can give you some good readings from the faculty, Honky, if you'd like to join the club.

Don't worry Grendel.

One day you'll find the man of your dreams and you can then choose to be gay.

When you do - he'll rock your world :)

Why do you think being gay is a choice?

If being gay is a choice - why should we be precluded from marrying who we love?

What is the reason you are against marriage equality?

BTW - these are serious questions - it interests me that some people who are against marriage equality cannot explain why.

Just let them get married and be miserable like everyone else.

Then hopefully they’ll STFU.

Fit of Absent Mindeness wrote on Jun 7^th, 2013 at 2:47pm:

Don't worry Grendel. One day you'll find the man of your dreams and you http://www.ozpolitic.com/yabbfiles/Templates/Forum/default/right.gifcan then choose to be gay. When you do - he'll rock your world :) Why do you think being gay is a choice? If being gay is a choice - why should we be precluded from marrying who we love? What is the reason you are against marriage equality? BTW - these are serious questions - it interests me that some people who are against marriage equality cannot explain why.

You are a sad individual aren't you.
keep chewing the bitter pills.

How would you know if I was gay or not?

I have many gay friends who do not want to get married.  It is not a part of their lifestyle and doesn't even come into their thinking.

I've already spoken about love and equality here IC1.  pity you missed it eh?

Just because you love someone doesn't mean you will be married to them.

Marriage is the union of a man and a woman.

Marriage is primarily about children and family not love lust and all the airy fairy crap.  It is a serious business.


Quote:

Marriage by definition is between a man and a woman. It recognises the unique biological reality of sexual union between a man and a woman; a union that produces children. Its institutional importance is in solidifying the responsibility and bonds between biological parents and children through societal norms and legal obligations. It also presents as an ideal the right of a child to a mother and a father. A homosexual union, no matter how much the two people may love each other, can never produce children together through becoming one in sexual union. Thus marriage is by definition a heterosexual construct with biological foundations. So while heterosexual infertile couples have still had their relationships recognised as marriages, it is the principle of biological union that underpins marriage. As a society, we have already recognised the huge importance of children being connected to their biological parents. In our apology to the Stolen Generations, whether foster homes were loving or not, we recognised that to deny children the connection to their biological parents was detrimental. Once marriage ceases to be grounded in the biological reality of the male and female union, it becomes nothing more than an institution centred around emotional attachment with the added inconvenience of having to file for divorce. The expression of love within a monogamous relationship is not what makes marriage unique and if it were merely about love, then it would be ridiculous for the state to recognise it.

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/relationships/in-their-own-words-australian-men-voice-their-opinions-for-or-against-same-sex-marriage/story-fnet09p2-1226658069714

http://www.whensallymetsally.co.uk/files/cache/4eeb0539f1c3cb2a2209c85b8be49e81.jpg

I'm not bitter at all!

Life is fantastic - I have partner of 8 1/2 years, we have a successful business and it just keeps getting better.

If anything - we are doing a lot better than those who are married, who have children and those who are against it.

Instead of caring what others are doing, We've gone on to live our lives and will be together forever.

I want to get married and will continue to lobby to do so and one day it will happen.

That's just it - even if we never get married, we'll still be together.

One last thing - you didn't answer any of my questions - I guess I'll have to stop being so inquisitive.

Fit of Absent Mindeness wrote on Jun 7^th, 2013 at 3:58pm:

I'm not bitter at all! Life is fantastic - I have partner of 8 1/2 years, we have a successful business and it just keeps getting better. If anything - we are doing a lot better than those who are married, who have children and those who are against it. WTF? Which ones exactly? Instead of caring what others are doing, We've gone on to live our lives and will be together forever. LOL, oh of course you will dear I want to get married and will continue to lobby to do so and one day it will happen. That's just it - even if we never get married, we'll still be together. One last thing - you didn't answer any of my questions - I guess I'll have to stop being so inquisitive.

If you think lack of marriage equality will mean there are no gay/lesbian people and that we won't form couples - your more deluded than I ever will be.

If your with the one you just know!

Fit of Absent Mindeness wrote on Jun 7^th, 2013 at 3:58pm:

I'm not bitter at all! Life is fantastic - I have partner of 8 1/2 years, we have a successful business and it just keeps getting better. If anything - we are doing a lot better than those who are married, who have children and those who are against it. Instead of caring what others are doing, We've gone on to live our lives and will be together forever. I want to get married and will continue to lobby to do so and one day it will happen. That's just it - even if we never get married, we'll still be together. One last thing - you didn't answer any of my questions - I guess I'll have to stop being so inquisitive.

Of course you're doing better than those with children.
Mine cost me a fortune and they haven't even begun school yet.

But put simply I believe there is a moral issue with allowing gays to marry and I really don't want children put into that environment either.

I have no issue with gays per se. What they do behind closed doors is their business but I think there needs to be a degree of respect for social norms.

Fit of Absent Mindeness wrote on Jun 7^th, 2013 at 4:11pm:

If you think lack of marriage equality will mean there are no gay/lesbian people and that we won't form couples - your more deluded than I ever will be. If your with the one you just know!

The fact you think others think that, makes who deluded?

Just so you know, IC1, I don't need anyone to make me feel complete.
And I'm happy for other people to be happy...  I am.
If I was gay I wouldn't want to get married, simply because marriage is between a man and a woman.

I simply can't understand the negative personal undercurrent of your statements to me.  Be happy, not bitter, and don't be a hypocrite.

oh and I've never said gay people are delusional...  why would I?  Where does (strawman) crap like that come from.

oh and btw if I haven't answered all your questions I've answered most of them.  A quick look back shows that.  You may need to reread, not lie.  The question is why do you ask me questions I have already answered?

... wrote on Jun 7^th, 2013 at 2:14pm:

Quote: It would make you look smarter if you stopped going on about things you don’t understand. Obsessing over looking smarter is another feature of the 115-120 IQ range personality.  Geniuses often try to hide their intelligence so as to fit in.

And so they do. But the next time you go to mention "blank slate theory", try to remember that it doesn't exist.

Fools also try to hide their stupidity so as to fit. And so it goes. I find it best to talk about the things I know.

My reference to geniuses was an answer to an earlier Mistie post. Mistie, you see, is a Nietzschean.

Soren wrote on Jun 7^th, 2013 at 1:12pm:

Karnal wrote on Jun 7th, 2013 at 12:38pm: Honky, there is no such thing in the social sciences as "blank slate theory". The tabla rasa is more a general axiom that goes back to early empiricism. It’s not proven or disproven - it’s an important, but not provable, idea. It’s a philosophical proposition. It would make you look smarter if you stopped going on about things you don’t understand. 'Social sciences' - now there's an empty proposition.

Sure is. And psychology is the emptiest proposition of all.

Gerontology, on the other hand, well.

Most useful.

This sort of thing makes right wingers sick to the stomach and threatens their marriages

http://d2tq98mqfjyz2l.cloudfront.net/image_cache/1282346884678723.jpeg

homosexuals are disgusting and should never be allowed to undermine the marriages of conservative right wingers

http://plopu.com/img/2012/10/1016.jpg

adelcrow wrote on Jun 7^th, 2013 at 5:02pm:

This sort of thing makes right wingers sick to the stomach and threatens their marriages

ya think...  obviously not.
how about a sensible comment for a change

how about the fact that it isn't political for most and many LWingers are against it for any number of reasons too?  ::)  Pssst...  some are even traditional Catholics  ;D

We need Matty as PM. Marriage equality for pets will be Mattys three second grab.

Turn this upside down and we have Australia  ;D

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v440/RAGODOFTHESUN/jesuslandmap.gif

Karnal wrote on Jun 7^th, 2013 at 4:47pm:

... wrote on Jun 7th, 2013 at 2:14pm: Quote: It would make you look smarter if you stopped going on about things you don’t understand. Obsessing over looking smarter is another feature of the 115-120 IQ range personality.  Geniuses often try to hide their intelligence so as to fit in. And so they do. But the next time you go to mention "blank slate theory", try to remember that it doesn't exist. Fools also try to hide their stupidity so as to fit. And so it goes. I find it best to talk about the things I know. My reference to geniuses was an answer to an earlier Mistie post. Mistie, you see, is a Nietzschean.

Blank slate theory exists in the minds of many postmodernists. Judith Butler for example uses it to break down gender distinctions.

adelcrow wrote on Jun 7^th, 2013 at 5:48pm:

Turn this upside down and we have Australia  ;D http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v440/RAGODOFTHESUN/jesuslandmap.gif

Hobart? Adelaide?

Don't think so mate!!!

Inbreds the pair of them.

Melbourne yes, Sydney yes.
The rest is bogan-land. Probably the one time I agree with Keating.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jun 7^th, 2013 at 5:53pm:

Karnal wrote on Jun 7th, 2013 at 4:47pm: ... wrote on Jun 7th, 2013 at 2:14pm: Quote: It would make you look smarter if you stopped going on about things you don’t understand. Obsessing over looking smarter is another feature of the 115-120 IQ range personality.  Geniuses often try to hide their intelligence so as to fit in. And so they do. But the next time you go to mention "blank slate theory", try to remember that it doesn't exist. Fools also try to hide their stupidity so as to fit. And so it goes. I find it best to talk about the things I know. My reference to geniuses was an answer to an earlier Mistie post. Mistie, you see, is a Nietzschean. Blank slate theory exists in the minds of many postmodernists. Judith Butler for example uses it to break down gender distinctions.

It exists in the mind of John Locke - that’s it.

The tabla rasa is hardly a postmodern idea, Mistie.

Why are there so many threads about arse bandits?

Hang on, Mistie - you started all this blank slate postmodern crap. Honky’s just paraphrasing the genius.

