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 #225 - Aug 25^th, 2015 at 5:05pm

Karnal wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 4:58pm:

mariacostel wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 4:46pm:

Karnal wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 4:38pm:

mariacostel wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 4:15pm:

Quantum wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 4:03pm:

mothra wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 3:43pm:

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.

Actually, there are even more holes here than first noticed.

If in the past all these different tribes, nations, and empires had same sex marriage, (as you claim), why did they all stop?

Surely the fact that everyone stopped it at some point should give some big warning signs not to try it again.

This is a bit like 200 years form now making the argument; Everyone used to smoke back in the past. Why not let people smoke now? We know there has been a big push in recent years to stop smoking and at least heavily restrict it because it fcks peoples lives up. It would be idiotic to bring it back in the future because everyone used to do it with out restriction in the 20th century. Well maybe the same logic should apply here. Maybe gay marriage went the way of the dodo because it also fcked everything up and it would be best not to give it a second chance.

A good argument although I still state that formalised gay marriage per se has not existed in the past other than a few very minor occasions.

Yes, Maria, that's what the old boy keeps saying, over and over again.

And yet, he still hasn't put up a source that backs his point of view. Do you have one?

If you don't, I can't see how anyone could logically disagree with Mother's well-researched reference.

Troll, you are perhaps unaware that asking someone to prove the non-existence of something is a rather large and ultimately impossible task. Mothra's references are neither well-researched ( it was wikipedia for goodness sake) or even what she claims them to be.

I find the USA Supreme court assessment to be vastly more valuable that an internet poster and a troll.

Does this refute Mother's source, Maria? As far as I can tell, it just discusses marriage law in the US.

I can only go with what's in front of me, you know. It's a bit hard to go with "I still state that..."

It's not that I don't trust you or anything. I believe you still state something. But unless you can explain all those examples of gay marriage in Mother's reference, they stand as historical precedents of gay marriage. After all, no one here is even questioning them, including yourself, dear.

Yeah troll, that's right. No one is questioning them, only half the posters here and more importantly, stating that those 'examples' did not even appear in her poor-quality reference.

Back to top

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 96507

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #226 - Aug 25^th, 2015 at 5:07pm

mariacostel wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 5:05pm:

Karnal wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 4:58pm:

mariacostel wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 4:46pm:

Karnal wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 4:38pm:

mariacostel wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 4:15pm:

Quantum wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 4:03pm:

mothra wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 3:43pm:

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.

Actually, there are even more holes here than first noticed.

If in the past all these different tribes, nations, and empires had same sex marriage, (as you claim), why did they all stop?

Surely the fact that everyone stopped it at some point should give some big warning signs not to try it again.

This is a bit like 200 years form now making the argument; Everyone used to smoke back in the past. Why not let people smoke now? We know there has been a big push in recent years to stop smoking and at least heavily restrict it because it fcks peoples lives up. It would be idiotic to bring it back in the future because everyone used to do it with out restriction in the 20th century. Well maybe the same logic should apply here. Maybe gay marriage went the way of the dodo because it also fcked everything up and it would be best not to give it a second chance.

A good argument although I still state that formalised gay marriage per se has not existed in the past other than a few very minor occasions.

Yes, Maria, that's what the old boy keeps saying, over and over again.

And yet, he still hasn't put up a source that backs his point of view. Do you have one?

If you don't, I can't see how anyone could logically disagree with Mother's well-researched reference.

Troll, you are perhaps unaware that asking someone to prove the non-existence of something is a rather large and ultimately impossible task. Mothra's references are neither well-researched ( it was wikipedia for goodness sake) or even what she claims them to be.

I find the USA Supreme court assessment to be vastly more valuable that an internet poster and a troll.

Does this refute Mother's source, Maria? As far as I can tell, it just discusses marriage law in the US.

I can only go with what's in front of me, you know. It's a bit hard to go with "I still state that..."

It's not that I don't trust you or anything. I believe you still state something. But unless you can explain all those examples of gay marriage in Mother's reference, they stand as historical precedents of gay marriage. After all, no one here is even questioning them, including yourself, dear.

Yeah troll, that's right. No one is questioning them, only half the posters here and more importantly, stating that those 'examples' did not even appear in her poor-quality reference.

So what's your source?

Best to stay clear of Professor Storling, Maria. Longy was having a laugh with that one.

Back to top

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #227 - Aug 25^th, 2015 at 5:09pm

If and when gay 'marriage' is legalised, there will be no marriage 'equality' (heterosexual and homosexual relationships cannot, by definition, be equal), but there will be an additional layer or substratum of marriage.

There will be marriage.
There will be heterosexual de facto marriage.
There will be gay 'marriage'.
And there will be gay civil union.

Gay 'marriage' is like the pregnant 'man' story. Pretence.

Back to top

IP Logged

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #228 - Aug 25^th, 2015 at 5:15pm

Soren wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 5:09pm:

If and when gay 'marriage' is legalised, there will be no marriage 'equality' (heterosexual and homosexual relationships cannot, by definition, be equal), but there will be an additional layer or substratum of marriage.

There will be marriage.
There will be heterosexual de facto marriage.
There will be gay 'marriage'.
And there will be gay civil union.

Gay 'marriage' is like the pregnant 'man' story. Pretence.

Yes, that was rather foolish and quite silly.

Back to top

IP Logged

mothra

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 35578
Gender: female

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #229 - Aug 25^th, 2015 at 5:18pm

mariacostel wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 5:05pm:

Karnal wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 4:58pm:

mariacostel wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 4:46pm:

Karnal wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 4:38pm:

mariacostel wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 4:15pm:

Quantum wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 4:03pm:

mothra wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 3:43pm:

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.

Actually, there are even more holes here than first noticed.

If in the past all these different tribes, nations, and empires had same sex marriage, (as you claim), why did they all stop?

Surely the fact that everyone stopped it at some point should give some big warning signs not to try it again.

This is a bit like 200 years form now making the argument; Everyone used to smoke back in the past. Why not let people smoke now? We know there has been a big push in recent years to stop smoking and at least heavily restrict it because it fcks peoples lives up. It would be idiotic to bring it back in the future because everyone used to do it with out restriction in the 20th century. Well maybe the same logic should apply here. Maybe gay marriage went the way of the dodo because it also fcked everything up and it would be best not to give it a second chance.

A good argument although I still state that formalised gay marriage per se has not existed in the past other than a few very minor occasions.

Yes, Maria, that's what the old boy keeps saying, over and over again.

And yet, he still hasn't put up a source that backs his point of view. Do you have one?

If you don't, I can't see how anyone could logically disagree with Mother's well-researched reference.

Troll, you are perhaps unaware that asking someone to prove the non-existence of something is a rather large and ultimately impossible task. Mothra's references are neither well-researched ( it was wikipedia for goodness sake) or even what she claims them to be.

I find the USA Supreme court assessment to be vastly more valuable that an internet poster and a troll.

Does this refute Mother's source, Maria? As far as I can tell, it just discusses marriage law in the US.

I can only go with what's in front of me, you know. It's a bit hard to go with "I still state that..."

It's not that I don't trust you or anything. I believe you still state something. But unless you can explain all those examples of gay marriage in Mother's reference, they stand as historical precedents of gay marriage. After all, no one here is even questioning them, including yourself, dear.

Yeah troll, that's right. No one is questioning them, only half the posters here and more importantly, stating that those 'examples' did not even appear in her poor-quality reference.

I posted more than one link Maria. Didn't you read the other? It was from a science journal. Not good enough for you?

Would you like some more links to ignore? Plenty out there.

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 #230 - Aug 25^th, 2015 at 5:18pm

mariacostel wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 3:58pm:

mothra wrote on 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.

We did and the most polite thing that could be said is that you are grossly over-exaggerating these claims. Europe with gay marriage? That simply is not true.

Finding a few examples in the past is not precedence. But as Honky said, why is precedence so important to you? Just support gay marriage for what it is and stop trying to imbue it with some mythological power. It is JUST marriage. Or at least it is to most of us.

Except it isn't marriage.

Back to top

IP Logged

mothra Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 35578 Gender:	Re: In defence of Gay Marriage Reply #231 - Aug 25^th, 2015 at 5:20pm http://www.randomhistory.com/history-of-gay-marriage.html
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:	Re: In defence of Gay Marriage Reply #232 - Aug 25^th, 2015 at 5:21pm http://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/1979boswell.asp
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 #233 - Aug 25^th, 2015 at 5:25pm

... wrote on 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.

Is the best you have insults? Can't refute any of the claims i've made?

Of course not. I've provided sources.

I'm sorry that trouble you Honky. You're just going to have to get used to women being smarter than you. There's about 3.5 billion of us.

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: 96507	Re: In defence of Gay Marriage Reply #234 - Aug 25^th, 2015 at 5:26pm You'd better stop offending him, Mother. You're not supposed to do that with the old boy.
Back to top	IP Logged

mothra

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 35578
Gender: female

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #235 - Aug 25^th, 2015 at 5:30pm

mariacostel wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 3:58pm:

mothra wrote on 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.

We did and the most polite thing that could be said is that you are grossly over-exaggerating these claims. Europe with gay marriage? That simply is not true.

Finding a few examples in the past is not precedence. But as Honky said, why is precedence so important to you? Just support gay marriage for what it is and stop trying to imbue it with some mythological power. It is JUST marriage. Or at least it is to most of us.

Yes it's true. I can even give you a link to the religious ceremony if you like.

.... but i doubt you'd read it.

As for the importance of establishing precedent, i've already explained that. You, Soren and now Honky are claiming formalised same sex unions did not occur in history. I proved you wrong.

Now you are claiming they 'hardly ever' happened. I've proven you wrong.

Soren claims they only happened as a result of 'queerness' and were not accepted by society. I proved him wrong.

The only persistence here is in you people refusing to accept that you have been proven wrong. But it appears to pain you so you carry on as you are.

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: 96507	Re: In defence of Gay Marriage Reply #236 - Aug 25^th, 2015 at 5:33pm The old boy can't accept that he's wrong, Mother. He believes in intelligence and integrity. No one has the right to not be offended.
Back to top	IP Logged

mothra Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 35578 Gender:	Re: In defence of Gay Marriage Reply #237 - Aug 25^th, 2015 at 5:33pm Karnal wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 5:26pm: You'd better stop offending him, Mother. You're not supposed to do that with the old boy. There certainly appear to be some hurt feelings in this thread. I'd be amused were i not so concerned.
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 #238 - Aug 25^th, 2015 at 5:33pm

mothra wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 5:18pm:

I posted more than one link Maria. Didn't you read the other? It was from a science journal. Not good enough for you?

Would you like some more links to ignore? Plenty out there.

You haven't posted any links that show that gay 'marriage' has a long history of acceptance and social recognition - because it is doesn't. For example, the African weddings of widows by their aunts, an exampl;e one of your links trotted out, was not a sexual relationship but one for the protection of the widow and her children.

Gay 'marriage' is an idea that is about 20 years old. Before that, any gay 'marriage' was enacted as a mockery of marriage. Do remember that 'gay' itself is a very recent invention, no older than about a hundred years.
The idea of gay 'marriage' comes up with the Pill - sex and its fundamental biological function were finally separated. Sex could become a lifestyle and its re-generative function could be separated out. Sex became just f***g for the sake of it. Which is what gays do, no regard - no possible regard - for regeneration.

Two NZ friends got married recently. Gays are horrified: the two blokes are best mates and they are both heterosexual. Gays are angry with them for not f***g each other!!! How debased and stupid - and how revealing about the gay bigots' agenda.

"Otago University Students' Association Queer Support co-ordinator Neill Ballantyne, of Dunedin, said the wedding was an"insult" because marriage equality was a"hard fought" battle for gay people.

"Something like this trivialises what we fought for." The competition promoted the marriage of two men as something negative,"as something outrageous that you'd never consider", Mr Ballantyne said."

Gays can trivialise marriage. Anyone trivialising gay 'marriage', on the other hand, should beware of the fury of offended homosexual bigots. Two blokes getting married without any intention to bugger each other is an 'insult' to gay 'marriage'. Here's proof that homosexual sex is now compulsory, lest you want to 'insult' homosexuals.

Back to top

IP Logged

mothra

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 35578
Gender: female

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #239 - Aug 25^th, 2015 at 5:37pm

Soren wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 5:33pm:

mothra wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 5:18pm:

I posted more than one link Maria. Didn't you read the other? It was from a science journal. Not good enough for you?

Would you like some more links to ignore? Plenty out there.

You haven't posted any links that show that gay 'marriage' has a long history of acceptance and social recognition - because it is doesn't. For example, the African weddings of widows by their aunts, an exampl;e one of your links trotted out, was not a sexual relationship but one for the protection of the widow and her children.

Gay 'marriage' is an idea that is about 20 years old. Before that, any gay 'marriage' was enacted as a mockery of marriage. Do remember that 'gay' itself is a very recent invention, no older than about a hundred years.
The idea of gay 'marriage' comes up with the Pill - sex and its fundamental biological function were finally separated. Sex could become a lifestyle and its re-generative function could be separated out. Sex became just f***g for the sake of it. Which is what gays do, no regard - no possible regard - for regeneration.

Two NZ friends got married recently. Gays are horrified: the two blokes are best mates and they are both heterosexual. Gays are angry with them for not f***g each other!!! How debased and stupid - and how revealing about the gay bigots' agenda.

"Otago University Students' Association Queer Support co-ordinator Neill Ballantyne, of Dunedin, said the wedding was an"insult" because marriage equality was a"hard fought" battle for gay people.

"Something like this trivialises what we fought for." The competition promoted the marriage of two men as something negative,"as something outrageous that you'd never consider", Mr Ballantyne said."

Gays can trivialise marriage. Anyone trivialising gay 'marriage', on the other hand, should beware of the fury of offended homosexual bigots.

I've posted four links now that prove you wrong.

Would you like to take some time to read the last 2? I know you Haven't had time to read the last 2 yet. They don't say much different to the first 2 but they aren't wikipedia. I thought you might like them.

Same sex marriage existed across the world in history and is coming to a neighbourhood near you very soon.

You are really 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