I believe in gay marriage

[husaberg]

What the fuck is this? A game of "I know you are, you said you are, but what am I"?

You sound a bit upset? someone stand on your tail?


I ain't gonna argue with you.


Oh the cat got your tongue

[_Shrek_]

I ain't gonna argue with you.

:weep: :cry: :rolleyes:

[bogan]

No Bogan you see it is a weak point. i don't see your point as offering much either.
it was in one pole a high of about 66 percent in favour of but has been trending down since.

It agreed with my "pretty weak point regarding the interpretation/meaning of the word":rolleyes:
it threw out the human rights bit first...Said it was a non issue...........

And I listed my reason for seeing it as such, you seem reluctant to list yours against the change of meaning other than it is change itself; and considering the number of other changes the english language endures each year it seems and absurd reason to pick. You don't see equality regardless of sexual orientation as offering much? Or do you think they are already treated as equals?

That's the point I was making, it was examining the meaning as it was written, not what society currently thinks it should mean, the times, they do change. Edit, okay looks like I remembered that first bit wrong, the later seems to be ticking along well though.

[husaberg]

I am not reluctant to list anything as i keep saying and you keep trying to minimise "the meaning of the word"
There can be different customs and equality while must they be mutually exclusive.
As for society support it appears evenly divided (which you continually choose to ignore) and there was no vote other than by the mp's.

You seem to be looking for a smoking gun It like you are searching for me to say something derogatory against homosexuals or something... why?

[bogan]

I am not reluctant to list anything as i keep saying and you keep trying to minimise "the meaning of the word"
There can be different customs and equality while must they be mutually exclusive.
As for society support it appears evenly divided (which you continually choose to ignore) and there was no vote other than by the mp's.

You seem to be looking for a smoking gun It like you are searching for me to say something derogatory against homosexuals or something... why?

I'm merely putting it in perspective, word meanings change a lot. To be opposed to this change so much more strongly than the myriad of other word definition updates each year suggests there is more to it than just because it is change; that is the point you are not listing.
The mark of true equality, is where both parties know they are equals and are treated as such, can you honestly say you think that is the case here?
Why should an evenly divided society opinion have a bearing on the points at hand? it doesn't give to weight to either side of the debate so why shouldn't it be ignored?
As I said above, being opposed to it solely on the grounds that a word's meaning is being changed seems a bit weak.

[husaberg]

I'm merely putting it in perspective, word meanings change a lot. To be opposed to this change so much more strongly than the myriad of other word definition updates each year suggests there is more to it than just because it is change; that is the point you are not listing.
The mark of true equality, is where both parties know they are equals and are treated as such, can you honestly say you think that is the case here?
Why should an evenly divided society opinion have a bearing on the points at hand? it doesn't give to weight to either side of the debate so why shouldn't it be ignored?
As I said above, being opposed to it solely on the grounds that a word's meaning is being changed seems a bit weak.

Yawn fest your prospective your POV Your opinion on what is suitable your opinion on what is equality your opinion on what is deserving......................

[_Shrek_]

You seem to be looking for a smoking gun It like you are searching for me to say something derogatory against homosexuals or something... why?

then they can call you a homophobic, hater, bigot, &/or religious nutter

[bogan]

Yawn fest your prospective your POV Your opinion on what is suitable your opinion on what is deserving......................

Have a look here (http://public.oed.com/the-oed-today/rewriting-the-oed/editing-of-entries/) at the process that encompasses updating all the other words int he english language, the vast number of changes to the language are reality, not just my opinion.
I'm trying to get your perspective on why this change is worth opposing when so many others aren't. Why your opinion that they are treated as equals is worth more than theirs that they are not. What your point is to keep bringing up the equally divided public opinion on the matter is. Why such reluctance to share those things?

[_Shrek_]

Have a look here (http://public.oed.com/the-oed-today/rewriting-the-oed/editing-of-entries/) at the process that encompasses updating all the other words int he english language, the vast number of changes to the language are reality, not just my opinion.
I'm trying to get your perspective on why this change is worth opposing when so many others aren't. Why your opinion that they are treated as equals is worth more than theirs that they are not. What your point is to keep bringing up the equally divided public opinion on the matter is. Why such reluctance to share those things?

I asked the question about 20 years ago,

why did they take the word sodomite & homosexual & call it gay!!! when it use to mean joy joy happy happy

Answer was because sodomite & homosexual sounds disgusting,

now what do you hear the kids say, "thats so gay"

so changing the meaning doesn't always work aye

[husaberg]

Have a look here (http://public.oed.com/the-oed-today/rewriting-the-oed/editing-of-entries/) at the process that encompasses updating all the other words int he english language, the vast number of changes to the language are reality, not just my opinion.
I'm trying to get your perspective on why this change is worth opposing when so many others aren't. Why your opinion that they are treated as equals is worth more than theirs that they are not. What your point is to keep bringing up the equally divided public opinion on the matter is. Why such reluctance to share those things?

blah blah blah you were debating for a start now you are trolling.
The dictionary changes based on apolitical public view well yes but the word meaning was defined in law. It (The law) now has to be changed to suit someones (no doubt well meaning politically correct agenda)well meaning then the dictionary follows. The only reason the dictionary was brought up was for the original meaning. Which some said was never exclusively man and women.

This is getting past boring unsubscribe

[_Shrek_]

I may have to except that the govt has changed the law,

but they do need to define it marriage & gay-marriage because we are different in that respect

& no matter how you change the meaning of a word it's not going to change the fact

[Katman]

then they can call you a homophobic, hater, bigot, &/or religious nutter



Answer was because sodomite & homosexual sounds disgusting,



Well, you sure sound like you're either homophobic or a religious nutter or both.

[_Shrek_]

Well, you sure sound like you're either homophobic or a religious nutter or both.

it's easy to take part of a post & make sound like some thing else.... :msn-wink:

[bogan]

blah blah blah you were debating for a start now you are trolling.
The dictionary changes based on apolitical public view well yes but the word meaning was defined in law. It (The law) now has to be changed to suit someones (no doubt well meaning politically correct agenda)well meaning then the dictionary follows. The only reason the dictionary was brought up was for the original meaning. Which some said was never exclusively man and women.

This is getting past boring unsubscribe

Calling me a troll is another weak attempt to avoid the questions, which are quite clearly not trolling, and me trying to get an understanding. But hey, if you're done here, I can be too, as it does not appear anybody else is interested in intelligent debate.

[Virago]

There are many levels of objection, all the way from "Homosexuality is a sin, and an abomination before God", to "I have no problem with their relationships, but am not comfortable with the use of the word marriage - it is different."

That's what it comes down to - are they different? What makes same-sex relationships different? Is it "different" like a mixed-race relationship, or inter-faith relationship, or age-disparity relationship? Why is their life-long commitment of love and sharing of lives so different to heterosexual couples, in all their variety?

Personally, I don't see the difference. I don't see the need for a different word to recognise that union of lives, and long-term commitment. I don't see how the encompassing of same sex-commitments under the word "marriage" can affect or reflect on my own wonderful marriage, or anyone elses for that matter.

If you think same-sex couples are "different", please explain why they are different, rather than hide behind dictionaries and bibles. Because I don't understand?

[Katman]

it's easy to take part of a post & make sound like some thing else.... :msn-wink:

You're the one who described the word homosexual as 'disgusting'.

Sounds homophobic to me.

[_Shrek_]

There are many levels of objection, all the way from "Homosexuality is a sin, and an abomination before God", to "I have no problem with their relationships, but am not comfortable with the use of the word marriage - it is different."

That's what it comes down to - are they different? What makes same-sex relationships different? Is it "different" like a mixed-race relationship, or inter-faith relationship? Why is their life-long commitment of love and sharing of lives so different to heterosexual couples, in all their variety?

Personally, I don't see the difference. I don't see the need for a different word to recognise that union of lives, and long-term commitment. I don't see how the encompassing of same sex-commitments under the word "marriage" can affect or reflect on my own wonderful marriage, or anyone elses for that matter.

If you think same-sex couples are "different", please explain why, rather than hide behind dictionaries and bibles. Because I don't understand?

so what you're saying is that we can no longer use a dictionary for any thing when we want to define some thing,

I'm in business with my wife = 50/50 partnership, is not marriage

I'm married to my wife = 100% commitment it's not a partnership

two homosexuals get married who's wife, who's the husband

two lesbians get married who's wife, who's the husband

how do you redefine this?

