| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 130551 | 2013-04-13 14:26:00 | So much for "Marriage Equality" | goodiesguy (15316) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 1336690 | 2013-04-14 23:42:00 | Fair call, no excuse for throwing around terms like "poofter" and "queer" though. What decade are we in again? This place is a timewarp. | pablo d (15490) | ||
| 1336691 | 2013-04-14 23:57:00 | Can I say this here without the risk of getting banned ? I think the idea of two men getting married is wrong and to make it legal is disgraceful and a stain on our British heritage culture here in NZ. |
prefect (6291) | ||
| 1336692 | 2013-04-15 00:03:00 | Can I say this here without the risk of getting banned ? I think the idea of two men getting married is wrong and to make it legal is disgraceful and a stain on our British heritage culture here in NZ. And I suppose its OK and all good for two women ? |
wainuitech (129) | ||
| 1336693 | 2013-04-15 00:29:00 | Fair call, no excuse for throwing around terms like "poofter" and "queer" though. What decade are we in again? This place is a timewarp. Agreed. Lets try and keep this respectful guys. Can I say this here without the risk of getting banned ? I think the idea of two men getting married is wrong and to make it legal is disgraceful and a stain on our British heritage culture here in NZ. Have no problem with you saying that. It's fine, and you're entitled to an opinion. However, if this law proceeds, you won't be allowed to have that opinion any longer, and you'll be fined a solid chunk of change if you voice that opinion. This is an infringement of the whole entire countries rights to freedom of speech, right to an opinion, and right to religion. This is why the law needs to be stopped now, in it's current form, and re-written to uphold the actual intent while respecting the rights of the rest of the country. And I suppose its OK and all good for two women ? Most men would probably smile and nod :D Two guys kissing, not attractive. Two women however.... ;) |
Chilling_Silence (9) | ||
| 1336694 | 2013-04-15 00:29:00 | If two gay people want to get married then they have the civil union option or they could change it to same sex marriage without changing the definition of marriage. And as for calling gay people poofters the term means effeminate male. Not all gay men are like that. en.wikipedia.org |
QW. (15883) | ||
| 1336695 | 2013-04-15 00:31:00 | Seeing two blokes having a pash, has got to put you off. In my case all right for 2 girls, but I don't go along with same sex marriage, if you are into the ridiculous, then it's ok. |
Cicero (40) | ||
| 1336696 | 2013-04-15 00:48:00 | (Fair call, no excuse for throwing around terms like "poofter" and "queer" though. What decade are we in again? This place is a timewarp). Yes, I tend forget we have a few on here . . |
Cicero (40) | ||
| 1336697 | 2013-04-15 01:02:00 | If you're worth marrying you shouldn't need to sign a contract. Your word alone should be your contract. It is a well worn maxim that an unwritten contract is not worth the paper it isn't written on. With the casualisation of personal relationships these days, more and more people are finding themselves seriously disadvantaged if their relationship does not work out, and the common law can't work miracles. A formal contract, be it civil or marriage or whatever also gives some stability and certainty for future offspring, and for division of assets if the free-thinking experiment doesn't work. Lawyers are rich and rapacious enough already with inviting another level of feeding frenzy. We all pay for such liberalisation because the liability for sorting out failures ultimately will fall on the State, as it always does, and that is our money. Maybe civil contracts will become more common, they may have the flexibility to cope with multi-partner arrangements as well. Whatever may develop in the future, it must have a framework to protect children, the elderly and those in between who cannot fend for themselves. That is the essence of humanity. and I hasten to add, none of this has anything to do with churches, which are another blight on the landcape. Billy 8-{) |
Billy T (70) | ||
| 1336698 | 2013-04-15 01:15:00 | (Fair call, no excuse for throwing around terms like "poofter" and "queer" though . What decade are we in again? This place is a timewarp) . Yes, I tend forget we have a few on here . . Statistically you're probably related to a few as well . |
pablo d (15490) | ||
| 1336699 | 2013-04-15 01:28:00 | It is a well worn maxim that an unwritten contract is not worth the paper it isn't written on. With the casualisation of personal relationships these days, more and more people are finding themselves seriously disadvantaged if their relationship does not work out, and the common law can't work miracles. A formal contract, be it civil or marriage or whatever also gives some stability and certainty for future offspring, and for division of assets if the free-thinking experiment doesn't work. Lawyers are rich and rapacious enough already with inviting another level of feeding frenzy. We all pay for such liberalisation because the liability for sorting out failures ultimately will fall on the State, as it always does, and that is our money. Maybe civil contracts will become more common, they may have the flexibility to cope with multi-partner arrangements as well. Whatever may develop in the future, it must have a framework to protect children, the elderly and those in between who cannot fend for themselves. That is the essence of humanity. and I hasten to add, none of this has anything to do with churches, which are another blight on the landcape. Billy 8-{) :thumbs: So mote it be. |
WalOne (4202) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 | |||||