Australian Politics Forum - In defence of Gay Marriage

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #180 - Aug 24^th, 2015 at 11:49am

Soren wrote on Aug 24^th, 2015 at 9:56am:

Karnal wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2015 at 10:30pm:

Soren wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2015 at 7:44pm:

And the formalised same sex unions were never recognised as anything but mad or queer, always short lived, never enjoying social recognition of any kind. That deviance has occurred throughout history is no proof at all that gay marriage has an established precedence.

You're just going to have to accept that.

That's strange. You're now saying history is full of formalised same sex unions?

What sort of slippery, evasive, arse-covering, yeah-but-no-but fappery is this?

Thank you for quoting selectively, PB.

Observe the full post including the one it responded to:

Soren wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2015 at 7:44pm:

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

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.

But not same sex marriage. You're just going to have to accept that.

And the formalised same sex unions were never recognised as anything but mad or queer, always short lived, never enjoying social recognition of any kind. That deviance has occurred throughout history is no proof at all that gay marriage has an established precedence.

You're just going to have to accept that.

Mebbe you should ask Mutter (I don't have the strength) to show the truth of her claim that 'formalised same sex unions occurred throughout history'.
She will tell you about some mad emperor or a court jester like you who may have married some friar in a secret orgy in the French ALps in 1768.

There seems to be a fundamental failing by most on here as to what constitutes an effective argument. A handful of gay marriages over 10,000 years not only isn't precedence but in fact, the complete opposite.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Aug 24^th, 2015 at 11:57am by mariacostel »

IP Logged

Grappler Deep State Feller

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 85240
Always was always will be HOME
Gender: male

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #181 - Aug 24^th, 2015 at 12:32pm

**falls on face before the altar** "shrive me Holy Man - I have sinned mightily - I agreed with maria costel!"

"There seems to be a fundamental failing by most on here as to what constitutes an effective argument. A handful of gay marriages over 10,000 years not only isn't precedence but in fact, the complete opposite. "

I wouldn't have put it that way - more that the few examples proved the general rule of the opposite, in other words, a faggot fart doth not a Gay Spring make...

Back to top

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams

IP Logged

mothra

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 35578
Gender: female

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #182 - Aug 24^th, 2015 at 2:35pm

Soren wrote on Aug 24^th, 2015 at 9:56am:

Karnal wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2015 at 10:30pm:

Soren wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2015 at 7:44pm:

And the formalised same sex unions were never recognised as anything but mad or queer, always short lived, never enjoying social recognition of any kind. That deviance has occurred throughout history is no proof at all that gay marriage has an established precedence.

You're just going to have to accept that.

That's strange. You're now saying history is full of formalised same sex unions?

What sort of slippery, evasive, arse-covering, yeah-but-no-but fappery is this?

Thank you for quoting selectively, PB.

Observe the full post including the one it responded to:

Soren wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2015 at 7:44pm:

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

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.

But not same sex marriage. You're just going to have to accept that.

And the formalised same sex unions were never recognised as anything but mad or queer, always short lived, never enjoying social recognition of any kind. That deviance has occurred throughout history is no proof at all that gay marriage has an established precedence.

You're just going to have to accept that.

Mebbe you should ask Mutter (I don't have the strength) to show the truth of her claim that 'formalised same sex unions occurred throughout history'.
She will tell you about some mad emperor or a court jester like you who may have married some friar in a secret orgy in the French ALps in 1768.

See? I knew you didn't read the links i posted.

What's the problem Soren? Don't want proof that you're wrong?

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: 35578
Gender: female

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #183 - Aug 24^th, 2015 at 2:37pm

mariacostel wrote on Aug 24^th, 2015 at 11:49am:

Soren wrote on Aug 24^th, 2015 at 9:56am:

Karnal wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2015 at 10:30pm:

Soren wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2015 at 7:44pm:

And the formalised same sex unions were never recognised as anything but mad or queer, always short lived, never enjoying social recognition of any kind. That deviance has occurred throughout history is no proof at all that gay marriage has an established precedence.