[_Shrek_]

I asked the question about 20 years ago,

why did they take the word sodomite & homosexual & call it gay!!! when it use to mean joy joy happy happy

Answer was because sodomite & homosexual sounds disgusting,now what do you hear the kids say, "thats so gay"

so changing the meaning doesn't always work aye


Well, you sure sound like you're either homophobic or a religious nutter or both.


You're the one who described the word homosexual as 'disgusting'.

Sounds homophobic to me.

now look at post again instead of trolling :corn:

[bogan]

so what you're saying is that we can no longer use a dictionary for any thing when we want to define some thing,

I'm in business with my wife = 50/50 partnership, is not marriage

I'm married to my wife = 100% commitment it's not a partnership

two homosexuals get married who's wife, who's the husband

two lesbians get married who's wife, who's the husband

how do you redefine this?

Didn't wife previously mean a female who stayed at home and did the cooking and cleaning etc, while husband meant a male who went out and worked to financially support the household? So if you're in business with your wife, the she doesn't fit the definition, and neither do you...

[Banditbandit]

now what do you hear the kids say, "thats so gay"

so changing the meaning doesn't always work aye

Quick note - the word is actually spelt "ghey" and has no reference to sexuality - that's why the spelling is different - it usually is intended to mean "lame" ...

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ghey&defid=1517288


so what you're saying is that we can no longer use a dictionary for any thing when we want to define some thing,

I'm in business with my wife = 50/50 partnership, is not marriage

I'm married to my wife = 100% commitment it's not a partnership

two homosexuals get married who's wife, who's the husband

two lesbians get married who's wife, who's the husband

how do you redefine this?


Why does one need to be a husband and one a wife? That's just a lame objection ... it defines any person in terms of heterosexual relationships and genders ... completely unnecessary ..

[_Shrek_]

Didn't wife previously mean a female who stayed at home and did the cooking and cleaning etc, while husband meant a male who went out and worked to financially support the household? So if you're in business with your wife, the she doesn't fit the definition, and neither do you...

:scratch: you seem a bit :confused:

& to us it still means the same but as our kids are 17 plus she wanted to do this business, as it ment we could do it together, not sure why you think we don't fit the definition!!!

& if you were to understand what mrs S thinks, what wife means, this might help :msn-wink:

W = withholding

I = income

F = from

E = employment

[Katman]

Meh, all the ranting about the 'definition of the word' is simply a smoke screen for the homophobes to hide behind.

[_Shrek_]

Why does one need to be a husband and one a wife? That's just a lame objection ... it defines any person in terms of heterosexual relationships and genders ... completely unnecessary ..

so now we're moving into the area of neither male or female in any way shape or form, :weird:

[bogan]

:scratch: you seem a bit :confused:

& to us it still means the same but as our kids are 17 plus she wanted to do this business, as it ment we could do it together, not sure why you think we don't fit the definition!!!

& if you were to understand what mrs S thinks, what wife means, this might help :msn-wink:

W = withholding

I = income

F = from

E = employment

My point was that you're clearly ok with the wifes role being redefined which does affect you, but are not ok with the word marriage being redefined which doesn't affect you.

[_Shrek_]

Meh, all the ranting about the 'definition of the word' is simply a smoke screen for the homophobes to hide behind.

:not: the great KM has spoken now we're all :buggerd:

[Banditbandit]

so now we're moving into the area of neither male or female in any way shape or form, :weird:

Oh crap ... you deliberatley misunderstand. That's a very good definition of ignorance .. and I don't argue with ignorant people .. waste of my time.

[_Shrek_]

Why does one need to be a husband and one a wife? That's just a lame objection ... it defines any person in terms of heterosexual relationships and genders ... completely unnecessary ..


so now we're moving into the area of neither male or female in any way shape or form, :weird:

now you're telling me I deliberatley misunderstood & call me ignorant when you said the above

how could I not interpret it any other way!!

Q/ for you!!! what happens when the marriage celebrants say I now present to you Mr & Mrs..... ?

[_Shrek_]

My point was that you're clearly ok with the wifes role being redefined which does affect you, but are not ok with the word marriage being redefined which doesn't affect you.

the wife's role hasn't been redefined - a wife is a (female) married to a husband (male)

[Banditbandit]

now you're telling me I deliberatley misunderstood & call me ignorant when you said the above

how could I not interpret it any other way!!

You don't nered to interpret any further - you have clearly demonstrated that you understood exactrly what I was saying ... (apart from the poor spelling of my fingers this morning ...)



Q/ for you!!! what happens when the marriage celebrants say I now present to you Mr & Mrs..... ?

Who says the have to say that ???? That's not part of any legal requirement of any marriage ... It may be custom and practice in SOME circles .. but I have never been to a wedding where that was said by whoever was the celebrant ...

[mashman]

so what you're saying is that we can no longer use a dictionary for any thing when we want to define some thing,

I'm in business with my wife = 50/50 partnership, is not marriage

I'm married to my wife = 100% commitment it's not a partnership

two homosexuals get married who's wife, who's the husband

two lesbians get married who's wife, who's the husband

how do you redefine this?

What is the role of a wife?

What is the role of a husband?

Do wives and husbands share roles? if so, shouldn't that make them a Wusband or a Hife?

[bogan]

the wife's role hasn't been redefined - a wife is a (female) married to a husband (male)

I think you need to be a bit more honest with yourself about the historical roles of each, and how they used to be defined. Being picky and just choosing parts of the definition to focus on while ignoring others is why you are objecting to the currently proposed changes, so it is unbecoming to do the same thing yourself.

[Katman]

Q/ for you!!! what happens when the marriage celebrants say I now present to you Mr & Mrs..... ?

You're argument has hit an all time low.

Seriously man, I'd have more respect for you if you just came out (see what I done there) and admitted you oppose the law change because homosexuality is against your religion.

[Virago]

...If you think same-sex couples are "different", please explain why they are different, rather than hide behind dictionaries and bibles. Because I don't understand?


so what you're saying is that we can no longer use a dictionary for any thing when we want to define some thing...

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. The dictionary does not define us, we define the dictionary.

I've got a tatty old dictionary from the '70s at home, which defines several East European countries as being part of "The Soviet Union". Perhaps we need to inform them that their more recent independence is not permitted by the dictionary?

Things change. The dictionary does too.


....I'm in business with my wife = 50/50 partnership, is not marriage

I'm married to my wife = 100% commitment it's not a partnership...

This makes no sense - can you explain?

I'm in business with my wife too - 50/50 partnership. It has nothing to do with our marriage. Are you suggesting that same-sex relationships are a business agreement?


...two homosexuals get married who's wife, who's the husband

two lesbians get married who's wife, who's the husband

how do you redefine this?

Why do they have to husband and wife? Can they not be spouses?

In the meantime I'm still keen for you to give some real reasons why same-sex relationships are different, rather than giving superficial definitions? I'm genuinely interested.

[awayatc]

just googled marriage definition for you....:

Anthropologists have proposed several competing definitions of marriage so as to encompass the wide variety of marital practices observed across cultures.[4] In his book The History of Human Marriage (1921), Edvard Westermarck defined marriage as "a more or less durable connection between male and female lasting beyond the mere act of propagation till after the birth of the offspring."[5] In The Future of Marriage in Western Civilization (1936), he rejected his earlier definition, instead provisionally defining marriage as "a relation of one or more men to one or more women that is recognized by custom or law".[6]

The anthropological handbook Notes and Queries (1951) defined marriage as "a union between a man and a woman such that children born to the woman are the recognized legitimate offspring of both partners."[7] In recognition of a practice by the Nuer of Sudan allowing women to act as a husband in certain circumstances, Kathleen Gough suggested modifying this to "a woman and one or more other persons."[8]

Edmund Leach criticized Gough's definition for being too restrictive in terms of recognized legitimate offspring and suggested that marriage be viewed in terms of the different types of rights it serves to establish. Leach expanded the definition and proposed that "Marriage is a relationship established between a woman and one or more other persons, which provides that a child born to the woman under circumstances not prohibited by the rules of the relationship, is accorded full birth-status rights common to normal members of his society or social stratum"[9] Leach argued that no one definition of marriage applied to all cultures. He offered a list of ten rights associated with marriage, including sexual monopoly and rights with respect to children, with specific rights differing across cultures.[10]


Does that help.....?

