althea
Sophomore
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
@althea
Posts: 105
Likes: 10
![](http://storage.proboards.com/6692551/images/CTEdkGf0wmfSETIzYiXk.gif)
|
Post by althea on Feb 20, 2017 1:44:17 GMT
Maybe they should just call it something different than married to make everyone happy. Call it 'hitched' or something like that. Get a word different than married but make it so they still get the same rights as real married people. No. Absolutely f-ing no. Should we call interracial marriage something else because there were small-minded bigots opposed? Of course not. One law for all people. Anything else is institutionalizing abuse. What do you think Trump would be doing if he could treat women, ethnicities, or religious beliefs separately in law? Here in Canada, when former PM Paul Martin floated 'civil unions', the public shouted him down and he apologized within a week, promising equal marriage. Separate law is not acceptable to decent people. In Australia, marriage law is a federal thing and civil unions are a state thing. Some states have civil unions (Queensland is the one that jumps to mind), but I believe they're more utilised by heterosexual couples who don't want to get married. In fact, I believe that was their point, rather than appeasing gay marriage activists with a "different version" of marriage law as they have been used in other places.
|
|
skyhawk0
Sophomore
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
Gonna be busy awhile before I can look at being active here, but good to stay in touch with you all!
@skyhawk0
Posts: 114
Likes: 39
![](http://storage.proboards.com/6692551/images/CTEdkGf0wmfSETIzYiXk.gif)
|
Post by skyhawk0 on Feb 20, 2017 1:45:06 GMT
Ain't google translate great. No, not very great. Google translate doesn't do dialects or spoken swedish, in which I wrote. And why would I lie? Clearly, he's presuming you're as morally deficient as he is. Imagine how horrible his life is, presuming everyone is like that.
|
|
|
Post by Hauntedknight87 on Feb 20, 2017 1:46:19 GMT
No
|
|
skyhawk0
Sophomore
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
Gonna be busy awhile before I can look at being active here, but good to stay in touch with you all!
@skyhawk0
Posts: 114
Likes: 39
![](http://storage.proboards.com/6692551/images/CTEdkGf0wmfSETIzYiXk.gif)
|
Post by skyhawk0 on Feb 20, 2017 1:52:48 GMT
No. Absolutely f-ing no. Should we call interracial marriage something else because there were small-minded bigots opposed? Of course not. One law for all people. Anything else is institutionalizing abuse. What do you think Trump would be doing if he could treat women, ethnicities, or religious beliefs separately in law? Here in Canada, when former PM Paul Martin floated 'civil unions', the public shouted him down and he apologized within a week, promising equal marriage. Separate law is not acceptable to decent people. In Australia, marriage law is a federal thing and civil unions are a state thing. Some states have civil unions (Queensland is the one that jumps to mind), but I believe they're more utilised by heterosexual couples who don't want to get married. In fact, I believe that was their point, rather than appeasing gay marriage activists with a "different version" of marriage law as they have been used in other places. That makes sense. I remember when 'civil unions' came up, that was touted as one aspect of them in a few US states. I have no problem with a separate government institution, so long as all such institutions are open to all equally. We had 'civil unions' here in Canada, notably in Québec, but such was considered a short-term fix with the idea that such had to be addressed federally soon. It was when the idea of federal 'civil unions' came up that it became about entrenching separate law rather than a provincial fix for a gap in federal law.
|
|
j2
Sophomore
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
@j2
Posts: 628
Likes: 149
![](http://storage.proboards.com/6692551/images/CTEdkGf0wmfSETIzYiXk.gif)
|
Post by j2 on Feb 20, 2017 2:52:46 GMT
Well if you say so, but none of it makes it true. There are TWO 'sexes' in [normal] nature: Male and Female. People can call 'Red' 'Green' if they want to; it doesn't mean the colors are changed. Your ignorance doesn't define reality. The intersexed, people with genitals from both sexes, have existed throughout time. As a normal occurrence in nature?
|
|
|
Post by Matthew the Swordsman on Feb 20, 2017 2:53:42 GMT
I think gay people should get married, that way they aren't living in sin.
|
|
j2
Sophomore
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
@j2
Posts: 628
Likes: 149
![](http://storage.proboards.com/6692551/images/CTEdkGf0wmfSETIzYiXk.gif)
|
Post by j2 on Feb 20, 2017 3:03:18 GMT
In your mind it does, but it is not truth. You can try to (re)define an entire dictionary to fit what you think is true, but truth remains truth and false remains false. You are speaking falseness. You speak of ignorance, bigotry and striving to being a better person, and yet look at your kind of response. That response does not change truth either regardless of how you try to twist it. ![:D](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/grin.png) Oh, the irony! No, no one else is trying to redefine words. Don't project your lack of integrity onto others. You were shown the meaning of the word. Whining and pretending you weren't won't change that. I understand your enthusiasm trying to defend your cause, but what you say is wrong and the way you do it is wrong. Re-read the posts carefully. If anyone happens to think against your opinions you get very angry, especially where truth [unpleasant to you] is involved.
|
|
j2
Sophomore
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
@j2
Posts: 628
Likes: 149
![](http://storage.proboards.com/6692551/images/CTEdkGf0wmfSETIzYiXk.gif)
|
Post by j2 on Feb 20, 2017 3:04:59 GMT
No, not very great. Google translate doesn't do dialects or spoken swedish, in which I wrote. And why would I lie? Clearly, he's presuming you're as morally deficient as he is. Imagine how horrible his life is, presuming everyone is like that. You guys are a laugh.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2017 3:36:57 GMT
RE: The asexual discussion a couple of pages. The term used in current popular use is an umbrella term and exists on a spectrum link
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Feb 20, 2017 4:27:34 GMT
It's not about how I define it or redefine it; I don't try to and its real definition remains clear.[/quote] Well, obviously not, or we wouldn't be having this conversation. If you believe there's a "real" definition, then that would of course be your definition as well. After all, why would you hold to a definition you believed to be different from the "real" one? So once again, how would you define asexual? That is rather central to the issue, if you are to dismiss other definitions the way you have. Unless you have a better suggestion yourself, your dismissal of the other ones doesn't count for much.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2017 5:07:04 GMT
@ oldsamvines That is not what I have heard about Homosexual marriage in Canada. I will also add that the Homo's have been really annoying here in Australia about this and as a result they have pissed a lot of people off. In fact we were supposed to have a plebiscite on this topic this year but as they now fear they will lose this they are trying to push the Govt just to make it legal. So no. Fuck them. ![:D](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/grin.png) Nice revisionism. And in Australia, majority support for equal marriage has been standard in polls for some time now. It's reality you don't like. Don't go blaming that on gays. The polls!!! Pffft. Is that when they ask all their mates the same question to get a result they like?
|
|
|
Post by awhina on Feb 20, 2017 7:04:46 GMT
How can deliberately robbing a child of its mother and half its heritage, and pretending that some unrelated male who may not even stay around for 6 months after the transaction in which the child is bought be anything other than detrimental? "Robbing"? What "robbing"? Are you opposed to adoption and surrogacy for straight couples too, then? Yes I am against surrogacy which is simply exploitation and I am against stranger adoption. But it's worse when done by homosexuals as they are deliberately robbing the child of a mother concealing even her existence as Michael Jackson did.
|
|
|
Post by awhina on Feb 20, 2017 7:19:36 GMT
How can deliberately robbing a child of its mother and half its heritage, and pretending that some unrelated male who may not even stay around for 6 months after the transaction in which the child is bought be anything other than detrimental? Can you make an argument against gay marriage that also can't be made against straight marriage? So far you've said "it's not romantic". I know plenty of straight marriages that are not romantic. You've said the child might be robbed of its mother. Plenty of straight marriages do that. You've said the other partner might not stick around. Plenty of straight marriages do that. Is there ANY argument that doesn't apply equally? Homosexual relationships are solely about sex not romance - ever. Straight marriage by definition includes a man and a woman so don't rob a child of the mother which homosexual marriage does by design.
|
|
|
Post by awhina on Feb 20, 2017 7:23:19 GMT
He can beget a child but only by paying a woman, thus going outside the marriage and subjecting the child to a lifetime of pretence. What utter bull. You cannot grasp the idea of people doing things out of the kindness of their hearts or gay couples working together to be blessed with children? So you think that all homosexual men get children from women who give birth to children and hand them over never to be seen again? On TV soap operas maybe but ot in reality.
