Soldato
Even when they're 100% guilty and so obviously the worst humans on this here flat earth?!?ah yes because cases dont often take months, years to put together.
Tate Brothers - Round 2
- Thread starter Ice Tea
- Start date
Associate
Maybe im misunderstanding you but this comment suggests you think people can be turned gay by propaganda ? Like you're attracted to boobs but then one day you see too many pride flags and magically start loving **** ?
Soldato
1) Destroy the institution of marriage, make it a joke.
2) Destroy the whole concept of man and woman, muddle the lines.
Of course the end result will be less children, breakdown in traditional families.
The first point is more or less complete.
The LGBT agenda, let's see how far it will go as its having massive pushback from many people in the west.
Soldato
You originally said, it's not for him to allow or disallow.
Of course no one can force there wife to listen, this much is obvious. But if after you have said to her "No, stay home it's dark and late", she storms off then you have problems anyway.
Soldato
Statistics, machistics I don't care. My family, my choice.
Commissario
Ah yes, there were never any gay people before it was somewhat accepted, there were just lots of spinsters living with their friends, who couldn't possibly have been gay because they often had a couple of men around for the evening, and all those old graves from hundreds/thousands of years ago with the men or the women buried next to each other in the same manner as married couples in the culture were just friends*.
And it's weird how something as simple as a couple holding hands or being acknowledge as being legitimate is enough to make someone gay, but before that was visible it you still had quite a lot of people who were gay (just usually not admitting it in public).
In other news accepting that left handedness was not the sign of the devil and punishing people for being left handed led to it becoming fashionable for people to be left handed, you can tell because the number of people reporting as being left handed shot up when they stopped getting beaten as children for using the devils hand.
Back somewhat in reality, back in the "good old days" there were a huge number of very unhappy marriages that one or both parties involved just suffered through (although historically women were known to be creative in dealing with abusive husbands, always a risk when they deal with the household tasks such as poisoning pests and cooking**), which is known to definitely not be great for anyone involved, including any children.
*There is a whole meme in archaeology about that, because so many graves and depictions of what were obviously gay couples were identified as "just good friends", and much of the history was very deliberately mis filed or mis translated (IIRC there is a bit of a joke based on the idea that the reason being gay was illegal, but not being lesbian was because someone who needed to sign off on it didn't believe it was possible).
**IIRC the number of "unexpected" deaths of married men dropped a bit when divorce became a legally and socially acceptable option that the woman could initiate without permission for the husband.
Soldato
im lost. what are you talking about...
for someone that 'knows nothing about them' you sure do have some interesting posts here.
Last edited:
Soldato
I like justice and not trial by media.
Soldato
and lying. lets face it your lying. Question is WHY?
Last edited:
Of course, it highly depends which area you're living in. In some parts of the UK I wouldn't go for a walk, let alone my wife!
Soldato
"you're" what am I lying about?
Soldato
the 1950s just called, you were due back 70 years ago.
If my partner wanted to go for a walk at 10pm that is her damned business, just it would be mine if I wanted to go for a walk. No wonder Tate is so popular in here, do as you're told *****!
Last edited:
Man of Honour
It's an attention-grabbing story, but it's not true. The law was written to be male-specific from the start. Queen Victoria (the "someone who needed to sign off on it" you refer to) didn't have any effect on that. They were just rubber-stamping the law anyway - the last time a monarch withheld royal assent was in 1708 (Queen Anne was right to do it, though - the law in question was a danger to the country).
A more likely reason is that the law was based on common interpretation of Judeo-Christian rules. While there are other possible interpretations of the couple of passages probably referring to homosexual sex, the common interpretation is condemnation. What is clear is that those passages are male-specific. There's only one reference to homosexual sex between women and it's not actually about homosexual women. The women being referred to are heterosexual. Yeah, it's weird. Religion often is.
I'm currently reading a series of books set in England in the 1260s. The theme is crime (with a strong background of politics, which was extremely turbulent at the time). Homosexuality is tangentially relevant in one case because the murder victim was homosexual. Since murder is sometimes linked to intimate relationships, who they had intimate relationships with was relevant to the murder investigations. The author is brave enough to have their 13th century characters have 13th century attitudes, so the investigator feels a duty to report the crime of homosexuality between men. They choose not to because (a) it would compromise their informant and (b) they're actually an atheist so they're very familiar with and sympathetic to keeping very quiet about something (and they don't care about religious rules anyway). There's a secret club for gay men that meets regularly in a local brothel. Good cover and the bribes to buy silence are reasonable. That's the general theme in the books regarding homosexuality - keep quiet about it and bribe people (especially local officials) to ignore it. I think that's probably what happened back then. Hence the public pretence of thinking that homosexual couples being "just good friends". People might know otherwise, but they wouldn't say so. Either because they didn't really care and/or because they'd taken bribes. Taking bribes was pretty much normal practice in those days, but it was also illegal.
Of course, in some cases they really were just good friends. This long afterwards, it's impossible to tell which was the case for almost anyone.
That's a bit of a strawman there, and - depending on the area you live in - common sense that you'd be a bit cautious if your spouse or partner went out for a walk late night. To be fair, my wife would be concerned and reluctant to let me out for a walk at night in our old place as there was always crime...
Soldato
the LGBT stuff is under the umbrella of ESG, which is based on Marxist ideology.
All of those things are linked, the agenda being pushed is equity, the reason for this is the belief that wealth is finite.
That belief arises because humans think short term, its more natural, delayed gratification, planning, sacrifice, this is more advanced things that require self control etc.
Therefore the rich are those in power, and the people who are poor are only poor because they are marginalized, who have no power.
You cannot push back without understanding the underlying issue
Soldato
He makes no mention of location. He simply won't allow his wife to go for a walk after 10pm. Like I said, do as you're told *****!
Last edited: