Marriage equality debate - The plebiscite is on its way. (Cont in Pt 3)

[Reynolds Number]

Out come the unhinged lol.

 

[tony dragun]

Sigh, I engaged with you in a polite manner and was curious as to why you hold your position. You responded by simply saying "my values" that's just a cop out answer from someone lacking the testicular fortitude to make a statement and stand by that statement.

Scumbag is polite nowadays.

 

[strung_out7]

Well it most likely would have originated with... the marriage act... the same marriage act which originally did not state that marriage is between a man and a woman. I'm not sure what your point is?

Again, in what year was this? What was the percentage of homosexual marriage at this time? Could it be it didn't require wording, as it was accepted in these times that marriage was between a man and a woman?

 

[sherb]

I have not been a bigot and I have not been repugnant. I hold a different view to you. Difference is adults don't call people names.

that's because you are a moron (didn't say scumbag)

 

[tony dragun]

Weren't you the one just whining about name calling?

Who are you and why are you talking to me. Again. My position is clear. But it is just 1 of 20,000,000 odd. Settle petal.

 

[tony dragun]

I love this moronic s**t. Want me to thread search?

 

[strung_out7]

Fyfe cant kick, well he is an OK kick, great mark and all.

I would take him ahead of Martin though

How dare you. I believe Martin is better than Fyfe. Stop being a bigot and anti New Zealand and tattooaphobic

 

[GreyWind]

Scumbag is polite nowadays.

I never called you a scumbag.
But you have called me a moron and seem to have made your mind up based on my previous voting history.
I have said you lack testicular fortitude though, which on current evidence seems to be correct.

 

[RupieDupie]

Again, in what year was this? What was the percentage of homosexual marriage at this time? Could it be it didn't require wording, as it was accepted in these times that marriage was between a man and a woman?

So are you saying the bedrock of society and history of marriage was 1961...? Shite!

But here's another historical event that may be of interest, in 1996, two guys Page and Brin created a technology called PageRank and in 1998 a company called Google. Check it out.

 

[tony dragun]

I never called you a scumbag.
But you have called me a moron and seem to have made your mind up based on my previous voting history.
I have said you lack testicular fortitude though, which on current evidence seems to be correct.

Yes you did

 

[strung_out7]

So are you saying the bedrock of society and history of marriage was 1961...? Shite!

But here's another historical event that may be of interest, in 1996, two guys Page and Brin created a technology called PageRank and in 1998 a company called Google. Check it out.

And again, your point is?

 

[GreyWind]

Yes you did

Netherlands (2001), Belgium (2003), Spain & Canada (2005) and South Africa (2006).
So no.

So you voted for the Marriage Act to be changed last time?

So why are you against SSM?

I'm doubting a straight answer will be given. Will most likely dodge the question or not answer.
Hopefully it's not another slippery slope answer, read more than enough of that for one day.

I'm for it because I don't believe that SSC should be discriminated against, if they want to get married to their respective partner then they should have the option of marriage. Some couples will choose not to get married, the same as heterosexual couples. But we shouldn't deny them the option.

For futures generations it will simply mean that any SSC have the option to be married and that their relationship isn't seen as inferior by the Government.
Of course it's advantageous, weddings are generally extravagant affairs so there's venue hire, catering, florists, photographers, entertainment, dress makers, suit hire so there's an opportunity for more employment.

Now why are you against SSM?

Well what values are they?

You said you wanted a civil discussion and I'm trying to have one here but your answers aren't informative in the slightest.

Which values? That marriage should be between a man and a woman? Perhaps you hold religious values? Do homosexual relationships make you feel sick?

Give me something to work with here.

Ok, you were the one who wanted to have a discussion on this issue without name calling, so I was simply asking questions to ascertain as to why you hold your position.

Vic State election was for Labor due to EBAs, East-West Link and the Liberals inability to do anything. Federal election was either for Greens or Labor, can't remember which. But I wasn't unhappy when Turnbull was elected as I thought he could be a good leader, sadly in order to gain his position he seems to have sold out to the conservatives in his party.

On current form Dusty is better. No idea what either of the above questions have to do with this thread, but I at least answered them.

Can't say I've appreciated yours.

Sigh, I engaged with you in a polite manner and was curious as to why you hold your position. You responded by simply saying "my values" that's just a cop out answer from someone lacking the testicular fortitude to make a statement and stand by that statement.

I never called you a scumbag.
But you have called me a moron and seem to have made your mind up based on my previous voting history.
I have said you lack testicular fortitude though, which on current evidence seems to be correct.

Well here's my entire posting history in this thread. Please point out where I called you a scumbag.

 

[tony dragun]

I never called you a scumbag.
But you have called me a moron and seem to have made your mind up based on my previous voting history.
I have said you lack testicular fortitude though, which on current evidence seems to be correct.

Well your an honest scumbag ill give you that.

Bingo!!

ANYWAY. Carry on with no consequences.

Squib

 

[RupieDupie]

And again, your point is?

I thought I asked what your point was?

But anywho, my point is that if we go back historically and traditionally we find child marriage, if we go back to the marriage act, it did not explicitly state marriage to be between a man and a woman, and, as a bonus, if we go back to 1961 we are only asking Federal Parliament to undo 56 years of history, contradicting your original post that Federal parliament will be required to vote on a morality which goes back hundreds of years.

The last point was to do with how to find facts, it is better for you to find the facts to support your argument rather than have me find facts, as this becomes an OJ glove type problem whereby my facts won't fit your argument.

 

[sherb]

I have not been a bigot and I have not been repugnant. I hold a different view to you. Difference is adults don't call people names.

Well your an honest scumbag ill give you that.

Bingo!!

ANYWAY. Carry on with no consequences.

Squib

 

[GreyWind]

Well your an honest scumbag ill give you that.

Bingo!!

ANYWAY. Carry on with no consequences.

Squib

So you've whinged about name calling and have proceeded to call me a moron, scumbag and a squib. That's impressive.

Are you going to continue in this vain or are you going to elaborate on your "my values" comments?

 

[strung_out7]

I thought I asked what your point was?

But anywho, my point is that if we go back historically and traditionally we find child marriage, if we go back to the marriage act, it did not explicitly state marriage to be between a man and a woman, and, as a bonus, if we go back to 1961 we are only asking Federal Parliament to undo 56 years of history, contradicting your original post that Federal parliament will be required to vote on a morality which goes back hundreds of years.

The last point was to do with how to find facts, it is better for you to find the facts to support your argument rather than have me find facts, as this becomes an OJ glove type problem whereby my facts won't fit your argument.

Marriage dates back to the 12th century in the western world. It didn't need the actual stating it was between a man and woman, as it didn't need it. The same way in which the words female, girl, she could once be used to describe a biological female without 'it' 'they' being offended. The first gay marriage was in the states in 1969 according to this thing called google. Not in 1200

 

[Watchyourwaite]

Well your an honest scumbag ill give you that.

Bingo!!

ANYWAY. Carry on with no consequences.

Squib

Yes yes. Very clever.
Get more and more bizarre until you get a thread ban. Then you can complain about lefties shutting down discussions. And the bias of the moderators.

 

[RupieDupie]

Marriage dates back to the 12th century in the western world. It didn't need the actual stating it was between a man and woman, as it didn't need it. The same way in which the words female, girl, she could once be used to describe a biological female without 'it' 'they' being offended. The first gay marriage was in the states in 1969 according to this thing called google. Not in 1200

So there wasn't any child marriage in 1200? According to my sources (Google) there was.

 

[Maggie5]

Ignore. Crazy cat lady.

So that's how adults speak, didn't take you long.
Hypocrite!

 

[NSWCROW]

PVO apparently kept going after the moment i referred to today.

*en cop this !!!!

 

[Garlic muncher]

Ignore. Crazy cat lady.

lol

 

[Garlic muncher]

PVO apparently kept going after the moment i referred to today.

****en cop this !!!!

Yes of course bigotry, always bigotry.

 

[Maggie5]

lol

Another great contribution from the runner.
Nice to see you here, who are you running away from now?

 

[Garlic muncher]

Another great contribution from the runner.
Nice to see you here, who are you running away from now?

If you have something to say, please say it.