Australian Politics Forum - In defence of Gay Marriage

mothra

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 35601
Gender: female

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #360 - Aug 28^th, 2015 at 2:56am

rabbitoh08 wrote on Aug 28^th, 2015 at 2:19am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 16^th, 2015 at 6:24pm:

Phemanderac wrote on Jul 16^th, 2015 at 6:11pm:

That was a good read. There are aspects to it that I would debate further, time permitting, which for me it isn't presently.

Now, you say you wrote every word of it, yet, at the bottom of the piece there is, in bold the words "reprinted with permission"...

Reprinted with whose permission?

Also, I would respectfully suggest that whilst the piece articulates very well why Gay Marriage is inevitable - the piece does not specifically or passionately defend Gay Marriage, at best it says in lots of words, "Meh, it's gonna happen eventually, meh..."

So, yep, still a good and interesting read. Good work on that front. For my part though, I don't believe that you did the actual topic justice.

And, yes, whose permission?

thanks. 'reprinted by permission' is my new signature block, largely because it confuses the hell out of the simpletons. Your comment about passionately is probably reasonable. I was running out of space as it was already 1200+ words and so if I were publishing this elsewhere I would have edited the crap out of it and inserted some more passionate defence.

45mins was all I had.

Putting 'reprinted by permission' in you signature block doesn't excuse you from telling outright bald-faced lies. Remember that you told us that "NOAA, NASA, MET and BOM all agree that there has been a "pause in global warming".

That was just a complete and utter lie wasn't it. A quick look at the NASA website shows you are a liar, it says: Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal.
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Why do you think that anyone would take a proven liar like you seriously?

We need to ask Maria. She just claimed that the peer reviewed work of a Harvard graduate Professor working as a Professor of history at Yale was 'largely discredited' despite evidence to the contrary.

Maria claimed this because the Professor in question was gay and a gay person has previously submitted a discredited article so all work submitted by gay people is 'widely discredited'.

She just makes it all up as she goes along. She's that good.

Maria says she isn't Longy though. She would never lie about that, would she?

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 #361 - Aug 28^th, 2015 at 9:03am

mothra wrote on Aug 28^th, 2015 at 2:56am:

rabbitoh08 wrote on Aug 28^th, 2015 at 2:19am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 16^th, 2015 at 6:24pm:

Phemanderac wrote on Jul 16^th, 2015 at 6:11pm:

That was a good read. There are aspects to it that I would debate further, time permitting, which for me it isn't presently.

Now, you say you wrote every word of it, yet, at the bottom of the piece there is, in bold the words "reprinted with permission"...

Reprinted with whose permission?

Also, I would respectfully suggest that whilst the piece articulates very well why Gay Marriage is inevitable - the piece does not specifically or passionately defend Gay Marriage, at best it says in lots of words, "Meh, it's gonna happen eventually, meh..."

So, yep, still a good and interesting read. Good work on that front. For my part though, I don't believe that you did the actual topic justice.

And, yes, whose permission?

thanks. 'reprinted by permission' is my new signature block, largely because it confuses the hell out of the simpletons. Your comment about passionately is probably reasonable. I was running out of space as it was already 1200+ words and so if I were publishing this elsewhere I would have edited the crap out of it and inserted some more passionate defence.

45mins was all I had.

Putting 'reprinted by permission' in you signature block doesn't excuse you from telling outright bald-faced lies. Remember that you told us that "NOAA, NASA, MET and BOM all agree that there has been a "pause in global warming".

That was just a complete and utter lie wasn't it. A quick look at the NASA website shows you are a liar, it says: Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal.
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Why do you think that anyone would take a proven liar like you seriously?

We need to ask Maria. She just claimed that the peer reviewed work of a Harvard graduate Professor working as a Professor of history at Yale was 'largely discredited' despite evidence to the contrary.

Maria claimed this because the Professor in question was gay and a gay person has previously submitted a discredited article so all work submitted by gay people is 'widely discredited'.

She just makes it all up as she goes along. She's that good.

Maria says she isn't Longy though. She would never lie about that, would she?

Well that was an interesting interpretation of what I said. Like most people on the failing side of an argument you grasp at straws. All I asked you to do was to consider why precisely ONE person in the entire academic world managed to find this 'evidence' of gay marriage in the past and no one else has. And yes, the fact that he was a gay activist who only wrote pro-gay material is a relevant point. And even the article you quote mentioned that it was highly controversial and often criticised, which was what I said.

There has never been any significant examples of gay marriage in history as the USA Supreme Court also found. I know you don't like that because it doesn't tick the boxes you want ticked, but it remains true just the same.

Back to top

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 96862

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #362 - Aug 28^th, 2015 at 2:05pm

mariacostel wrote on Aug 28^th, 2015 at 9:03am:

There has never been any significant examples of gay marriage in history as the USA Supreme Court also found. I know you don't like that because it doesn't tick the boxes you want ticked, but it remains true just the same.

Oh look - Maria's back to her earlier position: there is no other evidence of gay marriage - apart from that meddlesome gay professor.

