I believe in gay marriage

[ratusratus]

I want to marry Alison Mau and her girlfriend

[Paul in NZ]

Cor - you are tougher than I thought.... respect...

[Tigadee]

I realised last year that I am gay - Specifically, I'm a lesbian trapped in a man's body.

Not only that but I have AIDS too - Acute Income Deficiency Syndrome.

[Grumph]

I'm in favour - why shouldn't they suffer like the rest of us ?

[Oakie]

I am obliged to believe in it as my daughter and her gal pal want to do it.

[FJRider]

I believe ... I'll have another beer ... :beer:

[superman]

:corn:

All the oldies have been cracking me up with this. If it doesn't pass now it will within the next decade no doubt about it so do it quickly and cash in on the wedding market!

[Meanie]

Trouble with lesbians is that they normaly dont like blokes otherwise id be in favour :rofl:
Keep telling my wife she can bring her good looking friends home :drool:

[HenryDorsetCase]

It is nothing other than basic fairness.

[avgas]

I will raise the stakes. Let anyone marry anything. But lets get the naming right. Name needs to be changed to "Pre-Divorce" as its far easier to get married than it is to get divorced.

[SMOKEU]

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.

[HenryDorsetCase]

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.
Bollocks. please explain

[Oakie]

a sign of the rapidly declining societal morals.

...or does it indicate it the rapid advancement of society's recognition of social justice? Depends on your perspective. Gotta say I'm still ambivalent but not so much that it upsets my conservative middle class values that much.

[SMOKEU]

Bollocks. please explain

If consenting males want to do "their thing" in the privacy of their own homes, then I'm not going to try and stop it. As long I don't have to know about it then I don't really care. However, marriage has been turned into a complete joke with these fucking lefties who want to destroy societal values by brainwashing the masses to believe their propaganda. Marriage is meant to be between a man and a woman. It used to be something with a lot of meaning and value, but now it's almost just a piece of paper with little, if any real meaning.

[SMOKEU]

...or does it indicate it the rapid advancement of society's recognition of social justice? Depends on your perspective. Gotta say I'm still ambivalent but not so much that it upsets my conservative middle class values that much.

It has everything to do with the rapid advancement of left wing beliefs among the majority of society which will undoubtedly be the root cause of the eventual collapse of the world as we know it.

[ducatilover]

Who cares, it's not anyone's problem except those who want gay marriage :facepalm:
Marriage isn't some natural magical thing, it's man made shit.

Let the gays ring each other, get married etc so they'll shut the fuck up and I don't have to listen to idiots small minded, bigoted twaddle.

I need more coffee

[nodrog]

:corn:

All the oldies have been cracking me up with this. If it doesn't pass now it will within the next decade no doubt about it so do it quickly and cash in on the wedding market!

Yep. Even though the Gays arent allowed to get married now, you can bet their kids will be able to.

[MIXONE]

Who fucking cares.Being gay is hereditary anyway.

[Oakie]

It has everything to do with the rapid advancement of left wing beliefs among the majority of society which will undoubtedly be the root cause of the eventual collapse of the world as we know it.

Yeah well it is a Labour member bill to allow it isn't it so I guess it is leftie.

(LOL ... he said 'root')

[Woodman]

Gay marriage is no different than registering a Honda.

Its just a piece of paper.

[Jantar]

Who fucking cares.Being gay is hereditary anyway.
:lol: That is good. I always smile when I image two people of the same sex getting each other pregnant. Of course their kids will pick up the GAY gene.

[Berries]

Being gay is hereditary anyway.
I got it from my sister.













Eight times:drool:

[ducatilover]

I got it from my sister.













Eight times:drool: Yeah, but who didn't?

[c4.]

It's a little reported fact that 100% of all divorces are caused by marriage:yes:

[SMOKEU]

Yeah well it is a Labour member bill to allow it isn't it so I guess it is leftie.

(LOL ... he said 'root')

The National party are attempting to ingrain that poison into the minds of the masses, too.

[Road kill]

I don't agree or support homo's marrying.

These people are nothing but an anomaly that in nature would just pass away or be killed off by their own kind.

A good idea on both counts.

[oneofsix]

Just the queer buggers perverting the meaning of another good word. No one wants to have a gay old time now days. :shutup:

They have their civil union which is basically the same thing but they want to be queers with all the benefits of heterosexuals, like kids, divorce, given half your hard earned stuff away to someone you have discovered you never actually knew.

If you chose to be queer then there are consequences to that choice just as they are if you chose hetero. Choice isn't always the result of free will and is often between being what you are or going against your natural inclination.

:corn:

[swtfa]

Marriage isn't some natural magical thing, it's man made shit.


Its just a piece of paper.

It really is that simple :yawn:

[oldrider]

The National party are attempting to ingrain that poison into the minds of the masses, too.

Well, they are a "left wing" party too aren't they? ... :shifty:

They (National) just pretend to be a bit more to the right than the others to garner support from the few right wing voters in the electorate! :wacko:

New Zealand is a socialist state and the majority of the people are left wing thinkers ... so what do you expect! :facepalm:

[tigertim20]

I dont really understand all the opposition to gay marriage.

under current law if theyve been together 2 years or so, they are considered defacto and have basically the same rights as a married couple anyway.

besides, how does what someone else does in the privacy of their own bedroom actually affect or impact your life anyway? Most of the anti-gay brigade wouldnt turn down some hottie like jennifer lopez if she asked them to fuck her up the ass, nor would most of them turn down a threesome with a couple young, hot busty sluts, so, wheres the difference exactly?

Not really sure how two people who want to commit to each other and who also happen to be the same sex are a threat to the institution of marriage.

What I see as a threat to the institution of marriage are the following.

Anyone who has ever had a divorce. marriage is a commitment for life, you make that commitment and break it, you have damaged the institution of marriage, want to protect marriage? pass a law that say a person can only get married ONCE in their life time, - if they can't keep to the commitment, then they dont get a second chance to further destroy the sanctity of marriage with consecutive dovorces.

vegas style weddings. yep, you can get married after knowing someone two months, right, thats bound to work out right?

Pre-nuptial agreements. Marriage is about commitment, trust, love, and a bringing together of two people as one unit, to share and so on and so forth, so, with a pre-nup you are basically saying 'I love and trust and commit to you, but I dont trust you and if you leave you cant have anything, in fact you can get fucked and Ill bury you with lawyers you gold digging slut' - a Pre-nup itself is destructive to the overall ideal of marriage. If you need a pre-nup, then you shouldnt be getting married, as you clearly dont have any faith in the relationship, trust or longevity of the relationship anyway.

The way I see it is that there are a large number of things that are far more destructive to the institution and sanctity of marriage than two people who just want to be together.

A final thought for the anti gay brigade. If I burst into your room while your missus was sucking your cock and started demanding that she stop, and tried to make a decree that you can only fuck, in missionary, and have no other sexual contact, because god provided us with sexual organs specifically for the purpose of breeding, thereby making anal, oral, and all your other fetishes and fantasies irrelevant, and un-necessary, what would you do? Youd tell me to fuck right off. So what gives YOU the right to dictate what others should or shouldnt be able to do in their bedrooms behind closed doors?

Spend some more time on making your OWN life happy and wholesome, and leave others the fuck alone to do as they please. as long as it is consenting adults, they can do whatever the fuck they like.

[Oakie]

These people are nothing but an anomaly that in nature would just pass away or be killed off by their own kind.
A good idea on both counts.

I'll pass that onto my daughter. I suppose it would save me buying a new suit to attend her civil union (or wedding if legal) in April.

[Virago]

...If you chose to be queer then there are consequences to that choice just as they are if you chose hetero. Choice isn't always the result of free will and is often between being what you are or going against your natural inclination...

Wow. I thought the notion of "chosing" to be homosexual died 40 years ago.

Out of interest, did you chose your own sexual orientation over your natural instinct? If not, on what basis do you justify such view?

[Kickaha]

These people are nothing but an anomaly that in nature would just pass away or be killed off by their own kind.
You dont watch to many nature programs do you
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals


A 1999 review by researcher Bruce Bagemihl shows that homosexual behavior has been observed in close to 1,500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, and is well documented for 500 of them

Doesn't seem to be an anomaly if that many species take part in it

[Oakie]

Wow. I thought the notion of "chosing" to be homosexual died 40 years ago.

Out of interest, did you chose your own sexual orientation over your natural instinct? If not, on what basis do you justify such view?

Actually that's a good point. I know four women, initially straight who became gay when they discovered a nurturing relationship with a woman that they were unable to get from their male partners / husband. I reckon there are a lot of women who are with a woman because they have been let down by the men they got into long term relationships with.

[SMOKEU]

Spend some more time on making your OWN life happy and wholesome, and leave others the fuck alone to do as they please. as long as it is consenting adults, they can do whatever the fuck they like.

As wrong as it is, I'm not trying to stop gays from doing their thing behind closed doors. It's the marriage part that is the most disturbing. They already have civil unions, so why do they need marriage as well?

[Oakie]

As wrong as it is, I'm not trying to stop gays from doing their thing behind closed doors. It's the marriage part that is the most disturbing. They already have civil unions, so why do they need marriage as well?

Because we can and they can't.
And when I say 'we' I don't you and me I mean ... ahh forget it.

[SMOKEU]

Because we can and they can't.
And when I say 'we' I don't you and me I mean ... ahh forget it.

Being gay is a choice. If they don't want to be discriminated against, then they shouldn't be gay. No one is forcing them to engage in sexual activity with a member of the same sex. They CHOOSE to do so. They could easily choose not to do so, too.

[Madness]

Being gay is a choice. If they don't want to be discriminated against, then they shouldn't be gay. No one is forcing them to engage in sexual activity with a member of the same sex. They CHOOSE to do so. They could easily choose not to do so, too.

So if we follow your (once again) brilliant logic, people who are left-handed are such because they choose to? Nobody is forcing them to be left-handed, therefore it must be a choice thing. They say ignorance is bliss, you must be living in eutopia.

[tigertim20]

Being gay is a choice. If they don't want to be discriminated against, then they shouldn't be gay. No one is forcing them to engage in sexual activity with a member of the same sex. They CHOOSE to do so. They could easily choose not to do so, too.

nobody is forcing you to have sex with women. you CHOOSE to be attracted to fat women. the same way you CHOOSE to like the taste of marmite. the same way you CHOOSE to allow your body to react positively to speed, the same way others CHOOSE to go to sleep, the same way you CHOOSE etc etc etc. sarcasm, just in case it needs to be spelt out

You dont get to control who, or what you are attracted to, its ingrained in your psychological, physical, and emotional being. You dont CHOOSE to like the girl with a small waist and big tits, or the one who is obese, or the one who is curvy, anymore than a gay fella chooses to be attracted to another man. You dont get to choose, or control the way your heart rate rises, and pulse quickens, and skin temperature increases, and the way your body releases hormones when you see a hot woman in bikini posing suggestively anymore than a gay guy or girl gets the same response to someone they see.

[superman]

Being gay is a choice. If they don't want to be discriminated against, then they shouldn't be gay. No one is forcing them to engage in sexual activity with a member of the same sex. They CHOOSE to do so. They could easily choose not to do so, too.

http://i.qkme.me/3ofc32.jpg

[ducatilover]

As wrong as it is, I'm not trying to stop gays from doing their thing behind closed doors. It's the marriage part that is the most disturbing. They already have civil unions, so why do they need marriage as well?
I was hoping someone would say that :D
This should be good ((BTW, I'll remember to pick you as my next Psych or Sociology tutor, it'd be far more interesting)

[SMOKEU]

This should be good ((BTW, I'll remember to pick you as my next Psych or Sociology tutor, it'd be far more interesting)

Fucking oath. I have a natural talent for shit like that.

[tigertim20]

Fucking oath. I have a natural talent for shit like that.

go do a little reading and figure out whats different about it. Ill give you a clue. start with the word different and work from there

[SMOKEU]

go do a little reading and figure out whats different about it. Ill give you a clue. start with the word different and work from there

So which phrase exactly am I meant to search for on Google?

[YellowDog]

This subject doesn't bother me at all. I do however find it quite strange that gays want to marry. As has already been said, it possibly just because they are no allowed to. Surely not being able to marry is a big plus!

After his split with HH, Rod Stewart said: "There's no point in getting married. Why not just find someone you don't like and buy them a house.

Mat Lucas of Little Britain fame got fucked up the arse BIG TIME after his money grabbing spouse took him to the cleaners. Matt doesn't now seem to be so keen on gay marriage, as he now undertstands perfectly well what Rod Stewart was on about :yes:

[HenryDorsetCase]

Just the queer buggers perverting the meaning of another good word. No one wants to have a gay old time now days. :shutup:

They have their civil union which is basically the same thing but they want to be queers with all the benefits of heterosexuals, like kids, divorce, given half your hard earned stuff away to someone you have discovered you never actually knew.

If you chose to be queer then there are consequences to that choice just as they are if you chose hetero. Choice isn't always the result of free will and is often between being what you are or going against your natural inclination.

:corn:
Idiot. They choose to be gay like you chose not to be. and the property relationships act applies to gay or straigt people.

