Australian Politics Forum - In defence of Gay Marriage

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 139402
Gender: male

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #240 - Aug 25^th, 2015 at 5:42pm

mothra wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 5:37pm:

Same sex marriage ... is coming to a neighbourhood near you very soon.

And it positively scares him to death.

However, when asked how he thinks it will adversely affect him or anyone else, he never has an answer.

His whole argument is "I don't like it, so there".

Sore End is going to wake up on that morning after gay marriage becomes legal in Australia and wonder what all the fuss was about.

Back to top

IP Logged

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #241 - Aug 25^th, 2015 at 5:42pm

Mothra, do you understand the difference between homosexual relationships and actual marriage? Several here have tried without success to get you to understand this rather important difference. All of the articles you have produced talk about homosexual actions and unions. We have all that now and so for centuries (legal or otherwise). But gay marriage is a very different concept and not one that has any historical precedence at all.

The reason you are so demonstrably at odds with the USA Supreme Court's assessment is that they are bright enough to know the difference between a gay couple and a MARRIED gay couple.

Do you see the distinction people are making?

Back to top

IP Logged

... Gold Member Offline Posts: 23673 WA Gender:	Re: In defence of Gay Marriage Reply #242 - Aug 25^th, 2015 at 5:49pm She understands very little, except how to make noise.
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 #243 - Aug 25^th, 2015 at 5:50pm

mariacostel wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 5:42pm:

Mothra, do you understand the difference between homosexual relationships and actual marriage? Several here have tried without success to get you to understand this rather important difference. All of the articles you have produced talk about homosexual actions and unions. We have all that now and so for centuries (legal or otherwise). But gay marriage is a very different concept and not one that has any historical precedence at all.

The reason you are so demonstrably at odds with the USA Supreme Court's assessment is that they are bright enough to know the difference between a gay couple and a MARRIED gay couple.

Do you see the distinction people are making?

Did you read the links Maria? It's all explained in there. Formalised same sex unions with ceremonies and legal rights and all the trimming.Why do you continue to deny this even with the wealth of evidence presented to you?

Would you like a link to a formalised religious union ceremony transcript? I will give you one if you like.

That's how easy the information you are trying to deny is to access.

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 #244 - Aug 25^th, 2015 at 5:53pm ... wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 5:49pm: She understands very little, except how to make noise. Really ruffled your feathers, didn't i Honky? Which time that i handed you your arse was it that has you so bummed? Can''t be this time. You came in with you sand in your pants.
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 #245 - Aug 25^th, 2015 at 5:55pm Here Maria. I'll give it to you even though i know you won't bother looking at it. http://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/source/2rites.asp
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 #246 - Aug 25^th, 2015 at 5:59pm

mothra wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 5:50pm:

mariacostel wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 5:42pm:

Mothra, do you understand the difference between homosexual relationships and actual marriage? Several here have tried without success to get you to understand this rather important difference. All of the articles you have produced talk about homosexual actions and unions. We have all that now and so for centuries (legal or otherwise). But gay marriage is a very different concept and not one that has any historical precedence at all.

The reason you are so demonstrably at odds with the USA Supreme Court's assessment is that they are bright enough to know the difference between a gay couple and a MARRIED gay couple.

Do you see the distinction people are making?

Did you read the links Maria? It's all explained in there. Formalised same sex unions with ceremonies and legal rights and all the trimming.Why do you continue to deny this even with the wealth of evidence presented to you?

Would you like a link to a formalised religious union ceremony transcript? I will give you one if you like.

That's how easy the information you are trying to deny is to access.

Once again, you are referring to an infinitesimally small sample of supposed (and largely inferred) gay marriages. the vast majority of the rest of them are simply homosexual unions. You are also one that claimed gay marriages existed in Europe up until the 18th century. Garbage!

Multiple people have asked you the same question (which you have declined to answer): Why does precedence mean so much to you? Why are you fighting such an emotive argument for a precedence that simply doesn't matter. AS I have said many times, I support gay marriage, but you want to make out that it is something that has always been so despite the enormous evidence that id hasnt. So again, WHY?

