Blue
Junior Member
@bluejay
Posts: 1,317
Likes: 372
|
Post by Blue on Feb 19, 2017 5:40:11 GMT
Ha! Happy me! I've been divorced twice. Does that mean I'm twice as evil? Haha! Nope, just means that maybe three times is the charm!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2017 5:46:33 GMT
Ha! Happy me! I've been divorced twice. Does that mean I'm twice as evil? Haha! Nope, just means t!!hat maybe three times is the charm! Haha! Now that's funny!
|
|
|
Post by awhina on Feb 19, 2017 6:04:48 GMT
I know that - but there are always options with straight people. Homosexual marriages are sterile by nature. No they're not. A gay man can father a biological child and his partner can adopt it. A gay woman can give birth to a biological child and her partner can adopt it. 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.
|
|
|
Post by awhina on Feb 19, 2017 6:07:43 GMT
Sigh. Stop poking around in my private life. You know that I was married, and that my husband died in 2011. Your experience of divorce is relevant, but it's yours. Why do you feel the urge to be combative? My divorce (which didn't happen) is irrelevant. You seem to have not noticed that I said I really don't care whether homosexuals get married. I am not poking around in your private life. You constantly volunteer information for all to see making no longer private. Yes but you have also said some rather nasty things about homosexuals and you just said that heterosexuals who get divorced are in no better condition than homosexuals. I volunteered no information - just corrected your sneers. What I said about divorce is not what you claim that I said but that is usual with you.
|
|
j2
Sophomore
@j2
Posts: 628
Likes: 149
|
Post by j2 on Feb 19, 2017 6:14:55 GMT
Terrapin Station Sorry Terrapin but your fellow Leftard OldManVines has rendered me disinterested in having this discussion due to his abuse and bullshit. I can't be bothered explaining it in simple enough language for a Leftard to understand only for you to start abusing me as well. Gee, what a big loss! Poor bigots... people are always abusing them. @texcymbal is correct. There is underhanded abuse here. 'Attack' to say the least.
|
|
j2
Sophomore
@j2
Posts: 628
Likes: 149
|
Post by j2 on Feb 19, 2017 6:21:52 GMT
What is your culture? I must point out here that I am not an American which afaik most people on the board are... Swedish, a country with about 85 % agnostics and atheists. Christianity never succeded to truly take it's hold of us, the viking blood was to hard to wash away. Children that was born out of wedlock were legitimate if the parents at least got engaged. Untrue.
|
|
vomisacaasi
Sophomore
@vomisacaasi
Posts: 186
Likes: 44
|
Post by vomisacaasi on Feb 19, 2017 6:56:38 GMT
I am not poking around in your private life. You constantly volunteer information for all to see making no longer private. Yes but you have also said some rather nasty things about homosexuals and you just said that heterosexuals who get divorced are in no better condition than homosexuals. I volunteered no information - just corrected your sneers. What I said about divorce is not what you claim that I said but that is usual with you. Do you even pay attention to what you wright? Telling me you did not get a divorce is correcting me. Telling that he died and the year is volunteering information. It was not sneer. It was pointing out what I thought was hypocrisy. But I was wro.... had incorrect information and in this case you were not being hypocritical. Oh and by the way that is exactly what you said.
|
|
|
Post by awhina on Feb 19, 2017 7:20:36 GMT
I volunteered no information - just corrected your sneers. What I said about divorce is not what you claim that I said but that is usual with you. Do you even pay attention to what you wright? Telling me you did not get a divorce is correcting me. Telling that he died and the year is volunteering information. It was not sneer. It was pointing out what I thought was hypocrisy. But I was wro.... had incorrect information and in this case you were not being hypocritical. Oh and by the way that is exactly what you said. f Sigh.I volunteered no information as you already knew that I was married and when he died, you learned that on the other board. You are just trolling.
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Feb 19, 2017 8:30:35 GMT
Even with straight couples, for a very great number of them, marriage is not remotely religious. As for social and cultural, absolutely - but how would that disqualify gay couples? I didn't say that it does. You seem to have not noticed that I said that I don't care if gay men "get married". I didn't say anything about whether you cared or not, I addressed what you said. And you absolutely did disqualify gay couples marrying on these grounds: "Marriage is more than just a legal entity. It's social, cultural and religious." So you recognised only legal for gay couples, but that they aren't really married because marriage is also social, cultural and religious. So I ask again: As far as the social and cultural bits are concerned, how would that disqualify gay couples from being married "for real"? I mean, for you to not think of them as 4 year olds?
