Ireland Vote For Gay Marriage.
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 Mapletree  Croydon 24 May 15 7.44pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Quote Mapletree at 24 May 2015 7.41pm
Quote Stirlingsays at 24 May 2015 7.08pm
Quote Mapletree at 24 May 2015 7.01pm
So obvioiusly, in respect to your viewpoint you may consider that a compliment.
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| Stirlingsays 24 May 15 7.51pm |
 |
|---|---|
|
Quote Mapletree at 24 May 2015 7.41pm
Quote Stirlingsays at 24 May 2015 7.08pm
Quote Mapletree at 24 May 2015 7.01pm
So obvioiusly, in respect to your viewpoint you may consider that a compliment.
Hahaha...Listen to you Mr Henpecked. And to just set you right on a technical level. If what you were saying were correct then the meanings of masculinity and femininity would be reversed in the popular conscience.....Which even you implicitly recognise. Though 'toughness' has different guises so really this is just a bit of knockabout.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 24 May 15 7.56pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Mapletree at 24 May 2015 7.44pm
That's strange, I just looked at you and you are a baby. So you have been feminised for a far greater proportion of your life than me. Therefore I claim to be more stoic than you, goes without saying innit. I was born when men were men and everything was in black and white. What's this obsession with posters looking on my profile....Stop looking at me....I feel violated. I'm 45.....The photo was taken when I was 44....Also I reckon I've probably had more women than you. I recall one particular occasion when I shagged a bird in the bathroom while also brushing my teeth....Admittingly a while back now. Got anything close to that have yea Maple....Eh? Bangs chest in King Kong fashion.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| ZIGnZAG Stoke 24 May 15 8.00pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote cornwalls palace at 24 May 2015 7.11pm
Quote ZIGnZAG at 24 May 2015 3.06pm
Quote Y Ddraig Goch at 24 May 2015 2.48pm
Quote ZIGnZAG at 24 May 2015 2.38pm
You know exactly what I mean by wrong. All because two adults consent to something doesn't mean it's ok. You think it s wrong that's your prerogative
I'm not trying to say I'm right. I'm voicing my opinion that gay marriage is wrong.
Not every person thinks the same either. Gay or not. That's you being ignorant, not me. I get "gay" people think they were "born" that way. Peodophiles probably think they were "born" that way too. As do murderers, rapists and so on.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Mapletree Croydon 24 May 15 8.02pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Stirlingsays at 24 May 2015 7.56pm
Quote Mapletree at 24 May 2015 7.44pm
That's strange, I just looked at you and you are a baby. So you have been feminised for a far greater proportion of your life than me. Therefore I claim to be more stoic than you, goes without saying innit. I was born when men were men and everything was in black and white. What's this obsession with posters looking on my profile....Stop looking at me....I feel violated. I'm 45.....The photo was taken when I was 44....Also I reckon I've probably had more women than you. I recall one particular occasion when I shagged a bird in the bathroom while also brushing my teeth....Admittingly a while back now. Got anything close to that have yea Maple....Eh? Bangs chest in King Kong fashion.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Kermit8  Hevon 24 May 15 9.10pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote derben at 24 May 2015 7.21pm
Quote Kermit8 at 24 May 2015 6.04pm
Live and let live. And for those that think otherwise....it is not homosexuals who are not normal but your good selves. Unfortunately, you won't have the intelligence or self-awareness to see that but hey, ho! Kermit at his finest - if you do not agree with him you are abnormal, unintelligent and lack self-awareness. Presumably he must think that the vast majority of Muslims are abnormal, unintelligent and lack self-awareness. But hey-ho.
Do you think differently, then?
Big chest and massive boobs |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| derben 24 May 15 9.26pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Kermit8 at 24 May 2015 9.10pm
Quote derben at 24 May 2015 7.21pm
Quote Kermit8 at 24 May 2015 6.04pm
Live and let live. And for those that think otherwise....it is not homosexuals who are not normal but your good selves. Unfortunately, you won't have the intelligence or self-awareness to see that but hey, ho! Kermit at his finest - if you do not agree with him you are abnormal, unintelligent and lack self-awareness. Presumably he must think that the vast majority of Muslims are abnormal, unintelligent and lack self-awareness. But hey-ho.