I dislike bigots. you are a bigot

[Oakie]

They already have civil unions, so why do they need marriage as well? Same reason women wanted the vote.

[Madness]

So which phrase exactly am I meant to search for on Google?

Have you not learned from Ed? All decisive, unquestionable research is done on Wikipedia - not Google.

[Road kill]

They have their civil union right,so come on,this is just their doorway to legal adoption,nothing more.
I thought everybody already knew that

So given a choice what kid wants to go to school and have everybody know that daddy and daddy are a couple of turd tappers,,or mummy and mummy are a couple of rug munchers,both of which have already proven to everybody that they simply can't function in the real world without special conditions and considerations from the rest of society.

Fuck being that kid,I got enough shit at school when I was a kid without having that sort of stigma hanging over my head.

[Madness]

I got enough shit at school when I was a kid without having that sort of stigma hanging over my head.

Are we supposed to be suprised by that statement?

[mashman]

Fuck being that kid,I got enough shit at school when I was a kid without having that sort of stigma hanging over my head.

And I wonder where the kids at school obtain such an enlightened understanding

[avgas]

Honda riders. Always want the legal paperwork.

[avgas]

And I wonder where the kids at school obtain such an enlightened understanding
Bloody rug expo's every second weekend. Always women walking out of them too.
They must bloody munch them, I don't think they have the floor space to keep buying them.

[superman]

They have their civil union right,so come on,this is just their doorway to legal adoption,nothing more.
I thought everybody already knew that

So given a choice what kid wants to go to school and have everybody know that daddy and daddy are a couple of turd tappers,,or mummy and mummy are a couple of rug munchers,both of which have already proven to everybody that they simply can't function in the real world without special conditions and considerations from the rest of society.

Fuck being that kid,I got enough shit at school when I was a kid without having that sort of stigma hanging over my head.

It's hardly that much of a stigma...

Remember school isn't the same as when you went... we had a mate at school who was gay and he wasn't teased by it. The only issue he had was the school not allowing him to bring his boyfriend to the ball. And the rest of us all backed him up about it, eventually managed to get him to bring a girl, and a girl to bring his boyfriend along. :innocent:

Bastard got action way more at parties than the rest of us ever did. :lol:

[SMOKEU]

It's hardly that much of a stigma...

Remember school isn't the same as when you went... we had a mate at school who was gay and he wasn't teased by it. The only issue he had was the school not allowing him to bring his boyfriend to the ball. And the rest of us all backed him up about it, eventually managed to get him to bring a girl, and a girl to bring his boyfriend along. :innocent:

Bastard got action way more at parties than the rest of us ever did. :L:

That sort of immoral behaviour should never be encouraged.

[tigertim20]

So which phrase exactly am I meant to search for on Google?
If I need to spell it out to you, you are probably too ignorant to absorb it even if I hand the information to you on a silver platter.
consider for a moment this: all your posts about how 'a couple burnouts dont hurt others if you are doing it out of other peoples way' - how is someones sexuality any different, as long as the arent going at it in the middle of the street?

They have their civil union right,so come on,this is just their doorway to legal adoption,nothing more.
I thought everybody already knew that

So given a choice what kid wants to go to school and have everybody know that daddy and daddy are a couple of turd tappers,,or mummy and mummy are a couple of rug munchers,both of which have already proven to everybody that they simply can't function in the real world without special conditions and considerations from the rest of society.

Fuck being that kid,I got enough shit at school when I was a kid without having that sort of stigma hanging over my head.

great, more unsubstantiated bullshit.

The funny thing is, that kids learn from THEIR parents. kids dont care, they mimic their parents and their role models, the problem is a lack of role models worthy of being parents in this day and age. all the racists, bigots and homophobes that teach their children that anything that is different must somehow be unnaceptable are what the problem there is.

as for children growing up with gay parents etc, take a look at YOUR kids, and take a look at this intelligent, well spoken, mature young gentleman, and tell me whats so wrong with gay parents?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSQQK2Vuf9Q&feature=player_embedded

[superman]

That sort of immoral behaviour should never be encouraged.

http://www.freewebs.com/calitorial/Don__t_feed_the_Troll.jpg

[mashman]

Bloody rug expo's every second weekend. Always women walking out of them too.
They must bloody much them, I don't think they have the floor space to keep buying them.

Maybe they lie one on top of each other for a more plush feel?

[Virago]

This subject doesn't bother me at all. I do however find it quite strange that gays want to marry. As has already been said, it possibly just because they are no allowed to. Surely not being able to marry is a big plus!

After his split with HH, Rod Stewart said: "There's no point in getting married. Why not just find someone you don't like and buy them a house.

Mat Lucas of Little Britain fame got fucked up the arse BIG TIME after his money grabbing spouse took him to the cleaners. Matt doesn't now seem to be so keen on gay marriage, as he now undertstands perfectly well what Rod Stewart was on about :yes:

I've never been able to understand the argument that same-sex couples shouldn't marry, simply because many celebrities are so bad at it. The media would have us believe that the more times a person has been married and divorced, the greater their authority on the subject of successful marriage. Funny that...

[SMOKEU]

If I need to spell it out to you, you are probably too ignorant to absorb it even if I hand the information to you on a silver platter.
consider for a moment this: all your posts about how 'a couple burnouts dont hurt others if you are doing it out of other peoples way' - how is someones sexuality any different, as long as the arent going at it in the middle of the street?


The difference is that legalizing gay marriage is one significant step further to the moral corruption of society.

[Madness]

The difference is that legalizing gay marriage is one significant step further to the moral corruption of society.

This statement coming from a South African is pure fucking GOLD.

[Virago]

The difference is that legalizing gay marriage is one significant step further to the moral corruption of society.

I'm more concerned about the effect that dole-bludging bigoted foreigners has on our society...

[HenryDorsetCase]

They have their civil union right,so come on,this is just their doorway to legal adoption,nothing more.
I thought everybody already knew that

So given a choice what kid wants to go to school and have everybody know that daddy and daddy are a couple of turd tappers,,or mummy and mummy are a couple of rug munchers,both of which have already proven to everybody that they simply can't function in the real world without special conditions and considerations from the rest of society.

Fuck being that kid,I got enough shit at school when I was a kid without having that sort of stigma hanging over my head.
Yeah being "special" is like that. At least you have that olympics you can go to.

[SMOKEU]

I feel sorry for the children in all this who don't get any say in the matter by being raised by same sex couples.

[Madness]

I feel sorry for the children in all this who don't get any say in the matter by being raised by same sex couples.

Is your mummy a Dyke?

[SMOKEU]

Is your mummy a Dyke?

She's not actually. Is yours?

[mashman]

I feel sorry for the children in all this who don't get any say in the matter by being raised by same sex couples.

:rofl: you ain't got a fuckin clue. Do you know any of these kids?

[Madness]

She's not actually. Is yours?

Mine's dead. She was hetero right to the very end, FWIW.

[HenryDorsetCase]

I feel sorry for the children in all this who don't get any say in the matter by being raised by same sex couples.
I feel sorry for anyone raised by racist homophobes. Partiularly when they spectacularly fail to rise above that shit. you need to be better

[Berries]

Same reason women wanted the vote.
And look at the fucking mess that that has caused.

[Oakie]

I feel sorry for the children in all this who don't get any say in the matter by being raised by same sex couples.

I wonder which child will be better off. The one raised by one mum and no dad or the one raised by two mums...

[SMOKEU]

Mine's dead. She was hetero right to the very end, FWIW.

I'm sorry for your loss. You have my deepest condolences.


I feel sorry for anyone raised by racist homophobes. Partiularly when they spectacularly fail to rise above that shit. you need to be better

Just as well I don't want kids.


:rofl: you ain't got a fuckin clue. Do you know any of these kids?

Nope.

[Madness]

I'm sorry for your loss. You have my deepest condolences.

No biggie really, she was a bit of a cunt.

[mashman]

Nope.

Why would you feel sorry for them then?

[swtfa]

Being gay is a choice. If they don't want to be discriminated against, then they shouldn't be gay. No one is forcing them to engage in sexual activity with a member of the same sex. They CHOOSE to do so. They could easily choose not to do so, too.

WTF? You think that? :brick:

[ducatilover]

Why does marriage have to be between man/woman anyway? It's just a silly little ritual thing for the sentimentalists

[SMOKEU]

No biggie really, she was a bit of a cunt.

In either case it is really sad to lose a family member, and I mean that with sincerity.


Why would you feel sorry for them then?

Do I have to spell it out?


WTF? :brick:

As above.

[mashman]

Do I have to spell it out?

Yes please.

[HenryDorsetCase]

If consenting males want to do "their thing" in the privacy of their own homes, then I'm not going to try and stop it. As long I don't have to know about it then I don't really care. However, marriage has been turned into a complete joke with these fucking lefties who want to destroy societal values by brainwashing the masses to believe their propaganda. Marriage is meant to be between a man and a woman. It used to be something with a lot of meaning and value, but now it's almost just a piece of paper with little, if any real meaning.

You're single. You will be importing an asian bride when you are 45 and she is 25. You are a complete asshole. If marriage is as "meaningful" as you say it is, why not allow everyone to participate in it.

IF it is just a piece of paper, why not just coollect the fees, add to the billion dollar a year industry, and clip the ticket.

[HenryDorsetCase]

Why does marriage have to be between man/woman anyway? It's just a silly little ritual thing for the sentimentalists

We've been together (not you and I, my partner and I) for 30 years. No shit.

[HenryDorsetCase]

And look at the fucking mess that that has caused.

the key driver is allowing the franchise to people who don't own land in my view.

[HenryDorsetCase]

[QUOTE=tigertim20;1130375398
as for children growing up with gay parents etc, take a look at YOUR kids, and take a look at this intelligent, well spoken, mature young gentleman, and tell me whats so wrong with gay parents?
[/QUOTE]

Yep. There are no bigoted children, only children of bigoted parents (like silly religious peeps - I dont care what they do in the privacy of their own homes as long as it isnt actively damaging to anyone)

[avgas]

I feel sorry for the children in all this who don't get any say in the matter by being raised by same sex couples.
Why?
Most people don't get to choose their parents. I suspect you didn't.

[avgas]

In either case it is really sad to lose a family member, and I mean that with sincerity.
Unless they are gay apparently.

[avgas]

Just as well I don't want kids.
:tugger:
Gotta be 2 to tango first........I suspect your not at that decision yet anyway.

[SMOKEU]

Unless they are gay apparently.

I never said that we should punish gays or discriminate against them. It's just gay marriage that I oppose.

[ducatilover]

We've been together (not you and I, my partner and I) for 30 years. No shit. Would you be incapable without being married, or is it better because you have that title and fit in with social norms?


Feed me, I'm a baby troll

[Virago]

I never said that we should punish gays or discriminate against them. It's just gay marriage that I oppose.

But isn't that discriminating against them?

[HenryDorsetCase]

I never said that we should punish gays or discriminate against them. It's just gay marriage that I oppose.

BAHAHAHAHAHAA

Logic fail.

not allowing gay marriage is discriminatory, numbnuts.

[HenryDorsetCase]

Would you be incapable without being married, or is it better because you have that title and fit in with social norms?


Feed me, I'm a baby troll

Its because we're not allowed to marry. both being blokes and all.

[ducatilover]

Its because we're not allowed to marry. both being blokes and all.
Fuck it all, I have to come up with more trollness now. Or give up.
:weep:

[Madness]

I think that to a Yarpie nothing short of grouping all the homosexuals in the country together & putting them all in special "camps" (see what I did there?) to live is discrimination.

[Virago]

I think that to a Yarpie nothing short of grouping all the homosexuals in the country together & putting them all in special "camps" (see what I did there?) to live is discrimination.

Homo Lands, I believe they would be called...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apartheid_Black_Homelands

[Oakie]

I think that to a Yarpie nothing short of grouping all the homosexuals in the country together & putting them all in special "camps" (see what I did there?) to live is discrimination.

I thought that to 'cure' a homosexual you threw him in to a bottomless pit ...

[ducatilover]

I thought that to 'cure' a homosexual you threw him in to a bottomless pit ...
I see what you did there :D

[Oakie]

I see what you did there :D

Good. Glad to have my work appreciated. What about:

Q) "How do you get rid of gay mice?"
.
.
.
.
A) "Get a poofy cat"

[ducatilover]

Good. Glad to have my work appreciated. What about:

Q) "How do you get rid of gay mice?"
.
.
.
.
A) "Get a poofy cat"
Tastefully dry I say :D
I ran out of rep

[MD]

Just the queer buggers perverting the meaning of another good word. No one wants to have a gay old time now days. :shutup:

They have their civil union which is basically the same thing but they want to be queers with all the benefits of heterosexuals, like kids, divorce, given half your hard earned stuff away to someone you have discovered you never actually knew.

If you chose to be queer then there are consequences to that choice just as they are if you chose hetero. Choice isn't always the result of free will and is often between being what you are or going against your natural inclination.

:corn:

Spot on on both counts.

I'm neither for or against anyones choice to be heter or homo. Each to their own and all that.

What I do object to is the underhanded way homos go about trying to justify their choice.

