I am thoroughly sick to death of all the talk about fag marriage, but I would just like to know, all these Labor supporters and members saying that the government needs to act on the issue, where were all of you between 2007-2013?

Labor supporters don't support gay marriage: that's all you want to know and that is the answer!

Was the issue raised in those years?   I can't recall it being on the agenda anytime.

matty wrote on Aug 9^th, 2017 at 4:35pm:

I am thoroughly sick to death of all the talk about fag marriage, but I would just like to know, all these Labor supporters and members saying that the government needs to act on the issue, where were all of you between 2007-2013?

Oh, Matty, thank God you're back. The leftards and fags are driving us all crazy over here.

Are you still in the Medical Sciences? We need someone with a capable head on their shoulders and a good bedside manner to show these leftards a thing or two.

They really are pathetic.

I wouldn't mind betting that most of them were studying the Paul Keating tome "How to Claim Travel Allowance and Keep a Straight Face".

Vic wrote on Aug 9^th, 2017 at 4:40pm:

Was the issue raised in those years?   I can't recall it being on the agenda anytime.

JuLiar did a deal with the Catholic unions and the Right. She promised not to legalise this fag marriage nonsense.

Matty was most agreeable at the time, he just didn't like the carbon tax.

THERE WILL BE NO CARBON TAX UNDER A GOVERNMENT I LEAD, DEAR.

She's floating around in the chaff bag now.

Vic wrote on Aug 9^th, 2017 at 4:40pm:

Was the issue raised in those years?   I can't recall it being on the agenda anytime.

"The Federal Parliament is currently debating a motion on same-sex relationships moved by Adam Bandt—the recently elected Australian Greens party member for the seat of Melbourne. The motion notes there is ‘widespread support for equal marriage in the Australian community’ and calls on ‘all parliamentarians to gauge their constituents’ views on the issue of marriage equality’. As a result of this and other related debate, there is currently great interest in what public opinion polls may be able to tell us regarding changing attitudes towards same-sex marriage."

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/FlagPost/2010/November/Attitudes_to_same-sex_marriage

November 2010

Labor believes in marriage equality... when it suits them politically.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Aug 9^th, 2017 at 5:03pm:

Labor believes in marriage equality... when it suits them politically.

It's not happening: that's all everyone knows and you only pretend you don't!

matty wrote on Aug 9^th, 2017 at 4:35pm:

I am thoroughly sick to death of all the talk about fag marriage, but I would just like to know, all these Labor supporters and members saying that the government needs to act on the issue, where were all of you between 2007-2013?

Complaining about why no one was acting on it then too dickhead.


Also if as you say "]I am thoroughly sick to death of all the talk about fag marriage," Why in the name of all thats holy do you start so many threads about the subject.

Vic wrote on Aug 9^th, 2017 at 4:40pm:

Was the issue raised in those years?   I can't recall it being on the agenda anytime.

PLenty of times.

Libs under abbott would have opposed, too many Labor Senators against ME.

But at least Rudd removed most legal inequalities. How about the stupid Libs finish the job?

“I am thoroughly sick to death of all the talk about fag marriage”

Gee, you can tell when a so–called christian is around, the hate flows in torrents.

Im voting yes

lee wrote on Aug 9^th, 2017 at 4:46pm:

Vic wrote on Aug 9th, 2017 at 4:40pm: Was the issue raised in those years?   I can't recall it being on the agenda anytime. "The Federal Parliament is currently debating a motion on same-sex relationships moved by Adam Bandt—the recently elected Australian Greens party member for the seat of Melbourne. The motion notes there is ‘widespread support for equal marriage in the Australian community’ and calls on ‘all parliamentarians to gauge their constituents’ views on the issue of marriage equality’. As a result of this and other related debate, there is currently great interest in what public opinion polls may be able to tell us regarding changing attitudes towards same-sex marriage." http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/FlagPost/2010/November/Attitudes_to_same-sex_marriage November 2010

Thanks Lee.   

matty wrote on Aug 9^th, 2017 at 4:35pm:

but I would just like to know, all these Labor supporters and members saying that the government needs to act on the issue, where were all of you between 2007-2013?

does it matter? does that mean the libs can waste $200m?

These attempts at deflecting from Malcolms lack of testicular fortitude are pretty pathetic, even for you.

matty wrote on Aug 9^th, 2017 at 4:35pm:

I am thoroughly sick to death of all the talk about fag marriage,

Why did you start a new thread on the subject then?

I'm curious.

Quote:

Hypocritical Labor supporters

Hypocrisy - a term that Matty should stay away from.

It is hypocrisy for Matty to refer to hypocrisy.

-

Penny Wong is the biggest hypocrite of all.

John Smith wrote on Aug 9^th, 2017 at 8:17pm:

matty wrote on Aug 9th, 2017 at 4:35pm: but I would just like to know, all these Labor supporters and members saying that the government needs to act on the issue, where were all of you between 2007-2013? does it matter? does that mean the libs can waste $200m? These attempts at deflecting from Malcolms lack of testicular fortitude are pretty pathetic, even for you.

Yes it does matter because it smacks of hypocrisy.

The second part is a) ironic because you're the one deflecting and b) nonsensical because I have been nothing but a vocal critic of Malcolm since day dot.

Dnarever wrote on Aug 9^th, 2017 at 9:08pm:

Quote: Hypocritical Labor supporters Hypocrisy - a term that Matty should stay away from. It is hypocrisy for Matty to refer to hypocrisy.

How? If you're going to call someone something then give examples, as I have done.

matty wrote on Aug 9^th, 2017 at 11:13pm:

-

Matty, you didn't say whether you're still studying or if you're now a fully-qualified specialist.

Can the leftards hire you out now? Can you treat fags?

C) Please explain.

Wanna talk hypocrisy?

Then how about this garbage the Libs are spouting to support their SSM policy.

THEY claim they are doing this because it was an election promise, and THEY MUST STAND BY their policy for murky political reasons

I want to REFER YOU ALL to their promise to provide a faster better internet service through the NBN Co.

I insist that this is a much more important line to hold  IE DELIVER ON.. than SSM, which is essentially being used as a drama to deflect from the GOVERNMENTS very REAL FAILURE to abide by THAT ELECTION promise. among others. :(.

matty wrote on Aug 9^th, 2017 at 11:17pm:

Dnarever wrote on Aug 9th, 2017 at 9:08pm: Quote: Hypocritical Labor supporters Hypocrisy - a term that Matty should stay away from. It is hypocrisy for Matty to refer to hypocrisy. How? If you're going to call someone something then give examples, as I have done.

Well hypocrisy is claiming you're sick of hearing about SSM by starting a new thread (amongst many) of SSM

The ONLY reason the lefties raved and ranted about the fizzer SSM non issue and Wenny Pong bonged the Pong gong is that they thought it would sandwich Malcolm but the slippery Malcolm easily slipped thru.

Now when the postal vote returns a resounding NO then the Gays will blame Bull S.


http://www.zanettisview.com/rest/images/4616/w950.png

juliar wrote on Aug 10^th, 2017 at 9:19am:

The ONLY reason the lefties raved and ranted about the fizzer SSM non issue and Wenny Pong bonged the Pong gong is that they thought it would sandwich Malcolm but the slippery Malcolm easily slipped thru. Now when the postal vote returns a resounding NO then the Gays will blame Bull S. ]

What will you do if it comes back Yes?

Emma wrote on Aug 9^th, 2017 at 11:47pm:

Wanna talk hypocrisy? Then how about this garbage the Libs are spouting to support their SSM policy. THEY claim they are doing this because it was an election promise, and THEY MUST STAND BY their policy for murky political reasons I want to REFER YOU ALL to their promise to provide a faster better internet service through the NBN Co. I insist that this is a much more important line to hold  IE DELIVER ON.. than SSM, which is essentially being used as a drama to deflect from the GOVERNMENTS very REAL FAILURE to abide by THAT ELECTION promise. among others. :(.

Yet again more deflection.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 10^th, 2017 at 8:30am:

matty wrote on Aug 9th, 2017 at 11:17pm: Dnarever wrote on Aug 9th, 2017 at 9:08pm: Quote: Hypocritical Labor supporters Hypocrisy - a term that Matty should stay away from. It is hypocrisy for Matty to refer to hypocrisy. How? If you're going to call someone something then give examples, as I have done. Well hypocrisy is claiming you're sick of hearing about SSM by starting a new thread (amongst many) of SSM

Not really. If am sick of hearing about the topic but at the same time I am wondering why those Labor supporters who want the current government to act never said anything whilst Labor was in government.

matty wrote on Aug 10^th, 2017 at 12:22pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 8:30am: matty wrote on Aug 9th, 2017 at 11:17pm: Dnarever wrote on Aug 9th, 2017 at 9:08pm: Quote: Hypocritical Labor supporters Hypocrisy - a term that Matty should stay away from. It is hypocrisy for Matty to refer to hypocrisy. How? If you're going to call someone something then give examples, as I have done. Well hypocrisy is claiming you're sick of hearing about SSM by starting a new thread (amongst many) of SSM Not really. If am sick of hearing about the topic but at the same time I am wondering why those Labor supporters who want the current government to act never said anything whilst Labor was in government.

So wonder to yourself, rather than starting a thread. And we did. So grow the bugger up.

matty wrote on Aug 9^th, 2017 at 4:35pm:

I am thoroughly sick to death of all the talk about fag marriage, but I would just like to know, all these Labor supporters and members saying that the government needs to act on the issue, where were all of you between 2007-2013?

Good point. These issues only become apparent when the Liberals get in it seems.

Mr Hammer wrote on Aug 10^th, 2017 at 12:30pm:

matty wrote on Aug 9th, 2017 at 4:35pm: I am thoroughly sick to death of all the talk about fag marriage, but I would just like to know, all these Labor supporters and members saying that the government needs to act on the issue, where were all of you between 2007-2013? Good point. These issues only become apparent when the Liberals get in it seems.

As does selective amnesia it seems.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 10^th, 2017 at 12:31pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 12:30pm: matty wrote on Aug 9th, 2017 at 4:35pm: I am thoroughly sick to death of all the talk about fag marriage, but I would just like to know, all these Labor supporters and members saying that the government needs to act on the issue, where were all of you between 2007-2013? Good point. These issues only become apparent when the Liberals get in it seems. As does selective amnesia it seems.

Why weren't you banging on about gay marriage when Krudd and Dillard were in? Too busy with the reffos hey?