You're just going to have to accept that.

That's strange. You're now saying history is full of formalised same sex unions?

What sort of slippery, evasive, arse-covering, yeah-but-no-but fappery is this?

Thank you for quoting selectively, PB.

Observe the full post including the one it responded to:

Soren wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2015 at 7:44pm:

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

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.

But not same sex marriage. You're just going to have to accept that.

And the formalised same sex unions were never recognised as anything but mad or queer, always short lived, never enjoying social recognition of any kind. That deviance has occurred throughout history is no proof at all that gay marriage has an established precedence.

You're just going to have to accept that.

Mebbe you should ask Mutter (I don't have the strength) to show the truth of her claim that 'formalised same sex unions occurred throughout history'.
She will tell you about some mad emperor or a court jester like you who may have married some friar in a secret orgy in the French ALps in 1768.

There seems to be a fundamental failing by most on here as to what constitutes an effective argument. A handful of gay marriages over 10,000 years not only isn't precedence but in fact, the complete opposite.

What have a handful of gay marriages 10,000 years ago do do with it?

Another one who doesn't read links but pretends to 'check out references'.

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 #184 - Aug 24^th, 2015 at 4:24pm

mothra wrote on Aug 24^th, 2015 at 2:37pm:

mariacostel wrote on Aug 24^th, 2015 at 11:49am:

Soren wrote on Aug 24^th, 2015 at 9:56am:

Karnal wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2015 at 10:30pm:

Soren wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2015 at 7:44pm:

And the formalised same sex unions were never recognised as anything but mad or queer, always short lived, never enjoying social recognition of any kind. That deviance has occurred throughout history is no proof at all that gay marriage has an established precedence.

You're just going to have to accept that.

That's strange. You're now saying history is full of formalised same sex unions?

What sort of slippery, evasive, arse-covering, yeah-but-no-but fappery is this?

Thank you for quoting selectively, PB.

Observe the full post including the one it responded to:

Soren wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2015 at 7:44pm:

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

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.

But not same sex marriage. You're just going to have to accept that.

And the formalised same sex unions were never recognised as anything but mad or queer, always short lived, never enjoying social recognition of any kind. That deviance has occurred throughout history is no proof at all that gay marriage has an established precedence.

You're just going to have to accept that.

Mebbe you should ask Mutter (I don't have the strength) to show the truth of her claim that 'formalised same sex unions occurred throughout history'.
She will tell you about some mad emperor or a court jester like you who may have married some friar in a secret orgy in the French ALps in 1768.

There seems to be a fundamental failing by most on here as to what constitutes an effective argument. A handful of gay marriages over 10,000 years not only isn't precedence but in fact, the complete opposite.

What have a handful of gay marriages 10,000 years ago do do with it?

Another one who doesn't read links but pretends to 'check out references'.

I read them fine, but I am in some doubt as to whether or not you have. Perhaps it is as another poster suggested that you conflate the existence and practice of homosexuality with gay marriage. Nothing else really makes sense since your references proved almost no historical examples of gay marriage.

Back to top

IP Logged

mothra

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 35578
Gender: female

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #185 - Aug 24^th, 2015 at 5:54pm

mariacostel wrote on Aug 24^th, 2015 at 4:24pm:

mothra wrote on Aug 24^th, 2015 at 2:37pm:

mariacostel wrote on Aug 24^th, 2015 at 11:49am:

Soren wrote on Aug 24^th, 2015 at 9:56am:

Karnal wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2015 at 10:30pm:

Soren wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2015 at 7:44pm:

And the formalised same sex unions were never recognised as anything but mad or queer, always short lived, never enjoying social recognition of any kind. That deviance has occurred throughout history is no proof at all that gay marriage has an established precedence.

You're just going to have to accept that.

That's strange. You're now saying history is full of formalised same sex unions?

What sort of slippery, evasive, arse-covering, yeah-but-no-but fappery is this?

