|
SoccerLogic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 652,
Visits: 0
|
aufc_ole wrote:Definitely belongs in AF I agree. I've learnt so much about Australian Football and enjoyed the mature, reasoned discussion. Does not deserve lock.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TheSelectFew
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 30K,
Visits: 0
|
u4486662 wrote:stefcep wrote:u4486662 wrote:TheSelectFew wrote:u4486662 wrote:paulc wrote:u4486662 wrote:paulc wrote:Post_hoc wrote:TheSelectFew wrote:Draupnir wrote:TheSelectFew wrote:So you support homos. Want a medal? Most useless thread. Lock and ban.
Also i find it very narrow minded to label people who disagree with your views as bigots. You're back to your old self son. You'd fit right in with the republicans who wanted the blacks to still be on the backs of busses. The church is a religious institution. Yes, yes it is. But marriage is a state institution. The word marriage has been related to the pairing of man and woman only for hundreds and hundreds of years. I find it difficult to appreciate that overnight it now relates to two people of the same sex. Call it partners or something else but lay off the description marriage. Black people have been equated to slavery for millennia. I find it difficult to believe all of a sudden that they are now free. Call it "pro-bono work assistant" but don't call them free. That's for white people only. Only white people can handle both the rights AND responsibilities of being free. Slavery has nothing to do with religion and tradition but is one of the blights in human nature's past. Poor comparison. Its exactly the same. Slavery was deeply entrenched with religion and tradition. Once again, I'm correct. A civil union is a non religious marriage. My marriage to my wife is a civil marriage. By a civil celebrant. Gay marriage advocates want to marry in civil ceremonies, not religious ones. A civil union is not a civil marriage. Why should it be, when it doesn't comply with the law that it is a union between a man and a woman? As far as I'm concerned, heterosexuals against gay marriage have every right to protect an institution they believe in, when under the law, a gay union is treated in the same way as regards to property, (which is one of only two issues,the other being children that the Law concerns itself with. There is no civil law discrimination. Children's issues for obvious reasons-one partner is not the biological parent- are a different situation). If you're not talking about the legal property treatment of gay unions then you're talking about the social definition of marriage. In that case, people in that society have every right to define it how they see fit. A gay union is not the same as heterosexual union, so why should it be given a name that has never before history been used to describe that type of union? You can't legislate to tell people "this is what we now call marriage", when that simply is not and will not be the case for about 98% of that society. Interracial marriage used to be illegal too. An irrelevant argument in this discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
u4486662
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.8K,
Visits: 0
|
TheSelectFew wrote:u4486662 wrote:stefcep wrote:u4486662 wrote:TheSelectFew wrote:u4486662 wrote:paulc wrote:u4486662 wrote:paulc wrote:Post_hoc wrote:TheSelectFew wrote:Draupnir wrote:TheSelectFew wrote:So you support homos. Want a medal? Most useless thread. Lock and ban.
Also i find it very narrow minded to label people who disagree with your views as bigots. You're back to your old self son. You'd fit right in with the republicans who wanted the blacks to still be on the backs of busses. The church is a religious institution. Yes, yes it is. But marriage is a state institution. The word marriage has been related to the pairing of man and woman only for hundreds and hundreds of years. I find it difficult to appreciate that overnight it now relates to two people of the same sex. Call it partners or something else but lay off the description marriage. Black people have been equated to slavery for millennia. I find it difficult to believe all of a sudden that they are now free. Call it "pro-bono work assistant" but don't call them free. That's for white people only. Only white people can handle both the rights AND responsibilities of being free. Slavery has nothing to do with religion and tradition but is one of the blights in human nature's past. Poor comparison. Its exactly the same. Slavery was deeply entrenched with religion and tradition. Once again, I'm correct. A civil union is a non religious marriage. My marriage to my wife is a civil marriage. By a civil celebrant. Gay marriage advocates want to marry in civil ceremonies, not religious ones. A civil union is not a civil marriage. Why should it be, when it doesn't comply with the law that it is a union between a man and a woman? As far as I'm concerned, heterosexuals against gay marriage have every right to protect an institution they believe in, when under the law, a gay union is treated in the same way as regards to property, (which is one of only two issues,the other being children that the Law concerns itself with. There is no civil law discrimination. Children's issues for obvious reasons-one partner is not the biological parent- are a different situation). If you're not talking about the legal property treatment of gay unions then you're talking about the social definition of marriage. In that case, people in that society have every right to define it how they see fit. A gay union is not the same as heterosexual union, so why should it be given a name that has never before history been used to describe that type of union? You can't legislate to tell people "this is what we now call marriage", when that simply is not and will not be the case for about 98% of that society. Interracial marriage used to be illegal too. An irrelevant argument in this discussion. Clearly it is completely relevant. Laws that govern marriage have changed over time. You used to not be allowed to divorce, you used to not be allowed to get married outside of the church. You used to only be allowed to marry your own race. You used to only be allowed to marry someone of the same religion. You used to only be allowed to marry someone of the opposite gender.