Mr Hammer wrote on Aug 10^th, 2017 at 12:34pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 12:31pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 12:30pm: matty wrote on Aug 9th, 2017 at 4:35pm: I am thoroughly sick to death of all the talk about fag marriage, but I would just like to know, all these Labor supporters and members saying that the government needs to act on the issue, where were all of you between 2007-2013? Good point. These issues only become apparent when the Liberals get in it seems. As does selective amnesia it seems. Why weren't you banging on about gay marriage when Krudd and Dillard were in? Too busy with the reffos hey?

Ummm I remember having a crack at Wong at the time for being cowardly and kowtowing to Gillard instead of taking a stand.

matty wrote on Aug 9^th, 2017 at 11:17pm:

John Smith wrote on Aug 9th, 2017 at 8:17pm: matty wrote on Aug 9th, 2017 at 4:35pm: but I would just like to know, all these Labor supporters and members saying that the government needs to act on the issue, where were all of you between 2007-2013? does it matter? does that mean the libs can waste $200m? These attempts at deflecting from Malcolms lack of testicular fortitude are pretty pathetic, even for you. Yes it does matter because it smacks of hypocrisy. The second part is a) ironic because you're the one deflecting and b) nonsensical because I have been nothing but a vocal critic of Malcolm since day dot.

there is no hypocrisy. Labor didn't have the numbers to pass the legislation when they were in government so there was little point in pursuing it. I realise you don't like reality but most of us live in the real world

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 10^th, 2017 at 12:36pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 12:34pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 12:31pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 12:30pm: matty wrote on Aug 9th, 2017 at 4:35pm: I am thoroughly sick to death of all the talk about fag marriage, but I would just like to know, all these Labor supporters and members saying that the government needs to act on the issue, where were all of you between 2007-2013? Good point. These issues only become apparent when the Liberals get in it seems. As does selective amnesia it seems. Why weren't you banging on about gay marriage when Krudd and Dillard were in? Too busy with the reffos hey? Ummm I remember having a crack at Wong at the time for being cowardly and kowtowing to Gillard instead of taking a stand.

1 time??? ;D ;D ;D ;D

That's easy.

The Gays are only a microscopic part of the population and so the SSM bull is very much a case of the tale wagging the dog.

The majority of the normal straight population see the whole SSM thing as just Greeny sickness and are appalled at the thought of the marriage act being desecrated by a tiny mob of weirdohs.

Hence no party wants to be seen as supporting this tiny minority and then alienating the vast majority of the population.

The Lefties were hoping that Mal would be cornered in his party by this SSM rubbish and hence all the bluff and bluster coming out of Bull S.

But as it turned out Mal had no trouble at all at keeping the plebiscite and now the postal ballot and so the Lefties' hopes were dashed.

And now the Gays blame Bull S.

When the postal vote returns NO then the GAYS will HATE Bull S.  Quite a good outcome.

Mr Hammer wrote on Aug 10^th, 2017 at 12:39pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 12:36pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 12:34pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 12:31pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 12:30pm: matty wrote on Aug 9th, 2017 at 4:35pm: I am thoroughly sick to death of all the talk about fag marriage, but I would just like to know, all these Labor supporters and members saying that the government needs to act on the issue, where were all of you between 2007-2013? Good point. These issues only become apparent when the Liberals get in it seems. As does selective amnesia it seems. Why weren't you banging on about gay marriage when Krudd and Dillard were in? Too busy with the reffos hey? Ummm I remember having a crack at Wong at the time for being cowardly and kowtowing to Gillard instead of taking a stand. 1 time??? ;D ;D ;D ;D

1 time is enough to disprove your point. Please carry on developing your 'feeling'

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 10^th, 2017 at 12:42pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 12:39pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 12:36pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 12:34pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 12:31pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 12:30pm: matty wrote on Aug 9th, 2017 at 4:35pm: I am thoroughly sick to death of all the talk about fag marriage, but I would just like to know, all these Labor supporters and members saying that the government needs to act on the issue, where were all of you between 2007-2013? Good point. These issues only become apparent when the Liberals get in it seems. As does selective amnesia it seems. Why weren't you banging on about gay marriage when Krudd and Dillard were in? Too busy with the reffos hey? Ummm I remember having a crack at Wong at the time for being cowardly and kowtowing to Gillard instead of taking a stand. 1 time??? ;D ;D ;D ;D 1 time is enough to disprove your point. Please carry on developing your 'feeling'

How many times have you banged on about this of late? ;D ;D ;D

Mr Hammer wrote on Aug 10^th, 2017 at 12:43pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 12:42pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 12:39pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 12:36pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 12:34pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 12:31pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 12:30pm: matty wrote on Aug 9th, 2017 at 4:35pm: I am thoroughly sick to death of all the talk about fag marriage, but I would just like to know, all these Labor supporters and members saying that the government needs to act on the issue, where were all of you between 2007-2013? Good point. These issues only become apparent when the Liberals get in it seems. As does selective amnesia it seems. Why weren't you banging on about gay marriage when Krudd and Dillard were in? Too busy with the reffos hey? Ummm I remember having a crack at Wong at the time for being cowardly and kowtowing to Gillard instead of taking a stand. 1 time??? ;D ;D ;D ;D 1 time is enough to disprove your point. Please carry on developing your 'feeling' How many times have you banged on about this of late? ;D ;D ;D

Well I stopped complaing about Labor when the Libs won the election and were therefore in the position to get this smacking issue sorted so we can do the important poo.

matty wrote on Aug 9^th, 2017 at 11:17pm:

John Smith wrote on Aug 9th, 2017 at 8:17pm: matty wrote on Aug 9th, 2017 at 4:35pm: but I would just like to know, all these Labor supporters and members saying that the government needs to act on the issue, where were all of you between 2007-2013? does it matter? does that mean the libs can waste $200m? These attempts at deflecting from Malcolms lack of testicular fortitude are pretty pathetic, even for you. Yes it does matter because it smacks of hypocrisy. The second part is a) ironic because you're the one deflecting and b) nonsensical because I have been nothing but a vocal critic of Malcolm since day dot.

a) I have nothing to deflect. YOur whole argument is based on a load of crap
b) don't care that you don't like malcolm, you like his attempts to stall on the ssm issue

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 10^th, 2017 at 12:46pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 12:43pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 12:42pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 12:39pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 12:36pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 12:34pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 12:31pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 12:30pm: matty wrote on Aug 9th, 2017 at 4:35pm: I am thoroughly sick to death of all the talk about fag marriage, but I would just like to know, all these Labor supporters and members saying that the government needs to act on the issue, where were all of you between 2007-2013? Good point. These issues only become apparent when the Liberals get in it seems. As does selective amnesia it seems. Why weren't you banging on about gay marriage when Krudd and Dillard were in? Too busy with the reffos hey? Ummm I remember having a crack at Wong at the time for being cowardly and kowtowing to Gillard instead of taking a stand. 1 time??? ;D ;D ;D ;D 1 time is enough to disprove your point. Please carry on developing your 'feeling' How many times have you banged on about this of late? ;D ;D ;D Well I stopped complaing about Labor when the Libs won the election and were therefore in the position to get this smacking issue sorted so we can do the important poo.

;D ;D ;D Sure you did!! ;D ;D ;D

The Lefties are doing their living best to change the subject by creating their usual dog's breakfast.

Mr Hammer wrote on Aug 10^th, 2017 at 12:48pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 12:46pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 12:43pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 12:42pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 12:39pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 12:36pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 12:34pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 12:31pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 12:30pm: matty wrote on Aug 9th, 2017 at 4:35pm: I am thoroughly sick to death of all the talk about fag marriage, but I would just like to know, all these Labor supporters and members saying that the government needs to act on the issue, where were all of you between 2007-2013? Good point. These issues only become apparent when the Liberals get in it seems. As does selective amnesia it seems. Why weren't you banging on about gay marriage when Krudd and Dillard were in? Too busy with the reffos hey? Ummm I remember having a crack at Wong at the time for being cowardly and kowtowing to Gillard instead of taking a stand. 1 time??? ;D ;D ;D ;D 1 time is enough to disprove your point. Please carry on developing your 'feeling' How many times have you banged on about this of late? ;D ;D ;D Well I stopped complaing about Labor when the Libs won the election and were therefore in the position to get this smacking issue sorted so we can do the important poo. ;D ;D ;D Sure you did!! ;D ;D ;D

I know right. Exactly.

juliar wrote on Aug 10^th, 2017 at 12:50pm:

The Lefties are doing their living best to change the subject by creating their usual dog's breakfast.

Juliar, there there one day you'll meet the man of your dreams.

juliar wrote on Aug 10^th, 2017 at 12:50pm:

The Lefties are doing their living best to change the subject by creating their usual dog's breakfast.

I'll second that. It's funny how kids in detention only became an issue when the Libs got on. There were 1,00's under Labor. Anyway they can make the Libs look racist, homophobic or whatever they'll run with it.

Vic wrote on Aug 9^th, 2017 at 4:40pm:

Was the issue raised in those years?   I can't recall it being on the agenda anytime.

Quote:

Gillard - I do not support same sex marriage and will not make it legal Plepbazerk - We dont support same sex marriage Swan - We made it very clear that we don't support gay marriage Wong - On the issue of marriage I think the reality is there is a cultural, religious, historical view around of which we have to respect. The party's position is very clear that this is an institution that is between a man and a woman Kevin Rudd has angered members of the gay community by saying he is opposed to homosexual marriage and refusing to be drawn on the question of gay couples adopting children. Shorten who told church leaders before the 2013 election that a plebiscite would be a good way to resolve this issue

Mr Hammer wrote on Aug 10^th, 2017 at 12:54pm:

It's funny how kids in detention only became an issue when the Libs got on

it became an issue when the media got it's hands on the cctv footage of a kid being abused by thugs and the libs then tried to shove their heads in the sand about it. If they had dealt with it effectively, there would have been no issue.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 10^th, 2017 at 12:51pm:

juliar wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 12:50pm: The Lefties are doing their living best to change the subject by creating their usual dog's breakfast. Juliar, there there one day you'll meet the man of your dreams.

