Australian Politics Forum - In defence of Gay Marriage

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 139151
Gender: male

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #150 - Aug 20^th, 2015 at 11:54pm

Soren wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 11:21pm:

athos wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 9:37pm:

Definitely a unisex positions

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-cYJOXX_fUzk/UooL4bQ0ayI/AAAAAAAADAo/otU674WspGc/s200/k...

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-erXV4d8kg2U/UooL7QdgPzI/AAAAAAAADBc/DzUGuBP4tk0/s200/k...

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-T8NSgfsME28/UooL2GnN9lI/AAAAAAAAC_Y/F6qCihO3NYE/s200/k...

Now we know what you are fapping to, you disgusting little Russian peasant.

You find sex disgusting?

You're even more disturbed than I thought.

Back to top

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 96412

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #151 - Aug 21^st, 2015 at 12:49am

Soren wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 9:29pm:

mothra wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 8:23pm:

Whatever denials you wish to spew forth, there is precedent for same sex formalised unions in history.

Marriage has not been an exclusively heteroexul institution.

Nonsense.

There has been no society in the history of mankind that has ever recognised same sex relationships as equivalent to heterosexual marriage.

Not once, not a little bit, not in any way.

It is simply not true.

There has NEVER been any social recognition of same sex relationships as being equivalent to heterosexual marriage. Never, Nowhere. Ever.

This is very categorical - so you should have no problem with disproving it if right was on your side. But it isn't and so you will not be able to disprove it.

No need to do always absolutely never ever, old chap, Mother has categorically proven you wrong. Even Nero had a jolly gay hubby.

There’s hope for you yet, dear boy.

Back to top

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 96412

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #152 - Aug 21^st, 2015 at 12:54am

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 11:54pm:

Soren wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 11:21pm:

athos wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 9:37pm:

Definitely a unisex positions

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-cYJOXX_fUzk/UooL4bQ0ayI/AAAAAAAADAo/otU674WspGc/s200/k...

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-erXV4d8kg2U/UooL7QdgPzI/AAAAAAAADBc/DzUGuBP4tk0/s200/k...

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-T8NSgfsME28/UooL2GnN9lI/AAAAAAAAC_Y/F6qCihO3NYE/s200/k...

Now we know what you are fapping to, you disgusting little Russian peasant.

You find sex disgusting?

Only the non-faecal kind.

The old boy is rather partial to a nice fresh stool laid just so.

Miam miam.

Back to top

IP Logged

athos

Gold Member

Offline

Re-educate barbarians

Posts: 6406
Hong Kong
Gender: male

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #153 - Aug 21^st, 2015 at 9:04am

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 11:54pm:

Soren wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 11:21pm:

athos wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 9:37pm:

Definitely a unisex positions

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-cYJOXX_fUzk/UooL4bQ0ayI/AAAAAAAADAo/otU674WspGc/s200/k...

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-erXV4d8kg2U/UooL7QdgPzI/AAAAAAAADBc/DzUGuBP4tk0/s200/k...

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-T8NSgfsME28/UooL2GnN9lI/AAAAAAAAC_Y/F6qCihO3NYE/s200/k...

Now we know what you are fapping to, you disgusting little Russian peasant.

You find sex disgusting?

You're even more disturbed than I thought.

Yeh stingy impotent Ruby is very disturbed when he has to spend money on Viagra.

Back to top

Do we need to be always politically correct.
In the world of universal deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

IP Logged

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #154 - Aug 21^st, 2015 at 9:57am

mothra wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 8:20pm:

Soren wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 8:16pm:

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

Didn't check out the references hen Soren?

Yes I did - that's why you are caught out as a f** all blustering propagandist. Your own 'proofs' and 'authorities' do not check out. I have checked. You haven't. You are a mindless drone good only fore unquestioning parrotting.

You are not credible at all, not in this topic, not in any other. You are a mere agitator.

http://www.livescience.com/50725-same-sex-marriage-history.html

Once again, the definition of precedence escapes you. This article make reference to a few examples of single instances. And let me quote from your own article.

"Westerners tend to put these people in the 'gay' box, so their marriages are — to our eyes — same-sex marriages, even though they are, more specifically, marriages between two differently gendered people," Boyd said.

In other words, even your own article debunks your position.

Back to top

IP Logged

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #155 - Aug 21^st, 2015 at 9:58am

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 11:54pm:

Soren wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 11:21pm:

athos wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 9:37pm:

Definitely a unisex positions

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-cYJOXX_fUzk/UooL4bQ0ayI/AAAAAAAADAo/otU674WspGc/s200/k...

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-erXV4d8kg2U/UooL7QdgPzI/AAAAAAAADBc/DzUGuBP4tk0/s200/k...

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-T8NSgfsME28/UooL2GnN9lI/AAAAAAAAC_Y/F6qCihO3NYE/s200/k...

Now we know what you are fapping to, you disgusting little Russian peasant.

You find sex disgusting?

You're even more disturbed than I thought.

That's not sex. It is pornography. Why am I not surprised that you cannot tell the difference?