Thank you for quoting selectively, PB.

Observe the full post including the one it responded to:

Soren wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2015 at 7:44pm:

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

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.

But not same sex marriage. You're just going to have to accept that.

And the formalised same sex unions were never recognised as anything but mad or queer, always short lived, never enjoying social recognition of any kind. That deviance has occurred throughout history is no proof at all that gay marriage has an established precedence.

You're just going to have to accept that.

Mebbe you should ask Mutter (I don't have the strength) to show the truth of her claim that 'formalised same sex unions occurred throughout history'.
She will tell you about some mad emperor or a court jester like you who may have married some friar in a secret orgy in the French ALps in 1768.

There seems to be a fundamental failing by most on here as to what constitutes an effective argument. A handful of gay marriages over 10,000 years not only isn't precedence but in fact, the complete opposite.

What have a handful of gay marriages 10,000 years ago do do with it?

Another one who doesn't read links but pretends to 'check out references'.

I read them fine, but I am in some doubt as to whether or not you have. Perhaps it is as another poster suggested that you conflate the existence and practice of homosexuality with gay marriage. Nothing else really makes sense since your references proved almost no historical examples of gay marriage.

Had you read the links and checked out the references, you wouldn't be saying something as fatuous as "a handful of marriages 10,000 years ago".

You'd know better.

Back to top

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

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 96460

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #186 - Aug 24^th, 2015 at 7:50pm

Soren wrote on Aug 24^th, 2015 at 9:56am:

Karnal wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2015 at 10:30pm:

Soren wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2015 at 7:44pm:

And the formalised same sex unions were never recognised as anything but mad or queer, always short lived, never enjoying social recognition of any kind. That deviance has occurred throughout history is no proof at all that gay marriage has an established precedence.

You're just going to have to accept that.

That's strange. You're now saying history is full of formalised same sex unions?

What sort of slippery, evasive, arse-covering, yeah-but-no-but fappery is this?

Thank you for quoting selectively, PB.

Observe the full post including the one it responded to:

Soren wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2015 at 7:44pm:

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

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.

But not same sex marriage. You're just going to have to accept that.

And the formalised same sex unions were never recognised as anything but mad or queer, always short lived, never enjoying social recognition of any kind. That deviance has occurred throughout history is no proof at all that gay marriage has an established precedence.

You're just going to have to accept that.

Mebbe you should ask Mutter (I don't have the strength) to show the truth of her claim that 'formalised same sex unions occurred throughout history'.
She will tell you about some mad emperor or a court jester like you who may have married some friar in a secret orgy in the French ALps in 1768.

And you call that a formalized same-sex union? Oh, old boy, how PC of you.

Mother’s show you up and you want to play slippery buggers with the terminology. What happened to that anti-porkie rhetoric you aspired to just a week ago?

You aspire to the utmost truth, remember. You always admit your mistakes.

University of Balogney again, eh?

Back to top

IP Logged

...

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 23673
WA
Gender: male

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #187 - Aug 24^th, 2015 at 8:33pm

mothra wrote on Aug 24^th, 2015 at 2:37pm:

mariacostel wrote on Aug 24^th, 2015 at 11:49am:

Soren wrote on Aug 24^th, 2015 at 9:56am:

Karnal wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2015 at 10:30pm:

Soren wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2015 at 7:44pm:

And the formalised same sex unions were never recognised as anything but mad or queer, always short lived, never enjoying social recognition of any kind. That deviance has occurred throughout history is no proof at all that gay marriage has an established precedence.

You're just going to have to accept that.

That's strange. You're now saying history is full of formalised same sex unions?

What sort of slippery, evasive, arse-covering, yeah-but-no-but fappery is this?

Thank you for quoting selectively, PB.

Observe the full post including the one it responded to:

Soren wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2015 at 7:44pm:

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

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.

But not same sex marriage. You're just going to have to accept that.