You know yourself, Gregg and John would do a more convincing act, and it must be an act, of tolerance if you quit taunting posters you don't like by accusing them of homosexuality.    ::)

John Smith wrote on Aug 10^th, 2017 at 1:05pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 12:54pm: It's funny how kids in detention only became an issue when the Libs got on it became an issue when the media got it's hands on the cctv footage of a kid being abused by thugs and the libs then tried to shove their heads in the sand about it. If they had dealt with it effectively, there would have been no issue.

So it wasn't an issue when kids were drowning?

Mr Hammer wrote on Aug 10^th, 2017 at 1:06pm:

John Smith wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 1:05pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 12:54pm: It's funny how kids in detention only became an issue when the Libs got on it became an issue when the media got it's hands on the cctv footage of a kid being abused by thugs and the libs then tried to shove their heads in the sand about it. If they had dealt with it effectively, there would have been no issue. So it wasn't an issue when kids were drowning?

are you pretending no one made an issue of drownings?

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 10^th, 2017 at 12:27pm:

matty wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 12:22pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 8:30am: matty wrote on Aug 9th, 2017 at 11:17pm: Dnarever wrote on Aug 9th, 2017 at 9:08pm: Quote: Hypocritical Labor supporters Hypocrisy - a term that Matty should stay away from. It is hypocrisy for Matty to refer to hypocrisy. How? If you're going to call someone something then give examples, as I have done. Well hypocrisy is claiming you're sick of hearing about SSM by starting a new thread (amongst many) of SSM Not really. If am sick of hearing about the topic but at the same time I am wondering why those Labor supporters who want the current government to act never said anything whilst Labor was in government. So wonder to yourself, rather than starting a thread. And we did. So grow the bugger up.

I will do whatever I want thanks very much.

John Smith wrote on Aug 10^th, 2017 at 12:36pm:

matty wrote on Aug 9th, 2017 at 11:17pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 9th, 2017 at 8:17pm: matty wrote on Aug 9th, 2017 at 4:35pm: but I would just like to know, all these Labor supporters and members saying that the government needs to act on the issue, where were all of you between 2007-2013? does it matter? does that mean the libs can waste $200m? These attempts at deflecting from Malcolms lack of testicular fortitude are pretty pathetic, even for you. Yes it does matter because it smacks of hypocrisy. The second part is a) ironic because you're the one deflecting and b) nonsensical because I have been nothing but a vocal critic of Malcolm since day dot. there is no hypocrisy. Labor didn't have the numbers to pass the legislation when they were in government so there was little point in pursuing it. I realise you don't like reality but most of us live in the real world

So numbers in Parliament is what it's all about? Also Labor had 83 in the lower house from 2007-2010 so why didn't the left campaign for them to pass it?

John Smith wrote on Aug 10^th, 2017 at 12:47pm:

matty wrote on Aug 9th, 2017 at 11:17pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 9th, 2017 at 8:17pm: matty wrote on Aug 9th, 2017 at 4:35pm: but I would just like to know, all these Labor supporters and members saying that the government needs to act on the issue, where were all of you between 2007-2013? does it matter? does that mean the libs can waste $200m? These attempts at deflecting from Malcolms lack of testicular fortitude are pretty pathetic, even for you. Yes it does matter because it smacks of hypocrisy. The second part is a) ironic because you're the one deflecting and b) nonsensical because I have been nothing but a vocal critic of Malcolm since day dot. a) I have nothing to deflect. YOur whole argument is based on a load of crap b) don't care that you don't like malcolm, you like his attempts to stall on the ssm issue

1. You deflected to the price of the plebiscite, not the issue at hand.
2. Not really. I wish he would just end it.

matty wrote on Aug 10^th, 2017 at 2:29pm:

John Smith wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 12:36pm: matty wrote on Aug 9th, 2017 at 11:17pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 9th, 2017 at 8:17pm: matty wrote on Aug 9th, 2017 at 4:35pm: but I would just like to know, all these Labor supporters and members saying that the government needs to act on the issue, where were all of you between 2007-2013? does it matter? does that mean the libs can waste $200m? These attempts at deflecting from Malcolms lack of testicular fortitude are pretty pathetic, even for you. Yes it does matter because it smacks of hypocrisy. The second part is a) ironic because you're the one deflecting and b) nonsensical because I have been nothing but a vocal critic of Malcolm since day dot. there is no hypocrisy. Labor didn't have the numbers to pass the legislation when they were in government so there was little point in pursuing it. I realise you don't like reality but most of us live in the real world So numbers in Parliament is what it's all about? Also Labor had 83 in the lower house from 2007-2010 so why didn't the left campaign for them to pass it?

not sure why you're struggling. Labor didn't have the numbers. Their are two houses legislation has to pass, not one.

I will accept homosexual couples as legitimate when a two dicks or two pussies can make a baby. Until then it is completely unnatural and despicable to knowingly deprive a child of a mother and father.

matty wrote on Aug 10^th, 2017 at 2:29pm:

John Smith wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 12:36pm: matty wrote on Aug 9th, 2017 at 11:17pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 9th, 2017 at 8:17pm: matty wrote on Aug 9th, 2017 at 4:35pm: but I would just like to know, all these Labor supporters and members saying that the government needs to act on the issue, where were all of you between 2007-2013? does it matter? does that mean the libs can waste $200m? These attempts at deflecting from Malcolms lack of testicular fortitude are pretty pathetic, even for you. Yes it does matter because it smacks of hypocrisy. The second part is a) ironic because you're the one deflecting and b) nonsensical because I have been nothing but a vocal critic of Malcolm since day dot. there is no hypocrisy. Labor didn't have the numbers to pass the legislation when they were in government so there was little point in pursuing it. I realise you don't like reality but most of us live in the real world So numbers in Parliament is what it's all about? Also Labor had 83 in the lower house from 2007-2010 so why didn't the left campaign for them to pass it?

Because this guy wouldn't allow it.

John Smith wrote on Aug 10^th, 2017 at 2:31pm:

matty wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 2:29pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 12:36pm: matty wrote on Aug 9th, 2017 at 11:17pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 9th, 2017 at 8:17pm: matty wrote on Aug 9th, 2017 at 4:35pm: but I would just like to know, all these Labor supporters and members saying that the government needs to act on the issue, where were all of you between 2007-2013? does it matter? does that mean the libs can waste $200m? These attempts at deflecting from Malcolms lack of testicular fortitude are pretty pathetic, even for you. Yes it does matter because it smacks of hypocrisy. The second part is a) ironic because you're the one deflecting and b) nonsensical because I have been nothing but a vocal critic of Malcolm since day dot. there is no hypocrisy. Labor didn't have the numbers to pass the legislation when they were in government so there was little point in pursuing it. I realise you don't like reality but most of us live in the real world So numbers in Parliament is what it's all about? Also Labor had 83 in the lower house from 2007-2010 so why didn't the left campaign for them to pass it? not sure why you're struggling. Labor didn't have the numbers. Their are two houses legislation has to pass, not one.

Not struggling at all. I am just wondering why you think it's all about numbers.

Not to mention the fact that the Coalition does not have the numbers either. All of their MPs went to the election on a platform of a plebiscite and not a free vote.

matty wrote on Aug 10^th, 2017 at 2:31pm:

John Smith wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 12:47pm: matty wrote on Aug 9th, 2017 at 11:17pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 9th, 2017 at 8:17pm: matty wrote on Aug 9th, 2017 at 4:35pm: but I would just like to know, all these Labor supporters and members saying that the government needs to act on the issue, where were all of you between 2007-2013? does it matter? does that mean the libs can waste $200m? These attempts at deflecting from Malcolms lack of testicular fortitude are pretty pathetic, even for you. Yes it does matter because it smacks of hypocrisy. The second part is a) ironic because you're the one deflecting and b) nonsensical because I have been nothing but a vocal critic of Malcolm since day dot. a) I have nothing to deflect. YOur whole argument is based on a load of crap b) don't care that you don't like malcolm, you like his attempts to stall on the ssm issue 1. You deflected to the price of the plebiscite, not the issue at hand. 2. Not really. I wish he would just end it.

1. since you're whole thread is to whinge about labors objection to the plebiscite, the cost is very relevant and not a deflection
2. quickest, cheapest and easiest way to end it is to allow a conscience vote and get it over and done with. He'll have to do it after the plebiscite anyway, so why stall?

matty wrote on Aug 10^th, 2017 at 2:32pm:

I will accept homosexual couples as legitimate when a two dicks or two pussies can make a baby. Until then it is completely unnatural and despicable to knowingly deprive a child of a mother and father.

Married couples don't have to have children.

You do understand that, don't you?

matty wrote on Aug 10^th, 2017 at 2:34pm:

Not struggling at all. I am just wondering why you think it's all about numbers.

legislation is always about numbers. There is no point in pretending to introduce legislation when you know you haven't got the numbers to pass it.

matty wrote on Aug 10^th, 2017 at 2:32pm:

I will accept homosexual couples as legitimate when a two dicks or two pussies can make a baby. Until then it is completely unnatural and despicable to knowingly deprive a child of a mother and father.

Are you suggesting that the law does not recognise the marriage of a man and a woman if they don't have kids?

John Smith wrote on Aug 10^th, 2017 at 2:37pm:

matty wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 2:32pm: I will accept homosexual couples as legitimate when a two dicks or two pussies can make a baby. Until then it is completely unnatural and despicable to knowingly deprive a child of a mother and father. Are you suggesting that the law does not recognise the marriage of a man and a woman if they don't have kids?

He painted himself into a corner with that one   ;D

matty wrote on Aug 10^th, 2017 at 2:34pm:

John Smith wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 2:31pm: matty wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 2:29pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 12:36pm: matty wrote on Aug 9th, 2017 at 11:17pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 9th, 2017 at 8:17pm: matty wrote on Aug 9th, 2017 at 4:35pm: but I would just like to know, all these Labor supporters and members saying that the government needs to act on the issue, where were all of you between 2007-2013? does it matter? does that mean the libs can waste $200m? These attempts at deflecting from Malcolms lack of testicular fortitude are pretty pathetic, even for you. Yes it does matter because it smacks of hypocrisy. The second part is a) ironic because you're the one deflecting and b) nonsensical because I have been nothing but a vocal critic of Malcolm since day dot. there is no hypocrisy. Labor didn't have the numbers to pass the legislation when they were in government so there was little point in pursuing it. I realise you don't like reality but most of us live in the real world So numbers in Parliament is what it's all about? Also Labor had 83 in the lower house from 2007-2010 so why didn't the left campaign for them to pass it? not sure why you're struggling. Labor didn't have the numbers. Their are two houses legislation has to pass, not one. Not struggling at all. I am just wondering why you think it's all about numbers. Not to mention the fact that the Coalition does not have the numbers either. All of their MPs went to the election on a platform of a plebiscite and not a free vote.

but it's not just the numbers in the coalition. We both know parliament has the numbers  to pass the legislation. If the libs believed they didn't have the numbers they would have allowed a conscience vote knowing it wouldn't pass.