Maria's changed the "zero evidence" idea. Now she's choosing to ignore all the other references to gay marriage Mother has provided.

And yes, Maria is also choosing to ignore the gay professor's historical sources, all of which give evidence of plenty of gay marriages over the years, and yes, plenty of legal gay marriages.

Maria is now desperately hoping no one follows her arguments. When you do, of course, Maria accuses you of not understanding them.

It might be better if you returned to the troll posts, Maria. You're safe with them. Your US Supreme Court suggestion hasn't picked up much traction either.

You're a negotiator. Stick to calling your debating partners vermin, and highlight your excellent negotiating skills. That should do it.

Back to top

IP Logged

... Gold Member Offline Posts: 23673 WA Gender:	Re: In defence of Gay Marriage Reply #363 - Aug 28^th, 2015 at 2:10pm Karnal wrote on Aug 28^th, 2015 at 2:05pm: all of which give evidence of plenty of gay marriages over the years, and yes, plenty of legal gay marriages. Anything and everything is legal if you're the emperor of rome. Yes, even castrating and raping little boys.
Back to top	In the fullness of time... IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 140073
Gender: male

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #364 - Aug 28^th, 2015 at 2:15pm

... wrote on Aug 28^th, 2015 at 2:10pm:

Karnal wrote on Aug 28^th, 2015 at 2:05pm:

all of which give evidence of plenty of gay marriages over the years, and yes, plenty of legal gay marriages.

Anything and everything is legal if you're the emperor of rome. Yes, even castrating and raping little boys.

What a strange comment.

It reminds me of that classic from Longy. Or was it Armpit? One of those clowns.

Anyway, it went something like:

"Of course he broke the law, it just hadn't been written yet".

Back to top

IP Logged

...

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 23673
WA
Gender: male

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #365 - Aug 28^th, 2015 at 2:21pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 28^th, 2015 at 2:15pm:

... wrote on Aug 28^th, 2015 at 2:10pm:

Karnal wrote on Aug 28^th, 2015 at 2:05pm:

all of which give evidence of plenty of gay marriages over the years, and yes, plenty of legal gay marriages.

Anything and everything is legal if you're the emperor of rome. Yes, even castrating and raping little boys.

What a strange comment.

It reminds me of that classic from Longy. Or was it Armpit? One of those clowns.

Anyway, it went something like:

"Of course he broke the law, it just hadn't been written yet".

That was the "precedent" the revisionists are (inexplicably) trying to establish - Crazy emperor nero castrating a young boy and "marrying" him, because he reminded him of his dead wife. There was some other roman emperor they mentioned too.

The thing I find starnge about it is why anyone would be keen to use such abhorrent practice as justification for soemthing today.

Back to top

In the fullness of time...

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 96862

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #366 - Aug 28^th, 2015 at 2:59pm

... wrote on Aug 28^th, 2015 at 2:10pm:

Karnal wrote on Aug 28^th, 2015 at 2:05pm:

all of which give evidence of plenty of gay marriages over the years, and yes, plenty of legal gay marriages.

Anything and everything is legal if you're the emperor of rome. Yes, even castrating and raping little boys.

There were plenty of other gay marriages in Rome, Honky. I'm making the assumption they were legal, but who knows?

Maybe someone can prove this wrong.

Back to top

IP Logged

Johnsmith

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 4716
Gender: male

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #367 - Aug 28^th, 2015 at 3:02pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 28^th, 2015 at 2:15pm:

... wrote on Aug 28^th, 2015 at 2:10pm:

Karnal wrote on Aug 28^th, 2015 at 2:05pm:

all of which give evidence of plenty of gay marriages over the years, and yes, plenty of legal gay marriages.

Anything and everything is legal if you're the emperor of rome. Yes, even castrating and raping little boys.

What a strange comment.

It reminds me of that classic from Longy. Or was it Armpit? One of those clowns.

Anyway, it went something like:

"Of course he broke the law, it just hadn't been written yet".

that ripper was armpit ...

Grin

it's still funny months later

Back to top

When politicians offer you something for nothing, or something that sounds too good to be true, it's always worth taking a careful second look.
(Malcolm Turncoat)

IP Logged

...

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 23673
WA
Gender: male

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #368 - Aug 28^th, 2015 at 3:06pm

Karnal wrote on Aug 28^th, 2015 at 2:59pm:

... wrote on Aug 28^th, 2015 at 2:10pm:

Karnal wrote on Aug 28^th, 2015 at 2:05pm:

all of which give evidence of plenty of gay marriages over the years, and yes, plenty of legal gay marriages.

Anything and everything is legal if you're the emperor of rome. Yes, even castrating and raping little boys.

There were plenty of other gay marriages in Rome, Honky. I'm making the assumption they were legal, but who knows?

Maybe someone can prove this wrong.

Lets turn to one of mothras hastily-googled links for guidance:

Quote:

it doesn't appear that same-sex marriage was widespread in ancient Rome.

"In other words, it was a thought people had," Abbott said. "But there were very few people who were actually able to do it."

Well, well.

Back to top

In the fullness of time...

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 96862

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #369 - Aug 28^th, 2015 at 3:09pm

... wrote on Aug 28^th, 2015 at 2:21pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 28^th, 2015 at 2:15pm:

... wrote on Aug 28^th, 2015 at 2:10pm:

Karnal wrote on Aug 28^th, 2015 at 2:05pm:

all of which give evidence of plenty of gay marriages over the years, and yes, plenty of legal gay marriages.

Anything and everything is legal if you're the emperor of rome. Yes, even castrating and raping little boys.

What a strange comment.

It reminds me of that classic from Longy. Or was it Armpit? One of those clowns.

Anyway, it went something like:

"Of course he broke the law, it just hadn't been written yet".

That was the "precedent" the revisionists are (inexplicably) trying to establish - Crazy emperor nero castrating a young boy and "marrying" him, because he reminded him of his dead wife. There was some other roman emperor they mentioned too.

The thing I find starnge about it is why anyone would be keen to use such abhorrent practice as justification for soemthing today.

Who's using this as a justification for gay marriage? I thought this was a discussion on history. Again, Nero was not the only Roman citizen/ruler to have a gay marriage. And Rome was not the only society to perform gay marriages.

The lack of precedence is only one reason for my sentiments against gay marriage - why bother? No one's bothered with such a unnecessary practice before.

Looks like they have, but it hardly changes my views on the meaninglessness of gay marriage.

Back to top

IP Logged

...

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 23673
WA
Gender: male

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #370 - Aug 28^th, 2015 at 3:13pm

Karnal wrote on Aug 28^th, 2015 at 3:09pm:

Nero was not the only Roman citizen/ruler to have a gay marriage.

Correct. There was also that other crazy emperor Elagabalus, who reigned from age 14 - 18. Let us see how history views him:

Quote:

Elagabalus developed a reputation among his contemporaries for extreme eccentricity, decadence and zealotry.[5] This tradition has persisted, and in writers of the early modern age he suffers one of the worst reputations among Roman emperors. Edward Gibbon, for example, wrote that Elagabalus "abandoned himself to the grossest pleasures and ungoverned fury."[6] According to B.G. Niebuhr, "The name Elagabalus is branded in history above all others" because of his "unspeakably disgusting life."[7]

Interesting.

Back to top

In the fullness of time...

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 96862

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #371 - Aug 28^th, 2015 at 3:15pm

... wrote on Aug 28^th, 2015 at 3:06pm:

"there were very few people who were actually able to do it."

Yes, and Mother has provided proof of this historical precedent. Rome certainly had marriage laws. They had laws for almost everything. The Roman republic was one of the most judicial societies we've ever seen.

The fact that a few people were able to do it is the point here. Personally, I don't think this advances the gay marriage cause one iota, it's just an historical fact.

Back to top

IP Logged

... Gold Member Offline Posts: 23673 WA Gender:	Re: In defence of Gay Marriage Reply #372 - Aug 28^th, 2015 at 3:18pm Karnal wrote on Aug 28^th, 2015 at 3:15pm: The fact that a few people were able to do it is the point here. yeah, but who's going to tell the emperor what he's doing is stupid? Someone who isn't long for this earth....which is how elagablus himself turned out. Assassinated at 18, basically for being a jerk.
Back to top	In the fullness of time... IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 96862

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #373 - Aug 28^th, 2015 at 3:26pm

... wrote on Aug 28^th, 2015 at 3:13pm:

Karnal wrote on Aug 28^th, 2015 at 3:09pm:

Nero was not the only Roman citizen/ruler to have a gay marriage.

Correct. There was also that other crazy emperor Elagabalus, who reigned from age 14 - 18. Let us see how history views him:

Quote:

Elagabalus developed a reputation among his contemporaries for extreme eccentricity, decadence and zealotry.[5] This tradition has persisted, and in writers of the early modern age he suffers one of the worst reputations among Roman emperors. Edward Gibbon, for example, wrote that Elagabalus "abandoned himself to the grossest pleasures and ungoverned fury."[6] According to B.G. Niebuhr, "The name Elagabalus is branded in history above all others" because of his "unspeakably disgusting life."[7]

Interesting.

Gibbon's argument on Rome is that such debauchery caused the decline and fall of the Roman empire - a very Victorian argument.

Plenty of historians dispute this thesis. The causes of Roman decline were largely economic, and related to the burden of administration necessary to run such a massive empire, but also the alliances of Rome's enemies - the barbarians at the gates. Rome never really fell, it just faded away.

All this aside, I'm sure no one here holds Elagabalus up as a model of virtue - or any Roman emperor for that matter. My point is that Gibbon used him as an example of "unspeakably disgusting" Roman mores - the sort of pagan debauchery Gibbon is arguing against in his rather unsubtle comparison of Rome to the Christian, red-blooded (and white) British empire.

That one never fell either. After all, great empires never die, they just fade into obscurity.

Back to top

IP Logged

mariacostel Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 7344 Sydney Gender:	Re: In defence of Gay Marriage Reply #374 - Aug 28^th, 2015 at 5:57pm And still... no proof of same-sex marriages having ever existed in any significant or even public form.
Back to top	IP Logged