Do you think differently, then? Good answer! As you suspect, I broadly share the view on religions that you have expressed. But your blanket condemnation of everyone who has reservations about the gay intrusions into the rights of people to decline to assist in promoting the likes of same sex marriage is unreasonable, as is condemning people merely because they disapprove of certain things not necessarily on religious grounds.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
EaglesEaglesEagles  24 May 15 9.30pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Stirlingsays at 24 May 2015 1.57pm
I'm not exactly a fan of what's happened but I think it's important to make a distinction between homosexuality, incest, and peadophilia. Homosexuality involves consent between partners. Peadophilia....Sex with children....By definition doesn't involve informed consent......Though I'm not one of those who rattles on about fifteen year olds being the same as five year olds like some do. Incest.....Can often involve abuse....In cases where it doesn't the children from these unions have much higher chances of deformities. There's good reason not to allow close genetic unions. Edited by Stirlingsays (24 May 2015 2.04pm) [I'd just like to qualify that I am not an advocate of incest I am fully against it.] But regarding the logic applied to the rights of gay couples, I don't think that you can say there is a good reason to not allow 'close genetic unions'. - For a start, marriage in statute has nothing to do with childrearing, nor do advocates of equality in gay marriage profess right to childbearing, it is about equality and a union of love to them. - Based on the logic that the powers at be use, I could propose this question: - Surely two close relatives can love each other just as much as anyone else and make that official through marriage. - There is no guarantee that any children produced will be deformed and childbearing isn't a necessary quality of marriage. The point of this is that according to current law I can't see why marriage should not be an extended right accorded to incestuous couples. Yes, they're in a tiny minority but isn't that the point of the 'Big Society'. If there was a larger group of incestuous persons I think it would pass in an instant. To compare a type of consenting relationship to paedophilia (in the vast majority of cases) is misleading. [Again, I don't like or advocate for incestuous relationships or marriage, I'm just trying to work out how laws are formed and their basis]
I ain't got nuthin' funny to say. Sorry. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Kermit8 Hevon 24 May 15 9.37pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote derben at 24 May 2015 9.26pm
Quote Kermit8 at 24 May 2015 9.10pm
Quote derben at 24 May 2015 7.21pm
Quote Kermit8 at 24 May 2015 6.04pm
Live and let live. And for those that think otherwise....it is not homosexuals who are not normal but your good selves. Unfortunately, you won't have the intelligence or self-awareness to see that but hey, ho! Kermit at his finest - if you do not agree with him you are abnormal, unintelligent and lack self-awareness. Presumably he must think that the vast majority of Muslims are abnormal, unintelligent and lack self-awareness. But hey-ho.
Do you think differently, then? Good answer! As you suspect, I broadly share the view on religions that you have expressed. But your blanket condemnation of everyone who has reservations about the gay intrusions into the rights of people to decline to assist in promoting the likes of same sex marriage is unreasonable, as is condemning people merely because they disapprove of certain things not necessarily on religious grounds.
My original point stands. They are the ones that are lacking in 'normality' and other things.
Big chest and massive boobs |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| derben 24 May 15 9.49pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Kermit8 at 24 May 2015 9.37pm
Quote derben at 24 May 2015 9.26pm
Quote Kermit8 at 24 May 2015 9.10pm
Quote derben at 24 May 2015 7.21pm
Quote Kermit8 at 24 May 2015 6.04pm
Live and let live. And for those that think otherwise....it is not homosexuals who are not normal but your good selves. Unfortunately, you won't have the intelligence or self-awareness to see that but hey, ho! Kermit at his finest - if you do not agree with him you are abnormal, unintelligent and lack self-awareness. Presumably he must think that the vast majority of Muslims are abnormal, unintelligent and lack self-awareness. But hey-ho.
Do you think differently, then? Good answer! As you suspect, I broadly share the view on religions that you have expressed. But your blanket condemnation of everyone who has reservations about the gay intrusions into the rights of people to decline to assist in promoting the likes of same sex marriage is unreasonable, as is condemning people merely because they disapprove of certain things not necessarily on religious grounds.
My original point stands. They are the ones that are lacking in 'normality' and other things. Glad you have clarified your original blanket statement "Live and let live. And for those who think otherwise ...". I should think the vast majority of those who disapprove of homosexuality, and those that disapprove of the intrusions into peoples' liberties, by the fruits of gay pressure groups, are also against "hateful bigotry" and "violent homophobia" and do not consider anyone sub-human. The later is usually the preserve of anti-Semites of the past and present.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 24 May 15 10.05pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote EaglesEaglesEagles at 24 May 2015 9.30pm
Quote Stirlingsays at 24 May 2015 1.57pm
I'm not exactly a fan of what's happened but I think it's important to make a distinction between homosexuality, incest, and peadophilia. Homosexuality involves consent between partners. Peadophilia....Sex with children....By definition doesn't involve informed consent......Though I'm not one of those who rattles on about fifteen year olds being the same as five year olds like some do. Incest.....Can often involve abuse....In cases where it doesn't the children from these unions have much higher chances of deformities. There's good reason not to allow close genetic unions. Edited by Stirlingsays (24 May 2015 2.04pm) [I'd just like to qualify that I am not an advocate of incest I am fully against it.] But regarding the logic applied to the rights of gay couples, I don't think that you can say there is a good reason to not allow 'close genetic unions'. - For a start, marriage in statute has nothing to do with childrearing, nor do advocates of equality in gay marriage profess right to childbearing, it is about equality and a union of love to them. - Based on the logic that the powers at be use, I could propose this question: - Surely two close relatives can love each other just as much as anyone else and make that official through marriage. - There is no guarantee that any children produced will be deformed and childbearing isn't a necessary quality of marriage. The point of this is that according to current law I can't see why marriage should not be an extended right accorded to incestuous couples. Yes, they're in a tiny minority but isn't that the point of the 'Big Society'. If there was a larger group of incestuous persons I think it would pass in an instant. To compare a type of consenting relationship to paedophilia (in the vast majority of cases) is misleading. [Again, I don't like or advocate for incestuous relationships or marriage, I'm just trying to work out how laws are formed and their basis] You have a point. I did frame marriage in terms of child-bearing....It is an intrinsic part of how I view marriage but you're right that's my perspective and not a legal one. Maybe the reality that there is an increased risk of child deformaties would be brought in legally to stop it.....But it would probably lose if viewed rationally...Many people with conditions have increased risk of passing those on yet can still marry. Yes, in terms of incestous marriage I don't see the logical objection in situations where abuse hasn't taken place. Outside of emotional rants I don't see any logical objection to it other than it has a stigma and is taboo......Something that homosexuality knows quite a lot about. It doesn't fit my world view of course but then again neither did the hijacking of the word marriage.....The society I grew up in has changed significantly.....It's too touchy feely for me......Still: 'Life moves pretty fast. If you don't stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it'.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| EaglesEaglesEagles 24 May 15 10.21pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Stirlingsays at 24 May 2015 10.05pm
Quote EaglesEaglesEagles at 24 May 2015 9.30pm
Quote Stirlingsays at 24 May 2015 1.57pm
I'm not exactly a fan of what's happened but I think it's important to make a distinction between homosexuality, incest, and peadophilia. Homosexuality involves consent between partners. Peadophilia....Sex with children....By definition doesn't involve informed consent......Though I'm not one of those who rattles on about fifteen year olds being the same as five year olds like some do. Incest.....Can often involve abuse....In cases where it doesn't the children from these unions have much higher chances of deformities. There's good reason not to allow close genetic unions. Edited by Stirlingsays (24 May 2015 2.04pm) [I'd just like to qualify that I am not an advocate of incest I am fully against it.] But regarding the logic applied to the rights of gay couples, I don't think that you can say there is a good reason to not allow 'close genetic unions'. - For a start, marriage in statute has nothing to do with childrearing, nor do advocates of equality in gay marriage profess right to childbearing, it is about equality and a union of love to them. - Based on the logic that the powers at be use, I could propose this question: - Surely two close relatives can love each other just as much as anyone else and make that official through marriage. - There is no guarantee that any children produced will be deformed and childbearing isn't a necessary quality of marriage. The point of this is that according to current law I can't see why marriage should not be an extended right accorded to incestuous couples. Yes, they're in a tiny minority but isn't that the point of the 'Big Society'. If there was a larger group of incestuous persons I think it would pass in an instant. To compare a type of consenting relationship to paedophilia (in the vast majority of cases) is misleading. [Again, I don't like or advocate for incestuous relationships or marriage, I'm just trying to work out how laws are formed and their basis] You have a point. I did frame marriage in terms of child-bearing....It is an intrinsic part of how I view marriage but you're right that's my perspective and not a legal one. Maybe the reality that there is an increased risk of child deformaties would be brought in legally to stop it.....But it would probably lose if viewed rationally...Many people with conditions have increased risk of passing those on yet can still marry. Yes, in terms of incestous marriage I don't see the logical objection in situations where abuse hasn't taken place. Outside of emotional rants I don't see any logical objection to it other than it has a stigma and is taboo......Something that homosexuality knows quite a lot about. It doesn't fit my world view of course but then again neither did the hijacking of the word marriage.....The society I grew up in has changed significantly.....It's too touchy feely for me......Still: 'Life moves pretty fast. If you don't stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it'.
Your position is wholly right in my opinion. But then again it's just my opinion. We have the rightly to conscientiously object. The problem is that some, obviously not all people who disagree with us can be aggressive and belittle us as anti-progressive and against freedom. It's a shame, but by familiarising ourselves with the form which arguments for gay marriage take we can help display that we're not small-minded bigots even though persons (on both sides actually) can be. What I've discovered through research is that marriage law doesn't really involve the concept of love at all. It's a shame really, although probably a necessary one for legal purposes. There aren't really grounds for activists to use it as an argument point though.
I ain't got nuthin' funny to say. Sorry. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.