vortexring

Go figure. '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'm sure they wouldn't actually. But then, the courts (and the laws) condone all sorts of things I thing are totally immoral (income taxes, for example), and at the same time condemn all sorts of things I think are totally fine (recreational drug use, for example). So what's your point? We disregard the law? Man-made laws sure, but mother natures? What was it that Gandhi said about unjust laws? I don't believe that mother nature has laws we can break. Physical laws aside, what we perceive as "natural" law is pretty much just our perception. I'm pretty sure that nature will not be outraged if I go out and have sex with a horse or a monkey tonight. Nature certainly isn't going to be very concerned if I have sex with a man. Now my wife, she may have something to say about those things. Er, I'd like to think so! Natural and un-natural laws aren't just what we perceive though. I can get certain tree sap, put it into a pool, and by intoxicating the salmon, lift them out and take them off down to the fishmonger. Now, how did I know about that? How did my fore-fathers find out? Is it un-natural? They discovered this through it happening in nature. Is homosexual acts in themselves un-natural? Of course not. But perversions of what makes our species survive is un-natural; such as same sex marriages. Poaching every salmon pool in the nature described would also be un-natural. I'm all for tolerance; sometimes a line has to be drawn though. '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, I would not. Only a certified retard too stupid to use a keyboard would genuinely think that is what I meant. If you're going to keep intentionally misinterpreting people I'm not sure what you're hoping to get out of this exchange apart from your own humiliation. FUCKING classic from Jakee! Utterly PMSL. Such a strongly opinioned retort from a method of insinuation you previously used on me. Although I didn't get upset as you, did I? Yes, I do have a great argument. Which is obviously why you're avoiding it. Of course, of course. Deal with the points addressed to you or shut ya lip dingdong!

I'm sure they wouldn't actually. But then, the courts (and the laws) condone all sorts of things I thing are totally immoral (income taxes, for example), and at the same time condemn all sorts of things I think are totally fine (recreational drug use, for example). So what's your point? We disregard the law? Man-made laws sure, but mother natures? '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, not because you disagree with same sex marriage, but because you say homosexuality is wrong. 'Right' in what way? Animals aren't usually known for their grasp of morality. Even if that were so, so what? You're using the behaviour of murdering Islamic zealots in Afghanistan as support for your argument? You won't get much traction with that one. Context laddie, context. Stop taking points addressed to others and using it for your own counter arguments. deal with the points addressed to yourself, and then, if it's suitable, pick up on other points. That's simple manners. But of course, why are you wrong!! Who said you're wrong?? blablabla You're always going off on tangents - have you banged your head recently? You're arguing against un-natural acts' saying: so what? (!) You're critical of my Afghan example - as I am - but missed the context entirely. Go to bed - it must be late for 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.'

We have seen that very thing, so I guess you'll acknowledge that you've been wrong and homosexual marriage isn't wrong or unnatural after all. didn't you read the part where the male and female have an offspring together, before the male chases the female away ffs!!? Yes I did, and that in no way makes the male-male relationship any less permanent. By the standard of proof that you set forth, you've been proven wrong. Are you going to be mature enough to admit it? If the relationship is permanent, how on earth would the male swan mate with the female to produce offspring? It's rather evident who'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.'

Anything that consenting adults choose to do between themselves can't be wrong. It's their choice to live as they wish. Anything? What if they decide to throw a dice with the results being death? Evens, guy kills girl, Odds, girl kills guy? If they are all consenting? Sure, have at it. That's none of my business. Yep, and I'm sure the Courts would see it exactly as 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.'

We have seen that very thing, so I guess you'll acknowledge that you've been wrong and homosexual marriage isn't wrong or unnatural after all. didn't you read the part where the male and female have an offspring together, before the male chases the female away 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.'

Anything that consenting adults choose to do between themselves can't be wrong. It's their choice to live as they wish. Anything? What if they decide to throw a dice with the results being death? Evens, guy kills girl, Odds, girl kills guy? '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 I'll ask again - So what? We're talking about gay marriage, not about forcing everyone to be gay. I'm not sure why you're confused about that. I'll also make the point again, 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? Sure. Why not? Where it stops being a case of two (or more) consenting adults not hurting anyone, and starts involving non-consenting parties. It's really very simple. Ok. So you'd advocate a ruling that nobodies allowed children anymore - because it's not wrong. Great argument mate.

