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 > What it means to vote 'No' > Comments

What it means to vote 'No' : Comments

By Mitchell Barrington, published 31/10/2017

Yet manyof us simultaneously hold beliefs about how others’ private lives ought to conform to our standards.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. All
Too late for this stuff. Most people who intended to vote have already voted, and the 'feeling' is that the SSM proposal will get a guernsey. I mean, did anyone really think that Australia would be less morally bankrupt than the rest of of West where this rubbish has passed into law?

My attention was immediately drawn to the “private lives of others” bit. Yeah, and why didn't the homosexuals keep their private lives private and leave the long-suffering public out of it? They have deliberately, and outrageously, made their pathetic lives public in an aggressive, nasty way. Not much private about it, son. And nobody would “...hold beliefs about how others’ private lives ought to conform to our standards” if the homosexuals and their political urgers had kept it to themselves. Damn silly talk, here!

And, stop picking on Christians; you don't have to be Christian to be disgusted by the idea of two people of the same sex getting 'married'.

It is clear that that philosophy has been dumbed down in the universities, like everything else has.
Posted by ttbn, Tuesday, 31 October 2017 8:42:44 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
Someone throw this kid a towel, he needs to dry behind his ears.

Perhaps his vision of truth is clouded by a bunch of lefty academics, or perhaps he is just short sighted, but he obviously has a problem finding the wood in the trees.

Most no voters don't give a damn what poofters do in private, but we do think the world would be a better place, if they had not propagated AIDS around the planet. Giving them the right to an institution millions have lived by for centauries is not humane, it is straight theft. It is an institution that should not be sullied by the left in their continual effort to destroy civil society.

For the left to claim the moral high ground while tearing down yet another pillar of western society is typical, & as disgusting as their usual ways.
Posted by Hasbeen, Tuesday, 31 October 2017 9:23:22 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
This article is completely misconceived.
Marrige is the union of a man and a woman. The union of same sex couples is not marriage, and the assertion that it is marriage is an attack on the institution of marriage.
There is no recognised name for the union of perverts, which, until recently was a criminal offence.
There is now no reason for it not to be named, and for its acceptance by society to be sought.
It is not marriage, and calling it marriage, as the lying, unprincipled political wing of te perverts does, is an attack on the institution of marriage, and upon those to whom marriage is an important part of their lives.
What is wrong with "perviage", or "sodomage"? Those names are not taken. "Marriage" is not available. It means a union of a man and a woman.
Posted by Leo Lane, Tuesday, 31 October 2017 9:43:30 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
I agree with Previous 3 posters. Let's face it Male to male sex is just plane dirty & unhealthy. Female to female sex is all about hating males. Something has gone wrong with their Genes if they are genuine or they have a Mental Illness if no Genes are involved. Have a relationship by all means but don't sully it by calling it Marriage.
Posted by Jayb, Tuesday, 31 October 2017 9:51:10 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
Just because a man feels a sexual attraction to an animal does not mean would should legislate marriage for it. This article just confirms the inability or unwillingness of our students to think.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 31 October 2017 10:02:49 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
Can't believe some of the comments on here. Apparently "male to male sex is just plane dirty & unhealthy" is what constitutes civilised discussion nowadays (not even mentioning the spelling error).

I thought this was a great, eloquently presented, and well argued article.
Posted by James Sean, Tuesday, 31 October 2017 10:46:14 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
Actually James, medically speaking sodomy is unhealthy and dirty, and especially when combined with oral sex. I mean honestly, what health practitioner would recommend sucking on a used toilet brush, which is the equivalent. That goes for heterosexual anal sex as well.
The body simply wasn't designed for that purpose, which makes it an unnatural act.
However, that is a personal choice and like most I have absolutely no issue with what consenting adults do in private, whether it concerns same sex, relatives, animals, dead bodies or blow up dolls. Nor do I have any objections to same sex couples having a legally recognised relationship which gives them the same benefits as marriage but without the name.
What I do object to is the teaching of our children that this is normal and natural, when it is neither. Biologically it's not natural and socially, due to its low incidence, it's not normal, based on the definition of normal.
Posted by Big Nana, Tuesday, 31 October 2017 11:24:24 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
We have an absolute right to demand of all other folk that they conform to the standard and belief of the dominant culture!