[MD]

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. The dictionary does not define us, we define the dictionary.

I've got a tatty old dictionary from the '70s at home, which defines several East European countries as being part of "The Soviet Union". Perhaps we need to inform them that their more recent independence is not permitted by the dictionary?

Things change. The dictionary does too.

.

That's a nonsense of a comparison. You are implying that the writers of a dictionary in the 1970s are at fault for not having some magical crystal ball insight to the future national borders of the world. They reported what was the contemporary accepted known nations at that time.


Noun 1. dictionary definition - a definition that reports the standard uses of a word or phrase or symbol


This Government has no more right to change Eastern European borders than it does to change the contemporary common use of words, any words be that; up, down, oven, fridge or marriage.

[_Shrek_]

it doesn't matter what is said, some of you have your views on the subject.... & others have theirs....

so all the best for your futures.... & one day we will see who is right or wrong

[huff3r]

it doesn't matter what is said, some of you have your views on the subject.... & others have theirs....

so all the best for your futures.... & one day we will see who is right or wrong

But how will we know? It's hardly a quantitative debate!

[Genie]

Orginal post, he believes in gay marriage.

Who believes in marriage?

As to gay/homosexual/lesbian marriage....nah, shouldn't be legal. It's just wrong.

[bogan]

it doesn't matter what is said

Then why speak at all?

[Madness]

The Earth is flat!

[bogan]

There is no spoon!

[Genie]

Reese would beg to differ.

[huff3r]

The Cake is a lie!!

[Berries]

It has got to hurt though hasn't it?

[Virago]

It has got to hurt though hasn't it?

Getting married?

[ducatilover]

I go away for a rally and you wombles are still waffling about this?
Has anything clever been said yet?

[Banditbandit]

Naa ... only "I go away for a rally" ... best idea yet ... I'm off Friday ...

[ducatilover]

Naa ... only "I go away for a rally" ... best idea yet ... I'm off Friday ...

:niceone: Good stuff, I'm already sick of waiting to bugger off to the Hawkes Bay rally.
Better amuse myself with drugs, sluts and faggy marriage

[Berries]

Getting married?
Yes. Especially the anal sex bit.

[Paul in NZ]

Gah! It had to happen I suppose.....

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/8588721/Legalise-multi-partner-marriage-group

Oh lordy lordy - lets debate THIS one....

[Banditbandit]

Yeah .. why not ...

It's legal in many countries and is supported by more than one religion ... let'em do it ... then we can have line mariages like in Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress ... seems a very sensible idea ... no inheritance tax or death duties . always a family to look after kids ... the family assets are preserved ...

Everyone wins ..

[Oscar]

Gah! It had to happen I suppose.....

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/8588721/Legalise-multi-partner-marriage-group

Oh lordy lordy - lets debate THIS one....

Why not?

Now that we've destroyed the traditional meaning of marriage, is there any logical reason not to extend it to polygamous marriages?

[yod]

Why not?

Now that we've destroyed the traditional meaning of marriage, is there any logical reason not to extend it to polygamous marriages?

Destroyed? Biased much?

But I don't see a problem with polygamy. If all parties are consenting, what's the issue? Why should anyone else have a say in other peoples affairs where it has no genuine detrimental impact on anyone?

[Oscar]

Destroyed? Biased much?



Illiterate much?

[Banditbandit]

Why not?

Now that we've destroyed the Our white western christian traditional meaning of marriage, is there any logical reason not to extend it to polygamous marriages?

There .. fixed that for you .. now you can make the appropriate changes in your mind ...

[yod]

Illiterate much?

Not at all, extremely literate actually, more so than most I might add, but anyway...I noticed your complete lack of a real response.

[Oscar]

There .. fixed that for you .. now you can make the appropriate changes in your mind ...

What I meant was "Judeo Christian marriage" actually.
And I think there are a bunch of Christians and Jews who would object to being called white.

And don't you worry about my mind, you should be more concerned about the way you made a race issue out of something that has naught to do with colour.
Shame on you..

[yod]

There .. fixed that for you .. now you can make the appropriate changes in your mind ...

oh why'd you have to go and do that?! I was waiting to see if he could figure it out all by himself!:rolleyes:

[Oscar]

Not at all, extremely literate actually, more so than most I might add, but anyway...I noticed your complete lack of a real response.

Why would I bother to respond to someone who obviously has no concept of syntax?

Notwithstanding that, calling someone biased does not an argument make.
Now if you want to go back and re-read my post, I referred to the destruction of the traditional concept of marriage. As far as the institution (of traditional marriage) goes, the latest laws are part of an erosion of the concept that has been going on for at least a hundred years.

So why does commenting on this make me biased?

[bogan]

Now if you want to go back and re-read my post, I referred to the destruction of the traditional concept of marriage. As far as the institution (of traditional marriage) goes, the latest laws are part of an erosion of the concept that has been going on for at least a hundred years.

So why does commenting on this make me biased?

The terms destruction and erosion show your bias, change and adjustment are other words you could have used without showing bias; though I'm sure someone of your linguistic abilities can think of more... :innocent:

[Oscar]

The terms destruction and erosion show your bias, change and adjustment are other words you could have used without showing bias; though I'm sure someone of your linguistic abilities can think of more... :innocent:

Everyone has bias, and you're correct - the use of language can betray that bias.
However (and this was my point to the previous chap), simply saying "you are biased", without addressing the issues is pretty meaningless.

[bogan]

Everyone has bias, and you're correct - the use of language can betray that bias.
However (and this was my point to the previous chap), simply saying "you are biased", without addressing the issues is pretty meaningless.

Was there a later edit of his post then? cos the next line down seems to address it...

[Oscar]

Was there a later edit of his post then? cos the next line down seems to address it...

Nope.

The next line down had nothing to do with my comment about tradition marriage being destroyed.
In fact I agree with him about polygamy.

[Paul in NZ]

Bloody hell - who would have time for for it? I suppose I could just say 'Yes Dears' instead of multiple times as I head off to mow the lawn or work on a bike??? But frankly it all just sounds like hard work... Besides - Vicki might want a second hubby... Oh the competition - oh the infamy... I don't think I could cope.... Bastards NOT using MY lawn mower and thats FINAL!

[Banditbandit]

What I meant was "Judeo Christian marriage" actually.
And I think there are a bunch of Christians and Jews who would object to being called white.

And don't you worry about my mind, you should be more concerned about the way you made a race issue out of something that has naught to do with colour.
Shame on you..

Of course there's a bunch of Christians who would object to being called white ... and some of them would by my relations .. but they would know precisely what I mean ... it was a shorthanded term for "people with western-derived cultural norms"

Race is a non-concept - it is totally invalid ... as is colour. Only culture matters - and that is about behaviour patterns, not geno/phenotype or skin colour ...

There's also a couple of Christian groups who practice polygamy ...

[Banditbandit]

For those who haven 't heard, Washington State has passed both laws - gay marriage and legalized marijuana.

The fact that gay marriage and marijuana were legalized on the same day makes perfect biblical sense because Leviticus 20:13 says:

"If a man lies with another man they should be stoned."



We just hadn't interpreted it correctly before.....

[mashman]

Maybe there's just no money in it (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/pot-business-suffers-growing-pains-023400300.html)

[oldrider]

For those who haven 't heard, Washington State has passed both laws - gay marriage and legalized marijuana.

The fact that gay marriage and marijuana were legalized on the same day makes perfect biblical sense because Leviticus 20:13 says:

"If a man lies with another man they should be stoned."



We just hadn't interpreted it correctly before.....

You must get your e-mails from the same people that I do, it's a bit old but still very appropriate and funny! (But are we still allowed to laugh at stuff like that?) :shutup:

[Berries]

In fact I agree with him about polygamy.
Get a room.

[pritch]

[QUOTE=huff3r;1130534651]Last I checked there was a shortage of willing adopters, and an abundance of children up for adoption, so I can't understand why there would even be an eligibility list?![/

Silly me, I thought most new ummm unattached(?) mums chose to go on the DPB?

[Berries]

Oh dear, the handbags are out.