I'm a homophobe. Of course, what else could I be? Everyone who disagrees with same sex marriage must be homophobic, right? Fuck off! If it's so right, why haven't we a homosexual species from the animal kingdom that pair for life, such as swans for example? To advocate the permanency is against nature. That's what makes it wrong. What's so difficult about that? As to religion; what a lot of nonsense that is; in Afghanistan, they'd regularly excecute men in gay relationships, yet every Thursday evening they'd be off having their bum nights . . . even these fuckers were able to see the difference between having a simple sexual encounter to a permanent relationship. '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'm reasonably tolerant of gay people. The can't help the fact they're attracted to the same sex, so why repress it? But the marriage of gay people is wrong. What world do you live in? Everybody has to be 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.'

What makes it wrong? It is difficult, because there does not seem to be any example. Where is it? There are a whole load of things we didn't have in human society until recently,* is everything that's new wrong? *Gay marriage is not one, there are examples of that going a few thousand years back. What makes it wrong is simple. If you've a species that's gay, you won't have that species for very long, will you? It's abnormal. If you advocate same sex marriages, then why not advocate other elements of sexuality that's abnormal? where do you draw the line? '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.'

Do you not realise that there is a difference between a child and a consenting adult? What do you think? I think that you do not, otherwise you could not possibly have used the argument you did. I have, and now I am again. Sorry, you haven't. Please justify 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.'

There are numerous cases of homosexuality and bisexuality in the animal kingdom. Please provide a link to homosexual animal marriages, in fact, any animal marriage for that matter. . . . Oh my dear Lord in heaven. you're serious, aren't you? for the first time...i'm speechless. I have no words. I'm gonna go join the dudeism movement and just give up. it's hard to care anymore when i read statements like that. As for not calling it a marriage, who the fuck cares, it's a WORD. If you want to call it a civil union, fine, just don't bitch and moan when you see how much the government will have to spend to change the language in EVERY SINGLE LAW that mentions "married", "spouse", "husband", or "wife". Because if you don't think some insurance company is going to deny coverage of a "civil union partner" because the law says "wife" and the civil union happens to be two men...well, you need to come back to the real world. I'm in the real world. What are you getting so upset about? I believe Gay marraige to be wrong. I'm not anti-gay; but marrying gay people is akin to marrying humans with animals. 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.'

There is everything right about two adults who love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together being allowed to get married, whether they be the same sex or not. I don't see it as a gays versus straights issue; I see it as an equal rights for all people issue. In which post(s) did you offer such examples? Can you point them out? (Post numbers are fine; there's no need to link to them.) I missed them. Have a look yourself - it isn't difficult. It's the marriage that's wrong. It's the normalisation of something that's wrong, that's wrong! Whenever in human society did we have gay weddings? It's wrong. Sorry, I'm not religious. '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 marriage is wrong? Pay more attention to the context. '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.'

Do you not realise that there is a difference between a child and a consenting adult? What do you think? More importantly; address the last point I made to you, not the point I made to someone 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.'

There are numerous cases of homosexuality and bisexuality in the animal kingdom. Please provide a link to homosexual animal marriages, in fact, any animal marriage for that matter. . . . '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'm fascinated to know how you come to your conclusion that same sex marriages are right. You're the one that brought nature into the equation. I gave you an example of nature and sexuality, and where it's fundamentally 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.'

In the sense you're putting it into you're not wrong. But your sense is wrong, in the context that there's elements of sexuality that is wrong. That in itself leads to a logical conclusion. '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'm not saying it's not natural; it's just wrong. Do you argue for peadophiles? Some people are naturally attracted to children - should we allow adults to marry children? '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.'

Of course it is. But I reckon you should try a bowl, just the same. You'll be off to work in your car like Button in Brazil - with some cataclysmic behavioural changes in between - and you'll save yourself in your monthly food bill!

So? I don't dislike straight people, I just think that imposing their will on a society is not what the constitution is all about. I don't dislike right-handed people, I just think that imposing their will on a society is not what the constitution is all about. I don't dislike male people, I just think that imposing their will on a society is not what the constitution is all about. why is it ok for a majority to impose their will on society? our country was set up in a way so that the will of the majority doesn't overwrite the rights of a minority. THAT'S what the constitution is all about. How far will it go? Male people aren't fundamentally wrong. Neither are left or right handed people. Straight people are fundamentally right. You might as well support rather immoral people, who're quite rightly in the minority, if you're going to go down that road. '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.'

Nah, I prefer it that way; how could I justify having a macho c/s like Gunslinger that you guys love? I'd end up being called Fister or something . . . Still, to be honest we're going down that road with formation c/s's, such as when we're working as a 2 ship, etc. Sod that - we should only allow comical formation c/s's!! '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.'