Puke has been by far the most aggressive person in this thread.
Play Nice Society, Religion & Politics Thread
- Thread starter Borough Blood
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Puke has been by far the most aggressive person in this thread.
- Aug 9, 2016
- 5,055
- 6,288
- AFL Club
- Sydney
You want to call me something I'm not vilifying me I make no apology for taking issue. You will get that response every time
Suck it up buttercup
You are literally arguing that homosexuals should have to “earn” something that is a birthright of heterosexuals because of genetics despite a really, really simple solution being available.
Why must gay people live with what’s shitty in their life when the only thing making that so is straight people making it so? The easy, obvious answer is that they don’t have to.
Your logic could be just as easily applied to racial discrimination to argue that the indigenous population never earnt their right to vote, that they wanted a “free ride” (whatever that means - decades of activism doesn’t sound like a free ride to me).
The only barrier to same sex couples having equality, true equality, is people with views like yours. And that’s fine, you’re entitled to your view. Just don’t claim you’re pro-equality because you are, by definition, not.
You want to claim to be pro-equality despite voting to maintain a discriminatory aspect of an institution that touches the lives either directly or indirectly of every person in Australia, we will call that bullshit.
- Aug 9, 2016
- 5,055
- 6,288
- AFL Club
- Sydney
When they are seeking to change a heterosexual tradition absolutely they have to earn it. We all do in all life matters. No free rides.
We just trash a tradition put our arm around the nearest gay and sing Kumbaya. Nah sorry. The fact that grates with you please me.
- Aug 9, 2016
- 5,055
- 6,288
- AFL Club
- Sydney
You say it's discriminatory I say they never qualified and never would by definition. The fact my view annoys you is a positive. Suck it up buttercup
What would constitute “earning it”?
- Aug 9, 2016
- 5,055
- 6,288
- AFL Club
- Sydney
Good point poor choice of words they will never be entitled because they don't qualify. I guess I was trying to say that we shouldn't gift them something to which they will never truly belong when the motivation is simply throw our arms around the nearest gay make a scene about how 'inclusive' we are and sing Kumbaya. Life can be cruel with what is dealt. Not my problem. I'm sacrificing nothing where there is no justification on it's own principles. Full stop. Gays not gays couldn't give a rats arse
Have no doubt I believe many heterosexual yes voters were wanting to show how enlightened they were without considering the question itself and it's justification.
- Sep 12, 2013
- 5,219
- 5,356
- AFL Club
- Sydney
So you've gone from being a supporter of equal rights for LGBTQI people to this when you're asked what the alternative pathway to legal rights and recognition for them is. I mean, earlier in the thread you posted that there are ways for that to happen without involving marriage, so I assumed you'd have some in mind.
Yet here you are coming up with paranoid rants about the gay lobby and posting about having people come and say it to your face.
Academically also implies you'd thought through a number of permutations on this, which you clearly haven't.
- Aug 9, 2016
- 5,055
- 6,288
- AFL Club
- Sydney
And now we have a definition of marriage soon to be the tradition which includes same sex which doesn't cut the mustard for the genetic purpose. What an utter joke. I adhere to law. But I can believe that laws are misplaced and they are IMO
It's not my role to find an alternate path for equality. It's their role because they have vested interest. I go about my life living it either way
It's not my role to find an alternate path for equality. It's their role because they have vested interest. I go about my life living it either way
Alternatively - we could change marriage so that they do belong. Why is that the bridge too far for you?
It’s literally the easiest change - it changes nothing about how marriage functions, just who can partake. That you cling to “it’s a heterosexual thing” when it’s changed so many other ways is by definition discriminating against homosexuals. They literally only don’t qualify because you don’t want to change the definition.
I’ll go back to my club example. Imagine there’s a club that is extremely prestigious, almost all films, tv shows and other media feature it, and it’s held as something almost all people in society should aspire to join. It’s also only available to white people, because that’s how ts always been, they’ve been the only ones traditionally able to afford to join. It’s also state sponsored and run. Should we change the law to allow non-whites to join?
Basically, you’re saying “marriage has always been discriminatory, therefore it makes no sense to change it now”. That’s a horrific argument, and if that logic was widely adopted then progress would never, ever be made.
I’ve seen plenty of shows put on by footy clubs which have the mandatory cross dressing skit.
Anyways a float with a few swans players in their footy gear not camping it up will go OK I rekon.
Anyways a float with a few swans players in their footy gear not camping it up will go OK I rekon.
Again - repeat it with me - gay people can and already do have families. Straight people can and already do get married without having families. Marriage is not directly related to procreation and hasn’t been for a long, long time.
Then a) don’t oppose changes to the law that literally don’t affect you in any way, shape or form, and b) don’t call yourself an advocate for equality, because you have just stated that you are not. You are at best a neutral.
- Aug 9, 2016
- 5,055
- 6,288
- AFL Club
- Sydney
No paranoia whatsoever. Very lucid. The only one getting uptight is you because I won't be intimidated to your view.
Now you are suggesting I didn't think things through enough. lol listen to yourself. I thought things through quite fine and my decision was the unemotional rationale I resolved.
Your whole problem I've just realised is that you can't conceive that others may have independent thought and may just be right. The only answer you will entertain is the one inside your head and you are prepared to force that opinion at all costs. I accept you view things differently but you can't accept I do without vilification. Take a sedative
- Sep 12, 2013
- 5,219
- 5,356
- AFL Club
- Sydney
No, it's not your role. It IS bullshit that you'd say you're a supporter of equality for gay rights, and that you've thought deeply and academically about the issue and decided to deny them the most straightforward path to those rights BECAUSE they're gay and "don't quality. It's even more comical that in this deeply intellectual thought process, there doesn't seem to have been any consideration of what the other paths to equality are that you were so adamant existed earlier.
Yet your argument has come down to "they don't qualify" and "suck it up" when challenged. Very cerebral.
You've accused me and others of being gay, part of the gay lobby, brainwashed by the gay lobby and said I should come and say what I'm posting to your face. Just because the views is different to yours.
- Aug 9, 2016
- 5,055
- 6,288
- AFL Club
- Sydney
Yes because I was vilified. The intensity of emotions is disturbing and if it's other than direct vested interest then you need to see someone who can help you get in touch with reality again Brrrrrrr scary
Yes absolutely I believe there was brainwashing of the community. "We need to vote yes else we'll all rot in hell as discriminatory" lmao
Er ah No sorry. I vote on the efficacy of the principle
- Sep 12, 2013
- 5,219
- 5,356
- AFL Club
- Sydney
Well, as a famous deep and academic thinker said, suck it up. If you're going to deny a minority community access to equal rights simply because they belong to that minority group and "don't qualify" in your mind, there's a pretty clear basket for you.
Okey mate.
I don’t think you HAVE to. I just think it’s shit, your logic is hugely flawed, and you’re a hypocrite. Remember, as I said, I’m not concerned about changing your view - I realised pretty early on that’s not going to happen. I just want to make sure anybody reading along who might be neutral can see how silly your logic is.
Being accused of discrimination when seeking to uphold discrimination based on nothing more than an attachment to tradition is not vilification. It’s hilarious you are trying to play the victim card when it’s not your rights or the validity of your relationships on trial.
As for intensity of emotion, you have been by far the most animated and aggressive poster in this thread. Haven’t seen any other people having mods edit out “go f*ck yourself”s or going on rants about squelching anal sex. If you were really as secure in your position are you claim to be, you should dial down your emotions.
- Aug 9, 2016
- 5,055
- 6,288
- AFL Club
- Sydney
I don't need to think like either of you insist and I don't have to behave to a pattern of your choosing. Anyone making unfounded accusations of me will be met with anger. Absolutely. You can't have sensible conversations without projecting whatever twisted motivations you have on to me with accusation. I won't wear it.
I don't go around advertising the fact but my IQ is north side of 140 at last count meaning like 1 in 40000 or something like that. Pretty sure I'm quite capable of ascertaining logical argument and seeing gaping holes in others. I don't force my opinion on you though. I'm happy to accept you can think what you want just don't try and shove that garbage down my throat and vilify me on the back of the argument you promote. You won't accept that though which in behavioural profiling terms (a hobby) is very instructive as to motivation
So thanks for your opinions but I'll stick to my own beliefs.
Live and let live. Let's move on
Shall we sing Kumbaya together? Catchy tune
I don't go around advertising the fact but my IQ is north side of 140 at last count meaning like 1 in 40000 or something like that. Pretty sure I'm quite capable of ascertaining logical argument and seeing gaping holes in others. I don't force my opinion on you though. I'm happy to accept you can think what you want just don't try and shove that garbage down my throat and vilify me on the back of the argument you promote. You won't accept that though which in behavioural profiling terms (a hobby) is very instructive as to motivation
So thanks for your opinions but I'll stick to my own beliefs.
Live and let live. Let's move on
Shall we sing Kumbaya together? Catchy tune
Oh wow, was waiting for this, the IQ card!
The only reason someone might have to boast about their intelligence in a debate is if their argument isn’t smart enough to speak for itself.
Give it up. You value strict adherence to tradition over being inclusive. That’s fine, you’re free to value and believe whatever you like, just be aware that it comes with consequences.
- Sep 12, 2013
- 5,219
- 5,356
- AFL Club
- Sydney
You seem to be struggling with the concept that its discriminatory to deny LGBTQI people access to equal rights and status because they're LGBTQI and therefore "don't qualify".
- Jul 5, 2012
- 26,868
- 44,593
- AFL Club
- Sydney
- Other Teams
- Kidding, right?
Who or what? The people. The people’s elected representatives. Our democratic institutions. Our judges, in their learned wisdom. Plenty of options.
Some opponents of SSM come on as if we’ve never faced thorny problems in our history.
Jewelsbon
Norm Smith Medallist
- Aug 30, 2016
- 5,882
- 17,934
- AFL Club
- Sydney
Can I just ask when all you guys are going to declare this debate a draw?
Lol, there is no world in which this debate has been a draw. When someone has resorted to telling us of their high IQ, singing Kumbaya to ridicule those who feel empathy for others, and claiming they have to convince nobody but themselves (the last refuge for those who have failed to convince others) I think it’s pretty clear who has come out of this on top.
