Australian Politics Forum - In defence of Gay Marriage

Bam Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 21905 Gender:	Re: In defence of Gay Marriage Reply #120 - Aug 19^th, 2015 at 11:15pm Karnal wrote on Aug 16^th, 2015 at 2:23am: Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Aug 16^th, 2015 at 2:21am: .. but.. but.. but........ somebody said marriage had only been around for 500 years.... and was a Christian thing... Well, Longy would say that. He did year 9 maths. Did he say he passed it?
Back to top	You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to hold opinions that you can defend through sound, reasoned argument. IP Logged

Bam

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21905
Gender: male

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #121 - Aug 19^th, 2015 at 11:18pm

gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 17^th, 2015 at 8:11pm:

mariacostel wrote on Aug 17^th, 2015 at 8:07pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 17^th, 2015 at 8:03pm:

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Aug 16^th, 2015 at 2:21am:

.. but.. but.. but........ somebody said marriage had only been around for 500 years.... and was a Christian thing... Wink

"Throughout most of history, marriage has been no such thing. In much of the world today, marriage comes from a need to legally bind your offspring and subsequent generations. "

I think that is the nub of the matter. One of the main characters in The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel was a gay man with an Indian lover who had married, and whose wife knew full well that her husband was life-connected to the other man.

Where is the need for marriage when love is true?

Should I tell the one who loves me that since I am still and will remain the carer for my ex and will do all in my power to support and sustain her, that she (the one who loves me) should go? And that marriage is what signifies the truth of the relationship?

What ARE the boundaries here.....

Well, they were either incredibly stupid, or lying. Marriage pre-dates the Christian Church by at least 5000 years..

I am sometimes astonished by the ignorance of people. Marriage only 500 years old? Are all the famous historical marriages myth? All the ancient references to marriage dating back 10,000 years?

Apparently so...especially if they reference marriages other than the 1 man, 1 woman type...

Native Americans have marriages between a man and a woman ... but don't look too closely, the "man" or "woman" may not always be as they appear.

Back to top

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to hold opinions that you can defend through sound, reasoned argument.

IP Logged

mothra

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 35565
Gender: female

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #122 - Aug 20^th, 2015 at 1:55pm

mariacostel wrote on Aug 18^th, 2015 at 9:33am:

mothra wrote on Aug 17^th, 2015 at 9:03pm:

mariacostel wrote on Aug 17^th, 2015 at 7:37pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 16^th, 2015 at 2:42am:

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Aug 16^th, 2015 at 1:00am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 16^th, 2015 at 12:53am:

mothra wrote on Aug 16^th, 2015 at 12:48am:

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Aug 16^th, 2015 at 12:48am:

mothra wrote on Aug 16^th, 2015 at 12:40am:

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Aug 16^th, 2015 at 12:37am:

Why defend gay marriage? Gays have the same right to marriage as you and I.... and I know not of thee.. but I am 100% heterosexual...

Point is - we can both marry someone of the opposite sex as marriage requires.....

There endeth the lesson.... unless you wish to alter the definition of marriage......

I don;t want to alter the definition of marriage .. i wish to extend it to incorporate same sex couples.

Not hard, is it?

Why?

Because a number of gay and lesbian people want to get married.

And they should ( and, in truth) DO have that right..

How do they have that right? They want to - does that make it a right?

Are they not human?? IF gay's are humans, then they have the same basic human rights as the rest of the human race.

Your argument is flawed. If they are human then they are entitled to human rights. This does not intrinsically entitle them to heterosexual rights. I support gay marriage, but your argument is still flawed.

Why is marrying the person you love a 'heterosexual right'?

It wasn't before Howard pushed through the Marriage Amendment Bill in 2004. Seems most people don't agree with that amendment.

It has always been a solely heterosexual right. It didn't begin in 2004.

Historically, no it hasn't.

Back to top

If you can't be a good example, you have to be a horrible warning.

IP Logged

Soren Gold Member Offline Posts: 25654 Gender:	Re: In defence of Gay Marriage Reply #123 - Aug 20^th, 2015 at 2:25pm mothra wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 1:55pm: mariacostel wrote on Aug 18^th, 2015 at 9:33am: It has always been a solely heterosexual right. It didn't begin in 2004. Historically, no it hasn't. Well, show us the history of non-heterosexual marriage then.
Back to top	IP Logged

mothra

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 35565
Gender: female

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #124 - Aug 20^th, 2015 at 2:29pm

Soren wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 2:25pm:

mothra wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 1:55pm:

mariacostel wrote on Aug 18^th, 2015 at 9:33am:

It has always been a solely heterosexual right. It didn't begin in 2004.

Historically, no it hasn't.

