Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Ali1302)
    We are a democracy indeed yet there was no vote on gay marriage in England? l
    I take it you're an anarchist then. The people have only directly voted on about a dozen things, so I guess we have only a handful of laws. Whilst unparliamentary, and I will probably get carded for this, I guess that means I could call some burly armed black gays later to rape you to death and eat your corpse, after all, we never voted to make rape, murder, or canibalism illegal. Then again, I guess it wouldn't be murder since there would be no valid law to declare it unlawful.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JoeL1994)
    Ignorant - no, arrogant - probably slightly having seen people like you come and go through UKIP and never leave their mark on the MHoC and be a lot safer in that knowledge.

    Not when your views constitute insulting people for something thy have no control over, unless you believe LGBTQ people have a choice?
    Wow, this is stepping into a whole different debate on whether people chose to be gay. That would be an even more heated discussion and yes I do believe homosexuals chose their sexual orientation but can we have this argument another time.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Ali1302)
    For the last time, I'm not gay bashing. I'm not against them having rights, I'm just against the use of the word "marriage". What don't you understand?

    How is it relevant whether I support forced marriages, polygamy and marriage to minors. This is completely irrelevant to the point.

    Stop being a grammar Nazi and I can't even pretend to care.
    Polygamy, age restrictions etc are all relevant since you are declaring that the definition of marriage is what it was at least in biblical times, which means that unless you denounce interracial marriage, the banning of forced marriage, age restrictions in marriage, forced monogamy, etc you are already accepting the changing of the definition as acceptable. What do you not understand about that?

    And do you not know what etymology is, given you seem to think it part of grammar you lesbian lover?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ali1302)
    Wow, this is stepping into a whole different debate on whether people chose to be gay. That would be an even more heated discussion and yes I do believe homosexuals chose their sexual orientation but can we have this argument another time.
    Knew it.

    Nah you're alright, I don't argue with people that can't be saved. ttfn.


    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    And do you not know what etymology is, given you seem to think it part of grammar you lesbian lover?
    By far the greatest put down I've seen in the House.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Ali1302)
    Totally irrelevant example using feminism. Marriage is considered and believed to be by the vast majority of people on earth, a union between a man and a woman. Those that don't believe this is the case have been affected by the gay agenda and are only serving the gay communities interest to divide heterosexual individuals. Gays use the media and money to promote their interests. Now this translates into major political power. However, all of this doesn't change the definition of marriage. People who believe in bestiality may come up with a similar campaign but they won't get to change the definition of marriage either.
    Not speakers of British English.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by JoeL1994)
    Knew it.

    Nah you're alright, I don't argue with people that can't be saved. ttfn.




    By far the greatest put down I've seen in the House.
    He may not, but I know the etymology of "man" referring to a human male and "woman" to refer to a human female, almost as ancient ashis definitions, and his wording allows women to marry any human they like.

    Whether i agree with same sex marriage or not is irrelevant to the argument and the ability to wind up an intolerant fool
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Polygamy, age restrictions etc are all relevant since you are declaring that the definition of marriage is what it was at least in biblical times, which means that unless you denounce interracial marriage, the banning of forced marriage, age restrictions in marriage, forced monogamy, etc you are already accepting the changing of the definition as acceptable. What do you not understand about that?

    And do you not know what etymology is, given you seem to think it part of grammar you lesbian lover?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I don't have to denounce anyone of the marriages you state since they are between one and one woman. None of them violate the definition of the word marriage. Why do you insist on using this? None of them change my definition of marriage, I can't see how the definition is changed at all from one man and one woman?

    On your last statement. What??? What are you even talking about?
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    He may not, but I know the etymology of "man" referring to a human male and "woman" to refer to a human female, almost as ancient ashis definitions, and his wording allows women to marry any human they like.

    Whether i agree with same sex marriage or not is irrelevant to the argument and the ability to wind up an intolerant fool
    No, you're intolerant of my views that's why you insist on attacking me and the only good argument you've made so far is criticizing my spelling.

    Also you are clearly defending the change of the definition of marriage to the benefit of the homosexual community. So whether you wanted to or not are supporting this false definition and in fact attempting to enforce this definition using misleading examples.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Ugh, spelling... (I made the corrections bolded and red.)
    (I didn't correct all spelling or grammatical mistakes, as that would have massacred your post. I didn't even start on the meanings or implications of what you were saying!)

    (This post is going to be quite messy, having to reply to each point you made. [Now I feel like I'm devaluing the word "point".])

    {line break}
    {line break}

    (Original post by Ali1302)
    Oh help me I'm getting attacked by an offended homosexual Oh nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooo. Wait I can defend myself, I'll just continue making logical arguments as I always do and expose flaws.
    For your information, I'm bisexual, not homosexual, because I have sexual attractions to both sexes.

    And I've not taken offence in the context you're giving it; I'm actually offended that you gave me a reply. Honestly, when I saw a notification for your post I shouted in frustration at my brother about how predictable a certain TSR user's post was, and that how frigging dare he actually reply as if the levels we were at were even comparable. I found it rude that you'd grace my presence, like an offending article of clothing on my lap, dirty, that isn't mine.

    First of all I'm not a troll, I'm a human being thank you very much.
    Yw. Though the credit is misplaced, as I don't hold that view, as you are a troll. Perhaps a human who's trans-mutated into a troll? That encompasses both humans and trolls to an extent, satisfying both parties somewhat. You do eat cows straight from the field don't you?

    Plus, an individual in this forum started to attack me not the other way round.
    Irrelevant.

    I will continue to protect the definition of marriage
    You meant to say "I will continue to protect the not-so-valid stipulation to marriage", didn't you?

    and prevent ignorant homosexuals such as yourself from changing the definition.
    How am I ignorant? For not conforming to your sub-standard definition for the word marriage?
    "such as yourself" isn't applicable for reasons aforementioned. (If you can't remember, I said I was bisexual; I have sexual attractions to both sexes.)

    Repeatedly using the word marriage doesn't make your relationship a marriage
    A relationship isn't by default constituted by a marriage; evidently you have a limited understanding of the word "relationship".

    and yes you are in the same category of people who believe in bestiality in regards to this.
    ?

    Thousands of years of history has defined marriage
    Thousands of years of history has defined marriage, then. Let's use that as a premise.
    What's one more year going to hurt? The same could be said for next year, and the year after.
    Why are all previous years allowed to define, and change it?
    Your point is moot.

    and no one gets to change the definition, not you nor the gay community as a whole.
    No, the general consensus of society does, which does, surprisingly, have me and the gay community as constituents, meaning we do have influence over the definitions of words, however negligible it may seem/be on an individual basis.

    Gays such as yourself have a super agenda.
    "such as yourself" isn't applicable, for aforementioned reasons.

    Now...
    "super agenda!" (read like "super man!" in a sing-song voice whilst putting a fist into the air, whilst cocking the elbow on the opposite arm back.)

    First it involves the media and Hollywood wherein gays are over-represented at least by a factor of ten.
    Don't give over-representation an arbitrary value and try to quantify it if you probably don't even know what you're talking about.
    Yes they can be over-represented, but have you actually done any further research on the matter? Your beliefs are probably just as bad as those who don't believe in over-representation at all.

    Oh, and do remember, that media (also not homogeneous) have multiple reasons for doing such a thing, such as monetary profits.

    Then it's furthered to schools and communities by the means of gay parades and gay protests/activists as well as organizations.
    Ooh, I never knew gay parades took place in schools...

    ...do they?
    .
    .
    (Then don't bloody imply such.)

    Massive amounts of funding go into these campaigns and TV shows.
    Got any figures? (Nope, you haven't, I presume.)

    On top of this the directors of movies are pressured into promoting homosexuality.
    "Such as when... [give example][e.g. Micheal Bay was told that funding would be cut if they didn't have a gay transformer orgy. [Yes, that was made up.])"

    Homosexuals don't have to use the word marriage to define their relationships
    A marriage doesn't define a relationship regardless.

    but insist on doing so due to the fact that they know how valuable this word is to heterosexuals.
    "...but insist on doing so because there are legal benefits to marriage, and many set it as a milestone in relationships.

    Also it's inequality. (Yes, I used a big word.)"

    The attempt at hijacking the word marriage isn't going to work, as I have said before that no one changes the definition of marriage. (Perhaps "...no one should be allowed to change the definition of marriage/no one can change the definition of marriage."

    Homosexuality isn't something I believe should be promoted in any way especially onto heterosexuals who do not realize the dangers of doing this on future generations.("by" contradicts the current stances you have showed.)

    Labelling me a homophobe doesn't make me a homophobe. I'm not against gay rights just the use of the word "marriage".
    Yes, labelling you a homophobe doesn't make you a homophobe, but having homophobic qualities makes you a homophobe, which you are characterised by.

    You are against gay rights as a consequence of wanting to deny them the right to marry. And since when should there be gay rights, as opposed to just rights? Why should gay innocuous people have a separate set of rights for them to heterosexual people?

    And it's clearly not semantics, don't bullsh*t me.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JoeL1994)
    Knew it.

    Nah you're alright, I don't argue with people that can't be saved. ttfn.
    .
    Now you've given me no choice. First, people go into jail straight then come out gay. Second, it is impossible for a sterile gene to survive evolution. Third, the fact that people can switch from one sexuality to another(especially women) and even become bisexual demonstrates that homosexuality is indeed a choice.

    I don't need to be saved but you do from your own ignorant and arrogant views
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Ali's comments are inflammatory, blunt, and could be offensive to some but I consider them to be on the line between homophobic and controversial. Calling people homosexual is not needed, nor does it make sense; he should retract those marks, the people who retaliated should retract their marks.

    I believe the point Ali is trying to make about promoting homosexuality is it should not be thought of as special or marginalised because a person's sexual orientation is not important in society; everyone is still a person. The motive behind his point is not clear, it is difficult to see what he is trying to say without the full context. I do not think accusing the LBGT+ movement of having an agenda is offensive, but only saying how the agenda is promoted without saying what the agenda is does not help Ali's side of the argument; I do not understand what he is saying.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by XcitingStuart)
    Ugh, spelling... (I made the corrections bolded and red.)
    (I didn't correct all spelling or grammatical mistakes, as that would have massacred your post. I didn't even start on the meanings or implications of what you were saying!)

    (This post is going to be quite messy, having to reply to each point you made. [Now I feel like I'm devaluing the word "point".])

    {line break}
    {line break}



    For your information, I'm bisexual, not homosexual, because I have sexual attractions to both sexes.

    And I've not taken offence in the context you're giving it; I'm actually offended that you gave me a reply. Honestly, when I saw a notification for your post I shouted in frustration at my brother about how predictable a certain TSR user's post was, and that how frigging dare he actually reply as if the levels we were at were even comparable. I found it rude that you'd grace my presence, like an offending article of clothing on my lap, dirty, that isn't mine.



    Yw. Though the credit is misplaced, as I don't hold that view, as you are a troll. Perhaps a human who's trans-mutated into a troll? That encompasses both humans and trolls to an extent, satisfying both parties somewhat. You do eat cows straight from the field don't you?



    Irrelevant.



    You meant to say "I will continue to protect the not-so-valid stipulation to marriage", didn't you?



    How am I ignorant? For not conforming to your sub-standard definition for the word marriage?
    "such as yourself" isn't applicable for reasons aforementioned. (If you can't remember, I said I was bisexual; I have sexual attractions to both sexes.)



    A relationship isn't by default constituted by a marriage; evidently you have a limited understanding of the word "relationship".



    ?



    Thousands of years of history has defined marriage, then. Let's use that as a premise.
    What's one more year going to hurt? The same could be said for next year, and the year after.
    Why are all previous years allowed to define, and change it?
    Your point is moot.



    No, the general consensus of society does, which does, surprisingly, have me and the gay community as constituents, meaning we do have influence over the definitions of words, however negligible it may seem/be on an individual basis.



    "such as yourself" isn't applicable, for aforementioned reasons.

    Now...
    "super agenda!" (read like "super man!" in a sing-song voice whilst putting a fist into the air, whilst cocking the elbow on the opposite arm back.)



    Don't give over-representation an arbitrary value and try to quantify it if you probably don't even know what you're talking about.
    Yes they can be over-represented, but have you actually done any further research on the matter? Your beliefs are probably just as bad as those who don't believe in over-representation at all.

    Oh, and do remember, that media (also not homogeneous) have multiple reasons for doing such a thing, such as monetary profits.



    Ooh, I never knew gay parades took place in schools...

    ...do they?
    .
    .
    (Then don't bloody imply such.)



    Got any figures? (Nope, you haven't, I presume.)



    "Such as when... [give example][e.g. Micheal Bay was told that funding would be cut if they didn't have a gay transformer orgy. [Yes, that was made up.])"



    A marriage doesn't define a relationship regardless.



    "...but insist on doing so because there are legal benefits to marriage, and many set it as a milestone in relationships.

    Also it's inequality. (Yes, I used a big word.)"



    Yes, labelling you a homophobe doesn't make you a homophobe, but having homophobic qualities makes you a homophobe, which you are characterised by.

    You are against gay rights as a consequence of wanting to deny them the right to marry. And since when should there be gay rights, as opposed to just rights? Why should gay innocuous people have a separate set of rights for them to heterosexual people?

    And it's clearly not semantics, don't bullsh*t me.
    Marriage doesn't belong to homosexuals or those that believe in bestiality. It belongs to heterosexuals period. How about this you can have all the rights of marriage but don't get to call your union a "marriage". That better for you?

    Marriage is between a man and a woman no one gets to change the definition of marriage their is no debate here whatsoever. Also keep denying the obvious media agenda of the gay community and the overrepresentation in TV shows and movies.

    Also you stating gay parades at schools is misleading as I stated communities aswell. Gay organization do there part at spreading the gay message in schools.

    "And I've not taken offence in the context you're giving it; I'm actually offended that you gave me a reply. Honestly, when I saw a notification for your post I shouted in frustration at my brother about how predictable a certain TSR user's post was, and that how frigging dare he actually reply as if the levels we were at were even comparable. I found it rude that you'd grace my presence, like an offending article of clothing on my lap, dirty, that isn't mine."

    I can't even pretend to care how you feel but if I did hurt your feelings then too bad. You will not enforce your views on me or shut me up!!

    "You are against gay rights as a consequence of wanting to deny them the right to marry"

    It is not a marriage and I'm not denying anyone any rights just use another word, Marriage is already taken. Those tax cuts and benefits are for heterosexual couples that have children naturally and create families, that benefit society. But if you want that then go ahead but don't you dare call it a "marriage".
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ali1302)
    Marriage doesn't belong to homosexuals or those that believe in bestiality. It belongs to heterosexuals period. How about this you can have all the rights of marriage but don't get to call your union a "marriage". That better for you?

    Marriage is between a man and a woman no one gets to change the definition of marriage their is no debate here whatsoever. Also keep denying the obvious media agenda of the gay community and the overrepresentation in TV shows and movies.

    Also you stating gay parades at schools is misleading as I stated communities aswell. Gay organization do there part at spreading the gay message in schools.

    "And I've not taken offence in the context you're giving it; I'm actually offended that you gave me a reply. Honestly, when I saw a notification for your post I shouted in frustration at my brother about how predictable a certain TSR user's post was, and that how frigging dare he actually reply as if the levels we were at were even comparable. I found it rude that you'd grace my presence, like an offending article of clothing on my lap, dirty, that isn't mine."

    I can't even pretend to care how you feel but if I did hurt your feelings then too bad. You will not enforce your views on me or shut me up!!

    "You are against gay rights as a consequence of wanting to deny them the right to marry"

    It is not a marriage and I'm not denying anyone any rights just use another word, Marriage is already taken. Those tax cuts and benefits are for heterosexual couples that have children naturally and create families, that benefit society. But if you want that then go ahead but don't you dare call it a "marriage".
    I'm moving on in life.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by XcitingStuart)
    I'm moving on in life.
    Oh wait. You have a life?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ali1302)
    I don't recognize this so called "gay" marriage. A marriage is between a man and woman. I don't care what the law says. No one gets to change the definition!!
    Lmfao
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    Ali's comments are inflammatory, blunt, and could be offensive to some but I consider them to be on the line between homophobic and controversial. Calling people homosexual is not needed, nor does it make sense; he should retract those remarks, and the people who responded or started it with insults should retract those remarks.

    I believe the point Ali is trying to make about promoting homosexuality is it should not be thought of as special or marginalised because a person's sexual orientation is not important in society; everyone is still a person. The motive behind his point is not clear, it is difficult to see what he is trying to say without the full context. I do not think accusing the LBGT+ movement of having an agenda is offensive, but only saying how the agenda is promoted without saying what the agenda is does not help Ali's side of the argument; I do not understand what he is trying to say. This thread has gone off topic Birchington, toronto353, or another person with the ability needs to clean up the thread.
    Why would my views be controversial. I'm sure over 40% of people in the UK would vote against gay marriage, is it simply because I'm not in the majority?
    The person I responded to was bisexual so it wouldn't appear to be that offensive. However, on this note I would retract the homosexual remark. Although it wasn't offensive, it was unnecessary.

    The agenda is about promoting homosexuality which you yourself stated should not be thought of as special. No I have no other secret motive here. The thread went off topic when everyone decided to attack me.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Imperion)
    Lmfao
    I'm glad someone here shares my sense of humour. It's just ridiculous to suggest that marriage is anything other than a union between a man and a woman.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ali1302)
    I'm glad someone here shares my sense of humour. It's just ridiculous to suggest that marriage is anything other than a union between a man and a woman.
    You missed my point, literally. :lol:
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ali1302)
    Oh wait. You have a life?
    Yes, unlike some of the trolls on here... :giggle:
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ali1302)
    (Original post by Imperion)
    (Original post by Ali1302)
    I don't recognize this so called "gay" marriage. A marriage is between a man and woman. I don't care what the law says. No one gets to change the definition!!
    Lmfao
    I'm glad someone here shares my sense of humour. It's just ridiculous to suggest that marriage is anything other than a union between a man and a woman.
    Uhm... I think you've misinterpreted, entirely.
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: November 11, 2015
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.