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 10^th, 2017 at 2:34pm:

matty wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 2:29pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 12:36pm: matty wrote on Aug 9th, 2017 at 11:17pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 9th, 2017 at 8:17pm: matty wrote on Aug 9th, 2017 at 4:35pm: but I would just like to know, all these Labor supporters and members saying that the government needs to act on the issue, where were all of you between 2007-2013? does it matter? does that mean the libs can waste $200m? These attempts at deflecting from Malcolms lack of testicular fortitude are pretty pathetic, even for you. Yes it does matter because it smacks of hypocrisy. The second part is a) ironic because you're the one deflecting and b) nonsensical because I have been nothing but a vocal critic of Malcolm since day dot. there is no hypocrisy. Labor didn't have the numbers to pass the legislation when they were in government so there was little point in pursuing it. I realise you don't like reality but most of us live in the real world So numbers in Parliament is what it's all about? Also Labor had 83 in the lower house from 2007-2010 so why didn't the left campaign for them to pass it? Because this guy wouldn't allow it.

This wasn't a joke, by the way.


http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/2343106-3x2-340x227.jpg

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 10^th, 2017 at 2:39pm:

John Smith wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 2:37pm: matty wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 2:32pm: I will accept homosexual couples as legitimate when a two dicks or two pussies can make a baby. Until then it is completely unnatural and despicable to knowingly deprive a child of a mother and father. Are you suggesting that the law does not recognise the marriage of a man and a woman if they don't have kids? He painted himself into a corner with that one   ;D

No he didn't: gay marriage was never referred to as an institution because it didn't provide babies.

:o

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 10^th, 2017 at 2:35pm:

matty wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 2:32pm: I will accept homosexual couples as legitimate when a two dicks or two pussies can make a baby. Until then it is completely unnatural and despicable to knowingly deprive a child of a mother and father. Married couples don't have to have children. You do understand that, don't you?

That's not the point: the point is hetero marriage is an institution and gay marriage is not because in the first the possiblity of raising children exists and in the latter it does not!

TheFunPolice wrote on Aug 10^th, 2017 at 3:17pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 2:35pm: matty wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 2:32pm: I will accept homosexual couples as legitimate when a two dicks or two pussies can make a baby. Until then it is completely unnatural and despicable to knowingly deprive a child of a mother and father. Married couples don't have to have children. You do understand that, don't you? That's not the point: the point is hetero marriage is an institution and gay marriage is not because in the first the possiblity of raising children exists and in the latter it does not!

It's got nothing to do with children.

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Aug 10^th, 2017 at 1:03pm:

Vic wrote on Aug 9th, 2017 at 4:40pm: Was the issue raised in those years?   I can't recall it being on the agenda anytime. Quote: Gillard - I do not support same sex marriage and will not make it legal Plepbazerk - We dont support same sex marriage Swan - We made it very clear that we don't support gay marriage Wong - On the issue of marriage I think the reality is there is a cultural, religious, historical view around of which we have to respect. The party's position is very clear that this is an institution that is between a man and a woman Kevin Rudd has angered members of the gay community by saying he is opposed to homosexual marriage and refusing to be drawn on the question of gay couples adopting children. Shorten who told church leaders before the 2013 election that a plebiscite would be a good way to resolve this issue

Just sayin   :-/

Yep and attacked at the time.

TheFunPolice wrote on Aug 10^th, 2017 at 3:17pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 2:35pm: matty wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 2:32pm: I will accept homosexual couples as legitimate when a two dicks or two pussies can make a baby. Until then it is completely unnatural and despicable to knowingly deprive a child of a mother and father. Married couples don't have to have children. You do understand that, don't you? That's not the point: the point is hetero marriage is an institution and gay marriage is not because in the first the possiblity of raising children exists and in the latter it does not!

Yes it does. Of course it does!

mothra wrote on Aug 10^th, 2017 at 3:34pm:

TheFunPolice wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 3:17pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 2:35pm: matty wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 2:32pm: I will accept homosexual couples as legitimate when a two dicks or two pussies can make a baby. Until then it is completely unnatural and despicable to knowingly deprive a child of a mother and father. Married couples don't have to have children. You do understand that, don't you? That's not the point: the point is hetero marriage is an institution and gay marriage is not because in the first the possiblity of raising children exists and in the latter it does not! Yes it does. Of course it does!

YEAH.!! You fellas obviously don't watch the free TV News. I was watching an interview between two married men ( yes- to each other) who had just produced a baby from their own bodies. One of the couple had extensive transgender treatment , and actually gave birth to this child.

SO it is.

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Aug 10^th, 2017 at 3:31pm:

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 1:03pm: Vic wrote on Aug 9th, 2017 at 4:40pm: Was the issue raised in those years?   I can't recall it being on the agenda anytime. Quote: Gillard - I do not support same sex marriage and will not make it legal Plepbazerk - We dont support same sex marriage Swan - We made it very clear that we don't support gay marriage Wong - On the issue of marriage I think the reality is there is a cultural, religious, historical view around of which we have to respect. The party's position is very clear that this is an institution that is between a man and a woman Kevin Rudd has angered members of the gay community by saying he is opposed to homosexual marriage and refusing to be drawn on the question of gay couples adopting children. Shorten who told church leaders before the 2013 election that a plebiscite would be a good way to resolve this issue Just sayin   :-/

very good

LOL
The Prog Left are a joke, especially on this. :D :D :D :D :D

mothra wrote on Aug 10^th, 2017 at 3:34pm:

TheFunPolice wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 3:17pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 2:35pm: matty wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 2:32pm: I will accept homosexual couples as legitimate when a two dicks or two pussies can make a baby. Until then it is completely unnatural and despicable to knowingly deprive a child of a mother and father. Married couples don't have to have children. You do understand that, don't you? That's not the point: the point is hetero marriage is an institution and gay marriage is not because in the first the possiblity of raising children exists and in the latter it does not! Yes it does. Of course it does!

Yes, of course it does (even though it's completely irrelevant).

John Smith wrote on Aug 10^th, 2017 at 2:34pm:

matty wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 2:31pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 12:47pm: matty wrote on Aug 9th, 2017 at 11:17pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 9th, 2017 at 8:17pm: matty wrote on Aug 9th, 2017 at 4:35pm: but I would just like to know, all these Labor supporters and members saying that the government needs to act on the issue, where were all of you between 2007-2013? does it matter? does that mean the libs can waste $200m? These attempts at deflecting from Malcolms lack of testicular fortitude are pretty pathetic, even for you. Yes it does matter because it smacks of hypocrisy. The second part is a) ironic because you're the one deflecting and b) nonsensical because I have been nothing but a vocal critic of Malcolm since day dot. a) I have nothing to deflect. YOur whole argument is based on a load of crap b) don't care that you don't like malcolm, you like his attempts to stall on the ssm issue 1. You deflected to the price of the plebiscite, not the issue at hand. 2. Not really. I wish he would just end it. 1. since you're whole thread is to whinge about labors objection to the plebiscite, the cost is very relevant and not a deflection 2. quickest, cheapest and easiest way to end it is to allow a conscience vote and get it over and done with. He'll have to do it after the plebiscite anyway, so why stall?

Once again you have misunderstood. The whole point of the thread was about Labor hypocrisy, not about the objection to the plebiscite.

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 10^th, 2017 at 2:35pm:

matty wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 2:32pm: I will accept homosexual couples as legitimate when a two dicks or two pussies can make a baby. Until then it is completely unnatural and despicable to knowingly deprive a child of a mother and father. Married couples don't have to have children. You do understand that, don't you?

Not saying that they do, just saying that in my opinion homosexual pairing are not as legitimate as heterosexual. Nowhere near. Get back to me when two dicks or two pussies can create a baby.

matty wrote on Aug 11^th, 2017 at 12:40pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 2:35pm: matty wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 2:32pm: I will accept homosexual couples as legitimate when a two dicks or two pussies can make a baby. Until then it is completely unnatural and despicable to knowingly deprive a child of a mother and father. Married couples don't have to have children. You do understand that, don't you? Not saying that they do, just saying that in my opinion homosexual pairing are not as legitimate as heterosexual. Nowhere near. Get back to me when two dicks or two pussies can create a baby.

It has nothing to do with babies.

Get back to me when a dick and a pussy can create a wheelbarrow.

matty wrote on Aug 11^th, 2017 at 12:40pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 2:35pm: matty wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 2:32pm: I will accept homosexual couples as legitimate when a two dicks or two pussies can make a baby. Until then it is completely unnatural and despicable to knowingly deprive a child of a mother and father. Married couples don't have to have children. You do understand that, don't you? Not saying that they do, just saying that in my opinion homosexual pairing are not as legitimate as heterosexual. Nowhere near. Get back to me when two dicks or two pussies can create a baby.

You do realise external genitalia arent what really creates a baby, right?

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 11^th, 2017 at 12:43pm:

matty wrote on Aug 11th, 2017 at 12:40pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 2:35pm: matty wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 2:32pm: I will accept homosexual couples as legitimate when a two dicks or two pussies can make a baby. Until then it is completely unnatural and despicable to knowingly deprive a child of a mother and father. Married couples don't have to have children. You do understand that, don't you? Not saying that they do, just saying that in my opinion homosexual pairing are not as legitimate as heterosexual. Nowhere near. Get back to me when two dicks or two pussies can create a baby. It has nothing to do with babies. Get back to me when a dick and a pussy can create a wheelbarrow.

It has everything to do with babies: that's Why hetero marriage is an institution and gay marriage is not!

Fmd Greg is a thicko!  8-)

TheFunPolice wrote on Aug 11^th, 2017 at 1:38pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 11th, 2017 at 12:43pm: matty wrote on Aug 11th, 2017 at 12:40pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 2:35pm: matty wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 2:32pm: I will accept homosexual couples as legitimate when a two dicks or two pussies can make a baby. Until then it is completely unnatural and despicable to knowingly deprive a child of a mother and father. Married couples don't have to have children. You do understand that, don't you? Not saying that they do, just saying that in my opinion homosexual pairing are not as legitimate as heterosexual. Nowhere near. Get back to me when two dicks or two pussies can create a baby. It has nothing to do with babies. Get back to me when a dick and a pussy can create a wheelbarrow. It has everything to do with babies: that's Why hetero marriage is an institution and gay marriage is not!

Incorrect.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 11^th, 2017 at 1:04pm:

matty wrote on Aug 11th, 2017 at 12:40pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 2:35pm: matty wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 2:32pm: I will accept homosexual couples as legitimate when a two dicks or two pussies can make a baby. Until then it is completely unnatural and despicable to knowingly deprive a child of a mother and father. Married couples don't have to have children. You do understand that, don't you? Not saying that they do, just saying that in my opinion homosexual pairing are not as legitimate as heterosexual. Nowhere near. Get back to me when two dicks or two pussies can create a baby. You do realise external genitalia arent what really creates a baby, right?

Bojack: that is a very strange comment!

;D

,... A very very strange and dodgy comment!

:D :D :D :D

You honestly think you could argue that in parliament?



:o  8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) :-?

Sorry,... It just don't pass the sniff test dooooooooooooood  ::)

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 11^th, 2017 at 1:39pm:

TheFunPolice wrote on Aug 11th, 2017 at 1:38pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 11th, 2017 at 12:43pm: matty wrote on Aug 11th, 2017 at 12:40pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 2:35pm: matty wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 2:32pm: I will accept homosexual couples as legitimate when a two dicks or two pussies can make a baby. Until then it is completely unnatural and despicable to knowingly deprive a child of a mother and father. Married couples don't have to have children. You do understand that, don't you? Not saying that they do, just saying that in my opinion homosexual pairing are not as legitimate as heterosexual. Nowhere near. Get back to me when two dicks or two pussies can create a baby. It has nothing to do with babies. Get back to me when a dick and a pussy can create a wheelbarrow. It has everything to do with babies: that's Why hetero marriage is an institution and gay marriage is not! Incorrect.

:D you're just wrong Greg : why be a total spastic about it ?  ;D ;D ;D ;D

TheFunPolice wrote on Aug 11^th, 2017 at 1:45pm:

you're just wrong Greg

No, I'm not.

Are you suggesting that heterosexual childless couples aren't married?

Emma wrote on Aug 11^th, 2017 at 12:25am:

mothra wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 3:34pm: TheFunPolice wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 3:17pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 2:35pm: matty wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 2:32pm: I will accept homosexual couples as legitimate when a two dicks or two pussies can make a baby. Until then it is completely unnatural and despicable to knowingly deprive a child of a mother and father. Married couples don't have to have children. You do understand that, don't you? That's not the point: the point is hetero marriage is an institution and gay marriage is not because in the first the possiblity of raising children exists and in the latter it does not! Yes it does. Of course it does! YEAH.!! You fellas obviously don't watch the free TV News. I was watching an interview between two married men ( yes- to each other) who had just produced a baby from their own bodies. One of the couple had extensive transgender treatment , and actually gave birth to this child. SO it is.

Lol, and that is what you are going to use an argument for why gay marriage has always been an institution ?  :D

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 11^th, 2017 at 1:47pm:

TheFunPolice wrote on Aug 11th, 2017 at 1:45pm: you're just wrong Greg No, I'm not. Are you suggesting that heterosexual childless couples aren't married?

I'm suggesting hetero marriage is an institution whilst gay marriage is not : how dumb are you that you need me to keep repeating the same thing?

;D ;D

mothra wrote on Aug 10^th, 2017 at 3:34pm:

TheFunPolice wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 3:17pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 2:35pm: matty wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 2:32pm: I will accept homosexual couples as legitimate when a two dicks or two pussies can make a baby. Until then it is completely unnatural and despicable to knowingly deprive a child of a mother and father. Married couples don't have to have children. You do understand that, don't you? That's not the point: the point is hetero marriage is an institution and gay marriage is not because in the first the possiblity of raising children exists and in the latter it does not! Yes it does. Of course it does!

If you don't have a point of view don't compete in the survey: easy!

;D

Why do you keep mentioning children.

They're irrelevant.

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 11^th, 2017 at 1:58pm:

Why do you keep mentioning children. They're irrelevant.

Greg is being deceitful!

Why is the question!!!

;)

TheFunPolice wrote on Aug 11^th, 2017 at 1:48pm:

Emma wrote on Aug 11th, 2017 at 12:25am: mothra wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 3:34pm: TheFunPolice wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 3:17pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 2:35pm: matty wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 2:32pm: I will accept homosexual couples as legitimate when a two dicks or two pussies can make a baby. Until then it is completely unnatural and despicable to knowingly deprive a child of a mother and father. Married couples don't have to have children. You do understand that, don't you? That's not the point: the point is hetero marriage is an institution and gay marriage is not because in the first the possiblity of raising children exists and in the latter it does not! Yes it does. Of course it does! YEAH.!! You fellas obviously don't watch the free TV News. I was watching an interview between two married men ( yes- to each other) who had just produced a baby from their own bodies. One of the couple had extensive transgender treatment , and actually gave birth to this child. SO it is. Lol, and that is what you are going to use an argument for why gay marriage has always been an institution ?  :D

Huh? Wow that is a long bow.

Nope, never even considered it. Just an observation that times are changing, and Men .. after transgender surgery, can give birth to real human babies.

Freak out!! Far out!! No doubt!!

:) ;D

Emma wrote on Aug 11^th, 2017 at 11:24pm:

TheFunPolice wrote on Aug 11th, 2017 at 1:48pm: Emma wrote on Aug 11th, 2017 at 12:25am: mothra wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 3:34pm: TheFunPolice wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 3:17pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 2:35pm: matty wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 2:32pm: I will accept homosexual couples as legitimate when a two dicks or two pussies can make a baby. Until then it is completely unnatural and despicable to knowingly deprive a child of a mother and father. Married couples don't have to have children. You do understand that, don't you? That's not the point: the point is hetero marriage is an institution and gay marriage is not because in the first the possiblity of raising children exists and in the latter it does not! Yes it does. Of course it does! YEAH.!! You fellas obviously don't watch the free TV News. I was watching an interview between two married men ( yes- to each other) who had just produced a baby from their own bodies. One of the couple had extensive transgender treatment , and actually gave birth to this child. SO it is. Lol, and that is what you are going to use an argument for why gay marriage has always been an institution ?  :D Huh? Wow that is a long bow. Nope, never even considered it. Just an observation that times are changing, and Men .. after transgender surgery, can give birth to real human babies. Freak out!! Far out!! No doubt!! :) ;D

Typical woman: everything's a joke since you got the baby and house and marriage in your early 20s!

Correction: typical fake feminist  :o

<ring ring,...> "Hey, girlfriend- let's grab a coffee and look down our noses at men etc,...."

[quote author=AnotherJourneyByTr link=1502260539

Yes it does. Of course it does![/quote]

YEAH.!! You fellas obviously don't watch the free TV News. I was watching an interview between two married men ( yes- to each other) who had just produced a baby from their own bodies. One of the couple had extensive transgender treatment , and actually gave birth to this child.

SO it is.



[/quote]
Lol, and that is what you are going to use an argument for why gay marriage has always been an institution ?  :D[/quote]

Huh? Wow that is a long bow.

Nope, never even considered it. Just an observation that times are changing, and Men .. after transgender surgery, can give birth to real human babies.

Freak out!! Far out!! No doubt!!

:) ;D
[/quote]
Typical woman: everything's a joke since you got the baby and house and marriage in your early 20s!

Correction: typical fake feminist  :o[/quote]

You really ought to stop talking in paradigms stereotypes and clichés and say something sensible.

I KNOW you can. :)

matty wrote on Aug 10^th, 2017 at 12:22pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 8:30am: matty wrote on Aug 9th, 2017 at 11:17pm: Dnarever wrote on Aug 9th, 2017 at 9:08pm: Quote: Hypocritical Labor supporters Hypocrisy - a term that Matty should stay away from. It is hypocrisy for Matty to refer to hypocrisy. How? If you're going to call someone something then give examples, as I have done. Well hypocrisy is claiming you're sick of hearing about SSM by starting a new thread (amongst many) of SSM Not really. If am sick of hearing about the topic but at the same time I am wondering why those Labor supporters who want the current government to act never said anything whilst Labor was in government.

Where were you when Labor were in power. It was a hot topic through the entire period.

You are building straw men to shoot down. The facts fail to support your assertion.

As a party and not completely either, Labor has only recently changed horses on the SSM issue.

For eg; Gillard, Wong and Shorten have all changed their stances in some form or another.

Quote:

YEAH.!! You fellas obviously don't watch the free TV News. I was watching an interview between two married men ( yes- to each other) who had just produced a baby from their own bodies. One of the couple had extensive transgender treatment , and actually gave birth to this child.

Really?
You got a link to that in the real world, I'd like to see the details about that.

well too bad because I've said before I DONT DO LINKS.

Look it up for yourself.

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 11^th, 2017 at 12:43pm:

matty wrote on Aug 11th, 2017 at 12:40pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 2:35pm: matty wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 2:32pm: I will accept homosexual couples as legitimate when a two dicks or two pussies can make a baby. Until then it is completely unnatural and despicable to knowingly deprive a child of a mother and father. Married couples don't have to have children. You do understand that, don't you? Not saying that they do, just saying that in my opinion homosexual pairing are not as legitimate as heterosexual. Nowhere near. Get back to me when two dicks or two pussies can create a baby. It has nothing to do with babies. Get back to me when a dick and a pussy can create a wheelbarrow.

For me it does. To me, marriage is a sacrament between man woman and God.

matty wrote on Aug 14^th, 2017 at 7:21am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 11th, 2017 at 12:43pm: matty wrote on Aug 11th, 2017 at 12:40pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 2:35pm: matty wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 2:32pm: I will accept homosexual couples as legitimate when a two dicks or two pussies can make a baby. Until then it is completely unnatural and despicable to knowingly deprive a child of a mother and father. Married couples don't have to have children. You do understand that, don't you? Not saying that they do, just saying that in my opinion homosexual pairing are not as legitimate as heterosexual. Nowhere near. Get back to me when two dicks or two pussies can create a baby. It has nothing to do with babies. Get back to me when a dick and a pussy can create a wheelbarrow. For me it does.