And the formalised same sex unions were never recognised as anything but mad or queer, always short lived, never enjoying social recognition of any kind. That deviance has occurred throughout history is no proof at all that gay marriage has an established precedence.

You're just going to have to accept that.

Mebbe you should ask Mutter (I don't have the strength) to show the truth of her claim that 'formalised same sex unions occurred throughout history'.
She will tell you about some mad emperor or a court jester like you who may have married some friar in a secret orgy in the French ALps in 1768.

There seems to be a fundamental failing by most on here as to what constitutes an effective argument. A handful of gay marriages over 10,000 years not only isn't precedence but in fact, the complete opposite.

What have a handful of gay marriages 10,000 years ago do do with it?

Another one who doesn't read links but pretends to 'check out references'.

LOL. You don't even read the links you post. Grin

With the amount of times you kick own goals by frantically googling for something - anything - and end up proving yourself wrong, I feel sorry for you sometimes. Then you remind me that you're not a very nice person, and the only thing I'm sorry for is that you don't even realise how stupid you are.

Back to top

In the fullness of time...

IP Logged

mothra

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 35578
Gender: female

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #188 - Aug 24^th, 2015 at 9:48pm

... wrote on Aug 24^th, 2015 at 8:33pm:

mothra wrote on Aug 24^th, 2015 at 2:37pm:

mariacostel wrote on Aug 24^th, 2015 at 11:49am:

Soren wrote on Aug 24^th, 2015 at 9:56am:

Karnal wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2015 at 10:30pm:

Soren wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2015 at 7:44pm:

And the formalised same sex unions were never recognised as anything but mad or queer, always short lived, never enjoying social recognition of any kind. That deviance has occurred throughout history is no proof at all that gay marriage has an established precedence.

You're just going to have to accept that.

That's strange. You're now saying history is full of formalised same sex unions?

What sort of slippery, evasive, arse-covering, yeah-but-no-but fappery is this?

Thank you for quoting selectively, PB.

Observe the full post including the one it responded to:

Soren wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2015 at 7:44pm:

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

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.

But not same sex marriage. You're just going to have to accept that.

And the formalised same sex unions were never recognised as anything but mad or queer, always short lived, never enjoying social recognition of any kind. That deviance has occurred throughout history is no proof at all that gay marriage has an established precedence.

You're just going to have to accept that.

Mebbe you should ask Mutter (I don't have the strength) to show the truth of her claim that 'formalised same sex unions occurred throughout history'.
She will tell you about some mad emperor or a court jester like you who may have married some friar in a secret orgy in the French ALps in 1768.

There seems to be a fundamental failing by most on here as to what constitutes an effective argument. A handful of gay marriages over 10,000 years not only isn't precedence but in fact, the complete opposite.

What have a handful of gay marriages 10,000 years ago do do with it?

Another one who doesn't read links but pretends to 'check out references'.

LOL. You don't even read the links you post. Grin

With the amount of times you kick own goals by frantically googling for something - anything - and end up proving yourself wrong, I feel sorry for you sometimes. Then you remind me that you're not a very nice person, and the only thing I'm sorry for is that you don't even realise how stupid you are.

Except of course that the links i posted back up everything i've said entirely.

I'm astonished that you Soren and Maria are having so much trouble with the concept.

As for the tone of your reply, i can only assume that you don't like women talking back to you very much and i've hurt your little feelings at some point. Sorry about that ... but you should really try thinking your posts all the way through.

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 #189 - Aug 24^th, 2015 at 10:02pm

mothra wrote on Aug 24^th, 2015 at 2:35pm:

Soren wrote on Aug 24^th, 2015 at 9:56am:

Karnal wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2015 at 10:30pm:

Soren wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2015 at 7:44pm:

And the formalised same sex unions were never recognised as anything but mad or queer, always short lived, never enjoying social recognition of any kind. That deviance has occurred throughout history is no proof at all that gay marriage has an established precedence.

You're just going to have to accept that.

That's strange. You're now saying history is full of formalised same sex unions?

