vortexring

Ultimately my problem with gay marriage is that it's wrong. That's all - introduce your wonderful gay marriages to a species; see how well they do. That's the point. The gay factor is easily tolerated in todays day and age - but tolerance doesn't make it right. What makes it wrong is the fact that it is wrong. You wouldn't have the human race otherwise. Anything else would be unnatural. What's the fuck wrong with that? What's wrong with wishing to attract a mate from the opposite sex and spend your life with her/him? That's the way we're biologically engineered. If you wish to be married to the same sex/tractor/sheep then what hope do you have? It isn't exactly the way things were meant to be, is it? If you're so inclined to desire unnatural acts, then surely we've a society that can deal with your issues, rather than stick a red hot poker up your ass. But to normalise such issues? It's wrong. And all I've to say about people who'd wish gay marriages in their societies is that they're fuckin' massively stupid liberals. Ya boo! '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.'

Yeah. '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.'

Really. What exactly is your teacher-type contribution to these arguments other than your expression of shit cunt. Delightful.

Blimey. Seems that thread died a death. Point still remains; would be delighted to hear about the marriage concept on this one - my status is neither here nor there - did that little fact make everyone abandon the argument? Bollox to that - forget me. Gay marriage is wrong - to say otherwise is foolish. '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 these days mate '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'd other opinions that were also wrong too. I just said gay marriage is wrong. Wrong for the individuals, their society and their children. 'Cos it's wrong. Yep. A long time I was too. Now seperated and getting divorced 'cos my ex-missus thinks i'm a PTSD loon. Now doesn't that give weight to my argument?

There are none there that haven't already been rebutted. Simple. It's unnatural. I'd rather not tolerate such acts. That 'you'd rather not' is not a good enough reason. You don't get to overturn other people's rights because they want to do something that makes you feel a bit funny even though it doesn't directly affect you in any way. Again, the difference between fascism and freedom. Don't think so - the majority of our societies would rather not tolerate it either. That in itself is a perfectly good argument. I want to see men in my society. Ladies. Not fucking pampering gay boys, butch dykes. Exactly. What harm could it do? Well? And why wouldn't it not cause harm? Murder involves harming a non-consenting human being in precisely the way that gay marriage doesn't. Are you really going to try and equate the two? Y'know, I'd almost like to see you try. The relationship is that both are wrong. If you wish your children to grow up in a society where simple things such as natural attraction to the opposite sex are muted, then crack on. I'd rather we went about things the NATURAL way; if there's the odd character who's a little bit bent then of course, we can tolerate that. But to the extent of af marriage? No. I'd rather see a society where men and women are naturally attracted to each other, not one where fucking idiots say it's perfectly normal for the same sexes to be married to one another. 'Cos it's wrong. '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.'

Ok, I want to make frogs the leaders of my religious cult. I believe they should have, at the very least, as equal rights as humans. It's my human right to believe in froggy gods, to why the fuck can't they have human rights, similiar to me and you? Do you dare defy the frog believers for fuck sake? >Why not also include other deviant elements of sexuality? I'm all for that! If you want your fiancee to do something unnatural - tie you up, dress like a cowboy, have sex in the missionary position, even (gasp!) not have kids - I think you should still be able to marry her. What's the missionary position you depraved perv? Seriously though, my point still remains, if you wish to make light of it, then shame on you. '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.'

Uh-huh, and are they breeding together? Is it the majority of the animals or the minority? Please also provide evidence of animals partnering together permanently. Animals partnering the same sex for life is abnormal; if they were to do so they'd soon cease to exist. That's Billy-fuckin-basic mate. I'm surprised you're struggling over this. '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 wont, because you haven't. What is wrong with consenting adults entering into whatever gender-combination longterm partnership of their choice? Use 'back' for answers. Simple. It's unnatural. I'd rather not tolerate such acts. See the 'back' key. And isn't there a good reason not to allow homosexual weddings? Duh! Of course not, what harm could it do! And whilst we're at it ... what other unnatural acts can we think of to bring into everyday life, because, because, these things are happening!! They're natural - we must tolerate them, and ... and ... Fair enough. Why not allow murder? The human race will still go on as described . . . . '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.'

Because it can make two consenting adults very happy without adversely affecting anyone else in any way. How could anybody say it's wrong? How could anybody say it's right?. I've told you why. You haven't provided any counter to my reason why it is right, and you haven't addressed my counter of your argument why it's wrong. It appears that you've completely stalled and all you have left is shouting "wrong wrong wrong!" until everyone else back away slowly and leaves you alone. No. My points have been made continually through-out the last several pages. Addressing your argument of consenting adults, with the use of your backspace key, you'll be able to view my points. Next? '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.'

