Wonder what the new Pope thinks of this!!

[Russ]

Who on earth are you......and what have you done with the REAL orangebird????

[Salu]

Originally Posted by Orangebird

Well, there are millions (like myself) who hold the view that marriage is for two people that love each other and want to announce their commitment. Regardless of their gender.

Lame

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by Russ D

Who on earth are you......and what have you done with the REAL orangebird????

Still in a good mood
__________________

Originally Posted by Salu

Lame

Sorry, but my 11 y/o nephew makes those kind of jokes.....

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Salu

Lame

Why is loving another person and wanting to show that fact lame?

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by scastle

Why is loving another person and wanting to show that fact lame?

Because Salu couldn't think of a better or substantial answer

[Salu]

I was referring in jest to Orangebird's "11 year old's" retort. I refelected this irony back to her in the hope that she may find it mildly amusing. This however was not to be the case and it fell on deaf ears.

Sounds so slick when explain humour....doesn't it....

Appealing to Orangebird's sense of humour is as you all know, hard work.....
__________________

Originally Posted by orangebird

Because Salu couldn't think of a better or substantial answer

I thought "history" was a good answer. Short and succinct and obviously illustrative and more importantly true as opposed to her emotively suggesting that 2 loving people should be able to marry "because they are in love"....

Originally Posted by Salu

But it *is* unnatural Graham, by definition (Dictionary=Conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature) ie it's not usual. Neither is it normal; ie what the majority of people in society are, something like 0.5% of the population is gay. It is also deviant as I mentioned earlier. So that's why they face the attitudes of others. The majority of society must feel something against what they are doing or else they would be wholly accepted into society. I don't believe they are...

That's a somewhat narrow argument, given that you latched on to one particular definition of "natural" that happens to fit your argument. If we use it in the sense of something that happens in nature, then it is entirely natural it is well documented that homosexual activity does take place in nature.

If we are to use "natural" in the sense of belonging to the majority, does that mean we can legitimately treat anyone who does not conform to the model of "Mr. Average" as a second class citizen? Do you not have any attributes that set you apart from the crowd? Would you be happy if you were treated as a second-class citizen as a result?
__________________

Originally Posted by Salu

I thought "history" was a good answer. Short and succinct and obviously illustrative and more importantly true as opposed to her emotively suggesting that 2 loving people should be able to marry "because they are in love"....

If historical precedent is so important to you, I guess you have no problems with buggering young boys?

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Salu

I was referring in jest to Orangebird's "11 year old's" retort. I refelected this irony back to her in the hope that she may find it mildly amusing. This however was not to be the case and it fell on deaf ears.

But she said that in response to you saying lame

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by Salu

I was referring in jest to Orangebird's "11 year old's" retort. I refelected this irony back to her in the hope that she may find it mildly amusing. This however was not to be the case and it fell on deaf ears.

Erm, no, you weren't - I believe it was this post you were referring to...

Sounds so slick when explain humour....doesn't it....

Appealing to Orangebird's sense of humour is as you all know, hard work.....
__________________

As opposed to your SOH - 'I wonder which one will be the bride?'... Excuse me while I stitch my sides back together.

I thought "history" was a good answer. Short and succinct and obviously illustrative and more importantly true as opposed to her emotively suggesting that 2 loving people should be able to marry "because they are in love"....

Whatever you say.

[Salu]

Originally Posted by dr wadd

That's a somewhat narrow argument, given that you latched on to one particular definition of "natural" that happens to fit your argument. If we use it in the sense of something that happens in nature, then it is entirely natural it is well documented that homosexual activity does take place in nature.

If we are to use "natural" in the sense of belonging to the majority, does that mean we can legitimately treat anyone who does not conform to the model of "Mr. Average" as a second class citizen? Do you not have any attributes that set you apart from the crowd? Would you be happy if you were treated as a second-class citizen as a result?

Use "normal" or commonplace then rather than natural then. I'm talking about the numerical dominance in society of majorative behaviour.
__________________

Originally Posted by dr wadd

If historical precedent is so important to you, I guess you have no problems with buggering young boys?

EH??!!

Bizarre comparison.... I dread to think what made you think of that....

Needless to say I do not agree with your statement.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Salu

I thought "history" was a good answer. Short and succinct and obviously illustrative and more importantly true as opposed to her emotively suggesting that 2 loving people should be able to marry "because they are in love"....

While "history" may be a short and succinct answer, possibly illustrative and true, it *is* rather a big subject, and as such could form a lot of short, succinct, illustrative and true answers to a lot of questions. Could you be a bit more specific as to how history has a bearing on two people expressing (emotively) their love for each other.

[Salu]

I mean that History (read human being's experience) has shown that marriage has been for man and women. It has shown that it has provided a framework for a successful family environment. It has been done through many races and cultures.
When marriage is not worked through properly then that can lead to divorce and breakup which can be hugely damaging for the kids. That's a different debate though. Providing an unbalanced environment, that is 2 men or 2 women, may or may not damaging. We simply do not know yet.

Originally Posted by Salu

Use "normal" or commonplace then rather than natural then. I'm talking about the numerical dominance in society of majorative behaviour.

Sorry to have to point this out, but if you want to make a point then it is helpful if you use the words that actually convey that point.

But, since you want to switch definitions mid-flow, if we are to go purely by numerical superiority, the majority of people do not have, and this is but one example, Down`s Syndrome. Do you want to treat those individuals as second class citizens?[/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Salu

EH??!!

Bizarre comparison.... I dread to think what made you think of that....

Needless to say I do not agree with your statement.

I can find you plenty of examples of cultures where it has been acceptable to use young boys for sexual pleasure. You were the one arguing that we should adopt the example of history as a reason for the banning of gay marriage. You are using historic examples as your benchmark. Further, you are arguing that the weight of history lends it a certain degree of credibility. I can provide historic examples of the acceptability of buggering young boys, so following your argument, it must still be acceptable now.

Or could this be another example of citing an argument that is entirely dependent on you picking and choosing which aspects are valid purely on the grounds of whether they support your opinion or not?
__________________

Originally Posted by Salu

When marriage is not worked through properly then that can lead to divorce and breakup which can be hugely damaging for the kids. That's a different debate though. Providing an unbalanced environment, that is 2 men or 2 women, may or may not damaging. We simply do not know yet.

But there were people using the same argument for mixed race marriages. Those people look pretty damn stupid now, dare I say even bigotted. It must be comforting to have such confidence in the veracity of your statements, or is it merely proving the case that ignorance is indeed bliss?

[orangebird]

History also at one time allowed 'white only' buses and schools, slavery, public flogging and burning witches at the stake. Does Salu think we should have stuck with all that too?

Originally Posted by Salu

I mean that History (read human being's experience) has shown that marriage has been for man and women.

And how does polygamy fit in?