The Forum > General Discussion > Anti SSM On A Par With Racism
Anti SSM On A Par With Racism
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 24
- 25
- 26
- Page 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- ...
- 44
- 45
- 46
-
- All
Posted by SteeleRedux, Monday, 6 November 2017 2:45:18 PM
| |
The European Enlightenment decisively knocked religion off its ancient social, moral and epistemological pedestal and it will never get back there. Freedom from religion is central to the foundation of secular democracies around the world.
Posted by EmperorJulian, Monday, 6 November 2017 2:51:12 PM
| |
Foxy wrote "One of the reasons for the stunningly rapid increase in
acceptance of same sex marriage is because many heterosexuals have changed their notion of what marriage is. It is not about being between a man and a woman", Emperor Julia notes. I agree with whoever said that this is 'nonsense'. Nobody would disagree that Australian morals have slithered so far down that more people do accept the silly idea of fake marriage for people of the same sex. But, a "stunningly rapid increase"! Last report I read a few days ago indicated that the YES vote would suffer a 'narrow loss'. Now, I don't know that I believe that, given the general plunge of morals and decency in Australia, but anyone who has been watching the debate at all, then claims a stunningly increase in support for SSM is living in la la land, and taking the stupid belief that 'positive thinking' works to the realms of insanity. Posted by ttbn, Monday, 6 November 2017 3:02:42 PM
| |
Emperor Julian,
No,religion did not start the downward run after The Enlightenment - Christianity did. Islam was not affected, and that particular evil is growing stronger everyvday; a matter that perverts and their helpers will regret, when Christianity dribbles to a halt altogether, and there is no alternative to Islam. It has been predicted that people alive today will see the end of Christianity altogether. If you are one of those people, good luck to you and the SSM crowd with that event. Posted by ttbn, Monday, 6 November 2017 3:16:55 PM
| |
SR,
Am forced to bring up anal sex because so many SSM advocates such as yourself, foxy, AJ and TL refuse to believe it is a dirty sex practice and is what gives homos such a bad reputation. You can see from the number of posts that TL took some convincing about anal housed bacteria being the cause of Tetanus infections. So it is not anal sex that concerns me, it is the poor reputation that will transfer to marriage and ruining its status if the word marriage is allowed to be used for same sex unions. That has been made plain by me for yonks You said "Ultimately mate a marriage will be reserved for whatever society deems it to be. If we choose to include the same-sex unions in our community then we will do so". That is true, but I do not see the need to ruin the reputation of one institution to accommodate another Posted by Banjo, Monday, 6 November 2017 4:12:10 PM
| |
//I took it, from TL's question that she//
Wrong pronoun, dude. Toni is a male name too: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/how-did-toni-two-guns-operate-a-security-empire-for-25-years-20171031-gzcdqs.html Bet you wouldn't so be brave about calling a vicious thug like that a girl. Maybe I should take up crime... the endless gender confusion displayed by others does get tiresome sometimes. Or maybe not... knowing my luck I'd get busted straight out of the gate, and spend the term of my natural life bunged up at Her Majesty's convenience with sod all to read save the meagre offerings of the prison library - which I can't imagine are great. Looks like I'm resigned to a life of pointing out that Toni is a male name too... sigh. //was saying that lesbians have high morals and could not possibly engage in anything anal.// Really? That's what you took from my last post? http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7994#247649 O... kay. //The promiscuous homosexual lifestyle of multiple anonymous partners// And you think that no straight people sleep around? Aww.... that's so cute. Posted by Toni Lavis, Monday, 6 November 2017 4:12:45 PM
|
You wrote;
“A marriage between a male and female is valid, if both of age. There is no such thing as a marriage of two males, call it a union or a mateship. Whether either couple have sex or not is irrelevent.”
“Again the word marriage should not be used to denote a same sex union, I am quite happy for same sex couples to have a legal union but it is not a marriage. Marriage is reserved for a male and female and has a high public status.”
If you “are quite happy for same sex couples to have a legal union” why the hell are you traipsing down the anal sex path with such gay abandon?
Ultimately mate a marriage will be reserved for whatever society deems it to be. If we choose to include the same-sex unions in our community then we will do so.