Who cares what they do, as long as they don't start screwing animals.
Maybe they can also use another name instead of marriage.
For example a "knot", you know the thing that happens when the penis of a dog swells up when inside a female dog and cannot withdraw
Don't worry: your social circle is safe...Originally Posted by HermantheGerman
Last edited by tomcat; 05-04-2017 at 07:28 AM.
Give up old chap. EVERY one of your posts that respond to me show your lack of reading comprehension.
Lets look at the last; I said EITHER a religious bigot OR a latent homosexual, and we know you're an atheist, so...
I DID show you the error of your thinking cars produce free electricity, so it's not "not likely", it's definitely.
I never reckoned you can't get THC from stalks by any method... you didn't comprehend, again. (Or you're a liar, again)
I didn't say dogs can't get stoned, I expressed doubt that THC stoned cause hyperactivity and hallucinations.
No comprehension whatsoever, every single time.
Give it up and stop making a fool of yourself.
Oh, he understands them well enough. He wouldn't be able to make seemingly 'minor' alterations to them to make them utterly ridiculous if he didn't understand them.Originally Posted by Maanaam
It's what he does.
Ant used to occupy him before, now he's short of people who can be bothered.
This position is part of the problem with this debate. The intolerance of opposing points of view and the creakingly dull declaration that any opposition to any part of the gay politcal agenda must be rooted in closet homosexuality or religious bafflegab.Originally Posted by Maanaam
It is quite possible to have a rational and reasonable opposition to some parts of the gay political agenda even while supporting gays in much of their right and reasonable quest for acceptance and respect in a modern and progressive society.
Changing the definition of marriage from 'between a man and a woman' (which it has been for tens of thousands of years and accross all cultures in the world) to 'between any two people' regardless of gender is a radical redefinition. If the gay agenda lobbyists were at least willing to accept this truth then I for one would be less opposed to their quest. Instead they claim it is a simple matter of 'equality' and should not even be subject to public debate.
The proposed public referendum in Australia is being opposed by the gay lobby on the basis that the mere discussion of the idea will allow 'hate speech'. I find this suppression of discussion by the liberal lobby quite frightening.
I am in favour of gays being supported in their desire to have their unions legally and ceremonially recognised. I think there are significant similarities between a gay couple committing for life and a heterosexual couple committing for life. However I think there are also significant differences. On the basis of the differences and the cultural heritage of the institution of marriage I would suggest that redefining marriage is not the only option. I think that the term marriage can reasonably be confined to its original definition and that new legal and cultural terms can be instituted to cover pair-bonding commitments between same-sex and inter-sex couples. This is not to suggest some kind of inferiority but simply to recognise the cultural significance of marriage as it is traditionally defined and has been for countless millenia.
Like all mammals we are a sexual species (male and female). Like some mammals we are a pair-bonding species (due to the evolved interests in a male in investing parentally in his offspring). Marriage is the ceremonial recognition of our species's evolved sexually complimentary pair-bonding behaviour. This makes it a cultural institution of great significance and timeless heritage.
The details of how marriage works and is defined (polygyny, property rights, female sexual autonomy) have evolved over the centuries but at its core is the simple and defining concept that it is a committed pair-bonding between a man and a woman.
Redefining such an institution to mean any 2 human beings instead of a man and a woman is a radical redefinition by any measure. One solution to meeting the pair-bonding needs of gays is to redefine marriage. Another solution is to leave marriage with its original definition and create new legal structures and cultural ceremonies to recognise these newly accepted pair-bondings. There is nothing morally wrong with making a distinction between 2 similar but different cultural events. Different does not mean inferior.
I was referring to the esteemed member, not generalising about all anti-gay marriage people, and besides, if it was a generalisation, it would probably be a fair one. Generalisation, not an absolute.Originally Posted by Looper
^all generalisations are untrue, just like the false dilemma fallacy you presented to ENT. This is basically the default reductio of the anti-anti-gay position - if you oppose it, you must be one. This is just trolling, and you can't debate seriously with anyone who comes out with this anti-anti-gay bigotry. ...you must secretly be anti-gay - hate criminal!
Which is what I just said. I probably agree with much of the rest of what Looper says, but I can't be arsed to read it, save to say, that if gays can marry, and marriage isn't about sex, then I wonder what their opposition to parents, siblings, friends, in any permutation or number, can't also marry - it's just a legal contract between adults after all...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homose...ior_in_animals
Apparently there are plenty of opportunities to widen the circle of his friends.
I believe ignorant cultural bigotry was also mentioned...Originally Posted by Looper
Please indicate what those parts might be...Originally Posted by Looper
agree...the equality of a repressed minority doesn't require a debate...it requires immediate social equality with all other citizens of the culture...Originally Posted by Looper
Kindly list what differences you think gay marriage might entail...Originally Posted by Looper
that is exactly what it suggests..separate but equal black schooling and water fountains come to mind...Originally Posted by Looper
agree...Originally Posted by Slick
Within current social contexts, of course it does: marriage is simply pair-bonding legitimized by state and/or religious authorities...all the rest (cultural baggage built up for centuries) can be changed without the foundations of social cohesion being shaken...stirred maybe, but not shaken...Originally Posted by Looper
Majestically enthroned amid the vulgar herd
That's most gracious of you, your accolade is well accepted, manfan..
esteemed
If lots of people respect you and you're known around town as a wise and intelligent person whose opinion matters, then you're esteemed.