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Feb 20, 2017 7:23:35 GMT
Homosexual relationships are solely about sex not romance - ever. How did you become such an expert? It happens. Sometimes male homosexual couples will arrange something with female homosexual couples.
|
|
|
Post by awhina on Feb 20, 2017 7:28:10 GMT
I don't know what you have or haven't done. Kindly repeat the question. . We're talking days and a heap of trolling ago. Re "I don't know what you have or haven't done"--I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with divorce. You suggested that children of divorce would think there is something inherently wrong with divorce. So it follows that you must be assuming that I didn't have parents who got divorced, since you believe that children of divorce believe there is something inherently wrong with it. Re the question I asked, it was this: "how are you figuring that gay couples who have been legally married are not socially/culturally married? " I have been answering that question over the past few days.
|
|
|
Post by awhina on Feb 20, 2017 7:47:37 GMT
Straight, gay, bisexual, asexual... I make that four already. How bizarre! Male and female arw real, all else is habit or taste.
|
|
|
Post by awhina on Feb 20, 2017 7:56:28 GMT
This thread has become heartbreaking to read. I did not choose to be gay. I have tried to have heterosexual relationships. I simply do not find women sexually attractive. I spent many years being celibate as I felt that was the better alternative than to seek male companionship due to my family's and my personal beliefs. But you know what, that is a horrible and lonely way to live. I'm young, attractive, have money, own a home, and am extremely dedicated to family. How is it wrong to want to find a partner and to eventually get married and have kids? In my case, rather than father my own children, I want to adopt. I want to take an unwanted child that was a result of a hetero coupling and to give him or her a permanent home. Now explain to me, how is that a degradation to society or to the institution of marriage? Hetero couples get married and divorce at the drop of a hat. Hetero couples cheat on each other. Het couples abandon their children. Het couples adopt. Het couples hire surrogates. Het couples have open marriages where they sleep with other people. Het couples practice sodomy. Het couples have loveless marriages. Het couples sometimes marry just for citizenship status. Now how does that not degrade the "institution of marriage" that you value so much? If or when I do get married, it will be a real, legal marriage. If or when I have children, they will be my children and they would be my real family. You can burrow your head in the sand and actively dislike it all you want. But by making it your business to refer to my marriage as a "marriage" or my family as my "family". you're not just insulting me, you would be insulting my children and the 22,000+ children adopted by gay couples in the United States alone. Children that would have otherwise remain unwanted. So think about that the next time you want to go out of your way to invalidate a family with same-sex parents. Do you want to know why I want to get married to my partner? It's not because I want to play dress-up and "pretend" to have a family. Legal marriage comes with legal benefits. If I were to be rushed to the emergency room today, my partner would not be allowed in to see me. But if we were married, he would be the first one allowed in. If we were married, I could put him under my health insurance. We would get a tax break. We would get discounts on home and auto insurance. If we were married, he would be my next of kin. So if I died he would not have to worry about the finances, our home, his right to plan and be at my funeral, etc. Because those things come with the benefit of marriage. The way that some of you talk about gay people marrying is like how people don't like interracial marriage. It's sickening. A lot of your opinions are understandable and you are entitled to them but if you re-read what you are saying it's coming from a place of hate and disgust. Every time you are talking this way about a gay person you are referring to me as well. I may not fit the negatively stereotypical depiction of a gay man, but I am still gay. Even if I chose to be celibate again, I would still be gay. I think I'm just going to avoid threads like this from now on because while I like a lot of you, I don't like this aspect of you. I am really sorry that you think it's hate that we feel, it's not. There's so much I could say about your other points but not here.
|
|
|
Post by awhina on Feb 20, 2017 8:00:55 GMT
"Swedish, a country with about 85 % agnostics and atheists." --> Not true. "Christianity never succeded to truly take it's hold of us, the viking blood was to hard to wash away. ..." --> Not true. Prove otherwise. This will be fun to watch. Actually by the way, my father's family has Viking blood as well which although he was atheist didn't stop the rest of the family from being Christian.
|
|
|
Post by awhina on Feb 20, 2017 8:03:55 GMT
Dogs mate to reproduce, all animals do. You picked a bad example! In animals it's all about hormones, they don't mate all year round. If Swedes don't believe in families that goes a long way towards explaining your very high rate of depression and suicide! How can a father who has moved out and is with another woman, continue to be a father the way he used to be? When his son cries in the night in terror will be get out of bed and travel across the city to comfort his child? Marriage is about children. I went out very briefly with a Swedish man who had his children with him, he'd stolen them from under their mother's nose and brought them across the world to New Zealand (he was found and got into trouble, because contrary to what he believed, his children were entitled to a mother.) His excuse that he hadn't married the woman didn't work with either his government or ours. What a shocker, Ada has another anecdote which just so happens to back up the point she's trying to make. There's no one called Ada here and anecdote does not mean false.
|
|