It's his hypocrisy that interests me.Originally Posted by joe552
It's his hypocrisy that interests me.
I don't understand that - so I'll wait to see what develops.
Hitchhiking's more of a challenge on the road less travelled.
Kommie wrote:
That's a bit rich, coming from you.It's his hypocrisy that interests me.
What about your own hypocrisy and lies?
Oh, I just remembered - you can't see this post because you've got me on your Foes List.
Lol
Ohhh, we have a foes list? I never knew that.
Cool, kommie just disappeared. That makes SGT much better. :-)
I made use of the same facility a few weeks back too. Highly recommended.
Matt's argument seemed to be that his married state is irrelevant to him as he had "moved on", relationship-wise. If marriage means nothing, why do it? The whole argument of the "gay marriage" lobby is that a marriage is a marriage is a marriage, and for social equity reasons the gender of those marrying should be irrelevant, so gay people should be able to marry each other. But if a marriage is a marriage is a marriage then gays are subject to the same rules and behaviours as heterosexuals who marry. Adultery has always been seen as a threat to marriage, so considered very very seriously indeed, and for a long time it was the only reason for a marriage legally to end.
The issue of adultery was addressed head on when the Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Bill was debated in the UK parliament. Until then, adultery had been defined as sexual intercourse between two people of the opposite sex where one or both is married to someone else. At that time the legal definition of adultery was sought to be changed. That is because marriage equality should mean equality in all respects. In Canada the question of whether same sex activity where one or both of the participants is married to someone else constitutes adultery has been settled for even longer.
This is an on-going debate in the gay circles that concern themselves with gay marriage in the UK, as can be seen in this article.
It should be noted, inter alia, that the take-up of same-sex marriage is (unexectedly) low - unexpected by everyone except those of us grown-ups who realised that it's merely a fad for a noisy minority. The early uptake of same-sex marriage was lower than that of civil partnerships, the Office of National Statistics reported after the first three months of same-sex marriage being available. It is also below the 1,827 civil partnerships recorded in the first three months of 2012.
Matt's attitude, at the most charitable, seems to be that the normal rules of marriage don't apply to him, that somehow he's a special case (or perhaps he has special needs). What I was trying to get him to say is that the normal rules of marriage don't apply to gays. That's precisely the argument advanced by many opponents of "gay marriage" - that allowing people of the same sex to marry has the effect of re-defining what "marriage" means. As he's not a complete fool (despite appearances to the contrary) he may have realised that claiming that was what I was inviting him to say, thus undermining the gay marriage cause.
Permanent residency status. Wasn't really our choice. Government law stipulates if we wanted to stay together, we had to get married, so we did.
Wow, you sure have the ability to turn a mole hill into a mountain, don't you? There's 24x7 wedding chapels in Vegas, but I don't hear anyone complaining about how those are ruining the sanctity of marriage. So yes, I believe I should be afforded the exact same rights as straight people.
I name this thread "Matt's Adultery Molehill". May God bless it and all who post to it.
Perhaps going back to the original thread as it has moved on a little bit....
I had some fun a year or so back when sat enjoying an early evening beer with a friend on the terrace at Boyz boyz boyz, as we found ourself with no choice but to watch a Chinese bus load walking through Boystown, happily taking pictures and videoing us all sat around relaxing, so as I had already enjoyed a few beers myself (so a little bit of additional confidence!) I jumped up and started taking a load of pictures of the group, slightly in their way and in their face as they progressed, all be it much quicker along their route, they attempted to hide their faces, some were a bit upset and rushed away and the flag waving tour guide tried, I think to ask me nicely not to do it, but at least they all quickly ceased taking pictures of and vacated Boystown faster than usual!
It got a few cheers of support from some of the boys I was with at Boys boys boys and customers in the bars opposite - however don't think the Chinese party were really that pleased!
How did a post about 6400 chinese tourists in France end up in a cat fight between 2 individuals about adultery?
This is the kind of shit that undermines everything.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote