Thread: Same sex marriage

Originally Posted by Norton

Sexual preference is profoundly a personal choice

...sorry, no "choice" is involved...you're born the way you are...as the failure of years of "conversion therapy" have demonstrated...

Originally Posted by tomcat

...sorry, no "choice" is involved...you're born the way you are...as the failure of years of "conversion therapy" have demonstrated...

Perhaps Norton meant, "...a personal choice to display/declare or not..."?

...^where would be without a translator?...

Originally Posted by tomcat

...^where would be without a translator?...

Making cynical assumptions, probably.

Do you know what "Perhaps" at the start of a sentence sgnifies?

Originally Posted by Maanaam

Do you know what "Perhaps" at the start of a sentence sgnifies?

...yes, the beginning of a possibly contentious post...

It takes time to understand that men and women are different. Likewise some men and some women are different.
There is no politically correct gender nomenclature, thankfully.
People are different. Vive la difference

Originally Posted by Buckaroo Banzai

I dont know David, he might be,but I have followed David's posts for close to 10 years and He has being pretty reasonable , so IMO , homophobia would be out of character for him.

Strange because he is a relatively newbie here with his 3 years of TD membership..

Originally Posted by Buckaroo Banzai

Is it possible that in this instance you are wrong simply because you are wrong and for no other reason? Haven't you be wrong before? we all have. Then why can't you be wrong now.

He is a practicing christian, that should tell you all you need to know. His bible is never wrong..

Originally Posted by tomcat

the beginning of a possibly contentious post...

Originally Posted by Maanaam

Making cynical assumptions,

....

Originally Posted by tomcat

sorry, no "choice" is involved

No need to apologize. Fair nuff. I can accept born with a particular preference. I was and preference remains same even though now mostly, as Jimmy Carter mentioned, "I’ve looked on a lot of women with lust. I’ve committed adultery in my heart many times".

Originally Posted by lom

Strange because he is a relatively newbie here with his 3 years of TD membership..

I had the pleasure to enjoy Dave's posts at another forum.

Originally Posted by lom

He is a practicing christian, that should tell you all you need to know. His bible is never wrong..

It takes plenty of practice to get Christianity right. same applies to Atheism IMO tolerance is the main skill one needs to master.. I am practicing also and some day hope to get it right

Originally Posted by lom

He is a practicing christian, that should tell you all you need to know. His bible is never wrong..

If you are referring to me ... nope, not a practicing christian ... don't assume.

Originally Posted by tomcat

...sorry, no "choice" is involved...you're born the way you are...as the failure of years of "conversion therapy" have demonstrated...

Look fookers, Tommy is in the faggotry club and he is telling you straight shifters that ya don't smash ya war weapon up andder mans bottom unless you are born that way.

Ya just don't wake up one day and go round ya mates place and rape the poor fooker eh. ?????

Faggotry is inborn and not negotiable.

I love pussy Tommy loves faggotry.

Let it be fukos.

And further more, being married to any kunta man women or Soi dog means absolutely fuk all.

When it's over it's over innit.

Marriage should be outlawed in my OP and replaced with this.....

When it's over it's over. Go fuk ya self.

Originally Posted by David48atTD

Being 'married' meant diddly squat

...if that's the case, why the uproar over the term when applied to non-traditional arrangements?...

Originally Posted by Maanaam

Bad assumption. You're wrong because the prevailing ethics of Western society include equality for all and you want to deny equality to a group of people. You're disagreeing with a well-established rule of civilised society.

Interesting ... now I'm not ethical


I'm using an Australian example.

Gay/Hetrosexual couples are identified as being partners and in a relationship, irreverential if they were married or not.
So the defining element was the strength and longevity of the relationship not the 'marriage principle'.

Thus, the principle of 'equity' as you described it covers all relationships.

Marriage, IMHO is between a Man and a Woman.

That choice, that 'ethic' is mine, it might be different to yours but it's not right or wrong ... it just is.

Originally Posted by David48atTD

That choice, that 'ethic' is mine, it might be different to yours but it's not right or wrong

...it becomes wrong when such opinion becomes law...

Originally Posted by tomcat

...if that's the case, why the uproar over the term when applied to non-traditional arrangements?...

Tom, I'm not sure of the context you're referring to ... but I'll explain mine.

In 'the old days' people could come into Australia because they were 'married'.
Even if they met the day before, got married, that was enough for a Visa.
People were getting 'married' for a fee from the person wanting to immigrate to Australia

Nowadays, the government looks at the relationship and not the 'piece of paper'

Thus, "being 'married' meant diddly squat" in a Visa application.

Originally Posted by David48atTD

Thus, "being 'married' meant diddly squat" in a Visa application.

...once again...if that's the case, why the uproar over the term when applied to non-traditional arrangements?...why do so many folks get upset over gay marriage if, in fact, it effectively means gay diddly squat?...

Originally Posted by David48atTD

now I'm not ethical

Apparently so, because you want to deny some people equality.

Originally Posted by David48atTD

That choice, that 'ethic' is mine, it might be different to yours but it's not right or wrong

Originally Posted by tomcat

...it becomes wrong when such opinion becomes law...

Nope ... wrong again.

Australia recently passed a same sex marriage act.

The day before the act was passed, the majority of Australians thought that same sex couples should marry, they held that opinion ... but the act (not the thought/moral/ethic) the act of same sex marriage was illegal.

The collective conscious of Australia had changed and, in due course the legal act was changed.

So, it's not wrong to hold an opinion that is different to the majority.

I do, and I'm comfortable with that.

It's not right, it's not wrong ... it's just my opinion.

Originally Posted by Maanaam

Apparently so, because you want to deny some people equality.

And the mistake that many people make is that "equality" must mean "exactly the same". From my quick reading david is happy with "equality", in that same sex relationships can have a state legitimized relationship/partnership - with all the rights attached -just not *marriage*.

Originally Posted by David48atTD

It's not right, it's not wrong ... it's just my opinion.

Everyone's entitled to their opinion, and so you must surely agree that ISIS is entitled to their opinion that throwing homosexuals off a roof is the right thing to do and that they are not wrong.

Originally Posted by nidhogg

And the mistake that many people make is that "equality" must mean "exactly the same". From my quick reading david is happy with "equality", in that same sex relationships can have a state legitimized relationship/partnership - with all the rights attached -just not *marriage*.

And it's the "just not" that is not equitable. He says fine for some, but just not for others.