Back to top

IP Logged

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #156 - Aug 21^st, 2015 at 9:59am

Karnal wrote on Aug 21^st, 2015 at 12:49am:

Soren wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 9:29pm:

mothra wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 8:23pm:

Whatever denials you wish to spew forth, there is precedent for same sex formalised unions in history.

Marriage has not been an exclusively heteroexul institution.

Nonsense.

There has been no society in the history of mankind that has ever recognised same sex relationships as equivalent to heterosexual marriage.

Not once, not a little bit, not in any way.

It is simply not true.

There has NEVER been any social recognition of same sex relationships as being equivalent to heterosexual marriage. Never, Nowhere. Ever.

This is very categorical - so you should have no problem with disproving it if right was on your side. But it isn't and so you will not be able to disprove it.

No need to do always absolutely never ever, old chap, Mother has categorically proven you wrong. Even Nero had a jolly gay hubby.

There’s hope for you yet, dear boy.

Nero forcibly castrated a young boy. If you think that has any relevance to a marriage debate then I pity you.

Back to top

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 139151
Gender: male

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #157 - Aug 21^st, 2015 at 10:02am

mariacostel wrote on Aug 21^st, 2015 at 9:58am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 11:54pm:

Soren wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 11:21pm:

athos wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 9:37pm:

Definitely a unisex positions

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-cYJOXX_fUzk/UooL4bQ0ayI/AAAAAAAADAo/otU674WspGc/s200/k...

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-erXV4d8kg2U/UooL7QdgPzI/AAAAAAAADBc/DzUGuBP4tk0/s200/k...

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-T8NSgfsME28/UooL2GnN9lI/AAAAAAAAC_Y/F6qCihO3NYE/s200/k...

Now we know what you are fapping to, you disgusting little Russian peasant.

You find sex disgusting?

You're even more disturbed than I thought.

That's not sex. It is pornography. Why am I not surprised that you cannot tell the difference?

This will go down as the funniest post of the day. Surely.

Back to top

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 139151
Gender: male

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #158 - Aug 21^st, 2015 at 10:04am

Soren wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 11:21pm:

athos wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 9:37pm:

Definitely a unisex positions

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-cYJOXX_fUzk/UooL4bQ0ayI/AAAAAAAADAo/otU674WspGc/s200/k...

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-erXV4d8kg2U/UooL7QdgPzI/AAAAAAAADBc/DzUGuBP4tk0/s200/k...

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-T8NSgfsME28/UooL2GnN9lI/AAAAAAAAC_Y/F6qCihO3NYE/s200/k...

Now we know what you are fapping to, you disgusting little Russian peasant.

Normal heterosexual sex.

What are you fapping to, Sore End?

If normal heterosexual sex is "disgusting", what should we call the stuff that you unload to?

Back to top

IP Logged

mothra

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 35565
Gender: female

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #159 - Aug 21^st, 2015 at 10:23am

mariacostel wrote on Aug 21^st, 2015 at 9:57am:

mothra wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 8:20pm:

Soren wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 8:16pm:

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

Didn't check out the references hen Soren?

Yes I did - that's why you are caught out as a f** all blustering propagandist. Your own 'proofs' and 'authorities' do not check out. I have checked. You haven't. You are a mindless drone good only fore unquestioning parrotting.

You are not credible at all, not in this topic, not in any other. You are a mere agitator.

http://www.livescience.com/50725-same-sex-marriage-history.html

Once again, the definition of precedence escapes you. This article make reference to a few examples of single instances. And let me quote from your own article.

"Westerners tend to put these people in the 'gay' box, so their marriages are — to our eyes — same-sex marriages, even though they are, more specifically, marriages between two differently gendered people," Boyd said.

In other words, even your own article debunks your position.

No it doesn't. Grasping at straws?

And i think the definition of precedence escapes you. Formalised same sex unions have occurred throughout history. You're just going to have to accept that.

Back to top

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

IP Logged

mothra

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 35565
Gender: female

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #160 - Aug 21^st, 2015 at 10:24am

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 21^st, 2015 at 10:02am:

mariacostel wrote on Aug 21^st, 2015 at 9:58am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 11:54pm:

Soren wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 11:21pm:

athos wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 9:37pm:

Definitely a unisex positions

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-cYJOXX_fUzk/UooL4bQ0ayI/AAAAAAAADAo/otU674WspGc/s200/k...

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-erXV4d8kg2U/UooL7QdgPzI/AAAAAAAADBc/DzUGuBP4tk0/s200/k...

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-T8NSgfsME28/UooL2GnN9lI/AAAAAAAAC_Y/F6qCihO3NYE/s200/k...

Now we know what you are fapping to, you disgusting little Russian peasant.

You find sex disgusting?

You're even more disturbed than I thought.

That's not sex. It is pornography. Why am I not surprised that you cannot tell the difference?

This will go down as the funniest post of the day. Surely.

Day is stilll young ... but it' a contender.

