Same sex marriage, yep or nah? - Page 4 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in Australia.

Moderator: PoFo Asia & Australasia Mods

Forum rules: No one-line posts please.
#14843134
It came today....

Ticked no...

Put it straight back in the post in less than a few seconds(Red Mail Box directly in front of house.... Very convenient).

Don't really give a shit if it gets up or not, but fuck you Greens and Labor for a making a fucking huge deal out of a postal vote....

I don't give a shit about how much was "spent", last vote similar this was 17 years ago. This should have been a full plebiscite.

National voting on major issues should happen more often(they use to)... Not an average of once in a fucken 20 year period.
#14843155
$400 million spent. They took $30,000 from my salary to contribute to this shit. I certainly give a shit how they spend it. I just spent 10 mins trying to post this by the way, NBN is fucking up again. Wish that $400 million was spent on the NBN to fix it. Fucking thieving degenerates, Kill them all.
#14843157
Albert wrote:Strictly logically speaking marriage is a creation of a new family, hence children have to come about. If a couple can not produce children then logic will dictate they are technically not married. With that said they can adopt other children and with that they can form a full family.


So should old people and married people have their marriages declared nul and void and be officially made single by the state? You righties need to learn to keep the state out of people's relationships.
#14843182
Decky wrote:So should old people and married people have their marriages declared nul and void and be officially made single by the state? You righties need to learn to keep the state out of people's relationships.


The elderly could have children when they were younger and some may even still have the potential to conceive in old age. It is rare for two elderly people to marry, in any case. Marriage usually takes place between people young enough to have children. However in cases of same sex marriage there is no opportunity for the two partners to create children through natural means. It is a question of a fundamental biological impossibility.
#14843211
Igor Antunov wrote:Oh look it's rigged;

Electorates with lowest support for same-sex marriage may be ignored by MPs despite postal survey
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-13/s ... ps/8941410


Liberal Party probably won't put the bill forward if No wins nationally, unless Turnbull suddenly goes batshit insane, so there maybe won't be any opportunity for them to do that anyway.

Most people I know are expecting if No wins the Liberals won't bring the bill, it would be stupid and pointless to do so. Labor is likely to screw us and bring one next time they rule the roost, with Green support of cause(read they'll terrorise labor till they get their way again, as they usually do). If nationally Yes wins, the bill is certain to pass, so in a way it would be pointless to resist. They will risk losing their seat, and probably will. But voting in line with the national result isn't exactly treasonous.
#14843244
mikema63 wrote:I hope you trolls get dragged into the 21st century. :lol:


Emperor Nero married a boy named Sporus, seems more like you prog regressives are trying to drag us back to ancient times, except no because degeneracy is timeless and the whig theory of history is a fraud.
#14843270
Decky wrote:So should old people and married people have their marriages declared nul and void and be officially made single by the state? You righties need to learn to keep the state out of people's relationships.
Elderly already have created a family, hence they are mother or father to someone. At that stage they might already be a grandfather or a grandmother to someone as well. Why would their marriage be annulled?

Technically speaking, even if you did not go through a marriage ceremony and impregnated a girl, you are at that moment of conception have become married to her. Because you have begotten a family and now have responsibilities of a father and mother.
#14843278
colliric wrote:It came today....

Ticked no...

Put it straight back in the post in less than a few seconds(Red Mail Box directly in front of house.... Very convenient).

Don't really give a shit if it gets up or not, but fuck you Greens and Labor for a making a fucking huge deal out of a postal vote....

I don't give a shit about how much was "spent", last vote similar this was 17 years ago. This should have been a full plebiscite.

National voting on major issues should happen more often(they use to)... Not an average of once in a fucken 20 year period.


Way to use the tools of democracy to try and take away the rights of minorities.
Yay.

--------------

As for the children thing, why should we accept the definition of marriage as a means of creating children? It makes no sense.

--------------

@SolarCross, do you know the difference between homosexuality and pedophilia?

--------------

@Igor Antunov, do you know that the referendum is non-binding?
#14843291
Pants-of-dog wrote:@SolarCross, do you know the difference between homosexuality and pedophilia?


Yes, though you should note pedophilia can be combined with homosexuality, it even has its own name pedarasty. I haven't been able to find any information on whether Sporus was of legal age at the time he was married to Nero though regardless of that he was a male just as Nero so it was a same sex marriage. Nero also married a man called Pythagoras (not the greek philosopher of the same name).

The point is same-sex marriage is not "progress".

---------------

On the point about marriage being an arrangement designed to support child rearing consider that the old latin word for marriage was "matrimonium" (which still exists as the word matrimony), this word literally means "mother" + "obligation".
#14843303
SolarCross wrote:Yes, though you should note pedophilia can be combined with homosexuality, it even has its own name pedarasty.


It is spelt "pederasty".

Anyway, if you inow the difference, then I can only conclude that you were deliberately ignoring the difference when you deliberately tried to confuse the two.

I haven't been able to find any information on whether Sporus was of legal age at the time he was married to Nero


So you also made an argument from ignorance when you deliberately confused the two.

though regardless of that he was a male just as Nero so it was a same sex marriage. Nero also married a man called Pythagoras (not the greek philosopher of the same name).

The point is same-sex marriage is not "progress".


Did anyone claim it was?

Societies do not inevitably evolve towards some ideal world.

In reality, societies change all the time in different ways for different reasons. And things like ideals and marriage change too.

Thank you for providing an example of how the definition of marriage has changed over history. So many conservatives claim marriage is always the same because of penises and lions.
#14843315
Pants-of-dog wrote:It is spelt "pederasty".

Anyway, if you inow the difference, then I can only conclude that you were deliberately ignoring the difference when you deliberately tried to confuse the two.


The correct way to type "inow" is "know", it begins with a "k" not an "i", just so you know. Your conclusions are as warped as your typos. The fact is if two males get married then regardless of the age difference it is a same-sex marriage. The prophet mohammad famously married a 9 year old girl, but because she was a girl then whatever one may think about the age of his bride it is clear that is not a same-sex marriage. Are you clear on that point yet?

Pants-of-dog wrote:Did anyone claim it was?

Mike did. It's a pretty common fallacy employed by "progressives" and it is riff on the whig theory of history.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Societies do not inevitably evolve towards some ideal world.

Fine so you agree with me on this.

Pants-of-dog wrote:In reality, societies change all the time in different ways for different reasons. And things like ideals and marriage change too.

Thank you for providing an example of how the definition of marriage has changed over history. So many conservatives claim marriage is always the same because of penises and lions.

The customs differ from time and place, though not so much as all that sometimes for example gold wedding rings worn on the 3rd finger from the thumb on the left hand is a tradition which originated in ancient Rome and people still do that. The purpose remains the same.

Nero didn't get married to a boy for any rational reason, he was insane actually. Although sodomy was tolerated in ancient rome no one except crazy people like Nero felt the need to perform the rites of matrimony with the same sex because there is on rational reason to do so.
#14843318
SolarCross wrote:The correct way to type "inow" is "know", it begins with a "k" not an "i", just so you know. Your conclusions are as warped as your typos. The fact is if two males get married then regardless of the age difference it is a same-sex marriage. The prophet mohammad famously married a 9 year old girl, but because she was a girl then whatever one may think about the age of his bride it is clear that is not a same-sex marriage. Are you clear on that point yet?


That depends on how you define marriage.

Are you now redefining marriage to mean a union between an adult and a child?

Mike did. It's a pretty common fallacy employed by "progressives" and it is riff on the whig theory of history.


No, he expressed the desire for you lot to be forcibly included in the modern paradigm that same sex marriage is not a big deal.

Fine so you agree with me on this.


If you are claiming that the whole " society is progressing to some ideal point" is just a myth that conservatives made up to lampoon the progressive position, then yes.

The customs differ from time and place, though not so much as all that sometimes for example gold wedding rings worn on the 3rd finger from the thumb on the left hand is a tradition which originated in ancient Rome and people still do that. The purpose remains the same.


