Australian Politics Forum - In defence of Gay Marriage

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #195 - Aug 25^th, 2015 at 9:43am

greggerypeccary wrote on 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)?

How will I be positively affected? There is nothing positive in gay 'marriage' for anyone, not even gays. Regardless of legalisation, homosexual relations are objectively not a model any society can adopt as its norm and survive. Despite legalisation of gay 'marriage' only heterosexual relationships are, objectively, the way for any society to organise and maintain itself. It is the natural order, regardless of any law.

With gay 'marriage' deviance will be the new standard for all marriages. Fathers and mothers will be rendered no better than two men or two women parents - patently wrong. The desires of homosexual couples are elevated to a point where the rest of society must view them as more important than a social institution of the longest standing. Marriage is not about the two people involved - if it was mostly about them, friendship would have been also institutionalised around the same time as marriage, but it hasn't because society has no interest in every human relationship.
Marriage is about the society in which it takes place because it is the institution that links the generations. It is also the institution that tames men and protects women and children.

Homosexual relationship have zero social significance, society has zero need to enshrine homosexual relationships. Homosexual relationship do not carry out any of the social functions of marriage: they are not a generational bridge, they are not protecting women and children, they are not taming fathers into caring for their children. They are only about the two gays' desire to be seen as something they are not and cannot be. It is a charade, a pretence that diminishes marriage without actually enhancing gay relationships.

Back to top

IP Logged

Prime Minister for Canyons

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 26906
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #196 - Aug 25^th, 2015 at 10:02am

Soren wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 9:43am:

How will I be positively affected? There is nothing positive in gay 'marriage' for anyone, not even gays. Regardless of legalisation, homosexual relations are objectively not a model any society can adopt as its norm and survive. Despite legalisation of gay 'marriage' only heterosexual relationships are, objectively, the way for any society to organise and maintain itself. It is the natural order, regardless of any law.

At the moment, anyway, and this drivel about a father and mother being best. What rubbish. What kids need is stable role models regardless of gender.

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

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 139278
Gender: male

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #197 - Aug 25^th, 2015 at 10:08am

Soren wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 9:43am:

greggerypeccary wrote on 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)?

How will I be positively affected? There is nothing positive in gay 'marriage' for anyone, not even gays. Regardless of legalisation, homosexual relations are objectively not a model any society can adopt as its norm and survive. Despite legalisation of gay 'marriage' only heterosexual relationships are, objectively, the way for any society to organise and maintain itself. It is the natural order, regardless of any law.

With gay 'marriage' deviance will be the new standard for all marriages. Fathers and mothers will be rendered no better than two men or two women parents - patently wrong. The desires of homosexual couples are elevated to a point where the rest of society must view them as more important than a social institution of the longest standing. Marriage is not about the two people involved - if it was mostly about them, friendship would have been also institutionalised around the same time as marriage, but it hasn't because society has no interest in every human relationship.
Marriage is about the society in which it takes place because it is the institution that links the generations. It is also the institution that tames men and protects women and children.

Homosexual relationship have zero social significance, society has zero need to enshrine homosexual relationships. Homosexual relationship do not carry out any of the social functions of marriage: they are not a generational bridge, they are not protecting women and children, they are not taming fathers into caring for their children. They are only about the two gays' desire to be seen as something they are not and cannot be. It is a charade, a pretence that diminishes marriage without actually enhancing gay relationships.

So, nobody will be adversely affected.

Back to top

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 96465

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #198 - Aug 25^th, 2015 at 10:14am

Soren wrote on 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.

No, old chap, you said this:

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.

Do you know? I believed exactly what you did: there is no historical precedent for gay marriage whatsoever.

Mother, however, has shone light where there was darkness. We live and learn, eh? Whoever would have thought Roman emperors married their male slaves?

You've thrown a tizz over Mother's sources, but have no source of your own. Thus, you've played the old switcheroo, pretending you were talking about "same sex unions" all along. How PC of you. You've learned from Mother's sources too.

But instead of admitting this and approaching the subject with fresh eyes, you're back to form. Always absolutely never ever. Blustering propagandist. Mindless drone. Unquestioning parroting.

I say, old boy, look who's been exposed as the most unquestioning parrot of all.

Back to top

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #199 - Aug 25^th, 2015 at 10:37am

Mutter:

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

Formalised same sex unions have occurred throughout history. You're just going to have to accept that.

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

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 96465

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #200 - Aug 25^th, 2015 at 11:49am

Soren wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 10:37am:

Mutter:

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

Formalised same sex unions have occurred throughout history. You're just going to have to accept that.

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

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.

So let me get this straight, OB - do you disagree with Mother's source?

Back to top

IP Logged

...