That's fine.

And for many, many other people it has absolutely nothing to do with babies.

Live and let live, hey matty?

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 11^th, 2017 at 1:04pm:

matty wrote on Aug 11th, 2017 at 12:40pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 2:35pm: matty wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 2:32pm: I will accept homosexual couples as legitimate when a two dicks or two pussies can make a baby. Until then it is completely unnatural and despicable to knowingly deprive a child of a mother and father. Married couples don't have to have children. You do understand that, don't you? Not saying that they do, just saying that in my opinion homosexual pairing are not as legitimate as heterosexual. Nowhere near. Get back to me when two dicks or two pussies can create a baby. You do realise external genitalia arent what really creates a baby, right?

Yes they do. It takes a man (dick and sperm) and a woman (pussy and ova) to make a baby.

To deprive a child of a mother and a father is totally wrong and irresponsible. For example, how can two men teach a girl about menstruation, and how can two women teach a boy to pee at a trough?

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 14^th, 2017 at 7:23am:

matty wrote on Aug 14th, 2017 at 7:21am: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 11th, 2017 at 12:43pm: matty wrote on Aug 11th, 2017 at 12:40pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 2:35pm: matty wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 2:32pm: I will accept homosexual couples as legitimate when a two dicks or two pussies can make a baby. Until then it is completely unnatural and despicable to knowingly deprive a child of a mother and father. Married couples don't have to have children. You do understand that, don't you? Not saying that they do, just saying that in my opinion homosexual pairing are not as legitimate as heterosexual. Nowhere near. Get back to me when two dicks or two pussies can create a baby. It has nothing to do with babies. Get back to me when a dick and a pussy can create a wheelbarrow. For me it does. That's fine. And for many, many other people it has absolutely nothing to do with babies. Live and let live, hey matty?

Not when it involves an innocent child. That's why Margaret Court was criticising Case Dellacqua for knowingly depriving her child (it's not even her child anyway, her "partner" had the child using donated sperm) of a father.

matty wrote on Aug 14^th, 2017 at 7:26am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 14th, 2017 at 7:23am: matty wrote on Aug 14th, 2017 at 7:21am: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 11th, 2017 at 12:43pm: matty wrote on Aug 11th, 2017 at 12:40pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 2:35pm: matty wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 2:32pm: I will accept homosexual couples as legitimate when a two dicks or two pussies can make a baby. Until then it is completely unnatural and despicable to knowingly deprive a child of a mother and father. Married couples don't have to have children. You do understand that, don't you? Not saying that they do, just saying that in my opinion homosexual pairing are not as legitimate as heterosexual. Nowhere near. Get back to me when two dicks or two pussies can create a baby. It has nothing to do with babies. Get back to me when a dick and a pussy can create a wheelbarrow. For me it does. That's fine. And for many, many other people it has absolutely nothing to do with babies. Live and let live, hey matty? Not when it involves an innocent child.

I'll keep repeating it for you, until it sinks in.

For many, many people it has absolutely nothing to do with babies.

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 14^th, 2017 at 7:40am:

matty wrote on Aug 14th, 2017 at 7:26am: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 14th, 2017 at 7:23am: matty wrote on Aug 14th, 2017 at 7:21am: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 11th, 2017 at 12:43pm: matty wrote on Aug 11th, 2017 at 12:40pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 2:35pm: matty wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 2:32pm: I will accept homosexual couples as legitimate when a two dicks or two pussies can make a baby. Until then it is completely unnatural and despicable to knowingly deprive a child of a mother and father. Married couples don't have to have children. You do understand that, don't you? Not saying that they do, just saying that in my opinion homosexual pairing are not as legitimate as heterosexual. Nowhere near. Get back to me when two dicks or two pussies can create a baby. It has nothing to do with babies. Get back to me when a dick and a pussy can create a wheelbarrow. For me it does. That's fine. And for many, many other people it has absolutely nothing to do with babies. Live and let live, hey matty? Not when it involves an innocent child. I'll keep repeating it for you, until it sinks in. For many, many people it has absolutely nothing to do with babies.

I will keep repeating to you - it is wrong to deprive a child of a mother and a father (I am talking anout adoption or child rearing here, not marriage. Yes the topic is about marriage but I am speaking of two different issues here).

matty wrote on Aug 14^th, 2017 at 7:53am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 14th, 2017 at 7:40am: matty wrote on Aug 14th, 2017 at 7:26am: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 14th, 2017 at 7:23am: matty wrote on Aug 14th, 2017 at 7:21am: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 11th, 2017 at 12:43pm: matty wrote on Aug 11th, 2017 at 12:40pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 2:35pm: matty wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 2:32pm: I will accept homosexual couples as legitimate when a two dicks or two pussies can make a baby. Until then it is completely unnatural and despicable to knowingly deprive a child of a mother and father. Married couples don't have to have children. You do understand that, don't you? Not saying that they do, just saying that in my opinion homosexual pairing are not as legitimate as heterosexual. Nowhere near. Get back to me when two dicks or two pussies can create a baby. It has nothing to do with babies. Get back to me when a dick and a pussy can create a wheelbarrow. For me it does. That's fine. And for many, many other people it has absolutely nothing to do with babies. Live and let live, hey matty? Not when it involves an innocent child. I'll keep repeating it for you, until it sinks in. For many, many people it has absolutely nothing to do with babies. I will keep repeating to you - it is wrong to deprive a child of a mother and a father (I am talking anout adoption or child rearing here, not marriage. Yes the topic is about marriage but I am speaking of two different issues here).

Start a new thread.

Then you can talk about single, straight parents too.

Emma wrote on Aug 13^th, 2017 at 8:25pm:

well too bad because I've said before I DONT DO LINKS. Look it up for yourself.

Nope, you better explain it because what you stated as you stated it cannot happen.
Eg the sex change person were they previously male or female?  Did they undergo surgery reassignment or not.
Too many holes in your post Emma...  FIX IT.

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 14^th, 2017 at 7:23am:

matty wrote on Aug 14th, 2017 at 7:21am: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 11th, 2017 at 12:43pm: matty wrote on Aug 11th, 2017 at 12:40pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 2:35pm: matty wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 2:32pm: I will accept homosexual couples as legitimate when a two dicks or two pussies can make a baby. Until then it is completely unnatural and despicable to knowingly deprive a child of a mother and father. Married couples don't have to have children. You do understand that, don't you? Not saying that they do, just saying that in my opinion homosexual pairing are not as legitimate as heterosexual. Nowhere near. Get back to me when two dicks or two pussies can create a baby. It has nothing to do with babies. Get back to me when a dick and a pussy can create a wheelbarrow. For me it does. That's fine. And for many, many other people it has absolutely nothing to do with babies. Live and let live, hey matty?

If you don't want babies....  there really is no need for marriage Gweggy.

Grendel wrote on Aug 14^th, 2017 at 8:50am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 14th, 2017 at 7:23am: matty wrote on Aug 14th, 2017 at 7:21am: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 11th, 2017 at 12:43pm: matty wrote on Aug 11th, 2017 at 12:40pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 2:35pm: matty wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 2:32pm: I will accept homosexual couples as legitimate when a two dicks or two pussies can make a baby. Until then it is completely unnatural and despicable to knowingly deprive a child of a mother and father. Married couples don't have to have children. You do understand that, don't you? Not saying that they do, just saying that in my opinion homosexual pairing are not as legitimate as heterosexual. Nowhere near. Get back to me when two dicks or two pussies can create a baby. It has nothing to do with babies. Get back to me when a dick and a pussy can create a wheelbarrow. For me it does. That's fine. And for many, many other people it has absolutely nothing to do with babies. Live and let live, hey matty? If you don't want babies....  there really is no need for marriage Gweggy.

so you think people only marry to have babies? or is it perhaps that you think you can't have babies without getting married?

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 14^th, 2017 at 8:26am:

matty wrote on Aug 14th, 2017 at 7:53am: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 14th, 2017 at 7:40am: matty wrote on Aug 14th, 2017 at 7:26am: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 14th, 2017 at 7:23am: matty wrote on Aug 14th, 2017 at 7:21am: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 11th, 2017 at 12:43pm: matty wrote on Aug 11th, 2017 at 12:40pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 2:35pm: matty wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 2:32pm: I will accept homosexual couples as legitimate when a two dicks or two pussies can make a baby. Until then it is completely unnatural and despicable to knowingly deprive a child of a mother and father. Married couples don't have to have children. You do understand that, don't you? Not saying that they do, just saying that in my opinion homosexual pairing are not as legitimate as heterosexual. Nowhere near. Get back to me when two dicks or two pussies can create a baby. It has nothing to do with babies. Get back to me when a dick and a pussy can create a wheelbarrow. For me it does. That's fine. And for many, many other people it has absolutely nothing to do with babies. Live and let live, hey matty? Not when it involves an innocent child. I'll keep repeating it for you, until it sinks in. For many, many people it has absolutely nothing to do with babies. I will keep repeating to you - it is wrong to deprive a child of a mother and a father (I am talking anout adoption or child rearing here, not marriage. Yes the topic is about marriage but I am speaking of two different issues here). Start a new thread. Then you can talk about single, straight parents too.

Don't use that old chestnut mate.

If you're talking about deliberately single parents then yes, those who are widowed then that's really low.

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 14^th, 2017 at 8:26am:

matty wrote on Aug 14th, 2017 at 7:53am: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 14th, 2017 at 7:40am: matty wrote on Aug 14th, 2017 at 7:26am: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 14th, 2017 at 7:23am: matty wrote on Aug 14th, 2017 at 7:21am: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 11th, 2017 at 12:43pm: matty wrote on Aug 11th, 2017 at 12:40pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 2:35pm: matty wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 2:32pm: I will accept homosexual couples as legitimate when a two dicks or two pussies can make a baby. Until then it is completely unnatural and despicable to knowingly deprive a child of a mother and father. Married couples don't have to have children. You do understand that, don't you? Not saying that they do, just saying that in my opinion homosexual pairing are not as legitimate as heterosexual. Nowhere near. Get back to me when two dicks or two pussies can create a baby. It has nothing to do with babies. Get back to me when a dick and a pussy can create a wheelbarrow. For me it does. That's fine. And for many, many other people it has absolutely nothing to do with babies. Live and let live, hey matty? Not when it involves an innocent child. I'll keep repeating it for you, until it sinks in. For many, many people it has absolutely nothing to do with babies. I will keep repeating to you - it is wrong to deprive a child of a mother and a father (I am talking anout adoption or child rearing here, not marriage. Yes the topic is about marriage but I am speaking of two different issues here). Start a new thread. Then you can talk about single, straight parents too.

