BooBoo wrote:A truly disgraceful decision: the land of saints and scholars has become the land of fairies and puffs. Now, we can expect to see incestuous and poly-amorous couples being given the right to marry. The moral decline of the West continues.

Soon even the homosexuals will be gay.

Good to see homophobia is kosher here.

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:Good to see homophobia is kosher here.

?

Not a single person is taking that comment seriously, and it has an open report on it. Give it more than five hours, maybe?

BooBoo wrote:

tuco wrote:If anyone wanted to piss on your parade, anyone could take this pic:

Can someone explain to me why homosexual relationships are of "equal" worth with heterosexual ones? One makes biological and social sense whereas the other clearly does not.

And you are quoting me in attempt to get answer?

I will explain it to you then. The institution of marriage is discriminatory institution and relic from our past and should be abolished. Only by abolishing it all relationships can be equal. This small victory only confirms global trend following sexual revolution and has little significance to the concept of all relationships being equal as there are probably more relationships being practiced outside of the institution of marriage than homosexual relationships.

However, people seem to enjoy even small victories, especially when there is sense of say revolution. Though the spirit of revolution and wet eyes will evaporate quickly lets go YOLO.

BooBoo wrote:A truly disgraceful decision: the land of saints and scholars has become the land of fairies and puffs. Now, we can expect to see incestuous and poly-amorous couples being given the right to marry. The moral decline of the West continues.

Actually, they're leprechauns.

Your bitter tears carving v-shape valleys down your cheeks, and those like you, is my secondary reason for voting Yes. Only the Germans have a word to convey the emotion I'm feeling right now. Thanks for making my day.

Also, "poly-amorous couples" Lol.

BooBoo wrote:

tuco wrote:If anyone wanted to piss on your parade, anyone could take this pic:

Can someone explain to me why homosexual relationships are of "equal" worth with heterosexual ones? One makes biological and social sense whereas the other clearly does not.

Well, I see it like this. In a heterosexual relationship there are two people. In an ideal world, they love each other and what they get up to behind their bedroom door, nobody gives a shit about providing no harm is done.
In a homosexual relationship, there are two people. In an ideal world, they too love each other and what they get up to behind their bedroom door ought not to concern anyone else either but for some reason it does.

For all you know, the respectable heterosexual couple next door's sex life involves him dressing up like a baby, being spanked for wiping poo all over himself before being rogered rotten by a huge strap on. But they're married, heterosexual etc so it makes biological sense? Not necessarily. Not all heterosexual relationships are about being baby factories. People express their love in lots of imaginative ways.

The homosexual relationship might not make biological sense to you, they won't be breeding naturally I guess is your argument. So fucking what? We're overpopulated as a planet anyway. Denying people the right to marry won't change their sexuality. Allowing marriage acknowledges that the majority of the population (at least of Ireland) are willing to see the end of homophobic bigotry in their country, give everyone the same rights as people regardless of which gender they are attracted to and wish to marry.

Oh, congrats Ireland!!

Greyman wrote:

BooBoo wrote:Anyway, 62.1% voted yes with a turnout of 61.5%. This means that only a minority (38.2%) actually turned out to vote yes.

Yes, and that 37.9% of voters voted no with a turnout of 61.5% means only 23.3% of the population voted "no". That is a smaller minority.

A turnout of 61.5% only means the opinion of 38.5% is unknown; but it doesn't matter because they just didn't care enough about whatever it was to express it.

Quite so.
A point which the many lefties here should remember with regard to the UK General Election and their comments about only whatever % of the total population actually voted Conservative.

And yes, I'm perfectly aware that in the GE there were more than 2 alternatives, but suggest that most UKIP voters, and the DUP and UUP voters, and some of the remaining LibDem voters preferred Cameron to Miliband as PM if they couldn't have their own guys, so a fallacy to say that everyone who didn't vote Conservative were completely anti Tory.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

BooBoo wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote::rofl:

No joke. I forgot to also mention bestial relationships being recognized by the State.

Please demonstrate a direct causal link between allowing SSM and:
1. Bestiality.
2. Incest.
3. Polygamy.
After that, please explain why SSM is so immoral.

The only link between those actions and SSM is in the bigoted minds of people like BooBoo.

DaveScriv wrote:

Greyman wrote:

BooBoo wrote:Anyway, 62.1% voted yes with a turnout of 61.5%. This means that only a minority (38.2%) actually turned out to vote yes.

Yes, and that 37.9% of voters voted no with a turnout of 61.5% means only 23.3% of the population voted "no". That is a smaller minority.

A turnout of 61.5% only means the opinion of 38.5% is unknown; but it doesn't matter because they just didn't care enough about whatever it was to express it.

Quite so.
A point which the many lefties here should remember with regard to the UK General Election and their comments about only whatever % of the total population actually voted Conservative.

And yes, I'm perfectly aware that in the GE there were more than 2 alternatives, but suggest that most UKIP voters, and the DUP and UUP voters, and some of the remaining LibDem voters preferred Cameron to Miliband as PM if they couldn't have their own guys, so a fallacy to say that everyone who didn't vote Conservative were completely anti Tory.

and as the GE wasn't a single issue poll, it's also a fallacy to suggest that everyone who did vote Tory supported the entire Tory manifesto, but that won't stop Cameron trying to suggest that they did, even though (apparently) some of his cabinet don't.

BooBoo wrote:A truly disgraceful decision: the land of saints and scholars has become the land of fairies and puffs. Now, we can expect to see incestuous and poly-amorous couples being given the right to marry. The moral decline of the West continues.

Hoo! Came crashing through the undergrowth and out into the open shouting 'chase me' with that one, didn't you. Reminds me slightly of that bit in The Fifth Element where the alien can't keep his human disguise together and is forced to fight airport security with guns instead of slipping past. Not getting enough attention with the more subtle trolling?

Hopefully I won't harm my street cred by asking, but...what's a 'puff'?

It is derived from the the term "poofter" which is an old term for a homosexual.

Urban dictionary:

puff
a man who is gay or is acting really queerly.
1. will young is a puff
2. stop acting like a puff!!!

Now we just have to get the stupid Oztralian government to realise that they are out of step with both Ireland and the majority of Ozzie citizens. Its a federal law change here, much simpler than changing a constitutional matter.

Scot Dutchy wrote:It is derived from the the term "poofter" which is an old term for a homosexual.

I think Spinozasgalt was highlighting the fact that BooBoo spelt it wrong. I'm pretty sure an Australian would know what 'poof' means.

Fallible wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:It is derived from the the term "poofter" which is an old term for a homosexual.

I think Spinozasgalt was highlighting the fact that BooBoo spelt it wrong. I'm pretty sure an Australian would know what 'poof' means.

Actually its a term that has just about disappeared from general use here. A lot of derogatory slang has vanished from our culture over the past thirty years or so. I take that as a good sign.

Is it pronounced 'puff' or 'poof'? Are they supposed to be the same word?

Spinozasgalt wrote:Is it pronounced 'puff' or 'poof'? Are they supposed to be the same word?

It's pronounced poof(ter).

Poof.