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 23673
WA
Gender: male

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #201 - Aug 25^th, 2015 at 12:20pm

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 10:02am:

Soren wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 9:43am:

How will I be positively affected? There is nothing positive in gay 'marriage' for anyone, not even gays. Regardless of legalisation, homosexual relations are objectively not a model any society can adopt as its norm and survive. Despite legalisation of gay 'marriage' only heterosexual relationships are, objectively, the way for any society to organise and maintain itself. It is the natural order, regardless of any law.

At the moment, anyway, and this drivel about a father and mother being best. What rubbish. What kids need is stable role models regardless of gender.

what rubbish indeed.

Young boys dont want women as role models nor do young girls want men as role models. But you knew that. A clue is in the phrase itself - ROLE models.

Back to top

In the fullness of time...

IP Logged

red baron Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 10204 Blue Mountains Gender:	Re: In defence of Gay Marriage Reply #202 - Aug 25^th, 2015 at 12:45pm How about they don't have to practice birth control?
Back to top	IP Logged

Unforgiven Gold Member Offline I have sinned Posts: 8879 Gender:	Re: In defence of Gay Marriage Reply #203 - Aug 25^th, 2015 at 1:13pm red baron wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 12:45pm: How about they don't have to practice birth control? I have found Red Baron's perfect match. David Jeffrey Spetch. Both are blubbering, whining, blatherskites.
Back to top	“I’ll let you be in my dreams if I can be in yours” Bob Dylan IP Logged

Pho Huc

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 985
Victoria
Gender: male

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #204 - Aug 25^th, 2015 at 2:32pm

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.

Change is the opposite of atrophy, regardless of whether the change has a positive of negative effect.

Back to top

The law locks up the man who steals the goose from the common, but leaves the greater criminal loose who steals the common from the goose (convict saying)

IP Logged

mothra

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 35578
Gender: female

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #205 - Aug 25^th, 2015 at 2:58pm

... wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 12:20pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 10:02am:

Soren wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 9:43am:

How will I be positively affected? There is nothing positive in gay 'marriage' for anyone, not even gays. Regardless of legalisation, homosexual relations are objectively not a model any society can adopt as its norm and survive. Despite legalisation of gay 'marriage' only heterosexual relationships are, objectively, the way for any society to organise and maintain itself. It is the natural order, regardless of any law.

At the moment, anyway, and this drivel about a father and mother being best. What rubbish. What kids need is stable role models regardless of gender.

what rubbish indeed.

Young boys dont want women as role models nor do young girls want men as role models. But you knew that. A clue is in the phrase itself - ROLE models.

Role models can be sourced from outside of the family unit.

All a child needs from their parents is love, discipline and guidance. Both genders are perfectly capable of pulling that off.

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 #206 - Aug 25^th, 2015 at 3:00pm

Soren wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 10:37am:

Mutter:

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

Formalised same sex unions have occurred throughout history. You're just going to have to accept that.

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

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.

Not true. Same sex marriage occurred that was not "mad or queer, short-lived or without social recognition".

Back to top

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

IP Logged

...

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 23673
WA
Gender: male

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #207 - Aug 25^th, 2015 at 3:34pm

mothra wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 3:00pm:

Soren wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 10:37am:

Mutter:

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

Formalised same sex unions have occurred throughout history. You're just going to have to accept that.

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

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.

Not true. Same sex marriage occurred that was not "mad or queer, short-lived or without social recognition".

How do you figure?

And going further - why is establishing precedent so important to you? Since the precedent you speak of is emperors mutilating and raping young boys, I wouldn't be so keen to draw on it.

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 #208 - Aug 25^th, 2015 at 3:43pm

... wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 3:34pm:

mothra wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 3:00pm:

Soren wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 10:37am:

Mutter:

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

Formalised same sex unions have occurred throughout history. You're just going to have to accept that.

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

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.

Not true. Same sex marriage occurred that was not "mad or queer, short-lived or without social recognition".

How do you figure?

And going further - why is establishing precedent so important to you? Since the precedent you speak of is emperors mutilating and raping young boys, I wouldn't be so keen to draw on it.

I 'figure' because that is what history tells us.

The reason i am establishing precedent is because it was stated that marriage had always been a heterosexual union and that is why it should stay as such.

But history tells us that formalised same sex unions existed in ancient times, not just in Rome (where many of the unions were consensual) but in Egypt, Native America, parts of the Middle East, Europe up until the 18th century and parts of Africa.

Which all of you would know had you read the links i posted.

Back to top

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

IP Logged

... Gold Member Offline Posts: 23673 WA Gender:	Re: In defence of Gay Marriage Reply #209 - Aug 25^th, 2015 at 3:49pm mothra wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 3:43pm: I 'figure' because that is what history tells us. As I was saying - you have no idea just how stupid you are.
Back to top	In the fullness of time... IP Logged