|
|
|
|
|
robstazzz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.4K,
Visits: 0
|
Draupnir wrote:robstazzz wrote:As for your last line I think it's pretty fricken obvious it's the people crying out calling others homophobic the ones who are doing all the whinging to begin with.
No shit, because if minorities don't have a voice because people like you disregard everything they say, other people are going to stand up and say it for them. You know, just like the black rights movement? Fucking clueless. Your the clueless one who seems to pick and choose what to read and what not to read. I have every right to defend my religion just like any you have every right to defend what you believe in. A bullshit attack was made on Christianity so I had my say. If you can't handle it that's your problem. Just remember not everyone has to have the same view.
|
|
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
This thread is 4/10 popcorns. -PB
|
|
|
|
|
Eldar
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.2K,
Visits: 0
|
stefcep wrote:u4486662 wrote:TheSelectFew wrote:u4486662 wrote:paulc wrote:u4486662 wrote:paulc wrote:Post_hoc wrote:TheSelectFew wrote:Draupnir wrote:TheSelectFew wrote:So you support homos. Want a medal? Most useless thread. Lock and ban.
Also i find it very narrow minded to label people who disagree with your views as bigots. You're back to your old self son. You'd fit right in with the republicans who wanted the blacks to still be on the backs of busses. The church is a religious institution. Yes, yes it is. But marriage is a state institution. The word marriage has been related to the pairing of man and woman only for hundreds and hundreds of years. I find it difficult to appreciate that overnight it now relates to two people of the same sex. Call it partners or something else but lay off the description marriage. Black people have been equated to slavery for millennia. I find it difficult to believe all of a sudden that they are now free. Call it "pro-bono work assistant" but don't call them free. That's for white people only. Only white people can handle both the rights AND responsibilities of being free. Slavery has nothing to do with religion and tradition but is one of the blights in human nature's past. Poor comparison. Its exactly the same. Slavery was deeply entrenched with religion and tradition. Once again, I'm correct. A civil union is a non religious marriage. My marriage to my wife is a civil marriage. By a civil celebrant. Gay marriage advocates want to marry in civil ceremonies, not religious ones. A civil union is not a civil marriage. Why should it be, when it doesn't comply with the law that it is a union between a man and a woman? As far as I'm concerned, heterosexuals against gay marriage have every right to protect an institution they believe in, when under the law, a gay union is treated in the same way as regards to property, (which is one of only two issues,the other being children that the Law concerns itself with. There is no civil law discrimination. Children's issues for obvious reasons-one partner is not the biological parent- are a different situation). If you're not talking about the legal property treatment of gay unions then you're talking about the social definition of marriage. In that case, people in that society have every right to define it how they see fit. A gay union is not the same as heterosexual union, so why should it be given a name that has never before history been used to describe that type of union? You can't legislate to tell people "this is what we now call marriage", when that simply is not and will not be the case for about 98% of that society. Why would anyone give a shit if gay people can also get married unless they were worried that it was normalising the gay lifestyle? Its like your mum gave you a piece of cake for your birthday and you are chomping down and thinking this is grouse and then she fucks it all up by giving your brother a piece as well.