Thus all our Muslim migrants should be obliged to burn their Qoran, and take up a bible and Christianity!

Why? Because Christians were told by God that their God was the one true God and his teachings were the only truth! And they BELIEVE that to be true!

Conversely, when we migrate to a country where the dominant culture is Islamic? Their rules and mandated law must apply!

For exactly the same reasons outlined above! Along with a carved in stone moral code!

Let's not pussyfoot around with this stuff. Just as you can't be half pregnant! You can't be half committed and have two bob each way!

Saying flat earth stuff like, if there is a gay gene? And tantamount to saying if the world is round?

Even so, all left handed folk must use their right hand as if it were their dominant hand, because God made the bulk of us right handed.

Therefore it follows that lefties are delusional or have a mental illness making them believe left handed aberrations in a small percentile of the population is normal?

Nonetheless, they need to give up this minority practise if they want to marry or be accorded the same rights in law, property and inheritance as the rest of us normal folk!

Say no to not normal asking for the same rights the right handed community have.

Until or unless they give up what seems a common delusion and get with the program!

After all, we are the dominant culture AND WE WILL DECIDE what is acceptable practise and moral! And without exception or alteration!

Jawohl mien Herr?
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Tuesday, 31 October 2017 11:33:58 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
If this is an example of a philosophically rigorous argument then the UWA philosophy department has clearly failed to teach or encourage this chap as to what it takes to be a serious philosopher.
It is little more than a series of naive straw-man assertions.
And the doozie of the month must surely go to the statement - female to female sex is all about hating males.
Posted by Daffy Duck, Tuesday, 31 October 2017 11:50:42 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 body wasn't designed for such purpose, yet same sex attraction have few other options! Other than always, always using a condom, pre-surgery hygiene and before and after mouth gargle or gender reassignment replete with H.R.T?

[However, unprotected annual and or oral sex between hetro couples, common practise in some cultures, as a method of birth control?]

Or Brain surgery to change the attraction to conform with the biology, rather than today's common practise. Reassigning the biology to conform with the sexual attraction!

Doable in day clinics using precisely implanted micro-fibres and electrical stimulation to effectively burn out the inappropriately firing sex drive motor centre or centres in the basil ganglia?

Takes around a year to fit as being and feeling normal?

If only to satisfy those whose unalterable mindset, commands normality as germane? Or any part of the debate!?
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Tuesday, 31 October 2017 12:06:39 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
Alan, the fact that some women, unable to access contraceptives, are forced to choose the lesser of two evils, and endures anal sex is no reason to say it is natural or normal. If I had to choose between that and bringing yet another starving child into the world, probably to die under my eyes, I would do the same.
That's doesn't mean women wouldnt infinitely prefer the natural option.
Posted by Big Nana, Tuesday, 31 October 2017 12:27:00 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 should we judge what consenting adults hetero
or gay do in private? That is none of our business.
What does that have to do
with their right to be equal under the law of the
land. And how can such a small percentage of our
population affect the rest of our marriages. I remember
the stories when Catholic families were not allowed to
go into churches of other denominations or be friends
with Protestants. When inter-racial marriages were not
allowed. And now we are being told all sorts of horrors
regarding same-sex couples by people who probably don't
even know any gay couples.

Will we ever learn? Surely we're all entitled to be
treated equally under the law of the land. Especially if
people do pay taxes (which churches apparently don't).
Posted by Foxy, Tuesday, 31 October 2017 12:58:05 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
Being left handed is not normal! Although as with all normal aberrations within "normal," transferred to the "different" by genetic transfer, over which they have absolutely no control or say!

And just as left handed folk don't and can't EVER CHOOSE to be born left handed, neither can those described as homosexual.

By all means object to irresponsible hedonistic behaviour, be it by wife swapping immoral heterosexuals of or condom avoiding homosexuals!

However moral responsibility by the gender normal or the gender different is not the question!

Just whether the different should be accorded the same civil rights as the perceived normal! This is the only issue on the table!

What occurs between consenting adults a completely different topic and issue!

Yes I get and share complete repugnance toward anal sex!

Particularly that forced on children by alleged pastoral carers in institutions, where children are removed to make them safe! Again, not pertinent to the question!

