vortexring

Are you really that stupid? You admit that you're opposition to gay marriage has absolutely nothing to do with any actual reasons that you can explain, it's simply down top your prejudice against it (it feels wrong) and yet you think it's other people who are being irrational? That's mental. Indeed. And I've several reasons that I've posted earlier. Seems like you weren't paying attention. You were earlier asking for points I've already made. Your method of argument doesn't upset me. I fucking love it, it makes it so damn easy to prove you wrong at every turn. Really? Then you should make considerable more effort to support gay people, especially seeing as it's a subject you're very emotional over. I see little effort in your reasoning for gay marriage, other than assertions such as what harm will it do? As opposed to dropping it in when you become emotional, snide and rude? I'd rather discuss the issue without emotion, without effort to make somebody look stupid. You couldn't even get that right. Says it all, really. That I made a typo? It's pathetic you feel it necessary to bring up such trivial matters; to that end, I won't bother to counter by bringing up yours. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

We can or cannot survive (or would it be more or less difficult?) if gay marriage is allowed? Perhaps you have said before (too lengthy of a thread filled with irrelevance for me to read in its entirety), your statement sounds as if you submit one is born gay. Yes? It seems there is no conclusive proof why people are gay it's more likely people are born gay. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

I am wondering, however, if you believe our species_would_survive even if we allow gay marriage. If you believe we would survive, than I am not sure how survival reinforces your point that "gay marriage is wrong and abnormal". It's reinforcement is through the abnormality of homosexuality. It effects a minority people. Which is good. I also wish it to remain so. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

So that's my biggest issue? That I've contradicted myself? My biggest issue is that I'm against gay marriage. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

However, I suspect that's not your biggest (or even one of the bigger) issues. Of course, because your unstated suspicion is that I'm a homophobe, yet I don't hate homosexuals nor fear them.

Are you worried about our species' survival? What other sort of things should we prevent in order to ensure the human species "survives". The reference to survival is more to reinforce my point that gay marriage is wrong and abnormal. What will be next in your opinion? Incestual marriage. Polygamous marriage. Further undermining of an institution with negative social consequences. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

And even though you've admitted you've moved away from all the original reasons you were against it, you're still against it. Which really does suggest your opposition has nothing to do with any rational reasons. That doesn't matter; it's always been wrong in my agrument, because it is wrong. It's the supporters of gay marriage who are being irrational. You shouldn't take discussions so personally and become emotional; that's neither here nor there. If somebodies method of arguing upsets you so much, perhaps you'd be better off doing something else. I do pay attention, which is why I know that you haven't explained it all. By what mechanism does Gay marriage affect marriage as a whole? How does it happen? I'm not trying to change your mind, I know that's futile. You wouldn't back away from arguing that the sky is green. However, just like Mr Griffin on Question Time, your arguments can stand as a warning beacon to anyone else who might have been vaguely leaning towards your point of vew. Hahahaha! A warning beacon!!! Psml 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Brilliant argument . . . not. So if you lived in the Netherlands, you would become a supporter of anti-gay marriage, since divorce rates have increased since gay marriage became legal? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

You didn't answer my question, but I'll assume you made an innocent error of omission. Yes, I do have a point: He seems to have been joking. You're correct, I was joking. Could somebody please sue me for being a confirmed homophobe now? p.s. The last sentence was sarcasm, as was the sentence from post#66 Shell. It's the lowest form of wit; can't you recognise it, or would you rather just have someone to screech 'homophobe!' at? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Pot ... kettle ... What I'd like to ask you is how does a gay couple getting married affect your life? How does it PERSONALLY affect your life. And before you ask ME the same question, I'll just answer it ... It DOESN'T affect my life. It makes no difference in my quality of life. It makes no difference in the company I keep. It makes no difference in the friends I have. It makes NO DIFFERENCE IN HOW I LIVE MY LIFE. Ball's in your court. It effects my life through the undermining of marriage in a general Western society where marriage is already undermined through varying reasons. Where it effects me personally is the social problems we see through marriage breakdown. These social problems can quite easily have a direct effect on your life. So one of my reasons for being against gay marriage is that I believe it'll undermine marriage with negative social implications. Is it homophobic to have this belief? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

COHERENT??? Not even close. You said, from post 66: and from post 170: Hardly coherent. Neither logically connected or consistent. Agreed, hence the expressed desire to post a more coherant argument sober. Perhaps I should make my text red whenever I'm posting after a few drinks . . . although not posting whatsoever would probably be a better solution.

