Same Sex Marriage (Poll on The Journal)

Nodin

tomdempsey200 wrote: »

heterosexuals having equal rights on gay threads hopefully

I'm a big oul male heterosexual and nobody seems to have it in for me...

Some reason you can't answer the question I've put to you twice already?

Czarcasm

Billy86 wrote: »

"I just went into the Dragon for a quick pint with the missus and next I knew, I was handcuffed and in a shotgun ghey marriage. Only... I don't think that was a shotgun!"

I'd say some posters here have ideas about the Dragon being something like the Blue Oyster

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlGclIZV5JQ

They'd walk out disgusted then if they didn't get hit on! :pac:

efb

The dragon full of too many twinks and their little jr fag hags for my liking! Far too much product

Billy86

tomdempsey200 wrote: »

heterosexuals having equal rights on gay threads hopefully

As a heterosexual, I can happily tell you that yes Tom, yes we do.

Links234

Czarcasm wrote: »

With all due respect though Links, those are completely separate issues to the issue of LGBT marriage equality, they existed before LGBT marriage equality was legalised, and they exist after, but they have no correlation with LGBT marriage equality being legalised.

The question was, "what's the next frontier after gay marriage" which I took to mean what's the next issue for LGBT rights, not what's the next marriage issue

Nodin

efb wrote: »

The dragon full of too many twinks and their little jr fag hags for my liking! Far too much product

....translators is another thing we'll need when the Day Of The Ghey arrives.

Billy86

Czarcasm wrote: »

I'd say some posters here have ideas about the Dragon being something like the Blue Oyster

They'd walk out disgusted then if they didn't get hit on! :pac:

What's funny is I cannot stand the George (always struck me as a complete meat marketwhen I've been in there, it's the exact same way as I feel about Coppers)... but The Dragon is f***ing awesome!!

It's gas though how many homophobes seem to think they must look amazing, because every gay man is probably after them, which... their egos would really take a bruising if they ever actually went to one of those places! :pac: :pac:

poundapunnet

Nodin wrote: »

....so you'd have sex with somebody the same gender as yourself as a "lifestyle choice"?

I know! How do people think that happens? Straight people are weird.

I can't decide if my favourite type of homophobe is the one who thinks it's a disgusting brain disease of some sort or the one who thinks it's a disgusting conscious choice.

tomdempsey200 wrote: »

i notice how everyone on these gay threads gets bashed as soon as they chime in with a conflicting view..

I notice how everyone with these conflicting views just keeps spouting that bollocks rather than defend said conflicting views. I'm almost starting to think ye genuinely can't

Terry1985

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

you didn't deal with the core point of mine that liberal attitudes are more toelrant and more modern and will ultimately lead to more contentment.

That's idealistic dreaming in fairness.
All you can forcefully control through legislation is people's actions, not what they think.
We are a status driven species and as such will always automatically make split second judgements on whether people are better, worse or equal to us.

You can't expect everyone to truly believe people are equal.

NuMarvel

tomdempsey200 wrote: »

i notice how everyone on these gay threads gets bashed as soon as they chime in with a conflicting view..

What I notice is how that's the go-to fallback position for everyone who makes up nonsense like yours.

But tell you what, if you can show that same sex marriage leads to an increase in underage marriage, then I'll be the first to defend you. There's 14 countries and numerous US and Brazilian states that have permitted it, so you'l surely find it easy to back up what you're saying.

K-9 wrote: »

Once we gave women the vote it was all downhill from there, now you've all kinds of minorities getting all uppity.

What's worse, they warned us that letting women vote would lead to the breakdown of the family, society, and life as we know it! Why didn't we listen??

Pushtrak

I love people who jump in this thread, and while not having an argument, feel their position is being repressed. Out heterosexuality is no more challenged by SSM than our whiteness is by mixed ethnicities being allowed to marry. There is a similar thing that could be said to those against mixed ethnicity marriage as to SSM opponents. Wrong side of history. I kinda wish I was born in another 200 years or something when we had progressed, as we surely will by a great deal, but there has been a lot of things in our time that's been pretty cool.

Zubeneschamali

tomdempsey200 wrote: »

i notice how everyone on these gay threads gets bashed as soon as they chime in with a conflicting view..

You've got some neck coming into a thread about gay rights and claiming you are being "bashed". Criticised, yes, even mocked and insulted.

But you are not getting "bashed".

spank_inferno

Terry1985 wrote: »

You can't expect everyone to truly believe people are equal.

True, not everyone believes all are equal.

T'would be nice for the state to have a stab at it though.

Billy86

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Fair enough, but that's what it looks like when you ignore the repsonce to our posts: indeed, you didn't deal with the core point of mine that liberal attitudes are more toelrant and more modern and will ultimately lead to more contentment.

Terry1985 wrote: »

That's idealistic dreaming in fairness.

It's American but still completely true...

Joe gets up at 6:00 AM to prepare his morning coffee. He fills his pot full of good clean drinking water because some liberal fought for minimum water quality standards. He takes his daily medication with his first swallow of coffee. His medications are safe to take because some liberal fought to insure their safety and work as advertised.

All but $10.00 of his medications are paid for by his employers medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance, now Joe gets it too. He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs this day. Joe’s bacon is safe to eat because some liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.

Joe takes his morning shower reaching for his shampoo; His bottle is properly labelled with every ingredient and the amount of its contents because some liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained. Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some tree hugging liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air. He walks to the subway station for his government subsidized ride to work; it saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees. You see, some liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.

Joe begins his work day; he has a good job with excellent pay, medicals benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe's employer pays these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union. If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed he'll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some liberal didn't think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.

Joe is home from work, he plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive to dad's; his car is among the safest in the world because some liberal fought for car safety standards. He arrives at his boyhood home. He was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans. The house didn't have electric until some big government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification. (Those rural Republicans would still be sitting in the dark.)

He is happy to see his dad who is now retired. His dad lives on Social Security and his union pension because some liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to.

After his visit with dad he gets back in his car for the ride home.

He turns on a radio talk show. The host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. (He doesn't tell Joe that his beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day)

You can't expect everyone to truly believe people are equal.

Yes, and they are called bigots.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Terry1985 wrote: »

That's idealistic dreaming in fairness.
All you can forcefully control through legislation is people's actions, not what they think.

In the past yes, but thanks to a liberal society (if not a governemnt) things like equality and tolerance are slowly becoming a reality.

The question for you is: do you think this modernisation is a positive or a negative? and why?

We are a status driven species and as such will always automatically make split second judgements on whether people are better, worse or equal to us.

You can't expect everyone to truly believe people are equal.

I fully expect people to be treated equally before the eyes of the law and, with the exception of conservtive politicians and businessmen, they are.

hansfrei

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

In the past yes, but thanks to a liberal society (if not a governemnt) things like equality and tolerance are slowly becoming a reality.

The question for you is: do you think this modernisation is a positive or a negative? and why?



I fully expect people to be treated equally before the eyes of the law and, with the exception of conservtive politicians and businessmen, they are.

The idea isn't modern. That statement is codswallop. You're asking if people want to change marriage into what it was in biblical or prehistoric times.

You're also suggesting that by doing so the world will be a better place for it. Theres no proof. We can't even discuss any implications or fallout from the change in legislation.

Friend Computer

Implications or fallout? Am I going to have to post that image for you again?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

hansfrei wrote: »

The idea isn't modern. That statement is codswallop. You're asking if people want to change marriage into what it was in biblical or prehistoric times.

You're also suggesting that by doing so the world will be a better place for it. Theres no proof. We can't even discuss any implications or fallout from the change in legislation.

Equality is a modern concept compared to the last hundred years or so wehre people were discriminated against on the grounds of sex, race, background, etc.,

If you can give me a good reason as to why equality and tolerance would not improve society, I'll gladly listen to them - as long as your arguments are rational and based on logic.

Czarcasm

SamaraCreamed wrote: »

Can you imagine being a boy living with two fathers:

Son "What's that noise next door? Why are you hurting each other"
Father "Oh, I'm just ****ing daddy number 2 up the poop shoot"
Son "Oh my God.. what?"
Father "Oh, I'll explain when I'm done"

I would rather be born in Africa than in that position!

Do you think heterosexual people haven't said that and worse to their children or something?

The amount of times I've had to tell the young lad I'm performing CPR on his mother when we were going at it hammer and tongs and suddenly one or the other of us would realise he'd crept into our bedroom to climb into bed between us!


"Get t'fùck back to your own bed you little shìt!"


I'm fairly sure he's not scarred for life, couldn't be sure it won't come back to haunt him later on in life when the realisation hits him that his parents actually had sex!

hansfrei

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

In the past yes, but thanks to a liberal society (if not a governemnt) things like equality and tolerance are slowly becoming a reality.

The question for you is: do you think this modernisation is a positive or a negative? and why?



