Thread: Same sex marriage

Originally Posted by tomcat

yep...

disagree, particularly on a personal level...

one man's natural is another's glacial...

force? no. Persuade others that ignorance and fear can be overcome? yes.

I admire your patience...

a little schadenfreude with cocktails can be very satisfying...

Perhaps a one man rainbow parade is in order. Personally, I don’t see the need.
theres more ways of skinning a cat than choking it with cream.

Just relax and enjoy the ride.

There’s much more important shit to be getting on with. TBH most folk don’t give a stuff either way. Force feeding a media already choked with bandwagons, is turning off the few who might care.

Originally Posted by Switch

TBH most folk don’t give a stuff either way

I'll need to review your research notes...

Originally Posted by Switch

There’s much more important shit to be getting on with

that's a personal decision...you've apparently made yours; I've made mine...

Originally Posted by Switch

Force feeding a media already choked with bandwagons

unfortunate misapprehension...the media looks for issues that attract eyeballs; the eyeballs choose their own bandwagons...

Originally Posted by Switch

turning off the few who might care

I sense your melancholy and suggest a restorative session with a good whiskey...

Homo Argument

^homo numbnuts...

^^ what does that mean and how is it significant?

Jeez I hate having to edit in another (or two or three) ^^'s because someone's posted seconds before me.
Daily moan.

Originally Posted by Maanaam

what does that mean and how is it significant?

It means he can be offended and offensive with very few words

It also means TC cares and I don’t.

Originally Posted by David48atTD

I've mentioned it before, but one of my pet hates is when a CEO stands and proudly sprouts
I know I speak for the majority of our membership/customers/employees when the CEO
affirms that broad support for SSM and throws the corporate resources behind the belief.

David is on the money with this one. Totally outrageous that organisations with no mandate from from their shareholders claim to 'support' a contentious political viewpoint currently the subject of a public ballot.

If it is something like 'say no to racism' where almost the entire population agrees then that is OK.

If it is a fractious issue where a substantial proportion of the population does not agree then businesses should not be claiming to hold an opinion.

It is offensive to their employees, fans and customers who may quite reasonably take a different view and it is disingenuously unrepresentative of employees, players, and shareholders, many of whom will not agree. It is a corruption of democracy.

If a business or sporting organisation started campaigning to vote 'no' the 'yes' campaign would go ballistic.

Originally Posted by Looper

David is on the money with this one. Totally outrageous that organisations with no mandate from from their shareholders claim to 'support' a contentious political viewpoint currently the subject of a public ballot.

If it is something like 'say no to racism' where almost the entire population agrees then that is OK.

If it is a fractious issue where a substantial proportion of the population does not agree then businesses should not be claiming to hold an opinion.

It is offensive to their employees, fans and customers who may quite reasonably take a different view and it is disingenuously unrepresentative of employees, players, and shareholders, many of whom will not agree. It is a corruption of democracy.

If a business or sporting organisation started campaigning to vote 'no' the 'yes' campaign would go ballistic.

whoosh. The intricacies of the debate have just ruffled your quaff as they flew over your head.

Dinosaur alert.

Originally Posted by Looper

If it is something like 'say no to racism' where 99.9% of the population agrees then that is OK.

why is that? still no written mandate from shareholders to support social issues...

Originally Posted by Looper

If it is a divisive issue where a substantial proportion of the population does not agree then businesses should not be claiming to express and opinion.

how much is "substantial?" 51%?

Originally Posted by Looper

It is a corruption of democracy.

withholding rights from selected citizens is also a corruption of democracy: doesn't seem to exercise you as much...

Originally Posted by Switch

Dinosaur alert.

don't bother getting out of the way: it'll eventually die before it gets to you...

It is a simple issue to me. IMO marriage is a union between a man and a woman. It has nothing to do with equality. I have no problem with same sex unions being formalised in some sort of ceremony, only the name. Call it whatever you like but it cannot be marriage simply because it is not. I realise that the Gay members on this forum may disagree with my opinion such as tomcat, seeking asylum, maanaam and dragonfly amongst others. But if I may be so bold, I don't give a flying f@ck. I mean that, of course in a most caring and liberally sensitive way.

Originally Posted by Hugh Cow

It is a simple issue to me. IMO marriage is a union between a man and a woman. It has nothing to do with equality. I have no problem with same sex unions being formalised in some sort of ceremony, only the name. Call it whatever you like but it cannot be marriage simply because it is not. I realise that the Gay members on this forum may disagree with my opinion such as tomcat, seeking asylum, maanaam and dragonfly amongst others. But if I may be so bold, I don't give a flying f@ck. I mean that, of course in a most caring and liberally sensitive way.

I don't think SA is gay (that I'm aware of), and I know I am not. I can still disagree with your opinion, can't I?
So, to you it's just the name ("call it whatever.."). Why on earth would a kind and caring liberally sensitive person deny a minority their rights just because of a name?

You just reminded me of a meme:
"Some people claim that allowing SSM wil tear the fabric of society apart. I can't believe that. Gay people would never harm fabric."
Ironic, backhanded meme, at once supporting SSM and mocking gay men.

Originally Posted by Switch

Dinosaur alert.

Hey ... who are you calling a Luddite?

https://teakdoor.com/living-in-thaila...ml#post3634139

No one likes institutional change, especially to cater for minorities, so any changes at all, even incremental ones, are hard won over time.
Apparently, TC finds such intransigence exasperating, because he is not part of a reluctant majority. You simply cannot go from illegality and mental illness, to complete acceptance overnight.
Patience is not one of TCs virtues, allegedly.

Originally Posted by Switch

No one likes institutional change

*sigh*...yet it was those in the straight majority that legalized SSM in the States...

Originally Posted by Switch

You simply cannot go from illegality and mental illness, to complete acceptance overnight.

illegality and mental illness=terms applied by the majority...decades of increasingly intensive noise-making is hardly overnight...and the struggle continues...

Originally Posted by Switch

Patience is not one of TCs virtues, allegedly

not on this thread: 78 pages of circular arguments and Looperized nonsense is more than enough...

Originally Posted by tomcat

and the struggle continues...

... overnight and into the next day, and the next, and the .....

I.E. Not overnight

Originally Posted by tomcat

sigh*...yet it was those in the straight majority that legalized SSM in the States.

The same straight majority that made it illegal in the first place.

...^we can't dig 'em up and shoot 'em...best to move on with the heavy momentum we now have: it's ok to let go of the past...

Homo fight continued

If the SSM postal vote gets up ... there will be more of this

and this ...