I know I’m in safe hands now. No need to get the IQ test out, Honky.

Mistie’s in town.

Karnal wrote on Jun 7^th, 2013 at 9:04pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jun 7th, 2013 at 5:53pm: Karnal wrote on Jun 7th, 2013 at 4:47pm: ... wrote on Jun 7th, 2013 at 2:14pm: Quote: It would make you look smarter if you stopped going on about things you don’t understand. Obsessing over looking smarter is another feature of the 115-120 IQ range personality.  Geniuses often try to hide their intelligence so as to fit in. And so they do. But the next time you go to mention "blank slate theory", try to remember that it doesn't exist. Fools also try to hide their stupidity so as to fit. And so it goes. I find it best to talk about the things I know. My reference to geniuses was an answer to an earlier Mistie post. Mistie, you see, is a Nietzschean. Blank slate theory exists in the minds of many postmodernists. Judith Butler for example uses it to break down gender distinctions. It exists in the mind of John Locke - that’s it. The tabla rasa is hardly a postmodern idea, Mistie.

Locke may have come up with the idea, but the postmodernists have run with it. Breaking down gender and pretty much every conservative idea prior to the 1960s relied on the tabula rasa. Only by removing any and all essentialism or properties of the mind could they bring down the previous conservative ideas.

:exclamation
Bobby. wrote on Jun 7^th, 2013 at 9:13pm:

Why are there so many threads about arse bandits?

Excellent question, Bobbie. Why do you start most of them?

No no no, this is a thread about the fine institution of marriage - an institution so intrinsic to the moral health of our society, its inclusion of hommersexuals is certain to bring about the end of society as we know it.

Typical.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jun 7^th, 2013 at 11:07pm:

Karnal wrote on Jun 7th, 2013 at 9:04pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jun 7th, 2013 at 5:53pm: Karnal wrote on Jun 7th, 2013 at 4:47pm: ... wrote on Jun 7th, 2013 at 2:14pm: Quote: It would make you look smarter if you stopped going on about things you don’t understand. Obsessing over looking smarter is another feature of the 115-120 IQ range personality.  Geniuses often try to hide their intelligence so as to fit in. And so they do. But the next time you go to mention "blank slate theory", try to remember that it doesn't exist. Fools also try to hide their stupidity so as to fit. And so it goes. I find it best to talk about the things I know. My reference to geniuses was an answer to an earlier Mistie post. Mistie, you see, is a Nietzschean. Blank slate theory exists in the minds of many postmodernists. Judith Butler for example uses it to break down gender distinctions. It exists in the mind of John Locke - that’s it. The tabla rasa is hardly a postmodern idea, Mistie. Locke may have come up with the idea, but the postmodernists have run with it. Breaking down gender and pretty much every conservative idea prior to the 1960s relied on the tabula rasa. Only by removing any and all essentialism or properties of the mind could they bring down the previous conservative ideas.

Mistie, the empiricists ran with it - long before conservatism was dreamt up.  It has nothing to do with postmodernism at all.

Don't give me that bullsh*t. I can smacking read myself.

Karnal wrote on Jun 7^th, 2013 at 11:09pm:

:exclamation Bobby. wrote on Jun 7th, 2013 at 9:13pm: Why are there so many threads about arse bandits? Excellent question, Bobbie. Why do you start most of them? No no no, this is a thread about the fine institution of marriage - an institution so intrinsic to the moral health of our society, its inclusion of hommersexuals is certain to bring about the end of society as we know it. Typical.

Dear Karnal,
The only one I ever started was titled :

" will the new pope get rid of all the arse clowns in his church "


- a thread I had to ask to be locked -  after it became too defamatory.

forgiven

namaste

bump

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jun 7^th, 2013 at 11:23pm:

Don't give me that bullsh*t. I can smacking read myself.

Can you, Mistie?

Bobby. wrote on Jun 7^th, 2013 at 11:26pm:

Karnal wrote on Jun 7th, 2013 at 11:09pm: :exclamation Bobby. wrote on Jun 7th, 2013 at 9:13pm: Why are there so many threads about arse bandits? Excellent question, Bobbie. Why do you start most of them? No no no, this is a thread about the fine institution of marriage - an institution so intrinsic to the moral health of our society, its inclusion of hommersexuals is certain to bring about the end of society as we know it. Typical. Dear Karnal, The only one I ever started was titled : " will the new pope get rid of all the arse clowns in his church " - a thread I had to ask to be locked -  after it became too defamatory. forgiven namaste

Defamatory against whom, Bobbie?

I seem to remember a thread on Bob Brown by a certain bat - very little about politics in that thread if I remember rightly.

A lot about anal sex...

Are hommersexuals leftards?

I’m curious.

Karnal wrote on Jun 8^th, 2013 at 11:53am:

Are hommersexuals leftards? I’m curious.

They are perverts.
Leftards and the phallocentric arsefanciers. You qualify on both counts.
You are a pervert all the way down, to coin a phrase.