The word gay had a simple meaning for us all i.e. happy. But homos had to hijack it and twist it to give a false sense of righteousness to their choice of sexual preference. Find your own word. Queer, now that you can use.

Now they want to hijack the word marriage. They don't need this word, civil union adequately covers their need and purpose to have their relationship recognised offically . Actually it's worse than hijacking the word. They are trying to change it's meaning all together from being the name of a traditional religious institution. I suspect their true intent is again to try and give false credence to their choice. How insecure they must be that they need to justify and 'make it right' to be homo by diluting the choice to be heterosexual. It's a subtle message, to be homo is to be gay, which implies to not be homo must therefore be the opposite i.e. unhappy.

If we concede that the meaning of the word and the institution of marriage must be changed, then what if homos next object to the use of the terms 'husband' and 'wife' within a marriage because it offends their sensitive natures imposing a male and female stereotype. Do the rest of us have to all go around describing ourselves as marriage partner A and B.

[ducatilover]

Spot on on both counts.

I'm neither for or against anyones choice to be heter or homo. Each to their own and all that.

What I do object to is the underhanded way homos go about trying to justify their choice.

.
Wait, they choose to be gay? Are we still at that point?
Fuckin' flat worlders

[Tigadee]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yo193IHDYw

[SimJen]

Spot on on both counts.
Now they want to hijack the word marriage. They don't need this word, civil union adequately covers their need and purpose to have their relationship recognised offically . Actually it's worse than hijacking the word. They are trying to change it's meaning all together from being the name of a traditional religious institution. I suspect their true intent is again to try and give false credence to their choice. How insecure they must be that they need to justify and 'make it right' to be homo by diluting the choice to be heterosexual. It's a subtle message, to be homo is to be gay, which implies to not be homo must therefore be the opposite i.e. unhappy.

If we concede that the meaning of the word and the institution of marriage must be changed, then what if homos next object to the use of the terms 'husband' and 'wife' within a marriage because it offends their sensitive natures imposing a male and female stereotype. Do the rest of us have to all go around describing ourselves as marriage partner A and B.

Civil union does not give adequate coverage in a legal sense for gay marriage. It still leaves many doors open and is not the same as "Marriage".
The institution of marriage is not being altered by gay marriage in any way or form, they want the same as any hetero couple do, to live and love together and in the eyes of the law gain the same acceptance and legal standing as anyone else.
Why should they not be able to have this? What gives anyone the right to stop this based on some bigoted opinion? Imagine if people told us we couldn't ride motorcycles anymore, or that married men could no longer ride motorcycles as their possible death might wreck the sanctity of christian values imposed on them by their wedding vows!
Marriage is of course no longer a religious ceremony for most, with many people now choosing non-denominational, non-church and non-religious weddings!
People need to get off their high horses with this percieved view of marriage, hetero couples do more to harm the "institution" of it all by the massive amount of divorces: Kim Kardashian for instance! marriage over in 72 days, or most of hollywood who see it as little more than a few years of their petty lives!

[oneofsix]

Civil union does not give adequate coverage in a legal sense for gay marriage. It still leaves many doors open and is not the same as "Marriage".
The institution of marriage is not being altered by gay marriage in any way or form, they want the same as any hetero couple do, to live and love together and in the eyes of the law gain the same acceptance and legal standing as anyone else.
Why should they not be able to have this? What gives anyone the right to stop this based on some bigoted opinion? Imagine if people told us we couldn't ride motorcycles anymore, or that married men could no longer ride motorcycles as their possible death might wreck the sanctity of christian values imposed on them by their wedding vows!
Marriage is of course no longer a religious ceremony for most, with many people now choosing non-denominational, non-church and non-religious weddings!
People need to get off their high horses with this percieved view of marriage, hetero couples do more to harm the "institution" of it all by the massive amount of divorces: Kim Kardashian for instance! marriage over in 72 days, or most of hollywood who see it as little more than a few years of their petty lives!

Can't accept that. Civil Union was brought in to give them the same coverage as marriage but without changing the meaning of the word. Marriage is between male and female, not same sex.
When we choose to ride motorbikes we also choose to give up certain things, like drink coffee whilst we ride, and accept/enjoy others like being exposed to the weather.
If you are blind you can't see. If you are queer you have Civil Union, to have marriage find someone of the other gender.

:violin:

[HenryDorsetCase]

Can't accept that. Civil Union was brought in to give them the same coverage as marriage but without changing the meaning of the word. Marriage is between male and female, not same sex.
When we choose to ride motorbikes we also choose to give up certain things, like drink coffee whilst we ride, and accept/enjoy others like being exposed to the weather.
If you are blind you can't see. If you are queer you have Civil Union, to have marriage find someone of the other gender.

:violin:

that is so fucking stupid I dont know where to start.

[oneofsix]

that is so fucking stupid I dont know where to start.

Then you aren't trying hard enough

[SimJen]

Can't accept that. Civil Union was brought in to give them the same coverage as marriage but without changing the meaning of the word. Marriage is between male and female, not same sex.
When we choose to ride motorbikes we also choose to give up certain things, like drink coffee whilst we ride, and accept/enjoy others like being exposed to the weather.
If you are blind you can't see. If you are queer you have Civil Union, to have marriage find someone of the other gender.

:violin:

Civil union was a political stop gap to attempt to get rid of the "gays" and their way of life in a way acceptable to the bigotted amongst us!
Our laws are written from an underlying religious context, but nowhere in the bible does it make reference to same sex marriage.

[HenryDorsetCase]

Then you aren't trying hard enough

Actually, I'm going to disengage entirely.

KB is OK for motorbike related stuff, and to talk about bikes and riding. After all, its what all of us supposedly have in common. But as for the rest of it I just can't be bothered, and this is one of those times. Basically from now on, anything that isn't motorcycle specific, I wont't bother.

[mashman]

Civil Union was brought in to give them the same coverage as marriage but without changing the meaning of the word.

It obviously wasn't. Any other misguided delusions you would like pointed out today?

[SimJen]

Can't accept that. Civil Union was brought in to give them the same coverage as marriage but without changing the meaning of the word. Marriage is between male and female, not same sex.

"While civil unions paved the way for dozens of pieces of legislation to be changed so that they did not discriminate against same-sex couples, that didn't go far enough, Labour deputy leader Grant Robertson says. "We got that in all but two laws - the Adoption Act and the Marriage Act, I think we made good progress with the civil unions, we achieved a close to equal situation, but it wasn't equality, and I think that's what most people want."

[oneofsix]

It obviously wasn't. Any other misguided delusions you would like pointed out today?

You mean "obviously didn't".
It was also to fulfil one of Aunty Helen's wish lists I guess as she was reported to say at the time that she would have preferred a C U to marriage.

[SimJen]

You mean "obviously didn't".
It was also to fulfil one of Aunty Helen's wish lists I guess as she was reported to say at the time that she would have preferred a C U to marriage.

She said that as many others do as a stand against discrimination!

[EJK]

<img src="https://i.chzbgr.com/completestore/12/8/13/pUHuRK_7lEyNKpEqaNw-7w2.jpg" />

[oneofsix]

Can't tell the difference? Well, the dogs licence should be renewed yearly, although as it is naked its impossible to tell if it is licensed.

:corn:

[MD]

Wait, they choose to be gay? Are we still at that point?
Fuckin' flat worlders

Oh. A bit sensitive are we. You have missed my point. Homos are welcome to be homos, welcome to be born homos, welcome to choose or convert to being homo. Doesn't bother me. WHAT DOES, is the corrupting of a word and it's intended purpose/meaning to suit their cause.

Homos are welcome to have a ceremony to recognise and commit to their relationship. Have their own convention or institution to recognise it in law. Call it a civil union or whatever name they wish to dream up. They are welcome to invent a name and institution to recognise their relationship. JUST DON'T call it a marriage as that word has already been spoken for over centuries to describe a man and woman committing to a relationship. For f's sake. Lets put it another way. We have the word 'green' to describe the colour of grass. Used for centuries, we all undertand it's meaning and what it describes. But wait, a group of hard done by dissidents feel oppressed having to use this word to describe that colour so they demand the word green must now describe a different colour of THEIR choice. Piss off and HTFU

[ducatilover]

I'm still struggling to find any historical evidence that marriage has to be between opposing sexes. With the exception of Christianity's gay hate. But marriage is not a Christian made thing, so it doesn't count, nor do we live in a country governed my Christian "morals"

Let HDC marry his buddy, who is it going to hurt and why exactly is marriage between man/woman?
Has someone said something I've missed?

[SimJen]

Oh. A bit sensitive are we. You have missed my point. Homos are welcome to be homos, welcome to be born homos, welcome to choose or convert to being homo. Doesn't bother me. WHAT DOES, is the corrupting of a word and it's intended purpose/meaning to suit their cause.

Homos are welcome to have a ceremony to recognise and commit to their relationship. Have their own convention or institution to recognise it in law. Call it a civil union or whatever name they wish to dream up. They are welcome to invent a name and institution to recognise their relationship. JUST DON'T call it a marriage as that word has already been spoken for over centuries to describe a man and woman committing to a relationship. For f's sake. Lets put it another way. We have the word 'green' to describe the colour of grass. Used for centuries, we all undertand it's meaning and what it describes. But wait, a group of hard done by dissidents feel oppressed having to use this word to describe that colour so they demand the word green must now describe a different colour of THEIR choice. Piss off and HTFU

The Oxford dictionary is constantly being altered to move itself in line with societies new spellings/meanings. Thats life, get over it.
Marriage may have been that way for centuries but that doesn't make it right!
Coloured people were used as slaves for centuries, should they still be?

[oneofsix]

I'm still struggling to find any historical evidence that marriage has to be between opposing sexes. With the exception of Christianity's gay hate. But marriage is not a Christian made thing, so it doesn't count, nor do we live in a country governed my Christian "morals"

Let HDC marry his buddy, who is it going to hurt and why exactly is marriage between man/woman?
Has someone said something I've missed?

How much evidence did you find of there ever being a queer marriage, none? Because the word has always meant hetrosexual union, long before Christ and his followers. If you insist on using a biblical basis then use Genisus and the bibles original definition, I don't think the druids wrote their definition down but the ceremonies involved a man and a woman as have all others.

[ducatilover]

How much evidence did you find of there ever being a queer marriage, none? Because the word has always meant hetrosexual union, long before Christ and his followers. If you insist on using a biblical basis then use Genisus and the bibles original definition, I don't think the druids wrote their definition down but the ceremonies involved a man and a woman as have all others.
:facepalm: Damn, that was fast

[SimJen]

How much evidence did you find of there ever being a queer marriage, none? Because the word has always meant hetrosexual union, long before Christ and his followers. If you insist on using a biblical basis then use Genisus and the bibles original definition, I don't think the druids wrote their definition down but the ceremonies involved a man and a woman as have all others.

Thats because narrow minded people with religious overtones would have never allowed it, or as in some countries still, stoned the individuals concerned!
Homosexuality has been around since time began! Its just that people have chosen to overlook it as it doesn't suit their societal conditioning.
Queer marriages/civil unions are widely regarded as setting the example for marriages full stop. When was the last time you heard of a messy break up between a gay couple?

[oneofsix]

Thats because narrow minded people with religious overtones would have never allowed it, or as in some countries still, stoned the individuals concerned!
Homosexuality has been around since time began! Its just that people have chosen to overlook it as it doesn't suit their societal conditioning.
Queer marriages/civil unions are widely regarded as setting the example for marriages full stop. When was the last time you heard of a messy break up between a gay couple?

No, that sort of religion is relatively recent. Now with the Maori as an example of a stone age people with a set of believes in pagan style gods I could understand the Christian missionaries not recording queer marriages but they did recognise a form of marriage with maoridom. If their had been queer marriages, and it is only a couple of hundred years back, then why hasn't the tribal knowledge surfaced?
Last time I heard of a messy queer break-up? today.
Last time I heard of a queer partner being robbed of their position, inheritance, rights through lack of legal protection and other family members walking over them would go back to before Civil Unions gave them the protection they require.
They have the civil union to recognise and protect their relationship. Leave the word marriage alone.
What next abolish the words husband and wife because they imply gender? Everyone will then have to be partner? Sorry by it isn't a business arrangement but I bonded with my wife to become one married unit.
The queers have ruined the word gay because they said they need a special, non-negative word to refer to both homos and lessys and all they succeeded in doing was converting a good word into a negative word. What's wrong with queer, as in not the norm?

:corn:

[SimJen]

Last time I heard of a queer partner being robbed of their position, inheritance, rights through lack of legal protection and other family members

Sally Ride, first woman astronaut and physicist: http://ideas.time.com/2012/07/27/domestic-double-standard-what-about-sally-rides-partner/


The queers have ruined the word gay because they said they need a special, non-negative word to refer to both homos and lessys and all they succeeded in doing was converting a good word into a negative word. What's wrong with queer, as in not the norm?

The Norm?
So you in a room full of Homosexuals would not be the norm, then you would be the Queer one?
Discrimination on any level is unfair

[oneofsix]

Sally Ride, first woman astronaut and physicist: http://ideas.time.com/2012/07/27/domestic-double-standard-what-about-sally-rides-partner/

Not exactly NZ and in NZ she has the option of civil union.



The Norm?
So you in a room full of Homosexuals would not be the norm, then you would be the Queer one?

No, I'd be leaving. :lol: or would I? :shifty: they have some good parties :woohoo:
Norm and Queer in this usage refer to the world as a whole not a room or a queer bar. Whilst they might be the majority in the room it doesn't make it the norm.



Discrimination on any level is unfair
Discrimination happens at many levels and for many reasons, we can't all be CEO of Microsoft. Communism played at trying to remove discrimination. But this is about word usage, they can have the same right just different words.

[SimJen]

Not exactly NZ and in NZ she has the option of civil union.
No, I'd be leaving. :lol: or would I? :shifty: they have some good parties :woohoo:
Norm and Queer in this usage refer to the world as a whole not a room or a queer bar. Whilst they might be the majority in the room it doesn't make it the norm.
Discrimination happens at many levels and for many reasons, we can't all be CEO of Microsoft. Communism played at trying to remove discrimination. But this is about word usage, they can have the same right just different words.

Might not be NZ but something similar could still happen here.
Normal is a bad word to throw around, I'm sure many of us on KB aren't deemed normal! What/Who is? There is no grading system for it except in peoples warped minds.
I don't see how my marriage to my wife will change if gays are allowed to use the word?
Makes no difference to me, but then I have no religious insecurities!

[oneofsix]

Might not be NZ but something similar could still happen here.
Normal is a bad word to throw around, I'm sure many of us on KB aren't deemed normal! What/Who is? There is no grading system for it except in peoples warped minds.
I don't see how my marriage to my wife will change if gays are allowed to use the word?
Makes no difference to me, but then I have no religious insecurities!

You makes lots of assumptions that if you read back through my posts it is obvious are incorrect.
Yes the Sally Ride sort of things did happen here and still do to both queer and hetro couples, but now both, at least in NZ, have an option to protect themselves from that.
Normal is what it is. It is what most are and more of a statistical construct. No one is completely normal and many posts ago I made a point similar to yours regarding motorcyclists.
Wife? no that will have to be partner. Will it make a difference then?




Enough of me on this thread. It's been fun, it will happen :whocares: :wavey:

[Tigadee]

"While civil unions paved the way for dozens of pieces of legislation to be changed so that they did not discriminate against same-sex couples, that didn't go far enough, Labour deputy leader Grant Robertson says. "We got that in all but two laws - the Adoption Act and the Marriage Act, I think we made good progress with the civil unions, we achieved a close to equal situation, but it wasn't equality, and I think that's what most people want."

Hunting for votes... Bet they won't change anything if they were ever voted back in power.

If they did, well, appeasing the gays is a small price to pay to get back in the position of power to do to the rest of us what the gays do to one another... if you know what I mean.

[Virago]

...But this is about word usage, they can have the same right just different words.

Just like Orwell said - everyone's equal, but some are more equal than others...?

[SimJen]

I don't care one iota if the word marriage is intertwined with gays/heterosexual couples simple as that, its only a word!
But as I've said society/religion creates conflict where there shouldn't be!
Homophobics will always be homophobics, once the older generations die out perhaps society will change a little in this regard?

[Tigadee]

What a bunch of whingers! Compared to other countries, gays, Maoris and beneficiaries have it so good in this country! An native American (that's 'injun' to you rednecks) who lives here once told me that the Maoris have it so good compared to the native Americans who still live on reservations, face even greater discrimination, higher unemployment, widespread illiteracy and poverty, and worse social problems.

There are countries where you'd be killed for even being suspected of being gay - and here in the west the gays flaunt their 'gayness' and go the other extreme of demands and flagrant displays. And the gays, Maoris and benes have nothing better to do than complain and want more, more, more! :facepalm:

How about contributing positive things to society before making demands? They have life, liberty and plenty freedom to pursue any dream or ambition they could think of, but all they can do is whine and bitch about how they don't have "equality". Puh-lease! :tugger:

[SimJen]

How about contributing positive things to society before making demands? They have life, liberty and plenty freedom to pursue any dream or ambition they could think of, but all they can do is whine and bitch about how they don't have "equality". Puh-lease! :tugger:

Point has been missed entirely. Most gays do contribute lots to society, probably much more than you or I i'd imagine. Professors, scientists, politicians, lawyers, doctors the list goes on! Its not like they have a sign stapled to them! Or is that how you'd like it?
Just because society sees a minority of gays living a flamboyant lifestyle and brands them all the same is like seeing a white trash 16 year old with 5 different colour kids and branding all kiwi's slags! (when she might just be the nanny!).
Why should they have to prove themselves? Have you had to prove your self worth to anyone?

[imdying]

Coloured people were used as slaves for centuries, should they still be?Is that a trick question? :shifty:

[Tigadee]

Point has been missed entirely. Most gays do contribute lots to society, probably much more than you or I i'd imagine. Professors, scientists, politicians, lawyers, doctors the list goes on! Its not like they have a sign stapled to them!

Why should they have to prove themselves?

Precisely, so why don't these normal everyday people just get on with life? They're citizens, they have rights and they're free to do what they want to their full potential; why waste time, energy, money petitioning for a word so many say is just that? BTW, did you know that 40% of marriages result in life-long relationships? *gasp* Do they know what they're getting into?

Isn't it more important to make their relationships work in the first place, irregardless of whether it's called marriage or CU? Just harden up and get on with living. But I guess life's not hard enough already, so they need distractions...

[mashman]

You mean "obviously didn't".
It was also to fulfil one of Aunty Helen's wish lists I guess as she was reported to say at the time that she would have preferred a C U to marriage.

I'll stick with wasn't. If it was meant to, then it would have.

[SimJen]

Precisely, so why don't these normal everyday people just get on with life? They're citizens, they have rights and they're free to do what they want to their full potential; why waste time, energy, money petitioning for a word so many say is just that? BTW, did you know that 40% of marriages result in life-long relationships? *gasp* Do they know what they're getting into?

Isn't it more important to make their relationships work in the first place, irregardless of whether it's called marriage or CU? Just harden up and get on with living. But I guess life's not hard enough already, so they need distractions...

So down to the crux of the matter, where it all started, in a committed relationship under a CU they don't have equal rights to married hetero couples!
If they did I doubt anybody would be caring about this, if this was sorted when the CU first got put through parliament then it would probably not be an issue now.

[Ender EnZed]

Precisely, so why don't these normal everyday people just get on with life? They're citizens, they have rights and they're free to do what they want to their full potential; why waste time, energy, money petitioning for a word so many say is just that?

Plenty of them them don't, some do. Why shouldn't they? You're putting time and energy right now into arguing that they shouldn't.

[Tigadee]

First they're not abnormal, just different or alternative like a music genre. Then now they're not and they want to be the same as hetero married couples...

So why don't they just be hetero, then they can be the same? :whistle:

[tigertim20]

The difference is that legalizing gay marriage is one significant step further to the moral corruption of society.
well that depends on your morals doesnt it?

Spot on on both counts.

I'm neither for or against anyones choice to be heter or homo. Each to their own and all that.

What I do object to is the underhanded way homos go about trying to justify their choice.

The word gay had a simple meaning for us all i.e. happy. But homos had to hijack it and twist it to give a false sense of righteousness to their choice of sexual preference. Find your own word. Queer, now that you can use.
actually, if you took your head out of your arsehole for five minutes, youd discover that firstly, many gay-rights and gay support groups have actually already adopted the term 'queer' and use it to represent themselves. Otago University for example has a gay support group, called 'Uni-Q' with the Q standing for Queer. Now I would like to further point out that 1. homosexual people didnt 'take' any words, it is the hating, bigoted, homophobic people who decided they needed a word that they felt conveyed an insult that created the idea of gay being homosexual, - the same with the word "Queer" through the 1980's. in recent times, gay groups have decided to 'reclaim' words, words that were once used to differentiate, insult or degrade them, and use those words to empower themselves by defining themselves with those words, thus taking the weapons away from the hate fuelled bigots.
Now they want to hijack the word marriage. They don't need this word, civil union adequately covers their need and purpose to have their relationship recognised offically . Actually it's worse than hijacking the word. They are trying to change it's meaning all together from being the name of a traditional religious institution. I suspect their true intent is again to try and give false credence to their choice. How insecure they must be that they need to justify and 'make it right' to be homo by diluting the choice to be heterosexual. It's a subtle message, to be homo is to be gay, which implies to not be homo must therefore be the opposite i.e. unhappy.
no, it doesnt adequately cover, it leaves holes, and by creating a second, totally different term for gay people wanting to commit to each other, you are actively descriminiating against them, as well as saying they are not the same class of people. thats a disgusting attitude.
If we concede that the meaning of the word and the institution of marriage must be changed, then what if homos next object to the use of the terms 'husband' and 'wife' within a marriage because it offends their sensitive natures imposing a male and female stereotype. Do the rest of us have to all go around describing ourselves as marriage partner A and B.


I'm still struggling to find any historical evidence that marriage has to be between opposing sexes. With the exception of Christianity's gay hate. But marriage is not a Christian made thing, so it doesn't count, nor do we live in a country governed my Christian "morals"

Let HDC marry his buddy, who is it going to hurt and why exactly is marriage between man/woman?
Has someone said something I've missed?

hehe. well tha would be from the twisted perception of the bible son, a verse something about a man not laying with another man.
heres my problem with that idea though. you cant pick and choose which parts of the bible should be interpreted literally, and which shouldnt, just to suit your own beliefs and prejudices. the bible also says women who cheat should be stoned to death, and that its OK to have slaves, and allows many other atrocious behaviours that any sane individual would agree has no place in polite, modern society.

one last thought for those that dont want gays to marry.
it wasnt too long ago that THIS was illegal too
268204

[ducatilover]

one last thought for those that dont want gays to marry.
it wasnt too long ago that THIS was illegal too

Dear God man, that slave stole a flower from the garden!

[MD]

well that depends on your morals doesnt it?




Non so blind as those that can not see, comes to mind.

It's amusing how fast you are to throw nasty names at those with a different opinion to you and label me as discriminating. Lets refresh ourselves, the words you threw around, "hating, bigoted, homophobic people" and "you are actively discriminating against them". Actually, that's exactly what you have done to me and the others that simply want to retain the existing meaning of the word marriage.

So you are saying someone with your opinion has the right to insult and call names to anyone with a different opinion, but those with a different opinion to you can't say jack shit or else you will jump on your high horse and bleet on about how oppressed and discriminated against you are.
How the hell do you get dressed in the morning with such twisted double standards. Equality, fairness to all, unbiased, you don't know the meaning of these word.

Just like the knights of the crusades, ignorantly blinded to reason by their cause.

Your attitude is like reverse racism, reverse homophobia taking away the rights of heterosexuals. That's what I object to, not homosexuals.

[Lelitu]

<snip>
Your attitude is like reverse racism, reverse homophobia taking away the rights of heterosexuals. That's what I object to, not homosexuals.

just one question, by granting same sex marriages, what rights are being taken away from anyone?
I honestly can't think of a single thing that you'd lose, except the specialness of being better than everyone else by virtue of having more rights.

[MD]

just one question, by granting same sex marriages, what rights are being taken away from anyone?
I honestly can't think of a single thing that you'd lose, except the specialness of being better than everyone else by virtue of having more rights.

The right to retain the word marriage for the institution where a man and a woman become husband and wife. Really simple concept.

Why do minority supporters have to be so bloody ignorant and inconsiderate of the rights of the majority. And keep to the facts, nowhere have I said or inferred that heterosexuals are more special than homosexuals. What I have learned from this thread is that homosexual supporters are more one eyed, inconsiderate and prejudice towards others than heterosexuals. All the while you bleet about wanting equality and fairness when these are traits clearly few of you are capable of displaying to others.

[Tigadee]

"I now pronounce you husband and husband" just doesn't have the same ring about it... :whistle:

[oldrider]

just one question, by granting same sex marriages, what rights are being taken away from anyone?
I honestly can't think of a single thing that you'd lose, except the specialness of being better than everyone else by virtue of having more rights.

True, however:

Heterosexual marriage is a long established tradition that does not cater for same sex equivalents!

Homosexual "marriage" equivalent is a new concept so let them establish their own specific process and tradition to celebrate and mark the occasion!

I personally don't have an opinion on whether it is right or wrong, it is simply their own business but it is not the same thing as heterosexual marriage!

So yes .... new concept, .... new process, .... and new name for it but with equivalent recognition for it's legal standing etc.

Currently marriage "clearly" caters for him and her!

Establish a new process that "clearly" caters for him and him.

And another new process that "clearly" caters for her and her.

[mashman]

Oh FFS... easy way to sort this. Allow men and women to change their gender on their birth certificate. They can have a birth gender and a current preferred gender. Every dick and cunt will be happy and it'll be a damn site cheaper than putting in any form of other legislation etc... then the homophobe don't touch my "marriage" word brigade will be happy.

[Edbear]

Why is it that anyone who disagrees with homosexuality is branded as homophobic? Very few would be I think. Understand the meaning of words before using them.

