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 > Gay marriage: an argument against > Comments

Gay marriage: an argument against : Comments

By Peter Sellick, published 1/8/2012

Gender division cannot simply be erased because gays want to push their egalitarian agenda to the last bastion: marriage.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 14
  7. 15
  8. 16
  9. All
As others have pointed out, Peter, a consistent opposition to 'sterile' marriages would result in campaigns against marriage between people past child-bearing age, and marriages involving people who cannot have children for medical reasons.

Have you EVER campaigned against those? Have you ever suggested for even one second that people like my father and step-mother, both in their late fifties, should not have been allowed to marry? Have you EVER suggested that people should have to pass a fertility test before being granted a marriage licence?

If the answer is -- as I suspect -- a resounding No, then your alleged reasons for opposing gay marriage evaporate like mist in the morning sun, revealing only ugly homophobia underneath.

Luckily in your case, I believe, this is only a condition induced by religion, and as such it can easily be cured.
Posted by Jon J, Wednesday, 1 August 2012 8:14:03 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
PS: I also take it that when medical science develops ways to create female gametes from male DNA and vice versa -- as it soon will -- thereby permitting gay couples to have 'their own' children, then your opposition to gay marriage will evaporate?
Posted by Jon J, Wednesday, 1 August 2012 8:16:30 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
A beautifully written piece that for the first time actually demonstrates how most of us heterosexuals feel plus if we actually ever get to vote on it will be why homosexuals will never get their way and never should.
They are the ones who have decided to live outside norm and want to behave like this so why should the majority of society change just to suit them?
Please don't leave this in the hands of vote grabbing politicians!
Posted by Sharky, Wednesday, 1 August 2012 8:20:27 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
I will have to admit that I find homesexuality disgusting.
However I will also have to admit that I nor you or anyone else has any right to tell what two consenting adults do or cannot do.
Posted by ponde, Wednesday, 1 August 2012 8:32:03 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
Once, inadvertently, I saw a catalogue of XXX-rated heterosexual DVDs – mostly German I think – and some of the categories or themes available certainly disgusted me particularly the one involving group sex with pregnant 'daughters' and 'sisters'.

So I share ponde's disgust with some other people's sexual expression.

Unless of course the first sentence wasn't a typo, since I agree "… that I nor you or anyone else has any right to tell what two consenting adults do or cannot do" and believe it applies even in their own home.
Posted by WmTrevor, Wednesday, 1 August 2012 9:14:40 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
The obvious flaw in the argument is that many gay unions produce children. Lesbians are perfectly able to make use of donors and usually do. The resulting children are recognized (in NSW) as having 2 female parents.

Considering that there are many heterosexual marriages that use similar techniques as one of the partners is sterile. So while this may not be true for male gay marriages, the Ontological boundaries are very blurred.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Wednesday, 1 August 2012 9:44:22 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
Great article, and so obviously the rational position on this topic.

But it won't change anything, activists will not rest until the marriage act is changed, and in a society where the majority no longer believes in anything, there will be no stopping those who want to see the very concept of family revolutionised.
Posted by progressive pat, Wednesday, 1 August 2012 10:01:03 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
Peter,
In computer programming(a thing I spend a lot of time doing) there are variables nominated as "user defined". This is a value that is available for the programmer to use at anytime, for his or her own use to facilitate a function.
Marriage is "user defined". It always has been and still is. It is not an "institution given by God" but can be viewed as such if that is what you wish. In the past it has been used for economic, political and a variety of other uses. Like all man-made institutions it changes and develops, like language.
Marriage has meaning (like life in general) because you give it meaning. If you wish to view marriage constrained by the shackles of your religion and prejudice then fine. But please don't make everybody suffer under your definitions. We have suffered enough.
Posted by Priscillian, Wednesday, 1 August 2012 11:05:18 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
As was pointed out earlier, without a strong opposition to other forms of "sterile" marriage the arguments against same sex marriage on that basis look like a guise to disguise other motives for opposition.

Perhaps Sells or one his supporters can point to the article where Sells has opposed marriage for those unable to reproduce without third party assistance (or where such reproduction could result in a high risk of birth defects). If Sells is consistant then marriage for anyone past their early 40's is starting to look a bit dubious. Clearly out for anyone who can't reproduce in the usual manner.

I suspect that the total number of marriages that are started where the parties involved were never able to produce children or never intended to would far outweigh the likely number of same sex marriages which occur.

I'd rather the government get out of the business or registering and regulating relationships, while the government is in that business it should not discriminate between consenting adult humans.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Wednesday, 1 August 2012 11:38:01 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
The trouble with this Ontological argument, an appeal to abandon the notion of "equality" based on biological realities is that theologues have, in general, many misconceptions about what the biological realities are.

It's like saying "The Earth is Flat, therefore...". Now when walking to the corner shop, or even driving around a city, a "Flat Earth" model works pretty well. Similarly, dividing up humanity into male and female works pretty well. But both models, a binary sex division, and a flat earth, don't correspond with reality except as an approximation.

1 in 60 humans are Intersex, born with bodies neither wholly stereotypically male nor female. 1 in 300 men for example don't have the usual 46,XY chromosomes, and some women do.

The terms "men" and "women" are social constructs, the definitions change from place to place and time to time. The definitions are based on objective realities, but the conclusions differ. The same facts lead to one result in one place, the opposite in another.

From Littleton vs Prange:

"Taking this situation to its logical conclusion, Mrs. Littleton, while in San Antonio, Texas, is a male and has a void marriage; as she travels to Houston, Texas, and enters federal property, she is female and a widow; upon traveling to Kentucky she is female and a widow; but, upon entering Ohio, she is once again male and prohibited from marriage; entering Connecticut, she is again female and may marry; if her travel takes her north to Vermont, she is male and may marry a female; if instead she travels south to New Jersey, she may marry a male."
Posted by Zoe Brain, Wednesday, 1 August 2012 12:01:11 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I also have noticed that whenever someone tries to make a "non theological" argument against gay marriage it almost inevitably comes from a religious author.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Wednesday, 1 August 2012 12:17:31 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
I'm fairly sure the author of this article doesn't know much about biology. That apart from those humans whose sex anatomy is ambiguous (but at least stable) that there are a number of different medical syndromes that can cause a "natural sex change". 5-alpha-reductase-2 deficiency (5ARD), 17-beta-hydroxysteroid-dehydrogenase-3 deficiency (17BHSD) and so on.

See for example : http://www.usrf.org/news/010308-guevedoces.html

I know of only one case where someone who was a biological father managed to become pregnant (due to a botched hernia surgery causing self-fertilisation), but it only takes one counter-example to disprove this Universal Verity that's being appealed to as a basis for over-ruling common humanity.

It's one thing to say "I'm sorry, I know it's cruel, but facts are facts" when they really are facts. Another to say the same thing on the basis of scientific ignorance and misconception, and "facts" which just are not so, but mere approximations to a more complex reality.
Posted by Zoe Brain, Wednesday, 1 August 2012 12:23:44 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Ken Davis is right about sexual orientation, it is not chosen in a way that the other description as "sexual preference" may suggest. While we have no idea of the biology or the psychology of sexual orientation we do know that it is deeply rooted and not amenable to manipulation. In other words it is gifted in the same way that being hetero is gifted."

Actually Ken Davis is wrong, "sexual orientation," "sexual preference" or whatever you want to call it this week, is chosen, we have much knowledge of the biology* and the psychology* of sexual orientation and we do know that it is not at all rooted and is amenable to manipulation. You've been watching way too much left-winger vision.

*There is nothing biological about the gay mentality. It is strictly psychological. Nature has never produced a homosexual. They are a product of extremely low self esteem. Turn off your T.V. and stop believing what you read on left-wing blogs. The left hates truth, reality, nature and science because all of those things disagree 100% with the lefts' fantasies.

And there is no such thing as "the human condition." Life is not a disease; the left-wing mentality, which is based on self-hatred, is a disease.

@Shadow Minister

Stay in the shadows. You embarrass yourself when you hit the light.

"The obvious flaw in the argument is that many gay unions produce children."

No gay union has ever produced a child, nor can one.

"... the Ontological boundaries are very blurred."

Uh, no. They're very well defined. Male + Female = Child. See? No blur.
Posted by TheTruth, Wednesday, 1 August 2012 1:07:45 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
@Jon J & Priscillian

Read much? Please don't ever claim to have "read the bill." You can't even read a short article, like this.

@Zoe Brain

Male and female are two different genders, kid. Get used to it.

"The terms "men" and "women" are social constructs, the definitions change from place to place and time to time. The definitions are based on objective realities, but the conclusions differ. The same facts lead to one result in one place, the opposite in another."

That is 100% wrong. And taking that quote out of context is also wrong. You probably thought no one would call you out on it. What you failed to mention is that "Mrs. Littleton" was a dude. Gender is not a "social construct." It is a fact of nature.
Posted by TheTruth, Wednesday, 1 August 2012 1:09:25 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
Just as countries with "democratic" in their titles are exclusively tyrannical, posters with "truth" in their name are generally interested in pushing their own version of dogma.

Thousands of children each year are born into homosexual unions in much the same way, using the same techniques, as thousands of true blue "marriages" in which there are fertility problems. The argument in this article is thus specious, as is the argument that "man + women = child"
Posted by Shadow Minister, Wednesday, 1 August 2012 1:27:14 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
Just as posters with "shadow" in their names are always shady characters and left-wingers never have a clue.

You seem to need this repeated: "No gay union has ever produced a child, nor can one."

It is not a "version of dogma" and certainly is not specious; it is reality. But, you are trying to bend it with medical treatments, which are as unnatural as gays. And, even in 100% of those cases, it takes a male and a female. Furthermore, your use of these artificial methods in your baseless "argument" just verifies that you agree: man + woman = child; man + man = null; woman + woman = null.

You said that "man + women = child" is specious — BACK IT UP! Point out one case in which two males or two females had sex and produced offspring. You will NEVER find that in nature. EVER. So, good luck trying to prove it.
Posted by TheTruth, Wednesday, 1 August 2012 2:11:21 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
The threat of women voting is that it erases difference that is indelible to the human condition. While political correctness champions the acceptance of difference, and I agree that women should not be discriminated against, it also erases difference so that we have to ignore gender.
Posted by Kenny, Wednesday, 1 August 2012 2:26:26 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
The gay marriage campaign has relied on dishonesty from the start in claiming that gays may not marry.

All consenting adults, including gays, have the right to marry; i.e., to form an exclusive and lifelong union with one person of the opposite sex. Strangely, some people who have this right and understandably do not want to exercise it demand that the word used to describe this right be used to describe the thing they actually want. They do so with the usual emotional appeals to equality and attacks on their opponents as redneck religious homophobic bigots, but it is as silly as members of the Labor Party demanding to be called Liberals on the grounds of political equality or vegetarians demanding the right to eat meat, by which they mean not the flesh of animals, but that vegetables be called meat, on the grounds of meat equality or those adopting children demanding to be called pregnant on the grounds of procreation equality.

It is not about rights or acceptance. It never has been. These claims are just debating tactics. The fact that marriage means the exclusive and lifelong union of one male and one female does not detract from the rights of gays any more than the fact that a car is not a train detracts from the rights of car drivers. If same sex couples want a lifelong and exclusive union of one man and another man and of one woman and another woman, they can already have it. If they want legal recognition of that union, that is fine by me. But it is not marriage, just as, in our society, one man cannot legally have two wives (though he is free to live with two women) and one woman cannot legally have two husbands (though she is free to live with two men).
Posted by Chris C, Wednesday, 1 August 2012 2:31:41 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
@ theTruth Same obs, posters with the Truth in their handle are generally far from it.

What is gender how do you define male and female? by the persons genes?

By how they feel or look?

Do marriages that don't result in childern somehow false
Posted by Kenny, Wednesday, 1 August 2012 2:37:08 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
Your idea of ontology seems to have more than enough room for a warp drive. You haven't even attempting to locate reality, eg "these arguments are not based on evidence as if we could do a sociological survey or perform psychological experiments but on a deeper understanding of what sex an gender signify." If you want to talk about difference then get to the real biology not cultural emblems and ethnic cliches of difference that are only gross generalisations that do not exist as strict rules of reality - and this includes biological sex - it is fuzzy. Do you remember the bell curve of the normal distribution? The double camel hump for biological sex or for gender with some people in the middle? Your curve for gender looks more like 2 columns and that isn't real and you don't need my PhD in genetics to see that diversity in people all around you. But you might need to take off your religious glasses. Read PubMed.

You ignore bisexuals completely. Your insistence that gays are "different in a radical way" doesn't fit with the reality that many of us are or were heterosexually married, most of us pass unknown and for those of us that don't, the clues are simple cultural aspects like clothing and hair style. In fact I am probably more like you than I am like many other gay men. The idea that changing marriage law will erase some differences is patently silly. It is likely to uncover differences previous hidden from the unobservant. But mostly it will show the normality of relationships collapsing contrived 'differences' like yours.
Posted by Eric G, Wednesday, 1 August 2012 3:04:47 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
The same people who try and use science to justify 'gay ' marriage deny the science that shows how terribly unhealthy sodomy is. They obviously never talk to doctors. And to think they want this lifestyle promoted! If the Ashby, Slipper and 15 year old boys saga is not enough to turn your stomach then what is.
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 1 August 2012 3:26:05 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
@Kenny "What is gender how do you define male and female? by the persons genes? "

We do not have a reliable and conclusive genetic test for biological sex (male/female as different from gender -man/woman). At one stage they used genetic testing for the Olympics but they found too many female atheletes were giving results thought to be male -incorrectly called false positives because they were real and the idea was false. Researchers tried 3 separate tests but many were positive for one or more which might be why they were elite atheletes. People should not be forced into neat boxes they do not fit.

The best test for gender is to ask the person.
Posted by Eric G, Wednesday, 1 August 2012 3:31:26 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
@Runner Your opinion is based on stigma which is why you use the word sodomy. Until very recently anal intercourse was deemed much healthier than having another child every year or two. More heterosexual people pactice anal intercourse than men who have sex with men - should they not be allowed to marry and the third of gay men that don't practise penetrative sex be allowed to marry? Should we test for consummation? Should impotent men be denied marriage because they can't penetrate naturally?

You do know that there is nothing in the Marriage Act about having sex? You don't even have to ever live togther to be married or even reside in the same country. In fact you could be married legally for more than 20 yrs even if you have never touched each other.
Posted by Eric G, Wednesday, 1 August 2012 3:55:25 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
Marriage used to be a pretty big deal, and still is for some - for bride and groom and their parents, for relatives and friends, and maybe for church and community. Now there seems to be a growing move away from marriage, away from the attendant legal entanglements, from the inferred long term commitment, and from the difficulties and cost involved if the relationship sours.

Some simply can't afford or justify the expense involved, and some may be 'free spirits' or anti-establishment, but others avoid marriage because they don't want the responsibility, and prefer the inherent or notional freedom of just maintaining a 'relationship' (de-facto, open, long- or short-term, committed or casual), and some are 'cads' or 'gold-diggers'.

Marriage used to be genuinely 'through thick and thin' and 'till death do us part' - and not 'for as long as I feel like' or 'until something better comes along'. But of course we are becoming more of a musical beds society, so some want to dispense with the traditional notion of marriage so they can feel better about themselves and their choices and attitudes - to justify moral decadence by simply lowering the bar.

Do some parents want iso-marriage so they can feel better about their progeny's orientation; do some heteros want it to reinforce their anti-homophobic or their 'liberal' attitudes?

Let those who value genuine marital commitment embrace it wholeheartedly - and those who don't, please stop pretending or paying lip service.

If iso-marriage could prevent even one gay suicide, then go for it - responsibly, please, (an attitude shift for me), but I suspect that more extensive support and counseling services may be even more imperative.
Posted by Saltpetre, Wednesday, 1 August 2012 4:00:47 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
@runner 1st August

Actually, I am a doctor and have lived with the same, same-sex partner for over 40 years. So what was your point about sodomy?
Posted by Doug, Wednesday, 1 August 2012 4:07:12 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
Doug

You of all people should know. You sound like a theologian who denies God. It is obvious that certain body parts are designed for certain places. Much disease results from putting them in the wrong places. Despite denials plenty of research has been done to confirm this.
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 1 August 2012 4:13:19 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
Gay marriage has been legalized in some US states (MA, CT, IA, VT, NH... and the District of Columbia. Everybody has the right to be equal and we shouldn't oppose their power. Same-sex couples should have access to the same marriage benefits and public acknowledgment enjoyed by heterosexual couples and that prohibiting gay marriage is unconstitutional discrimination.
Posted by Sharmy, Wednesday, 1 August 2012 6:22:59 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Truth, thinks that the two marriage partners need to be able to have sex and produce offspring to be legally married. This would essentially exclude anyone that is infertile including seniors from getting married. A woman remarrying at 60 would be blasphemy? Your argument is specious and has holes in it that you could fly a jumbo jet through.