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Feb 19, 2017 8:38:44 GMT
Because marriage by definition is exclusively the union of a man and a woman. Period! Not a TV and a man or a corpse and a woman or a 2 year old and a man, or a dog and a woman. Why do you want to be part of a club that excludes you, Karl Aksel ? That's so retarded! Just like women infiltrating men clubs and boy soccer leagues, retarded, retarded! That's like Blacks whining to join the KKK or Jews the nazis! Retarded, retarded, retarded!!!! Get your own damn club! What are you talking about? Which club excludes me?
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Feb 19, 2017 8:47:01 GMT
What are you talking about? Which club excludes me? What are you talking about, what am I talking about? lost so quickly? If you could only answer the question. I suspect I know what the answer is, but I am savouring the moment.
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Feb 19, 2017 8:52:44 GMT
Are you now? I know what other things you like to savor. Sorry, sweetheart, learn to read! Scroll up and get a clue. Im not in the habit of helping libtards with brain fog and gay logic! No "clubs" have been discussed, or even mentioned, from which I have been excluded. Ohhhh, did you think I was gay, perhaps? Because I speak up for gay rights? Or did you perhaps mean it as some sort of insult? Either way, it speaks volumes of you.
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Feb 19, 2017 9:15:12 GMT
Only a gay takes a morbid, VESTED interest in gays' sexuality and supporting it. NORMAL, real men do not! And here I was, thinking I was speaking out for gay rights, rather than sexuality. By your logic, I should also be a lesbian, then. Also, by your logic, since you deem my interest as vested and morbid (I think you need to look that word up), simply by posting in this thread twice, I can only assume that your interest is equally "vested" and "morbid" - takes one to know one, after all. And, according to you, "real men" do not speak up for rights for demographics they do not themselves belong to. See how your logic just falls apart the moment you are made to explain it? I take it as an attempted insult, then. Oh, now I understand. You are simply posting in the wrong place. This is not Craigslist, honey. My apologies, it is so obvious now that we have sorted that out. Of course if you thought that this was Craigslist and guys here engaged in discussions about homosexuality, well... I can see how that might cause confusion for some people. So you are obviously a gay man yourself. Otherwise, why would you initiate a discussion with a man you thought were gay on what you thought were Craigslist? No skin off my nose, and I suppose I am flattered. But I just don't swing that way, and this is hardly the place anyway. Ok, you just went a little overboard with your trolling. I don't think I'll put you on ignore, though - I like a bit of slapstick.
|
|
|
Post by awhina on Feb 19, 2017 9:28:00 GMT
I didn't say that it does. You seem to have not noticed that I said that I don't care if gay men "get married". I didn't say anything about whether you cared or not, I addressed what you said. And you absolutely did disqualify gay couples marrying on these grounds: "Marriage is more than just a legal entity. It's social, cultural and religious." So you recognised only legal for gay couples, but that they aren't really married because marriage is also social, cultural and religious. So I ask again: As far as the social and cultural bits are concerned, how would that disqualify gay couples from being married "for real"? I mean, for you to not think of them as 4 year olds? Because as Silent Siren says marriage is the union of a man and a woman, to found a family rven if it's just the two of them. It will take another 60 years of threats and shouting "bigot" before homosexual marriage is culturally acceptable.
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Feb 19, 2017 9:32:41 GMT
^^^^ZZzzzzz Sorry did you mistake me for someone interested in reading a (badly written) novel? Oh dear. You thought that was long? 11 lines? Oh dear. Struck a nerve, did I? Ad hominem in all-caps, thinly veiled accusations of paedophilia, and the old "no, you're stupid". Yup, I say that is one struck nerve. Also hilarious given the previous paragraph, in which you said: "What are you, 8?" Don't let the door hit you on your way out of the closet.
|
|
|
Post by awhina on Feb 19, 2017 9:38:55 GMT
"Hets"? You rather gave yourself away there... What part of I don't care if homosexuals "get married" do you not get? Now your own ignorance and bigotry is showing. Giving myself away to what? It's not that you don't care, IT'S YOUR ATTITUDE YOU HAVE TOWARDS IT, AS THOUGH CERTAIN RIGHTS FOR PEOPLE ARE ONLY TAKEN SERIOUSLY IF IT SUITS YOUR OWN LIMITED AND NARROW OUTLOOK, ie) IN FAVOR OF SO CALLED SUPERIOR HETS. It's "het" bigots like you that screw up their kids, and you think that you are the only entitled ones. Creep! Well, well! What a temper tantrum! Bye bye...
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Feb 19, 2017 9:48:06 GMT
Because as Silent Siren says marriage is the union of a man and a woman, to found a family rven if it's just the two of them. Within specific religions, sure. But you also have religions where polygamy is allowed, and in countries where that is legal, your definition hardly fits. Even in our society, though, your definition is about a century out of date. Marriage is a romantic union between two people, and lots of people get married without having the slightest intention of having children. People still get married when they're in their 80s - you don't think that's proper either? Actually, what it will take is for conservatives to stop threatening and shouting "shame!" We have come a long way. I remember my 90s self, I was against gay marriage as well - for no better reason than it went against what I was accustomed to. Then I thawed up to gay marriage (civil unions), but was against gay couples adopting. For the same reasons. Now I am for gay people having children (by adoption or surrogate), though I am curious to see what the long term societal effects will be. I think it will work out fine, but for now - even in the most liberal of countries - let's face it, it is a bit of a social experiment. I am still for the rights of religious institutions to deny marrying gay couples, though. Club rules should be decided by the club board, not the people who want to be members. Perhaps, when I get married, I should go to a priest and demand an atheist ceremony. Wouldn't that be a laugh? Doesn't say in the Bible that atheists can't get married, does it?
|
|
j2
Sophomore
@j2
Posts: 628
Likes: 149
|
Post by j2 on Feb 19, 2017 9:57:55 GMT
Based on human nature, no homosexual union of any kind will ever be accepted as a norm by everyone.
|
|
|
Post by awhina on Feb 19, 2017 10:03:04 GMT
Because as Silent Siren says marriage is the union of a man and a woman, to found a family rven if it's just the two of them. Within specific religions, sure. But you also have religions where polygamy is allowed, and in countries where that is legal, your definition hardly fits. Even in our society, though, your definition is about a century out of date. Marriage is a romantic union between two people, and lots of people get married without having the slightest intention of having children. People still get married when they're in their 80s - you don't think that's proper either? Actually, what it will take is for conservatives to stop threatening and shouting "shame!" We have come a long way. I remember my 90s self, I was against gay marriage as well - for no better reason than it went against what I was accustomed to. Then I thawed up to gay marriage (civil unions), but was against gay couples adopting. For the same reasons. Now I am for gay people having children (by adoption or surrogate), though I am curious to see what the long term societal effects will be. I think it will work out fine, but for now - even in the most liberal of countries - let's face it, it is a bit of a social experiment. I am still for the rights of religious institutions to deny marrying gay couples, though. Club rules should be decided by the club board, not the people who want to be members. Perhaps, when I get married, I should go to a priest and demand an atheist ceremony. Wouldn't that be a laugh? Doesn't say in the Bible that atheists can't get married, does it? Your sneer about 80 year olds marrying showsthat you have not understood anything I said. Marriage is romance you say - what on earth is romantic about two men having sex and calling it marriage? You are quite happy for a generation of children to be completely messed up by being treated as commodities by bored jaded homosexuals and being bought and traded in the guise of 'adoption'? I am not the conservative y'all like to pretend that I am, buy I am old and glad I won't see the consequences in terms of mental health problems and social damage caused by treatment of children as fashion accessories by rich selfish gay men.
|
|
|
Post by awhina on Feb 19, 2017 10:04:38 GMT
Well, well! What a temper tantrum! Bye bye... Don't you like hearing it hard and clear, so then you go into denial? Yes, typical female trait. So you don't just loathe "hets" you are not a fan of women either.
|
|