[Tigadee]

Exactly! Talk about ignorant!

Everyone knows homophobia is the fear of the image or any representation of the cartoon character Homor Simpson... So there!

http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/image.gif

[mashman]

Why is it that anyone who disagrees with homosexuality is branded as homophobic? Very few would be I think. Understand the meaning of words before using them.

They must be. Otherwise they'd see the hypocrisy in their argument... after all "they" aren't allowed to use the word marriage. Who are "they"? Sounds homophobic to me. Get all purist all you like, but if you can't accept "them" as equals in every way shape or form, please pick an ism or an obia you'd be more comfortable with and I'll use it. Til then I use whatever words I like :yes:

[SimJen]

Why is it that anyone who disagrees with homosexuality is branded as homophobic? Very few would be I think. Understand the meaning of words before using them.

Likewise, from Wikipedia:

Homophobia is a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT). Definitions refer variably to antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, irrational fear, and hatred.
Homophobia is observable in critical and hostile behavior such as discrimination and violence on the basis of sexual orientations that are non-heterosexual.

[Tigadee]

Likewise, from Wikipedia:
Homophobia is a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT). Definitions refer variably to antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, irrational fear, and hatred.
Homophobia is observable in critical and hostile behavior such as discrimination and violence on the basis of sexual orientations that are non-heterosexual.

<_< Oh, so it's not a fear of Homor Simpson then. My bad...

[Edbear]

A phobia per se, is an unreasoned fear,
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/homophobia

I doubt many have a "fear" of homosexuality or of homosexuals as persons. Many may not even have antipathy towards them.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/antipathy

Some may be as I am and believe it is unnatural as it goes directly against the design of the human species, something you cannot argue with, male and female of any life is for a specific reason, and causes far more harm than good, something else that history attests to.

I have no fear of or hatred for homosexuals and everyone has the right and in this country, the freedom to choose for themselves how they want to live. However, such ones must also be willing to accept the outcomes of their choices.

You can bring morality and Biblical standards into it if you wish but again they are not homophobic if very plain.

[mashman]

Some may be as I am and believe it is unnatural as it goes directly against the design of the human species, something you cannot argue with, male and female of any life is for a specific reason, and causes far more harm than good, something else that history attests to

Bullshit, total and utter bullshit to the point of sheer unadulterated lunacy and ignorance. My proof. There be gay people walking amongst us. If it were by design then the design is either faulty or there was no design to begin with and it all happened naturally.

The harm is done by you fucktards deciding that what "they" are doing and the equality they seek is wrong. If history has told us anything it's that a good phobia of anything different causes hassle because it is seen out with the norm. That phobia stems from the top as us plebs understand how life has evolved and that we are indeed all different. How dare the fucktards decide what is normal and what isn't when they haven't got the first clue of what life is and how life has evolved. Nothing but a bunch of prejudiced, one eyed morons with the temerity to deny that a "condition" exists because it goes against their belief systems, even though the opposite is standing in their face and asking for a fair shout... It's pretty fuckin pathetic and childish given our recent history.

[oldrider]

They must be. Otherwise they'd see the hypocrisy in their argument... after all "they" aren't allowed to use the word marriage. Who are "they"? Sounds homophobic to me. Get all purist all you like, but if you can't accept "them" as equals in every way shape or form, please pick an ism or an obia you'd be more comfortable with and I'll use it. Til then I use whatever words I like :yes:

Aren't you just conveniently ignoring the fact that it is/was the homosexual fraternity that made the declaration that that "they" are different! :confused:

"They" then pleaded with the rest of society to accept them for who and what they are and to allow them to simply blend into and exist amongst that society!

Society has listened to and heard their plea and made many allowances for this to happen but the homosexual society (as is the want of minority groups) just keeps on making demand after demand for more and more concessions! :mellow:

"They" are not satisfied with equality, "they" will never stop demanding until they have control! ... Call it what you like! :scratch:

When I first went to sea, the ships (Merchant) catering sections were staffed mainly with homosexuals who found a safe haven in that world.

During my four years at sea I constantly heard how all they wanted was to be allowed to be accepted and live their lives on shore as part of the community at large!

For this "they" commanded my sympathy and respect and I have always been a sympathiser to their cause because of that!

I wonder how many of those people envisaged the demands being placed on today's society or is it that simply the result of the disrespect that follows when the Status Quo relents and gets misinterpreted as weakness that must be exploited!

Personally, I suspect the latter! :facepalm:

[SimJen]

Some may be as I am and believe it is unnatural as it goes directly against the design of the human species, something you cannot argue with, male and female of any life is for a specific reason, and causes far more harm than good, something else that history attests to.

What is natural? Homosexuality has been around since the beginning, its not a new thing. Its well documented and you cannot argue that!
If its so unnatural why do animals happily practice it too?
Why do some creatures have both sets of reproductive organs and are neither male nor female, are they unnatural too?

[mashman]

Aren't you just conveniently ignoring the fact that it is/was the homosexual fraternity that made the declaration that that "they" are different! :confused:

"They" then pleaded with the rest of society to accept them for who and what they are and to allow them to simply blend into and exist amongst that society!

Society has listened to and heard their plea and made many allowances for this to happen but the homosexual society (as is the want of minority groups) just keeps on making demand after demand for more and more concessions! :mellow:

"They" are not satisfied with equality, "they" will never stop demanding until they have control! ... Call it what you like! :scratch:

When I first went to sea, the ships (Merchant) catering sections were staffed mainly with homosexuals who found a safe haven in that world.

During my four years at sea I constantly heard how all they wanted was to be allowed to be accepted and live their lives on shore as part of the community at large!

For this "they" commanded my sympathy and respect and I have always been a sympathiser to their cause because of that!

I wonder how many of those people envisaged the demands being placed on today's society or is it that simply the result of the disrespect that follows when the Status Quo relents and gets misinterpreted as weakness that must be exploited!

Personally, I suspect the latter! :facepalm:

Nope. They have sex with a partner of the same sex, end of. It's those who frown upon it that need to call it different.

I've got a pic of my dad, when he were in the merch, wearing a dress, sitting on a guys knee and looking mightily happy with himself... hmmmm. As if isn't gay, I guess it's not hereditary after all, I can only assume he was having fun with the boys. I can attest to the gene not skipping a generation either :).

They want the rights because they are being discriminated against... similarly to those of colour 40 - 50 years ago (or to this day if you live in NZ :shifty:)

[SimJen]

Society has listened to and heard their plea and made many allowances for this to happen but the homosexual society (as is the want of minority groups) just keeps on making demand after demand for more and more concessions!!

Allowance and concessions are not equality! Not a difficult concept to understand.
Give them equality and they will stop shouting.
Do women still shout about winning the vote?
Equality and fairness is what everyone strives for in life.
If you were paid less than the guy next to you for the same job, you'd shout! Equality has many forms, and is worth the fight.

[mashman]

"They" then pleaded with the rest of society to accept them for who and what they are and to allow them to simply blend into and exist amongst that society!

Society has listened to and heard their plea and made many allowances for this to happen but the homosexual society (as is the want of minority groups) just keeps on making demand after demand for more and more concessions! :mellow:

"They" are not satisfied with equality, "they" will never stop demanding until they have control! ... Call it what you like! :scratch:


Singled out for blingage... concessions and allowances have been made, why should they expect anything else :killingme...

[Edbear]

What is natural? Homosexuality has been around since the beginning, its not a new thing. Its well documented and you cannot argue that!
If its so unnatural why do animals happily practice it too?
Why do some creatures have both sets of reproductive organs and are neither male nor female, are they unnatural too?

I specifically mentioned design. Homosexual's of any species cannot pro-create. In this context they are inevitably detrimental to the species.

[SimJen]

I specifically mentioned design. Homosexual's of any species cannot pro-create. In this context they are inevitably detrimental to the species.

More than enough humans on the planet, I'm sure a few hundred thousand homosexuals won't make a difference to numbers!
What about all of the heterosexuals who choose not to have children, or can't? Are they not accepted in your mock society as they have no use?

[riffer]

I specifically mentioned design. Homosexual's of any species cannot pro-create. In this context they are inevitably detrimental to the species.

So are infertile people. So are those who choose not to have children. Invalid argument.

[riffer]

From Wikipedia:

Marriage (also called matrimony or wedlock) is a social union or legal contract between people called spouses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spouse) that creates kinship (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinship). The definition of marriage varies according to different cultures, but is usually an institution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institution) in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged. Such a union is often formalized via a wedding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedding) ceremony. In terms of legal recognition, most sovereign states and other jurisdictions limit marriage to two persons of opposite sex (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex) or gender (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender) in the gender binary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_binary), and some of these allow polygynous marriage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygyny). In the 21st century, several countries and some other jurisdictions have legalized same-sex marriage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage). In some cultures, marriage is recommended or compulsory before pursuing any sexual activity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-marital_sex).

Let's stop calling it gay marriage okay? It's marriage.

[Edbear]

So are infertile people. So are those who choose not to have children. Invalid argument.

Why is it so hard for people to get the point? :facepalm:

Male and female are DESIGNED to procreate, and members of the same gender CANNOT procreate. You are talking about physical imperfection and choice, not design! :bye:

[SimJen]

Why is it so hard for people to get the point? :facepalm:
Male and female are DESIGNED to procreate, and members of the same gender CANNOT procreate. You are talking about physical imperfection and choice, not design! :bye:

Male and female do procreate of that you are correct! ;), there is no design.
Humans weren't designed, they have evolved!
This has nothing to do with Marriage or its concept. People do not get married just to create children!

[HenryDorsetCase]

I specifically mentioned design. Homosexual's of any species cannot pro-create. In this context they are inevitably detrimental to the species.

Please, tell us more about "intelligent design".

[HenryDorsetCase]

Why is it so hard for people to get the point? :facepalm:

Male and female are DESIGNED to procreate, and members of the same gender CANNOT procreate. You are talking about physical imperfection and choice, not design! :bye:

incorrect.

[imdying]

So are infertile people. So are those who choose not to have children. Invalid argument.

It's not invalid, nature chooses to remove all sorts from the gene pool for all sorts of reasons.

[Ender EnZed]

Some may be as I am and believe it is unnatural as it goes directly against the design of the human species, something you cannot argue with, male and female of any life is for a specific reason, and causes far more harm than good, something else that history attests to.


Tell us more about the harm that homosexuality causes.

[Edbear]

Tell us more about the harm that homosexuality causes.

Google it...

[Tigadee]

If its so unnatural why do animals happily practice it too?

So homosexuals are animals?:eek5:


Why do some creatures have both sets of reproductive organs and are neither male nor female, are they unnatural too?

Genetic mutation isn't always natural unless it breeds strong traits that enhance chances of survival and allows the propogation and survival of the species... If they become the majority, then they would be totally 'natural'.

Thought-provoking is that perhaps one day, heteros may be the minority wishing we were accepted and allowed to live our hetero lives in peace.


there is no design.

Beg to differ... Men and women were designed to breed - look at the recent TV programme which highlighted that our sense of smell actually helps us to find mates genetically compatible with us to produce the best mix of DNA in offspring.

99 per cent of the time, the candidate picked based on smell - I'm not talking fresh out of the shower but after the gym smell - was the best one for DNA compatibility to produce the strongest healthiest progeny.


Humans weren't designed, they have evolved!

A group or entity can evolve from an original design, look at the machines we have created.


This has nothing to do with Marriage or its concept. People do not get married just to create children!

Not any more anyway, as it is by choice. And people argue that God doesn't give free will? (Sadly people only feel that religion robs free will because of man-perverted - and recent man-made - religions, not the actual teachings and beliefs.)

[Drew]

Isn't there a thread specifically for you God botherers?

Fucking is done mostly for recreation. So much so, it could be said that sex is predominantly a recreational past time.

So it doesn't really matter what or who you are banging, chances are it'll make zero difference to the species.

[Road kill]

If I need to spell it out to you, you are probably too ignorant to absorb it even if I hand the information to you on a silver platter.
consider for a moment this: all your posts about how 'a couple burnouts dont hurt others if you are doing it out of other peoples way' - how is someones sexuality any different, as long as the arent going at it in the middle of the street?


great, more unsubstantiated bullshit.

The funny thing is, that kids learn from THEIR parents. kids dont care, they mimic their parents and their role models, the problem is a lack of role models worthy of being parents in this day and age. all the racists, bigots and homophobes that teach their children that anything that is different must somehow be unnaceptable are what the problem there is.

as for children growing up with gay parents etc, take a look at YOUR kids, and take a look at this intelligent, well spoken, mature young gentleman, and tell me whats so wrong with gay parents?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSQQK2Vuf9Q&feature=player_embedded

Yes all those people with moral standards huh.
Not to worry,just call them bigots and there's your whole arguement sorted for you,,no further thinking needed.
And no personal morals needed.

[mashman]

I specifically mentioned design. Homosexual's of any species cannot pro-create. In this context they are inevitably detrimental to the species.

Of course they can. Human beings have the ability to impregnate a male... and how does that argument work for a hermaphrodite?