Children are born into lesbian unions every day in Australia. That they need external help is not in doubt, but completely similar to officially married couples that have fertility problems.

What is next a fertility test for couples before marriage? What a joke.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Wednesday, 1 August 2012 6:36:22 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
"I do not argue on religious grounds, rather, my argument against gay marriage is based on ontological considerations i.e. of the nature of being."

The basis for your argument is flawed and follows a narrow view of the world according your your particular desires. You may not like it but biology is incredibly complicated.

Mankind is a few years away from the ability to create a child from the genetics of 3 parents. How does the traditional definition of marriage apply to the parents of such a child?

Human cloning has been tinkered with for decades. That would be just a single "parent". There would be no need for a gay couple to find a third party.

Finally, if the gay population is around 5% or so (~350 Million), that makes it around 10% larger than the population of the United States (~311 Million). I believe that a population that size should be allowed to marry according to their beliefs. Further, I believe that the practice of marriage (gay or straight) is critical to the stability of our society and every effort should be made to maintain that stability.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/9025121/Babies-with-three-parents-possible-within-three-years.html
Posted by Brian333, Wednesday, 1 August 2012 7:52:18 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
Marriage isn't the "last bastion" for Homosexual activists, abolishing the age of consent laws will be the next campaign, so that all the "good pedophiles" have access to youngsters.
As I pointed out in the last thread on the issue, Homosexual activism is elitist, ideally they'd have "Liberated" adult Gays and Lesbians helping bring children to sexual awareness.
It's a constant refrain from Homosexual extremists, "we're enlightened, you're ignorant", in most people's estimation that's an elitist point of view, something like the justification you'd expect a priest to give his underage lovers.
Now all we as heterosexuals have to understand is what sort of society would best accommodate Homosexual elitism and we only have to backward. What we're actually being asked to accept from Gay Liberation in the long term is a sort of radical traditionalism or neo clacissism, which will necessarily be racist, Pagan and where women will be relegated to their former status or treated like Nuns by the Male elite.
As I've said before, if the Gay movement is going to impress it's agenda from the top down via the mechanism of the state then they can't hold to this notion of "equality" or try to use Judeo Christian "Family Values", neither ideal can even form, much less maintain a state.
The "Equal Love" movement being pushed by the pseudo Left groups is profoundly anti homosexual, or at least goes against the traditional European social value of male elitism and homoeroticism,
As I also said in earlier posts, I may be what most people would call a "Fascist" but at least I understand and accept what that sort of society would look like when pushed beyond any of it's past compromise with Judeo Christian morality and I am accepting of the position Homosexual men would (and have in the past) play in an elitist European society.
So by all means let's push on with the revolution and the overthrow of Judeo Christian values in majority european societies, you get my vote on that but let's not kid ourselves that the resulting zeitgeist will be anything like "equality".
Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Wednesday, 1 August 2012 8:44:33 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
Oh thank you Jay-of-Melbourne but you don't need to call me elitist - Sir will do. You will have come over and ponder the new world order whilst doing my cleaning. We could base this radical traditionalism on Judeo values from the Olde Testament - you could be a slave from a neighbouring tribe where your mother and married sisters were raped and murdered in the name of your god.
Posted by Eric G, Wednesday, 1 August 2012 9:20:09 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
Ah,c'mon Eric, there's no need to post insults ,come over to the dark side, run with the Wolf Pack instead of with the sheep, us "Nazis" are just a bunch of Fags right? And according to the "Old Testament" crowd we must be Fags because we're Pagans so what have you got to lose?.
Do you want revolution and the overthrow of Judeo Christian morality or not? If yes then the revolutionary right might be for you, we won't force you to make any compromises if you don't force us to ;).
As James O'Meara says, "I want to live in a society where the Symposium could be written, not one in which it would be burned".
Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Wednesday, 1 August 2012 10:40:18 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
Where do I start....there is nothing like having a complete change of heart and mind in order to see things as they really are...I was once blinded by the popular myth that I was "born gay", that I had "no choice" but I have since discovered this is NOT TRUE, but a practicing gay person will not be able to see this until they start to open their mind to the fact that homosexual acts are against nature. To the homosexuals that are reading this...you know that your thoughts have plagued you at night when you are on your own trying to sleep, questioning your own actions, yet you continue to deny this part of yourself, the part that says there is another way, and I know even now you want to deny that this even happens in your mind but it is true and you know it deep down. So...go ahead, fight for "gay rights" until your last breath but know this...there is a better way and you are denying it. Now I'm not saying it is an easy thing to change, I know that all too well, but the benefits far outweigh the alternative. We may not stop gay marriage but homosexuals will always know that their actions are not as God or nature intended. This will NEVER change.
Posted by Tim.Lumsden, Thursday, 2 August 2012 8:49:13 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
I think I've worked out where you went wrong Tim.Lumsden… you should have just saved yourself all of the angst involved in the process of ending back where you started – which presumably was that you were 'born heterosexual'.

Because that's the only way of interpreting your description without accusing you of self-delusion. Then or now.

Still, as long as you're happy and content – good luck with that never changing.
Posted by WmTrevor, Thursday, 2 August 2012 9:19:25 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
Tim, do the thoughts of your own sexuality, plague you at night.
As it seems there is an element of personal conflict to your own being, in your posting.
Posted by Kipp, Thursday, 2 August 2012 10:49:02 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
@TheTruth - argument by assertion over the Littleton case.

I didn't mention that she "was a dude" because while that's legally correct in several states, in other states she's a lady. As my post pointed out. The facts don't change when she crosses a state line, their interpretation does.

Just as in California in times past, someone who was 1/128 Black was regarded as white, so prohibited from marrying a black, but in Virginia was legally black, so prohibited from marrying a white.

That's my point about "social constructs". The objective facts remain constant, the interpretation varies. It also points out the similar lack of logic and basic humanity when you disregard "equality" as utopian idealism "based on facts" which are dodgy.
Posted by Zoe Brain, Thursday, 2 August 2012 10:49:41 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@wmTrevor- your assessment of me personally is without basis and uninformed as you do not even know me, and I know that it came from anger and insecurity but I understand totally where you are at. I am simply providing a different way and I know my life now proves that homosexuality does not have to be the only choice just because it is a desire. This threatens all arguments by gay people and you obviously will not like that.

@Kipp - The answer is no. When we live according to Gods decrees we can sleep with a peace that I hope one day you will seek to understand.
Posted by Tim.Lumsden, Thursday, 2 August 2012 11:39:14 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
There are two observations that I would like to make about the above. Firstly the arguments based on rights is shown to be vacuous. I assert my right and you assert your right and that ends the discussion. We end up, not with an intelligent and nuanced discussion but with an endless competition about whose rights are right.

Secondly, certainly marriage is a socials construct but that does not mean that it is endlessly changeable or worthless. Social constructs like marriage rest on real difference in the world, that between the sexes. This is the missing element in social constructionists, they appear to deny the reality of a real world and pretend to live in a world entirely of their own imagining. Social constructions like marriage evolve as a means of helpfully negotiating the real world of men and women and the rearing of children. As such marriage is not endlessly changeable, indeed the fundamentals are invariable and actually voiced during the Christian marriage order.

Peter Sellick
Posted by Sells, Thursday, 2 August 2012 11:44:17 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
Sells

If marriage is a social construct, as you concede, then it is surely not “ontological”.

As you say, marriage has evolved in response to human needs and priorities. It is not fixed through time – practices such as child marriage and polygamy that were common in the past (and still are in some cultures) are no longer acceptable in western societies.

It is not an imagined world that shapes the opinions of those who support marriage reform. Rather, it is changes in the “real” world.

In part, this comes from growing belief that homosexuality is not a perversion or lifestyle choice but is intrinsic to a person’s identify - “gifted”, as you describe.

In my opinion, more influential are changes in the social role of marriage more broadly, which in turn reflect a radical shift in what you call the “ontological” basis of marriage - the relationship between sex and the production and raising of children.

In particular, thanks to technology, it is no longer necessary to have sex to have children; and it is possible to have sex without any risk of having children.

Partly as a result: birth rates have fallen rapidly as couples choose to have fewer children; women are no longer reliant on men for economic and practical support to raise their children; the social taboos on sex before marriage (for women) and illegitimacy have all but disappeared; many married couples choose to have no children at all; divorce has become easier, more common and more socially acceptable; and many couples choose to live in long-term relationships (with or without children) without getting married.

As the biological and economic drivers underpinning traditional marriage diminish, marriage has weakened and its role has changed. Marriage is no longer necessitated by human (hetero) sexuality and its consequences. The emphasis nowadays is on affirming and supporting the choice of two people to commit to a permanent, loving relationship.

Even without recourse to "rights" language, there is no reason to confine marriage as currently understood to a man and a woman.
Posted by Rhian, Thursday, 2 August 2012 12:49:25 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
'Gay marriage has been legalized in some US states ' Feel free to move there. In Iran polygamy is legal.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 2 August 2012 1:09:55 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
Tim Lumsden,
Homosexuality is natural, but as a natural phenomenon it's worthy of neither revulsion or exaltation, your troubled soul might be soothed by reading Julius Evola or Alain Danielou, I believe they'd make sense to a "spiritual" person.
Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Thursday, 2 August 2012 1:13:10 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
@Kenny, posters with Truth in their handle are usually correct. That's because we do not fear truth and couldn't care less what those who do think about us telling it. Peer pressure does not affect the truth; it affects those who deny the truth. Those who deny truth are terrified of reality and need to ask ridiculous questions, like "What is gender how do you define male and female?" Sorry, but a person has to be seriously uneducated to ask that question. Ignore the peer pressure, Kenny. Ignooooooore....

@Shadow Minister, "The Truth, thinks that the two marriage partners need to be able to have sex and produce offspring to be legally married."

No, he does not. Nor has he ever implied that. How typical of a thought police to project your childish delusions onto someone who dwells outside of your fantasy. Every time that you touch your keyboard, you venture further from reality.

"Children are born into lesbian unions every day in Australia." The reason that you keep retyping that over and over again is because you still can't get over the fact that same-gender partners cannot reproduce. That one fact, alone, wipes out every losing argument that you think you have in favor of homosexuality.

@Brian333, "There would be no need for a gay couple to find a third party." Sure there would. How do two gay dudes have a child without a third party? "Clone" does not mean "Uhg, magically appears from sky with feathers and gum drops." The child is carried by a female. Female = third party. And, in the case of two females, cloning still requires a male. Male + Female = Two Genders. Get it? There MUST be an egg and there MUST be fertilization. Egg = Female, Fertilization = Male. It's that simple.

@Zoe Brain, I'm not referring to the legality B.S. I'm referring to the fact that "she" was born a he. That's what you left out. It is not a legitimate argument when you take little quotes way out of context and spin them as fact, while leaving out pertinent information.
Posted by TheTruth, Thursday, 2 August 2012 1:32:22 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
@Jay Of Melbourne, "Homosexuality is natural..." Of course it's not.
Posted by TheTruth, Thursday, 2 August 2012 1:35:36 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're misconstruing. My assessment was of your argument, Tim.Lumsden.

You claimed being born gay was a myth – therefore you weren't. You claimed you acted homosexually – therefore, you were pretending to be something you're not. You claim you're now not denying yourself – therefore you're back where you started. Hence my comment about saving yourself all that trouble.

The arguments I feel threatened by are the same as for other people – dishonest, delusional, illogical irrational and impositional ones.

Anger and insecurity? Moi? Sorry to disappoint you, but not in the slightest. To quote you: "your assessment of me personally is without basis and uninformed…" But I'm still prepared to repeat my good luck wishes for your being happy and content never changing.
Posted by WmTrevor, Thursday, 2 August 2012 2:22:33 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
@Peter Sellick "Firstly the arguments based on rights is shown to be vacuous. I assert my right and you assert your right and that ends the discussion."

Why is my right to marry another man competing with your rights? That's not equality. The argument isn't vacuous because it is full of selfishness. You want your sexual rights, you want your religious rights and you are morally content to continue to steal my rights to freedom of my sexuality and my right to freedom of religious belief. Otherwise you would not have bothered to write the article. It is why you don't use 'equality' once or 'rights' but exaggerate the differences between us with cultural myths.

What is at stake here for religious people is their myths being shown to be immoral by the good living example of sex, gender and sexuality diverse people who really are part of the natural order that you deny. And just as adultery has been changed from first sexual encounter to parting by death or punishable by death to being annulled by divorce, you will have to accept a new morality of tolerance and acceptance of GLBTI marrying whoever they want.

@TheTruth - you are the one who isn't educated on the science of sex and gender and that there are people in between. It is easier to understand if you simplify it to sex as male-intersex-female and gender as man-transgender-woman. To understand how these 2 continuums are different you need to read about how they develop at different stages of foetal development and consequently it is no surprise they don't correspond 100% of the time. There is a reasonable chance better than pokies that your chromosomes don't match your external genitalia, even if you have successfully produced progeny.
Posted by Eric G, Thursday, 2 August 2012 4:31:45 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
A couple of centuries ago gays were burnt at the stake. Cultural norms have moved on. Marriage is a cultural construct. Ipso Facto there is room for marriage to change.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Thursday, 2 August 2012 5:17:25 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
'A couple of centuries ago gays were burnt at the stake' I suspect that was long before the homosexual lobby hijacked the word 'gay' which really is a distortion of such a lifestyle.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 2 August 2012 6:23:10 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
Runner where you ever "Gay", as your extreme and nasty fundamentalist attitude towards your fellow beings, indicate you are a very unhappy person; and bereft of true happiness.
Posted by Kipp, Thursday, 2 August 2012 6:56:09 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
Shadow Minister,
Atrocity stories are usually fabricated and human nature does not change, Homosexuals commit vastly more crime per head than non Homosexuals, they are 100 times as likely to be murdered, their median age of death is around 40, they are more likley to be drug addicts or alchoholics, they are 12 times as likely to have been raped by a person of the same sex,even the rate at which they die in car accidents is dozens of times higher than straight people.
http://www.familyresearchinst.org/2009/02/violence-and-homosexuality/
Crime and "Gay" lifestyles go hand in hand, punishment for serious crimes was far more brutal in days gone by, it stands to reason that "Gays" would be burned, flogged, hanged and incarcerated at rates vastly higher than those of heterosexuals.
The "Gay" is the outsider, the hustler, the mountebank, the sexual aggressor, it's a transgressive, violent, outlaw lifestyle. Every Gay I've ever know well has been a crook, has been violent when intoxicated, chronically unreliable and shifty and we need not even mention drugs and the "Gay" scene. If I hadn't been a heavy drug user myself I, like most straight people would never have been exposed to uninhibited "Gay" lifestyles, now we're surely not going to sit here and say that the majority of "Gays" are just like Cam and Mitchell from Modern Family, the idea is laughable.
Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Thursday, 2 August 2012 7:40:12 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
Jay of Melbourne, you must know that the citation given is hopelessly biased, and its methodology unscientific. Doesn't mention the notorious "Dr" Paul Cameron by any chance? Using this citation means that you have not done any research in to the sources and provenance of your citation. Lazy response.
Posted by Doug, Thursday, 2 August 2012 8:00:21 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
Marriage is not legal until the binding contracts are signed after the church service . Therefore the romanticised religious concept of marriage is not Legal anyway.

Lets do away with the fairytale unreality and just sign the binding contracts. Those contracts should be a lot more comprehensive in regards to the financial Partnership of marriage and the legals regarding equal share of care for the children.

No problem for the gays if civil contracts were the norm or is there? The government still may not grant them equal rights under those contracts.
Posted by CHERFUL, Thursday, 2 August 2012 8:25:03 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
@Eric G, Or not, young buck. I have read plenty about anatomy and development. If you're born a male, you're a male. If you're born a female, you're a female. End of story. Your gender is determined at about two weeks in and it never changes. Go read a book that was NOT written by a socialist. Nazi books never did anyone any good.

Why do lefties always change the subject when they get slammed by the truth? Gender in no way determines sexual preference, so why bother bringing up trans-gender? Trans-gender is a birth defect and is not associated with homosexuality; homosexuality is a self-destructive choice made decades after birth.

@Doug, Everything pro-gay is hopelessly biased, so what's your point? You're just pissed because Jay has a credible source and the best that you could even hope to come up with is some nutty left-winger site, like Pew Research.
Posted by TheTruth, Thursday, 2 August 2012 8:43:20 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
Doug,
The information in that article comes from pro Gay sources, the site It's sourced from is irrelevant since these Judeo Christian groups don't do any research of their own, the only way to get information on homosexual lifestyles is to read the research being done to gather support for greater state management of their health and wellbeing.
Again, I'm not anti homosexual, I'm opposed to the Judeo Christian state orthodoxy which is being pushed by the pro Homosexual movement,because like every other official point of view it's based on the lie of "equality".
Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Saturday, 4 August 2012 6:44:48 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
Jay, and TheTruth,

I hereby award you the White hat (with gold stars) award for the most Red-neck bigoted behaviour possible. I have never seen such a collection of bigoted lies in one place. Your Klan members must be very proud.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Saturday, 4 August 2012 7:45:19 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
@shadowminister You have just proved your brainwashed mindset by the following statement " Jay, and TheTruth,
I hereby award you the White hat (with gold stars) award for the most Red-neck bigoted behaviour possible. I have never seen such a collection of bigoted lies in one place. Your Klan members must be very proud."
Someone disagrees with your viewpoint and all you can do is bring out abuse. The truth is always hard to swallow for those that refuse to see it. Even though God and all that is truthful and natural declares itself against your beliefs you are still too stubborn (gay pride at its best). Just try to be humble and listen to truth, it really isn't that painful and your life will be better for it
Posted by Tim.Lumsden, Saturday, 4 August 2012 8:54:08 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
@Jay Of Melbourne, it's got nothing at all to do with religion. It has to do with nature. Religion is just an excuse for left-wingers because you have to blame your ignorance on someone. And who better to blame than those who are better than you?

@Shadow Minister, Perhaps you should look up "bigoted," since it actually describes you and the left. Your religion is hatred. And, as for the lies, I agree; you socialists never tell the truth and, even when it is told to you, you ignore it and call it lies. By the way, the KKK are your boys... Democrat losers. And, while we're on the subject of racist, left-wing trash, how are your buddies in the Nazi movement doing?
Posted by TheTruth, Saturday, 4 August 2012 9:22:50 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
OK Tim,

Sorry, you can have a white hat with stars on it too.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Saturday, 4 August 2012 9:29:35 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
Shadow Minister,
Who's the most popular, outspoken and widely syndicated homosexual pundit in Australian public life?
That'd be Alan Jones, whose viewpoints were echoed by the ever "controversial" homosexual John Michael Howson during his stint with the short lived right wing blabber fest known as radio MTR.
Howson's interview on the ABC program "Talking Heads" is very revealing, he talks about homoeroticism and the higher, intellectual bonds betwen men. Discrete homosexuals have traditionally stood on the right of politics while "Gays", the criminal outsiders and chancers have been prominent on the Left.
@Tim Lumsden
That's right Leftists can't argue their case because the premise of their whole intellectual movement is a set of beliefs which are no more believable or palatable to the liberated mind than Judeo Christian mumbo mumbo. "Equality" is a belief, it can be formalised in law only but it can't ever be substantiated.
Besides, Herbert Marcuse said that they didn't have to argue and that some views should not be allowed under any circumstances, then people like Elie Wiesel came up with the idea that even though a lot of the tales told about the "Nazis" never actually happened it didn't mean that they weren't true...you're not dealing with sane people here, if you try to argue with them they just scream "NAZI!" or hit you.
Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Saturday, 4 August 2012 12:15:02 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
Why we have to fight "Cam and Mitchell" with every ounce of strength we can muster:

"Homosexuals have a long and honourable tradition as culture-bearers, and for fighting for and defending their tribes and later, nations. Now, when the survival and evolution of Western Civilization itself is at stake, the duty of all brave, aware, truthful and well-meaning gay men is self-evident. Homosexuals must act as white blood cells, ready to attack any invasion of the Western body politic."

http://aryanfuturism.blogspot.com.au/2006/03/mannerbund-and-homosexuality.html
Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Saturday, 4 August 2012 12:37:30 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
Well, this thread has become pretty awful, and quite off-track.

I have a feeling many of us have little contact with or understanding of GLBIT people, and hence tend to make value judgements based on the media. I have had relatively minor contact, but have been quite impressed with those I have met, and found them thoroughly nice people and good company - a bit quirky perhaps, and not your pub dwelling footie followers (but neither am I), but intelligent, sensitive, and generally with a good sense of humour. But then, there were two nice, and harmless fellows who rented my house and did some weird repainting without approval, wet-vacuumed the carpet causing it to shrink and bubble, replaced the kikuyu lawn with Kentucky Blue Grass, and had a breakup and left owing two months rent. So, I guess we can't all be perfect.

Alternatively, I have met some pub dwelling footie followers who would dearly have loved to put my lights out given half a chance - and in fact one gave me a black eye once just because I was in Aussie defence force uniform (no provocation, we were just chatting and he lashed out - s..hd.). Demon Drink, psycho or culture? You tell me.

I guess I have mostly met 'confident' gays - those who are at ease with themselves and with being 'different' - and mostly in an accepting environment. The ones I feel sorry for are those who feel on-the-out, isolated and unhappy, and particularly for those who are harassed, bullied or abused. It can be a tough life, and no-one should make it harder, but quite the reverse - greater understanding is needed.

I re-iterate: If approving same-sex-marriage could prevent even one gay suicide, it would be worth it - but I still think better and more extensive support and counseling services should be the higher priority.
Posted by Saltpetre, Saturday, 4 August 2012 7:42:33 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
@Saltpetre, That greater understanding can be achieved when people begin to understand three words; "Peer Pressure" and "Brainwash." Once people know and understand those words, they will know where the onslaught of homosexuality comes from and be able to deal with it accordingly. There's no mystery behind homosexuality. When it's no longer promoted as something good and, instead, facts are displayed publicly and without fear, it will no longer be the self-destructive force that it is.

One other thing to understand is left-wing history. Most people believe that Nazism died in the forties. But it is far from over. Just as they did in Europe during World War 2, the socialists and communists are spreading hate to gain sympathy, build armies and destroy nations. Homosexuals are just another 'class' created by the left as a tool to eradicate the human species, just as Jews were classified and used to destroy the nation of Europe. Look at Europe now and you'll see where the rest of the world is heading and why.
Posted by TheTruth, Sunday, 5 August 2012 4:12:27 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
The Truth,
"Jews" didn't set about destroying the countries of Europe, White people did, there were Jewish Fascists as well as Jewish Communists, the 20th century was a White civil war, basically between Indo-Aryan and Judeo-Christian worldviews. The mix up usually occurs when lay people see the way so called Christians worship Jews as a people, it's complicated but the way Christians view Jewish custody of the written law has always led to the belief that their oaths or their word carries greater weight or gravity than that of a gentile. It's been an issue since the beginning of the Church, you might read St John Chrysotom's "Homilies Against The Jews", he explains it as he saw it.
Abraham Foxman described the actions against Jews by the German NS as an attempt to kill God, that mindset is what has led to what we call "Holocaustianity", it's what we see today in the Pentecostal movements. Some less than salubrious Jews, like Foxman, exploit the racial traits of gullibilty and extreme credulity in some White people, particularly Anglo Saxons but it's always quid pro quo, we live in an Anglo Saxon dominated world, "equality" and all the evil that flows from that concept is their gig, not the Jews.
Blaming all Jews for things which are not under their control, or that are merely exploited by Jewish crooks is counterproductive if you're talking about saving Western civilisation, it's the Anglo Saxons who are the real wreckers and the ones I'm suggesting we confront and overthrow with a return to Pagan, Aryan traditions and values.
You can't fight fire with fire, you can't reform Anglo Saxons as an ethnic group apart from diluting their genetic stock with Aryan (Indo /European)Blood ,their problems with "equality" are racial, not learned from Jews or anyone else.
Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Sunday, 5 August 2012 10:00:40 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
Jay,

Please feel free to re-write past and future history as you see fit. Your imagination knows no bounds.

