Discussion in 'Parramatta Eels' started by Gronk, Dec 5, 2015.
Dual citizenship. I can't see how you can swear allegiance to two countries. I wouldn't allow it.
Mate, everything they did was religious in nature. You really need to read Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World.
When did Peter Sagan have the time to write a book? He's back to back world champion!
Avoiding the topic yet again bart? Does pop-psychology make you a pop-psychologist?
That's not how I remember that Bryan Adams song.
Depends on how you define "religious". Something can be religious but not part of a "religion".
Our discussion was about people who lead or follow a religion having objections to marriage equality.
Thanks for playing - go back to that history of marriage link again and see if you want to argue that marriage was always part of religion again.
I haven't avoided anything. I think I've come up with the perfect template to translate your posts... might even make a good signature, for easy reference?
Still waiting for you to respond to something other than the strawman you create.
Ah the old, smug, "I say I've won therefore I have"....A barty staple.
What a twat.
Depends how important the concept of a "country" is to a person.
Some people, especially immigrants, might find it easy to have allegiance to two countries because they don't see their identity as being an "us or them" type of thing.
Apart from sporting contests, I'm not sure why anyone would see their identity as excluding allegiance to two countries...? I certainly don't give a rats arse if someone retains their allegiance to their old and new country - it might only get awkward if there was a war between the two countries concerned.
Where's the gif?!
So have you read the links Baz... do you care to say why they don't support what I've claimed? Or will you take your usual place in the easy-way-out peanut gallery,
No issue with it personally. I don't think citizenship has anything to do with allegiance. Oftentimes it's just to do with convenience.
Ask the person you're arguing with, because I don't really care where marriage came from. I don't have to agree or disagree with either of you to think that you're a pompous twat who has basically done everything you've accused Pou of doing and then declared himself the victor by default to try and cop out of the argument.
The point you're inferring (and I dare say you'll correct me if I'm wrong) is that marriage was only ever a matter between two individuals, erm, and the state. Until big bad Christianity came along and got involved in people's private lives that was only the business of them alone and the modern Leviathanesque nation-state 'recognising' their married status.
My counter to this is that marriage has always been a matter for the community, who have always, until very recently, decided social outcomes, including who can and cannot marry. And further, that in a world where everybody was religious, these social mores were enforced by an appeal to supernatural beings, whether spirits, ancestors or one or more gods.
Please send more wikipedia.
So peanut gallery, rather than discussing the issues it is for you then. *sigh*
Trying hard to get that Thaiday award after all...
Oh I'm happy to discuss any issue with a reasonable person who has a clue about anything...which is why I'm opting out of being dragged into an argument with you.
Well you know I'm always happy to spell shit out for you.
You specifically named Avenger and myself as people whose opposition to marriage equality (for Avenger) and extreme distaste for the idea homosexual sex (in my case) are the result of 'religious leaders' telling us (and other weak minded individuals who are very different from a strong, intelligent and neurotic 'free thinker' like yourself) what to think.
I completely debunked your theory by pointing out that there is plenty of haram stuff that I find appealing despite 'religious leaders' brainwashing me against them.
And then you went on and on changing the subject and accusing me of the same until we ended up here, at this post.
No, that's not the point I'm making, or inferring. The point I'm making is that marriage was not always religious, in the way you had originally claimed in response to the very thought that marriage was not something conceived of/lorded over by a religion. A careful reading of the previous posts would have told you that.
Now let's see how that template fits to your latest response!
Translating Pou's contribution to the forums...
Strawman opening sentence. (Yep)
Secondary sentence deflecting discussion point toward said strawman. (Yep)
A range of sentences diverging away from what the person had actually raised, and what their quoted post said. (Yep)
Silent hope that the diversionary tactic did not go unnoticed, and you won't be called on it. (Yep)
Throwaway conclusion or hashtag by way of obfuscation (Yep)
It was a predictable 5/5, 100% fit!
Please quote the post where I said that your self-admitted revulsion to male homosexuality was due to a religious leader...
Now, that template check again...
Translating Pou's contribution to the forums...
Strawman opening sentence. (Yep - well second sentence)
Secondary sentence deflecting discussion point toward said strawman. (Yep - well third sentence)
A range of sentences diverging away from what the person had actually raised, and what their quoted post said. (Yep - only one sentence this time)
Silent hope that the diversionary tactic did not go unnoticed, and you won't be called on it. (Yep - always there)
Throwaway conclusion or hashtag by way of obfuscation (Yep - but as an opening this time)
Again, your post was a predictable 5/5, 100% fit to the translation template!
Yet you're still replying to me.... go figure Thaiday?
But that's exactly what I claimed you said. And then I showed you why you're wrong.
Separate names with a comma.