Homosexuality in Australia (1 Viewer)

[dagwoman]

You don't need to note your sources. They're all from wikipedia. Bring on some reputable sources if you're going to demand them of us.

Who started "bitching" about them first then?

 

[bshoc]

Jesus bshoc, I certainly don't think or hope you're gay. I don't want you on my team!

...

"Mixed race marriages were a temporary taboo in the slave era, most other times people freely married between race, heck most countries and nations today have a whole host of racial genus, even things like Alexander and his Persian wife. Gay marriages on the other hand HAVE NEVER naturally existed, thats the difference, becuase whilst they may be capable of expressing love, they're not capable of facilitating a proper family, and marriage must never be relegated to a simple freedom to have sex or something worthless like that."

 

[bshoc]

You don't need to note your sources. They're all from wikipedia. Bring on some reputable sources if you're going to demand them of us.

Why dont you prove it then, I mean seeing as how you're so confident that thats the case, show me where my argument was copied from wikipedia, moron.

 

[Graham Trevor]

Which argument aside from the pre-politcal institution argument where I noted my source was that?

Of course, after you were found out, you wouldn't dare copy another article verbatim.

 

[bshoc]

Being a minority is not exactly a bad thing, the minority always wins in the end.

Wait was that in Rwanda, or the jews and gay back in Nazi Germany .. LOL winners

You still can't prove that gay marriage would destroy society, and your comments about how much of a minority gay people are only ruins your own argument- if homosexuals only comptise 1% of the population, how could that 1% possibley destroy society?

No it doesen't, 1% isn't going to

a. ever get a gay marriage law since bans pass everywhere they are proposed
b. isn't going to ruing it for the other 99% who value their marriage

Get over it bshoc, times are changing.
The majority is not always right.

Whatever makes you sleep at night.

 

[dagwoman]

Sigh...

bshoc, we've already discussed that gay marriages have existed in society, that inter-race marriages were taboo for longer than just a brief period as you imply, and that marriage isn't just about freedom to have sex, nor do gay people want it to be.

 

[bshoc]

Of course, after you were found out, you wouldn't dare copy another article verbatim.

Guess what, you still havent shown where the hell I did it the first time, dont say shit you cant back up.

 

[dagwoman]

99% of the world doesn't oppose gay marriage, and as for your claim that gay marriage was overturned "4 to 1 in many states" in the USA is BS.

 

[bshoc]

Sigh...

bshoc, we've already discussed that gay marriages have existed in society, that inter-race marriages were taboo for longer than just a brief period as you imply, and that marriage isn't just about freedom to have sex, nor do gay people want it to be.

Dont dodge the question

"Why dont you prove it then, I mean seeing as how you're so confident that thats the case, show me where my argument was copied from wikipedia, moron."

If you're going to make bullshit statements, back them up, otherwise I wont bother replying.

 

[dagwoman]

I was addressing the statement you made that was actually relevant to the discussion first. I wasn't the person who claimed you copied directly from wikipedia, I was saying that all of your sources were from wikipedia, and that you need other ones to support an argument.

 

[bshoc]

99% of the world don't oppose gay marriage, and as for your claim that gay marriage was overturned "4 to 1 in many states" in the USA is BS.

wtf

South Carolina Amendment 1:
Ban Same-Sex Marriage

Yes - 78%
No - 22%

Tennessee Amendment 1:
Ban Same-Sex Marriage

Yes - 81%
No - 19%

etc.
javascript:CNN_openPopup('/ELECTION...llbars=no,resizable=no,width=770,height=567')

 

[dagwoman]

You said the majority of the states overturned it 4 to 1. I paraphrased incorrectly.

 

[bshoc]

I was addressing the statement you made that was actually relevant to the discussion first. I wasn't the person who claimed you copied directly from wikipedia, I was saying that all of your sources were from wikipedia, and that you need other ones to support an argument.

Why dont you prove that they were? Show me the wikipedia page I copied, please I'm waiting to see this imaginary page.

Ever notice that your argument just relies on bullshit and attacking me without actually adressing the content?

Joke.

 

[bshoc]

You said the majority of the states overturned it 4 to 1. I paraphrased incorrectly.

The closest margin was Wisconsin as I pointed out, and that was still a clear pass.

Wisconsin Referendum 1:
Ban Same-Sex Marriage

Yes - 60%
No - 40%

Keep in mind this is one of the most liberal states in the US after Mass. and Calif.

 

[dagwoman]

You're talking about yourself dude. READ what I wrote. I was NOT the person who claimed you directly copied from wikipedia.

Source on gay marriage on history:

So much for words. Let us now peruse the tarnished pages of history. Gay men seem to have frequently married one another throughout history. In fact, in some societies marriages between gay men were officially recognized by the state, as in ancient Sparta, and on the Dorian island of Thera.

Much later, in 2nd century Rome, conjugal contracts between men of about the same age were ridiculed but legally binding. Such marriages were blessed by pagan religions, particularly sects of the Mother Goddess Cybele (imported from Asia Minor). At the ceremony, the bridal party consists entirely of men, who enter the temple and deck each other with "gay fillets round the forehead . . . and strings of orient perals." They light a torch in honor of the goddess and sacrifice a pregnant swine. One man gets up and chooses a husband for himself, and dances himself into a frenzy. Then he drinks deeply from a goblet in the shape of a large penis, flings the goblet away, strips off his clothes, and "takes the stole and flammea of a bride" and the two men are married.

The "bride" is a transvestite only for the duration of this ceremony, for in a deeply religious sense he has temporarily become the goddess at these holy rites. The other men sing a hymenal drinking-song, and then pair up amongst themselves to celebrate multiple nuptials by group sex (i.e. orgies). The following day the names of all the pairs are registered in legal records as formal marriages.

Many ancient writers, such as Strabo and Athenaeus, wrote that the Gauls or Celts commonly practised homosexuality. Aristotle wrote that the Celts "openly held in honor passionate friendship (synousia) between males". Diodorus Siculus wrote that "Although the Gauls have lovely women, they scarcely pay attention to them, but strangely crave male embraces (arrenon epiplokas). Resting on the ground on beasts' skins, they are accustomed to roll about with bedfellows (parakoitois) on either side." Later, Eusebius of Caesarea, wrote that "Among the Gauls, the young men marry each other (gamountai) with complete freedom. In doing this, they do not incur any reproach or blame, since this is done according to custom amongst them." Bardaisan of Edessa wrote that "In the countries of the north — in the lands of the Germans and those of their neighbors, handsome [noble] young men assume the role of wives [women] towards other men, and they celebrate marriage feasts."

Can you stop sidetracking the discussion with irrelevant shit, and get on with the debate please.

 

[withoutaface]

Enough with the appeals to majority bshoc, they don't constitute a valid argument.

 

[bshoc]

Can you stop sidetracking the discussion with irrelevant shit, and get on with the debate please.

Hey hey, thats what you've been since your first post in here.

 

[dagwoman]

Hey hey, thats what you've been since your first post in here.

Does anyone agree with this? If so, I will immediately rethink my contribution to the discussion.

 

[Dougie]

bloody hard to find them all a second time, here's this one 1st...
"Marriage is a naturally occurring pre-political institution that the state only recognizes as it recognizes other natural institutions such as jobs and families" (bshoc page 64) i should say from wikipedia.

 

[dagwoman]

As for Wisconsin, it was actually 59 to 41. Interesting how whatever uncited source you've used differs...