Tui 'beer' is gay. (http://www.stuff.co.nz/oddstuff/8606345/Gay-billboard-brews-controversy://)

[_Shrek_]

Oh dear, the handbags are out.

Tui 'beer' is gay. (http://www.stuff.co.nz/oddstuff/8606345/Gay-billboard-brews-controversy://)

:confused: there was a handbag!!! great add tho :laugh:

[HenryDorsetCase]

Oh dear, the handbags are out.

Tui 'beer' is gay. (http://www.stuff.co.nz/oddstuff/8606345/Gay-billboard-brews-controversy://)

Protip: Tui beer is not beer. It is swill.

[Oakie]

Protip: Tui beer is not beer. It is swill. Yeah, right!

Actually I've gone off beer a bit. I now most often drink cider.

[Berries]

Protip: Tui beer is not beer. It is swill.
Hence 'beer' rather then beer. But then am I right that it does not even say the word 'beer' on the bottle?


Actually I've gone off beer a bit. I now most often drink cider.
Old Mout scrumpy is a good one. Just a shame the hot weather has gone.




I blame Thatcher for that as well.

[jonbuoy]

Bloody hell - who would have time for for it? I suppose I could just say 'Yes Dears' instead of multiple times as I head off to mow the lawn or work on a bike??? But frankly it all just sounds like hard work... Besides - Vicki might want a second hubby... Oh the competition - oh the infamy... I don't think I could cope.... Bastards NOT using MY lawn mower and thats FINAL!

Wife and multiple girlfriends I can understand - multiple wives- why? Unless your some sort of emotional masochist.

[Banditbandit]

You must get your e-mails from the same people that I do, it's a bit old but still very appropriate and funny! (But are we still allowed to laugh at stuff like that?) :shutup:

Fuck ... nothing is too serious that it can't be laughed at ... !!!

Q. How many lesbian seperatists does it take to change a lightbulb ?


A ONE - and it's not fucking funny !!!!

[Banditbandit]

Yeah, right!

Actually I've gone off beer a bit. I now most often drink cider.

Yeah .. Anything that you have to make so cold it chills your taste buds and you can' taste it can't be good for you ...

[oldrider]

Fuck ... nothing is too serious that it can't be laughed at ... !!!

Q. How many lesbian seperatists does it take to change a lightbulb ?


A ONE - and it's not fucking funny !!!!

What the fuck is a lesbian seperatist?

[Mom]

What the fuck is a lesbian seperatist?

A dyke that spreads her legs?

[oldrider]

A dyke that spreads her legs?

:lol: Choice!

[Banditbandit]

What the fuck is a lesbian seperatist?


A dyke that spreads her legs?


:lol: Choice!


Noooooo ... the thought of something like this spreading her legs is frightening ...

http://a1.ec-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/121/f9a3d9b9558d085e742ba3c0aeedf9dd/l.jpg

[oldrider]

Six months at sea and 12 pints would ease the pain! :drinknsin ( a starving little head can easily convince a sozzled big head what should be done!) :whistle:

Actually I think she has a certain personal charm just the way she is, every woman has something, sometimes you don't see it straight away!

[Oakie]

Six months at sea and 12 pints would ease the pain! :drinknsin ( a starving little head can easily convince a sozzled big head what should be done!) :whistle:

Actually I think she has a certain personal charm just the way she is, every woman has something, sometimes you don't see it straight away!

Gentlemen, please bear in mind that you don't look at the mantlepiece while you're stoking the fire do you...?

[98tls]

Six months at sea and 12 pints would ease the pain! :drinknsin ( a starving little head can easily convince a sozzled big head what should be done!) :whistle:

Actually I think she has a certain personal charm just the way she is, every woman has something, sometimes you don't see it straight away!

I reckon you would smell that one an ocean away J.

[Mom]

Actually I think she has a certain personal charm just the way she is, every woman has something, sometimes you don't see it straight away!

I bet she is really lovely, and would bite your willy off with one chomp...

[98tls]

I bet she is really lovely, and would bite your willy off with one chomp...

Nope, i reckon shes passed on myself.Some well meaning reli/friend possibly gave her a mirror to mark xmas/birthday etc and not knowing the reality about to confront her she innocently removed the wrapping,next minute shes yapping the plight of coal miners with Marg Thatcher.

[oldrider]

I reckon you would smell that one an ocean away J.

Once you pass 70 the senses dull and things aint quite the same no more so it may be that she has more to offer than I have! :doh: (See, I know my place now) :rolleyes:

[FJRider]

The fact that the majority of people in NZ support gay marriage is a sure sign of the rapidly declining societal morals. Gay marriage is extremely wrong. It always has been, and always will be.

Well ... don't watch then ... :doh:

[Oakie]

Gotta say that I'm really impressed with the way my daughter and her wife are bringing up their four kids (two from each mum). A much more nurturing environment than many 'straight' relationships I know of. The kids are thriving in the attention they get from having two mums and the mums themselves are thriving in a supportive and loving relationship.

[HenryDorsetCase]

Gotta say that I'm really impressed with the way my daughter and her wife are bringing up their four kids (two from each mum). A much more nurturing environment than many 'straight' relationships I know of. The kids are thriving in the attention they get from having two mums and the mums themselves are thriving in a supportive and loving relationship.

and really, that's all that matters, eh?

[Virago]

and really, that's all that matters, eh?

Perhaps. A nurturing family environment is the mainstay of children's development.

However, a regular male presence / role-modelling should be part of the equation. I heard of one bitter man-hating lesbian couple who elected to exclude all male influence from their family (which included boys). The result, inevitably, was complete failure.

[oldrider]

Perhaps. A nurturing family environment is the mainstay of children's development.

However, a regular male presence / role-modelling should be part of the equation. I heard of one bitter man-hating lesbian couple who elected to exclude all male influence from their family (which included boys). The result, inevitably, was complete failure.

There was no suggestion of any such problem in Oakie's post!


Gotta say that I'm really impressed with the way my daughter and her wife are bringing up their four kids (two from each mum). A much more nurturing environment than many 'straight' relationships I know of. The kids are thriving in the attention they get from having two mums and the mums themselves are thriving in a supportive and loving relationship.

Oakie was focusing on the positive! Nice one Oakie - impressed. :yes:

[Virago]

There was no suggestion of any such problem in Oakie's post!...

Never said there was. I was speaking in general terms. :rolleyes:

[FJRider]

However, a regular male presence / role-modelling should be part of the equation.

ONLY If it's a positive role model.

[oldrider]

Never said there was. I was speaking in general terms. :rolleyes:

You are not allowed to do that on KB unless you have a tinfoil hat! :mellow: Then you have to learn to wear it with pride! :blip:

[awayatc]

I am a lesbian......
Got a problem with that .?


suck mama's cock....

[mashman]

Gotta say that I'm really impressed with the way my daughter and her wife are bringing up their four kids (two from each mum). A much more nurturing environment than many 'straight' relationships I know of. The kids are thriving in the attention they get from having two mums and the mums themselves are thriving in a supportive and loving relationship.

Probably already used to it if the mum's used to do the "coffee morning" thing?

[98tls]

Gotta say that I'm really impressed with the way my daughter and her wife are bringing up their four kids (two from each mum). A much more nurturing environment than many 'straight' relationships I know of. The kids are thriving in the attention they get from having two mums and the mums themselves are thriving in a supportive and loving relationship.

Nice.I would say the kids are thriving in the attention of 2 attentive parents which as you said is a much more nurturing environment than many i to have seen,good on em and as i said nice.:Punk:

[awayatc]

Nice.I would say the kids are thriving in the attention of 2 attentive parents which as you said is a much more nurturing environment than many i to have seen,good on em and as i said nice.:Punk:

I am not taking away how nice these 2 people may be...
can't be 2 parents though.
physically impossible..
takes on of each
each one of those be 1 parent...good or bad.
everybody by definition will have 2 parents,
only one can and will be female,
other one has got to be male...
simple



Oh yeah, happy new year....

[98tls]

I am not taking away how nice these 2 people may be...
can't be 2 parents though.
physically impossible..
takes on of each
each one of those be 1 parent...good or bad.
everybody by definition will have 2 parents,
only one can and will be female,
other one has got to be male...
simple



Oh yeah, happy new year....

I can understand that mate,my old man was a complete and utter cunt though became less so after the job of raising a child was done.Tis simply nice to hear of 2 people no matter what there sex doing a good job raising there children.

[pzkpfw]

I am not taking away how nice these 2 people may be...
can't be 2 parents though.
physically impossible..
takes on of each
each one of those be 1 parent...good or bad.
everybody by definition will have 2 parents,
only one can and will be female,
other one has got to be male...
simple



Oh yeah, happy new year....

I'd guess an adoptee, considers the folk who raised them to be their parents.

[Oakie]

I am not taking away how nice these 2 people may be...
can't be 2 parents though.
physically impossible..
takes on of each
each one of those be 1 parent...good or bad.
everybody by definition will have 2 parents,
only one can and will be female,
other one has got to be male...
simple


A red herring. You are talking reproduction which takes two of opposite genders. Clinical stuff. I'm talking about 'parenting'.

[Oakie]

Probably already used to it if the mum's used to do the "coffee morning" thing?

Really strange 'courtship'. They met on a website like this where they had a mutual interest. One thing led to another over the course of a couple of years.... So watch out KBers if you have a 'special friend' you've made on KB. You just never know where it'll finish up.

[mashman]

Really strange 'courtship'. They met on a website like this where they had a mutual interest. One thing led to another over the course of a couple of years.... So watch out KBers if you have a 'special friend' you've made on KB. You just never know where it'll finish up.

lol, I meant "coffee morning" as in, female friends with kids spending time together, not trying to hookup with each other... although there's feck all wrong with that either lol.

[Oakie]

lol, I meant "coffee morning" as in, female friends with kids spending time together, not trying to hookup with each other... although there's feck all wrong with that either lol.

Well that's how it started. Internet buddies but no chance for coffees as they lived about 700 km apart. Hook up was the last thing on their minds at the start.

[mashman]

Well that's how it started. Internet buddies but no chance for coffees as they lived about 700 km apart. Hook up was the last thing on their minds at the start.

Star crossed lovers it is :niceone:

[mstriumph]

It has everything to do with the rapid advancement of left wing beliefs among the majority of society

Marriage is a religious term ... my only problem with legal same-sex unions is that, if it became law, clergy who believe as you seem to do may be obliged to perform by that law a wedding ceremony that was repugnant to their beliefs. That would be both unfair and grotesque.

Please note, I am not religious, nor gay, nor left wing ... just fair-minded


....which will undoubtedly be the root cause of the eventual collapse of the world as we know it.
Oh c'MON. The 'world as we know it' has survived centuries of greed, deceit, self-centred behaviour, and general nastiness - do you really think and a few odd left wing beliefs are going to irrevocably rock the boat NOW?

[mstriumph]

Really strange 'courtship'. They met on a website like this where they had a mutual interest. One thing led to another over the course of a couple of years.... So watch out KBers if you have a 'special friend' you've made on KB. You just never know where it'll finish up.

*puts hand up* not an isolated instance

this website, actually - 2005 (just before I bought the Yammy) ... and one thing definitely led to another - and is still going great - thank heavens :yes:

[mstriumph]

Noooooo ... the thought of something like this spreading her legs is frightening ...

http://a1.ec-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/121/f9a3d9b9558d085e742ba3c0aeedf9dd/l.jpg

That's cruel... seems to me she obviously knows she's not Angelina Jolie and is deliberately sending up the accepted notion of female pulchritude?

Not everyone can be young, gorgeous and conventionally-beautiful like you, Banditbandit? Isn't that what beer is for?

[GrayWolf]

I am not taking away how nice these 2 people may be...
can't be 2 parents though.
physically impossible..
takes on of each
each one of those be 1 parent...good or bad.
everybody by definition will have 2 parents,
only one can and will be female,
other one has got to be male...
simple



Oh yeah, happy new year....

Actually you are not strictly correct..the Verb definition of 'parent' is to raise, nurture or care for a child.... it's not gender specific, or exclusive.

verb
verb: parent; 3rd person present: parents; past tense: parented; past participle: parented; gerund or present participle: parenting

1.
be or act as a mother or father to (someone).
"exhaustion is incompatible with good parenting"
synonyms: bring up, be the parent of, look after, take care of, rear, raise, nurture
"all children are special to those who parent them"

[awayatc]

The year has barely started, and I am allready been proven wrong....
must be getting old...
definitely old fashioned.
Know of a few same sex parent situations..
am not a fan
takes one of each to make children...
that has got to be a clue surely....

[yokel]

The year has barely started, and I am allready been proven wrong....
must be getting old...
definitely old fashioned.
Know of a few same sex parent situations..
am not a fan
takes one of each to make children...
that has got to be a clue surely....

Remember the old saying "wait till your father gets home"
Mothers do the nurturing and fathers do the raising like discipline.

Women are hopeless at raising kids

[Oakie]

Remember the old saying "wait till your father gets home"
Mothers do the nurturing and fathers do the raising like discipline.

Women are hopeless at raising kids

That is a hopeless generalisation. I think the families where the mother is hopeless, the father is probably even more hopeless!

[mashman]

Remember the old saying "wait till your father gets home"
Mothers do the nurturing and fathers do the raising like discipline.

Women are hopeless at raising kids

You realise that makes lone female parents superhuman?

[yokel]

That is a hopeless generalisation. I think the families where the mother is hopeless, the father is probably even more hopeless!

What the he'll is a hopeless generalisation?

Anyway women naturally hopeless, men are conditioned or given bad examples to be hopeless

[HenryDorsetCase]

Marriage is a religious term ... my only problem with legal same-sex unions is that, if it became law, clergy who believe as you seem to do may be obliged to perform by that law a wedding ceremony that was repugnant to their beliefs. That would be both unfair and grotesque.



you were nearly there but remain confused. Marriage in this context means two different things to two different sets of people. So we have the civil institution we call marriage which does a number of different things: It legally revokes prior wills, it institutes the spouse as the legal next of kin, it provides for differing treatments for various Gubblemunt services and such. Then there is the "voluntary" aspect of religious marriage which if you subscribe to whatever particular flavour of religion is ascribed sanctifies the "holy" union and all that malarkey. Two separate and distinct things.

There was never a suggestion anywhere that (for example) a Roman Catholic priest would be required to perform a same-sex marriage by law.

Of course, my view is that we should outlaw all churches, remove their special status in law and elsewhere, and nationalise their buildings and property holdings as the fountainheads of hatred which they are... but thats another argument entirely.

[yokel]

You realise that makes lone female parents superhuman?

That or they produce kids that are fucked in the head (generally speaking of course)

Its the male/fathers role to ensure kids grow up to be functioning adults, if not done correctly (like with me) or not at all you're more likely get a fucked up individual.

What they say about sparing the rod in the bible is quite true.

Gay marriage is a stupid idea

[mashman]

That or they produce kids that are fucked in the head (generally speaking of course)

Its the male/fathers role to ensure kids grow up to be functioning adults, if not done correctly (like with me) or not at all you're more likely get a fucked up individual.

What they say about sparing the rod in the bible is quite true.

Gay marriage is a stupid idea

The parent produces next to nothing. Tis the "current environment/situation" that dictates behaviour. Nice peeps become cunts and cunts become nice peeps.

There are no roles. Just kids testing boundaries and different parents having different boundaries when it comes to being given the rod. Your fuck up is and always will be your own.

:rofl: nah. I'll go for, we've lost the village that raised the child.

All marriage is a stupid idea. Yes I am married... but I married under protest :laugh:

[TheDemonLord]

Remember the old saying "wait till your father gets home"
Mothers do the nurturing and fathers do the raising like discipline.

Women are hopeless at raising kids

You do know that the reason for the above is more to do with society gender roles than anything else.....

As for the spirit of your comment, I somewhat agree - I have always believed that a child needs both Male and Female input when being raised - I can only speak for my experience but I have a different relationship with my Dad than I do to my Mum - not to say that one is better than the other or one loved me more than the other - just different.

So for those that will ask (and so I can state plainly) I am all for Gay couples raising kids - provided they have someone to provide a Male/Female input in the child's life, Some people think this a tad old fashioned and others have asked to see my supporting evidence - I agree it is a tad old fashioned and all I have in supporting evidence is anecdotal, apocryphal and my own upbringing.

It is also not to say that Solo parents are not capable of raising well-adjusted children, as many of them do, but I will ask could they have done a better job with a role model for the child of the opposite sex?

[mstriumph]

you were nearly there but remain confused. Marriage in this context means two different things to two different sets of people. So we have the civil institution we call marriage which does a number of different things: It legally revokes prior wills, it institutes the spouse as the legal next of kin, it provides for differing treatments for various Gubblemunt services and such. Then there is the "voluntary" aspect of religious marriage which if you subscribe to whatever particular flavour of religion is ascribed sanctifies the "holy" union and all that malarkey. Two separate and distinct things.
First time i've been confused this year ... precursor of many, probably;)
Suggest that, re 'marriage' many view it as a traditional whole, rather than the duality of parts you refer to
Suggest that, were the term 'marriage' reserved for religious unions and 'civil union' used for the rest, there'd be less opposition to the concept of universal access to the latter, what do you think?


There was never a suggestion anywhere that (for example) a Roman Catholic priest would be required to perform a same-sex marriage by law.
Yes, now ... but, in the fullness of time (when all things come to fruition ;)) it's within the realms of possibility that (starting with more liberal institutions) public expectation will force currently unpalatable choices on clergy if they wish to retain their adherents... what do you think?

Of course, my view is that we should outlaw all churches, remove their special status in law and elsewhere, and nationalise their buildings and property holdings as the fountainheads of hatred which they are... but thats another argument entirely.
One with which I'm in total agreement. Happy New Year :sunny:

[yokel]

The parent produces next to nothing. Tis the "current environment/situation" that dictates behaviour. Nice peeps become cunts and cunts become nice peeps.

There are no roles. Just kids testing boundaries and different parents having different boundaries when it comes to being given the rod. Your fuck up is and always will be your own.

:rofl: nah. I'll go for, we've lost the village that raised the child.

All marriage is a stupid idea. Yes I am married... but I married under protest :laugh:

"the parent produces next to nothing" really? do you not think that the parents are a big part of what makes up a kids environment?
the most important education a kid gets is from the parents and not dumb shit like the state run schools and the like.

Nice peeps are cunts and just as capable of producing dysfunctional adults as anyone else.

Marriage is not a stupid idea unless you do so against your will, you poor emasculated bastard haha




You do know that the reason for the above is more to do with society gender roles than anything else.....

As for the spirit of your comment, I somewhat agree - I have always believed that a child needs both Male and Female input when being raised - I can only speak for my experience but I have a different relationship with my Dad than I do to my Mum - not to say that one is better than the other or one loved me more than the other - just different.

So for those that will ask (and so I can state plainly) I am all for Gay couples raising kids - provided they have someone to provide a Male/Female input in the child's life, Some people think this a tad old fashioned and others have asked to see my supporting evidence - I agree it is a tad old fashioned and all I have in supporting evidence is anecdotal, apocryphal and my own upbringing.

It is also not to say that Solo parents are not capable of raising well-adjusted children, as many of them do, but I will ask could they have done a better job with a role model for the child of the opposite sex?


its gender roles that fit natural male a female behaviour, and has little to do with society
eg men can speak with authority, women cant, they just make insane screaming sounds.

where do you think bullshit syndromes like ADHD came from? there's a number of solo mums I know of that think there's something wrong with their kids but all it is, is that they have no real father figure.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/M8PoIixzsKo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Oakie]

What the he'll is a hopeless generalisation? One so far of kilter that it is hopeless trying to extract any merit from it.


Anyway women naturally hopeless, men are conditioned or given bad examples to be hopeless Look up 'misogynist'.

I'm picking you had a rough time as a kid which has skewed your view of the genders somewhat?

[TheDemonLord]

its gender roles that fit natural male a female behaviour, and has little to do with society
eg men can speak with authority, women cant, they just make insane screaming sounds.

where do you think bullshit syndromes like ADHD came from? there's a number of solo mums I know of that think there's something wrong with their kids but all it is, is that they have no real father figure.

Some Gender roles I grant you do fit naturally with Male and Female behaviour (more female nurses, more male thrillseekers) - however overtime Society will take said gender roles and define them and then reinforce them.

As for your anecdote about speaking with authority - I call BS, I know many women that can speak eloquently with authority and I know many men that can't speak with authority to save their lives.

with ADHD - I would more likely believe the theory that ADHD was diagnosed as a condition when a company had a product that could treat it. Finally your comment about solo mothers thinking there is something wrong with their kids -I will stretch to say that possibly as a solo mum, the lack of a strong male influence does negatively impact on both the Child AND the Parent - ie the kid doesn't benefit from a male input, but neither does the mother.

[bluninja]

you were nearly there but remain confused. Marriage in this context means two different things to two different sets of people. So we have the civil institution we call marriage which does a number of different things: It legally revokes prior wills, it institutes the spouse as the legal next of kin, it provides for differing treatments for various Gubblemunt services and such. Then there is the "voluntary" aspect of religious marriage which if you subscribe to whatever particular flavour of religion is ascribed sanctifies the "holy" union and all that malarkey. Two separate and distinct things.

There was never a suggestion anywhere that (for example) a Roman Catholic priest would be required to perform a same-sex marriage by law.



ta for the legalese. As for not forcing religious peeps to breach their beliefs due to changes in the law, then you only need to look at the Catholic homes that closed as they would not accept adoption of children by gay couples as the laws required.



First time i've been confused this year ... precursor of many, probably;)
Suggest that, re 'marriage' many view it as a traditional whole, rather than the duality of parts you refer to
Suggest that, were the term 'marriage' reserved for religious unions and 'civil union' used for the rest, there'd be less opposition to the concept of universal access to the latter, what do you think?



That last part would work for me. Being a fair minded person I wonder why the civil marriage law wasn't totally revised to prevent discrimination against all manner of modern relationships (the basis for allowing same sex marriage). If a person wants to be married to more than one person at a time they go to jail....no matter that they can engage in a loving, supportive long term relationship with more than one person or gender. I do think they should draw the line at allowing people to marry their Harley though.

[TheDemonLord]

If a person wants to be married to more than one person at a time they go to jail....no matter that they can engage in a loving, supportive long term relationship with more than one person or gender. I do think they should draw the line at allowing people to marry their Harley though.

I'm all for Swinging and Orgies, but Polygamy presents a number of legal headaches:

1: Who is your next of kin (your first wife/husband, your second, Both?)
2: in the case of a disgreement between your wives/husbands that you are not around to mediate - who has the final say.

if we could resolve the issues, I would see no issue with Polygamy, but as it stands, it would cause a lot of frustration and make a lot of lawyers very rich (can you imagine the Divorce implications if you wanted to divorce just one or all?!?)

[yokel]

One so far of kilter that it is hopeless trying to extract any merit from it.

Look up 'misogynist'.

I'm picking you had a rough time as a kid which has skewed your view of the genders somewhat?

but it was not out of kilter as you put it, a generalisation is ether correct or incorrect, just because you dont like the sound of a generalisation doesn't mean it is wrong.

the last female woman i was with had a degree in sociology , I had no idea what being a "misogynist" was till after the fact. and lets just say it is a complete load of bullshit made up by the frankfurt school of cultural marxism.

getting mad or angry at women doesn't mean you hate them,

yes I did have a fucked up view of the "genders" but not any more, shit I even had a girl that wanted to get married at one point but I was like yeah nah thanks, she is now married to a another woman haha

and the whole idea that men are some how equal women is ridiculous!

[bluninja]

I'm all for Swinging and Orgies, but Polygamy presents a number of legal headaches:

1: Who is your next of kin (your first wife/husband, your second, Both?)
2: in the case of a disgreement between your wives/husbands that you are not around to mediate - who has the final say.

if we could resolve the issues, I would see no issue with Polygamy, but as it stands, it would cause a lot of frustration and make a lot of lawyers very rich (can you imagine the Divorce implications if you wanted to divorce just one or all?!?)

1. I'm sure that wouldn't be too hard to figure out, if there was a will to do so.
2. Who mediates if a married couple have a disagreement now? Final say...who knows...but I bet it's a female :eek5:

If we take religion out of it then marriage is just a form of contract establishing a relationship between (2) persons. Why not have a relationship contract that stipulates the responsibilities, rights, property ownership, and dissolution process (divorce) for more than 2 people and call it (Multi Player) Marriage? That way we know who gets the consoles and who gets remote controllers when things go wrong.

As it stands those people that want to have more than 2 in their relationship are free to do so as long as it's not recognised by the government. When it goes wrong, or ends, the legal headaches are still there (childcare, property, will etc), but seem to get resolved. If the government really wants to get involved with legally defining relationships then it should do it for all people or butt out IMHO

[mashman]

"the parent produces next to nothing" really? do you not think that the parents are a big part of what makes up a kids environment?
the most important education a kid gets is from the parents and not dumb shit like the state run schools and the like.

Nice peeps are cunts and just as capable of producing dysfunctional adults as anyone else.

Marriage is not a stupid idea unless you do so against your will, you poor emasculated bastard haha


I think friends have a greater influence... and even at that, you can only ever instruct a child and hope that they take that instruction. More so as they get older and know how to circumvent your boundaries i.e. lie.
Again, I reckon it's the friends that provide the more useful information... primarily because the old fuckers (parents) don't know what it's like to be a kid in the current environment. Would you like to keep teaching them old ways?

True. Everyone has the ability to be a cunt in the eyes of someone else.

I'm versatile :bleh:

[TheDemonLord]

1. I'm sure that wouldn't be too hard to figure out, if there was a will to do so.
2. Who mediates if a married couple have a disagreement now? Final say...who knows...but I bet it's a female :eek5:

What if its the females thay have the disagreement :scratch:

[bluninja]

What if its the females thay have the disagreement :scratch:
As I said it will still be the females having the last say :confused:

Anyways the females will throw their toys out the pram, spit the dummy, and vent all their upsets and the other women will just empathise without trying to fix the "problems". Then they'll hug at the end, and it will be as though it never happened. Women only seem to have spiteful long lasting disagreements where men are involved. :shit:

[TheDemonLord]

As I said it will still be the females having the last say :confused:

Anyways the females will throw their toys out the pram, spit the dummy, and vent all their upsets and the other women will just empathise without trying to fix the "problems". Then they'll hug at the end, and it will be as though it never happened. Women only seem to have spiteful long lasting disagreements where men are involved. :shit:

Must spread more semen around before giving it to Bluninja again :laugh::laugh:

That said on a serious note - the level of domestic violence and the level of malice in said violence in Lesbian relationships is shocking compared to normal relationships.

It is why I propose that all lesbian relationships be monitored 24/7 with video streams - accessible via website so we can uh be uh proactice in um stopping domestic violence......

[Oakie]

That said on a serious note - the level of domestic violence and the level of malice in said violence in Lesbian relationships is shocking compared to normal relationships.

You have a documented set of data to support that claim?

[TheDemonLord]

You have a documented set of data to support that claim?

https://www.google.co.nz/search?q=lesbian+domestic+violence+rates&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=mDenVMiKN6OOmwWUp4LwAQ

[Oakie]

https://www.google.co.nz/search?q=lesbian+domestic+violence+rates&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=mDenVMiKN6OOmwWUp4LwAQ

The very first site in your Google search listing wouldn't support your contention that the "level of domestic violence and the level of malice in said violence in Lesbian relationships is shocking compared to normal relationships."

From Women's Refuge:
84% of those arrested for domestic violence are men; 16% are women.

[Winston001]

Marriage is a religious term ...

No, but I understand why most of us think that.

"Marriage" is a cultural, tribal concept which traces far back into prehistory. The idea of a lawful bond is exceedingly ancient.

The reasons are quite straight forward. Creatures which have a lengthy gestation and an even longer helpless infant period, form pair-bonds in order to protect their offspring. There is nothing religious or magical about this commitment - its simple evolutionary sense.

Humans have the most vulnerable offspring of all mammals and thus need to bond as a couple to raise their children to independance. The institution of marriage is a tribal mechanism to ensure that.

[Oakie]

No, but I understand why most of us think that.

"Marriage" is a cultural, tribal concept which traces far back into prehistory. The idea of a lawful bond is exceedingly ancient.

The reasons are quite straight forward. Creatures which have a lengthy gestation and an even longer helpless infant period, form pair-bonds in order to protect their offspring. There is nothing religious or magical about this commitment - its simple evolutionary sense.

Humans have the most vulnerable offspring of all mammals and thus need to bond as a couple to raise their children to independance. The institution of marriage is a tribal mechanism to ensure that.

Great post!

[TheDemonLord]

The very first site in your Google search listing wouldn't support your contention that the "level of domestic violence and the level of malice in said violence in Lesbian relationships is shocking compared to normal relationships."

From Women's Refuge:
84% of those arrested for domestic violence are men; 16% are women.

Did you read any of the other sites?

And consider this - according to a study from the Uni of Auckland Source (http://www.fmhs.auckland.ac.nz/faculty/ahrg/_docs/2007-samesex-report20.pdf) only 0.9% of the population identify as gay - 16% of cases for 0.9% of the population compared to 84% for 94% of the population

which I think you will find validates 100% my claim.

[bluninja]

No, but I understand why most of us think that.

"Marriage" is a cultural, tribal concept which traces far back into prehistory. The idea of a lawful bond is exceedingly ancient.

The reasons are quite straight forward. Creatures which have a lengthy gestation and an even longer helpless infant period, form pair-bonds in order to protect their offspring. There is nothing religious or magical about this commitment - its simple evolutionary sense.

Humans have the most vulnerable offspring of all mammals and thus need to bond as a couple to raise their children to independance. The institution of marriage is a tribal mechanism to ensure that.

So explain how human offspring is more vulnerable than a new born kangaroo, or perhaps a platypus or echidna egg. None of these species are monogamous. How about bear cubs....where the female alone brings up the cub? Elephants, within the context of their environment, are vulnerable for as long as human offspring (who can use a guns from an early age) but they are not monogamous.

The fact is that many mammal species are as vulnerable, or more vulnerable than a human child but they don't all form life long bonds sort of shoots your statements down. The fact that many mammals lack knowledge of self or the ability to plan for the future means that if it were evolutionary sense then all mammals with offspring that weren't born self sufficient would be doing it.

"Marriage is a tribal mechanism to ensure that" I think this is the cart before the horse. The tribe (society) is the mechanism that protects the offspring; if you were to talk evolutionary forces then a group of humans would be able to prevent an attack by a pack of wolves...a man and his wife, perhaps not. The reason for marriage may be more to do with ensuring that the male human genes are passed on, since you can't go murdering males attracting more females that are wanted by another male, women or their offspring from another male then society came up with a solution of bonding/marriage. Whether that was through divine instruction or that most societies in the world all worked out similar solutions who knows.

Funnily enough polygamy occurred in many religions, including Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and many "primitive" religions. Funnily enough marriage became monogamous as national governments took over countries and women stopped being chattels.

[unstuck]

Stupid humans, always worrying about what other people are doing with their lives and how they are living. No wonder society is in the state that it is.
Mind your OWN business.:2thumbsup

[Oakie]

Did you read any of the other sites?

And consider this - according to a study from the Uni of Auckland Source (http://www.fmhs.auckland.ac.nz/faculty/ahrg/_docs/2007-samesex-report20.pdf) only 0.9% of the population identify as gay - 16% of cases for 0.9% of the population compared to 84% for 94% of the population

which I think you will find validates 100% my claim.

No I only read the one at the top of the list ... partly because it was a NZ site and also because it wasn't a particularly gay or straight oriented site (unbiased). You were talking about lesbians initially but now it's just gays so your stats don't fully stack up either. Unfortunately it's all unreliable as Police figures indicate they believe less than 20% of domestic violence is reported anyway.

Sorry to cut and paste but check this out from Smithsonian.com It raised some interesting figures and points ... especially the violence rates in bi-sexual people which really seems to be an anomoly:

In 2013, the CDC released the results of a 2010 study on victimization by sexual orientation, and admitted that “little is known about the national prevalence of intimate partner violence, sexual violence, and stalking among lesbian, gay, and bisexual women and men in the United States.” The report found that bisexual women had an overwhelming prevalence of violent partners in their lives: 75 percent had been with a violent partner, as opposed to 46 percent of lesbian women and 43 percent of straight women. For bisexual men, that number was 47 percent. For gay men, it was 40 percent, and 21 percent for straight men.
Then some comment from an LGBTQ spokesman
"Reporting can be really difficult, and historically we [LGBTQ people] have not had a very good relationship with police and law enforcement, so folks may not be reporting it." In any case, he continued, the police might not believe the victims when they call, the attitude often being, "You're both men, work it out between yourselves," or, "Women aren't violent; they don't hit each other."