"You can fool some of the people some of the time ...."
Posted by Saltpetre, Sunday, 5 August 2012 11:02:37 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
Commies and Nazis created homosexuality in the early 20th century to eradicate the human species? Well I've heard some stupid conspiracy theories in my time but I have to say that one is possibly the stupidest of the lot. What about all the homosexuals who were around before communism and nazism were invented? And why would Commies or Nazis want to eradicate the human species when they are members of that species? How does that make any kind of sense? If this is supposed to be 'the truth' then I'd to see what your idea of fantasy looks like - it would be so absurd that my brain would melt.

Instead of just reading nonsense on sites like conservapedia and then mindlessly regurgitating it why not follow the sage advice of Lord Edmund Blackadder:

Try to have a thought of your own, Baldrick, thinking is so important.

Cheers,

Tony
Posted by Tony Lavis, Sunday, 5 August 2012 5:07:53 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
Saltpetre,
Oh, so you agree with the other poster that "the Jews" are the problem?
Jewish law was not based on egalitarianism, neither was Islam or Orthodox Christianity, Jews and Muslims don't believe in "equality", neither do the vast bulk of Christians who are non Anglo Saxon.
Do you really think "Gay Marriage" is anything but anti Homosexual and anti virility? Could you possibly countenance the idea that this push for "Marriage Equality" is an attempt to head off the inevitable resurgence in Elitist European Male power, the much feared "rise of the right"?
"Gay Marriage" is a feeble attempt to Christianise homosexuals, to bind them to hearth and home lest they take to the streets in the time honoured fashion and begin purging society of alien elements.
"LGBTI" is part of the same strategy, you surely can't denigrate the Indo Aryan Wild Boys like Alexander The Great and Hadrian by lumping them in with women, people with chromosomal disorders and mentally disturbed people who want to cut off their own genitals.
Virile Indo Aryan Men who don't lie with women should feel obliged to protect their nation and be prepared to give their lives to preserve it's genetic heritage and the customs that nurtured them, not play at housewives or bow down to the God of Abraham, leave that to the prudish Anglo Saxons and their like.
The Sky God has no problem with homosexuality, it's the bloodthirsty desert Djinn named Yahweh who hates male virility and vitality and seeks to kill it wherever he sees it.
Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Sunday, 5 August 2012 5:23:06 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
Tony Lavis,
The "Nazis" had a very Roman attitude to Homosexuality, it's true that they did imprison and execute what they termed "asocial" or criminal types, that is to say Homosexuals of the "Infamia" or those who held opposing political views (as we know Communism and Anarchism are magnets for "Gays" and social outsiders).
What I'm saying is that, as in Rome there was one set of laws for elite Homosexuals and another for street hustlers and "Gays" and sexual transgression against (but not by)"Good Boys" was totally forbidden. Why do you think WASPS hate "Nazis" so much and are ever prepared to shed blood of people who are basically genetically similar to them in order to wipe out this Pagan stain?
This is the problem with the egalitarian mindset and the reason it's so oppressive, it's alien to Europe and completely at odds with the idea of virility, Hadrian, were he alive today would not be able follow this conversation, he'd be all at sea with the notion of equality and horrified by the idea of men "Marrying" other men.
Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Sunday, 5 August 2012 5:40:42 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
I'm surprised that no one has yet blamed
homosexuality on the carbon tax (joking).

Seriously though - as I've written in the past -
each society views its own patterns of marriage,
family, and kinship as self-evidently right and
proper (and usually as God-given as well).

Much of the current concern about the fate of
marriage stems from this kind of ethnocentrism.
If we believe that there is only one "right"
marriage form, then naturally any change will
be interpreted as heralding the doom of the whole
institution.

It is important, to recognise, therefore, that
there is an immense range in marriage, family,
and kinship patterns; that each of these patterns
may be, at least in their own context, perfectly
viable; and above all, that marriage, like any other
social institution, must inevitably change through
time, in our own society, as in all others.

Same-sex marriage will undoubtedly take place in this
country. It's not a question of "If," but a question of
"When." Hopefully a conscience vote in Parliament will
help settle this matter once and for all.
Posted by Lexi, Sunday, 5 August 2012 6:24:50 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
No, Jay, I don't think the Jews are a problem (or THE Problem), or the Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Arabs, Africans, Europeans, Icelanders, Inuits, San, Slavs, Gypsies .. or even your Indo-Aryans, .. or Anglo-Saxons .. or any Other Group. (Or Gays or Straights.) Next you'll be telling me we're really all different species - who just happen by a quirk of genetics to be able to inter-breed. (And of course, we can't all be equal, can we, as some are obviously so much closer in appearance to certain other anthropoids?) Oh, my aching ribs.

No, the problem is people who can't see beyond the tip of their nose, who are so full of their own bias, prejudice and codswallop that they have to interpret and regurgitate all facts and history to suit their own distorted image of reality. Sad really, if it wasn't so destructive.

"If you cut me, do I not bleed?" ... Beneath the skin we are all equal, but, as in any farmyard, some will always push to be more equal than others - and therein lies the problem and the dilemna. Our evolution is like a newly hatched chick, but as one which rails against the lessons and guidance of the shrewd hen, but rather seeks to emulate the rowdy, belligerent and hormone-driven novice runty rooster.

Nazis? A demented lot of self-important deluded psychopaths. (And ultimately weak and gutless.)

Modern-day Nazis? Probably latent homosexuals, radically insecure dropouts, or outright anti-social psychopaths - who rail against their 'natural' proclivities (or revel in them), and who take out their frustrations and lack of self-worth by beating up anyone who appears 'normal' or harmless. Freaks. (And full of all sorts of excuses for their 'freakishness'.)

Gays? There, but for a stroke of the genetic (or neurological) lottery, go you or I, Jay. Freakish to think about, eh, Jay?

Doth thou protest too much?
Posted by Saltpetre, Sunday, 5 August 2012 7:01:34 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
>>Hadrian, were he alive today would not be able follow this conversation, he'd be all at sea with the notion of equality and horrified by the idea of men "Marrying" other men.<<

You might be right: I had to look up Hadrian because I was only familiar with his eponymous wall until this evening. It seems that Hadrian preferred the unhappy heterosexual marriage combined with adulterous homosexual relationships model - a model which is not unheard of in the modern world. But as Roman Emperor I imagine Hadrian's marriage would have been more about politics than passion. In our society most people marry because they love the other person and not because the marriage has been arranged or is politically convenient. So if a bloke prefers blokes and would rather take a bloke for his wife than a sheila where is the harm in that? Look at the plus side: more pussy for us hetero blokes. Unless of course you don't like pussy...

What we can be certain of is that Hadrian would have had no problem with the idea of men entering into sexual relationships with other men - and that he'd be ROFLHAO at The Truth's hilarious suggestion that the idea of entering into sexual relationships with other men wasn't invented until over 1700 years after his death by a group of Communazis trying to eliminate the entire human race.

Cheers,

Tony
Posted by Tony Lavis, Sunday, 5 August 2012 11:34:35 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
@Jay Of Melbourne
1. Read much? I did not say that jews destroyed Europe (even though they DID destroy Europe and are working feverishly on the rest of the world). I said that jews were USED AS A TOOL to destroy Europe. Furthermore, since you want to get onto the topic of jew guilt, it was the jews who used the jews as a tool to destroy Europe. Disgusting.

2. There is no such thing as "Fascist." The correct word is "Socialist." The word Fascist is a way for the left to blame their political and racial guilt on the right. It was made up by communists in the 1920s. Look at any so-called "Fascist" and you will see that they are EXACTLY the same as Socialists, because they ARE Socialists. Calling people "Fascist" just means that you don't know what you are talking about. When will people stop spreading this retard propaganda. Using the words Fascist, Fascism, etc. is like calling Nazis right-wingers. Seriously people, it's time to get over the left-wing brainwash and wake up. There is no such thing as a right-wing socialist.

