BigOl64 wrote on Sep 5^th, 2017 at 10:08am:


I quite honestly did NOT believe that there were people out there who didn't know that marriage has NOT always been between a man and a woman.

Sometimes the level of ignorance I encounter in this forum is a little worrying.

cods wrote on Sep 5^th, 2017 at 10:22am:

I always do my homework.

cods wrote on Sep 5^th, 2017 at 10:22am:

No.  Just marriage.

Why can't you people stay on topic?

This is about SSM, not sex, adoption, or children, etc.

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 5^th, 2017 at 10:19am:



You seriously flit between UNPROVEN assertions in ancient history and modern day nations that have legitimised SSM, and suggest that somehow means that any who assert that marriage has always been between a man and a woman (until those nations legitimised it and frankly - who cares - it's their nation - NOT OURS) , are dumb?

You haven't even set about responding to the clarifications I inserted on those Ancient History things put forward as justifications for SSM - none of which hold water any more than legitimised SSM in Siberia has any meaning here.

A hallmark of the 'YES' adherents is their utter inability to support their views and their 'historical precedents'....

I'll say it again - who cares about ancient history, and who cares what other nations have done IN RECENT TIMES - none of those impact on the reality that marriage has always been between man and woman, and any new wrinkles on that are meaningless in the context of discussing this reality.

" Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Denmark, Finland, France, Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom,  the United States and Uruguay."

That's their problem.

Let's re-visit, shall we - and this time try for an answer?

"And what, precisely were these 'male bonding ceremonies'?  Oaths of loyalty and fealty by knights etc?  Pledges to religious insititutions?

Marriage and "other solemnised relationships"?  Thanks for coming....... and proving the point that marriage is not other than man and woman..

"spiritual brotherhoods" - what part of "spiritual" do you NOT understand?"

Was this the kind of nonsense used in all those listed nations to alter the definition of marriage?  How gullible some legislatures are....

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 5^th, 2017 at 10:43am:



Childless marriages are irrelevant - just a fact of nature, as are children born out of wedlock - no relevance.  Such relationships are still between man and woman and have no bearing on gay adoption etc.

'marriage' implies rights other than simply being married - as cods said - it involves some 'right' to adopt and raise children, which, in many cases of 'born again lesbians' such as La Phelps who have walked out of Marriage and still taken with them the title of 'primary caregiver' - means that the fathers of those children are pushed aside like rubbish.....

Haven't seen one mention of the input of Phelps' children's father into their upbringing, values and so forth..... he is irrelevant and she 'has children with her partner Virginia' - a demonstrable lie since two women cannot 'have' children..... those children are being held by proxy in a lesbian relationship... not as some kind of natural order of things.

You reckon that is a good outcome for all concerned?

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 5^th, 2017 at 10:45am:


Doesn't matter what word you use - you are attacking the messenger... your continued assertions as above do not support your strandard....

You have produced no evidence that marriage was not always between man and woman, and in those nations you cite, the concept is 'Same Sex Marriage and not Marriage... same as the argument here.

At this time, it is readily available to SS 'partners' to enter into a contractual arrangement that will satisfy their needs - and I have yet to see someone show me where SS 'couples' do not receive social security etc benefits same as everyone else does in a relationship.

Every time I ask for proof or clarification, you all run and hide in mythical historical assertions without foundation or refer to other nations that have already been lead down this garden path of altering the meaning of Marriage .....

For that matter - two unemployed gays would be better off NOT being in a formal 'marriage'.

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 5^th, 2017 at 11:01am:



There is no evidence to prove that marriage was not always between man and woman - only assertions of historical issues that have been inferred to mean 'gay', and references to far off countries who changed the rules for themselves.

We have no need to follow what other nations do..... and none of the historical antecedents has been shown to mean that gay marriage was practiced.  Inference is not reality....

You get an A for effort......

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 5^th, 2017 at 11:17am:


There you go again - attack the messenger, refuse to answer the questions raised, and continue to refer to other nations and to ideology.

What other nations do is of no concern here and is not a 'treaty' or anything of the kind by which we should abide... whether SSM is legal or otherwise in other countries at this time in no way alters the fact that it was always a man and woman thing, and remains so to this day.  I doubt that anyone seriously thinks that SSM is the same in any way, and not matter how long and hard it is pushed, the majority will always see it as separate.

Let the People Decide in a binding plebiscite...

Chicken??