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 #161 - Aug 21^st, 2015 at 10:35am

mothra wrote on Aug 21^st, 2015 at 10:23am:

mariacostel wrote on Aug 21^st, 2015 at 9:57am:

mothra wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 8:20pm:

Soren wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 8:16pm:

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

Didn't check out the references hen Soren?

Yes I did - that's why you are caught out as a f** all blustering propagandist. Your own 'proofs' and 'authorities' do not check out. I have checked. You haven't. You are a mindless drone good only fore unquestioning parrotting.

You are not credible at all, not in this topic, not in any other. You are a mere agitator.

http://www.livescience.com/50725-same-sex-marriage-history.html

Once again, the definition of precedence escapes you. This article make reference to a few examples of single instances. And let me quote from your own article.

"Westerners tend to put these people in the 'gay' box, so their marriages are — to our eyes — same-sex marriages, even though they are, more specifically, marriages between two differently gendered people," Boyd said.

In other words, even your own article debunks your position.

No it doesn't. Grasping at straws?

And i think the definition of precedence escapes you. Formalised same sex unions have occurred throughout history. You're just going to have to accept that.

I am wondering if you understand the difference between transgender and gay. So far the evidence would suggest not. I also wonder if you know the difference between homosexuality and gay marriage. Again, it would appear not andlasty, I and wondering why you think that literally a handful of examples of gay marriage - most of them nonconsensual - form any kind of meaningful precedence.

Must cleverer people than you and I - the US Supreme Court - determined that there was in fact no precedence.

And like me, the approve of gay marriage and yet, that is never enough for you and your lot. You have to invent a history that didnt occur to support your position.

You are not after gay marriage, not at all. You are after something completely different. Can you guess what it is? I doubt it.

Back to top

IP Logged

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #162 - Aug 21^st, 2015 at 10:37am

mothra wrote on Aug 21^st, 2015 at 10:24am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 21^st, 2015 at 10:02am:

mariacostel wrote on Aug 21^st, 2015 at 9:58am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 11:54pm:

Soren wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 11:21pm:

athos wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 9:37pm:

Definitely a unisex positions

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-cYJOXX_fUzk/UooL4bQ0ayI/AAAAAAAADAo/otU674WspGc/s200/k...

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-erXV4d8kg2U/UooL7QdgPzI/AAAAAAAADBc/DzUGuBP4tk0/s200/k...

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-T8NSgfsME28/UooL2GnN9lI/AAAAAAAAC_Y/F6qCihO3NYE/s200/k...

Now we know what you are fapping to, you disgusting little Russian peasant.

You find sex disgusting?

You're even more disturbed than I thought.

That's not sex. It is pornography. Why am I not surprised that you cannot tell the difference?

This will go down as the funniest post of the day. Surely.

Day is stilll young ... but it' a contender.

Active sex acts thrown onto your screen without your permission. What would you call it?

Back to top

IP Logged

mothra

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 35565
Gender: female

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #163 - Aug 21^st, 2015 at 10:37am

mariacostel wrote on Aug 21^st, 2015 at 10:35am:

mothra wrote on Aug 21^st, 2015 at 10:23am:

mariacostel wrote on Aug 21^st, 2015 at 9:57am:

mothra wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 8:20pm:

Soren wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 8:16pm:

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

Didn't check out the references hen Soren?

Yes I did - that's why you are caught out as a f** all blustering propagandist. Your own 'proofs' and 'authorities' do not check out. I have checked. You haven't. You are a mindless drone good only fore unquestioning parrotting.

You are not credible at all, not in this topic, not in any other. You are a mere agitator.

http://www.livescience.com/50725-same-sex-marriage-history.html

Once again, the definition of precedence escapes you. This article make reference to a few examples of single instances. And let me quote from your own article.

"Westerners tend to put these people in the 'gay' box, so their marriages are — to our eyes — same-sex marriages, even though they are, more specifically, marriages between two differently gendered people," Boyd said.

In other words, even your own article debunks your position.

No it doesn't. Grasping at straws?

And i think the definition of precedence escapes you. Formalised same sex unions have occurred throughout history. You're just going to have to accept that.

I am wondering if you understand the difference between transgender and gay. So far the evidence would suggest not. I also wonder if you know the difference between homosexuality and gay marriage. Again, it would appear not andlasty, I and wondering why you think that literally a handful of examples of gay marriage - most of them nonconsensual - form any kind of meaningful precedence.

Must cleverer people than you and I - the US Supreme Court - determined that there was in fact no precedence.

And like me, the approve of gay marriage and yet, that is never enough for you and your lot. You have to invent a history that didnt occur to support your position.

You are not after gay marriage, not at all. You are after something completely different. Can you guess what it is? I doubt it.

No precedent in US Law, Maria. Not no precedent in history..

Do you understand the difference?

Back to top

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

IP Logged

mothra Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 35565 Gender:	Re: In defence of Gay Marriage Reply #164 - Aug 21^st, 2015 at 10:58am Stop it Athos. You'll scandalise Maria!
Back to top	If you can't be a good example, you have to be a horrible warning. IP Logged