The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Marriage as a 'social institution' > Comments

Marriage as a 'social institution' : Comments

By Eric Porter, published 5/9/2017

Indeed, if marriage were simply about love, it would render all the legal infrastructure redundant.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 13
  7. 14
  8. 15
  9. Page 16
  10. 17
  11. 18
  12. All
O’ come now, dear phanto.

There’s nothing wrong with a bit of jolly banter to lighten the mood. Feelings of victimisation are so frightfully unhealthy for oneself.

I would ask again, however, that you refrain from rehashing accusations that one cannot support. It is most unbecoming.

Perhaps if your good self were willing to partake in the cordial discourse with me, it would better help to quell my savagery within?

Surely you have adequate confidence in your position, on this important topic, to test it out with some gentlemanly dialogue concerning the matter?

Over to you, dear boy.

(I must say, this new persona of mine is becoming astonishingly British-sounding!)
Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 13 September 2017 6:23:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
//You seem to have a problem with people with a disability.//

Silence, freak. Yours is not some mere physical deformity; the Gods have cursed you with a tongue that speaks of that which is yet to come, and of the secret thoughts of men that go unspoken. My forefathers would have burnt you as a witch.

It is by my good grace that you find yourself in my menagerie, but it is entirely contingent upon the degree to which you amuse me.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Wednesday, 13 September 2017 6:33:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What discussion would that be Phanto? I gave up trying to have any sort of rational discussion with the likes of you ages ago. Denigrating people for the sexuality isn't a discussion...it's merely an opportunity to rage your homophobic prejudices. Keep on raging but I won't be responding to it.
Posted by minotaur, Thursday, 14 September 2017 8:55:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Phillips refers back to his past failure to conduct courteous dialogue, and of course, blames the other party, myself, who he describes as “unpleasant”.
I continually told the truth, and pointed out his nonsense and lies, an unpleasant experience for Phillips., who untruthfully whines that any truthful description of his conduct is “abuse”. On that thread, to which Phillips has supplied the link, he said:
” this individual could not exceed one courteous post..”
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19267&page=0
The arrangement was, as shown on that thread, that, if I asked politely, he would answer my questions. I politely asked for the answer to three simple questions.
His response answered none of them, and started:” Thanks, Leo. That was a lot better.First off, I’m certainly no climate expert. I do, however, know of many denialist arguments, and why they are wrong”
So in his usual dishonest way, he breached his agreement to answer my questions. He answered not one of the questions he had promised to answer. I informed him that he had earned the title of “grub”. And addressed him accordingly thereafter. The truthful answers to my questions verified my assertions, so Phillips would not supply them.
His one constant reliable feature is his dishonesty, and that was a prime example of it.
Posted by Leo Lane, Thursday, 14 September 2017 8:20:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tiny-mind Lavis has attempted comedy, when she is incapable of composing a comprehensible post of any kind.
She will cringe when she sobers up and reads it.
Posted by Leo Lane, Thursday, 14 September 2017 8:33:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ Phillips - you replied --

This issue has nothing to do with multiple parties offering different deals, this vote is about whether one believes that gay people should be allowed to marry.

Keep dreaming AJ Phillips - House of Commons today - parliamentarians seeking legislation to push Churches (of other beliefs) to marry same sex couples. That was an interesting read.

Parliament have provided no legislation as to what protections there are for any Religion, business etc if such entity choses to vote "no".

Attorney General George Brandis says this vote is about same sex marriage only, and nothing else .. obviously John Howard is most aware of legal implications with current Government not advising of any protections for those/any entities who wish to vote no.

As I have previously stated, asking Australia to vote (albeit via Postal Survey) on SSM with no Government "draft" legislative protection for those who wish to vote "no" is incomprehensible.
Posted by SAINTS, Thursday, 14 September 2017 10:05:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 13
  7. 14
  8. 15
  9. Page 16
  10. 17
  11. 18
  12. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy