ACT introduces Marriage Equality Bill

[Rorschach]

[Chard]

This is getting ridiculous. No-one said gays aren't human.

Apples/oranges both fruit but also different. Males/females/hermaphrodites all human but also different. To most people it doesn't mean that one is any less than the other. Just different.

Learn to goddamn read, BO. He didn't say "apples and oranges are both fruit, just different kinds". He said "apples cannot be equal to oranges", which in the context of this argument clearly fucking means "gays cannot be equal to straights". Now that dumbfuck finally understands what exactly it was he posted he's desperate to backpeddle away from it instead of just admitting it was a seriously poor choice of words on his part.

[Chard]

Yes, it's a cultural problem stemming from me having an education and you being a dumbfuck that can't even get that apples<oranges = gays<straights. Fuck, do schools even exist down there?

But I never said that at all.

Liar. The following is a direct quote of your post on page five of this thread, seventh post down from the top of the page.

I'm sorry it isn't a matter of equality... an apple cannot be equal to an orange.

If you want I can change the "<" to " ≠", not that I expect you to get math anymore than I'd expect you to understand the English language worth a damn. Eitherway, it still says the exact same thing, that you believe gays cannot be equal to straights.

[Rorschach]

This is getting ridiculous. No-one said gays aren't human.

Apples/oranges both fruit but also different. Males/females/hermaphrodites all human but also different. To most people it doesn't mean that one is any less than the other. Just different.

Learn to goddamn read, BO. He didn't say "apples and oranges are both fruit, just different kinds". He said "apples cannot be equal to oranges", which in the context of this argument clearly fucking means "gays cannot be equal to straights". Now that dumbfuck finally understands what exactly it was he posted he's desperate to backpeddle away from it instead of just admitting it was a seriously poor choice of words on his part.

Yet here I am to tell you you are wrong and BO is right.

[Chard]

Yet here I am to tell you you are wrong and BO is right.

Then admit you made a horribly poor choice of wording. You can sit there and screech about being misunderstood all you like, but you said what you said. You don't get to change the rules of the language or the meanings of words, you dishonest shit.

Either way, it's pretty goddamn obvious you do not consider gays to be equal to straights or deserving of the same rights as straights.

[Black Orchid]

Chard I was just trying to explain to you about an apples/oranges comparison and how most people understand it.

Have a Bex and a good lie down before you get apoplectic

[Rorschach]

Yes, it's a cultural problem stemming from me having an education and you being a dumbfuck that can't even get that apples<oranges = gays<straights. Fuck, do schools even exist down there?

But I never said that at all.

Liar. The following is a direct quote of your post on page five of this thread, seventh post down from the top of the page.

I'm sorry it isn't a matter of equality... an apple cannot be equal to an orange.

If you want I can change the "<" to " ≠", not that I expect you to get math anymore than I'd expect you to understand the English language worth a damn. Eitherway, it still says the exact same thing, that you believe gays cannot be equal to straights.

I actually did maths thanks and I understood you were using the less than sign thanks.... like I said I never said that.

You are a bigot.
You are a liar.
The issue is not about equality, that's a LW prog, PC brigade, minority of a minority, new attempt at getting a hold of a term that's definition refers to the union of a man and a woman.

YOU were the one to bring up equality not me.
I just replied to it....

Do the words "explain why ACT feels the need to legislate in marriage equality since it DOES NOT EXIST under Australian federal law" mean anything, you hatfucking retard? At best Australia notionally allows for civil partnerships, which is not the same as a marriage under Australian law since, as SN pointed out, straight married couples receive more rights than gay couple. Where's the fucking equality in that, asshole?

I'm sorry it isn't a matter of equality... an apple cannot be equal to an orange. Nor a golf ball to a football.
If you don't understand the political situation in the ACT or my explanation of it I suggest you do some research and you'll see I was correct.

Since then you've been ranting and raging like a psychotic that I don't believe gays are human.
Truly psycho time.

Now everyone except you gets what I said.

Let me emphasise to you that a MARRIAGE under Australian law is the union of a Man and a Woman. Think of that as my apple. Your union of a same sex couple is not the same... and in that respect cannot be; equal, the same, identical, equivalent, whatever word you want to use.

BO put it most succinctly...

This is getting ridiculous. No-one said gays aren't human.

Apples/oranges both fruit but also different. Males/females/hermaphrodites all human but also different. To most people it doesn't mean that one is any less than the other. Just different.

And a marriage, that is... the union of a man and a woman is not the same thing as the union of a man and a man or a woman and a woman. Just as oranges aren't apples and football isn't golf.

[Rorschach]

Yet here I am to tell you you are wrong and BO is right.

Then admit you made a horribly poor choice of wording. You can sit there and screech about being misunderstood all you like, but you said what you said. You don't get to change the rules of the language or the meanings of words, you dishonest shit.

Either way, it's pretty goddamn obvious you do not consider gays to be equal to straights or deserving of the same rights as straights.

I don't screech... you seem to be doing enough of it for everyone though.

[Chard]

Chard I was just trying to explain to you about an apples/oranges comparison and how most people understand it.

And what I am saying is that Rorsch did not make a "different vs different" statement. Saying "apples cannot be equal to oranges" is not the same as saying "apples and oranges are different". One implies that an apple is less than an orange and the other implies that apples are merely not the same as oranges.

Have a Bex and a good lie down before you get apoplectic

Put down the bong and sober up before you prove that your understanding of English is not equal to that of a high school freshman.

[IQS.RLOW]

Keep fiddling with semantics, chard. It's a good distraction from your lack of logic as to the real argument.