Australian Politics Forum - In defence of Gay Marriage

Mr Hammer

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 25212
Gender: male

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #645 - Jan 7^th, 2017 at 1:31pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 7^th, 2017 at 1:24pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Jan 7^th, 2017 at 1:17pm:

Gordon wrote on Jan 7^th, 2017 at 12:06pm:

Karnal wrote on Jan 7^th, 2017 at 11:51am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 7^th, 2017 at 11:33am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 7^th, 2017 at 10:39am:

Mr Hammer wrote on Jan 7^th, 2017 at 7:50am:

Why don't we petition for those behaviours to be legalised? Could it be we find them objectionable?

Normal people don't find homosexuality or gay marriage objectionable.

You are the abnormal one here, Homo.

Get used to it.

Where do you get off defining unilaterally what people should or should not find objectionable? People are not only entitled to their opinions, they are entitled to express them without a minor intelligence like you questioning their motives.

They're entitled to their opinions about their own rights, Longy. They are not entitled to define the rights of others.

This is a philosophy known as liberalism. Another philosophy, conservatism, holds that change should happen incrementally, if at all.

Mind you, a certain conservative Swedish professor argues that the time for gay marriage is now.

Who to believe? The conservatives or the liberals?

Here's the thing. It's perfectly fine to be disgusted by the thought of what homos do, but also to be perfectly happy for them to do it in the privacy of their own home, married, single or what ever, because it really doesn't effect you.

Gordon, in a democracy, the majority decides on the major policy changes by vote.

Gay marriage isn't a major policy change, though.

It requires a very minor change to the Marriage Act.

That's what our politicians are paid to do.

When gay marriage is legalised in the next few years, life will go on for the rest of us the same as it always has.

Your irrational fears are based on ignorance, and bigotry - nothing more.

Altering the definition of marriage is a major policy change. You're the bigot by not respecting what the majority wants. People believe marriage is between a man and a woman. Suck on it nazi.

Back to top

IP Logged

WN Full Member Offline The 14 words Posts: 153 Gender:	Re: In defence of Gay Marriage Reply #646 - Jan 7^th, 2017 at 1:32pm Australia wasn't want your pet freaks getting married so these "minor" changes to the marriage act haven't happened. And the fags are all mad about it too....delicious.
Back to top	IP Logged

greggerypeccary Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 140007 Gender:	Re: In defence of Gay Marriage Reply #647 - Jan 7^th, 2017 at 1:39pm WN wrote on Jan 7^th, 2017 at 1:32pm: Australia wasn't want ... Is that a tongue twister, or something? Speaking of tongue twisters, have you and Booby organised a date yet?
Back to top	IP Logged

greggerypeccary Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 140007 Gender:	Re: In defence of Gay Marriage Reply #648 - Jan 7^th, 2017 at 1:40pm Mr Hammer wrote on Jan 7^th, 2017 at 1:31pm: Altering the definition of marriage is a major policy change. No, it's not. Quite the opposite. Just ask John Howard.
Back to top	IP Logged

Mr Hammer

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 25212
Gender: male

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #649 - Jan 7^th, 2017 at 1:41pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 7^th, 2017 at 1:24pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Jan 7^th, 2017 at 1:17pm:

Gordon wrote on Jan 7^th, 2017 at 12:06pm:

Karnal wrote on Jan 7^th, 2017 at 11:51am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 7^th, 2017 at 11:33am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 7^th, 2017 at 10:39am:

Mr Hammer wrote on Jan 7^th, 2017 at 7:50am:

Why don't we petition for those behaviours to be legalised? Could it be we find them objectionable?

Normal people don't find homosexuality or gay marriage objectionable.

You are the abnormal one here, Homo.

Get used to it.

Where do you get off defining unilaterally what people should or should not find objectionable? People are not only entitled to their opinions, they are entitled to express them without a minor intelligence like you questioning their motives.

They're entitled to their opinions about their own rights, Longy. They are not entitled to define the rights of others.

This is a philosophy known as liberalism. Another philosophy, conservatism, holds that change should happen incrementally, if at all.

Mind you, a certain conservative Swedish professor argues that the time for gay marriage is now.

Who to believe? The conservatives or the liberals?

Here's the thing. It's perfectly fine to be disgusted by the thought of what homos do, but also to be perfectly happy for them to do it in the privacy of their own home, married, single or what ever, because it really doesn't effect you.

Gordon, in a democracy, the majority decides on the major policy changes by vote.

Gay marriage isn't a major policy change, though.

It requires a very minor change to the Marriage Act.

That's what our politicians are paid to do.

When gay marriage is legalised in the next few years, life will go on for the rest of us the same as it always has.

Your irrational fears are based on ignorance, and bigotry - nothing more.

At least 40% of the population of a largely Christian country believe it's a major policy change; that's why the party that was on trac to won the election promised a plebiscite. What you mean is that it's not a major policy change for you. BTW, Forehead only promised direct action in the shadow of the post when he realised he's party was about to have it's a.r.s.e handed to it-otherwise a congo line of Labor leaders have also been against gay marriage.

Back to top

IP Logged

WN Full Member Offline The 14 words Posts: 153 Gender:	Re: In defence of Gay Marriage Reply #650 - Jan 7^th, 2017 at 1:42pm Might be waiting a while for that stroke of the pen greggy. Fairies so mad. Why are you still here by the way?
Back to top	IP Logged

greggerypeccary Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 140007 Gender:	Re: In defence of Gay Marriage Reply #651 - Jan 7^th, 2017 at 1:43pm WN wrote on Jan 7^th, 2017 at 1:42pm: Why are you still here by the way? I want to make sure things go well with you and Sir Booby. Has he sent you a PM yet?
Back to top	IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 140007
Gender: male

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #652 - Jan 7^th, 2017 at 1:44pm

Mr Hammer wrote on Jan 7^th, 2017 at 1:41pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 7^th, 2017 at 1:24pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Jan 7^th, 2017 at 1:17pm:

Gordon wrote on Jan 7^th, 2017 at 12:06pm:

Karnal wrote on Jan 7^th, 2017 at 11:51am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 7^th, 2017 at 11:33am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 7^th, 2017 at 10:39am:

Mr Hammer wrote on Jan 7^th, 2017 at 7:50am:

Why don't we petition for those behaviours to be legalised? Could it be we find them objectionable?

Normal people don't find homosexuality or gay marriage objectionable.

You are the abnormal one here, Homo.

Get used to it.

Where do you get off defining unilaterally what people should or should not find objectionable? People are not only entitled to their opinions, they are entitled to express them without a minor intelligence like you questioning their motives.

They're entitled to their opinions about their own rights, Longy. They are not entitled to define the rights of others.

This is a philosophy known as liberalism. Another philosophy, conservatism, holds that change should happen incrementally, if at all.

Mind you, a certain conservative Swedish professor argues that the time for gay marriage is now.

Who to believe? The conservatives or the liberals?

Here's the thing. It's perfectly fine to be disgusted by the thought of what homos do, but also to be perfectly happy for them to do it in the privacy of their own home, married, single or what ever, because it really doesn't effect you.

Gordon, in a democracy, the majority decides on the major policy changes by vote.

Gay marriage isn't a major policy change, though.

It requires a very minor change to the Marriage Act.

That's what our politicians are paid to do.

When gay marriage is legalised in the next few years, life will go on for the rest of us the same as it always has.

Your irrational fears are based on ignorance, and bigotry - nothing more.

At least 40% of the population of a largely Christian country believe it's a major policy change ...

40% isn't a majority, Homo.

Sorry - you lose.

Back to top

IP Logged

WN Full Member Offline The 14 words Posts: 153 Gender:	Re: In defence of Gay Marriage Reply #653 - Jan 7^th, 2017 at 1:47pm So greggy welched on his bet? Lefties generally are dishonest people unfortunately.
Back to top	IP Logged

greggerypeccary Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 140007 Gender:	Re: In defence of Gay Marriage Reply #654 - Jan 7^th, 2017 at 1:49pm WN wrote on Jan 7^th, 2017 at 1:47pm: So greggy welched on his bet? Not at all. Which bet are you talking about?
Back to top	IP Logged

WN Full Member Offline The 14 words Posts: 153 Gender:	Re: In defence of Gay Marriage Reply #655 - Jan 7^th, 2017 at 1:51pm The one where you promised to leave the forum if Trump won. Guess what? Trump won and you can practically smell the fear from the lefties.....and boy does it smell good.
Back to top	IP Logged

Mr Hammer Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 25212 Gender:	Re: In defence of Gay Marriage Reply #656 - Jan 7^th, 2017 at 1:53pm WN wrote on Jan 7^th, 2017 at 1:47pm: So greggy welched on his bet? Lefties generally are dishonest people unfortunately. Yep. His word is mud.
Back to top	IP Logged

Gordon Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 20816 Gordon Gender:	Re: In defence of Gay Marriage Reply #657 - Jan 7^th, 2017 at 1:54pm WN wrote on Jan 7^th, 2017 at 1:47pm: So greggy welched on his bet? Lefties generally are dishonest people unfortunately. And he belched on his wet.
Back to top	IBI IP Logged

Sprintcyclist Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 40780 Gender:	Re: In defence of Gay Marriage Reply #658 - Jan 7^th, 2017 at 1:55pm WN wrote on Jan 7^th, 2017 at 1:47pm: So greggy welched on his bet? Lefties generally are dishonest people unfortunately. he repeatedly promised to leave if trump won. it was not a bet, a statement made so many times it was droll.
Back to top	Modern Classic Right Wing IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 140007
Gender: male

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #659 - Jan 7^th, 2017 at 1:56pm

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jan 7^th, 2017 at 1:55pm:

WN wrote on Jan 7^th, 2017 at 1:47pm:

So greggy welched on his bet? Lefties generally are dishonest people unfortunately. Sad

he repeatedly promised to leave if trump won.
it was not a bet, a statement made so many times it was droll.

That's 100% correct.

And, I intend to leave, just as I promised.

Not sure why you guys are so confused about this.

Back to top

IP Logged