Australian Politics Forum - In defence of Gay Marriage

Karnal Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 96333	Re: In defence of Gay Marriage Reply #75 - Jul 20^th, 2015 at 5:39pm longweekend58 wrote on Jul 20^th, 2015 at 5:33pm: Stopped crying yet Karnal? Now now, Longy, try to calm yourself. It’s not the end of the world. You’ll have other opportunities to cut and paste. Miam miam.
Back to top	IP Logged

Phemanderac

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3507
Gender: male

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #76 - Jul 20^th, 2015 at 5:46pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 17^th, 2015 at 11:39am:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Jul 17^th, 2015 at 10:39am:

See Profile For Update wrote on Jul 17^th, 2015 at 10:37am:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Jul 17^th, 2015 at 10:34am:

See Profile For Update wrote on Jul 17^th, 2015 at 10:33am:

there is no debate.

Thousand so of years prove that marriage is about honoring heterosexual unions because thanks to heterosexual unions we even exist and for this reason heterosexual unions are above any other unions of any other sexually retarded orientation.

love

Primary Factual Fundamentalist World Class Activist
David Jeffrey Spetch
Ps. Be good, be strong!
Hamilton Ontario Canada

That works on the false assumption, that marriage has been a static unchanging institution of society.

your obsessive compulsions to lie and deceive doesn't change the fact that thousands of years prove that marriage is about honoring the unity of the one sexual orientation to which we all owe our very existence and that sexual unity are quite obviously heterosexual unions.

love

Primary Factual Fundamentalist World Class Activist
David Jeffrey Spetch
Ps. Be good, be strong!
Hamilton Ontario Canada

Lol, just restating it doesnt make it true. The whole nuclear family thing is a recent invention. E.g in Victorian times and earlier, it was common to have a mistress whilst married ( you just couldnt let it get out).

that is a ludicrous statement of epic proportions. the nuclear family has been the core of society since the dawn of time. a mistress hardly changes that. and the statement that it was 'common' is also manifestly wrong.

Rubbish, it was about 1924 or so that the term was first used.

The very word Nuclear did not exist at the "dawn of time" - nor did the familial structural model it describes.

We (the species) survived and thrived with the extended family model since the dawn of time, the relatively recent adherence to the "nuclear family model" in its various forms broke down the extended family model. It also broke societal models which we are only just starting to reap the fruits of that.

Tell ya what, until we smash the unsustainable and disastrous Nuclear Family model we will ALWAYS have a significant need for welfare and support services, counselors, refuges and a range of crisis intervention services. Don't get me wrong, having some vestiges of these services around always would be smart - but most of their work these days was managed effectively in extended family set ups previously.

Sheesh.

Oh, and history does not evidence this marriage idea as being always between a man and a woman - nor is marriage even remotely important to the propagation, survival and thriving of the species. It's just a ceremony that we came up with. As such, we can actually make it anything we like it to be... Scary eh!

Shocked

Back to top

On the 26th of January you are all invited to celebrate little white penal day...

"They're not rules as such, more like guidelines" Pirates of the Caribbean..

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #77 - Jul 20^th, 2015 at 5:54pm

Phemanderac wrote on Jul 20^th, 2015 at 5:46pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 17^th, 2015 at 11:39am:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Jul 17^th, 2015 at 10:39am:

See Profile For Update wrote on Jul 17^th, 2015 at 10:37am:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Jul 17^th, 2015 at 10:34am:

See Profile For Update wrote on Jul 17^th, 2015 at 10:33am:

there is no debate.

Thousand so of years prove that marriage is about honoring heterosexual unions because thanks to heterosexual unions we even exist and for this reason heterosexual unions are above any other unions of any other sexually retarded orientation.

love

Primary Factual Fundamentalist World Class Activist
David Jeffrey Spetch
Ps. Be good, be strong!
Hamilton Ontario Canada

That works on the false assumption, that marriage has been a static unchanging institution of society.

your obsessive compulsions to lie and deceive doesn't change the fact that thousands of years prove that marriage is about honoring the unity of the one sexual orientation to which we all owe our very existence and that sexual unity are quite obviously heterosexual unions.

love

Primary Factual Fundamentalist World Class Activist
David Jeffrey Spetch
Ps. Be good, be strong!
Hamilton Ontario Canada

Lol, just restating it doesnt make it true. The whole nuclear family thing is a recent invention. E.g in Victorian times and earlier, it was common to have a mistress whilst married ( you just couldnt let it get out).

that is a ludicrous statement of epic proportions. the nuclear family has been the core of society since the dawn of time. a mistress hardly changes that. and the statement that it was 'common' is also manifestly wrong.

