Page 8 of 11 FirstFirst 1234567891011 LastLast
Results 176 to 200 of 275
  1. #176
    Thailand Expat cyrille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Online
    Today @ 07:57 PM
    Posts
    17,619
    Quote Originally Posted by Maanaam View Post
    You're on fire this morning old chap. So many especially clever posts.
    Keep it up.
    Yes, nobody does the 'no, i'm not______ you're________' post quite like Ent.

    BRAVO!

  2. #177
    ENT
    ENT is offline
    god
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Bangladesh
    Posts
    28,220
    Quote Originally Posted by ENT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by tomcat View Post
    ...*sigh*...the special jacket please, nurse...stat!...
    Hell!!! Do you really need that.....?
    I knew I could get the twat to show his hand,

    Ant Knobrotson couldn't resist redding me for this.

    Gay Marriage - a... 06-04-2017 09:55 AM AntRobertson Time to send out the unmarked scout vehicles, bENT. You fantasist, delusional, fkn nutter!


    “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’? John 10:34.

  3. #178
    Thailand Expat tomcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    10,529
    Quote Originally Posted by Passing Through
    Your posts seem to be not so much wrong as just meaninglessly incoherent bollocks.
    ...no need for further comment then...

  4. #179
    ENT
    ENT is offline
    god
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Bangladesh
    Posts
    28,220
    Quote Originally Posted by Maanaam View Post
    You're on fire this morning old chap. So many especially clever posts.
    Keep it up.

  5. #180
    Thailand Expat tomcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    10,529
    Quote Originally Posted by Maanaam
    Keep it up.
    so, ent's crankiness is a viagra side effect then...

  6. #181
    ENT
    ENT is offline
    god
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Bangladesh
    Posts
    28,220
    Quote Originally Posted by cyrille View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Maanaam View Post
    You're on fire this morning old chap. So many especially clever posts.
    Keep it up.
    Yes, nobody does the 'no, i'm not______ you're________' post quite like Ent.

    BRAVO!
    No need to applaud, it's all in your head, thywille.....

  7. #182
    ENT
    ENT is offline
    god
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Bangladesh
    Posts
    28,220
    Quote Originally Posted by tomcat View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Maanaam
    Keep it up.
    so, ent's crankiness is a viagra side effect then...
    Manfan's alway's fancied a bit of a stick up. But begging for it? In public?

    PS.
    Never used the crap.

    ............plus, I'm a really nice, even tempered happy chappy.
    Last edited by ENT; 06-04-2017 at 12:14 PM.

  8. #183
    Thailand Expat tomcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    10,529
    Quote Originally Posted by ENT
    PS.
    Never used to crap.
    so, crankiness and constipation...maybe a lower dose and a half-stiffie then...

  9. #184
    Thailand Expat

    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    15,837
    Quote Originally Posted by tomcat View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Maanaam
    Keep it up.
    so, ent's crankiness is a viagra side effect then...
    He might wish.

  10. #185
    ENT
    ENT is offline
    god
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Bangladesh
    Posts
    28,220
    No thanks, Manfan,.....

  11. #186
    How Dare You!!
    Looper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Last Online
    Today @ 01:46 AM
    Posts
    12,134
    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...
    The notion of 'equality' is so vague and idealistic. It is a blandism that is used as a faux badge of moral rectitude for any liberal political cause these days.

    Gay pair-bonding is similar in many ways to straight pair bonding but is also different in many ways. It should be called Marriage Similarity not Marriage Equality.

    In terms of moral goals what we should be seeking is the reasonable and fair treatment of individuals and preventing attempts to cause people unecessary suffering. The recent political emancipation of the gay community over recent decades has come with an acceptance that their pair bonding is a legitmate expression of their sexual orientation.

    Providing legal support for these partnerships through civil unions which are legally and ceremonially recognised is a fair result for the gay community.

    Their desire to push it that extra inch and usurp the ancient tradition of marriage as something that can be legally and ceremonially applied to gay unions is just a tiny bit reaching.

    It is not causing suffering to gay people to retain the tradition of marriage but also support gay unions using other avenues. Maybe they would feel a tiny bit happier if their world was perfect and weddings could be gay but the situation they have with civil unions is a very good situation in terms of practical outcomes. Life is messy and imperfect and full of compromises in all kinds of political arenas - it is not a fairytale.

    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...
    I think it is reasonable to use 'seemingly' based on the lack of actual in depth understanding of what the phenomenon of homosexuality is actually about. There is no scientific concensus on what the causes of homosexuality are (genetic, epigenetic, environmental, sibling rank etc.). There is no real scientific consenus on what the evolutionary rationale behind homosexuality is (a few theories on kin selection rationales but nothing conclusive).

    It may be that there is an evolutionary cause behind it but is also possible that it is simply a developmental abberation. This places it in a kind of limbo in terms how it should be treated by society which is why redefining our ancient tradition of marriage to accomdate the feelings of gay people just seems like a tiny bit of a stretch to me.


    Just as a footnote, I am not personally categorically opposed to redefining marriage. It is an option. The thing that annoys me is the suppression of open debate around this topic. The hate-speech boogeyman snowflake defence.

  12. #187
    Thailand Expat tomcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    10,529
    Quote Originally Posted by Looper
    The notion of 'equality' is so vague and idealistic. It is a blandism that is used as a faux badge of moral rectitude for any liberal political cause these days.
    unfortunate generalization...
    Quote Originally Posted by Looper
    It should be called Marriage Similarity not Marriage Equality.
    I suggest "marriage" to avoid confusion over who's bonding with whom...
    Quote Originally Posted by Looper
    The recent political emancipation of the gay community over recent decades has come with an acceptance that their pair bonding is a legitmate expression of their sexual orientation.
    you're a prince...on your own planet: such legitimacy as exists is based solely on court rulings that force the usual suspects to stop public discrimination, hate speech and the normal variety of unpleasant reactions to folks they don't like...
    Quote Originally Posted by Looper
    Providing legal support for these partnerships through civil unions which are legally and ceremonially recognised is a fair result for the gay community.
    if you don't mind, I'll decide for myself what is a fair result for my community...
    Quote Originally Posted by Looper
    Their desire to push it that extra inch and usurp the ancient tradition of marriage as something that can be legally and ceremonially applied to gay unions is just a tiny bit reaching.
    irrelevant...
    Quote Originally Posted by Looper
    It is not causing suffering to gay people to retain the tradition of marriage but also support gay unions using other avenues. Maybe they would feel a tiny bit happier if their world was perfect and weddings could be gay but the situation they have with civil unions is a very good situation in terms of practical outcomes. Life is messy and imperfect and full of compromises in all kinds of political arenas - it is not a fairytale.
    if you don't mind, I'll decide what causes personal suffering for myself and my fairy tale...
    Quote Originally Posted by Looper
    I think it is reasonable to use 'seemingly' based on the lack of actual in depth understanding of what the phenomenon of homosexuality is actually about. There is no scientific concensus on what the causes of homosexuality are (genetic, epigenetic, environmental, sibling rank etc.). There is no real scientific consenus on what the evolutionary rationale behind homosexuality is (a few theories on kin selection rationales but nothing conclusive).
    *sigh*totally irrelevant: we're here and we're queer: get over it...
    Quote Originally Posted by Looper
    The thing that annoys me is the suppression of open debate around this topic.
    I haven't noticed this debate suppression you (and others) keep mentioning...a quick glance at bleatings from the religious right, Fox news and your local trailer park seems to suggest that the "debate" about whether citizens should be "given" rights that all should enjoy...is not alive, but well and kicking...
    Majestically enthroned amid the vulgar herd

  13. #188
    Thailand Expat

    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    15,837
    Quote Originally Posted by Looper
    Gay pair-bonding is similar in many ways to straight pair bonding but is also different in many ways. It should be called Marriage Similarity not Marriage Equality.
    Wrong. Just as "gender equality" is wrong.
    It's about equivalency, not equality.

  14. #189
    Days Work Done! Norton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Roiet
    Posts
    30,503
    Quote Originally Posted by Looper
    Just as a footnote, I am not personally categorically opposed to redefining marriage.
    Rather than a footnote this is the top issue. The word marriage permeates civil law. Lawa related to inheritance, taxation, adoption, divorce and visas for example. Replace the word marriage in law and let the chuch continue to marry folks if they so desire.

    Civil unions are fine but in some juristictions they are not the same as marriage law. Really makes no diff what word replaces marriage in law. Shackedup, filing jointly for tax purposes works for me.

    Marriage is a religious term that has long ago crept into the law of the land. Long past time to get rid of the use of the word in law and practice separation of church and state.

    Morality of same sex practice also based on religion. I quite enjoy a good blow job even though I was taught I will burn in hell for my immoral acts. I would rather not be whipped by a dominatrix but if others do no skin off my nose. Their choice.

    Mixing legal aspects, morality and personal sex preference into a single debate will always end in a convoluted mess.

    Green for Looper. May not agree with him on sone aspects but he puts a good effort in his posts.

  15. #190
    Thailand Expat

    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    15,837
    Quote Originally Posted by Norton
    Marriage is a religious term that has long ago crept into the law of the land. Long past time to get rid of the use of the word in law and practice separation of church and state.
    Or, let the word "marriage" evolve as happens in language, and not connote one man and one woman. That would solve so many legal issues regarding so many laws that rely on the word, like you said visa law et al.

  16. #191
    Days Work Done! Norton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Roiet
    Posts
    30,503
    Quote Originally Posted by Maanaam
    Or, let the word "marriage" evolve
    That too but more difficult.
    Last edited by Norton; 06-04-2017 at 07:21 PM.

  17. #192
    R.I.P.
    DrB0b's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD
    Posts
    17,158
    Quote Originally Posted by Norton
    Marriage is a religious term that has long ago crept into the law of the land
    It was the other way round. The word evolved from Latin and meant nothing more than to provide with a husband or wife. It had never been a religious term in western culture until the church decided to take it out of the secular realm and make it a sacrament, thus extending the churches control over the people of the community and their property.

    As any cult leader or General knows the way to exert ultimate control over any group is to control their access to sex and to property.

    As the church became more powerful church law and secular law merged with church law being the dominant law. Marriage is, of course, these days mostly a legal term but as there are many different cultures and societies in the world and many different legal systems attempting to give it any one or another formal legal meaning only makes sense in terms of each particular culture, society, or legal system. If you want to know what marriage means in any developed society then look to the definition in the law books, there is no other legally valid definition.
    Last edited by DrB0b; 06-04-2017 at 07:17 PM.
    The Above Post May Contain Strong Language, Flashing Lights, or Violent Scenes.

  18. #193
    Thailand Expat

    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    15,837
    Quote Originally Posted by Norton View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Maanaam
    Or, let the word "marriage" evolve
    That too but moe difficult.
    You think? Letting words evolve is a natural process. The most apt example here is "gay". It's only because of the politics that "marriage" is being held back.

    Lets face it, one of the biggest hurdles in the drive for equality in this issue is people (and laws) insisting the word has a meaning that hasn't changed for centuries.
    Let the word evolve, and the statutes need no adjusting (except the definition).

  19. #194
    How Dare You!!
    Looper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Last Online
    Today @ 01:46 AM
    Posts
    12,134
    Quote Originally Posted by tomcat
    I suggest "marriage" to avoid confusion over who's bonding with whom...
    That is actually not a bad idea. It could be referred to as "marriage" in quotes to distinguish it from marriage. In verbal speech you could do the finger quotes. It conveys a sense of humouring the gay community and a sense of magnanimity over relenting to the hijacking of the word....
    ...OK, just kidding

    What is important is that gay couples are allowed to solemnise their partnership legally and ceremonially. This is already catered for adequately with civil unions.

    The quest for the redfenition of marriage is not really about the practical needs of gay pair-bonding as these are already adequately covered. It is a political quest for recognition of the equivalent validity of homosexuality with heterosexuality as an expression of human sexuality. But the science does not bear out the extension of such recognition as the roots and rationale of homosexuality are still a mystery.

    It might have a sound evolutionary rationale in which case that could strengthen the argument for redefining marriage. On the other hand it might simply be a recurring developmental error. The error may be genetic or environmnetal (if it is environmental then it may possibly even be avoidable - not beng offensive here, just realistic as heterosexuality offers a number of better life options than homosexuality). In any case if it is developmental error then that would tend to weaken the case for redefining marriage.

    The staus quo with civil unions as a legal and ceremonial compromise seems like a reasonable position to take until the evidence is in.
    Last edited by Looper; 06-04-2017 at 07:15 PM.

  20. #195
    R.I.P.
    DrB0b's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD
    Posts
    17,158
    Quote Originally Posted by Maanaam View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Norton View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Maanaam
    Or, let the word "marriage" evolve
    That too but moe difficult.
    You think? Letting words evolve is a natural process. The most apt example here is "gay". It's only because of the politics that "marriage" is being held back.

    Lets face it, one of the biggest hurdles in the drive for equality in this issue is people (and laws) insisting the word has a meaning that hasn't changed for centuries.
    Let the word evolve, and the statutes need no adjusting (except the definition).
    Etymology, linguistics, and legislation are not the same thing. When a word is used in Law that word is strictly defined and retains that definition in legislation. It doesn't matter how the word evolves in the "outside" world. That's why so many statutes start of with defining the terms used in the statute. In the US marriage is defined as
    In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.
    (Added Pub. L. 104–199, § 3(a), Sept. 21, 1996, 110 Stat. 2419.)
    and that, until the law changes, is the legal definition of marriage in the US. It doesn't matter whether you agree or not, the definition is fixed under law until changed by the legislature.

  21. #196
    ENT
    ENT is offline
    god
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Bangladesh
    Posts
    28,220
    Quote Originally Posted by Maanaam View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Looper
    Gay pair-bonding is similar in many ways to straight pair bonding but is also different in many ways. It should be called Marriage Similarity not Marriage Equality.
    Wrong. Just as "gender equality" is wrong.
    It's about equivalency, not equality.
    Oh boy, here we go again,...Explain....maybe don't explain, I think you'd be better off, because,...

    You're fwkn cwcw, Manfan, there's no equivalence there by a long shot.

    Definition of equivalence.
    the condition of being equal or equivalent in value, worth, function, etc.
    synonyms: equality, sameness, interchangeability, comparability, correspondence; More

    Gay pair-bonding is as equivalent to straight pair-bonding as a couple of steers bonding and having it off long-term in the back-paddock is equivalent to a pair of paradise ducks bonding bonding for life, whose behaviour, roles and functions are as alike to the pair of steers gallavanting under the full moon as chalk is to cheese.

    Gay 'marital' unions bear no semblance whatsoever to straight marital unions,...they are an imitation and a sham, a mere posturing, a pretence, an attempt to emulate their betters more traditional peers, a furtive seeking of social approval, no more , a bit like this verse in the I Ching, the Chinese Book of Changes.


    I Ching; (Wilhelm Translation, foreword by CG Jung.)

    Hexagram 54; Line 6. The marrying Maiden.

    "The woman holds a basket, but there are no fruits in it.
    The man stabs the sheep, but no blood flows.
    Nothing that acts to further."

    Interpretation;(Anon).
    In a ceremony performed in respect and of society's traditions and practices, one party in the ritual takes on the role of a wife, but without becoming fruitful, while the other, attempting to imitate the role of a husband, is ineffective, rendering their efforts at achieving satisfaction futile.


    If queers want to ceremonially bond, they should stick to chains, fur lined handcuffs, dog collars and leads, all other fetishes and extreme queer behaviour practiced at home, away from the public eye, not in yer face, so to speak, otherwise there'll be all sorts of backlashes, (pun not intended).

    I suppose queers could probably, and in fact do, get away with some queer bonding rituals, like one leading the other around town on the end of a leash, as seen around St 19 in Phnom Penh, a bit like some control-freak mothers do when going shopping with their more berko kids,............ or that hill-tribe lady in Pai, whose big pet monkey, standing up on it's hind legs and wearing a hat, walks her dog on the end of a lead and collar down the town's main drag.

  22. #197
    Thailand Expat tomcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    10,529
    Quote Originally Posted by Looper
    This is already catered for adequately with civil unions.
    one man's adequate is another's insufficient...
    Quote Originally Posted by Looper
    But the science does not bear out the extension of such recognition as the roots and rationale of homosexuality are still a mystery.
    such silliness doesn't prevent the extension of recognition...cultural intransigence does...it is up to the leaders of a culture to see that oppression of minorities is a threat to the culture's stability...and move forward...
    Quote Originally Posted by Looper
    It might have a sound evolutionary rationale in which case that could strengthen the argument for redefining marriage.
    no rationale is required beyond equality for all citizens...you're setting up an obvious smokescreen here.
    Quote Originally Posted by Looper
    On the other hand it might simply be a recurring developmental error.
    or "it" might be as natural as cherry blossoms in spring...
    Quote Originally Posted by Looper
    not beng offensive here, just realistic as heterosexuality offers a number of better life options than homosexuality

    Quote Originally Posted by Looper
    The status quo with civil unions as a legal and ceremonial compromise seems like a reasonable position to take until the evidence is in.
    this just in: we exist and demand equality now, not at some indeterminate time in the future...