Please, tell us more about "intelligent design".

You're gonna have to wait til they get the ok from the manufacturer that it was a design issue.

[tigertim20]

Non so blind as those that can not see, comes to mind.

It's amusing how fast you are to throw nasty names at those with a different opinion to you and label me as discriminating. Lets refresh ourselves, the words you threw around, "hating, bigoted, homophobic people" and "you are actively discriminating against them". Actually, that's exactly what you have done to me and the others that simply want to retain the existing meaning of the word marriage.

So you are saying someone with your opinion has the right to insult and call names to anyone with a different opinion, but those with a different opinion to you can't say jack shit or else you will jump on your high horse and bleet on about how oppressed and discriminated against you are.
How the hell do you get dressed in the morning with such twisted double standards. Equality, fairness to all, unbiased, you don't know the meaning of these word.

Just like the knights of the crusades, ignorantly blinded to reason by their cause.

Your attitude is like reverse racism, reverse homophobia taking away the rights of heterosexuals. That's what I object to, not homosexuals.
reverse racism? there is no such thing as reverse racism. racism is not defined as a white guy calling a black guy a 'nigger'. european, african, asian, greek people can all be racist. maybe you dont fully understand the concepts being discussed here. racism isnt 'reversible' - its hate or belittlement of, or a beleif of superiority over, another person based on their race/creed/ethnicity. no such thing as reverse racism.
a straight person can get married, how they define their OWN marriage is up to them, it doesnt give them the right to define, or remove the right of someone else to define their own marriage.

letting gay couples marry does NOT take anything away from you whatsoever. if you are straight, and married, then there are only two people on earth who can affect or influence your marriage, you and your spouse, nobody else, as the two of you define your union, not me, or any other bystander.

just one question, by granting same sex marriages, what rights are being taken away from anyone?
I honestly can't think of a single thing that you'd lose, except the specialness of being better than everyone else by virtue of having more rights.
well said.

A phobia per se, is an unreasoned fear,
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/homophobia

I doubt many have a "fear" of homosexuality or of homosexuals as persons. Many may not even have antipathy towards them.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/antipathy

Some may be as I am and believe it is unnatural as it goes directly against the design of the human species, something you cannot argue with, male and female of any life is for a specific reason, and causes far more harm than good, something else that history attests to.

I have no fear of or hatred for homosexuals and everyone has the right and in this country, the freedom to choose for themselves how they want to live. However, such ones must also be willing to accept the outcomes of their choices.

You can bring morality and Biblical standards into it if you wish but again they are not homophobic if very plain.


I specifically mentioned design. Homosexual's of any species cannot pro-create. In this context they are inevitably detrimental to the species.


Why is it so hard for people to get the point? :facepalm:

Male and female are DESIGNED to procreate, and members of the same gender CANNOT procreate. You are talking about physical imperfection and choice, not design! :bye:

ok. for a start, look at the gross over population that we currently have in many areas of the world, procreation is necessary to continue our race overall, but frankly with global birth rates climbing steadily, we will get to the point where we cannot sustain ourselves, so in reality, gay couples are a great solution created by nature, whereby people can live, laugh, love and fuck, without contributing to the becoming crisis of future overpopulation.

as a second point, you are religious as we all know, and it seems quite clear to me from your posts that many of your beliefs stem from your religion and teachings of god etc as you perceive them, now Im not attacking you or your religion (not this time anyway!) but think about it, by your own beliefs, god made earth and man etc etc, thus gay people are an object of your own god's design.

as for your attemot to redefine homophobia, I see someone else has already clarified the point, homophobia isnt strictly a case of fear of homosexuals. there is more to it than that.

[mashman]

procreation is necessary to continue our race overall

agree with the rest of that great post... just not the above. It isn't necessary these days, just cheaper :laugh:

[Drew]

reverse racism? there is no such thing as reverse racism. racism is not defined as a white guy calling a black guy a 'nigger'. european, african, asian, greek people can all be racist. maybe you dont fully understand the concepts being discussed here. racism isnt 'reversible' - its hate or belittlement of, or a beleif of superiority over, another person based on their race/creed/ethnicity. no such thing as reverse racism.
a straight person can get married, how they define their OWN marriage is up to them, it doesnt give them the right to define, or remove the right of someone else to define their own marriage.



Way to focus on a small mistake MD made, when you knew exactly what he meant. Whilst ignoring the larger part of what he said.

He used a word, what was it now? Oh yeah, hypocrite.

[SMOKEU]

So homosexuals are animals?:eek5:



Yes they sure are. Humans are all animals.

[tigertim20]

Way to focus on a small mistake MD made, when you knew exactly what he meant. Whilst ignoring the larger part of what he said.

He used a word, what was it now? Oh yeah, hypocrite.

go back and read it again. I addressed his points, as others have done quite adequately also.
and to be honest, I dont consider the idea of reverse racism to be a minor mistake, its a major error in the understanding of what racism actually constitutes, and if he cant grasp the concept of the most widely documented form of discrimination in our history, then I have small hope of him understanding the comparatively new issue currently being discussed.

[Drew]

go back and read it again. I addressed his points, as others have done quite adequately also.
and to be honest, I dont consider the idea of reverse racism to be a minor mistake, its a major error in the understanding of what racism actually constitutes, and if he cant grasp the concept of the most widely documented form of discrimination in our history, then I have small hope of him understanding the comparatively new issue currently being discussed.

You condescending cunt. I also get a bee in my bonnet when people use the term "reverse racism", there is only racism. MD did not imply anything though, and it was clear he meant racism contrary to the norm.

Did you address the part of his post where he talked about people pointing fingers and calling names?

I am a bigot, I fuckin hate people who think they are superior.

[Edbear]

reverse racism? there is no such thing as reverse racism. racism is not defined as a white guy calling a black guy a 'nigger'. european, african, asian, greek people can all be racist. maybe you dont fully understand the concepts being discussed here. racism isnt 'reversible' - its hate or belittlement of, or a beleif of superiority over, another person based on their race/creed/ethnicity. no such thing as reverse racism.
a straight person can get married, how they define their OWN marriage is up to them, it doesnt give them the right to define, or remove the right of someone else to define their own marriage.

letting gay couples marry does NOT take anything away from you whatsoever. if you are straight, and married, then there are only two people on earth who can affect or influence your marriage, you and your spouse, nobody else, as the two of you define your union, not me, or any other bystander.

well said.


ok. for a start, look at the gross over population that we currently have in many areas of the world, procreation is necessary to continue our race overall, but frankly with global birth rates climbing steadily, we will get to the point where we cannot sustain ourselves, so in reality, gay couples are a great solution created by nature, whereby people can live, laugh, love and fuck, without contributing to the becoming crisis of future overpopulation.

as a second point, you are religious as we all know, and it seems quite clear to me from your posts that many of your beliefs stem from your religion and teachings of god etc as you perceive them, now Im not attacking you or your religion (not this time anyway!) but think about it, by your own beliefs, god made earth and man etc etc, thus gay people are an object of your own god's design.

as for your attemot to redefine homophobia, I see someone else has already clarified the point, homophobia isnt strictly a case of fear of homosexuals. there is more to it than that.

I posted physical fact and linked actual dictionaries. What are you so afraid of?

[tigertim20]

You condescending cunt. I also get a bee in my bonnet when people use the term "reverse racism", there is only racism. MD did not imply anything though, and it was clear he meant racism contrary to the norm.

Did you address the part of his post where he talked about people pointing fingers and calling names?

I am a bigot, I fuckin hate people who think they are superior.
lol, condescending cunt eh? lovely, you do realise the hilariously retarded hypocrisy of you calling me a cunt, in your attempt to defend/highlight his point about name calling right? or did that go right over your head? - I dont imagine that would be hard as your head seems to have been planted quite far up your own rectum!

[short-circuit]

lol, condescending cunt eh? lovely, you do realise the hilariously retarded hypocrisy of you calling me a cunt, in your attempt to defend/highlight his point about name calling right? or did that go right over your head? - I dont imagine that would be hard as your head seems to have been planted quite far up your own rectum!

Faaaaaaaack watch out. Next he'll declare that he can smash you and tell you where he lives :sweatdrop

[scumdog]

and to be honest, I dont consider the idea of reverse racism to be a minor mistake, its a major error in the understanding of what racism actually constitutes,

It isn't reverse racism we have here Tim - it is positive discrimination...:shifty:

[mashman]

Faaaaaaaack watch out. Next he'll declare that he can smash you and tell you where he lives :sweatdrop

Will he smash him analy?

[Edbear]

Funny thing is to note that most here and certainly the most vocal are not practising homosexuals. They will also, no doubt, deny how they personally feel about having sex with someone of their own gender.

These ones would be thus;

"Homosexuality if fine, there is nothing wrong with it!" but of course if another man tried it on with them there would be a swift and violent reaction...

[short-circuit]

Will he smash him analy?

Yeah I think that's why he gives out his address

[scumdog]

Funny thing is to note that most here and certainly the most vocal are not practising homosexuals. They will also, no doubt, deny how they personally feel about having sex with someone of their own gender.

These ones would be thus;

"Homosexuality if fine, there is nothing wrong with it!" but of course if another man tried it on with them there would be a swift and violent reaction...

I'll let you know my reaction the first time it happens to me...

[mashman]

Funny thing is to note that most here and certainly the most vocal are not practising homosexuals. They will also, no doubt, deny how they personally feel about having sex with someone of their own gender.

These ones would be thus;

"Homosexuality if fine, there is nothing wrong with it!" but of course if another man tried it on with them there would be a swift and violent reaction...

That's a hell of a leap and I suppose given your posts an understandable statement for you to make. In my case you are wrong and I know this because I have been hit on by homosexuals. No harm no foul. I'm stunning, it's hardly surprising that men would throw themselves at me... it's quite flattering

[mashman]

Yeah I think that's why he gives out his address

:killingme... I guess if you go to his door you could call that giving consent... smart move.

[tigertim20]

Will he smash him analy?
not unless he proposes first, Im old fashioned that way . . .

Funny thing is to note that most here and certainly the most vocal are not practising homosexuals. They will also, no doubt, deny how they personally feel about having sex with someone of their own gender.

These ones would be thus;

"Homosexuality if fine, there is nothing wrong with it!" but of course if another man tried it on with them there would be a swift and violent reaction...

I will respond by pointing out that there are lot, and i mean a LOT of fucking ugly, fat, morbidly obese women out there that I wouldnt even touch with Drew's cock, but that doesnt mean i dont fuck women.

Some guys like big tits, or a tiny waist, or a big ass, or blondes, and others like cock. I dont see the problem?

[Edbear]

That's a hell of a leap and I suppose given your posts an understandable statement for you to make. In my case you are wrong and I know this because I have been hit on by homosexuals. No harm no foul. I'm stunning, it's hardly surprising that men would throw themselves at me... it's quite flattering

Me too but how do you feel about doing it?

[Edbear]

not unless he proposes first, Im old fashioned that way . . .


I will respond by pointing out that there are lot, and i mean a LOT of fucking ugly, fat, morbidly obese women out there that I wouldnt even touch with Drew's cock, but that doesnt mean i dont fuck women.

Some guys like big tits, or a tiny waist, or a big ass, or blondes, and others like cock. I dont see the problem?

You know, if I was a point and you had a gun I would be perfectly safe standing directly in front of you...

[Edbear]

I'll let you know my reaction the first time it happens to me...

Apparently the last guy you chased after in the nuddy was doing his best to get away from you... :innocent:

[scumdog]

Apparently the last guy you chased after in the nuddy was doing his best to get away from you... :innocent:

Just goes to prove that I'm really a ladies kind of guy.:D

[mashman]

not unless he proposes first, Im old fashioned that way . . .

:laugh: cannot spread again :shit:


Me too but how do you feel about doing it?

do you mean anal sex with a woman or anal sex with a man? If the lights were out and I was drunk and I wasn't going all octopus, I doubt I'd notice the difference (at least until I brought him to orgasm)... but in the cold light of day, I'm not attracted to men in a physical way.

[Madness]

Funny thing is to note that most here and certainly the most vocal are not practising homosexuals. They will also, no doubt, deny how they personally feel about having sex with someone of their own gender.

These ones would be thus;

"Homosexuality if fine, there is nothing wrong with it!" but of course if another man tried it on with them there would be a swift and violent reaction...

Try to keep this on topic Ed & keep your fantasies under control will ya!

[Edbear]

:laugh: cannot spread again :shit:



do you mean anal sex with a woman or anal sex with a man? If the lights were out and I was drunk and I wasn't going all octopus, I doubt I'd notice the difference (at least until I brought him to orgasm)... but in the cold light of day, I'm not attracted to men in a physical way.

Why so hard for a straight bloke to give a straight answer to a straight question?

[short-circuit]

not unless he proposes first, Im old fashioned that way . . .


I will respond by pointing out that there are lot, and i mean a LOT of fucking ugly, fat, morbidly obese women out there that I wouldnt even touch with Drew's cock, but that doesnt mean i dont fuck women.

Some guys like big tits, or a tiny waist, or a big ass, or blondes, and others like cock. I dont see the problem?

must spread rep....

