Same-sex marriage bill passes

[MagicNakor]

I'm running out to work right now, but for those of you who were interested:


Ottawa (CP) - It was fought in courtrooms, in legislatures, in street protests, and one of the most turbulent debates in Canadian history was settled Tuesday in Parliament.

The House of Commons voted 158 to 133 to adopt controversial legislation that will make Canada the third country in the world to legalize same-sex marriage. Several Liberals marked the occasion by invoking the memory of their party's anointed philosopher king, Pierre Trudeau.

It was the late Liberal prime minister who decriminalized homosexuality in 1969, and whose Charter of Rights and Freedoms became the legal cudgel that smashed the traditional definition of marriage.

Barely two years ago the Liberal government was still fighting same-sex couples in courts across the land.

It changed its tune amid an onslaught of legal verdicts in eight provinces that found traditional marriage laws violated the charter's guarantee of equality for all Canadians.

"(This) is about the Charter of Rights," Prime Minister Paul Martin said earlier Tuesday.

"We are a nation of minorities. And in a nation of minorities, it is important that you don't cherry-pick rights.


"A right is a right and that is what this vote tonight is all about."

Same-sex advocates sprang to their feet and applauded from a packed Commons visitors' gallery, while religious groups looked on in stony silence.

But there was no unanimity even within government ranks. Almost three dozen Liberal MPs voted against the controversial Bill C-38, to cheers from the Tory caucus.

The loudest cheers were for a Liberal who exiled himself to the backbenches to vote against the bill. Joe Comuzzi resigned his cabinet seat Tuesday as minister for northern Ontario's economic development.

The House immediately adjourned for the summer after the same-sex vote, and won't meet again until Sept. 26 - ending one of the most tumultuous sessions in Canadian parliamentary history.

The same-sex marriage bill will become official once it receives approval in the Senate, likely within days. With it the barriers to gay and lesbian weddings will tumble in Alberta, Prince Edward Island, Nunavut and the Northwest Territories - the last jurisdictions where courts have not yet struck down traditional marriage laws.

The legislation applies to civic weddings at public places like city halls and courthouses. No religious groups will be forced to sanctify same-sex marriages if they don't want to.

But Conservatives said the debate isn't over yet.

Leader Stephen Harper said he will bring back the same-sex marriage law for another vote if he wins the next election.

"There will be a chance to revisit this in a future Parliament," Harper said. "Our intention is to have a free vote."

How Harper might handle the issue in future is unclear since almost every provincial and territorial government has made gay marriage legal.

The Liberals said Harper has only one tool at his disposal: the Charter's notwithstanding clause, an escape hatch which no federal government has ever used.

"They're going to have to at least be honest with the people," said Justice Minister Irwin Cotler.

"They're going to have to acknowledge that they want to override the (Charter of Rights), override constitutional-law decisions in nine jurisdictions in this country, override a unanimous decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, override the rule of law in this country."

Cotler now occupies Pierre Trudeau's former Justice Department office, with a poster of the late justice minister-turned-prime minister overlooking his desk.

The Tories weren't sharing such fond memories of Trudeau.

Alberta MP David Chatters lamented what he described as Canada's "moral decay" and blamed Trudeau's promise of a just society as the start of that decay in the 1960s.

But an Irish-born rookie Liberal MP was quoting Trudeau's famous line about the state having no place in the bedrooms of the nation.

Michael Savage spoke poignantly about a member of his own family, and described the tolerance that he says makes Canada special.

"I have not compromised my faith in supporting this legislation. I have embraced it," he said.

"The fact that we (in Canada) are among the first is not something we should hide. It's something we should celebrate. . . .

"(We are) a nation of equality. A nation of strength. A nation of compassion. A nation that believes we're stronger together than we are apart. And a nation where we celebrate equality. . . .

"We will send a statement to the world that in Canada gays and lesbians will not be considered second-class citizens."

A group of same-sex advocates stood in front of Parliament's front doors to cheer on the politicians who championed their cause.

One religious leader was decidedly downcast. He vowed to keep fighting the legislation through the next election.

"It's a sad day," said Charles McVety, president of the Canada Christian College.

"The great institution of marriage that has built this civilization and the foundation of our society has been defiled by our Parliament.

"And that is sad. It's sad for our children. It's sad for our grandchildren. It's sad for the young people.

"I have a seven-year-old daughter. When she comes of age to be married, will we still have marriage as we know it?"

In the last two years, same-sex marriage has gone from being legally feasible to a fait accompli.

After a series of legal challenges, the walls started tumbling down on June 10, 2003.

The Ontario Court of Appeal ruled in favour of Michael Leshner and Michael Stark, a gay Toronto couple, and ordered public institutions such as courthouses and city halls to immediately begin issuing same-sex marriage licences.

Scores of same-sex American couples came to Canada to be married. Thousands of Canadians exercised their new right.

The Ontario verdict became written in stone when then-prime minister Jean Chretien announced days later he would throw in the towel in the legal fight against gay and lesbian couples.

The federal government refused to appeal the Ontario ruling, and the verdict was subsequently repeated in courts in British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland.

When Martin became prime minister, he avoided the political hot potato and punted it off until after the June 2004 federal election.

But he came out strongly in favour of same-sex marriage in the dying days of the campaign. His Liberals were re-elected with a minority government.

New Democrats celebrated the vote result with a party in Parliament's Centre Block. Leader Jack Layton said Canada has sent a message to the world.

"I think it will sound a clarion call around the world and perhaps reduce the hatred and the animosity and move us to a society where all are considered equal," Layton said.

"I think Canada is now sending out a signal that it is possible to provide full equality to people with different sexual orientations."

The bill was supported by all but one NDPer - Bev Desjarlais, who was subsequently stripped of her two critics' portfolios and banished to a back-row seat in the Commons.

Canada will become the third country to formally recognize same-sex marriage. The legislation comes after decades of debate on homosexual rights. Some milestones:

-1967: Supreme Court upholds lower-court ruling that proposes life imprisonment as a maximum penalty for homosexuality.

-1969: Bill C-150 decriminalizes homosexuality.

-1977: Quebec becomes first province to include sexual orientation in its human-rights code, making it illegal to discriminate against gays.

- 1985: The Charter of Rights and Freedoms promises "equal protection and equal benefit" for all citizens.

- 1989: The Canadian Human Rights Commission declares that homosexual couples should be considered families.

- 1992: Gays and lesbians are given the right to serve in the military.

-1999: The House of Commons - including members of the current Liberal government - votes to preserve definition of marriage as a union between man and woman.

- June 2003: The Ontario Court of Appeal issues a landmark ruling that declares traditional marriage laws unconsitutional.

- June 2004: A married lesbian couple in Ontario files the first same-sex divorce petition in Canada.

- December 2004: Supreme Court says Ottawa has the power to redefine marriage, but says religious officials can't be forced to marry same-sex couples.

- February 2005: Bill C-38 sanctioning gay marriage tabled in the House of Commons.

- June 28, 2005: Bill C-38 is adopted by a vote of 158-133.

Canada becomes the third country to recognize same-sex marriage. A primer on Bill C-38, the legislation making it happen.

-Origins: Legal challenges resulted in Ontario court declaring traditional marriage laws unconstitutional in 2003, under Section 15 of the Charter of Rights. Liberal government declined to appeal, and chose not to invoke the notwithstanding clause.

-Provinces: Courts in seven provinces followed Ontario and thousands of same-sex couples have been married in British Columbia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Newfoundland and the Yukon.

-Federal legislation: Bill to harmonize marriage rules nationally delayed by 2004 election, then re-introduced by minority Liberals. Spring session of Commons extended for first time in 17 years to get the bill passed.