3. As far as Christians worshiping Jews... Pull your head out of your ass. Of COURSE they worship Jews. Not only was Jesus a jew, but guess who wrote Christianity... Guess who wrote the Holy Bible, both old and new... Guess who wrote the one-god religions that most people, regardless of race, follow today... THE JEWS. Do you get it now? The reason that Christians are becoming more and more pro-Israel is because they are being 'called home', so to speak. It is not complicated at all. "It's complicated" is another sign that you do not know what you are talking about. "It's complicated" is a term that the low-mentality far-left uses to avoid having to think about anything.
Posted by TheTruth, Monday, 6 August 2012 7:46:44 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
@Jay Of Melbourne
"Blaming all Jews for things which are not under their control, or that are merely exploited by Jewish crooks is counterproductive if you're talking about saving Western civilisation..."

Correction: for things that ARE under their control. No, Jay, that would be productive, not counter-productive. No amount of jews could save Western Civilization, because jews are socialist by nature and the way to save Western Civilization is to get away from left-wing politics. Jews DESTROYED Western Civilization. Look at the books that they've written; look at Israel. Socialist trash. If you knew anything about Jewish history and their assault on all people of the world, especially on White people, then you would understand that TRUTH is only counter productive to those who deny it.

"it's the Anglo Saxons who are the real wreckers..."

You need to get over your racism and start paying attention to reality. At least now any readers know that you are a hardcore racist, historically-uneducated and want to promote jew control over the world. At least they know to not take you seriously.

4. Abraham Foxman is the most racist piece of trash in the world! ADL is the most racist organization in the world, followed closely by Southern Poverty Law Center. Anyone who's had their eyes open for more than a day knows this. Who cares what Abraham Foxman has to say? He only spreads jewish racism against ALL non-jew races.

5. "Equality" is a socialist "gig," not a White people gig. Socialism is a political system, not a race of people. But I see that you like to blame everything on White people no matter how unrelated to race that the topic is... Racist.
Posted by TheTruth, Monday, 6 August 2012 7:48:39 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
@Tony Lavis
My point was not that there were no homosexuals before communism. I knew that I should have written that in because I knew that there would be at least one in the bunch who couldn't figure anything out for himself.

"And why would Commies or Nazis want to eradicate the human species when they are members of that species?"

Ask any anti-humanist communist or socialist. You know, those idiots who hate humans for being, blame humans for nature and wish all humans dead. The same people who want to take away all of your rights, even though it means taking away their own. They are too blind to see that they are also on the losing side.
Posted by TheTruth, Monday, 6 August 2012 7:49:36 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
>>My point was not that there were no homosexuals before communism.<<

Liar. I quote directly from the post you made yesterday:

>>Homosexuals are just another 'class' created by the left<<

You explicitly stated that the left created homosexuals - the logical corollary of that statement is that before the left created them there were no homosexuals. And now that somebody has called BS on your ridiculous claims you want to pretend that you never made those claims in the first place. Very amusing.

Cheers,

Tony
Posted by Tony Lavis, Monday, 6 August 2012 9:28:23 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
@Tony Lavis, Sorry, donkey, but you're wrong. Here's that same quote again, IN CONTEXT (typical lefty)...

"Homosexuals are just another 'class' created by the left as a tool to eradicate the human species, just as Jews were classified and used to destroy the nation of Europe."

So, what did I state? I explicitly stated that the left created a CLASS of homosexuals, just as they created a CLASS of jews. Homos and jews existed, but the left CLASSIFIED them to further the cause of the left.

You can't read and the only way that you can be heard is to misquote other people and take their statements out of context. THAT'S amusing!
Posted by TheTruth, Monday, 6 August 2012 10:18:12 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
The Truth, there is no such thing as Reds under the bed! It was just your mum and dad scaring you into voting Family First !!
Posted by Kipp, Monday, 6 August 2012 1:33:52 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
Reading the sort of rubbish posted here shows how wicked the heart of those on the left and right are. Thank God for the way, the TRUTH, and the life. His profound truth, love and wisdom exposes how vain the pride of man is.
Posted by runner, Monday, 6 August 2012 2:15:19 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
@ Tony Lavis.
The point I'm trying to get across is that European people (or Indo European if you like) have no problem with homosexuality per se but that it has a European context, or let's say it has an Indo European form. Hadrian's life would be an example of that form, also the idealistic, homoerotic ideal of the Pagan warrior bands, the Wolf cults, Achilles and his Myrmidons marching off to India at one glance youthful warriors, at another a band of girls.
Semites, that is Jews, Christians and Muslims have an ideological prohibition against homosexuality but still practice the European model of erotic male elitism and homophilia behind closed doors, Afghanistan's "Boy Parties", Iran's men only "camping trips" etc. Even the storied Mujahideen, probably the most overtly masculine and elitist fighting force of our age are known for their "Effeminate" ways when out in the field, according to western observers they embrace and kiss each other, hold hands and curl up together (spooning) to sleep.

What I want to know is whether a society in which Men marry could still produce it's Hadrians and Alexanders or even it's Stephen Frys and Noel Cowards?
My current position is that the push for Gay Marriage is an attempt by our managerial castes to neutralise the resurgence of European male elitism, as we can see it certainly belittles authentic male bonding and erotic love between men by equating the honourable with the perverse and infamous.

@ The Truth.
Get a grip, according to you I'm a racist Nazi and a Jew lover ? You'd fit right in over at VNN.
Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Monday, 6 August 2012 5:14:19 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
Kipp writes

'The Truth, there is no such thing as Reds under the bed! It was just your mum and dad scaring you into voting Family First !!'

No they don't hide anymore. They blatantly push their perverted way of life openly without an ounce of embarassment. Just look at the 'gay pride ' parades. The word shame is reserved for anyone speaking the truth.
Posted by runner, Monday, 6 August 2012 5:31:09 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
Runner.
If you mean groups like Socialist Alternative you should know that they aren't really Leftists, they're pseudo Leftists who are run out of trades hall, ie they're Labor party stooges.
Their function as "Loony Leftists" is to disrupt any authentic opposition to the state originating from the Left, just as the "Neo Nazis" and groups like the Australian Defence League are employed to negate or discredit any opposition from the right.

With regard to "His Word" is it not apparent to you that Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy are a compromise between Semitism and Paganism? That is to say it's the absolute limit as far as Indo Aryan conversion to a Universal point of view is concerned and now that it's diminished in it's ability to project power Europe is drifting back toward Paganism.
Now contrast that with the far Northern European or Anglo Saxon reaction to Semitism, it's very different because those peoples are what I'd call congenital egalitarians and they're the backbone of the puritanical "religious right" in the Anglophone countries.
When I talk about Paganism I mean Rome, ancient Greece and the worship of the Thor/Odin/Freya Trinity, that's the real Europe and I suspect that "Gay Marriage" is one of a raft of measures being deployed by the Anglo Saxon hegemony which are intended to block the growing resurgence of Paganism among Indo Aryan people.
Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Monday, 6 August 2012 7:25:48 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
@Kipp, There always has to be that one lonely loser who's so desperate for attention that he just posts any random nonsense hoping to impress the largest group on a thread, paying no mind to how dumb it actually makes him look. Kipp, if you seriously believe that there are no communists, you are the most ignorant mutt on the thread. What do you think Russia is? And China? And those clueless idiots waving Chavez flags every time that they riot? Do you think that they all just magically disappeared in the 1980s? Moron.

@runner, Just so you know, the reason that your bible tells you not to have pride is because people without pride are easy to control. Those with pride, on the other hand, are near impossible to beat. I don't have a problem with religion, but pride, a sin? You should be questioning that, not promoting it.

@Jay Of Melbourne, Let's add 'flaming closet fag' to your list. With all of your "effeminate male" and "homoerotica" fantasies, you're obviously queer. No one really cares if you want to spoon with other hairy-assed men "in the field." If you want to read gay fantasy novels, have fun. But, at least, stop stating the twisted opinions that they give you as "facts."
Posted by TheTruth, Tuesday, 7 August 2012 8:08:31 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
Actually, The Truth, I am a devout lefty who will always oppose eveything you stand and espouse for.
Facism will not be allowed to rise again, wether it be the extreme right or left.
Posted by Kipp, Tuesday, 7 August 2012 11:05:33 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
@Kipp

"Actually, The Truth, I am a devout lefty who will always oppose eveything you stand and espouse for."

That includes freedom, free speech, free will, freedom of religion, truth, justice and reality, among other things that the left despises.

