Australian Politics Forum - In defence of Gay Marriage

mothra

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 35578
Gender: female

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #255 - Aug 25^th, 2015 at 6:07pm

Karnal wrote on 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.

Patience, Karnal. We'll move on to vilifying them soon.

At the moment we're still denying their existence with Maria.

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 #256 - Aug 25^th, 2015 at 6:08pm

Karnal wrote on 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?

I wonder why precedence is so important to her?

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 #257 - Aug 25^th, 2015 at 6:09pm

mothra wrote on 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.

Did you see the reference to the word 'humankind'? Did that not raise any suspicions with you? Can you find much of a reference in any literature to that prior to around 1930s? The word 'mankind' was universal in use and easily understood to refer to both men and women and wasn't even challenged.

But I digress as that is not the point. Boswell is seeking to conflate homosexual marriage with a medieval tradition of bonding of two men in a NON-SEXUAL life-long relationship of the Holy Spirit. I find that most strange, but that is not the point. What it was not is gay marriage and I am not alone in that criticism.

Sop yes, I did read it and with and actual eye for detail.

Back to top

IP Logged

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #258 - Aug 25^th, 2015 at 6:11pm

mothra wrote on 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.

Not through 18 pages I'm not. But I would suggest that your alleged reply was not an actual answer to the question posed. Not picking on you exactly since getting a direct answer to a direct question is rarer than a unicorn, but it would be nice if you would answer it just the same.

Back to top

IP Logged

mothra

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 35578
Gender: female

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #259 - Aug 25^th, 2015 at 6:12pm

mariacostel wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 6:09pm:

mothra wrote on 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.

Did you see the reference to the word 'humankind'? Did that not raise any suspicions with you? Can you find much of a reference in any literature to that prior to around 1930s? The word 'mankind' was universal in use and easily understood to refer to both men and women and wasn't even challenged.

But I digress as that is not the point. Boswell is seeking to conflate homosexual marriage with a medieval tradition of bonding of two men in a NON-SEXUAL life-long relationship of the Holy Spirit. I find that most strange, but that is not the point. What it was not is gay marriage and I am not alone in that criticism.

Sop yes, I did read it and with and actual eye for detail.

Boswell is doing no such thing.

You are just desperately trying not to be wrong.

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 #260 - Aug 25^th, 2015 at 6:12pm

mothra wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 6:08pm:

Karnal wrote on 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?

I wonder why precedence is so important to her?

I’m not sure. She’s just finished explaining that there is no precedence - never ever.

Back to top

IP Logged

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #261 - Aug 25^th, 2015 at 6:13pm

mothra wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 6:08pm:

Karnal wrote on 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?

I wonder why precedence is so important to her?

Well since your debate plan is simply to be stupid and ignorant I will say goodbye and go do something more valuable. You clearly have little desire nor apparent ability to debate facts with any maturity.

Back to top

IP Logged

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #262 - Aug 25^th, 2015 at 6:14pm

mothra wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 6:12pm:

mariacostel wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 6:09pm:

mothra wrote on 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.

Did you see the reference to the word 'humankind'? Did that not raise any suspicions with you? Can you find much of a reference in any literature to that prior to around 1930s? The word 'mankind' was universal in use and easily understood to refer to both men and women and wasn't even challenged.

But I digress as that is not the point. Boswell is seeking to conflate homosexual marriage with a medieval tradition of bonding of two men in a NON-SEXUAL life-long relationship of the Holy Spirit. I find that most strange, but that is not the point. What it was not is gay marriage and I am not alone in that criticism.

Sop yes, I did read it and with and actual eye for detail.

Boswell is doing no such thing.

You are just desperately trying not to be wrong.

JUST READ IT and perhaps some other complementary articles. Then open both eyes.

Back to top

IP Logged

Aussie Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 38852 Gender:	Re: In defence of Gay Marriage Reply #263 - Aug 25^th, 2015 at 6:14pm Quote: Not picking on you exactly since getting a direct answer to a direct question is rarer than a unicorn, but it would be nice if you would answer it just the same. Here is a question. Where did you post the link to the public record where Toyota said it is shutting down because of Union activity?
Back to top	IP Logged

mothra

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 35578
Gender: female

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #264 - Aug 25^th, 2015 at 6:17pm

mariacostel wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 6:11pm:

mothra wrote on 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.

Not through 18 pages I'm not. But I would suggest that your alleged reply was not an actual answer to the question posed. Not picking on you exactly since getting a direct answer to a direct question is rarer than a unicorn, but it would be nice if you would answer it just the same.

Seems to be just as important to you as you claim it is to me? If we are taking it as evidence that the word has been mentioned in posts by the both of us?

The answer Longy Maria is only to counteract the denials from the likes of yourself and to stand by what research has taught me. It was initially stated that fomalised sex sex unions have NEVER occurred in history and than marriage has ALWAYS been between a man and a woman.

Do you remember saying such things Maria? I remember you saying them.

I proved you wrong. You are yet to accept it.

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 #265 - Aug 25^th, 2015 at 6:20pm

Quick note to Mothra. Take a look at Boswells career. He was a gay apologist and died of AIDS. His entire career was for pro-gay advocacy particularly in church.

You don't think that casts some doubt over his assertion especially since so many of his colleague refute his claims? One such funny claim is that the Catholic church was actually PRO-GAY up until the 12th century.

Back to top

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 96507

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #266 - Aug 25^th, 2015 at 6:21pm

mariacostel wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 6:13pm:

mothra wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 6:08pm:

Karnal wrote on 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?

I wonder why precedence is so important to her?

Well since your debate plan is simply to be stupid and ignorant I will say goodbye and go do something more valuable. You clearly have little desire nor apparent ability to debate facts with any maturity.

Where are your sources, Maria? You clearly have no desire nor apparent ability to debate referenced historical facts.

Not that there’s anything wrong with it. You support gay marriage anyway, you just question the importance of precedence.

Back to top

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 96507

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #267 - Aug 25^th, 2015 at 6:23pm

mariacostel wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 6:14pm:

mothra wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 6:12pm:

mariacostel wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 6:09pm:

mothra wrote on 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.

Did you see the reference to the word 'humankind'? Did that not raise any suspicions with you? Can you find much of a reference in any literature to that prior to around 1930s? The word 'mankind' was universal in use and easily understood to refer to both men and women and wasn't even challenged.

But I digress as that is not the point. Boswell is seeking to conflate homosexual marriage with a medieval tradition of bonding of two men in a NON-SEXUAL life-long relationship of the Holy Spirit. I find that most strange, but that is not the point. What it was not is gay marriage and I am not alone in that criticism.

Sop yes, I did read it and with and actual eye for detail.

Boswell is doing no such thing.

You are just desperately trying not to be wrong.

JUST READ IT and perhaps some other complementary articles. Then open both eyes.

I say, you now want us all to read Maria’s sources.

We do seem to be in a pickle, don’t we?

Back to top

IP Logged

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #268 - Aug 25^th, 2015 at 6:24pm

mothra wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 6:17pm:

mariacostel wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 6:11pm:

mothra wrote on 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.

Not through 18 pages I'm not. But I would suggest that your alleged reply was not an actual answer to the question posed. Not picking on you exactly since getting a direct answer to a direct question is rarer than a unicorn, but it would be nice if you would answer it just the same.

Seems to be just as important to you as you claim it is to me? If we are taking it as evidence that the word has been mentioned in posts by the both of us?

The answer Longy Maria is only to counteract the denials from the likes of yourself and to stand by what research has taught me. It was initially stated that fomalised sex sex unions have NEVER occurred in history and than marriage has ALWAYS been between a man and a woman.

Do you remember saying such things Maria? I remember you saying them.

I proved you wrong. You are yet to accept it.

I see your confusion now. The existence of four gay marriages in the entirety of history negates the use of the word 'never'. In a mathematical sense, you are absolutely correct but in the context of a discussion like this 4 out of 4 billion is still close enough to never as to still work.

And you have still not answered the question as to why precedence is so important to you.

BTW other works by Boswell:

Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality (1980) — winner of the National Book Award,[3][a] ISBN 978-0226067117
Rediscovering Gay History: Archetypes of Gay Love in Christian History (1982)
The Kindness of Strangers: The Abandonment of Children in Western Europe from Late Antiquity to the Renaissance (1989)
Homosexuality in the Priesthood and the Religious Life (1991) (co-author)
Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe (1994), Villard Books, ISBN 0-679-43228-0

Notice a trend?

Back to top

IP Logged

mothra

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 35578
Gender: female

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #269 - Aug 25^th, 2015 at 6:25pm

mariacostel wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 6:20pm:

Quick note to Mothra. Take a look at Boswells career. He was a gay apologist and died of AIDS. His entire career was for pro-gay advocacy particularly in church.

You don't think that casts some doubt over his assertion especially since so many of his colleague refute his claims? One such funny claim is that the Catholic church was actually PRO-GAY up until the 12th century.

Not in the slightest. He was a Harvard educated Professor. Worked at Yale. A highly respected historian.

Does it matter that he was gay? Is there a crime in dedicating a field of study to something you are passionate about?

Really Maria, trying to discredit him as a dirty old poof who died of AIDS is a terrible debating strategy.

Are you that desperate?

Back to top

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

IP Logged