Page 5 of 11 FirstFirst 1234567891011 LastLast
Results 101 to 125 of 275
  1. #101
    Thailand Expat CaptainNemo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    18-07-2020 @ 11:25 PM
    Location
    in t' naughty lass
    Posts
    5,525
    Quote Originally Posted by Fluke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Passing Through View Post
    Maybe the courts ought to start forcing single women to give up their kids to gay men.
    Gay couples also get divorced .
    Did you not think that through, or was you just deliberately being provocative ?
    Or in the same vein, Gay couples with kids who split up, should give their kids to straight couples ?
    Who can wait for the court climax that will follow gay polygamy custody battles.

  2. #102
    Thailand Expat HermantheGerman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Last Online
    27-03-2024 @ 05:25 AM
    Location
    Germany/Satthahip
    Posts
    6,675
    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

  3. #103
    Thailand Expat tomcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    17,216
    Quote Originally Posted by HermantheGerman
    as long as they don't start screwing animals.
    Don't worry: your social circle is safe...
    Last edited by tomcat; 05-04-2017 at 07:28 AM.

  4. #104
    Thailand Expat

    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    15,541
    Quote Originally Posted by ENT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ENT View Post
    ^ and ^^ I don't believe any of the twisted crap coming from a pair of jumped up berks like you two.
    Quote Originally Posted by Maanaam
    Yes you do... eventually after googling. For example when I told you you can't get free electricity from a car alternator.
    Not likely, but dream on.

    You reckoned you can't get THC from ganja stalks using water distillation, and dogs can't get stoned by eating cooked ganja stalks,...wrong on both points.

    And, ENT old chap, you will eventually also believe me (and PT) that your raving anti-gay stance is a symptom of either religious bigotry or latent homosexuality.
    We all know you're an atheist....
    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.
    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.

  5. #105
    Hangin' Around cyrille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Home
    Posts
    33,534
    Quote Originally Posted by Maanaam
    EVERY one of your posts that respond to me show your lack of reading comprehension.
    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.

    It's what he does.

    Ant used to occupy him before, now he's short of people who can be bothered.

  6. #106
    Thailand Expat HermantheGerman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Last Online
    27-03-2024 @ 05:25 AM
    Location
    Germany/Satthahip
    Posts
    6,675
    Quote Originally Posted by tomcat View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by HermantheGerman
    as long as they don't start screwing animals.
    Don't worry: your social circle is safe...
    I'm relieved "tomcat".

  7. #107
    A Cockless Wonder
    Looper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 11:30 PM
    Posts
    15,187
    Quote Originally Posted by Maanaam
    Lets look at the last; I said EITHER a religious bigot OR a latent homosexual, and we know you're an atheist, so...
    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.

    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.

  8. #108
    Thailand Expat Slick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    6,137
    Quote Originally Posted by Looper View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Maanaam
    Lets look at the last; I said EITHER a religious bigot OR a latent homosexual, and we know you're an atheist, so...
    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.

    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.
    A completely reasonable and rational post and I wholeheartedly agree.

  9. #109
    Thailand Expat

    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    15,541
    Quote Originally Posted by Looper
    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.
    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.

  10. #110
    Thailand Expat CaptainNemo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    18-07-2020 @ 11:25 PM
    Location
    in t' naughty lass
    Posts
    5,525
    ^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!

  11. #111
    Thailand Expat CaptainNemo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    18-07-2020 @ 11:25 PM
    Location
    in t' naughty lass
    Posts
    5,525
    Quote Originally Posted by Looper View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Maanaam
    Lets look at the last; I said EITHER a religious bigot OR a latent homosexual, and we know you're an atheist, so...
    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.
    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...

  12. #112
    Thailand Expat CaptainNemo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    18-07-2020 @ 11:25 PM
    Location
    in t' naughty lass
    Posts
    5,525
    Quote Originally Posted by HermantheGerman View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by tomcat View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by HermantheGerman
    as long as they don't start screwing animals.
    Don't worry: your social circle is safe...
    I'm relieved "tomcat".
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homose...ior_in_animals


    Apparently there are plenty of opportunities to widen the circle of his friends.

