Customer Discussions > religion discussion forum

Gay Marriage


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 51-75 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on 13 Dec 2012 20:43:41 GMT
Last edited by the author on 13 Dec 2012 20:46:25 GMT
"Whilst working in the Middle East numerous Islamic Arabs seriously suggested to me that post-WWII British manhood had become weak, effeminate and even degenerate"

Well, they were mistaken, simply wishful thinking.

"At the time I completely disagreed but since returning 'home' to retire, I'm beginning to wonder if they may have had a point?"

Many people feel this way as the years mount up, the trick is; to stay connected with the real world, talk to young people occasionally and to read books not newspapers.

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Dec 2012 20:54:43 GMT
Last edited by the author on 14 Dec 2012 14:40:16 GMT
Quite right athanasius! You've now become a member of the IBW(insulted by willy!) Club. There are about forty of us I believe. Strange thing is that despite hurling insults at all and sundry, Mr Williams has yet to publish even one contribution of worth in any of these discussions.
As to your suggestion however, that these pro-sodomy types want licence; they want far more than that. The ultimate intention is to completely reverse morality in all ways. Destroy all/every religious faith. Destroy marriage and family, women being held in common, children being 'property of the State. Inculcate the belief that today's materialistic world is all that matters and all that counts. Event the Liberal doctrine is derived from Alaister Crowley's Satanic:- "Do As Thou Whils't Shall Be All of the Law."
See a few of these for the historic underpinning of 'the Great Design:-

1. Beyond the Pleasure Principle-First Edition Text.
2. The Rage Against God
3. The Communist Manifesto
4. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion
5. The Abolition of Liberty: The Decline of Order and Justice in England
6. Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning
7. Godless: The Church of Liberalism
8. The Retreat of Reason: Political Correctness and the Corruption of Public Debate in Modern Britain
9. The Great Degeneration: How Institutions Decay and Economies Die
10. Mass Control: Engineering Human Consciousness

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Dec 2012 22:34:30 GMT
Last edited by the author on 13 Dec 2012 22:41:12 GMT
"Event the Liberal doctrine is derived from Alaister Crowley's Satanic:- "Do As Thou Whils't Shall Be All of the Law.""

Although Crowley made it famous, it is from Rabelais and his monks of the "Abbey of Thélème". It is in no way Satanic, it is a satire. Crowley fashioned it into a doctrine of complete freedom, especially from slave-God religions, like Christianity and Islam. He was not a satanist, in the event you are remotely interested.

Gargantua and Pantagruel (Penguin Classics)

Do What Thou Wilt: A Life of Aleister Crowley

Posted on 13 Dec 2012 23:16:57 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Dec 2012 23:30:42 GMT
Last edited by the author on 13 Dec 2012 23:37:01 GMT
"The following quote seems to dispute/demolish your belief"

It is a quote, it might dispute but does not demolish my contention. He is simply wrong about the origins of the saying, it is from Rabelais, who predates Franklin by 150 years.

The rest is a farrago of hobbity-tosh.

"Barbara Bush (nee Pierce) was born at Booth Memorial Hospital in Flushing, Queens in New York City, and raised in the suburban town of Rye, New York. She was the third child of Pauline Robinson (1896-1949) and her husband Marvin Pierce (1893-1969), who later became president of McCall Corporation, the publisher of the popular women's magazines Redbook and McCall's."

From Wiki

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Dec 2012 23:39:34 GMT
Ian says:
"a farrago of hobbity-tosh" pretty much describes everything CWB has ever posted.

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Dec 2012 00:04:12 GMT
Last edited by the author on 14 Dec 2012 00:25:24 GMT
Bogus Pomp says:
Objection 1) You've given no evidence to support the published assertion that "...these pro-sodomy types" intention is "to completely reverse morality in all ways." Furthermore, you've provided no evidence for an objective morality.

Objection 2) You have not provided any evidence WHATOSEVER that "...these pro-sodomy types "want to "Destroy marriage and family", nor have you provided evidence that they wish to "Inculcate the belief that today's materialistic world is all that matters and all that counts."

In light of the fact that you've provided precisely ZERO evidence for your above quoted dubious claims, my friend, I must regretfully announce that your comments may reasonably be rejected as irrelevant. Have a good day.

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Dec 2012 00:13:50 GMT
Bogus Pomp says:
You're absolutely right, of course: tolerance is not the same thing as acceptance. But -- just as no person is obliged to accept "sodomy" -- no person is obliged to accept your religious views, or even to tolerate them. After all, why should any person accept something that is intolerable? Religion is the bane of the world!

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Dec 2012 09:16:19 GMT
Reply to Notre_Shuggie.

Thanks for an informed reply NS, I really did not want to accept the bit about Barbara Bush (courtesy of Robert Garofalo and Lyn Beardsall) as truthfull, but included it as part of the quote. Perhaps it's a legacy of the 'shock and awe' inflicted on Bagdad, but I've always regarded President Bush (father and son) as amongs't the better American leaders.

