Australian Politics Forum - SOBs unjustified prejudice

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: SOBs unjustified prejudice
Reply #60 - Aug 7^th, 2012 at 11:09am

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

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

Back to top

IP Logged

...

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 23673
WA
Gender: male

Re: SOBs unjustified prejudice
Reply #61 - Aug 7^th, 2012 at 11:10am

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

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

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

Back to top

In the fullness of time...

IP Logged

Sir Spot of Borg

Gold Member

Offline

WE ARE BORG

Posts: 26513
Australia

Re: SOBs unjustified prejudice
Reply #62 - Aug 7^th, 2012 at 11:25am

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

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

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

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

Well animals arent human is the distinction silly.

SOB

Back to top

Whaaaaaah!
I'm a
Moron!

- edited by some unethical admin - you think its funny? - its a slippery slope

IP Logged

...

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 23673
WA
Gender: male

Re: SOBs unjustified prejudice
Reply #63 - Aug 7^th, 2012 at 11:40am

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

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

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

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

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

Well animals arent human is the distinction silly.

SOB

I know.

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

Back to top

In the fullness of time...

IP Logged

Sprintcyclist

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 40764
Gender: male

Re: SOBs unjustified prejudice
Reply #64 - Aug 7^th, 2012 at 11:43am

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

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

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

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

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

Well animals arent human is the distinction silly.

SOB

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

Back to top

Modern Classic Right Wing

IP Logged

Sir Spot of Borg

Gold Member

Offline

WE ARE BORG

Posts: 26513
Australia

Re: SOBs unjustified prejudice
Reply #65 - Aug 7^th, 2012 at 11:50am

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well animals arent human is the distinction silly.

SOB

I know.

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

consent

SOB

PS full circle i see

Back to top

Whaaaaaah!
I'm a
Moron!

- edited by some unethical admin - you think its funny? - its a slippery slope

IP Logged

Quantum

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3373

Re: SOBs unjustified prejudice
Reply #66 - Aug 7^th, 2012 at 11:56am

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

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

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

Quantum:
Quote:

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

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

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

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

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

Basically though:

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

SOB

Worse reply yet.

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

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

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

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

Back to top

IP Logged

...

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 23673
WA
Gender: male

Re: SOBs unjustified prejudice
Reply #67 - Aug 7^th, 2012 at 11:57am

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

consent

SOB

PS full circle i see

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

Back to top

In the fullness of time...

IP Logged

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: SOBs unjustified prejudice
Reply #68 - Aug 7^th, 2012 at 12:50pm

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

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

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

Why do you qualify this?

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

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

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

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

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

Back to top

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

Sir Spot of Borg

Gold Member

Offline

WE ARE BORG

Posts: 26513
Australia

Re: SOBs unjustified prejudice
Reply #69 - Aug 7^th, 2012 at 1:12pm

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

SOB

Back to top

Whaaaaaah!
I'm a
Moron!

- edited by some unethical admin - you think its funny? - its a slippery slope

IP Logged

Sir Spot of Borg

Gold Member

Offline

WE ARE BORG

Posts: 26513
Australia

Re: SOBs unjustified prejudice
Reply #70 - Aug 7^th, 2012 at 1:15pm

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

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

consent

SOB

PS full circle i see

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

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

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

SOB

Back to top

Whaaaaaah!
I'm a
Moron!

- edited by some unethical admin - you think its funny? - its a slippery slope

IP Logged

...

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 23673
WA
Gender: male

Re: SOBs unjustified prejudice
Reply #71 - Aug 7^th, 2012 at 2:12pm

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

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

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

consent

SOB

PS full circle i see

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

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

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

SOB

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

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

Back to top

In the fullness of time...

IP Logged

... Gold Member Offline Posts: 23673 WA Gender:	Re: SOBs unjustified prejudice Reply #72 - Aug 7^th, 2012 at 2:17pm Quote: Utter bullshit. Atheism is a lack of belief in fairy tales. It is not a worldview - its a lack of a fairy tale view. Modern (trendy) atheism is just another word for liberalism - a worldview complete with it's own set of fairytales.
Back to top	In the fullness of time... IP Logged

Soren Gold Member Offline Posts: 25654 Gender:	Re: SOBs unjustified prejudice Reply #73 - Aug 7^th, 2012 at 2:18pm Where does it say that marriage must be based on consensus?
Back to top	IP Logged

Sir Spot of Borg Gold Member Offline WE ARE BORG Posts: 26513 Australia	Re: SOBs unjustified prejudice Reply #74 - Aug 7^th, 2012 at 3:06pm Soren wrote on Aug 7^th, 2012 at 2:18pm: Where does it say that marriage must be based on consensus? Pretty sure in australia unconsensual marriage is illegal SOB
Back to top	Whaaaaaah! I'm a Moron! - edited by some unethical admin - you think its funny? - its a slippery slope IP Logged