Sucks to post on an open forum then, doesn't it. Hence the reason you spend the majority of your adult life here, with your wonderful one-liners, eh? C'mon. My motivation is to discuss the topic, yet I'm always drawn into a sly 'non-personal attacking' slagging match. I'm sorry, but that's akin to your modus-operandi. I'd rather just discuss the topic without the lack of integrity we're seeing. Sometimes I therefore feel like telling somebody to...well, you know what. Because I'd tell the person to do so in real life if I suspected such underhand tactics. And you know what the outcome would be too. Now. Are we going to discuss the topic, or are you going to revert to your standard childish point taking? '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.'

Because it can make two consenting adults very happy without adversely affecting anyone else in any way. How could anybody say it's wrong? How could anybody say it's right?. (and so it goes . . .) '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 can say it's right. I don't think it's abnormal. There now we have two people with differing opinions. Back to where we started. If anybody in this debate is abnormal, it's you.... So if all of a sudden animals started pairing with other animals, permanently, you'd call this normal? '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.'

No. If I make an effort to argue points with an individual, I expect counter arguments to these points first, rather than counter arguments I've made to somebody else. Whilst it's entirely an idividuals right to pick and chose who and what to argue against, why muddy the waters by picking other points? Then it does very quickly become drivel. And of course, advocating against same sex marriage is drivel isn't it? Almost akin to everything else you've a counter point to; simply drivel. Cheers prof . . . '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.'

But being gay is neither a religion or an ethnicity, so why put it amongst these? Why not also include other deviant elements of sexuality?

Perhaps some people may try it and enjoy it? Ladies certainly enjoy it in my experience but what kind of point is that? What kind of point do you have by stating you don't care if it's wrong or right? It isn't the ACT that 's wrong. It's the permanent binding of two gay people that's being discussed - it's abnormal. How could anybody say it's right? Hellooooooooooo??? '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.'

It's hilarious that you think you're somehow winning this, or that you've set up any kind of situation you think I need to bail myself out of. You've made an assertion. You have not supported it in anyway. What makes you thik you have the high ground here?[/reply] What makes you think you've the high ground? Where is the high ground? '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 problem with Jakee is that he takes replies you've made to others, twists them into it his own points, and then becomes critical of your replies, whilst insinuating factors towards yourself he's also insinuated towards you. It's a bit pointless, but it's also his SOP. And who really cares, right? '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 lose. Perhaps I do? But let's look at your context; you're the one who suggested I was inclined for a private debate through your misinterpretation of my posts. I've no intention of private debate. If it's a win/loss situation in your eyes, then I guess you're the loser. Hence the profanity. '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.'

Perhaps an aspect of this discussion worth bringing to the fore is peoples perception of marriage. To me, it's the permanent binding of a male and female to be forever faithful to their partner. Now if they're gay, how can a species survive? So should we tolerate a minority of gay marriages within our society? To what purpose? to appease them? To demonstrate our modern tolerance to gay social members? After all that's been accepted, what's next? There will certainly be a next - and I'd be forthright enough to say you'd be foolish to think differently. It can be argued religion has nothing to do with this. But why tolerate an abnormality and make it normal? '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.'

Yes, please do! So to re-iterate just one that you've dodged; if no-one had children the species wouldn't last very long either. So why don't you want to force every single person to have children? You've no need to reiterate anything I've dodged. I don't have to force anything. People will have children; it's what comes natural to them. People will have gay relationships; it 's what comes natural to them too. I won't advocate gay marriages though, because that is unnatural. You're not gay, are you? '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.'

Get fucked. I'd like someone to have the common courtesy to address the points I've made to them if I'm to then make the effort to counter their points. Who ever mentioned anything about privacy ffs? '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 difference between pedophiles and gay people is that gay adults are in a consensual relationship. Pedophiles harm children. You cannot compare the two. As the man said in his speech, that there should not be any reason that two consenting adults shouldn't have the right to marry. And further more, homosexual experiences are the common, not uncommon. And, many adolescents have experienced a homosexual encounter. Even my own mother, who is straight as an arrow, kissed another girl when she was 12. She recalls "practicing" for when she would have her first kiss with a boy. This is an excellent article of what I am talking about. http://www.pixelconsumpton.com/infant-and-child-sexuality/some-homosexual-encounters.html Your mother practiced kissing with girls and she's as straight as an arrow? Fuck my old boots, what are you using for arrows? Bananas? You cannot describe some differences between my examples, and tell me I can't compare the two, without addressing the points I did make. Otherwise it becomes a bit of a gangfuck of a debate. Further to that - please go back and read what I've written. Did I ever say homosexual acts were unnatural? '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.'

A specific person or group (religion) might consider immoral to include same sex activity which obviously happen out in mother nature. Another person or group (religion) may consider one animal unnecessarily killing another in a fight, to be immoral. Or both is. Or neither is. That's why I say there's debate of what 'immoral' means, in this context... This topic doesn't have much to do with what's immoral to be fair. If the black swans, as discussed earlier, don't mate to produce offspring, there's no more black swans. Such a key fundemental part of a species can't go unrecognised. Say for example scientists observed black swans were no longer mating as male and female - what would they say, to describe this, in simple language? They'd say: Somethings fucking wrong with the black swans . . . '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.'