Rubbish, it was about 1924 or so that the term was first used.

The very word Nuclear did not exist at the "dawn of time" - nor did the familial structural model it describes.

We (the species) survived and thrived with the extended family model since the dawn of time, the relatively recent adherence to the "nuclear family model" in its various forms broke down the extended family model. It also broke societal models which we are only just starting to reap the fruits of that.

Tell ya what, until we smash the unsustainable and disastrous Nuclear Family model we will ALWAYS have a significant need for welfare and support services, counselors, refuges and a range of crisis intervention services. Don't get me wrong, having some vestiges of these services around always would be smart - but most of their work these days was managed effectively in extended family set ups previously.

Sheesh.

Oh, and history does not evidence this marriage idea as being always between a man and a woman - nor is marriage even remotely important to the propagation, survival and thriving of the species. It's just a ceremony that we came up with. As such, we can actually make it anything we like it to be... Scary eh!

Shocked

an interesting notion you propose. because the word and concept 'nuclear' did not exist in ancient times, the concept we now describe using this word didnt as well? It is astonishingly silly especially since the english language didnt exists either and so therefore, neither did the word 'family'. Or are you suggesting that 'families' didnt exists then either?

and the evidence is enormous that marriage has been always men and women. Finding an exception to the rule does not change its essential validity.

PS on another topic. Are u interested in setting up another writeing challenge since the pitiful girls who tried to beat me last time did so badly and are still throwing a tantrum?

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #78 - Jul 20^th, 2015 at 5:56pm

Karnal wrote on Jul 20^th, 2015 at 5:39pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 20^th, 2015 at 5:33pm:

Stopped crying yet Karnal?

Now now, Longy, try to calm yourself. It’s not the end of the world. You’ll have other opportunities to cut and paste.

Miam miam.

clearly I can out-write you at any time. And that tantrum you are expressing is based on embarrassment, envy and more than a little fear.

enjoy your defeat.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

Karnal Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 96333	Re: In defence of Gay Marriage Reply #79 - Jul 20^th, 2015 at 6:05pm Oh, we’ve all learned a valuable lesson, Longy. Thanks for that. It would be nice to see you be more gracious in defeat, but we can’t have everything.
Back to top	IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #80 - Jul 20^th, 2015 at 6:37pm

Karnal wrote on Jul 20^th, 2015 at 6:05pm:

Oh, we’ve all learned a valuable lesson, Longy. Thanks for that.

It would be nice to see you be more gracious in defeat, but we can’t have everything.

so why dont we make the net exercise on of writing a victory speech? I am sure you have a great deal of experience in them since you are so cleaerly poor t concession speeches.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 96333

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #81 - Jul 20^th, 2015 at 7:01pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 20^th, 2015 at 6:37pm:

Karnal wrote on Jul 20^th, 2015 at 6:05pm:

Oh, we’ve all learned a valuable lesson, Longy. Thanks for that.

It would be nice to see you be more gracious in defeat, but we can’t have everything.

so why dont we make the net exercise on of writing a victory speech? I am sure you have a great deal of experience in them since you are so cleaerly poor t concession speeches.

I don’t do victory speeches, Longy, but I’ve done a bit of high school English teaching. If I suspect plagurism and a student can’t prove they’ve written something in their own words, they get a zero. Sources and quotes must be clearly referenced. Schools are very tough on this these days, as they should be. I’ve never had a student not confess when I caught them out.

Back to top

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #82 - Jul 20^th, 2015 at 8:44pm

Karnal wrote on Jul 20^th, 2015 at 7:01pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 20^th, 2015 at 6:37pm:

Karnal wrote on Jul 20^th, 2015 at 6:05pm:

Oh, we’ve all learned a valuable lesson, Longy. Thanks for that.

It would be nice to see you be more gracious in defeat, but we can’t have everything.

so why dont we make the net exercise on of writing a victory speech? I am sure you have a great deal of experience in them since you are so cleaerly poor t concession speeches.

I don’t do victory speeches, Longy, but I’ve done a bit of high school English teaching. If I suspect plagurism and a student can’t prove they’ve written something in their own words, they get a zero. Sources and quotes must be clearly referenced. Schools are very tough on this these days, as they should be. I’ve never had a student not confess when I caught them out.