"Facism will not be allowed to rise again, wether it be the extreme right or left."

Are you sure about that?
1. You just said you're a lefty. How does a lefty, of all people, plan to stop socialism (A.K.A. "fascism"), a left-wing political system? The left eats itself. As soon as you mention that you are against their regressive movement, they'll spit you out and pin you as "racist," "bigoted" and other words that they cannot define.

2. Socialism is already irreversibly underway in Europe and Israel and well on it's way in America and multiple other countries. How do you plan to stop something that is already there?

Sorry, Kipp, but the only thing left to do now is reverse this left-wing mess and that is why I'm here. I do not see what YOU plan on doing about it, other than worsening the situation, seeing as how you a) are a left-winger and b) do not believe that communism still exists. You've got a lot of thinking to do...
Posted by TheTruth, Tuesday, 7 August 2012 12:39:02 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
Prejudice is an irrational, inflexible attitude
towards an entire category of people. The word
literally means "prejudged." The key feature of
prejudice is that it is always rooted in
generalisations and so ignores the differences
among individuals. Thus, someone who is
prejudiced against Jews, for example, will tend
to have a negative attitude towards any
individual Jew, in the belief that all Jews share
the same supposed traits.

Do some people have personality patterns that make
them more prone to prejudice than others? A classic
study by Theodore Adorno and his associates tried to
answer this question. Adorno findings were that
some people have a psychological make-up that he
referred to as the "authoritarian personality." -
a distinctive set of traits, including conformity,
intolerance, and insecurity - that seem typical of
many prejudiced people. Those who have this personality
pattern he found, are submissive to superiors and
bullying to inferiors. They tend to have anti-intellectual
and anti-scientific attitudes.

They are disturbed by any ambiguity in sexual or religious
matters, and they see the world in very rigid and
stereotyped terms.

The authoritarian personality, Adorno claimed, is
primarily a product of a family environment in which the
parents were cold, aloof, disciplinarian, and themselves
bigoted.

Prejudiced people are not concerned about genuine
group characteristics, they simply accept any negative
statement that feeds their existing hostility.

Eugene Hartley found that people who were prejudiced
against one group tended to be prejudiced against others.
Nearly three-quarters of those who disliked Jews and
black also disliked such people as the Wallonians,
the Pireneans, and the Danireans. Some prejudiced
people even urged that members of the latter three groups
be expelled from the United States. As it happens, however,
the Wallonians, the Pireneans, and the Danireans were
fictitious names concocted by Hartley. His study convincingly
demonstrated the irrationality of prejudice, for it shows that
prejudiced people may be hostile toward groups they
could never have met or even have hard of.

A consistent feature of prejudiced thought is that it is
irrational - illogical and inconsistent. The Truth it is not.
Posted by Lexi, Wednesday, 8 August 2012 2:49:13 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
@Lexi, You might want to look up Frankfurt School and Institute for Social Research. They're a bunch of communists and socialists with 'authoritarian personalities'. Theodor Adorno was a Marxist-socialist nut. He lacked the ability to think rationally (or critically, for that matter); a typical intellectual, forever lost in fantasy; a Utopian hack, only questioning what has already been answered and stripping definition from everything we know (there's your "anti-scientific"). His biggest problem was that he was an "intellectual," i.e. a person whose head is full of garbage and hasn't a lick of common sense, nor the ability to think for themselves.

What you have written here explains the socialist mentality to a Tee: "conformity, intolerance, and insecurity."

Your second and third paragraphs explain nearly everyone that you will ever meet in your life. Does that mean that you hang out with racists and that your family are a bunch of racists? Talk about generalizations... That's no different than Homeland Insecurity calling anyone who loves their country or their freedom a "terrorist."

Your fourth paragraph is just backward. Authoritarian-types are extremely arrogant, which is not a trait of well-disciplined children, but of children who were spoiled and allowed to get away with anything. That's Adorno being a socialist nut: always explaining things backward, so as to remove the spotlight from themselves.

"Nearly three-quarters of those who disliked Jews and black also disliked such people as the Wallonians, the Pireneans, and the Danireans."

That doesn't even mean anything. Again, it just describes nearly everyone you know. Nearly three quarters of those who like chocolate also like vanilla. Nearly three quarters of those who dislike salt also dislike pepper.

Everyone in the world is prejudice. Especially those who deny it and most especially those who try to redirect their spotlight onto other people.
Posted by TheTruth, Wednesday, 8 August 2012 7:02:30 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
Sorry, Lexi. You picked an extremely bad source for information. That dude is someone that only a 12-year-old-mentality left-winger could believe. Funny that you should mention "irrational - illogical" in your last statement...

Want three more words that explain nearly everyone you know? "Conformity, intolerance, and insecurity." The fear-mongering left-wing media breeds those traits. Just open your mind, start paying attention to the world and the people around you and you will see. Once your mind starts to open, you'll know it. EVERYTHING will look different. It will be the best and the worst thing to happen to you.
Posted by TheTruth, Wednesday, 8 August 2012 7:02:46 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
Thank You for proving my point.
It is now generally accepted in over
a thousand pieces of research and critical articles
that some people are psychologically
more prone to prejudiced thinking than others.

From your posts it is clear that you tend to
think in terms of general categories, if only
to enable you to make sense of the world by simplyfing
its complexity.

I can only assume that your personality, your thoughts
and feelings have been developed in, and shaped by
your social conext.

You obviously live in an environment that encourages
prejudice. You probably conform to the norm's of
your own group. And you certainly do display a
distinctive set of traits including conformity,
intolerance, and insecurity - typical of many
prejudiced people.
Posted by Lexi, Wednesday, 8 August 2012 10:22:19 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
The Truth,

I'd have to agree with Lexi. You (Truth) sound more and more like a dyed in the wool Socialist - just about as far left as one can get, short of out and out Communist - the very thinking you seem to deplore. (But then you seem to have a problem with everyone, Libs, the Right, Left, Academics, Everyman, and all in between. It must be pretty lonely in there, in your self-made Ivory Tower.)
Yours is indeed a complicated personality, and, contrary to your view, I think the great majority of people are quite rational, and capable of reviewing their attitudes and beliefs.
Posted by Saltpetre, Thursday, 9 August 2012 1:58:21 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
Wow, you two are total nuts. Lexi just goes with, "uh, book?" —'if I never read it in a book or saw it on the screen, it never happened, especially if I saw it in person with my own eyes'— and Saltpetre with "M-O-O-N. That spells 'attention'." —'hey guys, look at me!' Lexi posts from Communist books and Saltpetre posts whatever he/she thinks a "HuffPo" or Gawker kid might like.

@Lexi

"Thank You for proving my point. It is now generally accepted in over a thousand pieces of research and critical articles that some people are psychologically more prone to prejudiced thinking than others."

You still do not have a point. That's your problem. And you apparently cannot read. I did not say that no one is more prone than another to do, say or think whatever. I said that your source is a Marxist nut who cannot be taken seriously. Those who have copied and pasted and/or believed this nut's 'findings' are clearly just more of those whom lack the ability to think for themselves.

"... generally accepted in over a thousand pieces of research..." Sorry, but that does not mean anything. Who cares? "Man-made" global warming is also "generally accepted" by the same types of "thinkers," although it is far from reality. The left's anti-science, anti-common-sense approach to "debating" has made "... generally accepted..." unacceptable and those who use the term obviously never know what they are talking about.

"From your posts it is clear that you tend to think in terms of general categories, if only to enable you to make sense of the world by simplyfing its complexity."

Common clueless nut mistake. Making general assumptions and accusations without actually reading or paying attention to the thread. For your information, the thread is on the topic of "gays," which is as general as it gets, i.e. "the broadest niche." That means that the author, you, myself and everyone else on this thread are thinking in terms of general categories. In other words, read your own posts... You're doing the same thing that you are accusing me of.
Posted by TheTruth, Friday, 10 August 2012 11:32:00 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
[Deleted for abuse.]
Posted by TheTruth, Friday, 10 August 2012 11:32:33 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
[Deleted for abuse.]
Posted by TheTruth, Friday, 10 August 2012 11:32:56 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
[Deleted for abuse.]
Posted by TheTruth, Friday, 10 August 2012 11:34:22 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 14
  7. 15
  8. 16
  9. All

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