-Becoming law: Once approved by Commons, bill expected to pass Senate and receive royal assent within days.

-Impact: Affects Alberta, P.E.I., Nunavut and the Northwest Territories, which haven't recognized same-sex marriage.

-Religious protection: Legislation promises churches, synagogues, temples and mosques can refuse to marry homosexual couples because Charter also guarantees religious freedom.

-Critics: Opponents say law will be used in future court challenges against religious institutions and marriage laws.

-Divided religions: Most religious groups oppose same-sex marriage, but embraced by some Protestant groups such as United and Unitarian churches. Has divided Anglican church, has support within liberal Judaism.

-Alexander Panetta

:shuriken:

[Xagest]

Just a small update. Just recently, Spain just voted to accept Same-Sex marriage. This make them the fourth country to advocate same-sex marriage on a federal level. Not bad for a mostly Catholic country.

[peat moss]

The other two are Norway and Belgium I believe .

[bigboab]

I have this strange feeling when this type of thing happens that it is not acceptance of moral changes but more to do with votes.:) Do they know something that they are not telling us?:ph34r: I think I had a thread along these lines earlier about fish changing their sexuality.:(

[manker]

I have this strange feeling when this type of thing happens that it is not acceptance of moral changes but more to do with votes.:) Do they know something that they are not telling us?:ph34r: The lobbying that starts the movement is to do with a moral issue. How much of a vote winner can it be when it's only appealing to a minority group :blink:

I think I had a thread along these lines earlier about fish changing their sexuality.:(:blink:

[JPaul]

If something is a vote winner, then it's popular with the voting public.

If the politicians do what the majority want then they are serving their electorate properly.

Seems fair enough to me, the public gets what the public wants.

[sArA]

Besides, marriage is about committment to a partner so I don't have any problem with same sex marriage, its about personal choice imo.

[manker]

If something is a vote winner, then it's popular with the voting public.

If the politicians do what the majority want then they are serving their electorate properly.

Seems fair enough to me, the public gets what the public wants.That's okay to a point but often we have to trust politicians to make decisions which are not going to be popular with the electorate. Higher taxes when the economy dictates, for example.

You can't run a country efficiently by deferring to the masses for every decision, not only would it be logistically impossible but also poor choices would be made more frequently, particularly regarding complex issues.

[JPaul]

If something is a vote winner, then it's popular with the voting public.

If the politicians do what the majority want then they are serving their electorate properly.

Seems fair enough to me, the public gets what the public wants.That's okay to a point but often we have to trust politicians to make decisions which are not going to be popular with the electorate. Higher taxes when the economy dictates, for example.

You can't run a country efficiently by deferring to the masses for every decision, not only would it be logistically impossible but also poor choices would be made more frequently, particularly regarding complex issues.

This, however is not a "Deroderized Zone".

[manker]

That's okay to a point but often we have to trust politicians to make decisions which are not going to be popular with the electorate. Higher taxes when the economy dictates, for example.

You can't run a country efficiently by deferring to the masses for every decision, not only would it be logistically impossible but also poor choices would be made more frequently, particularly regarding complex issues.

This, however is not a "Deroderized Zone".I pay no heed to your personal hygene, but what you wrote was pish :schnauz:





Hrm, that's 5-3 I think.

[Snee]

You can't run a country efficiently by deferring to the masses for every decision, not only would it be logistically impossible but also poor choices would be made more frequently, particularly regarding complex issues.
Of course, if the decisions of the government go against the wishes of the masses on several occasions, then it isn't really a democracy.

In fact, what we get with a "representational democracy" is an elite, albeit an elected one, making decisions on the basis that they know better than the rest. This is practically communist.



And, furthermore, it would not be logistically troubling to put issues like the one in question to a vote, as it's hardly integral to the effectivity of a country's economy, or somesuch.

To not put issues that don't really need a quick response, and which are highly controversial to the public at large, to a vote isn't very democratic at all.

As for taxes, I was just discussing this yesterday with someone, more specifically how our, supposedly socialist-democratic, government have made some very poor decisions regarding taxes on property and fortune without consulting the public, decisions that only really benefit the wealthy.

It seems to me that governments, being much smaller units than an entire population of a country, are much more susceptible to the influence of larger corporations and suchlike. And therefore, to make sure that the public get what they want, more decisions should be put to a vote in practically any democracy today.



As for gay marriages, I have no issue with them, except to say that I think it's fairly stupid for anyone to want to marry in a regular church or something, if it's stated in your holy scripture of choice that homosexuality is wrong.

Have the rights all right, that's only fair, but what's the point of marrying under the eyes of a god that doesn't (according to the religion) want you? Better then to marry where you are accepted, which also lets you avoid deeply offending any very literal religious people.

[manker]

You can't run a country efficiently by deferring to the masses for every decision, not only would it be logistically impossible but also poor choices would be made more frequently, particularly regarding complex issues.
Of course, if the decisions of the government go against the wishes of the masses on several occasions, then it isn't really a democracy.

In fact, what we get with a "representational democracy" is an elite, albeit an elected one, making decisions on the basis that they know better than the rest. This is practically communist.



And, furthermore, it would not be logistically troubling to put issues like the one in question to a vote, as it's hardly integral to the effectivity of a country's economy, or somesuch.

To not put issues that don't really need a quick response, and which are highly controversial to the public at large, to a vote isn't very democratic at all.

As for taxes, I was just discussing this yesterday with someone, more specifically how our, supposedly socialist-democratic, government have made some very poor decisions regarding taxes on property and fortune without consulting the public, decisions that only really benefit the wealthy.

It seems to me that governments, being much smaller units than an entire population of a country, are much more susceptible to the influence of larger corporations and suchlike. And therefore, to make sure that the public get what they want, more decisions should be put to a vote in practically any democracy today.I disagree.

True enough, a proper democracy isn't really what we have (UK) but unless the decision evokes particularly strong feelings; like joining the EU, Leaving NATO/UN, devolution, abolishing the pound/monarchy, it shouldn't be put to a referendum.

Referendums, which are what would need to happen, are particularly time consuming and expensive. They are also impractical for decision making processes. For example, altho' it was a massively important, the Conservative government here a number of years back should not have asked the electorate if we should join/leave of the Exchange Rate Mechanism. People cannot understand the implications of it and the choice should be left to the people elected to do such a job. Taxation is another, the man in the street is going to vote for whatever will result in more money in his pay packet, regardless of the country's interests.

Let the builders build, let the economist economise ... and let the politicians decide upon policy.


The fact of the matter is that these people do know better than you or I and so long as they're accountable for their actions, it's nothing like communism. If they mess up then someone else gets a go next time.

A referendum for the subject of this thread would be okay as a one off but if it was one of a series of similar referendums then the turn out would be negligable. We get low turn-outs for General elections - if we had a referendum every week, the people would stop caring and it would be too easy for extremeist groups to organise themselves and influence policy.

No, we elect politicians to make decisions on our behalf, if they fail to do so with aplomb and good judgement then we'll vote for someone else next time around.

[Snee]

I disagree.

True enough, a proper democracy isn't really what we have (UK) but unless the decision evokes particularly strong feelings; like joining the EU, Leaving NATO/UN, devolution, abolishing the pound/monarchy, it shouldn't be put to a referendum.

Referendums, which are what would need to happen, are particularly time consuming and expensive. They are also impractical for decision making processes. For example, altho' it was a massively important, the Conservative government here a number of years back should not have asked the electorate if we should join/leave of the Exchange Rate Mechanism. People cannot understand the implications of it and the choice should be left to the people elected to do such a job. Taxation is another, the man in the street is going to vote for whatever will result in more money in his pay packet, regardless of the country's interests.
The man on the street, well, men really, or rather, people, is/are the country.
The country's interests should be the same as those of its people, I would think.

The authorities should really be implementing decisions already made, and working to put forth new ones, the actual decisions should be made by the public, IMO, and if they vote wrongly, then the authorities haven't informed the public well enough.

Obviously it is a costly and complicated process, and one that needs to be improved upon, but it's better than letting a handful of people make the bulk of all decisions concerning everyone in the country. (Apart from those that absolutely have to be made immediately, or those which are routine and won't really mean a change, of course)


Especially so as governments such as ours do seem, really, too easily influenced by the wishes of minorities, as long as they happen to be rich.


I reckon there's a fine line between representational democracy and communism.

In one case, communism, an elite from the proletariat, ~working class, (I'm not sure exactly how you are supposed to determine who is part of this elite, election would probably be a good way) should be put in charge of the country. In another case politicians (not necessarily people who have done any actual work in their lives I might add) are elected to be put in charge of the country on the basis that they are the best people for the job, which in my thinking makes them an elite, and one possibly less in touch with the people at that.

The immediate difference is the fact that a democracy sometimes allows the people to directly influence the workings of the nation through votage. I feel, however, that a true democracy needs to be more direct than those of today, more like the communal type governments of ancient Hawaii/Polynesia.


I also think that we are very close to a point where technology should allow us to both more directly and efficiently influence decisions to a much higher degree than now, and to partake of the information we need to make informed decisions.

[bigboab]

I disagree.

True enough, a proper democracy isn't really what we have (UK) but unless the decision evokes particularly strong feelings; like joining the EU, Leaving NATO/UN, devolution, abolishing the pound/monarchy, it shouldn't be put to a referendum.

Referendums, which are what would need to happen, are particularly time consuming and expensive. They are also impractical for decision making processes. For example, altho' it was a massively important, the Conservative government here a number of years back should not have asked the electorate if we should join/leave of the Exchange Rate Mechanism. People cannot understand the implications of it and the choice should be left to the people elected to do such a job. Taxation is another, the man in the street is going to vote for whatever will result in more money in his pay packet, regardless of the country's interests.
The man on the street, well, men really, or rather, people, is/are the country.
The country's interests should be the same as those of its people, I would think.

The authorities should really be implementing decisions already made, and working to put forth new ones, the actual decisions should be made by the public, IMO, and if they vote wrongly, then the authorities haven't informed the public well enough.

Obviously it is a costly and complicated process, and one that needs to be improved upon, but it's better than letting a handful of people make the bulk of all decisions concerning everyone in the country. (Apart from those that absolutely have to be made immediately, or those which are routine and won't really mean a change, of course)


Especially so as governments such as ours do seem, really, too easily influenced by the wishes of minorities, as long as they happen to be rich.


I reckon there's a fine line between representational democracy and communism.

In one case, communism, an elite from the proletariat, ~working class, (I'm not sure exactly how you are supposed to determine who is part of this elite, election would probably be a good way) should be put in charge of the country. In another case politicians (not necessarily people who have done any actual work in their lives I might add) are elected to be put in charge of the country on the basis that they are the best people for the job, which in my thinking makes them an elite, and one possibly less in touch with the people at that.

The immediate difference is the fact that a democracy sometimes allows the people to directly influence the workings of the nation through votage. I feel, however, that a true democracy needs to be more direct than those of today, more like the communal type governments of ancient Hawaii/Polynesia.


I also think that we are very close to a point where technology should allow us to both more directly and efficiently influence decisions to a much higher degree than now, and to partake of the information we need to make informed decisions.

Sorry we cannot allow that. We cant have the majority getting what they want. It is undemocratic.:ph34r:

[Rat Faced]

Well Done Canada, fighting Bigotry and going for equality :01:

[NikkiD]

I have this strange feeling when this type of thing happens that it is not acceptance of moral changes but more to do with votes.:) Do they know something that they are not telling us?:ph34r: I think I had a thread along these lines earlier about fish changing their sexuality.:(

In this case you would be right Boab. If it was simply an issue of rights, the bill would have been passed when it first surfaced in 2003, instead of now, when the Liberal government is floundering in the wake of the Gomery inquiry. Most provinces had already adopted same sex rights with regard to marriage. With a possible federal election looming in the fall, they are garnering support where they can get it.

I support the bill, just not the timing. It shouldn't have been tabled in the first place, but passed years ago.

[Busyman]

As long as it's NIMBY I couldn't care either way.

[peat moss]

Oh its in all our backyards , Christ we have the Teachers federation marching in Gay parades now. I say let the gays get married too. I mean why should just us hetro guys be miserable ........... ;)

[Busyman]

Oh its in all our backyards , Christ we have the Teachers federation marching in Gay parades now. I say let the gays get married too. I mean why should just us hetro guys be miserable ........... ;)
I don't like the rise homosexuality as I see it in kids.

You'd be amazed at the number young lesbians I see walking to school.

People equate sexuality to race. Different races became accepted and it seems like different sexualities will too.

Now as it would not have been acceptable for a white woman to date a black fella, now it is (for the most part) and there's nothing wrong with that.

Kids usually are devoid of prejudice until adults bestowed them with it.
Until parents say to a child, "It's okay to like boys or girls" from the start, it unacceptable.

I am totally for my child being with the opposite sex and would tell my child that. So as long as it's NIMBY, I'm cool.

[peat moss]

You don't choose to be gay tho. Some are born that way. My thought is if you can be gay and adopte children why can't you get married ? But understand what you mean It's now socialy accepted in most parts of the free world . For better or worse.

[Busyman]

You don't choose to be gay tho. Some are born that way. My thought is if you can be gay and adopte children why can't you get married ? But understand what you mean It's now socialy accepted in most parts of the free world . For better or worse.
I never said one chooses to be gay and there isn't any proof that one is born gay.

[bigboab]

As long as it's NIMBY I couldn't care either way.

That was the attitude to terrorism in your neck of the woods at one time.:(

[peat moss]

You don't choose to be gay tho. Some are born that way. My thought is if you can be gay and adopte children why can't you get married ? But understand what you mean It's now socialy accepted in most parts of the free world . For better or worse.
I never said one chooses to be gay and there isn't any proof that one is born gay.



No proof your right , but when your little Johnny wants to try out out for the cheer leading team , little alarm bells should be going off. I don't mean to argue Busyman .



But some people are just born different. I'm very street smart . I can spot them a mile away. My daughter has two gay friends she's 14. They like coming to are our house because My wife and I don't judge, One has a key to our home because his mom keeps beating the shit out of him. Thats wrong in my eyes.

[Rat Faced]

We have evidence of "Gay" in loads of mammals, especially Monkeys, Apes and Canines... why do you think Humans are exempt from it?

Who cares?

Let them get on with what they want to do. It wasnt so long ago that certain communities didnt think "Coloureds" had any right to equality... hell, some still dont :(


I'm very street smart . I can spot them a mile away.

This is total drivel..

You can spot an effeminate man a mile away or a Butch woman, not a Gay/Lesbian.

Not all Gays/Lesbians are effeminate/Butch, and not all effeminate/Butch are Gay/Lesbian.

[peat moss]

We have evidence of "Gay" in loads of mammals, especially Monkeys, Apes and Canines... why do you think Humans are exempt from it?

Who cares?

Let them get on with what they want to do. It wasnt so long ago that certain communities didnt think "Coloureds" had any right to equality... hell, some still dont :(



What about the Humboldt Penguins ? Thats a know fact that when there's a shortage of females the males do a courtship dance , Weird eh ?

[peat moss]

@ Rat Faced I'm not an expert but I can spot them ,call it an inner gift ? Who knows .As long as I don't judge ones life choices that's fine with me.

[Rat Faced]

@ Rat Faced I'm not an expert but I can spot them ,call it an inner gift ? Who knows .As long as I don't judge ones life choices that's fine with me.

Well, only way i can spot them is when:

a/ They come on to me

b/ I see them come onto someone else.


Unless they want to be noticed.

Like i said.. just because a male is effeminate, does not mean that he's Gay... and visa versa.

Genes are way too small to spot coming down the street :ph34r:

[Busyman]

As long as it's NIMBY I couldn't care either way.

That was the attitude to terrorism in your neck of the woods at one time.:(
Two different animals.

People forget that a naturalized American commited the most horrible act of terrorism prior to 9/11.

[Rat Faced]

That was the attitude to terrorism in your neck of the woods at one time.:(
Two different animals.

People forget that a naturalized American commited the most horrible act of terrorism prior to 9/11.

Or that the white supremisist organisation that terrorise some areas of the USA are not classed as "Terrorists" by the whitehouse... despite using exactly the same tactics :rolleyes:

[peat moss]

Hey who said they had to have sweaty palms and a limp wrist? But I understand your point . For what its worth I agree with the same sex union . You have to be straight to love one for eternity ? Let them have what we straight ones, all take for granted. A marrigage or union to show the world our love and commitment .

[Busyman]

I never said one chooses to be gay and there isn't any proof that one is born gay.



No proof your right , but when your little Johnny wants to try out out for the cheer leading team , little alarm bells should be going off. I don't mean to argue Busyman .



But some people are just born different. I'm very street smart . I can spot them a mile away. My daughter has two gay friends she's 14. They like coming to are our house because My wife and I don't judge, One has a key to our home because his mom keeps beating the shit out of him. Thats wrong in my eyes.

Some people don't think though.

If Johnny wants to try out for the cheerleading team, he is mimicking a behavior that he likes. I doubt he was born to like cheerleading.

I think it's wrong to beat the shit out of your kids too.

I happen to think marriage involves gender separation just like public restrooms.

[Rat Faced]

Hey who said they had to have sweaty palms and a limp wrist? But I understand your point . For what its worth I agree with the same sex union . You have to be straight to love one for eternity ? Let them have what we straight ones, all take for granted. A marrigage or union to show the world our love and commitment .

:01: :01: :01:

And like said earlier... why should we be the only ones to be hen pecked ;)

[Busyman]

@ Rat Faced I'm not an expert but I can spot them ,call it an inner gift ? Who knows .As long as I don't judge ones life choices that's fine with me.

Well, only way i can spot them is when:

a/ They come on to me

b/ I see them come onto someone else.


Unless they want to be noticed.

Like i said.. just because a male is effeminate, does not mean that he's Gay... and visa versa.

Genes are way too small to spot coming down the street :ph34r:
.....especially when genes are not even proven to be the culprit. :dry:

Utter drivel.

[Busyman]

We have evidence of "Gay" in loads of mammals, especially Monkeys, Apes and Canines... why do you think Humans are exempt from it?
Uh Rat, we aren't...since there are gay humans. :1eye:


Who cares?I do.


Let them get on with what they want to do. It wasnt so long ago that certain communities didnt think "Coloureds" had any right to equality... hell, some still dont :(Already been said and it ain't the same. Why are there different restrooms?

[lynx]

We have evidence of "Gay" in loads of mammals, especially Monkeys, Apes and Canines... Sorry to upset your applecart, but that's bollocks.

The homosexual activity you see in those cases has absolutely nothing to do with sexuality, it is about domination.

[bigboab]

[QUOTE=Busyman]
But some people are just born different. I'm very street smart . I can spot them a mile away. My daughter has two gay friends she's 14. They like coming to are our house because My wife and I don't judge, One has a key to our home because his mom keeps beating the shit out of him. Thats wrong in my eyes.

I had a similar situation when my girl was young. Most of the girls seem to protect gay boys. Maybe thats because they dont feel 'threatened' by them and see them for what they are.
Maybe the same applies to males who dont care about another male's sexual preference.:rolleyes:

[Rat Faced]

So monkeys DECIDE to be gay, Apes DECIDE to be gay and Dogs DECIDE to be gay... maybe they're "brought up" that way.

You're absolutely right, it isnt proven that genes are involved... just as it isn't proven about relativity or evolution.

The majority of evidence however does suggest that its not a "Choice" that is delibrately made, which way you like to take/receive the old salomy...or in the case of girls, whether to be vegitarian :P

[Busyman]

We have evidence of "Gay" in loads of mammals, especially Monkeys, Apes and Canines... Sorry to upset your applecart, but that's bollocks.

The homosexual activity you see in those cases has absolutely nothing to do with sexuality, it is about domination.
No, no, no...they have identified the gay gene/hormone whatchamacallittdoohickythingamajig in those animals so you're wrong. :snooty:

[Busyman]

So monkeys DECIDE to be gay, Apes DECIDE to be gay and Dogs DECIDE to be gay... maybe they're "brought up" that way.

You're absolutely right, it isnt proven that genes are involved... just as it isn't proven about relativity or evolution.

The majority of evidence however does suggest that its not a "Choice" that is delibrately made, which way you like to take/receive the old salomy...or in the case of girls, whether to be vegitarian :P
It's neither Rat.

Did you decide to like anything that you like that isn't sexual? (food and water excluded)

Okay then were you born to like it? :blink:

[Rat Faced]

We have evidence of "Gay" in loads of mammals, especially Monkeys, Apes and Canines... Sorry to upset your applecart, but that's bollocks.

The homosexual activity you see in those cases has absolutely nothing to do with sexuality, it is about domination.

Just about everything comes down to "Domination", whether its hetro or gay, consentual or rape.

I delibrately picked the Monkeys, Apes and Dogs because its rare of those species have a "Dominant Male" that gets all the womenfolk. (Yes i know they have dominant males.. but thats like a "pack leader", not a harem king :P

They are all rather "Promiscuous" that way....

[Xagest]

What about the Humboldt Penguins ? Thats a know fact that when there's a shortage of females the males do a courtship dance , Weird eh ?

OMG, I remember reading a story about some penguins a while back. Two male penguins were virtually inseperable, and spent a lot of time with each other. They even built a nest together. When egg season came, they took a small rock and put it in the nest, hoping it would hatch. A researcher replaced the rock with a real egg and they hatched a baby girl. I thought that was so cute :lol:

Anyway, whether or not homosexuality is a product of genetics or upbringing, by the time the person is ready to get married, I don't think he/she will change his/her mind any time soon (assuming they aren't acting against their natural urges).

[Busyman]

Sorry to upset your applecart, but that's bollocks.

The homosexual activity you see in those cases has absolutely nothing to do with sexuality, it is about domination.

Just about everything comes down to "Domination", whether its hetro or gay, consentual or rape.

I delibrately picked the Monkeys, Apes and Dogs because its rare of those species have a "Dominant Male" that gets all the womenfolk. (Yes i know they have dominant males.. but thats like a "pack leader", not a harem king :P

They are all rather "Promiscuous" that way....
Explain the straight male that fudgepacks another in jail.

Why does that happen?

[Rat Faced]

Sorry to upset your applecart, but that's bollocks.

The homosexual activity you see in those cases has absolutely nothing to do with sexuality, it is about domination.
No, no, no...they have identified the gay gene/hormone whatchamacallittdoohickythingamajig in those animals so you're wrong. :snooty:

Im lost...

You agree its genetic in animals because they have identified the gene.. but dont think this is evidence that its genetic in humans because they havent identified the gene?

