You are a Racist, a Bigot and a Sexist.

KenHigg said:
You used the 'Perhaps...' thing first, how the heck is me using it any different?
Click to expand...

Reason 1 think of two kids

" your daft"

" your daft"

Etc

Reason 2


Mine was in the context of the rest of my post.
Yours was , see reason 1

Brian
 
I'm lost Brian. what does " your daft" mean?
 
btw - after that stunning admission, I don't think ss is coming back...
 
KenHigg said:
I'm lost Brian. what does " your daft" mean?
Click to expand...

Ah!
Daft is silly, stupid, I was illustrating two kids arguing, guess it floundered on the differences in our common language. :rolleyes:

Actually it should be you're daft , before col chases me, mind you he may come on to tell you it should have been "my using" not "me using" you know how pedantic he gets when he has nothing to say.


Brian
 
Brianwarnock said:
Ah!
Daft is silly, stupid, I was illustrating two kids arguing, guess it floundered on the differences in our common language. :rolleyes:

Brian
Click to expand...

I suppose it all is kind of silly, I mean two old farts... really. My apologies if I was rude Brian.
 
KenHigg said:
btw - after that stunning admission, I don't think ss is coming back...
Click to expand...

I can't help feeling that he got a bit carried away, but can't decide whether that was when writing his post or at the time, doubt if he will explain it further.

Brian
 
I seem to run off more than my fair share of gays around here. I'll try to shut up (once again)...
 
KenHigg said:
I suppose it all is kind of silly, I mean two old farts... really. My apologies if I was rude Brian.
Click to expand...

Nope you weren't rude, but I am obviously concerned/puzzled that an argument about marriage should flounder on the subject of sex, it may be important in a marriage but hopefully isn't the reason two people get married.

Gays and lesbians have all the legal equalities of marriage via a civil union in the UK , but some want the title married as "we are civil unioned" is a bit cumbersome, it was way back in the thread when the debate first focused on the language changes that this issue was likely to introduce.

Brian
 
Ken, it's only your personal opinion that two guys should not be allowed to be married because you find it icky. That's your opinion. If you don't like it, don't "touch another man's willy." Just don't try to force your personal views on others. Whether it's marriage or sex we are talking about, gay activity has existed for thousands of years and was very welcome in Roman culture. Of course, they didn't grant special rights based on marriage and then refuse that marriage to gay couples. That's why this is a civil rights issue. They want the same rights to visit those they love in the hospital just like everyone else. They should be able to without the court stopping them. What Brian says is all well and good for the UK, but we don't have federally recognized civil union, so that cannot be comparable here.
 
Just to be clear I am not against gay marriage, my "conversion" came long ago before the civil union law was passed. Two elderly gentlemen were being interviewed on the tv, and it turned out that they had lived together for over 40 years but were denied the sort of legal rights taken for granted by married couples. They were obviously concerned about the future if one became ill, and I thought, "hey this is wrong"

What I don't like is the aggressive agenda of some to have the gay life style actively taught in primary schools, it should just be part of the reading materials in the same way as any other life style.

Brian
 
Vassago said:
Ken, it's only your personal opinion that two guys should not be allowed to be married because you find it icky. That's your opinion. If you don't like it, don't "touch another man's willy." Just don't try to force your personal views on others. Whether it's marriage or sex we are talking about, gay activity has existed for thousands of years and was very welcome in Roman culture. Of course, they didn't grant special rights based on marriage and then refuse that marriage to gay couples. That's why this is a civil rights issue. They want the same rights to visit those they love in the hospital just like everyone else. They should be able to without the court stopping them. What Brian says is all well and good for the UK, but we don't have federally recognized civil union, so that cannot be comparable here.
Click to expand...

How about you stop trying to force your view on the subject on me Vas - ? I'm thinking I have just as much right to object to thier views as they have to object to mine.
 
I'm already regretting my getting out of control on this thread Cindy. Sorry :(
 
KenHigg said:
How about you stop trying to force your view on the subject on me Vas - ? I'm thinking I have just as much right to object to thier views as they have to object to mine.
Click to expand...

Where did I do that? I'm saying let others do what they want and you do what you want. Everyone wins! :p
 
Brianwarnock said:
Just to be clear I am not against gay marriage, my "conversion" came long ago before the civil union law was passed. Two elderly gentlemen were being interviewed on the tv, and it turned out that they had lived together for over 40 years but were denied the sort of legal rights taken for granted by married couples. They were obviously concerned about the future if one became ill, and I thought, "hey this is wrong"

What I don't like is the aggressive agenda of some to have the gay life style actively taught in primary schools, it should just be part of the reading materials in the same way as any other life style.

Brian
Click to expand...

I agree. I don't recall seeing any agenda for teaching a "gay" lifestyle in school.
 
KenHigg said:
I'm already regretting my getting out of control on this thread Cindy. Sorry :(
Click to expand...

No need to apologize to me. I haven't even gone back and read all of it. I just thought it was interesting, is all. :D
 
Fifty2One said:
Dont know how there is a religious element to the debate: marriage is a legal status, a wedding is a religious ceremony.
Click to expand...

Marriage is between a man and a woman and that is handed down by God's words in the Holy Bible. This whole idea about Gay Marriage is an attack on religion. If you (the gays) can get the same rights through a civil union including all federal benefits, would the Gay community be satisfied. The majority probably would but there is an element of the Gay community that would not. This segment of the community has an agenda and that agenda is to destroy religion or at least minimize it effects on people, laws, etc. in the U.S. A ruling allowing Gay marriages in all states would do just that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Isaac
Just one of the many analogies I chuckle at
Replies
12
Views
1,101
Isaac
Isaac
NauticalGent
My Facebook post on the election
Replies
7
Views
822
Pat Hartman
P
Uncle Gizmo
Microsoft’s “Premier” Mix-Up: A Tale of Access and Amnesia
Replies
13
Views
837
NauticalGent
NauticalGent
Jon
Prompts for innovation
Replies
0
Views
378
Jon
Jon
jwcolby54
Using ChatGPT as a personal editor
Replies
0
Views
384
jwcolby54
jwcolby54

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top Bottom