Which is, should those unfortunate few born different, be accorded the same civil rights as other folk? And that my friends is the only question!

And not whether anal sex is immoral or just unhygienic!

And yes the spread of aids is germane, especially if medically acquired! Yet still not the question!

If any normal heterosexual is willing to spend the rest of their life as a celibate, be refused family and or children/normal property rights and inheritance!

Then let them ask as much of others/the different!?
Alan B
Posted by Alan B., Tuesday, 31 October 2017 3:00:09 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
// I mean honestly, what health practitioner would recommend sucking on a used toilet brush//

Homeopaths.

//The body simply wasn't designed for that purpose//

The body wasn't designed at all: it evolved.

The tongue evolved to taste things, to facilitate swallowing food and drink, and to form the sounds required for our complex speech patterns.

It did not evolve for cunnilingus, but blokes still use it for that. So I guess that makes me a sodomite. Oh well... a choice between being labelled a sodomite by nostalgics pining for the Victorian era when they were young, and not eating pussy? That's a no-brainer.

//which makes it an unnatural act.//

Nah, I disagree. I don't buy the argument that humans were teleologically designed, so I don't believe that you can score an action's naturalness on how closely it aligns to some imagined purpose. As far as I can see, the only reasonable metric for determining naturalness (in this context, natural in the sense of 'not artificial', i.e. not created by man) is to observe whether or not it occurs in nature.

And sodomy does. Most mammalian species, to a greater or lesser extent, engage in some degree of sodomy, and buggery to boot. It seems to be something we do because we're animals, not something we do uniquely because we're the smartest type of ape.

But even if we take it as axiomatic that sodomy is indeed unnatural, it's not clear to me why that's necessarily a bad thing. Medical science is unnatural. The high yield agricultural practises we need to sustain such a large human population are unnatural. The refrigeration technology needed to preserve that food is unnatural. Books are unnatural. Trains are unnatural. Useful electricity is unnatural. The internet is unnatural. Cunnilingus is unnatural.

I love unnatural things.

//What I do object to is the teaching of our children//

What does that have to do with the SSM survey? It's a survey about what rights adults (i.e. not children) should be allowed to have, not how children should be raised and educated.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Tuesday, 31 October 2017 3:58:25 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
I believe all people are equal regardless of sexuality.
However that does not mean all relationships are equal.
People can of course do what they like. Their right to do so is beyond question; this survey is to determine how the nation should respond to the exercising of that right, on the basis that the laws of the nation should reflect the values of the people.

So the question then becomes: is it really no better for someone who is bisexual to spend the rest of his or her life with someone of the opposite sex than someone of the same sex?

And I certainly don't think so. I regard same sex relationships as ersatz, so I voted NO.

But I think my side will lose. Too many people campaigning for a NO vote tried to claim it was about the children. But if it were really about the children, I'd have probably voted YES.
Posted by Aidan, Tuesday, 31 October 2017 4:00:16 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
Sorry, left a word out of one of my sentences:

//Cunnilingus is unnatural.//

Should be:

\\Cunnilingus is debatably unnatural.\\

Mea culpa.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Tuesday, 31 October 2017 4:04:22 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
we know Toni any failed ideology/dogma to let you think you are god. Pathetic really.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 31 October 2017 4:14:42 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
//we know Toni any failed ideology/dogma to let you think you are god. Pathetic really.//

Homeopaths... they're a touchy bunch, aren't they?
Posted by Toni Lavis, Tuesday, 31 October 2017 4:34:14 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
AB: neither can those described as homosexual.

BS most homosexual choose the lifestyle & are weak minded individuals. It's trendy at the moment as well. The homosexuals with a malfunctioning Gene do have some excuse at least but they are very few & far between.

AB: alleged pastoral carers in institutions,

& just who are these Pastoral Carers... Homosexuals mostly, especially if it's same sex interference.

Regardless of the how or why, the practice is still just yucky & gives me the shivers just thinking about it.
Posted by Jayb, Tuesday, 31 October 2017 4:37:30 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
//BS most homosexual choose//

Really? What's their secret?