[tigertim20]

:laugh: cannot spread again :shit:



do you mean anal sex with a woman or anal sex with a man? If the lights were out and I was drunk and I wasn't going all octopus, I doubt I'd notice the difference (at least until I brought him to orgasm)... but in the cold light of day, I'm not attracted to men in a physical way.

Ill expand on that a little.

You are yet to find a man you find sexually attractive.

The physiological responses to seeing someone who you find attractive arent ones you control, they just happen. its an awareness that the automatic physiological responses have occurred that brings you to the realisation that what you saw was attractive.

you dont control which things give you those responses, but after a while, you start to recognise the common denominators, and realise what your preferences are consciously, even though you still dont control the physiological side of things.

your point about anal is a good one. anal sex is anal sex. funny how the tough guys who like dominating chicks and banging them up the ass will express disgust at homosexual men having sex!

[short-circuit]

Me too but how do you feel about doing it?

Is that an open offer?

[mashman]

Why so hard for a straight bloke to give a straight answer to a straight question?

:rofl: your question was ambiguous so I thought I'd cover all of the bases just in case you tried to take me the wrong way.

[tigertim20]

Why so hard for a straight bloke to give a straight answer to a straight question?
because it isnt a simple question! you arent annoyed that he isnt answering, you are annoyed that he didnt come to the same conclusion/answer as YOU did.

You know, if I was a point and you had a gun I would be perfectly safe standing directly in front of you...
Not at all ed, I respond to what I find attractive. I dont control what I find attractive, I simply repsond to it. whether that is tits, arse, slim feminine waists, or a cock and balls is irrelevant, the same way that my friends accepted that I shagged some pretty ugly women, I accept that other people choose to fuck someone I think is hideous, whether that person has tits or a cock is irrelevant.

[mashman]

Ill expand on that a little.

You are yet to find a man you find sexually attractive.

The physiological responses to seeing someone who you find attractive arent ones you control, they just happen. its an awareness that the automatic physiological responses have occurred that brings you to the realisation that what you saw was attractive.

you dont control which things give you those responses, but after a while, you start to recognise the common denominators, and realise what your preferences are consciously, even though you still dont control the physiological side of things.

your point about anal is a good one. anal sex is anal sex. funny how the tough guys who like dominating chicks and banging them up the ass will express disgust at homosexual men having sex!

Fair enough... but he's gonna have top have a decent rack on 'im (avoiding the point on purpose)... just a little less of the expanding talk eh.

There was this redhead (transvestite) in an electric blue dress that cornered me for a bite of my sausage one night... but he was too forward for my tastes.

[mashman]

Why so hard for a straight bloke to give a straight answer to a straight question?

When you see a nice arse out of the saddle and then realise it's a bloke. Do you still drive off thinking that it was a nice arse?

[Drew]

lol, condescending cunt eh? lovely, you do realise the hilariously retarded hypocrisy of you calling me a cunt, in your attempt to defend/highlight his point about name calling right? or did that go right over your head? - I dont imagine that would be hard as your head seems to have been planted quite far up your own rectum!Yes, you'll notice I put one right under the other.


Faaaaaaaack watch out. Next he'll declare that he can smash you and tell you where he lives :sweatdropI said I'd smash you if you called me a racist.


Will he smash him analy?I always use plenty of lube. Don't wanna ruin it for the next fella.


Yeah I think that's why he gives out his address^^^He might have a little dick.

[mashman]

I always use plenty of lube. Don't wanna ruin it for the next fella.

Racist....

[Drew]

Racist....

Predictable much?

Much too much.

[mashman]

Predictable much?

Much too much.

Thought it would be trashy to ask for a fuck.

[Tigadee]

When you see a nice arse out of the saddle and then realise it's a bloke. Do you still drive off thinking that it was a nice arse?

http://d24w6bsrhbeh9d.cloudfront.net/photo/286464_700b.jpg

:facepalm: I think... you're too easy to please... :killingme

[Drew]

Thought it would be trashy to ask for a fuck.
I don't do subtle.

[mashman]

:facepalm: I think... you're too easy

fixed for ya.



I don't do subtle.

Good to know, if not believable... you do seem a little limp dicked.

[Drew]

you do seem a little limp dicked.Really?

I need to work on my rep!

[ducatilover]

When you see a nice arse out of the saddle and then realise it's a bloke. Do you still drive off thinking that it was a nice arse?

Yes, put that in teh tug bank

[HenryDorsetCase]

Funny thing is to note that most here and certainly the most vocal are not practising homosexuals. They will also, no doubt, deny how they personally feel about having sex with someone of their own gender.

These ones would be thus;

"Homosexuality if fine, there is nothing wrong with it!" but of course if another man tried it on with them there would be a swift and violent reaction...
Rape or attempted rape is a bit like that, huh?

[Drew]

I actually have had a gay guy come onto me, it's no big deal.

[mashman]

I actually have had a gay guy come onto me, it's no big deal.

I've had a few and as you say, no biggy... but that's what happens when you drink in a gay bar. Most recently whilst wearing my faded purple shirt, PURPLE, outside having a fag in Porirua a lovely fella called Paul came up for a chat. Was a funny bugga and I had a second fag and enjoyed his company a while longer

[short-circuit]

I actually have had a gay guy come onto me, it's no big deal.

Did you wipe it off or rub it in?

[Tigadee]

I actually have had a gay guy come onto me, it's no big deal.

So you can brag to your partner that you have options now... :laugh:

[Quasievil]

I actually have had a gay guy come onto me, it's no big deal.

You come on to me bro

[mashman]

You come on to me bro

That makes you a bromo... you'll never be allowed to get married

[ducatilover]

I actually have had a gay guy come onto me, it's no big deal.


I've had a few and as you say, no biggy... but that's what happens when you drink in a gay bar. Most recently whilst wearing my faded purple shirt, PURPLE, outside having a fag in Porirua a lovely fella called Paul came up for a chat. Was a funny bugga and I had a second fag and enjoyed his company a while longer

:mellow::blink::shit:

HIIIIII BOOOOYYYYSSSSS

[Madness]

This thread's getting a bit gay...

[R RATED]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_ZbGO0HC9ZXM/TT8M1hW7yfI/AAAAAAAAE3I/pLME2EJLawo/s1600/Doc%2Bking2.jpg[/R RATED]

[mashman]

:mellow::blink::shit:

HIIIIII BOOOOYYYYSSSSS

I see you ride a Honda cheeky boy.


This thread's getting a bit gay...

[R RATED]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_ZbGO0HC9ZXM/TT8M1hW7yfI/AAAAAAAAE3I/pLME2EJLawo/s1600/Doc%2Bking2.jpg[/R RATED]

er, er, er, er, er, er

[Littleman]

Funny thing is to note that most here and certainly the most vocal are not practising homosexuals. They will also, no doubt, deny how they personally feel about having sex with someone of their own gender.

These ones would be thus;

"Homosexuality if fine, there is nothing wrong with it!" but of course if another man tried it on with them there would be a swift and violent reaction...

Impartiality Ed. Impartiality.

[ducatilover]

I see you ride a Honda cheeky boy.





Get in me?

Wait, I have no Honda.
As you were chaps. :shutup:

[MD]

reverse racism? there is no such thing as reverse racism. racism is not defined as a white guy calling a black guy a 'nigger'. european, african, asian, greek people can all be racist. maybe you dont fully understand the concepts being discussed here. racism isnt 'reversible' - its hate or belittlement of, or a beleif of superiority over, another person based on their race/creed/ethnicity. no such thing as reverse racism.
a straight person can get married, how they define their OWN marriage is up to them, it doesnt give them the right to define, or remove the right of someone else to define their own marriage.

letting gay couples marry does NOT take anything away from you whatsoever. if you are straight, and married, then there are only two people on earth who can affect or influence your marriage, you and your spouse, nobody else, as the two of you define your union, not me, or any other bystander.



Quite right there is no such thing as reverse racism. Bad word choice on my part and unlike those on Team Homo here I am open to others opinions and suggestions and accept your correction. It's a nonsensical phase that has creep into use but lets face it, in reality we know what people mean when they use such a phase as reverse racism. Racism is wrong. We make efforts to right the balance but sometimes the pendulum swings too far the other way, over corecting so to speak and starts to oppress the oppressors. That's also wrong. That's what people are trying to say with phases like reverse racism.

I consider your response to this minor mistake, hardly a major as you claimed, as nothing more than an attempt at distraction.

You still haven't put forward any valid argument though as to why Team homo should be allowed to change the meaning of the word and institution of marriage to suit their agenda, fully knowing that it has a historical and clear meaning of a union between a man and woman and changing it will offend others. Your version of equality seems to be that it's ok for Team homo to offend team Heter but team Heter is not allowed to offend team homo.

For the record I have no religious position on homosexuality. I have no objection to it, go for it, step out of that closet, find the partner you love, get equal legal rights, find a name for formalising and recognising your relationships. Just don't call it a marriage. Someone replied to me to get over it, it's just a word. Funny then Team homo is so hell bent on claiming this word. If it's just an unimportant word to you, then move on and create your own word and institution.

I've had my say and tired of debating with people that refuse to accept that the other side deserves respect and has rights too. I'd say most heterosexuals, including myself, have been extending respect and supporting the rights of homosexuals for decades now. Shame the kindness doesn't get returned.

[Drew]

I've had a few and as you say, no biggy... but that's what happens when you drink in a gay bar. Most recently whilst wearing my faded purple shirt, PURPLE, outside having a fag in Porirua a lovely fella called Paul came up for a chat. Was a funny bugga and I had a second fag and enjoyed his company a while longerThis was a guy I know who flat out said he wanted to root me. I wasn't prepared for the proposition, but it was hardly the way Ed makes out that I'd scream abuse.


Did you wipe it off or rub it in?MY BLUE SHIRT IS RUINED!!!


So you can brag to your partner that you have options now... :laugh:She thought it was fuckin hilarious.


You come on to me broSaying hi, is not a come on, or an invitation to slip me a ruphy. As I told the police arsehole!

[Edbear]

I was referring to a more physical approach and speaking generally. For example if one was in a bar and another man tried to kiss you or slip his hands down one's pants. Of course people will react differently as far as specifics go but I was making a point about the reality of how straight people feel which may contrast with their public views.

[Madness]

So you were referring to indecent assault rather than rape then, Ed?

[Drew]

I was referring to a more physical approach and speaking generally. For example if one was in a bar and another man tried to kiss you or slip his hands down one's pants. Of course people will react differently as far as specifics go but I was making a point about the reality of how straight people feel which may contrast with their public views.

That's a bloody stupid argument. How would a random woman react if I wandered over and kissed her and stuck my hands down her pants?

There is no difference at all.

[riffer]

Quite right Drew.

Personally, I feel this discussion is getting completely lost through side issues.

So far the only rational argument presented against equal marriage is that "It's always been for men and women only".

And the only rational argument presented for equal marriage is that "its discriminatory to restrict people from entering a legal contract due to their sexual orientation".

Whether or not you have a problem with homosexuality is irrelevant to the discussion. Marriage is a civil contract, and currently there is a discriminatory law that contravenes all human rights agreements our country (and many others) have signed up to.

It's only a matter of time before the legal arguments overweigh the emotional ones.

[Edbear]

That's a bloody stupid argument. How would a random woman react if I wandered over and kissed her and stuck my hands down her pants?

There is no difference at all.

Not at all, the point was that members here who are straight seem to be very vocal about how homosexuality is ok, which may well be and often is, in contrast to how they personally feel about it. Nothing more.

Aside from that, riffer is correct and the topic has gone a bit sideways. Or a lot, if you read the OP...

[oldrider]

Original post :I believe in gay marriage: ... No I don't ... there already is provision for Civil Union between same sex couples, for me, end of discussion!

[HenryDorsetCase]

Quite right Drew.

Personally, I feel this discussion is getting completely lost through side issues.

So far the only rational argument presented against equal marriage is that "It's always been for men and women only".

And the only rational argument presented for equal marriage is that "its discriminatory to restrict people from entering a legal contract due to their sexual orientation".

Whether or not you have a problem with homosexuality is irrelevant to the discussion. Marriage is a civil contract, and currently there is a discriminatory law that contravenes all human rights agreements our country (and many others) have signed up to.

It's only a matter of time before the legal arguments overweigh the emotional ones.

since page 8 I reckon.

The interesting aspect of it for me is the absolutely entrenched positions driven by hate and religion (usually they are synonyms of course), and the blissful ignorance of those advancing those positions.

[Tigadee]

...absolutely entrenched positions driven by hate and religion (usually they are synonyms of course), and the blissful ignorance of those advancing those positions.

Not true. Many religions stress kindness, love and universal equality. Some people - OK, a lot of people in those now-institutions - have perverted those values and even steered away from those values. But then that's common to all aspects of life.

There will always be rotten apples in any group. Doesn't mean any group should be dismissed or even hated just because of a select crazed or power-hungry few. If you believe in the afterlife, then those people will face justice for eternity, no worries about that. If you don't believe, then it's no wonder you're disillusioned and cynical. If you have firm belief/knowledge that those who deserve it will be going to hell, well, you sleep much better at night and life doesn't seem so hard...

No matter, the facts are that not all gays dress up flamboyantly, act vulgar or will jump on the first man they see picking up a dropped bar of soap. So neither should you all judge all Christians from the actions of a few. We just want to be accepted for what we are and free to spread love and kindness... :msn-wink:

[HenryDorsetCase]

Get in me?

As you were chaps. :shutup:

they better be assless chaps. All I'm saying

[HenryDorsetCase]

Not true. Many religions stress kindness, love and universal equality. Some people - OK, a lot of people in those now-institutions - have perverted those values and even steered away from those values. But then that's common to all aspects of life.

There will always be rotten apples in any group. Doesn't mean any group should be dismissed or even hated just because of a select crazed or power-hungry few. If you believe in the afterlife, then those people will face justice for eternity, no worries about that. If you don't believe, then it's no wonder you're disillusioned and cynical. If you have firm belief/knowledge that those who deserve it will be going to hell, well, you sleep much better at night and life doesn't seem so hard...

No matter, the facts are that not all gays dress up flamboyantly, act vulgar or will jump on the first man they see picking up a dropped bar of soap. So neither should you all judge all Christians from the actions of a few. We just want to be accepted for what we are and free to spread love and kindness... :msn-wink:

I'm a secular humanist. Do it because its the right thing to do, not because your're scared of what mythical dad in the sky might do to you AFTER YOU ARE DEAD.

I try and keep my contempt for religion separate from religious people. Some relitious people are very nice people. One of the nicest most genuine people I have met this year was a Catholic priest. He was even a fan of Father Ted.

You might even be a nice person, I don't know because we have never met personally. Doesn't change my opinion of religion at all.

I'll leave you with a quote from one of my favourite authors, Christopher Hitchens, who puts it far more eloquently than I, in the sort of vain hope that you will read and think about it, or some other deluded relgious person might:



“One must state it plainly. Religion comes from the period of human prehistory where nobody—not even the mighty Democritus who concluded that all matter was made from atoms—had the smallest idea what was going on. It comes from the bawling and fearful infancy of our species, and is a babyish attempt to meet our inescapable demand for knowledge (as well as for comfort, reassurance and other infantile needs). Today the least educated of my children knows much more about the natural order than any of the founders of religion, and one would like to think—though the connection is not a fully demonstrable one—that this is why they seem so uninterested in sending fellow humans to hell.

[HenryDorsetCase]

Original post :I believe in gay marriage: ... No I don't ... there already is provision for Civil Union between same sex couples, for me, end of discussion!

civil union is not equal to marriage from a legal perspective. trust me on this. its my job to know this shit.

[Drew]

Marriage was created for legal contracts between families, but has become more than that. As pointed out by MD. He feels that what he asked his now wife to do, is contrary to what the addition of homosexual matrimony presents.

But if we go right back to when some body came up with the contract to rob some womans family of hf their shit, I bet there is nothing in there about same sex union.

In which case, same sex marriage is completely inside the intent of the original idea. To join financial and title wealth between parties together.

There is something very circular about all this when you consider both sides of the argument.

[Quasievil]

Marriage is a civil contract, and currently there is a discriminatory law that contravenes all human rights agreements our country (and many others) have signed up to.

It's only a matter of time before the legal arguments overweigh the emotional ones.

Marriage is not a civil contract it is a union in the eyes of the church, the politicizing of Marriage is new to the modern era

Gays dont and should get the right to marrige as it belittles those that are married, marrige is and always should be a union between a man and a woman................end of story!!
Why do Gays need marriage? they have civil union for fucks sake, the world has gone mad, whats the POINT ???

Whats next marry your Mother, your sister, I mean why not with your rationals ?

You plonkers would subscribe to this !!

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/sFBOQzSk14c" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[mashman]

Quite right there is no such thing as reverse racism. Bad word choice on my part and unlike those on Team Homo here I am open to others opinions and suggestions and accept your correction.

T'would seem a tad illogical to assume that Team Heteromo aren't open to others opinions given that Team Heteromo are understanding of the "needs" of Team Homo. However Team Hetero seem to have a raft of excuses/prejudices to not afford a simple right to Team Homo by not accepting their opinions and suggestions. Are you sure your statement isn't arse about face?

[HenryDorsetCase]

Gays dont and should get the right to marrige as it belittles those that are married, marrige is and always should be a union between a man and a woman................end of story!!

Much as I adore THE LIFE OF BRIAN, I can't help but think if you are using Monty Python to shore up your argument, even you must sense its weakness.

Please advise specifically how allowing same sex couples to marry "belittles those who are married".

As has been pointed out previously what marriage is has evolved over time.

In the middle ages in britain (some of you will remember this: your attitudes have been entrenched this long, at least) a woman not of noble birth (and even then very rarely) could not own property: the modern family trust evolved from this (kind of- legal scholars, I acknowledge I am drastically oversimplifying here).

in rural Pakistan today, marriages are arranged. Between very young children, and often very old men, who then proceed to rape and brutalise them. But thats marriage, so its OK, right?

But anyway, over to you: looking forward to your explananation.

[HenryDorsetCase]

T'would seem a tad illogical to assume that Team Heteromo aren't open to others opinions given that Team Heteromo are understanding of the "needs" of Team Homo. However Team Hetero seem to have a raft of excuses/prejudices to not afford a simple right to Team Homo by not accepting their opinions and suggestions. Are you sure your statement isn't arse about face?


"Team Homo"

Really? Thats the level?

[mashman]

"Team Homo"

Really? Thats the level?

Was just replying using the same language that I was responding to for clarity. The names have been changed to protect the innocent.

[blairnz]

Of course gay marriage should be legal. It's immoral that it can't be. Through-out civilisations and through-out nature it is occuring. They should be able to marry, adopt, and do the same daft stuff straight people can do.

http://a5.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/424295_10150993285101275_845608299_n.jpg

[Edbear]

[QUOTE=Quasievil;1130377917]Marriage is not a civil contract it is a union in the eyes of the church, the politicizing of Marriage is new to the modern era

Gays dont and should get the right to marrige as it belittles those that are married, marrige is and always should be a union between a man and a woman................end of story!!
Why do Gays need marriage? they have civil union for fucks sake, the world has gone mad, whats the POINT ???

Whats next marry your Mother, your sister, I mean why not with your rationals ?

You plonkers would subscribe to this !!

<[QUOTE]

You are right mostly. Marriage was, while not exclusively a religious act, more of society, and often varying according to the race or nation's views.

In more recent times it became desirable for many nations to have the marriage legally recognised in order to provide protections for the parties in the relationship. So it became law to have the union legally registered and thereby come under legal protections.

With the increase in many foregoing marriage and legal registration primarily to get out of the legal requirements, countries such as NZ have widened the law to include those in a de-facto relationship for two years or more. So as was the case where men could avoid sharing their property with their common-law wife, they now had to do so.

This change caused some consternation when many men broke off their relationship just prior to the two, (originally three), years being up and along with that an increase in pre-nuptual agreements. For a while it was very messy.

[Quasievil]

Please advise specifically how allowing same sex couples to marry "belittles those who are married".




Sure, why should a couple who choose to be married (a man and a woman) have there rights shared with a man and another man who choose to stick their penises up each others bums ? the sanctity of marriage will be tarnished with this, homos are weird, homos are not natural, why should they enjoy the benefit of Marriage what advantage would they get from it? merely to say that they are being discriminated against is not an argument and wont stop the discrimination as it will always continue, a Male sticking his penis up another mans bum will always be grounds for discrimination as its not natural!!!!!!

Can you please tell me why a Brother should not marry his Sister ??

[mashman]

Can you please tell me why a Brother should not marry his Sister ??

Because you aren't a great example of the resulting offspring... marriage would just encourage it.

[HenryDorsetCase]

You are right mostly. Marriage was, while not exclusively a religious act, more of society, and often varying according to the race or nation's views.

In more recent times it became desirable for many nations to have the marriage legally recognised in order to provide protections for the parties in the relationship. So it became law to have the union legally registered and thereby come under legal protections.

With the increase in many foregoing marriage and legal registration primarily to get out of the legal requirements, countries such as NZ have widened the law to include those in a de-facto relationship for two years or more. So as was the case where men could avoid sharing their property with their common-law wife, they now had to do so.

This change caused some consternation when many men broke off their relationship just prior to the two, (originally three), years being up and along with that an increase in pre-nuptual agreements. For a while it was very messy.

It is still three. It has never been other than three. It was three before the law was changed and the MPA76 only applied to married couples. It is three now that the provisions around relationship property have been widened to include those in "de facto" relationships. Trust me on this, its my job to know. If you are in a de facto relationship with someone for less than three years it is by definition a "relationship of short duration" and the practical consequence of that is it is EASIER (but by no means certain) that if your relationship ends that you will exit with what you put in. After three years the statutory presumption is that all assets are part of the relationship property pool and that at the end of the relationship the pool is split equally, no matter who introduced what asset to the pool. There are circumstances in which a disparate share can be awarded, and some interesting caselaw around just what cunts people can be to people they previously were in a relationship with. In my experience the level of vitriol doesnt change according to whether people wer married or de facto. I've done a few same-sex ones as well: no difference. In fact they were among the more civilised ones.


There are no statistics I have seen which support your position that people "broke off their relatiohsip just prior to the [sic] two years being up"

By the way you do realise that this: "Forego marriage .... primarily to get out the legal requirements" is a tautology?

[Quasievil]

Because you aren't a great example of the resulting offspring... marriage would just encourage it.

Not really an answer, more of a side step :yawn:

[HenryDorsetCase]

Sure, why should a couple who choose to be married (a man and a woman) have there rights shared with a man and another man who choose to stick their penises up each others bums ? the sanctity of marriage will be tarnished with this, homos are weird, homos are not natural, why should they enjoy the benefit of Marriage what advantage would they get from it? merely to say that they are being discriminated against is not an argument and wont stop the discrimination as it will always continue, a Male sticking his penis up another mans bum will always be grounds for discrimination as its not natural!!!!!!

Can you please tell me why a Brother should not marry his Sister ??

apart from Mr Mashman's answer (which is hilarious, and presumably, on point) the obvious answer is that close relatives should not marry because the risk of hamful genetic mutation is increased. That risk does not exist with a same sex couple.

As long as they are consenting adults, as long as they dont do it in the street, as long as they dont try and force themselves on anyone, who are you to tell anyone what to do, how to act? It is disgusting.

Why are you fixated on anal sex? To descend to the level this "debate" is at, one presumes you've tried it and didnt like it, thus qualifying you to comment?

[Quasievil]

Why are you fixated on anal sex? To descend to the level this "debate" is at, one presumes you've tried it and didnt like it, thus qualifying you to comment?

Yeah I gave one to Drew (which makes him Gay btw) it was ok, but I wasnt his first so he is a bit ............mmmm shall we say expansive down there

[Edbear]

It is still three. It has never been other than three. It was three before the law was changed and the MPA76 only applied to married couples. It is three now that the provisions around relationship property have been widened to include those in "de facto" relationships. Trust me on this, its my job to know. If you are in a de facto relationship with someone for less than three years it is by definition a "relationship of short duration" and the practical consequence of that is it is EASIER (but by no means certain) that if your relationship ends that you will exit with what you put in. After three years the statutory presumption is that all assets are part of the relationship property pool and that at the end of the relationship the pool is split equally, no matter who introduced what asset to the pool. There are circumstances in which a disparate share can be awarded, and some interesting caselaw around just what cunts people can be to people they previously were in a relationship with. In my experience the level of vitriol doesnt change according to whether people wer married or de facto. I've done a few same-sex ones as well: no difference. In fact they were among the more civilised ones.


There are no statistics I have seen which support your position that people "broke off their relatiohsip just prior to the [sic] two years being up"

By the way you do realise that this: "Forego marriage .... primarily to get out the legal requirements" is a tautology?

I accept your knowledge of it. I am not sure why I thought it had ben reduced to two.

More anecdotal evidence from talk at the time about breaking off relationships. I have not seen any confirmed specs about this as it would not really have been openly admitted to.

Tautology has a couple of meanings but again it was anecdotal, not "official." Actually not a lot that went on was official back in the day... :wacko:


Sure, why should a couple who choose to be married (a man and a woman) have there rights shared with a man and another man who choose to stick their penises up each others bums ? the sanctity of marriage will be tarnished with this, homos are weird, homos are not natural, why should they enjoy the benefit of Marriage what advantage would they get from it? merely to say that they are being discriminated against is not an argument and wont stop the discrimination as it will always continue, a Male sticking his penis up another mans bum will always be grounds for discrimination as its not natural!!!!!!

Can you please tell me why a Brother should not marry his Sister ??

Too dangerous physically with too much that could go wrong genetically.

[Quasievil]

apart from Mr Mashman's answer (which is hilarious, and presumably, on point) the obvious answer is that close relatives should not marry because the risk of hamful genetic mutation is increased. That risk does not exist with a same sex couple.



Hang on thats Discriminatory !!! you cant discriminate against people purely because of this, thats not acceptable at all !!!