I fully expect people to be treated equally before the eyes of the law and, with the exception of conservtive politicians and businessmen, they are.

The idea isn't modern. That statement is codswallop. You're asking if people want to change marriage into what it was in biblical or prehistoric times.

You're also suggesting that by doing so the world will be a better place for it. Theres no proof. We can't even discuss any implications or fallout from the change in legislation.

Nodin

hansfrei wrote: »

The idea isn't modern. That statement is codswallop. You're asking if people want to change marriage into what it was in biblical or prehistoric times.


You're also suggesting that by doing so the world will be a better place for it. Theres no proof. We can't even discuss any implications or fallout from the change in legislation.

I've no idea what you're trying to say. Please explain.

hansfrei

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Equality is a modern concept compared to the last hundred years or so wehre people were discriminated against on the grounds of sex, race, background, etc.,

If you can give me a good reason as to why equality and tolerance would not improve society, I'll gladly listen to them - as long as your arguments are rational and based on logic.

Im not saying whats good or bad. Im saying we can't discuss that.

As for the equality thing thats absolute rubbish. This discussion took place a thousand years ago to bring about a better society. More equal? Maybe. Better? Probably.

Absoluvely

Czarcasm wrote: »

The amount of times I've had to tell the young lad I'm performing CPR on his mother when we were going at it hammer and tongs and suddenly one or the other of us would realise he'd crept into our bedroom to climb into bed between us!

Between you?

While you were having sex?

Czarcasm

Absoluvely wrote: »

Between you?

While you were having sex?

Well yes, of course, because at four years of age he realised that's exactly what we were at and wanted in...

Jaysus Absoluvely, all fairness now...


The point of my initial post being that children of LGBT couples are no different to those of heterosexual couples, and most adults don't base their parenting on their sexuality, nor are they so open with their children about their sex lives.

That poster was effectively making a balls of introducing another reason to "think of the children"..

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

hansfrei wrote: »

Im not saying whats good or bad. Im saying we can't discuss that.

As for the equality thing thats absolute rubbish. This discussion took place a thousand years ago to bring about a better society. More equal? Maybe. Better? Probably.

What, we can't discuss comparions between society now and society in the past...? Or we can't compare societies that have legalsied gay marriage and societies that haven't?

I assure you, on both counts, we can.

hansfrei

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

What, we can't discuss comparions between society now and society in the past...? Or we can't compare societies that have legalsied gay marriage and societies that haven't?

I assure you, on both counts, we can.

No we can't. Already been pointed out numerous times. Mod notes PMs etc...


80 pages and 1200 posts later and no discussion has been had. Theres positives and negatives to every change. Esp. ones that have a wide effect on society.

NuMarvel

hansfrei wrote: »

No we can't. Already been pointed out numerous times. Mod notes PMs etc...


80 pages and 1200 posts later and no discussion has been had. Theres positives and negatives to every change. Esp. ones that have a wide effect on society.

There are plenty of countries that now allow gay and lesbian couples to marry. What has changed in those countries that concerns you?

Billy86

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

What, we can't discuss comparions between society now and society in the past...? Or we can't compare societies that have legalsied gay marriage and societies that haven't?

I assure you, on both counts, we can.

I don't know, in South Africa, Canada, parts of Mexico and the US, Brazil, Argentina, Colombia, Uruguay, Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Spain, France, Belgium, Holland, The UK (barring Northern Ireland :rolleyes: ), New Zealand, parts of Australia the very fabrics of their societies are falling apart since introducing gay marriage.

I'd love to go into detail as to how those societies have been collapsing since introducing gay marriage, but I might not have enough info so I'll let hansfrei educate you further. Take it away, hans...

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

hansfrei wrote: »

No we can't. Already been pointed out numerous times. Mod notes PMs etc...


80 pages and 1200 posts later and no discussion has been had. Theres positives and negatives to every change. Esp. ones that have a wide effect on society.

I never received a mod note or PM telling me I couldn't discuss anything, what are you talking about?

Anyway. Back on topic - the only difficulty I've had discussing equality, tolerance or modernisation in relation to this thread was certain posters trying to strawman the argument into something else...

Friend Computer

hansfrei wrote: »

No we can't. Already been pointed out numerous times. Mod notes PMs etc...


80 pages and 1200 posts later and no discussion has been had. Theres positives and negatives to every change. Esp. ones that have a wide effect on society.

Without using a slippery slope (that means no polygamy, incestuous marriage, marrying animals or what have you), why don't you actually outline some of these negatives?