How might I go about choosing who I'm attracted to? I could get heaps more action if I could choose to be attracted to fat ugly chicks... but as it stands I just can't manage it, because they're so fat and ugly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1JhjugqB0U
Posted by Toni Lavis, Tuesday, 31 October 2017 5:06:47 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
Aidan,

Actually, I think it is also about the children. The children of gay couples deserve not to have their parents' relationship treated as second class - even if you think they're "ersatz".

--

Toni Lavis,

I suspect those who think it's a choice are bisexual. Who else could think the choice to go one way or the other was so easy? I could never choose to have sex with another man, but I bet I would have gotten more action in my single days had that been possible.
Posted by AJ Philips, Tuesday, 31 October 2017 5:21:45 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
AJ Philips,
Do you also believe the children of polyamorous partnerships deserve not to have their parents' relationship treated as second class?
Posted by Aidan, Tuesday, 31 October 2017 6:10:29 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
Aidan,

Your question is a red herring. But, since you asked, if the benefits of recognising polygamous relationships outweigh the risks, then your suggestion could well warrant further discussion. My subjective option on whether such arrangements are ersatz, however, should not come into it.

Because rape and incest are often a feature of polygamy (particularly when it is required/sanctioned by religion), though, I would be more immediately concerned about the welfare of the children so far as abuse is concerned.
Posted by AJ Philips, Tuesday, 31 October 2017 6:33:36 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
People don't ever choose to be born different! But we, or rather we who quite deliberately and knowingly chose to ignore the growing body of scientifically garnered, peer reviewed evidence! Some even claiming medical credentials!

Choose, yes choose to treat these different folk as second class citizens! And that my friends is the only real choice evidenced here or in brainwashed from birth, stone age belief systems!

In essence the only question being put! Nothing else whatsoever!

We used to believe that it was okay to keep coloured folk as slaves, given their dark skin was, according to some religious philosophies, the mark of Cain, who would be punished forever though his descendants.

Who like the yellow races, were hardly better than domesticated animals.

But we moved on from that, particularly when we were able to make carbon our slave!

We don't get to choose our sex nor our sexual orientation. Only the simple minded would believe so!

I mean, when it came to puberty. How many posting here, CHOOSE to be heterosexual?

Or did we just accept our biological norms, as the hand nature dealt, along with our gender opposite bias or orientation?

We've come a long way since those days of Victorian puritanical practice!

Just not far enough for some medieval cultures and or, fundamentalists!

And for them it has nothing to do with civil rights! Just their perceived right as self appointed, control freaks, to stand in the creator's shoes and decide who/what is right and who/what is wrong?

And then seek to justify themselves and their actions and activities past, and present! By fatuously and falsely alleging that the different chose that difference?

Thus, coloured folk offended God and had the mark of Cain on them. Were no better than animals and an act of bestiality to have a conjugal relationship with them. And on and on.

Time to nail home the last nail into this coffin of previously acceptable discrimination!
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Tuesday, 31 October 2017 7:47:10 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
Foxy,

"What does that have to do
with their right to be equal under the law of the
land."

They are equal under the law of the land, nothing stops them from entering the married state if they comply with the law.
Posted by Is Mise, Tuesday, 31 October 2017 9:37:06 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
Even if the mythical social contract put forward by Michael applied, would it not be necessary to obtain the agreement of everyone who had ever entered into a marriage to agree to such a fundamental change in a contract already in existence?
Better yet, he could simply observe that the yes case rested on the lie of inequlity, and the non-existent nonsense of “same sex marriage”. Marriage is a union between members of the opposite sex. “same sex marriage is a nonexistent nonsense
Posted by Leo Lane, Wednesday, 1 November 2017 12:40:13 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
Why all the fuss?

Solution, let all the gay men marry women and the gay women, men, problem solved, no need for a survey or vote.

Move along, nothing to see here!
Posted by Geoff of Perth, Wednesday, 1 November 2017 1:04:43 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 vaguely remember a story I heard a long time ago, it went something like this; Once upon a time there was a village with a king and the usual castle and so on. A witch doctor was passing through one day. At some point he upset the king, who immediately banished him from his kingdom. Before leaving, in retaliation and to spite the king, he spiked the only well which was the only source of water for the people. The people started showing symptoms of mental instability and gradually turned against the King. The King set about to find out what was making the people 'nut jobs'. Once he found the cause and there was no antidote he decided the only course of action was to drink from the well himself. He did, and then he also turned 'nuts', and they all lived happily ever after. It was later classified as a mental institution. This is where we are headed if we let the 'nut jobs' infect our politicians, schools, children, etc
Posted by ALTRAV, Wednesday, 1 November 2017 11:41:50 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
Forget left handers I am looking forward to not serving cake to any gingers in future. Damn useless minority. They should be forced to conform to the dominant hair colours and stop offending us with their gingerness.

Wont be long and you godbotherers will be the minority and the rest of us can force you to conform to logic and reason.
You wont mind will you?

Keep your idiotic beliefs out of other people bedrooms or expect to be restricted in your own private lives in future.
Posted by mikk, Wednesday, 1 November 2017 1:05:25 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
I think you've been drinking from the well. The NO camp does not care what disgusting things the queers get up to in their bedrooms or closets for that matter. We the YES camp don't care what you do to each other, it's what you are forcing us to do by accepting your demands whether we like it or not, all under the guise of equality and fairness and all the other crap you have dreamed up that has no relevance to this debate. Let's clear up something again. You're not equal! You are equal to each other not normal healthy people so shut up with that one. It's easier for me to point out that the Yes camp has NO CASE to argue and it is reflected by how strongly they are trying. If they were right, they would not have to say too much nor attack and vilify the NO voters. The only reason this will eventually get oxygen is purely and simply because of two types of people. The first are politicians they would kill their mother to be in govt. The second is gutless non-people who are too scared to stand up to these slime-bags. If they had the guts to say NO to their faces they don't want the barrage of BS and threats they will have to endure from the YES crap. I wish someone would look up the Massachusetts story, it's a real eye opener. I know for a fact the YES camp do not want it out there because it will crucify them and their lies.
Posted by ALTRAV, Wednesday, 1 November 2017 1:32:41 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
TL: but as it stands I just can't manage it, because they're so fat and ugly.

The ugly chicks get more action than the pretty ones because they put out, a lot.

TL: Really? What's their secret?

Weak minds. Don't you listen?

AJ: but I bet I would have gotten more action in my single days had that been possible.

Oh Yeah! I got hit on a lot by dirty old men.

AB: We used to believe that it was okay to keep coloured folk as slaves, given their dark skin was, according to some religious philosophies, the mark of Cain, who would be punished forever though his descendants

Introducing null argument. Stick to the one subject Alan.

AB: We don't get to choose our sex nor our sexual orientation. How many posting here, CHOOSE to be heterosexual? Or did we just accept our biological norms, as the hand nature dealt, along with our gender opposite bias or orientation?

Most of us I'd say. It was just natural that we did.

AB: Or did we just accept our biological norms, as the hand nature dealt, along with our gender opposite bias or orientation?

Yep, that's what happened. Yes a few people were born that way & others, because of mental health or early introduction by dirty old men, chose to go against their natural instincts.

AB: the simple minded would believe so!

It's not the simple minded that believe so, it's the simple minded that choose so.

AB: Were no better than animals and an act of bestiality to have a conjugal relationship with them. And on and on.

Well if you want to go that way Alan that's you choice. Not for me though. That'll be the next big thing after Gay Marriage. Won't it? Equal Rights to marry Children & your Goat. Go for it Alan & Tony.
Posted by Jayb, Wednesday, 1 November 2017 2:41:46 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
GofP: Solution, let all the gay men marry women and the gay women, men, problem solved, no need for a survey or vote.

I have suggested this before. The Girly Men should marry the Butch Females & the Girly Girls should marry the Butch Men. Problem solved.
Posted by Jayb, Wednesday, 1 November 2017 2:49:17 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 choice is simple - if you like having things shoved rigorously in and out of your anus, vote YES.
Posted by Armchair Critic, Wednesday, 1 November 2017 5:11:43 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
Jayb
"The Girly Men should marry the Butch Females & the .Girly Girls should marry the Butch Men Problem solved."

No; 'Girly Men and Butch Females' These people have gender roles reversed and they have serious mental issues.
They should be euthanised, just to be on the safe side.

'Girly Girls and the Butch Men'
Well they can if they want, but society should be more honest about it.
Girls, if you find yourself attracted to some big tough tattooed gangsta 'bad boy' on steroids and you find yourself in hospital clinging to life or your life is in tatters remember it was your choice to go that way.

Regular average blokes shouldn't have to cop the blame of 'its all men's fault' when women are guaranteed to continue make stupid choices for themselves thinking with their vaginas and then blaming all men for it.
Posted by Armchair Critic, Wednesday, 1 November 2017 5:25:57 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 ugly chicks get more action than the pretty ones because they put out, a lot.//

So, ugly and pox-ridden? Sounds like a winning combination.

//TL: Really? What's their secret?

Weak minds.//

But if they can do it with their weak minds, surely anybody can manage it?

And yet, I don't seem to have the knack. It would seem there is a bit more to mastering the art of finding gross chicks not gross than you suggest.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Wednesday, 1 November 2017 5:54:51 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
//We the YES camp//

Well I must say that I'm surprised. Still, welcome aboard.

//You're not equal! You are equal to each other not normal healthy people so shut up with that one.//

Nah, we're more than 60% of the population. You can't mean to tell me that we're all unhealthy and abnormal. The health system wouldn't be able to take the strain. Besides, I feel fit as a fiddle.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Wednesday, 1 November 2017 8:32:21 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
Toni Lavis says:” Nah, we're more than 60% of the population.”
Making up ridiculous figures again, Tiny mind?
1. “The largest and most thorough survey in Australia was conducted by telephone interview with 19,307 respondents between the ages of 16 and 59 in 2001/2002. The study found that 97.4% of men identified as heterosexual, 1.6% as gay and 0.9% as bisexual. For women 97.7% identified as heterosexual, 0.8% as lesbian and 1.4% as bisexual. Reference: "Sex in Australia: The Australian study of health and relationships", Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society. (Published as the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health vol 27 no 2.).
2. In Ireland, a study of the responses of 7,441 individuals, conducted by the Economic and Social Research Insitute, found that 2.7% of men and 1.2% of women self-identified as homosexual or bisexual. “
3. https://exodusglobalalliance.org/is--of-the-population-really-gay-p1647.php

4. You must cringe if you ever read any of the rubbish you write, Tinymind.
Posted by Leo Lane, Thursday, 2 November 2017 2:48:26 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
LEO, thanks for the update. As I've said all along, we don't listen to the YES camp anymore since they have shown themselves to be dishonest, untruthful, and engage in unsubstantiated attempts at rejecting anything and everything the NO camp puts up, stating facts and figures, which are based on their opinions unlike the NO camp whose facts and figures are based on the 'real' facts and figures. I am curious has anyone looked up the story on Massachusetts, USA. This is a brilliant collection of media articles destroying the YES movement in Massachusetts. All the stories are from media releases so believable. It really is a head-turner. It will destroy the YES camp in one fell swoop! I hope someone googles it and reports back to the Forum, it is a must read.
Posted by ALTRAV, Thursday, 2 November 2017 5:51:45 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
//Making up ridiculous figures again, Tiny mind?//

The 60% was in relation to the proportion of the population voting yes. Try to keep up, Leo.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Thursday, 2 November 2017 9:41:17 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
Yes, Tinymind, you have put forward the percentage of people voting as the percentage voting Yes, and, as is your custom, gave no source for your misinformation.
I gave the percentage of perverts, but I have to acknowledge that there are pervert supporters who are not themselves perverts.

As expected, you still have it wrong, Tinymind.
Posted by Leo Lane, Thursday, 2 November 2017 11:48:46 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
//Yes, Tinymind, you have put forward the percentage of people voting as the percentage voting Yes,//