I find your story not very credible. If you suspect plagiarism then you need to have an actual justification for that. In my article your justification seems to be only that it was too good. That might work for a 14yo delivering the work of Hemingway or Macbeth but if you were marking a 30yo you might need to have an actual reason.

to date, your only reason for claiming plagiarism is that I was that good. So how about demonstrating some of that claimed ability and referencing and supporting your claims of plagiarism. I write fiction. I write good fiction and a good write can insert themselves into a complete different persona to write beleivable dialogue and action. A good English teacher (or even a bad one) would know that. Im not yet ready to call your claim of bing an english teacher fake just yet, but at best, you were a poor one if you mark down people because they are good. But on the other hand, your maths skills are right up there with an English Teacher.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 96333

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #83 - Jul 20^th, 2015 at 10:09pm

My justification for plagiarism, Longy, is that you didn’t write it. You know this, we all know it.

If you did write it, you could easily explain what purpose you wrote this pre-prepared piece for. You’ve already acknowledged the use of unreferenced sources. If you were keen to prove the piece’s authenticity, you would have done so rather than throwing pages of tantrums.

You won’t, and you can’t.

You’re done.

Back to top

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #84 - Jul 21^st, 2015 at 10:37am

Karnal wrote on Jul 20^th, 2015 at 10:09pm:

My justification for plagiarism, Longy, is that you didn’t write it. You know this, we all know it.

If you did write it, you could easily explain what purpose you wrote this pre-prepared piece for. You’ve already acknowledged the use of unreferenced sources. If you were keen to prove the piece’s authenticity, you would have done so rather than throwing pages of tantrums.

You won’t, and you can’t.

You’re done.

the circular argument? No wonder you are like Aussie the fake lawyer. With an approach like that, you are clearly also a fake English teacher.

So isnt that interesting... any ones article or post that is written well you will simply claim is plagiarised because.... it is plagiarised.

you are a fool Karnal. and a fake

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 96333

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #85 - Jul 21^st, 2015 at 10:58am

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 21^st, 2015 at 10:37am:

Karnal wrote on Jul 20^th, 2015 at 10:09pm:

My justification for plagiarism, Longy, is that you didn’t write it. You know this, we all know it.

If you did write it, you could easily explain what purpose you wrote this pre-prepared piece for. You’ve already acknowledged the use of unreferenced sources. If you were keen to prove the piece’s authenticity, you would have done so rather than throwing pages of tantrums.

You won’t, and you can’t.

You’re done.

the circular argument? No wonder you are like Aussie the fake lawyer. With an approach like that, you are clearly also a fake English teacher.

So isnt that interesting... any ones article or post that is written well you will simply claim is plagiarised because.... it is plagiarised.

you are a fool Karnal. and a fake

Oh, Longy. You know it's plagiarized. You've admitted it.

What a fake.

Back to top

IP Logged

longweekend58 Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 45675 Gender:	Re: In defence of Gay Marriage Reply #86 - Jul 22^nd, 2015 at 6:31pm amazing how if you post an article opposing Gay MArriage they come out in droves to criticise but support it... and no one cares. Makes you wonder if anyone actually cares at all or the only debate is about criticising the status quo.
Back to top	AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..." IP Logged

red baron

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 10204
Blue Mountains
Gender: male

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #87 - Jul 22^nd, 2015 at 6:38pm

What is it about God's Laws that make people so afraid?

The 10 Commandments List, Short Form

1.You shall have no other gods before Me.
2.You shall not make idols.
3.You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
4.Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
5.Honor your father and your mother.
6.You shall not murder.
7.You shall not commit adultery.
8.You shall not steal.
9.You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour.
10.You shall not covet.

I can't see a single thing wrong with any of them

Back to top

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 96333

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #88 - Jul 22^nd, 2015 at 9:41pm

red baron wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2015 at 6:38pm:

What is it about God's Laws that make people so afraid?

The 10 Commandments List, Short Form

1.You shall have no other gods before Me.
2.You shall not make idols.
3.You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
4.Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
5.Honor your father and your mother.
6.You shall not murder.
7.You shall not commit adultery.
8.You shall not steal.
9.You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour.
10.You shall not covet.

I can't see a single thing wrong with any of them

What about keeping the Sabbath holy?

Back to top

IP Logged

Bam

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21905
Gender: male

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #89 - Aug 16^th, 2015 at 12:01am

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 16^th, 2015 at 5:44pm:

Karnal wrote on Jul 16^th, 2015 at 5:42pm:

That’s cute, Longy. Which American writer did you get permission off to reprint that?

I wrote it. every word.

With more than 50% of that piece being direct quotations from a single source without attribution (that's plagiarism, btw), and much of the rest just paraphrasing that same source? You didn't write that, you EDITED it. Roll Eyes

Back to top

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to hold opinions that you can defend through sound, reasoned argument.

IP Logged