Thread: Same sex marriage

Originally Posted by Maanaam

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

Like I said, "equality" does not and should not mean "exactly the same".

Originally Posted by nidhogg

Like I said, "equality" does not and should not mean "exactly the same".

...under the law, that is exactly what equality should mean...

And sum of you faggot hating kuntos recon it's OK to abandon your own country and cum live in Thailand but the poor fukos who like a cock sandwich should be burned at the stake. ????

Ya know ya ya fookin retarded dont cha. ???

I live in faggotry central in Bangkok and I can tell ya the faggotry are way advanced than the whore mongers who in habit this shit house.

The faggotry just doin their own thing and having fun whilst the shit heads smashing whores and getting pissed 24/7 are utter rubbish.

On ya Tommy, you Ok Bra eh.

Originally Posted by nidhogg

Like I said, "equality" does not and should not mean "exactly the same".

In general, I agree with you. Equivalency is possibly a better word than equality. But equivalency is based on practicalities, not opinions or emotions.
To explain: A husband may be better suited to carrying the heavy rubbish bin out, so it's his chore and the wife never does it, but she does other things, for equivalency. Practical matters that make sense.
But the whole "No,no,no marriage can not be between two men" stance is emotional, not practical. It's denying equality for no other reason than...whatever it is the objectors rationalise their resentment on.

Originally Posted by David48atTD

So, under my belief system, ISIS would be wiped from the face of the planet,

So you are saying ISIS is wrong for their opinions? But you reject that anybody can consider you wrong for your opinion. You say your opinion is neither right nor wrong.
There's a bit of a disconnect in your rationale.

Originally Posted by Maanaam

In general, I agree with you. Equivalency is possibly a better word than equality. But equivalency is based on practicalities, not opinions or emotions.
To explain: A husband may be better suited to carrying the heavy rubbish bin out, so it's his chore and the wife never does it, but she does other things, for equivalency. Practical matters that make sense.
But the whole "No,no,no marriage can not be between two men" stance is emotional, not practical. It's denying equality for no other reason than...whatever it is the objectors rationalise their resentment on.

Do not get me wrong - I think gays have every right to be as miserable as the rest of us.

But as you see from TCs post -he is not after equality -he wants "exactly the same". So - he can have equality and most people will not give a rats arse - but "exactly the same" is offensive to many - but in the end they will of course have their concerns disregarded in the (wrong) name of "equality".

Some of you silly fukers realise that faggots putting a ring on it is simply nothing in this world compared to the big issues.

That would be poverty, rag head beheadings, terrorism and bigotry eh.

Thats just a few little examples of serious shit.

Faggots ending up with a rupture cock due to unusual thrusting is nothing.

Originally Posted by nidhogg

but "exactly the same" is offensive to many

Why is that? A bit of paper and some legislation? What's offensive?

And further more, even though I give Tommy a bit of a hard time at time I salute Tommy for standing firm against faggot hatred.

Tommy is a very inoffensive poster and just doing his own thing.

Let Tommy be Tommy kuntos.

Originally Posted by Maanaam

So you are saying ISIS is wrong for their opinions?

No ... I'm saying that ISIS is wrong for their actions.

Originally Posted by nidhogg

But as you see from TCs post -he is not after equality -he wants "exactly the same"

...so, with apologies to Kellyanne Goebbels, you have an alternative definition of equality then...

Those so inclined can go to any number of far sighted countries and do the business.

Living in Thailand where it is not possible, and then bitching about it is a bit hypocritical.

I’m sure that in due course, the trend will continue and, based on public demand, the possibilities will become greater all round.

Those religious laws commonl to all major faiths, that have stood the test of time, will stand much longer than any barbarism currently holding sway. People, of any faith, are not as stupid and intolerant as the leadership wants them to be.

Originally Posted by Switch

People, of any faith, are not as stupid and intolerant as the leadership wants them to be.

...I admire your optimism...

FFS here's Manny.

Everyone has an opinion, they are entitled to have one. They are not however necessarily entitled to to force them on others. Whether an opinion is "Wrong" is either subjective or determined by what society will tolerate. The danger here is that suppression of an opinion means you lose the opportunity for debate and to show up what is deemed intolerable to those who will be influenced and to listen to biased opinion . Like the ISIS issue.

You seem to have no ability to debate without trying to start an argument in the way that you respond.