Esteemed comes from the verb esteem, which means "to think valuable." If you are esteemed, then people think you're a valuable person to have around, and have a lot of respect for you. If you're hosting a dinner party with a special guest, an elderly man who has traveled the world and written many books, you could introduce him as your esteemed guest.
Definitions of
esteemed, ..adj having an illustrious reputation; respected, as in “our esteemed leader”
Synonyms:...eminent, honored, prestigious, reputable, having a good reputation
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/esteemed
“Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’? John 10:34.
I don't really buy the comparison of gay marriage with inter-racial marriage (which is frequently used in these discussions - even though you are talking about simple segregation).
Yes there was opposition to interracial marriage when it first became a phenomenon. There was an instinctive sense that something was not right about this to some predjudiced minds based on ignorance about the degree of commonality between the human 'races', but it did not stand up to analysis. Science (and indeed simple day to day experience) shows us that interracial differences are in fact insignificant and that the male and female behaviour and psychlogy of different races respectively has far more in common than it has different.
Interracial marriage does not conflict with the basic definition of marriage. Interracial marriage simply did not occur until recently due to the recent advent of mass transglobal migration.
The definition of marriage as it is commonly understood requires no redefinition in any way for interracial marriage to be accomodated. It simply requires the dismantling of groundless prejudice.
For the definition of marriage to accomodate gay couples on the other hand the definition does require a fundamental change from 'man and woman' to 'two people'. There have always been gays in society and they have generally been swept under the carpet and not accomoadted by society's social mores and traditions. Now gays have been socially liberated and we accept that gay couples are expressing a seemingly naturally occurring sexual orientation.
However this recent social development does not make it incumbent on society to redefine our tradition of marriage to accomodate gay pair-bonding. It is true that there are significant similarities between gay and straight pair bonding but there is also much that is different. This follows from the fact that men and women are significantly different creatures. They have far less in common with each other than 2 males or 2 females of different ethnic backgrounds, so the inter-racial marriage parallel does not work argumentationally.
Redefining marriage is certainly one possible solution to the pair bonding needs of gays but I think it would be quite generous of mainstream society to allow what is one of the oldest and most important cultural traditions of the species to be changed so radically. I am not 100% opposed to the redefinition but I think it should recognised as a radical redefinition by the gay-marriage lobby and the political factions involved in the debate instead of them trying to railroad the issue without any debate.
Another solution is that gay pair-bonding rituals and laws could be instituted separately. It is not bigotry to a suggest this; it is recognition of the evolved fundamental differences between men and women as creatures.
If men and women are fundmentally different types of creature (emotionally and psychologically and in their evolved and culturally tradional roles) then 2 men pair-bonding is fundamentally different to a man and woman pair-bonding. This is not true of inter-racial marriage so I don't agree that the comparison between gay marriage and inter-racial marriage is valid.
I'm not anti-gay, I simply abhor the company of queers of both sexes, like you and your pals, for instance.
Now you reckon I'm a religious bigot because I'm an atheist.
I'm either a religious bigot or an atheist, make up your mind, if you have one you can use.[/QUOTE]
Oh, I understand you very well, as your side-kick Cyril pointed out.Give up old chap. EVERY one of your posts that respond to me show your lack of reading comprehension.
But your understanding of the English language, leaves me very much in doubt of your comprehension skills,
You refered to me as the esteemed member, fer fwk's sake!
Can you honestly say that you know what you're talking about? I doubt it..
Ok,ok..... I'll give you the benefit of the doubt in that instance, you were actually being sincere, and finally recognized my true worth.
As I've pointed out, I'm neither a religious bigot nor a a latent homosexual such as yourself, so I hope that clears that question up for you, as you seem inordinately obsessed by it. Is it something to do with your feelings of insecurity as you developed?Lets look at the last; I said EITHER a religious bigot OR a latent homosexual, and we know you're an atheist, so...
Oh, there's an apostrophe in "let's"
Eh? Manfan, your wandering again..try and make sense..I DID show you the error of your thinking cars produce free electricity, so it's not "not likely", it's definitely.
As can be seen above, , you are extraordinarill difficult to comprehend, your use of the English language has a very strong coconut flavour.I never reckoned you can't get THC from stalks by any method... you didn't comprehend, again. (Or you're a liar, again)
[quote] I didn't say dogs can't get stoned, I expressed doubt that THC stoned cause hyperactivity and hallucinations.
You most certainly did doubt that possibility, and even when it was made clear to you that dogs do indeed get really wacked on happy backy, you still, couldn't accept it saying,
Post #9..." You're saying the THC made the dog hyper and hallucinating? Cooked stalks? A very unlikely story."
Post #20..."Makes dogs hyperactive and hallucinate? You are right, I didn't know that....and still don't."
https://teakdoor.com/the-teakdoor-lou...ml#post3499826 (Video – Dog barely able to stand after ‘eating a joint’)
I'm glad you admit it.No comprehension whatsoever, every single time.
I gave up wanking myself into insanity when I left my teens, but seemingly you still have that problem in your later mid=life,...oh deary deary. me.Give it up and stop making a fool of yourself.
You really do have problems, don't you petal?
neither do I...I wonder why you bring it up...Originally Posted by Looper
nothing "seemingly" about it...just nature at work...Originally Posted by Looper
I don't see why not...Originally Posted by Looper
equality under the law need not reference traditional biology...the marriage of two people is the business of those two people and the law should recognize that fact without going into the cultural weeds...Originally Posted by Looper
agree: still don't understand why you're bringing it up...Originally Posted by Looper
it is not generosity we seek, but equality under the laws that apply to all...Originally Posted by Looper
so recognized...and sorry for your pain...Originally Posted by Looper
the "separate but equal" argument again...didn't work in the States or in South Africa...cultural apartheid will never satisfy the oppressed...Originally Posted by Looper
irrelevantOriginally Posted by Looper
*sigh*...Originally Posted by Looper
Lack of comprehension... doesn't recognise sarcasm when he see's it.Originally Posted by ENT
"Marriage"
Funny old word that one.
It simply means union, as in marrying two or more elements in a strong bond, as in engineering, or in welding, where, say metal, parts are married by force to meld together in an almost seamless union that's almost impossible to dissolve, as in welding, where two adjacent plates are fused together.
Similarly with that much abused word "gay", hijacked by queers to denote their social condition.
Not very appropriate, really, as queers are the most miserable of social missfits, having much higher rates of depression than the rest of society.
Before the queers hijacked the word, it meant to be overtly happy, as those cavorting in gay abandon, not heeding the consequences of their actions, with nary a care in the world, not giving a shit what the neighbours thought, unlike the queers who're so concerned with their social image that the'd even hijack church ceremonies and social institutions to boost their fragile egos.
One once could be gaily dressed on occasions, eschewing formal attire and merrily enjoy the gala, where the town would be gaily decorated in vivid colours, galavanting, as in to "gad about, spend time in frivolous pleasure-seeking, especially with the opposite sex,", with no connotations of homosexuality implied at all.
The word coming from the Galia people, the Galatians of Asia Minor who were renowned for their happiness gaiety, galavanting around to the bemusement of their neighbouring nations, migrating finally to Gaul, France, the land of the Galia, thence to Wales le Pays de Gal then Ireland to Galway previously Gallibh(Foreigners' town), where early settlers from Britain were known as the Clan-na-Gal (foreigners), who also settling in Ballinagall and some finally north to Donegal, the Hill of the Gauls, Ireland.
Middle English had gallantness "merriment, gaiety, high living" also derived from the early Galatians
Online Etymology Dictionary. also gayly, "with mirth and frolic,"
The only gay people around are happily having fun, gallavanting around with gay abandon, especially with the opposite sex,who wouldn't gove a fwk if they were married or not or socially acceptable, definitely not a bunch of narcissistic queers looking for attentions to lift themselves out of their misery
Isn't one safe space enough ?
or
why are there multi threads on the exact same subject ?
in the protected misnomer named ''speakers corner''
You brought it up...
That's disingenuous... "nature at work" involves all kinds of malfunctions at either extreme of the bell curve of variations. Any inference that these small minority variations are somehow equal and equivalent to the norm is misrepresentation of what is by definition "sexual deviancy" (if it can even be described as "sexual").
Why don't you see why not?
The whole case for "gay marriage" rests on saying that marriage is not about procreation, and not about sex, but about "love"; and once you do that, it seems rather difficult to argue that any other permutation of formalised relationship between consenting adults is not also deserving of "validation".
As I said before, this is about a minority trying to appropriate an institution because of the legitimacy they think it confers, rather than come up with their own institution, and their own legitimacy. Once you've then agreed that "friends" can marry, and siblings can marry, and polygamists can marry, then you are left with the same binary, of one category of relationships that result in reproduction (part of the definition of sex); and one category, that don't.
So then you might want to come up with a name for the procreational kind; and since the term "marriage" has by this time been appropriated, you get a new word, and the whole process of appropriation begins again... it belies a an anxiety about legitimacy that is nothing to do with those who are "anti-gay", it's the circle that the "pro-gay" seem to want to try and square.
...but do you? Who do you exclude from "marriage"?
It is the word you seem to want to see "owned", not the rights - which are thare in "civil partnership" - this is a political and cultural war, not a civil rights issue.
"traditional biology", my goodness, is science under attack too now?!
the law does reference biology, and it has to, because a womb is not like a kidney or a toenail - only one gender tends to have one.
You seem to be the one in pain - desperate to fight a cause and avoid an underlying fundamental problem with it by misrepresenting it and opposition to it.
how?
*sigh* squared - why do you want to come across as so ignorant and supersilious? It's an odd way to try and win people over.
Eh?Originally Posted by CaptainNemo
Of course it was sarcasm. ENT "esteemed"?
Go get a dictionary.
Look up "foppish" while you're at it.
And criticaster.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)