Utter nonsense! I wasn't quick to brand him as anything - I even asked several questions to understand the situation fully, and even brought out an area where you'd made an error in your original statement! And I said it does seem he's a racist. I in no way was quick to brand him a racist. I also think you're mistaken in continually relating peoples racism towards interracial marriage with peoples attitudes to gay marriage. Very, very mistaken. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

I meant if they're reasonable they'd at least question themselves privately. But you're discussing extreme posters - do I come under that category? My primary reason for being here is that I often find it educational, especially where I'm led to question, and learn more about my own beliefs. Would a bigot, or racist, or homophobe be so inclined? If I become inclined towards gay marriage, I'd be happy enough to admit it, and explain why. It's no big deal to me. Well what can ya do mate! Often people believe only what they want to believe; and be unable to perceive this fault. Perhaps you think I'm like that - so blind to the truth I can write it, look at it, think it, yet not believe it?

His concern is for the children? As in, he's concerned they'll have problems growing up as mixed race, therefore he doesn't want to marry the potential parents? Or do they already have children? It does seem he's being racist. If people of different race wish to marry one another, that's perfectly fine by me. Isn't that perfectly fine within the US constitution? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Not necessarily. A reasonable individual would question why he's being attacked; why he's being labeled a racist. If he's reasonable, if he's willing to question his own opinion, if he's willing to listen to the people rudely attacking him and not attack them back, would he be still likely to have racist views? Who can tell? Why should somebody be against interracial marriage if they're nothing but racist? It doesn't equate to somebody being against gay marriage as homophobic or bigoted. Unfortunately it seems everyone here who are for gay marriage thinks like this, who are in fact bigots themselves. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

What does it have to do with the elements of politically correct people in our societies being so quick to brand people as homophobes or racists? Are Baptist ministers against interracial marriage? Probably in the South. I'd need to know his reasoning as to why; perhaps his religion is racist or he is? Or maybe he believed the couple were illegal immigrants? Or intergalactic aliens? Who knows? I assume you do. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

The fact I'm able to consider the subject further could potentially provide areas where I might reconsider my viewpoint. I very much doubt so for the simple reason this discussion is now 12 pages long, the last time I checked, and despite being labeled a homophobe and a bigot, I'm now even more against gay marriage than ever before. How could that trend possibly change? All I've heard is that to be against gay marriage means you're homophobic, a village idiot, a bigot, prejudiced, and so on. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Good points if your are a totally blind and committed bigot against people who are biologically different, sexually. Your bigotry is exactly the same if it was directed at people who have blue eyes. It is how they are made. It is natural for them to be the way they are. The concept of un-naturalness and abnormal for a normal variant of animal behavior is a construct of society that has no basis in scientific fact. Get over it already. Homosexuality is natural but still abnormal. It's occasionally natural for siblings to want to marry one another yet still abnormal. This isn't bigotry. If you condone same sex marriage then the reasoning must also condone incestuous marriage. And there are perfectly good reasons why not to, as previously mentioned. If that's somebodies belief, it doesn't make them homophobic. That's another issue I have with todays politically correct society; express a viewpoint of being against gay marriage and you're labeled a homophobe - express issues with immigration and you're a racist. Progressive thinking? Branding people with opposite beliefs to yourself (in this topic) as village idiots isn't very progressive now, is it? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

For reasons that you accept were wrong, since they are completely different from your new angle. I've been against gay marriage from the start. If we continue the discussion, I'll no doubt discover and articulate further reasons. Were you? Think about what you're getting at here - that I can't tell from your printed word what you were feeling when you wrote that, right? Then how do you think you can know what I'm feeling when I'm writing to you? Get it? You're right, it doesn't. The word 'fun' should have been after 'have' and before 'knocking'. And the easy target is you. I still don't believe in gay marriage. Therefore, you haven't quite knocked anything. If you'd effectively won anything there is you think winnable in this discussion, surely I'd now be in a state where I'm no longer against gay marriage? If I'm honest, I'm far more against gay marriage than what I was 2 days ago. What's your issue? To provoke or to discuss? How? By what process? And what does it matter if it does? All ready explained. I doubt you'd pay any attention to the context though; the only areas of attention that interest you consist of areas where you can try and belittle and provoke someone. The P stands for personal. I'm talking about your argument - that's not personal. You getting all snippy and talking about anger issues and telling people to fuck off - that's personal. Because there is no good reason to be against it. Then we disagree. And, despite your efforts, my beliefs are only reinforced. Anything else? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

