The Forum > Article Comments > History shows same-sex marriage plebiscite unnecessary and out of step > Comments
History shows same-sex marriage plebiscite unnecessary and out of step : Comments
By Rebecca Ananian-Welsh and Chris Peppel, published 17/8/2017Our own history calls the necessity of this plebiscite into question, and shows that a postal vote regarding marriage equality signals a new era in Australian plebiscites.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Page 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- ...
- 22
- 23
- 24
-
- All
Posted by Toni Lavis, Wednesday, 23 August 2017 4:40:32 PM
| |
' I've said it before and I'll say it again, Leo:
Lesbians ain't bummers. ' no Toni just deceived and mentally challenged like their promoters. They seriously need help. Posted by runner, Wednesday, 23 August 2017 5:20:30 PM
| |
As you indicate Tiny-mind Lavis we have already experienced the product of your infinitesimal intellect.
It is vicious of you to inflict it on us again. If you are not a pervert, why are you supporting the perverts? Posted by Leo Lane, Wednesday, 23 August 2017 6:43:34 PM
| |
//why are you supporting the perverts?//
You still haven't explained how lesbians are perverts, Leo. You said that all homosexuals are perverts, then you proceeded to explain that it was because they had anal sex. But lesbians don't. So there's big gap in your logic. But by all means just insult me a bit more instead of trying to present a coherent argument. It really demonstrates the strength of your position. Posted by Toni Lavis, Wednesday, 23 August 2017 8:04:39 PM
| |
At no point did I claim that they didn’t, Bazz.
<<I do not think that there is any doubt that genes define your sex.>> The point, that you still don’t seem to get, is that there appears to be far more genes controlling sexuality (and not always the same genes either) compared with the genes controlling biological sex. You are assuming that they are all the same genes in order to conclude that sexuality must be a choice. -- Not quite, Leo Lane. <<Phillips response was to lie again, saying that I had no”evidence” for my self evident statement, making no effort to show that any of my assertions were not correct, as they certainly areright in every particular.>> What I did was point to the fact that your argument was flawed because not all homosexual people practice anal sex. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18673#333359 I’d further note that the genitals did not evolve for contact with the mouth, yet I can just about guarantee you that all heterosexual couples have had oral sex. Does that mean they’re perverts, too? <<He also presses the lie of marriage inequality. Perverts have no status in marriage, which is a relation ship between a man and a woman …>> Not yet they don’t (well, not in Australia, at least). But that says nothing about whether or not they should be allowed to marry. So, I hadn’t lied at all. Not on either count. But you just did. P.S. Still waiting on a rational explanation as to why gay people are perverts, by the way. Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 23 August 2017 9:00:04 PM
| |
OK that's it once a debate gets to the point where abuse takes over from what is otherwise a heated debate, we can call it a day. I don't care how I am seen or treated, this debate is not about me. I would like to condense what I have learned from this discussion. The YES side is adamant that they are right. They only give anecdotal comments about precedents set elsewhere in the world. The evidence presented is of a personal opinion in referencing again other yes voters or countries. On the NO side a number of political, religious and social or personal arguments have been presented. All to avail. When actual scenarios were presented, such as the fact that the men engaged in sodomy and buggery, again, no response to the allegations. The standard vitriol of the YES campaign appears to go on the attack by responding with questions, in most cases, it is easier to deflect than answer or challenge the allegation head on. On many occasions the NO sayers have been asked to 'prove' their allegations. I believe we have. The answers were not acceptable because they would show the flaws in the YES arguments, so it is easier to reject, ignore and deflect, thereby giving the appearance of their argument being a valid one. In conclusion I will not go over old ground, but suffice to say; whether the YES movement like it or not, they are not welcome to conduct themselves as they see fit, (at least in public) and they do not have the right to compare themselves with a 'real couple' and all it stands for. WE don't care what you think of us or what names you call us, because your comments and opinions are already a matter of record. The only people who are going to tolerate and stand by you are 'your' friends and family. Be greatfull for that and move on. The rest of us will always see you as spoilt brats.
Posted by ALTRAV, Wednesday, 23 August 2017 11:43:55 PM
|
I've said it before and I'll say it again, Leo:
Lesbians ain't bummers.
Your argument is shite.