    It's obvious, dearest Loopy, that you are not now nor have you ever been a member of a minority...your persistence in presenting what you appear to think are reasonable alternatives to equality or reasons to deny such equality demonstrate little more than genteel condescension...which, when compared to other posts in this thread is almost...um...refreshing.

  23. #198
    How Dare You!!
    Looper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Last Online
    Today @ 01:46 AM
    Posts
    12,134
    Quote Originally Posted by tomcat
    it is up to the leaders of a culture to see that oppression of minorities is a threat to the culture's stability
    I don't think having gay partnerships legally recognised and celebrated using an instrument like civil union, which is simlar to marriage but available for any two people regardless of gender, is oppression. It allows marriage to retain its cultural definition which it has had for countless millenia but also supports the social recognition of similar arrangements between same sex couples in light of the recent social emancipation of people of diverse sexuality. This is simply not oppression by any reasonable standards other than snowflake standards.

    Do you not accept that other members of the community might value cultural institutions like marriage that have held a specific meaning since the dawn of civilisation and span the evolution of cultures and religions across aeons. Valuing that specific meaning is not bigotry. It is not oppression for society to want ancient cultural institutions preserved using their commonly understood definitions while offering similar new arrangements for people wanting to celebrate and solemnify partnerships that fall outside the traditional definition. The provision of new arrangements for celebrating new types of partnership is tolerance and acceptance not oppression.

  24. #199
    Days Work Done! Norton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Roiet
    Posts
    30,503
    "What Are the Differences between Marriage, Civil Unions, and Domestic Partnerships?

    There are significant differences between the benefits and responsibilities of marriage and civil unions or domestic partnerships. People who are married usually enjoy more benefits than those in alternative arrangements, including:

    Legal recognition of the relationship in other states
    The ability to divorce in their state of residence, regardless of where married
    Tax benefits available to married couples only
    Immigration benefits when petitioning for a non-citizen spouse
    Federal benefits, such as social security, medical, and life insurance

    Marriage Compared to Civil Unions | LegalMatch Law Library

  25. #200
    Thailand Expat tomcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    10,529
    Quote Originally Posted by Looper
    I don't think having gay partnerships legally recognised and celebrated using an instrument like civil union, which is simlar to marriage but available for any two people regardless of gender, is oppression
    I do...marriage between two consenting adults is equality...it's that simple...
    Quote Originally Posted by Looper
    This is simply not oppression by any reasonable standards other than snowflake standards.
    unfortunately, we disagree...though I'm saddened to see you've fallen into name calling...
    Quote Originally Posted by Looper
    Do you not accept that other members of the community might value cultural institutions like marriage that have held a specific meaning since the dawn of civilisation and span the evolution of cultures and religions across aeons.
    of course....and those same community members had it their own way across all those aeons while my kind were refused...that's bigotry...
    Quote Originally Posted by Looper
    It is not oppression for society to want ancient cultural institutions preserved using their commonly understood definitions
    commonly understood by an oppressive majority...the minority weren't consulted
    Quote Originally Posted by Looper
    while offering similar new arrangements for people wanting to celebrate and solemnify partnerships that fall outside the traditional definition.
    "now you nigras can go to school here and you'll be equal...and drink out of that water fountain and you'll be equal". The white majority definitely wanted to retain its cultural dominance and the definition of its superiority...a majority (I hope) have now moved on from that cultural notion and accepted that the races can mix...I'm sure that folks will eventually accept the butt hurt of marriage equality for all...
    Quote Originally Posted by Looper
    The provision of new arrangements for celebrating new types of partnership is tolerance and acceptance not oppression.
    It is condescension defending cultural exclusiveness...I have no patience for either...

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
  •