Back to top

IP Logged

mothra

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 35578
Gender: female

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #247 - Aug 25^th, 2015 at 6:00pm

mariacostel wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 5:59pm:

mothra wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 5:50pm:

mariacostel wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 5:42pm:

Mothra, do you understand the difference between homosexual relationships and actual marriage? Several here have tried without success to get you to understand this rather important difference. All of the articles you have produced talk about homosexual actions and unions. We have all that now and so for centuries (legal or otherwise). But gay marriage is a very different concept and not one that has any historical precedence at all.

The reason you are so demonstrably at odds with the USA Supreme Court's assessment is that they are bright enough to know the difference between a gay couple and a MARRIED gay couple.

Do you see the distinction people are making?

Did you read the links Maria? It's all explained in there. Formalised same sex unions with ceremonies and legal rights and all the trimming.Why do you continue to deny this even with the wealth of evidence presented to you?

Would you like a link to a formalised religious union ceremony transcript? I will give you one if you like.

That's how easy the information you are trying to deny is to access.

Once again, you are referring to an infinitesimally small sample of supposed (and largely inferred) gay marriages. the vast majority of the rest of them are simply homosexual unions. You are also one that claimed gay marriages existed in Europe up until the 18th century. Garbage!

Multiple people have asked you the same question (which you have declined to answer): Why does precedence mean so much to you? Why are you fighting such an emotive argument for a precedence that simply doesn't matter. AS I have said many times, I support gay marriage, but you want to make out that it is something that has always been so despite the enormous evidence that id hasnt. So again, WHY?

Read the link Maria. Stop embarrassing yourself.

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 #248 - Aug 25^th, 2015 at 6:01pm And 2 people ave asked me about precedence. I have answered both of them.
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:	Re: In defence of Gay Marriage Reply #249 - Aug 25^th, 2015 at 6:02pm mothra wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 5:55pm: Here Maria. I'll give it to you even though i know you won't bother looking at it. http://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/source/2rites.asp You should perhaps have read that article word-by-word. It's not actually what you think it is.
Back to top	IP Logged

mothra

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 35578
Gender: female

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #250 - Aug 25^th, 2015 at 6:03pm

mariacostel wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 6:02pm:

mothra wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 5:55pm:

Here Maria. I'll give it to you even though i know you won't bother looking at it.

http://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/source/2rites.asp

You should perhaps have read that article word-by-word. It's not actually what you think it is.

I've read it Maria ... but you clearly can not have in this time.

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:	Re: In defence of Gay Marriage Reply #251 - Aug 25^th, 2015 at 6:03pm mothra wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 6:01pm: And 2 people ave asked me about precedence. I have answered both of them. Then it should be easy to answer me. Remember, I asked WHY.
Back to top	IP Logged

mothra

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 35578
Gender: female

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #252 - Aug 25^th, 2015 at 6:04pm

mariacostel wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 6:03pm:

mothra wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 6:01pm:

And 2 people ave asked me about precedence.

I have answered both of them.

Then it should be easy to answer me. Remember, I asked WHY.

You were one of them Maria. Perhaps you missed my reply to you? I suggest you go back and look for it.

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 #253 - Aug 25^th, 2015 at 6:05pm

mothra wrote on 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.

Yes, but you’re not allowed to vilify the old boy by posting all those articles, Mother. That’s bigotry. He does have rights, you know.

Better stick to vilifying the deviants.

Back to top

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 96507

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #254 - Aug 25^th, 2015 at 6:07pm

mariacostel wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 5:42pm:

Mothra, do you understand the difference between homosexual relationships and actual marriage? Several here have tried without success to get you to understand this rather important difference. All of the articles you have produced talk about homosexual actions and unions. We have all that now and so for centuries (legal or otherwise). But gay marriage is a very different concept and not one that has any historical precedence at all.

Convincing, isn’t she?

Back to top

IP Logged