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Dec 2012 09:19:42 GMT
"I've always regarded President Bush (father and son) as amongs't the better American leaders."

Even for one of your posts this stretches credulity beyond breaking point. I can only assume you're joking. Or have a head injury.

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Dec 2012 10:08:32 GMT
Dan Fante says:
Can you explain how a straight vote on the matter on this forum would be undemocratic? Is it perhaps that you know the vote would be overwhelmingly in favour of allowing gay marriage? Are you suggesting this forum is in someway 'rigged' so as to give a positive outcome? Also, perhaps you could explain how, given the 3 major parties accounted for 88% of the popular vote at the last General Election, you think UKIP would be the 2nd largest party in Parliament and the BNP would manage to have almost 10% of the MPs.

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Dec 2012 10:18:28 GMT
Dan Fante says:
Fool me once, shame on, shame on you. Fool me, err, you can't get fooled again. Comic genius tbh.

Regarding Dubya, Iraq and Afghanistan were hardly ringing endorsements of his foreign policy. On the home front his presidency also saw the world's biggest economy kick off the biggest worldwide economic downturn since the Great Depression. Apart from that though, he was great.

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Dec 2012 10:32:53 GMT
Oh yeah, of course apart from those things.

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Dec 2012 10:51:58 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 14 Dec 2012 11:08:15 GMT
Last edited by the author on 14 Dec 2012 11:44:22 GMT
Dan Fante says:
I took it up with you because you made the statement, Bradders. Without citing your sources I was unable to know what you actually meant was "According to UKIP..." Feel free to justify your statement about the BNP getting 60 seats as well. I'd love to know where you plucked that one from. Although, given your obsession with anal intercourse, I can take a guess.
Also, you haven't explained how a vote on here on the issue of Gay Marriage would be undemocratic (I assume you were suggesting it wasn't democratic because you brought up the first past the post voting system in response to the suggestion we have a vote on this issue). The only other conclusion I can draw is that you brought up the UK electoral system just to have a rant about it and that it had no pertinence to what was being discussed.

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Dec 2012 11:16:52 GMT
And this is a reply to my post why now?

Posted on 14 Dec 2012 14:46:00 GMT
TheFoe says:
I'm in favour of gay marriage, at least there would be no arguing about leaving the toilet seat up!

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Dec 2012 14:48:59 GMT
Last edited by the author on 14 Dec 2012 15:02:56 GMT
Spin says:
Thefoe: nor an argument about where all the toilet paper is disappearing to...

Posted on 14 Dec 2012 15:16:46 GMT
Last edited by the author on 14 Dec 2012 15:17:10 GMT
I was thinking about getting involved in this discussion but then I read this... "I've always regarded President Bush (father and son) as amongs't the better American leaders."

I'll just leave now instead of trying to have a discussion with someone of those beliefs will of course not only being incredibly stupid but a complete and total waste of time

Posted on 14 Dec 2012 15:27:20 GMT
Spin says:
Anyone more concerned with what others get up to in their life and bedroom, must lead a very boring and (ahem) uneventful life...

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Dec 2012 17:31:15 GMT
Last edited by the author on 14 Dec 2012 17:32:15 GMT
athanasius says:
I do wish at some point you commit a crime..end up in prison with a special friend...who likes to make merry and then tell me sodomy is natural.
Ps are you tolerant?..I think not my friend..... you do not have the moral back bone nor the right to impose your lack of morals on me.I answer to a higher authority than you or the law.

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Dec 2012 18:24:20 GMT
Last edited by the author on 14 Dec 2012 18:24:47 GMT
Bogus Pomp says:
1) Well, considering that ALL THINGS are natural, "sodomy"-- as you so nicely refer to it -- cannot be anything BUT natural.

2) You've given no evidence that Ryan Williams does not have any "moral back bone". Moreover, you've provided no evidence whatever to support your published assertion that you do, in fact, "answer to a higher authority than you [Ryan Williams] or the law." You've not even attempted to prove the existence of a higher authority.

Conclusion: your failure to provide evidences for the assertions contained within your post of 14 Dec 2012 17:31:15 GMT means that your comments are irrelevant, my friend.

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Dec 2012 18:28:54 GMT
Spin says:
Bogus; Sodomy may be acceptable in nature and conversation, but Buggery is not nice, is it? =)

Posted on 14 Dec 2012 18:37:43 GMT
Spin says:
If you blindfold me, I will not be able to tell what the gender is of the person giving me a gobble..

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Dec 2012 18:38:54 GMT
Last edited by the author on 14 Dec 2012 18:39:32 GMT
Bogus Pomp says:
Whether or not "Buggery" is nice, well, that is a purely subjective matter. There are people who find it repulsive, but some find it very appealing. That is about all there is to it. You can't try to turn this into a moral matter -- not if you expect anyone to treat you (not you personally) as an intelligent and reasonable person.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  religion discussion forum
Participants:  88
Total posts:  2848
Initial post:  11 Dec 2012
Latest post:  30 Sep 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 5 customers

Search Customer Discussions