No, the percentage of people who have voted is over 75%. You're not real good with statistics, are you Leo? Maybe stick to the lame insults.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Friday, 3 November 2017 5:05:41 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
More unsupported figures plucked out of the air, Tinymind?
What a waste of space you are.
I will wait for the result on November 15, and watch you misreport that.
Posted by Leo Lane, Friday, 3 November 2017 12:54:02 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
Leo, I am a NO voter but after seeing some of the most disgusting and arrogant behaviour emanate from the YES scum camp I am starting to think they have intimidated and put on such an assault of the general public that it's not looking good. What's more these animals don't actually have to do anything because the gutless govt will cave in to their threats because they don't want to lose power. Well it's too late for the Libs I believe they will lose the next election and the Labour scum will get in and so will pass the 'poofter bill'. I just wish I could convince enough people, especially politicians, to follow up on my suggestion on what has/is happening to Massachusetts. It would turn the whole movement around and against the YES camp, with such aggression, they would not know what hit them. Everyone really needs to see these media reports.
Posted by ALTRAV, Friday, 3 November 2017 5:19:32 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
ALTRAV,
can you provide a link or a title to the Massachusetts story
Posted by Banjo, Friday, 3 November 2017 7:37:06 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
Banjo, I am frustrated that due to my lack of technical or computer savy, I don't know how to send what is in email form to a forum. I think I can print it and maybe someone can instruct me how to pass it on. I am very excited at the prospect of broadcasting this email. The NO camp will love it and probably have it framed. The YES camp will implode and get back in their closets. (with any luck).
Posted by ALTRAV, Friday, 3 November 2017 10:08:06 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
• This is an extract from an article on Massacheusetts, and the link which may help:
• “Because of the purported necessity to cater to “LGBT health” issues, nearly every major Boston hospital has become an active supporter of the radical homosexual movement. This includes marching in the “Gay Pride” parades, holding homosexual events, and putting on numerous “gay health”-related seminars. This is one of the most disturbing things that’s happened since “gay marriage” became “legal.”
• A major Boston hospital threatened to fire a physician when he objected to its promotion of homosexual behaviour. In 2011 a prominent physician at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston — a large Harvard-affiliated hospital — objected to the hospital being involved with “Gay Pride” activities. He also pointed out to his superiors the medical health risks of homosexuality, and said that he and others at the hospital considered homosexual acts to be unnatural and immoral. The hospital then threatened to fire him, telling him that same-sex marriage is “legal” and that his comments constituted “harassment and discrimination.” After a “hearing” he was allowed to keep his job, but was told to apologize and to keep his opinions on these matters to himself.
http://marriage.greekorthodox.org.au/2012/08/what-same-sex-marriage-has-done-to-massachusetts/
Posted by Leo Lane, Friday, 3 November 2017 10:58:17 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
Leo, Thank you. Yes your comment is in fact one of the articles extracted from the many that form the email I speak of. To read them all is pure gold. It is so enlightening. I still can't think of a way to get them out there. Other than emailing it to some central mailbox. Not advisable as it would expose me to all manner of threats and abuse and more from the YES garbage. Hopefully someone will advise me of a safe way to get this information out there.
Posted by ALTRAV, Saturday, 4 November 2017 12:18:14 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
Leo, I think you've done it. I do believe your attachment is the very article I speak of. The choice of fonts seems a little different but it could be that someone has transferred it maybe? I didn't look at it till after I wrote my response. C'mon everyone check it out read it then let's sit back and listen to the YES camp cringing back into their closets. I have sent this same email to a few senators. Let's hope some of them have a modicum of common sense and reason, and we might yet turn this God awful tragedy around.
Posted by ALTRAV, Saturday, 4 November 2017 12:30:56 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
ALTRAV., the perverts are not waiting to win the ballot to implement their vicious and dishonest tactics against opponents of their lies and nonsense, or the proponents of the truth:
“Legal action against dissenters is a real and present threat. Reports of florists, bakers, and photographers being litigated against and fined for living out their conscientiously-held beliefs about marriage are easily dismissed as from the “only in America” file.
But here at home, Archbishop Julian Porteous, the kindly pastoral leader of Hobart’s Catholic community, spent six months tied up before the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Commission.
His crime? Distributing gentle and respectful material outlining Christian teaching on marriage.
What many people do not realise is that it was Australian Marriage Equality, the peak group advocating for change, which urged the reporting of Archbishop Porteous, to the authorities.
They said he was distributing “hate” material.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/rendezview/samesex-marriage-australians-assume-marriage-equality-has-no-consequences/news-story/fc8161e5d42eb802b1546872fdab4b0e
Posted by Leo Lane, Sunday, 5 November 2017 8:38:22 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. All

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