- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 20,147
- Reactions
- 12,786
There is no point in posting the opinions of children . They can be manipulated and moulded to do the bidding of whoever has control over them.
Last edited by a moderator:
Kids React to Gay marriage.
There is no point in posting the opinions of children . They can be manipulated and moulded to do the bidding of whoever has control over them.
Yes the only thing missing was the unicorn .... I wonder how the little bigots would react to this:
Yes the only thing missing was the unicorn .... I wonder how the little bigots would react to this:
Nasty post.
I know how i would respond to such bigoted nonsense. I would respond by saying if that level of debate is the best you can come up with then you have lost the argument.
The inference appears to be that because some individual sexually abuses a child of the same gender we should not allow gay marriage. That is about as poor an argument as ... well suggesting asia might think less of us.
Lets be quite clear where the vast majority of rape and sexual assault of children by adults has occurred - inside the catholic church, by those NOT allowed to be married to anyone, let alone to another of the same gender.
If we want to reduce the risk of homosexual rape of children then we would do best by stopping men from becoming priests rather than stopping them marrying other men.
It would be more productive to simply stick to the central question, should we continue to discriminate against gay people by not allowing them to partake of the state act of marriage? (which by the way has nothing to do with religion.)
The majority of people do not support the continuing discrimination, our general legal principles of anti-discmination do not allow it, (the discrimination in this case has had to be specifically legislated for in the Marraige Act.) and it is this question which should be considered. Not all the red herrings that the religious fundamentalists and ultra-conservatives seek to distract the discussion with.
Oh come on, It's OK for you gays to use effete individuals in support, but get upset if the it goes against your entrenched , intransigent views (i.e bigotry)? It's a disgrace using children as exploitive propaganda, but then it just reinforces the concern for minors in the company of certain people..... where are child services when they are needed
Spare me the melodrama about using children as exploitive propoganda, that long predates the push for the removal of discrimination on the basis of sexuality. In fact the church has been an artful exponent of exploiting children for propoganda, as has just about every marketing company in history and polititians of all colour and ilk.
My views are not "entrenched or intransigent" (and by the way that is not what "bigotry" means
. In fact the church has been an artful exponent of exploiting children for propoganda, as has just about every marketing company in history and polititians of all colour and ilk.
Bigotry is driven by entrenched and intransigent views that make no provision to listen to a counter argument. You are guilty of that in your desire to promote your lifestyle choice that feeds on the destruction of established norms.
Insofar as the church, you are guilty of using the hackneyed strawman excuse yourself to justify one wrong making another wrong acceptable. The opening scenes of Tropic Thunder make an obvious statement about how many in the roman (and probably other chaste orders) church apparently behave. Men fiddling with boys behind the pulpit is male on male, it is logically homosexual behaviour, without mutual consent, a depraved act that for some magical reason becomes acceptable when a boy is still a boy at 18 years or so old (we males all know the true age when we become mature and it isn't in our teens).
Men fiddling with boys behind the pulpit is male on male, it is logically homosexual behaviour, without mutual consent, a depraved act that for some magical reason becomes acceptable when a boy is still a boy at 18 years or so old
Why do we need to know your sexuality? Who cares.
No one walks around introducing themselves as hetero female, hetero male.
These labels are getting ridiculous.
Male, female, that's enough.
No, no reason to mention things that are private, but the gays are making sure that all this is now public.
Nothing like hair colour, you see it.
Men fiddling with boys behind the pulpit is male on male, it is logically homosexual behaviour, without mutual consent, a depraved act that for some magical reason becomes acceptable when a boy is still a boy at 18 years or so old (we males all know the true age when we become mature and it isn't in our teens).
If I didn't explain myself properly the first time.
i agree, sexuality should be at the same level as hair colour or your height
How can sexuality be the same as hair colour when it is a private thing.
I see your hair colour, I don't need to know your sexuality.
We don't need labels.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?