Indeed, according to the NCAVP report, only 16.5 percent of survivors reported interacting with the police, but in one-third of those cases, the survivor was arrested instead of the abuser. A mere 3.7 percent of survivors reported seeking access to shelters.

So it indicates though that there's not much difference between violence rates between women in a straight relationship and those in lesbian relationship 46% vs 43%. Certainly not a 'shocking' difference as you first claimed.

I guess what it comes down to is the stats, how they were gathered and how reliable they are (and they don't seem that reliable). Again ... as someone cleverer than I once said, "Statistics will admit to anything if tortured enough".

Lets just call it a draw and go ride our bikes huh?

[yokel]

The very first site in your Google search listing wouldn't support your contention that the "level of domestic violence and the level of malice in said violence in Lesbian relationships is shocking compared to normal relationships."

From Women's Refuge:
84% of those arrested for domestic violence are men; 16% are women.

those numbers don't mean shit.

women are just as violent if not more than men, but because they're weak as piss their kind of violence is not the same as a mans.
theres been plenty of times ive wanted to slap a woman around but I choose not to

[mstriumph]

........................

"Marriage" is a cultural, tribal concept which traces far back into prehistory. The idea of a lawful bond is exceedingly ancient.
Agree --- but that 'legal' bond of which you speak was also 'religious' in the terms of that time. 'Religious' in context of my text goes 'back into prehistory' and encompasses, as far as can be discerned from info now available to us, 'legal' in those distant times

our 'enlightened' society now embraces the concept of separation of church and state - 'marriage' adhering to the former and requiring the paperwork of the civil union of the latter to be legally' recognised; two things, distinctly different.


The reasons are quite straight forward. Creatures which have a lengthy gestation and an even longer helpless infant period, form pair-bonds in order to protect their offspring. There is nothing religious or magical about this commitment ................. in those time, in many societies polygamy (not pair bonding) was the more effective and logical mechanism for this as women were considered property to a much greater extent than is current. Nothing religious or magical about that, either, just a bill of sale or contract?



Humans have the most vulnerable offspring of all mammals and thus need to bond as a couple to raise their children to independance. The institution of marriage is a tribal mechanism to ensure that. No, sorry ... confirmation bias and consequent illusory correlation/ faulty conclusion.

[oldrider]

Marriage was simply a means of trying to maintain some form of order out of chaos - especially for children - so called adults are generally fucked in the head! :scratch:

[mashman]

Marriage was simply a means of trying to maintain some form of order out of chaos - especially for children - so called adults are generally fucked in the head! :scratch:

I woulda gone for marriage being used to protect "family property".

[unstuck]

so called adults are generally fucked in the head! :scratch:

:laugh::niceone:

[bluninja]

I woulda gone for marriage being used to protect "family property".
Why not just for to protect a "man's property"? In early English times the women didn't have to say "I do" to be married as they were considered chatels and didn't have rights (women were no the free men of the Magna Carta).

[mashman]

Why not just for to protect a "man's property"? In early English times the women didn't have to say "I do" to be married as they were considered chatels and didn't have rights (women were no the free men of the Magna Carta).

So when only a female member of a family survived the property was removed? Not that it wouldn't surprise me like.

[bluninja]

So when only a female member of a family survived the property was removed? Not that it wouldn't surprise me like.
A simple explanation (http://chnm.gmu.edu/courses/omalley/120f02/america/marriage/)

[mashman]

A simple explanation (http://chnm.gmu.edu/courses/omalley/120f02/america/marriage/)

How does that account for queen victoria and the likes of them thar powerful chicks that survived their family? What about pre-english law?

[Winston001]

So explain how human offspring is more vulnerable than a new born kangaroo, or perhaps a platypus or echidna egg. None of these species are monogamous. How about bear cubs....where the female alone brings up the cub? Elephants, within the context of their environment, are vulnerable for as long as human offspring (who can use a guns from an early age) but they are not monogamous.

The fact is that many mammal species are as vulnerable, or more vulnerable than a human child but they don't all form life long bonds sort of shoots your statements down. The fact that many mammals lack knowledge of self or the ability to plan for the future means that if it were evolutionary sense then all mammals with offspring that weren't born self sufficient would be doing it.

"Marriage is a tribal mechanism to ensure that" I think this is the cart before the horse. The tribe (society) is the mechanism that protects the offspring; if you were to talk evolutionary forces then a group of humans would be able to prevent an attack by a pack of wolves...a man and his wife, perhaps not. The reason for marriage may be more to do with ensuring that the male human genes are passed on, since you can't go murdering males attracting more females that are wanted by another male, women or their offspring from another male then society came up with a solution of bonding/marriage. Whether that was through divine instruction or that most societies in the world all worked out similar solutions who knows.

Funnily enough polygamy occurred in many religions, including Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and many "primitive" religions. Funnily enough marriage became monogamous as national governments took over countries and women stopped being chattels.


Agree --- but that 'legal' bond of which you speak was also 'religious' in the terms of that time. 'Religious' in context of my text goes 'back into prehistory' and encompasses, as far as can be discerned from info now available to us, 'legal' in those distant times

our 'enlightened' society now embraces the concept of separation of church and state - 'marriage' adhering to the former and requiring the paperwork of the civil union of the latter to be legally' recognised; two things, distinctly different.

in those time, in many societies polygamy (not pair bonding) was the more effective and logical mechanism for this as women were considered property to a much greater extent than is current. Nothing religious or magical about that, either, just a bill of sale or contract?


No, sorry ... confirmation bias and consequent illusory correlation/ faulty conclusion.

Nice to have a debate. :D

I concede that the reference to pair-bonding is too specific, because in the animal kingdom and the human situation polygamy and polyandry exist. Indeed the Church of the Latterday Saints originally prosletised polygamy.

We really don't know what structures were developed by humans in pre-history. What we do know is that stone age human groups untouched by modern civilisation in Australia, Africa, New Guinea, and South America overwhelmingly practise pair-bonds with a few examples of polyandry and polygamy.

Just to be clear - the exciting idea of polygamy which still exists today in a few Moslem societies is a structure of obligation. A man may take more wives but only if he can properly provide for them and their children. In other words its a burden, not a win. It is a sign of wealth.And often its an obligation because the man's brother has died and as a matter of honour he must marry the widow to support the children.

[oldrider]

I woulda gone for marriage being used to protect "family property".

That would probably be true but victims are usually children - look around us today - kids galore, who belongs to who, it's getting pretty hazy for some!

Back to the future - 2015 .... or back to the caveman? .. Not judging, simply observing! :shifty:

[mashman]

That would probably be true but victims are usually children - look around us today - kids galore, who belongs to who, it's getting pretty hazy for some!

Back to the future - 2015 .... or back to the caveman? .. Not judging, simply observing! :shifty:

Hazy... I'm still waiting for a coach load of kids, with scottish accents, to appear at my door at any moment :eek:

heh... but we've progressed so very far, how could you possibly consider that we're sliding back towards the stone age, especially as there's still a financial system in place to replace the honour and trust. Blasphemy :spanking:

[oldrider]

Hazy... I'm still waiting for a coach load of kids, with scottish accents, to appear at my door at any moment :eek:

heh... but we've progressed so very far, how could you possibly consider that we're sliding back towards the stone age, especially as there's still a financial system in place to replace the honour and trust. Blasphemy :spanking:

Caveman breeding habits and social behaviour was what I was referring to actually - it wasn't illegal then and not illegal now but is it best practice? :confused: Jus askin?

[yokel]

That would probably be true but victims are usually children - look around us today - kids galore, who belongs to who, it's getting pretty hazy for some!

Back to the future - 2015 .... or back to the caveman? .. Not judging, simply observing! :shifty:

Dont listen to the PC crowd, it's ok to judge people, judging people is normal human behaviour.

now if I ever get stuck I just think, what would a caveman do? haha

on gay rights.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/FBRfs_T5GNg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[mashman]

on gay rights.

:killingme... what about the human right, coz being gay doesn't stop one from being human. Likely why the mass media promote that "difference" so that the general public dehumanise people who are gay. Pathetic really.