Well, show us the history of non-heterosexual marriage then.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

Back to top

If you can't be a good example, you have to be a horrible warning.

IP Logged

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #125 - Aug 20^th, 2015 at 6:15pm

mothra wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 2:29pm:

Soren wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 2:25pm:

mothra wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 1:55pm:

mariacostel wrote on Aug 18^th, 2015 at 9:33am:

It has always been a solely heterosexual right. It didn't begin in 2004.

Historically, no it hasn't.

Well, show us the history of non-heterosexual marriage then.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

I think 'history' means different things to you than say, an educated person. Limited examples coming from a source as poor as wikipedia is not much in the way of evidence at all.

Marriage has for the vast peoples of history been a heterosexual institution, not the least of which is because 99% of people are heterosexual.

it is part of the revisionist nature of the gay debate to rewrite history to pretend that gay marriage was everywhere, all the time and only the 20th century changed it.

It is one thing to be pro-gay marriage. It is another entirely to disconnect your intelligence to do so.You can support the social evolution of gay marriage without pretending that it has been anything like accepted throughout history.

Back to top

IP Logged

mothra

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 35565
Gender: female

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #126 - Aug 20^th, 2015 at 6:16pm

mariacostel wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 6:15pm:

mothra wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 2:29pm:

Soren wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 2:25pm:

mothra wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 1:55pm:

mariacostel wrote on Aug 18^th, 2015 at 9:33am:

It has always been a solely heterosexual right. It didn't begin in 2004.

Historically, no it hasn't.

Well, show us the history of non-heterosexual marriage then.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

I think 'history' means different things to you than say, an educated person. Limited examples coming from a source as poor as wikipedia is not much in the way of evidence at all.

Marriage has for the vast peoples of history been a heterosexual institution, not the least of which is because 99% of people are heterosexual.

it is part of the revisionist nature of the gay debate to rewrite history to pretend that gay marriage was everywhere, all the time and only the 20th century changed it.

It is one thing to be pro-gay marriage. It is another entirely to disconnect your intelligence to do so.You can support the social evolution of gay marriage without pretending that it has been anything like accepted throughout history.

It pains you to be wrong doesn't it Maria?

You just lash out.

oesn't negate the fact that you are wrong.

Back to top

If you can't be a good example, you have to be a horrible warning.

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #127 - Aug 20^th, 2015 at 7:09pm

mothra wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 2:29pm:

Soren wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 2:25pm:

mothra wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 1:55pm:

mariacostel wrote on Aug 18^th, 2015 at 9:33am:

It has always been a solely heterosexual right. It didn't begin in 2004.

Historically, no it hasn't.

Well, show us the history of non-heterosexual marriage then.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

Ta.

It is a pretty bogus set of tendentious innuendos.

The references do not check out. It is OBVIOUSLY a gay-edited and supervised Wiki entry.

Check out their references for yourself:

Footnote 3 - Dynes, Wayne R. and Stephen Donaldson. 1992. Homosexuality in the Ancient World. New York, NY: Garland.
No reference to gay marriage, only to temple prostitution
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=JrpU6O3VnawC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Dynes,+...

Practices of pederasty are treated as evidence of 'gay marriage' - see references [10][11][12][13][14][15][16]

This is BS, mother. Shrieking BS.

Back to top

IP Logged

mothra Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 35565 Gender:	Re: In defence of Gay Marriage Reply #128 - Aug 20^th, 2015 at 7:14pm Didn't check out the references hen Soren?
Back to top	If you can't be a good example, you have to be a horrible warning. IP Logged

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #129 - Aug 20^th, 2015 at 7:45pm

mothra wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 7:14pm:

Didn't check out the references hen Soren?

It is very apparent you didn't.

it is astonishing how this gay marriage is seeming to become not about gay marriage at all. It is about proclaiming wide and far the 'rightness' of gay relationships even to the extent of being superior. Now we are expect to swallow the lie that gay marriage was a historical norm or even a historical event at all other than rare occasions.

Like it or not Mothra, heterosexuals are 99% of the population and gay marriage is virtually unknown prior to the 20th century. That joke wikipedia article refers to homosexual acts, not marriage. Presumably, you know the difference.

Back to top

IP Logged

mothra

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 35565
Gender: female

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #130 - Aug 20^th, 2015 at 7:47pm

mariacostel wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 7:45pm:

mothra wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 7:14pm:

Didn't check out the references hen Soren?

It is very apparent you didn't.

it is astonishing how this gay marriage is seeming to become not about gay marriage at all. It is about proclaiming wide and far the 'rightness' of gay relationships even to the extent of being superior. Now we are expect to swallow the lie that gay marriage was a historical norm or even a historical event at all other than rare occasions.