Beaten by Eldar
|
|
|
|
|
humbert
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.6K,
Visits: 0
|
I approve of this initiative.
|
|
|
|
|
stefcep
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.7K,
Visits: 0
|
Eldar wrote:stefcep wrote:u4486662 wrote:TheSelectFew wrote:u4486662 wrote:paulc wrote:u4486662 wrote:paulc wrote:Post_hoc wrote:TheSelectFew wrote:Draupnir wrote:TheSelectFew wrote:So you support homos. Want a medal? Most useless thread. Lock and ban.
Also i find it very narrow minded to label people who disagree with your views as bigots. You're back to your old self son. You'd fit right in with the republicans who wanted the blacks to still be on the backs of busses. The church is a religious institution. Yes, yes it is. But marriage is a state institution. The word marriage has been related to the pairing of man and woman only for hundreds and hundreds of years. I find it difficult to appreciate that overnight it now relates to two people of the same sex. Call it partners or something else but lay off the description marriage. Black people have been equated to slavery for millennia. I find it difficult to believe all of a sudden that they are now free. Call it "pro-bono work assistant" but don't call them free. That's for white people only. Only white people can handle both the rights AND responsibilities of being free. Slavery has nothing to do with religion and tradition but is one of the blights in human nature's past. Poor comparison. Its exactly the same. Slavery was deeply entrenched with religion and tradition. Once again, I'm correct. A civil union is a non religious marriage. My marriage to my wife is a civil marriage. By a civil celebrant. Gay marriage advocates want to marry in civil ceremonies, not religious ones. A civil union is not a civil marriage. Why should it be, when it doesn't comply with the law that it is a union between a man and a woman? As far as I'm concerned, heterosexuals against gay marriage have every right to protect an institution they believe in, when under the law, a gay union is treated in the same way as regards to property, (which is one of only two issues,the other being children that the Law concerns itself with. There is no civil law discrimination. Children's issues for obvious reasons-one partner is not the biological parent- are a different situation). If you're not talking about the legal property treatment of gay unions then you're talking about the social definition of marriage. In that case, people in that society have every right to define it how they see fit. A gay union is not the same as heterosexual union, so why should it be given a name that has never before history been used to describe that type of union? You can't legislate to tell people "this is what we now call marriage", when that simply is not and will not be the case for about 98% of that society. Why would anyone give a shit if gay people can also get married unless they were worried that it was normalising the gay lifestyle? Its like your mum gave you a piece of cake for your birthday and you are chomping down and thinking this is grouse and then she fucks it all up by giving your brother a piece as well. I could argue that gay marriage is about having a piece of the same cake for no other reason that your brother got one too. See how that goes. Why should the legal definition be changed to accommodate the life choices of a minute minority? There is no discrimination in the law against homosexuals who can have whatever emotional and physical relationship they want with whomever they want. The law will not interfere. Property rights are the same for anyone cohabiting. But its not a man and woman and so its not a marriage.
|
|
|
|
|
imonfourfourtwo
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.9K,
Visits: 0
|
Well done Sydney FC in this issue.
|
|
|
|
|
u4486662
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.8K,
Visits: 0
|
stefcep wrote:Eldar wrote:stefcep wrote:u4486662 wrote:TheSelectFew wrote:u4486662 wrote:paulc wrote:u4486662 wrote:paulc wrote:Post_hoc wrote:TheSelectFew wrote:Draupnir wrote:TheSelectFew wrote:So you support homos. Want a medal? Most useless thread. Lock and ban.