Double post.

Funny how the lefties completely ignore my point raised in post 99.

matty wrote on Aug 14^th, 2017 at 7:24am:

For example, how can two men teach a girl about menstruation, and how can two women teach a boy to pee at a trough?

Easy.  I teach many women about menstruation. And as far as I can recall, you don't need a degree in nuclear physics to pee at a trough, so it can't be hard to teach.

matty wrote on Aug 14^th, 2017 at 11:29am:

Funny how the lefties completely ignore my point raised in post 99.

that's because it was so stupid it didn't deserve a response. What is it you struggle with in regards to menstruation? and why can't women teach boys to piss? my wife taught both my boys, they seem to do OK.


you need to get out in the real world matty, and stop pretending this sheltered workshop in the church basement that you inhabit has any resemblance to real life.

matty wrote on Aug 14^th, 2017 at 11:29am:

Funny how the lefties completely ignore my point raised in post 99.

Perhaps because you don't have children the point is important to you?

Let's look:


Yes they do. It takes a man (dick and sperm) and a woman (pussy and ova) to make a baby.

No it doesn't take all those things  It takes sperm and an egg mixed together.  IVF doesn't have a "dick" and a "pussy"


To deprive a child of a mother and a father is totally wrong and irresponsible. For example, how can two men teach a girl about menstruation, and how can two women teach a boy to pee at a trough?

What about a divorced couple where the woman or man has sole custody?   Secondly, most men would have no problem these days dealing with menstruation.   It is usually a sudden oncoming that needs to be dealt with calmly and with compassion.   Whilst I agree that it is probably in the woman's realm, most men could cope.  It's the same as saying a woman couldn't be able tyo explain to her son why he was having nocturnal emissions and what it consisted of.

Most boys learn to use a toilet standing by both watching and learning.   There is no difference between that and a trough.   

You obviously have no experience with children to ask such simplistic questions.     Many gay couples of both sexes have children that have been born from a number of methods.   Many gay couples have had these children for decades.   Many gay couples are far more stable in their relationships than similar man/woman relationships.

Just as there are many facets within people who engage in man/women relations, so there are within the Gay/Lesbian community.  You appear to be looking at the Gay MArdi Gras as representative of an entire lifestyle

I disagree. Women should reach girls about menstruation, men have no experience. Same as peeing at a trough for boys. Women's toilets only have stalls, women have no experience. And those are just examples anyway. Why deprive children of a mother and father?

The bottom line is it takes a man's a perm and a woman's egg to make a baby. Until you can combine two men's sperm or two women's eggs to make a baby, that's the biological fact of it all.

matty wrote on Aug 14^th, 2017 at 1:22pm:

I disagree. Women should reach girls about menstruation, men have no experience. Same as peeing at a trough for boys. Women's toilets only have stalls, women have no experience. And those are just examples anyway. Why deprive children of a mother and father? The bottom line is it takes a man's a perm and a woman's egg to make a baby. Until you can combine two men's sperm or two women's eggs to make a baby, that's the biological fact of it all.

So essentially its a vibe. Besides, I would know more about the physiology of menstruation than most women, why shouldn't I teach it.

matty wrote on Aug 14^th, 2017 at 11:14am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 14th, 2017 at 8:26am: matty wrote on Aug 14th, 2017 at 7:53am: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 14th, 2017 at 7:40am: matty wrote on Aug 14th, 2017 at 7:26am: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 14th, 2017 at 7:23am: matty wrote on Aug 14th, 2017 at 7:21am: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 11th, 2017 at 12:43pm: matty wrote on Aug 11th, 2017 at 12:40pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 2:35pm: matty wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 2:32pm: I will accept homosexual couples as legitimate when a two dicks or two pussies can make a baby. Until then it is completely unnatural and despicable to knowingly deprive a child of a mother and father. Married couples don't have to have children. You do understand that, don't you? Not saying that they do, just saying that in my opinion homosexual pairing are not as legitimate as heterosexual. Nowhere near. Get back to me when two dicks or two pussies can create a baby. It has nothing to do with babies. Get back to me when a dick and a pussy can create a wheelbarrow. For me it does. That's fine. And for many, many other people it has absolutely nothing to do with babies. Live and let live, hey matty? Not when it involves an innocent child. I'll keep repeating it for you, until it sinks in. For many, many people it has absolutely nothing to do with babies. I will keep repeating to you - it is wrong to deprive a child of a mother and a father (I am talking anout adoption or child rearing here, not marriage. Yes the topic is about marriage but I am speaking of two different issues here). Start a new thread. Then you can talk about single, straight parents too. Don't use that old chestnut mate. If you're talking about deliberately single parents then yes, those who are widowed then that's really low.

Start a new thread, buddy.

This one is about SSM, not parenting.

You really need to learn the difference.

matty wrote on Aug 14^th, 2017 at 1:22pm:

I disagree. Women should reach girls about menstruation, men have no experience. Same as peeing at a trough for boys. Women's toilets only have stalls, women have no experience. And those are just examples anyway. Why deprive children of a mother and father? The bottom line is it takes a man's a perm and a woman's egg to make a baby. Until you can combine two men's sperm or two women's eggs to make a baby, that's the biological fact of it all.

You deprive a child of a mother and father when couples spilt and the access to one parent is withdrawn.  Your argument is weak, especially as you have no children of your own and are relying on hearsay.   

John Smith wrote on Aug 14^th, 2017 at 9:18am:

Grendel wrote on Aug 14th, 2017 at 8:50am: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 14th, 2017 at 7:23am: matty wrote on Aug 14th, 2017 at 7:21am: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 11th, 2017 at 12:43pm: matty wrote on Aug 11th, 2017 at 12:40pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 2:35pm: matty wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 2:32pm: I will accept homosexual couples as legitimate when a two dicks or two pussies can make a baby. Until then it is completely unnatural and despicable to knowingly deprive a child of a mother and father. Married couples don't have to have children. You do understand that, don't you? Not saying that they do, just saying that in my opinion homosexual pairing are not as legitimate as heterosexual. Nowhere near. Get back to me when two dicks or two pussies can create a baby. It has nothing to do with babies. Get back to me when a dick and a pussy can create a wheelbarrow. For me it does. That's fine. And for many, many other people it has absolutely nothing to do with babies. Live and let live, hey matty? If you don't want babies....  there really is no need for marriage Gweggy. so you think people only marry to have babies? or is it perhaps that you think you can't have babies without getting married? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

You're deliberately missing the whole point: it's about institution.

Gay marriage never was an institution for the reason that it didn't produce babies.

Vic wrote on Aug 14^th, 2017 at 2:07pm:

matty wrote on Aug 14th, 2017 at 1:22pm: I disagree. Women should reach girls about menstruation, men have no experience. Same as peeing at a trough for boys. Women's toilets only have stalls, women have no experience. And those are just examples anyway. Why deprive children of a mother and father? The bottom line is it takes a man's a perm and a woman's egg to make a baby. Until you can combine two men's sperm or two women's eggs to make a baby, that's the biological fact of it all. You deprive a child of a mother and father when couples spilt and the access to one parent is withdrawn.  Your argument is weak, especially as you have no children of your own and are relying on hearsay.

No one intends to do that: but the freaks do!

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 14^th, 2017 at 1:36pm:

matty wrote on Aug 14th, 2017 at 11:14am: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 14th, 2017 at 8:26am: matty wrote on Aug 14th, 2017 at 7:53am: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 14th, 2017 at 7:40am: matty wrote on Aug 14th, 2017 at 7:26am: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 14th, 2017 at 7:23am: matty wrote on Aug 14th, 2017 at 7:21am: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 11th, 2017 at 12:43pm: matty wrote on Aug 11th, 2017 at 12:40pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 2:35pm: matty wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 2:32pm: I will accept homosexual couples as legitimate when a two dicks or two pussies can make a baby. Until then it is completely unnatural and despicable to knowingly deprive a child of a mother and father. Married couples don't have to have children. You do understand that, don't you? Not saying that they do, just saying that in my opinion homosexual pairing are not as legitimate as heterosexual. Nowhere near. Get back to me when two dicks or two pussies can create a baby. It has nothing to do with babies. Get back to me when a dick and a pussy can create a wheelbarrow. For me it does. That's fine. And for many, many other people it has absolutely nothing to do with babies. Live and let live, hey matty? Not when it involves an innocent child. I'll keep repeating it for you, until it sinks in. For many, many people it has absolutely nothing to do with babies. I will keep repeating to you - it is wrong to deprive a child of a mother and a father (I am talking anout adoption or child rearing here, not marriage. Yes the topic is about marriage but I am speaking of two different issues here). Start a new thread. Then you can talk about single, straight parents too. Don't use that old chestnut mate. If you're talking about deliberately single parents then yes, those who are widowed then that's really low. Start a new thread, buddy. This one is about SSM, not parenting. You really need to learn the difference.

Greg is trying so valiantly to muddy the water so it appears deep!

Vic wrote on Aug 14^th, 2017 at 11:45am:

matty wrote on Aug 14th, 2017 at 11:29am: Funny how the lefties completely ignore my point raised in post 99. Perhaps because you don't have children the point is important to you? Let's look: Yes they do. It takes a man (dick and sperm) and a woman (pussy and ova) to make a baby. No it doesn't take all those things  It takes sperm and an egg mixed together.  IVF doesn't have a "dick" and a "pussy" To deprive a child of a mother and a father is totally wrong and irresponsible. For example, how can two men teach a girl about menstruation, and how can two women teach a boy to pee at a trough? What about a divorced couple where the woman or man has sole custody?   Secondly, most men would have no problem these days dealing with menstruation.   It is usually a sudden oncoming that needs to be dealt with calmly and with compassion.   Whilst I agree that it is probably in the woman's realm, most men could cope.  It's the same as saying a woman couldn't be able tyo explain to her son why he was having nocturnal emissions and what it consisted of. Most boys learn to use a toilet standing by both watching and learning.   There is no difference between that and a trough.    You obviously have no experience with children to ask such simplistic questions.     Many gay couples of both sexes have children that have been born from a number of methods.   Many gay couples have had these children for decades.   Many gay couples are far more stable in their relationships than similar man/woman relationships. Just as there are many facets within people who engage in man/women relations, so there are within the Gay/Lesbian community.  You appear to be looking at the Gay MArdi Gras as representative of an entire lifestyle

You're saying because he has no kids he has no right to participate in politics.