Like it or not Mothra, heterosexuals are 99% of the population and gay marriage is virtually unknown prior to the 20th century. That joke wikipedia article refers to homosexual acts, not marriage. Presumably, you know the difference.

I did check out the references and the article speaks of formalisd unions.

No-one claimed it was ever the norm, just that there is precedent. Which there is.

Back to top

If you can't be a good example, you have to be a horrible warning.

IP Logged

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #131 - Aug 20^th, 2015 at 7:57pm

mothra wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 7:47pm:

mariacostel wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 7:45pm:

mothra wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 7:14pm:

Didn't check out the references hen Soren?

It is very apparent you didn't.

it is astonishing how this gay marriage is seeming to become not about gay marriage at all. It is about proclaiming wide and far the 'rightness' of gay relationships even to the extent of being superior. Now we are expect to swallow the lie that gay marriage was a historical norm or even a historical event at all other than rare occasions.

Like it or not Mothra, heterosexuals are 99% of the population and gay marriage is virtually unknown prior to the 20th century. That joke wikipedia article refers to homosexual acts, not marriage. Presumably, you know the difference.

I did check out the references and the article speaks of formalisd unions.

No-one claimed it was ever the norm, just that there is precedent. Which there is.

That's a good back-peddle, as you should. 15 billion people have inhabited this earth. A handful of gay unions does not offer any form of precedence.

Perhaps you should consider what your real motives are since you are spending much of this thread attacking me - a supporter of gay Marriage. But unlike you, I am not swallowing the nonsense arguments that surround it.

Back to top

IP Logged

mothra

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 35565
Gender: female

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #132 - Aug 20^th, 2015 at 8:03pm

mariacostel wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 7:57pm:

mothra wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 7:47pm:

mariacostel wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 7:45pm:

mothra wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 7:14pm:

Didn't check out the references hen Soren?

It is very apparent you didn't.

it is astonishing how this gay marriage is seeming to become not about gay marriage at all. It is about proclaiming wide and far the 'rightness' of gay relationships even to the extent of being superior. Now we are expect to swallow the lie that gay marriage was a historical norm or even a historical event at all other than rare occasions.

Like it or not Mothra, heterosexuals are 99% of the population and gay marriage is virtually unknown prior to the 20th century. That joke wikipedia article refers to homosexual acts, not marriage. Presumably, you know the difference.

I did check out the references and the article speaks of formalisd unions.

No-one claimed it was ever the norm, just that there is precedent. Which there is.

That's a good back-peddle, as you should. 15 billion people have inhabited this earth. A handful of gay unions does not offer any form of precedence.

Perhaps you should consider what your real motives are since you are spending much of this thread attacking me - a supporter of gay Marriage. But unlike you, I am not swallowing the nonsense arguments that surround it.

No back-peddling. I never said it was the norm I said there is historical precedence and there is. I have provided evidence.

Denying it is just making you look silly.

Back to top

If you can't be a good example, you have to be a horrible warning.

IP Logged

Agnes Gold Member Offline fish dinner Posts: 6081 Bedford Park rnd	Re: In defence of Gay Marriage Reply #133 - Aug 20^th, 2015 at 8:06pm LOL how funny- gays /poofs want to suffer the iron ring of neccessity just like the rest of us- suffer you stupid fewls..suffer at your own peril-
Back to top	« Last Edit: Aug 20^th, 2015 at 8:17pm by Agnes » x=^..^= x <o((((>< ~~~ x=^..^=x~~~x=^..^=x<o((((><~~~x=^..^=x farewell to days of wild abandon and freedom in the adriatic IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #134 - Aug 20^th, 2015 at 8:13pm

mothra wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 7:47pm:

mariacostel wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 7:45pm:

mothra wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 7:14pm:

Didn't check out the references hen Soren?

It is very apparent you didn't.

it is astonishing how this gay marriage is seeming to become not about gay marriage at all. It is about proclaiming wide and far the 'rightness' of gay relationships even to the extent of being superior. Now we are expect to swallow the lie that gay marriage was a historical norm or even a historical event at all other than rare occasions.

Like it or not Mothra, heterosexuals are 99% of the population and gay marriage is virtually unknown prior to the 20th century. That joke wikipedia article refers to homosexual acts, not marriage. Presumably, you know the difference.

I did check out the references and the article speaks of formalisd unions.

No-one claimed it was ever the norm, just that there is precedent. Which there is.

It has zero precedent. Pederasty and homosexuality are no precendents for gay marriage.

You have provided a BS justification that simply doesn't withstand even a cursory scrutiny. Which is the norm for propagandists like you.

Back to top

IP Logged