What sort of slippery, evasive, arse-covering, yeah-but-no-but fappery is this?

Thank you for quoting selectively, PB.

Observe the full post including the one it responded to:

Soren wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2015 at 7:44pm:

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

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.

But not same sex marriage. You're just going to have to accept that.

And the formalised same sex unions were never recognised as anything but mad or queer, always short lived, never enjoying social recognition of any kind. That deviance has occurred throughout history is no proof at all that gay marriage has an established precedence.

You're just going to have to accept that.

Mebbe you should ask Mutter (I don't have the strength) to show the truth of her claim that 'formalised same sex unions occurred throughout history'.
She will tell you about some mad emperor or a court jester like you who may have married some friar in a secret orgy in the French ALps in 1768.

See? I knew you didn't read the links i posted.

What's the problem Soren? Don't want proof that you're wrong?

As I said:

And the formalised same sex unions were never recognised as anything but mad or queer, always short lived, never enjoying social recognition of any kind. That deviance has occurred throughout history is no proof at all that gay marriage has an established precedence.

You're just going to have to accept that.

These were not same sex marriages. These were seen as either deviance (emperors) or social convenience in the case of African widows - the purpose there being the same as one of the main functions of marriage: to protect women, widows, children.

Back to top

IP Logged

Prime Minister for Canyons Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 26906 Canberra Gender:	Re: In defence of Gay Marriage Reply #190 - Aug 24^th, 2015 at 10:05pm Assuming that is so, Soren, why does that mean times cant change. Leeches were popular then too.
Back to top	In a time of universal deceit — telling the truth is a revolutionary act. No evidence whatsoever it can be attributed to George Orwell or Eric Arthur Blair (in fact the same guy) IP Logged

Soren Gold Member Offline Posts: 25654 Gender:	Re: In defence of Gay Marriage Reply #191 - Aug 25^th, 2015 at 8:25am Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 24^th, 2015 at 10:05pm: Assuming that is so, Soren, why does that mean times cant change. Leeches were popular then too. Not every change is good. A lot of change is atrophy. Gay 'marriage' for example, is social atrophy.
Back to top	IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 139247
Gender: male

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #192 - Aug 25^th, 2015 at 9:02am

Soren wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 8:25am:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 24^th, 2015 at 10:05pm:

Assuming that is so, Soren, why does that mean times cant change. Leeches were popular then too.

Not every change is good. A lot of change is atrophy. Gay 'marriage' for example, is social atrophy.

Even if it was, and it's not, how will that affect you?

Tell us how your life will change once gay marriage is made legal in Australia.

Back to top

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #193 - Aug 25^th, 2015 at 9:07am

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 9:02am:

Soren wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 8:25am:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 24^th, 2015 at 10:05pm:

Assuming that is so, Soren, why does that mean times cant change. Leeches were popular then too.

Not every change is good. A lot of change is atrophy. Gay 'marriage' for example, is social atrophy.

Even if it was, and it's not, how will that affect you?

Tell us how your life will change once gay marriage is made legal in Australia.

Slavery in Africa doesn't affect me personally either - do I have to support it therefore?? Gawd, you ARE a militant thicko, gweg.

Back to top

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 139247
Gender: male

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #194 - Aug 25^th, 2015 at 9:10am

Soren wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 9:07am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 9:02am:

Soren wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 8:25am:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 24^th, 2015 at 10:05pm:

Assuming that is so, Soren, why does that mean times cant change. Leeches were popular then too.

Not every change is good. A lot of change is atrophy. Gay 'marriage' for example, is social atrophy.

Even if it was, and it's not, how will that affect you?

Tell us how your life will change once gay marriage is made legal in Australia.

Slavery in Africa doesn't affect me personally either - do I have to support it therefore?? Gawd, you ARE a militant thicko, gweg.

Slavery? That's a good one, Sore End.

So, who will be adversely affected once gay marriage is made legal in Australia?

If not you, and not me, who?

And, how exactly will these people suffer (like slaves)?

Back to top

IP Logged