- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 20,138
- Reactions
- 12,767
"the blacks still get to ride the bus, the just have to sit in the back, they have the same rights to get to the destination, whats the problem with that?"
I am just pointing out that tinks own cult participates in polygamy, which is one of the slippery slope arguments she used against gay marriage, and it also has a definition of marriage that goes beyond Tinks gold standard.
That's like saying.
"the blacks still get to ride the bus, the just have to sit in the back, they have the same rights to get to the destination, whats the problem with that?"
The Gold standard is in line with natural law and should stay as is for all future generations.
Encouraging broken families makes it a fallen society, and in need of government intervention.
There is no reason for the government to promote broken families or your lifestyle.
We have done this topic to death, and people that have made up their minds are not going to change, one way or the other.
Yeah but you want the bus modified to cater to the special needs of the blacks at the discomfort of the majority of commuters.....
What "rights" does marriage confer on anyone that they don't already have ?
What rights does sitting at the front of the bus give blacks that they didn't have before?
You are comparing apples with oranges, not valid.
Civil Unions vs Marriage, what is the practical difference ?
what modifications are you talking about?
and what would the discomfort be?
I dunno .... but after getting held hostage by the driver in a taxi in USA I'm not going to risk a trip on a fricken bus. I'll leave you to your expertise on the american blacks ... you certainly seem to have them on a pedestal and in high esteem as vanguards of the gay movement.
I dunno .... .
... you certainly seem to have them on a pedestal and in high esteem as vanguards of the gay movement
+1
Luutzu, I have never said Syd is not a decent person, I have stood up for Marriage and it's meaning.
To redefine Marriage affects us all, as was shown by an athiest, Brendan O'Neill, a champion of freedom of speech, and is not for a totalitarian regime.
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...t=3680&page=98&p=882822&viewfull=1#post882822
It is VC and Syd that have continuously gone on about the Catholic Church.
What has that got to do with this debate.
I have asked how same sex marriage benefits society -- it doesn't.
Morality is a part of our society, which is based on Christian principles.
Brendan O'Neill and Richard Dawkins are both atheists, and have locked horns on many occasions.
Dawkins is a fundamentalist
The religion thread is here if they want to talk about religion
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27938&page=57
Agree, Rumpole, we are all entitled to freedom of speech, and it is a concern when people try to shut you down with PC.
Yes. Imo, marriage/civil union is an agreement between two people. I don't see why government needs to interfere in either one of them unless they confer legal rights on others namely children.
So if people don't intend to have children, I see no difference between marriage & civil union.
Right or wrong, completely ridiculous or completely natural, or anywhere in between, gay marriage is going to happen. IMO just freakin pass it and get the issue out of the way.
But I gotta say this: The gay marriage lobby has gone ape shut with the ascent of Mal. We are being bombarded with pro gaiety on the ABC and FaceAche. So here it is - it's not about you. The hope for a Turnbull gumint is about getting our country back on track, so back the #### off.
You'll get your rights to marriage, but there is more important stuff and you are detracting from that.
This issue could have been resolved if Abbott had shown some bipartisan spirit.
.
Right. Blame the people being discriminated against for asking to be treated the same.
This issue could have been resolved if Abbott had shown some bipartisan spirit.
i agree it's not a top order issue, but it's also not insignificant.
The fact it could be so easily resolved and then the focus on the major challenges we're going to face over the next 18-24 months could happen, seems to have been lost on you.
Just for an experiment, try introducing your wife as your partner, and call your relationship a civil union. I'm sure people will give you a befuddled look.
Befuddled ? People's relationships with their partners are their own business. I don't really think people care whether others are married to their partners or not. I know people who have been together for years and haven't got married and there is nothing deficient about their relationships with each other.
I don't really think people care whether others are married to their partners or not. .
In my case there is a certain amount of care amongst my peers and friends ... they appear rather envious I am getting away with having a loving and beautiful woman companion and no ring on her finger (no way am I ever getting married in the future thankyou very much and she can live in her own house too!).
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?