Are you of the opinion that we didnt evolve?

Or am i just totally misunderstanding?

[Rat Faced]

Just about everything comes down to "Domination", whether its hetro or gay, consentual or rape.

I delibrately picked the Monkeys, Apes and Dogs because its rare of those species have a "Dominant Male" that gets all the womenfolk. (Yes i know they have dominant males.. but thats like a "pack leader", not a harem king :P

They are all rather "Promiscuous" that way....
Explain the straight male that fudgepacks another in jail.

Why does that happen?


Just about everything comes down to "Domination", whether its hetro or gay, consentual or rape.

And, lets face it... if there is a hole, some guys will attempt to put their equipment to work on that hole... irrespective of species or even if its warm.. :sick:

[Busyman]

Explain the straight male that fudgepacks another in jail.

Why does that happen?


Just about everything comes down to "Domination", whether its hetro or gay, consentual or rape.

And, lets face it... if there is a hole, some guys will attempt to put their equipment to work on that hole... irrespective of species or even if its warm.. :sick:
Hmmm but that's homosexual/bisexual so they must have the gene...right?

[peat moss]

[QUOTE=peat moss]

I had a similar situation when my girl was young. Most of the girls seem to protect gay boys. Maybe thats because they dont feel 'threatened' by them and see them for what they are.
Maybe the same applies to males who dont care about another male's sexual preference.:rolleyes:


Bob your really a girl? JK I enjoy this forum . I swear half you plicks were captains of the debate team in high school . I don't stand a chance . :lol:

[Busyman]

No, no, no...they have identified the gay gene/hormone whatchamacallittdoohickythingamajig in those animals so you're wrong. :snooty:

Im lost...

You agree its genetic in animals because they have identified the gene.. but dont think this is evidence that its genetic in humans because they havent identified the gene?

Are you of the opinion that we didnt evolve?

Or am i just totally misunderstanding?
http://d21c.com/AnnesPlace/Summer2/FishingRod.gif

[Rat Faced]

I'm sure ive posted before that i think theres only one sexuality... and its where-abouts on that line the individual is...

Although i've never come across a guy that does anything for me, or that i've been attracted to... I cant close my mind to the possibility in the future, as i cant see into the future.

I'm way over one end of that line; prefering the female of the species (viva la defference :wub: ).... but it is only the one line (again, in my opinion).

I've seen ladies that were hetro discover the delights of other ladies and become virtual lesbians; although they admit they are still attracted to men too....

Maybe we're all hedonists at heart ;)


Not sure where the last part of my last post would come under that argument though :sick:

[bigboab]

[QUOTE=bigboab]


Bob your really a girl? JK I enjoy this forum . I swear half you plicks were captains of the debate team in high school . I don't stand a chance . :lol:

No, not a girl. maybe a big girls blouse though.:lol:

[peat moss]

I find it interesting ,that it seems to be male members that posted here. Do the female's know something we don't ? Ot they don't care ? Or did I assume were all males ? :ohmy: There goes that theory . :lol:

[Busyman]

I'm sure ive posted before that i think theres only one sexuality... and its where-abouts on that line the individual is...

Although i've never come across a guy that does anything for me, or that i've been attracted to... I cant close my mind to the possibility in the future, as i cant see into the future.

I'm way over one end of that line; prefering the female of the species (viva la defference :wub: ).... but it is only the one line (again, in my opinion).

I've seen ladies that were hetro discover the delights of other ladies and become virtual lesbians; although they admit they are still attracted to men too....

Maybe we're all hedonists at heart ;)


Not sure where the last part of my last post would come under that argument though :sick:
Anyone can be gay or straight..now or in the future.

Many say no 'cause they are not attracted to the same sex/opposite sex now.

Change their circumstances and their sexual preference may change.

[Xagest]

I find it interesting ,that it seems to be male members that posted here. Do the female's know something we don't ? Ot they don't care ? Or did I assume were all males ? :ohmy: There goes that theory . :lol:

Well, I assume the FileSharing community is made up of 90% guys, so it's really thin pickings around here.

[peat moss]

I find it interesting ,that it seems to be male members that posted here. Do the female's know something we don't ? Ot they don't care ? Or did I assume were all males ? :ohmy: There goes that theory . :lol:

Well, I assume the FileSharing community is made up of 90% guys, so it's really thin pickings around here.


Well said, sorry for my ignorance . :)

[JPaul]

I have no problem with the state recognising the union of two people. Whether they be of different gender, or of the same gender.

I have no problem with people making a legal commitment to each other. Whether they be of different gender, or of the same gender.

I have no problem with couples of the same gender having the same pension rights, property rights, whatever rights as couples of mixed gender.

I do not see this as a point which is even open to debate. It's just a couple who want to have their love recognized and accepted. Who want the same rights as any other couple.

So long as we are talking about consenting adults, of sound mind, live and let live says I.

[peat moss]

I'm sure ive posted before that i think theres only one sexuality... and its where-abouts on that line the individual is...

Although i've never come across a guy that does anything for me, or that i've been attracted to... I cant close my mind to the possibility in the future, as i cant see into the future.

I'm way over one end of that line; prefering the female of the species (viva la defference :wub: ).... but it is only the one line (again, in my opinion).

I've seen ladies that were hetro discover the delights of other ladies and become virtual lesbians; although they admit they are still attracted to men too....

Maybe we're all hedonists at heart ;)


Not sure where the last part of my last post would come under that argument though :sick:
Anyone can be gay or straight..now or in the future.

Many say no 'cause they are not attracted to the same sex/opposite sex now.

Change their circumstances and their sexual preference may change.


Is n't that bisexuality tho. You feel comfortable with either ?

[JPaul]

I'm sure ive posted before that i think theres only one sexuality... and its where-abouts on that line the individual is...

Although i've never come across a guy that does anything for me, or that i've been attracted to... I cant close my mind to the possibility in the future, as i cant see into the future.

I'm way over one end of that line; prefering the female of the species (viva la defference :wub: ).... but it is only the one line (again, in my opinion).

I've seen ladies that were hetro discover the delights of other ladies and become virtual lesbians; although they admit they are still attracted to men too....

Maybe we're all hedonists at heart ;)


Not sure where the last part of my last post would come under that argument though :sick:
Anyone can be gay or straight..now or in the future.

Many say no 'cause they are not attracted to the same sex/opposite sex now.

Change their circumstances and their sexual preference may change.

You went from "anyone can be gay or straight" to "their sexual preference may change"

I find that confusing, I would appreciate clarification.

Cheers

[bigboab]

I'm sure ive posted before that i think theres only one sexuality... and its where-abouts on that line the individual is...

Although i've never come across a guy that does anything for me, or that i've been attracted to... I cant close my mind to the possibility in the future, as i cant see into the future.

I'm way over one end of that line; prefering the female of the species (viva la defference :wub: ).... but it is only the one line (again, in my opinion).

I've seen ladies that were hetro discover the delights of other ladies and become virtual lesbians; although they admit they are still attracted to men too....

Maybe we're all hedonists at heart ;)


Not sure where the last part of my last post would come under that argument though :sick:
Anyone can be gay or straight..now or in the future.

Many say no 'cause they are not attracted to the same sex/opposite sex now.

Change their circumstances and their sexual preference may change.

Sorry I disagree. What you are virtually saying is 'needs must. That part I agree with. But most gays do not have that choice. Their sexuality comes naturally to them.

[peat moss]

I have no problem with the state recognising the union of two people. Whether they be of different gender, or of the same gender.

I have no problem with people making a legal commitment to each other. Whether they be of different gender, or of the same gender.

I have no problem with couples of the same gender having the same pension rights, property rights, whatever rights as couples of mixed gender.

I do not see this as a point which is even open to debate. It's just a couple who want to have their love recognized and accepted. Who want the same rights as any other couple.

So long as we are talking about consenting adults, of sound mind, live and let live says I.



Ya the scary thing is tho . There's a group that wants to limit how they disolve the union . Make it harder to divorce. Thats crap .

[JPaul]

Anyone can be gay or straight..now or in the future.

Many say no 'cause they are not attracted to the same sex/opposite sex now.

Change their circumstances and their sexual preference may change.

Sorry I disagree. What you are virtually saying is 'needs must. That part I agree with. But most gays do not have that choice. Their sexuality comes naturally to them.
But "needs must" only works on the basis that people need to shag. Which they don't. It's not like eating or drinking water ffs.

I can assure you that if I was in a totally male environment then I would stick to the "menage a une".

Anyone who thinks differently is (at least) latently homosexual.

Not that I've got anything against that, busy.

[Cheese]

Slightly off-topic: I wonder how long we'll have to wait until two straight men "accidentally" get married whilst on teh piss (probably from a rugby team...). That will be most amusing. :D

[JPaul]

I have no problem with the state recognising the union of two people. Whether they be of different gender, or of the same gender.

I have no problem with people making a legal commitment to each other. Whether they be of different gender, or of the same gender.

I have no problem with couples of the same gender having the same pension rights, property rights, whatever rights as couples of mixed gender.

I do not see this as a point which is even open to debate. It's just a couple who want to have their love recognized and accepted. Who want the same rights as any other couple.

So long as we are talking about consenting adults, of sound mind, live and let live says I.



Ya the scary thing is tho . There's a group that wants to limit how they disolve the union . Make it harder to divorce. Thats crap .


Equal rights of union = equal rights of divorce.

Any other position is untenable.

[Busyman]

Anyone can be gay or straight..now or in the future.

Many say no 'cause they are not attracted to the same sex/opposite sex now.

Change their circumstances and their sexual preference may change.

Sorry I disagree. What you are virtually saying is 'needs must. That part I agree with. But most gays do not have that choice. Their sexuality comes naturally to them.
Aww ffs where do you get this choice shit?

[JPaul]

Sorry I disagree. What you are virtually saying is 'needs must. That part I agree with. But most gays do not have that choice. Their sexuality comes naturally to them.
Aww ffs where do you get this choice shit?
I choose not to shag men.

Always have always will, whatever the circumstances.

[peat moss]

Slightly off-topic: I wonder how long we'll have to wait until two straight men "accidentally" get married whilst on teh piss (probably from a rugby team...). That will be most amusing. :D


Guess it depends on who shaved their ass ? Was it the pitcher or catcher ?
Oh great Vegas has enought problems with all those "Elvie " :ph34r:

[Cheese]

Slightly off-topic: I wonder how long we'll have to wait until two straight men "accidentally" get married whilst on teh piss (probably from a rugby team...). That will be most amusing. :D


Guess it depends on who shaved their ass ? Was it the pitcher or catcher ?
Oh great Vegas has enought problems with all those "Elvie " :ph34r:

What's an "Elvie" Peat? Is it, perhaps, the plural of Elvis?http://moderation.invisionzone.com/style_emoticons/default/gep.gif


Edit: 10k posts again. Get the fuck in.:01:

[bigboab]

Aww ffs where do you get this choice shit?
I choose not to shag men.

Always have always will, whatever the circumstances.

I was refereeing to people in prison. That is their excuse not mine. Wait a minute I dont need an excuse. Awe shit I'm getting deeper into it.:lol:

[JPaul]

I choose not to shag men.

Always have always will, whatever the circumstances.

I was refereeing to people in prison. That is their excuse not mine. Wait a minute I dont need an excuse. Awe shit I'm getting deeper into it.:lol:
See there's the thing, if I was in prison and another man shagged me, that would be rape.

I personally would have no interest in shagging another man. Like I said earlier, the "menage a une" would be the sexual action for me.

Being in a totally male environment would not be a "needs must" situation for me. However, as I also said, to each his own.

[Biggles]

I have no problem with the state recognising the union of two people. Whether they be of different gender, or of the same gender.

I have no problem with people making a legal commitment to each other. Whether they be of different gender, or of the same gender.

I have no problem with couples of the same gender having the same pension rights, property rights, whatever rights as couples of mixed gender.

I do not see this as a point which is even open to debate. It's just a couple who want to have their love recognized and accepted. Who want the same rights as any other couple.

So long as we are talking about consenting adults, of sound mind, live and let live says I.


Seems damned fair to me. Let it be so Mr McConnell.

[bigboab]

If I can make an analogy. An alcoholic when desparate will drink anything if he has no other choice. I was just wondering if the same would apply to a sex mechanic?

[JPaul]

If I can make an analogy. An alcoholic when desparate will drink anything if he has no other choice. I was just wondering if the same would apply to a sex mechanic?
Possibly, p'raps you should ask one.

Given her posts in this thread and others busy may be able to help.

[Biggles]

If I can make an analogy. An alcoholic when desparate will drink anything if he has no other choice. I was just wondering if the same would apply to a sex mechanic?

I tend to agree with JP a Menage a Une is preferable.


:01: for teh self loving. :lol:

[JPaul]

I have no problem with the state recognising the union of two people. Whether they be of different gender, or of the same gender.

I have no problem with people making a legal commitment to each other. Whether they be of different gender, or of the same gender.

I have no problem with couples of the same gender having the same pension rights, property rights, whatever rights as couples of mixed gender.

I do not see this as a point which is even open to debate. It's just a couple who want to have their love recognized and accepted. Who want the same rights as any other couple.

So long as we are talking about consenting adults, of sound mind, live and let live says I.


Seems damned fair to me. Let it be so Mr McConnell.


Mayhap we should send that post to him as a first draft.

What say you.

[Biggles]

Seems damned fair to me. Let it be so Mr McConnell.


Mayhap we should send that post to him as a first draft.

What say you.

It sounds like a good idea to me. In fact it is high time he had an ID on this board. We could dig him out of a few holes.



:unsure:

He wasn't Livy perchance?

[bigboab]

If I can make an analogy. An alcoholic when desparate will drink anything if he has no other choice. I was just wondering if the same would apply to a sex mechanic?

I tend to agree with JP a Menage a Une is preferable.


:01: for teh self loving. :lol:

I totally agree. Can anyone enlighten me as to why apparently straight men/woman do this in prison?

[manker]

I tend to agree with JP a Menage a Une is preferable.


:01: for teh self loving. :lol:

I totally agree. Can anyone enlighten me as to why apparently straight men/woman do this in prison?Sure. If you mean wanking, it's for sexual release.

If you mean anal sex, it's because the lack of females brings out the hitherto quiescent homosexuality within them.

[Rat Faced]

They say that those that deny it the most are the ones unsure of their own sexuality too.... :ph34r:

So I'd better remember not to bend down if me and JPaul ever share a cell :ph34r:

[manker]

So I'd better remember not to bend down if me and JPaul ever share a cell :ph34r:Especially if you keep your wallet in your back pocket :no:

[bigboab]

I totally agree. Can anyone enlighten me as to why apparently straight men/woman do this in prison?Sure. If you mean wanking, it's for sexual release.

If you mean anal sex, it's because the lack of females brings out the hitherto quiescent homosexuality within them.

Is this quiescent homosexuality in everyone?

P.S. I know what wanking does.:)

[JPaul]

I totally agree. Can anyone enlighten me as to why apparently straight men/woman do this in prison?Sure. If you mean wanking, it's for sexual release.

If you mean anal sex, it's because the lack of females brings out the hitherto quiescent homosexuality within them.
Or latent, as it were.

J'agree.

[manker]

Sure. If you mean wanking, it's for sexual release.

If you mean anal sex, it's because the lack of females brings out the hitherto quiescent homosexuality within them.

Is this quiescent homosexuality in everyone?

P.S. I know what wanking does.:)I think not.

I understand that Busyman and RF may have doubts about their own preferences but I have no such worries. I definitely find the thought of a dick up my arse quite repugnant.

:D

[Rat Faced]

Is this quiescent homosexuality in everyone?

P.S. I know what wanking does.:)I think not.

I understand that Busyman and RF may have doubts about their own preferences but I have no such worries. I definitely find the thought of a dick up my arse quite repugnant.

:D

Unless it belongs to a Ram...

[JPaul]

They say that those that deny it the most are the ones unsure of their own sexuality too.... :ph34r:

So I'd better remember not to bend down if me and JPaul ever share a cell :ph34r:
No worries there mate, I'm a wanker.

Always have been, always will be.

All of this "if there's no women about then you will shag men" is a theory which I cannot agree with.

Not that that there's anything wrong with those who support it. To each, as they say, their own.

[bigboab]

Is this quiescent homosexuality in everyone?

P.S. I know what wanking does.:)I think not.

I understand that Busyman and RF may have doubts about their own preferences but I have no such worries. I definitely find the thought of a dick up my arse quite repugnant.

:D
I hope you also find the thought of your dick up somebody else's arse equally repugnant.:lol:

[manker]

I think not.

I understand that Busyman and RF may have doubts about their own preferences but I have no such worries. I definitely find the thought of a dick up my arse quite repugnant.

:D

Unless it belongs to a Ram...How would that work.

I mean really, I understand the Welsh stereotyping and all but coercing a male sheep is something that's beyond my realm of comprehension.

[JPaul]

I think not.

I understand that Busyman and RF may have doubts about their own preferences but I have no such worries. I definitely find the thought of a dick up my arse quite repugnant.

:D
I hope you also find the thought of your dick up somebody else's arse equally repugnant.:lol:
That's a bit homophobic actually.

[manker]

I think not.

I understand that Busyman and RF may have doubts about their own preferences but I have no such worries. I definitely find the thought of a dick up my arse quite repugnant.

:D
I hope you also find the thought of your dick up somebody else's arse equally repugnant.:lol:Ermm ... no actually, depending on gender :blushing:

[Biggles]

I hope you also find the thought of your dick up somebody else's arse equally repugnant.:lol:Ermm ... no actually, depending on gender :blushing:

Cue Busyman :lol:

[bigboab]

Ermm ... no actually, depending on gender :blushing:

Cue Busyman :lol:

:lol::lol:

[Snee]

Ermm ... no actually, depending on gender :blushing:

Cue Busyman :lol:
I knew it, "he" really is a woman :dry:

[manker]

Ermm ... no actually, depending on gender :blushing:

Cue Busyman :lol::lol:

Good point.

Busy, I meant women. Sorry :pinch:

[Busyman]

They say that those that deny it the most are the ones unsure of their own sexuality too.... :ph34r:

So I'd better remember not to bend down if me and JPaul ever share a cell :ph34r:
No worries there mate, I'm a wanker.

Always have been, always will be.

All of this "if there's no women about then you will shag men" is a theory which I cannot agree with.

Not that that there's anything wrong with those who support it. To each, as they say, their own.
It's also a theory that you made up. :rolleyes:

[JPaul]

No worries there mate, I'm a wanker.

Always have been, always will be.

All of this "if there's no women about then you will shag men" is a theory which I cannot agree with.

Not that that there's anything wrong with those who support it. To each, as they say, their own.
It's also a theory that you made up. :rolleyes:
Really, pray tell.

[Busyman]

Is this quiescent homosexuality in everyone?

P.S. I know what wanking does.:)I think not.

I understand that Busyman and RF may have doubts about their own preferences but I have no such worries. I definitely find the thought of a dick up my arse quite repugnant.

:D
Oh that's right, you like to be behind the fella.

As far as my preferences, I do sometimes like skinny women as long as they have a figure.

[Busyman]

It's also a theory that you made up. :rolleyes:
Really, pray tell.
Yuh huh. :1eye:

[manker]

I think not.

I understand that Busyman and RF may have doubts about their own preferences but I have no such worries. I definitely find the thought of a dick up my arse quite repugnant.

:D
Oh that's right, you like to be behind the fella.
You say that like you've been spying on me :ermm:

[vidcc]

good on Canada and any other country that passes any act that grants equality to all.

majority opinion should never lead to oppression of the minority.

[vidcc]

Oh that's right, you like to be behind the fella.
You say that like you've been spying on me :ermm:

busy has eyes in the back of his head ;)

[JPaul]

good on Canada and any other country that passes any act that grants equality to all.

majority opinion should never lead to oppression of the minority.
Nonsense.

[Busyman]

Oh that's right, you like to be behind the fella.
You say that like you've been spying on me :ermm:
Oh no, it's what was understood by what you wrote.

[JPaul]

You say that like you've been spying on me :ermm:
Oh no, it's what was understood by what you wrote.
By whom.

Love the use of archaic English, btw. Not your normal style.

[manker]

You say that like you've been spying on me :ermm:
Oh no, it's what was understood by what you wrote.Really? So you haven't been spying on me. The only things you know about me are what I write on this forum.

What a relief.


Thanks for that, Cptn Obvious.

[Busyman]

Oh no, it's what was understood by what you wrote.
By whom.

Love the use of archaic English, btw. Not your normal style.
I have a style? :blink:

[Busyman]

Oh no, it's what was understood by what you wrote.Really? So you haven't been spying on me. The only things you know about me are what I write on this forum.

What a relief.


Thanks for that, Cptn Obvious.
Hey you made the dumbass statement, stanker, which warranted a statement for dumbasses, oh excuse me.......arses. :mellow:

[JPaul]

By whom.

Love the use of archaic English, btw. Not your normal style.
I have a style? :blink:
Indeed.

Were it not for the "a" you would be a decent spud.

Unfortunately you are derivative, however you may grow out of it.

[manker]

Really? So you haven't been spying on me. The only things you know about me are what I write on this forum.

What a relief.


Thanks for that, Cptn Obvious.
Hey you made the dumbass statement, stanker, which warranted a statement for dumbasses, oh excuse me.......arses. :mellow:How is it a dumbass statement. Loads of people on this forum think you're bisexual.

It's all to do with what you write on this forum (in case you were wondering).

[JPaul]

Really? So you haven't been spying on me. The only things you know about me are what I write on this forum.

What a relief.


Thanks for that, Cptn Obvious.
Hey you made the dumbass statement, stanker, which warranted a statement for dumbasses, oh excuse me.......arses. :mellow:
And then you go and spoil it, all by saying something stupid like .... that.

[Busyman]

I have a style? :blink:
Indeed.

Were it not for the "a" you would be a decent spud.

Unfortunately you are derivative, however you may grow out of it.
Damn....I wish I gave a shit. :(

[Busyman]

Hey you made the dumbass statement, stanker, which warranted a statement for dumbasses, oh excuse me.......arses. :mellow:
And then you go and spoil it, all by saying something stupid like .... that.
Damn....I wish I gave a shit. :cry:

[manker]

Hey you made the dumbass statement, stanker, which warranted a statement for dumbasses, oh excuse me.......arses. :mellow:
And then you go and spoil it, all by saying something stupid like .... that.To be fair, he did alter my name in the quote to stanker. Which is always quite funny.