Also i find it very narrow minded to label people who disagree with your views as bigots. You're back to your old self son. You'd fit right in with the republicans who wanted the blacks to still be on the backs of busses. The church is a religious institution. Yes, yes it is. But marriage is a state institution. The word marriage has been related to the pairing of man and woman only for hundreds and hundreds of years. I find it difficult to appreciate that overnight it now relates to two people of the same sex. Call it partners or something else but lay off the description marriage. Black people have been equated to slavery for millennia. I find it difficult to believe all of a sudden that they are now free. Call it "pro-bono work assistant" but don't call them free. That's for white people only. Only white people can handle both the rights AND responsibilities of being free. Slavery has nothing to do with religion and tradition but is one of the blights in human nature's past. Poor comparison. Its exactly the same. Slavery was deeply entrenched with religion and tradition. Once again, I'm correct. A civil union is a non religious marriage. My marriage to my wife is a civil marriage. By a civil celebrant. Gay marriage advocates want to marry in civil ceremonies, not religious ones. A civil union is not a civil marriage. Why should it be, when it doesn't comply with the law that it is a union between a man and a woman? As far as I'm concerned, heterosexuals against gay marriage have every right to protect an institution they believe in, when under the law, a gay union is treated in the same way as regards to property, (which is one of only two issues,the other being children that the Law concerns itself with. There is no civil law discrimination. Children's issues for obvious reasons-one partner is not the biological parent- are a different situation). If you're not talking about the legal property treatment of gay unions then you're talking about the social definition of marriage. In that case, people in that society have every right to define it how they see fit. A gay union is not the same as heterosexual union, so why should it be given a name that has never before history been used to describe that type of union? You can't legislate to tell people "this is what we now call marriage", when that simply is not and will not be the case for about 98% of that society. Why would anyone give a shit if gay people can also get married unless they were worried that it was normalising the gay lifestyle? Its like your mum gave you a piece of cake for your birthday and you are chomping down and thinking this is grouse and then she fucks it all up by giving your brother a piece as well. I could argue that gay marriage is about having a piece of the same cake for no other reason that your brother got one too. See how that goes. Why should the legal definition be changed to accommodate the life choices of a minute minority? There is no discrimination in the law against homosexuals who can have whatever emotional and physical relationship they want with whomever they want. The law will not interfere. Property rights are the same for anyone cohabiting. But its not a man and woman and so its not a marriage. Sexuality is not a choice. People who choose their sexuality are bisexual or pansexual. Sexuality is more likely a spectrum. 88% of men and 78% of women identify as exclusively straight. 9% of men have had same sex attraction/experiences. 19% of women have had same sex attraction/experiences. 3% of the population identify as exclusively homosexual.
|
|
|
|
|
T-UNIT
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.2K,
Visits: 0
|
u4486662 wrote:stefcep wrote:Eldar wrote:stefcep wrote:u4486662 wrote:TheSelectFew wrote:u4486662 wrote:paulc wrote:u4486662 wrote:paulc wrote:Post_hoc wrote:TheSelectFew wrote:Draupnir wrote:TheSelectFew wrote:So you support homos. Want a medal? Most useless thread. Lock and ban.
Also i find it very narrow minded to label people who disagree with your views as bigots. You're back to your old self son. You'd fit right in with the republicans who wanted the blacks to still be on the backs of busses. The church is a religious institution. Yes, yes it is. But marriage is a state institution. The word marriage has been related to the pairing of man and woman only for hundreds and hundreds of years. I find it difficult to appreciate that overnight it now relates to two people of the same sex. Call it partners or something else but lay off the description marriage. Black people have been equated to slavery for millennia. I find it difficult to believe all of a sudden that they are now free. Call it "pro-bono work assistant" but don't call them free. That's for white people only. Only white people can handle both the rights AND responsibilities of being free. Slavery has nothing to do with religion and tradition but is one of the blights in human nature's past. Poor comparison. Its exactly the same. Slavery was deeply entrenched with religion and tradition. Once again, I'm correct. A civil union is a non religious marriage. My marriage to my wife is a civil marriage. By a civil celebrant. Gay marriage advocates want to marry in civil ceremonies, not religious ones. A civil union is not a civil marriage. Why should it be, when it doesn't comply with the law that it is a union between a man and a woman? As far as I'm concerned, heterosexuals against gay marriage have every right to protect an institution they believe in, when under the law, a gay union is treated in the same way as regards to property, (which is one of only two issues,the other being children that the Law concerns itself with. There is no civil law discrimination. Children's issues for obvious reasons-one partner is not the biological parent- are a different situation). If you're not talking about the legal property treatment of gay unions then you're talking about the social definition of marriage. In that case, people in that society have every right to define it how they see fit. A gay union is not the same as heterosexual union, so why should it be given a name that has never before history been used to describe that type of union? You can't legislate to tell people "this is what we now call marriage", when that simply is not and will not be the case for about 98% of that society. Why would anyone give a shit if gay people can also get married unless they were worried that it was normalising the gay lifestyle? Its like your mum gave you a piece of cake for your birthday and you are chomping down and thinking this is grouse and then she fucks it all up by giving your brother a piece as well. I could argue that gay marriage is about having a piece of the same cake for no other reason that your brother got one too. See how that goes. Why should the legal definition be changed to accommodate the life choices of a minute minority? There is no discrimination in the law against homosexuals who can have whatever emotional and physical relationship they want with whomever they want. The law will not interfere. Property rights are the same for anyone cohabiting. But its not a man and woman and so its not a marriage. Sexuality is not a choice. People who choose their sexuality are bisexual or pansexual. Sexuality is more likely a spectrum. 88% of men and 78% of women identify as exclusively straight. 9% of men have had same sex attraction/experiences. 19% of women have had same sex attraction/experiences. 3% of the population identify as exclusively homosexual. This quote pyramid will have its own float at next year's East Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras. Edited by t-unit: 8/3/2015 09:52:27 PM
|
|
|
|
|
Prosecutor
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.4K,
Visits: 0
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prosecutor
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.4K,
Visits: 0
|
RedKat wrote:The most offensive thing I find in that isnt the implication of homosexuality or the implication of being 'nerdy' (see the Quatum Physics book) but the ESFC reference which isnt exactly fair on all our fans from the inner west or shire. Or your fans from the west which your retarded friends on here like to bag out indirectly. :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
T-UNIT
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.2K,
Visits: 0
|
|
|
|
|
|
u4486662
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.8K,
Visits: 0
|
T-UNIT wrote:u4486662 wrote:stefcep wrote:Eldar wrote:stefcep wrote:u4486662 wrote:TheSelectFew wrote:u4486662 wrote:paulc wrote:u4486662 wrote:paulc wrote:Post_hoc wrote:TheSelectFew wrote:Draupnir wrote:TheSelectFew wrote:So you support homos. Want a medal? Most useless thread. Lock and ban.
Also i find it very narrow minded to label people who disagree with your views as bigots. You're back to your old self son. You'd fit right in with the republicans who wanted the blacks to still be on the backs of busses. The church is a religious institution. Yes, yes it is. But marriage is a state institution. The word marriage has been related to the pairing of man and woman only for hundreds and hundreds of years. I find it difficult to appreciate that overnight it now relates to two people of the same sex. Call it partners or something else but lay off the description marriage. Black people have been equated to slavery for millennia. I find it difficult to believe all of a sudden that they are now free. Call it "pro-bono work assistant" but don't call them free. That's for white people only. Only white people can handle both the rights AND responsibilities of being free. Slavery has nothing to do with religion and tradition but is one of the blights in human nature's past. Poor comparison. Its exactly the same. Slavery was deeply entrenched with religion and tradition. Once again, I'm correct. A civil union is a non religious marriage. My marriage to my wife is a civil marriage. By a civil celebrant. Gay marriage advocates want to marry in civil ceremonies, not religious ones. A civil union is not a civil marriage. Why should it be, when it doesn't comply with the law that it is a union between a man and a woman? As far as I'm concerned, heterosexuals against gay marriage have every right to protect an institution they believe in, when under the law, a gay union is treated in the same way as regards to property, (which is one of only two issues,the other being children that the Law concerns itself with. There is no civil law discrimination. Children's issues for obvious reasons-one partner is not the biological parent- are a different situation). If you're not talking about the legal property treatment of gay unions then you're talking about the social definition of marriage. In that case, people in that society have every right to define it how they see fit. A gay union is not the same as heterosexual union, so why should it be given a name that has never before history been used to describe that type of union? You can't legislate to tell people "this is what we now call marriage", when that simply is not and will not be the case for about 98% of that society. Why would anyone give a shit if gay people can also get married unless they were worried that it was normalising the gay lifestyle? Its like your mum gave you a piece of cake for your birthday and you are chomping down and thinking this is grouse and then she fucks it all up by giving your brother a piece as well. I could argue that gay marriage is about having a piece of the same cake for no other reason that your brother got one too. See how that goes. Why should the legal definition be changed to accommodate the life choices of a minute minority? There is no discrimination in the law against homosexuals who can have whatever emotional and physical relationship they want with whomever they want. The law will not interfere. Property rights are the same for anyone cohabiting. But its not a man and woman and so its not a marriage. Sexuality is not a choice. People who choose their sexuality are bisexual or pansexual. Sexuality is more likely a spectrum. 88% of men and 78% of women identify as exclusively straight. 9% of men have had same sex attraction/experiences. 19% of women have had same sex attraction/experiences. 3% of the population identify as exclusively homosexual. This quote pyramid will have its own float at next year's East Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras. Edited by t-unit: 8/3/2015 09:52:27 PM This quote pyramid is so magnificent, that some rich old English carnt is about to dig underneath it.
|
|
|
|
|
robstazzz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.4K,
Visits: 0
|
Prosecutor wrote:RedKat wrote:The most offensive thing I find in that isnt the implication of homosexuality or the implication of being 'nerdy' (see the Quatum Physics book) but the ESFC reference which isnt exactly fair on all our fans from the inner west or shire. Or your fans from the west which your retarded friends on here like to bag out indirectly. :lol: You beat me to it =d>
|
|
|
|
|
Slobodan Drauposevic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
Prosecutor wrote:RedKat wrote:The most offensive thing I find in that isnt the implication of homosexuality or the implication of being 'nerdy' (see the Quatum Physics book) but the ESFC reference which isnt exactly fair on all our fans from the inner west or shire. Or your fans from the west which your retarded friends on here like to bag out indirectly. :lol: At least some of them aim for upwards mobility.
|
|
|
|
|
Prosecutor
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.4K,
Visits: 0
|
Draupnir wrote:Prosecutor wrote:RedKat wrote:The most offensive thing I find in that isnt the implication of homosexuality or the implication of being 'nerdy' (see the Quatum Physics book) but the ESFC reference which isnt exactly fair on all our fans from the inner west or shire. Or your fans from the west which your retarded friends on here like to bag out indirectly. :lol: At least some of them aim for upwards mobility. Sticking with the theme of this thread, I would call it backward integration. Edited by prosecutor: 8/3/2015 10:29:10 PM
|
|
|
|
|
Bundoora B
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 12K,
Visits: 0
|
libel wrote:Quote:Rhyan Grant, Thea Slatyer, Sunni Hughes and Paul Reid will stand alongside the likes of Matthew Mitcham, Daniel Kowalski, Greg Matthews and Paul Langmack in showing their support for LGBT rights. Not saying they have to be, but are any of those other than Mitcham and Kowalski LGBT? does that matter? what does their sexuality have to do with you?
|
|
|
|
|
Eldar
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.2K,
Visits: 0
|
robstazzz wrote:Prosecutor wrote:RedKat wrote:The most offensive thing I find in that isnt the implication of homosexuality or the implication of being 'nerdy' (see the Quatum Physics book) but the ESFC reference which isnt exactly fair on all our fans from the inner west or shire. Or your fans from the west which your retarded friends on here like to bag out indirectly. :lol: You beat me to it =d> And what about WSW's fans who are gay, intelligent or enjoy Harry Potter or decent cofffee? Edited by Eldar: 8/3/2015 10:41:59 PM
Beaten by Eldar
|
|
|
|
|
SocaWho
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.3K,
Visits: 0
|
How did this thread grow to more than 1 page in Australian Football?
|
|
|
|
|
Slobodan Drauposevic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
SocaWho wrote:How did this thread grow to more than 1 page in Australian Football? NEWSFLASH: Bogans think that gay people shouldn't be able to get married.
|
|
|
|
|
u4486662
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.8K,
Visits: 0
|
Eldar wrote:robstazzz wrote:Prosecutor wrote:RedKat wrote:The most offensive thing I find in that isnt the implication of homosexuality or the implication of being 'nerdy' (see the Quatum Physics book) but the ESFC reference which isnt exactly fair on all our fans from the inner west or shire. Or your fans from the west which your retarded friends on here like to bag out indirectly. :lol: You beat me to it =d> And what about WSW's fans who are gay, intelligent or enjoy Harry Potter or decent cofffee? Edited by Eldar: 8/3/2015 10:41:59 PM I love how quantum physics is somehow supposed to be gay.
|
|
|
|
|
robstazzz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.4K,
Visits: 0
|
Eldar wrote:robstazzz wrote:Prosecutor wrote:RedKat wrote:The most offensive thing I find in that isnt the implication of homosexuality or the implication of being 'nerdy' (see the Quatum Physics book) but the ESFC reference which isnt exactly fair on all our fans from the inner west or shire. Or your fans from the west which your retarded friends on here like to bag out indirectly. :lol: You beat me to it =d> And what about WSW's fans who are gay, intelligent or enjoy Harry Potter or decent cofffee? Edited by Eldar: 8/3/2015 10:41:59 PM Oh I thought according to you guys they don't exist, because you know all WSW fans are on the doll, and known criminals.
|
|
|
|
|
TheSelectFew
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 30K,
Visits: 0
|
Draupnir wrote:SocaWho wrote:How did this thread grow to more than 1 page in Australian Football? NEWSFLASH: Bogans think that gay people shouldn't be able to get married. Youll need to do better if you want to win an arguement in the real world.
|
|
|
|
|
Cappuccino
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 683,
Visits: 0
|
TheSelectFew wrote:Draupnir wrote:SocaWho wrote:How did this thread grow to more than 1 page in Australian Football? NEWSFLASH: Bogans think that gay people shouldn't be able to get married. Youll need to do better if you want to win an arguement in the real world. This thread proves a real "argument" with you is impossible. You're a fucking idiot, and you prove that every single time you decide to vomit over the keyboard and hit post.
|
|
|
|
|
Slobodan Drauposevic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
TheSelectFew wrote:Draupnir wrote:SocaWho wrote:How did this thread grow to more than 1 page in Australian Football? NEWSFLASH: Bogans think that gay people shouldn't be able to get married. Youll need to do better if you want to win an arguement in the real world. Mate, you're the last person anyone on this entire fucking forum would have a realistic discussion or argument with. At least when I troll people it's because I'm purposefully acting like a completely intellectually disabled vegetable , and don't actually believe the shit in real life. It's a pity the same can't be said for you. I find it ironic that you, who is apparently so against rules and regulations in terms of something as meaningless as the environment at a football stadium would actually, willfully be against people getting married out of no reason other than your personal wishes. If the real world is one where gay people can't get married because you'd rather have a religious tradition trump civil rights while at the same time you whinge like an ice addict going through withdrawals about the fact that the NT can't have flares, I'm glad I am not a part of it.
|
|
|
|
jlm8695
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
Still can't believe this is 2015 and same sex marriage is still a debate.
|
|
|
|
|
Slobodan Drauposevic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
|
|
|
|
|
aussie scott21
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
Australian Football
|
|
|
|