Oh, you are pretending that all marriages are for the same reason. The property exchanges of ancient Rome are qualitatively the same as the marriage I currently enjoy, despite the extreme difference in laws and objectives between ancient Rome and the indigenous culture in which my marriage occurs.

Because of lions and penises.

Nero didn't get married to a boy for any rational reason, he was insane actually. Although sodomy was tolerated in ancient rome no one except crazy people like Nero felt the need to perform the rites of matrimony with the same sex because there is on rational reason to do so.


So not only did you deliberately confuse homosexuality and pedophilia, and make an argument from ignorance, but you are also attempting to associate same sex marriage with insanity.

It is like you are deliberately trying to make the worst possible argument against same sex marriage.
#14843507
1. Nero married a man called Pythagorus that is a same-sex marriage.

2. Nero later married a boy called Sporus whom he had castrated and made to dress as a girl. So that would be a same-sex trans-gender marriage.

3. Nero was insane.

4. This is not "progress".

Clear?
#14843511
SolarCross wrote:1. Nero married a man called Pythagorus that is a same-sex marriage.

2. Nero later married a boy called Sporus whom he had castrated and made to dress as a girl. So that would be a same-sex trans-gender marriage.

3. Nero was insane.

4. This is not "progress".

Clear?


Since no one is arguing that we should do this, this seems all like a bad attempt at besmirching progressives by pretending they support crazy rich people raping kids.
#14843659
Pants-of-dog wrote:Since no one is arguing that we should do this, this seems all like a bad attempt at besmirching progressives by pretending they support crazy rich people raping kids.


Well perhaps we are being unfair on old Nero, one lone progressive surrounded by vast numbers of reactionaries with nothing but the Praetorian Guard between him and the party-pooper enemies of progress. They called him insane and I called him insane but we all say that because of the so-called "crazy" things he did like marry a man as if there was any danger they might make butt babies and so on. But if those things aren't crazy then neither was he, he may have been the only sane person in all of the ancient times...
Last edited by SolarCross on 15 Sep 2017 01:53, edited 1 time in total.
#14843660
This whole "progress" is actually regression and degeneracy masked in a pretty language. It is funny that progressives at times use Greek and Roman periodical immorality to support their degeneracy, as justification for their "progress" and moving humanity "forward". In the end what we are having today, is battle between ignorance and truth, degeneracy and normality, justice and injustice, good and evil. I hate to say it, but that is what it is. With now Trump in the middle.

I suggest you give up on Pants, he is fully into that world. There is very little hope for him.
#14843667
Albert wrote:This whole "progress" is actually regression and degeneracy masked in a pretty language. It is funny that progressives at times use Greek and Roman periodical immorality to support their degeneracy, as justification for their "progress" and moving humanity "forward". In the end what we are having today, is battle between ignorance and truth, degeneracy and normality, justice and injustice, good and evil. I hate to say it, but that is what it is. With now Trump in the middle.

I suggest you give up on Pants, he is fully into that world. There is very little hope for him.


Indeed. The sad thing is "progress" as a concept was really cool back when it was invented in Victorian Britain, then it didn't mean rebooting ancient perversions it meant building the better steam engine or the more accurate pocket watch.. See how far we have sunk when the core concept of the original sci-fi futurists of Victorian Britain has come to have its meaning thoroughly perverted to mean bacchanalian depravities and perverse nonsense instead?

Ask me what exemplified progress in the 20th century and I say landing a man on the moon (assuming it wasn't a hoax).

Ask a prog and he will say the re-legalisation of butt banditry.
#14843668
Well that is actually technological progress, the current "progress" that we are speaking about is ideological that grew out of liberalism. It has come to be used by whole bunch of heathens and perverts to excuse their actions and make them acceptable.

Christ I am a Leninist and even I am thinking of […]

Trump Takes on NFL

President calls for fans to refuse to go to NFL[…]

If you import right wing conservative religious ty[…]

This is literally insane. Are you talking about[…]