His new pet name for me has recently changed to stanker from wanker - coincidently after Chebus pointed out his penchant for homoerotic innuendo, which is nice.

[JPaul]

:lol:

could he be more der .... oh never mind.

[manker]

Or was it homophobic insults that Busy had an affinity for - which he immediately quelled after it was pointed out. I can't remember.

[Busyman]

Hey you made the dumbass statement, stanker, which warranted a statement for dumbasses, oh excuse me.......arses. :mellow:How is it a dumbass statement. Loads of people on this forum think you're bisexual.

It's all to do with what you write on this forum (in case you were wondering).
Really?

1. I never wrote that I was bisexual.
2. I've only wrote that I like women.
3. I'm against gay marriage.

Post some links to the contrary.

It seems folks take a jab (like yourself) 'cause I don't share your views about you being born gay.

You talk so much stank, your mouth smells like trash-truck juice and you need to be bust in the mouth with a mint glove. :dry:

[manker]

How is it a dumbass statement. Loads of people on this forum think you're bisexual.

It's all to do with what you write on this forum (in case you were wondering).
Really?

1. I never wrote that I was bisexual.
2. I've only wrote that I like women.
3. I'm against gay marriage.

Post some links to the contrary.

It seems folks take a jab (like yourself) 'cause I don't share your views about being born gay.

You talk so much stank, your mouth smells like trash-truck juice and you need to be bust in the mouth with a mint glove. :dry:Bit nippy on the riverbank today. All this standing around with nary a nibble, til now.

It's a good thing I've brought my velvet glove.

[vidcc]

good on Canada and any other country that passes any act that grants equality to all.

majority opinion should never lead to oppression of the minority.
Nonsense.

So you think that majority parties like the Nazis were right?

For this let's forget the murder and look at things like jews not being allowed to trade and the removal from their homes to the ghettos.

I am for majority rule but not oppression.

[JPaul]

Nonsense.

So you think that majority parties like the Nazis were right?

For this let's forget the murder and look at things like jews not being allowed to trade and the removal from their homes to the ghettos.

I am for majority rule but not oppression.
Neat.

When pressed you do spelling, punctuation and capital letters. Thank feck you can control your dyslexia.

In fact, let's consider your reply to my one word response. Nah let's not bother, because you won't read it anyway. Instead, let's consider how your original post is nonsense (the one word reply which I made)

You said;

"good on Canada and any other country that passes any act that grants equality to all.

majority opinion should never lead to oppression of the minority."

I opined that it was nonsense because the following groups are, to the best of my knowledge, minority ;

pedophiles
rapists
misogynists

Do you ever think thro' what you say, or do you think that liberalism is cool, in and of itself.

I will happily oppress certain minority groups. In fact I will put a great deal of effort into oppressing them. It saddens me that you will fight me in this.

[peat moss]

Guess it depends on who shaved their ass ? Was it the pitcher or catcher ?
Oh great Vegas has enought problems with all those "Elvie " :ph34r:

What's an "Elvie" Peat? Is it, perhaps, the plural of Elvis?http://moderation.invisionzone.com/style_emoticons/default/gep.gif


Edit: 10k posts again. Get the fuck in.:01:




Yes , a lot of Elvis 'sss :D 10,000 posts ? Yikes good on you. :)

[vidcc]

Neat.

When pressed you do spelling, punctuation and capital letters. Thank feck you can control your dyslexia.

You dull individual, you can't answer my point with any weight so you pick on punctuation.


In fact, let's consider your reply to my one word response. Nah let's not bother, because you won't read it anyway. Instead, let's consider how your original post is nonsense (the one word reply which I made)

You said;

"good on Canada and any other country that passes any act that grants equality to all.

majority opinion should never lead to oppression of the minority."

I opined that it was nonsense because the following groups are, to the best of my knowledge, minority ;

pedophiles
rapists
misogynists

The first 2 are not consenting acts so are not about personal freedoms, so the use as an example is complete rubbish.

If one wants to be a misogynists by purely hating women so what? if they want to take physical actions against women then it is no longer a personal freedom.




Do you ever think thro' what you say, or do you think that liberalism is cool, in and of itself.

I will happily oppress certain minority groups. In fact I will put a great deal of effort into oppressing them. It saddens me that you will fight me in this.
yes i do think through, obviously you do not. You do not see a difference between a minority group that harms nobody and people that do.

[Busyman]

So you think that majority parties like the Nazis were right?

For this let's forget the murder and look at things like jews not being allowed to trade and the removal from their homes to the ghettos.

I am for majority rule but not oppression.
Neat.

When pressed you do spelling, punctuation and capital letters. Thank feck you can control your dyslexia.

In fact, let's consider your reply to my one word response. Nah let's not bother, because you won't read it anyway. Instead, let's consider how your original post is nonsense (the one word reply which I made)

You said;

"good on Canada and any other country that passes any act that grants equality to all.

majority opinion should never lead to oppression of the minority."

I opined that it was nonsense because the following groups are, to the best of my knowledge, minority ;

pedophiles
rapists
misogynists

Do you ever think thro' what you say, or do you think that liberalism is cool, in and of itself.

I will happily oppress certain minority groups. In fact I will put a great deal of effort into oppressing them. It saddens me that you will fight me in this.
I was waiting for that. :lol: :lol: :lol:

vidcc.......YOU HAVE JUST BEEN

:sick: :shifty: J'ISMED :shifty: :sick:

[Busyman]

You dull individual, you can't answer my point with any weight so you pick on punctuation.


In fact, let's consider your reply to my one word response. Nah let's not bother, because you won't read it anyway. Instead, let's consider how your original post is nonsense (the one word reply which I made)

You said;

"good on Canada and any other country that passes any act that grants equality to all.

majority opinion should never lead to oppression of the minority."

I opined that it was nonsense because the following groups are, to the best of my knowledge, minority ;

pedophiles
rapists
misogynists

The first 2 are not consenting acts so are not about personal freedoms, so the use as an example is complete rubbish.
Rape is the only one that purely involves no consent. :ph34r:

[JPaul]

good on Canada and any other country that passes any act that grants equality to all.

majority opinion should never lead to oppression of the minority.
Nonsense.
Let's reflect on what you actually said and my response.

[vidcc]

Nonsense.
Let's reflect on what you actually said and my response.

Yes equality...what is equal in your examples?

[vidcc]

You dull individual, you can't answer my point with any weight so you pick on punctuation.



The first 2 are not consenting acts so are not about personal freedoms, so the use as an example is complete rubbish.
Rape is the only one that purely involves no consent. :ph34r:

So you think a 7 year old fully understands and is able to make that choice?

[JPaul]

Let's reflect on what you actually said and my response.

Yes equality...what is equal in your examples?
Sorry, I have no idea what that means.

[vidcc]

Yes equality...what is equal in your examples?
Sorry, I have no idea what that means.

I believe you

[Busyman]

Rape is the only one that purely involves no consent. :ph34r:

So you think a 7 year old fully understands and is able to make that choice?
A 17 year-old does though.

[vidcc]

So you think a 7 year old fully understands and is able to make that choice?
A 17 year-old does though.

That goes with the age of consent which varies widely, some countries the age is 16 and at that age I feel that most (but not all) are capable of deciding. At what level do we decide that ALL are capable? Do I consider an 18 year old that has sex with their 17 year old girl/boyfriend a paedophile? no I don't.
As with the drinking age I don't always feel that the age set is correct, but it is set at a level so by that I go. I would like it to be set to the same level for all things. certainly if one is old enough to enlist in the military and die for ones country one should be old enough to drink and consent to sex (not saying they have to do both together)
This is another reason why I said the definition of a sex crime needs to be tightened.