Jebus, and before that you promote false means of bringing babies into the world as the chief legitimacy behind why gays should be allowed to get married and have kids.... lol: I shudder for your kids if they've got a Dad who actually thinks like that. :D

I know you don't, of course.

You just like arguing for argument sake.



What goes wrong with IVF? Answer, a lot!!

TheFunPolice wrote on Aug 14^th, 2017 at 2:29pm:

What goes wrong with IVF? Answer, a lot!!

SSM should not be allowed because IVF isn't 100% perfect. Good one.

Vic wrote on Aug 14^th, 2017 at 2:07pm:

matty wrote on Aug 14th, 2017 at 1:22pm: I disagree. Women should reach girls about menstruation, men have no experience. Same as peeing at a trough for boys. Women's toilets only have stalls, women have no experience. And those are just examples anyway. Why deprive children of a mother and father? The bottom line is it takes a man's a perm and a woman's egg to make a baby. Until you can combine two men's sperm or two women's eggs to make a baby, that's the biological fact of it all. You deprive a child of a mother and father when couples spilt and the access to one parent is withdrawn.  Your argument is weak, especially as you have no children of your own and are relying on hearsay.

His argument is not weak ESPECIALLY because he has no children: But your argument is weak because it's using ad hominem attack :D

..you sound like a super Dad  ::) ::)

(You use ad hominem attack because you know your real argument has no guts: nothing!

Game over buddy!)

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 14^th, 2017 at 2:30pm:

TheFunPolice wrote on Aug 14th, 2017 at 2:29pm: What goes wrong with IVF? Answer, a lot!! SSM should not be allowed because IVF isn't 100% perfect. Good one.

SSM was never an institution for a reason.

You're promoting the rearing of children by unnatural means and I have the right to disagree with you.

You're a pastafarian so what the bugger do you care about the Church being attacked? You don't because you're an anarchist.

Hey, let's promote babies by unnatural means: destroy the western civilised world and it's Christian godhead, yay!

TheFunPolice wrote on Aug 14^th, 2017 at 2:41pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 14th, 2017 at 2:30pm: TheFunPolice wrote on Aug 14th, 2017 at 2:29pm: What goes wrong with IVF? Answer, a lot!! SSM should not be allowed because IVF isn't 100% perfect. Good one. SSM was never an institution for a reason. You're promoting the rearing of children by unnatural means and I have the right to disagree with you. You're a pastafarian so what the bugger do you care about the Church being attacked? You don't because you're an anarchist. Hey, let's promote babies by unnatural means: destroy the western civilised world and it's Christian godhead, yay!

I'm really worried, you need a doctors reference.

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 14^th, 2017 at 7:40am:

matty wrote on Aug 14th, 2017 at 7:26am: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 14th, 2017 at 7:23am: matty wrote on Aug 14th, 2017 at 7:21am: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 11th, 2017 at 12:43pm: matty wrote on Aug 11th, 2017 at 12:40pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 2:35pm: matty wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 2:32pm: I will accept homosexual couples as legitimate when a two dicks or two pussies can make a baby. Until then it is completely unnatural and despicable to knowingly deprive a child of a mother and father. Married couples don't have to have children. You do understand that, don't you? Not saying that they do, just saying that in my opinion homosexual pairing are not as legitimate as heterosexual. Nowhere near. Get back to me when two dicks or two pussies can create a baby. It has nothing to do with babies. Get back to me when a dick and a pussy can create a wheelbarrow. For me it does. That's fine. And for many, many other people it has absolutely nothing to do with babies. Live and let live, hey matty? Not when it involves an innocent child. I'll keep repeating it for you, until it sinks in. For many, many people it has absolutely nothing to do with babies.

Yes, but the institution that exists was about having babies: see, the argument is about the institution and always has been.

Why don't you get a brain buddy  :D :D

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 14^th, 2017 at 2:43pm:

TheFunPolice wrote on Aug 14th, 2017 at 2:41pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 14th, 2017 at 2:30pm: TheFunPolice wrote on Aug 14th, 2017 at 2:29pm: What goes wrong with IVF? Answer, a lot!! SSM should not be allowed because IVF isn't 100% perfect. Good one. SSM was never an institution for a reason. You're promoting the rearing of children by unnatural means and I have the right to disagree with you. You're a pastafarian so what the bugger do you care about the Church being attacked? You don't because you're an anarchist. Hey, let's promote babies by unnatural means: destroy the western civilised world and it's Christian godhead, yay! I'm really worried, you need a doctors reference.

When you say you're really worried that makes you a concern troll!

;) ;)

Thanks fake-buddy but I'll do and say whatever I want matey  :)

TheFunPolice wrote on Aug 14^th, 2017 at 2:29pm:

Vic wrote on Aug 14th, 2017 at 11:45am: matty wrote on Aug 14th, 2017 at 11:29am: Funny how the lefties completely ignore my point raised in post 99. Perhaps because you don't have children the point is important to you? Let's look: Yes they do. It takes a man (dick and sperm) and a woman (pussy and ova) to make a baby. No it doesn't take all those things  It takes sperm and an egg mixed together.  IVF doesn't have a "dick" and a "pussy" To deprive a child of a mother and a father is totally wrong and irresponsible. For example, how can two men teach a girl about menstruation, and how can two women teach a boy to pee at a trough? What about a divorced couple where the woman or man has sole custody?   Secondly, most men would have no problem these days dealing with menstruation.   It is usually a sudden oncoming that needs to be dealt with calmly and with compassion.   Whilst I agree that it is probably in the woman's realm, most men could cope.  It's the same as saying a woman couldn't be able tyo explain to her son why he was having nocturnal emissions and what it consisted of. Most boys learn to use a toilet standing by both watching and learning.   There is no difference between that and a trough.    You obviously have no experience with children to ask such simplistic questions.     Many gay couples of both sexes have children that have been born from a number of methods.   Many gay couples have had these children for decades.   Many gay couples are far more stable in their relationships than similar man/woman relationships. Just as there are many facets within people who engage in man/women relations, so there are within the Gay/Lesbian community.  You appear to be looking at the Gay MArdi Gras as representative of an entire lifestyle You're saying because he has no kids he has no right to participate in politics. No, where did I say that? Jebus, and before that you promote false means of bringing babies into the world as the chief legitimacy behind why gays should be allowed to get married and have kids.... lol: I shudder for your kids if they've got a Dad who actually thinks like that. :D Can you rephrase that a bit better?    What "false means" bring babies into the world?       The rest is dribble I know you don't, of course. You just like arguing for argument sake. I don't "argue" I reply to valid conversations What goes wrong with IVF? Answer, a lot!!

Yes it does - as does normal conception within the womb.       What's your point?

TheFunPolice wrote on Aug 14^th, 2017 at 2:46pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 14th, 2017 at 2:43pm: TheFunPolice wrote on Aug 14th, 2017 at 2:41pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 14th, 2017 at 2:30pm: TheFunPolice wrote on Aug 14th, 2017 at 2:29pm: What goes wrong with IVF? Answer, a lot!! SSM should not be allowed because IVF isn't 100% perfect. Good one. SSM was never an institution for a reason. You're promoting the rearing of children by unnatural means and I have the right to disagree with you. You're a pastafarian so what the bugger do you care about the Church being attacked? You don't because you're an anarchist. Hey, let's promote babies by unnatural means: destroy the western civilised world and it's Christian godhead, yay! I'm really worried, you need a doctors reference. When you say you're really worried that makes you a concern troll! ;) ;) Thanks fake-buddy but I'll do and say whatever I want matey  :)

Clearly, it must be a Wagga thing.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 14^th, 2017 at 2:50pm:

TheFunPolice wrote on Aug 14th, 2017 at 2:46pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 14th, 2017 at 2:43pm: TheFunPolice wrote on Aug 14th, 2017 at 2:41pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 14th, 2017 at 2:30pm: TheFunPolice wrote on Aug 14th, 2017 at 2:29pm: What goes wrong with IVF? Answer, a lot!! SSM should not be allowed because IVF isn't 100% perfect. Good one. SSM was never an institution for a reason. You're promoting the rearing of children by unnatural means and I have the right to disagree with you. You're a pastafarian so what the bugger do you care about the Church being attacked? You don't because you're an anarchist. Hey, let's promote babies by unnatural means: destroy the western civilised world and it's Christian godhead, yay! I'm really worried, you need a doctors reference. When you say you're really worried that makes you a concern troll! ;) ;) Thanks fake-buddy but I'll do and say whatever I want matey  :) Clearly, it must be a Wagga thing.

What, like fascism is for pastafarians?

https://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/f6971d504a6d894cb7944de3d383c26c5c6bb869/c=0-0-533-401&r=x404&c=534x401/local/-/media/2015/11/16/USATODAY/USATODAY/635832629836260197-635832586303218816-WireAP-c98b8c9c7086451c987a17bec330ccf5-16x9-1600.jpg

https://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/f6971d504a6d894cb7944de3d383c26c5c6bb869/c=0-0-533-401&r=x404&c=534x401/local/-/media/2015/11/16/USATODAY/USATODAY/635832629836260197-635832586303218816-WireAP-c98b8c9c7086451c987a17bec330ccf5-16x9-1600.jpg


https://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/f6971d504a6d894cb7944de3d383c26c5c6bb869/c=0-0-533-401&r=x404&c=534x401/local/-/media/2015/11/16/USATODAY/USATODAY/635832629836260197-635832586303218816-WireAP-c98b8c9c7086451c987a17bec330ccf5-16x9-1600.jpg


Don't go losing all your noodles now will ya buddy: how are you going to do the keyboard warrior thing if you haven't got a noodle or two dear fake buddy  :D :D :D :D :D :D ?

Hey, let's all hope you don't spend too much of your life thinking your good at ripping people to pieces because, well basically: WE ALL KNOW YOU ARE NOT  ;D ;D

How many years buddy? How many years did it take you to realise that you are a complete joke!

Clue: Go find a victim that cares what you think - go on, you won't on the whole wide web!

Don'y cry but: there's always outside ,... go smell the roses and you might decide that pasta isn't the only food on the planet.

Miracles do happen  :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o  ::)