Originally Posted by NamPikToot

You seem to have no ability to debate without trying to start an argument in the way that you respond

...definitely a FaRTian tendency...

Originally Posted by NamPikToot

You seem to have no ability to debate without trying to start an argument in the way that you respond.

That's your opinion, based on an inability to comprehend what I'm saying and prejudiced because of your tall poppy syndrome and resentment.
Et tu Tomus.

Originally Posted by Maanaam

That's your opinion, based on an inability to comprehend what I'm saying and prejudiced because of your tall poppy syndrome and resentment.
.

I comprehend very well, its your autistic spectrum that leaves readers making mental leaps and I don't need to discredit you as you are more than capable yourself.

Originally Posted by NamPikToot

I comprehend very well,

No you don't. That's very evident. The level of comprehension needed is not with you, thus you see argumentative when really I'm simply questioning and offering a different opion.

Originally Posted by Maanaam

The level of comprehension needed is not with you, when really I'm simply questioning and offering a different opion.

Yep agreed

Originally Posted by NamPikToot

I comprehend very well

Originally Posted by Maanaam

The level of comprehension needed is not with you,

Originally Posted by NamPikToot

Yep agreed

Trumpian.

Originally Posted by nidhogg

Do not get me wrong - I think gays have every right to be as miserable as the rest of us.

But as you see from TCs post -he is not after equality -he wants "exactly the same". So - he can have equality and most people will not give a rats arse - but "exactly the same" is offensive to many - but in the end they will of course have their concerns disregarded in the (wrong) name of "equality".

If heterosexuals dot want exactly the same in marriage as homosexuals
Perhapse the should settle for less .

Russia's Putin wants traditional marriage and God in constitution

Russian President Vladimir Putin wants marriage to be defined as the union of a man and woman in a revised constitution, ruling out gay marriage.



It is among several constitutional amendments proposed by Mr Putin, which are set to be put to a public vote.

Critics see the proposals as a move by Mr Putin to keep a hold on power after his presidential term ends in 2024.

The package includes a proclamation of Russians' faith in God and a ban on giving away any Russian territory.

The territorial amendment would strengthen Russia's hold on Crimea - a Ukrainian region it annexed in 2014 - and the Kuril Islands, disputed with Japan since World War Two, according to Vladimir Mashkov, a renowned actor-director involved in drafting the new constitution.

Mr Putin also proposed an amendment on "historical truth", to protect "the great achievement of the people in their defence of the Fatherland".

He has railed against what he sees as foreign attempts to diminish the enormous sacrifice made by the USSR in World War Two. The defeat of Nazi Germany cost an estimated 27 million Soviet lives.

Mr Putin is in his fourth presidential term; he has been the dominant figure in Russian politics for 20 years. His presidency has been marked by a revival of Soviet-era symbols, conservative values and the influence of the Russian Orthodox Church.

He surprised the nation in January with plans for constitutional changes that include transferring some powers from the presidency to parliament.

Russian government resigns as Putin plans future
What is Russia's Putin up to?

While most Russians identify as Orthodox Christians, the state is officially secular. The current constitution dates from 1993, when then President Boris Yeltsin was embracing Western democracy and capitalism.

Mr Putin's drive against Western liberalism has included a controversial ban on disseminating "gay propaganda" among young Russians. The ban - condemned by many liberals and the European Court of Human Rights - has been used to harass gay rights activists.

The constitutional reform bill was approved by the Russian parliament's lower house - the State Duma - in January, and Mr Putin's amendments were introduced in time for a second reading next week. The Russian legislature is dominated by Putin supporters.

A public vote on the constitutional revision is scheduled for 22 April, but before then it has to get final approval from parliament and the Constitutional Court.

A Russian political analyst, Konstantin Kalachev, told BBC Russian that the proposals were "a mixed bag". "It turns out that our forefathers gave us faith in God and the ideas of communism," he commented, but added: "Putin is a mirror for the majority of Russians".

Many of the amendments were submitted to Mr Putin by prominent social and cultural figures appointed to a constitutional working group.

Political scientist Grigory Golosov criticised the changes as "political". "The constitution we have indicates that the state should be free of ideology. So I think these changes are inappropriate."

Russia's Putin wants traditional marriage and God in constitution - BBC News

Originally Posted by Looper

Russia's Putin wants traditional marriage and God in constitution - BBC News

...so what? He also wants to be president for life. Expecting self-interested enlightenment from a Russian thug is like putting lipstick on a serf...