mariacostel wrote on Aug 26^th, 2015 at 9:06am:


But it's not my argument Maria, it's yours.

mothra wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 5:30pm:

I don't think you have proven me wrong.

Your two articles are no proof - they are papers on homosexual practice. Nowhere do they prove, nor do you, that 'marriage' between homosexuals has been an accepted practice, viewed as no different from real marriage. That homosexual priests conducted such ceremonies in secret doesn't prove 'marriage equality' as an accepted let alone established practice.

Twenty-five years ago, American thinker Christopher Lasch argued that ‘progressive rhetoric has the effect of concealing social crisis and moral breakdown by presenting them as the birth pangs of a new order’. Bingo! There’s no better description of gay marriage. Here, too, progressive-sounding rhetoric is really the dolling-up of our atomised, risk-averse societies’ growing disdain for those deep relationships in which families and communities traditionally socialised the next generation, mostly away from the prying eyes of the state. This is why the gay-marriage campaign is so contradictorily illiberal, so hostile to dissent, and so attractive to petty-authoritarian politicians: because it isn’t about expanding liberty at all; it’s about unilaterally overhauling the moral outlook of the traditionalist sections of society and elevating the commitment-phobic, passion-lite, short-termist values of the chattering classes instead.
Aussie campaigners for the ‘Freedom to marry’ are actually lucky that the PM isn’t cheering their moral crusade. Because this means that when they finally win this illiberal liberty — which they unquestionably will — they’ll be able to present it as a great victory for civil libertarians who bravely took on The Man. When in truth, their victory will be built on the spilt blood of French protesters and the trampled-upon right to dissent of Americans and Britons and the transformation of gay marriage by Western political elites into a new orthodoxy that you question at your peril.

Poor Mr Leyonhjelm — he thinks he’s striking a blow for liberty, when really he’s completing the final act in a pink-tinged tyranny kickstarted by the new authoritarians of the modern West.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/australia/australia-features/9390702/gay-marriage-and...

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 17^th, 2015 at 9:00am:


I'm a bit late here and Longy seems to have run off now...

But seriously Longy???

What argument have you made? The objective of this little exercise (I thought) - was to take a topic you believe in and develop your own argument against it. You know, to demonstrate that you have the skill of developing a convincing argument - even against a position you hold dearly. But what did you do? Your entire "argument" consists of taking the argument of a certain Professor Storling and quoting it verbatim. You have offered no argument of your own.

What a copout!!

Soren wrote on Aug 26^th, 2015 at 1:09pm:


Of course it is. Those conducting those marriages came from the church and the state.

Now stop repeating yourself and prove your argument that there is no precedent for gay marriage.

Remember, before Mother posted actual proof, I believed you. I’ve had to change my mind, based on the facts.

As have you. This is why you keep changing direction. If you can’t refute Mother’s proof, you need to own your mistake, expressed so vigorously in previous posts.

This is what you always do when proven wrong, no?

Quantum wrote on Aug 26^th, 2015 at 2:38pm:


Ah. Guess who hasn't been doing their reading?

Yes, before I read Mother's sources, I thought just like you. Then I saw evidence of Roman senators and magistrates and emperors having jolly old gay marriages. I saw evidence of Christian Orthodox gay marriage ceremonies, complete with kissing the bride (along with the Bible). I saw evidence of other societies and civilizations, all marrying off their sons - to each other.

Dirty, disgusting, deviant? Certainly. But do you know? The evidence Mother has uncovered is that it all happened, and no one here is contesting it.

If you disagree, I suggest you read Mother's sources, dear. If you still disagree, give us a reference as equally compelling and persuasive as Mother's professor of history at Yale.

The best Maria came up with is that the professor was a dirty old poof - good research on Maria's behalf, but not that good.

Karnal wrote on Aug 26^th, 2015 at 3:15pm:


Almost all of the sources are themselves lacking sources, and the ones that do quote from some spend too much time quoting the same sources over and over again. It is amazing how something which is apparently so wide spread has only been uncovered by a handful of people.

Also of note is the constant us of words like "some evidence" or "suggest" as opposed to any real fact. But what really takes the cake is examples like;

"Emperor Nero (ruled A.D. 54 to A.D. 68) castrated a boy named Sporus to make him womanlike, and then married him in a traditional ceremony, which included a bridal veil and a dowry"

along with fancy word contractions like; "transgenerational same-sex unions", which is basically code for pedo's. Should we now conclude because a few Catholic priests have fiddled with some boys that the Catholic church is in favour of same sex marriage today? Is the Gay Marriage precedent crew really wanting to use examples of sick twisted child mutilating paedophilia as examples of precedent for gay marriage today?    

Quantum wrote on Aug 26^th, 2015 at 4:02pm:


You introduce the point that if Gay Marriage were so common and so acceptable in the past, where is the evidence? To date the evidence is actually nil. There are, as you say, comments such as 'suggest' or 'make possible', but zero actual fact and the best Mothra can come up with are the highly disputed writings of a gay activist Professor who wrote almost exclusively and increasingly hysterically about gays and the church before his death of AIDS.

Some actual evidence would be nice.

There are conjoined twins in the USA that are effectively a two-headed girl. What is that precedence for? a race of two-headed people? And remember that there is proof-positive that they exist while zero that gay marriage did.