He'd do better if he was able to stop getting so emotional over the subject. It spoils the discussion. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Does Vortex know that you think he's a danger to others? There's something the way Vortex writes his arguments that makes it a whole lot of fun to completely destroy them. So, generally seaking, as long as he goes on, I go on. Unless I get bored with it when he inevitably breaks down into completely incoherent, self-contradictory outbursts. My argument is simply being against gay marriage. It never has changed. What is there to destroy? Perhaps, if you're so good at proving people to be wrong in their beliefs you should make yourself the official spokesmen for Gay Rights and quickly go about achieving the legitimacy of gay marriage throughout the world. How dare anyone have a belief Jakee disagrees with - he will destroy it - for fun! I'm still against gay marriage. Getting angrier? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Despite the fact that I disagree intently with your POV, I am impressed with your patience throughout this thread. The problem is, your viewpoint is not coherent. To speak for myself, your 'honest viewpoint' makes me angry because it's blatantly homophobic. Thanks. Although I take offence at being called homophobic. Is everyone against gay marriage homophobic? I've genuinely took time and effort to delve into the reasoning of why I'm against gay marriage. Would a homophobe do such a thing? I'd imagine they'd have their beliefs and have no reason to question or consider them to any extent. So, enough of the name calling. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

So that means... what? You accept that all of your previous arguments were wrong, since this new one is completely different? I've been against gay marriage from the start. "Get fucked." If there's anyone here who gets angry over the internet, that'd be you, sonny boy. I just have knocking over such an easy target. So I told Kallend to get fucked? And? Was I angry? I didn't tell him to get fucked because of his view point on gay marriage if that's what you're insinuating. You're last sentence doesn't make sense. What's an easy target got to do with anything? My beliefs are against gay marriage; I've made an effort to explain to people why. There is no debate; there is no competition. This is further reinforcement of your continual lack of tolerance for other peoples beliefs, and how they make you angry. Why is it undermining? How does it affect anyone elses marriage? It effects marriage as a whole. But you must believe that it does affect some straight people's marriages, otherwise you wouldn't think it a problem! Who knows? So you don't know. evidence that your original argument was a steaming pile of shit, and your new, sober, coherent argument that gay marriage is bad and civil unions ok is also a steaming pile of shit since you have no idea if there's any difference between the two in how they would affect a society. Nice editing, to reinforce your PA. If you feel inclined to believe my argument against gay marriage is a steaming pile of shit, that's fine. It doesn't anger, or even bother me in the slightest. Do you feel the same towards anyone who argues against gay marriage or is it all directed at me? It seems the former, as many other people are against gay marriage for similiar beliefs. I've told you already - and I have, so very much unlike you, given the same reason each time. Because my reason is a good one. Remind me; must be getting forgetful in my old age . . . 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Fairplay... not creating second class citizens.... treating all citizens the same no matter who they are. How are they second class citizens? They're only different through their abnormal sexuality? Why should an institution of husband and wife have to change to accomodate this abnormality? We can't treat all citizens the same, no matter who they are, because some are different. Why should we risk undermining marriage - in a culture where it's already breaking down with increasing frequency (and causing numerous social problems), with an abnormal minority? In that case, lets allow incestuous marriage - let's not even consider the implications of doing so! 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

You just can't help falling for the propaganda, can you? Even the author of the article admits that it was a pre-existing trend, and does nothing to demonstrate that the advent of same sex registered partnerships* has accelerated the pre-existing decline. * Didja read that bit, Champ? Not same sex marriage, which you are opposed to, but same sex registered partnerships, which you have said you are OK with! Are you arguing against yourself on purpose? Yes, I read that part. It only makes me question my earlier thoughts of tolerance towards gay civil unions. Further to that, it's fairly obvious there's an increasing trend of marriage breakdown in the Western world. That's the crux of the issue. I believe same sex marriage will increase this trend. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'