  13. #113
    Thailand Expat tomcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    17,216
    Quote Originally Posted by Looper
    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.
    I believe ignorant cultural bigotry was also mentioned...
    Quote Originally Posted by Looper
    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.
    Please indicate what those parts might be...
    Quote Originally Posted by Looper
    Instead they claim it is a simple matter of 'equality' and should not even be subject to public debate.
    agree...the equality of a repressed minority doesn't require a debate...it requires immediate social equality with all other citizens of the culture...
    Quote Originally Posted by Looper
    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
    Kindly list what differences you think gay marriage might entail...
    Quote Originally Posted by Looper
    This is not to suggest some kind of inferiority
    that is exactly what it suggests..separate but equal black schooling and water fountains come to mind...
    Quote Originally Posted by Slick
    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.
    agree...
    Quote Originally Posted by Looper
    Different does not mean inferior.
    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...
    Majestically enthroned amid the vulgar herd

  14. #114
    god
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Bangladesh
    Posts
    28,210
    Quote Originally Posted by Maanaam View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Looper
    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.
    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.
    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.

  15. #115
    god
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Bangladesh
    Posts
    28,210
    Quote Originally Posted by cyrille View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Maanaam
    EVERY one of your posts that respond to me show your lack of reading comprehension.
    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.

    It's what he does.

    Ant used to occupy him before, now he's short of people who can be bothered.
    Aunty drove himself fwkn bonkers trolling me for years, now he's a self-isolated anti-social wreck playing with his buttons

  16. #116
    A Cockless Wonder
    Looper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 11:30 PM
    Posts
    15,187
    Quote Originally Posted by tomcat View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Looper
    This is not to suggest some kind of inferiority
    that is exactly what it suggests..separate but equal black schooling and water fountains come to mind...
    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.

  17. #117
    god
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Bangladesh
    Posts
    28,210
    Quote Originally Posted by Maanaam View Post
    And, ENT old chap, you will eventually also believe me (and PT) that your raving anti-gay stance is a symptom of either religious bigotry or latent homosexuality.
    We all know you're an atheist....
    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]

    Give up old chap. EVERY one of your posts that respond to me show your lack of reading comprehension.
    Oh, I understand you very well, as your side-kick Cyril pointed out.

    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.
    Lets look at the last; I said EITHER a religious bigot OR a latent homosexual, and we know you're an atheist, so...
    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?

    Oh, there's an apostrophe in "let's"
    I DID show you the error of your thinking cars produce free electricity, so it's not "not likely", it's definitely.
    Eh? Manfan, your wandering again..try and make sense..
    I never reckoned you can't get THC from stalks by any method... you didn't comprehend, again. (Or you're a liar, again)
    As can be seen above, , you are extraordinarill difficult to comprehend, your use of the English language has a very strong coconut flavour.
    [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’)
    No comprehension whatsoever, every single time.
    I'm glad you admit it.
    Give it up and stop making a fool of yourself.
    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.
    You really do have problems, don't you petal?

  18. #118
    Thailand Expat tomcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    17,216
    Quote Originally Posted by Looper
    I don't really buy the comparison of gay marriage with inter-racial marriage
    neither do I...I wonder why you bring it up...
    Quote Originally Posted by Looper
    we accept that gay couples are expressing a seemingly naturally occurring sexual orientation.
    nothing "seemingly" about it...just nature at work...
    Quote Originally Posted by Looper
    this recent social development does not make it incumbent on society to redefine our tradition of marriage to accommodate gay pair-bonding
    I don't see why not...
    Quote Originally Posted by Looper
    This follows from the fact that men and women are significantly different creatures
    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...
    Quote Originally Posted by Looper
    the inter-racial marriage parallel does not work argumentationally.
    agree: still don't understand why you're bringing it up...
    Quote Originally Posted by Looper
    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
    it is not generosity we seek, but equality under the laws that apply to all...
    Quote Originally Posted by Looper
    I am not 100% opposed to the redefinition but I think it should recognised as a radical redefinition
    so recognized...and sorry for your pain...
    Quote Originally Posted by Looper
    Another solution is that gay pair-bonding rituals and laws could be instituted separately
    the "separate but equal" argument again...didn't work in the States or in South Africa...cultural apartheid will never satisfy the oppressed...
    Quote Originally Posted by Looper
    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.
    irrelevant
    Quote Originally Posted by Looper
    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.
    *sigh*...

  19. #119
    Thailand Expat

    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    15,541
    Quote Originally Posted by ENT
    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
    Lack of comprehension... doesn't recognise sarcasm when he see's it.

  20. #120
    god
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Bangladesh
    Posts
    28,210
    "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

  21. #121
    god
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Bangladesh
    Posts
    28,210
    Quote Originally Posted by Maanaam View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ENT
    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
    Lack of comprehension... doesn't recognise sarcasm when he see's it.


    So you were being sarcastic in replying sincerely to looper's comments?

    No you weren't you were trying to impress by using a new word you didn't even know the meaning of,
    So pull the other leg coconut, it's got bells on it!


    Aahhhhh, excuses, excuses and more excuses,


  22. #122
    Molecular Mixup
    blue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Last Online
    09-06-2019 @ 01:29 AM
    Location
    54°N
    Posts
    11,334
    Isn't one safe space enough ?
    or
    why are there multi threads on the exact same subject ?
    in the protected misnomer named ''speakers corner''



  23. #123
    Thailand Expat CaptainNemo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    18-07-2020 @ 11:25 PM
    Location
    in t' naughty lass
    Posts
    5,525
    Quote Originally Posted by tomcat View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Looper
    I don't really buy the comparison of gay marriage with inter-racial marriage
    neither do I...I wonder why you bring it up...
    You brought it up...
    Quote Originally Posted by Looper View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by tomcat View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Looper
    This is not to suggest some kind of inferiority
    that is exactly what it suggests..separate but equal black schooling and water fountains come to mind...
    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).
    Quote Originally Posted by tomcat View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Looper
    we accept that gay couples are expressing a seemingly naturally occurring sexual orientation.
    nothing "seemingly" about it...just nature at work...
    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").

    Quote Originally Posted by tomcat View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Looper
    this recent social development does not make it incumbent on society to redefine our tradition of marriage to accommodate gay pair-bonding
    I don't see why not...
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by tomcat View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Looper
    This follows from the fact that men and women are significantly different creatures
    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...
    agree: still don't understand why you're bringing it up...
    it is not generosity we seek, but equality under the laws that apply to all...
    ...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.

    Quote Originally Posted by tomcat View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Looper
    I am not 100% opposed to the redefinition but I think it should recognised as a radical redefinition
    so recognized...and sorry for your pain...
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by tomcat View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Looper
    Another solution is that gay pair-bonding rituals and laws could be instituted separately
    the "separate but equal" argument again...didn't work in the States or in South Africa...cultural apartheid will never satisfy the oppressed...
    Quote Originally Posted by Looper
    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.
    irrelevant
    how?

    Quote Originally Posted by tomcat View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Looper
    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.
    *sigh*...
    *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.

  24. #124
    Thailand Expat CaptainNemo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    18-07-2020 @ 11:25 PM
    Location
    in t' naughty lass
    Posts
    5,525
    Quote Originally Posted by Maanaam View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ENT
    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
    Lack of comprehension... doesn't recognise sarcasm when he see's it.
    That's not sarcasm, it's irony, you foppish criticaster (<-that's sarcasm... situations can be ironic, but only people can be sarcastic, i.e.: caustic)

  25. #125
    Thailand Expat

    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    15,541
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainNemo
    That's not sarcasm, it's irony, you foppish criticaster
    Eh?
    Of course it was sarcasm. ENT "esteemed"?
    Go get a dictionary.

    Look up "foppish" while you're at it.
    And criticaster.

Page 5 of 11 FirstFirst 1234567891011 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •