Ah ricey.  Iirc I meased with him with my bray Wyatt quotes of follow the buzzards.

My fav was ricecrackers, who was kind of a mash of libel and moronflorugue. 

I don't think he posted again after the 3rd degree burns he suffered when Australia won the Asian Cup 😂😂😂 

Thats due to some people leaving the fozz/ being banned . This thread got bumped by a random 

I had a very quick scroll through this thread from page 1 to 6 and noticed some names I haven't seen posting in years. 

I wonder if any are still here with different names, or if they've left the forum for good. 

Also I read that article about that gay couple that adopted a boy from Russia to sexually abuse.

Fuck that made me feel sick to know there are people out there that carry out disgusting crimes like that. What's worse is the fact these two evil c*unts don't even get life in jail, never to be released. 

2017: Australia legalised gay marriage
2020: Covid-19

Coincidence?

F*ck that the most suitable parents should be given first choice. Have you seen some of the bogans in this country who multiply like rabbits and call their 3 years olds all sorts of names?

Children should be a privilege not a right. Unfortunately the stupid rednecks seem to breed like cancer!

correct, i am not doing that... nor are the Russians for what its worth

I agree with that but I think same sex couples should be a last resort. I don't deny they can make adequate parents but I do believe in the intrinsic primacy of a father and a mother, and if there's a fit heterosexual couple wanting to adopt they should be given preference over singles and same sex couples. If there are no fit heterosexual couples wanting to adopt then singles and same sex couples should be considered.

The kids don't really have a choice though. Surely same sex parents is better than either an orphanage or constantly moving from foster home to foster home

"By nature" we shouldn't have medicine when we're sick or be immunised to protect from disease. Survival of the fittest.

The way I see it, I'd rather a child be raised in a loving family (regardless of make up or sexual orientation) than not be. If that means with two mothers, two fathers, a single father, a single mother or a 'traditional family' then so be it. That is a much better substitute than being raised in a violent home or on the street.

So this means all people in a homosexual relationship who adopt should not be trusted raising a child?

Edited by A16Man: 3/3/2014 07:58:57 PM

So just because they were gay and pedo's mean all gay people can't adopt or be good parents ? My sisters boyfriend's mother is a lesbian and is a great mother

http://rt.com/news/australian-paedophile-us-jail-976/

Oh dear.

I don't agree that Batman was as amazing everyone is making it out to be, but that doesn't mean that my view is the right one. In much the same way, I don't agree with homosexuality but then who am I to deny two people who love each other the right to share that love just like any other two people who love each other? Why should two men who love each other and are normal people not be allowed to adopt a child? Why should they not be allowed to have a family?

If they pass the test that is carried out before adoptions, then why not. Less orphaned kids.

Just out of curiosity rice crackers how old are you? Not making any age related jibes if that's what you're worried about, I'm genuinely interested in the answer.

so you dont agree with homosexuality but you're ok with two men adopting a kid?
it sounds like you've really thought this through

dumb argument
they're not going to be on a register if they were never caught are they #-o

HAHAHAHAHA. That's just classic.


I must say though. I don't agree with homosexuality personally, but even as a religious person, im not going to sit here and believe silly excuses against gay marriage such as, "can you imagine what would happen if two gay men adopted a kid"

Plenty of pedophiles in heterosexual couples. Most children who are abused sexually are abused by a member of their own family.

In fact, I would argue that, gay couples who adopt are less likely to abuse children because sex offenders who are on a register would not be able to adopt children.

you dont have to be einstein to realise that pedos will take advantage of it

Tell us more man. Tell us more.

Including providing evidence, how children raised in same sex couples are adversely affected. Go on.

This ought to be good.

Religions claim ownership of marriage because marraiges happen both in a religious context and a civil context. They both recognise or have to recognise the religion. Ill take my religion for example because I don't understand how the others do it, but Islam will have a religion by its laws and then also do the civil marriage. If you married by civil and not Islam, then Islam doesn't recognise your religion. So I think its similar in the other religions.

It's another issue of religion verse reason/logic if you will. I think its also fair to understand that marriage existed before democracy or politics, so the idea that it was never religions is a bit of a debatable point I guess.



I think the issue comes when people who are religious and gay want to have their marriage done religiously too. If religion is against homosexuality, then how can it condone such a marriage.

Haha, sort out religious institutions? I wish.

I must say, I know im going off on a tangent here, but of late I have been quite angry with Muslims, especially those where I live and in western first world countries. All they ever talk about is sad stuff, and disaster, and how they hate the west for this and that, and its all just terrible shit. We don't actually stop and think about what we have and how privileged we are. Perhaps living a life of joy, peace, and acceptance. It is all, "I hate that person, and this sucks, and oh my word, everybody fear the ending of the world." Its a whole other issue though, its just damn bloody annoying.



Also, on a side note to homosexuality. Since when did it become an event? Why does every time someone have to make an announcement that they gay? People don't go around proclaiming their sexuality in public. If someone is gay, then let them be gay. There is no need to glorify it or to make it a proclamation. You straight, then you straight. You gay, then you gay. It shouldn't have to be an event and it shouldn't have to be glorified. We live in 2014 for petes sake. If we still can't accept people for who they are then we have all failed Dr Seuss.

Edited by zimbos_05: 3/3/2014 04:49:15 PM

how many reasons why not do we need?

how about tell me some worthwhile reasons why? only a tiny minority of people will actually take advantage of it, why bother?

when did this become an issue all of a sudden? even gays didnt even care about this until recently...now all of a sudden they believe they're being discriminated against over something they cared little about until big non governmental organisation money got involved in promoting this agenda

and to what end?

what will be next? two gay men having the right to bring up a child?

surely no one can foresee any problems with allowing that to become law :roll:

Zim that's the first step. When I worked at Subway years ago my manager was gay and his problem was that religion claimed ownership of the word marriage when it isn't really theirs to dictate.

While I think a civil union would work i'm not gay and thus probably don't understand the affect that not being considered a 'married' couple in a legislated sense has on a person.

Can you please sort out all religious institutions? You're far more reasonable than most religious people I've spoken to on this topic :)

Edited by benelsmore: 3/3/2014 04:17:10 PM

Well said Zimbos

I don't see the issue with Gay marriage. If they want to marry then let them. At the end of the day, make it a civil marriage if the religions refuse to consent to it being in their churches.

Our political leaders cannot claim to take a religious high ground on this issue, they are most of them atheists as it is.

Marriage is sanctioned by the government. As such, it becomes a civil matter. Discrimination in such cases is wrong. How difficult can it be?

If you want to preserve 'marriage', lobby the government to remove its self from the marriage question entirely. Leave marriage to the clergy and their flock.

Is there any other reason why gay marriage would hurt society other than, its a really old tradition that people don't want to change and it'll cost taxpayers in government administrative costs?